Protestant and the Pope's sheep

Today, a Protestant objected to the idea that the Pope can have spiritual sheep, saying that Christ is the shepherd. 

However, the fact is many Protestants, if not most, call their clergy "shepherd," since the word "pastor" is a synonym for shepherd.

pastor (n.)

mid-13c., "shepherd," also "spiritual guide, shepherd of souls" (late 14c.), from O.Fr. pastur "herdsman, shepherd" (12c.), from L. pastorem (nom. pastor) "shepherd," from pastus, pp. of pascere "to lead to pasture, graze," from PIE base *pa- "to tend, keep, pasture, feed, guard" (see food). The spiritual sense was in Church Latin (cf. Gregory's "Cura Pastoralis"). The verb in the Christian sense is from 1872.

People in the Church are called Shepherds (pastors):

And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors [poimenas] and doctors,--Ephesians 4:11

The Lord commands St Peter to be a Shepherd here:

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”  He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” [Jesus] said to him, “Feed my sheep.--John 21:15-17

Obviously, Jesus is using a  metaphor of a shepherd here, telling St Peter to feed His lamb, tend His sheep, and to feed His sheep.  So, it is clear St Peter is being called to be a shepherd.  It seems to be even more so by the Greek word used by Jesus verse 16 (the second of the three blessings) the word for "tend" is the word poimaine Ποίμαινε, which has the same root as the word for shepherd in Ephesians 4:11, Jesus was literally saying "shepherd my flock."

St Peter commands his fellow clerics to be shepherds too.

Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind-1 Peter 5:2 KJV

The word the KJV translates as feed here is again the Greek for for shepherding, poimanate ποιμάνατε.  Meaning, St Peter is commanding them to shepherd.

Two verses later St Peter then calls Christ the Chief Shepherd, now wouldn't this imply that there would be lesser shepherds?

Conclusion: There is no reason to object to the Pope using a title of shepherd, since St Paul used the term for men in the Church (Ephesians 4:11 ie pastors), the Lord Jesus applied it to St Peter John 21:16, and St Peter applied it to clerics (1 Peter 5:2)

Catechism and Muslims salvation

I have heard many anti-Catholics say that the Catechism says "Muslims are saved!" Then they "prove" it with this CCC quote

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

I always wonder how this says Muslims are saved! All it does say is that the "plan of salvation" includes the Muslims. That just means God wants to save Muslims too, in fact God wants EVERYONE to be saved. The only people that should object to this are Calvinists because of their limited atonement doctrine.  This does NOT mean Muslims are saved or will be saved, it just means God WANTS everyone to be saved, the issue of Muslims actually being saved is not the issue of this paragraph at all.

The Catechism shortly after this paragraph states God wills all men be saved:

Missionary motivation. It is from God's love for all men that the Church in every age receives both the obligation and the vigor of her missionary dynamism, "for the love of Christ urges us on."³⁴³ Indeed, God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth";³⁴⁴ that is, God wills the salvation of everyone through the knowledge of the truth. Salvation is found in the truth. Those who obey the prompting of the Spirit of truth are already on the way of salvation. But the Church, to whom this truth has been entrusted, must go out to meet their desire, so as to bring them the truth. Because she believes in God's universal plan of salvation, the Church must be missionary. --Catechism of the Catholic Church 851

Notice the term "plan of salvation" is used here for EVERYONE too? Does this mean everyone is saved? Certainly not, otherwise evangelism is pointless. The only ones I can imagine that would object to the term "plan of salvation" would be Calvinists who believe God only wants a few people saved.

Each Shall die for his own sin

Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin. -Deuteronomy 24:16

The idea that Christ died as if He commited our sin violates the Biblical teaching that each man be put to death for his OWN sins.  This verse, however, seems to only apply to adults, since young children in the Bible are put to death, or killed, because of their parents sins, as in the case of David's son, or the nations God commanded the Israelites to destroys.  Regardless, Christ could not have been put to death for the sins of others (at least justly!). Rather, Christ willingly laid down His own life for the sake of others, not that He should die as their substitute, but that by His righteous death, God would show mercy to mankind, thus allowing man forgiveness on the condition they repent of their sins.  After all, Christ did make several warning statements that certain sins would cause the soul to go to Hell forever, as we see in Matthew 5 with sexual sins, Matthew 6 with withholding forgiving your brother's sins and so on.

