₦airaland Forum

C. 'Porneia' (continued)

4. I see you are heavily reliant on Strong's concordance. Strong's is good and very helpful. However, it does not make you a Greek scholar by any means. Not at all, at all, at all! The fact that we can get some help from Strong's does not mean we truly understand a particular Greek word. In the case of "porneia" in particular, there is such serious controversy about its meaning that one must look and study other things waaaay beyond Strong's if one is that heavily interested in this matter!

5. Sorry bros, but even in using Strong's you actually made a wrong use of it; this contributed in part to the misinterpretation that you arrived at. Here is part of an earlier post you made (please note that I am adding numbers in places where the word "fornication" occurs):

Goshen360: . . . .
3. I get the word meaning of fornication(1) here: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4202&t=KJV and what does it mean? It is the Greek word porneia and you also get the ROOT WORD or MEANING from porneuō. You have the resources with you, kindly do study yourself also.

1) illicit sexual intercourse
a) adultery, fornication(2), homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12. . . .

OK so we start with "fornication" (1): that is what you are trying to undestand from the Bible. Strong's tells you that "fornication" (1) is 'porneia'. So you ignore secular dictionaries and focus on 'porneia'

BUT THEN Strong's now tells you that 'porneia' includes "fornication" (2). So where do you get the meaning of "fornication" (2) from? Of course, you must now go back to secular dictionaries! And they will tell you that "fornication" (2) includes sex before or outside marriage!

So you see what your brethren and sistren (especially Alwaystrue) have been saying?

That is partly where you got blindsided, unfortunately, bros.

6. Just one more point about 'porneia': beyond what we have been focusing upon, there is much more serious controversy about 'porneia' and that is where the real heavy scholarly gun is focused. I don't want to go into that here but read Matthew 5:32 in NASB NAB (EDITED i.e. North New American Bible) and compare to the 'standard' translation.

PS that last point reminds me of what I said earlier about 'who.redom'; read Matthew 5:32 in Young's Literal Translation as well.

Let me stop here for now and let you try and digest what I've said so far.

Remember one thing: you are a very much loved brother here and that is why your bredren and sistren are concerned. In fact one of them partly accuses the rest of us of 'favouritism'; that convicted me because truly if it was some WoF person making this interpretation of yours it is very very possible that my approach would not be so temperate.

@ My Bro Goshen

I am not fully awake and so this might not be as polished as I would like but I feel I owe you at least part of the explanation now. Please note that as our bro davidylan said none of us is claiming to be a saint ---- this is simply a matter of seeking to interprete the Bible as correctly as we possibly can.

So:

A. Your Conclusion

1. Your conclusion is that it is fine as long as couple intend to marry and parents' consent is sought: the first point to note here is that this is a "conclusion" or "deduction" you have reached; it is not so stated expressly at all in the Bible. There is nothing wrong per se with forming conclusions or making deductions --- except one must be careful when doing it.

2. The problem with your conclusion is that it hangs on a narrow, peculiar and mechanistic interpretation of the word "fornication" particularly --- although you think you are also interpreting "porneia". Your interpretation is narrow because, as I said earlier, it fails to take account the cultural background against which the relevant passages were written. The background was: a woman must be a virgin at the date of marriage. In that culture, a woman who has se.x before marriage is seen as a wh.ore. It is as simple as that. Even if the woman only sleeps with one man, even if supposedly she and the man 'absolutely intend' to marry, it is still who.redom. Please take time to research this point.


B The word "fornication"

1. Remember that this word existed in the English language before it was used by the KJV to translate "porneia" etc. The word always had a particular meaning before it was used to translate "porneia" in one of the senses of "porneia". The KJV authors used "fornication" because they thought its then existing English meaning was close enough to the particular sense of porneia that they wanted to convey.

2. The meaning of fornication in English (and you referred to 'secular' not circular dictionaries earlier) is of sex before or even outside marriage. This was the sense of 'porneia' that "fornication" was meant to convey. This tells you that they believed 'porneia', in one sense, to mean se.x before or outside marriage.


