Polygamy is in the Bible

[ok doser]

Because I'm of the Adam that ate the forbidden fruit knowing good and bad.

Oooooohh

He's the bad one

 

[Neopatriarch]

Because I'm of the Adam that ate the forbidden fruit knowing good and bad.

So are the Adamites. How is your reasoning different?

 

[Bradley D]

So are the Adamites. How is your reasoning different?

After Adam acquired knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve covered their bodies when they realized they were naked. So why do the Adamites hold services in the nude?

The Adamites, or Adamians, were adherents of an Early Christian group in North Africa in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries. They wore no clothing during their religious services.[1][2]

Wikipedia

 

[Neopatriarch]

Adam and Eve covered their bodies when they realized they were naked.

Yeah, conditions had changed. That works for me.

 

[Neopatriarch]

Recommended reading:

What Does the Bible Say About Polygamy? | KGOV.com

kgov.com

Have you read this? Bob Enyart makes a strong argument for polygamy in the Old Testament.

The practice (of polygamy) was widespread among God's people in the Old Testament including the great patriarchs of the faith...
-Bob Enyart

And why was it widespread?
Because

...God permitted polygamy, ...
-Bob Enyart

...the Mosaic Law specifically permitted polygamy...
-Bob Enyart

Now I wouldn't say that Bob Enyart is pro-polygamy by any means, but he acknowledges that it was a legitimate practice that protected women under the Old Covenant. It is hard to come back from that position with any hermeneutic integrity. He cites a couple of Laws but he doesn't exegete them, which I suppose is fine. Much like a lawyer might concede certain points in a case, in an attempt to gloss over them before the jury. Additionally, he does not make it clear why women do not need this protection now. Women aren't used and abandoned by men anymore? They don't end up in prostitution anymore? There are no single mothers in his congregation? I am not sure how forced monogamy protects women, but rather it seems to have them lowering their expectations of men. So they say, "All the good men are taken".

Of course, Bob is a Mid Acts Dispensationalist. So he tries to make the distinction there. He uses quotes from Jesus and Paul to make these points. Citing Jesus seems to run counter the Mid Act Dispensational position. If one supposes that Jesus is speaking to the Jews under the Old Covenant the Law remains the same. Isn't that right?

Matthew 5:17-18 (NKJV)
17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

It would be odd for Jesus to be prepping for some new teachings that would be for people he wasn't currently preaching to, nor was he sent to, especially if nothing was changing for the audience in his presence.

As for Paul, he agrees with Christ.

1 Timothy 6:3 (NKJV)
If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness,

Certainly, Paul consents to the wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul likewise teaches about God's Law.

Rom 7:12
Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

1Ti 1:8
But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully,

Remember Bob specifically says that God's law permitted polygamy. How can then God's Law that was holy, become unholy? What was holy, just, and good become unholy, unjust, and bad?

That is a big hill to get over.

 

[Lon]

That is just not a problem the Reverend Martin Madan had

I'm sure you think so...despite what I (and I know) said. : Plain:

There are no general commands to marry but there are three conditional commands to marry. (If/then statements) None of them exempt men that already have a wife.

for example:
Exodus 22:16 “If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife.

So you particularly read "...surely pay the bride-price for her to be another of his wives."

This is simply an argument from silence. Families were huge in the OT. Peter was married to at least one woman. Paul wasn't married at all. Other than that there are only a few more. Most of the men mentioned their marital status is unmentioned.

There are more than a few more. Ananias and Saphira, Mary and Joseph, Zechariah and Elizabeth, Priscilla and Aquila, Paul said most of the Apostles had wives, all single marriages. Paul mentions several in closing his letters as well. There is absolutely no mention, even among the pagans, of multiple wives.

I do think that this wording is interesting.

1 Corinthians 9:5a Do we have no right to take along a believing wife,...

Why does it limit them to "a wife"? The wording is entirely unnecessary in a monogamy-only paradigm.'

Nope, you are reading 'in'to it. Paul wasn't married and 'a' believing wife means 'one.' Did you think it meant to be an indicator that 'just the believing wife' was to come along? Why not 'believing wives?' See your slanted problem?