On another point, Deuteronomy 24:16 is a verse anti/counter-Missionary Jews use against Christians.  Their claim is legitimate, but only against baptistic and Calvinistic types of Christians that espouse this particular view of the atonement that says "Christ died in our place" or "He took the wrath of God in our place" and so on.  Rather, the Biblical Christ was a propitiation for the sins of the world, meaning His death provided MERCY for mankind. 

I have already written before that the idea of a penal substitution when logically followed out is a denial of Trinitarianism, or can be an affirmation of a sort of Arianism (since God cannot be forsaken by God), or some form of theology where Christ as a man and Christ as God are divorced (undoing the incarnation).

Calvinists try to prove a penaly substitution with verses like 2 Corinthians 5:21, or Isaiah 53 and so on.  When the fact is 2 Corinthians 5:21 by saying Christ "became sin for us" is an expression St Paul was using for a sin offering, and Isaiah 53 doesn't mean God treated Christ as if He had our sins, in fact Matthew 8:17 interprets this part of Isaiah as Jesus healing the sick and casting out demons:

When it was evening, they brought him many who were possessed by demons, and he drove out the spirits by a word and cured all the sick, to fulfill what had been said by Isaiah the prophet: “He took away our infirmities and bore our diseases.”--Matthew 8:16-17

Was the Levitical Priesthood Eternal?

Many people that subscribe to a group, or belief system that state the laws of the Torah of Moses are still in effect because they were declared to be "eternal," several times in the Torah and ought to be kept by Christians (or atleast Christians of Jewish Ancestry) have no problem admitting that the Levitical Priesthood was changed and abolished because of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

However, the Old Testament itself DOES call the Levitical priesthood "eternal," as we can see here with the incident of Phineas slaying the Israelite and the Midian woman.

וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו, בְּרִית כְּהֻנַּת עוֹלָם--תַּחַת, אֲשֶׁר קִנֵּא לֵאלֹהָיו, וַיְכַפֵּר, עַל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.

and it shall be unto him, and to his seed after him, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was jealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel.' -Numbers 25:13

As we can see the priesthood is here refered to as כְּהֻנַּת עוֹלָם k'hunnat olam (kehunat olam).

After doing some searching I then found that the priesthood is described as eternal elsewhere too

וּמָשַׁחְתָּ אֹתָם, כַּאֲשֶׁר מָשַׁחְתָּ אֶת-אֲבִיהֶם, וְכִהֲנוּ, לִי; וְהָיְתָה לִהְיֹת לָהֶם מָשְׁחָתָם, לִכְהֻנַּת עוֹלָם--לְדֹרֹתָם.

And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto Me in the priest's office; and their anointing shall be to them for an everlasting priesthood [lich'hunnat olam] throughout their generations.' -Exodus 40:15

God said He would have His Eyes and Heart in the Temple FOREVER:

וְעַתָּה, בָּחַרְתִּי וְהִקְדַּשְׁתִּי אֶת-הַבַּיִת הַזֶּה, לִהְיוֹת-שְׁמִי שָׁם, עַד-עוֹלָם; וְהָיוּ עֵינַי וְלִבִּי שָׁם, כָּל-הַיָּמִים

 And now, I have chosen and consecrated this House that My name be there forever [ad-olam, עַד-עוֹלָם ], and My eyes and heart will be there at all times.--2 Chronicles 7:16

Now, how could He dwell there literally forever if there was  no temple for years at a time, and even today there has been no Temple for over 1900 years! God knew the future, "forever" just means for a long time!

Lamentation 3:6 in just about EVERY bible translation translate OLAM as "long"

בְּמַחֲשַׁכִּים הוֹשִׁיבַנִי, כְּמֵתֵי עוֹלָם

He hath made me to dwell in dark places, as those that have been long [olam, עוֹלָם] dead.

Psalm 143:3, similarly translates OLAM as "long"

הוֹשִׁבַנִי בְמַחֲשַׁכִּים,    כְּמֵתֵי עוֹלָם.

he hath made me to dwell in darkness, as those that have been long [olam, עוֹלָם ] dead.--Psalm 143:3

It is also interesting to note that King David said only the Levites were to carry the ark and serve before God 'forever'.

אָז, אָמַר דָּוִיד, לֹא לָשֵׂאת אֶת-אֲרוֹן הָאֱלֹהִים, כִּי אִם-הַלְוִיִּם:  כִּי-בָם בָּחַר יְהוָה, לָשֵׂאת אֶת-אֲרוֹן יְהוָה וּלְשָׁרְתוֹ--עַד-עוֹלָם.

Then David said, "It is not proper to carry the Ark of God except the Levites, for the Lord chose them to carry the Ark of God and to serve Him forever [olam]. "-1 Chronicles 15:2

So, even though, the Torah refers to the priesthood as being for "olam" this was not understood by the New Testament writers to mean it would never be abolished, as we see in Hebrews 7

When there is a change of priesthood, there is necessarily a change of law as well. --Hebrews 7:12

So, as we can see, since the Levitical priesthood of the Old Covenant was abolished as the book of Hebrews tells us, and the fact that the Levites no longer "serve" God forever, that olam, does not necessarily have to mean literally FOREVER.

Jesus is NOT the Holy Spirit

We know Jesus is not the Holy Spirit because:

"Filled with the Holy Spirit, Jesus returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the desert"-Luke 4:1

If the Holy Spirit is Jesus, why does this verse mention the Spirit filled Him?  Did Jesus fill Himself?

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.--John 14:16-17

 Why does Jesus speak of having the Father sending ANOTHER if Jesus IS the Holy Spirit?

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit--Matthew 28:19

If Jesus IS the Holy Spirit, why does He mention It separately in such a way? As if the verse said, "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Son."

I Jesus have sent my angel, to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the root and stock of David, the bright and morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say: Come. And he that heareth, let him say: Come. And he that thirsteth, let him come: and he that will, let him take the water of life, freely.-Revelation 22:16-17

IF Jesus is the Spirit, why does Jesus speak, then it goes on to say the Spirit speaks?

One more reason I am not a Calvinist or an OSASer

The Scripture reads

There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction on themselves.-2 Peter 2:1

Notice it clearly says the Lord "bought" or "ransomed" the false teachers who are going to Hell, thus not everyone Jesus died for will go to Heaven no matter what.

Here is the link to a Calvinist's response

It's really long winded and repetitive, scroll down to the last paragraph to get his answer to the text. Dr McMahon sums it up with the following: 

So to summarize the point here: false teachers are “saying” they are Christians, and “saying” they have been bought, but in fact are not bought at all. “Denying the sovereign Lord who bought them” is what they are saying about their lifestyle, though it is not true from the rest of the immediate context of the passage. The word “bought” means they are either saved (which we know false teachers are not saved so that cannot be the meaning of the passage) or they are “saying” they “they believe themselves to be saved” and ultimately are self-deceived. But it cannot mean that Christ bought them with His blood, and they reject that “offer” to eternal life.

Essentially, what he does is change the text from

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

to

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who THEY FALSELY CLAIMED bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

This seems to be the only theologically feasible answer to this text from his theological bias, in other words he knows it's not possible to lose salvation and he knows that Christ only died for the elect, therefore he knows the text cannot deny those two things since he knows his Reformed interpretation of Scripture is true.

Most Calvinists believe all those bought/ "paid for" by Christ are saved and will go to heaven no matter what.  This is negated by 2 Peter 2:1.

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.-(2 Peter 2:1 ESV)

We see the Holy Scriptures telling us some people were bought by Christ, yet still go to Hell (swift destruction).   So, obviously, the penal substitution / Calvinistic / Reformed (and sometimes "evangelical") version of the atonement is FALSE.

This article was adapted from my post to catholic.com forum made a while ago

A Protestant's wrong undestanding of Catholicism and Baptism

On Paltalk last night several people attempted to "refute" the Catholic Church based on the little knowledge they had of it.

One person was named "hello dolly," she acts as if the fact her friends were Catholic qualifies her as someone who is competent in Catholic theology, however, the wording of her questions suggest she is incompentent in this area.

She asked me if baptism makes someone born again, "how was the thief on the cross born again"?
There are a few problems with this example.

 1) We don't know if the thief was not a Christians before and was baptized, it was possible he was since John 4:1 tells us Jesus had more people baptized and made disciples than John the Baptist, which must have been a HUGE number since the Gospels tell us concerning the number following John the Baptist:

And there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all they of Jerusalem, and were baptized by him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.--Mark 1:5

So logically, Jesus had a huge number of followers in Israel at one time, only to have many of them apostacize in John 6.  So is it unreasonable at all to say that the thief may have already been a follower of Christ (at least at one time) and was baptized? 

2)Baptism in water is not the only means by which a person is made "born again" in Catholic theology.  In Catholicism there are 3 recognized means by which a person can be "baptized" they are: water (traditional baptism), blood (someone who dies for the faith though was not water baptized), and desire (someone who if they had the chance to be baptized would have been, these people usually are catechumen who meet an early death). Here is the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the matter:

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

Many of the Fathers justified calling martyrdom for the Faith a "baptism" because Christ called His own death on the Cross a "baptism," so those dying for the Faith are said to likewise be "baptized" "in their own blood."

