A pastor’s qualifications:

[convicted1]

I see what your problem is DHK. You have bought into that nonsense that Matthew was written specifically for the Jews. Tells us all, what about the following Verse, is it for the Jews only?

Matthew 19:6. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

"I'll take 'ruh roh' for $600, Alex."


***jeopardy music***

 

[DHK]

I see what your problem is DHK. You have bought into that nonsense that Matthew was written specifically for the Jews. Tells us all, what about the following Verse, is it for the Jews only?

Matthew 19:6. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

There are four gospels not one. In your opinion God made a mistake and duplicated himself with three more times. That was a mistake of the Holy Spirit, right? Or did he have a purpose in each of the gospels?

Why is it when four different people write a witness report, all seeing the same car accident, that their witness reports are not exactly the same? Perhaps it is because they are writing from their own view point, the way they saw it. Maybe each one was standing on a different corner of the intersection. Maybe each saw a different angle, concentrated on different aspects, etc.
We have four gospels each with its own purpose, viewpoint, and approach to the gospel. The one thing in common is that the Holy Spirit is the author.

Matthew is written with the Jews in mind. He presents Christ as Messiah. The genealogy is Joseph's genealogy, the husband of Mary. The Jews were only interested in the patriarch of the family. There are more messianic prophecies in this gospel than in any other. There are more quotations from the OT in this gospel than in any other. He wrote with the Jews in mind. He presents Jesus as Messiah.

Mark presents Christ to the Romans as a servant. Note there is no genealogy. No one is interested in the genealogy of a servant. It is here we find such verses as "the son of man came not to be ministered unto but to minister and go give his life a ransom for many." He is presented as a servant.

Luke was a physician and intensely interested in people. He presents Christ as the son of man--the human side of Christ. He writes to the Greeks, especially one in particular--Theophilus. He is a representative of them all. Luke often mentions infirmities and details of others that the other gospels do not mention.

Christ has been presented as the son of man, as a servant, as Messiah, but in John, He is presented as the Son of God, Deity, to all the world.
John is different than the three preceding gospels, called the synoptic gospels. Those three are very similar in the events that they record.
John's events are quite a bit different.
John was the youngest of all the disciples. It may be that he already knew what the others wrote, and writing in the 90's, he wrote primarily additional information that was not in the previous gospels. His gospel has no genealogy for God does not have a beginning nor an end. John gives his purpose very, very clearly.
[FONT=&quot]John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.[/FONT]

--Yes, "I am one of those" OR, who study my Bible. I would suggest you do the same.

 

[convicted1]

Brother DHK,

I posted three noted theologians who disagree with your stance. Look, just because they agree with me, doesn't necessarily make them right. But would you please address their writings and show where you think they're wrong? Thanks in advance.

 

[OldRegular]

There are four gospels not one. In your opinion God made a mistake and duplicated himself with three more times. That was a mistake of the Holy Spirit, right? Or did he have a purpose in each of the gospels?

Why is it when four different people write a witness report, all seeing the same car accident, that their witness reports are not exactly the same? Perhaps it is because they are writing from their own view point, the way they saw it. Maybe each one was standing on a different corner of the intersection. Maybe each saw a different angle, concentrated on different aspects, etc.
We have four gospels each with its own purpose, viewpoint, and approach to the gospel. The one thing in common is that the Holy Spirit is the author.

Matthew is written with the Jews in mind. He presents Christ as Messiah. The genealogy is Joseph's genealogy, the husband of Mary. The Jews were only interested in the patriarch of the family. There are more messianic prophecies in this gospel than in any other. There are more quotations from the OT in this gospel than in any other. He wrote with the Jews in mind. He presents Jesus as Messiah.

Mark presents Christ to the Romans as a servant. Note there is no genealogy. No one is interested in the genealogy of a servant. It is here we find such verses as "the son of man came not to be ministered unto but to minister and go give his life a ransom for many." He is presented as a servant.

Luke was a physician and intensely interested in people. He presents Christ as the son of man--the human side of Christ. He writes to the Greeks, especially one in particular--Theophilus. He is a representative of them all. Luke often mentions infirmities and details of others that the other gospels do not mention.

