As I understand it, there is no specific Law on what marriage IS. Therefore, we can only go by examples given in the Bible.
I like to use the example of Isaac and Rebekah, since their marriage involved God's direct input.
Abraham told his servant to go out and find a wife for Issac.
Servant finds Rebekah. He then talks to her father (and brother). The Servant and father come to an agreement that they both like the idea of Rebekah marrying Isaac.
AND THEN ... they get Rebekah's APPROVAL. She could have said no, but instead said yes.
Then, Servant takes her to meet Isaac. Servant explains the proposal to Isaac, and Isaac ... APPROVES, as well.
THEN ... Isaac takes Rebekah into his tent to consummate the marriage.
Therefore, I conclude ...
A marriage is (a) two people agreeing to become husband and wife, and (b) consummating that agreement via sex.
EVERYTHING ELSE ... is OPTIONAL.
Back then, fathers generally gave approval BECAUSE their daughter (and son) were under their duty of care. Today, our society is quite a bit different.
But the underlying idea of (a) agreement and (b) consummation is still there.
This is no different from any business agreement.
If you and I agree to go into business together, we each agree on what our obligations will be, and what our rights are against the other if the other does not live up to the agreement.
We show our symbolism of agreement by a handshake, if it is an oral agreement, or by our signature on the contract (plus a handshake) if it is a written agreement.
I see the same for marriage.
The problem today is we have allowed the government to become a third party, and that is what causes a lot of problems. We should simply have a written agreement, followed by a consummation, and abracadabra ... we are married.
Regarding "fornication" --
Remember, this is an English word, and has gained connotations in modern language. But what was it ORIGINALLY? Whatever it was originally is what counts, as I see it.
Today, a lot of people think fornication means sex before marriage.
But there is nowhere in the Bible where this is called out as a sin.
Therefore, it cannot be a sin.
1 John 3:4 --
Sin is the transgression of The Law.
NOTHING ELSE is a sin.
There are a lot of things that are not nice, or not preferable, or one would choose not to do, but that is not what makes it a sin.
Someone in another post bashed himself for the "sin" of getting angry. But where is that a violation of God's Law? It is not, so it is not a sin.
We have examples in the Bible of a man having sex with a prostitute. That is not a marriage, because there is no agreement to be married. And neither the prostitute nor the "john" are called out for sinning.
God gave us the desire for sex, so I think it is off base to say it is a sin, when it is not specifically called out as such.
It is nothing more than a misinterpretation of "fornication."
Now, consider race mixing.
What was God's first law in Genesis 1:1?
"Kind after kind."
As Muhummad Ali pointed out, blue birds want to be with blue birds, and red birds want to be with red birds.
Why?
Because it follows the Law of "kind after kind."
You can't get a red bird from two blue birds -- just like you can't get a White child from a White and a non-White.
In Jude 1:7 --
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
What is "strange flesh" if not race mixing?
That verse citation is from the KJV. But look at the Expanded Bible, which pulls from more than one Bible version --
Also remember the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah [destroyed by God for their evil; Gen. 19; 2 Pet. 2:6] and the other towns around them. In the same way they were full of sexual sin and people who desired *sexual relations that God does not allow *[pursued sexual perversion; departed after different flesh]. They suffer the punishment of eternal fire, as an example [warning] for all to see.
Why was Esau hated? Not because he wanted to eat. His birthright was given away because he pursued DIFFERENT FLESH. He did not take wives of his own blood line. Rather, he took Canaanite wives, who were of Ham's bloodline, not Shem's. They were also cursed, and had already race mixed with the Kenites, which were Cain's descendants.
In Hebrew:
QYN = Cain
QYNY = Kennite
And those were a Satanic people.
Ergo, Esau was hated by God. Why did Rebekah lament that her life would have been for nothing if Jacob did the same that Esau did?
Because the Bible is the story of BLOOD LINES.
The very thing that many of us have scoffed at regarding the so-called "elite" being so focused on (blood lines), turns out to be much more important than many of us thought.
Modern churches are not taught this -- and certainly do not teach this -- as their focus is on making money, not teaching the Bible.
In fact, I am always amazed at 99% of sermons where a preachers takes one little snippet from one verse -- often out of context -- and buiilds a (most likely bullshit) story about a friend of a friend of a friend, supposedly demonstrating a biblical principle in the story.
Of course, modern preachers often subscribe to services that provide them with made-up stories to tell.
It always amazes me because: THEY DO NOT TEACH THE BIBLE.
They ONLY follow doctrines that someone else instilled in them, but without critically thinking it through and reconciling it with what the Bible says.
Anyway, I digress ...
Consider the flood.
