|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Concubines - 6/26/2009 3:45:32 PM
|
|
|
iwillfearnoevil
Posts: 3646
Joined: 11/6/2007
From: upstate NY
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
But do not disparage HIS mercy on widows and orphans.
why can't widows remarry a single person? it seems short sighted of the pro-polygamy crowd to keep falling back on this claimed discrimination that a woman can't find a single man.
_____________________________
Photoblogging My Life
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 6/26/2009 4:17:33 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2954
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
But do not disparage HIS mercy on widows and orphans.
why can't widows remarry a single person? it seems short sighted of the pro-polygamy crowd to keep falling back on this claimed discrimination that a woman can't find a single man.
Availability is difficult to prove in the current culture, given all the games of musical beds going on. However, statistically, it is reasonable to conclude that if we were a society that honored fidelity, there could be a shortage of eligable males.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 6/26/2009 11:35:02 PM
|
|
|
Nick_Drake
Posts: 601
Joined: 4/24/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nick_Drakequote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
What if I felt that praying with my eyes open was just as sinful as murder? Does that make it so?
Well, yeah, actually that does make it so...for you.
Surely you know this from the scriptures. I know the scripture you are refering to: Whatever is not of faith is sin.
But what is the sin? The thing itself or the lack of faith? I submit the latter.
Without faith it is impossible to please Him...
I had a pastor once that believed that even smelling alcohol (not even drinking it) was so sinful you lost your salvation. One day he was praying and felt the Lord lead him to go to a bar and hand out tracts. This kept coming up every time he prayed. Finally after several weeks he figured that he could hyperventilate and hold his breath while running thru the bar throwing tracts at everyone. He was so proud that he had figured out a way to obey God without sinning.
What is wrong with this picture?
God would never require anything of him that would cause him to violate his conscience. God's request to Ezekiel is a poofect Biblical example.
For those who can see and accept God's first and foremost intention for marriage the way it was intended from the beginning (for not all can, apparently), Jesus said that person should accept it. Adding to the one you had first (whether you have divorced her or not, doesn't matter) is not how you accept the real truth Jesus taught about marriage.
It would not be unreasonable to argue that for that person polygamy would be sin. That's where I consider myself to be. Even if it were made lawful tomorrow here in the US, it wouldn't make any difference to me. I know the real truth about marriage. For me, polygamy would probably be a sin (unless of course I met a 'needy' widow named Abigail who was beautiful, smart, and rich, lol!)
_____________________________
'This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Every wineskin should be filled with wine.' Jeremiah 13:12
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 6/26/2009 11:57:17 PM
|
|
|
Nick_Drake
Posts: 601
Joined: 4/24/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
But do not disparage HIS mercy on widows and orphans.
why can't widows remarry a single person? it seems short sighted of the pro-polygamy crowd to keep falling back on this claimed discrimination that a woman can't find a single man.
Truthfully, I don't think I'd be interested in a woman who couldn't find a single man, lol!
_____________________________
'This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Every wineskin should be filled with wine.' Jeremiah 13:12
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 6/27/2009 12:05:50 AM
|
|
|
Nick_Drake
Posts: 601
Joined: 4/24/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
So do not condemn the provision God has made for hurting people living in a fallen world.
Pologamy usually turns out that way, doesn't it? Lol!
_____________________________
'This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Every wineskin should be filled with wine.' Jeremiah 13:12
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 6/27/2009 1:21:36 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2954
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nick_Drake
quote:
So do not condemn the provision God has made for hurting people living in a fallen world.
Pologamy usually turns out that way, doesn't it? Lol!
Then Paul's advice that it is better to marry than to burn with lust only applies to men and there is not risk of women becoming overcome by their "natural passions" as Paul fears?
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 6/28/2009 10:22:24 AM
|
|
|
Nick_Drake
Posts: 601
Joined: 4/24/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nick_Drake
quote:
So do not condemn the provision God has made for hurting people living in a fallen world.
Pologamy usually turns out that way, doesn't it? Lol!
Then Paul's advice that it is better to marry than to burn with lust only applies to men and there is not risk of women becoming overcome by their "natural passions" as Paul fears?
