Why celibate bishops are a big deal?

[Paidiske]

Where does the Most High God or the Word of God say this explicitly?

Something as serious as invalidation of law for a specific group should be well reasoned and spelled out in a canonical text. The Most High God and the Word of God are the only Two in the entire creation and beyond to hold, change or amend the Law of God. No other human has the authority to add, change or remove obligations of His people.

Where do the Authorities (the Most High God and/or the Word of God) on Law say that any part of the Law previously set up are void or nullified for any group that wants to be a son of God?

It's very clear. It's not invalidation of the law for a specific group; the law was only ever for a specific group, the Jews, given to them through Moses. It was never meant to be universal.

This was made explicit in the Acts passage I quoted for you; the Holy Spirit and the early church leaders taught that the Jewish law was not binding on gentiles who came to faith in Christ.

 

[Kaon]

It's very clear. It's not invalidation of the law for a specific group; the law was only ever for a specific group, the Jews, given to them through Moses. It was never meant to be universal.

This was made explicit in the Acts passage I quoted for you; the Holy Spirit and the early church leaders taught that the Jewish law was not binding on gentiles who came to faith in Christ.

Show me a verse where the Most High God Himself, or the Word of God explicitly state, or allow for the implications, interpretations and interpolations of His Law as you have done?

I am not talking about interpreting what Peter or Paul says because that is DOGMA.

Where did the Authorities on the Law explicitly give the permissions to ignore or make void any part of His Law for any human that wants to be a son of God? This is serious business to tell people certain Laws of God are applicable when He hasn't actually said it to us.

 

[CaptainToad]

To become a priest there are a few preliminaries

1. The person desiring to be a priest must say he is called to the priestly work and office
   
2. The church must discern if he is really called by God for that work
3. The person desiring to be a priest must meet the qualifications for priesthood in his rite - In the Roman rite he must be unmarried
4. The person desiring priesthood must express his willingness to remain in whatever state he was in when he entered the priesthood (married to a specific person or unmarried)
   
5. He must be educated into the role of priestly life both intellectually and spiritually
6. He must be accepted for ordination first as a deacon and then as a priest
   
7. After ordination as a deacon, for a time, he may be allowed to proceed to the next step
8. He may be ordained as a priest

An ordained priest may, after requesting permission, lay aside his priestly office and role after which he may marry if he wishes.

So in the catholic church you can become a priest if you are married?

 

[Kaon]

This was made explicit in the Acts passage I quoted for you; the Holy Spirit and the early church leaders taught that the Jewish law was not binding on gentiles who came to faith in Christ.

The early Church leaders did this because the gentiles would have run completely away. They are lawless, so bringing the good news AND the responsibility was jarring for them. So, that is why references to feeding gentiles with MILK is brought up - not that the intention of the disciples was to nullify the Law of GOd, or the responsibility to the Law. It was to raise up newborns in spirit who had no cultural or spiritual awareness of the Most High God except the gospel.

Eventually, one would be sanctified as the Spirit works though you, but the choice to emphasize certain things was a choice made by humans; the Most High God demands obedience to His Law just like any human parent.

 

[Paidiske]

Show me a verse where the Most High God Himself, or the Word of God explicitly state, or allow for the implications, interpretations and interpolations of His Law as you have done?

I am not talking about interpreting what Peter or Paul says because that is DOGMA.

Where did the Authorities on the Law explicitly give the permissions to ignore or make void any part of His Law for any human that wants to be a son of God? This is serious business to tell people certain Laws of God are applicable when He hasn't actually said it to us.

The Holy Spirit is God. And the Acts passage I quoted made it clear that that decision was of the Holy Spirit.

And it's not ignoring or making void the law. It's making clear that the law only applies to those to whom it was given; the Jews; not to everyone else.

 

[Paidiske]

The early Church leaders did this because the gentiles would have run completely away.

Except the text doesn't say that. That's your interpretation/interpolation.

 

[Kaon]

The Holy Spirit is God. And the Acts passage I quoted made it clear that that decision was of the Holy Spirit.

And it's not ignoring or making void the law. It's making clear that the law only applies to those to whom it was given; the Jews; not to everyone else.

The Holy Spirit is a Pentecostal allowance for humans after Resurrection - a comforting spirit to convict and guide us. The Most High God is the Most High God, and operates on His will.

Humans speaking in the Spirit still need to be tested against the strength of the Word of God Himself.

I cannot take another human seriously that tells me I don't have to follow certain Laws of God when there is no explicit mention of this by Him. Something as serious as Law should not be left up to interpretation, interpolation or the imagination of humans. How can one be a son of God if you believe 3/4 of the Law set up to RAISE sons of God upright is allegedly not applied to gentiles? You think the Most High God will accept that?

