Is there really a Bible rule against sex without marriage?

by Halcon 42 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    I go back to the Acts 15 story wherein, as I understand it, the author is rewriting history a bit to portray a united church at an early stage where in fact there was not yet an orthodoxy. The issues that were most disturbing to the Pharisee Christians in Jerusalem were ostensibly "Pauline" ideas about foods sacrificed to idols and eating blood as food as well as the Christian freedom from concerns about mere corporeal matters like porneia. After reading a dozen proposed recreations of the original Pauline position, I have concluded the evidence confirms redaction and interpolation throughout, but exactly what Paul himself thought (he may have adjusted his own views) will never be certain. The role of women, compromising for the sake of others, matters of sex and eating sacrificed meat are especially found in contradictory arguments, often right next to each other.

    Myself, I have come recently to suspect Paul himself was conservative and probably a hardnose. Some collections of writings were gathered into longer epistles by those who had followed his leadership. Very soon after the 'book' was produced an influential more Gnostic voice seems to have basically diffused Paul's conservatism through the addition of a few lines here and there. The Gnostic branches of Christianity were responsible for the letters' preservation. This is the form of the work that circulated more widely. Then about a 70 years later the Patristic redactions occurred, probably at the same time possibly the same hand as the Pastoral epistles. This was possibly after the book of Acts was written. These interpolations have Paul sound more concerned with image and accommodation to expected societal norms, some of which appears in Acts as well.

    This leads back my comment about Acts 15. It seems the author was countering a then present form of Pauline Christianity, one shaped by the early interpolations, one that saw Christian freedom as liberating not legislative. Women seen as equals in the sight of God. Acts also shows no awareness of the Pastorals and the timeline they suppose.

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot
    peacefulpete - “…I have come recently to suspect Paul himself was conservative and probably a hardnose…”

    What was your first clue?

    The misogyny?

    Or the homophobia?

    😜

  • stan livedeath
    stan livedeath
    St George of England10 hours agoI vaguely remember a situation many years ago in a country where divorce was not allowed.

    probably the Philippines:

    there is no divorce in the Philis ( between pinoy husband and pinay wife. Its different if one party is a foreigner )

    there are a lot of JWs there.

  • LoveUniHateExams
    LoveUniHateExams

    I thought the Bible was pretty clear on this.

    Doesn't the apostle Paul say that Christians should be a husband of one wife?

    The implication is sex outside of marriage is wrong ...

  • Biahi
    Biahi

    Peaceful Pete, I attended a bible study where it was suggested that Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” was actually homosexuality. 🤷‍♀️ This would have explained why he was never married, didn’t care much for women, etc.

  • KerryHuish
    KerryHuish

    Hebrews 13:4 Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

    So yes, there is a clear Bible rule against sex before marriage and extramarital affairs.

    A person engaging in sex outside of marriage or inviting other partners into the marriage bed, is not compatible with this principle.

    Kind Regards

    Kerry

  • TonusOH
    TonusOH

    I don't think those rules were applied to Bathsheba.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete
    What was your first clue? The misogyny? Or the homophobia?

    Vidiot, point taken. However I was trying to determine if the 'Paul' that said, "there is neither male nor female" and said women deaconesses were partners in his ministry or the 'Paul' who demanded women "remain silent" and be taught at home by their husbands, was the real Paul.

    Similarly, is the 'Paul' who got Timmy circumcised and 'became all things to win others' the real Paul or the one who said "For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a servant of Christ" and wished anyone who believed in circumcision to 'cut their penis off'?

    Is the real Paul the guy who said "all things are lawful" and idols are nothing to be concerned about, or the guy who raged against eating meat sacrificed to idols as having "communion with demons" and inciting God's jealous anger?

    Until very recently I was of the opinion that Paul was the liberal voice and the conservative reflected a later interpolator. A few analyses have convinced me the opposite occurred, with a third influence promoting church unity with emphasis upon the greater good of compromise.

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot
    Biahi - “…I attended a bible study where it was suggested that Paul’s ‘thorn in the flesh’ was actually homosexuality…”
    Wouldn’t surprise me… preachers have a long, proud history of railing against shit they hate about themselves.

    Oh god, I just had a thought…

    …what if the Apostle Paul was puttin’ it to Timothy, and that’s the real reason behind the kerfuffle with Barnabus?

    😵‍💫

  • Halcon
    Halcon
    KerryHuish
    Hebrews 13:4 Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
    So yes, there is a clear Bible rule against sex before marriage and extramarital affairs.
    A person engaging in sex outside of marriage or inviting other partners into the marriage bed, is not compatible with this principle

    Kerry, this verse is clearly referring to a circumstance in which a person is ALREADY married. This says nothing about sex without marriage. Adultery seems to be clearly condemned. But then it is tied to the "sexually immoral". Again, what exactly is sexually immoral? We know God didn't object to concubines. Didn't he in fact even condemn one of David's sons for taking one of his concubines? Solomon also is purported to have had a harem, by his own admission, all the while being blessed with great wisdom.

    It can't be denied that there are layers of acceptability here. Which again would explain why the GB may soon loosen up the rules.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit