| Author | Message | ||
| Debbie2 Registered user Username: Debbie2 Post Number: 15 Registered: 11-2005 |
Does this mean marriage? Everyone I've ever known says it does. But, I disagree. After looking carefully at the context, I believe Paul is referring to being yoked together in an organization of unbelievers. The sad part about believing that it is against God's will to be "yoked" with an unbeliever is that it causes marriages to fail. But, this is very much against what Paul advises couples. He advises them to remain together - even though they don't believe the same. Paul can't mean this as marriage for that reason as well as for the fact that those who are "yoked" are on the same level. Paul is very clear that the wife is under the husband's head or authority - not on the same level as him. She is not in a partnership with him - just as the church is not in a partnership (like with a yoke) with Christ. He is above the church as the leader. I feel passionate about this cause I just finished reading a sad post here that was written a couple of years ago about a couple splitting up cause the wife (SDA) thought the husband (leaving the SDA church) would be "unequally yoked" to her. And, therefore, (I assume) she thought she would be disobeying God by remaining married to him. So sad! And, so misinformed! Debbie | ||
| Dd Registered user Username: Dd Post Number: 590 Registered: 7-2004 |
Debbie, I agree that Paul is talking of being unequally yoked in many different areas. It is very wise counsel for Christians in all areas of their lives. I do not believe that it means we are to keep ourselves seperate from the world (unbelievers) but when it comes to business dealings and choices that impact our lives (especially spiritually), we must consider the driving force behind those we deal with. I do, though, believe that it is very sound advice for those who are looking for a lifetime partner. Even Abraham went with this same principle when he sent his most trusted servant to find a wife for Isaac (Gen. 24). God desires that man and wife be equally yoked or have the same desired relationship with Him - that is His ultimate desire for us in our relationships. As a young SDA college student, my primary goal was to find a SDA husband. I had known that the "unequally yoked" meant marrying a non-SDA man. There was no chance that I would have married anyone who was not SDA! I married a wonderful SDA man but I did not even begin to think about his spiritual life or consider if he had a personal relationship with God. I praise God that my husband was supportive in my spiritual journey that led me out of Adventism (and I praise Him even further that He also led my husband out almost a year later). There are many (like the post that you read) who are horrified that their spouse has left "the truth" and then feel they have Biblical reason to leave, and that is misinformed and unfortunate. I agree with you that Paul was NOT telling us to leave those who are "unequally yoked". In I Cor. 7, Paul tells us not to leave an unbelieving spouse because the unbelieving spouse is sanctified through the believing one. You have started a great thread, Debbie, and I am sure that you will find a varying degree of opinions on this subject. As always, Jesus is to be glorified in all the choices we make and the way we interact with those around us. Every situation has its own issues. There's my opinion...for what it's worth!  Denise | ||
| Debbie2 Registered user Username: Debbie2 Post Number: 16 Registered: 11-2005 |
Thank you Denise for your insight and comments on this. To clarify what I wrote, I'll say that I agree that it is definatly wise to marry a believer when given the choice. That's not my main contention. Mainly I'm arguing about the phrase "yoked" being related to marriage. To think of marriage as two oxen yoked together is to think of a partnership - which I think is very unBiblical and unnatural. I think here Paul is using "yoked" as in several slaves being yoked together rather than two oxen (which is how one would think of it when comparing it to modern marriage). And, that brings up another point. Oh! I might be getting in too deep too fast - but here goes: Marriage in the Bible is NOT excluded to one man and one woman. It's true that Adam and Eve were that way; but that doesn't mean that it's the only permissable way. A man is permitted to have more than one wife if he can take care of them (Ex. 21). And, just because Paul advices Elders to have only one wife doesn't mean it was wrong for others to have more. I think he said that for elders because they were needing to give more of their attention to church matters rather than their family (which more than one wife would entail). But, just because I think this doesn't mean I suggest polygamy being a good thing in this society. It's illegal and offensive in our society, and for those reasons would be wrong. Just like eating meat in front of a person who thinks it a sin makes it wrong to eat it. Oh, but now I'm rambling. Thank you Denise for discussing. It's fun. Debbie | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 356 Registered: 8-2004  |
Debbie wrote: "she thought she would be disobeying God by remaining married to him. So sad! And, so misinformed!" And, apparently, not nearly as uncommon as I wish! When I left the SDA church my husband told me that I had committed 'spiritual adultery' and was forcing him to live in sin since he was now 'unequally yoked with an unbeliever'. He was adamant that I am now his enemy, and deserve to be dead. We are no longer together. Marriage is a sacred thing, and as such should not be taken lightly. It is clear that it is better to remain together with unbelieving spouses unless the unbeliever choses to leave. The word 'depart', incidentally, which is used in the KJV rendition of that verse, means "to separate, divide, part, put asunder, to separate one's self from, to depart". Physical separation is included, but is not the only definition. On the other hand it is good to pay attention when choosing a marriage partner that we choose one with whom we can be 'together' in worshiping and serving God! Debbie wrote: "those who are "yoked" are on the same level" I respectfully differ a bit. Just because animals are yoked together does not mean they carry equal weight or are necessarily 'on the same level'. In teams where one is weaker there are adjustments that can be made in the harness that distributes the weight fairly - so the stronger pulls the larger load, or so the more experienced does more of the directing. In the same way, "yoked" in connection with humans does not seem to require being on the same level. It would seem to apply to equals of course, but also to apprentices and their teachers, employees and their employers, etc. etc. At the same time, I do believe that in Christ the divisions of 'Jew and Gentile', male and female, slave and free do not carry weight. We are equal in God's sight. The wife is to submit to the husband, and the husband to love sacrificially AS Christ loves the church, and we are all (including husbands and wives) to submit to each other. Paradoxical? Yes! Still true? Also yes! Just some thoughts! Blessings, Mary | ||
| Debbie2 Registered user Username: Debbie2 Post Number: 17 Registered: 11-2005 |
Ah Mary! What sadness you have been through! My heart aches that such situations exist! My heart is with you in sympathy. Thank you for bringing up what you did - even the point where we differ. Our spirits are the same though - full of love and respect for each other. To be equal "in Christ" is different (I think) than being equal in the flesh. We are both spirit and flesh. Two parts. The "hidden MAN of the heart" that Peter talks about, is that spirit part of us. It's where we all are equal in Christ. We all have the same spirit of love. The spirit that rules. But, as far as our flesh goes, we are not equal. And, that's why Paul tells wives to submit to their own husbands. In the flesh, they submit. If the wife does not accept her fleshly role of submission, then the husband is to submit to her SPIRITUALLY by accepting her resistance. This does not mean that he is giving up his own fleshly role of leadership. It just means that he isn't forcing her to accept hers. Rather, he is patient and waits till she is ready to follow him. I think this is what Paul means when he says to submit to each other. He isn't saying there are no roles. (we most likely are in agreement with this, yes?) In 1 Cor. 11, Paul is very clear about the man being the head of the woman. He states that it was that way from the very beginning (the roles are not a result of sin). That man was made in God's image - not woman. This was a real eye-opener to me. Paul calls it the mystery of God - and he also says that because of Jesus we can now understand this mystery. I believe that. I think marriage shows the opposite of God's character. It gives contrast to love. Love is not about belonging to another person. It's not about inequality. Love is not about one person being in authority over another. Marriage is all about this. Having children is all about this. One very strong argument in favor of this reasoning is the fact that after the resurrection there will be no marriage (Matt 22:30). And, in 1 Cor. 15:24-28, it talks about how all authority (including Christ's) will be done away with so that God will then be "all in all". God will rule in everyone equally. There will be no more external authority. I think he created marriage (and this earth) as a contrast so we can see Him and know Him. It's like stars are more clearly seen on the black backdrop of the night sky. | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 360 Registered: 8-2004 |
The opposite of God's Character? And it is used to show the relationship of Christ and the church? It seems to me that Love has much to do with belonging and with the kind of giving that marriage has. If marriage were the opposite of God's character, why was it given in Eden before the fall? I won't attempt to address other points in this post at this point. I do appreciate the respect with which you post. We see things very differently! Blessings, Mary | ||
| Debbie2 Registered user Username: Debbie2 Post Number: 18 Registered: 11-2005 |
Yes, I know these ideas are real different. I'm the only one I know who has them. There's passionate or possesive love that is lust. That isn't what I'm talking about when I say the love of God's character. I'm talking about the totally accepting, nonjudgemental love that is equal towards everyone. Christ and the church are an example of the husband and the wife because Christ is living in authority over us. I believe God's love is possible despite marriage. So, a person can love (accept completely) even when in a position of authority - where they are not always accepting (as in getting after a child for something). The love (acceptance) accepts their flesh (which is their role of authority). I think this is what Christ is doing right now. I did answer why marriage was given in Eden before the fall - it was to show God. One can't learn of something they don't know yet unless they have something to contrast it with. That's why I mentioned the black sky and the stars. Marriage is the black sky (this earth) and God is the stars (new earth). Why do you think there won't be marriage in the new earth? Why won't there by night or sea? Ownership is all this earth is about. Equality and freedom is what the new earth is about. The first earth is simply for the purpose of knowing God. Without the contrast we wouldn't know Him. Debbie | ||
