CodeTemplar:
This scripture still doesn't change what the mannhas said. It only advises every man and woman to have a legal partner but doesn't say whether it is one man to one woman or many woman.

nepapole:
I concur.... I will like to marry 3 or 4 instead of having illegal sex outside

Shepherd00:

MiddleDimension, you said somewhere in this your thread that marriage is Spiritual for Christians. Why do you think so?

Secondly. Since you want to talk about Christian marriage, let's talk. Do you know that the marriage between a man and a woman is a type of a marriage between Christ and the Church?


Thirdly, If you must tell us what to do, can you pls tell me what the Bible means by 'Jesus is the bride groom, hence the husband of the Church, while the Church is the Bride, hence the wife of the Christ?'


The reason I asked you this is, if you understand why this is, you'd know whether or not three or four persons can conjugate in marriage.

jesusjnr:
This is:

Matthew 19:4 (KJV)

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

The bolded is against polygamy.

MiddleDimension:


ofcourse it is male and female he made them, is it male, female and something else he made them before? you have not made any real point here

CodeTemplar:
That's talking about the spiritual being. stop using scripture out of context.

APOPTOSIS:

If you write such in EXAMS, I swear you will REPEAT CLASSES.
Is that the answer to the question..??
This is how you people FAIL EXAMS...
The Guy asked a simple Question which deserves a precise answer...rather
U came up with a BIOLOGICAL QUOTATION...

That verse simply explains BIOLOGY in its simplicity...

MiddleDimension:


my dear, i already talked about this in my reply to ubenedictus.

and how did i know the marriage between a man and a woman is the marriage is spiritual? well, it is because in the bible, it is likened to the relationship between jesus and the church. and also because i hear it from christians.

to your third question:
i have already answered it in that post to ubenedictus.
the likening of the marriage between a man and his wife to the relationship between jesus and the church is the biggest proof that when a man marries more than one wife, he is not being 'shared' so to speak, by the women. and that he can marry more women and still be each one's husband whole and entire therefore still following the fomulea of 1 + 1 = 1. how is this...? LET ME SHOW YOU:

jesus is the groom/husband of his church, right? that's because he is the husband of each christian that accepts him as his lord and god. and the church is the gathering of two or more believers together in one accord. so jesus is the groom of the church not because you all are now together as one body, but because he is already the husband of each of you individually.

when you accepted jesus, you became married to him, that's the same 1 + 1...at play in that he is your personal lord and saviour. when another person accepts jesus, the same thing is repeated as jesus is also the personal lord and saviour of that guy even though he is already your personal lord and saviour. that's what the 1+1=1 means! and you also confirmed it yourself that a man and a woman is like jesus and his church!

it is the same thing too. when a man marries a woman, he is her FULL husband. and when he goes to marry another woman, he is just like jesus taking another 'wife', another believer in another 1+1 arrangement! do you get it now? and the parable of the 10 virgins caps it all! it was one single bride groom for as many virgins who were wise!

if you still have any objection, please bring it up and show that your objections are superior to my points above.

jesusjnr:






Did you all consider "male and female" in the context of that saying before discarding it?

For that was an answer Jesus gave to the divorce question, that's when someone marries, and later divorces the spouse to marry someone else, to show that divorce was opposed to the way God made it to be in the beginning, hence that one who divorces and marries another commits adultery.

So if "male and female" in that context spoke against divorce in marriage to the extent of rendering it adulterous when such a divorcee marries another spouse, how much more is polygamy when the spouse is not divorced but another spouse is added to that one spouse if not more?

For the point is that it was male and female(monogamy) that God made it to be beginning, not male and females(polygamy) or males and female(polygamy), so anything other than male and female(monogamy) as it was originally made by God is adultery.

Therefore that was a Bible verse that not only spoke against divorce, but also against polygamy, homosexuality etc.

So if that makes me "not make any real point here" or "use scriptures out of context", or "fail exams and repeat classes", then so be it, for i'm only following my Master's example.

CodeTemplar:

I think that verse u used initially (Mathew 19:4) is more about divorce and how God planned out the marriage institution before even the commandment(s) by Moses.
"He made them male and female" also appeared in Genesis and then God formed the man from dust directly and the first woman from man. That to me addressed our spiritual formation and separates it from our physical creation. To me those verses you sampled answer the question of who made hermarphrodites more than polygamy/monogamy question.

