Someone once said..."A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
-
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
Except that he has yet to convince anyone.
The link is higher up in the thread.
Then maybe someone else should come up with an explanation that has anything to do with the text. They won’t because they can’t but they should at least try.Except that he has yet to convince anyone.
I mean it is Biblical Families, not “I speculate wildly” families.
It would be much simpler to say that flesh means flesh and that is the baby and the "shall not divide assunder" refers to the typical child sacrifice.... but noooo, I go there and I am on the beach gettting ready to be kicked off the island! What's more Ez 16:8 refers to Yahweh making a covenant with the now grown orphan girl at essentially the same time as her "covering" but the actions are distinct from each other. Curious note though, ONE FLESH is not mentioned! V20,21 only later mentions slaying the children for passing thru the fire as was the practice for Molech.
Some of us find it reasonable to draw a conclusion from the examples given in the absence of a definitive mandate.
You seem to choose to declare a definitive mandate concluded from the lack of a definitive mandate.
Why is there an absence of a definitive mandate? Why is a matter of life and death left obscured? If there isn’t a definitive mandate then we have a major flaw in our scripture. Ergo the mandates that are there have to be definitive.
I don’t even have to address the “reasonable conclusions” of men. Every heretic, weirdo, false prophet and Catholic who ever existed said that they were drawing reasonable conclusions.
We've all heard you make the claim a thousand times, after all...
1And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as forthis Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.
Yup, people get uncomfortable when something isn’t definite.
So they create something definite, and another human tradition takes form.
I would counter that “reasonable conclusions” is how traditions get started, not a slavish adherence to the text at all costs.
You’re not dealing in reality anymore Mark. I’m sorry but you’re just lashing out because you’re encountering resistance and you don’t have any answers.
If Yah had actually given us a precise definition that we could adhere to, we wouldn’t have any disagreement.
The reality is that He gave us more precise statements about ending marriages than beginning them. I believe that shows that He is not all that concerned about exactly how we get married, His focus is on maintaining the marriage once two people have agreed that they are in one.
A marriage is much more a heart decision than a sexual act, but once entered into it becomes part of the glue that holds society together.
I'm sorry you can't read a story for comprehension, Zec, or understand what precedent is about. I bet 'parables' really flummox you...
Don't confuse "not having any answers" with your not being able -- or willing -- to understand them.
why do you think distinct? what do you think covering means in the verse? when I read this particular verse, it seems to indicate to consummate a grown orphan girl and thus making a covenant aka marriage.
Last edited:
The essence of the blinders seem to be here:
I contend that the most important goal in our lives should be to hear the words from The Master, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant!"
(Zec will no doubt disagree; it's only told as an example, and later as a parable, not as a "mandate" or even a "commandment.")
What does it mean, to be a "good and faithful servant"?
And I contend that Scripture is full of examples, and counter-examples. Samuel doesn't like me referencing them, evidently, because citing them involves
...and I have in fact, and love referencing it, gone into great detail about the very story that I contend is at the heart of MOST of the discussion* in this thread:
The "good and faithful servant" (Yahushua's term, I contend, not mine) who was tasked with finding a bride for Isaac, and did exactly that. I will even suggest that it is important to note that NOWHERE in that story is Abraham's servant even given a name! And that somehow matters, too.
What matters is that he "came in the name of his master (Abraham)" to do his will, as he was commanded. And, as his master commanded, so he did.
And at the end of that story, we have the most detailed example of a marriage covenant in the entire Book. AND the precedent for what the English Common Law calls "agency," or sometimes "power of attorney," and what the entire Bible teaches as what it MEANS to "come in the Name of," our own Teacher. And the most succinct, one sentence description of marriage (and love in that context, too!) in all of Scripture.
It's not framed as a "commandment." It's TEACHING. (In Hebrew, it is 'torah'.)
It's arguably not a matter of "life and death," even - just having a good life, and being a good servant to Him. Although that may be the most important thing we can understand.
And we'd certainly be Fools to ignore it.
-------------------------------
* There are other stories, of course, that deal with both prostitution and adultery, separately. But without marriage, there can be no 'adultery', and there are certainly stories (Dinah, Judah and Tamar) that might SEEM to involve 'prostitution', but really don't - so that's part of the confusion some seem to have. But understanding precedent is the answer there, too.
PS> I'm fine if this needs to be the start of a separate thread, but it's my summary here.
So, the issue, and the question:
I contend that the most important goal in our lives should be to hear the words from The Master, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant!"
(Zec will no doubt disagree; it's only told as an example, and later as a parable, not as a "mandate" or even a "commandment.")
