QT, I'm not much of a debator (too time-consuming) but I would like to make some comments. Please don't deluge me with replies like you did Chris. I don't have the time or desire for that. But I did want to give you some things to consider. Ok?

You said that the early church would view the idea of Jesus being God as idolatry. The challenge in the New Testament is that the early Christians were repeatedly told by Jesus that He was God. Jesus even took the divine name upon Himself. Then after the resurrection, even doubting Thomas was willing to state categorically to Jesus "My Lord and My God" - knowing full well as a Jew what that meant.

However, they wouldn't see it as Idolatry, for two reasons: First, Jesus didn't claim to be ANOTHER God, but to be Yahway in flesh. So it wasn't turning to a new God, but recognizing their already-accepted God.

That would fit with the Old Testament concept of God coming in other forms - in the Old Testament, it was not idolatry to state that God came in the form of an angel several times. (Jews even had a special name for when God took angelic form.) Idolatry is with another God, not the SAME God revealing Himself differently.

Whether God came as an angel in the Old Testament, or as a human in the New, as long as they were convinced that it was the same God, no idolatry would exist in their minds.

Secondly, once they understood Yahway better, they did change many of their customs and ways. The New Testament gives a lot of info about the clash, and how hard it was for some Jews to make the transition. But Jews did change, accepting the New covenant as better than the Old (Hebrews) because it fulfilled the Old.

I guess I've changed on this issue. More and more I see wisdom in a more libertarian viewpoint. It's not about whether it's a sin, it's about whether God gave humanity the ability to make choices, good or bad. You can be absolutely against sin, but not believe it is right to pass laws against it. Nowhere do I see Jesus pointing his followers toward controlling others in such a way.

Just because something is sinful does NOT mean God want's us to force others to not do it.

The day in which Christians make the laws is gone. Sadly, instead of insisting on laws that were open for disagreement, we pushed for a "we are right, so let's legislate it" type of self-centered governance. Now that we are no longer in power and receeding, that attitude has been passed to others to use against us!

Case in point: Christian marriage. It USED to be that we could marry, and the laws would support a Christian marriage viewpoint (very hard to divorce, for example). But those days are gone. We will probably never have a legal version of a Christian marriage again. But this could have been avoided had we allowed people to choose in the first place. We could have had a marriage legal system where I could CHOOSE to be in a Christian-based marriage, while someone else choose a no-fault divorce style of marriage. Not either-or, but both. Then you could choose God's way, or not God's way.

But now, I DO NOT have a choice!! It doesn't exist. You can not choose a Godly marriage covenant legally in the USA. All or nothing thinking eventually means you get ... nothing.

Freedom for OTHERS to choose is the only way to protect OUR freedon to choose. Freedom for others to do it ANOTHER way is the only way we can be free to do it GOD'S way.

But it's probably too late for that now.

It's like saying that the model for civilization will continue throughout history to be based on the curse G-d pronounces on Adam(man) and Eve(woman)- in other words,not all men toil by the sweat of their face to earn a living and put bread on their table, and not all women will face the pain of childbirth as it says in Genesis 3.

<<<Possibly the strongest evidence is that God only made one man and one woman, if He wanted it another way, He would have made it another way.>>>

Proves nothing; God includes the story of Adam and Eve in the Genesis historical record because God intended to populate the earth, not because God intended to forbid every marriage model different from the Adam and Eve model.

<<<The position in the Bible is abundantly clear, and just because some men did it, and God allowed it, doesn't make it right or ideal.>>>

The position which you choose to ignore, is that the book of Genesis is an explanation of origins. It is not a dissertation on marriage relationships. God asserts the importance of human relationships, and Genesis is not making a statement for or against the one man, one woman "model."

<<It is disengenuous to simply say, well Abraham did it, so that means God says it is right for him and all men forever!!!! >>>

I'm not saying that. I didn't say that. I never said that. What I did accomplish provided legitimate sources which were the basis of my argument- men who were polygamous and that it was culturally and religiously acceptible by Biblical standards.

