I remember when I was a young Christian, trying to find Bible verses to prove to friends that sex before marriage was absolutely, concretely forbidden! … And of course only found mentions of “sexual immortality/fornication”. I of course pointed to this and when friends would rebut “where does it say sex before marriage is immoral?” And of course, it nowhere does. So of course I had to twist and pretend that it was this universal code, or just “known” which in hindsight was just absolutely ludicrous. My friends absolutely were right to point that out and cast doubt. But of course I just dismissed them, with their valid points, as “scoffers and mockers”
Given that we have demonstrably discarded inconvenient parts of the Bible for centuries, what part(s) can we say are necessary and sufficient to successfully live a righteous life? My money's on the two-sided coin of the Great Commandment. "Love the Lord your God with all your being" and "love your neighbor as yourself." Work on getting those things right, and the rest of the scriptures seem to fail to be necessary. And for those people who have ideas that don't include God, that second part may be all that's necessary.
How do we understand “do not deprive one another of sex except for prayer and fasting” if Paul wanted us to ALWAYS abstain from sex even in marriage unless they needed to curb their passions? Really interested in this topic after escaping purity culture.
The the guy with the ballcap citing Bible verse after Bible verse is presenting himself as a Biblical expert when he cites to Revolution 21:8 without realizing that their is now Book of Revolution in the Christian Bible, but instead likely meant Revelations.
I imagine most civilisations forbade sex before marriage. I mean I live in China and sex before marriage was made legal only a few decades ago. We are not a Christian nation…far from it.
Dan, Long time watcher of your work and deconstructed exvangelical here. Beyond the need to renegotiate the text for the purpose of exercising power and control is there any reason why the evangelical/pentecostal ideologies hold fornication and homosexuality as gatemarkers for believers while denying the notion that in most (if not all) of these 'sin' list these notions are overwhelming paired with the notion of greed as just as reprehensible a sin. A concept that flies in the face of most evangelical understandings of capitalism and absolutely spits in the face of the prosperity gospel?
I found myself pondering how the men of the Hebrew bible would go about having sex before marriage if women were expected to be virgin until marriage, divorce was still a new thing, and adultery forbidden. Who's left?
@@notanemoprog Heh, that or incest. But on a serious note, I'd have to suppose that an unmarried woman who'd lost her virginity would be the only serious option. But would they view such a woman as immoral and thus too dirty to lie with? Also, wasn't the punishment to stone them?
@@penguinman9837 No idea. Probably it was dealt with in the same manner as it is now? Also, did anyone actually follow all those rules? This is what Google has to say "The written Torah never explicitly forbids sex outside the context of marriage, with the exception of adultery and incest. According to Exodus 22:15-16, the man who entices a single woman to have sex must offer to marry her afterwards or the equivalent in compensation, unless her father refuses to allow him."
Widows. There were a lot of widows and no commandments forbidding unmarried men from having sex with them. (The practice of Levirate marriage might reduce the supply of eligible widows and many of them would remarry and become unavailable for casual sex, but not every husband who died had a goel to marry his widow.) There are a few contemporary Rabbis who have gone so far as to encourage the young single men in their Synagogues to explore casual sex with older widows in order to gain the experience needed to pleasure their future brides. Most don't go that far, but will admit that the Torah technically never forbids that course of action and that it is preferable to seducing virgins. Also, divorce was a lot more common in antiquity that you probably think. It was probably more common 2000 years ago than it is today. Rabbi Hillel argued that a man could divorce his wife for any reason, even as simple as overcooking his dinner once, so long as he writes her a certificate of divorce that makes it clear she is now available to have relations with whatever men she wants. His rival Rabbi Shammai took a stricter position, but not quite as strict as that of Jesus, as he would allow divorce not only in case of adultery but also for crimes such as attempted murder. If I remember correctly the rule against seducing virgins only applied to Israelite virgins, so an Israelite man could have casual sex with a gentile woman that he was definitely never supposed to marry.
I don't know if the way is clear on this subject. I consider that the two passages in Matthew (chapter 5 and 19) teach to make no oath. Why do our marriage ceremonies contain an oath then? It says that a woman should not be outwardly adorned with gold and yet the adornment for marriage is a gold ring.
This is fascinating. My parents are from Kerala, a state in India which is considered part of southwest Asia. Virginity is a big deal there...but that state also has the highest divorce rate as well. Not sure if there's a correlation between those two
@midlevelspecialist7058 are the rates concentrated in older or younger couples and how may it be a direct correlation to a purity culture? Can other social factors and influences be considered?
There are no formalities listed in either the Tanakh (aka: the Septuagint), or the New Testament (NT). However, when reading thru the Tanakh, you see things such as Isaac taking his bride into his tent (Gen 24:67), and much later when the Kingdom of Israel was established, Ruth uncovering the feet of Boaz (possibly having sex with him), and the next day, Boaz declaring marriage in front of the elders at the gate of the city, (Ruth 3:7 - 4:13). And if you study Rabbinical literature, and even look at Jewish Orthodox practices today, the wedding ceremony primarily serves as a public demonstration / celebration of the marriage within the community, but it's not really a marriage until later that day when things are consummated. In fact, in many Jewish Orthodox circles, as soon as the ceremony is over, the bride and groom temporarily go into a private room, the door is guarded, and what happens therein, is nobodies business. And when the newly married couple emerge, the celebrations begin, with men on their side of the room, and women in their section. There's lots of RUclips videos about this.
