Which denominations do not believe Jesus had siblings?

[Church_Militant]

SPOKENWORD:

Not according To the Jewish people,for they claimed Jesus broke the Sabath Law. Sorry ,Had to turn around and come through again through the drive through window. God Bless. P/s Boy are we full of assumptions.

That’s a dodge and you know it… your statement proves nothing…except that you have no real answer at all. This is irrelevent …yet answer my point…did Jesus fulfill the 4th commandment ( & all the law) perfectly or not?

Show me the truth then if all I have are assumptions! YOU have NOTHING to stand on except the messed up theology of some teacher. SHOW us from HISTORY…that the early church believed as you do. You can’t…because their own writings contradict you.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach. . . . Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.”

In the culture when this passage was written polygamy was not uncommon and to say that a man should “have one wife” would be naturally understood as prohibiting polygamy.

So,“the husband of one wife” refers to the requirement that a bishop have NO MORE than one wife, not that a bishop MUST have one wife. Paul and Jesus both endorsed celibacy. This would make no sense if you’re interpretation were correct.

Hi Tm. Im going to have to disagree with you. In 1timothy3.vs 4. He must be a good manager of his own household,keeping his children[if he had children] under his control without sacraficing his dignity,for if a man does not know how to manage his own house,how can he take care of the church of God. A bishop was to be married only ONCE. This could have 2 meanings. One that he could not be divorced. Two, that he was only allowed to have one wife. But the fact remains He was to be married. Remember St. Paul was an apostle,not a pastor. Two different roles in Gods Ministry. God Bless.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Church Militant:

Show me the truth then if all I have are assumptions! YOU have NOTHING to stand on except the messed up theology of some teacher. SHOW us from HISTORY…that the early church believed as you do. You can’t…because their own writings contradict you.

Come now,lets not get our feathers ruffled. Like I said there are no errors in scripture ,only our own understanding. God Bless.

 

[Church_Militant]

SPOKENWORD:

Hi Tm. Im going to have to disagree with you. In 1timothy3.vs 4. He must be a good manager of his own household,keeping his children[if he had children] under his control without sacraficing his dignity,for if a man does not know how to manage his own house,how can he take care of the church of God. A bishop was to be married only ONCE. This could have 2 meanings. One that he could not be divorced. Two, that he was only allowed to have one wife. But the fact remains He was to be married. Remember St. Paul was an apostle,not a pastor. Two different roles in Gods Ministry. God Bless.

You interpret more into this passage than it says…

 

[Church_Militant]

SPOKENWORD:

Come now,lets not get our feathers ruffled. Like I said there are no errors in scripture ,only our own understanding. God Bless.

No feathers…ruffled or not
I am simply calling you on dodges and errors in you teachings. THAT’S why you’re always confused.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Church Militant:

That’s a dodge and you know it… your statement proves nothing…except that you have no real answer at all. This is irrelevent …yet answer my point…did Jesus fulfill the 4th commandment ( & all the law) perfectly or not?

Show me the truth then if all I have are assumptions! YOU have NOTHING to stand on except the messed up theology of some teacher. SHOW us from HISTORY…that the early church believed as you do. You can’t…because their own writings contradict you.

Of course Jesus upheld the Law,it was the understanding of the people that was in error. God Bless

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Church Militant:

You interpret more into this passage than it says…

Of course I do causing you to be in a state of more confussion. God Bless

 

[Church_Militant]

SPOKENWORD:

Of course I do causing you to be in a state of more confussion. God Bless

I’m not confused at all…except with how you can tell me that you left the Catholic Church and found “revelation truth” and yet are far off base from what the Bible clearly says. I don’t dodge a question…EVER. Come home… :yawn:

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Church Militant:

I’m not confused at all…except with how you can tell me that you left the Catholic Church and found “revelation truth” and yet are far off base from what the Bible clearly says. I don’t dodge a question…EVER. Come home… :yawn:

You see my answers are not off base,its your understanding that is the problem. You might want to pray for some revelation truth.You only can have Gods truth if you allow His Word to enter in. You have to know whats Gods Word is.? Example]. There is this bank giving away 100 dollar bills.This information is not known to you so it has no effect on you. Now you hear about this bank and you go get the 100 bill,and you recieve it. Gods Word is the same. If you dont know Gods Word you do not know it exists. Only when you recieve it can you understand it and live it. God Bless.

