Heresy of Polygamy Has Infiltrated the Netzarim!

[abudar2000]

That was my Mom! (God rest her soul)

+Shamasha

moryo nedkhar l'anidayk.

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

First I would say to Akhi Rafa that lesser authority doesn't mean no authority and that the songs of King David should not be cast aside. But if you want a reference on abortion from Torah....

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life...

Exodus 21:22-23

Sounds to me the death of the unborn is counted as a regular death and even a serious injury can result in retaliation. I think that covers abortion pretty well don't you? If it was just the safety of the woman involved, why go out of the way to call her pregnant? And of course the safety of women without respect to pregnancy is referenced elsewhere.

Do I bring to the moment of birth and not give delivery?" says YHWH. "Do I close up the womb when I bring to delivery?" says your Elohim.

Isaiah 66:9

The word of YHWH came to me, saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

Jeremiah 1:4-5

Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast. If I say, "Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me," even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you. For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
Psalms 139:7-16

And if you are looking for the Gospels, Luke 1:44 doesn't call "it" a "fetus" but a BABY/INFANT. The word is euola, and which can apply to children OUT OF THE WOMB quite easily, so there is no distinction there (Luke 2:16 ). It's time to realize the importance of being pro the right choice, but I speak from Scripture for myself, not policy for others as I leave that to government. Nevertheless my scorecard is full: Torah, Prophets, Writings, and Gospels agree on this topic. How much more do you need?

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

[Dawid]

wishful thinking, forcing a western view of morality on an eastern text. in reality these referr to one wife because of grammar. the number needs to be consistent. you would not say for a man to be joined to his wives. there is no reason to suggest that this excludes the possibility of him being joined to another wife.
there is specific legislation in the torah about if a man takes tw wives, he is not to change the inheritances of the children based on which wife is favored. so quie clearly, it is oermitted.
i think we need to face up to the fact that the torah is 3,000 years old, and will sometmes offend our 20th century sensibilities.

shlomo Dawid,

Here are a few examples in the Torah:
Genesis 2:24 => "...Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh." <= God talks about one man and one woman here that form one body. (i.e. one wife)
*Matthew 19:5 => "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'?" <= Same as Genesis 2:24
Exodus 20:17 => "...you shall not covet your neighbor's wife..." <= as you can see God never said "his wifes", but rather "his wife"

God has clearly stated that marriage only consists of one man and one woman.

push bashlomo,
keefa-morun

[Dawid]

tryin to do this on a palm at one a.m., so please forgive me for not reading all entries. however, i would like to beg to differ, with all due respect, w/ akhi andrew. the torah is immutable. if we begin to pick and choose mitzvot, what is to keep us from the antinomian heresy/ as yaakov hatzaddiq pointed out, the torah is all a single unit. to violate one mitzva is to violate the torah as a whole.
when the beit hamikdash is rebuilt, i hope to be among the first in line to offer my sacrifice.
i don't think it is valid to say that 'thtat no longer applies.' it sounds nice, but seems kinda like a cop out. why be embarrased about this mitzva/ it's not 21st century/ what else is new/
i'm not promoting it. i think that it has never been ideal, or the plan. but it is never openly condemned, and is legally regulated. i think the attempts to prove that it was later disallowed is in the hopes of asuaging modern, western conscieces w/ the idea that 'oh, we don't do THOSE things anymore. we're more enlightened now.'
i think this soynds harsh, but i dont mean it that way. tryin to be short because typig on this thing is a pain. lol.
i just think we shoukd see things rationally as they are, not as we want them to be. reakism, not idealism.

[abudar2000]

shlomo oH Dawid,

wishful thinking, forcing a western view of morality on an eastern text.

LOL! <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

I think you're the first person who has ever claimed that I have a Western view of morality <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="" title="Wink" /><!-- s -->

push bashlomo,
keefa-morun

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Shlama Akhi Dawid,

I think I do a little more than just make a cute argument. My post above was a SUMMARY of a much longer article that I think is very Scriptural in showing why things changed and how. I did not put all the Scripture in the summary, but can easily show from the major prophets, Malachi, the Gospels and Rav Shaul how plural marriage got condemned, and your saying otherwise kind of surprises me.

