Page 1 of 1

I've been saying this was going to happen for a while.

Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:20 pm
by Hugh McBryde
KATHLEEN HARRIS of Sun Media wrote:May 31, 2006

"Multiple-wife marriages have been legally recognized in Canada to award spousal support and inheritance payments.

The former Liberal government long maintained that polygamy is criminal in Canada but documents obtained by Sun Media under Access to Information show that polygamous marriages have been recognized 'for limited purposes' to enforce the financial obligations of husbands.

Religious organizations say same-sex marriage opened the door to decriminalizing polygamy, and worry that formal recognitions of plural marriages will weaken the government's ability to defend the anti-polygamy law if it faces a constitutional challenge on religious grounds. A polygamist from Bountiful, British Columbia has warned he will fight for his constitutional right to have plural wives on religious grounds."
LINK to the article.

Ok, I've been ridiculed for claiming that we need marriage contracts, and why. People have said, "That's a ridiculous scenario", and "that will never happen" to precisely these questions:
"How would divorce be handled in polygamy? Could two 'spouses' oust a third? What about property ownership -- could three out of seven spouses own property jointly apart from the others? Can a spouse in one polygamous marriage enter into another polygamous marriage without the consent of all the spouses of the original and the new marriages? What about inheritance? Tax returns? Child support? Powers of attorney? Right-to-die decisions?"
Folks, my point when I raised ALL of these issues privately was that if I could think of it, someone else could, and with a lawyer, could raise havoc. Well, it's not so private anymore, with millions of lawyers out there, someone did think of it. To be truthful, I probably wasn't the first person to do so. WE NEED MARRIAGE CONTRACTS. The original quote can be found here.

Keep this in mind, once "Polyamoury" is legal, and from a legal standpoint, "Polygyny" is a subset of Polyamoury, COMMON LAW MARRIAGE LAWS THAT EXIST ALREADY will be used to create marriages even though you may not have registered or cleared yours with the state. Then divorce laws can be applied to them in the above scenario. You could even be voted DEAD by a majority of your spouses in a situation where you are on life support.

Hugh McBryde

good point!

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:17 pm
by m273p15c
This sounds like a very good argument against polygyny. See what kinds of complications a persons exposes himself when he engages in polygyny? The ethical difficulties are endless! ... This shows great wisdom in the Lord's abandoning polygyny along with other patriarchal and Judaic practices, when He established the New Covenant.

Flightless Bird

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:05 am
by Hugh McBryde
m273p15c wrote:"This sounds like a very good argument against polygyny."
Then you missed the point. The world will not stop at the stage of allowing a man to marry more than one woman, they are going right to clan/group/communal marriages. The point of the initial post is not to play "hide our head in the sand" and say to ourselves, "See how bad it will get" and do nothing, the point is to save what is righteous, now, while we can, before we are forced into legal descriptions of marriage that will aid in tearing apart legitimate forms we already engage in.
m273p15c wrote:"See what kinds of complications a persons exposes himself when he engages in polygyny? The ethical difficulties are endless!"
I don't see how Polygyny has anything to do with the "Ethical Difficulty" angle.
m273p15c wrote:" This shows great wisdom in the Lord's abandoning polygyny along with other patriarchal and Judaic practices, when He established the New Covenant."
So you're just going to LIE and say God abandoned Polygyny without so much as a single forbidding, ANYWHERE? You will deserve richly the consequences that are coming that I am trying to warn you about. You seem content to simply play the ostrich.

Hugh

where are your Scriptures?

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:42 am
by m273p15c
I understand your concern, but my point is that these are all non-issues, if you follow God's pattern for marriage.

In regards to Scriptures, are you aware of any passages that condone multiple wives? Would you please provide them?

Here, I think.

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:18 pm
by Hugh McBryde
m273p15c wrote:"I understand your concern, but my point is that these are all non-issues, if you follow God's pattern for marriage."
I am not trying to incite m27, but I think you cannot be relied on to defend marriage, you don't know what it is.
m273p15c wrote:"In regards to Scriptures, are you aware of any passages that condone multiple wives? Would you please provide them?"
Levirate law, and the law that requires a man to marry the virgin he seduced. I think I've already supplied them in this forum in another thread.

Hugh McBryde

Re: Here, I think.

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:23 pm
by m273p15c
Hugh McBryde wrote:Levirate law, and the law that requires a man to marry the viring he seduced. I think I've already supplied them in this forum in another thread.
That seems kind of weak. Can't you do better than that?

All? It should be enough.

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:28 pm
by Hugh McBryde
So it's kind of weak to you. When Deuteronomy 25 REQUIRES, not asks, not gives "option" to take a dead brothers wife, you are supposing that in every case where this law was enacted, it was done with a single brother waiting in the wings to clean up after his dead brother's failure to produce heirs? This is an important law. A whole book is dedicated to the enacting of it, Ruth. Christ discusses it with the Saducees. The Line of Christ itself is preserved by Boaz through Ruth.

Hugh McBryde

just one point?

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:29 pm
by m273p15c
Is that the only passage, or point upon which your case rests? I guess I thought there was more to it than that... I must confess that, since this was clearly an important passage to you, I imagined you would have a whole slew of passages containing commands and examples lined up to defend the practice...

Straying a bit from the topic.

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:39 pm
by Hugh McBryde
Hardly, but you asked for condoning which probably requires God to compell someone to enter a Polygynous marriage. There aren't many compulsions to marry in the law. A man who behaves himself sexually is never required to get married, so you were indeed looking for an unlikely compulsion, however there are two. As for the rest of the case, which ought to be discussed in another thread. There is this rather interesting passage. 2nd Chronicles 24:2 & 3:
"And Joash did that which was right in the sight of the LORD all the days of Jehoiada the priest. And Jehoiada took for him two wives; and he begat sons and daughters."
First let us see that scripture lays out a time frame. "All the days of Jehoiada the Priest." Second, scripture, GOD'S WORD, infallible and CORRECT evaluates the Kings behavior during that time period; "Joash did that which was right in the sight of the LORD." Third. The man during who's lifetime Joash is said to "Do Right" actually GIVES Joash TWO WIVES, and the immediate evaluation? Nothing was wrong with it, in fact, it is said to be RIGHT.

