Shalom Place Community
Apostolic single status

This topic can be found at:
http://shalomplace.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/18910625/m/86410685

18 April 2005, 03:10 AM
Gary Giardina
Apostolic single status
Here's a nonflippant hypothesis that might reap revelation and if it achieves the ignore list don't say I didn't make a sincere attempt at inspired witness beyond clutching philosophical egos.Consider the Apostles and the apparent fact that the original twelve and I presume Matthias were single without children.If this be fact and what eventually occured the Christian continuum of the twelve's missionary goal and coverage of the entire populated earth wouldn't not being wed or having children have beyond any doubt eliminated one potential obstacle.Familial corruption.Without spouses and children there would have been absolutely no chance of mal intented channeling and or induced antithetic familial sources.It does seem Providence that there incredulous task of spreading the news after receiving the Spirit and witnessing the Ascension was enhanced with no spouse and or children attatched .Additionally it does seem consistent with revelation that Christ even though saying that the witnesses should have the sense of purpose to rise above even their own families that God the father son and spirit never asked or demanded that they make such a decision since their are no reports of the twelve having such familial bonds.Doesn't it seem to be a nonobtrusive way of saying their non married status and thus childlessness was exclusively providential to facillitate their absolutely unique goal?Additionally it might explain the Papal continuity of vocational order celibacy and why it seems unflinching.Don't get the impression that I'm an antimarriage extremist with three children I absolutely innocently adore along with the respect of their divorced mother yet those who know of crucial sense of inspired purpose and the elements of antagonism certainly are aware of familial import and its havoc.Yikes that would have made it much easier for them though they weren't dealing with Hollywood or anything glibly metaphysical beyond an unrefined Beelzabub.Heck Lucifer didn't even have a Guild back then yet I suppose when snookums wasn't feeling like herself or whoever the familial source was the twelve Galileeans didn't have to contend with it.Infinite brilliance for those who believe seems like a fraction of a glimpse of a chance to understand the origin's perspective and whatever the 3/8ths or so He occasionally imparts the startling revelations of do suggest that humanity should indeed love itself or leave itself.I discuss somewhat often matters of peak experiences amongst artists and athletes and being a mutual naturalist and that being the classic definition I affirm that the only thing beyond the peaks of creative and athletic and or coupled ardor would have been oh say a day at Lazerus's with his sisters' Martha and Mary.Take care and God bless.Straight Forwrod.Absolutely no twisted Parallels."Go Get 'em Cardinals".Gary V. Giardina.
18 April 2005, 06:32 PM
Gary Giardina
Shalom it appears
18 April 2005, 06:55 PM
Gary Giardina
Shalom readers excuse the glitsch that printed an incomplete response .I was attempting to say that my previous evening's post's comment said "Go get 'um
Cardinals".I again had thought it an age that yet could appreciate a cliche attempt at levity and potentially undue any burden the Cardinals' conclave
might have drawn from well meaning yet over bearing
media sources.Anyone who is even approaching Pluto to Earth's proximity of truth knows resolutely my rhetoric is never serving of antiecumenism.Yet wouldn't you know it I drew the nontrusting falisfiers who attempt falsely attributionalizing of Christian exclusivity for ignorant purposes.If they noticed I twice mentioned the anti Lucifer and Beelzebub before making the reference and God knows and any truly ecumenical witness that was has been revealed have been even Christian sources who have abysmalized during litmus situations yet unfortunately I have to overcompensatingly say such that the other denominations aren't offended.I never resolve incitefulness for the sake of itself yet if any deep truths arise the zeal that occurs is a trusted responsibility of properly manifested behavior that knows well the definition of commissive intent and commission itself.There I've clarified my forum conversation from any sycophants of false affiliation though the priority is defense of and yes ecumenically of the Cardinals' conclave that elects a new Papal leader and contributes significantly to quelling Satan's advances.And know my Christianity is not the least bit diminished yet contains immense respect for the mutuality of sense of purpose via the various dogmas whose invariable crucial concern is vital to thwarting wisely any Armageddonish eclipse.Take care and God bless.Straight Forword.Gary V. Giardina.Absolutely no twisted parallels.This sent approximately 4:00 P.M. April 18th.2005.
18 April 2005, 10:10 PM
Phil
Gary, in your opening post, you seem to be implying that the apostles of Jesus were not married. We know that Peter was, for sure, and we don't really know about the others. We don't know if they had children or not, either.

I don't know how this effects the premise of your point . . . just in the fyi dept.
20 April 2005, 02:14 PM
spoonboy
I've never given this much thought. Interesting...
27 April 2005, 04:31 AM
Gary Giardina
Thanks Phil for the information.The responses I received from the Internet were vast and expositive and somewhat baffling for their obvious dogmatic affiliations of which my concern was not influenced with beyond a desire for truth.Some webs actually contained rhetoric that seemed instantaneous and overly reaching to claim or disclaim a given apostles marital status and or children.Some of the uncertain informaton was honest though considering the retrospect of the apostles lives historically is paltry for its responsibility to witness of their lives.I f I could add another clarifying comment it would be an explanation of a quote I submitted recently that reuttered John Pal II saying he was not an actor merely thr Pope.I quoted him with the first person singular saying he obviously was speaking of himself.Saying that I must clarify that I didn't suggest any intention of my own interest in ever involving myself with dramatic acting and I'm not a channeled being.Thus literally I'm not an actor intentively or imposed with existentially .Yet saying it the way I did insulate any attempt at sycophantation .Take care and God bless .Straight Forword .Gary V. Giardina.No twisted parallels.This sent at 1:30 A.M.April 27th.2005.