.Originally Posted by upsidedehead:
You do well to cite I Timothy 3, for there, in verse 4, there is a scriptural explanation of WHY a candidate for the office of elder or bishop is required to be a family man. From the Douay-Rheims version:
I used 1 Tim 3: because it's identical to the Titus 1: reference.
They are both saying the samr thing.
Married w/ children is not a requirement. I would say. [It matters not what YOU "would say". It is what is in the Word of God that counts!] it's more of a limitation
to how many wives a guy should have in his life.[No. It does, of course, limit a marriage to one man and one wife, a principle already enunciated by Jesus himself. But the ensuing criterion, that the elder is to rule his own house well, presumes that a candidate for that office will indeed have a family and that, in his oversight of his family, will demonstrate his potential to also "take care of the church." It is clearly a PREREQUISITE, not some kind of optional thing to be considered at the whim and caprice of those tasked with appointing elders!]
The apostles were trying to place good people in these positions and
a clean background with religious kids and a stable marriage was what they
were looking for.[Thanks for making my point for me. That is WHY the qualifications for the office of elder include the requirement that he be a husband of one wife and that he have "believing children."]
How long before this did Jesus send the apostles out to start building
the church??? [Not very long, but what does that have to do with the issue we are discussing?] How many good people are you going to find that aren't
married at that stage of their lives?? [Your question is irrelevant. In the First Century world, as in our current societies, it is probable that many more men WERE married than NOT married at the stage of their lives when they would be of sufficient maturity to be considered for the office of elder.]
There is no rationalizing the concept of priestly celibacy with this requirement,
Just you making this statement in the first century with everything that's
going on is saying you are the only oblivious square peg without a clue.["making this statement in the first century?" Excuse me; I am under the impression that I, as well as you and all our contemporaries are living in the 21st Century. And yes, I think I know what you meant to say, but you made a miserable failure of saying it. Yes, the First Century was a difficult and chaotic at time for the church, but they were in God's hands and He did not bind upon them any requirement that was not possible for them to comply with. He did not need, and His church did not need, the intervention of presumptuous persons such as you to adjust his divine requirements to fit some imagined constraints to carrying out His will.
Or the need for you to push your lies is so great you don't care how
stupid they sound.[too witless and irrelevant to deserve any reply]
And stay away from the Douay-Rheims Bible, it's catholic, You chose
your modified secular book so stick with it.[I used YOUR preferred translation to show you that it, no less than others, supports the very point I was making.]
