R
Raul_Black
Guest
Saint Paul.? I see. Not Jesus. Okay. Seems Paul knows or can teach more than Jesus.
- Status
I
inJESUS
Guest
Paul taught because of Jesus. Read what Peter says…actually, try to start reading the NT as a start…from the Quran you will surely get no clue.
R
Raul_Black
Guest
First, I am talking on the subject not offtrack.
Second, I did not misqoute your Bible. Please look up ‘The New American Bible’ - 1 Corinthians 7. I qouted the verses word by word. It is a Catholic Bible and in very plain/simple English.
Here (in 1 Corinthians 7), Paul is verily talking about those who are having a “virgin” (someone else’ daughter) without marrying her. Then, “if anyone (of those) thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, and if a critical moment has come and so it has to be, let him do as he wishes. He is committing no sin; let them get married” (1Cor 7:v36)
Are you saying that a Catholic young man can keep any virgin in his house without marrying her and then later if a critical moment comes he can do with her as he wishes.?
Does it mean that a virgin, say a Catholic Nun, can live with any Catholic young boy/man under one roof without marriage? And then if that young Catholic boy/man starts **behaving improperly **towards ‘his virgin’ (Nun), then he can do with her as he wishes. But later if marries with her that too is okay, if not then that too is okay?
And what does it mean when Paul says:"If anyone thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin,…(1 Cor 7:36)??
As per inJESUS (an another poster on this thread), Paul is actually talking about a father and his daughter. Then in this scenario (as per inJESUS): "“If anyone (any father) thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin (daughter), and if a critical moment has come and so it has to be, let him do as he (the father) wishes (to do with his daughter). He (father) is committing no sin; let them (father and daughter) get married” (1Cor 7:v36)
Did you see how inJESUS is making Paul a fool due to his own misunderstanding?, when Paul is actually talking about a young man who is having a slave virgin girl and not his own daughter. Why? Becuase slavery was still in practice even in the days of Paul and there is no remedy nor any solution was given how to end it. On the other hand what we found in the New Testament is this:
=========================================
Matthew 10:24-25
24 No disciple is above his teacher, no slave above his master.
1 Peter 2:18
18 9 Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.
================
Colossians 3:22
22 Slaves, 9 obey your human masters in everything, not only when being watched, as currying favor, but in simplicity of heart, fearing the Lord.
============
Second, I did not misqoute your Bible. Please look up ‘The New American Bible’ - 1 Corinthians 7. I qouted the verses word by word. It is a Catholic Bible and in very plain/simple English.
Here (in 1 Corinthians 7), Paul is verily talking about those who are having a “virgin” (someone else’ daughter) without marrying her. Then, “if anyone (of those) thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, and if a critical moment has come and so it has to be, let him do as he wishes. He is committing no sin; let them get married” (1Cor 7:v36)
Are you saying that a Catholic young man can keep any virgin in his house without marrying her and then later if a critical moment comes he can do with her as he wishes.?
Does it mean that a virgin, say a Catholic Nun, can live with any Catholic young boy/man under one roof without marriage? And then if that young Catholic boy/man starts **behaving improperly **towards ‘his virgin’ (Nun), then he can do with her as he wishes. But later if marries with her that too is okay, if not then that too is okay?
And what does it mean when Paul says:"If anyone thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin,…(1 Cor 7:36)??
As per inJESUS (an another poster on this thread), Paul is actually talking about a father and his daughter. Then in this scenario (as per inJESUS): "“If anyone (any father) thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin (daughter), and if a critical moment has come and so it has to be, let him do as he (the father) wishes (to do with his daughter). He (father) is committing no sin; let them (father and daughter) get married” (1Cor 7:v36)
Did you see how inJESUS is making Paul a fool due to his own misunderstanding?, when Paul is actually talking about a young man who is having a slave virgin girl and not his own daughter. Why? Becuase slavery was still in practice even in the days of Paul and there is no remedy nor any solution was given how to end it. On the other hand what we found in the New Testament is this:
=========================================
1 Timothy 6:1-2
1 1 Those who are under the yoke of slavery must regard their masters as worthy of full respect, so that the name of God and our teaching 2 may not suffer abuse.
