Grailhunter's Classroom

[Tenchi]

I will be addressing false beliefs first because in some ways they are more influential than the scriptures in that a person with a mind full of false beliefs cannot even read the scriptures and understand them because of the preconceived notions that are running around in their heads that act as overriding redirects back to the false beliefs. So I have to deal with false beliefs first before I can expect anyone to learn the truths of Christianity.

Well, every person who comes to faith in Christ comes from a circumstance filled with false beliefs and lies. This is why trusting in Christ must be prefaced with repentance - a changing of one's mind concerning themselves, God and their relationship to Him. Though every sinner who comes to repentance and a saving faith in Christ does so as one who is "dead in trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1-3), "foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another" (Titus 3:3), and "alienated from God in their minds by wicked works" (Colossians 1:21), God still manages to save them. And He has done this many, many times, not by clarifying what beliefs are false, but by proclaiming what beliefs are true. Maybe, then, instead of correcting false beliefs you might do better to just carefully explain the truth. Especially if it's God's truth your sharing, and you're doing so prayerfully and under God's control, you won't often have to pick apart false beliefs. The Truth has a way of dismantling falsehoods, exposing them, merely by being proclaimed.

Most false beliefs are easy targets to identify because they are words and phrases that are not in the scriptures.

??? There are a great many terms and beliefs that are true but not found in the Bible. Every scientific field has its own specialized terms and theories and evidences, most of which are entirely absent from the Bible. Many facts of history, true, real events and people, are never mentioned in Scripture, either. I'm not, then, on board with how you're proposing to identify a "false belief."

My responsibility is to provide the truth so Christians at least have the opportunity to be shown the truth….that ends my responsibility.

Responsibility for what, exactly?

The seeds do what they do and the acceptance of these truths are between the person(s) and God.

You have other, much greater responsibilities to the Body of Believers than to cast out the "seeds of truth" to them. You are, for one, called to love them self-sacrificially, as Christ has loved you (1 John 4:7-11), walking with them in times of trouble and tragedy, comforting the sorrowful and sick (2 Corinthians 1:3-4), supplying materially, as you're able, for the needs of fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord (1 John 3:16-17), and so on.

The New Testament was written mostly in Greek, a Pagan Language.

"Pagan" is not a feature of language. The speakers of a system of language may be pagan but the structure of their speech is not.

When the Apostles were writing the New Testament they were tasked with using a Pagan language that did not reflect Christian morals.

This is nonsense. Study linguistics. I did, in university, and can tell you, therefore, that what you've written here is both ignorant and silly. There can be pagan ideas that Greeks held that they expressed to each other through their own language system; and the Greeks themselves could be called pagan, as well, but the verbs, nouns, adjectives, prepositions, adverbs, punctuation, spelling, alphabet, and so on that constitute a language are mechanical things, the tools, or building blocks, of language. They are like the bolts, springs, panels, pistons, tires, wires and so on that make up a car. A pagan might drive a car to meetings where the pagan discusses pagan ideas and engages in pagan practices, but this doesn't make his car pagan. Obviously. The car is just a tool, a mechanical device and as such incapable of being "pagan." Likewise, language, a particular system of speech, of communication, is a tool and as such cannot be "pagan," it can only be used to express pagan ideas.

So the Christians adjusted the Greek words and definitions to convey their thoughts.

Any translation of any written or spoken thing into a different language entails this.

If you noticed there was no wedding ceremony or vows in Eden.

Yes, there was, though it was very short: God gave Eve to Adam as his wife. This is what made them husband and wife.

That is right the Bible does not state a requirement for a wedding ceremony to be married in the Old or New Testament.

But you can find instances in Scripture where a woman is given to a man as his wife. Isaac's wife, Rebekah, was given to him in this manner. She wasn't given to Isaac as a servant, or a prostitute, or even as a concubine, but as one intended as a wife to Isaac. And his accepting her as such was sufficient to make them husband and wife so that, when Isaac's new wife arrived, shortly after their meeting, they went into a tent and had sexual relations - no wedding ceremony required. Rebekah being given to Isaac as his wife follows exactly the way in which Adam and Eve were united to each other as man and wife.

