the Christian Coalition
NOTE: Dr. Carl Bridges Jr. wrote a book entitled Gay Rights or Wrongsendorsed and sanctioned by the Christian Coalition, a copy of which wassent to me to disprove my insistence that Christ never said homosexualitywas wrong. This is my reply to the gross errors and concocted untruthscontained 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 areno heterosexuals either. God revealed that He created one man with thecapacity 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 pointin his life, had sex with either a man or a woman. However, because someare unwilling to accept the fact and understand that there are mistranslatederrors in the Bible, I merely use the antichrists own translations to showthem 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,denotesand identifies a "passive homosexual." Unbeknownst to Dr. Carl Bridges,"malakos"was the same word, used by Christ, to describe John the Baptist in Matthew11:8 ¶ "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 translatedto mean the effeminate, passive male in a homosexual sex act or in otherwords, the person who is penetrated, according to Mr. Bridges' definition.Mr. Bridges and the "Christian" (debatable) Coalition will undoubtedlycontest the application of their translation saying that in John the Baptist'scase, 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 thematerial 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.
I appreciate the material you sent, referenced above and I was pleasedto 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 uponme to communicate my initial findings and misgivings of his thesis.
This is my initial impressions and reaction after having read half ofthe material. I see so many intellectual abuses such as inundating thereader with fraudulent references plus factual and interpretive errorsand 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 flagranterrors and abuses.
I pray that the Spirit of God might be with me so I will write thisin such a manner that you are not offended but it causes you and Mr. Bridgesto do more research after getting down on your hands and knees and prayfor 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 sinof Sodom and Gomorrah. Why take their word for it? Besides just beingGod's spokesman on earth, they were merely contemporaries of the destructionand devastation of those cities. A man living 6,000 years after the eventand thousands of mile away, knows more than a Prophet of God and contemporaryof the time.
True to your cause, your greed for money, power and hegemony over allof mankind, mankind is better served if you discount the prophets as illinformed, writing about something else, or flatly erroneously mistranslated.Of course, of the later you don't dare come right out and say because youbase your faith on the ability for thousands of men -- not prophets ofGod -- can "translate" (more a revision than a former translation) morethan a thousand times and still produce an "inerrant Word of God." I'msorry 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 Godto still be God. With the Spirit of God, I'm intelligent enough to be ableto make my own decisions. I don't need someone to tell me a book has noerror when I can identify thousand, or that I have to believe somethingas it is written because there is no error, according to mindless infidels.
I was pleased that Dr. Bridges at least considered the ancient prophetsbefore 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 accusinghis mortal neighbor and spiritual brother of "crimes against nature?" Orshould we trust a prophet of God who has no other ax to grind than to serveGod? The choice is very clear! The "Christian" (??) Coalition wants manto ignore the prophets and trust their "renowned Doctor" -- medical orPh.D. -- of something.
Dr. Bridges disputes Dr. Sherwin Bailey's findings. Fine! That is hisright! Dr. Bailey was just using his intellect and best judgment to understandseveral greatly misunderstood scripture. It is also his right to refute,condemn and ignore the prophets, but at his own peril. It is when he seeksto receive "ill-gotten-gains," by promoting and condoning defamation andmurder of his brethren for following the spirit of God's manifestationto that individual, that God will ignore the cries from the graves no longerand 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 Departmentof King College, Cambridge; Father John J. McNeil Ph.D.; Father DanielA. Helminiak Ph.D.; Rector Robert Warren Cromey; my favorite Dr. John Boswellwho 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 workingcommand of 10 languages; the Catholic Theological Society of America; FlaviusJosephus' work "Antiquities I"; and Judaeus Philo's work entitled "Works"?It appears Dr. Bridges is a hired gun standing against the world of religiousand scholarly academia.
