How can any true Christian not accept a gay Bishop?

[Pegg]

What makes you think they're not "correct?"

trinity, celibacy, immortal soul, mary mother of God, hellfire, pergatory, infant baptisms....c'mon, all these things were brought into christian teachings well after the writings of the NT were laid down.....and none of these teachings are found in them.

Paul, whom we know wrote part of the NT, was steeped in Greek philosophy. It was he (among others) who "brought in" Platonic thought. I'm not aware of any of the apostles writing any of the NT.

can you provide some scriptures to show how Paul was teaching Plato's ideas??

The apostle John wrote the Gospel of John and book of Revelation. The apostle Peter wrote 1 & 2 Peter. It true that not all the apostles wrote books of the NT, some didnt write anything at all and some who were not apostles wrote books such as Jude and James...the fleshly brothers of Jesus (there goes that 'virgin mary' teaching)

 

[Oberon]

The apostle John wrote the Gospel of John.

Jn. 21.24-Οὗτός εστιν ο μαθητης ο μαρτυρων περι τούτων και γράψας ταυτα, και οἴδαμεν ὅτι αληθὴς εστίν η μαρτυρία αυτου/ this is the disciple the one witnessing concerning these thing and writing these things, and we know that the witness of him is true.

It would appear that the disciple of Jesus who stands behind the gospel of john did not write it. Rather, his follower(s) seem(s) responsible for recording his tradition.

The apostle Peter wrote 1 & 2 Peter.

And you know this based on what?

 

[McBell]

trinity, celibacy, immortal soul, mary mother of God, hellfire, pergatory, infant baptisms....c'mon, all these things were brought into christian teachings well after the writings of the NT were laid down.....and none of these teachings are found in them.

Oh.
Like Adam and Eve not having sex until after the fall, right?

 

[Pegg]

Jn. 21.24-Οὗτός εστιν ο μαθητης ο μαρτυρων περι τούτων και γράψας ταυτα, και οἴδαμεν ὅτι αληθὴς εστίν η μαρτυρία αυτου/ this is the disciple the one witnessing concerning these thing and writing these things, and we know that the witness of him is true.

It would appear that the disciple of Jesus who stands behind the gospel of john did not write it. Rather, his follower(s) seem(s) responsible for recording his tradition.

Jesus apostles were also called his disciples so the fact that the book opens with 'John a disciple' does not discredit the writer in any way. And second century christians accepted John the apostle as the writer so there is no reason to doubt it.

And you know this based on what?

the opening words of 1 Peter state that he wrote it and Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian all quote the letter, naming Peter as writer.

 

[McBell]

Jesus apostles were also called his disciples so the fact that the book opens with 'John a disciple' does not discredit the writer in any way. And second century christians accepted John the apostle as the writer so there is no reason to doubt it.

Your skill in ratification is most impressive.
Not very helpful, but impressive non the less.

 

[McBell]

the opening words of 1 Peter state that he wrote it and Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian all quote the letter, naming Peter as writer.

Surely you can do better than that.
Perhaps you can provide the specific verse addresses and the version of the Bible you found them in?
The reason I ask is because I have not found where Peter makes any such claim.
But I admit I may well be overlooking it.

 

[Pegg]

Surely you can do better than that.
Perhaps you can provide the specific verse addresses and the version of the Bible you found them in?
The reason I ask is because I have not found where Peter makes any such claim.
But I admit I may well be overlooking it.

Yeah sure, sorry, i usually do provide scriptural references...im getting lazy.

1 Peter 1:1 "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the temporary residents scattered about in Pon′tus, Ga‧la′ti‧a, Cap‧pa‧do′ci‧a, Asia, and Bi‧thyn′i‧a..."

thats how the letter of Peter opens...it was always accepted by the early church as a genuine letter from the apostle Peter

 

[Pegg]

Your skill in ratification is most impressive.
Not very helpful, but impressive non the less.

but no seriously,

the word Apostle is from the greek word a‧po′sto‧los or a‧po‧stel′lo and means “send forth" So an apostle is one who is sent forth and disciple is the greek word ma‧the‧tes′ and means a person who 'directs his mind to something' as in someone who learns.

So this is why the apostles were also called disciples...they were both learning and being sent forth. At Matthew 10:1 it says: "So he summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits"

And even Jesus is called an apostle at Hebrews 3:1 where it states : "Consider the apostle and high priest, Jesus whom we confess"

 

[sojourner]

trinity, celibacy, immortal soul, mary mother of God, hellfire, pergatory, infant baptisms....c'mon, all these things were brought into christian teachings well after the writings of the NT were laid down.....and none of these teachings are found in them.

In your own humble opinion...

 

[sojourner]

can you provide some scriptures to show how Paul was teaching Plato's ideas??

Read them for yourself. His ideas of "flesh-bad/spirit-good" directly reflects Platonic thought, and his writings are rife with it.

 

[sojourner]

Jesus apostles were also called his disciples so the fact that the book opens with 'John a disciple' does not discredit the writer in any way. And second century christians accepted John the apostle as the writer so there is no reason to doubt it.


the opening words of 1 Peter state that he wrote it and Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian all quote the letter, naming Peter as writer.

But wait! Aren't these second-century Xians, and the ones you name here those nefarious "church fathers" who you claim had already departed from the true faith? How can they be reliable as to the authorship of the texts, then -- especially if they're not to be trusted in matters of theology?

 

[sojourner]

Yeah sure, sorry, i usually do provide scriptural references...im getting lazy.

