After Adam acquired knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve covered their bodies when they realized they were naked. So why do the Adamites hold services in the nude?So are the Adamites. How is your reasoning different?
Have you read this? Bob Enyart makes a strong argument for polygamy in the Old Testament.Recommended reading:
And why was it widespread?The practice (of polygamy) was widespread among God's people in the Old Testament including the great patriarchs of the faith...
...God permitted polygamy, ...
Now I wouldn't say that Bob Enyart is pro-polygamy by any means, but he acknowledges that it was a legitimate practice that protected women under the Old Covenant. It is hard to come back from that position with any hermeneutic integrity. He cites a couple of Laws but he doesn't exegete them, which I suppose is fine. Much like a lawyer might concede certain points in a case, in an attempt to gloss over them before the jury. Additionally, he does not make it clear why women do not need this protection now. Women aren't used and abandoned by men anymore? They don't end up in prostitution anymore? There are no single mothers in his congregation? I am not sure how forced monogamy protects women, but rather it seems to have them lowering their expectations of men. So they say, "All the good men are taken"....the Mosaic Law specifically permitted polygamy...
It would be odd for Jesus to be prepping for some new teachings that would be for people he wasn't currently preaching to, nor was he sent to, especially if nothing was changing for the audience in his presence.Matthew 5:17-18 (NKJV)
17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
Certainly, Paul consents to the wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ.1 Timothy 6:3 (NKJV)
If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness,
Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.
But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully,
I'm sure you think so...despite what I (and I know) said. : Plain:That is just not a problem the Reverend Martin Madan had
So you particularly read "...surely pay the bride-price for her to be another of his wives."There are no general commands to marry but there are three conditional commands to marry. (If/then statements) None of them exempt men that already have a wife.
Exodus 22:16 “If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife.
There are more than a few more. Ananias and Saphira, Mary and Joseph, Zechariah and Elizabeth, Priscilla and Aquila, Paul said most of the Apostles had wives, all single marriages. Paul mentions several in closing his letters as well. There is absolutely no mention, even among the pagans, of multiple wives.This is simply an argument from silence. Families were huge in the OT. Peter was married to at least one woman. Paul wasn't married at all. Other than that there are only a few more. Most of the men mentioned their marital status is unmentioned.
Nope, you are reading 'in'to it. Paul wasn't married and 'a' believing wife means 'one.' Did you think it meant to be an indicator that 'just the believing wife' was to come along? Why not 'believing wives?' See your slanted problem?I do think that this wording is interesting.
1 Corinthians 9:5a Do we have no right to take along a believing wife,...
Why does it limit them to "a wife"? The wording is entirely unnecessary in a monogamy-only paradigm.'
I did. You don't know Greek. I do. Sorry, you are not 'even close.' You've admitted you are 'not even close' to Greek already. Sorry, you lose and quite so.Not even close. We have discussed this word extensively. I invite you to reply to that.
The Lord Jesus Christ said that Moses 'allowed' divorce because of their hard hearts. Polygamy isn't mentioned often. There is a specific time-frame when polygamy mentioned in the Bible but many prophets had but one wife, even then. It means there was an incongruity.Did the author Moses read this as a monogamous mandate? Can you think of a single verse in which a polygamist is confronted with this text to demonstrate their error?
Thanks for joining the chat Lon.
I oppose the doctrine of devils as I am sure you do.What are you arguing for?
Shaky ground similar to slavery. Just because you've seen it in the Bible, doesn't dictate. You've made a leap from 'example' to 'go and do likewise' and it is nowhere in the Bible. IOW, YOU have made something a truth, not because of 'demons' but because of you.So for those reasons, and more, I believe that OMOW theology is a doctrine of demons, and that is why I oppose it.
Pivoting to slavery doesn't help you and by muddying the waters you show the weakness of your position. Especially, in light of a large number of scriptures that do discuss polygamy. Try using some of those to prove your opinion.Shaky ground similar to slavery.
