There is also seven continents and one God also. So the number seven must make a whole.
Dairyfarmer
Dairyfarmer
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Marriage-minded
- Thread starter Mark C
- Start date
Don't forget the seven seas. Mostly I said the number seven because there are seven Spirits of God. Therefore the seven plus one in Isaiah 4:1 represents the new thing, (Isaiah 43:19). Eight is the number of newness. Jesus had seven wives as represented by the seven churches mentioned in the book of Revelation, so that will answer SweetLissa's question. This number of wives is for the end of days, not before. At God's direction, I am currently working on a teaching on this subject. In it I will tell the story of how I came to this place and this understanding.
Be blessed,
Ray
Be blessed,
Ray
Here is a couple of questions that I think would fit in with this topic. I know it has been answered most likely in other post but wished to bring this to light yet again.
WHO are the main parties that make the Covenant agreement?
WHO are the parties that state what is considered an acceptable answer to the Covenant agreement?
WHO are the main parties that make the Covenant agreement?
WHO are the parties that state what is considered an acceptable answer to the Covenant agreement?
To add additional comments about the main topic.... I believe that once a Christian man, one who believes Gods word from cover to cover, once he has been shown those things about Biblical marriage and that the Lord does not condemn poly; then he should be one who supports such marriages, even if he himself is not call by the Lord to be in such a marriage. Once his wife is shown as well, that she should follow the lead of her husband and she too should support such marriages, rather or not her husband is called to live in such a marriage.
Now to answer my previous questions and I ask that if someone here differs with my answers, please, please state your reasons and provide scripture to prove your point, for I am learning as you are and do not know it all.
"WHO are the main parties that make the Covenant agreement?"
The answer to the above question is based on statements made by other Godly people on this board, scripture in general and by my own convection of the Holy Spirit......The answer is between the husband and the new addition only.......Now that is not to say that the wife / wives cannot have a covenant agreement of their own with the new addition but the covenant is not, can not nor will not be like that of the husband and the new addition. The ladies can have one that is like what Chaplains Rose and "J" will have, once she agrees, and that is a covenant of mutual support and encouragement.
WHO are the parties that state what is considered an acceptable answer to the Covenant agreement?
The answer here again is between the husband and the new addition only....for the Covenant is between them. They set the conditions. Now that is not to say that the husband should not have gotten input as to what might be in the Covenant offer from his wife / wives in the form of a general discussion BEFORE the Covenant offer was presented to the future addition, but the husband has the right to set the conditions on what is acceptable to him, as well as the future addition, on what would be the means of her accepting the Covenant.......Remember the Covenant is between the husband and the future addition.
Now to answer my previous questions and I ask that if someone here differs with my answers, please, please state your reasons and provide scripture to prove your point, for I am learning as you are and do not know it all.
"WHO are the main parties that make the Covenant agreement?"
The answer to the above question is based on statements made by other Godly people on this board, scripture in general and by my own convection of the Holy Spirit......The answer is between the husband and the new addition only.......Now that is not to say that the wife / wives cannot have a covenant agreement of their own with the new addition but the covenant is not, can not nor will not be like that of the husband and the new addition. The ladies can have one that is like what Chaplains Rose and "J" will have, once she agrees, and that is a covenant of mutual support and encouragement.
WHO are the parties that state what is considered an acceptable answer to the Covenant agreement?
The answer here again is between the husband and the new addition only....for the Covenant is between them. They set the conditions. Now that is not to say that the husband should not have gotten input as to what might be in the Covenant offer from his wife / wives in the form of a general discussion BEFORE the Covenant offer was presented to the future addition, but the husband has the right to set the conditions on what is acceptable to him, as well as the future addition, on what would be the means of her accepting the Covenant.......Remember the Covenant is between the husband and the future addition.
Jumping in, for fun, on the topic of why a man might choose to love only one wife ...
My pastor recently noted that God, in His compassion, not only knows when we stumble but He knows what we stumbled over.
After having wondered what the Bible actually taught about PM all my life but trying to buy into the mono-only theology, and having been married and gone through some tough times for nearly 20 years, I finally went and found answers. Oddly enough, NOT until my own marriage was in the best place it had been in years. Instead of turning to PM as a solution to a problem, I loved being married to my wife so much by that point, all I could see was the potential exponential jump in further happiness from adding another wife and best friend to our lives.
When I presented these findings to my two brothers, they both looked totally aghast, and asked, "Why would you POSSIBLY want to do THAT?!"
