gay christians?

[Illuminator]

Ah,BoL, there you are. And you missed the fact I asked a question. While you answer as if it was a statement made instead.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 891

www.scborromeo.org

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

Let's go to the beginning of the discussion on infallibility. Marks said:

For myself I've concluded that I should believe the plain sayings of the Bible regardless of what some men teach.

Marks, whether he admits it or not, is indirectly claiming infallibility in his private conclusions, regardless of 2000 years of developed consistent teachings. "Some men" is a dig on the Magisterium, who cannot formally teach apart from what has been divinely revealed.

A Brief Introduction To The Development Of Doctrine

There was one apostolic deposit, from Jesus Christ, which undergoes no essential change. There is growth in clarity & increased understanding of this deposit (development).

www.patheos.com

 

[Illuminator]

This is a widely misunderstood passage.

2 Peter 1:19-21 KJV
19) We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Many see this as saying, we don't all just form our own private interpretations of the prophecies we read. But in fact "is of" is to translate "ginetai" which is a word that means the origin of something. It's related to genea, generate or make.

If I'm understanding @Marymog , she was expressing that the Catholic church goes with the first understanding, that this is about how we read prophecy. Personally I find this verse flatly contradicts that position. Marymog thinks of this as my interpretation, but I'm saying, this is the word Peter used.

Here are a couple of other translations:

2 Peter 1:20-21 LITV
20) knowing this first, that every prophecy of Scripture did not come into being of its own interpretation;
21) for prophecy was not at any time borne by the will of man, but being borne along by the Holy Spirit, holy men of God spoke.

2 Peter 1:20-21 YLT
20) this first knowing, that no prophecy of the Writing doth come of private exposition,
21) for not by will of man did ever prophecy come, but by the Holy Spirit borne on holy men of God spake.

Your thoughts?

Much love!

The very possibility of progress demands that there should be an unchanging element . . . the positive historical statements made by Christianity have the power . . . of receiving, without intrinsic change, the increasing complexity of meaning which increasing knowledge puts into them.

Development Of Doctrine: A Corruption Of Biblical Teaching?

Doctrines agreed upon by all undergo development, too. The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325; the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381.

www.patheos.com

 

[Mink57]

Interestingly,your Pope is said to be exactly that;Infallible.

Said NO Pope. Ever.

 

[Mink57]

This is a widely misunderstood passage.

2 Peter 1:19-21 KJV
19) We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Many see this as saying, we don't all just form our own private interpretations of the prophecies we read. But in fact "is of" is to translate "ginetai" which is a word that means the origin of something. It's related to genea, generate or make.

If I'm understanding @Marymog , she was expressing that the Catholic church goes with the first understanding, that this is about how we read prophecy. Personally I find this verse flatly contradicts that position. Marymog thinks of this as my interpretation, but I'm saying, this is the word Peter used.

Here are a couple of other translations:

2 Peter 1:20-21 LITV
20) knowing this first, that every prophecy of Scripture did not come into being of its own interpretation;
21) for prophecy was not at any time borne by the will of man, but being borne along by the Holy Spirit, holy men of God spoke.

2 Peter 1:20-21 YLT
20) this first knowing, that no prophecy of the Writing doth come of private exposition,
21) for not by will of man did ever prophecy come, but by the Holy Spirit borne on holy men of God spake.

Your thoughts?

Much love!

Allow me to present the footnote of 2 Pet 19-21 from my Catholic Bible: " Often cited along with 2 Tim 3:16, on the "inspiration" of scripture or against private interpretation, these verses in context are directed against the false teachers of 2 Pet 2 and clever tales (2 Pt 1:16). The prophetic word in scripture comes admittedly through human beings (2 Pet 1:21), but moved by the holy Spirit, not from their own interpretation, and is a matter of what the author and Spirit intended, not the personal interpretation of false teachers. Instead of under the influence of God, some manuscripts read "holy ones of God."

The commentary goes on to say (I'm paraphrasing) that while the human authors of the word of God were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, interpretation must also be subject to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Thing is, that Catholic Church does not take interpretation of the Bible lightly. The footnote and commentary of this passage wasn't some interpreter's flippant idea that wasn't addressed by a whole PANEL of others...over the span of YEARS/DECADES of discussion, additional research, etc.

Does your KJV have the same or similar footnote/commentary of the verse?

 

[Gabriel _Arch]

Let's go to the beginning of the discussion on infallibility. Marks said:

Marks, whether he admits it or not, is indirectly claiming infallibility in his private conclusions, regardless of 2000 years of developed consistent teachings. "Some men" is a dig on the Magisterium, who cannot formally teach apart from what has been divinely revealed.

A Brief Introduction To The Development Of Doctrine

There was one apostolic deposit, from Jesus Christ, which undergoes no essential change. There is growth in clarity & increased understanding of this deposit (development).

www.patheos.com

Let us just be satisfied with what the Roman church stated about Papal infalibility in that resource I provided. That answered your query.

 

[Mink57]

Let us just be satisfied with what the Roman church stated about Papal infalibility in that resource I provided. That answered your query.

Do you believe the word of God is infallible or not?

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Charles Stanley actually taught one can be a "gay christian" and still go to Heaven proving he is a false teacher!

Here's a video where you can see video of Charlies saying this (just a few minutes into the video)

 

[Gabriel _Arch]

Charles Stanley actually taught one can be a "gay christian" and still go to Heaven proving he is a false teacher!

Here's a video where you can see video of Charlies saying this (just a few minutes into the video)

It's not like the poor editing tells viewers that video is a slanderous fabrication.

Dr.Stanley's views on the sin of homosexuality is well known and for years.


Some folk were really mad about that.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

Gay rights supporters march to protest First Baptist Church's Dr. Charles Stanley's remarks concerning AIDS and gays, Atlanta, Georgia, February 9, 1986.

Newspaper assignment sheet attached to print verso identifies photographer Andy Sharp: "Gays march Sunday morning to protest First Baptist Church's Dr. Charles Stanley's recent remarks concerning AIDS and homosexuals---A group of the crowd gathers to listen to speeches by various speakers. This...

dlg.usg.edu

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Dr.Stanley's views on the sin of homosexuality is well known and for years.

Yeah, he teaches OSAS meaning you can be gay and still go to Heaven.

That's in direct opposition to what God's Word teaches so it's not slandering him to say he's a false teacher.

He's very skilled at tickling people who have itching ears!

 

[Taken]

I accused you of twisting Scripture. The evidence is in your post. YOU provided the evidence!

It's not that hard to figure out kiddo......

Obtuse.

 

[Gabriel _Arch]

Yeah, he teaches OSAS meaning you can be gay and still go to Heaven.

That's in direct opposition to what God's Word teaches so it's not slandering him to say he's a false teacher.

He's very skilled at tickling people who have itching ears! View attachment 39051

Salvation is eternal and irrevocable.

Straight and gay Christians do go to Heaven. Because their sins are forgiven.

All true.

Though I've heard there's this Satanic slander campaign going on across the net that would claim Dr.Stanley teaches sexually active gays go to Heaven.

An utter lie of course.

 

[Marymog]

Obtuse.

axiomatic​

 

[Marymog]

This is a widely misunderstood passage.

2 Peter 1:19-21 KJV
19) We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Many see this as saying, we don't all just form our own private interpretations of the prophecies we read. But in fact "is of" is to translate "ginetai" which is a word that means the origin of something. It's related to genea, generate or make.

If I'm understanding @Marymog , she was expressing that the Catholic church goes with the first understanding, that this is about how we read prophecy. Personally I find this verse flatly contradicts that position. Marymog thinks of this as my interpretation, but I'm saying, this is the word Peter used.

Here are a couple of other translations:

2 Peter 1:20-21 LITV
20) knowing this first, that every prophecy of Scripture did not come into being of its own interpretation;
21) for prophecy was not at any time borne by the will of man, but being borne along by the Holy Spirit, holy men of God spoke.

2 Peter 1:20-21 YLT
20) this first knowing, that no prophecy of the Writing doth come of private exposition,
21) for not by will of man did ever prophecy come, but by the Holy Spirit borne on holy men of God spake.

Your thoughts?

Much love!

Thanks Marks.


These verses refer to past AND future. Scripture contains the revelations of God made to the prophets. These prophecies did not come by the private interpretation of men. They came from holy men who were moved by the Holy Spirit.

Only men filled by the Holy Spirit can interpret Scripture; private interpretation is not allowed. Prophecy is given to the people through the holy men God has chosen. It is not given to the people by each individual private interpretation.

Who are the holy men of God chosen by the Holy Spirit to lead the people? They are the overseers or elders of The Church who are to keep watch over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (Acts 20). These elders were to be on guard because some from their own group will come distorting the truth in order to entice the disciples to follow them (Acts 20).

