How can any true Christian not accept a gay Bishop?

[sojourner]

they only developed AFTER all the apostles were gone.

The oldest pieces of christian writings apart from the NT is a short book called The Didache. In its 10th chapter it says:

“We thank you, Holy Father, for your holy Name which you have made to dwell in our hearts; and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which you have made known to us through Jesus your Servant. Glory to you forever! You, Almighty Master, created everything for your Name’s sake . . . And to us you have graciously given spiritual food and drink, and life eternal through Jesus your Servant.”

Jesus here is described, not as an equal part of God, but as a 'servant' of God. There is no trinity idea expressed here just as there is no trinity expressed in the NT.

Clement of Rome is one of these earliest (100ce) apostolic fathers and he also does not imply any kind of trinity in his writings. In 'First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians' he states:

“Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ....May God, who seeth all things, and who is the Ruler of all spirits and the Lord of all flesh—who chose our Lord Jesus Christ...We will beg with earnest prayer and supplication that the Creator of the universe will keep intact the precise number of his elect in the whole world, through his beloved Child Jesus Christ. . . . We realize you [God] alone are ‘highest among the highest’"

Clement certainly was not of the opinion that Christ was equal to God and he didnt even mention the holy spirit as a 'person' in any shape or form. Ignatius was another very early christian writer who failed to mention that the holy spirit was a person.

But now come forward to the 2nd century and we have the apologists...men such as Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian.

In Dr. H. R. Boer, in his book A Short History of the Early Church, comments on the thrust of the Apologists’ teaching:

“Justin [Martyr] taught that before the creation of the world God was alone and that there was no Son. . . . When God desired to create the world, . . . he begot another divine being to create the world for him. ...Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. ...The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father. The Apologists were subordinationists.”

Even Tertillian who many believe was a trinitarian because he was the first to use the word trinitas was still far different to christendoms trinity. He viewed the Son as subordinate to the Father. In his writing 'Against Hermogenes' he wrote:

“We should not suppose that there is any other being than God alone who is unbegotten and uncreated. . . . How can it be that anything, except the Father, should be older, and on this account indeed nobler, than the Son of God, the only-begotten and first-begotten Word? . . . That [God] which did not require a Maker to give it existence, will be much more elevated in rank than that [the Son] which had an author to bring it into being.

But now come forward again to the 3/4rd centurys with men such as Athanasius the bishop of Alexandria, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Ambrose of Milan and Augustine of Hippo and you'll see that they formulated the idea of God, Jesus and Holy spirit all being equal and one...one god with 3 faces.

So what im trying to show is that the further back you go, the closer the writers were to the NT...but as we come forward in time, later church fathers began to change from the NT to a lot of ideas that were not based on the NT writings and its quite a well known fact....this is why a christian should not be using their teachings as a basis for their faith...the bible should be the basis for our faith, not the men who changed the theology.

Your evidence is spotty, at best.

 

[sojourner]

Of course it does.

Can i become a hindu teacher and take reincarnation out of the my teachings and say there is no reincarnation at all?

Can i become a muslim teacher and change the founders name from Mohummad to Mr Jones?

Can I become a buddist monk and teach people that enlightenment only comes from God, not oneself?

Im sure you dont believe that it would be perfectly acceptable to change the fundamental beliefs of these religions and still be taken seriously. How can anyone take the changes in christian theology seriously and think they are still christian theologies???

Because theology, like society, changes to adapt to current understanding. For example, we no longer think of God as being male. Biblically, God is our Father. but we know more about what constitutes a father than they did, and we are much less patriarchal than they were.

 

[sojourner]

I agree, i think many people accept what they are told by their churchs without questioning it.
But what they dont realise is that the church's 'know' full well that what they are teaching is not based on the bible. The churchs readily admit this in their own encyclopedias and other writings such as the following quotes show:

“The concept of ‘soul,’ meaning a purely spiritual, immaterial reality, separate from the ‘body,’ . . . does not exist in the Bible.”—La Parole de Dieu (Paris, 1960), Georges Auzou, professor of Sacred Scripture, Rouen Seminary, France, p. 128.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. VII, pp. 378-381) “the Immaculate Conception is not taught explicitly in Scripture . . . The earliest Church Fathers regarded Mary as holy but not as absolutely sinless. . . . It is impossible to give a precise date when the belief was held as a matter of faith, but by the 8th or 9th century it seems to have been generally admitted. . . . [In 1854 Pope Pius IX defined the dogma] ‘which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin in the first instant of her Conception.’”


