Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not if I took you literally, no. (But between you, me and about a million of our closest friends here on Citidata, yes, I knew what you meant! )
The point is, that when you read about the 'qualifications' to become an overseer (bishop), you're reading the text literally...as if there's no possibility for a single man without children to become an overseer, simply because Paul didn't mention the never-been-married childless men.
Some people believed that a married man was automatically more 'responsible' than a single man. We know this to not necessarily be true. A single man can be more responsible than a married man, depending on the character of each...
...which is pretty much what that passage is about: Character of the man, and not whether he's married or not.
There's a big difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. I think in this case, you're taking the letter of the law a bit too literally.
Not if I took you literally, no. (But between you, me and about a million of our closest friends here on Citidata, yes, I knew what you meant! )
The point is, that when you read about the 'qualifications' to become an overseer (bishop), you're reading the text literally...as if there's no possibility for a single man without children to become an overseer, simply because Paul didn't mention the never-been-married childless men.
Some people believed that a married man was automatically more 'responsible' than a single man. We know this to not necessarily be true. A single man can be more responsible than a married man, depending on the character of each...
...which is pretty much what that passage is about: Character of the man, and not whether he's married or not.
There's a big difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. I think in this case, you're taking the letter of the law a bit too literally.
What Paul did mention was that he wished everyone was single and celibate like him.
Seems he wasn't too cozy with the sex stuff at all.
Not if I took you literally, no. (But between you, me and about a million of our closest friends here on Citidata, yes, I knew what you meant! )
The point is, that when you read about the 'qualifications' to become an overseer (bishop), you're reading the text literally...as if there's no possibility for a single man without children to become an overseer, simply because Paul didn't mention the never-been-married childless men.
Some people believed that a married man was automatically more 'responsible' than a single man. We know this to not necessarily be true. A single man can be more responsible than a married man, depending on the character of each...
...which is pretty much what that passage is about: Character of the man, and not whether he's married or not.
There's a big difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. I think in this case, you're taking the letter of the law a bit too literally.
I'm reading it literally and I know what Paul means because it's simple English. You're adding something that is not there.
Paul is looking to appoint spiritual leaders. So he list the qualifications.
Let's look at a similar example. Say someone is looking for a baby sitter.
The say, must be mother to an infant. Among other requirements they add, must be willing to wet nurse occasionally.
Must be mother to an infant rules out women that do not have an infant. From your viewpoint that's optional since it doesn't mention never having kids or having older children. Then we come to the willing to wet nurse. Can a women who has never had kids or a mom with older kids wet nurse. No. This other requirement supports why they're looking for a mother with an infant.
In verse 2 Paul says the husband of one wife
Then later in verse 4 he says 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?
The later requirement supports the need to be married. Context supports married.
Isn't that Paul's whole point. Find the best man to be the spiritual guide. Being able to see how a man manages souls under his care is a huge requirement.
What about this? IF marital status is irrelevant, why is it mentioned? Also, if irrelevant, why not say "if married must be the husband of one wife"
For deacons it says before "husband of one wife" 11 Their wives likewise must be dignified
You're taking great liberty and forcing something in that isn't there.
From the other thread, since it was Off-Topic there:
Quote:
Originally Posted by turbosixx
RCC teaches that doesn't make it true. The papacy is full of sinners.
Jesus teaches it is what makes it True!
The Catholic church simply holds fast to the tradition of the new covenant that Jesus initiated.
The whole world is full of sinners - every single person regardless of faith or no-faith - all are sinners.
Jesus still commands us to listen to and do what they say (Mat 23:3) to those whom HE has established and sent - even when they are not perfect.
From the other thread, since it was Off-Topic there:
Jesus teaches it is what makes it True!
The Catholic church simply holds fast to the tradition of the new covenant that Jesus initiated.
The whole world is full of sinners - every single person regardless of faith or no-faith - all are sinners.
Jesus still commands us to listen to and do what they say (Mat 23:3) to those whom HE has established and sent - even when they are not perfect.
You jest? The traditions of the Catholic Church are not what Jesus initiated. Not even close. And I wouldn’t expect you to know that because you take whatever the Catholic Church tells you as truth. Until you can read and study the Word without having an ingrained Catholic bias you’ll never know the truth.
You jest? The traditions of the Catholic Church are not what Jesus initiated. Not even close. And I wouldn’t expect you to know that because you take whatever the Catholic Church tells you as truth. Until you can read and study the Word without having an ingrained Catholic bias you’ll never know the truth.
You jest? The traditions of the Catholic Church are not what Jesus initiated. Not even close. And I wouldn’t expect you to know that because you take whatever the Catholic Church tells you as truth. Until you can read and study the Word without having an ingrained Catholic bias you’ll never know the truth.
I have. Dated a young lady whose mother was a devout Catholic. Her mom told me I had to take her daughter to mass on Saturdays if I wanted to go out with her. For almost a year in 1977 I took her to Saturday Mass at Saint Charles Borromeo in Oklahoma City. According to the Bishop at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints church I was a member of my attendance at the Catholic Church would cause me to fall into a state of apostasy. I’m glad I fell into that Mormon apostasy because that helped me get out Moderator cut: No calling other Christian churches "cults".
So far 50 weeks straight I attended Saint Charles. Don’t think I’m an idiot or uneducated about the Catholic Church and it’s man made traditions. It is what it is but it’s not the church that Jesus initiated.
Last edited by Mightyqueen801; 02-12-2023 at 11:52 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
