Comments on: More Historical Context

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Sat, 12 Nov 2005 02:49:43 +0000

Yes, there was no distinction between brothers and cousins in the New Testament
days, in the Middle East. Even the distinction between blood kin and in-laws
is fairly recent (after the Middle Ages). Folks died all the time, leaving
orphaned children. If the extended family didn’t take the kids, they
had to fend for themselves on the streets or in the wilderness.

There’s something in the New Testament about a bishop needing to
have a wife who could control her tongue and who could avoid
drunkenness so she wouldn’t be a gossip.

If the clergy married and had legitimate offspring, the offspring could
have taken over Church property — and, in the Middle Ages, legitimate
offspring of clergy could also have been a threat to the local
ruler who had effective control over the territory on which
the Church property sat. (The rulers wanted to control who got
the good jobs in the Church: it made things handier for them if
they could either give the job to one of their kids or to
someone they felt able to control. For instance, Henry VIII was
trained to one day become a major bishop when his older brother,
Arthur, became king — but Arthur died and never became king.)

By: Peter

Peter — Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:57:33 +0000

Well said, Mr. Hardison.

By: Trager Smith

Trager Smith — Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:31:33 +0000

Historical note about Jesus’ brother. The Roman Catholics believe that Jesus had no brothers, which makes Mary a virgin till she died. The Protestants disagree. It’s not a difference in the NT texts they use, but an interpretation. (I don’t think there is a single serious theological issue that results from different *surviving* MSS.) The Greek text in question says, “Jesus and … brothers.” The Greek word is ambiguous. It can mean either his brothers or the brothers. Had an unambiguous word for *his* brothers been in the text, the Roman Catholics would never have developed their doctrine of the perpetual virginity of BVM.
Otherwise, what you say is excellent. The historical question is why Paul’s statement, “it is better to marry than to burn,” was taken not as a simple permission to go ahead and marry but as a prohibition on marriage by the *later* Roman Catholic church (7th century iirc). There are obvious interests here, as I think Darlington pointed out: The estate of a married priest might go to the wife and not to the Church!
(I’m awaiting your reply to my reply to you on computers speeding up the economy.)

By: Richard L. Hardison

Richard L. Hardison — Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:46:04 +0000

Peter a follower of Mani, before Mani was born? Have you been into the lemonade again?

Seriously, I have found no place in scripture that Peter hated sex. I’ve seen nothing in scripture that implies hatred of sex.

Manicheism was one of many species of Gnosticism. It did have a large influence on Christianity during the time of Augustine, which led to many bad things in christianity, such as Augustinianism/Calvinism.

The question I would have is, why would God hate sex when he invented it? Gnostics didn’t like it because it had to do with the flesh, and everything associated with the flesh was evil, while the things of the spirit were good. God created both flesh and spirit, so how could either be evil when he said it was good?

The answer is gnosticism was not of God and taught doctrines not of God.

The OT is in the same position as the NT here. Where Manicheism came from is irrelevant to the argument.