|
Post by sharon on Jul 1, 2009 7:26:21 GMT -5
jo, I've read that always to mean only Paul and Barnabas were without wives...at that given moment!
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 1, 2009 7:58:56 GMT -5
Hey Kiwi! How many had wives/were married?Hopefully all of them that had wives were married. Scott
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jul 1, 2009 10:59:10 GMT -5
The 11 apostles were not married. Matthias, Timothy, Titus, Silas, John Mark, Luke, Demas, Andronica and Junia, Tychicus, Aristacus, Justus, Archipus, Ephraroditus, Jason, Sosipater, perhaps MOST of the 70 apostles, and Jesus. If you find any historical documents indicate otherwise please show it to us. Thanks. What historical documents did you use to prove that these people were not married, nathan?
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jul 1, 2009 11:26:36 GMT -5
~~ The 11 apostles were not married. Matthias, Timothy, Titus, Silas, John Mark, Luke, Demas, Andronica and Junia, Tychicus, Aristacus, Justus, Archipus, Ephraroditus, Jason, Sosipater, perhaps MOST of the 70 apostles, and Jesus. If you find any historical documents indicate otherwise please show it to us. Thanks
Hi Nathan,
I suggest that the historical document recording Paul's words would indicate "otherwise". "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? " This same "document" record states "Marriage is honorable in all". From these recordings it would therefore stand to reason that most of the apostles were married. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Jul 1, 2009 14:00:17 GMT -5
You build a doctrine around "possibly" Looks to me like most of them had wives... 1 Corinthians 9:5-6 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? Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working? That don't show that at all Just says, Have we not power to do such.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Jul 1, 2009 14:01:15 GMT -5
Hey Kiwi! How many had wives/were married?Hopefully all of them that had wives were married. Scott Oh lovely there scotty boy but you know what I mean
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Jul 1, 2009 14:03:41 GMT -5
The 11 apostles were not married. Matthias, Timothy, Titus, Silas, John Mark, Luke, Demas, Andronica and Junia, Tychicus, Aristacus, Justus, Archipus, Ephraroditus, Jason, Sosipater, perhaps MOST of the 70 apostles, and Jesus. If you find any historical documents indicate otherwise please show it to us. Thanks. What historical documents did you use to prove that these people were not married, nathan? What historical documents would you use to prove that these people were married ilylo?
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Jul 1, 2009 14:05:29 GMT -5
~~ The 11 apostles were not married. Matthias, Timothy, Titus, Silas, John Mark, Luke, Demas, Andronica and Junia, Tychicus, Aristacus, Justus, Archipus, Ephraroditus, Jason, Sosipater, perhaps MOST of the 70 apostles, and Jesus. If you find any historical documents indicate otherwise please show it to us. Thanks Hi Nathan, I suggest that the historical document recording Paul's words would indicate "otherwise". "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? " This same "document" record states "Marriage is honorable in all". From these recordings it would therefore stand to reason that most of the apostles were married. Alvin It still does not prove that they were married at all.
|
|
|
Post by BackInBlack on Jul 1, 2009 15:06:36 GMT -5
Does it really matter if they were married or not? Yes, according to the ministry that William Irvine started, it would be a valid point. But William Irvine was just one of many, who during the Restorationist Movement, decided to change the direction of Christianity at the turn of this century. There were many like him and many can accept their lottery in life because of the family in which they were born. You could just as likely be a Jehovah's Witness, a Church of Christ, A Seventh Day Adventist, or any of a myriad religions and doctrines that sprung up at that time to get back to the original teachings of Christ. The main problem is man's idea continues to get in the way.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jul 1, 2009 15:22:31 GMT -5
Nathan says: The 11 apostles were not married.
The Bible says: 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? Kiwi says: It still does not prove that they were married at all.
