Fooloso is not aware of Peter's revelation — Leontiskos

Unfortunately, you lack to courage to address me and my questions to you directly. Instead you make broadside attacks against me lacking in substance. Or else you choose not to respond at all, as is the case with regard to what the "good news" means in Mark. I understand. Addressing it means undermining your claim about the connection between the good news and [correction: resurrection].

The Apocalypse of Peter or Revelation of Peter is a non-canonical gospel. It was included in the Muratorian Canon but not in the present canon. In early Christianity there was no official canon. It was not until 367 that Athanasius of Alexandria compiled what is now the official canon.

- You're a sophist. That's all.

The Apocalypse of Peter or Revelation of Peter is a non-canonical gospel. — Fooloso4

We're talking about Acts, darling.

Well thank you for mustering enough courage to address this point. Is it expecting too much of you to address what Mark says about the good news.

Just so I am clear, are you referring to Acts where Peter says:

You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news

(10:36)

The same good news about which you said?

... proclaiming the "good news of Jesus Christ" was the good news (gospel) ... — Leontiskos

The term gospel does not refer exclusively the written documents. As I said:

. I think the gospels are a combination of stories that were in circulation, changing somewhat in the telling, and inspiration — Fooloso4

So this is at best a preliminary set-up for a change to kosher, not a direct attack on kosher. It is explicitly about tradition and handwashing.

Entering a state of ritual impurity is not the same thing as breaking the law. We will all be in states of ritual impurity at one point or another. Sometimes it's beyond our control/just nature taking its course.
— BitconnectCarlos

Sure, but it's not beyond his control here, is it? And the implication of the text is that no ritual impurity has affected Jesus.

(That is, I don't think you can say that it is not against the Law to touch a dead body, even if the Law does not mandate that no one is ever permitted to touch a dead body, or that there is no recourse for someone who does. It's perfectly easy to argue that the way Jesus touches the dead body is contrary to the Law. At stake here are spirit/letter distinctions.) — Leontiskos

This is about as close to a "historical" debate on Jesus as you're going to get from the writings of the New Testament, as they "loosely" reflect the debates that may have taken place among the various sects of Second Temple Judaism. There's a lot happening, so it's hard to summarize everything, but one can view the cross-section of these debates as something like this:

The Pharisees upheld an oral tradition of ancestral law. Traditionally, this oral law was seen as supplemental or secondary to the written Torah, serving as judgments made by elders, scribes, and prophets to clarify and apply the written laws. However, a compelling theory proposed by Michael Satlow (in How the Bible Became Holy) suggests that the Pharisaic tradition was originally exclusively oral and did not include a written Law.

According to this theory, it was the Sadducees, not the Pharisees, who prioritized the written law. During the Hellenistic period, when Pharisaic-backed priests and Sadducean (Zadokite) priests competed for influence, the Sadducees insisted on a written version of the Law to serve as a definitive reference. This practice of preserving Torah scrolls in the Temple later influenced synagogues, which adopted the tradition of keeping copies of the Torah. While the Pharisees were familiar with the written text, their primary emphasis remained on the oral tradition, which they considered paramount.

It wasn't until after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE that the written Torah and oral traditions were formally integrated into Rabbinic Judaism. This development unified the Pharisaic and Sadducean approaches, making both the written Torah and oral traditions authoritative and essential. This view challenges the traditional belief that Rabbinic Judaism is a direct continuation of Pharisaic Judaism with little input from Sadducean practices.

The Pharisees themselves were divided into two schools of thought:

Hillelites: Advocated for a more lenient and inclusive interpretation of the Law.
Shammaites: Held to a stricter and more rigid interpretation.
Two key points emerge:

Jesus’ criticism of Pharisaic practices could reflect a stance against their oral traditions (e.g., emphasizing purity laws as “extra-written” and invalid).
Alternatively, Jesus might align more with Hillelite Pharisaic views, opposing stricter Shammaite interpretations, particularly regarding purity laws. However, this interpretation may not be fully captured in later writings such as the Gospel of Mark.