Root concepts in Tanakh are immutable, but methods to achieve them alter, from Melchizedek, to the sons of Aaron to Y'shua himself the concept of mediation is the same but the method is different. Again Abel brought the fat of the animal to the altar and Moses the blood.

You cannot view the Tanakh as so static that it is stagnant . As Y'shua said, nothing has dropped out of the Torah, but if there were nothing for him to explain he would not have taught us in the first place. Why add those parables if say Psalms and Proverbs explained it all? And what about indications in Tanakh itself that better info on these concepts was coming, like the sealed books in Isaiah 29 and Daniel??? You know of course that I am the last person in the world to suggest "the Law passeth away". But what I will say is application of the Torah was predicted and came about in Scripture (Jeremiah 31:31-34, Hebrews 8:8).

The message (including the NT) developed over many centuries and places: Eden, Shinar, Ur, Hebron, Shechem, Uz, not to mention Nineveh, Babylon, Persia, Jerusalem, Galilee and on and on. Each place had a reason and a message. Some of it never changed but other details did, "when you come into the city after My Name, you will...", that were NOT commanded before. This is why history happens and we have moedim like Pesach, Shavuot, etc. Remember I don't change the text AT ALL--I merely comment on the trend IN IT.

Tell you what though, there is no need to have a long argument on this. I would only humbly ask that you read the FULL ARTICLE on The Refiners Fire if you haven't already, and then you can decide. If you have read it and still think this way, at least you heard me out fully. But please Dawid don't suggest I haven't done my homework. I have.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

[Dawid]

please don't misunderstand me, akhi. i did not mean to dismiss your argument summarily, but it's a pain just to read on this thing, ket alone writing a detailed refutation. in the next couple of days i hope to have access to a laptop and i may be able to give more thorough review to your thoughts then.
i beg to differ, though, still. i think acts does a thorough job of defending sacrifice in the temple.
i do think that the torah is the rock in the middle of the stream. we may rush around and past it, but it remains mitzva le'olam. i think the best explanation of what you mention is found in talmud, actually. all the information is in the torah, but we were too tipesh to get it. so we were given the prophets, et al. it's not that we don't have all the information in the eternal, immutable torah. it's just that we're not smart enough to get it. remmber peter/ no prophecy interprets itself.
shalom me'eretz yisrael,
dawid

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Shlama Akhi Dawid,

I appreciate your careful methodology, but in terms of us not being able to get to Torah, on this, I must disagree in respect and peace:

11.Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach.12.It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 13.Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 14.No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

Devarim 30:11-14

Is this not exactly what the Scripture addresses??? Talmud is okay, as long as the traditions do not contradict Torah, but Y'shua made it clear it sometimes did (Matthew 15).

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

[Dawid]

please don't misunderstand me, akhi. i did not mean to dismiss your argument summarily, but it's a pain just to read on this thing, ket alone writing a detailed refutation. in the next couple of days i hope to have access to a laptop and i may be able to give more thorough review to your thoughts then.
i beg to differ, though, still. i think acts does a thorough job of defending sacrifice in the temple.
i do think that the torah is the rock in the middle of the stream. we may rush around and past it, but it remains mitzva le'olam. i think the best explanation of what you mention is found in talmud, actually. all the information is in the torah, but we were too tipesh to get it. so we were given the prophets, et al. it's not that we don't have all the information in the eternal, immutable torah. it's just that we're not smart enough to get it. remmber peter/ no prophecy interprets itself.
shalom me'eretz yisrael,
dawid

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Shlama Akhi Dawid,

I don't think you answered my question on Devarim 30 my friend. I read this identical post above and responded to it. Simply repeating it verbatim I believe does not do my question justice. The Torah on the face of it seems to my mind to contradict your core assumption, but I respect your scholarship nevertheless.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

[Christina]

