Was sex Adam and Eve part of the curse

[tourist]

So very sorry to hear this brother. She and I had some words about politics but she was never nasty or personal. She seemed to me to be a Godly woman. I'm sorry for your loss and will add you to my prayer list.

She was very much a Godly woman. Bless you for your consideration and prayers.

 

[NightTwister]

That might be a blessing though, being spared from the Great Tribulation. You can't be both watchful on the signs and willingly ignorant.

Oh that. Yeah, that already happened.

 

[Lanolin]

wow OP put this in BDF?
I have been reading a bit of it esp Jesuslives contributions.

This was her last post.

I think what she said about how there might have been sex before 'the fall' which didn't end in pregnancy (who knows?) is something to think about, after all, Adam and Eve were both naked and not ashamed.

They probably were just being human and naturally curious about each other for the most part and wouldn't have thought it was something to be ashamed of, or hidden away. Maybe they were in the courtship stage of getting to know each other.

 

[NightTwister]

JesusLives was my wife. She passed away last night.

I'm so very sorry for your loss.

 

[Churchgoer]

No, most churches' default narrative is based on (pre-existing) marriage. If you're single, that's just a "preparing stage", presuming you'll get married someday, somehow. There's no theology for folks who have nobody to marry and no resources to date.

In our church we have plenty older singles, 40, 50, 60, 70... in different fellowships. We all helping out in different capacity.

Older ones not necessarily want to get marry. Many are content.

 

[tourist]

I'm so very sorry for your loss.

Thank you.

 

[tourist]

wow OP put this in BDF?
I have been reading a bit of it esp Jesuslives contributions.


I think what she said about how there might have been sex before 'the fall' which didn't end in pregnancy (who knows?) is something to think about, after all, Adam and Eve were both naked and not ashamed.

They probably were just being human and naturally curious about each other for the most part and wouldn't have thought it was something to be ashamed of, or hidden away. Maybe they were in the courtship stage of getting to know each other.

Yes, they were both being human just like the rest of us.

 

[Lovette]

In our church we have plenty older singles, 40, 50, 60, 70... in different fellowships. We all helping out in different capacity.

Older ones not necessarily want to get marry. Many are content.

I wonder if “atomization” of society and disintegration of communities are the necessary cost for urbanization and modernization. The decline of marriage and birth rate is observed in all industrialized countries, and within each country, in all advanced, urbanized areas. Marriage is still a blessing, it’s just become a luxury and a privilege.

 

[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?​

Lovette said:

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

reneweddaybyday said:

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

Scripture states God doesn't dwell in any temples (Acts 17:24), we worship in spirit and truth instead of any fixed location (Jn. 4:21). It's your rejection not my misinterpretation.

At the time the tabernacle in the wilderness was in existence, was the tabernacle unnecessary? It's a simple question. You know the answer is "no", yet you cannot bring yourself to admit such a simple truth.

But if you answer truthfully, then another of your assertions would be revealed to be just another claim bordering on the ridiculous.

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:​

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.​

​

Lovette said:​

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

​

reneweddaybyday said:​

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

Moses spoke to the Angel of God directly, since then did he need a medium?

more of your changing the criteria which is fallacious engagement in discussion.

all you are doing is changing what constitutes "access to God" to the "method of access" ... all in your efforts to avoid admitting your initial premise was faulty.

God tells us Moses spoke to Him face to face:

Exodus 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend

Deuteronomy 34:10 And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face.

reneweddaybyday said:​

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.​

Which one of them was baptized and having the Holy Spirit descending upon them like a dove?

... more changing the criteria ... are you now claiming that if the Holy Spirit does not descend upon someone "like a dove", they do not have access to God through the Holy Spirit?

Scripture reveals there is only One upon Whom the Holy Spirit descended "like a dove" ... the Lord Jesus Christ.

God's Word reveals in many passages of Scripture that He spoke to folks and the Holy Spirit did not descend upon them "like a dove".

