A Protestant

[TheologicalLeft]

says this concerning 1 Corinthians 7:1 the verse you took is about adultery and cheating on a spouse. And, the version you used takes away from the actual meaning. “Now for the matters you wrote about: ‘It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.’”

I said this. Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is well for a man not to touch a woman.” RSVCE It’s also the same in DR and NAB.

Anyone know the greek or an explanation.

 

[spiderweb]

Greek: haptomai

1. to fasten one’s self to, adhere to, cling to

a) to touch

b) of carnal intercourse with a women or cohabitation

c) of levitical practice of having no fellowship with heathen practices. Things not to be touched appear to be both women and certain kinds of food, so celibacy and abstinence of certain kinds of food and drink are recommended.

d) to touch, assail anyone

In my opinion both translations are accurate and from the following verses, it seems specifically to be definitions b and c.

 

[JRKH]

The Greek appears to be " Haptomai"

Strongs gives the definition as…

1. to fasten one’s self to, adhere to, cling to
   • 
     *]to touch
     *] of carnal intercourse with a women or cohabitation
     *] of levitical practice of having no fellowship with heathen practices. Things not to be touched appear to be both women and certain kinds of food, so celibacy and abstinence of certain kinds of food and drink are recommended.
     *]to touch, assail anyone
   Hope this helps…
   
   Peace
   James

 

[Didascalia]

says this concerning 1 Corinthians 7:1 the verse you took is about adultery and cheating on a spouse. And, the version you used takes away from the actual meaning. “Now for the matters you wrote about: ‘It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.’”

I said this. Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is well for a man not to touch a woman.” RSVCE It’s also the same in DR and NAB.

Anyone know the greek or an explanation.

I think Paul is extremely clear… If you have a carnal desire its better to marry a wife [who has the same desires], rather than to coin a phrase “play the field”! I find it strange that Paul doesn’t mention “love” between a husband and wife, but rather defines marriage as an exclusive sexual relationship!. He does of course advocate celibacy but only to those without “sexual/carnal” desire. People who struggle with celibacy should not be celibate. Christ describes celibacy as a gift. A gift does not make you suffer! **What Paul is not doing is demanding celibacy from anyone! ** You either have the “Gift” no sexual desire. or you don’t!

 

[SighGuy]

Well, I agree with you Didascalia, but for your choice of the word “struggle”. Celibate men and women (blanket statement) will always struggle with their celibacy, unless they are born asexual. It is natural.

Now if an individual finds “I wish I had had children instead of taking up celibacy” then clearly it was not right for them. But just recently I read in a vocation magazine an article by a nun who said “let’s be honest, the sex drive never goes away entirely!” and also questioned what it would have been like to be a mother. But, she says, she is sure her choice was right and despite whatever struggles were involved, the rewards were far beyond.

The same subject was discussed in the Monk and the Lama, a dialogue between a french abbot (now bishop) and a Tibetan lama. They both spoke of sexuality being persistent, ultimately coming to a lull with time, but existing vestigially (if I remember well enough, it was something like that).

 

[Didascalia]

Well, I agree with you Didascalia, but for your choice of the word “struggle”. Celibate men and women (blanket statement) will always struggle with their celibacy, unless they are born asexual. It is natural.

Now if an individual finds “I wish I had had children instead of taking up celibacy” then clearly it was not right for them. But just recently I read in a vocation magazine an article by a nun who said “let’s be honest, the sex drive never goes away entirely!” and also questioned what it would have been like to be a mother. But, she says, she is sure her choice was right and despite whatever struggles were involved, the rewards were far beyond.

The same subject was discussed in the Monk and the Lama, a dialogue between a french abbot (now bishop) and a Tibetan lama. They both spoke of sexuality being persistent, ultimately coming to a lull with time, but existing vestigially (if I remember well enough, it was something like that).

Interesting SighGu. I will look up on that Monk/Lama dialog.

 

[SighGuy]

I post one small part of the french and my terrible translation (in case you speak french you will get a clearer sense and I will not pervert the words)
‘Il nous faut compter aussi avec ce qu’on appelle les concupiscences - c’est à dire les désirs naturels devenus désordonnés après le péché originel - à commencer par la sexualité. Le désir sexuel fait partie de notre être et il ne faut pas s’étonner que ça « titille » de temps à autre. Il convient d’y faire attention et il est évident que l’engagement dans une vie de chasteté implique une vigilance, et souvent un combat.’

It’s also necessary for us to reckon for what we call concupiscences - that’s to say, the natural desires which became disordered after original sin - to begin on sexuality. The sexual desire is part of our being and it’s not surprising that it tickles from time to time. It’s necessary to pay attention and it’s evident that the commitment to a life of chastity requires vigilance, and often a struggle.

Edit: also I apologize as I realize I’ve steered us slightly off topic. If you’d like to say more I’d be happy to listen in a private message or separate topic.