2 3 Those whose masters are believers must not take advantage of them because they are brothers but must give better service because those who will profit from their work are believers and are beloved.
Matthew 10:24-2524 No disciple is above his teacher, no slave above his master.
25 It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, for the slave that he become like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, 12 how much more those of his household!
1 Peter 2:1818 9 Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.
================
Colossians 3:22
22 Slaves, 9 obey your human masters in everything, not only when being watched, as currying favor, but in simplicity of heart, fearing the Lord.
============
C
Contrabass101
Guest
Raul,
You really should open a new thread on this.
But anyway, what Paul talks of is either, that virgins should stay unmarried, but if her father thinks that it is shameful for her - that it is he is treating her improperly by withholding her from marriage - then he can give her away in marriage. Of course he can not marry her himself!
Or he talks of a man who is betrothed to a woman (thus “his virgin”) and how it is better that they stay that way, than that they get married - but if the young man thinks that it brings shame upon his virgin, and therefore is improper to behave in such a way, he should marry her instead.
This last few years, I have journeyed towards the Church, and have felt in me both a growing desire to get married and get a family, and a growing desire to the priesthood or other forms of consecrated life. One is good, the other is better, but each should do according to his own vocation and charism. Which I believe is also what Paul says. Both marriage and holy orders are sacraments in the Catholic Church.
The English text is a little cryptic, probably because the translater kept it close to the original wording - which is ambiguous and might mean both a father giving away her daughter in marriage, or a man marrying his betrothed.
You really should open a new thread on this.
But anyway, what Paul talks of is either, that virgins should stay unmarried, but if her father thinks that it is shameful for her - that it is he is treating her improperly by withholding her from marriage - then he can give her away in marriage. Of course he can not marry her himself!
Or he talks of a man who is betrothed to a woman (thus “his virgin”) and how it is better that they stay that way, than that they get married - but if the young man thinks that it brings shame upon his virgin, and therefore is improper to behave in such a way, he should marry her instead.
This last few years, I have journeyed towards the Church, and have felt in me both a growing desire to get married and get a family, and a growing desire to the priesthood or other forms of consecrated life. One is good, the other is better, but each should do according to his own vocation and charism. Which I believe is also what Paul says. Both marriage and holy orders are sacraments in the Catholic Church.
The English text is a little cryptic, probably because the translater kept it close to the original wording - which is ambiguous and might mean both a father giving away her daughter in marriage, or a man marrying his betrothed.
- CB
A
Angelos
Guest
You are reading into the text what is apparently NOT there. Your interpretation of Paul’s advice is based on a number of logical fallacies. First, you claim that the sense of the word “virgin” is the same as “slave”, which is not true. Although most of the female slaves might be virgins, this does not mean that all virgins are slaves or sex slaves. There is nothing in the original text even to imply that virgins are female slaves or that the word virgin pertains to female sex slaves.
Second, it is unreasonable and ridiculous to suppose that Paul refers to sex slaves as virgins. If a female is a man’s sex slave, she can no more be called a virgin.
Paul does not talk about sex slaves, but virgins and the (critical) time of their marriage.
What you Muslims fail to understand is that the marital bond in Christianity is dissolved when one of the spouses passes away. Christianity does not extend the notion of marriage and sex to hereafter and heaven.
C
CTA1967
Guest
… I thought we were talking about Islam in this thread…
Stop trying to derail it with baseless accusations. If you really want to, make another thread about this and see how long it takes until it gets locked. Just take it somewhere else.
I
inJESUS
Guest
I
inJESUS
Guest
i second that. Instead of answering for Islam, they misrepresent Christianity, just as Muhammad did.
R
Raul_Black
Guest
If you say the English text (of Paul) is “cryptic” or “probably” Paul meant to say this or that, then it opens up a pandora box of various possible explanations and what you say/think/suggest will not be taken as a last/final word.
