Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789
Results 121 to 135 of 135

Thread: Does this constitute marriage according to the Bible?

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    3,626

    Re: Does this constitute marriage according to the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    NO. In a previous posting, which I believe you acknowledged, I posted the following;

    Matthew 19:4-6;
    4 "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male (SINGULAR) and female (SINGULAR),
    5 And said, For this cause shall a man (SINGULAR) leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his (SINGULAR) wife (SINGULAR): and they twain (NOT MORE THAN TWO) shall be one flesh?
    6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."


    But just to spoil your day, and your Western Puritan sensibilities, I energetically state that the THREE women in the Emir of Qatar's life ARE HIS WIVES. Just as I energetically declare that BOTH Leah and Rachel WHERE THE WIVES OF JACOB, and just as I energetically state that Solomon's 700 wives WHERE HIS WIVES - BECAUSE (1) SCRIPTURE SAYS SO, AND (2) THEY FULFILLED THE REQUIREMENTS THAT GOD HIMSELF SET FORTH.

    If you you vehemently object, I suggest you take it up with God Who Himself laid forth these requirements.
    Come on man......

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    No. Not simply sex. You misrepresent me. Let's go over God's definition (not mine) AGAIN ... from the New Testament if you will.

    Matthew 19:5-6.
    5 "And said, For this cause shall a man (1) leave father and mother, and (2) shall cleave to his wife: and (3) they twain shall be one flesh?
    6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."


    • NO VOWS
    • NO MAGISTRATE
    • NO CATHOLIC PRIEST
    • NO CEREMONY
    • NO RING
    • NO COVENANT
    You are the one bringing up the ceremonial. No one else.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    In a place of praying hard and trusting God while battling on my knees!
    Posts
    29,936
    Blog Entries
    94

    Re: Does this constitute marriage according to the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    NO. In a previous posting, which I believe you acknowledged, I posted the following;

    Matthew 19:4-6;
    4 "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male (SINGULAR) and female (SINGULAR),
    5 And said, For this cause shall a man (SINGULAR) leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his (SINGULAR) wife (SINGULAR): and they twain (NOT MORE THAN TWO) shall be one flesh?
    6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."


    But just to spoil your day, and your Western Puritan sensibilities, I energetically state that the THREE women in the Emir of Qatar's life ARE HIS WIVES. Just as I energetically declare that BOTH Leah and Rachel WHERE THE WIVES OF JACOB, and just as I energetically state that Solomon's 700 wives WHERE HIS WIVES - BECAUSE (1) SCRIPTURE SAYS SO, AND (2) THEY FULFILLED THE REQUIREMENTS THAT GOD HIMSELF SET FORTH.

    If you you vehemently object, I suggest you take it up with God Who Himself laid forth these requirements.
    I'm just wondering if you are looking at a "cultural" historic account of marriage back then and trying to apply that cultural acceptation of the marriage covenant to ALL the world's cultures as WHAT God is saying the marriage covenant is or is not.

    Clearly, it was not a sin for brothers and sisters to be joined in marriage back in Adams and Eve's days. For that matter, following Noah's time on the water also. So if you are going to follow through with this model of the marriage covenant, God is still joining together brothers and sisters also.

    Or did that end as a cultural element of the marriage covenant?

    But then... God addressed incest, so...

    I can't accept your model of the marriage covenant.
    Slug1--out

    ~Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men,~

    ~Honestly, the pain of persecution lets you KNOW you are still alive... IN Christ!~

    ~Colossians 1:28 Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.~


    ~"In the turmoil of any chaos, all it takes is that whisper that is heard like thunder over all the noise and the chaos seems to go away, focus returns and we are comforted in knowing that God has listened to our cry for help."~


  3. #123
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,978

    Re: Does this constitute marriage according to the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pbminimum View Post
    Define "cleave". Please make it more interesting than shacking up.
    I already did in an earlier posting, but repetition is the learning man's ally. Strong says of the Greek;
    • Transliteration: proskollao
    • Phonetic Pronunciation:pros-kol-lah'-o
    • from <G4314> (pros) and <G2853> (kollao); to glue to, i.e. (figurative) to adhere :- cleave, join.