Not even close. We have discussed this word extensively. I invite you to reply to that.

I did. You don't know Greek. I do. Sorry, you are not 'even close.' You've admitted you are 'not even close' to Greek already. Sorry, you lose and quite so.

Did the author Moses read this as a monogamous mandate? Can you think of a single verse in which a polygamist is confronted with this text to demonstrate their error?

Thanks for joining the chat Lon.

God Bless,

Robert

The Lord Jesus Christ said that Moses 'allowed' divorce because of their hard hearts. Polygamy isn't mentioned often. There is a specific time-frame when polygamy mentioned in the Bible but many prophets had but one wife, even then. It means there was an incongruity.

We talked about 'fleshly' desires (I did). If there is a fleshly drive to have many wives, something isn't 'spiritual' for the reason to want more than one. Do you have any spiritual or beneficial reason for multiple wives? What are you arguing for? What spiritual benefit?

 

[Neopatriarch]

What are you arguing for?

I oppose the doctrine of devils as I am sure you do.

1 Timothy 4:1-3
Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

And that is what the One Man One Woman (OMOW) doctrine is, a doctrine of demons.

1) OMOW doctrine opposes God's law. Even Bob Enyart had to admit in his article on the subject that God's law "...specifically permitted polygamy." Martin Luther says that scripture does not forbid it. OMOW doctrine ends up forbidding marriage to a full 20% of the church. You can do the research 60% of most churches are female. Assuming that all of the 40% of men are married (and they are not) that leaves a good number of women swinging in the breeze. Many of them do fall under conditional command to marry. They are leaving the church, and consequentially the Christian faith.

2) The OMOW doctrine is founded in pagan law and culture. Polygamy was forbidden under Roman Law.

"The only reason of its being a crime now to do this is because custom and the laws forbid it." - St. Augustine
(from "A Selected Library of Nicene and Post-Nicine Fathers of the Christian Church", Philip Schaff, Vol III, pg. 289)

Deuteronomy 32:17
They sacrificed to demons, not to God,
To gods they did not know,
To new gods, new arrivals
That your fathers did not fear.


3) The OMOW doctrine adds to scripture. Where the Bible says "male and female" the OMOW doctrine is imputed. This has shifted the emphasis from heterosexual unions to monogamous ones. Liberal so-called LGBT Christians say, *"We believe in monogamy." (They share that with you.) As a result, the church is "turning gay", and denominations are being split over it. *Quoted from Rev. Ruth Jensen-Forbell

4) Lastly, the OMOW doctrine, taken to its logical conclusion, disqualifies Jesus as Christ! That is to say that Jesus cannot be the Messiah if he is from a bastard line. We say, and I think you agree with me, that Jesus is the legitimate Son of David, and has the legitimate right to rule. If however, polygamy is a sin, as some claim not only could he not be King he could not enter the Temple.

So for those reasons, and more, I believe that OMOW theology is a doctrine of demons, and that is why I oppose it.

 

[Lon]

So for those reasons, and more, I believe that OMOW theology is a doctrine of demons, and that is why I oppose it.

Shaky ground similar to slavery. Just because you've seen it in the Bible, doesn't dictate. You've made a leap from 'example' to 'go and do likewise' and it is nowhere in the Bible. IOW, YOU have made something a truth, not because of 'demons' but because of you.

I asked you specifically to give ANY spiritual benefit. You have given none. Fleshly? Sure, lots of it. Show your work: Name 1 (one) benefit spiritually (you can't, you are proving you cannot in every ensuing post ignoring the request).

Paul goes so far to say it is actually better if you remain single. Jesus had ONE mother and not step-mothers. Think about that awhile, TRY and think of spiritual things spiritually.
1 Corinthians 7:
32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:

33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.

36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.

37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.

38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.

I'm convinced Jesus didn't speak to His generation about polygamy because it didn't exist any longer.

Next, You cannot call monogamy a doctrine of demons because you'd be placing all people in the N.T. and all people today in that odd little boat.

I DEFINITELY see agenda on your side of the screen and it doesn't look like a spiritual, God-pleasing agenda at this point. It frankly looks all caught up in the flesh. Does it mean you are listening to demons? Nope. It means people who are caught up in the flesh, the more they are caught up in it, have less and less time to serve God. I'm convinced that is why Paul insisted on one wife only. He spells this out clearly in 1 Corinthians 7. Read it. There is no mention at that time, of 'wives.' You are carrying a lot of assumptions into your texts. It is as simple as that. Why don't you go ahead and tell us you have 4 wives and 3 of them left you, or whatever issue you are covering. It has to be something you are caught up in and stuck in already, doesn't it? What is your story?

 

[Neopatriarch]

Shaky ground similar to slavery.

Pivoting to slavery doesn't help you and by muddying the waters you show the weakness of your position. Especially, in light of a large number of scriptures that do discuss polygamy. Try using some of those to prove your opinion.

Just because you've seen it in the Bible, doesn't dictate. You've made a leap from 'example' to 'go and do likewise' and it is nowhere in the Bible.

That was not an argument I made. I have continually made Biblical arguments. I suppose you might say that when I quoted Bob Enyart writing that God's Law explicitly allows polygamy, I was appealing to authority, but he was appealing to scripture. I just thought it might go down easier from him.

IOW, YOU have made something a truth, not because of 'demons' but because of you.

Perhaps you didn't understand the text. It is "forbidding to marry" that is a doctrine of demons. If only it said polygamy or additional wives, but it doesn't.

The OMOW doctrine is not Biblical according to Martin Luther (not me). It has its roots in pagan law and custom according to Augustine. (again not me) The fruit of liberal doctrines, splitting denominations, and abandoned mothers. (also not me) That seems like the fruit of the doctrine of demons. Don't you think so?

Did you even read my post? You certainly did not interact with it.

I asked you specifically to give ANY spiritual benefit. You have given none. Fleshly? Sure, lots of it. Show your work: Name 1 (one) benefit spiritually (you can't, you are proving you cannot in every ensuing post ignoring the request).

The Bible doesn't talk about marriage in terms of "spiritual benefit". That is a new age term. I am trying to have a Biblical conversation with you. Can you rephrase the question in Biblical terms? I know what I think you mean, but it is such a vague question I would have to write a book to cover all the possible bases.

Do you mean blessings?
Favor from the Lord seems like a significant "spiritual benefit".
A full quiver is a blessing from God. (Some may question the "spiritual benefit".)
An excellent wife is a "spiritual benefit " to her husband I suppose, but definitely a blessing.

Paul goes so far to say it is actually better if you remain single.

Did you read this proof text? Or were you just proof-texting?

Paul makes that recommendation under very specific circumstances. He is speaking in the context of "present distress"

1 Corinthians 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none,

He doesn't say that as a command, but his own preference. After which he does give a command:

1 Corinthians 7:9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Here Paul is speaking to what we call single women. He calls them virgins and widows. You forbid that under the OMOW doctrine you support.

But this text gets even more interesting to the discussion were having when Paul turns to the men.

1 Corinthians 7:36 But if any man thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, if she is past the flower of youth, and thus it must be, let him do what he wishes. He does not sin; let them marry.

What do you suppose "any man" means in this context. Any single man? That would be eisegesis. Reading your assumption into the text Is it possible that it actually means "any man"?

So when Paul indicates marriage available women he uses the terms "virgin" and "widow", but contextually "any man" is a marriage available.

What do you suppose "...it must be," means? This is one of those conditional commands to marry that I wrote to you before Lon. Paul is referring back to the law.

Exodus 22:16
“If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife.

Here is another Law requiring conditional marriage, that Paul is likely referring to when he says "any man". Again there is no mention of his marital status. One can easily see how this might end up in polygamy. Unless, of course, if their eyes are firmly shut and they are screaming at the ceiling.

And just in case women get it in their heads "any woman" can marry too. Paul addresses that.

