Was sex Adam and Eve part of the curse

[Lovette]

If your argument is that Christians shouldn't elevate marriage and childbearing above disciple-making, I'd largely agree.
But if the argument is that the absence of recorded children proves having children is somehow less honorable or less aligned with God's purposes, I'd want to see where Scripture itself makes that argument

If it's honorable, where was their biological children? It was widely acknowledged that all disciples and apostles ended up in martyrdom, none had any biological chilren, any "recorded children" is just your pure speculation.

 

[OMC]

If it's honorable, where was their biological children? It was widely acknowledged that all disciples and apostles ended up in martyrdom, none had any biological chilren, any "recorded children" is just your pure speculation.

Brother, I'd simply say that cuts both ways.
You're right that saying the apostles had children without evidence would be speculation.
But isn't it equally speculative to say they definitely had no children simply because Scripture doesn't mention any?

 

[Lovette]

Brother, I'd simply say that cuts both ways.
You're right that saying the apostles had children without evidence would be speculation.
But isn't it equally speculative to say they definitely had no children simply because Scripture doesn't mention any?

No. If it's not mentioned, then there's nothing. I've told you that in the Scripture it was repeatedly recorded "who knew who and she bore him a son," or "who and who begat who and who," a whole chapter is devoted to Jesus's own genealogy, the most signficant holy and a whole industrial complex are built around His birth, so it's a pretty big deal, no? Then where's any disciple's or apostle's own record?

 

[Lovette]

Brother, I'd simply say that cuts both ways.
You're right that saying the apostles had children without evidence would be speculation.
But isn't it equally speculative to say they definitely had no children simply because Scripture doesn't mention any?

And please understand that, Lord Jesus hated hypocrites more than anybody else, he showed mercy on prostitutes, tax collectors, even the soldiers who crucified them, yet he cursed the hypocrites with seven woes which may have directly enraged them and led to his crucifixion. Also, the disciples reached their own conclusion - " “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” (Matt. 19:10) Therefore it is not my speculation, I trust them on their words, I don't believe them as hypocrites.

 

[OMC]

No. If it's not mentioned, then there's nothing. I've told you that in the Scripture it was repeatedly recorded "who knew who and she bore him a son," or "who and who begat who and who," a whole chapter is devoted to Jesus's own genealogy, the most signficant holy and a whole industrial complex are built around His birth, so it's a pretty big deal, no? Then where's any disciple's or apostle's own record?

I think you're assuming something the text itself never states.
Does Scripture ever say that every significant child of every significant believer must be recorded?
Genealogies are recorded when they serve a purpose in the biblical narrative.
Jesus' genealogy is recorded because it establishes His identity as the promised Messiah.
That's a very different purpose than giving us a complete family registry of every apostle.
For example, we know Peter had a wife.
We know Philip had four daughters.
Yet Scripture tells us almost nothing about their family lives. Why?
Because Acts is primarily concerned with the spread of the gospel, not preserving family records.
The real question is: Does the absence of a record prove the absence of children, or does it simply prove that the Holy Spirit had another purpose in view when inspiring the text?
I don't see a passage where Scripture itself draws the conclusion you're drawing.
That is why I'd be cautious about building a doctrine on an argument from silence.
What does Scripture explicitly teach about marriage, singleness, and children?
Then let those passages speak directly rather than asking silence to do more work than it was intended to do.

 

[OMC]

And please understand that, Lord Jesus hated hypocrites more than anybody else, he showed mercy on prostitutes, tax collectors, even the soldiers who crucified them, yet he cursed the hypocrites with seven woes which may have directly enraged them and led to his crucifixion. Also, the disciples reached their own conclusion - " “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” (Matt. 19:10) Therefore it is not my speculation, I trust them on their words, I don't believe them as hypocrites.

I agree that Jesus had some of His strongest words for hypocrites.
What was the disciples' conclusion in Matthew 19, and what was Jesus' response to it?
The disciples said: "If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry." (Matt. 19:10)
But Jesus did not reply: "Correct, no one should marry."
Instead, He said: "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given." (Matt. 19:11)
Then He spoke of those who remain unmarried for the kingdom's sake.
Doesn't that suggest Jesus viewed singleness as a calling for some rather than a universal ideal for all?
Are you trusting the disciples' initial reaction, or Jesus' explanation of their reaction?
Because the passage seems to move from the disciples saying, "Maybe it's better not to marry," to Jesus saying, in effect, "That calling is only for those to whom it is given."
That sounds less like a rejection of marriage and more like an affirmation that both marriage and singleness have their place in God's purposes.

