OT Polygymy and NT Chastity

[brightmorningstar]

I have no problem with rebuking sinful thoughts be they sexual or otherwise. Most of the discussion is around what does God call sinful and what does He not call sinful? For example about half the Christians who post seem to think masturbation is sinful. But they have yet to show were God says it is. So my takeaway is that it is sin for them but not sin for every one.

Not following your logic here. If the scriptures do not mention or describe masturbation then how can there be discussion on what God calls sinful. The discussion would be on whether God does or does not consider masturbation sinful according to anything His word does say that might indicate one way or the other.
IMO masturbation is wrong; and indeed there is more chance of it with looking at porn than there is avoiding porn.

We are not created a sexual beings. 'Sexual' is not a concept in the Biblical testimony of God. Sex is. God created male and female to be in faithful union. 'Sexual' implies any sexual activity, which oustide the faithful marriage is described as sexual immorality.

The position of divorce and remarriage presents some valid discusson. The position of poligamy and chasity doesnt. Jesus affirms God original creation purpose of man and woman in faithful union, regardless of whatever happened or was allowed to happen in the OT, this is what is God's purpose is for any union. (ie Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5, 1 Cor 7)

 

[cimbk]

I believe that list as Paul originally wrote is very accurate.

I was reading the other day, that the Greek for that we read as righteous today was the Greek word that the authors of the LXX used to translate the word we read in the OT that speaks of God lovingkindness towards us. Since Paul and the other NT writes almost always quote the LXX (Greek OT) and not the Hebrew OT Paul may have very well been thinking, Do you not know that are unkind and loving will not inherit the kingdom of God? When we read the list that follows I see that it fits perfectly. Paul makes a whole lot of sense to me. I love Paul. I probably study Paul more than any other author of the Bible. But Jesus has my heart. That's who I thank for the great salvation I have.

The one common denominator I see in most of you folks who believe in all sorts sexual devient practices are not sin, is the overwelming time spent reading other peoples comentaries and rebutals that these things are not sin.

These writters have simply given you what your itching ears want to hear, either you have never found the freedom from some of these things or your conscience is merely seared with a hot iron that you don't care anymore.

And now while it appears you teach a liberty of love, that while God's love is great, it is even greater than these sins and people can live in these things you call NOT sin, and they should relax and not worry.

I fear for you sir, you have left the narrow road and are on a broad road that leads to destruction, I can only tell you and everyone else there is another freedom, one where you don't look back on the sin you once committed and miss it.

Thats the true freedom Christ can offer, but you must die to your ownself, your own sinful ways, you must have Godly repentance, worldly repentance leads to death

 

[brightmorningstar]

The one common denominator I see in most of you folks who believe in all sorts sexual devient practices are not sin, is the overwelming time spent reading other peoples comentaries and rebutals that these things are not sin.

Hence the offering of scripture, for what it says, is treated not as the word of God, but as someones own personal opinion or 'interpretation'.

 

[dayhiker]

I don't think I said anything that would disagree with your comments. I agree completely.

A strange post dayhiker.
Paul was a Jew, he was trained by no less than raban Gamaliel, he was an expert in Jewish law. Remember that he preached what he received, not from man, but from the risen Lord, so it is bizarre to Paul makes a lot of sense 'but' Jesus has my heart. It is Jesus we follow, not Paul, but to follow Jesus we need to read Jesus revelation to us through all the NT writers including Paul.
Also, Paul being a Roman citizen, Paul had great credibility with non-believers when he preached as he knew Jewish, Roman, and Greek philosophy, culture and beliefs.

 

[dayhiker]

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

interesting verses, cimbk ... I love the context Jesus puts that verse in that you quote in.

 

[Lionroot]

... when I read about these purple of God (friends of God) in the bible and how they basically had another woman for every day of the month...How am I to reconcile this with "whoever lusts after a woman commits adultery"?

*[[Mat 5:27-28]] WEB* "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery;' but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Frequently this verse is read with a strict webster dictionary approach.

This makes the verse absurd. Can a man commit adultery with his own wife? After all a man's wife is a woman. Right?

At this point we are forced to look at the original language. It is there that the meaning of this text can truly, and rightly understood.

From my phone....
Rev 5:5
And one of the elders said to me, "Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals."

 

[dayhiker]

Ya, it was only after I looked at the original language that I felt I understood what Jesus was saying in this verse.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

The one common denominator I see in most of you folks who believe in all sorts sexual devient practices are not sin, is the overwelming time spent reading other peoples comentaries and rebutals that these things are not sin.

Many people believe polygyny is sin on that very basis.

However, my belief that polygyny is simply a marital form that God not only sanctioned, governed, and even provided plural wives, but also clearly spoken throughout, is based upon the CLEAR language of scripture. The Hebrew speaks loud volumes to the fact that the Lord gave plural wives, He governed men having plural wives, He disallowed MULTIPLYING wives, etc. Don't need commentaries to read what's written. I've never read any commentaries on the subject in order to glean understanding other than what's actually written about the subject in God's word.

Just the other day, I heard yet another very popular, although false teacher on American Family Radio demand, "ALL the polygamous relationships in the Bible ended in failure and sorrow..."

Now THAT is the type of teaching I would expect to be derived from commentaries. It fails the acid test of honesty and integrity on a scale too low for measurement.

Popular, false, socially and culturally engineered theologies and doctrines commonly taught from behind pulpits are what I can find in commentaries written by men with various agendas.

BTW

 

[dayhiker]

I've read a lot of commentators over the years. They have been one of the blessings in my life. I see them as sermons with more documentation. Many sermons I hear say this or that, often including some historical facts that are in the commentaries yet usually giving no foot notes as to where the information comes from.

The more I read and study history, the more things are just like today in the sense that people back then had different points of view just as we do today. So then we find in God's word that God didn't correct every point of view, only the ones that He saw as really wrong: the idol worship and the injustices men do to each other. God never said it was wrong for a man to have an extra wife. But a man who didn't provide for a wife God didn't like.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Good point, dayhiker.