JohnHurt wrote:We really do not know from the books listed in the canon of the Bible if Christ was married or not. If you have a verse that tells us that Christ was married or was not married, that would be good to know.
Some of the books found in the Nag Hammadi library in 1948 indicate that Christ was married. These books were banned by the Catholic church, and so were buried in the desert.
If Christ was married and had to give up His wife for the Cross, it would fit Hebrews 4:15:
Catholics are not the only ones who knew Christ never married- I don't know what the Nag Hammadi is but it conflicts with church historians even outside the Roman Catholic Church- if the claim is Christ married. There's a good reason the Church would have banned those books and you can't believe everything you read- even if someone had written that. You may as well toss out your Bible if you're doubt is that strong in it being inspired by the Holy Spirit and inerrant- and join another religion which doubts the truth of God's Word.
Christ knew His purpose for leaving the throne and coming to His earthly ministry- it had nothing to do with fleshly desires to marry- at 12 years old, He was already about His Father's business, as He said.
If He had a wife, there was no need to commit His mother to the Apostle John at the Cross. I can see why the enemy of our soul would wish to cast doubt on Christ remaining unmarried, can't you? He came to die, that other's would live-
Josh wrote:I disagree that church leaders have to be married. Otherwise, Jesus and Paul weren’t valid leaders, along with many other early church leaders.
I agree with Josh.
I think there are two major directions. Paul clearly thought it was better to remain single, and in 1 Corinthians 7 he tells us why and on whose authority. Here's the passage, I'll ask some questions after that.
1 Cor 7 wrote:Concerning Change of Status
17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. 20 Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.
21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22 For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings. 24 Brothers and sisters, each person, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.
Concerning the Unmarried
25 Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. 26 Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27 Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. 28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
29 What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; 30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31 those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.
32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.
So ...
What level of authority does Paul give for his advice to remain single?
What reasons does Paul give for preferring singleness?
Are some of these reasons still relevant for those of us who are married?
Is merely remaining single enough to satisfy Paul's intent here? If not, what else is needed?
Does Paul suggest that married people should be regarded as less righteous or less devoted?
I'd like to see some discussion on this text.
Good post & I also agree with Josh on this viewpoint.
It is a gift to be single- I love to see & acknowledge the single people totally devoted to the Lord without distractions- it seems God has given that to 'some' and Jesus was the ultimate example- I know that families serve together too and that is a beautiful thing- obviously God created/ordained marriage but certainly a person who is married to the Church as Christ is, and serving in full time capacity is an awesome calling.
JohnHurt wrote:
These "church fathers" like Origen and Tertullian, who never married, are the ones that gave us innovations like infant baptism:
I have read statements by early Church writers, one of them being Origen- that the APOSTLES TAUGHT infant baptism- it was not their innovation then- it was handed down to them by the Apostles from what they were told- they were not the first to speak of infant baptism. Just clarifying-
What level of authority does Paul give for his advice to remain single?
(6) But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
(7) For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
(8) I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
It looks like Paul is his own authority. I can give you other instances.
What reasons does Paul give for preferring singleness?
Entirely his own opinion, as he never married. Sure, you can travel the world, and "go to war" and not be entangled in the cares of this life, but a single person can also lose their way, as they are not accountable to anyone else. When you have a wife, she knows what you are, and what you really do. You cannot hide yourself from your wife, at least not forever. If one falls down alone, the second will help him back up.
Peter was married and was quite influential in the church.
Paul had his opinion, and I think Peter's opinions of Paul were expressed by the writings of Clement. I have my own opinion about marriage too.
But we should realize that God's gift of marriage to Adam and Eve was something "good" that God made. If God made marriage, it should not be put in an inferior rank, regardless of anyone's opinion. God's opinion is supreme over all of us, including Paul.
Paul was correct on one thing, there is no commandment against marriage, and for good reason.
Because God knew us, and our hearts, and if you look at where celibacy is commanded for priests, you find many sexual sins. For most people it just doesn't work. If you can, that is great, but as Christ said, it is completely voluntary.
Are some of these reasons still relevant for those of us who are married?
I think we are married for life, so Paul's points are moot for the married.
Is merely remaining single enough to satisfy Paul's intent here? If not, what else is needed?
I really don't know about Paul's intent. He is speaking for himself, without a commandment of the Lord to back him up.
Does Paul suggest that married people should be regarded as less righteous or less devoted?
I think Paul's suggestions about marriage have something to do with his competition with Peter, who had a wife.
Some of Paul's other suggestions, like not helping a widow who is under 60 years old 1 Tim 5:9, are absolutely over the top. I find no basis in the rest of the Bible for this statement by Paul as a "commandment". In fact, the teachings of Christ and YHVH are to honor the widow, without regard to her age. And if you don't help the widow, you also exclude her children, who are orphans.
So I have to look at some of Paul's statements, and scratch my head and say, well, "no", I won't do that. I will help a widow that is 59 years old, and not even ask her age.
I just read the words in red now, and find much joy and a very simple life.
Thanks,
0 x
"He replaced the teachings of Christ with his own opinions, and gave us a religion based on the doctrines of men."
JohnHurt wrote:
These "church fathers" like Origen and Tertullian, who never married, are the ones that gave us innovations like infant baptism:
I have read statements by early Church writers, one of them being Origen- that the APOSTLES TAUGHT infant baptism- it was not their innovation then- it was handed down to them by the Apostles from what they were told- they were not the first to speak of infant baptism. Just clarifying-
I think "belief" is required for baptism. Acts 8:37, Acts 18:8. I don't understand how a newborn can "believe" if he cannot talk or hear the meanings of words to understand the scriptures.
Baptism also requires repentance (Acts 2:38), and is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16). This would suppose that there was some sin a newborn child had committed, repented of, and accepted baptism for the remission of sins. I just don't understand how that baptism would be of help to a newborn child.
Also, Christ was not baptized as a baby, nor is there even one example in the Bible of infant baptism.
I also don't understand "original sin" that applies to everyone, except Christ and Mary, and somehow they avoided it and were sinless. I think original sin was a new doctrine that was given as the reason for the innovation of infant baptism.
Infant baptism and original sin also led people to sprinkle and not immerse, as a newborn would not know to hold its breath under water.
My sister traveled to Rome and other parts of Italy. She said that the earliest churches there all had a baptistry for full immersion, while the later churches had only a fount to sprinkle. In these early churches, the baptistry was dry, as it was no longer used, but was there as an artifact from an earlier belief.
0 x
"He replaced the teachings of Christ with his own opinions, and gave us a religion based on the doctrines of men."