Sure, but it's not beyond his control here, is it? And the implication of the text is that no ritual impurity has affected Jesus. — Leontiskos

Alright I will do you one better. According to both Torah law and rabbinic law, a seminal emission places one in a state of ritual impurity. Yet Jewish men are required to procreate. Thus, one can knowingly and voluntarily enter into a state of impurity yet it be a good, obligatory act.

(Note too that the Pharisees recognize that what is at stake is the "tradition of the elders." Jesus' response begins by distinguishing the commandment of God from the tradition of the elders.) — Leontiskos

Then we're in agreement here. :up:

So this is at best a preliminary set-up for a change to kosher, not a direct attack on kosher. It is explicitly about tradition and handwashing. — Leontiskos

The same idea does appear elsewhere. Most notably in Thomas:

"When you go into any land and walk about in the districts, if they receive you, eat what
they will set before you, and heal the sick among them. For what goes into your mouth
will not defile you, but that which issues from your mouth - it is that which will defile
you." (Thomas 14)

We can say that Thomas is non-canonical, ok, but there's also Luke 10.

"When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is offered to you."

Presumably this is ok because foreign food will not defile. So maybe we say this idea was retrojected back to Jesus or we bite the bullet and say that Jesus breaks from the Torah here.

It isn’t crazy, but it isn’t unreasonable to believe (and with good reason) that ancient writers embellished history to make a point or a point of view starker, etc., in their stories. — schopenhauer1

Yes ancient writers embellish but that shouldn't lead us to conclude that everything is lies and exaggeration. I'm more sure about some things and less sure about others and I'd say it's plausible that martyrdom occured in this era, do you disagree? I'm not saying it necessarily went exactly as described like someone was writing as the event was transpiring but when I consider the facts it would seem to make martyrdom plausible.

His argument is more about their limited reach and impact on the general Judean population until the Hasmonean/Maccabean dynasty expanded their influence. — schopenhauer1

Adler is credible. :up:

This group, during the Babylonian Exile, compiled and redacted various writings to fit their view of idealized history. It's like watching Fox News and saying, THIS is the only objective news. Clearly, they have a spin! — schopenhauer1

The Deuteronomist is certainly a very significant part of the Bible, but at the end of the day we all choose our "spins" in life. We all have our own outlook and I maintain that some are better than others and the Bible does a better job at "spin" (nestling in its own unique worldview/s) better than any other book that I have come across.

So maybe we say this idea was retrojected back to Jesus or we bite the bullet and say that Jesus breaks from the Torah here. — BitconnectCarlos

If the Sermon on the Mount is accepted as an accurate reflection of Jesus' teaching then he does not break from the Torah:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished ...

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

(Matthew 5:17-20)

Paul, however, says that "the believers" the followers of "the way" are not under the Law. The dispute between Paul and Jesus' disciples colors much of the NT. In Acts, for example, we find:

God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.

(Acts 15:8-11)

The issue here is circumcision (brit milah, the covenant of Abraham. It is not simply a custom or tradition of the elders to be accepted or rejected, as the Law is sometimes treated in the Gospels. It is a fundamental part of the Law.

According to Acts:

... the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

But according to the Sermon it is Jesus who says to keep the Law of Moses.

You mentioned Matthew earlier, but might you be thinking about Mark 7:18-19?

"And He *said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding as well? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the person from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thereby He declared all foods clean.)"

This is the stronger formulation, with the parenthetical, which as far as I know shows up in the early texts as such (or the ancient equivalent).

But in many cases outside the NT the spirit of the law seems elevated above the letter, and so Jesus is not unique in this. And this goes along with the claim of misunderstanding the Scriptures at John 5:39 — "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me." The spiritual interpretation gives life, the fleshly profits nothing (John 6). And or course in that Gospel Jesus also refers to himself as the temple itself, and at any rate it kicks off by introducing Jesus as the Divine Word through which "everything that has been created was created," so here is a claim to proper authority, "before Abraham was, I am."

