OP's church, sorry for the confusion.

That isn't the right translation. The Commandments are property laws. 'Thou shall not covet you neighbor's wife' is the proper translation. There was no prohibition about sex. If you study the source of the commandments, Judiasm, you were allowed sex with multiple women.  Just as Jacob did with the sisters , Rachel and Leah, their handmaidens Bilhah and Zilpah.  King David had 8 wives.
You can't take part of us and say this is what was destined.

Amen.

I respectfully disagree. As Christian to Christian, can you give me some biblical support for this view?

Thanks! Don

Well, not to be perceived as flippant (because I am not being flippant), but you get married in church, but divorced in court.  If marriage was purely a religious event, there would be no court involved.

TRG

OH please

I disagree.  The FIRST COMMANDMENT is IMHO the most important of all.

Some religions require a religious divorce to end a marriage, irrespective of whether or not a civil divorce has occurred.

Adultery is very specifically defined.  It is not having sex out of wedlock, it is not necessarily having sex with someone besides your spouse.

Adultery is very much defined as a man sleeping with the wife of another man.  This is OT...  not necessarily equal rights...  married men could sleep with their wife, or wives, or wife plus other women, as long as none of those other women were the wives of a different man.

The laws about having sex outside of wedlock were intended for Jews only, not for others.

It is considered wise to have sex only with one's partner ("make one flesh"), but confusing wisdom with law/sin is a bad idea.  Might make you give up on religion when you make an unwise choice.

Don't discourage people from being religious by making up laws that were never there in the first place.  It was originally, and should still be, something that people have a reasonable chance, given their natural born desires, to participate in.

And, by the way...  I want to reiterate that state or church sanctified marriage is NOT marriage in the old testament.  The churches and states did not exist for most of the period under discussion there, so it would make no sense for that to be a requirement.  Two people become one flesh on the reasonable agreement that they live together and intend not to sleep with others (though the husband is, as discussed above, not quite as limited).

Or just try exercising a LITTLE self control (gasp!)....

When you go to buy a new car do you test drive it first? When you buy a new gun you look it over real good and squeeze trigger first right? Do I make myself clear?

The question was phrased "Christian to Christian", that was the religion I was speaking about.

TRG

TRG

That is better, no flippancy form you and I would worry you were dead!

What I understand is that we are living in the New Testament times. What that teaches is that we are to obey our government because those who hold those places have been put there by God. So, who are we to please first?  God naturally. But we are also taught to obey our leaders. Government requires a legal document for the marriage or divorce to be recognized. This is also a season of living in God's grace. This doesn't give us a free pass to do as we please.  Although it does remove condemnation, it doesn't remove consequence.
Don

.

I am not living in NT times!



Huh?

There is no place for government to interject themselves so deeply in our lives, I am a Celt, the Celts have a deeper connection to Jesus than other faiths, He lived in our lands and shared wisdom with our people. The Celtic Church did not recognize him as G*d, only G*d is G*d, he was a teacher, the trinity does not exist.ch more closely resembled the GNostic Church.  THe Celtic Chur Now you can go look up Celtic Church and yu will get the current one, not the origional.

Didnt you used to say you were Jewish ?
just curious

I am Jewish, Jesus was Jewish, he never used the term Christian. If you look at the 1st century you get a different perspective on his teachings. Christianity was a creation of the Eastern Roman Empire. A packaging job more than anything else.  Also Jesus came to fulfill the law, not create a new religion.

To the one point he is in the Line of David, a line that also was Egyptian. A line of Pharoahs that included King Tut. But you have to realize it is mostly beliefs of people.

Yep, Make sure the shoes fit before you buy them

Is the word used in Exodus 20:14 the same word used in Exodus 20:17?

It sounds like you're quoting 2 separate and distinct passages.

Please post, if you can, the Hebrew word used in each.

Matthew 19:9

It should be a purely religious event.
Even though it isn't in common practice, doesn't change the fact that that is the ideal.

