₦airaland Forum

[quote author=Maynman post=126582347][/quote]Soooo irrelevant and off point assertion.
Seriously I wouldn't mind condoning your pest like behaviour if at least u bring substance to the argument. At least we all here to learn.
But u....it's like people are talking mathematics then u come along and start talking about heresy.
Always off point.

LordReed:
The gospel of Peter met all these criteria but was still rejected. Tell me why.

None of the things you've said have excluded human judgement.

There's no evidence anywhere Peter wrote a gospel when he was alive. None of the apostolic fathers mentioned anything about Peter writing a gospel.
What the apostolic fathers wrote was that the gospel of Mark is the oral rendition of Peter.
Gospel of Peter started circulating in the 2nd century. No reference was made of it in the 1st century.

Gospel of Peter was a pseudepigrapha

LordReed:
Criteria that were made by men. When one of the criteria was wide geographical use tell me that is not based on feelings.

Criteria based on theological deduction and logical reasoning.
Strict criteria for the new testament scriptures include the books must be written in the 1st century AD by people who knew the Lord or who met people that knew the Lord.
It must have a new Christology doctrine not written in books b4 it. If it's just a repetition of what's already known, there's no need for it to be canonised.

It must not contain legends, fables or supernatural tales that sounds strange to the early church. Whatever supernatural that's written in the book must be well known and established by the early church.

It's pertinent to note that the gospel was initially sung as a hymn or chants in the early church and known to hearts by the early Christians b4 it was written down. So coming up with tales that's strange or unheard of will be rejected.

That's why stories like Jesus talking at birth was rejected because early Christians didn't sing it and books having such tales not included in the bible.

I don't know anything about widespread geographical use. 2 Peter wasn't widespread when it was canonised.

LordReed:
66 books that were selected by men, who excluded other books simply because they did not fit into their theology but were recognised by others.

There were criteria selected to determine what book should be canonised. It has nothing to do with the feelings of anyone.

[quote author=MiddleDimension post=126573354][/quote]Mr Man u just contradicting yourself up and down.

This what u said earlier.

yes, he is married to the church and no one is disputing that. what we are saying is: if he is married to the church, it is first of all a consequence of him being married to you first of all! This is the depth of christian marriage, whuch you do not understand

In this post u claim Jesus got married to myself first b4 the church.
Now u claiming I'm the church.

Which is which. Mr Man drink water, gather your thoughts and give a reasonable response.

[quote author=MiddleDimension post=126573354][/quote]This is what happened in the garden of Eden.


The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”

24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh

MiddleDimension:
which of my questions is this meant to be an answer to?

You asked only one question.
Why did God say he's husband to both israel and judah?

And I'm asking u when God established the union, were Israelites one nation or two nations.

MiddleDimension:
Oh, I see, you are asking for biblical evidence to show that polygyny is NOT an anathema to Your Lord and God.

Well, I am happy to provide it, that's what I am competent at, it is what I do!

Speaking about Judah and Israel, the two kingdom, Your Lord and God, Jehovah or Jesus or Holy Ghost, said in Jeremiah 31 vs 31 and 32:

''Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:''

The word ''anathema means: ''something that is strongly disliked or disapproved of''
(Cambridge Dictionary, 2023): https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/anathema

Now, if Polygyny is an anathema to your God, I am talking about you, Dtruthspeaker; if it is something he strongly dislike or strongly disapprove of, then he would not say of himself in that scripture, that he is the husband of two wives''.

And in marriage, the man is the figure of God, while the woman is the figure of the church, or the individual christian! #TheMysteryOfChristianMarriage.

Facts are stubborn things and evidence is so powerful that it violently threatens ignorance and the darkness in the minds of those who lie that the Christian god is opposed to Polygyny.

At this point, I think you are wishing you coukd edit the bible.

So, answer this question: if polygyny is an abomination or an anathema to your God, why then did he describe himself as the husband of two women, Judah and Israel?