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".​

​

Lovette said:​

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

​

reneweddaybyday said:​

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?​

If you can answer the question, "are you still cheating on your exam", then I can answer yours, because it's the same nature - a loaded question.

your "loaded question" analogy fails. Asking you whether a foreshadowing makes the shadow "unnecessary" or "irrelevant" is a legitimate question about typology in Scripture ... the question is not logical fallacy about some sort of "cheating on your exam" malfeasance ... you again fall back on another vacuous claim in your ongoing effort to remain in rebellion concerning the marital relationship.

And it is again noted that you refuse to answer whether the tabernacle in the wilderness was unnecessary ... not because you do not know the answer, but because answering correctly exposes your faulty premise regarding the marital relationship being a reflection of the "great mystery concerning Christ and the church.

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".​

​

Lovette said:​

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

​

reneweddaybyday said:​

your vacuous claims border on the ridiculous.​

As ridiculous as your foreshadowing claim.

"The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; "

you refer to a future reality ...

"The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage"

are we currently in "this age" where we are "given in marriage"? or
or are we currently in "that age" where we will "neither marry nor are given in marriage"?

You have again exposed your deceitful handling of Scripture ... smh ...

.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

saying that we do not know everything that was happening in Corinth does not mean we cannot know what issues Paul was addressing.

I did not say "we do not know everything that was happening in Corinth" ... here is your question to which I replied (bold mine):

Lovette said:​

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

my reply:

reneweddaybyday said:​

We don't know.​

Paul explicitly identifies the subjects of his responses. In 1 Corinthians 7 he discusses sexual relations within marriage (vv. 1–5), the unmarried and widows (vv. 6–9), separation and divorce (vv. 10–16), and virgins and marriage (vv. 25–28). We may not know the Corinthians' original wording, but Paul's answers themselves tell us what subjects were under discussion. Calling all attempts to identify those issues “guessing” is therefore an overstatement.

In vv. 1–5, Paul began by clarifying "in order to avoid fornication" ... we do not know the specifics in the letter written by the church for which they sought guidance.


In vv. 6-9, Paul also speaks of folks having a "proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that". I believe you have indicated your "gift of God" is not being married. Have you ever read Proverbs 18:22? A single person's "gift of God" may be the "this" and the married person's "gift of God" may be the "that" in 1 Corinthians 7:7.


In vv. 10-16, Paul wrote about ...

remain married ... "let not the wife depart" "let not the husband put away his wife" – vs 10 ... "let him not put her away" – vs 11 ... "let her not leave him" – vs 12 as well as "separation and divorce"

reconciliation ... "if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband" – vs 10

separation ... "if the unbelieving depart, let him depart" – vs 15

note the emphasis on remaining in the marriage as opposed to leaving the marriage.


In vv. 25-28, Paul wrote about remaining unmarried if single, remaining married if married, and he also said it is not a sin to marry.

Again, we have no certainty concerning the specific questions which the church had requested Paul to provide guidance. You may presume you "know what issues Paul was addressing" based on the guidance provided by Paul, and that is nothing but supposition on your part.



reneweddaybyday said:

Paul counseled the believing spouse to remain married to an unbelieving spouse which appears to be in conflict with "be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers", but which is in full alignment with what Jesus taught concerning divorce when the pharisees tried to tempt Him. Paul's counsel in 1 Corinthians 7:12 further confirms the high regard God places on the marriage covenant ... the voluntary commitment between husband and wife.​

Second, 1 Corinthians 7:12 does not establish the claim that Paul was simply giving situational advice with no broader principle. Paul says that a believer married to an unbeliever should not divorce if the unbelieving spouse is willing to remain. That is a clear instruction concerning a specific marital situation. The fact that Paul distinguishes it from a command previously spoken by Jesus (“not the Lord”) does not make it mere personal opinion; it means that Jesus had not given a recorded command covering that particular case.

Both Jesus and Paul said don't put away in the situations about which they were discussing.

Third, the appeal to “be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers” does not create the alleged contradiction. 2 Corinthians 6:14 addresses entering or participating in an unequal spiritual partnership;

What is written in 2 Corinthians 6:14 mirrors what God told the children of Israel many years ago ...