The only way not to fall into the trap of believing such untruths is to question everything and reject entirely those teachings which have no support in scripture. To be true to the bible, they must start teaching the bible and not these ideas of men....but as christians we also have a personal responsibility to take our faith seriously enough to study it and be true to it as individuals.

You, of course, realize that the Bible is also the "teachings of men." Further, you realize that, for the historic churches, there isn't the wide gulf of difference between scripture and Tradition, as you have stated here.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Of course it does.

Can i become a hindu teacher and take reincarnation out of the my teachings and say there is no reincarnation at all?

Yes, some non-Orthodox Hindu's did not believe in reincarnation. Some are even Atheistic. I am a Hindu who believes that reincarnation is ultimately an Illusion of the mind. My view is a very orthodox view.

Can i become a muslim teacher and change the founders name from Mohummad to Mr Jones?

I don't think so. The special nature of Islam is that this religion was set up for consistency. Still there are sects that have emerged.

Can I become a buddist monk and teach people that enlightenment only comes from God, not oneself?

Some have almost done just that that. Pure land Buddhism is a devotional (faith-oriented) type of Buddhism focused on Amitabha Buddha. The Lord (still not God but does some of the stuff you Christians would think was God like) Amitabha Buddha then takes you to Pure land after you die where Enlightenment is granted after some practice.

I am sure you don't believe that it would be perfectly acceptable to change the fundamental beliefs of these religions and still be taken seriously. How can anyone take the changes in christian theology seriously and think they are still christian theologies???

A wide belief range is very common in most faiths. The early Christians were no different. Some believed Christ was man not God i.e. Edomites. Some believed he was so much of a God he could almost be defined as a holographic projection e.g. a sect of gnostics. Even among the proto-Orthodox schools had different bibles and different beliefs. It was Constantine that forced the church into a common school of thought. You don't like what they ended up with, the Catholic Church. I also think you would not like many of the earlier versions of Christianity. The sin is just thinking you are right and every one else is wrong

The reason I have given you such a hard time about your beliefs. Not because I care. You have the right to believe any thing you want. If you want to have a club or church in America that says bad things about any minorities race, sex or (in your case) sexual preference. Thats you're thing. But when you compare pedophilia with being gay on a pubic forum you will get it. Bring your prejudice out into public I think you should expect this type of thing.

I can't image anyone reading this and not believing you came up on the short side of the stick. With all the questions about the cannon and the contaditions in the NT about sex.

Just some food for thought. I wish you well.

 

[Oberon]

but in that verse, do you know if the writer is referring to himself or to Jesus as the one who's word is true....because that section of verse in context is speaking about what Jesus told the disciples...not about what the disciple told the readers. It seems that the disciples misunderstood something Jesus said about the one known as 'the disciple Jesus used to love' (John)

21 Accordingly, when he caught sight of him, Peter said to Jesus: “Lord, what will this [man do]?” 22 Jesus said to him: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you? You continue following me.” 23 In consequence, this saying went out among the brothers, that that disciple would not die. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?” 24 This is the disciple that bears witness about these things and that wrote these things, and we know that the witness he gives is true. 25 There are, in fact, many other things also which Jesus did..."


(i know you've made a lot of other points...i dont have time right now to comment on them so i'll respond to those when i return)

In context, the lines are explaining why the disciple did in fact die, when he wasn't supposed to.

Is anyone able to be certain that the end of vs 24 which i've bolded in a reference to the witness that Jesus gave or a witness that the disciple in question gave??? I cant say either way, can you?

Yes.
Οὗτος εστιν ο μαθητης ο μαρτυρων περι τούτων και γράψας ταυτα, και οἴδαμεν ὅτι αληθης εστίν η μαρτυρία αυτου/"This is the disciple the one witnessing concerning these things and having written these things, and we know that the witness of him is true."