At first, I couldn't understand their attitude. Then, I thought about the state of their relationships, and understood. Perhaps God, in His compassion, understands as well.
Btw, sadly, apparently I was happier with that marriage, and the idea of exponentially expanding happiness than my wife was. But in all things God truly IS at work for good, and I can't thank Him enough for since bringing Cindy into my life.
My pastor recently noted that God, in His compassion, not only knows when we stumble but He knows what we stumbled over.
After having wondered what the Bible actually taught about PM all my life but trying to buy into the mono-only theology, and having been married and gone through some tough times for nearly 20 years, I finally went and found answers. Oddly enough, NOT until my own marriage was in the best place it had been in years. Instead of turning to PM as a solution to a problem, I loved being married to my wife so much by that point, all I could see was the potential exponential jump in further happiness from adding another wife and best friend to our lives.
When I presented these findings to my two brothers, they both looked totally aghast, and asked, "Why would you POSSIBLY want to do THAT?!"
At first, I couldn't understand their attitude. Then, I thought about the state of their relationships, and understood. Perhaps God, in His compassion, understands as well.
Btw, sadly, apparently I was happier with that marriage, and the idea of exponentially expanding happiness than my wife was. But in all things God truly IS at work for good, and I can't thank Him enough for since bringing Cindy into my life.
Mark C said:But have you ever considered which is the cause and which is the effect!
Well ... Yes...
Regardless, the point is that the idea is clearly something they can't grasp and so stumble over -- to this day. And I am willing to leave it with our compassionate Father to know and understand why and deal with it all in the best way imaginable.
I have my own theory which goes like this ... My parents split up when I was 12, my brothers 9 and 6. Long story and my dad pulled successful shenanigans to keep my 2 younger brothers. They "grew up" with him. i decided my mom would interfere with me the least while I finished raising myself, so lived more or less with her till I went to college 4 years later. (More long story)
One of our parents was highly dogmatic and inflexible in his thinking, the other somewhat prepared to think outside the box, occasionally. Guess which was which? Guess which parent we more closely resemble as adults?
Also, for interest's sake, guess which one died years ago, bitter, never having remarried, in a full care nursing home, and which is more-or-less-happily remarried (21 years) and going strong? :roll:
I think that some folks just can't get past certain things, due to upbringings and fears and whatever. In fact, I'll posit that everyone has a blind spot somewhere. Even Abraham, the father of our faith(?), seems to me to have failed to change the relationship between Sarah and Hagar adequately or soon enough when he, um, changed his relationship to them. Moses lost his temper and struck the rock. David took nefarious measures to avoid being caught with a wandering winky (didn't work). The list goes on ... and on ... and on. And yet, God just pours Love all over us anyways. Isn't that spectacular?
Ain't none of us'n's righteous, 'ceptin' Jesus His Ownself! And since our Father done promised to measure out towards us'n's what we measure out towards others, I don' wanna an' ain' gonna measure out no judgement towards no-one, no-how. There be WAAAAAY too much opportunity for justice to send some my own direction! Yikes! :lol:
Tlaloc
Member
The best place to finish raising yourself? I love that line, I know what you mean, My mom and step dad where divorced when I was 13 and I was moved out by the time I was 16.
I love being doctrinal because it deals with teaching and the push and pull of learning and understanding, dogma isn't really useful especially considering you can be as certain about doctrine, but doctrine has to have reason (or scripture) to back it up.
Its too bad about your dad.
I love being doctrinal because it deals with teaching and the push and pull of learning and understanding, dogma isn't really useful especially considering you can be as certain about doctrine, but doctrine has to have reason (or scripture) to back it up.
Its too bad about your dad.
Regarding the discussion about 7 wives, I thought this was interesting.
http://picasaweb.google.com/lissade...key=Gv1sRgCOzvmaGYpeu_owE#5341257747694242914
Thought I would interject some humor here.
SweetLissa
http://picasaweb.google.com/lissade...key=Gv1sRgCOzvmaGYpeu_owE#5341257747694242914
Thought I would interject some humor here.
SweetLissa
TonyClayton
New Member
Well, I think the next man to step in his shoes, if he died, would be a very happy man indeed, to get two wives.
Biblically (and logically), if your man had a brother, then he would then assume the responsibility, why? because there would already be some relationship and the same family name.
If there is no brother, then I think you ought to remain a package deal, because you are sister wives after all! Wouldn't it be silly to break up your family and children! I am sure many men would be happy to take that role for you.
Which completely negates your submission that marriage=virginity. Because in this scenario, both women would not be virgins.
Oops.
SweetLissa
Oops.
