Was sex Adam and Eve part of the curse

[Lovette]

We know all that duh. But why be so defensive? Look, we’re no better than you. What is something that irritates you about Christians?

Yes, the idolatry of marriage. It's the sin of the whole economic system that makes it harder than ever to get married and stay married, yet all the blame is put on men, that's the problem.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

The fact that Paul distinguishes between the Lord’s command, his own apostolic judgment, and responses to questions from Corinth does not mean that his instructions were merely optional advice applicable only to that particular congregation. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul is addressing concrete circumstances, but he is still writing as an apostle giving authoritative instruction to the church. Indeed, he explicitly says, “I give judgment, as one whom the Lord in his mercy has made trustworthy” (7:25), and later, “I think that I too have the Spirit of God” (7:40).

I understand Paul gave good instruction and advice concerning specific "things whereof ye wrote unto me" (1 Corinthians 7:1).

What specific thing was Paul addressing when he wrote:

1 Corinthians 7:6-9 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 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. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

or when he wrote:

1 Corinthians 7:12-16 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

or when he wrote:

1 Corinthians 7:25-28 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

any answer other than "I don't know" is pure conjecture. All we know is what Paul wrote in response to specific issues the church in Corinth had requested Paul address.

So the distinction is not necessarily “God’s command vs. Paul’s merely personal opinion.” It is often a direct command previously given by Jesus vs. Paul’s Spirit-guided apostolic application of Christian principles to situations Jesus had not specifically addressed. Calling the latter “just good counsel concerning questions Corinth happened to ask” understates the authority with which Paul presents his answer.

We still do not know what issues the church had asked Paul to address.

I believe Paul was faithful in providing sound guidance and counsel concerning the issues about which the church had written in the letter to Paul.

Paul walked in wisdom in indicating what he spoke by commandment and what was his own opinion concerning specific issues the church wrote to him about, the specific situational questions which we are not privy to.

.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

My only logic is putting Gen. 2:24 in its original context and interpreting it accordingly instead of building your own theories around it.

For your "logic" and your "own theory" to be correct, you would have to show that God included the fact that He will cause a deep sleep, take a rib out of man, close up the flesh, make a woman, and bring the woman to the man in Matthew 19:5, Mark 10:7-8, Ephesians 5:31.

All of these verses exclude what you want included.

Your "logic" fails ... the text does not corroborate your "own theory".

.

 

[Lovette]

yes I understand the tabernacle in the wilderness "was never meant to be permanent".

Does that mean the tabernacle was unnecessary during the time it was "a temporary measure"? ... even in our day and time there is relevance in studying the tabernacle ... have you ever studied how the tabernacle reflects the Lord Jesus Christ?

Why do you rant about that reflection when you're already in one body with the Lord?

Do you really believe Moses had "no access to God through the Holy Spirit? Have you ever read Numbers 11:16-25?

While I understand that what was made available to the born again believer after the Lord Jesus Christ ascended up into heaven is a change from what was available before He ascended, the same Holy Spirit which was at work during OT times is the same Holy Spirit at work in our day and time.

Was the Holy Spirit merely rested upon them or permanently dwelling in them? Do you even know the difference?

nope ... it is totally relevant in refuting your claim that just because marriage is a mere "reflection" of a deeper truth that means the "reflection" is irrelevant ... just like the tabernacle reflecting the Lord Jesus Christ is not "irrelevant" and the marriage relationship reflecting a great mystery is not "irrelevant".

.

The Lord explicitly taught that there's no marriage in resurrection, marriage is the hallmark for "sons of this age". As long as you don't have sex and make babies with the Lord Jesus Christ, it's irrelevant.

 

[Burn1986]

Yes, the idolatry of marriage. It's the sin of the whole economic system that makes it harder than ever to get married and stay married, yet all the blame is put on men, that's the problem.

Yeah marriage is tough. That’s it? Marriage? What was a time that you were angry at God. For example, some have become angry at God because they fasted and prayed and they didn’t get what they wanted from God. Anything like that ever happened to you? Or another Christian betrayed someone, and that person was mad at God from then on.

 

[Lovette]

I understand Paul gave good instruction and advice concerning specific "things whereof ye wrote unto me" (1 Corinthians 7:1).

What specific thing was Paul addressing when he wrote:

1 Corinthians 7:6-9 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 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. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

or when he wrote:

1 Corinthians 7:12-16 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

or when he wrote:

1 Corinthians 7:25-28 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

any answer other than "I don't know" is pure conjecture. All we know is what Paul wrote in response to specific issues the church in Corinth had requested Paul address.

