Meat Becoming one

[Mark C]

Nobody's said it yet, here, that I recall, so here goes:

(And I am in general a stickler for Scripture, as Written, and with support - so this one MAY BE an exception, up front. Although, LOTS of personal experience, study - including some extra-Biblical - has convinced me that what Yahushua said about demonic spirits, and related, are without question true.)

"Soul ties."

What is Matt 19:6 really saying? Is it where once a person is one flesh then they are permanently joined together? Are we still joined with that person from years ago even though we havent SEEN each other in eons?

Not just that one, but, in my experience, yes. (Why do you think 'virginity' is so prized by Scripture, and so hated by This World?)

Soul ties seem to persist. And, yes, in dealing with deliverance issues, must not be overlooked. That is particularly true when understood in the context of why men and women are different, when it comes to "one-to-many" relationships, I have come to believe.

Enough for now.

 

[FollowingHim]

When a man decides to have sex with a woman, that is usually not a one-time deal. Even when he hires the "worker" (as in a prostitute) or an office fling, the potential for creating a child is always there. Everybody knows that bio fact and so Trojan, et.al. markets their safe sex tools to PRREVENT the unintended consequence(read that baby).

What if someone truly does sleep with a prostitute once. For example - travelling for work, war, or whatever (common in the ancient world just as today) and hires some entertainment for the evening while staying one night in a town. Or visits the local pagan temple on his way through. Never sees her again, and doesn't get her pregnant.

Is he one flesh with this prostitute?

I guess i will settle with being "not irrelevent". Much has been made about the one flesh admitedly on my part but now how about the whole "asunder" idea? After the one flesh aspect then the deed is done and each can go their way. Is not THAT being asunder? It indicates that the one flesh SHOULD NOT STOP! Well, after bit the whooppee would wear out wouldnt it? What is Matt 19:6 really saying? Is it where once a person is one flesh then they are permanently joined together? Are we still joined with that person from years ago even though we havent SEEN each other in eons?

If "one flesh" is the child, how do you "separate" what God has put together? Surely regardless of whether the couple continue to sleep together or not, the "one flesh union" continues, because the "one flesh union" IS the child. So what would constitute breaking that "one flesh"? Killing the child?

 

[Maddog]

When a man has sex with a woman, there is the future potential (shall is future tense) of becoming one flesh with her. This is in contrast to the homosexual relationship of a man with a man. I purposely used the phrasing "one-flesh" for that to draw a straight line of penetrative sex scenario to both types of relationships hetero and homo. Same as if the man has anal intercourse with a woman. It is the act of sex with a woman (p-i-v) that make the one-flesh possible, but not every time. It is the gifting of God that draws the DNA strands together (sperm and egg) and the wonder of life begins brand new. The question was asked if a man can become one-flesh with a barren woman. My simpleton answer is He can cleave (to) his wife, (cut the flesh with his knife) and still not become physically one flesh or become a single entity. If it were then it would be the only time that a two-headed creature exists and everybody applauds it. Cleaving and one flesh are distinct phrases.
The rest of the verse in Matthew 19 says that what GOD has put together (did God put together me and my past flings? I think not, I was completely capable of messing things up without His help) that man is not to put asunder(the thought of cutting apart and separating) that very life created in the womb. In other words it is a condemnation of the common practice of child sacrifice- post birth abortion. Read the awful history of idolatry and you will see the uncanny parallel between ancient idolatry and modern planned parenthood. That's a whole separate conversation for another time.

 

[The Revolting Man]

