Posted on 06/09/2017 9:25:56 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Paul is particularly problematic to interpret. Many people regard Paul’s writings as Paul’s personal opinion. Paul himself never seems to claim that he is speaking on divine authority (contrast this lack of confidence with Jesus).
See the comments to this article:
http://magazine.biola.edu/article/08-summer/gods-word-or-pauls-personal-opinion/
From a logical perspective, Paul and support for Paul as divine authority is to be forthright a total mess.
NIV plainly and expressly titles this chapter “Qualifications for Overseers and Deacons.”
Are you here contesting the translation of NIV by claiming that ordinary people are somehow included among “overseers and deacons”?
Yeah, I would be willing to believe that that was because the Germanic tribes were conquered and ruled by Romans, who were monogamous.
The entire arc of this is that Paul sought acceptance by the Romans and Greeks in his evangelism. To do that, he downplayed the Jewish roots of Christianity, and sought to emphasize situations in which Christianity and Roman culture overlapped.
That is logically understandable, but nowhere near the word of God as expressed by Jesus himself and quoted in the 4 gospels.
This was since Genesis. The question before us is not whether polygamy is outlawed by the bible as a whole, since certainly it is not outlawed in the Old Testament. The question before us is whether there was a change in directive by God from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Jesus quoted Genesis when he outlawed divorce (except under exceptional circumstances) but Jesus never used Genesis or any other OT law to outlaw polygamy.
Jesus only quoted Genesis to emphasis that there was no fundamental change in God’s law.
This leaves us with the OT view that polygamy is not outlawed under Jesus, and Paul’s opinion that it is not OK for overseers and deacons.
If polygamy was OK under the OT and under Jesus who lived under the OT, then why was it OK for early Christians up until the time Paul wrote to Timothy? And why did Paul write it only to Timothy? If it is that critical then Paul should have wrote it to the Corinthians, too, and to everyone else as well. There is some kind of lack of continuity of doctrine here. Are all the polygamous Christians who disobeyed Paul’s opinion now spending their time in eternal hell?
Proverbs 21:9 It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house.
The Bible has an answer for everything.....
to be specific, legally (which is to say logically), and mathematically, “one man one wife” does not explicitly preclude polygamy. “one man one wife” explicitly precludes sharing wives and sharing of husbands.
Mathematically, God’s word allows bijective and injective relationships between women and men, and precludes surjective relationships between women and men.
Lacking mathematical terminology among OT and NT writers, we are left with the OT written in ways that infer this as the most mathematically reasonable interpretation of the bible (OT and NT) given the prevalence of polygamy among Jews in the Jewish culture (before and after Jesus).
“one man one wife” explicitly precludes sharing wives and sharing of husbands.
-> “one man one wife” explicitly precludes sharing wives by husbands.
I'm assuming that you're Catholic, so perhaps you might be interested in what the Church actually teaches:
http://bustedhalo.com/questionbox/can-i-be-a-catholic-and-a-freemason
In 1983, the Church issued a new Code of Canon Law. Unlike its predecessor, it did not explicitly name Masonic orders among the secret societies. This omission of Masonic orders caused both Catholics and Freemasons to believe that the ban on Catholics becoming Freemasons may have been lifted. However, the matter was clarified in November 1983 when the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a Declaration on Masonic Associations, which states:
“… the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.”
http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/camason1.htm says the same thing.
I'm sure that individual people are good and walking with the Lord, however, I'm not sure why you think your theological assertions are worth more than Holy Mother Church's assertions.
He also said no divorce.
I wanted to know if evangelicals think masons and Catholics are evil. I suppose.
There’s a lot like Roberts out there who gain a huge fan following .....so they take what these guys say as Gospel when it’s not...or at the very least they aren’t doing their work to make clear what is so.....
As is said....”The enemy of the truth isn’t a lie ...it’s the almost true!
“German’s tribes who accepted Christianity were allowed to keep their multiple wives “
This is not “flexibility,” really, it’s accepted law.
You aren’t supposed to take multiple wives. But if you do, you aren’t to abandon them or the kids that might result. That’s been consistent.
However you are disqualified for eldership.
It’s maybe analagous to fornication? You’re not supposed to fornicate. But if you do you have to make it right with the person you fornicated with, usually by marrying her; and take care of all progeny. Doesn’t mean the fornication is ok.
