marriage

[R1ch4rd]

Maybe i got it wrong. Its not too clear for me to understand. Anyway if iam wrong iam wrong sorry.

Maybe my bad!!!

Not to worry, there is much on all forums that is unclear or misunderstood. That’s why we’re here, to get different perspectives on ideas. You did right to post your thoughts.

 

[Reuben_J]

Why the heavy reliance on Paul, though? Why not use the writings/teachings of the others? (I want to hear from the apostles I might agree with! )

Probably because the bulk of the New Testaments composed of Paul’s writing. In the area of marriage and the state of a person’s life, among others, his writing is more comprehensive on these. This may be seen as an elaboration to what Jesus says in Mathew 19. Marriage is a very important aspect of Christian living. We are blessed that this subject is addressed in the Bible in the life of the people of the New Covenant.

My point originally is that the apostles’ teaching should be regarded as inspired where they apply. The epistles of the New Testaments were instruction and pastoral guidance to the early Christians in various cities (churches) then, are considered to be true Church’s teaching and canonized to be incorporated in the Bible. So, basically, we are left with no choice to choose from.

On the lighter side, how true it is when I wished I could follow the teaching of the apostles of my choice. But then again, we are warned by the Lord himself that it will be going to be a narrow path, long and winding that we must tread through.

God bless.

 

[R1ch4rd]

Fair enough. I agree they were less relevant now certainly. I would not go over the verses quoted in detail, but surely the message from these are still relevant though today. Yes, we do not have any slavery, but those days slavery was a system quite close to a contract and an employer/employee relationship. A good slave obeyed his master and his master should be fair to him. In fact the master could even treat him like a relative, a part of the household (ref. letter to Philemon). Of course this is all from Christian’s perspective.

About prohibiting women to teach is probably more controversial and I will not touch on that. A thing to note though, very this verse is being used against Catholicism.

What I want to say is the Bible is to be looked at for the message it brings. You are right in that people’s activities then may be different than now but the message, the value, are not. What amazed me all the time, the ancient wisdom in the Bible is still very much applied today and how people behaved then still very much what people behave today though in a different practical situation.

God bless.

Thank you! This one still puzzles and amuses me “Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock.” (Psalm 137:9)

 

[Reuben_J]

Thank you! This one still puzzles and amuses me “Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock.” (Psalm 137:9)

Good observation.

It is important to know who was addressed in v.9. It was to the Babylonians who destroyed the Kingdom of God’s people. This is their (the Israelites) cry, a prayer for God to set justice on their enemy, the Babylonians. The alluding to the crashing of the infants to the rock was what the King of Aram (2Kg 8) did to the Israelites then. They wanted the same punishment meted to the Babylonians. A complete read of Psalm 137 would perhaps make more sense.

You are right in the sense that the laws and punishment then (in the OT) were certainly harsh and not the standard of what Jesus tells us today. But this is another topic.

 

[on_the_hill]

During a recent homily, a priest praised a woman who had been ordained (or nearly ordained) in a Protestant faith and she subsequently converted to Catholicism. She is now a professor at a Catholic seminary. Things that make you go, “Hmmm…”

I believe the message was that she had studied her Protestant faith extensively and gave up her Protestant faith and ordination when she found what she was looking for in Catholicism.

The editorializing was on my part.