• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Christianity |OT| The official thread of hope, faith and infinite love.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dude Abides said:
U mad? Maybe there's a faith healer who can address that problem for you.
why would i be mad?
i'd hate for you to get banned for trolling in a thread you have no business being in.
Slo said:
I disagree with whether he lost, but that's really besides my point. Satan goaded God into a wager where God decided to torture the fuck out of Job for several years, and then Job gets an ass chewing from God for his troubles.

That doesn't seem very flattering, wouldn't you agree?

Edit: Thanks for the response, btw.
que?
God didn't torture. you have the perspective a bit skewed.
i still dont understand how you came to that conclusion that God lost the bet.
 

Chaplain

Member
Slo said:
Game Analyst, or anyone else, can someone please describe why the story of Job is inspirational to Christians?

Here are some lessons that we as Christians can learn from Job.

1. Trials and difficulties prepare us for eternity. God wants to develop our faith. That means we won’t often see or understand what God is doing.

2. Satan is silenced by submission to God’s sovereignty. I’m convinced that when we get to heaven, we’re going to discover that a great deal of the difficulty we experienced on earth was simply God proving to the enemy that we’re not mercenaries, that we’re not hirelings, that He hasn’t bought us off with blessings and ease.

3. Suffering produces clearer vision of ourselves and of God. In suffering, Job finally saw he was unworthy. So, when we go through trials and don’t react properly, when we hear ourselves saying foolish things, we realize that we’re less mature than we thought and say, “God, I need You. I’m nothing. Please forgive me of my sin with the blood of your Son.” If we’ve gone through times of suffering, like when my dad killed himself, our understanding and vision of God will increase exponentially. We’ll see God in a new dimension. What does this do? It makes us no longer fear suffering the way we once did.

4. Suffering produces compassion. It was when Job saw he was nothing that he embraced his friends. When do we have compassion for others who are hurting and troubled? After we’ve been through our own difficulties and trials. That is why Paul wrote, “All praise to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is our merciful Father and the source of all comfort. He comforts us in all our troubles so that we can comfort others. When they are troubled, we will be able to give them the same comfort God has given us."

5. Suffering teaches us humility. It was when Job was humble that he saw God. Humiliation always brings revelation, for it’s when we’re going through hard times that we get fresh insight into God and receive revelation from God.

6. Suffering has a happy ending. Even if we are never healed, we will be in heaven. Even if we are poor on this earth, we will live in a mansion in eternity. Peter talks about the trial of faith and about the angels that desire to look into these things. This means that what we go through is not just about us. It’s about eternity. It was for the joy that awaited Him that Jesus endured the suffering of the Cross.
 

TaeOH

Member
Game Analyst said:
The sound engineer at my church recorded todays worship music before the bible study began. He gave me permission to share the tracks from the CD on the net. Enjoy.

This is Our God

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=I5RZBPTJ

Holy Place

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=IGR5HZY0

Our Deliverer & I will Rise

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=48IJ12KH

Our God

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=YO69Y7CH

That is really quite awesome. Thank you for uploading that. When I went on retreats in my 20's, we would have music like that around the campfire. Truly great.
 

Chaplain

Member
I wanted to share an awesome commentary I just read on Matthew 8 verses 1-3.

Matthew 8:1, 2 (a)
Large crowds followed Jesus as he came down the mountainside. Suddenly, a man with leprosy approached him and knelt before him. “Lord,” the man said...


I think it fitting that the first miracle recorded in the New Testament deals with the cleansing of a leper because Isaiah 1:5, 6 makes it clear that leprosy is a picture of sin. Leviticus 13 teaches that leprosy begins beneath the surface of the skin—just as sin does. What you see outwardly in people’s lives is only the result of what is going on within them. We are not sinners because we sin. We sin because we’re sinners. Leviticus 13 goes on to say that leprosy, like sin, spreads throughout the body. Like sin, one could control it for a season. But if he didn’t destroy it, it would eventually destroy him. The Talmud taught that leprosy was second only to death in its list of sixty-one defilements. He who had leprosy was as good as dead because his disease would separate him from the rest of the community. When a person contracted leprosy, he was forced to live only with fellow lepers. If he had to come to the city, the Law required him to cry out, “Unclean, unclean,” in order for everyone within a one hundred fifty-foot radius to back away and clear the area. In the beginning stages, the skin of a leper would take on a hard, glossy appearance. As it progressed, it caused his nerves to become numb, which in turn led to the loss of fingers and toes.

