Duh. How many times do we have to REPEAT what Genesis 24:67 already said!?"
-
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.
Prostitution vs adultery
- Thread starter FollowingHim
- Start date
- Status
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
Member
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
Member
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.
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...
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.
No, only when I respond directly to insults, and blind ignorance.
ONE MORE TIME... Case in point:
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,
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"?
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.
This we actually agree on.
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?
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
Member
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.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...
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.
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.
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.
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?
How do men without servant get married?
For those who still don't get it:
But, as I have said, and you seem to have denied until now, the precedent is in the final verse, and describes PRECISELY what you previously claimed you couldn't see, and pretended not to see as 'precedent': (and I contend the SEQUENCE is important)
And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took [laqach] Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.
The Covenant, arranged by the un-named 'good and faithful servant,' in the name of Abraham, which was offered and accepted (thus betrothal) was consummated, and the result was a marriage. The first described in such detail in the Book.
And the word "one flesh" never appears. So what? You won't find a better precedent for it, and succinct summary of the process, than v. 67.
Is it JUST POSSIBLE that YHVH Himself can teach more than one principle in a single story?
Like:
- what a 'good and faithful servant' looks like. (Is there a reason He never names that servant in the whole story???)
- what 'offer and acceptance' in a marriage look like. IMMEDIATELY AFTER He just showed us what "offer and acceptance" look like in a land contract, and the "first recorded deed" in human history (the cave of Macpelah.)
- what 'agency' (power of attorney) is. What it means to "come in the name of" a principal; in this case, Abraham, to effect a contract.
- what makes a 'marriage'
and even subtle things, like - did Rivkah have a choice? Absolutely - and this precedent makes it clear. She not only 'accepted,' she confirmed it by deed, first when she got on the camel and left her home, then when she consummated the marriage. No one forced her to come.
This story is so important, so central, and teaches SO many fundamental principles that are literally CENTRAL to the entirety of "English Common Law" that I have trouble wrapping my head around the level of ignorance it takes to deny what it is teaching.
Do what you want. I can't make the blind see. But if you ignore His stories, His parables, you have a pretty pitiful grasp of Scripture.
So, why then did you make this asinine claim?
Yeah, which is it? (I don't care - that was rhetorical. I think you just make it up to suit your ego, and deny it when it doesn't.)
Duh, and double duh. They were betrothed, she was committed to Yitzak, even though they had never met; had any other man slept with her it would have been adultery.
But, as I have said, and you seem to have denied until now, the precedent is in the final verse, and describes PRECISELY what you previously claimed you couldn't see, and pretended not to see as 'precedent': (and I contend the SEQUENCE is important)
And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took [laqach] Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.
The Covenant, arranged by the un-named 'good and faithful servant,' in the name of Abraham, which was offered and accepted (thus betrothal) was consummated, and the result was a marriage. The first described in such detail in the Book.
And the word "one flesh" never appears. So what? You won't find a better precedent for it, and succinct summary of the process, than v. 67.
It's so "eye rollingly stupid" you should be ashamed for even being that idiotically blind to the point!!!
Is it JUST POSSIBLE that YHVH Himself can teach more than one principle in a single story?
Like:
- what a 'good and faithful servant' looks like. (Is there a reason He never names that servant in the whole story???)
- what 'offer and acceptance' in a marriage look like. IMMEDIATELY AFTER He just showed us what "offer and acceptance" look like in a land contract, and the "first recorded deed" in human history (the cave of Macpelah.)
- what 'agency' (power of attorney) is. What it means to "come in the name of" a principal; in this case, Abraham, to effect a contract.
- what makes a 'marriage'
and even subtle things, like - did Rivkah have a choice? Absolutely - and this precedent makes it clear. She not only 'accepted,' she confirmed it by deed, first when she got on the camel and left her home, then when she consummated the marriage. No one forced her to come.
This story is so important, so central, and teaches SO many fundamental principles that are literally CENTRAL to the entirety of "English Common Law" that I have trouble wrapping my head around the level of ignorance it takes to deny what it is teaching.
Do what you want. I can't make the blind see. But if you ignore His stories, His parables, you have a pretty pitiful grasp of Scripture.
So, why then did you make this asinine claim?
Yeah, which is it? (I don't care - that was rhetorical. I think you just make it up to suit your ego, and deny it when it doesn't.)
Last edited:
Are you really drinking the Zec Kool-Aid? Or was that an attempt at understated British-style humor?