 

[Tmaque]

SPOKENWORD:

Hi Tm. Im going to have to disagree with you. In 1timothy3.vs 4. He must be a good manager of his own household,keeping his children[if he had children] under his control without sacraficing his dignity,for if a man does not know how to manage his own house,how can he take care of the church of God. A bishop was to be married only ONCE. This could have 2 meanings. One that he could not be divorced. Two, that he was only allowed to have one wife. But the fact remains He was to be married. Remember St. Paul was an apostle,not a pastor. Two different roles in Gods Ministry. God Bless.

What you’re saying is that neither Jesus nor Paul were qualified to be bishops. No offense, but that’s simply ridiculous. Does that make any sense to you? It makes none to me.

 

[Xavier]

Tmaque:

What you’re saying is that neither Jesus nor Paul were qualified to be bishops. No offense, but that’s simply ridiculous. Does that make any sense to you? It makes none to me.

I agree with you that it makes no sense.
Can you agree with me that Peter being married now ccannot be a priest, does this make sense?

 

[Tmaque]

Xavier:

I agree with you that it makes no sense.
Can you agree with me that Peter being married now ccannot be a priest, does this make sense?

There are thousands of married priests in the Catholic church. The Roman rite prohibits priests from being married in most cases. The other rites do not. I wish the Roman rite would allow it. But, it’s not a matter of faith and morals. It’s simply a discipline unique to the Roman rite.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Tmaque:

What you’re saying is that neither Jesus nor Paul were qualified to be bishops. No offense, but that’s simply ridiculous. Does that make any sense to you?It makes none to me ------------------------------------------------------------------------------.

Why would Jesus or Paul want to be a Bishop.? Makes alot of sense to me. God Bless.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Tmaque:

What you’re saying is that neither Jesus nor Paul were qualified to be bishops. No offense, but that’s simply ridiculous. Does that make any sense to you? It makes none to me.

They were both OVER qualified if you ask me - now does what you said make any sense?

 

[ahimsaman72]

“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach. . . . Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.”

In the culture when this passage was written polygamy was not uncommon and to say that a man should “have one wife” would be naturally understood as prohibiting polygamy.

So,“the husband of one wife” refers to the requirement that a bishop have NO MORE than one wife, not that a bishop MUST have one wife. Paul and Jesus both endorsed celibacy. This would make no sense if you’re interpretation were correct.

The point is they were allowed to be MARRIED - WEREN’T THEY???They weren’t EXPECTED to be celibate - WERE THEY???

You show your own ignorance by quoting the very verse that speaks of bishops being married? You claim Paul and Jesus endorsed celibacy. Paul nor Jesus ever commanded celibacy. If they implied, they implied it, yet the Catholic Church teaches and holds this practice and says that Jesus and Paul endorse it. Bologna!

 

[mercygate]

ahimsaman72:

The point is they were allowed to be MARRIED - WEREN’T THEY???They weren’t EXPECTED to be celibate - WERE THEY???

Actually, they were. There is *very *early evidence (assembled painstakingly in Christian Cochini’s Book, *The Apostolic Origins of Priestly *Celibacy) that couples *did *live in continence after a man was ordained. By the late 4th Century there was a conciliar directive on it. The practice is supported by I Cor 7:29: “Let those who have wives live as though they had none.” Celibacy is a life in witness to the eschaton, so this text fits the tradition very well.

You claim Paul and Jesus endorsed celibacy. Paul nor Jesus ever commanded celibacy. If they implied, they implied it, yet the Catholic Church teaches and holds this practice and says that Jesus and Paul endorse it. Bologna!

True, Jesus and Paul do not command celibacy. Neither do they command marriage. But to say that they did not endorse celibacy turns a blind eye to the texts.

“To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.” (I Cor 7:8) and Matthew 19:12, which refers to “eunuchs for the Kingdom” – elsewhere you have indicated that Jesus means actual, physical eunuchs – surgically castrated males – so I suppose that text will do nothing to support the case for celibacy in your estimation.

I don’t understand why people get so overheated on this issue. Priestly celibacy has much merit in practice and it is grounded in both Scripture and in apostolic tradition. Why the uproar?

The Church adopted the discipline of priestly celibacy because celibacy is consonant with the life of Christ as well as with his teaching, it was the preference of the early Church, and it is known through experience to confer spiritual (and practical!) benefits upon those who embrace it as well as upon the faithful under their care. Perhaps the inability to recognize what those spiritual benefits might be is nothing more than an indicator that one is not called to celibacy.

 

[mtr01]

ahimsaman72:

The point is they were allowed to be MARRIED - WEREN’T THEY???They weren’t EXPECTED to be celibate - WERE THEY???