C. Porneia

1. First thing to note: this is just one word i.e. one of the words in original Bible languages that are translated into English as "fornication"

2. Second thing to note: when 'porneia' is used in the New Testament, it is possible that 'porneia' itself is not the original word! For example, when Jesus said a man is not to divorce his wife except for 'porneia' if Jesus was actually speaking Hebrew/Aramaic at the time then the original word would not be 'porneia'! It would be something or some word in Hebrew/Aramaic with a particular meaning that 'porneia' seeks to convey. In any event, there are other words in the Old Testament, which are not Greek or porneia for that matter ---- which are also translated into English as "fornication" or "who.redom".

3. Whether it is porneia or Hebrew/Aramaic equivalent, one thing there is consensus upon (and which you agree with - going by your earlier posts), is that it connotes "illicit sex". So what is "illicit sex"? This forces you back to consider what the people of biblical times and the writers of the relevant Bible passages consider to be "illicit sex". This forces you to face the fact that to them, especially on the part of a woman, sex before or outside marriage is illicit --- and therefore "porneia" --- and therefore "fornication" or whatever word you want to use to translate 'porneia'

TBC or modified (it's got long and I don't want to lose it accidentally)!

@Goshen360

Unfortunately your personal interpretation of both "fornication" and "se.xual immorality" is seriously wrong.

Note also that your personal interpretation of "wh.ore" and "who.redom" is also wrong --- from the perspective of the Bible.

Now, I join the voices warning you about this error and shout loudly that you are in error on this matter. Later in the day, I will make another post to explain why we are saying you are in error.

To summarise though: the Bible usage is that a woman, specifically, who engages in se.x before marriage is guilty of "fornication", "sexu.al immorality", "who.redom" or whatever English word you want to use to translate that sense of "porneia" ---- even if she and the man 'absolutely' seek to marry and even if the parents' consent has been sought.

As long as they are not yet married, it is "fornication", "sex.ual immorality", "who.redom". Simples.

And it is not a matter of "religion" or "tradition"! In fact you unknowingly insult your brethren when you use those words the way you have done on this thread.

Take it easy and look again carefully. As I said, I will make a further post later.

It's up to you how you want to play it. You don't do the basic tasks I have set you, I provide you no further explanations. Simples.

Oh and of course I am aware of the time of Jerome's birth; if you did the task I aked you to do, you will then understand why his date of birth is neither here nor there in this context.

Ah, out of generosity of my heart, let me help you a bit by pointing you again to a point I once made to you.

What book or books was/were being used by the opponents at the Council of Nicea to support their respective arguments?

Kay 17: ^^^

Enigma, my question was:



My question is indifferent over Catholics.

And I ask you again:

--- In relation to the Bible what do you think is meant by "a canonical collection of sacred texts"?

--- Or, what do you understand by "the canon of the Bible"?


Until, you are able to address and properly answer the question(s) above, my explanation will be lost on you. Thus, I am not going to explain; rather I am going to set you further tasks. You want to know, then you have to do the work! If you answer those then I will explain and answer your question specifically.

The task is this: I will now set down a quote from a Roman Catholic source and ask you a couple of questions based on those quotes. {For now, I will withold a second Roman Catholic source and my questions based on it}

The Roman Catholic Encyclopedia, says:

St. Jerome cast his weighty suffrage on the side unfavourable to the disputed books. In appreciating his attitude we must remember that Jerome lived long in Palestine, in an environment where everything outside the Jewish Canon was suspect, and that, moreover, he had an excessive veneration for the Hebrew text, the Hebraica veritas as he called it. In his famous "Prologus Galeatus", or Preface to his translation of Samuel and Kings, he declares that everything not Hebrew should be classed with the apocrypha, and explicitly says that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias, and Judith are not on the Canon. These books, he adds, are read in the churches for the edification of the people, and not for the confirmation of revealed doctrine. An analysis of Jerome's expressions on the deuterocanonicals, in various letters and prefaces, yields the following results: first, he strongly doubted their inspiration; secondly, the fact that he occasionally quotes them, and translated some of them as a concession to ecclesiastical tradition, is an involuntary testimony on his part to the high standing these writings enjoyed in the Church at large, and to the strength of the practical tradition which prescribed their readings in public worship. Obviously, the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church", to borrow Jerome's phrase. . .

1. What do you understand by the words "the Canon" that I have bolded in red?

2. What do you understand by the phrase "conception of canonicity" that I have bolded in red?

Mart d dart: As regarding the issue concerning the church...He was refering to the Catholic Church as "the Church" this was very wrong, it shows bias which should not be allowed to take centre stage on this thread

Some have tried to point out the difference between The Christian Church or catholic Church on the one hand and the Roman Catholic Church on the other.

