F
follower of Christ
Guest
Are you saying that Jesus should have condemned David for eating forbidden bread when he was hungry?Remember said:
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
F
follower of Christ
Guest
I see.Preacher Boy said:
Then you would have had to have condemned David as well when he ate forbidden bread, even tho our Lord does not ?
Typical for those of your doctrinal views.
F
follower of Christ
Guest
When its YOUR daughter thats being raped and abused, then maybe your perspective on this will change.Delicate said:
F
follower of Christ
Guest
Interesting posts....altho nothing new has been offered. Same old, same old....
F
follower of Christ
Guest
http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.c ... ences.html
Evidences of divorce and remarriage in the Church
Assertions/Conclusions of this article:
This article is to show evidence that there were remarried divorcess in the early church who were in fellowship, neither being cast out, nor condemned by the brethren. There were restrictions placed on these individuals, but they were in the church.
Supporting evidence:
1.1)
Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,
(1Ti 5:9)
"Having been the wife of one man"
This requirement clearly is not speaking of a woman who had a man-harem.
There is no real issue of women marrying multiple husbands given in the bible nor in historical accounts.
This leaves either the remarried widow, or the remarried divorcee.
It cannot be a remarried widow as no law prohibited the widow from remarrying. Paul even tells widows;
"I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
(1Co 7:8-9 KJV)
Paul would be setting these widows up to be rejected from this list later if she did remarry.
Also, Paul even insists that younger widows REmarry here...
But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
(1Ti 5:11-14 KJV)
He absolutely would be condemning this woman in later years to be rejected the churches help by forcing her to remarry now.
We know Paul was not so callous and uncaring by his instruction for the helping of widows he gave.
The only possibility for this "wife of one man" is that she was divorced and remarried.
That is the only possibility from scripture as it is the only thing that is clearly corrected in Gods word.
and yet this woman is still in fellowship...not being cast out of the assembly such as the man who had his fathers wife and WAS living in fornication.
Her life was not exemplary, so she couldnt be added to the list of widows, but she WAS in the church and in fellowship.
The requisite for her to have been the wife of ONE man CLEARLY indicates that she COULD have been the wife of more than one husband in her lifetime....aka a remarried divorcee...yet not condemned to hell or cast out of fellowship.
1.2)
1Tim 5:9 Do not let a widow be enrolled having become less than sixty years old, the wife of one man,
Titus 1:6 if anyone is blameless, husband of one wife, having believing children, not accused of loose behavior, or disobedient.
Husband of one wife
We see here that these are requirements of those in higher positions in the church..folks who are to set the EXAMPLE for the rest to follow.
We will discuss the possible meanings here of ''husband of one wife''
It cannot refer to those who are widowed. as the remarried widow(er) was not prohibited or restricted in any manner I have seen, Paul even recommends that younger widows remarry. Paul would be purposefully making it impossible for a woman to later to be accepted to this list of widows for no good reason if he were speaking the remarried widow in 1 tim 5:9 above instead of a remarried divorcee.
To provide evidence from GODS word, lets see this..
"one ruling his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence;
for if one does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God? "
(1Ti 3:4-5 EMTV)
This clearly shows that this man must be one who can maintain his own household, even the obedience of his children. A man whos been divorced and remarried MAY not be the best person for this job.
It is very unlikely that it ONLY speaks to polygamists as there is nothing in the NT that clearly condemns the act and Ive not found that the practice was as rampant as some try to assert...I suggest you do your own study to see if Im right or wrong.
We must see in scipture what meaning to put to this phrase 'husband of one wife'
Of all the possibilities, ONLY divorce and remarriage is corrected clearly in scripture. We can assume that frivolous divorce and remarriage would immediately bar one from the prominent position of bishop.
But Paul makes no distinction, so we must assume that he also means those who divorced an adulteress then remarried as well (just to be on the safe side). Showing that these, although not the most prominent persons, were indeed still in fellowship with the rest of our brethren.
Some will state that this have put away these second marriages, but what I find very peculiar is that, if this matter were so crucial to salvation, Paul should surely have made a point of it. "Only if these second wives have been put away''. The way its left, it sounds very much like they could have still been with the person.
Another issue is that those of the anti-remarriage camp state that this second "marriage" is not a marriage at all, but an adulterous affair.
The clear implication above is that the second marriage is a recognized one, if it weren't, then Paul would have simply called these people adulterers and surely they wouldnt even be in fellowship. Let alone being considered for the position of Bishop.
It is also notable that Paul nowhere states that these second marriages were invalid, nor does he state that these people were to have left this second spouse. In fact, in 1 cor 7 Paul tells these frivolously parted from their spouse to ''remain UNmarried or reconcile........"...showing that REmarriage is quite possible indeed even if wrong to do.
Some folks will use a preposterous example of Paul also not telling gays to separate (or some other irrelevant distraction), but Jesus offered NO exception to gay couples, did He ? His exception is clearly speaking of a MAN and a WOMAN...and husband and a wife when He made His exception for sexual sin.
Evidences of divorce and remarriage in the Church
Assertions/Conclusions of this article:
This article is to show evidence that there were remarried divorcess in the early church who were in fellowship, neither being cast out, nor condemned by the brethren. There were restrictions placed on these individuals, but they were in the church.
Supporting evidence:
1.1)
Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,
(1Ti 5:9)
"Having been the wife of one man"
This requirement clearly is not speaking of a woman who had a man-harem.
There is no real issue of women marrying multiple husbands given in the bible nor in historical accounts.
This leaves either the remarried widow, or the remarried divorcee.
It cannot be a remarried widow as no law prohibited the widow from remarrying. Paul even tells widows;
"I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
(1Co 7:8-9 KJV)
Paul would be setting these widows up to be rejected from this list later if she did remarry.
Also, Paul even insists that younger widows REmarry here...
But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
(1Ti 5:11-14 KJV)
He absolutely would be condemning this woman in later years to be rejected the churches help by forcing her to remarry now.
We know Paul was not so callous and uncaring by his instruction for the helping of widows he gave.
The only possibility for this "wife of one man" is that she was divorced and remarried.
That is the only possibility from scripture as it is the only thing that is clearly corrected in Gods word.
and yet this woman is still in fellowship...not being cast out of the assembly such as the man who had his fathers wife and WAS living in fornication.
Her life was not exemplary, so she couldnt be added to the list of widows, but she WAS in the church and in fellowship.
The requisite for her to have been the wife of ONE man CLEARLY indicates that she COULD have been the wife of more than one husband in her lifetime....aka a remarried divorcee...yet not condemned to hell or cast out of fellowship.
1.2)
1Tim 5:9 Do not let a widow be enrolled having become less than sixty years old, the wife of one man,
Titus 1:6 if anyone is blameless, husband of one wife, having believing children, not accused of loose behavior, or disobedient.
Husband of one wife
We see here that these are requirements of those in higher positions in the church..folks who are to set the EXAMPLE for the rest to follow.
We will discuss the possible meanings here of ''husband of one wife''
It cannot refer to those who are widowed. as the remarried widow(er) was not prohibited or restricted in any manner I have seen, Paul even recommends that younger widows remarry. Paul would be purposefully making it impossible for a woman to later to be accepted to this list of widows for no good reason if he were speaking the remarried widow in 1 tim 5:9 above instead of a remarried divorcee.
To provide evidence from GODS word, lets see this..
"one ruling his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence;
for if one does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God? "
(1Ti 3:4-5 EMTV)
This clearly shows that this man must be one who can maintain his own household, even the obedience of his children. A man whos been divorced and remarried MAY not be the best person for this job.
It is very unlikely that it ONLY speaks to polygamists as there is nothing in the NT that clearly condemns the act and Ive not found that the practice was as rampant as some try to assert...I suggest you do your own study to see if Im right or wrong.
We must see in scipture what meaning to put to this phrase 'husband of one wife'
Of all the possibilities, ONLY divorce and remarriage is corrected clearly in scripture. We can assume that frivolous divorce and remarriage would immediately bar one from the prominent position of bishop.
But Paul makes no distinction, so we must assume that he also means those who divorced an adulteress then remarried as well (just to be on the safe side). Showing that these, although not the most prominent persons, were indeed still in fellowship with the rest of our brethren.
Some will state that this have put away these second marriages, but what I find very peculiar is that, if this matter were so crucial to salvation, Paul should surely have made a point of it. "Only if these second wives have been put away''. The way its left, it sounds very much like they could have still been with the person.
