Bible only people: Did St. Paul not say in 1 Corinthians 4:15 that he had become their Father in Christ?
915798
Because these people did not go around calling Paul "Father"...it was symbolic....as he was an example to them and a teacher.
794932
First chapter of Romans in the New Testament talks about homosexuality, as in 1 Corinthians.  \nYou know, God intended one man and one woman.  But you know also what?\n\nGod loves you, anyway.  \n\nGranted, He detests homosexuality, but He sure loves the homosexual.\n\nYou are very angry.  Why?     I know that before I came to the Lord, if someone tried to talk to me about it, I would get angry. But, then I took the step.  \n\nI'm not angry anymore.
878281
No.\n\n‘Christ according to the faith, is the second person in the Trinity, the Father being the first and the holy Ghost the third. Each of these three persons is God. Christ is his own father and his own son. The Holy Ghost is neither father nor son, but both. The son was begotten by the father, but existed before he was begotten--just the same before as after. Christ is just as old as his father, and the father is just as young as his son. The Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and Son, but was an equal to the Father and Son before he proceeded, that is to say before he existed, but he is of the same age as the other two. Nothing ever was, nothing ever can be more perfectly idiotic and absurd than the dogma of the Trinity.’\n\n - Col. Robert G. Ingersoll
374382
Alright all you would be Biblical scholars out there -- Paul did have 2 friends in which he was close to -- They were Aquillia who was the husband to Priscilla and they were tent makers -- Paul was a Free Roman at birth on to adult hood witch was no small matter in and of itself during that day in time -- He was raised at a Gentile (non-Jew uncircumcised) and only claimed to be Jewish in his later years from the tribe of Benjamin, from a long-established Pharisee family in Tarsus that was practically erased off the face of the earth so there was no one around to validate his claim. -- Before he became Paul he was known as Saul in the Roman Empire and carried a fair amount of status. Men of that status were automatically expected to have a wife even just for show. Usually a mutually agreed upon business arrangement between the brides father and the groom for more political power -- The wife always stayed at home while the men when away and about to deal with business. So it is commonly accepted that he did have a wife in that capacity but not a wife in the since of how we perceive them today. As for "the thorn in his side" it has been speculated on for thousands of years -- Most commonly believe that it was eye sight problems he continued to have after the blinding light of seeing the full glory of Jesus that day -- Others speculate that it was his wife calling him back home to Rome and quit his insanity with the new religion -- And some take it literally that he had some sort of kidney, bowel or internal problem -- But the truth is no one knows -- There is a lot of new information on Paul in the newly published Gnostic Gospels found with the Nag Hamani Library from the 70's -- You can find the complete Gospels and English translations on the Internet that can shed new light and a different perspective on biblical times if that's what you are looking for -- Maybe a few more facts to fill in the gaps -- Hope all this helps and please feel free to email me if you have any more questions, I'll be happy to help and share what I know --\n---Angel
179033
According the the story, God caused Mary to conceive, thus being his father.  Mary did not have sex with Joseph.  He was like a surrogate father to Jesus. OK?
1143385
As opposed to truth wise?  LOL!\nIt's generally accepted that it was Paul.
506073
They claim  that Jesus was not the founder of Christianity and as they say Most of the New Testament doesn't even concern the historical Jesus while the main influence is the Apostle Paul and through the church he founded at Ephesus a Greek convert named John. Paul never met Jesus in the flesh, he only claimed some strange vision and proceeded to paganize the teachings of Jesus (who preached an enlightened form of Judaism), until he created Pauline Christianity. Because there are no known writings from Jesus, the actual Apostles, or anyone that actually knew Him in the flesh (other then perhaps James), most of what He taught is lost forever.
343940
Paul did meet Jesus,on the road to Damascus,and was indeed a Disciple.Next time do a little more research.
