Paul's Opinion or the Holy Ghost?

[Kenny]

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?

No....

I'm not sure how you come to that position with what I said. He was not advocating celibacy. Marriage is the image of Jesus and the Church. It is profitable and holy and God made as he mentioned in other letters.
"each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband."

"22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body.31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband."

"Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,"

I don't think he said "divorce and be celibate and single"

 

[metis]

Based on what Paul says, I do believe he likely felt that Jesus' return would happen within his generation, thus he probably felt that there was no need to marry unless one was too weak to even go celibate for a short period of time. Jesus was not married by all indications, thus being like Jesus would be the best possible route to go.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

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.

Directly from the Hebrew Tanakh. See below.

Thus, he was only instructed to not marry a woman from that location (ענתות) and not raise children in that location (ענתות).

BTW: The Hebrew Tanakh is the source of Jewish tradition. The text itself was produced by Jewish tradition. There is no way to seperate the two.

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.

But the point is not about what you and I agree on. It is that Pauls "perception" of being single and being married are foreign to "Torath Mosheh." The idea of why he see his single lifestyle is good/proper/respectable alone is foreign and most likely what ever foreign influence on had on that influenced his non-Torah based ideas of marriage.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

No....

I'm not sure how you come to that position with what I said. He was not advocating celibacy. Marriage is the image of Jesus and the Church. It is profitable and holy and God made as he mentioned in other letters.
"each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband."

"22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body.31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband."

"Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,"

I don't think he said "divorce and be celibate and single"

The exact statements he made that I brought up were:

1 Corinthians 7:1 "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 seems to be a pretty clear preference to him for his followers to not be married. YET, if they can't control themselves then marriage is okay. He specifically says, To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am." Again, this is a statement that is foreign to the Torah based culture. It is actually the opposite of what Torah based Jews would state, historically.

If Paul was not married, I would have to assume he was celibate. If he was celibate and he was advising his followers that the best situation would be to be like him then he was advocating celebacy, UNLESS, you can't control yourself.

It is one thing to say, don't get marry to the wrong person, don't get married w/o checking the other person's background, don't get married to a person with an abusive history, don't get married to soon if you are not in the space, etc. All of this I can understand.

But his statement of, To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am." sounds like a clear directive that unmarried and widow Christians should be like him, unless they are burning, because It is good for a man not to marry."

Paul's ideas make sense if Paul was under the impression that the 2nd coming was going to happen in his lifetime or soon after it.

 

[Kenny]

Directly from the Hebrew Tanakh. See below.

View attachment 58268

Thus, he was only instructed to not marry a woman from that location (ענתות) and not raise children in that location (ענתות).

BTW: The Hebrew Tanakh is the source of Jewish tradition. The text itself was produced by Jewish tradition. There is no way to seperate the two.



But the point is not about what you and I agree on. It is that Pauls "perception" of being single and being married are foreign to "Torath Mosheh." The idea of why he see his single lifestyle is good/proper/respectable alone is foreign and most likely what ever foreign influence on had on that influenced his non-Torah based ideas of marriage.

OK... but that looks more like "it is my belief" vs. this is the genealogy of Jeremiah-Jeremiah begat.... But, regardless, marriage is a God creation!

 

[Ehav4Ever]

OK... but that looks more like "it is my belief" vs. this is the genealogy of Jeremiah-Jeremiah begat.... But, regardless, marriage is a God creation!

No, it is, "this is what the Hebrew text says." He was only told.


Not every person has to have their geneology spelled out in a text that wasn't written to break down someone's geneology. What is mentioned is:

Nothing there about never getting married for the rest of his life and not having children for the rest of his life. Onl don't take a wife in this place and and you won't have sons or daughters, "in this place." Further, his mother's name is not mentioned....so no mother I guess.

What Yirmeyahu was told to do do, and not do, in that place is not compariable to Paul's statement. So, where you and I may say that marraige is a good thing and that picking the right spouse is the key - Paul seems to be saying something that disagrees with what both of us saying.

"Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry." and - “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.”

All of this, and his other statements afterwards, sounds like something different than what you and I agree on.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

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.

That seems like an important point to try and remember.

 

[Kenny]

No, it is, "this is what the Hebrew text says." He was only told.


