Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
No one is arguing that Paul didn't set monogamy as the ideal union.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
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.
Hybrid Mode