Another issue is that those of the anti-remarriage camp state that this second "marriage" is not a marriage at all, but an adulterous affair.
The clear implication above is that the second marriage is a recognized one, if it weren't, then Paul would have simply called these people adulterers and surely they wouldnt even be in fellowship. Let alone being considered for the position of Bishop.
It is also notable that Paul nowhere states that these second marriages were invalid, nor does he state that these people were to have left this second spouse. In fact, in 1 cor 7 Paul tells these frivolously parted from their spouse to ''remain UNmarried or reconcile........"...showing that REmarriage is quite possible indeed even if wrong to do.
Some folks will use a preposterous example of Paul also not telling gays to separate (or some other irrelevant distraction), but Jesus offered NO exception to gay couples, did He ? His exception is clearly speaking of a MAN and a WOMAN...and husband and a wife when He made His exception for sexual sin.
F
follower of Christ
Guest
A little background on divorce.
The error made by some teachings is that they believe, or seem to, that Deut 24:1-4 is a permission to divorce and thus it lays out the allowances for divorce. This simply is not true.
Putting away a wife had been going on for quite some time in the desert there during the times of Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. This putting away was being done by very hardhearted Hebrews, remember, this is the same group of people who had made the golden calf to worship it. Many Hebrews had little concern for God or His statutes.
One symptom of this hardheartedness, among others, was a complete lack of regard for Gods union of marriage. These were casting aside their wives for no reason (among other sexual immoralities), which Moses had to permit or else risk having this monstrous men literally torment or kill their wives.
If you break open your bibles to Leviticus 21, you will see that neither the priests, nor the high priest, could marry a woman who was put away ('divorced') from her husband. Nor could they take widows, harlots, etc. They were to marry ONLY a virgin of Israel.
These women who were not permitted to be taken by the priests there are these that had been put away from their husbands for just about any reason that the man could think up.
When we get to Deut 24:1-4, Moses laying out regulation for this putting away that had already been going on. He isnt laying out an ordinance for some new thing called 'divorce', he was placing limitations on what was already occuring in Israel.
Thus he isnt 'defining' what is permissible for divorce in Deut 24:1, they had already defined this putting away 'for EVERY cause' with the manner in which they had been tossing their wives out, Moses is simply stating that if this man has put her away for the causes he had been, which is pretty much anything he deemed as 'unclean' about her, then he MUST give her a bill of divorce and once REmarried she could never be his wife again.
Moses didn't define exactly what the cause of divorce was for, the Hebrew people did with their frivolous reasonings for this putting away, thus the reason for the ambiguous phrase "ervah dabar"...he is, in this regulation, saying that when this man has taken a wife and has found disfavor with her (as the Jews were doing), some ambiguous 'uncleaness' (ceremonial uncleaness is not completely out of line here), then he is to write her a bill of divorce and put it in her hand and send her out (if he wishes to do so, this wasnt a commandment obviously since God would never "command" a man to divorce frivolously or at all).
To make it clearer, Moses isn't defining what they CAN put their wives over in Deut 24:1-4, he is defining what they HAD been putting away their wives for...which any study will show that it was for just about any reason they could think up.
The problem in Jesus day was that instead of helping the situation, Deut 24:1-4 made it worse because now the men turned this 'allowance' into a 'commandment' (see Matt 19) so that not only were these hardhearted ones putting away their wives for no just cause, but now they had a scapegoat to put the blame on....Moses...since supposedly he had commanded them to divorce.
When you read all the relevant passages regarding this issue, keep these things in mind and see if they dont start all making sense to you
The error made by some teachings is that they believe, or seem to, that Deut 24:1-4 is a permission to divorce and thus it lays out the allowances for divorce. This simply is not true.
Putting away a wife had been going on for quite some time in the desert there during the times of Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. This putting away was being done by very hardhearted Hebrews, remember, this is the same group of people who had made the golden calf to worship it. Many Hebrews had little concern for God or His statutes.
One symptom of this hardheartedness, among others, was a complete lack of regard for Gods union of marriage. These were casting aside their wives for no reason (among other sexual immoralities), which Moses had to permit or else risk having this monstrous men literally torment or kill their wives.
