Yeah one could go there too!

@@DouglasBeaumont And we do, but that is only scratching the surface. When you really explore how deep this rabbit hole goes, you run FROM Catholicism, not towards it.

I appreciate it Mark!

Perhaps, but with the wrong implied conclusion.

Amen

Worked for me boys. Keep praying. I’m still technically a southern baptist looking to start RCIA as soon as possible.

Uh! The truth is found in Scripture; not the whore of Babylon! You are praying to so called saints, but in reality they are demonic spirits.

@@christopherlampman5579 Why?

Thanks Danny! I endeavor to teach truth while making content that doesn't just repeat the same stuff thats already out there. :)

Psalms 18 was written by David after Saul had died. At this time, David had married Ahinoam and Abigail, and yet the Holy Spirit inspired him to write that he was righteous and had kept himself from iniquity. That doesn't exactly jive with Catholic dogma, and yet they claim to be led by the Holy Spirit. This same Holy Spirit that gave us these words from King David, is not the one leading the Roman church. That church has been led by a different spirit, that is not from God.

@@danieldeluca4936 what exactly doesn’t jive with catholic dogma and can you specify which dogma you’re talking about, because we differentiate between dogma, doctrine and teachings.

@@simplydanny Catholic dogma teaches that polygyny is a sin.

@@danieldeluca4936 it teaches that it’s not the ideal of God proven by Jesus, which would make it divine revelation thus Dogma. Are you saying that polygamy should be allowed, and because Catholics believe it shouldn’t be allowed we don’t have the same Holy Spirit? Please tell me your more nuanced than this.

Thank you kindly.

The only thing he proved here, is that the doctrine of monogamy only is unbiblical. This is what I have been trying to tell the people in my church. On the one hand, he is right that this doctrine is not consistent with Sola Scriptura. On the other hand, this is a very bad reason to embrace Catholicism. You don't embrace the very source of heretical teachings on account that the churches that are closer to the truth of Scripture, have not yet forsaken those heretical teachings. That is a very bad logical conclusion!

Yeah that's not a good argument. I remember Geisler saying the first recorded polygamist was a murderer and I thought "the first recorded monogamist brought death to the entire human race"!

Yet all this proves, is that polygyny is not a sin! God never condemned it. It was condemned in the Greco Roman culture long before Christianity was perveted by this heretical idea. Forbidding marriage is a doctrine of demons, but we see women in our churches who simply cannot find a husband in the church, because they are searching in an ever shrinking pool of unmarried men. When you think of Catholicism and marriage, does it not strike you as odd that Rome will not allow divorce, but they will annul a marriage? The effect is the same! They are STILL separating what God hath joined together, whether they want to recognize that God has joined them together or not!

@@danieldeluca4936 Exodus 20:10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. Deuteronomy 17:17 And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold. Multiplying wives is in the same category as multiplying wealth. Do we also teach Christians they can only have (1) car? Only (1) house? Only (1) oz of Gold? Furthermore, if the Master had no problem with his servant, David, having roughly 20 wives, then who are we to judge? 2 Samuel 12:8 (to king David) I gave you your master’s house and his wives and the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. And if that had not been enough, I would have given you much, much more. Also to king david: 1 Kings 15:5 For David had done what was pleasing in the LORD’s sight and had obeyed the LORD’s commands throughout his life, except in the affair concerning Uriah the Hittite. Therefore the Master, King Jesus Christ, had no issue with david taking care of multiple women and children through marriage. The marriage bed can not be defiled - but God will judge adulterers and fornicators (Hebrews 13:4). A man (husband) becomes “one flesh” with any woman he has sex with. Even a prostitute, therefore, he can become one flesh with more than one woman: 1 Corinthians 6:16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” Flee from sexual immorality. What about what Paul wrote regarding everyone having his own wife and her own husband? If you read what the Holy Spirit had Paul write in the original Greek Language, you’ll see that it’s an entirely different Greek word between the man and woman: 1 Corinthians 7:2 “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own [heautou - exclusively owned] wife, and let every woman have her own [idios - shared] husband.” If the Holy Spirit wanted monogamy only - then the Spirit could had Paul write “heautou” for both the husband and wife. No human translation is perfect - only the Holy Spirit is Perfect 🕊❤️ New Matthew Bible (from William Tyndale who was martyred. This came before the kjv): Matthew 5:28 But I say to you that whosoever looks on a “wife,” (γυναῖκα) lusting after her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart. Almost all translations translated the Greek word “γυναῖκα” to “woman” instead of correctly translating to “wife.” But for that same Greek word “γυναῖκα” they translate correctly to “wife” in every other verse. 1 Timothy 4:3 1 Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in later days people will follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons. 3 They will “forbid marriage.”

