Was the Lord Fertile?

[3DOP]

53 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

A lot of it is an adoption of Plato’s thoughts. He was (at least in his later works) opposed to any sex that wasn’t procreative. Christianity (at least the kind of Christianity that survived) took that and gave it biblical justification. Add in Paul’s recommendation that people should be celibate if they could and it all leans that way.

So Paul the Apostle is a problem? Nobody should be celibate if they are able? You guys won't be believing that in 500 years. A few of you might even agree with the  Apostle now and still have a temple recommend.

Edited November 7, 2025 by 3DOP

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Hi Teddy. Hi The Nehor, 

So how do you two explain us "apostates" progressing until we get it right? You know that we now teach two ends in marriage, right? It took until 1870 for papal infallibility. 1965 or '66 gives us two ends in marriage. Will you guys have nailed everything perfectly before your first two millenia? We will have to wait to see I guess.

Cut us a break, we are STILL a young church. Calling us apostates because of out first centuries? Sheesh. I'll take our early centuries over yours anytime anyway. Especially when it comes to orthopraxy but even orthodoxy too.

I am beginning to suspect my church will start wrangling doctrinal issues in councils soon. Used to be revelation was everything but I see more and more about councils lately. It is only a matter of time. Hopefully we at least come up with better names for our councils.

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

So Paul the Apostle is a problem? Nobody should be celibate if they are able? You guys won't be believing that in 500 years. A few of you might even agree with the  Apostle now and still have a temple recommend.

I suspect Paul was mostly calling for celibacy for the same reason he was telling everyone not to make a fuss about politics or not to change their job. He thought Jesus was about to return so why make any life changes. Either that or he was a Plato Bro. Or both.

[3DOP]

33 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am beginning to suspect my church will start wrangling doctrinal issues in councils soon. Used to be revelation was everything but I see more and more about councils lately. It is only a matter of time. Hopefully we at least come up with better names for our councils.

The Nehor, hi. 

Do parents give their kids more cookies when they haven't eaten what they have in front of them? 

I am not saying that Catholics have eaten and digested all of our cookies. I am saying we have enough to keep us from running out until the Lord comes back. We aren't against continuing revelation so much as we know we haven't nearly exhausted what has been given.

[The Nehor]

53 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

The Nehor, hi. 

Do parents give their kids more cookies when they haven't eaten what they have in front of them? 

I am not saying that Catholics have eaten and digested all of our cookies. I am saying we have enough to keep us from running out until the Lord comes back. We aren't against continuing revelation so much as we know we haven't nearly exhausted what has been given.

I was mocking my own faith more than Catholicism. Like seriously we talked down the “apostate” faiths and now are going down a similar faith.

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I was mocking my own faith more than Catholicism. Like seriously we talked down the “apostate” faiths and now are going down a similar faith.

I didn't think it was the councils that were the issue?

[Doctor Steuss]

On 11/2/2025 at 5:19 AM, 3DOP said:

I cannot think of any Christian community that teaches that the Lord had such a human defect. 

 

Hi Rory, my dear old friend.  I hope you and your loved ones are well.

From a Christian perspective (or more specifically, your tradition and knowledge) -- Given Christ's teaching(s) regarding those who are born eunuchs, do you think it possible that infertility isn't necessarily a defect, but a way in which God sets aside those chosen for higher purposes and eternal inheritance?

Just musing.

Big Squeezy-Hugs,

Stu

[3DOP]

2 hours ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Hi Rory, my dear old friend.  I hope you and your loved ones are well.

From a Christian perspective (or more specifically, your tradition and knowledge) -- Given Christ's teaching(s) regarding those who are born eunuchs, do you think it possible that infertility isn't necessarily a defect, but a way in which God sets aside those chosen for higher purposes and eternal inheritance?

Just musing.

Big Squeezy-Hugs,

Stu

Thanks Dr. Steuss,

To quote a Muslim folk singer, "Ooohh baby, baby it's a wild world". It's a journey. I hope you and yours are doing well too. But as you point out, troubles and even "defects" can be the will of God. 