People formed marriages as God described… For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. Genesis 2:24 Neither the Old or New Testament state a requirement for wedding ceremonies.

And yet, Jesus made much of the wedding ceremony in Jewish culture, using it as an important and repeated analogy in his parables, even performing his first miracle at a wedding in Cana. There is the "Marriage Supper of the Lamb," too, indicating more to the union of man and woman as husband and wife than mere sexual relations.

People formed marriages as God described… For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. Genesis 2:24

This isn't how God formed the first marriage but was the result of his uniting Eve to Adam as wife to husband. Because God had given Eve to Adam as his wife, they cleaved to each other, becoming "one flesh." So, too, all others who would be married. As God demonstrated in Eden, the woman must be given to the man as his wife and accepted by him as such and THEN sexual relations are appropriate - all this being done, of course, under God before whom the union is made and to whom both parties in the marriage will answer for their fulfillment of their many covenant obligations to their spouse.

Malachi 2:14
14 Yet you say, Wherefore? Because the LORD has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously: yet is she your companion, and the wife of your covenant.

Matthew 16:27
27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Christianity has lumped a lot of Greek words for sinful sexual activities into the word Fornication as seen in some definitions of the word below, but again the word does not appear in any scripture.
Some examples:
noun
πορνεία
prostitution, whoring, harlotry, whoredom,

συνουσία
fornication, coition, intercourse, copulation

From the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance
illicit sexual intercourse adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. Sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11-12 The worship of idols of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols etc

But Fornication is not a translational error it is man-made word that made its way into the 16th and 17th century translations of the Bible, but still this word did not originate in these Bibles. When the Greek text was translated into the Latin Vulgate, (circa 404 AD) the word pornia and its variants were translated to the Latin word fornicatio. Then translated into the English word fornication and was used in the original Tyndale, Geneva, and King James Version of the Bible.

Nothing in all of this (or in anything that went before it) explains why "fornication" is a problem. You seem to just think it is.

I'm not particularly inclined to read through more of what you've written, I'm afraid. So far, your ideas are fraught with error and poor reasoning.

 

[Grailhunter]

Maybe, then, instead of correcting false beliefs you might do better to just carefully explain the truth.

Well first off, correcting false beliefs is explaining the truth.
Secondly if the black board is full of garbage and you have complicated things to teach....erasing the black board is the first step.

??? There are a great many terms and beliefs that are true but not found in the Bible. Every scientific field has its own specialized terms and theories and evidences, most of which are entirely absent from the Bible. Many facts of history, true, real events and people, are never mentioned in Scripture, either. I'm not, then, on board with how you're proposing to identify a "false belief."

LOL Ya the difference is that in science they are looking to find a accurate way of expressing something.
In Christianity non-biblical terms are usually promulgated to sneak in a lie.

Responsibility for what, exactly?

Just as you quoted.....and I said,,,,My responsibility is to provide the truth so Christians at least have the opportunity to be shown the truth

You have other, much greater responsibilities to the Body of Believers than to cast out the "seeds of truth" to them. You are, for one, called to love them self-sacrificially, as Christ has loved you (1 John 4:7-11), walking with them in times of trouble and tragedy, comforting the sorrowful and sick (2 Corinthians 1:3-4), supplying materially, as you're able, for the needs of fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord (1 John 3:16-17), and so on.

I am not talking about how I apply Christianity to my life.
I am talking about my ministry.

 

[Grailhunter]

"Pagan" is not a feature of language. The speakers of a system of language may be pagan but the structure of their speech is not.

I am not going comment on this statement because it would sound rude....believe what you want.

This is nonsense. Study linguistics. I did, in university, and can tell you, therefore, that what you've written here is both ignorant and silly. There can be pagan ideas that Greeks held that they expressed to each other through their own language system; and the Greeks themselves could be called pagan, as well, but the verbs, nouns, adjectives, prepositions, adverbs, punctuation, spelling, alphabet, and so on that constitute a language are mechanical things, the tools, or building blocks, of language. They are like the bolts, springs, panels, pistons, tires, wires and so on that make up a car. A pagan might drive a car to meetings where the pagan discusses pagan ideas and engages in pagan practices, but this doesn't make his car pagan. Obviously. The car is just a tool, a mechanical device and as such incapable of being "pagan." Likewise, language, a particular system of speech, of communication, is a tool and as such cannot be "pagan," it can only be used to express pagan ideas.

