PAUL THE BACHELOR

/ Newsgroup > alt.christnet.christianlife / Date > 12 Jan 1999 /
.
> Shirley Kinoshita wrote: Mr. textman, This tale doesn't make sense, Paul, himself, in
> 1 Corinthians 7:8 said he wasn't married. The catholic priest mentioned would have
> known that. Look it up in the bible, God's word and the truth.
.
 textman replies: okey dokey, here it is:
.
 Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. Now to the unmarried and to widows I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if they cannot exercise self control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire. [ 1Cor 7:7-9, New American Bible]
.
 And once more for good measure:
.
 But I wish all men to be as even myself; but each man has his own gift from God, one this, and another that. But I say to the married men and to the widows, it is good for them if they remain as I also; but if they do not have self control, let them marry, for better it is to marry than to be consumed with passion. [ 1Cor 7:7-9, The New Greek/English Interlinear New Testament]
.
 Dear Shirley, I agree that 1Cor 7:8 is darn good evidence that Paul was a bachelor. ... BUT things are never so easy in the realm of biblical scholarship. You suggest that a priest should know that Paul was unmarried, but not all priests are well versed in scripture. And while this one is, you fail to take into account the trickery and deceptions of Catholic hermeneutics (which can even see 'black' where the text clearly says 'white', and so forth). Observe the two translations given above. The first is a popular Catholic version, and the second is a literal translation from the best Greek text. Do you notice the differences and how these alter the meaning?
.
 In any case, the verse in question is not so clear as you suppose. For example: Was Paul unmarried? Or was he a widower? The text doesn't actually specify. If he was widowed, then obviously he was, at one time, married; in which case the priest's argument remains valid. Or it could be that neither of these two options applies to Paul, since the point he is making about himself here is 'to remain as they are', which you can do whether married or not. This appears to be the intended meaning of the NAB. The idea here being that since Paul does not *explicitly* state which category he is in, there is some room for doubt. Not a lot of room, to be sure; but it's more than enough for Bible scholars to sneak in and muddy the waters. ... LOL
.
> What is your point in this story? - Shirley Lin Kinoshita Member, Raynor Park Christian
> Church (Disciples of Christ)
.
 The point is this: that the Wicked One (who is a real actual person btw), along with a lot of other post-modern type Christians also, think that the Apostle to the Gentiles is most amusing indeed. In other words, Paul is not someone who is to be taken seriously, let alone someone who has anything to teach the enlightened and progressive Christians who are far wiser than he. No indeed. Rather, Paul is an object of laughter and amusement. He is a bad joke. I should hope that my story shows that I very much disagree with this popular assessment of Paul's contributions to the Faith.
.
] 'True Tales of the Wicked One' Dept. presents: THE WICKED ONE AMUSES ALL
]  One day at Hell's Whorehouse (a.k.a. the Heart of the Diocese) I was sitting quietly in class listening to the
] teacher as he proposed a novel idea. This clever Catholic priest and theologian reasoned thusly: 'Now we
] all know that, before his conversion, Paul was a Pharisee. In those days it was common practice for Pharisees
] to marry at a relatively young age; and indeed an unmarried Pharisee would be an unusual and remarkable
] thing. Therefore in all likelihood Paul himself was a married man.' ... So there's certainly no faulting the logic
] in any of this, but I was nevertheless highly skeptical; chiefly because their is no hint or clue in any of his
] letters that Paul was indeed married. And as if to echo this sentiment, the Wicked One suddenly burst forth
] with the following comment: "I can't imagine being married to a man like Paul!" Chuckles, titters, and laughter
] at once flooded the room all about me. Much merriment and humorous amusement thus possessed the class
] for the next several minutes. Ha ha ha, and so forth. The Wicked One soon sneaked a peek in my general
] direction; as if to check if I was similarly affected. So I just looked at her, and smiled shortly, thinking to
] myself: "Yeah, right. But then you couldn't imagine being married to any man, now could you, O Wise &
] Liberated One?" ... Of course, the prophet kept his fat mouth firmly shut in those days; else there would
] have been a lynching fer sure. Justifiable homicide, no doubt! - the one who barely escaped it - textman ;>