If you break open your bibles to Leviticus 21, you will see that neither the priests, nor the high priest, could marry a woman who was put away ('divorced') from her husband. Nor could they take widows, harlots, etc. They were to marry ONLY a virgin of Israel.
These women who were not permitted to be taken by the priests there are these that had been put away from their husbands for just about any reason that the man could think up.
When we get to Deut 24:1-4, Moses laying out regulation for this putting away that had already been going on. He isnt laying out an ordinance for some new thing called 'divorce', he was placing limitations on what was already occuring in Israel.
Thus he isnt 'defining' what is permissible for divorce in Deut 24:1, they had already defined this putting away 'for EVERY cause' with the manner in which they had been tossing their wives out, Moses is simply stating that if this man has put her away for the causes he had been, which is pretty much anything he deemed as 'unclean' about her, then he MUST give her a bill of divorce and once REmarried she could never be his wife again.
Moses didn't define exactly what the cause of divorce was for, the Hebrew people did with their frivolous reasonings for this putting away, thus the reason for the ambiguous phrase "ervah dabar"...he is, in this regulation, saying that when this man has taken a wife and has found disfavor with her (as the Jews were doing), some ambiguous 'uncleaness' (ceremonial uncleaness is not completely out of line here), then he is to write her a bill of divorce and put it in her hand and send her out (if he wishes to do so, this wasnt a commandment obviously since God would never "command" a man to divorce frivolously or at all).
To make it clearer, Moses isn't defining what they CAN put their wives over in Deut 24:1-4, he is defining what they HAD been putting away their wives for...which any study will show that it was for just about any reason they could think up.
The problem in Jesus day was that instead of helping the situation, Deut 24:1-4 made it worse because now the men turned this 'allowance' into a 'commandment' (see Matt 19) so that not only were these hardhearted ones putting away their wives for no just cause, but now they had a scapegoat to put the blame on....Moses...since supposedly he had commanded them to divorce.
When you read all the relevant passages regarding this issue, keep these things in mind and see if they dont start all making sense to you
I'm twice divorced and have no intention of there being a third. My first "wife" was never faithful and had many men while we were together including my relatives. The second one started criticizing EVERYTHING I said and did after the first two weeks, and after more than 7 months of being constantly criticized we ended it. Both of them claimed to be Christians. God allows us to make our own mistakes and to hopefully learn from them. What I learned is that I should have never gotten married in the first place.
F
follower of Christ
Guest
This is like deja vu.Jon-Marc said:
My first wife slept with both my brother and the man who was my step father until I was 12 or so. She even fooled around with a 'friend' or two of mine.
Altho I did find the most wonderful woman in the world the third time round.
My second wife was cheating fairly early on.
She was a little older than me, little less than two years, and I think because of that age difference, in her mind she was the 'man' of the family, even tho her track record of acting like an 'adult' was pretty scary.
I divorced her after she made it clear that she was refusing to give up her lover.
Same here.
BOTH said they were christians, my first wife lured me in with this nonsense. Turns out that church was merely a place to pick up guys for her.
AMEN AND AMEN !!
It would have saved me 17 years of heartache and high blood pressure not to mention the financial destruction these ladies caused...yes, at one point in life I had outstanding credit.
If I had only waited on God Id never have married until Laura came along.
But I had to go and pull a Sarah and try to force His hand.
God may yet have someone out there for you, brother. Dont discount the possibility. But I do know that I was completely prepared to live the rest of my life as happy as could be alone. There actually is nothing wrong or bad about living a single life. Nothing at all.
F
follower of Christ
Guest
I feel your pain, man.Jon-Marc said:
I couldnt believe my second wifes attitude. Its not like I was a bad husband and she just couldnt take it anymore. If that had been the case, it would be understandable.
I just stopped letting her manipulate me after 12 years of hell, and when she realized I was not letting her control me emotionally anymore she tried to stike back by having another affair.
But her refusal to end it was what got me. This was the first affair she decided she was going to continue.
She expected me to keep her rent and bills paid so she could move this man in with her after I left...can you believe that tripe?
I know what you mean to. I sometimes doubt whether or not my daughter is actually mine or not.
She looks like me a lot, but then, so did the guy my ex was cheating with when she got pregnant...same build, eye and hair color, same facial shape, same skin tone....it was uncanny.
I love my daughter tho, and it would crush her to find out differently, so I wil never subject her to even knowing that there is any question in this. Ill take it to my grave.
