|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 4/20/2008 4:18:18 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 1466
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
It is just incomprehensible to me that you would trust the most critical issues in life to self proclaimed human experts in contradiction to the word of God.
But this is something I haven't done!!! I really and truly have rejected their interpretation because I recognize that it stands in CONTRADICTION TO THE WORD OF GOD. Ignoring those "self proclaimed human experts" has been quite easy to do. No matter how much they SHOUT at me, or tell me that their interpretation is THE WORD OF GOD, I recognize the difference and I haven't been deceived. I have have steadfastly embraced the truth of God's word, and continue to reject the distorted interpretation of it pushed so hard by those "self proclaimed human experts" (most found here on this thread). I can assure you that I hold the AUTHORITY OF GOD'S WORD in far higher regard than I do anything taught by these "self proclaimed human experts"!
< Message edited by benelchi -- 4/20/2008 4:24:57 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 4/20/2008 9:43:09 AM
|
|
|
Restored_Heart
Posts: 839
Joined: 7/23/2005
Status: offline
|
Amen, Benelchi!
_____________________________
<------- Lil Peanut.... due ~11/3
Yes, this will make 6...
Formerly Hunterjumper777
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 4/20/2008 10:10:52 AM
|
|
|
LoyalGypsy
Posts: 1507
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
It is just incomprehensible to me that you would trust the most critical issues in life to self proclaimed human experts in contradiction to the word of God.
But this is something I haven't done!!! I really and truly have rejected their interpretation because I recognize that it stands in CONTRADICTION TO THE WORD OF GOD. Ignoring those "self proclaimed human experts" has been quite easy to do. No matter how much they SHOUT at me, or tell me that their interpretation is THE WORD OF GOD, I recognize the difference and I haven't been deceived. I have have steadfastly embraced the truth of God's word, and continue to reject the distorted interpretation of it pushed so hard by those "self proclaimed human experts" (most found here on this thread). I can assure you that I hold the AUTHORITY OF GOD'S WORD in far higher regard than I do anything taught by these "self proclaimed human experts"!
Greetings,
quote:
I recognize that it stands in CONTRADICTION TO THE WORD OF GOD. Ignoring those "self proclaimed human experts" has been quite easy to do.
Hey B,
holding down the fort!!
I've been away gathering up notes on the spirit behind this kind of stuff, simply because it is a gift...so keep the word and remember 1 Kings 18
..........If you like prophecy and want to get a better understanding of the CONTRADICTION that is being proposed against the word of God, this proposed gridlock can been seen here
LINKFeatured Video: April 11th
LG
_____________________________
Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice
...So the Persians ask that the 300 drop their arms. Leonidas responds; "Persians! Come and get them!"
300 The Movie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 4/20/2008 10:53:13 AM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 841
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
It is just incomprehensible to me that you would trust the most critical issues in life to self proclaimed human experts in contradiction to the word of God.
But this is something I haven't done!!! I really and truly have rejected their interpretation because I recognize that it stands in CONTRADICTION TO THE WORD OF GOD. Ignoring those "self proclaimed human experts" has been quite easy to do. No matter how much they SHOUT at me, or tell me that their interpretation is THE WORD OF GOD, I recognize the difference and I haven't been deceived. I have have steadfastly embraced the truth of God's word, and continue to reject the distorted interpretation of it pushed so hard by those "self proclaimed human experts" (most found here on this thread). I can assure you that I hold the AUTHORITY OF GOD'S WORD in far higher regard than I do anything taught by these "self proclaimed human experts"!
Then why do you always appeal to the experts when your position is challenged rather than the Word of God? You use this same tactic as well as trying to demean your opponents because you can't defend your position due to the fact that it is full of contradictions. It's always "everyone who's smart agrees with me, and I am the Hebrew expert and you need to go to school to be as smart as me" etc. Every time I challenge you to defend the obvious flaws in your position you always resort to ad hominem attacks against me rather than answering the challenges to your position, which proves that you cannot defend it. If you could you would actually prove that I don't know what I'm talking about with facts rather than just saying it and ignoring my challenges.