/ Topic > Re: Paul the Bachelor / Date > 17 Jan 1999 / Newsgroup > alt.christnet.christianlife /
.
> Shirley Kinoshita wrote: Mr. textman, Thanks for your explanation.
.
 Dear Shirley, You're very welcome indeed! . . . It's what I live for, after all.   :)
.
> the apostle Paul's writing is quoted more than any other 'real' person in the bible.
.
 Oh yes, I tend to agree. I would also say that he is surely the most misunderstood of the entire lot of inspired writers ... With the one possible exception being the prophet-slave James.
.
> your opinion is interesting but not my experience with those have a basic understanding of the bible
> and Paul's place in the spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles.
.
 Of that I'm quite sure. On the other hand, new interpretations of Paul's writings, and new visions of his role and influence and theology are always being made. Biblical scholarship has made tremendous advances in our understanding of Paul, but this work is by no means finished. A lot of unanswered questions remain. A lot of mystery still surrounds this strange and passionate man. The years ahead will surely see many revolutions in the way we think about Paul, and in our evaluations of his wonderful letters. Therefore do not get too comfortable with the prevailing wisdom about Paul and his significance. Today's common knowledge can very easily become tomorrow's embarassment. In any case, it never pays to close your mind to new visions of the scriptures, for you just never know if perhaps some hitherto undiscovered truths may thereby be revealed; often in the strangest and most unexpected places ...
.
 "Do NOT Quench the Spirit's Fire! Do NOT Despise Prophesying! But test Everything; And Hold Fast to the Good."
-- First Thessalonians 5:19-21 / Prophet Version
.
> May the 'real' Jesus come into your heart and teach you wisdom and understanding.
> I ask for God's will and understanding all the time for myself. God bless you.   --  Shirley Lin
.
 Thx, I need all the blessings and prayers I can get.