Christ has been presented as the son of man, as a servant, as Messiah, but in John, He is presented as the Son of God, Deity, to all the world.
John is different than the three preceding gospels, called the synoptic gospels. Those three are very similar in the events that they record.
John's events are quite a bit different.
John was the youngest of all the disciples. It may be that he already knew what the others wrote, and writing in the 90's, he wrote primarily additional information that was not in the previous gospels. His gospel has no genealogy for God does not have a beginning nor an end. John gives his purpose very, very clearly.
[FONT=&quot]John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.[/FONT]

--Yes, "I am one of those" OR, who study my Bible. I would suggest you do the same.

Can you show Scripture that states Matthew was written with Jews in mind. No you cannot. I don't know who dreamed that nonsense up but that is what it is, nonsense! I know some hyper dispensationalists believe that only Paul's prison Epistles are written to the Christian. Surely you are not one of those!

So you are a scholar of the Bible but you cannot present one passage of Scripture that clearly teaches the pre-trib-removal of the Church.

Note: Perhaps you can tell me why I am being prevented from responding to your slander of me on the thread "Questioning My belief in pre trib rapture"?

 

[PreachTony]

Luke was a physician and intensely interested in people. He presents Christ as the son of man--the human side of Christ. He writes to the Greeks, especially one in particular--Theophilus. He is a representative of them all. Luke often mentions infirmities and details of others that the other gospels do not mention.

I've long heard the arguments that Theophilus was, in fact, a generic title indicating that, while the gospel may have been sent to one person in particular, it was meant for all followers of God.

 

[OldRegular]

Can you show Scripture that states Matthew was written with Jews in mind. No you cannot. I don't know who dreamed that nonsense up but that is what it is, nonsense! I know some hyper dispensationalists believe that only Paul's prison Epistles are written to the Christian. Surely you are not one of those!

So you are a scholar of the Bible but you cannot present one passage of Scripture that clearly teaches the pre-trib-removal of the Church.

Note: Perhaps you can tell me why I am being prevented from responding to your slander of me on the thread "Questioning My belief in pre trib rapture"?

DHK, I see that you still have me blocked from responding to your slander of me on the thread "Questioning My belief in pre trib rapture". You really are taking unfair advantage of me using your position as moderator, DHK. But, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."

Have you ever gotten this message DHK?

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /newreply.php on this server.

Have you ever gotten this message DHK?[/QUOTE]

*********************************************************************

My sincere apology, DHK. When I attempted to review my post

From:http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=94639&highlight=parenthesis+Church

the term url and /url, both in brackets, were added and the post was not accepted.

Again my sincere apology.

 

[OldRegular]

deleted. My apology to DHK moved to a more appropriate location!

 

[DHK]

deleted. My apology to DHK moved to a more appropriate location!

Apology accepted. Yes, I have received it on occasion. It must be a glitch in the system. It has happened more than once.

 

[convicted1]

Matthew Henry's commentary on Matthew 19:9:

I say unto you (v. 9); and it agrees with what he said before ch. 5:32 ); there it was said in preaching, here in dispute, but it is the same, for Christ is constant to himself. Now, in both these places,(1.) He allows divorce, in case of adultery; the reason of the law against divorce being this, They two shall be one flesh. If the wife play the harlot, and make herself one flesh with an adulterer, the reason of the law ceases, and so does the law. By the law of Moses adultery was punished with death, Deu. 22:22 . Now our Saviour mitigates the rigour of that, and appoints divorce to be the penalty. Dr. Whitby understands this, not of adultery, but (because our Saviour uses the word porneia —fornication ) of uncleanness committed before marriage, but discovered afterward; because, if it were committed after, it was a capital crime, and there needed no divorce.(2.) He disallows it in all other cases: Whosoever puts away his wife, except for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery. This is a direct answer to their query, that it is not lawful. In this, as in other things, gospel times are times of reformation, Heb. 9:10 . The law of Christ tends to reinstate man in his primitive integrity; the law of love, conjugal love, is no new commandment, but was from the beginning. If we consider what mischiefs to families and states, what confusions and disorders, would follow upon arbitrary divorces, we shall see how much this law of Christ is for our own benefit, and what a friend Christianity is to our secular interests.The law of Moses allowing divorce for the hardness of men’s hearts, and the law of Christ forbidding it, intimate, that Christians being under a dispensation of love and liberty, tenderness of heart may justly be expected among them, that they will not be hard-hearted, like Jews, for God has called us to peace. There will be no occasion for divorces, if we forbear one another, and forgive one another, in love, as those that are, and hope to be, forgiven, and have found God not forward to put us away, Isa. 50:1 . No need of divorces, if husbands love their wives, and wives be obedient to their husbands, and they live together as heirs of the grace of life: and these are the laws of Christ, such as we find not in all the law of Moses.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/matthew/19.html

