Divorce and Luke 16:18

[follower of Christ]

No, Paul does NOT separate what God joins...!!!

WHAT A JOKE !
Since this chap is UNable to READ and see the facts this is for you readers to whom I am now turning my attention to.
READERS SEE->Click->>> "Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart"

Christ said let no man put asunder, yet YOU would have an exception IMMEDIATELY AFTER Christ says this. You have entirely diminished the Words of Christ.

Christ said LET NOT in response to FRIVOLOUS putting away.
He can give EXCEPTION because He NEVER SAID 'CANNOT' as you fallaciously believe !

READERS SEE->Click->>> "Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart"

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

And yet...
READERS SEE->Click->>> "Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart"

God does not join the heathen "marriages".

ahhhh...here we go.
So when two UNBELIEVERS marry YOU claim they ARENT actually married.
Sorry but that makes NO sense given Pauls instruction to the Corinthians who came to Christ and were told NOT to divorce their UNbelieving spouse.
*IF what you claim WERE true then they wouldnt BE married when they became christians as God didnt 'join' their heathen marriage.
Or are you going to need to push some ridiculous error that EVERY Corinthian believer AFTER coming to salvation purposefully married an UNbeliever and that is what Paul is addressing? Preposterous !
No friend, they BECAME believers and many times had a spouse who didnt. Their marriage WAS marriage PRIOR to becoming saved and REMAINED a marriage afterward.

Your views, quite frankly, are ridiculous.

Only those of His People, either the Jews or the Christians. Either the people of the Old or New Covenant. The community does not bind those who are not of the community.

God recognizes ANY and ALL lawful marriages, Im afraid.
IF He didnt then if two UNbelievers became saved theyd IMMEDIATLY be living in fornication....preposterous nonsense !

I remind you of the terms of the Pauline privelege...
It applies to the non-Christian, one not bound by the Law, either established by Moses OR Christ. Thus, Paul provides a pastoral exception, since Christ was addressing the People of God, not all people throughout the world.

God does not join a "marriage" outside of the Church.

Utter nonsense.
God recognizes ALL marriages that are between a man and a woman who are permitted to marry regardless of their religious background.
Otherwise EVERY couple who becomes believers would IMMEDIATELY be living in fornication.

All I see you doing now, poster, is trying to cover your tracks for your fallacious points made in your previous post.

Try to remember, in Christ's "time", there WERE no Gentile marriages allowed by the Law then in force. It was against the Law to marry a non-believer. Thus, Jesus would not address the "Pauline privelege". Only later, when Christians married Gentile non-believers did Paul find it necessary to address the issue.

Regards

Ridiculous nonsense.
I demand you show PROOF from something OTHER than your fallible ECFs for this assertion.

Paul was addressing Corinthians who WERE formerly married and ONE had become a believer. he FULLY acknowledged their marriages AS marriages and *IF* the tripe you believe WERE true he would have had to inform them that their marriages WERENT recognized by God.

You are really digging yourself into a whole here.

 

[follower of Christ]

But as you said, it is just a broken record that does not register with you.

Regards

I agree, it is just ridiculous continuing on and on. Many christians take marriage bow so lightly, and when things don't work out the way expected, they look for the loophole to justify their breaking the bow without paying the consequenses. Pastors and priests should be ashamed of themseves for not educating their people about seriousness of marriage bow. It is shameful.

Youre a hoot.
I take marriage VERY seriously.
I also accept the FACT that divorce must be allowed to protect the innocent and that Christ is not some monster who commands celibacy of the innocent because of the crimes of the guilty.
Your viewponit makes Christ that monster who damns the innocent as well as the criminal....quite a sickening view of our Lord.

 

[follower of Christ]

For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to [her] husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of [her] husband. So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Romans 7:2-3

The REST of the story....

The wife is bound by law until the husband is dead
(Romans 7:2-3, 1 Cor. 7:39)
By WmTipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this article

In this article we will show that the two passages in question speak of the ‘law of the husband’ and that even though these verses say that this law is until death, that is is not an unconditional law that cannot be ended before the death of the spouse. The law of the husband is intended to be until the death of one of the spouses, as God created it from the very first marriage, Adam and Eve, but it has never been without condition.

Supporting Evidence
In Romans Paul was speaking to "those who know the law" (Romans 7:1)

The law reigned over a man all his days. Paul uses this analogy of marriage, the wife being bound to her husband all his days, to represent that it was the same.
What Paul didn’t state, and those knowing the law would know this, is that there was provision in the law for a husband to put away his wife while he was alive . (Deut 24:1-4 )
This shows conclusively that Paul was not laying out the whole scope of rules on marriage in Romans 7 but was using one aspect of it to explain our relationship to the law and to the new covenant.