As the the only girl here (well most of the time) I'd like to clarify where I stand concerning this polygyny issue:

I as well do not throw out the Torah but the Torah is NOT above YHWH Himself. YHWH made only one woman for Adam, and Yeshua, who IS the creator, YHWH in the flesh hammers this point home when he answers the Preesha ("...when the CREATOR made them male and female..."). The Tanakh is clear that monogamy is YHWH's creation while polygany was man's idea! Also Shaul is absolutely clear that a wife has COMPLETE authority over her husband's body and vice versa, IOW:

My husband's body belongs to me and I decide what he can do with it! I say he is NOT to have sex with anyone but me until I'm dead, AND because Shaul state earlier that sex is a requirement in marriage, that means he can't take another wife. IF he goes against my wishes (and YHWH's btw) then he commits adultery and I therefore have grounds to divorce him, end of story!

And I'm yet to hear of one case, in this heretical movement where sex is not the ultimate motivation for these guys taking extra wives. I suggest everyone reads Bonnie's review of Moshe K's book linked to pg 1 of this thread, where she even quotes him saying "...more sex..."

[Dawid]

As the the only girl here (well most of the time) I'd like to clarify where I stand concerning this polygyny issue:

I as well do not throw out the Torah but the Torah is NOT above YHWH Himself. YHWH made only one woman for Adam, and Yeshua, who IS the creator, YHWH in the flesh hammers this point home when he answers the Preesha ("...when the CREATOR made them male and female..."). The Tanakh is clear that monogamy is YHWH's creation while polygany was man's idea! Also Shaul is absolutely clear that a wife has COMPLETE authority over her husband's body and vice versa, IOW:

My husband's body belongs to me and I decide what he can do with it! I say he is NOT to have sex with anyone but me until I'm dead, AND because Shaul state earlier that sex is a requirement in marriage, that means he can't take another wife. IF he goes against my wishes (and YHWH's btw) then he commits adultery and I therefore have grounds to divorce him, end of story!

And I'm yet to hear of one case, in this heretical movement where sex is not the ultimate motivation for these guys taking extra wives. I suggest everyone reads Bonnie's review of Moshe K's book linked to pg 1 of this thread, where she even quotes him saying "...more sex..."

First, to Akhi Roth, I do not mean that it was above us. Rather, I accused us of stupidity. That's our own fault that we did not apply ourselves enough to Torah study and observance. Thus the prophets were given to make it even more clear than it was made in the Torah.

Akhoti Christina, while it is true that the Torah is not above God, it is the perfect reflection of His Divine Will. It is not him, but it is the clearest image of Him that we can ever exist. Now, you site the fact that God made only one woman for Adam, that is a good story, and completely true. But it is not halacha. The halacha is very clear on this. A man is allowed multiple wives, as long as he does not play favorites among the children on inheritance. That is the clear mitzva that came from God's mouth. If He had a problem with the idea He could have just as easily forbade the practice altogether.

I'm afraid it is clear on no such thing. As I pointed out, the explanation of all of these passages saying "male and female" or "his wife" is simply grammatical. I would also have to see the passage that you're talking about us having authority of eachother's bodies. That seems to be a mutually exclusive, impossible arrangement.
Technically speaking, adultery is not grounds for divorce. Fornication is. Adultery is only grounds for stoning. Nowhere does the Torah or Yeshua suggest that adultery is grounds for divorce. The terminology used points only to finding out on the wedding night that the wife is not a virgin. There's no mechanism for a woman filing for divorce. If your husband is a scumbag that insists on sleeping around, he gets executed.
Their motivation is not the point. I do not think that this is a good idea. I would not encourage anyone to do it. It doesn't really matter why they're doing it. I don't care. The truth of the matter is that it is halachically viable, even though it is not recommended.

Shabbat Shalom,
Dawid

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

First, to Akhi Roth, I do not mean that it was above us. Rather, I accused us of stupidity. That's our own fault that we did not apply ourselves enough to Torah study and observance. Thus the prophets were given to make it even more clear than it was made in the Torah.