Exodus 34:12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:

...

16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.

God gave sound commandment to the children of Israel ... and it would be best to follow God's instruction in our day and time. However, if a believer is married to an unbeliever, hopefully and prayerfully, the unbelieving spouse becomes a believer as he or she witnesses the godly behavior of the believing spouse.

1 Corinthians 7:12–16 addresses what to do when such a marriage already exists. Paul explicitly says not to dissolve the existing marriage merely because one spouse is an unbeliever. Those are different questions.

I already stated Paul counseled the believing spouse to remain married to an unbelieving spouse. Again, this instruction further corroborates the high regard God places on the marriage covenant ... the voluntary commitment between husband and wife.

Finally, saying “all we know is the guidance Paul gave” actually undermines the argument being made. We know more than that: we know the subjects Paul explicitly addresses, the instructions he gives, the distinctions he makes between the Lord's command and his own apostolic instruction, and the principles he gives for applying those instructions.

I did not say "all we know is the guidance Paul gave" ...

reneweddaybyday said:​

All we know is the guidance and counsel Paul gave to the church in response to specific questions or issues the church brought up in a letter to Paul. All we can do is guess at what was in the letter.​

So the reasonable conclusion is not, “All we can do is guess at what was in the letter.” It is: we cannot reconstruct the Corinthians' original letter in full, but Paul's response gives us substantial evidence about the issues they raised. What is uncertain should be called uncertain; what Paul explicitly addresses should not be dismissed as unknowable.

What I have claimed to be unknowable are the issues brought up by the church to which Paul provided his guidance and counsel.

Your claim that you have "substantial evidence about the issues they raised" is pure supposition on your part.

.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

reneweddaybyday said:

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 said:

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

reneweddaybyday said:

And none of them state that in order for a marriage to be godly, God must cause a deep sleep to fall upon a man, take a rib out of him, close up the flesh, make a woman, and bring the woman to the man ... which is your absurd criteria for what you claim would be a true godly marriage. Nice try.​

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

sigh ... your personal restrictions on the marital relationship hinder you from full understanding of Scripture concerning the matter. You are free to believe that there are no true godly marriages in our day and time because God has not done with any man alive today what God did with Adam in taking his rib, making a woman for him, and bringing her to him. That line of reasoning utterly fails as has been shown to you over many posts submitted in this thread.

reneweddaybyday said:​

If the only thing your church is teaching is "a marriage counselling session and the wellbeing of the nether region", you might want to consider going to a church that focuses on the Lord Jesus Christ ... just sayin'​

Well you might wanna consider what the congregation come to the church for. I do come for the Lord, but many don't, they come for the exact purpose of marriage counselling, and thus it became the church's focus. Supply and demand.

Like I said, if all your church is teaching is "marriage counselling and the wellbeing of the nether region", you might want to consider going to a church that focuses on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Also, how do you know what is in the heart of others so that you can claim with complete (or any) certainty that "many don't" come for the Lord?

Have you ever considered that the congregation at the church you attend is comprised of believers who are in various stages of their walk in the Lord? We all start out as "babes in Christ" and mature in the Lord Jesus Christ to the point where we are able to digest strong meat.

Have you ever considered praying during the church service? Pray for the pastor who is teaching the Word of God ... pray that those in attendance receive the Word of God taught by the pastor. You can pray while listening to the pastor. Prayer is so beneficial in the body of Christ.

Lovette said:​

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).​

​

reneweddaybyday said:​

you have repeatedly said I am "lying by omission" if I do not include Genesis 2:18 and Genesis 2:22 in the context of Genesis 2:24. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.​

​

You continue to exclude from Genesis 2:22 that God took "the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman" in your insistence that the only godly marriage is stated in Genesis 2:22.​

Verses for dating or hookup, please. I provided chapter and verse, your turn.

you equate "dating or hookup" with marriage.

dating is not marriage unless a married couple goes out on a date.

hookup is a casual noncommittal interaction which has nothing to do with the marital relationship. Husband and wife are in a voluntary committed relationship.

