by ImJamal | 2025-05-09 16:38:09+00:00
> Can you point to a bishop appointed by Jesus' 12 disciples who was not married with children? If not, then you are making a baseless assertion.

First let me say more than just Paul was unmarried. John was also unmarried. There is also debate if Peter's wife was alive. We only hear about his mother in law, not a wife.

In terms of bishops consrecated by the apostles, we do not have a huge amount of evidence for most, but almost everybody believes St Ignatius of Antioch was unmarried.

> Paul does in 1 Tim 3. We also have reformers like Martin Luther who after discovering the Bible for himself rejected his vows of celibacy, got married, and had several children.

You can't use the verse we are debating to prove your point.

> Luther would not have rejected his vows before God had they not conflicted with what he read in the Bible.

OK? You did see that I said "Point to anybody in the first 1500 years of the Church that takes your position". I know Protestants rejected this understanding. My point is that if everybody in the Church disagrees with your understanding for the first 3/4 of the existence of the church then you are in the wrong.

I don't care what they think on the Bible because they reject what all the early Christians believed.

> You are jumping straight into the ad-hominems.

You are literally saying you know what the Bible means better then almost every Christan who has ever lived. Only a minority of modern Christians agree with you. That is a steller example of pride.

> The Bible says what it says and everyone agrees that there is no mistake or mistranslation.

Nobody is saying there is a mistake. I am saying you are misunderstanding and your only evidence is your interpretation and some people 1500+ years after it was written.

> It's like when modern Mormons reject polygamy when it is espoused as critically important by Joseph Smith. You can't take a very clear and intentional meaning of what you believe to be inspired and ignore it just because you don't like what it says or it goes against current tradition and norms.

This is a bad example. They do not deny that Smith taught polygamy. They belive that Woodruff received a revelation telling them it is no longer permissble.

Nobody is claiming there is a new revelation when it comes to the bishop topic.

> If you can just make up whatever you want, then the whole thing would certainly be a farce. Are you simply arguing against Christianity and the Bible as a whole

That makes absolutely no sense. If I write the statement "the sunrise was beautiful." Somebody could say I believe the sunrise was ugly. Does that mean that my statement is a farce? No, it just means they don't know what I was saying.

> Another ad-hominem. I addressed the facts.

This is not an adhominen. I am literally trying to help you out and give you constructive criticism.

> You took issue with the clear writings in the Bible and went on a crusade to prove the unprovable.

I take issues with your interpretation. You clearly don't understand and context and are saying if the Bible isn't worded in the exact way I want it to be, then it doesn't mean what it says.

> Yet another ad-homenem. Setting that aside, you are making a non-sequitur here.

You sure love the phrase ad-homenem despite not knowing what it is. Telling somebody they don't understand something isn't an ad homenem. I am not attacking your character or anything like that.

> If I fully agree that not everything is in the Bible, that has zero bearing on what IS in the Bible. If we were discussing the nature of the divinity of the Christ, your point may have merit (though those arguing on all sides believe they can scratch together an argument), but we are talking about a very clear "Bishops should be married to one woman with well-mannered kids". There is no room for debate and you won't actually find much debate -- just outright ignoring what was said.

It has a massive bearing because you can see that nobody took it to mean what you are claiming it means. Surely the Apostles and early bishops would not have had unmarried bishops if that is what they thought it meant.

> What evidence do you have for this? Apostle means "messenger" or "sent forth". This is far different than Bishop which means "overseer". Paul was certainly familiar with both terms (calling himself a "servant of God, called to be a apostle (messenger)").

Apostles are bishops with a special role due to personally meeting Jesus. Of course since it is only implied in the Bible you are going to reject it.

> Ephesians 4:11 (KJV) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

> Paul sees a clear distinction between the messengers and those who would oversee the churches. This is why he doesn't see his writings as hypocritical and why the other two premises simply do not matter to the conclusion.

Apostles are bishops, but not all bidhops are apostles so it would be accurate that not everybody had an apostle.

That quote also doesn't deny that somebody could have multiple roles. Surely an evangelist would also be a teacher? Surely prophets are also teachers (teaching the prophecy they received)?

This is such a weird argument.