What does it mean, to be a "good and faithful servant"?
And I contend that Scripture is full of examples, and counter-examples. Samuel doesn't like me referencing them, evidently, because citing them involves
...and I have in fact, and love referencing it, gone into great detail about the very story that I contend is at the heart of MOST of the discussion* in this thread:
The "good and faithful servant" (Yahushua's term, I contend, not mine) who was tasked with finding a bride for Isaac, and did exactly that. I will even suggest that it is important to note that NOWHERE in that story is Abraham's servant even given a name! And that somehow matters, too.
What matters is that he "came in the name of his master (Abraham)" to do his will, as he was commanded. And, as his master commanded, so he did.
And at the end of that story, we have the most detailed example of a marriage covenant in the entire Book. AND the precedent for what the English Common Law calls "agency," or sometimes "power of attorney," and what the entire Bible teaches as what it MEANS to "come in the Name of," our own Teacher. And the most succinct, one sentence description of marriage (and love in that context, too!) in all of Scripture.
It's not framed as a "commandment." It's TEACHING. (In Hebrew, it is 'torah'.)
It's arguably not a matter of "life and death," even - just having a good life, and being a good servant to Him. Although that may be the most important thing we can understand.
And we'd certainly be Fools to ignore it.
-------------------------------
* There are other stories, of course, that deal with both prostitution and adultery, separately. But without marriage, there can be no 'adultery', and there are certainly stories (Dinah, Judah and Tamar) that might SEEM to involve 'prostitution', but really don't - so that's part of the confusion some seem to have. But understanding precedent is the answer there, too.
PS> I'm fine if this needs to be the start of a separate thread, but it's my summary here.
So you’re not married? You didn’t send a servant on a long camel journey to bring you back a cousin bride you had never met after negotiating with her brother. If Isaac and Rebecca set the best precedent then thats what we’ll do, but you don’t really believe that. You just want to take the negotiations and then consent part. You actually don’t care about the precedent.
And that what’s wrong with “reasonable conclusions”.
It is distinct because it is separately mentioned. We can surmise that each action would(could) occur roughly the same time, or NOT! Recall the betrothal of Joseph and Mary. She belonged to him and it was HIS decision to continue. God recognized the validity of the relationship and even though God is Sovereign over everything, He chose to address the patriarch Joseph and convince him to carry on and consummate the relationship (already begun) after the birth of Jesus. According to the typical gestation that means 9 months of no sexual activity(or longer including the purification time) where there was the husbandly responsibility(food shelter clothing) with no seed planting(sex). It of course is NOT typical.
So Ezekiel 16 has risen to the point of "proof text" if there ever is one. It is undoubtedly clear that the bloody muddy abandoned newborn infant found in the ditch was adopted and was subsequently owned by the Father (obviously rejected by the birthing mother) as a metaphor. Now a metaphor in scripture carries a great deal of weight especially when recording what the FATHER in Heaven did as describing Himself. This really flies in the face of humanity's normal action of the "I do's" then immediately followed (well maybe a few hours given how long the party is) by consummation, which is the POTENTIAL for "one flesh" if one believes that "one flesh" is descriptive for the baby being created. As a tangent, "one flesh" always means actual flesh and bone and not a euphemism for coming together(at least in my reading so convince me I am wrong otherwise it stands) in joining the bodies. A problem for the infertile couples is that they cant become one flesh even though they are married and have sex quite often. I understand that it is a dagger to the heart for the brooding women not to be able to conceive with hubby. There are definite reasons that conception doesn't take place and perhaps shouldn't take place with medical intervention. Genetics is profound. Hence the reason for a second woman in the home that COULD get pregnant. I recall in the first covenant that a man injured in his "stones" (indicating he was shooting blanks, effectively a eunich) was supposed to live outside the camp. Gee, wonder why?
What’s stupid about that? You’re the one who said Isaac and Rebecca are the best precedent for marriage. You’re the one who said precedent should be binding. I’m literally just quoting you.
Are you implying that precedent is open to wild extremes of interpretation and that for it to be useful everyone has to already agree on the principles the precedent is supporting? Because that would make a clearly defined principle, possibly even a mandate, very important.
"Stupid is as stupid does." -- Forrest Gump
I said the story of Isaac and Rivka concludes with the most succinct single-sentence summary of the PROCESS. (Genesis 24:67, QED)
The STORY, including the concepts of contract, agency (the un-named good and faithful servant, what it means to "come in the name of," and what constituted Rivka's "acceptance" of the offer) constituted a clear example, and precedent.
I can't make you understand, especially if you will NOT SEE.