Paul's Opinion or the Holy Ghost?

[Ehav4Ever]

So, in 1 Corinthians 7:1 it is stated, "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry." Later in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 the following is stated - “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

This brings me to the following questions.

1. Was this Paul's personal opinion or does Christianity beleive that he wrote it by way of the holy spirit?
   • In verse 10 he seems to be saying what is written there is didn't come from but from a "higher power." So would that mean that everything prior he claimed came from the holy spirit?
2. Was Paul's statement only for the Corinthians or for all Christians for all time?
3. Was Paul okay with unmarried and widow Christians having intimate relations, of whatever type, but avoiding marriage?
4. If all the unmarried and widow Christians of his time had remained single, like Paul, what would have been the next step?
   • Reliance on conversions to increase their fold?

 

[Lain]

So, in 1 Corinthians 7:1 it is stated, "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry." Later in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 the following is stated - “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

This brings me to the following questions.

1. Was this Paul's personal opinion or does Christianity beleive that he wrote it by way of the holy spirit?
2. Was Paul's statement only for the Corinthians or for all Christians for all time?
3. Was Paul okay with unmarried and widow Christians having intimate relations, of whatever type, but avoiding marriage?
4. If all the unmarried and widow Christians of his time had remained single, like Paul, what would have been the next step?
   • Reliance on conversions to increase their fold?

1) Yes. That is: it is both his judgment and the Holy Spirit. That is what the Church believes. St. Paul argues about teaches in the beginning of the letter how judgments are done, and says that true spiritual discernment comes through having the intellect of Christ, which he manifestly had. Not only that the letter is considered to be divinely inspired, which means it is the words of the author and the words of God. It is both. All of it is the spirit of St. Paul, all of it is the Holy Spirit.

2) All Christians of all time (including those before Christ's Incarnation), dogmatically at one of the Church Councils and in the experience and praise of the Church virginity and celibacy is considered to be a superior good to marriage. This is a Universal teaching, and it has been confirmed again and again. The Church Fathers taught it and so on, God taught it to Adam in the Garden, etc.

3) Intimate relations? Do you mean having sex? If so no he was not okay with sex outside of marriage.

4) I haven't the slightest idea. Maybe God would've raised up children for Abraham out of some stones. Either way, the Church would've been preserved.

Such is my opinion.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

4. To me it seems like a reminder that for the people of that religion, in that time, that they likely thought the end was nigh, and so weighed their considerations at times, to sometimes argue against the responsibility in a marriage. The people in early Christian circles made a lot of talk about connecting to a spirit world, and a marriage is a force that was seen to ground people to the earth, which they thought was ending

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem like these ideas of being unmarried, and being celibate, have so many precedents in the old testament. Were any of the prophets acting in this way? But by the time you get to people like Jesus, John, and Paul, and the essene movement, however, the idea apparently makes a critical rise in the cultural consciousness.

I don't think people want to really remain celibate or unmarried, on a general/mainline cultural level, (with exceptions) so I think it has more to do with the right mix of social pressures that will then curb the inclination. Taking the Jesus and Paul stories as metaphors, these are stories of working class individuals that were beat down into becoming homeless travelers, that being a primary quality they had, and then a foundation to describe even choices in favor of privation

In hard times, people have hope in the meta-world, the spirit world, and they basically eliminate any faith they have in the material world. That's how you get a religion that doesn't believe in valuing marriage or reproduction.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Was this Paul's personal opinion or does Christianity beleive that he wrote it by way of the holy spirit?

• In verse 10 he seems to be saying what is written there is didn't come from but from a "higher power." So would that mean that everything prior he claimed came from the holy spirit?

I think about 50% believe it is like God talking when Paul writes, however there is another 50%. Opinions vary.

Was Paul's statement only for the Corinthians or for all Christians for all time?

Best guess there is a draft or some sort of inquisition or other danger that might cause them to be bad husbands. Paul is sympathetic and allows an exception for those who cannot wait. This (very likely) has to do with Paul's interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:5. " If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married." Early in the letter, Paul's reply indicates that he is answering a question pertaining to some problem which have caused these Corinthian brothers to question whether they ought to marry at that time. That is why it probably pertains to Deuteronomy 24:5 or to some other provision of marriage that the men cannot fulfill reliably.

Was Paul okay with unmarried and widow Christians having intimate relations, of whatever type, but avoiding marriage?

