How can a gay be a Christian??

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#5194 Sep 14, 2013
little lamb wrote:
Not quite sure what you are asking me to quote here..but scripture does say that " LOVE is the perfect bond of union."
And the song of Solomon is full of expressions of the love between a man and a woman...so again I don't understand what the relevance of your questions is...
I was simply asking you to quote God’s commandment that required a man to love his wife, which should be somewhere in the Mosaic Law, right? You see, from what I have read, God explicitly told the woman that her desires would be for her husband and that he would rule over her (Gen 3:16), rather than love her.
At any rate, I have asserted that from a biblical perspective, marriage was simply a form of servitude or slavery, whereas the woman was simply the man’s property. In fact, according to the bible, the husband only had three responsibilities to his first wife if he decide to take a second wife, i.e., to feed, cloth, and satisfy her sexual needs (Ex 21:10).
little lamb wrote:
Women do it today as well by hiring surrogate women to have their babies...there is a whole hospital full of Indian women in India carrying babies for infertile women..
Well,“Does this somewhat refute the *let every woman have her own husband *claim that Paul made,” if you do not mind my asking?
little lamb wrote:
I believe Abraham treated Hagar unjustly, but Sarah holds some responsibility, it was her idea to pre-empt God...
From what I have research, being a surrogate mother did not pre-empt any of God’s laws, as long as the surrogate was neither married nor betrothed. But check this out: nowhere in the bible was any man every sterile ... it was always the woman who was barren. Wow! This seems to be somewhat arrogant or even misogynistic to me.
little lamb wrote:
Abraham was a righteous man because he believed God and acted in FAITH, not because he was a paragon of goodness..he wasn't.
According to Abraham himself, Sarah was his half-sister, since they had the same father, right? But please do not take my word, but rather read the scripture for yourself as follows:“And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife”(Gen 20:12). So, if this is true, then God blessed an incestuous marriage, right?
little lamb wrote:
Gods Law states ' thou shalt not commit adultery'
And God didn't give this commandment to one 'sex'
Wow! Please know that adultery in biblical days simply meant sexual violating another man’s wife, because she was his property. Now, if you read Lev 20:10 carefully, you will find that the marital status of the man is not revealed in the bible simply because it was unimportant. You see, regardless if the man is married or single, he is an adulterer if he has sex with another man’s wife. Nonetheless, you can easily refute my argument by citing a verse whereas a married man has sexual relations with an unmarried woman who was not betrothed to another man. So, with all due respect, please do not misconstrue what I am saying, i.e., adultery in biblical days does not mean the same thing as what adultery means today.
Disciple

Norcross, GA

#5198 Sep 14, 2013
MAD_DOG BUSTER wrote:
<quoted text>Then it would not longer be gay. Thus a gay can never be a Christian or go to heaven. God does not submit to gay propaganda, he only see it as men and women who sin by have fornication with the same sex and he sees it as an abomination.
Amen for adding some much needed truth to this forum.
little lamb

South Yarra, Australia

#5200 Sep 14, 2013
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
I was simply asking you to quote God’s commandment that required a man to love his wife, which should be somewhere in the Mosaic Law, right? You see, from what I have read, God explicitly told the woman that her desires would be for her husband and that he would rule over her (Gen 3:16), rather than love her.
At any rate, I have asserted that from a biblical perspective, marriage was simply a form of servitude or slavery, whereas the woman was simply the man’s property. In fact, according to the bible, the husband only had three responsibilities to his first wife if he decide to take a second wife, i.e., to feed, cloth, and satisfy her sexual needs (Ex 21:10).
<quoted text>
Well scripture states a man and a woman become one flesh...and a man doesn't hate his own flesh but takes care of it by feeding it and looking after it..and the men in those times did just that...

I believe you are confusing romantic love with practical love..but its all love,
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well,“Does this somewhat refute the *let every woman have her own husband *claim that Paul made,” if you do not mind my asking?
<quoted text>
Probably not, but then many people are not doing Gods will...and God understands the desperation of a barren woman....
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>From what I have research, being a surrogate mother did not pre-empt any of God’s laws, as long as the surrogate was neither married nor betrothed. But check this out: nowhere in the bible was any man every sterile <quoted text>... it was always the woman who was barren. Wow! This seems to be somewhat arrogant or even misogynistic to me.
<quoted text>
No Sarah pre-empted the promise of God for a 'seed' to Abraham, by working it out how it could be achieved seeing she was barren...