This exchange reminds me of the gospel mtg where a worker quotes the verse where Jesus tells John to take Mary into his home and says "of course we know John didn't have a home".
|
|
|
Post by BackInBlack on Jul 1, 2009 15:31:24 GMT -5
Nathan says: The 11 apostles were not married. The Bible says: 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? Kiwi says: It still does not prove that they were married at all.This exchange reminds me of the gospel mtg where a worker quotes the verse where Jesus tells John to take Mary into his home and says "of course we know John didn't have a home". Shooey. That reminds me of the many gospel meetings I have been in where erroneous teachings were taught but I just thought it was me. Funny how "I" is smack dab in the middle of Pride.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jul 1, 2009 15:36:40 GMT -5
That reminds me of the many gospel meetings I have been in where erroneous teachings were taught but I just thought it was me. Welcome, BinB! But for the record, there is no common consensus here of what are "erroneous teachings." My own opinion, for example, is that unless we can put ourselves back in the first century where every Christian KNEW Christ was returning immediately, we cannot understand what the writers meant. That scenario puts an entirely different light on a lot of the scriptures.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jul 1, 2009 15:48:38 GMT -5
Does it really matter if they were married or not? Yes, according to the ministry that William Irvine started, it would be a valid point. But William Irvine was just one of many, who during the Restorationist Movement, decided to change the direction of Christianity at the turn of this century. There were many like him and many can accept their lottery in life because of the family in which they were born. You could just as likely be a Jehovah's Witness, a Church of Christ, A Seventh Day Adventist, or any of a myriad religions and doctrines that sprung up at that time to get back to the original teachings of Christ. The main problem is man's idea continues to get in the way. I think this is the reason many still desire NOT to assign someone as founder of the 2X2's because it can be said that all sects of religion simply come from "men's commandments turned doctrine". Now I'm not saying that that should always infer wrong or evil, but "founder" indicates that a man or men have had something to do with the formation of the society in question. It doesn't make it not so, however! All Christians like to think that they are 'following Christ" the best they know how, but I think christianity is a learning process more then it is a religion.....we're made perfect through suffering is what the NT tells us...so as we go through life seeking to "follow Christ" the best way we can learn how, thus we are made perfect. There is no sect of religion that provides it all for us....it is a personal relationship with God that brings us the "christ within" that most all of us seek! A pure and undefiled religion is said to visit the orphans and the widows.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 1, 2009 19:20:18 GMT -5
Nathan says: The 11 apostles were not married. The Bible says: 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? Kiwi says: It still does not prove that they were married at all.This exchange reminds me of the gospel mtg where a worker quotes the verse where Jesus tells John to take Mary into his home and says "of course we know John didn't have a home". Yes, people believe what they want to believe. How would we prove to Kiwi and Nathan that the world is round and not flat?
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jul 1, 2009 19:48:43 GMT -5
Nathan says: The 11 apostles were not married. The Bible says: 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? Kiwi says: It still does not prove that they were married at all.This exchange reminds me of the gospel mtg where a worker quotes the verse where Jesus tells John to take Mary into his home and says "of course we know John didn't have a home". Yes, people believe what they want to believe. How would we prove to Kiwi and Nathan that the world is round and not flat? Send them west on the Nina, the Pinta and the Maria? ;D
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 1, 2009 20:27:27 GMT -5
Send them west with James Cook on the Endeavour would be better, then they could come back via the east.
That wouldn't prove the world is not flat though...
It would only prove that it's round.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Jul 1, 2009 22:26:41 GMT -5
Nathan says: The 11 apostles were not married. The Bible says: 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? Kiwi says: It still does not prove that they were married at all.This exchange reminds me of the gospel mtg where a worker quotes the verse where Jesus tells John to take Mary into his home and says "of course we know John didn't have a home". Who said John didn't have a home?
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Jul 1, 2009 22:27:25 GMT -5
Nathan says: The 11 apostles were not married. The Bible says: 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? Kiwi says: It still does not prove that they were married at all.This exchange reminds me of the gospel mtg where a worker quotes the verse where Jesus tells John to take Mary into his home and says "of course we know John didn't have a home". Shooey. That reminds me of the many gospel meetings I have been in where erroneous teachings were taught but I just thought it was me. Funny how "I" is smack dab in the middle of Pride. It was you
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Jul 1, 2009 22:28:46 GMT -5
Nathan says: The 11 apostles were not married. The Bible says: 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? Kiwi says: It still does not prove that they were married at all.This exchange reminds me of the gospel mtg where a worker quotes the verse where Jesus tells John to take Mary into his home and says "of course we know John didn't have a home". Yes, people believe what they want to believe. How would we prove to Kiwi and Nathan that the world is round and not flat? That pretty dumb even you would know the earth was flat
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Jul 1, 2009 22:30:03 GMT -5
Send them west with James Cook on the Endeavour would be better, then they could come back via the east. That wouldn't prove the world is not flat though... It would only prove that it's round. Quite the comic
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jul 1, 2009 22:38:05 GMT -5
Hey, someguy, please read what I have said. I didn't say that the ministry MUST be homeless or MUST go 2x2, so it doesn't punch holes in any argument. How many times do I see people on here making wild assumptions about what is said, and I can see why people completely misinterpret what the preachers say sometmes, and then try to quote what they have said but get it comletely wrong and then they go telling others and writing books about how wrong the workers are, when it has just been their own inablity to understand basic language. All I was saying is that it doesn't surprise me that God is still sending out a homeless ministry. That doesn't mean that is all he sends. I know some of his group who have been married and gone on a mission and even bought a house in the country they went to minister, and those who even got jobs, and those who went in three's. And I bet that you know this too because it has been mentioned on this board often enough, but you try to pretend it didn't happen and that there is some sort of rule that it MUST be 2x2 and they MUST not be married and they MUST not have a permanant residence etc. This is not the case, so I really don't know how people can honestly argue that there IS a rule that says these things. Do you mean that the Gospel is more than Jesus but only Jesus... is that what you are saying? Can you tell me the extent of what you think the Gospel is? You say that it is only abut Jesus, but Jesus had some interactions with other men, so are you saying that this can't be mentioned because it is not only about Jesus and Him alone? In your version of the Gospel, can any other people's names be mentioned at all? The "Gospel" is only about Jesus but the gospel's talk about more than Jesus. There is a difference. We refer to the first four books of the bible as the gospels but the "Gospel" which is also know as the good news is about Jesus. Are you trying to tell me the Good News of Heaven is about more than Jesus? Yes, I am saying that the good news story mentions other's names. I mean, I think it is good news for us that Jesus died on the cross, and could say "forgive them", but the last time I read that story it gave me a few details about the situation including the mention of a few of people that were there, and quite frankly, I'm glad that these things were mentioned because this event wouldn't have made half as much sense if these things weren't mentioned. You haven't been talking to gray from VOT by any chance have you? He tried to tell me that the entire Gospel is contained in 1 Cor 15:v3&4. In other places I saw where he said it was 1 Cor 15:1 - 4, and then when questioned he expanded it to say that it was 1 Cor 15:1-8. But v1-8 might not suit you if you don't think other people can be mentioned. Anyway, I will ask the questions again in hope that you will answer this time... Do you mean that the Gospel is more than Jesus but only Jesus... is that what you are saying? Can you tell me the extent of what you think the Gospel is? You say that it is only abut Jesus, but Jesus had some interactions with other men, so are you saying that this can't be mentioned because it is not only about Jesus and Him alone? In your version of the Gospel, can any other people's names be mentioned at all? No.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jul 1, 2009 22:43:24 GMT -5
My own opinion the Unmarried apostles out numbered the married ones like 50 to 1.
Nathan, my friend
Interesting opinion, reminding me of the following verse, and like the man said, we all know John didn't really have a home and none of the apostles , (well , maybe one,) were married. " Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. " Have a good night, (unless of course you already had other plans), Alvin ~~
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jul 1, 2009 22:51:28 GMT -5
The 11 apostles were not married. Matthias, Timothy, Titus, Silas, John Mark, Luke, Demas, Andronica and Junia, Tychicus, Aristacus, Justus, Archipus, Ephraroditus, Jason, Sosipater, perhaps MOST of the 70 apostles, and Jesus. If you find any historical documents indicate otherwise please show it to us. Thanks. What historical documents did you use to prove that these people were not married, nathan?