There is a part after that scripture you used ( verses 5 and 6 ) that says a man shall leave the parents and cleave unto his wife and vice versa. That is the one I think justifies monogamy and not God "created them male and female".

jesusjnr:






Did you all consider "male and female" in the context of that saying before discarding it?

For that was an answer Jesus gave to the divorce question, that's when someone marries, and later divorces the spouse to marry someone else, to show that divorce was opposed to the way God made it to be in the beginning, hence that one who divorces and marries another commits adultery.

So if "male and female" in that context spoke against divorce in marriage to the extent of rendering it adulterous when such a divorcee marries another spouse, how much more is polygamy when the spouse is not divorced but another spouse is added to that one spouse if not more?

For the point is that it was male and female(monogamy) that God made it to be beginning, not male and females(polygamy) or males and female(polygamy), so anything other than male and female(monogamy) as it was originally made by God is adultery.

Therefore that was a Bible verse that not only spoke against divorce, but also against polygamy, homosexuality etc.

So if that makes me "not make any real point here" or "use scriptures out of context", or "fail exams and repeat classes", then so be it, for i'm only following my Master's example.

jesusjnr:

1male(½flesh) +1female(½flesh) = 1 flesh!

1 male(½ flesh) + 2 or more females(multiple of ½ flesh) = ? flesh!

2 or more males(multiple of ½ flesh) + 1 female (½ flesh) = ? flesh!

Your use of the illustration of Jesus and His church doesn't apply in this case, except you can possibly convert that instance to become 1 flesh as was done in the example above of ½ flesh being joined to ½ flesh to give 1 flesh.

Thanks.

MiddleDimension:


there you go again!
1male half flesh, where did you get that from? show me where it is in the bible, or in anyother credible source that 1male is half flesh?

and why doesn't my jesus illustration apply here? i am not the one that says marriage is like the relayionship between jesus and his church, the bible did! jesus himself did!

althrough the bible from old to the new testament, this assertion was made. the song of songs is included in the bible because it is taken to represent the relationship between god and his people.

to illustrate to the people how he relates with them, he told the prophet to go and get married, although to a prostitute.

so the likening of marriage to the relationship between god and his people is something that is scattered all through the bible! when jesus wanted to pass across to you the message that you should be prepared for the kingdom of god, he used the situation of marriage, the parable of the 10 virgins.

so tell me why my illustration if jesus and the church, does not apply to marriage, when you bible agrees with me

jesusjnr:


But if you think otherwise, and that it's adultery for a divorcee to marry another spouse because of Jesus saying, and yet not adultery for someone to marry more than one spouse as it is in polygamy, please explain how and the difference between the two.

Thanks.

MiddleDimension:


my dear, you were not following your master's example.

you were being disingenius by your assertions.

when a man marries, it is still male and female coming into union, and not male and females! the same way when you accepted jesus, he becomes your husband whole and entire even though he is still another believer's husband whole and entire! the male and female or 1+1 thing was indicating a personal level! stop giving strange meaning to the bible.

anyway, your are entitled to your opinion as i understand that when it comes to religion or faith, discussions can never be fair.

MiddleDimension:


the jews, Jesus and the apostle Paul never saw polygamy as imorality. to them, polygamy was as valid as monogamy hence Paul said every man must his wife, and woman, her husband.

jesusjnr:
Something you shouldn't get twisted is confusing Judaism with the standard of the church, for polygamy is permitted in Judaism and even divorce, but Jesus the founder of the church who brought a higher level is the one that made such normal observations to become abnormal for His church, because the standard of His church exceeded that of Judaism, and if you like Islam which also permits such practices.

So this is primarily for those of the church, and it's not that if someone doesn't keep it they would go to hell or not be able to walk with God, but it is intended to make humans become as close to what God intended in the beginning as possible, which is 1 male (husband) and his female (wife).

