Im so saddened by this......legalized polygamy

[Guest Prakk]

"Prakk, perhaps you missed my point."

And I in turn am tempted to say, "Perhaps you didn't read my post". I've addressed these points but I'll have a go at paraphrasing them for your consumption.

"There are many things not specifically mentioned in the Bible that we, today, consider to be of bad report, or against what the Bible is trying to teach us."

"Of bad report" is an indeterminate phrase, but I can say that the way you're using it, it amounts to whatever loses in an opinion poll. You've turned it into what I call the "Professional weaker brother" argument where you raise your beltline so high that I must comply with your standards of morality or you are put out. Not God's standard, your standard. As far as "against what the Bible is trying to teach us" I have to ask why are the authors, and ultimately the author (God almighty) so glaringly stupid? Mind you this is a rhetorical remark. You would have me believe that God spends thousands of years in direct contact with Polygyny and never get's around to banning it. It's practiced all throughout the scritpures, and he just forgets, right.

"Sometimes, we simply have to consider what is being said, and derive, as best we can, a correct meaning and application of certain verses."

This is what my late friend Don Dean used to call the "Smart Man" theory which is contrary to scripture. The smart man theory is this, that it takes a smart man to see what God is clearly saying, since us dummies can'ts gets it. And I R Collidge edgiecated 2.

"Paul, when giving these guidelines to Timothy concerning the office of Bishop (Elder, Pastor, etc), felt it was important to mention just how many wives were acceptable for one who desires the job. 1st Timothy 3:2"

'A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach'

Yes, he does, are you proposing that it is against God's ideal that a particular believer be a woman, or that a particular believer not possess the gift of teaching? Paul does say it is a gift by the way. The list is a list of conditions for office, not a list as many suppose is a list of things that are "Blameless". It's an easy error to make and I understand how many make that error, but being blameless is an item on the list, not the title of the list, the title of the list is, "the conditions you must satisfy to be an Elder". Otherwise you construe ito be a sin to be two things that cannot be a sin, that is, being a woman, or not possessing the gift of teaching. We are told by Paul that not all have all gifts. Paul goes through great lengths to point out it is not a charactor flaw to lack a gift.

"In this passage, I fail to see one mention of the word "wife" in the plural. I wonder why. Where would he get such an idea that a man should only have one wife?"

And in scripture, a man famous for having a few wives has his individual wives named "his wife" many times, that man would be David, if you want I can dredge up the specific proof texts. Or you can trust me, as you ought, since you ought to already know this, that what I say is true. The use of the singular only means we are talking about that one person or thing at a given time. Nothing more.

"Well, let's see what God Himself had to say on the matter (Mark 10) You do believe that Jesus is God, right?"

Jesus was talking about Divorce. How dare you even imply that I do not believe Jesus is God.

"Let' go a little deeper.....Mark 10:10-12;

"And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

"Notice a common theme yet?"

Yup, it's a Tammy Wynnett song, it's called D-I-V-O-R-C-E. The common theme is divorce.

"So, here's the deal. I can't think of one person mentioned in the Bible that was correct in having many wives. David was wrong, Abraham was wrong, Solomon was wrong, etc... it's simply not what God has created us for, as man and woman, as we saw from the above text."

I wouldn't go into those rotating doors at the department store if I were you. 2nd Chronicles 24:2 & 3 says; "And Joash did that which was right in the sight of the LORD all the days of Jehoiada the priest. And Jehoiada took for him two wives; and he begat sons and daughters." Really, he did right, all the days of the Religious leader of Judah, the High Priest, who gave him those wives. Talk about contemporary confirmation. So no, you're not even close.

Hugh McBryde

[ted]

That, I believe, is about the weakest comeback in Worthy history.

I'll make my points simple, and then take my leave of you and your doctrine.

"Of bad report" is an indeterminate phrase, but I can say that the way you're using it, it amounts to whatever loses in an opinion poll. You've turned it into what I call the "Professional weaker brother" argument where you raise your beltline so high that I must comply with your standards of morality or you are put out. Not God's standard, your standard. As far as "against what the Bible is trying to teach us" I have to ask why are the authors, and ultimately the author (God almighty) so glaringly stupid? Mind you this is a rhetorical remark. You would have me believe that God spends thousands of years in direct contact with Polygyny and never get's around to banning it. It's practiced all throughout the scritpures, and he just forgets, right.

Not my point at all. If it makes it easier for you to simply discard points with little dittys like "Professional weaker brother" arguments, so be it.

You would have me believe that God spends thousands of years in direct contact with Polygyny and never get's around to banning it. It's practiced all throughout the scritpures, and he just forgets, right.

