Paul's Opinion or the Holy Ghost?

[Ehav4Ever]

How many of them were there at any given time, and how long were they supposed to do it, and when did the essene movement begin?

I should answer this for you. The concept of a "Nazir" is from the Torah. It is not a normal thing to choose to do. Also, there was no reason for a Nazir to not be married. A Nazir was simply a Jew who decided to make a particular personal vow to do something, or not do something, for a short period of time. Edit (Normally 30 days)

For example, a Jew could decide that they will not eat meat for four months and to do so a Nazir vow. They could choose to stay away for the ocean for three months, etc. Anying could be a reason to take on such a situation. No matter how small or big. The Nazir vow did not interfere with being married. For example, Shimson (Samson) was a Nazir but he got married.

During the time that they would take this on they would not drink wine or grape products, they would not cut their hair, and the would stay away from graves. The vow they made would be done in a Torah based court and the vow would be ended in a Torah based court. At the end of their

There was nothing in the deal that required them not to be married. Most Jewish men and women were historically married between the ages of 13 to 19. Most Jewish teenagers were not becoming Nazirs. Further, most Jewish adults did not become Nazirs. You could essentially make a personal vow w/o having to become a Nazir to do so.

See more details here on the Jewish view of this.
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/287358/jewish/The-Nazir-and-the-Nazirite-Vow.htm

In Christianity they have a different concept they developed, away from the Torah, that made the nazir (in their world view) to be a type of celebite monk.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

HOWEVER:

Context is everything!!

"7 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote:"

Sooooo, unless you understand the context of what they wrote, you can't make a global position on marriage.

I agree, but from what I understand the context is given in chapters 1-6. He was responding to a group of people who were having lots of problems with leadership and social infrastructure. That being said, his advice, which appears to be personal seems based on his background in the Hellonistic world. From a Torath Mosheh perspective, what Paul spells it out is horrible advice. That is what I am getting at - horrible in the sense of what conclusions can be made from it and from how foreign it is to Torath Mosheh.

A Torath Mosheh bit of advice would have been.

1. Follow the 7 mitzvoth of Noach. We will send someone to instruct you how to do so.
2. We will give you clases on how to manage your family and social lives.
3. I (Paul) myself will get married and raise a family so I can be an example to you all for what I am writing you about. (I understand that as someone who is not married I am not a good example for you on to conceptually manage a marriage.)

 

[Ehav4Ever]

HOWEVER:

Context is everything!!

If I can make a small comment on this. Context is everything has been a major Jewish arguement to Christians when Christians present NT verses that supposidly quote random verses, often out of context, from the Tanakh. It is good to see that we Jews are starting to make an impact.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

That's an argument I've never heard before. So I don't really have anything to say to it. I don't come across arguments that paul's writings are esoteric, rather I thought they were in the bible because it was concluded, somewhere and some-when, that they are not vague

This was also the understanding I had. I thought the Church Fathers included texts in the NT that they held were "scripture" and were not vague. At least not to them.

 

[Harel13]

Such is why the nazirs would go for years without marrying

From where is this known?

 

[Kenny]

Ok, well I get it: I think most people on earth want to avoid genuine ascetic experiences. I don't see anything really wrong with that, as it's not pleasant, and it's not clear what your efforts will get you. Religion can be made to facilitate better living, to get to more of a milk and honey life, and that's fine

At this point it's also fair to point out that marriage and relationships aren't always a picnic, and seem like they can be great only when everything works out good. So clearly there can be secular reasons for being single, which paul doesn't mention - but it's possible that greek philosophy talks about that

And maybe those secular reasons sort of fill in the blanks will paul - he wasn't an easy person to get along with, and maybe he didn't make enough money with his occupation to ensure stability

Since I am a dualist however, I don't wholly shirk the idea that ascetic modes of life have no utility. But I doubt they can gain much general appeal, and I suspect they require careful practice by the specialist for insight to be attained. With that, I think it's time for me to move on

And here is where, as I mentioned before, what you have stated is foreign to Torath Mosheh. It was in no way beneficial for Yirmeyahu to remain single. It was a disaster that he was in that situation. I.e. if the people had been following the Torah properly Yirmeyahu would have never been told by Hashem to not marry a woman from that place, or raise children in that place.

