Re: Sexually Immoral

[Grailhunter]

And the answer is clear: they used porneía to refer broadly to sexual immorality, not merely paid sex.

agreed.....kinda used as a general term. Post 77 defines that.
But still fornication does not fit.
So again what is your point?

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

Falsely accusing people of sin is a sin and can lead to Hell. Watch your mouth....But I tell you that for every careless word that people speak, they will give an account of it on the day of judgment.
Matthew 12:36

You're absolutely right that falsely accusing someone of sin is serious — which is why I quote Scripture, not speculation.

Jesus' warning in Matthew 12:36 was spoken to Pharisees who were accusing Him of casting out demons by the power of Satan. That verse isn’t a blanket gag order to silence believers from calling out sin — it's a warning to those who slander the work of the Spirit and reject the truth when it confronts them.

That’s what you’re doing now.

You’re not defending righteousness. You’re attacking people for quoting the Bible — and then using that very Bible to threaten them with hell for doing it.

I didn’t falsely accuse anyone of anything. I laid out what the Word says — directly from the apostles and from Christ Himself. You haven’t shown one verse that proves I’m wrong. You haven’t corrected me with Scripture. You’ve only thrown Matthew 12 out of context like a weapon — the exact thing you accused me of earlier.

So let’s be clear:

If someone is convicted because the Word exposes sin — that’s not slander. That’s the Holy Spirit doing what He does: convicting the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8). And if that conviction stings, don’t blame the messenger. Take it up with the Word.

What’s truly dangerous is not “careless speech.” It’s careless doctrine — the kind that excuses sin, waters down holiness, and treats Christ’s blood as a license rather than a covenant.

If you want to warn me about careless words, start with your own — because misusing Scripture to silence correction is a form of spiritual manipulation, and that is what leads people straight into judgment.

So again, if I’ve twisted Scripture — show me.

If I haven’t — then stop trying to shame me for quoting it.

Because on the day of judgment, we’ll all give account for whether we stood with the truth — or resisted it.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

agreed.....kinda used as a general term. Post 77 defines that.
But still fornication does not fit.
So again what is your point?

So now you agree that porneía is used as a general term for sexual immorality — exactly what I’ve been saying from the beginning. And yet somehow, you still say “fornication doesn’t fit.”

That makes no sense.

Fornication is the historic English word used to translate porneía in nearly every major Bible for over 500 years — not because of tradition, but because it accurately conveys what the Greek word means in biblical context: any sexual activity outside the covenant of marriage.

You admitted porneía was used broadly. Scripture confirms that with dozens of examples — incest (1 Cor. 5), pre-marital sex (1 Cor. 7), pagan immorality (Acts 15), and more. So what exactly doesn’t fit about translating it as “fornication”?

You're not arguing with me anymore — you're arguing with logic, history, and the inspired text itself.

So again, I’ll ask you: what’s your point?

You’ve agreed to the definition. You’ve confirmed the general usage. You’ve failed to offer a better English term that conveys it more clearly than “fornication.” So what exactly are you fighting for here?

Because at this point, it’s no longer a debate over words.

It’s a refusal to accept what the Word actually teaches — that sexual immorality outside covenant marriage is sin, regardless of what you try to rename it.

You can call it love. You can call it bonding. You can call it union. But the Bible calls it porneía — and if it’s outside of God’s design, it’s condemned.

So stop dancing around the term.

Own what the text says — or admit that your fight isn’t with translation… it’s with truth.

 

[Grailhunter]

You just listed Greek inflections of porneía without addressing anything I said.

Yes, porneía literally relates to prostitution in its linguistic roots — no one disputes that. But you’re confusing etymology with usage. That’s a basic exegetical mistake. The question is not what the word originated from, but how the inspired New Testament authors used it.

And the answer is clear: they used porneía to refer broadly to sexual immorality, not merely paid sex.

Let’s go back to the actual biblical texts — which you still haven’t addressed.

In 1 Corinthians 5:1, Paul uses porneía to describe a man sleeping with his father’s wife. That’s not prostitution. That’s incest — and Paul still calls it porneía.

In 1 Corinthians 7:2, Paul says, “because of porneía, each man should have his own wife.” Again — not about prostitution. It’s about avoiding pre-marital sexual immorality by entering a legitimate covenant marriage.

