Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I realize that this thread is not intended as a platform for debating 'Homosexuality and the Bible' - we already have a thread for that topic - but it IS a fact that the churches who oppose the alleged 'gay lifestyle' DO get this notion from scripture. So, it is relative.
Yet, you constantly argue for it.
Quote:
I have already mentioned that, as much as my knowledge on scripture takes me, all references to male/male sexual practices in the Bible reference pagan temple prostitution and not 'homosexuality per se' since any such definition was not known to the ancient Bible writers. Is there anyone who can prove me wrong on this interpretation of the Bible references to male/male sex ...that it solely refers to idolatry and nothing other? I can hardly resurrect the other thread just to ask this question.
That is wrong, and it has been clearly shown to be wrong. You are continuing to promote a lie. Maybe you believe it to be true, I don't now. But you've bought into a false idea and are promoting it.
Maybe you should realize that Jesus is God, and he directly inspired Paul to write Romans and 1 Corinthians. Those are the words of God.
Paul and Jesus have major differences in their ministries, Jesus proclaimed repentance, baptism, and belief, repentance being paramount. Paul only refers to repentance once (Romans 2:4) and actively says "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” and mentions only the baptism of the holy spirit. Paul preaches almost entirely on belief, and belief alone.
There are plenty of little contradictions. You're probably aware of these instances, Romans 13:12 v Luke 21:8, Romans 14:9 v Luke 20:38 and plenty of others.
I think to take Pauline doctrine over the actual words spoken by Jesus Christ while on this earth is a bold choice for believers.
My sister is a priest in the Church of England and her entire professional life she has had to face people espousing 1 Timothy 2:12 at her. I guess you would fall into that category.
Paul and Jesus have major differences in their ministries, Jesus proclaimed repentance, baptism, and belief, repentance being paramount. Paul only refers to repentance once (Romans 2:4) and actively says "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” and mentions only the baptism of the holy spirit. Paul preaches almost entirely on belief, and belief alone.
Repentance as typically used in the current dogma is the wrong connotation. Paul is referring to the correct connotation as a "change of mind" about God as revealed and demonstrated by Jesus on the Cross. Our ancestors believed in a wrathful and vengeful God who had to be continually appeased by us "filthy rags." But Jesus revealed an agape loving and forgiving God who unconditionally loves His children no matter what they do in their ignorance. The "change of mind" about God was too stark for our ancestors to accept so they interpreted things using their wrathful God belief.
Paul and Jesus have major differences in their ministries, Jesus proclaimed repentance, baptism, and belief, repentance being paramount. Paul only refers to repentance once (Romans 2:4) and actively says "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” and mentions only the baptism of the holy spirit. Paul preaches almost entirely on belief, and belief alone.
There are plenty of little contradictions. You're probably aware of these instances, Romans 13:12 v Luke 21:8, Romans 14:9 v Luke 20:38 and plenty of others.
I think to take Pauline doctrine over the actual words spoken by Jesus Christ while on this earth is a bold choice for believers.
My sister is a priest in the Church of England and her entire professional life she has had to face people espousing 1 Timothy 2:12 at her. I guess you would fall into that category.
Be careful throwing that I Corinthians 1:17 stuff around on this board. Kate might be reading.
I do find your overall point interesting in that the conflict between Jesus' gospels and Paul's letters has been problematic enough that it brought about the ultra dispensationalist movement.
So while most people try to conflate it all, ultra dispensationalists try to solve the problem by "rightly dividing" the scripture according to the dispensation.
Paul and Jesus have major differences in their ministries, Jesus proclaimed repentance, baptism, and belief, repentance being paramount. Paul only refers to repentance once (Romans 2:4) and actively says "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” and mentions only the baptism of the holy spirit. Paul preaches almost entirely on belief, and belief alone.
There are plenty of little contradictions. You're probably aware of these instances, Romans 13:12 v Luke 21:8, Romans 14:9 v Luke 20:38 and plenty of others.
I think to take Pauline doctrine over the actual words spoken by Jesus Christ while on this earth is a bold choice for believers.
My sister is a priest in the Church of England and her entire professional life she has had to face people espousing 1 Timothy 2:12 at her. I guess you would fall into that category.
Regarding your first paragraph, Jesus spoke to a wide audience, whereas Paul’s mission was to the Church, ie believers in Christ.
The ELCA synod of the Lutheran Church welcomes gays and married gay ministers. There are other synods of the Lutheran Church that are much more conservative and nonwelcoming, but the ELCA is the largest synod of the Lutheran Church.
Why do YOU have an issue with one and not the other? Do you personally disapprove, or do you disapprove because you think someone else might?
Do you believe a church is wrong for daring to follow what the Bible says?
I always love this kind of rhetoric. Hate to break it to you, but all churches are highly selective about which Bible passages they follow, then ignore those passages that are inconvenient. Yours included.
I mean, Christ said nothing about homosexuality, but he sure did talk about divorce. Yet I'm pretty sure that there are couples in your church who are on their second or third marriages, whose first marriage didn't split up due to adultery. I know there are in mine.
And unless all the women in your church wear hats and don't wear jewelry, then they've ignored huge chunks of Corinthians. If your wife went hatless to church and you didn't shave her head when you got home then, well, you are okay with the shame she brought on you and your family. Paul's words, not mine.
Now, having said all that, stroll into the Fellowship Hall after church next Sunday. Stand up with a megaphone and urge all the husbands to shave the heads of their hatless wives. Snatch their jewelry away while you're at it. Those husbands will be so glad that you reminded them of those passages from Scripture and put them on the path of light and truth. I'll video tape what happens next.
Paul and Jesus have major differences in their ministries, Jesus proclaimed repentance, baptism, and belief, repentance being paramount. Paul only refers to repentance once (Romans 2:4) and actively says "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” and mentions only the baptism of the holy spirit. Paul preaches almost entirely on belief, and belief alone.
Completely untrue. Paul also preached repentance. Have you read 1 and 2 Timothy? Titus? 1 and 2 Corinthians? Galatians? He thoroughly chastises churches that are engaging in sinful behavior.
Quote:
There are plenty of little contradictions. You're probably aware of these instances, Romans 13:12 v Luke 21:8,
What about them?
Quote:
Romans 14:9 v Luke 20:38 and plenty of others.
Again...so what? What's your point?
Quote:
I think to take Pauline doctrine over the actual words spoken by Jesus Christ while on this earth is a bold choice for believers.
Who is taking Paul over Jesus?
On the other hand, to take the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John over Paul is wrong. Read them together, not instead of.
Quote:
My sister is a priest in the Church of England and her entire professional life she has had to face people espousing 1 Timothy 2:12 at her. I guess you would fall into that category.
Now I see your complaint. You toss out all of Paul because your sister hates the fact that God spoke through him that women should not be pastors or elders.
Honestly though, I'd have more issue with her over the idea of calling herself a priest than as a woman in church leadership. The NT has no office of priest.
Honestly though, I'd have more issue with her over the idea of calling herself a priest than as a woman in church leadership. The NT has no office of priest.
There's that selectivity again, mostly likely based on these two verses:
1 Corinthians 14:34,35
34 Women[f] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
But the people who love to quote that seem to forget the rest of the passage:
36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.[h] 39 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.
Verses 36-39 serve to rebut verses 34-35. The very fact that he is encouraging women to speak in verse 39 is the complete opposite of what he says in the passages you seem to favor. In fact, in some translations of that part of Corinthians, verse 36 actually starts with the question What? As in 'Are you serious, guys?' In other words, the entire intent of this passage is intended as a rebuke to the Corinthians, not as laying down some rule of the church.
Need further proof?
Romans 16:1I
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae.
This verse has been subject to some skullduggery over time. For example, some translations like to substitute the word 'helper' for 'deacon.' And others try to perform a little sleight of hand by using the term 'deaconness' even though that term doesn't appear in classical Greek until at least the Sixth Century.
But the earliest manuscripts we have of Paul's letter to the Romans indeed uses the term 'deacon,' which is truly odd if Paul is against women serving as clergy. What's more, that entire point of the letter is to introduce Phoebe to the Romans and expects the Christian community there to do what she asks. It is part of fulfilling his mission to raise funds for the Christian community in Jerusalem, as noted in Romans 15.
Then there's this from Galatians 3:26-29
26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Or Acts 21, where the four daughters of Phillip who prophesied without any evident criticism from the author. Or Anna in Luke 2, who was a prophet in the temple who was one of the very first to recognize and proclaim the divinity of Christ.
And, by the way, there's archeological proof as well, with paintings and sculptures in some of the earliest church depicting women as clergy, standing at the altar, providing Eucharist, and otherwise participating as officiants in early services.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