In my research I 'suspect' Daniel was an eunuch...
gundee123 wrote:
<<quoted text>
According to Abraham himself, Sarah was his half-sister, since they had the same father, right? But please do not take my word, but rather read the scripture for yourself as follows:“And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife”(Gen 20:12). So, if this is true, then God blessed an incestuous marriage, right?
<quoted text>>
Pharaoh married their sisters and brothers..Cleopatra married her brother..and they obviously continued doing so even after the Law..Until the Law came to Moses it was permitted...After all who do you think Adam and Eve children married?

Also in animals in breeding can be done for a period of time but then you have to widen out the genetic pool and bring in fresh stock.
gundee123 wrote:
Wow! Please know that adultery in biblical days simply meant sexual violating another man’s wife, because she was his property. Now, if you read Lev 20:10 carefully, you will find that the marital status of the man is not revealed in the bible simply because it was unimportant. You see, regardless if the man is married or single, he is an adulterer if he has sex with another man’s wife. Nonetheless, you can easily refute my argument by citing a verse whereas a married man has sexual relations with an unmarried woman who was not betrothed to another man. So, with all due respect, please do not misconstrue what I am saying, i.e., adultery in biblical days does not mean the same thing as what adultery means today.
Adultery means exactly the same thing as it means today..David confessed his adultery with Bathsheba..but he didn't go free of punishment ..his child died ,

he saw one son rape his sister and then have the son who exacted revenge rebel against him and public shame his Father by openly abusing his Fathers concubines and yet still David grieved at his death...So as Jesus told the man at the pool who had been sick a long time...

'be careful not to sin again or something worse can happen to you.'
little lamb

South Yarra, Australia

#5201 Sep 14, 2013
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
I was simply asking you to quote God’s commandment that required a man to love his wife, which should be somewhere in the Mosaic Law, right? You see, from what I have read, God explicitly told the woman that her desires would be for her husband and that he would rule over her (Gen 3:16), rather than love her.
At any rate, I have asserted that from a biblical perspective, marriage was simply a form of servitude or slavery, whereas the woman was simply the man’s property. In fact, according to the bible, the husband only had three responsibilities to his first wife if he decide to take a second wife, i.e., to feed, cloth, and satisfy her sexual needs (Ex 21:10).
<quoted text>
Well scripture states a man and a woman become one flesh...and a man doesn't hate his own flesh but takes care of it by feeding it and looking after it..and the men in those times did just that...
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>Well,“Does this somewhat refute the *let every woman have her own husband *claim that Paul made,” if you do not mind my asking?<quoted text>
Probably not, but then many people are not doing Gods will...and God understands the desperation of a barren woman....
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>From what I have research, being a surrogate mother did not pre-empt any of God’s laws, as long as the surrogate was neither married nor betrothed. But check this out: nowhere in the bible was any man every sterile ... it was always the woman who was barren. Wow! This seems to be somewhat arrogant or even misogynistic to me.
<quoted text>

No Sarah pre-empted the promise of God for a 'seed' to Abraham, by working it out how it could be achieved seeing she was barren...

In my research I 'suspect' Daniel was an eunuch...
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>According to Abraham himself, Sarah was his half-sister, since they had the same father, right? But please do not take my word, but rather read the scripture for yourself as follows:“And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife”(Gen 20:12). So, if this is true, then God blessed an incestuous marriage, right?
<quoted text>
Pharaoh married their sisters and brothers..Cleopatra married her brother..and they obviously continued doing so even after the Law..

Until the Law came to Moses it was permitted...After all who do you think Adam and Eve children married?

Also in animals in breeding can be done for a period of time but then you have to widen out the genetic pool and bring in fresh stock.
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>Wow! Please know that adultery in biblical days simply meant sexual violating another man’s wife, because she was his property. Now, if you read Lev 20:10 carefully, you will find that the marital status of the man is not revealed in the bible simply because it was unimportant. You see, regardless if the man is married or single, he is an adulterer if he has sex with another man’s wife. Nonetheless, you can easily refute my argument by citing a verse whereas a married man has sexual relations with an unmarried woman who was not betrothed to another man. So, with all due respect, please do not misconstrue what I am saying, i.e., adultery in biblical days does not mean the same thing as what adultery means today.
Means exactly the same as today..as shown by Davids adultery with Bathsheba..but he didn't go free of punishment ..his child died ,

he saw one son rape his sister and then have the son who exacted revenge rebel against him and public shame his Father by openly abusing his Fathers concubines and yet still David grieved at his death...So as Jesus told the man at the pool who had been sick a long time...