Not every person has to have their geneology spelled out in a text that wasn't written to break down someone's geneology. What is mentioned is:

Nothing there about never getting married for the rest of his life and not having children for the rest of his life. Onl don't take a wife in this place and and you won't have sons or daughters, "in this place." Further, his mother's name is not mentioned....so no mother I guess.

What Yirmeyahu was told to do do, and not do, in that place is not compariable to Paul's statement. So, where you and I may say that marraige is a good thing and that picking the right spouse is the key - Paul seems to be saying something that disagrees with what both of us saying.

"Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry." and - “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.”

All of this, and his other statements afterwards, sounds like something different than what you and I agree on.

And yet nothing there that points out that he did get married.

And yet Paul does say "get married" and the relationship that married people have that is a mystery of Christ and the Church. You accentuate an opinion at the expense of everything else so I don't quite agree with you.

 

[syo]

Widows will ask Paul, if they want a partner. Great.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

And yet nothing there that points out that he did get married.

The Hebrew Text states that he was told not to marry a woman from the area of Anathoth and he was given a clear reason why - a corrupt environment that could corrupt children who were born in that particular location. What he was told was only contigent on the location.

I.e. it was not prefable for Yirmeyahu to not be married and not raise children in Anathoth. The anti-Torah environment not being one where he could raise Torah based children who would survive was the issue. Further, that is not at all similar to what Paul wrote.

And yet Paul does say "get married" and the relationship that married people have that is a mystery of Christ and the Church. You accentuate an opinion at the expense of everything else so I don't quite agree with you.

That is because Paul's view on being single, and his choice to advise it to others, is why his perspective is foreign to Torath Mosheh and more recogniziable in the Hellonistic world he grew up in. The Hellonist world also had marraiages, but not for the same reason that Torah based Jews got married.

1 Corinthians 7:2
2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.....To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
​

So, here Paul is confirming what he stated earlier, that the married state is not preferred by him, BUT if a person can't control themselves then better to marry than to burn. That conceptually is completely different than someone "personally" being told Hashem that "they" - "personally" should not take a wfe from a particular location and raise children in particular location. Further, to advise others to be unmarried like him, as a preference, is also foreign.

Further, his statement here is also a foreign concept.

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
​

The above is another example of what I stated above his views of being single and even marraiage are intertwined with a preference to tell his followers to not be married.

 

[Kenny]

The Hebrew Text states that he was told not to marry a woman from the area of Anathoth and he was given a clear reason why - a corrupt environment that could corrupt children who were born in that particular location. What he was told was only contigent on the location.

I.e. it was not prefable for Yirmeyahu to not be married and not raise children in Anathoth. The anti-Torah environment not being one where he could raise Torah based children who would survive was the issue. Further, that is not at all similar to what Paul wrote.

Which just proves my point... there are times when it is beneficial to remain single.

That is because Paul's view on being single, and his choice to advise it to others, is why his perspective is foreign to Torath Mosheh and more recogniziable in the Hellonistic world he grew up in. The Hellonist world also had marraiages, but not for the same reason that Torah based Jews got married.

1 Corinthians 7:2
2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.....To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
So, here Paul is confirming what he stated earlier, that the married state is not preferred by him, BUT if a person can't control themselves then better to marry than to burn. That conceptually is completely different than someone "personally" being told Hashem that "they" - "personally" should not take a wfe from a particular location and raise children in particular location. Further, to advise others to be unmarried like him, as a preference, is also foreign.

Further, his statement here is also a foreign concept.

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
The above is another example of what I stated above his views of being single and even marraiage are intertwined with a preference to tell his followers to not be married.

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.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

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".

The difference is, is that in the new testament the goal changed. It's easily observable that being a traveling nomad can be, under some circumstances, a harsh thing to endure. (It can also be wonderful in some circumstances, ostensibly, when I look at cultures that thrive on it.) In the bible, and in western culture, I think we always tend to frame it as being a harsh thing to endure: living well means having property

Getting married is obviously associated with being able to settle well, in the bible, and in western culture. Jesus, and Paul, and anyone who followed their lifestyle, had 'nowhere to lay there head,' and the cultural infrastructure didn't support marriage without property, I infer.