The rabbis felt strongly that leprosy was a direct judgment from God. In fact, the word “leprosy” means “smitten.” They felt that those who had leprosy were being judged by God and therefore must be terrible people.

Matthew 8:2 (b)
…if you are willing, you can heal me and make me clean.


This leper, whose sickness was a symbol of sin, saw Jesus and had the audacity to go right through the multitude following Him and say, “Lord, if You want, You can make me clean.” He didn’t doubt Jesus’ ability to make him clean; he doubted Jesus’ willingness to do so. And I suggest to you that, like this leper, there’s not one of us who doubts Jesus’ ability to do the miraculous in our lives. But I suggest every one of us at times doubts His willingness.

• “Lord, if You want, You can heal my marriage,” we pray.
• “If You want, You can save my child.”
• “If You want, Lord, You can take away this habit, free me from that bondage, deal with my leprosy.”

We know He can, but we question if He will.

This leper had the courage, the tenacity, and the audacity to approach Jesus and to come right into His presence. But like you and me, when he got there, he wondered, “Do You really want to make me clean?”

Matthew 8:3 (a)
Jesus reached out and touched him.…


To this one with gross, running sores, and a strained voice, odor emanating, and digits missing, Jesus could have said, “Be clean,” and the guy would have been clean. But what did Jesus do? He touched him. Regardless of the sin you might be struggling with right now, don’t make the mistake of countless thousands of lepers saying, “I need to stay away from Jesus. I’m unclean.” Jesus can handle your sin. He’s not shocked or horrified by it. He’s not embarrassed of it. Jesus touched the leper, and He can handle your sin as well.

The biggest mistake people make concerning Jesus is thinking, “When I get it together, then I’ll let the Lord come near me. When I deal with my leprosy, then I’ll let the Lord touch me.”

But they’ll never get it together until the Lord touches them!

You who are faltering in faith, struggling in sin, caught up in carnality, I have news for you. Jesus can handle it.

Not only are there those who say, “Don’t touch me until I get it together,” but there are those who say, “Touch me, Lord. I want to come into Your presence. I want to lift my hands and sing Your praise. But don’t change me. I like myself just the way I am.”

If the Lord touches you, you will inevitably be changed. If you don’t want to be changed, it’s vain to seek His touch.

Matthew 8:3 (b)
…“I am willing,” he said. “Be healed!” And instantly the leprosy disappeared.


How I love these words of Jesus. He said, “I will. I will! Be thou clean.” Did you know our Lord never refused anyone who came to Him looking for help? He never said, “No, I don’t have time for you.” In every instance, He dealt with people graciously, mercifully, and compassionately.

Maybe you’re saying, “Well, I’ve sought the Lord. I’ve asked Him for His help. I’ve asked Him to do this thing in my life, but it never happened. Why would He help the leper and not me?”

"And even when you ask, you don’t get it because your motives are all wrong—you want only what will give you pleasure." James 4:3

The Greeks had a saying that when the gods wanted to punish a man, they answered all his prayers. Many times our requests are just plain wrong, and our Father loves us enough to say, “No,” if “No” is the best answer. But He’ll never turn you away. He’ll always do what’s best for you, and you’ll see it sooner or later, if you’ll just ask Him. There were multiplied thousands of lepers in this region, but only one came and asked Jesus to be healed, and only one went away clean.
 