Notice the juxtaposition of disciple and witness, both in the nominative case (witness here is a verb but in the participial form and therefore it has a case). In other words, the greek is clear that the one doing the witnessing IS the disciple, and also that it his his witness that "we know" is true, which distinguishes the actual author from the disciple who is said to stand behind the text.

 

[Pegg]

in the end it comes down to what is the accepted christian standard.

Sexual immorality of any nature is not accepted in the NT whether it be heterosexuality, homosexuality, incest or any other imaginable form of sex conduct that God does not approve of.

I dont really care what the current worldly standards are....as a christian im interested in what Gods standards are and if anyone wants to be a follower of him thru his son Jesus, then they are only going to stand approved if they accept his standards.

So should someone who refuses to accept Gods standards call themselves a worshiper of him? And even if they do call themselves a worshiper, do you think their standing before God is going to be accepted?

 

[AnnaTheBeast]

in the end it comes down to what is the accepted christian standard.

Sexual immorality of any nature is not accepted in the NT whether it be heterosexuality, homosexuality, incest or any other imaginable form of sex conduct that God does not approve of.

I dont really care what the current worldly standards are....as a christian im interested in what Gods standards are and if anyone wants to be a follower of him thru his son Jesus, then they are only going to stand approved if they accept his standards.

So should someone who refuses to accept Gods standards call themselves a worshiper of him? And even if they do call themselves a worshiper, do you think their standing before God is going to be accepted?

Being gay isnt a CHOICE you dont just wake up and go oh look today im going to be gay so i can be different. You cant help your attractions as to which sex they happen to be. It isnt refusing, and it isnt a mental problem. Its just an attraction.
My grandfather is a Jahovah's wittness, infact the whole house is one that I live in right now, and every time i hear them bash a gay person, go as far as to say they should be shot it kind of hurts. What if their sons were gay, what if their brothers fathers grandsons? Do they need to be shot?
Hell he's even said that living together before marriage should be a reason to shoot a person. I disagree strongly with these things.
I'm not saying its only JW though. Alot of people think this way and it doesnt make it right and it isnt immoral. its immoral cause some man wrote it in the bible to be immoral. Just like for JW's there are postions that they dont allow for sexual intercourse. Though im not sure how they inforce it.

 

[Pegg]

Being gay isnt a CHOICE you dont just wake up and go oh look today im going to be gay so i can be different. You cant help your attractions as to which sex they happen to be. It isnt refusing, and it isnt a mental problem. Its just an attraction.
My grandfather is a Jahovah's wittness, infact the whole house is one that I live in right now, and every time i hear them bash a gay person, go as far as to say they should be shot it kind of hurts. What if their sons were gay, what if their brothers fathers grandsons? Do they need to be shot?
Hell he's even said that living together before marriage should be a reason to shoot a person. I disagree strongly with these things.
I'm not saying its only JW though. Alot of people think this way and it doesnt make it right and it isnt immoral. its immoral cause some man wrote it in the bible to be immoral. Just like for JW's there are postions that they dont allow for sexual intercourse. Though im not sure how they inforce it.

I am surprised to hear you say that. I've been a jW for 15 years and never have i heard anyone say gays should be shot. I have seen gay men become Jw's and never marry a woman, they've remained single and active members of the congregation even ministerial servants...meaning a brother who gives public talks and is actively involved in shepherding the congregation. I've seen one die of aids and not once did any of his previous gay lovers come to see him in hospital...but I saw lots of JW's there (including myself) comfort him in his last days. So please dont judge us all as 'anti' gay people...we are all in the same boat when it comes to sexual immorality of ANY kind that God disapproves of.

for anyone to be accepted by God, he/she must adhere to Gods standards of morality...for a gay person who becomes a JW it means that they must refrain from gay sexual activity...if they cannot change their attraction to the same sex that is perfectly ok so long as they dont participate in sexual activity (and that goes for young single heterosexuals as well...they must refrain from sexual activity until they are married) And they can do it, i've known several who have been quite successful in that regard....the one I spoke of earlier even went on to become a missionary even though he is very open and admits that he will never be with a woman, but his resolve has to be to please God and so he has chosen to remain celibate.