In Acts 15:20, the apostles instruct Gentile converts to abstain from porneía as a foundational moral requirement — not “don’t visit prostitutes,” but a general prohibition on the sexually immoral lifestyle common in pagan culture.

Your own definition admits this: “whoring, sexual immorality behavior similar to a whore.” That alone proves the point. It’s not just “sex for money,” it’s any sexual activity outside covenantal faithfulness, particularly in the Christian context where marriage is holy and the bed undefiled (Hebrews 13:4).

You keep arguing like a Roman — but the New Testament wasn’t written to validate Roman values. Paul, Peter, and James weren’t affirming Greco-Roman sexual norms; they were confronting and condemning them with the moral law of God.

So again — what’s your point?
If it's that porneía started out meaning prostitution, fine. That’s not in dispute.

But the Holy Spirit didn’t use it in a vacuum. He used it consistently to describe all sexual immorality — incest, adultery, pre-marital sex, idolatrous temple sex — anything outside of God’s design.

You’re proving nothing except that you’re willing to ignore how the apostles actually used the word — because its plain meaning confronts your position head-on.

Stop quoting dictionaries like they outrank Scripture.

Don’t just play games with Greek words — deal with how the inspired writers used them within the context of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

And before you pivot to polygamy — don’t bother. Yes, it existed in the Old Testament, but it was never God’s ideal. From the very beginning, the standard was clear: “a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife [singular], and the two shall become one flesh.” Jesus reaffirms that in Matthew 19, saying, “From the beginning it was not so.” Polygamy was tolerated for a time, like divorce — but Christ came to restore the original design. The New Covenant doesn’t lower the bar of sexual ethics — it raises it. So if your defense of sexual immorality relies on digging through ancient loopholes while ignoring the teachings of Christ and His apostles, then you're not defending truth. You're just resisting it.

LOL You know better than Yahweh.....you God? Brain on!
Lets see if you can figure this out....
Polygamy and slavery are a big deal....
Why didn't Christ and the Apostles speak against it?

 

[Grailhunter]

You're absolutely right that falsely accusing someone of sin is serious — which is why I quote Scripture, not speculation.

Exactly....quote the actual scriptures.....beware of translations and preconceived notions.

A lifetime of hearing false beliefs can taint your thinking.

For example you think there are J’s in the scriptures and Christ name is Jesus….LOL

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

LOL You know better than Yahweh.....you God? Brain on!
Lets see if you can figure this out....
Polygamy and slavery are a big deal....
Why didn't Christ and the Apostles speak against it?

So let me get this straight:
You're dismissing clear scriptural use of porneía by waving your hand and saying "LOL, brain on!"?
When you can't refute the text, so you just insult the messenger?

And now you’ve pivoted — again — to slavery and polygamy like that somehow clears your case?

Let me help you, since you're the one quoting Yahweh but ignoring what He actually said.
Why didn’t Christ explicitly condemn slavery and polygamy? Because He came to restore the image of God in man — and not every cultural rot was confronted in a single sentence.

But guess what He did do?

He reaffirmed God’s original design: one man, one woman, one flesh (Matthew 19:4–6).

He called us to holiness not loopholes (Matthew 5:27–28).

He elevated the covenant of marriage to the level of Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:31–32).

And His apostles explicitly warned against sexual immorality (porneía) as a broad category — including incest, adultery, fornication, temple sex, and more (Acts 15, 1 Cor 6–7, 1 Thess 4).

If you're using God’s tolerance of sin in fallen eras to excuse immorality under the New Covenant, you haven’t understood the Gospel.


And about slavery?

Do you really think Jesus needed to give Rome a civics lesson?

The Gospel wasn't designed to reform empires — it was designed to liberate souls.
And wherever real Christianity spread, slavery eventually died — not because of laws, but because of transformed hearts.

So no — I don’t claim to know more than Yahweh.

But I do take Him at His Word — all of it.

And the Word says porneía defiles the body.
The Word says “flee sexual immorality.”
The Word says “the sexually immoral will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor 6:9–10)

So unless you’re ready to submit to Christ’s teaching on covenant, repentance, and holiness —
Stop pretending ancient loopholes can save you.