That was not an argument I made. I have continually made Biblical arguments. I suppose you might say that when I quoted Bob Enyart writing that God's Law explicitly allows polygamy, I was appealing to authority, but he was appealing to scripture. I just thought it might go down easier from him.Just because you've seen it in the Bible, doesn't dictate. You've made a leap from 'example' to 'go and do likewise' and it is nowhere in the Bible.
Perhaps you didn't understand the text. It is "forbidding to marry" that is a doctrine of demons. If only it said polygamy or additional wives, but it doesn't.IOW, YOU have made something a truth, not because of 'demons' but because of you.
The Bible doesn't talk about marriage in terms of "spiritual benefit". That is a new age term. I am trying to have a Biblical conversation with you. Can you rephrase the question in Biblical terms? I know what I think you mean, but it is such a vague question I would have to write a book to cover all the possible bases.I asked you specifically to give ANY spiritual benefit. You have given none. Fleshly? Sure, lots of it. Show your work: Name 1 (one) benefit spiritually (you can't, you are proving you cannot in every ensuing post ignoring the request).
Did you read this proof text? Or were you just proof-texting?
Not an argument I made. So that is just another strawman. I understand though, I have heard people suggest that when they are faced with Jesus' brothers, but they arguing for Mary's eternal virginity. Again, not an argument I make or have made.Jesus had ONE mother and not step-mothers.
Yes. It. Does. Same thing exactly. Sorry you lose on this one.Pivoting to slavery doesn't help you
Same issue: O.T. doesn't have a problem with it. The N.T. even tells slaves to be obedient BUT that if they could gain their freedom, they SHOULD because Christ died to set men free.and by muddying the waters you show the weakness of your position.
Go ahead. Post those "God favor's polygamy" scriptures. Waiting. Start yet?Especially, in light of a large number of scriptures that do discuss polygamy.
Opinion? You are doing that. Not one scripture where God commands or even suggests it. Even with Hagar, it was because of Elizabeth's lack of faith. How about David's hundreds of wives? You thought that was for 'spiritual' reasons? Nope. Try again.Try using some of those to prove your opinion.
Nope. You have yet to show ANY scripture that favors polygamy. Go ahead.That was not an argument I made. I have continually made Biblical arguments.
Neo doesn't like scriptures that tell him specifically 'no!' though. He likes obscure scriptures in keeping with his pentecostal/charismatic faith, making up things he doesn't like to include "doctrine of demons!" oh my! Typical illiterate scripture hopping into nonesense.
I didn't quote Enyart. "I" quoted scripture. Incidentally, Marke quoted scripture too (requoted just above).I suppose you might say that when I quoted Bob Enyart writing that God's Law explicitly allows polygamy, I was appealing to authority, but he was appealing to scripture. I just thought it might go down easier from him.
I understand it BETTER than you do. I can read languages and don't scripture hop to suit my fancy. Such is setting your theology up as an image of you, rather than God.Perhaps you didn't understand the text. It is "forbidding to marry" that is a doctrine of demons.
It didn't need to.If only it said polygamy or additional wives, but it doesn't.
No, it is according to you. Martin Luther? Also an 'appeal to authority.' It only remains if he was right or wrong. I believe he was wrong.The OMOW doctrine is not Biblical according to Martin Luther (not me).
Because you don't like Augustine???? :doh: :headbanging: I'm not Catholic. I like a lot of Augustine. Agree with everything? No, but 'doctrine of demons?!!!" Seriously?It has its roots in pagan law and custom according to Augustine. (again not me) The fruit of liberal doctrines, splitting denominations, and abandoned mothers. (also not me) That seems like the fruit of the doctrine of demons. Don't you think so?
Incorrect and you are ignorant and remiss in your studies for want (which explains/tells me why you have this polygamy obsession): Genesis 2:18 God (a SPIRITUAL) being said it wasn't good that man was alone. Strike one. How about where 2 or more are gathered? Oh yeah, you forgot that one too! (strike two) I could do a good many more but let us skip to my favorite irrefutable that proves you completely wrong:Did you even read my post? You certainly did not interact with it.