1 Corinthians 7:39 A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

Before he spoke to virgins and widows, and now he is speaking to married women. You will not find that sentence about men. In fact, Paul expands on this in another place.

Romans 7:1-3
Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.

Again, this doesn't apply to men. God's Law only calls men that sleep with another man's wife adulterers. Which is all consistent with Paul's writings.

Jesus had ONE mother and not step-mothers.

Not an argument I made. So that is just another strawman. I understand though, I have heard people suggest that when they are faced with Jesus' brothers, but they arguing for Mary's eternal virginity. Again, not an argument I make or have made.

 

[Lon]

Pivoting to slavery doesn't help you

Yes. It. Does. Same thing exactly. Sorry you lose on this one.

and by muddying the waters you show the weakness of your position.

Same issue: O.T. doesn't have a problem with it. The N.T. even tells slaves to be obedient BUT that if they could gain their freedom, they SHOULD because Christ died to set men free.

Especially, in light of a large number of scriptures that do discuss polygamy.

Go ahead. Post those "God favor's polygamy" scriptures. Waiting. Start yet?

Try using some of those to prove your opinion.

Opinion? You are doing that. Not one scripture where God commands or even suggests it. Even with Hagar, it was because of Elizabeth's lack of faith. How about David's hundreds of wives? You thought that was for 'spiritual' reasons? Nope. Try again.

That was not an argument I made. I have continually made Biblical arguments.

Nope. You have yet to show ANY scripture that favors polygamy. Go ahead.

Deuteronomy 17:17
Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

Neo doesn't like scriptures that tell him specifically 'no!' though. He likes obscure scriptures in keeping with his pentecostal/charismatic faith, making up things he doesn't like to include "doctrine of demons!" oh my! Typical illiterate scripture hopping into nonesense.

I suppose you might say that when I quoted Bob Enyart writing that God's Law explicitly allows polygamy, I was appealing to authority, but he was appealing to scripture. I just thought it might go down easier from him.

I didn't quote Enyart. "I" quoted scripture. Incidentally, Marke quoted scripture too (requoted just above).

Perhaps you didn't understand the text. It is "forbidding to marry" that is a doctrine of demons.

I understand it BETTER than you do. I can read languages and don't scripture hop to suit my fancy. Such is setting your theology up as an image of you, rather than God.

If only it said polygamy or additional wives, but it doesn't.

It didn't need to.

The OMOW doctrine is not Biblical according to Martin Luther (not me).

No, it is according to you. Martin Luther? Also an 'appeal to authority.' It only remains if he was right or wrong. I believe he was wrong.

It has its roots in pagan law and custom according to Augustine. (again not me) The fruit of liberal doctrines, splitting denominations, and abandoned mothers. (also not me) That seems like the fruit of the doctrine of demons. Don't you think so?

Because you don't like Augustine???? :doh: :headbanging: I'm not Catholic. I like a lot of Augustine. Agree with everything? No, but 'doctrine of demons?!!!" Seriously?

Did you even read my post? You certainly did not interact with it.

The Bible doesn't talk about marriage in terms of "spiritual benefit". Genesi

Incorrect and you are ignorant and remiss in your studies for want (which explains/tells me why you have this polygamy obsession): Genesis 2:18 God (a SPIRITUAL) being said it wasn't good that man was alone. Strike one. How about where 2 or more are gathered? Oh yeah, you forgot that one too! (strike two) I could do a good many more but let us skip to my favorite irrefutable that proves you completely wrong:
21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. sounds pretty 'spiritual' to me

