Jolliano:
Actually I'm not removing or forging anything.

Gynaika means wife but mainly woman.
It's simply that makes it refer to wife used in this format ( Jacob's woman = Jacob's wife). Before you argue, read in Greek and English, read Luke 7:44,50, Luke 14:26.

Actually I'm not removing or forging anything.

Gynaika means wife but mainly woman.
It's simply that makes it refer to wife used in this format ( Jacob's woman = Jacob's wife). Before you argue, read in Greek and English, read Luke 7:44,50, Luke 14:26.

Read the 1 Corinthians 9 from verse 1, Paul is defending his right to move about with the sisters you have mentioned. He is saying that if others have sisters that accompany and help them, why can't he?

And who was he trying to confuse by inserting gynaika? Was he implying that they could assume that sisters were all their wives? it's not good to twist something so clear!! Why did Paul not say sisters (afterall the ones in Romans were more than one)? Nothing was said about helping there but leading about a WIFE.

Paul was highlighting the fact that though he had a right to do these things yet he didnt. You still will have that passage read and gynaika be omitted! Now see 1 Corinth 9:15
But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me:

If you actually know Greek, you wouldn't be saying this. What does gunaikairon mean?
What does gune mean?
What then does gunaika actually mean?


Is it wife or woman? Check your Greek.

Check the Strong's Concordance if you need.

Jolliano:


The Greek is "adelphaen gunaika" not "adelphaen,gunaika".

The first one means SISTER. When you add a comma, you now turn it to two words "SISTER, WIFE".


Even the grammar shows this, adelphi means sister. So if Paul wanted to write sister separately from wife, why didn't he use adelphi which is a noun, rather than adelphaen which is an adjective.

If adelphaen serves as an adjective, that means it qualifies the noun wife. Meaning Paul was actually talking about a wife- a wife who was a sister.

McSterling:
If adelphaen serves as an adjective, that means it qualifies the noun wife. Meaning Paul was actually talking about a wife- a wife who was a sister.

Did you read my last post. Gunaika means woman not wife.

accountable:
@ Ubenedictus Celibacy is a discipline not a dogma.
I guess that:-) by this statement u mean to tell us that Catholic priests can now freely choose whether to marry or not. I wish that were true. What do u say to quote below.

"""The synod fathers clearly and forcefully expressed their thought on this matter in an important proposal which deserves to be quoted here in full: "While in no way interfering with the discipline of the Oriental churches, the synod, in the conviction that perfect chastity in priestly celibacy is a charism, reminds priests that celibacy is a priceless gift of God for the Church and has a prophetic value for the world today. This synod strongly reaffirms what the Latin Church and some Oriental rites require that is, that the priesthood be conferred only on those men who have received from God the gift of the vocation to celibate chastity (without prejudice to the tradition of some Oriental churches and particular cases of married clergy who convert to Catholicism, which are admitted as exceptions in Pope Paul VI's encyclical on priestly celibacy, no. 42). The synod does not wish to leave any doubts in the mind of anyone regarding the Church's firm will to maintain the law that demands perpetual and freely chosen celibacy for present and future candidates for priestly ordination in the Latin rite"""

Or do u mean the DESCIPLINE of OBLIGATORY clerical celibacy as in the above quote? If it is an obligatory descipline then we are saying the same thing.

there is trully a law that mandate celibacy in the the latin arm of the catholic church but that law doesnt apply in d greek arm of d church. It is still wrong to assume all catholic priest are under mandatory celibacy.

accountable:
@ ubenedictus. You are right that the emphasy of 1 timo 3:2 is on monogamy. Appears that ur understanding of scriptures is commendable. So do u agree that obligatory celibacy is unscriptural? Just answer based on scripture not church doctrine.

it seem juliano has answered d question, there is enough scripture to base d discipline of clerical celibacy.

Jolliano:
If you actually know Greek, you wouldn't be saying this. What does gunaikairon mean?
What does gune mean?
What then does gunaika actually mean?


Is it wife or woman? Check your Greek.

Check the Strong's Concordance if you need.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
wife, woman.
Probably from the base of ginomai; a woman; specially, a wife -- wife, woman.

http://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/1135.htm




Bro, would this make sense:

" do we not have power to lead about a sister woman as all the apostles and Cephas"

That is what you are trying to achieve which only mocks that scripture. The contextual usage there points clearly to a wife.

Scholar8200:

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
wife, woman.
Probably from the base of ginomai; a woman; specially, a wife -- wife, woman.
http://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/1135.htm
Bro, would this make sense:
" do we not have power to lead about a sister woman as all the apostles and Cephas"
That is what you are trying to achieve which only mocks that scripture. The contextual usage there points clearly to a wife.