I have no idea what this means in light of what you quoted from me. You'll have to drift off into this path of meaningless talk about the law without me this time.
I've heard a better word about this subject than what the law says. I'm going with that, and that's what I'll lead others toward also. Of course you are free to share whatever you want to with this subject, too.
Unless you come back to some reasonable discussion, you can have the satisfaction of having the last word.
_____________________________
'This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Every wineskin should be filled with wine.' Jeremiah 13:12
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 6/29/2009 7:33:53 AM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 3800
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Paul tells us, (1Co 7:1b) "It is good for a man not to marry." and (1Co 7:38) "So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.".
However, at the same time he tells us, (1Ti 5:11 & 14) "As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry." "So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander."
So, how do we reconcile these two apparently controdictory bits of advise for men and women? I realize this is a bit off topic but here goes:
1Co 7:26 I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is.
It seems there was a persecution going on at that time in Corinth and it would be better to not be concerned about family during that upheaval. IOW, God's will is very personal. It takes into account temporary changes and circumstances in a practical way.
_____________________________
Avatar is my daughter Laura and SIL David on their wedding 9/20/09 ====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 6/29/2009 7:35:33 AM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 3800
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Then Paul's advice that it is better to marry than to burn with lust only applies to men and there is not risk of women becoming overcome by their "natural passions" as Paul fears? If you look at the Greek, the "better to marry than to burn" is addressed to women.
_____________________________
Avatar is my daughter Laura and SIL David on their wedding 9/20/09 ====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 6/29/2009 4:15:54 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2954
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Then Paul's advice that it is better to marry than to burn with lust only applies to men and there is not risk of women becoming overcome by their "natural passions" as Paul fears? If you look at the Greek, the "better to marry than to burn" is addressed to women.
Thank you. That is my point. The presumption that lust is a purely male temptation is not a biblical viewpoint.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 6/29/2009 4:44:07 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2954
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nick_Drake
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nick_Drake
quote:
So do not condemn the provision God has made for hurting people living in a fallen world.
Pologamy usually turns out that way, doesn't it? Lol!
Then Paul's advice that it is better to marry than to burn with lust only applies to men and there is not risk of women becoming overcome by their "natural passions" as Paul fears?
I have no idea what this means in light of what you quoted from me. You'll have to drift off into this path of meaningless talk about the law without me this time.
I've heard a better word about this subject than what the law says. I'm going with that, and that's what I'll lead others toward also. Of course you are free to share whatever you want to with this subject, too.
Unless you come back to some reasonable discussion, you can have the satisfaction of having the last word.
Sorry, if I misunderstood you, but it appeared you were saying that polygamy creates a fallen world. I do not have any way of determining whether or not you have heard a better word except to compare what you profess to the Scriptures.
Now, are the writings of Paul in the Tanach(ot)? That is news to me. In the Tanach(ot), there is no command for polygamy unless one considers the near kinsman requirement to be one. Also, there is no commandment against it. The Tanach(ot) merely makes provision for it.
So we look to the Apistolic Writings(nt). That is where I got the quotes from Paul. If trying to discern Paul's intent and therefore Adonai's intent, from the things that he actually wrote, is not reasonable discussion, I would be interested in knowing what you consider reasonable discussion.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 6/30/2009 10:17:02 AM
|
|
|
Nick_Drake
Posts: 601
Joined: 4/24/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nick_Drake
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nick_Drake
quote:
So do not condemn the provision God has made for hurting people living in a fallen world.
Pologamy usually turns out that way, doesn't it? Lol!
Then Paul's advice that it is better to marry than to burn with lust only applies to men and there is not risk of women becoming overcome by their "natural passions" as Paul fears?
I have no idea what this means in light of what you quoted from me. You'll have to drift off into this path of meaningless talk about the law without me this time.
I've heard a better word about this subject than what the law says. I'm going with that, and that's what I'll lead others toward also. Of course you are free to share whatever you want to with this subject, too.
Unless you come back to some reasonable discussion, you can have the satisfaction of having the last word.
