Posted on 06/22/2014 2:42:07 PM PDT by NYer
I thought so.
Thanks for the suggestion; but I think I'll leave the inserting to Rome and Salt Lake City.
We Prots are so EASILY fooled!
No one expects Southward Movement!
How do you know Christ wasn’t married?
So much for misguided and misleading scripture twisting.”
“3 This is my defense to those who would examine me. 4 Do we not have the right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? 7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk?
8 Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? 10 Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. 11 If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? 12 If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more?
Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? 14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.
15 But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing these things to secure any such provision.”
He is obviously defending himself against charges he is acting out of greed. He strongly defends the principle that those working in full time ministry have the right to be paid for their time and effort, although he personally goes beyond and does not. And so he points out that others take, not just themselves, but also their wives.
Had he been talking about a believing sister going along for ministry, then her presence AS A MINISTER would not be a luxury. It would entail no extra expense beyond those ministering. Yet he clearly is saying others get to enjoy these luxuries, which he does not.
If he was writing about a ‘sister’ going along, not in service, but just traveling as a ‘companion’...that would create a different accusation, and a serious one. As a general rule of thumb, men who travel around with women they are not married to for “companionship” are assumed to be having sex with the women. Can you imagine a TV evangelist traveling around with a woman who is not his wife, but who goes with him to keep him “company”? Can you imagine how that would go over?
You write: “ He talks about a situation that applies to himself, not just to the others, yet he certainly was not accompanied by his wife, since he had no wife.”
But he was clearly NOT discussing himself, because he was CONTRASTING himself with the others! The others get to take their wives along, and do not have to work for their food! In verse 12 he writes”
“If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more? Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ.”
You argument is contradicted by what Paul wrote just a handful of verses later. The fact that he had no wife was a CONTRAST with the others, not a commonality! He specifically points out that he went BEYOND what everyone else did - contradicting your argument that he was writing about his own practice and thus could not be talking about a wife.
Context. Sola Scripture works best when verses are read IN CONTEXT. Only someone trying to introduce celibacy where it does not exist would try to translate it ‘believing sister’, and argue the Apostles and other ministers were allowed to travel around with women as companions who were not their wives!
“To lead about a wife that is a believer? (adelphen gunaika periagein). Old verb — periago intransitive in Acts 13:11. Two substantives in apposition, a sister a wife, a common Greek idiom. This is a plea for the support of the preacher‘s wife and children. Plainly Paul has no wife at this time.”
The approved Catholic translation, the NAB, translates it “Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Kephas?”
This isn’t even “My Own Personal Interpretation”. It is one shared by the Catholic translation!
John Gill states it well:
Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife,.... The phrase “a sister, a wife”, is an Hebraism, and answers to “my sister, spouse”, Song of Solomon 4:9. The Jews called their wives, sisters, not on account of religion, which also is not the meaning here; but because of the common relation that men and women, all mankind, stand in to one another, antecedent to any nearer relation, as that of man and wife.
The sense the Papists put on these words, to secure them from being a proof of the lawfulness of the marriage of the ministers of the Gospel, can by no means be the true one; which is, that they are to be understood of a rich woman, or women, the apostles had a power to carry about with them, to minister of their substance to them, and provide for them; for such a sense is directly contrary to the subject and argument the apostle is upon; which is to show the right that he and others had, of casting themselves entirely upon the churches for a maintenance; whereas this is contriving a way for relieving the churches of such a charge;
besides, the act of “leading”, or carrying “about”, is expressive of such a power over them, as cannot be thought to agree with persons of such substance; and whose voluntary act this must be, to go along with them and supply them;
add to this, that for the apostles to lead about with them wherever they went women, whether rich or poor, that were not their wives, would be of no good report, and must tend to hurt their character and reputation: moreover, though these words clearly imply the lawfulness of a minister’s marriage, and suppose it, yet they do not express the act itself, or the lawfulness of entering into such a state, but rather what follows after it;
and the sense is this, that the apostle and others, supposing them to have wives, and it may be added also, and children, they had a right to take these with them wherever they went, and insist upon the maintenance of them, as well as of their own, at the public expense...
It seems to me this passage is saying Sts. Paul and Barnabas do not have wives. Is this correct?
I would say Paul & Barnabas did not have wives - Paul for certain. However, the other Apostles and traveling evangelists did, and their wives were supported by those being helped.
What makes you think he was?
New! Improved! (The History of the World, part what number are we on now?)
Now with breakfast cereal
Southward.
Down direction on Mercator projection maps.
Movements.
Breakfast cereal AGAIN? boxes.
Flushed comments.
Banishment --- typically associated towards Easterly direction.
The "P" traps of modern plumbing fixtures.
Goes down then up then sideways and then always down down. Get the picture?
'Tis why Florida is so full of...
Oranges and if you think coffee grows on trees I'll drink to that.
South is not always a bad thing, or direction to travel towards, thank our stars and bless us twice.
Sola Scriptura works fine.
I can’t help it if someone wants to mutilate the Greek like the Catholic church does.
There is, on earth, a place where that’s the only way to go...
John 20:15 and 20:17, plus if you study carefully the accusations and trial of Jesus Christ by the Sanhedrin they threw everything at him, but the kitchen sink. The kitchen sink standing in for him not being married.
I don’t think it would affect your Catholic faith, but I just find it interesting. Particularly her treatment in the Gospels as the first witness of Christ’s resurrection. Knowing that a woman cannot give testimony in Jewish courts.
What is your scriptural source for the authority of Sola Scriptura?
That took me surprise, too. How is it that Almighty God, who knows the end from the beginning, has perfect foreknowledge and does ALL things according to His good pleasure, would ever NEED a Plan B???
So much for some people's understanding of what sola Scriptura actually means! Maybe you don't recognize this, but you dispute your own conclusion by USING Scripture to try and prove your point. Is this by accident?
Same as...
... your traditional source for the authority of adding tradition to Scripture.
Oh...
Wait...
Nevermind...
A sarcastic response to a sincere question. In fact, there is no scriptural basis for sola scriptura. Metmom cited 2 Timothy 3:14-17. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.
When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).
The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).
This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).
And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17).
Everything we need to come to Christ for salvation is found in Scripture. For that matter, the gospel of John is enough.
John 20:30-31 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
...nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ.
Well, there you have it. Catholics don't even believe you need to believe in Christ to be saved.....
On the contrary, it does say that faith in Christ is needed. See the previous verse.
In addition, these....
John 3:14-18 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
Galatians 2:21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
Galatians 3:21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law.
In regard to *sacred tradition*, answer these questions then......
Just what are those traditions Paul was referring to that he handed down that we are to keep that were not included in Scripture?
How do you know?
How do you know they’re from the apostles, Paul in particular?
How do you know they’ve been passed down faithfully?
What is your source for verifying all of the above?
Please provide the sources for verification purposes.
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.