They couldn’t save Solomon.
They couldn’t save the Pharisees.
And they won’t save you.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

Exactly....quote the actual scriptures.....beware of translations and preconceived notions.

A lifetime of hearing false beliefs can taint your thinking.

For example you think there are J’s in the scriptures and Christ name is Jesus….LOL

The idea that “Jesus” is invalid because the Hebrew alphabet has no letter “J” is not only linguistically ignorant — it’s spiritually empty.

God isn’t confused by transliteration.
He’s not limited to Hebrew-only syllables.
And the power of the name doesn’t rest in phonetics — it rests in authority.

The New Testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew. And in the Greek, His name is Iēsous (Ἰησοῦς) — the inspired text used by the apostles themselves.

So when I say “Jesus,” I’m speaking the same name every generation of believers has declared since the Gospel first went to the Gentiles.

Philippians 2:10–11 says “At the name of JESUS every knee shall bow…” — not because of the letters, but because of who He is.

If you think the Creator of the universe won’t hear your prayer because you said “Jesus” instead of a Hebrew approximation of Yeshua…
You’ve reduced the Gospel of grace to phonetic legalism.

That’s not revelation.
That’s linguistic Gnosticism.
And it saves no one.

 

[Grailhunter]

So let me get this straight:
You're dismissing clear scriptural use of porneía by waving your hand and saying "LOL, brain on!"?
When you can't refute the text, so you just insult the messenger?

No I think we agreed that porneia is a general term.

Let me help you, since you're the one quoting Yahweh but ignoring what He actually said.
Why didn’t Christ explicitly condemn slavery and polygamy? Because He came to restore the image of God in man — and not every cultural rot was confronted in a single sentence.

Not a good answer.

He reaffirmed God’s original design: one man, one woman, one flesh (Matthew 19:4–6).

You are talking about one marriage of possible many. Neither He or the Apostles spoke against polygamy or slavery for a reason and you cannot figure it out.

And the Word says porneía defiles the body.
The Word says “flee sexual immorality.”
The Word says “the sexually immoral will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor 6:9–10)

Agreed, so what is your point?

 

[Grailhunter]

The idea that “Jesus” is invalid because the Hebrew alphabet has no letter “J” is not only linguistically ignorant — it’s spiritually empty.

Ignorant.....no patients for people that pretend to have the spirt of Christ....good bye

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

No I think we agreed that porneia is a general term.



Not a good answer.



You are talking about one marriage of possible many. Neither He or the Apostles spoke against polygamy or slavery for a reason and you cannot figure it out.



Agreed, so what is your point?

My point is that you're dodging the full weight of Scripture by pretending it's vague when it's not.

The New Testament doesn’t need a line-item veto on every Old Testament corruption — because Jesus re-establishes the original design in Matthew 19:4–6. That is the teaching. That is the correction. And Paul affirms it when he says church elders must be “the husband of one wife” (1 Tim 3:2). Why? Because leadership reflects God’s order.

As for porneía — it's not just a casual term. It's a category of corruption so severe that Paul says it defiles the body (1 Cor 6:18), invites judgment (1 Cor 10:8), and disqualifies from the Kingdom (1 Cor 6:9–10, Gal 5:19–21, Rev 21:8). And no — porneía doesn't need a dollar amount to be sin. It includes every form of sex outside covenant.

So if you're admitting porneía is real and that the sexually immoral are condemned, then yes — polygamy, cohabitation, spiritual unions without covenant — it's all defiling. And Christ calls us out of it — not to defend it with loopholes.


That’s the point.

 

[Grailhunter]

My point is that you're dodging the full weight of Scripture by pretending it's vague when it's not.

The New Testament doesn’t need a line-item veto on every Old Testament corruption — because Jesus re-establishes the original design in Matthew 19:4–6. That is the teaching. That is the correction. And Paul affirms it when he says church elders must be “the husband of one wife” (1 Tim 3:2). Why? Because leadership reflects God’s order.

As for porneía — it's not just a casual term. It's a category of corruption so severe that Paul says it defiles the body (1 Cor 6:18), invites judgment (1 Cor 10:8), and disqualifies from the Kingdom (1 Cor 6:9–10, Gal 5:19–21, Rev 21:8). And no — porneía doesn't need a dollar amount to be sin. It includes every form of sex outside covenant.