So "sister wife" is better than "sister woman"?

Even the early church fathers knew it was woman not wife.

ST Augustine said people who read "wives" are
misled:
This thing some not understanding, have
interpreted not “a woman which is a sister,”
when he said, “Have we not power to lead about
a sister a woman;” but, “a sister a wife.” They
were misled by the ambiguity of the Greek word,
because both “wife” and “woman” is expressed
in Greek by the same word. Though indeed the
Apostle has so put this that they ought not to
have made this mistake; for that he neither says
“a woman” merely, but “a sister woman;” nor
“to take” (as in marriage), but “to take
about” (as on a journey). Howbeit other
interpreters have not been misled by this
ambiguity, and they have interpreted “woman”
not “wife.”.."--St Augustine, Treatise 137:5

Jolliano:



So "sister wife" is better than "sister woman"?

Even the early church fathers knew it was woman not wife.

ST Augustine said people who read "wives" are
misled:
This thing some not understanding, have
interpreted not “a woman which is a sister,”
when he said, “Have we not power to lead about
a sister a woman;” but, “a sister a wife.” They
were misled by the ambiguity of the Greek word,
because both “wife” and “woman” is expressed
in Greek by the same word. Though indeed the
Apostle has so put this that they ought not to
have made this mistake; for that he neither says
“a woman” merely, but “a sister woman;” nor
“to take” (as in marriage), but “to take
about” (as on a journey). Howbeit other
interpreters have not been misled by this
ambiguity, and they have interpreted “woman”
not “wife.”.."--St Augustine, Treatise 137:5

Kindly present your source of the original greek where that comma between sister and wife was not placed. (At least I gave mine!)

Scholar8200:

Kindly present your source of the original greek where that comma between sister and wife was not placed. (At least I gave mine!)

All correct Greek scripture don't contain commas in case you don't know.

But here's one example:

https://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/novum-testamentum-graece-na-28/read-the-bible-text/bibel/text/lesen/stelle/56/90001/99999/ch/749a46090156cc39bc9e98e66eec07b7/

Another one=
http://studybible.info/ABP_GRK/1%20Corinthians%209:5

Jolliano:



All correct Greek scripture don't contain commas in case you don't know.

But here's one example:

https://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/novum-testamentum-graece-na-28/read-the-bible-text/bibel/text/lesen/stelle/56/90001/99999/ch/749a46090156cc39bc9e98e66eec07b7/

Good!

Now will you explain what Paul was trying to achieve afterall there are no 'brother woman'! Why say 'sister woman' then? And why did he not repeat the same when he spoke of those who were helpers to him and the rest in Romans 16?

I submit that he had to bring in gynaika because he was going to make a distinction between those who helped and the special woman -wife as Strong's concordance points out.

Besides, if he had wanted to refer to helpers, then he should have said sisters afterall there was more than one mentioned in Roman 16!

Moreover, Romans 16:1 mentions one such sister, why did he not use gynaika to show that she was a woman? Would Paul use such a strong word to describe mere helpers? What message would that be passing to his audience? That they had 'apostolic rights' to use such helpers as wife if they so desired!? Is that purity

Scholar8200:

Good!
Now will you explain what Paul was trying to achieve afterall there are no 'brother woman'! Why say 'sister woman' then? And why did he not repeat the same when he spoke of those who were helpers to him and the rest in Romans 16?
I submit that he had to bring in gynaika because he was going to make a distinction between those who helped and the special woman -wife as Strong's concordance points out.
Besides, if he had wanted to refer to helpers, then he should have said sisters afterall there was more than one mentioned in Roman 16!
Moreover, Romans 16:1 mentions one such sister, why did he not use gynaika to show that she was a woman? Would Paul use such a strong word to describe mere helpers? What message would that be passing to his audience? That they had 'apostolic rights' to use such helpers as wife if they so desired!? Is that purity

Scholar8200:

Good!
Now will you explain what Paul was trying to achieve afterall there are no 'brother woman'! Why say 'sister woman' then? And why did he not repeat the same when he spoke of those who were helpers to him and the rest in Romans 16?
I submit that he had to bring in gynaika because he was going to make a distinction between those who helped and the special woman -wife as Strong's concordance points out.
Besides, if he had wanted to refer to helpers, then he should have said sisters afterall there was more than one mentioned in Roman 16!
Moreover, Romans 16:1 mentions one such sister, why did he not use gynaika to show that she was a woman? Would Paul use such a strong word to describe mere helpers? What message would that be passing to his audience? That they had 'apostolic rights' to use such helpers as wife if they so desired!? Is that purity

Firstly,The early Church Fathers teach that sister woman is correct.
St Jerome(the one who translated the Hebrew and Greek scriptures into latin) wrote that "It is clear that (they) must not be seen as wives but, as we have said, as
women who assisted [the apostles] with their goods" ( Ad.
Jovinian I, 26).