This idea is presented again in 1 Corinthians 7:39. The wife is bound to the husband until his death.
We must ask ourselves one question here. ‘What law’ bound this woman to her husband for life?
Was it the Mosaic law? How then could any wife have been bound at all to her husband from Eve until the Law ?
It is cemented that it is not the Mosiac law when we find no actual law making this commandment.

So, is Paul lying when he says she is ‘bound by law’ to him until he is dead? By no means.
We are left with one conclusion. That this ‘law’ is an unwritten law of marriage and had to be put into place in the garden with Adam and Eve. It was set into place as a parameter to be accepted in all marriages from thence forth.

Now, we ask ourselves, why, if this law is for life, did Moses ever permit it to end while the former spouse lived?
We ask ourselves about the wife in Exodus 21:7-11 who was permitted to walk out on her marriage if her husband denied her the basics of marriage, food, clothing and conjugal duty.
Why, if this law that existed from the beginning, was Moses so determined to undermine its supposed finality by ever allowing men or women to end it this side of death? Was Moses a rogue prophet who defied Gods will in the matter and even added divorce proceedings to His law? Not at all.

Moses understood Gods intent, that marriage is for life, but Moses also knew Gods heart and that God wanted mercy over sacrifice and he knew the hearts of evil, hardhearted men who would treat their wives horribly as they wished.
And so Moses understood that this ‘law’ was not unconditional.
If it were unconditional, then it was that way in the beginning and Moses would make himself a heretic by ever going against it.

So we see that when Paul gives his words in 1 Corinthians 7:39, that this is not the whole picture. This ‘law’ that Jesus presents as being ‘from the beginning’ was never meant to be unconditional. Jesus’ very words ‘except for’ in Matthew 19 show conclusively that even He does not see it as being without condition.

Paul was asked some questions by the Corinthians as is made apparent in the beginning of chapter 7;

[quote:2p4dx8fz]1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the matters about which you wroteâ€Â

These believers had asked him some weighty questions about marriage, fornication, virgins, etc, to which he responded with what is written in this chapter.
They clearly had pondered the right of the believer to put away an unbeliever, to which Paul said “no, if the unbeliever is pleased along with the believer, the do not put them away, you might be the catalyst in their salvationâ€Â.
Paul is showing these believers who think they can just walk away from marriage that no, they cannot because it is for life.
But Pauls words also show condition. What if this unbeliever isn’t ‘pleased’ along with the believer, but is abusive, hateful, adulterating...then what does Pauls condition show?

Please see this page for more on that issue
Aslo see THIS PAGE that shows conclusively that man CAN indeed 'put asunder' a marriage, thus the 'law of the husband" ("bound by law") is quite conditional.

When you’ve finished there, I believe you will see that there is condition in Pauls words. A condition that is perfectly harmonized with the heart of other scriptures such as Exodus 21 where the wife can leave over nonsupport, Jeremiah 3:8 where even God the Father issued a bill of divorce for harlotry, and Matthew 19 where Jesus shows that the same harlotry is just cause for ending this marriage.

Another point with Romans 7:1-4 or so is that at no time does this passage show that there was ever any divorce as permitted by Mosaic law. If we take it 'as written' it shows that this woman has only left her husband and gone to join with another. Without a divorce as presented by the law Paul speaks of, without the breaking of that marriage covenant, then of course she would be called an adulteress by joining herself to some man not her husband.

Pauls words in Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7 are true. They are just harmonized with the whole of Gods word. If we fail to harmonize correctly, then we end up with absurd teachings such as ones that say that we “cannot sin†because the literal reading of 1 John 3:9 would seem to show as much when taken alone and not properly harmonized with the whole.
Without ALL of the facts we can end up drawing very wrong conclusions from very CLEAR scripures, such as presented here:
The REST of the story...

We hope that this has been helpful in showing you the truth, dear reader, and how to harmonize the whole of Gods word so that you understand the whole truth.[/quote:2p4dx8fz]

 

[Rick W]

It's possible the dear readers gave up after page two. :D

 

[francisdesales]

So much for not sticking around to argue the issue further...eh ;)

I have continued to clear up some misperceptions that you have newly dragged up which I may have not clarified. This will be my last post on the subject and you will see why soon enough.

Tertullian proves your statement wrong.

I already said Tertullian's writings that are heretical have no authority whatsoever on the subject. You might as well cite Karl Marx on what he thought about the incarnation and use that to prove Christ was God...

