Biblical Definition of adultery

[ananda]

Okay, but that STILL doesn't answer my question. You specifically said that someone who lived with and had sex with someone was then married to that person.

"Living" in the sense of having a shared livelihood together.

Simply put, those who lives with & has sex are essentially married. Those who do not live together & have sex are essentially prostituting and fornicating.

 

[seeingeyes]

Why the witnesses?

Marriage is a social contract (among other things). There may be very extreme circumstances where a "secret" marriage is acceptable, but on the whole, marriage is a public commitment to another.

because that was what was originally stated by that particular poster. Then, while replying to Willie, it was stated again "living with someone and having sex with them".

(I don't view it as marriage anyway)

Oh! I see. I misunderstood. I'm always telling my kids, "Don't eavesdrop unless you can eavesdrop on the whole story!"

 

[PreachersWife2004]

"Living" in the sense of having a shared livelihood together.

Simply put, those who lives with & has sex are essentially married. Those who do not live together & have sex are essentially prostituting and fornicating.

So...

Sex with my live-in boyfriend = marriage
Sex with my boyfriend who lives 2 states over = fornicating

Which is more acceptable to God?

 

[ananda]

So...

Sex with my live-in boyfriend = marriage
Sex with my boyfriend who lives 2 states over = fornicating

Which is more acceptable to God?

I am using the phrase "Living together" with a more expansive definition than just physical locality or proximity.

Living together, alive together, alive as one, living harmoniously, sharing a life, shared goals.

The true bride intimately knows her husband.
The false bride calls him "Lord, Lord" but is not alive as one with him.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I am using the phrase "Living together" with a more expansive definition than just physical locality or proximity.

Living together, alive together, alive as one, living harmoniously, sharing a life, shared goals.

So the boyfriend over 2 states = marriage too?

I have a really hard time following your posts.

The true bride intimately knows her husband.
The false bride calls him "Lord, Lord" but is not alive as one with him.

Fair enough. I don't consider myself married to the first man I ever had sex with, but I do agree with the principle...that is, sex is to be reserved for marriage.

 

[ananda]

So the boyfriend over 2 states = marriage too? I have a really hard time following your posts.

As I wrote, it's not just about physical location. Words and concepts as used in the realm of law may or may not be the same as used in everyday speech

Fair enough. I don't consider myself married to the first man I ever had sex with, but I do agree with the principle...that is, sex is to be reserved for marriage.

I agree with that.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I haven't read the entire thread, but in some states, if you introduce someone as your spouse (and you are both unmarried, male and female) - then you may be considered as legally married. It's enough to stop alimony payments from a previous spouse who is released only upon the remarriage of his ex. This constitutes legal "remarriage" - just introducing someone as one's spouse.

I have also been pondering for some time the legal aspect of marriage under Hebrew law seen here.

Briefly:
Acquiring a Spouse

Mishnah Kiddushin 1:1 specifies that a woman is acquired (i.e., to be a wife) in three ways: through money, a contract, and sexual intercourse. Ordinarily, all three of these conditions are satisfied, although only one is necessary to effect a binding marriage.

The process of marriage occurs in two distinct stages: kiddushin (commonly translated as betrothal) and nisuin (full-fledged marriage). Kiddushin occurs when the woman accepts the money, contract or sexual relations offered by the prospective husband.

Kiddushin is far more binding than an engagement as we understand the term in modern English; in fact, Rambam speaks of a period of engagement before the kiddushin. Once kiddushin is complete, the woman is legally the wife of the man. The relationship created by kiddushin can only be dissolved by death or divorce.


Which would be saying, briefly, that once there was an agreement, a gift of betrothal (usually wedding ring), or sexual relations - each of these requires the consent of the woman, btw, so forcible betrothal cannot happen in this way - then the couple are essentially betrothed such that a divorce would be necessary to break the betrothal.

So I would think that it might be possible that any couple that planned to be married, the wife received a ring, they had sex, and live together - there is nothing anymore that makes them not married. (So they might as well get married? They avoid no spiritual "entanglement" by refusing to legalize the union.)

Just a thought. NOT a comment on any particular situation (I have not read the thread), and NOT a suggestion that folks can just live together and say "it's ok, we're really married" ... that's between you and God, and NOT my place to say it's ok!

Just some stuff to think about.