Sorry, if I misunderstood you, but it appeared you were saying that polygamy creates a fallen world.
I was trying to being funny...
"So do not condemn the provision God has made for hurting (injuring) people living in a fallen world."
Instead of the way DaveW meant it..."So do not condemn the provision God has made (to assist) hurting people living in a fallen world."
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
I do not have any way of determining whether or not you have heard a better word except to compare what you profess to the Scriptures.
What is it about the supremecy of Jesus's words that you don't understand? I'll give you space to not get it. He does seem to imply some people simply aren't going to get it, and as we know all too well, will end up with more than one spouse in this life, against God's original intention.
You can rationalize and justify all the reasons and possiblities for having more than one wife, either through divorce or polygamy, but it doesn't change the final, authoritative word Christ has revealed to us about the matter. It's not that some of those situations aren't legit. It's just that there is a more spiritual word available to man to show us the real truth about the matter. To whatever extent a man wants to live in the fallenness of this world, either by choice or because of ignorance, is the extent to which he will not accept Jesus's word on the matter of 'one man, one woman, for life'.
Paul gives a better word, too. And he agrees with the opinion of the Apostles that it is better for a man not to marry, but probably not for the same reasons the Apostles said that is so, lol! The Apostles apparently thought it unreasonable to stay with the same woman for life and thought it better to stay single, while Paul adds that you can give your undivided attention to the Lord if you are single.
There's no reason to bring up special scenarios (Biblical, or non-Biblical) to try to defend the freedom God really does give man to not live up to his first and foremost ideal for marriage. There's Biblical guidance on how to do that. But to elevate that guidance above, or even to the same level of what Jesus said is completely contrary to the substance of that better advice. The question is, "can a person see and accept that better advice?" Apparently polygamists can't.
So the second-best counsel of the law, and even some of Paul's counsel, is for a fallen world, not spiritual men and women who can, and therefore should (as Jesus says), accept the supreme will of God for marriage. I'm sure God meant no offense to anyone who chooses less than that, afterall, he's the one who allows men to choose less than best. That's just the truth of the matter.
_____________________________
'This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Every wineskin should be filled with wine.' Jeremiah 13:12
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 6/30/2009 2:30:54 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2954
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nick_Drake
I was trying to being funny...
"So do not condemn the provision God has made for hurting (injuring) people living in a fallen world."
Instead of the way DaveW meant it..."So do not condemn the provision God has made (to assist) hurting people living in a fallen world."
How do we know that polygamy and having concubines is worse than serial adultary(divorce and remarrage)? The latter is commonly accepted in almost every church I have seen. Especially if the second, third or forth spouse happens to agree with the doctrine of the particular church and the previous one(s) did not. I would contend that if a polygamist or concubine contract were enforced as marrage contracts should be that would be a much more preferable option.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
I do not have any way of determining whether or not you have heard a better word except to compare what you profess to the Scriptures.
What is it about the supremecy of Jesus's words that you don't understand?
Where specifically is it recorded that Yeshua said, 'one man, one woman, for life'?
< Message edited by Bluethread -- 6/30/2009 4:04:49 PM >
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 7/1/2009 12:03:23 AM
|
|
|
Nick_Drake
Posts: 601
Joined: 4/24/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Where specifically is it recorded that Yeshua said, 'one man, one woman, for life'?
I know that you know where it is in the Bible, but I suspect you want to challenge what I believe it teaches us...
Mark 10:6-12
...at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
10When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
Because we were made male and female by God's design, a man will leave his parent's home to be joined as one flesh in a natural, normal, and expected sexual union with a woman. What God intended to come together, by virtue of biological compatibility, no man is to separate. The point of divorce is, it does not legitimately separate that which God has put together, but it does lead to that which does--adultery.
Jesus is saying divorce (except for reason of adultery) can not separate that which has been joined together (if it did, remarrying would not be adultery against the other person). After you've become one flesh with a person and entered into a union that God says can only be separated by sleeping with another person, joining yourself to someone else is to do exactly that which God said you should not do--separate yourself from your spouse. Polygamy is exactly that--separating that which God has joined together by joining yourself to another, contrary to what he intended from the beginning.
