Cohabitation

You mean living in WV isn't a hint of something wrong going on?

 

Alright what then about going to eat, to a movie, bowling,...., with one's same-gender friend? If there is any chance whatsoever someone may pass a "hint" then that makes it a sin?

 

What kind of witness is it to your children and grandchildren who know you are not married, yet living together?

 

Like my grand pappy used to say, "Son, never get married, and raise your kids the same way!!!"

Good ole Granddad.... He was joking of course, but now it seems to be the world's mantra.

 

It doesn't say his father and his fathers wife, but the mans "Father ", and the mans "Mother", which may not be the mans "wife". Male and Female he made them, and they are no longer two, but they become one flesh in the act of marriage. This is of God, and what God has joined together (He gave us marriage) no man should separate.

David and Bathsheba were married, but did not become "husband and wife" until David took her to himself and made her so. It is the man that determines the marriage. The man is the head and will determine the body. He separates himself from the marriage by which he came, i.e. his father and his mother.

In the garden this was what would have been, but things went awry. So we find God set into motion Law that says we are not to commit adultery, for divorce and such was not from the beginning. For understanding for us today we go to I Corinthians 6:15-16, "Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. 16. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh." Is the harlot now become his wife? No, but they are married for the act of marriage made them to become one flesh. He has no intention of taking this woman home and making her his wife.

Will anyone today be able to get away with what some of those rascals of old did, viz. having wife after wife after wife, or concubines, or whores, or what ever? They are not of the "Body Church", but the "Kingdom Church". We have the Lord Jesus Christ in our heart today -- They did not for they could not. We must be held to a higher standard, we in the Body of Christ.

Cleave does not mean holding hands or joined by anyone else, or joining with a piece of paper. You say the sex act comes after they are joined. If this is so can you please explain from the beginning how all men and women were, are, and will be joined together in marriage.

He made them male and female for a purpose. First we must know, or at least admit there must be some reason for this. He tells us what that purpose is. They are each made the way they are to be able to carry out the great fruitful commission of multiply, and replenish the earth. They cannot do this apart.

When they "cleave together", adhere or stick together, the man and wife are then married being stuck together, and let no man put asunder. Adam knew nothing about "harlots". All he knew was when he and his woman, whom he would make his wife upon copulation, a son would leave his Father and Mother (wife in this case), find a woman to make his wife and they would "cleave", or join together to keep the process going. It is the only way to carry out the "fruitful commission" of God to all things living. We cannot populate the earth without doing the marriage act and create new life. That is our prime directive. It is not a bad act in itself; It is good, but so many think otherwise.

I have never said sex outside of marriage of man and wife today is OK. I am endeavoring to tell you how we humans become married, both acceptable and unacceptable to God. Marriage with our virgin is honorable and the bed undefiled, or those whose spouse is no more and the other party a virgin or spouse has gone on. But three or more in bed is too many for there is to be only two. The man and his wife count as one, and we are in the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and He sanctifies those two in bed, but no more. He is the head and we are the body. It works exactly the same while we are on earth. The man is the head, and the woman fills out the body.

You've got the cart before the horse, for Adam saw none that fit the bill to be his helpmate. God always gives us a choice. Adam didn't find any animal to his liking. When Adam saw what God had made him, he liked what he saw. So Adam chose the creature God made for him and named her "woman", and they became engaged and she is then called "wife". Not until after the fall did the marriage take place, as she did eat of the fruit, took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and probably said to Adam, "Look!" "Would you like some?" Adam wanted what she had to offer. It was then there eyes were opened. There in the garden they were married, and Adam names his Mrs. Eve, for they are now "one", and will begin in earnest to populate the earth.

 

The two that live together, if they are having intercourse, (not married to any other) are married to each other, and the "gossipers" are in error. We are not to "Let their good be evil spoken of". They are doing nothing wrong, and I'll speak no evil of them.

Now you are saying "marriage is evil" for the two that are not attached to any other's by marriage are fornicators, and or living in adultery? How can you say that when that is not what His Word tells us. It is very plain when a spouse dies, the other is free to marry, or if one has never married they are free to marry. So they do marry each other, without papers. Especially the older people for many varied reasons.