SRG01

Member
So... as a person who has been delving into a lot of Christian materials lately, I have an important question: How do I recognize that I've been 'born again'? Is it a conscious act, or does it simply appear?
 

akira28

Member
Job was allegorical wasn't it? I mean, God didn't actually troll some poor hapless human, right? This is just another old human story from an earlier probably monotheistic tradition, that's my guess anyway.

SRG01 said:
So... as a person who has been delving into a lot of Christian materials lately, I have an important question: How do I recognize that I've been 'born again'? Is it a conscious act, or does it simply appear?

I always thought the being reborn in Christ part started with a baptism.
 

Nocebo

Member
Slo said:
Game Analyst, or anyone else, can someone please describe why the story of Job is inspirational to Christians?
I also wonder why as it clearly shows god doesn't value the lives of individuals (as if it wasn't clear before).
 
SRG01 said:
I mean, even before that. How do I know when I have accumulated enough faith?

These things are so alien to me, a Catholic.

You don't need to accumulate 'faith' to be 'born again'. You get baptised in the NFHS, which removes the taint of original sin.

Your 'faith' is then developed via the sacraments, reading scripture, praying and living according to - basically - the Sermon on the Mount. Your faith develops as you do these things, by that I mean your relationship with our Triune God grows and grows.
 

JGS

Banned
Nocebo said:
I also wonder why as it clearly shows god doesn't value the lives of individuals (as if it wasn't clear before).
Not true and it's been explained by at least a couple of people of it's significance in the Bible.
akira28 said:
Job was allegorical wasn't it? I mean, God didn't actually troll some poor hapless human, right? This is just another old human story from an earlier probably monotheistic tradition, that's my guess anyway.
It's not meant to be allegorical, but a few corrections:

1. God wasn't trolling
2. Job wasn't hapless. There was a particular reason Satan picked Job out of everyone else
3. Regardless of it being allegorical or not, the story is still told the same, so I'm not sure why an allegory would discuss God in a way you don't think fits him.
akira28 said:
I always thought the being reborn in Christ part started with a baptism.
Probably already been said but baptism is actually one of the last steps - depending on the religion. Baptism at infancy would necessitate it being the first step.
 
DeathIsTheEnd said:
Am I right in saying Catholics believe you have to get baptised to obtain salvation, with the exception of the extremely young?

Yes, generally speaking. What happens to the extremely young is still being discussed. The folks in the pews generally believe that these people are baptized by 'desire' after they die and meet God. But at the same time, there is no set doctrine on this.

One theory is that the extremely young could remain, essentially, in Limbo. Kind of like how people 'waitied' in the afterlife for the coming, death and resurrection of Christ.

Catholics believe that baptism is necessary, but that there's more than just the one type.
 

Dude Abides

Banned
akira28 said:
Job was allegorical wasn't it? I mean, God didn't actually troll some poor hapless human, right? This is just another old human story from an earlier probably monotheistic tradition, that's my guess anyway.

Yes, it's allegorical. No such events ever actually happened. It's basically to drive home the notion that you're not supposed to question the stuff God does in the Bible, however nutty or evil it may seem.
 
Dude Abides said:
Yes, it's allegorical. No such events ever actually happened. It's basically to drive home the notion that you're not supposed to question the stuff God does in the Bible, however nutty or evil it may seem.

lols, do you come here just to troll? If so, why not go sit out front of church and get some face time with believers.

Job's story is basically a precursor to Christ's commentary about not valuing earthly pleasure and splendor over your relationship with God. It treats suffering experienced in this life as a means to develop one's personal relationship with the divine. And if nothing else, Job gives the reader pause to reflect on the problem of evil and the meaning of suffering.

Within Biblical scholarship, Job is generally considered an idealized historical account. The ancients and the early Church held Job as part of their collective history.
 

Dude Abides

Banned
bonesmccoy said:
lols, do you come here just to troll? If so, why not go sit out front of church and get some face time with believers.

Job's story is basically a precursor to Christ's commentary about not valuing earthly pleasure and splendor over your relationship with God. It treats suffering experienced in this life as a means to develop one's personal relationship with the divine. And if nothing else, Job gives the reader pause to reflect on the problem of evil and the meaning of suffering.

Within Biblical scholarship, Job is generally considered an idealized historical account. The ancients and the early Church held Job as part of their collective history.

He asked a question and I answered it. The facile theology set forth above ignores the entire theodical aspect of the parable and the whole "where were you" discussion where God basically tells Job to STFU.
 
Dude Abides said:
He asked a question and I answered it. The facile theology set forth above ignores the entire theodical aspect of the parable and the whole "where were you" discussion where God basically tells Job to STFU.

Thanks, so you are here to troll. My understanding of Job is very basic indeed, but I did specifically mention the problem of evil, aka, theodicy.
 

Chaplain

Member
A good encouraging story for this day:

The story is told of Jesus’ return to heaven. After dying for the sins of humanity, He was greeted by the angel Gabriel.

“An awesome thing You did, Lord,” Gabriel said. “Incredible! Does the world know?”
Jesus answered, “Not really. As a matter of fact, only a few guys in Palestine understand what I did.”
“Well, how is the rest of the world going to understand?”
“I’m entrusting those guys with the message. I’m trusting they will carry My message throughout the world.”
“But what if they don’t?” Gabriel asked. “What if they decide to return to fishing? Or what if they get afraid? Or what if they get tangled up in relationships? What happens if they don’t do it? What is Your plan then?”
And Jesus replied, “I have no other plan.”


This story, although it is just a story, is reality. The Lord entrusted the gospel of the kingdom to men and left it with them, sending them out to propagate the Good News that men’s sins are forgiven because of His death on the Cross. That was His only plan.

As the Apostle Paul said:

"But how can they call on him to save them unless they believe in him? And how can they believe in him if they have never heard about him? And how can they hear about him unless someone tells them? And how will anyone go and tell them without being sent? That is why the Scriptures say, “How beautiful are the feet of messengers who bring good news!”
 

Chaplain

Member
A commentary on Jesus' prayer in Matthew 11:

Matthew 11:25-26
At that time Jesus prayed this prayer: “O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, thank you for hiding these things from those who think themselves wise and clever, and for revealing them to the childlike. Yes, Father, it pleased you to do it this way!

Jesus’ attention shifted from the rebellious to the faithful as He said, “Father, thank You that You have revealed truth to these babes. The Pharisees, the religious, the scholars—they’re not responding. But, Father, thank You for the babes.” In the Book of Acts, Luke writes that the Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribes marveled when they heard the wisdom of Peter and John. “How did these fishermen get such wisdom?” they wondered. The answer? Peter and John had been with Jesus (Acts 4:13). That’s the key. Spend time with the Lord in the Word, and you’ll be so wise that even Pharisees will wonder how you became so wise.

Matthew 11:27
“My Father has entrusted everything to me. No one truly knows the Son except the Father, and no one truly knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”

God is so immense. The Milky Way galaxy is approximately 100,000 light years across. Traveling at the speed of light, 186,000 miles per second, it would take 100 million years just to get across the length of the Milky Way galaxy.

And yet the Word says our Lord spans the universe between His thumb and His little finger (Isaiah 40:12)! Big! Enormous! How do we know such a vast God? Oh, great is the mystery of godliness, Paul said, that God would become a Man, manifesting Himself in Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 3:16).

Our Christian faith is truly ingenious. I mean, this huge, vast God became a Man that we might know Him. But our sin stood in the way of a relationship with Him, so that same God died on a Cross at Calvary to provide atonement for our sin. Then He rose again to live inside of us by His Spirit. It’s perfect! There’s not a flaw in it!

Matthew 11:28–30
Then Jesus said, “Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you. Let me teach you, because I am humble and gentle at heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy to bear, and the burden I give you is light.”

“Come to Me,” Jesus says. “Yoke with Me. Learn of Me. And you’ll find rest in your souls.”
 

JGS

Banned
OttomanScribe said:
Does the Bible forbid polygny?
The Israelite were allowed to. Christianity forbids it, moving it back to the original marriage arrangement in the Garden of Eden.
 
JGS said:
The Israelite were allowed to. Christianity forbids it, moving it back to the original marriage arrangement in the Garden of Eden.
What is the scriptural support for the prohibition? I had a look in my own copy and all I could find was the use of the singular to refer to husband and wife in some instances, but no direct prohibition.
 

JGS

Banned
OttomanScribe said:
What is the scriptural support for the prohibition? I had a look in my own copy and all I could find was the use of the singular to refer to husband and wife in some instances, but no direct prohibition.
Matthew 19 is probably the most common chapter mentioned. However, when marriage is discussed in the NT, it is always in regards to one wife, one household which is different from the mentionings of it in the OT. This isn't to say the OT was pro-one wife as many of the OT writers were indeed husbands of one wife or single, but the two obvious examples of David & Solomon show that multiple wives in those times did not necessarily hinder worship to God although marrying the wrong wives could get you in trouble.

EDIT: Also, the prohibition on fornication/adultery with anyone other than the singular form of wife effectively condemns having multiple wives too.
 
OttomanScribe said:
What is the scriptural support for the prohibition? I had a look in my own copy and all I could find was the use of the singular to refer to husband and wife in some instances, but no direct prohibition.

I'm not sure of the scriptural passages, though one of the Pauline letters make it very clear that the disciples believed that marriage was between 1 man and 1 woman.

St Augustine talks about marriage this way too. And if he did, you can bet other Church Fathers did before him.
 
JGS said:
Matthew 19 is probably the most common chapter mentioned. However, when marriage is discussed in the NT, it is always in regards to one wife, one household which is different from the mentionings of it in the OT. This isn't to say the OT was pro-one wife as many of the OT writers were indeed husbands of one wife or single, but the two obvious examples of David & Solomon show that multiple wives in those times did not necessarily hinder worship to God although marrying the wrong wives could get you in trouble.

EDIT: Also, the prohibition on fornication/adultery with anyone other than the singular form of wife effectively condemns having multiple wives too.
Is the singular quite so clear in the Greek? What would you say are some verses that are clear on the definition of the household?

Regarding Mathew, the whole 'made one flesh' thing is echoed in the Qur'an, but that doesn't mean that it can only occur for a single man and a single woman. That would surely contradict what previously occurred with the other Prophets.


For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
What does this mean?


I'm not sure of the scriptural passages, though one of the Pauline letters make it very clear that the disciples believed that marriage was between 1 man and 1 woman.
Could you link me? :)

St Augustine talks about marriage this way too. And if he did, you can bet other Church Fathers did before him.
Can I?
 
OttomanScribe said:
Could you link me? :)
Can I?

Ephesians 5 and Corinthians 7, and there's also Mark 10.

More importantly, this understanding of marriage is part of the Church's living tradition, its Magisterial understanding of that sacrament and state of being. It's not always about naming that piece of scripture.

How much of the Church Fathers have you read or encountered? I mean, for the most part, these were dudes who advocated celibacy and virginity over monogamous sex and marriage. Their views on this are conservative in a way that's hard to imagine in our time.

Breaking topic: You're a Muslim, right? Can you give me a brief run down of the major divisions between Shi'a and Sunni? I could just google it, but its far more interesting to get to know these things conversationally :)
 
bonesmccoy said:
Ephesians 5 and Corinthians 7, and there's also Mark 10.
Reading those verses I didn't really get any particular statement on the matter. Was it not the habit of the Jews at the time to take multiple women as wives? Surely if it were, one would think it would be commented upon?

More importantly, this understanding of marriage is part of the Church's living tradition, its Magisterial understanding of that sacrament and state of being. It's not always about naming that piece of scripture.
I understand that is a thing for some churches, though not all. However when something seems not really discussed at all in the scripture it becomes difficult to understand it. I wonder how, considering the clear statements on divorce in the scripture, people justify it, yet without clear statements on polygny, they prohibit it?