You also have to ADD to Scripture with "tradition" to arrive at the idea that every truth needs to be spelled out in the Bible.

@@DouglasBeaumont every truth? Or just the explicit Truth of God's unchanging character, the EVERLASTING permanence of His Instruction, and the objective standard of good and evil? The Bible is what we judge all other "truth" by; and if the Word directly conflicts with any assertion, we must faithfully submitt to His Will. If we try to ADD to the Word - specifically the Torah, and try to speak for God, then we have made ourselves God. As if we can know good from evil ourselves, as opposed to knowing what God ordains as God good and evil; it's literally the lie the Serpent told Eve in the Garden.

@@DouglasBeaumont This is blasphemy

What is? @@mikesolns1364

Many thanks

You're welcome!

The only thing that is clear is that Scripture never calls polygyny a sin. The reality is that Rome introduced this heresy of monogamy only into the church, and this teaching is among the doctrines that the Evangelical church has yet to eradicate.

The wheels have come almost completely off the morality bus in the West. Incest and then Pedophilia will prpbably be next. People always think they can limit the effects of their poor principles by intuition but the next generation diesnt see it (e.g., Luther and Protestantism).

Now in Canada, government is promoting state sanction assisted suicide for disabled, elderly and others. The same government also promoting sex with animals. This is very vile and evil against God and His creation. I pray and sincerely hope that Vatican will speak out and condemn such actions. Protestant leadership sadly won’t.

I think it's rather dangerous to lump in "polygyny" which is biblical, good, and certainly not sinful, with other non-biblical forms of "marriage" like polyamory / etc. We may very well need polygyny in the west as Christians to care for an overwhelmingly growing gap between good Christian men and women, and all this "evil" shade being thrown on the practice will only make that harder to accomplish. Polygyny is 1 man, 1 woman, in a covenant with God. If a man should take a 2nd, it's a separate covenant, there is NOTHING sinful about this, it's never been rebuked, condoned, or said to be a problem by God, man shouldn't be adding to the text what isn't there.

Abraham had Sarah and Hagar, Jacob had 4 wives and 12 sons from those 4 wives…. David had about 7 wives but when he took another man’s wife in Samuel god rebuked him. Then David turned from his sins but didn’t divorce Bathsheba. Weird.

He doesn't actually agree with polygyny being acceptable. He simply disagrees with Sola Scriptura. Read his responses to my comment. You can see that he embraces this doctrine of demons.

Exodus 20:10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. Deuteronomy 17:17 And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold. Multiplying wives is in the same category as multiplying wealth. Do we also teach Christians they can only have (1) car? Only (1) house? Only (1) oz of Gold? Furthermore, if the Master had no problem with his servant, David, having roughly 20 wives, then who are we to judge? 2 Samuel 12:8 (to king David) I gave you your master’s house and his wives and the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. And if that had not been enough, I would have given you much, much more. Also to king david: 1 Kings 15:5 For David had done what was pleasing in the LORD’s sight and had obeyed the LORD’s commands throughout his life, except in the affair concerning Uriah the Hittite. Therefore the Master, King Jesus Christ, had no issue with david taking care of multiple women and children through marriage. The marriage bed can not be defiled - but God will judge adulterers and fornicators (Hebrews 13:4). A man (husband) becomes “one flesh” with any woman he has sex with. Even a prostitute, therefore, he can become one flesh with more than one woman: 1 Corinthians 6:16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” Flee from sexual immorality. What about what Paul wrote regarding everyone having his own wife and her own husband? If you read what the Holy Spirit had Paul write in the original Greek Language, you’ll see that it’s an entirely different Greek word between the man and woman: 1 Corinthians 7:2 “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own [heautou - exclusively owned] wife, and let every woman have her own [idios - shared] husband.” If the Holy Spirit wanted monogamy only - then the Spirit could had Paul write “heautou” for both the husband and wife. No human translation is perfect - only the Holy Spirit is Perfect 🕊❤️ New Matthew Bible (from William Tyndale who was martyred. This came before the kjv): Matthew 5:28 But I say to you that whosoever looks on a “wife,” (γυναῖκα) lusting after her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart. Almost all translations translated the Greek word “γυναῖκα” to “woman” instead of correctly translating to “wife.” But for that same Greek word “γυναῖκα” they translate correctly to “wife” in every other verse. 1 Timothy 4:3 1 Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in later days people will follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons. 3 They will “forbid marriage.”

Forbidding marriage is a doctrine of demons.

Lord Jesus did not die for the whole world. Only those whom the Father sent to him. Most of the world does not seek God nor fear God. We all have free will - but not everyone is going to diligently seek God and find Lord Jesus. The road is wide to destruction.

Glad it helped! Devin helped me too!

Protestantism basically invented "Christian divorce" so "many many" is, I think, an overstatement (unless you just mean they don't *like* it). How many denominations are firm about disallowance?

​@@DouglasBeaumont All I can say is that every protestant church I've been to personally has been pretty strongly against it (Including by not letting a man who were divorced and remarried serve as deacons or elders- even though they the man in question did it before he were Christians)- I suppose I can't really speak for the broader protestant tradition

@@DouglasBeaumont maybe I should make it only one many :)

which were sbc, pca, and nondenom churches

Like most things in Protestantism there us a spectrum of beliefs and moral allowances. There are 2 or 3 multi-view books on divorce you might find interesting. Genesis 3 is the starting point for the discussion and I think that if you combine it with Jesus' teaching on divorce the picture of God's ideal of monogamy comes through. The problem is people become one flesh when they have sex whether they are married or not (1 Cor. 6:16), so the real question is whether it is appropriate. Since it is only appropriate for married people that begs the question as to how many people can be married and we're right back where we started. :)

@@DouglasBeaumont It appears to me based on a great deal of study on this topic that the strongest case to be made is that God has given polygyny as an option, for a fallen world, that should be used based on context. It being "ideal" is entirely circumstantial. There may be times where there are far more women than men, that would make it ideal. There may be times where there are far less women than men of marriageable age, that would make it less ideal. There may be times where there are FAR more Christian women who want to marry than Christian men to marry, that would make it ideal in some cases, where a Christian woman would absolutely prefer to join an existing family as a 2nd or 3rd wife, than be alone forever without children (if she wants children), or just to be alone. To me it seems far more reasonable based on the text to believe that God cares a great deal for how each marriage is done, according to his design + commands for marriage. He doesn't seem to care if a man chooses to take on more responsibility with additional marriages, but He does seem to care if the man does not treat them all properly/fairly. Polygyny is an option, monogamy is an option, celibacy is an option (for some, gifted) ... The choice comes down to context/circumstances. Every single one of the options can be done wrong, abused, mistreated, and in a way that dishonors God. Every single one of the options can be done right, and glorify God in the process.

These statements are not contradictory because they do not both affirm and reject the same proposition. I did not go into the reasons behind the Church's position - and without knowing those, none of the claims you made based on the Bible vs. Tradition hold. For example: www.catholic.com/qa/why-is-polygamy-ok-in-the-old-testament

It was . . . non-biblical. ;)

You have not met me then.

