Literal Interpretation

Isn't it funny how no place claims to be the burial place of Mary? You'd sure think that would have conveyed some status in early Christendom, don't you? Wonder why that is.

Click to expand...

As Blessed as Mary was to have been chosen by God to be the mother of the son of God, Mary remained all her life a secondary character in the scheme of things. Kind of like the postman that delivers your mail, who does not play a primary role in your life unless your life consists solely on receiving the mail. Who claims the burial place of your mailman?

Don't blow this out of proportion, Mary performed her God given role admirably, and rightly deserves to be called blessed among women. But she remains "among women", meaning that she is not raised to deity, and she was NOT translated to heaven without first experiencing death. "For it is appointed unto men once to die..." That is an ALL inclusive statement, that even the very son of God, who was man, was subject to and indeed experienced.

Carson Weber,

Ray said, 'Sometimes there is an innocent party who has tried to keep the marriage together. Especially in these cases God says that that person is at liberty to marry again.'

Carson said, 'Nowhere does Jesus say that a person is at liberty to divorce and remarry.'

Ray is saying, 'Your above statement is your Catholicism speaking. Almighty God disagrees with you as documented in Matthew 5:31-32.' The exception where divorce is acceptable to God is if a man or a woman is unfaithful to their spouse. Hear the words of Jesus Himself.

'But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife forces her to be guilty of adultery. THE ONLY REASON FOR A MAN TO DIVORCE HIS WIFE IS if she has sexual relations with another man. . . .' {New Century Version}

Common sense tells you that if a husband or wife is innocent of any wrong doing, and is divorced by the wayward, person in their marriage, God would have no reason to hold the innocent person guilty.' They are free to remarry when they heal of the great hurt. God would not expect an innocent person to be without intimacy for the rest of their lifetime, because that person was violated by someone else's wicked deed.

Why then, does the Catholic Church say that anyone who is innocent of wrongdoing is not allowed to receive of the sacrament of Holy Communion if he or she remarries? If God does not hold the person guilty then His Church should not deprive a person His body and blood, as you would express it.

Mike S,

I think there is no record of the burial places of most of the apostles, and these men were the kingpins of the N.T. church. In Protestantism's view of Christianity we hold no elevated understanding of Mary, the mother of our Lord, and in our view neither did the early church. I am sure her bodily remains we carefully placed somewhere in a dignified manner, but no special grave marker would have captured the attention of the early believers.

Ray had said in effect, 'The virgin mother of our Lord was laid to rest and her body has long ago turned to dust, awaiting her bodily resurrect in the rapture of the Church. [I Thess. 4:17]

Your statement was, 'Isn't it funny how no place claims to be the burial place of Mary? One would think that would have conveyed some status in early Christendom, don't you? Wonder why that is.'

Ray is saying, 'I am sure her grave site was visited by followers of the Lord, but as the centuries passed that location was lost to civilization, like many of the other apostles, and they were the mouthpiece of Jesus Christ in getting His message out to a lost world.

Originally posted by Yelsew:
But she remains "among women", meaning that she is not raised to deity

Click to expand...

Well, I'm glad you understand that! To think otherwise would be heresy!

and she was NOT translated to heaven without first experiencing death. "For it is appointed unto men once to die..." That is an ALL inclusive statement, that even the very son of God, who was man, was subject to and indeed experienced.

Click to expand...

Since the Church takes no position on whether or not she first died before being assumed into heaven, this is a point on which we are free to believe as we choose.

So, you are completely in line with Catholic Doctrine here. Most excellent!

That must mean that Catholics do believe some truthes.

Yelsew,

Great point!

You said,

But she remains "among women", meaning that she is not raised to deity.'

Ray is saying, 'She is not elevated into the Godhead. I never heard it brought out the way you did. You are right.

Originally posted by Yelsew:
That must mean that Catholics do believe some truthes.

Click to expand...

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. I believe you've taken that first step, Yelsew!

Hi Ray,

I stated that nowhere does Jesus say that a person is at liberty to divorce and remarry, and you responded with, "Almighty God disagrees with you as documented in Matthew 5:31-32."

Nowhere in this passage does Jesus say that one may divorce and remarry. Jesus does allow for divorce, but nowhere is remarriage condoned or allowed for. And even then, Jesus allows for divorce only in the case of porneia.

Jesus said, "It is written, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

In your view, Jesus is simply rubberstamping Deuteronomy, which makes his statement superfluous.

The Fathers of the Church knew what this porneia exception clause was referring to. Do you?

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hi Ray,

I stated that nowhere does Jesus say that a person is at liberty to divorce and remarry, and you responded with, "Almighty God disagrees with you as documented in Matthew 5:31-32."

Nowhere in this passage does Jesus say that one may divorce and remarry. Jesus does allow for divorce, but nowhere is remarriage condoned or allowed for. And even then, Jesus allows for divorce only in the case of porneia.

Jesus said, "It is written, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

In your view, Jesus is simply rubberstamping Deuteronomy, which makes his statement superfluous.

The Fathers of the Church knew what this porneia exception clause was referring to. Do you?

Click to expand...

Paul also allowed for divorce when a non-believer left.

Jesus pointed to not how little we could get by with, but what God always wanted. When Jesus dealt with the issue of divorce I think we need to take in to account the context of the parties involved. Basically he had the liberals and legalists present and Jesus pointed them to what God wanted from the beginning. I think that is the same basic route we must take today.

All of us look into a mirror dimly. But I think Matthew 4:19 and 28:19,20 are incredibly clear.

The question is "Who's living for Jesus Christ because of our life?"

Based on the legalism I see posted on the topic, I believe the real questions are:

Did Jesus' atonement for Sin remove sin from the Salvation equation or not?

Are believers still bound by sin, or did Jesus set them free by paying the ransom?

I did not ask "do believers sin"? There is ample evidence that they do sin. But what happens to their salvation because the do sin?

If a man is unfaithful to his wife and goes off with another woman/man that wife is free to divorce her erring husband. This is the exception to the rule as found in Matthew 5:32. The woman could just forever be separated from him, but God gives this exception so she can legally and spiritually separate herself from the adulterer. The reason is so that she can get on with her life after the divorce and, if she is so moved, can find another Christian husband.

Some Protestants and most Catholics push the letter and would allow her to get aids, but she must obey the rules of a human ecclesiastical body, the men who never marry. How interesting.

Some Christian leaders also think that a wife should stay with her husband even if he physically batters her. I would council people to separate and try to reconcile but if this is impossible, then a divorce is in order.

Our Lord was the Godman on this earth and knows of human situations and the occasional dilemma. God is a balanced person and does would not want the wife to get a sexually transmitted disease like aids or to remain with a husband who batters her in front of her children.

I think God's exception should be fine with His Church, even when the Roman Catholic Church makes up their add-on rules and regulations.

The infidelity breaks the marriage covenant/agreement, thereby insuring that the violated woman is free to divorce and remarrry. In some cases the wife can forgive and take the erring husband back into her life, but she is not required by Almighty God to do so. And also, just because she divorces she does not have to ever again get married.

Do the leadership in Steubenville understand the word, Except?

'But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, EXCEPT for maritial unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress . . . ' [Matt. 5:31] If there is unfaithfulness she can remarry; if there is not unfaithfulness by her husband, she is not free to marry. That would be a sin.

Ray,

I would guess that the issue is how they understand the Greek term "porneia" in the context of Matt. 5:32 and 19:9. You (apparently following the NIV) have translated it as "marital unfaithfulness." Presumably you're aware that there are other translations -- including some that make more sense, in my opinion, when read together with Matt. 19:4-6.

Mark

All of the Matthew passages use the word, {pornea} meaning unlawful sexual activity, says, Dr. James Strong.

When unlawful sex takes place, the innocent spouse is allowed to divorce and remarry. EXCEPT. . . it be for fornication=pornea=unlawful sexual activity.

I could care less about what a church says; it is Jesus who will judge Christians and non-Christians. [John 5:22b]

So, you care what Dr. James Strong says. That's OK.

But you don't care what the Church says. Also OK.

But you asked Carson about how the "leadership in Steubenville" understand the passage, so apparently you do care what they say. Also OK.

