Polygamy in the Bible

[Dr. Vaughn]

I hear you, but you are scaring people.

I could also start a thread about whether it is unholy to sacrifice my children on an altar...

I dare say there are some with their emotions tied to a discussion like this, and that should mean something to you.

It would be a great discussion because we could kill it with Sola Scriptura... THOU SHALT NOT KILL

But this subject is open for debate and the only people that should be scared of debate are those who argue their feelings rather than the truth

[Dr. Vaughn]

Okay, Dora may shoot me for this one, BUT:

Scripture does not clearly condemn polygamy. However, I don't agree scripture supports it or, worse, recommends it. I simply think that it was allowed, in the same manner slavery was allowed, and laws were put into place to regulate the practice and keep it humane.

Polygamy is out of line with scriptural ideals in the same way that slavery is out of line with scriptural ideals. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if a slave-owner from another country and culture were converted to Christianity, even if he were a kind and fair owner, he should be encouraged to set his slaves free, in order to be in line with Christian principles.

Polygamy is confusing, it is chaos, it is not in the best interest of the children in the household, and God is not the author of confusion.

By the way, the ten virgins are not support for polygamy. They were bridesmaids who were supposed to light the way with their lamps for the groom and his groomsmen as he made his way to his bride's house. The virgins were not brides. They were unmarried women, and as such, they were virgins. I know. Novel idea. :)

So you believe he took 5 of them and left 5 right? Which one was the Bride?

[Hoovie]

It would be a great discussion because we could kill it with Sola Scriptura... THOU SHALT NOT KILL



Did God ever ask that children be killed? was it allowed under certain circumstances?

[Dr. Vaughn]

Ms Bratt.. concerning Slave owners.. there were many good and godly slave owners who were Christian that let their slaves go only when we passed a law to do so.. Scripture encourages SLAVES to OBEY their MASTERS..... which is now Employees who are owned by their Employers.... we should obey our Employers....

Just as owning slaves is not UnChristian it is Un American and Un Western.. and as thus not recommended

[MissBrattified]

So you believe he took 5 of them and left 5 right? Which one was the Bride?

None of them. :) It wasn't the bride's house.

I've read historical accounts of this before, maybe T Burk can help me out here. The bridesmaids would light the way to the bride's house for the groom and groomsmen.

So the 5 without lit lamps were not able to participate in the procession to the bride's home, and had to go out and purchase oil for their lamps. By the time they caught up, the wedding was in progress, and the bridesmaids weren't allowed in.

[Dr. Vaughn]

Did God ever ask that children be killed? was it allowed under certain circumstances?

I love it brother.. it could be a lot of fun... .and we can go there next.. start a new thread... lets talk Polygamy right now

[LUKE2447]

Wow slavery and polygamy are equal?????? uh no!

[Dr. Vaughn]

None of them. :) It wasn't the bride's house.

I've read historical accounts of this before, maybe T Burk can help me out here. The bridesmaids would light the way to the bride's house for the groom and groomsmen.

So the 5 without lit lamps were not able to participate in the procession to the bride's home, and had to go out and purchase oil for their lamps. By the time they caught up, the wedding was in progress, and the bridesmaids weren't allowed in.

The Groom came for his Bride.... he took 5 of them into the type of the rapture for the marriage.... why bother taking the five if they were not Bride?

[Dora]

I believe there is much more than "feelings" behind my argument against the practice of polygamy. In researching the cultures that still engage in polygamy, I find that the practice is fraught with abuse of women and neglect of children. I can't see how this lifestyle aligns itself with Christ-like living. If you seek to live a Christ-like existence, then the practice of polygamy does not appear to be the best way to do it. One wife is usually prefer above another, the children of the preferred wife receive a greater inheritance or more attention from the father. It appears to be the antithesis of the teachings of Jesus.

[MissBrattified]

Ms Bratt.. concerning Slave owners.. there were many good and godly slave owners who were Christian that let their slaves go only when we passed a law to do so.. Scripture encourages SLAVES to OBEY their MASTERS..... which is now Employees who are owned by their Employers.... we should obey our Employers....

Just as owning slaves is not UnChristian it is Un American and Un Western.. and as thus not recommended

I disagree. As respectfully as possible. :)

A workman is worthy of his hire.
God is no respecter of persons.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Submit to one another.
Prefer one another.
Have all things in common.
If you have respect of persons, you commit sin.

I could go on and on....

[Hoovie]

Wow slavery and polygamy are equal?????? uh no!

Well sure they are different. Is one more deplorable than the other to you?

[TK Burk]

Why dont we just cut to the chase...... if God is so against Polygamy... please post ONE SCRRIPTURE that says so in CERTAIN TERMS... show us where God calls Polygamy a SIN... if he doesn't call it unholy then who are we to call it unholy

Yep, I used that same line in my B.C. days as my excuse for using certain chemicals. But after I was saved I was saw that salvation and sanctification is all about maturing into Christlikeness. That means changing my childish ways to better reflect the man God fashioned me to become.

Like I said TWICE now; God created one man (Adam) and one woman (Eve) to inhabit Eden. According to the hermeneutic Law of First Mention, they are God's PERFECT PATTERN. The Bible admits that in the Old Testament God allowed men to do certain things because of their hard hearts and ignorance. But now, because of the New Covenant of Jesus Christ, men are called to repent of their childish ways and grow into a matured man of God.

I guess the good Doctor needs to show where Jesus (a type of Adam) is said to have multiple brides (the bride is a type of Eve). I can't find any such scripture myself. So please, show us where it is found.

[Hoovie]

I believe there is much more than "feelings" behind my argument against the practice of polygamy. In researching the cultures that still engage in polygamy, I find that the practice is fraught with abuse of women and neglect of children. I can't see how this lifestyle aligns itself with Christ-like living. If you seek to live a Christ-like existence, then the practice of polygamy does not appear to be the best way to do it. One wife is usually prefer above another, the children of the preferred wife receive a greater inheritance or more attention from the father. It appears to be the antithesis of the teachings of Jesus.

I agree Dora.

[LUKE2447]

I believe there is much more than "feelings" behind my argument against the practice of polygamy. In researching the cultures that still engage in polygamy, I find that the practice is fraught with abuse of women and neglect of children. I can't see how this lifestyle aligns itself with Christ-like living. If you seek to live a Christ-like existence, then the practice of polygamy does not appear to be the best way to do it. One wife is usually prefer above another, the children of the preferred wife receive a greater inheritance or more attention from the father. It appears to be the antithesis of the teachings of Jesus.

Wow single marriages don't ever have abuse in America. LOl!

[Tim Rutledge]

I love it brother.. it could be a lot of fun... .and we can go there next.. start a new thread... lets talk Polygamy right now

We have lines and precepts in the bible. When you connect the lines you get One Wife.. thats more then enough!!

One God
One Faith
One Baptism
and
One Wife.

[LUKE2447]

Yep, I used that same line in my B.C. days as my excuse for using certain chemicals. But after I was saved I was saw that salvation and sanctification is all about maturing into Christlikeness. That means changing my childish ways to better reflect the man God fashioned me to become.

Like I said TWICE now; God created one man (Adam) and one woman (Eve) to inhabit Eden. According to the hermeneutic Law of First Mention, they are God's PERFECT PATTERN. The Bible admits that in the Old Testament God allowed men to do certain things because of their hard hearts and ignorance. But now, because of the New Covenant of Jesus Christ, men are called to repent of their childish ways and grow into a matured man of God.

I guess the good Doctor needs to show where Jesus (a type of Adam) is said to have multiple brides (the bride is a type of Eve). I can't find any such scripture myself. So please, show us where it is found.

This law is a man's law not God's and it doesn't work all the time so it can't be a law but that is for another discussion. Face it you have no Biblical data that it is wrong no direct command in the OT or NT. Give it up!

[LUKE2447]

We have lines and precepts in the bible. When you connect the lines you get One Wife.. thats more then enough!!

One God
One Faith
One Baptism
and
One Wife.

Get out of the cultural paradigm!

[Tim Rutledge]

singing...
1 wife. 1 wife, 1 wife is sufficient for me, for me,
1 wife. 1 wife, 1 wife is sufficient for me.

[Dora]

Wow single marriages don't ever have abuse in America. LOl!

One fact does not negate the other. Go buy yourself a few slaves and trade a few goats for another wife! :tease

[MissBrattified]

singing...
1 wife. 1 wife, 1 wife is sufficient for me, for me,
1 wife. 1 wife, 1 wife is sufficient for me.

LOL!!!!!!

Verse:

There's only one wife in my kitchen,
She bakes chocolate cakes extraordinaire!
If there were two wives in my kitchen,
I think I would pull out my hair!!!!

:D

[Tim Rutledge]

Get out of the cultural paradigm!

:ursofunny

[CC1]

singing...
1 wife. 1 wife, 1 wife is sufficient for me, for me,
1 wife. 1 wife, 1 wife is sufficient for me.

Besides we can't afford more than one even if we wanted them!

[LUKE2447]

One fact does not negate the other. Go buy yourself a few slaves and trade a few goats for another wife! :tease

No it doesn't but the problems of one are not strictly inherent to just one side.

[Tim Rutledge]

Besides we can't afford more than one even if we wanted them!

Amen and Amen.

[Dora]

No it doesn't but the problems of one are not strictly inherent to just one side.

Hello? Isn't that what I just said???:snapout

[Tim Rutledge]

LOL!!!!!!

Verse:

There's only one wife in my kitchen,
She bakes chocolate cakes extraordinaire!
If there were two wives in my kitchen,
I think I would pull out my hair!!!!

:D

:ursofunny :ursofunny :ursofunny

[Dr. Vaughn]

I disagree. As respectfully as possible. :)

A workman is worthy of his hire.
God is no respecter of persons.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Submit to one another.
Prefer one another.
Have all things in common.
If you have respect of persons, you commit sin.

I could go on and on....

"Slaves obey your Masters"

"Masters be fair to your slaves"

[Dr. Vaughn]

Yep, I used that same line in my B.C. days as my excuse for using certain chemicals. But after I was saved I was saw that salvation and sanctification is all about maturing into Christlikeness. That means changing my childish ways to better reflect the man God fashioned me to become.

Like I said TWICE now; God created one man (Adam) and one woman (Eve) to inhabit Eden. According to the hermeneutic Law of First Mention, they are God's PERFECT PATTERN. The Bible admits that in the Old Testament God allowed men to do certain things because of their hard hearts and ignorance. But now, because of the New Covenant of Jesus Christ, men are called to repent of their childish ways and grow into a matured man of God.

I guess the good Doctor needs to show where Jesus (a type of Adam) is said to have multiple brides (the bride is a type of Eve). I can't find any such scripture myself. So please, show us where it is found.

It's found right here... YOU equals 1 person plus me equals 2 Persons... we both equal ONE WIFE

[Dr. Vaughn]

Yep, I used that same line in my B.C. days as my excuse for using certain chemicals. But after I was saved I was saw that salvation and sanctification is all about maturing into Christlikeness. That means changing my childish ways to better reflect the man God fashioned me to become.

Like I said TWICE now; God created one man (Adam) and one woman (Eve) to inhabit Eden. According to the hermeneutic Law of First Mention, they are God's PERFECT PATTERN. The Bible admits that in the Old Testament God allowed men to do certain things because of their hard hearts and ignorance. But now, because of the New Covenant of Jesus Christ, men are called to repent of their childish ways and grow into a matured man of God.

I guess the good Doctor needs to show where Jesus (a type of Adam) is said to have multiple brides (the bride is a type of Eve). I can't find any such scripture myself. So please, show us where it is found.

So using your argument about THE BEGINNING you are now prepared to say that DIVORCE and REMARRIAGE is just as sinful as POLYGAMY?

[Dr. Vaughn]

We have lines and precepts in the bible. When you connect the lines you get One Wife.. thats more then enough!!

One God
One Faith
One Baptism
and
One Wife.

One God made of how many manifestations? .Father Son Holy Ghost.. although totally seperate in their function and Revelation.. they equal ONE

ONE BAPTISM with THREE ELEMENTS -- Death Burial Ressurection but it equals ONE BAPTISM

[Tim Rutledge]

Br. V. If you had mega bucks, and say it was not against the law, would you have 2 wives? If no.. why not?

[TK Burk]

None of them. :) It wasn't the bride's house.

I've read historical accounts of this before, maybe T Burk can help me out here. The bridesmaids would light the way to the bride's house for the groom and groomsmen.

So the 5 without lit lamps were not able to participate in the procession to the bride's home, and had to go out and purchase oil for their lamps. By the time they caught up, the wedding was in progress, and the bridesmaids weren't allowed in.

How's this?

SKETCHES OF JEWISH SOCIAL LIFE
By Alfred Edersheim, D. D., Ph. D.
Chapter 9 - Mothers, Daughters, and Wives in Israel

The marriage followed after a longer or shorter interval, the limits of which, however, were fixed by law. The ceremony itself consisted in leading the bride into the house of the bridegroom, with certain formalities, mostly dating from very ancient times…..

It deserves notice, that at the marriage in Cana there is no mention of "the friends of the bridegroom," or, as we would call them, the groomsmen. This was in strict accordance with Jewish custom, for groomsmen were customary in Judaea, but not in Galilee (Cheth. 25 a). This also casts light upon the locality where Joh_3:29 was spoken, in which "the friend of the bridegroom" is mentioned. But this expression is quite different from that of "children of the bridechamber," which occurs in Mat_9:15, where the scene is once more laid in Galilee. The term "children of the bridechamber" is simply a translation of the Rabbinical "bene Chuppah," and means the guests invited to the bridal. In Judaea there were at every marriage two groomsmen or "friends of the bridegroom"--one for the bridegroom, the other for his bride. Before marriage, they acted as a kind of intermediaries between the couple; at the wedding they offered gifts, waited upon the bride and bridegroom, and attended them to the bridal chamber, being also, as it were, the guarantors of the bride's virgin chastity. Hence, when St. Paul tells the Corinthians (2Co_11:2): "I am jealous over you with godly jealousy; for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ," he speaks, as it were, in the character of groomsman or "bridegroom's friend," who had acted as such at the spiritual union of Christ with the Corinthian Church. And we know that it was specially the duty of the "friend of the bridegroom" so to present to him his bride. Similarly it was his also, after marriage, to maintain proper terms between the couple, and more particularly to defend the good fame of the bride against all imputations. It may interest some to know that his custom also was traced up to highest authority. Thus, in the spiritual union of Israel with their God, Moses is spoken of as "the friend of the bridegroom" who leads out the bride (Exo_19:17); while Jehovah, as the bridegroom, meets His Church at Sinai (Psa_68:7; Pirke di R. El. 41)....

[LUKE2447]

Hello? Isn't that what I just said???:snapout

you referred to one part of abuse I was referring to the whole of comparisons that one can make of reasons for failed relationships. It all comes down to the same things. Polygamy is no worse or better in itself. It may be better for certain people and not for others.

[Dr. Vaughn]

One fact does not negate the other. Go buy yourself a few slaves and trade a few goats for another wife! :tease

Dora, respectfully you are not being fair in your assumption..... many of those same women would be homeless.. destitute with no inheritance for their children had a good and godly man not accepted responsibility for her in many of these cultures and give her a home... Dora honestly you speak from a WESTERN mindset rather than a global mindset... In the days of Christ.... and all the way through scripture this was an accepted marriage arrangement and in MANY cultures today it is a favored arrangement....

While I will concede that this is not an acceptable form of marriage in the Western World.... and should not be entered into because of the western society that we live in.. you will not concede that it not forbidden of God and it is not called Unholy and it is not a SIN

[Dr. Vaughn]

How's this?

SKETCHES OF JEWISH SOCIAL LIFE
By Alfred Edersheim, D. D., Ph. D.
Chapter 9 - Mothers, Daughters, and Wives in Israel

The marriage followed after a longer or shorter interval, the limits of which, however, were fixed by law. The ceremony itself consisted in leading the bride into the house of the bridegroom, with certain formalities, mostly dating from very ancient times…..

It deserves notice, that at the marriage in Cana there is no mention of "the friends of the bridegroom," or, as we would call them, the groomsmen. This was in strict accordance with Jewish custom, for groomsmen were customary in Judaea, but not in Galilee (Cheth. 25 a). This also casts light upon the locality where Joh_3:29 was spoken, in which "the friend of the bridegroom" is mentioned. But this expression is quite different from that of "children of the bridechamber," which occurs in Mat_9:15, where the scene is once more laid in Galilee. The term "children of the bridechamber" is simply a translation of the Rabbinical "bene Chuppah," and means the guests invited to the bridal. In Judaea there were at every marriage two groomsmen or "friends of the bridegroom"--one for the bridegroom, the other for his bride. Before marriage, they acted as a kind of intermediaries between the couple; at the wedding they offered gifts, waited upon the bride and bridegroom, and attended them to the bridal chamber, being also, as it were, the guarantors of the bride's virgin chastity. Hence, when St. Paul tells the Corinthians (2Co_11:2): "I am jealous over you with godly jealousy; for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ," he speaks, as it were, in the character of groomsman or "bridegroom's friend," who had acted as such at the spiritual union of Christ with the Corinthian Church. And we know that it was specially the duty of the "friend of the bridegroom" so to present to him his bride. Similarly it was his also, after marriage, to maintain proper terms between the couple, and more particularly to defend the good fame of the bride against all imputations. It may interest some to know that his custom also was traced up to highest authority. Thus, in the spiritual union of Israel with their God, Moses is spoken of as "the friend of the bridegroom" who leads out the bride (Exo_19:17); while Jehovah, as the bridegroom, meets His Church at Sinai (Psa_68:7; Pirke di R. El. 41)....

We've all read it before brother.. it makes for good preaching....

[Tim Rutledge]

Dora, respectfully you are not being fair in your assumption..... many of those same women would be homeless.. destitute with no inheritance for their children had a good and godly man not accepted responsibility for her in many of these cultures and give her a home... Dora honestly you speak from a WESTERN mindset rather than a global mindset... In the days of Christ.... and all the way through scripture this was an accepted marriage arrangement and in MANY cultures today it is a favored arrangement....

While I will concede that this is not an acceptable form of marriage in the Western World.... and should not be entered into because of the western society that we live in.. you will not concede that it not forbidden of God and it is not called Unholy and it is not a SIN

In our society and culture polygamy would be a sin.

[Dr. Vaughn]

Br. V. If you had mega bucks, and say it was not against the law, would you have 2 wives? If no.. why not?

Because it is Illegal

[MissBrattified]

"Slaves obey your Masters"

"Masters be fair to your slaves"

I know. :)

God instituted laws in the OT, and regulated the practice. In the NT, Christians were told how to behave and interact in certain circumstances. But that is not the same as an endorsement of slavery by God. The Christian thing to do, if you are held captive or owned by another person is to be obedient and godly, within the scope of your circumstances. But that doesn't mean God approves of slavery.