Other interesting facts about Jehoiada. He is High Priest. He speaks Hebrew as his NATIVE TONGUE, he has been a HERO of the faith, risking his life to save the Messianic line of David through Joash. He has access to the tablets of stone, on which God has written the law with his own finger, and he can READ it. We now suppose that we are better analysts of the scriptures than Jehoiada who authors the act of taking two wives? We suppose that we know better than God whose own scriptures say that what Joash and Jehoiada did WAS RIGHT? So the answer is NO, that's not all I have.

Hugh McBryde

P.S. You might want to go back to this thread. viewtopic.php?t=181

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:06 am
by m273p15c
Hello Hugh,

I apologize for taking so long to respond. Admittedly, I'm half a mind not to do so, because I do not know if I can bring anything new to the discussion.

However, I am concerned about our differences, and I would like to walk through them again - step by step. Admittedly, your help is required. Do you want to resolve our differences?

If so, which one of these points gets to the heart of our differences, as you see it? Which one is the fundamental difference, upon which the other points depend?
  1. Authority of the Old Testament - This seems to be the greatest point of difference, and worthy of its own thread. If you agree that this is the fundamental point of division, then I let me know. I'll happily start a new thread, and we can move the discussion to there. Here's food for thought...
  2. Silence of the Scriptures - Admittedly, your signature indicates you honor the silence of the Scriptures, but I do too. However, I believe one of us is not honoring it consistently. To explore this point, please consider this question, derived from one of sledford's original posts:

    Regarding Matthew 19:1-12, Jesus uses Genesis 2:1-25 as a basis to eliminate divorce under the New Covenant. How do you think Jesus reasoned from the context of Genesis 2:24, quoted in Matthew 19:4-5, to His conclusion found in Matthew 19:6?
  3. None of the Above - Something else? Several other points come to my mind, but I believe they hinge on one or both of the above questions. Do you think we are divided over some other more fundamental point, upon which we must both agree first before we can continue?
Eventually, I would like to defend the statement that I made previously, but I am convinced that these other points of disagreement must be resolved first. Once they are resolved, I will happily explain my statement.

May God help us to have a sincere love of the truth...

Hello Again.

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:42 am
by Hugh McBryde
m273p15c wrote:"Do you want to resolve our differences?"
Always. In the end we both know they WILL be resolved. Better that we find as much truth and act on it in this life than to wait for God to show his hand at the end of the game.
m273p15c wrote:"Authority of the Old Testament - This seems to be the greatest point of difference, and worthy of its own thread."
It is worthy of a new thread, I'd be happy to participate. My opening position on the Authority of the Old Testament is that it is a completely authoritative but incomplete revelation of God's will. The New Testament fulfills many of the promises of the Old, but not all of them. That which is fulfilled is not nullified in the sense that it is swept away as wrong or mistaken but it is fulfilled and in some cases of fulfillment, the requirements of those parts may no longer be necessary. Some portions of it NEVER applied to us assuming you are a "Gentile" believer, such as I am. Many portions remain unfufilled as Heaven and Earth have NOT passed away. Some portions are refered to in the Letter of Acts 15 to the Gentile Churches as STILL BEING EXTANT for behavioral guides. Not the least of which is sexual morality/immorality. Since I contend without credible refutation (so far, anywhere, here or elsewhere) that the standard a bunch of Jews in Jerusalem who were mostly if not all PHARISEES in background HAD to be the extensive and detailed law of Torah, I also contend that the laws of sexual behavior still apply and always have applied to us. What was incest to a Jew under the law is incest to us. What was marriage to them is marriage to us. In theory as there was a ban put on what we now call incest many years AFTER creation, in theory also there could be a ban placed on forms of marriage, such as Polygyny. That ban does not occur in the Old Testament to my knowledge and since it was a clearly acceptable practice in the Old, there would have to be a specific forbidding in the New for it to pass out of use. I don't see it.
m273p15c wrote:"Admittedly, your signature indicates you honor the silence of the Scriptures, but I do too. However, I believe one of us is not honoring it consistently."
My signature is a word for word quote of Proverbs. There are many similar texts scattered throughout scripture. So far I have found more cautions and foribiddings with regard to ADDITION than I have with regard to SUBTRACTION of words from scripture.
m273p15c wrote:"Regarding Matthew 19:1-12, Jesus uses Genesis 2:1-25 as a basis to eliminate divorce under the New Covenant. How do you think Jesus reasoned from the context ofof Genesis 2:24, quoted in Matthew 19:4-5, to His conclusion found in Matthew 19:6?"
I disagree that divorce is ELIMINATED by Matthew 19 since Christ mentions the exception of sexual sin as giving cover to divorce, but for the sake of this discussion, for now, let's go with your conclusion. Divorce is out. We're not talking about divorce. This passage has for many years been used as a springboard to discussing Polygyny as if that was Christ's topic, it simply wasn't. Further, an erroneous conclusion is employed about the MEANING of the phrase "one flesh" that is CLEARLY not dictated by the context of that passage or the writer or God for that matter when DEFINING that phrase. The reasoning I have employed is always this. YOU ARE ONE FLESH WITH YOUR WIFE per Genesis. The word WIFE does not mean to the Hebrew what it means to us. It means "joiner" "joining" "wife" "wives" "sexually experience woman" and a host of other things not contained in the western concept of wife. Later God himself makes it clear that you CAN have two wives in his law. Since you ARE one flesh with your "Ishshah" (the Hebrew term translated to wife) and God says you CAN have two "Ishshah" (the same term GOD uses deliberately to describe multiple curtain rings joined to one rod in his temple), "One Flesh" clearly is a description of a condition that comes into being between two people, but is not RESTRICTED to existing only between those two people. Most of what people try to claim about Matthew 19 depends on a ROMANTIC western interpretation of "one flesh" meaning this; "A man and a woman and no others joined in a holy monogamy". There is no basis for this meaning in scripture.

Once again, I think there is a more appropriate venue in the thread started earlier for this sort of discussion, but I have answered you here.

Hugh McBryde

back to the "silence of Scriptures"

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:34 pm
by m273p15c
Hugh McBryde wrote:
m273p15c wrote:"Do you want to resolve our differences?"
Always. In the end we both know they WILL be resolved. Better that we find as much truth and act on it in this life than to wait for God to show his hand at the end of the game.
Very good!

Authority of the Old Testament
Hugh McBryde wrote:It is worthy of a new thread, I'd be happy to participate.
Great! I've started a new thread here. Would you mind moving your arguments to it, and I'll respond there?

