What is Okay for a single person?

[ReformedLockbox]

When we graduate from faith to love, like we graduate from being a child to being an adult. WHat is the major differnece between a child and an adult in the ability to reason? Knowledge. You can only truly know God with love. When you are no longer a child and depend on faith alone. When you can reason because you have gained knowledge.

I don't think Paul means that adult Christians (while they are on earth) 'graduate' from faith to love. I think the point of this verse is that while we are alive, we need faith, hope, and love. Love is the greatest since when we finally see God we will no longer need faith or hope. Of these three things, love is the greatest since it will last eternally.

There have been differences of opinion on the meaning of Bible verses for thousands of years as scholars study and debate the meaning. I think this verse is clear, God gave us the desire to know, not just accept. As it says you can not truly recognize him through faith, only through love and love comes when you grow up from being a child, as mankind was thousands of years ago, into adult as we can be now or soon will be as we continue to learn.

Clearly, God created us as rational beings and thus we are capable of gaining knowledge. However, while we are alive on earth faith has a role to play in our lives, even for adults. Remember what Jesus said to Thomas after he saw him after the Resurrection:

Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.

As far as I know, nowhere in the OT or NT is it said that love 'replaces' faith. While we live on earth, all three of these things (faith, hope, and love) are part of the life of adult believers.

And as far as I can tell, all three are intertwined in regards to a Christian with God. Faith in Him, Hope in Him, Love Him.

[IntimateMoment]

Clearly, God created us as rational beings and thus we are capable of gaining knowledge. However, while we are alive on earth faith has a role to play in our lives, even for adults. Remember what Jesus said to Thomas after he saw him after the Resurrection:

Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.

As far as I know, nowhere in the OT or NT is it said that love 'replaces' faith. While we live on earth, all three of these things (faith, hope, and love) are part of the life of adult believers.

That supports my point, at that point in time we had no knowledge, so all we could have is faith.

11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

13 So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

[newwifenewlife]

There have been differences of opinion on the meaning of Bible verses for thousands of years as scholars study and debate the meaning.

True, that has been the case but I've observed many of your writings throwing out centuries and even millenniums of established systemic theology (there are good reasons for it) to question and even make "knowledge" and "reason" your god...above God's revelatory Word and His character revealed to us through His Word

I think this verse is clear, God gave us the desire to know, not just accept. As it says you can not truly recognize him through faith, only through love and love comes when you grow up from being a child, as mankind was thousands of years ago, into adult as we can be now or soon will be as we continue to learn.

It seems to me you're taking Paul's writing in 1 Corinthians 13 completely out of context of his purpose and writings to address issues in the church at Corinth and then you're trying to manipulate it into your belief system. Talk about Scriptural gymnastics.

Paul was writing to adults who were spiritually immature and acting that way (read the previous chapters of 1 Corinthians) so Paul compared them to spiritually immature children who needed to grow up spiritually and act lovingly and unselfishly towards others (like Phil 2). The last part of the verse you quoted (vs 12) refers to the future being revealed upon spiritual maturation in heaven, not on earth. The ultimate goal of spiritual maturity isn't the ability to reason and gain knowledge. Sadly, Christians for decades valued and pursued "Christian/spiritual" knowledge and activity as a measurement of spiritual maturity rather than using to grow and develop into spiritual maturity in Christ. That's why "the Church" hasn't been an effective witness. Our culture has seen right through that behavior. Some Christians "knew" (and still "know") the Bible, like some in the church at Corinth, but their love for others, the ability to serve others and one another, along with becoming more like the character and holiness of God has been lost. It has nothing to do with becoming "enlightened", that's not Christianity, that's more liken to the Greek philosophers of Plato, Zeno and Aristotle.

[DaveW]

Good answer. I am fortunate my heart only pumps blood. It never has had a thought, lustful or otherwise.

LOL! But when "heart" is written in scripture it almost NEVER is in reference to the blood pumping organ. Rather, it means the seat of emotions and motivations.

But if we avoid facts, the heart represents love. If you have lust without love, you are not lusting in your heart?

Again, you must have the right definition about what the scripture is talking about. English usually does not cut it as the base languages (ancient Hebrew and Greek) are far removed from current day English.

In Matt 5 "lust" is actually the Greek word epithumeo which means simply any strong desire, good or bad. In Paul's letters it is usually translated "covet," and in the LXX it is used for covet in the 10 commandments. And since our Lord is actually talking about the 10, I believe "covet" is a better translation than "lust." It is less prone to re-definition, which has happened to "lust" over the centuries. It seems now exclusively defined as sexual desire, licit or illicit.

I do not believe that is what our Lord was saying. To covet means you want to take something that does not belong to you. If you follow that strong desire for an object it is theft. If you do it for a married sex partner, it is adultery. And every female over the age of 13 or 14 would have been married, unless she was a momzer, of illegitimate birth.

So the prohibition addition that our Lord is talking about in Matt 5 is seeing a married woman and wanting to take her away from her husband so she can be your wife or sex partner. That is the adultery of the heart. It is a lot more than just looking at someone and getting horny.

[DaveW]

Then I would consider you unique. Sex and love are easily separated for most humans.