We do not have all of his letters nor the questions that were sent to him. Paul was about living like one was in the military, and he believed in working to transform the world as quickly as possible. He was not Ok with people having frivolous sexual intercourse, however he understood that pressure to have sex kept building up. I think he thought of the Corinthians as weak willed and undisciplined. He'd rather they were imperfect than have them completely fail at tasks which were too difficult. So...its unclear what his ultimate position would be on that. Sometimes he seems very strict but other times not.

If all the unmarried and widow Christians of his time had remained single, like Paul, what would have been the next step?

• Reliance on conversions to increase their fold?

I think that once the crisis was over that they would have resumed marriage as usual and trying to have lots of children as usual.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem like these ideas of being unmarried, and being celibate, have so many precedents in the old testament.

Yes, you are right. There is no precedent in Israeli/Jewish culture for being unmarried and celibate. Most Jews, historically, have married young and started families young. There is a proverb among Yemenite Jews that stated, "If you want to see great-grand-children get married young." In a lot of Jewish communities, especially ones in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and parts of Europe the history is that between 13 to 19 was the age to get married and start a family.

It is considered a mitzvah (a command from the Creator) for a man to have children. For example, Mosheh (Moses), according to some Jewish sources, stopped being with his wife because of the work he had to do to lead the Israeli nation and due to the level of prophecy he had. i.e. being able to communicate back and forth with Hashem at any time needed or wanted. YET, he only did that after he had children with her.

The other prophets did not have the ability to communicate with Hashem directly like Mosheh (Moses) did. According to Jewish sources they would have to a) be the right kind of Torah based Jew to receive propehcy, b) they would have to be calm and collect, c) they would have to be ready to receive it, and d) they would only receive it when Hashem wanted them to have it. I.e. According to Jewish sources most prophets did not get prophecy hardly at all. Some of them more than others and it could be that some of them only got it once or twice in their life times. The Prophets included in the Hebrew Tanakh were only the ones wgise messages applied to their generation and future generations of Jews, the others were only relevent for their generation. So, they would have had no reason to not marry and have children.

What this means is that among Israelis/Jews the concept of not marrying and being celibate was not normal at all, and according to Torah is a type of sin. For someone who was claiming to doing the will of the Creator while not being married and being celibate w/o ever having been married and w/o having had children would not have been the norm at all.

 

[1213]

So, in 1 Corinthians 7:1 it is stated, "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry." Later in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 the following is stated - “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

This brings me to the following questions.

1. Was this Paul's personal opinion or does Christianity beleive that he wrote it by way of the holy spirit?....

I think nice part of that is, Paul gives the reasons/explanation:

But I desire to have you to be free from cares. He who is unmarried is concerned for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but he who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife. There is also a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world—how she may please her husband. This I say for your own profit; not that I may ensnare you, but for that which is appropriate, and that you may attend to the Lord without distraction.
1 Cor. 7:32-34

Paul explains that there are consequences. It would be beneficial for a person to understand them, before doing something. Because of that, I think it can be from Holy Spirit. It is a truthful advice. It is not a binding rule in so that person must do something, but he should be aware of what it means.

So, this is not matter of belief, but matter of understanding what the choice means, so that person can make good choice for himself. And actually, I think same is with all Biblical rules, all actions have consequences. If person doesn’t want some consequences, it is wise to chose so that one doesn’t get the undesired consequences.

 

[Kenny]

So, in 1 Corinthians 7:1 it is stated, "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry." Later in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 the following is stated - “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

This brings me to the following questions.

1. Was this Paul's personal opinion or does Christianity beleive that he wrote it by way of the holy spirit?
   • In verse 10 he seems to be saying what is written there is didn't come from but from a "higher power." So would that mean that everything prior he claimed came from the holy spirit?
2. Was Paul's statement only for the Corinthians or for all Christians for all time?
3. Was Paul okay with unmarried and widow Christians having intimate relations, of whatever type, but avoiding marriage?
4. If all the unmarried and widow Christians of his time had remained single, like Paul, what would have been the next step?
   • Reliance on conversions to increase their fold?

There is a concept here that has a truth in it but incomplete if you just take the statement as a stand-alone statement in as much as he is referencing "7:1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote:" So he is referencing a specific problem and not a general concept.

