Page 6 of 10

Re: Sin against the body

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 1:45 pm
by RoyHobs
steve wrote:he meant to say, "I know you are not my biggest fan."

Thanks for revealing a part of your character.

Re: Sin against the body

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 1:51 pm
by Paidion
Hi Steve, you wrote:Paidion, this is true, but it is clear, in John 4, that Jesus is using the word to mean husband, since He contrasts the first five with her present "man."
I took this to mean that she previously had 5 men, possibly living with each for some period of time, or maybe just had a casual relationship. But the man with whom she was now copulating was not hers, in the sense that the others were, for he "belonged" to a different woman. However, perhaps it is correct to call her previous alliances "marriage." My understanding is that that to marry (γαμεω gameō) in those times was not to enter into a legal contract, but to come to an understanding of permanency between a couple who were about to, or had already experienced, sexual love. The (γαμος gamos) or wedding celebration was the celebration of a marriage that had already taken place, such as the wedding celebration at Cana that our Lord attended.

Having said this, I may well be wrong about my suggestion that her previous alliances had been something less than marriage. She may have truly married those five men in the sense that marriage was understood in those days. But she could not have come to an understanding of permanency with the man she now had, since he had come to that understanding with someone else and therefore was not her man (or husband).

Re: Sin against the body

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:38 pm
by jaydam
Rob, you never did reply to my last comment, all the way back on the first page, but let me suggest something.

Marriage and sex is spoken of synonymously because one did not believe you would be married without having intercourse, and one did not believe you should have sex outside of marriage. So, when it appears to you that sex is the marriage act, it is really idiomatic speech which refers to the state of being married.

I think of military service. One thing that I heard many times in service was something to the effect: "He has put on his nation's uniform."

Now, putting on the uniform by itself did not put my into the military, the covenant did. But synonymous with the covenant was the act of wearing the uniform. Thus, the synonymous act could be referred to by itself, and its understood the covenant was behind the act.

All the way back on page one I mentioned the tenses found in one example of the law that shows the separation of the act of taking virginity vs. getting married:
...from what I read in the law, upon taking someone's virginity who was not otherwise engaged, the virginity taker THEN paid the father and was to marry the woman.

The verb tense does not say, because he married her (past tense) when he took her virginity, he is then to pay her father because he became man and wife with the daughter. Rather, subsequent to taking her virginity he is to pay her father and marry her. The marrying and taking of virginity are seen as two separate acts.

In an agrarian society, the woman's worth came from her purity. The marriage follows the virginity takers devaluation of the woman by taking her virginity, and does not occur because he married her through the act of intercourse.
I think you are getting hung up on some points of language from a relatively moral culture which assumed the act of sex accompanied the covenant of marriage. One could be spoken of with the understanding that the other was included. Much like I just said, where speaking of putting on the uniform is understood to be accompanied with the oath of service - without having to mention the oath.

I don't presume I, nor anyone else here will convince you. It does not seem you came here to dialogue and learn but to simply espouse your belief on your pet issue. But I still submit my input for your consideration.

Re: Sin against the body

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 3:31 pm
by RoyHobs
jaydam wrote:simply espouse your belief on your pet issue

I like how men here presume to know me. Is not this particular part of the forum under the title, "marriage and divorce".

I was thinking about posting some other topics, but may rethink that based on the level of maturity here witnessed.

And I have considered that which you wrote. I agree with you for the most part. Look at Joseph and Mary. Mary was most likely considered Joseph's wife by arrangement/contract. Most likely Mary was referred to as Joseph's wife during conversation I have no doubt. But even you would agree that Mary was not yet Joseph's wife by way of 'one flesh'. Mary was found to not be a virgin and Joseph sought to free himself from his financial/contractual obligations. Matthew 19:9

Jacob and Rachel is yet another example. As I have already explained. Jacob contracted for Rachel; but wound up married to Leah.

The point I have been trying to make, is that when a virgin girl has sex with a man, she is now "known" by that man. She is "joined" to that man. She is "one flesh" with that man.

This is important.......................SOCIETY SHOULD RECOGNIZE THEM AS MAN AND WIFE. Society's failure to recognize them man and wife is not the fault of the Scriptures. By the time we get to structured society, 'marriage' became an institution. Marriage was power. Marriage became something men bartered over. A man's daughter was property. Something to negotiate treaties and land etc. Just because a passage of Scripture may not indicate 'marriage', does not negate the fact that the virgin who has sex is now 'joined' as one flesh. Dinah comes to mind here. Deut 22:29 as well.

When a virgin girl has sexual relations with a man, she becomes 'joined' to the man as one flesh. Do you disagree with this simple statement?

Re: Sin against the body

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 3:42 pm
by steve
Roy wrote (to me):
Thanks for revealing a part of your character.
I don't know what this is in refence to. It sounds as if you mean it in some sense negatively. The only line you cited from me was my statement to Michelle clarifying what I thought you were saying. This was not intended as a value statement about you.