The scriptures in the NT seem to highlight potential conflicts that can arise, and tell Christians how to deal with them, master and slave alike. This is a great scripture:

I Timothy 6:1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
I Timothy 6:2 And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.

I Timothy 6:6 But godliness with contentment is great gain.

[Tim Rutledge]

In our society and culture polygamy would be a sin.

Doth thou concedeth.

[Dora]

Polyamory??? What of that? still no answer...

[Dr. Vaughn]

In our society and culture polygamy would be a sin.

LOL,, in China going to church is Illegal... is it now a Sin also?

Somethings over ride culture and laws....

[LUKE2447]

So using your argument about THE BEGINNING you are now prepared to say that DIVORCE and REMARRIAGE is just as sinful as POLYGAMY?


actually I would! Only in the case of adultery is it allowed. Moses failed in this aspect and allowed it. I don't think the Law he constantly mentions(law of first mention) has any merit in the sense that is the ONLY way it can be.
Wonder if he observes the Sabbath it is eternaly hallowed day.

[MissBrattified]

How's this?

SKETCHES OF JEWISH SOCIAL LIFE
By Alfred Edersheim, D. D., Ph. D.
Chapter 9 - Mothers, Daughters, and Wives in Israel

The marriage followed after a longer or shorter interval, the limits of which, however, were fixed by law. The ceremony itself consisted in leading the bride into the house of the bridegroom, with certain formalities, mostly dating from very ancient times…..

It deserves notice, that at the marriage in Cana there is no mention of "the friends of the bridegroom," or, as we would call them, the groomsmen. This was in strict accordance with Jewish custom, for groomsmen were customary in Judaea, but not in Galilee (Cheth. 25 a). This also casts light upon the locality where Joh_3:29 was spoken, in which "the friend of the bridegroom" is mentioned. But this expression is quite different from that of "children of the bridechamber," which occurs in Mat_9:15, where the scene is once more laid in Galilee. The term "children of the bridechamber" is simply a translation of the Rabbinical "bene Chuppah," and means the guests invited to the bridal. In Judaea there were at every marriage two groomsmen or "friends of the bridegroom"--one for the bridegroom, the other for his bride. Before marriage, they acted as a kind of intermediaries between the couple; at the wedding they offered gifts, waited upon the bride and bridegroom, and attended them to the bridal chamber, being also, as it were, the guarantors of the bride's virgin chastity. Hence, when St. Paul tells the Corinthians (2Co_11:2): "I am jealous over you with godly jealousy; for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ," he speaks, as it were, in the character of groomsman or "bridegroom's friend," who had acted as such at the spiritual union of Christ with the Corinthian Church. And we know that it was specially the duty of the "friend of the bridegroom" so to present to him his bride. Similarly it was his also, after marriage, to maintain proper terms between the couple, and more particularly to defend the good fame of the bride against all imputations. It may interest some to know that his custom also was traced up to highest authority. Thus, in the spiritual union of Israel with their God, Moses is spoken of as "the friend of the bridegroom" who leads out the bride (Exo_19:17); while Jehovah, as the bridegroom, meets His Church at Sinai (Psa_68:7; Pirke di R. El. 41)....

Thank you. :)

[Dr. Vaughn]

I know. :)

God instituted laws in the OT, and regulated the practice. In the NT, Christians were told how to behave and interact in certain circumstances. But that is not the same as an endorsement of slavery by God. The Christian thing to do, if you are held captive or owned by another person is to be obedient and godly, within the scope of your circumstances. But that doesn't mean God approves of slavery.

The scriptures in the NT seem to highlight potential conflicts that can arise, and tell Christians how to deal with them, master and slave alike. This is a great scripture:

I Timothy 6:1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
I Timothy 6:2 And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.

I Timothy 6:6 But godliness with contentment is great gain.

So you are acknowleding that the NT endorsed slavery?

[LUKE2447]

cultural laws do not change the truth of what his Word says.

[Dr. Vaughn]

Polyamory??? What of that? still no answer...

DORA there is no where to go with that..... it is outside the bonds and Covenants of Marriage between man and woman is not sanctioned by God.. total different subject..... In Polygamy MAN is responsible for the wives he chooses.. he comes into Covenant with each of them.. vows to them and produces children with them..... the COVENANT is there... In Polyamory you have an orgy

[MissBrattified]

So you are acknowledging that the NT endorsed slavery?

No. I think it continued with regulation of the practice, only this time from a Christian perspective. It's not the same as an endorsement. I am acknowledging that God never clearly condemns the practice as sinful, and the same is true of polygamy.

[LUKE2447]

hmmm you are slaves to whom you obey? Am I still a slave?

[Dr. Vaughn]

Doth thou concedeth.

I will be happy to once you answer this one questions.. truthfully.. are all of those believers in China attending services underground in sin?

once you give your honest answer I will reply with my concession if the answer is right

[Dr. Vaughn]

No. I think it continued with regulation of the practice, only this time from a Christian perspective. It's not the same as an endorsement. I am acknowledging that God never clearly condemns the practice as sinful, and the same is true of polygamy.

Come on Ms. Bratti arn't you playing semantics now?

Slavery was allowed by God,,, and whole nations given to Israel as slaves... it was continued into the NT and never condemned......

[TK Burk]

None of them. :) It wasn't the bride's house.

I've read historical accounts of this before, maybe T Burk can help me out here. The bridesmaids would light the way to the bride's house for the groom and groomsmen.

So the 5 without lit lamps were not able to participate in the procession to the bride's home, and had to go out and purchase oil for their lamps. By the time they caught up, the wedding was in progress, and the bridesmaids weren't allowed in.

And this?

A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown

shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom — This supplies a key to the parable, whose object is, in the main, the same as that of the last parable - to illustrate the vigilant and expectant attitude of faith, in respect of which believers are described as “they that look for Him” (Heb_9:28), and “love His appearing” (2Ti_4:8). In the last parable it was that of servants waiting for their absent Lord; in this it is that of virgin attendants on a Bride, whose duty it was to go forth at night with lamps, and be ready on the appearance of the Bridegroom to conduct the Bride to his house, and go in with him to the marriage.

[Dora]

If a man were with two women and they lived as if they were married because polygamy is against the law, in your opinion, the only reason their "union" is unacceptable is the fact that our Western culture does not accept the practice of polygamy. Is this conceptually a viable relationship, since it is for all intents and purpose practicing polygamy???

[Dr. Vaughn]

And this?

A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown

shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom — This supplies a key to the parable, whose object is, in the main, the same as that of the last parable - to illustrate the vigilant and expectant attitude of faith, in respect of which believers are described as “they that look for Him” (Heb_9:28), and “love His appearing” (2Ti_4:8). In the last parable it was that of servants waiting for their absent Lord; in this it is that of virgin attendants on a Bride, whose duty it was to go forth at night with lamps, and be ready on the appearance of the Bridegroom to conduct the Bride to his house, and go in with him to the marriage.

Commentary.. what I love about them is that everyone has them.... opinions

So you believe that he took 5 bridesmaids for the marriage and left five bridesmaids.... wonder if he ever planned to get the actual bride

[TK Burk]

So you are acknowleding that the NT endorsed slavery?

There is a difference between a SLAVE and a SERVANT. A SLAVE had NO RIGHTS. A SERVANT had many rights.

No offense, but you really need to study some more on these issues.

[LUKE2447]

Since God gave wives to others, God is not doing or guiding us to what is best? I don't see how you can claim God just allowed it in some abstract no interfering way, yet he was clearly involved with it's use.

[MissBrattified]

Come on Ms. Bratti arn't you playing semantics now?

Slavery was allowed by God,,, and whole nations given to Israel as slaves... it was continued into the NT and never condemned......

Look, here's my honest injun opinion, and YES, I am playing semantics:

You know the allowance for divorce based on adultery? In my opinion, the biblical ideal is for a person to FORGIVE their errant spouse and remain with them. BUT, I believe God understands that a person may have the inability to remain in such a relationship and makes allowance for it, since the covenant has been broken. He does not always expect us to live up to His ideals, and even makes rules for how we should handle ourselves when we do not.

I believe polygamy lies outside God's ideal and plan for the home and marriage. I believe the same about slavery. I do not understand why God didn't condemn either practice, and I acknowledge that He did not, but I do not believe either practice falls into line with other commandments given by God in both the OT AND the NT.

[TK Burk]

Commentary.. what I love about them is that everyone has them.... opinions

So you believe that he took 5 bridesmaids for the marriage and left five bridesmaids.... wonder if he ever planned to get the actual bride

Dr. V, it's all about studying. You are making a lot of errors because evidently you have not looked into the context of these verses nor their historical settings.

[Dr. Vaughn]

If a man were with two women and they lived as if they were married because polygamy is against the law, in your opinion, the only reason their "union" is unacceptable is the fact that our Western culture does not accept the practice of polygamy. Is this conceptually a viable relationship, since it is for all intents and purpose practicing polygamy???

The same idea applies to all gay marriages before now... they were not viable relationships because they were ILLEGAL... now in many states they are legal.. so with the stroke of a pen in a legislative branch in ONE SECOND an "unviable relationship" becomes viable

Now the difference being that gay marriage has never been in ANY SOCIETY in history.. Polygamy has been in EVERY society in History and LEGAL

When it once again becomes legal in this nation.. then all of the persecution against it will stop just like people are beginning to no longer look at two gay men with the stares we did many years ago......

Its all WESTERN mentality....

[LUKE2447]

Are we not still slaves to Christ as Paul points out? Does he not OWN us? Where we not paid for and had a price?

[Dr. Vaughn]

There is a difference between a SLAVE and a SERVANT. A SLAVE had NO RIGHTS. A SERVANT had many rights.

No offense, but you really need to study some more on these issues.

One thing I have studied - the word OBEY

and its pretty much the same in Slavery or Servantry.... the Slave was given a home, food, shelter, clothing in return for his work

[Dr. Vaughn]

Look, here's my honest injun opinion, and YES, I am playing semantics:

You know the allowance for divorce based on adultery? In my opinion, the biblical ideal is for a person to FORGIVE their errant spouse and remain with them. BUT, I believe God understands that a person may have the inability to remain in such a relationship and makes allowance for it, since the covenant has been broken. He does not always expect us to live up to His ideals, and even makes rules for how we should handle ourselves when we do not.

I believe polygamy lies outside God's ideal and plan for the home and marriage. I believe the same about slavery. I do not understand why God didn't condemn either practice, and I acknowledge that He did not, but I do not believe either practice falls into line with other commandments given by God in both the OT AND the NT.

You're honest opinion is acknowledged and appreciated.. if in fact more people could state as you have that "this is my opinion" and "not the Word of God"

For us to judge people in Polygamy as sinners... when we have no scripture for it.... is very dangerous

[Hoovie]

The same idea applies to all gay marriages before now... they were not viable relationships because they were ILLEGAL... now in many states they are legal.. so with the stroke of a pen in a legislative branch in ONE SECOND an "unviable relationship" becomes viable

Now the difference being that gay marriage has never been in ANY SOCIETY in history.. Polygamy has been in EVERY society in History and LEGAL

When it once again becomes legal in this nation.. then all of the persecution against it will stop just like people are beginning to no longer look at two gay men with the stares we did many years ago......

Its all WESTERN mentality....

Well that pretty much puts this thread up over the top for me!:aaa

[Dr. Vaughn]

Are we not still slaves to Christ as Paul points out? Does he not OWN us? Where we not paid for and had a price?

as Scooby Doo would say,, ruh roh

[TK Burk]

So you believe that he took 5 bridesmaids for the marriage and left five bridesmaids.... wonder if he ever planned to get the actual bride

What?? "Get the actual bride"? Where do you get this stuff from?? :snapout

They were accompanying the bride and groom. IT IS A PARABLE DR. VAUGHN!

And since you like commentaries so, here is the remainder of Barnes'....

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Some of them had lost their lights and were unprepared, but it was then too late to seek them, and the cavalcade moved forward to the house of the bride, at which place the company entered a large and splendidly illuminated area before the house, covered with an awning, where a great multitude of friends, dressed in their best apparel, were seated upon mats. The bridegroom was carried in the arms of a friend, and placed in a superb seat in the midst of the company, where he sat a short time, and then went into the house, the door of which was immediately shut and guarded by sepoys. I and others expostulated with the doorkeepers, but in vain. Never was I so struck with our Lord’s beautiful parable as at this moment - ‘And the door was shut.’”

[Dora]

Well that pretty much puts this thread up over the top for me!:aaa

In what way?

[Aquila]

So you think the virgins where waiting for their shared husband? Oh my. :faint

Have you ever watched Fiddler on the Roof? Remember the marriage when the townsfolk walked with the groom to meet the bride? They carried lights as they walked with him. This is the type Jewish wedding Jesus is referring to.

The parable's virgins are the female attendants of the bride. We would call them “bridesmaid” today. They were there to prepare the bride and accompany the groom to her side.

The parable of the ten virgins is speaking of being ready for the Kingdom of God. Not about a polygamous marriage between One God and multiple brides.

I suggest you read this parable in context with the other parables around it (See Matthew 25).

Good call. That's the interpretation I was taught. I was only relating something I had read.

I do have a question though...how do we know about this marriage custom you're speaking of? I have a book on things in the Bible people "think" but have no foundation in historical reality. For example, I believe Bro. Ensey wrote a book on hermeneutics that illustrated how the "eye of a needle" wasn't a gate as is commonly taught....according to his research there never was such a gate.

Either way....the parable is about being ready for Christ's coming even if it does depict a polygamous union.

[Dr. Vaughn]

Well that pretty much puts this thread up over the top for me!:aaa

Dont read more into that that I meant.. GOD DESPISES a GAY MARRIAGE... but he does not despise a Polygamous marriage.. and in fact made provisions for them.. the point was LEGALLY... LEGALLY just as the Gay Marriage is becoming legal and as such will remove alot of the stigma from Gay Marriage the same will soon be true with Polygamy... and once it is no longer Illegal and they start filling our churches.. who will then preach it is a sinful lifestyle?

[Hoovie]

In what way?

The idea that my aversion to "two gay men" is a "WESTERN mentality".

[Aquila]

If this is the mindset of the majority of men on this site, then I don't want any part of it.

Dora don't freak out. Be a grown up about this. If you were a woman in biblical times you'd understand what I'm trying to explain. Biblical polygamy was the more moral option compared to the alternatives women had back then. From a male perspective....it seems women are spoiled today and don't realize how rough it really was for unmarried women in biblical times. So they gross out at the idea and condemn men who have studied the practice for it's merits in it's historical context.

[TK Burk]

Are we not still slaves to Christ as Paul points out? Does he not OWN us? Where we not paid for and had a price?

Yep! When a person is Born Again, they trade masters. They no longer are slaves to sin, but become slaves to righteousness. The Church is also called "SERVANTS" of Jesus Christ.

[MissBrattified]

The idea that my aversion to "two gay men" is a "WESTERN mentality".

I don't think that was what Dr. V meant. :coffee2

[Aquila]

The next thing ya know, all the women on here will be wearing pastel prairie dresses and wearing their hair in french braids and allowing their 15 yr old daughters to marry their 65 year old prophet in order to father children to propagate their twisted version of the gospel.

Oh please Dora. Please tell me your just poking fun at us. lol

[TK Burk]

Dont read more into that that I meant.. GOD DESPISES a GAY MARRIAGE... but he does not despise a Polygamous marriage.. and in fact made provisions for them.. the point was LEGALLY... LEGALLY just as the Gay Marriage is becoming legal and as such will remove alot of the stigma from Gay Marriage the same will soon be true with Polygamy... and once it is no longer Illegal and they start filling our churches.. who will then preach it is a sinful lifestyle?

Again, where is your proof text?

[Hoovie]

I don't think that was what Dr. V meant. :coffee2

I think we "stare" at two gays, at least in part, because the Holy Ghost in us is repulsed - but that is a different subject.

[Aquila]

Really? That's not what I'm getting...

Dr. Vaughn thinks the 8 million single women out there would benefit from being the wife of a shiek in a harem so that they would have the status and protection of being an actual "wife." Wow! sounds lovely.

Dora...being a wife as you know it didn't exist biblically. Frankly, as a woman you didn't even have a right to speak in church for many centuries...and you definitely would have had no vote or say in how your home was run.

Truth is Dora, a woman in biblical times would have wondered if you thought it best if they be slaves (commonly abused) and prostitutes over being protected and cared for wives in the household of a godly Israelite man.

[Aquila]

Please, where in the Bible does Jesus do this?

It's just an alternate interpretation of the parable of the 10 virgins.

[Aquila]

What is really blowing my mind is that no one has pointed out that polyamory - where there are multiple partners engaging in hetero and homo-sexual relations within a marriage-type relationship is NOT acceptable biblically. Where is the objection to this? I asked a question earlier regarding this and received a few eye-opening answers that prove to me that some of the guys on here are real sickos.

Dora....I don't remember anyone supporting anything homosexual. And in response to your question I offered a rather lengthy explaination of the pain and damage polyamory can cause.

[Dr. Vaughn]

Again, where is your proof text?

The fact you can offer no scripture that say he DOES is proof enough that he does not.. God had NO PROBLEM saying what he considered abominations.. what he despised and my freind Polygamy was never in that list... he despised men who treated their wives unfaily in Polygamy

[TK Burk]

Well that pretty much puts this thread up over the top for me!:aaa

Dr. Vaughn is only offering philosophy. Here is what the Bible thinks of that….

(Colossians 2:8) Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

So far the good Doctor has offered NO SCRIPTURE to support his fictitious doctrine. Until he does, his post is little more than a sad imaginary tale. What I don’t understand though is why is he's so dedicated to arguing for it???

[Aquila]

Right. :) I think a few are fantasizing about more than having two women, but also about those two (or more) women having each other.

Oh boy....please don't go there sis. :aaa

[Dr. Vaughn]

Dr. Vaughn is only offering philosophy. Here is what the Bible thinks of that….

(Colossians 2:8) Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

So far the good Doctor has offered NO SCRIPTURE to support his fictitious doctrine. Until he does, his post is little more than a sad imaginary tale. What I don’t understand though is why is he's so dedicated to arguing for it???

Why are you so dedicated to arguing against what God doesn't argue against?

[TK Burk]

The fact you can offer no scripture that say he DOES is proof enough that he does not.. God had NO PROBLEM saying what he considered abominations.. what he despised and my freind Polygamy was never in that list... he despised men who treated their wives unfaily in Polygamy

AGAIN, I ALREADY DID!


Polygamy is not condoned in the Bible. The hermeneutic law of ‘First Mention’ establishes one man (Adam) being married to one woman (Eve). That first couple is a type of the one bride (the Church) being married to one husband (One God). Genesis 2:24 has “a man” leaving his father and mother so as to become “one flesh” with “his wife.” Such wording indicates a monogamous relationship rather than polygamous. In the past God did ignore certain things due to men’s ignorance, but because of the New Covenant, He now calls all men to repentance (See Acts 14:16, Acts 17:30; Mark 10:5). To help make this marital issue clearer, you might want to look at these: Mat. 19:5, 29; Eph. 5:31, 33; 1Tim. 3:2, 12; Tit. 1:6.

Like I said TWICE now; God created one man (Adam) and one woman (Eve) to inhabit Eden. According to the hermeneutic Law of First Mention, they are God's PERFECT PATTERN. The Bible admits that in the Old Testament God allowed men to do certain things because of their hard hearts and ignorance. But now, because of the New Covenant of Jesus Christ, men are called to repent of their childish ways and grow into a matured man of God.

So, Dr. Vaughn, when are YOU going to answer THIS??

I guess the good Doctor needs to show where Jesus (a type of Adam) is said to have multiple brides (the bride is a type of Eve). I can't find any such scripture myself. So please, show us where it is found.

[Dr. Vaughn]

AGAIN, I ALREADY DID!






So, Dr. Vaughn, when are YOU going to answer THIS??



It's been answered three times by me and others... use the scroll button..

and then show us the scriptures where GOD FORBID Polygamy.. the very second you do I WILL CONCEDE defeat

[Aquila]

Okay, Dora may shoot me for this one, BUT:

Scripture does not clearly condemn polygamy. However, I don't agree scripture supports it or, worse, recommends it. I simply think that it was allowed, in the same manner slavery was allowed, and laws were put into place to regulate the practice and keep it humane.

Polygamy is out of line with scriptural ideals in the same way that slavery is out of line with scriptural ideals. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if a slave-owner from another country and culture were converted to Christianity, even if he were a kind and fair owner, he should be encouraged to set his slaves free, in order to be in line with Christian principles.

Polygamy is confusing, it is chaos, it is not in the best interest of the children in the household, and God is not the author of confusion.

Sister...God commanded polygamy to fulfill Liverite marriage. God also blessed David with wives. I honestly believe polygamy can't be judged outside of it's cultural context. In their cultural setting polygamy was a very moral institution compared to the alternatives for women.

By the way, the ten virgins are not support for polygamy. They were bridesmaids who were supposed to light the way with their lamps for the groom and his groomsmen as he made his way to his bride's house. The virgins were not brides. They were unmarried women, and as such, they were virgins. I know. Novel idea. :)

I was taught that too. But I'm curious as to the historical validity of this idea, I read somewhere that there wasn't a shred of evidence that this was actually the custom in ancient Israel.

[TK Burk]

Why are you so dedicated to arguing against what God doesn't argue against?

No, I'm into believing what the Bible says.

[Aquila]

I believe there is much more than "feelings" behind my argument against the practice of polygamy. In researching the cultures that still engage in polygamy, I find that the practice is fraught with abuse of women and neglect of children. I can't see how this lifestyle aligns itself with Christ-like living. If you seek to live a Christ-like existence, then the practice of polygamy does not appear to be the best way to do it. One wife is usually prefer above another, the children of the preferred wife receive a greater inheritance or more attention from the father. It appears to be the antithesis of the teachings of Jesus.

Dora....please consider the context. For example in Afghanistan women and children in polygamous marriages may not be treated the way we consider is right in Western culture....but what is the alternative for these women and children in their culture? Most single women in those nations are treated like dogs roaming the streets. Those women in polygamous unions, as undesirable as they might seem to us, have it far better than the unmarried women in their culture.

[Dr. Vaughn]

No, I'm into believing what the Bible says.

and what does it say regarding Polygamy? Must I post all the scripture where God endorsed it?

[TK Burk]

It's been answered three times by me and others... use the scroll button..

and then show us the scriptures where GOD FORBID Polygamy.. the very second you do I WILL CONCEDE defeat

"Concede defeat"? Are you serious? Defeated by what? :snapout

I have offered several scriptural reasons why polygamy is not biblical. You, on the other hand, have offered NOT ONE scripture that says Jesus has multiple brides. You have offered NOT ONE scripture that shows polygamy is acceptable in the New Covenant. You have offered NOT ONE scripture that supports anything you're claiming about polygamy being God's acceptable way. Hey Doc, you have not offered anything but your own reasoning, and I can't see where any of that is anything of concern. :whistle

[Aquila]

I disagree. As respectfully as possible. :)

A workman is worthy of his hire.
God is no respecter of persons.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Submit to one another.
Prefer one another.
Have all things in common.
If you have respect of persons, you commit sin.

I could go on and on....

It is written....

Colossians 3:22
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God;

1 Timothy 6:1
Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.

1 Timothy 6:2
And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.

Titus 2:9
Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again;

Slavery (biblical slavery) was never condemned. However, ethical treatment of servants was admonished....

Ephesians 6:9
And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

Colossians 4:1
Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.

Don't equate all forms of slavery to the way it was practiced in the Americas. The American institution of slavery was very brutal and wasn't anything like the biblical slavery.

[Aquila]

Yep, I used that same line in my B.C. days as my excuse for using certain chemicals. But after I was saved I was saw that salvation and sanctification is all about maturing into Christlikeness. That means changing my childish ways to better reflect the man God fashioned me to become.

Like I said TWICE now; God created one man (Adam) and one woman (Eve) to inhabit Eden. According to the hermeneutic Law of First Mention, they are God's PERFECT PATTERN. The Bible admits that in the Old Testament God allowed men to do certain things because of their hard hearts and ignorance. But now, because of the New Covenant of Jesus Christ, men are called to repent of their childish ways and grow into a matured man of God.

I guess the good Doctor needs to show where Jesus (a type of Adam) is said to have multiple brides (the bride is a type of Eve). I can't find any such scripture myself. So please, show us where it is found.

Why did God command polygamy in the form of Liverite Marriage and even bless David with wives?

Here's a problem with your argument...you say God only tolerated it because of man's ignorance...but man was only ignorant of polygamy's supposed error because God apparently didn't tell them.

The burden is clearly on God to clarify his will...especially in regards to "sin".

[TK Burk]

and what does it say regarding Polygamy? Must I post all the scripture where God endorsed it?

Hey, that won't take long.... Let's start with Jesus having MULTIPLE brides.

[TK Burk]

and what does it say regarding Polygamy? Must I post all the scripture where God endorsed it?

No offense, but do you have a reading problem?

I have already listed it for you four times. See post # 646.

[Aquila]

Yep, I used that same line in my B.C. days as my excuse for using certain chemicals. But after I was saved I was saw that salvation and sanctification is all about maturing into Christlikeness. That means changing my childish ways to better reflect the man God fashioned me to become.

Like I said TWICE now; God created one man (Adam) and one woman (Eve) to inhabit Eden. According to the hermeneutic Law of First Mention, they are God's PERFECT PATTERN. The Bible admits that in the Old Testament God allowed men to do certain things because of their hard hearts and ignorance. But now, because of the New Covenant of Jesus Christ, men are called to repent of their childish ways and grow into a matured man of God.

I guess the good Doctor needs to show where Jesus (a type of Adam) is said to have multiple brides (the bride is a type of Eve). I can't find any such scripture myself. So please, show us where it is found.

Did God's perfect pattern include clothing? Are we all supposed to be monogamous nudists? lol

[Dr. Vaughn]

"Concede defeat"? Are you serious? Defeated by what? :snapout

I have offered several scriptural reasons why polygamy is not biblical. You, on the other hand, have offered NOT ONE scripture that says Jesus has multiple brides. You have offered NOT ONE scripture that shows polygamy is acceptable in the New Covenant. You have offered NOT ONE scripture that supports anything you're claiming about polygamy being God's acceptable way. Hey Doc, you have not offered anything but your own reasoning, and I can't see where any of that is anything of concern. :whistle

So you are prepared to tell this forum of readers that YOU plus Me does not equal TWO PERSONS in ONE BRIDE OF CHRIST?

[Aquila]

singing...
1 wife. 1 wife, 1 wife is sufficient for me, for me,
1 wife. 1 wife, 1 wife is sufficient for me.

LOL

I love it.

[TK Burk]

Did God's perfect pattern include clothing? Are we all supposed to be monogamous nudists? lol

:bigbaby

[TK Burk]

So you are prepared to tell this forum of readers that YOU plus Me does not equal TWO PERSONS in ONE BRIDE OF CHRIST?

Doc, do you know what "MEMBERS" means?

[Dr. Vaughn]

Hey, that won't take long.... Let's start with Jesus having MULTIPLE brides.

Oh NO SIR, he has ONE BRIDE with MANY PEOPLE IN IT....

A MANY MEMBERED BRIDE...he is in a marriage relationship with all the people that make up his bride

[Dr. Vaughn]

Doc, do you know what "MEMBERS" means?

Do you know what PERSONS means?

[Aquila]

How's this?

SKETCHES OF JEWISH SOCIAL LIFE
By Alfred Edersheim, D. D., Ph. D.
Chapter 9 - Mothers, Daughters, and Wives in Israel

The marriage followed after a longer or shorter interval, the limits of which, however, were fixed by law. The ceremony itself consisted in leading the bride into the house of the bridegroom, with certain formalities, mostly dating from very ancient times…..

It deserves notice, that at the marriage in Cana there is no mention of "the friends of the bridegroom," or, as we would call them, the groomsmen. This was in strict accordance with Jewish custom, for groomsmen were customary in Judaea, but not in Galilee (Cheth. 25 a). This also casts light upon the locality where Joh_3:29 was spoken, in which "the friend of the bridegroom" is mentioned. But this expression is quite different from that of "children of the bridechamber," which occurs in Mat_9:15, where the scene is once more laid in Galilee. The term "children of the bridechamber" is simply a translation of the Rabbinical "bene Chuppah," and means the guests invited to the bridal. In Judaea there were at every marriage two groomsmen or "friends of the bridegroom"--one for the bridegroom, the other for his bride. Before marriage, they acted as a kind of intermediaries between the couple; at the wedding they offered gifts, waited upon the bride and bridegroom, and attended them to the bridal chamber, being also, as it were, the guarantors of the bride's virgin chastity. Hence, when St. Paul tells the Corinthians (2Co_11:2): "I am jealous over you with godly jealousy; for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ," he speaks, as it were, in the character of groomsman or "bridegroom's friend," who had acted as such at the spiritual union of Christ with the Corinthian Church. And we know that it was specially the duty of the "friend of the bridegroom" so to present to him his bride. Similarly it was his also, after marriage, to maintain proper terms between the couple, and more particularly to defend the good fame of the bride against all imputations. It may interest some to know that his custom also was traced up to highest authority. Thus, in the spiritual union of Israel with their God, Moses is spoken of as "the friend of the bridegroom" who leads out the bride (Exo_19:17); while Jehovah, as the bridegroom, meets His Church at Sinai (Psa_68:7; Pirke di R. El. 41)....

Are there any references to this beyond medieval Jewish custom? For example in rabbinical writings of the Mishnah or Tulmud?

[TK Burk]

Oh NO SIR, he has ONE BRIDE with MANY PEOPLE IN IT....

A MANY MEMBERED BRIDE...he is in a marriage relationship with all the people that make up his bride

The "many people" do not make "many" brides; Jesus is said to only have "ONE" bride.

[Aquila]

In our society and culture polygamy would be a sin.

"Sin" is not subject to cultural circumstances.

It isn't a "necessity" therefore it would be lawful but not expedient.

[TK Burk]

Do you know what PERSONS means?

Yeah, what Book, chapter, and verse do I need to turn to?

[Dr. Vaughn]

Are there any references to this beyond medieval Jewish custom? For example in rabbinical writings of the Mishnah or Tulmud?

You about to mess them up asking for Masoretic Text...... these supposed customs make for great preaching brother.. don't mess that up for them

[Dr. Vaughn]

The "many people" do not make "many" brides; Jesus is said to only have "ONE" bride.

and thus exactly what your Polygamous families claim that the "FEMALE PERSONS" in the household make up the husbands ONE WIFE......

They refer to the fact that Jesus' Bride is made up of MANY PEOPLE but they only equal ONE BRIDE

[Dora]

So how would you counsel a couple who came to you for marriage guidance and they announced that they were engaging in polyamorous relations with an "extra" and were practicing fidelity between all parties involved and that they would get married except that it is against the law??? Would you condone the behavior or would you counsel them to terminate the relationship with the "extra" not on the grounds that it is conduct unbecoming a Christian, but because it is against the law??? or would you say go on with your bad selves???

[TK Burk]

Are there any references to this beyond medieval Jewish custom? For example in rabbinical writings of the Mishnah or Tulmud?

You about to mess them up asking for Masoretic Text...... these supposed customs make for great preaching brother.. don't mess that up for them

WHAT?? The Mishnah and Talmud have NOTHING to do with the Masoretic text. :snapout The Mishnah and Talmud are about the Jewish "ORAL" Law. The Masoretic Text refers to the written text of the Tanakh. Unreal!

So much for making for "great preaching"! :crazy

Hey, we are NOT the one's messed up here.... :whistle Which is getting more and more evident the further this conversation goes....

[TK Burk]

and thus exactly what your Polygamous families claim that the "FEMALE PERSONS" in the household make up the husbands ONE WIFE......

They refer to the fact that Jesus' Bride is made up of MANY PEOPLE but they only equal ONE BRIDE

Who cares what THEY say. This is about "POLYGAMY IN THE BIBLE." So what does the BIBLE say?

[Dr. Vaughn]

So how would you counsel a couple who came to you for marriage guidance and they announced that they were engaging in polyamorous relations with an "extra" and were practicing fidelity between all parties involved and that they would get married except that it is against the law??? Would you condone the behavior or would you counsel them to terminate the relationship with the "extra" not on the grounds that it is conduct unbecoming a Christian, but because it is against the law??? or would you say go on with your bad selves???

Lol,, you know what.. your a kewl girl,, I like your style

I would say that "you don't need my guidance in your bedroom, it's between each of you" A married couple answers only to each other... scripture says that their bodies belong to each other and whatever pleases them with their full acceptance,, I wouldn't see them going to hell for their private sexual ventures... my personal opinion

[Dr. Vaughn]

Who cares what THEY say. This is about "POLYGAMY IN THE BIBLE." So what does the BIBLE say?

The point is that they use the picture of Christ and his many persons in one Bride as their example for them to follow.. is your interpretation any more authorative than theirs?

[Aquila]

Polyamory??? What of that? still no answer...

I read a book given to me by a preacher friend that would absolutely blow your mind and most likely really upset you. It expressed how the marriage arrangement was entirely a social contract between the husband and the wife and that the stipulations of that contract were strictly between the husband and the wife. The author also goes into the OT understanding of adultery and how it was essentially unlawful relations with a married woman, the sin being primarily taking that which belonged to another man. The author contended that if a man and wife chose to engage in polyamory no sin was committed unless they engaged in relations with a woman who was married against her husband's wishes.

The book was a challenging read.

And while the author make some valid points in a cultural context, I don't believe in every conclusion drawn by the author. The books' title was Divine Sex.

[Dr. Vaughn]

WHAT?? The Mishnah and Talmud have NOTHING to do with the Masoretic text. :snapout The Mishnah and Talmud are about the Jewish "ORAL" Law. The Masoretic Text refers to the written text of the Tanakh. Unreal!

So much for making for "great preaching"! :crazy

Hey, we are NOT the one's messed up here.... :whistle Which is getting more and more evident the further this conversation goes....

Ok if your through with your emoticom revival there.. answer the question he asked

[Aquila]

actually I would! Only in the case of adultery is it allowed. Moses failed in this aspect and allowed it. I don't think the Law he constantly mentions(law of first mention) has any merit in the sense that is the ONLY way it can be.
Wonder if he observes the Sabbath it is eternaly hallowed day.

I think someone should mention that while God allows for divorce based on unfaithfulness....God still hates divorce and would have husbands and wives reconcile.

[TK Burk]

Lol,, you know what.. your a kewl girl,, I like your style

I would say that "you don't need my guidance in your bedroom, it's between each of you" A married couple answers only to each other... scripture says that their bodies belong to each other and whatever pleases them with their full acceptance,, I wouldn't see them going to hell for their private sexual ventures... my personal opinion

Dr. Vaughn, I sincerly hope you don't counsel. :blink

[MissBrattified]

Lol,, you know what.. your a kewl girl,, I like your style

I would say that "you don't need my guidance in your bedroom, it's between each of you" A married couple answers only to each other... scripture says that their bodies belong to each other and whatever pleases them with their full acceptance,, I wouldn't see them going to hell for their private sexual ventures... my personal opinion

Really? This answer surprises me. ...that you would offer vague support for any polyamorous relationship....

A husband and wife's private sexual "ventures" should be with one another. There should be no third party involved.

[Dora]

Lol,, you know what.. your a kewl girl,, I like your style

I would say that "you don't need my guidance in your bedroom, it's between each of you" A married couple answers only to each other... scripture says that their bodies belong to each other and whatever pleases them with their full acceptance,, I wouldn't see them going to hell for their private sexual ventures... my personal opinion

I think I'm really gonna HURL! :vomit So you are a minister of the Gospel? are you a pastor? what church are you affiliated with??? You have GOT to be kidding.

[Dr. Vaughn]

Dr. Vaughn, I sincerly hope you don't counsel. :blink

What would you counsel them with? Your preconceived reservations and your own mindset or the plain word.. the WORD says they are ONE FLESH did Paul not say their bodies belonged to each other and as such are called to please each other?

What would your counsel be?

[Dr. Vaughn]

Really? This answer surprises me. ...that you would offer vague support for any polyamorous relationship....

A husband and wife's private sexual "ventures" should be with one another. There should be no third party involved.

Miss Brattifield,, says who? Seriously.. is this your opinion as well or is the scripture forbidding it?

[Aquila]

There is a difference between a SLAVE and a SERVANT. A SLAVE had NO RIGHTS. A SERVANT had many rights.

No offense, but you really need to study some more on these issues.

There is no difference between the terms "slave" and "servant"

Colossians 3:22
Servants(doulos), obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God;

1401 // doulov // doulos // doo'-los //

from 1210 ; TDNT - 2:261,182; n

AV - servant 120, bond 6, bondman 1; 127

1) a slave, bondman, man of servile condition
1a) a slave
1b) metaph., one who gives himself up to another's will
those whose service is used by Christ in extending and
advancing his cause among men
1c) devoted to another to the disregard of one's own interests
2) a servant, attendant

[TK Burk]

Ok if your through with your emoticom revival there.. answer the question he asked

The emotioncoms are NOT the problem. Did you read what you said? Wow! You really think the Mishna, Talmud, and Masoretic Text are the same things? No wonder we're having this discussion. Doc, you really have not studied Jewish history or customs, have you?

[Aquila]

Look, here's my honest injun opinion, and YES, I am playing semantics:

You know the allowance for divorce based on adultery? In my opinion, the biblical ideal is for a person to FORGIVE their errant spouse and remain with them. BUT, I believe God understands that a person may have the inability to remain in such a relationship and makes allowance for it, since the covenant has been broken. He does not always expect us to live up to His ideals, and even makes rules for how we should handle ourselves when we do not.

I believe polygamy lies outside God's ideal and plan for the home and marriage. I believe the same about slavery. I do not understand why God didn't condemn either practice, and I acknowledge that He did not, but I do not believe either practice falls into line with other commandments given by God in both the OT AND the NT.

I think that's a balanced opinion. But God appears to not only allow for polygamy...he required it in the case of Liverite marriage. Why didn't God just reveal his ideal plan?

[Aquila]

Dr. V, it's all about studying. You are making a lot of errors because evidently you have not looked into the context of these verses nor their historical settings.

TK Burk....

Can you provide a sound Jewish source illustrating this "bridesmaids" practice as described in popular commentary? I once read or heard that there was no historical foundation for this belief in ancient Jewish practice. The context of the point was in reference to the Rapture. Some use the illustration of the wedding to teach the Pre-Trib position. Post-Trib scholars point out that this practice is of medieval origin and wasn't known in the time of Christ.

[TK Burk]

There is no difference between the terms "slave" and "servant"

Colossians 3:22
Servants(doulos), obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God;

1401 // doulov // doulos // doo'-los //

from 1210 ; TDNT - 2:261,182; n

AV - servant 120, bond 6, bondman 1; 127

1) a slave, bondman, man of servile condition
1a) a slave
1b) metaph., one who gives himself up to another's will
those whose service is used by Christ in extending and
advancing his cause among men
1c) devoted to another to the disregard of one's own interests
2) a servant, attendant

Yes, part of a SLAVE’S duties entailed SERVING.

Study Roman customs of the First Century. A Roman could own slaves. He also could hire servants. The slave had NO rights. The servant was a hired hand. He had Roman rights and was paid a wage.

Study, brother, study....

[Dora]

Ok! that did it! I'm not hanging around with a bunch of wacko nutcases who condone perverted behavior! You guys are el sicko!

[Aquila]

Yes, part of a SLAVE’S duties entailed SERVING.

Study Roman customs of the First Century. A Roman could own slaves. He also could hire servants. The slave had NO rights. The servant was a hired hand. He had Roman rights and was paid a wage.

Study, brother, study....

What was a "doulos"... a slave or a servant?

[Dr. Vaughn]

Ok! that did it! I'm not hanging around with a bunch of wacko nutcases who condone perverted behavior! You guys are el sicko!

Dora.. you make broad assumptions about people who enjoy discussing debatable issues.. no one is promoting nor pracitcing this lifestyle.. you started this conversation not us.. to be intellectually honest no one can condemn Polygamy as sinful.... how much more honest can we be?

[Aquila]

The same idea applies to all gay marriages before now... they were not viable relationships because they were ILLEGAL... now in many states they are legal.. so with the stroke of a pen in a legislative branch in ONE SECOND an "unviable relationship" becomes viable

Now the difference being that gay marriage has never been in ANY SOCIETY in history.. Polygamy has been in EVERY society in History and LEGAL

When it once again becomes legal in this nation.. then all of the persecution against it will stop just like people are beginning to no longer look at two gay men with the stares we did many years ago......

Its all WESTERN mentality....

You know.... some theologians would take issue with that right? My uncle-in-law is an Episcopal priest and we've had some interesting debates about gay marriage, ancient practices, and the context of various biblical laws. I don't believe in gay marriage, but I am very familiar with theological positions regarding it's supposed practice in biblical times and the various classifications of eunuchs in Jewish literature.

[Dr. Vaughn]

You know.... some theologians would take issue with that right? My uncle-in-law is an Episcopal priest and we've had some interesting debates about gay marriage, ancient practices, and the context of various biblical laws. I don't believe in gay marriage, but I am very familiar with theological positions regarding it's supposed practice in biblical times and the various classifications of eunuchs in Jewish literature.

Agreed,, lets go to the past 2000 years of civilization.. the Roman Empire forward.. we have no historical evidence of Homosexual Marriages

[Aquila]

WHAT?? The Mishnah and Talmud have NOTHING to do with the Masoretic text. :snapout The Mishnah and Talmud are about the Jewish "ORAL" Law. The Masoretic Text refers to the written text of the Tanakh. Unreal!

So much for making for "great preaching"! :crazy

Hey, we are NOT the one's messed up here.... :whistle Which is getting more and more evident the further this conversation goes....

My point is that when I was studying the Rapture these traditional understandings regarding Jewish weddings were deeply evaluated. I had read or heard how these Jewish wedding customs most attribute to the 10 Virgins were unknown in Christ's day, in fact there were references to these customs being of medieval origin. And the end result was....the 10 Virgins were to be regarded as virgins awaiting their groom.

[Aquila]

Really? This answer surprises me. ...that you would offer vague support for any polyamorous relationship....

A husband and wife's private sexual "ventures" should be with one another. There should be no third party involved.

It might surprise you but I know a UPCI minister who practically said the same thing. I had come from an ultra conservative church where our pastor told us in marriage counseling exactly what were the only "holy" behaviors between a husband and wife. It was pretty strict and to be honest....my wife and I were from the world and knew each other before we were married. We were very disappointed and felt condemned in our love life. So after changing churches and talking to various ministers on the subject I talked to a friend of mine who is a UPCI minister who said that nearly anything mutually agreed upon by both partners was acceptable including various forms of copulation, "marital aids", and "marriage enhancement" videos. I was a bit take aback and asked some more specific questions and he basically said that he wouldn't ask if we didn't tell, it was between us.

[Aquila]

The emotioncoms are NOT the problem. Did you read what you said? Wow! You really think the Mishna, Talmud, and Masoretic Text are the same things? No wonder we're having this discussion. Doc, you really have not studied Jewish history or customs, have you?

Again, I only ask for verification that these Jewish wedding customs were observed in the time of Christ. In my studies regarding the rapture I had read or heard how these illustrative customs are actually of medieval origin and weren't practiced by Jews in the first century.

[Rico]

In our society and culture polygamy would be a sin.


Remember this the next time you are arguing against culture during a standards debate.

[Aquila]

Agreed,, lets go to the past 2000 years of civilization.. the Roman Empire forward.. we have no historical evidence of Homosexual Marriages

Actually gay marriages were quite common among the Romans. For example Roman centurions were often forbidden to marry, so they took a "pais" or young servant as a mentor and lover. These servants were regarded as special servants under Roman law. Some would argue that the centurion's servant healed by Christ was one of these "pais".

Also there is a debate regarding Daniel and Ashpenaz and the institution of eunuchs in biblical times. Some theologians believe there are sexual references between David and Jonathan. In addition some theologians point out that the law prohibiting homosexuality in ancient Israel wasn't aimed at homosexual Israelites but rather Sodomitic male temple prostitutes. They point at how no one was ever executed for "homosexuality" as commanded by the Law....but the Sodomitic male temple prostitutes were readily executed per the Law's demands.

Of course this is a very broad subject and I've only glossed over a few points.

While I don't believe gay marriage is acceptable in God's sight...my over all point is that various institutions have existed since ancient times wherein same genders were considered in civil or social union.

[TK Burk]

TK Burk....

Can you provide a sound Jewish source illustrating this "bridesmaids" practice as described in popular commentary? I once read or heard that there was no historical foundation for this belief in ancient Jewish practice. The context of the point was in reference to the Rapture. Some use the illustration of the wedding to teach the Pre-Trib position. Post-Trib scholars point out that this practice is of medieval origin and wasn't known in the time of Christ.

Again, I only ask for verification that these Jewish wedding customs were observed in the time of Christ. In my studies regarding the rapture I had read or heard how these illustrative customs are actually of medieval origin and weren't practiced by Jews in the first century.

Yes I can. Edersheim is one.

SKETCHES OF JEWISH SOCIAL LIFE
By Alfred Edersheim, D. D., Ph. D.
Chapter 9 - Mothers, Daughters, and Wives in Israel

The marriage followed after a longer or shorter interval, the limits of which, however, were fixed by law. The ceremony itself consisted in leading the bride into the house of the bridegroom, with certain formalities, mostly dating from very ancient times…..

It deserves notice, that at the marriage in Cana there is no mention of "the friends of the bridegroom," or, as we would call them, the groomsmen. This was in strict accordance with Jewish custom, for groomsmen were customary in Judaea, but not in Galilee (Cheth. 25 a). This also casts light upon the locality where Joh_3:29 was spoken, in which "the friend of the bridegroom" is mentioned. But this expression is quite different from that of "children of the bridechamber," which occurs in Mat_9:15, where the scene is once more laid in Galilee. The term "children of the bridechamber" is simply a translation of the Rabbinical "bene Chuppah," and means the guests invited to the bridal. In Judaea there were at every marriage two groomsmen or "friends of the bridegroom"--one for the bridegroom, the other for his bride. Before marriage, they acted as a kind of intermediaries between the couple; at the wedding they offered gifts, waited upon the bride and bridegroom, and attended them to the bridal chamber, being also, as it were, the guarantors of the bride's virgin chastity. Hence, when St. Paul tells the Corinthians (2Co_11:2): "I am jealous over you with godly jealousy; for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ," he speaks, as it were, in the character of groomsman or "bridegroom's friend," who had acted as such at the spiritual union of Christ with the Corinthian Church. And we know that it was specially the duty of the "friend of the bridegroom" so to present to him his bride. Similarly it was his also, after marriage, to maintain proper terms between the couple, and more particularly to defend the good fame of the bride against all imputations. It may interest some to know that his custom also was traced up to highest authority. Thus, in the spiritual union of Israel with their God, Moses is spoken of as "the friend of the bridegroom" who leads out the bride (Exo_19:17); while Jehovah, as the bridegroom, meets His Church at Sinai (Psa_68:7; Pirke di R. El. 41)....

Also, it's in context with what Jesus had just taught in Matthew 24 and the remainder of Matthew 25.

[Rico]

The Bible certainly seems to condone polygamy. I don't see where it is required, but it isn't condemned either. You can not call something sin the Bible doesn't call sin. If polygamy were a sin then God participated in David's sin when He gave him multiple wives. How many of you are willing to accuse God of participating in sin? Personally, I don't want any more wives and think polygamy would cause issues we aren't ready to deal with, mainly because of our Western mindset and the "liberation" of Western women. Whoever it was that said the practice goes against our Westernized culture and mindset hit the nail right on the head.

As Dora pointed out, we would pretty much have to go back to putting women back on the same level they were on when polygamy was a widespread practice in the Bible. That would mean so many changes to our Western way of living we wouldn't survive the transition. Women would have to stop working outside of the home, we'd need to go back to living in very large houses on farms, we'd have to start driving 15 passenger vans and school buses to get the whole family to church; the list goes on and on. Too much would have to change to pull it off. Our society is centered around a one woman/one man marriage. Let's leave well enough alone, agree that the Bible doesn't condemn polygamy, and also agree that going back to that way of living wouldn't be practical in America.

[Aquila]

Yes I can. Edersheim is one.



Also, it's in context with what Jesus had just taught in Matthew 24 and the remainder of Matthew 25.

Edersheim is only commenting on an ancient medieval practice and how he believes it applies to Scripture. Please provide a "Jewish" source referencing this alleged first century "Jewish" wedding custom.

According to Jewish law, getting married is an exceedingly simple affair: The bride accepts something worth more than a dime (in today's currency) from the groom, the groom utters words of acquisition and consecration, these two actions are witnessed, and voila, the happy couple is married. All the rest, i.e., the white gown, the veil, the portable chuppah (wedding canopy), bridesmaids, etc., are but customs which have grown up around Jewish weddings through the middle ages. From my recollection none of it was observed at the time of Christ...if this is so... Christ wasn't talking about it. ;)

Don't believe me? Look at all the marriages actually mentioned in the Bible. If you can't find any reference to it's first century practice among Jewish rabbinical writings...can you find it being observed in the Bible itself?

[Aquila]

The Bible certainly seems to condone polygamy. I don't see where it is required, but it isn't condemned either. You can not call something sin the Bible doesn't call sin. If polygamy were a sin then God participated in David's sin when He gave him multiple wives. How many of you are willing to accuse God of participating in sin? Personally, I don't want any more wives and think polygamy would cause issues we aren't ready to deal with, mainly because of our Western mindset and the "liberation" of Western women. Whoever it was that said the practice goes against our Westernized culture and mindset hit the nail right on the head.

As Dora pointed out, we would pretty much have to go back to putting women back on the same level they were on when polygamy was a widespread practice in the Bible. That would mean so many changes to our Western way of living we wouldn't survive the transition. Women would have to stop working outside of the home, we'd need to go back to living in very large houses on farms, we'd have to start driving 15 passenger vans and school buses to get the whole family to church; the list goes on and on. Too much would have to change to pull it off. Our society is centered around a one woman/one man marriage. Let's leave well enough alone, agree that the Bible doesn't condemn polygamy, and also agree that going back to that way of living wouldn't be practical in America.

Good post Rico.

[TK Burk]

Edersheim is only commenting on an ancient medieval practice and how he believes it applies to Scripture. Please provide a "Jewish" source referencing this alleged first century "Jewish" wedding custom.

Edersheim is a Jewish convert.

[Aquila]

Edersheim is a Jewish convert.

But Edersheim isn't referencing a first century practice. What he mentions is only found in Jewish customs in the Middle Ages. He's essentially applying his understanding of what were more recent customs to interpret the text.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Are there any references to this beyond medieval Jewish custom? For example in rabbinical writings of the Mishnah or Tulmud?



You about to mess them up asking for Masoretic Text...... these supposed customs make for great preaching brother.. don't mess that up for them

Brother Burk, well, lookie at what Doctor Scholar from the Holler, just presented. I think he got his degree from out of the back Fortean Times magazine. (http://www.forteantimes.com/):ursofunny

[Evang.Benincasa]

Show me where in the New Testament were people had MORE THAN ONE WIFE? :)

[Michael Phelps]

Show me where in the New Testament were people had MORE THAN ONE WIFE? :)

I've been waiting for the answer too........the only one I've gotten so far is that Jesus has many wives....multi membered bride.

[Apocrypha]

Show me where in the New Testament were people had MORE THAN ONE WIFE? :)

The Epistles were written to address specific situations in the churches they were sent to typically.

Since Paul told them that leadership could only have one wife deductive logic would tell you he didn't waste good ink and parchment without a reason dealing with that exact issue.

Hence it was present in the early church in some form.

[LUKE2447]

TK Burk....

Can you provide a sound Jewish source illustrating this "bridesmaids" practice as described in popular commentary? I once read or heard that there was no historical foundation for this belief in ancient Jewish practice. The context of the point was in reference to the Rapture. Some use the illustration of the wedding to teach the Pre-Trib position. Post-Trib scholars point out that this practice is of medieval origin and wasn't known in the time of Christ.

That would be correct. The whole point of having you lamp full was to be taken away. What would be the whole point if either full or half empty he still only took one in the party?

[LUKE2447]

The Epistles were written to address specific situations in the churches they were sent to typically.

Since Paul told them that leadership could only have one wife deductive logic would tell you he didn't waste good ink and parchment without a reason dealing with that exact issue.

Hence it was present in the early church in some form.

Again "one" can me first! You are arguing from silence. The precedent from ALL of scripture is it was ok before God. Also you are saying God changed his nature and view of marriage and now is calling it sin thus GOD sinned in the past as now his nature has changed toward marriage!

[MissBrattified]

Again "one" can me first! You are arguing from silence. The precedent from ALL of scripture is it was ok before God. Also you are saying God changed his nature and view of marriage and now is calling it sin thus GOD sinned in the past as now his nature has changed toward marriage!

Did you actually read erik's post? LOL!!!!

[LUKE2447]

I've been waiting for the answer too........the only one I've gotten so far is that Jesus has many wives....multi membered bride.

This goes to your failure to understand that the NT is not to point to SIN it was already pointed to in the LAW! He did not have to rewrite what sin was and polygamy is not one of them. The "SCRIPTURES" are the OT and they instruct. Considering that the NT does not forbid polygamy to everyone you cannot say anything changed. Also why would it when God told be to do it and clearly allowed it, was that not the purpose of the law to point out sin? If you say polygamy is a sin you call God a sinner. The only reason the church changed was actually to do Gentile and Roman/pagan influence into the church.

[LUKE2447]

Did you actually read erik's post? LOL!!!!

Have you read his previous posts? Also because he says it was in the church in SOME form does not mean it was not due to many new converts in multiple marriages. Also his point of "ONE" is not necessarily true that was my other point! Also I was responding to BENI as well which did not show up in the included text for some reason.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I've been waiting for the answer too........the only one I've gotten so far is that Jesus has many wives....multi membered bride.

Eph 5:22-33 "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of THE BODY. Therefore as THE CHURCH is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved THE CHURCH, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself A glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their OWN BODIES. He (SINGULAR) that loveth HIS WIFE (SINGULAR) loveth HIMSELF (SINGULAR). For no MAN (SINGULAR) ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord THE CHURCH: For we are members (PLURAL PARTS, LIKE EYES, EARS, FEET, NOT ENTIRE WHOLE BODIES) of HIS BODY (SINGULAR), of his flesh, and of his bones. For THIS CAUSE (OR REASON) shall a MAN (SINGULAR) leave his FATHER (SINGULAR) and MOTHER (SINGULAR), and shall be joined unto HIS WIFE (SINGULAR), and they TWO (1+1=2) shall be ONE FLESH. This is a great mystery (ESPECIALLY TO DR DEMENTO AND AQUILA): but I speak concerning Christ and THE CHURCH. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his WIFE (SINGULAR) even as himself; and THE WIFE (SINGULAR) see that SHE (SINGULAR)reverence HER (SINGULAR) husband."

It's pretty simple math if you ask me. Jesus only has ONE BODY, that ONE BODY is THE one Church. Not a multiplicity of churches, but only ONE CHURCH.

Adam was made one wife, It was Adam and Eve, not Adam, and 10 other women. This is to show Christ and His Church.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Evang.Benincasa]

The Epistles were written to address specific situations in the churches they were sent to typically.

Since Paul told them that leadership could only have one wife deductive logic would tell you he didn't waste good ink and parchment without a reason dealing with that exact issue.

Hence it was present in the early church in some form.

Amen, here's a man who can count!

[TK Burk]

I've been waiting for the answer too........the only one I've gotten so far is that Jesus has many wives....multi membered bride.

And NO SCRIPTURE to back it up....

[Dr. Vaughn]

Show me where in the New Testament were people had MORE THAN ONE WIFE? :)

We understand it to be so by the writing of Paul concerning the Bishop should limit himself to ONE WIFE

[Evang.Benincasa]

Have you read his previous posts? Also because he says it was in the church in SOME form does not mean it was not due to many new converts in multiple marriages. Also his point of "ONE" is not necessarily true that was my other point! Also I was responding to BENI as well which did not show up in the included text for some reason.

I wonder why? :heeheehee

[TK Burk]

The Epistles were written to address specific situations in the churches they were sent to typically.

Since Paul told them that leadership could only have one wife deductive logic would tell you he didn't waste good ink and parchment without a reason dealing with that exact issue.

Hence it was present in the early church in some form.

We understand it to be so by the writing of Paul concerning the Bishop should limit himself to ONE WIFE

Yep, and the Church was made up of former heathen gentiles. Some of Paul's writing to the Church of Corinth dealt with a convert living with his father's wife. That was in the church also. But I doubt it would be suggested that it was biblical nor common practice.

The early Church had to weed out sin issues that would hinder men and women from maturing into Christlikeness. The Epistles focused on that. Paul saying that a minister should have only "one wife" in no way suggests there was a common practice of polygamy in the Church. Rather just the opposite; he is making it clear that such practice is against God's will.

[Evang.Benincasa]

We understand it to be so by the writing of Paul concerning the Bishop should limit himself to ONE WIFE

Get out of town! You guys have been going pages such vague evidence?

A bishop should be the husband of one wife?

Does your flawed cult hermeneutic work when applied to other similar verses?

1Ti 5:9

"Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been THE WIFE OF ONE MAN"

If we follow your erroneous cult hermeneutic, then we can say that women had plural wives?

PROVE IT WITH SCRIPTURE CHAPTER AND VERSE DR.DO-LITTLE. :heeheehee

[TK Burk]

Eph 5:22-33 "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of THE BODY. Therefore as THE CHURCH is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved THE CHURCH, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself A glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their OWN BODIES. He (SINGULAR) that loveth HIS WIFE (SINGULAR) loveth HIMSELF (SINGULAR). For no MAN (SINGULAR) ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord THE CHURCH: For we are members (PLURAL PARTS, LIKE EYES, EARS, FEET, NOT ENTIRE WHOLE BODIES) of HIS BODY (SINGULAR), of his flesh, and of his bones. For THIS CAUSE (OR REASON) shall a MAN (SINGULAR) leave his FATHER (SINGULAR) and MOTHER (SINGULAR), and shall be joined unto HIS WIFE (SINGULAR), and they TWO (1+1=2) shall be ONE FLESH. This is a great mystery (ESPECIALLY TO DR DEMENTO AND AQUILA): but I speak concerning Christ and THE CHURCH. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his WIFE (SINGULAR) even as himself; and THE WIFE (SINGULAR) see that SHE (SINGULAR)reverence HER (SINGULAR) husband."

It's pretty simple math if you ask me. Jesus only has ONE BODY, that ONE BODY is THE one Church. Not a multiplicity of churches, but only ONE CHURCH.

Adam was made one wife, It was Adam and Eve, not Adam, and 10 other women. This is to show Christ and His Church.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

Very good post!

[Dr. Vaughn]

Here is a scriptural COMMAND BY GOD for a man to practice Polygamy

1_Corinthians 7:10-11 & 27-28.

In 1 Corinthians 7, the Apostle Paul differentiates when he is making his own "recommendation" (in verses 6, 12, and 25) and when he is expressing the "commandment of the Lord" (verses 10-11). Indeed, in verses 10-11, Paul clarifies that the instruction in those two verses is the "commandment of the Lord".

With that realized, it is clear for readers of the Bible that Paul makes it emphatically clear that verses 10-11 are different. Namely, verses 10-11, in the exact way in which thay are actually written, are the "commandment of God".

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." 1 Corinthians 7:10-11.

Paul further specifies that that above "commandment of the Lord" was only addressed to believers-married-to-believers. In the next verses (i.e, 12-16), he clarifies that he is subsequently addressing believers-married-to-unbelievers, and that that subsequent instuction is not the Lord's words, but his own again.

Verses 10-11 show that, if a believer WIFE leaves her believer HUSBAND, the

* believer WIFE is commanded of God to either:
remain unmarried, or
be reconciled back to her husband

* believer HUSBAND is commanded of God to:
not put away any wife, and to
let any departed wife return back to him

The key point is that the HUSBAND is NOT given the same commandments of instruction. Only the WIFE is commanded to remain unmarried, but the HUSBAND is not given that commandment. He is commanded of God to let her be married to him, either way!

Accordingly, the HUSBAND is of course, still free to marry another wife. That fact is further proved by the later verses of 27-28d.

"Art thou bound unto a wife?
seek not to be loosed.
Art thou loosed from a wife?
seek not a wife.
But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned;
and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned."
1 Corinthians 7:27-28d.

The Greek text of verse 27 is clearly only addressing married men --whether or not the wife has departed.

As such, the married man whose wife is still with him does not sin when he marries another wife (who is not another's wife). And likewise, the married man, whose wife has departed from him, he also does not sin when he marries another wife (who is not another's wife).

And herein comes the "commandment of the Lord", of polygamy, as in the following situation.

A believer WIFE departs from her believer HUSBAND. She is commanded of God to remain unmarried, per verses 10-11. Her HUSBAND, however, then subsequently marries another wife (who is not another man's wife). The HUSBAND and the new wife have not sinned, per verses 27-28. The departed WIFE then seeks to be reconciled back to her HUSBAND.

In that situation, verses 10-11 show the following instruction as the "commandment of the Lord". The HUSBAND is commanded of God to let the departed wife be reconciled back to him. AND.... he is commanded of God to not put away a wife, including the new wife.

As such, verses 10-11 show that it is an outright "commandment of the Lord" of polygamy for the family in that situation.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 is indeed a Commandment of God --- in the New Testament --- that, when a previously-departed believer wife returns, her believer husband and his new (believer) wife (from verse 27c-28d) MUST let the previous wife be reconciled to her husband.

There truly IS a "commandment of the Lord" for a situation of polygamy to be found in the Bible ---and it's in the New Testament Scriptures, as well!

[Michael Phelps]

This goes to your failure to understand that the NT is not to point to SIN it was already pointed to in the LAW! He did not have to rewrite what sin was and polygamy is not one of them. The "SCRIPTURES" are the OT and they instruct. Considering that the NT does not forbid polygamy to everyone you cannot say anything changed. Also why would it when God told be to do it and clearly allowed it, was that not the purpose of the law to point out sin? If you say polygamy is a sin you call God a sinner. The only reason the church changed was actually to do Gentile and Roman/pagan influence into the church.

This logic is so incredibly flawed, I'm almost speechless.

First, let me clarify, are you saying that there is nothing in the OT that God allowed that He now does not allow?


If so, when Paul commanded every man to love his "WIFE" as Christ loved the "CHURCH", singular, not plural, that Paul was in direct defiance to God?

[Michael Phelps]

Here is a scriptural COMMAND BY GOD for a man to practice Polygamy

1_Corinthians 7:10-11 & 27-28.

In 1 Corinthians 7, the Apostle Paul differentiates when he is making his own "recommendation" (in verses 6, 12, and 25) and when he is expressing the "commandment of the Lord" (verses 10-11). Indeed, in verses 10-11, Paul clarifies that the instruction in those two verses is the "commandment of the Lord".

With that realized, it is clear for readers of the Bible that Paul makes it emphatically clear that verses 10-11 are different. Namely, verses 10-11, in the exact way in which thay are actually written, are the "commandment of God".

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." 1 Corinthians 7:10-11.

Paul further specifies that that above "commandment of the Lord" was only addressed to believers-married-to-believers. In the next verses (i.e, 12-16), he clarifies that he is subsequently addressing believers-married-to-unbelievers, and that that subsequent instuction is not the Lord's words, but his own again.

Verses 10-11 show that, if a believer WIFE leaves her believer HUSBAND, the

* believer WIFE is commanded of God to either:
remain unmarried, or
be reconciled back to her husband

* believer HUSBAND is commanded of God to:
not put away any wife, and to
let any departed wife return back to him

The key point is that the HUSBAND is NOT given the same commandments of instruction. Only the WIFE is commanded to remain unmarried, but the HUSBAND is not given that commandment. He is commanded of God to let her be married to him, either way!

Accordingly, the HUSBAND is of course, still free to marry another wife. That fact is further proved by the later verses of 27-28d.

"Art thou bound unto a wife?
seek not to be loosed.
Art thou loosed from a wife?
seek not a wife.
But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned;
and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned."
1 Corinthians 7:27-28d.

The Greek text of verse 27 is clearly only addressing married men --whether or not the wife has departed.

As such, the married man whose wife is still with him does not sin when he marries another wife (who is not another's wife). And likewise, the married man, whose wife has departed from him, he also does not sin when he marries another wife (who is not another's wife).

And herein comes the "commandment of the Lord", of polygamy, as in the following situation.

A believer WIFE departs from her believer HUSBAND. She is commanded of God to remain unmarried, per verses 10-11. Her HUSBAND, however, then subsequently marries another wife (who is not another man's wife). The HUSBAND and the new wife have not sinned, per verses 27-28. The departed WIFE then seeks to be reconciled back to her HUSBAND.

In that situation, verses 10-11 show the following instruction as the "commandment of the Lord". The HUSBAND is commanded of God to let the departed wife be reconciled back to him. AND.... he is commanded of God to not put away a wife, including the new wife.

As such, verses 10-11 show that it is an outright "commandment of the Lord" of polygamy for the family in that situation.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 is indeed a Commandment of God --- in the New Testament --- that, when a previously-departed believer wife returns, her believer husband and his new (believer) wife (from verse 27c-28d) MUST let the previous wife be reconciled to her husband.

There truly IS a "commandment of the Lord" for a situation of polygamy to be found in the Bible ---and it's in the New Testament Scriptures, as well!

Wow.........unbelievable. I guess this just goes to show that you can twist scripture to back up ANY belief.........sorry, Mr. Vaughn, but I refuse to ascribe to this particular brand of "truth".

[Evang.Benincasa]

Hey, Elder Burk from that avatar, Dr. Denton, looks like a young kid?

How long was this dude in school? :bigbaby

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o304/Undyingsoul1/m_ac854e93996ec1cded1a1a649ade8876.gif

[Evang.Benincasa]

Here is a scriptural COMMAND BY GOD for a man to practice Polygamy

1_Corinthians 7:10-11 & 27-28.

In 1 Corinthians 7, the Apostle Paul differentiates when he is making his own "recommendation" (in verses 6, 12, and 25) and when he is expressing the "commandment of the Lord" (verses 10-11). Indeed, in verses 10-11, Paul clarifies that the instruction in those two verses is the "commandment of the Lord".

With that realized, it is clear for readers of the Bible that Paul makes it emphatically clear that verses 10-11 are different. Namely, verses 10-11, in the exact way in which thay are actually written, are the "commandment of God".

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." 1 Corinthians 7:10-11.

Paul further specifies that that above "commandment of the Lord" was only addressed to believers-married-to-believers. In the next verses (i.e, 12-16), he clarifies that he is subsequently addressing believers-married-to-unbelievers, and that that subsequent instuction is not the Lord's words, but his own again.

Verses 10-11 show that, if a believer WIFE leaves her believer HUSBAND, the

* believer WIFE is commanded of God to either:
remain unmarried, or
be reconciled back to her husband

* believer HUSBAND is commanded of God to:
not put away any wife, and to
let any departed wife return back to him

The key point is that the HUSBAND is NOT given the same commandments of instruction. Only the WIFE is commanded to remain unmarried, but the HUSBAND is not given that commandment. He is commanded of God to let her be married to him, either way!

Accordingly, the HUSBAND is of course, still free to marry another wife. That fact is further proved by the later verses of 27-28d.

"Art thou bound unto a wife?
seek not to be loosed.
Art thou loosed from a wife?
seek not a wife.
But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned;
and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned."
1 Corinthians 7:27-28d.

The Greek text of verse 27 is clearly only addressing married men --whether or not the wife has departed.

As such, the married man whose wife is still with him does not sin when he marries another wife (who is not another's wife). And likewise, the married man, whose wife has departed from him, he also does not sin when he marries another wife (who is not another's wife).

And herein comes the "commandment of the Lord", of polygamy, as in the following situation.

A believer WIFE departs from her believer HUSBAND. She is commanded of God to remain unmarried, per verses 10-11. Her HUSBAND, however, then subsequently marries another wife (who is not another man's wife). The HUSBAND and the new wife have not sinned, per verses 27-28. The departed WIFE then seeks to be reconciled back to her HUSBAND.

In that situation, verses 10-11 show the following instruction as the "commandment of the Lord". The HUSBAND is commanded of God to let the departed wife be reconciled back to him. AND.... he is commanded of God to not put away a wife, including the new wife.

As such, verses 10-11 show that it is an outright "commandment of the Lord" of polygamy for the family in that situation.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 is indeed a Commandment of God --- in the New Testament --- that, when a previously-departed believer wife returns, her believer husband and his new (believer) wife (from verse 27c-28d) MUST let the previous wife be reconciled to her husband.

There truly IS a "commandment of the Lord" for a situation of polygamy to be found in the Bible ---and it's in the New Testament Scriptures, as well!

This is conjecture, where is the Biblical New Testament teaching for plural wives?

1st Corinthians chapter seven doesn't even allude to what you purpose above. Try to produce the thread of teaching where ADAM, or JESUS had plural wives.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Wow.........unbelievable. I guess this just goes to show that you can twist scripture to back up ANY belief.........sorry, Mr. Vaughn, but I refuse to ascribe to this particular brand of "truth".

Brother Phelps, Dr. Doom, hasn't twisted scripture, he just placed a philosophy around it's edges. A group or congregation ( no matter what denomination, even FLDS) would be looking at him with an up raised eyebrow.

[Michael Phelps]

Brother Phelps, Dr. Doom, hasn't twisted scripture, he just placed a philosophy around it's edges. A group or congregation ( no matter what denomination, even FLDS) would be looking at him with an up raised eyebrow.

Point well taken, EB.

I must confess, apparently I'm not educated enough to recognize the philosophy around that scripture, because in all of my 46 years of being in Bible Studies, and Bible College, and preaching and pastoring, I've read that passage hundreds of times, and NEVER ONE TIME did "POLYGAMY" jump out at me!

I'm so ashamed of my denseness.......:tease

[Dr. Vaughn]

Get out of town! You guys have been going pages such vague evidence?

A bishop should be the husband of one wife?

Does your flawed cult hermeneutic work when applied to other similar verses?

1Ti 5:9

"Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been THE WIFE OF ONE MAN"

If we follow your erroneous cult hermeneutic, then we can say that women had plural wives?

PROVE IT WITH SCRIPTURE CHAPTER AND VERSE DR.DO-LITTLE. :heeheehee

Evangelist, I would caution to please dont go to the gutter here.. should you disagree with someone, please present your argument respectfully as becoming Christians rather than name calling and tactics of the world.... blessings

[Evang.Benincasa]

Here is a scriptural COMMAND BY GOD for a man to practice Polygamy

1_Corinthians 7:10-11 & 27-28.

In 1 Corinthians 7, the Apostle Paul differentiates when he is making his own "recommendation" (in verses 6, 12, and 25) and when he is expressing the "commandment of the Lord" (verses 10-11). Indeed, in verses 10-11, Paul clarifies that the instruction in those two verses is the "commandment of the Lord".

Well, look at those four sentences and you didn't say anything? Yep, you went to college, Law School :ursofunny

[Dr. Vaughn]

Wow.........unbelievable. I guess this just goes to show that you can twist scripture to back up ANY belief.........sorry, Mr. Vaughn, but I refuse to ascribe to this particular brand of "truth".

It is your American Right Bro. Phelps and I respect your argument.....

However, you fail to even acknowledge that PAUL commands a husband to allow his wife to return to him even if he has remarried another.... this is what we call POLYGAMY

[MissBrattified]

It is your American Right Bro. Phelps and I respect your argument.....

However, you fail to even acknowledge that PAUL commands a husband to allow his wife to return to him even if he has remarried another.... this is what we call POLYGAMY

Huh? Where is that command?

And wasn't there a prohibition in the OT that prevented spouses from returning to one another after a divorce, at least, not if they had remarried?

[LUKE2447]

I wonder why? :heeheehee

???? I am used to all the qoutes being included. Not sure your point!

[Dr. Vaughn]

Huh? Where is that command?

And wasn't there a prohibition in the OT that prevented spouses from returning to one another after a divorce, at least, not if they had remarried?

only if they had remarried... in the NT Paul commands that the husband take back his first wife....

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife

The husband is commanded not to put her away if she returns unto him...... no matter what his current wife has to say about it

[Evang.Benincasa]

Evangelist, I would caution to please dont go to the gutter here.. should you disagree with someone, please present your argument respectfully as becoming Christians rather than name calling and tactics of the world.... blessings


Listen just like Jesus (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mat%2023:15;&version=9;), Peter (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Pe%203:16;&version=9;), and Elijah (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Ki%2018:27;&version=9;), I respond to you just as they did. :ursofunny

[Dr. Vaughn]

This is conjecture, where is the Biblical New Testament teaching for plural wives?

1st Corinthians chapter seven doesn't even allude to what you purpose above. Try to produce the thread of teaching where ADAM, or JESUS had plural wives.

bet you woldn't accept any showing all the Patriarchs having them,, huh?

In your mind none of that matters, right? Only Adam & Jesus... well since Jesus had no physical wives its a little hard to do.. but concerning Adam we have NO IDEA after the fall how many wives he had.... were you there?

[Dr. Vaughn]

Listen just like Jesus (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mat%2023:15;&version=9;), Peter (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Pe%203:16;&version=9;), and Elijah (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Ki%2018:27;&version=9;), I respond to you just as they did. :ursofunny

No sir, this is a discussion forum.. not a hate room, not a room of disrespect,, we respect others opinions here and argue the POINT not the person.. blessings

[Michael Phelps]

Huh? Where is that command?

And wasn't there a prohibition in the OT that prevented spouses from returning to one another after a divorce, at least, not if they had remarried?

Yes, but using scripture from the OT alone is "isogesis", not "exegesis" as I've been politely informed of, lol.

:dance

[Dr. Vaughn]

Listen just like Jesus (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mat%2023:15;&version=9;), Peter (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Pe%203:16;&version=9;), and Elijah (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Ki%2018:27;&version=9;), I respond to you just as they did. :ursofunny

The only problem with that dear brother is you're none of the above... a vindicated prophet such as Elijah can speak to me anyway God tells him do.. the SON OF GOD can as well.. but a fellow brother I expect more tact from

[Aquila]

Show me where in the New Testament were people had MORE THAN ONE WIFE? :)

Why would Paul have to emphasize that Bishops have one wife if there weren't at least a few instances of polygamous families converted and living in the early church? If monogamy was absolutely universal (and we agree it was the ideal union pictured by the early church)...there would be no need for Paul to address this. Paul's standard for bishops (and the fact that it is restricted to bishops and deacons) implies that polygamous marriages existed, but were not ideal. And if it were a sin to be specifically condemned...this would have been an ample opportunity to address it. But Paul doesn't. He simply sets the standard for leadership. This was wise. Because it didn't condemn polygamous families that were converted. By setting a leadership standard he doesn't condemn polygamy...but he makes an influence toward monogamy.

[LUKE2447]

This logic is so incredibly flawed, I'm almost speechless.

First, let me clarify, are you saying that there is nothing in the OT that God allowed that He now does not allow?


If so, when Paul commanded every man to love his "WIFE" as Christ loved the "CHURCH", singular, not plural, that Paul was in direct defiance to God?


?? incredibly flawed? Your argument make no sense at all. You fail to grasp the basic principle that God is not going to call SIN what he told people was OK to do and gave legislation on how to act within such relationships. God does not change what is sin is always sin. God is not going to say well it wasn't sin then but it is now. You make God inconsistent. Especially when he never said it was sin. Yet somehow you want to make it sinful now.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Huh? Where is that command?

In the gold plates of Nephi and Mormon. We just can't view them because they were taken up to the planet Kolob.


And wasn't there a prohibition in the OT that prevented spouses from returning to one another after a divorce, at least, not if they had remarried?

Deu 24:1-4

"When a man hath taken A WIFE (SINGULAR), and married HER (SINGULAR), and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, MAY NOT TAKE HER AGAIN TO BE HIS WIFE, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance."

[Aquila]

Eph 5:22-33 "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of THE BODY. Therefore as THE CHURCH is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved THE CHURCH, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself A glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their OWN BODIES. He (SINGULAR) that loveth HIS WIFE (SINGULAR) loveth HIMSELF (SINGULAR). For no MAN (SINGULAR) ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord THE CHURCH: For we are members (PLURAL PARTS, LIKE EYES, EARS, FEET, NOT ENTIRE WHOLE BODIES) of HIS BODY (SINGULAR), of his flesh, and of his bones. For THIS CAUSE (OR REASON) shall a MAN (SINGULAR) leave his FATHER (SINGULAR) and MOTHER (SINGULAR), and shall be joined unto HIS WIFE (SINGULAR), and they TWO (1+1=2) shall be ONE FLESH. This is a great mystery (ESPECIALLY TO DR DEMENTO AND AQUILA): but I speak concerning Christ and THE CHURCH. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his WIFE (SINGULAR) even as himself; and THE WIFE (SINGULAR) see that SHE (SINGULAR)reverence HER (SINGULAR) husband."

It's pretty simple math if you ask me. Jesus only has ONE BODY, that ONE BODY is THE one Church. Not a multiplicity of churches, but only ONE CHURCH.

Adam was made one wife, It was Adam and Eve, not Adam, and 10 other women. This is to show Christ and His Church.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

No one is arguing that Paul didn't set monogamy as the ideal union. The point is Paul had opportunity to condemn it. However Paul only sets the solid standard on bishops and deacons. Again...he had wisdom. He didn't condemn those who may had been in polygamous marriages...but through a leadership standard he sets the tone and allows the example to influence the flock. If it was an abominable sin...Paul wimped out because he didn't condemn it though he had opportunity to.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Why would Paul have to emphasize that Bishops have one wife if there weren't at least a few instances of polygamous families converted and living in the early church? If monogamy was absolutely universal (and we agree it was the ideal union pictured by the early church)...there would be no need for Paul to address this. Paul's standard for bishops (and the fact that it is restricted to bishops and deacons) implies that polygamous marriages existed, but were not ideal.

You like your boy, the Doc, are teaching from conjecture, and therefore It's not scripturally sound for doctrine.

Here Aquila answer me the below post.

Get out of town! You guys have been going pages such vague evidence?

A bishop should be the husband of one wife?

Does your flawed cult hermeneutic work when applied to other similar verses?

1Ti 5:9

"Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been THE WIFE OF ONE MAN"

If we follow your erroneous cult hermeneutic, then we can say that women had plural wives?

PROVE IT WITH SCRIPTURE CHAPTER AND VERSE DR.DO-LITTLE. :heeheehee

Did women also have plural husbands?

[Dr. Vaughn]

In the gold plates of Nephi and Mormon. We just can't view them because they were taken up to the planet Kolob.



Deu 24:1-4

"When a man hath taken A WIFE (SINGULAR), and married HER (SINGULAR), and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, MAY NOT TAKE HER AGAIN TO BE HIS WIFE, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance."

Evangelist, your argument here is with GOD HIMSELF not us...

"And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."
2 Samuel 12:8.

The context of the verse is that of God, speaking through a prophet (Nathan), calling out David for David's sin of taking another man's wife (Bathsheba, wife of Uriah the Hittite), which is adultery indeed, and for setting up the death of Uriah the Hittite to try to hide David's sin.

Also, at the point in time of this situation, David had already been married to at least seven known-named wives. (1_Samuel 18:27, 25:42-43, 2_Samuel 3:2-5.)

But, in this verse 12 (above), God was not condemning David for all his wives! In fact, this verse 12 shows God Himself actually saying that HE was the One Who had GIVEN David His wives.

If God was against David's polygamy, He certainly would not have said that He had GIVEN David his wives.

But the LORD did not stop there. That verse 12 shows that the Lord took it even one step further than that! The LORD God even went on further to say that if David had wanted more wives, the Lord Himself said that He would have given David even more!

It was only because David had sinned, in committing adultery by taking another man's wife, and then causing that man's death to try to hide David's sin, that the Lord was calling him out through the prophet Nathan. There was no sin in the polygamy at all.

[Michael Phelps]

?? incredibly flawed? Your argument make no sense at all. You fail to grasp the basic principle that God is not going to call SIN what he told people was OK to do and gave legislation on how to act within such relationships. God does not change what is sin is always sin. God is not going to say well it wasn't sin then but it is now. You make God inconsistent. Especially when he never said it was sin. Yet somehow you want to make it sinful now.

So, is it a sin to murder someone?

God established cities of refuge on the OT for people to flee to if they killed someone, and as long as they stayed there, they were safe.

Is that how we should operate in 2008?

Come on, Brother, you should be a bit more adept at the Word that this!

Jesus, Himself, taught and said, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

He also said "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Now, if you believe that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh, you have to believe that He (God) changed some rules! And, He was still God. And He wasn't a liar. And He didn't vacillate.

So, polygamy WAS accepted and approved in the OT, but I don't find ANY scripture in the NT where God sanctioned multiple wives, only you guys and your misinterpreted sheen of scripture wrapped around your flimsy philosophy.

And, I say that in the nicest possible way!

[Aquila]

A good example would be my pastor's facial hair standard. Having a beard isn't a sin...but he believes it's improper for a Christian. So he has a "platform policy". He doesn't condemn men with beards to Hell...but the standard is set and guess what...people normally don't keep their beards very long...especially if they want to be used by God.

Paul sets monogamy as a standard for leadership and service in the church and thereby making it ideal and the "standard". However, he doesn't condemn those converts reading this letter who might have multiple wives. They are simply disqualified for service in the church. This standard will influence the church to choose monogamous unions...but doesn't condemn polygamy as sin. God answered David's prayers and gave him wives...if Paul condemned it as sin Paul would be condemning God as a sinner. God's Law also would require it in the case of Liverite Marriage. God's Law sets standards for polygamy and concubines. God isn't a sinner. But Paul sets a clear standard for what is ideal by example in the church.

[LUKE2447]

You like your boy, the Doc, are teaching from conjecture, and therefore It's not scripturally sound for doctrine.

Here Aquila answer me the below post.



Did women also have plural husbands?

Come on Beni I expect more from you.

The term there is "heis" The term for used in the aspect for elders etc... is mia which can mean "first"


mia
mee'-ah
Irregular feminine of G1520; one or first: - a (certain), + agree, first, one, X other.


heis
hice
(Including the neuter [etc.] ἕν hen); a primary numeral; one: - a (-n, -ny, certain), + abundantly, man, one (another), only, other, some. See also G1527,

[Dr. Vaughn]

You like your boy, the Doc, are teaching from conjecture, and therefore It's not scripturally sound for doctrine.

Here Aquila answer me the below post.



Did women also have plural husbands?

Do your research Evangelist, you will see the difference in the two

Titus 1:6 and 1_Timothy 3:2,12 --- "One wife" --- mia is the Greek word from which the word, one, was translated in those passages. Yet, it can also be translated as first, just as it is, for example, so translated in the phrases, "first day of the week" in Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1-2, and Acts 20:7.

Furthermore, in 1_Timothy 5:9, a widow's "one man" is not mia but the Greek word "heis", meaning the numeral-one, and not meaning the adjective of "first".

[Aquila]

In my opinion we have two errors here.

First, we see the error that if polygamy was sanctioned and never condemned as sin in the Old Testament it’s a viable option for today.

Second, we see the error that if Paul required monogamy for ministers polygamy must be sin.

I believe that the Gospel was preached in the “fullness of time”. Polygamy wasn’t a sin…never was. Polygamy was sanctioned, allowed, and occasionally required to protect women and family wealth. It served a very important social function. However, it wasn’t “ideal”. Jealousies and strife among wives and children plagued polygamous families to a higher degree than in monogamous families. In the fullness of time, society was no longer such a society wherein polygamy was necessary. So Paul essentially institutes a departure from polygamy in the Church. Paul sets the standard that bishops and deacons should have only one wife. This standard expresses the ideal. However, Paul never condemned the men of the Old Testament nor did he condemn converts who may have already been in polygamous unions and then order divorce. In fact…unless a woman was unfaithful divorce wasn’t permitted. No distinction was made for polygamy so that standard would apply to even polygamous marriages. This was a covenantal shift in ideals. Those in polygamous marriages weren’t condemned (because it wasn’t sin) but they were locked into the marriage they had. The next generation was to be raised in a church where the example in leadership expressed that monogamy was ideal. In this way Paul allowed polygamy, which had outlived it’s time, to die a quiet death that monogamy might be the standard throughout the church.

It was a wise and compassionate approach.

[DividedThigh]

you guys are gonna fight with each other, knowing that you aint gonna change what you think anyway, you crack me up, dt

[Dr. Vaughn]

In my opinion we have two errors here.

First, we see the error that if polygamy was sanctioned and never condemned as sin in the Old Testament it’s a viable option for today.

Second, we see the error that if Paul required monogamy for ministers polygamy must be sin.

I believe that the Gospel was preached in the “fullness of time”. Polygamy wasn’t a sin…never was. Polygamy was sanctioned, allowed, and occasionally required to protect women and family wealth. It served a very important social function. However, it wasn’t “ideal”. Jealousies and strife among wives and children plagued polygamous families to a higher degree than monogamous families. In the fullness of time, society was no longer such a society wherein polygamy was necessary. So Paul essentially institutes a departure from polygamy in the Church. Paul sets the standard that bishops and deacons should have only one wife. This standard expresses the ideal. However, Paul never condemned the men of the Old Testament nor did he condemn converts who may have already been in polygamous unions and order divorce. In fact…unless a woman was unfaithful divorce wasn’t permitted. No distinction was made for polygamy so that standard would apply to even polygamous marriages. This was a covenantal shift in ideals. Those in polygamous marriages weren’t condemned (because it wasn’t sin) but they were locked into the marriage they had. The next generation was to be raised in a church where the example in leadership expressed that monogamy was ideal. In this way Paul allowed polygamy, which had outlived it’s time, to die a quiet death that monogamy might be the standard throughout the church.

It was a wise and compassionate approach.

Aquila, after much WORD study concerning Pauls instruction of ONE WIFE to the church leaders.. I am inclined to understand it as an adjective and deriving from FIRST... we have mention of the "wife of your youth" and as thus I see Paul protecting the church here against DIVORCE and REMAIRRAGE, not polygamy...

if that is indeed the case then we have NOT ONE scripture in the NT even referencing an IDEAL MONOGOMOUS marriage in the church...

[Evang.Benincasa]

No one is arguing that Paul didn't set monogamy as the ideal union. :stop

Stop! Don't you see what you just said here? If you have even one shread of honesty in your body. You will explain what you mean by IDEAL UNION.



The point is Paul had opportunity to condemn it.

Roman Law in the fist century plural marriage was illegal, Paul was a Roman citizen. Paul stated that he never offended in the law of the Jews or the Romans. Roman Law forbid plural marriage, and the Gospel shows Jesus and one Bride, Adam and one wife is the first mention, and therefore sets the perfect example of man and subjected wife. If the man is the head, then the wife is his singular body. One God and One Temple, that Temple is the one Body. Biblical doctrine, and proven by the whole Bible. If a man has more than one wife he will die in his sins.



However Paul only sets the solid standard on bishops and deacons.

That again is making a doctrine out of could-be and might-be, your argument is based on conjecture.


Again...he had wisdom. He didn't condemn those who may had been in polygamous marriages...

Roman Law forbade plural wives, and Paul is writing to Gentile churches, so why would Paul teach on something that is prohibited in Asia Minor?




but through a leadership standard he sets the tone and allows the example to influence the flock.

Are you confused? Aquila, stop you are making no sense.

Example for what? If the Bible accepts plural wives and you say, then why the example? This doctrine is shot in the head. :ursofunny

[Dr. Vaughn]

Lets talk about ONE FLESH

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Genesis 2:24, referenced in Matthew 19:5,6, Mark 10:8, 1_Corinthians 6:16, Ephesians 5:31....................... A man is "one flesh" with EACH woman with whom he copulates, whether in marriage (wife) or in fornication (harlot).

When a married man, who is therefore already "one flesh" with his wife, copulates with another woman, that does not then negate his being "one flesh" with the wife. This is evident by the fact that 1_Corinthians 6:16 reveals that a man can be "one flesh" even with an harlot........... As even a married man, therefore, can become "one flesh" with an harlot, that proves that a married man can indeed be "one flesh" with more than one woman, without negating his being "one flesh" with his wife. As that is so even with a married man with an harlot, it is thus just as equally true regarding a man being "one flesh" with more than one wife. For further proof, the very next verse provides the context of the plural-to-one aspect, i.e.,

1_Corinthians 6:17: "But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit." As EACH Christian is joined as "one spirit" with the Lord, that then demonstrates the context of the plural-to-one aspect. Namely, as EACH Christian is joined as "one spirit" with the Lord, so too may EACH woman be joined as "one flesh" with one man. Lastly, when the Lord Jesus, in Matthew 19:5,6 and Mark 10:8, was re-quoting that original "one flesh" verse of Genesis 2:24, He was only dealing with the issue of divorce, saying, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matthew 19:6c-d.) That was opposing divorce of God-joined marriages, of what God Himself had joined together as "one flesh". For context, it is exegetically important to note that the "one flesh" verse itself of Genesis 2:24, which the Lord Jesus was re-quoting, was written by Moses. And Moses married (was "one flesh" with) two wives: Zipporah (Exodus 2:16-21 and 18:1-6) and the Ethiopian woman (Numbers 12:1). The term, "one flesh", could not otherwise allegedly mean that a man could not be "one flesh" with more than one woman because three things did indeed happen. 1) Moses did marry two wives. 2) Moses did author such other verses as Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:15. 3) Jesus Christ did not speak against Moses' being "one flesh" with two wives. Hence, the Scriptures reveal that Jesus and Moses knew what "one flesh" meant when Moses authored Genesis 2:24: a man may be "one flesh" with more than one woman.

[LUKE2447]

So, is it a sin to murder someone?

God established cities of refuge on the OT for people to flee to if they killed someone, and as long as they stayed there, they were safe.

Is that how we should operate in 2008?

Come on, Brother, you should be a bit more adept at the Word that this!

Jesus, Himself, taught and said, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

He also said "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Now, if you believe that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh, you have to believe that He (God) changed some rules! And, He was still God. And He wasn't a liar. And He didn't vacillate.

So, polygamy WAS accepted and approved in the OT, but I don't find ANY scripture in the NT where God sanctioned multiple wives, only you guys and your misinterpreted sheen of scripture wrapped around your flimsy philosophy.

And, I say that in the nicest possible way!

You still miss the point he SAID and gave DEEPER meaning to the understanding of God's will. Yet Jesus never said anything about polygamy. In the NT you never fine abolishment of polygamy. Thus you are putting words in his mouth.

Also the reference to hating your enemies is not in the Torah but in rabbinical teaching.

Also your point on Jesus saying concerning Eye for an eye etc... Jesus point was that grace and mercy viewed through love are the greater way. Thus he brought deeper understanding to the people. As Jesus said you neglect the weightier matters of the law. Justice mercy and faith.

Mat 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others

Yes, one could take eye for any eye but that was not the whole means by which one should look at the situation but through grace and mercy and love. Jesus himself gives retribution for evil deeds. Things should be done through the eyes of love and mercy and forgiveness as we would want to treat ourselves. The law of retribution still stands but the deeper meaning by how we conduct ourselves is made known through long lasting patience, and mercy. Otherwise retribution could never take place,as Christ himself could not judge as you make judgment impossible and Jesus in the end would contradict his own word. Jesus did not come to abolish but to make the law more revealed or full!

[Michael Phelps]

You still miss the point he SAID and gave DEEPER meaning to the understanding of God's will. Yet Jesus never said anything about polygamy. In the NT you never fine abolishment of polygamy. Thus you are putting words in his mouth.

Also the reference to hating your enemies is not in the Torah but in rabbinical teaching.

Also your point on Jesus saying concerning Eye for an eye etc... Jesus point was that grace and mercy are the greater way. Thus he brought deeper understanding to the people. As Jesus said you neglect the weightier matters of the law. Justice mercy and faith.

Mat 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others

Yes, one could take eye for any eye but that was not the whole means by which one should look at the situation but through grace and mercy and love. Jesus himself gives retribution for evil deeds. Things should be done through the eyes of love and mercy and forgiveness as we would want to treat ourselves. The law of retribution still stands but the deeper meaning by how we conduct ourselves is made known through long lasting patience, and mercy. Otherwise retribution could never take place,as Christ himself could not judge as you make judgment impossible and Jesus in the end would contradict his own word. Jesus did not come to abolish but to make the law more revealed or full!


Thanks for your response, I'll withdraw from the conversation at this point, since I see we're on two different wavelengths.

[Dr. Vaughn]

So can we make it this simple?

Marriage was endorsed by God in the OT and not condemned by Jesus nor the Apostles in the NT?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Aquila, after much WORD study concerning Pauls instruction of ONE WIFE to the church leaders.. I am inclined to understand it as an adjective and deriving from FIRST

What school of theology did you attend? Captian Kangeroo's school of insanity? You are "inclined to understand???"

You are inclined to understand?? :ursofunny

You did a Word study and after the word study you were inclined to understand? Please Dr. explain to me the Greek of that word study.

I await your thesis. :ursofunny


... we have mention of the "wife of your youth" and as thus I see Paul protecting the church here against DIVORCE and REMAIRRAGE, not polygamy...

Whoa, that is a problem, you can marry fifty women like Uncle Rulon Jeffs, but you can never divorce them. First Century culture would have a major problem with what you are saying. Dr. Dim, do you know what was the majority in First Century Roman World? Were they nobles, or common people and slaves?


if that is indeed the case then we have NOT ONE scripture in the NT even referencing an IDEAL MONOGOMOUS marriage in the church...

Yes Jesus and His ONE BRIDE and ADAM and his ONE BRIDE EVE.

I would'nt advise you even teach Romper Room, let alone a house of God.

[Evang.Benincasa]

So can we make it this simple?

Marriage was endorsed by God in the OT and not condemned by Jesus nor the Apostles in the NT?

Marriage was endorsed by God between one man Adam, and his one wife Eve.

This shows Jesus and His Bride the PERFECT IDEAL UNION. A wife that Jesus the One True Living God will be with forever.

[Dr. Vaughn]

Marriage was endorsed by God between one man Adam, and his one wife Eve.

This shows Jesus and His Bride the PERFECT IDEAL UNION. A wife that Jesus the One True Living God will be with forever.

You should dance at your church... not around the issue,., we will try again

WITH MULTIPLE SCRIPTURES TO PROVE that God was actually involved in the giving of many wives to men..... and his endorsement of such.... and with it being practiced by all the Holy Men...... and Jesus nor the Apostles never condemning it... where does that leave us?

[Dr. Vaughn]

Marriage was endorsed by God between one man Adam, and his one wife Eve.

This shows Jesus and His Bride the PERFECT IDEAL UNION. A wife that Jesus the One True Living God will be with forever.

You are speaking of pure conjecture.... you have NO IDEA how many wives ADAM had after the curse... of course he only had one in the beginning because there wasnt much else to choose from....

How many PEOPLE will be in the Bride of Christ? So you would say its a Bride of MANY MANY SEPERATE PERSONS?

[Aquila]

Jewish legends depict Adam has having multiple wives if I remember correctly.

[Evang.Benincasa]

You should dance at your church... not around the issue,., we will try again

WITH MULTIPLE SCRIPTURES TO PROVE that God was actually involved in the giving of many wives to men..... and his endorsement of such.... and with it being practiced by all the Holy Men...... and Jesus nor the Apostles never condemning it... where does that leave us?

Multiple scriptures in the New Testament? You have multiple scriptures that teach your doctrine in the New Testament?

Jesus is only with ONE WIFE, and He does not take plural wives.

ONE GOD and ONE CHURCH.

The total thread of Truth that flows the the scripture blasts your teaching of nonsense.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Jewish legends depict Adam has having multiple wives if I remember correctly.

That's why you should ditch the fairy tales boys, and teach Bible chapter and verse.

Jewish legends teach that Adam's first wife turned into a demon that sucks the life out of little children. All that is hocus pocus, butter beans and wild okra. :ursofunny

So do you two also teach that Kabblah is an important part to your Christian walk?

[Dr. Vaughn]

Multiple scriptures in the New Testament? You have multiple scriptures that teach your doctrine in the New Testament?

Jesus is only with ONE WIFE, and He does not take plural wives.

ONE GOD and ONE CHURCH.

The total thread of Truth that flows the the scripture blasts your teaching of nonsense.

Evangelist quite simply,., in all fairness we are just asking for you to support your doctrine that Polygamy is sin with ONE NT scripture that forbids it

[Apocrypha]

So, is it a sin to murder someone?

God established cities of refuge on the OT for people to flee to if they killed someone, and as long as they stayed there, they were safe.

Is that how we should operate in 2008?

Come on, Brother, you should be a bit more adept at the Word that this!

Jesus, Himself, taught and said, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

He also said "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Now, if you believe that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh, you have to believe that He (God) changed some rules! And, He was still God. And He wasn't a liar. And He didn't vacillate.

So, polygamy WAS accepted and approved in the OT, but I don't find ANY scripture in the NT where God sanctioned multiple wives, only you guys and your misinterpreted sheen of scripture wrapped around your flimsy philosophy.

And, I say that in the nicest possible way!


The City of Refuge in a given area was made for people that committed a accidential death. The law taught that if a man committed murder he had no protection from the city. They dragged him out and killed him.

The City of Refuge was there to protect innocent but unlucky people from a blood avenger from the wronged family, clan or tribe when it was time to "get even".

[Evang.Benincasa]

If so, when Paul commanded every man to love his "WIFE" as Christ loved the "CHURCH", singular, not plural, that Paul was in direct defiance to God?



Nice and Simple!

[LUKE2447]

The City of Refuge in a given area was made for people that committed a accidential death. The law taught that if a man committed murder he had no protection from the city. They dragged him out and killed him.

The City of Refuge was there to protect innocent but unlucky people from a blood avenger from the wronged family, clan or tribe when it was time to "get even".

That would be correct!

[Dr. Vaughn]

The City of Refuge in a given area was made for people that committed a accidential death. The law taught that if a man committed murder he had no protection from the city. They dragged him out and killed him.

The City of Refuge was there to protect innocent but unlucky people from a blood avenger from the wronged family, clan or tribe when it was time to "get even".

You would think they had known that

[Dr. Vaughn]

Nice and Simple!

and how many people make up that WIFE?

[Tyk]

Nice and Simple!

This isn't so much pertaining to this topic but -
You must have been raised in the upc im presuming. I don't see how anyone who wasn't a political official in the "upc" could tell your anything you might consider trying to understand...

I was raised UPC too for the record...

[Rico]

This is hilarious! You guys really do pick and choose what's convenient for you, don'tcha? When it's convenient to use OT to back your precious standards, you scream OT scriptures at the top of your lungs. When the OT contradicts your position, you demand NT scriptures and will only accept NT scriptures. The scriptures aren't there to be used at your convenience and ignored when it isn't convenient.

[Tyk]

This is hilarious! You guys really do pick and choose what's convenient for you, don'tcha? When it's convenient to use OT to back your precious standards, you scream OT scriptures at the top of your lungs. When the OT contradicts your position, you demand NT scriptures and will only accept NT scriptures. The scriptures aren't there to be used at your convenience and ignored when it isn't convenient.

That was kind of my point in my last post... sheesh...

You said it better.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Evangelist quite simply,., in all fairness we are just asking for you to support your doctrine that Polygamy is sin with ONE NT scripture that forbids it

Mat 5:31-32

"It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife (singular), let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife (singular), saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her (singular) to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her (singular) that is divorced committeth adultery."

The above scriptures proves more the case of a singular wife than a teaching for plural wives.

Jesus first tells the doctors of the Law, this;

Mat 19:3-6 "The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them MALE (SINGULAR) and FEMALE (SINGULAR), And said, For this cause shall a man (SINGULAR) leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife (SINGULAR) : and they twain (Watch close DOCTOR, 1+ 1 = 2) shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain (1+1=2) , but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together (JUST TWO) , let not man put asunder."

The command that Jesus stresses in Matthew 9 is the same one commanded in Genesis. One man was to join with one woman and the two should never be separated. Jesus with His ONE WIFE.

Jesus never had a teaching for plural wives.

[Aquila]

:stop

Stop! Don't you see what you just said here? If you have even one shread of honesty in your body. You will explain what you mean by IDEAL UNION.

Polygamy brought with it jealousies and strife. It is ideal that a home be in harmony and peace. This is more easily achieved in monogamous marriages. A leader in the church was to have his home ruled well, his children in subjection, and a good report without. Polygamy doesn’t facilitate this very easily. We see how polygamy brings jealousies and strife throughout the Old Testament. However, it was NEVER condemned as “sin”.

Roman Law in the fist century plural marriage was illegal, Paul was a Roman citizen. Paul stated that he never offended in the law of the Jews or the Romans. Roman Law forbid plural marriage, and the Gospel shows Jesus and one Bride, Adam and one wife is the first mention, and therefore sets the perfect example of man and subjected wife. If the man is the head, then the wife is his singular body. One God and One Temple, that Temple is the one Body. Biblical doctrine, and proven by the whole Bible. If a man has more than one wife he will die in his sins.

Very true. It should be noted that many radical groups who broke with Rome and practiced polygamy anyway. That’s why there is some debate between theologians on this subject. It would have been criminal for Paul to allow for polygamy and Paul admonished Christians to obey every ordinance of man. I think it’s fair to ask, if Roman hadn’t banned polygamy…would Paul have set such standards with church leaders? Is Paul keeping church leaders in compliance with Roman law to maintain propriety…or is Paul condemning God, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sampson, David, Solomon, and most of the land owners of Israel as sinners destined for a devil’s Hell because they had a hand in polygamy?

That again is making a doctrine out of could-be and might-be, your argument is based on conjecture.

No. Paul specifically set the standard for Church leaders. It’s there in black and white. Paul doesn’t mention laity or those who are not bishops or deacons. Now Paul’s statement clearly would preclude divorced bishops and polygamous bishops. You bring up a good point. Paul’s standard also would be ensuring that church leadership remains compliant with Roman law.

Roman Law forbade plural wives, and Paul is writing to Gentile churches, so why would Paul teach on something that is prohibited in Asia Minor?

To keep them compliant with Roman law in a day when ascetic groups who deplored Rome’s rulership were in rebellion to Roman law. One of Paul’s concerns is that these leaders keep a good report with those who were outside the church.

Are you confused? Aquila, stop you are making no sense.

Example for what? If the Bible accepts plural wives and you say, then why the example? This doctrine is shot in the head. :ursofunny

Abraham wasn’t an adulterer. Neither was David…until he took Uriah’s wife. Though both had polygamous marriages. If polygamy is a “sin”…you have to admit that those who died before returning to monogamy died “in sin” and are currently burning in Hell.

But you do bring up a point to consider. Roman law didn’t allow for polygamy. So Paul’s statements should be viewed in that historical context. Paul was big on admonishing Christians to obey the ordinances of man and honoring Roman authority. So it would stand to reason that Paul would admonish monogamy without strictly condemning polygamists like the Patriarchs and the Kings of ancient Israel as you’re doing.

We'll never know how Paul would have dealt with this had Rome not outlawed polygamous marriages.

[Evang.Benincasa]

and how many people make up that WIFE?


Mr. Doctor, even my eight and five year olds know that "wife" is singular.

[Aquila]

You still miss the point he SAID and gave DEEPER meaning to the understanding of God's will. Yet Jesus never said anything about polygamy. In the NT you never fine abolishment of polygamy. Thus you are putting words in his mouth.

Also the reference to hating your enemies is not in the Torah but in rabbinical teaching.

Also your point on Jesus saying concerning Eye for an eye etc... Jesus point was that grace and mercy viewed through love are the greater way. Thus he brought deeper understanding to the people. As Jesus said you neglect the weightier matters of the law. Justice mercy and faith.

Mat 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others

Yes, one could take eye for any eye but that was not the whole means by which one should look at the situation but through grace and mercy and love. Jesus himself gives retribution for evil deeds. Things should be done through the eyes of love and mercy and forgiveness as we would want to treat ourselves. The law of retribution still stands but the deeper meaning by how we conduct ourselves is made known through long lasting patience, and mercy. Otherwise retribution could never take place,as Christ himself could not judge as you make judgment impossible and Jesus in the end would contradict his own word. Jesus did not come to abolish but to make the law more revealed or full!

Bro...I think Evang.Benincasa makes a great point. Paul doesn't condemn polygamy... but he does admonish that church leaders have one wife...which was in accordance to Roman law. Had Rome not banned plural marriages Paul may not have needed to ensure that church leadership abide by the ordinances of Rome to maintain a good report to those who were outside the church.

[Aquila]

Mat 5:31-32

"It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife (singular), let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife (singular), saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her (singular) to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her (singular) that is divorced committeth adultery."

The above scriptures proves more the case of a singular wife than a teaching for plural wives.

Jesus first tells the doctors of the Law, this;

Mat 19:3-6 "The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them MALE (SINGULAR) and FEMALE (SINGULAR), And said, For this cause shall a man (SINGULAR) leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife (SINGULAR) : and they twain (Watch close DOCTOR, 1+ 1 = 2) shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain (1+1=2) , but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together (JUST TWO) , let not man put asunder."

The command that Jesus stresses in Matthew 9 is the same one commanded in Genesis. One man was to join with one woman and the two should never be separated. Jesus with His ONE WIFE.

Jesus never had a teaching for plural wives.

Of course Paul would address husbands and wives in the singular...plural marriages were illegal in ancient Rome. But please note...Paul doesn't condemn Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon or others for their polygamy. In fact...Paul, in Hebrews (the writer is believed by many to be Paul), praises Old Testament men who were polygamists in the "hall of faith".

[Evang.Benincasa]

This isn't so much pertaining to this topic but -
You must have been raised in the upc im presuming.

Never been United Pentecostal Church International.




I don't see how anyone who wasn't a political official in the "upc" could tell your anything you might consider trying to understand...

Who let eight year olds join this forum? Dr. Voo, Dr. Voo, we have a student for you!


I was raised UPC too for the record...

How nice.

[Aquila]

It's also interesting to note that a Pagan nation like Rome imposed monogamy by law....where as God's Law in ancient Israel allowed for polygamy and God blessed men with "wives". Hmmmm

[Tyk]

Never been United Pentecostal Church International.
Who let eight year olds join this forum? Dr. Voo, Dr. Voo, we have a student for you!

How nice.

Oh, do tell your life story. I'd be interested to hear it, seriously.

[DividedThigh]

not with anyone in particuliar in mind i just wonder sometimes if this polygamy discussion has something to do with wishful thinking on some peoples part, lol, that cracks me up, two women one man, yeah, that would work not, or even more women, come on, ticket to disaster, lol

[Aquila]

not with anyone in particuliar in mind i just wonder sometimes if this polygamy discussion has something to do with wishful thinking on some peoples part, lol, that cracks me up, two women one man, yeah, that would work not, or even more women, come on, ticket to disaster, lol

Again, God's Law allowed for it, regulated it, and God also blessed men with wives. The NT even praises men who were polygamous as men of great faith.

The reason polygamy wouldn't work today is our culture...not polygamy itself.

Here's something interesting to note. Roman law imposed monogamy on the Roman population. As a result Rome began to see what is known as "serial monogamy"...this is when a man marries, divorces, marries, divorces, several times over. In a way...this is what is happening in the U.S. The divorce rate isn't this high in nations that allow polygamy.

So does polygamy really not work....or is imposed monogamy leaving a wake of divorce in America as it did in ancient Rome?

...just a thought.

[DividedThigh]

i just think it is funny, i am a one woman man, very happy, lol

[Apocrypha]

this has been a fun thread.

it seems like the women bailed out when history and the scripture didn't fit into the 20th and 21st centuries as well as they hoped.

i'll check out now on it though, i think the point has been proven scripturally and historically.

[LUKE2447]

This is hilarious! You guys really do pick and choose what's convenient for you, don'tcha? When it's convenient to use OT to back your precious standards, you scream OT scriptures at the top of your lungs. When the OT contradicts your position, you demand NT scriptures and will only accept NT scriptures. The scriptures aren't there to be used at your convenience and ignored when it isn't convenient.

Well Rico.... you know my stance on the OT it should be studied deeply and applied through the leading of the Spirit as it has much application today.

[LUKE2447]

Bro...I think Evang.Benincasa makes a great point. Paul doesn't condemn polygamy... but he does admonish that church leaders have one wife...which was in accordance to Roman law. Had Rome not banned plural marriages Paul may not have needed to ensure that church leadership abide by the ordinances of Rome to maintain a good report to those who were outside the church.

Yes, BUT polygamy in itself was not banned. If anything it was more of a restraint due to conditions like today in the USA. Why would I teach to continue in it with the present laws and enviroment? I wouldn't but it does not mean I make it a sin or say it is wrong. Just not the proper situation to condone considering the circumstances.

Also personaly I don't think "one" as said before is ONE but "first" as the text makes more sense that way.

[DividedThigh]

fun is right, funny is the man who thinks he would want two of these modern, lol, women yelling at him, lol

[Dr. Vaughn]

Aquila, you are definitly making the point about Romans Laws against Polygamy..... Even while this was the law,, many of the Jews still practiced it.. because THEIR RELIGION allowed for it..... So I am wondering. who is the better example for us to follow? Pagan Rome or Gods original Bride, Yisrael?

[Aquila]

Aquila, you are definitly making the point about Romans Laws against Polygamy..... Even while this was the law,, many of the Jews still practiced it.. because THEIR RELIGION allowed for it..... So I am wondering. who is the better example for us to follow? Pagan Rome or Gods original Bride, Yisrael?

Well, Paul's admonishions appear to direct church leaders to obey the Roman law. Paul instructed us to obey every ordinance of man. Therefore...if the law stipulates that a man can only be married to one woman...Paul appears to desire us to live by that standard.

One could argue that since Paul has no encoded it in Holy writ...that's now the church's official position.

Regardless as to where the church belongs on the issue today...my point is simply that polygamy isn't and never was a "sin".

[Aquila]

Yes, BUT polygamy in itself was not banned. If anything it was more of a restraint due to conditions like today in the USA. Why would I teach to continue in it with the present laws and enviroment? I wouldn't but it does not mean I make it a sin or say it is wrong. Just not the proper situation to condone considering the circumstances.

That's my point. Paul's admonishion and writings regarding monogamy have to be understood in light of Roman law's prohibition against polygamy.

Also personaly I don't think "one" as said before is ONE but "first" as the text makes more since that way.

I'm not sure about that point bro....but hey...love ya anyway.

[OP_Carl]

Reading through this thread, I have been amused at the clear division between the genders in reaction to the concept of polygamy. It is just as the biological imperative predicts:

The biological imperative is the notion that in general, people act in ways that further their chances for reproductive success. Females are inclined to choose males with dominant status and resources. This provides their offspring with the best genetic material of the available group. Secondarily they place emphasis on stability, i.e., the duration of time they might anticipate a given male will bring resources to bear in the upbringing of their young.

Males, to the extent that they have any opportunity to exercise selection among females, merely choose young, slim, and symmetrical, as these are universal signs of fertility and offer the best chance for a given male to have a genetic future.

The average female is concerned with acquiring the best possible genetic material from her mate, and then the greatest potential for resources to raise the young. Polygamy implies that the resources will be shared with another genetic line, the other female(s) and their young.

The biological imperative of the average male is to attempt to impregnate as many young, slim, symmetrical females as will let him. Polygamy offers him multiple chances to further his genetic stock.

The men in this thread discuss polygamy with mild detachment or amusement. Their primordial biological imperative sends them no negative impulses as they consider the topic. They may be culturally biased against it, but have no biological reason to be against it.

The women in this thread shudder and recoil from the thought. It makes them ill. It makes them apalled. It makes them disgusted, even angry. As they intellectually consider the topic, their biological imperative starts to kick in, sending signals from whatever part of us considers how we should go about the basic chore of propagating our genes. And they are repulsed at a very basic, and probably subconscious level, at the thought of needing to share a mate's resources with other reproducing females.

I'm not really sure if this makes any statement about the effectiveness of the Spirit in conquering the flesh, or not. I'm mostly just amused at how easily the reactions are predicted.

[Aquila]

Op Carl...that was facinating. Awesome contribution.

I've always wondered....if my wife were a clone of an original....would it be proper for her, as an Apostolic, to have "hand-me-down" genes?

[Nina]

If Marriage truly makes "one" out of two, Can it make "one" out of three or five or seven?

If polygamy is Scriptural, would a menage a trois be Scriptural if all three are "one?"

[Dr. Vaughn]

If Marriage truly makes "one" out of two, Can it make "one" out of three or five or seven?

If polygamy is Scriptural, would a menage a trois be Scriptural if all three are "one?"

Only if they are in Covenant with one another... their vows or contract binds them as much as the consumation

[HappyTown]

Here just part of what I read on Polygamy

Jesus said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)"

Christians always say as an excuse "Oh this law doesn't exist in the New Testament, it is only the Old Testament." Well, according to Matthew 5:17-18 above, we clearly see that Jesus honored the Old Testament, and forces Christians to follow the unmodified laws of it that have not been replaced by newer ones in the New Testament. The Old Testament as we clearly see above does indeed allow polygamy without a shadow of a doubt !!.

There is not a single verse from the New Testament that prohibits polygamy. Christians usually mistakenly present the following verses from the Bible to prove that polygamy in the New Testament is not allowed:

Matthew 19:1-12 "1. When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to
the other side of the Jordan.
2. Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
3. Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
4. "Haven't you read," he (Jesus) replied, "that at the beginning the Creator `made them male and female,'
5. and said, `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ?
6. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
7. "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8. Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
9. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
10. The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
11. Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.
12. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

In the above verses, we see that Jesus was approached with a question about whether or not it is allowed for a man to divorce his wife in Matthew 19:3. Jesus immediately referred to the Old Testament for the answer in Matthew 19:4. He referred to Adam and Eve, one man and one woman. The Old Testament does talk about the story of Adam and Eve as one husband and one wife. However, the Old Testament which Jesus had referred to in Matthew 19:3 does allow polygamy.

Also, when a man becomes a one flesh with his wife in Matthew 19:5-6, this doesn't mean that the man can't be one flesh with another woman. He can be one flesh with his first wife, and one flesh with his second wife, and one flesh with his third wife and so on.... To further prove this point, let us look at the following from the New Testament:

Matthew 22:23-32 "23. That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question.
24. "Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him.
25. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother.
26. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh.
27. Finally, the woman died.
28. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?"
29. Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
30. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
31. But about the resurrection of the dead--have you not read what God said to you,
32. `I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' ? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

In Matthew 22:24-28, the Jews referred to Deuteronomy 25:5 from the Old Testament where it states that if a woman's husband dies, and she didn't have any kids from him, then she must marry his brother regardless whether he had a wife or not. When the Jews brought this situation up to Jesus in Matthew 22:24-28, Jesus did not prohibit at all for the childless widow to marry her husband's brother (even if he were married). Instead, Jesus replied to them by saying that we do not marry in heaven, and we will be like angels in heaven (Matthew 22:30).

So in other words, if Jesus allowed for a widow to marry her former husband's brother even if he were married, then this negates the Christians' claim about the Bible prohibiting polygamy. A man can be one flesh with more than one woman. In the case of Matthew 22:24-28, the man can be one flesh with his wife, and one flesh with his deceased brother's wife. Also keep in mind that Exodus 21:10 allows a man to marry an infinite amount of women, and Deuteronomy 21:15 allows a man to marry more than one wife.

Please visit: Widows are protected in Islam from their in-laws, but are forced and not protected in the Bible's NT and OT.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ntpoly.htm

[joshua33]

I've studied Christian polygamy for some time. It's definitely not prohibited, although I would say the less wives the better if possible. In some scenarios polygamy is beneficial, and certainly should be practiced instead of divorce, which is horrible and sadly commonplace. It's obvious God created polygamy for a purpose, and I hope more people will educate themselves about it rather than judge. Here is a helpful page that supports Christian polygamy using scripture:

http://www.modernpolygamy.com/polygamy-is-biblical/

[Evang.Benincasa]

In the above verses, we see that Jesus was approached with a question about whether or not it is allowed for a man to divorce his wife in Matthew 19:3. Jesus immediately referred to the Old Testament for the answer in Matthew 19:4. He referred to Adam and Eve, one man and one woman. The Old Testament does talk about the story of Adam and Eve as one husband and one wife. However, the Old Testament which Jesus had referred to in Matthew 19:3 does allow polygamy.

Also, when a man becomes a one flesh with his wife in Matthew 19:5-6, this doesn't mean that the man can't be one flesh with another woman. He can be one flesh with his first wife, and one flesh with his second wife, and one flesh with his third wife and so on....


Funny how the scripture twisters cannot combat the math. The scripture says 1+1=2 becoming one.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Evang.Benincasa]

I've studied Christian polygamy for some time. It's definitely not prohibited, although I would say the less wives the better if possible. In some scenarios polygamy is beneficial, and certainly should be practiced instead of divorce, which is horrible and sadly commonplace. It's obvious God created polygamy for a purpose, and I hope more people will educate themselves about it rather than judge. Here is a helpful page that supports Christian polygamy using scripture:

http://www.modernpolygamy.com/polygamy-is-biblical/

Hey, any of you indivduals even married? :roseglasses

[Apocrypha]

Funny how the scripture twisters cannot combat the math. The scripture says 1+1=2 becoming one.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com


Who has twisted scripture (other than that virgins and oil stuff which i wont touch)?

We are being textual literalists.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Aquila, you are definitly making the point about Romans Laws against Polygamy..... Even while this was the law,, many of the Jews still practiced it.. because THEIR RELIGION allowed for it..... So I am wondering. who is the better example for us to follow? Pagan Rome or Gods original Bride, Yisrael?

Act 25:8

"While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all."

Rom 13:1-2

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."


Tit 3:1-3

"Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men."

1Pe 2:13-16

"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God."

Sorry Dr. Voo, but since Paul was an exceptional Roman citizen he would of never taught good former Gentiles who had converted to Christianity to break Roman Law. Also the former Jews who had converted to Christianity had to respect Roman Law as well and set an example for their Gentile converts. There is absolutely no teaching or allowance in the NT for a man to have plural wives. You also failed to prove why Paul would admonish Elders in the church to set the example of having only ONE wife instead of having multiple wives.

Now, if Paul refused Bishops and Deacons to have plural wives, wouldn't that make his epistles confusing to those who were supposed to follow the examples of these elders?

Your doctrine is shot in the head, and harder to understand than the Trinity.:ursofunny

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Evang.Benincasa]

Who has twisted scripture (other than that virgins and oil stuff which i wont touch)?

We are being textual literalists.

The scripture is wrested when you start adding to it, like saying that One man leaving mother and father and joining to his one wife to become one flesh, is not saying that he can't keep adding to his wife collection.

EW, Adam and Eve sets the example, and God removed ONE rib, not two, three, or four. Adam sets the example of One head on one body, to show us One God in One Israel. What you are trying to present is twisting the scripture like a rag. You young lads are teaching a totally different Jesus and Gospel.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[joshua33]

Hey, any of you indivduals even married? :roseglasses

Yes, I am happily married to one wife and plan to keep it that way. Yet I can't deny what the scriptures plainly say regarding multiple wives.

I think many people assume polygamy means that one man is married to two wives as if one ceremony took place and one marriage is in existence but that is not true. There is no such ceremony, two women cannot be part of the same marriage. There are two marriages in place when a man has two wives, that means two ceremonies had to take place. Each ceremony bonded one man to one woman. That means anyone arguing against polygamy who quotes the bible talking about 'one flesh', or 'one man and one woman' are just preaching to the choir.

Deuteronomy 25:5 requires polygamy when both brothers are married and one of the brothers die. This would contradict genesis if the one flesh bond could not happen more than once. The NT did not change the rules either. Divorce is what is tearing families apart these days, so why pick on the biblically acceptable practice of polygamy? I think because it is not commonplace that it is just foreign and scary to many Christians. Or they associate it with fundamentalist Mormons.

[HappyTown]

Funny how the scripture twisters cannot combat the math. The scripture says 1+1=2 becoming one.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

Adam and Eve were before the fall, so I think things were a lot different. I think Polygamy was a form of welfare. Women were owned, they were property and sold off, widows with kids had no system to rely on to take care of them like we do today, they were handed off to the bother.

In fact Ronald Reagan pass a bill while in office that women were no longer deemed property of the husband (bill on domestic violence) A husband no longer could beat his wife, she was no longer deemed as his property to do with what he wished.

Back to the bible Jesus himself use the word Bride (Jesus is coming back for His bride). Does that mean one Bride, singular ??? Or does the using of Bride in this context mean many within a group, called one Bride but made up of more then one?????

No I don't think Polygamy would be for me, but that does not mean God done away with it, the only time it mention one wife, (A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, ... 1 Timothy 3:2 )

[HappyTown]

Hey, any of you indivduals even married? :roseglasses

Yep, going on 26 years and very happy with just one....:friend

[TK Burk]

Here’s one for all you ‘it’s-not-prohibited-in-the-New-Testament-so-it’s-not-sin’ folk; using the same line of reasoning you’re using for polygamy, please explain how we should view the following Old Testament Laws:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21: The responsibility to stone to death a rebellious child
• Nowhere in the entire Bible is this law ever said to have been obeyed by a child’s parents. I wonder why?

Deuteronomy 13:6-10: The responsibility to stone to death your family or close friend if they say something that might lead you to backslide
• Talk about watching what you say!

Deuteronomy 25:5-9: The responsibility to marry and bare children with a widowed sister-in-law
• This one would definitely make the family reunions more interesting….

Nowhere are these specifically said to be prohibited in the New Testament. Consequently, can (or maybe, should) a person still do them? Are they sinning if they do? What do you say?

[HappyTown]

TK Burk's

I can assure you one menopausal women is enough for me in one house, can't even imaging more then that....Hell has no furries as a hormonal women :club Night all

[Aquila]

Act 25:8

"While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all."

Rom 13:1-2

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."


Tit 3:1-3

"Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men."

1Pe 2:13-16

"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God."

Sorry Dr. Voo, but since Paul was an exceptional Roman citizen he would of never taught good former Gentiles who had converted to Christianity to break Roman Law. Also the former Jews who had converted to Christianity had to respect Roman Law as well and set an example for their Gentile converts. There is absolutely no teaching or allowance in the NT for a man to have plural wives. You also failed to prove why Paul would admonish Elders in the church to set the example of having only ONE wife instead of having multiple wives.

Now, if Paul refused Bishops and Deacons to have plural wives, wouldn't that make his epistles confusing to those who were supposed to follow the examples of these elders?

Your doctrine is shot in the head, and harder to understand than the Trinity.:ursofunny

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

Bro. Benincasa,

I agree with you, Paul was an exceptional citizen and admonished all Christians to be the same. Paul would never have allowed polygamy because it would have been against Roman Law. However, please note....in would have been against "Roman Law". There's nothing condemning it "morally" in the New Testament. Paul was just admonishing bishops and deacons to obey the laws of the land so that they might have a good testimony to them that are without.

As I mentioned before, I find it interesting that a Pagan Empire like Rome legally mandated monogamous marriage (laws which Paul clearly expects the Christians he wrote to to obey) while God's Law to His nation, His people, Israel allowed for it and even mandated it in given circumstances.

My argument is simply this.....Polygamy isn't a sin because if it is....it always was. And if it always was, God is a sinner for allowing it and even commanding it on some occasions. And any Old Testament man of God who had more than one wife and died married to them without repenting and divorcing all but one died a sinner and is currently in Hell.

You can't have something suddenly "become" a sin when God commanded it at times.

Now...does that mean we should have polygamous marriages today. I wouldn't go that far. Like in Rome, America has laws against it. So Christians, as Paul commanded, should obey those laws. But if a global catastrophe took place tomorrow and the human race was decimated and loose clan systems arose...polygamy might be necessary... and it wouldn't be a "sin".

[joshua33]

Here’s one for all you ‘it’s-not-prohibited-in-the-New-Testament-so-it’s-not-sin’ folk; using the same line of reasoning you’re using for polygamy, please explain how we should view the following Old Testament Laws:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21: The responsibility to stone to death a rebellious child
• Nowhere in the entire Bible is this law ever said to have been obeyed by a child’s parents. I wonder why?

Deuteronomy 13:6-10: The responsibility to stone to death your family or close friend if they say something that might lead you to backslide
• Talk about watching what you say!

Deuteronomy 25:5-9: The responsibility to marry and bare children with a widowed sister-in-law
• This one would definitely make the family reunions more interesting….

Nowhere are these specifically said to be prohibited in the New Testament. Consequently, can (or maybe, should) a person still do them? Are they sinning if they do? What do you say?

I don't see any problems here. Those laws were for Israel, and plus we are not bound by the old law.

In Matthew 22, Jesus, being questioned as to which was the greatest commandment, the lawyer said: "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?"

Jesus answered, "You shall love the Lord you God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

Does this suddenly 'prohibit' the old laws? Of course not, we Christians still follow many old testament laws today. If God wanted to change the rules and prohibit polygamy in the NT he would have. Since there is no new command, we definitely should not be imagining one up.

[Aquila]

Funny how the scripture twisters cannot combat the math. The scripture says 1+1=2 becoming one.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com


The scripture is wrested when you start adding to it, like saying that One man leaving mother and father and joining to his one wife to become one flesh, is not saying that he can't keep adding to his wife collection.

EW, Adam and Eve sets the example, and God removed ONE rib, not two, three, or four. Adam sets the example of One head on one body, to show us One God in One Israel. What you are trying to present is twisting the scripture like a rag. You young lads are teaching a totally different Jesus and Gospel.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

Bro. Benincasa....I think you're wresting Scripture. Spiritual principles aren't based on "math". Let's return to Scriptural examples and let me ask you....

Was not Abraham one flesh with both Sarah and Hagar?

Yes or no?

Was not Jacob one flesh with Leah, Rachel, and Bilhah?

Yes or no?

Was not Moses one flesh with both Zipporah and the "Ethiopian woman"?

Yes or no?

Was not David one flesh with Michal, Ahinoam, Abigail, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, Eglah, and Bathsheba?

Yes or no?

Was not Jacob both a polygamist and a type of Christ?

Yes or no?

If Jacob was an Old Testament type of Christ...would Christ be properly typified by an unrepentant man of an egregious sin like this if polygamy is indeed a sin?

Yes or no?

God commanded that the Israelites take all the women as plunder...even though many of these soldiers were already married...

Deuteronomy 20:14
"14But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee."

If polygamy is a sin and not God's will...why did God command it? Is God a sinner?

Yes or no?



....and please don't run away and leave this thread without addressing these questions. I want to know how you answer. Especially since you accuse some brethren of "wresting Scripture".

[TK Burk]

I don't see any problems here. Those laws were for Israel, and plus we are not bound by the old law.

In Matthew 22, Jesus, being questioned as to which was the greatest commandment, the lawyer said: "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?"

Jesus answered, "You shall love the Lord you God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

Does this suddenly 'prohibit' the old laws? Of course not, we Christians still follow many old testament laws today. If God wanted to change the rules and prohibit polygamy in the NT he would have. Since there is no new command, we definitely should not be imagining one up.

WHAT??? So then the three laws I mentioned (Post #491) are okay for today since the NT does NOT specifically speak against them?

[TK Burk]

TK Burk's

I can assure you one menopausal women is enough for me in one house, can't even imaging more then that....Hell has no furries as a hormonal women :club Night all

Please, answer my question (post #491).

[Aquila]

WHAT??? So then the three laws I mentioned (Post #491) are okay for today since the NT does NOT specifically speak against them?

Deuteronomy 21:18-21: The responsibility to stone to death a rebellious child
• Nowhere in the entire Bible is this law ever said to have been obeyed by a child’s parents. I wonder why?

As recently as the old west here in the US an incorrigible child could be beaten brutally by parents. And if death occurred and the child was deemed to be delinquent or a threat to society, charges were often dropped. Even up until the past couple decades "spanking" or "whipping" children made them good citizens. If a parent killed their incorrigible child today it would break the civil law of the United States and they would be prosecuted by the United States...but according to God's Law they didn't "sin". They saved society from having to execute the little devil. Biblically a parent has a greater authority over the life of their seed than the state. When the state took this right of parents....well....we get the society we're dealing with now.

Deuteronomy 13:6-10: The responsibility to stone to death your family or close friend if they say something that might lead you to backslide
• Talk about watching what you say!

Israel was a theocratic nation preparing to embark on a massive military campaign to take the land from heathen nations. To provoke an Israelite to serve any of these heathen gods would be high treason in time of war. Even today we execute those who commit treason and prosecute those spread treasonous philosophical/political propaganda in time of war. Context!


Deuteronomy 25:5-9: The responsibility to marry and bare children with a widowed sister-in-law
• This one would definitely make the family reunions more interesting….

As recently as the old west it was considered ideal for the "uncle" to marry his brother's widow and care for her and sire children or raise his brother's children.

Brother....there's nothing wrong with these Laws....unless you view them through a modernist world view and take them out of their intended context.

Now I invite you to answer the questions presented in post #495. :)

[Aquila]

*crickets*

[Evang.Benincasa]

As recently as the old west here in the US an incorrigible child could be beaten brutally by parents. And if death occurred and the child was deemed to be delinquent or a threat to society, charges were often dropped. Even up until the past couple decades "spanking" or "whipping" children made them good citizens. If a parent killed their incorrigible child today it would break the civil law of the United States and they would be prosecuted by the United States...but according to God's Law they didn't "sin". They saved society from having to execute the little devil. Biblically a parent has a greater authority over the life of their seed than the state. When the state took this right of parents....well....we get the society we're dealing with now.



Israel was a theocratic nation preparing to embark on a massive military campaign to take the land from heathen nations. To provoke an Israelite to serve any of these heathen gods would be high treason in time of war. Even today we execute those who commit treason and prosecute those spread treasonous philosophical/political propaganda in time of war. Context!



As recently as the old west it was considered ideal for the "uncle" to marry his brother's widow and care for her and sire children or raise his brother's children.

Brother....there's nothing wrong with these Laws....unless you view them through a modernist world view and take them out of their intended context.

Now I invite you to answer the questions presented in post #495. :)

The old west? :ursofunny