\nMany (especially immigrant or anthropocentric preachers?) presume that Paul was
\nmarried because they first tried to speculate Paul was a Rabbi or a
\nmember of Sanhedrin from certain parts of the Bible and then referring
\nto the Judaic tradition which favors a married Rabbi or Sanhedrin
\nmember because as some believe, a married man would be more "merciful".\n<\/p>\n
\nTherefore,
\ntheir conclusion would be that Paul's wife either left him when he
\nbecame Christian or that she has passed away, as he had identified
\nhimself with widows, but also with the unmarried. (1 Corinthians 7:8)\n<\/p>\n
\nI \nIf Jesus had corrected so many of the Jewish \nNow on account of Paul's marital state, it \nTherefore, \nI personally believe that Paul was never married, based on 1Corinthians 9:5. "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?<\/em> \nCelibacy is a giving up by \nBottom Many (especially immigrant or anthropocentric preachers?) presume that Paul was married because they first tried to speculate Paul was a Rabbi or a member of Sanhedrin from certain parts of the Bible and then referring to the Judaic tradition which … Continue reading
\nwould not have problem with the speculation of Paul being a Rabbi or a
\nmember of Sanhedrin, but I would question the historical origin of this
\ntraditional Jewish belief on who must be married. According to Third Millenium Website<\/a>, the first recorded account that is still in existence today of such requirement postdates Paul.\n<\/p>\n
\n"evolved" traditions in the first century A.D. despite their ignorance, so that they see the true meaning
\nof the Mosaic Laws, then it is fair to conclude that aside from the
\nBible, especially the Mosaic Laws, any "new" Judaic traditions or
\nrequirements should not be held so reliable to their historical
\naccuracy and loyalty.\n<\/p>\n
\nwould be rather strange that he had not mentioned the existence of his wife if he had at
\nanytime gotten married, whether that had been be a happy marriage or
\nnot, but instead, he had emphasized on his celibate life as to
\nencourage widows and the unmarried, thus indentifying with Jesus'
\nstatement in Matthew 19:12 "Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake".\n<\/p>\n
\nto say that Paul was married, would require one to trust other sources
\nsuch as the Judaic traditions or a lot of conviction that one can
\npresume "A" if the Bible never says "A" is not true.\n<\/p>\n
\n" For this is a good testimony of Paul's particular authority. It might not have been a
\ngood witness if it leaves room for others to challenge him: "Have you
\nnot power to do such? Well your wife left you!" or "You stayed single
\nbecause you miss your wife!".\n<\/p>\n
\ncalling, not by vow or rules of office as the hypocritical Papists
\nwould like their priests to believe. Biblical Celibacy is not lacking
\naffection towards or treating the opposite sex as dull or uninteresting
\ncreation of God, but a matter of priority of God's Kingdom, a special
\npriority given to not all believers but some to obey. Some have even
\ngone as far as treating celibacy as similar to the presumed "biological
\ndefect" of homosexuals, which is ridiculous because if one pretends
\nhimself long enough to be disgusted by the opposite sex or denying the
\nbeautiful relationship between husband and wife, he has covered himself
\nwith a pride that questions against God's perfect creation.\n<\/p>\n
\nline, the real question would be, why would one be so insistent that
\nPaul was married? If the purpose of such is only to refute the belief that
\n"Paul was not married", then it is better for them to say "I am uncertain if Paul was married or not" instead.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"