Because the POINT of Christs words ISNT to NEVER allow divorce...sometimes divorce HAS to be permitted for the sake of the innocent.

For the last time, this is not about divorce!!!

Sir, are you purposely obstinate or is it you just cannot read?

For the last time, I NEVER said divorce was not allowed! Almost every post, I have made it a habit to repeat this and yet, it just goes right over your head and you revert to your red herrings...

This, and what follows, will explain why I am done.

Sorry chap, but when I became interested in the topic I laid down what I believed and went at the study in prayer and completely willing to do whatever I found I might have to do...even if it meant divorcing my wife.

That explains it all. The eigesis and the motivation behind your false teachings.

First, you admit that you FIRST laid down what you believed, THEN you studied the Word of God, rather than the other way around. The Word of God is supposed to be your guide, not a proof text source to justify your already-held views.

Secondly, your marital problems clearly point to an effort to self-justify taking on a future wife, if the need arose.

There is no more need to discuss such issues with you. I have found that atheists will refer to Scriptures to "prove their points" a priori held. There is no further point in trying to show you what Scriptures teach. Whatever I say will be brushed aside by fallacious arguments that overturn what the Scriptures and first Christians believed. In addition, you cannot even stay on topic, with your constant red herrings. To retain my sanity, I must bid you good-bye. I have posted enough to refute you, for anyone who may come across your false teachings.

Adios.

 

[francisdesales]

Shad,

Here is a link that I have just found that offers some more information and sound reasoning on the subject of Matthew 19 and the Greek word interpeted as "fornication". Some interesting reading that I had forgotten about that further explains that Jesus COULD NOT have meant that a person could remarry.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007bt.asp

Regards

 

[follower of Christ]

I have continued to clear up some misperceptions that you have newly dragged up which I may have not clarified. This will be my last post on the subject and you will see why soon enough.

You have no idea how many time I see this in a given week. Youll be back. It is inevitability.

I already said Tertullian's writings that are heretical have no authority whatsoever on the subject. You might as well cite Karl Marx on what he thought about the incarnation and use that to prove Christ was God...

I really dont care what you think about Tert.
YOU ASKED for an ECF who presented what I claimed and I PRESENTED a man ACCEPTED AS an ECF to support what I asserted.
That YOU reject the man is of no consequence here.

For the last time, this is not about divorce!!!

YES IT IS !
You keep rambling on about 'LET NOT MAN SEPARATE' !!
Do you KNOW what the word SEPARATE means, poster ?
It IS about divorce the MOMENT YOU bring the words 'LET NOT MAN SEPARATE' into this discussion as DIVORCE is EXACTLY the topic in the Gospels.
READERS SEE >>>>>What is putting away/divorce-When is a marriage dissolved

Frankly one could get the impression that YOU completely condone frivolous divorce as long as one doesnt get remarried ;)
Oddly enough that creates the same state of 'agunah' that the perverse Jews were creating for these wives put away yet unable to remarry.
Very peculiar that YOUR error creates a situation that is EXACTLY like the one created by the demonic practices of the Jews who cast out their wives, refusing to give the writ, thus making them unable to remarry for support and thereby leaving them open to things like turning to prostitution.

Sir, are you purposely obstinate or is it you just cannot read?

I ask the same

For the last time, I NEVER said divorce was not allowed! Almost every post, I have made it a habit to repeat this and yet, it just goes right over your head and you revert to your red herrings...

Laughable.
You keep rambling on about 'LET NOT MAN SEPARATE' and then tell us that its NOT about divorce.
I suggest you open a dictionary to 'separate' and then 'divorce' and see if the dots connect.
Christ WAS talking ABOUT divorce, poster, when He said "LET NOT MAN PUT ASUNDER/SEPARATE" !
READERS SEE >>>>>What is putting away/divorce-When is a marriage dissolved

This, and what follows, will explain why I am done.

As the rest of your fallacy when you ARE actually done here it will be solely because your viewpoint is falling apart at the seams and you know it.

That explains it all. The eigesis and the motivation behind your false teachings.

Are you naive enough to actually believe that I didnt set you up there, poster ? ;)
I know full well when I bring up the fact that I AM remarried that your kind will immediately try to turn to that point and make IT the issue to deflect from the fact that you have NO actual argument.

My marriage isnt relevant to the FACTS, Im afraid.
Tho its always humorous to see those of your fallacy having to hide behind it because you cant actually argue your case very well

First, you admit that you FIRST laid down what you believed, THEN you studied the Word of God, rather than the other way around. The Word of God is supposed to be your guide, not a proof text source to justify your already-held views.

