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!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Double Marriage

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$1,048.00
Goal
$1,038.00
Also, two mistakes don't right the first mistake! Kinda thing.
 
Klee-Shay, I am not going to respond to any of this conversation while respecting your opinion, it is not what I get from scripture. I just wanted to say that they didn't bring their wedding sheets to prove that they were married, they brought the sheet to prove that the bride was a virgin. With out the blood-stained cloth the man could then file for a divorce. It also says that if he chose not to divorce her then he must forgive her and was not allowed to hold it against her in the future.
 
Thanks Von, I knew it had something to do with the sheets on the wedding night. You are absolutely correct in that it proved she was a virgin but by default, it was also a vindication of a bonafide marriage. If it wasn't, then what grounds would he have for divorce?

I didn't mean to confuse the issue though by not remembering the exact story. Please accept my apologies.

Klee-Shay, I am not going to respond to any of this conversation while respecting your opinion, it is not what I get from scripture.

Is that just regarding the issue of the wedding night sheets, or about the issue of remarriage?
 
von said:
Amity: Thanks for your imput but I am really interested in speaking with someone who does not believe in divorce and remarriage. I guess most people believe in it in some form or another. I don't think you would understand since you believe in it. I'm just taking that from you saying that your spouse committed fornication. I'm assuming you mean cheated on you. That is not fornication, that is adultery. Thanks anyhow? Von
The Matt exception clauses dont say ''fornication'' as we understand the word.
They say 'harlotry'' or ''whoredom'' using the greek ''porneia'' which is all inclusive of all sexual sin.

So Jesus didnt say ''except for adultery'' or "except for fornication'', He said ''except for sexual sin'' you cannot divorce and remarry without commiting adultery.
 
It also says that if he chose not to divorce her then he must forgive her and was not allowed to hold it against her in the future.
Im very interested in the chapter and verse for this one if you dont mind in your next post. :)
 
Porneia
Whoredom, harlotry, illicit sex of any kind.
This included every sexual sin of every nature.
Sex with men, women, animals or any other perversion in existance or any new ones that a person can come up with.
This can be commited by anyone. A husband or wife or a single person.
When porneia (any sexual sin) is carried out by the married, the crime of adultery is commited.

In Acts 15 and 21, four items are given for gentiles to abstain from as presented in the following verses.
Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication(G4202, same as the exception clause in Matthew).
1. Things offered to idols
2. blood
3. Things strangled
4. fornication (G4202 same as the exception clause).

I ask those who say fornication (porneia G4202) is premarital sex only and not adultery, why is it that Paul ONLY used ''porneia'' in Acts 15 and 21 and didnt seem to think it necessary to mention ''adultery'' as something to abstain from as well?
Hes already on the topic of sexual sin here, why not mention the big one *IF* adultery is a separate sin?

The reason is "porneia'' covers ANY sexual sin.
When Paul used it in Acts 15, he was laying out a blanket coverage for ANY sexual sin, that we abstain from ALL sexual sin.
''Porneia'' (whoredom, harlotry), by default, would be ''adultery'' within a marriage, there was no need to mention adultery, it was covered.

When Jesus' words were rendered as ''porneia'' in Matt 5:32 and 19:9, He was saying the same thing ''Sexual Sin'' or whoredom.
Jesus did not use the word we know as fornication (aka PREmarital sex)
He used a word, the same as Pauls in Acts 15, that covers ALL sexual sin....whoredom.
We cannot divorce our spouse and remarry without commiting adultery against that union, EXCEPT for any sexual sin.
 
First of all in Luke Jesus said we are responsible from the time of John so, it did not matter that Jesus had not come yet.
Secondly, Matt. 19:9 says, fornication. I would like to here your explanation of the meaning of adultery and the meaning of fornication. If fornication covers all sexual sins, then what is adultery?
i will look for the other verse which you mentioned.
 
von said:
First of all in Luke Jesus said we are responsible from the time of John so, it did not matter that Jesus had not come yet.
Uh, sure it does.
John accused Herod with the LAW, not the teachings of Jesus that didnt exist yet.
Johns ministry started the process.