There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished!--Luke 12:50

Baptism of desire's older name was "desire of baptism" and this was justified by Fathers as being salvific because of Scriptures like this:

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved.--Acts 2:21

Conclusion: Ultimately in Catholic theology whether or not the Good Thief was baptized in water is not relevant, since water is not the only way to become born again.

Desperate Protestant arguments to "prove" Mary is not the Mother of God

The other day I encountered the most desperate arguments by Protestants to explain why Jesus did not have original sin, without having a sinless Mary--God forbid should the woman the Lord chose be sinless! They likewise concocted some screwy reasons why Mary was not really Jesus' mother!

 One of them was arguing that Jesus has blood that was special and did not have sin--as if sin were transmitted in the blood, or that blood in of its self were evil.  The fact is when the bible calls blood righteous or blameless it's an expression for the righteousness of the person being killed. It's not refering at all to "sinful blood." To say that blood itself transfers sins is smacking with gnostic doctrine which believes the physical world to be evil. I was continually question by people if "blood passes to the child"-which it generally does not, however DOES occassionally happen, they were trying to argue that somehow this proves Jesus did not get "Mary's tainted blood", yet what they fail to realize if in the womb they themselves do not get their mother's "tainted" blood, NOR THEIR FATHERS! So why are not all men conceived without original sin or "sin nature" as they prefer to say? (As a side note, they seem to be ignorant that a child's blood is determined by a combination of the mother and fathers, eg. if the mother is AA and the father is OO the child will be AO; also, ignorant of the fact that modern biology says the mother is the one that accepts the seed via chemical signals, though neither of these are really relevant to the discussion).  Now, continuing she pretends Acts 17:26 somehow proves sin is passed in the blood--though it only says (and only in certain manuscripts) that all men were made of "one blood" (ie Adam), yet she conveniently forgets that Christ too is a "man."  So apparently "all does not always mean all" applies here too! Regardless, this verse in no way speaks of sin being passed in the blood. Even Jesus spoke of other people's blood as being "just":

upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.--Matthew 23:35

Dare we interpret this to mean their physical blood was a better quality than the rest of man's "sinful blood'"? After all, they too were of the "one blood" of Adam! This is the some person I addressed in a previous Question and Answer session over this issue.  People continued to argue that Jesus was not of Mary because she was sinful, so He could have "none of her DNA or blood."  In this desperation to discount Mary they make Jesus a false Messiah because He had to be of the tribe of Judah to be King.  Furthermore, he is called the "seed of David"--so he must be of the "blood line" of David.  If He did not have anything from Mary--how was He the "seed" of David at all?

Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?--John 7:42

In fact, this is not the only verse in the Scriptures which call Him the "seed of David."  St Paul even makes it clear He speaks of Christ being a literal descendant of David by also adding that Christ was of the "seed of David ACCORDING to the FLESH."

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;--Romans 1:3

Another person tried to make an even more desperate against Mary by saying that Jesus' body was prepare in Hebrews means God created a body for Jesus then placed it inside of Mary.

For this reason, when he came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; holocausts and sin offerings you took no delight in."--Hebrews 10:5-6

Nothing in this verse at all implies God created a body outside of the Virgin Mary, in fact if it did it would contradict the Scripture when it says:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.--Isaiah 9:6

Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.--Luke 1:30-31

Why does the Archangel Gabriel call it conceiving, if according these Protestants God merely relocated an already made body inside of Mary for Jesus?

Furthermore, why is Jesus refered to as the "fruit of the womb" of Mary if Jesus is not the fruit that was produce from Mary via an umbilical cord? Also, how can these people even argue Jesus is the one being spoken of as the "seed of the woman" in Genesis 3:15 if Jesus is not Mary's seed? (This is an argument from a Protestant prespective, since all Christians are actually the "seed of the woman" spoken of in Genesis, not simply Christ, though He fulfills the role first and foremost and without that seed none of the others ones would prosper in overcoming the serpent).

 Why shouldn't we simply believe the Holy Spirit when speaking through Elizabeth the Blessed Virgin Mary is declared to be the "mother of my Lord"?

