ZecAustin, you said to me in your last post, "I will not respond to you again."
You have bound yourself by your own word, and according to scripture, you must do what you said. I, however, am free to address you as I please, whether or not you keep your word to not respond. I do not have to obey you, as you are not my head. My husband has no desire to address you, and I don't blame him.
It sounded like in your last post that you believe I was saying that 1 Corinthians 7 is saying that porneia can only refer to sex before marriage. However, I never said that. Since I came to the understanding of PM, for over a year now, I have understood that porneia includes all sexual sin outside of lawful marriage. That's why I posted the Strong's definition of porneia which defines porneia as including homosexuality, lesbianism, sex with animals, etc...I understand porneia to include these things as well as sex before marriage, as well as adultery, all sexual sin outside of lawful marriage. Sometimes porneia is used to describe adultery as one of many sexual sins, sometimes it is called out in the Greek specifically with the word, moicheuo, which not used loosely to define other types of fornication. Let me state it again, eventhough porneia CAN mean ANY of these things, the context of 1 Corinthians 6 and 7 is are discussing marriage and sex, and saying that being single is good because you can devote yourself more fully to YHUH, but also explaining that if one has sexual desires for the opposite sex, that it is better to marry than to burn/sin. It is not a sin if you marry, according to these chapters, but it is a sin if you lie with the opposite sex when you are not married. Homosexuality is not the focus of the discussion here, marriage and sex with the opposite gender IS. It states that marriage causes one to avoid porneia:
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 1 Corinthians 7:1
Nevertheless, to avoid porneia, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 1 Corinthians 7:2
But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. 1 Corinthians 7:9
So Paul is stating that it is good for a man to not touch a WOMAN unless he is married to her. Of course sex with a man is also porneia, but sex between two men is not what Paul is discussing in Chapters 6 and 7. If sex made a man and a woman married, why would he need to tell them to marry and why would he say it's not good if they are already married when they have sex? Why would they be in danger of burning or guilty of porneia if sex made them married?
Scripture does not state that it is a shame for a woman to teach a man. If you think it is a shame, that is your opinion, which means nothing to me. There is no chapter and verse stating such a thing. You may be twisting some of Paul's words to say that, such as when Paul says that he doesn't allow a woman to teach or have authority over men, and I do not claim to hold an office of teacher nor do I claim to have authority over you, nor do I exercise authority over you. Or maybe you are referring to Paul stating that women should remain quiet in the assembly, but we are not in an assembly. If so, my husband and I weren't informed, and this assembly is not set up in the required biblical structure. Even if this were an assembly, which it's not, according to scripture, I am free and even commanded to share scripture with others. Women are free to quote scriptures. Women can be prophets and judges. Deborah, Miriam, Mary, Elizabeth, Hannah, Anna, and many more, all of these women have prophesies recorded in the scriptures, and their words are to be taught to all of Israel, men or women, as all scripture, even the words of women recorded there, are useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. I find it interesting that if a woman agrees with a man and sings his praises then she is treated respectfully and often encouraged to speak, but if she uses the word of YHUH to correct him or defend herself when she is falsely accused by him, all of a sudden she's told to shut up. Scripture does state that Israel is rebellious and often tells the prophets to shut up. Even you stated just yesterday in your post about headcoverings: "I wish she would post on this thread. Anyone fortunate to hear her opinion is very lucky. She doesn't speak often but when she does it's always worth hearing. Hint hint, long dramatic pause leaving room for someone to chime in." Here, you are saying that ANYONE, which implies even men, fortunate enough to hear her, a woman's opinion, is very lucky. You say she is ALWAYS worth hearing. You state this in a thread in which women are discussing scriptures regarding headcoverings. You seem to take no issue with the fact that women are discussing scripture, and you engage in the conversation and seem to welcome their comments, opinions, and the scriptural reasons they give for wearing a headcovering. You are very inconsistent and you seem to be one of those men who just like to twist the scriptures to oppress women who speak truth to you when you don't want to hear it. This thread we are in now, is not in a men only forum. I am free to post here and discuss scripture with other women and men alike.
I won't be bullied by you and I am not afraid of you. I've had my big girl pants on since we opened an account on this website, but you are the one acting like a little girl when you refuse to respond and hide behind my husband. There is no need for you to be hiding behind my husband, because I was not attacking you. I was simply using the sword/word against my attacker-you, who were falsely accusing me, and others, of adultery, simply because we had sex with someone else before marriage, which my husband and I both repented of before we entered a romantic relationship. You claimed I am looking to justify leaving the man I once considered to be my husband. I never left ANY man. I never LIVED with any man other than the one I am living with now, my husband. How can I leave a man I was never living with? I never considered any man to be my husband other than the one I am married to and living with now. I have never been married to any other man. It would never have dawned on me back then to consider the man who took my virginity to be my husband, as I had never heard of such a twisting of scripture until recently. I have always understood marriage to be binding because of one's vows. He never made vows to me, and I never made vows to him. I briefly, for a few days, considered the possibility that maybe what you were saying was true, but after fasting, prayer, and abstaining with my husband, we were led to more scriptures and understanding that vows ARE required for marriage and that sex does not make two people married.
In fact, YHUH revealed to me yesterday but another reason why sex can't make people married. If sex did make people married, then they would not have at least 2 witnesses, as scripture requires, that testify that the two are married, therefore no judgement could be made against Suzie if Suzie commits adultery, and no judgement could be brought against the man who slept with her because there are not at least 2 witnesses that can testify she was married to John. It's his word against hers. Suzie could have sex with John, then she could sleep with Matt, pulling a Bill Clinton, and claiming, "I did NOT have sex with that man!" (speaking of the first guy, John), and nobody could provide proof that John was telling the truth, that they had sex and that she was his wife.
Thankfully YHUH is smarter than man, and created the institution of marriage in a way that we can have witnesses testifying of our union by witnessing the exchange of our marriage vows. Scripture states that every matter, which would include marriage, MUST be established by the testimony of at least 2 or 3 witnesses. If a man and woman sleep together, it's not an established marriage according to scripture, because it has no witnesses. His word against hers, and that's not justice.
"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you." Deut 22:23-24
Here we read in the scriptures that the woman was betrothed/engaged unto an HUSBAND, and a VIRGIN! The scripture goes on to call her his WIFE, and they are to be stoned because she did not cry out. He is to be stoned because he humbled his neighbor's WIFE, ie, they committed adultery. She was still a virgin, and had not consummated the marriage with sex, but the scripture treats this as adultery, and calls her her HUSBAND's wife. If she was a virgin, and they were betrothed/engaged/married, then what made her his wife, and what made him her husband, if they had not had sex yet? THEIR VOWS! You are trying to do away with the vows, but if it wasn't for the verbal agreement of marriage, there would be no betrothal here, and these two would not be stoned for adultery.
ZecAustin, you may be too proud to ever read this post see how it comes from a woman, however, this post isn't just for you, it's also for all those who are truly seeking this matter out, those who care what the Most High has to say about sex and marriage, and those who are not eager to falsely accuse and cast a stone at those not guilty of a sin according to Torah. I trust YHUH to be the true judge between you and I, and I trust those reading these posts to hear the whole matter and judge for themselves, whether they are men or women.