 

[Paidiske]

The Holy Spirit is a Pentecostal allowance for humans after Resurrection - a comforting spirit to convict and guide us. The Most High God is the Most High God, and operates on His will.

The Holy Spirit is God. To deny that is not allowed in this forum.

I cannot take another human seriously that tells me I don't have to follow certain Laws of God when there is no explicit mention of this by Him. Something as serious as Law should not be left up to interpretation, interpolation or the imagination of humans. How can one be a son of God if you believe 3/4 of the Law set up to RAISE sons of God upright is allegedly not applied to gentiles? You think the Most High God will accept that?

What I quoted for you was very explicit. Acts is also God-breathed Scripture.

I don't just think the Most High God accepts that, I believe God inspired it.

 

[Kaon]

Except the text doesn't say that. That's your interpretation/interpolation.

Correct, but I can safely make that interpolation for them, because I know the disciples wouldn't purposefully neglect to tell the gentiles about their responsibility as a Child of God, and suggest they could stay in their unlawful ways.

Also, the context isn't which Laws of God are inert, or the specific groups that follow specific rules. Why are Hebrew believers expected to follow the Most High God, but others who want to be His child don't have the same expectation of obedience? If You are of the Most High God, your spirit is the focus, not your genetics.

 

[Paidiske]

Correct, but I can safely make that interpolation for them,

So, you can interpolate at will, but nobody else can?

Sorry, I don't find that a very convincing position.

Why are Hebrew believers expected to follow the Most High God, but others who want to be His child don't have the same expectation of obedience?

The Church is not Israel. We are all expected to be obedient, but we have a different purpose and discipline.

 

[Kaon]

The Holy Spirit is God. To deny that is not allowed in this forum.

We aren't going to play that game of making me out to be a heretic when by assuming I am a Paul hater, or I am blaspheming the Word of God. This is especially true since I never explicitly said and of what you said, and I never said the Holy Spirit was not [of] the Most High God; I said exactly what I meant. We can't even agree that we are supposed to obedient to the Law, but you think someone who suggest this would blasphemy the Most High God?

What I quoted for you was very explicit. Acts is also God-breathed Scripture.

I don't just think the Most High God accepts that, I think God inspired it.

Inspiration is not the same thing as explicit Word of God, because the Word of God is an actual living entity. Canonical text is canonical text - chosen by HUMANS who make a judgment on what other HUMANS should accept as "God-inspired".

And yet, the Most High God told us that He would put His Laws and Statutes on our hearts so that none of us would have to ask our neighbor who He is - will we know because His Law is in us (that is part of the New Covenant). And, it was something the compilers of the canonical text (and apocrypha) thought was important enough as direct, explicit promise from the Most High God. There is no vagueness in who said this in Jeremiah.

I just want you or anyone else to show me one place where the Most High God Or the Word of God Himself ever say that we don't have to follow the Law of the Most High God - in first person part of speech. You can show me in the canon, Apocrypha or Gnostic texts - where He says this just like He explicitly did every time through history when He wanted us to do something. If you give me a human that says we don't have to follow some of His laws, I have to bring up the fact that both He and the Word of God said the Law wouldn't ever be done away with or diminished until very specific things happen - which is nowhere near happening now.

 

[Kaon]

So, you can interpolate at will, but nobody else can?

Sorry, I don't find that a very convincing position.

You cannot, you keep cutting out/ignoring context. I said

Correct, but I can safely make that interpolation for them, because I know the disciples wouldn't purposefully neglect to tell the gentiles about their responsibility as a Child of God, and suggest they could stay in their unlawful ways
​

Do you think the disciples would purposefully neglect to tell the gentiles about their responsibility as a Child of God when they grew up understanding it? That would be sick to string along people who were comfortable in their iniquity by suggesting a better life, but neglecting to disclose the fullness of the responsibility.

The Church is not Israel. We are all expected to be obedient, but we have a different purpose and discipline.

Where does the Word of God Himself ever say that believers (not an edifice) is not Israel? Isn't He the King of Israel? Didn't He say whoever does the will of my Father is my brother, or mother?

I am not arguing your choice to believe what you believe, I am asking for something substantative that actually shows the permission to [neglect to] follow other sets of Law from the Most High God for specific groups.

Why do you think people who performed miracles and cast out demons in Christ's alleged name will be rejected? This is serious business to interpolate permissions of the Most High God when He didn't specific pally say these things (and, He tells us something He wants us to know).

And, very few people know If they are genetic Hebrews; they have been, and stayed scattered. Assuming you are a gentiles and, therefore, do not have an obligation to obedience of the Law of the Most High God is already dangerous.

