Posted on 06/15/2009 1:42:58 PM PDT by NYer
You wrote:
“The article “THE” can be very misleading as there are thousands.”
Not really. There are only a handful that are both long and truly ancient. The others are fragments or “newer”.
I don't know. I'm not a member of the Roman Catholic Church. I've never even been to Italy.
You wrote:
“It is more than possible that Paul was at one time married, and he stated that he had the power (e.g. authority) to lead about a sister, a wife . . . (1 Cor. ch. 9)”
St. Paul had no wife (1 Corinthians 7:7-8).
“Peter had a mother-in-law. Imagine not having the benefit of a wife, but having to put up with a mother-in-law !! And Paul identifies Cephas (Peter) in 1 Cor. ch. 9 as one who led about a sister, a wife.”
There is no evidence that that was Peter’s wife. Also, there was no evidence that Peter’s wife was still alive while Jesus walked the earth.
“In 1 Cor. 4:15 Paul writes, ‘I became your father in Christ Jesus.’ Oops!”
“For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel.” (KJB)
“Father” is specific, then to the one who had led them (”begotten” them) to Jesus Christ through the Gospel. There is no reference to a religious order or position, nor to any priesthood. And Paul’s sons in the faith would have been wrong to call him “Father” in the sense of priesthood. They would have been disobeying Christ to do so, and Paul would have known that.
St. Paul, as a father of the Catholic Church, would have been perfectly comfortable with the title "Father," as 1Co 4:15 demonstrates.
You’ve done an outstanding job, brother, but some people cannot enter a discussion with open minds. Remember Matt 7:6, “Never give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs. Otherwise, they will trample them with their feet and then turn around and attack you.”
“Not really. There are only a handful that are both long and truly ancient. The others are fragments or “newer”.”
So the article “THE” would still be incorrect. For thirty years, to those who say, “THE Greek,” I have been asking, “WHICH Greek is THE Greek?” (That is, that they happen to be referring to.) I know what I’m asking. My major in college was Manuscript Evidence. You can, any day of the world, purchase more than a dozen Greek NT editions, all of them having variations from the others.
As astute theologians, you of a formal denomination, may answer the question of:
Prior to 1500 what was the basis of or for your denomination’s history? Where or when did your denomination start?
Vatican documents have Pope Innocent III (1160 or 1161-July 16, 1216’s documents.
“St. Paul, as a father of the Catholic Church, would have been perfectly comfortable with the title “Father,” as 1Co 4:15 demonstrates.”
So, Paul would have been perfectly comfortable having men disobey the Saviour. Okay. Is that the general rule any “father of the Catholic Church”?
Tell us then, with out a 40 page treatise from Anselm or someone, what exactly was the Lord Jesus Christ speaking about when He instructed, “Call no man on earth your father.” You could do that in one sentance. It has to mean something, and can’t be dismissed by the question, “What do you call your daddy?” It has a context in the chapter where Christ spoke those words; it has to mean something.
Alright...by the numbers.
Is it required to be a member of the Catholic Church as defined by the Vatican (near Rome, Italy), Planet Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Universe, Creation, in order to be recognized for salvation? Your readers are waiting.
“Member?”
Do you realize that, as someone who has (presumably?) been baptized by the Trinitarian formula, YOU are part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, don’t you?
Before you go, let me answer your question. We should pray for the intercession of anyone who we think is in Heaven, and not necessarily for the intercession of canonized saints only.
In fact, modern canonization process requires that the man or woman be prayed to BEFORE he or she is canonized.
You must not have read post 41 before you wrote this...
Peter had a mother-in-law, but that was not HIS wife? WHAT???!
Your ref. to 1 Cor. ch. 7 indicates that Paul was not married. Which is true. I stated that Paul could have previously been married. Then you imply that Peter COULD HAVE BEEN prciously married, by stating that there is no evidence that he was married while Jesus was on earth.
So the same kind of thing could apply to Paul. He could have been a widower.
But then Paul states in the same book, chapter 9, that he had the power (authority) to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as the other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, AND AS CEPHAS. Cepahs is Peter.
So it looks like Peter was married, had a mother-in-law, and Peter was leading his wife about with him, as were the other apostles and the brethren of the Lord.
Paul had the power/right ot do the same thing, but elected not to.
You never answered my question. Were those Catholics for the 1500 years prior to Luther wrong?
Your logic fails.
“Your logic fails.”
My logic always fails with people who want a celibate priesthood on earth.
But I’m interested in those who are sitting back reading these, many of whom are truly getting the gist, that Peter had a “MOTHER-IN-LAW.” And then that Paul states that he had the same authority to do what CEPHAS did, lead about a sister, a wife.
Who is that?
...to do what CEPHAS did, lead about a sister, a wife.
How about you establish Cephas did that after Christ selected him as an apostle.
I must say that I admire your patience ...
It is rather clear that St. Paul speaks of his power of leadership in 1 Cor 5 that equally applies to a wife and a sister, so it cannot be a prooftext of anything regarding celibacy or marital status of anyone.
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.