Mike Winger

[Daniel DeLuca]

The burden of proof is on us IF we want to change minds and then hearts.

I agree with most of what you said there, but the burden of proof really is not on us. What we need to do, is explain to the casual observer, that the burden of proof is on the one who claims that it is sinful! We are just fine claiming that it is not sin, even if they think it is not blessed or extolled by God. Part of changing hearts and minds, is letting themn know that the burden of proof is not on us. Dr. William Luck did an excellent session on the Burden of Proof. I wish Mike Winger had at least given Dr. Luck honorable mention! That guy has been a warrior in this so-called "cult".

EDIT: Even if they could prove it is a sin, they would still have the burden of proof to show that is as grievous of a sin as they purport it to be.

 

[PeteR]

Sure! In our soundbite society, no one is going to follow a link to biblesexology, especially when they already have their minds made up that I Cor 7:2 is an outright command against having more than one spouse. The fact that Paul uses two different Greek words ought to intrigue people on the fence, but when you look at I Cor 7:2 in its context, and the beauty of this is that it works against the "husband of one wife" argument also, Paul is responding to what they had written about, and he was basically saying that it is a good thing if they decide not to marry, however in order to aoid fornication, they ought to go ahead and get married. So I ask people if they believe that it is a sin to have zero wives, since the bishops deacons and elders are not allowed to have zero wives. Likewise, when they pul out I Cor 7:2, I ask them if that means that it is a sin for a man or woman to not marry, since they are not following this command. It is fun to see them try to weasel their way out of that argument.

But, there are scholars that we have to deal with and have a clear answer for this passage. So, while we may be able to redirect the hoi poloi, that won't happen with the leaders/deep thinkers.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

But, there are scholars that we have to deal with and have a clear answer for this passage. So, while we may be able to redirect the hoi poloi, that won't happen with the leaders/deep thinkers.

Well I have yet to encounter a scholar who believes that we are all required to have a husband or a wife. It seems they are only dishonest about this passage when they are trying to use it as an argument against polygyny.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

So he cites The Parables of Jesus by Joachim Jeremias, in his rebuttal to Glenn Braunstein's claim about the parable of the ten virgins. I would like to see where Jeremias gets his information from, but it seems that you have to either purchase the book or borrow it from a library. I performed a search on the book itself for ten virgins, and it appears to be found on page 42, from what I can tell. The video shows that Jeremias cites F.A. Klein, who appears under several names, when I do a search, but the only one that appears as F.A. Klein, is a Freidrich Klein who wrote a book in 1906 https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/browse?type=author&index=708839&key=klein f a&c=x, but the citation is for 1883. Jeremias also cites L Bauer 1903, which again is not enough info to follow up and see what those men wrote, and where they derived their information. Without a look at the actual bibliography, it is impossible to tell who he is referring to.

EDIT: When you read to the end of the quote, they are referring to how Arab weddings in Palestine are conducted at the time those researchers that he cited, performed their weddings. What is assumed then, is that these customs, are done the same way as they were done two millenia ago, even though it is clearly stated that different villages do it in different ways. It's a whole lot of NOTHIN!

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Interestingly enough, ole Mikey here doesn't believe that the bishops, deacons or elders have to be married at all! I guess "one wife" doesn't really mean one wife in his opinion.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Here Mike Winger admits he got something wrong in his arguments against polygyny.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

I found it interesting what Mike Winger had to say regarding power of the husband. He also accuses us of not wanting to allow women to divorce!

 

[ph_del2]

I just watched a bit this last video and I find it interesting that he can't see that he's doing the same thing with polygyny. In his previous video, he talked about Jacob breaking the law when he married two sisters. Yet the bible never says a man can't marry two sisters. Only that he can't marry his wife's sister to cause her emotional distress. He has spiritual blinders or he does ZERO reading of actual scripture before he makes these videos. Personally, I'll just be praying for the man.

 

[OttoM]

Personally, I'll just be praying for the man.

James 3:1
Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

Too many bad teachers have caused immense damage on our society. Because of such leaven there is no peace in the land, but instead lawlessness and broken households. For those that are ignorant and deceived - I pray for them to come to the truth - and accept it with humbleness and meekness of heart. For those that are prideful and refuse correction/truth - may YAH judge them for he's a righteous judge.

 

[PeteR]

My closing statement in the discussion on my YT channel re idios and heautou:

@mattmangum980 Thank you again for taking the time to explain your thoughts on , ἴδιος and ἑαυτοῦ and their relative uses in 1 Cor. 7:2 as well as general uses elsewhere. My chief takeaway is this quote:

“Semantically, ἴδιος and ἑαυτοῦ seem to overlap a good deal. Ἑαυτοῦ may have been the preferred word for unique things, but ἴδιος also speaks of one’s unique things, as in own father (John 5:18) or own son (Rom. 8:32). One word may have been preferred over the other in certain circumstances, but there is enough semantic overlap to indicate that whatever difference existed between these two words was subtle and not likely to be semantically significant.”

Therefore, this verse is simply saying that to prevent sexual immorality, each man and woman should have a spouse as an outlet. *It promotes neither monogamy, nor polygyny. It simply promotes marriage.*

 

[Mark C]

My closing statement in the discussion on my YT channel re idios and heautou:
...
...this verse is simply saying that to prevent sexual immorality, each man and woman should have a spouse as an outlet. *It promotes neither monogamy, nor polygyny. It simply promotes marriage.*

Exactly.

