Stepping aside from the thread topic a moment, I wonder what lead tpia to the conclusion that I am not christian.

VincentVan:

Also, for all those people who keep referring to Paul's words as God's in the new testament, you also better call forth to kick all females out of teaching and government jobs. To much of the talk about sexuality comes back to[b] this dude who didn't even meet Jesus. [/b] In my opinion, all his works should be seen as the word of an early christian leader rather than God's own words. Nowhere else has God said that women cant wear pearls or that they are saved through childbearing. Take Paul's works with a grain of salt.

You are not a Christian because you don't believe in Paul's teachings, which is the basis of Christianity:

Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Do you know that Paul was approved by the Apostle Peter who saw the Kingdom of God:

2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.


If Peter accepted Paul as an apostle, who are you to question that? Paul is either a heretic or an apostle. If Paul is a heretic, was Peter deceived or was he also an heretic. Your Christianity is confused.

Finally, the Lord Jesus Christ commended the Ephesians for rejecting false apostles. The Ephesians did not reject Paul as an apostle. If there was a church that could have rejected Paul, it would have been the Corinthians. Ironically, it is the Corinthian Church that was rebuked the most for fornication.

Rev 2:1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
Rev 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:


I hope those scriptures open your eyes to see that if you don't believe in Paul's writings, you cannot be a Christian. Therefore repent ye and believe the gospel.

However, if you don't want to follow what was written by Paul, continue to do what is write in your own eyes, including fornication. If you want to call yourself a Christian while doing that, you have the right to. But you will not have the right to the tree of life:


Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

On the same note then, I suppose you believe that women are saved through childbearing.  And they should not have teaching positions nor should they ever speak in church.  Also, Women shouldnt pray without covering their heads, seeing as it is better to have them shave their heads.  And it is dishonorable for males to have long hair.  When you can say you enforce these teachings then you can perhaps cast some stones my way.

And besides, I never have spoken about my personal take on premarital sex, so dont be so quick to say that I am for it. I am just participating in a thread to discuss the biblical basis for Christianity's take on the subject.  Why is it in these kind's of forums that people just jump at the chance to condemn people?

Back to topic, I think that we are having an issue with the word fornication, which is the English substitute for the Greek word pornea/porneia that was used.  Rather than seeing what the bible means by perceived implication, we should see what that word pornea really means.  For this thread to go much further I think a definitive definition of the word pornea is needed but so far in my research, the definition changes depending on the point a person is arguing, whether it be for or against premarital sex.  It would be best if we could find an unbiased definition of the word in its time, meaning some article saying what the word means without trying to use it for a purpose.

Also I would hope that whoever is trying to argue or teach me isn't a female, because I am a male and Paul would have none of that.

@op

If the bible says fornication is a sin . Is that not clear enough? Why asking if it's a sin again?

We don't really care what your personal take on pre-marital sex is. The Bible is clear and your opinion is only useful to yourself.


2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.


Now I am not going to teach you about women preaching/speaking, head coverings and all Paul's teachings. As Peter said those who are unlearned or unstable twist those scriptures to their own destruction. You can ope threads for those topics and I will answer.

You are cleary unlearned or unstable. If you think that is judgemental, then let it be so.

Back to fornication. where do you think we will get a definition from? The Bible is enough. let us see:

1Co 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

1Co 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
1Co 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.


Why should every man his own wife to avoid fornication?
Why should the umarried burn? Can't they just have pre-marital sex?

But well, this is Paul, you doubt Paul anyway, so why bother, just believe what you want or acknowledge that you are wrong about Paul and start taking his teachings seriously.

First off, I havent even stated my own opinion about pre-marital sex.  I am just partaking in a discussion to see if we can find some biblical direction on the matter.  This immediate confrontation I have seen as a response is completely out of place.I suppose I can't say I'm surprised at how much I am getting attacked for views I never expressed (premarital sex, not about Paul).  Christians on the internet often jump at the chance to vehemently harangue anyone who doesn't wholly agree with them.  Instead of getting a rush out of being mister tough guy on the internet, lets look at what the Bible has to say about the issue at hand.  Before that, however, I think the validity of Paul's words needs to come under scrutiny again.