How do you interpret "They are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together let no man separate", "A wife is bound as long as her husband lives", "the wife should not leave her husband", "if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband", "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery", "if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery", "whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery", etc, etc, etc.
These statements are not vague and open to different interpretations. They are clear absolute statements that refute what you're trying to claim, so it's not a matter of "my interpretation" verses "your interpretation" but whether you choose to accept the only possible meaning of God's Words, or reject them. I don't need a PHD in Hebrew and Greek to see that you are teaching the antithesis of what these and many other verses state.
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 4/20/2008 11:43:43 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 1466
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
Then why do you always appeal to the experts when your position is challenged rather than the Word of God?
No, I have presented both the word of God and references to experts who uphold the word of God.
quote:
You use this same tactic as well as trying to demean your opponents because you can't defend your position due to the fact that it is full of contradictions. It's always "everyone who's smart agrees with me, and I am the Hebrew expert and you need to go to school to be as smart as me" etc.
This is patently false. I have been very clear in my posts about why I suggested you go and study Hebrew, and it was because you continually present fallacious arguments based on Hebrew grammar and vocabulary that you clearly DO NOT UNDERSTAND and you use these arguments as a bases for why people should disregard the plain English understanding of these passages. Does everyone need to to study Hebrew? NO and that is something I have even stated here in this thread before; however, those who want to present arguments based on Hebrew Grammar and vocabulary that ask us to reject the teaching of most pastors and teachers and the plain understanding of the English translations we have should stop and study the langauge first, or else accept the testimony of others who have. Again, when you present an argument based on Hebrew grammar and vocabulary not supported by anyone who has really studied the langauge, then I would hope that you would realize that something MUST be really wrong with the argument you have presented. What is scary is that it seems you believe that your Hebrew language skills are superior to everyone who has really studied the langauge i.e. that you have discovered something about the grammar and vocabulary that no Hebrew student or scholar has yet recognized.
quote:
Every time I challenge you to defend the obvious flaws in your position you always resort to ad hominem attacks against me rather than answering the challenges to your position, which proves that you cannot defend it. If you could you would actually prove that I don't know what I'm talking about with facts rather than just saying it and ignoring my challenges.
No, I have often chosen to defend my position and it is something I have no difficulty doing; however, when I have challenged you on yours and when you have been unable to defend your position, you simply have resorted to the "I cannot possibly be wrong" tactic when you could find no evidence to support your conclusions i.e. for instance when you could not find one Hebrew scholar who supported your argument based on the Hebrew grammar of Duet 24;1-4
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 4/20/2008 11:51:20 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 1466
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 2Timothy3_16
quote:
ORIGINAL: Servant4theLord
benelchi,
my personal opinion is kakotasbeam, lastblast & 2timothy3_16 are the same person
Laughter is a merry medicine. Unfortunately I have to confess to not having the courage or patience to be the same person as either of those two.
I credit benelchi for answering my query. What I need, however, is to know if a recognized English translation of the Bible actually says that either or divorce or divorce and remarriage are permitted because of adultery.
In other words, without having to research Hebrew or Greek or figure out who is right or wrong about what a word means, is there any passage of scripture in any English translation where the translators used ADULTERY.
I can say that one reason I am seeking this has to do with Jesus' reference to looking and lusting being adultery of the heart.
Duet. 24:1-4 says that divorce is allow for "something unclean", and Jesus in Mt. 5 and 19 seems to clarify that something unclean is "sexual immorality". In the Duet. 24:1-4 passage, remarriage is clearly allowed with the only exception being that of choosing to remarry a former spouse after remarrying another.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 4/20/2008 12:42:06 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 841
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
This is patently false. I have been very clear in my posts about why I suggested you go and study Hebrew, and it was because you continually present fallacious arguments based on Hebrew grammar and vocabulary that you clearly DO NOT UNDERSTAND and you use these arguments as a bases for why people should disregard the plain English understanding of these passages.