    The Hebrew is equally clear.
    a primitive root; properly to impinge, i.e. cling or adhere; figurative to catch by pursuit :- abide fast, cleave (fast together), follow close (hard after), be joined (together), keep (fast), overtake, pursue hard, stick, take.

    I like the idea of "shacking up". The last 40 years "shacked up" with my wife have been interesting, pleasurable, sometimes turbulent and something I'm going to miss in the resurrection.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,978

    Re: Does this constitute marriage according to the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pbminimum View Post
    Come on man......



    You are the one bringing up the ceremonial. No one else.
    No-no. Go back to the earlier postings and you'll find the wedding ceremony is high on the list of man-made traditions that JOIN a man and woman.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    3,626

    Re: Does this constitute marriage according to the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    I already did in an earlier posting, but repetition is the learning man's ally. Strong says of the Greek;
    • Transliteration: proskollao
    • Phonetic Pronunciation:pros-kol-lah'-o
    • from <G4314> (pros) and <G2853> (kollao); to glue to, i.e. (figurative) to adhere :- cleave, join.

    The Hebrew is equally clear.
    a primitive root; properly to impinge, i.e. cling or adhere; figurative to catch by pursuit :- abide fast, cleave (fast together), follow close (hard after), be joined (together), keep (fast), overtake, pursue hard, stick, take.

    I like the idea of "shacking up". The last 40 years "shacked up" with my wife have been interesting, pleasurable, sometimes turbulent and something I'm going to miss in the resurrection.
    I don't see a lot of disparity in your definition between "join" and "cleave". Unless I'm missing something, and it's entirely possible.

    But I would like to define "shacking up". That would be "having relations" with someone until you tire of them and move on. It could last weeks, months, or years. It's a mutual understanding of no strings attached, which is the polar opposite of biblical marriage.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    3,626

    Re: Does this constitute marriage according to the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    No-no. Go back to the earlier postings and you'll find the wedding ceremony is high on the list of man-made traditions that JOIN a man and woman.
    A ceremony hasn't been promoted by anyone here bro. It's been talked about, but not necessarily argued that a ceremony is necessary for biblical marriage. I said that Jesus attended a ceremony and He appeared to have a blast. Anyhow...

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,978

    Re: Does this constitute marriage according to the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Slug1 View Post
    I'm just wondering if you are looking at a "cultural" historic account of marriage back then and trying to apply that cultural acceptation of the marriage covenant to ALL the world's cultures as WHAT God is saying the marriage covenant is or is not.

    Clearly, it was not a sin for brothers and sisters to be joined in marriage back in Adams and Eve's days. For that matter, following Noah's time on the water also. So if you are going to follow through with this model of the marriage covenant, God is still joining together brothers and sisters also.

    Or did that end as a cultural element of the marriage covenant?

    But then... God addressed incest, so...

    I can't accept your model of the marriage covenant.
    You keep attributing a "Marriage COVENANT" to me when I have vehemently denied such a thing throughout the thread. May I suggest that it is a figment of your imagination, or at least a fixed matter in your mind. I understand that you have been schooled in the Western Christian traditions, and that they are almost impossible to shake off. I do not blame you. But I think I was the only one who brought scriptures for my belief.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,978

    Re: Does this constitute marriage according to the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pbminimum View Post
    A ceremony hasn't been promoted by anyone here bro. It's been talked about, but not necessarily argued that a ceremony is necessary for biblical marriage. I said that Jesus attended a ceremony and He appeared to have a blast. Anyhow...
    I then present you postings #2 and #3. The English is plain.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,978

    Re: Does this constitute marriage according to the Bible?

