-
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.
Joel 'Aint has another video...
- Thread starter PeteR
- Start date
This guy isn’t serious.
I made it 8 minutes. I could pick out a bunch of things that were wrong in that time. He talks a lot, says a lot of scripture which he twists around to a different meaning, then doesn't actually answer the question.
Sam Speaks
Member
He has to. He has no choice. He has to vindicate himself because he knows he's wrong (and BF intimidates him). Basically the same reason gays/trans have to have pride parades and get legally married and prove to everybody how normal and happy they are.
BiblicalLiteralist
Member
I haven't watched it, but your comment made me think of the fact that they always put forward a polyamours union as their example of marriage when arguing against polygyny using creation ideal.
Logically they are saying one man and wive(s) equals one union, but this cannot be true because the maximum amount of people (using The Most High's intential design) that can create another person is two. This is a hard limit, a lineage can only decend from a two person union. Copulating with additional people will not change that fact, only create additional people of a seperate lineage (if done in the right order M+W). The descendant cannot be split between 3 or more people, nor is there a new or additional lineage branch formed from 3 or more coming together. Similiarly neither can the two wives acting indepently of the the husband in his stead (W+W) add to the lineage of either wife or a polyamory based union of all three.
If each additonal wife is grafted into the original union, making a union of 3+ instead of two, then according to their proposed example of creation ideal polygyny would not create additional lineages, all would descend from that single union and it would require all particpants of that union to expand that lineage. Obviously though the wives cannot create additional offspring of Abraham. Neither can they for eachother.
Exposing the fallacy of this logic by presenting an example which indisputably shows that the coming together of two can only make a third person descended from that specific union, demonstrates exactly that. The inclusion of another person doesn't change this. This throws a wrench in the polyamory marriage example argument, the Adam, Eve, and a third argument cannot stand in the face of this.
For example, Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar did not consumate Ishmael through a polyamorus orgy as a requirement where they then shared the pregnancy. Ishmael is not of the line of Hagar AND Sarah AND Abraham. Only Abraham and Hagar as a single union, seperate from Abraham and Sarah's union. Likewise the inverse for Isaac is true, only Abraham and Sarah can create Isaacs lineage. Neither lineage can be parsed out or redistributed amongst the polyamorously proposed union.
The argument presented of polyamory as not the creation ideal is correct, but it is also not applicable because of this.
Last edited:
I did watch the whole thing and old Joel did us a great favor. He gave us the best proof I've seen that polygyny was accepted in the early church. I need to go back and listen again and anybody who gets to it first is welcome to the credit; but in his fevered rantings about Tertullian he read a passage from some work of Tertullian titled "Monogamy" or some variation there of. In the later chapters, possibly 12 or 14 if I remember at all correctly; Tertullian is excoriating the churches for the number of polygynists that are in leadership positions. Then Tertullian launches into the "mia" fallacy. We need to capture this quote and incorporate it into our standard narrative. Thanks Joel! We know you're reading this and the most effective thing you accomplished was to provide us a little bit of a holy grail we've been after for years; examples of polygyny in the early church.
After that, his other great contribution to our cause was to claim that belief in polygyny promotes porn addiction. Since he is a pastor in a modern church and statistics almost guarantee that Joel and almost all of his congregation labor under horrific bondage to pornography, he has undercut his credibility almost irretrievably with the very people he's trying to keep in his fold.
After that, his other great contribution to our cause was to claim that belief in polygyny promotes porn addiction. Since he is a pastor in a modern church and statistics almost guarantee that Joel and almost all of his congregation labor under horrific bondage to pornography, he has undercut his credibility almost irretrievably with the very people he's trying to keep in his fold.
It’s been a while since I read “On Monogamy” by Tertullian, but I think what he means by monogamy is different than what we think of. What he means is the requirement of only having one spouse for your entire life, regardless of even righteous divorce or death. He became part of a group at some point in his life that believed that the Holy Spirit was introducing new instructions after the time of the apostles for Christians to not marry more than once. (He even admits in the book that they would have wanted to forbid marriage altogether if Paul hadn’t preemptively put the kibosh on that idea. So they permit marriage, “yet singly”.)
I’ll have a look again at it later, to double-check my memory, but unfortunately I don’t think it provides proof of what we think of as polygamy in the early church.
However the same Tertullian, writing in “Against Marcion”, argues that the meaning of the passage in Luke about it being adultery to divorce and marry another refers to divorce for the purpose of marrying another, and hence doesn’t contradict the Law of Moses. This is important because one of the arguments I hear from time to time is that if remarriage after divorce is adultery, how can it not be adultery to take a second wife without divorcing the first wife. So this understanding is that it’s not the remarriage of the husband that makes the adultery, but the unjustified divorce (for the purpose of having another wife take her place, contra Exodus 21) that leads to de facto adulteration of the first wife, for which the husband bears the guilt.
I finally managed to watch the whole of Mr Saint's latest video.... pheewww 
While he might claim the writings of Tertullian (or whoever) add support to his position, Tertullian is not a writer of Holy Scripture like Moses, David, Solomon, etc., who were polygynists. Appeal to whatever pope, pastor, or preacher he/you want, but none of them has any more authority than the other; they all have no authority. Our appeal is to Holy Scripture, written by men chosen by God to pen His Word, many of whom lived polygynous lives. Polygyny was practiced by the very writers of God's Word, yet is never spoken against by God, unlike the sins they actually committed. It is Holy Scripture we must uphold and proclaim boldly, and not trust in the writings of men.
While he might claim the writings of Tertullian (or whoever) add support to his position, Tertullian is not a writer of Holy Scripture like Moses, David, Solomon, etc., who were polygynists. Appeal to whatever pope, pastor, or preacher he/you want, but none of them has any more authority than the other; they all have no authority. Our appeal is to Holy Scripture, written by men chosen by God to pen His Word, many of whom lived polygynous lives. Polygyny was practiced by the very writers of God's Word, yet is never spoken against by God, unlike the sins they actually committed. It is Holy Scripture we must uphold and proclaim boldly, and not trust in the writings of men.
In the video he mentioned YouTuber that I was listening to Jon Harris from Conversation that Matters. Apparently he believed in practice of polygyny only to abandon it recently. Did anyone come across which video he refers to where he shared this switch. I would love to get a shot to win him back. It seemed love of prestige or money have caused him to compromise his conviction.
Jon Harris did pretty good job exposing Critical Race compromise among churches.