I will see what I can do, my Hebrew T*r*h is still packed away,  I only have a translation .

My position on Sex before (read outside of the GOD ordained institution of Marraige of One  Man & One Woman) Marraige is what the Holy Scriptures state. Any sex outside of marriage is SIN period, this includes fornication (Unmarried) between Men & Women, adultery (Married) between Men & Women, Homosexual sex between Man & Man, and Woman & Woman, and Mankind with Beast. The Penalty for are SIN is the same DEATH, which was paid some 2000 years ago on a hill in Judea by Jesus Christ, (my LORD & SAVIOR), who paid the penalty for ALL SIN , (past, present, and future), so all of MANKIND might be saved from eternal damnation (separation from GOD).

Many are called, But Few are CHOSEN.

This comment above is not doctrinally sound, in any way, shape, or form.

VERY TRUE! This is what happens when PRIVATE interpretations are applied to the HOLY SCRIPTURES of the Bible.

Sadly some of the views in this thread are not all that shocking.
We live in a culture that has no place for a God that interferes with peoples sex lives….or for that matter interferes with our lives at all.
We simply remove the entire aspect of Holiness and Purity from our sermons.
We take the grace of God and convert it from a reminder to become more Christ-like to a cheap blanket we use to shroud the sins we want to keep in our lives.
The Bible tells us that men have always sought to do what is right in their own eyes…But God sees our hearts.

Jesus had a conversation with a women once….He confronted her and told her that not only had she been married many times before
but the man she was currently living with was not even her husband.
This lady had been living her life in sin and Jesus exposed it ….but He then offered her something far more valuable then the temporal sexual relationships she had been filling her life with…..He offered her living water.
He told her that what she had been filling her life with was not going to satisfy her soul but only make her emptier.
He then told her I am the living water drink of me and you will never thirst again!
He gave her the gift of everlasting life!
Then He tells her “go and sin no more.” (light has no place with darkness)
In essence while you have been looking for love you have been living in sin…now that you have found everlasting love stop living in sin!
While Christians still sin we should be careful that when the Holy Spirit exposes it we don’t treat it as a trivial matter.
The Bible makes it clear any sexual relationship outside of that of a Husband and Wife is sin.
Jesus came to pay the price for our sins through his death on the cross.
It should shame us when we treat the gift of redemption as meaningless by claiming faith in Christ but continuing to live in sin.

Let us strive to become more Christ like…. to separate ourselves from the world so that the world might see our good deeds and glorify our Father who is in heaven.
(live so they might see our Father in and through us)

Jesus
Luke 16-18
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from [her] husband committeth adultery.
(Note he doesn’t mention divorce and then just shacking up as a viable alternative)

Paul
1 cor 1-7
Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Amen ! People who have sex outside of the proper venue (Marriage between One Man & One Woman) fail to understand that they are destroying their own Soul. (Proverbs 6:24-35)

You are the ones doctirninely wrong. There is polygamy in the OT, lots of it way more than monogamy. You are the one with private interpetations. The OT is Jewish, peroid. Andas suxh must be defined in the limits of the time as it applied to Jewish life. You have no clue as to what you are discussing. Especially as there are no plurals at the time in Herew, it was by context.

You are equating polygamy with fornication.

By your own definition, the other women involved in polygamous relationships were defined as wives.

The law is clear: No sexual contact with one you are not married too. It goes on from there to discuss what should happen if extramarital sex occurs (you may recall the consequences, the man pays the father of his new bride?) or if any of the many abominations occur.

If you claim to worship the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Moses, then how can you claim what is simply not there?

I note that you are not citing verses at all: Perhaps when you accuse others of offering private interpretations, you simply have forgotten what the Bible says, and are instead offering your own perspective?

Exodus 20:14 is unequivocal: Thou shalt not commit adultery. Strong's concordance reviews the Hebrew word here: naaph- to commit adultery, or a woman that BREAKETH wedlock.