When a man has sex with a woman, there is the future potential (shall is future tense) of becoming one flesh with her. This is in contrast to the homosexual relationship of a man with a man. I purposely used the phrasing "one-flesh" for that to draw a straight line of penetrative sex scenario to both types of relationships hetero and homo. Same as if the man has anal intercourse with a woman. It is the act of sex with a woman (p-i-v) that make the one-flesh possible, but not every time. It is the gifting of God that draws the DNA strands together (sperm and egg) and the wonder of life begins brand new. The question was asked if a man can become one-flesh with a barren woman. My simpleton answer is He can cleave (to) his wife, (cut the flesh with his knife) and still not become physically one flesh or become a single entity. If it were then it would be the only time that a two-headed creature exists and everybody applauds it. Cleaving and one flesh are distinct phrases.
The rest of the verse in Matthew 19 says that what GOD has put together (did God put together me and my past flings? I think not, I was completely capable of messing things up without His help) that man is not to put asunder(the thought of cutting apart and separating) that very life created in the womb. In other words it is a condemnation of the common practice of child sacrifice- post birth abortion. Read the awful history of idolatry and you will see the uncanny parallel between ancient idolatry and modern planned parenthood. That's a whole separate conversation for another time.

So here’s my arm chair psychologizing:

You have recognized that the one flesh relationship is the one that can’t be broken. Many people here don’t so you’re one up on them.

But your mind has recoiled at the implications of that truth, as demonstrated by your mentioning of your past flings. This is also a good thing at its base. However, to reconcile the cognitive dissonance you have subconsciously changed one definition in order to resolve the moral quagmire you’d be in otherwise.

You’ve made the potentiality of a conception to be the one flesh instead of the sex act. This allows a small smoke screen against the charge of adultery that almost all of us are guilty of.

But this tactic falls apart pretty quickly. If the potential for conception makes the one flesh then any vaginal sex is one flesh. And even if one flesh requires an actual conception to occur then every vaginal sexual encounter is a potential one flesh relationship that has to be honored until pregnancy is established or disproven. And what happens with miscarriages?

No, I think you’d be better off joining us adulterers down here begging for mercy from a God who is very inclined to give it.

 

[Hisdaughter]

Re: Having sex, or whatever aspect of it "flesh echad" means" is "part of it," when it comes to making a baby.


Let me try it this way, without getting to "engineering nerdy":

Becoming 'one flesh' (the sexual union) is a "necessary but NOT sufficient condition" to having a baby. (Miracles notwithstanding). There's more to it, and it certainly doesn't happen with 100% certainty.

But it doesn't happen WITHOUT that, either.

People tend to confusion "necessary AND sufficient," with "necessary but NOT sufficient." Sometimes (usually when they become bureaucrats or congress-critters) they don't even grok what 'necessary' means...

So yall are saying that because I can no longer have children I cannot be one with my husband.

 

[NickF]

I don’t think Mark is saying that. But Maddog and Abrahamsolomon both are ignoring basic logic and reasoning to hold onto their imaginations on the subject. And yes, they are saying a woman cannot be one flesh with a man unless she conceives a child. And that the passage on divorce is actually a passage about sawing children in half.

 

[AbrahamSolomon]

That's an idea I haven't run through the gray matter before. Good point.

Could that me cheating or sin?

 

[steve]

Could that me cheating or sin?

That’s definitely a reasonable question.
Possibly a separate thread.

 

[AbrahamSolomon]

I don’t think Mark is saying that. But Maddog and Abrahamsolomon both are ignoring basic logic and reasoning to hold onto their imaginations on the subject. And yes, they are saying a woman cannot be one flesh with a man unless she conceives a child. And that the passage on divorce is actually a passage about sawing children in half.

I would say having a baby is proof and who knows how many ways man and woman become 1 Flesh.
Maybe your Marriage is The Foreshadowing of Your One Flesh of your Child and Our Covenant is The Spiritual Oneness.
Either way Man becomes 1 with His Wives. I do not think The Husband's DNA and Woman DNA makes them 1 otherwise all my Wives would also become one all together and I am sure not true.

I also think that it is possible that becoming one with a prostitute might be a warning to say would you want to become 1 with a prostitute?

 

[AbrahamSolomon]

The union between man and wife should continue. She belongs to him, that’s where the cleave part needs to be taken into consideration. Cleave unto his wife and they shall be united flesh. Cleave, look up that word in the hebrew and read a bunch of it’s uses to understand the meaning of the word.

It’s saying when a man cleaves to his wife and they begin a sexual relationship, that unique bond should not be severed and the woman should not go be another man’s.

This is where many on the forum disagree. But in my mind, one flesh means sexual union. Nothing more. A man can be one flesh with a harlot and not take her to be his wife. I would classify that as the sin of fornication.

