Prostitution vs adultery

[Mark C]

That marriage starts when she literally climbs into bed with the man.

Duh. How many times do we have to REPEAT what Genesis 24:67 already said!?"

 

[The Revolting Man]

Asked and answered. You are almost certainly the only one reading this NOT 'smart enough' to the story of Genesis 24 for comprehension.

You deny the obvious, the undeniable, and then whine that no one will clue you in.

Alright Mark, everyone knows you hate me. Everyone knows that your primary goal in every communication here is to insult me. If we all agree that everything you wrote should first be read as an insult at me will you set that aside long enough to actual lay out what the one flesh in Genesis 2:24 is if sex didn’t happen until 4:1 and one flesh is most definitely not marriage?

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

The only correction I would make is that it's a RE-Newed Covenant, (Jer. 31:31 et al) -- "My Covenant which [y'all] broke!"

That cannot be true. The party to the marriage covenant died. Death breaks a marriage covenant.
There was NO MORE a marriage.

Then a new marriage must be formed. He loves his former wives and chooses them again after his resurrection.

This is the reason a new covenant was required.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

Or it could be why I am learning. I’m not getting distracted by passages that aren’t actually about the topic. We have passages that are specifically about the practical formation of marriages. You just copy and pasted a huge block of scripture that was a metaphorical indictment of Israel’s rebellion. If you stayed on topic you might no get so distracted.

Your not learning. You made a statement that no one could use scripture to tie marriage to a covenant.
I showed you EXACTLY this and quoted your statement so that you could not be confused as to how it fit into the conversation.

You are willfully ignorant.

 

[Mark C]

That cannot be true. The party to the marriage covenant died. Death breaks a marriage covenant.
There was NO MORE a marriage.

Then a new marriage must be formed. He loves his former wives and chooses them again after his resurrection.

This is the reason a new covenant was required.

Long response, ultimately off-topic. Suffice it to say there are issues, like a 'son' cannot take his 'father's' wives. There's a place where the metaphor with humans breaks down, and there are other explanations that make at least as much sense. Later...

 

[Mark C]

Alright Mark, everyone knows you hate me. Everyone knows that your primary goal in every communication here is to insult me.

Nah - I just respond in kind. But you delete and edit, and folks here haven't seen the private hate mail and threats. So shut up already, no sale.

If we all agree that everything you wrote should first be read as an insult at me...

No, only when I respond directly to insults, and blind ignorance.

ONE MORE TIME... Case in point:

will you set that aside long enough to actual lay out what the one flesh in Genesis 2:24 is if sex didn’t happen until 4:1 and one flesh is most definitely not marriage?

Damn, you are obtuse!

As I said, READ GENESIS 2:23. They were ALREADY 'one flesh' - Adam's - he said so! And I've already quoted it! ("Bone of my bones...etc!")
They were literally 'echad' before YHVH Himself separated them. No sex - by any metaphor or euphemism - required. And you admitted yourself - their "marriage" was different that ANY OTHER in all human history.

And why does v 24 therefore, begin with 'therefore,' and talk about somebody ELSE - another man, obviously - who does something Adam did NOT do with parents Adam dod NOT have? It follows from Adam's example, but is NOT the same situation, for many obvious reasons. (Well, to anyone else reading here.)



And quit trying to put words in my mouth, and then claim I "don't know what I'm claiming." Like this idiocy,

one flesh is most definitely not marriage?

I said they are not "identically equal." (Do you understand what that means? Not synonymous. Not "one and the same." One is an ACT, that consummates a Covenant, or may be prohibited - depending on who, how, and when. Can you not see that? If not, I can't help you.)

Did you bother to even do your homework? Can you FIND ANOTHER SPECIFIC text prior to Genesis 4:1 (which does not say, 'one flesh', anyway - again!) that UNAMBIGUOUSLY says Adam "knew his wife"?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Your not learning. You made a statement that no one could use scripture to tie marriage to a covenant.
I showed you EXACTLY this and quoted your statement so that you could not be confused as to how it fit into the conversation.

