NOTE: Dr. Carl Bridges Jr. wrote a book entitled Gay Rights or Wrongs endorsed and sanctioned by the Christian Coalition, a copy of which was sent to me to disprove my insistence that Christ never said homosexuality was wrong. This is my reply to the gross errors and concocted untruths contained in his book.

To begin with, I'm not saying John the Baptist was in fact a homosexual. God has revealed there are no homosexuals or for that matter, there are no heterosexuals either. God revealed that He created one man with the capacity to love and of being loved.

The Apostle John wrote,

1 John 4:8

He that loveth (sic) not knoweth (sic) not God; for God is love.

I have no knowledge or evidence that John the Baptist, at any point in his life, had sex with either a man or a woman. However, because some are unwilling to accept the fact and understand that there are mistranslated errors in the Bible, I merely use the antichrists own translations to show them the error of their ways and tenants they profess calling them to repentance!

In the course of reviewing Chapter 8 & 9 only, I read that Dr. Bridges insists the translation of the Greek word "malakos," the word used by Saul of Tarsus (aka "apostle" Paul) in 1 Corinthians 6:9, denotes and identifies a "passive homosexual." Unbeknownst to Dr. Carl Bridges, "malakos" was the same word, used by Christ, to describe John the Baptist in Matthew 11:8 ¶ "But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft (malakos) raiment? behold, they that wear soft (malakos) [clothing] are in kings' houses." The word malakos, in this case, must therefore, also be translated to mean the effeminate, passive male in a homosexual sex act or in other words, the person who is penetrated, according to Mr. Bridges' definition. Mr. Bridges and the "Christian" (debatable) Coalition will undoubtedly contest the application of their translation saying that in John the Baptist's case, it doesn't mean that but they can't have it both ways.

The entire five page letter is copied below but to quickly find the material on John the Baptist, do a [Find] or [Search] for "John the Baptist."
 

20 March 1997

Christian Coalition CBN Center Virginia Beach, VA 23463

Attn: Pat Robertson/Ralph Reed & Heather Craig

Re: Internet Communiqué with Heather Craig and submitted text, chapters 8 & 9 of Gay Rights or Wrongs by Dr. Carl Bridges, Jr.

Dear Sir:

I appreciate the material you sent, referenced above and I was pleased to read that Dr. Bridges at least considered the scripture Isaiah 1:9-10, Jeremiah 23:14 and Ezekiel 16:49 and the works of Dr. Sherwin Bailey. I'm not quite finished reading the material but feel it incumbent upon me to communicate my initial findings and misgivings of his thesis.

This is my initial impressions and reaction after having read half of the material. I see so many intellectual abuses such as inundating the reader with fraudulent references plus factual and interpretive errors and inaccuracies, I am unable to comment on each one of them. However, I'll try to cover a summary and an overview of the most egregious and flagrant errors and abuses.

I pray that the Spirit of God might be with me so I will write this in such a manner that you are not offended but it causes you and Mr. Bridges to do more research after getting down on your hands and knees and pray for the Spirit of God to make known the truth of these things to you.

Its obvious that Dr. Bridges is not impressed by Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel or the host of other ancient prophets who wrote of the true sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. Why take their word for it? Besides just being God's spokesman on earth, they were merely contemporaries of the destruction and devastation of those cities. A man living 6,000 years after the event and thousands of mile away, knows more than a Prophet of God and contemporary of the time.

True to your cause, your greed for money, power and hegemony over all of mankind, mankind is better served if you discount the prophets as ill informed, writing about something else, or flatly erroneously mistranslated. Of course, of the later you don't dare come right out and say because you base your faith on the ability for thousands of men -- not prophets of God -- can "translate" (more a revision than a former translation) more than a thousand times and still produce an "inerrant Word of God." I'm sorry for you. My faith allows God's word to be received by the Israelites, Arabs, Orientals, essentially by all man, for man to error and for God to still be God. With the Spirit of God, I'm intelligent enough to be able to make my own decisions. I don't need someone to tell me a book has no error when I can identify thousand, or that I have to believe something as it is written because there is no error, according to mindless infidels.

I was pleased that Dr. Bridges at least considered the ancient prophets before flatly discounting and refuting them all as "ill-informed wackos." After all, who should we trust? A renowned -- at least to the "Christian" (??) Coalition -- Doctor of something who stands to make millions accusing his mortal neighbor and spiritual brother of "crimes against nature?" Or should we trust a prophet of God who has no other ax to grind than to serve God? The choice is very clear! The "Christian" (??) Coalition wants man to ignore the prophets and trust their "renowned Doctor" -- medical or Ph.D. -- of something.

Dr. Bridges disputes Dr. Sherwin Bailey's findings. Fine! That is his right! Dr. Bailey was just using his intellect and best judgment to understand several greatly misunderstood scripture. It is also his right to refute, condemn and ignore the prophets, but at his own peril. It is when he seeks to receive "ill-gotten-gains," by promoting and condoning defamation and murder of his brethren for following the spirit of God's manifestation to that individual, that God will ignore the cries from the graves no longer and will send his
servants in to defend the defenseless.

As I said, it is Dr. Bridges right to dispute the findings of Dr. Bailey. But to also refute Dr. Norman Pittenger, Chairperson of the Religious Department of King College, Cambridge; Father John J. McNeil Ph.D.; Father Daniel A. Helminiak Ph.D.; Rector Robert Warren Cromey; my favorite Dr. John Boswell who received his Ph.D. at 21, was a Woodrow Wilson and Fulbright scholar, is the A. Whitney Griswold professor at Yale University and has a working command of 10 languages; the Catholic Theological Society of America; Flavius Josephus' work "Antiquities I"; and Judaeus Philo's work entitled "Works"? It appears Dr. Bridges is a hired gun standing against the world of religious and scholarly academia.

In his book, Dr. Bridges provides his theory and interpretation of Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 as if it is applicable any longer despite Christ's saying that He fulfilled the law. What does the word "fulfill" mean to Mr. Bridges?

In his book, Dr. Bridges also provides his theory and interpretation of Romans 1:24-27, of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 as "Apostle" Paul's (Saul of Tarsus') condemnation of homosexuality even though the word "homosexual" didn't exist even to the even the homoerotic Greeks during the 1st Century A.D. [What really makes me question Dr. Bridges credentials is that he appears to be unaware that the word "homosexual" and for that matter "heterosexual" didn't exist before the 1890's.] Be that as it may, I refuse to subject the Word of God to a proverbial infantile "pissing match" seeing whose mortal expert can pee furthermost, your hired gun Dr. Bridges or the slew of the mortal experts on God's side, e.g. Dr. Sherwin Bailey, Dr. Norman Pittenger, Dr. John J McNeil, Dr. Daniel A. Helminiak, Rector Robert Warren Cromey, Dr. John Boswell, Flavius Josephus or Judaeus Philo.

As I said, the debate over what Saul of Tarsus did or did not write really boils down to an academic infantile pissing match until you consider the word of God which by your own edict, you MUST follow, adhere to, and abide by, unless of course you are willing to deny Christ. Then it wouldn't make any difference and you can deny anything you don't like because you'd be an antichrist!

To save time and space, I commend you refer to:

THE TWELVE APOSTLES

WAS PAUL REALLY AN APOSTLE

WAS JOHN THE BAPTIST HOMOSEXUAL?

WAS "APOSTLE" PAUL BISEXUAL?

The simple and undeniable fact borne out in the three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and John was that Saul of Tarsus, who is the only person who referred to himself as "Apostle" Paul, was not a bonafide, ordained Apostle and had no authority to make "new or old doctrine" for Christ's Church, especially when Christ said himself, that he fulfilled the Law of Moses -- by the way, why wasn't it called the Law of God or the Law of Jehovah -- and reaffirmed only two laws Christians were responsible for observing (not the 613 plus laws the Israelites had to obey under the law of Moses).

Christ called twelve apostles! Why twelve and not 13, 14,15, 24 or better still 36 or 48? Judas of Iscariot betrayed Christ and committed suicide. Remember or would you like the scriptural reference? Twelve apostles minus one apostle leaves -- now this is a toughie so be careful, right -- eleven! Who does it say in Acts 1:26 was chosen, ordained ad numbered with the other eleven apostles? Very good! Matthias! Now another toughie! A real toughie! Twelve (12) minus (-) one (1) plus (+) one (1) equals (=) how many? Wow! You are smarter than I gave you credit for being.