@@What_If_We_Tried And that was kind of where I was going by asking the question. Going by the Bible, there's no formal prescription. As you suggest, sex is an expectation, so there's that. One might add a tacit recognition by the community. But for all the Bible says about it, a couple is married pretty much when they deem themselves to be. So when I hear a complaint by Christians about "pre-marital" sex, I know they're talking about sex without the state's and/or church's blessing. Yet they can't point to the Bible to show that any such blessing is required.
@@michaelspeir6086 Yeah, pretty much agree, and Christian societies are too numerous, and fractured to have a consensus, and I haven't looked at ancient Judaic practices enough to know whether or not causal sex, i.e., sex between an Israelite man, and an unmarried Israelite woman was permitted if they were not intending form a pair bond, i.e., marriage. Although Orthodox rabbis that I've talked to pretty much agree, that back in the day if an Israelite man had sex with an unmarried Israelite woman, then that constituted marriage. Meaning that the simple act of coitus constituted / signified a marriage relationship within moral cultural norms. These days, within Torah Observant Jewish communities, touching, e.g., handshakes, or hugging, or sitting next to unrelated members of the opposite sex is forbidden, let alone premarital sex, although it does happen, and there are RUclips videos about this. Just search for "tefillin dates".
@@michaelspeir6086 At one point in the Catholic Church, it was possible to claim you were married if you said your vows to each other in a church with the only witness being the sanctuary lamp that indicated God's presence. I'm sure it wasn't encouraged or easy to get it accepted by the priest but it fulfilled the technical requirements. If I recall correctly, it is used as a plot point in one of the Brother Caedfel mysteries.
In God's eyes sex is the marriage. Even in our times you can go through all the ceremonies and if you don't consummate, it's annulled, meaning you never married. There is no sex before marriage violation, only post sexual lack of responsibility.
re: prophylactic sex(and maybe I just haven't watched the vid yet where you cover this; if so plz excuse): is there any evidence what Paul and similar author's opinions on masturbation-as-prophylactic were? Did they approve of that too, or prohibit it through other logic, or just never speak on it?
The root of the word Porneia means "price" and the earliest references to it as very clearly refer to prostitution with a clear quid quo pro of sex acts for money, often with a slave girl or a poor woman who is economically forced into sex work. (Porne meant a female prostitute, while Pornos could refer to a male prostitute, a pimp, or sometimes a man who hires a whore.) Well before the New Testament was written the term had come to be used much more loosely. It could refer to whatever sexual behaviors the speaker wanted to condemn, which could vary greatly based on who was using the term. On one extreme we have certain Stoics (and Clement of Alexandria, a Christain writer who plagiarized Stoic works) who would extend the term Porneia to include most sex between married couples. To them acceptable sex not only had to be only meant for procreation, but it must take place in the dark in a room with no lights or windows and without anyone close enough to overhear and be tempted. (They also held it was immoral for men to shave their beards or for women to own more than 2 pairs of shoes, one pair with hobnails for long journeys and one pair of plain white indoor slippers.) On the other end of the spectrum there were those who only allowed the term Porneia to be used for what we would call sex trafficking and would argue that there was nothing wrong with having relations with Hetairae. Literally meaning "Companions," these higher-class independent sex workers would include what we would call escorts and sugar babies. They were educated women typically skilled at entertaining through conversation, poetry recitals, musical performances, dancing, etc. Hetairae often chose to sex with their clients, but there was not an explicit quid pro quo of money for sex. Hetairae accepted lavish gifts or sometimes charged men for the amount of time they would spend together, but the client could not demand that that time be spent on sexual activity if the woman was not interested. Many Hetairae were independently wealthy and could afford to be very selecting in choosing their clients.
Thanks for this, really interesting. Two ideas I had - Porneia/Pornos is more akin to the modern use of Pervert in that it refers to anything that the speaker finds deviant but is not specific to any act. Another suggestion is that for the Hetairae according to your definition might be suitably rendered to courtesan, although that is now probably an archaism itself.✌
Damn excellent. I tried to start a blog making some of these very points some years ago, but really lacked the educational background, social media savvy, and mental fortitude necessary to make it work. I would add that in the US specifically, abstinence took root in the southern states as a means to keep bloodlines “pure,” i.e. to avoid mixed-race children. It was very much a component/enabler of white supremacy.
You suggest that Christians promote abstinence as an identity signal to create trust within the community, emphasizing dedication, etc. like that’s a bad thing? Jesus, Paul, John, etc. emphasized the beloved community. On a pragmatic level, unmarried community members having sexual relations with each other, unintended pregnancies, venerial diseases, or going outside the community for that (which Paul makes a strong argument against in I Cor 6), does not make for ideal community dynamics. You also avoid Jesus’ and Paul’s argument that marriage makes the two one flesh and that God did not intend for there to be other partners. The multiple wives and concubines by Jewish leaders is never treated like a good thing, but as a diversion from the original design. Paul also did not have it “as his goal” for all Christians to be celibate. He had his own contextual preferences, but presented them as such, and realized that they were not practical for the majority. You also suggest that Christians and Jews “pick and choose” which verses to privilege… you have grad degrees. You understand hermeneutics and theology. Yet you are saying this like a “gotcha” moment to try to impress low information viewers. You also understand the format you are responding to, and how a short form RUclips response video doesn’t allow for much more than rattling off some verses. You even begin the video by saying that it’s likely that first century Jews and Christians held that viewpoint. Your own conclusion seems to be unclear.