1040884
No, He was not the only one who was a witness. But he was especially chosen by God to be a witness to the gentiles, through His Son Jesus. And isn't it amazing that God chose the worst sinner of that time, to bring the fullness of the gentiles to god?? That should tell us all just how merciful God is....edit...Oh yes,  Paul was certainly a witness! He witnessed the bright light from heaven, and heard the voice of Jesus....Acts 9:1-6
466075
To the original question:\n\nI'm not sure if anyone has explained -- when Mary was found to be pregnant she was "betrothed" to Joseph.   This was the 'first stage' in a marriage.  It legally bound the two together, and any violation was considered adultery.  Also, breaking this required a divorce\n\nBut the marriage was COMPLETED and consummated when the two 'came together'.  Mary and Joseph were betrothed, they had not yet come together.   \n\nMatthew tells us that, when Jospeh discovered it he was thinking of quietly, privately divorcing her (to avoid a scandal).   But at the instruction of the angel, who told him the child was 'of the Holy Spirit' he 'took her to him', i.e., took her into his household and they became 'fully' husband and wife.\n\nOthers have raised the question of whether Mary REMAINED a virgin after this.  Frankly, Matthew ONLY tells us that "he did not know her until" Jesus' birth.  The rest of the NT says nothing at all about the matter.  Protestants have usually deduced that they had normal relations after this, Catholics have appealed (as we have seen) to traditions beginning in the 2nd century (which Protestants do not accept as authoritative).   \n\nI will not get into that debate here, except to correct the point on John Calvin' view.  Calvin essentially insisted on leaving the question OPEN, neithre adopting a later tradition as authoritative, nor simply dismissing it.  He thought the reference in Matthew too unclear to settle the matter.  To BOTH sides he said:\n\n"What took place afterwards the historian does not tell us. . . . Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from extreme fondness for disputation."
1060569
This is easy. He was not the son of God, but a Prophet. He was preaching of the power of God, but the words were changed to his father instead of his master.
618155
He is who he is but we were comanded to go forth and multiply so why can't this pertain to him as well?  I have been taught that we have mother god but we aren't told anything about her because father god does not want us disrespecting her and befouling her as man has done to him.  so why can't the son of god have a wife and child as well?  There are too many things in the bible that show that Mary was married to Jesus.  Men and women did not touch like they did unless they were at least betrothed back then.
895461
I read this:\n"Paul described himself as an Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin, circumcised on the eighth day, a Pharisee (Rom 11:1; Phil 3:5), and of the "Jews' religion . . . more exceedingly zealous of the traditions" (Gal 1:14 KJV). He was born as Saul in Tarsus of Cilicia and received a Jewish education. Acts records that Paul was a Roman citizen—a privilege he used a number of times in his defence, appealing convictions in Judea to Rome (Acts 22:25 and 27–29).+The common assumption is that Paul was never married. According to Acts 22:3, Paul studied in Jerusalem under the Rabbi Gamaliel, well known in Paul's time. Thomas Robinson depicts Paul as coming to study in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, when Shammai became Nasi of the Sanhedrin, and during the rise to supremacy of the house of Shammai from 20. However, some scholars, such as Helmut Koester, have expressed doubts that Paul either was in Jerusalem at this time or studied under this famous rabbi. Paul supported himself during his travels and while preaching—a fact he alludes to a number of times (e.g., 1 Cor 9:13–15); according to Acts 18:3, he worked as a tentmaker. According to Romans 16:2, he had a patroness (Koine Greek προστάτις prostatis) named Phoebe."\n\nNobody say how  Paul obtain Roman citizenship. All variant are open.\nMaybe we can study the secret archive of Vatican........
179049
So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth.” (John 1:1, 3, 14) Yes, “the Word became flesh” as the man Jesus Christ.\n\nPaul wrote: “Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and came to be in the likeness of men.” (Philippians 2:5-7) Paul called Jesus “the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all other things were created.”—Colossians 1:13-16.\n\nOn earth, Jesus reflected God’s glory as only God’s firstborn Son could. Hence, in a unique way, he was best qualified to reveal God and His purposes to the people.\n\nJohn the Baptizer was born some six months before Jesus’ birth as a human. But Jesus did far more works than John, so that he advanced in front of John in every way. And John acknowledged that Jesus existed before him, since Jesus had a prehuman existence.\n\nJohn 1:16 reasons: “We all received from out of his fullness, even undeserved kindness upon undeserved kindness.” Although humans are born in sin because of inheriting it from Adam, Jehovah purposes the destruction of this wicked system, the survival of millions into the new world, the resurrection of the dead, and the removal of sin and death, resulting in eternal life on a paradise earth. All these blessings are undeserved, unearned by sinful humans. \n\nJohn’s words do not mean that the Law given through Moses was erroneous. It, too, was truth, conforming to God’s standard of holiness, righteousness, and goodness. (Ps 119:151; Ro 7:10-12) However, the Law served as a tutor leading to Christ (Ga 3:23-25) and had a shadow, or prophetic picture, of greater realities. (Heb 8:4, 5; 10:1-5) Providing a shadow, the Law, though truthful, was not the full truth and, therefore, had to give way to the realities that it foreshadowed.\n\n, “the truth came to be through Jesus” in the sense that he put the things foreshadowed by the Law into the realm of actual truth. As he himself was no shadow but the reality, Jesus was “the truth.” Jesus also became ‘a minister in behalf of God’s truthfulness’ in that he fulfilled God’s promises made to the forefathers of the Jews by ministering to the circumcised Jews and proselytes.\n\nHe is said to reside “in the bosom position with the Father.” (John 1:14, 18) His relationship with the Father is a close, confidential, tender one. He shares his Father’s love for humankind. Proverbs 8:30, 31 expresses how his Father feels about this Son and how the Son feels about humankind.  ” It was this most precious Son that God sent to earth to provide the ransom. How meaningful, therefore, is Jesus’ statement: “God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son”!\n\nIt has not been necessary for the great Creator of the universe to come down from his lofty place in the heavens in order to deliver messages to certain humans. Aside from the three recorded instances when God’s own voice was heard while his Son was on the earth, Jehovah has always used angels to transmit His messages.\n\nRemember that an angelic spokesman for God could transmit His messages just as precisely as a telephone or a radio can transmit our words to another person. Hence, it can be understood how Abraham, Moses, Manoah, and others could speak with a materialized angel as if they were talking to God. While such individuals were able to see these angels and the glory of Jehovah reflected by them, they were not able to see God. Therefore, this in no way contradicts the apostle John’s statement: “No man has seen God at any time.” (John 1:18) What these men saw were angelic representatives and not God himself.
