Married - yet having a boy/girlfriend

[Jethro Bodine]

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.

Maybe he's terrified that he has to get rid of his girlfriend and stick with his wife?

 

[jasoncran]

really? yet you believe that we evolved . god stood by and let men kill each other and did nothing till he wanted to. funny aint it how you accept that but not the fact that god allows men to do that and its recorded for reasons. or that god allowed polygamy because he knew that men at the time weren't ready to change that. the jews today don't practice that. they stopped that about the time of Christ unnoficially and officially in the 10th century.

yet you also believed that couldn't be literally? why? why wouldn't god save men who did such things? do we not all sin today? and all sin is vile to him? what is the difference tween those Christians who vote for Obama and believe that abortion is bad but see that its going to stay and don't vote for the right because they see that is evil?of course I could flip that with the rights tendency to go to war well the left does that too. jesus didn't have to suffer. but he had no choice has he knew he had too. ever think that god choose him to die that way?"for it please the Lord to bruise him and to put him to death" that is found in the tanach. God didn't have to have jesus die that way. he could have done what he did with david,niveneh, but he DIDNT. God allowed and gave the romans the power and might to do that jesus. he didn't have such power. the father gave rome that power. jesus did go but in order to save us he really had no choice if he was to save us. you have to ask yourself this given:

Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

why then didn't god just choose another way that didn't involve suffering. he didn't have to choose the cross. there are other ways to forgive sins in the ot. its there. prayer is one. the sitting in ashclothes is another. the other on is animal sacrifice. yet despite this god choose man(his SON) to die.i can go into why that was to be as god orchestrated the torah to force this to be.god not moses gave the torah. moses merely orally and by pen repeated it to the children of isreal.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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.

It is disgusting. Nobody's okay with that. But it's a fact that our sin causes this to happen. What exactly are you resisting?

 

[jasoncran]

It is disgusting. Nobody's okay with that. But it's a fact that our sin causes this to happen. What exactly are you resisting?

thus my point. the babies that died because of sin did die. its meant to show that is how evil men are.

 

[Claudya]

It is disgusting. Nobody's okay with that. But it's a fact that our sin causes this to happen. What exactly are you resisting?

I'm resisting the notion that the deaths of innocents in the old testament are someone theologically comparable to Christ's death, or "foreshadowing" Christ's death, or whatever.

 

[Classik]

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.

Not terrified about the ball that rolled off the pitch...but about how it was kicked. ;)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I'm resisting the notion that the deaths of innocents in the old testament are someone theologically comparable to Christ's death, or "foreshadowing" Christ's death, or whatever.

Don't try to draw the illustration out to the nth degree. You'll lose any analogy or illustration that way. If you played by that rule there'd be no such thing as analogies or illustrations to lead us to the truth of God. By definition, something analogous to another thing has to be different than the thing it's analogous to, right? Or else they'd be the same thing. That's what I was trying to get at when I said if the baby, or Uriah (that was his name, right?) was utterly righteous like Jesus one of them would be the Messiah.

Now, in the case of David, the baby died, not the one who sinned and deserved to die. Obviously, all according to the will of God, just as that was true of Jesus, even though he just happened to consent to that will.

If that's not a foreshadow of Christ....

(Think about Samson. He did willingly die to avenge the enemies of the people of God. Another fine picture and foreshadow of Christ...more in line with your contention that it has to match what Jesus was doing/ thinking better. But then we lose the element of righteousness in that one, lol)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Claudya, do you find it repulsive that Adam, the grand sinner of all of history, is a type and shadow of Christ?

 

[Classik]

Claudya, do you find it repulsive that Adam, the grand sinner of all of history, is a type and shadow of Christ?

really? How is that possible?

 

[Classik]

Or maybe lets wait for Jackie Chan student to respond first;);)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Or maybe lets wait for Jackie Chan student to respond first;);)

Yes, let's wait.

Maybe she'll round-house kick us both with one kick.