By the time I got into the issue I was ALREADY in a third marriage. So it was too late for me to to change way things were done ;)

Secondly, your marital problems clearly point to an effort to self-justify taking on a future wife, if the need arose.

Thirdly you now have the ONLY thing you can actually argue your case with...my REmarriage.

There is no more need to discuss such issues with you. I have found that atheists will refer to Scriptures to "prove their points" a priori held.

There was no more need to discuss anything with me the moment you began to speak. Your views are fallacious nonsense, plain and simple. You cant argue anything IN context and without ripping out HALF verses to push your error here

There is no further point in trying to show you what Scriptures teach.

Are you naive enough to believe that I came into this thread to learn from you ???
I posted here to expose your godless heresy for all to see....to show the readers that you cant actually defend your error except with half truths and deflection. Which you prove when you took the bait and turned to my marriage ;)

Whatever I say will be brushed aside by fallacious arguments that overturn what the Scriptures and first Christians believed.

When one cant present a valid argument, what does one expect ?

In addition, you cannot even stay on topic, with your constant red herrings.

oh please.
I make sure to cover all the bases as best I can before you have a chance to bring up some irrelevance.

To retain my sanity, I must bid you good-bye. I have posted enough to refute you, for anyone who may come across your false teachings.

Adios.

All you have posted is the same half truths and fallacy the rest of your error present.
Your views make Paul a heretic who instructed believers to LET man do what YOU claim Christ shows that man CANT do. That is enough to reject your false doctrine entirely

 

[follower of Christ]

Shad,

Here is a link that I have just found that offers some more information and sound reasoning on the subject of Matthew 19 and the Greek word interpeted as "fornication". Some interesting reading that I had forgotten about that further explains that Jesus COULD NOT have meant that a person could remarry.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007bt.asp

Regards

Nuff said.
The catholic bible mangles the tar out of the word 'porneia' in the exceptions there to keep their view of divorce and UNscriptural 'annulments' intact.
READERS SEE->Click->>> "Porneia...aka "fornication"

.

 

[follower of Christ]

It's possible the dear readers gave up after page two. :D

Most likely

There are some who will read these threads who are in a position that is applicable, tho....such as being divorced or remarried...which is why I find these threads and respond in them so that when these brethren do cross them they get the rest of the data instead of these distortions based on half verses and those taken entirely out of context.
If one marriage is saved it is worth all the time in the world to me ...

 

[shad]

Shad,

Here is a link that I have just found that offers some more information and sound reasoning on the subject of Matthew 19 and the Greek word interpeted as "fornication". Some interesting reading that I had forgotten about that further explains that Jesus COULD NOT have meant that a person could remarry.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007bt.asp

Regards

Francis,

You don't have to convince me about divorce and remarriage. It is very clear and simple about it. Many people just don't accept simple teachings.

 

[follower of Christ]

You don't have to convince me about divorce and remarriage. It is very clear and simple about it. Many people just don't accept simple teachings.

It IS quite simple once we remove the 'one versin' it' nonsense from the mix and look at the WHOLE word of God.

I asked you before if Mark was lying when he says that NO sign would be given to that generation, poster...why havent you responded ?

Mar 8:11-13 KJV And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him. (12) And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation. (13) And he left them, and entering into the ship again departed to the other side.

*IF* I studied as you and Francis seem to....using PART of the relevant data to push an absolute viewpoint, then Id HAVE to assume that Mark LIED to his audience by omitting the single most important sign of the entire bible...

The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven. He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
(Mat 16:1-4 KJV)

.

 

[shad]

I asked you before if Mark was lying when he says that NO sign would be given to that generation, poster...why havent you responded ?

Francis did answer to all you questions and I will not go round and round like you did with him.

You are not willing to accept simple teachings. Look at your lengthy responses. It is just ridiculous.

 

[follower of Christ]

Francis did answer to all you questions and I will not go round and round like you did with him.

Show me where Francis gave a VALID response to the query ..
And of course you wont try to explain something that makes your legalistic view look bad.
*IF* we take ONE verse as absolute...or even two...without harmonizing them with the WHOLE of Gods word then we end up with errors such as the Hyper Calvinists who say GOD is responsible for mans sin.
READERS SEE->Click->>> Comparing Hyper-marital doctrines to Hyper-Calvinism

You are not willing to accept simple teachings. Look at your lengthy responses. It is just ridiculous.

