Posted on 03/02/2010 1:33:02 PM PST by NYer
The one for falsely accusing me of not quoting Scripture word for word, as I not only claimed to do but proved that I did.
So ... you don't approve the translation?
BFD. That's your problem, not mine.
This is a distraction, anyway. I quoted that passage to show that St. Paul was NOT MARRIED at the time he wrote it. One might reasonably (IMO) interpret that he was single; likewise that he was widowed. But to suggest that a married man wrote that is (IMO) absurd.
You may infer as you will, there is nothing in Paul’s admonition on how to behave when gathered in assembly or how leaders should behave as indicating anything about his own marital status.
And it is typical of the type of argument that those of the Roman religion make in order to ‘support’ their churches view. Have fun with it all.
He's not married.
Deal with it.
You may not direct me when to say “eisegesis”, for you do not understand its derivation. There is no such word as “isogesis” and nothing in your links support your thesis.
In your first link, the author tries to say that the prependent “iso” means “isolate.” It does not. He confuses iso as derived from “isolate,” which is a word in the midst of other “iso-” words, but is unrelated to them. “Isolate” is Anglicization of the Latin word “insula” and has nothing to do with the meaning of the particle “iso” — which, as a PhD scientist, I recognize immediately denotes “equal to” or “homeo” = “same as” (throughout) as related to the postpended “-bar” or “-mer” or “-spondylus” or “-therm” and so forth. If there was such an invented term as isogenesis, it might mean “precisely translate,” not “precisely interpret.” Your point here is invalid.
On your second link, the offering is only a likewise misspelling of the word “eisegesis” (but giving an equivalent meaning associated with eisegesis), so it is not an authority for the existence of “isogesis” — another invalid assumption.
In your third link, the author cannot spell “symptomatic,” so why should he be able to spell “eisegesis”? He spells exegesis as “exogesis” also. No score here for your claim.
And the last link page does not display the character string “isogesis” anywhere, so it adds zero to your argument.
Furthermore, you claim, quite incorrectly:
“..as there is NO scripture that has Jesus giving anyone His power or His authority or His infallibility.”
In this you demean the investing of His disciples with His delegated authority that as they are going, they are to make disciples from (apo) all peoples (metonomy) by close individual personal supervision. They are to immerse these proven and tested committed disciples (not merely “converts” and most certainly not infants) in the name (by the authority of) The Father, (by the authority of) The Son, and (by the authority of) The Holy Ghost (as a proof of a good conscience, not as a means of salvation). They are then, by Christ’s command and under His authority, to publicly congregate the learners for didactical teaching as to how to keep watchfully secure and infallibly preserve all the commandments given by The Christ. Then doing this, they would be (invisibly) accompanied by Him, throughout the age.
And in doing so, they, and their disciples, may loose on earth which is already permitted to be loosed in The Heaven, and that they may have the power to bind on earth that which is already bound in The Heaven. Peter himself has been given the keys (the Gospel to be preached and believed) of the kingdom of heaven (the temporal kingdom containing both unregenerated and regenerated converts), that is, the earthly church; but Christ is the Door to the Kingdom of God, and is The Only One Who can and may admit or deny any human into that Kingdom.
The authority by which this is written is by the authority of the Word of The God, not “ecclesiastical.” This is correct exegesis, not eisegesis, and which authority is available to anyone who is a steward of the Father’s earthly estate, who exercises it exactly according to the commandment of Christ and the Will of Him Who sent The Savior to the fallen earthlings.
Do _your_ homework first.
(From a redeemed sinner, with the best of respect, hopefully not too pompous. Ecclesiastes 7:16-18)
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Click here for more guidelines pertaining to the Religion Forum.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Obviously ... at least at one time. But there's no mention of the wife ... or kids. So we don't really know anything about her. Perhaps she had died. We don't really know, do we?
My husband came up with a very simple meaning as to why Peter’s mother-in-law was mentioned:
Jesus shows us that we need to be kind to our mother-in-law, and she will be kind to us in return.
The author is looking desperately for scripture to support a tradition that lacks any biblical substance
Regardless of whether or not that applies to the original post, that is nonetheless a perfect exegesis of the false gospel of sola scriptura.
Paul indicates in I Cor. 7:8 (and the Corinthian letters are pretty early) that he was single, “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.” Therefore if he was married earlier, he had to have been a widower by then. There is never any mention of a wife though, very unlike the snippets about Peter. So it’s possible he was a life-time bachelor, though, that would be quite unusual for a Pharisee.
Paul also mentioned Peter, (along with Jesus’ brothers and other apostles) in the present tense as being married, “Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?” (I Cor. 9:5)
Of course Roman Catholic tradition...developed hundreds of years later, says that Peter had to be single (and Jesus couldn’t of later had brothers....or else somehow Mary’s virtue would be sullied after Jesus birth, by being a normal married woman...), so therefore scripture is wrong and has to bend. After all, we KNOW that stories independently passed down through the centuries by who knows who (Tradition) are more authentic that eyewitness-written history....
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
For the record, Mary having no other children has nothing to do with her reputation being sullied. It is a doctrine which is directly connected to Jesus as the Word Incarnate and Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant prefigured by the Ark of the Covenant which could not be touched by humans.
The problem is when one doesn’t understand how and why such doctrines were formulated and declared. It is all about Jesus and defense of Him as truly God and truly man.
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.