 

[Classik]

hehe! Alright

 

[Jethro Bodine]

After that we'll talk about Judah and his activities with a girlfriend/prostitute...and that also is a type and shadow of Christ.

 

[Claudya]

Claudya, do you find it repulsive that Adam, the grand sinner of all of history, is a type and shadow of Christ?

Well I'm not all opposed to any foreshadowing of Christ. As for Adam, I don't believe that person historically existed. Adam and Eve are archetypes and their story ia an allegory, much like Job's story. And the story about Eve and Adam is about two people rightfully receiving judgement and punishment for their own wrongdoings.

Maybe she'll round-house kick us both with one kick.

Round-house kicks are overrated.
(Also I'm having trouble hitting targets with any kind of backwards kick in real life )

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Well I'm not all opposed to any foreshadowing of Christ. As for Adam, I don't believe that person historically existed. Adam and Eve are archetypes and their story ia an allegory, much like Job's story. And the story about Eve and Adam is about two people rightfully receiving judgement and punishment for their own wrongdoings.

"...death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come." (Romans 5:14 NASB)

You see, just as death came to all people through the sin of just one man (which kind of destroys the idea of Adam being a metaphor), so life comes to all through through the obedience of the one Man, Jesus Christ.

I didn't say it. Paul said it.

You see, types and shadows don't have to line up tit for tat. The fundamental points are what make them analogous to one another, not the details. This is how Biblical analogies and illustrations and types work. That's why it's okay to see Uriah, and David's baby as types of Christ. (I really do need to check to see if that's really Bathsheba's husband's name, lol).

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If you have a hard time with that, you'll love the story of Judah and Tamar, lol!

Remember, think in terms of fundamental points of similarity, not details.

 

[jasoncran]

uhm. so when paul said to the jews and so did jesus anything about adam. they all knew he was a metaphor? do you realize that parables are still used by the jews. all of them don't have names in them for the most part? I read a few of them last week. when they have names in them its then not a parable but a true event? or as the parable of rich man and lazarus.if you notice all of these are really short. hmm just like the ones jesus and others told.

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=htt...6588/jewish/Chassidic-Stories.htm&h=TAQED2ITP

 

[jasoncran]

its urijah, and he was a Hittite.

 

[cyberjosh]

Well I'm not all opposed to any foreshadowing of Christ. As for Adam, I don't believe that person historically existed. Adam and Eve are archetypes and their story ia an allegory, much like Job's story. And the story about Eve and Adam is about two people rightfully receiving judgement and punishment for their own wrongdoings.


Round-house kicks are overrated.
(Also I'm having trouble hitting targets with any kind of backwards kick in real life )

Hi Claudya!

I don't believe we've met before. I've been in "hibernation" for a while but I've been around a time or two here on the forums.

So you're from Germany huh? Ich spreche ein bisschen Deutsch. Ich habe eigentlich eine Reise nach Deutschland in diesem Jahr gemacht. Ich war in Berlin, Dresden, Wiesbaden, Marksburg, und Worms.

I fancy myself a bit of a historical scholar on church history and I have studied the modern divide in theology between European Christianity and American Evangelicalism. I'm not sure if it is common to interpret Genesis as allegory in Germany but I do not see good reason to do so on textual grounds. Adam was a real person and is treated as such in the New Testament in Paul's writings and elsewhere. In fact in Luke's geneaology, which are all full of real people, he finishes the list with "...the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God" (Luke 3:38). Enosh was a real historical person, Seth was real, and God is certainly real, so its stands to reason that Adam was as well. Adam would literally have to be the only "allegorical/fictional" person in that list, which is not admissible from a biblical or textual view. I just thought I would mention that, pending your thoughts.

God Bless,
Josh

 

[farouk]

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!

It used to be that unscrupulous men, who had paid a dowry, might claim that they had discovered that their wife was not a virgin after all (even if she indeed was) and so would ask for their money back.

There is also a procedure in the Old Testament to deal with such scenarios.

Blessings.