Family of God: Re: [Church_of_Christ] Re: Questions on Marriage

.

>>Beth said previously: No matter what He "allowed" to transpire in the O.T. between man and woman...all that changed with the nailing of the law to the cross.

Kent: Two issues here:

1) the claim that it was "the law" (as opposed to something else) which
was nailed to the cross,

and

2) the claim that God allowed changes in His Laws during earlier
dispensations.

I didn't address either claim in my original response, because it's
off-topic to this current discussion, but I would urge you to rethink
both of those claims.

> You said,

( Beth did not say the following paragraph)>
>> One final point: strictly speaking, God did not define marriage as
>> between one man and one woman. We assume that's the God-given
>> definition, because that's the Designed specification. Jesus
>> validates our logic by using the same sort of appeal to original
>> design specs in his answer concerning marriage and divorce. When
>> Lamech marries two wives just a few generations later, his marriage
>> is neither condemned nor affirmed;

I did say this.....
> Well, I will have to agree to disagree with you on God's defination of
> marriage. Of course, it is between one man and one woman. No
> matter how many wives Lamech, Abraham, Jacob, etc had or for what
> reason God allowed it (which we don't have a clue why) ....marriage
> "was" instituted in the garden between one man and one woman and after
> all of the changes that God allowed it to go through with both the
> Patriarchs and the Israelites it found its way back to Christ and
> Christianity. The N.T. teaches us the same thing that God instituted
> in the begining.
>

Kent:....Oh, I don't disagree that God defines marriage as one man with one
woman; I disagree that this has been made clear to us, and that instead
we have to "read between the lines" to conclude this.

Beth: The word "marriage" is an English word. In Italy, France, Germany, Holland, etc it is not "marriage". But every word in every language that refers to a "union" of a man and a woman is marriage.

God, in the Garden instituted a union between "MAN AND WOMAN"... and it is still an institution between "MAN AND WOMAN" under New Testament Law.

Kent: Using the same sort of logic, one might conclude that since the command
to be fruitful and multiply was given prior to this "so-called"
definition of marriage, it takes precedence as being the original
Original Design, and men are therefore justified in spreading our seed
wherever and whenever the opportunity arises, including via multiple
wives and concubines.

Beth: Kent, I'm sure you know as well as I do that everything in scripture is not in chronological order.

Gen. 1:27...So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen. 1:28....And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:

In chapter 1 of Genesis...it states that God created man and woman, but in chapter 2 below....it states that God put Adam in the Garden and decided that it was not good for man to be alone so He created him woman. So common sense tells us that this was all one process, whenever and wherever it transpired.

In chapter 1 it states that He created them and blessed them and told them to multiply and be fruitful and replenish the earth...but how could He tell them to multiply until they were made? Chapter 2 is when He describes how He made them, how they were to become one flesh and said they were both naked and were not ashamed.

So the fact that He said that He told them to multiply could not have happened till after they had been formed out of the dust of the earth.

I don't really thing your theory can hold water. :-) But that is just my opinion.

Gen. 2:21....And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

Gen. 2:22....And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

Gen. 2:23....And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called WAnd Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: She shall be called woman.

Gen. 2:24...Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Gen. 2:25...And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Kent: Of course, even with this approach, the "authorization" for sex comes as
an authorization for reproduction, which means that sex with animals,
pre-pubescent girls, post-menopausal women, members of the same sex,
barren women, etc are not "authorized".

Beth: Well you got two of those right....members of the same sex and with animals.

This is just getting too wierd for me. What is your point?

We are not authorized to have sex with animals...or same sex, but how do you figure all these others into you equation?

Girls in puberty..."once" having sexual relations with man would no longer fit into your category...and what makes you think that girls in puberty would be any different than a 40 year old woman who had never had sexual relations?

Barren women are not always barren for life....Sarah wasn't. I have a cousin that was barren for 18 years and then got pregnant.

I know some post-menopausal women who also have had children...so what does that leave? same sex and animals.

I think we all know that the main purpose of sexual relations between man and woman is for reproduction but there are also scriptures that speak of the desirous relationship between man and woman. If there is any doubt all one has to do is read the Song of Solomon which I know most think it is an allegory of Christ and His Church, but it also depicts the love and desires of man and woman. (And not of men with men and woman with woman.)

Kent: Please note that I am not making this claim; I'm merely saying that the
text is not clear on these issues, and that we apply considerable input
of our own preconceptions into determining what God intended. To claim
that God "defined" marriage is to go beyond the text, putting our own
meaning into the text (a meaning with which I agree, btw, but I realize
I'm putting that meaning into the text rather than it being inherent in
the text).

Well, unless there is error in scripture that I have been given as the inspired Word of God...I have no problem with defining marriage between a man and a woman or that marriage was instituted before Adam and Eve multiplied.

Beth

--
Kent West <")))><
http://kentwest.blogspot.com

------------------------------------

Participation guidelines: List policies are posted in the files area as listpolicies.html

We don't want to see you go, but if you must, the address is Church_of_Christ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Church_of_Christ/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Church_of_Christ/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:Church_of_Christ-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Church_of_Christ-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Church_of_Christ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

__._,_.___

Messages in this topic (65) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

Messages | Database | Polls

Participation guidelines: List policies are posted in the files area as listpolicies.html

We don't want to see you go, but if you must, the address is Church_of_Christ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com