what defines marriage?

[Lori_7]

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!

I proved that absence of an event being described in the bible doesn't mean it didn't happen. How many times must we go over this.

Also you added the caveat 'in the Bible', but scriptural references have been shown to you that PROVE that other sources of God's word remain authoritative, so if they mention ceremony, it's still binding.

As Jewish marriage ceremonies are well documented, and documents exist dating 600 years before Jesus, we can assume they are part of the Law Jesus said he had come to fulfil.

i've never said it didn't happen. what i've said is that it's not described in the bible as "law". and there are PLENTY of laws regarding marriage in the bible. not one of them even mentions a ceremony. most of them have to do with sex.

RIGHT?

jesus is the embodiment of the law. get it? embodiment...

 

[NMSquirrel]

I proved that absence of an event being described in the bible doesn't mean it didn't happen. How many times must we go over this.

so why do you keep asking for biblical referance?when you yourself are saying its not in there

Also you added the caveat 'in the Bible', but scriptural references have been shown to you that PROVE that other sources of God's word remain authoritative, so IF they mention ceremony, it's still binding.

see bold

As Jewish marriage ceremonies are well documented, and documents exist dating 600 years before Jesus, we can assume they are part of the Law Jesus said he had come to fulfil.

Assume???
you know where that gets you..

i do find it interesting that a marriage ceremony is not mentioned in the bible..

 

[NMSquirrel]

and there are PLENTY of laws regarding marriage in the bible.

hey lori give us a few as per above..

 

[Lori_7]

hey lori give us a few as per above..

here's more than a few...

http://www.openbible.info/topics/marriage

not all of this is "law" per se, but the results of a general search of scripture for any mention of marriage. you'll have to read through it to find what sounds like a law. which, it sounds like there are plenty, fairly straight-forward ones.

 

[river-wind]

Of course the first item in that link explicitly says that the marriage bed must be undefiled; in other words, the marriage must be an independent thing from, and occur before, consummation.

 

[Lori_7]

Of course the first item in that link explicitly says that the marriage bed must be undefiled; in other words, the marriage must be an independent thing from, and occur before, consummation.

well it can either be consummation or fornication, depending upon whether or not you're making that covenant. it's a conscious act, and going into it, you know what your intentions are, and through mutual expression, the intentions of your partner.

 

[river-wind]

While i agree with you 100% that the important part of commitment in a monogamous relationship is the intent and dedication of the individuals (and not the public ceremony), I have to reiterate that assuming that the marriage ceremony of Joseph and Mary didn't occur or was unimportant to the people involved because the ceremony is not explicitly mentioned in the modern NT books is disingenuous.

As said previously, the details of the Jewish wedding ceremony were already included in existing religious texts of the time, and the traditions were common at the time the gospels were written. In my mind, it is just as likely that the ceremony was left out because it was not special and didn't need to be recorded as it was that the ceremony was considered unimportant (or didn't occur at all). Using phlogistician's perfectly apt point - just because the Bible doesn't mention a mundane thing (eating, going to the bathroom, etc), doesn't mean they didn't happen.

The lack of evidence is not the evidence of lack.

On the flip side, the flexibility of the early church regarding particular ceremony would suggest to me that the details of the marriage ceremony (and many other religious rights) were considered unimportant, but the consistent use of *a* ceremony suggests to me that the public proclamation of the union was considered important. Be it Roman or Jewish, so long as the people to be married publicly voiced their commitment prior to consummation, the religion, and the society, were fine with the union.

Your stance seems to be one of your understanding of God's (rather than the congregation's) wishes. If you are therefore presuming that things left out of the Bible are as important as the things left in the Bible, you are not arguing the importance of the Jewish wedding ceremony to God at all, but the inerrancy of the Bible and the power man has had over its formation and translation over the centuries.

Why was the Talmud not included in the Bible? Why only the Torah? Why isn't Maccabees in the Bible? Solomon? The Gospel of Thomas or that of Peter? Was God present at the counsels of Nicaea and Trullo? Did the political maneuvering of Rome and the Catholic church against Persia and the Eastern church have nothing to do with what currently exists in the Catholic cannon?