But God doesn't give a commandment (and it's attendant blessings) without a curse, what is the counsel to the rest of Israel, if adultery is happening?

An answer from Leviticus, chapter 20, verse 10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Israel's law, that which made them covenant above all other nations is clear: Adultery is destructive to a society, as well as individuals. As such, it was not to be countenanced or tolerated.

But what did Jesus have to say on the subject? Did he make the law easier, or more complex?

Matthew 5: 27-28 27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Jesus made the law easier: it isn't just the act, it's our thoughts that must be purified.

Sexual sin is easy to understand: Sexual sin is defined by the Lord, and his prophets, as any sexual relations outside the bounds of marriage.

I personally find the most interesting comment about this in the Old Testament: How many prophets accused Israel of committing adultery, in place of worshiping God? This tells us that God's plan for us is about us worshiping and following him, not strange and useless idols. And our sexuality is an expression of this- do we adhere to the one we've made a covenant with before God? Or do we follow after strange and useless sexual relationships?

The Original standard God estabilished was (Adam) One Man & One Woman (Eve) and the TWO became ONE flesh. Noah was not a Jew, and he had only one wife as well as his three sons. Men took it upon themselves through the ages in various cultures & traditions to practice polygamy. The OT is silent on the lawfulness of the practice of polygamy (Marriage of one Man to Multiple Women), and it was used as a means by the Patriarchs to build the Nation of Israel (a documented fact). Is polygamy a SIN? I do not know. Do I think Monogamy is better the Polygamy, yes.

Is it plausible to infer from the accounts of polygamy in the OT that almost without exception all of the accounts of polygamy were plagued with problems, ( jealousy, strife, and trouble), between  wives, or brothers against brothers, (brothers sharing a common father, but having different mothers). Does GOD ever admonish/command men to marry more than one woman in the entire Bible Old & New Testement, Nope.

Here is something found at "gotquestions.org

" Question: "Why did God allow polygamy / bigamy in the Bible?"

Answer: The question of polygamy in the Bible is an interesting one in that most people today view polygamy as immoral while the Bible nowhere explicitly condemns it. The first instance of polygamy / bigamy in the Bible was Lamech in Genesis 4:19: “Lamech married two women.” Several prominent men in the Old Testament were polygamists. Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others all had multiple wives. In 2 Samuel 12:8, God, speaking through the prophet Nathan, said that if David’s wives and concubines were not enough, He would have given David even more. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (essentially wives of a lower status), according to 1 Kings 11:3. What are we to do with these instances of polygamy in the Old Testament? There are three questions that need to be answered: (1) Why did God allow polygamy in the Old Testament? (2) How does God view polygamy today? (3) Why did it change?

(1) Why did God allow polygamy in the Old Testament? The Bible does not specifically say why God allowed polygamy. The best anyone can give is “informed” speculation. There are a few key factors to consider. First, there have always been more women in the world than men. Current statistics show that approximately 50.5% of the world population are women, with men being 49.5%. Assuming the same percentages in ancient times, and multiplied by millions of people, there would be tens of thousands more women than men. Second, warfare in ancient times was especially brutal, with an incredibly high rate of fatality. This would have resulted in an even greater percentage of women to men. Third, due to patriarchal societies, it was nearly impossible for an unmarried woman to provide for herself. Women were often uneducated and untrained. Women relied on their fathers, brothers, and husbands for provision and protection. Unmarried women were often subjected to prostitution and slavery. Fourth, the significant difference between the number of women and men would have left many, many women in an undesirable situation.
So, it seems that God allowed polygamy to protect and provide for the women who could not find a husband otherwise. A man would take multiple wives and serve as the provider and protector of all of them. While definitely not ideal, living in a polygamist household was far better than the alternatives: prostitution, slavery, starvation, etc. In addition to the protection / provision factor, polygamy enabled a much faster expansion of humanity, fulfilling God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth” (Genesis 9:7). Men are capable of impregnating multiple women in the same time period, causing humanity to grow much faster than if each man was only able to produce one child each year.
(2) How does God view polygamy today? Even while allowing polygamy, the Bible presents monogamy as the plan which conforms most closely to God’s ideal for marriage. The Bible says that God’s original intention was for one man to be married to only one woman: “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife [not wives]; and they shall become one flesh [not multiple fleshes]” (Genesis 2:24). While Genesis 2:24 is describing what marriage is, rather than how many people are involved, the consistent use of the singular should be noted. In Deuteronomy 17:14-20, God says that the kings were not supposed to multiply wives (or horses or gold). While this cannot be interpreted as a command that the kings must be monogamous, it can be understood as declaring that having multiple wives causes problems. This can be clearly seen in the life of Solomon (1 Kings 11:3-4).