Don't ignore this question, have the gut to answer it. If you are sure you arw speaking the mind of your all wise and all knowing God, ask him to give you the wisdom to asnwer this question. Afterall, he told you that ''do not be worried about what to say when the time comes; for what to say will be given to you by the spirit'' Mark 13 vs 11.

It is that rare wisdom I really what to hear from you on this issue.

When God made his covenant with the Israelites, were they one nation or two nations.
When did they become 2 nations, before the covenant or after the covenant.
Your answer lies in your honest answer of above.

sotall:
Truth borne out of facts from someone who still worships a bursted myth created by middle eastern religionists.

Even our own local religionists who worship Wood and metals are better than you.

Ok so Christianity is no longer a white man's religion but now belongs to people of middle east.
Busted.
Pls allow me to LOL more.

MiddleDimension:
So, you now agree it is not a sin? That's good! It shows our effort here is not a waste.


God did not 'permit' polygyny, He blesses it and for him, it is on par with monogamy, stop the lies already!


There is no 'original' plan of God for marriage, and no, the holy marriage called polygamy is not and can not be likened to divorce in any sense It is sacrelageous to do so! You do not have any evidence on this!



Blatant lie again! Show me anything from the bible, or the sacred tradition, if you are of the christian faith that believes in the sacred tradition, that proves this big-fat lie of yours! This is a challenge, and you can ask the holy spirit to give you the words to say it (afterall, he promised that at times like this when you are confronted, what you will say will be given by the spirit), words which when taken into consideration by a fair mind, will only lead him to your conclusion, and words which when responded to by the unfair mind, will, obviously, reveal itself (the response) to be unfair.



Animal sacrifice is not and cannot be likened to polygyny in anyway! You people should listen to the gutter that comes out of your mouth! And by the way, animal sacrifice is still acceptable to your God even today, especially when it is offered not for.the forgiveness of sins, but IN THANKSGIVING There is no 'spiritual' difference between animal sacrifice and the money you pay in church. You not offering animals in Christianity today, has absolutely nothing to do with your God accepting or not accepting it; It is just part of man's thinking that the killing of animals is not particularly the best practice and so, he the killing of animals to only when you want to consume them.

Have u answered the question I asked u?
In case you have forgotten...who got married to Christ first, myself or the church?

Show me anywhere in my post where I wrote polygamy is a sin. Anywhere.
If u have comprehension issues, join your illiterate and confused folks to learn basic English comprehension.

sotall:
You can keep going round in circles and hallucinating in redundancy!

The veil of Christianity is fast fading and people are becoming aware Christianity was a creation to enslave the mind especially of black people.
Do whatever you like with this opinion but its a fact before your own very eyes that's if your indoctrinated brain will let you understand.

When u slap people with truth borne out of facts...what u get is emotional response based on 'trust me bro, I'm saying the truth'

Pls allow me to LOL

sotall:
Mumu!
Before Christianity there was a system already in place.

Many of the stories in the bible have been written in other cultures/religions thousands of years before Christianity/bible came to copy them.

You sound daft to assume Christianity formed the foundation upon which our present system is based.

Go do some search and see that the bible is just a cooy-cat book written by some white folks to enslave your mind.
Stop coming online to disgrace yourself!

Hahaha...
Ignorant mind. One would even think someone like him would have done some research b4 coming online to form intelligent.
There was no western civilization prior to christianity. The western civilization was practically built around Christianity and the church.
Prior to that, the europeans were known as barbarians and cavemen who were routinely enslaved by the Romans. They didn't even have written language until they met the Romans. That's why all European language writing system is Latinised.

Read about bill of rights which form the basis of all human rights and civil freedom we enjoy today. The first one called magna carta was drafted by archbishop of Canterbury.
Even the age of enlightenment that ushered in independent thinking, intellectual reason, philosophical movement, separation of states and church was ushered by Christians who were tired of the extraordinary powers of the monarch and church.