Understand that at the same location a man was going to bed with his father's wife, that is to say his step-mother.

1) Therefore verse 10 is speaking about the specific problem but we don't know what the problem was. He is trying to sort out a situation and he is doing it to the best of the ability but isn't declaring "God told me" and, thus, "I say it and not the Lord". But we shouldn't mix the situation with a global position.

2) The statement isn't "for all Christians" but he is simply relaying a concept. The concept is that if you want to fully engage with God's purpose, the moment you get married you have nuances that will prevent you from being 100% dedicated to His purpose in as much as you have a duty as a husband or wife that you also have to attend to. It wasn't saying "To serve God you can't get married" but rather the reality that family does take time. That time means you have to be home and not out and about teaching and preaching.

We know that he wasn't saying "Don't ever get married" because:

17 Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. (you can be assigned to be married)

6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. (celibacy is a gift not a command)

:2b each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. (he didn't say you shouldn't have a wife or husband)

3) So, in context, you can serve God better if you don't have other duties. But was OK that they get married again. In context, not to commit sexual immorality but rather if you are the marrying type, get married. If not, serve God with more dedication.

4) So, people still got married as expressed in other books written by God. Husband and wife is an image of Christ and the church.

Hope that helped.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

What this means is that among Israelis/Jews the concept of not marrying and being celibate was not normal at all, and according to Torah is a type of sin. For someone who was claiming to doing the will of the Creator while not being married and being celibate w/o ever having been married and w/o having had children would not have been the norm at all.

So I think that maybe it might come again, to this question of what the ontology of the behavior actually is; where does it actually come from? I don't think it is rooted in theology, I think it seems like a behavioral reaction to something, that would spread in a sort of extranatural way.

It's got something to do with the new connections between empires, cultures, trade networks, and spiritual stories happening at that time, but I'm not enough of a historian to pinpoint exactly where and what, with the ontology of the celibacy idea

Christianity, at least in early forms, seemed like a religion that emphasized material/bodily privation, and even pain, as we might see signified by the central symbol of the crucifixion. The interesting thing is, is that other religions the world over had a place for privation as a sort of hormesis for spiritual enhancement. They might have seen the celibate mode as conveying purity, as one example

But of course, that still doesn't analyze it for being a behavioral reaction. And I think that's sort of more toward what it is. Well for me anyway, the reason I'm not married is because of anxiety that I will fail economically, and really, I place that reason before everything else. I mean, relationships can fail, and have risk, but I think that this again goes back to the economic instability issue that I have

But I think if we read between the lines with Paul, and the people who followed what he said, it seems likely that they would have had some kind of very similar problem, that there was some kind of concern that entered basic society that would deter the notion of even having a family.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Paul explains that there are consequences. It would be beneficial for a person to understand them, before doing something. Because of that, I think it can be from Holy Spirit.

One question that springs from that, is what exactly are the benefits? Spiritually I mean. How does god's light shine on you more, or how does he eventually reward you more?

For me, I don't see the benefit of being unmarried as coming from god, but from seeing that it is beyond my limitations, to get married and deal with what that may really mean. I don't think I make enough money in my job to make a family, and since I think my family record shows mental health issues, I don't want to pass those forward.

2) The statement isn't "for all Christians" but he is simply relaying a concept. The concept is that if you want to fully engage with God's purpose, the moment you get married you have nuances that will prevent you from being 100% dedicated to His purpose in as much as you have a duty as a husband or wife that you also have to attend to. It wasn't saying "To serve God you can't get married" but rather the reality that family does take time. That time means you have to be home and not out and about teaching and preaching.

In the experience of American variants of Christianity, it doesn't seem to me that at any point, and I may be mistaken, that being unmarried or being celibate was ever given much cultural or spiritual value. The Christians here are strong proponents of family values, and of copious reproduction. So in a sense, this a debate or discussion meant for many centuries earlier, I think. Unless monasticism actually returns, which it may

In addition to that, it isn't clear what a Christian could really do differently at this point in history, for the religion, if he was unmarried. Communication lanes are wide open, almost world-wide. Everyone on the planet must be aware to some degree, of the gospel stories

And on top of that, a woman, according to the bible, is made out of Adam's rib: at the most basic level, that means that she gives the man enhanced protection with his endeavors, does it not? If it actually does mean that, then that would be diametrically opposed to Paul's ideas, who makes adam not to gain a far superior rib, even a whole other body to give him strength, but to merely lose a rib, which may prove a weakness

 

[John D. Brey]

1. Was Paul's statement only for the Corinthians or for all Christians for all time?
2. Was Paul okay with unmarried and widow Christians having intimate relations, of whatever type, but avoiding marriage?
3. If all the unmarried and widow Christians of his time had remained single, like Paul, what would have been the next step?
   • Reliance on conversions to increase their fold?