'be careful not to sin again or something worse can happen to you.'
Adultery means exactly the same thing as it means today..David confessed his adultery with
little lamb

South Yarra, Australia

#5202 Sep 14, 2013
Sorry double post..
little lamb

South Yarra, Australia

#5203 Sep 14, 2013
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
You see, regardless if the man is married or single, he is an adulterer if he has sex with another man’s wife. Nonetheless, you can easily refute my argument by citing a verse whereas a married man has sexual relations with an unmarried woman who was not betrothed to another man..
Like to bring to your attention Gundee, that family is supposed to be a strong unit ..

if anyone messed around with another mans single daughter..they would have to deal with the rage of her Father and her brothers.

Dinah was a case in point..Her brothers took revenge on the men of a whole town for violating their sister.

you are trying to make a time when men took their roles seriously as heads of their families, and were protective and caring toward women

no way would women have been placed in vulnerable situations as they are today...chaperoning was done..and a woman remained under the headship of her father, until he gave her in marriage to a man who then became her head.

We apply the same values today in our family..and it works ..we love our women our mothers, sisters and daughters...

Just because men today treat them as sh't doesn't mean that is how Fathers and brothers of biblical times regarded them.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#5204 Sep 17, 2013
little lamb wrote:
Well scripture states a man and a woman become one flesh...and a man doesn't hate his own flesh but takes care of it by feeding it and looking after it..and the men in those times did just that...
Yes, Adam said,“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh”(Gen 2:24) even though he was the only man on the earth when he said it.
little lamb wrote:
Probably not, but then many people are not doing Gods will...and God understands the desperation of a barren woman....
Again, the act of having surrogate mothers was practiced during biblical times, and there was no biblical command that prohibited it, i.e., it was not considered to be a sin. And this is why Abraham impregnating his maid was not a sin. In fact, God blessed their offspring, right?
little lamb wrote:
No Sarah pre-empted the promise of God for a 'seed' to Abraham, by working it out how it could be achieved seeing she was barren...
Please review my previous comment.
little lamb wrote:
In my research I 'suspect' Daniel was an eunuch...
Really!
little lamb wrote:
Pharaoh married their sisters and brothers..Cleopatra married her brother..and they obviously continued doing so even after the Law..
And the Father Abraham married his sister, right?
little lamb wrote:
Until the Law came to Moses it was permitted...After all who do you think Adam and Eve children married?
Perhaps, you did not know that the Law of Moses did not specifically prohibit a sexual father-daughter relationship. Furthermore, I assume that you are well aware that Lot impregnated two of his daughters. Therefore, I most respectfully submit that strictly following an ancient text that is more than 2,000 years old can have dire consequences.
little lamb wrote:
Also in animals in breeding can be done for a period of time but then you have to widen out the genetic pool and bring in fresh stock.
Please see my previous comment.
little lamb wrote:
Means exactly the same as today..as shown by Davids adultery with Bathsheba..but he didn't go free of punishment ..his child died ,
Since Bathsheba was married, David had committed adultery because he had sex with “another man’s wife.” So once again, adultery in biblical days was defined as having sex with “another man’s wife.” The marital status of the man was unimportant.
But please do not take my word for it, but rather Lev 20:10 for yourself:“And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”
Now, I challenge you to quote any verse from the bible that says,“And the woman that committeth adultery with another woman’s husband, even she that committeth adultery with her neighbour’s husband, the adulteress and the adulterer shall surely be put to death.”
little lamb wrote:
he saw one son rape his sister and then have the son who exacted revenge rebel against him and public shame his Father by openly abusing his Fathers concubines and yet still David grieved at his death...So as Jesus told the man at the pool who had been sick a long time...
'be careful not to sin again or something worse can happen to you.'
Newsflash: Raping a sister is not adultery unless the sister is another man’s husband. Furthermore, having sex with one’s father concubine is not adultery because there is no violation of a marriage.
little lamb wrote:
Adultery means exactly the same thing as it means today..David confessed his adultery with
Once again, although both David and Abraham were married, David had sex with another man’s wife, whereas Abraham did not have sex with another man’s wife. As such, David committed adultery, but Father Abraham did not, right (smile)?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#5205 Sep 17, 2013
little lamb wrote:
Like to bring to your attention Gundee, that family is supposed to be a strong unit ..
I totally agree that a family should be a strong unit. However, what’s make up a family unit is what is at issue here, right?
little lamb wrote:
if anyone messed around with another mans single daughter..they would have to deal with the rage of her Father and her brothers.
Yes, I totally agree, unless the messing round with was by mutual consent.
little lamb wrote:
Dinah was a case in point..Her brothers took revenge on the men of a whole town for violating their sister.
Again, I agree. But what we have here is “rape,” not “adultery,” right?
little lamb wrote:
you are trying to make a time when men took their roles seriously as heads of their families, and were protective and caring toward women
no way would women have been placed in vulnerable situations as they are today...chaperoning was done..and a woman remained under the headship of her father, until he gave her in marriage to a man who then became her head.
Once again, I thought that we were debating the issue of what constituted committing adultery from a biblical perspective. Accordingly, I most respectfully submit that the meaning thereof was different then than what it means today.
little lamb wrote:
We apply the same values today in our family..and it works ..we love our women our mothers, sisters and daughters...
No, we do not apply the same value, especially since women, sisters, and daughters are no longer treated as property, right?
little lamb wrote:
Just because men today treat them as sh't doesn't mean that is how Fathers and brothers of biblical times regarded them.
Please see my previous comment.
Thinking

