Living in Sin or just roommates who love each other?

[Grailhunter]

It's called 'marriage'.
We don't recognize it as such because we don't practice it that way.
And the law is certainly not commanding us to practice it that way.
It tells you various things to do if you do practice it that way, which they did back then.

No I am talking about concubinage.
Mosaic Laws regarding concubinage Exodus 21:7:11 Leviticus 19:20-22
Mosaic Laws regarding captured virgins Deuteronomy 21:10-14 --- No such thing as a captured non-virgin because they were killed.
Probably no reason for God to command someone to have multiple wives and concubines.
Then again God does define the Mosaic Laws as the 613 Laws that oblige the evils of man.
And also God took credit for King David's wives.

 

[Grailhunter]

That's what they did back then. And God did not stop it. But he did not enforce it either. It's a cultural thing, not a religious thing. Various rules governing how you do that, if you do that, is a religious matter, of course, but the practice itself, either way, is not.

The Mosaic Law gave the woman no choice.....even in marriage....the woman was bought or bargained for.
Women were required to marry within their own tribe.
A father was required to give a virgin daughter....if not her new husband could kill her....damaged goods...property.

 

[Grailhunter]

You must not be aware of ancient Jewish marriage ceremonies and traditions.
Traditions, coincidently, that help us understand the marriage of Christ to the church and the events associated with that.
It's quite interesting.

Very aware of this. Jewish Studies at American University and Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
For a funny! Look at the wedding processes that Christ talked about in his stories--parables and then find those processes in the Mosaic Law or Old Testament stories. Then I will tell you why you cannot find what Christ described in the Old Testament.

 

[Grailhunter]

We call it 'employment'. And it is good. And it should be fair.
Paul talks about it in one of his letters.

Slavery is not a job seeker's choice. Slaves were bought and are property. Just like they were in early America. There is no upside to slavery.

The Mosaic Law clearly institutes the death penalty for beating a free man to death; in contrast, beating a slave to death was to be avenged only if the slave did not survive for one or two days after the beating.

 

[Grailhunter]

And second rate status means man is head over woman.
It's the abuses of these two God ordained things that causes the confusion and problems.

Things we learnt that were not good. All this stuff in the Mosaic Law was God ordained. The Mosaic Law is not a list of unapproved behavior or practices. Old Testament marriage arrangements continued in Christianity for over a millennium. The whole explaination of a man is head over a woman is a kind way of explaining that they were still handled like property...with God's blessings.

Like I said, Christians are generally not historians...they think this stuff ended when Christ showed up....not true. You will find no Old or New Testament scripture that states a moratorium on polygamy or concubinage or a scripture that condemns either one. For the Apostles....the twelve and Paul....this was the norm in their minds. Any change from that would have been highly visible in the scriptures because there would have been objections. Just like the Apostle's reaction to Christ's ruling on divorce.

 

[Pearl]

Well I wouldn't advocate baring oneself and going ahead in bed, before it was made legal, anyway.

@farouk forget the bedroom goings on. I'm not talking marriage or the lack of it I'm talking about the fact that before we met with Jesus we were all sinners - therefore we were all living in sin and I don't mean in the sexual way but just separated from God - living in sin. But perhaps it's not an easy concept to understand.

 

[Grailhunter]

To the extent allowed, in accordance with the principle of headship God has ordained.

The point is that after the biblical era Christianity has been given beliefs that are of a higher morality. The NT speaks of women not talking in church....not asserting authority over men....that men are the head over women....washing the feet of people....the Apostles were still addressing women as property....second class in society and in Christianity. It is the norm behind the scriptures. Christ never ordained this because He knew it was wrong and what was coming....what He intended for the Holy Spirit to teach Christians.

 

[Grailhunter]

So long as they or one belives in the mumbo jumbo of pope francis and his all inclusive fraternity
so long as folks pray to saints to angels and to mary , THEY AINT aware at all .
Just cause folks can recognize past sins , dont make them saved .
And i aint here just to warn against the CC, but against most all the entire realm of protestantism .
I will soon become the enemy of all humanity , all religoions and most all christendom .
THEY will see me as enemy number one . just cause i dont hug and fake love folks to hell fire under this unity we are one stuff .
our entire christendom as well as any other false religion as well as non religious are all being led to this false god of false love .
One that accepts sins and calls anything that warns against evil as being wrong .
I honestly dont think folks realize how deep this false lovey lovey unity stuff has went . WELL its all over our churches now as it is all over the world and it grows faster now than ever .

