Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | Beja | 228083 | ||
Biblicalman, Since you have given no scripture to support any of your statements (with the exceptions of the original one in question) there is really nothing further to discuss. You have only restated what you have already said and failed to give any additional biblical support for it. All I can say is that this elaborate scheme is not stated in scripture. The scripture which I have brought forward you have dismissed with statements such as, "Thus what you are describing as marriage is the lesser version which is not real marriage.." How on earth does one respond to such a statment that has no basis in scripture? Between such dismissals of passages I bring forward and you providing no scriptural support for what you are saying, we are left to discuss our own imaginations which is pointless. All I can say in order to end on a positive note is that this is not a fellowship breaking issue and you have my sincere Christian affections. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
2 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | biblicalman | 228087 | ||
Beja, If we are going to count Scriptures quoted you quoted two, I quoted four. So I suggest you read what i said again (u claim i only quoted one). I also cited an Old Testament fact about marriage which is in fact found in Deuteronomy 22.28-29. Possibly i should not have assumed that you would recognise the Scripture. I also explained why u were misinterpreting Deuteronomy 24. I do not think that you can honestly call what I said about that a 'dismissal'. Let others judge. Thus i guess I win 5-2 lol Best wishes |
||||||
3 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | Beja | 228095 | ||
Biblicalman, I was referring to what had been your most recent post rather than the entire thread. Post ID# 228078. However, at your encouragement I did look back over the entire thread to see if I had been unfair and found that you gave nothing in the way of scriptures other than your set of "the two shall become one flesh" passages (Gen 2:24, 1 Cor 6:16, and Mark 10:8), which ofcourse the entire thread is questioning your interpretation of those passages. With regards to your dismissals, what I mean is your responses to my bringing up John 4 and Matthew 19. With regards to John 4 your response was that this was "worldly speaking" and that we can not take them seriously. This inspite of that we take the other things said to this woman by Christ quite seriously indeed. In Matthew 19 you simply said that he was talking about a lesser mode of marriage?? There is no sustaining a serious discussion when every passage that seems to reject what you are saying are so lightly dismissed without real discussion. I do not deny that you have a model with which you are explaining yourself. However, your entire arguement requires that we first before any exegesis to assume that all the things in scripture were said because of your prior framework. For example, you pointed out that they were forced to marry after sex. However, there is nothing whatsoever in that text that leads us to assume that the reason they were to marry is that sex formed a marriage bond. Your exegesis forces us to come to the passage already accpeting your framework in order for us to come to the conclusion you are coming to. However, the passage itself does not lend to that interpretation. Let's see it, and yes, I did recognize the reference. Deu 22:28 "If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, Deu 22:29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days. Now, your assumption is that they must marry because in God's eyes the sex formed the marriage. But the passage actually tells us the "why." It says, "because he has violated her." Now many interpreters see this to point to something quite different. The fact is that she is no longer a virgin, and her opportunity of being married has severly diminished. For this reason the man must fulfill the role of husband to her. And beyond this, if the reason was simply that the sex formed the marriage in God's eyes, then the inability to divorce her later should she be unfaithful has no explination. Now whether you disagree with that interpretation or not (I know you don't) the point is that NOTHING in the passage or exegesis is pushing you to your interpretation over this one except your already pre-attained conclusion before you come to the passage. And this is the only reason to read any of the passages the way you do. These are the types of things I was referring to, not simply a score of who has quoted more scripture. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
4 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | biblicalman | 228111 | ||
Beja Unfortunately you have misunderstood what I said. I did not say it was 'worldly'. My point was that words mean different things in different contexts. For example someone might speak of homosexual marriages. They are using marriage in a modern sense as simply a personal contract between two people. If I were to use the word in that way I would not expect everyone to always assume that i meant that when i used the term marriage in other contexts. It would depend on the context. When Jesus was speaking to the woman about her spiritual condition he was using common parlance so that she would understand what He was talking about. What other words could He have used without getting over-complicated? But that fact cannot be used to declare what He would have said if He was asked to define God's view of marriage, and to say what an authentic husband would be like. If you cannot see that then there is little point in discussing with you. Meanwhile i also find your postings on this issue very short on Scripture, lol. Meanwhile I deny your claim that my thought forms are required before you can understand what 1 Cor 6.16 means. It is quite clear. It is that if you have sex wth someone you are made physically one with them. That is WHAT IT SAYS. It requires no thought form to understand that. And that should then affect your thought forms. Best wishes . |
||||||
5 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | DocTrinsograce | 228114 | ||
Dear biblicalman, You wrote, concerning 1 Corinthians 6:16, "It is quite clear. It is that if you have sex wth someone you are made physically one with them. That is WHAT IT SAYS." (sic) I read through the thread again. Then I tracked back through the various Bible commentators to which I have access. I do not find any that draw your conclusion concerning the passage. John Calvin probably says it as simply as any of them: "For if he [Paul] quotes it [Genesis 2:24] to prove that two persons who commit fornication together become one flesh, he turns it aside from its true meaning to what is quite foreign to it. For Moses speaks there not of a base and prohibited cohabitation of a man and a woman, but of the marriage connection which God blesses. For he shows that that bond is so close and indissoluble, that it surpasses the relationship which subsists between a father and a son, which, assuredly, can have no reference to fornication." Even the commentators for which I have much less affection (e.g., Barnes, Clarke, Wesley, etc.) do not make your kind of causal connection. It looks to me like your advice was sound enough to Superbabiez -- although I might have encouraged them to marry sooner rather than later -- but the use of the 1 Corinthians passage is less than ideal. Still and all... a good discussion. In Him, Doc |
||||||