You still refuse to discuss Saint Paul’s words, instead just lying barefaced about what he said. That is not discussion.
You are lying, and Saint Jerome is lying. And this is the last time I will allow a comment from you that refuses to discuss the words of Saint Paul on the requirements for the priesthood.
Your method is to text torture tiny fragments of Paul into evil and madness, and then glibly assume that somehow his plain directive that Deacons and Bishops should normally or always be married with children can therefore be ignored, that because it is blatantly inconsistent with evil and madness it must have some other meaning, which meaning you neglect to explain.
If you cut and past subsentence fragments of Saint Paul, as someone making a ransom note by cutting and pasting newspaper headlines, this is not discussing the words of Saint Paul, this is lying barefaced about the words of Saint Paul, and this is the last time I will allow it.
You explain away “Husband of only one wife” as actually meaning “at most one wife, and possibly zero wives”,
11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
Saint Paul demands demonstrated success at family and patriarchy.
You interpretation of “one wife” only makes sense if you ignore everything preceding, then stop in mid sentence and toss “ruling their children and their own houses well” down the the ditch.
Your interpretation makes no sense in the context of the whole sentence, nor in the social context of the time (Jewish polygamy, Roman monogamy but concubines and slave girls are fine) it clearly means one and no more. But OK, in the social context manufactured by the gay mafia, it could well mean “one or zero wives” as a four word sentence fragment. But not in the context of the entire sentence, and not in the context of the immediately preceding sentence.
How do you explain away the requirement for demonstrated success at patriarchy?
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
If some fruit is supposedly celibate, how can he “ruleth well his own house”?
No more cutting and pasting tiny fragments of Saint Paul to stand him on his head and turn him upside down. That is not discussing his words. That is lying about what he said.
If you are going to explain away what Saint Paul said, you have to quote the whole sentence, and give an alternate meaning for the entire sentence, not an alternate meaning for one fragment of the sentence in isolation that ignores the rest of the sentence.
How can some supposed celibate “ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity”?
How is a celibate “One that ruleth well his own house” even if he actually is celibate? And it does not seem that any church in the past couple of thousand years has been particularly vigorous about making sure that supposed celibates are actually celibate, rather than deviant.
Again I ask:
How can some supposed celibate be “one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity”?
And again you fail to answer.
You can text torture away “only one wife” to mean “at most one wife”, contrary to the plain meaning. How do you text torture away “One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity”?
How do you text torture away “the husband of one wife, having faithful children“?
The husband of one wife. Having children.
The point and purpose of this directive is to insist that the priesthood is composed of men who have successfully demonstrated patriarchal authority. How does a celibate successfully demonstrate patriarchal authority?
This explain why, in a society where marriage had collapsed, women converted to Christianity, as white Christian women are now converting to Islam. Instead of a dead God who will give them a “Season of Singleness”, they converted then and are converting now to a religion where the top alpha will give them a husband and children.
The Christian Church, in order to perform its role as the bride of Christ, has to be a familist movement in its earthly mission. For it to be a familist movement, has to have a priesthood of men with demonstrated success at patriarchy. Chicks of all ages dig men with adult female pre-selection. Conversely, every Church dies about a century after the priests start pissing on husbands. The husbands stop turning up, and after century, no one turns up. The first to die of that was the Congregationalists, who were mighty big when America was young, And then attendance fell, and fell, and fell, and eventually fell to zero, and now every Church is dying of that. Anglicanism started pissing on husbands in 1928, and now they are on the verge of death, with nearly empty churches and what little congregation they have in their eighties and nineties.
Comment: Note the heated discussion in the Roman Catholic Church about celibacy. HELL IS ETERNAL !!!