And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?--Luke 1:43

In summary: Mary is called the "Mother" of the Lord, Jesus is called the "seed of David according to the flesh" by St Paul, Mary is told she will "conceive" in her womb (not be implanted with a preexistent body), and Jesus is called the "fruit of her womb," so there is NO reason to speculate Jesus was not a physical descendant of the Virgin Mary.

Addition: I have also encountered people objecting to calling Mary the Mother of God on the basis that she did not bear the Father and the Holy Spirit.  However, this reasoning is faulty in that it would mean that Jesus is not God since He is not the Father and the Spirit.  If such requirements were needed to make Mary the Mother of God, then Jesus, nor any other member of the Trinity maybe called God on Their own since, no person of the Trinity is Himself all Three!  Thus the Bible would have errored in Hebrews 1 and Psalms when it has the Father addressesing the Son says "Thy throne of God.."

Homosexuality and the Old Testament

The following is my response to a supporter of same sex relationships. My text is in Red, hers is in black.



We don't know each other but I recently came across a post of yours that shared your views on gay marriage. While I strongly believe you are entitled to your opinion, I wanted to chat with you (Christian to Christian) about why my opinion differs from yours. I am a strong believer in God and I know that his ultimate nope for us is that we follow a lifestyle based around being kind to everyone. However, I find the true problem with Christianity comes with our modern interpretation of the Bible. We seem to have a very selective when it comes to what passages we follow in the Bible.

A view that gay marriage is unacceptable is not an opinion.  I do not understand why a Christian would ever be accepting of homosexual relationships, especially since the Christian and Jewish religions were always constant voices against sexual immorality.  The term “modern interpretation” is incorrect, since this is the consistent interpretation throughout the ages, and this is the view of the early Church Father. The interpretation dismisses the passages relating to homosexuality as being simply “abusive relationships” or similar is the modern view, and would never have been seen as reasonable a few decades ago.

For example, one passage reads "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” Child abuse is (thankfully) illegal throughout the country. Why is it that we do not insist on beating our children just because a book says it will make us happy?
Psalm 137:9

First of all, this is a Psalm—so it is poetry and the Psalms frequently use hyperbole, no child abuse/infanticide is being endorsed here, though It is mentioned.  A Jewish Professor I discussed this passage with says the Psalmist is trying to say “oh how I wish we could do to you what you have done to us." This can be seen with the prior verse:

“O Daughter of Babylon, who is destined to be plundered, praiseworthy is he who repays you your recompense that you have done to us.”

 The writer was saying their enemies should see how it feels to have this done to them! Though the Israelites never  did this savage act of cruelty to others, though Chaldeans did it to them.  Regardless, I do not see how this verse is useful for your case as this is found in poetry, whereas the prohibitions and condemnations of homosexuality are found in plain texts in the Torah and writings of St Paul.

Also, (I apologize for the language) another passage reads "No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord." We do not believe that anyone who has been unfortunate enough to sustain a groin injury is a sinner, do we?
Deuteronomy 23:1

It is not saying they are a sinner, it is simply stating they are not to be in the assembly of the Lord. Jewish commentator Rashi explains the Assembly of the Lord refers to marrying an Israelite woman.  A person absolutely incapable of reproduction (ie whose sexual organs are missing or damaged to the point of being incapable of the marital act).

Now to analyze portions of the Bible that are often used to condemn homosexuality...

Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."

Both of these verses refer not to homosexuals but to heterosexuals who took part in the baal fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks. No hint at sexual orientation or homosexuality is even implied. The word abomination in Leviticus was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or associated with idol worship.

Leviticus is simply referring to an act—it does not refer to heterosexuals or homosexuals—it is ANY man that does these acts.  Why should we interpret it in respect to Ba’al? The very next verse also condemns bestiality, dare we say that is perfectly acceptable as long as it is not done as part of some Ba’al cult rite? Furthermore, 1 Timothy 1:10 alludes to the Torah as being made for lawless, and lists homosexuals as among those. 

The use of Leviticus to condemn and reject homosexuals is obviously a hypocritical selective use of the Bible against gays and lesbians. Nobody today tries to keep the laws in Leviticus.Leviticus 12:1-8 declares that a woman is unclean for 33 days after giving birth to a boy and for 66 days after giving birth to a girl and goes on to demand that certain animals must be offered as a burnt offering and a sin offering for cleansing. Nobody today who claims to be a Christian tries to keep these laws, and few people even know about them! Why do you think that most people don't know about them? Leviticus 18:19 forbids a husband from having sex with his wife during her menstrual period. Leviticus 19:19 forbids mixed breeding of various kinds of cattle, sowing various kinds of seeds in your field or wearing "a garment made from two kinds of material mixed together." Leviticus 19:27 demands that "you shall not round off the side-growth of your heads, nor harm the edges of your beard." The next verse forbids "tattoo marks on yourself." Most people do not even know that these laws are in the Bible and are demanded equally with all the others.