God could see that HIS people were quickly going off the rails.
That was the reason for the flood. BTW, the flood was LOCAL, not worldwide. It was a flood of "the land," and not "the world." Another mistranslation.
We have historical records in China and other places, with no indication of any floods outside of the Levant region.
Why was Noah SPECIFICALLY chosen to survive the flood and repopulate?
First, Noah was part of the important family tree: God > Seth > ... Noah. You can read this lineage in Genesis 5. It continues in the OT: Noah > Shem ... > Eber ... > Abraham > Isaac > Jacob/Israel > Israelites. The NT then picks up with this family tree, in both Matthew and Luke, ultimately resulting in Jesus, completing the Tree of Life, from God to Jesus. Noah is in that direct blood line, making him important to the story.
Second, Noah was "perfect in his generations" (Genesis 6:9). This means he was of the important family tree, with no race mixing in his history. What else could it mean?
Some people want to claim that Noah's 3 sons were of 3 different races, so they can explain why blacks and Asians exist.
But that is nonsense. Biology does not work like that (see: blue birds and red birds; kind after kind).
Noah's 3 sons were White.
So, where did the non-Whites come from?
In the NT, Jesus tells us:
Matthew 13:35 --
I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.
and ...
Matthew 15:24 --
I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
New International Version, using slightly different language:
“I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
Remember, the Israelites would forget who they were.
and ...
Revelation 12:7-9 --
7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.
So, Satan and his angels (i.e. messengers, or accomplices) were cast out of Heaven and back down to Earth. This is why the "serpent" (a regular human type of being, and not a literal reptile) was in the Garden of Eden, way back in Genesis.
[Off topic: Look up the term "human being" in a legal dictionary, and it will say, "see: Monster."]
Jesus REVEALS this in the NT, which we were not told in the OT.
Why is this important?
Because ...
Genesis 6:4 --
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that,
These "giants" are "Nephilim" in Hebrew, and the correct translation is "fallen ones." They were Satanic, which means "Adversary" in Hebrew. They had fallen from the grace of God, due to rebelling against Him.
They COULD HAVE (though the Bible is silent on whether or not) ... populated the Earth, prior to Adam's creation.
Those "others" came from somewhere, but the Bible is not specific about it.
We can only say that ... BIOLOGICALLY ... it would be impossible for them to come from Adam's blood line.
But other blood lines could have -- and did -- mix with the Adamic blood lines, which God ALWAYS hated.
There is only one sin that will never be forgiven:
Mark 3:29 --
but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.
First, I do not agree that "Holy Spirit" is some sort of 3rd person or entity, apart from God and Jesus, as is widely taught.
What did "holy" mean in Hebrew?
It means to SEPARATE, to set apart.
God commanded the Israelites to be "holy." He wanted them to kill the Canaanites, but they failed in that mission.
It was VERY important for God's Chosen (the White Europeans -- Israelites, and not the Jews who lie about being Israelites) to be HOLY (separate and apart from others).
That does not mean we cannot interact with others, but we should live our lives as blue birds, and not as red birds.
Kind after kind. Holy.
The Spirit is within us, which is why we have accomplished so much for ourselves, and the rest of the world.
As for "blasphemy," it CAN be something said, but it ALSO means any sort of disrespect against that which is honorable.
Kind after kind -- ergo, race mixing is the ultimate sin.
OK ... I have spent too much time here today. Got things to do and places to go.
In fact, I am always amazed at 99% of sermons where a preachers takes one little snippet from one verse -- often out of context -- and buiilds a (most likely bullshit) story about a friend of a friend of a friend, supposedly demonstrating a biblical principle in the story.
It always amazes me because: THEY DO NOT TEACH THE BIBLE.
That. Drove me out of “Christianity” (for a time) but never away from God, who had confirmed himself prior. That nonsense strategy is straight from Satan himself to create snares.
Crap has to stop. All the learning of what is ACTUALLY taught by the Bible… it’s worse than just not learning it, first gotta unlearn the nonsense, then work on learning the actual teachings.
Stuff like this is why I don’t even blame people like solarsavior for being atheist. Any rational person would reject what many churches teach as obviously false and virtually useless if they latch onto the wrong parts, which is unfortunately most of it.
They end up having similar effects to datefagging. People get burned, then stop trying to learn to cook.
The Bible is still correct, it’s usually taught completely wrong (even when taught properly, some things do take a lot more digging than others due to a variety of factors), and different translations are not as accurate on different things.
“You can’t just translate and interpret it yourself!”
“How do you suppose that book got in front of you in the first place? True though, not by myself, but with the help of the Ruach, if it be Father’s will.”
