@@digitaljanus Men and women don't change in many situations... but men have more advantages through hierarchical structures, unfortunately. Anyway, may absolute chaos claim humankind.
The Methodist minister who performed my wedding refused to marry anyone who wanted to include the 'who gives this woman away' bit which treats the bride like property.
@@joshuacromley7439huh? I would protect a stranger from attack. But you think I shouldn’t protect my own daughter unless she conforms to some outdated rules of some ancient culture?
Your relationship is nobody else's business at all. If it works for y'all and you're happy, tell people to kick rocks if they want to tell you it's not the right kind, you're not doing it right, you need to do whatever, etc. Happinesses and love are so rare in this world, y'know? Hold onto and treasure it if you're lucky enough to find that. Don't worry about what people say
@@azurejester I mean yeah that is how it should be, if you don’t care about the Bible and its teachings. Because ultimately, no love is greater than the love of God, and our worldly relationships although good if kept biblical, hold nothing special after we die. We will be made like angels and as such marriages will cease and hatred will be left with our earthly bodies.
Me too. But here’s to hoping their hierarchy of bigoted leaders, who hate public dissent, have learned to leave their fragile egos behind and not see every intellectual challenge as a challenge to their church or to their god, or their way of life.
Dan's church teaches "If we have truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not truth, it ought to be harmed." -J Reuben Clark. I agree with this.
@@xovaqiin4844 unfortunately that kind of sentiment hasn’t ever played out in reality in that church’s reactions to their own members, the government, secular scholarship, etc
I was in synod in my church in the mid 80s. They introduced "biblical marriage". I voted against it because a speaker opposing the motion made pretty much the same case you have. "If you want 'Biblical marriage'," he concluded, "then get yourself a couple of concubines."
@@VulcanLogic Mark 10:11-12 “11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”” If divorce and remarriage is adultery. How can marriage and remarriage not be adultery?
@@halocraft60 That's a weird saying. There could be translation issues, or Jesus is being Jesus, or both. Back then, a man couldn't commit adultery against his own woman, only someone else's woman. And it was very difficult for a Jewish woman to divorce their man. I don't think we can answer your question until we get a better handle on what Jesus actually meant.
@@MusicalRaichu well we can read the different translations and see every other meaning. NIV “He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.” KJV “And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.” ESV “And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her,” ASV “And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her:” Clearly according to Jesus Christ (who decides what is Biblical) a Man divorcing his wife commits adultery. Now other verses also expand on this. Matthew 5:32 “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Luke 16:18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7:10-16 “10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. 12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?” Matthew 19:3-9 “3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”” Marriage and divorce was a major issue among the people when Jesus was around as Men would search for any reason to divorce a wife so he could remarry someone “better” or younger/prettier. Which lead to Jesus and his followers having to teach and talk about it a lot. So you could argue that all of these are mistranslations and I could show you that they aren’t. Or according to the authors of the Bible, Divorce and remarriage is a sin except for adultery or if you get divorced by a nonbeliever.
And historically, until quite recently, all marriage was transactional. And yes, that includes dowries. But even more important was the reality that no one person could acquire and do all the things necessary to survive. The need to produce shelter, food, clothing, and just about everything else required enough people - at least a couple - to do all of it. Thus, marriage was often a man choosing to marry to have someone to cook and keep a house while he was out producing food or items to sell to purchase food. Thus, only in about the last 100 to 200 years, has it become possible to purchase enough goods to replace a spouse.
@@MohsenGanj LOL. First, I'm a social historian. I specialize in the Early American Republic. I will put my education and 40 years of work in the field including stints in agricultural museums against your opinion anytime.
@@differnet It's not my opinion. It is my observation of the everyday life of villagers in the Middle-East. Women always work indoor and outdoor jobs. Cooking, cleaning, farming, harvesting and ...... Villager men live a life like lions. Most of the time, they just manage the wives and family like a male lion.
@@MohsenGanj Yes, but now you can buy a lot of things that 200 years ago you couldn't. For instance, now we buy clothes. Two hundred years ago, production of clothes took extensive hours. Admittedly, the very rich always bought those services, but the vast majority of people needed to pair up.
Jennifer Bird's points about how there aren't Hebrew words for marital concepts besides "man" "woman" and "take" (probably not the best characterization of her views, my apologies) is very interesting to me and I wish Dan would have touched on that.
He touches on this topic in other videos. In ancient Israel, the man is at the top of the social heirarchy. The woman is, at all points of her life subordinate to a man she does not necessarily choose; to her father when she was born, to her husband when he takes her, to her master if she is sold to slavery.
@@jccesista2167 I'm aware. I was motivated to comment by how disproportionately powerful that little linguistic datum seems to me; also by the desire to see Dr. Bird's work promoted.
Yeah, it's hard to make an appeal to a marriage system that is literally just, "man takes a woman, and she is his property forever." Hearing her on Dan's podcast blew my mind and really put a lot of biblical law in context for me.
That's not true, there are also very important marital concept words like 'mohar' and 'mahar', which is the purchase price for a wife, and to purchase her, respectively.
@@nikkio.9990 There's an explanation on "That Theology Teacher" 's channel. IIRC it started by newlyweds coming to ask pastors to bless their marriage. As time passed, rites developed, and at some later point it became a sacrament.
@@nikkio.9990bc in Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy it’s a Holy Sacrament. It’s only in modern evangelical view it doesn’t make sense because they arbitrarily choose when to deploy solar scriptura.
@@Jd-808 You sort of missed the point of my comment ,I have no problem with respecting church history a /orthodoxy . as a methodist it's part of the wesleyan quadrilateral. however if we're just referring to the Bible period, it really doesn't make marriage to be this spiritual thing. it's fine if someone wants to make it a spiritual thing , but if we look at scripture it just it's not there.
@@lavieestlenfer The government must be involved. It needs at the very least to keep records of who is married to whom. In my country, it also takes marriage into account in legislation regarding government benefits, taxation, inheritance, childcare, etc. Religious institutions on the other hand ...
What about Jesus when He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
While I've been enjoying your content for a while now, Religion For Breakfast calling you out as an expert in yesterday's video has solidified my trust 👍
Yeah, I saw that, however I tend to check the credentials of the content creator BEFORE starting following them. Life is short: I don’t want to waste my time with conspiracies, disinformation, misinformation or just sloppy google research.
@@sebastianheimann7639 it’s also important to know when Dan is speaking outside of his wheel house and to hold him accountable for providing sources. He needs to provide a certain quality of content, given his stated business model and position as an academic. And we need to be able to fact check; his views aren’t always going to be the best ones, per se. And of course, he’ll make mistakes; he’s been good at correcting these when they are brought to his attention. He seems to have integrity in this.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana Deuteronomy 17 15-20 15 you may indeed set a king over you whom the Lord your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. 16 Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the Lord has said to you, ‘You shall never return that way again.’ 17 And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.
@@ericfeldkamp3788 *"When* you come to the land that the LORD your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and *then* say "I will set a king over me,"" This is for the first king only. Of course. Since the others will be determined by birth and thus cannot be vetted beforehand.
