Jump to content
Online Baptist
  • Welcome Guest

    Tired of all the fighting that goes on in facebook groups? Are you ready for a community where you can talk about things of God and the Bible without getting branded a heretic? Well, we are glad you found us. Why don't you give us a try and see how friendly and different we are. - BroMatt

Sidney

Marriage Ceremony

Recommended Posts


America was born out of oppression. Go spend a few years in North Korea, my friend, come back and we'll discuss it again.

America was born out of rebellion, not oppression.

What was truly born during a time of oprression? The spread of Christianity! Christianity spread under great oppression and did so by Christians living in accord with the Word of God, gladly laying down self for the sake of Christ. If and when oppression, persecution, even torture and death came upon them, they held true to the Word of God. Refusing to give in to the flesh, they rejoiced they were counted worthy to suffer for Christ. They did not rebel, they didn't raise an army, they obeyed the Word of God and the "world was turned upside down" to the glory of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


That is true Jerry. Also, if one really studies the beginnings of America it's clear that for most Christianity was secondary at best, and most often farther down the list. Even among the "most Christian" they had stated goals of pursuing wealth as their formost goal. Those who did have an idea of spreading Christianity demanded it be according to their own rules, not in accord with Scripture. Booze and slaves was the primary means colonial Americans used to attain their wealth. All this while feeling justified in stealing the land of those here before them and then feeling justified in slaughtering them if they didn't simply agree to get out of thier way.

So many Christians in America have bought into the lying propaganda that the colonials were not British citizens (which most of them were), that they were highly oppressed (which they were not; in fact the American colonists had unprecedented freedom, often much better than those actually living in England or in other colonies), that American colonists were outstanding Christians (not according to Scripture) and that somehow their act of rebellion in direct disobedience to the Word of God was somehow not only acceptable but an act of God.

Scripture is clear that all nations are evil and will be judged by God and that applies to all nations, including America and England, not just China and Russia.

For the first few centuries Christians were of one accord with regards to the sinfulness of rebellion and warfare. It wasn't until Constantine, the uniting of church and state and the rise of the RCC that the idea of "Christians" engaging in rebellion and war for the things of this world came into acceptance.


Yes, a form of Christianity mixed with much worldliness. Most trying to have the best that both the world & God has to offer.

2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Of course its still practiced today throughout this country in many churches, more especially those teaching & preaching the prosperity gospel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America was born out of rebellion, not oppression.

What was truly born during a time of oprression? The spread of Christianity! Christianity spread under great oppression and did so by Christians living in accord with the Word of God, gladly laying down self for the sake of Christ. If and when oppression, persecution, even torture and death came upon them, they held true to the Word of God. Refusing to give in to the flesh, they rejoiced they were counted worthy to suffer for Christ. They did not rebel, they didn't raise an army, they obeyed the Word of God and the "world was turned upside down" to the glory of God.

I would have to agree with that as the only real sources of any hint of true Christianity came from small groups of puritans, separatists (Baptists) and pilgrims which had very little to do with the politics of the country as a whole (with a small exception of Rhode Island-Roger Williams-and parts of Virginia where Baptists insisted on the "Bill of Rights" be added to the constitution before they would ratify it).
The country itself was named after Amerigo Vaspucci who was a devout Roman Catholic who openly stated his ideas for the use of this land for the Vatican. The capital of the country was planted in a Roman Catholic dominated state called MARY land (Maryland) and the capitol city named after the Roman Catholic Columbus who was commissioned to search out the land by the Catholic Queen Elizabeth and King Ferdinand.
All of the buildings were designed and created by Jesuits and Freemasons and the symbolism has permeated everything from all of our government structures to our dollar bill which displays the Latin (language of Rome) words "Novus Ovum Seclorum" New World Order right under the 13 tiered pyramid. Our entire legal system is based on the pax romana of Rome. When I went to lawschool, it was clear that you could not understand court decorum with out a laymen's knowledge of Latin. The political body that governs all the world affairs is located at 666 United Nations Plaza.
So has this country been "blessed"? If you want to call it that. The blessing that has came out of it was the production of many fundamental missionaries and churches and for that reason alone I would say that God blessed the nation in SPITE of how it was founded, not because of how it was founded. But that same peaceful that we have enjoyed is also the means by which the antichrist obtains influence. Almost every dictator arose by declaring he could provide an answer to peace and poverty (Hitler perfect example);