Silence of the Scriptures
Hugh McBryde wrote:
m273p15c wrote:"Admittedly, your signature indicates you honor the silence of the Scriptures, but I do too. However, I believe one of us is not honoring it consistently."
My signature is a word for word quote of Proverbs. There are many similar texts scattered throughout scripture. So far I have found more cautions and foribiddings with regard to ADDITION than I have with regard to SUBTRACTION of words from scripture.
I don't think you are really arguing what I'm about to suggest. But, I am confused as to your meaning. Are you insinuating that it is acceptable to "subtract" from God's Word, as long as we don't "add" to it? Maybe I'm failing to see your point.
Hugh McBryde wrote:
m273p15c wrote:"Regarding Matthew 19:1-12, Jesus uses Genesis 2:1-25 as a basis to eliminate divorce under the New Covenant. How do you think Jesus reasoned from the context ofof Genesis 2:24, quoted in Matthew 19:4-5, to His conclusion found in Matthew 19:6?"
I disagree that divorce is ELIMINATED by Matthew 19 since Christ mentions the exception of sexual sin as giving cover to divorce, but for the sake of this discussion, for now, let's go with your conclusion.
I appreciate the summary of your previous posts, but that is going in a completely different direction than what I was asking. For a second, I'd like to lay aside our differences on polygamy and focus on Jesus' hermeneutic as exemplified in Matthew 19:4-6.

I'm really asking about Jesus' example for interpreting Scripture. Would you care to explain how Jesus reasoned from the context of Genesis 2:24, quoted in Matthew 19:4-5, to His conclusion found in Matthew 19:6? I believe Jesus provides an example as to how one can correctly interpret and reason from Scripture, which we should emulate.

Thanks!

Re: back to the "silence of Scriptures"

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:35 pm
by sledford
m273p15c wrote:I'm really asking about Jesus' example for interpreting Scripture. Would you care to explain how Jesus reasoned from the context of Genesis 2:24, quoted in Matthew 19:4-5, to His conclusion found in Matthew 19:6? I believe Jesus provides an example as to how one can correctly interpret and reason from Scripture, which we should emulate.
I couldn't have said it better myself and I will attentively follow this thread to plumb the thoughts on the subject. I truly see this as the key point to the entire discussion.

Syllogism

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 5:24 pm
by Hugh McBryde
Sled,

The problem with your analysis has been addressed. You're employing a circular assumption with Matthew 19:6 in which you assume there can be no other "one flesh" relationships. The Syllogism that disproves this works as follows. A.) We know from Genesis 2:24 that you ARE one flesh with your wife. B.) We know from Deuteronomy 21:15 that you CAN have two. THEREFORE, if you ARE one flesh with your wife, (The word for wife and wives is EXACTLY the same in Hebrew and in both these verses) you are ONE FLESH with both of them

Re: Syllogism

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 6:05 pm
by sledford
Hugh McBryde wrote:Sled,

The problem with your analysis has been addressed. You're employing a circular assumption with Matthew 19:6 in which you assume there can be no other "one flesh" relationships. The Syllogism that disproves this works as follows. A.) We know from Genesis 2:24 that you ARE one flesh with your wife. B.) We know from Deuteronomy 21:15 that you CAN have two. THEREFORE, if you ARE one flesh with your wife, (The word for wife and wives is EXACTLY the same in Hebrew and in both these verses) you are ONE FLESH with both of them
That's not the current question that m273p15c asked and I reiterated in my previous post. Since it is not yet answered let me state again in this current thread. There is a very fundamental process at work that Jesus employs:

* Genesis beginning pattern (pre-Mosaical law)
* Mosaical marriage pattern is actually a deviation and Jesus reveals why the deviation was allowed: "Because of your hard-heartedness Moses allowed"
* Jesus reasserts the Creation marital pattern as supreme: "And I say to you"

In an earlier post you made the assertion that Mosaical patterns are not set aside. Quite frankly, Jesus does so right here with this subject of marriage. So, if you are going to extend Mosaical allowance of polygyny based on your conclusion about continuance of Mosaical pattern, then you have assumed the thing proven which is NOT true based on what Jesus just did regarding the marriage pattern.

Likewise, the Syllogism you assert in the quote above also assumes your definition of "one flesh" based on application of Deut 21 to also be true. But, again you have not taken into account or proven how the application and revelation of the Mosaical deviation of marriage, and why God allowed it to happen, by Jesus in Matt 19 does not support your definition. Therefore, to imply a connection between "one flesh" as defined at Creation and Deut 21 is not valid. By Jesus revelation the definition is corrupted in the Mosaical pattern from the Creation pattern.

Logically speaking:

Creation marriage pattern does not equal a corrupted Mosaical marriage pattern

Therefore, your definition of "one flesh" based on Mosaical law is reasoning from a corrupted definition.

Moses the Corrupt?

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 7:04 pm
by Hugh McBryde
sledford wrote:"There is a very fundamental process at work that Jesus employs:

* Genesis beginning pattern (pre-Mosaical law)"
Agreed, he refers to an aspect of Adam and Eve's marriage that he certifies as archetypal. That is that marriage was not to end in this life for any reason. I have also addressed this issue. You cannot make a case that Adam and Eve's relationship is in all ways governing as an archetype. Jesus cites the permanence of marriage is an intended perfect thing, and states Adam and Eve exemplify this.
sledford wrote:"* Mosaical marriage pattern is actually a deviation and Jesus reveals why the deviation was allowed: 'Because of your hard-heartedness Moses allowed'."
Yes, and I say you seek to decertify divorce law through a sly implication that Moses was somehow wrong. Later you are not sly, you come right out and say he corrupted. Nevertheless, we will go with your evaluation here that "Mosaical Marriage Pattern" is a deviation. Polygyny is not a pattern of marriage by the way, introduced by Moses.
sledford wrote:"* Jesus reasserts the Creation marital pattern as supreme: 'And I say to you'."
ABSOLUTELY NOT. He REASSERTS the PERMANANCE of MARRIAGE as a pattern that SHOULD REMAIN. Clearly even that permanence is marred without the intervention of a "Moses Divorce". WE DIE. Marriage previously was not intended to END IN DEATH, but it does. This in fact CANNOT be changed back to the archetypal pattern of Adam and Eve.
sledford wrote:"In an earlier post you made the assertion that Mosaical patterns are not set aside. Quite frankly, Jesus does so right here with this subject of marriage. So, if you are going to extend Mosaical allowance of polygyny based on your conclusion about continuance of Mosaical pattern, then you have assumed the thing proven which is NOT true based on what Jesus just did regarding the marriage pattern."
As I stated before, Polygyny is not a "Mosaical Pattern". I know you'd like it to be so when you throw Baby Moses into the river to die with all "his laws", Polygyny goes with him, but sorry Sled, it was there before Moses.
sledford wrote:"Therefore, to imply a connection between 'one flesh' as defined at Creation and Deut 21 is not valid. By Jesus revelation the definition is corrupted in the Mosaical pattern from the Creation pattern."
So, Jesus is a REVISIONIST and MOSES the CORRUPTOR? As the phrase was ORIGINALLY USED, "One Flesh" in it's original context, as penned by it's ORIGINAL AUTHOR, MOSES who claims to RECORD God's words DID NOT MEAN "Holy Monogamous Originally Patterned and Intended Marriage", it refered to a condition existing between two people but not limited to existing between ONLY two people. Moses who refers to Christ as coming as a prophet, in the same Pattern as him, Moses. Christ, who refers to Moses in the same way. This Christ is a REVISIONIST, and MOSES a givern of false law that corrupts?
sledford wrote:"Creation marriage pattern does not equal a corrupted Mosaical marriage pattern."
I am forced again into a place where I must make a choice. This FALSE TEACHING.
sledford wrote:"Therefore, your definition of "one flesh" based on Mosaical law is reasoning from a corrupted definition."
See above.