You are willfully ignorant.

No you didn’t. That was a marriage that pre-existed the covenant by hundreds of years. That whole passage begins with sex and later on there’s a covenant. But the passage isn’t about how to form a marriage. You’re taking the whole passage out of context even if supports my side by starting with sex.

 

[The Revolting Man]

That cannot be true. The party to the marriage covenant died. Death breaks a marriage covenant.
There was NO MORE a marriage.

Then a new marriage must be formed. He loves his former wives and chooses them again after his resurrection.

This is the reason a new covenant was required.

This we actually agree on.

 

[The Revolting Man]

As I said, READ GENESIS 2:23. They were ALREADY 'one flesh' - Adam's - he said so! And I've already quoted it! ("Bone of my bones...etc!")

So why does Paul quote this passage im 1 Co6:16 when dealing with the harlot? Are harlots bone of my bone with their paramours? Do they literally come out of their johns?

And you admitted yourself - their "marriage" was different that ANY OTHER in all human history.

I don’t know where I admitted this, I certainly never admitted their marriage was unique enough to cover not having sex nor would I have ever admitted that they were so unique that their one flesh was somehow different than every other one flesh that is then explicitly grounded in Adam and Eve’s one flesh.

Where did you get this idea? I’m willing to be that it’s lifted almost wholly from some Christ denying source or another.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

Long response, ultimately off-topic. Suffice it to say there are issues, like a 'son' cannot take his 'father's' wives. There's a place where the metaphor with humans breaks down, and there are other explanations that make at least as much sense. Later...

I would love to go into that with you. It is NOT a metaphor and the FATHER, never married anyone. It was the SON all along.

 

[Mark C]

RE: Adam and Eve didn't have a 'marriage' (Zec won't allow the word in other contexts, this duplicity is unsurprising, however.) Adam didn't even have a belly button. (I don't KNOW this - I just PRESUME because it makes sense, given why men with earthly mothers do...)

Zec keeps bringing up I Cor. 6:16. And pointing out that one can have sex with a harlot. What about this don't you understand? And why can't you see that marriages AFTER Adam and Eve can be different than theirs, yet share similarities?

You, Zec, have still never addressed the singular precedent in Scripture that describes HOW a marriage is contracted, then consummated, in some detail. Nor how Deuteronomy 24:1-3 lays out (twice) how marriages are made "void," so that a wife who has undergone that process, "may go and be another man's."

This is not hard. If you just read what Scripture says.

 

[Mark C]

I would love to go into that with you. It is NOT a metaphor and the FATHER, never married anyone. It was the SON all along.

On that we ALMOST agree. But, He says they are 'echad,' (Deuteronomy 6, the "most important commandment," in Scripture, He says)
...so they are a Unity.

Yes - love to, will do.

 

[The Revolting Man]

You, Zec, have still never addressed the singular precedent in Scripture that describes HOW a marriage is contracted, then consummated, in some detail.

Because that precedent supports my claim, as I have pointed out time and time again. Rebecca doesn’t become Isaac’s woman until he takes her into the tent.

The whole idea of a servant negotiating with a brother being the precedent for how all marriages should be conducted is so eye rollingly stupid that it’s the reason why I won’t countenance “precedent” being any kind of standard in spiritual matters.

Exactly what aspects of that event are precedent and what elements are not? What are the parts you like precedent and the parts you don’t care about just details?

 

[MemeFan]

The whole idea of a servant negotiating with a brother being the precedent for how all marriages should be conducted is so eye rollingly stupid that it’s the reason why I won’t countenance “precedent” being any kind of standard in spiritual matters.

How do men without servant get married?

 

[MemeFan]

Btw, people when did Ruth's marriage started?

Her case is important because it's one of few cases where we have story of marriage start