Read my friend.

cedricksly:
God's original plan for man is not to die, I hope you also know that death upon man came as a result of man's fallen state? Yeah God made a man and woman in eden and so It is the fact that you people think you can reason out God's intention, or assume God's original plan is what is even making it more funny. Bro polygamy was never and would never be a sin, show me one place in the bible that says it was, polygamy was never God's Intended plan yet God gave so many people after his heart wives, some he even gave their masters wives in addition to the one they have already, some he gave their brother's wife to add to theirs, yet it wasn't in its initial plan for man. Why don't you explain that instead of assuming for God and helping God to reason.. Apostle Paul chose not to marry it was a choice of his, so also those who took just one wife is a choice for them. Talking about homosexuality you spoke about, the Bible Outrightly Condemned it in plain words, right from sodom and gomorrah when the men tried sleeping with an angel and refuse Lot virgin daughters, to when the children of Israel was together, homosexuality was spelt out in plain words and criminalised. So don't even go there, it is the west that choose to be blind to that part of the bible.

Who is this bebeto. Not only do u jump into irrational conclusion, u equally lack comprehension skills

Show me where I said polygamy is a sin. Show me.
Will God permit something that's a sin.
Polygamy wasn't God's original plan but he permitted it just like he allowed for divorce.
Christ came to return the former glory lost to mankind in garden of Eden with the establishment of divine laws.
Polygamy and divorce were not part of that divine law so it's gone with the old testament. The same way we don't offer animal sacrifice anymore.

U mentioned death as something that persist in the New covenant. I really don't know if u actually understand your bible but tell me what Jesus meant in the verses below

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

What does Christ mean when he said he gives eternal life?

I think u need to start attending your Sunday school and should take the studies more seriously if indeed u are a Christian.

And what are u on about homosexuality. Did I tell u I support or give excuse for it.
I don't need any lesson from u re homosexuality. My position is clear, read it again this time with understanding. It's simple English.

sotall:
Pathetic! A slave that could have been saved if only he recognized he was a slave. Even till this moment, you are still one.

I wasn't born hundreds of years ago and Whatever events took place is not for me to change ...

And now that i am here, i am proud to reject Christianity/Bible which was used to enslave those that were here before me but definitely not me.

If you have a problem with that, go hit your head on a wall.

Hahaha
Rejecting christianity but enjoying the benefit it brought. How so convenient to reject the bible.
If u want to be truly free, u build your own system independent of Judeo-Christian values.
Otherwise u just a noise maker. Simple.
Ironically this guy running his mouth may be slaving his life away in a western country based on this Judeo-Christian value system.
If above is true then it's very pathetic to say the least.

sotall:
The modern definition of slavery is not for the hands and legs to be forced in chains but of the mind to be groomed with it.

You are a classic example of the slave who should have been saved if only he knew he was a slave.


And your opinion that the system of the world currently is based upon the principles derived from the fraud book is baseless and unfounded.
It can only come from a brainwashed and religiously indoctrinated brain like yours.

As for your trash talk of being a slave if not for some hero, you can guess or predict whatever you like, its just a guess at best and you are free to have one coming from your dead brain.

Pele u will be fine.
Modern definition of slavery is when u live your life based on the Judeo-Christian value system but yet deny it.
The capitalist system, the judicial system, the political system came from institution devolve from within church hundreds of years ago.
In fact, u communicate in English because some church committee made that decision 600yrs ago.

Raxxye:
It is the inferiority complex that makes you over-react to simple taunts and banters the way you do. It probably also explains the attitude of the over-zealous, fanatical muslims; this life is simpler than that!
How about the blacks also find a way to taunt the whites without resorting to weeping and violence.
We all should just be calming down!