I could be wrong about it though nobody has shown me scripture to change my mind.

So you are saying Becoming Coming One could have a temporary and a more permanent oneness?
Maybe Sex is or could be a temporary oneness and marriage/baby is more permanent?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Maybe Sex is or could be a temporary oneness and marriage/baby is more permanent?

The problem is that we’re not given any description of how to form a marriage in scripture. The only consistent framing we get is one flesh, even when talking about divorce. Divorce breaks the one flesh relationship specifically. That’s pretty much iron clad proof that one flesh is how God describes what we call marriage.

And with the example of the harlot we’re not left with many options of what forms one flesh. It’s something you do with a harlot and it happens every time you do it with her.

We have some imaginative people in this forum so I’m sure there are some quite colorful ideas about what that could be. I can’t sit to see how those ideas are effected by divorce but I’m sure they’ll have ideas about that too.

The point being is that we’re not given any indication that there are levels of one fleshedness. It appears to be a single stage event. I’m always open to new learning though.

 

[AbrahamSolomon]

The problem is that we’re not given any description of how to form a marriage in scripture. The only consistent framing we get is one flesh, even when talking about divorce. Divorce breaks the one flesh relationship specifically. That’s pretty much iron clad proof that one flesh is how God describes what we call marriage.

And with the example of the harlot we’re not left with many options of what forms one flesh. It’s something you do with a harlot and it happens every time you do it with her.

We have some imaginative people in this forum so I’m sure there are some quite colorful ideas about what that could be. I can’t sit to see how those ideas are effected by divorce but I’m sure they’ll have ideas about that too.

The point being is that we’re not given any indication that there are levels of one fleshedness. It appears to be a single stage event. I’m always open to new learning though.

Believe it or not I am open to learn as well.
What if Gay Sex and Prostitute, Non Wife Sex creates a Sinful Oneness and G-ds Covenant/Baby is a True Oneness.
And when a Wife Cheats G-d's Covenant has ended but The Oneness of The Child is still there.

So The Oneness from Sin that Stays Sin is not a True Oneness but sin.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Believe it or not I am open to learn as well.
What if Gay Sex and Prostitute, Non Wife Sex creates a Sinful Oneness and G-ds Covenant/Baby is a True Oneness.
And when a Wife Cheats G-d's Covenant has ended but The Oneness of The Child is still there.

So The Oneness from Sin that Stays Sin is not a True Oneness but sin.

You would need to find a whole lot of scripture to back up every link in that chain.

 

[Maddog]

So here’s my arm chair psychologizing:

You have recognized that the one flesh relationship is the one that can’t be broken. Many people here don’t so you’re one up on them.

But your mind has recoiled at the implications of that truth, as demonstrated by your mentioning of your past flings. This is also a good thing at its base. However, to reconcile the cognitive dissonance you have subconsciously changed one definition in order to resolve the moral quagmire you’d be in otherwise.

You’ve made the potentiality of a conception to be the one flesh instead of the sex act. This allows a small smoke screen against the charge of adultery that almost all of us are guilty of.

But this tactic falls apart pretty quickly. If the potential for conception makes the one flesh then any vaginal sex is one flesh. And even if one flesh requires an actual conception to occur then every vaginal sexual encounter is a potential one flesh relationship that has to be honored until pregnancy is established or disproven. And what happens with miscarriages?

No, I think you’d be better off joining us adulterers down here begging for mercy from a God who is very inclined to give it.

Always beg for mercy from a Righteous God. No problems there.

 

[Maddog]

I don’t think Mark is saying that. But Maddog and Abrahamsolomon both are ignoring basic logic and reasoning to hold onto their imaginations on the subject. And yes, they are saying a woman cannot be one flesh with a man unless she conceives a child. And that the passage on divorce is actually a passage about sawing children in half.

And in all reality, when divorce happens it affects the children almost as much as dismembering but this time emotionally. Divorce is a very serious move. Think long and hard before making that decision.

 

[Mark C]

So yall are saying that because I can no longer have children I cannot be one with my husband.

