When in ancient history, particularly in Jesus' day and culture, was marriage not synonymous with sex? Never
Are giants the offspring of angels and humans?
- Thread starter Hakawaka
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Fallacy: baseless assumption, just like many of your claims in this thread.
You're just playing the contrarian game. Provide some substance rather than just throwing darts. Any knowledgeable, reasonable person knows marriage was synonymous with procreation in Jesus' day.
They're all male, therefore, no marriages. Simple. Next.
Do you have evidence that's what Jesus meant or are you just going to resort to circular reasoning and assumption? Marriage being synonymous with procreation is a reasonable conclusion.
So the Holy Spirit could not have caused Mary to conceive?
Jude 1, 6 & 7.
And the angels who did not stay within their own domain but abandoned their proper dwelling— these He has kept in eternal chains under darkness, bound for judgment on that great day. In like manner, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, who indulged in sexual immorality and pursued strange flesh, are on display as an example of those who sustain the punishment of eternal fire.…
Interesting comparison between sexually impure Sodom and the the angels that sinned. It could be inferred that the angels' sin was sexual in nature.
It is the western modern day lens at play and minimal understanding of other cultures.
Angels in heaven are male = don't marry = therefore, in the resurrection, neither do we marry.
I already pointed out when, but you deny it.
Synonymous with procreation? So childless couples? Childless couples were not married since they had not procreated?
The two things have nothing to do with each other than they are used as examples of judgment upon the ungodly. Let's apply an honest rule and note that Sodom does appear after the angels verse in 2 Peter. Are you willing to make the same comparison as in Jude?
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; 2 Peter 2:4-6
Because you say so...
Jesus said the resurrected are as the angels. Paul said there is neither male nor female in Christ. So if the resurrected have no sex, then it can be reasonably inferred that angels are asexual as we will be.
“Provide some substance”? You unrepentant hypocrite! You continue to make truth claims about the words of Scripture but your claims simply aren’t supported by Scripture.
Like I said, get some integrity.
Fallacy: sweeping generalization.
You sure are letting yourself get worked up over a non-essential matter. Self-control is a virtue of saints
We will have physical bodies as Jesus Christ. In the resurrection, his is flesh and bones. In Christ is a spiritual reference of our spiritual condition.
You must take "giants" as a metaphor, even the giant's bed that was 15 feet long and some 9 feet wide. How about, "we were like grasshoppers in their sight." Another metaphor.
The guy mentions the LXX, but he doesn't inform his audience it has angels of God rather than sons of God in Job.
K
keepingthingsreal
Guest
I know where he is getting his definitions from. As with other "definitions" he has given here, he just makes things up as he goes along.
Anyhow, of course, you are correct in what you stated here. In God's eyes, and not just in man's eyes, or not just "on the books," they were married. Good luck trying to get him to admit it.
Really? You think two people that marry at the courthouse but never consummate the marriage, ie, become one flesh, are married in God's eyes? Marriage in God's eyes is sexual union. What other reason was there for marriage in Jesus' time than procreation?
K
keepingthingsreal
Guest
Do you know what "synonymous" means?
Do you know what "procreation" means?
What about married couples who never procreate?
Are they not married in God's eyes?
What about Zacharias and Elisabeth?
Luk 1:5
There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
Luk 1:6
And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
Luk 1:7
And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years.
Zacharias and HIS WIFE Elisabeth were well stricken in years until the time came that they procreated.
Was Luke in error when he called Elisabeth HIS (Zacharias') WIFE prior to her conception (Luke 1:24)?
I mean, according to your assertion, Zacharias and Elisabeth were not married until John the Baptist was conceived and born because marriage and procreation are allegedly synonymous.
Will you continue to claim that your assertion is representative of knowledge and reason?
How did they know Elizabeth was barren? Because they had been having sex since their honeymoon and no fruit. Marriage is synonymous with sex was the point. Sorry it flew over your head