Question of the Week

Off Topic
362

Wrong. If I cant marry another woman, even if I divorce my wife, without committing adultery then how can I marry two wives and think that isn’t the same thing?

1 Corinthians 7:2-4
2Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife

Each person is given their own. Two become one flesh. That is monogamy and it is very much biblical.

363

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

Also the practice of watching people have sex was considered in old testament times to be a part of Baal worship. [/quote]

But Christians in the Church Age are not under Levitical or Old Testament Law. Especially not as Gentiles.

364

Galatians 5:19-25
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

And the Baal worship thing, although true, was more of just an interesting tidbit.

368

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Wrong. If I cant marry another woman, even if I divorce my wife, without committing adultery then how can I marry two wives and think that isn’t the same thing?

1 Corinthians 7:2-4
2Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife

Each person is given their own. Two become one flesh. That is monogamy and it is very much biblical.[/quote]

It’s not wrong. I told you this wasn’t about divorcing one woman and marrying another.

And the Corinthians passage does not negate what I wrote about earlier.

One must also understand the root meanings when they were written of the various pertinent words such as “fornication, adultery, lust,” etc.

Yes, they meant one thing when they were written and have evolved to mean something different today. For instance, “fornication” was a sexual act that involved an idolatrous prostitute (male or female). David did NOT commit fornication when he took on a second and third wife.[/quote]

I don’t know if you didn’t follow my logic or not, however, it is still sound and the passage relating to divorce has everything to do with monogamy. If Christ was ok with polygamy then marrying another woman would not result in an adulterous relationship. It would merely be a second wife.

369

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Galatians 5:19-25
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

And the Baal worship thing, although true, was more of just an interesting tidbit.[/quote]

Lasciviousness is another one of those words that has taken on a meaning of its own AFTER it was penned in the first century. It was defined by the Middle Ages Catholic church.

It obviously did not just mean sex with multiple women in the Old Testament. We know that because of what I wrote about a few posts up concerning David, Solomon, Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, etc.[/quote]

I was speaking to the viewing of porn with the Lasciviousness comment. Some more modern translations use debauchery or impurity in place of that.

372

Has anyone here read “The Red Tent” by Anita Diamant?

373

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Galatians 5:19-25
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

And the Baal worship thing, although true, was more of just an interesting tidbit.[/quote]

Lasciviousness is another one of those words that has taken on a meaning of its own AFTER it was penned in the first century. It was defined by the Middle Ages Catholic church.

It obviously did not just mean sex with multiple women in the Old Testament. We know that because of what I wrote about a few posts up concerning David, Solomon, Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, etc.[/quote]

I was speaking to the viewing of porn with the Lasciviousness comment. Some more modern translations use debauchery or impurity in place of that.[/quote]

Yes, they do. But the word(s) was used in the first century during which Greek, Roman, and Babylonian occult sexual practices were being committed in idolatrous temples or houses of prostitution and it was woven into the worship of those associated gods. THAT is the context of the origins of those words.

It’s not the sex, it’s the idolatry.

Read the 1 Samuel 8 passage again.[/quote]

So what you are saying is, you reject my text based argument because by your own conjecture that’s not what with the context of the writing?? I disagree with your interpretation of the context and believe it meant it in a more general sense and that it didn’t mean sexual practices in the worship of foreign Gods. Where the things you mentioned going on in that time, yes. However you have no way of knowing if that was truly the intentions of Paul as he pinned the letter the letter to the Galatians. Keep in mind, the man you are saying was probably only meaning “don’t participate in sexually impure practices worshipping other gods, the rest of the time its ok” is a man who thought that men and women should remain abstinent if at all possible and essentially only take a spouse if you could not resist temptation. I am thinking his “context” probably leans far closer to my own interpretation than yours.

374

I can concede that Solomon’s punishment was more about the idolatry than the sex, although Ecclesiastes would have you to believe that Solomon himself realized later in life that he had wasted time on frivolity, much of which was regarding women, and not served the Lord as he should have.

However to insinuate that Paul’s and Christ’s words insinuate anything but God’s original plan being monogamy with one man and one woman is a fairly significant reach.

377

I think it was for more than just for sake of ease that one wife was to be taken. I think that, and I feel much of the scripture that I have quoted backs me up on this, monogamy was the original plan. Then due to reasons that I do not fully understand, that plan was allowed to be altered. When Christ came, he put an end to polygamy being acceptable any longer. He said as much and those that followed him did also. Monogamy predates polygamy and man was six generations deep before the first polygamist.

Also Noah and his sons were monogamous preceding the flood. Abraham was monogamous before Sarah and his impatience caused them to be disobedient. The Hagar marriage was not part of God’s will. With both the beginning of man and its restart after the flood, the world starts with monogamy.

379

[quote]pushharder wrote:

God’s original plan was, “Be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth.” He did not specify that this was to happen with one man and one woman each and every time. [/quote]

Wasn’t that plan given to One Man, Adam, and One Woman, Eve? When you only have 2 people you do not have to be very specific.

You are stating that God was not specific on sex outside of Marriage, but You are very specific on Each Day in the creation story is 24 hours Even though God never said it was.

Push, I am not attacking you because we both know we have gone here before.

380

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
I think it was for more than just for sake of ease that one wife was to be taken. I think that, and I feel much of the scripture that I have quoted backs me up on this, monogamy was the original plan.

[/quote]

I’m not saying it wasn’t. I’m saying for hundreds, no, thousands, of years lack of adherence to the “original plan” (in this regard) was never ever condemned by God. Let’s face it, God had no problem identifying and condemning sin. The Bible is a history of just that. But He did not condemn plural marriage or even sex with female servants of a man’s wives. Ever. He didn’t even condemn the premarital sex between a married man and a widow (Boaz and Ruth). Why would He not have made Himself clear in that regard? He did so with all the rest of the sins.

Yes. And we should be careful not assign something as “sin” without proper biblical backing. Impractical? Maybe. Unwise in some cases? Sure. But not “sin.”

NO, he did not. Completely false.

So what? That in and of itself does not make it sin. Like I said, God never had a problem identifying sin. God identifies sin and punishes those who commit it. Plain and simple. He never punished Abraham for sex with Hagar. He never punished Jacob for having sex with Rachel, Bilhah, and Zilpah. He never punished Joseph for sex with his second wife. He never punished Gideon. He never punished Saul. Or David. Or Solomon. He punished them for other things but not the sex.

He DID punish David for the sex with Bathsheba, a married woman, and He did punish him for murdering Uriah, her husband.

JB, the Bible doesn’t mess around when it comes to identifying and recognizing and recording the punishment of sin.

Yes. So what? Many Old Testament men were monogamous. Many were polygamous.

It’s not about the sex.

The Bible never says he was disobedient. Church doctrine does, however.

I understand that is what is taught. But the Bible itself does not say that. Read it.

Agreed.
[/quote]

I still disagree with you over the intent of meaning in Matthew 19 and the same story in Mark 10 which I probably should have used initially because it actually has more wording and supports my case a little better. I believe the Two becomes One flesh literally means that a husband and a wife are two people becoming one and they share all of each one themselves with the other. You cannot share all of yourself with more than one wife.

And in regards to sin, he does punish sins and it is recorded, however, not all sins are punished or even acknowledged in the Bible. Rachel stealing her Father’s idols and lying about them comes to mind.

At the very least I have enjoyed this discussion because it has caused me to do a little evaluating and refreshing my memory on just what is in the text vs what I remember being in the text ha.