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. "As to the Lord" Hmmm I wonder if Neoreligion is reading the same bible I am( reading....
23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, There is that 'as' word again that clearly denotes spiritual correlation. Deny it all you like. I don't care. I know what it says. Clearly you are a contentious and NOT a biblical fellow. You've posted nothing to date. Can't in fact. I know my bible. You've got nadda. I know it. You don't. End of story.
his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, (just trying to make sure you didn't ineptly read that husband (singular)
just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word,
Do you EVEN understand this? Do you? What is in your background that makes you the way you are? You must confront it. You've been wrong for a very long time.
27 and to present her S-I-N-G-U-L-A-R Do you ACTUALLY see that marriage is a picture of Christ and His Bride (singular)? Do you? Do you even grasp the incredible significance here? Do you? I REALLY don't think you do. You have no idea what spiritual reason God created marriage, do you? None at all, do you? (You've already said not but such is absolutely wrong). Hopefully you can see it now.
to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife (singular <cough not doctrine of demons as weird guy suggests>loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church (singular)— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason BOOM! See it now? You were wrong! Do you grasp your fault at this point? Good times if you do! I'm happy to have won a brother! Christ is right, we: in need of correction all the time!
a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife (singular), and the two (oops, incredibly clear here in Greek AND English!) will become one flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. See!!! (you may not still, but Paul has JUST said "in the same manner = SPIRITUAL!).
33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
I hope you grow up a little bit today Neo. (strike 3)

That is a new age term.

WRONG! Buzz! (thanks for playing) (strike 4? Must have been a foul ball above)

I am trying to have a Biblical conversation with you.

No, you've mentioned very few scriptures except jumping around them and quoting 'doctrine of demons' at me

Can you rephrase the question in Biblical terms? I know what I think you mean, but it is such a vague question I would have to write a book to cover all the possible bases.

Yes: Is there ANY spiritual advantage to having more than one wife? You obviously didn't (hope you realize your error at this point) think even one had a spiritual advantage, but they do! Even Paul lists some spiritual advantages in 1 Corinthians 7 (children spiritually covered for one).

Do you mean blessings?
Favor from the Lord seems like a significant "spiritual benefit".
A full quiver is a blessing from God. (Some may question the "spiritual benefit".)
An excellent wife is a "spiritual benefit " to her husband I suppose, but definitely a blessing.

Correct. Now show where 'wives' plural is ever mentioned as a blessing. Show where such reflects Christ and His 'churches.' You won't find that, but rather one bride, one church.

Did you read this proof text? Or were you just proof-texting?

Paul makes that recommendation under very specific circumstances. He is speaking in the context of "present distress"

1 Corinthians 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none,

He doesn't say that as a command, but his own preference. After which he does give a command:

1 Corinthians 7:9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Here Paul is speaking to what we call single women. He calls them virgins and widows. You forbid that under the OMOW doctrine you support.

But this text gets even more interesting to the discussion were having when Paul turns to the men.

1 Corinthians 7:36 But if any man thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, if she is past the flower of youth, and thus it must be, let him do what he wishes. He does not sin; let them marry.

What do you suppose "any man" means in this context. Any single man? That would be eisegesis. Reading your assumption into the text Is it possible that it actually means "any man"?

Er, you are 'proof-texting' here. While I agree that it was at that time, Paul gave a rule of thumb that is always true:
33 But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, S-I-N-G-U-L-A-R
1Co 7:34 and his (married man) interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. S-I-N-G-U-L-A-R
1Co 7:35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. This is the spiritual truth that doesn't change, it is true to this day.

So when Paul indicates marriage available women he uses the terms "virgin" and "widow", but contextually "any man" is a marriage available.

Eisegesis, not exegesis.

What do you suppose "...it must be," means? This is one of those conditional commands to marry that I wrote to you before Lon. Paul is referring back to the law.

Exodus 22:16
“If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife.

Uhm, no. This again isn't exegesis. It is assumption and you've made it. You are jumping texts upon a whim of your own imagination. This is NOT how proper Bible study is done.

Here is another Law requiring conditional marriage, that Paul is likely referring to

You JUST took liberty with the text again!!!

when he says "any man". Again there is no mention of his marital status.

Start at verse 25 "To the betrothed I say this..."

One can easily see how this might end up in polygamy.

There it is. Neo does theology off of assumptions rather than adhering closely to the word of God. You just admitted it.

Unless, of course, if their eyes are firmly shut and they are screaming at the ceiling.

Right, like Neopatriarch JUST did.

And just in case women get it in their heads "any woman" can marry too. Paul addresses that.