How much of the Church Fathers have you read or encountered? I mean, for the most part, these were dudes who advocated celibacy and virginity over monogamous sex and marriage. Their views on this are conservative in a way that's hard to imagine in our time.
I have read a few, the 'confessions' amongst other things. I wouldn't call their views conservative, at least not for the time! Such radical beliefs for the period, especially in terms of Roman society, which is where they operated.

Breaking topic: You're a Muslim, right? Can you give me a brief run down of the major divisions between Shi'a and Sunni? I could just google it, but its far more interesting to get to know these things conversationally :)
The difference between the Shia't Ali (the Partisans of Ali) and the Ahlul Sunnah Wa Jamaat (the community of the people of the way of the Prophet Mohammed, sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam), began as a purely political one.

The Shia hold that the only legitimate holders of authority are the ahlul bait (the family of the Messenger of God, sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) while the Sunnah hold that the only legitimate source of authority is merit and the consensus of the community. This political difference in later years became a religious one, where the Shia began to diverge radically, especially under the influence of the Persian Safavids upon the creation of 'Twelver' Shiism.

The Shia and the Sunni still agree on most things, the nature of God, the status of the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) etc. however we differ, at least with the twelvers, on the way that the Sha'riah works. Most of the Sunnah hold that they are still Muslims, they just transgress through disobeying Allah's command to 'not form sects'.

Is that a sufficient explanation? It is complicated, if you wish to ask more I am happy to answer in the Islam thread, rather than derail this one.
 

Stackboy

Member
Hey guys, I check in on this thread every now and then.

I'm part of a small Baptist church here in Australia, with a congregation of about 120 people.

At the moment I am involved in a bible study group of about 20 people. It is soon to be split and I am going to be a bible study leader.

Please pray for god to use me for his wishes in this role. Thanks!
 

Nocebo

Member
JGS said:
Not true and it's been explained by at least a couple of people of it's significance in the Bible.
Eh? Doesn't god give job a replacement family after the fact? It at least implies that god has something to do with it.
That would mean the lives of the people who died, and the emotions associated with them were completely meaningless as they can be supposedly replaced by something new so easily. It seems completely shallow to me. Oh his 3 new daughters were super beautiful? As if that has any meaning. How disgustingly shallow.
 

JGS

Banned
Nocebo said:
Eh? Doesn't god give job a replacement family after the fact? It at least implies that god has something to do with it.
Again, you haven't read the responses. There is nothing said that suggested God wasn't involved in the story of Job. If you just want to troll the discussion, move it to the religion thread ("Derp, Job is teh stupidz!").

The Job discusssion was asked and answered, but could be expounded on if not for silly responses such as yours. Although I enjoy a good argument as much as the next guy, it tends to be annoying when someone doesn't actually know how to start one despite the desperate attempts to do so.
Glitchfire said:
Have any current Christians ever been non-religious?
Yes
 

JGS

Banned
OttomanScribe said:
Is the singular quite so clear in the Greek? What would you say are some verses that are clear on the definition of the household?

Regarding Mathew, the whole 'made one flesh' thing is echoed in the Qur'an, but that doesn't mean that it can only occur for a single man and a single woman. That would surely contradict what previously occurred with the other Prophets.
Yes it does. There is no mistaking the connotation that one man and one woman = one flesh. Further, the Bible explains the qualifications for an overseer were to be husband of one wife. Since the overseers came from all men as the congregations grew, it can be assumed that men in general were to have one wife.

The fact that there is no advice anywhere in scripture that could be construed to mean more than one wife is pretty clear evidence that the practice was not followed or allowed. If anything, a polygamous marriage would need more counsel, not less or none considering the unique circumstances.

Nearly everyone in the Bible mentioned (Perhaps everyone) that had multiple wives ran into problems with the arrangement that were unique to it- jealousy, birthright, favorites, etc...
 