| Lindylou Registered user Username: Lindylou Post Number: 105 Registered: 1-2005  |
Woman NOT created in the image of God??? My Bible says otherwise: " Then God said, Let us make people in our image, to be like ourselves. They will be masters over all life..... So God created people in his own image; God patterned them after himself; male and female He created them. Genesis 1:26-27 It is plainly stated in Genesis that BOTH male and female were created in God's image. And that the two make a whole. (That was the original intent anyway.)..... "The two are united into one." Gen. 2:24. Marriage IS a partnership! You can each have your own unique roles, gifts and talents - but still be equal partners. | ||
| Debbie2 Registered user Username: Debbie2 Post Number: 19 Registered: 11-2005 |
Hi Lindylou, thank you for your input. If you think of a marriage as the man being the "head" of the person; and the woman being the "body" - I can see how it can be possible to think of that relationship as a partnership. But, it's a different type of partnership than one where the person has two heads. As far as the man being the one made in God's image, in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul speaks of the man being the head of the woman - and this is in comparison to God being the head of Christ, and Christ being the head of the man. And, then he goes on to explain it's because man is the one made in God's image - not woman. The "God's image" is the headship (or authority). He says that woman was created for man. That is very significant. That one little word - "for". I imagine the translation of the Bible can make a difference. If you look it up in the original Greek (which my husband always keeps handy) then it presents a clear understanding. The KJV is what I use. in His love, Debbie | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3049 Registered: 12-2003  |
Debbie, marriage in the new covenant is a different "thing" than in the old covenant. 1 Corinthians 6 discusses the implications of adultery when a person is born from aboveófilled with the Holy Spirit. When we have the Holy Spirit living in us, we are not alone in our physical unions. God Himself is in them, and if we commit adultery, we are uniting the "members of Christ" with the other person. The New Covenant does not allow for multiple marriages--just as it does not allow for divorce except in cases of trampling the marriage vows. The reason, I believe, is that now, as born-again people, we have new power and perspective that allow us to honor our spouses and protect them in ways people could not do before they had the Holy Spirit living in them. In the New Covenant God has redeemed marriage. When both husband and wife are alive in Christ, the curse of Genesis on men and women's relationships is broken and it becomes possible for husbands and wives to respect and love each other without the othewise innate, irreconcilable struggle between the sexes. I believe that God allowed divorce (actually, Jesus said that Moses allowed it!) because in unregenerate, apostatizing humanity, women were powerless against the violence of abusive men to whom they "belonged". Because the reality of being new people in Christ was not a reality yet, multiple marriages did not have the spiritual symoblism that they would have in the new covenant. The picture of the church being the bride of Christ did not appear in the OT. God called Israel His people--never His bride. The bride is only those who are born from above. I don't believe we can mix the OT examples of marriages with the NT instructions and metaphors of the subject. Reality is different when we are born from above and have been adopted into the family of God. Our relationships with each other are different because we now have the unity of the Spirit. When we sin against our spouses, we sin against the Holy Spirit who lives in both of us. Biblically we have no basis for saying that marriage is a contrast against which we see God. Rather, marriage is a reality that God established in humanity because it is derived from the eternal reality of Christ and His bride. Rather than the metaphor of Christ and His bride being derived from human marriage, I believe the opposite is true: God gave us marriage as the echo of His marriage to the church. Marriage teaches us about belonging to Christ: it represents surrendering ourselves to belong to another who is unlikeóyet likeóus. And when we are in Christ, marriage is completely new because the marriage itself is the home of the Holy Spirit. In marriage God changes us and teaches us to live as the people He created us to be. Colleen | ||
| Debbie2 Registered user Username: Debbie2 Post Number: 20 Registered: 11-2005 |
Colleen, you brought up some really good points! Thank you. I appreciate the focus on the new covenant and the fact that the church is the bride of Christ. Do you think it's adultery for a man to have more than one wife? In Romans 7:3 Paul says it's adultery for a woman to have more than one husband. But, I haven't found anything that says the other is adultery. It's true that the Bible does not come right out and say that marriage is for the purpose of being a contrast to God. But, my own questionings and study led me to that conclusion. I admit that I may be wrong. That's the beauty of having discussions with other people. What do you think Jesus meant in Matthew 22:29,30? "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." There are several points of interest in this text. - why did He mention that they erred in knowing the scriptures? What part was He talking about? - why did He mention they erred in knowing the power of God? What does He mean by the power of God? - He gives both the male role and the female role in this. The male does the "marrying" and the female is "given in marriage". Why? - notice that He doesn't say this type of marriage is changed or done away with before the resurrection. The man still is the one doing the marrying - and the female is still the one being given in marriage by another male (father if he's alive - or uncle or brother if he isn't). Many today would consider this arrangement very sexist and wrong. But, Jesus upheld it. Why? These are some of the many questions I asked myself - and I have come up with some answers that make sense to me. But, I am very willing to know what others think about it as well. Debbie | ||