But it DOES so in a way which is not offensive to the understanding that Paul NEVER contradicted His Master...even if some English renderings in fact are.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

My closing statement in the discussion on my YT channel re idios and heautou:

@mattmangum980 Thank you again for taking the time to explain your thoughts on , ἴδιος and ἑαυτοῦ and their relative uses in 1 Cor. 7:2 as well as general uses elsewhere. My chief takeaway is this quote:

“Semantically, ἴδιος and ἑαυτοῦ seem to overlap a good deal. Ἑαυτοῦ may have been the preferred word for unique things, but ἴδιος also speaks of one’s unique things, as in own father (John 5:18) or own son (Rom. 8:32). One word may have been preferred over the other in certain circumstances, but there is enough semantic overlap to indicate that whatever difference existed between these two words was subtle and not likely to be semantically significant.”

Therefore, this verse is simply saying that to prevent sexual immorality, each man and woman should have a spouse as an outlet. *It promotes neither monogamy, nor polygyny. It simply promotes marriage.*

Which video is this?

 

[PeteR]

Which video is this?

Previous rebuttal of Mike Winger's bad polygyny advice.

 

[frederick]

I

Therefore, this verse is simply saying that to prevent sexual immorality, each man and woman should have a spouse as an outlet. *It promotes neither monogamy, nor polygyny. It simply promotes marriage.*

When I was first challenged about polygyny, 1 Cor. 7 was a passage I needed to understand, so I contacted the linguistics department at a university and asked questions. The people I spoke with were not Christians, nor were they PM friendly, however the conclusion was the same as you have above.

1 Corinthians 7 begins, Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality,... Paul is answering a question which has nothing to do with the number of women a man may have, but whether or not a man should have a woman. Sexual immorality was a problem at Corinth, as it is in the world today, and the solution to immorality is finding satisfaction within one's own legitimate relationship. That's what is being dealt with, however the answer Paul gives neither prohibits nor promotes the number of women a man may have.

 

[frederick]

It promotes neither monogamy, nor polygyny. It simply promotes marriage.

A consideration which I think we all need to keep in mind is that God gave marriage (let's leave the debate on the use of terms out of this discussion) for the benefit of humanity. It is a relationship structure He purposed and is His means to avoid inappropriate sexual activity. There is nowhere in the Bible where numbers are commanded.

 

[Fledgling]

Therefore, this verse is simply saying that to prevent sexual immorality, each man and woman should have a spouse as an outlet. *It promotes neither monogamy, nor polygyny. It simply promotes marriage.*

In light of 1 Corinthians 5:1, it might not actually be (directly) promoting marriage, either. It could simply be saying "each man and each woman should lay hold of, or have sex with, the person who is their spouse (as opposed to someone who is not theirs)". It doesn't say "each man should marry a woman and each woman should marry a man". It says "have", which I propose has the same meaning as in chapter 5, in which that man was definitely not married to his father's wife and yet still "has" her.

In other words, this verse goes against swinging, one night stands, prostitution, adultery, pre-marital sex, etc. If they're not yours, don't have sex with them. Have sex with your own.

Unmarried people are addressed in verses 8-9 ("better to marry than to burn"). If you're struggling, and you don't have someone to have sex with (otherwise 7:2 would apply), then get one.

Regardless of whether my proposal works or not, 7:2 doesn't talk about number (for either man or woman). That has to be determined elsewhere.

 

[OttoM]

Regardless of whether my proposal works or not, 7:2 doesn't talk about number (for either man or woman). That has to be determined elsewhere.

The topic of discussion of 1 Corinthians 7:2 is sexual immorality. If you need to know what sexual immorality is - go to Leviticus 18 - it covers most of the sexual sins.

The marriage bed is undefiled. Some men may not need or are not capable of more than one wife. For them - monogamy is ideal. But for others polygyny is ideal - which is perfectly righteous as well - as long as it’s done according to the Creator’s instructions. Since this truth has been taken away from believers - and headship is not taught - the fruit is sexual lawlessness, and broken households. Exactly what Paul was warning about. Let’s face it - too many teachers have zero business being teachers.

 

[Fledgling]

The topic of discussion of 1 Corinthians 7:2 is sexual immorality. If you need to know what sexual immorality is - go to Leviticus 18 - it covers most of the sexual sins.

The marriage bed is undefiled. Some men may not need or are not capable of more than one wife. For them - monogamy is ideal. But for others polygyny is ideal - which is perfectly righteous as well - as long as it’s done according to the Creator’s instructions. Since this truth has been taken away from believers - and headship is not taught - the fruit is sexual lawlessness, and broken households. Exactly what Paul was warning about. Let’s face it - too many teachers have zero business being teachers.

Please forgive me, I'm not understanding the relationship between your reply/post and the quoted snippet of what I said. I might just be too tired to catch it. Could you elaborate a little? Is it a correction/rebuttal, additional commentary, an explanation of something I missed in my post, or something else?

Oh, is it because of this?

That has to be determined elsewhere.

Perhaps that would have been better written as:

This passage is irrelevant to the topic of numbers, so to define them a person would need to use relevant passages.

I wasn't trying to say I didn't know where elsewhere was, but thanks for being willing to help out and share that!

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

1 Corinthians 7 begins, Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality,... Paul is answering a question which has nothing to do with the number of women a man may have, but whether or not a man should have a woman. Sexual immorality was a problem at Corinth, as it is in the world today, and the solution to immorality is finding satisfaction within one's own legitimate relationship. That's what is being dealt with, however the answer Paul gives neither prohibits nor promotes the number of women a man may have.

That is gold! I think I want to copy and paste it everywhere I see I Cor 7:2 brought up.

 

[frederick]

That is gold! I think I want to copy and paste it everywhere I see I Cor 7:2 brought up.

Thank you for the compliment. Feel free to use as you wish.