Prostitution vs adultery

[The Revolting Man]

OK, please enlighten us as to when sex equals one flesh and when sex does not equal one flesh. Use scripture alone for your argument, not your opinion. Because what I see is many cases where one flesh does not equal marriage. Adultery for one, sleeping with a prostitute for another, and I'm sure there are others. So the notion that one flesh equals marriage is just flat out wrong. And which one of us are the arbiter of when one flesh does or does not equal marriage. I'm not interested in opinions, back it up with scripture that sometimes one flesh equals marriage and sometimes it doesn't.

You have completely missed the argument. I mean completely misunderstood everything I’ve said. You’ve also missed all of the scripture I’ve listed. I would have to start over at the beginning of this thread and rehash every post because you have misunderstood everything I’ve said.

So I’ll make a deal with you, I will rehash all of this IF you will list your stance on the issue and back it up with scripture. And that means I’ll never have to type another word here because you don’t have a clear stance and there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell that if you cobbled one together on the fly that you could back it up with scripture because I have poured over all of the scriptures on the issue very publicly for over a decade and I know that there is no other option from the text.

Here’s the thumbnail version. If you have sex with a woman you have either formed a one flesh union or condemned yourself to death. You have condemned yourself to death if you have committed adultery or incest. Sex will always accomplish one of those two things and sometimes both.

 

[Mark C]

One scripture Mark, just quote one scripture.

You REALLY just can't be bothered to READ, can you? I quoted TWO, directly above, that SPECIFICALLY use the word, and the phrase.

And also, stop wasting my time with the Hebrew...

I could care less about 'your' precious time, since you can't be bothered to even try to read English.

And I really don't think you even grok the difference between a noun and an adjective.

 

[The Revolting Man]

What am I not conveying here?! Why are there so many men on this forum who are convinced that there must be a way for them to have sex with a woman that doesn’t obligate them to God on her behalf?!?! Do we just want to buy sex from prostitutes?

Where is the disconnect that you will demand that I provide ever more and ever more explicit scripture when none of you will even posit a theory let alone back it up?

I can do an entire essay listing every verse that contains the phrase and I‘ll get you men telling me I need to provide scripture. At what point are you going to provide even an alternative idea let alone something to back it up?

Of course adultery perverts the rules around marriage. Adultery perverts the rules of Creation. Yes it leads to an unsolvable paradox, that’s why God requires blood to resolve it. The adulterous one flesh has to be blotted out by destroying the flesh itself. It can’t exist in that state. Two one fleshes (the very phrase is a contradiction) have been formed and that has to be resolved. They can’t coexist and so they won’t coexist.

If you want to sleep with prostitutes and tell yourself that it’s somehow a lesser sin go ahead. I doubt that will be a comfort to you in hell but at least it will give you something to think about. If you want to promulgate God’s truth about marriage then we have to deal with the passages he gave us on the topic.

 

[Mark C]

I can do an entire essay listing every verse that contains the phrase and I‘ll get you men telling me I need to provide scripture.

You reap what you sow!!!

 

[The Revolting Man]

Note that the first use (Genesis 2:24) being referenced "bashar echad" is actually NOT a reference to "the sex act," for sticklers (it doesn't say "Adam "yada'd" his isha" until AFTER 'the fall" - in Genesis 4:1!) -- it says they were of "one body," "bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh...because she was taken FROM man."

So, my opinion: Don't confuse a sex act with a state of unity (echad-ness) which I contend can only be achieved in Covenant, and, yes - as an act - even with practice...

Well what do you know, you did reference a scripture for once. I did miss it. There you go. Let me look at those real quick.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

What am I not conveying here?! Why are there so many men on this forum who are convinced that there must be a way for them to have sex with a woman that doesn’t obligate them to God on her behalf?!?! Do we just want to buy sex from prostitutes?

Where is the disconnect that you will demand that I provide ever more and ever more explicit scripture when none of you will even posit a theory let alone back it up?

I can do an entire essay listing every verse that contains the phrase and I‘ll get you men telling me I need to provide scripture. At what point are you going to provide even an alternative idea let alone something to back it up?

Of course adultery perverts the rules around marriage. Adultery perverts the rules of Creation. Yes it leads to an unsolvable paradox, that’s why God requires blood to resolve it. The adulterous one flesh has to be blotted out by destroying the flesh itself. It can’t exist in that state. Two one fleshes (the very phrase is a contradiction) have been formed and that has to be resolved. They can’t coexist and so they won’t coexist.

If you want to sleep with prostitutes and tell yourself that it’s somehow a lesser sin go ahead. I doubt that will be a comfort to you in hell but at least it will give you something to think about. If you want to promulgate God’s truth about marriage then we have to deal with the passages he gave us on the topic.

FollowingHim is doing a good job. I have been reading and he is providing a number of sound points.

It is easier for me to let him debate you because of.... Standing within the community. You have effectively told me that I do not have enough time on the board to share so many opinions so, I watch more than I type these days...

And when I do gently reply, you get your hackles up way to easily.