You had said that you were not her greatest fan. On the face of it, this suggests you don't like her very much.

I thought you were intending to say something considerably more civil—namely, that she was not your greatest fan—meaning you felt she didn't like you much. Isn't this what you meant to say?

It seemed that you would not say that you didn't like her much, since there had been no conflict between you, and (I presume) that you don't know each other. So why would you dislike her? I do know her, and she is remarkably likable.

On the other hand, she had appeared to disagree with your position, which might make you say, in jest (you did affix a smiley face), that you presumed that she was not a big fan of yours—presumably meaning you did not expect her to automatically credit your position through a prior attitude of loyalty to you. That isn't what you said, but it seemed that this is what you intended to convey. It seemed you got your phrases turned-around.

In other words, I assumed you were being self-abasing, rather than rude. How does this positive assumption about you reflect on my character?

Re: Sin against the body

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 3:53 pm
by StevenD

Roy, I presume that the reason you held back from linking to the last article is related to other ideas that the writer espouses. I certainly hope so.

The following quote is bizarre enough of an example as to require no further commentary:
There are even some in Israel Identity today who claim that race doesn’t really matter, while the truth is, race is everything, and only White Israelites can be Christians!

Despite the flagrant racism and my efforts to find merit among any of the writer's arguments, I remain unpersuaded. He places a lot of weight on the idea that the Hebrew word for prostitute should instead be understood as an innkeeper. In making his argument he draws from Josephus and a targumic reference. I'm not sure that he is familiar with the language behind the Targum as he has Adam Clarke claiming that the phrase reads אחחא פנדקיתא while the phrase that he appears to refer to is actually איתתא פנדקיתא. (Presumably the text was scanned and the symbols were misread.) While the phrase does seem to relate to being an innkeeper (or as he suggests "tavern keeper"), this is a targumic insertion that is reasonably chalked up to an apologetic agenda. I don't know how familiar you are with the Targums?

The titles of some of the articles on the site suggest that the operator of the site might look unfavorably toward the Jewish race, so I don't know why he would place sufficient confidence in the targumic rendering (or Josephus' records) as to read the meaning back into the words of Scripture. It is highly plausible that Josephus follows the targumic tradition in describing Rahab as an innkeeper. This simply cannot be derived from the biblical account. Earlier I think you wrote something about letting Scripture interpret Scripture?

The article was somewhat lengthy. Since I've accessed a few links and read over the material you've suggested and found these articles unsatisfactory to substantiate your claims, I would appreciate receiving any further support for your position directly from you (not from another source). I don't know if you endorse the content of these sites, or possibly you are aware that your own arguments are incapable of withstanding honest scrutiny?

On another note, since you asked:
Who is the one "striving against evidence"?
:idea: Seeing that the Scriptures speak plainly to the topic at hand in both identifying Rahab as a harlot, yet dignifying her with honorable mention in the genealogy of Christ, perhaps we should both humbly admit that fact and allow the striving to cease.

On another note: Although I simply read the article and didn't probe other articles on the site, by the looks of things the author might adhere to "serpent seed" theology? Are you of that persuasion as well? :?

Happy in Jesus,

Re: Sin against the body

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 4:11 pm
by RoyHobs
StevenD wrote:I remain unpersuaded
Try this one:

I appreciate your other questions. Perhaps we should start a new discussion? (as I have been misunderstood).

What category should we place that discussion? Have you ever studied the teachings of Christian Identity? As far as 'Serpent Seed' at this point in my journey I would 'doubt' it's reliability. It is an interesting discussion however. Where should we place it? Maybe you or I could 'cut and paste' parts of your last comment into a category all to its self. Thoughts?

Re: Sin against the body

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 4:17 pm
by RoyHobs
steve wrote:You had said that you were not her greatest fan.
Steve.....I did not say this.

I said -- I know I'm not your biggest fan. :)

Not only that, but I used a 'smiley' face as a way of softening the topic. In invitation of friendliness if you will. Why would I tell her she is not my greatest fan and then include a smiley face along with a request to have more dialogue.

It is Ok though............I understand that we often times misread or misunderstand people on forums and in Email. I forgive you.

Re: Sin against the body

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 4:23 pm
by Michelle
Okay, so you don't like me, but it's mild. I accept your offer of friendship, whatever that means in this venue.

Re: Sin against the body

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 4:39 pm
by steve
I said -- I know I'm not your biggest fan.
Not to belabor this, but I still have the impression you mean it the other way round. Are you really meaning to say, "I know that I don't like you that much"? That is what your statement means.

I thought you were intending to say, "I know you may not like me that much," in which case you would say, "You are not my biggest fan."

The "fan" is the one doing the liking.