One thing for sure....your daughters and grandchildren are yours. No one can take them away from you. Just be there when they need you and you'll always have that
B
beehive2
Guest
Even though this post has become rather old, it is fairly new to me :-D
I divorced my ex-husband because he
1. Was physically abusive
2. Was emotionally abusive
4. Was and still is an alcoholic
3. Commited adultery many, many, many, many times.
I did not find out the truth of his adulteries, but suspected for years, until 3 months before the day I left, to be exact, Christmas Eve morning by a friend I didn't even know I had. I still thank God for her everyday... :smt038
The infidelity I learned about on Christmas Eve morning was that he had another child with another woman, 2 months before I gave birth to my second child. Our children are 10 months apart, so for him to have the 3rd child was quite disturbing, knowing he was commiting adultery while I was pregnant with my first child, maybe even the night I went into labor and couldn't find him up until the time I got pregnant with my second child, and thereafter. I spoke to the woman myself and she confirmed everything, she knew about me, he told her we weren't together, but she saw our carseats in the back of MY car. Now she said "carseats" not "carseat", which meant he continued the affair well after the birth of my second child. And this is only one affair that I had found out the whole truth about, and he still denied it.
I did try to make our marriage work over and over, my fiance could attest to that, as he was one of those people who tried to get my ex-husband to see the light.
But there was no hope in saving the marriage. The end result? I divorced him. And I feel with good cause in God's eyes.
So, after everything I had been through with my first marriage, which was never a good marriage due to his infidelities, lies, abuse and alcoholism, I am not allowed to remarry? Why would Jesus or God condemn me to a life of loneliness, or not allow me to find the right man to remarry, in which we could both live out our Christian lives together, in faith, peace and trust and love?
In my opinion, I would think it would have to be based on the situation the divorce happened... I would only hope.
:
I divorced my ex-husband because he
1. Was physically abusive
2. Was emotionally abusive
4. Was and still is an alcoholic
3. Commited adultery many, many, many, many times.
I did not find out the truth of his adulteries, but suspected for years, until 3 months before the day I left, to be exact, Christmas Eve morning by a friend I didn't even know I had. I still thank God for her everyday... :smt038
The infidelity I learned about on Christmas Eve morning was that he had another child with another woman, 2 months before I gave birth to my second child. Our children are 10 months apart, so for him to have the 3rd child was quite disturbing, knowing he was commiting adultery while I was pregnant with my first child, maybe even the night I went into labor and couldn't find him up until the time I got pregnant with my second child, and thereafter. I spoke to the woman myself and she confirmed everything, she knew about me, he told her we weren't together, but she saw our carseats in the back of MY car. Now she said "carseats" not "carseat", which meant he continued the affair well after the birth of my second child. And this is only one affair that I had found out the whole truth about, and he still denied it.
I did try to make our marriage work over and over, my fiance could attest to that, as he was one of those people who tried to get my ex-husband to see the light.
But there was no hope in saving the marriage. The end result? I divorced him. And I feel with good cause in God's eyes.
So, after everything I had been through with my first marriage, which was never a good marriage due to his infidelities, lies, abuse and alcoholism, I am not allowed to remarry? Why would Jesus or God condemn me to a life of loneliness, or not allow me to find the right man to remarry, in which we could both live out our Christian lives together, in faith, peace and trust and love?
In my opinion, I would think it would have to be based on the situation the divorce happened... I would only hope.
:
F
follower of Christ
Guest
ZaksDarlin said:Even though this post has become rather old, it is fairly new to me :-D
I divorced my ex-husband because he
1. Was physically abusive
2. Was emotionally abusive
4. Was and still is an alcoholic
3. Commited adultery many, many, many, many times.
I did not find out the truth of his adulteries, but suspected for years, until 3 months before the day I left, to be exact, Christmas Eve morning by a friend I didn't even know I had. I still thank God for her everyday... :smt038
The infidelity I learned about on Christmas Eve morning was that he had another child with another woman, 2 months before I gave birth to my second child. Our children are 10 months apart, so for him to have the 3rd child was quite disturbing, knowing he was commiting adultery while I was pregnant with my first child, maybe even the night I went into labor and couldn't find him up until the time I got pregnant with my second child, and thereafter. I spoke to the woman myself and she confirmed everything, she knew about me, he told her we weren't together, but she saw our carseats in the back of MY car. Now she said "carseats" not "carseat", which meant he continued the affair well after the birth of my second child. And this is only one affair that I had found out the whole truth about, and he still denied it.