 

[DHK]

I've long heard the arguments that Theophilus was, in fact, a generic title indicating that, while the gospel may have been sent to one person in particular, it was meant for all followers of God.

I believe he was a real person. But just as Luke addressed a Greek person is indicative that his entire gospel was written to the Greeks in general. That is my position. If God had intended it to be strictly personal and confidential he wouldn't have inspired it to be so publicly written by the world for the last two thousand years and more to come if the Lord tarries.
Theophilus was a Greek. Of course he had Greeks in mind.
I am a missionary. When I write to one of my friends in one of those lands I have them all in mind.

 

[DHK]

Brother DHK,

I posted three noted theologians who disagree with your stance. Look, just because they agree with me, doesn't necessarily make them right. But would you please address their writings and show where you think they're wrong? Thanks in advance.

Unfortunately I am limited in my resources as I am not at home among my books. So I can tell you what I believe and back it up with Scriptural reasons why, which I have done.
However, here is what you posted from Matthew Poole:

3. This might be the occasion of adultery, to give a wicked person a legal liberty to satisfy an extravagant lust.

But for the innocent person, it is as unreasonable that he or she should be punished for the sin of another. But what our Saviour saith here, and in the other parallel texts, is undoubtedly to be understood of husbands and wives put away not for adultery, but for other light and trivial causes, for which by the law of God no divorce is allowed.

Poole is not even dogmatic on this. (This "might be..."). He is unsure.

Then, he starts out: "But for the innocent person..."
--I don't believe there is an innocent person in any divorce. Two people walk in and two people walk out. It takes two to tangle. There is always the other side of the story--the one you never hear. There is always a reason for divorce or a reason why the family is not being held together. There is no such thing as an innocent person. I just can't believe that.

Otherwise he is quite clear that no divorce is allowed. In his opinion it is a pretty serious sin done by a fairly wicked person.

 

[DHK]

Can you show Scripture that states Matthew was written with Jews in mind. No you cannot. I don't know who dreamed that nonsense up but that is what it is, nonsense! I know some hyper dispensationalists believe that only Paul's prison Epistles are written to the Christian. Surely you are not one of those!

So you are a scholar of the Bible but you cannot present one passage of Scripture that clearly teaches the pre-trib-removal of the Church.

Note: Perhaps you can tell me why I am being prevented from responding to your slander of me on the thread "Questioning My belief in pre trib rapture"?

I just finished teaching a seminar in hermeneutics. One of major points of interpreting scripture and understanding the Bible is being able to find out as much as possible about the history of that time--the historical context.
That includes things about who the writer was, who he was writing to, the country or area of the country the people were living in, the political situation at that time, the economic situation, what the culture was like, etc. Many of those things are found from outside sources.
Any Preterist depends on outside sources to make his case. He wouldn't have a case if he properly dated Revelation at 98 A.D., for example.
So I ask you the same type of question:
Where does the book of Revelation give the date it was written in?

But to answer your question (from an outside source)

http://www.biblebb.com/Misc/Family/women/devotional/Mortimer01.htm
Matthew 1. The Angel's visit to Joseph.
Matthew wrote his gospel before any of the other evangelists. He wrote it for the Jews especially; and therefore he very often refers to the Old Testament, (held in such reverence by the Jews,) and shows that Jesus fulfilled what the prophets had said. Luke and Mark, who wrote for the Gentiles especially, often explain Jewish customs, but Matthew always alludes to them, as customs well understood. Matthew himself had been a tax-collector, before he was called to be one of the apostles of the Lord. His other name was Levi. Luke speaks of him by that name. Luke 5:27.
Matthew begins his history with an account of the forefathers of our Savior—to show that Jesus was descended from Abraham, and from David, as God had promised the Messiah should be. This account is called a genealogy. It is Joseph's descent, and not Mary's, which is here recorded. Luke in his third chapter gives us another genealogy. That genealogy is a little different from Matthew's; it must therefore be the genealogy of Mary. It is true the name of Joseph is mentioned there also; but the names of women were never inserted in public registers.