St Clement of Alexandria agreed, saying the
women were not the wives of the apostles but were female
assistants who could enter the homes of women and could
teach them there ( Stromata III, 6).

Scholar8200:

Good!
Now will you explain what Paul was trying to achieve afterall there are no 'brother woman'! Why say 'sister woman' then? And why did he not repeat the same when he spoke of those who were helpers to him and the rest in Romans 16?
I submit that he had to bring in gynaika because he was going to make a distinction between those who helped and the special woman -wife as Strong's concordance points out.
Besides, if he had wanted to refer to helpers, then he should have said sisters afterall there was more than one mentioned in Roman 16!
Moreover, Romans 16:1 mentions one such sister, why did he not use gynaika to show that she was a woman? Would Paul use such a strong word to describe mere helpers? What message would that be passing to his audience? That they had 'apostolic rights' to use such helpers as wife if they so desired!? Is that purity

In his On Monogamy, Tertullian explains 1 Cor 9:3-6, saying that the wives and female companions of the apostles were merely ministers to them, not sex partners:

The rest [of the Twelve], while I do not find them married I must of necessity understand to have been either eunuchs or continent. Nor indeed, if, among the Greeks, in accordance with the carelessness of custom, women and wives are classed under a common name— however, there is a name proper to wives— shall we therefore so interpret Paul as if he demonstrates the apostles to have had wives? For if he were disputing about marriages, as he does in the sequel, where the apostle could better have named some particular example, it would appear right for him to say, "For have we not the power of leading about wives, like the other apostles and Cephas?" But when he subjoins those (expressions) which show his abstinence from (insisting on) the supply of maintenance, saying, "For have we not the power of eating and drinking?" he does not demonstrate that "wives" were led about by the apostles, whom even such as have not still have the power of eating and drinking; but simply "women," who used to minister to them in the same way (as they did) when accompanying the Lord.

Pope St. Clement of Alexandria
Pope St. Clement of Alexandria
Even Paul did not hesitate in one letter to address his
consort. The only reason why he did not take her about
with him was that it would have been an inconvenience for
his ministry. Accordingly he says in a letter: “Have we not a
right to take about with us a wife that is a sister like the
other apostles?” But the latter, in accordance with their
particular ministry, devoted themselves to preaching
without any distraction, and took their wives with them not
as women with whom they had marriage relations, but as
sisters, that they might be their fellow-ministers in dealing
with housewives. It was through them that the Lord’s
teaching penetrated also the women’s quarters without any
scandal being aroused.

Jolliano:


Firstly,The early Church Fathers teach that sister woman is correct.
St Jerome(the one who translated the Hebrew and Greek scriptures into latin) wrote that "It is clear that (they) must not be seen as wives but, as we have said, as
women who assisted [the apostles] with their goods" ( Ad.
Jovinian I, 26).

St Clement of Alexandria agreed, saying the
women were not the wives of the apostles but were female
assistants who could enter the homes of women and could
teach them there ( Stromata III, 6).

Mark 1:30 tells us:
But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever...

Now will Simon separate from his lawfully wedded wife and keep/lead about other sisters as companion/helpers?! Is that proper?

When Jesus clearly said that,''...what therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder'' Matthew 19:6b

Jolliano:
Pope St. Clement of Alexandria
Pope St. Clement of Alexandria
Even Paul did not hesitate in one letter to address his
consort. The only reason why he did not take her about
with him was that it would have been an inconvenience for
his ministry. Accordingly he says in a letter: “Have we not a
right to take about with us a wife that is a sister like the
other apostles?” But the latter, in accordance with their
particular ministry, devoted themselves to preaching
without any distraction, and took their wives with them not
as women with whom they had marriage relations, but as
sisters, that they might be their fellow-ministers in dealing
with housewives. It was through them that the Lord’s
teaching penetrated also the women’s quarters without any
scandal being aroused.

in summary, they had wives! (Paul clearly stated he was gifted (not mandated) to be celibate.1 Corinth 7:7

Scholar8200:
in summary, they had wives! (Paul clearly stated he was gifted (not mandated) to be celibate.1 Corinth 7:7

Nope. The Apostles who were already married did not have conjugal relationships with their wives after Jesus called them. If and if at all they travelled with their wives, it was for assistance and not as wives for sexual intercourse sake.

That is what the early church fathers who were disciples of those apostles teach.

Besides, the Early Church also say that Peter's wife died before Peter became an apostle. It is why the mother-in-law is mentioned and the wife is not even hinted at.

Jolliano:



Nope. The Apostles who were already married did not have conjugal relationships with their wives after Jesus called them. If and if at all they travelled with their wives, it was for assistance and not as wives for sexual intercourse sake.

That is what the early church fathers who were disciples of those apostles teach.

Besides, the Early Church also say that Peter's wife died before Peter became an apostle. It is why the mother-in-law is mentioned and the wife is not even hinted at.

Those claims are not verifiable! Besides, Paul, inspired by the Spirit said to couples not to defraud one another in conjugal relations.1 Corinth 7:4,5 they were married and that was it. If they suddenly became continent, were their wives same too?

3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
1 Corinth 7:3-5

Jolliano:

In his On Monogamy, Tertullian explains 1 Cor 9:3-6, saying that the wives and female companions of the apostles were merely ministers to them, not sex partners:
The rest [of the Twelve], while I do not find them married I must of necessity understand to have been either eunuchs or continent. Nor indeed, if, among the Greeks, in accordance with the carelessness of custom, women and wives are classed under a common name— however, there is a name proper to wives— shall we therefore so interpret Paul as if he demonstrates the apostles to have had wives? For if he were disputing about marriages, as he does in the sequel, where the apostle could better have named some particular example, it would appear right for him to say, "For have we not the power of leading about wives, like the other apostles and Cephas?" But when he subjoins those (expressions) which show his abstinence from (insisting on) the supply of maintenance, saying, "For have we not the power of eating and drinking?" he does not demonstrate that "wives" were led about by the apostles, whom even such as have not still have the power of eating and drinking; but simply "women," who used to minister to them in the same way (as they did) when accompanying the Lord.

The highlighted said they were not married but were eunuchs.

Jolliano:
Pope St. Clement of Alexandria
Pope St. Clement of Alexandria
Even Paul did not hesitate in one letter to address his
consort. The only reason why he did not take her about
with him was that it would have been an inconvenience for
his ministry. Accordingly he says in a letter: “Have we not a
right to take about with us a wife that is a sister like the
other apostles?” But the latter, in accordance with their
particular ministry, devoted themselves to preaching
without any distraction, and took their wives with them not
as women with whom they had marriage relations, but as
sisters, that they might be their fellow-ministers in dealing
with housewives. It was through them that the Lord’s
teaching penetrated also the women’s quarters without any
scandal being aroused.

this tradition contradicts the highlighted above and underscores the hazard inherent in adding to or following extra-biblical sources. they represent views of man and change just as man does.

Scholar8200:
Those claims are not verifiable! Besides, Paul, inspired by the Spirit said to couples not to defraud one another in conjugal relations.1 Corinth 7:4,5 they were married and that was it.

It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because
of the temptation to immorality, each man should have
his own wife and each woman her own husband. The
husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights,
and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does
not rule over her own body, but the husband does;
likewise the husband does not rule over his own body,
but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except
perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may
devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together
again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.
I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish
that all were as I myself am. But each has his own
special gift from God, one of one kind and one of
another. -- (1 Cor. 7:1-7).

They can be continent for as long as they want provided that they agree.

If they suddenly became continent, were their wives same too?
The highlighted said they were not married but were eunuchs.

He didn't say all were not married. At least Peter was married but the others were either celibate(eununchs)
or continent(abstaining from sexual intercourse).

this tradition contradicts the highlighted above and underscores the hazard inherent in adding to or following extra-biblical sources. they represent views of man and change just as man does.

Please point out the contradiction. Also, Tradition does not change.

Jolliano:


It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because
of the temptation to immorality, each man should have
his own wife and each woman her own husband. The
husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights,
and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does
not rule over her own body, but the husband does;
likewise the husband does not rule over his own body,
but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except
perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may
devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together
again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.
I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish
that all were as I myself am. But each has his own
special gift from God, one of one kind and one of
another. -- (1 Cor. 7:1-7).

They can be continent for as long as they want provided that they agree.

Which the text implies to be brief lest either be tempted as a result of incontinence.

He didn't say all were not married. At least Peter was married but the others were either celibate(eununchs)
or continent(abstaining from sexual intercourse).

But Paul's mention of Cephas and other apostles leading about a sister, a wife contradicts the claims of Tertullian and yours here?
Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas
1 Corinth 9:5
Since you accept that Peter (who you call the first pope but Bible reveals he was Apostle to the Jews Galatians 2:7, had a wife, why change that verse as regards to other apostles?

Please point out the contradiction. Also, Tradition does not change.

Tertullian: Peter had a wife but just like the other apostles, led about a sister as a helper. Other apostles were not married but had sister-helpers. (the very suggestion places a question mark on their integrity).

Pope St. Clement: They had wives and took their wives with them (permanently denying them of conjugal relations while converting them back to just sisters!)


Besides, why would Paul single out a sister? Afterall in Romans 16 for example many assisting saints were mentioned (not just one 'consort') and even a couple, Aquilla and Priscilla). When they embarked on a missionary journey, the only helper was John Mark then why the emphasis on a sister helper if that was all that was involved?

Moreover, in 1Corinth 7 Paul clearly stated that he was a celibate which I believe explains 1 Corinth 9:5! - he was not leading about a wife like other apostles did because he was a celibate, a eunuch for the kingdom's sake being a path he chose for himself!

Scholar8200:
Which the text implies to be brief lest either be tempted as a result of incontinence.

"To the unmarried and the widows I say that it
is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot
exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to
marry than to be aflame with passion" -- 1 Corinthians 7:8-9.

Paul says it should be brief if they cannot live in continency. Besides,the letter was not directed to the Apostles but to ordinary members of the Church.

St. Paul who is an Apostle is CELIBATE.

But Paul's mention of Cephas and other apostles leading about a sister, a wife contradicts the claims of Tertullian and yours here?
Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas
1 Corinth 9:5
Since you accept that Peter (who you call the first pope but Bible reveals he was Apostle to the Jews Galatians 2:7, had a wife, why change that verse as regards to other apostles?
Tertullian: Peter had a wife but just like the other apostles, led about a sister as a helper. Other apostles were not married but had sister-helpers. (the very suggestion places a question mark on their integrity).
Pope St. Clement: They had wives and took their wives with them (permanently denying them of conjugal relations while converting them back to just sisters!)
Besides, why would Paul single out a sister? Afterall in Romans 16 for example many assisting saints were mentioned (not just one 'consort') and even a couple, Aquilla and Priscilla). When they embarked on a missionary journey, the only helper was John Mark then why the emphasis on a sister helper if that was all that was involved?
Moreover, in 1Corinth 7 Paul clearly stated that he was a celibate which I believe explains 1 Corinth 9:5! - he was not leading about a wife like other apostles did because he was a celibate, a eunuch for the kingdom's sake being a path he chose for himself!

So Jesus being celibate and having women assist in his ministry puts a question mark on his integrity?

Also, it seems you don't know about St. Thecla who accompanied St. Paul.

Jolliano:


"To the unmarried and the widows I say that it
is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot
exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to
marry than to be aflame with passion" -- 1 Corinthians 7:8-9.

Paul says it should be brief if they cannot live in continency.

I dont find an IF in vs 4,5 which we are considering! Besides Vs 4,5 was addressed to married couples not singles.

Besides,the letter was not directed to the Apostles but to ordinary members of the Church.

The Spirit inspired letter applies to ALL believers irrespective of title! None is above the Word.

St. Paul who is an Apostle is CELIBATE.

He chose to be because he was thus gifted!

So Jesus being celibate and having women assist in his ministry puts a question mark on his integrity?

Luke 8:1-4 tells us there were many (not one as consort) women whom Jesus had healed who (perhaps as a mark of gratitude) ministered strictly of their substance (wealth). As to his close assistant/ helper, it was the 12 disciples. The disciples went to buy food (john 4); prepared for the passover, kept the bag where the money (some of which came from the women) etc

Also, it seems you don't know about St. Thecla who accompanied St. Paul.

Do let's keep to the names in Scripture. Paul sometimes gave a long list of brethren but Thecla was never mentioned!

Scholar8200:
I dont find an IF in vs 4,5 which we are considering! Besides Vs 4,5 was addressed to married couples not singles.

There is a "PERHAPS". You want to isolate bible verses and interpret them as you feel or think. The Bible is to be interpreted as a whole not by singling out verses.

The Spirit inspired letter applies to ALL believers irrespective of title! None is above the Word.

So the letter to Timothy applies also as a letter to John and Peter?

[Quote]He chose to be because he was thus gifted![/quote]

Just as all the apostles were. They were gifted for their ministry sake.

[Quote]Luke 8:1-4 tells us there were many (not one as consort) women whom Jesus had healed who (perhaps as a mark of gratitude) ministered strictly of their substance (wealth). As to his close assistant/ helper, it was the 12 disciples. The disciples went to buy food (john 4); prepared for the passover, kept the bag where the money (some of which came from the women) etc[/quote]

From Luke
8:1 Soon afterwards he went on through cities and
villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of
the kingdom of God. The twelve were with him, 8:2 as
well as some women who had been cured of evil
spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from
whom seven demons had gone out, 8:3 and Joanna,
the wife of Herod's steward Chuza, and Susanna, and
many others, who provided for them out of their
resources.

