The "begats"

We did a three part series on them last year.

 

There are a lot of good stuff in the Begats..

Just do a quick study of the women listed in Matt. chapter 1.

Women weren't usually listed, so I got to wondering why Matthew did..(other than the fact that God wanted him to!)

It is interesting... YOu study it and see what you think... Hint...look at the type of lives these women lived.

 

Very interesting study, the "begats". Unless we understand what "begat" means, we can lose our way. Begat is marriage, and marriage is procreation. No possible "begetting", means no possibility of marriage, other than for a man and a woman unable to produce for whatever reason. But even then if the marriage is not consummated, I don't believe the couple is seen as married in the eyes of God if their disability makes it impossible for them to become one. In the eyes of the world they are seen as married for they have a wedding certificate to prove it. The genetic makeup of the man and woman are wondrous, making the act of marriage only possible between the two sexes.

How sad today the ignorance shown by so many in this world, and most of them are held up to this as being the "best" and the "brightest". These are taken in their own craftiness, enjoying only for a short time their lust for each other.

Even Christians, or they say they are, are beginning to listen to the world and cower; joining in and saying surely God could not be cruel enough to condemn these poor souls to hell, for they have a “sickness”. He just can’t mean what He says. We are to “fear” God and not man. There stupidity is astounding, for the actual homosexual's believe they can get married, and even many in churches give the nod in this direction.

Since they can't "begat" they cannot marry. But knowing the mind of man, it will come about that they will be able to get a "marriage" license to prove they are married. And it will hold up in court just as today for a man and a woman. This "marriage license" after all is only a piece of paper and is necessary for our civil laws, to protect both parties, their children, will, property, and whatever. So in that sense it gives the "confused" protection.

But are they married? No way for they can never become one, producing another human being, and one of them doesn't have the right "part/s" to make it happen. They are confused with corrupt minds, and any that pass laws are also without understanding. A license to live together of the same gender should read that way, saying they have all the rights that a married couple have, and the liabilities also.

Can the days of Noah be just around the corner?
Christian faith, ituttut

 

Begat does not mean marriage. Begat means 'to father'.

Noah did not marry Shem, Ham, and Japheth

 

Was Noah married? If so to whom? Whoever that Whom was must be the mother of at least one of the boys, some of them, or all of them, that is if Noah is the Father. Can Noah "father" by himself?

We gotta' be married to have sons and daughters standingfirminChrist.
Christian faith, ituttut

 

One has to be married to have sons and daughters? Not so.

The Bible speaks of one being a bastard (illegitimate). Hebrews 12:8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

The Bible also speaks of Hosea's wife having children because of her whoredoms. Hosea 1:2 The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD.

And what about all these unwed mothers we have in our society today? Just because they laid with a man does not necessarily make them married.

 

ittutt,

begat doesn't mean marriage at all. It means that that person had a son. In fact, in the OT look up Judah's offspring. His offspring by Tamar is included, and he was not married to her. Yet he "begat" a son by her. Every once in awhile the woman's name is included as a "by", but typically it is a record of the sons of the father. "Begat" in no way means or implies "marriage". Your point might be correct, but you are using a faulty basis for it.

As to the OP, sometimes I "speed read" through them, but oftentimes there are little nuggets of interesting info sprinkled in throughout the "begats". It can be very neat to read them, especially if you are interested in geneaologies.

 

But the Bible says so. ” Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. 16. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. 17. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.” I Corinthians 6:15-17

It is beyond me that Christians take Paul so lightly. This is where they get there understanding, then leave what Christ revealed to Paul, going back over scripture in their own knowledge, applying on occasion the knowledge they learned from Paul. Christ Jesus from heaven taught Paul everything he knew, and Paul tells us what Christ taught Him. The gospel of Paul is the gospel of Christ from heaven that He gave to Paul in order for us to be able to understand the Bible. We cannot understand the Bible unless we have the mind of Christ, which Paul tells us is available to all we in the Body of Christ.

Paul is speaking of sons of God, not sons of men. Bastards are someone’s sons and daughters. Bastards describe these sons and daughters as not being legitimate, just as you say. A bastard can be saved just as you and I. It is a descriptive term, of human males and females, and males are called sons, and females are called daughters. Paul applies this terminology in the spiritual sense.

You just described marriage. This whore was married each time she became one with her sex partner, and her children is witness to this fact. Of course this is describing Israel here for us as Hosea obeys His God. Whore’s can be saved, just like a bastard can be saved, or I was saved. I believed on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to save me, and He did.

That is not biblical, but tradition of man. The sex act is marriage in the eyes of God. When the parts meet as designed and are functional, the man and the woman become one, for one cannot be formed unless this “gift” that God gave us is acted upon. God calls this marriage. The Bible is replete with this fact, and Paul explains it nicely, so everyone can be made to understand.

Christian faith, ituttut

 

The woman who married Hosea was not married to the fathers of her children, else she would not be called a harlot. The children would not be called the children of a harlot if they were illegitimate.

Get real.