Shlama Akhi Dawid,

The problem has always been sin that crouches at our door. Yes, I agree, we can be stupid too, but even the wisdom of the world can be against YHWH.

My issue with what you said is that it implies that ONLY PROPHETS can guide the common man or woman, and that I do not believe. The Torah was after all taught to the entire nation of Israel and yes with anything some will get it and others don't but that doesn't mean the stupidity is the main barrier. YHWH has said He has used the SIMPLE things of the world to confound the wise. He has said not to lean on our understanding but to study. The fact is YHWH called prophets like Jeremiah from the beginning of time to come WITH Torah and from all Scripture the examples teach us today quite effectively. We are not Pharisees or Catholics--we do not put man made institutions above the Word--or at the very least we are open to correction and change if it can be shown we did so inadvertently.

Akhoti Christina, while it is true that the Torah is not above God, it is the perfect reflection of His Divine Will. It is not him, but it is the clearest image of Him that we can ever exist. Now, you site the fact that God made only one woman for Adam, that is a good story, and completely true. But it is not halacha. The halacha is very clear on this. A man is allowed multiple wives, as long as he does not play favorites among the children on inheritance. That is the clear mitzva that came from God's mouth. If He had a problem with the idea He could have just as easily forbade the practice altogether.

AGR:

Dawid, again, you are in error. There are many things in Tanakh that were allowed at one time that are not allowed now, and from an NT perspective the condemnation on plural marriage is absolute. Y'shua said that it was NOT that way in the beginning, harking back to ONE man leaving his mother and ONE WOMAN leaving her home. That halacha is clear and it is not what you said.

I'm afraid it is clear on no such thing. As I pointed out, the explanation of all of these passages saying "male and female" or "his wife" is simply grammatical. I would also have to see the passage that you're talking about us having authority of eachother's bodies. That seems to be a mutually exclusive, impossible arrangement.

AGR:

Dawid, what difference does it mean how it "seems" if Scripture says thus? Are you leaning on your own understanding or will you hear what the Aramaic of Rav Shaul clearly teaches? First see this:

Don't you know that your bodies are the members of the Mashiyach? Will one take a member of the Mashiyach, and make it the member of a harlot? May it never be! Or don't you know, that whoever joins himself to a harlot, is one body (with her)? For it is said, the two will be one body. But he that joins himself to our Master (Y'shua), is with him one spirit. Flee from sexual sin. (1 Corinthians 6:15-18)

That is NOT grammar. A man who cheats on his wife JOINS TO THE HARLOT and breaks faith with the wife of his youth. Again I refer you to Malachi 2:10-17. Plural marriage makes NO sense as a template in that rebuke. That is because it was condemned by that time.

And now, the passage Christina mentions:

And concerning the things of which you wrote to me, it is praiseworthy for a man not to approach a woman. But, on account of sexual temptation, let each have his own wife and let a woman have her own husband. And let the man render to his wife the kindness which is due; and so also the woman to her husband. The woman is not the sovereign over her body, but her husband: so also the man is not the sovereign over his body, but the wife. Therefore, deprive not one another, except when you both consent at the time you devote yourselves to fasting and prayer; and return again to the same disposition that Satan does not tempt you because of the passions of your body. (1 Corinthians 7:1-5)

So, even if I were to allow that polygamy was a permitted option into today, the fact remains EITHER PARTNER has the VETO POWER to stop it. If either husband or wife says NO, as sovereign of the other's body they can stop it. And as for adultery, Y'shua says directly in Aramaic that it is grounds for divorce. Not only that we have this:

23 For these commands are a lamp, this teaching is a light, and the corrections of discipline are the way to life, 24 keeping you from the immoral woman, from the smooth tongue of the wayward wife. 25 Do not lust in your heart after her beauty or let her captivate you with her eyes, 26 for the prostitute reduces you to a loaf of bread, and the adulteress preys upon your very life. 27 Can a man scoop fire into his lap without his clothes being burned? 28 Can a man walk on hot coals without his feet being scorched? 29 So is he who sleeps with another man's wife; no one who touches her will go unpunished. 30 Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger when he is starving. 31 Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold, though it costs him all the wealth of his house. 32 But a man who commits adultery lacks judgment; whoever does so destroys himself. 33 Blows and disgrace are his lot, and his shame will never be wiped away; 34 for jealousy arouses a husband's fury, and he will show no mercy when he takes revenge. 35 He will not accept any compensation; he will refuse the bribe, however great it is.