PART 1
<<<First of all, Paul was very closely related to Peter and the apostles and even confronted them to their faces about the things you mentioned. In any case, you cannot just say, "Oh well Paul is not relevant because he doesn't talk EXACTLY LIKE THE OLD TESTAMENT" Paul was against idolatry as well, you should read the epistles.>>>


Where do I state in my argument," Paul is not relevant because he doesn’t talk EXACTLY LIKE THE OLD TESTAMENT?" A good portion of Paul's message is lifted from the OT and reinterpreted- need I remind you, that it's what the Jews have as a point of REFERENCE. The Bible comes from TAKANH. Christianity is the off-shoot of Judaism, not the other way around!
And furthermore, where did I state "Paul was not against idolatry?" If you’re going to make accusations like that about my points, please show me the proof that that is what I said.
And I have read the epistles. Is it because I disagree with your interpretation of the epistles that you assume I haven’t read them, or are you just trying to bully me off this discussion because I have presented some truth and properly defended my points?

PART 2
And another thing, why do you keep making assumptions about me and the things I have written? You haven't actually made a point against anything I've said- you have merely talked around them and closed with, "one man one woman," "God said it therefore it's ordained and if he wanted it any other way he would have done so."
You know Chris333, that doesn't settle it, because if G-d ordained just Adam and Eve as the one man one woman model you've just limited G-d to an understanding that is human in design. But worse still, you are ignoring that you are deferring this matter to "SILENCE" in the same manner those who support that Jesus wasn't anti-gay unions because he was "silent" on the issue.

QT,

First of all, Paul was very closely related to Peter and the apostles and even confronted them to their faces about the things you mentioned. In any case, you cannot just say, "Oh well Paul is not relevant because he doesn't talk EXACTLY LIKE THE OLD TESTAMENT" Paul was against idolatry as well, you should read the epistles.

I have absolutely no problem with the fact that many of the ancient hebrews were polygamous. Solomon had a great many wives. The point is, every time a polygamous relationship is listed in the Bible, there are definite problems associated with it. God made only one man and one woman (which is clearly the ideal, otherwise He would have made more wives for Adam), and it is a bit difficult for a husband and several wives to become one person. Paul called for deacons to be the husband of one wife, there is no mention of polygamy in the NT, and Paul addresses husbands and wives in the singular. Polygamy only came after the fall, and it can be seen as a corruption of what was good (a corruption that God tolerated, much like the institution of kings over the Israelites, but a corruption nonetheless).

In any case, I could care less with what cultural groups throughout history decide is right. The SBC could come out with a decree tomorrow that polygamy is ok and it would not make a lick of difference to me. The position in the Bible is abundantly clear, and just because some men did it, and God allowed it, doesn't make it right or ideal. It is disengenuous to simply say, well Abraham did it, so that means God says it is right for him and all men forever!!!! Possibly the strongest evidence is that God only made one man and one woman, if He wanted it another way, He would have made it another way. (You seem to be stuck on Jewish and OT customs, and while I find it interesting I do not understand how it is relevant to the discussion)

You realize Chris333, The Jews who followed Jesus and became what is commonly or traditionally understood to be the "Early Church" ie. The Jesus Movement, The Jerusalem Church and The Nazarenes did not abandon their Jewish religious traditions, religious customs, feasts, dietary laws or their devotion to Torah. The mainstream Jewish community(and yes, even those who subsequently followed Jesus after his death) held that acceptance of Jesus as a DIETY(which was a completely Pauline point of view) is antithetical to the principles of Judaism, because it would involve the abolition of the Jewish law and customs and would be considered IDOLATRY.

PART 1
<<<However, QT is dead wrong if he/she thinks that marriage was not considered a covenant fully binding, only between man and woman, and considered much more sacred than we consider it today. The early church was clearly pro one man/ one woman marriage, and the Bible is indisputably pro one man/ one woman. God originally instituted it as such, every marriage with more than one woman had many and often serious problems, and the entire idea that man and woman become one does not allow for polygamous relationships. Two men or two women is not a possibility either. >>>

Pretty presumptive of you Chris333. How can I be dead wrong about something which seemingly exists or is merely an assumption on <<your>>part.

You said, "The Bible is indisputably pro one man/ one woman..." How do you deal with this statement?
"Scriptural evidence indicates that polygamy among the ancient Hebrews, though not extremely common, was not particularly unusual and was certainly not prohibited or discouraged. The Hebrew scriptures document approximately forty polygamists, including such prominent figures as Abraham, Jacob, Esau, and David, with little or no further remark on their polygamy as such. The Torah, Judaism's central text, includes a few specific regulations on the practice of polygamy, such as Exodus 21:10, which states that multiple marriages are not to diminish the status of the first wife; Deuteronomy 21:15-17, which states that a man must award the inheritance due to a first-born son to the son who was actually born first, even if he hates that son's mother and likes another wife more..."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

<<<QT, would you pleae provide reputable, and respectable historical sources for the claims you just made? These claims almost sound like the absurdity of the debunked Davinci Code that said Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, had children linked to the French Royal family, and was primarily based on the gnostic false gospels of the day...>>>

Dan Brown state that his book the Da Vinci Code is FICTION. How is anything you have said in the above paragraphs relevant to the discussion of marriage?

Jesus4me,

Amen to the Davinci Code post. I am not sure how many people are stupid enough to fall for it, but if they do, then that is their own fault. The best we can do is show anyone who believes in it the obvious factual errors. Of course, it almost doesn't deserve an answer, the average 10 year old could find out that it is clearly wrong. I have to stop from laughing when someone actually tries to support their world view with it. To think, it was a world wide bestseller... I might try my hand at selling ice to the eskimos.

QT is correct that from around the time of Jesus until much later, marriage was broadly defined as two people who slept together. Jesus corroborated this whenever He said that the Samaritan had 5 husbands (no doubt there was not a ceremony for any of them, and certainly not a priest or pastor officiating it). There are some hints of a ceremony in the OT but, nothing binding, and certainly not enough to say that God mandates them. In fact, the Catholic church was the originator of a "wedding ceremony" as we know it. They initiated it mostly so that they could monitor the church and tax, basically for more control.

However, QT is dead wrong if he/she thinks that marriage was not considered a covenant fully binding, only between man and woman, and considered much more sacred than we consider it today. The early church was clearly pro one man/ one woman marriage, and the Bible is indisputably pro one man/ one woman. God originally instituted it as such, every marriage with more than one woman had many and often serious problems, and the entire idea that man and woman become one does not allow for polygamous relationships. Two men or two women is not a possibility either.

QT wrote:

">>>To Jesus, in the context of his life and culture, (not what you perceive to be his times and culture, ) marriage was innitiated with the sexual act.<<<

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Please explain. >>>

Exactly what I said, the term "marriage" in the Hebrew culture at the time Jesus was on Earth was innitiated by the sex act. Man takes woman, has sex bam! they're married.

We have several anti-gay posters on this board who believe traditional marriage as we understand the concept "today," existed in "Bible times." Only when one reads the Bible and accurate historical accounts, marriage was not understood as a sacrament or a partnership, it was a property venture and wealthy men controlled and defined it and created laws which best suit their need- like taking as many wives as they could afford. Jesus did not view marriage the way Christians view marriage because Jesus was a Jew and instructed in the thought and teaching of Judaism- remember, the time in history in which Jesus was on this Earth, Christianity did not exist, and neither did the modern Christian concept of "traditional marriage."

QT, would you pleae provide reputable, and respectable historical sources for the claims you just made? These claims almost sound like the absurdity of the debunked Davinci Code that said Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, had children linked to the French Royal family, and was primarily based on the gnostic false gospels of the day. Naturally, everything in the Davinci Code lie has been disproven, it is proven false, but as we know, the damage has been done for those who are young, ignorant and don't study up on biblical history for themselves. The same goes for the Farenheit 911 film. It is a fabrication of a lie but made out to make people believe it is true. Most if not everything in Michael Moore's film has been disproven; yet there are many ignorant young passionate people who would hold Michael Moore's flat out none factual lie as truth, just because it came out in a film, and he is anti Bush.

There is so much propaganda trying to blemish Christ, the Gospel and The Way (Christianity), that if we are to be good stewards of our faith, we are to study God's Word, so we are not swayed by "every wind of doctrine", and doctrine of demon that is out there.

Proverbs 18:22
He who finds a wife finds a good thing,And obtains favor from the LORD.
Proverbs 18:21-23 (in Context) Proverbs 18 (Whole Chapter)

Matthew 19:6
So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Matthew 19:5-7 (in Context) Matthew 19 (Whole Chapter)
Mark 10:9
Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Mark 10:8-10 (in Context) Mark 10 (Whole Chapter)

QT -

I am not familiar with what the vast majority of people did during Jesus' time, but I do know that there were wedding ceremonies, as the Bible talks about some. Care to provide a link for me to see this information you're talking about?

But whatever the minority or majority did does not change what God set up originally when He first created Adam and Eve, nor what Jesus taught while He was here, which was one man/one woman also. I'm not aware of any particular "ceremony" dictated by God. Only that He declared a union as a covenant between man and woman.

Tom -

You are absolutely right. The "one woman one man joining" is given in multiple places, both OT and NT.

really what we believe is that the Bible says that homosexaulitiy is a sin and people need to repent, turn from thier sin and accept Jesus Christ as Lord, walking in His rightousness and Holiness. And I believe the Bible states as several, nay many have said, man and women were create by God to become one in Gods eye, as married to each other nobody else. Man has screwed it up for sure but the intent was one women one man. Gods Blessing In Christ Tom

>>>To Jesus, in the context of his life and culture, (not what you perceive to be his times and culture, ) marriage was innitiated with the sexual act.<<<

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Please explain. >>>

Exactly what I said, the term "marriage" in the Hebrew culture at the time Jesus was on Earth was innitiated by the sex act. Man takes woman, has sex bam! they're married.

We have several anti-gay posters on this board who believe traditional marriage as we understand the concept "today," existed in "Bible times." Only when one reads the Bible and accurate historical accounts, marriage was not understood as a sacrament or a partnership, it was a property venture and wealthy men controlled and defined it and created laws which best suit their need- like taking as many wives as they could afford. Jesus did not view marriage the way Christians view marriage because Jesus was a Jew and instructed in the thought and teaching of Judaism- remember, the time in history in which Jesus was on this Earth, Christianity did not exist, and neither did the modern Christian concept of "traditional marriage.

QT

>>>To Jesus, in the context of his life and culture, (not what you perceive to be his times and culture, ) marriage was innitiated with the sexual act.<<<

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Please explain.

Continued Book of Jude:

Glory to God
24 Now to Him who is able to keep you[f] from stumbling,
And to present you faultless
Before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy,
25 To God our Savior,[g]
Who alone is wise,[h]
Be glory and majesty,
Dominion and power,[i]
Both now and forever.
Amen.

Footnotes:
a. Jude 1:1 NU-Text reads beloved.
b. Jude 1:4 NU-Text omits God.
c. Jude 1:12 NU-Text and M-Text read along.
d. Jude 1:22 NU-Text reads who are doubting (or making distinctions).
e. Jude 1:23 NU-Text adds and on some have mercy with fear and omits with fear in first clause.
f. Jude 1:24 M-Text reads them.
g. Jude 1:25 NU-Text reads To the only God our Savior.
h. Jude 1:25 NU-Text omits Who . . . is wise and adds Through Jesus Christ our Lord.
i. Jude 1:25 NU-Text adds Before all time.