As we can see in even the response of the Apostles, this is a hard teaching that God has made concessions on because of our inability to understand it, and accept the consequences of what accepting that truth may mean. Only those who have received this teaching can (and therefore, should) accept the truth that God wants us to stay faithful to our first spouse...even if it means celibacy, either by our own choice or as the result of other's choices. Not an easy teaching at all.
< Message edited by Nick_Drake -- 7/1/2009 12:11:43 AM >
_____________________________
'This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Every wineskin should be filled with wine.' Jeremiah 13:12
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 7/1/2009 6:53:18 AM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 3800
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevilquote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
But do not disparage HIS mercy on widows and orphans. why can't widows remarry a single person? it seems short sighted of the pro-polygamy crowd to keep falling back on this claimed discrimination that a woman can't find a single man. And if half of the men (or more) are killed off in war? Or the fact that live female births slightly outnumber live male births?
_____________________________
Avatar is my daughter Laura and SIL David on their wedding 9/20/09 ====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 7/1/2009 2:06:05 PM
|
|
|
iwillfearnoevil
Posts: 3646
Joined: 11/6/2007
From: upstate NY
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
quote:
ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevilquote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
But do not disparage HIS mercy on widows and orphans. why can't widows remarry a single person? it seems short sighted of the pro-polygamy crowd to keep falling back on this claimed discrimination that a woman can't find a single man. And if half of the men (or more) are killed off in war? Or the fact that live female births slightly outnumber live male births?
again i feel that's setting up a hypothetical situation (although realistic) and is more about trying to find situations it might be okay to bend the actual law without regard for the spirit of the law ... i did re-read some of blues posts and a few almost seem a foreign language to me until i realized he's posting from a messianic background and i believe you are too ... i'm just not sure we'll agree in this thread ...
_____________________________
Photoblogging My Life
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 7/1/2009 2:31:03 PM
|
|
|
Nick_Drake
Posts: 601
Joined: 4/24/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil
again i feel that's setting up a hypothetical situation (although realistic) and is more about trying to find situations it might be okay to bend the actual law without regard for the spirit of the law ... i did re-read some of blues posts and a few almost seem a foreign language to me until i realized he's posting from a messianic background and i believe you are too ... i'm just not sure we'll agree in this thread ...
BINGO!
With all due respect to them, it's hard for them to accept that God has brought to light once hidden revelation that leads us into a greater responsibility of righteousness than the law required. They are compelled by this belief to preserve every letter of the law by limiting, or squeezing this new revelation to fit the old. IOW, to see new revelation only to the extent that it does not literally change the old.
And it is a different language they speak--one that comes from what they call a Hebraic mindset and understanding (one that preserves the law in it's entirety just the way it was written).
No offense intended to our Messianic brethren. Please feel free to confirm or correct what I've shared.
_____________________________
'This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Every wineskin should be filled with wine.' Jeremiah 13:12
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 7/1/2009 6:49:05 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2954
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nick_Drake
quote:
ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil
again i feel that's setting up a hypothetical situation (although realistic) and is more about trying to find situations it might be okay to bend the actual law without regard for the spirit of the law ... i did re-read some of blues posts and a few almost seem a foreign language to me until i realized he's posting from a messianic background and i believe you are too ... i'm just not sure we'll agree in this thread ...
BINGO!
With all due respect to them, it's hard for them to accept that God has brought to light once hidden revelation that leads us into a greater responsibility of righteousness than the law required. They are compelled by this belief to preserve every letter of the law by limiting, or squeezing this new revelation to fit the old. IOW, to see new revelation only to the extent that it does not literally change the old.
And it is a different language they speak--one that comes from what they call a Hebraic mindset and understanding (one that preserves the law in it's entirety just the way it was written).
No offense intended to our Messianic brethren. Please feel free to confirm or correct what I've shared.
However, as I pointed out earlier, I have not made any points from the Tanach(ot), nor have I depended on rabbinics but have focused on the writings of the Apostles. It is you who have introduced passages from the Tanach and your own brand of rabbinics, if the rabbis will forgive me for using that term in this context.
As you pointed out in post #89, that passage is speaking about divorce and adultry. It is not talking about polygamy and concubines. If it were, Yeshua could have made that clear. John had not problem pointing out that Harod was commiting adultry in a somewhat sly fashion. If Yeshua wished to change things, would he not have made such a change clear?
Male and female in this passage are generic terms and refer to all males and all females. If He had wished to make the point of "one man. one woman, for life.", i would think He would have said, He made a man and a woman and for this cause a man shall be joined to but one wife. He did not say it this way.
Also, why did He say, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her." Why didn't He just say, Anyone who marries another woman before his first wife dies commits adultery against her. This is how John stated it when He talked about Herod marrying his brother's wife. Now, I have no problem with "to death do us part". I just think the "one man, one woman" part is your doctrine and not Yeshua's teaching. Ascribing this difference of opinion to a perceived denomination is just trying to "find situations" where one's views can be ascribed to Yeshua without actually proving the point. One is fee to think that is His intent, but one can not say that He clearly taught that, in my opinion.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 7/2/2009 1:31:26 AM
|
|
|
Nick_Drake
Posts: 601
Joined: 4/24/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nick_Drake
quote:
ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil
again i feel that's setting up a hypothetical situation (although realistic) and is more about trying to find situations it might be okay to bend the actual law without regard for the spirit of the law ... i did re-read some of blues posts and a few almost seem a foreign language to me until i realized he's posting from a messianic background and i believe you are too ... i'm just not sure we'll agree in this thread ...
BINGO!
With all due respect to them, it's hard for them to accept that God has brought to light once hidden revelation that leads us into a greater responsibility of righteousness than the law required. They are compelled by this belief to preserve every letter of the law by limiting, or squeezing this new revelation to fit the old. IOW, to see new revelation only to the extent that it does not literally change the old.
And it is a different language they speak--one that comes from what they call a Hebraic mindset and understanding (one that preserves the law in it's entirety just the way it was written).
No offense intended to our Messianic brethren. Please feel free to confirm or correct what I've shared.
However, as I pointed out earlier, I have not made any points from the Tanach(ot), nor have I depended on rabbinics but have focused on the writings of the Apostles. It is you who have introduced passages from the Tanach and your own brand of rabbinics, if the rabbis will forgive me for using that term in this context.
As you pointed out in post #89, that passage is speaking about divorce and adultry. It is not talking about polygamy and concubines. If it were, Yeshua could have made that clear. John had not problem pointing out that Harod was commiting adultry in a somewhat sly fashion. If Yeshua wished to change things, would he not have made such a change clear?
Male and female in this passage are generic terms and refer to all males and all females. If He had wished to make the point of "one man. one woman, for life.", i would think He would have said, He made a man and a woman and for this cause a man shall be joined to but one wife. He did not say it this way.
Also, why did He say, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her." Why didn't He just say, Anyone who marries another woman before his first wife dies commits adultery against her. This is how John stated it when He talked about Herod marrying his brother's wife. Now, I have no problem with "to death do us part". I just think the "one man, one woman" part is your doctrine and not Yeshua's teaching. Ascribing this difference of opinion to a perceived denomination is just trying to "find situations" where one's views can be ascribed to Yeshua without actually proving the point. One is fee to think that is His intent, but one can not say that He clearly taught that, in my opinion.
We have no choice but to conclude from what you believe that as long as we don't divorce the wife we have it's not adultery if we sleep with another woman.
What man really thinks he is innocent before God if he comes home to his wife one day and says, "hi honey! ...consummated another marital relationship today." Aren't you arguing we all have the God given privelege to do that (in a country that hasn't outlawed it) and we would not be guilty of adultery? Let's ask our wives if they think that's true.
_____________________________
'This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Every wineskin should be filled with wine.' Jeremiah 13:12
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 7/2/2009 10:09:52 AM
|
|
|
Nick_Drake
Posts: 601
Joined: 4/24/2009
Status: offline
|
What qualifiers, Mr. Bluethread, must we also put on these teachings to show that having more than one wife is really okay?
