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.
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'?"
JSM17 wrote:"---not three, four. . .ninety-nine."
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 WITHOUT REFUTATION
. 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?