How many wives does Jesus allow?

akushla99

Chamberf=6
reply to post by akushla99

 

Claimants express in the past tense, while spouting a present tense 'relationship'...

Å99

edit on 24-10-2013 by akushla99 because: (no reason given)

I do think I very much gave it in present tense, as I said I live now.

Do you think understanding by the spirit means you can just take anything that comes along? No, there has to be something to measure it by whether it is true or not.

What do you think, does Jesus allow more than one wife? Tell me how god laughed at you for that question, and how you arrived to the conclusion that it was god? Did it say it was god? Did it present itself to you as god? What was the substance of said laughing god?

Just because you believe it must be god, doesn't mean it is, right? So tell me, this laughing god, what did you measure it by to determine its honesty? How do you know that it wasn't laughing at you instead of the question?

Where is your god? In you? Are you your own god? What does your god do? How does your god look? Did your god exist before you told us about it? Hmm, so you can say "I know a god" but nothing in what you present even tells us about this god. I know a god, great. But if your god existed because you exist, and if this god is you, then perhaps you can tell us how we can judge your honesty by. Because you say so? Sorry, going to need a little more than just you telling us you are honest, and since you are trying to trap some unfortunate person, then I question you. What's the purpose of you continually making comments against a God that you know nothing about?

Who are you? Do your words have merit? Do your thoughts have meaning? No, they are just random text bytes written in html code that will soon go into an archive, that some day, if someone is lucky, to look back on and say, "oh my, here's some words that have no meaning because they were written a long time ago".

Until you can prove to me that your question even has merit in the first place, then where's my obligation to give credence to your thoughts? Pardon me, but who are you again? A text warrior on ATS? Is there anything you write that even has any meaning?

I'm sorry, but I am not even registering the validity of your words and thoughts. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you had meant something meaningful, never mind.

WarminIndy

akushla99

Chamberf=6
reply to post by akushla99

 

Claimants express in the past tense, while spouting a present tense 'relationship'...

Å99

edit on 24-10-2013 by akushla99 because: (no reason given)

I do think I very much gave it in present tense, as I said I live now.

Do you think understanding by the spirit means you can just take anything that comes along? No, there has to be something to measure it by whether it is true or not.

What do you think, does Jesus allow more than one wife? Tell me how god laughed at you for that question, and how you arrived to the conclusion that it was god? Did it say it was god? Did it present itself to you as god? What was the substance of said laughing god?

Just because you believe it must be god, doesn't mean it is, right? So tell me, this laughing god, what did you measure it by to determine its honesty? How do you know that it wasn't laughing at you instead of the question?

Where is your god? In you? Are you your own god? What does your god do? How does your god look? Did your god exist before you told us about it? Hmm, so you can say "I know a god" but nothing in what you present even tells us about this god. I know a god, great. But if your god existed because you exist, and if this god is you, then perhaps you can tell us how we can judge your honesty by. Because you say so? Sorry, going to need a little more than just you telling us you are honest, and since you are trying to trap some unfortunate person, then I question you. What's the purpose of you continually making comments against a God that you know nothing about?

Who are you? Do your words have merit? Do your thoughts have meaning? No, they are just random text bytes written in html code that will soon go into an archive, that some day, if someone is lucky, to look back on and say, "oh my, here's some words that have no meaning because they were written a long time ago".

Until you can prove to me that your question even has merit in the first place, then where's my obligation to give credence to your thoughts? Pardon me, but who are you again? A text warrior on ATS? Is there anything you write that even has any meaning?

I'm sorry, but I am not even registering the validity of your words and thoughts. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you had meant something meaningful, never mind.

...a n d...ditto...to everything you just said that you are unable to extend to phantom posters who YOU would like to tell what the TRUTH is...reality check girl...

...and I did ask the OP question directly
...laughter...

Å99

reply to post by WarminIndy


"Until you can prove to me that your question even has merit in the first place, then where's my obligation to give credence to your thoughts? Pardon me, but who are you again? A text warrior on ATS? Is there anything you write that even has any meaning?" Quote WarminIndy

It wasn't 'my' question...

I was having an issue with the so-called answers...

