Lying isn’t in violation of God’s instructions; bearing false witness is. That’s a different thing.
-
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
I thought about that too but how do you interpret these verses then?
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
-Revelation 21:8
Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.
-Leviticus 19:11
That is why I try to be so "anal retentive" about the vital distinction in understanding between "His Instruction," and "law".
Our UNDERSTANDING of His Instruction changes any time we are ready to move from "milk" to MEAT!
And the Hebrew word for discussion, leading to edification (even argument in the process) is "midrash". Paul's writings, properly understood, are midrash. He is telling us "how to walk." Sometimes he even makes it clear that it is only his personal opinion, and "not from YHVH."
Sadly, so, for that matter, did the Pharisees. The problem is, they started thinking their midrash, their opinion, was LAW.
Yahushua had to meet the requirement He Himself laid out in His own Word. By His own Word, He had to complete His own Word. It's the only way we could know, for sure, that He Was (and Is) Who He Is.
The thing is I didn't Jesus give anything that was outside of what was already written. Which is why he always said "as it was written" people say Jesus highered the standard but I disagree it seems like he was just setting the record straight on some things that were already written. Like how coveting leads to adultery such as look at a woman/wife to covet after her (it says lust but the proper term in this contest is covet) and you committed adultery with her in your heart. It wasn't a new commandment it just saying how thou shalt not covet and adultery can occur simultaneously
Pretty close. I'd say He was showing them how little they WALKED in obedience, since they knew better, but made their OWN 'law' out to be superior to what He Wrote.
"By your traditions you have made the commandments of YHVH of no effect." (Mark 7)
And with that woman, he literally shamed them in their hubris.
There's the rub. (And I don't have the references, 'don't have a dog in this hunt', etc.)
The vowel pointers, and the distinctions between things like "qadosha' being applied to temple prostitutes, etc.... (the Torah, Five Books, talks about "devoted things", a related idea)
...are from the Masoretic text. So - your mileage may vary.
But those vowel pointers, right or wrong, reflect a historic understanding. Somebody put 'em in, thinking they improved the understanding. We've seen that before, and argued it as well.
I gotta couple resources here for anyone who's interested on this topic. One for Paul and temple prostitution the other just talking about sexual sins in generally and what and what isn't permitted under the Torah. It touches on temple prostitution too but not as deep
bibletopicexpo.wordpress.com
Sexual Sins, Harlotry, Rape – (1)
Sexual sins and crimes are big concerns in society and in the church. Cultures of the world have differing standards of morality/immorality. Here we’ll look at sexual immorality from God’s word. …
bibletopicexpo.wordpress.com
I started reading, got to the point below and gave up. Lesbianism isn't listed as sin in the Bible.I gotta couple resources here for anyone who's interested on this topic. One for Paul and temple prostitution the other just talking about sexual sins in generally and what and what isn't permitted under the Torah. It touches on temple prostitution too but not as deep
Sexual Sins, Harlotry, Rape – (1)
Sexual sins and crimes are big concerns in society and in the church. Cultures of the world have differing standards of morality/immorality. Here we’ll look at sexual immorality from God’s word. …
Sexual sin includes: adultery, incest, homosexuality/lesbianism, transvestism, beastiality, menstrual sex, idolatrous prostitution. Without learning these foundational scriptures, knowledge of sexual sin may just be based on or skewed by the customs & traditions of our nation or church.
It's not against Torah for you to eat McDonald's everyday. I could still write you a letter (whether the catholic church canonizes said letter or not) and tell you it's unhealthy and unwise.
That said, there is an argument to be made for not supporting people in their sin. Even if sleeping with a secular whore is allowed, the whoring itself probably shouldn't be supported.
And although I don't agree that sex = marriage (at least not exactly) I do think that this is a situation so close to adultery that it ought to be avoided.
That said, there is an argument to be made for not supporting people in their sin. Even if sleeping with a secular whore is allowed, the whoring itself probably shouldn't be supported.
And although I don't agree that sex = marriage (at least not exactly) I do think that this is a situation so close to adultery that it ought to be avoided.
Simply read all the passages relating to lying and find an understanding that is consistent with them all. We're told not to bear false witness against our neighbour - which is a lie with intent to harm another person. On the other hand, Rahab lied to protect the spies - which is a lie with intent to protect another person. Clearly whether a lie is permitted depends upon the purpose of the lie. Most lies are harmful, and are condemned by Revelation 21:8 and Leviticus 19:11, however there are exceptions that do not fall in that category.
Marriage does not always start with a one flesh union with a virgin. If it’s done righteously - yes. But un righteously - no.
The Torah says the man must marry a virgin he slept with. He can choose not to obey this instruction, and then there is no marriage.
And if he does wish to marry her - but the girl’s father says no - once again - there is no marriage. Because of headship and the father’s authority. He should had gotten permission from her covering first, because of his mistake; he still pays the customary bride price for virgins.
So what’s the righteous procedure? What is marriage? Let every matter be established by 2 or 3 witnesses. It’s a union between a man and woman. The man has her father’s approval. The man then makes a statement (at least 2 or 3 witnesses) along the lines of - “I’m taking this woman as my wife.” Then it becomes confirmed when they become one flesh together. You don’t need court houses. You don’t need to go into a religious building.
Last edited:
That seems like a pretty reasonable summary.
This part, however, also seems to summarize some of the dilemma extant in a world which so hates His Word. (And, likewise, a 'church' that prefers to "add to," and "subtract from," certainly regarding 'marriage' - just as surely.)
This part, however, also seems to summarize some of the dilemma extant in a world which so hates His Word. (And, likewise, a 'church' that prefers to "add to," and "subtract from," certainly regarding 'marriage' - just as surely.)
One thing I have said for years, that fits regardless, is that we now have an entire generation (ok, several...) of 15 year-olds, with and without remaining genitalia at this point, who are so 'mis-taught' that they don't have a CLUE how many "wives" or "husbands" they do or do not have. Or even why it matters.
So you disagree with one thing and you just quit? So you have to 100% with an article in order to keep reading it? Werid but ok lol. The Bible only talks about two dudes having sex is forbidden. Chicks can't have sex anyways its impossible.
Issue is there's nothing in scripture saying there has to be witnesses either. Marriages throughout time have changed and varied. Some had witnesses, some just moved in together and were considered married, then some just paid the father and took her. The reason he had to marry her didn't really have to do with righteous reasons it was more economic reasons. Since women were mostly property back then if a man took her virginity he had to pay the father as the father would have a more difficult time finding her a husband cause shes worthless. This why he had to pay "the dowry of virgins"
Since we don't have that nowadays and women are basically equal to men then this doesn't apply anymore
I don't know if there's an "obligation" though in my opinion (and a lot of guys even agree with me who aren't in the "Christian space) that if you do sleep with a virgin you should take her for yourself. Personally I'd never sleep with a virgin anyways unless I planned on keeping her for myself.
Generally if she's a virgin shes more likely to stay with you anyways cause women tend to more attached to their first than the next guy. I don't think females were designed to sleep around at all. I think it's ok for men as they're more built for that. Which is why multiple wives were allowed for them. Even in my own dating experience I noticed how a man can love multiple females but a woman can really only love and be attached to one man. she's only designed and built for one man. Most of them in my opinion don't wanna sleep around anyways. I think the ones that do are a loud minority of them I could be wrong but that's my take.
We would need to go look at the words and see what was intended. I don’t have the time right now.
This is not what the text says. What if the father says no and the man just takes her? What’s the status of that union? Exodus 22:16 is not about forming one flesh. It is about one little unique set of circumstances.
No. This is only true in criminal and civil trials to establish wronging. Nowhere is it tied to one flesh. You’ve completely made this up.
Where does it say that a man needs the father’s approval. Remember, Exodus 22:16 only applies when the father blocks possession. By that passage a disapproving father who can’t block possession isn’t dealt with at all. He can forbid the woman going to the man but if he can’t stop it then the verse doesn’t apply to the situation. You’ve built a sandcastle.
Again, you’ve completely made this up. It’s nowhere in scripture. You’re speaking for God, claiming your words are His Words. God didn’t say this, you did.
You need something and you have nothing, nothing but your own wild speculation. One flesh is a sacred institution that carries with it powerful blessings and deadly consequences. It can not rest on your assumptions. It has to rest in scripture and it has to reconcile all of the relevant verses. You rest your entire case on one verse that does not claim to be a universal teaching on the topic.
One flesh is formed by sex. This is unavoidable. Sex with a harlot forms one flesh, with no mention of what the father thinks of it incidentally, one flesh is the state that has to be dissolved by a divorce. One flesh is how the union between a man and a woman is described when the whole concept is introduced. There’s nothing else. You can’t find anything else. You don’t have anything else. You’re clinging to a ledge with your fingertips because you’re desperate to be able to have sex that doesn’t obligate you to God.
Ask yourself why is it so important to you that sex have minimal meaning? Why do you have to hang all the law and the prophets on Exodus 22:16? What do you lose if sex obligates you to God and a woman?
Are you denying that sex is a sacred and holy act? Is it just a physical reality to feels good and makes babies? Does it not have spiritual significance? It so what significance does it have in your view?
You certainly can't try to make a claim like that:
See Deuteronomy 19:15 (and others!) You might argue context, but not that Scripture isn't at least GENERALLY insistent on "two or three witnesses" for 'every thing.'
No. We make too much of this verse. I’ve see men try to claim scripture that doesn’t get repeated twice hasn’t been established by two or three witnesses. The verses are about trials. That’s what they apply to. Trials need to have more than one witness.
I don't think it's that sacred and holy. No. A lot of this teaching came from the Roman catholic church with their Greek philosophy of the church fathers and Greco-Roman ideology. Alot of christedom views on sex and marriage came from that. At one point they believe sex to be this evil act and made it only for marriage but called it a necessary evil. That lust as bad too. The early church fathers all of this came from them. Even after the reformation movement Christians still haven't been able to get over this that sex is this major major thing especially for a man.
As I said genesis 2:24 is merely a description of what happens when a couple comes together nothing more nothing less. They were made to come together and procreate that's it. The west in general tends to be pretty prude when it comes sex. I do think it affects the woman more than the man I do agree with that especially if she's a virgin. Personally I wouldn't sleep with a virgin unless I planned on keeping her but that's just my own personal conviction cause I know how it affects them.