I would certainly agree that for anyone born with physical or mental handicaps, and for those who care for them, it is the will of God. In the precise way I have been using the words using the words defect and perfect, nothing is both defective and perfect at the same time. But I would agree that congenital handicaps/defects can be a blessing. It has a purpose for that soul that someone of my faith would say is a mystery that can be revealed even here sometimes, but certainly God would show his wise providence on the Day of Judgment for allowing it.

In the case of Christ, I think it would be theologically peculiar if the only soul that was ever conceived by an immaculate virgin mother and the overshadowing of the third Person of the Trinity, should appear with a random birth defect. The most perfect man who ever lived would indeed suffer every kind of affliction of body and soul. Perfectly like all of us, he was subject to defects and even death. The point is that He began as what we would call normal, as to His humanity.

And I should say that this is speculation because I do not know think my church has judged that Jesus could not have had a congenital defect of the body. I think it is more fitting that he would have been humanly healthy in all ways when He was born, but subject to ordinary afflictions. I am confident that a majority of orthodox theologians would agree. But that doesn't make it dogma. If you disagree Steuss, you can still become Catholic!

Good to see you Stu...I would urge you to "not be such a stranger" but I go months at a time now without participating myself. I am usually peeking in a few times a week to see if there is something of interest. I am retired now, with more time, but for me it seems less interesting than it used to in the old days. Anyway, be well, and know that you have prompted a prayer from me for a good old internet comrade.

Rory

Edited November 7, 2025 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am beginning to suspect my church will start wrangling doctrinal issues in councils soon. Used to be revelation was everything but I see more and more about councils lately. It is only a matter of time. Hopefully we at least come up with better names for our councils.

First of all, what I am about to say is not true...but it could be. What if some fertile Catholic couple had nineteen or so kids and named each one after a Council of the Church?

Mom says pleadingly. "Lateran IV, finish your vegetables". Dad says threateningly, "Chalcedon, if you do that again I am going to land in the middle of your guts." (A favorite saying of my own dear father (R.I.P.))

The only kids that might not be bitter against the Councils would be Trent and Constance!

Edited November 7, 2025 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Thanks Dr. Steuss,

To quote a Muslim folk singer, "Ooohh baby, baby it's a wild world". It's a journey. I hope you and yours are doing well too. But as you point out, troubles and even "defects" can be the will of God. 

I would certainly agree that for anyone born with physical or mental handicaps, and for those who care for them, it is the will of God. In the precise way I have been using the words using the words defect and perfect, nothing is both defective and perfect at the same time. But I would agree that congenital handicaps/defects can be a blessing. It has a purpose for that soul that someone of my faith would say is a mystery that can be revealed even here sometimes, but certainly God would show his wise providence on the Day of Judgment for allowing it.

In the case of Christ, I think it would be theologically peculiar if the only soul that was ever conceived by an immaculate virgin mother and the overshadowing of the third Person of the Trinity, should appear with a random birth defect. The most perfect man who ever lived would indeed suffer every kind of affliction of body and soul. Perfectly like all of us, he was subject to defects and even death. The point is that He began as what we would call normal, as to His humanity.

And I should say that this is speculation because I do not know think my church has judged that Jesus could not have had a congenital defect of the body. I think it is more fitting that he would have been humanly healthy in all ways when He was born, but subject to ordinary afflictions. I am confident that a majority of orthodox theologians would agree. But that doesn't make it dogma. If you disagree Steuss, you can still become Catholic!

Good to see you Stu...I would urge you to "not be such a stranger" but I go months at a time now without participating myself. I am usually peeking in a few times a week to see if there is something of interest. I am retired now, with more time, but for me it seems less interesting than it used to in the old days. Anyway, be well, and know that you have prompted a prayer from me for a good old internet comrade.

Rory

I made a boo-boo that you all should have caught. About perfection and defects being incompatible. But when it comes to us humans I said about human perfection needing to allow for defects. 

Good catch there 3DOP.  Where is Bukowski? He would have seen it in a New York minute.

What distinguishes an ordinary minute, from a minute that is New York? Just ask AI. It will know.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

I made a boo-boo that you all should have caught. About perfection and defects being incompatible. But when it comes to us humans I said about human perfection needing to allow for defects. 

Good catch there 3DOP.  Where is Bukowski? He would have seen it in a New York minute.

What distinguishes an ordinary minute, from a minute that is New York? Just ask AI. It will know.

He was having some issues signing in. I don’t know if he gave up or not. 

[3DOP]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

He was having some issues signing in. I don’t know if he gave up or not. 

Yeah, I had heard. I miss him.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

I didn't think it was the councils that were the issue?

I am not sure they were either but I grew up thinking they were. When I was taught about the apostasy growing up they came up a lot as an example of how things went horribly wrong.

Edited November 7, 2025 by The Nehor

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am not sure they were either but I grew up thinking they were. When I was taught about the apostasy growing up they came up a lot as an example of how things went horribly wrong.

Speaking only for myself, I've been amazed at how half of maturing spiritually seems to be just trying to get beyond the bad interpretations of doctrine (sometimes explicitly taught and othetimes concocted by myself subconsciously) that I picked up as a youth.

[Orthodox Christian]

On 11/7/2025 at 3:43 AM, 3DOP said:

No worries OC. No offence. But I don't think his singular beliefs had such a long lasting effect. Us Latins rejected his babies burning for not being baptized more than a millennium ago. 

But we did hold on to a primary end of marriage that you mention for much longer. Did you guys have a secondary or co-primary end earlier, as we do now?

I don't mind a bit if you are ahead of us. I want us back together, and that would show our holdouts that we needed you. Do you not think you need us? Not at all?

Hello again, thanks for you generous response. The primary end in Orthodox marriage is the mutual salvation of the couple. If this marriage results in children that is a blessing and the children's (family's) salvation through this Orthodox family situation becomes the primary end. If the marriage is not blessed by children, then the mutual salvation of the couple remains their main focus, and in both circumstances, the physical aspect of marriage is to be lovingly enjoyed. That's very much it in a nutshell. 

On another note, do the Orthodox need the RC church? Not really, we are doing OK. If being together means accepting a Pope, or Roman theology, or encroaching secularism in the guise of progressiveness, millions of Orthodox would rather go into the desert. I don't believe that Orthodoxy is Catholicism's other lung, so I guess I too am a hold-out. 

[MiserereNobis]

14 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

I don't believe that Orthodoxy is Catholicism's other lung, so I guess I too am a hold-out. 

The statement was that Christianity had two lungs: Catholicism and Orthodoxy. So no, you are not Catholicism's other lung   We are both lungs needed for the full breathing of Christianity. Wonderful expression of the Christian faith. 

I like pointing out to those who do not know that Catholicism has 24 churches and 6 liturgical rites, so we are much more than what people think of when they think Catholicism (but it's understandable, since the Latin/Roman Rite is the vast majority).

[3DOP]

19 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

Hello again, thanks for you generous response. The primary end in Orthodox marriage is the mutual salvation of the couple. If this marriage results in children that is a blessing and the children's (family's) salvation through this Orthodox family situation becomes the primary end. If the marriage is not blessed by children, then the mutual salvation of the couple remains their main focus, and in both circumstances, the physical aspect of marriage is to be lovingly enjoyed. That's very much it in a nutshell. 

On another note, do the Orthodox need the RC church? Not really, we are doing OK. If being together means accepting a Pope, or Roman theology, or encroaching secularism in the guise of progressiveness, millions of Orthodox would rather go into the desert. I don't believe that Orthodoxy is Catholicism's other lung, so I guess I too am a hold-out. 

OC, Rome will leave you alone. Filioque? The Eastern churches in union don't have to say it. It is still true without acknowledging the Son. The Father as the Fount, I am okay with you guys empasizing that.