    Hey Guys (and Gals), its been a great debate. I think we have exhausted it, and we can all walk away with something to think about. I love you all (genuinely). Take care, and see you on the next battle- ooops Debate-field.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    3,626

    Re: Does this constitute marriage according to the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    You keep attributing a "Marriage COVENANT" to me when I have vehemently denied such a thing throughout the thread. May I suggest that it is a figment of your imagination, or at least a fixed matter in your mind. I understand that you have been schooled in the Western Christian traditions, and that they are almost impossible to shake off. I do not blame you. But I think I was the only one who brought scriptures for my belief.
    Wall's , you are getting hung up on labels and terminology to help explain the position. It's been repeatedly explained to you what is meant by "covenant" "vow" and "oath" concerning marriage. I fear it is you that cannot "shake" your hatred for such labels,

    The entire thread has been an attempt to explain that a mutual understanding of both entering the marriage, and compliance to that standard that God set forth is the pre-requisite to a biblical marriage. Call it what you want to Walls, but would you agree with the previous statement ? It doesn't contain the word "vow" " "oath" or "covenant".

    I can't see you disagreeing with the above.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    15,055

    Re: Does this constitute marriage according to the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    You keep attributing a "Marriage COVENANT" to me when I have vehemently denied such a thing throughout the thread. May I suggest that it is a figment of your imagination, or at least a fixed matter in your mind. I understand that you have been schooled in the Western Christian traditions, and that they are almost impossible to shake off. I do not blame you. But I think I was the only one who brought scriptures for my belief.
    And this is the root of disagreement. Marriage is a covenant. We see Jesus entering into covenant with His bride. Here are some of the steps of the covenant as shown in scripture:

    1. People who enter into covenant exchanges names: God became known as the God of Abraham, and Abram took on the "ah" part of God's name and became known as Abraham. Jesus is "Son of Man" and we are Christians.

    2. Exchanging of robes. Jonathan and David exchanged robes. We take on the robe of righteousness from Christ and He takes on our robe of sin.

    3. Eating of a covenant meal that includes bread and wine. Abraham went into covenant with Melchisadek. Jesus took a covenant meal with the apostles stating He would not do so again till they ate with Him in eternity. But they were to keep taking the covenant meal as often as they would as renewing the covenant with fallen man was needed. But Jesus, He doesn't have to renew it.

    4. Exchanging of strengths. We can do all things through Christ. He took our own weaknesses.

    5. Exchanging of enemies. We can love our enemies because now they become God's enemies. His enemies become ours.

    and so on.

    The covenant relationship supercedes all other relations. That is why Saul sought to kill Jonathan upon finding out Jonathan went into covenant with David. It superceded the father/son relationship between Saul and Jonathan.

    Anyway, marriage is covenant. They are the same. All the steps are there. Two become one, exchange names, exchange enemies, exchange strengths, covenant meal, etc. All covenants are not marriage, but all marriages are covenants. Jesus entered into covenant with us and it is called the "new covenant". He is our bridegroom. He is the author and finisher of our faith. As He entered into covenant with His bride, so ought we to enter into covenant with our bride.
    Matt 9:13
    13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
    NASU

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    In a place of praying hard and trusting God while battling on my knees!
    Posts
    29,936
    Blog Entries
    94

    Re: Does this constitute marriage according to the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    You keep attributing a "Marriage COVENANT" to me when I have vehemently denied such a thing throughout the thread. May I suggest that it is a figment of your imagination, or at least a fixed matter in your mind. I understand that you have been schooled in the Western Christian traditions, and that they are almost impossible to shake off. I do not blame you. But I think I was the only one who brought scriptures for my belief.
    Marriage IS a covenant. Until you accept that, you will just keep misrepresenting all the many scriptures you post concerning the joining of a man and a woman as one flesh. The WHOLE plan of God is based on a "covenant" and marriage between "a" man and "a" woman is representative of the covenant God has with mankind through Jesus as a believer becomes one with Jesus.
    Slug1--out

    ~Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men,~

    ~Honestly, the pain of persecution lets you KNOW you are still alive... IN Christ!~

    ~Colossians 1:28 Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.~


    ~"In the turmoil of any chaos, all it takes is that whisper that is heard like thunder over all the noise and the chaos seems to go away, focus returns and we are comforted in knowing that God has listened to our cry for help."~