Haha inferiority complex indeed.
Islam is the fastest growing religion in western Europe despite the extreme intolerance of its adherents.
Over 100, 000 white Britons converted to Islam in the last 10 yrs.
How come whites are turning to a religion that seems incompatible to their own way of life.
It's power. People respect show of power when they see it and eventually bow to it.
That's what blacks dont understand.
You are naive guy, not only u but most black Africans. How long have we been on this day No to racism mantra, what has changed.

AntiChristian:
Is the man married to the harlot?

Is he no longer one flesh to the harlot. Maybe u need to check what u wrote earlier.
I know it's a long day so memory may have been weary but go back and check what u wrote.

MiddleDimension:
It is not my opinion. go back and read 2 Cor 11 vs 1-3. it says:

"I wish you would tolerate me, even when I am a bit foolish. Please do! 2 I am jealous for you, just as God is; you are like a pure virgin whom I have promised in marriage to one man only, Christ himself. 3 I am afraid that[b] your minds [/b] will be corrupted and that you will abandon your full and pure devotion to Christ—in the same way that Eve was deceived by the snake's clever lies."

The bolded, which is plural, shows that he was not addressing the church as a single entity, BUT THE INDIVIDUAL CHRISTIANS AND THAT WHY HE USED THE PLURAL "MINDS"! IF HE WERE REFERING TO THE CHURCH AS A BODY IN VS 2, HE WON'T HAVE GONE ON TO USE THE PLURAL "MINDS". He would have used the singular!

So Jesus will be married to many Christians as possible individually.

Yes! And he is not going to, he already has, the moment you accept hum as your lord and saviour. You know nothing about christian mysticism! If did not know that, know it now, that the moment you accept jesus as your lord and god, he became your husband, and you, his wife! That is what the verse I quoted is saying. You all don't know the truth and when it is put before you, you cannot comprehend it.

When will these marriage take place, who will coordinate the union.
How will new Christians arrange their own individual wedding with Christ. In what way is this union conducted in physically.

It has already taken place the moment you accept him as your god.


My friend Christ is married to the church as the bridegroom and head of the church. It's an eternal union established once and for all. There are no repeated weddings for any other person. because there's only ONE CHURCH

yes, he is married to the church and no one is disputing that. what we are saying is: if he is married to the church, it is first of all a consequence of him being married to you first of all! This is the depth of christian marriage, whuch you do not understand.

See blatant heresy!!! U go fear.

Let me ask u a question, who got married to Jesus Christ first. Myself or the church?

AntiChristian:
Son?

Not adopted again?

Liar!

Ezi!

Don't run away from my question. Answer it.
Is the wife and harlot one in flesh now since the has united with both.

sotall:
Failed Delusions from the fraud book called the bible that is fast fading away.

Whether the book is fraud is irrelevant here.
The fact remain u are a slave to a system based on principles derived from the book.
U can live a lie but cant deny it in your closet.
Live with it.
What a shame that u are forced to live your life within a system designed from a fraud book.

Furthermore, thank the fraud book for the good life u live now.
Otherwise, u would likely be picking sugar or cotton in a slave plantation with a white nigga whipping your bare back for being too slow to pick cotton.
That book saved u from such trauma.

"I made a solemn vow before God, that if General Lee was driven back from Maryland I would crown the result by the declaration of freedom to the slaves."

Abraham Lincoln on the emancipation declaration 1863.

As for the book becoming irrelevant, don't worry your head about that. God definitely preserve his message and book for eternity. It's not even a sweat.

MindHacker9009:
@SIRTee15
You are the one who is an 18 line parrot.

What Isaac Newton wrote down in a time when it was against the law not to believe in your invented jesus christ and what is on his mind are two different things, if it was today he would have been able to say what's on his mind without the fear of going against the law.

Get this straight that believing in your invented jesus christ that was forced on people does not make him a real person. 
1. If your invented jesus christ was a real character then why force him on people for about 2000 years?
2. Show where your invented jesus christ said people should be forced to believe his is a real character?

I'm not in a debate with you. If you don't want to accept the truth that's up to you.

