so you know more than the pope?

[simonthezealot]

How would you translate it?

Is of so great dignity and highness, that there may be mere man, but as if God and Vicar of God

 

[drstevej]

No, all of that was meant to be implied in what I was saying all along. It's all missing the wood for the trees. Treating a discussion about the sort of person an elder needs to be as a formula; an illustration as a completely arbitrary check list. Thinly disguised legalism at its worst.


Good on him for living what he believed, but he still seems to be completely missing the point of the text - missing the wood for the trees. Though I would have thought he would have to resign when she died, not when he married again.

Presumably he had children who were believers?

Legalist = one who believes the Bible
And he did have believing children. Hid daughter was in my congregation as an adult.

"arbitrary check list" ...How conveeeennnnient.

 

[ebia]

Legalist = one who believes the Bible

No, one who looks to the bible for a set of rules rather than one for what it is.

And he did have believing children. Hid daughter was in my congregation as an adult.

"arbitrary check list" ...How conveeeennnnient.

That's what it ends up being, yes. It goes from a text trying to lead ones thoughts to the kinds of virtues one is looking for in a pastor, to check-list of completely arbitrary attributes.

 

[AveMaria_45]

YouTube - Did the Emperor Constantine found the Catholic Church?

 

[AveMaria_45]

YouTube - Why Be Catholic?: Apostolic Succession

 

[AveMaria_45]

YouTube - Peter The Rock

 

[AveMaria_45]

YouTube - Why Be Catholic? (part 3)

 

[AveMaria_45]

YouTube - Why You Should Be Catholic

 

[godisreal36]

YouTube - Peter The Rock

Awesome Video. It seems as if more is being said in it than meets the eye at first glance. I'll need to study it more and meditate on it. Especially the ending, please read a little further yourself sister. Thank you for the video.

If faith is the Rock then Faith can move mountains, even old teaching that should be left in the Dark ages.

I prefer the term why i should be a Christian instead.

We are all Christians but the non believers and weaker Christians don't see it that way. They receive A Stumbling block instead of a Rock

 

[AveMaria_45]

YouTube - On the Papacy by Scott Hahn 1

YouTube - On the Papacy by Scott Hahn 2

YouTube - On the Papacy by Scott Hahn 3

 

[daydreamergurl15]

So according to you, one can't be an elder unless he has children (who must also be faithful)?

Can you find a serious scholarly commentator who thinks those texts must be read that way?

What do you mean, "according to you"? Did I say anything or did I quote scripture? Why would I need a serious scholarly commentator to tell me what those verses say, I can read them and the Holy Spirit can interpret them. And the qualifications for elders says that "he must have faithful children" (Titus 1:6) and that he has his children in submission to him (1 Timothy 3:4).

What exactly does the phrase "having his children in submission to him with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?) mean, if it does not mean that he has to have kids?

 

[AveMaria_45]

What do you mean, "according to you"? Did I say anything or did I quote scripture?

you misinterpreted scripture

 

[AveMaria_45]

Awesome Video. It seems as if more is being said in it than meets the eye at first glance. I'll need to study it more and meditate on it. Especially the ending, please read a little further yourself sister. Thank you for the video.

If faith is the Rock then Faith can move mountains, even old teaching that should be left in the Dark ages.

I prefer the term why i should be a Christian instead.

We are all Christians but the non believers and weaker Christians don't see it that way. They receive A Stumbling block instead of a Rock

you are welcome. its nice to see one nice person in here

 

[AveMaria_45]

must watch

YouTube - On the Papacy by Scott Hahn 1

YouTube - On the Papacy by Scott Hahn 2

YouTube - On the Papacy by Scott Hahn 3

 

[daydreamergurl15]

I assume you hold to the idea that "Scripture interprets Scripture" - let's look at the parallel passage in Titus.



Look at what it's saying...he goes into a town and finds an upright man - above reproach, married to only one wife, etc. What are the requirements, though? Again, Paul reiterates, he MUST be above reproach. Next, he MUST be the husband of one wife, right? Wait, no, Paul skips right over that! He goes straight to the other requirements - not arrogant, not a drunkard, upright, etc.

That is the requirement. That Timothy should place someone in eldership IF a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination....

You are assuming that the "if" is conditional to blameless, the husband of one wife...... it is not, that "if" is conditional to Timothy finds such a man.

It reads like this.....
"For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you IF a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination.....
Those are the requirements along with everything else he said in 7-9.