 

Hello bapmon:

Then doesn’t “begat” mean a man and a woman became one, being married, and had a son? Can we acquire a “son” or “daughter” from God without them “begetting”. We just cannot “begat” unless we are married. This then allows the two that became one to produce one that came from the two of us. That is “begetting” regardless of how we may wish to dissect the word. Begat means “make children” in our English language, and evidently in God’s also.

Your use of “Yet he 'begat' a son by her” only proves they were married, and the basis is proved, for the “father” produced, and the son that issued forth was “delivered” by the woman. Is this not marriage, as the Holy Spirit directed the writers to use the word “begat”? I don’t understand the “point being correct”, but “the basis” faulty. From a “false premise” a correct “conclusion” cannot be reached.

As to the OP, sometimes I "speed read" through them, but oftentimes there are little nuggets of interesting info sprinkled in throughout the "begets". It can be very neat to read them, especially if you are interested in geneaologies. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Understood, and they are interesting, proving through marriage Joseph and Mary were issued forth at just the right time, just as God purposed. This is the reason we are to “study to make ourselves approved to God, in order for us to rightly divide His Word.

Christian faith, ituttut

 

[/qb]But the Bible says so. ” Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. 16. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. 17. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.” I Corinthians 6:15-17

Christian faith, ituttut [/QB][/QUOTE]

ittutt,

it is not that we take Paul lightly, or anything else in the Bible. It is that you are extrapolating a meaning from that passage that simply is not there. Yes, when a man and woman have intimate relations they become one flesh. This is why it is such a heinous thing to do when NOT married, because it is taking a thing that God created and making a perversion out of it.

Remember what Jesus said to the woman at the well outside of Samaria? He said she had had five husbands....AND the man who she was THEN WITH was NOT her husband. Jesus Himself made a clear distinction between a marriage and an illicit relationship.....otherwise He would have said she had had SIX husbands.

[/qb]
Paul is speaking of sons of God, not sons of men. Bastards are someone’s sons and daughters. Bastards describe these sons and daughters as not being legitimate, just as you say. A bastard can be saved just as you and I. It is a descriptive term, of human males and females, and males are called sons, and females are called daughters. Paul applies this terminology in the spiritual sense.
[/QB][/QUOTE]

of course I agree with you in the above statement, but in this statement you contradict your own argument. There can be no such thing as a "bastard" if a couple is automatically married in God's eyes upon consumation of a physical intimate act.


And no, the word begat refers only to the fact that a son was produced. There is no implication in any way that a marriage did or did not occur. In fact, sometimes the "begat" is thought to be grandfather to grandson. This particular area (the word "begat" is neither proof nor refutation of what you espouse.

(pun intended....... )

 

Perhaps not in man’s understanding, but it is so in the eyes of God. Harlot is her “profession”, just as was Matthew called a “publican”. She in the “act of marriage” which we all know must take place to become one, had children by one or more husbands. Was she “legally married, with a piece of paper to prove who the father was? Evidently, not but the fact that she delivered “babies” proved without a doubt that she had sex, and it was with a male, who then is the father of the child/children.

Can you give me scripture the woman was forbidden to call those she delivered Her children?

Get Biblical. It is the only way to become spiritual.

Christian faith, ituttut

 

O.K. Will you explain how a couple “gets” married?

It could be possible I extrapolate here, but I don’t believe so. Could your reasoning be wrong? Will Genesis 38:8 fit into your hypothesis. ”And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.” The object here is evidently for them to become one (marry) and the two then produce one.

Again, perhaps your reasoning is wrong, for I believe you have no scripture to back you up. Does Jesus say she is “not married”? Try putting Romans 7:3 along side of your John reference, and see what you come up with. ”S o then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.”

The son’s and daughter’s of those not “legally” married are made bastards by the two that spawned them when they became one. The word bastard exists, so they must be produced just as all others. The “illicit ” marriage produced a child of questionable origin. The husband in the marriage is not identified.

Cute. The fact remains marriage cannot occur until the man and the woman become one, and there is only one way God made us to accomplish His command to “Be fruitful, and multiply”. No "multiply” - No “begetting”.

Christian faith, ituttut

 

ittutt,

different cultures have defined marriage in different ways. When Judah told Onan to "go take his brother's wife" this passage does not imply that there was no marriage ceremony. It does not mean that he immediately turned around, went straight to the gal and hopped into bed. This is what you are assuming.
What constitutes a marriage is when the couple has done what their society mandates as constituting a binding contract of marriage. In some cultures this has been leaving the man's shoes outside the woman's tepee for a week. After that, they are married. For us it would be some sort of ceremony with a legal official and paperwork filled out, and all that. The physical consummation of a marriage is more of a "side effect". What if a person is severely physically disabled and gets married? Does this mean they aren't really married if they can't accomplish the physical part of it?

 

So if a man has sex with woman "A" at some point before marriage, but later marries woman "B" who is he married to? Show a biblical couple to support your theory.

