Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Peter’s Primacy… and His Mother-in-law
Catholic Exchange ^ | March 2, 2010 | Michael Deem

Posted on 03/02/2010 1:33:02 PM PST by NYer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last
To: the long march
Because he was a member of the Sanhedrin

Scripture doesn't say that.

21 posted on 03/02/2010 2:05:01 PM PST by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: Campion
The author is not reading anything into the text.. He is using the text as a proof text for Christ giving over his authority and infallibility to Peter.. not dealing with the scripture itself..

So I call it isogesis and you want to call it eisegesis either way it is terrible and misleading theology built out of whole cloth

23 posted on 03/02/2010 2:07:00 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: the long march
Learn some biblical context and history

Learn some courtesy.

Now ...

I Corinthians 7:
1Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband. 4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency. 6But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. 8But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.

24 posted on 03/02/2010 2:07:49 PM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Someone asked about Paul; Paul was a Pharisee, ergo Paul was married, and probably a ‘good family man’ before Damascus.


25 posted on 03/02/2010 2:08:15 PM PST by cqnc (Don't Blame ME, I voted for the American!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Campion

Exegesis is defined as “reading out of the scripture.” Isogesis is defined as “reading into the scripture.” which is what this author didi,,


26 posted on 03/02/2010 2:09:10 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
I call it isogesis

That's nice. I call it an interesting and insightful discussion of God's Holy Word.

But I'm not an infallible interpreter of Scripture.

Do you think you are an infallible interpreter of Scripture?

27 posted on 03/02/2010 2:10:54 PM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
He is using the text as a proof text for Christ giving over his authority and infallibility to Peter

He said "healing and teaching" not "authority and infallibility".

28 posted on 03/02/2010 2:13:02 PM PST by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Isogesis is defined as “reading into the scripture.”

You folks invent doctrines all the time; now you're even inventing words.

29 posted on 03/02/2010 2:13:59 PM PST by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: the long march

I would add that Paul also had Roman citizenship which perhaps was purchased and was well educated so evidently not from a poverty stricken family.
There would be little reason not to follow the usual practice of marriage even if he wasn’t married later in life.


30 posted on 03/02/2010 2:14:57 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NYer

IIRC, Peter’s boat appears more than once in the Gospels ...Matt 14, for example.


31 posted on 03/02/2010 2:21:35 PM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cqnc

Interesting “ergo” there.

You counter explicit Scripture (1 Cor. 7) that explicitly states that Paul was not married with a deduction from the fact that Paul was a Pharisee, therefore/ergo he was married.

For someone who, I assume, claims to stick strictly with Scripture and not indulge in papist readings into Scripture

that’s a heckuva instance of reading something into Scripture that’s not there.

Just sayin’


32 posted on 03/02/2010 2:27:11 PM PST by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

Ah, yes, nice bait and switch and deductive reading into Scripture.

No one has any problem with a man who was married who’s spouse has died being a priest. Would you like to know why not?

Because marriage ends when one spouse dies.

Period.

So whether Paul was once married (which you can claim only by deduction from (1) Roman citizenship ergo (2) not poor (3) ergo, if not poor, probably married

or not.

Really
doesn’t
matter.

And to arrive at a conclusion that really doesn’t matter you sold your sola scriptura soul for a mess of pottage. You made an three-link-chain of inferences to arrive at the claim that Paul was once married.

Sounds like reading a heckuva lot into Scripture.

See, Catholics do not dispute that bishops were married. But what we do say that historical research indicates is that (1) if married and widowed, the Church recommended that a bishop not remarry and preferred widowed and unremarried men for bishops because that showed discipline and maturity [Peter Brown, Oxford and Princeton history professor’s argument in _History of Private Life_], which is what the epistles to Titus and Timothy are saying when they state a bishop should be a husband of one wife, not remarry if widowed

and

(2) if a married bishop’s wife is living, the bishop is expected to abstain from marital relations with her after ordination.

That’s the origin of priestly celibacy. At first it was not celibacy at all (celibacy means “unmarried”) but continence, either (a) continence because one was unmarried and therefore not screwing around or (b) because, if married, one pledged to abstain within marriage. That’s evident in the earliest legislation of the Church that has survived.

But since married priests (after priests received delegated authority from bishops and became central in sacramental ministry) so often failed to live up to their pledge of continence (b), celibacy (just don’t marry) was made mandatory (a) in the 1000s.

There is zero explicit NT evidence of any of the apostles both being married _and_ sexually active. Indeed, there’s zero evidence that any of the known apostles who were married had living spouses after being chosen apostles. Even the Peter’s mother-in-law story could have taken place after Peter’s wife died. He’d still conceivably be taking care of his mother-in-law as a widower. His wife is NEVER mentioned. Did you catch that? Peter’s wife is never actually mentioned in Scripture. We deduce he had a wife because his mother-in-law is explicitly mentioned. And that’s a legitimate deduction. But his wife herself is NEVER mentioned. Was she alive? Maybe. Maybe not. That Paul ever had a wife is a three-link-chain fanciful deduction that runs against very clear and explicit evidence to the contrary.

There’s no evidence that any of the apostles, qua apostles, as they went around after Jesus’s ascension proclaiming the gospel, were “actively” married, that their wives were still alive or, if alive, that they were sexually active (one would hardly expect them to mention the latter—one doesn’t brag about that openly). “Husband of one wife” actually fits better with widowers.


33 posted on 03/02/2010 2:41:18 PM PST by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

The least you could do is quote the scripture correctly.

For it is better to marry than to be BURN.

The meaning of the particular verb here is to be consumed with a lustful passion.


34 posted on 03/02/2010 2:49:26 PM PST by the long march
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

thank you exactly. Too many Christians no so little about Paul


35 posted on 03/02/2010 2:50:06 PM PST by the long march
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

Eisegesis is how I always thought it was spelled.


36 posted on 03/02/2010 2:51:36 PM PST by conservonator (spill czeck is knot my friend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Campion; RnMomof7

I know this might be a case of spelling variation, but have you ever noticed how often the anti-Catholics here can’t spell words they fixate on or properly describe ideas or docrines they fixate on?


37 posted on 03/02/2010 2:59:52 PM PST by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: the long march
It is often easy to overlook the obvious-=-—Peter was married

Indeed he was ... but Jesus was not.

38 posted on 03/02/2010 3:02:59 PM PST by NYer ("Where Peter is, there is the Church." - St. Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; Campion; ArrogantBustard
So I call it isogesis and you want to call it eisegesis either way it is terrible and misleading theology built out of whole cloth

Ultimately, as Arrogant Bustard noted earlier on - "the vain babbling of mere fallible Men". We call that YOPIOS.

39 posted on 03/02/2010 3:09:02 PM PST by NYer ("Where Peter is, there is the Church." - St. Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: john in springfield

???


40 posted on 03/02/2010 3:09:35 PM PST by NYer ("Where Peter is, there is the Church." - St. Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson