The Lord Jesus Christ never drank alcohol - THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL IN ANY FORM IS A SIN!

[Marymog]

In his address to widows in Corinthians, he advises them to remain unmarried as he is. He is identifying with the widowed.

There was a strong emphasis on marriage in those days, i.e. under Roman law, if one was not married by age 26, they would lose all rights of inheritance. I am not sure how that played out in Jewish culture of that era.

Thanks Stan.

In Corinthians Paul also identified with the married and unmarried!

Bible study Mary

 

[Marymog]

Drawing a legitimate conclusion ( extrapolating if you will) from information in scripture.

Some of them arenot sure of the exact verses)

Paul makes statements that he cast votes and was on a fast track in Judaism (Galatians i think) but he never implicitly stated he was a full fledged member. If he were, he would have to have been married.

Others are when he mentions "unmarried" as he was. There is a legitimate context where "un" married doesn't mean "single" ( as in never married) but no longer married for any number of reasons. ( some historians make a case that a 'widower" [ male] didn't take that title socially)

Few others that escape my memory right now but basically a circumstantial case but with no definitive "proof" either way.

Thanks Sheepdog.

In Acts Paul flat out said “I have belonged to the strictest sect of our religion and lived as a Pharisee” and “I am a Jew...”. So it sounds like he was a full fledged member of the Jewish community so that fact is not in question.

There is no historical evidence that I can find that says Paul would have to have been married. Can you find it?

Paul also mentions married and widowed so that negates some historians theory that he was a widower just because he mentions unmarried a couple times.

None the less I see zero circumstantial evidence in Scripture and no proof at all in any historical writings or Scripture that he was married.

Bible study Mary

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

In Acts Paul flat out said “I have belonged to the strictest sect of our religion and lived as a Pharisee” and “I am a Jew...”. So it sounds like he was a full fledged member of the Jewish community so that fact is not in question.

"sounds like" ( which I agree it does) does not meet the threshold of "factually is" and the lack of any other supporting ( or refuting) historical documentation makes it at best an inference.

There is no historical evidence that I can find that says Paul would have to have been married. Can you find it?

No and i have done 2 detailed studies on Paul. If it exists I have never been able to locate any of it or find any legitimate source claiming to have it.

Paul also mentions married and widowed so that negates some historians theory that he was a widower just because he mentions unmarried a couple times.

Actually thats an assumption that can be legitimately read more than one way so its neutral in terms of establishing or refuting a premise.

None the less I see zero circumstantial evidence in Scripture and no proof at all in any historical writings or Scripture that he was married.

and there are many who hold that position also but that being true doesn't elevate that view to the level of a truth that cancels out the other.

 

[post]

You alleged that Mathias became a goat for Azazal. What does that mean?

do you recognize that there is a correspondence between Acts 1:26 & Leviticus 16:8, or do you consider it meaningless coincidence?

 

[post]

i have done 2 detailed studies on Paul.

great. so if the antetype of Matthias is found in Leviticus 16, where did you find the antetype of Paul?

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

great. so if the antetype of Matthias is found in Leviticus 16, where did you find the antetype of Paul?

Sorry, I don't respond to meaningless requests or other non value add or relevant gibberish asked by people who do nothing but make continuous nonsensical arguments with no depth, meaning or benefit whatsoever.

You on the other hand had more relevant items put to you so address them first.

 

[post]

Romans 11:33 has NOTHING to do with knowing the truth of Scripture.

dear Mary...

Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!
“For who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has become His counselor?”
(Romans 11:33-34)​

do you agree that:

• the scripture is the word of God
• the scripture contains the wisdom of God
• the scripture contains the knowledge of God
• the scripture contains the judgements of God
• the scripture contains the ways of God
• the scripture is written by the mind of God
• the scripture contains the counsel of God
  
  ?

and do you agree that Romans 11:33-34 is true, to wit, that the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God is exceedingly deep, that His judgements are unsearchable and His ways past finding out, and that no one has known His mind or can give Him counsel?

do you agree that His ways are higher than your ways, and that His thoughts are higher than your thoughts?
do you agree that we see now as through a glass, darkly? do you agree that now we know only in part?

is the word of God a simple & common thing, or is it extraordinary?
what can we compare the Bible with - is it like 'See Spot Run' or is it more like 'Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica' ?

 

[post]

Your Adam and Eve question is bizarre.

are you saying you have no idea why Adam, who had named his wife Woman, changed her name to Eve?

 

[post]

The Church has already resolved it.

Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History states as a matter of fact that Paul was married.
Origen & Ignatius likewise seem to take it as given.
so how 'figured out' is that trivial matter that you have more interest in?

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

are you saying you have no idea why Adam, who had named his wife Woman, changed her name to Eve?

Do you? Lets hear it.

You seem very good at asking and goading now lets see how you do at answering

 

[post]

Sorry, I don't respond to meaningless requests or other non value add or relevant gibberish asked by people who do nothing but make continuous nonsensical arguments with no depth, meaning or benefit whatsoever.

You on the other hand had more relevant items put to you so address them first.

OK so your position is that studying the Bible is "meaningless, non value add, gibberish, nonsensical, no depth meaning or benefit whatsoever"
but speculating on whether Paul had a wife is equipping the saints?

this is such a bizarre forum. i hardly know what to do with you people.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

OK so your position is that studying the Bible is "meaningless, non value add, gibberish, nonsensical, no depth meaning or benefit whatsoever"
but speculating on whether Paul had a wife is equipping the saints?

No and nothing i have said could legitimately be read to mean that. I was specifically referring to your nonsensical goading and baiting while selectively avoiding answering any direct question with a cogent answer or attempt to engage in intellectual discourse.

We both know why.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History states as a matter of fact that Paul was married.
Origen & Ignatius likewise seem to take it as given.
so how 'figured out' is that trivial matter that you have more interest in?

So what in your mind ( and in terms of independently verifiable information) makes any of these an infallible absolute to the exclusion of all others?

 

[post]

i hardly know what to do with you people.

Lets hear it.

OK let's start with John 5:39

Search the scriptures!
For in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of Me!
​

"search" is an imperative. Christ is commanding that the scriptures be searched, and also giving instruction as to what the scriptures are to be searched for: for testimony of Himself.

so we are commanded to find the gospel in the OT. see also Luke 24 & the pattern of interpretation set forth in Galatians 4. the scripture is testimony of Christ, and 'studying' it involves searching out those types and shadows and coming to understanding of how they are speaking of Him: the goal being eternal life, which is knowledge of Him ((John 17:3)). He gives this life ((John 10:28)) and by extension He gives this knowledge ((Luke 10:22)).

so we look at the OT looking for Christ in it. the purpose of the scripture is to testify of Him, and that includes Genesis 3.


are we on the same page about this? can i continue, or do i need to reinforce this?

 

[post]

So what in your mind ( and in terms of independently verifiable information) makes any of these an infallible absolute to the exclusion of all others?

i was told "The Church" has already figured everything out.
do you disagree with that statement?
i'm not sure i agree with it either, myself.

 

[post]

No and nothing i have said could legitimately be read to mean that. I was specifically referring to your nonsensical goading and baiting while selectively avoiding answering any direct question with a cogent answer or attempt to engage in intellectual discourse.

no.

what you replied to was me asking whether you had insight on the antetype of the choosing of Paul, since you indicated you were an accomplished student of Paul.

you answered my question, which was a legitimate question about studying scripture, by calling it "meaningless, non value add, gibberish, nonsensical, no depth meaning or benefit whatsoever" and refusing to even address it.

but forget all that. who cares


you want to talk about the relatively simple matter of Adam renaming his wife?
then we need to establish a baseline of understanding about the purpose and interpretation of scripture, so we can start getting into that. to that end i need some kind of reply to post #275

 

[theefaith]

Still . . . you are not able to supply a Scriptural reference to such a covenant.

There are only two Covenants in Scripture: the Old and the New.

The old is the mosaic

Joshua 8:35
There was not a word of all that Mosescommanded, which Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel, with the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that were conversant among them.

 

[theefaith]

Major covenants!

God initiated each covenant and the mediator always remains on earth mediating the covenant except for Christ who made Peter His personal representative and vicar! (Matt 16:18)

Adam
(Marriage covenant)

Noah
(Family covenant)

Abraham
(Tribal covenant)

Moses:
(National covenant)

Jesus Christ:
(Universal covenant)

New and eternal covenant founded by Jesus Christ! Matt 16:18

Universal (Catholic)
World universal

Lk 2:10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. ( catholic universal)

Lk 2:31 prepared before the face of all (catholic) people

Jn 1:29 lamb of God who takes way the sins of the world

Jn 3:16 for God so loved the world

1 Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Lk 2: 10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. (All people universal)

1 Tim 2:5 one mediator

Jn 10:16 One new covenant church

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

i was told "The Church" has already figured everything out.
do you disagree with that statement?
i'm not sure i agree with it either, myself.

You need to take that up with whoever told that to you.

Without knowing "who" ( or what) this "church" is or what they have allegedly "figured out"- I wouldn't touch it.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

what you replied to was me asking whether you had insight on the antetype of the choosing of Paul, since you indicated you were an accomplished student of Paul.

I made no such "indication" of being an "accomplished student" of Paul. You jumped to yet another unfounded conclusion. ( especially with only 2 studies and not stating a purview of those studies)

you answered my question, which was a legitimate question about studying scripture, by calling it "meaningless, non value add, gibberish, nonsensical, no depth meaning or benefit whatsoever" and refusing to even address it.

I answered it in kind and properly given the context.

you want to talk about the relatively simple matter of Adam renaming his wife?
then we need to establish a baseline of understanding about the purpose and interpretation of scripture, so we can start getting into that. to that end i need some kind of reply to post #275

You brought it up, I am just going to fix it for you but I will address 275 next as i agree you are due it.