Saturday, May 12, 2012

Answering The arugments of pro-homosexuals

I was reading a article that was trying to do away with The practice of Homosexual in scripture, they were trying to make a argument that it  not mention in the scriptures, I will be quoting that article and leave a page where they can read The article in full If they want and using another site to combat them.

My main source is  http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1401

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1428

MYTH #1: The Bible condemns homosexuality & same-gender relationships.
FACT: There is not one condemnation of homosexuality as one's innate sexual constitution in the Scriptures. In fact, any reputable Bible scholar will tell you that when the original manuscripts were written in the languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, in none of these languages did the word "homosexual," or any viable translation of the word, exist.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Me

This  is not a myth by any means, there is evidence for it being in scripture......



The Greek word translated “homosexual” in this passage is a metaphorical use of a term that literally means “soft,” and when referring to people, refers to males allowing themselves to be used sexually by other males. Again, lexicographers apply the term to the person who is a “catamite,” i.e., a male who submits his body to another male for unnatural lewdness—i.e., homosexually (Thayer, p. 387; Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 489).

This is dealing with 1 cor 6:9
___________________________________________________________________________________
MYTH #2: The Old Testament teaches that God destroyed an entire city because of homosexuality.
FACT: Even a cursory reading of the story of Sodom in Genesis chapters 18 & 19 makes this myth ludicrous. First of all, in Genesis Chapter 18, God appears to have decided to destroy the city before the infamous "homosexual" act with angels was attempted.
Jude 1:5-7 is a passage that is ambiguous so that manuscripts differ, especially in verse seven, where some make reference to "strange flesh" (KJV, NKJV) and others do not. This most likely refers to humans having sex with angelic beings. (Cf. Gen. 6:2-4) The inference is that the sexual immorality and perversion that took place in Sodom and Gomorrah was deemed as such because the men attempted to have nonconsensual sex with the angelic beings who came to rescue Lot's family. (Gen. 19:1) This dramatic account has nothing whatsoever to do with two people of the same gender who are in a loving relationship. It is time for all sensible, truth-loving people to look at the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in its entire context, and stop twisting it to suit their bigotry and prejudice.
Furthermore, in over 40 references to Sodom in the Scriptures, not one of these makes specific reference to homosexuality. If homosexuality were the "sin of Sodom," you would think that there would be at least one! In fact, there is one very specific reference to what Sodom’s sin actually was: Ezekiel 16:49,50 says, "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen" (NIV). If homosexuality was the "sin of Sodom," this was Ezekiel’s perfect opportunity to declare that fact and he missed it!

______________________________________________________________________________

Me

What does the scripture say thou?

Genesis 19:5-8

 and they call unto Lot and say to him, `Where [are] the men who have come in unto thee to-night? bring them out unto us, and we know them.'
And Lot goeth out unto them, to the opening, and the door hath shut behind him,
and saith, `Do not, I pray you, my brethren, do evil;
lo, I pray you, I have two daughters, who have not known any one; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do to them as [is] good in your eyes; only to these men do not anything, for therefore have they come in within the shadow of my roof.'
The daughters were already residents of Sodom, and would have been known to the men. Lot was offering his daughters to the men as sexual alternatives. Lot specifically said: “I have two daughters who have not known a man” (Genesis 19:8, emp. added). “Known” is another reference to sexual intercourse.

Considering the meaning of “strange” in its only occurrences (in English) in the KJV (11 times), NKJV (7 times), ASV (10 times), RSV (6 times), and NIV (5 times), one finds that it never is used to refer to angels, but instead refers to: “strange things” (Luke 5:26—i.e., a miracle); “strange land” (Acts 7:6—i.e., Egypt); “strange gods” (Acts 17:18); “strange things” (Acts 17:20—i.e., ideas); “strange cities” (Acts 26:11—i.e., Gentile or outside Palestine); “strange tongues” (1 Corinthians 14:21—i.e., foreign languages); “strange country” (Hebrews 11:9—i.e., Canaan); “strange doctrines” (Hebrews 13:9); “think it strange” (1 Peter 4:4—i.e., odd); “some strange thing” (1 Peter 4:12—i.e., unusual); and “strange flesh” (Jude 7—i.e., male with male). All the other occurrences of the underlying Greek term in the New Testament further undergird the nonapplication of the term to “angelic flesh” (Moulton, et al., 1978, pp. 392-393).