@@danieldeluca4936 really? If I pointed out a quote from scripture, Like "Truly, truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you." You won't tell me "It doesn't really mean that? And how do you know it doesn't really mean that? Not from the bible.

@@flyswatter6470 John tells us what those things mean. By drinking His blood, it says that He meant receiving the Spirit, and eating His body meant believing His Word. So yes, I do take sola scriptura seriously, but I don't just rip verses out, without reading other texts to see what those verses mean.

@@danieldeluca4936 Where does John say any of that? And if we disagree, what authority do we go to for clarification?

@@flyswatter6470 John 7:37-39. If you disagree with me, I recommend you check out what Mike Winger has said regarding transubstantiation. He has an excellent breakdown. He also has an excellent breakdown of the supposed authority of the papacy.

Yes, someone could just say that a man must cleave to every wife he has. ;)

@@DouglasBeaumont so this multiple wives was tolerated, allowed by God but not willed? But how can something not antecedently willed by God also be blessed? I am trying to think of another example in salvation history where God blessed sinful activity. Maybe marriage is in the category of secondary nature rather than primary nature such as allowing brothers and sisters to marry within the first generation, meaning it is not intrinsically evil.

@@apostolicapologetics4829 Yeah it's a tough conundrum especially for those who seek to follow Scriptures words alone. The Catholic Church has defined monogamy as the only legitimate form of marriage but its explanation of the OT practice varies. Stolen from Catholic Answers: Why it was permitted is the subject of theological debate. Jewish tradition normally emphasizes that polygamy was never looked upon as a good thing but was permitted as a concession to the realities of the world in which the ancient Jews lived. In Christian tradition, we see this through the lens of God’s gradual revelation: “In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets” (Heb. 1:1), and Jesus appears to say that the Mosaic law did in fact make concessions to the weakness of human nature (Matt. 19:8).

You raise a good point about that verse that discussed marriage from the beginning. You correctly note that Sam 12:8 poses a challenge. With these two contradicting verses at face value, one just has to "theologize" their way out of it. Once you "theologize" your way out of two verses, that is no longer Sola Scriptura but one is relying on their Church's interpretive tradition to get themselves out of the conundrum and every denomination does this. I am agnostic about denominations but the above objection from Dr. Beaumont is one reason that keeps me away from Protestantism. Of course, I have reasons to keep me away from Catholicism as well as Eastern Orthodoxy.

@@quantumcomputist8572 I would add there is a difference in theorizing. As the protestant is left with mere human theorizing where the catholic in addition to theorizing has an authoritative Holy Spirit led interpretation Church to guide them. What is stopping you from becoming catholic?

Was allowed.

Jesus says to divorce and remarry is adultery, he doesn't say additional marriages are adultery.

Jesus spoke about divorce there, he never spoke on polygyny, aside from a parable comparing himself to marrying 5 of 10 virgins... He never ever put a limitation on polygyny. A biblically polygynous marriage is 1 man, 1 woman, + God. If he takes a 2nd wife, it's a separate covenant... so it's still 1 man 1 woman... just for an added fyi.

I actually spoke with a Coptic Orthodox priest about the Parable of the 10 Virgins. I thought it was a reference to polygyny as well. Apparently, this is a reference to an actual Jewish tradition of a night time wedding celebration where bridesmaids would arrive holding lanterns to present themselves as potential brides for other men. But like this man said, there is much evidence in the Bible to state that polygyny is nothing controvesial.

Yes, and they have their own set of doctrines and "prophecies" to support it - yet oddly the official position of the LDS is that it is not allowed. Very strange group!

Mormons from my study take polygyny to another level that is extra-biblical, which is not surprising considered all their extra biblical text. It's my understanding that the FLDS that still practice it, believe it's the "ideal" and is required for some level of glorification... this is not what I get from the Bible, to me it just seems like a marriage option, which is available to men only, as a woman can only have 1 husband. It would be used in situations where it would be more "ideal" than monogamy (1 wife).

I think this is only because of the hard times they've had with the federal and some state governments.