Proverbs 8:23-35


Technically speaking, adultery is not grounds for divorce. Fornication is. Adultery is only grounds for stoning. Nowhere does the Torah or Yeshua suggest that adultery is grounds for divorce. The terminology used points only to finding out on the wedding night that the wife is not a virgin. There's no mechanism for a woman filing for divorce. If your husband is a scumbag that insists on sleeping around, he gets executed.

AGR:

Really?

Pronunciation: (Eastern) G'aAaR Meaning: adultery
Concordance
??? Matti ??? 5:32, 19:9

5:32: But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

19:9: But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

??? Marqus ??? 10:11: But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

??? Luqa ??? 16:18: "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

??? Yaqub ??? 2:11: For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

??? Romans ??? 2:22: You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?

Let's face the facts here dear brother. Especially in the cases of Yaqub and Romans we are talking about the TEN COMMANDMENTS of murder, theivery, idolatry and adultery. Otherwise the comparison makes no sense.

Besides which Aramaic words for "fornication" and adultery" are synonymous per the SEDRA lexicon:

Word Number: 5850
Meaning: adultery
Pronunciation: (Eastern) ZaNYuOT,aA
(Western) ZoNYuOT,oA
??? Matti ??? 15:19
??? Marqus ??? 7:21
??? Yukhanan ??? 8:30
??? Acts ??? 15:20, 15:29, 21:25
??? 1Corinthians ??? 5:1, 5:1, 6:18, 7:2
??? 2Corinthians ??? 12:21
??? Galatians ??? 5:19
??? Ephesians ??? 5:3
??? Colossians ??? 3:5
??? 1Thessalonians ??? 4:

Word Number: 5850
Meaning: fornication
Pronunciation: (Eastern) ZaNYuOT,aA
(Western) ZoNYuOT,oA
??? Matti ??? 15:19
??? Marqus ??? 7:21
??? Yukhanan ??? 8:30
??? Acts ??? 15:20, 15:29, 21:25
??? 1Corinthians ??? 5:1, 5:1, 6:18, 7:2
??? 2Corinthians ??? 12:21
??? Galatians ??? 5:19
??? Ephesians ??? 5:3
??? Colossians ??? 3:5
??? 1Thessalonians ??? 4:3

Do you see? These are the same verses and word. Then, if you look up BOTH WORDS and their usages in the Aramaic NT, I think it is clear they are talking about a TOP TEN VIOLATION.

There are other mechanisms I could bring to bear for the rest of what you said, but I want you focus on what I wrote here. I also wish you would read my article on the Refiners Fire because it is clear you are not seeing the Scripture. I say this again all respect and peace, but Torah commands that I lovingly rebuke error, and this is a big one.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

[Amatsyah]

Shlama all,

I felt this was enough to put the fear of God into any man's soul! It literally took my breath away when I read it. It was like getting conked over the head. It has such a "prophetic tone" to it -

As the the only girl here (well most of the time) I'd like to clarify where I stand concerning this polygyny issue:

I as well do not throw out the Torah but the Torah is NOT above YHWH Himself. YHWH made only one woman for Adam, and Yeshua, who IS the creator, YHWH in the flesh hammers this point home when he answers the Preesha ("...when the CREATOR made them male and female..."). The Tanakh is clear that monogamy is YHWH's creation while polygany was man's idea! Also Shaul is absolutely clear that a wife has COMPLETE authority over her husband's body and vice versa, IOW:

My husband's body belongs to me and I decide what he can do with it! I say he is NOT to have sex with anyone but me until I'm dead, AND because Shaul state earlier that sex is a requirement in marriage, that means he can't take another wife. IF he goes against my wishes (and YHWH's btw) then he commits adultery and I therefore have grounds to divorce him, end of story!

