Polygamy in the Bible

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

This is conjecture, where is the Biblical New Testament teaching for plural wives?

1st Corinthians chapter seven doesn't even allude to what you purpose above. Try to produce the thread of teaching where ADAM, or JESUS had plural wives.

bet you woldn't accept any showing all the Patriarchs having them,, huh?

In your mind none of that matters, right? Only Adam & Jesus... well since Jesus had no physical wives its a little hard to do.. but concerning Adam we have NO IDEA after the fall how many wives he had.... were you there?

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Listen just like Jesus, Peter, and Elijah, I respond to you just as they did.

No sir, this is a discussion forum.. not a hate room, not a room of disrespect,, we respect others opinions here and argue the POINT not the person.. blessings

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Huh? Where is that command?

And wasn't there a prohibition in the OT that prevented spouses from returning to one another after a divorce, at least, not if they had remarried?

Yes, but using scripture from the OT alone is "isogesis", not "exegesis" as I've been politely informed of, lol.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Listen just like Jesus, Peter, and Elijah, I respond to you just as they did.

The only problem with that dear brother is you're none of the above... a vindicated prophet such as Elijah can speak to me anyway God tells him do.. the SON OF GOD can as well.. but a fellow brother I expect more tact from

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Show me where in the New Testament were people had MORE THAN ONE WIFE?

Why would Paul have to emphasize that Bishops have one wife if there weren't at least a few instances of polygamous families converted and living in the early church? If monogamy was absolutely universal (and we agree it was the ideal union pictured by the early church)...there would be no need for Paul to address this. Paul's standard for bishops (and the fact that it is restricted to bishops and deacons) implies that polygamous marriages existed, but were not ideal. And if it were a sin to be specifically condemned...this would have been an ample opportunity to address it. But Paul doesn't. He simply sets the standard for leadership. This was wise. Because it didn't condemn polygamous families that were converted. By setting a leadership standard he doesn't condemn polygamy...but he makes an influence toward monogamy.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

This logic is so incredibly flawed, I'm almost speechless.

First, let me clarify, are you saying that there is nothing in the OT that God allowed that He now does not allow?


If so, when Paul commanded every man to love his "WIFE" as Christ loved the "CHURCH", singular, not plural, that Paul was in direct defiance to God?

?? incredibly flawed? Your argument make no sense at all. You fail to grasp the basic principle that God is not going to call SIN what he told people was OK to do and gave legislation on how to act within such relationships. God does not change what is sin is always sin. God is not going to say well it wasn't sin then but it is now. You make God inconsistent. Especially when he never said it was sin. Yet somehow you want to make it sinful now.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Huh? Where is that command?

In the gold plates of Nephi and Mormon. We just can't view them because they were taken up to the planet Kolob.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

And wasn't there a prohibition in the OT that prevented spouses from returning to one another after a divorce, at least, not if they had remarried?

Deu 24:1-4

"When a man hath taken A WIFE (SINGULAR), and married HER (SINGULAR), and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, MAY NOT TAKE HER AGAIN TO BE HIS WIFE, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance."

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Eph 5:22-33 "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of THE BODY. Therefore as THE CHURCH is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved THE CHURCH, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself A glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their OWN BODIES. He (SINGULAR) that loveth HIS WIFE (SINGULAR) loveth HIMSELF (SINGULAR). For no MAN (SINGULAR) ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord THE CHURCH: For we are members (PLURAL PARTS, LIKE EYES, EARS, FEET, NOT ENTIRE WHOLE BODIES) of HIS BODY (SINGULAR), of his flesh, and of his bones. For THIS CAUSE (OR REASON) shall a MAN (SINGULAR) leave his FATHER (SINGULAR) and MOTHER (SINGULAR), and shall be joined unto HIS WIFE (SINGULAR), and they TWO (1+1=2) shall be ONE FLESH. This is a great mystery (ESPECIALLY TO DR DEMENTO AND AQUILA): but I speak concerning Christ and THE CHURCH. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his WIFE (SINGULAR) even as himself; and THE WIFE (SINGULAR) see that SHE (SINGULAR)reverence HER (SINGULAR) husband."

It's pretty simple math if you ask me. Jesus only has ONE BODY, that ONE BODY is THE one Church. Not a multiplicity of churches, but only ONE CHURCH.

Adam was made one wife, It was Adam and Eve, not Adam, and 10 other women. This is to show Christ and His Church.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

No one is arguing that Paul didn't set monogamy as the ideal union. The point is Paul had opportunity to condemn it. However Paul only sets the solid standard on bishops and deacons. Again...he had wisdom. He didn't condemn those who may had been in polygamous marriages...but through a leadership standard he sets the tone and allows the example to influence the flock. If it was an abominable sin...Paul wimped out because he didn't condemn it though he had opportunity to.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Why would Paul have to emphasize that Bishops have one wife if there weren't at least a few instances of polygamous families converted and living in the early church? If monogamy was absolutely universal (and we agree it was the ideal union pictured by the early church)...there would be no need for Paul to address this. Paul's standard for bishops (and the fact that it is restricted to bishops and deacons) implies that polygamous marriages existed, but were not ideal.

You like your boy, the Doc, are teaching from conjecture, and therefore It's not scripturally sound for doctrine.

Here Aquila answer me the below post.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Get out of town! You guys have been going pages such vague evidence?

A bishop should be the husband of one wife?

Does your flawed cult hermeneutic work when applied to other similar verses?

1Ti 5:9

"Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been THE WIFE OF ONE MAN"

If we follow your erroneous cult hermeneutic, then we can say that women had plural wives?

PROVE IT WITH SCRIPTURE CHAPTER AND VERSE DR.DO-LITTLE.

Did women also have plural husbands?

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

In the gold plates of Nephi and Mormon. We just can't view them because they were taken up to the planet Kolob.



Deu 24:1-4

"When a man hath taken A WIFE (SINGULAR), and married HER (SINGULAR), and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, MAY NOT TAKE HER AGAIN TO BE HIS WIFE, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance."

Evangelist, your argument here is with GOD HIMSELF not us...

"And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."
2 Samuel 12:8.

The context of the verse is that of God, speaking through a prophet (Nathan), calling out David for David's sin of taking another man's wife (Bathsheba, wife of Uriah the Hittite), which is adultery indeed, and for setting up the death of Uriah the Hittite to try to hide David's sin.

Also, at the point in time of this situation, David had already been married to at least seven known-named wives. (1_Samuel 18:27, 25:42-43, 2_Samuel 3:2-5.)

But, in this verse 12 (above), God was not condemning David for all his wives! In fact, this verse 12 shows God Himself actually saying that HE was the One Who had GIVEN David His wives.

If God was against David's polygamy, He certainly would not have said that He had GIVEN David his wives.

But the LORD did not stop there. That verse 12 shows that the Lord took it even one step further than that! The LORD God even went on further to say that if David had wanted more wives, the Lord Himself said that He would have given David even more!

It was only because David had sinned, in committing adultery by taking another man's wife, and then causing that man's death to try to hide David's sin, that the Lord was calling him out through the prophet Nathan. There was no sin in the polygamy at all.