How can any true Christian not accept a gay Bishop?

[Pegg]

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?

the only founder of christianity was Jesus Christ. His chosen disciples were the ones whom he taught and it was them who then taught others. Their writings were contain the true doctrine as they learnt it from Christ and...their writings were completed by the end of the 1st century.

And why, if the "church fathers" are unreliable and not to be trusted theologically, should we accept ANY writings in the New Testament?

because the ones called the 'church fathers' were men who lived during the 2nd/3rd/4th centuries...they were members of the churchs who began to divert from the NT writings. They did not write any NT writings but they did have their own writings which were mostly on the history of the church...but then they were also writing explanations of the NT, such as commentaries on the letters of the apostle Paul, and 'these' commentaries are what diverged from the NT writings. They began to introduce pagan ideas as a way of explaining the scriptures to non believers.

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"?

No. The apostles never called themselves 'church fathers' ...this term was not used until the middle ages by the catholic church and they were referring to those whom they viewed to be 'catholic' teachers.

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"?

No.
Paul lived in the 1st century and had direct contact with the Apostles and disciples of christ. He was taught by the apostle Peter and then he became a christian ministry and traveled with the both apostles and even had contact with Jesus fleshly brothers Jude and James.

 

[Pegg]

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]

im aware of the work of higher critics to discredit the NT but im not convinced they are correct in their assumptions and speculations.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

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."


.

It is not so simple as that. In the Old Testament it says not to eat some kinds of meat because it is unclean. Yet the New Testament says it is ok. No Christian sees them self under the Jewish Covenant with God. Christians believe they have a new covenant due to the death of Christ.

 

[Tathagata]

It is not so simple as that. In the Old Testament it says not to eat some kinds of meat because it is unclean. Yet the New Testament says it is ok. No Christian sees them self under the Jewish Covenant with God. Christians believe they have a new covenant due to the death of Christ.

In the New Testament, Jesus commands that you must follow every word of the Old Testament law.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven." - Jesus (Matthew 5:17-20)


.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

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.

Please show me were Ireanaes or Origen believed this. Only there writings please. I have read Origen many times I dont remmber this.


Again if the Church Fathers were so bad why do you except their version of the Bible. You do know that it was Irenaeus who was very Importent in putting together the Christ Bible.

 

[Pegg]

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.

the NT writers did not demand celibacy...i also showed you many more scriptures where they were promoting the sanctity of marriage among those leading the church. The celibacy idea comes from later catholic and roman catholic teachers...not the NT writers who actually warned against such teachings as the 'forbidding to marry'

1 Timothy 4:1 "However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons, 2 by the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, marked in their conscience as with a branding iron; 3 forbidding to marry..."

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.

they are NOT NT writings which is the point...other writers were simply moving away from the true doctrine. The NT is very clear that Mary had many children...Jesus was her first, then she had several other children to her husband joseph.

Read this verse and tell me if you could honestly conclude that mary remained a virgin her whole life....Matt. 13:53-56, JB: “When Jesus had finished these parables he left the district; and, coming to his home town, he taught the people in their synagogue in such a way that they were astonished and said, ‘Where did the man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? This is the carpenter’s son, surely? Is not his mother the woman called Mary, and his brothers [Greek, a‧del‧phoi′] James and Joseph and Simon and Jude? His sisters [Greek, a‧del‧phai′], too, are they not all here with us?’”

You might be fooled by the perpetual virgin myth, but the catholic church are not (even though they choose to teach it) for here is what they wrote about it:
The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. IX, p. 337) "the Greek words a‧del‧phoi′ and a‧del‧phai′, used at Matthew 13:55, 56, have the meaning of full blood brother and sister in the Greek-speaking world of the Evangelist’s time and would naturally be taken by his Greek reader in this sense. Toward the end of the 4th century (c. 380) Helvidius in a work now lost pressed this fact in order to attribute to Mary other children besides Jesus so as to make her a model for mothers of larger families. St. Jerome, motivated by the Church’s traditional faith in Mary’s perpetual virginity, wrote a tract against Helvidius (A.D. 383) in which he developed an explanation . . . that is still in vogue among Catholic scholars.”