I will say it back to you....what you are saying is nonsense.

Any translation of any written or spoken thing into a different language entails this.

Wrong again. Usually translations are bringing words over to another language with the original meaning.

Yes, there was, though it was very short: God gave Eve to Adam as his wife. This is what made them husband and wife.

Wrong again. What happened in Eden would set the normal process of forming a marriage.
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
No vows and no ceremony just a God ordained process.

But you can find instances in Scripture where a woman is given to a man as his wife. Isaac's wife, Rebekah, was given to him in this manner. She wasn't given to Isaac as a servant, or a prostitute, or even as a concubine, but as one intended as a wife to Isaac. And his accepting her as such was sufficient to make them husband and wife so that, when Isaac's new wife arrived, shortly after their meeting, they went into a tent and had sexual relations - no wedding ceremony required. Rebekah being given to Isaac as his wife follows exactly the way in which Adam and Eve were united to each other as man and wife.

No wedding ceremony required is what I am saying. The joining formed the marriage.

And yet, Jesus made much of the wedding ceremony in Jewish culture, using it as an important and repeated analogy in his parables, even performing his first miracle at a wedding in Cana. There is the "Marriage Supper of the Lamb," too, indicating more to the union of man and woman as husband and wife than mere sexual relations.

Explain how Yeshua made a wedding ceremony for the Jews. Details please.
The event at Cana is called a marriage in the actual scriptures.
The miracle was performed during the "reception".
The forming of a marriage was more than mere sexual relations....that is right….sometimes.....the actual process described in the Old Testament is mostly a transfer of property. The father owned the daughter and received payment for her and he was expected to deliver a virgin daughter. If her new husband found that she was not a virgin....according to the Mosaic Law he could kill her and leave her body on the father's doorstep.

Well, every person who comes to faith in Christ comes from a circumstance filled with false beliefs and lies. This is why trusting in Christ must be prefaced with repentance - a changing of one's mind concerning themselves, God and their relationship to Him. Though every sinner who comes to repentance and a saving faith in Christ does so as one who is "dead in trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1-3), "foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another" (Titus 3:3), and "alienated from God in their minds by wicked works" (Colossians 1:21), God still manages to save them. And He has done this many, many times, not by clarifying what beliefs are false, but by proclaiming what beliefs are true. Maybe, then, instead of correcting false beliefs you might do better to just carefully explain the truth. Especially if it's God's truth your sharing, and you're doing so prayerfully and under God's control, you won't often have to pick apart false beliefs. The Truth has a way of dismantling falsehoods, exposing them, merely by being proclaimed.



??? There are a great many terms and beliefs that are true but not found in the Bible. Every scientific field has its own specialized terms and theories and evidences, most of which are entirely absent from the Bible. Many facts of history, true, real events and people, are never mentioned in Scripture, either. I'm not, then, on board with how you're proposing to identify a "false belief."



Responsibility for what, exactly?



You have other, much greater responsibilities to the Body of Believers than to cast out the "seeds of truth" to them. You are, for one, called to love them self-sacrificially, as Christ has loved you (1 John 4:7-11), walking with them in times of trouble and tragedy, comforting the sorrowful and sick (2 Corinthians 1:3-4), supplying materially, as you're able, for the needs of fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord (1 John 3:16-17), and so on.




"Pagan" is not a feature of language. The speakers of a system of language may be pagan but the structure of their speech is not.



This is nonsense. Study linguistics. I did, in university, and can tell you, therefore, that what you've written here is both ignorant and silly. There can be pagan ideas that Greeks held that they expressed to each other through their own language system; and the Greeks themselves could be called pagan, as well, but the verbs, nouns, adjectives, prepositions, adverbs, punctuation, spelling, alphabet, and so on that constitute a language are mechanical things, the tools, or building blocks, of language. They are like the bolts, springs, panels, pistons, tires, wires and so on that make up a car. A pagan might drive a car to meetings where the pagan discusses pagan ideas and engages in pagan practices, but this doesn't make his car pagan. Obviously. The car is just a tool, a mechanical device and as such incapable of being "pagan." Likewise, language, a particular system of speech, of communication, is a tool and as such cannot be "pagan," it can only be used to express pagan ideas.