And the broader Mediterranean culture, from what I can tell, was never much into nomadism, but was more about private property. But the 'goal' changes, because in the NT, being righteous actually means to uproot yourself. Jesus was stating his progress in the fulfillment of a new goal

(Now the irony to this, in my opinion, is that there are/were cultures that seemed well adapted to nomadism, Islander peoples and peoples in the Arctic for example, and I bet they might find more life fulfillment than many of us in Western culture. But those arguments are not for this thread.)

But again, Job and Abel weren't seen to fall short by settling, not in the old testament

Abel for example, was not seen as falling short of the glory of god, by tending property, and probably enjoying the milk and honey it had. His murderer however, was sent away to have no good place to lay his head, and the mode of living cain went to have, is not seen as getting him righteousness points. As far as I can tell, it was just about taking on a punishment from god.

But eventually culture changed, and asceticism started to inspire people into actually preferring self-denial, even in thinking that it curries divine favor. Celibacy was just one thing in the philosophical package, as was being a homeless preacher, and being a martyr. Or being an anchorite, or a stylite. I think maybe all of this behavior makes the spirit side of us into being over-important

But things like celibacy, or being a monk, are so radically far from the general limits of the American Christian experience, that I'm not sure what the point of this discussion is. Just what do you think Paul was saying by bringing celibacy up at all, if it was such a nominal thing? Some christians took the practice incredibly seriously for many centuries.

 

[metis]

Which just proves my point... there are times when it is beneficial to remain single.

Such is why the nazirs would go for years without marrying, and some have speculated that Jesus may have been one and John the Baptist appears likely to have been one.

 

[Kenny]

The difference is, is that in the new testament the goal changed. It's easily observable that being a traveling nomad can be, under some circumstances, a harsh thing to endure. (It can also be wonderful in some circumstances, ostensibly, when I look at cultures that thrive on it.) In the bible, and in western culture, I think we always tend to frame it as being a harsh thing to endure: living well means having property

Getting married is obviously associated with being able to settle well, in the bible, and in western culture. Jesus, and Paul, and anyone who followed their lifestyle, had 'nowhere to lay there head,' and the cultural infrastructure didn't support marriage without property, I infer.

And the broader Mediterranean culture, from what I can tell, was never much into nomadism, but was more about private property. But the 'goal' changes, because in the NT, being righteous actually means to uproot yourself. Jesus was stating his progress in the fulfillment of a new goal

(Now the irony to this, in my opinion, is that there are/were cultures that seemed well adapted to nomadism, Islander peoples and peoples in the Arctic for example, and I bet they might find more life fulfillment than many of us in Western culture. But those arguments are not for this thread.)

But again, Job and Abel weren't seen to fall short by settling, not in the old testament

Abel for example, was not seen as falling short of the glory of god, by tending property, and probably enjoying the milk and honey it had. His murderer however, was sent away to have no good place to lay his head, and the mode of living cain went to have, is not seen as getting him righteousness points. As far as I can tell, it was just about taking on a punishment from god.

But eventually culture changed, and asceticism started to inspire people into actually preferring self-denial, even in thinking that it curries divine favor. Celibacy was just one thing in the philosophical package, as was being a homeless preacher, and being a martyr. Or being an anchorite, or a stylite. I think maybe all of this behavior makes the spirit side of us into being over-important

But things like celibacy, or being a monk, are so radically far from the general limits of the American Christian experience, that I'm not sure what the point of this discussion is. Just what do you think Paul was saying by bringing celibacy up at all, if it was such a nominal thing? Some christians took the practice incredibly seriously for many centuries.

There really isn't much here that I would disagree with.

Getting married is obviously associated with being able to settle well, in the bible, and in western culture. Jesus, and Paul, and anyone who followed their lifestyle, had 'nowhere to lay there head,' and the cultural infrastructure didn't support marriage without property, I infer.

Here I would disagree... We tend to forget that the rest of the Apostles were all married. Jesus was a special case (due to his calling to lay down his life for mankind). We also forget that the first miracle was at a wedding that Jesus celebrated. Nowhere did Jesus really say "don't get married".

Elders, Deacons, Evangelists, Pastors, teachers et al -- all were mentioned by Paul in relation to them being married.

As I mentioned before, Paul was addressing something that the Corinthian church was having an issue with and we don't know what it was that he was addressing (context is important in every case). He did say "my viewpoint" (paraphrased) which means it wasn't a command of God and in other places he exalted marriage and didn't disparage it so I find it difficult to come to a definitive conclusion on his "singleness" viewpoint.

But eventually culture changed, and asceticism started to inspire people into actually preferring self-denial, even in thinking that it curries divine favor. Celibacy was just one thing in the philosophical package, as was being a homeless preacher, and being a martyr. Or being an anchorite, or a stylite. I think maybe all of this behavior makes the spirit side of us into being over-important

But things like celibacy, or being a monk, are so radically far from the general limits of the American Christian experience, that I'm not sure what the point of this discussion is. Just what do you think Paul was saying by bringing celibacy up at all, if it was such a nominal thing? Some christians took the practice incredibly seriously for many centuries.

On this issue, I find it to be a man-made philosophical religious effort. Monasteries where never a commandment of God nor the desire of Jesus. He said "GO" - he didn't say "hole yourself into a building". So I find it a religious man-made position.

As far as "why" as to Paul... as I mentioned in the previous paragraph and rephrased "We will never know because we don't know what point he was addressing in the question of the Corinthian Church". Thus, I have to look at the whole of his writings and not just a few verses.

 

[Kenny]

Such is why the nazirs would go for years without marrying, and some have speculated that Jesus may have been one and John the Baptist appears likely to have been one.

LOL..., it had slipped my mind.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Such is why the nazirs would go for years without marrying, and some have speculated that Jesus may have been one and John the Baptist appears likely to have been one.

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?

As I mentioned before, Paul was addressing something that the Corinthian church was having an issue with and we don't know what it was that he was addressing (context is important in every case). He did say "my viewpoint" (paraphrased) which means it wasn't a command of God and in other places he exalted marriage and didn't disparage it so I find it difficult to come to a definitive conclusion on his "singleness" viewpoint.

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

On this issue, I find it to be a man-made philosophical religious effort. Monasteries where never a commandment of God nor the desire of Jesus. He said "GO" - he didn't say "hole yourself into a building". So I find it a religious man-made position.

Well, there was a long string of lives throughout the centuries in your religion, where I'm pretty sure that people lived in a state of extreme self denial. Likely, they were imitating John the Baptist, who also represents a mode of early Christian life: that of the stationary ascetic.

 

[Kenny]

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

I understand... that is why a little more effort is necessary. it isn't that it is "esoteric" in the least. For an example, although we have 1 and 2 Corinthians, they were actually 4 letters and first of the four is lost. Most people don't know that.

But, again, looking at the letter:

7 Now to the topics you raised in your last letter. (The Voice). So it was a topic in which we really don't know the specifics... It isn't that it is vague but rather we have lost the first letter.

So, to balance it, you just don't pull 5 versus and forget all the other letters he wrote. It isn't esoteric, it is logical.

Well, there was a long string of lives throughout the centuries in your religion, where I'm pretty sure that people lived in a state of extreme self denial. Likely, they were imitating John the Baptist, who also represents a mode of early Christian life: that of the stationary ascetic.

Of course. Every faith will have its nuances. In the Jewish faith we have those who sought false gods, desecrated the Temple et al... but we understand that it doesn't represent who God is. We have one person who made a vow that caused the death of his daughter. We have a prophet who lied to another prophet that led to death. We have a king who made a false god in Israel.

Doesn't change the facts though IMV.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I understand... that is why a little more effort is necessary. For an example, although we have 1 and 2 Corinthians, they were actually 4 letters and first of the four is lost. Most people don't know that.

But, again, looking at the letter:

7 Now to the topics you raised in your last letter. (The Voice). So it was a topic in which we really don't know the specifics... It isn't that it is vague but rather we have lost the first letter.



Of course. Every faith will have its nuances. In the Jewish faith we have those who sought false gods, desecrated the Temple et al... but we understand that it doesn't represent who God is. We have one person who made a vow that caused the death of his daughter. We have a prophet who lied to another prophet that led to death. We have a king who made a false god in Israel.

Doesn't change the facts though IMV.

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

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Which just proves my point... there are times when it is beneficial to remain single.

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.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

7 Now to the topics you raised in your last letter. (The Voice). So it was a topic in which we really don't know the specifics... It isn't that it is vague but rather we have lost the first letter.

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.