Gay Bishop = Gay Jesus?

Jesus might have been homosexual, says the first openly gay bishop

London Telegraph | Apr 03 2005

The first openly gay Anglican bishop has sparked outrage for suggesting that Jesus might have been homosexual.

The Rt Rev Gene Robinson, the Bishop of New Hampshire in the Episcopal Church of the United States, said that Jesus was an unmarried, "non-traditional man" who did not uphold family values, "travelled with a bunch of men" and enjoyed an especially close relationship with one of his disciples.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/03/ngay03.
xml&sSheet=/news/2005/04/03/ixhome.html

According to some, Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife, but as He needed to be more than human, that was downplayed and edited out of existence. Concerning Jesus' 'close' relationship with an apostle, there can be an intense love between two men that is totally platonic with no eroticism involved whatsoever. There are many types and levels of love after all. I guess many forget that in this homophobic era.

In my opinion, this Bishop is just doing what so many other people have done throughout history and today, and that is twist the Bible to meet his own needs and agenda.

lol.

i see you've been watching you discovery channel Pagan

(Magdalene)

Yup, would rather watch documentaries, than most of the garbage we are fed on TV.

LOL, I think I know what you are talking about too, as well as Madgeline's scripture.

.

"Jesus might have been homosexual, says the first openly gay bishop"

so i wonder what does he says to multiple verses in the Bible that call homosexuality an abomination.

Although Christianity can be a beautiful religion, it has unfortunately been subject to many men who hold material power over spirituality. From what I understand, the Bible has been subjected to many interpretations, editions and additions to facilitate these power mad leaders. In addition to the King James Version of course, and the vagaries of multiple translation and hand copying for eons.

That is probably the source of most of the contradictions in the scriptures. I would not be totally surprised if some homophobic priest did not add this whole anti-homosexual stance long ago, or if it was added as one of the many populace control edicts.

Christ was not married...

IF you read scripture, you will never ever find the term..."Mary of Jesus".
WHAT does that mean??

That means any woman married was called 'of' then spouses name. BUT let me go further..MARY of Magdela was single because....of Magdela meant she was not married...and remained single.
TO have the name of the city meant she had no spouse.

Christ was NOT gay, because if he was then His apostles would have taught to accept homosexuality.
IN fact, Christ did not come to earth ...being God Himself to commit any sexual acts with humanity.

IN fact the Apostles taugh against Homosexuality.
Satan is alive and well 2005.

How do others even ignore the majority of scripture and bring in anarchy against Christ....

IF it is NOT bltantly obvious when Christ said God made male and female, and they shall become one...

Etc etc. This is really funny debate. How anyone could even contemplate it is beyond me...the fact that Homosexuality is an abomination before God...

quote:

---

Although Christianity can be a beautiful religion, it has unfortunately been subject to many men who hold material power over spirituality. From what I understand, the Bible has been subjected to many interpretations, editions and additions to facilitate these power mad leaders. In addition to the King James Version of course, and the vagaries of multiple translation and hand copying for eons.

---

This is just the historical reality. I will share with you a short story as it relates to this:

I truly wonder if Christians have yet come to grips adequately with the invention of moveable type. Indeed, it seems obvious to me that the Christian life has never been quite the same since Gutenberg's publication of the Mazarin Bible at Mainz in 1456. Prior to that date, a person joined the Church and found the Bible there; the Church was the Bible's normal context. More recently, however it has been just as usual for someone to read the Bible and then maybe, just maybe, to find the Church.

Perhaps no one at the time fully realized what would be the far-reaching consequences of the world's first experiment with the printing press. Surely no rational person felt threatened, right away, by the mere printing of a Latin Bible. Indeed, even now no one would dispute that the printing of the Bible was a singular blessing.

Within a short time there would be biblical translations into all the languages of Europe, making Holy Scripture directly available to others besides the clergy and those with a university education. Gradually the Bible would become part of each family's cherished possessions, in all lands from Ireland to Egypt, and within a half century of Gutenberg's experiment, it would arrive in the New World on the second voyage of Christopher Columbus. What an awesome blessing!

Was this, however, an unmixed blessing? The question can honestly be argued, because the evidence from Church History seems to render the answer ambiguous at best. To begin with, the printing of the Bible produced, as one of its first direct results, a certain purely physical separation of the Scriptures from the parish church. From that point on, the Scriptures would just as easily be found in a person's home. A man did not need to go to church in order to read them. Would anyone deny that this was a good thing?

Nonetheless, an unexpected result of this development was a lowered esteem for the Church with respect to Holy Scripture, as men forgot that-simply as a matter of history-the Church preceded the Bible, that the Bible was written for and within the Church, and that the Church determined the content of the Bible. Men forgot these clear, plain historical facts. At least some men did.

These facts and their implications, however, had been well understood for a millennium of a half. A visit to their parish church had been the common access of most Christians to Holy Scripture. In each parish church that was sufficiently prosperous to afford one, a copy of the Bible, or at least the New Testament and the Psalms, was chained to a lectern--chained so that this very valuable asset could not be stolen--and from this text the pastor preached to the congregation during the regular services. For the rest, anyone else who could read was free to enter the church building at any time and do so. This universal Christian custom left on everyone's mind the impression that the Bible belonged to--strictly speaking was the property of--the Church.