If I acknowledge Paul and take his teachings seriously, I'd have to believe there is no place in heaven for barren women, and that they should remain silent in church.  Thanks but no thanks.  Paul was an unmarried man himself, who claims it is better for people to not be married than to be married.  But what would he know of marriage and sex then? If we are to believe that his words are God's words, then God would think its best if none of us were married at all. The first thing God did for Adam was create for him a wife,  So ya, there's that.  Some people think that he only said that it is better to not get married because he thought that the second coming was going to be within the people's lifetime.  That excuse seems to just further discredit his knowledge of God's plan since its been around 2000 years since we were told its better to not marry. He also says that unbelievers are saved if their spouses are believers.  How can an unbeliever be saved?  Corinthians 7 and 1st Timothy 2 are fraught with ridiculousness found nowhere else in the Bible.

So back to the topic, can anyone see anywhere in the Bible (other than Paul's works) where it is a sin to have premarital sex?  I avoid the use of the word "fornication" because, from my research, definitions change depending on the argument its being used in, whether it includes in the meaning premarital sex or not.  Which brings us to 1 Corinth 7:2.  Avoiding fornication does not necessarily mean avoiding premarital sex, it could mean intimate immorality, which we can't find premarital sex listed as in the bible.

For a response, Id really like to see some constructive close reading of the Bible.  Don't attack my opinions on fornication, because I haven't even stated what they are.  We need to look for what the Bible says is right rather that try to prove me wrong, because Seriously, I haven't stated what I think is right.  If Paul's works are the only sources to condemn premarital sex (a definition that fornication still hasn't been proven to include), it seems like a pretty weak argument to call it a sin.

My advice to you is that for each topic that you do not understand, open a thread and ask a question and we will correct you.

Apart from that, I think you could look for a forum of "like-minded believers" to discuss with. Most Christians here believe in the whole Bible. Google "Paul the false apostle". That will lead you to people who will be able to discuss the Bible and what it says about marriage and sex, excluding Paul's teachings.

However, if you want to try one last time to understand Paul's teachings, open a thread for each topic and MAYBE we will answer. Maybe, because I think you are intentionally trying to derail people by raising silly issues.

Not really trying to derail anything. Just trying to see if there is biblical basis for calling premarital sex other than what Paul wrote. That's a pretty simple and straightforward request. I'm not really trying to turn the discussion towards Paul and his validity as speaking in the stead of God. I already have my views about that. I am not looking for like minded people to discuss this topic, mostly because I think its likely people would probably discredit him BECAUSE of the what THEY would like to believe, rather than discredit him because what HE taught. Not really looking (i guess now) to argue for or against Paul, but rather to see what evidence there is one way or another about premarital sex in books other than what Paul wrote.
Surely Paul cant be the only one (supposedly) against it right?

Peter did not discredit Paul. Jesus did not discredit Paul (He had a chance in Revelation). Paul's teachings came DIRECTLY from Jesus.


Act 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.



If you want to discuss anything to do with Christianity, why do you want to set aside part of the Bible?

1Co 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

1Co 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
1Co 14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.


You must be born again, my brother.

Talk about derailing. Here we are talking about Paul again. Its kind of funny how other than that one acts passage (proclaiming God's name, perhaps not correct social interactions), the support came from Paul's own books. I cant see how such extreme sexism, and crazy means to salvation (get married to a believer) could allow people to think Paul's words on social interaction were God's.

Ok how about this, we all suddenly believe everything Paul says is God's law (ladies better not pray without a hat), that still doesn't get us anywhere, as Ive said in previous posts. Fornication is the word we get as people decided to translate the word "porneia" from Greek. The Greek word used does not explicitly mean premarital sex! Even in its use in the fifth chapter of first Corinthians isnt, its used for in today's terms, incest. So even if we trust Paul's writings, they are still of minimal use here because we DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WORD MEANS!

So can we please move away from Paul and see if there are other scriptures that prohibit premarital sex? There has to be more support than a word used by Paul with unknown usage.

And seriously people, could we discuss the topic at hand rather than individual poster's salvation? I have already discovered that this request may be too much to ask.

^I think your problem might stem from your background.