The "beneficial" situation was for Yirmeyahu to marry a woman in Anathoth who kept Torah (from a family who kept Torah), and to raise children who kept Torah. It was disaster for Yirmeyahu not to be able to do this in Anathoth and if one keeps reading in chapter 16 what else he was told to do and not do, it is clear he was told that the social environment would cause him to live a very difficult life in either direction, full of lots of unhappiness, while he was there - UNLESS the people returned to the Torah. I.e. he received no benefit from being unmarried just like he would have received no benefit from starting a family, IN THAT PLACE. The impending invasion was going to be the full circle of the disaster of that generation and the only remedy would have been to return to the Torah.

Thus, if the people had returned to the Torah when Yirmeyahu first started warning them about the disaster that would follow if they did not return to the Torah, then there would have been no reason for him to be told not a take a wife, from that place, and not start a family in that place.

With all of that not once does Yirmeyahu tell others to do what he was specificially told to do, due to the disasterous situation. Also, he never makes the kinds of statements Paul wrote about being unmarried as a personal choice nor did he write the things Paul wrote about the reasons to marry. Thus, there is no connection at all.

To be frank, I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

[Kenny]

So, this is exactly what I am getting at. If that is the cause then it would seem that the answer the OP is that 1 Corinthians 7 is Paul's personal opion and was not something he claimed to have gotten from the Torah nor is it something he got from Christians call the "holy spirit."

If, one states that the context of what he was referring to was lost to Chrisanity then it make sense to simply state that, at the least, this part of his letter to the Corithians was not "Christian scripture" but soley in the NT as "Christian history" with an unknown reasoning to understand why he would make such an extreme statement/instruction.

I think we have gone around a full circle... we have already established that Paul himself said it was his opinion and that it wasn't from God's Holy Spirit.

In that he said it was his opinion, we don't take it as a message from God. Even the Torah has statements that are true statements but not statements that come from God.

What it does appear in my view, that the biggest issue here is that you don't like Paul (for whatever reason). At least that is what it seems like to me.

 

[Kenny]

If I can make a small comment on this. Context is everything has been a major Jewish arguement to Christians when Christians present NT verses that supposidly quote random verses, often out of context, from the Tanakh. It is good to see that we Jews are starting to make an impact.

Received

However, it isn't the Christians that give that perspective but rather other Jewish writers

 

[Ehav4Ever]

In that he said it was his opinion, we don't take it as a message from God. Even the Torah has statements that are true statements but not statements that come from God.

Actually, Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jewish claim that the entire written Torah was dictacted by Hashem to Mosheh. I.e. from start to finish, including the spellings, spacings, letter sizes, etc. all came from Hashem and Mosheh (Moses) simpl copied what he was shown/told to write.

Further, according to Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews Mosheh (Moses) did not get to decide what information went into the Torah scroll. He also had no opinions that were entered into the text. Whatever stories Hashem told him to put in the written text he did that, what ever events/instructions, failings, etc. were all things he wrote exactly as it had been given to him.

Thus that is why there has been a system in place for how to correctly copy a Torah scroll form proven reliable Torah scroll. That is also why a mistake in transcribing the Torah scroll requires that it be taken out of circulation.

What I understood was that Christians felt that everything in the NT was there due to the "holy spirit" directing the authors of the NT in what into the text. This is an understanding I got from Christians who made such statements. I could be wrong about how Christians see the NT so what you have stated is eye-opening to me.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Received

However, it isn't the Christians that give that perspective but rather other Jewish writers

Whether or not the actual "writers" of the NT that Christians have were actual Jews or rather non-Jewish Christians influenced by Jewish Christians still seems to be a huge question in Christian scholarship.

 

[Kenny]

Actually, Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jewish claim that the entire written Torah was dictacted by Hashem to Mosheh. I.e. from start to finish, including the spellings, spacings, letter sizes, etc. all came from Hashem and Mosheh (Moses) simpl copied what he was shown/told to write.

EXACTLY

And what Paul said, Paul did say. But when Aaron made a Golden Calf and said "This is the god"... he was still wrong.

And when a prophet lied in the TaNaKh, he still remained a prophet.

 

[Kenny]

Whether or not the actual "writers" of the NT that Christians have were actual Jews or rather non-Jewish Christians influenced by Jewish Christians still seems to be a huge question in Christian scholarship.

not really

 

[Ehav4Ever]

To be frank, I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

This is one of the reasons I stated before in RF that Christians would not want Jews to become Christians. We analyze every Iota out of the NT and it would not be the same text after we were done "fact checking" it.