 

[Lovette]

I think you're assuming something the text itself never states.
Does Scripture ever say that every significant child of every significant believer must be recorded?
Genealogies are recorded when they serve a purpose in the biblical narrative.
Jesus' genealogy is recorded because it establishes His identity as the promised Messiah.
That's a very different purpose than giving us a complete family registry of every apostle.
For example, we know Peter had a wife.
We know Philip had four daughters.
Yet Scripture tells us almost nothing about their family lives. Why?
Because Acts is primarily concerned with the spread of the gospel, not preserving family records.
The real question is: Does the absence of a record prove the absence of children, or does it simply prove that the Holy Spirit had another purpose in view when inspiring the text?
I don't see a passage where Scripture itself draws the conclusion you're drawing.
That is why I'd be cautious about building a doctrine on an argument from silence.
What does Scripture explicitly teach about marriage, singleness, and children?
Then let those passages speak directly rather than asking silence to do more work than it was intended to do.

I think you're using AI to think for you.

 

[Lovette]

I agree that Jesus had some of His strongest words for hypocrites.
What was the disciples' conclusion in Matthew 19, and what was Jesus' response to it?
The disciples said: "If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry." (Matt. 19:10)
But Jesus did not reply: "Correct, no one should marry."
Instead, He said: "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given." (Matt. 19:11)
Then He spoke of those who remain unmarried for the kingdom's sake.
Doesn't that suggest Jesus viewed singleness as a calling for some rather than a universal ideal for all?
Are you trusting the disciples' initial reaction, or Jesus' explanation of their reaction?
Because the passage seems to move from the disciples saying, "Maybe it's better not to marry," to Jesus saying, in effect, "That calling is only for those to whom it is given."
That sounds less like a rejection of marriage and more like an affirmation that both marriage and singleness have their place in God's purposes.

If you seriously wanna have a conversation, write for yourself, use your own brain.

 

[Lovette]

That sounds less like a rejection of marriage and more like an affirmation that both marriage and singleness have their place in God's purposes.

Then God's purpose for disciples was the Great Commission, preaching the gospel and making disciples in all nations for the rest of their lives, no baby making.

 

[OMC]

If you seriously wanna have a conversation, write for yourself, use your own brain.

Grid 3 is not an AI, and even if it were, it’s still just a tool. If my disability makes you uncomfortable, that’s something I can’t change. However, if you’re struggling to support your assertions with scripture, that responsibility lies with you.

 

[OMC]

Then God's purpose for disciples was the Great Commission, preaching the gospel and making disciples in all nations for the rest of their lives, no baby making.

Where does the New Testament make that contrast?

 

[Suze]

So that's a woman's worth? A breeder? If you're already complete and perfect, why would you need a man to put one or more babies in your to make you feel complete and perfect?

I don't and didn't and I'm not sure u r getting my point . Nevermind .

 

[Lovette]

Where does the New Testament make that contrast?

Where does the New Testament mention any baby of theirs? If not, any doctrine for babymaking is purely speculative.

 

[Lovette]

I don't and didn't and I'm not sure u r getting my point . Nevermind .

Ask yourself what you meant by "complete and perfect". Is a woman complete and perfect as an image bearer of God? Or does she need to make a baby to be truly "complete and perfect"?

 

[OMC]

Where does the New Testament mention any baby of theirs? If not, any doctrine for babymaking is purely speculative.

Once again, provide scripture that supports your claims. I’ve asked multiple times already, yet everything you’ve stated remains speculative.

 

[Lovette]

Once again, provide scripture that supports your claims. I’ve asked multiple times already, yet everything you’ve stated remains speculative.

Once again, provide scripture that supports your claims on any "recorded children" of the disciples or apostles. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

 

[OMC]

Where does the New Testament mention any baby of theirs?

We do know that Philip had four daughters because Scripture explicitly tells us so: "the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy" (Acts 21:9).

 

[Lovette]

Grid 3 is not an AI, and even if it were, it’s still just a tool. If my disability makes you uncomfortable, that’s something I can’t change. However, if you’re struggling to support your assertions with scripture, that responsibility lies with you.

Grid 3 is not an AI, and even if it were, it would still be a tool. If my disability makes you uncomfortable, that’s not something I can simply change to accommodate you. But if you’re struggling to support your assertions with Scripture, that’s a problem with your argument—not my disability. So instead of making this personal, why not address the actual biblical evidence?

 

[Lovette]

We do know that Philip had four daughters because Scripture explicitly tells us so: "the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy" (Acts 21:9).

But he was not one of the twelve disciples, was he. Besides, he probably had had all four daughters BEFORE he was baptized and became an evangelist, he didn't get baptized so he could be blessed with kids, did he?

 

[OMC]

Grid 3 is not an AI, and even if it were, it would still be a tool. If my disability makes you uncomfortable, that’s not something I can simply change to accommodate you. But if you’re struggling to support your assertions with Scripture, that’s a problem with your argument—not my disability. So instead of making this personal, why not address the actual biblical evidence?

Now your mocking me. Well, It is clear the fruit of the spirit your produce is not in accordance with scripture as being of Christ.
I will pray for you but I must also ignore you.