Royston, UK

#5206 Sep 17, 2013
So Matthew 10:34-36 says jesus is evil beacuse he will wreck the family unit for his own ends.
little lamb wrote:
<quoted text>
Like to bring to your attention Gundee, that family is supposed to be a strong unit ..
nc resident

Charlotte, NC

#5207 Sep 17, 2013
little lamb wrote:
<quoted text>
Like to bring to your attention Gundee, that family is supposed to be a strong unit ..
if anyone messed around with another mans single daughter..they would have to deal with the rage of her Father and her brothers.
Dinah was a case in point..Her brothers took revenge on the men of a whole town for violating their sister.
you are trying to make a time when men took their roles seriously as heads of their families, and were protective and caring toward women
no way would women have been placed in vulnerable situations as they are today...chaperoning was done..and a woman remained under the headship of her father, until he gave her in marriage to a man who then became her head.
We apply the same values today in our family..and it works ..we love our women our mothers, sisters and daughters...
Just because men today treat them as sh't doesn't mean that is how Fathers and brothers of biblical times regarded them.
Hmmm... so little lamb are you a man? Are you a JW? Do you believe Jesus is God?
nc resident

Charlotte, NC

#5208 Sep 17, 2013
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
I totally agree that a family should be a strong unit. However, what’s make up a family unit is what is at issue here, right?
<quoted text>
Yes, I totally agree, unless the messing round with was by mutual consent.
<quoted text>
Again, I agree. But what we have here is “rape,” not “adultery,” right?
<quoted text>
Once again, I thought that we were debating the issue of what constituted committing adultery from a biblical perspective. Accordingly, I most respectfully submit that the meaning thereof was different then than what it means today.
<quoted text>
No, we do not apply the same value, especially since women, sisters, and daughters are no longer treated as property, right?
<quoted text>
Please see my previous comment.
I imagine you must be a very patient father as you show great patience with LL. I agree adultery had a different meaning thousands of years ago. can you tell me if anywhere in the bible it requires a man to be a 'virgin" till marriage? I am unable to find scripture to support this.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#5209 Sep 17, 2013
nc resident wrote:
I imagine you must be a very patient father as you show great patience with LL.
Thank you for your very kind words. Although Little Lamb and I have different biblical perspectives, I really do appreciate the civility and considerations that he (or she) has shown me.
nc resident wrote:
I agree adultery had a different meaning thousands of years ago. can you tell me if anywhere in the bible it requires a man to be a 'virgin" till marriage? I am unable to find scripture to support this.
Great question! And from what I understand, only the virginity of the female (daughter) was mandated simply because she was the only one that could be considered as someone else’s property (wife), biblical speaking. And she would be worth a greater economic asset (50 shekels of silver) if she was a virgin. However, if she was found not to be a virgin when her marriage was consummated, then she was not worth anything, because she was required to be stoned to death.