So if you're admitting porneía is real and that the sexually immoral are condemned, then yes — polygamy, cohabitation, spiritual unions without covenant — it's all defiling. And Christ calls us out of it — not to defend it with loopholes.


That’s the point.

The scriptures are not vague, just not about what you want them to be.

I did not say that porneia was a casual term and how it was used you can read in the scriptures. And again no requirement in the scriptures for a wedding ceremony.

Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime. So the most important thing is to attempt to turn your brain on. If I fail you will never understand these topics.

Polygamy and slavery and the 2nd rate status of women are things that Christianity had to learn but they could not be addressed in the biblical era. Your task is to find out why. Why they could not correct these issues in ancient times? And if they did it, it would have been very apparent.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

The scriptures are not vague, just not about what you want them to be.

I did not say that porneia was a casual term and how it was used you can read in the scriptures. And again no requirement in the scriptures for a wedding ceremony.

Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime. So the most important thing is to attempt to turn your brain on. If I fail you will never understand these topics.

Polygamy and slavery and the 2nd rate status of women are things that Christianity had to learn but they could not be addressed in the biblical era. Your task is to find out why. Why they could not correct these issues in ancient times? And if they did it, it would have been very apparent.

You keep talking like a Gnostic sage sitting on a rock, but never once do you actually deal with what the New Testament teaches.

Christ didn’t need to give a wedding flowchart or speak against polygamy line-by-line — because He went back to the original design:
“Have you not read… the two shall become one flesh?” (Matthew 19:4–6)
Not three.
Not seven.
Not a household of cohabiting “unions.”
One man. One woman. One covenant. That is the model Jesus re-establishes in the New Covenant.

With your logic, someone could come in here and say -- "Well, I have 26 wives and I also married a donkey."
And there'd you'd be - "ITS OKAY!! Jesus NEVER, specifically, addressed having 26 wives and marrying a donkey, so it's all good in the eyes of God!"

That’s not theology. That’s moral relativism in a bathrobe.

Paul didn’t say elders should be “faithful to all their wives” — he said “the husband of one wife” (1 Tim 3:2), because leadership reflects order — and order reflects truth.

As for porneía, stop pretending like you’re educating people. I cited exactly how it’s used in Scripture — and you didn’t refute any of it.

1 Corinthians 6:18 — “Flee porneía… it defiles the body.”

1 Corinthians 6:9 — The sexually immoral will not inherit the Kingdom.

Galatians 5:19 — Porneía is listed among the works of the flesh.

Revelation 21:8 — The sexually immoral are cast into the lake of fire.

None of those verses require a prostitute.
None require payment.
The sin is not the transaction — it’s the violation of God’s covenant order.

And now here you are — saying the Bible “wasn’t ready” to confront polygamy and slavery.
That’s not exegesis. That’s cowardice.
Jesus didn’t come to endorse culture — He came to confront it.
He flipped tables.
He called out adultery of the heart.
He raised the standard of sexual ethics beyond anything the ancient world had ever seen.

If Christ came to correct sin, but you’re still defending it with loopholes, you’re not following the Word — you’re dodging it.
You keep saying “the scriptures aren’t vague.” You’re right.

They’re not vague.

You’re just ignoring them.

 

[Grailhunter]

You keep talking like a Gnostic sage sitting on a rock, but never once do you actually deal with what the New Testament teaches.

Christ didn’t need to give a wedding flowchart or speak against polygamy line-by-line — because He went back to the original design:
“Have you not read… the two shall become one flesh?” (Matthew 19:4–6)
Not three.
Not seven.
Not a household of cohabiting “unions.”
One man. One woman. One covenant. That is the model Jesus re-establishes in the New Covenant.

With your logic, someone could come in here and say -- "Well, I have 26 wives and I also married a donkey."
And there'd you'd be - "ITS OKAY!! Jesus NEVER, specifically, addressed having 26 wives and marrying a donkey, so it's all good in the eyes of God!"

That’s not theology. That’s moral relativism in a bathrobe.

Paul didn’t say elders should be “faithful to all their wives” — he said “the husband of one wife” (1 Tim 3:2), because leadership reflects order — and order reflects truth.

As for porneía, stop pretending like you’re educating people. I cited exactly how it’s used in Scripture — and you didn’t refute any of it.