A text warrior on ATS...pffft...give me a break...we're here to discuss like the adults we are...(you are an adult, aren't you?) probably better to discuss like one, instead of resorting to name calling like a 6 YO...if you don't like it, you needn't reply to my posts...posts in which I am restating the question to reflect what is being said NOW...

I got my answer...your good self, and others can rely on whatever manipulated texts (or dysfunctional 'relationships) you like...

The question is a moot one...'said' personages are not here to answer them...if they were, they would, or perhaps they are but some just aren't listening...

Å99

Matthew 19:4-6

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

Matthew 19:7-12

They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,[a] and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.

One wife and anything else is lower mind and against God/Goodness/Love and your own conscious and so is dominating a woman, or forcing her to obey you, for that is a crime against all souls.

Unity_99
Matthew 19:4-6

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

Matthew 19:7-12

They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,[a] and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.

One wife and anything else is lower mind and against God/Goodness/Love and your own conscious and so is dominating a woman, or forcing her to obey you, for that is a crime against all souls.

I'm interested in the way you have come to a...made-up conclusion on the strength of the second passage you wrote...it makes no mention of the amount of wives...simply that if you DIVORCE a wife...there is no mention of taking another wife without divorcing the others...which, in the context of the passage is not EXPRESSLY forbidden...

Å99

reply to post by Unity_99


"One wife and anything else is lower mind and against God/Goodness/Love and your own conscious and so is dominating a woman, or forcing her to obey you, for that is a crime against all souls." Quote Unity_99

This is the juice of what, and how things get discussed when interpretations are put upon THE WORD OF GOD...

A man (or woman) gathers to them (through no coersion, no force, no domination of any kind) 3 or 4 wives (or husbands for that matter, although this is not mentioned)...they are happy to stay, or can go when they will...how does this impact the OP question vis-a-vis your quoted determination?

Å99

reply to post by akushla99


Its hard to understand? Two into one. The last is pretty simple, as well. There is no excuse to not see. The only reason that there was ever permitted to abuse women is due to the lower primtive behavior of men who probably couldn't be saved otherwise.

But Christ consciousness is inside us and with Love we see what is written even what is under the lines, the real meanings.

There is no excuse for ammorality and abuse of women, none. Because every single person is born with 2 Spirits the 2 witnesses, Love and Wisdom and they will have those recordings shown in their reviews.

Never ever harm antoher human being, don't abuse them sexually, don't demean them, don't commit the very huge crime of pologyamy. Do not dominate them or boss them, but if you have such tendencies, don a robe, and wait and them hand and foot to overcome them.

By the way, lets just first go with the one, two into one. not 3 into one, or 4, or 5 or 6. 2!

And understand, Jesus said it.

Now there is nothing further, no quotes on Moses, nothing else. Antoher passage doesnt negate this one. It has to bend into interpretations alligning fully with this one.

This one is very clear. Two into one. Man and wife (singular not plural).

Jesus said.

This is what Christian means. We are not Jews and not Muslim, and Jesus is the Son of God.

Unity_99
By the way, lets just first go with the one, two into one. not 3 into one, or 4, or 5 or 6. 2!

And understand, Jesus said it.

Now there is nothing further, no quotes on Moses, nothing else. Antoher passage doesnt negate this one. It has to bend into interpretations alligning fully with this one.

This one is very clear. Two into one. Man and wife (singular not plural).

Jesus said.

This is what Christian means. We are not Jews and not Muslim, and Jesus is the Son of God.

...actually, if we were to be specific...Matthew (motive unknown) says that Jesus said it...that's, at the extreme least...3rd hand...remember Chinese Whispers/telephone?

I'm not joking here...I just asked God...and he laughed again...i can only take it that, its an irrelevant question...

Å99

quote] Unity_99
reply to post by Greatest I am




Now, even if you ignore all of what I just said, Christians follow Christ's words and beleive he came to create a contract of love with the people. They are not Hebrew but Christian.




Just another theory or interpretation. A dime a dozen.

Regards
DL

WarminIndy

Greatest I am

Unity_99
One.

and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one flesh.

Yet God favored Kings David and Solomon.

Thanks for the poorly thought out reply.

Regards
DL

And yet we see the crap lives their families had because of it.

Now do you think it was OK in God's eyes?

Let's see, David could not build the temple, Solomon was carried away into idolatry. Three of David's sons died, a daughter raped by a brother, Solomon held a lot of wisdom but carried away into idolatry, his grandsons lost the kingdom, so yeah, I can see how that worked out really well for them.

God was not pleased and said so. But since David and Solomon were both products of a Semitic culture and since the Egyptian pharaohs married their siblings, we can see how it just didn't work out so well.

You know, the Bible doesn't also just tell what they did, it also tells the outcomes, good and bad, of what they did.

Abraham didn't marry Hagar, but in those days in that Semitic culture, as it was dishonorable for a wife not to have children, Sarah chose to have Abraham have a child with Hagar, because in those days, they had this concept of children born belonged to the wife. So they actually did this thing where the woman giving birth would sit on the lap of the wife, because it was like a surrogacy. That's where the concept originated, and it wasn't just in the Hebraic custom. We see how well that worked out also.

Judah was supposed to give Thamar to his youngest son in what is called Levirate marriage. But since Judah was too stubborn to follow it, and losing sons, didn't follow the already established Levirate marriage custom in the Semitic culture. But we see how that worked out.

The only one of the patriarchs with one wife was Isaac. Moses came later and even though he was married to Zipporah, she left him over circumcision. After she left him, years later he got a new wife.

So you seem to not be able to reconcile the difference in a custom and what was acceptable. Jacob went to Aram and there met his wives and was bound to the custom of Aram, that's why Leah had to be married first. It was the custom. And we see how well that worked out.

So you see, just because man thinks it is a good idea, doesn't mean God does. And since God ordained the first marriage between one man and one woman and was the very first covenant relationship for humans, remember that covenants are made by the shedding of blood, the breaking of the hymen indicated a covenant was made.

That's why in those ancient days, when a man and woman were married, they had sexual relations on a white sheet, that was presented the next day to the public for the purpose of showing that she had been a virgin and that the covenant was established between them.

Marriage is a covenant, the first one ordained for humans. And God honors the undefiled marriage bed. So that means one man and one woman, because that's how God designed it. And since God designed it and honors marriage between a man and a woman, that means He is pleased with marriage between one man and one woman. Therefore, no matter how many times people try to find other ways around it, it simply isn't honored by God in those other ways.

Jesus taught that if a man can't keep his eyes to himself, then that man is breaking the covenant with his wife. And because the man thought he could beat his wife, he broke the covenant with her. That's why God said "enjoy the WIFE of thy youth". God doesn't limit or say sex is bad between a husband and wife, it's outside of that God does not honor.

And the Jews have a marriage contract called the Kettubah, and it was the responsibility, now get this, of the man to please his wife in all things sexual, or she could divorce him. So it's not buying or selling of women, because she gets to dictate the contract.

I just don't think people know cultural histories, they just assume a lot because of what someone else told them.

edit on 10/24/2013 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)

Women of that day could not divorce. Only the men could do so.

I agree that David and Solomon did not fare well but nowhere does scriptures show God peeved at their marital status and you have not provided anything but speculation. You are adding much to a book that says not to do so. I recognize that you have invested much time in it and will not change your ideas.

Regards
DL

Chamberf=6
I thought that the very EARLIEST of the gospels was written 70 years after the fact. Many books were written 100-200 years after.

So who's to say with any certainty what Jesus said or he didn't?

Think of the kids game "telephone".

edit on 10/24/2013 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)

Curses on you for putting facts to the discussion.

Just kidding. We should also remember that it was a Roman emperor who decided what would be in the LOL the Word of Constan, oops, God.

Regards
DL

akushla99

WarminIndy
reply to post by akushla99

 

Tying the Constitution to the little golden book is stretching the analogy...but, tell me, has the constitution, in some (what?) 200 years been amended, in any way?

Å99

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL

Unity_99
Matthew 19:4-6

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

Matthew 19:7-12

They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,[a] and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.

One wife and anything else is lower mind and against God/Goodness/Love and your own conscious and so is dominating a woman, or forcing her to obey you, for that is a crime against all souls.

I agree yet ----- he shall rule over you.

Also. Esau had two wives.

Regards
DL

reply to post by akushla99


Oh you don't like the same standard applied back onto you. Is that how it is? You can dismiss the Bible as though your words have more meaning. So I am simply doing the same thing you are, to you. Oh but you don't like it.

Next time, before you spout of against the Bible, remember that if you say they were only human and their words have no merit, just remember you also are human and would your words have merit?

Don't play the game if you don't like the game being played back against you. So tell me then, if your words and thoughts have merit, why should I trust you more? Give me a good reason to trust you more.

Oh, and if it comes from you, I don't know you, I don't anything about you, so how can I place a judgment of good or bad onto what you say, if it comes solely from within your own thought process?

Are you writing a new Bible? One that comes from you with your own theological ideas? Well, if you are, then tell me who you are before I can even think about it in the first place.

akushla99
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

I'm interested in hearing a 'current' explanation of the OP questions (mentioned faiths - relevant).

The natural mouthpieces would be those that have the amorphous 'personal relationship' status (self-conferred)...

Å99

Strange that no one has stepped forward. Seems I am the only one who claims apotheosis, --- but the God I found was not the genocidal son murderer --- who loves us --- that the churches try to make people swallow.

www.youtube.com...

So much for Christians believing the good news that Jesus taught but that the churches never teach.

Regards
DL

WarminIndy
reply to post by akushla99

 

Oh you don't like the same standard applied back onto you. Is that how it is? You can dismiss the Bible as though your words have more meaning. So I am simply doing the same thing you are, to you. Oh but you don't like it.

Next time, before you spout of against the Bible, remember that if you say they were only human and their words have no merit, just remember you also are human and would your words have merit?

Don't play the game if you don't like the game being played back against you. So tell me then, if your words and thoughts have merit, why should I trust you more? Give me a good reason to trust you more.

Oh, and if it comes from you, I don't know you, I don't anything about you, so how can I place a judgment of good or bad onto what you say, if it comes solely from within your own thought process?

Are you writing a new Bible? One that comes from you with your own theological ideas? Well, if you are, then tell me who you are before I can even think about it in the first place.

Not to get involved in your discussion here but as an aside, can I ask you if you think the bible represents a moral theology?

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL

Greatest I am

Chamberf=6
I thought that the very EARLIEST of the gospels was written 70 years after the fact. Many books were written 100-200 years after.

So who's to say with any certainty what Jesus said or he didn't?

Think of the kids game "telephone".

edit on 10/24/2013 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)

Curses on you for putting facts to the discussion.

Just kidding. We should also remember that it was a Roman emperor who decided what would be in the LOL the Word of Constan, oops, God.

Regards
DL

Again, why don't you really read about the Nicean Council, or is it too difficult? Oh my goodness, the reading about the Nicean Council must be at a higher level of reading than anything else out there on the internet.

Show us the evidence from the Nicean Council. You accuse Constantine of a lot of things. Did you know he was Byzantine, of the Eastern Roman Empire? He moved the capitol of the empire to Constantinople. Now we call that Istanbul, because Suleiman the Magnificent decided he liked the Turkic name better.

But as the Nicean Council of Constantine was the second one, already there had been rules set down at the previous one. And it wasn't Constantine who determined what books, it was the council. Since you don't seem to have read anything about it from the people that were there, let's examine who was there.

Eusebius was there. The council also addressed Arias' doctrine and quickly dismissed it. Constantine didn't do this. Oh, but who was the first to address it? Alexander, who was at the council.

And it is so funny that even though Eusebius was condemned himself at the council, doesn't even mention Constantine as throwing him out, no, Eusebius says it was the Nicean Council, the second one. But neither Eusebius or Arias even mentions Constantine as throwing their books out. In fact, it was Constantine who encouraged Arias into going back to Alexandria for reconciliation. Oh the horrible Constantine asking Arias to go make nice with the church there.

It was because of Arias and Eusebius that the council met in the first place. It wasn't because Constantine now found a way to rule over people through the meeting of Nicea. And there were over 250 bishops there from all over the known world at the time.

And as far as the sabbath goes, it wasn't Constantine who thought of this, it was Ignatius in his Letter To the Magnesians. This was 300 years before Constantine. And this is another funny thing, as people call Paul in the Bible as founder of the Pauline religion, it was actually Paul of Samasota, who had a sect called Paulianists.

The only actual canon that Constatine had an issue with was number 12, allowing Christians to be in the military. Here is canon 12 of the Second Nicea Council...

As many as were called by grace, and displayed the first zeal, having cast aside their military belts, but afterwards returned, like dogs, to their own vomit, (so that some spent money and by means of gifts regained their military stations); let these, after they have passed the space of three years as hearers, be for ten years prostrators. But in all these cases it is necessary to examine well into their purpose and what their repentance appears to be like. For as many as give evidence of their conversions by deeds, and not pretence, with fear, and tears, and perseverance, and good works, when they have fulfilled their appointed time as hearers, may properly communicate in prayers; and after that the bishop may determine yet more favourably concerning them. But those who take [the matter] with indifference, and who think the form of [not] entering the Church is sufficient for their conversion, must fulfil the whole time.

There were 20 canons issued at the Nicea Council. They addressed issues about who Jesus was, and they determined this from the Hebrew Scriptures as well as the letters written. They addressed issues about deacons caught in sex crimes, he was to be excommunicated. Oh wow, it even mentions women and the eucharist, about who could touch the eucharist.

And what is more funny, Roman emperors could not be Christian, as it was against Roman law. And since in Christianity meant that one was Christian after baptism, Constantine was baptized just before he died. So while you are throwing Constantine under the bus to choose conspiracy theories before the actual history, remember this, don't be historically dishonest.

reply to post by Greatest I am


The Bible tells us primarily of man, his actions and his responsibility toward other men. As you seem to want to think God is genocidal as Dawkins would have you believe, if you elevate men as gods, then that makes men genocidal and without excuse, wouldn't it?

So if men are gods, then where's the condemnation against men in their godlikeness? If the truly evil men in history were mere gods, then why not say "those gods were genocidal".

You can't elevate men to gods and then not condemn them with the same condemnation you give God. Why do you excuse men for their actions by saying they all have a part to play in the connectedness, and then the very one you claim they are connected to, you condemn Him?

Do you condemn the universe for universal law of "kill or be killed", which is survival of the fittest? No you don't. But you condemn God. You charge God with crimes, but yet what you call crimes are somehow justified under universal law. So if we are ruled by the universal law that no longer has a crime, then by what law can you charge God with in saying He is guilty? He can't be guilty under a universal law of survival of the fittest.

Either God is above universal law, or God is universal law. And if God is universal law, then God cannot be guilty of anything. And if God is above universal law, then you can't apply universal law to Him. And if you are applying universal law to Him to charge Him with, then what's the crime?

As there is no universal crime in universal law, then you are fabricating something against God that doesn't even exist in universal law. If we are all connected to the universe, then we would have to be connected also to the genocidal nature of God, if God is the universe. That means you and I are genocidal by nature, if we are connected to the universe. That means you and I are guilty of the same charges of which God is charged by.

Greatest I am
quote] Unity_99
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

Now, even if you ignore all of what I just said, Christians follow Christ's words and beleive he came to create a contract of love with the people. They are not Hebrew but Christian.

edit on 24-10-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

Just another theory or interpretation. A dime a dozen.

Regards
DL


There is a very important form of speech here that I will NOT assail...

'I Believe'...and in response to an OP question, based on belief, we hear this far less often than we should...

The statement of absolute veracity that would put words and ideas into the mouth of someone in the present-tense, as if it were thier words or thoughts, is an audacity of gigantic proportions, practiced far too casually, and making assumptions of character far too flippantly to ever be taken seriously..let alone (if we credit his existence) an individual that existed some 2000 years ago...and far too flippantly to be taken as humility of any sort...but, people are free to practice whatever psychological games they want with themselves.

How many wives does Jesus allow?

I believe that (for instance) Matthew said that Jesus said...extreme third hand in the least...and wholly debatable (not determined by any stretch of any imagination)...that is what ATS is for...not the amateur preaching that someone tries to pass off as debate...

Å99