goat wrote:Madeline wrote:goat wrote:Madeline wrote:goat wrote:Madeline wrote:The bible clearly condemns sex out of wedlock (Acts 15:20; Rom. 1:29; 1 Cor. 5:1; 6:13,18; 7:2; 10:8; 2 Cor, 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3; Jude 7). So essentially if your on the internet looking for hot guys and lusting after them whilst engaged to be married, then you're basically committed pre-marital sex.
Love,
Madeline
Well, the problem with your translation is that the literal translation of the word 'fornication' in many of those passages is 'whoredom', which is different than 'fornication'.
It's still wrongful lust which is a sin, and we find that lust is usually connected to fornication and adultery in the scriptures (Matt. 5:28; Mk. 4:19; Jn. 8:44; Rom. 1:24; 1 Cor. 10:6; Gal. 5:16,17,24; Tit. 2:12; 1 Pet. 1:14; 1 Jn. 2:16 f; Jude 1:16,18; Rev. 18:14).
Love,
Madeline
It is not lust that is the sin. It is the lust after another man's wife that is the sin.
goat, did you bother to take a look at the scriptures I cited? Also premarital sex go against the institution of marriage. Marriage and sex go hand in hand, such as consummation.
Love,
Madeline
Historically, the church did not get involved in marriage until after the 5th century,
which is hundreds of years after the gospels being written. Until then, it was a civil
issue. Therefore, your associating those passages with the institution of marriage.
Even in the 5th century, it was priests giving blessing to a couple after the fact.
Did you look at those passages in context? You are reading 19th century sensibilities onto late first,early second century documents.
There were many occations in the middle ages where the marriage banns would be posted, but the couple did not get married until the woman was pregnant, to insure the couple was fertile That is why in many medival wedding pictures that women often had their hands on their stomachs.
In logic we call this the fallacy of equivocation (changing the meaning of the word in an argument). The ambiguity is in the phrase: "...did not get involved in marriage..."
It is true that regulation of marriage in the Roman empire (as today) was a state responsibility. The Greeks and Romans saw marriage as a divine institution, but of importance to the state. There were Roman laws regarding who you could marry, when you could divorce, and what was sexually immoral. This was true of most societies. In fact we have old law codes going back to the 2nd millennium, such as the Code of Hammurabi, Assyrian law code, etc. that show the state regulating marriage, adultery, divorce, rape, and sexual morality. This is even true today - that is, you still need to get a marriage license from the county to unite together, marriage is defined by the state as a union of "a man and a woman," and divorces are granted by a judge in a civil case before a government court. Of course, the church did not get involved in the regulation of marriage or the making of marital laws in Roman society. It was a persecuted religion until AD 312.
So it would be true to say that the church "did not get involved until after the 5th century" in the state regulation of marriage. The situation before the 5th century would be quite similar to what the church does today. Marriage is a combination of a family affair, civil regulation by the state, and involvement of religious societies and professionals depending upon your belief in God. After the 5th century the church had essentially become the state and so there was more uniting of church and state functions at this time and during the Middle Ages.
But to say the church was not regulating marriage is a very different thing than to say the church "did not get involved in marriage." Of course, the church was involved in marriage. How was the church involved? Three ways:
RECORDING AND BLESSING: In the Old Testament, marriage documents and bills of divorce involved the local town rabbi - we see many examples of this in the Jewish Mishnah. When an engagement was made the parties went before the rabbi to draw up a document of marriage. The marriage ceremony itself was a family affair performed in a family setting. The rabbi might be involved in the function, but usually just gave the "blessing" to the couple at the end of the ceremony. I really don't have accurate information on early church practice, so I fail you here. I checked my reference books, but was unable to find anything on elders or bishops and wedding ceremonies. I suspect (although I can't put my finger on a reference at this moment) that church elders blessed the couple at (or following the wedding) and recorded the marriage in church records - continuing the practice of the local Jewish rabbi.
So, yes, it likely is true that an elder (or priest) blessed a couple after they had gone through the wedding ceremony. Weddings were still thought of as being done before God (Jesus and the Old Testament said so), but were a family function involving religious professionals secondarily. Add to this the early church's elevating of celibacy to a sacrament - not the New Testament, but the 2nd and 3rd century church - and you can see why the early church was not very involved in marital ceremonies apart from blessing and recording the marriage.
DISCIPLINE: How else was the church involved in marriage? The church disciplined its own members, when they violated certain standards for marriage. See 1 Corinthians 5 for a prime example which went so far as to involve excommunication. Church members were called to repent from sexual immorality (Revelation 2:14-16 and 2:20-23).
PROCLAMATION: Was the church involved in marriage any other way? The greatest involvement of the church in marriage was that the church's founder and apostles claimed to speak for God about what was proper and improper in (and outside of) marriage. The Old Testament recorded God's marriage commandments and called marriage a covenant before God (Malachi 2:13-16). Jesus spoke about marriage on many occasions and called it a God-given institution (Matthew 19:1-12). All the apostles wrote about marriage or marital immorality. Paul even gave over a whole chapter to discussing marriage questions (1 Corinthians 7).
AND the church claimed to speak not just about Christian marriage morality, but also what was proper for pagans. It claimed that God's commandments were true for all people, pagan and Christian alike. This is the church's prophetic role in speaking the word of God, being the pillar of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15), salt to a rotting world (Matthew 5:13), and light to the darkness (Matthew 5:14-16).
This is what most people in our present day object too: "Don't impose your morality on me." Of course, we aren't trying to impose our morality on anyone. We are simply telling people what their Creator said. The New Testament church did this: labeling certain actions as "immoral" and warning of God's punishment, even when speaking of pagans. For examples see Romans 1:18-32; Galatians 5:19-21; Hebrews 13:4; Revelation 9:20-21.
So to say that "the church did not get involved in marriage until after the 5th century" is a ridiculous statement given all the evidence found in the New Testament. Involvement of blessing, discipline, and proclamation was certainly NOT "hundreds of years after the gospels" were written.
My final comment would be regarding the statement about the Middle Ages and the couple not getting married until the woman was pregnant. I can think of "many occasions" (MANY historical examples) in which individuals were married first, then found to be unable to have children. This was the basis for much anxiety among various rulers, if you will remember. Even if it were sometimes true, I would certainly NEVER use the church and the Middle Ages to prove anything. This is a totally unconvincing argument from my perspective, since the church had fallen into ignorance of the Bible and copied the world's practices in many ways. So even if virginity was not held in some cases as moral standard in the church during the Middle Ages, what does that have to do with whether or not the Bible says that it is supposed to be the standard? The church has often been inconsistent in proclaiming and living the truth. It doesn't change the fact that it is still truth and still should be proclaimed. Hope this helps!
Love,
Madeline