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.

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.

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.

dolphinheart:

Yep, even the holy spirit was catholic.
So what happened to the 7 inspired books .
So the church changed there language from Greek to Latin right? Bet it was the holy spirit that gave the command.....or probably it was the ruling goverment of the day that influenced such decision. Catholic church had been known to romance the ruling goverment of the day.
so are they now 66 or 73 books .

Firstly, resorting to mockery is a sign of defeat.

The Roman empire had been in charge of Israel before the birth of Jesus hence the issue of Caesars but as a bible scholar you should know this already. The Latin language had already taken over most of their immediate surrondingds. This is similar to how the Old testament was written in Hebrew while the new testament was written in Greek. So if you say it was the issue of the ruling party, what about the switch from Hebrew to Greek.

They have always been 73 books and will always be. TRUTH does not change.

And here's a quote from Martin Luther

“We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists
(Catholics)–that they possess the Word of God which
we received from them, otherwise we should have
known nothing at all about it. ” Martin Luther–
St. John, ch. 16

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.

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.

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).

JMAN05:

Am not talking of dialogue. If protestants are heretics, you shouldn't interfaith with them. That is a Chameleon-like attitude. Rev 18:4

What do you now mean by inter-faith?

dolphinheart:

The catholic church wrote, compiled and preserved the scriptures?!
Pls tell, where when and how did these occur.

The Apostles who wrote all the books in the new testament were Catholics and not just Catholic but the Heads of the Church in different locations.

When heretics started teaching errors and writing rubbish books and attaching the names of apostles to them (e.g The infancy gospel of Thomas), the Church decided to select which books were divinely inspired and which were not. The council of Rome in 382AD made the list of inspired books and it was 73 books not 66.

Saint Jerome was given the task to translate the hebrew and greek texts to Latin which was the language of the Church.

The fact is, the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church to
recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old
Testaments in the year 382 at the Council of Rome, under
Pope Damasus I. This decision was ratified again at the
councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 & 419). All
christians whether Catholic or Protestant, accept exactly the
same books of the New Testament that Pope Damasus
decreed were canonical and no others.

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

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/

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

dolphinheart:

Nop, just saying that all man requires for salvation was written down so that in the future, no man or group of men can come up and bring a doctrine or teaching claiming its from the holy spirit talking to him or them. With the scriptures we can know fake holy spirit from real holy spirit. You and I do know that a lot of people do claim that the holy spirit is showing them things. Some na only disaster e dey show them .

Is the Bible perfect, true and divinely inspired?

If yes, what does that say about the Catholic Church who wrote, compiled and preserved it even under persecution?

A bad tree cannot bring Good fruit.

JMAN05:

The issue is that not all hold to the church doctrine, and that is disunity inside the church. Of course, am not a protestant. But you guys also interfaith with protestant and still claim they are on there own. So hilarious.

Dialogue with protestants doesn't mean we are united with them. I can give you lists of differences between The Catholic Church and all the other faith communities that people now call churches.

Not holding to the doctrine is different from accepting the doctrine.
If I'm born into a family where trousers are banned, I may have a personal dislike of that doctrine but I can never take the place and authority of my father and try to change it.

JMAN05:

Do you want me to quote the words of your scholars that argue against your doctrine, and still catholics?

Scholars don't determine the Catholic Faith. The Apostles and their successors which make up the Magisterium are the ones who determined the Faith according to the truth that the Holy Spirit taught them just as Jesus said He would.

Speechless3:
Compiled, yes but canonised? explain sir.
Of course the church is the soul custodian of truth that was authored by God himself. I have always known this church to be the roman catholic church until i started reading the epistles few days ago. The churches depicted do not look like our catholic church to be sincere but maybe am reading them wrongly, dont know. Already very worried. Are there books you think i should read instead of the bible? pls share.
Thank u

Actually, the Canon of the bible means the list of the books that are in the bible. After many years of dispute and arguments concerning which books were inspired by God and which were not, the Catholic Church founded by Christ on Peter and the other Apostles decided to once and for all determine the Canon.

And in 382AD at the council of Rome, a list of 73 books was selected under the inspiration ands guidance of the Holy Spirit out of about 3000 books.

This was very important because so many people were writing rubbish and attaching the name of Peter and other Apostles to the rubbish. So in Galatia, some one will write lies and call it the Gospel of Thomas and since there was no internet or anything to confirm from, people would believe that Peter actually wrote it.