Any translation of any written or spoken thing into a different language entails this.



Yes, there was, though it was very short: God gave Eve to Adam as his wife. This is what made them husband and wife.



But you can find instances in Scripture where a woman is given to a man as his wife. Isaac's wife, Rebekah, was given to him in this manner. She wasn't given to Isaac as a servant, or a prostitute, or even as a concubine, but as one intended as a wife to Isaac. And his accepting her as such was sufficient to make them husband and wife so that, when Isaac's new wife arrived, shortly after their meeting, they went into a tent and had sexual relations - no wedding ceremony required. Rebekah being given to Isaac as his wife follows exactly the way in which Adam and Eve were united to each other as man and wife.



And yet, Jesus made much of the wedding ceremony in Jewish culture, using it as an important and repeated analogy in his parables, even performing his first miracle at a wedding in Cana. There is the "Marriage Supper of the Lamb," too, indicating more to the union of man and woman as husband and wife than mere sexual relations.



This isn't how God formed the first marriage but was the result of his uniting Eve to Adam as wife to husband. Because God had given Eve to Adam as his wife, they cleaved to each other, becoming "one flesh." So, too, all others who would be married. As God demonstrated in Eden, the woman must be given to the man as his wife and accepted by him as such and THEN sexual relations are appropriate - all this being done, of course, under God before whom the union is made and to whom both parties in the marriage will answer for their fulfillment of their many covenant obligations to their spouse.

Malachi 2:14
14 Yet you say, Wherefore? Because the LORD has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously: yet is she your companion, and the wife of your covenant.

Matthew 16:27
27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.



Nothing in all of this (or in anything that went before it) explains why "fornication" is a problem. You seem to just think it is.

I'm not particularly inclined to read through more of what you've written, I'm afraid. So far, your ideas are fraught with error and poor reasoning.

Then don't read it. No one is going to twist your arm.

 

[Consecrated Life]

Dear Teacher,

With no public commitment to God and His Blessing in the union of husband & wife being the accepted standard
for the beginning of the two becoming one flesh, on what basis were the authorities seeking to kill Jesus able to attack His credibility by accusing Him of being born of fornication ?


Jhn 8:41
Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

 

[Grailhunter]

Dear Teacher,

With no public commitment to God and His Blessing in the union of husband & wife being the accepted standard
for the beginning of the two becoming one flesh, on what basis were the authorities seeking to kill Jesus able to attack His credibility by accusing Him of being born of fornication ?


Jhn 8:41
Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

Not sure what you are trying to get at here.
But I have already covered the issues with the word fornication.
If you have a Bible with the word fornication in it.....get a better Bible because at the time of the biblical era the word fornication had not been made up by men yet. Either way its meaning does not apply to the scriptures.

John 8:41 You are doing the deeds of your father.” They said to Him, “We were not born as a result of sexual immorality; we have one Father: God.

 

[Consecrated Life]

Not sure what you are trying to get at here.
But I have already covered the issues with the word fornication.
If you have a Bible with the word fornication in it.....get a better Bible because at the time of the biblical era the word fornication had not been made up by men yet. Either way its meaning does not apply to the scriptures.

John 8:41 You are doing the deeds of your father.” They said to Him, “We were not born as a result of sexual immorality; we have one Father: God.

Insert whatever term like for illicit sex act.
Then won't you answer the question please teacher?
Before the bell rings & class lets out again.
On what basis were the religious authorities accusing Jesus of being conceived of an illicit sex act ?

Jhn 8:41
Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

 

[Grailhunter]

On what basis were the religious authorities accusing Jesus of being conceived of an illicit sex act ?

Well the answer would not be biblical. We do not know exactly what they were referring to.....so we are assuming. Supposedly....I say supposedly some knew that Miriam was pregnant before she was married to Joseph. There were a lot of rumors going around about Christians at that time.

 

[Consecrated Life]

Well the answer would not be biblical. We do not know exactly what they were referring to.....so we are assuming. Supposedly....I say supposedly some knew that Miriam was pregnant before she was married to Joseph. There were a lot of rumors going around about Christians at that time.

How could that be common knowledge considering what you have stated constituted a marriage in that day ?

 

[Tenchi]

Well first off, correcting false beliefs is explaining the truth.

Not necessarily. I can tell someone 2+2 doesn't equal ten without indicating to them what it does equal. I can tell Bob he should have taken hiking trail 1 instead of trail 2 without telling him why. And so on. Anyway, my point was that, very often, simply communicating what is true is sufficient to counter what is false.

Secondly if the black board is full of garbage and you have complicated things to teach....erasing the black board is the first step.

Oh? What blackboard is full of garbage, exactly? Perhaps what's on the blackboard is very important and ought not to be erased. On what grounds do you assume the right to erase what's on it? Who erases your blackboard?

LOL Ya the difference is that in science they are looking to find a accurate way of expressing something.
In Christianity non-biblical terms are usually promulgated to sneak in a lie.

This is a deflection from my point.

I am not going comment on this statement because it would sound rude....believe what you want.

It might also sound ignorant since you seem to know nothing about the mechanics of language.

I will say it back to you....what you are saying is nonsense.

Well, of course you would say this. False teachers always do. Care to actually explain how a mechanical system of communication - language - can be pagan? I'm almost certain you'll conflate the ideas expressed through a language with the character of the language itself. But just like my phone isn't Christian because I use it and say Christian things through it, language doesn't become pagan because pagan things are said through it. This seems very obvious to me...

Wrong again. Usually translations are bringing words over to another language with the original meaning.

??? As far as I'm aware, "fornication" encompasses any and all sexual conduct outside of the bonds of monogamous, heterosexual marriage. It's a sort of "catch-all" term used in place of more descriptive ones for this illicit sexuality. Inasmuch as this is so, "fornication" is no more inappropriate a term in its use in the Bible than "crime" is an inappropriate term to use in reference to murder, or rape, or theft, or whatever other crime you might want to name in, say, a newspaper.

Wrong again. What happened in Eden would set the normal process of forming a marriage.
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
No vows and no ceremony just a God ordained process.

Again, you've just deflected here from what I pointed out from the Genesis account:

Genesis 2:21-25 (ESV)
21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.
22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

Why did God do this? In making Eve, was He making for Adam a prostitute, or concubine, or "friend with benefits"? No, God made Eve specifically as a WIFE for Adam; she was given to Adam as such, not as a woman he would make his wife by sexual relations with her.

23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

In consequence of Eve given to Adam as his wife, the two of them would "become one flesh" for life, before God a married couple in a covenant relationship that would entail sex but was not formed upon it.

No wedding ceremony required is what I am saying. The joining formed the marriage.

No, as both the instance with Adam and Eve and the instance with Isaac demonstrate, what made the woman wife to her husband was the giving of her to her husband as his wife. Sex was the proper consequence of this, not the means of their being married.

It is a crazy thing to assert that sexual relations establish a marriage between a man and a woman. Just imagine an already married man having sex with a prostitute. Has the man married the prostitute? Who's the prostitute married to? If the first guy she had sex with is her husband but he'd had sex with someone else before her, who is married to whom? And what if the first guy the prostitute had had sex with had had sex with a girl who'd had sex with someone else before him? In short order, if sex is the basis for who is married to whom, billions of people are hopelessly mired in an utterly tangled mess of adultery, none of them able to say to whom they are actually married. Sally had sex with Harry, but Harry had had sex with Mary first, but Mary had had sex with Joe first who'd had sex with Tammy before Mary and on, and on. Do you really think God would not have foreseen this state-of-affairs and arranged things so as to avoid it? I do. And the way He has done so, is to make marriage contingent upon a woman being given to a man as his wife, not upon a moment of sexual passion between teenagers, or hot and bothered, adulterous co-workers, or slutty folk in a nightclub. Again, this seems very obvious to me...