It seems to me that these three questions are the crux of the issue. And as has already been pointed out in this thread, normative Judaism is contrary to the idea of celibacy. A rabbi (like all other Jewish males) is supposed to have a wife and family.

Paul's statement rests on the nature of the original sin. Exegeted properly, the original sin is the first instance of phallic-sex between Adam and Eve (resulting in the conception of the first murderer Cain, and his painful birth). The spiritual result of that sin is the expulsion from the immortal life that exists prior to the first instance of phallic-sex. Mystical strains of Judaism, like for instance the Zohar, are positively Christian-esque in their acceptance of the fact that phallic-sex between Adam and Eve is the first sin.

Paul is playing on the fact that without having had phallic-sex, Adam and Eve would still be alive today.

Jesus said whomever believed in him would never die. So Paul is playing on the idea that Jesus' death removed the curse of the original sin. That being the case, sex and marriage is a return to the old order of things (a necessary evil at best) when a new world order has been bought and paid for by the blood of Christ.

Similar concepts are found throughout the Tanakh so long as the decrees and signs are properly opened up to examination.

For instance, taking a knife to the primary organ associated with phallic-sex, i.e., ritual circumcision, signifies a Jew's willingness to return to the time prior to the original sin, a time when ha-adam didn't yet possess the serpent in the middle of the garden of his body (the organ created in Genesis 2:21). Possessing knowledge of all this Abraham took a knife to the originator of the first sin (brit milah) to signify a new world order whereby procreation would take place the way it was originally intended (without phallic-sex).

Throughout Jewish midrashim, Abraham's circumcision is juxtaposed with the Akedah such that circumcision is known to represents the offering of the firstborn son to God.

Knowing that Isaac represented the first child born of the new world order, Abraham was predisposed to show his faith in this new world order, a world where death no longer reigned, by sacrificing Isaac to show that having been conceived apart from phallic-sex (ala Abraham's ritual emasculation, brit milah) he, Isaac, isn't subject to death. If he's sacrificed as a messianic offering, he will rise again on the third day since death has no power over him, having been conceive apart from (ala virgin birth) the organ created in the image of the god wielding death, rather than grace, as his primary tool.



John

 

[Kenny]

One question that springs from that, is what exactly are the benefits? Spiritually I mean. How does god's light shine on you more, or how does he eventually reward you more?

For me, I don't see the benefit of being unmarried as coming from god, but from seeing that it is beyond my limitations, to get married and deal with what that may really mean. I don't think I make enough money in my job to make a family, and since I think my family record shows mental health issues, I don't want to pass those forward.

Maybe I didn't share just right... let me say it differently since it isn't that your light shines any less brightly if you are married (I am married).

Let's look at it this way... was and is there a difference between "before I got married" and "after I got married".

Are you any less spiritual? No. Does you light shine any less brightly? no.

Then again...

Can you just get up and go when you feel that God want's you to? No. If you have children, can you just go and spend your time until 6 in the morning? (Not unless it is in your house and your children are sleeping). Can you just go out and preach even if you haven't eaten? Not if your wife said "The children are hungry, you have the car and need all the ingredients to cook".

So, the point I was trying to make is simply responsibilities change when you are married (but you are just as spiritual and you light shines just as bright)

In the experience of American variants of Christianity, it doesn't seem to me that at any point, and I may be mistaken, that being unmarried or being celibate was ever given much cultural or spiritual value. The Christians here are strong proponents of family values, and of copious reproduction. So in a sense, this a debate or discussion meant for many centuries earlier, I think. Unless monasticism actually returns, which it may

In addition to that, it isn't clear what a Christian could really do differently at this point in history, for the religion, if he was unmarried. Communication lanes are wide open, almost world-wide. Everyone on the planet must be aware to some degree, of the gospel stories

And on top of that, a woman, according to the bible, is made out of Adam's rib: at the most basic level, that means that she gives the man enhanced protection with his endeavors, does it not? If it actually does mean that, then that would be diametrically opposed to Paul's ideas, who makes adam not to gain a far superior rib, even a whole other body to give him strength, but to merely lose a rib, which may prove a weakness

Actually, I agree with you. I don't give it, nor do I think he was saying, that you are more spiritual if you are celibate. (I serve the Lord and I am married). There are pros and cons to any side.