 

[Lori_7]

While i agree with you 100% that the important part of commitment in a monogamous relationship is the intent and dedication of the individuals (and not the public ceremony), I have to reiterate that assuming that the marriage ceremony of Joseph and Mary didn't occur or was unimportant to the people involved because the ceremony is not explicitly mentioned in the modern NT books is disingenuous.

As said previously, the details of the Jewish wedding ceremony were already included in existing religious texts of the time, and the traditions were common at the time the gospels were written. In my mind, it is just as likely that the ceremony was left out because it was not special and didn't need to be recorded as it was that the ceremony was considered unimportant (or didn't occur at all). Using phlogistician's perfectly apt point - just because the Bible doesn't mention a mundane thing (eating, going to the bathroom, etc), doesn't mean they didn't happen.

The lack of evidence is not the evidence of lack.

On the flip side, the flexibility of the early church regarding particular ceremony would suggest to me that the details of the marriage ceremony (and many other religious rights) were considered unimportant, but the consistent use of *a* ceremony suggests to me that the public proclamation of the union was considered important. Be it Roman or Jewish, so long as the people to be married publicly voiced their commitment prior to consummation, the religion, and the society, were fine with the union.

Your stance seems to be one of your understanding of God's (rather than the congregation's) wishes. If you are therefore presuming that things left out of the Bible are as important as the things left in the Bible, you are not arguing the importance of the Jewish wedding ceremony to God at all, but the inerrancy of the Bible and the power man has had over its formation and translation over the centuries.

Why was the Talmud not included in the Bible? Why only the Torah? Why isn't Maccabees in the Bible? Solomon? The Gospel of Thomas or that of Peter? Was God present at the counsels of Nicaea and Trullo? Did the political maneuvering of Rome and the Catholic church against Persia and the Eastern church have nothing to do with what currently exists in the Catholic cannon?

i've been thinking about that, in regards to the gnostic gospels in particular. it seems they edited out anything they determined to be a threat to their religious hierarchy. and you could determine that with an educated guess, without having to even read the gospels themselves, because the intention of self-preservation often undermines the true purpose of an any institution and it becomes political.

 

[phlogistician]

i've never said it didn't happen. what i've said is that it's not described in the bible as "law".

AND JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOT MENTIONED AS BEING LAW, DOESN'T MEAN IT ISN'T. The NT doesn't reiterate the Ten Commandments from the OT, but it's safe to say that Jesus didn't condone murder, just because he didn't restate everything.

and there are PLENTY of laws regarding marriage in the bible. not one of them even mentions a ceremony. most of them have to do with sex.

Scriptural references then please. Prove your point, if you can.

jesus is the embodiment of the law. get it? embodiment...

Yeah, Jesus, that Jewish guy, made it clear that he was not intending to overturn the existing laws. So that means everything already required by the laws of that time were still to be in force after. That includes marriage ceremonies.

 

[Jan Ardena]

...and there are PLENTY of laws regarding marriage in the bible. not one of them even mentions a ceremony. most of them have to do with sex.

Scriptural references then please. Prove your point, if you can.

Deuteronomy 21. 11-13

and seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and thou hast a desire unto her, and wouldest take her to thee to wife;then thou shalt bring her home to thy house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thy house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

jan.

 

[phlogistician]

Deuteronomy 21. 11-13

jan.

Two problems for Lori here. One, Deuteronomy is Old Testament/Torah, and Lori is narrow mindedly focussed on the New Testament.

Two, it is a ritual one must follow, so again, we have scriptural support that there are things that should be done for a marriage to be valid, it's not as Lori claims, just about sex.

She's got sex on the brain. The demon that possesses her is taking her to hell using her genitals. He's picked an easy target in Lori, hasn't he?

 

[Lori_7]

AND JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOT MENTIONED AS BEING LAW, DOESN'T MEAN IT ISN'T. The NT doesn't reiterate the Ten Commandments from the OT, but it's safe to say that Jesus didn't condone murder, just because he didn't restate everything.



Scriptural references then please. Prove your point, if you can.



Yeah, Jesus, that Jewish guy, made it clear that he was not intending to overturn the existing laws. So that means everything already required by the laws of that time were still to be in force after. That includes marriage ceremonies.

i provided a link in post 424. the results of a search of all bible scripture that has anything to do with marriage. do any of these scriptures say that a ceremony is a requirement of marriage? no.

can you pick out those scriptures that read like law? what are they in regards to?