Was the concern that the husband be the only father of the woman's children for the purpose of inheritance? If she is a virgen at marriage and faithful thereafter, no other man's children could inher the husband's wealth.
Fornication is never defined by the Bible ✝. It does necessitate: • Married 💒 humans can do it • It is distinct from adultery Which contradicts every explanation I have ever had from Christians ✝. Worshiping other Gods makes more sense and actually makes sense with the Bible ✝. Not the only option though. I think more likely options are allowing demons to possess you, or a subtle nod at humans' destructive lust ❤🔥❤🔥❤🔥 for morality 😇. Though, there is no clear answer is the right answer, but *all usual* answers are dead ☠ wrong. It cannot mean having sex before marriage in the New Testament. And would be very weird to mean it in the Old Testament without ever stating sex before marriage is wrong in words.
There are so many interesting topics, sub-topics and rabbit holes that this discussion could follow, and II appreciate Dan's intellectual rigor and focus in discussing this and making it somehow understandable for us mere mortals.
Paul wanting everyone to be celibate would violate Gods command to be fruitful and multiply. Paul says a number of things for which there is no 2 or 3 witnesses, which negates what he says.
I think it’s also interesting that no one talks about the sin of remarrying after divorce but I see a whole lot of videos about how “true Christians” should not attend gay weddings
My wife is filipina she use to eat dinaguan or chococlate meat It has about 10 ounces of pork blood and also pork meat. In her personal devotion time about 20 years ago she felt very impressed to stop eating this and so I encouraged her to do what she feels. She hasnt eaten that since 2001 but she became a pescatarian 7 years ago so eating blood is not an issue anyway..
In my Christian country it was normal to be pregnant before marriage within certain groups. So first being sure there would be offspring. Especially farmers community this was the habit.
There were many agrarian societies that basically had some sort of equivalent to handfasting that was then regularized by the religious authorities if offspring resulted. In some cases, it was an accomodation because circuit priests could not come by frequently enough, in others it was a continuation of folk traditions.
I keep forgetting the original apocalyptic vision of the return of the Jewish god was about defeating the Romans in a final big battle, with their god's assistance, at Megiddo, hence the Armageddon that the christians are always looking forward to. It does appear to be a tad anachronistic to still be anticipating a final battle with our Roman overlords, but then that's what you get when you are still hung up on this ancient cult. I get that this is a side issue for Dan, he has nothing to say about what anybody chooses to believe, his interest is only in what the ancient texts actually say and mean. The latter being the most difficult and equally the most interesting because only then do you get to understand that ancient culture and how all this came about.
@@mikey1305 you should not look at Women with lust. If you masterbate you think lustful about other women or look at them in porn. This is false. Mathew 5:27-30
So then what would "thou shall not commit adultery" refer to? Just being with another man's wife and not premarital relations? Didn't the OT say that if you do premarital you have to marry the girl?
I'm pretty sure the old testament passage is if you rape a girl then you must marry them and pay money(fifty shekels of silver) to the dad for damaged goods. Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Yes and yes, actually. Adultery in the OT is only sex between a married woman and a man other than her husband. Sex between two unmarried people is not, ever, adultery. Neither in the New Testament nor the Old Testament. In the NT it's fornication/porneia and in the OT it's just that the Law says you have to get married. It's not necessarily even sinful - there's just a consequence.
@@MidlifeCrisis82 I think in the logic of the passage the 50 shekels are the dowry and it's consensual. I mean there is also the law of the woman screaming out in the city vs the countryside. I think at least later on, this was often taken to refer specifically to consensual relations
@@fluffysheap Exodus 20:29 says "Because he has humiliated her, he may never divorce her as long as he lives." If we take this to mean consensual premarital relations, seems like a (definitely very small) punishment. Though the sin could be that he goes over the girl's father's head instead of coming to ask for her in marriage.
The Tiktoker was rebutting what Brandan was claiming. He didn't make any references to rejecting other parts of Paul's sexual ethics and he didn't say that he eats meat. So those are some broad and, honestly, totally irrelevant critiques used to try to diminish the Tiktokers credibility--even though at the beginning you conceded the verses he quoted where accurate.
We both know that guy's not a vegetarian, and we both know that he does pick and choose because there are many laws and instructions within the Bible that directly go against modern conservative evangelical morality.
No freaking way. I know that guy towards the beginning rattling off all the verses in the blue. His mom told him when he was young that his “antenna” would “activate” when God was sending him a message. Interference would lose signal forever so no touch. It wasn’t till after he got married that his wife said that didn’t sound right. He will never get that lost time back. No laughing at a jerk joke. He won’t get it. That’s why he is so mad about it all this. I don’t know him personally he reminded me of that exact person though. Did I say I knew him? I don’t think I did.
Concerning the last few minutes of discussing social relevancy; there is one thing that seems to be missed consistently by the Dr. There really is no preponderance of evidence that se before marriage is good or bad from the scientific community. As is becoming all to common most papers read as if they were written before any research started. That does, of course, leave the option open to abstinence before marriage being the most beneficial life choice, and perhaps Paul and other new testament authors were lead by God to advocate for a healthy lifestyle.