So apparently has been Rome. The Assumption vs. Dormition? Not much difference. I am Roman and think that story about the Apostles at Mary's grave is unlikely. 

But look east for that story. St. John of anywhere in the West? NO. Damascus.  

But you don't care that we can't have an ecumenical council, according to people on both sides? More on yours. 

When I say we need you? It is for the wide world. For a clear visible Oneness. These LDS see us as different, separate. Maybe you agree? LDS like you better. What comfort is there in that? They think we disbelieve in deification and you do. That's no victory for the kingdom. We both have valid Sacraments. Right? How can a church with valid Sacraments be apostate? You don't deny we are part of the One Church. Do you? Are our Sacraments invalid?

So what brings you here? We can't for long be hashing all this out on this site that most of our hosts cannot understand very well. Salt Lake Mormonism forced me away from Reformed Evangelicalism in the early 90's. Salt Lake LDS is the most formidable and consistent. What makes for your interest?

But anyway...I wouldn't like you to think we are desperate for you. I guess I thought you should want to present together a One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church with diversity and unity to the wide world. 

No lung analogies. It's about NO APOSTASY. Not early. Not later. Not now.

I am sorry but it seems to me like our Eastern brothers don't care about the rest of the world. That is how I see it through my limited vision of what you have said here and other Orthodox have said elsewhere. Please correct me. I will be very happy to be wrong, I promise you.

 

Edited November 9, 2025 by 3DOP

[Orthodox Christian]

On 11/9/2025 at 4:49 AM, 3DOP said:

OC, Rome will leave you alone. Filioque? The Eastern churches in union don't have to say it. It is still true without acknowledging the Son. The Father as the Fount, I am okay with you guys empasizing that.

So apparently has been Rome. The Assumption vs. Dormition? Not much difference. I am Roman and think that story about the Apostles at Mary's grave is unlikely. 

But look east for that story. St. John of anywhere in the West? NO. Damascus.  

But you don't care that we can't have an ecumenical council, according to people on both sides? More on yours. 

When I say we need you? It is for the wide world. For a clear visible Oneness. These LDS see us as different, separate. Maybe you agree? LDS like you better. What comfort is there in that? They think we disbelieve in deification and you do. That's no victory for the kingdom. We both have valid Sacraments. Right? How can a church with valid Sacraments be apostate? You don't deny we are part of the One Church. Do you? Are our Sacraments invalid?

So what brings you here? We can't for long be hashing all this out on this site that most of our hosts cannot understand very well. Salt Lake Mormonism forced me away from Reformed Evangelicalism in the early 90's. Salt Lake LDS is the most formidable and consistent. What makes for your interest?

But anyway...I wouldn't like you to think we are desperate for you. I guess I thought you should want to present together a One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church with diversity and unity to the wide world. 

No lung analogies. It's about NO APOSTASY. Not early. Not later. Not now.

I am sorry but it seems to me like our Eastern brothers don't care about the rest of the world. That is how I see it through my limited vision of what you have said here and other Orthodox have said elsewhere. Please correct me. I will be very happy to be wrong, I promise you.

 

Hello 3DOP, tbh, I'm  a bit flummoxed by the defensiveness of your reply. I haven't  accused you of apostasy, in fact I haven't mentioned the word. You want us to present a united front to the people here and the world. But we are not united, if we were we would truly share the name of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We are separated by our theologies, and the hold outs as you call them on both sides do not want our theologies compromised. We do not see attributes of God as did Augustine and Anselm, therefore to many Orthodox Augustine is Blessed rather than saint. I don't  know why you are asking me why I am here and what is my interest. Couldn't  I ask you the same question? I am not here to hash out our theological differences, there are better people than me who can do that. I am here because I almost became LDS many years ago, but I simply did not believe and did not commit. I have retained an interest however, so that's it. I have no understanding of your references to Salt Lake LDS or your brush with Evangelicalism.  I find the people here diverse and interesting, I don't  know about formidable. I am sure that the RC church is not desperate for us, the feeling is pretty mutual. But I respect you. I don't  know how you reach the conclusion that the Orthodox don't  care about the rest of the world , that we may view things differently is true, and that's  not likely to change any time soon.