| Taybie Registered user Username: Taybie Post Number: 103 Registered: 4-2005 |
Mary, Colleen, Lindylou...AMEN! As I was formulating my responses, I began reading each of yours, and I will not add one iota. The Lord has used each of you beautifully! Amen!!! | ||
| Debbie2 Registered user Username: Debbie2 Post Number: 21 Registered: 11-2005 |
Colleen, you said that marriage was established in humanity because it is derived from the eternal reality of Christ and His bride, the Church. Part of the reason why I cannot agree with this reasoning is because I don't believe that there is an eternal aspect to Christ being in authority over the saints. Here's the text that supports this. 1 Cor. 15:24,25 "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delievered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, TILL he hath put all enemies under his feet." Jesus will not always reign. He will not always be in authority. I believe He was placed in authority as a help to lead us to even a clearer understanding of God. To know God is the whole purpose of this life. To me, God is NO RESISTANCE. Or total acceptance. That is His character or very essense - although he has done many acts of resistance - these acts are not reflective of who He is. For instance: Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." And, yet we know from John 1:5 "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all". So, he created something (darkness, for one) that is not reflective of him. In fact, it's the very opposite. God created the core of this earth as being very, very hard and resisting. It pulls tremendously. The further out one goes from the core of the earth, the less pull there is. There is less resistance. Then you get into outer space, and there is no resistance at all. A person floating around in outer space needs some force outside of them to be able to move or change direction. Imagine a person who could move all on their own with no power from outside of them propelling them forward. This is an analogy of what the Holy Spirit inside of us is like. We don't need anything from outside of us. Jesus supplies the external or outside need that our flesh has. We need food and drink. He tells us to eat and drink him. After this earth is over, this physical need will no longer exist. Jesus will be as everyone else then - with God ruling from the inside. All authority will be done away with. Authority has to do with resistance or needs. But, with God (no resistance) there's no need. Does this make any sense to anyone but me? I started with one topic and it led to others. But, it can be hard "talking" over the net because I can't see anyone's faces or know if I'm being understood or not. But, the advantage is that we can read each others posts over again if need be. Debbie | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1214 Registered: 7-2003  |
I for one, think it makes no sense. If we view the trinity in tiers where Jesus is "lesser" God and will some day be equal with us, it is completely contrary to anything the bible teaches. God will always be God in three persons, not some day 2. And we will worship Christ as God eternally as we worship the Father and Spirit. There is nothing I see in scripture that changes the nature of the Godhead in the future. But I really wanted to comment on being equally yoked and why I think it is not only Christians to unChristians. If you use the analogy given of ox, the ox have to be headed in the same direction. If God is directing me to be a missionary in Africa, and is directing someone else to serve the inner city in America, we cannot possibly be equally yoked unless God changes one of our callings. Similarly, an SDA Christian and a non-SDA Christian will find extreme heartache when trying to live their beliefs and function as the unit described in scripture. I live this now in some small way, and I'm not married to an SDA, just have a kid with him. He wants the child vegetarian, I don't. He wants the kid going to an SDA church, I don't. And the list goes on.... Because of my beliefs (which are quite strong) that the SDA church teaches great error, I could not be silent and let his dad have "authority" in this area. If we were married, we'd be in constant battle. You ought to see it now and he only visits the kid a few times a week. My older son and I both tell my younger son he has to wait until his dad leaves to do certain things. And while I struggle with that message, I struggle more with accepting his dad's values as authoritative in my home. I can't imagine if I were married to him, and we're both professing Christians. I use it to teach my older son the importance of understanding the values of the person before you end up marrying as well as their religious label. I used to see being "equally yoked" very broadly to anything defined as "unbelievers", but now I am far more narrow in my focus of that illustration picture. I can't go north and south at the same time. If you're not heading the same direction, you cannot possibly be equally yoked.... | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3053 Registered: 12-2003 |
