re: United Methodist Church votes to allow gay marriage and gay clergy

quote:

---

Just because man interprets something as excusable and ordinary does not dismiss what GOD says it is.

---

How do we know what your god says "it" is?

quote:

---

Everything GOD has said has been interpreted in some way.

---

Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

If that can possibly be interpreted to mean that it is okay to be a homosexual, then is it being interpreted by Christians?

1 Peter 2:18

Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

What is your favorite (complete opposite) interpretation?

Missed the point entirely. Everything written in the Bible which is said to have been God's word relies on the truthfulness of the person hearing God.

quote:

---

Maybe yours.

Let's hear it.

---

You need it explained to you? Froward means crookedness, twisted, distorted, on the wrong path. Does that help?

quote:

---

Nope, but I'd like to hear your interpretation of that verse.

---

I'd like a cold beer and a cigar. People in hell want icewater. Place is full of fire, and people who read the words of the Bible and decided those words mean the exact opposite of what they say.

quote:

---

BTW, Peter means pebble. The rock that the church is built upon is the fact that Jesus is the Son of God. You don't build a church on a pebble.

---

Here's where you went wrong:


Jesus spoke in Aramaic, not in Greek. The NT is written in Greek. Perhaps in Greek there is an argument that "Peter" means "pebble", that is not the case when one considers the meaning of the Aramaic name that Jesus gave to Simon, which is Kepha. In Aramaic, "Kepha" has no alternate meaning that can be interpreted as the word "pebble" in the English language.

So, you are wrong here, factually. It is factual because we know the actual languages, words and word definitions. You are wrong on this level, because the facts say you are wrong, not me - the facts.

You are also wrong on a logical level. Why would Jesus give the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to a pebble? That defies logic. One must twist the life out of logic to reach the conclusion that Jesus meant to call Peter a "pebble." So, you are wrong on this level, too.

You are also wrong about Jesus meaning to call Peter a pebble in the level of the History of the Church. You are wrong on this third Historical level. We know that for over 1,500 years, all of Christendom considered Peter to have been named "Rock" by Jesus and not "pebble."

So, congratulations. You are wrong on three levels. That's the Trifecta of being wrong.

Can we get back to the Sola Scriptura Methodists who say that Gay Male Sex is one of God's Blessings? Because I would really, really like for somebody to explain to me how Sola Scriptura operated to bring us to this perverted conclusion.

Here's Catholic Answers explanation of Peter is Kepha, which means Rock, not pebble.

LINK

quote:

---

The clear language of the Bible indicates that Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter, which means "Rock".

---

He did do that. That doesn't mean that Jesus was founding the Church upon Peter as singular person. It was an ironic statement: "Peter, your name means 'rock/pebble' and yet it is this rock (Peter's confession) upon which I will build my church"

quote:

---

Jesus then gave the Keys "to the Kingdom of Heaven", and conferred the "binding and loosing" powers upon Peter.

---

Interestingly, just two chapters after Peter's confession, the disciples were arguing about who was going to be the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven (ch. 18:1-5). If your interpretation is correct, then it is strange that they were arguing over who the greatest of the disciples would be in Heaven since Jesus already said it was Peter. Jesus didn't respond that Peter was the greatest, BTW.

Later in chapter 18, Jesus is teaching the disciples about church discipline and dealing with conflict in the church. Jesus tells the disciples collectively that whatever they (plural) bind and loose will be bound and loosed in Heaven. If Peter alone held the keys, you would think that Jesus would only be talking to Peter instead of all of the disciples. When Jesus talks about where two or three are gathered in His name, there He will be also, He's talking about that in the context of discipline. It's basically Him saying that they can feel confident that if they are using the keys wisely, that their actions have Jesus' authority as the king and head of the Church.

That doesn't even touch on the lack of support of Peter's primacy as head of the Church in the epistles (even his own), but rather the rest of the NT affirms the contrary, that Peter was "a fellow elder" with the rest of the elders and Apostles, that he needed to be personally rebuked by Paul, and his counsel was not sought after individually as some head of the Church. Rather Paul writes about the offices of Deacon and Elder, with the Elders being the rulers that are appointed in each congregation who would be responsible for administering discipline (part of the Keys). Paul points Timothy to the Scriptures to deal with the hardships that would come to the Church, not to Peter.

So no, the context of the Keys do not support Rome's claim about Peter, nor do the Scriptures (or the history of the early church) testify to Rome's teachings on papal infallibility nor the Pope being the head of Christ's Church. Those are man-made traditions that contradict what the Scriptures actually teach.

quote:

---

ALL OF CHRISTENDOM and the entire Christian Church taught these Truths for over Fifteen Centuries - over one-thousand and five hundred years.

---

I already provided an example of Augustine where there was disagreement on who/what the "rock" was that is the foundation of the Church. Do you need others to show that "ALL OF CHRISTENDOM" and "the entire Christian Church" did not teach what you're saying it did, or is one exception good enough?

quote:

---

What kind of sick man would step up and announce that God's children had gotten it all wrong for over 1,500 years?

---

The nation of Israel spent hundreds of years in apostasy over it's time. So yes, "God's children" have certainly "gotten it all wrong" for large periods of time throughout history. The Scriptures speak of a remnant of the faithful to God being preserved. I believe that was true prior to the Reformation and holds true even now.

I fully acknowledge that I may be wrong on all 3 accounts. I just find the Catholic answer self-serving, and losing all context from the scripture.

Jesus asks "who do the people say that I am?"

quote:

---

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

---

And they answer, saying some say you are John the Baptist, some say you are this guy, some say you are that guy.

quote:

---

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

---

And Jesus says, who do you all say I am?

quote:

---

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

---

And Simon Peter says, you are the Christ, The Son of the living God.

quote:

---

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

---

And Jesus says, bless you Simon, flesh and blood hasn't revealed IT to you, but my Father in Heaven.

quote:

---

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

---

This makes the entire sequence contextually about IT. What is IT? IT is the fact that Jesus is the Christ, Son of the living God.

Now, with IT (his identity) established, Jesus says, and I also say to you that you are Peter, and on THIS rock I will build my church.

quote:

---

18 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.

---

Now, if Jesus wasn't referencing back to IT (his true identity as the Christ, Son of the living God) why wouldn't He have just said Peter, or thee, if he wasn't referencing back to IT.?