reneweddaybyday said:​

You continue to talk out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you claim that arranged marriages are a "medieval" practice and on the other hand you claim that if a marriage is not arranged, the marriage is not godly.​

Medieval or not, it's according to the word of God. Medieval kings and queens sent their emissaries to acquire partners for their kids, following Abraham's model in Gen. 24. It is you who keep slapping on me "God's established marriage" while refusing his design for marriage in Gen. 2:18-22.

fyi ... I do not "refuse" what is written in Genesis 2:18-24 ... what I reject is your absurd notion that in order for a marriage to be a godly marriage, God must do as you insist (i.e. take a rib from a man, make a woman, bring the woman to him). That is you adding an absurd requirement to marriage.

Look at the pattern of "Abraham's model" ... Abraham married his half-sister, Sarah ... Isaac married his cousin, Rebekah ... Jacob married his cousins, Leah and Rachel.

also fyi ... medieval kings and queens were not "following Abraham's model" in selecting wives/husbands for their kids ... they were interested in political advantage, territorial gain, combining wealth, economic trade, establishing powerful alliances with foreign kingdoms. If they were "following Abraham's model", they would have had their children marry siblings, half-siblings, cousins ... they would not send emissaries to foreign kingdoms to arrange a marriage with a non relative.

and please note Genesis 11:29 And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah. No record of Terah bringing Sarah to Abraham ... does that mean Abraham's marriage was not a godly marriage because of another of your absurd notions that parents must bring the wife to the husband?

.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

reneweddaybyday said:

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.​

Lovette said:

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?​

reneweddaybyday said:

nope ... and it is duly noted that you are now calling a wife a harlot. Another of your vacuous claims which borders on the ridiculous.​

The only ridiculou thing is your rejection of Paul's teaching there.

I do not reject Paul's teaching ... I reject your ridiculous misinterpretation of Scripture.

Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 6:15-18 describes an act of sin/fornication ... you are calling a wife a harlot and you are equating sin/fornication with the intimacy of the undefiled marriage bed in your complete and utter rejection of Scripture concerning marriage.

reneweddaybyday said:​

you again misconstrue the point concerning "one flesh" being more than just sexual union.​

​

A wife is not a harlot. there is no fornication from which a husband and wife are instructed to flee (1 Corinthians 6:18) when they engage in sexual intimacy.​

​

Do you believe what is written in Hebrews 13:4 ...​

​

Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.​

Wife or harlot depends on whom you join in bed. Marriage bed is undefiled, fornication though defiles you, the deed is the same.

In Proverbs 7, God's instruction is to turn away from the harlot.

However, in Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5, Mark 10:7, Ephesians 5:31, God' instruction is that the husband is to cleave/join unto the wife ... to be one flesh with the wife.

Man (whether married or not) joining to the harlot is fornication ... fornication is sin.

However, husband joining to the wife is not sin.

reneweddaybyday said:​

Do you believe what is written in Hebrews 13:4 ...​

​

Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.​

​

... do you consider marriage to be honorable? It does not appear so from your comments in this thread.​

To your question, I believe this verse is explicitly warning against adultery, which is the defiling of marriage. And I also believe, that if you don't marry and you stay away from others' marriage bed, there'd be no marriage bed to defile.

you answered a question I did not ask.

I asked "do you consider marriage to be honorable?"

Why can't you answer the question?

.

 

[Lovette]

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?​

Lovette said:

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

reneweddaybyday said:

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

At the time the tabernacle in the wilderness was in existence, was the tabernacle unnecessary? It's a simple question. You know the answer is "no", yet you cannot bring yourself to admit such a simple truth.

But if you answer truthfully, then another of your assertions would be revealed to be just another claim bordering on the ridiculous.

And you know the question itself is loaded and irrelevant, we're not "at the time."

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:​

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.​

​

Lovette said:​

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

​

reneweddaybyday said:​

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

more of your changing the criteria which is fallacious engagement in discussion.

all you are doing is changing what constitutes "access to God" to the "method of access" ... all in your efforts to avoid admitting your initial premise was faulty.