You claim that and then go on to confirm exactly what I said the terms mean. If I'm wrong about something then please enlighten me as to what this statement actually says:
Deuteronomy 24:1 "When a man takes (lâqach) a wife and marries (bâ‛al) her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some (dabar) indecency (ervah) in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house"
If you're the Hebrew expert that you claim to be, then lay out exactly what the parameters of this statement are.
quote:
Does everyone need to to study Hebrew? NO and that is something I have even stated here in this thread before; however, those who want to present arguments based on Hebrew Grammar and vocabulary that ask us to reject the teaching of most pastors and teachers and the plain understanding of the English translations we have should stop and study the langauge first, or else accept the testimony of others who have.
I do accept the translations of your experts, I just disagree with some of their interpretations and applications of the text. Those are two different issues, and the latter does not have to do with ones scholarship in language study skills, but rather whether a person has a heart for God's truth and His Spirit indwelling them.
quote:
Again, when you present an argument based on Hebrew grammar and vocabulary not supported by anyone who has really studied the langauge, then I would hope that you would realize that something MUST be really wrong with the argument you have presented. What is scary is that it seems you believe that your Hebrew language skills are superior to everyone who has really studied the langauge i.e. that you have discovered something about the grammar and vocabulary that no Hebrew student or scholar has yet recognized.
My position fits perfectly with the grammar and vocabulary of the text, but it is the interpretation that I believe they and you have wrong. I believe that my interpretation and application of the text is superior to yours and your experts, because mine fits all of scripture into a clear and consistent message, while yours and theirs are full of obvious problems, and denies the majority of scripture on the topic in favor of two or three proof texts taken out of context and applied in a way that contradicts the rest.
quote:
No, I have often chosen to defend my position and it is something I have no difficulty doing;
Then why don't you do it rather than always trying to deflect our challenges:
What are the specific parameters of divorce in the Old Covenant Law?
What is the proper Hebrew understanding of an 'indecent thing' (ervah dabar) discovered "When a man "lâqach" and "bâ‛al" his wife?
Where in the text of the Old Covenant Law do you claim we will find this continual unrepentant sexual infidelity provision that you spoke of?
Are you keeping the Old Covenant Law yourself?
Is there any possible scenario where people have divorced and remarried which you don't consider a legitimate marriage?
Instead of trying to demean and discredit me, or deflect the questions raised to you, or claim you already answered them when you haven't, please clarify these things for us and defend your position since it is something you claim you have no difficulty doing.
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 4/20/2008 12:51:51 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 841
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
Duet. 24:1-4 says that divorce is allow for "something unclean", and Jesus in Mt. 5 and 19 seems to clarify that something unclean is "sexual immorality". In the Duet. 24:1-4 passage, remarriage is clearly allowed with the only exception being that of choosing to remarry a former spouse after remarrying another.
Do you keep the laws of Moses yourself?
What does the phrase "When a man takes (lâqach) a wife and marries (bâ‛al) her.." mean?
How would a husband discover "something unclean" or "sexual immorality" in a woman he had been married to for a period of time and presumably had relations with himself?
How do you explain that another verse seemingly explained in detail the same scenario and says it is referring to something far different than you claim? :
Deuteronomy 24:1 "When a man takes (lâqach) a wife and marries (bâ‛al) her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house"
Deuteronomy 22:13-19 "If any man takes (lâqach) a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, 'I took (lâqach) this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,' then the girl's father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl's virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. "The girl's father shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, "I did not find your daughter a virgin." But this is the evidence of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. "So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl's father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days.
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 4/20/2008 1:02:03 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 1466
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
You claim that and then go on to confirm exactly what I said the terms mean. If I'm wrong about something then please enlighten me as to what this statement actually says:
Deuteronomy 24:1 "When a man takes (lâqach) a wife and marries (bâ‛al) her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some (dabar) indecency (ervah) in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house"
If you're the Hebrew expert that you claim to be, then lay out exactly what the parameters of this statement are.
Let's see first the construction of the verb is 'yiqach' not 'laqach', 'ba'al' is really 'uva'alah' in the text, it is not 'debar ervah', but 'ervat devar' Again here is a link to the passage in question, and anyone who can read Hebrew can verify this (even those who can only read phonetically and don't understand the language will be able to do this)
And the argument you continue to make that the Hebrew grammar somehow precludes any posibility that 'something unclean' was discovered after marriage, and that the grammar requires an understanding that it referred only to the betrothal period is completely fallacious, and something I have addressed many times before. Additionally, your contention that these verses should be understood as 'a man taking dominion over his wife', shows a complete lack of understanding of the etymology of these Hebrew words, and a lack of understanding Hebrew verb constructions (biyanim) and how the 'biyanim' affects the meaning of the verb.