At any rate, since the daughter was the property of her father, he had the God-given biblical authority to legally transfer his property rights to another man in a monetarily negotiated amount between him and the husband (marriage) or simply sell her in a financial business transaction to a master (servitude). On the other hand, the father did not have the same biblical authority to do such a thing to his son. Accordingly, the virginity of the man was unimportant.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#5211 Sep 18, 2013
Hardie-Har-Har wrote:
A Macho Jesus states, as reported in Matthew 5:32 (ISV): "But I say to you, any man who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
And the Macho Paul states this at 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11: "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife."
Hmm,... Friend Gundee,...
"But I say unto you, any man who divorces his wife,...."?
Jesus and Paul do not infringe, or revoke the original grant, or permission of divorce; they merely free it from the false interpretations, and ill use, the Pharisees made of it.
They restore the ancient sense of it, in which only it was to be understood: for a divorce was allowable in no case, saving for the cause of fornication; which included adultery, incest, or any unlawful copulation.
Jesus is opposed to the sense and practices of the Pharisees, who were on the side of Rabbi Hillell: who allowed divorce, upon the most foolish and frivolous of pretences......
[Deleted the remainder for space to respond.]
Any thoughts, Bro Gundee?...
Hardie!
Thank you for asking, and here are my thoughts: In ancient times, there were many competing views about divorce and putting away one’s wife, just like it still is today. However, since Jesus is supposedly who Christians should be following (rather than Paul), my response will primarily focus on what I interpret Jesus to be saying when he was approached by the Pharisees on the issue of putting away ones’ wife.

Accordingly, I opine that the Pharisees were referring to a betrothed wife, especially since Jesus said that “fornication”(rather than adultery) was the only exception. But just like the word adultery, I would argue that the meaning of the word fornication has evolved over time, whereas it does not mean the same thing today (from a carnal perspective) as it did in biblical times. Simply put, if a woman had sexual intercourse with another man after her marriage had been consummated, then she would be guilty of committing adultery, whereas if a woman had sexual intercourse with another man before her marriage had been consummated, then she would be guilty of committing fornication. But please notice that in both cases, the marital status of the man was inconsequential.

Now, the biblical proof of my interpretation of the word fornication can be found at Mat 1:18-19, i.e.,“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.” You see, the penalty for committing either fornication or adultery was the same --- the woman and the man who committed the offense were to be put to death. And since Joseph did not want Mary to be put death, he decided to not let anyone know that he was not going to consummate the marriage, but rather end their contract thereof.

Not to be outdone, the Pharisees tried to challenge Jesus’ response by using Deu 24:1. However, Moses had written a precept on what a man could do after the marriage had been consummated, rather than before, in my humble opinion.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#5213 Sep 18, 2013
Hardie-Har-Har wrote:
Thanks for the clarity on the ancient meaning of fornication! There seems to be little difference to a woman about to be stoned to death for screwing around, whether she be married or single. You say, if single, she's a fornicator, and if married, she's an adulteress.
Please know that in biblical times, a betrothed woman was not considered to be single, but rather the espoused wife. Thus, it was a sin for her to fornicate with another man. However, it was not a sin for a single women who not an espoused wife to have premarital sex, although this would greatly reduce her chance of ever finding a husband.
Hardie-Har-Har wrote:
If so, it seems that one word would have sufficed in either case; like saying simply that she's a "whore", married or not married! Why bother with two words? The results are the same.... Right??
I surmise that the difference use of these two words (fornication versus adultery) was to depict what specific sin that the woman had committed. After all, I think that you would agree that although both burglary and robbery are property crimes, they are not the same thing, right?
Hardie-Har-Har wrote:
Your last point seems to say that Deut 24:1 was permission for a man to ANNUL a marriage before it was consummated in the bedroom with the sex act.
Please know that I asserted that Deu 24:1 permitted divorce “after” the marriage had been consummated.
Hardie-Har-Har wrote:
That would clarify why 24:1 says that the first hubby can't remarry her if she bedded down with her 2nd hubby who also divorced her. The second divorce, sexually consummated, would NOT be an annulment like the first one, which wasn't sex-fulfilled.
Is that what Deut 24:1 is saying, Bro Dundee, in your opinion?
I apologize for not being unambiguously clear in my previous explanation. Thus, please know that I opine that Deu 24:1 was incorrectly used by the Pharisees (Mat 19:7) to support their contention that a man could lawfully put away his wife for any cause (Mat 19:3). However, Deu 24:1 speaks to a marriage that had been consummated, whereas Jesus was speaking to a marriage that had not been consummated.
little lamb