God tells us Moses spoke to Him face to face:

Exodus 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend

Deuteronomy 34:10 And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face.

Since God spoke with him face to face, surely there was no holy spirit acting as a medium, right? If the Holy Spirit is perceived as an independent third person, not a mere projection of God the Father?

reneweddaybyday said:​

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.​

... more changing the criteria ... are you now claiming that if the Holy Spirit does not descend upon someone "like a dove", they do not have access to God through the Holy Spirit?

Scripture reveals there is only One upon Whom the Holy Spirit descended "like a dove" ... the Lord Jesus Christ.

God's Word reveals in many passages of Scripture that He spoke to folks and the Holy Spirit did not descend upon them "like a dove".

"Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Was any of them born again in spirit? "Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you." (Jn. 16:7) So how did they have the Holy Spirit when Christ hadn't even come? It's not changing pf criteria, it's the plain word of God. Holy Spirit as the Help officially descended on the Pentecost, like a dove or not.

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".​

​

Lovette said:​

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

​

reneweddaybyday said:​

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?​

your "loaded question" analogy fails. Asking you whether a foreshadowing makes the shadow "unnecessary" or "irrelevant" is a legitimate question about typology in Scripture ... the question is not logical fallacy about some sort of "cheating on your exam" malfeasance ... you again fall back on another vacuous claim in your ongoing effort to remain in rebellion concerning the marital relationship.

And it is again noted that you refuse to answer whether the tabernacle in the wilderness was unnecessary ... not because you do not know the answer, but because answering correctly exposes your faulty premise regarding the marital relationship being a reflection of the "great mystery concerning Christ and the church.

It is only a mystery to those who don't have an intimate relationship with Christ, and therefore using worldly, carnal marriage as a substitute. Why would you need a "foreshadowing" when you're already experiencing the thing? Is the Lord Jesus Christ enough, or do you have to add marriage on top of it, using "foreshadowing" as a lame excuse?

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".​

​

Lovette said:​

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

​

reneweddaybyday said:​

your vacuous claims border on the ridiculous.​

you refer to a future reality ...

"The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage"

are we currently in "this age" where we are "given in marriage"? or
or are we currently in "that age" where we will "neither marry nor are given in marriage"?

You have again exposed your deceitful handling of Scripture ... smh ...

.

The only thing exposed is your own ignorance of the relationship with Christ. If you're worthy of "that age” where there's no marriage, don't you think a "foreshadowing" of that should be no marriage in "this age" as well? Do you wanna live "that age" or not? Are you worthy of "that age" or not?

 

[Lovette]

I did not say "we do not know everything that was happening in Corinth" ... here is your question to which I replied (bold mine):

Lovette said:​

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

my reply:

reneweddaybyday said:​

We don't know.​

In vv. 1–5, Paul began by clarifying "in order to avoid fornication" ... we do not know the specifics in the letter written by the church for which they sought guidance.


In vv. 6-9, Paul also speaks of folks having a "proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that". I believe you have indicated your "gift of God" is not being married. Have you ever read Proverbs 18:22? A single person's "gift of God" may be the "this" and the married person's "gift of God" may be the "that" in 1 Corinthians 7:7.


In vv. 10-16, Paul wrote about ...

remain married ... "let not the wife depart" "let not the husband put away his wife" – vs 10 ... "let him not put her away" – vs 11 ... "let her not leave him" – vs 12 as well as "separation and divorce"

reconciliation ... "if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband" – vs 10

separation ... "if the unbelieving depart, let him depart" – vs 15

note the emphasis on remaining in the marriage as opposed to leaving the marriage.


In vv. 25-28, Paul wrote about remaining unmarried if single, remaining married if married, and he also said it is not a sin to marry.

Again, we have no certainty concerning the specific questions which the church had requested Paul to provide guidance. You may presume you "know what issues Paul was addressing" based on the guidance provided by Paul, and that is nothing but supposition on your part.



reneweddaybyday said:

Paul counseled the believing spouse to remain married to an unbelieving spouse which appears to be in conflict with "be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers", but which is in full alignment with what Jesus taught concerning divorce when the pharisees tried to tempt Him. Paul's counsel in 1 Corinthians 7:12 further confirms the high regard God places on the marriage covenant ... the voluntary commitment between husband and wife.​

Both Jesus and Paul said don't put away in the situations about which they were discussing.




What is written in 2 Corinthians 6:14 mirrors what God told the children of Israel many years ago ...

Exodus 34:12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:

...

16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.

God gave sound commandment to the children of Israel ... and it would be best to follow God's instruction in our day and time. However, if a believer is married to an unbeliever, hopefully and prayerfully, the unbelieving spouse becomes a believer as he or she witnesses the godly behavior of the believing spouse.




I already stated Paul counseled the believing spouse to remain married to an unbelieving spouse. Again, this instruction further corroborates the high regard God places on the marriage covenant ... the voluntary commitment between husband and wife.




I did not say "all we know is the guidance Paul gave" ...

reneweddaybyday said:​

All we know is the guidance and counsel Paul gave to the church in response to specific questions or issues the church brought up in a letter to Paul. All we can do is guess at what was in the letter.​

What I have claimed to be unknowable are the issues brought up by the church to which Paul provided his guidance and counsel.

Your claim that you have "substantial evidence about the issues they raised" is pure supposition on your part.

.

Your argument confuses not knowing the exact wording of the Corinthians' original letter with being unable to identify the issues Paul addressed. In 1 Corinthians 7:1, Paul explicitly refers to their letter, and the rest of the chapter discusses sexual relations, celibacy, marriage, separation, mixed marriages, and remarriage. Although we cannot reconstruct every detail with certainty, these textual clues provide substantial evidence. Historical inference is not the same as baseless speculation.

Proverbs 18:22 affirms the goodness of marriage; it does not establish that everyone must marry. Paul explicitly recognizes different gifts (1 Corinthians 7:7), recommends singleness (vv. 8, 26), and says marriage is not a sin (v. 28). He distinguishes what is permissible from what may be preferable. You cannot emphasize the goodness of marriage while ignoring Paul's equally explicit endorsement of singleness.

Second Corinthians 6:14 and Exodus 34:12–16 concern avoiding spiritually compromising relationships; they do not command believers who are already married to unbelievers to divorce them. That is precisely why Paul addresses existing mixed marriages separately in 1 Corinthians 7:12–16. Instructions about entering a relationship do not automatically determine how an existing relationship should be handled.

Furthermore, Paul's preference for preserving marriage is not an absolute command to preserve it at all costs. In verses 10–11, he acknowledges the possibility of separation, and in verse 15, he instructs believers to let an unbelieving spouse depart. Whatever the implications for remarriage, Paul does not require believers to prevent abandonment at all costs.

Your own qualification that Jesus and Paul prohibited divorce “in the situations about which they were discussing” acknowledges that context matters. We cannot know every detail of the Corinthians' original letter, but we can identify the subjects Paul addresses and reasonably infer the concerns behind them. If you dispute a particular inference, demonstrate why the textual evidence does not support it. Simply labeling all reconstruction “pure supposition” does not refute the evidence.

 

[Lovette]

reneweddaybyday said:

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 said:

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

reneweddaybyday said:

And none of them state that in order for a marriage to be godly, God must cause a deep sleep to fall upon a man, take a rib out of him, close up the flesh, make a woman, and bring the woman to the man ... which is your absurd criteria for what you claim would be a true godly marriage. Nice try.​

sigh ... your personal restrictions on the marital relationship hinder you from full understanding of Scripture concerning the matter. You are free to believe that there are no true godly marriages in our day and time because God has not done with any man alive today what God did with Adam in taking his rib, making a woman for him, and bringing her to him. That line of reasoning utterly fails as has been shown to you over many posts submitted in this thread.

It is the word of God, not my personal restrictions. For the record it is YOUR restrictions by insisting that the marriage institution is ordained by God, in that case a couple must marry in God's way, by God's design, right? And that inevitably leads to Gen. 2:18-22, and a practical interpretation is found in Gen. 24, I didn't make any of these up. If "making a woman out of a rib" sounds ridiculous to you, then drop your santimony, accept modern marriages as the result of modern dating as WORLDLY.

reneweddaybyday said:​

If the only thing your church is teaching is "a marriage counselling session and the wellbeing of the nether region", you might want to consider going to a church that focuses on the Lord Jesus Christ ... just sayin'​

Like I said, if all your church is teaching is "marriage counselling and the wellbeing of the nether region", you might want to consider going to a church that focuses on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Also, how do you know what is in the heart of others so that you can claim with complete (or any) certainty that "many don't" come for the Lord?

Have you ever considered that the congregation at the church you attend is comprised of believers who are in various stages of their walk in the Lord? We all start out as "babes in Christ" and mature in the Lord Jesus Christ to the point where we are able to digest strong meat.

Have you ever considered praying during the church service? Pray for the pastor who is teaching the Word of God ... pray that those in attendance receive the Word of God taught by the pastor. You can pray while listening to the pastor. Prayer is so beneficial in the body of Christ.

Look, "marriage counselling and the wellbeing of the nether region" are important issues, these are pressing challenges in the modern age, I don't blame either the pastor or the congregation for that. The problem is prescribing marriage as a magic fix and shaming the singles for these societal ills, in other words, the IDOLATRY of marriage, that somehow your salvation is found in marriage, instead of blood of Christ, even if you meet your partner and get married in ungodly ways.

Lovette said:​

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).​

​

reneweddaybyday said:​

you have repeatedly said I am "lying by omission" if I do not include Genesis 2:18 and Genesis 2:22 in the context of Genesis 2:24. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.​

​

You continue to exclude from Genesis 2:22 that God took "the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman" in your insistence that the only godly marriage is stated in Genesis 2:22.​

you equate "dating or hookup" with marriage.

dating is not marriage unless a married couple goes out on a date.

hookup is a casual noncommittal interaction which has nothing to do with the marital relationship. Husband and wife are in a voluntary committed relationship.

How a couple got married in the first place if not for dating or hookup? I suggested arranged marriage, you're against that also, so what is it?

reneweddaybyday said:​

You continue to talk out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you claim that arranged marriages are a "medieval" practice and on the other hand you claim that if a marriage is not arranged, the marriage is not godly.​

fyi ... I do not "refuse" what is written in Genesis 2:18-24 ... what I reject is your absurd notion that in order for a marriage to be a godly marriage, God must do as you insist (i.e. take a rib from a man, make a woman, bring the woman to him). That is you adding an absurd requirement to marriage.

The absurdity is all yours. Again, I've shown you the bible's own practical interpretation of that in Gen. 24. "Flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone" is God's design, not mine.

Look at the pattern of "Abraham's model" ... Abraham married his half-sister, Sarah ... Isaac married his cousin, Rebekah ... Jacob married his cousins, Leah and Rachel.

also fyi ... medieval kings and queens were not "following Abraham's model" in selecting wives/husbands for their kids ... they were interested in political advantage, territorial gain, combining wealth, economic trade, establishing powerful alliances with foreign kingdoms. If they were "following Abraham's model", they would have had their children marry siblings, half-siblings, cousins ... they would not send emissaries to foreign kingdoms to arrange a marriage with a non relative.

and please note Genesis 11:29 And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah. No record of Terah bringing Sarah to Abraham ... does that mean Abraham's marriage was not a godly marriage because of another of your absurd notions that parents must bring the wife to the husband?

.

See, another example of lying by omission. Sarah was Abraham's half sister of the same father. Do you seriously need a record of Terah bringing Sarah to Abraham as a half sibling, probably when they were still young?

"Because I thought, surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will kill me on account of my wife. But indeed she is truly my sister. She is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife." (Gen. 20:11-12)

 

[Lovette]

reneweddaybyday said:

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.​

Lovette said:

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?​

reneweddaybyday said:

nope ... and it is duly noted that you are now calling a wife a harlot. Another of your vacuous claims which borders on the ridiculous.​

I do not reject Paul's teaching ... I reject your ridiculous misinterpretation of Scripture.

Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 6:15-18 describes an act of sin/fornication ... you are calling a wife a harlot and you are equating sin/fornication with the intimacy of the undefiled marriage bed in your complete and utter rejection of Scripture concerning marriage.

No, I was letting the bible interpret itself regarding the mechanism of "two becoming one flesh". Only a wife is a harlot if you have had premarital sex with her. The act is the same, the difference is whom you have the act with.

reneweddaybyday said:​

you again misconstrue the point concerning "one flesh" being more than just sexual union.​

​

A wife is not a harlot. there is no fornication from which a husband and wife are instructed to flee (1 Corinthians 6:18) when they engage in sexual intimacy.​

​

Do you believe what is written in Hebrews 13:4 ...​

​

Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.​

In Proverbs 7, God's instruction is to turn away from the harlot.

However, in Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5, Mark 10:7, Ephesians 5:31, God' instruction is that the husband is to cleave/join unto the wife ... to be one flesh with the wife.

Man (whether married or not) joining to the harlot is fornication ... fornication is sin.

However, husband joining to the wife is not sin.

If "two become one flesh" is limited to husband and wife in marriage, why was Paul quoting Gen. 2:24 when describing fornication with Harlot? How could one become one flesh with a harlot when they're not married?

reneweddaybyday said:​

Do you believe what is written in Hebrews 13:4 ...​

​

Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.​

​

... do you consider marriage to be honorable? It does not appear so from your comments in this thread.​

you answered a question I did not ask.

I asked "do you consider marriage to be honorable?"

Why can't you answer the question?

.

I consider marriage as honorable as the couple. Do you consider a product honorable when the materials are defective? Do you consider a meal honorable when the ingredients are spoiled?

My whole point over the past month is simple - you want a marriage to be honorable and godly, get married in an honorable and godly way by arrangement, following the original design in Gen. 2:18-22 and the example in Gen. 24. If you call it "absurd" and stick to your own way, don't call it "honorable" or "godly". You can't have it both ways.

 

[tourist]

reneweddaybyday said:

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.​

Lovette said:

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?​

reneweddaybyday said:

nope ... and it is duly noted that you are now calling a wife a harlot. Another of your vacuous claims which borders on the ridiculous.​

I do not reject Paul's teaching ... I reject your ridiculous misinterpretation of Scripture.

Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 6:15-18 describes an act of sin/fornication ... you are calling a wife a harlot and you are equating sin/fornication with the intimacy of the undefiled marriage bed in your complete and utter rejection of Scripture concerning marriage.

reneweddaybyday said:​

you again misconstrue the point concerning "one flesh" being more than just sexual union.​

​

A wife is not a harlot. there is no fornication from which a husband and wife are instructed to flee (1 Corinthians 6:18) when they engage in sexual intimacy.​

​

Do you believe what is written in Hebrews 13:4 ...​

​

Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.​

In Proverbs 7, God's instruction is to turn away from the harlot.

However, in Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5, Mark 10:7, Ephesians 5:31, God' instruction is that the husband is to cleave/join unto the wife ... to be one flesh with the wife.

Man (whether married or not) joining to the harlot is fornication ... fornication is sin.

However, husband joining to the wife is not sin.

reneweddaybyday said:​

Do you believe what is written in Hebrews 13:4 ...​

​

Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.​

​

... do you consider marriage to be honorable? It does not appear so from your comments in this thread.​

you answered a question I did not ask.

I asked "do you consider marriage to be honorable?"

Why can't you answer the question?

.

Your views on 'one flesh' are right on target. Outstanding response. Well done.

 

[Lanolin]

I thought two became three i.e they went forth and multiplied.

But maybe I am wrong and the curse wasn't painful and sorrowful childbirth for Eve and the never ending back breaking toiling and pulling out weeds for Adam

Maybe it was something else...?

 

[Lanolin]

Also, why did Eve desire her husband to 'rule over her'? He clearly wasn't up to the job.