I've never been to Amsterdam, so I can't vouch for the accuracy, but I saw a YT video where a woman said she sells 20 minute "appointments." Payment first and the clock starts when the cash is exchanged. Sounds brutal but that is business in the EU.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Prostitution vs adultery
- Thread starter FollowingHim
- Start date
From a practical standpoint I completely agree with you. I can even root that principle in a logic train that is based in scripture. What I can not do is find a passage that says that. Also there is another problem; we have to deal with Paul’s admonition to not lie with a harlot because the two become one flesh. That’s an intention free one flesh.
I’m not just being obstinate or obtuse or even obstructive. It’s objectively what the text says. Obviously. Unless someone wants to obfuscate it. They would have to be pretty oblivious to try that though. It would send the conversation all pear shaped, or oblong as it were.
So there was no marriage until consummation? You’re agreeing with me? Prior to taking her to the tent anyone could have backed out and it would have just been a crazy road trip? Did anyone else hear Mark agree with me? I want this moved to the best of forums.
You left out some parts; they were related, there had to be along journey and there were lots of camels involved. Those are all necessary parts of a valid marriage too! Also expensive gifts! Poor people aren’t allowed to get married! It’s only for rich relatives who live far apart and have lots of camels!
Would you be serious? You can’t look at one example of a marriage and just pick the elements from it you want to implement. We’re not even expressly told God approves of this marriage. If Isaac and Rebecca’s marriage is the template then you have to use the whole thing as the template. Go get some camels or you’re an adulterer.
And then you can try to find some scriptural justification for a brother being a covering. That will keep you busy for a long time since there is none. Of course if we were going to do that then we would have to find some scriptural basis for a woman always having to have a covering which you can’t, in fact I can prove the exact opposite.
But hey, let’s start with the small lifting out of the way first.
No it doesn’t. You’re assuming that.
This is still the best conversation we’ve had on this topic.
I wish we had been able to finish it. I just reread it and was a little disappointed in my prose. It was too dense can closely reasoned. I didn’t clearly state what I was going to say before I said it. I was very excited and it was taking all of my concentration to contain my nervous energy and boundless enthusiasm. There was a lot of shouting and wild gesticulating while I wrote that.
I’m very grateful for this Proverbs 6 talk because it really is the only weak spot in the argument. Solomon assumes the existence of a scenario where you can have sex with a woman and not be committing adultery. Unless we try and claim that it’s a virgin prostitute I have some explaining to do.
But once I do explain it then I’m not sure what objections could be left.
I wish we had been able to finish it. I just reread it and was a little disappointed in my prose. It was too dense can closely reasoned. I didn’t clearly state what I was going to say before I said it. I was very excited and it was taking all of my concentration to contain my nervous energy and boundless enthusiasm. There was a lot of shouting and wild gesticulating while I wrote that.
I’m very grateful for this Proverbs 6 talk because it really is the only weak spot in the argument. Solomon assumes the existence of a scenario where you can have sex with a woman and not be committing adultery. Unless we try and claim that it’s a virgin prostitute I have some explaining to do.
But once I do explain it then I’m not sure what objections could be left.
Nonetheless, she's a captive from a war. The situation is similar to a man purchasing a servant woman. If the man chooses to have sexual relations with her - and she is not engaged or married - is her status not upgraded to (his) wife? He doesn't have to get permission from a covering.
I actually said that myself, that fact doesn't contradict anything I said, it's actually integral to it. Read what I wrote again, I'm not sure how you missed this.
Yes, please let's stick strictly to the prostitution question at hand as much as that is possible...
I read what you wrote. 1 Corinthians 6:16 contradicts it. Just acknowledging the contradiction doesn’t resolve the contradiction.
How can we even pretend to pursue our mission when we can’t give a scripture based definition of how to form a “marriage”? It should be nothing but this until the issue is resolved.
She [Rivka/Rebecca] was "his woman." His "isha." If anyone else had tried to 'take' her it would have carried a death penalty.
Note: I'm fine with the English word "betrothal." She was "his to take" when she got on the camel, but not "one flesh" until he took her.
Who the hell said anything like that? For a guy who claims not to "read into" Scripture, you should apologize.
Consummation makes the marriage a physical union. It was already a union in heart.
No.
Last edited:
Re: Laban acting as 'father-surrogate.'
And the story of "a bride for Yitazk/Isaac" is the clearest, most concise precedent for what a marriage looks like in the Book, for anyone after Ha Adam. And it outlines other "common law" precedents, too - from "agency" (aka 'power of attorney') and what a "good and faithful servant" looks like, to the SECOND example in the Book of "offer and acceptance," and the bases of contract.
There are, however, other pieces. Other special cases. Other insights. Other "statutes, judgments, and commandments." And the all fit together.
What does it HAVE to say? Where do you ASSUME they were? And why did Abraham's agent/servant act as the ALL seemed to know a father would have? Why did the 'un-named' servant ask permission? And of whom?
You can't. Because you will NOT ALLOW honest discussion of ALL of His Torah.
And the story of "a bride for Yitazk/Isaac" is the clearest, most concise precedent for what a marriage looks like in the Book, for anyone after Ha Adam. And it outlines other "common law" precedents, too - from "agency" (aka 'power of attorney') and what a "good and faithful servant" looks like, to the SECOND example in the Book of "offer and acceptance," and the bases of contract.
There are, however, other pieces. Other special cases. Other insights. Other "statutes, judgments, and commandments." And the all fit together.
And Joseph was betrothed to Mary(or maybe the other way around and who belonged to whom) and had not any sexual relations with her until after Jesus was born. He was aware the he could have "put her away" due to existing pregnancy. It was HIS(Joseph's) prerogative to divorce her until God stepped in and filled him in on the details. They were married in the eyes of everybody (early on in scripture) INCLUDING GOD but had not become one flesh. This was very important to protect Mary from punishment and rejection. Therefore marriage comes before one flesh and rationally one flesh is important but does not constitute marriage in and of itself. In contrasting fashion the one flesh with a temple prostitute does not constitute marriage to that prostitute. BTW Joseph and Mary operated under the Torah paradigm. Very few people knew at the time that Joseph WAS NOT the father. Everybody assumed he was the bio father. It was the case where one could ask, "What did they know and when did they know it?" It was only many years later that the full story was revealed to the several authors of scripture.
Interesting observation. How do you explain that Jacob was considered married to Leah after consumation even though the whole time prior for seven years he was betrothed to Rachel? Also, what would happen to Rachel's status if Jacob decided not to work another 7 years after he was tricked. Would Laban be free to marry Rachel to someone else?
You're claiming the very passage that is my central argument contradicts what I am saying. That makes no sense. You might have read what I wrote but you really haven't understood it.