South Yarra, Australia

#5214 Sep 18, 2013
Hardie-Har-Har wrote:
<quoted text>
A Macho Jesus states, as reported in Matthew 5:32 (ISV): "But I say to you, any man who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
And the Macho Paul states this at 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11: "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife."
Hmm,... Friend Gundee,...
"But I say unto you, any man who divorces his wife,...."?
Jesus and Paul do not infringe, or revoke the original grant, or permission of divorce; they merely free it from the false interpretations, and ill use, the Pharisees made of it.
They restore the ancient sense of it, in which only it was to be understood: for a divorce was allowable in no case, saving for the cause of fornication; which included adultery, incest, or any unlawful copulation.
Jesus is opposed to the sense and practices of the Pharisees, who were on the side of Rabbi Hillell: who allowed divorce, upon the most foolish and frivolous of pretences.
Rabbi Shammai and his followers insisted that a man must only put away his wife for uncleanness; in which they agreed with Christ. For so it is written (i),
"The house of Shammai say, a man may not put away his wife, unless he finds some uncleanness in her, according to Deuteronomy 24:1 The house of Hillell says,(also) if she should spoil his food,... such-like lacks would also appeal to Deutero 24:1's rule.
R. Akiba added this bit of interpretation, "If he finds another more beautiful than her, as it is said, Deuteronomy 24:1 'and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes'.''
The commentators (k) on this passage say that the determination of the matter (according to Hillell), is that a woman might be put away for a very trivial thing: i.e., If her husband hated her; or she was of ill behavior, impudent, and not modest, as the daughters of Israel.
Thus, Jesus answered that (without any exception) a man ought not to put away his wife, for any other reason than uncleanness; and that whoever does, upon any other account,
causes her to commit adultery; ...
That is: should she commit sex afterwards, he is the cause of it, by exposing her, through a rejection of her, to the sinful embraces of others; and, indeed, should she marry another man, whilst he is alive, which her divorce allows her to do, she'd be guilty of adultery; since she is his still his proper wife, the bond of marriage not actually being dissolved;
And, whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, commits adultery; because the divorced woman he marries, and takes to his bed; is legally the wife of another man. It may be added, from Matthew 19:9, that her husband, who has put her away, upon any other account than fornication, should he marry another woman, is guilty of the same crime.- Adapted from "Gill's Bible Commentary"
(i) Misn. Gittin, c. 9. sect. 10. Vid. T. Hieros. Gittin, fol. 49. 4. & Sota, fol. 16. 2. & Bemidbar Rabba, sect. 9. fol. 195. 2.((k) Maimon. & Bartenora in Gittin, c. 9. sect. 10.(l) T. Bab. Gittin, fol. 90. 2. Maimon. Hilch. Gerushin, c. 10. sect. 21, 22.
Any thoughts, Bro Gundee?...
Hardie!
Good post ....
little lamb

South Yarra, Australia

#5216 Sep 18, 2013
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, Adam said,“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh”(Gen 2:24) even though he was the only man on the earth when he said it.
<quoted text>
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>And the Father Abraham married his sister, right?
<quoted text>

True
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text> Furthermore, I assume that you are well aware that Lot impregnated two of his daughters. Therefore, I most respectfully submit that strictly following an ancient text that is more than 2,000 years old can have dire consequences.
<quoted text>

Yes..before the Law arrived hope you realize...
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>Since Bathsheba was married, David had committed adultery because he had sex with “another man’s wife.” So once again, adultery in biblical days was defined as having sex with “another man’s wife.” The marital status of the man was unimportant.
Don't believe that was the case at all

Judah who had relations with Tamar ..called her a harlot and goodness knows what else ..when she was found pregnant ..due to what he called her harlotry...until she showed him the possessions of the man she had relations with..himself...and he made the comment ' she is more righteous then I am' lol...

So he knew ..he was not righteous in his actions..and this is all before the LAW.
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text> But please do not take my word for it, but rather Lev 20:10 for yourself:“And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”
Now, I challenge you to quote any verse from the bible that says,“And the woman that committeth adultery with another woman’s husband, even she that committeth adultery with her neighbour’s husband, the adulteress and the adulterer shall surely be put to death.”
<quoted text>

Yes adultery is wrong..
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text> Newsflash: Raping a sister is not adultery unless the sister is another man’s husband. Furthermore, having sex with one’s father concubine is not adultery because there is no violation of a marriage.
<quoted text>

Don't agree , raping his sister certainly caused the death of one of Davids sons by the avenger her other brother..

And having relations with his Fathers concubine lost one of Jacobs sons his inheritance of first born..