/ A Response: Are Catholics Discouraged from reading the Bible? / 30 June 1999 / Ng: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
> On 25Jun99 writer wrote: Please feel free to comment on this note.
.
 textman answers: Thx, writer! You're a good sport. I believe I'll take you up on your kind offer ...
.
> To make sure I receive your comment, please feel free to e-mail it to <writer@ime.net>,
> my news reader goes up and down a lot.
.
 Mine too ...  :(
.
> Are Catholics Discouraged from reading the Bible?
.
 Well, no, I shouldn't think so. ... But perhaps some more relevant questions might be: Do Catholics have the will to read the Bible? Do they have the heart for it? Do they have the stomach for it? ...  My guess: Nyet!
.
> According to the teaching of the Church, Catholics and all Christians are called to
> an intimate knowledge of sacred scripture.
.
 Yeah, but it's the sort of knowledge that must be just-so vis-a-vis the priestly-vision-of-all-things.
.
> The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful ... to learn 'the
> surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ', by frequent reading of the divine scriptures.
> 'Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.'" - p. 37, para. 133, "The Catechism
> of the Catholic Church," Benziger Pub (1994). This being said,
.
 'This being said' ... Let us at once same more about it! -> Sure the Latin church *now* exhorts frequent reading of the scriptures ... And even does so "forcefully and specifically" (ie. at least 'on paper', as they say). But She has not always done so. Indeed, this forceful exhorting business is a very recent development ... NOR does it demonstrate some wonderful virtue or authority on the part of the RCC, as it is hardly possible (in this Information Age) to prevent any literate person from reading the Bible if they so desire.
.
 And this happy fact is due to the providential plenitude of millions of copies of the Holy Bible strewn all around the globe in numbers such as no other book can hope to attain. And all these varieties and versions of copies that we all enjoy today (and that our youth despise) is a grace owing to the Spirit working through of the lives of men like M.Luther, W.Tyndale, D.Erasmus, H.Denck ... and many other heroes of the 16th century (and their tireless successors).
.
 In other words, it was an enormous effort spanning the centuries, and involving tens of thousands of dedicated Christian believers. Now along comes the RCC saying that She is the One True Holy & Apostolic Church who gave us the Scriptures in the first place; so it's all thanks to us! ... Yet, for the vast majority of her 17 centuries, the reading of Scripture was a well-guarded privilege granted only to a loyal literate elite of faithful and obedient Romish. In this regard, consider well the fact that for Roman Catholics today, there are just three Bible versions that stand out as foremost in importance and authority: (1) the NAB; (2) the Jerusalem Bible; and (3) the Vulgate. The first is very recent; and the second hardly much older. Thus for most of Her history, there were two versions that dominated in the liturgy and lives of the European Christians: the LXX (early Greek Alexandrian translation), and the Latin version of Saint (and bible-scholar) Jerome (the same who said that "Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ").
.
 Thus the point of all this is plain to see: the RCC has forcefully and specifically (and very consistently also) resisted any and all attempts to deviate from the scriptural status quo. And when the tides of history forced the status quo to alter, She (like unto a parasite) reaps the harvest sown and tended by the blood of those She hounded and tortured and killed, reorganizes and romanizes everything, and then takes credit for the labors of the Holy Spirit and her saints ...
.
> even a casual conversation with most Catholics will reveal that they are,
.
 Would you believe: Swinehoounts ... ??? ...  :)
.
> at least in the USA, uncomfortable with a "chapter and verse" way of discussing the Bible.
.
 This is very understandable. Indeed, owing to the difficult, tiresome, and archaic nature of those documents that comprise the Book, it is fair to say that the vast majority of the post-modern Readers of the Word are well 'put off' by many and various aspects of certain passages in particular, and with the Bible as a whole. Now I am no big fan of the snippet approach myself, but I think it is very odd that Catholics should feel uncomfortable with it. Consider that most Cats (and most Christians in general) know of the Bible after the manner of writer here:
.
> From my own experience, my knowledge of the Bible grew out of the Lectionary of the Church.
> On Sundays, Catholics have two readings from either the Old Testament or a New Testament
> work and one of the letters of the New Testament. This is followed by a reading from the Gospel.
.
 In other words, the Catholic exposition and presentation of the Word of God is primarily (if not exclusively) by way of the snippet approach! Of course, within the context of the liturgical exposition, the snippets are arranged according to a loose (but trusty and pious) thematic ordering. Now all of this -- the careful selection of just-so snippets, the thematic arrangement (that makes the Old Testament inferior and subservient to the New), the liturgical setting, the over-arching priestly vision of all things -- all these set the Word of God within a framework that determines the way that Catholics perceive, absorb, contemplate, chew and digest the sacred text.
.
 Let me now emphasize the tremendous importance of all this! This pervasive and oppressive Catholic atmosphere that is thoroughly soaked into each passage, into every word and letter and period, means that "The Catholic Bible" is not merely something that is an attribute or quality of this or that approved version; it is also a quality (or more precisely, a condition) of every Catholic Reader who approaches the text (whether by ear (listening) or by eye (reading)) . . .
.
 Because of all this, the Catholic vision of the scriptures is one that persistently resists all attempts to read the Word outside of this hermeneutical framework of priestly piety. In other words, the Catholic is all but utterly unable to move from the present back over the previous 17 centuries to the ancient world, to the original context in which the scriptures were first written and read and used. It is an understandable failure. It is a failure of imagination. ... A failure of *historical* imagination! It is a stubborn and willful unwillingness to see the text through the eyes of the early Greek churches whose legacy we ungratefully inherited. Moreover, Catholics are so sure that their way of knowing the text is the only right way, that they simply cannot comprehend that there could ever be any other possibility ...
.
> Though for many Roman Catholics the ability to quote chapter and verse is not as important
> as being able to grasp the larger meanings of scripture.
.
 That is: being able to submerge all inconsistencies and contradictions and troublesome passages and confusing statements and distressing ideas beneath a larger all-embracing theological system ... that is a wonder and a marvel to behold -> the majestic and absolute priestly vision of all things! Thus while all Christians are *now* encouraged to frequent reading, let us not forget the further detail that all Christians are *also* bound to submit their hearts and minds and souls to the overwhelming authority and compelling coerciveness of the episcopal understanding of all things, and especially to the episcopal interpretation of those very same Holy Scriptures ...
.
 In the the preface to the NAB Pope Pius XII explains that "these new translations may be produced in cooperation with our separated brethren so that all Christians may be able to use them" (page 6). This statement defines the essential difference between the Catholic vision of the Bible, and textman's vision of same. For the RCC, for faithful Catholics, and for most post-modern Christians in general, the Bible is something that they *use*! But for textman the Bible is something that uses us. It is the Word of God that reveals the will of the Lord for us. It challenges and encourages us. It judges and condemns us; while at the same time it consoles and assures us. It tells us who we are; and what we are to do (eg. to live aright, and so please the Lord). It admits to Wisdom and Knowledge-of-all-things-spiritual those who approach the text with respect and gratitude and humble heart; and it confounds and confuses those with hardened hearts, and the vanity of unbelievers.
.
 Yes, the Word of God reveals the mind of Christ; but only to those with the eyes of faith, and with hearts open to the Spirit of Truth! So is it the minuscule one who uses and abuses the scriptures with his 'chapter and verse', and his "harsh and judgmental" biblical interpretations? Does the Lord's most worthless cyber-prophet distort the truth, and lead you down the garden path to error and heresy? The Cat-Pharisees say 'Yes, yes, a thousand times yes!' But look here: part of the 'ecumenical' Catholic apparatus of the NAB is the essay entitled 'The Bible And Catholic Life', wherein we are told that the Bible was written "over the course of more than a thousand years -- from about 950 B.C. to 100 A.D." (p.19). But, in point of fact, the bulk of the New Testament originates from the second century of the Common Era.
.
 This should not surprise us once we consider that the first words of the Good News were not set to papyrus [ by Paul and Silvanus in Athens (of all places!) ] until the middle of the first century CE. It is sheer folly and feeble fantasy on the part of Christians to suppose that a century of early Christian writings (50-150CE) appeared full-blown (or "full-bloom", as it were) in half that time. This assumption is an awful arrogance on the part of the RCC (and some Bible scholars as well) that stems from little more than a terminal case of constipation of the imagination. ... So can the Reader trust the prophetic rantings of textman (as opposed to the majesty and authority of a corrupt and self-serving spiritual elite)?   . . .  You bet your sweet bippy you can!
.
> Though this yearly cycle of readings gives Catholics a somewhat holistic knowledge of the
> Bible, it does not prepare them for a verse by verse discourse on the Bible's meaning.
.
 And the final result is that Cats cannot believe anything that they read in the Bible because they cannot know if their understanding is in accordance with the Magisterium. Hence, rather than risk being exposed to any heretical ideas, the Catholic would much rather take the safe route of not reading the Book, but rather will wait upon the priests to tell them of its contents, and to explain their meaning and significance; in terms suitable to the lowly rank and file of the child-like and sheep-like laity.