I understand Paul was responding to specific matters the Corinthians had written about (1 Cor. 7:1). But what, specifically, were those matters?

For example, what was the question behind 7:6–9? Or 7:12–16? Or 7:25–28? Paul never tells us what the Corinthians originally asked. We only have his answers.

So when someone claims to know precisely what issue prompted a particular statement, they need to demonstrate it from the text. Otherwise, they are reconstructing the Corinthians’ questions from Paul's answers.

We can certainly infer possibilities, but we cannot present those reconstructions as certain. Beyond what Paul actually tells us, “I don't know” is sometimes the most honest answer.

We still do not know what issues the church had asked Paul to address.

I believe Paul was faithful in providing sound guidance and counsel concerning the issues about which the church had written in the letter to Paul.

Paul walked in wisdom in indicating what he spoke by commandment and what was his own opinion concerning specific issues the church wrote to him about, the specific situational questions which we are not privy to.

But that is precisely the distinction that matters: we may not have the Corinthians' original letter, but we do have Paul's answers to the issues he says they raised.

Paul explicitly identifies subjects he is addressing: marriage and sexual relations (7:1–5), the unmarried and widows (7:6–9), separation from a spouse (7:10–16), and virgins and marriage (7:25–28). We don't need to reconstruct the original letter word-for-word to know what subjects Paul is discussing.

Likewise, “not the Lord” does not mean “merely my opinion.” In 7:12 Paul distinguishes his instruction from a command previously given by Jesus; he does not thereby disclaim authority for what follows.

So yes, there are details about the Corinthians' original questions that we cannot recover. But saying “we don't know the exact questions” is not the same as saying “we cannot know what issues Paul was addressing.” The latter goes beyond what the text warrants.

 

[Lovette]

For your "logic" and your "own theory" to be correct, you would have to show that God included the fact that He will cause a deep sleep, take a rib out of man, close up the flesh, make a woman, and bring the woman to the man in Matthew 19:5, Mark 10:7-8, Ephesians 5:31.

All of these verses exclude what you want included.

Your "logic" fails ... the text does not corroborate your "own theory".

.

None of these verses address dating or whatever process that led to marriage in the first place. Nice try.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

reneweddaybyday said:

... would you ever refer to a single man as a "husband"? ... or a single woman as a "wife"?​

Is any man born a husband entitled to a wife? Is any woman born a wife entitled to a husband?

reneweddaybyday said:

Please note ... you said "God himself never married".​

​

Have you ever read Isaiah 54:5? ... Jeremiah 3:14?​

Did God consummate it in bed with Israel in these verses? You know "two become one flesh" is referring to consummation of marriage in bed, right?

if you believe that sexual intimacy is the only meaning of "one flesh", you are limiting yourself to a carnal understanding ... again, par for the course with you.

Two becoming one refers to much more than a sexual union. Two becoming one relates to the whole existence between man and wife. The marriage relationship consists of a unity which encompasses the joint lives of husband and wife. In marriage, two lives unite together as one ... emotionally, intellectually, financially, spiritually, and in every other way. The husband and wife become one in purpose. They are so close that they function like one person, balancing each other's strengths and weaknesses so that both separately and together they fulfill their God-given calling.

Like I said, if you would quit focusing so much on the carnal and consider the spiritual, your understanding of the marriage relationship would align with what is written in Scripture. Your "worldly" view has blinded you from fully comprehending the marriage relationship.


reneweddaybyday said:

Well, we do have an adversary who walks about seeking whom he may devour and the believer is empowered to endure.​

Lovette said:

Yeah, an adversary who drags innocent people down to endure with him what he himself deserves.​

reneweddaybyday said:

Doesn't mean the believer always, in every instance, "avoids such conflict in the first place". God gives warning and we'd best pay heed to his warnings. That God also provides everything the believer needs to endure the onslaught does not mean the believer will never have conflict.​

Yeah blame the lord for that. "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword," Matt. 10:34.

I do not blame God for the actions of satan.


reneweddaybyday said:

The one-time event was the fact that God "made he a woman" from Adam.​

​

Your insistence that when a man and woman marry it is not a true marriage is the same as you saying that a person is not born again unless he or she has the same experience Paul had on the road to Damascus.​

Don't quote Gen. 2:24 then if you insist it was a one-time event. You quote it, you acknowledge that Gen. 2:18-24 is God's design for marriage.