That is why most languages have different words for that. Greek has 4. CS Lewis even wrote a book on that called "The Four Loves." Eros, Storge, Phileo, and Agape.

Hebrew has at least 3: Ahavah, Dodim, and Chasak.

In every case, there are different aspects of what English lumps together as "love." But interestingly, both languages lump together sexual love and romantic love in the same word: Dodim in the Hebrew and Eros in the Greek.

[IntimateMoment]

Again, you must have the right definition about what the scripture is talking about. English usually does not cut it as the base languages (ancient Hebrew and Greek) are far removed from current day English.

In Matt 5 "lust" is actually the Greek word epithumeo which means simply any strong desire, good or bad. In Paul's letters it is usually translated "covet," and in the LXX it is used for covet in the 10 commandments. And since our Lord is actually talking about the 10, I believe "covet" is a better translation than "lust." It is less prone to re-definition, which has happened to "lust" over the centuries. It seems now exclusively defined as sexual desire, licit or illicit.

I do not believe that is what our Lord was saying. To covet means you want to take something that does not belong to you. If you follow that strong desire for an object it is theft. If you do it for a married sex partner, it is adultery. And every female over the age of 13 or 14 would have been married, unless she was a momzer, of illegitimate birth.

So the prohibition addition that our Lord is talking about in Matt 5 is seeing a married woman and wanting to take her away from her husband so she can be your wife or sex partner. That is the adultery of the heart. It is a lot more than just looking at someone and getting horny.

I agree

[IntimateMoment]

Then I would consider you unique. Sex and love are easily separated for most humans.

That is why most languages have different words for that. Greek has 4. CS Lewis even wrote a book on that called "The Four Loves." Eros, Storge, Phileo, and Agape.

Hebrew has at least 3: Ahavah, Dodim, and Chasak.

In every case, there are different aspects of what English lumps together as "love." But interestingly, both languages lump together sexual love and romantic love in the same word: Dodim in the Hebrew and Eros in the Greek.

I doubt Solomon was in romantic lov with all 400 wives and all 300 concubines. I doubt when men hire a prostitute he is in romantic love. I doubt Wilt Chamberlain had sex with 10's of thousands of women he loved more than a handful. Maybe some people can separate the two and some can not or do not wish to. Of course it is easier to love sexually and romantically if you only have one partner for a lifetime. Then again many people admit after years of marriage that they never truly were in love with their spouse. Arranged marriages also bring it into question. Sometimes couples make love and sometimes they just F.

[DaveW]

I doubt Solomon was in romantic lov with all 400 wives and all 300 concubines. I doubt when men hire a prostitute he is in romantic love. I doubt Wilt Chamberlain had sex with 10's of thousands of women he loved more than a handful. Maybe some people can separate the two and some can not or do not wish to. Of course it is easier to love sexually and romantically if you only have one partner for a lifetime. Then again many people admit after years of marriage that they never truly were in love with their spouse. Arranged marriages also bring it into question. Sometimes couples make love and sometimes they just F.

I completely agree with that. As to Solomon, most of his wives were of a political nature; the daughter of some other potentate he had made a treaty with.

All I am saying is that in the original biblical languages, many forms of love are separated out into other words. But romantic and sexual love are kept together.

I remember when I was taking Latin (classical, not church) in highschool, the teacher was talking about the word Amo (I love) and said it had a sexual more than an emotional meaning. She referenced a poem by someone in the first century BC that the guy was trying to express romantic love to a young woman, starting off with amo, but then negating that because it was not sexual.

[IntimateMoment]

I doubt Solomon was in romantic lov with all 400 wives and all 300 concubines. I doubt when men hire a prostitute he is in romantic love. I doubt Wilt Chamberlain had sex with 10's of thousands of women he loved more than a handful. Maybe some people can separate the two and some can not or do not wish to. Of course it is easier to love sexually and romantically if you only have one partner for a lifetime. Then again many people admit after years of marriage that they never truly were in love with their spouse. Arranged marriages also bring it into question. Sometimes couples make love and sometimes they just F.

I completely agree with that. As to Solomon, most of his wives were of a political nature; the daughter of some other potentate he had made a treaty with.

All I am saying is that in the original biblical languages, many forms of love are separated out into other words. But romantic and sexual love are kept together.

I remember when I was taking Latin (classical, not church) in highschool, the teacher was talking about the word Amo (I love) and said it had a sexual more than an emotional meaning. She referenced a poem by someone in the first century BC that the guy was trying to express romantic love to a young woman, starting off with amo, but then negating that because it was not sexual.

Interesting and complicated topic. Sometimes even in the Bible sex was a duty in order to procreate and theoretically they neither were in romantic love, nor doing it for the sex.

[DaveW]

Interesting and complicated topic. Sometimes even in the Bible sex was a duty in order to procreate and theoretically they neither were in romantic love, nor doing it for the sex.

Indeed. Such was the case of Levirite marriage; a surviving brother taking his widowed sister in law as his wife to raise up offspring in his brother's name for inheritance purposes.

Such was the sin of Onan, wanting to have sex with his beautiful sister in law, but NOT wanting to raise up children that would be considered coming from Er his brother.

God was not too happy about that.