Anyway enough, God bless  you, forgive me if I offended you in any way.

[mbh26]

On 11/1/2025 at 6:33 PM, bluebell said:

From my perspective, the biggest problem with Him having children is two-fold.

First, I think it was Isaiah who taught He would have no children and second, if He did they would also inherit His divine DNA. I just don’t think that being physically partly divine is in the plan for any other of God’s children. 

The Old Testament says that the Sons of God mated with the daughters of men and produced giants.  I hold to the theory that the watchers were extra terrestrials and therefore giants didn't have divine DNA.  But giants did have DNA from a planet and beings that God perhaps never intended to be mixed with earthly mortals.  I think this scripture proves that stranger and more inexplicable things have happened then Jesus having children.  Adam and Eve had divine DNA and were still subject to the fall.  

[InCognitus]

On 11/6/2025 at 9:26 PM, The Nehor said:

I suspect Paul was mostly calling for celibacy for the same reason he was telling everyone not to make a fuss about politics or not to change their job. He thought Jesus was about to return so why make any life changes. Either that or he was a Plato Bro. Or both.

I don't think it's fair to say that Paul was advocating celibacy (in general) at all. 

First of all, multiple early Christian sources indicate that Paul was a married man, and thus Paul's statements about abiding "even as I" in 1 Corinthians chapter 7 should be viewed in that light. 

Second, Paul was responding to a specific question (1 Corinthians 7:1) and we don't have that question.  But from the context of chapter 7 we can see that Paul was speaking to those who are called to participate in the "present distress" (verse 26), and the Greek word translated as "distress" in that verse (ἀνάγκην) is the same word used in 1 Corinthians 9:16 which is translated as "necessity" in preaching the gospel:  "For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity (ἀνάγκη) is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!"  (1 Corinthians 9:16). 

So in chapter 7, it appears that Paul is talking to those who are called to preach the gospel and whether they should be married while participating in that calling.  And, I think this goes along with what Paul (a married man) says about having the power to take his wife with him on his missionary journeys, as do the other apostles (1 Corinthians 9:5), but he doesn't do that.  He thinks wives are a distraction to the work (or maybe he just thought his wife would be a distraction to the work), which is why he advocated remaining celibate while participating in that calling.

[The Nehor]

19 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I don't think it's fair to say that Paul was advocating celibacy (in general) at all. 

It was admittedly to an audience that thought the Second Coming was coming any day now so it can be seen as special circumstances.

19 hours ago, InCognitus said:

First of all, multiple early Christian sources indicate that Paul was a married man, and thus Paul's statements about abiding "even as I" in 1 Corinthians chapter 7 should be viewed in that light. 

I haven’t seen any such sources that appeared convincing.

19 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Second, Paul was responding to a specific question (1 Corinthians 7:1) and we don't have that question.  But from the context of chapter 7 we can see that Paul was speaking to those who are called to participate in the "present distress" (verse 26), and the Greek word translated as "distress" in that verse (ἀνάγκην) is the same word used in 1 Corinthians 9:16 which is translated as "necessity" in preaching the gospel:  "For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity (ἀνάγκη) is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!"  (1 Corinthians 9:16). 

So in chapter 7, it appears that Paul is talking to those who are called to preach the gospel and whether they should be married while participating in that calling.  And, I think this goes along with what Paul (a married man) says about having the power to take his wife with him on his missionary journeys, as do the other apostles (1 Corinthians 9:5), but he doesn't do that.  He thinks wives are a distraction to the work (or maybe he just thought his wife would be a distraction to the work), which is why he advocated remaining celibate while participating in that calling.

The consensus of most biblical scholars is that the “present distress” is the incoming and imminent return of Jesus.