From Mark
15:40 There were also women looking on from a
distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and
Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses,
and Salome. 15:41 These used to follow him and
provided for him when he was in Galilee; and there
were many other women who had come up with him
to Jerusalem.

Do you notice that some women are mentioned in Luke and not in Mark and vice versa?
They ministered not just to Jesus but also the Apostles that followed Jesus. There is no mention of any wife of any apostle including Peter!

[Quote]Do let's keep to the names in Scripture. Paul sometimes gave a long list of brethren but Thecla was never mentioned![/quote]

Because there was no point in mentioning the names of females following him while they were still with him. Does any other writer mention any female assistant or follower?

Jolliano:

There is a "PERHAPS". You want to isolate bible verses and interpret them as you feel or think. The Bible is to be interpreted as a whole not by singling out verses.

Sure but I dont find 'perhaps' in verse 4,5! If you dont mind, what version are you using?

So the letter to Timothy applies also as a letter to John and Peter?

The Spirit-inspired commands & principles of life and ministry therein applies to all believers of all time!

Just as all the apostles were. They were gifted for their ministry sake.

there you go again! The verses I quoted, and one of the traditions you quoted say otherwise!

From Luke
8:1 Soon afterwards he went on through cities and
villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of
the kingdom of God. , 8:2 as
well as some women who had been cured of evil
spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from
whom seven demons had gone out, 8:3 and Joanna,
the wife of Herod's steward Chuza, and Susanna, and
many others, who provided for them out of their
resources.

From Mark
15:40 There were also women looking on from a
distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and
Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses,
and Salome. 15:41 These used to follow him and
provided for him when he was in Galilee; and there
were many other women who had come up with him
to Jerusalem.

Do you notice that some women are mentioned in Luke and not in Mark and vice versa?
They ministered not just to Jesus but also the Apostles that followed Jesus. There is no mention of any wife of any apostle including Peter!

Did you notice there were MANY and their main role was ministering from wealth/resources not as consorts or companions in lieu of wife!

And that Paul could not have been referring to such assistance in 1 Corinth 9:5 because
1) he laboured with his hands thus meeting his needs hence he was not claiming a right
2) there was no single sister uniquely led about by either Jesus or Paul.
3) neither Jesus nor Paul was married and Both got helps from many sisters hence 1 corinth 9:5 referred to something beyond those passages referred to in Mark and Luke.

Because there was no point in mentioning the names of females following him while they were still with him. Does any other writer mention any female assistant or follower?

Romans 16 -Phoebe, Mary, Tryphena and Tryphosa, Persis, Julia etc
Others are Lydia, apphia, etc

There are some mentioned in other epistles.
In any case let's keep to the point.

Jolliano:


It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because
of the temptation to immorality, each man should have
his own wife and each woman her own husband. The
husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights,
and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does
not rule over her own body, but the husband does;
likewise the husband does not rule over his own body,
but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except
perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may
devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together
again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.
I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish
that all were as I myself am. But each has his own
special gift from God, one of one kind and one of
another. -- (1 Cor. 7:1-7).

They can be continent for as long as they want provided that they agree.



He didn't say all were not married. At least Peter was married but the others were either celibate(eununchs)
or continent(abstaining from sexual intercourse).




Please point out the contradiction. Also, Tradition does not change.

Pls, admit it when u r confused. Ur arguments are confusing

@joliano,
Jesus commanded his disciples to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them...

From ur arguments, Jesus' disciples stopped sleeping with their wives immediately they were called. Does it mean dt it was meant to abolish marriage on d earth (at least no christian should be married now)?
R u saying dt if u sleep with ur wife, u stop being his disciple?
Does Jesus see conjugal relations btwn couples as sin?

Scholar8200:
Sure but I dont find 'perhaps' in verse 4,5! If you dont mind, what version are you using?
The Spirit-inspired commands & principles of life and ministry therein applies to all believers of all time!
there you go again! The verses I quoted, and one of the traditions you quoted say otherwise!
Did you notice there were MANY and their main role was ministering from wealth/resources not as consorts or companions in lieu of wife!
And that Paul could not have been referring to such assistance in 1 Corinth 9:5 because
1) he laboured with his hands thus meeting his needs hence he was not claiming a right
2) there was no single sister uniquely led about by either Jesus or Paul.
3) neither Jesus nor Paul was married and Both got helps from many sisters hence 1 corinth 9:5 referred to something beyond those passages referred to in Mark and Luke.
Romans 16 -Phoebe, Mary, Tryphena and Tryphosa, Persis, Julia etc
Others are Lydia, apphia, etc
There are some mentioned in other epistles.
In any case let's keep to the point.