Let me try this. The way I see one aspect of a holy matrimony is. If I had the bible written on the front of my body, my wife is the mirrored copy where when I read hers I go from right to left and here is the left to right and as our arms are spread and we come together the words are as they say “the first shall be last and the last be first” . That also brings me to a point in history that lends clearance. Like the word Namor. Should sound familiar. When words only had one optimal definition you read that word forwards and backwards. A word from the spoken to the written at the time when a Roman did not exist. Now you may proceed to the checkout line and go right into the rabbit hole 🕳 if you desire. I ain’t going back yet.😃
Yep, and Paul even tied his wisdom to be celibate if you were already unmarried to the fact that the Lord's return was NEAR. Thus, in the troublesome times he did not encourage people to marry as he saw that the times were short and one should no burden themselves with the duties of marriage given the persecution and soon return of Jesus. Another failed expectation of Jesus' return tied to marriage in the bible!
I had the same question in my mind so I asked ChatGPT, here is the answer. Greco-Roman culture, particularly in ancient Greece and Rome, rejected polygamy for several reasons: Social Norms: Monogamy was the norm in both Greek and Roman societies. It was seen as the ideal family structure, with one man and one woman forming a stable unit. Polygamy was viewed as a deviation from this norm and was associated with barbaric or less civilized cultures. Property and Inheritance: Inheritance laws in both Greece and Rome were based on the concept of a single heir. Polygamy could complicate inheritance matters, leading to disputes and division of property. Monogamy ensured clear lines of inheritance. Political Stability: Monogamy was seen as essential for political stability. Multiple wives could lead to competition and conflict within families, which could destabilize the political order. Monogamy was believed to promote harmony within families and society. Gender Roles: Greco-Roman societies had strict gender roles, with men expected to be the head of the household and women expected to be homemakers. Polygamy could disrupt these roles, as it would require women to share their husband's attention and resources with other wives and their children. Philosophical and Moral Considerations: Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle argued against polygamy on moral grounds. They believed that monogamy was the most virtuous and equitable form of marriage, promoting equality and fairness between spouses. It's important to note that while monogamy was the dominant practice, there were exceptions. For example, some Greek city-states allowed powerful men to have multiple wives or concubines, and Roman emperors sometimes had multiple wives or mistresses. However, these practices were not widely accepted and were often viewed with disapproval.
It was simply not the custom in Greece and Rome; people took their own heritage for granted back then, just as they do today. In the classical period Greeks associated polygamy with the Persians, who they saw as barbaric and effeminate. Monogamous Greeks and Romans could have extramarital sex though, with concubines or prostitutes.
Thank you Dr. McClellan!! I was just expressing my fear of the ChristianNationist’s promotion of “biblical marriage” and your posting showed up on my playlist.
I know this is a bit of a nit pick, but whenever i hear someone like Ken Ham reference Adam and Eve as "God defining marriage as 'one man and one woman'", I always think to myself, "were Adam and Eve ever even married?" Also, according to Ham, Adam and/or Eve may have had sex with their children. Not sure where that fits in with the concept of "Biblical Marriage"(or adultery for that matter.)
3 місяці тому+2
should have explained what "biblical marriage" is. I haven't a clue, and don't want to look it up.
What does "multiply" mean in Deut. 17:17 of the KJV? It's sometimes used to claim the Bible promotes monogamy, but the previous verse uses the same verb regarding the number of horses one owns. It certainly seems strange to ban a king from owning a second horse and equate it with polygamy.
Ok, do I gotta make a bad video about the Jefferson bible to get you to do a segment on it? Can I just claim some spurious arguments or something? Have you done it and I missed it? What is it gonna take? Teachers in Oklahoma need a good bible for classroom instruction. Might have to get Legal Eagle to join as an accomplice
The Bible ✝ describes marriage as a contract. Just like the employment contract. And reveres all contracts. You can find verses glorifying work just as you can find versus glorifying marriage. It makes sense, because marriage 💒 *IS* a contract. The whole trying to make marriage special from other contracts thing is post Biblical. As people before then had no reason to think of them as anything else. Treating them as what they are inevitably works. Elevating marriage just makes sense for optics. More control over people's lives and morals if you get into a core part of their lives.
Polygamy is condemned, especially in the NT, Matthew 19:3-6 “3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Matthew 5:27-28 “27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” 1 Corinthians 7:2 “2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.” You can’t just say “it’s ok because these biblical hero’s (who are more so cautionary tales and meant to show how nobody compares to Jesus) did it , and it only caused many problems for them.
@@DrasscoOfRascia I’m sorry, when I first responded I was angered by such an outlandish claim that I just copied some catholic site and went with it. I’ll try to break it down in my own understanding so people can understand. Firstly Matthew 22:23-30 “23 That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24 "Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him. 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. Finally, the woman died. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?" 29 Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” Obviously the main point is marriage doesn’t continue in heaven as we have no need for it. But due to the question we can assume polygamy wasn’t accepted by the Jews, as otherwise it wouldn’t be a problem because she would still be married to all of them, because you could have multiple spouses. Now a criticism to this would be that “Only men can marry multiple wives”, this view is sexist and goes against biblical teachings but is an entirely different subject I won’t get into now. To explain verses I gave before Matthew 19:3-6, “and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh.” Now I we see that the couple is one or has become whole. They are made the same and no one should separate them. This is clearly between two people, if we are to assume others were permitted to join in, then they would have to marry both spouses (would be homosexual and unbiblical) as again they are now one under God. Matthew 5:27-28 “Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Adultery is the action of having sexual relations with someone other than your spouse (only biblical reason for divorce). Now we must make a decision, can an unmarried person commit adultery, I would say not, it would instead be sex before marriage, a different sin. So the sin of adultery is sex outside of your marriage, a betrayal of trust that can end your marriage. Yet we are to assume you cannot only lust after other women, you can marry them? And this isn’t a betrayal and can’t end your marriage? Mark 10:2-12 notably “11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”” Yet divorce and remarriage is also adultery. Why? If you can marry multiple people, and divorce without proper cause means you’re still married in the eyes of God, then remarriage would be no different then marrying another spouse. But according to the Bible it’s adultery. And because this is getting long I won’t get into it, but each case of polygamy in the OT lead to multiple problems and were against Gods wishes.
@@halocraft60 The point that the author of the video is making is that the gospels don't even consider polygamy, since polygamy is something that had practically disappeared from Hebrew society by the time of the New Testament. I have no contest with the fact that all these verses are working within a monogamous context, yet, they don't condemn polygamy because they simply don't mention it.
@@DrasscoOfRascia yet he’s using it to say “modern conservatives” don’t understand biblical marriage and aren’t using it correctly. Admittedly the NT doesn’t need to directly say “Polygamy is wrong”, because it’s heavily implied, wasn’t currently a problem, and already a commandment (same way Jesus doesn’t have do say “murder is wrong”). Then he makes broad claims that marriage has always been about money and selling women’s reproductive capabilities. And polygamy was ok in the OT because? An out of context verse that assumes a sexual relationship while ignoring the context. Then everyone in the comments clap and nod their heads because a “Christian” is agreeing with their views. It makes me angry seeing people misuse the Bible to push their own views, it’s something I should work on, but it happens over and over today and throughout history, with the church and slave owner’s. It’s disgusting.