"And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand." Daniel 8:25
"For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape." I Thess 5:3
Interesting enough the word that is used to label the Roman legal system "pax romana" means Roman Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:ot: America was not born out of rebellion. Puritans were not the source of Christianity in this country - they were Pharisaaical, to say the least, and did not believe in religious liberty. And reformed theology is Puritanism reborn. And it wasn't Queen Elizabeth, it was Queen Isabella. America was born out of oppression, whether any of you who want to believe otherwise accept that. Stop reading revisionist history and read original documents and the founders own words. Now, this is totally off-topic, so let's get back to the original topic. :11backtotopic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:ot: America was not born out of rebellion. Puritans were not the source of Christianity in this country - they were Pharisaaical, to say the least, and did not believe in religious liberty. And reformed theology is Puritanism reborn. And it wasn't Queen Elizabeth, it was Queen Isabella. America was born out of oppression, whether any of you who want to believe otherwise accept that. Stop reading revisionist history and read original documents and the founders own words. Now, this is totally off-topic, so let's get back to the original topic. :11backtotopic:

Thanks for the observation about Elizabeth. Yes it was Queen Isabella, sometimes I get the Catholic queens all mixed up.
And I wasn't vouching for the doctrinal correctness of the main groups that immigrated here, just that they are the only ones that represented any hint of Christians as opposed to those who mistakenly believe that men like George Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams et al were Christians.
The evidence can be found for oneself just by pulling out a wallet and looking at all of the Freemasonry and Illuminati symbols on the one dollar bill. And then one can ask, why was the capitol state called Mary land and just happened to be in the most Catholic dominated state in the union.
The facts I listed above are only a few examples that can be verified by anyone.
This is a rather long documentary, but it is one of the best on the history of Freemasonry's involvement in the structures of the country and it's influence on the beliefs of the "founding fathers". It also documents how people like David Barton quote documents out of context to try and prove that the founding fathers had some Christian beliefs. OK , now I'll get back on topic LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elizabeth wasn't a Catholic queen either...it was her sister Mary who was Catholic. Elizabeth supported the Anglican (yes, pseudo-Catholic, I know, but still different) church started by her father. They ruled a completely different country than Isabella & Ferdinand.

Edited by salyan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, salyan. But, again, let's get back on topic. James, just so you know - when we request that the thread gets back on topic, that doesn't mean just one more off-topic post...If you would like to begin a thread to discuss your revisionist view of American history, feel free. But no more posts on it here in this thread. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there's your divorce for beastiality LOL
But for the purposes of giving a bill of divorce, in that context, fornication was described as the woman having sex with someone other than her husband and later the husband discovered that she lied about it prior to the marriage. The simple etymology of the word fornication is voluntary sex between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. Of the 34 times or so it is used in the Bible, it is always a reference to an act between a man and woman, or used symbolically regarding a spiritual fornication.
But as you stated above, regardless of the definition given to a particular sin, the results of being caught in it in the OT were the same.


Here's one
1 Thessalonians 4:3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:
4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;

Brotherman, "you" and "ye" are always plural pronouns in the King James Bible; not only that, but it says "every one of you", and whi was this "every one of you" that Paul writing to and telling them to "abstain from fornication"? Read on:

1 Thessalonians 1;1

Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
2 We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers;

So, "the church of the Thessalonians"..."everyone of you" ..."ye should abstain from fornication" was a church of unmarried people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's one
1 Thessalonians 4:3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:
4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;

Brotherman, "you" and "ye" are always plural pronouns in the King James Bible; not only that, but it says "every one of you", and whi was this "every one of you" that Paul writing to and telling them to "abstain from fornication"? Read on:

1 Thessalonians 1;1

Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
2 We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers;

So, "the church of the Thessalonians"..."everyone of you" ..."ye should abstain from fornication" was a church of unmarried people?

