• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

There ain't no Jesus here.

Muffled

Muffled

Jesus in me
metis said:
If Paul taught that it's best that they not marry, what does that imply? How else would you interpret that in context?
Click to expand...
I believe you must be thinking of this verse:
I Cor. 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time is shortened, that henceforth both those that have wives may be as though they had none;

I believe on the surface this might appear to be relevant to the end times. However there is no indication of what shortened means. It could mean ten thousand years as opposed to one hundred thousand years.
 
Muffled

Muffled

Jesus in me
Jesu disciple said:
Yes? And you are saying that that is untrue?
Click to expand...

I believe I am saying that if the wife has bought into the mission she won't be worldly and pleasing her will mean completing the mission. Paul is most likely thinking that doesn't happen very often and he may be right.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Muffled said:
I believe I interpret it to mean that Paul sees a spouse as a distraction from the mission. I believe he is incorrect in that team missions can work. He certainly was willing to work with Luke and not consider it a distraction. I believe he was more likely thinking of the case where a person becomes unequally yoked with someone who does not share a desire to be on the mission.
Click to expand...
But the reference to not marrying was not just in reference to him but to the disciples in general, and there have been some Christian groups that followed that practice, but for some reason they no longer exist.:rolleyes: To me, that, along with the belief in the very early church that Jesus was coming back soon, points rather clearly, imo, in the direction that they believed the end-times near. To me, the only real question is whether Jesus actually taught that or if the apostles misinterpreted what they thought he was saying.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Muffled said:
I believe you must be thinking of this verse:
I Cor. 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time is shortened, that henceforth both those that have wives may be as though they had none;

I believe on the surface this might appear to be relevant to the end times. However there is no indication of what shortened means. It could mean ten thousand years as opposed to one hundred thousand years.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that really doesn't make any sense largely because why would he say this in the first place unless he thought the end was near?
 
roger1440

roger1440

I do stuff
metis said:
Sorry, but that really doesn't make any sense largely because why would he say this in the first place unless he thought the end was near?
Click to expand...
Everything in this world is temporal, including marriage. According to Paul the only thing everlasting is life with or without Christ. Like the old saying goes, “you can’t take it with you”. Therefore, we should work towards what is everlasting. What Paul is emphasizing is that it’s not what we do or don’t do, it’s not what we have or don’t have. The only thing that matters is our relationship with God. He encourages celibacy, but not all are cut out for that type of life. We all don’t come from the same mold. Regardless if one is celibate or not both life styles would have its hurdles and challenges. A person who is married will be preoccupied with how he or she can care and provide for their family. A person who is celibate will wrestle with loneliness from time to time. This void can only be filled with God. Paul recognizes the sex drive cannot be tamed nor is it the enemy.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
roger1440 said:
Everything in this world is temporal, including marriage. According to Paul the only thing everlasting is life with or without Christ. Like the old saying goes, “you can’t take it with you”. Therefore, we should work towards what is everlasting. What Paul is emphasizing is that it’s not what we do or don’t do, it’s not what we have or don’t have. The only thing that matters is our relationship with God. He encourages celibacy, but not all are cut out for that type of life. We all don’t come from the same mold. Regardless if one is celibate or not both life styles would have its hurdles and challenges. A person who is married will be preoccupied with how he or she can care and provide for their family. A person who is celibate will wrestle with loneliness from time to time. This void can only be filled with God. Paul recognizes the sex drive cannot be tamed nor is it the enemy.
Click to expand...
Again, there's a need to put what Paul says in the context of the simple fact that the early church did believe Jesus was coming back "in this generation" as no other position makes sense in terms of connecting those dots.

Also, let me add that Paul refers to "the sins of the flesh", and many theologians believe that he puts this under the category of "original sin", which became part of Christian dogma. IOW, sorta like sex is an evil necessity.
 
Muffled

Muffled

Jesus in me
metis said:
Sorry, but that really doesn't make any sense largely because why would he say this in the first place unless he thought the end was near?
Click to expand...

I could speculate but I don't believe that serves any purpose. I believe Paul was moved by the Holy Spirit to write this and The Holy Spirit knows that the church needs a bigger impetus in the beginning. Once the church has grown large there isn't the urgency to evangelize. It is still important but not urgent.
 
roger1440

roger1440

I do stuff
metis said:
Again, there's a need to put what Paul says in the context of the simple fact that the early church did believe Jesus was coming back "in this generation" as no other position makes sense in terms of connecting those dots.

Also, let me add that Paul refers to "the sins of the flesh", and many theologians believe that he puts this under the category of "original sin", which became part of Christian dogma. IOW, sorta like sex is an evil necessity.
Click to expand...
The dogma of the early Church and what Paul wrote is not necessarily in agreement. Also the church that had survived is only one of many churches in the first few centuries. Some of these churches existed during Paul’s time. In Paul’s first letter to Timothy he warns him of people who are trying to lead people astray.