Ecclesiastically, that's what is referred to as a "full quorum of 12 Apostles."

Enter Saul of Tarsus. He says he receives a vision from Christ and I'm hardly one to dispute the workings of God. Saul of Tarsus, was a Benjaminite not a Jew but that gets into another discussion. For the sake of argument lets say he was a Jew. Saul of Tarsus was a Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin, on the
road to Damascus to persecute the Christians when he was miraculously converted.

Saul of Tarsus was hardly a seasoned Christian or had he walked the earth with Christ and the Apostles preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. He was what the Christian missionaries I was associated with once called a "green-bean" or in today's vernacular, a "newbie." Educated in Greece and not just a mere fisherman, Saul of Tarsus was a very prolific writer with a great command of Hebrew and Greek, so I imagine he was either assigned or he took it upon himself to write to the members of the church admonishing them to hang in there and stay true to the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the face of the hatred, ridicule and abuse heaped on them by their brothers and sisters, the other Jews!

We know that Corinth was likened to the modern day Tijuana as far as anything, from bestiality to bondage, torture and even murder was okeh to gratify sexual lust and fantasies! Rome was into practicing pagan idol worshipping from the word go. Something Mr. Bridges failed to understand, let alone study, was that the Jews, although not as much as everyone else, were inclined to pagan idolatry since they were set free from Egypt. The pagans engaged in what was known as "fertility worship." This was a glorified sanctioning and hiring of a prostitute, having sex, getting ones rocks off and have that act not only condoned by but blessed by their god. Damn, that was better than going out Saturday nights and having sex then going to church Sundays and praying for crop failure! The only drawback, I believe you had to hire a temple prostitute from the temple and you couldn't bring your own. Temple prostitutes were predominately heterosexual but if you were willing to fork over enough dinero (money for those who don't speak Spanish) homosexuality was not out of the question.

Saul of Tarsus wrote to the members of Christ's church in Ephesus, Corinth, Rome and other cities admonishing the members to endure to the end. Saul of Tarsus was a devout convert and follower of Jesus Christ. In the first century A.D. it was a common practice to refer to a devout follower; a passionate adherent; a strong supporter as an Apostle. The word Apostle comes from the Old English apostol, and from Old French apostle, both from Late Latin apostolus, which came from Greek apostolos meaning messenger from; apostellein to send off, apo- apo- stellein to send. Technically anyone sent forth as a messenger is an Apostle even down to your garden variety missionary. They are sent forth with a message from someone but I know Christ didn't call, set apart and ordain 12 specific people as Apostles and gave them authority over his Church to allow just any Tom, Dick or Harry to enunciate and make binding doctrine for His Church. This is even heresy to the Catholic Church. They would not allow just any priest or missionary to make binding doctrine for the church. Even you would not permit just any member of your coalition to make binding doctrine or policy for the entire coalition. But that is just what you're proposing by allowing Saul of Tarsus' greatly misunderstood and grossly mistranslated letters to the Romans, Corinthian and to Timothy to make new doctrine for Christ's church.

I have no degree in theology or a relevant language so I have no credibility with Mr. Bridges. Saul of Tarsus was educated in Greece and was the Antichrist but  the Apostles of God were uneducated fishermen! God does not require someone to have an advanced degree conferred on him by man, however, God does ask the person to free his of her mind of preconceived prejudices and tenants held by man. For what it is worth, God says that Mr. Bridges is right in that the men of Sodom and Gomorrah went to Lot's house because they were desirous of homosexual sex with, not so much angels because they didn't know the strangers were angels, but with the strangers because they were pleasing and very fair. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were thinking of gang raping the strangers if the strangers didn't want to have sex with them. Mr. Bridges got so close to the truth but then he backed away and didn't just fall off the proverbial cliff, he leaped off head first trying to prove the contention he states over and over trying to psyche reader into also believing it, "...of how much God hates homosexual behavior," Mr. Bridges fails to providing one iota of substantiation except the mistranslated scripture influenced by Satan.

