What constitutes "marriage"?

[Brother Bob]

Governors:senators (or knights) who ruled the provinces of the Roman empire.

Your link is merely an opinion which has no assurance whatsoever!

Anyway it says he was governor (of the feast).

[ April 15, 2006, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Brother Bob ]

 

[Karen]

Originally posted by Gershom:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aaron:

Quiz time:

To whom was the first marriage license given in the United States, and why was it needed?

The first marriage license ever issued in America was in 1839, to a rich South Carolina plantation owner, so he could marry his slave. It was for an interracial marriage.

Compliments of askjeeves.com

</font>[/QUOTE]Jeeves misinformed you.
I don't have time to look up the first official date right now. But I will tell you that the above statement of 1839 is quite inaccurate.

For example, my great great great grandfather was a Baptist minister in Kentucky and Illinois 150 years ago. He performed numerous weddings. I know this because of the licenses I have seen recorded in the courthouses.

For example, go to rootsweb.com and go to the link on the USGenWeb project. You will find many links to early marriage records. Crawford Co, IL has records of marriage licenses online from 1817. It doesn't have any earlier because it wasn't a county in its present form any earlier. Not because licenses did not exist any earlier in IL. They did.

Karen

 

[Brother Bob]

bump

 

[Karen]

Originally posted by Wildfire:............
Karen.......This train of logic is a radical misinterpretation of the Scripture........And the institution of government-sanctioned marriage is very clearly not solving any social problems.......Caesar has no laws to protect the wife with the "radical personality change,"[/QB]

Hello,
I only have time right now to respond very briefly to a few points.
As far as radical misinterpretation, I stand with the Puritans on this one. I will have to post a few links.
As far as not solving any social problems, yes it does. Not all of them, that is true.
But for example, it is useful to attempt to regulate that people are not marrying their aunts, that people have sufficient mental capacity to understand their actions, that they are not acting under duress, that they are old enough, etc., etc.
Yes, Caesar does in such an extreme case as the accident and major personality change I alluded to. The distribution of property is more clearly defined. The care of minor children is more clearly defined.
If one says he will just have a power of attorney, saying that implicitly admits there are things that need to be addressed that a non-licensed "marriage" would not. And a power of attorney would not necessarily be the cure-all that many assume.

If you are "marrying" 70 yearolds in a manner that they can think they are married while the government does not think so, I think it is deceptive and you should quit.

Karen

 

[Brother Bob]

Thanks Karen;
I remembered I had records older that what Gershom posted:
Daniel, who remained in Virginia and probably mar-tied them
©Mary, born circa 1790. She married John W. Taylor circa 1504; the place of their marriage is unknown. Their first son, William A., was born August II, 1806, and died November 8, 1887. He married Sally Maynard, daughter of Lewis Maynard, and among their children was Margaret ("Peggy"), who married Mitchell Runyon, son of Adrian Runyon, January 6, 1848, in Pike County, Kentucky.
3. Alexander, born in 1797 in Virginia. He married (1st) Susannah Runyon, daughter of John Runyon, circa 1816, in Floyd [aunty, Kentucky. Twelve children were born to this union. Susannah died August 10, 1852 Alexander mar¬ried (2nd) Sawn Pain January 2, 1853, In Pike County, with :Aron Runyon, justice of the peace, officiating.
Meander owned 110 acres of land on Peges Branch of Pond Creek, Pike County. This is probably where he and Susannah lived and reared their children. Alexander and Susan (Pain) Varney sold their land on the waters of Pond Creek August 8, 1858, to Thomas Hung who was the hus¬band of Matilda (Varney) Hung daughter of Alexander and Susannah (Runyon) Varney. -
Alexander purchased a parcel of land from his brother Andrew Varney September 4, 1850, on Fall Rock Branch of Rockhouse Fork of Pigeon Creek, Logan County, Virginia, now Mingc County, West Virginia. Alexander and his bride, Susan, went to live on their land on the waters of Pigeon Creek, where they lived and died.
4. Nancy, born circa 1800; however, this date is uncertain. She married a Mr. Morris. No further record.
5. Andrew, born in 1803 in Virginia. He married Sarah ("Sally/') Stafford, daughter of John and Nancy (Runyon) Stafford, May 9, 1820, in Floyd County. They lived near Tug River, end near the residence of John Stafford, about-two miles upstream from the mouth of Pond Creek until after 1840; then they moved to the water of Pigeon Creek. Andrew was granted a total of 822 acres of land on the

bump!

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brother Bob:
So you think Adultry and missing church services because of laziness are the same?

No, but I think adultery (notice the spelling) and laziness are the same in God's eyes.

</font>[/QUOTE]Yes and also notice that it is poor netiquette to point out another's typos.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Aaron:
[snip]Cohabitation is a requirement for marriage, but only ONE requirement. My point is that mere cohabitation is not common law marriage. Never was.

At the moment the vows are exchanged and they're pronounced "man and wife," they're married in God's sight. And that's all that matters.

Quiz time:

To whom was the first marriage license given in the United States, and why was it needed?

Can you rationally justify that cohabitation is a requirement for marriage when Mary and Joseph were called husband and wife before ever cohabiting?

 

[Gina B]

Strong's concordance: the Greek word for governor, used in John 2:9 is architriklinos. The definition of this word is: director of the entertainment-governor of the feast.

It's the equivalent of today's wedding planner.

