Meat One flesh is “marriage” and here’s why.

[NickF]

You seem to have a lot of questions and not many answers.

It's better to ask questions when you don't know for sure what the answer is.

I've already given numerous scripture in other posts that prove a man marries a woman by going in unto her.

You've given zero verses that prove your stance. You've given lots of eisegesis of scripture and opinion. No proof.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

It's hard to understand twisted and inconsistent eisegesis of scripture.

 

[BiblicalLiteralist]

Just want to point out that barren women are still considered to be one flesh with their husband, and reiterate that betrothed women are considered to be married when still virgins. AH! and lets not forget the wife of the brother who died without a son! She was still his wife while he was alive and childless.

 

[NickF]

So anything is a covenant then. You can have a covenant because no matter what you’re going to have one. Even if it’s a one sided con perpetrated on a drunk man.

Appeal to Ridicule

I may be defining covenant too narrowly but you’re not defining it at all. You’re letting any word in a sentence be a covenant. Just so you can have a covenant.

Argument from Ignorance

The more you talk about something you've proudly proclaimed you haven't studied, the more ignorant you prove to be on the matter. This is what I was talking about. I don't care if you choose to remain ignorant for pride's sake. But dang man, a couple hours effort and you could actually have an answer that wasn't a logical fallacy. The above is an example of two fallacies.

Like I've said before, I'd LOVE IT if you were right, it would simplify SO MUCH. But you've not proven jack diddly. And when given scripture that conflicts with your arguments, you use ad hominem instead of proving the scripture provided is incorrect.

 

[frederick]

Appeal to Ridicule

Argument from Ignorance

The more you talk about something you've proudly proclaimed you haven't studied, the more ignorant you prove to be on the matter. This is what I was talking about. I don't care if you choose to remain ignorant for pride's sake.

Well said. Thank you.

But you've not proven jack diddly. And when given scripture that conflicts with your arguments, you use ad hominem instead of proving the scripture provided is incorrect.

A common and all to oft repeated problem. When the message can't be refuted biblically, attack the messenger. It's nothing new, it happened to Jesus a lot.

 

[FollowingHim]

I may be defining covenant too narrowly but you’re not defining it at all. You’re letting any word in a sentence be a covenant. Just so you can have a covenant.

I'm not trying to shoehorn covenants into everything. I'm just recognising what exists.

Remember that I am not trying to argue that "sex + covenant = marriage". I don't care what = marriage. I'm just seeing one flesh where it exists, and agreements between people where they exist, without trying to shoehorn either into a predefined pattern of what marriage is.

 

[Off-gridinwv]

It's better to ask questions when you don't know for sure what the answer is.

You've given zero verses that prove your stance. You've given lots of eisegesis of scripture and opinion. No proof.

It's hard to understand twisted and inconsistent eisegesis of scripture.

You better go back and read the posts sonny lots of proof but I know it's too radical for your high minded college boy mentality

 

[windblown]

One does not normally marry a whore or harlot or pristitute. Now he CAN like God commanded the prophet Hosea but he is likely to be disappointed.

Really? How many girls actually save themselves for marriage nowadays? Isn’t this precisely why this conversation is so relevant?

 

[DustinM]

You seem to have a lot of questions and not many answers. I've already given numerous scripture in other posts that prove a man marries a woman by going in unto her. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Are we not supposed to test everything, and keep what is good? I'm testing, thus far your theory is not standing up to testing.

David went into Bathsheba, but it did not make a marriage. Absalom went into David's women, but it did not make marriages (Unless of course, God Himself nullified those marriages releasing the concubines from David). Your argument is not that though as far as I can tell, it's that the mere sex act alone of a man with married women made them his women and then his widows.

Romans 7
"For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. 3 So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man."

If your argument is that sex = marriage, if it's with an unmarried woman, you have some scripture to make that claim.

But if you try to claim that sex with a married woman automatically transfers ownership to that man, do you not see how many problems and inconsistencies that causes?

 

[DustinM]

Wait a minute, this is an example of sex forming a marriage. If there was any covenant in this scenario it was for Rachel. Ol’ Jake got tricked into sleeping with Leah sand it was still valid.

Jacob definitely made it clear who he was serving the 7 years for...

18 Now Jacob loved Rachel, so he said, “I will serve you seven years for your younger daughter Rachel.”

Then after the 7 years:

21 Then Jacob said to Laban, “Give me my wife, for my time is completed, that I may have relations with her.”
23 Now in the evening he took his daughter Leah and brought her to him; and Jacob had relations with her.

It's interesting that 1) Jacob didn't say give me Rachel my wife, he just said give me my wife/woman. 2) He already considered her his wife, but wanted (who could blame him) to have relations with her after 7 years of work.

Now we can only guess how legalistic or crafty Laban was, but considering Jacob's prior deception you can see some irony here in his imprecise wording to Laban leading to Laban being able to pull this deception off on him.

Jacob said he would serve 7 years for the younger daughter Rachel. Well ultimately he held to his word on that, it was just the 2nd 7 years.
Jacob said give me my wife to Laban. Laban certainly gave him a wife/woman, Jacob didn't say give me Rachel.

26 But Laban said, “It is not the practice in our place to marry off the younger before the firstborn. 27 Complete the week of this one, and we will give you the other also for the service which you shall serve with me, for another seven years.”

28 Jacob did so and completed her week, and he gave him his daughter Rachel as his wife.

30 So Jacob had relations with Rachel also, and indeed he loved Rachel more than Leah, and he served with Laban for another seven years.

Laban could have used Jacob's imprecise wording in order to follow their customs in marrying off Leah first, and this all can clearly be a lesson for Jacob tying back to Gen 27 and his deception of his father Isaac, but that's a deeper and interesting study.

It seems to me that the sex/relations here is not what made Leah/Rachel his woman/wife, but they were in both instances considered his prior to the relations, because the father had given them to him, in exchange for 7 years service.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Appeal to Ridicule

Argument from Ignorance

The more you talk about something you've proudly proclaimed you haven't studied, the more ignorant you prove to be on the matter. This is what I was talking about. I don't care if you choose to remain ignorant for pride's sake. But dang man, a couple hours effort and you could actually have an answer that wasn't a logical fallacy. The above is an example of two fallacies.

Like I've said before, I'd LOVE IT if you were right, it would simplify SO MUCH. But you've not proven jack diddly. And when given scripture that conflicts with your arguments, you use ad hominem instead of proving the scripture provided is incorrect.

I’n sorry Nick but you’re just wrong, and possibly even projecting a little bit. Remember you still have not shown a single scripture with a covenant in it. Other than Malachi 2 we don’t even have the word covenant in a verse about marriage.

I get that there are questions around the margins when sin perverts things but when things are done in accordance with scripture then sex forms one flesh and one flesh carries with it all of the obligations of what we call marriage.

No one has been able to show anything any different. No one has been able to for years.

Your ridiculously insulting and repeated claim that I won’t study the issue is frankly absurd. It’s almost as absurd as your claim that you did a comprehensive word study of 284 passages of scripture in an afternoon. Let this go. Prove covenants have any connection to marriage and then we can debate covenants.

 

[The Revolting Man]

A common and all to oft repeated problem. When the message can't be refuted biblically

Suddenly you’re worried about the Bible? When did this happen? You who only quotes lexicons and Proverbs that label your opponent a fool and your wife’s chauffeur. I don’t think I’ve ever seen you delve in to scripture.

You realize that post didn’t have one scripture in it? That @NickF is steadfastly refusing to provide any scripture? Have you even followed the debate other than to look for an opening to claim to have read a book that isn’t the Bible, that you won’t identify or even say what it’s conclusion is?

That’s all you ever do. You pop in and say “If you read a book I won’t tell you the name of you might be as smart as I think I am.” You’re not smart. You’re a pompous ass. And before you deny remember that now you’re comparing yourself to Christ.

 

[NickF]

That @NickF is steadfastly refusing to provide any scripture?

I’ve provided copious scripture.
Your rebuttal to the most recent was. “Thats sophomoric”

Much impress, very wow. The argumentation you presented blows me away! You’re obviously right based on that logic!

 

[Off-gridinwv]

Are we not supposed to test everything, and keep what is good? I'm testing, thus far your theory is not standing up to testing.

David went into Bathsheba, but it did not make a marriage. Absalom went into David's women, but it did not make marriages (Unless of course, God Himself nullified those marriages releasing the concubines from David). Your argument is not that though as far as I can tell, it's that the mere sex act alone of a man with married women made them his women and then his widows.

Romans 7
"For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. 3 So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man."

If your argument is that sex = marriage, if it's with an unmarried woman, you have some scripture to make that claim.

But if you try to claim that sex with a married woman automatically transfers ownership to that man, do you not see how many problems and inconsistencies that causes?

I've never said that. I've said that marrying a woman doesn't mean it's lawful for you to own her as your wife when she belongs to someone else and this scenario constitutes adultery,same as marrying a divorced woman. So since you're so full of questions let's see if you have any answers: if a man marries a woman by making a covenant with her then how can making a covenant with a divorced woman constitute adultery? Answer me I pray thee.

 

[steve]

From a conversation on YouTube, I’m just going to throw this in:

“But the transfer of spiritual headship from the patriarch of her originating family to the family she will join. In Hebrew she moves from the “beth” of one patriarch to the “habeth” of the other.”

I like that definition, it goes beyond “sex = marriage”.
Sex starts a marriage with becoming one flesh, but if the spiritual headship isn’t transferred, it is still-born and fails to be a marriage.