The teachings of these 'church fathers' are the ones that we should be objecting to...we need to know that there is a very clear distinction between the NT and the catholic church teachings.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

In the New Testament, Jesus commands that you must follow every word of the Old Testament law.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven." - Jesus (Matthew 5:17-20)

Christian see this as Christ saying he is taking the law to the next step fulfill them.

This is not how Christians look at this.

 

[Pegg]

In the New Testament, Jesus commands that you must follow every word of the Old Testament law.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven." - Jesus (Matthew 5:17-20)


.

Jesus spoke these words while the old law covenant was still in place. It was removed by God after Jesus had offered his life as a sacrifice to replace the Mosaic law code and bring in a new one.

Paul explains that they had been released from the Old law covenant because of Jesus sacrifice at Hebrews 9:15 "So that is why he is a mediator of a new covenant, in order that, because a death has occurred for [their] release by ransom from the transgressions under the former covenant"

 

[McBell]

im aware of the work of higher critics to discredit the NT but im not convinced they are correct in their assumptions and speculations.

Stands to reason.
Human nature is to keep ones own assumptions and speculations over the assumptions and speculations of others.

 

[Autodidact]

im aware of the work of higher critics to discredit the NT but im not convinced they are correct in their assumptions and speculations.

No, they're not critics, and they're not trying to discredit the NT, they're historians and scholars trying to learn about it. And of course you're not convinced, you've made up your mind to believe on faith despite the evidence. That's your prerogative, but please don't mislead people by pretending it's factual or based on evidence. I mean, you're entitled to believe whatever you like; that's your perfect right, but it's ridiculous to expect other people to join you unless you have evidence to persuade us that the mainstream of scholarship is incorrect. Do you?

 

[Pegg]

No, they're not critics, and they're not trying to discredit the NT, they're historians and scholars trying to learn about it. And of course you're not convinced, you've made up your mind to believe on faith despite the evidence. That's your prerogative, but please don't mislead people by pretending it's factual or based on evidence. I mean, you're entitled to believe whatever you like; that's your perfect right, but it's ridiculous to expect other people to join you unless you have evidence to persuade us that the mainstream of scholarship is incorrect. Do you?

Well there are varying opinions among such scholars...they dont all come to the same conclusions. There are many examples of how the evidence is read in different ways by different scholars.

Some of them insisted that the apostle John did not write the gospel of John and that it was written 50 years after his lifetime...which would have been around 150CE. But they were proved wrong by an archaeological find of a fragment of Johns Gospel, written between the years 100 and 150...besides its age, it was found in Egypt which indicated that it was written at an earlier date some had claimed. Its the Rylans Library Papyrus P52 if you want to check it out.

Many still claim the gospels are full of contradictions, but one historian Historian Will Durant made his own examination of the Gospel accounts and his conclusion in his book 'Caesar and Christ' he stated: “The contradictions are of minutiae [trivial details], not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ.”

Theologians are like scientists...they observe and explain the evidence in different ways. They are not always correct and at times have to change their views.

 

[Pegg]

Please show me were Ireanaes or Origen believed this. Only there writings please. I have read Origen many times I dont remmber this.


Again if the Church Fathers were so bad why do you except their version of the Bible. You do know that it was Irenaeus who was very Importent in putting together the Christ Bible.

Origin teachings that Jesus paid the price of his blood to the devil
go halfway down the page and find the subtitle '
THE DEATH OF CHRIST AS A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE
Origen states that Christ’s death is conceived as paying His precious blood to the devil to purchase us and grant us freedom from his dominion.
Because He is a sacrificial victim, He becomes, by the pouring out of His blood, a propitiation in that He gives remission of past sins....Yet of those of whom these stories are told, not even in fiction is it said that anyone freed the whole world, except Jesus alone, "who though he was in the form of God, did not think it robbery to be equal with God but emptied himself, and took the form of a servant and offered a victim for the whole world, delivering his own blood to the prince of this world, according to the wisdom of God.

 

[sojourner]

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.

Of course they are! It isn't just the RCC that calls them "the Church Fathers." All the historic churches acknowledge them equally. It is the later, protestant bodies that dismiss them.

