Blood covenant / marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.

HuntingMan

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2006
8,341
143
57
✟9,310.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The negative comments I'm sure are coming from people who haven't
listened to the entire video.
I watched enough.
I dont need to see 20 more minutes of error to know the facts about what I did see.
Your statement doesnt negate the facts as Ive presented in a previous post.
The mans nonsense makes our Lord an illegitimate child.
Are you ok with that ?

Adolf Hitler was a powerful speaker too, and a lot of people liked what he had to say....that doesnt make him right.

Hopefully the Lord silences that demonic doctrine before any real marriages are affected by making folks who married as nonvirgins feel like their marriages arent quite up to code.
 
Upvote 0

katautumn

Prodigal Daughter
May 14, 2015
7,497
157
43
Atlanta, GA
✟24,189.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
A powerful video here, a message that needs to be restored to the
church. What this man talks about is something I want for my life.

The negative comments I'm sure are coming from people who haven't
listened to the entire video.

I watched the video in its entirety and really paid attention to it. I'm sorry, but I have a problem with taking modern-day marriage and saying that when the man can see his bride's blood on his penis that it seals the covenant in God's eyes.

The speaker in the video is taking old marriage practices and laws that only pertained to the Jews and trying to apply them to modern-day marriage. Jewish parents also used to watch their children consummate the marriage through peep-holes in the bridal suite. Does this mean we should do this today, as it proves the bride is a virgin on her wedding night?
 
Upvote 0

Joykins

free Crazy Liz!
Jul 14, 2005
15,710
1,181
53
Down in Mary's Land
✟29,390.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The woman that makes a deliberate choice to offer her virginity as a token of her fidelity on her wedding night, and continues to make the choice of fidelity throughout her marriage, is most likely going to have this same heart going into a marriage when her husband dies.

The teacher in the video emphasizes this deliberate choice of commitment, which is the essence of a 'virgin' heart. That is what I meant by my statement.

Why even call it a virgin heart? Why not a faithful heart? Why take the concept of virginity and extend it beyond all reasonable meaning of the word? Why make this a requirement for some kind of superior (?) marriage when it is never stated anywhere that it would be. OT men expected their purchased brides to be virgins and the Law was set up to support this and allow (though not require--NOTE!) them to enforce this, but also quite reasonably had no problem with widows and widowers remarrying or harems or concubinage.

In other words it was all about men owning the sexuality of women and putting a price on it and resorting to an only semi-reliable "proof" of virginity. It has very little to do with purity of heart or faithfulness and commitment in marriage which any person is capable of having with some effort and God's grace.
 
Upvote 0

EternalRhyme

Rich in grace
Dec 10, 2007
1,885
106
hid with Christ in God
✟17,455.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
KatAutumn said:
The speaker in the video is taking old marriage practices and laws that only pertained to the Jews and trying to apply them to modern-day marriage.

We don't see this in Matthew 19 when Jesus mentions the original intent of marriage (at the time He institutes His new covenant). Bringing virginity to marriage is not an 'old standard', it's a timeless one.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

katautumn

Prodigal Daughter
May 14, 2015
7,497
157
43
Atlanta, GA
✟24,189.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
We don't see this in Matthew 19 when Jesus mentions the original intent of marriage (at the time He institutes His new covenant). Bringing virginity to marriage is not an 'old standard', it's a timeless one.

It may be a preferable custom in Christian circles, but it is certainly not a practical one in today's society. Had the Jews in the OT lived in today's society, I think one may be surprised at how few "soiled token sheets" there would be the day after the wedding. Let us not overlook the fact that marriages in those days were arranged and usually the bride did not see her intended until their wedding day. Second, people got married not long after the girl reached menstruating age. In modern times when most people get married the first time between the ages of twenty-five and thirty virginity seems like an impossible physical state to maintain.

Not only that, but if we're going to apply the OT customs of being a virgin on the wedding night, why don't we give our bloody bed sheets to our parents the next day to offer proof we were pure until marriage? Or how about we stone women to death who fail to "bleed on the man's penis" on the wedding night?

I don't have a problem with the concept of abstaining until marriage. I have a problem with the archaic belief that blood on the bedsheets is proof that the covenant has been recognized by God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joykins
Upvote 0

Joykins

free Crazy Liz!
Jul 14, 2005
15,710
1,181
53
Down in Mary's Land
✟29,390.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Blood on the bedsheets (or penis) is proof of...bleeding during sex, or, at least, managing to get blood on the sheets even if you didn't bleed during sex but you knew someone was going to come looking. Not of virginity. You can bleed during sex for other reasons also, and you may not bleed when you lose your virginity--so it just really isn't that big a deal either way.
 