That difference is reflected in the description of the catholic Church below --- granted its last line or so is inflammatory.

Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter XXV
Of the Church

I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

III. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.

IV. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.[12]

VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.

You see that we are going round in circles? Because I know that I have answered this question for you in the past but you did not look into what I said.

For example, I once specifically referred you to this old post of mine https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church/12#13346747

I reproduce parts of it:

Enigma: . . . . . .


The point is about the fact that there really isn't just one canon of the Bible as many think and as some like to argue wrongly.

Technically, as reflected in the opening posts, different Christian groups actually have their own particular canons though they are all very very similar in that the corpus i.e the bulk of books are usually the same with differences only about whether to include or exclude a very small number of books which could be just one or two or the most well known 7 deutero-canonical (or apocryphal) books that the Roman Catholics retain.

Interestingly, contrary to popular thought the Roman Catholic canon was only finalised in the 16th century (Canon of Trent) which further undermines the false/erroneous claim that the Roman Catholic Church "compiled" the Bible. The credit for "compilation" and for the earliest canons go to the "church fathers" and others ------ most of whom were not Roman Catholics.

This summary below from (and the table that follows it in) Wikipedia gives an idea of the point being made with this post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Canons_of_various_Christian_traditions

Canons of various Christian traditions

Full dogmatic articulations of the canons were not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism,[37] the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox. Other traditions, while also having closed canons, may not be able to point to the exact years in which their respective canons were considered to be complete. The following tables reflect the current state of various Christian canons.

Now, first of all digest that and let me know what you understand, then we'll take things from there.

Meanwhile as for the Roman Catholics and the "web" matter, I will actually be quoting from Roman Catholic sources to deal with those ones.

Bros, I think we need to select our words and expressions carefully and then it becomes easier to see more clearly what is revealed and to understand that there is sooooooooooooo much we don't really know!

Personally, I would not use the expression "salvation of man is by freewill" even though I understand and accept to some extent what it seeks to connote.

First of all: my view is that the Bible certainly teaches the concept of freewill: (a) if you eat of this fruit you will die; (b) choose you this day whom you will serve; and (c) I stand at the door and knock, if anyone opens then I will come in and sup with him (hugely weighty promise) .

On the other hand, God's sovereignty is also seen; and some may call that 'sovereignty' "predestination". For example, how much choice did Saul of Tarsus have on the road to Damascus! On the other hand though, even before the road to Damascus, he thought he was serving and working for God ------ with zeal; so maybe he had already exercised "freewill" --- even before the road to Damascus!

You see how difficult it can get --- trying to "conceptualise" things and trying to run our heads round these things!

One further point: "predestination" actually has other meanings in the Bible that yes invokes/implies salvation but really means more: predestination could mean election unto holiness, unto sanctification, unto separation ----- for the glory of God Himself!

Is that possibly what the case was with Paul when we consider his pre, during and post Damascus road?

I am not going to claim to have all the answers at all! One thing I will do though is refer to a concept that some quite knowledgeable people have raised ---- antinomy. I will reproduce a quote from a now rather old post of mine. https://www.nairaland.com/477833/usual-suspects-co-suffering/1#6382869

The particular antinomy which concerns us here is the apparent opposition between divine sovereignty and human responsibility, or (putting it more biblically) between what God does as King and what He does as Judge. Scripture teaches that, as King, He orders and controls all things, human actions among them, in accordance with His own eternal purpose. Scripture also teaches that, as Judge, He holds every man responsible for the choices he makes and the courses of action he pursues. Thus hearers of the gospel are responsible for their reaction; if they reject the good news, they are guilty of unbelief. “He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed.” Again, Paul, entrusted with the gospel, is responsible for preaching it; if he neglects his commission, he is penalized for unfaithfulness. “Necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!” God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility are taught us side by side in the same Bible; sometimes, indeed, in the same text. Both are thus guaranteed to us by the same divine authority; both, therefore, are true. It follows that they must be held together, and not played off against each other. Man is a responsible moral agent, though he is also divinely controlled; man is divinely controlled, though he is also a responsible moral agent. God’s sovereignty is a reality, and man’s responsibility is a reality too. This is the revealed antinomy in terms of which we have to do our thinking about divine command and free-will.

To our finite minds, of course, the thing is inexplicable. It sounds like a contradiction, and our first reaction is to complain that it is absurd. Paul notices this complaint in Rornans 9: “Thou wilt say then unto me, Why does he [God] yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?” (Rom. 9:19). If, as our Lord, God orders all our actions, how can it be reasonable or right for Him to act also as our Judge, and condemn our shortcomings? Observe how Paul replies. He does not attempt to demonstrate the propriety of God’s action; instead, he rebukes the spirit of the question. “Nay but, 0 man, who are thou that repliest against God?” What the objector has to learn is that he, a creature and a sinner, has not right whatsoever to find fault with the revealed ways of God. Creatures are not entitled to register complaints about their Creator.7

This incomprehensible antinomy—God’s will, man’s will, and free will—occupies a large part of God’s truth. Does this subject have a message for ministers and Christians in this day of doctrinal indifference and ignorance? It most certainly does.

^^^ What web?

Anyway, you will see me show how Roman Catholic arguments are the ones that amount to a web of deceit when I provide further detail after Kay17's reply!

--- In relation to the Bible what do you think is meant by "a canonical collection of sacred texts"?

--- Or, what do you understand by "the canon of the Bible"?




EDIT: this post has again been reedited after I accidentally modified it even unwittingly earlier!

^^^ I already gave you one definition of the Bible or a Bible as you seem to be making a modification. Is that modification accidental or due to the U-turn you had to make when you accepted you had a faulty understanding of what "the Bible" means?

Anyway, here is that definition I pointed out to you: for the third time on this thread, alas!


From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

The Bible (from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία, tà biblía, "the books" ) is a canonical collection of texts considered sacred in Judaism or Christianity. Different religious groups include different books within their canons, in different orders, and sometimes divide or combine books, or incorporate additional material into canonical books. Christian Bibles range from the sixty-six books of the Protestant canon to the eighty-one books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church canon.

If (a) you digest that definition carefully and (b) you try and mug up properly on the history of the "compilation" of the Bible, you will learn that it is false to say that the Bible was not "compiled" till the 4th century. We have evidence of use of various books of the Bible by early Christians some 200-300 odd years before the 4th century. Historians tell us that Origen was probably using or familiar with all 27 books that make up the modern/western New Testament in the early 3rd century.

Kay17, please go and study these things carefully then come back to assist in the arduous task of combating the spread of falsehood by different people with various agenda or agendaS to use the lazy English pluralisation.

chukkynwob: for clarity sake if a believer is saved and goes back to sin will he make heaven?

simple question and please enigma can you provide a direct answer to that question.

First, I'd like to comment that the language (often used in Nigeria) "make heaven" is inadvisable. TBH I'm actually using mild language as I really dislike the language! The language suggests that it is by a person's own efforts that he achieves eternal life; s/he does 'good' and does not "sin" e.g. does not smoke, fornicate, murder etc.

The problem is the Bible says two very challenging things: (a) all our righteousness are as filthy rags before God (can't remember or immediately check if this is where the word for 'filthy rag' might as well be sanitary pad!); (b) unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees you cannot see the kingdom of God!

So quo vadis?

Well, you only "make heaven" (see I fell for it!) or truly exceed the 'righteousness' of the Pharisees ----- through the righteousness of Christ.

The righteousness of Christ is a gift, yes obtained by faith (which itself is a gift).

Our part is to exercise faith: then we are given the righteousness of Christ. And to use my "peculiar language" (which others may justifiably dislike) --- God Himself borns us again! This is why some people emphasise the new birth --- in this sense; some prefer to talk of new birth simply as changing one's ways; that's all good as far as it goes; John 1 makes us know that a person is born again not by the will of men etc but born of God! It is a spiritual thing - born of the Spirit!

My primary point is this: when God Himself borns a person again, there is no way that person can be wholly lost again; even if he temporarily loses his way, he will eventually find his way back home ---- because the one who 'borned' him again will preserve him. That is the central message.

Question: when is a person "born again"? Personally, I don't make presumptions since my view is that it is God who 'borns' a person again. I think it is simplistic to simply assume that it occurs when a person says a "sinner's prayer" etc. We humans could of course, for ease of understanding, use that time/period of realisation of one's sinfulness and of repentance as our marker. That is fine, and in that sense, it is not unreasonable to use that time/period as the time a person is "born again" --- especially "born again" in the sense of changing one's ways and turning to God.

Now, if a person turns to Christ by faith, he is required to follow Christ i.e. to follow Christ's teaching. However, he is also given help, more than that he is given grace through the Spirit to follow Christ's teaching. If we were able to follow this grace, this Spirit, to its fullest we will not sin at all. On the other hand, the Bible teaches that if we sin we still have grace - the grace of forgiveness; we just need to confess and repent.

Now maybe this last bit is what you require by "direct answer": TBH I was going to start the whole post by saying that while your question is very good, to require a "direct answer" is not fair. And possibly, my initial explanation above would have shown why. Now to the answer:

What is "goes back to sin"? The chap commits adultery on one occasion? Try King David!

The guy tells a lie on one occasion? Try Rahab the Harlot!

The guy, out of fear, even denies Christ? Try Peter the Apostle!

I hope you see, where this is going? There is a song by Don Mclurkin: "we fall down but we get up; cos a saint is just a sinner who fell down and got up."

So, it is not an issue of never committing some sin; it is an issue of a mindset keen to please God and remorseful at its sinfulness. One great hymn inviting and appreciating the Holy Spirit says:

Let holy charity mine outward vesture be
And lowliness become mine inner clothing
True lowliness of heart, which takes the humbler part
And o'er its own shortcomings weeps with loathing

Summary: if a person is born again, (a) God Himself will preserve him; (b) this preservation will prevent him from "going back to sin"; (c) God gives him grace to be free from sin; (d) God gives him grace if/when he falls, stumbles, and sins.

Direct enough answer for you? lol!

@Goshen360

Could you please answer the question in this post. Again, I reiterate that the question here is about "sex.ual immorality" and NOT about "fornication".

After that, I will comment on your explanation.

Thanks.

Enigma: ^^^ When addressing the issue, could you please consider the following:

Is it "sex.ual immorality" or not for two people to sleep together if they have agreed to marry each other and have obtained the consent of both parents BUT the two sets of parents have not met, and the two sets of parents have not agreed with each other.

Please bear in mind that I did not use the word "fornication". So, I am not speaking of "fornication"; rather my question is about "sex.ual immorality"!

Pygru: I admire your wisdom

Thanks bros, it really would be nice (well, interesting at least) to see this little matter of TWO Gods resolved.

Easy peasy! So I said nothing about "predestination" or for that matter "double predestination".

EDIT Oh and I anticipated the issue with my follow up post asking whether the books are literal.

Jesus said: "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father--the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father--he will testify about me." John 15:26

And it is not a problem for those of us who believe in The Holy Trinity because the Three Persons are all working with one accord.

Oh, pardon me: as pointed out above, maybe I should wait for this matter of TWO Gods to be resolved! lol

frosbel: So the Holy Spirit is GOD we agree but God is a Spirit, please explain. . . . .

1. The post above says The Holy Spirit is God.

Conclusion = The Holy Spirit is God AND The Father is God!

Question: How then can God be ONE or do we have TWO Gods?


2. The post says The Holy Spirit is God. But Jesus says He will send and did send the Holy Spirit!

Question: can Jesus be smaller or lower in stature (or being or person) than the Holy Spirit ---- if He is sending the Holy Spirit?

EDIT: in other words Jesus who is "not" God is sending the Holy Spirit who IS God! A man, just a man, sending God!

Meanwhile, are we really speaking of literal books or rather is a picture being painted for us?

Food for thought.

A blast from the past

From https://www.nairaland.com/14267/when-did-apostles-born-again/2#7565742

Enigma: . . . . .

Back to the book of life: just as some people's names were written in the Book of Life before the foundation of the world, so also some people's names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world. Revelations 17:8

The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Strictly speaking, we are not told that names are written/not written in the Book of Life at any time other than before the foundation of the world though some argue that some passages imply this possibility.

Now, the expression Book of Life is only used in the New Testament if I remember correctly (I will double-check this at some point; the nature of my current Internet connection discourages me from some 'heavy' stuff). Other expressions include "Book of the Living". The passage in Exodus that you mentioned refers to "the Book". In fairness, many see this as also referring to the "Book of Life". However, we should bear in mind that the Bible actually indicates that God has "book[b]S[/b].

Revelation 20:12

And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.

Revelation 20:15 

If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Do you see? If the name was not found written! NOT if the name was blotted out ------------- of the Book of Life. Remember that the names were either written or not written before the foundation of the world.

I hope I have given you food for thought and will stop here for now.

lol bros

I was just joking that me I too dey fight or "combat" various people; in the past it was WoF dem, some time ago na evangelical atheists and latterly e come be like say na the Roman Catholics and their supporters.

No problem Goshen bros; hope work goes fine.

Also, I want to say something: maybe some people made a "small mistake" of raising the issue on another thread and maybe it seems they were being "unfriendly". However, from what I see on this thread, what is happening is that people are trying to hold a brother from stumbling and falling into, more importantly remaining in, error.

So please, do a New York chill and reply to your friends here with a smile and not in Enigma's 'combative' style.

^^^ When addressing the issue, could you please consider the following:

Is it "sex.ual immorality" or not for two people to sleep together if they have agreed to marry each other and have obtained the consent of both parents BUT the two sets of parents have not met, and the two sets of parents have not agreed with each other.

Please bear in mind that I did not use the word "fornication". So, I am not speaking of "fornication"; rather my question is about "sex.ual immorality"!

Hmmmm

Maybe a drop in the ocean; maybe "they" are not all bad!

https://www.nairaland.com/1247943/good-samaritans-returned-lost-phones

Got it, got it, got it! Eurekakakakakakaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Hotel De Jordan!

By the way, anybody here remember a comedy from Benin/Edo side yearrrrrrs back featuring 'Idemudia' and another chap and also Chief Ajax etc? I actually know its name and will remember later but it escapes me now ----- where is naptu2 when you need him? Ishi, please send for him sharperly!

Enuwe, one song from the comedy goes:

Abi Abi, Abi my girl oh
What are we waiting for now?
You promised to marry me, sometime in junior oh
Never too soon, never too late
E what are we waiting for now?

Ishilove: @bolded. Indeed we can. So says Bros Goshen

I meet a man I like, we court, he meets my parents, they consent, his parents also consent. He turns to me and says "baby, our parents have agreed for us to marry. My body is slamming, let's get to the jamming." We sleep with each other, because our parents are in support of our union.

Never mind that a month later he suddenly starts getting ideas, and before we know it, voila! We break up.

Let us be careful the doctrines we propagate, lest we lead some poor, confused soul to sin.

Yep, we do need to be careful.

And to clarify, of course the guy could have had an honest intention to marry the girl, not that he was being mischievous in the first place. He simply changes his mind later --- maybe even for good genuine reason as he sees it! Or it could be the girl who changes her mind!

Secondly, some people fall for a classic layman's mistake that if the man has proposed and the girl has accepted then there is a "contract of marriage"! It should be elementary that there is a distinction between an agreement to marry; and a marriage or a "marriage contract" proper. At law, there used to be (and in some jurisdictions, remains) something called a breach of promise of marriage; evidently that is recognition that oyinbo man's "engagement" (or 'will you marry me' ; 'yes, I will') is not itself marriage or a 'marriage contract'.

Ihedinobi: . . . . frosbel. . . . .

Oh but he knows it all! Whatever "doctrine" he falls for on any particular day is the all time and ever only "truth".

The saying goes in part "he who knows not and knows not that he knows not . . . . ."

^^ Even Jesus sef, for where He dey now, He be spirit!

If boxer X hits you, you stay hit.

If God Himself saves you, you stay saved.

So, yes; once saved, always saved.

^^^ And what prevents a "being" from consisting of three persons "ontologically"? {All dis big big words sef)

Kay 17: Pls point any Christian authority (Church Fathers or Christian writers) in such periods that mentioned the Bible.

Question 1: what do you mean by "the Bible"?

NB Bear in mind our recent discussions on that matter.

Ihedinobi: . . .

Marriage begins only when the two have fulfilled the requirements of the peculiar setting where they are found. That is the safeguard for the extremely deceitful heart of man.

So no semantics. Intended is intended, married is married. No possibility of confusion and Goshen's response was quite clear on that.

Meanwhile, the above bolded is the core matter --- that is the "settler" of the issue.

Simples.