Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
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 | 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 . |
||||||
2 | 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 |
||||||