1 Corinthians 7:39 A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

Before he spoke to virgins and widows, and now he is speaking to married women. You will not find that sentence about men. In fact, Paul expands on this in another place.

Romans 7:1-3
Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.

It doesn't say the same thing about the man here, true BUT it is an example of how the law applies. You, not that great at exegesis, AGAIN made an assumption YOU want to believe. It isn't a lesson about marriage Neo, it is a lesson about the LAW vs Grace. You've ALSO just done the 'scripture hop' again, like charismatics and pentecostals always do in the aisles. I don't mean to be disdainful, but loose and fast with the scriptures ALWAYS bothers me!

Again, this doesn't apply to men. God's Law only calls men that sleep with another man's wife adulterers. Which is all consistent with Paul's writings.

Nice opinion piece. 1 Corinthians 6:9,18;7:2 Fornication-is-a-sin!

Not an argument I made. So that is just another strawman.

Nope. It is 'evidence of something (monogamy).'

I understand though, I have heard people suggest that when they are faced with Jesus' brothers, but they arguing for Mary's eternal virginity. Again, not an argument I make or have made.

Again: monogamy. He couldn't have had 'half-brothers' otherwise. I'm trying to get you to pay attention to scriptures and glean correctly what they say.

 

[Idolater]

There's nothing in this chapter remotely condoning or approving or permitting polygamy, what a preposterous notion.

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife (SINGULAR), and let every woman have her own husband.

3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

Verse five alone would be completely perverse if it were talking about anything other than monogamy. And 'to avoid fornication' in verse two doesn't lend itself to polygamy as any sort of remedy for the same reason. If any man cannot avoid fornication unless he marries more than one woman, the fornication that pursues him is within him.

==
Verse seven means, "I would that all men were even as I myself"---not called to the vocation of marriage---"But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that"---he's only definitely denoting here celibacy and monogamy, since monogamy is the only example of marriage presumed in this chapter, supposing that one of God's 'proper' gifts is the 'manner' of polygamy isn't inconsistent with verse seven, but it's not sustained by it either. You'd need to show that there was some reason why we should think that Paul includes polygamy as one of God's 'proper' gifts.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Even with Hagar, it was because of Elizabeth's lack of faith.

Sarah, not Elizabeth.

 

[Neopatriarch]

@Lon
That is just a hot mess. You aren't addressing the arguments, and you haven't internalized or refuted those that have already been handled. Which I suppose is why you're presenting them again as if it were a new argument.

You're zany cartoonish responses reveal your heart. I am content to let the thread stand for itself. Anyone who gives the thread a fair reading and prayerful consideration of the text will conclude properly. The rest will continue to suppress the truth in unrighteousness and be without excuse for imposing doctrines of demons.

God Bless,

Robert

“By the law of Moses (Deuteronomy 17:17) the kings (of Israel) are forbidden to have too great a number of wives, lest they should carry them into a violation of the law: by this the legislator tacitly permits them and all others, to have more than one wife, otherwise the command would be superfluous.” -Barbeyac

 

[Idolater]

@Lon
That is just a hot mess. You aren't addressing the arguments, and you haven't internalized or refuted those that have already been handled. Which I suppose is why you're presenting them again as if it were a new argument.

You're zany cartoonish responses reveal your heart. I am content to let the thread stand for itself. Anyone who gives the thread a fair reading and prayerful consideration of the text will conclude properly. The rest will continue to suppress the truth in unrighteousness and be without excuse for imposing doctrines of demons.

God Bless,

Robert

With this much zeal your calling is certainly Catholicism. Your positions are rickety. Take on the gold standard Christian positions instead, and His easy yoke and light burden, relax, enjoy yourself and put your talents and passions to good use for your Lord.

Peace to you.

 

[Lon]

@Lon
That is just a hot mess. You aren't addressing the arguments,

blah blah blah blah I don't really care for emoting, it means you lost this argument. Thank you for the capitulation.

and you haven't internalized or refuted those that have already been handled.

