David
2008-11-11 00:53:15 UTC
It has sometimes been said USENET is a
virtual world that should not be taken seriously.
I don't believe this.
In any case, below I provide an example of
real-life action. My email was to my pastor,
Darrell Minnich of Good Shepherd, and
Dick Csaplar, a lawyer and church elder.
--- Re: Eusebius, in H.E. 3, 30, 1 considered
the Apostle Paul married
Dear Dick and Darrell,
I apologize for being too succinct in my citation.
Nonetheless, the record between us must be
corrected, not so much to insist 100 % that
the Apostle Paul was married; rather, the case
for it may be very credibly argued as I now show.
Paul by Jerome Murphy-O'Connor - Page 64
http://books.google.com/books?id=yTddaMGsuWMC&pg=PA64&dq=%22Paul+himself+does+not+hesitate+in+one%22&lr=&ei=nLMYSfaSGJW0yQSjv9m7Ag#PPA64,M1
"According to Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria
claimed that she is alluded to in Philippians 4: 3,
Peter and Philip had families, and Philip gave
his daughters in marriage, while Paul himself
does not hesitate in one of his epistles
to address his yoke-fellow, whom he did not
take round with him for fear of hindering his
ministry. (78)
This long dominant interpretation has now rightly
fallen out of favor, for a simple grammatical reason.
Paul wrote 'gnesie', the masculine form of the
adjective meaning 'true, genuine'. Had he a woman
in mind he would have written 'gnesia'. (79)"
"78 History of the Church, 3, 30, 1, quoting Stromata
3, 6, 52; trans. Williamson
79 Lightfoot (1908), 159."
OTOH, Thomistguy argues persuasively by my
lights. My role is to make his argument available for you.
Blog by Thomistguy - Theology for Dummies
http://simplegodstuff.blogstream.com/v1/pid/234603.html?CP=
Extract -
Was Paul an example of celibacy? He speaks of the
firm Jewish ideal of marriage and Paul's repeated
claim that he failed in no religious duty. Thus, he must
have been married as a young man. He gives himself
as an example to the "unmarried and widows"—"it is
good for them if they remain even as I am" (1 Cor. 7:8,
NKJB). One tendency here is to see Paul as a widower,
serving the Lord rather than remarrying. But another
option is persuasive; he was using himself as an
example of sexual self-control (1 Cor. 7:7). "With
consent for a time" (1 Cor. 7:5) did he leave his
wife to pursue a dangerous mission at Ephesus?
Clement of Alexandria wrote about A.D. 200 and
responsibly worked from earlier sources. He claimed
knowledge of Paul's marriage, identifying his wife with
the "yokefellow" of Philippians 4:3: "Paul himself
does not hesitate in one of his letters to address
his yokefellow, whom he did not take about with him
in order to facilitate his mission."
The apostles as a group were examples of both
marriage and companionship in the ministry, for
Paul said that he had "power to lead about a sister,
a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the
brethren of the Lord, and Cephas" (1 Cor. 9:5).
That whole chapter argues that Paul could have
required the Corinthians to support him but didn't.
But Paul stresses his literal "authority" to ask for
support for self and for wife. Would he renounce
a right of support that was never a possibility?
(Dah?) That passage really takes for granted Paul's
marriage and the Corinthians' knowledge of it.
Was Paul giving regular rules for marriage? Paul
discourages marriage only "for the present distress"
(1 Cor. 7:26). Elsewhere in the Bible this last word
is "necessity" (anagke). Paul next says that "the
time is short" (1 Cor. 7:29), following with the
conclusion that normal marriage relationships and
business activity should be suspended. Commentators
quickly leap to Paul's supposed belief that Christ's
coming loomed on the horizon, which completely
violates what he said on the subject in 2
Thessalonians 2. Yet Paul is certainly concerned
about doing the Lord's work under a deadline,
whether that deadline is coming persecution, coming
apostasy, or just the "necessity" of facing the huge
task of reaching so many with such small resources.
--- my personal opinion (very controversial)
Dr. Thiering's critics (please see Wikipedia article on
her) have been unable to refute convincingly any aspect
of her radical thesis of Christian Origins. I hasten to
add that this is not the same thing as saying she is
right. (She was my scholastic mentor during 5 years
of association.)
On the matter at hand, I give two urls of hers out of
conviction that her opinion on Paul's marriage to
Phoebe and the surrounding circumstances should be
heard. I am at pains to instruct you not to let her
opinion that Jesus Christ is still alive prejudice your
judgment of the integrity of her chronology on Paul's
marital state and surrounding circumstances of his
mission. Again, if you have the opportunity to review
her urls, note very carefully her exact dates.
How 'Romans' got to Rome
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2078
Click Acts 18:1-23*
The marriage of Paul and Tamar - Acts 18:1-23
http://www.pesherofchrist.infinitesoulutions.com/index_WFW_verse.html
Yours in Christ,
David Christainsen
virtual world that should not be taken seriously.