Anyway, like i pointed out before, if YOU
want to engage in promiscuous s.ex, then as an adult which i presume you are, nobody is stopping you.

Its your life, not so?

Act 9:15  But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:


If you have rejected the Lord's chosen vessel. We cannot discuss with you, you are a heretic. According to Paul We will be sinning if we continue arguing with you:

TITUS 3:9  But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
TITUS 3:10  A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
TITUS 3:11  Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.


I end here. Good luck in your quest to "define" fornication.

First off, I am not calling for a defining of fornication. How many times do I have to repeat that we cant find what its meaning is in Corinthians? I also see that its pretty pointless trying to keep posting since people here since I read the text just above the Titus texts. It says to AVOID foolish questions, yet you say Paul calls it a sin to continue. With that sort of ambition to make things just being said to be inadvisable to be called a sin, what am I thinking debating porneia? If inadvisable = sin here, then I hope that you dont spread the message of the lord to other people, since it seems to be centered around condemnation.

And whats with thinking that apostles cant make mistakes? Unless Paul was the second coming himself, he would undoubtedly have his own biases and prejudices just like any of the other apostles, who had been rebuked by Jesus before even though they were doing what they thought God would want.

oh, and Matthew 9

^You are wasting valuable bandwidth.

I am just trying to further the discussion here.  I haven't really argued for one side or the other of this debate, but rather, asked people to delve deeper into their bibles.  Once again, the only response is a personal attack.

While everyone was trying their best to take jabs at me I found two texts that talk explicitly about premarital sex.  They are as follows:

Exodus 22:16 - 17, "If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins."

Deuteronomy 22:28 - 29, "If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days."

So, nothing drastic happens to the man in Exodus or Deuteronomy.  Instead of being stoned similar to those guilty of adultery, its a hefty fine.  This stems from how women were treated as commodities or financial bargaining chips back in the day.  Virginity was held in high regard, no man wanted to marry a woman who wasn't a virgin.  Culturally, this led to ties between families financially through the marriages of their offspring.  The man most definitely could have sex with multiple women, its just that by cultural law he had to ATTEMPT to marry the woman as well.

So at this point it seems like from what I have found, that premarital sex comes with a responsibility to the father's owner to keep or pay for  "damaged goods".  I can see no correlation between God's judgment and premarital sex here.

The word "virgin" seems to be in many places in the bible, so why dont we all go out and investigate what the passages say, and how they might have to do with salvation? I mean, I haven't seen any other relevant passages in this thread for eons.  If you want to attack someone, go find a thread with someone with different beliefs than yours.  That wouldn't be me because I haven't stated what my beliefs are, only what you can and cant infer from the bible.

Another text that could be looked at for this thread is Hebrews 13:4. It says to keep the marriage bed undefiled. Most discussion Iv'e seen about the text seems to deal with what couples do in bed AFTER they are married. What was discussed was bestiality and some perverse fetishes. To argue that its about keeping the bed pure by not having sex before being married, we would have to look to see where in the bible it says that premarital sex is impure. Using this text against premarital sex would be to use circular logic. Final note on this text is that it doesn't support that the marriage bed is where two virgins should become intimate for the first time because according to polygamous marriages, the male would not still be virgin. Although I dont know how socially acceptable polygamous relations were at the time Hebrews was written. Anyway, lets look for more texts.

Interesting viewpoint Vincent. . . . unfortunately many people are too lazy to search the scriptures deeply but just accept some things as fact without checking indepth for themselves.

With regard to Paul's words, the key is identifying where he expresses a personal preference and where he is speaking as a mouthpiece of God. Many fail to understand this distinction.

To clarify, what do you regard as the correct interpretation of 'porneia' as used by Paul?

Porneia as used by Paul, in my view, means intimate immorality.  To figure out if premarital sex is being talked about, we then have to see where it is listed as immoral.  That is the correct order of operations in my opinion.  I am looking for the exact text, but when Paul was speaking specifically about adultery, he used porneia instead of "moicheia", the more limited Greek word for adultery.  This would lead me to believe that in relevant texts in Corinthians, that his use of the word means intimate sins in general.

Fair enough - is pre-marital sex listed as immoral anywhere?