Re: Moses the Corrupt?

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:47 pm
by sledford
Hugh McBryde wrote:As I stated before, Polygyny is not a "Mosaical Pattern". I know you'd like it to be so when you throw Baby Moses into the river to die with all "his laws", Polygyny goes with him, but sorry Sled, it was there before Moses.
I will state bluntly then that I am totally confused what the basis of your reasoning is then. In the post before you quoted Deutoronomy as the basis for your syllogistic "proof" that one flesh is polygynistic as exhibited in the Old Law. And now in this post it's not a proof at all. Which is it? Likewise, in the response to mp you said that the Mosaical pattern cannot be "set aside" which to me implies it is a basis for your logic, why else make the comment. Again, this last response adds to my complete confusion then as to what your logical basis is and/or is not.

You are putting words in my mouth in other parts of your response but I will not address those at this point because this one item requires laser beam focus as it is THE HEART of the issue, in my humble opinion. Please address the thought process laid out by Jesus in his use and re-assertion of the Creation marriage pattern as supreme in Matt 19. Can we start there?

Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 4:37 am
by sprky777
I think what Hugh meant was that Jesus specifically stated the only exception that allowed divorce and eliminated all other reasons. He taught that marriage was intended to be permanent. That is all.

Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 10:21 am
by sledford
sprky777 wrote:I think what Hugh meant was that Jesus specifically stated the only exception that allowed divorce and eliminated all other reasons. He taught that marriage was intended to be permanent. That is all.
This needs an exploration of how "patterns" are used and employed throughout scripture and is the core of the process that Jesus uses in Matt 19 to reach this specific conclusion regarding their divorce question. But, employing and asserting Biblical "patterns" does not limit the scope of the pattern to just the question asked and answered. That is part of the practical definition of what a pattern is. There is a very fundamental reasoning and assertion of authority that Jesus uses in Matt 19 that is at the heart of this and a great many other similar topics using the same logical process. So, in response to your summary, I do not agree with "That is all".

In keeping with that I will observe a few more things regarding the marriage pattern employed here:

a) Is it not noteworthy that the pattern employed by Jesus goes back to a period in time (the beginning of creation) where there was only ONE man and ONE woman? To this specific topic multiple wives were not even physically possible at this point in time.
b) God's use of the marriage relationship in teaching or reaching Israel is another study in patterns and principles. Example: Hosea and the utilization of his marriage relationship to a prostitute as a representation of how Israel was playing the spiritual prostitute. Hosea in this case represents God symbolically and Gomer is Israel. No mention of another wife as far as I can read. God is trying to publicly display that He is a jealous God seeking and demanding a relationship of ONE to ONE.
c) The marriage relationship is used as the foundation in the New Testament on multiple occassions as a description of the spiritual relationship between Jesus and the Church. Is this to then be extrapolated to mean a ONE Savior to MULTIPLE different saved bodies (Churches)? Eph 5:22-33 being one of them.

All of these employ the pattern of marriage.

I'm intentionally not putting forth what I see as the answer to the question because it is so important and only through effort on the part of those engaged will it be reasoned and learned.

Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 10:58 am
by sprky777
so what of Ezekiel 23 where God portrays Himself as the husband of two wives?
What of the parable of the 10 virgins? 5 were rejected, 5 were kept as brides.

Each of these are portrayals of marriage.

Jesus, the endorser of lies?

Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:16 pm
by Hugh McBryde
sledford wrote:"I will state bluntly then that I am totally confused what the basis of your reasoning is then. In the post before you quoted Deutoronomy as the basis for your syllogistic 'proof' that one flesh is polygynistic as exhibited in the Old Law."
Moses did not originate Polygyny. It predates him and was practiced without negative comment by Jacob and his Grandfather Abraham. It was probably practiced by his Great Grandfather in that Moses marries his half sister Sarah.

So you expand the territory of my concession for the sake of the discussion. I only agreed to take your view of Divorce Law for the sake of this discussion, so as not to become distracted by that rabbit trail. What about how that does changes your argument? It decertifies the all of what Moses says, it invalidates what Christ says in Matthew 5 and it makes his reference to Genesis a reference to a faulty source and lie.

Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:22 pm
by sledford
sprky777 wrote:so what of Ezekiel 23 where God portrays Himself as the husband of two wives?
What of the parable of the 10 virgins? 5 were rejected, 5 were kept as brides.

Each of these are portrayals of marriage.
I'll provide a brief response only because the schedule for the rest of my day is very intense and I won't have another opportunity until likely tomorrow at the earliest.

Yes indeed other contexts need to be harmonized such as the ones you noted. I certainly don't want to "sweep under the rug" so to speak as harmonization requires the fitting of all evidence to reach a conclusion. Keep in mind the structure and application of parables. Parables have a primary meaning and conclusion and are not intended to be extrapolated to every detail of the example used. That's not creating a "convenient" definition of parables but is the accepted definition and application of parables in general theological thought.

In the case of the parable of the 10 virgins you reference in Matt 25, are you concluding that the virgins were to be wed to the bridegroom or were they just part of the marriage party but not to be married to him? The primary principle of the Matt 25 parable is EVERYONE MUST BE PREPARED. If every detail of the parable were to be applied in the conclusion then are only virgins to be prepared, or only women? But again, reference my first question about whether the 10 were tending the party or part of the marriage itself.

