Natural and Spiritual Marriage Parallels

part of it is corroborated in how Abraham involved himself in Isaac's marriage

Also it can prove the predestination theroy but not answer it fully. I thought this is where you got some of your answers and agree that cluture has changed.
I find this thread topic very interesting and it does explain a lot of new testament scripture on marriage. I find it hard to believe that the tongue gift is a incorporated factor. I lean towards becoming of one flesh as opposed to the gifts. Scripture tells us to be found in Christ as he is found in us.

There are two types of "tongue" experiences. The first one the initial infilling of the Holy Ghost baptism pertains to the consummation parallel mentioned in the original post:
1. Upon the initial infilling of the Holy Ghost each person will speak in tongues. (Acts 2:1-4, 2:38-41, 8:12-18, 10:44-48, 19:1-6)

2. Spiritual gift of speaking in different tongues or interpretation of tongues for the edification of the church body. (1 Cor 12:1-11)

So your saying there are 2 baptisms??

Yes there are two baptisms. There is water baptism into the name of Jesus. And there is the Holy Ghost baptism with the evidence of speaking in tongues. We see both in each of the recorded scriptures, Acts 2:1-4 (Holy Ghost baptism), 2:38-41, (Jews conversion) 8:12-18, (Samaritans -half Jew & half Gentile) 10:44-48, (Gentile conversion), Acts 22:16 (Paul's water baptism).

Then does this baptism of the Holy Spirit come by immerson???

There is nothing in Acts chapter 2 to indicate that the 3,000+ who were saved on that say spoke in tongues. So there goes your theory.

No point in discussing the rest of this mistaken idea. Did that Ethiopian speak in tongues? Did that Philippian speak in tongues? Do the majority of people who are saved speak in tongues?

I'm trying to establish why they call it a baptism. Then boom you fire a shot heard around the world 😄😄😄

Not two Holy Ghost baptisms.
The Spiritual gift of tongues is totally different than the Holy Ghost baptism.
I experienced the Holy Ghost baptism with the evidence of speaking in tongues many years ago. I praise God for the peace of never doubting God's presence in my life.
I was totally surprised when the Lord chose to use me to speak in tongues to the church congregation. I felt a strong presence of God during the worship service. As the worship service was coming to an end someone to my left began to operate in the gift of tongues. I immediately realized that was why I felt God's presence so strongly. I remember saying to the Lord that I would have done that if I had known what was going on. The gentleman stopped speaking and to my surprise an unknown tongue poured forth from me. When the interpretation came forth it started and continued for a couple minutes then paused and began again completing an entire thought. It was amazing.
The only way I can think to describe the difference between the two is:
1. The initial infilling pours into one's body until it can contain no more and spills forth in speaking in tongues. Edifying the individual.
2. The Spiritual gift feels like the Spirit envelopes the body and prompts the gift to come forth. The message is for the congregation as a whole.

Just because some scriptural records do not include that a particular event occurred does not negate the fact of an established concept in the Word. The Word itself says that a concept is proven by at least 2 to 3 witnesses in the Word. As we see tongues resulted when individuals received the Holy Ghost in Acts 2:1-4, 2:38-41, (Jews conversion) 8:12-18, (Samaritans -half Jew & half Gentile) 10:44-48, (Gentile conversion) and 19:1-6.

Why do they call it a baptism???

Why do they call it a baptism???

That's the point I was getting at and that is where I think confusion is. Baptism is nothing new to the Jews. The temple had many pools for this occasion. Custom before entering the temple. Jesus said we need to be washed by him so do you think that is the fullness of the baptism??? As we know water baptism is not necessary to be saved. But the blood of Christ is.

A fiancée has absolutely no legal rights to anything in regards to the betrothed. A fiancée attempting to gain access to their future spouse's office would not get past the reception desk.

The bride referred to in the bible is the church as a whole and not to individuals. No one is going to actually become engaged to Christ. I'm a guy and have no intention or desire to become anyone's bride, let alone consummate the marriage.

It is up to the bride whether or not to take her husband's name. Personally, I would not marry a woman that would refuse to take my last name as her own.

Oy ve es mir, what is teh difference. Baptize always meant, to me at least, to immerse in water. Immersion has always been used interchagably with baptisim……..so where is the question? and Why?

First of all, 1 Corinthians 12 is referring to the Spiritual gift of tongues for edification of the church.
Secondly, there are more than 2-3 witnesses of the experience of speaking in tongues by individuals after receiving the gospel message: Acts 2:1-4, 2:38-41, 8:12-18, 10:44-48, 19:1-6.

The record of the Ethiopian focused on water baptism. Not Holy Ghost baptism with the evidence of speaking in tongues.
The account concerning Paul focused on his water baptism as well.
We know Paul received his prayer language after receiving the Holy Ghost because he expressed this in 1 Cor 14:14-19:

"For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

Paul spoke, prayed, and sang in tongues which is done after receiving the infilling of the Holy Ghost.
In verse 19 he makes the distinction that when in church he would rather speak with understanding than speak in an unknown tongue.