I would have you believe no such thing. I Never said such a thing.

Next...

This is what my late friend Don Dean used to call the "Smart Man" theory which is contrary to scripture. The smart man theory is this, that it takes a smart man to see what God is clearly saying, since us dummies can'ts gets it. And I R Collidge edgiecated 2.

Cute, but wrong again. It's obvious now that whatever I say, you will simply lump it into a convenient package and label it whatever you want in order to make it easier for you to discard it.

Go ahead, whip out the ol' standard "staw man" label too, while you're on a roll.

Trudging on...

Yes, he does, are you proposing that it is against God's ideal that a particular believer be a woman, or that a particular believer not possess the gift of teaching?

No.

Where did that come from, anyway? My turn: STRAW MAN!

How in the world did you think that I was discussing whether a particular believer can be a woman or not, or that I was discussing the gift of teaching?

Try to stay on target. If you want to open threads dealing with these subjects, be my guest, but please, don't confuse the issue of multiple wives with things like this. They won't be addressed by me here on this thread.

The list is a list of conditions for office, not a list as many suppose is a list of things that are "Blameless".

Exactly my point!

Great, see it wasn't that hard. It is a list of attributes for the office. So, again, why do you think he felt it was important to list it?

BTW- I never tried to confuse it with the "Blameless" list. Nice try.

Onward....

It's an easy error to make and I understand how many make that error, but being blameless is an item on the list, not the title of the list, the title of the list is, "the conditions you must satisfy to be an Elder".

Nobody here that I have seen so far has made the error you mention. Again, you seem to understand that I was making the point that it was a list for qualifications for the office of Elder. What's the argument, anyway? Paul, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, felt the need to include it.

Why?

Otherwise you construe ito be a sin to be two things that cannot be a sin, that is, being a woman, or not possessing the gift of teaching. We are told by Paul that not all have all gifts. Paul goes through great lengths to point out it is not a charactor flaw to lack a gift.

No, I don't construe it to be anything other than off the current topic.

These are all good points, but totally out of place and out of context of the discussion at hand.

Again, try to stay focussed. We can get through this, if you try.

And in scripture, a man famous for having a few wives has his individual wives named "his wife" many times, that man would be David, if you want I can dredge up the specific proof texts.

You're still not getting it, are you? David was in error, as well as many other OT men, by having multiple wives.

Remember what Jesus said in my last post "From the beginning.."? That means from the beginning.

Now, it seems to me that you are trying to hit a point target with an area target weapon.

If it was indeed God's plan "From the beginning.." for a man to leave his parents and be "one" with his wife, how does the concept of multiple wives fit into that plan?

How is a man one flesh with his wife if he has more than one?

Instead of labeling my points with cute little monikers, how about simply answering my question?

Anyway.....

Or you can trust me, as you ought, since you ought to already know this, that what I say is true.

Uhh, no thanks. I think I'll pass on this one.

Jesus was talking about Divorce. How dare you even imply that I do not believe Jesus is God.

Yes, He was talking about the issue of divorce. I used that passage to illustrate the use of "wife" in the singular.

BTW- In no way was I implying that you did not believe that Jesus was God. I do not know you but from this one thread, therefore, I cannot make such an assumption. In fact, it was in the opposite light that I made the statement, in that I assumed that you did know Christ as God. I felt it was something we could agree on.

Sorry if I wasn't clear on that point.

Yup, it's a Tammy Wynnett song, it's called D-I-V-O-R-C-E. The common theme is divorce.

Umm, no. The common theme I was getting to was the use of "wife" in the singular.

You need to look at all of the Scripture I was using to see the common thread.

But you knew that already, didn't you?

It just didn't fit in with your desire to teach people that having multiple wives is just peachy with God.

I wouldn't go into those rotating doors at the department store if I were you. 2nd Chronicles 24:2 & 3 says; "And Joash did that which was right in the sight of the LORD all the days of Jehoiada the priest. And Jehoiada took for him two wives; and he begat sons and daughters." Really, he did right, all the days of the Religious leader of Judah, the High Priest, who gave him those wives. Talk about contemporary confirmation. So no, you're not even close.

Are you kidding?

Please, read on through the rest of that chapter, and see the disgrace, turmoil, bad counsel, and finally, the death of Joash. He started of well and good by following God's will, but fell through the receiving of bad counsel after the death of the High Priest, Jehoiada. (v17)

He tried to make up for it (v19), but they would not give ear to him. Later, God sends the Syrian army after him (v24). In fact, the last sentence of v24 reads "So they executed judgment against Joash". Who's judgment do you think they were executing?