Again, for your "logic" and your "own theory" to be correct, you would have to show that God included the fact that He will cause a deep sleep, take a rib out of man, close up the flesh, make a woman, and bring the woman to the man in Matthew 19:5, Mark 10:7-8, Ephesians 5:31.

All of these verses exclude what you want included.

Your "logic" fails ... the text does not corroborate your "own theory".

Also, what Gen. 2:24 states is for the couple to build their own family unit independent of their families, and they also should consummate their marriage in bed. It doesn't say one should go find a partner and get married. The preamble that leads to Gen. 2:24 is Gen. 2:18-22 which is NOT a "one time event".

really? please provide Scripture (chapter and verse) which indicates that God ever created (brought into existence from nothing) another man ... or even a descendant of Adam, then caused a deep sleep to come over him, took a rib from him, closed up the flesh, made a woman, and brought the woman to the man.

Your vacuous claims border on the ridiculous.

.

 

[Lovette]

Yeah marriage is tough. That’s it? Marriage? What was a time that you were angry at God. For example, some have become angry at God because they fasted and prayed and they didn’t get what they wanted from God. Anything like that ever happened to you? Or another Christian betrayed someone, and that person was mad at God from then on.

No you don't get it. Tough or not I don't wanna hear about it. Jesus is not a matchmaker, and the church's job is not to get everyone paired up. The only betrayal is that I come to the church for the word of God and the wellbeing of my soul, yet I get a marriage counselling session and the wellbeing of the neither region.

 

[Lovette]

if you believe that sexual intimacy is the only meaning of "one flesh", you are limiting yourself to a carnal understanding ... again, par for the course with you.

Two becoming one refers to much more than a sexual union. Two becoming one relates to the whole existence between man and wife. The marriage relationship consists of a unity which encompasses the joint lives of husband and wife. In marriage, two lives unite together as one ... emotionally, intellectually, financially, spiritually, and in every other way. The husband and wife become one in purpose. They are so close that they function like one person, balancing each other's strengths and weaknesses so that both separately and together they fulfill their God-given calling.

Like I said, if you would quit focusing so much on the carnal and consider the spiritual, your understanding of the marriage relationship would align with what is written in Scripture. Your "worldly" view has blinded you from fully comprehending the marriage relationship.

1 Cor. 6:15-17 explicitly indicated that "two become one flesh" is referring to sexual intimacy for husband and wife. Do you become one with a harlot "emotionally, intellectually, financially, spiritually, and in every other way?" I'm letting the word of God interpret itself, you're interpreting it with your own bias and doctrines.

Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For “the two,” He says, “shall become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.

 

[Lovette]

really? please provide Scripture (chapter and verse) which indicates that God ever created (brought into existence from nothing) another man ... or even a descendant of Adam, then caused a deep sleep to come over him, took a rib from him, closed up the flesh, made a woman, and brought the woman to the man.

Your vacuous claims border on the ridiculous.

Please provide Scripture (chapter and verse) which indicates anything about dating or romancing, which are modern inventions.

You keep rambling on God's establishment of marriage, all that I'm saying is that this establishment followed a fixed model: it is determined for you that it's not good for you to be alone (Gen. 2:18), a "help mate comparable to you" is arranged for you (Gen. 2:18), and they're brought to you (Gen. 2:22).

This model was faithfully followed in Gen. 24 - a marriage with a kin was determined and arranged for Isaac. Later in Genesis, Esau pursued Hittite women on his own initiative, which grieved his parents; Jacob pursued Rachel, but he was tricked and Leah was arranged for him. If you follow Esau's and Jacob's behavior, then don't call it godly.

 

[CS1]

The Lord began the Olivet Discourse with this warning, did he not? “Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many."

those coming IN HIS name are not the same as those saying they are the Christ. the context is people saying they are Christ or there HE is that if possible they would deceive the very elect. IF possible.

 

[Lovette]

those coming IN HIS name are not the same as those saying they are the Christ. the context is people saying they are Christ or there HE is that if possible they would deceive the very elect. IF possible.

Nonetheless we should be vigilant on these fake messiahs. Don't forget that in the last days, there'll be an earth beast that looks like a lamb, aka the Messiah, but speaks like the devil. The way I see it, a christ who urges you to get married, have kids, shames you if you don't and sells marital bliss is a false messiah.

