I just gave you multiple examples of God’s Law changing. You then laid out a really good case for how instructions can change, and then reverted back to the claim that instructions can’t change. You’re not being consistent. Sexual immorality has always been prohibited, but the definition of sexual immorality has gotten more explicit over time. Abraham could marry his half sister. After Sinai that was forbidden. You can’t act like that’s not in there.
Nah, Paul said it's fine - at least for him:
Another fine reason to realize that it is "INSTRUCTION" - not "law".
How is that a straw-man argument? you just said God can change His law if He wants to. It's one thing to give certain instructions to an individual or individuals than change the whole law. God can tell someone to go on a fast for a bit for a specific purpose but it wouldn't change the law of being able to eat meat. If it's to a specific person for a specific purpose then that's different than Paul basically say everyone can't sleep with prostitute it is forbidden now even though there was no law against it. I understand that vs changing a law for everywhere for mankind. My thing is if there's no consistency and the law is subject to change then I think we're in some serious trouble as it could change tommorrow and we not know it. Which I always believed that the Law was there before the world began.
I’m good with that.
Exactly they're arguing about instructions changing not law changing. As I said God can give specific instructions to a specific person ans to go against those would be sin theoretically
)But was that applied for everyone or just them? If it's universal then seems to me the law changed.
And when I mean by them I mean by them at that time. Assuming Paul was even talking about commercial prostitution cause I'm not 100% convinced that he was.
So the instructions around prostitution changed? Are you okay with that?
Assuming that's what he was referring to commercial prostitution. There's evidence to show he could of been talking about temple prostitution which is explicitly forbidden in scripture. I would question why was it ok before but not now. Abraham marrying his half sister makes sense most likely because there was no1 else to repopulate the earth with. But the way Paul phrased it he made sound like this was already known NOT something that he just instructed. This is why I'm skeptical if he was referring to prostitution in general.
Then to say the law change is kind of an argument from silence since there's no evidence to say that it did change.
There's also examples of
I've studied this a bit and read papers on the historical context of what was happening or could of been happening in that time frame I know temple prostitution did exist in that area. Some say it ended long before Paul's time but it's very possible there were still pagan festivals that had prostitutes who made money for pagan gods as temple prostitutes as well as feasts and forms of idolatry. As it would appear Paul seems to lump these three together in his letter. Though I could be wrong but if it's true it fit with scripture perfectly as sexual immortality in the old testament was associated with idolatry idol worship etc.
You need to show some textual evidence that it’s about temple prostitution at all. That’s a distinction not in the text.
But is it in the text?
He could theoretically reverse the law, he has the authority to, but he also has the authority to preserve it and that is what he has largely chosen to do. So it's a straw-man argument to say that people are claiming He has reversed the law (making grave sin acceptable), when nobody is claiming that.
I agree, in theory they would be obviously even worse as they introduce the issue of idolatry on top of the issue of sexual immorality. So don't use prostitutes, and really really don't use temple prostitutes!
Are you now agreeing with me, as I've also said the law hasn't "changed" on this point?
Plus to add on the Abraham thing. We have seen places in scripture were something was a law but an exception was made due to circumstances and Christ brings this up to pharisees when the priest weren't allowed to share bread but the exception was made due to the fact there was no other food available. We could easily lump Abraham in to this situation.
Except that Paul seems to say not to be one flesh with harlots…