< Message edited by benelchi -- 4/20/2008 1:08:14 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 4/20/2008 3:19:40 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 841
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
You claim that and then go on to confirm exactly what I said the terms mean. If I'm wrong about something then please enlighten me as to what this statement actually says:
Deuteronomy 24:1 "When a man takes (lâqach) a wife and marries (bâ‛al) her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some (dabar) indecency (ervah) in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house"
If you're the Hebrew expert that you claim to be, then lay out exactly what the parameters of this statement are.
Let's see first the construction of the verb is 'yiqach' not 'laqach', 'ba'al' is really 'uva'alah' in the text, it is not 'debar ervah', but 'ervat devar' Again here is a link to the passage in question, and anyone who can read Hebrew can verify this (even those who can only read phonetically and don't understand the language will be able to do this)
And the argument you continue to make that the Hebrew grammar somehow precludes any posibility that 'something unclean' was discovered after marriage, and that the grammar requires an understanding that it referred only to the betrothal period is completely fallacious, and something I have addressed many times before. Additionally, your contention that these verses should be understood as 'a man taking dominion over his wife', shows a complete lack of understanding of the etymology of these Hebrew words, and a lack of understanding Hebrew verb constructions (biyanim) and how the 'biyanim' affects the meaning of the verb.
I thought you said you could defend your position, but again you deflected my challenges and tried to claim scholarly superiority rather than addreessing the real issues I raised. As far as the Hebrew terms, I just copied them the way they are transliterated in Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, Brown-Driver Briggs, and the New American Standard Concordance Dictionary, but it really has nothing to do with anything except for you to try to proclaim some sort of scholarly superiority. Why don't you defend your position and speak to the substance of my challenges rather than arguing over how words should be pronounced?
What do you claim when a man 'yiqach' a wife means? If you're the Hebrew expert that you claim to be, then you should be able to lay out exactly what the parameters of Deuteronomy 24:1 are from the text.
Where in the text of the Old Covenant Law do you claim we will find this continual unrepentant sexual infidelity provision that you spoke of?
How do you explain that another verse seemingly explained in detail the same scenario and says it is referring to something far different than you claim? :
Deuteronomy 24:1 "When a man takes (lâqach or 'yiqach') a wife and marries (bâ‛al or 'uva'alah') her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house"
Deuteronomy 22:13-19 "If any man takes (lâqach or 'yiqach') a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, 'I took (lâqach or 'yiqach') this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,' then the girl's father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl's virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. "The girl's father shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, "I did not find your daughter a virgin." But this is the evidence of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. "So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl's father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days.
Are you keeping the Old Covenant Law yourself?
Is there any possible scenario where people have divorced and remarried which you don't consider a legitimate marriage?
Please deal with the substance of my questions rather than trying to claim some sort of scholarly superiority because you think you transliterate the Hebrew terms more precisely.
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 4/20/2008 3:41:04 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 841
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
And the argument you continue to make that the Hebrew grammar somehow precludes any posibility that 'something unclean' was discovered after marriage, and that the grammar requires an understanding that it referred only to the betrothal period is completely fallacious, and something I have addressed many times before.
How would he discover his wife "unclean" well into the marriage when he presumably would have had relations with her himself? It seems to me he would expect her to be impure by that point.
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 4/20/2008 4:14:07 PM
|
|
|
lastblast
Posts: 1547
Joined: 9/20/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
No, I have often chosen to defend my position and it is something I have no difficulty doing;
Really? You have? I and others have pointedly asked you a couple of different questions that you STILL have not answered. If, as you say, you have no difficulty in defending your position, they you will have no trouble in answering these questions with scripture:
1. What scriptures can you give a person who is remaining faithful to the vows made to God and spouse and also is praying for their covenant spouse to repent from adultery and come home? Surely since you teach that their spouse is no longer their spouse, but belongs to another, you should be able to easily show such a person they, instead of honoring their covenant before God, are coveting another person's spouse in God's eyes.