1 Peter 1:1 "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the temporary residents scattered about in Pon′tus, Ga‧la′ti‧a, Cap‧pa‧do′ci‧a, Asia, and Bi‧thyn′i‧a..."

thats how the letter of Peter opens...it was always accepted by the early church as a genuine letter from the apostle Peter

In those days, it was common to write under a pseudonym -- that is, a student or scribe would write, using the name of his teacher. Since the teacher taught the writer, the writer's knowledge was considered to be as accurate as the teacher's. If that's the case, why would you say that the church fathers, who learned from the apostles, had, in any way, departed from the faith they were taught?

 

[Duck]

But wait! Aren't these second-century Xians, and the ones you name here those nefarious "church fathers" who you claim had already departed from the true faith? How can they be reliable as to the authorship of the texts, then -- especially if they're not to be trusted in matters of theology?

Ooh, I know, that is a very good question. How exactly did the founders of christianity depart from the true faith that they were in the process of founding?

And why, if the "church fathers" are unreliable and not to be trusted theologically, should we accept ANY writings in the New Testament? Weren't they ALL assembled (at the very least) or written (most indications I have seen point to even the 4 primary gospels being written on the order of 30+ years after the crucifiction time frame) by those "church fathers"?

Since Paul himself wasn't actually one of the original 12 disciples (as far as I can tell he had a vision on the road and converted well after the crucifiction, yes?) wouldn't that kind of make him one of those suspect "church fathers"?

 

[sojourner]

Ooh, I know, that is a very good question. How exactly did the founders of christianity depart from the true faith that they were in the process of founding?

And why, if the "church fathers" are unreliable and not to be trusted theologically, should we accept ANY writings in the New Testament? Weren't they ALL assembled (at the very least) or written (most indications I have seen point to even the 4 primary gospels being written on the order of 30+ years after the crucifiction time frame) by those "church fathers"?

Since Paul himself wasn't actually one of the original 12 disciples (as far as I can tell he had a vision on the road and converted well after the crucifiction, yes?) wouldn't that kind of make him one of those suspect "church fathers"?

BINGO! YAHTZEE! DINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDING!
:foryou:

 

[Autodidact]

The apostle John wrote the Gospel of John and book of Revelation. The apostle Peter wrote 1 & 2 Peter. It true that not all the apostles wrote books of the NT, some didnt write anything at all and some who were not apostles wrote books such as Jude and James...the fleshly brothers of Jesus (there goes that 'virgin mary' teaching)

Where are you getting this crazy stuff from? Nothing in the NT was written by anyone who ever met Jesus. The first gospel was not written down for forty years or so after He died.

Regarding Peter,
Many scholars believe the author was not Peter, but an unknown author writing after Peter's death.[1] Estimates for the date of composition range from 75 to 112 AD. [wiki]

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Except that the canonical differences do not largely include the NT writings.

Yes, but there was some differences some of the earlier cannons including Shepherd of Hermas and excluding one or two books we now think belongs in the New Testament.

My point was this, why if she believes that the Church Fathers are so corrupt, why except their exact cannon. If they are so vile why believe that they could pick out Gods Inerrant Word. This logic defies reason.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

trinity, celibacy, immortal soul, mary mother of God, hellfire, pergatory, infant baptisms....c'mon, all these things were brought into christian teachings well after the writings of the NT were laid down.....and none of these teachings are found in them.

I just gave you a few verses that talked about celibacy. You just seem to ignore the parts of the bible you don't like.

There were also old christian writings that were not seen as scripture by most. That talked about Mary Mother being a virgin her whole life. These writings were read in churches all over the christian world. There are also early letters from Christians that this idea can be found. If you only except the bible I can see how reject the perpetual virginity of Mary. But to say that these ideas did not exist early on in the church is just rewriting history.

 

[Pegg]

But wait! Aren't these second-century Xians, and the ones you name here those nefarious "church fathers" who you claim had already departed from the true faith? How can they be reliable as to the authorship of the texts, then -- especially if they're not to be trusted in matters of theology?

they are not the 'church fathers'. the catholic church call them that because they feel that, after the apostles had died, these men were their successors. So its the roman catholic and catholic church's who place a high importance on the writings of those men. A lot of what they wrote was also church history...it wasnt all new teachings... so what they wrote about the development of the church is still relevant. The fact that they all were in agreeance that certain letters were written by certain apostles is still relevant and those historical aspects of their writings are most likely quite accurate.

Its their theologies and ways of explaining christ which went off the beaten track.

 

[Pegg]

In those days, it was common to write under a pseudonym -- that is, a student or scribe would write, using the name of his teacher. Since the teacher taught the writer, the writer's knowledge was considered to be as accurate as the teacher's. If that's the case, why would you say that the church fathers, who learned from the apostles, had, in any way, departed from the faith they were taught?

you only need to examine the writings and compare them to see the differences in theology.

an example is seen in the idea that the ransom sacrifice of Christ was paid, not to God as the bible states, but to the devil Satan.
This idea was first introduced by Irenaeus in the 2nd century and developed by Origen in the 3rd century C.E.
However, Paul explains that Jesus sacrifice was offered to God, not to the devil, at Hebews 9:24 "For Christ entered, not into a holy place made with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us ...26 But now he has manifested himself once for all time at the conclusion of the systems of things to put sin away through the sacrifice of himself"

Another example is found in The New Catholic Encyclopedia, under the heading “Soul, Human, Immortality Of,” explains that early Church Fathers found support for belief in an immortal soul, not in the Bible, but in “the poets and philosophers and general tradition of Greek thought . . . Later, the scholastics preferred to make use of Plato or principles from Aristotle....the influence of Platonic and Neoplatonic thought was inserted into the very core of Christian theology.”

these are just two examples but there are many more

 

[Tathagata]

If God is Jesus, and God condemns homosexuals, then Jesus condemns homosexuals.

Scriptural proof:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." -- Leviticus 20:13

So according to the Bible, gay people, including gay Bishops should be put to death, and make them bloody to add "insult to injury."


.