1 Corinthians 6:18 — “Flee porneía… it defiles the body.”

1 Corinthians 6:9 — The sexually immoral will not inherit the Kingdom.

Galatians 5:19 — Porneía is listed among the works of the flesh.

Revelation 21:8 — The sexually immoral are cast into the lake of fire.

None of those verses require a prostitute.
None require payment.
The sin is not the transaction — it’s the violation of God’s covenant order.

And now here you are — saying the Bible “wasn’t ready” to confront polygamy and slavery.
That’s not exegesis. That’s cowardice.
Jesus didn’t come to endorse culture — He came to confront it.
He flipped tables.
He called out adultery of the heart.
He raised the standard of sexual ethics beyond anything the ancient world had ever seen.

If Christ came to correct sin, but you’re still defending it with loopholes, you’re not following the Word — you’re dodging it.
You keep saying “the scriptures aren’t vague.” You’re right.

They’re not vague.

You’re just ignoring them.

So you still cannot figure it out.

Polygamy and concubage were practiced in Christianity in different all through the biblical period and history proves it continued for up to a 1000 years after.

Monogamy was the norm among Christians. However, in the context of the sickness of a wife preventing matrimonial intercourse, Martin Luther, the founder of the Protestant Reformation, wrote: "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.

The Church held a synod in Hertford, England, in 673 that was supervised by Archbishop Theodore. Chapter 10 issued by the synod declared that marriage is allowed between one man and one woman, and separation (but not divorce) is only granted in the case of adultery, but even then remarriage is not allowed.

The Roman councils of 1052 and 1063 suspended from communion those laymen who had a wife and a concubine at the same time.

In Scandinavia, the word for an official concubine was "frille". Norwegian Bishop Øystein Erlendsson (ca. 1120–1188) declared that concubines were not allowed to accept the sacraments unless they married, and men were forced to promise marriage to women they had lain with outside of wedlock. In 1280, the Norwegian king Eirik Magnusson (1280–99) declared that men were exempted from having to promise marriage to the frille if they went to confession and did penance. The Church answered by making several declarations in the 14th century, urging men to marry their concubines. In 1305, King Håkon V (1270–1319) issued a law that declared marriage to be the only lawful way of cohabitation, and declared that only women in wedlock were allowed to dress as they pleased, while the dress of concubines was restricted.

Lutheran theologians approved of Philip of Hesse's polygamous marriages to Christine of Saxony and Margarethe von der Saale for this purpose, as well as initial disapproval of divorce and adultery. (1545)

Anabaptist leader Bernhard Rothmann (1535) initially opposed the idea of plural marriage. However, he later wrote a theological defense of plural marriage, and took nine wives himself, saying "God has restored the true practice of holy matrimony amongst us.

When did Christianity outlaw polygamy and concubiage?
A different position was taken by the Council of Trent in 1563, which was opposed to polygamy and concubinage: "If anyone says that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time, and that it is not forbidden by any divine law.

 

[ProDeo]

Yahweh defined marriage without a wedding ceremony in Genesis and then the Mosaic Law regulated polygamy and concubinage. And then the scriptures never ended the practice.

Ex 20:17 “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.”

Matt 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
Matt 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Crystal clear, isn't it?

 

[ProDeo]

LOL You know better than Yahweh.....you God? Brain on!
Lets see if you can figure this out....
Polygamy and slavery are a big deal....
Why didn't Christ and the Apostles speak against it?

Polygamy
Ex 20:17 “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.”

Matt 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
Matt 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Slavery
[Q] Who of all people did the Lord choose as His chosen nation?
[A] Those who lived as slaves under terrible conditions in Egypt, the Hebrews.

 

[Grailhunter]

Ex 20:17 “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.”

Matt 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
Matt 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Crystal clear, isn't it?

Nope the Mosaic Law the Law of sin? Nope. The Mosaic Law regulated polygamy and concubinage. God took credit for David's wives.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

So you still cannot figure it out.

Polygamy and concubage were practiced in Christianity in different all through the biblical period and history proves it continued for up to a 1000 years after.

Monogamy was the norm among Christians. However, in the context of the sickness of a wife preventing matrimonial intercourse, Martin Luther, the founder of the Protestant Reformation, wrote: "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.