In the New Testament, 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6 give “the husband of one wife” in a list of qualifications for spiritual leadership. There is some debate as to what specifically this qualification means. Please read - http://www.gotquestions.org/husband-one-wife.html. The phrase could literally be translated “a one-woman man.” Whether or not this phrase is referring exclusively to polygamy, in no sense can a polygamist be considered a “one-woman man.” While these qualifications are specifically for positions of spiritual leadership, they should apply equally to all Christians. Should not all Christians be “above reproach ... temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money” (1 Timothy 3:2-4)? If we are called to be holy (1 Peter 1:16), and if these standards are holy for elders and deacons, then they are holy for all.
[green]Ephesians 5:22-33 speaks of the relationship between husbands and wives. When referring to a husband (singular), it always also refers to a wife (singular). “For the husband is the head of the wife [singular] … He who loves his wife [singular] loves himself. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife [singular], and the two will become one flesh. . . . Each one of you also must love his wife [singular] as he loves himself, and the wife [singular] must respect her husband [singular].” While a somewhat parallel passage, Colossians 3:18-19, refers to husbands and wives in the plural, it is clear that Paul is addressing all the husbands and wives among the Colossian believers, not stating that a husband might have multiple wives. In contrast, Ephesians 5:22-33 is specifically describing the marital relationship. If polygamy were allowable, the entire illustration of Christ’s relationship with His body (the church) and the husband-wife relationship falls apart.

(3) Why did it change? It is not as much God disallowing something He previously allowed as it is God restoring marriage to His original intent. Even going back to Adam and Eve (not Eves), polygamy was not God’s original intent. God seems to have allowed polygamy to solve a problem, but it was God’s desire for the problem never to have occurred. In most modern societies, there is absolutely no need for polygamy. In most cultures today, women are able to provide for and protect themselves – removing the only “positive” aspect of polygamy. Further, most modern nations outlaw polygamy. According to Romans 13:1-7, we are to obey the laws that the government establishes. The only instance in which disobeying the law is permitted by Scripture is if the law contradicts God’s commands (Acts 5:29). Since God only allows for polygamy, and does not command it, a law prohibiting polygamy should be upheld.

Are there some instances in which the allowance for polygamy would still apply today? Perhaps…but it is unfathomable that there would be no other possible solution. Due to the “one flesh” aspect of marriage, the need for oneness and harmony in marriage, and the lack of any real need for polygamy, it is our firm belief that polygamy does not honor God and is not His design for marriage." An interesting read.



There are many scriptures supporting/encouraging Marriage between only One Man & One Woman (Monogamy) throught the entire Bible, but none for/promoting Polygamy, (only examples of biblical historic statements of fact for mainly geneological reasons).

Fly before you buy.

If fornicators aren't allowed into heaven, then heaven will be a lonely place peopled mostly with trekkies.

Oh no! I am married to my hand!

The act of sex with a woman did not constitue a marriage according to the Bible, but could lead to a "SHOTGUN Wedding" of sorts.

Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

Deuteronomy 22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Christianity is a direction, not a destination. Biblical guidance is pretty clear that sex outside marriage is not the ideal direction. It won't condemn a true believer but it isn't free of consequences either.
Don

It is a conscensious with many Reform and Reconstructionist Rabbi's hold that sex with in a relationship that is going to marraige is permissable. In the past, the marriage ceremony was not like today.
Also if we go to Jacob and his relationship with the handmaidens of Leah and Rachel. He was not married to them, but they were offered to becomepregnant and bear children. That would seem to fit your definition of adultrey...but was ok with G*d. You can not apply the values and morals of Pauline Christianity to Judiasm.
This is how it is, you have your own opinion, but not I and many others as Jews, The first Celtic Church, Lukkites, and other early Christian Groups

While I am appreciative of the perspective of other faiths, all I can respond with is this: You're unable to cite a doctrinal basis for this claim.

I’m not sure we can confuse Gods mercy towards sinners as God being Ok with their sin/mistakes.
Those Old Testament relationships you’re referring to have had ramifications through History all the way up through today.
Israel has been at strife with those illegitimate children you mentioned for centuries.
I can’t see how that was blessed by God.
Every story of sexual Immorality in the Bible clearly shows there were serious repercussions…..followed often by Gods Grace and mercy.

+1
Just because something is mentioned in the Bible doesnt mean God approves of it.

I was about to make a crack and then noticed I wasn't in GD.  The Old Testament says a lot of thing.  You have to decide which ones apply to you.

You and I are reading different Bibles.  Mine says that only sinners will get to heaven.

ALL sinners?

Edited.  Not appropriate for this forum. ~ medicmandan


 

No, it is only

OK, I don't quote the NT, it is a book like the talmud. Jacob was many times blessed by G*d, David was blessed, except when he took another man's wife. Solomon was blessed,  You will always need a Christian source for you to believe.
Well I have books sitting here, Historical books, works of Archeologists, all contary to Pauline Christian beliefs. What about the Coptic, Gnostic and the Lukkites?  What of sources that depict Jesus after the cross. Sources that refer to Paul as the "lair" abound in history.
The origional Celtic faith was Gnostic in nature and Judiasm. PaulineChristianity has no basis in Jesus, as Paul only says he met an appiration of Jesus. Jesus lived with hte Celts, His uncle Joseph was well traveled in our lands as a Tin Merchant.
But these are mine and many others beliefs. You can have yours, listen to mine if you want. But I don't have to quote doctorinal sources to me unless you quote historical sources....but beware, The NT is not accurate to history.

Thanks for your far reaching response, but it is still nothing close to a doctrinal basis.

Heck, I'd even take a doctrinal basis from all those books you cited, yet you're not even trying. And to say I didn't quote historical sources is wrong: Unless you are discounting Moses as a historical source?

And for the record? I wasn't quoting the NT for you, I was quoting the OT for you. The NT I quoted for those who believe in it-

if you are having sex with another man's wife, then that would be adultrey, but if you are having sex with a single woman, it isn't. The law says thou shall not covet they neighbor's wife. That is take, steal, remover her from his home. It is about property rights. The Commandments are for a peaceful orderly community.
This interpetation is form a T*r*h class by Gratz University....and I was hte # 1 student in the class. Exodus and your other quotes are for adultry, Sex Before marriage is about a couple tht are in a serious relationship more than anything else.

What about the one before it that says "You shall not commit adultery"?

 
Everything you are quoting is a Private Interpetation. Who can say what is accutate?
OK let us define Adultry from the Jewish perspective a few thousand years ago. You sneak in and do it with my wife and it is adultry. You do it with my daughter....well give me the dowry and you can have her. Women were Chattel at the time in Israel, But then I am a Celt, so I will take you prisoner and turn you over to our women...Celtic women were feared by Roman Soldiers, to the point they would much rather die in battle as it was a better way to go.
I can have sex with a single woman, if se consents, if MrsWind agrees the woman can move in,