 

[GingerBeer]

So in the catholic church you can become a priest if you are married?

Usually not in the Roman Rite but yes in some of the other 22 rites.

 

[Paidiske]

We aren't going to play that game of making me out to be a heretic when by assuming I am a Paul hater, or I am blaspheming the Word of God. This is especially true since I never explicitly said and of what you said, and I never said the Holy Spirit was not [of] the Most High God; I said exactly what I meant. We can't even agree that we are supposed to obedient to the Law, but you think someone who suggest this would blasphemy the Most High God?

You seemed to be denying that the Holy Spirit was God, by denying that the leading of the Holy Spirit was from God. I am not clear, from what you have said, what you really believe about the Holy Spirit. [Of] God is not the same as God.

Inspiration is not the same thing as explicit Word of God, because the Word of God is an actual living entity. Canonical text is canonical text - chosen by HUMANS who make a judgment on what other HUMANS should accept as "God-inspired".

I don't recognise different levels of authority within Scripture. (Excepting the apocrypha, which are not under discussion here).

I just want you or anyone else to show me one place where the Most High God Or the Word of God Himself ever say that we don't have to follow the Law of the Most High God - in first person part of speech. You can show me in the canon, Apocrypha or Gnostic texts - where He says this just like He explicitly did every time through history when He wanted us to do something. If you give me a human that says we don't have to follow some of His laws, I have to bring up the fact that both He and the Word of God said the Law wouldn't ever be done away with or diminished until very specific things happen - which is nowhere near happening now.

You're setting a standard which arbitrarily rejects some parts of Scripture. (Those not in the "first person"). That's your choice, but it leaves some pretty big holes.

That said; I am not saying the law is done away with or diminished. It remains in force for those to whom it was given. That's the Jews.

Do you think the disciples would purposefully neglect to tell the gentiles about their responsibility as a Child of God when they grew up understanding it?

They didn't.

Where does the Word of God Himself ever say that believers (not an edifice) is not Israel?

If you're looking for a quote from Christ, I don't think there is one. But notice the distinction in Revelation 7:4-10; first the people of Israel in verses 4-8, then the gentiles (Christians) in verses 9-10. They are not treated as the same in this vision God gives to John.

I am not arguing your choice to believe what you believe, I am asking for something substantative that actually shows the permission to [neglect to] follow other sets of Law from the Most High God for specific groups.

I've shown you the plain text of Scripture. If you reject that as "substantive," I don't know that this discussion has anywhere to go.

And, very few people know If they are genetic Hebrews; they have been, and stayed scattered. Assuming you are a gentiles and, therefore, do not have an obligation to obedience of the Law of the Most High God is already dangerous.

I trust God's grace, should I be mistaken about my ethnic roots.

 

[Kaon]

You seemed to be denying that the Holy Spirit was God, by denying that the leading of the Holy Spirit was from God. I am not clear, from what you have said, what you really believe about the Holy Spirit. [Of] God is not the same as God.

I am bein careful not to equate the Holy Spirit with the Most High God. One is a spirit of the Most High God, the other is the Most High God. Equal but different, just like my words are mine/me, but it is not the complete sum of me.

I don't recognise different levels of authority within Scripture. (Excepting the apocrypha, which are not under discussion here).

The only authority on the Word of God is the Word of God Himself. We have made canonical texts of inspired books other humans have deemed as appropriate. But that is something humans should be doing on their own - to. Discern everyrhin spiritually.

If a human tells me something that seems to contradict what the Most High God Or the Word of God said explicitly (like, not one iota or jot will be removed, and don't think I came to CHANGE the Law), then that human is wrong at best.

You're setting a standard which arbitrarily rejects some parts of Scripture. (Those not in the "first person"). That's your choice, but it leaves some pretty big holes.

That said; I am not saying the law is done away with or diminished. It remains in force for those to whom it was given. That's the Jews.

Where does Christ give permission for us to choose which laws we follow? Even atheists cans we the hypocrisy - that all believers in Christ are to follow Him completely, and that He followed the Law of the Most High God.

It is much more dangerous to suggest He who doesn't change has changed His standards of obedience and perfection.

Where does the Most High God highlight any of the Law we are not to follow? The standard is already set by Him.

They didn't.

So why would humans who know what their God expects tell others that they don't have to follow the same standard? That is deception.

What the disciples did was feed the gentiles with milk - because they couldn't handle the meat of the gospel at that time. They had discernment and patience, and wisdom enough to tell the gentiles the basics of what was expected, and then have the Holy Spirit lead them the rest of the way.