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jul 1, 2009 23:00:02 GMT -5
The Gospel is about Jesus and many things he did. I'm not sure how you could have read the Gospel and missed him walking on water and a few other cool things he did while he was on earth. You know, he sent a homeless ministry back then, so it doesn't surprise me one bit that God is still sending out a homeless ministry today. The fact that this ministry is mentioned in the Gospel is probably to give us the faith that todays ministry is of God, when we see those continuing to be sent as they were back then. Maybe you didn't notice that Jesus actually commissioned two different gospel messages. One early in his life, and one closer to the end of his life. In Matthew 10 Jesus commissioned the disciples to go out and spread the message that the kingdom of God was at hand in the very person of the Jesus Christ. This was a temporary commission were Jesus said 'Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his hire'. How do we know this was a temporary commission? Because in Luke's gospel, chapter 22, you will see Jesus Christ Himself gives a contrary commandment to the same disciples. I would go so far as to say Luke 22 undoes the commandment in Matthew chapter 10. Luke 22 verse 35: 'And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one'. This is why I think it's so important to look at versus in their historical context. If I just "cherry pick" Matthew 10, I might get the idea that Jesus wants his ministers to go out homeless, in pairs, healing the sick, and casting out demons. However, when I take both Matthew 10 and Luke 22 together and view them in their historical context, I can see that Jesus was getting the disciples ready for a new second gospel message. That second message was the good news that Jesus had paid the price for your sin. The good news was not a message about walking on water, homeless ministers, or anything else like that. It was/is the good news that we all now have a way to achieve eternal life. See what I mean? Two messages, two gospels, two audiences. In my opinion, the workers have confused the two and are trying to follow a commission that is no longer relevant. No I don't really see what you mean... I think you are confusing the commission to go and preach, and calling that the Gospel or something. Just because Jesus sent the disciples on 2 different missions, it doesn't mean that the Gospel message was any different, other than the fact that from one time to the next, more stuff had happened that they could talk about. Maybe I am not getting what you are trying to tell me. If you think that the workers are trying to follow Matt 10, what makes you think that?
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 1, 2009 23:09:43 GMT -5
If you think that the workers are trying to follow Matt 10, what makes you think that? Because some of them keep repeating it ad nauseum.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jul 1, 2009 23:15:53 GMT -5
The "Gospel" is only about Jesus but the gospel's talk about more than Jesus. There is a difference. We refer to the first four books of the bible as the gospels but the "Gospel" which is also know as the good news is about Jesus. Are you trying to tell me the Good News of Heaven is about more than Jesus? Yes, I am saying that the good news story mentions other's names. I mean, I think it is good news for us that Jesus died on the cross, and could say "forgive them", but the last time I read that story it gave me a few details about the situation including the mention of a few of people that were there, and quite frankly, I'm glad that these things were mentioned because this event wouldn't have made half as much sense if these things weren't mentioned. You haven't been talking to gray from VOT by any chance have you? He tried to tell me that the entire Gospel is contained in 1 Cor 15:v3&4. In other places I saw where he said it was 1 Cor 15:1 - 4, and then when questioned he expanded it to say that it was 1 Cor 15:1-8. But v1-8 might not suit you if you don't think other people can be mentioned. Anyway, I will ask the questions again in hope that you will answer this time... Do you mean that the Gospel is more than Jesus but only Jesus... is that what you are saying? Can you tell me the extent of what you think the Gospel is? You say that it is only abut Jesus, but Jesus had some interactions with other men, so are you saying that this can't be mentioned because it is not only about Jesus and Him alone? In your version of the Gospel, can any other people's names be mentioned at all? Someguy was quite clear. The first four books of the NT are called the gospels. Each one has a title such as "The gospel according to Mark". Those titles were written on the outside of the scrolls. Initially the scrolls were probably circulating without any title as the intended recipients knew who it was from. But with wider circulation and other versions being distributed it would have become a matter of convenience to label each scroll. Thus each version came to be known as a 'gospel' because