@@halocraft60 The "one man one woman" view of marriage is of pagan origin, imposed on Christianity when Greek and Roman followers became the majority. The Torah and Jewish tradition allowed polygyny, although it was uncommon. What you tried to do is take verses and squeeze monogamy out of them, which didn't work. A man and woman become "one flesh", but nothing prevents a man from one-flesh relationships with multiple women. Adultery was a man infringing another man's property. Unlike today, a married man using an unmarried woman was not adultery. A man having two wives was not adultery either, because they were both his property and thus he was not infringing another man's property. The Bible spans many centuries and cultures and descriptions of marriage reflects that variation. For the most part, it involved a business transaction between a man and a girl's father - that's girl as in child - with no guarantee that it was consensual. "Biblical marriage" is illegal today for multiple reasons and should be rejected. The video addresses those who select proof texts for the aspects of marriage they desire and call it "biblical" because they quoted the Bible, while completely ignoring other aspects that don't fit what they want. The impetus for this idea (which dates from the late 1970s early 80s) is to find a justification for rejecting marriage between two men or two women, an extremely damaging idea that should also be rejected now that we know better.
People will find out ,,there is a union described,the term unic is another topic,the angels were described as without sex,,ever tried that ,LOL,I just had to,,have a nice weekend.
If angels were considered to be asexual in the NT, then how could they be sexually attracted to the daughters of men in Gen 6? Does this underscore that these Nephilim were just men of noble status and not angels? Also I've always wondered if there are females in heaven according to this religions beliefs. I never see the appearance of an angel that is a female. Also i believe the gospel of Thomas has Jesus stating that every woman who makes herself a man will enter the kingdom of heaven. Might be a maturity thing. I dont know. But so far no women angels "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" where there are no females??? Best regards
Using the fraught term ‘angel’ as a catch-all creates problems like this (not blaming you, the LXX does this). The entities in Genesis aren’t called angels, they’re specifically called the ‘sons of god’, so no they’re not just men, they are gods. Malakh are depicted as anthropomorphic males, though I don’t know if they always are (though I don’t think they’re ever depicted as female, just male or maybe not stated otherwise). The remaining entities like cherubim and seraphim are never gendered I don’t think. I think the only potential female divine entity was Asherah, and she got written out of the story entirely.
@@WS-dd8ow To say they are gods is a stretch for me. That's just copying Hesiod and Greek mythology. From my understanding of the Hebrew bible, The Hebrew god claims specifically that there is no other beside him Is. 45:5 And also that angels do not have free will. They are created for a specific purpose and they never leave their station. They don't rebel against God and never have. The fall is a NT creation. Still no female entities in this realm called heaven that I can see. Best regards.
@@CoryMartz The Hebrew bible/religion is not monolithic, and Hebrew monotheism is a later innovation. The roots of the religion are in large part from the Canaanite religion, which is polytheistic, and traces of these roots remain scattered throughout the Hebrew bible. It contains direct references to other gods such as El, Ba'al Hadad, Chemosh, Shahar, as well as potentially ambiguous references to Asherah, Yamm, and others. There are numerous places, including in now redacted portions, that reference or depict the divine council of the gods, which again comes from the Canaanite religion and represents their pantheon, headed by the highest god El, who rules over his deity sons. The 'sons of god' from Genesis may or may not be referring to these deities, it's somewhat unclear, however the 'sons of god' from the unredacted Deu. 32:8 is almost certainly a reference to this pantheon. Otherwise, you're correct, the christian devil and his fall is entirely extra-biblical, and is retconned into the mythos through mistranslation and non-sensical misappropriation of Isa. 14 and Ezek. 28. And again I agree, I don't think there are any female divine beings in the Hebrew religion, other than Asherah who was reduced only to reference to her cultic symbol (though material culture artifacts have been uncovered that show she was likely worshipped as a goddess early on alongside Yahweh, before this practice was proscribed).
@@WS-dd8ow I am in complete agreement. What is presented as the final edit of the Hebrew Bible and its beliefs in my mind is a presentation intended to fix and or massage previously held beliefs or dogmas of the original authors. I believe that had a lot more work to do but failed to do so. When Dan speaks on certain topics my mind cant help but compare and contrast other points that are in mind relevant to his original point. And all I am doing is comparing biblical texts. He helps to open the proverbial can of worms for my mind and I am by no means a scholar of anything. I just am baffled sometimes by my Christian loved ones and friends who dont travel down the same intellectually honest textual critics trail. Either because they dont want to or is does not edify their point of view. And I am no intellectual either. Best regards.
The story says they "were on the earth at the time" the sons of god made out with human women and had children "and also later". Doesn't say they were the children born of such unions. That they were around later when these unions no longer happened suggests they should not be identified with said children.
At 3:07, you mention the "push for celibacy" and invoke Paul and Matthew as proponents. Luke should be at the top of the list. You cited Matthew's version of the marriage-in-the-resurrection pericope (Matthew 22:23-33) in which Matthew says that at the resurrection there will be no marriage. Luke takes this view further, stating that celibacy ***in this life*** is what makes one fit *for* the resurrection. Read Luke 20:34-36 carefully to see this.
Hooray for the Greco-Romans making polygamy uncool! It might have been okay in the OT but I have never read of happy biblical polygamy stories. It’s a terrible concept.
Happiness was never the intent. Nor was it in Christianity. Many medieval Christians believed love was not possible within marriage, as it replaced emotion with obligation. Hence the romanticization of courtly love in the High Middle Ages.
@@digitaljanus It should be pointed out that this was for high class people (who are the ones mostly recorded in historical sources. For lower class people attraction and happiness might have played more of a role. I recall reading about ancient graffiti about someone wanting are girl he liked to marry him.
Beg bloody pardon, but the polygyny of the OT is not the only form of polygamy, or even the only kind of polygyny that can exist. Would you accuse a group of four women who love each other of aping the rich ancients if they wanted a group marriage? That'd be polygyny, too.
Marriage is a "modern innovation"? Except for the pesky creation story. What are we going to do with God's model? Your focus seems to be on the influence of culture on the authors. What about the macro analysis of God's law as synergized by the biblical text? Can we not draw some fairly logical conclusions from the text using a wider lens to draw out consistent patterns? Are those patterns not echoed in observations in biology and sociology? Although divergence from the heterosexual monogamy model has existed from the beginning of time, the core pattern of human behavior seems to suggest it's utility and natural place in the God's creation. I submit to you that good ole common sense can solve this riddle. The best recipe tends to yield the best result. Divergence from God's eternal laws yields pain and suffering like when we kick against pricks. God will not prohibit you from diverging and allows you to experience the natural consequences of such decisions.
Its impressive how you speak about the bible and, many times, dificult subjects, without mentioning a single verse. You should, at least, Let us know verses from different authors which corrobotares with poligamy, once these authors dont agree each. The way you present an ancient library like that, in my point of view, is not fair. You Just speak about the side that gives audience to you, thats my feeling. Its making me lose the Will of watching This Channel. Folks, try watching, or reading ( even better)Mark Smith, Peter Enns, Harrington
Dan said in another video, that Genesis verse is about a man making a a household with a woman, but if the man was rich enough to have more women to have a bigger household that was ok. We try to interpret ancient things with modern eyes and mot see them as they were but as we want to think they were
@@gilgamesh7652yes, rich people did those things. Other people murdered, stole, deceived. These things are recorded in the bible. That doesn't make them examples to follow. The bible records human failings and God's triumphs.
