dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (08/01/84)
>[Rich Rosen] > I've always thought it rather ironic that the sexuality of the western world > was defined by someone who apparently chose asexuality. If Paul had chosen > a different sexual path in life, how different the western world might have > been... >[seifert (Snoopy)] > Paul was perfectly happy being single. Being single allowed him > to devote his time and energy to the Lord. He felt that if you > are married you be devoting much of your time and energy to pleasing > your spouse. I suspect this may be the only thing he "had against" > marriage. (Anyone know for sure?) Not everyone has the gift of > being happy as a single. Those people should get married. (The > rest of 1 Cor 7 goes into this) My understanding is that, to be a Pharisee, you had to have been married. This would imply that Paul, a Pharisee, was, at least at one point, a married man. Is my information incorrect? If so, at least two conclusions may be drawn: (i) Paul didn't exactly "choose" asexuality or to be single, as one is not always able to control when one's spouse will die. (ii) Paul was not just spouting off about things he had no conception of; he had seen it from both sides. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois And he is before all things, and by him all things consist... Colossians 1:17
dcs@homxa.UUCP (D.SIMEN) (08/02/84)
Paul Dubois writes: > My understanding is that, to be a Pharisee, you had to have been > married... Is my information incorrect? Yes, it is. Although marriage is mandated in Jewish law (the very first commandment is "P'ru ur'bu," reasonably well translated as "Be fruitful and multiply") the Pharisees constituted a philosophico-religio-political group, and did not have tests for "membership" such as whether the individual was married. To understand the meaning of "Pharisee", try 1. Forgetting everything the Gospels say about the Pharisees, as those books were written with many axes to grind, and 2. Roughly equating "Pharisee" with "follower of the Rabbinic tradition," which by Roman times was already well established in Jewish national life. Most of the poorer people followed the Rabbinic teachings. David Y'hezqel ben Mord'kai Simen ...!houxm!homxa!dcs
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (08/07/84)
> Paul Dubois writes: > > My understanding is that, to be a Pharisee, you had to have been > > married... Is my information incorrect? > > [David Simen] > Yes, it is. Although marriage is mandated in Jewish law (the very first > commandment is "P'ru ur'bu," reasonably well translated as "Be fruitful and > multiply") the Pharisees constituted a philosophico-religio-political group, > and did not have tests for "membership" such as whether the individual was > married. Thanks for the clarification! However, > To understand the meaning of "Pharisee", try > 1. Forgetting everything the Gospels say about the Pharisees, as those > books were written with many axes to grind, and This is a non seqitur. My information didn't come from there; indeed, I think you would be hard-pressed to deduce it from them. And yes, I am aware that much of the Jewish community feels the Gospels are very hard on the Pharisees. Personally, I feel this is not so much the case, although traditionally (and unfortunately) the church(es) seem to have taught it that way. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois And he is before all things, and by him all things consist... Colossians 1:17
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (08/07/84)
Actually, the traditional Christian view of the Pharisees is almost inevitable. The Pharisees -- the spiritual ancestors of much of today's rabbinic Judaism -- were legalistic. They felt that the letter of the Law was extremely important; hence, rituals, interpretations, fine points, etc., were all significant. Jesus, however, preached that the spirit was far more important, thus creating a very fundamental conflict with the Pharisees.