Finding someone to share spirituality is a wonderful thing. My wife and I complement each other. There are no "superior ribs" between a husband and wife.

(Sorry if I made it sound as if was more spiritual or superior... not what I was trying to express)

I would have said to Paul, "Hey Paul! All the power to you!! Better you than me!!"

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Can you just get up and go when you feel that God want's you to?

It occurs to me, that throughout the bible, it is actually a curse to be made to wander, or it seems that way when I think back on the stories.

In fact, do a word search in the bible for the word 'wander.' Looking through the list now, it is amazing just how much negatively seems attached to the concept, at least until we get to the new testament.

Do Paul and Jesus, then, attribute any righteousness to the likes of Abel and Job for example, who to me, seemed like that just wanted to stay put? God curses Cain by making him move his feet, and if I recall, the satan in Job is a wanderer. But it stands that Job and Abel seemed as righteous lights for merely wanting to settle, as they saw that wandering conferred no benefit, or at least it was undesirable

The people in the bible, in the old testament at least, seemed to have a non-nomadic life goal. There are cultures that like nomadism, and I find them a bit fascinating, but I don't think the old testament ever sculpted that out as a goal: rather, it used the concept as a deterrent

If you have children, can you just go and spend your time until 6 in the morning? (Not unless it is in your house and your children are sleeping). Can you just go out and preach even if you haven't eaten? Not if your wife said "The children are hungry, you have the car and need all the ingredients to cook".

I'm having a hard time imagining that there is a lot to do before 6 in the morning, unless you work 3rd shift like me.

Is it better to preach without eating, or would the quality of the preaching increase, if one was fortified with a hearty meal, and encouragement from one's partner?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Can you just get up and go when you feel that God want's you to? No. If you have children, can you just go and spend your time until 6 in the morning? (Not unless it is in your house and your children are sleeping). Can you just go out and preach even if you haven't eaten? Not if your wife said "The children are hungry, you have the car and need all the ingredients to cook".

So, the point I was trying to make is simply responsibilities change when you are married (but you are just as spiritual and you light shines just as bright)

If what you have stated is a concept that can be dervived from Paul's writings then this is a concept that is completely foreign to the Torah based Jewish concepts, textually, historically and even socially. This would also explain to me where the divergence of early Jewish Christianity away from Torath Mosheh Jews took place. It also makes sense to me, based on what you describe, why the Ebionites are said to have opposed Paul and his teachings.

For example, for a Torah based Jew Hashem commands for family (wife/children/grandchildren) is the very definition of a Jew getting and going. I.e. this is the first mitzvah for a Torah based Jew. Historically speaking Torah based Jews pray in groups of 10 or more starting at 5:30 a.m. in the morning. 7:00 a.m. on Sabbath and Jewish holidays. Here in Israel it is the norm to see Torah based Jewish men (who are fathers) making our way to the synagogues early to pray to Hashem. Seeing this, their sons often grow up seeing this as something to immitate when they are at the age to repeat the cycle.

Every aspect of life, for a Torah based Jew, has a blessing associated with it no matter how mondane. Said blessings were constructed for the purpose of reminding a Jew that everyting is connected to Hashem whether it be good or from our perspective difficult. Said blessings have to be voclaized so they are heard and the response, even of many secular Jews, is - Amen. I don't know of any Torah based wife who would tell her husband not to go out and teach/learn Torah because the children are hungry. Most Torah based Jews plan meals well enough, because the plannning is also a part of the get up and go for Hashem concept. I.e. building a home structure is a part of the leadership requirement from the Torah for Jewish parents. Meaning that a Torah based Jewish father is seen as the rabbi of his household and his wife the rabbanit of the household.

IN FACT, here in Israel most malls/stores/train stations/bus stations/and even Ikea have syngogues inside of them. I.e. if my wife were to send me to the store there are ways to learn/teach Torah and pray to Hashem as a part of that action. IN FACT, Torah based women are very encouraging of their husbands going out and teaching/learning Torah. Doing so, is a mitzvah for both men and women and in fact is covered in the Torah. Most, that I know, would simply say, "On your way to or from the synagogue pick up the following from the store."

