The Purpose of Marriage

[josh987654321]

As long as you are not saying that the writings of this person are the Word of God, then you are certainly free to continue to dialogue about this with interested people.

I am simply saying that there is no other way to know that the Gospel of Mark, the epistle to the Hebrews, etc etc etc are the Word of God…

[SIGN]except through deferring to the authority of the Catholic Church.[/SIGN]

No one has ever been able to offer an good refutation of this. They try. And come up with some zingers–like, “I just know that Hebrews is theopneustos because it speaks to me and I feel a burning in my heart when I read it!” :whacky:

Your absolutely right, however when I read the Gospels, I don’t say, this is the Word of God only because the Catholic Church tells me so, I know that it is. and with the help of the Catholic Church I can reach the fulness of the truth of what he has said, but not simply because the Catholic Church tells me so.

Also as Mek said, those who were with Christ couldn’t refer to the authority of anyone but Christ, like when Jesus said to his disciples “who do people say that I am?”

It’s like saying “The Catholic Church say’s that you are the Son of God, the Messiah.” In which is true, but he would reply “but who do you say that I am?”

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[mek42]

As long as you are not saying that the writings of this person are the Word of God, then you are certainly free to continue to dialogue about this with interested people.

I am simply saying that there is no other way to know that the Gospel of Mark, the epistle to the Hebrews, etc etc etc are the Word of God…

[SIGN]except through deferring to the authority of the Catholic Church.[/SIGN]

No one has ever been able to offer an good refutation of this. They try. And come up with some zingers–like, “I just know that Hebrews is theopneustos because it speaks to me and I feel a burning in my heart when I read it!” :whacky:

The people who decided what the canon ultimately is today, they did not have the benefit of the authority to which you refer because no canon existed. Why is this so difficult to communicate?

 

[mek42]

Hi, mek.

Could you address the above 2 questions? Thanks.

For the first, this site covers the question much more thoroughly than I ever could without plagiarizing. bibleresearch.org/articles/alw2.htm

For the second, presuming I’d become ok with any dating type contact, I would (right now, no dating until the age of 57 sounds like a fine idea ). I might ask to meet everyone, but what fool wouldn’t want to meet any prospective spouse for their child?

 

[josh987654321]

For the first, this site covers the question much more thoroughly than I ever could without plagiarizing. bibleresearch.org/articles/alw2.htm

Polygamy is wrong though, I don’t know why they didn’t refer to Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9 in that link. It’s in those passages where Christ practically explains what a marriage is and why, remember divorce was also common practice in the Bible too.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[PRmerger]

Your absolutely right, however when I read the Gospels, I don’t say, this is the Word of God only because the Catholic Church tells me so,

I know you don’t. But if you ask yourself, “How is it that I know that the Gospel of Mark is the inspired Word of God but that the Epistle of Barnabas is not?” The only logical answer is: because the CC told me so!

I know that it is.

How?

 

[PRmerger]

Also as Mek said, those who were with Christ couldn’t refer to the authority of anyone but Christ, like when Jesus said to his disciples “who do people say that I am?”

It’s like saying “The Catholic Church say’s that you are the Son of God, the Messiah.” In which is true, but he would reply “but who do you say that I am?”

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

I don’t know what you are saying here.

 

[PRmerger]

The people who decided what the canon ultimately is today, they did not have the benefit of the authority to which you refer because no canon existed.

Exactly.

And that is why these “people” (who were Catholic “people”. Catholic bishops, to be exact) were given the charism of infallibility. It is through Sacred Tradition that you know what the canon of the NT is.

Thus, you are acknowledging that the CC has been given the charism if infallibility, at least as it applies to the canon of the NT.

And that you defer to the authority of the CC each and every time you quote from the NT.

 

[PRmerger]

For the first, this site covers the question much more thoroughly than I ever could without plagiarizing. bibleresearch.org/articles/alw2.htm

Could you point out where the article says which Jewish law in the OT accepted polygamy/polygyny?

You said that there was a Jewish law in the OT. What OT book, chapter and verse? I couldn’t find the answer in the article you cited.

 

[PRmerger]

For the second, presuming I’d become ok with any dating type contact, I would (right now, no dating until the age of 57 sounds like a fine idea ). I might ask to meet everyone, but what fool wouldn’t want to meet any prospective spouse for their child?

Just to be clear, after the above verbosity: you are fine with your daughter being married to a man with 3, 4, 5, (fill in the blank with any number more than 1) wives? Yes?

 

[PRmerger]

For the first, this site covers the question much more thoroughly than I ever could without plagiarizing. bibleresearch.org/articles/alw2.htm

Could you point out where the article says which Jewish law in the OT accepted polygamy/polygyny?

You said that there was a Jewish law in the OT. What OT book, chapter and verse? I couldn’t find the answer in the article you cited.

Incidentally, I just researched the 613 Mitzvots (commandments/laws) of Judaism.
Nothing at all about acceptance of polygamy/polygyny…

Specifically, there are 22 that deal with marriage. I did not see anything that commanded polygamy/polygyny.

