4 ms·

The Bible agrees with your musing as it says bishops are to be be married with kids. Peter (who the Catholics claim as the first Pope) was married as the Bible

by hajile 1y ago

The Bible agrees with your musing as it says bishops are to be be married with kids. Peter (who the Catholics claim as the first Pope) was married as the Bible says Jesus healed his mother-in-law. 1 Timothy 3:1-7 [1] This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. [2] A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; [3] Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; [4] One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; [5] (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) [6] Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. [7] Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

pclmulqdq 1y ago
I would suggest you read the original Greek if you want to hang your textual arguments on specific words, and then also realize that the Latin translation which is canonical for Catholics is also a translation. A lot is lost in both directions.
- kergonath 1y ago
  Looking for the original words in the bible is a fool’s errand. It was written in many languages by many people over many centuries. Every bit of the bible was translated.
  - pclmulqdq 1y ago
    Not most of the New Testament. The Old Testament is a different story.
- hajile 1y ago
  That’s an appeal to ignorance. You can look up the Greek yourself (I’ll link a basic translation below). There’s just not much room to mistranslate “one wife”, or “husband”. The official Catholic translation agrees with KJV as does Thomas Aquinas in his commentary. In fact, I don’t know that there’s ANY disagreement about this translation anywhere. The clear issue is that the Catholic Church believes (and states) that their ecclesiastical authority supersedes even the Bible on not only this minor topic, but more important ones too. https://biblehub.com/text/1_timothy/3-2.htm https://biblehub.com/text/1_timothy/3-2.htm
  - pclmulqdq 1y ago
    "Episkopos" literally translates to "overseer" ("epi" = "on/over"; "skopo" = "watch/behold/contemplate"). "Guardian" is also in LSJ, as is the translation you give of "bishop." It's likely this is the unambiguous word for "bishop" in this text, which is pretty funny.
    - hajile 1y ago
      https://www.etymonline.com/word/bishop https://www.etymonline.com/word/bishop > Late Latin episcopus in Spanish became obispo, in Italian vescovo, in Welsh esgob. The Germanic forms include Old Saxon biscop, Old High German biscof. Episkopos literally changed over time into the English transliteration of Bishop.
      - dragonwriter 1y ago
        You are misusing transliteration and, more importantly, making the error of assuming that because something is the etymological root of a term that it can have had no other meaning when it was written than that term for which it is the root. Yes. Episkopos is where we get “bishop" and presbuteros is where we get “priest”, but their use for distinct positions in the heirarchy of orders are newer than the NT itself, in which they are used more loosely and apparently, at least in some cases interchangeably. Confusing knowing etymology (either forward or backward) for knowing meaning in context is a common, but potentially very serious, error.
        hajile 1y ago
        You argued that I was mistranslating. I showed that the etymology and transliteration made a mistranslation effectively impossible. You then completely ignore the evidence to make up an assertion about changing semantics with ZERO proof (even though the burden of proof is on you). The only reason the word bishop exists in English is because we needed a loan word for episkopos. It has served that purpose and in the religious context has had no significant change in semantics. As to your assertion that bishop and priest are different, you are wrong even from the Catholic framework (and completely wrong from a Protestant framework). Here's a quote from Thomas Aquinas about 1 Tim 3:1 > But since Dionysius declares that there are three orders, namely, bishops who rule, priests who enlighten, and deacons who cleanse, why does the Apostle make no mention of priests? > The answer is that priests are included under the term, bishop, not as though the two orders are not really distinct, but only nominally. For priest is the same as elder, and bishop the same as overseer. Hence priests and bishops are indiscriminately called both bishops and priests.
ImJamal 1y ago
You are clearly taking it out of context (not your fault, translations and commentaries are often bad) because Paul wasn't married and had no kids.
- hajile 1y ago
  I’m clearly quoting a large section of the chapter and quoted the entire part before it starts discussing deacons. Paul was an evangelist who preached, converted, then moved on. He wasn’t really a bishop. He also wrote 1 Timothy. You can look it up in the original Greek, but translation is extremely clear with the approved Catholic translations saying the same thing. Thomas Aquinas in his Latin (and in the English translation of his writings) agrees with the translation and also agrees that priests fall under the Bishop, but then seems to completely ignore the obvious contradiction. Finally, mandatory celibacy wasn’t mandatory until the second Lateran Council in 1139 with the admittance that it was ecclesiastical rather than dogma (with the ruling clearly going against the New Testament).
  - ImJamal 1y ago
    You are just wrong. You cannot find any reliable scholar who says "bishops are to be be married with kids." Like I said, it would mean that Paul was not legitimate which is just nonsense. Nobody believes that. You should read this: https://www.catholic.com/qa/did-st-paul-say-bishops-must-be-married https://www.catholic.com/qa/did-st-paul-say-bishops-must-be-...
    - hajile 1y ago
      That article is pure sophistry. No actual reasoning why. Just the assertion that "we don't think it makes sense, so it doesn't matter". That's not how holy books are supposed to work. If they really are inspired by God, who are they to disagree? "You can't find any reliable scholar" is an appeal to authority fallacy. EVERYONE regardless of Christian denomination agrees that the text says what it says very clearly (can you point to even one controversy about 1 Tim 3:1-7 ?). The idea that they reject what the book clearly states while also claiming the book to be divinely inspired is extreme cognitive dissonance. If you are a Christian, prove your position from the Bible alone. In this case, that clearly isn't possible. You should look at what other claims from many churches (including the Catholic Church) that also aren't supported by the Bible without resorting to sophistries while obviously ignoring the parts that are inconvenient to your position.