John Wesley states:

THE Gospel (that is, good tidings) means a book containing the good tidings of our salvation by Jesus Christ. St. Mark in his Gospel presupposes that of St. Matthew, and supplies what is omitted therein. St. Luke supplies what is omitted by both the former: St. John what is omitted by all the three. St. Matthew particularly points out the fulfilling of the prophecies for the conviction of the Jews. St. Mark wrote a short compendium, and yet added many remarkable circumstances omitted by St. Matthew, particularly with regard to the apostles, immediately after they were called. St. Luke treated principally of the office of Christ, and mostly in a historical manner. St. John refuted those who denied his Godhead: each choosing to treat more largely on those things, which most suited the time when, and the persons to whom, he wrote.

Just look in some commentaries OR, or some NT Survey Books, or some Bible Dictionaries or Encyclopedias (Bible), etc. This is common knowledge. It is not hard to find.

 

[convicted1]

Unfortunately I am limited in my resources as I am not at home among my books. So I can tell you what I believe and back it up with Scriptural reasons why, which I have done.
However, here is what you posted from Matthew Poole:

Poole is not even dogmatic on this. (This "might be..."). He is unsure.

Then, he starts out: "But for the innocent person..."
--I don't believe there is an innocent person in any divorce. Two people walk in and two people walk out. It takes two to tangle. There is always the other side of the story--the one you never hear. There is always a reason for divorce or a reason why the family is not being held together. There is no such thing as an innocent person. I just can't believe that.

Otherwise he is quite clear that no divorce is allowed. In his opinion it is a pretty serious sin done by a fairly wicked person.

Brother, I am thinking along the lines of the unsaved. Unbelievers are just that, unbelievers. There are guilty before God, naked as a jaybird, their sins exposing themselves to Him. Adultery, fornication, lying, stealing, cheating, cussing, using God's name in vain, murdering, molesting, incest, &c all lead to the same place, hell. When God saves them, all of their sins are covered by the blood, they are clothed in the righteousness of Christ. God sees them through Christ and not their sins.

Now, if God holds their divorce/remarriage against them in that He won't use them as a pastor, then there's be no forgiveness of their sins. People try to categorize sins, but God doesn't.

 

[convicted1]

I see what your problem is DHK. You have bought into that nonsense that Matthew was written specifically for the Jews. Tells us all, what about the following Verse, is it for the Jews only?

Matthew 19:6. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

If you go by what Brother DHK says, then the OT, and especially the Law, doesn't apply to us. It was given to the Jews. He may not realize it, but he is, in a roundabout way, promoting antinomianism...

 

[DHK]

Brother, I am thinking along the lines of the unsaved. Unbelievers are just that, unbelievers. There are guilty before God, naked as a jaybird, their sins exposing themselves to Him. Adultery, fornication, lying, stealing, cheating, cussing, using God's name in vain, murdering, molesting, incest, &c all lead to the same place, hell. When God saves them, all of their sins are covered by the blood, they are clothed in the righteousness of Christ. God sees them through Christ and not their sins.

Now, if God holds their divorce/remarriage against them in that He won't use them as a pastor, then there's be no forgiveness of their sins. People try to categorize sins, but God doesn't.

I think your the one advocating antinomianism here.
Either God recognizes the marriage before salvation or not.
If he doesn't recognize the marriage before salvation, then what? Are you going to require that you re-marry them after they get saved? Then, perhaps I may concede your point.
However, God recognizes their marriage, and recognizes their divorce. Both are valid under state law. One was right, and the other was wrong. As far as the qualification of a pastor is concerned "that wrong" carries the consequence of a forgiven sin that forever will keep him from the pulpit.

Put in perspective. A pastor must "first be found blameless."
You put a man in front of the pulpit, a man who is going to counsel you, your family, your children, and those that you love.
If you are the one on the Pulpit Committee searching:
Will you consider:
--those with a criminal record?
--an early release from prison for murder? (after 20 years)
--a former pedophile or rapist?