Can a church in good conscious turn away a family in a "common law marriage". If so, on whose authority do they refuse a "married couple" from associating with those of papers? Sounds like James, I'll show you my papers to prove I'm married. Big deal. I'll show you my marriage without papers they should say, and I have my children to prove they came from we two. Who needs a church like that. That little family is its own church in the eyes of God, and will not need to be judged by refusing to fellowship with those in "His Body".

 

Quite agree, if that is what they are doing.

 

Agree, but marriage that is acceptable to God is not to be considered sexual immorality.

 

Brother --- you cannot get Holy Scripture to agree with you on these statements!!!

 

He sure can't! Just like he can't get Scripture to agree with his saying Jesus made and drank alcoholic wine.

 

Amen Christian friend. I never attempt to have scripture agree with me. I always endeavor to agree with His Word so as not to be in contradiction. If I am wrong, will appreciate exposing error/s.

II Samuel 11:4, "And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house". We see here David does not appoint himself a wife in engagement so that is out. These two are in "a passionate state of lust" and will marry, but they will not become man and wife. The way it is supposed to work is the man is to take a wife home and keep her there. Bathsheba went back home where her husband lives.

I will not deny the Holy Scriptures and say they just lay down and talk for awhile, and then she got up and went home. We can't deny scripture so we know they did the act of marriage, as God in the beginning informs us, and He then has Paul make it much plainer so we cannot misunderstand, I Corinthians 6:15-16. I agree with Holy Scripture. I am not asking anyone to agree with me, only point out what God says to us. I make comment for it seems very many can't seem to grasp His meaning.

Did David make her his wife at this time? If we believe what we have been told by others, then he did. But I do not believe tradition of man when God reveals His meaning, and I have no authority to change His Word.

David while married to her does not take her to wife until verses 26, and 27, "And when the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she mourned for her husband.
27. And when the mourning was past, David sent and fetched her to his house, and she became his wife, and bare him a son. But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord." I stand firm in the Word of God.

Don't know if you have noticed, and you may not agree (scripture does not refute) that those men of "old" could have more than one wife, but back then from the beginning until the end, the woman is not allowed to have but one "husband" at a time. This is the reason scripture above points out that Bathsheba could not be David's wife until after her "husband" died. We are told this in the beginning in Genesis 3:16, "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee", Genesis 3:16. A wife can only have one (1) husband at a time, and he is to rule over her for I see no pluralization at all here.

Again He tells us in Ezekiel 16:32, "But as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband!" I believe God wants us to understand marriage as He lays it out. Is Israel His Wife? Yes for she can have only one (1) husband. Israel is "betrothed" to God for He chose her. She is going to have a new home for God has promised "her" the New Jerusalem as we see in the book of Revelation. God's nation Israel played the whore, but she will accept her husband as we are told The Bridegroom cometh.

If His Word brings botheration to any Christian, I'll still continue to believe God and not tradition of man.

Will answer the "probably" happening in the garden separately. Bedtime now.

Should I not get back to you, Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family and all those that make BB work, which includes all the members.

 

You say you will not deny the Holy Scriptures, yet in adding to them, you deny them. The Scripture nowhere says that the sex act is what causes a man and woman to be married, yet you say it does. Your interpretation of the Holy Scripture is questioning God's Word.

Tell me, are you living in this sinful state and trying to justify it by falsely interpreting the Scripture?

 

And a thread jacking takes place...
SFIC: "get out of the thread and give me your keys!"

 

Please give us Sir, if you will, the scriptural definition of "marriage".

 

I am all for legal marriage. I have a valid MO marriage license.
I am against fornication, adultery, all the other sexual sins.
No, I do not believe that the sex act per se makes marriage.

However, it is truly a new thought to me that an elderly brother and sister living together in the same house are doing something wrong. I just do not see that. Historically, that was far more common than it is now. It was given up not because of perceived sin but because society is more economically prosperous.