Those requirements doesn't change from 1 Timothy 3. Paul gives the qualifications to Timothy in 1 Timothy 3 as a list of qualifications for elders....YES "MUST BE" is there with a list of qualifications. In the book of Titus 1, Paul is telling Timothy to place elders there if he can find such a man. Those qualifications are supposed to be the opposite of what he has been finding in Crete in verse 10-16 in Titus.

Read those requirements again, it starts in verse 6, you can't skip those verses because it does not say "husband of one wife" when it says that in verse 5 and is echoed in 1 Timothy 3:2 when it says (A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded......etc)

 

[daydreamergurl15]

you misinterpreted scripture

How?
What is the correct interpretation?
Because, up until now, no one actually gave me another interpretation, they started posing grammar rules so that the verses would read differently so that it could go inline with what the Catholic church have done.

 

[godisreal36]

How?
What is the correct interpretation?
Because, up until now, no one actually gave me another interpretation, they started posing grammar rules so that the verses would read differently so that it could go inline with what the Catholic church have done.

Wow... i love it.


1 Cor 8:7-13 (KJV)

I guess one Just Needs eyes to see and ears to hear and faith that moves mountains to walk with

 

[AveMaria_45]

How?
What is the correct interpretation?
Because, up until now, no one actually gave me another interpretation, they started posing grammar rules so that the verses would read differently so that it could go inline with what the Catholic church have done.

1, getting married has nothing to do with this thread
2, there are catholics priests that are married so what are you arguing about










YouTube - Why Be Catholic?: Apostolic Succession

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Your whole argument depends on the assumption that the "must" of the first clause continues through the remainder of the clauses. This is an assumption, for there is no linguistic principle that says so.

HOW is it an assumption when it continues saying "that his children must be in submission to him in reverence and that he must be able to rule his own house well"?

It even asks the question "if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God? Why do people not answer that question when trying to claim that it's okay for a man to be single. There is not even an exception saying that a man can be unmarried.....it doesn't even talk about such a thing when mentioning the qualifications for it.

If Scripture is ever ambiguous, we must always let Scripture interpret Scripture. Fortunately for our purposes, this passage actually does have a direct parallel in Titus 1, which reads:



You can see here for yourself that Paul speaks unambiguously. Where the word order in 1 Timothy 3 is unclear and could go either way, the word order in Titus 1 is quite clear. "[T]he husband of one wife" is not "he must be the husband of one wife." The "must" is only attached to "be above reproach." Therefore we know, with certainty, from the very words of Scripture and the same author talking with the same words on the same topic, that the "must" does not continue through the successive series of qualifications, but only applies to being "above reproach."

The qualifications begans in verse 6. In verse 5 Paul tells Timothy to appoint elders in every city IF A MAN is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of dissipation or insubordination.

You guys are trying to throw out "husband of one wife" and yet not that "having faithful children" is part of that list. He talks of a man ruling his household. If you go on to read 1 Timothy 3, it is specified in those verses.

Now, what "the husband of one wife" (or "a man of one woman") means exactly, that we can debate. But your argument on the basis of a statement "he must be the husband of one wife" (a statement that we now know does not exist) is absolutely invalid.

Invalid....because you say so?
You know what bothers me the most, that we are arguing over "husband of one wife" and yet no where does that scripture gives qualifications for a single man but we are going to try and insert that scripture in there because it fits with what the catholic church have done. It has nothing to do with what the scripture ACTUALLY says because whether you guys want to argue with it or not, it says "husband of one wife" "his children in submission to him" "ruling his own house well" "having faithful children" all deal with ruling a household. So, lets continue to confuse ourselves with those qualifications so that we'll be okay when we appoint single men as elders.

Now what does it mean to be "a man of one woman" or "the husband of one wife"? Is that opposed to two or more, or opposed to zero? Given the Paul himself never took a wife and that we know from Josephus that James, pastor of the Jerusalem church, never took a wife, I think it is clearly a prohibition against polygamy and remarriage, not against celibacy.

It doesn't matter if they NEVER TOOK A WIFE because we are not told that Paul or James were elders. We know that Paul was an apostle but being an apostle was not conditioned of whether one was married, however being an elder is. For an elder have to shepherd the flock of God.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

1, getting married has nothing to do with this thread

You do realize that you jumped into a conversation about elders?

2, there are catholics priests that are married so what are you arguing about

Why did you jump into this conversation?