|
Post by Mary on Nov 17, 2013 2:33:14 GMT -5
The apostles were married - not only Peter. Jesus called married men and they took their wives with them. The workers claim to be copying the ministry Jesus set up so why do they not accept those who are married into the work? I know the excuses but don't you think the apostles would have had the same trials as the workers. Here is the verse in a number of different translations so there is no mistaking it.
1 Corinthians 9:5 (ASV) 5 Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
1 Corinthians 9:5 (AMP) | 5 Have we not the right also to take along with us a Christian sister as wife, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas (Peter)?
1 Corinthians 9:5 (DARBY) 5 have we not a right to take round a sister [as] wife, as also the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
1 Corinthians 9:5 (ESV) 5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
1 Corinthians 9:5 (KJV) 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?
1 Corinthians 9:5 (TLB) 5 If I had a wife, and if she were a believer, couldn’t I bring her along on these trips just as the other disciples do, and as the Lord’s brothers do, and as Peter does?
1 Corinthians 9:5 (NIV) 5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?
1 Corinthians 9:5 (NKJV) 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
1 Corinthians 9:5 (NLV) 5 Do we not have the right to take a Christian wife along with us? The other missionaries do. The Lord’s brothers do and Peter does.
1 Corinthians 9:5 (NRSV) 5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
1 Corinthians 9:5 (RSV) 5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
1 Corinthians 9:5 (VOICE) 5 Have we lost the right to bring along our wives, our sisters in Jesus? Other emissaries travel with their wives, and so do the brothers of our Lord, not to mention Cephas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2013 2:51:07 GMT -5
The apostles were married - not only Peter. Jesus called married men and they took their wives with them. The workers claim to be copying the ministry Jesus set up so why do they not accept those who are married into the work? I know the excuses but don't you think the apostles would have had the same trials as the workers. Here is the verse in a number of different translations so there is no mistaking it. 1 Corinthians 9:5 (ASV) 5 Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? 1 Corinthians 9:5 (AMP) | 5 Have we not the right also to take along with us a Christian sister as wife, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas (Peter)? 1 Corinthians 9:5 (DARBY) 5 have we not a right to take round a sister [as] wife, as also the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? 1 Corinthians 9:5 (ESV) 5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 1 Corinthians 9:5 (KJV) 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? 1 Corinthians 9:5 (TLB) 5 If I had a wife, and if she were a believer, couldn’t I bring her along on these trips just as the other disciples do, and as the Lord’s brothers do, and as Peter does? 1 Corinthians 9:5 (NIV) 5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? 1 Corinthians 9:5 (NKJV) 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? 1 Corinthians 9:5 (NLV) 5 Do we not have the right to take a Christian wife along with us? The other missionaries do. The Lord’s brothers do and Peter does. 1 Corinthians 9:5 (NRSV) 5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 1 Corinthians 9:5 (RSV) 5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 1 Corinthians 9:5 (VOICE) 5 Have we lost the right to bring along our wives, our sisters in Jesus? Other emissaries travel with their wives, and so do the brothers of our Lord, not to mention Cephas. of course they had and have the right not always expedient or practical though when staying other peoples places, don't forget that this ministry is feed by the fellowship would you having a family want to go and plonk yourself on others for others to care for?
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Nov 17, 2013 3:01:05 GMT -5
So you can't say the workers are following the ministry that Jesus set up and go out like the apostles went then can they? It was good enough for the apostles but not good enough for the workers? Next they will start working and say that it is not practical to go out without money any more then. Make the rules and change them as you go along to suit your own self.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2013 3:37:30 GMT -5
virgo, surely expendiency is not a decent enough justification for the impact of a single, celibrate mistry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2013 4:18:16 GMT -5
You Catholic Mary? Do you think that Peter should have divorced his sick wife?
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Nov 17, 2013 4:59:43 GMT -5
No, it is Muslims who can divorce their wives if they are sick Bert, not Catholics. I am a protestant just like you. Why would he divorce his wife if she was sick? Do you think Peter said to himself, she is sick so I had better divorce her quickly before she gets better. Did you divorce your wife when she got sick - is that why you are not married at the moment? What happened to Prue?