Later in 2 Peter it is said that, His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

I have another purpose in engaging others sometimes, and that is to bring the dispute to it's root, to reveal the heart of the matter. My discussion with @Marymog ended when I pointed to the meaning of the word used that shows the application of the passage. Her view did not account for that word, so, Game Over. Nothing more to say, only whether you will accept the saying of the Bible when it differs from your church. No, she will stick to what her church tells her. Even when it's plain and simple like that.

Much love!

Marks.....YOU put the FUN in funny!

GAME OVER(?) because YOU "accept the saying of the Bible" and Marymog won't accept the plain and simple saying of the Bible.

Translation: Marymog doesn't agree with my plain and simple interpretation of Scripture. She accepts what The Church teaches. I know I am right in my interpretation of that passage and The Church is wrong so it's GAME OVER! I win!

 

[Marymog]

MORMON , JW , ADVENTIST , BAPTIST , and any other name you would like me to bring
can quoate the same scrip you just did , YET APPLY IT THEIR OWN FALSE LEADERS .
I AINT EVER gonna sit under the RCC , nor any of them either . THEY SOLD OUT .
POWER and control , agendas and love of money .
DONT think for a second i think there should be NO LEADERSHIP in the church and that the church ought not to HEED IT and OBEY them .
THE PROBLEM IS , WOLVES ARE and have devoured the flocks and yet they all lip the same thing
come ye and sit under OUR LEADERS , OUR SCHOLARS and yet THEY TEACH DECEPTOIN .
SORRY but that reminder DONT APPLY TO FALSE LEADERS , ONLY TO THE TRUE ONES . and the RCC AINT IT .

Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.

 

[Marymog]

I am convinced that not only did God create me with a knowledge of Him and His law; he created me with commonsense realism. When Jesus says the bread and wine are His body and blood; He is sitting right there with them, so it is illogical to say the "symbols" are Himself! Only a nutty, extreme literalist can read into that some idea the bread and wine become His body and blood at the Lord's Supper. They are "ordinances".

Jesus was nutty and extreme when he said this: he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Paul is nutty and extreme when he said this: The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

whoever eats the bread in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread 29 For those who eat without discerning the body of Christ eat judgment on themselves.

Hey, Arthur! How do you eat a symbol in an unworthy manner? How can one be guilty of SIN if the bread is just a symbol? How can one eat judgment upon themselves by eating just a plain piece of bread?

Someone is nutty and extreme....and it isn't Jesus or Paul.

It is nutty AND extreme not to believe Jesus and Paul.

 

[Marymog]

The question here is, what do you understand from the use of the word ginetai? A word denoting the origin of something?

You see, it's not important whether you or I agree with each other, but there's this word here in the Bible that you are not accounting for, and it disagrees with your understanding given you by your church.

That's what you have to deal with. Not me.

Much love!

I think you are to focused on a single word.....You believe that single word is the nail in the coffin for Marymog. OK. That's fine....I respect your opinion.

Yes, your opinion. You have to deal with your opinion....not me. I have moved on.

 

[Marymog]

The "Cult of Mary" falsely teaches that Peter is the "first pope"..... and also the "rock that Christ will build his Church upon".

If you take 8 seconds and study the verse that the "cult of Mary" changes to fit their Peter worship..., you'll instantly realize that the "rock" that Jesus is referring to when talking to Peter is the "revelation that Jesus is the MESSIAH", that Peter had just spoken.

So, its upon THAT Rock... that REVELATION.... ..that the Church of God is founded upon...


or, as Paul the Apostle teaches :


KJ21
and all drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that ROCK was Christ.

ASV
and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the ROCK was Christ.

AMP
and all [of them] drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the ROCK was Christ.

AMPC
And they all drank the same spiritual (supernaturally given) drink. For they drank from a spiritual Rock which followed them [produced by the sole power of God Himself without natural instrumentality], and the ROCK was Christ.

BRG
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that ROCK was Christ.
CSB
and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and that ROCK was Christ

CEB
and all drank the same spiritual drink. They drank from a spiritual rock that followed them, and the ROCK was Christ

Got it. Change this passage from Scripture And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

TO READ

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon your revelation I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And then YOU are right

 

[Marymog]

Interestingly,your Pope is said to be exactly that;Infallible.

Not true. You should educate yourself about a subject before you comment on it.

 

[Marymog]

Ah,BoL, there you are. And you missed the fact I asked a question. While you answer as if it was a statement made instead.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 891

www.scborromeo.org

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

Hey GA.....Here is what you are missing from #891: When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."

That does NOT say the Pope is infallible. Do you get it now?

I know it is a waste of time to educate you and you are going to continue to be dishonest but that is your problem....Not the problem of The Church.