King james was gay!

[thebrucebeat]

A typical post.

 

[Chuckt]

Are you just collecting books, or are you considering reading one?
Would you read one that didn't already agree with what you want to hear?

Brucebeat,

I'm a busy person. I'll read anybody's book but I will also discredit the one you are talking about and I would probably use the heretic word today if I thought I wouldn't get sued. I'm not a consumer. I'm a salesman. In other words: I don't need you to teach me anything.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

May you take your own advice and read books that don't appeal to you in order to learn the truth:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JL6JDHA/ref=pe_245070_24466410_M1T1DP]Amazon.com: The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) - A Tour of the External Evidence eBook: James Snapp Jr: Kindle Store[/ame]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004WPZZHW/ref=pe_245070_24466410_M1T1DP]Amazon.com: Assorted Essays on New Testament Textual Criticism [Annotated] eBook: William Sanday, Frederic G. Kenyon, F. C. Burkitt, George Salmon, F. H. Chase, Edward Miller, Charles Sitterly, Eberhard Nestle, J. Rendel Harris, James Snapp Jr: Kindl[/ame]

You want to recommend a bloggers e-books?

After reading the first book "The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) - A Tour of the External Evidence eBook", I have to conclude that both you and Bart Ehrman are wrong.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Brucebeat,

I'm a busy person. I'll read anybody's book but I will also discredit the one you are talking about and I would probably use the heretic word today if I thought I wouldn't get sued. I'm not a consumer. I'm a salesman. In other words: I don't need you to teach me anything.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

May you take your own advice and read books that don't appeal to you in order to learn the truth:

Amazon.com: The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) - A Tour of the External Evidence eBook: James Snapp Jr: Kindle Store

Amazon.com: Assorted Essays on New Testament Textual Criticism [Annotated] eBook: William Sanday, Frederic G. Kenyon, F. C. Burkitt, George Salmon, F. H. Chase, Edward Miller, Charles Sitterly, Eberhard Nestle, J. Rendel Harris, James Snapp Jr: Kindl

You want to recommend a bloggers e-books?

After reading the first book "The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) - A Tour of the External Evidence eBook", I have to conclude that both you and Bart Ehrman are wrong.

Well your other logical insights have been so laser-like, I guess this conclusion is just as dependable.
HE CAN'T GET PUBLISHED!!!

 

[Chuckt]

Do you think avoiding my question will make it go away?
NONE of the earliest manuscripts include this story.

My original Bible which I was given wore out. Does that mean that the Bible has changed since then? Lol.

Your objection to my answer is your avoidance.

ChuckT, why are you ignoring the positive fact that the earliest manuscripts don't have story.

Jake,

I read "The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) - A Tour of the External Evidence eBook" which tells me that both brucebeat and Bart Ehrman are wrong. I would be happy to send you the eBook as a gift and it would be no great hardship on me as it is only approximately 66 pages and .99 cents. I would hope you would read it before being swayed by higher criticism based on nothing but assumption.

I would hope that anyone would read it than believe the lies.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/The-Pericope-Adulterae-John-External-ebook/dp/B00JL6JDHA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397518132&sr=8-1&keywords=james+snapp]Amazon.com: The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) - A Tour of the External Evidence eBook: James Snapp Jr: Kindle Store[/ame]



Chuck

 

[thebrucebeat]

My original Bible which I was given wore out. Does that mean that the Bible has changed since then? Lol.

Your objection to my answer is your avoidance.

ChuckT, why are you ignoring the positive fact that the earliest manuscripts don't have story.

Jake,

I read "The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) - A Tour of the External Evidence eBook" which tells me that both brucebeat and Bart Ehrman are wrong. I would be happy to send you the eBook as a gift and it would be no great hardship on me as it is only approximately 66 pages and .99 cents. I would hope you would read it before being swayed by higher criticism based on nothing but assumption.

I would hope that anyone would read it than believe the lies.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/The-Pericope-Adulterae-John-External-ebook/dp/B00JL6JDHA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397518132&sr=8-1&keywords=james+snapp]Amazon.com: The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) - A Tour of the External Evidence eBook: James Snapp Jr: Kindle Store[/ame]



Chuck

Do you have any idea of the level of scholarship represented by Bart Ehrman? Do you have any idea of the level of accomplishment and the universal respect this man has achieved, even among his critics?
You want to pass out a brochure by an Indiana preacher as your rebuttal?
This is pathetic.

 

[Chuckt]

ChuckT, why are you ignoring the positive fact that the earliest manuscripts don't have story.

Jake,

I read "The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) - A Tour of the External Evidence eBook" which tells me that both brucebeat and Bart Ehrman are wrong. I would be happy to send you the eBook as a gift and it would be no great hardship on me as it is only approximately 66 pages and .99 cents. I would hope you would read it before being swayed by higher criticism based on nothing but assumption.

I would hope that anyone would read it than believe the lies.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/The-Pericope-Adulterae-John-External-ebook/dp/B00JL6JDHA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397518132&sr=8-1&keywords=james+snapp]Amazon.com: The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) - A Tour of the External Evidence eBook: James Snapp Jr: Kindle Store[/ame]



Chuck

Do you have any idea of the level of scholarship represented by Bart Ehrman? Do you have any idea of the level of accomplishment and the universal respect this man has achieved, even among his critics?
You want to pass out a brochure by an Indiana preacher as your rebuttal?
This is pathetic.

If you want a higher level of scholarship then I suggest you listen to Satan.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Jake,

I read "The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) - A Tour of the External Evidence eBook" which tells me that both brucebeat and Bart Ehrman are wrong. I would be happy to send you the eBook as a gift and it would be no great hardship on me as it is only approximately 66 pages and .99 cents. I would hope you would read it before being swayed by higher criticism based on nothing but assumption.

I would hope that anyone would read it than believe the lies.

Amazon.com: The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) - A Tour of the External Evidence eBook: James Snapp Jr: Kindle Store



Chuck

Do you have any idea of the level of scholarship represented by Bart Ehrman? Do you have any idea of the level of accomplishment and the universal respect this man has achieved, even among his critics?
You want to pass out a brochure by an Indiana preacher as your rebuttal?
This is pathetic.

If you want a higher level of scholarship then I suggest you listen to Satan.

Really?
Where did he study?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Apparently there is no proof one way or the other that King James was gay. What we do know is that he had no less than 7 children and that he advanced laws against sodomy.

https://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_03.asp?FROM=biblecenter

Lady, I hate to point this out but

1)There are married gay men with kids. King James could be one of them.

2)The fact he passed anti-sodomy laws may have more to do with politics and image of the throne than his own wishes. Machiavalli "The Prince" is much better able to explain the philosophy of politics during this era than I am.

Even so, it is possible that stories of King James Homosexual tendencies may be due to his political enemies. Hey, its tough being King. Tougher if you really want to be queen!

I hate to point this out, but I STILL don't see why you give a flying fuck, or why we're supposed to join you in so doing.

No, wait, I don't hate pointing that out. I LOVE pointing out that you dimwits are stupid enough to waste time tying yourselves into knots over what other people do and don't believe, as though anyone is forcing you to care.

 

[Cecilie1200]

JESUS WAS GAY, ACCORDING TO MARK

JESUS WAS GAY, ACCORDING TO MARK

Evidence That Jesus Was Homosexual | Truelogic's Weblog

Still waiting to find out why it matters to you. Still don't think you have the brains OR the cajones to address the question.

What's it to you who is and isn't homosexual, Sparky? This contributing largely to your spank bank, is it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

At least you agree that your version of god is intellectually unacceptable.
A good start.
There is hope for you yet.

I do not. My God is sovereign and rules over intellect. He created it and can overrule it.

The resurrection is intellectually unacceptable. And it is that which holds the universe together.

"The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain everything. Once (A) God (or Satan) is accepted as the first cause of everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to chance...logic can be happily tossed out the window."
..........Stephen King

The boredom of religiophobia is that it has the compulsion to comment on everything, whether anyone gives a rat turd what the bigot thinks or not. Once A) "My opinion matters, and everyone is DYING to hear it and then justify their beliefs to me" is accepted as an absolute, nothing is left to other people's business, and getting your own frigging life can be happily tossed out the window.

. . . Cecilie Post

Explain to me, please, why exactly you give a flying fuck, and why we're supposed to give a flying fuck that you give a flying fuck. What is this achieving for you, beyond some happy fantasies of guys in togas and beards?

 

[guno]

Do you have any idea of the level of scholarship represented by Bart Ehrman? Do you have any idea of the level of accomplishment and the universal respect this man has achieved, even among his critics?
You want to pass out a brochure by an Indiana preacher as your rebuttal?
This is pathetic.

If you want a higher level of scholarship then I suggest you listen to Satan.

Really?
Where did he study?

satan, well good luck trying to have a rational conversation with these pin heads

 

[Cecilie1200]

Whether I do or not doesn't attribute the rise or fall to gays having rights.

Damn, you're right. I remember homosexuals riding in the back of buses, the water fountains that declared "no cocksuckers" and the straight only lunch counters...

Gays have a long history of persecution in this country, thoroughly documented.
You can start by going to Matthew Sheppard's grave and asking what he thinks.

So, Sheppard died because it was legal to drag him behind a pickup?

Wow, the things I learn from zealots who are not bound by factual dissertation...

