Correct, but that was only part of the major issue. Do we follow the laws of Moses still or do we allow people is as they are? That was the major issue.

in as they are? I assume you meant. I'll say in as they are, that was the point Peter was commissioned to make when the 5000 were saved. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Also from the letter where Paul rebuked Peter.

in as they are? I assume you meant. I'll say in as they are, that was the point Peter was commissioned to make when the 5000 were saved. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Also from the letter where Paul rebuked Peter.

 

I meant "in" as they are. I understand what you are saying. This is my whole point. Peter and Paul both argue on their interpretations of what Jesus' message was and who was welcome to it. This was all in an effort to keep their disciples involved and pleased. There really was no agreement, only compromise, and that was at about the purest level of interpretation. Now, allow that to evolve over centuries before the New Testament was compiled and it comes down to human interpetation of God's message (at it's best) or their desire to solidify their positions.

I meant "in" as they are. I understand what you are saying. This is my whole point. Peter and Paul both argue on their interpretations of what Jesus' message was and who was welcome to it. This was all in an effort to keep their disciples involved and pleased. There really was no agreement, only compromise, and that was at about the purest level of interpretation. Now, allow that to evolve over centuries before the New Testament was compiled and it comes down to human interpetation of God's message (at it's best) or their desire to solidify their positions.

I understand your point. However, I've studied extensively the last 4 days about some of the things you speak of that are derivatives of the Catholic belief, such as the Council of Nicea, and I wonder if you believe that the NT was derived or decided upon in that council, which no document seems to have survived from this council, or was it narrowed perhaps there into what the church has as their directive for study? I think it's evident that the synoptic gospels, the letters from John, and Paul's letters to the churches are referred to with a high level of verbatim and acuity as early as the first century and by the time the 2nd and 3rd centuries, there are numerous references to the specifics of those documents. I suppose what I'm getting at is this, I understand that Peter and Paul had a confrontation, but I don't think that they spoke a different message. I think they both proclaimed Christ. As a matter of fact, I don't think I've ever heard any argument to the contrary, unless I misunderstand your post (which is highly possible). While I understand your position about the Council and the politics within the church there, I don't feel like the authenticity of the documents are the issue. Perhaps the number, or the omissions I can understand. I've read some of the documents, like Timothy's for instance that make no sense to me whatsoever, that could have been included. But I do wonder why you question the validity of the gospels or the letters from Paul. Or do you?

I think one reason this issue gets so much attention is because it is used by both political parties and media to score points and divide the population.

 

What would the response have been if the Chick-Fil-A guy had called out pre-marital heterosexual sex?

I think one reason this issue gets so much attention is because it is used by both political parties and media to score points and divide the population.

 

What would the response have been if the Chick-Fil-A guy had called out pre-marital heterosexual sex?

 

On the first paragraph, I wholeheartedly agree.

 

On the second, I'm sure it would get a little bit of attention, but it certainly wouldn't garner 185 posts on Bluegrass Preps. :lol:

What I think on this subject is simply, "What I think doesn't matter"

 

I do think it is a sin, but it is not for me to stand in judgement, God will sort that out.

 

I don't care if gays are legally united. Call it what you want, from a government standpoint it's a civil union, marriage comes from the church.

 

If a church wants to perform a gay marriage, that is up to them. If a church does not want to perform a gay marriage, that is also up to them, but the church should not be forced to perform a gay marriage.