SweetLissa
TonyClayton
New Member
I have well thought out every possibility, there is no oops. Not only is it a theoretical idea, it is a practical reality to me. I have searched the scriptures after I made my pamphlet about 2 years ago, and find that there is no contradiction. There is no contradiction in my reason, and there is no contradiction in my marriage.
Women are not free to marry again. The rule applies to women only, not to men. I was also surprised to see that 'till death do us part' only applies to women. These two points are what got me thinking about polygamy.
The question about widows should be clear to everyone without my having to explain it. She is no longer bound to the man because he is dead. If he is still living, she is still bound to him.
Please see my full response and continuing discussion at viewtopic.php?f=17&t=666
Women are not free to marry again. The rule applies to women only, not to men. I was also surprised to see that 'till death do us part' only applies to women. These two points are what got me thinking about polygamy.
The question about widows should be clear to everyone without my having to explain it. She is no longer bound to the man because he is dead. If he is still living, she is still bound to him.
Please see my full response and continuing discussion at viewtopic.php?f=17&t=666
But what you said was the person you gave your virginity to is your husband. That means that a widow is married to the man who took her virginity. If you are not that man and you have relations with her you are in adultery. Not by God's reasoning but by the logic of this statement.
And you have made no allowances for rape, incest or being a late in life Christian. You get teenagers who have sex with the football team, and in their 30's they convert. They are forgiven of their sins, right? Did their virginity grow back? NO. Where is the concept of love and forgiveness in your statement.
You my friend leave a generation of women who have been badly used by men to be alone and with children uncared. You treat women who have been abandoned as though they are defective. I am sorry, I don't see where Christ who is the epitome of love and forgiveness would make this the one and only unforgiveable sin.
SweetLissa
And you have made no allowances for rape, incest or being a late in life Christian. You get teenagers who have sex with the football team, and in their 30's they convert. They are forgiven of their sins, right? Did their virginity grow back? NO. Where is the concept of love and forgiveness in your statement.
You my friend leave a generation of women who have been badly used by men to be alone and with children uncared. You treat women who have been abandoned as though they are defective. I am sorry, I don't see where Christ who is the epitome of love and forgiveness would make this the one and only unforgiveable sin.
SweetLissa
TonyClayton
New Member
From the admins:
The thread that was spawned by this link has been locked, since it was clearly inconsistent with Scripture and the purposes for which this forum was established.
The pamphlet link remains, but with the proviso that it is NOT endorsed by Biblical Families.
The thread that was spawned by this link has been locked, since it was clearly inconsistent with Scripture and the purposes for which this forum was established.
The pamphlet link remains, but with the proviso that it is NOT endorsed by Biblical Families.
Did he ever address what would happen if a woman was raped and her attacker was never identified? What is she to do then? Stay single for the rest of her life? What if she were molested by her father? Would she have to marry him? She could never reconcile with her "husband" in those cases. Besides, even the Biblical passages on rape (though difficult in our modern eyes) negate the point Tony makes in at least two ways.
It says in Deut 22:28 that first they must be discovered, which doesn't always happen. As Lisa suggested, take the case of a non-Christian woman at a drunken frat party. She passes out and wakes up no longer a virgin. Who is her husband? Can she ever marry, even if she repents and turns her life over to the Lord? Continuing with Deut 22:29, it is only afterwards that she must become his wife. Didn't she become a wife when she lost her virginity? Apparently not. The man must pay the father and then after that he becomes responsible for her for life.
Whatever one may say about this passage, it was a way to keep the woman from becoming an outcast, as happens even in modern times in Islamic and tribal cultures, and happened in Bible times to David's daughter Tamar when she was raped by her half-brother Amnon. (She was desolate her whole life, so no, she was not just waiting for her "husband" to pass away to find another.) Also, I'd say another point was to create a real deterrent to such acts. Would you really want to have to provide for and be unable to divorce a woman you'd violated? You have to sleep sometime!! (Burning bed, anyone?)
Besides, this whole thing of returning to a prior "marriage" and calling present marriages "continual adultery" flies in the face of Deut 24:1-4 which clearly states that the woman, once remarried, cannot return to her former husband under any circumstances. Although divorce was permitted for the hardness of people's hearts (which is really the reason for the breakdown of marriage), God recognizes it. He even symbolically divorced His wives. And that wasn't due to the hardness of His heart, was it? This shows that divorce is sometimes warranted and can be initiated by the innocent party. When Jesus talked about marriage and divorce in the NT, it was in context of the OT. He was speaking to a people ingrained in the Roman culture (much like ours today) where fornication, infidelity, temporary marriages of convenience, and unjustified divorces were rampant. He was telling people not to try and play tricks with the law because God knows the heart.