First of all, Christians traditionally are forbidden from observing Mosaic Law. Homosexuality though was condemned from the time of Genesis and to the New Testament in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, among other verses. Christ was the final sin offering, so it is sinful to make another.  They do not know about it either because they do not know the bible, or by the fact we live under the New Covenant with the New Law, as Hebrews 8 says.

Sorry for the long message. I just want us to live in a loving world, one that God would approve of. I hope you take this into consideration. Remember though, above all else, be kind to all. Hatred and cruelty are the two biggest sins of all. Thank you and God bless!

None of this addressed the new testament verses prohibiting homosexuality. God never approved of homosexual acts, or adultery.  Condemning homosexuality Is not cruelty—it is telling people the truth and telling them what God hates.  God hates all sin, ones of sexual nature are especially hateful.

Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.-Romans 1:26-27

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.-1 Corinthians 6:9-10

We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law, with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, the unchaste, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.-1 Timothy 1:8-11

More on KJV Screw ups

KJV Blunders

Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Though “eastward” is a possible translation of the Hebrew word mikedem מִקֶּדֶם .  It is not, however, the accurate rendering here, the verse is actually saying the Garden was planted BEFOREHAND.  Beforehand, or ancient are also ways to translate the word.  For instance the KJV of Psalm 74:12 says: . “For God [is] my King of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth.” Old here is the same exact word in Genesis 2:8. The KJV has no footnote for the possibility of “beforehand” or “of old” in Genesis 2:8. Older bibles such as the Latin Vulgate render the word “a principio” meaning, beginning or beforehand; the  Greek Septuagint has ἀνατολὰς meaning “eastward.” Jewish scholar Rashi in his commentary states the Garden was in the East, however, he used a Jewish midrash to state this, not the plain reading of the text p’shat. Strong’s has two entries for the word, one for “east” and one for  “of old.”

Exodus 3:22: But every woman shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians.

Exodus 11:2 Speak now in the ears of the people, and let every man borrow of his neighbour, and every woman of her neighbour, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold.

Exodus 12:35 And the children of Israel did according to the word of Moses; and they borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment:

Exodus 12:36 And the LORD gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they lent unto them [such things as they required]. And they spoiled the Egyptians.

Though borrow is a completely legitimate way of translating the Hebrew word v'shaolah, in context it cannot be right because it would mean God is telling the Israelites to "borrow" stuff with the intent of never returning it, that is stealing. Some atheists even point out this verse to show how the Bible is "contradictory" because God would be telling people to steal in Exodus 3:22, and not to steal in Exodus 20.  The same word is used in Exodus 13:14 with the meaning of asking a question: “And it shall be when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What [is] this? that thou shalt say unto him, By strength of hand the LORD brought us out from Egypt, from the house of bondage:” The word is found in Strongs H7592 with the meaning “A primitive root; to inquire; by implication to request; by extension to demand: - ask (counsel, on), beg, borrow, lay to charge, consult, demand, desire, X earnestly, enquire, + greet, obtain leave, lend, pray, request, require, + salute, X straitly, X surely, wish.” The Latin Vulgate uses postulabit/postulet meaning to ask, demand, claim, require, request, desire. The Greek Septuagint has αἰτήσει / αἰτησάτω

Reponse to some Jewish arguments against Jesus

Antimissionary: If Jesus died on Friday and less than 36 hours later on Sunday he undied, Jesus made no real sacrifice.
Response: Dying is dying, suffering still occurs, the suffering is part of the death and is the sacrifice.  How long someone is dead is irrelevant, since every gets resurrected and since you will be without a body in the meantime, what is it to you that you dead?  Did the "10 Holy Martyrs" of Israel not actually atone for sin, since they will all be resurrected at the end of time?

The prophet tells us that this sin was unforgivable and was viewed with greater severity than every cardinal offense. With this statement the prophet alludes to the fact that the greatest scholars of Israel, the ten holy martyrs would be brutally murdered in atonement for this sin. Hashem said that the sale of Yoseif, unlike all other sins, could never be overlooked and that one day the greatest Tannaim (Mishnaic authors) would suffer inhuman torture and be taken from us in atonement for this sin. -vayeishev