When Paul is saying "everyone of you" he is speaking generally. When a preacher says "Everyone of you need to stop watching that garbage on tv" Does that mean everyone in the audience is. watching garbage? No. He is speaking to the ones that do.
There are other examples where "everyone" and "all" is a general statement. In Timothy, Paul says "yea and ALL that live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution" (2 Tim 3:12). There are many in America who have never suffered persecution because of their faith in Christ. In the first verses it says that in the last days "men shall be....." so does that mean ALL MEN will be blasphemers? , or is it a general statement. Now in verse 16 when it says "ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God" all means all.
?The definitions are simple: when it's an unmarried person, it's fornication, when it's a married person, it's adultery. Notice how Paul separates the 2 terms in Gal 5:19 "Now the works of the flesh are manifest which are these....adultery...fornication". They are listed separately because they have their own distinct definitions

And for some odd reason, my Greek explanation didn't post :( But I believe the word "ye" and "you all" is humon, and is used in the second person singular genitive case which in this context means a general audience Edited by DrJamesA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting enough the word that is used to label the Roman legal system "pax romana" means Roman Peace.

 

Someone, I think it was my dad, used to say that "pax romana" was the peace of the dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an issue that recently happened in my church that has left me feeling disappointed in the leadership.

I will try to make this as brief as possible.

A senior, widow lady, and a senior, widower man, both in their 80s, recently got married at my church (independent Baptist) I later learned they did not obtain a state issued marriage license and the pastor that conducted the ceremony did not require it.

Now they are going around representing themselves as "married". I feel as though the pastor that conducted the ceremony is helping the couple defraud the government. And if he can preform a "commitment-marriage" ceremony for them why can't another couple, who want to live together without the legalities of a marriage license, ask to have the same? IMHO, the pastorial staff is opening a can of worms.

Would you accept this couple as married or would you be concerned with the pastorial decision to waive the marriage license? And how do I deal with my disappointment?

 

Even though I understand the difference between marriage in the church as a covenant and marriage by the state as a legal and social construct, the idea of seperating the two is a relatively recent thing for me, so I have to be very careful that my opinion here is based on scripture and not on my cultural understanding.

 

I"m becoming more and more convinced that the state should just stay out of marriage and that a married couple would just be better off legally and financially registering their family as a corporation than the few tax breaks they get for being "married" by the state.

 

This is one of the reasons arguments in favor of homosexual "marriage" fall flat. You can incorporate and get the same tax benefits (actually, in most cases, you get more and better tax benefits) as a married couple. You can still designate anyone you chose to have POA or guardianship or conservatorship. You can still designate anyone you want to have access to your hospital room.

 

Anyway, back to your question. Yes, I would still accept them as married but, because of forty-five years of cultural conditioning, it would seem strange to me. But I would imagine I'd get over it, the same way I've gotten over all the other things that have left me confused.

 

I guess what I'd ask you is why is it so importan to you that the government be involved in this marriage? If marriage is a covenant between two people before God, and, ultimately, a religious matter, why does it bother you so that the government isn't involved?

 

Have you spoken to the pastor about your concerns?

Edited by Auburn88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though I understand the difference between marriage in the church as a covenant and marriage by the state as a legal and social construct, the idea of seperating the two is a relatively recent thing for me, so I have to be very careful that my opinion here is based on scripture and not on my cultural understanding.

 

I"m becoming more and more convinced that the state should just stay out of marriage and that a married couple would just be better off legally and financially registering their family as a corporation than the few tax breaks they get for being "married" by the state.

 

This is one of the reasons arguments in favor of homosexual "marriage" fall flat. You can incorporate and get the same tax benefits (actually, in most cases, you get more and better tax benefits) as a married couple. You can still designate anyone you chose to have POA or guardianship or conservatorship. You can still designate anyone you want to have access to your hospital room.

 

Anyway, back to your question. Yes, I would still accept them as married but, because of forty-five years of cultural conditioning, it would seem strange to me. But I would imagine I'd get over it, the same way I've gotten over all the other things that have left me confused.

 

I guess what I'd ask you is why is it so importan to you that the government be involved in this marriage? If marriage is a covenant between two people before God, and, ultimately, a religious matter, why does it bother you so that the government isn't involved?

 

Have you spoken to the pastor about your concerns?

You might want to read over some of the earlier posts-It got quite lively!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus went to as public wedding. The Bible says to "submit to every ordinance of man" and to "abstain from all appearance of evil.".

Have a wedding, make it legal, make it public, what's so hard about that?

No, Jesus was 'invited'-it wasn't for anyone who wanted, to just show up. And nowhere in that story does it mentoin anyone needing a license. Weddings were set by the parents, they brought them together, had a big shin-dig, the couple went and 'conjugated', and bam, they were married. And more shin-dig! Shin-dig for days!

 

And if we are to take your view of submitting to every ordinance of manm, I guess we'd best not stand against abortion, gay marriage, or the like. After all, it seems its okay for the government to make anything they like an 'ordinance'. Soon, perhaps, they'll get rid of that pesky 1st ammendment, and make it an ordinance that Christianbs can no longer assemble toether-guess we'd better be ready for that one.

 

The problem is that our government is supposed to be run by the people-us- not them. We have certain rights given to us by our Creator, and one of the first was the right of marriage-why does the state get to be party to it? For years they used that power to decide what races could or couldnt marry-is that biblical? Why do I need their permission to do what God has ordained us to do?

Edited by Ukulelemike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus attended a wedding with lots of guests, for which he turned in the neighborhood 100 gallons of water into wine. Point is, it wasn't done quietly and discreetly like going down to the courthouse. Did I mention a license at that wedding? No, I said that the Bible says 'Be subject to every ordinance of man". Why? For testimony's sake. Abstain from appearance of evil. Get married, make it public, and by doing so, testify to the World that you are committed to honouring God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus attended a wedding with lots of guests, for which he turned in the neighborhood 100 gallons of water into wine. Point is, it wasn't done quietly and discreetly like going down to the courthouse. Did I mention a license at that wedding? No, I said that the Bible says 'Be subject to every ordinance of man". Why? For testimony's sake. Abstain from appearance of evil. Get married, make it public, and by doing so, testify to the World that you are committed to honouring God.

Gotcha-sorry, I read into it, what wasn't there.  Yes, I agree with a public wedding-just like our Christianity, we need to be public about it.

 

I read a bit about wedding licenses in the history of the country, and its amazing the wide variety of ways it is viewed, state-by-state, even now. Some states still recognize common-law marriage, Pennsylvania only requires something signed by bride and groom, while some make the state a partner in the marriage, itself.  I believe that, if presided by a minister, and using the wedding ceremony page of a family Bible, all signed by the participants, turned in at the courthouse, fulfills any legal requirements for most states. No need for permission, which was originally intended to keep from interracial marriages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the difference between a wife and a concubine?

 

It was stated that marriage is a religious mater. What makes it a religious mater? That God ordained it? God said "Thou shalt not kill." He later stated that whatsoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed. Does this make murder and avenging blood a religious matter? God said "Thou shalt not steal." Same question. Is stealing a religious matter. I would challenge anyone to show me where Jesus, the apostles, or elders in the new testament presided over a wedding!! It is not there. It was stated that the families took care of weddings in Jesus day. That is mostly true, though they had to follow certain laws (yes I said laws, See the book of Ruth, as well as who Moses said the children of Israel were not allowed to marry). But according to the law if a man killed someone he did not face a court ordered executioner, he faced the avenger of blood. Who was that? The one the family appointed, a family member. My point? If you want the church to take care of marriage because it was handled by the family (I have yet to figure out the analogy), Should the church not also take care of murderers? But then the ones who decided that marriage was a church matter ( The RCC) would like that I am sure and have tried through the ages.

 

edited to add the two paragraphs are separate thoughts.

Edited by rancher824

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the difference between a wife and a concubine?

