Which is why "possession" is still not the ideal term. "My mother" is the mother associated with me. "My father" is the father associated with me. "My Lord" is the Lord associated with me. And "My woman" is the woman associated with me.
-
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.
What is fornication?
- Thread starter The Revolting Man
- Start date
What an absolutely ridiculous assumption to make! I only use shotgunsYes. @theleastofthese would also go crazy about it, but she'd probably be holding a knife.
So in paintball you are close quarter combat specialist?What an absolutely ridiculous assumption to make! I only use shotguns
How about word belongs?
You’re jumping right into the deep end! We debate these exact topics frequently. Check out some older threads and maybe address the questions one at a time as you run across threads dealing with them.Hey, new memeber just wanted to chime in as I been researching and studying this topic for weeks now looking for takes. As I started to question the whole "pre-matrial" sex I came to the conclusion that I also could not find anything in scriptures specifically condemning this. Which has lead me to question a whole host things when it comes to sex and marriage. Though the Bible is clear on adultrey and divorce. It seems to be vague on what sex is permitted and what a marriage actually is.
I know people say that sleeping with prostitutes is a sin and being one is a sin but I don't think it's that black and white. As I see instances in scriptures of men sleeping with prostitutes and it not being condemned. Samson is a perfect example. He saw a harlot and slept with him yet the spirit of Lord never left him until he violated his oath. If sins seperate us from God shouldn't God had left Samson when he did that? There's also another (can't remember specifically but could find it if anyone interested) of someone in the bible sleeping with someone they thought was a prostitute but was their daughter or sister-in-law forget. Yet the focus was on the adultry aspect not that he slept with a prostitute.
When it says "don't make your daughter a whore" it would seem that the commandment was not for the father to make his daughter a whore but if the daughter made her own choice to be one independently from her father's house that seemed to be ok. There's also the case of the two harlots visiting salmon and the baby being cut in half but no evidence of salmon judging them as king for being a harlot.
Then finally I wanted to address the exodus one of a man sleeping with a virgin and forcing to marry her. Would this be any woman or just virgin women? I also see that the father can refuse and he would have to pay a dowry price. Which is the price of virgins because virgins were a higher price than none virgins.
It would seem to me from reading and researching this has to do more with economics terms since women in those days were basically property and a father would have a harder time giving his daughter to man that wasn't a virgin. Basically used goods. But I don't think that has to do with a sin as it has to do with civil and economy worth. Also there's no penalty or sin atonement for this act either. No mention of it being an actual sin.
Plus it would seem to debunk the fact that marriage=sex cause if that's the case why would the father being able to refuse and why would they claim "he'd have to take her as his wife (woman)" if sex already equals marriage? Those appear to be two different acts. I would also say this would mainly imply for virgins and if the woman still lives with her father if none of these two things are applicable then a man just having sex with an independent woman by her own consent would not be immoral. Then I'd say it would be even less immoral if they decide to be together after that. If the woman decides she doesn't want to be with him afterwards the man isn't guilty of anything and vice versa.
You got a lot of meaty questions in that post. Also, tell us a little about yourself in the “Introductions” thread!
Your mistaken assumption is that all of the Law was given at one time and one place and was never altered afterwards. That is simply not true. While no one else can add to or take away from God’s Word, He can do whatever He wants with it.
Paul can absolutely instruct us not to lay with harlots and have it carry the weight of divine instruction.
But to answer your main question, prostitution isn’t regulated because despite your claims; sex does equal marriage. Forming a marriage (one flesh union) is never a sin, unless it is adulterous or a forbidden pairing, the problem is always in how you dissolve the one flesh. Prostitution isn’t regulated because prostitution doesn’t exist per se; it is simply a very ill informed one flesh that is likely to end in adultery.
In the Greek text, the genitive case is the case of description. When a word appears in this case, it specifies or qualifies the word it modifies. We read in Matthew 1:24, Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife. The words his wife are translated from τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ. The genitive αὐτοῦ describes γυναῖκα by telling to whom she belongs. She is "the woman of him."
I hope this help. Shalom
Edit: In the text quoted above, although she was his wife, the following verse tells us the relationship had not been consummated; (v:25) and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.
I hope this help. Shalom
Edit: In the text quoted above, although she was his wife, the following verse tells us the relationship had not been consummated; (v:25) and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.
Last edited:
Ok well the issue with that
Ok but that would cause a whole host of problems. Plus God said himself He does not change nor does his law change so how can He alter a Law if He doesnt change and is consistent? I havent seen one instance were God's law was altered and changed. Everything Jesus preached can be verified by the old testament law. So if there was no punishment for Samson and Judah sleeping with prostitutes now the law changed to were it is? That wouldn't make any sense and it would be inconsistent with God's character. It also wouldn't be fair.
Sure we see evidence to where He can "change his mind" on judgement but not the law. God was pretty clear when someone committed a sin it would be strange to me that all of a sudden God was quiet about it then Paul comes along and says "ok you can't do this now" even though other people have done it in the past and there was no condemnation or specific law against it. My belief is Paul was referring to temple prostitution though I'm not sure there IS circumstantial evidence to back this up.
Also to add if the whole law wasn't in the old testament then how are we able to compare scripture with scripture? Paul preached mainly from the Torah. They didn't have the new testament back then like we do so for Paul to say that (assuming he meant prostitution in general) we should be able to find some case in the old testament condemning this yet its not there apart from the cases I mentioned. Plus if Paul can do that what's the stop anyone else from coming in and doing the same thing under the claim of the Holy Spirit?
Yeah I understand that you believe sex equal marriage. While I understand the take of that I don't agree with that either not mention like someone said 95% of women wouldn't even be eligible for marriage. Especially in America since only 5% of women are even virgins on their wedding night. I definitely agree more with @FollowingHim take that it simply means to take possession of her.
Concerning isn’t it? But you assume that there are no ways to remediate eligibility issues. It isn’t only virgins who are eligible for one flesh.
Nobody is suggesting that God changed the law. The Mosaic law neither prohibited nor condoned prostitution - it barely mentions it. If God gives us further instruction on the matter later, that does not change the previous law, because there is nothing in it to change.
Having said that, I don't actually think much if anything was even added, as I said prostitution was already strongly discouraged in the Old Testament, and Paul only states overtly what was already assumed.
Where does Paul suggest there is a punishment for sleeping with prostitutes? Nowhere. I'm not sure why you think people are suggesting this changed.
Well I was going by his initial quote:
"Law was given at one time and one place and was never altered afterwards. That is simply not true. While no one else can add to or take away from God’s Word, He can do whatever He wants with it."
When he said altered afterwards and He can do whatever He wants with it. Well not really because that would go against His character of never changing. There would also be no point for Jesus and the sin atonement as God can just change the law and its consequences.
Theoretically I agree, God has the authority to change his law, because he is all-powerful, if he did not have that authority then he would not be God. He may also choose not to change it, but again that is his decision because "He can do whatever He wants with it".
But that's not what people are actually suggesting happened here, because there was nothing to change.
But that's not what people are actually suggesting happened here, because there was nothing to change.
Well it seem to me Paul was saying that as that was always a sinful thing. Granted like I said it is unwise but I don't it's sinful. Something can be unwise but not be sin. I think the old testament mostly just says it's unwise though I gotta go back and look for specific verses on that.
This demonstrably false. There was no Tabernacle before Moses. Then there was never a command to change the Tabernacle into a Temple. The form of the Temple was never commanded either, yet Christ used the Temple and not a Tabernacle.
That’s three alterations; no Tabernacle, Tabernacle, Temple.
God doesn’t change but His instructions clearly can.
But He can't contradict Himself. Changing his Law would be inconsistent of Him changing. If God did that then we'd be trouble and we wouldn't know what a sin is then. God can say fruitcake is banned tommorrow. Or where adultrey was once a sin now it's ok. That would go against Him being just as people were punished unfairly for something being a sin then not. Plus if he is all knowing and has foreknowledge of everything why would He need to change the law anyways? That doesn't make sense. So no I disagree with that. One He would contradict Himself which He can't do He can't go against His own rules. 2. It wouldn't make any sense being all knowing
Hell, the instructions on Passover change in the course of the Exodus. You’re just not thinking through things you’ve been told.
If I tell the children "from now on fruitcake is banned in this house", changing the law of my household, does that mean I have changed? Does that mean my children cannot know what is right and wrong and will be confused about how I expect them to behave?
You're taking this too far. Nobody is suggesting that God has ever made a drastic reversal in the law, "adultery was once a sin now it's ok". That's a straw-man argument.
But He has altered his instructions for his people over time. Adam was told to eat vegetables, Noah was told he could eat animals also, then the Israelites were told through Moses that they couldn't eat pork. Even if you assume that Noah was actually told not to eat pork also and it just wasn't written in scripture clearly (as most Torah-keepers will argue, insisting this law was permanent and reading it back into the preceding chapters as a result), it's very hard to see the change from Adam's vegetarian diet to Noah's omnivorous diet as anything other than a change in the law. But it's only a modification, not a reversal.
I'd say that's a false equivalent. Instructions of something vs the law of what right and wrong are two different things. If you can find an instance of God's law changing then that's different. If God gives a particular individual instructions or individuals that's different vs changing the law that applies for everyone.
So God can then instruct us, through Paul, not to use prostitutes?