In his book, Dr. Bridges provides his theory and interpretation of Genesis19, Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 as if it is applicable any longer despiteChrist'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 interpretationof 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 theword "homosexual" didn't exist even to the even the homoerotic Greeks duringthe 1st Century A.D. [What really makes me question Dr. Bridges credentialsis that he appears to be unaware that the word "homosexual" and for thatmatter "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 "pissingmatch" 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. SherwinBailey, Dr. Norman Pittenger, Dr. John J McNeil, Dr. Daniel A. Helminiak,Rector Robert Warren Cromey, Dr. John Boswell, Flavius Josephus or JudaeusPhilo.
As I said, the debate over what Saul of Tarsus did or did not writereally boils down to an academic infantile pissing match until you considerthe word of God which by your own edict, you MUST follow, adhere to, andabide by, unless of course you are willing to deny Christ. Then it wouldn'tmake any difference and you can deny anything you don't like because you'dbe an antichrist!
To save time and space, I commend you refer to:
WAS PAULREALLY AN APOSTLE
WAS JOHNTHE 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 referredto himself as "Apostle" Paul, was not a bonafide, ordained Apostle andhad 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 committedsuicide. Remember or would you like the scriptural reference? Twelve apostlesminus 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 numberedwith 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 12Apostles."
Enter Saul of Tarsus. He says he receives a vision from Christ and I'mhardly one to dispute the workings of God. Saul of Tarsus, was a Benjaminitenot a Jew but that gets into another discussion. For the sake of argumentlets say he was a Jew. Saul of Tarsus was a Pharisee and a member of theSanhedrin, on the
road to Damascus to persecute the Christians when he was miraculouslyconverted.
Saul of Tarsus was hardly a seasoned Christian or had he walked theearth with Christ and the Apostles preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ.He was what the Christian missionaries I was associated with once calleda "green-bean" or in today's vernacular, a "newbie." Educated in Greeceand not just a mere fisherman, Saul of Tarsus was a very prolific writerwith a great command of Hebrew and Greek, so I imagine he was either assignedor he took it upon himself to write to the members of the church admonishingthem to hang in there and stay true to the Gospel of Jesus Christ in theface of the hatred, ridicule and abuse heaped on them by their brothersand sisters, the other Jews!
We know that Corinth was likened to the modern day Tijuana asfar as anything, from bestiality to bondage, torture and even murder wasokeh to gratify sexual lust and fantasies! Rome was into practicing paganidol 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. Thepagans engaged in what was known as "fertility worship." This was a glorifiedsanctioning and hiring of a prostitute, having sex, getting ones rocksoff 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 goingto church Sundays and praying for crop failure! The only drawback, I believeyou had to hire a temple prostitute from the temple and you couldn't bringyour own. Temple prostitutes were predominately heterosexual but if youwere willing to fork over enough dinero (money for those who don't speakSpanish) 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. Saulof Tarsus was a devout convert and follower of Jesus Christ. In the firstcentury A.D. it was a common practice to refer to a devout follower; apassionate adherent; a strong supporter as an Apostle. The word Apostlecomes from the Old English apostol, and from Old French apostle, both fromLate Latin apostolus, which came from Greek apostolos meaning messengerfrom; apostellein to send off, apo- apo- stellein to send. Technicallyanyone sent forth as a messenger is an Apostle even down to your gardenvariety missionary. They are sent forth with a message from someone butI know Christ didn't call, set apart and ordain 12 specific people as Apostlesand gave them authority over his Church to allow just any Tom, Dick orHarry to enunciate and make binding doctrine for His Church. This is evenheresy to the Catholic Church. They would not allow just any priest ormissionary to make binding doctrine for the church. Even you would notpermit just any member of your coalition to make binding doctrine or policyfor the entire coalition. But that is just what you're proposing by allowingSaul of Tarsus' greatly misunderstood and grossly mistranslated lettersto the Romans, Corinthian and to Timothy to make new doctrine for Christ'schurch.
I have no degree in theology or a relevant language so I have no credibilitywith Mr. Bridges. Saul of Tarsus was educated in Greece and was the Antichristbut the Apostles of God were uneducated fishermen! God does not requiresomeone to have an advanced degree conferred on him by man, however, Goddoes ask the person to free his of her mind of preconceived prejudicesand tenants held by man. For what it is worth, God says that Mr. Bridgesis right in that the men of Sodom and Gomorrah went to Lot's house becausethey were desirous of homosexual sex with, not so much angels because theydidn't know the strangers were angels, but with the strangers because theywere pleasing and very fair. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were thinkingof gang raping the strangers if the strangers didn't want to have sex withthem. Mr. Bridges got so close to the truth but then he backed away anddidn't just fall off the proverbial cliff, he leaped off head first tryingto prove the contention he states over and over trying to psyche readerinto also believing it, "...of how much God hates homosexual behavior,"Mr. Bridges fails to providing one iota of substantiation except the mistranslatedscripture 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 scripturein which Christ condemned homosexuality! Or does Mr. Carl Bridgessuffer from the "Saul of Tarsus Syndrom." A fraud, a liar and an antichrist?
Rape is wrong because it violates the raped persons right andability to make a conscious choice. Therefore, rape is inhospitable anda violation of the Law of Hospitality enunciated by Isaiah, Jeremiah andEzekiel.
For those of you who might be initially offended over the possibilityof Satan influencing the translation of the Bible, ask yourselves thisquestion then answer yourself: Is it possible for God to mislead man, toinfluence error and to mistranslate a word, sentence or paragraph? Youemphatically say "NO!" You believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word ofGod 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 theNew Testament used the Greek word, malakoi to mean the passive "soft" or"effeminate" partner "who plays the female role with another man." Thisis contrary to other experts of the language and time but I'll concedethis to point Mr. Bridges.
In Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25, Jesus Christ said speaking of John theBaptist, asked the Jews, "What did you go out into the desert to see, whenyou saw John the Baptist: a man dressed in soft (malakos or effeminatelyhomosexual) 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 andTimothy to refer to homosexual behavior. So by Mr. Bridges own words, hehas proven John the Baptist was in fact a homosexual or at least dressedin effeminately soft homosexual clothing.
2) Your only key in maintaining this controversy, Saul of Tarsus, washimself 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 isright there in your Bible! It's inerrant God's word! Don't take my wordfor 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 orhis like mined colleagues, but then I don't care. God only asks the personto free their minds of all preconceived notions, ideas and tenants andbe a true servant of God.
Mr. Bridges is wrong referring to the frequency the verb "to know" wasused and what it meant. The Hebrew verb "yadha" or "to know" wasused 950 times in the Old Testament not 650 as Mr. Bridgesclaims and was used only 15 times to denote sexual intercourse and928times meaning "to get acquainted with!" Sexual intercourse was alwaysbetween man and woman!
Lastly, and this is the entire crux of this whole debate. Was Saul ofTarsus, who refers to himself as Apostle Paul really a bonafide, ordainedApostle? Saul of Tarsus was a devout follower and believer in Jesus Christand 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 cancontinue to debate Saul's translations. If he wasn't, then the debate isdead because Saul of Tarsus had no authority to make doctrine for Christ'schurch but was trying to destroy Christ's church from Jewish societyand therefore, the antichrist.
However, you have Matthew, Mark, and John chronicling the teachingsof Christ. Luke wasn't even a baptized member, let alone an Apostle! Hewas Saul of Tarsus' berdache (male lover)! For that matter, neither wasMark an Apostle or with Christ to chronicle His teachings but at leasthe was a Christian.
I suggest you teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and stop teaching thingspeople claim adds to the Gospel of Jesus Christ! The undeniable fact isChrist said nothing at all about homosexuality. Unless you teach the trueand pure Gospel of Jesus Christ given to you in Matthew and John, you areguilty 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, thepower and will to say to Satan, "Get thee hence," and mean it and the desireto know and understand God and Jesus Christ is Son in the light of truthI pray...
David R.W. Wadsworth
Servant of the Most High God
El Santuario Escondido
10387 Tioga Lake Drive
Escondido, CA 92029-5405
Returnto: Journals of Discourses
Returnto: Literature Index Page
Returnto: DAVID R.W. WADSWORTH's Home Page