Of course, modern preachers often subscribe to services that provide them with made-up stories to tell.
… That would explain why they always sound so made-up, and is right in line with their uncritical approach to theology.
Hey, brother in Christ.
As I understand it, there is no specific Law on what marriage IS. Therefore, we can only go by examples given in the Bible.
I like to use the example of Isaac and Rebekah, since their marriage involved God's direct input.
Abraham told his servant to go out and find a wife for Issac.
Servant finds Rebekah. He then talks to her father (and brother). The Servant and father come to an agreement that they both like the idea of Rebekah marrying Isaac.
AND THEN ... they get Rebekah's APPROVAL. She could have said no, but instead said yes.
Then, Servant takes her to meet Isaac. Servant explains the proposal to Isaac, and Isaac ... APPROVES, as well.
THEN ... Isaac takes Rebekah into his tent to consummate the marriage.
Therefore, I conclude ...
A marriage is (a) two people agreeing to become husband and wife, and (b) consummating that agreement via sex.
EVERYTHING ELSE ... is OPTIONAL.
Back then, fathers generally gave approval BECAUSE their daughter (and son) were under their duty of care. Today, our society is quite a bit different.
But the underlying idea of (a) agreement and (b) consummation is still there.
This is no different from any business agreement.
If you and I agree to go into business together, we each agree on what our obligations will be, and what our rights are against the other if the other does not live up to the agreement.
We show our symbolism of agreement by a handshake, if it is an oral agreement, or by our signature on the contract (plus a handshake) if it is a written agreement.
I see the same for marriage.
The problem today is we have allowed the government to become a third party, and that is what causes a lot of problems. We should simply have a written agreement, followed by a consummation, and abracadabra ... we are married.
Regarding "fornication" --
Remember, this is an English word, and has gained connotations in modern language. But what was it ORIGINALLY? Whatever it was originally is what counts, as I see it.
Today, a lot of people think fornication means sex before marriage.
But there is nowhere in the Bible where this is called out as a sin.
Therefore, it cannot be a sin.
1 John 3:4 --
NOTHING ELSE is a sin.
There are a lot of things that are not nice, or not preferable, or one would choose not to do, but that is not what makes it a sin.
Someone in another post bashed himself for the "sin" of getting angry. But where is that a violation of God's Law? It is not, so it is not a sin.
We have examples in the Bible of a man having sex with a prostitute. That is not a marriage, because there is no agreement to be married. And neither the prostitute nor the "john" are called out for sinning.
God gave us the desire for sex, so I think it is off base to say it is a sin, when it is not specifically called out as such.
It is nothing more than a misinterpretation of "fornication."
Now, consider race mixing.
What was God's first law in Genesis 1:1?
"Kind after kind."
As Muhummad Ali pointed out, blue birds want to be with blue birds, and red birds want to be with red birds.
Why?
Because it follows the Law of "kind after kind."
You can't get a red bird from two blue birds -- just like you can't get a White child from a White and a non-White.
In Jude 1:7 --
What is "strange flesh" if not race mixing?
That verse citation is from the KJV. But look at the Expanded Bible, which pulls from more than one Bible version --
Why was Esau hated? Not because he wanted to eat. His birthright was given away because he pursued DIFFERENT FLESH. He did not take wives of his own blood line. Rather, he took Canaanite wives, who were of Ham's bloodline, not Shem's. They were also cursed, and had already race mixed with the Kenites, which were Cain's descendants.
In Hebrew:
QYN = Cain QYNY = Kennite
And those were a Satanic people.
Ergo, Esau was hated by God. Why did Rebekah lament that her life would have been for nothing if Jacob did the same that Esau did?
Because the Bible is the story of BLOOD LINES.
The very thing that many of us have scoffed at regarding the so-called "elite" being so focused on (blood lines), turns out to be much more important than many of us thought.
Modern churches are not taught this -- and certainly do not teach this -- as their focus is on making money, not teaching the Bible.
In fact, I am always amazed at 99% of sermons where a preachers takes one little snippet from one verse -- often out of context -- and buiilds a (most likely bullshit) story about a friend of a friend of a friend, supposedly demonstrating a biblical principle in the story.
Of course, modern preachers often subscribe to services that provide them with made-up stories to tell.
It always amazes me because: THEY DO NOT TEACH THE BIBLE.
They ONLY follow doctrines that someone else instilled in them, but without critically thinking it through and reconciling it with what the Bible says.
Anyway, I digress ...
Consider the flood.
God could see that HIS people were quickly going off the rails.
That was the reason for the flood. BTW, the flood was LOCAL, not worldwide. It was a flood of "the land," and not "the world." Another mistranslation.