Are you saying a Jew 400 miles away from John was ''responsible'' for Jesus teachings the day John came out of the wilderness and started to teach?
If so, that is absurd.

Jesus had not yet taught that things were being returned to their original state.
For you to say that Herod was accountable for this before it was even taught is preposterous to say the least.


again, John said ''it is not LAWFUL for you...........'
Herod was accused with Levitical law, not the teachings of Christ which did not yet exist.

Get it?

Secondly, Matt. 19:9 says, fornication.
Uh, no, that is what SOME english bibles say.
The word means harlotry.
Do you own a Strongs or another dictionary?
Porneia is ANY sexual sin, including prostitution, adultery, incest, etc.


I would like to here your explanation of the meaning of adultery and the meaning of fornication.


If fornication covers all sexual sins, then what is adultery?
Porneia is ALL sexual sin.
It is all encompassing.
When a married person commits sexual sin it is what crime?


i will look for the other verse which you mentioned.
No offense, but if youre in here ''teaching'' you should have known the NT like the backs of your hands.
 
First of all in Luke Jesus said we are responsible from the time of John so, it did not matter that Jesus had not come yet.

Jesus said the law and the prophets were until John.
Jesus never says that men were accountable to JESUS' teachings before He had even taught anything.

John accused Herod with the Law, plain and simple.
Herod and Herodias were in direct defiance of at least 2 Levitical laws.

And surely exhibited lack of respect for Gods union of marriage when they callously put away spouses for the sole purpose of fulfilling their lustful desires.
 
Actually, if you go back to the beginning of this thread, it was not posted to lead where it has gone. I posted a question to here from people who believe the way that I do and this is what it turned into. I'd appreciate it if in the future you don't "scold" me like I am a child. You are not my authority. You can find whatever scripture verses you want on your own. You seem to have all of the answers. I don't believe what you people say and nothing you say is going to change that so you might as well not give me your views unless you want to hear mine. I just love the way people on these forums try to silence the truth. If it is not your way we are not to speak. Sorry!
 
von said:
Actually, if you go back to the beginning of this thread, it was not posted to lead where it has gone. I posted a question to here from people who believe the way that I do and this is what it turned into.
Rarely do threads stay the intended course.

I'd appreciate it if in the future you don't "scold" me like I am a child. You are not my authority.
Take it upon yourself to teach and expect those who have studied the topic out entirely to do whatever necessary to preach the truth.



You can find whatever scripture verses you want on your own.
Looking at the sheer number of hours I spend in study, Im sure Ill find the ones Im looking for :)


You seem to have all of the answers.
The question is, are you actually willing to test what you believe?
I reexamine my beliefs every time I get into one of these discussion.



I don't believe what you people say and nothing you say is going to change that so you might as well not give me your views unless you want to hear mine.
Im here, arent I?
Preach away.
Expect to be proven wrong if you are wrong though.
Id expect you to be just as relentless in presenting the truth if I am in err.

I just love the way people on these forums try to silence the truth. If it is not your way we are not to speak. Sorry!
Who has stifled you?
Is this some sort of persecution syndrome?

I see your posts here, no one has deleted them.
:)
 
Von.

I too have been in a position of having to know God's truth on the divorce / remarriage issue- and I concur with you (and others here), that remarriage after divorce to anyone other than the original covenant spouse constitutes adultry, by Jesus' definition.

What a blessing to find others of precious like mind- and faith to deny one's own flesh to walk on in obedience to what scripture plainly teaches.
 
von said:
Actually, if you go back to the beginning of this thread, it was not posted to lead where it has gone. I posted a question to here from people who believe the way that I do and this is what it turned into. I'd appreciate it if in the future you don't "scold" me like I am a child. You are not my authority. You can find whatever scripture verses you want on your own. You seem to have all of the answers. I don't believe what you people say and nothing you say is going to change that so you might as well not give me your views unless you want to hear mine. I just love the way people on these forums try to silence the truth. If it is not your way we are not to speak. Sorry!