And I felt that this was enough to put the fear of God into any human's soul - Who, seriously, can argue with Scripture properly exegeted? I once lingered on a thought that 'true exegesis is the martial art'. I can't read The Refiner's Fire material without getting the sense of a true exegete drawing out from Scripture -

There are other mechanisms I could bring to bear for the rest of what you said, but I want you focus on what I wrote here. I also wish you would read my article on the Refiners Fire because it is clear you are not seeing the Scripture. I say this again all respect and peace, but Torah commands that I lovingly rebuke error, and this is a big one.

And I also would second this recommendation -

I suggest everyone reads Bonnie's review of Moshe K's book linked to pg 1 of this thread, where she even quotes him saying "...more sex..."

as I've already posted a response to Bonnie earlier, thanking her for her uncharacteristically straightforward exegesis and logic. I'm tempted to say, 'arise, oh Deborahs', and bring the righteous mishpat to the mishpacha back to Mitzpah where Shemu'el's Glory, by Yisra'el, was denied. Our ahvot of old insisted on having a king, like the nations around them, effectually rejecting the Torah in the Flesh, Who Alone deserved to sit in judgment upon the Throne of Yisra'el. That's what the Seat in the midst of the Ark was for. And this is what the mouth of Shemu'el so desired to see. But, as with divorce, Yeshua made clear when later walking among them, that certain things He allowed due to the hardness of their hearts. I thank God for a true Yisra'elite man, such as Andrew, who can not only reverence YHWH with wisdom upon his lips in an age of unreason, but also in the Language that The Master Himself taught [us] in. Such a rare sight in all the world, even for Yisra'el; reminds me of Shemu'el for some reason.

Keep the Torch of Truth ablaze,

Ryan

[Dawid]

Before going any further, I would like to apologize for making some inaccurate statements, and some unclear ones. The unclear ones I intend to clear up, and the inaccurate ones to retract/reform in order to be consistent with the evidence.

First, to Akhi Roth, I do not mean that it was above us. Rather, I accused us of stupidity. That's our own fault that we did not apply ourselves enough to Torah study and observance. Thus the prophets were given to make it even more clear than it was made in the Torah.

Shlama Akhi Dawid,

The problem has always been sin that crouches at our door. Yes, I agree, we can be stupid too, but even the wisdom of the world can be against YHWH.

My issue with what you said is that it implies that ONLY PROPHETS can guide the common man or woman, and that I do not believe. The Torah was after all taught to the entire nation of Israel and yes with anything some will get it and others don't but that doesn't mean the stupidity is the main barrier. YHWH has said He has used the SIMPLE things of the world to confound the wise. He has said not to lean on our understanding but to study. The fact is YHWH called prophets like Jeremiah from the beginning of time to come WITH Torah and from all Scripture the examples teach us today quite effectively. We are not Pharisees or Catholics--we do not put man made institutions above the Word--or at the very least we are open to correction and change if it can be shown we did so inadvertently.

I implied no such thing. I did imply, however, that they are the only authoritative guide. The prophets are the authorities. Yes, we are able to arrive at truth ourselves without the aide of a prophet. I am not putting the Torah in Heaven that we need a prophet to go get it for us. I am simply saying that though it is within reach, we may find it or we may not. The prophet has it already in hand.

Akhoti Christina, while it is true that the Torah is not above God, it is the perfect reflection of His Divine Will. It is not him, but it is the clearest image of Him that we can ever exist. Now, you site the fact that God made only one woman for Adam, that is a good story, and completely true. But it is not halacha. The halacha is very clear on this. A man is allowed multiple wives, as long as he does not play favorites among the children on inheritance. That is the clear mitzva that came from God's mouth. If He had a problem with the idea He could have just as easily forbade the practice altogether.