  13. #133
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    8,438

    Re: Does this constitute marriage according to the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    Any reasonably literate reader would not have come to your conclusion concerning my posting. My posting supports common sense UNTIL God's Word overrules it. Common sense says that the walls of Jerico cannot be destroyed by the sound of trumptes and men's voices. But God's WORDS said it would be. So common sense must be set aside for this occasion.
    No, common sense is *never* set aside. That is my point. You are talking about Natural Reason, which is often used by Natural Philosophers to deny that human reason can decipher Supernatural Revelation. This is an entirely different subject! So let's return to the subject, and deal with it in a Common Sense way, which we are all apparently in agreement about?

    The subject of vows requires our intellectual faculties, just as much as any other subject does. We don't suspend judgment, and just accept your judgment on any matter!

    My argument was that Jesus was under the era of Law. He was.
    My argument was that Jesus called for 100% compliance with the Law of Moses, which included the law of vows. This is a fact.
    Common Sense will tell you that Jesus was not, therefore, calling for the termination of the law of vows.

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls
    For you, common sense is that men make marriage with vows, ceremony and contract. But that is NOT common sense. That is TRADITIONS OF MEN. So, turning to God's WORDS we find that Marriage is a JOINING BY GOD of a male and female who fulfill three requirements - NONE OF WHICH are vows, ceremony and/or legal contracts.
    That is not what I said. I said it is the *vow* that makes the contract. Period. Without a vow, or without a verbalized agreement, there is no contract, and thus no marriage agreement. It is the agreement that makes the marriage.


    Your argument of marriage ceremony and tradition bears no relation to what I was arguing. Perhaps that is your stumbling block, that you think vows require ceremonies? They don't. I got non-legally married to my wife in '86 by verbal promise to her before God. No ceremony. Then, a year later, to conform with the concerns of other Christians that I had acted in bad faith I got married legally in *87. No ceremony--just a court-house marriage by a judge. Felt good to be accepted by the brotherhood! So I now date my anniversaries by the *87 date. But in my heart, the real marriage began with the vow in '86.

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls
    Next, although it has been pointed out to you multiple times that the grammar of Matthew 5:1-2 shows that the teachings in Matthew Chapters 5, 6 and 7 are directed ONLY at His DISCIPLES, you still insist on pointing the teachings there to the Jews and to the Law. But the Law is not taught by our Lord Jesus. Luke 16:16 clearly says; "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." This is confirmed in Matthew 11:13. And it is even more evident to the literate by the words of our Lord Jesus when He says in Matthew 5:33-34;

    I think you misunderstand what Jesus was saying in Matt 11.13. Jesus was saying that Prophecy of the Messiah ranged from Moses to John the Baptist. Jesus was talking about his herald, John the Baptist, and about the general purpose of the Law of Moses in preparing for his own Coming.


    Jesus was *not* saying that the Law was being voided among his own disciples before the Cross. This is bad doctrine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls
    33 "Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
    34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:"


    Here, He does not deny the OLD. For its application it was 100% valid. But now He, Jesus, introduces a NEW THING FOR HIS DISCIPLES - NOT FOR THE DISCIPLES OF MOSES.
    No, Jesus' disciples were still under the Law until the Cross. To say otherwise is bad doctrine. The temple veil was not rent until the Cross. Therefore, the temple was still in effect for *all Israel,* including Jesus' disciples, until the Cross. Until redemption was fully paid for, Jesus' disciples were still required to make animal sacrifices, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls
    Again, marriage has NOTHING TO DO WITH VOWS OR THE LAW. It is instituted, (1) BEFORE the fall of man, (2) BEFORE any Law came from Moses, and (3) BEFORE the Church. Adam and Eve need no vows. They need no magistrate. They need no Laws. And they need no ceremony. They copulate and God JOINS THEM as ONE FLESH.
    The act of copulation can be either marriage or fornication. It depends on an agreement! That is the marriage vow, or the marriage contract. It doesn't matter whether the vow is formalized by ceremony or not, or even if it has anything to do with the Law of Moses. An implied contract is part of the marital covenant. That means a vow has taken place, whether a ceremony is attached to it or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls
    My friend, if you find vows necessary for your daily living, for your work and for your marriage, you must decide on TWO THINGS;