I did try to make our marriage work over and over, my fiance could attest to that, as he was one of those people who tried to get my ex-husband to see the light.
But there was no hope in saving the marriage. The end result? I divorced him. And I feel with good cause in God's eyes.
So, after everything I had been through with my first marriage, which was never a good marriage due to his infidelities, lies, abuse and alcoholism, I am not allowed to remarry? Why would Jesus or God condemn me to a life of loneliness, or not allow me to find the right man to remarry, in which we could both live out our Christian lives together, in faith, peace and trust and love?
In my opinion, I would think it would have to be based on the situation the divorce happened... I would only hope.
Hi
well, right off you have Christ defending a remarriage in your case if your ex was cheating.
There are other cases where divorce is not unlawful and remarriage is usually assumed.
P
Preacher Boy
Guest
Mark 10:3-5
(3) And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
(4) And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
(5) And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
Question: Is your heart so hard you are looking for a way to disobey the Word of God?
Mark 10:8-12
(8 ) And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
(9) What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
(10) And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
(11) And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
(12) And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
1 Corinthians 7:10-11
(10) And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
(11) But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
If one takes a single verse out out the bible it may seem like its OK to do so.
If you leave that one verse in the bible along with the others around it, then it will stay in the context God intended.
So here we have not Paul, but God saying Not To Let it happen.
God said what to do, now if you don't care what God said is best and you do what you want then stay single or you will be committing adultery!
Now in the case of an unbelieving spouse leaving the saved it would seem that you are not under the bondage of the vow, NOT SURE, THAT IS WHAT IT APPEARS TO SEEM. I will get back to you on his part later.
(3) And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
(4) And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
(5) And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
Question: Is your heart so hard you are looking for a way to disobey the Word of God?
Mark 10:8-12
(8 ) And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
(9) What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
(10) And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
(11) And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
(12) And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
1 Corinthians 7:10-11
(10) And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
(11) But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
If one takes a single verse out out the bible it may seem like its OK to do so.
If you leave that one verse in the bible along with the others around it, then it will stay in the context God intended.
God said:
So here we have not Paul, but God saying Not To Let it happen.
God said:
God said what to do, now if you don't care what God said is best and you do what you want then stay single or you will be committing adultery!
God said:
Now in the case of an unbelieving spouse leaving the saved it would seem that you are not under the bondage of the vow, NOT SURE, THAT IS WHAT IT APPEARS TO SEEM. I will get back to you on his part later.
God said:
F
follower of Christ
Guest
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
For the truth about remarriage...
Evidences of divorce and remarriage in the Church
The conditional marriage covenant
Unmarried†- 1 Corinthians 7
"Let not man put asunder/separate" / "Let the unbeliever depart"
Does the bible permit putting away a spouse for abuse?
Are vows always ''unbreakable
The wife is bound by law until the husband is dead
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 cannot be about sexual sin
Moses...the biggest sinner and lawbreaker of all time
"Porneia...aka "fornication"
The shock value/distraction of divorce statistics
Gay ‘unions’ are incomparable to remarriages
1 Corinthians 7 Study
For the truth about remarriage...
Evidences of divorce and remarriage in the Church
The conditional marriage covenant
Unmarried†- 1 Corinthians 7
"Let not man put asunder/separate" / "Let the unbeliever depart"
Does the bible permit putting away a spouse for abuse?
Are vows always ''unbreakable
The wife is bound by law until the husband is dead
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 cannot be about sexual sin
Moses...the biggest sinner and lawbreaker of all time
"Porneia...aka "fornication"
The shock value/distraction of divorce statistics
Gay ‘unions’ are incomparable to remarriages
1 Corinthians 7 Study
P
Preacher Boy
Guest
You should have a clown for an avatar :bday:
Why would there be any argument from the OT regarding NT marriage?
Why would you want to see what the Word is really saying when we can take a verse here and there and make it say whatever we want? OK I see your point.
Some good arguments and some were sloppy!
Anything else, what do you mean "else", you didn't offer anything yet.