AGR:

Dawid, again, you are in error. There are many things in Tanakh that were allowed at one time that are not allowed now, and from an NT perspective the condemnation on plural marriage is absolute. Y'shua said that it was NOT that way in the beginning, harking back to ONE man leaving his mother and ONE WOMAN leaving her home. That halacha is clear and it is not what you said.

I will address this passage later. I think that it is an invalid halachic application of this saying of R. Yeshua.

I'm afraid it is clear on no such thing. As I pointed out, the explanation of all of these passages saying "male and female" or "his wife" is simply grammatical. I would also have to see the passage that you're talking about us having authority of eachother's bodies. That seems to be a mutually exclusive, impossible arrangement.

AGR:

Dawid, what difference does it mean how it "seems" if Scripture says thus? Are you leaning on your own understanding or will you hear what the Aramaic of Rav Shaul clearly teaches? First see this:

I stated that it "seemed" to be that way because I was not familiar with the passage, and thus was leaving the door open to my being wrong once it was actually pointed out to me. I will get back to that later.

Don't you know that your bodies are the members of the Mashiyach? Will one take a member of the Mashiyach, and make it the member of a harlot? May it never be! Or don't you know, that whoever joins himself to a harlot, is one body (with her)? For it is said, the two will be one body. But he that joins himself to our Master (Y'shua), is with him one spirit. Flee from sexual sin. (1 Corinthians 6:15-18)

That is NOT grammar. A man who cheats on his wife JOINS TO THE HARLOT and breaks faith with the wife of his youth. Again I refer you to Malachi 2:10-17. Plural marriage makes NO sense as a template in that rebuke. That is because it was condemned by that time.

So you're comparing harlotry (specifically forbade in the Torah) with polygyny (specifically sanctioned in the Torah)? Plural marriage was never advocated. It was never the template. It is, however, allowed. I am not a Muslim or a Mormon. I simply think that we need to set our mental clocks back about four thousand years if we want to understand the Torah.

And now, the passage Christina mentions:

And concerning the things of which you wrote to me, it is praiseworthy for a man not to approach a woman. But, on account of sexual temptation, let each have his own wife and let a woman have her own husband. And let the man render to his wife the kindness which is due; and so also the woman to her husband. The woman is not the sovereign over her body, but her husband: so also the man is not the sovereign over his body, but the wife. Therefore, deprive not one another, except when you both consent at the time you devote yourselves to fasting and prayer; and return again to the same disposition that Satan does not tempt you because of the passions of your body. (1 Corinthians 7:1-5)

So, even if I were to allow that polygamy was a permitted option into today, the fact remains EITHER PARTNER has the VETO POWER to stop it. If either husband or wife says NO, as sovereign of the other's body they can stop it. And as for adultery, Y'shua says directly in Aramaic that it is grounds for divorce. Not only that we have this:

That I can completely agree with. If the man's wife does not want him to have another wife, he should not take one. That ruling would actually strengthen my position on the whole, so that if she agreed to it, it would be permisseable. The inverse property of congruence.

23 For these commands are a lamp, this teaching is a light, and the corrections of discipline are the way to life, 24 keeping you from the immoral woman, from the smooth tongue of the wayward wife. 25 Do not lust in your heart after her beauty or let her captivate you with her eyes, 26 for the prostitute reduces you to a loaf of bread, and the adulteress preys upon your very life. 27 Can a man scoop fire into his lap without his clothes being burned? 28 Can a man walk on hot coals without his feet being scorched? 29 So is he who sleeps with another man's wife; no one who touches her will go unpunished. 30 Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger when he is starving. 31 Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold, though it costs him all the wealth of his house. 32 But a man who commits adultery lacks judgment; whoever does so destroys himself. 33 Blows and disgrace are his lot, and his shame will never be wiped away; 34 for jealousy arouses a husband's fury, and he will show no mercy when he takes revenge. 35 He will not accept any compensation; he will refuse the bribe, however great it is.

Proverbs 8:23-35

I'm afraid I must be slow. I don't understand the connection to polygyny.