The Church held a synod in Hertford, England, in 673 that was supervised by Archbishop Theodore. Chapter 10 issued by the synod declared that marriage is allowed between one man and one woman, and separation (but not divorce) is only granted in the case of adultery, but even then remarriage is not allowed.

The Roman councils of 1052 and 1063 suspended from communion those laymen who had a wife and a concubine at the same time.

In Scandinavia, the word for an official concubine was "frille". Norwegian Bishop Øystein Erlendsson (ca. 1120–1188) declared that concubines were not allowed to accept the sacraments unless they married, and men were forced to promise marriage to women they had lain with outside of wedlock. In 1280, the Norwegian king Eirik Magnusson (1280–99) declared that men were exempted from having to promise marriage to the frille if they went to confession and did penance. The Church answered by making several declarations in the 14th century, urging men to marry their concubines. In 1305, King Håkon V (1270–1319) issued a law that declared marriage to be the only lawful way of cohabitation, and declared that only women in wedlock were allowed to dress as they pleased, while the dress of concubines was restricted.

Lutheran theologians approved of Philip of Hesse's polygamous marriages to Christine of Saxony and Margarethe von der Saale for this purpose, as well as initial disapproval of divorce and adultery. (1545)

Anabaptist leader Bernhard Rothmann (1535) initially opposed the idea of plural marriage. However, he later wrote a theological defense of plural marriage, and took nine wives himself, saying "God has restored the true practice of holy matrimony amongst us.

When did Christianity outlaw polygamy and concubiage

A different position was taken by the Council of Trent in 1563, which was opposed to polygamy and concubinage: "If anyone says that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time, and that it is not forbidden by any divine law (Matt. 19:4f): let him be anathema".The polemicist John Milton expressed support for polygamy in his De doctrina christiana.

Thanks for the Wikipedia dump. Now let me help you with something:

Church history is not the Word of God.
Just because confused kings, compromised councils, or post-apostolic theologians tolerated polygamy or concubinage doesn’t make it holy.

David had concubines. Solomon had 700 wives.
That’s not permission — that’s warning.

And don’t quote Luther like he’s the apostle Paul.
Luther also believed in infant baptism and endorsed burning synagogues. You want to canonize that too?

The standard is not Luther, Philip of Hesse, or King Eirik’s wardrobe policy.
The standard is:

“From the beginning, God made them male and female… and the two shall become one flesh.” — Matthew 19:4–6
Jesus wasn’t speculating. He was restating divine design — and correcting sin.

Paul followed suit:
“Let each man have his own wife.” (1 Cor 7:2)
“The husband of one wife.” (1 Tim 3:2)

That’s not cultural. That’s covenant.

If you can quote more polygamists than prophets — you’re not defending the Gospel.
You’re just collecting excuses for rebellion.

Show me one verse — just one — in the New Testament that commands or endorses polygamy for believers.
Until then, spare me the “frille” chronicles.
I’m here to preach Christ — not justify sin with medieval trivia.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

It's like -

"I just got back from my wedding.
I married 97 women, 10 men, a mule, and an armadillo.

But don’t worry — I checked the Bible, and Jesus never specifically said marrying 97 women, 10 men, and a couple desert animals was wrong…

So we’re all good, man.

It’s 2025, bro — you gotta get with the times right? God will understand."

Its like falling asleep and waking up in the times of Noah.

 

[ProDeo]

Nope the Mosaic Law the Law of sin? Nope. The Mosaic Law regulated polygamy and concubinage. God took credit for David's wives.

Scripture please.

I doubt your Scripture contradicts Ex 20:17

 

[Grailhunter]

Thanks for the Wikipedia dump. Now let me help you with something:

I have already offered my essays....just another perspective.

Church history is not the Word of God.

The Word of God is great but all you guys have done have tried override the scriptures with what you believe. No way to understand the scriptures.

That’s not permission — that’s warning.

That is like saying the Mosaic Law does not give permission for morality. The Mosaic Law regulated it. The scriptures Old or New Testament do not indicate that polygamy or concubinage is bad or should be discontinued. The only exception says Paul is if you are a deacon then you should only have one wife and then history proves it continued.

Again religion and history and truth is not about what you like or do not like. Forcing your beliefs on the Bible is not a good thing, it is like saying God is not good enough and you know better.