 

[NickF]

I've never said that. I've said that marrying a woman doesn't mean it's lawful for you to own her as your wife when she belongs to someone else and this scenario constitutes adultery,same as marrying a divorced woman. So since you're so full of questions let's see if you have any answers: if a man marries a woman by making a covenant with her then how can making a covenant with a divorced woman constitute adultery? Answer me I pray thee.

This is a perfect example of talking past each other as well as “Begging the question”.

Ask honest questions that don’t falsely frame the argument, assign arbitrary definitions, and beg the question.

Also, tone down the personal insults, there’s no need for it and only makes you look childish.

 

[Off-gridinwv]

This is a perfect example of talking past each other as well as “Begging the question”.

Ask honest questions that don’t falsely frame the argument, assign arbitrary definitions, and beg the question.

Also, tone down the personal insults, there’s no need for it and only makes you look childish.

Still no answer?

 

[NickF]

Your ridiculously insulting and repeated claim that I won’t study the issue is frankly absurd.

Have you read the 284 verses on covenant? You clearly and exactingly said you have not and would not. Has this changed? If you haven’t, I’m wondering how it’s absurd to point out you are doing what you said you’d do.

It’s almost as absurd as your claim that you did a comprehensive word study of 284 passages of scripture in an afternoon.

I’m shocked this is hard to believe. I read at over an 8th grade reading level. My 11 year old could read those verses in an afternoon.

Let this go.

You want people to be intimidated into bowing before your claims and just walk away. I’m not going to let you or anybody else proclaim something untrue and hold it up as gospel.

Prove covenants have any connection to marriage and then we can debate covenants.

I have repeatedly, you had nothing to say other than condescension and bluster. You adamantly refuse to even agree on what a single word means. You’re too invested in what you think is truth to be convinced otherwise and you’ve demonstrated an extreme opposition to learning anything that doesn’t agree with your ideas. You dismissed every scripture that disagrees with your stance using opinion rather than logic or clear proof.

I don’t see any benefit to doing the work of studying this out for you. I’m not going to waste my time when I have far more important real life problems to take care of.

 

[NickF]

Still no answer?

Did you ask me something? Are you wanting me to answer the false framed and logical fallacy question you asked Dustin?

 

[DustinM]

I've never said that. I've said that marrying a woman doesn't mean it's lawful for you to own her as your wife when she belongs to someone else and this scenario constitutes adultery,same as marrying a divorced woman. So since you're so full of questions let's see if you have any answers: if a man marries a woman by making a covenant with her then how can making a covenant with a divorced woman constitute adultery? Answer me I pray thee.

It's odd to me that you keep seeming to have a problem with me having many questions, and no answers, when I'm trying to understand your position on something, not tell you mine. I'll chalk it up to internet discussion and since we don't know each other not think too much of it.

My position is not that a man marries a woman solely by making a covenant with her. I can't say I have a position on the matter that I could fully defend, as it's still something I'm attempting to understand as should be clear by my commentary, if not then that's on me for being unclear.

So while I freely admit I'm trying to understand and engage in debate, you seem to be making definitive claims, and then are frustrated by me asking you to defend and explain your position's inconsistencies.

Absalom died and in 2sam.20:3 these same concubines we're called widows and all that's ever said about it was that Absalom went in unto

Your claim as far as I can tell you made pages back was that David's concubines became Absalom's wives and ultimately widows, because they were described as living as widows (while under David's authority). It seemed at the time that you were using that as evidence to show that sex = marriage or transfer of ownership. If that's not an accurate description of your position, my apologies and mistake. If it is, I ask again...

Were David's concubines Absalom's because God severed the marriages and ownership David had of them and "gave them to Absalom" , or was it by the act of Absalom sleeping with David's concubines alone that transferred ownership to Absalom?

 

[DustinM]

I will here relate the case of the woman at the well: Many times a travelling man would find lodging at a harlot's house. This was a source of income for the harlot to lodge strangers and commit fornication. Not everyone that lodged at a harlot's house committed fornication with her as we see with the spies in Joshua 2:1 with the harlot rahab, they were just there for a place to stay. The woman at the well was a harlot who had joined her body to five men and was lodging one she hadn't been with yet and this is why she marvelled because Christ knew who she had been with and who she hadn't. So in the case of harlot's you have flesh joining flesh (marriage) and then immediately after you have flesh leaving flesh (divorce). Jer 5:7-8, and Hos.2:1-7 support this view.

Isn't it an assumption to say the woman at the well was a harlot? She's not described that way as far as I can tell, if you assume that then don't you have to assume things about the 5 men she was with? Do you not find it at all odd with how often the description of harlot is used that this woman isn't called that but merely a woman?

If she wasn't a harlot, isn't it possible that she was involved in 5 divorces, perhaps her adultery each time, perhaps other reasons, and the man she was currently with she wasn't married to? Isn't all of that just assumptions when the text doesn't call her a harlot?

Is it possible that you're presupposing this to justify your position that sex = one flesh = marriage and a harlot is going in and out of one flesh/marriage unions with each man she lays with?