Just trot out the 3 passages from the NT that I quoted earlier about homosexuality. The NT very much DOES condemn it.
---------------- I believe your NT passages were quoted from Paul's opinion. Paul seems at best to be a rather conflicted individual who I believe might have named himself an apostle without any authority whatsoever to do so. Everybody else Jesus called he called publicly. I think it noteworthy that Jesus did not dwell on the subject of homosexuality, and he did not abolish or end the law (he affirmed the law). It was already against the law, as it should be. That law just like the others were for the benefit of mankind. The homosexual and dietary proscriptions were as much a matter of public health as anything. Many of the laws were for the maintenance of an orderly society . The need for the law did not die on the cross. Be careful when you read Paul. To me he is confusing and contradictory to Jesus. On the other hand Jesus is straight forward and easy to understand
You are totally wrong! Jesus did not affirm the law! He fulfilled it! To not understand that,is to not understand what it is to be a Christian.
Jesus fulfilled the law in that he is the only one who ever kept it. He was the only one who could keep it,having been born without Adam's sin. Jesus kept all the law for every one who couldn't, and then paid the price for everyone who didn't keep the law! The penalty for breaking the law is death and separation from God,which Jesus paid. In him all the law has been fulfilled.
The law is no more! It is done away with! Jesus nailed it to his cross. God has made a new covenant with us,not like the old one that was of law. In this new covenant God will write his laws upon our hearts and there will be no need for us to teach the law. God will be merciful to our unrighteousness and he will forgive our iniquities. God will dwell in us and we will be his people.
You need to read the whole book and not just the parts you agree with!!!!! You also need to stop misquoting it and misrepresenting it.
Paul had plenty of authority to be called an apostle. There were 3 requirements: be personally called by Jesus, be personally taught by Jesus, and to have seen Jesus post-resurrection. Paul did all 3.
None of the other disciples were called any more publicly than Paul. Jesus didn't stand up in front of a crowd and say "I choose Peter". He just walked up them 1 or 2 at a time while they were doing their daily duties and said 'follow me'.
Paul is conflicted? I can't think of anyone LESS conflicted. He knew exactly what was what. He knew exactly his own mind. He was under terrible stress for much of his ministry and it showed but he certainly knew where he was going.
Paul's opinion? He gave his opinion about divorce, but not about homosexuality. Even his opinion was very authoritative. He knew Jesus' teaching. He might not have been given the words directly by the Lord but that doesn't mean they're false. He was well versed in the Word.
Acts 9:15 But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel.
16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."
Jesus told Ananias who Paul was and that he had personally chosen him to go to the Gentiles. Do you think Jesus would have chosen a conflicted, wishy washy man to spread the word? Not hardly. He chose the best of the best. By rejecting Paul you're rejecting Jesus who chose him.