Hahaha, this is the best and the saddest show I have seen for a long time. I mean this whole channel, not just this particular video. A so called scholar of the Bible and religion misleads thousands of atheists and people who are seeking truth even deeper in their dark and sometimes meaningless theories. How cool is that. I mean, just think a little bit: this guy sales "Bible" classes for money on his website, in which he will surely and happily explain to you, why you should never ever read the Bible for yourself, or give a try and find your Savior, who is Christ, no matter if you believe Him or not. This guy gets rich, meanwhile you lose your soul. Fair enough. By the way, the lessons of the Bible were given for free for the humanity, you should not pay any money for them ever. Selling something that is free is called stealing, did you know that? I feel very sorry for those, who believe the lies he says. This guy is here to make sure you will die the second death, so watch out who you believe, reader. And by the way, can anybody please break down the next 200 years, and where humanity will be by that time without rules in marriage, like all combinations are allowed? Honestly. I can tell you: it will end much quicker than 200 years and it wont be nice. Do a favor for yourself, read only one story from the Bible, the story of Sodoma and Gomora and let it sink and ask someone who actually knows what it means. Are you brave enough to do that?
I haven't taken Dan's courses but if they're like his videos he would teach the latest research based on historical facts. That always involves some interpretation and bias, and you are free to disagree on some points, but you have to remain with the facts. Doesn't sound like he's advocating no rules. He's saying that the Bible spans many centuries and cultures and marriage is not represented consistently but follows prevailing cultural practice. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since then, to the point that many aspects of biblical marriage are illegal today. The myth of those towns is irrelevant. Where does the story talk about marriage? Historically it was erroneously assumed to condem non-reproductive secs including within straight marriage. In the last 50 or so years, the interpretation has changed and it equally erroneously has been used to justify homofobia, one of numerous ways the church has gone astray. How marriage will evolve in 200 years is anyone's guess. We can only hope there will be better equality between genders and less discrimination against orientation variation. It's certainly what we should work towards to fulfil Christ's commands.
@@MusicalRaichu When I read through your comment, I was kind of interested in replying, but then I saw your channel and the content there, and I said: Naaah, I wont spend time on that! :D I mean "latest research"? "historical facts"? "the myth of those towns are irrelevant"? "better equality between genders and less discrimination against orientation variation"? And then, the best: "we should work towards to fulfil Christ's commands"? Oh boy. You have no idea what you are talking about. It sounded serious for a second though, so good try, but you need to grow up and do your homework. And don't take it personal, first of all. That is lesson one! :D
@@MusicalRaichu Sure. Than how about being too proud and offended in the first place, and instantly fighting back because of this feelings? :D I get what you are saying, but this is just soo typical, when people immersed in the world start shouting to others who claim to know what the Scripture says, that they have failed on this and that. To be a christian does not mean to be stupid, nor to be brave to say truth. In fact this is what christianity is all about. To be wise, to see what the others trying to hide, and call it out. Of course, love is part of it, which I am not lacking of in this matter. :D I wish you a good day!
@@johnburn8031 Trump Derangement Syndrome. It's what Trump cultists with no grip on reality accuse the rest of us of having for little things like noticing how full of shit he is and thinking maybe he's actually guilty of the things he's been found guilty and liable of in court.
I am not completely convinced that he was homosexual but whatever the thorn was, it was definitely something sexual. His insistence on his own celibacy is a tell on that point.
I kind of think he was a shapeshifting, devious 🦹 heavenly being in universe. Would explain why he kept contradicting Jesus 🐑, yet obsessed with getting the clergy ready for the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Need to make a corrupt ruling elite. Humans are too insane when following the rules.
I'm not interested in his personal life--he was an apocalyptic cult leader who thought the End was Nigh. Not the kind of guy you should be basing a philosophy for the long-term stability of society on.
No. The marriage 💒 between Yahweh and the church's followers is not always between people of the opposite sex. Also, humans in the universe of the Bible ✝ are *literally* stupider than some of our non-human animals 🐕🐬🐘🦧. So I doubt they would be able to break out of the influence of their Unconscious to become fully self-awarely LGBT anyway.
Or, if you don't want someone that doesn't believe anything the Bible says explaining to you what the bible says, go read Matthew 19. There are many examples of marriage in the bible that fall short of what the bible teaches. There's also murder, deceit, idol worship and all manner of sin. Jesus is clear that one man and one woman should become one and that what God has joined no man should divide, for any reason. Again, Dan goes to great lengths to not see what is plainly there to be seen.
Why don't you just cite the chapter and verse of the bible that states "marriage can only be entered into by one man and one woman". It's really important so I would guess it's in the 10 commandments? Sermon on the mount? Help us out, Eric.
"Mawwiage. Mawwiage is what bwings us together today." - The Princess Bride.
Truuu wov!!!!
Lmao!!!😂😂
Yes!😂
@@jttj742 She's a bass!
Anybody want a peanut?
We effectively have polygamy for the rich now. Labels change but powerful men don't.
Probably safe to say that men don’t: poor or rich.
What relevance does that have to the topic?
@KatelynHyde - Women don't change either. Most gravitate to the few top, "powerful" men.
@@josephpercy1558 "Most?" Guess some people can't math good.
@@digitaljanus
Men and women don't change in many situations... but men have more advantages through hierarchical structures, unfortunately. Anyway, may absolute chaos claim humankind.
It is so assuring to listen to an informed, level-headed scholar. Rightly so, he takes the trauma out of the Bible and out of religion.
When I was a kid, I wanted to marry a Balrog, which I considered Tolkienical marriage.
Maiar can have children, so I don't know what unholy spawn that'd've produced
The Methodist minister who performed my wedding refused to marry anyone who wanted to include the 'who gives this woman away' bit which treats the bride like property.
So unbiblical
Let’s just change that to asking the parents in general
@@pxnchx93or how about we change it to let the woman have her choice of partner?
@@joshuacromley7439why should a man only protect his daughter when he holds control over her sexuality?
@@joshuacromley7439huh? I would protect a stranger from attack. But you think I shouldn’t protect my own daughter unless she conforms to some outdated rules of some ancient culture?
❤we love you Dan!
Your relationship is nobody else's business at all. If it works for y'all and you're happy, tell people to kick rocks if they want to tell you it's not the right kind, you're not doing it right, you need to do whatever, etc.
Happinesses and love are so rare in this world, y'know? Hold onto and treasure it if you're lucky enough to find that. Don't worry about what people say
@@azurejester I mean yeah that is how it should be, if you don’t care about the Bible and its teachings. Because ultimately, no love is greater than the love of God, and our worldly relationships although good if kept biblical, hold nothing special after we die. We will be made like angels and as such marriages will cease and hatred will be left with our earthly bodies.
Honestly, I'm surprised Dan's church still accepts him with how much he tears down the modern and popular misinterpretations of the Bible.
Me too. But here’s to hoping their hierarchy of bigoted leaders, who hate public dissent, have learned to leave their fragile egos behind and not see every intellectual challenge as a challenge to their church or to their god, or their way of life.
Dan's church teaches "If we have truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not truth, it ought to be harmed."
-J Reuben Clark.
I agree with this.
@@xovaqiin4844 unfortunately that kind of sentiment hasn’t ever played out in reality in that church’s reactions to their own members, the government, secular scholarship, etc
What is his church?