Polygamy is only one of many serious problems with Islam, but its one that more people instinctively take issue with whether they know theology or not.

​@@DouglasBeaumontSo you are against polygyny then?

😂😂😂

Care to elaborate as to what is so funny to you?@@isolafitness

If only the Jews had Genesis!

That means that God only intended one wife for Adam. It has nothing to do with the rest of us.

Yes, whoever a man has sex with becomes one flesh with him. So if he marries more than woman and has sex with each wife then he becomes one flesh with each. Indeed, this occurs even if they are not married (1 Cor. 6:16). So this fact does not resolve the question.

A man would always have to leave his father and mother and join to (a) wife ... before he could ever join to a second wife. A man can be "one flesh" with a prostitute regardless of his marital state, while it's warned against (obviously). One flesh is signifying the importance of the physical act of sex, it's not a limitation on a man's ability to be "one flesh" with more than one woman.

So why then do churches tell men that they must separate all but one wife?

This is simply not true. A man biblically can always add another wife without any form of adultery being committed. This is not changed in the NT. Yeshuah was discussing divorce, and remarriage in a very isolated and specific set of circumstances, we cannot turn that into more than it is. One part of what Yeshuah was saying here that if a man puts away his wife *in order to marry another woman* that he commits adultery against his first wife, in that he forces her into adultery (because she's not actually properly divorced). It's not the 2nd marriage that is the adultery (unless that woman is also improperly put away, because she's still married in God's eyes). There would have to be some form of sexual immorality on the part of the woman to divorce/send her away, "I want a different wife" is not a valid reason to divorce the first. So if the man simply took a 2nd (free to marry) wife and didn't divorce the 1st wife, there is no adultery. The problem is men were (and still are) divorcing women in order to marry another because they don't want to deal with or support both. But there is NO adultery if a man simply takes a 2nd wife, or 3rd or beyond. As long as he keeps his covenants with each.

⁠@@mrmonay There is no evidence in the Scripture that Jesus was limiting his teaching on divorce and adultery to refer only to divorces that were solely for the purpose of marrying another. Even if many divorces were occurring for that reason, divorces often occur for many other reasons, as exhibited in the question asked by the Pharisees, “Is it lawful to divorce for any reason?” Under the Hillel school, a man could divorce his wife for burning the toast. Under the Shammai school, only very limited reasons were allowed, such as sexual immorality. Jesus responded to the Pharisees by addressing the ultimate will of God for marriage as found in Genesis 2:24 and applying it to divorce generally. Additionally, there is nothing in the texts of either Matt. 9:19 or Mark 10:11 that indicate how much or how little time must pass between the divorce and the marriage to the second wife. A man could divorce his wife in order to marry another woman. But he could just as easily divorce his wife and later (e.g., after 1, 2, or 5 years) marry another woman. It is disingenuous to insist that the verse requires the divorce to occur solely because the man wants to marry another or that the divorce must occur only a short time before he marries another. It’s adding to the text. Just as importantly, it makes no sense to call a man who marries another woman after a divorce an adulterer if polygamy is acceptable to God. If polygamy is God’s design for marriage, a man who unjustly divorces his wife and marries another is not an adulterer. He’s a wrongful divorcer. A bad husband. But not an adulterer. Adultery by definition involves a wrongful sex act, and divorce is not a sex act. If a man marries another woman after divorcing his first wife, and polygamy is not a sin, then having sex with the second wife cannot be adultery. But Jesus says it IS adultery. The only way this can be true is if adultery can be committed against a wife (not just a husband), whether or not the husband is married to the woman he is committing adultery with. For this reason, there is no room for polygamy in Jesus’ teaching.