The other reference in Ezekial is interesting. Yes, it portrays a story of a husband (God) and two wives (the Northern and Southern kingdoms of Israel). This is a case of figurative language using a story to relate a principle or conclusion but none the less worthy of consideration for this subject. I'll propose some things to consider but no conclusion at this itme. First, the real life situation of a divided Israel was a full departure from God's purpose for Israel to begin with. If this figure is extrapolated as full real life depiction of marriage (if the story intended it as a conclusion) it would be a single wife (original Israel) dividing herself in 1/2 to form two wives (the divided kingdom), not God wedding two women. That strikes me as a gross distortion of the story or use in application to any conclusion beyond the primary purpose of the story: BOTH KINGDOMS HAD PLAYED THE HARLOT AND WERE UNFAITHFUL TO GOD. I'll leave it at that until I have the time for further study and prayer.

Re: Jesus, the endorser of lies?

Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:34 pm
by sledford
Hugh McBryde wrote:Moses did not originate Polygyny. It predates him and was practiced without negative comment by Jacob and his Grandfather Abraham. It was probably practiced by his Great Grandfather in that Moses marries his half sister Sarah.

So you expand the territory of my concession for the sake of the discussion. I only agreed to take your view of Divorce Law for the sake of this discussion, so as not to become distracted by that rabbit trail. What about how that does changes your argument? It decertifies the all of what Moses says, it invalidates what Christ says in Matthew 5 and it makes his reference to Genesis a reference to a faulty source and lie.
Hugh, maybe I need another cup of coffee but I'm becoming more confused by the statement that I am expanding the territory of your concession. If you could please point out what you think I expanded it would be helpful. I'm just trying to seek an answer from you on the primary point raised by mp, and I agree with him, as key: what is the logical thought process Jesus uses in Matt 19?

Second, in order to structure this exchange and hopefully make it productive for us and the silent reader I'd like to make a suggestion. Can you state for me (us) one by one the assertions in your chain of logic? Please take your time, it doesn't need an immediate response as all I'm seeking is clarity in thought first.

Chew on this for a while.

Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:36 pm
by Hugh McBryde
sledford wrote:"If you could please point out what you think I expanded it would be helpful. I'm just trying to seek an answer from you on the primary point raised by mp, and I agree with him, as key: what is the logical thought process Jesus uses in Matt 19?"
I am by no means trying to discredit anything Moses said as Law, only his recorded ACTIONS could said to be open to review as to whether or not they were righteous. But Moses, being a prophet recognized by Christ as a prophet as the SAME TYPE as Christ, is without flaw in his utterance when he claims to make or say a law that GOD GAVE. Thus this business of the "Mosaical Pattern" of marriage is a Red Herring. If Moses said "God said", then God said it. Jesus ENDORSES this in Matthew 5 when he says that the law does not pass away until all is fulfilled. The notion that Christ is GREATER than Moses does not demean Moses, nor does it make his prophetic utterances flawed in any way. If "Moses gave you this Law because of the Hardness of your hearts" then Christ is actually saying this: "I gave you this law because of the hardness of your heart."

There CAN BE no other formulation. Christ endorses Moses as a Prophet. Christ endorses his writings in Genesis. This means Moses wrote what he ascribed to God EXACTLY and PERFECTLY as GOD SAID IT and PRECISELY as God intended it to be written with the PRECISE MEANING in it's original form that God ULTIMATELY intended. The Bible is not a "Living Document" in the sense that liberal constitutional scholars try to imply about the US Constitution. It does not EVOLVE in meaning, it only progresses in edifying Revelation about what it has ALWAYS said from BEFORE the foundations of time as predestined by our God.

Does this mean that Christ cannot reveal unknown meaning in a passage? No. It means it was always there and we did not see it before. I do assert that this revealed meaning is consistant with what was revealed before, not contradictory to it. Thus what we have is a Genesis 2:24 passage in which God defines marriage and a husband/wife relationship as making "one flesh". My syllogism depends on this and one other utterance attributed to God, that of Deuteronomy in which (else Moses is a False Prophet and Christ by endorsing him is one as well) it is God HIMSELF that utters a law, not once, but several times in which a man is described to have MORE than one wife. The meaning of the phrase and condition "One Flesh" is thus defined long before Christ's incarnation and defined by Christ himself in that Christ is God.

Thus we have FACT one. YOU ARE ONE FLESH WITH YOUR WIFE. We later learn from the same author (Moses the Prophet) FACT two. You CAN IN FACT have according to GOD HIMSELF, more than one wife simoltaneously.

Corollary: One Flesh cannot and does not refer only to a single monogamous union of a man and woman. It refers instead to a condition that exists between one man and one woman but is not confined to exist only one relationship at a time but can in fact exist between me and one woman and another, and another and another. Just as a mother is mother to MANY children, but they have no other mother other than the one. A parent child relationship exists between every mother and her offspring. It exists ONLY between them and is not shared with other people. In this way I state that a husband wife relationship makes one flesh. It clearly can exist between a man and yet other woman as a seperate but CONCURRENT relationship. To not see this is extraordinarily stubborn.

This concession on your part which I believe you must make if you are honest does not destroy the monogamy only argument. One can still argue credibly that while such a relationships CAN exist, they SHOULD not. The exhausting portion of arguing with a Monogamy only proponent is always that they will make ZERO concesssions. It is not the strength of their arguments but their stubborn resolve to stand by them that keeps bringing them up. SLED, YOU CAN LOSE THIS ONE and STILL WIN THE WAR. I however am convinced of only your stubbornness. Face it man, SOME, perhaps most, perhaps ALL BUT ONE of the arguments for monogamy only are FLAWED and must be discarded. You do not lose by having ALL BUT ONE defeated. The fact that none of you give up any of them no matter how flawless the logic on my part is, is convincing proof of only one thing. Your dogmatic stubborness.
sledford wrote:"Second, in order to structure this exchange and hopefully make it productive for us and the silent reader I'd like to make a suggestion. Can you state for me (us) one by one the assertions in your chain of logic? Please take your time, it doesn't need an immediate response as all I'm seeking is clarity in thought first."
Sorry, I think I just stated SEVERAL, but they're connected.