If what they wrote about the development of the church is correct and relevant, then that, by definition, would also include things like the structure and hierarchy, (James, Jesus' brother, was the first Bishop of Jerusalem...), the Apostolic Succession, the Apostles' Creed, the Trinity, infant baptism, etc., for all of these things were very early developments of the church.

 

[sojourner]

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

Do you not understand that the texts in the Bible and the texts that are extra-biblical are the same thing? They are separated only by a construction of the much-later Church (5th century, to be exact -- which, according to you, had already departed from the "true" faith). That construction is the Canon. Originally, the Canon translated only into "the stuff we are allowed to read in church." It was never meant to distinguish the "holy" from the "secular."

 

[sojourner]

the only founder of christianity was Jesus Christ. His chosen disciples were the ones whom he taught and it was them who then taught others. Their writings were contain the true doctrine as they learnt it from Christ and...their writings were completed by the end of the 1st century.

Oh! I'm so sorry! That answer is incorrect. Step out front now, and tell the whole world: "I am not smarter than a 5th-grader!"

Jesus was a Jew, not a Xian. The writings were not completed within the time-frame you specify. Xian history just doesn't work the way you imagine.

 

[sojourner]

No. The apostles never called themselves 'church fathers' ...this term was not used until the middle ages by the catholic church and they were referring to those whom they viewed to be 'catholic' teachers.

I just finished my third graduate course in church history last fall in seminary. This post is patently wrong.

im aware of the work of higher critics to discredit the NT but im not convinced they are correct in their assumptions and speculations.

The work of higher critics does not discredit the NT. It serves to validate what's true about the NT.

Who would convince you? Someone with the obligatory 2 semesters of Bible study from an unaccreditied school?

 

[sojourner]

we need to know that there is a very clear distinction between the NT and the catholic church teachings.

The early church to which you refer is not entirely the same thing as the RCC. So I would say that, while RCC theology differs somewhat from the theology of the NT, so does every other denomination -- including yours.

The thing to remember is continuity. There is continuous teaching in the churches that are in the Apostolic Succession. While they understand that later teaching is not the Bible, they also understand that the Bible is part of the church teaching as a whole.

 

[sojourner]

Well there are varying opinions among such scholars...they dont all come to the same conclusions. There are many examples of how the evidence is read in different ways by different scholars.

Some of them insisted that the apostle John did not write the gospel of John and that it was written 50 years after his lifetime...which would have been around 150CE. But they were proved wrong by an archaeological find of a fragment of Johns Gospel, written between the years 100 and 150...besides its age, it was found in Egypt which indicated that it was written at an earlier date some had claimed. Its the Rylans Library Papyrus P52 if you want to check it out.

Many still claim the gospels are full of contradictions, but one historian Historian Will Durant made his own examination of the Gospel accounts and his conclusion in his book 'Caesar and Christ' he stated: “The contradictions are of minutiae [trivial details], not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ.”

Theologians are like scientists...they observe and explain the evidence in different ways. They are not always correct and at times have to change their views.

this doesn't address her point. At all. Of course there are differences in conclusion. And all good scholars acknowledge that. They are very, very honest about their conclusions, and very, very honest about what the Bible is, and is not.

 

[sojourner]

Origin teachings that Jesus paid the price of his blood to the devil
go halfway down the page and find the subtitle '
THE DEATH OF CHRIST AS A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE
Origen states that Christ’s death is conceived as paying His precious blood to the devil to purchase us and grant us freedom from his dominion.
Because He is a sacrificial victim, He becomes, by the pouring out of His blood, a propitiation in that He gives remission of past sins....Yet of those of whom these stories are told, not even in fiction is it said that anyone freed the whole world, except Jesus alone, "who though he was in the form of God, did not think it robbery to be equal with God but emptied himself, and took the form of a servant and offered a victim for the whole world, delivering his own blood to the prince of this world, according to the wisdom of God.

A difference in theological semantics that does not take Origen off-base at all.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

The early church to which you refer is not entirely the same thing as the RCC. So I would say that, while RCC theology differs somewhat from the theology of the NT, so does every other denomination -- including yours.

Bingo !