660311
Just north of Corinth was a city named Eleusis. This was the location of a pagan religion where baptism in the sea was practiced to guarantee a good afterlife. This religion was mention by Homer in Hymn to Demeter 478-79.2 The Corinthians were known to be heavily influenced by other customs. After all, they were in a large economic area where a great many different people frequented. It is probable that the Corinthians were being influenced by the religious practices found at Eleusis where baptism for the dead was practiced. \n     Paul used this example from the pagans in 1 Cor. 15:29, when he said, "...if the dead are not raised, then why are they baptized for the dead?" Paul did not say we.1 This is significant because the Christian church was not practicing baptism for the dead, but the pagans were. \n     Paul's point was simple. The resurrection is a reality. It is going to happen when Jesus returns. Even the pagans believe in the resurrection, otherwise, why would they baptize for the dead?\n     However, some are not convinced by this argument and state that the word "they" is not in the Greek and, therefore, Paul is not speaking about the pagans..  Let's take a look.\n     Literally, the verse is translated as "Since what will do the being immersed on behalf of the dead if wholly dead not are raised why also are they immersed on behalf of them."\n     The issue here is the word, "baptizontai" -- "they are baptized."  It is the present, passive, indicative, 3rd person, plural. In other words, it is THEY ARE BEING BAPTIZED or, THEY ARE BAPTIZED.\n\n     I -- first person singular\n     you (singular) -- second person singular\n     he/she/it -- third person singular\n     we -- first person plural\n     you (plural) -- second person plural\n     they -- third person plural \n\n     It is the latter form, the third person plural (they) which the verb "baptizo" is in. Therefore, the best translation is "THEY are baptized."
477341
In I. corinthians 6:3 Paul the Apostle asks by-the-way "Did you know we shall judge angels?" - while he debates why it is not appropriate for christians to go to judgment court with other believers. \n\nI think Apostle Paul deducted this from the fact that, after man being created as lower as the angels, if he is redeemed - through Jesus Christ - belongs to the family of God, who is above angels, thus entitled to judge the angels.
965122
"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost". Acts 2:38\n \nNotice it says Peter told them to be baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ."  This is right after holy spirit was given on the Day of Pentecost, ten days after Jesus ascended into heaven. \n\n\n"And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days." Acts 10:48\n \n\nNotice that Peter commanded the household of Cornelius "to be baptized in the name of the Lord."  Apparently, no one's reminded him what Jesus said, since Acts 2. \n\n\n"When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Acts 19:5\n \nThese were the believers in Ephesus.  Notice it says, "they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." \n\n\n"For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Galatians 3:27\n\nNotice this is talking to those of us who "have been baptized into Christ". \n\nAccording to the evidence I've check and gathered, it's probable that Jesus and the original Matthew 28:18-20" really said, \n\nAll authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.  Go, therefore, disciple all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you.  And lo, I am with you all the days until the completion of the age. \n\nIt appears that Jesus wasn't talking about baptizing at all, but rather, making disciples of all the nations in his name.\n\nThe oldest manuscripts in existence today that contain this section of Matthew say, "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".  But, they're from the fourth century, a time when trinity was becoming an established doctrine of the Christian church.  There are only two such fourth century manuscripts, and none older.  However, They still have earlier writings that quote Matthew 28:19.\n\nJesus did not tell the disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in Matthew 28:19.  In fact, he wasn't talking about baptism at all.  Rather, he commanded them to go, disciple all the nations in his name, teaching them to observe all of his commandments.  And then he promised them that he would be with them until the end of the age.