There is a difference between being single and being celibate(eunuch).
A married man can be celibate or continent.

Remember, the wives of the apostles were not mentioned in the Gospels. Did they follow the Apostles and follow Jesus or did they only begin to follow the Apostles after the death of Jesus?

Bobbysworld28:

Pls, admit it when u r confused. Ur arguments are confusing

When you say my arguments are confusing you, I'm obviously not the one who is confused.

Jolliano:


There is a difference between being single and being celibate(eunuch).
A married man can be celibate or continent.

celibate
ˈsɛlɪbət/Submit
adjective
1.
abstaining from marriage and sexual relations, typically for religious reasons.
"a celibate priest"
noun
1.
a person who abstains from marriage and sexual relations.
"he's attracted and attractive to women and yet he lives as a celibate"

Please note that it says AND not OR! Why?

Remember, the wives of the apostles were not mentioned in the Gospels. Did they follow the Apostles and follow Jesus or did they only begin to follow the Apostles after the death of Jesus?

They were not mentioned however 1 Corinth 9:5 shows they had wives! Mary was also a disciple but she was only mentioned in Acts 1! Just as we cannot say because the wives of Tychicus, Epaphroditus, Demas, Luke, Titus, etc were not mentioned, it means they were not married!

In fact, Mark 1:29,John 19:27 show that these men had their own houses hence it does not suggest that they were without wives. Besides, When it says lead about a sister, a wife, remember that most of these apostles stayed back at Jerusalem and did not travel as widely as Paul. Hence Paul made his allusion based on what he observed when he went to Jerusalem at the time Peter and the rest were leaders of a burgeoning body of believers!

Therefore, Paul spoke about leading about a wife in the sense of companionship and not following about on missionary journeys!

Scholar8200:

celibate
ˈsɛlɪbət/Submit
adjective
1.
abstaining from marriage and sexual relations, typically for religious reasons.
"a celibate priest"
noun
1.
a person who abstains from marriage and sexual relations.
"he's attracted and attractive to women and yet he lives as a celibate"
Please note that it says AND not OR! Why?

Because in current times, priests don't marry at all since they won't have sexual relations with a woman. But in the time of the Apostles, majority of the converts were grown people who may have already been married. So for them, even if they lived with their wives, they would stop all sexual relations when they become Apostles/Bishops/Priests.

This is biblical. Remember that the Levites were allowed to marry because their priesthood was passed down by blood and birth but they would avoid sexual relations before eating or partaking in the eating of the Consecrated Bread(The old testament prefiguring of the Eucharist).

Remember that the Early Christians gathered daily for the breaking of bread(The Eucharist which is the body and blood of Christ) and so the Apostles/Bishops/Priests abstained from sexual intercourse because they were the ones who would do the consecration.

When in Luke 14:26, Jesus said they must hate their wives, mothers,e.t.c. It is in this light that he means it. His apostles understood this and for three years they were celibate with Him. Why then would they go back to having sex after he left?


[Quote]They were not mentioned however 1 Corinth 9:5 shows they had wives! Mary was also a disciple but she was only mentioned in Acts 1! Just as we cannot say because the wives of Tychicus, Epaphroditus, Demas, Luke, Titus, etc were not mentioned, it means they were not married!
In fact, Mark 1:29,John 19:27 show that these men had their own houses hence it does not suggest that they were without wives. Besides, When it says lead about a sister, a wife, remember that most of these apostles stayed back at Jerusalem and did not travel as widely as Paul. Hence Paul made his allusion based on what he observed when he went to Jerusalem at the time Peter and the rest were leaders of a burgeoning body of believers!
Therefore, Paul spoke about leading about a wife in the sense of companionship and not following about on missionary journeys!
[/quote]

Firstly, Mary was mentioned many times in the Gospel even at the Crucifixion.

Secondly, most of the apostles moved out from Jerusalem. The apostles moved out to different parts of the world to fulfill the instruction of Christ to go and teach all Nations.

Jolliano:


Because in current times, priests don't marry at all since they won't have sexual relations with a woman. But in the time of the Apostles, majority of the converts were grown people who may have already been married. So for them, even if they lived with their wives, they would stop all sexual relations when they become Apostles/Bishops/Priests.

Does sexual relations with one's wife defile?
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled Hebrews 13:4

This is biblical. Remember that the Levites were allowed to marry because their priesthood was passed down by blood and birth but they would avoid sexual relations before eating or partaking in the eating of the Consecrated Bread(The old testament prefiguring of the Eucharist).