If the reason is to not even have a "hint" of doing something wrong, I have read the comments of a number of posters on this thread for enough years to know that you are not that legalistic in other areas. So I'm not getting it.

 

Amen to that. As I said in a previous post, the thought of an elderly brother or sister living together never crossed my mind in over 50 years as being something wrong until I read it here. I asked most of the deacons and pastor in my church, quite conservative, and they were astounded that the thought even surfaced. I think some people leave common sense at the door, and look for new ways to invent to be a Pharisee. This kind of mindset is what the book of Hebrews is all about.

 

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question... If 2 men, or 2 women, share a home, or they dine together or bowl together, or go to a movie together, is this 'sinful' because someone may get a completely false queer idea and spread it about?

 

The only sin being commited would be of the person doing the judging and spreading gossip.

 

There was a mistake on my part here, in that Blackbird did make an answer to that when he said, "The context of the verse is to be obeyed --- yes --- if its a "hint" it makes it wrong!!!" So obviously he does think it has to be wrong for 2 men or 2 women to be seen together; the one(s) spreading gossip actually make 2 subjects wrong to enjoy anythng together.

But I agree with you, Amy. It's the gossipers who are in the wrong.

 

You can see the "probably" is illation as we all do in drawing to a logical judgment as direct observation cannot be found. I don't believe I have ever heard a preacher (can't say all teachers) that did not have an analogy that would fit into their understanding of the Word. The analogy should fit into scripture so as not to contradict.

Genesis 3:5-7, "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Could the marriage have taken place before Adam "wrongly lusted" or one being deceived?Adam is held accountable for loving a creation of God, more than His God. Adam placed the love he had for the "woman" above his love for God and ate what the woman offered him. I personally don't believe they married before the fall for Adam's helpmate was a "woman he loved in innocence, and really liked her". But he couldn't give her a name until he knew her full purpose relating to him. After they were married he could then name her "Eve", because she was the mother of all living. He didn't understand before so he could not give this woman a name.

Isn't this along the lines as when Jesus was on earth? Even His Apostle's could not understand. But things changed after Pentecost, and the OT understanding, and the "Kingdom is at Hand" gospel became known to them. And after Pentecost even more light was shone from heaven as it bore down undiluted on Damascus Road. Now full understanding has come for what God had hidden even from the beginning. He begins the process of presenting to us the "Body Church" by the grace of God through faith. Her name is "Christian" named after Paul was called to Antioch. Those that are today in the "Body of Christ", and this "Body Church" is different than the "Kingdom Church" that is Christian also. Two foundations on the foundation of Jesus Christ are found in scripture. I believe we have been "predestined", yet we have "free will" to chose which foundation we build on.

Back to the "Garden", we don't know if Satan approached Adam first. Some believe so, and some do not. What we do know Adam believed God and not Satan, for Adam was not deceived.

6. "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat." Here we see in innocence we can "desire or lust", and there is nothing wrong in "lusting of that which is not wrong to lust after". It is OK to "lust" after our husband or wife (or they to be so), but it's wrong when we go outside of our marriage of husband and wife, or do not believe God.

The "woman" a generic, being not yet named, "or branded to show who she belongs to", does not have a "man" to guide and protect her. She didn't go to the "man Adam". She not being the head is confused. She chose wrongly as a single woman. A Godly "single" woman looks to Her maker for guidance once she becomes of age, and may remain so all her life. Other "single" or even "married" women believe they are the head because the one they believe is not their "maker”, or of whom they now are. I believe His Word is plain enough on this subject.

This is what I see, and you may not, but this will not contradict scripture. Nowhere in the Bible does it ever say, or even "hint" that the woman should be the "head". So the woman without a man (I don't believe they were married at this time) does wrong by not believing God. The woman believed Satan.

7. " And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons." Do we really need an explanation here?

I think something along the lines of what I said is probably what happened. If scripture says otherwise, then my assumptions are in error. But thus far I have not found scripture negating, and no one has shown scripture to disprove the assumptions.