Do u have comprehension issues?
Isaac Newton secretly wrote down his thoughts but didn't share it with anyone. It was only after his death that it become open that his religious views differs with the mainstream of his day
What were these personal religious views? For the upteenth time let me write it for u
Jesus is divine but not God.
God is one and not trinity.
This makes him a Unitarian Christian.

If Isaac Newton were alive today, he will express his Unitarian Christian view without any fear from the church authorities or state leaders.

I don't have time for your waffling. As regards your number 2 let me leave you with this words from Jesus

And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
Mat 25.14.

Take care of yourself.

MiddleDimension:
Don't bring the wrath of God on yourself with the bolded.

Maybe u should be the one to avoid opening doors to legion of demons into your life by your blatant and ignorant heresy.

Fake Christian. If u are a pastor, I will advise u to humbly remove your cleric garment and look for a day job to feed yourself.

because u are obviously misleading your church members and God has promised to punish harshly people like u who mislead his sheep.

MiddleDimension:
No, it does not work that way!

Paul said "I am jealous for you, just as God is; you are like a pure virgin whom I have promised in marriage to one man only, Christ himself..2 Cor 11 vs 2. this goes to prove that you, the individual christian is married to jesus when he accepted him as his lord and savior and that from then on, he has a personal relationship with him despite the fact jesus may already be married, so to speak, to other people who have accepted him as their lord and saviour. Yet, when we speak of you being joined together with jesus, we speak of it in personal terms. So also, when we speak of the man being joined to any of his wives, it is a one on one thing. This is the mystery of Christian marriage, that the man is the figure of god and just as god can have several people being his wives by the virtue of accepting jesus as their lord and saviour, so also can the man have more than one wife. I am not the one who made all these up. your bible did; and if any born agaon does not know this, then he is still a baby in divine knowledge!

This your exegesis is your personal opinion and at best an heresy.
So Jesus will be married to many Christians as possible individually.
When will these marriage take place, who will coordinate the union.
How will new Christians arrange their own individual wedding with Christ. In what way is this union conducted in physically.

My friend Christ is married to the church as the bridegroom and head of the church. It's an eternal union established once and for all. There are no repeated weddings for any other person. because there's only ONE CHURCH
A wedding is conducted with a body only once not multiple times.
When u give your life to Christ, u become a member of the church; and this establish your eternal union and oneness with Christ.

For just as in one body we have many members, but all the members do not have the same function, in the same way we who are many are one body in Christ, and individually members belong to all the others
Romans 12:4–5

MiddleDimension:
It does not negate the fact that a man can have more than one man. In christian marriage, the man's marriage to all his wives is on individual bases. Just as your god is married to you, if you are a born again, and is also married to Pope Francis, Oyakhilome, Adeboye, Oyedepo, et al at the same time. In christian marriage, the man is the figure of God, while the woman is the figure of the church, the individual christian etc.

How do I know this?

"I am jealous for you, just as God is; you are like a pure virgin whom I have promised in marriage to one man only, Christ himself. 2 Cor 11 vs 2. This is prove that when one gives his life to christ, he is married to christ. Christ is the groom and you the bride. For that reason, when he is your groom, he can simultaneously be the groom of another christian simultaneously. When you married him, you became one with him whole and entire even though before you became born again, he already had other brides in the Pope, Oyakhilome, Oyedepo and Adeboye since they accepted Jesus before you by the virtue of being older than you.

The oneness in spirit is very clear.
The CHURCH not churches is ONE with Christ.
There's only one church. Christ established only one church not churches.
When u give your life to Christ, u become a member of that ONE CHURCH joined to Christ.
So it's two becoming one.
Is it clear now?

