NicholasMyra, Christ is among us.
Not every scholar in the known universe agrees with you. Indeed many disagree with you. However, when you ignore them (and all the evidence to the contrary of your position) it allows you to feel secure in your weak position. Those who do disagree with you don't typically try to correct the likes of you. I care for you. That is the difference between I and them. I'm not trying to justify promiscuous behavior on my part nor anything of the sort, eve though many here accuse of it. I'm not promiscuous. Many accused Christ of being a drunkard and a glutton too because he brought the new Way, freedom from commandments and life in the Spirit.
I'm trying to get you to stop being a Pharisee because I love you, and I'm trying to get the church to be filled with less Pharisees because I love her. I cited many sources above. You ignored them all and repeated three times "every scholar in the known universe [disagrees]." I'm sure that made you feel more confident. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. Besides those I cited, many others including the Orthodox rabbi Shmuley Boteach agree with them. As if I even need to cite another (and as if you won't just deny its existence anyway).... Boteach is the author of The Kosher Sutra, HarperOne Press, 2009. He says, "Many people are surprised to learn that the Torah does not prohibit premarital sex. I challenge you to find any passage in the Jewish scriptures that forbids a man from having consensual sexual relations with any woman he could legally marry. It's just not there! (..) This is not to suggest that Judaism approves of pre-marital sex or promiscuity. (..) Jewish law prohibits an unmarried, unrelated man and woman from (even) being alone long enough to have sexual relations. But these laws come from the Talmud and the Shulchan Aruch (custom, tradition), not from the Torah."
So obviously zenut (porneia) does not mean premarital sex according to him either. If it did, then he would have to say the Torah prohibits sex before marriage since it prohibits zenut (porneia). What's more, if premarital sex is a sin because cultural traditions frowned upon it, then it is also a sin to be alone with an unmarried woman for more then 60 seconds. Is it?
Remember the Pharisees? That is the road you're heading down. You wrote, "The reason why the phrase premarital sex is not spelled out is because it was taken for granted by every culture of the time". Right. So the culture needed it spelled out that adultery is a sin, and bestiality too, because 'who would've guessed that?' However, sex with an unmarried woman... that is so obviously wrong no commandment was needed. Yeah. Listen to yourself deny both facts and common sense together. It's incredible.
It comes down to this: cultures make all sorts of rules to pile them onto God's. It is a human trait. It has been this way since the beginning of time. God's Word never condemns sex before marriage for an important reason. He takes the approach of honoring virginity and sex in marriage instead. To say premarital sex is immoral because virginity and marriage are honored would be like arguing oral sex between heterosexuals is immoral because God has only honored vaginal sex. We're here to shine Christ's light, the Word, not our own rules. When we add our rules to God's we warp the light of Christ such that the world looks to us for the light but starts to see us instead. The goal should be perfect reflection of the Word in us, even if that reflection sometimes makes us uncomfortable.
To say premarital sex is a sin puts you in a similar light as those Baptists who say it is a sin to drink alcohol. God has never said sex it. The Father has good reasons for doing things this way. I'm sure you have good intentions for piling commands onto God's children. God has better intentions for leaving them free. If the Word says we're right but our culture or even our family says we're wrong, then we must listen to Christ say, "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters... he cannot be my disciple." Even if they or we have good intentions for making up our own rules, He has better intentions that we know nothing about. He must become more; we must become less.
Every scholar and source in the known universe.
Every scholar and source in the known universe.
So either Acts420 has outdone every scholar ever, every interpretation ever made,
Or he is wrong.
I'm not saying the former is impossible. It just ain't very likely.
The reason why the phrase "premarital sex" is not spelled out is because it was *taken for granted* by *every culture* of the time (it was also contained in adultery and porneia, for those who have ears to hear). There was no way that the folks making the rules wanted their women devalued (I mean commodity-wise) by having them lose their virginity before marriage. When a culture of that time wanted to insult another culture, they made up rumors that the other culture had temple prostitution or something. It was the ultimate diss, you guys can't keep your women in check. Greeks did it to the Babylonians, just read Herodotus.
It is the ad-hoc arguement of ad-hoc arguments from silence that there is some secret alternate interpretation that the r34l jews and r34l fathers had that nobody recorded. It is insane, and only the people who believe that freemason reptiles rule the world would even consider, for a moment, that it might possibly have the slightest merit.