We have historical records in China and other places, with no indication of any floods outside of the Levant region.
Why was Noah SPECIFICALLY chosen to survive the flood and repopulate?
First, Noah was part of the important family tree: God > Seth > ... Noah. You can read this lineage in Genesis 5. It continues in the OT: Noah > Shem ... > Eber ... > Abraham > Isaac > Jacob/Israel > Israelites. The NT then picks up with this family tree, in both Matthew and Luke, ultimately resulting in Jesus, completing the Tree of Life, from God to Jesus. Noah is in that direct blood line, making him important to the story.
Second, Noah was "perfect in his generations" (Genesis 6:9). This means he was of the important family tree, with no race mixing in his history. What else could it mean?
Some people want to claim that Noah's 3 sons were of 3 different races, so they can explain why blacks and Asians exist.
But that is nonsense. Biology does not work like that (see: blue birds and red birds; kind after kind).
Noah's 3 sons were White.
So, where did the non-Whites come from?
In the NT, Jesus tells us:
Matthew 13:35 --
and ...
Matthew 15:24 --
New International Version, using slightly different language:
Remember, the Israelites would forget who they were.
and ...
Revelation 12:7-9 --
So, Satan and his angels (i.e. messengers, or accomplices) were cast out of Heaven and back down to Earth. This is why the "serpent" (a regular human type of being, and not a literal reptile) was in the Garden of Eden, way back in Genesis.
[Off topic: Look up the term "human being" in a legal dictionary, and it will say, "see: Monster."]
Jesus REVEALS this in the NT, which we were not told in the OT.
Why is this important?
Because ...
Genesis 6:4 --
These "giants" are "Nephilim" in Hebrew, and the correct translation is "fallen ones." They were Satanic, which means "Adversary" in Hebrew. They had fallen from the grace of God, due to rebelling against Him.
They COULD HAVE (though the Bible is silent on whether or not) ... populated the Earth, prior to Adam's creation.
Those "others" came from somewhere, but the Bible is not specific about it.
We can only say that ... BIOLOGICALLY ... it would be impossible for them to come from Adam's blood line.
But other blood lines could have -- and did -- mix with the Adamic blood lines, which God ALWAYS hated.
There is only one sin that will never be forgiven:
Mark 3:29 --
First, I do not agree that "Holy Spirit" is some sort of 3rd person or entity, apart from God and Jesus, as is widely taught.
What did "holy" mean in Hebrew?
It means to SEPARATE, to set apart.
God commanded the Israelites to be "holy." He wanted them to kill the Canaanites, but they failed in that mission.
It was VERY important for God's Chosen (the White Europeans -- Israelites, and not the Jews who lie about being Israelites) to be HOLY (separate and apart from others).
That does not mean we cannot interact with others, but we should live our lives as blue birds, and not as red birds.
Kind after kind. Holy.
The Spirit is within us, which is why we have accomplished so much for ourselves, and the rest of the world.
As for "blasphemy," it CAN be something said, but it ALSO means any sort of disrespect against that which is honorable.
Kind after kind -- ergo, race mixing is the ultimate sin.
OK ... I have spent too much time here today. Got things to do and places to go.
Catch you later.
There's a lot to unpack. I agree a marriage constitutes as an agreement, commitment and joining of a man and a woman. Church not needed.
Regarding Nephilim. Noahs wife's burial site was unearthed and her bones laid out showed a 16 ft tall woman. So the wife was tall like a Nephilim.
Noah's remains were not found but his abode was found so I think his wife left this world before him.
I read also that it was perceived people were taller before the flood.
That Ali video was pretty good.
Also, wew lads this thread got long.
That. Drove me out of “Christianity” (for a time) but never away from God, who had confirmed himself prior. That nonsense strategy is straight from Satan himself to create snares.
Crap has to stop. All the learning of what is ACTUALLY taught by the Bible… it’s worse than just not learning it, first gotta unlearn the nonsense, then work on learning the actual teachings.
Stuff like this is why I don’t even blame people like solarsavior for being atheist. Any rational person would reject what many churches teach as obviously false and virtually useless if they latch onto the wrong parts, which is unfortunately most of it.
They end up having similar effects to datefagging. People get burned, then stop trying to learn to cook.
The Bible is still correct, it’s usually taught completely wrong (even when taught properly, some things do take a lot more digging than others due to a variety of factors), and different translations are not as accurate on different things.
“You can’t just translate and interpret it yourself!”
“How do you suppose that book got in front of you in the first place? True though, not by myself, but with the help of the Ruach, if it be Father’s will.”
… That would explain why they always sound so made-up, and is right in line with their uncritical approach to theology.