JGS said:
Yes it does. There is no mistaking the connotation that one man and one woman = one flesh. Further, the Bible explains the qualifications for an overseer were to be husband of one wife. Since the overseers came from all men as the congregations grew, it can be assumed that men in general were to have one wife.
There is a similar passage in the Qur'an, there is nothing in saying that a man and woman become one flesh that implies polygny is prohibited. Could you explain more on the overseer thing? Why would it specify one wife if that was the norm?

The fact that there is no advice anywhere in scripture that could be construed to mean more than one wife is pretty clear evidence that the practice was not followed or allowed. If anything, a polygamous marriage would need more counsel, not less or none considering the unique circumstances.
It was certainly standard practice amongst the Jews, one could well argue that it wasn't discussed because it was assumed to be the norm, and the specific references point out exceptions?

I looked at the bible verses mentioned and how on earth does anyone justify divorce!?

Nearly everyone in the Bible mentioned (Perhaps everyone) that had multiple wives ran into problems with the arrangement that were unique to it- jealousy, birthright, favorites, etc...
Nearly everyone the Bible mentioned who was true in serving God ran into problems. The Jews followed the OT and they saw it as an acceptable practice.
 

Chaplain

Member
OttomanScribe said:
Nearly everyone the Bible mentioned who was true in serving God ran into problems. The Jews followed the OT and they saw it as an acceptable practice.

Genesis chapter 2 is the first mention of marriage:

"So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep. While the man slept, the Lord God took out one of the man’s ribs and closed up the opening. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib, and he brought her to the man.

“At last!” the man exclaimed.

“This one is bone from my bone,
and flesh from my flesh!
She will be called ‘woman,’
because she was taken from ‘man.’”

This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one."


Jesus quotes from these verses and says this about marriage:

“Haven’t you read the Scriptures?” Jesus replied. “They record that from the beginning ‘God made them male and female.’ And he said, ‘This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’ Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together.”

From the beginning, God's original design was for man to be married to one woman (only). Mankind is the one that always alters God's plans and makes up his own. Polygamy happened but God never condoned it.
 
Game Analyst said:
From the beginning, God's original design was for man to be married to one woman (only). Mankind is the one that always alters God's plans and makes up his own. Polygamy happened but God never condoned it.
Wow. So the Prophets went against God's will? The Bible lies when it says that Soloman (alayhis salaam) was wise? If this is the case, then he was an adulterer!

Looking into it. Wow. The Jews attribute Idolatry to the Prophets :S

It is clearly part of the Law in Exodus 21, 'If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. '

Also Deuteronomy 21
'If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated'

Basically, there is clear prohibition in the Bible, including the NT, of divorce, but no clear prohibition on polygamy. If I were to be a Muslim man who converted to Christianity, already having four wives, and divorce is prohibited, what would I do?
 

Chaplain

Member
OttomanScribe said:
Wow. So the Prophets went against God's will?

The majority of the prophets sinned against God. Moses didn't enter the promise land because of disobedience, David committed adultery, Noah got drunk, Jacob was a liar and deceiver, etc.

OttomanScribe said:
The Bible lies when it says that Soloman (alayhis salaam) was wise? If this is the case, then he was an adulterer!

Solomon knew that the Law of Moses forbid Kings to have more than one wife:

"And he shall not multiply wives to himself, that his [mind and] heart turn not away" Deuteronomy 17:17

These wives turned Solomon's heart to follow false god's:

"In Solomon’s old age, they turned his heart to worship other gods instead of being completely faithful to the Lord his God, as his father, David, had been. The Lord was very angry with Solomon, for his heart had turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice." 1 Kings 11:4;9

Solomon was wise but human. He let his love of pleasure control his life.

OttomanScribe said:
Looking into it. Wow. The Jews attribute Idolatry to the Prophets :S

Everyone, except for Jesus, has sinned against God.
 

JGS

Banned
OttomanScribe said:
There is a similar passage in the Qur'an, there is nothing in saying that a man and woman become one flesh that implies polygny is prohibited. Could you explain more on the overseer thing? Why would it specify one wife if that was the norm?
It specified it because it would not be an unusual thing to preach to someone having more than one wife as Christianity spread throughout the region.