 

I don’t find Adam and Eve had a marriage ceremony. Adam and Eve made their bed and there they were married, and we are the product thereof. I don’t believe this will ever be able to be disproved, regardless of how hard one tries. We have to accept the fact, that God created us as we are, the act in bed by a male and a female is what makes a marriage. It is honorable. We are told to do it. It should not scare or frighten us into thinking it is something bad. We have the blessing of God, and this is the first thing He told us to do. Be fruitful and multiply. When it started all over again with Noah, God told them the same thing. That directive has never been rescinded. When a man and woman got together, it meant they were married. In that day there were no guidelines, so as the Bible shows some men had many wives. If the man had a home or homes with a wife, or wives, and he took care of his children, the marriage was honorable. There was no law against this practice.

Legal social contracts can be broken. If the marriage act has not happened, say after 15 years, one of the parties does not say I want a divorce; but I am going to have this marriage “annulled”. The court will declare the marriage null and void, for it never happened. The marriage was never consummated.

They are free to marriage in the social structure for everyone knows they were never married. In the eyes of God they may marry for in his eyes, a marriage did not take place. His virgin is still a virgin, and we know that no marriage could have taken place. Mary was a virgin when God used her, and she was still a virgin when Joseph had her. Was God married to Mary? Some folks think so, but I don’t.

Christian faith, ituttut

 

So if a man has sex with woman "A" at some point before marriage, but later marries woman "B" who is he married to? Show a biblical couple to support your theory. </font>[/QUOTE]As “sex” is marriage it is impossible to have it before marriage. I believe when one “fornicates” it is marriage. If in “fornication” the man makes the woman his wife, then they are not charged with “fornication” in their marriage for he has made the woman “wife”. It is possible to do this more than once as shown below.

If they go on their way and then commit “fornication” again with others, but this time each become husband and wife, they live in “fornication” and not adultery for even though this is their “second marriage”; their first marriage was not as husband and wife. There was no commitment made. I believe we can see this in I Corinthians 6:15-16, ” Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
16. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.” A marriage was made but the man did not take her as his “wife”. This is either “fornication” or “adultery” for this man. I simply cannot understand why some cannot equate these two verses with “marriage”. If not “marriage” then what message does these verses convey?

If either then goes outside of this marriage, and marries another in “fornication”, the wife committees “adultery”, as does the man. But if the man makes this “fornicator” his wife also, he has not committed “adultery”.

Of interest to anyone that sees what the Bible tells, can we find in His Word there is provision the “wife” can have two husbands at the same time?

I am not abdicating of one man, and one woman as man and wife. As Christians this is within our faith, and is to be adhered to. I just give what is in the Bible. Regardless of what went on before, we are to be faithful for if we step outside of our marriage of "one husband and one wife", we either take the Holy Spirit to bed with us in this desire, or we tell Him to wait outside.

Abraham married Sarai = A. Abraham married Hagar = B. Both A & B were his wives. Need a calculator when we reach Solomon. Christian faith, ituttut

 

Genesis 2:21-23 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

If this is not a ceremony, what is? Now, it may not be a ritual, but it is a ceremony.

BTW, if the sex act is marriage, then why is it called "fornication" instead of "marriage act".

 

So if a man has sex with woman "A" at some point before marriage, but later marries woman "B" who is he married to? Show a biblical couple to support your theory. </font>[/QUOTE]As “sex” is marriage it is impossible to have it before marriage. I believe when one “fornicates” it is marriage. If in “fornication” the man makes the woman his wife, then they are not charged with “fornication” in their marriage for he has made the woman “wife”. It is possible to do this more than once as shown below.

If they go on their way and then commit “fornication” again with others, but this time each become husband and wife, they live in “fornication” and not adultery for even though this is their “second marriage”; their first marriage was not as husband and wife. There was no commitment made. I believe we can see this in I Corinthians 6:15-16, ” Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
16. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.” A marriage was made but the man did not take her as his “wife”. This is either “fornication” or “adultery” for this man. I simply cannot understand why some cannot equate these two verses with “marriage”. If not “marriage” then what message does these verses convey?

If either then goes outside of this marriage, and marries another in “fornication”, the wife committees “adultery”, as does the man. But if the man makes this “fornicator” his wife also, he has not committed “adultery”.

Of interest to anyone that sees what the Bible tells, can we find in His Word there is provision the “wife” can have two husbands at the same time?

I am not abdicating of one man, and one woman as man and wife. As Christians this is within our faith, and is to be adhered to. I just give what is in the Bible. Regardless of what went on before, we are to be faithful for if we step outside of our marriage of "one husband and one wife", we either take the Holy Spirit to bed with us in this desire, or we tell Him to wait outside.

Abraham married Sarai = A. Abraham married Hagar = B. Both A & B were his wives. Need a calculator when we reach Solomon. Christian faith, ituttut </font>[/QUOTE]If having sex is marriage then why does the bible clearly show fornacation is something totally different then marriage?
Nope, a man is not married to a woman because they had sex, the bible shows otherwise.