But if you want a particularly strong violation of kosher dietary principles, look no further than: "Then Jesus said unto them, “Verily, verily I say unto you, unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you."

Yet the Prophets are full of distinctions such as "the circumcision of the heart," as opposed to mere fleshly circumcision and the elevation of justice over ritual.

E.g. Amos 5

“I hate, I reject your festivals,
Nor do I delight in your festive assemblies.
Even though you offer up to Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings,
I will not accept them;
And I will not even look at the peace offerings of your fattened oxen.
Take away from Me the noise of your songs;
I will not even listen to the sound of your harps.
But let justice roll out like waters,
And righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

Or Psalm 51 (and plenty of others)

You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;
you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart
you, God, will not despise.

Or Hosea 6:6 "I desire mercy not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings."


Or the opening of Isaiah:

Hear the word of the Lord,
you rulers of Sodom;
listen to the instruction of our God,
you people of Gomorrah!
"The multitude of your sacrifices—
what are they to me?” says the Lord.
“I have more than enough of burnt offerings,
of rams and the fat of fattened animals;
I have no pleasure
in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.
When you come to appear before me,
who has asked this of you,
this trampling of my courts?
Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
Your incense is detestable to me.
New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—
I cannot bear your worthless assemblies.
Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals
I hate with all my being.
They have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.
When you spread out your hands in prayer,
I hide my eyes from you;
even when you offer many prayers,
I am not listening.

Your hands are full of blood!

Wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds out of my sight;
stop doing wrong.
Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
plead the case of the widow.

At any rate, Paul for his part sees Christ as fulfillment. The Gentiles are grafted onto the vine of Israel, rather than one vine replacing another.

Alright I will do you one better. According to both Torah law and rabbinic law, a seminal emission places one in a state of ritual impurity. Yet Jewish men are required to procreate. Thus, one can knowingly and voluntarily enter into a state of impurity yet it be a good, obligatory act.

And God directly demands that Ezekiel to cook his bread over human feces(4:9), which the prophet at least seems to think constitute a violation of the same dietary restrictions that forbid eating carion (Leviticus 22).

Alright I will do you one better. According to both Torah law and rabbinic law, a seminal emission places one in a state of ritual impurity. Yet Jewish men are required to procreate. Thus, one can knowingly and voluntarily enter into a state of impurity yet it be a good, obligatory act. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure. I think my last post addresses this topic, which is nuanced. commented on the different viewpoints at some length.

We could clear away the nuance with a simple question: is Jesus thought to have performed the requisite ritual cleansing after raising the girl from the dead? Your answers seem to indicate that you would hold that he did.

Then we're in agreement here. :up: — BitconnectCarlos

:up:

"When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is offered to you." — BitconnectCarlos

This is a more interesting verse. Your argument is worthwhile, and possible. The commentaries I looked at see it as ambiguous with regard to kosher. It could be that, but there are alternative interpretations, namely the avoidance of being fussy when receiving hospitality, and ignoring the additional food laws imposed by the "traditions of the elders."

For myself, I wouldn't want to place such a substantive conclusion on such small shoulders. I would want more evidence.

Are you still playing christianity if there is no ressurection?
If not, but you are still playing, why does the modification matter? Because you have no 'right' to modify the rules and still call it christianity? Under what authority but its own?
Is the essence of Christianity the salvation of the individual or the strict adherence to its rules?
If it's the former, then what if one rejected the resurrection and yet was saved?
Since we cant truly establish the ressurection outside of the claims of the game, hence, we question it;
Unless we can establish the necessity of belief in the ressurection outside of the claims, we ought to be open to questioning it.
I think if it's open for question, let me play christianity without the ressurection if playing that way is effective. There's nothing stopping me.
If the players association determines that only the classical version can be called christianity, let them. It's not trade marked.
Yes I can be a Christian and reject or find irelevant, the ressurection--as a historical fact.
And lest this seem offensive with the reference to 'playing,' I think one can not only play without need of the ressurection (ultimately a self-based 'goal,' providing us with the hope of the same, as if the goal in football were not actually the points, but by calling it a 'slice', the promise of a slice of pizza at the after party), but can play just as passionately and with all of one's might, garnering all of the same benefits both psycho-spiritual and socio-political.