This ancient impression was altered with the invention of moveable type. As copies of the printed Bible became the physical property of individual believers, the reading of the Scriptures became less and less a "church thing." The Church became secondary, and the context of Bible reading was shifted to the individual home--and the individual conscience.

This separation of the Bible and the Church caused the Church to be taken less seriously as the proper, God-appointed interpreter of the Bible. The Church became subsidiary to each person's individual faith, expressed primarily in his encounter with the Lord in his reading of the Holy Word, a copy of which *belonged to him*. Possessing his own Bible, he felt himself qualified to say what the Bible meant. The individual, thus deciding biblical doctrine for himself, was in a position to judge the Church. In this context it became rather difficult to regard the Church as "the pillar and ground of the truth."

This was the context in which men began to ask a brand new question, which no one had ever thought of before: "Which has higher authority, the Bible or the Church?" However, if it is true--as Christians had believed for fourteen hundred years--that the Church was older than the Bible, that the Bible was written for and within the Church, and that the Church determined the Bible's content, then this question really doesn't seem very useful.

The more useful question, I suggest, the one that really hits closer to the truth, is also the question easier to answer: Whose understanding of the Bible is the more likely to be correct, the Church's understanding or my understanding? In my own case, the answer to this is plenty simple.

"The more useful question, I suggest, the one that really hits closer to the truth, is also the question easier to answer: Whose understanding of the Bible is the more likely to be correct, the Church's understanding or my understanding? In my own case, the answer to this is plenty simple."

This speaks as if the church was a person with one clear view and standpoint, it is not, no two churches or their sermons are alike, their interpretations vary just as much as average people.

And the churches views were initially controlled just as the info in the Bible.

Past that, who wrote that and what point were they making besides showing that all of the information from the church or bible was controlled by people pushing an ideological agenda regardless of personal interpretation.

quote:

---

This speaks as if the church was a person with one clear view and standpoint, it is not, no two churches or their sermons are alike, their interpretations vary just as much as average people.

And the churches views were initially controlled just as the info in the Bible.

Past that, who wrote that and what point were they making besides showing that all of the information from the church or bible was controlled by people pushing an ideological agenda regardless of personal interpretation.

---

YOU are correct in understanding that many broke off the original church started by the apostles...interpretations since that has been numerous. 30,000 christian based theologies and creeds since the time Luther broke off the first church.
Luther brought a NEW scripture not coinciding with Catholicism.
'Faith alone' was HIS addition..and hence there after many chirstian bibles brot many different changes and interpretations.

HISTORY will show this more clearly than I can.

Luther broke off bringing 'Reform' to his own way. Also bringing false charges against the original Chruch...and causing much confusion.
PAYING for indulgences...??
That is an error.

The original Church asked that those who sought forgiveness as a penance should give alms to the poor.
Money received from those whom gave alms...went straight to starving children.

SO Luther also charged the Church erroneously, causing since, a huge misunderstanding. HAD he been righteous, he would not have broke off the church simply because he refused to accept what was in place.

HOW did he get followers...? He simply misrepresented what the church did..and of course caused an uprising of ppl to turn from the original church.

Personal interpretations have thus become a standard....
Instead of accepting the doctrine of Paul and John to accept the oral and written ....we have those who only have the written.

The Catholic Catechism is the 'oral' teachings written as an account. IT backs up scripture to the original meanings of scripture.

IF the church has remained faithful to all orginal standards... and still has maintained the same standards as it did 2000 years ago...{Including dismissing any Pope considered heretical} who tried to 'absolve' such teachings...it has remained the intact church on earth by Jesus Himself.

The Councils of Nicene have been accounted for besides the councils in the Bible.
I believe {Memory here} That the years of the next councils were 300 ad....etc.

Councils were done to review all the teachings were to be left intact. NOT to mention it is an historical account of the Chruch and shows history.

The books of what Protestants call apocrophilia {Omitted by Luther} were actually quoted 30 times by Christ Himself.
So we know at least 5 books written by the Jews were omitted by Luther that included the teachings of purgatory.
Machabees 1 and 2 were taken out.

However in Machabees....we see the description of the festival of Lights the Jews celebrated and why...and we see in the New Testament Jesus carrying out the Festival of Lights.

IT comes down to history..if you need to FIND an actual account of what the scripture means..go to the church who wrote it.

Apostles started the earliest churches...look at Thessolonians, Corinthians. Hebrews, Phillipians, Romans, Galatians etc ..etc. These were laws implemented by the first leaders as the decree the Church must follow.
They set the standards...of what the faith must follow.

EVEN today, to find the originals that were copied and copied {Word for word...symbol for symbol} until the printing press was invented were and all are held by the Catholic church..because these are her writings.

Any other doctrine came from a man's broken off interpretation.

Which is most accurate? I would have to say the owner of the book.

BTW...the church has one single standpoint..never changing. Thats called tradition.

The church is not an entity which can hold a standpoint, people within do, and when time brings new events not covered in the bible's and traditional teachings they have to make new traditional findings.