Do the advocates of homosexuality wish to hold the position that the populations of the four cities that were destroyed were all guilty of desiring sexual relations with angels? Perhaps the latest sexual fad that swept over all the cities in the vicinity was “angel sex”? And are we to believe that the great warning down through the ages regarding the infamous behavior of the inhabitants of Sodom—a warning that is repeated over and over again down through the ages to people in many places and periods of history (Deuteronomy 29:23; 32:32; Isaiah 1:9; 3:9; 13:19; Jeremiah 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Lamentations 4:6; Ezekiel 16:46,49,53,55; Amos 4:11; Zephaniah 2:9; Matthew 10:15; 11:24; Luke 10:12; 17:29; Romans 9:29; 2 Peter 2:6; Revelation 11:8)—is: “Do not have sex with angels!”? How many times have you been tempted to violate that warning? The opportunity presents itself on a regular basis, right? The country is full of “single angel” bars! No, what Barclay labeled as “the glare of Sodom and Gomorrah,” which is “flung down the whole length of Scripture history” (p. 218), is not angel sex! It is same-sex relations—men with men. And, unbelievably, now the very warning that has been given down through the ages needs to be issued to America!
______________________________________________________________________________
MYTH #3: The Bible calls homosexuality an "abomination."
FACT: Because biblical exegesis of Old Testament Law and the word "abomination" is beyond the scope of this tract, let it suffice to say that what is interpreted as "abomination," where homosexuality is concerned, is also made in reference to eating seafood without fins or scales and several other dietary and ceremonial laws. (See Leviticus 11:10,12). So the next time someone spouts off to you, that being in a loving, caring, intimate relationship with another human being who happens to be the same gender is an "abomination," remind them that according to Old Testament Law, so is eating a bowl of clam chowder!
It is also very important to remember that one of the basic tenets of New Testament Christianity is that all of those "abominations" of the Old Testament Law are abolished. People who "pick and choose" some Old Testament laws while ignoring others, need to be reminded that "... now we are discharged from the Law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are slaves not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit" (Romans 7:6). Furthermore, by holding you to a few specific Old Testament laws, while they, themselves, do not practice every single one of them is pure hypocrisy. Galatians Chapter 3 tells us that when people choose to live by Old Testament Law, they must keep ALL the Law. For those who choose to live by the law, if they break one law, they have broken them ALL. Those who impose one sentence of the Law on another, while not keeping the WHOLE Law themselves, are establishing their own righteousness! This is a total insult to the doctrine of grace, which says that salvation is purely by God’s unearned favor through faith. (Ephesians 2:8-9)
_______________________________________________________________________________
Me

It true we are no longer bound to the Law but homosexual is  not just out right spoken against in the OT but also under The new Covenant, oblivious some things in the Old were brought into the new, The law we are under is The law of Christ, committing sin with others is going against this  law.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
MYTH #4: Not just the Old Testament, but the New Testament also condemns homosexuality.
FACT: It is interesting, to say the least, that despite homosexuality being looked on as the "vilest of sins," as it is so often referred to, Jesus never mentioned it! Furthermore, as was already mentioned, the words "homosexual" or "homosexuality" did not exist in the original Greek and Aramaic languages of the New Testament. There are only three passages of Scripture in the N.T. which have been cited in reference to homosexuality. The first is Romans, Chapter 1. In this passage, the Apostle Paul gives a very specific list of characteristics describing those in question: He describes them as those who once knew God, but who chose not to honor God as God. Instead, they worshiped material images of human beings, birds, animals, and reptiles as objects of worship rather than the One True Living God. We are told that they were filled with EVERY kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, and malice. They were full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, gossip, slander, insolence, haughtiness, and boastfulness. They were inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, and ruthless. (NRSV) As a result of their total depravity, God turned them over to complete spiritual ruin, so that they left no stone of sexual debauchery unturned, engaging in mass orgies and idolatrous sexual cult worship, which included both homosexual and heterosexual debauchery.
These murderous, malicious people who worshiped idols and hated God after once knowing Him, have NOTHING to do with people who have a sincere desire to love and worship the Lord Jesus Christ and who happen to be homosexual. Today, there are multitudes of homosexual people who are tirelessly yearning to be a part of the Church so that they can WORSHIP the One True Living God and profess Jesus as their Savior. Anyone who can possibly equate the monstrous, reprobate people of Romans 1 to modern-day gay and lesbian people who reach out to humanity, love and respect their parents, and who have been expelled from the church they love, just for being homosexual, is not using common sense! Like those religious leaders who scorned Jesus, they have chosen to believe lies founded on their traditions.
In fact, rather than Romans 1 being intended as a warning to gay and lesbian people, its actual purpose is revealed in the first verse of Chapter 2, where Paul rebukes his readers for passing judgment on others! The entire First Chapter of Romans was given to rebuke those who were being judgmental so as to "despise the riches of God’s kindness and forbearance and patience," forgetting that it is God’s kindness that leads men and women to repentance" (Romans 2:4). In other words, while many Christians use Romans Chapter 1 as a means of clobbering gay and lesbian people, the truth is that this chapter was actually written to rebuke those original readers for being so self-righteous and finger-pointing, that they forgot just how forbearing and gentle God was toward them! In their vindictive, finger-pointing, self-righteous preaching, they were forgetting that "all have sinned (missed the mark) and fall short of the glory of God," (Romans 3:23) including themselves! No one who has truly humbled himself or herself, and acknowledged his or her own missing of the mark, can ever point a finger of judgment at someone else.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Me

Now lets get to some stuff they did not address

First romans

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 I made the parts Bold that make it clear, Paul is directly saying men with men and leaving the natural use of women, meaning man being with man not women in sexual sense is not The natural foundation that God had put into place Also some make the argument that to a homosexual going straight is not natural and would be a sin for him to do so and for the heterosexual to homosexual but before they make such a argument, they need  to prove a gay gene.
______________________________________________________________________________
The other New Testament references, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, involve just two Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai. There are many good dissertations on the translations of these words, which are available in bookstores and libraries. For the purpose of this pamphlet, suffice it to say that over the centuries, malakoi has been translated and interpreted in every possible way, from the general term "sexual perverts" to those who masturbate! In Matthew 11:8, malakoi is translated "soft" in reference to clothing, and in the context of other literature, it has even been used in reference to moral weakness. Only recently has the term been translated "homosexual," which is a serious violation of Biblical exegesis. Michael England, in his book, The Bible and Homosexuality, makes note of the fact that in 1 Corinthians 6:9, both malakoi and arsenokoitai are listed separately, and yet, some translators come up with "the entirely unjustified translations which choose to ignore the fact of the two separate words." (P.44) Thus, what the Greek Interlinear translates "voluptuous persons" and the vague term, "sodomite," some translations have rendered the single word, "homosexual." Again, it is extremely important to remember that every seeming reference to homosexuality in the Bible is based solely on interpolation and conjecture, and under no circumstance does the Bible make reference to, or condemn gay men and women who have a sincere desire to live in a committed, loving relationship, professing Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.
______________________________________________________________________________________