But in many cases outside the NT the spirit of the law seems elevated above the letter, and so Jesus is not unique in this. And this goes along with the claim of misunderstanding the Scriptures at John 5:39 — — Count Timothy von Icarus

What I find perplexing is that we all know this: scriptures are riddled with contradictions; and yet we toil, even the least fanatical and fundamentalist among us, at proving, at determining, etc., as if there is any word ever spoken or inscribed that we can say with unconditional certainty can withstand time as an eternal truth.

Not Descartes, and certainly not St. Paul, though both can still be venerated for their contributions, followed to edifying, even so called spiritually beneficial degrees.

Addendum: Its not fair Paul gets his stamped "must read as eternally true," and poor Descartes doesnt.

Is the essence of Christianity the salvation of the individual or the strict adherence to its rules? — ENOAH

Perhaps the law of Moses is not about personal salvation or adherence to its rules. The social and political aspect of Deuteronomy should not be overlooked:

Go in and take possession of the land the Lord swore he would give to your fathers—to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—and to their descendants after them.

(1:8)

So I took the leading men of your tribes, wise and respected men, and appointed them to have authority over you—as commanders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens and as tribal officials. And I charged your judges at that time, “Hear the disputes between your people and judge fairly, whether the case is between two Israelites or between an Israelite and a foreigner residing among you. Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike. Do not be afraid of anyone, for judgment belongs to God. Bring me any case too hard for you, and I will hear it.”

(1:15-17)

The law is for the people, for the nation, not for an individual.

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus says that he has come to fulfill the Law. Fulfilling the Law is not simply obedience to it. It is something to be accomplished. (5:18)

There is in the sermon no promise of personal salvation, but rather to be part of the kingdom of heaven. Here too there is a political or social dimension.

So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets. (7:12)

Fair enough. Then if the essence of Christianity is strict adherence to its rules, I suppose any claim to membership requires acceptance of the ressurection.

I suppose also that nothing in that precludes me from, like members, acting as though I were a Christian, just from claiming to be one; and from that small matter of my own ressurection, if membership is in fact the exclusive means.

In the end, I think the strings attached end up twisting and strangling the thing being promoted. But that is admittedly me

Then if the essence of Christianity is strict adherence to its rules, I suppose any claim to membership requires acceptance of the ressurection. — ENOAH

There is no mention of resurrection in the sermon. There is no mention of resurrection in Mark when the good news is announced. Then again, the term 'Christian' does not appear either.

In the end, I think the strings attached end up twisting and strangling the thing being promoted. But that is admittedly me — ENOAH

Despite the efforts of the Church Fathers and the self-appointed gatekeepers in this thread, there is no single, coherent, agreed upon concept 'Christian' or teaching regarding Christianity. Odd as it may sound, Jesus was not a Christian. There is much in Christianity that I think he would not have approved of. The religion is the invention of Paul for the Gentiles and developed in ways that I think Paul would not have approved of through the influence of paganism.

there is no single, coherent, agreed upon concept 'Christian' or teaching regarding Christianity. Odd as it may sound, Jesus was not a Christian. There is much in Christianity that I think he would not have approved of. The religion is the invention of Paul for the Gentiles and developed in ways that I think Paul would not have approved of through the influence of paganism. — Fooloso4

When we back up and stop 'playing', that's probably the healthier of starting points if we're willing to think in terms of assessing not just the principles of the founder, but those principles within the context of its postmortem promoters; i.e., those, like Paul who I suspect, really brought us, 'no Christianity without the ressurection; no salvation without Christ.