"BTW...the church has one single standpoint..never changing."

There is seemingly not a single thing in existance that does not change, and when it comes to standpoints, openly existing contradictions allow for the illusion of unchanging views....

Thou shalt not kill...... uh, except for here, here, and here. And you, kill your kid to show your faith in me.

But I'm just a closed minded heathen of some sort surely damned for some reason so my words mean nothing right? Sure they do, if they coincide with yours right?

quote:

---

The church is not an entity which can hold a standpoint, people within do, and when time brings new events not covered in the bible's and traditional teachings they have to make new traditional findings.

---

A church is not an entity that holds a standpoint??
IT is an organized belief system that does hold a standpoint.
What NEW events??

There is nothing new under the sun.

quote:

---

There is seemingly not a single thing in existance that does not change, and when it comes to standpoints, openly existing contradictions allow for the illusion of unchanging views....

---

The more things change the more they stay the same.
There are no new 'events'....THERE are new 'confusions' in men's minds..BUT no new events.

quote:

---

Thou shalt not kill...... uh, except for here, here, and here. And you, kill your kid to show your faith in me.

But I'm just a closed minded heathen of some sort surely damned for some reason so my words mean nothing right? Sure they do, if they coincide with yours right?

---

War is and always has been...and 'IF' God protects a nation...they will prosper...however, if that nation becomes evil...God allows for wars.
IN other words...He takes His hand's blessings off the nation, and allows enemies to step in.

And then there are wars where He still holds His hand of protection over the righteous, while men {AS men will be men who are inheretently evil within their hearts...called a hardened heart} ...while men plot and seek vengence for their own reasons...be it seduced by power or evil...they give over to satan and commit murder and wars on innocent and unsuspecting ppl's.

Saw this thru out time...but the righteous always prevail eventually.
Saddam went down...His ppl are free...and few colateral deaths have been seen in comparison to other wars...and in comparison to Saddam.

AS for Abraham...
Genesis 22 1-14

12.
He said "DO not lay a hand on on the boy; do nothing to him. I know now that you fear God, since you have not withheld your only son from me."

That was a test....not an actual act to be done.
And God did NOT wish for Isaac to die...only to see how far Abraham would go to proove his love.

I find it hypocrisy to say YOU dont believe in killing innocent lives, but are content to allow saddam to murder them freely.{AT a greater rate....and let them live starving}
I find it hypocrisy that you defend the hard hearted leaders, but deny God.

quote:

---

There is nothing new under the sun.

---

Patrish, are you Aamish?

"Saddam went down...His ppl are free...and few colateral deaths have been seen in comparison to other wars...and in comparison to Saddam."

For a one country war of this duration, 100,000 non combatant deaths is fairly high, not to mention the deaths caused by our warring since 91'ish, with sanctions and bombings of health necessary facilities that caused more malnutrition and child death nearing 500,000, in children alone, again not even mentioning our use of chemical, biological, radioactive weapons all througout.

Your conservative screened view of Iraq is betraying you.

And if Saddam is and was such a bad guy, why are most the people that did most of his helping from America back in office and promoted?

"War is and always has been...and 'IF' God protects a nation...they will prosper...however, if that nation becomes evil...God allows for wars.
IN other words...He takes His hand's blessings off the nation, and allows enemies to step in."

Interesting, so we were protected and prospered, became evil, and god took his blessing and our enemies stepped in? Is that what you are saying?

And I'm sorry if I'm the only one who has an issue with God and War.

"I find it hypocrisy to say YOU dont believe in killing innocent lives, but are content to allow saddam to murder them freely.{AT a greater rate....and let them live starving}
I find it hypocrisy that you defend the hard hearted leaders, but deny God."

You dipshit, I'm not even content with allowing our government to, but we do, and I don't see a need for an all out war to kill one man. I'm not content with us aiding and arming these lunatics either, but we do.

I have no qualms with self defense past the necessity for it, my problem comes with what we know about the situation, you think its cut and dry, I do not.

How many deaths do you have accredited to Saddam? How many deaths do you have accredited to the CIA, and since Saddam and Osama are coincidentally both CIA assets, to no embarrasment of ours for some reason, I wonder how many of theirs we must add to the total.

Perhaps this is why God blessing was lifted eh?

What you seem to fail to see is how easily your prophetic notions play against you. Even if you are a saint you can end up with god's wrath on your hands for your rabid promotion war based on information you cannot hope to posess and a country who may be evil and you not know it, though you do when someone other than Bush is in office?

Talk about hypocricy.

And how do I deny God, I question the validity of a very old book, the people who wrote it, and the people who blindly follow its words as a cult. And if you think Chritianity is not a cult, then you don't know the meaning of the word.

I believe and follow in the golden rule to the best of my ability, all while understanding that this is a world filled with wonder and beauty, that just so happens to be as equally F'd up at the same time.

And with the included circumstances of both innocent and beligerant ignorance as well as intentional deciet, the truth and reality to any situation with enough importance and danger to require any form of conflict, mild or major, becomes a prized and protected commodity, easily controlled and distorted, a matter of National Security.

Which makes it illegal for you to even know, so don't claim to.