Me
Sodomites” (“abusers of themselves with mankind” in the KJV) is a translation of the term arsenokoitai. It derives from two words: arsein (a male) and koitei (a bed), and refers to one who engages in sex with a male as with a female (Thayer, p. 75). Paul used the same term when he wrote to Timothy to discuss certain behaviors that are both “contrary to sound doctrine” and characteristic of the one who is not “a righteous man” (1 Timothy 1:9-10).
As D. Gene West correctly observed regarding Paul’s letter to Timothy:
We can see from the context that homosexual activities are classed with such sins as patricide, matricide, homicide, kidnapping, and perjury. If we accept that any of these things are sins, we must accept that all are sins. If it is a sin to be a whoremonger, to pursue a lascivious life with prostitutes, then it is likewise a sin to engage in homosexual acts. There is no way to escape that conclusion. If it is a sin to murder one’s father, or mother, or some other human being, then it is a sin for both males and females to “cohabitate” (2004).
When Paul said to the Christians at Corinth, “such were some of you,” he proved not only that homosexuals may be forgiven, but that they can cease such sinful activity. Here we have a clear biblical indication that someone can change their sexual orientation, and can be forgiven of a past immoral lifestyle. We are forced to conclude that sexual activity between persons of the same sex is not a matter of genetics; but is a behavioral phenomenon associated largely with environmental factors (see the August 2004 issue of Reason and Revelation)__________________________________________________________________________

FACT: The Bible has several instances of persons of the same gender expressing intimate affection for each other. In fact, the Old Testament story of Jonathan and David tells us that Jonathan loved David "as his own soul," and that when Jonathan’s father, Saul, forced them to separate from each other, they began to weep and in the Hebrew text, "they kissed one another..." (1 Samuel 20:41). Because of modern homophobia, one paraphrase of the Bible has actually taken the license to distort this passage: Completely omitting the original phrase "they kissed" (Heb: nashaq), the publisher substituted it with the words, "they sadly shook hands"!
_______________________________________________________

Me

It is a popular jewish tradition to give each other a kiss, even in the New testament it says greet each other with a holy kiss as a greeting ALSO  the Hebrew word for “love” used here is not the typical word used for sexual activity. This word for “love” has clear political and diplomatic connotations (see 1 Samuel 16:21 and 1 Kings 5:1
http://www.gotquestions.org/David-and-Jonathan.html
______________________________________________________

Another example: The Greek Interlinear of John 13:23-25, reads like this: One of the disciples whom Jesus loved "in the bosom (Gk: kolpos) of Jesus was reclining." (v. 23) and "falling back on the breast (Gk: stethos) of Jesus, that one says to him..." (v. 25)  Could it be because of present-day homophobia that more modern "translations" have violated this passage by TOTALLY ELIMINATING THE GREEK WORDS FOR "BOSOM" AND "BREAST" in the original manuscripts, instead using phrases such as "leaning back against Jesus" (NIV)? Is the thought of a man laying his head on the breast of another man simply too much for them? Right here, before our very eyes, the Biblical literalists have committed a total violation of literal translation. Much to their shame, it is they who are guilty of twisting the Scriptures for their own comfort.
MYTH #6: AIDS is God’s punishment on homosexuality.
FACT: This myth is so inane that it is hardly worthy of response. Anyone who has taken the time to read the morning newspaper knows that AIDS is a world-wide disease, that the majority of those who suffer with AIDS are not homosexual, and that in certain third-world countries, as much as 60 % of the country’s heterosexual and child population is afflicted with AIDS.
____________________________________________________________________________


Me

I think what people mean there no evidence of sexual relationships within the same gender, which there are not.
____________________________________________

The bottom line is we are saved by grace through faith but true faith will produce fruit! Good  fruit! Homosexual is something The Holy spirit will never lead the person in!

http://opendoorcenter.com/myths_&_facts.htm

















Sunday, February 12, 2012

Acts 20:7

I found this article on a site that I go to at times and thought it dealt pretty Good on acts 20:7, I saw nothing to add my self, so I will post it here.


“The First Day of the Week”
by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

All four gospel accounts reveal how Jesus rose (and His tomb was found empty) “on the first day of the week” (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2,9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1; cf. 20:19). Years later, Paul wrote to the Corinthian church commanding them to make regular contributions “on the first day of the week” (1 Corinthians 16:2; or “on the first day of every week”—NASB, NIV, RSV). Luke recorded in the book of Acts how Paul, while on his third missionary journey, assembled with the Christians in Troas “on the first day of the week” (20:7). The phrase “the first day of the week” appears eight times in the most widely used English translations of the New Testament. Based on this reading of the text, along with various supplemental passages (e.g., Revelation 1:10), Christians assemble to worship God on Sunday. Upon looking at the Greek text, however, some have questioned the integrity of the translation “the first day of the week,” wondering if a better wording would be “the Sabbath day.”

Admittedly, a form of the Greek word for sabbath (sabbaton or sabbatou) does appear in each of the eight passages translated “first day of the week.” For example, in Acts 20:7 this phrase is translated from the Greek mia ton sabbaton. However, sabbaton (or sabbatou) is never translated as “the Sabbath day” in these passages. Why? Because the word is used in these contexts (as Greek scholars overwhelmingly agree) to denote a “week” (Perschbacher, 1990, p. 364), “a period of seven days” (Danker, et al., 2000, p. 910; cf. Thayer, 1962, p. 566). Jesus once used the term “Sabbath” in this sense while teaching about the sinfulness of self-righteousness (Luke 18:9). He told a parable of the sanctimonious Pharisee who prayed: “God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess” (18:11-12, emp. added). The phrase “twice a week” comes from the Greek dis tou sabbatou. Obviously Jesus was not saying that the Pharisee boasted of fasting twice on the Sabbath day, but twice (dis) a week (tou sabbatou).

According to R.C.H. Lenski, since “[t]he Jews had no names for the weekdays,” they “designated them with reference to their Sabbath” (1943, p. 1148). Thus, mia ton sabbaton means “the first (day) with reference to the Sabbath,” i.e., the first (day) following the Sabbath (Lenski, p. 1148), or, as we would say in 21st century English, “the first day of the week.”

After spending years examining Jewish writings in the Babylonian Talmud, Hebraist John Lightfoot wrote A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, in which he expounded upon the Hebrew method of counting the days of the week. He noted: “The Jews reckon the days of the week thus; One day (or the first day) of the sabbath: two (or the second day) of the sabbath;” etc. (1859, 2:375, emp. in orig.). Lightfoot then quoted from two different Talmud tractates. Maccoth alludes to those who testify on “the first of the sabbath” about an individual who stole an ox. Judgment was then passed the following day—“on the second day of the sabbath” (Lightfoot, 2:375, emp. in orig.; Maccoth, Chapter 1). Bava Kama describes ten enactments ordained by a man named Ezra, including the public reading of the law “on the second and fifth days of the sabbath,” and the washing of clothes “on the fifth day of the sabbath” (Lightfoot, 2:375; Bava Kama, Chapter 7). In Michael Rodkinson’s 1918 translation of Maccoth and Bava Kama, he accurately translated “the second day of the sabbath” as Monday, “the fifth day of the sabbath” as Thursday, and “the first of the sabbath” as Sunday.

If the word sabbaton in passages such as Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, and Acts 20:7 actually denoted “the Sabbath day,” rather than “a period of seven days,” one would expect some of the foremost Bible translations to translate it thusly. Every major English translation of the Bible, however, translates mia ton sabbaton as “the first day of the week.” Why? Because scholars are aware of the Jewish method of counting the days of the week by using the Sabbath as a reference point.

Finally, consider the difficulty that would arise with Jesus’ resurrection story if sabbaton was translated Sabbath. “Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. Very early in the morning, on the first Sabbath (sabbaton), they came to the tomb when the sun had risen” (emp. added). Such a rending of sabbaton in Mark 16:2 would be nonsensical. The Sabbath was over, and the mia ton sabbaton (“first day of the week”) had begun. The passage is understood properly only when one recognizes the Jewish method of reckoning weekdays.

Just as second century apologists Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 150) spoke of Jesus as rising from the dead “on the first day after the Sabbath” (Dialogue..., 41), and equated this day with “Sunday” (“First Apology,” 67), so should 21st century Christians. That Jesus rose from the dead “on the first day of the week” (Mark 16:9), and that Christians gathered to worship on this day (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; cf. Justin Martyr, “First Apology,” 67), is an established fact. Sunday is the first day after the Jewish Sabbath—the “first day of the week.”


http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=2022

I thought this article nail it on the head

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Is Sunday keeping from paganism?