It would definately be a lot shorter. Maybe only about a few paragraphs long by the time we were checking its historical and theological varacity.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I should answer this for you. The concept of a "Nazir" is from the Torah. It is not a normal thing to choose to do. Also, there was no reason for a Nazir to not be married. A Nazir was simply a Jew who decided to make a particular personal vow to do something, or not do something, for a short period of time. Edit (Normally 30 days)

That reminds me of something the ancient Irish practiced, which was known as a gaes.

This was also the understanding I had. I thought the Church Fathers included texts in the NT that they held were "scripture" and were not vague. At least not to them.

Well, at least it with many things paul wrote, and many passages in the gospels, it didn't seem like the lion's share of it was that vague. But then there are a few things that are purposefully mysterious, like the book of revelation, and various concepts and sayings. Like what exactly is the holy spirit really, and what exactly is 'faith the size of a mustard seed.' Everyone wonders about those things, that's how it's set up

 

[amorphous_constellation]

not really

I did make a thread showing where Seneca, a contemporary of all these writings, though a non-Christian, actually used new testament metaphors

some biblical ideas I found in seneca , though he was pre-christian

 

[Ehav4Ever]

EXACTLY

And what Paul said, Paul did say. But when Aaron made a Golden Calf and said "This is the god"... he was still wrong.

And when a prophet lied in the TaNaKh, he still remained a prophet.

Ken, Ken, Ken. What you wrote above is not correct. Aharon (Aaron) did not say, "This is the god....." He obviously did not speak English, but the statement you are trying to quote was not made by Aharon (Aaron). It was made by the leaders of the "Mixed Multitude."

This is proven in the Hebrew Torah text. See below.

Hashem had this included so that Jews would know that the statement was wrong and the source (the mixed multitude leaders) of the statement was wrong. If that is why Paul's statements were included in the NT then I can see a connection between the leaders of the mixed multitudes statements and Paul's.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

And when a prophet lied in the TaNaKh, he still remained a prophet.

Not always true. If something could be defined as a lie, especially about something they are advising someone to do, they would be a false prophet. If they are lying about something to protect themselves from danger that is something else. If they are actually saying something that is not a lie but would require someone to investigate further what they meant then that is another situation also. If the lied because they saw the damage that would happen due to inaction then that is another, YET they always pay a price for that.

Besides, the concept of a prophet is different for Christians than it is for Torath Mosheh Jews.

 

[metis]

How many of them were there at any given time, and how long were they supposed to do it, and when did the essene movement begin?

There is no way of knowing what the number may have been, plus most young men who became nazirs eventually left it to marry. How many may has stayed nazirs all their lives is also impossible to know.

 

[metis]

The concept of a "Nazir" is from the Torah. It is not a normal thing to choose to do. Also, there was no reason for a Nazir to not be married. A Nazir was simply a Jew who decided to make a particular personal vow to do something, or not do something, for a short period of time. Edit (Normally 30 days)

The general procedure is quite elaborate, plus marriage ended one's stint as a nazir because of what the general requirements were.

Here:
We read in Numbers 6:
… A man or woman who sets himself apart by making a nazirite vow to abstain for the sake of the L‑rd. He shall abstain from new wine and aged wine; he shall not drink [even] vinegar made from new wine or aged wine, nor shall he drink anything in which grapes have been steeped, and he shall eat neither fresh grapes nor dried ones. For the entire duration of his abstinence, he shall not eat any product of the grape vine, from seeds to skins.
All the days of his vow of abstinence, no razor shall pass over his head; until the completion of the term that he abstains for the sake of the L‑rd, it shall be sacred, and he shall allow the growth of the hair of his head to grow wild.

All the days that he abstains for the L‑rd, he shall not come into contact with the dead. To his father, to his mother, to his brother, or to his sister, he shall not defile himself if they die, for the crown of his G‑d is upon his head. For the entire duration of his abstinence, he is holy to the L‑rd.

If someone in his presence dies unexpectedly or suddenly, and causes the nazirite head to become defiled, he shall shave off [the hair of] his head on the day of his purification; on the seventh day, he shall shave it off. And on the eighth day, he shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons to the kohen, at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. The kohen shall prepare one for a sin offering and one for a burnt offering and atone on his behalf for sinning by coming into contact with the dead, and he shall sanctify his head on that day. He shall consecrate to the L‑rd the period of his abstinence and bring a lamb in its first year as a guilt offering; the previous days shall be canceled because his naziriteship has been defiled.-- The Nazir and the Nazirite Vow - Mitzvahs & Traditions (chabad.org)

 

[metis]

From where is this known?

Frankly, I can't remember, but I looked this up using several sources some years ago. Hopefully, my memory is correct, but at 76, ...