Debbie, the problem I'm having with your reasoning is that it is not rooted in Scripture; rather, it seems you are interpreting Scripture with a type of philosophizing instead of grounding yourself in reading whole books of the Bible and working outward from the texts inductively. First, the Bible give us only large, unspecific details about the eternal kingdom. We cannot conclude "what it means", for example, that we will not marry or give in marriage in heaven. We can accept that statement by faith, knowing that God provides infinitely more for us than we can ask or think. Beyond such trust, we can draw no conclusions. Second, we will have bodies in heaven. The resurrection is for the purpose of giving us eternal, glorified bodies. Jesus' resurrection was the promise that we, too, would have such a resurrection. Of course we will be physical. We will be physical but not limited to functioning in three dimensions. What do we know of Jesus' physical, resurrected body? Not a lot, but we know His scars were still visible in it, and we know he ate (even fish!) in His glorified body. We also know he appeared among people without using the ordinary means, such as opening doors. And we know His physical body ascended to heaven. Jesus is now what He will always beóit is only we who are not. As for Jesus handing the kingdom over to the Father so God may be all in all--that does not suggest that Jesus will be "demoted". It suggests, rather, that the Trinity will be all-in-all, fully united in purpose at the completion of the work of resolving sin in the entire universe. We don't know what that will mean in practical terms, but we do know that Jesus will not be less--Revelation 22:3 says, "The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him." And in verse 5: "They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the suns, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever." Clearly the Lamb's throne and the Father's throne are together in eternity, and His servants (the bride of Christ) will reign with themówith the Lord Godófor ever and ever. As for adultery, there are never different standards for men than for women. Morality is the same for both. Faithfulness is expected of both. Adultery is adultery, whether the man has multiple partners or whether the woman has. The Bible NEVER establishes different standards for the sexes in terms of morality. There is a principle which applies when we analyze literature that must apply when we read the Bible: we cannot conclude any more than the actual words of the text will support. We cannot allow the words to create possibilities or "what ifs" in our minds that we develop philosophically and then try to say the text suggests these ideas. We cannot go beyond what the words of the Bible say. Any more is speculation and philosophizing, and those things have no place in Biblical interpretation. The only way to understand the Bible is to surrender ourselves to the Holy Spirit's teaching and to the words of Scripture, praying for God to teach us with His own Spirit. The only way to begin to understand the Bible's true teachings is by first of all being willing to surrender our own biases and ideas and beliefs and by being willing to be taught by the God of the universe Himself. Otherwise, we have no ground of truth. If our own interpretation and ideas are the ground of Biblical interpretation, we have no solid foundation. Every single person's understanding, then, is as valid as the next one's. Just as the authors of literature actually meant certain things when they wrote (unlike the proponents of deconstrctionism will teach you), so the Holy Spirit had a specific message in mind when He inspired the Bible authors. Our job is not to try to figure out what we think the Bible means; it is to submit ourselves to God and allow Him to teach us what it means. Praise God He is faithful to Himself. Praise Jesus that He is the Lord God and rules as King of kings and Lord of lords for eternity. Praise the Holy Spirit for being God in us when we surrender to Jesus and for teaching us truth and reality! Praise Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! Colleen | ||
| Debbie2 Registered user Username: Debbie2 Post Number: 22 Registered: 11-2005 |
Melissa, thank you for responding. I wondered if someone would mention the trinity. It's true that there would be no "trinity" according to what I have written. And, I don't think there is. The Bible says we are all children of God. Jesus wasn't the only son of God. But, he was the only BEGOTTEN son. I understand that to mean that he was born of the spirit - not the flesh. He was born of a virgin. Mary's hymen was not broken when Jesus was conceived. There was no force or resisitance used to lay claim to Jesus by a human father. Although, I do believe that Joseph's sperm was used to unite with Mary's egg since Jesus has two distinct and different geneologies mentioned (in Matthew and in Luke). So, this therefore means that there is no trinity. Jesus existed in "word" (John 1) because he was prophecied of from the very foundations of the world - by the sabbath day. From the creation, he was spoken of - but I don't believe he existed then anymore than any other human existed before they are born. Colleen, I could be simply philosophizing and if you have the texts to show how I might be wrong, I'm very eager to hear them. If you want to get back to me later by e-mail - that's fine, too. You mentioned that adultery is the same for both male and female. But, there is a