    If you are a Christian THEY ARE FORBIDDEN BY YOUR MASTER
    Your "yes" is NOT "yes" and it needs the strength of an oath to make your "yes" true - damning!
    My Master, Jesus, now operates after the Cross in the NT. We are not under the Law of Moses, nor under any law of oaths connected to that Law. However, we are still under the laws of justice and righteousness. As such, our promises must be kept. Our "yes" must be "yes," and our "no" must be "no." We can be forgiven for anything, including the breaking of vows. But we should strive to be honest and faithful in what we say. We are witnesses to the world of our integrity and of Christian spirituality. We should minimize our mistakes. Vows, or promises, are an important part of righteousness after the Law. Jesus indicated that it had universal value. "Until heaven and earth pass away..."

    Let me just say this. I think you are suggesting that sexual intercourse is supposed to imply a marriage covenant? If so, we are saying the same thing, in a sense. To engage in sexual intercourse as an implied contract *is* marriage. But marriage can take place without sexual intercourse at all. In rare cases sexual intercourse may not be possible, such as if two very old, and crippled, people get married by law. It is the agreement, or the contract, that makes the marriage--not sex. This is my argument about making vows. But you will likely ignore this.

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,978

    Re: Does this constitute marriage according to the Bible?

    OK Guys, I've read posts #130 to #133 and noted your arguments. I thank you for your energy and commitment. The positions are hardened and there is nothing new being added. I'm happy to let you guys have the last word. TrustGzuz - thanks for your private note. Take care and God bless y'all.

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    8,438

    Re: Does this constitute marriage according to the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    You keep attributing a "Marriage COVENANT" to me when I have vehemently denied such a thing throughout the thread. May I suggest that it is a figment of your imagination, or at least a fixed matter in your mind. I understand that you have been schooled in the Western Christian traditions, and that they are almost impossible to shake off. I do not blame you. But I think I was the only one who brought scriptures for my belief.
    Walls, it isn't that Scriptures aren't in the forefront. They are for everybody. It is how you are defining "cleaving" that determines whether this is an intentional, willful joining or not. For me, the very act of joining, or entering into a relationship with my wife, is a vow.

    You define it as if there are no strings attached, eg "shacking up." That is a colloquialism for "living with" apart from marriage. I know you don't mean it that way, but we need to speak to our culture.

    If you are willfully entering into a relationship with your wife, it is a promise of sorts--a promise not to leave, or to keep on cleaving. It is the *intention* that constitutes the vow (or not).

    If a young boy enters into a grocery store and takes candy, walking out of the store without paying, *intention* is everything. Did the boy *forget,* or was he trying to *steal?*

    You see, when you enter into a relationship with the opposite sex, it is with a purpose in mind. If your intention is to "cleave" to her, in the biblical sense, it is in my book a "vow."

    That's what makes it a marriage--a vow before God, or the intention to be married before God. I really don't see your problem with seeing the marriage as a covenant or the product of a vow, unless you just are O.C. about Jesus saying there are no vows anymore?

    Thank you for the conversation. Vows have played a powerful role in my life, and are dangerous, if not used properly. It's all well and good if you don't make vows, as long as you understand that you are consciously or unconsciously making promises all the time. The important ones are the ones we need to be careful with.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Family and marriage in the Bible
    By Balabusha in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: Apr 22nd 2014, 04:01 AM
  2. Replies: 12
    Last Post: Jul 13th 2012, 03:50 PM
  3. Replies: 18
    Last Post: Jun 30th 2012, 06:06 PM
  4. Marriage and sex in the bible? Divorce...
    By Kmm24 in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Aug 15th 2010, 12:37 PM
  5. Did any of what I took constitute mark fo the beast?
    By Arkady in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: Jul 10th 2009, 06:11 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •