[quote]pushharder wrote:
Irish, thanks! Now go back and answer my questions. You too, Tirib the Satanic Tool Annihilator.[/quote]
Patience my good man - I’m getting there . . . lol
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m guessing the requirement that a bishop not have more than one wife becomes a nod for all others to have more than one. Which just isn’t the case. It’s simply ‘practice what you preach.’ Nothing more. This is the same Paul from 1 Cor 7:2, after all.
“But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.” [/quote]
Nope, not where I was headed. R.I.G., tell me why it’s a perfectly good idea for a church elder to be single.[/quote]
Why would it be preferable?
1 Cor:
32 But I would have you to be free from cares. He that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
33 but he that is married is careful for the things of the world, how he may please his wife,
34 and is divided. So also the woman that is unmarried and the virgin is careful for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married is careful for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m guessing the requirement that a bishop not have more than one wife becomes a nod for all others to have more than one. Which just isn’t the case. It’s simply ‘practice what you preach.’ Nothing more. This is the same Paul from 1 Cor 7:2, after all.
“But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.” [/quote]
Nope, not where I was headed. R.I.G., tell me why it’s a perfectly good idea for a church elder to be single.[/quote]
Why would it be preferable?
1 Cor:
32 But I would have you to be free from cares. He that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
33 but he that is married is careful for the things of the world, how he may please his wife,
34 and is divided. So also the woman that is unmarried and the virgin is careful for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married is careful for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
[/quote]
Good boy. You are sitting up straight in your chair and are bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, finally.
The reason a single man does just fine and is entirely acceptable as a church leader is “He that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord: but he that is married is careful for the things of the world, how he may please his wife.”
Now the dawn is about to break as to why Tirib the Satanic Tool Eradicator wouldn’t touch this question with a 10 ft. scimitar.
A church leader with no wives CAN SPEND MORE TIME WITH HIS FLIPPIN’ FLOCK than a man with one wife.
A church leader with one wife CAN SPEND MORE TIME WITH HIS FLIPPIN’ FLOCK than a man with two or more wives. The “church elders shall be the husband of one wife” doctrine was not given for moral reasons! It was given for practical reasons![/quote]
Uh, he’s not permitted more than one wife, Bishop or not. As a Bishop he can’t have more than one wife because he is to practice what he preaches to the flock. If he has children they must be disciplined rather than unruly, for the same reason.
Back to 1 Cor 7:2 again…
1 Cor 7
2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
1 Cor 7
2But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.[/quote]
That verse does NOT have a prohibition against another wife. The prohibition that does indeed exist is built by religious tradition.[/quote]
EACH woman is to have her OWN husband.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
1 Cor 7
2But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.[/quote]
That verse does NOT have a prohibition against another wife. The prohibition that does indeed exist is built by religious tradition.[/quote]
EACH woman is to have her OWN husband. [/quote]
Instead of using a Mini-Maglite (with weak batteries) to examine portions of the Scripture use a great big floodlight that illuminates the entire Bible.[/quote]
Push, you’re case is solely based on the OT, therefore, the same advise could be leveled at yourself. Others have pointed out that what was once permissable to a ‘hard-hearted’ people is no longer the case. The hebrews weren’t/aren’t Christians. Neither Moses nor David were Christians. Just as Moses is permitted to permit a man to set aside his wife, David is permitted the perks of power. It’s good to be the King. We do not get to live by unfullfilled law.
3 And Pharisees came up to him and(E) tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce oneâ??s wife for any cause?”
4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
TWO shall become one flesh…
Each man his own wife, and each woman her own husband…
The NT has fullfilled the law, and as Christians we must obey. Hardness of heart is no longer excused. There’s nothing more to be said on the topic. Further discussion would be a circular repetition of verses and concepts. Others can add to what I’ve posted. Me, well, I’m getting some sleep.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Hodgie wrote:
Sorry to join the dogpile Push, but I’d like your thoughts on a few scriptures.
“But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.” (I Cor 7:9)
Firstly, if it were lawful to engage in sex with any single woman (excluding temple prostitutes), then why would a man “burn” with passion? He can essential get all the tail he desires (excluding wives and temple prostitutes).
Secondly, why would he recommend marriage to help quench a man’s desire if it were acceptable to have sex outside of marriage?
[/quote]
I think this is where Paul’s Law of Liberty MUST come into play. Do you know what I’m talking about?
You bring up some very good points though. Seriously.[quote]
Thirdly, Paul includes himself when he mentions “warring with the flesh” daily, not just the Gentiles.
" These are the works of the flesh: adultery, fornication…" (Gal 5:19)
Now, if you are correct and married women and temple prostitutes are the only women off limits for sex, then Paul is kind of a spiritual weakling. Afterall, he can have sex with any woman he wants excluding these groups. Seems like a pretty easy war to win.
Now, if the traditional view is correct, and sex is reserved for marriage only, then the “war with the flesh” becomes exceedlingly more difficult, especially for a single man like Paul who did not have a wife to contain his desires.
[/quote]
#1 Paul was a church elder and therefore limited to one wife.
#2 Don’t forget Paul’s admonition, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” Wanna be dogmatic? Deal with that statement.
#3 Since you’re new here I will be kind…I have already gone over the fact that adultery, fornication, and lust have different meanings now. I’m not going over it again except to say that those words MUST be understood in context. Noah Webster was not a contemporary of Paul.[/quote]
I’ve read the entire thread, so I know your views on adultery, fornication, and lust. I have to say, I agree with your views on adultery and lust since they are supported by scripture in context. However, the Thelos word play on fornication and homosexuality is pretty weak.
Let’s substitute your definition of fornication into scripture. “Nevertheless, to avoid having sex with those temple prostitutes, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” Why take wives? Why not concubines? Why is there no mention of concubines anywhere in the NT if it was common, lawful practice?
It just sunk in to me what you were saying earlier about meat sacrificed to idols. It didn’t before because it simply didn’t occur to me that even you could be guilty of so outrageous an abuse. I suppose the fact that you were trying to make the doctrines of family non fatal should have been a clue. Unbelievable, really.
And this earth shattering revelation about singles and the ministry? You stayed up til 5:30 in the morning for THAT. I could find stronger ways to justify whoredom myself.
You need to take that unholy blasphemous book of yours, throw it on the fire, recognize Philo Thelos as the tool of Satan in your life that he is and read the 51st Psalm for something from David that actually is for you. Begging the most high God to make it real in your heart.
My dear friend you are flailing about in the quicksand of one ferocious addiction to your fleshly old man. It’s gonna kill you if you do not fall on your face before Him only who is equipped to pull you to safety. The very best case scenario is that you are a prodigal brother who’s riotous living has not yet hit bottom. The worst is reprobation wherein God simply abandons you to yourself. You are lost. If I am to take the Gospel seriously that conclusion is no longer avoidable. Whether it’s permanent is not for me to know. If the wife you claim to love and yourself are truly contented like this it doesn’t look good. You will stand accountable for her soul as well. Her prophet, priest and king who led her into the temples of molech.
I am going to go back now and read Irishsteel’s post about the Song of Songs, but I don’t know how much more of this I can take. I’ll get that Beck/O’reilly piece up for you.