Agree completely with you, Von- on all points. With you, I WILL NOT be silenced. I'm so humbled by the Lord's gentle conviction and CLEAR instruction- I will NEVER forsake what He's shown me. I will not be counted among the tares- those who have a form of godliness but deny the power to forsake sin.
 
Delicate said:
Von.

I too have been in a position of having to know God's truth on the divorce / remarriage issue- and I concur with you (and others here), that remarriage after divorce to anyone other than the original covenant spouse constitutes adultry, by Jesus' definition.

What a blessing to find others of precious like mind- and faith to deny one's own flesh to walk on in obedience to what scripture plainly teaches.

Odd.
You say ANYONE other than the original covenant spouse, yet we KNOW that Jesus stated the exception clause permitting divorce from a ''covenanted spouse'' for whoredom.

"Betrothal'' was LAWFULLY married.
So your post makes no sense, no offense, because Jesus is clearly stating in Matthew that except for whoredom one cannot divorce and remarry without commiting adultery.

*IF* you are using JEWISH customs for your argument, then JEWISH costum shows that ''betrothed'' was NOT a PREmarital state, it was LAWFULLY binding until death or whoredom.
 
Delicate said:
Agree completely with you, Von- on all points. With you, I WILL NOT be silenced. I'm so humbled by the Lord's gentle conviction and CLEAR instruction- I will NEVER forsake what He's shown me. I will not be counted among the tares- those who have a form of godliness but deny the power to forsake sin.

counted among the tares???
are you now stating that those of us who believe this way are going to hell?
 
follower of Christ said:
Delicate said:
Agree completely with you, Von- on all points. With you, I WILL NOT be silenced. I'm so humbled by the Lord's gentle conviction and CLEAR instruction- I will NEVER forsake what He's shown me. I will not be counted among the tares- those who have a form of godliness but deny the power to forsake sin.

counted among the tares???
are you now stating that those of us who believe this way are going to hell?
That is a very good question and one that I feel needs to be addressed by F.O.C.... Please let us know the meaning of your statement.

Also, again, people need to take a breath before making posts that are insulting, belittling, or otherwise inflammatory. If these things happen, threads get locked and warnings get issued. We do not have to agree but we DO have to treat eachother civilly and with respect.
 
Lyric's Dad said:
[quote="follower of Christ":biggrin7765]
Delicate said:
Agree completely with you, Von- on all points. With you, I WILL NOT be silenced. I'm so humbled by the Lord's gentle conviction and CLEAR instruction- I will NEVER forsake what He's shown me. I will not be counted among the tares- those who have a form of godliness but deny the power to forsake sin.

counted among the tares???
are you now stating that those of us who believe this way are going to hell?
That is a very good question and one that I feel needs to be addressed by F.O.C.... Please let us know the meaning of your statement.

Also, again, people need to take a breath before making posts that are insulting, belittling, or otherwise inflammatory. If these things happen, threads get locked and warnings get issued. We do not have to agree but we DO have to treat eachother civilly and with respect.[/quote:biggrin7765]

addressed by me?
I didnt make the comment, I quoted Delicates post that made it.
 
My mistake. Sorry :oops:

Delicate, please explain what you meant by the comment.
 
Lyric's Dad said:
My mistake. Sorry :oops:

Delicate, please explain what you meant by the comment.

Lyric's Dad,
My appologies in that stating 'I will not be counted among the tares...' may imply a superiority- not my intention. God knows I have struggles, just as anyone on this forum does.

I do feel Jesus is clear on the issue presented in this thread, and offers forgiveness in true repentance (agreeing with Him, and forsaking the offense). I rest on the word, and submit to your authority.
 
Back
Top