The bit about Paul not taking along a wife could just as easily be Paul saying that he could have a wife and travel with her. Paul is bragging about how he abstains from a lot of things to avoid tripping up the “conscience” of the weak to encourage the people to avoid doing anything that would cause other believers to falter.

[InCognitus]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It was admittedly to an audience that thought the Second Coming was coming any day now so it can be seen as special circumstances.

I can see how this view is a reasonable assumption.  But I disagree with it for other contextual reasons. 

And in either case (that it was a "distress" because of the immanent second coming of Christ, or a "necessity" for preaching the gospel), it was a temporary and special circumstance, and not a long term council that celibacy is to be preferred.

38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

20 hours ago, InCognitus said:

First of all, multiple early Christian sources indicate that Paul was a married man, and thus Paul's statements about abiding "even as I" in 1 Corinthians chapter 7 should be viewed in that light. 

I haven’t seen any such sources that appeared convincing.

I presume you have read the sources from Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Alexandria (and there's a source from Eusebius, but he is just quoting Clement of Alexandria)?  And Origen also mentions Paul's married state, but treats the information as tentative (i.e. "Paul, then, if certain traditions are true, was called while in possession of a wife, concerning whom he speaks when writing to the Philippians, 'I ask you also, my loyal mate, help these women.'" - referring to Philippians 4:3).

Can you explain why you don't find them convincing?  I'm not trying to argue the point, I just want to understand your point of view.

44 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The bit about Paul not taking along a wife could just as easily be Paul saying that he could have a wife and travel with her. Paul is bragging about how he abstains from a lot of things to avoid tripping up the “conscience” of the weak to encourage the people to avoid doing anything that would cause other believers to falter.

I can understand this view as well.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

And in either case (that it was a "distress" because of the immanent second coming of Christ, or a "necessity" for preaching the gospel), it was a temporary and special circumstance, and not a long term council that celibacy is to be preferred.

I would say that you can safely ignore the other counsel given in the same context then.

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

I presume you have read the sources from Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Alexandria (and there's a source from Eusebius, but he is just quoting Clement of Alexandria)?  And Origen also mentions Paul's married state, but treats the information as tentative (i.e. "Paul, then, if certain traditions are true, was called while in possession of a wife, concerning whom he speaks when writing to the Philippians, 'I ask you also, my loyal mate, help these women.'" - referring to Philippians 4:3).

Can you explain why you don't find them convincing?  I'm not trying to argue the point, I just want to understand your point of view.

I’ve heard Ignatius supposedly said that but I can’t find anything supporting it.

The current consensus from what I have read is that Clement misread Philippians. Eusebius’s comment about Paul’s wife is explicitly pulled from one of Paul’s epistles and does not suggest Clement knew this from any other source:
 

Quote

"Or will they," says he, "reject even the apostles? For Peter and Philip begot children; and Philip also gave his daughters in marriage. And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles, to greet his wife, whom he did not take about with him, that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry."

The thing is Paul doesn’t greet his wife in any of the epistles we have. Then Origen in a commentary says:

Quote

Paul, then, if certain traditions are true, was called while in possession of a wife, concerning whom he writes in Philippians "I ask you also, my loyal mate, help these women."

So Origen got the same idea from an epistle of Paul’s and it is supposedly in Philippians but isn’t there either. However there is an easy way to misread Philippians that could suggest such a reading. I don’t know ancient Greek but the explanations I have read seem to be reasonable.

Another possibility could come from Paul talking about having “a believing wife” accompanying some of the apostles in their ministry.

Maybe his wife wouldn’t convert and their marriage was terminated? Maybe the “unequally yoked” bit came from very personal experience.

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

4 hours ago, InCognitus said:

And in either case (that it was a "distress" because of the immanent second coming of Christ, or a "necessity" for preaching the gospel), it was a temporary and special circumstance, and not a long term council that celibacy is to be preferred.

I would say that you can safely ignore the other counsel given in the same context then.