Now, I'm not saying that God's judgment came because he had more than one wife, because that's not the case here. God's judgment came for other reasons, obviously, but it does the account an injustice to use Joash as an example of one who was blessed all of his days, even though he had more than one wife. The issue is negligable, at best, in this account.

In other words, the issue of how many wives he had is moot in the account here, if anything at all.

Did you read the last few verses in the chapter concerning his death and where he was buried? That, to me, doesn't describe one who was honored at all. He wasn't even buried with the other kings, although he was buried in the City if David.

Perhaps you would like to find another example of one who did "right" in the eyes of the Lord?

But please, stay on topic.

Have a good night.

t.

[abbershay]

It seems small in next to many of the other things in this world.

Isnt it worse to not marry at all and chances are there are people like that in your own church.

[RGR]

If I am in the wrong on posting this I will gladly admit I am. I did a Yahoo! search on our buddy, Prakk, and came up with something pretty interesting. He's been down this road before with other forums and we are simply another one on his radar screen to come in and try to take over.

See here:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/mcbryde01.htm

[Guest Prakk]

"That, I believe, is about the weakest comeback in Worthy history."

No, that would be. This is the "name it and claim it" doctrine turned into an argument, if you could call it that. Were you in the Nixon administration? Declare victory and leave?

"I'll make my points simple, and then take my leave of you and your doctrine."

Whipped, are we?

"Not my point at all. If it makes it easier for you to simply discard points with little dittys like "Professional weaker brother" arguments, so be it.

Sorry, but I don't often argue on this simplistic level, but face it, this is what it is. You're simply gainsaying. I'm reminded of those two kids in the "Emporor's New Groove".

"How in the world did you think that I was discussing whether a particular believer can be a woman or not, or that I was discussing the gift of teaching?"

Because that was your best argument, if you weren't making it, I can't possibly see what argument you were making. I don't care what the requirements of the office of Elder are, I'm not one, nor am I expecting to be one, thus unless you are construing them to be ideals, you have absolutely no point whatsoever, pardon me, I had no idea you would get so off topic. Call me when I'm an elder, otherwise there's as much point presenting this to me as there is to a woman.

"Remember what Jesus said in my last post "From the beginning.."? That means from the beginning. Now, it seems to me that you are trying to hit a point target with an area target weapon. If it was indeed God's plan 'From the beginning..' for a man to leave his parents and be 'one' with his wife, how does the concept of multiple wives fit into that plan?"

You're simply off target, Jesus was talking about the sundering of marriage through divorce, not one and only one man with only one woman.

"How is a man one flesh with his wife if he has more than one?"

Why can't he? You're making the assumption that "one Flesh" means "Monogamy" and I know that is what you have been taught, but it's simply not present in the concept, you can be one flesh at the same time with more than one person, and it's relatively easy to prove, so since one flesh does not mean "one monogamous union", you can't apeal to one flesh to support the argument of monogamy only. You need to spend some time thinking about this.

"Please, read on through the rest of that chapter, and see the disgrace, turmoil, bad counsel, and finally, the death of Joash. He started of well and good by following God's will, but fell through the receiving of bad counsel after the death of the High Priest, Jehoiada."

Yes, after Jehoiada died. It is said that he did right all the days of that man, sorry, but there it is. You might as well throw out several books of the Bible because Solomon wrote them, he made errors later as well.

Hugh McBryde

[nebula]

Hugh -

What is the fruit of polygomy?

[Guest Prakk]

"If I am in the wrong on posting this I will gladly admit I am. I did a Yahoo! search on our buddy, Prakk, and came up with something pretty interesting. He's been down this road before with other forums and we are simply another one on his radar screen to come in and try to take over."

See here:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/mcbryde01.htm

Yes, that's me, and you should consider the source. If charactor assasination is what you want to engage in, that speaks for itself. Perhaps you should ask yourself why it is that Robert Turkel (aka James Patrick Holding) who owns and runs Tekton Apologetics Ministries uses a false name and tries to hide his real one. I don't. I think that speaks for itself.

Hugh McBryde

[Gerioke]

prakk is not a mormon. I'm sorry for saying he may have been lying. Please pray for him.

[Guest Prakk]

"What is the fruit of polygomy?"

Polygyny? Lot's of children? Ruth 4:11

"And all the people that were in the gate, and the elders, said, We are witnesses. The LORD make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem."

Hugh McBryde

[abbershay]

Its hard enough to keep one wife happy lol i cant imagine taking care of a crew of them.......... Plus what makes a woman want to share a man?