2. If Jesus says that anyone who marries the divorced woman of Mt. 19:9 commits adultery (even though He just got done saying the husband "married" another), why do you continue to say that she IS free to marry again? What leads you to believe this? Is Jesus contradicting Himself?
_____________________________
Blessings as you seek Him, Cindy
What does the bible say on Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage?
www.marriagedivorce.com
www.cadz.net/faq.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 4/20/2008 4:51:17 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 1466
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
I just copied them the way they are transliterated in Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, Brown-Driver Briggs, and the New American Standard Concordance Dictionary, but it really has nothing to do with anything except for you to try to proclaim some sort of scholarly superiority.
Actually those small changes to the root can have significant implications about how a word is translated; they convey tense, intensity, voice, etc... Strong's dictionary only provides the root, and a list of definitions that encompasses a general sense of each construction. However, many of the definitions provided in Strong's are limited only to a single construction. Brown-Driver-Briggs does a much better job at separating the definitions according to the construction; however, this is really only helpful if you know what construction is being used in a particular verse. Many of the mistakes you have made come from choosing a intensive (piel) definition when the verb is its normal (qal) construction. For example, your insistence "that a man takes dominion over a woman" is a good example of using the intensive voice when the passage does not. It simply says that a man takes and marries a woman, in much the same way as we say in English that a man took a wife. I gave the following example before here, but I will include it again.
Example: The verb "to eat" (achal) includes all of the following definitions, but the conjugation determines the correct one i.e. you have to look at the text to see how it was used to determine its meaning.
"to eat", active (qal)
"to be eaten", passive (niphal)
"to devour", intensive active (piel)
"to be devoured", intensive passive (pual)
"to feed", causative active (hiphal)
"to be fed", causative passive (hophal)
"to digest", reflexive (hitpial)
If someone invited me to dinner I would think it was important to know if I was being invited to eat, or to be eaten, don't you?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 4/20/2008 7:17:23 PM
|
|
|
keepingfaith
Posts: 510
Joined: 5/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
And the argument you continue to make that the Hebrew grammar somehow precludes any posibility that 'something unclean' was discovered after marriage, and that the grammar requires an understanding that it referred only to the betrothal period is completely fallacious, and something I have addressed many times before.
How do you get "repeated unrepentant adultery" out of "he has found some indecency in her?" Please explain how one can tell that their spouse has cheated on them just by having intercourse. If you want to be that literal, this verse is only referring to a woman being put away...not vice versa. Where do you see that a woman can divorce for adultery?
If He specifically meant adultery... He would have said adultery since He used that word in the same sentence, but instead He said fornication. There are many verses where adultery and fornication are listed side by side indicating a distinction between them.
We have scriptural proof that adultery doesn't break the covenant. Romans 7:2-3, so that cannot be what He meant.
In Matthew 5:32... we see that if this woman was divorced for fornication (marriage declared invalid from the beginning), she will NOT become an adulteress if she remarries.
According to your interpretation... this says if she DID commit adultery, than she will NOT become an adulteress when she remarries. Your interpretation gives the allowance to the offender- and penalizes the innocent party. Which sounds more logical?
"But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."
Matthew 19:9 says unless I divorce my spouse for fornication, I will be committing adultery upon remarriage. I could be the adulteress myself, and divorce my innocent spouse who has not committed adultery...but according to this verse I will commit adultery if I remarry. (so my own adultery did not break the covenant)
Do you honestly believe Jesus would have us rely on someone's word (who didn't keep their word in the first place if they are breaking their vows) that they had a "biblical divorce" and are free to marry us?
Since we know reconciliation is always His will and we know that one marriage for life is always His will, and we know that a broken home for a child is never His will... why would we enter into a relationship with a divorced person who could be reconciled with their spouse/family? Why would we stand in the way of that? Why would we not encourage them to seek the Lord and pray for reconciliation?
What is the timetable that we should give to remain reconcilable? How are we able to tell when or if a spouse will repent and return? When some have after 10, 15, 25 years? Sometimes even after one or both have remarried... did that person make the right choice by moving on or should they have waited on God?
We should be sharing the message of reconciliation...not closing the door on people's marriages and helping them along their way to the next... The move on mentality in the church is very sad and very unbiblical. Not the message Jesus would give.
< Message edited by keepingfaith -- 4/20/2008 7:57:08 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 4/20/2008 7:45:08 PM
|
|
|
keepingfaith
Posts: 510
Joined: 5/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Example: The verb "to eat" (achal) includes all of the following definitions, but the conjugation determines the correct one i.e. you have to look at the text to see how it was used to determine its meaning.
"to eat", active (qal)
"to be eaten", passive (niphal)
"to devour", intensive active (piel)
"to be devoured", intensive passive (pual)
"to feed", causative active (hiphal)
"to be fed", causative passive (hophal)
"to digest", reflexive (hitpial)
If someone invited me to dinner I would think it was important to know if I was being invited to eat, or to be eaten, don't you?
Could you give us the Hebrew translation for..."for better for worse...til death do us part?"
I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding something. Because if "til death do us part" means I vowed til death do us part... than none of the above matters.
< Message edited by keepingfaith -- 4/20/2008 7:52:00 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 4/20/2008 9:18:14 PM
|
|
|
car2ner
Posts: 1875
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: just south of Atlanta GA
Status: offline
|
quote:
Could you give us the Hebrew translation for..."for better for worse...til death do us part?"
I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding something. Because if "til death do us part" means I vowed til death do us part... than none of the above matters.
Is this scripture or a man made vow? So why bother asking for the Hebrew translation? This vow is an american tradition, not Hebrew text. (willing to be shown otherwise)
In the meantime, that is one reason why Jesus warned us against vows, because often we have no real idea what we are getting ourselves into.
_____________________________
the journal of selling my wonderful home http://www.car2ner.2ya.com (my blog)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 4/20/2008 10:15:19 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 841
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
Still awaiting the explanation for this obvious contradiction as well:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Benelchi
I believe that this is the reason for the exception in Mt. 5 and 19. For instance, when those following Hillel gave their wife a certificate of divorce because she had burned a meal, they were guilty of causing her to commit adultery if she then remarried.
I thought you claimed that Paul taught abandonment "dissolves" the marriage bond. If that were true then the woman could not be guilty of adultery according to your theology, because her husband abandoned her, yet when you discuss Matthew 5:32 you deny your own loophole. So which of your contradictory teachings are true?
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 4/20/2008 10:41:08 PM
|
|
|
keepingfaith
Posts: 510
Joined: 5/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
Could you give us the Hebrew translation for..."for better for worse...til death do us part?"
I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding something. Because if "til death do us part" means I vowed til death do us part... than none of the above matters.
Is this scripture or a man made vow? So why bother asking for the Hebrew translation? This vow is an american tradition, not Hebrew text. (willing to be shown otherwise)
In the meantime, that is one reason why Jesus warned us against vows, because often we have no real idea what we are getting ourselves into.
I was not being literal... I was just trying to make a point. I'm aware that it is not Hebrew text.
How is it that we have no real idea what we are getting ourselves into when we say the words "til death do us part?" Is it too hard to keep our commitment to God? What if Jesus found it too hard to keep His commitment to God, what if He had changed His mind in the garden? Where would we be? He's not asking us to go to the cross...
He does warn us against making a vow and calling it a "mistake."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 4/21/2008 6:12:23 AM
|
|
|
car2ner
Posts: 1875
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: just south of Atlanta GA
Status: offline
|
quote:
Is it too hard to keep our commitment to God? What if Jesus found it too hard to keep His commitment to God, what if He had changed His mind in the garden? Where would we be? He's not asking us to go to the cross...
He does warn us against making a vow and calling it a "mistake."
Yes, sometimes it is too hard to keep a vow. The commitment was more than we expected. It may have even been out of God's will but we announced our commitment anyhow and expected God to bless it. Yes, he does want us to vow correctly. Broken vows hurt everyone and not only does God hate it but so do those who are affected by the broken vows.
Jesus, on the other hand, knew what He was getting into. And as for the cross, there have been posters who have said that we need to take up our cross....
