-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Adam and Eve
- Thread starter webdog
- Start date
The Bible does not say we will have every feature of an angel. The text in context is speaking about marriage, not human acts.
What "period of time" is that? From the creation God created men and women to have relations.
Yes, and they were created to live forever in their perfect, fully functional bodies, the same bodies we will have upon resurrection.
This quote is taken out of context. This is dealing with our decaying bodies not being fit to live eternally, not actual bodies composed of flesh and blood. Adam and Eve and actual flesh and blood bodies that were designed to live forever. Also, what do you do with Elijay and Enoch compared to this text?
I hate to tell you, but we will indeed have these bodies, not the way they are now, but resurrected and renewed. To deny this is to deny the main staple of Christianity that Christ's body was not really His, and it was a totally different body than the one He died in.
standingfirminChrist
New Member
webdog,
Sexual relations with a concubine was not ordained of God. Else Ishmael would have been Abraham's promised seed.
Just because a man laid with a concubine does not mean God wanted that to happen.
Sexual relations with a concubine was not ordained of God. Else Ishmael would have been Abraham's promised seed.
Just because a man laid with a concubine does not mean God wanted that to happen.
I'm not spouting mormonism in the least. I know that today sex is between one man and one woman in marriage. This has not always been the case (OT), and I'm seriously asking what was the purpose of numerous wives and concubines in the OT. If you and doulous would rather not discuss this, fine, but don't refer to it as garbage or me a mormon.
Saul, God's chosen, and David, the apple of God's Eye both had concubines. I do not see where this was ordained, nor do I see where it is condemned. In the search I did that resulted in 20 verses with the word concubine, I see none where the practice was either ordained or condemned.
standingfirminChrist
New Member
Sexual relations outside of marriage is condemned, webdog.
since the women are not married to David or Saul, then they were guilty of adultery.
since the women are not married to David or Saul, then they were guilty of adultery.
Marcia
Active Member
Having concubines was apparently part of the culture; same with slavery and other cultural baggage. This is still true in some parts of the world.
The fact that God clearly speaks against adultery, however, shows that he does not endorse having concubines. He apparently did not force anyone to abandon this practice for his own purposes, but he did not endorse it.
Jesus said there was no marriage in heaven, and if there is no marriage, there can be no sexual relations. Otherwise, we have a picture of heaven that is much like paganism.
Even though we will have our resurrected bodies, they will be transformed and not the way they are now, though they will be ours.
I am wondering if this is one reason Jesus did not marry -- since we are being transformed into his image, we also will not be married in heaven. Jesus is the ultimate role model and the picture of what we will be like, and he was/is single (though of course, marriage on earth is clearly God's design).
The fact that God clearly speaks against adultery, however, shows that he does not endorse having concubines. He apparently did not force anyone to abandon this practice for his own purposes, but he did not endorse it.
Jesus said there was no marriage in heaven, and if there is no marriage, there can be no sexual relations. Otherwise, we have a picture of heaven that is much like paganism.
Even though we will have our resurrected bodies, they will be transformed and not the way they are now, though they will be ours.
I am wondering if this is one reason Jesus did not marry -- since we are being transformed into his image, we also will not be married in heaven. Jesus is the ultimate role model and the picture of what we will be like, and he was/is single (though of course, marriage on earth is clearly God's design).
Ge 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,
If God's plan was "perfect", then just what did God have in mind by allowing Adam/Eve to "pro-create" until the earth was full,
If Adam/Eve had not sinned, none of those "created" would have died, and they in turn would have "Multiplied".
In the 7 thousand years the world will exist it can't produce the number of people described in the scriptures, Half of all people that ever lived are alive today. (6 Billion=12 total)
Ge 13:16 And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.
Ge 15:5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
Ge 32:12 And thou saidst, I will surely do thee good, and make thy seed as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude.
Being made in "God's image", God created a "Son of God", Adam, (Man) and told him then to create more "sons of God", (multiply) however the gene pool became contaminated, so God had to create another "Son of God" to rescue the first,
But the point still remains, will the conditions on the New Earth pickup where they stopped on the old earth with sin, that is to multiply and replenish the earth, and for all eternity keep "increasing", and where no one dies, ever.
Ec 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be;
and that which is done is that which shall be done:
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,
If God's plan was "perfect", then just what did God have in mind by allowing Adam/Eve to "pro-create" until the earth was full,
If Adam/Eve had not sinned, none of those "created" would have died, and they in turn would have "Multiplied".