Not me, not even remotely.

But you still made MY point. Have sex with your husband all you want, and blessings.
That would be NECESSARY, obviously, were you to have a child.

But it sounds like you realize that a NECESSARY condition may not be all there is (i.e., necessary but NOT sufficient) to the process of bringing forth a child. There must be more to it...

 

[Victorious]

For your consideration, and I cannot provide links right here unfortunately, but call it hearsay or verify it yourself:

Surgeons found material in a female brain which had male DNA. If this is true, then seen consists of more than seed, hormones, and lubrication.

When a woman receives seed, she receives several other ingredients, which remain with her for life. She carries a part of that man, influencing her thoughts and feelings, for good or otherwise, for life.

The two have become one flesh in a real and irreversible way. Further, in principle, love flows down; respect flows up. We hear a lot about "mother love". No disappreciation intended, but perhaps a predisposition to love, nurture, and care for offspring is delivered with the seed. Sure, that's pretty woo-hoo.
I will try to investigate / substantiate / document. But it seems to me this answers to Paul's comments as well as anything I ever heard about union.

 

[paterfamilias]

I am not a biblical scholar and will never claim to be one. I respect many of yall in Biblical Families alot! I want to know your definitions and thoughts. Thats why i made the post. Having said that...

Becoming one? In a marriage there is a bond that starts to form and hopefully before the marriage is even official. That bond prayerfully will grow as time goes by. Some call it a bond. Other call it love. It's that mind melding thing that doesn't really have an explanation. He knows her and she knows him. It's an intimacy that goes beyond sex and is almost spiritual. It is when the husband loves his wife and wants to protect her and provide for her. It's when the wife respects her husband's and wants to please him and take care of him. It's when she knows to her very core that she belongs to him.

Hopefully I didn't ruffle anyone's feathers by labeling this meat. But I prefer to face things head on. Just be straight up.

Recently I was informed that only one man and one woman could "become one" because Genesis 2:24 says the husband shall leave his mother and father and cleave unto his wife and become one flesh. Was that a metaphor for that "bond" that grows for many married couples?? You tell me. This person further explained that men are not capable of being one with more then women at a time. I would like to know what yall think??

My question is why there was so much of it going on if it were not possible. Why has there been so very much of it going on through all of human history that there are vastly more mothers than fathers in the genetic record?

I will wager you as well that one of our resident content experts can give you a less glossed over version of the verse but with different translations and possibly different translations from periods which did not have a specific cultural manipulating agenda in mind. Will have to see what they say.

Personally having experienced the bond in question with two wives concurrently, I say that this person pushing their disapproval of plural marriage is simply full of it. Unreservedly and with full confidence, I absolutely know...not think that I can fully bond with and love more than one wife. I will go further. It is not any more challenging than loving a single wife.

Inculcation creates prejudice and that shapes thought patterns going forward, even if they are obvious nonsense on the bald face of things. This idea of men not being able to bond with and love multiple women qualifies, casually.

 

[The Revolting Man]

For your consideration, and I cannot provide links right here unfortunately, but call it hearsay or verify it yourself:

Surgeons found material in a female brain which had male DNA. If this is true, then seen consists of more than seed, hormones, and lubrication.

When a woman receives seed, she receives several other ingredients, which remain with her for life. She carries a part of that man, influencing her thoughts and feelings, for good or otherwise, for life.

The two have become one flesh in a real and irreversible way. Further, in principle, love flows down; respect flows up. We hear a lot about "mother love". No disappreciation intended, but perhaps a predisposition to love, nurture, and care for offspring is delivered with the seed. Sure, that's pretty woo-hoo.
I will try to investigate / substantiate / document. But it seems to me this answers to Paul's comments as well as anything I ever heard about union.

My understanding is that this only happens when the woman has born a son and the DNA enters her system through the son. Your broader point is valid but the mechanism in this instance may be different.

 

[FollowingHim]

My understanding is that this only happens when the woman has born a son and the DNA enters her system through the son. Your broader point is valid but the mechanism in this instance may be different.

Or when she has conceived a son, even if the son miscarried or was aborted.