How about READING the thread and seeing that your views have been refuted already rather than cause us to have to REPEAT everything thats already been said here ?
Imagican said:
Now, I ask this: Do you BELIEVE that she has suffered AS Christ?
Im sorry, where was that verse again about a woman 'suffering as Christ' at the hands of her COVENANT husband ?
Oh thats right, its not in there.
For we were TOLD that to follow HIM would BE to OFTEN be TREATED as HE WAS TREATED
BY THE WORLD chap....a world we have NO covenant with....where there are NO rules in place....NOT in a COVENANT marriage where VERY clear rules are in place.
Let's SEE, although what has happened to her is ATROCIOUS, I believe that it PALLS in comparison with suffering the SINS of the world unto DEATH.
Its astounding how easily you dismiss and downplay what happened to the dear young woman. You really expose your heart for the human individual and your blatant idolatry of marriage and importance of the word over the person..utterly disgusting.
The church will suffer at the hands of unbelievers that we have NO covenant with....NO woman is called to suffer at the hand of her husband.
And you are most likely dealing with a people that have LITTLE in common with GOD OR HIS SON. So, how to tell one to deal with the likes of those that LIVE in such a manner, I haven't a clue. But we have been TOLD to be CONTENT with WHATEVER situation we find ourselves. Whether free or slave, whether persecuted or treated poorly.
Your passage is entirely out of context. It speaks simply of being content where we are. It doesnt tell a a married woman to stay in an adulterous or abusive marriage.
Now, DO you have the GUTS or Spirit to LIVE how we have been COMMANDED to live, or do you believe that our PERSONAL comfort or pleasure is MORE important than that?
Do you have the guts to actually UNDERSTAND Gods covenant of marriage ?
Its sad that persons such as yourself twist and pervert Gods law, completely unable to rightly divide it, so that you come up with trash doctrines like this that would keep a woman in danger where GOD would not have her remain.
While I am WELL AWARE of how EASY it is to live FOR this world, we, (those that have chosen or BEEN chosen), are to LIVE OUTSIDE of it. That does NOT MEAN that we are able to INSULATE ourselves from that which the world will THROW AT US, it simply means that we are to DEAL with it in a DIFFERENT manner than the world WOULD.
We have no covenant with 'this world' chap.
Marriage IS a covenant and there are RULES for that covenant...including how we are to treat our spouse.
And don't confuse me with someone that has NO IDEA of what he speaks. I have NO IDEA how I would handle a situation where I would be required to 'lay down MY life for another', (even an ENEMY). I can ONLY hope that God would grant me the STRENGTH to endure and follow as commanded. I don't believe that we CAN KNOW until we actually FACE such a situation. Words become CHEAP when we are forced to face our biggest fears. For even Peter, when faced with the possibility of 'guilt through association', denied that he even KNEW Christ.
PUHlease.
Im not dumb enough to even believe you if you claimed youd stay in a marriage with the abuse that woman suffered. Dont even waste your time trying such an absurd assertion. NO one would believe it.
And no one could justly accuse you WHEN you did divorce for that sort of abuse as NO spouse is called to remain in that environment.
You are intentionally twisting scriptures that talk about our relationship with a godless world with which we have NO covenant with those that deal with Gods marriage covenant where there are RULES in place.
So, I believe that God and Christ were BOTH aware of the tragic events that take place on this planet when they spoke to us concerning HOW WE are to practice our beliefs. Whether WE can 'live up to them' is the question. And it basically boils down to FAITH. Do we HAVE the faith to persevere? Or do we simply have JUST the amount of faith it takes to PRETEND to BELIEVE?
You are mixing all sorts of irrelevance into this discussion that has no bearing on marriage whatsoever.
Jesus Christ gave EXCEPTION where divorce is concerned thus PROVING that marriage is conditional.
Paul also gave concession whereby a marriage can be put asunder, so again it IS a conditional covenant...your approval or agreement isnt required in the matter...
Christ was clear in His discussion on divorce.
YOure right, He was. Marriage is condtional. Now lets see if how badly you can twist His intent.
Now, is divorce or adultery ENOUGH for one to LOOSE one's Salvation?
Adultery is a sin. Divorce isnt when it is for a just cause. Learn the difference.
I am NOT the judge of these 'things'.
The only accurate point in your entire post
But the question is 'how does Jesus FEEL about remarriage'.
Bogus nonsense.
God said He hates putting away, not remarriage, chap.
And ONCE one has SWORN such an oath as marriage, is it that hard to understand that ONCE one is MARRIED and has SWORN before God and their neighbors to 'stay together until DEATH', we are BOUND to such promise?
Sorry chap but Jesus, Paul and Moses ALL THREE show that marriage CAN be "put asunder" before the death of the spouse.
READERS SEE->Click->>>
"Bound by Law"
The only thing hard to understand is how those who preach false doctrines can sleep at night.
And even if the LAWS of men ALLOW for a LEGAL divorce, so far as God and Christ are concerned, what was brought together is LOVE cannot be UNDONE in TRUTH.
Complete nonsense.
Paul, Jesus and Moses all three PROVE that man CAN 'undo' the marriage covenant.
So, that would make one who divorces guilty of adultery to remarry.
Sorry chap, but you are mistaken. Jesus Himself gave EXCEPTION for divorce and remarriage. Get used to that fact.
Like it or NOT, we have the words of Christ Himself stating that it was THROUGH the HARDNESS of the hearts of those durring the time of Moses that God allowed divorce for certain circumstances.
Jesus said that divorce 'for EVERY cause'...ie for no just reason....to remarry is adultery.
He also gave exception showing that marriage is a conditional covenant, Im sorry to say.
But that was NOT God's DESIRE, it was the desire of those that BEGGED for it. For, "What God hath joined together, let NO MAN put assunder".