In the 7 thousand years the world will exist it can't produce the number of people described in the scriptures, Half of all people that ever lived are alive today. (6 Billion=12 total)
Ge 13:16 And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.
Ge 15:5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
Ge 32:12 And thou saidst, I will surely do thee good, and make thy seed as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude.
Being made in "God's image", God created a "Son of God", Adam, (Man) and told him then to create more "sons of God", (multiply) however the gene pool became contaminated, so God had to create another "Son of God" to rescue the first,
But the point still remains, will the conditions on the New Earth pickup where they stopped on the old earth with sin, that is to multiply and replenish the earth, and for all eternity keep "increasing", and where no one dies, ever.
Ec 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be;
and that which is done is that which shall be done:
Webdog, despite some being a bit overly critical of your questions, I would encourage you to go ahead and study this thing.
I am as equally intrigued by the fact that multiple wives were allowed in the Bible. Not that I intend to practice polygyny.
Could it be that a wife, besides the public ceremony involved, had distinct and separate privileges, culturally, from concubines, and therefore the difference in terms ?
And then we come to definitions.
A wife is someone who has been publicly presented as betrothed to a man, while a concubine...what ?
Is the one-wife only a Biblical principle, a commandment of God, or is it something that man developed according to the way man understood and interpreted the Scriptures.
If we say yes to this, then isn't God guilty of breaking His own law, and of being partial to national Israel in the matter of sin and judgment ?
If we say no, then why do we impose this ? Is this simply something that developed 'culturally' as time went on ?
Is there anything both Biblical and extra-Biblical that proves that monogamy has always been the rule and not the exception among God's people ?
Just plain honest questions.
If the one who answers cannot help but be sarcastic, or accusatory, or allude to the 'weirdness' of Primitive Baptists to whom I belong, then just shut up.
I am as equally intrigued by the fact that multiple wives were allowed in the Bible. Not that I intend to practice polygyny.
Could it be that a wife, besides the public ceremony involved, had distinct and separate privileges, culturally, from concubines, and therefore the difference in terms ?
And then we come to definitions.
A wife is someone who has been publicly presented as betrothed to a man, while a concubine...what ?
Is the one-wife only a Biblical principle, a commandment of God, or is it something that man developed according to the way man understood and interpreted the Scriptures.
If we say yes to this, then isn't God guilty of breaking His own law, and of being partial to national Israel in the matter of sin and judgment ?
If we say no, then why do we impose this ? Is this simply something that developed 'culturally' as time went on ?
Is there anything both Biblical and extra-Biblical that proves that monogamy has always been the rule and not the exception among God's people ?
Just plain honest questions.
If the one who answers cannot help but be sarcastic, or accusatory, or allude to the 'weirdness' of Primitive Baptists to whom I belong, then just shut up.
You say this, but the Bible is silent on this. Scripture does not say that they were guilty of adultery. Don't you think the incident with Bathsheba would not have been such a rare occasion of adultery if the practice of relations with concubines were considered adultery? Concubines were not considered adultery as far as I can see so far, but I could be wrong.
I see no sex in heaven because we will not have to procreate. Is that not the reason for sex?
Besides, didn't Jesus also say that we would be like the angels in heaven. How many here think that they have sex? None I hope.
"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." Mt. 22:30
I hope that settles that question.
Jack, that is speaking about marriage, not procreation. If sex's ONLY purpose was procreation, why do husbands and wives have relations...when not trying to conceive? The Song of Solomon delvs deeper into intimate relationships between man and woman with no mention of procreation. It's not as simple as it seems.
Hello Marcia.
I have no stand on this, I think it is a good conversation.
john.
If you add into the equation that we think of sex as sinners now but in Heaven we will be righteous and to the pure all things are pure. If sex takes place after the resurrection then it will be righteous, holy and pure. Laws can change. There might not be an intrinsic wrong in sex outside marriage as there is nothing intrinsically wrong with brothers and sisters reproducing. Circumstances are going to change.
I have no stand on this, I think it is a good conversation.
He uses the anology of marriage in His description of Himself and His Bride, does this make a difference?
The Song of Solomon isn't delving into a man and woman's relationship but the relationship between God and His Bride. That is a love song to me from my Lover webdog.
john.