 

[jonman122]

Of course it does.

Can i become a hindu teacher and take reincarnation out of the my teachings and say there is no reincarnation at all?

Can i become a muslim teacher and change the founders name from Mohummad to Mr Jones?

Can I become a buddist monk and teach people that enlightenment only comes from God, not oneself?

Im sure you dont believe that it would be perfectly acceptable to change the fundamental beliefs of these religions and still be taken seriously. How can anyone take the changes in christian theology seriously and think they are still christian theologies???

didn't you know your religion was made in the 1870's, and was a change the the fundamental beliefs of christianity at the time? and yet you still seem to take it rather seriously...

 

[Pegg]

didn't you know your religion was made in the 1870's, and was a change the the fundamental beliefs of christianity at the time? and yet you still seem to take it rather seriously...

what do you think 'fundamental' beliefs mean?

 

[AnnaTheBeast]

That isnt right. My grandfather is one of the elders, and he is very strict and tight to the rules. I was raised in this religon, and if they knew anything about me being an athiest i would officially be thrown out. I know what a misterial servant is. I know the rules well, as it was put into my brain since i could understand words.
I dont approve of the way i was raised, I dont think it was right. I dont think gay people that join the religon should have to live alone for the rest of their lives because they arent attracted to girls. Or girls to guys. I disaprove of alot of the teachings and the way of the WT and JW's.
I think they should be able to find love in who ever they see fit.

 

[jonman122]

for anyone to be accepted by God, he/she must adhere to Gods standards of morality...for a gay person who becomes a JW it means that they must refrain from gay sexual activity...if they cannot change their attraction to the same sex that is perfectly ok so long as they dont participate in sexual activity (and that goes for young single heterosexuals as well...they must refrain from sexual activity until they are married) And they can do it, i've known several who have been quite successful in that regard....the one I spoke of earlier even went on to become a missionary.

you're honestly saying that people who are homosexual but want to be jehovahs witnesses should just refrain from sex entirely? in hindsight, as a jehovahs witness you are being immoral and breaking your own code of ethics by being on the internet on a website that deals with anything other than "jehovahs witnesses being the one true religion" but this has nothing to do with the issue here.

what the issue seems to be is that you think you have some kind of sexual right that anyone who does not share your sexual belief must adhere to your rules, or they won't be revived as galactic zombies when the world ends and your relatives are reborn after the apocalypse (which was supposed to occur during world war 1.. and 2.... and in the 1990's... and apparently again soon... the world has been over a few times by now.)

you have no right and your god in fact has no right to tell anyone what they can do with their lives. every person is given free will, no?

what do you think 'fundamental' beliefs mean?

do you read and interpret the bible and the bible alone, or do you read the Jehovahs witness version of the bible, and read it with your trusty watchtower in hand?

also.. to answer this properly, NOT going to heaven after the apocalypse and NOT going to hell if you are not a christian is against a few of the fundamental bits of christianity.. fyi.

 

[Pegg]

That isnt right. My grandfather is one of the elders, and he is very strict and tight to the rules. I was raised in this religon, and if they knew anything about me being an athiest i would officially be thrown out. I know what a misterial servant is. I know the rules well, as it was put into my brain since i could understand words.
I dont approve of the way i was raised, I dont think it was right. I dont think gay people that join the religon should have to live alone for the rest of their lives because they arent attracted to girls. Or girls to guys. I disaprove of alot of the teachings and the way of the WT and JW's.
I think they should be able to find love in who ever they see fit.

You realise that the same standard applies to heterosexuals though dont you? There are many single christians among Jw's who are not having sex...yet they are alone and single because some cannot find a suitable marriage mate. Maintaining Gods standards are not impossible.

This goes for gay people as well...and look i do agree with you that some of them have no choice...that perhaps biologically they are geared that way. Hermaphrodites are a perfect example of how some are biologically different. Its for that reason that the elders can only act when someone is 'practicing sin' But whatever is going on internally inside of us is for no one but God to deal with.

