Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site shark.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!shark!hutch
From: hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: fornication and Christianity
Message-ID: <1230@shark.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-Jan-85 00:13:23 EST
Article-I.D.: shark.1230
Posted: Mon Jan 28 00:13:23 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 30-Jan-85 04:34:46 EST
References: <343@uvm-cs.UUCP> <543@mako.UUCP>
Reply-To: hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison)
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 70
Summary: 

In article <543@mako.UUCP> seifert@mako.UUCP (Snoopy) writes:
>Followups to net.religion.christian only, please.  Thank you.
>
>Quotes edited for brevity.  See the referenced article for the full text.
>
>> > ...but what about fornication, this is just as big a sin in God's eyes
>> > as adultery.
>> >
>> >		Frank Morrell
>>
>>      This article is by Bruce Malina and appears in Volume 14 of the
>> journal Novum Testamentum.  The title is "Does Porneia Mean Fornication?"
>> Porneia is the Greek word that is usually translated as fornication or
>> sexual immorality in the New Testament.
>> 
>>     What makes a given line of conduct porneia, hence
>>     unlawful, is that it is expressly prohibited by Torah -- both oral
>>     and written.  Now it would appear that in no case is pre-betrothal,
>>     non-commercial, non-cultic heterosexual intercourse (what is called
>>     "fornication" today) prohibited!  The obvious reason for this is that
>>     there is no injunction in the Torah prohibiting such "fornication".
>> 
>>        Pre-betrothal, pre-marital, non-commercial sexual intercourse
>>     between a man and a woman is nowhere considered a moral crime in
>>     the Torah.  ... there is no evidence in traditional or contemporary
>>     usage of the word porneia that takes it to mean pre-betrothal,
>>     pre-marital, heterosexual intercourse of a non-cultic or non-
>>     commercial nature, i.e. what we call "fornication" today.
>> -- 
>> 		Stephen J. Hartley
>> 	decvax!dartvax!uvm-gen!uvm-cs!hartley
>
>Quite interesting!!!!
>
>Indeed, it seems that there *isn't* any rule against fornication
>in the Torah/Old Testament.  
>...  Thus I must
>conclude that fornication was perfectly acceptable according to
>the Torah/Old Testament.
>
>Anyone who disagrees, please speak up!
>
>Now, one of the major things in Christianity is that we are
>no longer under the Law.  That we no longer have to worry about
>all those rules.  Ok so far?

That conclusion is unwarranted.  The Old Testament is NOT equivalent
to the Torah.  Further, there is a large amount of oral tradition
which is not completely recorded in the NT.  However, some of this
tradition was also a part of the early Church doctrine.

As best as I can tell, at the time the NT was written, there were
two sets of laws and traditions to consider.  First, the Hebrew
tradition of early, arranged marriages would imply that marriage
was the first place actual sexual intercourse was likely to occur.
I would appreciate it if any Jewish readers who are following this
discussion could confirm or deny this.

Secondly, Roman law prohibited sex outside of marriage except as
part of religious activity.


Oh, and by the way, the "not under the Law" point is highly debatable
in its current form.  GENTILES are not "under the Law" in any normal
sense, except that we should still be observing the Noachic laws.
That would mean that most Christians are in real trouble, since the
standard means of butchering animals and preparing foods violates those
laws.

Hutch