Posted on 03/02/2010 1:33:02 PM PST by NYer
Scripture doesn't say that.
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
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.
Someone asked about Paul; Paul was a Pharisee, ergo Paul was married, and probably a ‘good family man’ before Damascus.
Exegesis is defined as “reading out of the scripture.” Isogesis is defined as “reading into the scripture.” which is what this author didi,,
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?
He said "healing and teaching" not "authority and infallibility".
You folks invent doctrines all the time; now you're even inventing words.
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.
IIRC, Peter’s boat appears more than once in the Gospels ...Matt 14, for example.
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’
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.
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.
thank you exactly. Too many Christians no so little about Paul
Eisegesis is how I always thought it was spelled.
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?
Indeed he was ... but Jesus was not.
Ultimately, as Arrogant Bustard noted earlier on - "the vain babbling of mere fallible Men". We call that YOPIOS.
???
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.