 

[Lori_7]

Two problems for Lori here. One, Deuteronomy is Old Testament/Torah, and Lori is narrow mindedly focussed on the New Testament.

Two, it is a ritual one must follow, so again, we have scriptural support that there are things that should be done for a marriage to be valid, it's not as Lori claims, just about sex.

She's got sex on the brain. The demon that possesses her is taking her to hell using her genitals. He's picked an easy target in Lori, hasn't he?

more repugnant bullshit. and your rationale for this is that i didn't shave my head?

this is nonsense, and indicative of nothing more than your desire to designate god and the bible as nonsense. but you're wrong. it's actually a lot more important and impactive than you're trying to make it out to be, and scripture supports my point.

in regards to having sex on the brain, i have come to the opinion, through experience and counsel, that sex is one of the greatest gifts god has given us. as i've mentioned before, trying to figure out what to do with my genitals and why was what prompted me to seek god in the first place. and it worked. i found god. now whether or not i have sex on my brain any more than anyone else is debatable. but what is not debatable, is the fact that i was celibate for 8 years prior to marrying. so, regardless of whether it's on my brain or not, that doesn't mean i compromise the importance of it, and the value of it, or act recklessly in regards to the power of it. the truth about me and my life is actually the opposite of what you're suggesting here.

 

[phlogistician]

i provided a link in post 424. the results of a search of all bible scripture that has anything to do with marriage.

LIAR!

You have been proven wrong with scriptural references! The quotes you provided a link to DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT.

do any of these scriptures say that a ceremony is a requirement of marriage? no.

Nor do they say it isn't!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your point has been disproven with scripture.

NONE of the references you have linked to prove your point.

You are defeated.

 

[phlogistician]

more repugnant bullshit. and your rationale for this is that i didn't shave my head?

There is a documented process that you didn't follow. It's in the Old Testament. It's a ritual. It proves you WRONG, yet again. You only say it's 'repugnant' because it proves you WRONG.

this is nonsense, and indicative of nothing more than your desire to designate god and the bible as nonsense.

Quite the opposite, but it seems you haven't noticed in this debate I am taking the position that if we take God's word and the bible as correct, it proves that your lifestyle choices are sinful.

but you're wrong. it's actually a lot more important and impactive than you're trying to make it out to be, and scripture supports my point.

Show me just ONE scriptural reference that says sex = marriage then. Nothing vague, or open to your twisted interpretations.

Go on, IF you can prove it, PROVE IT.

in regards to having sex on the brain, i have come to the opinion, through experience and counsel, that sex is one of the greatest gifts god has given us.

And the demon that is leading you to Hell agrees.

 

[Lori_7]

There is a documented process that you didn't follow. It's in the Old Testament. It's a ritual. It proves you WRONG, yet again. You only say it's 'repugnant' because it proves you WRONG.

lol...perhaps if my husband was my enemy, and had chosen me amongst captives of war, that ritual would be applicable. perhaps.

Quite the opposite, but it seems you haven't noticed in this debate I am taking the position that if we take God's word and the bible as correct, it proves that your lifestyle choices are sinful.

you don't know the first thing about correct, and you're not interested in correct.

Show me just ONE scriptural reference that says sex = marriage then. Nothing vague, or open to your twisted interpretations.

Go on, IF you can prove it, PROVE IT.



And the demon that is leading you to Hell agrees.

as a matter of fact, the latter part of that same scripture...

"and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. "

there ya go.

 

[phlogistician]

as a matter of fact, the latter part of that same scripture...

"and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. "

there ya go.

After what? The marriage ceremony?

And you quote doesn't mention fucking, so again you fail.

 

[Lori_7]

relevant music break...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X5lbZi6UUo

love that band. love that song. love that video.

 

[Lori_7]

After what? The marriage ceremony?

And you quote doesn't mention fucking, so again you fail.

no, the month. can't you read?

and what in the hell do you think "go in unto her" means? are you kidding me?!

 

[Jan Ardena]

no, the month. can't you read?

and what in the hell do you think "go in unto her" means? are you kidding me?!

Go easy on him, he may be having a nervous breakdown.

jan.