I don't see how a family hewing to "Christianity as principles for success in modern life," wouldn't want to have Saint Francis committed to a psychiatric institution, or how Saint Augustine giving up his promising career and dispensing with all his family's wealth wouldn't be seen as "taking things a bit too far." The definition of human flourishing that makes Boethius or St. Maximus torture/mutilation and death (or most of the Apostles') "worthwhile" and even "choiceworthy" needs to be dramatically different. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Now that's what I'm talking about. Or how Origen supposedly castrated himself to become a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven. "If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away" but God forbid someone make good on that teaching. I agree though, if one is using Christianity primarily as an instrument to gain material success they're missing the point (to be fair I didn't really get this sense from Peterson).

I wasn't raised Christian, but I did get the sense from reading the gospels that the true Christian should be willing to give his life at the drop of a dime if need be. He may not have very long to live, but while he does live he will burn bright. It's a different way of living.

The Origen story is probably a smear by opponents. In his commentary on Matthew he considers an extremely literal interpretation of this advice to be idiotic.

He was, however, tortured to death and never renounced his faith, and the story about him as a teenager wanting to run out to join his father in martyrdom, only to be stopped by his mother hiding his clothes, is generally thought to be genuine.

If it wasn't for some of his more Platonist speculations and the Origenst Crises that came after his death he'd almost certainly be a saint, and likely a doctor of the church. It's hard to thing of a non-saint who has more influence on theology (and we'd have another probable universalist as a doctor).

is Jesus thought to have performed the requisite ritual cleansing after raising the girl from the dead? — Leontiskos

We'll never know but even if he didn't then he didn't transgress morally.

For myself, I wouldn't want to place such a substantive conclusion on such small shoulders. I would want more evidence. — Leontiskos

If J told his followers to go out among the gentiles/the nations and eat what they serve you then I cannot view that as anything other than permission to break Torah law regarding diet.

If he told his disciples to go out among the Jews and preach then I suppose we could give him the benefit of the doubt given that Jews largely kept kosher.

But as @Count Timothy von Icarus notes by gJohn we have J instructing his followers to dine on his blood and flesh -- clearly prohibited by the Torah.

Origenst Crises — Count Timothy von Icarus

Can you say some more about that?

If J told his followers to go out among the gentiles/the nations and eat what they serve you then I cannot view that as anything other than permission to break Torah law regarding diet. — BitconnectCarlos

Scholars see other possibilities, some of which I already gave:

It could be that, but there are alternative interpretations, namely the avoidance of being fussy when receiving hospitality, and ignoring the additional food laws imposed by the "traditions of the elders." — Leontiskos

But as Count Timothy von Icarus notes by gJohn we have J instructing his followers to dine on his blood and flesh -- clearly prohibited by the Torah. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure, but this goes back to my point about an elevation of the core of the Law. It is also tied up with his divinity. If he isn't divine, then when he says this he is breaking the Law tout court.

It could be that, but there are alternative interpretations, namely the avoidance of being fussy when receiving hospitality, and ignoring the additional food laws imposed by the "traditions of the elders." — Leontiskos

I don't buy this. If I tell you "Leo, go out into the world, preach the gospel, and eat what your guests serve you" it's only a matter of time before your guests serve you e.g. pork or shellfish or any number of other foods prohibited by the Torah. It's not about extra ancestral traditions. It's just the text.

- The text has a cultural context. It does no good to read "just the text" while ignoring that context.

the Origenst Crises that came after his death — Count Timothy von Icarus

I looked up this phrase, which I had only hazy recollection of. From the Wikipedia entry:

In 399, the Origenist crisis reached Egypt.[1] Theophilus of Alexandria was sympathetic to the supporters of Origen[1] and the church historian, Sozomen, records that he had openly preached the Origenist teaching that God was incorporeal.[13] In his Festal Letter of 399, he denounced those who believed that God had a literal, human-like body, calling them illiterate "simple ones".[13][14][3] A large mob of Alexandrian monks who regarded God as anthropomorphic rioted in the streets.[15] According to the church historian Socrates Scholasticus, in order to prevent a riot, Theophilus made a sudden about-face and began denouncing Origen.[15][3] In the year 400, Theophilus summoned a council in Alexandria, which condemned Origen and all his followers as heretics for having taught that God was incorporeal, which they decreed contradicted the only true and orthodox position, which was that God had a literal, physical body resembling that of a human.