Upvote 0

HuntingMan

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2006
8,341
143
57
✟9,310.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Legally, Mary and Joseph were as 'bound' in their betrothal as when their
marriage was consummated.
That is correct.
And they were just as 'bound' in 'marriage' as they ever would be at betrothal.
She was already Joes covenant 'wife' well before any sex ever took, place.
This blood on the penis thing is nothing but nonsense.
 
Upvote 0

HuntingMan

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2006
8,341
143
57
✟9,310.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We don't see this in Matthew 19 when Jesus mentions the original intent of marriage (at the time He institutes His new covenant). Bringing virginity to marriage is not an 'old standard', it's a timeless one.
Being CHASTE is a timeless standard....whether it be a woman married as a virgin or one married as a nonvirgin widow....BOTH are honorable before God.

I know one thing, Ill definitely be looking more into this erroneous doctrine to put up studies on my website.
If this nonsense goes too far the brethren need to be forewarned about it so no ones marriage COVENANT is put into question.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

HuntingMan

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2006
8,341
143
57
✟9,310.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It seems like you're not. I'm curious as to why?
Tell me you are, Liz....it would help fill in some blanks.
No, Im not ok with Jesus being born out of wedlock.
As studied as you are, Id figured youd be the first to comprehend the reason why yourself.
Ill let you ponder on the reason alone :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

MissMystery

His Workmanship
Sep 7, 2007
548
31
central US
✟15,853.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
I appreciate all the response... alot of good points to ponder.

Miann, I like what you said here:
The video points out that virginity was expected of both men and women. I think if women embraced the sacredness of their virginity, and demanded it from the man they marry, the Body of Christ as a whole, would have a clearer understanding of the 'virgin spirit'.

Jesus is the example of a 'virgin spirit'... as His sole purpose was to fulfill the will of His Father. The heart of a virgin is focussed on it's beloved, sacrificially focused.

And Verity, I feel you are correct in addressing the regrets when you said:
Regret may also keep people from seeing how valuable a 'virgin spirit' truly is in the marital relationship. I think a person who purposely remained virgin, for the sake of offering this gift of fidelity to their spouse, shows more of a virginal heart than the one who may be virgin by happenstance... without a deliberate choice. By the same token, because of Jesus' covenant, a non-virgin who truly has a virgin's heart, can still be faithful in marriage.
In the bolded section is where those with regrets will find hope. The man teaching was also very good at bringing this point out.

Have a blessed weekend, everyone!
 
Upvote 0

Crazy Liz

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2003
17,059
1,106
California
✟23,305.00
Faith
Christian
Tell me you are, Liz....it would help fill in some blanks.
No, Im not ok with Jesus being born out of wedlock.
As studied as you are, Id figured youd be the first to comprehend the reason why yourself.
Ill let you ponder on the reason alone :)

I'm not playing games. It is not obvious to me at all. I've never heard anyone say it was important theologically.

Jesus had no biological human father. I see absolutely no theological reason why his mother would have had to have a human husband. I am just so surprised anyone would think that was important. I can't fathom why. That's why I asked.

I can see why it was important socially at the time, but if God had provided for Mary and Jesus in some other way, that would have been fine, too. I can even see that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke both purport to be genealogies of Joseph, not Mary. We could talk about the curiosities of that sometime. Perhaps it has some significance.

But illegitimacy by itself just doesn't seem to be all that significant. Jesus is called the "son of David," among other titles, and David was a 10th-generation mamzer (Deut. 23:2). I see Jesus as demonstrating God's mission to bring outsiders into the people of God. The idea that Jesus' "legitimacy" was as questionable as David's actually seems right and fitting to me, although not something of great doctrinal importance.

I am genuinely curious why someone would feel the opposite was so important.
 
Upvote 0

EternalRhyme

Rich in grace
Dec 10, 2007
1,885
106
hid with Christ in God
✟17,455.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Huntingman said:
Being CHASTE is a timeless standard....whether it be a woman married as a virgin or one married as a nonvirgin widow....BOTH are honorable before God.
Yes, a chaste widow can be honorable in a subsequent marriage... but Jesus is not referring to them when he states in Matthew 19 that a man leaves his mother and father and CLEAVES to his wife. This is clearly speaking of a virgin man marrying a virgin woman (leaving parents to do so).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

EternalRhyme

Rich in grace
Dec 10, 2007
1,885
106
hid with Christ in God
✟17,455.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
KatAutumn said:
I don't have a problem with the concept of abstaining until marriage. I have a problem with the archaic belief that blood on the bedsheets is proof that the covenant has been recognized by God.
You may have to take this up with God, Kat... it's a biblical concept spoken of in the OT.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.