 

[GreatistheLord]

Just seemed like an odd question if not to figure out how far
one can go without being considered in adultery.
I didn't think he was out of line at all.
Why so defensive then?
It was an innocent question.
I wondered the same.
It helps to answer if you know WHY someone is asking/
what they're looking to achieve.

There were absolutely no grounds to make accusations or insinuations. i find the idea
of needing to explain my personal morality when asking theological questions patronising.

The answer in no way depends on my motive in asking, does it? Or does truth somehow
Change depending on the person asking?

 

[GreatistheLord]

This gets tricky when dealing with the Patriarchs, no? Was Abraham an adulterer? Was Jacob? Did David repent of a specific case of adultery just to return to his regular form of adultery?

Thank you, i did want a serious discussion. The patriarchs. The tribes of Israel, were they born of adultery?

 

[Kristos]

Thank you, i did want a serious discussion. The patriarchs. The tribes of Israel, were they born of adultery?

And inbreeding...

 

[sunlover1]

There were absolutely no grounds to make accusations or insinuations. i find the idea
of needing to explain my personal morality when asking theological questions patronising.

The answer in no way depends on my motive in asking, does it? Or does truth somehow
Change depending on the person asking?

Actually, it does help to answer a question if you
know what the person is getting at.

I've given my opinion already anyhow.
And I wasn't patronizing.

unsubscribing

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes, so please forgive me if I do, but I was a bit taken aback at the voraciousness of the questions of "trying to figure out how much you can get away with" and whatnot that initially met the asking of the question.

If someone asks for clarification on the rules, it doesn't mean they're trying to find the loophole.

Just seems like an awfully cynical thing to automatically assume.

And even if he was trying to find a loophole, how would that change the nature of the answer?

 

[GreatistheLord]

I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes, so please forgive me if I do, but I was a bit taken aback at the voraciousness of the questions of "trying to figure out how much you can get away with" and whatnot that initially met the asking of the question.

If someone asks for clarification on the rules, it doesn't mean they're trying to find the loophole.

Just seems like an awfully cynical thing to automatically assume.

And even if he was trying to find a loophole, how would that change the nature of the answer?

This is a theological forum, people should take their gossip elsewhere. Noone is trying to get away with anything, and the
Reality is quite dull and irrelevant. I find the probing questions on motive very inappropriate.

OT marriages, polygomy, relations were quite different to our western standards, and i found the gender difference very
Startling. A good question would be, Does the NT teachings continue a gender bias, and does it apply to single men, for example in its OT context?

 

[GreatistheLord]

So the boyfriend over 2 states = marriage too?

I have a really hard time following your posts.

Fair enough. I don't consider myself married to the first man I ever had sex with, but I do agree with the principle...that is, sex is to be reserved for marriage.

Did Adam and Eve have sex outside of marriage?

 

[Nanopants]

Did Adam and Eve have sex outside of marriage?

I don't think so. Their marriage would have been consummated just like any other, except without the supervision of church or government, terrifying as that may be.

 

[GreatistheLord]

I don't think so. Their marriage would have been consummated just like any other, except without the supervision of church or government, terrifying as that may be.

Do you think that this essentially advocates marriage by another name, as long as commitment is involved.

no agenda here, please dont ask.

 

[Nanopants]

Do you think that this essentially advocates marriage by another name, as long as commitment is involved.

no agenda here, please dont ask.

I don't think so, but I do think it challenges the authority of individuals to declare some marriages to be unlawfully sinful.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I don't think so. Their marriage would have been consummated just like any other, except without the supervision of church or government, terrifying as that may be.

I haven't studied it out, but Scripture says God presented Eve to Adam, and calls her his "wife".

Seems to me that if God is officiating, that's as "official" as you can get.

 

[Nanopants]

That's pretty much the idea behind marriage, in general, since scripture says that man ought not separate what God has joined together. Question is, does that joining occur only under man's supervision?

There's other examples as well btw. Organized government hasn't always been around throughout man's history, and it's not difficult to figure out that the existence of marriage does not depend on human government, which I believe is the basic idea behind a common law marriage.

 

[ananda]

A Scriptural marriage back in the day was commonly "registered" with an entry in the family Bible, with signatures of witnesses, as a testimony that God was Master over the (common law) marriage.

Instead, today, even self-professed believers register instead with the civil government(!)