Weddings...

Not any refs off hand unless you use Christ at the wedding and we would then have Biblical basis for drinking at weddings

Not that I am against church weddings, but not sure there is a real mass of reason to have them.

 

That statement is a little exscentric if you know what I mean ...

Genesis (2: 24?)... is one that comes to mind ...

Matthew 19:6 KJV
Wherefore they are no more twain (Two), but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
I will add the others that I had been looking at ... later.

In HIM

 

I cant find any biblical support. Same for baptizing.

 

Yes ...

No ... well actually yes to that as well. But, I gotta get back to you on it.

 

In the Old Testament many times they just "went in unto each other" in the tent...or "layed with each other"(yes folks...sex..the joining of flesh) and they were considered MARRIED both legally and in the eyes of GOD.The point is(and I'd welcome anybody disproving me)that "biblical" marriage is primarily a flesh union between a man and a woman that seals a commitment between them in the eyes of God...and yes...it is SUPPOSED to be for a lifetime.Divorce was NOT in God's original intended plan...but he does allow it under some circumstances...but THAT is another subject.The "ceremony" we practice to marry people with is NOT found in or commanded in the Bible...it is the cultural invention of man.It is not a bad thing...just not a Bible commanded thing.What is commanded is that we be in subjection to the laws of the society we live in (Romans 13:1,2,3).Therefore we should obey the laws of the land and if those laws require a formal legal wedding ceremony...then we should have one.BUT...the flesh union is what consumates the marriage....NOT the ceremony.That is my humble opinion.

Greg Sr.

 

Read the book of Ruth--Boaz and Ruth didn't just "hop in the tent" and everyone considered them married.

Tatertot??? No Biblical basis for baptism?????

 

"Boaz and Ruth didn't just "hop in the tent" and everyone considered them married."
"
Weddings in the Bible are a legal issue, they are contracts. They are not religious ceremonies.
There are strong sexual overtones to Ruth's actions prior to Boaz arranging their marriage. However in the OT the sexual act does not make a couple married.

 

Strong sexual overtones, just because Ruth, went to the threshing floor, where Boaz and the other men with their families were sleeping and she simply lay at his feet?

Typically the men and their families would encamp around the hill and the men would sleep in a circle around the grain.

 

Blackbird, you misunderstood ya sista! I know there are biblical bases for baptism, but why can only the pastor perform a baptism? That's what I meant.

 

Rookiepastor
"she simply lay at his feet?"
"
The Hebrew word for feet was also used as a euphemism for genitalia.

 

If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.
(Deuteronomy 25:5 KJV)

"When brothers live on the same property and one of them dies without a son, the wife of the dead man may not marry a stranger outside the family. Her brother-in-law is to take her as his wife, have sexual relations with her, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law for her.
(Deuteronomy 25:5 HCSB)

Seems that they would have thought they were married. You have referenced this before and tried to make something "dirty" or perverse out of it. Do you giggle when you read the Song of Solomon too? My advice is to "grow up".

Chad

 

"Seems that they would have thought they were married."
"
Actually on reading the text it's clear that Ruth makes it look to Boaz that they've 'hopped into the tent' and suggest that they do it once more. Boaz is flattered and tells her that he has the duty to marry her but somebody else has legally a stronger obligation than him. Then he goes out and arranges with that man that Boaz get's the responsibility to marry Ruth.

"Do you giggle when you read the Song of Solomon too?"
"
Ofcourse, you don't?
When a man compares a woman to a horse and he means it as a compliment I find that very funny.

My advice to you Chad is to both grow a sense of humour and a proper sense of perspective.

 

Greg Perry Sr.
I've heard the argument about sex being the basis for marriage before and I really only have one problem with it. Joseph took Mary to be his wife and he KNEW HER NOT until the baby (Jesus) was born. How could they be married without having sex? It just doesn't follow. On the other hand, Joseph did follow through on his commitment to Mary and then of course after she had Jesus, he followed through on the physical commitment as well.

 

Run ...

 

Yes,

Weddings are biblical & they are cultural. It would follow logically that since there are no descriptions of wedding ceremonies that wedding ceremony followed the cultural norm.

It also follows that the marriage was a covenant between the couples and before God & family.