Who Said That?

“Ruth turns to Naomi and says `I shall not leave thee.' She makes her statement to this woman…that sounds somewhat, somewhere in between poetry, intimacy, and borders on lesbianism. People don’t even know how to explain what Ruth said to Naomi. It makes them uncomfortable. They’re afraid to talk about it. They don’t want to teach on it. Same thing with David and Jonathan…where there were same-sex relationships getting too close, people don’t even know what to say.”

You know how this works!  Please leave your guess in the comments section below.  No cheating or google searches.

Update on Saturday, September 6, 2008 at 10:13AM by Kim Riddlebarger

Looks like T. D. Jakes continues to "reposition" himself.  This is quotation from Jakes during an undated sermon which can be found on YouTube.

Can't people of the same sex be intimate friends without being homosexuals?  For Pete's sake . . .

Comments

[timinator]

T.D. Jakes and he also said David & Jonathan Were Gay!.

Does he read the same Bible as we do? What am I saying!, he dosn't even believe in the triune God. I guess he worships a faulse god.

[calvinv]

ick! a prime example of reading what you want to into the text

[hb]

You've gotta be kidding! I haven't a clue who said this but it makes me ill...
and very heartsick.

[Matt D]

I to do not know who said this, but it goes to show how people can twist the Bible to try and make it say what they want it to. Very sad

["lee n. field"]

T. D. Jakes

[PB]

Far be it from me to defend Jakes' theology, but I heard him say similar things years ago, in the context of questioning why it is Christians have to be defined by what they're "against". To that extent he has a point in that defining ourselves by what we're "against" to the exclusion of everything else is - well, there's such a thing as too much salt!

[dsanger]

The Oneness Pentecostal (anti-Trinitarian) preacher T. D. Jakes.

[Zrim]

PB,

Interesting point. But that also seems to imply that we need to be known for what we are “for.” And since this all seems to presume the doctrines of being relevant on the world’s terms one way or another, I am not so sure that we have a stake in either interest. Is the answer to being a hard moralist really to be a soft one, or is it, speaking of salt (and light), holding out the gospel? It seems to me we run the risk of becoming captive to the world when we start entertaining notions of being “known for” something, which usually seems to mean either the gospel AND fill-in-the-blank or eventually just fill-in-the-blank.

Speaking of being irrelevant, maybe I should take a guess...Jakes sounds good.

[John Yeazel]

One of those people in Peter Jones book "Spirit Wars" who wants to rewrite the first three chapters in Genesis (to get rid of the idea that our sin sets up a barrier between us and God that only Christ can break down) and transform Jesus into the radical feminist and Gnostic "Sophia" the goddess of wisdom. Oh yeah, they also want to castrate men and produce a gender free society. They want to disregard the order of creation that God established in Genesis after the fall of man and produce a matriarchy. These people are dead serious too!!!!

[Coyle]

Gene Robinson?

[KyleinWI]

TD Jakes.

[kateg]

Just thinking about this when typing a letter for my boss from dictation: What in 2 centuries will people make of letters to so-called business acquaintances that start with "Dear John" and end with "yours very truly"? Never mind to a brother in Christ, starting "beloved". Yikes.

[plw]

T.D. Jakes.............and is he ever in trouble with God or what!!!!!!!

[Brett]

Yikes!
Jerry Springer?
That exegesis con't be the result of any serious theologian.

[DB]

Whoever wrote this needs to spend more time trying (by God's help) to find Christ in the pages of the OT. As we know, Christ is on every single page of BOTH Testaments.

The Book of Ruth mirrors the love that Christ has for His Church -- a much more glorious message (since it is the Gospel) than trying to eisegete perversion into the text.

[Chris Sherman]

It does seem to be someone who is trying to justify homosexuality. I'd go with Gene Robinson, but that would probably be too obvious for a "who said that" Certainly it is someone who is ignorant.

[R. K. Brumbelow]

You are all misspelling T.D.'s name it is "T.D. Fakes" as in Fake Gospel, Fake God, Fake Theology, Fake Salvation, Fake Savior and Fake Teacher

[Rev. Z. Bartels]

Hmmm... Once again, I think I'll go with: MICHAEL HORTON. :D

[PB]

Zrim, points taken, I was simply trying to pass on the context of his making these remarks when I heard them. To the extent that it addresses the sour odor which surrounds a lot of Christian moralism directed at the world (not even getting into the kingdom confusion involved there) he's got a point.
And as for Gene Robinson or Peter Gomes, they'd be expressing the same lousy exegesis (or rather, their own isogesis) in much more high-falutin' language.

[jason]

t.d. Jakes, the oneness preacher!