To me the English text of this Catholic New American Bible is not cryptic. If you read the whole Chapter and then keep it’s whole context in you mind then you will not find this text cryptic nor unclear.
Paul is verily talking about a slave virgin.
And also you need to read the rest of Paul’s letters where he is talking about how slaves should behave with their masters and how masters should treat their salves. But alas no word on how slaves should get rid of their slavery or masters should end the institution of slavery.
I suggest you to read the whole chapter (1 Cor 7) again while keeping in mind all related terms/explanations found in other letters of Paul, in order to do justice with Paul by understanding him from his whole/actual viewpoint and try not to read your own thoughts into his few lines, like how inJESUS (a poster on this thread) read his own preconceived idea by saying Paul is talking about a father and his daughter. lol…
A
Angelos
Guest
That is your personal interpretation and makes no sense to me as a result of the notion of relativity. However, it is wrong of you to relegate the unity (marital bondage) to sex. Christianity never limits that oneness to sexuality. It is saddening to see you distort Christian view of marriage only to debunk it later. Nevertheless, the fact is what you refute as trivial and meaningless is your personal understanding of Christianity, which is definitely faulty.
Christianity teaches that sex is holy and a crucial element of creation through procreation. Since there is no need to procreate in the hereafter, it is ridiculous to suppose that men will continue having sex with their wives/sex slaves in Heaven. The Koran says Muslim men going to heaven will have sex as a reward and for the sole purpose of having sexual pleasure, not for procreation. Islam supposes that sex in Heaven will never result in pregnancy, which means that the women in Heaven will be created solely for the purpose of making Muslim men happy.
I
inJESUS
Guest
Actually Raul was previously banned from this forum. His likes dicredit Islam even more. Don’t waste your time explaing things.
A
Angelos
Guest
Instead of repeating your faulty interpretation of Paul’s epistle like a broken record, try to prove that the Greek word “parthenos” means sex slave in that context. I still wonder what compels you to translate the word “virgin” as “slave” and even “sex slave”. Your friendship with prejudice will definitely make you a bad linguist as well as a stranger to logic.
Besides, every thinking man of average intelligence will conclude that it is impossible for sex slaves to remain virgins before marriage. I guess you are the only person to suppose that sex slaves can be called virgins. Your preconceived ideas and inferences lead you into trouble
C
Contrabass101
Guest
If you want to believe that the Bible dumped down from the sky directly in your lap, that’s fine with me. I personally hold the opinion, that the particular verse was written in Greek originally.
But that’s just silly little me
Any reputable New Testament or Greek scholars that agree?
Any scholars at all?
Any first semester student of Greek who agree?
And yet Christianity in the end resulted in the abolishion of slavery.
It may also be remarked, that the letter to Philemon killed the “soul” of slavery from Christendom, leaving only a form of employment. Whereas early 20th century industrial workers were free men in theory, but in fact were slaves of their employers.
Not everything that is called slavery is slavery, neither are the Greek or Hebrew terms unambiguous…
But really, that’s for another thread.
There’s a good article on slavery in Judaism and Christianity at christianthinktank.org
Start a new discussion if you want to discuss slavery and its relation to Christianity. This one is about Islam… (and it doesn’t look pretty).
- CB
R
Raul_Black
Guest
You just opened the pandora box which compels to qoute unpleasent text from various Bibles.
I thought I qouted and re-qouted (from your Catholic Bible) enough by assuming you are good enough intelligent, but alas you either have not read what I suggested or failed to understand simple/plain English of The New American Bible.
Let me re-qout some verses but from an another plain English Bible (NIV):
36If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. 37But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. 38So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.**
See? how here words are changed by the translator(s) of NIV Bible from "his virgin’ to “the virgin he is engaged to”?
It appears that in their mind they tried to make some reasonable sense by adding words from their own but it gets worse than what The New American Bible says:
36
13 14 If anyone thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, and if a critical moment has come and so it has to be, let him do as he wishes. He is committing no sin; let them get married.