This list could go on. The Lord includes divorce and remarriage. Whether or not you think divorce is right does not become an issue. We can differ. But God doesn't differ on the office of a pastor. Sins, all sins, can be forgiven. But the consequences of all sins remain--all of them. Even a lie affects someone. But some sins have greater consequences than others (even jail time).
Some of the most important qualities in a pastor are those that revolve around the family and moral purity. Why? He stands before families, and those of all ages, and he must stand there as an example above reproach to all. The finger can't come pointing back at him: "How can you counsel me when you can't keep your own household together?" (i.e. divorce). That is what is explicitly said in further qualifications:

"One that ruleth well his own household." Divorce is the opposite of that.

 

[convicted1]

I think your the one advocating antinomianism here.
Either God recognizes the marriage before salvation or not.
If he doesn't recognize the marriage before salvation, then what? Are you going to require that you re-marry them after they get saved? Then, perhaps I may concede your point.
However, God recognizes their marriage, and recognizes their divorce. Both are valid under state law. One was right, and the other was wrong. As far as the qualification of a pastor is concerned "that wrong" carries the consequence of a forgiven sin that forever will keep him from the pulpit.

Put in perspective. A pastor must "first be found blameless."
You put a man in front of the pulpit, a man who is going to counsel you, your family, your children, and those that you love.
If you are the one on the Pulpit Committee searching:
Will you consider:
--those with a criminal record?
--an early release from prison for murder? (after 20 years)
--a former pedophile or rapist?

This list could go on. The Lord includes divorce and remarriage. Whether or not you think divorce is right does not become an issue. We can differ. But God doesn't differ on the office of a pastor. Sins, all sins, can be forgiven. But the consequences of all sins remain--all of them. Even a lie affects someone. But some sins have greater consequences than others (even jail time).
Some of the most important qualities in a pastor are those that revolve around the family and moral purity. Why? He stands before families, and those of all ages, and he must stand there as an example above reproach to all. The finger can't come pointing back at him: "How can you counsel me when you can't keep your own household together?" (i.e. divorce). That is what is explicitly said in further qualifications:

"One that ruleth well his own household." Divorce is the opposite of that.

And you are repeatedly missing my point. Men categorize sins, God doesn't. Lying puts sinners in hell just as quick as murdering someone does. God called a man who was consenting to Stephen's murder...let's call a spade a spade here. He was in agreement with the Jews stoning Stephen to death. Yet, God saved him and he penned over 1/2 the NT books we all cherish.

God blots all sinners' sins out when He forgives them. If a pastor up and leaves his wife and takes another woman, then I am agreeing with you 100%. But if a man divorces his wife and marries another, then later on God saves him, that doesn't disqualify him from the ministry or pastorship.

 

[convicted1]

Brother DHK,

You stated something I want to address by itself....

Some of the most important qualities in a pastor are those that revolve around the family and moral purity.

Can this be truly said about the unregenerate? Are the unregenerate, the lost, morally pure as you put it? No. Absolutely not. You are expecting the unregenerate to live up to the standards Paul gave to Timothy and Titus. They had already been saved. That's what I am trying to convey here. Paul was speaking to those who had already been saved. The bible is written to the saved from all time. The OT was written to the saved Jews and smattering of Gentiles , the NT to the saved Jews and Gentiles.


You can not expect the unregenerate to live up to the standards written in God's holy writ....

 

[DHK]

And you are repeatedly missing my point. Men categorize sins, God doesn't. Lying puts sinners in hell just as quick as murdering someone does. God called a man who was consenting to Stephen's murder...let's call a spade a spade here. He was in agreement with the Jews stoning Stephen to death. Yet, God saved him and he penned over 1/2 the NT books we all cherish.

God blots all sinners' sins out when He forgives them. If a pastor up and leaves his wife and takes another woman, then I am agreeing with you 100%. But if a man divorces his wife and marries another, then later on God saves him, that doesn't disqualify him from the ministry or pastorship.