You forget the power of God, Bert. Remember God told them to heal the sick and I am sure Peter would have prayed for his wife to be healed. Another thing in the ministry of Jesus and the apostles that the workers do not do is to pray for the sick to be healed like they did. Really, the more I think about it the less the workers ministry is like Jesus and the apostles which the workers claim to be following.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2013 5:10:51 GMT -5
Well here's the Problem. Peter was already married. He couldn't get a divorce because it wouldn't have been appropriate. A number of the Apostles were already married. I doubt many in the proceeding generations were married to women because they were to be married to Christ. The life of an itinerant minister largely precluded marriage. Witness Paul in his travels and the number of partners he had.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Nov 17, 2013 5:34:48 GMT -5
And it seems a number of the apostles were married. Read again the verse I quoted above where Paul was complaining that the other apostles had wives and took them with them. Don't make up rules that are not there Bert. Jesus could have chosen single men if that was a necessary requirement to preach the Gospel. What you doubt and what happened are two different things. Many missionaries are and have always been married. It does/did not preclude them from the ministry. Paul is thought to have not been married. Clearly the Bible does not say it and nor did Jesus says any thing about not being married when he chose the apostles.
1 Corinthians 9:5 (KJV) 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?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2013 6:01:09 GMT -5
Its not a hard and fast rule, this married and in the Ministry business. But... Paul was making it clear that he had the right as other ministers did to call upon the church to provide support for the Apostolic families, but he wouldn't. Neither did Jesus, or John the Baptist, apparently.
a - It's not fair for the church to provide for a minister, and spouse, and children. b - It's not fair to drag a family around, either, or even, get killed. c - It violates this whole "bride of Christ" doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Nov 17, 2013 7:20:30 GMT -5
Its not a hard and fast rule, this married and in the Ministry business. But... Paul was making it clear that he had the right as other ministers did to call upon the church to provide support for the Apostolic families, but he wouldn't. Neither did Jesus, or John the Baptist, apparently. a - It's not fair for the church to provide for a minister, and spouse, and children. b - It's not fair to drag a family around, either, or even, get killed. c - It violates this whole "bride of Christ" doctrine. a - ...and yet, a variety of Christian churches have examined this same issues, and decided that's best to have a salaried, married pastor/preacher. Turns out well for them, too. b - ...and yet, other Christian churches have married, lay families setting up a mission/ministry in foreign countries. This helps them, and helps others. Great stuff - the news articles both within the Christian and secular arenas are favorable. c - ...and yet, the "bride of Christ" will be composed of all those who have believed in Christ. Martyred, married, single, whoever has believed in Christ. ...and here's the fun stuff: Christian churches recognize that, if the church isn't going to be able to supply the needs for the pastor's family (shelter, food, clothing, insurance), it's okay to have a secular job. Christian churches do struggle with this - it's not an easy compromise, but it's been known to work for a variety of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2013 9:01:47 GMT -5
The rationale for not getting married is that the workers are going from house to house all the time and it is not considered a good thing for a marriage. Yet in Luke 10, Jesus says specifically "Go not from house to house". The idea that virgo presents as not "expedient" for marriage is commonly held among F&Ws but is based on something that actually defies the command of Jesus. The actual command is to go to a city and stay in one place as long as they are there......which is a pretty stable situation for a marriage and children and which is what pastors do.
If F&Ws want to continue to support the idea of anti-marriage for full time evangelists, they would do much better to hang it on Jesus and Paul's apparent unmarried status and then uphold that as the ideal example. At least it is a basis which seems to be supported by facts.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Nov 17, 2013 14:07:52 GMT -5
No, it is Muslims who can divorce their wives if they are sick Bert, not Catholics. I am a protestant just like you. Why would he divorce his wife if she was sick? Do you think Peter said to himself, she is sick so I had better divorce her quickly before she gets better. Did you divorce your wife when she got sick - is that why you are not married at the moment? What happened to Prue? You forget the power of God, Bert. Remember God told them to heal the sick and I am sure Peter would have prayed for his wife to be healed. Another thing in the ministry of Jesus and the apostles that the workers do not do is to pray for the sick to be healed like they did. Really, the more I think about it the less the workers ministry is like Jesus and the apostles which the workers claim to be following. I have felt for a long time that the 2x2 ministery and mtgs. in the home as the 2x2 tenets of faith are just the 2 things they randomly picked out as wanting to base their new religion on. And truthfully, Jesus did send some Apostles out 2x2, and supposedly they weren't all married, though some were witnessed by Paul as being married, the itinerant part perhaps should be looked at as a "salesman's" life....The celebate is a lie for some if not all so they should be held responsible for the women they've tucked up in their beds as they tour from state to state, country to country.,....just like other men in the 2x2 religion.....wasn't a sin to be married, but they would have troubles in the flesh....seems like to me that we ALL have troubles in the flesh, some of usmore then others! Yes, Jesus had a mtg. in a set home where the "upper room" was kept for such things of travelling people. I wouldn't have been surprised that the Levites used it to have reunion of the different noted families in the Leviite tribe. But then the workers do not allow that the most of Jesus' work was done on major highways and places where people knew they could gather together or incidently found out that he was at these places. The crowds were thick and all they wanted was for Jesus to make them whole, they really weren't honing in on the spiritual teachings Jesus tried to give them. But still Jesus had compassion them anyway! We can find set pieces of scripture in most of the religious denominations that are the beginning tenets of faith for that denomination. Again they don't take the whole bible as their tenets of faith nor do they always lean toward what Jesus taught and was....
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Nov 17, 2013 14:10:12 GMT -5
You Catholic Mary? Do you think that Peter should have divorced his sick wife? It wasn't Peter's wife who was sick it was his mother-in-law! I'm sure Peter was anxious to get his MIL up and going and maybe out of his house...course he might be the rare man that had a great relationship with his MIL!
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Nov 17, 2013 14:15:57 GMT -5
And it seems a number of the apostles were married. Read again the verse I quoted above where Paul was complaining that the other apostles had wives and took them with them. Don't make up rules that are not there Bert. Jesus could have chosen single men if that was a necessary requirement to preach the Gospel. What you doubt and what happened are two different things. Many missionaries are and have always been married. It does/did not preclude them from the ministry. Paul is thought to have not been married. Clearly the Bible does not say it and nor did Jesus says any thing about not being married when he chose the apostles. 1 Corinthians 9:5 (KJV) 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? Seems Bert was inferring that BEFORE Jesus' day that the men had to be single in order to be in the ministry. I am not certain about other races of peoples, but I do KNOW THAT jESUS PREDECESSORS in the flesh were Levite priests and they had wives for they took turns through the year of the service that they were assigned to, and that was probably once or twice a year they'd be without their wives. NOW the Levites did have the rule that IF they had been in Maritial acts with their wives, concubines or any other female that they had to wait a certain time before they could enter into the temple....that said the Levite Priests were married and the bible says that they could marry other women who had been wives, but ONLY if they'd been a wife to a priest who had died before she did. So the Levite people were kept fairly pure on purpose....but again the Priests DID have WIVES!
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Nov 17, 2013 14:20:10 GMT -5
Well here's the Problem. Peter was already married. He couldn't get a divorce because it wouldn't have been appropriate. A number of the Apostles were already married. I doubt many in the proceeding generations were married to women because they were to be married to Christ. The life of an itinerant minister largely precluded marriage. Witness Paul in his travels and the number of partners he had. In these more modern times, most of the church members want their minister easily reached and have him at their service of whatever was going on with them. This is why the larger churches give the minister a salary to where another job is either a part time job or is not to make the minister's calls to his laity a problem. Again now that the workers have nothing so much to do but go from house to house amongst the friends, why don't the friends settle their accommodating the workers outside of the home with helping pay for the rent of a nice batch where the workers can go to each evening and relax and be as quiet as they want...perhaps shutting the door against their companion sometimes......
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Nov 17, 2013 14:26:34 GMT -5
Its not a hard and fast rule, this married and in the Ministry business. But... Paul was making it clear that he had the right as other ministers did to call upon the church to provide support for the Apostolic families, but he wouldn't. Neither did Jesus, or John the Baptist, apparently. a - It's not fair for the church to provide for a minister, and spouse, and children. b - It's not fair to drag a family around, either, or even, get killed. c - It violates this whole "bride of Christ" doctrine. a - ...and yet, a variety of Christian churches have examined this same issues, and decided that's best to have a salaried, married pastor/preacher. Turns out well for them, too. b - ...and yet, other Christian churches have married, lay families setting up a mission/ministry in foreign countries. This helps them, and helps others. Great stuff - the news articles both within the Christian and secular arenas are favorable. c - ...and yet, the "bride of Christ" will be composed of all those who have believed in Christ. Martyred, married, single, whoever has believed in Christ. ...and here's the fun stuff: Christian churches recognize that, if the church isn't going to be able to supply the needs for the pastor's family (shelter, food, clothing, insurance), it's okay to have a secular job. Christian churches do struggle with this - it's not an easy compromise, but it's been known to work for a variety of them. Speaking about all those "who have believed in Christ." REminds me what I read in the bible the other day and it probably is in Matthew,,,,but what I wasspeaking about was the fact that it plainly states that IF a person DOES NOT repent that there would not be faith rendered tothem......so to obtain the faith as a gift from the FAther then we do have to repent before that happens....it may be so that we have obtained a bit of knowledge that such a thing is routinely done then we get started that way.. Kind of backs up why John the Baptist going before Jesus was necessary...he also preached with feeling that the kingdom of heaven is at hand, but the main thrust of his mission was the fact of obtaining the people knowing that they MUST repent first to obtain whatever would follow that.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Nov 17, 2013 16:53:44 GMT -5
You Catholic Mary? Do you think that Peter should have divorced his sick wife? This is news to me---that Peter had a sick wife! Verse please?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2013 17:40:24 GMT -5
Well here's the Problem. Peter was already married. He couldn't get a divorce because it wouldn't have been appropriate. A number of the Apostles were already married. I doubt many in the proceeding generations were married to women because they were to be married to Christ. The life of an itinerant minister largely precluded marriage. Witness Paul in his travels and the number of partners he had. In considering your analysis Bert, many will ask the question "Why then did Jesus choose married men in the first place, if things were to change later?"
However, they should not be fooled. Jesus had to observe very strict Jewish employment laws against discrimination. He was obliged to "hire" at least some married men in his messenger service. Future workers were not hindered by such constraints and could freely employ common sense. Also it was against Jewish practice to employ female priests, so Jesus could only employ men. It's all there if we look for it!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 17, 2013 17:40:56 GMT -5
Its not a hard and fast rule, this married and in the Ministry business. Wow, I nominate that for a Bertie award! Here's some questions Bert. In the last 50 years: 1. How many married couples have been accepted into the work? 2. How many single workers who wanted to marry, have continued in the work rather than leave?
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Nov 17, 2013 18:32:18 GMT -5
I guess that explains who all those women were who are mentioned that were following Jesus around the countryside - they were wives and daughters and other females in the apostles families. Makes a lotta sense because unattached females back then would have been scandalous and probably been attacked when going to many of those places and would have been mentioned as a scandal to the detriment of Jesus's message.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2013 0:19:46 GMT -5
So you can't say the workers are following the ministry that Jesus set up and go out like the apostles went then can they? It was good enough for the apostles but not good enough for the workers? Next they will start working and say that it is not practical to go out without money any more then. Make the rules and change them as you go along to suit your own self. the ministry is not about following that what is of the human flesh but it is of following what is of the Spirit Jesus didn't call the Apostles to follow after the flesh but after the Spirit how many Apostles in the Bible were actually show to have a wife and how many not?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2013 0:20:34 GMT -5
virgo, surely expendiency is not a decent enough justification for the impact of a single, celibrate mistry. why not?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2013 0:31:43 GMT -5
Well here's the Problem. Peter was already married. He couldn't get a divorce because it wouldn't have been appropriate. A number of the Apostles were already married. I doubt many in the proceeding generations were married to women because they were to be married to Christ. The life of an itinerant minister largely precluded marriage. Witness Paul in his travels and the number of partners he had. In considering your analysis Bert, many will ask the question "Why then did Jesus choose married men in the first place, if things were to change later?"
However, they should not be fooled. Jesus had to observe very strict Jewish employment laws against discrimination. He was obliged to "hire" at least some married men in his messenger service. Future workers were not hindered by such constraints and could freely employ common sense. Also it was against Jewish practice to employ female priests, so Jesus could only employ men. It's all there if we look for it! now ram you being a christian would know why Jesus called them married or not where do you get the idea He hired them? they crucified Him because He didn't follow their law And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy. Do you think Jesus chose those ladies or did they have noting to do with Him?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2013 0:32:43 GMT -5
Its not a hard and fast rule, this married and in the Ministry business. Wow, I nominate that for a Bertie award! Here's some questions Bert. In the last 50 years: 1. How many married couples have been accepted into the work? 2. How many single workers who wanted to marry, have continued in the work rather than leave? what difference does that make?
|
|
|
Post by gecko45 on Nov 18, 2013 0:50:04 GMT -5
Wow, I nominate that for a Bertie award! Here's some questions Bert. In the last 50 years: 1. How many married couples have been accepted into the work? 2. How many single workers who wanted to marry, have continued in the work rather than leave? what difference does that make? Some would postulate that the drastic drop in worker numbers is, at least partly, a result of the current requirements that those who choose to marry cannot continue in the work. For me this was not a/the reason I left thr work but I personally do know of more than one worker who left the work because of the celibate, single requirement. There is absolutely nothing scriptural about this current requirement, it is only a tradition; a relatively modern one at that. If its only man's traditions that are part of the restriction on worker numbers, then it should be obvious that we are maintaining some very detrimental traditions. Paul saw the potential benefits of such a lifestyle, but even, he never laid it out as a requirement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2013 1:05:45 GMT -5
what difference does that make? Some would postulate that the drastic drop in worker numbers is, at least partly, a result of the current requirements that those who choose to marry cannot continue in the work. For me this was not a/the reason I left thr work but I personally do know of more than one worker who left the work because of the celibate, single requirement. There is absolutely nothing scriptural about this current requirement, it is only a tradition; a relatively modern one at that. If its only man's traditions that are part of the restriction on worker numbers, then it should be obvious that we are maintaining some very detrimental traditions. Paul saw the potential benefits of such a lifestyle, but even, he never laid it out as a requirement. some would and some wouldn't, would you have been prepared to sacrifice that as a free gift or would you bow to your fleshly desires and ask others to carry the can i have never know it to be a requirement
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Nov 18, 2013 2:23:48 GMT -5
So you can't say the workers are following the ministry that Jesus set up and go out like the apostles went then can they? It was good enough for the apostles but not good enough for the workers? Next they will start working and say that it is not practical to go out without money any more then. Make the rules and change them as you go along to suit your own self. the ministry is not about following that what is of the human flesh but it is of following what is of the Spirit Jesus didn't call the Apostles to follow after the flesh but after the Spirit how many Apostles in the Bible were actually show to have a wife and how many not? Now that is a twist if ever their was one. So a worker must be single in spirit but not in the flesh? Maybe that was the excuse that Leslie White used on his victims for his affairs. The workers look at the practical aspects of the ministry, must be homeless, single, go 2x2 etc. But you are saying they also have to be homeless in the spirit but not homeless in the flesh, 2x2 in the spirit but not the flesh. I thought I had heard it all but new things just keep popping up. Seems as if Paul might have been one of the few apostles who were not married according to the verse quoted. Maybe you can tell me how many of the apostles were single apart from Paul if he was single or if he was just referring to not being able to take his wife with him. 1 Corinthians 9:5 (NIV) 5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2013 2:45:11 GMT -5
the ministry is not about following that what is of the human flesh but it is of following what is of the Spirit Jesus didn't call the Apostles to follow after the flesh but after the Spirit how many Apostles in the Bible were actually show to have a wife and how many not? Now that is a twist if ever their was one. So a worker must be single in spirit but not in the flesh? Maybe that was the excuse that Leslie White used on his victims for his affairs. The workers look at the practical aspects of the ministry, must be homeless, single, go 2x2 etc. But you are saying they also have to be homeless in the spirit but not homeless in the flesh, 2x2 in the spirit but not the flesh. I thought I had heard it all but new things just keep popping up. Seems as if Paul might have been one of the few apostles who were not married according to the verse quoted. Maybe you can tell me how many of the apostles were single apart from Paul if he was single or if he was just referring to not being able to take his wife with him. 1 Corinthians 9:5 (NIV) 5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? that is not what my first line says i asked how many Apostles in the Bible were actually show to have a wife and how many not? i mean if you don't know just say so so you ask me to tell you after i asked you you and i will never know but your premise was they did and i want to know from you how do you know they did is it just because of what Paul said?
|
|