Was sex Adam and Eve part of the curse

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
.
I understand Paul was responding to specific matters the Corinthians had written about (1 Cor. 7:1). But what, specifically, were those matters?
We don't know.


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.
correct ... and they are answers to specific issues to which we are not privy.


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.
correct.


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.
Paul gave guidance and counsel to the church at Corinth. And we do not know specifically what was going on at the time. We can look at historical records which could give us a glimpse, but we cannot claim that because Paul said something we know with certainty the question or issue which had arisen.


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.
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.


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.
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.

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

.
 
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.
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'

.
 
1 Cor. 6:15-17 explicitly indicated that "two become one flesh" is referring to sexual intimacy for husband and wife.
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.



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.​
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.
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.

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



.
 
reneweddaybyday said:
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.​
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).
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.



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.
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.

Your false rendering of marriage is wholly without merit and, again, borders on the ridiculous.


.
 
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?​

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.
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:


​
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:

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

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 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; "
 
.

We don't know.



correct ... and they are answers to specific issues to which we are not privy.



correct.



Paul gave guidance and counsel to the church at Corinth. And we do not know specifically what was going on at the time. We can look at historical records which could give us a glimpse, but we cannot claim that because Paul said something we know with certainty the question or issue which had arisen.



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.



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.


.
There are several problems with this argument.

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

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.

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; 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.

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.

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.
 
.

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. Nice try.
 
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.
 
reneweddaybyday said:
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.​

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 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.

Your false rendering of marriage is wholly without merit and, again, borders on the ridiculous.


.
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. The false rendering is yours.
 
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.
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.


... do you consider marriage to be honorable? It does not appear so from your comments in this thread.
The only ridiculou thing is your rejection of Paul's teaching there. Wife or harlot depends on whom you join in bed. Marriage bed is undefiled, fornication though defiles you, the deed is the same.
 
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.