The point of "agency" (and the ESSENCE of the vital concept of what it means to "come in the Name of" Somebody) is to DO THE WILL of the One Who sent the Servant. Get it? How much of Scipture does THAT clarify?
The rest of us can - and always have been able to - contract in our own name, on behalf of ourselves. And for those that don't deny the point of stories in Scripture as precedent - THAT question has already been answered, in the story that immediately preceded Yitzak and Rivkah:
Read Genesis 23. It's just as detailed, and also teaches more than one principle in a single story:
- Offer and acceptance (and note how Abraham gets the owner to MAKE the offer, then immediately ACCEPTS)
- ...in front of witnesses to the contract.
- and there is "compensation" in the form of silver, the 'money of the merchant,'
- and the first recorded land deed.
He didn't take it as a gift. This was the ONLY land that was truly Abraham's during his lifetime, of the entire Promise.
Every element of "Contract Law 101" is present in this single story. It is THE precedent for 'contract' in our Common Law history.
Last edited:
PS> I have taught these stories from His Torah as "precedent" for the very heart of our 'Common Law' for years at this point. There is hours of valuable material here, and it is central to understanding what used to be taught (when we had "education") as "Civics 101." I have posted many links on-line.
Every attempt to put up links here for people who have questions like this thread have been gleefully blocked, deleted, and banned by The Revolting "Moderator." He has made it clear, in direct nastygrams, that it is personal, and selective. Now you know why.
Every attempt to put up links here for people who have questions like this thread have been gleefully blocked, deleted, and banned by The Revolting "Moderator." He has made it clear, in direct nastygrams, that it is personal, and selective. Now you know why.
Her case is the 'primary precedent' for the idea of 'Levirate marriage,' and - in particular - the chief example of a 'kinsman-redeemer' prior to the Messiah Himself. But it doesn't explicitly tell us about the consummation (nor need it) - but it does tell us the result, in the lineage of Messiah.
Well, that escalated...
This is the fundamental problem with this whole discussion:
If you can listen to me as a brother having a calm chat with you, keep reading. If you insist on seeing me as an adversary attacking you, this discussion is over as it is not even a discussion.
- All sex creates one flesh
- One flesh is, exactly as the words literally mean, something physical. An actual physical change in the flesh. It is not something we can break, it is a permanent physical state.
- We are only to become one flesh with our own women. Women we have an agreement with (and with her father as appropriate) that she is exclusively ours.
- Becoming one flesh with an available woman without such an agreement creates an obligation to make one.
- Becoming one flesh with a prostitute is an abomination.
- Becoming one flesh with a woman who belongs to another man is a sin worthy of death.
- Death alone dissolves one flesh, because it is physical, and death destroys the body.
- Any statement that one flesh can be dissolved by decision of man, or by becoming one flesh with another person, is to spiritualise it and deny its physical reality, inventing a new concept and applying the label of "one flesh" to it.
You know all the scriptures I'm using. They're the same ones you use. I'm just reading the exact same verses completely literally, recognizing that "flesh" is a word that truly means "flesh".
This is the fundamental problem with this whole discussion:
It is not an attack! I am having a calm discussion trying to tease out the nuances of a situation. You perceive it as an attack, become defensive, and under those circumstances no rational discussion is possible.
If you can listen to me as a brother having a calm chat with you, keep reading. If you insist on seeing me as an adversary attacking you, this discussion is over as it is not even a discussion.
My views are very clear and have been clearly stated frequently, but to recap:
- All sex creates one flesh
- One flesh is, exactly as the words literally mean, something physical. An actual physical change in the flesh. It is not something we can break, it is a permanent physical state.
- We are only to become one flesh with our own women. Women we have an agreement with (and with her father as appropriate) that she is exclusively ours.
- Becoming one flesh with an available woman without such an agreement creates an obligation to make one.
- Becoming one flesh with a prostitute is an abomination.
- Becoming one flesh with a woman who belongs to another man is a sin worthy of death.
- Death alone dissolves one flesh, because it is physical, and death destroys the body.
- Any statement that one flesh can be dissolved by decision of man, or by becoming one flesh with another person, is to spiritualise it and deny its physical reality, inventing a new concept and applying the label of "one flesh" to it.
You know all the scriptures I'm using. They're the same ones you use. I'm just reading the exact same verses completely literally, recognizing that "flesh" is a word that truly means "flesh".
Last edited:
- Status