37
The one who stands firm in his resolve, however, who is not under compulsion but has power over his own will, and has made up his mind to keep his virgin, will be doing well.
38
So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better. (NAB)
Here an another set of problems arises:
What a man has to do with “his virgin” (not his daughter, as inJESUS thinks), if he is not going to marry her because to Paul, it is better not marry her at all and remain unmarried as he (Paul) himself was unmarried (atleast until at that time when he wrote this letter).
If he is not marrying her (his virgin), then what is she to him?
What kind of relationship he still can have with her?
Why it is still to be called “his virgin”.?
Are ther another forms of relationships with a Catholic man and any Catholic virgin which makes that virgin to be called as his particular virgin only?**
R
Raul_Black
Guest
Yes. But they agree alongwith other possiblities. And amazing enough to know that they are the scholars of The New American Bible (please read the whole Preface of this Bible (NAB), before replying). So what they say in this regard is:
13 [36-38] The passage is difficult to interpret, because it is unclear whether Paul is thinking of a father and his unmarried daughter **(or slave), **or of a couple engaged in a betrothal or spiritual marriage. The general principles already enunciated apply: there is no question of sin, even if they should marry, but staying as they are is “better” (for the reasons mentioned in 1 Cor 7:28-35). Once again the charisma of 1 Cor 7:7 which applies also to the unmarried (1 Cor 7:8-9), is to be presupposed.
usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians7.htm#foot13
See, in these verses they did not leave the possiblity of a “slave” girl.
If you read the entire letter of Paul, it is evident that Paul is talking about a virgin who is a slave to his master and she is the one who is living with him.
Paul is not talking about an engaged girl who is living with her parents or somewhere else.
If she is living with her parents or somewhere else then the question of “critical moment” of that man doesn’t arise nor the issue of 'he can do whatever he wills with her" arises, as she is not with him.
Otherwise do you think a Catholic virgin girl who is engaged to a man can live with him under one roof ? To do what? Hallaluyaas?
Do you allow your young virgin daughter to live with any Catholic or a specific Catholic young boy who is engaged with your daughter before her marriage?
C
CTA1967
Guest
R
Raul_Black
Guest
Let me re-qoute what the scholars of The New American Bible say about the passage in question (Verses 36 to 38 of i Corinthains 7):
13 [36-38] The passage is difficult to interpret, because it is unclear whether Paul is thinking of a father and his unmarried daughter **(or slave), **or of a couple engaged in a betrothal or spiritual marriage. The general principles already enunciated apply: there is no question of sin, even if they should marry, **but staying as they are is “better” **(for the reasons mentioned in 1 Cor 7:28-35). Once again the charisma of 1 Cor 7:7 which applies also to the unmarried (1 Cor 7:8-9), is to be presupposed.
usccb.org/nab/bible/1cori…ns7.htm#foot13
Here the scholars seem trying to either mystify the text of Paul deliberately, to confuse their readers (Catholcs and non-Catholics) or they are very very innocent to assume/blame their beloved Paul that he does not know what he is talking about which put these high caliber scholars in a such situation that it is difficult for them to interpret it. Why? Because it is very difficult for these scholars to swallow the harsh reality of existing of slavery even in NT’s time and after Jesus. (see end of poster for more details). So these scholars here try to play a game.
Lets topple their game because there must be one sound acceptable solution here in order Catholics to follow Paul fully and do justice with him.
So lets check all the possiblities given by these same high caliber scholars/interpreters of the New American Bible:
First assume that Paul is talking about “a father and his unmarried daughter”:
In this case it would make no sense of Paul saying later on " let them get married", “let him do as he wishes”…" if a critical moment has come."
So this possiblity is out.
Next possiblity 'Paul is talking about a couple engaged in a betrothal":
In this case, Paul’s advice " the one who marries his virgin does well" and even better; the one who does not marry her" becomes foolish/meaningless because when a man engages a girl with an intention to marry her soon or later otherwise she cannot he called “his virgin”. So this possibility also is out.
Another possiblity:** 'Paul may be talking about spiritual marriage":**
In this case, if a virgin girl is married spiritually, then why Paul (a man who in his own words “too [had] the Spirit of God” adivces that man to go out of his way by voilating his spiritual marriage bondage and marry her physically, as Paul has no problem with if “the one who marries his virgin does well”.?
Obviously Paul is not talking about a spiritual marriage here. So this possiblity to is out of question, as I do not think Paul was that much naive or out of his mind person to talk things which makes no sense at all. (Keep in mind once he was a persecuter of followers of Jesus and used to kick “against the pricks”, as KJV Bible says)
Now the only possible and meaningful explanation remains is:
Paul must be talking about a slave girl who is living with her master:
As such if this master " is behaving improperly toward his slave girl, and if a critical moment has come and so it has to be, soon or later, let him do as he wishes. (because he is her master and she is his slave and she has to obey him as per same Paul -see Colossians 3:22). This master is committing no sin; let him and his slave virgin girl get married. But if a master stands firm in his resolve, however, who is not under compulsion but has power over his own will, and has made up his mind to keep his slave virgin girl, will be doing well. So then, the one who marries his slave virgin girl does well; the one who does not marry her will do better."
Here you may ask: Why Paul is saying: “the master who does not marry his slave virgin girl will do better”? Because she is not engaged with his master nor master is his physical father.As such they can remain as they are (i.e., as a master and a slave girl, under one roof without physical/sexual interaction just like a servant who works and also lives with his/her boss.
See? how this text makes a perfecft sense now? Now you may ask how a slave virgin girl ended up with a strange Catholic/Christian man?
The answer is: from the Old Testament till the New Testament’s time, the institution of slavery was in existence and Jesus did not come to ablosh the Law. Whatever the laws he changed he mentioned them; the rest remained as they were before thus we read in the books of NT (written/compiled long after Jesus) about how a slave should behave with his/her master and how a master should treat with his slaves.
If slavery system was abolished in Jesus time, you would have found something from Jesus abolishing it or atleast condemning it. Was he not a brave enough man to do this?
On the other hand what we see is the writers of Gospels, even wrote how their Master (Jesus) travelled on a donkey to Jerusalem but not a word about abolishing or atleast condemning slavery once for all.
Now see what even Peter said about slaves:
1 Peter 2:18
“Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.”(NAB)
And what Paul adviced them:
Colossians 3:22
“Slaves, obey your human masters in everything, not only when being watched, as currying favor, but in simplicity of heart, fearing the Lord.” (NAB)
(See my earlier post # 143 for more qoutes)
Again, as to the existence of slavery system even in Peter’s time, the following note from the scholars of the New American [Catholic] Bible is sufficient:
“Most of the labor in the commercial cities of first-century Asia Minor was performed by a working class of slaves. The sense of freedom contained in the gospel undoubtedly caused great tension among Christian slaves: witness the special advice given concerning them here * and in 1 Cor 7:21-24; Eph 6:5-8; Col 3:22-25; Phl.
The point made here does not have so much to do with the institution of slavery, which the author * does not challenge, but with the nonviolent reaction (1 Peter 2:20) of slaves to unjust treatment. Their patient suffering is compared to that of Jesus (1 Peter 2:21), which won righteousness for all humanity.”
usccb.org/nab/bible/1peter/1peter2.htm#foot9*
Clearly Christianity did nothing to abolish slavery. It was only Islam who offered a gradual and workable solution to end slavery.
.*
P
planten
Guest
Angelos, please leave Islam alone while you are responding to the subject matter with Raul. In Islam, there is no sex matter in the next world. There will be no maternity homes in paradise. That will all be a spiritual matter and spiritual happiness.
Try to discuss why Paul never married. I feel that Jesus should also have married before the age of 30. Please discuss the writings of Paul regarding sex with virgin slave girls. That is a more interesting subject at hand. Thanks.
S
swariffin
Guest
A
Angelos
Guest
- Status