I would be HAPPY, ecstatic in fact to discuss each and every argument in isolation. There are in my experience under 10 major arguments of the Monogamy only proponent. Monogamy only is very well defended as a doctrine in the sense that it is accepted, justified and argued for from many positions. This does not make ANY of the arguments true, but there are a lot of them. In debating the subject as I have, I find that people join and leave such a debate, forget a point has been already won and lost, and re-assert old arguments as if they are stunning news to the participants of the debate. Some dishonest participants deliberately "forget" that they lost a round and wait for a period of time and re-state it as if the discussion had never taken place. I suggest we start seperate threads dedicated to each argument and debate that argument alone in isolation until we cover them all.

Hugh

if I may interject

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:10 am
by m273p15c
Hugh,

I've read this thread several times, and the other one too...

I believe you have misunderstood sledford's points regarding Jesus relationship to Moses. He, and I, clearly do not share your view of the OT vs. NT, Moses vs. Jesus, etc, but we certainly don't take the "found view" of which you are accusing. To keep things orderly, and so that we do not lose track of arguments, as you noted, may we please finish that discussion in the other thread on the authority of the Old Testament? Once it's resolved, we can weave it back into this thread. I find it confusing the way things are jumping around...

What I really want to know is the answer to the second question that reignited this thread:

In relation to our interpretation of the silence of the Scriptures, how did Jesus reason from Genesis 2:24 (Matthew 19:4-5) to His conclusion in Matthew 19:6?

May I kindly suggest that arguments regarding isha and "one flesh" be resumed on the first thread on polygamy? Maybe that will help keep things better organized?

Many thanks for your kind consideration!

If I may ask, for the umpteenth time, for an ANSWER.

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 2:39 pm
by Hugh McBryde
m273p15c wrote:"In relation to our interpretation of the silence of the Scriptures, how did Jesus reason from Genesis 2:24 (Matthew 19:4-5) to His conclusion in Matthew 19:6?"
I honestly don't get it. In part, I have answered the "Ishshah" question as many times as I have to illustrate what CAN and CANNOT be Christ's answer. It takes a reboot of all theological thinking to get the answer you apparently wish to derive from Matthew 19.

To "rightly divide" you must first build a foundation. How was a concept introduced? How were language and phrases used in the FIRST place? "One Flesh" is a concept introduced by God and his first major prophet, his precursor to Christ, who is MOSES. To say that Christ comes along, seperates Moses out of the crowd and places the original definition sanctioned by God on his shoulders and sends him out of the camp with it like a scapegoat is utterly and completely unacceptable.

You and others keep refering to the "twain" becoming one and make an ASSUMPTION that is not contained in the text either read in the Old or the New Testaments. That assumption is simple and misleading and you will not justify it or acknowledge that you have made it. THIS IS THE ASSUMPTION: "ONLY TWO PEOPLE CAN BECOME 'ONE FLESH' AND THERE CAN BE NO ADDITIONAL SUCH RELATIONSHIP AFTER THAT PAIR BONDING CAN BE 'ONE FLESH' WITHOUT DESTROYING THE PRECEEDING PAIR BOND". I put together a syllogism that shows that is (or at least WAS) not the case.

Granting for a moment that Jesus could have changed that, tell me how verse 6 excludes the possibility that the Two (me and my wife) become "One Flesh" and then I go out and find ANOTHER woman and become "One Flesh" with her? Perhaps you state that by becoming "One Flesh" with another woman, I break the bond with the first woman, yet again, that is not stated and it was OBVIOUSLY not the case in the Old Testament. Again, an assumption is employed that the marriage bond is ONE ONE ONE to the EXCLUSION of all others. Since AGAIN, this was obviously NOT THE CASE before, where is it that it states it has BECOME that? Perhaps you will return to Matthew 19:6 and state that is where it occurs, but as I have just demonstrated, that employs circular reasoning. Namely, that the "twain become one" and that means "Only that one, only that pair bonding, to the exclusion of all others and any alteration breaks the bond." You then employ that ASSUMPTION in a circular way to say the passage therefore speaks about monogamy. I'm sorry, it does not. I keep asking for this answer, it is part of my answer to your questions, you keep acting like I'm avoiding the issue. I've answered, the ball IS in your court, please reply. My answer in short form is YOU ASSUME A CONCLUSION IN MATTHEW 19:6 THAT IS NOT THERE.

is this a debate, or are we trying resolve something here?

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:06 am
by m273p15c
Hugh McBryde wrote:
m273p15c wrote:"In relation to our interpretation of the silence of the Scriptures, how did Jesus reason from Genesis 2:24 (Matthew 19:4-5) to His conclusion in Matthew 19:6?"
I honestly don't get it. In part, I have answered the "Ishshah" question as many times as I have to illustrate what CAN and CANNOT be Christ's answer. It takes a reboot of all theological thinking to get the answer you apparently wish to derive from Matthew 19.

To "rightly divide" you must first build a foundation. How was a concept introduced? How were language and phrases used in the FIRST place? ... I keep asking for this answer, it is part of my answer to your questions, you keep acting like I'm avoiding the issue. I've answered, the ball IS in your court, please reply. My answer in short form is YOU ASSUME A CONCLUSION IN MATTHEW 19:6 THAT IS NOT THERE.
I have not stated anything about Matthew 19:6, especially regarding "twain" and "one flesh". So, how do you know what assumptions I have made?

You have not really answered my question; otherwise, I would consider and deal with it. I am after something more fundamental.

I am trying to understand and resolve how to interpret Scripture, and I have tried to keep this thread on the topic of the silence of the Scriptures, as they relate to polygamy.

My answer has been and is, "Should we not interpret Scriptures as did Jesus?" Therefore, I ask again, how did Jesus get from point A to point B? How did He reason from Genesis 2:24 to His conclusion in Matthew 19:4-6?

Please allow me to break it down a little further with this question: What was Jesus conclusion regarding divorce in Matthew 19:6? Is this any different than what the Old Law taught?

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:32 am
by JSM17
Hugh McBryde wrote:The problem with your analysis has been addressed. You're employing a circular assumption with Matthew 19:6 in which you assume there can be no other "one flesh" relationships. The Syllogism that disproves this works as follows. A.) We know from Genesis 2:24 that you ARE one flesh with your wife. B.) We know from Deuteronomy 21:15 that you CAN have two. THEREFORE, if you ARE one flesh with your wife, (The word for wife and wives is EXACTLY the same in Hebrew and in both these verses) you are ONE FLESH with both of them
I don't see a syllogism, much less circular reasoning.

Who is the "you" in the syllogism?

Deuteronomy 21:15 says nothing about one flesh, though it talks about a man having two wives. Indeed, the passage itself identifies the problem with polygamy: one wife is loved, the other hated.

Please explain to me how that man has become "one flesh" with his two wives!

Many people had many wives in the Old Testament, including David, Moses as well as Solomon. Polygamy was tolerated by God, though it was never his plan for man. The same was true regarding divorce in the Old Testament (see three chapters later in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and compare it with Matthew 19:3-12).

Did not Jesus say, "The two shall become one flesh?" ---not three, four. . .ninety-nine.

Many things that God permitted in the Old Testament, including divorce and polygamy, Jesus clearly announced, "From the beginning it was not so."

Even if God joined to people together in polygamy then, He does not today. The situation with polygamy today is the same as with being joined to a harlot (1 Cor. 6:16).

Furthermore he said that God allowed the Jews put away their wives "because of the hardness of your hearts"! If I were claiming to be a Christian I would not want to demonstrate a hard heart because of my views on divorce and polygamy.

Furthermore, when do we authorize any practice today by appeals to the Old Testament.

God said we are to listen to Jesus, not Moses or Elijah (Matt. 17:1-5).

Multiple Anwers.

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:39 pm
by Hugh McBryde
m273p15c wrote:
Moi wrote:
m273p15c wrote:"In relation to our interpretation of the silence of the Scriptures, how did Jesus reason from Genesis 2:24 (Matthew 19:4-5) to His conclusion in Matthew 19:6?"
I honestly don't get it. In part, I have answered the "Ishshah" question as many times as I have to illustrate what CAN and CANNOT be Christ's answer. It takes a reboot of all theological thinking to get the answer you apparently wish to derive from Matthew 19.

To "rightly divide" you must first build a foundation. How was a concept introduced? How were language and phrases used in the FIRST place? ... I keep asking for this answer, it is part of my answer to your questions, you keep acting like I'm avoiding the issue. I've answered, the ball IS in your court, please reply. My answer in short form is YOU ASSUME A CONCLUSION IN MATTHEW 19:6 THAT IS NOT THERE.
I have not stated anything about Matthew 19:6, especially regarding "twain" and "one flesh". So, how do you know what assumptions I have made?."
Then I am to some degree, greatly relieved. I feel as if I have been a shuttlecock between you and Sledford in which I am asked constantly to answer a question I don't understand. So I guessed. The discussion had bogged down with repeated requests to "answer the question". Now there was no question?
m273p15c wrote:"You have not really answered my question; otherwise, I would consider and deal with it. I am after something more fundamental."
And herein lies my confusion.
m273p15c wrote:"I am trying to understand and resolve how to interpret Scripture, and I have tried to keep this thread on the topic of the silence of the Scriptures, as they relate to polygamy."
I am going to remind all once again, I AM NOT AN ADVOCATE of POLY-GAMY, I am an advocate of something more narrow, POLY-GYNY. The difference is VERY important.
m273p15c wrote:"My answer has been and is, 'Should we not interpret Scriptures as did Jesus'?"
I agree that we should. He is the supreme authority. He was present when they were written, when the law was dictated to Moses. He is their author. He is the word.
m273p15c wrote:"Therefore, I ask again, how did Jesus get from point A to point B? How did He reason from Genesis 2:24 to His conclusion in Matthew 19:4-6?"
Ok, and this is why I am assuming what you ask ABOUT Matthew 19. Isn't it important to know what you think his conclusion IS? Apparently it's not as self evident as you seem to think it is. Thus I am supplying answers which make me appear at this moment to be guilty of straw man debate tactics.
m273p15c wrote:"Please allow me to break it down a little further with this question: What was Jesus conclusion regarding divorce in Matthew 19:6? Is this any different than what the Old Law taught?"
I'll answer the last one, as it answers the first one too. No.
JSM17 wrote:
Moi wrote:The problem with your analysis has been addressed. You're employing a circular assumption with Matthew 19:6 in which you assume there can be no other "one flesh" relationships. The Syllogism that disproves this works as follows. A.) We know from Genesis 2:24 that you ARE one flesh with your wife. B.) We know from Deuteronomy 21:15 that you CAN have two. THEREFORE, if you ARE one flesh with your wife, (The word for wife and wives is EXACTLY the same in Hebrew and in both these verses) you are ONE FLESH with both of them"
I don't see a syllogism, much less circular reasoning."
The syllogism is this. I will use the Hebrew word that is translated "wife" (which may be a grossly inaccurate translation) to illustrate. Keep in mind ONCE AGAIN that Hebrew had no word for "wife" as opposed to "wives". There was not even a jot or tittle to distinguish them. No form or accent mark made the "Ishshah" interpreted as "wife" into the "Ishshah" interpreted as "wives".

From Genesis 2:24 we know that you are "one flesh" with your "Ishshah" (translated as wife). That means IF you have an ISHSHAH, she is "One Flesh" with you. If this is NOT true, you would want to dispute this seperately. If it is true, we move on to the second point.

From Deuteronomy 21:15, we hear God's law from Moses, only the first part is important for our discussion. 21:15 starts out with the phrase; "If a man have two 'Ishshah' (here translated as WIVES)." Note that there is no difference between the word in Genesis 2:24, and Deuteronomy 21:15. For all we know, Moses, who penned both passages as a scribe to God, wrote them both on the very same day. Certainly both were written in Moses lifetime. What do we know from this passage? We know that YOU CAN have two "Ishshah", and GOD says you can. This is not the only place where he says this, he makes mention of that fact right after giving the Ten Commandments. Don't think this is my only verse.

So condensing it down. 1.) According to GOD, You aren't "one flesh" with SOME of your "Ishshah" depending on the circumstance, you are are just plain old "ONE FLESH" with them. No ifs ands or buts. (Genesis 2:24)

2.) You CAN have more than one of them at the same time. According to GOD. (Deuteronomy 21:15 & Exodus 21)

3.) Conclusion: If you have TWO or more "Ishshah" (wives) you are of NECESSITY, "One Flesh" with each and every one of them at the same time. Please note that this leaves open the question of it being a good idea to have more than one wife at a time. That is a seperate debate. For now we are only discussing the possibility.

COROLLARY (A corollary is an inevitable side effect of a conclusion): Since a "One Flesh" condition obviously CAN exist and DID exist in many simoltaneous relationships of ONE MAN, as the concept was originally used and defined by our GOD, THEN as a result, the phrase "One Flesh" is not synonymous with a MONOGAMY. It is in fact a description of a condition that EXISTS between two people, but is not limited to existing ONLY between those two people at any given time. In other words, I don't have to let go of one bone to pick up the other, like the dog in Aesop's fable.

Other corollaries; Unless REDEFINED (unlikely in my view), whenever the phrase is used you cannot insert the word "monogamy" instead.

When someone says the "Twain" become "one". There is no other conclusion than that. The TWO become ONE. Since clearly that can happen again, and nowhere in the New Testament or elsewhere do we have a declaration that it cannot or SHOULD not, then this is like saying a freight car hooks up to one freight car and then later COULD hook up to another freight car. The car in front and the car behind are linked to the car in the middle, generally, this happens one link up at a time. The car in front and the car behind are not linked to each other. Thus the car in the middle is linked to (one) with both cars on either end, but the cars on either end are not one.

The concept is quite simple, but excluded in all these discussion because of our preconceptions. Declarations like "that's impossible" are bandied about when I state that that you can be "one flesh" with two women simoltaneously and them not "one flesh" with one another, but clearly that impossibility is a concept in the mind of those who claim it is impossible. As illustrated, the concept of being one with another, and that other being one with yet another who you are not one with, is POSSIBLE. A spoke in a wheel is one with the hub, the hub is one with many other spokes. Those spokes are not joined together. It is possible to be one with many spokes, if you are a hub. This explains "one Flesh" as used in scripture better than the idea that it means "Marriage" which is "only monogamy"..
JSM17 wrote:"Many people had many wives in the Old Testament, including David, Moses as well as Solomon. Polygamy was tolerated by God, though it was never his plan for man. The same was true regarding divorce in the Old Testament (see three chapters later in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and compare it with Matthew 19:3-12)."
The constant attempts to link divorce and Polygyny nauseate me. They are ILLOGICAL. Don't bring it up unless you can directly link them. You cannot. Polygyny is never said to be "Tollerated" "like divorce" (reluctantly, sadly, wearily) in scripture. YOU say that. Scripture does not. This involves assumptions that are circular. Polygyny is bad therefore it is obviously "tollerated" by God with sorrow and weariness, reluctantly. Why? Because God would not "allow" something to go on that was BAD. But in this line of reasoning, you assume it is bad to gain the concept of God's reluctant tollerance, and then bolster the idea that it is evil, because it is "tollerated". Circular reasoning.

You then go on to conclude that it is "like divorce" because you claim (in this case WITH foundation) that divorce IS reluctantly tollerated, so since Polygyny is too (wrong conclusion based on circular reasoning) then it's "like divorce". Undemonstrated. Utterly..
JSM17 wrote:"Did not Jesus say, 'The two shall become one flesh'?"
Yes.
JSM17 wrote:"---not three, four. . .ninety-nine."
As PROVED, CONCLUSIVELY, NO!!
JSM17 wrote:"Many things that God permitted in the Old Testament, including divorce and polygamy, Jesus clearly announced, 'From the beginning it was not so'."
Which is Jesus, on topic, about DIVORCE. A subject not linked with Polygyny as I have CLEARLY and CONCLUSIVELY and WITHOUT REFUTATION, DEMONSTRATED. I am IGNORED on this CLEAR and DECISIVE chain of LOGIC. What Jesus is saying that "From the beginning", "it was not so" means that ORIGINALLY, marriages were forumulated as PERMANENT during the lifetime of the participants. You assume that somehow marriages were formulated as monogamies and THAT was meant to be so, from the beginning. Nope. Sorry. Wrong. When you can tell me how we all marry women made from our own bodies, then I will start to consider that we were possibily meant to be monogamously wed. Until that time, I'm going to INSIST that only SOME aspects of Adam and Eve's relationship were meant to be followed, not all. This is CLEARLY true. Thus I only follow those aspects of Adam and Eve's pattern when DIRECTED to do so and I AM NEVER EVER ONCE ANYWHERE directed to follow their monogamous pattern. To employ Matthew 19 as a proof for your point is CIRCULAR.
JSM17 wrote:"Even if God joined to people together in polygamy then, He does not today."
Why? I can PROVE to you there are Christians living in Polygynies. They are not JOINED? Please keep in mind, it's a big BIG world, and there are some countries where it is not illegal. It's a BIG BIG world, and in some of those countries there are CHRISTIANS who are in Polygynies. So unless you can cite the BAN, which you CANNOT, Badda Bing, Badda Bam, Badda BOOM, there are Christians living in Polygynies RIGHT NOW. Do you say that God did NOT join them? CITE THE BAN, or you are convicted of "forbidding marriage", something you ARE told to stay away from.
JSM17 wrote:"The situation with polygamy today is the same as with being joined to a harlot." (1 Cor. 6:16)
A clear example of sentencing prior to conviction. Now you INSULT by accusing me have having WHORED with my wives. You accuse like minded bretheren of mine of the same and you have NOT made your case. Yes, I whore if I am convicted, NO I do not if I am NOT GUILTY. Conduct the trial for condemning the practice and YES I am an adulteror, a whoremonger and all those things. Fail to do so and you merely smear me with epithets.

By the way, have you noticed that 1st Corinthians 6:16 is yet another verse that proves you can be "one flesh" with more than one person at the same time? In this case I concede readily that you OUGHT NOT be "one flesh" in this fashion, but clearly, once again, it's possible.
JSM17 wrote:"Furthermore he said that God allowed the Jews put away their wives 'because of the hardness of your hearts!' If I were claiming to be a Christian I would not want to demonstrate a hard heart because of my views on divorce and polygamy."
Once again, you link divorce with polygyny to gain access to the condemnations of divorce, yet you have not linked them really, you only link them in word association games and spin.
JSM17 wrote:"Furthermore, when do we authorize any practice today by appeals to the Old Testament."
Uh, Christ did. Paul did. And if you cast out the Old Testament, how DO you define "One Flesh"? Where does the definition come from? I think you're going to have a hard time doing that with the New Testament only, at least in the way that you seek to define it.
JSM17 wrote:"God said we are to listen to Jesus, not Moses or Elijah." (Matt. 17:1-5)
False Dichotomy alert!!! God did not say "listen to Jesus INSTEAD of Moses and Elijah", he just said "listen to Jesus". Jesus said (listen to HIM) things like "Isaiah spoke of me" When he said, "This scripture is fulfilled in your ears". (Luke 4:21) He said the scriptures spoke of him, so isn't he saying that we should listen to them, not him INSTEAD of them?

reserved

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:37 pm
by m273p15c
reserved