Matthew 5:27
27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
If I go with what you believe then it's okay to scope out the ladies, even though I'm already married, just as long as they're not already married, and my intent is to have an ongoing committed relationship with them (in a country that allows that legally). Do you really think this was what Jesus had in mind here?
And this...
Hebrews 13:4
4Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
So again, according to what you believe, as long as I only pick women who aren't already married, and I commit to a life-long relationship, the writer of Hebrews isn't talking about taking another wife, but is only talking about casual, uncommitted relationships with other women, and contact with women who already beong to someone else? Really?
I think we already know from history that polygamy was not a generally accepted practice by Jesus's day, and that having another woman in addition to the wife you already had was nothing more than an affair, even if it was a commited affair that lasted for a very long time and involved providing support for the other woman (as some surely do even today).
_____________________________
'This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Every wineskin should be filled with wine.' Jeremiah 13:12
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 7/2/2009 12:28:19 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2954
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nick_Drake
We have no choice but to conclude from what you believe that as long as we don't divorce the wife we have it's not adultery if we sleep with another woman.
No, you can conclude that a man and a woman should make a covenant and have a relationship based on that covenant. Now, if your vows stated that you would keep yourself for her only then you are bound to that. These days there is not a "standard marrage contract" in fact in most cases there is no contract at all. The marrage is generally a spoken vow to "love, honor, and cherish". Not only are these ill defined generalities, but they are rarely enforced. Marrage is usually left to the secular courts to sort out after the fact.
quote:
What man really thinks he is innocent before God if he comes home to his wife one day and says, "hi honey! ...consummated another marital relationship today." Aren't you arguing we all have the God given privelege to do that (in a country that hasn't outlawed it) and we would not be guilty of adultery? Let's ask our wives if they think that's true.
This is a worst case scenerio argument. There is the case where the current wife is aware of the situation and is in agreement with it. Also, when it comes to what is acceptable to Adonai, it is Adonai who gives us direction. There are many wives who believe that they have the right to unilaterally make all the decisions with regard to their marrages, but that does not make that a requirement of Adonai.
quote:
What qualifiers, Mr. Bluethread, must we also put on these teachings to show that having more than one wife is really okay?
This is shifting the argument. To continue the comparison I made before, are we permitted to relieve our colons and bladders? There is nothing in the Scriptures that say that we can. All we have are references to it happening and procedures for dealing with the results. One need not prove that they can. The burden of proof is on those who say one can not.
quote:
Matthew 5:27
27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
If I go with what you believe then it's okay to scope out the ladies, even though I'm already married, just as long as they're not already married, and my intent is to have an ongoing committed relationship with them (in a country that allows that legally). Do you really think this was what Jesus had in mind here?
No, that is not what He had in mind. This argument presumes lust and/or romance are the only reasons for marrage. As I stated before there are other reasons for marrage. One need not even see the other woman before the marrage ceremony. Therefore, it is possible to marry a woman without having first lusted after her.
quote:
Hebrews 13:4
4Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
So again, according to what you believe, as long as I only pick women who aren't already married, and I commit to a life-long relationship, the writer of Hebrews isn't talking about taking another wife, but is only talking about casual, uncommitted relationships with other women, and contact with women who already beong to someone else? Really?
How does one define pure and sexually immoral? I have seen a wide range of definitions proposed in these forums. The quakers have used this verse to support the idea that copulation should only be done through a hole in a sheet. Heb. 13:4 makes no mention of multiple marrage covenants. It speaks of relationships outside of one's marital covenant(s).
quote:
I think we already know from history that polygamy was not a generally accepted practice by Jesus's day, and that having another woman in addition to the wife you already had was nothing more than an affair, even if it was a commited affair that lasted for a very long time and involved providing support for the other woman (as some surely do even today).