Isn't that the same thing you were saying, that "It was admittedly to an audience that thought the Second Coming was coming any day now so it can be seen as special circumstances"?  Special circumstances mean that it wasn't a long term council, but for a unusual reason (either the impending second coming of Christ, or the urgent need to do missionary work).

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I’ve heard Ignatius supposedly said that but I can’t find anything supporting it.

Here's the source, St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Philadelphians, Chapter 4, -HAVE BUT ONE EUCHARIST, ETC.

Quote

 "Husbands, love your wives, as fellow-servants of God, as your own body, as the partners of your life, and your co-adjutors in the procreation of children. Virgins, have Christ alone before your eyes, and His Father in your prayers, being enlightened by the Spirit. May I have pleasure in your purity, as that of Elijah, or as of Joshua the son of Nun, as of Melchizedek, or as of Elisha, as of Jeremiah, or as of John the Baptist, as of the beloved disciple, as of Timothy, as of Titus, as of Evodius, as of Clement, who departed this life in [perfect] chastity,  Not, however, that I blame the other blessed [saints] because they entered into the married state, of which I have just spoken.  For I pray that, being found worthy of God, I may be found at their feet in the kingdom, as at the feet of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; as of Joseph, and Isaiah, and the rest of the prophets; as of Peter, and Paul, and the rest of the apostles, that were married men. For they entered into these marriages not for the sake of appetite, but out of regard for the propagation of mankind. Fathers, "bring up your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord;" and teach them the holy Scriptures, and also trades, that they may not indulge in idleness. Now [the Scripture] says, "A righteous father educates [his children] well; his heart shall rejoice in a wise son.''

Clement of Alexandria:

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The current consensus from what I have read is that Clement misread Philippians.

Or he had knowledge of the tradition (like that of Ignatius), and recognized the Philippians source as evidence of that.  The same goes for the quote from Origen, since he referred to the "tradition" that Paul had a wife, but that the tradition was disputed by some people.  It seems that the dispute always had to do with the support for celibacy or the defense of marriage being ordained of God. 

The Clement of Alexandria source is definitely an argument against those that "teach that one must reject marriage and begetting of children" and "some who say outright that marriage is fornication and teach that it was introduced by the devil", and he quotes Paul in support of his argument, that "In the last times some shall depart from the faith, turning to spirits of error and doctrines inspired by daemons, forbidding to marry and commanding abstinence from food."  So Clement was inclined to accept the tradition that Paul was a married man.

[3DOP]

On 11/11/2025 at 6:45 AM, Orthodox Christian said:

Hello 3DOP, tbh, I'm  a bit flummoxed by the defensiveness of your reply. I haven't  accused you of apostasy, in fact I haven't mentioned the word. You want us to present a united front to the people here and the world. But we are not united, if we were we would truly share the name of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We are separated by our theologies, and the hold outs as you call them on both sides do not want our theologies compromised. We do not see attributes of God as did Augustine and Anselm, therefore to many Orthodox Augustine is Blessed rather than saint. I don't  know why you are asking me why I am here and what is my interest. Couldn't  I ask you the same question? I am not here to hash out our theological differences, there are better people than me who can do that. I am here because I almost became LDS many years ago, but I simply did not believe and did not commit. I have retained an interest however, so that's it. I have no understanding of your references to Salt Lake LDS or your brush with Evangelicalism.  I find the people here diverse and interesting, I don't  know about formidable. I am sure that the RC church is not desperate for us, the feeling is pretty mutual. But I respect you. I don't  know how you reach the conclusion that the Orthodox don't  care about the rest of the world , that we may view things differently is true, and that's  not likely to change any time soon.

Anyway enough, God bless  you, forgive me if I offended you in any way.

Thanks Orthodox Christian. No offense taken. I thought of deleting the post, and should have. Too late now. I don't think it would be worth the time to explain how your reading of my poorly conceived post is understandable, but off the mark. Please accept my apologies.