Still here, for now... Marking time until I also have standing.

 

[The Revolting Man]

You REALLY just can't be bothered to READ, can you? I quoted TWO, directly above, that SPECIFICALLY use the word, and the phrase.

I could care less about 'your' precious time, since you can't be bothered to even try to read English.

And I really don't think you even grok the difference between a noun and an adjective.

Oh lord, this again. How do you join to your wife? What’s that mechanism? How does one achieve “echad”? You don’t know.

And are you saying that Adam and Eve didn’t have sex until after the Fall? They’re somehow joined in some state of blessed joinedness in 2:24 but the sex doesn’t happen until 4:1? What are you claiming here?

And why isn’t a divorce the reversal of a joinedness then? I don’t understand the mental block. When you divorce a woman it is the undoing of one flesh. How are we even still talking about this?

 

[The Revolting Man]

FollowingHim is doing a good job. I have been reading and he is providing a number of sound points.

It is easier for me to let him debate you because of.... Standing within the community. You have effectively told me that I do not have enough time on the board to share so many opinions so, I watch more than I type these days...

And when I do gently reply, you get your hackles up way to easily.

Still here, for now... Marking time until I also have standing.

You get standing by having good ideas and defending them. You get gently corrected when you mistake a modern English word for an ancient, sacred concept.

 

[Mark C]

Oh lord, this again.

You didn't even address your glaring error. And then you prevaricate:

How do you join to your wife? What’s that mechanism? How does one achieve “echad”? You don’t know.

You don't want an answer. You just want to avoid admitting the obvious. YOU DIDN'T EVEN READ what you criticize.


Case in point:

And are you saying that Adam and Eve didn’t have sex until after the Fall? They’re somehow joined in some state of blessed joinedness in 2:24 but the sex doesn’t happen until 4:1? What are you claiming here?

You're the one who (lies!) and claims to be such a stickler for what Scripture "really says," at least according to Zec.

OK, Mr. Know-it-ALL:

When does Scripture first say Adam and Eve "had sex"? Quote actual Scripture, please, or admit you're full of $#!^ Your "one flesh" squirming is meaningless if you can't even make that clear.

 

[The Revolting Man]

And since everyone is so eager to get their burning questions answered, I have one. How do we dissolve a marriage in order to facilitate a subsequent marriage?

Since we know that marriage can not be one flesh and we know that divorce and putting away only pertain to one flesh, how do we dissolve marriages?

And whats the point of dissolving one flesh if the greater reality of the marriage remains? And why can the woman go to a new husband just because her one flesh is dissolved? Isn’t her marriage still intact? It was only the one flesh that was done away with in the divorce.

You men have some explaining to do. This half baked idea of yours, if it can even be called an idea rather than just petulant desire to try and deny that most of us are adulterers and adulteresses, raises far more questions than it answers.

 

[The Revolting Man]

You didn't even address your glaring error. And then you prevaricate:


You don't want an answer. You just want to avoid admitting the obvious. YOU DIDN'T EVEN READ what you criticize.


Case in point:

You're the one who (lies!) and claims to be such a stickler for what Scripture "really says," at least according to Zec.

OK, Mr. Know-it-ALL:

When does Scripture first say Adam and Eve "had sex"? Quote actual Scripture, please, or admit you're full of $#!^ Your "one flesh" squirming is meaningless if you can't even make that clear.

One of us is very, deeply disturbed. I say that one flesh is sex and that is marriage. Now you’re claiming that not only is one flesh not marriage it’s not even sex? What is the man in 1 Corinthians 6:16 doing with that harlot? What is one flesh of its neither sex or marriage? Genesis 2:24 says they were one flesh. You say they did not have sex until 4:1.

What the hell was the one flesh in 2:24?

 

[The Revolting Man]

This half baked idea of yours, if it can even be called an idea rather than just petulant desire to try and deny that most of us are adulterers and adulteresses, raises far more questions than it answers.

I’m really starting to think that this is the crux of the issue. Most of us can not bring ourselves to admit that we are adulterers, that most of our wives have been adulteresses. We don’t want to think that most women that we desire are not currently eligible for marriage.

Accepting this truth will hurt our spiritual pride and get in the way of our desires. That could be why none of you will posit an enforceable theory of how a marriage can be formed, because you don’t want it enforced.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

I’m really starting to think that this is the crux of the issue. Most of us can not bring ourselves to admit that we are adulterers, that most of our wives have been adulteresses. We don’t want to think that most women that we desire are not currently eligible for marriage.

Accepting this truth will hurt our spiritual pride and get in the way of our desires. That could be why none of you will posit an enforceable theory of how a marriage can be formed, because you don’t want it enforced.

nope. That is not it.

 

[The Revolting Man]

nope. That is not it.

I didn’t say that was everyone’s motivation but some of these men have had a decade to answer this incredibly important question and they can’t yet. It’s time to ask why.

 

[Mark C]

One of us is very, deeply disturbed.

You're on track, finally. But I sense you don't see which.

I say that one flesh is sex and that is marriage. Now you’re claiming that...