Again, my argument is being misstated. I am not saying that the practice was generally accepted. Adonai's ways are not subject to general acceptance. How do we know that such a relationship was considered an affair? I have seen no proof of that. There is as much difference between a polygamist covenant relationship and an affair as there is between a monogamist covenant relationship and fornication. In fact, as I have pointed out before, a polygamist covenant relationship is better than serial adultary(repeated marrage, divorce and remarrage) that appears to be acceptable to many churches.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 7/6/2009 2:33:58 PM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 3800
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nick_Drake
With all due respect to them, it's hard for them to accept that God has brought to light once hidden revelation that leads us into a greater responsibility of righteousness than the law required. They are compelled by this belief to preserve every letter of the law by limiting, or squeezing this new revelation to fit the old. IOW, to see new revelation only to the extent that it does not literally change the old.
And it is a different language they speak--one that comes from what they call a Hebraic mindset and understanding (one that preserves the law in it's entirety just the way it was written). It is off topic to discuss much of what has been alleged here. Most of it belongs in the one-stop on law and grace.
However, I will say this. My beliefs on polygamy or having a concubine are in no way tied in to what you state. It is not "a different language" or preserving "every letter of the law" to rip off the layers of centuries of culturalization and look at what the bible actually says. And to do that one must look at the texts thru the eyes of a first century Jew or Greek believer from the east end of the Mediteranean, not someone with 20 centuries of church intrepretation between them and it.
Can you justify, by using scripture, that it is inherently sinful to have more than one wife? (assuming the man in question is not in congregational leadership) I understand that bigamy is a crime in every western country. That makes it sinful for almost everyone on these boards. But the sin is not a violation of scriptural marriage commands but one of violating the law of the land.
It is clear that if one aspires to congregational leadership office (elder, deacon) that he must be the "husband of one wife," but is every one an elder or deacon? Of course not. The standard is not as high for those not in leadership and that is OK. James in another place says that not many should be teachers because teachers incur a "stricter judgement." (James 3.1) So is that incorrect, that we should all incur a stricter judgement? No.
Strip away your western egalatarianism. While we all stand on a level ground at the foot of the cross, we are not all called to the same thing or the same kind of walk. God treats us as the individuals we are. Centuries of church intrepretation say that everything gets the most restrictive understanding possible. Is that what God really wants? For some yes perhaps and for others not so.
Look at Samson and John the Baptist, both lifelong Nazirites, I think the only 2 in all of scripture. Some take that to mean that no one can ever drink any alcohol. But the requrements also forbade any grapejuice, raisins, any use of the vine or eating the leaves. They look at the layers of intrepretation and not at the actual text.
LOOK AT THE TEXT - what does it really say? And just as importantly - what DOESN'T it say?quote:
No offense intended to our Messianic brethren. Maybe none was intended but I found what you said to be quite offensive. We are New Covenant believers. We are not "Judaizers" which is what you are implying by saying we do not "accept that God has brought to light once hidden revelation" and that we are trying "to preserve every letter of the law."
< Message edited by DaveW -- 7/6/2009 2:45:49 PM >
_____________________________
Avatar is my daughter Laura and SIL David on their wedding 9/20/09 ====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 7/7/2009 10:47:23 AM
|
|
|
Nick_Drake
Posts: 601
Joined: 4/24/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
Can you justify, by using scripture, that it is inherently sinful to have more than one wife? (assuming the man in question is not in congregational leadership) I understand that bigamy is a crime in every western country. That makes it sinful for almost everyone on these boards. But the sin is not a violation of scriptural marriage commands but one of violating the law of the land.
It became exposed for the sin that it really is when Jesus taught us "what God has joined together, let man not separate" (Mark 10:9), but which, like divorce, God made concessions for until that knowledge and the ability to accept it was made known.
I already made the case against it. Divorce doesn't end a marriage, adultery does. And what is adultery? Sleeping with another woman while you, or the other woman, has been joined to someone else! Is sleeping with another woman only a sin if my wife can't accept it, or is it breaking the one flesh covenant that God says must never be separated through adultery? (Remember, divorce in and of itself, doesn't do that). Does my wife's preference really define adultery?
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
It is clear that if one aspires to congregational leadership office (elder, deacon) that he must be the "husband of one wife," but is every one an elder or deacon? Of course not. The standard is not as high for those not in leadership and that is OK. James in another place says that not many should be teachers because teachers incur a "stricter judgement." (James 3.1) So is that incorrect, that we should all incur a stricter judgement? No.
