Message from @Priyanka
Discord ID: 567190768301637641
I don't think you can.
But why don't you actually paste the verses so I can refute them before you go on making more bold assertions.
although i largely fall in line with very traditional latin and orthodox Christian teachings
heres the link
Christianity...that one religion where anyone can redefine it apparently.
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
This simply refers to divorce. To put away your wife to marry another.
this also carries over to take on multiple wives
How do you compatibilise such a teaching with other verses where God clearly condones polygamy?
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
"So they are no longer two, but one flesh" - what part of this is hard to understand?
I don't regard that as an argument for monogamy.
supersessionism is the common interpretation
That's hyper-literalism, reading into the text something you wish to read.
Concubinage isn't even about monogamy. You're not marrying concubines.
Also, I don't accept Rand's observations being a non-Christian.
They're literally mistresses.
that's adultery.
Jesus replaces the old covenant with the new
I don't see the old and new being different in substance.
it is by the christian viewpoint
Covenantalism is a pretty old biblical position.
Older than the one you're currently espousing.
Again you're not a Christian. I'm not going to accept your arguments, heathen.
Fenrir, you're following the Jewish standpoint
its the leading viewpoint amongst christians
How can a non-believer be expected to interpret inspired texts?
well someone who is Christian seems to be typing
Should change your role to Jewish if you worship the Old Testament
[1] Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. [2] But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. [3] Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband. [4] The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife. [5] Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.
>[2] "Have his own wife": That is, keep to his wife, which he hath. His meaning is not to exhort the unmarried to marry: on the contrary, he would have them rather continue as they are. (Ver. 7: 8.) But he speaks here to them that are already married; who must not depart from one another, but live together as they ought to do in the marriage state.
>6] But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. [7] For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. [8] But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. [9] But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt. [10] But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband.
I like both Old and New Testamentts.
The Bible isn't about what you like and your feelings.
^
Is Paul wrong?
^
Don't give me a flood of text, Persephone.