Very clearly you have not UNDERSTOOD all the of the facts, poster. Paul shows us that man CAN put asunder.
"Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart"
Jesus versus Paul ?
By WmTipton
Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
Here we will show that not only can one put asunder a marriage (that its possible), but Paul even gives instruction to do just that in certain cases. These seemingly different statements ("Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart")are actually about the same exact thing...putting asunder/Chorizo...as proven very conclusively by the greek.
Supporting Evidence
1.0
There is an errant teaching out there that claims that when Jesus said 'let not man put asunder' regarding marriage, that He 'meant' man CANNOT put asunder.
L: “When God joins two together, they are now ONE. What GOD joins, man CANNOT separateâ€Â
What we will show briefly in this article that there IS an occurance in scripture where it is shown absolutely that man can indeed 'put asunder' what God has joined together.
See 'put asunder' in each of these passages?
So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate(G5563-CHORIZO)."
(Mat 19:6 EMTV)
(Mar 10:9) 'and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has united together, let not man separate(G5563-CHORIZO)."
(Mar 10:8-9 EMTV)
Bear in mind that, in the context these are in, Jesus and the pharisees are discussing putting away of a wife there in BOTH of those passages. The context of 'put asunder' is putting away of a marriage/wife, nothing less.
Jesus is CLEARLY discussing not putting asunder of this 'one flesh' that is being spoken of there.
The word is (G5563)chorizo and it only appears a few times in scripture.
G5563
ÇÉÃÂίζÉ
chÃ…ÂrizÃ…Â
Thayer Definition:
1) to separate, divide, part, put asunder, to separate one’s self from, to depart
1a) to leave a husband or wife
1a) of divorce
1b) to depart, go away
That word 'put asunder' is the EXACT same word for "depart" in 1 cor 7:11
(1Co 7:11) But and if she depart(G5563), let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
...in other words, Paul has just said this woman has done the exact thing that some claim that Jesus said men CANNOT do....'put asunder'.
Notice Paul makes no claim that she 'cannot' put asunder (depart), but clearly presents that IF she DOES do so, then this is the situation....she is to remain "agamos" (literally "UNmarried").
*IF* putting asunder were IMPOSSIBLE for man to do...then why doesnt Paul REstate (*IF* that were Jesus actual meaning) this fact ?
WHY does he simply say *IF* she puts asunder then ...... ?
*IF* no man can put asunder, then Paul makes absolutely no sense here whatsoever. He should have simply stated that it was impossible to do so.
The word in question pretty much just means to "place room between", "depart" or to "separate"...its not some magical phrase that Jesus used to make a marriage bond unbreakable...
What I find striking is that Paul could have used a number of other choices in demonstrating that this woman had left her husband...but chose the one word that was used in rendering Jesus' words about putting asunder.
Was it coincedence or intentional? Was Paul literally reaching out and using the one word that would make it clear that putting asunder IS indeed possible?
We wont know until that day, for sure...but we do know now that regardless of what some say, that Paul has shown that man CAN 'put asunder'....that is factual.
Certainly a call to reconcile is made to the believers...but this doesnt negate what is clearly presented in Gods word....man CAN indeed put asunder (separate) by Pauls own words.
2.0
Now that its been established that man can indeed ‘put asunder’ (chorizo) a marriage, we move on to something even more astounding. Clear instruction for the believer to actually allow the unbelieving spouse to ‘put asunder’ the marriage.
Heres a very remarkable passage that blows L’s statement above, that man CANNOT separate right out of the water. And not only that, it is our very own Paul giving INSTRUCTION for this believer to let it be so.
1Co 7:15 KJV But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
Remember “chorizoâ€ÂG5563 our word from above ? Can you guess what greek word ‘depart’ there is rendered from ?
You got it...the very same ‘chorizo’ (put asunder from Jesus’ statement ‘let not man put asunderâ€Â) is right there in Paul own instruction to let the unbeliever do.
So we not only see absolute proof that man CAN put asunder a marriage, but we now have Paul even telling the believer to let the unbeliever do so !
This hardly sounds like a ‘cannot’ situation to me.
Now, of course this is not our Lords desire for marriage that it would ever have to be ended, but clearly He had enought forsight to show Paul to let the believer do EXACTLY what He Himself had told man not to do.
Why?
Because Jesus knows that no matter what we do as believers, there will always be unbelieving spouses who will not honor the covenant of marriage.
3.0
As we can see here in this passage, the believing wife who has
departed (chorizo) her believing husband is considered '
agamos'.....'unmarried'.
(1Co 7:10 KJV) And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart(chorizo)from her husband:
(1Co 7:11 KJV) But and if she depart(chorizo), let her remain unmarried(agamos), or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
Logically carrying this 'agamos' over to this passage where this unbeliever also has departed the marriage its quite easy to conclude that this person would also be deemed as 'agamos' (unmarried)
(1Co 7:15 KJV) But if the unbelieving depart(chorizo), , let him depart(chorizo), . A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
in the former case where both are believers there is commandment to remain UNmarried or reconcile.
In the latter case tho, where one is unequally yoked, Paul clearly states that he is speaking, not the Lord, in this matter.
To these Paul gives concession not given to those who are equally yoked with another believer.
"BUT to the REST"....to these who are unequally yoked, Paul says quite plainly that they are not in bondage to that union where it has been put asunder.
4.0
Another point of interest is in verse 7:11 where it says 'let her remain unmarried or reconcile to her husband" the actual greek means 'let her remain unmarried or to the man let her be being conciliated"
It is often pushed that the use of 'her husband' there means that she is still married to the man, but that is not proven from the actual Greek at all. The greek word for 'man' is also used for 'husband'.
Paul used 'agamos' to describe this woman for a reason.