A literal 'sky father', then. Origen's writings are voluminous and take some background to understand, but it seems to me he was on the right side of the argument.

There are two distinct crises, occurring centuries after Origen is dead. The first takes place around 400, during sort of the Patristic golden age and involves a lot of famous characters. The second a century later IIRC. Saint Jerome for instance starts off endorsing Origen and universalism, but ends up attacking some Origenist positions. St. John Chrysostom gets removed from being Archbishop of Constantinople and exiled to Anatolia, in part because he was protecting Origenist monks (although really more because of his clashed with the Empress and her camp). St. Augustine is largely absent from this one because Origenism is mainly popular in the Levant and Egypt, not so much out in Latin western Africa where he is.

The problem with Origen centers around his more Platonist speculations. It would be inaccurate to call them Neoplatonic, because Origen is an older contemporary and potential inspiration for Plotinus, but rather "late middle Platonism." But Neoplatonism might rightly be thought of as in a sense repaganizing Jewish and Christian (including Gnostic) advances in Platonism.

It's worth pointing out that Origen was a critic of the Gnostics, as was Clement, although there is also a lot of overlap because much of Gnosticism became orthodoxy. Pagels argues that John is a "gnostic gospel," which might be a bit much, but there is something to the idea.

A literal 'sky father', then. Origen's writings are voluminous and take some background to understand, but it seems to me he was on the right side of the argument.

I think this probably a gross oversimplification given the characters involved. The main objection I've seen brough up is to the preexistence of human souls and the idea of the Fall as a "fall into corporeality" chiefly. So, the issues at play are the goodness of creation (no doubt corrupted and ruled over by the corrupt archons and demons), and the idea that humans, having achieved the beatific vision and beholding the perfection of God, can decide that something else looks more appealing. I am most familiar with St. Maximus' rebuttal's of these arguments, but the Cappadocians take them up too. The problem is that, if man can achieve theosis and beatification and then fall once, what stops him from doing it again? This also seems to introduce an element of arbitrariness into perfected freedom that is at odds with much classical philosophy.

The other thing is that the views on creation and the fall also tend to make the body a "prison" of sorts, whereas the resurrection of Revelations (less accepted in Origen's time) involves the resurrection of the body. Then, in some places, Origen seems to play around with reincarnation, another "no-go" for otherwise sympathetic voices.

But the issue wasn't so much Origen's speculations, as much later partisans pushing them further and trying to transform them into doctrine and dogma.

Pagels argues that John is a "gnostic gospel," which might be a bit much, but there is something to the idea. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I had the idea that she thought the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas found at Nag Hammadi was gnostic and that John represented what was to become orthodoxy (in Beyond Belief). Do I recall incorrectly?

1) If Jesus did not rise from the dead, can there be a rational belief in Christianity? — BT

Something can be rational and untrue, and something can be irrational and true, in general. Rationality's goal is (often) truth, but it doesn't have direct access to the truth and is non synonymous with it. But belief in Christianity is not usually based in rationality anyway.

2) If one is not sure if Jesus actually rose from the dead, can they still have a rational belief in Christianity? — BT

Rationality has nothing to do with it. If you don't believe that happened, you're not a literal christian - you might be a different kind of christian.

The Origen story is probably a smear by opponents. In his commentary on Matthew he considers an extremely literal interpretation of this advice to be idiotic. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I get that Jesus is often not to be taken extremely literally. Yet one can be a "eunuch for the kingdom of heaven." Paul possibly considers himself as something along those lines. If one's urges are driving one to destruction, perhaps sterilizing oneself can be justified according to the gospels.