And again that was before the LAW, as regards Jacob's son.
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>Once again, although both David and Abraham were married, David had sex with another man’s wife, whereas Abraham did not have sex with another man’s wife. As such, David committed adultery, but Father Abraham did not, right (smile)?


I see your point...yes David committed adultery ..but Sarah gave her slave girl as a 'wife' didn't she?

And before Christ men had several wives..it is the law of Christ that insists on one man and one woman...for marriage.

Its Jesus who elevated women as being of more value then property isn't it?

Without Jesus men revert back to having ,,say ,,four wives or more ..L,
little lamb

South Yarra, Australia

#5217 Sep 18, 2013
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>

Once again, I thought that we were debating the issue of what constituted committing adultery from a biblical perspective. Accordingly, I most respectfully submit that the meaning thereof was different then than what it means today.
<quoted text>
No, we do not apply the same value, especially since women, sisters, and daughters are no longer treated as property, right?
<quoted text>
As I have stated previously..it is Jesus who has elevated women

He is the one that showed compassion on both the woman at the well, and the woman who bathed his feet.

He wasn't one to take women out and stone them..was he?

He did tell the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more.

So even though he didn't condemn her he didn't condone either.

Its Jesus who teaches us to honor the marriage bed..and gave the saying that God originally purposed for one man one wife.

Jesus teachings elevated man and woman to being one flesh ..

Other so called prophets who have come in after Jesus always tend to want to go back to having four wives ..don't they?

it seems Jesus raises the standard...many fall and don't reach the standard.,,, but it doesn't mean we can't have very high standards especially in worshiping and serving God.

I find certain races of men are less capable of holding a high standard, then others ....but all are tempted and all capable of falling.
little lamb

South Yarra, Australia

#5218 Sep 18, 2013
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>

Great question! And from what I understand, only the virginity of the female (daughter) was mandated simply because she was the only one that could be considered as someone else’s property (wife), biblical speaking. And she would be worth a greater economic asset (50 shekels of silver) if she was a virgin. However, if she was found not to be a virgin when her marriage was consummated, then she was not worth anything, because she was required to be stoned to death.
At any rate, since the daughter was the property of her father, he had the God-given biblical authority to legally transfer his property rights to another man in a monetarily negotiated amount between him and the husband (marriage) or simply sell her in a financial business transaction to a master (servitude). On the other hand, the father did not have the same biblical authority to do such a thing to his son. Accordingly, the virginity of the man was unimportant.
All that has changed with Christ however.

Now today the new covenant he mediates ..is even stricter

Matthew 5 [27] You heard it said ' you must not commit adultery

But I SAY TO YOU, that everyone that keeps on looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her , has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Jesus raises the bar..

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#5219 Sep 18, 2013
Hardie-Har-Har wrote:
Thanks again Mr. Gundee for your interesting clarity on old "fornication-vs-adultery. " ...
However,...
I must say, that since the jurisprudence during the Mystic Mosaic Time had to be crude by comparison, I strongly doubt that the (as you put it) "specific sin that the woman had committed" would bear much of a weight in the crude court called forth, concocted and conducted, while the rabble exiles trekked laboriously thru the harsh Sinai Desert for some forty years, as claimed.... I think your legalese-nuances (obviously based upon more modern jurisprudence practice) are an appeasing attempt to make sense out of a bronze/iron-age testament, revised again-and-again over centuries,.. and full of errors.
I think that you make a very interesting and thought provoking point here.
Hardie-Har-Har wrote:
Deut 24:1-4, according to the "Orthodox Jewish Bible" reads:
1 When an ish hath taken an isha, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no chen (favor) in his eyes, because he hath found some ervat davar (matter of immorality) in her; then let him write her a sefer keritut (Cert. of Divorce) and give it in her hand, and send her out of his bais; 2 And when she is departed out of his bais, she may go and be an ish acher (wife of another). 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a sefer keritut and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his bais; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his isha; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his isha, after that she is hutamma'ah (defiled); for that is to'evah (abomination) before Hashem; and thou shalt not cause ha'aretz to sin, which Hashem Eloheicha giveth thee for a nachalah.
According to that interpretation, Dundee, the first marriage was sexually consummated! It was violated by some "matter of immorality", making the divorce legal in god's eyes.
If the “matter of immorality”(Deu 24:1) was sexual infidelity, then the woman was put to death as opposed to being given a certificate of divorced. Thus, deductive reasoning says that the man found something unclean in his wife that had nothing to do with adultery, right?
Hardie-Har-Har wrote:
So, I read an obvious contradiction that begs the Q:
Why wasn't the second marriage condemned because of the "hutamma'ah" of the 1st one?...
The second married was not condemned simply because the women had a valid divorce certificate from her first husband. However, if this woman had committed adultery during the first marriage, then such a certificate would not be needed because the husband would simply had her stoned to death, right?
Hardie-Har-Har wrote:
The first marriage was consummated (according to the OJB) by sex,... so how was the second man able to marry that divorced and disgraced whore,... I ask you, Bro. Dundee?
Respectfully,

Hardie!
Since the first marriage at Deu 24:1 was consummated, the man was not allowed to simply put his wife away without writing her a divorce certificate. On the other hand, if the marriage had not been consummated, a divorce certificate would not be applicable. Remember, since Joseph had not consummated his marriage with Mary, he was minded to put her away privily when he thought she had committed fornication (not adultery), rather than having her stoned to death.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#5220 Sep 18, 2013
little lamb wrote:
True
Yes..before the Law arrived hope you realize...
And I hope that you realize when the did arrive, it did not specifically prohibit a man from having sex with his own daughter.
little lamb wrote:
Don't believe that was the case at all
While I have the utmost respect for your beliefs, I would rather you offer scriptural proof to invalidate my assertion, if you would be so kind.
little lamb wrote:
Judah who had relations with Tamar ..called her a harlot and goodness knows what else ..when she was found pregnant ..due to what he called her harlotry...until she showed him the possessions of the man she had relations with..himself...and he made the comment ' she is more righteous then I am' lol...
So he knew ..he was not righteous in his actions..and this is all before the LAW.
The law said that Judah’s youngest son should have married Tamar, so that she could have a child for Judah’s oldest deceased son. But when Judah’s second son died, Judah chose not to give his youngest son to Tamar in marriage. Thus, she devised a plan to have a child for her deceased husband by being impregnated by his father, right?
little lamb wrote:
Yes adultery is wrong..
Yes, the bible condemned a man from having sex with another man’s wife, but it never condemned a single woman from having sex with another woman’s husband, right? And if you disagree, please cite the specific scripture that will substantiate your claim, if you would be so kind.
little lamb wrote:
Don't agree , raping his sister certainly caused the death of one of Davids sons by the avenger her other brother..
Yes, I agree, but please know that since the sister was not married, no one committed adultery.
little lamb wrote:
And having relations with his Fathers concubine lost one of Jacobs sons his inheritance of first born..
Again, I agree, but once again, no adultery was committed, right?
little lamb wrote:
And again that was before the LAW, as regards Jacob's son.
Regardless, there was no adultery, right?
little lamb wrote:
I see your point...yes David committed adultery ..but Sarah gave her slave girl as a 'wife' didn't she?
Yes, Sarah gave her maidservant to her married husband to use as a surrogate mother. And this was not adultery, even though Abraham was married, yet having sex with a single woman, right? On the other hand, if King Abimelech would have had sex with Sara, then they would have been an adulterer and an adulteress, a price that the faithful Abraham was willing to pay in other to save his own hide, right?
little lamb wrote:
And before Christ men had several wives..it is the law of Christ that insists on one man and one woman...for marriage.
Please cite where specifically in the bible that Jesus Himself insisted on one man and one woman for marriage, if you would be so kind.
little lamb wrote:
Its Jesus who elevated women as being of more value then property isn't it?
Please cite where specifically in the scripture whereas Jesus “elevated women,” if you would be so kind.
little lamb wrote:
Without Jesus men revert back to having ,,say ,,four wives or more ..L,
Well,“Didn’t Jesus explicitly say that He did not come to destroy the law or the prophet,” if you do not mind my asking?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Poll Was Paul a False Apostle? (May '08) 16 min Jesus is 5,946
BIBLE QUESTIONS to KAB 26 min ROG 96
PAUL OUR FATHER . 1Cor 4: 15 (Feb '16) 26 min Jesus is 118
Why the Earth Was Created in Six Days 42 min ROG 77
Cookie's Place (Oct '13) 1 hr Sceptical_Mal 20,543
Can Someone Please Explain Luke 17:34 for me? (May '10) 6 hr Old Earth Dude 44
Scientific Proof Of GOD(for dummies) 6 hr KAB 2,451
More from around the web