More than. You are not an honest fellow. It means you posture over platitudes instead of standing upon the word of God. The reason, today, by you, is clearly seen. Most can read between the lines with your insubstantial reply. No scripture. No reasoning. Just 'hot mess' for a response. It is called projecting: your mess, upon me. I gave compelling scripture. Deal with the Lord Jesus Christ. I posted his Bible, you nada.

Which I suppose is why you're presenting them again as if it were a new argument.

I'll repeat scripture everyday. They ARE the words of life. While you posted your assumptions 'off' of scripture, it is your position that argues from silence. I'm offended in Christ, that you'd respond this way to Ephesians. You deserve a sound rebuke instead of dealing directly with them in a spiritual God-honoring manner. I'm offended both for me, knowing scriptures, and Him who wrote them. You are woefully remiss and behind and I disdain your lack of dedication to Him, His word, and His people that are clearly better read than you. You are arguing from ignorance and a stubborn refusal to learn from your elders and betters.

You're zany cartoonish responses reveal your heart.

YOU, are the one who reacted in the flesh. Grow up and lose this argument like a man, for HIS glory instead of your foolish arrogance from ignorance.

I am content to let the thread stand for itself.

Good, because as I said, Scripture easily refutes you. I JUST posted spiritual reasons for marriage. You? You said there was none. YOU said that. You are caught in the flesh on this one, if not the rest of scripture. I don't even know if you belong to Christ at this point: You enjoy arguing in and for flesh. Grow up, grow in Him. You are behind. I'm more than happy to let scriptures I've given, thus Him, Himself, stand in the way of any absurdity.

Anyone who gives the thread a fair reading and prayerful consideration of the text will conclude properly.

I've heard the same from Mormons asking me to seek a 'burning in my bosom.' Scriptures are clear and I can refute them with solid scriptures too. God has given His word. Jesus told the Samaritan woman (those who don't know scriptures very well) that salvation was of the Jews then replied "Spirit AND Truth!" You cannot have one without the other. You are appealing to one over the other. No way: Enough said.

The rest will continue to suppress the truth in unrighteousness and be without excuse for imposing doctrines of demons.

THIS, is the hot mess and again an appeal to your out-of-context interpretation and authority. We don't need prophets today. Anybody with half an education can read his/her Bible and understand it themselves. They just need an education: no appeals to odd interpretations: The scriptures themselves. I'm more than happy to let God's Word stand in this thread for posterity. He wins every time. Learn from your elders and betters young man.

God Bless,

Robert

I hear this every time on TOL. I never believe it. It is an odd thing to say when your position is clearly 'against demons.' It is unreal and seen as fakery with no truthful intent. I pray rather God blesses you with insight that comes from careful study AND an ABILITY to listen to others who have read the words of God. I have several brothers on here that correct me at times. Instead of being arrogantly ignorant, I concede the true correction: it is what biblical brothers wanting to follow Christ, instead of stalling in ignorant arrogance, do. See Judge Rightly just above. Learn from your elders and betters.

 

[Lon]

“By the law of Moses (Deuteronomy 17:17) the kings (of Israel) are forbidden to have too great a number of wives, lest they should carry them into a violation of the law: by this the legislator tacitly permits them and all others, to have more than one wife, otherwise the command would be superfluous.” -Barbeyac

"Who cares what barbey a.c. et al thinks?" 1 Corinthians 7:2: But because of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband. Oops, clearly (clearly) Barbey and Neo are wrong.

So you agree with me, that Deuteronomy 17:17 is not where "...God disapproved of kings committing polygamy." Is that right?

That was my question after all. Remember when I wrote, "...Where was that? Certainly not Deuteronomy 17:17. That verse merely limits kings to less than a great many wives. Hardly, disapproval."

So now it sounds like you want to run to some other text. Is that right?

No, you and he aren't correct. The scripture says 1) "not multiply wives." Do you KNOW what a 'multiple (rahbah) ' is???? "to increase after one!" In the next breath of the sentence 'and not money/wealth (don't multiply) "greatly" either!' IOW, the first: a prohibition, none at all (after the first)! The second? Not to 'overdo it "WITH MONEY/Wealth!"' EXACTLY opposite what you and Barbeyac (dishonestly?) want (desperately?) to believe! The first says "No increase!." The SECOND says 'not exceed.' You and whoever Barbey is, blew it. I EXPECT you to not be strong-willed in ignorance. I EXPECT you to apologize when you realize you've been purposefully ignorant and arrogant.

 

[Neopatriarch]

It is called projecting: your mess, upon me.

That is the rhetorical equivalent of the limerick, " I am rubber, you're glue..."

However, you did ask a reasonable question in your follow-up, and I will address it next.

 

[Neopatriarch]

"Who cares what barbey a.c. et al thinks?"

It is not a matter of what he thinks, or his personal opinion, but rather his reasoning. Is it sound reasoning? You cannot even consider it because you assume an a priori. Let's look at the scripture again.

Deuteronomy 17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself.

Your big problem with Barbayec's reasoning is the English word "multiply". Now I know that you looked up the Hebrew word. I didn't trust myself to make such a translation from my Strong's Concordance. I went to Dr. Michael Brown a Ph.D. in near eastern languages and a professional Bible translater. This is someone that really knows how to translate this text. I asked him point-blank, Is Dt 17:17 a good argument against polygamy? He responded, "Actually, no".

If it's not, your semantic argument fails. Unless you disregard his expertise and the expertise of others including entire translation committees.

ESV - ...And he shall not acquire many wives for himself,...
CSB - ...He must not acquire many wives for himself ...
NASB - "...And he shall not acquire many wives for himself,"
NET - "...he must not marry many wives..."

Now I don't know what your credentials are, but I am thinking it doesn't stand up to these groups. All these people are wrong but you have the right translation and understanding. Is that what you're saying?

So let's look at what Barbeyec says one more time.

“By the law of Moses (Deuteronomy 17:17) the kings (of Israel) are forbidden to have too great a number of wives, lest they should carry them into a violation of the law: by this the legislator tacitly permits them and all others, to have more than one wife, otherwise the command would be superfluous.” -Barbeyac

The kings (of Israel) are forbidden to have too great a number of wives, and that is what the text means Lon. Unless you believe you have an English version that magically trumps the actual Hebrew. (Of course, if that is the case I cannot help you.) So then why does he say, "by this the legislator tacitly permits them and all others, to have more than one wife..." it is because in the next few verses the king is commanded to write a book of the Law for himself. IF the Law of God had limited him to only one wife, there would be no reason for the term "great many". Right? That is why he says it would be superfluous.

And of course, Dt 17:17 had been a monogamous mandate we would have seen the likes of Luther, Augustine, and even Enyart citing it to make that very point. Don't you think?

Lastly, the Torah was written by Moses. It was God-breathed scripture. He was a man that spoke face to face with God. He doesn't understand it the way you do. He is himself a polygamist married to two women. So if even the author doesn't agree with you and all these experts don't agree with you, I can't help you.

Have Fun and God Bless

 

[Idolater]

From our Catechism:

"2400 Adultery, divorce, polygamy, and free union are grave offenses against the dignity of marriage. "

So much simple. And guaranteed to be Apostolic. Which is the same authority that we appeal to when we study the scriptures. It was Apostolic authority---really Christ's own authority that He gave to them---that either wrote (i.e. Pauline epistles, 1&2 Peter, Matthew, John, etc.), or in every case approved the canon of Scripture. The Scripture is as the Apostles decided, which means it's what God wants it to be too.

 

[Lon]

That is the rhetorical equivalent of the limerick, " I am rubber, you're glue..."

However, you did ask a reasonable question in your follow-up, and I will address it next.

Apropos to your non-engaging 'hot mess.' You were incredibly insubstantial and nonengaging, so of course I was going to call out your jejune emote. I can banter in the schoolyard all day with such immature lacking retort but responding 'foul' was the right tack. It was beneath you AND I and I rightly called you out. "Hot mess" was nothing but insubstantial, unlearned, and relegated to the trash bin where it belongs. It was frankly: posturing on your end like an inchoactive school-boy.