If God hates homosexual behavior, please, I'm sure that such a renowned "scholar" as "Dr." Carl Bridges claims he is, can provide me one scripture in which Christ condemned homosexuality! Or does Mr. Carl Bridges suffer from the "Saul of Tarsus Syndrom." A fraud, a liar and an antichrist?

Rape is wrong because it violates the raped persons right and ability to make a conscious choice. Therefore, rape is inhospitable and a violation of the Law of Hospitality enunciated by Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

For those of you who might be initially offended over the possibility of Satan influencing the translation of the Bible, ask yourselves this question then answer yourself: Is it possible for God to mislead man, to influence error and to mistranslate a word, sentence or paragraph? You emphatically say "NO!" You believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God and deny there are any mistranslations in the Bible. Fine! Follow this:

1) Mr. Bridges just affirmed that Christ called John the Baptist a homosexual. In the above book page 150, Mr. Bridges states that the writers of the New Testament used the Greek word, malakoi to mean the passive "soft" or "effeminate" partner "who plays the female role with another man." This is contrary to other experts of the language and time but I'll concede this to point Mr. Bridges.

In Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25, Jesus Christ said speaking of John the Baptist, asked the Jews, "What did you go out into the desert to see, when you saw John the Baptist: a man dressed in soft (malakos or effeminately homosexual) clothing/raiment?"

That is inerrant because according to the "renowned scholar" Mr. Bridges, this is the same word used by Saul of Tarsus writing in Corinthians and Timothy to refer to homosexual behavior. So by Mr. Bridges own words, he has proven John the Baptist was in fact a homosexual or at least dressed in effeminately soft homosexual clothing.

2) Your only key in maintaining this controversy, Saul of Tarsus, was himself as heterosexually divorced -- against the teachings of Christ -- bisexual who wrote a letter to Philemon telling him, among other things, how much he enjoyed being fucked by Philemon. See 1 Philemon 1:20. It is right there in your Bible! It's inerrant God's word! Don't take my word for it! You, also, don't have to decode any words to understand it!

I have no degree in theology nor in a relevant language, but in a revelation, God said that He does not require his servants to hold a degree of man. So, I will admit that I probably have no credibility with Mr. Bridges or his like mined colleagues, but then I don't care. God only asks the person to free their minds of all preconceived notions, ideas and tenants and be a true servant of God.

Mr. Bridges is wrong referring to the frequency the verb "to know" was used and what it meant. The Hebrew verb "yadha" or "to know" was used 950 times in the Old Testament not 650 as Mr. Bridges claims and was used only 15 times to denote sexual intercourse and 928 times meaning "to get acquainted with!" Sexual intercourse was always between man and woman!

Lastly, and this is the entire crux of this whole debate. Was Saul of Tarsus, who refers to himself as Apostle Paul really a bonafide, ordained Apostle? Saul of Tarsus was a devout follower and believer in Jesus Christ and a stalwart evangelist for Judaism. He deserves a lot of credit. However, you must agree that if Saul of Tarsus was a bonafide apostle then we can continue to debate Saul's translations. If he wasn't, then the debate is dead because Saul of Tarsus had no authority to make doctrine for Christ's church  but was trying to destroy Christ's church from Jewish society and therefore, the antichrist.

However, you have Matthew, Mark, and John chronicling the teachings of Christ. Luke wasn't even a baptized member, let alone an Apostle! He was Saul of Tarsus' berdache (male lover)! For that matter, neither was Mark an Apostle or with Christ to chronicle His teachings but at least he was a Christian.

I suggest you teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and stop teaching things people claim adds to the Gospel of Jesus Christ! The undeniable fact is Christ said nothing at all about homosexuality. Unless you teach the true and pure Gospel of Jesus Christ given to you in Matthew and John, you are guilty of denying the true Christ and as the ordained Apostle John said, you become the antichrist!

May God bless you with the power of discernment and understanding, the power and will to say to Satan, "Get thee hence," and mean it and the desire to know and understand God and Jesus Christ is Son in the light of truth I pray...
 
 

Return to: Journals of Discourses

Return to: Literature Index Page

Return to: DAVID R.W. WADSWORTH's Home Page