Marriage Rejuvenation?

[Sean]

Aquila, why do all of these preterists hide their names at the bottom?

It is kinda creepy to me, howbout you?

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Sean

I am, TK!

Keep bringing the questions so's we can iron this out.

Also, welcome back Chris!

Where did you answer this?

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Well, if the lineages in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 and the Jewish ketubah is not enough, maybe YOU should tell us how marriage is done in the Bible??

And while you're at it, please explain to us why there is a need for a "bill of divorcement" if there was never some type of judicial agreement on marriage.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Sean

TK, I think that you believe govt was always hovering over marriage.

If so, that is not evident in the Bible.

I am clueless what you're saying/asking here.

"Hovering over marriage"??

[Sean]

Governing marriage rights.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Sean

What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.




Is this a state licensed marriage into one flesh?

Paul is using this to speak of sin, not marriage or divorcement. What are you trying to say?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Where did you answer this?

I am in the process.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Sean

TK, God see's this(above) as one flesh, right?


Also, God see's this as one flesh right?....


For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.




Fornication is also marriage?

I'm having a hard time deciding if you're being silly here or serious.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Sean

Could the pre-flood fornicators simply be "marriage and given in marriage" to God?(wives of all that they chose)

Are you just thinking out loud, or was the above supposed to make a point?

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Sean

Aquila, why do all of these preterists hide their names at the bottom?

It is kinda creepy to me, howbout you?

You're asking a guy using the fake name "Aquila" if the preterists that use their real names in their posts are being creepy about their names?

[Aquila]

As for biblical marriage, it was governed by a private contract between couples or families (not a civil contract).

In the early church, common marriages were governed under common law, established by cohabitation and repute. Churches only blessed or condemned unions. In ancient Rome, such marriages were indeed legal and recognized by the government, though not established by Roman contract. Rome did have a contractual marriage in addition to common law. These were typically options for the wealthy and proper Roman citizens.

Common law marriages were recognized until the Anglican churches began requiring licensing under English law, which Quakers resisted. Common law marriages were common in the colonies and on the frontier. This endured until the time states began requiring civil licensing, around the time of the Emancipation to prevent mixed marriages. Today, most states have abolished common law marriage. Quakers have resisted this also, believing that marriage is a natural common right, not a civil privilege.