Once again…

mtr01:

It is important to remember that at the beginning of the Church, there were no “cradle Christians”, they were either Jews or Pagan converts. As such, it would have been all but impossible to require celibacy of bishops and/or priests, as the vast majority of eligible men would have been married (as per the custom of the age).

However, as pointed out in the previous post, married bishops were expected to live continently once ordained and appointed.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

mercygate:

Actually, they were. There is *very *early evidence (assembled painstakingly in Christian Cochini’s Book, *The Apostolic Origins of Priestly *Celibacy) that couples *did *live in continence after a man was ordained. By the late 4th Century there was a conciliar directive on it. The practice is supported by I Cor 7:29: “Let those who have wives live as though they had none.” Celibacy is a life in witness to the eschaton, so this text fits the tradition very well.

True, Jesus and Paul do not command celibacy. Neither do they command marriage. But to say that they did not endorse celibacy turns a blind eye to the texts.

“To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.” (I Cor 7:8) and Matthew 19:12, which refers to “eunuchs for the Kingdom” – elsewhere you have indicated that Jesus means actual, physical eunuchs – surgically castrated males – so I suppose that text will do nothing to support the case for celibacy in your estimation.

I don’t understand why people get so overheated on this issue. Priestly celibacy has much merit in practice and it is grounded in both Scripture and in apostolic tradition. Why the uproar?

The Church adopted the discipline of priestly celibacy because celibacy is consonant with the life of Christ as well as with his teaching, it was the preference of the early Church, and it is known through experience to confer spiritual (and practical!) benefits upon those who embrace it as well as upon the faithful under their care. Perhaps the inability to recognize what those spiritual benefits might be is nothing more than an indicator that one is not called to celibacy.

Maybe 1corint7.29 was talking about doing away with having more than one wife [poligamy] which Christ instituted? Maybe physical eunuchs were the ideal candidates for the priesthood? Would have solved alot of problems in the modern church. God Bless
uchs

 

[mercygate]

SPOKENWORD:

Maybe 1corint7.29 was talking about doing away with having more than one wife [poligamy] which Christ instituted? Maybe physical eunuchs were the ideal candidates for the priesthood? Would have solved alot of problems in the modern church. God Bless
uchs

A bizarre exegesis by any reckoning, even your own, I am sure. You’re joking, of course. If physical eunuchs are accepted as candidates for Priesthood, I am unaware of it and it would represent a change of traditional practice. Until recently, men with physical disabilities or birth defects, bastards, and sons of divorced parents were not admitted to Holy Orders (but that’s a whole different story).

 

[ahimsaman72]

mercygate:

Actually, they were. There is *very *early evidence (assembled painstakingly in Christian Cochini’s Book, *The Apostolic Origins of Priestly *Celibacy) that couples *did *live in continence after a man was ordained. By the late 4th Century there was a conciliar directive on it. The practice is supported by I Cor 7:29: “Let those who have wives live as though they had none.” Celibacy is a life in witness to the eschaton, so this text fits the tradition very well.

True, Jesus and Paul do not command celibacy. Neither do they command marriage. But to say that they did not endorse celibacy turns a blind eye to the texts.

“To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.” (I Cor 7:8) and Matthew 19:12, which refers to “eunuchs for the Kingdom” – elsewhere you have indicated that Jesus means actual, physical eunuchs – surgically castrated males – so I suppose that text will do nothing to support the case for celibacy in your estimation.

I don’t understand why people get so overheated on this issue. Priestly celibacy has much merit in practice and it is grounded in both Scripture and in apostolic tradition. Why the uproar?

The Church adopted the discipline of priestly celibacy because celibacy is consonant with the life of Christ as well as with his teaching, it was the preference of the early Church, and it is known through experience to confer spiritual (and practical!) benefits upon those who embrace it as well as upon the faithful under their care. Perhaps the inability to recognize what those spiritual benefits might be is nothing more than an indicator that one is not called to celibacy.

I would posit that because of Paul’s lifestyle - constantly traveling (missionary role) and teaching - that this really is the reason he even mentioned it. Imagine him having a wife and children at home only getting to see him on rare occasions. It would have been painful for him and his family.

I’ve always said that you can’t base a doctrine on one verse or even a couple of verses. You have to look at the big picture and weigh the pros and cons. I think there’s more cons on this issue. I believe it has only perpretated scandals. That’s all I can say…

The Orthodox have gotten along quite well with their practice of having wives. I wouldn’t say they are any less effective as spiritual counselors as Catholics.