 

It was stated that marriage is a religious mater. What makes it a religious mater? That God ordained it? God said "Thou shalt not kill." He later stated that whatsoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed. Does this make murder and avenging blood a religious matter? God said "Thou shalt not steal." Same question. Is stealing a religious matter. I would challenge anyone to show me where Jesus, the apostles, or elders in the new testament presided over a wedding!! It is not there. It was stated that the families took care of weddings in Jesus day. That is mostly true, though they had to follow certain laws (yes I said laws, See the book of Ruth, as well as who Moses said the children of Israel were not allowed to marry). But according to the law if a man killed someone he did not face a court ordered executioner, he faced the avenger of blood. Who was that? The one the family appointed, a family member. My point? If you want the church to take care of marriage because it was handled by the family (I have yet to figure out the analogy), Should the church not also take care of murderers? But then the ones who decided that marriage was a church matter ( The RCC) would like that I am sure and have tried through the ages.

 

edited to add the two paragraphs are separate thoughts.

I concede and will correct myself, in a manner. While there is nothing biblically that says it must be a church matter, there is also nothing that says it should be a civil government matter, but a family matter. If any involvement of the church is considered, it may be looking to thet marriage at Cana, where Jesus performed His first miracle, and the fact that the first marriage was conducted, if you will call it that, by The LORD God, Himself.

So, perhaps not necessary, but neither would it be unfounded. Especially as a means of reminding the couple of the importance of the marriage vows made.

 

In fact, much of civil activities are based less on God's laws, than Roman laws. From what I see, under the laws of Moses, there was no such thing as prison: the merson was judged for whatever occurred, and punishment, if found needed, was meted (sp?) out then and there, whether death, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, payment for the infraction, whatever. Would sure be cheaper to do it that way today! Insteasd we follow Roman laws styles, with long imprisonments, necessitating the care and feeding of the guilty, sometimes for decades.

 

What does this all have to do with marraige? I don't know-I'm just beginning to ramble now, down the rabbit trail, so I guess I'll stop before I end up telling old sea stories next!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus went to as public wedding. The Bible says to "submit to every ordinance of man" and to "abstain from all appearance of evil.".

Have a wedding, make it legal, make it public, what's so hard about that?

 

Nowadays, doing this is ALL about money.

 

I know of a few that have forsaken God on marriage issues because if they remarried they would lose money, & they can shack up, & keep the money rolling in.

 

It seems many do have a price they will forsake God for, & they do, yet they will put down Judas for forsaking Christ for a few pieces of silver yet they do the same thing their self by shacking up, committing adultery or fornication. Hypocrites, that's what they are, pure hypocrites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I concede and will correct myself, in a manner. While there is nothing biblically that says it must be a church matter, there is also nothing that says it should be a civil government matter, but a family matter. If any involvement of the church is considered, it may be looking to thet marriage at Cana, where Jesus performed His first miracle, and the fact that the first marriage was conducted, if you will call it that, by The LORD God, Himself.

So, perhaps not necessary, but neither would it be unfounded. Especially as a means of reminding the couple of the importance of the marriage vows made.

 

In fact, much of civil activities are based less on God's laws, than Roman laws. From what I see, under the laws of Moses, there was no such thing as prison: the merson was judged for whatever occurred, and punishment, if found needed, was meted (sp?) out then and there, whether death, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, payment for the infraction, whatever. Would sure be cheaper to do it that way today! Insteasd we follow Roman laws styles, with long imprisonments, necessitating the care and feeding of the guilty, sometimes for decades.

 

What does this all have to do with marraige? I don't know-I'm just beginning to ramble now, down the rabbit trail, so I guess I'll stop before I end up telling old sea stories next!

We need to remember that we (Christians) are under the New Testament. We are not under the Old Testament laws given for the nation of Israel. The Apostles and Christians for about 300 years separated themselves as much as possible from politics. They lived for Christ and worked at adding others to the kingdom of God. They kept a strict separation between church and state.

 

It wasn't until the time of Constantine that this began to change. The yoking of church and state is what brought about the ascendency of the RCC. This yoking brought about the complete corruption of Catholics and set the stage for centuries of church/state abuse of power against true Christians and others.

 

While some good came out of the Reformation, most involved held to the Constantine/RCC view of the need for church and state to be yoked together. We see this clearly when looking at Zwingli, Calvin and others. All of these used their state powers to persecute and murder biblical Christians, including Anabaptists.