I understand your point. However, I've studied extensively the last 4 days about some of the things you speak of that are derivatives of the Catholic belief, such as the Council of Nicea, and I wonder if you believe that the NT was derived or decided upon in that council, which no document seems to have survived from this council, or was it narrowed perhaps there into what the church has as their directive for study? I think it's evident that the synoptic gospels, the letters from John, and Paul's letters to the churches are referred to with a high level of verbatim and acuity as early as the first century and by the time the 2nd and 3rd centuries, there are numerous references to the specifics of those documents. I suppose what I'm getting at is this, I understand that Peter and Paul had a confrontation, but I don't think that they spoke a different message. I think they both proclaimed Christ. As a matter of fact, I don't think I've ever heard any argument to the contrary, unless I misunderstand your post (which is highly possible). While I understand your position about the Council and the politics within the church there, I don't feel like the authenticity of the documents are the issue. Perhaps the number, or the omissions I can understand. I've read some of the documents, like Timothy's for instance that make no sense to me whatsoever, that could have been included. But I do wonder why you question the validity of the gospels or the letters from Paul. Or do you?

 

I don't question the "validity" of the Gospels as to whether Jesus lived and performed miracles. My question is, "What more is there that has been lost?" Is it possible that Jesus was married? Is it possible that women were more significant in the early church and writings and stories espousing this were then eliminated? We'll never know one way of the other, b/c we can only know what has survived.

 

As for the letters of Paul, I lend more credence to them since they are correspondence that was written, if they were actually true to the translations.

 

Again, I believe that the Bible is a moral guide to ultimately live through Christ. I just don't think that it is exhaustive on how certain issues are to be seen.

 

Again, I believe that the Bible is a moral guide to ultimately live through Christ. I just don't think that it is exhaustive on how certain issues are to be seen.

 

Personally I do not see how that is possible. How can the Bible be a moral guide to live ultimately through Christ but not be an exhaustive concordance on contemporary issues (I realize you did not use those words but Iwas struggling to type my thought).

 

One cannot believe that the Bible is accurate and not believe that it is the perfect word of God. The Bible itself claims to be God-Breathes and not Man_Breathed.

Personally I do not see how that is possible. How can the Bible be a moral guide to live ultimately through Christ but not be an exhaustive concordance on contemporary issues (I realize you did not use those words but Iwas struggling to type my thought).

 

One cannot believe that the Bible is accurate and not believe that it is the perfect word of God. The Bible itself claims to be God-Breathes and not Man_Breathed.

 

I never said that it was accureate. I said that it is a moral guide. That's a big part of my internal debate.

I never said that it was accureate. I said that it is a moral guide. That's a big part of my internal debate.

 

So how can a guide be inaccurate?

So how can a guide be inaccurate?

 

We are using two different connotations of accurate I believe.

We are using two different connotations of accurate I believe.

 

How can a moral guide be false?

I never said that the message was false. Here is where we are using two different connotations of "accurate." I am speaking of the stories portrayed and whether there are other books that would have/should have been included to help understand Jesus teachings better. That being said, the overall message of living in faith

In the beginning was the Word. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. First chapter of John. I'm not sure how you can separate them. Yes, I believe the Bible (Gods word who became flesh) from cover to cover.

 

I know I am late in responding to this Spindoc. "The Word" in the prologue of John is not the same as the English translation of "Word."

 

It is the Greek "logos." That means much more than writing. If it referred to the Scriptures (as you infer) it would have been the word "graphen" if I recall my Greek correctly.

 

"Logos" was the "personification of God's truth and wisdom" in the incarnation. It refers to Christ and not the written account of Jesus but the personhood of him.

 

Good discussion: The Meaning of 'Logos' in the Prologue of John's Gospel

I know I am late in responding to this Spindoc. "The Word" in the prologue of John is not the same as the English translation of "Word."

 

It is the Greek "logos." That means much more than writing. If it referred to the Scriptures (as you infer) it would have been the word "graphen" if I recall my Greek correctly.

 

"Logos" was the "personification of God's truth and wisdom" in the incarnation. It refers to Christ and not the written account of Jesus but the personhood of him.

 

Good discussion: The Meaning of 'Logos' in the Prologue of John's Gospel

I don't disagree that it was the incarnation of the Christ. I didn't mean to make it seem like the book poofed into Jesus. Only that Jesus is the alpha and omega. He always was and always will be. In the KJV the verse reads (for those who were wondering) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

 

 

I agree Hatz.