 

[CS1]

Nonetheless we should be vigilant on these fake messiahs. Don't forget that in the last days, there'll be an earth beast that looks like a lamb, aka the Messiah, but speaks like the devil. The way I see it, a christ who urges you to get married, have kids, shames you if you don't and sells marital bliss is a false messiah.

They fake messiah's which one today that is fake we do not know about? And I don't understand your point here :

"The way I see it, a christ who urges you to get married, have kids, shames you if you don't and sells marital bliss is a false messiah."


Are you married ? and IF so how many times ? And if you were married more than once were you deceived the first time?

 

[Lovette]

They fake messiah's which one today that is fake we do not know about? And I don't understand your point here :

"The way I see it, a christ who urges you to get married, have kids, shames you if you don't and sells marital bliss is a false messiah."


Are you married ? and IF so how many times ? And if you were married more than once were you deceived the first time?

Do you understand Paul's warning, that if anyone preaches another gospel it's from the devil?

 

[CS1]

Do you understand Paul's warning, that if anyone preaches another gospel it's from the devil?

yes, I do. Jesus is the only way, the only truth. and the only eternal Life. John 14:6

 

[Lovette]

yes, I do. Jesus is the only way, the only truth. and the only eternal Life. John 14:6

Then my point is clear, any other gospel such as prosperity gospel is from the devil. What I'm saying is that, "follow Jesus so you can get married, get married as proof of your fellowship" is a variant of this prosperity gospel.

 

[CS1]

Then my point is clear, any other gospel such as prosperity gospel is from the devil. What I'm saying is that, "follow Jesus so you can get married, get married as proof of your fellowship" is a variant of this prosperity gospel.

hold on prosperity it not of the devil Jesus did teach that. Those who use that to fleece the flock are going to answer to the living God.

FYI I am married 34 years thank you. To one women, three children and three grandchildren. Bur Christ is my all an all.

 

[Lovette]

hold on prosperity it not of the devil Jesus did teach that. Those who use that to fleece the flock are going to answer to the living God.

FYI I am married 34 years thank you. To one women, three children and three grandchildren. Bur Christ is my all an all.

Folks of your generation won't understand how much time has changed, your life script no longer works. Prosperity gospel was formulated from a post-war era of prosperity, now that era is gone.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

reneweddaybyday said:

yes I understand the tabernacle in the wilderness "was never meant to be permanent".

Does that mean the tabernacle was unnecessary during the time it was "a temporary measure"? ... even in our day and time there is relevance in studying the tabernacle ... have you ever studied how the tabernacle reflects the Lord Jesus Christ?​

Why do you rant about that reflection when you're already in one body with the Lord?

Discussing Scripture is not "ranting" ... just as correcting your misinterpretation of Scripture is not "lying".

Was the Holy Spirit merely rested upon them or permanently dwelling in them? Do you even know the difference?

I'm happy to discuss Scripture with you, Lovette, but you need to stop changing the criteria every time your claims are refuted.

Here was your claim, Lovette:

Lovette said:​

Neither Moses nor any of these other names had access to God through the Holy Spirit, we do, therefore your argument is irrelevant.​

Here was my response to your claim:

reneweddaybyday said:​

Do you really believe Moses had "no access to God through the Holy Spirit? Have you ever read Numbers 11:16-25?

While I understand that what was made available to the born again believer after the Lord Jesus Christ ascended up into heaven is a change from what was available before He ascended, the same Holy Spirit which was at work during OT times is the same Holy Spirit at work in our day and time.​

And have you ever read 1 Peter 1:10-11?

1 Pe 1:10-11 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

And the word "in" was not added by translators. The Greek word en is in the text.


Lovette said:

Neither Moses nor any of these other names had access to God through the Holy Spirit, we do, therefore your argument is irrelevant.​

reneweddaybyday said:

nope ... it is totally relevant in refuting your claim that just because marriage is a mere "reflection" of a deeper truth that means the "reflection" is irrelevant ... just like the tabernacle reflecting the Lord Jesus Christ is not "irrelevant" and the marriage relationship reflecting a great mystery is not "irrelevant".​

The Lord explicitly taught that there's no marriage in resurrection, marriage is the hallmark for "sons of this age".

This is just more of your changing the criteria tactic. You cannot even answer "no" to the question "Do you believe the tabernacle in the wilderness was unnecessary because the tabernacle was only a foreshadow of the heavenly Holy of Holies?"

What is wrong with you?

As long as you don't have sex and make babies with the Lord Jesus Christ, it's irrelevant.

your vacuous claims border on the ridiculous.

.