Become one flesh

I am divorced. Did not put my wife away due to adultery/fornication. I am remarried, and thus living in sin. If I had put away my wife due to adultery/fornication, I was not at liberty to remarry. Paul did say it was better to marry than to burn; however, cannot correlate that to my eternal security viewpoint. I am a Christian, and have the gift of eternal life. Couldn't ask for, nor do I deserve, anymore. Anything wrong with my interpretation of divorce, or is my study of God's Word faulty?

 

OK, avengingliberal born in 1984, I see your point, NONE. He that marrieth her that has been put away causeth her to COMMIT a d u l t r y.

So, you got any more scriptures left to your limited and private interoretation? </font>[/QUOTE]My, now Ralph has resorted to ad hominem attacks and saying that the Words of Christ prove nothing. If fornication has been committed, then divorce is admissable as would be remarriage. Your saying there are no admissable causes is mute according to the words of Christ. Keep on twisting your interpretations, Ralph. I find this typical of you, and would expect nothing less.

 

Whatever, Ralph. Thought you were petitioning for the close of this thread?

 

Me? An argumentative spirit? I doubt it. I do, however, have a spirit to stand for the truth, something I'm not sure you know much about. You're telling me to repent is ludicrous. The only one here who argues with everyone is you, friend. So, contineu to do so. You have no substantive answers, so you resort to ad hominem attacks and telling people to repent. That's a shame. I expected better.

 

Heheh!!! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Thankfully, the more PoR posts, the more he reveals himself to be lacking in knowlege of scripture, and the more he reveals himself to be filled with a selfrighteous heart, one who is unable to play any game other than qien es mas macho.

I would love it if PoR would prove me wrong, by demonstrating a more loving spirit. I would lvoe it further if PoR could prove me wrong in regards to KJVOism. I'd be happy to retract my statements if this were so. But alas, I'm not holding my breath.

 

Marcia, Jesus did that for us all in Matt. 5 and 19. That is clear enough for me, why isn't it clear enough for you? I can only suppose what you disagree with God about is somehow being taken out against me and you're trying to push the letter of the Law against me; that is never advisable. Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not break it in any fashion, so it is therefore, uh, therefore, Clear that He is right and Moses, in his "suffering"/ allowing divorce to negate that Which God institued as Holy and not able to be put asunder by men, including the man Moses, was wrong, again. </font>[/QUOTE]POR, is the passage below clear enough?

Do you see what Jesus said? "Except for marital unfaithfulness." In other words, Jesus is allowing the exception of divorce for adultery.

Yes, Jesus came to fulfill the law, including the laws given by God through Moses in Deut. The term used in Deut 24 about a man finding something "indecent" about his wife is usually thought to mean adultery or some sexual impropriety. The Hebrew phrase is "nakedness of a thing" and is used to refer to adultery in other passages in Lev., Ezekiel, and Hosea.

So are you still saying that what Moses says in Deut. 24 is not from God?

 

Here you have it . . . . .

The Top Ten Ralphism's of this thread . . .

10. The condition of her re-marrying began a new vow, the old one broken, yes, and was before the second vow renewable, but now the second vow took precedence to be upheld, the first never being annulled.

9. Learn to follow context, man, it helps discernment, get that "DISCERNMENT".

8. You are confusing the historical with the command, and besides still God never honours the effects of a hardheart, only does he not despise a broken and contrite heart, you are even pitting the Almighty against His own Word here, not advised.

7. So by some's estimation, does this too "justify" divorce everytime a man looked at a nearly naked woman? NO!

6. Care to continue with your fettish?

5. Err, since my vocabulary exceeds far above your understanding, maybe I should remove the legs from the table and lower it to the floor for your comprehension?

4. Death IS the only way a marriage releases it's vow to the other spouse, else as some say, "the exception clause" somehow grants privilege to divorce, but then he who marries the one put away commits adultry, so then we still have death as the ONLY allowable means to dissolve the marriage vows unless you're serving a god that permits and encourages sin, NOPE!

3. . . . I see you like to dodge the issue you introduce, the words of the king of Tyre are only inspired by God to be included in scripture, but not actually inspired words of God, He never spoke them!

2. Since your knowledge is become a lack of discerning context, I now see why you are so messed up on this issue.


And the #1 Ralphism of this thread is . . . .

1. (Rolling eyes all over the floor and sucked down the drain!!)

 

Sorry Dr. Bob . . .

[appropriately reprimanded]

 

Are you talking about Matt 5.32 here? if you are, you are missing the point. Jesus does allow divorce -- he is saying that divorcing a woman, except for the cause of fornication, is making her commit adultery. But he is allowing for putting away (divorcing) the wife.

From the KJV:

Are you saying that Jesus is not allowing divorce in the case of adultery here, where he clearly says he is?

So what Moses says in Deut 24 is not from God? Where does Moses' opinion start and end in Deut 24, and God's law begin? I've asked you but you won't answer. Jesus is not contradicting Moses in Matt 5.19.

 

Jesus gave a guideline on what makes a divorce permissible, Ralph, and it has been shown to you time and again.If there is a divorce for this reason, a remarriage wouldn't be adultery. It came from Christ's own mouth and you won't accept it. You're doing exactly what the Pharisees did in trying to negate the words of Christ. I'm pretty sure the Pharisees were well aware of the fact that Moses wasn't the messiah, whether he was too highly esteemed or not.

 

It's amusing hypocritical of you to say that, then it is you who originally called Jesus a liar when Jesus clearly permits divorce in cases of adultery, yet you say Jesus didn't really mean what he said.

I'm wagering that, in your reply to this post, you will not address that verse, but instead will draw attention away from it.

 

I don't believe I'm adding anything to scripture Ralph. Operative words from Jesus "saving for the cause of". You're detracting from the Words of Christ and reading your own interpretation into it. So, is Jesus giving a double standard? Don't think so.