@@oli.r7697 he’s Mormon
Very interesting and informative video, thanks for sharing.
I was in synod in my church in the mid 80s. They introduced "biblical marriage". I voted against it because a speaker opposing the motion made pretty much the same case you have. "If you want 'Biblical marriage'," he concluded, "then get yourself a couple of concubines."
Biblical marriage is a union of one man and and many wives and concubines as he can afford, and his brothers' widows (if applicable).
@@VulcanLogic Mark 10:11-12
“11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.””
If divorce and remarriage is adultery. How can marriage and remarriage not be adultery?
@@halocraft60 That's a weird saying. There could be translation issues, or Jesus is being Jesus, or both. Back then, a man couldn't commit adultery against his own woman, only someone else's woman. And it was very difficult for a Jewish woman to divorce their man. I don't think we can answer your question until we get a better handle on what Jesus actually meant.
@@MusicalRaichu well we can read the different translations and see every other meaning.
NIV “He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.”
KJV “And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.”
ESV “And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her,”
ASV “And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her:”
Clearly according to Jesus Christ (who decides what is Biblical) a Man divorcing his wife commits adultery. Now other verses also expand on this.
Matthew 5:32 “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
Luke 16:18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7:10-16
“10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.
11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.
13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.
14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.
16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?”
Matthew 19:3-9
“3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.””
Marriage and divorce was a major issue among the people when Jesus was around as Men would search for any reason to divorce a wife so he could remarry someone “better” or younger/prettier. Which lead to Jesus and his followers having to teach and talk about it a lot. So you could argue that all of these are mistranslations and I could show you that they aren’t. Or according to the authors of the Bible, Divorce and remarriage is a sin except for adultery or if you get divorced by a nonbeliever.
And historically, until quite recently, all marriage was transactional. And yes, that includes dowries. But even more important was the reality that no one person could acquire and do all the things necessary to survive. The need to produce shelter, food, clothing, and just about everything else required enough people - at least a couple - to do all of it. Thus, marriage was often a man choosing to marry to have someone to cook and keep a house while he was out producing food or items to sell to purchase food. Thus, only in about the last 100 to 200 years, has it become possible to purchase enough goods to replace a spouse.
Obviously, you know nothing about agricultural and rural lifestyle.
@@MohsenGanj
The point you tried to make has stabbed you in the eye.
@@MohsenGanj LOL. First, I'm a social historian. I specialize in the Early American Republic. I will put my education and 40 years of work in the field including stints in agricultural museums against your opinion anytime.
@@differnet It's not my opinion. It is my observation of the everyday life of villagers in the Middle-East. Women always work indoor and outdoor jobs. Cooking, cleaning, farming, harvesting and ......
Villager men live a life like lions. Most of the time, they just manage the wives and family like a male lion.
@@MohsenGanj Yes, but now you can buy a lot of things that 200 years ago you couldn't. For instance, now we buy clothes. Two hundred years ago, production of clothes took extensive hours. Admittedly, the very rich always bought those services, but the vast majority of people needed to pair up.
Mrs Betty Bowers Biblical marriage anyone?
Deven really deserves more recognition for her work in promoting bible insights.
Jennifer Bird's points about how there aren't Hebrew words for marital concepts besides "man" "woman" and "take" (probably not the best characterization of her views, my apologies) is very interesting to me and I wish Dan would have touched on that.
He touches on this topic in other videos. In ancient Israel, the man is at the top of the social heirarchy. The woman is, at all points of her life subordinate to a man she does not necessarily choose; to her father when she was born, to her husband when he takes her, to her master if she is sold to slavery.
@@jccesista2167 I'm aware. I was motivated to comment by how disproportionately powerful that little linguistic datum seems to me; also by the desire to see Dr. Bird's work promoted.
Yeah, it's hard to make an appeal to a marriage system that is literally just, "man takes a woman, and she is his property forever." Hearing her on Dan's podcast blew my mind and really put a lot of biblical law in context for me.
That's not true, there are also very important marital concept words like 'mohar' and 'mahar', which is the purchase price for a wife, and to purchase her, respectively.
Oh sure the Bible is inconsistent with marriage, but what is the Biblical view on the sharing of the remote control?
Asking the real questions.
Or the toilet seat?
Thank you.
We are the best humans ever.
I do keep telling people that Mariage is, in fact, a civil act.
@@nikkio.9990 There's an explanation on "That Theology Teacher" 's channel. IIRC it started by newlyweds coming to ask pastors to bless their marriage. As time passed, rites developed, and at some later point it became a sacrament.
@@nikkio.9990bc in Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy it’s a Holy Sacrament. It’s only in modern evangelical view it doesn’t make sense because they arbitrarily choose when to deploy solar scriptura.
No thanks. The government has no business being involved with marriage.
@@Jd-808 You sort of missed the point of my comment ,I have no problem with respecting church history a
/orthodoxy . as a methodist it's part of the wesleyan quadrilateral. however if we're just referring to the Bible period, it really doesn't make marriage to be this spiritual thing. it's fine if someone wants to make it a spiritual thing , but if we look at scripture it just it's not there.
@@lavieestlenfer The government must be involved. It needs at the very least to keep records of who is married to whom. In my country, it also takes marriage into account in legislation regarding government benefits, taxation, inheritance, childcare, etc.
Religious institutions on the other hand ...
What about Jesus when He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Betty Bowers FTW!
❤❤❤
While I've been enjoying your content for a while now, Religion For Breakfast calling you out as an expert in yesterday's video has solidified my trust 👍
Yeah, I saw that, however I tend to check the credentials of the content creator BEFORE starting following them. Life is short: I don’t want to waste my time with conspiracies, disinformation, misinformation or just sloppy google research.
@@sebastianheimann7639 it’s also important to know when Dan is speaking outside of his wheel house and to hold him accountable for providing sources. He needs to provide a certain quality of content, given his stated business model and position as an academic. And we need to be able to fact check; his views aren’t always going to be the best ones, per se. And of course, he’ll make mistakes; he’s been good at correcting these when they are brought to his attention. He seems to have integrity in this.
So much for staying away from things non-believers do
Dude, you rock. Not sure how you ended up in my algorithm but I have been really enjoying your content
@@hardwork8395are you good?
Well considering that the wisest man who ever lived had 1000 wives and concubines, its hard to see otherwise.
That was not to his credit. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
@@ericfeldkamp3788 Nothing suggests that was a sin.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana Deuteronomy 17 15-20
15 you may indeed set a king over you whom the Lord your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. 16 Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the Lord has said to you, ‘You shall never return that way again.’ 17 And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.
See also Ecclesiastes 2 8:11
@@ericfeldkamp3788 *"When* you come to the land that the LORD your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and *then* say "I will set a king over me,""
This is for the first king only.
Of course. Since the others will be determined by birth and thus cannot be vetted beforehand.
Let me try this. The way I see one aspect of a holy matrimony is. If I had the bible written on the front of my body, my wife is the mirrored copy where when I read hers I go from right to left and here is the left to right and as our arms are spread and we come together the words are as they say “the first shall be last and the last be first” . That also brings me to a point in history that lends clearance. Like the word Namor. Should sound familiar. When words only had one optimal definition you read that word forwards and backwards. A word from the spoken to the written at the time when a Roman did not exist. Now you may proceed to the checkout line and go right into the rabbit hole 🕳 if you desire. I ain’t going back yet.😃
Yep, and Paul even tied his wisdom to be celibate if you were already unmarried to the fact that the Lord's return was NEAR. Thus, in the troublesome times he did not encourage people to marry as he saw that the times were short and one should no burden themselves with the duties of marriage given the persecution and soon return of Jesus. Another failed expectation of Jesus' return tied to marriage in the bible!
Any resources on why Grecco/Roman culture rejected polygamy? Simply curious.
I had the same question in my mind so I asked ChatGPT, here is the answer. Greco-Roman culture, particularly in ancient Greece and Rome, rejected polygamy for several reasons:
Social Norms: Monogamy was the norm in both Greek and Roman societies. It was seen as the ideal family structure, with one man and one woman forming a stable unit. Polygamy was viewed as a deviation from this norm and was associated with barbaric or less civilized cultures.
Property and Inheritance: Inheritance laws in both Greece and Rome were based on the concept of a single heir. Polygamy could complicate inheritance matters, leading to disputes and division of property. Monogamy ensured clear lines of inheritance.
Political Stability: Monogamy was seen as essential for political stability. Multiple wives could lead to competition and conflict within families, which could destabilize the political order. Monogamy was believed to promote harmony within families and society.
Gender Roles: Greco-Roman societies had strict gender roles, with men expected to be the head of the household and women expected to be homemakers. Polygamy could disrupt these roles, as it would require women to share their husband's attention and resources with other wives and their children.
Philosophical and Moral Considerations: Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle argued against polygamy on moral grounds. They believed that monogamy was the most virtuous and equitable form of marriage, promoting equality and fairness between spouses.
It's important to note that while monogamy was the dominant practice, there were exceptions. For example, some Greek city-states allowed powerful men to have multiple wives or concubines, and Roman emperors sometimes had multiple wives or mistresses. However, these practices were not widely accepted and were often viewed with disapproval.
Remember that there are many disagreements between the authors of the NT on this issue.
@@aaaalkahtani9185 ChatGPT is invalid as a source aggregator by design. Try Wikipedia as a start instead and do your own footwork.
It was simply not the custom in Greece and Rome; people took their own heritage for granted back then, just as they do today. In the classical period Greeks associated polygamy with the Persians, who they saw as barbaric and effeminate. Monogamous Greeks and Romans could have extramarital sex though, with concubines or prostitutes.
You can see this happening in India today, because younger couples say they have a love marriage not arranged marriage
Thank you Dr. McClellan!! I was just expressing my fear of the ChristianNationist’s promotion of “biblical marriage” and your posting showed up on my playlist.
I know this is a bit of a nit pick, but whenever i hear someone like Ken Ham reference Adam and Eve as "God defining marriage as 'one man and one woman'", I always think to myself, "were Adam and Eve ever even married?"
Also, according to Ham, Adam and/or Eve may have had sex with their children. Not sure where that fits in with the concept of "Biblical Marriage"(or adultery for that matter.)
should have explained what "biblical marriage" is. I haven't a clue, and don't want to look it up.
All you really need to know is anyone who advocates for them is full of shit.
What does "multiply" mean in Deut. 17:17 of the KJV? It's sometimes used to claim the Bible promotes monogamy, but the previous verse uses the same verb regarding the number of horses one owns. It certainly seems strange to ban a king from owning a second horse and equate it with polygamy.
This one has been bugging me recently. Can’t stand this idea of certain marriage values and how people think it comes from the Bible.
Marriage in the bible is between one man and one woman. Apart from all the times it isn't. Other than that it is though.
60% of the time it works 100% of the time.
Unless it's the Holy Family, in which case it's one man, one woman, and one deity.
@@digitaljanus Pfft. The deity was a one-night stand by a player wanting a baby mama without any strings attached.
Marriage in the Bible is ONE man, MANY wives, concubines, etc! THAT IS Old Testament Biblical marriage! The Christian cult ignore this fact!
Ok, do I gotta make a bad video about the Jefferson bible to get you to do a segment on it? Can I just claim some spurious arguments or something? Have you done it and I missed it? What is it gonna take? Teachers in Oklahoma need a good bible for classroom instruction. Might have to get Legal Eagle to join as an accomplice
Doesn't Leviticus 19:29 prohibit prostitution?
The Bible ✝ describes marriage as a contract. Just like the employment contract.
And reveres all contracts. You can find verses glorifying work just as you can find versus glorifying marriage.
It makes sense, because marriage 💒 *IS* a contract.
The whole trying to make marriage special from other contracts thing is post Biblical.
As people before then had no reason to think of them as anything else. Treating them as what they are inevitably works.
Elevating marriage just makes sense for optics. More control over people's lives and morals if you get into a core part of their lives.
Polygamy is condemned, especially in the NT,
Matthew 19:3-6 “3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Matthew 5:27-28 “27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
1 Corinthians 7:2 “2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.”
You can’t just say “it’s ok because these biblical hero’s (who are more so cautionary tales and meant to show how nobody compares to Jesus) did it , and it only caused many problems for them.
None of these verses condemn polygamy
@@DrasscoOfRascia I’m sorry, when I first responded I was angered by such an outlandish claim that I just copied some catholic site and went with it. I’ll try to break it down in my own understanding so people can understand.
Firstly Matthew 22:23-30
“23 That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24 "Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him. 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. Finally, the woman died. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?"
29 Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.”
Obviously the main point is marriage doesn’t continue in heaven as we have no need for it. But due to the question we can assume polygamy wasn’t accepted by the Jews, as otherwise it wouldn’t be a problem because she would still be married to all of them, because you could have multiple spouses.
Now a criticism to this would be that “Only men can marry multiple wives”, this view is sexist and goes against biblical teachings but is an entirely different subject I won’t get into now.
To explain verses I gave before
Matthew 19:3-6,
“and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh.”
Now I we see that the couple is one or has become whole. They are made the same and no one should separate them. This is clearly between two people, if we are to assume others were permitted to join in, then they would have to marry both spouses (would be homosexual and unbiblical) as again they are now one under God.
Matthew 5:27-28
“Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
Adultery is the action of having sexual relations with someone other than your spouse (only biblical reason for divorce). Now we must make a decision, can an unmarried person commit adultery, I would say not, it would instead be sex before marriage, a different sin.
So the sin of adultery is sex outside of your marriage, a betrayal of trust that can end your marriage. Yet we are to assume you cannot only lust after other women, you can marry them? And this isn’t a betrayal and can’t end your marriage?
Mark 10:2-12 notably
“11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.””
Yet divorce and remarriage is also adultery. Why? If you can marry multiple people, and divorce without proper cause means you’re still married in the eyes of God, then remarriage would be no different then marrying another spouse. But according to the Bible it’s adultery.
And because this is getting long I won’t get into it, but each case of polygamy in the OT lead to multiple problems and were against Gods wishes.
@@halocraft60 The point that the author of the video is making is that the gospels don't even consider polygamy, since polygamy is something that had practically disappeared from Hebrew society by the time of the New Testament. I have no contest with the fact that all these verses are working within a monogamous context, yet, they don't condemn polygamy because they simply don't mention it.
@@DrasscoOfRascia yet he’s using it to say “modern conservatives” don’t understand biblical marriage and aren’t using it correctly.