RALPH AND ARLENE WOODROW
P.O. BOX 21
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-0021 February 1999
DID SUNDAY WORSHIP
COME FROM PAGANISM?
There are many Christians—not only those who
meet on Saturday, but many who attend church
on Sunday—who assume that Sunday observance
originally came from paganism. The basic idea is this:
Sunday was the established day of rest, the weekly
holiday in the pagan world. On this day each week,
the Romans, Greeks, and other pagans, gathered in
temples to worship their pagan gods, particularly the
Sun-god—hence the term Sun-day. Later, when these
pagans professed Christianity, they gradually brought
the overwhelmingly popular practice of meeting on
Sunday into the “Church.”
The teaching that Sunday worship “came from
paganism” has been so often repeated, it may come as
a surprise when I tell you this teaching has no basis
in fact. It is misinformation. If I can show you—and I
believe I can—that Sunday was not a day of rest and
worship among pagans, then it should be quite clear
that the practice of Christians meeting on Sunday, the
fi rst day of the week, did not come from this source.
In the New Testament, “the fi rst day of the week”
is mentioned eight times. These references do not give
any information about whether or not the fi rst day of
the week—Sunday—was a day of rest and worship
among pagans. For this we will need to look into history.
In doing so, suppose we were to contact highly
qualifi ed historians—at great centers of learning like
the British Museum, the Smithsonian Institute, and
Harvard University—and ask them if Sunday was a
weekly holiday in the pagan world. Surely their answers
would be weighty.
Well, this has already been done—by D. M. Canright,
a Seventh-Day Adventist minister. He sincerely
believed Sunday worship came from pagan-ism—this
teaching had been passed on to him by equally sincere
people. But when he began to look into the subject
more fully, he came to a different conclusion. It was
at this time—back in 1913-1914—that he contacted
these great centers of learning we have men-tioned.
He carefully avoided giving any idea of his own views
or purpose in writing, so as not to infl uence answers
in any way. The responses he received (which I have
abridged slightly because of space limitations) are
as follows:
From the world renowned British Museum in
London, England, Department of Greek and Roman
Antiquities:
Sir:
I am commanded by the Assistant Keeper of Greek
and Roman Antiquities to reply as follows to your
questions on the ancient week:
Question 1: Did the pagan Romans and Greeks ever
have any regular weekly day of rest from secular
work?
Answer: No.
Question 2: Did they have any regular weekly
festival day?
Answer: No.
Question 3: Did they have any regular weekly day
when they assembled for pagan worship?
Answer: No.
Question 4: Did they have any special day of the
week when individuals went to the temples to pray
or make offerings?
Answer: No; both for Greeks and Romans the month
was the unit and not the week. The Greek calendar
varied in different states but the month was generally
divided into three periods of ten days. The Romans
reckoned from three fi xed points in the month,
the Kaleend or fi rst, the Nones fi fth or seventh, the
Ides thirteenth or fi fteenth. These subdivisions in
themselves had no religious signifi cance. Also in the
Roman calendars were nundinal, or market days, at
periods of eight days. On these days farm work, etc.,
stopped and citizens fl ocked into the town markets.
To some extent this may be a regular stoppage of
secular work; but it had no religious signifi cance.
Question 5: As Sunday was sacred to the Sun, Monday
to the Moon, Saturday to Saturn, etc., were those
supposed deities worshipped on their own particular
days more than on any other days?
Answer: No; the old worship of the gods was disappearing
when the seven-day week came about. The
signifi cance of the deities’ names was astrological,
not religious, e.g., if a person were born on Monday,
the moon would infl uence his horoscope, but the
moon was never an object of common worship.
Question 6: When was our week of seven days fi rst
introduced into the Roman calendar?
Answer: There are traces in the literature of the late
republic (fi rst century B. C.) that the Romans used
the week of seven days for astrological purposes, in
connection with the many Eastern superstitions of
the period. It was probably the third century, A. D.
before the seven day week came into common use.
Question 7: From whom did the Romans learn the
week of seven days?
Answer: From the Jews, alternately the Assyrians
and Babylonians; the names were probably fi xed by
the Hellenistic Greeks.
Question 8: Did the pagan Greeks ever adopt in
common life, or in their calendar, the week of seven
days?
Answer: No.
Question 9: Did Apollo, the Sun-god, either among
the Romans or Greeks, have any special day on which
he was worshipped with prayers or offerings more
than on any other day?
Answer: There were certain set festivals at various
temples; these were annual, not weekly.
Question 10: Did the pagan reverence for Sunday
have anything to do in infl uencing Christians to
select that day as their rest day?
Answer: No; it can hardly be said that there
was any special reverence for Sunday in pagan
times (see answer to Number 5).
—I am, sir, Your obedient servant, F. N.
PRYCE.
Concerning this response, Canright says: “You
see this historian gives an unqualifi ed NO to all the
questions. Notice particularly that the names of the
days of the week were all only astrological, not religious.
There was no religious sacredness attached
to a day because it was named after some planet as
Sun-day—Sun’s day—or Monday, Moon’s day, etc. The
sun was not worshipped on Sunday, nor the moon
on Monday, nor Saturn on Saturday, etc. Also notice
carefully that Apollo was not worshipped on Sunday...
his festival days were annual, not weekly.”
From the Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C.,
Canright received the following response to similar
questions:
Question 1: Did the pagan Romans and Greeks ever
have any regular weekly day of rest from secular
work?
Answer: No.
Question 2: Did they ever have any weekly festival
day?
Answer: No.
Question 3: Did they have any regular weekly day
when they assembled for pagan worship?
Answer: No.
Question 4: When was our calendar of the week fi rst
introduced among the Romans and Greeks?
Answer: The division of the month into weeks
was introduced into Rome from Egypt. The date is
uncertain, but it was not earlier than the second
century, A. D.
Question 5: When was our calendar of the week
fi rst recognized in Roman law?
Answer: The earliest Sunday legislation was enacted
under Constantine I, 321 A.D. No legislation of
earlier date on the division of the month is known.
Question 6: As each day of the week was dedicated
to some god, as Sunday to the Sun, Monday to the
Moon, Saturday to Saturn, etc., was each of these
supposed deities worshipped on one particular day
more than any other day?
Answer: No.
Question 7: Did the pagan Romans have any one
special day in the week when individuals, if they
chose, went to make prayers or offerings to their
gods?
Answer: No.
Question 8: Did Apollo have any special day in the
week or month more than any other day when he
was worshipped with prayers or offerings?
Answer: No.
—Very truly yours, R. RATHBORN.
Canright addressed the same questions to George F.
Moore, Professor of Ancient Roman and Greek History,
at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Here was his response:
There are two seven-day weeks: the Jewish week,
with a Sabbath on the seventh day; and the Astrological
week, with days named after the sun, moon,
and fi ve planets, in our order determined by the
theories of astrology, but without any day of rest....
The Astrological week fi rst appears in Greek and
Latin writings about the beginning of the Christian
era….It had no use in ordinary life. Abstinence from
labor on the seventh day, or on one day in seven, is
a distinctively Jewish institution.
The edict of Constantine (321 A.D.) closing the courts
on Sunday and prohibiting some kinds of labor on that
day, is the first recognition of a seven-day week in
Roman law. The ancient Romans had a market day
every eight days, when the peasants came to town
to market, but it was in no sense a day of rest. In
the old Roman calendar there were many days when
the courts were closed and other public and private
business was not done. They had also many festivals
on which the people left their ordinary occupation
to take part in the celebrations, but these have no
periodicity like that of the week….
The planetary week in which the days were named
from their regents, Saturday, Sunday, etc., was an invention
of the astrologers, probably in the second century,
B. C., and has no relation to religion or infl uence
upon it. Saturn, for example, was not worshipped on
Saturday, nor Jupiter on Thursday. The festivals of
the several gods were never weekly festivals. Private
persons went to the temples when they had occasion
to offer prayers or sacrifi ces or to make vows, etc.
There were no stated days for such visits—though
some days were in some temples luckier than others,
and there was nothing like a stated day for the
assembling of a worshipping con-gregation except
the festivals of the local calendar.
—Very truly yours, GEORGE F. MOORE.
The following response was from Professor W. H.
Westerman of the University of Wisconsin, Madison,
Wisconsin:
Dear Sir: I shall answer your questions briefl y, and
in the order in which you sent them.
1. The pagan Greeks and Romans never had a weekly
day of rest.
2. They never had a weekly holiday or festival day.
3. They never had a special day in the week on which
they made offerings or prayers to heathen gods. (Neither
the pagan Greeks nor the Romans recognized a
seven-day division or week division in the month.)
4. They made no offerings or prayers on Sunday to
their gods any more than on other days.
5. The seven-day period of dividing the month or the
week was never adopted into the calendar of the pagan
Greeks. It appears in the Roman calendar after
the time of Theodosius, or after 391 A.D., but the
week, or seven-day period, fi rst appears in Roman
law in a constitution of Constantine, promulgated
in 321 A. D.
In the constitution of Constantine, which spoke of
the “venerable day of the sun,” Constantine regards
Sunday as venerable undoubtedly from the Christian
standpoint…If it was in any way venerable or a
holiday to the pagans, so far as my information goes,
the pagans must have adopted the practice from the
Christians.
Apollo was not worshipped on any stated day of the
week or month more than any other. I do not believe
that there is any proof that the early Christians were
led to observe Sunday by the example of any pagan
worship upon that day.
–Very Sincerely yours, W. H. WESTERMAN.
These same basic points were confi rmed in a letter
Canright received from J. W. Moncrieff, Professor at
the University of Chicago, who went on to say that
the notion Sunday was a weekly holiday among the
Romans is simply not true—that “reliable, competent
historians, with one accord proclaim this notion to be
a myth, pure and simple.…I have consulted sixteen
encyclopedias and dictionaries, and they differ in no
essential detail in their treatment of the subject.”
These statements from men who have devoted considerable
time to the study of history are weighty. As
historians they could provide answers without any
need to uphold, or deny, a doctrinal position. And
they answered independently of each other. Two other
university Professors referred Canright to the book
Roman Festivals by Fowler. This book, though it describes
many Roman festivals, says absolutely nothing
about any weekly day of rest or worship. Wouldn’t this
be a strange omission, if indeed Sunday had been their
national holiday—the day they assembled every week
to worship the Sun-god? Obviously this was not the
case! Schaff, in his Church History, says: “The pagan
Romans paid no more regard to the Christian Sunday
than to the Jewish Sabbath.”
The Roman Calendar at the time of Christ and the
founding of the Christian church, was divided into
months, not weeks—that feature was added later. The
Encyclopedia Americana, article “Week,” says: “The
Romans and Greeks…were not acquainted with the
week till a late period. The Romans had, however,
for civil uses, as the arrangement of market days,
a cycle of eight days, the ninth being the recurring
one, instead of the eighth as with us.” Accordingly,
their days were: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, then 1, 2, 3, etc.
Whereas, with a seven day week, the days are: 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, then 1, 2, 3, etc.
Now this should be carefully noticed. IF pagans
gathered on the fi rst day of the week to worship
Apollo, Mithra, or some other Sun-god, this would not
correspond, week after week, to what we call Sunday.
For example: Suppose our calendar had eight days in
a week (instead of seven), and we met for Christian
worship at seven day intervals. This would require a
change of day each week! If we met the fi rst week on
Saturday, seven days later we would meet on Friday.
Seven days later we would meet on Thursday. Seven
days later we would meet on Wednesday, etc. There
is simply no way that the fi rst day—of an eight-day
cycle—will consistently correspond with the fi rst day
of a seven-day cycle. This cries out in a loud voice,
then, that the pagan Romans did not observe what
we call Sunday as a weekly sacred day!
The edict of Constantine, A. D. 321, was the very
fi rst time in Roman law that Sunday was set aside
as a holiday. It is pretty obvious then, isn’t it, that
Sunday had not been the pagan national holiday of
the Roman empire before this time!
There are some—atheists, agnostics, etc.—who try
to discredit Christianity by fi nding parallels in pagan
religions. They argue that Christianity, in its entirety,
was adopted from paganism. They do this by citing a
few similarities while ignoring vast differences. Often,
what may appear to be pagan is not pagan at all,
when it is studied out completely. Our present subject
provides a good example of this. Because the fi rst day
of the week is called “Sunday,” all someone has to
say is that this was the day each week when pagans
gathered to worship the Sun-god, and people believe
it. From here it is only another step for someone to
claim the practice of Christians meeting on Sunday
came from pagan sun worship!
Some Christian groups have spent millions of dollars
promoting the idea that Sunday worship came
from paganism. Some believe that in the end-time all
Christians will be forced to worship on Sunday—that
this will tie in with the mark of the Beast! I believe,
from my studies over the years, these claims are seriously
fl awed. It is my opinion that there are issues
of greater importance—but I am not throwing stones
at anyone! I accept as Christians all who know Jesus
Christ as Lord—those who love him and whose lives
have been changed by him—regardless of denominational
tag. Over the years, I have had the opportunity
to speak for many churches and groups—including
those who meet on Saturday, as well as many who
meet on Sunday. I have fi ne friends and pastors, for
whom I have the highest regard, in both camps.
In this article I have purposely tried to keep the
focus on the question, “Did Sunday Worship Come
From Paganism?”—without branching out into other
details and issues. For the reasons I have briefl y
stated here, I must reject the idea that Sunday was
a well-established, popular, weekly holiday in the
pagan world—so popular that church leaders gave in
to the pressure, rebelled against God, and adopted it
as the day for Christian worship. How could Sunday
worship have come from paganism, when Sunday was
never a pagan holiday?
—RALPH WOODROW