You don't know WHAT I'm claiming. But all I'm claiming is that you're wrong, because you're inconsistent, and don't even know what other terms (yeah, the dreaded Hebrew) the Bible uses to refer to the ACT of sexual relations. Or - could there be more to it?

Hint: For a guy who claims to want to "see proof," and won't even understand stories, this is over-the-top:

What the hell was the one flesh in 2:24?

The Bible just told you. So did I, in the entry you still can't read for comprehension. It's called "context," and it's the preceeding verse! (v 23, in case you can't even see that) - "And Adam said, 'this is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh..."

Is it just possible they were once "a flesh in unity" before they ever even had sex? What does that do to your pontification?

You can't see how that can be "one body/flesh" ('bashar echad,' - body/flesh in unity) but just want to assume it means sex? Mr. Picky - why do you make assumptions that you can't PROVE from the text? What does it SAY?

I didn't "claim" anything. I just observed that the first time Scripture says "and Adam KNEW [again, 'yada' - experiential knowing, aka "knew her" in the 'Biblical sense'] is in Genesis 4:1. Prove me wrong, by your own historic standards. And it doesn't EVEN say there that 'he was One Flesh with her' !!!!! BUT - she bore a child as a result.

You're anal as hell when it suits you, and fuzzy as a Biden judge when the facts - and words - actually matter.

PS> In the precedent-setting story of Yitzak and Rivkah (Genesis 24 - which you so disdain) - it NEVER says he was "one flesh" with her at ALL!!! It says he 'took her' (Hebrew 'laqach') "and she became his wife..." I actually think that "he took her" conveys a more meaningful understanding than your insistence that "one flesh is sex and sex is marriage." But that's the point of the story, I suggest...again.

When you ignore the demonstrative stories, and take the words out of context, no wonder you get lost in minutia.

 

[Mark C]

Well what do you know, you did reference a scripture for once. I did miss it. There you go. Let me look at those real quick.

Amazing. As close to an admission (not an apology, obviously - the cynicism gives it away) as I've ever seen.

 

[Transformator Reformator]

This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. (Ephesians 5:32).
Since our union with Christ is parrellel to one flesh between man and woman.

Could I derive that to unite to Christ is to "know" Him. To believe on Him is uniting with Him. To commit adultery against Christ is to "know" someone else besides Him. A person believing in Buddha and Christ just committed adultery against Christ. A person believing in its own efforts besides Christ is committing adultery. What makes me united to Christ, a permission slip from self appointed governing body, no. Set of sacraments unites me to Christ, no. Do I need witnesses to be united to Christ, no. What action that is necessary to be united to Christ in spiritual intercourse.

But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit. (1 Corinthians 6:17)

How many actions procedures does it take to be united with the Lord? Perhaps the answer is parrellel to what is marriage or one flesh bond.

 

[Mark C]

Since we know that marriage can not be one flesh and we know that divorce and putting away only pertain to one flesh, how do we dissolve marriages?

Old news; asked and answered, in Deuteronomy 24:1, and repeated in verse 3.

But you will not be able to understand the Bigger Point without understanding what you miss: Marriage follows Covenant, including the contract elements of "offer and acceptance." (The point of the PRECEDENT in Genesis 24!)

One flesh is an act.

NOTE: And ONLY an act. Within the Covenant, it constitutes consummation, and can be repeated - joyfully, and hopefully without limit - and can bring a multitude of blessings, including become "echad" with wives. It is Covenant that is broken by rebellion. To Him, and to a husband.

Covenant can be broken. (Examples abound; see Jeremiah 31:31, and going back to Abraham and the 'pieces'.) And the answer includes Numbers 30. And Deuteronomy 24 suggests oh-so-clearly that the answer is that the Covenant of marriage is dissolved by the husband's authority, and he "bears her guilt," too.

 

[The Revolting Man]

You don't know WHAT I'm claiming.

I really don’t. I don’t think you do either. 1 Corinthians 6:16 is about having sex with a harlot and it references directly back, quotes, Genesis 2:24. How is that not sex? Deuteronomy 24:1 stars with “When a man takes a woman…”, this is still a euphemism for sex. Numbers 30 doesn’t even reference marriage, or does it say that fathers can revoke covenants but rather vows and obviously whatever vows it is that husbands are revoking it’s not marriage vows because that would just be adultery.

And for the hundredth time, no can link covenants to marriage anywhere outside of Malachi and thats a terrible passage for that purpose.

Mark your ideas here are bar shit crazy and clearly heavily influenced by Jewish scholars who don’t have the recourse to the New Testament. Even your favorite story of Isaac and Rebecca makes it clear that Rebecca became his wife after Isaac took her to the tent and knew her.

Every verse you cite contradicts your claims, and some verses go even farther. Corinthians 6 makes it clear that the one flesh of Genesis 2:24 was sex. You’re just mistaken and egregiously so.

 

[Mark C]

I don't write to convince you, Zec. That is a lost cause. I write so that others here can see through the errors, and make up their own minds, even be "like the Bereans."