Posted on 03/02/2010 1:33:02 PM PST by NYer
Well ... not according to Paul who wrote: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. (1Corinthians7)
Doesn’t eliminate the possibility of being a widower.
But, on a different note, it doesn’t matter if Paul had 16 ex-wives and 10,000 children or none at all.
It’s trivia and a distraction.
You bet it matters! Paul was not the first apostle to conclude that celibacy is, in some sense, "better" than marriage. After Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 on divorce and remarriage, the disciples exclaimed, "If such is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matt 19:10). This remark prompted Jesus’ teaching on the value of celibacy "for the sake of the kingdom":
"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).
It is important to note that the priestly celibacy is not a Catholic dogma or doctrine. In fact, for Eastern Rite Catholics, married priests are the norm, just as they are for Orthodox and Oriental Christians. My pastor's great grandfather was a married priest; he, on the other hand, chose celibacy. The tradition in the Western or Latin-Rite Church has been for priests as well as bishops to take vows of celibacy, a rule that has been firmly in place since the early Middle Ages. Even today, though, exceptions are made. For example, there are married Latin-Rite priests who are converts from Lutheranism and Episcopalianism.
**********************
Agreed. I've always thought that the choice to become a religious celibate after the death of one's husband or wife is particularly appealing.
“I have no idea what you’re talking about, so here’s a bunny with a pancake on its head.”
You’re missing the point. His wife had died when he was called by Christ.
He remained celibate after that.
Teaching the commandments of men that contrary to the God's commandments was one of the identifiers of the apostate.
and I don't believe in the idea of sola scripture.
#47 post Quote from Catholic Encyclopedia.
There is no such word as “isogesis”; I believe the word you are searching for is “eisegesis” (documented as of 1892AD) as compared to “exegesis” (documented as of 1619AD).
Applying approved hermeneutical principles to a text (particle, word, grammar, sentence, local context, larger context, whole document, historical context, cultural context) to explain, to interpret what the passage says is _exegesis_, from ek or ex (out of) and hegeisthai (to lead). Its focus is on what is said, not particularly on current application.
The process of eisegesis is quite opposite. It is reading _into_ the text one’s own ideas, trying to make the text or selected portions into a pretext for supporting a one’s theory(s). This is what the writer of the article has done, and he has twisted Scripture in an amazing way. Peter himself warned about this (2 Pe 3:15-17 regarding the kind of wresting Paul’s epistles by the unlearned and unstable).
It is hoped this will bring a sense of admission of error and apology regarding the non-word “isogesis.” Actually, if there _were_ such a word, it would mean iso (the same as or equivalent to) + hegeisthai (to lead); or, an interpretation which is inerrantly and infallibly equal to or the same as the Scripture quoted. Is this what is meant?
Actually, the author (as well as several responders) ought to have been deafened by some very primary “rumble strips.” They are:
1. The incredible exegetic errors of interpreting Mt 16:13-28, esp. v. 18 as appointing Peter as head of the church. In fact, this is true _eisegesis_ - reading into Scripture what you want it to say. At that point, Peter was still an unregenerated “believer” who was still a child of Satan (v. 23). Peter was not converted (Lk 22:32)until much later, after the crucifixion and resurrection (Jn 21:15-19). He continued to make errors, until he and 129 others were invested with the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, where the local Jerusalem Body of Christ was instituted by the Lord.
2. The Lord Jesus Christ authorized all the disciples to “bind and loose” when converted (Mt 18:3) and constituted as the church (Mt. 18:17-18) — not just Peter.
3. The pastor/chief elder of the very first church was not Peter, but James (Jacob) (Acts 15:13+, Gal 1:19), the son of Mary, (half)brother of Jesus.
4. Nowhere in Holy Scripture is there a catholic (universal, invisible, temporal, global) church (singular) exhorted — this is a pure _eisegetical_ invention of the apostate religion, the state church and its descendants. There are only local churches mentioned, each one a/the local Body of Christ when it is assembled (including the one in Heaven, whose members as yet have no bodies). Therefore, there cannot be a global denominational church with one ecclesiastical head, governing all as a “vicar”.
5. Doctrines and dogmas that require reference to this or that of the “patristics” or councils of the “early church” (read state-authorized, already apostate mixed-multitude) for their authority, and cannot stand on the inerrant, infallible, verbal, plenary, preserved Word of God only — are less than valueless — they are “traditions of men” and not of God.
THESE are just a few of the “rumble strips” the author ignores, regardless of his theological indoctrination. They are a spiritual alerts that cannot/do not enter the natural man’s reasonings as logical or meaningful (1 Co 2:14 in context).
With regard —
What you quote is exactly what I wrote, except that your author misuses the term celibacy. He meant “the law of continence was generally recognized.” Since a lot of people misuse the term “celibacy” in this way, it’s understandable. That’s why I was careful to make the distinction.
You, on the other hand, apparently think that because he uses the term “celibacy” to mean continence, he contradicts me. But the content of the laws he describes from the 4th century is EXACTLY what I said it was.
So he confirms my argument.
Simply matching up words is not smart. You have to make sure that words are being used in the same way.
Nyer, I think you misunderstood my post. I don’t disagree that Paul was celebate after being called.
I was referring to the question of whether he had previosly been married (and either been abandoned or a widower), which is unanswered.
Now you may say eisegesis
But either way this author has taken a couple verses and read into it something that is not confirmed by any other scripture..as there is NO scripture that has Jesus giving anyone His power or His authority or His infallibility
The text you quote was ecclesiastical authority not the infallibility or authority of Christ as judge
As opposed to the authors? Or did this faulty interpretation come from Rome.. I think NOT
Peter. Mary. Teaching authority of Catholic magisterium. Canonicity of the apocryphal books. Yup, those are the burning issues of Christendom today. And here we seem to be dosed with them ad nauseum.
In my experience people push hardest for the weakest propositions they are committed to in the hope that somehow by constantly badgering people into taking such propositions seriously, it will make the propositions more true. (If only the president could speechify about ObamaCare more everyone would see that he is right ... not)
Sorry, but repetition does not establish truth.
The Bible is about Christ - beginning, middle, and end of story. That which distracts from this central truth is just that, a distraction.
no you didn’t. check any translation. moreover go to the more ancient languages to find the meanings and intent
Are you calling me a liar?
Be very, very careful, here. You're treading on some mighty thin ice. In fact, you're one step from breaking through.
I am suggesting that EVERY translation I have looked at ( and I have a 26 translation intermixed) calls this term “burn”.
You do not cite which Bible you quoted when you claimed to quote it “word for word”. So tell me which translation has used the term ‘burnt’
I accept your apology.
What apology?
You cite the ONLY RC version. Note that the original languages do not support that translation NOR does any other.
No matter how you wish to twist the actual scriptual language the word is properly translated burn.
But hey believe what you will. We see through a glass darkly and then we shall see clearly.
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.