I agree he said no divorce (except for unusual circumstances).
However, I disagree that Jesus or anyone else in the Bible said “one man, one woman.” Anytime someone comes out of the gate saying “one man, one woman, bla bla, argument over” is starting from a false premise, a false interpretation, ultimately intended to portray the bible as something that it is not, and usually aligned with the personal prejudices, misunderstandings, and/or deliberate biblical distortions of the speaker.
So argue from the bible, friend, but don’t paraphrase and claim gospel truth on stuff that is not there.
Jesus could have said a man should only marry one woman (at a time) and a woman should marry one man (at a time).
But Jesus never said that.
There... is that too long for you?? Poor puppy...
And also, the most logical reason that Jesus never said one woman one man is that it would have brought him into immediate conflict with Hebrew law of the period, and stirred controversy that was contrary to his main message, which was a message of inclusion, not exclusion. Historically, Jesus was usually careful not to contradict Hebrew law.
What am I missing.
If you want more clarity you probably need to take it up with the authors of the 4 gospels and Jesus himself. For better or otherwise we are stuck with what we have. Trying to extrapolate Jesus’ message to every nook and cranny situation only puts us on thin ice. Better to stick with the main themes. Leave how many angels can dance on the head of a pin to divinity school types. they love that stuff and it makes them feel important and authoritative.
Nah, I don’t think God stating “and the two shall be one flesh” is anything but a mathematical union. How can three be one flesh?
While polygamy was practiced by OT folks, I do not see where anyone could extrapolate that to mean it was within God’s equation?
No, OT/NT, God does not change. The same faith that saved OT people is the same faith that saves people today- That God saves by grace not works and that Christ was slain before the foundation of the world to effect that salvation.
By faith Abraham....
So, your question- whether there was a change in directive regarding marriage/man/woman union between testaments? No, there is one testament- that God saves those who put their eternal hope in Him and in His atoning work alone.
The distraction God gave the Israelite- the commandments written on stone ( holy though they be) could not save- and actually worked death, not life, just ask Paul ( writing for the holy Spirits purposes). A stumbling block to show that we/they could not meet God’s righteous standard. Same as today. Works alone kill, faith in one Man’s ( the Man Jesus Christ) works saves.
Stating that Jesus never directly condemned polygamy is a false issue. Was he asked? If he wasn’t asked and didn’t make a statement then it is a moot and troublesome point to even bring up.
If no one asks and I don’t say I am a conservative does that mean I am a liberal?
This isn’t academic, it is a matter consistency. God’s economy is perfect, there is no changing with Him.
Regards
Read it. It i entitltled “teachings about divorce.” IOW Jesus is addressing DIVORCE.
Jesus begin by referencing the old testament, which we have already established, describes polygamy but never forbids it.
If you believe that G*d does not change (hey, are so-called Christians all over the map on this in this discussion, depending on where in the argument they are boxed in?), then the G*d of the OT is the G*d of the NT, and polygamy is allowed.
Mathemattically, the two shall become one flesh nowhere precludes more than two from becoming one flesh. If it were so, G*d would have clearly stated that rather than leave it to you and me to extrapolate. Extrapolation is putting words in the Bible that are not there. “Three become one flesh is forbidden” is not there in the bible. You are simply and clealy projecting your own beliefs on the bible. In the process, you are also you are ignoring simple math and simple logic. Good luck with that. The honest facts are that the notion of G*d rejecting polygamy is projection of Roman and Greek monogamous culture into Christianity, from which it was injected into modern culture and eventually into the thinking of less inquisitive folks (the “sheep”) by christian church leaders.
This is not just Robetson’s conclusion. Luther came to the same conclusion as Robertson. Are we condemning Luther? And how many others should we condemn without serious consideration? The notion that Robertson is out there alone in his thinking, as some here seem to imply, is ludicrous.
What am I missing.
Regards.
If I want to learn how to grow a vegetable, I do not go to a chapter entitled “how to dispose of unwanted vegetables.”
You are doing the equivalent of looking at a chapter entitled how to dispose of unwanted vegetables, and extrapolating from it alleged instructions on how to grow vegetables.
well Islam in other words
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.