FYI, Shepard wasn't dragged behind a truck. That was another guy, James Byrd. Shepard was beaten, tied to a fence, and left to die.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Whether I do or not doesn't attribute the rise or fall to gays having rights.

Damn, you're right. I remember homosexuals riding in the back of buses, the water fountains that declared "no cocksuckers" and the straight only lunch counters...

Gays have a long history of persecution in this country, thoroughly documented.
You can start by going to Matthew Sheppard's grave and asking what he thinks.

So, Sheppard died because it was legal to drag him behind a pickup?

Wow, the things I learn from zealots who are not bound by factual dissertation...

FYI, Shepard wasn't dragged behind a truck. That was another guy, James Byrd. Shepard was beaten, tied to a fence, and left to die.

Correct.

 

[thebrucebeat]

I do not. My God is sovereign and rules over intellect. He created it and can overrule it.

The resurrection is intellectually unacceptable. And it is that which holds the universe together.

"The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain everything. Once (A) God (or Satan) is accepted as the first cause of everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to chance...logic can be happily tossed out the window."
..........Stephen King

The boredom of religiophobia is that it has the compulsion to comment on everything, whether anyone gives a rat turd what the bigot thinks or not. Once A) "My opinion matters, and everyone is DYING to hear it and then justify their beliefs to me" is accepted as an absolute, nothing is left to other people's business, and getting your own frigging life can be happily tossed out the window.

. . . Cecilie Post

Explain to me, please, why exactly you give a flying fuck, and why we're supposed to give a flying fuck that you give a flying fuck. What is this achieving for you, beyond some happy fantasies of guys in togas and beards?

In fairness, Cecilie, neither side comes here if the other isn't swinging, too.
Plenty of guilt to go around.

 

[Chuckt]

Whether I do or not doesn't attribute the rise or fall to gays having rights.

Damn, you're right. I remember homosexuals riding in the back of buses, the water fountains that declared "no cocksuckers" and the straight only lunch counters...

Gays have a long history of persecution in this country, thoroughly documented.
You can start by going to Matthew Sheppard's grave and asking what he thinks.

So, Sheppard died because it was legal to drag him behind a pickup?

Wow, the things I learn from zealots who are not bound by factual dissertation...

FYI, Shepard wasn't dragged behind a truck. That was another guy, James Byrd. Shepard was beaten, tied to a fence, and left to die.

The murder of Matthew Shepard was related to illegal activity:

What he discovered was a story that many people have not wanted to hear. Multiple sources, on both sides of the law, told Jimenez that Shepard was acquainted with his killers before the night of the attack, and was involved with them in buying, selling, and using crystal methamphetamine, a drug with a devastating impact on much of Middle America. McKinney eventually acknowledged to Jimenez that the “gay panic” defense was nonsense. He, Henderson, and their girlfriends all admitted, after multiple interviews, that they had lied about the true motive for the murder so the police would not discover the full extent of their drug activities.

?When the Legend Becomes the Truth?: The Case of Matthew Shepard |

It had nothing to do with him being gay.

Make sure people know the truth.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Damn, you're right. I remember homosexuals riding in the back of buses, the water fountains that declared "no cocksuckers" and the straight only lunch counters...



So, Sheppard died because it was legal to drag him behind a pickup?

Wow, the things I learn from zealots who are not bound by factual dissertation...

FYI, Shepard wasn't dragged behind a truck. That was another guy, James Byrd. Shepard was beaten, tied to a fence, and left to die.

The murder of Matthew Shepard was related to illegal activity:

What he discovered was a story that many people have not wanted to hear. Multiple sources, on both sides of the law, told Jimenez that Shepard was acquainted with his killers before the night of the attack, and was involved with them in buying, selling, and using crystal methamphetamine, a drug with a devastating impact on much of Middle America. McKinney eventually acknowledged to Jimenez that the “gay panic” defense was nonsense. He, Henderson, and their girlfriends all admitted, after multiple interviews, that they had lied about the true motive for the murder so the police would not discover the full extent of their drug activities.

?When the Legend Becomes the Truth?: The Case of Matthew Shepard |

It had nothing to do with him being gay.

Make sure people know the truth.

Matthew is an example, not the issue.

A Brief History of Homosexuality in America - Allies & Advocates - Grand Valley State University

 

[Avatar4321]

Still no reason why King James's sexual habits have anything to do with the rest of us.

 

[Newby]

I think the swearing and name calling were a hint. Maybe that's normal discourse to you. If it is, I find that sad.
The Fruits are what someone on the path should be aspiring to.
Why are they always rejected when I bring them up?
Every single time.
Why don't Christians want to be held accountable for the clearest description of how they should look if they have fully realized the internalization of the message?

Swearing is a sign of being angry? Maybe for you it is, not quite true for most people I know however. I very rarely swear, I'd guess that you will see me swear in maybe 2% of my total posts, if that even.

Yes, it's what they should be aspiring too, that doesn't mean that people will not fall short at different times, we are human, we do sin. So, I'm still not sure what your point is? We should be perfect? We shouldn't sin at all? Only Christ was capable of that.

Who has 'rejected' it, I've seen you use the very same line about 'the fruits' time after time on here with different people, most of them have explained to you that they're not Christian, making you look like a fool.

And where do you get that Christians don't want to be held accountable? And held accountable by whom? By you? Are you God, i.e. judge and jurty? You want them to want to be held accountable by you? I'm guessing most don't really care what you think.

Accountable to scripture.

Bullshit, and I know (sigh), I'm swearing again. But you're holding them accountable to how you define a Christian, period. Is it up to you to comment on whether I'm following scripture or not? Or is that between myself and God? Is it any of your business? And you have completely dodged the question of sin (and we both know why), you act as though Christians should be capable of remaining sin free and if they don't then they're not following scripture, but isn't that what sin is, not following scripture? Is there a Christian anywhere that is capable of follwoing scripture 100% of the time? Yet that is what you apparently expect whenever you chastise Christians for what you define as un-Christian like behavior. You're reprimanding them for sinning, like you're an authority on the subject. Perhaps that's why you didn't make it as a pastor, if you ever even were one, your arrogance and ego can't live with an authority higher than yourself to answer too. Hell, you expect complete strangers to answer to you for their behavior when it's none of your business. You have no right to expectations, only God does, and everyone will be judged when their time comes, even you.

 

[Chuckt]

Swearing is a sign of being angry? Maybe for you it is, not quite true for most people I know however. I very rarely swear, I'd guess that you will see me swear in maybe 2% of my total posts, if that even.

Yes, it's what they should be aspiring too, that doesn't mean that people will not fall short at different times, we are human, we do sin. So, I'm still not sure what your point is? We should be perfect? We shouldn't sin at all? Only Christ was capable of that.

Who has 'rejected' it, I've seen you use the very same line about 'the fruits' time after time on here with different people, most of them have explained to you that they're not Christian, making you look like a fool.

And where do you get that Christians don't want to be held accountable? And held accountable by whom? By you? Are you God, i.e. judge and jurty? You want them to want to be held accountable by you? I'm guessing most don't really care what you think.

Accountable to scripture.

Bullshit, and I know (sigh), I'm swearing again. But you're holding them accountable to how you define a Christian, period. Is it up to you to comment on whether I'm following scripture or not? Or is that between myself and God? Is it any of your business? And you have completely dodged the question of sin (and we both know why), you act as though Christians should be capable of remaining sin free and if they don't then they're not following scripture, but isn't that what sin is, not following scripture? Is there a Christian anywhere that is capable of follwoing scripture 100% of the time? Yet that is what you apparently expect whenever you chastise Christians for what you define as un-Christian like behavior. You're reprimanding them for sinning, like you're an authority on the subject. Perhaps that's why you didn't make it as a pastor, if you ever even were one, your arrogance and ego can't live with an authority higher than yourself to answer too. Hell, you expect complete strangers to answer to you for their behavior when it's none of your business. You have no right to expectations, only God does, and everyone will be judged when their time comes, even you.

You are probably right. I have doubts thebrucebeat was a pastor. Maybe he is overstating his credentials? We want to see some credentials, please.

 

[hobelim]

Swearing is a sign of being angry? Maybe for you it is, not quite true for most people I know however. I very rarely swear, I'd guess that you will see me swear in maybe 2% of my total posts, if that even.

Yes, it's what they should be aspiring too, that doesn't mean that people will not fall short at different times, we are human, we do sin. So, I'm still not sure what your point is? We should be perfect? We shouldn't sin at all? Only Christ was capable of that.

Who has 'rejected' it, I've seen you use the very same line about 'the fruits' time after time on here with different people, most of them have explained to you that they're not Christian, making you look like a fool.

And where do you get that Christians don't want to be held accountable? And held accountable by whom? By you? Are you God, i.e. judge and jurty? You want them to want to be held accountable by you? I'm guessing most don't really care what you think.

Accountable to scripture.

Bullshit, and I know (sigh), I'm swearing again. But you're holding them accountable to how you define a Christian, period. Is it up to you to comment on whether I'm following scripture or not? Or is that between myself and God? Is it any of your business? And you have completely dodged the question of sin (and we both know why), you act as though Christians should be capable of remaining sin free and if they don't then they're not following scripture, but isn't that what sin is, not following scripture?

"Everyone who sins breaks the law; sin, in fact, is lawlessness. You already know that Christ appeared so that he might do away with sin. And in him is no sin. No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.

Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as God is righteous. The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister." 1 John 3:4-10