If you're looking for a quote from Christ, I don't think there is one. But notice the distinction in Revelation 7:4-10; first the people of Israel in verses 4-8, then the gentiles (Christians) in verses 9-10. They are not treated as the same in this vision God gives to John.

The multitude are the people that have already been placed in Abraham's bosom - they are separate from the 144,000 because these are the remnant left on the earth to minister during the end. It includes some gentiles, but that is a consequence of the New Covenant, the ministry of the disciples, and the faith those people had.

It isn't about the gentiles neglecting any parts of the Law of God. Your salvation depends on faith in the Word of God, and it is substantiated by the works you do. Sanctification takes a while, but those gentiles that were given white robes were cognizant of the Law of the Most High God in order to try to be obedient to it - out of love.

I've shown you the plain text of Scripture. If you reject that as "substantive," I don't know that this discussion has anywhere to go.

My point is human men have made dangerous dogma out of abstractions and ego. There is no place where the Word of God or the Most High God gives us the permission ignore any of His Laws (like the health laws of the Most High God for example), and to suggest it would be dangerous at best. But we justify it because of tradition. We need to stop this, because it is causing people to completely fall, and misunderstand the Most High God in general.

Why do atheists and agnostics understand that no rules or laws have been changed except if by the Most High God or the Word of God? It is more clear the standards of the Most High God than it is where He has given us permission to ignore air make inert any of His Laws.

I am challenging people to think beyond the "bible is inspired therefore it is the Word of God" mentality. It is a canonical text (with all the implications) determined by other humans - a reason why there are so many denominations and sects of a faith that should be unity. We know what is right and wrong because His Law is on our hearts, not on paper or any other vector.

I trust God's grace, should I be mistaken about my ethnic roots.

Ok.

 

[Paidiske]

I am bein careful not to equate the Holy Spirit with the Most High God. One is a spirit of the Most High God, the other is the Most High God. Equal but different, just like my words are mine/me, but it is not the complete sum of me.

I'm still not sure that's exactly orthodox. God - the Trinity - consists of three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To suggest that the Spirit is not God is... problematic.

Where does Christ give permission for us to choose which laws we follow?

I wouldn't say that He does.

Where does the Most High God highlight any of the Law we are not to follow? The standard is already set by Him.

Well, I quoted the Scripture for you...

So why would humans who know what their God expects tell others that they don't have to follow the same standard? That is deception.

Not at all deception. For example, you are in America. There are laws in America which are binding on you, but which don't apply to me in Australia. You must follow American law, but you wouldn't tell me, someone outside America, to follow American law.

It's the same kind of principle. God gave laws to Israel. Those laws were never binding on all the other nations, and they are not now.

I am challenging people to think beyond the "bible is inspired therefore it is the Word of God" mentality.

You came into this thread challenging us to believe that clergy should marry because Christians should have an inherited ministry. But there is nothing in the New Testament to support that view, and plenty to say otherwise; such as the selection process we see for elders and deacons in the early church communities.

 

[Kaon]

I'm still not sure that's exactly orthodox. God - the Trinity - consists of three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To suggest that the Spirit is not God is... problematic.

Who said this?

I wouldn't say that He does.

So, why is there any type of dogma that would suggest we have permission to pick and choose which Law we follow - and for specific groups of people that all want to be children of the Most High God? Has the Law changed, and if so - on whose authority?

Well, I quoted the Scripture for you...

Where does the Most High God Himself - as direct as He gave the Law to Moses - highlight any of the Law we are not to follow?

I specifically asked for a quote from The Word of God, or the Most High God that tells us this. As great as the disciples are, if they are contradicting the Most High God, I have to go with the Authority. (However, I don't think for one second they are contradicting Him.)

Not at all deception. For example, you are in America. There are laws in America which are binding on you, but which don't apply to me in Australia. You must follow American law, but you wouldn't tell me, someone outside America, to follow American law. It's the same kind of principle. God gave laws to Israel. Those laws were never binding on all the other nations, and they are not now.

But, we are under one Creation - and all creatures are to follow the Law of God first. I understand the analogy, but the entirety of existence is under the Law of the Most High God. So, if one wants to be a child of the Most High God, you have to follow His rules. If one wants to live, one needs to follow His Laws. If you are born of a woman's bag of waters, and you are born of the holy spirit (Pentecost), then you can be saved.

It would be a gross deception to tell people they are not held under the same rule of Law as every other creature in creation because they are culturally separate from Him. They began culturally separate because they were spiritually lost in the first place; the Gospel was to bring them back to Him - since none of His are taken from His hand.