"There is no evidence in the Scripture that Jesus was limiting his teaching on divorce and adultery to refer only to divorces that were solely for the purpose of marrying another." I'm not claiming that it is, I'm simply not doing what you're doing and making it more than it is. Jesus is addressing the reasons that a man can divorce his wife, while also showing that marriage is supposed to be permanent. What He was not, and the teaching is not doing, is ever teaching that a man who keeps his first wife and marries another, commits adultery, which is what you're claiming and adding to the teaching.@@cbtam4333

"Additionally, there is nothing in the texts of either Matt. 9:19 or Mark 10:11 that indicate how much or how little time must pass between the divorce and the marriage to the second wife. A man could divorce his wife in order to marry another woman. But he could just as easily divorce his wife and later (e.g., after 1, 2, or 5 years) marry another woman. It is disingenuous to insist that the verse requires the divorce to occur solely because the man wants to marry another or that the divorce must occur only a short time before he marries another. It’s adding to the text." What are you talking about? Honestly you're going so far off base with all of this it makes little to no sense. When did the subject of "time" between divorces even come up? @@cbtam4333

"Just as importantly, it makes no sense to call a man who marries another woman after a divorce an adulterer if polygamy is acceptable to God. If polygamy is God’s design for marriage, a man who unjustly divorces his wife and marries another is not an adulterer. He’s a wrongful divorcer. A bad husband. But not an adulterer. Adultery by definition involves a wrongful sex act, and divorce is not a sex act. If a man marries another woman after divorcing his first wife, and polygamy is not a sin, then having sex with the second wife cannot be adultery." A man who puts away his wife except for sexual immorality, "makes her commit adultery" is actually what the text is saying in Matt 5:32. What you're also missing here is that there's the "putting away" and the "writ of divorce". Men could and did put their wives away without a proper writ of divorce, causing those women to end up in adultery by having to go be with another man or become a harlot to survive. The blame of adultery is on the husbands head and he will be held accountable. But it's not the marrying of another wife that is the adultery. So you're half right, you just miss the part where the scripture is telling us that he's forcing his 1st wife into adultery. Polygyny is not a sin, marrying 2, 3, 4 or 1000 is not a sin, and it's never adultery (unless one of them is married/wrongfully put away). Furthermore this is also why it says that any man who marries a "put away woman" commits adultery. Because she's still married to the first husband. The point of all of it is you can't just willy nilly put away/divorce your wife because it will fill the land with women who are in adultery and men who are too because in God's eyes they are still bound. Much like what we have going on today in the Christian church and outside of it. Rampant divorce, rampant adultery. Because people don't take marriage seriously and treat it as permanent. But you'll notice, in a discussion on polygyny you continue to focus on divorce and adultery. It's pretty simple, just go find a command that says a man cannot marry more than one woman at a time, or he is bound to one woman while she lives like you can easily find for women, if it was as you say it is, it should be easy to find. @@cbtam4333​

This is a weak argument. If God approves of it and if it’s allowed, then let it be done. Guess what monogamy brings the chance of divorce and one of your kids may not be yours because your wife stepped out on you and now you’re taking care of someone else’s kids and the same issue of splitting inheritance you still have to deal with that with multiple kids. Nothing in life is perfect and there are always gonna be some type of issues. Having more than one can be very helpful and positive to a family unit especially to single mothers.

The Catholic Church has not accepted homosexual couples. I have only heard of one case of a homosexual couple getting a 'blessing', and that runs counter to Church teachings.

If by "accept" you mean welcome, sure. If by "accept" you mean consider faithful members who are not in sin and who may receive the sacraments, no.

@@DouglasBeaumont are homosexual couples not allowed to receive communion?

@@isoldam I thought the pope had visited a homosexual couple and accepted them. Also, if I’m not mistaken there are priests and bishops who have blessed homosexual couples. I think I saw some of this in Germany.

Where did you read that story? Come on

Given that what I meant to communicate is so clear how is that being deceptive?

@@DouglasBeaumont Obviously, some of us in the Christian Polygyny community did not pick up on that, so I understand you did not intend to be deceptive here, but I want those of us who have commented on your video to understand that you are not agreeing with us at all! While you make valid points, your conclusion should not have been to embrace the Catholic church that introduced these heretical and damaging teachings, but to attempt to reform the church that you once were a part of, to embrace the truth, which is that God NEVER disapproved of polygyny.