 

[Brother Bob]

Strong's concordance;

governor (ruler) of the feast. seems to be a government official to me and more than a wedding planer for he had authority to order everyone around including the bridegroom. And if he was a government official, Jesus had no problem with him in charge at all, but I guess things have changed.

But the biggest interpretative problem in the canonical text is what can be described as the "Mystery of the Architriklinos" -- which RSV translates as "steward of the feast". Who is this "steward", what exactly is his social status, and why is he ordering about even the bridegroom, of all people? This seems totally Imponderable, and all the commentators seem to be stumped by this...

I guess there must be some question to your definition?

Governor; Hebrew: pakid -- an officer or magistrate. It is used of the delegate of the high priest (2 Chr. 24:11), the Levites (Neh. 11:22), a military commander (2 Kings 25:19), Joseph's officers in Egypt (Gen. 41:34).

 

[Gershom]

Originally posted by Brother Bob:
John: 2
1: And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
2: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
3: And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
4: Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
5: His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
6: And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.
7: Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
8: And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.
9: When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,

Seems as though the governor was there and in charge at the wedding Jesus attended and He didn't seem to have a problem with the governor being involved.

LOL. C'mon, now. He was the governor OF THE FEAST. In other words, this was the person in charge of the banquet or ceremony - the MC Diggy-Dog.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Why is the bridegroom being ordered about? Don't you have a mother-in-law?

without the thumbs up from the government,

Now you're changing it to a thumbs up from the government. No one here ever said that you need approval from the government, as long as you are not marrying to close of kin, too young, etc. (Every state permits 2nd cousins to marry and many even permit 1st cousins to marry.)

A marriage license is merely the acknowledging of the marriage to the state. It's an officail record for legal matters.

But, it has gotten to the point that you are persecuted for being righteous. Married couples pay a higher tax rate if both work than if they were shacking up, automobile insurance is higher if one spouse has a bad driving record, etc.

 

[Frenchy]

Don't forget all the welfare benifits you get if you are not married but live with a guy. that is why alot of poor people do not get married. they have lots of babies but no husband

 

[Brother Bob]

I would like to know why a "governor" had to be there in the first place.

There is no "governor" in the following, but there is a King.

KJMatt.22
2": The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
"3": And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
"4": Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.

I know its liken unto The Kingdom of Heaven but Jesus didn't use a lie to make a point I don't think.

 

[Gershom]

Originally posted by Brother Bob:

I would like to know why a "governor" had to be there in the first place.

The answer is in the verse. You keep taking "of the feast" from the verse. Leave it be. Context, my brother. You've imagined some governor of the land but it isn't in that sense.

Originally posted by Brother Bob:
There is no "governor" in the following, but there is a King.

KJMatt.22
2": The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
"3": And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
"4": Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.

I know its liken unto The Kingdom of Heaven but Jesus didn't use a lie to make a point I don't think.

Whether a king or a peasant, a father should be involved in the wedding of his son. You're reaching yet again.

 

[Brother Bob]

The way you were reaching with the 1839, I don't think so.

All the weddings in the Bible were some kind of ceremony before the public, not two people going off in the bushes. It like if you are ashamed to confess me before this sinful and adultress generation. Well, it seems that marriages had to be a public thing too.

Thanks for at least admitting that the father should be involved, you are getting there.

 

[Gershom]

Originally posted by Brother Bob:
The way you were reaching with the 1839, I don't think so.

Not even close.

Originally posted by Brother Bob:
All the weddings in the Bible were some kind of ceremony before the public,

Not so.

Originally posted by Brother Bob:
not two people going off in the bushes.

More propaganda.

Originally posted by Brother Bob:
It like if you are ashamed to confess me before this sinful and adultress generation. Well, it seems that marriages had to be a public thing too.

More misuse of scripture.

Originally posted by Brother Bob:
Thanks for at least admitting that the father should be involved, you are getting there.

I replied because of your faulty interpretation, which has you pointing to "king" and "governor" away from its context.

 

[Brother Bob]

I am not going to play kids game with you called tic for tac. You speak foolishness. You made all these post and haven't said anything that makes sense. Can you show me where in the Bible it say you don't need a covenant to have a marriage?
Even the naked tribes in Africa or India have a public ceremony when there is a marriage.

 

[Gershom]

Originally posted by Brother Bob:
I am not going to play kids game with you called tic for tac. You speak foolishness. You made all these post and haven't said anything that makes sense. Can you show me where in the Bible it say you don't need a covenant to have a marriage?

I love it! LOL. You point out where someone has taken scripture out of context, show them how, and you're accused of not posting anything that makes sense. Then, they do not address the issue of their misuse, but instead accuse you of being foolish and throw in a question for a smokescreen.

LOVE IT! LOL...

 

[Brother Bob]

Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the Children of God.

PEACE BROTHER

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Gershom:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aaron:

Quiz time:

To whom was the first marriage license given in the United States, and why was it needed?

The first marriage license ever issued in America was in 1839, to a rich South Carolina plantation owner, so he could marry his slave. It was for an interracial marriage.

Compliments of askjeeves.com

</font>[/QUOTE]Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Right answer!

(Karen and Brother Bob are confusing marriage records with marriage licenses.)

A license is not merely a record as Karen misinformed us. A license is permission from the state to do something that without which permission would be illegal. (Notice that it's the root word of licentiousness.)

At the time of the first marriage license, interracial marriage was illegal. Therefore, the couple needed permission from the state to marry.

It is also a contract, which makes the state a third party in the union. The statutes of my state actually say "third party" in the laws concerning marriage.