Im telling you the truth about the gay people I have known who are Jw's...when we go preaching, if we come to a gay persons house we dont take back our literature and turn the other way or we dont refuse to study the bible with them because they are gay....no. Our doors are open to all who are seeking understanding and truth even if they are gay. If they want to become baptized that is another matter. They then need to show that they are willing to live up to Gods standards...but that goes for everyone, not only gay people.

 

[Pegg]

do you read and interpret the bible and the bible alone, or do you read the Jehovahs witness version of the bible, and read it with your trusty watchtower in hand?

also.. to answer this properly, NOT going to heaven after the apocalypse and NOT going to hell if you are not a christian is against a few of the fundamental bits of christianity.. fyi.

im not sure who taught you about JW's but you seem way off base.

 

[AnnaTheBeast]

Gods standard for JW's is to marry someone in the religon, which excuse me, is a crock of bull. You have a selection that is limited and then if you dont like them oh look, you get to be alone. Elders shouldnt be ruling over anyone but they inforce the rules and if you disagree and decide to get away from it they arent suppose to talk to you. If you turn gay they arent suppose to talk to you if you find a mate. a suitable mate is someone in your religon that is of opposite sex. Who btw you wont even know becuase it is rule for you to be shapperoned. It would be a bad move to become baptized because if you choose to not obey just one rule, you get disfellowshiped and are ignored by the whole congrigation, and even your family as it is RULE.
I'm not trying to offend you i just dont think you understand.
Or your part is bending the rules, or you arent grasping them.

 

[jonman122]

im not sure who taught you about JW's but you seem way off base.

i learned this from jehovahs witness literature... derp. your literature is "way off base?" what do you believe will happen after the apocalypse? will everyone go to heaven? or will they stay on earth and all of their loved ones will rise from the dead and they will stay on earth? which one is true and which is false?

 

[Pegg]

i learned this from jehovahs witness literature... derp. your literature is "way off base?" what do you believe will happen after the apocalypse? will everyone go to heaven? or will they stay on earth and all of their loved ones will rise from the dead and they will stay on earth? which one is true and which is false?

what does the bible say about those things?

 

[AnnaTheBeast]

what does the bible say about those things?

You mean your bible.
It says in Chapter 18 of the book of Revelation that when Babylon the Great is destroyed (ruling governments) that she will be made "devestated and naked", stripped of all her authority, power, and riches. No one will know what to do or what is comming next and it will be like "the lights of the heavens have just gone out."
But when the governments come after God's people to destroy them, then God says "he who is touching you is touching my eyeball" and he will bring destruction on the nations and their kings. That will be the final war of Armageddon.
The Great Tribulation will be such a terrible time that "unless those days were cut short no flesh would be saved". But it ends in the greatest war that has ever occurred, a Righteous war because it will be GOD'S war against the wicked. No innocents will die only those deserving of death will die.
When the war is over, satan and all of the fallen angels and his demons will be locked away in an abyss for 1000 years, the people will be ressurected and the people will live under christ jesus for that time period.
At the end of the 1000 years all of mankind, the resurrected ones and the survivors and their descendants will be brought back to the perfect state we were in in Eden before the fall, and at that time Satan is let lose from his prison for a short time to see how many he can turn against God.

Those who follow him will go with him off into destruction and the righteous will live on forever in paradise Earth.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Sexual immorality of any nature is not accepted in the NT whether it be heterosexuality, homosexuality, incest or any other imaginable form of sex conduct that God does not approve of.

Yes and the standerd was very high.

Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection.

Luke 20:34-36

Luke makes a statement that clearly links marrage to death and celibacy to eternal life.


Paul also had the same view.


What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none;

-1 Corinthians 7:29 (New International Version)

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

i learned this from Jehovah's witness literature... derp. your literature is "way off base?" what do you believe will happen after the apocalypse? will everyone go to heaven? or will they stay on earth and all of their loved ones will rise from the dead and they will stay on earth? which one is true and which is false?

For many years the Jehovah's Witness literature said that Christ was going to come back in 1914. When he was a no show they said 1915.Then they tried 1917, 1918, and 1925. All of there dates failed.