Well, except in the cases where the couple is sexually incompatible which results in either divorce, or misery and infidelity. They could have found out in the first place and avoided all that.
@@ronjones1414 Well, you also have to take into account all the young girls whose fathers sold them into slavery. They were used for sexual purposes by married and unmarried Israelite slave owning men. Repeatedly. That's why they weren't set free like the male slaves. See Exodus 21.
@@penguinman9837 Well there is that possibility... better though would be to ask what kind of literature we're talking about in the first place, and maybe we should also rid ourselves of the fantasy that it can only ever mean one thing (which is what we think it ought to be, whatever that is.)
@@StevenWaling Oh, I completely agree. Most good scripture will have multiple levels of fulfillment. But when we are allowed to pick and choose what a scripture means when it means it when it's most convenient for our particular ideology... well, 70,000 Christian denominations is the obvious result. This is a problem; and really the elephant in the room when it comes to Christian religion.
It's amazing how much truth is left out due to Dan's fear of engaging with LDS doctrine on this subject, as well as other subjects. But sexuality is by far his favorite. It honestly leaves a person with a simple half-truth with regard to sexual sin. I even see in the comments across his videos how viewers are thrilled with Dan's interpretations of sexuality because it leaves the doors to premarital sex and homosexuality wide open. I wonder if Dan fully appreciates his covenants to proclaim the complete truth as much as he appreciates his social standing.
I find it amazing how you are not satisfied with critiquing Dan's argument, and instead must include your psychic visionary assessment of his feelings to which you have no access.
@@ninetails1553 As I already specified, "Dan's fear" is just you pretending to be able to read minds. The ostentatious explaination of sticking to the professional scholarship is a better fit for the available data, but not to your opinion. That is an evidentiary basis for you to change your opinion, not for you to double-down on your prejudice. I'm not going to engage with your criticisms of his argument whatsoever. It's your use of an unreasonable strawman of his motives that I condemn.
@@BradyPostma Of course you won't engage. Everything Dan says fits a narrative that you most likely refuse to deviate from, even when presented with additional truth. Convenient and easy.
@@ninetails1553 Of course you won't acknowledge your own errors. Your supernatural insight into others' inner world must be upheld above all else. And of course it is completely worth everyone else's time to contend with your unrepentant magical thinking. Address the beam in your own eye, then you can see clearly to discuss the mote in others'.
I used to say all this stuff. It pushed me as far away from Christ as I’m sure you are, while you deploy Him as a straw man to dismantle the very things He died for. You need prayer
The funniest part is that you are too dense to realize that Dan is a Christian and does believe in Christ. To you, if one looks at the Bible critically, then they can’t possibly be a believer? How dense are you? So you not understand the difference between theology and biblical studies?
Today, I learned that educational ramblings are a good way to pass time.
I cant believe this education is free.
I swear Dan always has the most polite mic drops
He didn’t drop the mic. He conspicuously made a prop mic and placed it on a pedestal
It's the mormon way. We are soooo good at trying to be polite when disagreeing. But Dan has next level skills at it.
@@jonathangardner3121 No you aren’t. We all know Mormons are passive aggressive assholes.
I remember when I was a young Christian, trying to find Bible verses to prove to friends that sex before marriage was absolutely, concretely forbidden! … And of course only found mentions of “sexual immortality/fornication”. I of course pointed to this and when friends would rebut “where does it say sex before marriage is immoral?” And of course, it nowhere does.
So of course I had to twist and pretend that it was this universal code, or just “known” which in hindsight was just absolutely ludicrous. My friends absolutely were right to point that out and cast doubt. But of course I just dismissed them, with their valid points, as “scoffers and mockers”
Fornication means sex outside marriage..?
"Fornication" isn't what the Greek word πορνεία meant and means.
That was a forced translation. That's why NIV translates it as "sexual immorality."
@@nedsantos1415 ah, thank you for telling me
Given that we have demonstrably discarded inconvenient parts of the Bible for centuries, what part(s) can we say are necessary and sufficient to successfully live a righteous life? My money's on the two-sided coin of the Great Commandment. "Love the Lord your God with all your being" and "love your neighbor as yourself." Work on getting those things right, and the rest of the scriptures seem to fail to be necessary. And for those people who have ideas that don't include God, that second part may be all that's necessary.
As an addendum, I'd suggest Micah 6:8 is a good support text, helping to flesh out HOW we get better at the Great Commandment.
How do we understand “do not deprive one another of sex except for prayer and fasting” if Paul wanted us to ALWAYS abstain from sex even in marriage unless they needed to curb their passions? Really interested in this topic after escaping purity culture.
Great video. I really hate that captions censor the word sex. It's so infantilising.
The the guy with the ballcap citing Bible verse after Bible verse is presenting himself as a Biblical expert when he cites to Revolution 21:8 without realizing that their is now Book of Revolution in the Christian Bible, but instead likely meant Revelations.
Holy crap! There’s a book called Revolution?!
Thought I misheard!
And the prophet Marx said unto them, "Workers of the world, unite! Ye have nothing to loseth but thy chains!"
6:06 “prophylactic sex.” Wow, talk about dry. Example: Ben Shapiro and his wife.
I imagine most civilisations forbade sex before marriage. I mean I live in China and sex before marriage was made legal only a few decades ago. We are not a Christian nation…far from it.
It has nothing to do with Christianity it has to do with men selling their daughters into marriage
Dan,
Long time watcher of your work and deconstructed exvangelical here.
Beyond the need to renegotiate the text for the purpose of exercising power and control is there any reason why the evangelical/pentecostal ideologies hold fornication and homosexuality as gatemarkers for believers while denying the notion that in most (if not all) of these 'sin' list these notions are overwhelming paired with the notion of greed as just as reprehensible a sin. A concept that flies in the face of most evangelical understandings of capitalism and absolutely spits in the face of the prosperity gospel?
I found myself pondering how the men of the Hebrew bible would go about having sex before marriage if women were expected to be virgin until marriage, divorce was still a new thing, and adultery forbidden. Who's left?
They were the first Ecosexuals?
@@notanemoprog Heh, that or incest.
But on a serious note, I'd have to suppose that an unmarried woman who'd lost her virginity would be the only serious option. But would they view such a woman as immoral and thus too dirty to lie with? Also, wasn't the punishment to stone them?
@@penguinman9837 No idea. Probably it was dealt with in the same manner as it is now? Also, did anyone actually follow all those rules? This is what Google has to say "The written Torah never explicitly forbids sex outside the context of marriage, with the exception of adultery and incest. According to Exodus 22:15-16, the man who entices a single woman to have sex must offer to marry her afterwards or the equivalent in compensation, unless her father refuses to allow him."
Also Quora has got a LOT to say on the topic
Widows. There were a lot of widows and no commandments forbidding unmarried men from having sex with them. (The practice of Levirate marriage might reduce the supply of eligible widows and many of them would remarry and become unavailable for casual sex, but not every husband who died had a goel to marry his widow.) There are a few contemporary Rabbis who have gone so far as to encourage the young single men in their Synagogues to explore casual sex with older widows in order to gain the experience needed to pleasure their future brides. Most don't go that far, but will admit that the Torah technically never forbids that course of action and that it is preferable to seducing virgins.
Also, divorce was a lot more common in antiquity that you probably think. It was probably more common 2000 years ago than it is today. Rabbi Hillel argued that a man could divorce his wife for any reason, even as simple as overcooking his dinner once, so long as he writes her a certificate of divorce that makes it clear she is now available to have relations with whatever men she wants. His rival Rabbi Shammai took a stricter position, but not quite as strict as that of Jesus, as he would allow divorce not only in case of adultery but also for crimes such as attempted murder.
If I remember correctly the rule against seducing virgins only applied to Israelite virgins, so an Israelite man could have casual sex with a gentile woman that he was definitely never supposed to marry.
I don't know if the way is clear on this subject. I consider that the two passages in Matthew (chapter 5 and 19) teach to make no oath. Why do our marriage ceremonies contain an oath then? It says that a woman should not be outwardly adorned with gold and yet the adornment for marriage is a gold ring.
This is fascinating. My parents are from Kerala, a state in India which is considered part of southwest Asia. Virginity is a big deal there...but that state also has the highest divorce rate as well. Not sure if there's a correlation between those two
Well once they are no longer virgins what's their use?? So you divorce them
Have you checked if it was always high? Look at the numbers and when they started to increase
@@alana1717 I believe this was a recent survey.
@midlevelspecialist7058 are the rates concentrated in older or younger couples and how may it be a direct correlation to a purity culture? Can other social factors and influences be considered?
@@alana1717 it's possible but purity culture has always been a big deal in Kerala. It's promoted in media like tv shows and movies.
What constitutes a marriage in the Bible? What formalities, if any, are required to make a marriage legitimate?
There are no formalities listed in either the Tanakh (aka: the Septuagint), or the New Testament (NT).
However, when reading thru the Tanakh, you see things such as Isaac taking his bride into his tent (Gen 24:67), and much later when the Kingdom of Israel was established, Ruth uncovering the feet of Boaz (possibly having sex with him), and the next day, Boaz declaring marriage in front of the elders at the gate of the city, (Ruth 3:7 - 4:13).
And if you study Rabbinical literature, and even look at Jewish Orthodox practices today, the wedding ceremony primarily serves as a public demonstration / celebration of the marriage within the community, but it's not really a marriage until later that day when things are consummated.
In fact, in many Jewish Orthodox circles, as soon as the ceremony is over, the bride and groom temporarily go into a private room, the door is guarded, and what happens therein, is nobodies business. And when the newly married couple emerge, the celebrations begin, with men on their side of the room, and women in their section. There's lots of RUclips videos about this.
@@What_If_We_Tried And that was kind of where I was going by asking the question. Going by the Bible, there's no formal prescription. As you suggest, sex is an expectation, so there's that. One might add a tacit recognition by the community. But for all the Bible says about it, a couple is married pretty much when they deem themselves to be. So when I hear a complaint by Christians about "pre-marital" sex, I know they're talking about sex without the state's and/or church's blessing. Yet they can't point to the Bible to show that any such blessing is required.
@@michaelspeir6086 Yeah, pretty much agree, and Christian societies are too numerous, and fractured to have a consensus, and I haven't looked at ancient Judaic practices enough to know whether or not causal sex, i.e., sex between an Israelite man, and an unmarried Israelite woman was permitted if they were not intending form a pair bond, i.e., marriage.