Although we don't know the "rules" per se of Christians who were polygamous prior to learning about Christianity, the way to progress was to follow the Scriptural requirement of monogamy.
It was certainly standard practice amongst the Jews, one could well argue that it wasn't discussed because it was assumed to be the norm, and the specific references point out exceptions?
Actually, since it was assumed to bne the norm in instruction, that meant it became the norm anyway. In other words, because that's the way it was perceived to be, that was what was required although there were more benefits to it than mere assumption.
I looked at the bible verses mentioned and how on earth does anyone justify divorce!?
This is true, but many Christians do only view divorce as legitimate on the grounds of adultery. Further, adultery is a repentable offense anyway, so one can do it, be truly sorry for it, be divorced by their spuse, & then move on.

Scriputrally, I cannot divorce my wife unless she cheats on me. However, there are other verses (Ephesians maybe? Not sure) that spell out grounds for a spouse being allowed to leave without the option of remarriage. In a legal sense, a secular, legal divorce could be the equivalant of a Scriptural seperation. Still have to cheat and not be forgiven though to make it official.
Nearly everyone the Bible mentioned who was true in serving God ran into problems. The Jews followed the OT and they saw it as an acceptable practice.
I gave specific issues that arose in polygamous relationships. It's natural to be possessive which is why cheating to this day is still not considered acceptable behaviour.

The Jews saw it as an acceptable practice because it was a practice before the Law and also a practice that allowed for a rapidly growing population. This didn't mean it was the norm, but it wasn't something condemned as it clearly is in NT.

The NT changed a few things from the requirements of the Jews so changing to a monogomous relationship which was the offical God-backed standard would not be shocking.

Christianity is not concerned with population growth. It encourages not even getting married provided you can control yourself. So there is no incentive to being married to more than one wife.
 
Game Analyst said:
Solomon knew that the Law of Moses forbid Kings to have more than one wife:

"And he shall not multiply wives to himself, that his [mind and] heart turn not away" Deuteronomy 17:17
According to most of the commentaries I read, multiple wives meant more than the standard eighteen that were allowed to Kings.
It specified it because it would not be an unusual thing to preach to someone having more than one wife as Christianity spread throughout the region.
Could you explain more the overseer thing?

The Jews saw it as an acceptable practice because it was a practice before the Law and also a practice that allowed for a rapidly growing population. This didn't mean it was the norm, but it wasn't something condemned as it clearly is in NT.
I still haven't seen it condemned. The closest I have seen is the example of the made as one flesh thing. There is nothing that says that a man cannot be made of one flesh with more than one woman, otherwise what would happen when a woman died and he remarried?

I understand the arguments about the Christian view on sex as being immoral. I still don't see any real direct prohibition within scripture of polygny, I however see many examples of it being the conduct of the Prophets of the past.
 
OttomanScribe said:
Could you explain more the overseer thing?
In 1 Timothy, the Bible sets standards/criteria for being a "deacon" and an "overseer".

A deacon, diakonos in Greek would basically be a minister.
An overseer, episkopos, would be like an elder and one who sees that all is going smoothly.

The criteria is more stringent for overseers as they essentially have more responsibility to 'hold up the faith
and run the ship smoothly and make sure people aren't deviating from teaching (which was very common).

To use a sports metaphor, the overseer is the general manager/owner and the deacon is the head coach.
Both however, mention "having one wife".

Paul's charge to Timothy in Romans was to find new overseers/elders, something he didn't do, so Paul is following up to make sure that there is the proper infrastructure set up for the growing church in a tumultuous time. He's also raising up Timothy as his successor.

I still haven't seen it condemned.
It isn't.

Everything that is used as a proof would be deductive (it was 1 man, 1 women in the garden, general trend is 1 man, 1 woman, etc) although I don't agree with this.

I personally think (which is based on analysis of the Bible) that a lot of things that are taught aren't necessary biblical and more tradition based and have arose from influence from religious institutions like the catholic church, not anything in the bible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom