• 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?

Deesee25 said:
There's also examples of

I've studied this a bit and read papers on the historical context of what was happening or could have 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.
Click to expand...
Are these papers inspired scripture? Were they written prophetically?
 
Deesee25 said:
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.
Click to expand...
No we can’t. The priests were allowed to do what they wanted with the bread after it was done being used in the Tabernacle (remember, no temple yet).
 
FollowingHim said:
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?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I was mainly referring to revolving man cause he seemed to claim the law changed. I don't think I ever claimed it changed I think Paul had something else in mind when it made that statement different from what we're thinking. I think he was condemning a particular type of prostitution.
 
Deesee25 said:
I'm not sure I was mainly referring to revolving man cause he seemed to claim the law changed. I don't think I ever claimed it changed I think Paul had something else in mind when it made that statement different from what we're thinking. I think he was condemning a particular type of prostitution.
Click to expand...
I’m not claiming that the “Law changed”. I’m claiming that God reveals His instructions over what we call time, sometthat He exists outside of.
 
The Revolting Man said:
Are these papers inspired scripture? Were they written prophetically?
Click to expand...
I was trying to get the historical context of what was happening at the time Paul wrote this letter to understand what he may of had in mind when he wrote the letter to the corthians. All I'm saying is there's evidence to show Paul may have had something different in mind than what we're thinking at the time he wrote the letters.
 
Deesee25 said:
I was trying to get the historical context of what was happening at the time Paul wrote this letter to understand what he may of had in mind when he wrote the letter to the corthians. All I'm saying is there's evidence to show Paul may have had something different in mind than what we're thinking at the time he wrote the letters.
Click to expand...
Context is where obedience goes to die. Historians are constantly wrong. You can’t filter your theology through secular scholars who deny that scripture is truth to begin with.
 
The Revolting Man said:
I’m not sure but I think it was to show how little they knew the Torah, much like He did with the woman caught in adultery.
Click to expand...
Well the way I understood it was to show that there are exceptions to the rule due to the circumstances of the situation. That God is a judge not a rulebook. Maybe I'm wrong but it would makes sense. Especially for Abraham's case since there weren't anyone to repopulate with so obviously even though incest was always wrong the circumstances would leave no other choice.
 
The Revolting Man said:
Context is where obedience goes to die. Historians are constantly wrong. You can’t filter your theology through secular scholars who deny that scripture is truth to begin with.
Click to expand...
The guy wasn't a secular scholar at all and even Still I like to get other perspectives because everyone has a bias and preconceived notation of things including Christians this why there has been wrong teaching on sex and marriage so long to begin with.
 
The Revolting Man said:
Context is where obedience goes to die. Historians are constantly wrong. You can’t filter your theology through secular scholars who deny that scripture is truth to begin with.
Click to expand...
I also don't think it's that black and white there can be a secular scholar who believes scripture but chooses not to follow it. It doesn't have to be either or all the time.
 
Deesee25 said:
Well the way I understood it was to show that there are exceptions to the rule due to the circumstances of the situation. That God is a judge not a rulebook. Maybe I'm wrong but it would makes sense. Especially for Abraham's case since there weren't anyone to repopulate with so obviously even though incest was always wrong the circumstances would leave no other choice.
Click to expand...
You really need to find explicit scripture to say that God’s rules are optional.
 
The Revolting Man said:
Except that Paul seems to say not to be one flesh with harlots…
Click to expand...
Ok but as I am saying Paul speaks as if they already knew that was wrong. And if the harlot is a temple prostitute that he may be reffering then your inviting all kind of satanic and demonic things into your body why he says "you sin against your own body". I'm not even saying that I'm right all I'm saying is there could be an explanation.
 
The Revolting Man said:
Again, that’s a dangerous game to be playing with Yahweh.
Click to expand...
I mean I wouldn't take the risk personally. But aren't there instances in the bible were I think hagar lied to spies or something like that and God praised her for it even though she lied? Wouldn't that imply an exception to God's rule in certain circumstances or am I missing something?
 
Deesee25 said:
Especially for Abraham's case since there weren't anyone to repopulate with so obviously even though incest was always wrong the circumstances would leave no other choice.
Click to expand...
Just to help here, Abraham lived about 2,000 years before the time of Christ, so about 500 years after the Flood. There were already many offspring born to Noah's sons and their descendants. The law against sexual relationships with near kin wasn't given till the time of the Exodus. Adam and Eve's children "married" and had sexual relationships with one another in obedience to the command give to Be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28). This command was repeated for Noah and his sons after the Flood; Gen. 9:1, Be fruitful and multiply. There is now a prohibition, given at the time of the Exodus, against such sexual activity. Shalom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top