Maybe the reason that the Protestant churches fractured into a thousand of pieces and could never figure out the Bible is because it was founded in hate. That is a maybe. But hatred is never a good spirit to formulate your beliefs.

 

[Grailhunter]

You have noticed that the practices of men during that time are useful to demonstrate how God works, right?

Well I am not going to say that the Mosaic Law was defined by men. Was it part of God's plan for the Israelites to increase in numbers and dominate the world? Was polygamy and concubinage part of that plan? Accelerated reproduction. One of Yahweh's reoccurring promises was that their descendants would be like the sands of the shores....the stars in the sky....the dust of the earth.

 

[Grailhunter]

I just don't see any law commanding us to adopt the practices governed in the law, just that God commanded ways for them to be governed. Ways that took the welfare of those concerned into account. You've really misunderstood the law.

No I have the Law dead on. It really does not matter if it was monogamous marriages or polygamy or concubinage, the Law regulated all of that. God did not say that the Mosaic Law was to regulate sinful practices. In the OT Yahweh was not shy about pointing out what was sinful. Sinful practices were punishable upon pain of death. Again, God took credit for King David's wives.

If a woman delivered a male child she was required to offer a burnt offering and or a sin offering....and if she had a female baby she was considered unclean for a longer period of time. No such sin offering for marriage....the first wife or the tenth.

 

[GodsGrace]

No I have the Law dead on. It really does not matter if it was monogamous marriages or polygamy or concubinage, the Law regulated all of that. God did not say that the Mosaic Law was to regulate sinful practices. In the OT Yahweh was not shy about pointing out what was sinful. Sinful practices were punishable upon pain of death. Again, God took credit for King David's wives.

If a woman delivered a male child she was required to offer a burnt offering and or a sin offering....and if she had a female baby she was considered unclean for a longer period of time. No such sin offering for marriage....the first wife or the tenth.

Hi Grailhunter...
Just one question...don't wish to derail.

The sin offering required after the birth of a baby boy...
Does this have anything to do with:

Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in guilt, And in sin my mother conceived me.

I don't think so. I believe, instead, that David's mother was sinning in some way when he was conceived...
maybe with David, maybe not. It could have been any kind of sin...

 

[amigo de christo]

Maybe the reason that the Protestant churches fractured into a thousand of pieces and could never figure out the Bible is because it was founded in hate. That is a maybe. But hatred is never a good spirit to formulate your beliefs.

There were many anabaptists that split from the dungeons of death as well , yet they lived right unto the glorious Lord .
While some leaders such as calvin and others i refuse to follow . That dont make the seperation wrong .
Let no man , woman or child follow Rome or most all of protestantism either. Its BIBLE TIME . That is my unity .
its with lambs that love that JESUS and not contradictory teachings of men gone wrong .
If ya want unity , THEN JOIN WITH THAT MY FRIEND . but as for me its JESUS LOVING CHRSITAINS i gather with
not the sold out who loveth a lie .

 

[amigo de christo]

To all the lambs who love JESUS in SPIRIT and in TRUTH and who desire to no longer be seated under leaders who teach lies
I say come ye all and let us have the true unity in JESUS . But as for sold out places , i say COME YE OUT FROM AMONGST
those leaders , they fleecing you all for a buck and do the work of the R double C for unity .

 

[Grailhunter]

Yes they were betrothed but not married until 'he took her home as his wife'.

Well you are right.
Matthew 1:24-25 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Luke 2:4-5 Now Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, in order to register along with Mary, who was betrothed to him, and was pregnant.

Betrothed was more or less a legal claim which carried nearly the weight of marriage, as seen with the violations of those betrothed.
As such it was proper to take her "home" or to travel with her. And it was up to her "fiancé's" discretion as to when he would "take her" as his wife. Once he laid with her the marriage was finalized...consummated. And as you pointed out no ceremony of any kind.

The terminology gets a little confused between Matthew and Luke, but they are implying the same thing. But because betrothalal was so final, it presented a problem for both Mary and Joseph with Mary having some else's baby. It pretty much took an act of God to smooth that over.

 

[Grailhunter]

Hi Grailhunter...
Just one question...don't wish to derail.

The sin offering required after the birth of a baby boy...
Does this have anything to do with:

Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in guilt, And in sin my mother conceived me.

I don't think so. I believe, instead, that David's mother was sinning in some way when he was conceived...
maybe with David, maybe not. It could have been any kind of sin...