@@danieldeluca4936 Ah the fruits of Protestantism....

@@DouglasBeaumont Protestantism has not eliminated the monogamy only heresy that the Catholic Church introduced. We are still working on getting a denomination to open their eyes to the truth. This video that you have posted may be useful in that endeavor.

@Daniel DeLuca Maybe. If the Reformation has taught us nothing else it's that there is nothing so false that some Protestant group won't think it's true and blame the Bible for it.

The "allowance due to sin" argument would be sufficient if God had not given David his wives. Becoming one via sex is not limited to spouses (1 Cor. 6:16) and non-ideal conditions do not equal actual sin. (I am not saying your conclusion is wrong though!)

@@DouglasBeaumont thank you for highlighting 1 Cor 6, 16 as an example of "becoming one". Still though, Jesus quote wouldn't make sense if he meant polygamy, because He stated, that God created them "male and female" not "male and females" 🙂 He emphasised here the importance of "one to one" ratio in a relationship. Besides, the argument with not granting Adam many wives as a God's "blessing" in Paradise means more to me, than catering to David's desires of owning a harem (having nature and conscience already stained by the original sin). God "gives" or as some may say, "allows" many things to happen, and sometimes "blesses" us with considerably bad things, as for example, some people hurting us. It might not been said in the Bible that what David was doing was a sin, but it doesn't mean it wouldn't be a sin trying to do it now. For me, if in Jesus' times there was no polygamy among Jews present, it means it was a moral shift from "the old times", to which we are not meant to go back. I forgot to thank you for the amazing work that you do 🧡 your videos are interesting and educational. The knowledge is presented in a very approachable way. I love to link your videos in my discussions. I especially like the "sola scriptura" one. All best to you Doug! 🌻

@@e.zalewska2285 This video was much more about exposing problems with sola scriptura than promoting polygamy of course. There are reasons the Church was anti-polygamy form the very beginning, they just aren't all in the Bible. ;) Thank you for watching and I am so glad my work is helpful to you!

@@DouglasBeaumont The only reason, was because they adopted the Greco Roman culture, and if you had really done your research, you would have seen this, because it was spelled out in Thelyphthora and in James Campbell's work, "The History and Philosophy of Marriage".

@@DouglasBeaumont The only wife of Saul named in the Bible is the mother of Michal, David’s wife. Do you really believe when God said he gave David all that belonged to Saul, including all of Saul’s wives that he really gave permission for David to have sex with and/or marry his own mother-in-law? Why would God give permission for David to engage in incest? Is it at least possible that a king taking over all that belonged to the previous king, including his wives, meant taking charge over, as in being the new head of the household containing these widows of Saul, rather than marrying or having sex with them? Is there any indication in the Bible that David married any of Saul’s wives, which he would have to do if he wanted to have sex with them without committing fornication? Simply having charge over females in a household was not the equivalent of marriage. At least some of these wives of Saul must have been around as long as Saul had been king, which was for many years before David took the throne, making them quite a bit older than David and certainly not desirable for producing heirs. The only explicit example of an Israelite king having sex with his predecessor’s wives was Absalom, and that is presented, not as marriage, but as a traitorous high crime of public sexual assault, certainly not anything God would have condoned as a normal, healthy or moral practice. For these reasons, it seems questionable to assume that God gave David Saul’s wives as women for him to have sex with or marry. Rather, it seems just as likely that these wives simply accompanied the palaces and treasury and royal land holdings and armed forces and everything else that came with taking over a kingdom.

Yes they have a more difficult time for sure.

Polygyny (1 man, multiple marriages with wives) is definitely not a sin. Polyandry would be, because a woman cannot have more than 1 husband. Polygamy is kind of a catch all phrase that isn't specific enough for this discussion. 1 man + plural wives is polygyny, and it is never mentioned as a sin.