The Bible doesn't talk about marriage in terms of "spiritual benefit". Genesi
WRONG! Buzz! (thanks for playing) (strike 4? Must have been a foul ball above)That is a new age term.
No, you've mentioned very few scriptures except jumping around them and quoting 'doctrine of demons' at meI am trying to have a Biblical conversation with you.
Yes: Is there ANY spiritual advantage to having more than one wife? You obviously didn't (hope you realize your error at this point) think even one had a spiritual advantage, but they do! Even Paul lists some spiritual advantages in 1 Corinthians 7 (children spiritually covered for one).Can you rephrase the question in Biblical terms? I know what I think you mean, but it is such a vague question I would have to write a book to cover all the possible bases.
Correct. Now show where 'wives' plural is ever mentioned as a blessing. Show where such reflects Christ and His 'churches.' You won't find that, but rather one bride, one church.Do you mean blessings?
Favor from the Lord seems like a significant "spiritual benefit".
A full quiver is a blessing from God. (Some may question the "spiritual benefit".)
An excellent wife is a "spiritual benefit " to her husband I suppose, but definitely a blessing.
Er, you are 'proof-texting' here. While I agree that it was at that time, Paul gave a rule of thumb that is always true:Did you read this proof text? Or were you just proof-texting?
Paul makes that recommendation under very specific circumstances. He is speaking in the context of "present distress"
1 Corinthians 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none,
He doesn't say that as a command, but his own preference. After which he does give a command:
1 Corinthians 7:9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Here Paul is speaking to what we call single women. He calls them virgins and widows. You forbid that under the OMOW doctrine you support.
But this text gets even more interesting to the discussion were having when Paul turns to the men.
1 Corinthians 7:36 But if any man thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, if she is past the flower of youth, and thus it must be, let him do what he wishes. He does not sin; let them marry.
What do you suppose "any man" means in this context. Any single man? That would be eisegesis. Reading your assumption into the text Is it possible that it actually means "any man"?
Eisegesis, not exegesis.So when Paul indicates marriage available women he uses the terms "virgin" and "widow", but contextually "any man" is a marriage available.
Uhm, no. This again isn't exegesis. It is assumption and you've made it. You are jumping texts upon a whim of your own imagination. This is NOT how proper Bible study is done.What do you suppose "...it must be," means? This is one of those conditional commands to marry that I wrote to you before Lon. Paul is referring back to the law.
“If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife.
You JUST took liberty with the text again!!!Here is another Law requiring conditional marriage, that Paul is likely referring to
Start at verse 25 "To the betrothed I say this..."when he says "any man". Again there is no mention of his marital status.
There it is. Neo does theology off of assumptions rather than adhering closely to the word of God. You just admitted it.One can easily see how this might end up in polygamy.
Right, like Neopatriarch JUST did.Unless, of course, if their eyes are firmly shut and they are screaming at the ceiling.
It doesn't say the same thing about the man here, true BUT it is an example of how the law applies. You, not that great at exegesis, AGAIN made an assumption YOU want to believe. It isn't a lesson about marriage Neo, it is a lesson about the LAW vs Grace. You've ALSO just done the 'scripture hop' again, like charismatics and pentecostals always do in the aisles. I don't mean to be disdainful, but loose and fast with the scriptures ALWAYS bothers me!And just in case women get it in their heads "any woman" can marry too. Paul addresses that.
1 Corinthians 7:39 A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.
Before he spoke to virgins and widows, and now he is speaking to married women. You will not find that sentence about men. In fact, Paul expands on this in another place.
Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.
Nice opinion piece. 1 Corinthians 6:9,18;7:2 Fornication-is-a-sin!Again, this doesn't apply to men. God's Law only calls men that sleep with another man's wife adulterers. Which is all consistent with Paul's writings.