by hajile 1y ago

pclmulqdq 1y ago

I would suggest you read the original Greek if you want to hang your textual arguments on specific words, and then also realize that the Latin translation which is canonical for Catholics is also a translation. A lot is lost in both directions.

kergonath 1y ago
Looking for the original words in the bible is a fool’s errand. It was written in many languages by many people over many centuries. Every bit of the bible was translated.
- pclmulqdq 1y ago
  Not most of the New Testament. The Old Testament is a different story.
hajile 1y ago
That’s an appeal to ignorance. You can look up the Greek yourself (I’ll link a basic translation below). There’s just not much room to mistranslate “one wife”, or “husband”. The official Catholic translation agrees with KJV as does Thomas Aquinas in his commentary. In fact, I don’t know that there’s ANY disagreement about this translation anywhere. The clear issue is that the Catholic Church believes (and states) that their ecclesiastical authority supersedes even the Bible on not only this minor topic, but more important ones too. https://biblehub.com/text/1_timothy/3-2.htm https://biblehub.com/text/1_timothy/3-2.htm
- pclmulqdq 1y ago
  "Episkopos" literally translates to "overseer" ("epi" = "on/over"; "skopo" = "watch/behold/contemplate"). "Guardian" is also in LSJ, as is the translation you give of "bishop." It's likely this is the unambiguous word for "bishop" in this text, which is pretty funny.
  - hajile 1y ago
    https://www.etymonline.com/word/bishop https://www.etymonline.com/word/bishop > Late Latin episcopus in Spanish became obispo, in Italian vescovo, in Welsh esgob. The Germanic forms include Old Saxon biscop, Old High German biscof. Episkopos literally changed over time into the English transliteration of Bishop.
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      You are misusing transliteration and, more importantly, making the error of assuming that because something is the etymological root of a term that it can have had no other meaning when it was written than that term for which it is the root. Yes. Episkopos is where we get “bishop" and presbuteros is where we get “priest”, but their use for distinct positions in the heirarchy of orders are newer than the NT itself, in which they are used more loosely and apparently, at least in some cases interchangeably. Confusing knowing etymology (either forward or backward) for knowing meaning in context is a common, but potentially very serious, error.
      - hajile 1y ago
        You argued that I was mistranslating. I showed that the etymology and transliteration made a mistranslation effectively impossible. You then completely ignore the evidence to make up an assertion about changing semantics with ZERO proof (even though the burden of proof is on you). The only reason the word bishop exists in English is because we needed a loan word for episkopos. It has served that purpose and in the religious context has had no significant change in semantics. As to your assertion that bishop and priest are different, you are wrong even from the Catholic framework (and completely wrong from a Protestant framework). Here's a quote from Thomas Aquinas about 1 Tim 3:1 > But since Dionysius declares that there are three orders, namely, bishops who rule, priests who enlighten, and deacons who cleanse, why does the Apostle make no mention of priests? > The answer is that priests are included under the term, bishop, not as though the two orders are not really distinct, but only nominally. For priest is the same as elder, and bishop the same as overseer. Hence priests and bishops are indiscriminately called both bishops and priests.

ImJamal 1y ago

You are clearly taking it out of context (not your fault, translations and commentaries are often bad) because Paul wasn't married and had no kids.

hajile 1y ago
I’m clearly quoting a large section of the chapter and quoted the entire part before it starts discussing deacons. Paul was an evangelist who preached, converted, then moved on. He wasn’t really a bishop. He also wrote 1 Timothy. You can look it up in the original Greek, but translation is extremely clear with the approved Catholic translations saying the same thing. Thomas Aquinas in his Latin (and in the English translation of his writings) agrees with the translation and also agrees that priests fall under the Bishop, but then seems to completely ignore the obvious contradiction. Finally, mandatory celibacy wasn’t mandatory until the second Lateran Council in 1139 with the admittance that it was ecclesiastical rather than dogma (with the ruling clearly going against the New Testament).
- ImJamal 1y ago
  You are just wrong. You cannot find any reliable scholar who says "bishops are to be be married with kids." Like I said, it would mean that Paul was not legitimate which is just nonsense. Nobody believes that. You should read this: https://www.catholic.com/qa/did-st-paul-say-bishops-must-be-married https://www.catholic.com/qa/did-st-paul-say-bishops-must-be-...
  - hajile 1y ago
    That article is pure sophistry. No actual reasoning why. Just the assertion that "we don't think it makes sense, so it doesn't matter". That's not how holy books are supposed to work. If they really are inspired by God, who are they to disagree? "You can't find any reliable scholar" is an appeal to authority fallacy. EVERYONE regardless of Christian denomination agrees that the text says what it says very clearly (can you point to even one controversy about 1 Tim 3:1-7 ?). The idea that they reject what the book clearly states while also claiming the book to be divinely inspired is extreme cognitive dissonance. If you are a Christian, prove your position from the Bible alone. In this case, that clearly isn't possible. You should look at what other claims from many churches (including the Catholic Church) that also aren't supported by the Bible without resorting to sophistries while obviously ignoring the parts that are inconvenient to your position.