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Christianity, at least in early forms, seemed like a religion that emphasized material/bodily privation, and even pain, as we might see signified by the central symbol of the crucifixion. The interesting thing is, is that other religions the world over had a place for privation as a sort of hormesis for spiritual enhancement. They might have seen the celibate mode as conveying purity, as one example

But of course, that still doesn't analyze it for being a behavioral reaction. And I think that's sort of more toward what it is. Well for me anyway, the reason I'm not married is because of anxiety that I will fail economically, and really, I place that reason before everything else. I mean, relationships can fail, and have risk, but I think that this again goes back to the economic instability issue that I have

But I think if we read between the lines with Paul, and the people who followed what he said, it seems likely that they would have had some kind of very similar problem, that there was some kind of concern that entered basic society that would deter the notion of even having a family.

Interesting analysis. I sometimes wonder if his advice/insight on this issue was driven by an idea that the end of days was near. I.e. the behavior was necessary for them to be prepared for a soon to come end of days scenary.

 

[Kenny]

It occurs to me, that throughout the bible, it is actually a curse to be made to wander, or it seems that way when I think back on the stories.

In fact, do a word search in the bible for the word 'wander.' Looking through the list now, it is amazing just how much negatively seems attached to the concept, at least until we get to the new testament.

Apparently, yes, there is a negative connotation in the TaNaKh.

Looking up "wander" in the NT... I also find negative connotations.

Do Paul and Jesus, then, attribute any righteousness to the likes of Abel and Job for example, who to me, seemed like that just wanted to stay put? God curses Cain by making him move his feet, and if I recall, the satan in Job is a wanderer. But it stands that Job and Abel seemed as righteous lights for merely wanting to settle, as they saw that wandering conferred no benefit, or at least it was undesirable

The people in the bible, in the old testament at least, seemed to have a non-nomadic life goal. There are cultures that like nomadism, and I find them a bit fascinating, but I don't think the old testament ever sculpted that out as a goal: rather, it used the concept as a deterrent

So, I don't see how you can apply that one is righteous just because one wants to settle. Nor do I see that someone is, for some reason, cursed because one is nomadic. Jesus, in reality, said “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." which gives the understanding that he also didn't "settle".

Could it be that what he meant with "wander" is that there is no purpose or destiny?

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Can you help?

 

[Kenny]

If what you have stated is a concept that can be dervived from Paul's writings then this is a concept that is completely foreign to the Torah based Jewish concepts, textually, historically and even socially. This would also explain to me where the divergence of early Jewish Christianity away from Torath Mosheh Jews took place. It also makes sense to me, based on what you describe, why the Ebionites are said to have opposed Paul and his teachings.

Maybe. But Paul's position wasn't a "commandment". Jeremiah never married by commandment of God but we don't broad brush what God said to the whole of the Jewish nation.

Paul simply was giving a viewpoint on singleness and not a point of against marriage. His writings to the Ephesians in Chapter 5 expressed the mystery of marriage.

So, I wouldn't say it was a "divergence" but rather a perspective.

For example, for a Torah based Jew Hashem commands for family (wife/children/grandchildren) is the very definition of a Jew getting and going. I.e. this is the first mitzvah for a Torah based Jew. Historically speaking Torah based Jews pray in groups of 10 or more starting at 5:30 a.m. in the morning. 7:00 a.m. on Sabbath and Jewish holidays. Here in Israel it is the norm to see Torah based Jewish men (who are fathers) making our way to the synagogues early to pray to Hashem. Seeing this, their sons often grow up seeing this as something to immitate when they are at the age to repeat the cycle.

I didn't quote it all because I don't see where we disagree. Paul was Jewish and I am sure he believed that "He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the Lord."

In summary, Paul wasn't espousing celibacy but rather his view on singleness but not against marriage.

 

[2ndpillar]

So, in 1 Corinthians 7:1 it is stated, "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry." Later in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 the following is stated - “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

This brings me to the following questions.