The Catholic Church designed the list under the Inspiration once and for all in 382AD.

And there was no argument until Luther tried to remove some books including REVELATIONS.

THE BIBLE CAME FROM THE CHURCH.

READ 1 TIMOTHY 3:15

uboma:

You can go and twist the Bible for all I care. This is what you and your like minded fellows do, deceive naïve people.
Cite just one example of a recorded case from the Bible where an infant was sprinkled with water, all in the name of being baptized. Even Jesus Christ, the role model for Christians was not baptized as an infant but as a full grown man.
Keep wallowing in ignorance.

Baptism is the circumcision of the New Covenant. Were
infants circumcised or not? They were.

" Jesus said, "Let the little children come to
me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
He never said wait till they are older, then bring them to
me.

Read Acts Chapter 2 v 39 - 43.

Kamxin:

Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
So Christ lied?
So Christ laboured in vain?
I repeat The Catholic church was not made for the bible, but the bible was made for the Catholic church.

Please, do not waste your time listening to @loksman. He calls himself a Christian but he believes that there will be no judgement and that there is no life after death. Check all his posts in Nairaland.

This guy is not even serious with himself.

loksman:
the bible you read now has been tampered with,altered..e.t.c by the catholic church. Who told you that you're reading what was written by the original authors? There are many books which are supposed to be in the bible which are not there. You may wanna visit the Vatican library for more info[some were added while those which opposed the teachings of the church were removed],now you have the PROTESTANTS[who broke away from The Church]with their own bible translations,..they also has tampered with the Holy book.
The catholic church tends to over-look the bible because they believe it is not important...they "wrote" it,so why bother taking inspiration or follow its teaching? Am not castigating any party here but I believe that christianity is getting it all wrong,It marvels me whenever I hear people arguing on which church is the best...like seriously? If the church has remained as it was before there wouldn't be any anglican church,penticostal churches,methodist church,russian orthodox,The orthodox church,e.t.c there would be only The Roman catholic Church.
Now I read somewhere that Catholics practice idolatory...yea it's true,but am gonna ask you a dumb question? WHAT IS IDOLARTORY AND DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF THAT PRACTISING IDOLATORY IS A SIN? Now don't quote a verse from the bible...it's not relevant anymore,it has been misinterpreted numerous times,defiled and... I don't wanna sound like an atheist[am not one,just someone with common sense]
when you have people who are once part of your "evil" practice trying to rubbish your belief because they believe they are now "wiser" and more "enlightened" I think that calls for a serious questioning.
At least I've been opportuned to attend various churches[am a catholic...at least I believe I am] some for over a period of time...-months-years...and you know my conclusion? You can't be a protestant,catholic,e.t.c if you don't turn a blind eye to all there flaws,you have to be a fanatic....
In the end all of them[churches] are just living in ignorance..and I refuse to be ignorant. May God help us dear...

What are the flaws of the DOCTRINES OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?

And I hope you're not referring to books like Infancy Gospel of Thomas and all the other rubbish books written by Gnostics.

JMAN05:

Interpretation sure belongs to God. Just as you said, with Gods spirit the bible would be understood.
However, pointing at protestantism as a reason to say the bible is not straightforward is deceptive. All catholics do not all agree on every doctrine. Is the spirit leading each of you? Do you not all join the Protestants in international association of churches? Were you guys previously not among CAN? Why form alliance with heretics as you assume?
The sects you see today are fulfilment of prophesy by Jesus. Do not blame it on Gods word.

The Catholic Church universally proclaims the same doctrines. If any individual chooses to argue or disagree with the Church, it's the individual's problem which does nut change the Church's doctrines.

Did the Church come before the bible or did the Bible come before the Church?



Before you answer, remember that Saul was persecuting the Church before he became the Paul that wrote some of the books in the bible.

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.

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.

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.

Scholar8200:
Now you want to remove gynaika all of a sudden after accepting that it was there!!!
When you edit the scriptures like this you forge a contradiction of the same Scriptures:
As to sisters who help the saints:
Romans 16:6,12
6 Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us. 9 Salute Urbane, our helper in Christ, and Stachys my beloved. 10 Salute Apelles approved in Christ. Salute them which are of Aristobulus’ household. 11 Salute Herodion my kinsman. Greet them that be of the household of Narcissus, which are in the Lord. 12 Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa, who labour in the Lord. Salute the beloved Persis, which laboured much in the Lord
Wouldnt it be a lie to say they received no help (like you are claiming) while this was written elsewhere by Paul?
The Apostles,Peter included, led about a WIFE.

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?

Baptism is the circumcision of the New Covenant. Where infants circumcised or not? They were.

Jesus said " Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do
not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to
such as these."

He never said wait till they are older, then bring them to me.

Scholar8200:
In summary the apostles ,Peter included, led about a sister (among the brethren) who was their wife.

No they didn't. They had women who assisted them in their ministry just as Jesus had. The women were not wives.

Scholar8200:

This effort of your mocks that passage!
I did my research though!
5 3361 [e]
5 mē
5 μὴ
5 no
5 Adv
3756 [e]
ouk
οὐκ
not
Adv
2192 [e]
echomen
ἔχομεν
have we
V-PIA-1P
1849 [e]
exousian
ἐξουσίαν
authority
N-AFS
79 [e]
adelphēn
ἀδελφὴν ,
a sister
N-AFS
1135 [e]
gynaika
γυναῖκα ,
a wife
N-AFS
4013 [e]
periagein
περιάγειν ,
to take about
V-PNA
5613 [e]
hōs
ὡς
as
Adv
2532 [e]
kai
καὶ
also
Conj
3588 [e]
hoi
οἱ
the
Art-NMP
3062 [e]
loipoi
λοιποὶ
other
Adj-NMP
652 [e]
apostoloi
ἀπόστολοι ,
apostles
N-NMP
2532 [e]
kai
καὶ
and
Conj
3588 [e]
hoi
οἱ
the
Art-NMP
80 [e]
adelphoi
ἀδελφοὶ
brothers
N-NMP
3588 [e]
tou
τοῦ
of the
Art-GMS
2962 [e]
Kyriou
Κυρίου ,
Lord
N-GMS
2532 [e]
kai
καὶ
and
Conj
2786 [e]
Kēphas
Κηφᾶς ?
Cephas
N-NMS
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/9-5.htm

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.

Scholar8200:
This effort of your mocks that passage! I did my research though! 5 3361 [e] 5 mē 5 μὴ 5 no 5 Adv 3756 [e] ouk οὐκ not Adv 2192 [e] echomen ἔχομεν have we V-PIA-1P 1849 [e] exousian ἐξουσίαν authority N-AFS 79 [e] adelphēn ἀδελφὴν , a sister N-AFS 1135 [e] gynaika γυναῖκα , a wife N-AFS 4013 [e] periagein περιάγειν , to take about V-PNA 5613 [e] hōs ὡς as Adv 2532 [e] kai καὶ also Conj 3588 [e] hoi οἱ the Art-NMP 3062 [e] loipoi λοιποὶ other Adj-NMP 652 [e] apostoloi ἀπόστολοι , apostles N-NMP 2532 [e] kai καὶ and Conj 3588 [e] hoi οἱ the Art-NMP 80 [e] adelphoi ἀδελφοὶ brothers N-NMP 3588 [e] tou τοῦ of the Art-GMS 2962 [e] Kyriou Κυρίου , Lord N-GMS 2532 [e] kai καὶ and Conj 2786 [e] Kēphas Κηφᾶς ? Cephas N-NMS http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/9-5.htm

The Greek is "adelphaen gunaika" not "adelphaen,gunaika".
The first one means SISTER. When you add a comma, you note turn to

accountable:
Do u have scripture to support this Purely catholic tradition?

“The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” --1 Pet. 5:13.
Babylon is the code name of Rome. Check the book of Revelations.

Peter was still married because divorce is a sin. Peter ceased to live with her as an husband, in other words, there was no sexual intercourse between them. As Jesus said, Some to whom it has been given, will make themselves celibate for the sake of the Kingdom.

[

Scholar8200:

As at the time Paul wrote 1Corinthians (between 53-57 AD) , Peter was still married!

Peter was still married because divorce is a sin. Peter ceased to live with her as an husband, in other words, there was no sexual intercourse between them. As Jesus said, Some to whom it has been given, will make themselves celibate for the sake of the Kingdom.

1 Corinthians 9:5
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

Actually, in the Greek with which it was written. What Paul said was sister not wife. Do your research.

Once an argument resorts to slander and unreasonable comments about the Apostles that followed Jesus directly, the argument doesn't make any more sense.

How can you say John didn't understand what he was seeing? John the Beloved? That's an insult. Is this not one of the same apostles Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to directly and you're saying he didn't understand?


Fear GOD o.