each version contained the Gospel (capital G). This person, gray, that you refer to, is correct. The Gospel is presented as a creed in 1.Cor.15. The words delivered and received are technical rabbinical terms referring to the passing on of authoritative tradition. There is some question about what extent of this passage belongs in that authoritative tradition. It certainly covers vss.3-4 and possibly, though not necessarily, includes vs.5 referencing Peter and the 12. In any case, the Gospel (capital G) is succinctly stated in creedal form with: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures." The Gospel is the theological core of the story, that Christ has bought our salvation through His death and resurrection. References to other people are not strictly necessary in order for a person to receive the Gospel and exercise faith. The four books, or gospels, flesh out the events and stories in which the Gospel unfolds. So yes, the Gospel, the good news which saves and about which Paul exclaims, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes", is entirely about Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 2, 2009 0:04:50 GMT -5
Our church effectively: 1. Forbids all in ministry to marry. 2. Forbids all who are married to minister. My own opinion the Unmarried apostles out numbered the married ones like 50 to 1. Nathan, my friend Interesting opinion, reminding me of the following verse, and like the man said, we all know John didn't really have a home and none of the apostles , (well , maybe one,) were married. " Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. " Have a good night, (unless of course you already had other plans), Alvin ~~ ~~ John had a home but left his fishing business, home, family behind for the sake of the gospel as Itinerant preacher to many nations given others new hope and newness of life in Christ to those who don't know Jesus as the Lord Savior.
Celibacy! for the sake of the gospel whether as an apostle or a saint/followers are scripturally correct and sound.
Jesus said, "All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: for there are eunuchs who were born thus.. and there are enuchs who have made themsselves enuchs for the Kingdom of heaven's sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it." (Matthew 19:11,12)
Paul wrote: But I say to the Unmarried and to the widow; It is good for them they remain even as I am; but if they can not excercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (I Cor. 7:8,9)
~~~ Early chuch father writing on Celibacy.
Tertullians ( A.D. 207) We do not reject marriage, but simply refrain from it voluntarily. Nor do we prescribe celibacy as the rule, but only recommend it.
We read in no place at all that marriage is prohibited; for it is a good thing. We learn from the apostle--who indeed permits marrying, but prefers Abstinence.
There are many who do so and seal themselves up to being eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of God, spontaneously relinquishing a pleasure so honorable and permitted.
~~~ Origen ( A.D. 245) According to the Word of God, marriage was a gift, just as holy Celibacy was a gift. The Savior teaches us that absolute chasity is a gift given by God. It is NOT merely the fruit of training.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jul 2, 2009 0:23:20 GMT -5
No I haven't asked yet. Do you want me to ask a specific question to see what he answers? Like do you want me to ask about William Irvine, or do you want me to ask about the beginning of our group to see if he mentions William Irvine? Ask him about the beginnings of our group and see if he mentions William Irvine. I know you already know, but I'm curious if he knows. And what if he just says “a group of men” (which is actually the truth), do you want me to probe further and see if he has heard of William? Could you please explain how this period of time is important to the church. How would it affect someone’s salvation if they hadn’t heard of this period of time? The true history of the church that we should profess to belong to, is over 2000 years old. Somehow though, it is assumed that the workers are preaching some other church and some other way. There are a growing number of people here that do not appear to understand basic language and seem to not understand that the way that the workers are preaching is directly from the bible, a message that is over 2000 years old. If someone is feeling lied to because they thought that belonging to this group was a guarantee of salvation then that is sad, and I guess nothing is lost if they do leave the group if they were never going to understand what way is being spoken of, and who it is whereby we have hope of salvation. None if this has anything to do with events around the 1900’s. What has a body of people calling themselves a church got to do with the meetings? If you were there thinking that the meetings were the church, and thinking that it was the meetings that you had to belong to, and didn’t understand what the church really is, and you were there for the wrong reason.
|
|