Mike wrote: One thing is sure- it doesn't take Hollywood to bend the Scripture. Christendom does it even better. Biggest difference, Hollywood doesn't pretend to be Christian. Why then do we get more upset when unbelievers do the things unbelievers do?
Reading the thread, I am left with the impression that it is not so much about what unbelievers do, BUT what believers do. We expect unbelievers to berate spiritual things, to twist the word of God etc. BUT the question is why would BELIEVERS waste their time or their $s to go and view this 'creative output' labelled as entertainment? Is this good stewardship of time and money? Is this acceptable 'entertainment' for Christians? What does it do to the Christians' testimony? etc.
On one hand the LBCF states that the Pope is the antichrist, but on the other his bishops and archbishops are protecting Christian marriage against the evils of Sodomy.
Surely these Reformers were using a bit of hyperbole to describe the Bishop of Rome. I wonder where else they used hyperbole. Perhaps with the word "alone," "the doctrine upon which the Church stands or falls" or "murder 1,000 times in a day" and you're still good with God. In other words, where can we take the Reformers seriously?
I have undertaken Brother Emmanuel Oseghale Aighalua's challenge and truly nothing in Scripture forbids polygamy. I can easily see how GKS has made their decision. I am confident God will have mercy on them if they are wrong to the extent that they have mercy on others. May GOD'S Kingdom Society be blessed in their indeavors to teach men humility to God and others. If a man is married, may that man's wife or wives be taught to be a Psalm 31 woman and a helper for the husband. May their children if any be gathered within their household along with their moms to be immersed in Savior's humility from family Scripture readings led by the husband. May each husband administer the conjugal rights mentioned in Exodus 21:10 to each wife. May may married people stay out of the marriage bed in other households. May any women who are denied conjugal rights by missionaries remain humble to God and others. May any husband with more than one wife be restricted to focus on shepherding his own household and allow clergy of one wife or less to help the husbands shepherd their households as needed.
I agree with the minority opinion in the sermonaudio poll that polygamy has always been allowed by God, just like celibacy and monogamy.
ENGINEER ignored verse 16 in Deuteronomy 17- 16 "Moreover, he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor shall he cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, since the LORD has said to you, `You shall never again return that way.' 17 "He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself.
Polygamy is still permisible here.
Shall a king be restricted to only one horse? We can go back and forth like this but I will never resort to calling ENGINEER a fool as he has done toward me because I respect Matt 5:22 for what it says exactly. I will be humble to God and let it be His rightful place to label people as fools as in Luke 12:20.
Polygamy is not like "vomit". It is not adultry. King David was called to repentence for coveting Uriah's wife and orchestrating his death. David repented only for sins explicitely stated in Scripture. God did not stop Jacob's marriage to two women like He stopped Abimelech from committing adultry. Gen 20:6. Neither did God stop Abraham from becoming one with both Sarah and Hagar.
I have done my best to reveal Scripture and I have been disparaged. And what right do we have to disparage biblical characters. Not even David disparaged Saul.
Loose ends: "enough already" wrote: "Why would God instruct clergy to have only one wife, and no one else?" and "If it is a 'pattern' for them, don't you think it should be for all mankind?" Polygamy is demanding so clergy are restricted to devote time to the other families in the community. The Levites of the Old Testament also had special restrictions placed on them so that they could devote the time to priesthood necessary for the job. The assumption that "a rule for one group of people is a rule for all people" is a wrong assumption. 1 Timothy chapter 3 specificaly refers to clergy and those who desire to be clergy.
"ENGINEER" wrote: "It is the word of God that is the core revelation of Christ's Lordship and salvation and not ignorance of His word thru arrogant revision of his words."
The Word consists of humble precepts. Christ's Lordship sherpherd's His sheep with teachings of humility. The core value of Christianity remains "humility". Savior revealed this as the core of His personality in Matt. 11:29. Humility is the essence of Father's Holy Spirit.
DJC49 wrote: you have no problem of inserting the word "married"
I leave the word married out as Scripture does so the living brothers can be married or unmarried which leaves polygamy as permissible.
I know to take the beam out of my own eye before looking to take the splinter out of others and that is why I work hard to read Scripture carefully.
I make the assumption that the living brothers mentioned in the passage at Matt. 22:23 could be married already since the verses do not specify all are unmarried. Extra biblical commentaries may say this is a wrong assumption but the commentaries have to insert the word "unmarried" as an adjective for the living brothers. The same assumptions can be made regarding Deut 25:5-10 (thanks for the catch DJC49). So which assumption is twisting the Matt 22 and Deut 25 passages. I am very careful about adding words to Scripture that are not there. It appears that commentaries are not.
As for Exodus 21:10, the male-bondservants that "ENGINEER" refers to were to be let free. Not so with females in verses 7-11 which "ENGINEER" fails to address. Again a rule for one group is not necesarily the rule for all groups. It reads as if the son of the original master chooses a polygamous marriage involving the displeasing slave.
I stand by the lack of biblical condemnation of polygamy in the case of Lemech, Abraham, Jacob, Kings Saul, David and Solomon and non-clergy cultures.
Thanks for the lively debate everyone. May it allow those who hear Savior's humble voice be satisfied with Truth.
In Matthew 22:23 Savior is asked about marriage after resurrection in regard to a man who had more than one wife due to the deaths of his brothers. Jesus at no time condemned the scenario of polygamy in this case because polygamy was commanded in this case through Moses. This commandment I believe was from Father given to Israel and recorded in Deuteronomy 25:3-7. Exodus 21:10 seems to be a statute regarding one way a polygamous marriage should be practiced fairly. (off topic: the verse also pertains to slavery which some people erroneously contend is a "sin") So the assertion made by "enough already" that Father never commanded polygamy is deceitful and one would be wise to reject the teachings of those who twist Scripture.
My advice to everyone is to read Scripture thoroughly. For thousands of years religious leaders have tried hard to hide Truth. One may be persecuted like those who claimed the earth was a sphere or like Savior when He taught humility but it will be worth it for those who overcome ignorance and arrogance. It is humility that is the core value of Christianity and not ignorance or arrogance.
To answer the "enough already" post: Adultry means imagining or enacting intimate desires with a person from another marriage. Polygamy is the state of a person having more than one marriage partner. There should be no assumption that adultry is involved in polygamy such that one is seeking partners already married to someone else. To answer the second question in the post, Genesis indicates Sarah offered Hagar to Abraham and I believe that this was not a sin. (Genesis 16:2) Nor do I believe it was a sin for Jacob to have relations with Leah, Rachel and their respective maidservants.(Genesis 30) The sin in this polygamous relationship was the lack of respect for Leah that came from Jacob and Rachel. While it is true that our Father, the Lord of Hosts, did not suggest Abraham lie with Hagar, He did give King David the wives that once belonged to King Saul.(2 Samual 12:8) Perhaps Abraham and Sarah were impatient for a child but they had no intention of exalting their will above the promise that God would cause Sarah to conceive in her old age. Therefore no sin took place in consumating the polygamous relationship.
Hagar eventually exalted herself over Sarah and taught Ishmael to do the same. This was where sin crept into the relationship. Please be humble and learn.
I used [URL=http://www.searchgodsword.org]]]http://www.searchgodsword.org[/URL] to look for 'abomination', 'lay', 'lie', 'marry' and 'marries' to see what relationships were forbidden. None of the verses I looked at mentioned polygamy. The emphasis was against incest, bestiality, homosexuality, prostitution, marrying people of false gods and if an Israeli woman received an inheritance she was to marry only within her tribe. All other women were allowed to marry with men from other tribes.
As for the emphasis in the new testament, Paul suggests everyone be like him and be unmarried. How does that support the "be fruitful and multiply" command for growing a kingdom under Christ's humility. Suggestions are not mandates.
I dare not judge those who are given more than one wife or else I would be judging Lemech, Abraham, Jacob, David, Saul,Solomon for something they were not restricted from doing. Neither does the new testament condemn them. Remember not to look down on others as the Pharisees and Sadducees did for Proverbs 16:5 says "Everyone who is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD; Assuredly, he will not be unpunished."
Michael Hranek wrote: Dear Wayne Get over it! Far, Far more evil is the institutionalized hatred against Biblical Christianity, against the Father and against His Son Jesus Christ that is in the U.S. today both in government and wickedly in "professing" churches, even those in the black community. Try speaking out against sin, the dishonoring of parents among teenagers, or fornication, or lying or stealing, etc. etc. etc. trying telling blacks and whites alike of their desperate need of repentance for sinning against a very good God and how they are so guilty in their sins they deserve nothing but death and hell and are on their way there and how they desperately need to be saved CHANGED!!! by Jesus Christ and being saved to live for Him and not play the hypocrit of being a worthless "Sunday Christian" and sinners black and white will be quick to educate you about the heart of the real problem with man. The real family Christians ought to be concerned with is those who are brothers and sister born again of the Holy Ghost, not black sinners and not white ones either. Respectfully
I agree with your post. Wayne/S.Cal. isn't interested in the Christian's viewpoint. He is only interested in promoting false guilt.