I Guess The pagan charge, holds no water

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Spirit of hate and the westboro baptist church

The westboro baptist is group of people who claim to be Christian that shows all their hate that they have for homosexuals and for jews, Catholics, pretty much anyone who does not share their viewpoint.

The group is not christian but a cult who using the bible as a cover up tool for their hareful actions against others. The group show the basic signs of the cult by not letting it members have a mind of their own and people not allowing to have disagreement without the fear of being kick out out of the church or even their own family, scripture can only be understand through the leader of the church or so called church means. Those are the basic signs of a cult but now lets go with what they teach or say.

One of their songs is God hates the world and all her children and everyone going to burn etc.. First off this go against what they believe because they say they will be saved at the same time everyone will burn which those shows they cannot have a stable belief system.

They go around and say God hates homosexuals jews etc... and say they will burn in hell at the same time they say their message is message of repentence, but how can you expect someone to repent at the same time telling them there no hope for you? they cannot and will not and that what satan wants people to think NOT GOD.

What does the new testament have to say on matter of the wicked?

Luke 6:35 (King James Version)

35But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

Get that we are to lend a helping hand and to love our enemies and just how God is kind to evil people we should also be. The Thing is this group does not love homosexuals and certain other sects of Christianity and other races of people, they show pretty clear they not only hate sin but also the person. They do not have the mind of Christ at all and never will unless THEY REPENT of their self-righteous.

When Jesus walk the earth he held sinners as his company and sat down with them etc... also healed the lame blind death raise the dead etc... and these were sinners also as the scripture says we all had sinned and came short of the glory of God but even thou the people jesus was with were sinners jesus still had companion on Them.

The religious leaders of the day criticize jesus for having sinners as His company and you can bet Jesus did not hold signs saying God hates you but taught that Our God is God of love and at the same time not compromising the issue of repentance and faith etc.. no because jesus did that all in a loving way.

I wonder if put a homosexual or jew and a catholic in the westboro church would they get a warm greeting from the westboro church? I do not think so I mean they have signs like pray for more deal soldiers which means they Actually want people to go to hell and not heaven which again is characteristic of satan not God. jesus would be calling this group vipers that shut up the kingdom of God.

I remember watching a clip on youtube that had an elderly women son that died in the war and a British guy has an interview with 3 of their members and they were laughing and smiley because he was dead! does this sound Christ like and what does scripture say?

Ezekiel 18:32

For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!

but with all westboro church laughing and smiley, giving praise to God with ever disaster that comes on mankind or death, they sure do take pleasure.

The group uses their free right of speech which and uses there right to praise God in the way they like and at the same time hate soldiers that die every day given them that right! what does that sounds like to you? They hold down normals jobs in which if they have a normal job pay taxes and support the very government they hate!

If Jesus was here he would condemn Them for their hate and NOT reaching out to others in Love for they can have life abundance with the Lord.

Where is the gospel in their hate? where is the promise of

ohn 10:10 (King James Version)

10The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

?

westboro baptist church has no problem judging others and now it time for theirs and what scriptrue says.

Matthew 7:19 (New International Version, ©2010)

19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

The Spirit of hatred can never bear good fruits for hating your enemies bears bad fruit.

Update to add to this article I thought would be good as I psoted this on face book is

also would add The fact that homosexuality is sin like any other sin as adultery anger hatred stealing etc... and if God did hate the person because of their sin then really God hated ALL of us because no one is born a christian and wants... us to die because as they say God is your enemy but i do not believe that.

The scriptures say The wagers of sin is death but The gift of life is Jesus Christ.

The Thing is this group needs before going picketing others sins need to look in themself am I so perfect that I make self out to be do I not also sin at times? do I need to repent of my self-righteousness attitude?

James 3:8 (New International Version, ©2010)

8 but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

James is pretty Clear it is impossible to be perfect in this life time and i think the west boro needs to look into there self before pointing others sins out.

Jesus said before going to pick the saw dust out of someone eye take out the plank that is in yours.

If the westboro church thinks homosexuals should die because of their sin or be executed then they need to be also excuted They to are not without sin and DOES NOT MATTER WHAT SIN YOUR GUILTY OF BECAUSE ALL SIN LEADS TO SPIRITUAL DEATH.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

What day did Jesus die on? wednesday thursday or friday?

I had read many arguments for all sides but i have to say The friday view takes the cake. I had read many debates and had many debates my self but instead of typing out this article I just going to leave the Link I mean what else could I add? this link covers it all.

http://biblelight.net/pasover.htm#

But I will post these scriptrues

Luke 13:31 The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee.
Luke 13:32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.
Luke 13:33 Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.

Even Jesus used inclusive reckening time and it did not matter what part of the day it was to Jesus but the very same day Today was counting as day One not the day after as western time keeps.

Monday, December 6, 2010

ceremonial law moral etc...?

There are some who have an agenda to someone take col 2:16 out of it context. There are some who teach it is referring to The ceremonial Law ( law of moses and not   including The 10 commandments some calling the law of God.


First off one must understand No writer in the holy bible ever used phrases as The ceremonial law or moral etc... Nor they refer to The law into parts but Always as One unit! Look at paul letters if you do not believe me. The scriptures say in James if you break one point of The Law then you break all which ALL is referring to The Law in the whole not splints or parts.

Some had tried to reason that sabbaths in col 2:16 is The yearly sabbaths but paul already refer to Them by calling them festivals  which were called Sabbaths also appointing times so we know it is referring to The weekly sabbath.


Some had tried to say since Sabbaths is  plural it cannot be the weekly sabbath but what they fail to understand even the weekly sabbath is refer to in the plural in scriptures which are...
  1. Matthew 28:1, "Now after the Sabbath" [Greek- plural: sabbaton]
  2. Luke 4:16, "He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath" [Greek- plural: sabbaton]
  3. Acts 16:13, "And on the Sabbath day" [Greek- plural: sabbaton]
  4. Exodus 20:8 (in Septuagint) "Remember the Sabbath day" [Greek- plural: sabbaton]
  5. Leviticus 23:37-38 (in Septuagint) "besides those of the Sabbaths of the Lord" [Greek- plural: sabbaton]
What about The Law of Moses and  law of God? are they any different? well Nope! The scriptures used both as The same!


  1. The 10 commandments are called the Law of Moses:
Mk 7:9-10 For Moses said, "Honor your father and your mother"
When you read the 10 commandments, you read Moses: 2 Corinthians 3:3,15
Law of Moses is the law given at Horeb (10 commandments): Malachi 4:4 Remember the law of Moses My servant, even the statutes and ordinances which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel.
Law of Moses included everything God commanded: 1 Kings 2:3

One will deal with One more thing and then I just leave the site where i got my info but disclaimer I do not agree with everything they say on that site.

Are The 10 commandments laws decrees ordinances? people that believe in The distinction between cereimonal law and The 10 would say no but is this biblical?

Look at these verses

Deut 5:1 The Ten commandments are called "My statures and all My ordinances"
Ezekiel 20:19-21 The weekly Sabbath is called "My statures and all My ordinances"
Mal 4:4 Book closes with a call to keep "statutes and ordinances" which obviously include the 10 commandments because it would be unthinkable for such a doxology to leave them out completely!
Neh 9:13-14 the weekly Sabbath is included without distinction: "right judgments, true laws, good statutes, commandments"
Lev 19:1-37 The Ten commandments and the ceremonial law are mixed together without distinction and called "My statures and all My ordinances"
Deut 5:1-6:25: Two whole chapters that deal exclusively with the 10 commandments and the following 5 terms are used interchangeably without distinction: "statutes", "ordinances", "commandments", "judgments", "testimonies".
Lev 23 The Weekly Sabbath is lumped in with all the yearly Sabbaths without distinction and they are all called "The Lord’s appointed times" and "holy convocations".
Ezek 20 calls the first and fourth commandment, My statutes and My ordinances:
Neh 8 uses interchangeably without distinction, the following terms: "the book of the law of Moses", "the law", "the book of the law", "the law of God", "book of the law of God" and includes

Another Thing I my self would point out The invention of spiting The law into parts came long after Jesus and the apostles around 1000 years or more after.

We can see The scriptures do teach that the !0 commandments is apart of The Law of moses and people who argue different need to re-look at the verses that they used for their arguments.

Please visit The Link for a more in depth information on this topic.
This article would of not been possible without The Help of this site.

http://www.bible.ca/7-2laws.htm

The Truth is distinction between The laws is a man made concept.


Update!

I forgot something important if you look at this verse

Eph 2:15 proves the 10 commandments are abolished!
"by abolishing [Strongs #2673] in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. " (Ephesians 2:15-16)

Notice The Law and it called commandments? One and the same! commandments or ordinances! also to add The fact the bible calls The tablets of stone a ministry of death and compare that to col 2:14!