I personally gravitate toward the restriction on elders being that of not having been divorced and remarried, not polygamy necessarily, because, as I have pointed out, divorce does not remove your obligation to your first wife, and that's why divorce and remarriage is adultery. You're still married to the wife you divorced (except for reason of adultery) whether you think so or not. Remarriage in that case is committing adultery against the divorced spouse. Paul does not want a church leadership defiled in this way.
Even though we are all in 'the Priesthood of believers', we see from passages of the NT that the symbolism of the Priesthood is especially applicable to the leadership of the church. Which is why I think Paul places this special requirement of not being divorced and remarried on the leadership (the priesthood) of the church.
Now I don't think a Priest was prohibited from remarriage, but there were special restrictions on marriage for priests for purposes of purity (and as a later, useful illustration, but that's another thread). Similarily, Paul places marriage restrictions on the leadership of the church, probably for the same reasons--purity. Pure conjecture on my part, but it makes a lot of sense to me. A man who has divorced and remarried (except by reason of adultery) has committed adultery against his wife. Divorce does not end a marriage. If it did, remarriage would not be adultery.
Teachers incur a stricter judgement because they know more (or should, anyway, lol). Therefore, they will be held to a higher level of accountability. This higher accountability is not just because of the greater personal restrictions placed on them because of their office. They simply know more of the will of God and are expected to conform to that higher understanding over and above someone who does not have that understanding. Which leaves us wondering, if the church leadership can't see and accept the real truth about 'one man, one woman, for life' that Jesus brought to us through his ministry and conform to it, who can?
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
Strip away your western egalatarianism. While we all stand on a level ground at the foot of the cross, we are not all called to the same thing or the same kind of walk. God treats us as the individuals we are. Centuries of church intrepretation say that everything gets the most restrictive understanding possible. Is that what God really wants? For some yes perhaps and for others not so.
The 'westernized' church did not place these restrictions on marriage. Jesus himself did. This isn't about westernized thinking. This is about New Covenant revelation. Jesus's teaching about the real truth about divorce, remarriage and adultery, and God's original plan from the beginning has been recorded and distributed to all the world unchanged.
And you are right about being treated as individuals. Even in Jesus's revelation to us about the truth of marriage, he says some can't accept it, BUT, if you can, then you should. For that person, not accepting what they know in their hearts to be the real truth would be a sin. But, hey, I'm not anyone's judge. Work it out between you and God. Thankfully, his grace is the highest and greatest element of the Truth that supercedes any mandate of that truth.
Bottom line...not eveything in the law is okay to do as a New Covenant believer. The law is not the definitive word of God. Or I should say, the law is not the definitive word of God except for the person who has no further revelation than that. For that person polygamy will not be held against them...as long as they have their first wife's permission, lol!
< Message edited by Nick_Drake -- 7/7/2009 10:55:41 AM >
_____________________________
'This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Every wineskin should be filled with wine.' Jeremiah 13:12
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 7/7/2009 12:58:01 PM
|
|
|
BkT
Posts: 95
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Prairiehiker
Was having a concubine against any old testament law? Did God ever rebuke or condemn men back then for having concubines?
A quick answer to the OP is a BIG "NO".
Those who criticise Solomon, do not realise that his crime was "too many foreign women who misled him"
==============================
Bluethread
I have been following your arguments about polygamy, I agree with you. Actually, I am impressed that there are many in this forum who appears not see a sin in polygamy as before.
_____________________________
Bullman, the only cow that got born again
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Concubines - 7/7/2009 2:09:04 PM
|
|
|
iwillfearnoevil
Posts: 3646
Joined: 11/6/2007
From: upstate NY
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BkT
Those who criticise Solomon, do not realise that his crime was "too many foreign women who misled him"
how do you get around Deut 17:17? this verse is for kings like solomon. yes he was warned against foreign wives but there was still a general warning on polygamy.
_____________________________
Photoblogging My Life
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