MiddleDimension:


you are being unfair here miss! in the first place you said we should not bring in Abraham when the issue of polygamy is mentioned, and you gave reasons which proves beyond reasonable doubt your assertions. i congratulate you for pointing it out to me. but then again, you eho said Abraham was never into polygamy, which i now agree with you, still refered to his relationship with Hagar as polygamous! can you see why i said you were beinh unfair?

my dear, your arguement that hagar started being spiteful of Sarah and that is what makes polygamy bad, does not hold water. and no, it is not a thing commonly seen in all polygamous homes. so i say try not to push falsehood everywhere. i have seen homes and mine is a big example of that too, where you don't see such things.

also another point to shatter the point i just addressed up there is: we see siblin rivalries in homes too. infact the children of the Isaac you talked about as a good example of monogamy are a good example of sibling rivalry too. since you already kniw the story, there is no reason for me to go into it. but can we say that the fact that we see sibling rivalry in homes is a reason to say having more than one child is evil?

think for yourself.

my dear, Samson was a MONOGAMIST! He never had more than one wife! so he did not suffer because he had a polygamous home. he never married more than one woman at the same time!
i think you should read the bible properly!

MiddleDimension:


please react to my earlier post to you and show me proof from the bible or any other credible source.

also show me examples of people in the bible who ''PAID DEARLY'' as you put it, because they married more than one wife. i already debunked your claim that Samson married more than one woman.

EmperorHarry:

Does Jacob count?

Shepherd00:

Sis. No one can hinder the Holy Spirit from delivering the Rhema in His Words.

Okay, for the sake of a discussion, can you talk about some of these principles as it concerns marriage? I'd like to learn.

MiddleDimension:


adultry is defined as a married person having sleeping with someone else who is not his/her spouse.

show me how polygamy fits into this discription, please.

MiddleDimension:


ofcourse it is male and female he made them, is it male, female and something else he made them before? you have not made any real point here

MiddleDimension:


the jews, Jesus and the apostle Paul never saw polygamy as imorality. to them, polygamy was as valid as monogamy hence Paul said every man must his wife, and woman, her husband.

LilMissFavvy:
Jacob was deceived into polygamy, not his fault at all. If he was a polygamous type, he should have remarried after Rachel and Leah died.

[/quote][quote author=EmperorHarry post=79117082]Jaboc being deceived by Laban to marry his two daughters in no way supports your argument or provides evidence that refutes the OP claim.It's obvious that you personally don't approve of polygamy(and for good reason) but saying that the Bible or God is against it without providing biblical references that are verifiable and unambiguous(thereby proving without a doubt that the OP's claim is invalid) is biased and the only reason I'm involved in this.

Isaiah 4:1 When that time comes, seven women will grab hold of one man and say, "We can feed and clothe ourselves, but please let us say you are our husband, so that we won't have to endure the shame of being unmarried.
That verse above doesn't disapprove of polygamy but shows the attitude towards it.
Contemporary Christianity disapproves of it although that doesn't make it a sin.

Agrogbeide:
jesusjnr well done.

Let them keep twisting scriptures to satisfy their depraved appetite for wrong desires. The church is marching on and the gates of hell shall not prevail.

Thanks.

God bless.

MiddleDimension:


yes 1man + 1woman = 1flesh

this does not in anyway exclude polygamy because in polygamy, it is still one man and one woman getting married because the ceremonies are not the same. even if the ceremonies are conducted the same time, that's still not a problem for within christianity, marriage is a spiritual thing and the man is the FULL husband of the woman and vice versa. the husband is not PARTLY the husband of any of his wives.

somebody says how can this be?

well Jesus and Paul liken the institution of marriage to the relationship between jesus and the church, the church is made up of christians individually.

when you christians accepts Jesus, you come married to him. the same thing applies to your fellow christian too. and you and him become one, right? he is fully your lord and saviour just as he is FULLY the lord and saviour of the other christian too. you are not sharing Jesus. he is not partly your husband, lord and saviour, and also someone elses lord and saviour.

in the same way too, the man is the husband if the women whole and entire!

i am not the one theorizing here, it is your bible, Paul and also Jesus himself who used the parable of the 10 virgins to illustrate this while also passing the message that you should prepare for the kingdom of god

the parable of the 10 virgins, though is primarily about you preparing yourselves for the kingom of god, but we can still see that it also shows that Jesus does not have a problem with polygamy, and that the things i said above, which i took from the teachings of paul about the relationship between god and his church, and a man and his wife, is still in line.

the 10 virgins; some were foolish, and some were wise. so when the BRIDEGROOM comes around... it is one bride groom, and when he comes around, he is going to be the bride groom of each of the virgins whole and entire. so we see here that a 1+1 is still equal to 1 for each and every virgin. and the bible likens marriage to the relationship between god and his church. so if god can be the husband of each and every christian whole and entire, bringing to mind the 1 + 1 = 1, then the man can be the husband of several women whole and entire too in the same 1 + 1 = 1 formulae.

so the fomulea above does not nullify polygamy at all, just as it does not nullify the fact that Jesus is the husband of one christian and still the husband of another christian whole and entire.

MiddleDimension:


did you see it where i mentioned jesus? and did you see it where he used the idea of polygamy to drive home his point? the ten virgins and the bride groom?

Ubenedictus:
lol
The church is one bride not plenty brides.
So all Christians together as the one bride of the groom, no room for multiple brides or polygamy.



I have seen people interpret the Bible in many ways but usually my first question is, "how did the original audience interpret it? How did the early church and their successors receive the apostles words? "

If your understanding is foreign to the first 1000years of Christianity, then you must be dabbling in heresy.

That is how I check myself, I suggest you check yourself too

MiddleDimension:


i am glad that even though you disagree with me, atleast you got my point unlike the other people especially the lady. they even went as far as misquoting jesus saying anyone who has more than one wife has comitted adultery; where exactly did jesus say that!

anyway, i understand you disagree with me and i do not have a problem with that. all i want you all to do is to get the point and relate it with the bible. these kind of issues get rejected the first time they are presented. even among you christians, when you show it to perhaps the people on here that the bible said in james that you should confess your sins to one another, they will still argue with you and say it is only when you offend someone that you should take that step. also when you talk about the gospel of john where it outrightly backs up your teaching of confession, since it is not something these people have ever been told in their churches, they will argue it with you! untill after some time, then they will gradually agree, as it is with Oyakhilome today.

as for the church being the bride of christ, that is not disputed at all, and i have not said otherwise. but let me ask you, @ubenedictus, are you a bride of christ? when you say jesus is your personal lord and saviour, do you also mean he is your groom even though he is also the groom of other believers like you? if yes, do you think you all are 'sharing' the same groom, thus is not whole and entirely yours (personal), just as he is whole and entirely your brother's (personal lord and saviour)? so why then is this thinh difficult to get by the other people here with rediculous rebuttals!

as for the how the early church interpreted things... well, all i can say is, among the early christians, from the apostles to the other first century christians, polygamy was a norm, and they never saw it in anyway negative. that is why jesus and the other apostles NEVER said anything against it.

the bible warned against getting drunk, adultery, etc. all the things the bible warned against, especially those ones widely known to the people, were all mentioned by name! idolatry was widely known among the people, and so when the apostles were condenming it, they mentioned it by name. how then can a thing like polygamy, widely known among the apostles, was not mentioned by name in any condenmination?

if you still want more evidence from the bible that god is not against polygamy, well he sent nathan to david to tell him about his sins, and this is the quote from the bible:

7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. please pay attention to the words in colour.

david was punished not because he had other wives. as you can see from the verse that i quoted there, it was god himself that gave him those wives. he was punished because he took another person's wife, more like...''thou shall not covert thy neighbour's wife''. and not only that, he killed the husband! of course that would outrage anyone.

go to the north and you will see polygamous homes living in peace, including christian polygamous homes. don't fall for the propaganda against the north!

also, another example if a good polygamous home is given in the bible below:

genesis 4
19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

20 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.

21 And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.

22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

those who like pointing out unhapiness in polygamy should please do so here!
and the whole idea of where ever polygamy is mentioned, unhapiness follows, can't you see that that is dangerously the same arguement jehovah's withnesses bring up against birthdays?

infact, that the children of lamach's marriage went on to be the father's of those who played harp etc, shows that they had a beautiful home where they could become renowned in their endeavours.