distinct difference in the set up of marriage, don't you agree? How do you explain God's instructions in Exodus 21 where he talks about the father selling his daughter into marriage. And, about the man taking more than one wife. It makes it clear that it's perfectly fine as long as the man doesn't diminish her food, clothing, or duty of marriage (sex). When Jesus was talking about the scriptures and marriage, he never said that this would change. Polygamy was outlawed by the Roman government before the Catholic church ever came about and made it into moral thing. It has nothing to do with God's will as many people would like to think. It has everything to do with feminism though. Yes, in the resurrection we have "celestial" bodies. The angels and God himself is referred to always as men. But, I think this is simply symbolic for authority. I don't think God and the angels have penises or xy chromosones. But, they do have complete authority - meaning they have no needs. Debbie | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 2087 Registered: 11-2002 |
Dear Debbie2, I read your post from early today. i need your prayers and any constructive advice you can give me as I am going through the very situtation you mentioned in your post. Several years ago I "married" a man that seemed to be the apple of everyones eye. After he took me for anything and everything of value I had he left me. I went to use the insurance he had me on and I was informed that he has numerous wives on his account. FrAnkly, I don't even know where to start with sorting this out so I have done nothing. Advice and prayers on this matter are greatly appriciated. | ||
| Debbie2 Registered user Username: Debbie2 Post Number: 23 Registered: 11-2005 |
Dear Susan, what he did is illegal in the United States. I suggest you go to a close blood related male relative (father; brother; uncle, etc.) for help and advice. may God's peace be with you, Debbie | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1081 Registered: 3-2005 |
Debbie, John 1:1-3 is crystal clear that Jesus has always existed. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS GOD. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." You indicated in your post above that you don't believe Jesus existed before he was born. Then, how do you explain the clear reference above that Jesus himself was actually the creator of all things? The Trinity is the very basis of the Christian faith, since all three persons, as one God all work together for our salvation. Stan | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 362 Registered: 8-2004 |
Debbie wrote: "[Monogamy] has everything to do with feminism though." Huh? so the elders who were advised to have only one wife were playing into the hands of feminism? Was feminism even an issue when Rome outlawed polygamy? From what I understood feminism (or at least radical feminists) wasn't very interested in marriage, period. Perhaps I misunderstand you. Denise wrote: "The angels and God himself is referred to always as men. . . . But, they do have complete authority - meaning they have no needs." No needs? and men have no needs either? how does authority have anything to do with having or not having needs? The definition of Authority, according to "Dictionary Definition" is: "au…thor…i…ty "NOUN: "pl. au…thor…i…ties "1. " a. The power to enforce laws, exact "obedience, command, determine, or judge. " b. One that is invested with this power, especially a government or body of government officials: land titles issued by the civil authority. "2. Power assigned to another; authorization: Deputies were given authority to make arrests. "3. A public agency or corporation with administrative powers in a specified field: a city transit authority. "4. " a. An accepted source of expert information or advice: a noted authority on birds; a reference book often cited as an authority. " b. A quotation or citation from such a source: biblical authorities for a moral argument. "5. Justification; grounds: On what authority do you make such a claim? "6. A conclusive statement or decision that may be taken as a guide or precedent. "7. Power to influence or persuade resulting from knowledge or experience: political observers who acquire authority with age. "8. Confidence derived from experience or practice; firm self-assurance: played the sonata with authority. ETYMOLOGY: Middle English auctorite, from Old French autorite, from Latin auctrits , auctritt-, from auctor, creator: see author " Nowhere in this do I see how having authority equals having no needs. (neither do I see that being in a state of perfection nessessarily requires that the being have no needs) Debbie wrote: "I suggest you go to a close blood related male relative (father; brother; uncle, etc.) for help and advice." And when the blood relatives are non-existant or unqualifiedly abusive? Is this a Biblical principle? Could you point me to some texts? Yes, by all means go to your relatives (male and female) for advice, and to your church famiily if that's an option, but more importantly go to our Great High Priest, Jesus, and ask Him for wisdom to know which advice to take and which to reject. Jesus Himself made clear that he existed before his birth "Before Abraham was, I am". He accepted the worship of the people (was even worshiped in his infancy). To quote a favorite author of mine "[Jesus] either was (and is) what he said he is, or he is a lunatic, or something worse." And as to virgin birth, which apparently you deny, or qualify some way (quote "Joseph's sperm was used to unite with Mary's egg"? If Joseph's sperm 'was used' why did he consider divorcing her? How could Jesus be 'God with us' if he isn't even God at all? Blessings, Mary |