/ Re: Apostolic Succession and Papal Infallibility / Ng: christnet.bible / 24Aug99 /
.
> RevPhil4JC wrote: <much snippage> Again, did Paul have an episcopate, why or why not?
.
 tondaar say: Dear phil, Paul did not have an episcopate for the simple reason that Paul was not a bishop. However, Paul was (for about 10 years) very like unto a pope over the churches that he founded and claimed as his own. This simply means that he accepted no (human) authority over his own judgment as to what was best for "his" churches.   -- Peace and grace to thee ...

/ Re: Apostolic Succession and Papal Infallibility / Newsgroup: alt.religion.christianity / 4 Sept 1999 /
.
> On 25Aug99 Luminaria wrote to christnet.bible: In light of this discussion, I thought you might find
> this of interest: 1. Apostolic succession existed from the beginning. "Through countryside and city
> [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to
> be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons
> had been written about a long time earlier ... Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ
> that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received
> perfect foreknowledge,
.
 On 2Sept99 textman replies: "perfect foreknowledge"? ... Methinks the prophet doth exaggerate!
.
> they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further
> provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry."
> (Pope St.Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, 80 AD)
.
 Dear Luminaria, 1Clement was written in the early second century by the Egyptian-Christian prophet Jacob (the same who wrote the Epistle of James), and in this passage he is not describing 'apostolic succession', as you would have us believe. Rather, he is simply stating that the apostles appointed 'other approved men' to be "the elders" (as he calls them) of 'future believers' IF THEY SHOULD DIE. In fact, the first generation of believers did not think that this world had any future other than that of imminent destruction. Why then should they provide for the distant future of the churches by instituting the eternal process of (Roman) apostolic succession? ...
.
> 2. The Bishop of Rome had primacy over the other bishops. "Ignatius...to the church also which
> holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of
> honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and,
> because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father"
> (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, 110 AD).
.
 There is nothing about "primacy" in this passage!
.
> 3. All were called to obey the Bishop of Rome "If anyone disobey the things which have been
> said by him [God] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression
> and in no small danger." "You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things
> which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy"
> (Pope Saint Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, 80 AD).
.
 Since 1Clement was not written by the so-called "Pope" Clement these passages in no way urge us to "obey the Bishop of Rome"! Rather, since Jacob clearly claims that God speaks "through us", he is obviously referring to the prophets; NOT to the popes (ie. men whose only claim to fame is their abounding arrogance and vanity). btw: Since the vast majority of modern bible scholars love to wed 1Clement to 96CE (on the basis of a very obscure statement at the start of the epistle), I would like to know where you came up with the fanciful date of 80AD ... ???
.
> 4. The Church believed in the Eucharist - bread and wine transubstantiated into the flesh and blood
> of Jesus. "Take not of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ ... They abstain
> from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our
> Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up
> again." [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 110 A.D.]
.
The plastic wafer is certainly NOT the flesh that was crucified ... except in the over-active imaginations of pious fools!
.
> 5. And the Church was Catholic. "Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the
> bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one
> whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there;
> just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to
> the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).
.
 Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Kingdom of God. Wherever the bishop is, there is the Catholic anti-church of the Wicked One. Yes, it serves the popes well to have people confuse these two very different realities; for lies and deceptions are the very essence of the teachings of the Unholy Lesbian-Mother Church!
.
> As Jesus promised in Matt 16:18, the gates of hell have not prevailed against his Church,
> and His Church is the Catholic Church.
.
 The Lord's church is the People of God composed of all manner of True Believers. It is not limited by time, geography, or denomination. Therefore, in no way can we suppose that "His Church" is identical to the Catholic Mother of Whores!

P.S.  Hmmmmm ... I wonder why the moderator over there wouldn't let this posting fly? ... Seems alright to me :)

textman
*