Admittedly the NT doesn’t need to directly say “Polygamy is wrong”, because it’s heavily implied, wasn’t currently a problem, and already a commandment (same way Jesus doesn’t have do say “murder is wrong”).
Then he makes broad claims that marriage has always been about money and selling women’s reproductive capabilities. And polygamy was ok in the OT because? An out of context verse that assumes a sexual relationship while ignoring the context.
Then everyone in the comments clap and nod their heads because a “Christian” is agreeing with their views.
It makes me angry seeing people misuse the Bible to push their own views, it’s something I should work on, but it happens over and over today and throughout history, with the church and slave owner’s. It’s disgusting.
@@halocraft60 The "one man one woman" view of marriage is of pagan origin, imposed on Christianity when Greek and Roman followers became the majority. The Torah and Jewish tradition allowed polygyny, although it was uncommon.
What you tried to do is take verses and squeeze monogamy out of them, which didn't work. A man and woman become "one flesh", but nothing prevents a man from one-flesh relationships with multiple women. Adultery was a man infringing another man's property. Unlike today, a married man using an unmarried woman was not adultery. A man having two wives was not adultery either, because they were both his property and thus he was not infringing another man's property.
The Bible spans many centuries and cultures and descriptions of marriage reflects that variation. For the most part, it involved a business transaction between a man and a girl's father - that's girl as in child - with no guarantee that it was consensual. "Biblical marriage" is illegal today for multiple reasons and should be rejected. The video addresses those who select proof texts for the aspects of marriage they desire and call it "biblical" because they quoted the Bible, while completely ignoring other aspects that don't fit what they want.
The impetus for this idea (which dates from the late 1970s early 80s) is to find a justification for rejecting marriage between two men or two women, an extremely damaging idea that should also be rejected now that we know better.
People will find out ,,there is a union described,the term unic is another topic,the angels were described as without sex,,ever tried that ,LOL,I just had to,,have a nice weekend.
The whole book of genesis is an argument for why polygamy is bad
The whole book of Genesis shows a Malevolent war god of Abraham who committed Genocide, allows Murder, Rape, Incest, etc., all in his name!
If angels were considered to be asexual in the NT, then how could they be sexually attracted to the daughters of men in Gen 6? Does this underscore that these Nephilim were just men of noble status and not angels? Also I've always wondered if there are females in heaven according to this religions beliefs. I never see the appearance of an angel that is a female. Also i believe the gospel of Thomas has Jesus stating that every woman who makes herself a man will enter the kingdom of heaven. Might be a maturity thing. I dont know. But so far no women angels "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" where there are no females??? Best regards
Using the fraught term ‘angel’ as a catch-all creates problems like this (not blaming you, the LXX does this). The entities in Genesis aren’t called angels, they’re specifically called the ‘sons of god’, so no they’re not just men, they are gods. Malakh are depicted as anthropomorphic males, though I don’t know if they always are (though I don’t think they’re ever depicted as female, just male or maybe not stated otherwise). The remaining entities like cherubim and seraphim are never gendered I don’t think. I think the only potential female divine entity was Asherah, and she got written out of the story entirely.
@@WS-dd8ow To say they are gods is a stretch for me. That's just copying Hesiod and Greek mythology. From my understanding of the Hebrew bible, The Hebrew god claims specifically that there is no other beside him Is. 45:5 And also that angels do not have free will. They are created for a specific purpose and they never leave their station. They don't rebel against God and never have. The fall is a NT creation. Still no female entities in this realm called heaven that I can see. Best regards.
@@CoryMartz The Hebrew bible/religion is not monolithic, and Hebrew monotheism is a later innovation. The roots of the religion are in large part from the Canaanite religion, which is polytheistic, and traces of these roots remain scattered throughout the Hebrew bible. It contains direct references to other gods such as El, Ba'al Hadad, Chemosh, Shahar, as well as potentially ambiguous references to Asherah, Yamm, and others. There are numerous places, including in now redacted portions, that reference or depict the divine council of the gods, which again comes from the Canaanite religion and represents their pantheon, headed by the highest god El, who rules over his deity sons. The 'sons of god' from Genesis may or may not be referring to these deities, it's somewhat unclear, however the 'sons of god' from the unredacted Deu. 32:8 is almost certainly a reference to this pantheon. Otherwise, you're correct, the christian devil and his fall is entirely extra-biblical, and is retconned into the mythos through mistranslation and non-sensical misappropriation of Isa. 14 and Ezek. 28. And again I agree, I don't think there are any female divine beings in the Hebrew religion, other than Asherah who was reduced only to reference to her cultic symbol (though material culture artifacts have been uncovered that show she was likely worshipped as a goddess early on alongside Yahweh, before this practice was proscribed).
@@WS-dd8ow I am in complete agreement. What is presented as the final edit of the Hebrew Bible and its beliefs in my mind is a presentation intended to fix and or massage previously held beliefs or dogmas of the original authors. I believe that had a lot more work to do but failed to do so. When Dan speaks on certain topics my mind cant help but compare and contrast other points that are in mind relevant to his original point. And all I am doing is comparing biblical texts. He helps to open the proverbial can of worms for my mind and I am by no means a scholar of anything. I just am baffled sometimes by my Christian loved ones and friends who dont travel down the same intellectually honest textual critics trail. Either because they dont want to or is does not edify their point of view. And I am no intellectual either. Best regards.
The story says they "were on the earth at the time" the sons of god made out with human women and had children "and also later". Doesn't say they were the children born of such unions. That they were around later when these unions no longer happened suggests they should not be identified with said children.
At 3:07, you mention the "push for celibacy" and invoke Paul and Matthew as proponents. Luke should be at the top of the list. You cited Matthew's version of the marriage-in-the-resurrection pericope (Matthew 22:23-33) in which Matthew says that at the resurrection there will be no marriage. Luke takes this view further, stating that celibacy ***in this life*** is what makes one fit *for* the resurrection. Read Luke 20:34-36 carefully to see this.
Hooray for the Greco-Romans making polygamy uncool! It might have been okay in the OT but I have never read of happy biblical polygamy stories. It’s a terrible concept.
Happiness was never the intent. Nor was it in Christianity. Many medieval Christians believed love was not possible within marriage, as it replaced emotion with obligation. Hence the romanticization of courtly love in the High Middle Ages.
@@digitaljanus It should be pointed out that this was for high class people (who are the ones mostly recorded in historical sources. For lower class people attraction and happiness might have played more of a role. I recall reading about ancient graffiti about someone wanting are girl he liked to marry him.
Beg bloody pardon, but the polygyny of the OT is not the only form of polygamy, or even the only kind of polygyny that can exist. Would you accuse a group of four women who love each other of aping the rich ancients if they wanted a group marriage? That'd be polygyny, too.
Marriage is a "modern innovation"? Except for the pesky creation story. What are we going to do with God's model? Your focus seems to be on the influence of culture on the authors. What about the macro analysis of God's law as synergized by the biblical text? Can we not draw some fairly logical conclusions from the text using a wider lens to draw out consistent patterns? Are those patterns not echoed in observations in biology and sociology? Although divergence from the heterosexual monogamy model has existed from the beginning of time, the core pattern of human behavior seems to suggest it's utility and natural place in the God's creation. I submit to you that good ole common sense can solve this riddle. The best recipe tends to yield the best result. Divergence from God's eternal laws yields pain and suffering like when we kick against pricks. God will not prohibit you from diverging and allows you to experience the natural consequences of such decisions.
Its impressive how you speak about the bible and, many times, dificult subjects, without mentioning a single verse. You should, at least, Let us know verses from different authors which corrobotares with poligamy, once these authors dont agree each. The way you present an ancient library like that, in my point of view, is not fair. You Just speak about the side that gives audience to you, thats my feeling. Its making me lose the Will of watching This Channel. Folks, try watching, or reading ( even better)Mark Smith, Peter Enns, Harrington
I guess Jesus was wrong when he said that marriage, from the begininng, was supposed to be one man and one woman.
Which book of the Bible did Jesus write?
You do need to guess: You don’t know what he taught. No one does.
So no need to be passive aggressively smug.
Dan said in another video, that Genesis verse is about a man making a a household with a woman, but if the man was rich enough to have more women to have a bigger household that was ok.
We try to interpret ancient things with modern eyes and mot see them as they were but as we want to think they were
@@hardwork8395 "dont know what he taught"? wow, you cant read?
@@gilgamesh7652yes, rich people did those things. Other people murdered, stole, deceived. These things are recorded in the bible. That doesn't make them examples to follow. The bible records human failings and God's triumphs.
Hahaha, this is the best and the saddest show I have seen for a long time. I mean this whole channel, not just this particular video. A so called scholar of the Bible and religion misleads thousands of atheists and people who are seeking truth even deeper in their dark and sometimes meaningless theories. How cool is that. I mean, just think a little bit: this guy sales "Bible" classes for money on his website, in which he will surely and happily explain to you, why you should never ever read the Bible for yourself, or give a try and find your Savior, who is Christ, no matter if you believe Him or not. This guy gets rich, meanwhile you lose your soul. Fair enough. By the way, the lessons of the Bible were given for free for the humanity, you should not pay any money for them ever. Selling something that is free is called stealing, did you know that? I feel very sorry for those, who believe the lies he says. This guy is here to make sure you will die the second death, so watch out who you believe, reader. And by the way, can anybody please break down the next 200 years, and where humanity will be by that time without rules in marriage, like all combinations are allowed? Honestly. I can tell you: it will end much quicker than 200 years and it wont be nice. Do a favor for yourself, read only one story from the Bible, the story of Sodoma and Gomora and let it sink and ask someone who actually knows what it means. Are you brave enough to do that?
I haven't taken Dan's courses but if they're like his videos he would teach the latest research based on historical facts. That always involves some interpretation and bias, and you are free to disagree on some points, but you have to remain with the facts.
Doesn't sound like he's advocating no rules. He's saying that the Bible spans many centuries and cultures and marriage is not represented consistently but follows prevailing cultural practice. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since then, to the point that many aspects of biblical marriage are illegal today.
The myth of those towns is irrelevant. Where does the story talk about marriage? Historically it was erroneously assumed to condem non-reproductive secs including within straight marriage. In the last 50 or so years, the interpretation has changed and it equally erroneously has been used to justify homofobia, one of numerous ways the church has gone astray.
How marriage will evolve in 200 years is anyone's guess. We can only hope there will be better equality between genders and less discrimination against orientation variation. It's certainly what we should work towards to fulfil Christ's commands.
@@MusicalRaichu When I read through your comment, I was kind of interested in replying, but then I saw your channel and the content there, and I said: Naaah, I wont spend time on that! :D I mean "latest research"? "historical facts"? "the myth of those towns are irrelevant"? "better equality between genders and less discrimination against orientation variation"? And then, the best: "we should work towards to fulfil Christ's commands"? Oh boy. You have no idea what you are talking about. It sounded serious for a second though, so good try, but you need to grow up and do your homework. And don't take it personal, first of all. That is lesson one! :D
@@MusicalRaichu Sure. Than how about being too proud and offended in the first place, and instantly fighting back because of this feelings? :D I get what you are saying, but this is just soo typical, when people immersed in the world start shouting to others who claim to know what the Scripture says, that they have failed on this and that. To be a christian does not mean to be stupid, nor to be brave to say truth. In fact this is what christianity is all about. To be wise, to see what the others trying to hide, and call it out. Of course, love is part of it, which I am not lacking of in this matter. :D I wish you a good day!
This video is certified TDS free. We return you to your Data>Dogma norm.
Who had TDS?
What is TDS?
@@johnburn8031 Trump Derangement Syndrome. It's what Trump cultists with no grip on reality accuse the rest of us of having for little things like noticing how full of shit he is and thinking maybe he's actually guilty of the things he's been found guilty and liable of in court.
I'll do you one better. Why is TDS?
@@xovaqiin4844Because raging reactionaries should be denied power.
C'mon I think it's pretty clear that Paul was a gay man and that was the "Thorn in his side" that good wouldn't remove.. He was in love with Titus
I am not completely convinced that he was homosexual but whatever the thorn was, it was definitely something sexual. His insistence on his own celibacy is a tell on that point.
@@johnpetry5321 exactly, was he gay? Who knows I wasn't there but, it was absolutely something of a sexual nature..
I kind of think he was a shapeshifting, devious 🦹 heavenly being in universe.
Would explain why he kept contradicting Jesus 🐑, yet obsessed with getting the clergy ready for the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.
Need to make a corrupt ruling elite. Humans are too insane when following the rules.
I'm not interested in his personal life--he was an apocalyptic cult leader who thought the End was Nigh. Not the kind of guy you should be basing a philosophy for the long-term stability of society on.
The Bible is extremely consistent in that every single reference to marriage is between people of the opposite sex.
No.
The marriage 💒 between Yahweh and the church's followers is not always between people of the opposite sex.
Also, humans in the universe of the Bible ✝ are *literally* stupider than some of our non-human animals 🐕🐬🐘🦧.
So I doubt they would be able to break out of the influence of their Unconscious to become fully self-awarely LGBT anyway.
The word marriage does not appear in the Hebrew Bible.
What about Yahweh's marriage to male believers? 🤦
@@digitaljanus Fascinating. Do the words 'wife' and 'husband' appear in the Hebrew Bible?
@@ldr540they don’t, Hebrew lacks the word and only calls them man and woman
You is shallow.🙃
Or, if you don't want someone that doesn't believe anything the Bible says explaining to you what the bible says, go read Matthew 19. There are many examples of marriage in the bible that fall short of what the bible teaches. There's also murder, deceit, idol worship and all manner of sin. Jesus is clear that one man and one woman should become one and that what God has joined no man should divide, for any reason. Again, Dan goes to great lengths to not see what is plainly there to be seen.
Why don't you just cite the chapter and verse of the bible that states "marriage can only be entered into by one man and one woman". It's really important so I would guess it's in the 10 commandments? Sermon on the mount? Help us out, Eric.
I would instead prefer lawmakers to not mention the Bible at all, and keep that archaic nonsense away from my family.
No. Thanks. Monogamy is the way.
Male and Female, He made them.
That has nothing to do with marriage 💒.
And the "one flesh" thing is just a poetic way to command to have sex.
Who's 'He'?
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana try again , bro. Hahaha
@@WDRhine lol. The creator.
@@Jaymastia Does the creator have XY chromosomes?