Well you are right.
The Hebrews were concerned with "female blood" and of course there is blood during delivery. But the whole reasoning behind chapter 12 of Leviticus is not explained, it is one of the Mosaic Laws. But I do not believe this is what Psalm 51:5 is referencing, nor the doctrine of Original Sin.

And hello there GodsGrace....hope you and yours are doing well.

 

[Taken]

Where was there zero indication to consider?

Zero indication of homosexual activity to consider.

Facts revealed.
Man and Woman co-habitating under one roof.
Clearly Opposite Genders, homosexual not an option to consider.

 

[Taken]

Sin in this case is determined by if the couple living together causes someone who thinks that's not allowed to sin.

21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything to cause your brother to stumble.
15 If your brother is distressed by what you eat (or anything else), you are no longer acting in love (you're sinning). Do not by your eating destroy your brother, for whom Christ died.
18 For whoever serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.
Romans 14:15-21​

We are to serve Christ and do what's pleasing to God by not indulging freedoms that may cause another weaker person to stumble and sin against their convictions. That's how we're supposed to serve Christ and please God. This is serious business. We're sinning and not pleasing to God if we don't care how the exercise of our freedoms may affect other people.

Who is the presumptive one causing a “stumble” in the opening post # 1 scenario?

 

[TEXBOW]

It does mean anything...

"...or to do anything to cause your brother to stumble." Romans 14:21
​

That's why I talked about applying a little common sense.
For example, when I did go to church I did not hide the fact that I went on Sundays just because there are denominations that don't believe you should do that on Saturdays. But if Sunday worship was in the minority I would take some kind of steps to make sure my freedom to worship on any day of the week could not be become a stumbling block to a seventh day worshipper.

Who's common sense? The one stumbling? If you purchase a new car and a Church member tells you that spending your money frivolously is causing them to stumble are you going to return the car? How about the new shirt you wore to Church or bringing your attractive wife to Church, causing one to sin in lust? Foolishness.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Who is the presumptive one causing a “stumble” in the opening post # 1 scenario?

John Q. Christian sees Ted and Alice, the fictitious couple in the OP, living together like man and wife without actually getting married. John Q. Christian has the conviction that couples should get legally married if they are going to live together (he has no idea they aren't having sex, and, frankly, it's none of his business, but nonetheless, it appears they are).

Sometime later John meets Jane Christian and they fall in love. John and Jane, out of expedience, end up living together because that's what Ted and Alice are doing. Even though it's against John's conscience to do so. Ted and Alice have caused John to sin against his own conscience. To him it is a sin to live together like Ted and Alice are doing, so when he does the same thing they're doing he is sinning:

"...if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean." Romans 14:14​

Ted and Alice, through their freedom, and through their knowledge (they know it's okay because they aren't having sex) have caused John to sin. Paul says it's better to not exercise your freedom than to destroy the work of God. Ted and Alice aren't acting in love toward other Christians by doing what they're doing.

"15If your brother is distressed by what you eat, you are no longer acting in love." Romans 14:15
​

It's easy to be a Christian...until it's not easy to be a Christian. Sacrificial love is the distinguishing mark between the love the world and how the Christian loves. Ted and Alice need to make the sacrifice of their freedoms in the name of peace and unity and not causing a fellow believer to sin.

 

[Taken]

John Q. Christian sees Ted and Alice, the fictitious couple in the OP, living together like man and wife without actually getting married. John Q. Christian has the conviction that couples should get legally married if they are going to live together (he has no idea they aren't having sex, and, frankly, it's none of his business, but nonetheless, it appears they are).

Sometime later John meets Jane Christian and they fall in love. John and Jane, out of expedience, end up living together because that's what Ted and Alice are doing. Even though it's against John's conscience to do so. Ted and Alice have caused John to sin against his own conscience. To him it is a sin to live together like Ted and Alice are doing, so when he does the same thing they're doing he is sinning:

"...if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean." Romans 14:14​

Ted and Alice, through their freedom, and through their knowledge (they know it's okay because they aren't having sex) have caused John to sin. Paul says it's better to not exercise your freedom than to destroy the work of God. Ted and Alice aren't acting in love toward other Christians by doing what they're doing.

"15If your brother is distressed by what you eat, you are no longer acting in love." Romans 14:15
​

It's easy to be a Christian...until it's not easy to be a Christian. Sacrificial love is the distinguishing mark between the love the world and how the Christian loves. Ted and Alice need to make the sacrifice of their freedoms in the name of peace and unity and not causing a fellow believer to sin.

Will respond later.