@@mrmonay Although woman is a weaker sex, she is also an heir to grace in equal proportions (1Peter 3:7). When God created, God created man and woman. He did not create man and WOMEN. If man needed more women, God would have in the beginning itself created more women for Adam. If polygyny is allowed, why the males oppose polyandry? How did the Church of England originate? Henry VIII, while he had one wife living, wanted to marry another one. The Pope did not permit. It led to a split in the Church. Here we see, the Pope preferred a split rather than violating an eternal truth and teaching by Lord Jesus. The Catholic Church will not solemnise such a marriage. Perhaps, the Protestant imitation church can do it. Because, they are not a Church and only an imitation or denomination. The have no Apostolic succession. Perhaps the king could have married another woman, when his first wife was living, without the consent of the Church. Then it would have been his person sin. If the Pope allowed it, it would have become a sin of the Church, and it would have worldwide ramifications. Jesus says there are two ways. One is narrow, which leads to salvation. The other way is wide, which leads to damnation. One has definitely to go through the narrow way, if he wants to reach heaven. The wide way indicates worldly pleasures. One cannot eat the cake and have it. He must give up worldly pleasures, if he wants to reach heaven. He has to swim against the flow of the river. If he swims in the direction of the flow he will end up in the abysmal sea. Jesus says Iam the Way, and his way is narrow way, where one has to face odds and overcome it. This is the message of cross.

@@sebinantony6983 The Roman Catholic Church teaches converted men with multiple wives to divorce all but their first wife. So frankly, with due respect, I don't consider the Roman Catholic Churches historical view and practice on this matter of any relevance or value. If you think taking on the responsibility of 1) even doing the work to learn what the scriptures say about polygyny 2) defending the scriptures, 3) taking on the MASSIVE responsibility of a 2nd or 3rd wife, and 4) doing it all properly, is "swimming with the flow of the river" or "not going the narrow way" ... with respect, you aren't paying attention. To even speak on polygyny biblically today is a test of a man's commitment to the scripture. You can go with church history and tradition, I'll go with the word of God on this.

@@sebinantony6983 God created woman from man, for man, in the garden, under perfect conditions, from his own rib, perfectly designed for him. If we use your logic, we should only marry women who God took a rib from us to make perfectly for us. Respectfully, we don't live in the garden. We are fallen. Ideal left the building when sin entered it. Now ideal depends on context. There are MANY contexts in which God would absolutely prefer a good Christian man to take on and cover an additional wife than leave her alone, uncovered, and wide open to the enemy. There are also many contexts in which a man is simply only capable of providing for 1 wife well and in accordance with God's will. The fact of the matter is, context + scriptural filter is what defines what is "ideal", not the Roman Catholic Church or other church father's who lived under Roman rule where the practice was outlawed so their bias would have been tilted towards that. Meanwhile Roman men slept around all day and night outside of their "one wife" ... Much like today!

That's a decent argument but it's not decisive as Mt. 19 / 1 Cor. 7 could be interpreted to apply to every single marriage. We don't notice that because the Church has consistently said that such a view is wrong, but that's due to tradition not merely interpretation (which is my point in making this video). That translation of 1 Tim. is interpretive. What the Greek says is, "be a one-woman [kind of] man" (thus it applies to non-married men as well) But, even if it did say a husband of ONE wife - it's only directed to Deacons, not all men (in which case, why would it even need to be specified?).

I'm not sure how this video demonstrates that "you cannot save your soul in ANY of these PROTESTANT religion" because that was not stated anywhere in it and especially since the Church specifically says Protestants and others can be saved (Catechism 817-819).

Telling polygamous men that they must divorce their wives, when no fornication has taken place is a sin. Jesus said that whoever does this, causes his wife to commit adultery. This is wickedness on the part of Rome and many but not all Protestant Christians. Fortunately, some of the Protestant denominations have come around to realize that this is wrong, and have allowed these maried men to keep all of their wives. The Catholic church needs to do likewise, but there is so much more that the Catholic church needs to get right that reform is not the best option, when there are so many Bible believing churches to choose from, even if they fail to understand the truth regarding the fact that God allows polygyny today.