Although Orthodox rabbis that I've talked to pretty much agree, that back in the day if an Israelite man had sex with an unmarried Israelite woman, then that constituted marriage. Meaning that the simple act of coitus constituted / signified a marriage relationship within moral cultural norms.
These days, within Torah Observant Jewish communities, touching, e.g., handshakes, or hugging, or sitting next to unrelated members of the opposite sex is forbidden, let alone premarital sex, although it does happen, and there are RUclips videos about this. Just search for "tefillin dates".
@@michaelspeir6086 At one point in the Catholic Church, it was possible to claim you were married if you said your vows to each other in a church with the only witness being the sanctuary lamp that indicated God's presence. I'm sure it wasn't encouraged or easy to get it accepted by the priest but it fulfilled the technical requirements.
If I recall correctly, it is used as a plot point in one of the Brother Caedfel mysteries.
@@wartgin Interesting
In God's eyes sex is the marriage. Even in our times you can go through all the ceremonies and if you don't consummate, it's annulled, meaning you never married. There is no sex before marriage violation, only post sexual lack of responsibility.
How do you know that's how God perceives it? How do you know that sex without the rituals is the same thing as sex with the rituals?
Mythology has really warped our brains. And he is EXTREMELY polite when he shows us how delusional mythology has made us
Conservatism is so ridiculous. Why should laws and circumstances from over 2000 years ago still be relevant today?
@powerviolentnightmare - because God says so! 👍🏻
They shouldn't be, but they are.
re: prophylactic sex(and maybe I just haven't watched the vid yet where you cover this; if so plz excuse): is there any evidence what Paul and similar author's opinions on masturbation-as-prophylactic were? Did they approve of that too, or prohibit it through other logic, or just never speak on it?
The root of the word Porneia means "price" and the earliest references to it as very clearly refer to prostitution with a clear quid quo pro of sex acts for money, often with a slave girl or a poor woman who is economically forced into sex work. (Porne meant a female prostitute, while Pornos could refer to a male prostitute, a pimp, or sometimes a man who hires a whore.) Well before the New Testament was written the term had come to be used much more loosely. It could refer to whatever sexual behaviors the speaker wanted to condemn, which could vary greatly based on who was using the term.
On one extreme we have certain Stoics (and Clement of Alexandria, a Christain writer who plagiarized Stoic works) who would extend the term Porneia to include most sex between married couples. To them acceptable sex not only had to be only meant for procreation, but it must take place in the dark in a room with no lights or windows and without anyone close enough to overhear and be tempted. (They also held it was immoral for men to shave their beards or for women to own more than 2 pairs of shoes, one pair with hobnails for long journeys and one pair of plain white indoor slippers.)
On the other end of the spectrum there were those who only allowed the term Porneia to be used for what we would call sex trafficking and would argue that there was nothing wrong with having relations with Hetairae. Literally meaning "Companions," these higher-class independent sex workers would include what we would call escorts and sugar babies. They were educated women typically skilled at entertaining through conversation, poetry recitals, musical performances, dancing, etc. Hetairae often chose to sex with their clients, but there was not an explicit quid pro quo of money for sex. Hetairae accepted lavish gifts or sometimes charged men for the amount of time they would spend together, but the client could not demand that that time be spent on sexual activity if the woman was not interested. Many Hetairae were independently wealthy and could afford to be very selecting in choosing their clients.
Thanks for this, really interesting. Two ideas I had - Porneia/Pornos is more akin to the modern use of Pervert in that it refers to anything that the speaker finds deviant but is not specific to any act. Another suggestion is that for the Hetairae according to your definition might be suitably rendered to courtesan, although that is now probably an archaism itself.✌
Obviously the Christian ✝ church is going to interpret things in a way beneficial to the Christian ✝ church.
Have you ever met a human?
Damn excellent. I tried to start a blog making some of these very points some years ago, but really lacked the educational background, social media savvy, and mental fortitude necessary to make it work.
I would add that in the US specifically, abstinence took root in the southern states as a means to keep bloodlines “pure,” i.e. to avoid mixed-race children. It was very much a component/enabler of white supremacy.
You suggest that Christians promote abstinence as an identity signal to create trust within the community, emphasizing dedication, etc. like that’s a bad thing? Jesus, Paul, John, etc. emphasized the beloved community. On a pragmatic level, unmarried community members having sexual relations with each other, unintended pregnancies, venerial diseases, or going outside the community for that (which Paul makes a strong argument against in I Cor 6), does not make for ideal community dynamics. You also avoid Jesus’ and Paul’s argument that marriage makes the two one flesh and that God did not intend for there to be other partners. The multiple wives and concubines by Jewish leaders is never treated like a good thing, but as a diversion from the original design. Paul also did not have it “as his goal” for all Christians to be celibate. He had his own contextual preferences, but presented them as such, and realized that they were not practical for the majority. You also suggest that Christians and Jews “pick and choose” which verses to privilege… you have grad degrees. You understand hermeneutics and theology. Yet you are saying this like a “gotcha” moment to try to impress low information viewers. You also understand the format you are responding to, and how a short form RUclips response video doesn’t allow for much more than rattling off some verses. You even begin the video by saying that it’s likely that first century Jews and Christians held that viewpoint. Your own conclusion seems to be unclear.