Nope. It is 'evidence of something (monogamy).'Not an argument I made. So that is just another strawman.
Again: monogamy. He couldn't have had 'half-brothers' otherwise. I'm trying to get you to pay attention to scriptures and glean correctly what they say.I understand though, I have heard people suggest that when they are faced with Jesus' brothers, but they arguing for Mary's eternal virginity. Again, not an argument I make or have made.
“By the law of Moses (Deuteronomy 17:17) the kings (of Israel) are forbidden to have too great a number of wives, lest they should carry them into a violation of the law: by this the legislator tacitly permits them and all others, to have more than one wife, otherwise the command would be superfluous.” -Barbeyac
With this much zeal your calling is certainly Catholicism. Your positions are rickety. Take on the gold standard Christian positions instead, and His easy yoke and light burden, relax, enjoy yourself and put your talents and passions to good use for your Lord.@Lon
That is just a hot mess. You aren't addressing the arguments, and you haven't internalized or refuted those that have already been handled. Which I suppose is why you're presenting them again as if it were a new argument.
You're zany cartoonish responses reveal your heart. I am content to let the thread stand for itself. Anyone who gives the thread a fair reading and prayerful consideration of the text will conclude properly. The rest will continue to suppress the truth in unrighteousness and be without excuse for imposing doctrines of demons.
blah blah blah blah I don't really care for emoting, it means you lost this argument. Thank you for the capitulation.
More than. You are not an honest fellow. It means you posture over platitudes instead of standing upon the word of God. The reason, today, by you, is clearly seen. Most can read between the lines with your insubstantial reply. No scripture. No reasoning. Just 'hot mess' for a response. It is called projecting: your mess, upon me. I gave compelling scripture. Deal with the Lord Jesus Christ. I posted his Bible, you nada.and you haven't internalized or refuted those that have already been handled.
I'll repeat scripture everyday. They ARE the words of life. While you posted your assumptions 'off' of scripture, it is your position that argues from silence. I'm offended in Christ, that you'd respond this way to Ephesians. You deserve a sound rebuke instead of dealing directly with them in a spiritual God-honoring manner. I'm offended both for me, knowing scriptures, and Him who wrote them. You are woefully remiss and behind and I disdain your lack of dedication to Him, His word, and His people that are clearly better read than you. You are arguing from ignorance and a stubborn refusal to learn from your elders and betters.Which I suppose is why you're presenting them again as if it were a new argument.
YOU, are the one who reacted in the flesh. Grow up and lose this argument like a man, for HIS glory instead of your foolish arrogance from ignorance.You're zany cartoonish responses reveal your heart.
Good, because as I said, Scripture easily refutes you. I JUST posted spiritual reasons for marriage. You? You said there was none. YOU said that. You are caught in the flesh on this one, if not the rest of scripture. I don't even know if you belong to Christ at this point: You enjoy arguing in and for flesh. Grow up, grow in Him. You are behind. I'm more than happy to let scriptures I've given, thus Him, Himself, stand in the way of any absurdity.I am content to let the thread stand for itself.
I've heard the same from Mormons asking me to seek a 'burning in my bosom.' Scriptures are clear and I can refute them with solid scriptures too. God has given His word. Jesus told the Samaritan woman (those who don't know scriptures very well) that salvation was of the Jews then replied "Spirit AND Truth!" You cannot have one without the other. You are appealing to one over the other. No way: Enough said.Anyone who gives the thread a fair reading and prayerful consideration of the text will conclude properly.
THIS, is the hot mess and again an appeal to your out-of-context interpretation and authority. We don't need prophets today. Anybody with half an education can read his/her Bible and understand it themselves. They just need an education: no appeals to odd interpretations: The scriptures themselves. I'm more than happy to let God's Word stand in this thread for posterity. He wins every time. Learn from your elders and betters young man.The rest will continue to suppress the truth in unrighteousness and be without excuse for imposing doctrines of demons.
I hear this every time on TOL. I never believe it. It is an odd thing to say when your position is clearly 'against demons.' It is unreal and seen as fakery with no truthful intent. I pray rather God blesses you with insight that comes from careful study AND an ABILITY to listen to others who have read the words of God. I have several brothers on here that correct me at times. Instead of being arrogantly ignorant, I concede the true correction: it is what biblical brothers wanting to follow Christ, instead of stalling in ignorant arrogance, do. See Judge Rightly just above. Learn from your elders and betters.God Bless,
"Who cares what barbey a.c. et al thinks?" 1 Corinthians 7:2: But because of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband. Oops, clearly (clearly) Barbey and Neo are wrong.“By the law of Moses (Deuteronomy 17:17) the kings (of Israel) are forbidden to have too great a number of wives, lest they should carry them into a violation of the law: by this the legislator tacitly permits them and all others, to have more than one wife, otherwise the command would be superfluous.” -Barbeyac
No, you and he aren't correct. The scripture says 1) "not multiply wives." Do you KNOW what a 'multiple (rahbah) ' is???? "to increase after one!" In the next breath of the sentence 'and not money/wealth (don't multiply) "greatly" either!' IOW, the first: a prohibition, none at all (after the first)! The second? Not to 'overdo it "WITH MONEY/Wealth!"' EXACTLY opposite what you and Barbeyac (dishonestly?) want (desperately?) to believe! The first says "No increase!." The SECOND says 'not exceed.' You and whoever Barbey is, blew it. I EXPECT you to not be strong-willed in ignorance. I EXPECT you to apologize when you realize you've been purposefully ignorant and arrogant.So you agree with me, that Deuteronomy 17:17 is not where "...God disapproved of kings committing polygamy." Is that right?
That was my question after all. Remember when I wrote, "...Where was that? Certainly not Deuteronomy 17:17. That verse merely limits kings to less than a great many wives. Hardly, disapproval."
So now it sounds like you want to run to some other text. Is that right?
It is not a matter of what he thinks, or his personal opinion, but rather his reasoning. Is it sound reasoning? You cannot even consider it because you assume an a priori. Let's look at the scripture again."Who cares what barbey a.c. et al thinks?"
The kings (of Israel) are forbidden to have too great a number of wives, and that is what the text means Lon. Unless you believe you have an English version that magically trumps the actual Hebrew. (Of course, if that is the case I cannot help you.) So then why does he say, "by this the legislator tacitly permits them and all others, to have more than one wife..." it is because in the next few verses the king is commanded to write a book of the Law for himself. IF the Law of God had limited him to only one wife, there would be no reason for the term "great many". Right? That is why he says it would be superfluous.“By the law of Moses (Deuteronomy 17:17) the kings (of Israel) are forbidden to have too great a number of wives, lest they should carry them into a violation of the law: by this the legislator tacitly permits them and all others, to have more than one wife, otherwise the command would be superfluous.” -Barbeyac
So much simple. And guaranteed to be Apostolic. Which is the same authority that we appeal to when we study the scriptures. It was Apostolic authority---really Christ's own authority that He gave to them---that either wrote (i.e. Pauline epistles, 1&2 Peter, Matthew, John, etc.), or in every case approved the canon of Scripture. The Scripture is as the Apostles decided, which means it's what God wants it to be too."2400 Adultery, divorce, polygamy, and free union are grave offenses against the dignity of marriage. "
Apropos to your non-engaging 'hot mess.' You were incredibly insubstantial and nonengaging, so of course I was going to call out your jejune emote. I can banter in the schoolyard all day with such immature lacking retort but responding 'foul' was the right tack. It was beneath you AND I and I rightly called you out. "Hot mess" was nothing but insubstantial, unlearned, and relegated to the trash bin where it belongs. It was frankly: posturing on your end like an inchoactive school-boy.That is the rhetorical equivalent of the limerick, " I am rubber, you're glue..."
However, you did ask a reasonable question in your follow-up, and I will address it next.