Technically speaking, adultery is not grounds for divorce. Fornication is. Adultery is only grounds for stoning. Nowhere does the Torah or Yeshua suggest that adultery is grounds for divorce. The terminology used points only to finding out on the wedding night that the wife is not a virgin. There's no mechanism for a woman filing for divorce. If your husband is a scumbag that insists on sleeping around, he gets executed.

AGR:

Really?

Pronunciation: (Eastern) G'aAaR Meaning: adultery
Concordance
??? Matti ??? 5:32, 19:9

5:32: But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

19:9: But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

??? Marqus ??? 10:11: But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

??? Luqa ??? 16:18: "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

??? Yaqub ??? 2:11: For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

??? Romans ??? 2:22: You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?

Let's face the facts here dear brother. Especially in the cases of Yaqub and Romans we are talking about the TEN COMMANDMENTS of murder, theivery, idolatry and adultery. Otherwise the comparison makes no sense.

Besides which Aramaic words for "fornication" and adultery" are synonymous per the SEDRA lexicon:

Word Number: 5850
Meaning: adultery
Pronunciation: (Eastern) ZaNYuOT,aA
(Western) ZoNYuOT,oA
??? Matti ??? 15:19
??? Marqus ??? 7:21
??? Yukhanan ??? 8:30
??? Acts ??? 15:20, 15:29, 21:25
??? 1Corinthians ??? 5:1, 5:1, 6:18, 7:2
??? 2Corinthians ??? 12:21
??? Galatians ??? 5:19
??? Ephesians ??? 5:3
??? Colossians ??? 3:5
??? 1Thessalonians ??? 4:

Word Number: 5850
Meaning: fornication
Pronunciation: (Eastern) ZaNYuOT,aA
(Western) ZoNYuOT,oA
??? Matti ??? 15:19
??? Marqus ??? 7:21
??? Yukhanan ??? 8:30
??? Acts ??? 15:20, 15:29, 21:25
??? 1Corinthians ??? 5:1, 5:1, 6:18, 7:2
??? 2Corinthians ??? 12:21
??? Galatians ??? 5:19
??? Ephesians ??? 5:3
??? Colossians ??? 3:5
??? 1Thessalonians ??? 4:3

Do you see? These are the same verses and word. Then, if you look up BOTH WORDS and their usages in the Aramaic NT, I think it is clear they are talking about a TOP TEN VIOLATION.

Forgive me, I just realised that I said that based on research I did before I ever heard of the Peshitta. As I remember, the Greek word used here specifically implies fornication, as does the Mitzva, that if a man finds an unclean thing in his bride on the wedding night then he can divorce her. Now, I think, though, that this halachic ruling of R. Yeshua is in line with what I've said for years, that when in a situation where the adulterous spouse will not be executed, it is permisseable to divorce. (likewise with murder and other capital crimes.) It just seems awfully superfluous to divorce a person who's being executed, don't you think?

There are other mechanisms I could bring to bear for the rest of what you said, but I want you focus on what I wrote here. I also wish you would read my article on the Refiners Fire because it is clear you are not seeing the Scripture. I say this again all respect and peace, but Torah commands that I lovingly rebuke error, and this is a big one.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

I really wish I had time to read your article. I really do. But I don't have that time right now.
Now, I would like to go back to this passage of Yeshua's that everyone wants to point to strict monogamy. It is not referring to the polygamy/monogamy question. It is addressing a different question: divorce. Now, that issue is a whole nother halachic can of worms, but the point is this, when it says that "a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife" it is talking about not permitting a man to divorce his wife for any reason other than adultery, and specifically not because she doesn't get along with his parents. (I think some of you are familiar with George Lamsa's comments on this passage.) The issue being addressed here is not polygamy. It does not apply to that issue. It doesn't speak to it at all. It is referring to an etirely different issue, and it refers to the "wife" because it is speaking about the man divorcing a single wife, not all of them, if he has more than one, and to make the verse consistent in number. Perfectly rational reasons. Let's not read into the text something that isn't there.