Was the concern that the husband be the only father of the woman's children for the purpose of inheritance? If she is a virgen at marriage and faithful thereafter, no other man's children could inher the husband's wealth.
Revolution???
Fornication is never defined by the Bible ✝. It does necessitate:
• Married 💒 humans can do it
• It is distinct from adultery
Which contradicts every explanation I have ever had from Christians ✝. Worshiping other Gods makes more sense and actually makes sense with the Bible ✝. Not the only option though.
I think more likely options are allowing demons to possess you, or a subtle nod at humans' destructive lust ❤🔥❤🔥❤🔥 for morality 😇.
Though, there is no clear answer is the right answer, but *all usual* answers are dead ☠ wrong.
It cannot mean having sex before marriage in the New Testament. And would be very weird to mean it in the Old Testament without ever stating sex before marriage is wrong in words.
No mention of paternity assurance?
This was fire. Thank you.
So much wonderful info. Thank you Dan!
And the truth shall set you free.
There are so many interesting topics, sub-topics and rabbit holes that this discussion could follow, and II appreciate Dan's intellectual rigor and focus in discussing this and making it somehow understandable for us mere mortals.
Paul wanting everyone to be celibate would violate Gods command to be fruitful and multiply. Paul says a number of things for which there is no 2 or 3 witnesses, which negates what he says.
Don't worry Dan we listen in you today
Whatever they reject come make it clear here we will comply
So, someone on the conservative side, engaging in ... _gasp!_ ... virtue signaling.
I think it’s also interesting that no one talks about the sin of remarrying after divorce but I see a whole lot of videos about how “true Christians” should not attend gay weddings
He must have memorized the parts of the Bible which fit his ideas
Ramble onward, Dan the Man!
My wife is filipina she use to eat dinaguan or chococlate meat
It has about 10 ounces of pork blood and also pork meat.
In her personal devotion time about 20 years ago she felt very impressed to stop eating this and so I encouraged her to do what she feels. She hasnt eaten that since 2001 but she became a pescatarian 7 years ago so eating blood is not an issue anyway..
In my Christian country it was normal to be pregnant before marriage within certain groups. So first being sure there would be offspring. Especially farmers community this was the habit.
Interesting.
What country?
There were many agrarian societies that basically had some sort of equivalent to handfasting that was then regularized by the religious authorities if offspring resulted. In some cases, it was an accomodation because circuit priests could not come by frequently enough, in others it was a continuation of folk traditions.
I'm only 30 seconds into this video and I am so glad I found it! I asked Dr. McClellan just a few days ago what his definition of Porniea is.
I keep forgetting the original apocalyptic vision of the return of the Jewish god was about defeating the Romans in a final big battle, with their god's assistance, at Megiddo, hence the Armageddon that the christians are always looking forward to. It does appear to be a tad anachronistic to still be anticipating a final battle with our Roman overlords, but then that's what you get when you are still hung up on this ancient cult. I get that this is a side issue for Dan, he has nothing to say about what anybody chooses to believe, his interest is only in what the ancient texts actually say and mean. The latter being the most difficult and equally the most interesting because only then do you get to understand that ancient culture and how all this came about.
I really love your videos.
So where does masturbation fit into this? I guessnif it's couched in the concept of procreation then it would be forbidden?
Yes its not explicitly stated but i wouldn't do it.
I once heard porneia(fonrication) forbidds every sexual form outside of marriage.
@@matthiaswenger00prove it
@@sosaflex9152 i can't but research it for yourself.
God created sex for men and women not for selfuse or homosexual use.
@@matthiaswenger00prove it. You are flatly false and there is nothing in the Bible that backs up your claim.
@@mikey1305 you should not look at Women with lust. If you masterbate you think lustful about other women or look at them in porn. This is false.
Mathew 5:27-30
So then what would "thou shall not commit adultery" refer to? Just being with another man's wife and not premarital relations? Didn't the OT say that if you do premarital you have to marry the girl?
I'm pretty sure the old testament passage is if you rape a girl then you must marry them and pay money(fifty shekels of silver) to the dad for damaged goods. Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Yes and yes, actually. Adultery in the OT is only sex between a married woman and a man other than her husband.
Sex between two unmarried people is not, ever, adultery. Neither in the New Testament nor the Old Testament. In the NT it's fornication/porneia and in the OT it's just that the Law says you have to get married. It's not necessarily even sinful - there's just a consequence.
@@MidlifeCrisis82 I think in the logic of the passage the 50 shekels are the dowry and it's consensual. I mean there is also the law of the woman screaming out in the city vs the countryside. I think at least later on, this was often taken to refer specifically to consensual relations
@@fluffysheap Exodus 20:29 says "Because he has humiliated her, he may never divorce her as long as he lives." If we take this to mean consensual premarital relations, seems like a (definitely very small) punishment. Though the sin could be that he goes over the girl's father's head instead of coming to ask for her in marriage.
This is a prohibition against sex with a married woman by anyone other than her husband, it's further defined as such in Leviticus 20:10.