“1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,” (1 Timothy 4:1-4)

It was rumored that Origen had castrated himself so he wouldn’t fall prey to that diabolical sin of lust. That is contrary to Mosaic Law. The Law forbids self-mutilation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen#Asceticism_and_castration

The Catholic Church even forbids passionate kissing among married couples.

The Catholic Church - Teaching on relationships and kissing
http://www.allreadable.com/undefined
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
roger1440 said:
The dogma of the early Church and what Paul wrote is not necessarily in agreement. Also the church that had survived is only one of many churches in the first few centuries. Some of these churches existed during Paul’s time. In Paul’s first letter to Timothy he warns him of people who are trying to lead people astray.

“1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,” (1 Timothy 4:1-4)

It was rumored that Origen had castrated himself so he wouldn’t fall prey to that diabolical sin of lust. That is contrary to Mosaic Law. The Law forbids self-mutilation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen#Asceticism_and_castration

The Catholic Church even forbids passionate kissing among married couples.

The Catholic Church - Teaching on relationships and kissing
http://www.allreadable.com/undefined
Click to expand...
I was not referring to the churches that gradually splintered off but only in reference to the apostolic church, which retained its cohesiveness until the Coptic split several centuries later. As far as "passionate kissing" is concerned, first of all your link doesn't work, plus that's an outdated dogma anyway.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
roger1440 said:
Here is the link. I'll find a better one later.
http://www.allreadable.com/1320EtL1
Click to expand...
Thanks for the updated link, but it is important to realize that RCC theology is not static. For just one example, it was taught up until just two decades ago that a non-Christian cannot be admitted into heaven unless they confess as a Christian before they die. Well, that's been changed.

Also, remember that in the RCC, sex between a married couple is considered to be a sacrament, and the only thing that restricts this today is that artificial birth control in most but not all cases should be abstained from, and that sex needs to be consensual. Even though oral sex and masturbation have historically been a no-no, neither of these issues are really pushed nowadays.

Finally, when considering RCC teachings, picture the cop standing at a Roman intersection waving his arms this way and that way with most drivers virtually ignoring him. But if there's an accident, then the role of the cop becomes important. Within the RCC, this is how the teachings are considered. IOW, "here is what we think you should do, but you make up your own mind, although we reserve the right to intervene if there's a conflict".

Getting excommunicated from the church nowadays is almost unheard of. Instead, fundamentalist Protestant churches, one of which I grew up in, tend to be for more restrictive.
 
roger1440

roger1440

I do stuff
metis said:
Thanks for the updated link, but it is important to realize that RCC theology is not static. For just one example, it was taught up until just two decades ago that a non-Christian cannot be admitted into heaven unless they confess as a Christian before they die. Well, that's been changed.

Also, remember that in the RCC, sex between a married couple is considered to be a sacrament, and the only thing that restricts this today is that artificial birth control in most but not all cases should be abstained from, and that sex needs to be consensual. Even though oral sex and masturbation have historically been a no-no, neither of these issues are really pushed nowadays.

Finally, when considering RCC teachings, picture the cop standing at a Roman intersection waving his arms this way and that way with most drivers virtually ignoring him. But if there's an accident, then the role of the cop becomes important. Within the RCC, this is how the teachings are considered. IOW, "here is what we think you should do, but you make up your own mind, although we reserve the right to intervene if there's a conflict".

Getting excommunicated from the church nowadays is almost unheard of. Instead, fundamentalist Protestant churches, one of which I grew up in, tend to be for more restrictive.
Click to expand...
Here is another link. It pretty says the same as the first page.
http://www.catholic-saints.net/kisses-and-touches/

Here is a link to the Catholic Catechism page
http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...e/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

I have read a lot of what the early church fathers had written. There is just to much for me to remember. I have been reading this stuff for nearly 40 years. I'm 58 now. Keeping notes doesn't help much cause I have to remember where I put my notes. I guess I need a note for that too.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
roger1440 said:
Here is another link. It pretty says the same as the first page.
http://www.catholic-saints.net/kisses-and-touches/

Here is a link to the Catholic Catechism page
http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...e/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

I have read a lot of what the early church fathers had written. There is just to much for me to remember. I have been reading this stuff for nearly 40 years. I'm 58 now. Keeping notes doesn't help much cause I have to remember where I put my notes. I guess I need a note for that too.
Click to expand...
Trust me, I can really relate to your last paragraph. I'm 71, so I am much more of a veteran when it comes to forgetting than you are, let me tell ya. :(

BTW, I have the Catholic Catechism literally an arm's length away from me, and I do use it occasionally even though I'm obviously not Catholic.

Take care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top