To honor father and mother (Ex. 20:12) (CCA41).
Not to smite a father or a mother (Ex. 21:15) (CCN44).
Not to curse a father or mother (Ex. 21:17) (CCN46).
To reverently fear father and mother (Lev. 19:3) (CCA42).
To be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28) (CCA43).
That a eunuch shall not marry a daughter of Israel (Deut. 23:2) (CCN136).
That a mamzer shall not marry the daughter of a Jew (Deut. 23:3) (CCN137). See Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children.
That an Ammonite or Moabite shall never marry the daughter of an Israelite (Deut. 23:4) (negative).
Not to exclude a descendant of Esau from the community of Israel for three generations (Deut. 23:8-9) (negative).
Not to exclude an Egyptian from the community of Israel for three generations (Deut. 23:8-9) (negative).
That there shall be no harlot (in Israel); that is, that there shall be no intercourse with a woman, without previous marriage with a deed of marriage and formal declaration of marriage (Deut. 23:18) (CCN133). See Marriage.
To take a wife by kiddushin, the sacrament of marriage (Deut. 24:1) (CCA44). See The Process of Marriage: Kiddushin and Nisuin.
That the newly married husband shall (be free) for one year to rejoice with his wife (Deut. 24:5) (affirmative).
That a bridegroom shall be exempt for a whole year from taking part in any public labor, such as military service, guarding the wall and similar duties (Deut. 24:5) (negative).
Not to withhold food, clothing or conjugal rights from a wife (Ex. 21:10) (CCN42). See The Marital Relationship.
That the woman suspected of adultery shall be dealt with as prescribed in the Torah (Num. 5:30) (affirmative).
That one who defames his wife’s honor (by falsely accusing her of unchastity before marriage) must live with her all his lifetime (Deut. 22:19) (affirmative).
That a man may not divorce his wife concerning whom he has published an evil report (about her unchastity before marriage) (Deut. 22:19) (negative).
To divorce by a formal written document (Deut. 24:1) (affirmative). See The Process of Obtaining a Divorce.
That one who divorced his wife shall not remarry her, if after the divorce she had been married to another man (Deut. 24:4) (CCN134). See Divorce.
That a widow whose husband died childless must not be married to anyone but her deceased husband’s brother (Deut. 25:5) (CCN135) (this is only in effect insofar as it requires the procedure of release below).
To marry the widow of a brother who has died childless (Deut. 25:5) (this is only in effect insofar as it requires the procedure of release below ) (CCA45).
That the widow formally release the brother-in-law (if he refuses to marry her) (Deut. 25:7-9) (CCA46).

From Judaism 101.

Is there another law that you are aware of that commanded polygamy in the OT?

 

[mek42]

Could you point out where the article says which Jewish law in the OT accepted polygamy/polygyny?

You said that there was a Jewish law in the OT. What OT book, chapter and verse? I couldn’t find the answer in the article you cited.

Where is the practice unambiguously prohibited? If something is not prohibited then it must be permitted, no? Even Chabad claims that the modern day prohibition is very recent and only strictly applicable to certain Jewish people. chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/558598/jewish/Does-Jewish-Law-Forbid-Polygamy.htm

 

[stewstew03]

The people who decided what the canon ultimately is today, they did not have the benefit of the authority to which you refer because no canon existed. Why is this so difficult to communicate?

That’s not entirely true. Luther and Calvin had the benefit of the Church’s authority, but excluded seven books anyway, which were previously determined to be inspired.

 

[mek42]

That’s not entirely true. Luther and Calvin had the benefit of the Church’s authority, but excluded seven books anyway, which were previously determined to be inspired.

I didn’t realize that Catholics accepted the Protestant canon as the correct canon.

 

[PRmerger]

Where is the practice unambiguously prohibited?

You said that Jewish law accepted polygamy. What law? Please cite the law.

Now, if you want to say that the Jews of the OT practiced polygamy, well, that is different.

God never sanctioned it. It simply occurred.

 

[PRmerger]

I didn’t realize that Catholics accepted the Protestant canon as the correct canon.

We don’t. Protestantism removed 7 books from the OT.

 

[mek42]

You said that Jewish law accepted polygamy. What law? Please cite the law.

Now, if you want to say that the Jews of the OT practiced polygamy, well, that is different.

God never sanctioned it. It simply occurred.

Laws are generally prohibitive, not permissive. Please provide a citation where the practice was prohibited.

 

[stewstew03]

I didn’t realize that Catholics accepted the Protestant canon as the correct canon.

You said: “The people who decided what the canon ultimately is today, they did not have the benefit of the authority to which you refer because no canon existed.”

The canon that YOU have, ultimately, today, more than likely excludes the Deuterocanon.

 

[PRmerger]

Laws are generally prohibitive, not permissive.

Yeah. That’s what I think, too.

So do you want to rescind this comment that you made earlier?

It was even accepted according to Jewish law in OT times.

If you remain adamantine that the above is correct, what Jewish law accepted polygamy?

Please cite the law that you are professing “accepted according to Jewish law in OT times” polygamy.

 

[mek42]

You said: “The people who decided what the canon ultimately is today, they did not have the benefit of the authority to which you refer because no canon existed.”

The canon that YOU have, ultimately, today, more than likely excludes the Deuterocanon.

If you (personally) are referring to me personally, then I am afraid you (personally) are making an assumption that is incorrect.

 

[mek42]

Yeah. That’s what I think, too.

So do you want to rescind this comment that you made earlier?

If you remain adamantine that the above is correct, what Jewish law accepted polygamy?

Please cite the law that you are professing “accepted according to Jewish law in OT times” polygamy.

If something is not specifically prohibited, it is generally permitted. We both seem to agree on this. Do you care to provide a case where OT Law clearly and unambiguously prohibits polygamy? If not, then we must agree that the practice was permitted.