SwordmanJr
Double-edged Sword only
I don't see room for polygamy in 1 Corinthians 7, do you?
Is that supposed to mean something? Please explain. Why would anyone try to force into that text what was not at all the subject of that text? Where does it address the number of wives to which a man is limited? It speaks of marrying and not marrying. It speaks of divorce and not divorcing. Other verses in the Bible talk about a command for some men to take an additional wife, and in other verses it talks about God giving a man two additional wives to his already plural wife family. So why would you think that 1 Cor. 7 MUST have made room for polygamy for it to be a valid form of marriage when many other areas of scripture support it? Not for all men, but for some. I would never suggest that most men go out and seek an additional wife. Most men can't even handle having one.
He's telling Timothy who to nominate based on their conduct and maturity. That's called a standard.
No. Wrong. He's spelling out a specific injunction against two specific groups of leaders. Period. What license do you possess (apart from personal opinion, which is not at all binding upon others) that authorizes you to create "principles" at personal whim that others around you should take seriously? I mean, if you choose to adopt that as a guiding principle for your own life, that's fine. I'm not here to take that from you, but pretending that you're some sort of doctrinal teaching authority by making statements with a tone of doctrinal superiority, then I'll just have to call you out on that one.
Because there is no reason to believe that other believers are licensed to be known for poor character, intemperate, greedy, a drunkard, violent, quarrelsome, a lover of money, irresponsible, and ignorant. We are to grow in knowledge and character
So, Abraham, who had plural wives, is known as one who was a man of poor character? After all, your making open-ended claims with no limitations.
[Gen 26:3-5 KJV] 3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father; 4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; 5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."
What man would not want that praise from the Most High God, and here you are spewing your venomous diatribe in an attempt to poison a marital form of which you know nothing about; apart from what your false teaching pastor, priest, Sunday school teacher, or whomever, has told you. The Bible is replete with evidence that is absolutely contrary to your words. To suggest that those men throughout all history, to this very day are, who had/have plural wives, are all in violation of a personally contrived "principle" as allegedly originating from God, and with no evidence whatsoever, that is presumption at its worst.
Then Scripture would have clearly denoted it. This is irrelevant to the present case.
But it DID denote it? Paul specifically addressed deacons and overseers. How much more clear could he have possibly made it to keep naysayers from inventing nonsense like what you have stated? You are in denial of an absolutely specific DENOTATION. Don't you get it?
What's at stake isn't the moral absolute, but the command. He gave the Jews commands about marriage and adultery in the Law, and Jesus clarified their meaning in an age where the Pharisees abused it.
What pharasee had plural wives that Jesus addressed? Hmm? Please tell us.
Look, although it appears that you seem to enjoy biblical revisionism, Jesus addressed DIVORCE to the pharasees, not polygyny, or even the more broad spectrum of polygamy. So, drawing lines of parallel nowhere supported in that context is manipulation, eisegeticism, falsehood, etc. No man must "divorce" his first or subsequent wife to possess a second wife, for a total of two at once, or three, or four. If you think otherwise, then prove it.
Not my problem. Besides, there's whatever measure of grace God chose to give them when Jesus was dead.
You trying to prove a negative IS your problem! You can't do it. It's not our problem that you don't know your Bible.
No, not at all. First, God was speaking figuratively. Second, God has different rights and privileges than human beings (Romans 12:19 being an easy example of this).
If He was speaking so figuratively, then why did He speak of handing out a writ of divorce for one of them having after having committed adultery with other gods and nations? Since when is the physical that we can see on this earth more real than what is Heavenly? Seriously, you have the cart before the proverbial horse on that one. The unseen is more real than the seen, in case you haven't figured that out yet.
Jr
Upvote
0