Now explain how 2 become 1 as stated in the Jesus Christ can accommodate a 3rd party.

cedricksly:
Rubbish, being supported with an half baked bible verses...... Polygamy was never identified as a sign in the bible, let he who can treat all wives equal go ahead.. It is Y'all modern western ideology that criminalised polygamy, yet you want to find a way to support it with the bible... It is funny the same west that frowns as polygamy are same people consenting and legalising same sex marriage... For perspective God delivered David's master to him and gave him all his wife as well. 2 Samuel 12:7-14. Let's leave it there for now, if u want proper debate come to inbox. All you have to do is discredit bible verses I will give u and I will discredit what you out forth. Just like Paul decided not to marry as a thing of choice and not as a standard, so also is monogamy a thing of choice and not a standard..

Polygamy was never God's original plan my friend.

It was permitted by God in man's fallen state and when his insatiable greed overwhelmed him. But God never intended polygamy for man.

If u want to know God's plan for man, either check the garden of Eden or the divine law brought by Jesus.
Show me which one of them sanctions polygamy.

Only God knows what they teach in church nowadays. So many ignorant Christians walking around blindly.

That Europeans sanction homosexualism doesn't change the fact it's a sin. I don't follow whites, I follow Jesus Christ.

AntiChristian:
Point 5

One flesh!

"ONE FLESH"
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Genesis 2:24, referenced in Matthew 19:5,6, Mark 10:8, 1 Corinthians 6:16, Ephesians 5:31

A man is "one flesh" with EACH woman with whom he copulates, whether in marriage (wife) or in fornication (harlot). When a married man, who is therefore already "one flesh" with his wife, copulates with another woman, that does not then negate his being "one flesh" with the wife. This is evident by the fact that 1 Corinthians 6:16 reveals that a man can be "one flesh" even with an harlot. As even a married man, therefore, can become "one flesh" with an harlot, that proves that a married man can indeed be "one flesh" with more than one woman, without negating his being "one flesh" with his wife. As that is so even with a married man with an harlot, it is thus just as equally true regarding a man being "one flesh" with more than one wife. For further proof, the very next verse provides the context of the plural-to-one aspect, i.e., 1 Corinthians 6:17: "But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit." As EACH Christian is joined as "one spirit" with the Lord, that then demonstrates the context of the plural-to-one aspect. Namely, as EACH Christian is joined as "one spirit" with the Lord, so too may EACH woman be joined as "one flesh" with one man. Lastly, when the Lord Jesus, in Matthew 19:5,6 and Mark 10:8, was re-quoting that original "one flesh" verse of Genesis 2:24, He was only dealing with the issue of divorce, saying, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matthew 19:6c-d.) That was opposing divorce of God-joined marriages, of what God Himself had joined together as "one flesh".

For context, it is exegetically important to note that the "one flesh" verse itself of Genesis 2:24, which the Lord Jesus was re-quoting, was written by Moses. And Moses married (was "one flesh" with) two wives: Zipporah (Exodus 2:16-21 and 18:1-6) and the Ethiopian woman (Numbers 12:1). The term, "one flesh", could not otherwise allegedly mean that a man could not be "one flesh" with more than one woman because three things did indeed happen. 1) Moses did marry two wives. 2) Moses did author such other verses as Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:15. 3) Jesus Christ did not speak against Moses' being "one flesh" with two wives. Hence, the Scriptures reveal that Jesus and Moses knew what "one flesh" meant when Moses authored Genesis 2:24: a man may be "one flesh" with more than one woman.

From Biblical Polygamy
http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/exegesis/one-flesh/

Ok let's test this theory.
A married man and his wife is one flesh
A married man and a harlot is also one flesh.
Then is the wife one flesh with the harlot?
Are the three now one flesh?

antiChristian has never made sense anytime he dabbles into bible exegesis.

LordCenturion:
Dont have more than 1 wife But u can have multiple sidechicks and concubine like solmani.
we know that The scripture is a man made and re-edits by europeans,especially roma catholic

The dead sea Scrolls calls u a liar.

AntiChristian:
Point 3

The context is divorce not marriage

In Matthew 19:3-9, Jesus was not speaking about polygamy. Rather, He is only answering a question about divorce. Indeed, the entire passage is about divorce, not polygamy.

"Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Matthew 19:3-9.

Indeed, in Matthew 19:8-9, Jesus simply repeats the Deuteronomy 24:1 "as it had been in the beginning", that God has always been against divorce of what He joined together. In Matthew 19:3, the Pharisees were asking about "every" reason for divorcing, but Jesus returned back with the only one allowed reason (the woman's "fornication / uncleanness", as per Deuteronomy 24:1.

Polygamy is about marriage, whereas divorce is about breaking up marriage. Accordingly, Jesus was not speaking against pro-marriage polygamy in Matthew 19. He was instead addressing marriage-destruction of divorce. It was about divorce, not polygamy.

A man shall be united with his wife and they shall become ONE
What does that 2 become 1 mean to u.

AntiChristian:
Point 1
Jesus used a parable that includes polygamy

"Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. ...While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; ...And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage:" Matthew 25:1-2,5-6c,10a-c (See verses 1-13).

It should be noted, however, that this is not a literal, physical marriage to literal, physical women. While it was only a parable, even so, Jesus would never have described Himself this way in a parable if polygamy was a sin.

If polygamy was sinful I think Jesus would never have used it in his parable. Note one man vs many women as wives.

They were called maidens not brides. Learn the difference.

sotall:


A book that promotes slavery of humans caanot be used as a standard for how humans should live.

Too late already. Your present world system is based on the values from the book.

The Judeo-Christian value system is entirely biblical, and that's the system your existence depends on.

MindHacker9009:
@SIRTee15
During the time of Isaac Newton, not believing in the invented Jesus christ was punishable by death in the English laws of his day.

U answered a question I never asked u. So u see why debating u is pointless. U are one story line Parrott.
I never asked u about historicity of Jesus but evidence of Unitarian Christian.

The problem is u make too many assumptions for your claim to make sense.
There's no single evidence anywhere Isaac Newton doubted the historicity of Jesus.
Isaac is a genius and intelligent man. If he doubted existence of jesus, he would have written about it.

But what he wrote secretly were the FF
1. God is Unitarian.
2. Jesus is divine but subordinate to the Father. He's not God.
3. The gospel of Jesus Christ should be preached until the 2nd coming of Christ.

How the person that harbour above thoughts isn't a Christian can only be explained by desperate Jesus-haters who wanted to force agnosticism on Isaac Newton by fire by force.

Millions of Unitarian Christians during Isaac Newton era had same Christian believe.

All your claim about isaac Newton is mere assumption. Desperate conjecture to make him what he never was.
The claim Isaac Newton wouldn't believe in Jesus Christ in today's era is simply assumption. It's based on nothing. Zero evidence for your claim.

That's why I don't like debating u. U make assumption our of nothing and turn them into fact despite zero evidence.
That's why u keep asking me where is the scroll hidden by the Romans when there's no evidence anywhere that Romans hide any scroll from the Jews in the first place.

Cest fini

MindHacker9009:
@SIRTee15
So to you not believing in your invented jesus christ makes someone an atheist. During the time of Isaac Newton, they were not allowed to question the Christian Bible so he had no choice but to believe in another type of Jesus christ, but today with all the information available Isaac Newton would have known that Jesus christ was an invention. Isaac Newton believed in God and not believing in your invented jesus christ will not make him an atheist.

Most people believed in the God of the Bible but not in the invented jesus christ, but they are all called Christians.

Anybody who doesn't believe in Jesus Christ or that he's divine isn't a Christian.
Isaac Newton believed Jesus is divine, he just rejected the idea of trinity. That's Unitarianism and it's still Christianity.
Now let me ask u a question. Were there Unitarian Christians during the time of Isaac Newton?
Did Unitarian Christians exist in the 17th century, the time Isaac Newton lived?