Explain how Yeshua made a wedding ceremony for the Jews. Details please.

Why does God have to make the wedding ceremony (whatever that means) in order to approve of and support of it? Do you think God is opposed to child adoption? Is it an illegitimate thing for a childless couple to adopt an orphan as their own? God hasn't made an adoption process; He doesn't even suggest adoption as a practice for human beings in His word, so far as I'm aware. Ought we to think He is against adoption, then? Maybe we ought to assume, since God hasn't made a specific, for-all-time adoption process, that childless couples can just grab orphaned children off the street and make them their children. I doubt you'd agree but this is the sort of logic you appear to be using in regards to wedding ceremonies.

Anyway, I've glanced through other posts you've made in this thread and find them rife with similar...issues. Beware readers!

 

[Grailhunter]

How could that be common knowledge considering what you have stated constituted a marriage in that day ?

That is the point we do not know the specifics. So a definite answer cannot be made.

 

[Grailhunter]

Not necessarily. I can tell someone 2+2 doesn't equal ten without indicating to them what it does equal. I can tell Bob he should have taken hiking trail 1 instead of trail 2 without telling him why. And so on. Anyway, my point was that, very often, simply communicating what is true is sufficient to counter what is false.



Oh? What blackboard is full of garbage, exactly? Perhaps what's on the blackboard is very important and ought not to be erased. On what grounds do you assume the right to erase what's on it? Who erases your blackboard?



This is a deflection from my point.



It might also sound ignorant since you seem to know nothing about the mechanics of language.



Well, of course you would say this. False teachers always do. Care to actually explain how a mechanical system of communication - language - can be pagan? I'm almost certain you'll conflate the ideas expressed through a language with the character of the language itself. But just like my phone isn't Christian because I use it and say Christian things through it, language doesn't become pagan because pagan things are said through it. This seems very obvious to me...



??? As far as I'm aware, "fornication" encompasses any and all sexual conduct outside of the bonds of monogamous, heterosexual marriage. It's a sort of "catch-all" term used in place of more descriptive ones for this illicit sexuality. Inasmuch as this is so, "fornication" is no more inappropriate a term in its use in the Bible than "crime" is an inappropriate term to use in reference to murder, or rape, or theft, or whatever other crime you might want to name in, say, a newspaper.



Again, you've just deflected here from what I pointed out from the Genesis account:

Genesis 2:21-25 (ESV)
21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.
22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

Why did God do this? In making Eve, was He making for Adam a prostitute, or concubine, or "friend with benefits"? No, God made Eve specifically as a WIFE for Adam; she was given to Adam as such, not as a woman he would make his wife by sexual relations with her.

23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

In consequence of Eve given to Adam as his wife, the two of them would "become one flesh" for life, before God a married couple in a covenant relationship that would entail sex but was not formed upon it.



No, as both the instance with Adam and Eve and the instance with Isaac demonstrate, what made the woman wife to her husband was the giving of her to her husband as his wife. Sex was the proper consequence of this, not the means of their being married.

It is a crazy thing to assert that sexual relations establish a marriage between a man and a woman. Just imagine an already married man having sex with a prostitute. Has the man married the prostitute? Who's the prostitute married to? If the first guy she had sex with is her husband but he'd had sex with someone else before her, who is married to whom? And what if the first guy the prostitute had had sex with had had sex with a girl who'd had sex with someone else before him? In short order, if sex is the basis for who is married to whom, billions of people are hopelessly mired in an utterly tangled mess of adultery, none of them able to say to whom they are actually married. Sally had sex with Harry, but Harry had had sex with Mary first, but Mary had had sex with Joe first who'd had sex with Tammy before Mary and on, and on. Do you really think God would not have foreseen this state-of-affairs and arranged things so as to avoid it? I do. And the way He has done so, is to make marriage contingent upon a woman being given to a man as his wife, not upon a moment of sexual passion between teenagers, or hot and bothered, adulterous co-workers, or slutty folk in a nightclub. Again, this seems very obvious to me...



Why does God have to make the wedding ceremony (whatever that means) in order to approve of and support of it? Do you think God is opposed to child adoption? Is it an illegitimate thing for a childless couple to adopt an orphan as their own? God hasn't made an adoption process; He doesn't even suggest adoption as a practice for human beings in His word, so far as I'm aware. Ought we to think He is against adoption, then? Maybe we ought to assume, since God hasn't made a specific, for-all-time adoption process, that childless couples can just grab orphaned children off the street and make them their children. I doubt you'd agree but this is the sort of logic you appear to be using in regards to wedding ceremonies.

Anyway, I've glanced through other posts you've made in this thread and find them rife with similar...issues. Beware readers!

Ok, lets cut to the chase.
You do not like the truth. Duly noted. And I do not care.
You are not trying to prove me wrong just being slanderish.
So if you want to discuss this clean up your act and we can discuss this.
If you post a bunch of junk it is just going to make a mess of the response.
Over all I have explained it all in detail so I am going to refer things like you have posted here back to the original posts.

 

[Tenchi]

Ad hominem: the last refuge of a failed argument.

 

[Grailhunter]

Ad hominem: the last refuge of a failed argument.

Pick a topic

 

[Consecrated Life]

That is the point we do not know the specifics. So a definite answer cannot be made.

Given what the scripture tells us we can certainly narrow down the answer can't we teacher ?
Consider that we know there was no other man she could have been caught with, and that they were already together when she became with child, that certainly limits the possibilities for accusation of illicit sex does it not , Teacher ?

Jhn 8:41
Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

 

[Grailhunter]

Given what the scripture tells us we can certainly narrow down the answer can't we teacher ?
Consider that we know there was no other man she could have been caught with, and that they were already together when she became with child, that certainly limits the possibilities for accusation of illicit sex does it not , Teacher ?

Jhn 8:41
Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

One of the biggest mistake in the history of Christianity is coming to conclusions on information that is not conclusive.
We don't know what they knew or what they thought they knew.
We can come up with our own story but that does not mean it is right.
And what do you mean by "already together"?

 

[Consecrated Life]

One of the biggest mistake in the history of Christianity is coming to conclusions on information that is not conclusive.
We don't know what they knew or what they thought they knew.
We can come up with our own story but that does not mean it is right.
And what do you mean by "already together"?

We can be certain the scripture informs us that there is no other man but Joseph, involved with Mary correct ?

 

[Grailhunter]

We can be certain the scripture informs us that there is no other man but Joseph, involved with Mary correct ?

You and I both know the story. Yahweh impregnated Miriam and Joseph had nothing to do with it.
Now what that has to do with what these guys said is still not sure.
Of course it is obviously that Yeshua took it as an insult because he responds in kind.

Do you have a point….I mean what are you trying to suggest?

 

[Consecrated Life]

Yahweh impregnated Miriam and Joseph had nothing to do with it.
Now what that has to do with what these guys said is still not sure.

Where do you read the Lord impregnating Mary was a tale told to anyone at this point ?
The charge illicit sex resulting in Jesus's conception made by the Pharisees makes no mention of an alleged supernatural occurrence .
Take your own advice and refrain from concocting things that are not there.

One of the biggest mistake in the history of Christianity is coming to conclusions on information that is not conclusive. ( Grailhunter)

We are back to Joseph & Mary being the only two principles WRITTEN OF that can be the basis for a charge of
illicit sex being leveled .
Much to your consternation apparently .

If as you have informed the class that there was no required public ceremony being the standard on what memorable basis could these authorities level such a charge 33 years later?

 

[Tenchi]

Over all I have explained it all in detail so I am going to refer things like you have posted here back to the original posts.

The detail of an explanation does not guarantee its correctness. As I've inspected just your first few posts in this thread, the errors in them have quickly multiplied. I pointed out some of your mistakes in thinking and in your understanding of Scripture in these early posts, but you've deflected and/or just repeated your initial assertions, as though it's self-evident how correct your view is. Well, it's not. So bereft of a good defense of your views are you that in your second-to-last post to me you resorted to ad hominem and the casting of aspersions.