 

Rather than holding true to the example given us by the Apostles and early Christians, most professing Christians from the time of Constantine to today have pursued yoking with earthly kingdoms, using worldly methods, to achieve whatever their particular ends may be.

 

Christ said we are to build the kingdom of God, not kingdoms of this world. The New Testament tells us exactly how we are to live, and it's not uniting with earthly governments, it's not using fleshly and worldly means, it's using the spiritual means given us, which early Christians used to turn the world upside down for the glory of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I concede and will correct myself, in a manner. While there is nothing biblically that says it must be a church matter, there is also nothing that says it should be a civil government matter, but a family matter. If any involvement of the church is considered, it may be looking to thet marriage at Cana, where Jesus performed His first miracle, and the fact that the first marriage was conducted, if you will call it that, by The LORD God, Himself.

So, perhaps not necessary, but neither would it be unfounded. Especially as a means of reminding the couple of the importance of the marriage vows made.

 

In fact, much of civil activities are based less on God's laws, than Roman laws. From what I see, under the laws of Moses, there was no such thing as prison: the merson was judged for whatever occurred, and punishment, if found needed, was meted (sp?) out then and there, whether death, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, payment for the infraction, whatever. Would sure be cheaper to do it that way today! Insteasd we follow Roman laws styles, with long imprisonments, necessitating the care and feeding of the guilty, sometimes for decades.

 

What does this all have to do with marraige? I don't know-I'm just beginning to ramble now, down the rabbit trail, so I guess I'll stop before I end up telling old sea stories next!

As far as the marriage at Cana, Jesus was a guest, not presiding over it.  If he played a "part" it would be a caterer. So I do not see how that would put it as something we could consider religious. Yes, God did conduct the first marriage. He also conducted the first murder trial a few chapters later! Again, how does this bring it into a religious context? As far as unfounded to show the importance, why does a marriage license not show the same. Romans 12 tells how we are to be subject to the higher powers (government). The book of Ruth shows that a marriage is sometimes not permitted by law without certain things being taken care of. The law of Moses forbid the Jews from marring those outside of the Jews. There are legal president about marriage in the old testament. But the only thing religious in the whole Bible is that Jesus was at a wedding. So I find it very hard to figure out how we can condemn the Govt license, but expect and demand a church wedding. 

 

I have heard about how ungodly the marriage laws are. It has been several years, but one of the first people to tell me that had refused a marriage license in Georgia if I remember correctly. I looked up the marriage laws of Georgia, and you could see where they were based on the old testament laws. I have been told one of the problems with marriage license is that the same laws for getting married also permit divorce. But, Moses (because of the hardness of their hearts, Jesus said) allowed them to give a letter of divorcement. So it is the same thing, the same law that allows marriage also gives divorce. Does that mean that God likes divorce? No. But I don't think that the state of OK for example likes it either. For if you will council with your pastor before marriage to HIS satisfaction (no rules by the govt as to what has to be said or how long, just his satisfaction) they will reduce the fee for the license to almost nothing. Some will ask, "But why should we have to pay anything for something God gave us a right to do?" Well the way I see that is God gave us many rights. I feel I have a right to live. The founders of our nation said we have the right to "life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness". But if I do not eat, I will not live!! I think all can understand that. But what must I do to eat? I must buy something. Even if I want to raise a garden I must buy seeds. If you want to over look the buying of seeds, I have to pay tax on MY land, or pay rent on someone's land to raise the garden. I have a right to buy a firearm (second amendment), but guess what, If I go to the store to buy one, I get taxed. I have to pay a tax to get something I have a right to own. If I want to use that firearm to hunt deer on my land, I have to buy a tag. Now wait I own the land, and have a right to hunt on my land, but must buy a tag? Yes. Because that is the law. Same goes for marriage. I have not found a single verse in the Bible that overrides this.

 

I also noticed that no one has answered my question, what is the difference between a wife and a concubine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I also noticed that no one has answered my question, what is the difference between a wife and a concubine?"

 

There seems to be more than one answer to that question, but it's interesting that in Judges we read of the man with the concubine who was raped to death (which he then cut her in pieces and sent the parts to each tribe in Israel) that the man is also called her husband. (Judges 19)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 61 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×