Become one flesh

Karen, I didn't say Jesus "corrected" Moses (as in the Mosaic law as handed down from God), but He did show where Moses (the man) only allowed the breaking of the marriage vow due to the hardness of a man's heart, BUT, Jesus clearly shows us that was wrong, simply because sin lieth at the door. Jesus FULFILLED, not took anything away, or added to.

Just stop, take a deep breath, and think: does divorce give an attitude of forgivng in nature, or the obverse?

 

SisterBonnie,the re-marriage ACT is what is referred to as adultry, not the admission of that sin and then it being continual adultry as the emotional types LOVE to express in their rectitude towards those who understand the Bible.

Sin is forgivable, the onlysin which is not is blaspheming the Holy Ghost/ saying NO! when the person knows it's God convicting them for any sin and they refuse to repent; re-marriage, though adultry, is forgivable, but every divorcee still has that in their life here on this earth to live with.

 

Hmmmmm? Thank you, Brother, is it true: for when I am weak, He is strong.

 

Ah, yes, you are definitely the final authority in any matter, huh? Especially since you cannot remain civil in a discussion and w/o playing the "hurt little angel".

Sir, you pervert scripture and even set the LORD against Himself and demoralize His PERFECT character, shame!!!

 

[personal attack snipped]

[ November 27, 2004, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

Uh, no, friend, it is not an "attack", though I am sure you would love for anyone to think it is.

[personal attack snipped]

It seems you are unable to determine what it is the Spirit saith beyond the limits you yourself have set presumably to avoid the conflict of what the Truth has instore for error: REPROOF.

Maybe you can explain for us all how that God institued marriage as earthly binding two separate souls together to become ONE FLESH, then how He somehow negates Himself according to the sin of men in His ordination of the matrimonial aspects and somehow bows Himself down to man's demands?

BUT, it seems you cannot do anything more than take one phrase out of it's context, form a "doctrine", and still you fail to see where Jesus stated the Law and then gave the fulfillment of that Law and it's post-emptive recourse as re-marriage becoming adultry in every case, including the previous adultry which you seem to think negates the Law of God.

[personal attack snipped]

I haven't "assaulted" anyone, you're still just playing games and unable to answer according to the facts. Go hide in your little cocoon, friend, one day the moth will break out.

[personal attack snipped]

Good Day, and May God richly bless you in all knowledge and wisdom according to His Holy Bible.

[ November 27, 2004, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

Oh, I see, what I said is looked at as an attack, but avl is free and clear with full liberty to attack me at will?

But there is no "legitimate biblical divorce", the remarriage is the sin of adultry.

Why is it in Duet 24 that the first putting seems to be allowed (NOT), but the sedcond is due to his hating her, but he certainly knew she had been previously married, but her uncleaness is what "justified" his hardheartedness (NOT), but the second is when she is referred to as DEFILED, when all along her defilement was known to both the first and the latter?

Couldn't it just be that word "may" means she MIGHT remarry and that her defilement was the second marriage vow? (YEP)

And yer right [attack snipped], MANY Baptists still hold to sound Biblical teaching, sorry so many here do NOT. Which BTW Jesus told Moses, and Paul went further to explain to those who were definitely more carnal,along with and by the which many Baptists who only think they understand these passages hold to in the effort to justify their hardhearts as well, sadly so, and evidently true.

[ November 30, 2004, 01:14 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

Sorry to see you had to respond this way, I only supposed his marital condition, not made any attempyt to declare it, either way.

I find you with the "VILE" attitude, Doc, just so you'd know.

God Bless, and may the Lord grant you further wisdom and knowledge in all Biblical matters.

 

Let me go on record: I never look down on anyone who is divorced, or ever will be.

Unlike others in here, I can still "look down" on the sin, but never the sinner.

I can see the Truth is not welcomed here, the following is proof of just that:

I do care what the Bible says, why don't you?

I live by the Scriptures the best the Holy Ghost will guide me. GIVE ME SCRIPTURE!! I NEED IT!! But please don't take it out of context, neither let your emotions control your response.

 

Actually, Doc, you ARE in this "debate", which I am not; presenting the Truth according to the Scripture is not a debate, but the ones who debate are in disagreement with the very Scripture.

"Probably" carries the same conotations as "might be", as you know! (and of course the due reactions do have their suggested indications, quite readable/discernable, I might add)

Just the same, accusing some one of "attacking fellow members" is construed as derogatory in intent, AND an attack on the very person it is aimed towards, YOU KNOW THAT, TOO!

In the same regard, I can also deem your two previous posts as "attacks" on my person.

And there are two rasberries in return, but they don't have any type of THREAT coupled along with their intent, but they do carry the full intention to razz the "Ol'Doc".

But now, I have given ample time for those who are serious about the Word of God to research Deuteronomy 24 as has been referenced by some who think they know what the Word of God has to say concerning (divorce) of all things, when all the while this discussion is actually about "becoming one flesh" and making every effort to remain in Holy Matrimony!

Now, the first mention of when a man has given his wife a bill of divorcement, the following phrase says "may go". That curiously goes along with what you suggest as some sort of rebuke towards my asking, by the word "probably"; meaning "might be", as in the wife who has been given this bill, "may go" and become another man's wife; the Hebrew NEVER granting permissiveness in that applicable context, nor grants the conotation neither. It simply means she "might go",as in depart, meaning she might go and sin,because she was unclean before the first marriage, then put to an open shame by her first HARDHEARTED husband, then even to further her shame, commits adultry by remarriage to another.

The next time, I believe in Deut 24:4? or is 5? we find the word "may" in a completely different note, huh? meaning the right is granted.

Check the Hebrew for yourselves, ye Hebrew Scholars and students alike, that is if ye dare, or do ye think thou mightest be reproved? Yes, REPROVED!!

This should also give those Light in regards to Matthew 5:32, but I seriously doubt it will, for most of you, err, since Jesus clearly said, "Men rather love darkness, lest their deeds be reproved".

But even the ideal that Jesus grants permisiveness against the very intstitution of Holy Matrimony, well.... GET A BIBLE and learn to read it!! Even the very verse ends all the previous action with SIN/Adultry!!!