As a man who is angry with his brother is guilty of killing him, as a man lusting after a married woman commits adultery with her, as a wealthy man idolizes his riches, so also a man or woman who divorces in order to be free to get another spouse commits adultery. Jesus reveals the heart of the matter, but stated clearly that He did not come to abolish the law. Remember the Samaritan woman at the well? Did Jesus say, "You've had 1 husband, go back to him?" No, He said, "You have had 5 husbands and the one you now have is not your husband." This fits with Deut 24:2 where after a divorce "she may go out and become another man's wife." He recognizes marriage as a covenant, not just a sexual act! However, it was designed to be a life-long commitment and believers should not be looking for the minimum threshold to hit the eject button. Jesus doesn't let Christians who wantonly divorce off the hook at all. If married Christians really fulfilled the royal law of love for God and love for others, divorces among Christians would be extremely rare and our families would radiate godly joy, peace, and harmony. God wants us to worship Him in spirit and in truth!
So, my conclusion is that Tony's doctrine (which I read) is simplistic, does not honor or account for all of God's revealed word, does not honor His character, repeatedly ignores both spirit and letter of the law, and binds heavy burdens on people they cannot bear. Neither my wife nor I had sex before we married, so I have no vested interest in rejecting the doctrine. I do so because it conflicts with Scripture, pure and simple.
It says in Deut 22:28 that first they must be discovered, which doesn't always happen. As Lisa suggested, take the case of a non-Christian woman at a drunken frat party. She passes out and wakes up no longer a virgin. Who is her husband? Can she ever marry, even if she repents and turns her life over to the Lord? Continuing with Deut 22:29, it is only afterwards that she must become his wife. Didn't she become a wife when she lost her virginity? Apparently not. The man must pay the father and then after that he becomes responsible for her for life.
Whatever one may say about this passage, it was a way to keep the woman from becoming an outcast, as happens even in modern times in Islamic and tribal cultures, and happened in Bible times to David's daughter Tamar when she was raped by her half-brother Amnon. (She was desolate her whole life, so no, she was not just waiting for her "husband" to pass away to find another.) Also, I'd say another point was to create a real deterrent to such acts. Would you really want to have to provide for and be unable to divorce a woman you'd violated? You have to sleep sometime!! (Burning bed, anyone?)
Besides, this whole thing of returning to a prior "marriage" and calling present marriages "continual adultery" flies in the face of Deut 24:1-4 which clearly states that the woman, once remarried, cannot return to her former husband under any circumstances. Although divorce was permitted for the hardness of people's hearts (which is really the reason for the breakdown of marriage), God recognizes it. He even symbolically divorced His wives. And that wasn't due to the hardness of His heart, was it? This shows that divorce is sometimes warranted and can be initiated by the innocent party. When Jesus talked about marriage and divorce in the NT, it was in context of the OT. He was speaking to a people ingrained in the Roman culture (much like ours today) where fornication, infidelity, temporary marriages of convenience, and unjustified divorces were rampant. He was telling people not to try and play tricks with the law because God knows the heart.
As a man who is angry with his brother is guilty of killing him, as a man lusting after a married woman commits adultery with her, as a wealthy man idolizes his riches, so also a man or woman who divorces in order to be free to get another spouse commits adultery. Jesus reveals the heart of the matter, but stated clearly that He did not come to abolish the law. Remember the Samaritan woman at the well? Did Jesus say, "You've had 1 husband, go back to him?" No, He said, "You have had 5 husbands and the one you now have is not your husband." This fits with Deut 24:2 where after a divorce "she may go out and become another man's wife." He recognizes marriage as a covenant, not just a sexual act! However, it was designed to be a life-long commitment and believers should not be looking for the minimum threshold to hit the eject button. Jesus doesn't let Christians who wantonly divorce off the hook at all. If married Christians really fulfilled the royal law of love for God and love for others, divorces among Christians would be extremely rare and our families would radiate godly joy, peace, and harmony. God wants us to worship Him in spirit and in truth!
So, my conclusion is that Tony's doctrine (which I read) is simplistic, does not honor or account for all of God's revealed word, does not honor His character, repeatedly ignores both spirit and letter of the law, and binds heavy burdens on people they cannot bear. Neither my wife nor I had sex before we married, so I have no vested interest in rejecting the doctrine. I do so because it conflicts with Scripture, pure and simple.