No, that means they must not have been divorced and remarried or bigamous.
Sorry, but interpretations that have no existence until Calvin hold no weight.
Read early church fathers before constantine sanctioned the Catholic faith.
You are also incorrect about gnostics. There were multiple gnostics. Some believed Christ did not have flesh; some taught that merely adopting in one’s mind the knowledge of Christ was enough. But all were “false gospels“ which we were warned about. The early church was catholic and you cam read about it; current bishops can trace their spiritual lineage through the laying on of hands all the way back to the apostles. St Ignatius of Antioch for instance was ordained by St John the Apostle, for instance.
No, a bishop must not be married to more than one wife. Read ancillary documents from the early church so that you do not in your false interpretation inadvertently reject the path to salvation offered by Christ through His bride, the Church, the one and only possible way of following His commandment to eat of His Body and drink of His Blood as the apostles, their successors, and the church does to this very day. The mass is described in great detail down to the responses of the congregation more than a hundred years before constantine.
Do some research! No such thing as sola scriptura (doesn’t say that anywhere in the bible but does say to follow the tradition as well as the written words).
You are a man, and you interpret it. Interpret means to derive understanding according to meaning. Your interpretation is incorrect because it is contrary to all ancillary documentation which shows clearly the meaning of the text you reference, so you have to either study up on the writings of the early Church so that your interpretation can make sense according to the understanding of those who wrote it and taught it, or make up your own ahistoric interpretation 1500 years later that is easily debunked by a quick study of relevant related texts and documented traditions.
Sorry man, but you don’t get to claim your understanding is not an interpretation. It is - and it’s bunk and lacks authority.
Your point about paul is made up - sorry, you don’t get to interpret it differently 2000 years later than his own contemporaries did.
No, that means they must not have been divorced and remarried or bigamous.
Sorry, but interpretations that have no existence until Calvin hold no weight.
Read early church fathers before constantine sanctioned the Catholic faith.
You are also incorrect about gnostics. There were multiple gnostics. Some believed Christ did not have flesh; some taught that merely adopting in one’s mind the knowledge of Christ was enough. But all were “false gospels“ which we were warned about. The early church was catholic and you cam read about it; current bishops can trace their spiritual lineage through the laying on of hands all the way back to the apostles. St Ignatius of Antioch for instance was ordained by St John the Apostle, for instance.
No, a bishop must not be married to more than one wife. Read ancillary documents from the early church so that you do not in your false interpretation inadvertently reject the path to salvation offered by Christ through His bride, the Church, the one and only possible way of following His commandment to eat of His Body and drink of His Blood as the apostles, their successors, and the church does to this very day. The mass is described in great detail down to the responses of the congregation more than a hundred years before constantine.
Do some research! No such thing as sola scriptura (doesn’t say that anywhere in the bible but does say to follow the tradition as well as the written words).
You are a man, and you interpret it. Interpret means to derive understanding according to meaning. Your interpretation is incorrect because it is contrary to all ancillary documentation which shows clearly the meaning of the text you reference, so you have to either study up on the writings of the early Church so that your interpretation can make sense according to the understanding of those who wrote it and taught it, or make up your own ahistoric interpretation 1500 years later that is easily debunked by a quick study of relevant related texts and documented traditions.
Sorry man, but you don’t get to claim your understanding is not an interpretation. It is - and it’s bunk and lacks authority.