Married - yet having a boy/girlfriend

[farouk]

...
I figure if Paul thought it was literal, not metaphorical, so should I.

 

[Claudya]

Jethro: You and I should stick together...

I'm here for you bro.

 

[Claudya]

If you don't mind me going down a rabbit trail...her husband is a picture of Christ...an innocent, righteous man dying for the misdeeds of a sinner. The baby that dies is also a picture of Christ. The baby absorbed the death that DAVID SHOULD HAVE DIED, BUT DIDN'T.

Only that Christ knew why He had to die and consented to it, much unlike Bathseba's unlucky husband and her unlucky baby.

 

[Mike S]

Where do you draw the line in Job, to say this bit is true, this bit isn't?

Well, that's a challenge for us. The Bible contains a lot of different types of writngs; prayer, praise, history, metaphor, apocolyptic writing, etc. It's always going to be a challenge as we try to understand the writings in the context of the times, and the audience for which they were written. Those audiences had not trouble al all understanding the meaning, but we sometimes do.

I think about it in this way. Today, we completely understand sarcasm as a form of literature. It contains truth, but the truth isn't in the literal meaning of the words, it's behind the words. Imagine that 3000 years from today, sarcasm no longer exists as a form of literature, and someone finds writings from the 20th century filled with sarcasm, and tries to understand what is actually meant by them. He might try to see them as being literally true and get a message 180 degrees from what was actually being said. I have no doubt that the Bibilcal writers 3000 years ago where using story-telling and the reporting of history in ways just as puzzling to us today. Their audience understood easily and completely while we struggle to understand.

 

[Classik]

Im a little overwhelmed (confused).

Now to Claudya. I think David Married all those women. Did he have a girlfriend whom he didnt marry? I think this is the question. Wives (legally married) vs girlfriends. Was he in an open relationship with the girlfriendfs?

He wasnt a flirt. Samson?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

We're not going to gang up on you, lol.

Well, we might, lol.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Im a little overwhelmed (confused).

Now to Claudya. I think David Married all those women. Did he have a girlfriend whom he didnt marry? I think this is the question. Wives (legally married) vs girlfriends. Was he in an open relationship with the girlfriendfs?

He wasnt a flirt. Samson?

I don't think having a girl friend was the thing back then. You either had a one night stand with 'em, married 'em, or took 'em as a concubine ('concubine'...doesn't that sound romantic?).

Regular sex meant more along the lines of marriage, I think.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Only that Christ knew why He had to die and consented to it, much unlike Bathseba's unlucky husband and her unlucky baby.

Well, sure. They were only illustrations. If they were too righteous, they'd be our Messiah.

 

[Obadiah]

In OT times girls were property that were raised and sold for a profit. Their value was in their virginity. When a man bought a girl she then became his property. Like it or not, that's the way it was and that was OT marriage. In fact, if you think about it that way, adultery in the OT was sort of a type of theft! At any rate, my point is that men wouldn't really have a sexual relationship with what we think of as a girlfriend because no father (owner) would allow it. If you wanted to have sex with her, you paid for her and married her. So when we see OT polygamy it probably is the closest parallel to the hypothetical girlfriend question you asked.

Now as for my original statement here, gee, I didn't intend to have such a reaction. I feel like such a troll. Somebody slap me! :-D
Don't get me wrong, I didn't mean to suggest that because men in the OT could have several wives and concubines that this means it's ok for today. In most modern wedding ceremonies, especially Christian wedding ceremonies, there is a vow of monogamy made as part of that ceremony and for a Christian that vow is made before God as well. Breaking that vow is a sin! If someone wants to have an open marriage, they shouldn't take that vow!

 

[jasoncran]

I'm guessing family, children in particular, were viewed to be more a possession or a property of the patriarch rather than humans with their own humanity (until they were old enough to become patriarchs themselves). Children and property were considered blessings from God that He would give to those that would follow His commands and live a godly live. So it was God's right to take away the blessings He gave.
Anway, it's really hard to understand. As for Job I've always felt the story is a metaphorical religious fiction instead of a real historical story; it was written as something like a treatise about how to deal with suffering.
But fiction or not, those stories about innocents being punished for someone else's misdeeds or killed to make a point shows a lot about the old Hebrews' view on people and on God. But for Bible literalists those stories must cause some moral pain.

yet YOU accept the blood of the cross. jesus was innocent was he not?if there is no consequences of sin there is no repentance nor freewill.what did jesus do to be punished for that. what is the difference of job, the stories of the patriarch and the suffering of jesus on the cross? the suffering of the innocent is in it all. jesus is the payment so that the guilty can be forgiven and the sin issue is dealt with. the world is evil, the fact the YHWH even uses men to show others that he is real is itself a miracle.