Absurdity.
By your fallacy ANY and ALL who try to show the intent of scripture INCLUDING YOUR TEACHERS, are all wrong by default.
The ECFs some of you seem to love so dearly have said FAR more than I have, poseter...they have FAR more words in their writings than I will EVER put together.
I dont see you condemning them or your own teachers when THEY do precisely what I have done here.

Face it, you cant defend your fallacy..and THAT is why you dont want to discuss the issue here..

READERS SEE->Click->>> What is putting away/divorce-When is a marriage dissolved

.

 

[Rick W]

Face it, you cant defend your fallacy..and THAT is why you dont want to discuss the issue here..

FC please. Enough is enough. Quit pushing already. *I* am getting tired of all the bickering and Fran is obviously not wanting to continue in that vein. Let it be!
:bigfrown

 

[follower of Christ]

Face it, you cant defend your fallacy..and THAT is why you dont want to discuss the issue here..

FC please. Enough is enough. Quit pushing already. *I* am getting tired of all the bickering and Fran is obviously not wanting to continue in that vein. Let it be!
:bigfrown

Rick are you asking me to stop discussing the matter?
I hope you are being fair and also requiring the OTHERs in this discussion to quit pushing too, brother. Im not the only one here pushing my views, kwim ?
Every time Francis says hes done and I am ready to quit he comes back into the thread...

 

[Blazin Bones]

The point is that there is no need to be soo vehement with one another. last I knew we all claimed the same Savior, and Jesus never called the disciples poor opinions fallicious or anything similar, and If anyone had the right, he did.

 

[follower of Christ]

The point is that there is no need to be soo vehement with one another. last I knew we all claimed the same Savior, and Jesus never called the disciples poor opinions fallicious or anything similar, and If anyone had the right, he did.

well, honestly, when dealing with the error the Jews pushed Jesus, John and Paul were FAR more offensive than we have been here, brother...I havent used 'brood of vipers' here that I can recall tho :D ...but I understand your point.

If you understood my position and how deadly serious it is, what I have to deal with behind the scenes many times, I think youd understand why I find this a VERY problematic issue.
As I said in a PM to you that Ive had brethren contact me who have even attempted suicide believng themselves to be damned by God for remarrying because of discussion just like this one.

Thankfully many of these brothers and sisters can find our site now since we are ranked pretty highly in the search engines presently, but other than that the only other way to deal with these marriage wrecking doctrines is to do so in discussion forums like this one.

I will absolutely abide by the rules of this forum, and Id ask that you have Francis stop with the innuendo and rhetoric and stick to the topic as even when Im trying to control my own responses I am easily provoked....its a shortcoming of my own that I do try to watch but I am very aware of it.
Please have Francis keep his personal remarks to himself and that will help keep this to a more civil tone.

 

[Rick W]

[quote="follower of Christ":16m26ei4]
Face it, you cant defend your fallacy..and THAT is why you dont want to discuss the issue here..

FC please. Enough is enough. Quit pushing already. *I* am getting tired of all the bickering and Fran is obviously not wanting to continue in that vein. Let it be!
:bigfrown

Rick are you asking me to stop discussing the matter?
I hope you are being fair and also requiring the OTHERs in this discussion to quit pushing too, brother. Im not the only one here pushing my views, kwim ?
Every time Francis says hes done and I am ready to quit he comes back into the thread...
[/quote:16m26ei4]

"I hope you are being fair and also requiring the OTHERs in this discussion to quit pushing too, brother. Im not the only one here pushing my views, kwim ?"

I tried the same strategy with a cop that pulled me over a while back. It didn't work then either.

Why not set an example then you may have a point.

 

[follower of Christ]

"I hope you are being fair and also requiring the OTHERs in this discussion to quit pushing too, brother. Im not the only one here pushing my views, kwim ?"

I tried the same strategy with a cop that pulled me over a while back. It didn't work then either.

Why not set an example then you may have a point.

My point was that *I* am not the only one here who has had any 'tone' yet you singled ME out of the pack. I find that quite unnerving, frankly, and bit partial if that was the intent.

Im sorry, Im just a stickler for impartiality.

 

[Elijah_101]

Once some one Breaks a Marriage by Forinication...Both Parties cannot remarry, it does not matter whos did it

as Jesus said here

Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery:

and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. Matt 19:9

If you marry a Divorced Women you commit Adultery Matthew 5:32

And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
Mark 10:12

Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
Luke 16:18

Marriage is Death do you Part...

For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
Romans 7:2

So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress:Romans 7:3

When two Virgins Marry there is no sin..1 Corinthians 7:25 1 Corinthians 7:28