You came into this thread challenging us to believe that clergy should marry because Christians should have an inherited ministry. But there is nothing in the New Testament to support that view, and plenty to say otherwise; such as the selection process we see for elders and deacons in the early church communities.

I did not say clergy should marry because they have a duty to do so, I said that it is dangerous to imply that they should be celibate or chaste - especially given the fact that in order to produce more entities like them, they need to produce.

In other words, once again DOGMA has made it a stumbling block for leadership roles in the alleged Church. (Again, where does the Most High God ever say that any holy person should consider celibacy? A holy leader is supposed to have more control than the average believer in the first place.)

Humans say plenty of stuff - at one point what we call genocide today was justified as spiritual work for the Church. We are called to compare and discern every single word we have been told, or that we hear, and we are supposed to test those words against the Word of God that was put on our hearts and minds (per the New Covenant). The New Covenant/Testament/Contract doesn't say anything about ministers needed to be celibate - and if there is an issue with flesh, one needs to reconsider being a leader in the Church.


How does that connect with what we are discussing? DOGMA. We have taken words of other humans, and we have ignored the words of the Most High God that charge us with perfect obedience and demands we remain upright in His statutes. We have been led to believe that the Redeemer died so we can continue to do the same things we have always done. We forgot the Most High God doesn't change. It is particular upsetting because of the time that would be wasted for many millions of people to come to realize GOD >>> MAN = DOGMA. No man is above Him; everything (man, angel or otherwise) should be tested against what He says (in text or by listening to His real voice and Comforter/Holy Spirit when we are convicted).

So, yes I am challenging people to look at canonical and dogma much closer - and to trust the Most High God at the same time. It was atheists and agnostics that helped me see my supreme hypocrisy in the past. And, while they aren't necessary to reach the same conclusion, it certainly convicted me. There is an entire pool of potentials that won't even get close to the Most High God because we do not represent the image of God correctly. That means we are responsible for being stumbling blocks; it doesn't need to be that way.

 

[Anguspure]

Paul instructs Timothy and Titus about choosing elders and bishops. Husband of one wife and so forth is the relevant material. That is not the same as saying that an elder or bishop must be married. It reads more like "do not pick anybody with many wives." or maybe "pick no one who married several times." but it is a matter of interpretation isn't it rather than an explicit command "an elder MUST BE MARRIED" ...

If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?

 

[Paidiske]

Who said this?

Well, the Nicene Creed, for a start; which is the Statement of Faith for this forum, and not up for debate here.

So, why is there any type of dogma that would suggest we have permission to pick and choose which Law we follow - and for specific groups of people that all want to be children of the Most High God? Has the Law changed, and if so - on whose authority?

I'm not saying we can pick and choose. I'm saying the law applies to those to whom it applies, and that's not everyone; but that doesn't mean I get to pick and choose to whom it applies. The law has not changed; that was always the case.

Where does the Most High God Himself - as direct as He gave the Law to Moses - highlight any of the Law we are not to follow?

I specifically asked for a quote from The Word of God, or the Most High God that tells us this. As great as the disciples are, if they are contradicting the Most High God, I have to go with the Authority. (However, I don't think for one second they are contradicting Him.)

If you don't accept the Spirit as God, then I don't think we can go anywhere with this.

I understand the analogy, but the entirety of existence is under the Law of the Most High God.

Where do you find the statement that the Mosaic law is binding on every person? Not just the Jews/ancient Israel?

I did not say clergy should marry because they have a duty to do so, I said that it is dangerous to imply that they should be celibate or chaste - especially given the fact that in order to produce more entities like them, they need to produce.

But we do not raise up more clergy by giving birth to them. We discern and encourage those in the Church who have a vocation from God.

I am not a priest because my father or mother were priests. I am a priest because God called me to it, and who my parents were is irrelevant to that. I would say that suggesting people cannot be clergy except through inheritance is a pretty large stumbling block!

 

[Kaon]

Well, the Nicene Creed, for a start; which is the Statement of Faith for this forum, and not up for debate here.



I'm not saying we can pick and choose. I'm saying the law applies to those to whom it applies, and that's not everyone; but that doesn't mean I get to pick and choose to whom it applies. The law has not changed; that was always the case.



If you don't accept the Spirit as God, then I don't think we can go anywhere with this.



Where do you find the statement that the Mosaic law is binding on every person? Not just the Jews/ancient Israel?



But we do not raise up more clergy by giving birth to them. We discern and encourage those in the Church who have a vocation from God.

I am not a priest because my father or mother were priests. I am a priest because God called me to it, and who my parents were is irrelevant to that. I would say that suggesting people cannot be clergy except through inheritance is a pretty large stumbling block!

O.K.