 

[jasoncran]

one must keep in mind that god came to the patriarchs in the time they were in and had to work with them and had to decide what he could change and overlook. the idea of the torah transforming the world and removing these evils is the premise of how jews look at this and the Christians via the blood( the torah being empowered by that . by the time of roman occupation of the Hebrew land. the Hebrews didn't own slaves in general, nor were they hedonists.sure there was exeptions but in general no. which is better to end this stuff by gun to use the power of the cross?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

In OT times girls were property that were raised and sold for a profit. Their value was in their virginity. When a man bought a girl she then became his property. Like it or not, that's the way it was and that was OT marriage. In fact, if you think about it that way, adultery in the OT was sort of a type of theft! At any rate, my point is that men wouldn't really have a sexual relationship with what we think of as a girlfriend because no father (owner) would allow it. If you wanted to have sex with her, you paid for her and married her.

An illustration for us to understand Christ and the church.

Do you see it?

Would make a good sermon, wouldn't it? ;)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...gee, I didn't intend to have such a reaction. I feel like such a troll. Somebody slap me! :-D

Slap you? How 'bout a slap on the back for blessing us with your mini sermon about Christ, the Father, and the bride to be.

We need more 'trolling' like that in this forum.

 

[farouk]

Slap you? How 'bout a slap on the back for blessing us with your mini sermon about Christ, the Father, and the bride to be.

We need more 'trolling' like that in this forum.

It's good to keep Christ-centered.

Blessings.

 

[cyberjosh]

Polygamy and its variations are not porprayed positively in the Old Testament, to say the least. Lots of examples could be given.

I agree. I was just having this conversation with some friends over dinner tonight when discussing that the patriarchs and others in the OT had multiple wives. I mentioned that polygamy was like divorce in God's eyes: wrong but permitted because of the hardness of their heart.

The times of ignorance are over now though: "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent" (Acts 17:30).

 

[farouk]

I agree. I was just having this conversation with some friends over dinner tonight when discussing that the patriarchs and others in the OT had multiple wives. I mentioned that polygamy was like divorce in God's eyes: wrong but permitted because of the hardness of their heart.

If you can go through life and stick to this viewpoint, you'll do well!

Mind you, a lot of evangelicals who find it convenient to practise something else will disagree with you, but it's good to have the courage of your convictions.

Blessings.

 

[Mike S]

In OT times girls were property that were raised and sold for a profit. Their value was in their virginity. When a man bought a girl she then became his property. Like it or not, that's the way it was and that was OT marriage. In fact, if you think about it that way, adultery in the OT was sort of a type of theft! At any rate, my point is that men wouldn't really have a sexual relationship with what we think of as a girlfriend because no father (owner) would allow it. If you wanted to have sex with her, you paid for her and married her. So when we see OT polygamy it probably is the closest parallel to the hypothetical girlfriend question you asked.

Now as for my original statement here, gee, I didn't intend to have such a reaction. I feel like such a troll. Somebody slap me! :-D
Don't get me wrong, I didn't mean to suggest that because men in the OT could have several wives and concubines that this means it's ok for today. In most modern wedding ceremonies, especially Christian wedding ceremonies, there is a vow of monogamy made as part of that ceremony and for a Christian that vow is made before God as well. Breaking that vow is a sin! If someone wants to have an open marriage, they shouldn't take that vow!

I don't think you should feel like a troll at all. Your comments are welcome, and I think you point that "girls were property" is well taken.

If this thread proves anything, it proves once again that there's room within our Christianity for differences of interpretation. It's always been thus, and certainly still is today.



A Literal Reading of Scripture - http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/10/17/a-literal-reading-of-scripture-rjs/

 

[Classik]

Now I'm more overwhelmed and terrified.

 

[Claudya]

Now I'm more overwhelmed and terrified.

Yeah this thread got off topic rather quick. I think I, too, lost track of everyone's statements. But you shouldn't be terrified, you should be happy your thread stirred such a good discussion discussion about so many things.

 

[Claudya]

yet YOU accept the blood of the cross. jesus was innocent was he not?if there is no consequences of sin there is no repentance nor freewill.what did jesus do to be punished for that. what is the difference of job, the stories of the patriarch and the suffering of jesus on the cross? the suffering of the innocent is in it all. jesus is the payment so that the guilty can be forgiven and the sin issue is dealt with. the world is evil, the fact the YHWH even uses men to show others that he is real is itself a miracle.

Like I said in another posting, Jesus was consenting to his death. He knew what was ahead of Him, and his self-sacrifice was a big part of why God chose to incarnate Himself into human flesh in the first place. So Jesus may have been an innocent victim of the punishment we'd deserve to receive. But He's entirely different from Job's children or David and Bathseba's newborn baby. Because Jesus Himself chose to take our punishment for us. Those innocents of the OT stories didn't.
It makes a huge difference. Would we be okay with, for example, a newborn, clueless and unconsenting baby had died for our sins? I know I wouldn't. The mere idea would be disgusting. Without Jesus' consent to His sacrificial death, motivated by His love for us and His intrinsic desire to offer salvation to us the christian idea of salvation would be rather immoral and dark.