1. Was this Paul's personal opinion or does Christianity beleive that he wrote it by way of the holy spirit?
   • In verse 10 he seems to be saying what is written there is didn't come from but from a "higher power." So would that mean that everything prior he claimed came from the holy spirit?
2. Was Paul's statement only for the Corinthians or for all Christians for all time?
3. Was Paul okay with unmarried and widow Christians having intimate relations, of whatever type, but avoiding marriage?
4. If all the unmarried and widow Christians of his time had remained single, like Paul, what would have been the next step?
   • Reliance on conversions to increase their fold?

Paul, being among the "false prophets" described in Matthew 7:15-21, who claim to speak in Yeshua's" name, they will be exposed on "that day", that day, being the day of the LORD (Joel 2:32). Paul is now under the protection given to the tares in Matthew 13:25-29, so as not to hurt the "wheat". We are now at the "end of the age", and Paul has no such protection anymore. The angels will now come to gather out the followers of Paul, "those who commit lawlessness", to throw them into the furnace of fire (Matthew 13:39-42). Paul, would specifically, be the false prophet of Revelation 16:13 & 20:10.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Jeremiah never married by commandment of God but we don't broad brush what God said to the whole of the Jewish nation.

Actually, Yirmeyahu did get married due to a mitzvah to do so, no different than he prophecied what Hashem told him to say due to a mitzvah to do so. Again, the Jewish concept of the Hebrew Tanakh is different than what Christians developed for the Old Testament. The first mitzvah of the Torah is marraiage and having children.

Paul simply was giving a viewpoint on singleness

That is what I meant. His viewpoint, now that we have established that it was only his viewpoint, and the concept of singlessness was/is foreign to Torath Mosheh. It seems to to fall more in line with some Hellonistic thinking of his time.

Description:

Paul has long been regarded as an early champion of sexual asceticism, but little account has hitherto been taken of the Stoic and Cynic discourse on marriage which formed the context of his writings. This study overturns the traditional interpretation, first by a critique of established theories about the influence of Jewish spirituality, 'enthusiasm' and material dualism on Paul's theology, and then by a reconstruction, using the surviving philosophical 'fragments', of the course of Stoic and Cynic thinking on marriage from early Greek precursors to late Roman and patristic authors - information which is then applied to Paul in a close exegesis of the text. The result is an illuminating reassessment of both Paul's understanding of marriage and his place in the history of Christian asceticism, providing new information for discussions of Christian sexuality and feminist evaluations of the Bible.
and not a point of against marriage. His writings to the Ephesians in Chapter 5 expressed the mystery of marriage.​

So, I wouldn't say it was a "divergence" but rather a perspective.

It is a foreign perspective. Foreign to Torath Mosheh.

Paul was Jewish and I am sure he believed that "He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the Lord."

Again, his views on marriage are a bit strange, as he stated them, but even bigger than that perspective of being single and why are foreign to Torath Mosheh. I know that is not a problem, from the Christian perspective. Besides, just because was Jewish/possibly doesn't mean he wasn't subject to having a foreign perspectives. He did grow up in Tarsus which was never known as an area of Torah based living. The Hellenization of the city began in the days of Alexander the Great; this influence was fully felt by the Jews, who had been colonized at Tarsus bythe Seleucids about 170 B.C.E.

Paul wasn't espousing celibacy but rather his view on singleness but not against marriage.

I understand. Yet, again what he was espousing about singleness was/is foreign to Torath Mosheh.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Paul wasn't espousing celibacy but rather his view on singleness but not against marriage.

So, was Paul saying that Christians could be single and not celibate? Wouldn't his views on singleness essentially be advocating celebacy for those who choose to be like him? If not, how not?

 

[Kenny]

Actually, Yirmeyahu did get married due to a mitzvah to do so, no different than he prophecied what Hashem told him to say due to a mitzvah to do so. Again, the Jewish concept of the Hebrew Tanakh is different than what Christians developed for the Old Testament. The first mitzvah of the Torah is marraiage and having children.

Interesting... do you have a scripture in the TaNaKh that says so? Or are you speaking by tradition in as much as God told him not to.

That is what I meant. His viewpoint, now that we have established that it was only his viewpoint, and the concept of singlessness was/is foreign to Torath Mosheh. It seems to to fall more in line with some Hellonistic thinking of his time.

Yes, he also said it was his viewpoint. Whether it was Hellonistic thinking or just plain logic is up for grabs.

But as I said, we don't disagree that marriage was God's desire, not to mention that it is the pattern with Adam and Eve.