In one sense all sin is a transgression of the law. That is true.
However, all sin is not the same for all sin does not have the same consequence. This was shown quite clearly.
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
Murder also was met with the death penalty.
However a thief was to restore with the same amount with which he stole.
In fact Zaccheus said: I give back all that I have taken and restore to him four-fold. But he was not jailed, nor faced the death penalty.
Different penalties or consequences for different sins. We know this well.
You simply cannot say that all sin has the same consequence. Ask any mother of a son, now dead, because of a drunk driver. Really? Do all sins have the same consequence? Would she vote for that man that was behind the wheel as her pastor because God forgave his sin--even in his unsaved life?

 

[DHK]

Brother DHK,

You stated something I want to address by itself....

Can this be truly said about the unregenerate? Are the unregenerate, the lost, morally pure as you put it? No. Absolutely not. You are expecting the unregenerate to live up to the standards Paul gave to Timothy and Titus. They had already been saved. That's what I am trying to convey here. Paul was speaking to those who had already been saved. The bible is written to the saved from all time. The OT was written to the saved Jews and smattering of Gentiles , the NT to the saved Jews and Gentiles.

You can not expect the unregenerate to live up to the standards written in God's holy writ....

To some degree, yes.
"The husband of one wife" means just that. It does not qualify "in your life after salvation." We don't get to qualify such statements that the Lord has not qualified. It means what it says, and says what it means. "a one-wife husband." He made vows that he should have kept, whether saved or unsaved. It is too bad that people of our generation have a very low outlook on marriage and therefore tend to excuse "the unsaved." That is not an excuse.

 

[convicted1]

To some degree, yes.
"The husband of one wife" means just that. It does not qualify "in your life after salvation." We don't get to qualify such statements that the Lord has not qualified. It means what it says, and says what it means. "a one-wife husband." He made vows that he should have kept, whether saved or unsaved. It is too bad that people of our generation have a very low outlook on marriage and therefore tend to excuse "the unsaved." That is not an excuse.

I am agreeing with you about the "husband of one wife". I wholeheartedly agree. Yet, if a man divorces his wife for sexual immorality, sleeping around on him, he has every right to marry again. And yes, some marriages, the husband may have done something to cause his wife to look elsewhere. But not every divorce is that way. No need to make it a "blanket statement"...

Again, let's visit 1 Corinthians 7....

First who is Paul addressing?

Paul, a called apostle of Jesus Christ, through the will of God, and Sosthenes the brother, to the assembly of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints, with all those calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place -- both theirs and ours: (1 Cor. 1:1,2 YLT)

Paul is addressing the local church at Corinth. He isn't addressing the lost in Corinth, but the believers.


"And to the rest I speak -- not the Lord -- if any brother hath a wife unbelieving, and she is pleased to dwell with him, let him not send her away; and a woman who hath a husband unbelieving, and he is pleased to dwell with her, let her not send him away; for the unbelieving husband hath been sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife hath been sanctified in the husband; otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. And, if the unbelieving doth separate himself -- let him separate himself: the brother or the sister is not under servitude in such [cases], and in peace hath God called us; for what, hast thou known, O wife, whether the husband thou shalt save? or what, hast thou known, O husband, whether the wife thou shalt save?"

If your wife looks at you one day and says she's tired of the married life, are you going to hold her against her will? If you do, that's kidnapping and carries 20 years. How is it that you would be held accountable for her sins? If you're a sinner and you divorce and remarry, that is forgiven as well. All sins are blotted out. In what Paul wrote, if the wife leaves, let them leave. That Brother or Sister is no longer in bondage to that marriage. When they left, they broke that covenant.


`And I say to you, that, whoever may put away his wife, if not for whoredom, and may marry another, doth commit adultery; and he who did marry her that hath been put away, doth commit adultery.'

I know you don't like that translation, but regardless, Jesus gave them a 'qualifier' in regards to divorce. If a woman plays the harlot, she broke the covenant of marriage. The husband was not the one who did, and is not held accountable for his sins.

You keep saying that Jesus never contradicted Himself in the four gospels, and I agree. How about this verse?


And Jesus said to him, `Verily I say to thee, that to-day, this night, before a cock shall crow twice, thrice thou shalt deny me.'(Mark 14:30 YLT)

Mark is the only one who recorded Jesus saying the words 'before the cock crows TWICE. What about this verse?