I don't believe this.
In any case, below I provide an example of
real-life action. My email was to my pastor,
Darrell Minnich of Good Shepherd, and
Dick Csaplar, a lawyer and church elder.
--- Re: Eusebius, in H.E. 3, 30, 1 considered
the Apostle Paul married
Dear Dick and Darrell,
I apologize for being too succinct in my citation.
Nonetheless, the record between us must be
corrected, not so much to insist 100 % that
the Apostle Paul was married; rather, the case
for it may be very credibly argued as I now show.
Paul by Jerome Murphy-O'Connor - Page 64
http://books.google.com/books?id=yTddaMGsuWMC&pg=PA64&dq=%22Paul+himself+does+not+hesitate+in+one%22&lr=&ei=nLMYSfaSGJW0yQSjv9m7Ag#PPA64,M1
"According to Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria
claimed that she is alluded to in Philippians 4: 3,
Peter and Philip had families, and Philip gave
his daughters in marriage, while Paul himself
does not hesitate in one of his epistles
to address his yoke-fellow, whom he did not
take round with him for fear of hindering his
ministry. (78)
This long dominant interpretation has now rightly
fallen out of favor, for a simple grammatical reason.
Paul wrote 'gnesie', the masculine form of the
adjective meaning 'true, genuine'. Had he a woman
in mind he would have written 'gnesia'. (79)"
"78 History of the Church, 3, 30, 1, quoting Stromata
3, 6, 52; trans. Williamson
79 Lightfoot (1908), 159."
OTOH, Thomistguy argues persuasively by my
lights. My role is to make his argument available for you.
Blog by Thomistguy - Theology for Dummies
http://simplegodstuff.blogstream.com/v1/pid/234603.html?CP=
Extract -
Was Paul an example of celibacy? He speaks of the
firm Jewish ideal of marriage and Paul's repeated
claim that he failed in no religious duty. Thus, he must
have been married as a young man. He gives himself
as an example to the "unmarried and widows"—"it is
good for them if they remain even as I am" (1 Cor. 7:8,
NKJB). One tendency here is to see Paul as a widower,
serving the Lord rather than remarrying. But another
option is persuasive; he was using himself as an
example of sexual self-control (1 Cor. 7:7). "With
consent for a time" (1 Cor. 7:5) did he leave his
wife to pursue a dangerous mission at Ephesus?
Clement of Alexandria wrote about A.D. 200 and
responsibly worked from earlier sources. He claimed
knowledge of Paul's marriage, identifying his wife with
the "yokefellow" of Philippians 4:3: "Paul himself
does not hesitate in one of his letters to address
his yokefellow, whom he did not take about with him
in order to facilitate his mission."
The apostles as a group were examples of both
marriage and companionship in the ministry, for
Paul said that he had "power to lead about a sister,
a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the
brethren of the Lord, and Cephas" (1 Cor. 9:5).
That whole chapter argues that Paul could have
required the Corinthians to support him but didn't.
But Paul stresses his literal "authority" to ask for
support for self and for wife. Would he renounce
a right of support that was never a possibility?
(Dah?) That passage really takes for granted Paul's
marriage and the Corinthians' knowledge of it.
Was Paul giving regular rules for marriage? Paul
discourages marriage only "for the present distress"
(1 Cor. 7:26). Elsewhere in the Bible this last word
is "necessity" (anagke). Paul next says that "the
time is short" (1 Cor. 7:29), following with the
conclusion that normal marriage relationships and
business activity should be suspended. Commentators
quickly leap to Paul's supposed belief that Christ's
coming loomed on the horizon, which completely
violates what he said on the subject in 2
Thessalonians 2. Yet Paul is certainly concerned
about doing the Lord's work under a deadline,
whether that deadline is coming persecution, coming
apostasy, or just the "necessity" of facing the huge
task of reaching so many with such small resources.
--- my personal opinion (very controversial)
Dr. Thiering's critics (please see Wikipedia article on
her) have been unable to refute convincingly any aspect
of her radical thesis of Christian Origins. I hasten to
add that this is not the same thing as saying she is
right. (She was my scholastic mentor during 5 years
of association.)
On the matter at hand, I give two urls of hers out of
conviction that her opinion on Paul's marriage to
Phoebe and the surrounding circumstances should be
heard. I am at pains to instruct you not to let her
opinion that Jesus Christ is still alive prejudice your
judgment of the integrity of her chronology on Paul's
marital state and surrounding circumstances of his
mission. Again, if you have the opportunity to review
her urls, note very carefully her exact dates.
How 'Romans' got to Rome
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2078
Click Acts 18:1-23*
The marriage of Paul and Tamar - Acts 18:1-23
http://www.pesherofchrist.infinitesoulutions.com/index_WFW_verse.html
Yours in Christ,
David Christainsen