Leviticus 16 has a pretty extensive list of sexual sins. Premarital sex is conspicuously absent. This isn't "proof" that it is ok, but one might wonder why, with all the other things listed, premarital sex isnt there if it is wrong.

^^ Maybe because there wasn't as big an issue with it as with the other sins listed?

STDs are bad4u

I may have some theory why it wasnt an issue back then. Maybe people didnt have sex outside of marriage back in the day because they didnt have protection. No protection=baby=whose the daddy=getting called out. So unless you want public shame for knocking a girl up, have to pay the dad a fee, and marry the girl, you didn't have sex. Perhaps that's why adultery was such a big deal, if you get the lady pregnant, there is another person who could be the father, thus you have a kid but another man has to pay for its upbringing. Just a thought anyway.

ask yourself

..

ebere1712:

@poster
Anything that involves lust for earthly things is sin according to the Christian faith. T[b]he Christian take on this is that if you want to Be Intimate, marry a wife[/b]. Jesus Christ went to the extent to say one man one wife. I think its only fair. Think about this scenario. The perfect bachelor would be able to mate as many women as he wants (because of gudlooks, money, and other things). He does silly things to the woman and leaves her. Another male meets the woman and marries her. This man shows up unexpectedly and boasts of all his adventures with the husbands darling wife. Do you think the husband would be jealous? I think he would and rightly so. The bible even said something about a despoiler marrying his victim. According to the Christian faith, God knows men more than they know themselves. I hope this helps.

That is Paul's teachings the OP doesn't understand/believe Paul's teachings. He needs to be born again before he can understand those things. Leave him alone.

wetu:

That is Paul's teachings the OP doesn't understand/believe Paul's teachings. He needs to be born again before he can understand those things. Leave him alone.

Not exactly - the interpretation of the word porneia is one of the cruxes of the debate according to Vincent. What is the correct interpretation of porneia to you?

Is it se-xual immorality? If it is, where is sex-ual immorality defined as including pre-marital sex?

I have nothing with a 'view' as such, but it would be beneficial to all if the source of this 'view' is clearly established.

Paul defined it already in 1 Corinthians 7. He said:

To avoid fornication let every man his own wife. (Not his own girlfriend or own woman)
Those who cannot contain let them marry. It is better to marry than to burn. ( If Pre-marital sex was an option there will be no need to contain or burn)

I raised those points already in this thread and they were swept aside because it's Paul who wrote them.

Even a child can understand those two points above. Are you also deceived?

wetu:

Paul defined it already in 1 Corinthians 7. He said:

To avoid fornication let every man his own wife. (Not his own girlfriend or own woman)
Those who cannot contain let them marry. It is better to marry than to burn. ( If Pre-marital sex was an option there will be no need to contain or burn)

I raised those points already in this thread and they were swept aside because it's Paul who wrote them.

Even a child can understand those two points above. Are you also deceived?

You are the one acting like a child - did Paul use the word 'fornication' or did he write in English? What was the Greek word translated as fornication?

It seems you don't even know what the discussion is about in the first instance.

If you are fornicating there's really no need to start proving yourself to anybody.

Its your life like i said before and whatever you want to make of it or however you want to live it is up to you.

The purpose of the thread seems to be to promote s.exual immorality and casual s.ex though i still fail to see the reason why some are permanently parked here and expending lots of energy trying to persuade others of the necessity of fornication.

I suppose we all want to assume christianity is the only religion or way of life which frowns on fornication.


For the ignorant:


African traditional culture forbids premarital s.ex and stresses the importance of virginity. ATR is where you'll see a bride being given a white cloth on her wedding night which must have the proof or virginity by morning or else.

So for some jokers to start opening their corn munchers claiming fornication is supported by the bible, is too laughable to be anything but amusing should anyone take these people seriously and start opening legs anyhow.

They are not really claiming that fornication is not allowed. They are claiming that they don't know what is fornication. They want to know the Greek word that Paul used etc. Since when did Greek replace the Holy Spirit?

By pretending to be confused, they want to confuse others. But if they have received the Holy Spirit, they should know the truth!

We are born again Christians, because God knew that not everyone can study Greek, He gave the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him. You must be born again.