I'm always interested in learning from others. My study is filled with books by experts covering all sorts of topics and genres. There is no realm of knowledge, however, that is more vital, more important, and more deadly serious than that revealed in God's word, the Bible. And so, those who propose to teach others God's Truth had better have done a prolonged and careful study of it, not merely accumulating information about Christian doctrine, history, practices and theories, but living in the Truth of God's word, encountering Him daily in fellowship. Is this you? It sure doesn't seem like it to me. Your emphasis has been on your personal perspective, not on the Person of Christ, of God, to whom Scripture points at every turn.

At the core of Christianity stands God Almighty who has called us, not to mere gathering of doctrinal data, and dry ritual, and law-bound, pious living, but to Himself. What any and all Bible teachers ought always to be doing, then, is encouraging and enabling their fellow believers toward God, not into mere alignment with a peculiar, even at points counter-biblical, personal perspective, as in the case of your own perspective here in this thread.

You do not like the truth. Duly noted. And I do not care.

No, sir, I don't like your version of the truth. It will lead you away from God, ultimately, not toward Him.

So if you want to discuss this clean up your act and we can discuss this.

My "act" isn't the problem; your inability to properly supply a good rationale for your views is.

 

[Grailhunter]

Where do you read the Lord impregnating Mary was a tale told to anyone at this point ?

It is not written, that is why I keep saying that we do not know what they knew.

If as you have informed the class that there was no required public ceremony being the standard on what memorable basis could these authorities level such a charge 33 years later?

No required public ceremony....no required ceremony at all.
The key word is required.
The next word is example.....we have no example in the Old or New Testament of a wedding ceremony. The event at Cana was a marriage but no details or requirement stated. The story picks up at the reception
Next there is no biblical defined ceremony. Yahweh had no problems with giving step by step instructions if there was a process he wanted.

Having said that, that is not to say that families did not celebrate a union. But still there is not a lot of information on this either.

Since it is not in the scriptures....your concerns are with God not me. It is not my fault that it is not there. And actually I believe that the Mosaic Law should have had a requirement for a wedding ceremony with detailed instructions.

I love weddings and this is not about....not thinking weddings are important. This is about the history of how marriages were formed before the 16th century AD. This is about the history of Christian marriages and some Jewish history. And I keep saying this….because of the Gentile-Christians bringing in the custom of wedding ceremonies and receptions into Christianity….there were probably a lot of them after the biblical period. We just do not have a historical record of it until the 9th century.

This ties into the false belief of the non biblical term fornication....which made people think that two unmarried people having sex was a sin.....when the truth is....that is how they formed marriages back then. They joined and remained together.

The other problem with this is that it skewed the understanding of history and gives a false perspective of sex. Sex eventfully was thought of as dirty, nasty, sinful, and of the devil and some still believe this. Back in the middle ages some thought if a man was in love with his wife that it was adultery against God.

This is all wrong....The devil had no part of the creation of the normal process. The desire that men and women have for each other was God created. The significance of the sexual union was God created. How we procreate was God created. Start to finish no sin. Lust is inappropriate desires…..desires for another man’s wife or the desire to have casual sex, not the desire for the person you are in love with or your wife.

This misconception on marriage has caused sin directly and indirectly and has caused and causes the lose of souls. Two people in a monogamous relationship that live together have not sinned. But a lot of people in church will look down their noses at them, even condemn them. How many souls would be saved if they felt comfortable going to church? How many souls would be saved if they knew they would be warmly received? How many would go ahead and have a wedding if they were in church regularly.

It does not matter if you have sex before or after a wedding ceremony. And as it is, most couples have sex before the wedding ceremony. Nothing wrong with that. I have heard more than one preacher and or Christian tell couples that their marriage was cursed because they had sex before the wedding. What a hateful thing to say…..what a twisted thing to think.

The false beliefs have so skewed the understanding of sex and marriage that Christians do not know how to deal with it all and in the process cause greater sins. The lose of souls and the whole gossip thing. The truth is sex is for those that love each other....just that simple....and Christians need to understand the significance of sex. Between couples sex is marriage.....they need to consider that before they have sex.

Christians need to understand the severity of what people call casual sex. A man's first sexual partner is his wife and the sexual unions after that are adultery.....not casual sex.....not a casual sin. That the Friday night carousing is a sin before they even start.