Leftists reading the Bible be like:
"Revolution 21:8"
I don't think that guy is a leftist. And the revolution these days is by the right
The Tiktoker was rebutting what Brandan was claiming. He didn't make any references to rejecting other parts of Paul's sexual ethics and he didn't say that he eats meat. So those are some broad and, honestly, totally irrelevant critiques used to try to diminish the Tiktokers credibility--even though at the beginning you conceded the verses he quoted where accurate.
We both know that guy's not a vegetarian, and we both know that he does pick and choose because there are many laws and instructions within the Bible that directly go against modern conservative evangelical morality.
@@20quid I have no idea whether that guy is a vegetarian or not. Point is, Dan is using a logical fallacy to try to discredit the OP's original point.
the phrase “costly signaling” just blew my mind
Harper 2012 disagrees with your NT interpretation that porneia includes pre-marital sexual intercourse.
No freaking way. I know that guy towards the beginning rattling off all the verses in the blue.
His mom told him when he was young that his “antenna” would “activate” when God was sending him a message. Interference would lose signal forever so no touch.
It wasn’t till after he got married that his wife said that didn’t sound right. He will never get that lost time back. No laughing at a jerk joke. He won’t get it. That’s why he is so mad about it all this.
I don’t know him personally he reminded me of that exact person though. Did I say I knew him? I don’t think I did.
In the OT proverbs 7 seems to strongly suggest sex before marriage is wrong, or atleast very dumb.
Concerning the last few minutes of discussing social relevancy; there is one thing that seems to be missed consistently by the Dr. There really is no preponderance of evidence that se before marriage is good or bad from the scientific community. As is becoming all to common most papers read as if they were written before any research started. That does, of course, leave the option open to abstinence before marriage being the most beneficial life choice, and perhaps Paul and other new testament authors were lead by God to advocate for a healthy lifestyle.
Well, except in the cases where the couple is sexually incompatible which results in either divorce, or misery and infidelity. They could have found out in the first place and avoided all that.
@VulcanForge that reads an awful lot like an argument against seat belts.
paul was advocating for the end of times. "healthy lifestyle" wasn't a concept he would recognize.
@@ronjones1414 Well, you also have to take into account all the young girls whose fathers sold them into slavery. They were used for sexual purposes by married and unmarried Israelite slave owning men. Repeatedly. That's why they weren't set free like the male slaves. See Exodus 21.
@@VulcanLogic Great way to continue the narrative that homo sapient bad, but I don't see the relevance to my comment.
Picking and choosing? Is there anything this guy says that isn’t a projection?
I like how progressive theologians will only take things literally when it is convenient to inserting their dogma.
Totally don't limit that to progressive theologians
I like how evangelifascist theologians will only take things symbolically when it is convenient to inserting their dogma...
@@StevenWaling how about all theologians interpret the Bible to be symbolic or literal at will whenever convenient to defend their particular doctrine
@@penguinman9837 Well there is that possibility... better though would be to ask what kind of literature we're talking about in the first place, and maybe we should also rid ourselves of the fantasy that it can only ever mean one thing (which is what we think it ought to be, whatever that is.)
@@StevenWaling Oh, I completely agree. Most good scripture will have multiple levels of fulfillment. But when we are allowed to pick and choose what a scripture means when it means it when it's most convenient for our particular ideology... well, 70,000 Christian denominations is the obvious result. This is a problem; and really the elephant in the room when it comes to Christian religion.
This guy gives me the creeps
It's amazing how much truth is left out due to Dan's fear of engaging with LDS doctrine on this subject, as well as other subjects. But sexuality is by far his favorite. It honestly leaves a person with a simple half-truth with regard to sexual sin. I even see in the comments across his videos how viewers are thrilled with Dan's interpretations of sexuality because it leaves the doors to premarital sex and homosexuality wide open. I wonder if Dan fully appreciates his covenants to proclaim the complete truth as much as he appreciates his social standing.
I find it amazing how you are not satisfied with critiquing Dan's argument, and instead must include your psychic visionary assessment of his feelings to which you have no access.
@@BradyPostma What did I say that isn't true?
@@ninetails1553 As I already specified, "Dan's fear" is just you pretending to be able to read minds. The ostentatious explaination of sticking to the professional scholarship is a better fit for the available data, but not to your opinion. That is an evidentiary basis for you to change your opinion, not for you to double-down on your prejudice.
I'm not going to engage with your criticisms of his argument whatsoever. It's your use of an unreasonable strawman of his motives that I condemn.
@@BradyPostma Of course you won't engage. Everything Dan says fits a narrative that you most likely refuse to deviate from, even when presented with additional truth.
Convenient and easy.
@@ninetails1553 Of course you won't acknowledge your own errors. Your supernatural insight into others' inner world must be upheld above all else.
And of course it is completely worth everyone else's time to contend with your unrepentant magical thinking.
Address the beam in your own eye, then you can see clearly to discuss the mote in others'.
Why does the bible, aka the word of Jehovah, have to be explained in excruciating detail over every verse?
I used to say all this stuff. It pushed me as far away from Christ as I’m sure you are, while you deploy Him as a straw man to dismantle the very things He died for. You need prayer
The funniest part is that you are too dense to realize that Dan is a Christian and does believe in Christ. To you, if one looks at the Bible critically, then they can’t possibly be a believer? How dense are you? So you not understand the difference between theology and biblical studies?
@@Bobjdobbs He denies Christ is God, or that even he fulfilled Messianic prophecy, so denying he is even the Christ. So...