Why would there be any argument from the OT regarding NT marriage?
follower of Christ said:
Why would you want to see what the Word is really saying when we can take a verse here and there and make it say whatever we want? OK I see your point.
follower of Christ said:
Some good arguments and some were sloppy!
follower of Christ said:
Anything else, what do you mean "else", you didn't offer anything yet.
F
follower of Christ
Guest
Do the have any 'pharisee' avatars here ? ;)Preacher Boy said:
I always love these nonsense questions.
If it were up to some folks, Id bet we may as well throw the WHOLE OT out...kwim?
The OT lays quite a foundation concerning covenants, including the marriage covenant.
Of course you would want to remove the material that explains what Jesus is speaking about in Matt 19....its the only way to get this error to work.
Some have yet to be reworked to the new format... that doesnt affect the points made.
Do you have any refutations to offer ?
Do you know how the links given work?
There was quite a bit given in those links, enough to completely dismiss your error.
You simply must be missing it
Are you going to offer any refutations?
How about we start with this one?
Is divorce 'sin' by default?
http://www.theassemblyministries.com/page6.html
And then move on to this...
Is ALL divorce for 'hardness of heart" ?
http://www.theassemblyministries.com/page5.html
P
Preacher Boy
Guest
We are just going to bump heads here and I don't want to argue about it with you...besides from other threads i see you have spent 3+solid years studying Marriage so you have all your arguments down and aren't budging...so peace brother and enjoy your evening.
F
follower of Christ
Guest
Your choicePreacher Boy said:
I always like to have a fresh perspective to pit my views against....iron sharpens iron, you know ?
Im not budging simply because I know that my view takes all of the relevant information into account.
For example, Ive seen a lot of your doctrine say that 'God hates divorce' and use that to forbid divorce. Yet the WHOLE truth shows that God Himself gave Israel a bill of divorce.
This means that saying God hates divorce is only presenting part of the information and it is usually simply to push an agenda.
Again we have example of you folks saying that divorce is for hardheartedness and is 'sin'.
On that matter we clearly see, again, that God Himself gave Israel a bill of divorce leaving us to try to understand how a God who supposedly hates all divorce, calls all divorce sin and says all divorce is for hardheartedness actually GAVE a bill of divorcment Himself.
On this issues, and many others, we can try to make up any excuses we wish to try to explain the context of the whole of scripture away, but it becomes clear to the person who is interested in ALL the facts that simply saying "God hates divorce" (or any other mantra one can think up) doesnt really say a whole lot of anything other than God isnt really happy when a covenant is brought to an end.
It surely doesnt show that the one presenting the bill of divorce is always hardhearted or sinning, according to the whole of the information given in scripture.
If you change your mind, let me know
Im always interested in hearing new ideas on the matter
S
Silverchild79
Guest
well I voted and I was going to post something and then I read follower of Christ's posts and realized I had nothing left to say.
Just as with the moderate consumption of alcohol or dancing, this is another category within God's law where you can fall off of the road on EITHER side
Just as with the moderate consumption of alcohol or dancing, this is another category within God's law where you can fall off of the road on EITHER side
F
follower of Christ
Guest
I dont think Ive ever heard it put so well in so short a sentenceSilverchild79 said:
The extreme ends of this issue are just like looking at the extremes of Hypercalvinism vs someone who believes that we not only have complete free will, but that in order for God to do anything in this world WE must somehow "permit" Him (by prayer, actions we take, etc) as I heard on an old radio ministry 22 years ago.
With this MDR thing we have those who believe in divorce for just any old reason. As long as the paperwork is filed then they think God is ok with it. They make the bill of divorce the real topic of discussion in Matt 19 instead of frivolous divorce (for every cause).
Then we have the other end who refuse anyone divorce.
I literally talked to a group a couple years ago who said even separation is forbidden...EVEN if the spouse is literally trying to murder you. They told me that it is Gods will for a woman to stay with the man and even die at His hands if need be so that the marriage is covenant is not broken.
How in the word can these two doctrines even claim to be based on the same scriptures when they are so blatantly opposed to one another?
Either side of the road is pretty much dead on target.
I think the answer is in the middle, at least that is the impression I get from His whole word. God hates divorcement, but also understands that sometimes we have pretty much no choice but to divorce.