The passover, not the consecrated bread, pre-figures the Lord's supper and the only thing forbidden for the former was leaven/yeast!

Remember that the Early Christians gathered daily for the breaking of bread(The Eucharist which is the body and blood of Christ) and so the Apostles/Bishops/Priests abstained from sexual intercourse because they were the ones who would do the consecration.

Show where this was expressedly or impliedly stated in the NT with respect to the above clarification that the passover , not consecrated or shewbread, pre-figured the Lord's supper/Eucharist!

Also show same for where sexual relations between couples was a hindrance to service to God in the NT.

When in Luke 14:26, Jesus said they must hate their wives, mothers,e.t.c. It is in this light that he means it. His apostles understood this and for three years they were celibate with Him. Why then would they go back to having sex after he left?

That's not correct! When the Spirit inspired Paul saying what he said in 1 Corinth 7:4,5 also Matthew 19:5! And why are believers getting married today? If that is what it means then we all must be celibates to follow Jesus and any church conducting wedding are flagrantly disobeying God!!!
Matthew 10:37 clarifies Luke 14:26
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Firstly, Mary was mentioned many times in the Gospel even at the Crucifixion.

During Christ's ministry she was mentioned sparingly - when she wanted to see Him and it was not possible (reading the scenario, it was clear she was not following Him up and down), at the Cross and at the Upper room.

Secondly, most of the apostles moved out from Jerusalem. The apostles moved out to different parts of the world to fulfill the instruction of Christ to go and teach all Nations.

And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judæa and Samaria, except the apostles
Acts 8:1

Acts 15:2
When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

15 And after those days we took up our carriages, and went up to Jerusalem. 17 And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.

18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present
Acts 21:15-18

Peter evidently travelled a number of times but returned to Jerusalem afterwards. Afterall he was called to the Apostleship(not papacy)of the Jews.
Acts 9:32-43, Acts 10:32 Acts 11:2, Galatians 2:11.

Scholar8200:
Does sexual relations with one's wife defile?
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled Hebrews 13:4

[Quote]The passover, not the consecrated bread, pre-figures the Lord's supper and the only thing forbidden for the former was leaven/yeast!
Show where this was expressedly or impliedly stated in the NT with respect to the above clarification that the passover , not consecrated or shewbread, pre-figured the Lord's supper/Eucharist![/quote]

The Bread of the Presence, in the ancient Tabernacle and
later in the Temple, 1 Kgs 7:48 prefigured Jesus in the Holy
Eucharist.

In the Tabernacle God commanded Moses, Ex 25:8 "Let
them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst."
In the sanctuary, in the ark of the covenant, God told Moses,
Ex 25:22 "There I will meet with you, and from above the
mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are upon
the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you..." God added,
Ex 25:30 "You shall set the bread of the Presence on the
table before me always." Jesus told us, Mt 28:20 "I am with
you always."

Abimelech the priest gave David this sacred bread. 1 Sam
21:6 "So the priest gave him the holy bread; for there was no
bread there but the bread of the Presence." Jesus taught us
that it was for all His disciples. Mt 12:1-8 "At that time Jesus
went through the grainfields on the sabbath; his disciples
were hungry, and they began to pluck ears of grain and to
eat. ... [Jesus] said to them, 'Have you not read what David
did, when he was hungry, and those who who were with
him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of
the Presence ... I tell you, something greater than the temple
is here."
Jesus showed us what was greater than the Temple. Lk 22:19
"He took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it
and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body which is given
for you. Do this in remembrance of me.'"

Note, many things in the old testament can prefigure one thing in the NT. Apart from the Passover, Consecrated bread, Jesus also showed that Manna was a prefiguring of the Eucharist.

[Quote]Also show same for where sexual relations between couples was a hindrance to service to God in the NT.
That's not correct! When the Spirit inspired Paul saying what he said in 1 Corinth 7:4,5 also Matthew 19:5! And why are believers getting married today? If that is what it means then we all must be celibates to follow Jesus and any church conducting wedding are flagrantly disobeying God!!!
Matthew 10:37 clarifies Luke 14:26
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
[/quote]

The Apostles were the ones who were celibate. The others were not. Remember Paul talking to the Corinthians told them he wished everyone were celibate like him but people are gifted in different ways. The Apostles lived as celibates but the rest of the Church did not.

The Bible/Tradition/Apostle Paul/Catholic Church does not teach either/or but and.

In order words, it is not either everyone marries or everyone is celibate but that some(for the sake of ministry/kingdom of God) were celibate while the rest are married.