But it seems you'd rather not hear what I say. Also OK.

Have a nice discussion!

Mark

Mark H,

I did look up your alternate verses and carefully read them.

You said, 'So, you care what Dr. James Strong says. That's OK.'

Ray is saying, 'Dr. Strong probably had other people who he checked with about the Greek word, 'pornea'. It gives us some idea of what the word meant.

You said, 'But you don't care what the Church says. Also OK.

Ray is saying, 'In hearing Carson, who represents the Catholic Church, all I received from him was a denial of a basic word, 'Except.' Denials of the text is hardly a genuine explanation of what God wants us to understand.'

You said, 'But you asked Carson about how the "leadership in Steubenville" understand
the passage, so apparently you do care what they say. Also OK.

Ray is saying, 'Yes I care because they clearly misrepresent the Lord God's teaching.'

You said, 'But it seems you'd rather not hear what I say. Also OK.'

Ray is saying, 'I did and do care what you are saying. From what I read you did not disagree with me or agree with me, but only explained about viewing the other verse that had 'pornea' in it along with a general explanation that was given by God through His Word.'

You said, 'Have a nice discussion!'

Ray is saying, 'I'm open to you for further discussion. What's on your mind?'

What do other Greek scholars say about the word, 'pornea?' And what do other Biblical commentators say about God's exception to His strong hatred of divorce between a man and a woman?

Marriage is to be a lifelong union( Gen. 2:24, Romans 7:1-4). According to the Bible, it may be broken by immoral sexual actions of a partner ( Mat. 19:1-9). The power of the exceptive clause allows the faithful party to remarry one who is scriptually eligible for marriage. Jesus said in Mark 10:9,  What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Christ said that if someone attacks you - you should turn the other cheek - but that was not a civil law under His theocracy - because it would be unjust.

Christ taught us to forgive - but when it came to marriage and civil laws - He allowed divorce under His theocracy.

And when it comes to divorce for reasons of literal - real - actual - adultery He allows it.

Literally. Really. Accurate details - trustworthy in the Bible.

In Christ,

Bob

Non-Catholicism and Protestantism allows you freedom of thought; we do not have to bow to any human agent or system of theology.

Click to expand...

Ummmmmmmmmm.....indeed. And LOOK at the wonderful state of Christian unity such autonomy has caused!! Is it any wonder that pagans in many cases consider Christianity to be a crazy religion? Imagine what the average pagan thinks of 30 different missionaries teaching 30 different doctrines and forms of worship and yet claiming that there is only ONE TRUTH!! I'd think it was nuts, too!!

But more than that, Ray, there is nothing wrong with having an authority over you telling you what to do and what is right and wrong. For instance, HOW would the United States ever have a successful military operation if it ran like Protestantism with each one doing what seemed good in his own eyes under the guise of "intellectual and moral freedom?" I don't think it would work real well.

And of course, every Protestant assembly I joined had a "statement of faith" which I was made to agree with either in writing or verbally. I was also bound to tell the elders of the assembly if I ever came to a point of disagreement with the "doctrinal truths" posited in that statement, probably so they could either sit down with me and have a nice brainwashing session, or formally show me and my family the door!

So don't get on a high horse about the Church having rules as if you as a Protestant have complete and total freedom within your assembly to do anything you wish. Honestly, I don't believe such freedom exists anywhere in any organization, even in the so called "tolerant" Unity "Church". Just preach Jesus to them and see how "tolerant" they remain!!!

This is just one more attack, without real merit, on the Church.

Brother Ed

Jonah was consumed by a "great fish" according to Jonah chapter 1 and 2. Then "God said" that the fish should expell Jonah onto dry land.

This is the "sign" of the Messiah to the Jews - that He TOO would be in the heart of the earth as was Jonah in the belly of the fish.

Is the Bible "trustworthy" -- is the Gospel True? Literally?

God said He created the world in six days and made the seventh day a holy day (Gen 2:3 Exodus 20:8-11) is that "literally true"??


Christ and Paul both affirm "Adam and Eve" and the literal "details" of the fall of mankind.

Is that "trustworthy" account - true? Or is it "untrustworthy" in the details?

In Christ,

Bob