I lose respect for the stance, Jesus's blood covered all our sins but if you really love God you'll abandon your current family and remain alone and/ or bring back the original partner (even if it was outside of God's will to begin with). Then and only then will you be right with God. This stance can be found in many threads, if you really love God you'll prove it by.........etc.
BTW, I do believe that there are first time marriages that have hit the rocks and should be restored. I celebrate those that survive the rocks.
_____________________________
the journal of selling my wonderful home http://www.car2ner.2ya.com (my blog)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 4/21/2008 7:43:35 AM
|
|
|
lastblast
Posts: 1547
Joined: 9/20/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: car2ner
Yes, sometimes it is too hard to keep a vow. The commitment was more than we expected. It may have even been out of God's will but we announced our commitment anyhow and expected God to bless it. Yes, he does want us to vow correctly. Broken vows hurt everyone and not only does God hate it but so do those who are affected by the broken vows.
Jesus, on the other hand, knew what He was getting into. And as for the cross, there have been posters who have said that we need to take up our cross....
I lose respect for the stance, Jesus's blood covered all our sins but if you really love God you'll abandon your current family and remain alone and/ or bring back the original partner (even if it was outside of God's will to begin with). Then and only then will you be right with God. This stance can be found in many threads, if you really love God you'll prove it by.........etc.
BTW, I do believe that there are first time marriages that have hit the rocks and should be restored. I celebrate those that survive the rocks.
Car2ner, you seem to be of the belief that God's role in marriage is only to bless or not bless it? I dont' see that at all. What I see as God's role in marriage is, first and foremost, that He is the creator of marriage---He governs the use of marriage. Secondly, that He either joins as one flesh those who marry or charges them with adultery or fornication. That is His "role". Scripture teaches us in the case of unlawful marriage, God does not join them as One, but speaks of them as entering into adultery or fornication.
As for those of us who believe the Christian life calls for us to "take up our crosses", that is what what Jesus said--it is not our opinion. Jesus also said that those who LOVE Him will obey Him. Obedience to Him is the fruit of genuine love. I have seen people who LOVE God and have turned from their sins. It is a beautiful thing.............and in some cases heartbreaking because of the sacrifice they make---but Jesus is every bit worth it to them. As I have said before, I cannot PERSONALLY imagine the pain of having to leave an adulterous union (one that has been legalized in the eyes of the state and "felt" like a real marriage), but I have seen others do it---because they love Jesus more then they love their sin and they want to be right in His sight.
All of us have crosses to bear...........all of us, and they are all different sizes and weights. Many who start to follow Jesus will not finish the "race" but will put down their cross and turn away---just as those disciples did in Jn. 6:66.
The scriptures teach us that we should "abide in Him" and if we do, we will not be ashamed, but have confidence when He comes. If we have joined ourselves with another person's spouse, we are not "abiding in Him" as Jesus would never take another person's spouse as His own. That is not "love", but is sin (the sin of adultery and coveting). Read I John 3:4-23, then read Mt. 7:21-23 with an emphasis on "workers of lawlessness". It is very clear that one who joins themself with another's spouse is NOT walking in Christ's love, but is one who is practicing lawlessness. The good news is that we can turn from lawlessness and turn towards Jesus and He will WASH us clean. Again, some do not want to carry that cross, for they deem it "too hard" for them even though Jesus says He will help them. 
_____________________________
Blessings as you seek Him, Cindy
What does the bible say on Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage?
www.marriagedivorce.com
www.cadz.net/faq.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 4/21/2008 9:52:46 AM
|
|
|
Restored_Heart
Posts: 839
Joined: 7/23/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
Still awaiting the explanation for this obvious contradiction as well:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Benelchi
I believe that this is the reason for the exception in Mt. 5 and 19. For instance, when those following Hillel gave their wife a certificate of divorce because she had burned a meal, they were guilty of causing her to commit adultery if she then remarried.
I thought you claimed that Paul taught abandonment "dissolves" the marriage bond. If that were true then the woman could not be guilty of adultery according to your theology, because her husband abandoned her, yet when you discuss Matthew 5:32 you deny your own loophole. So which of your contradictory teachings are true?
SealedEternal
Actually, there is a difference between abandonment (putting away) and wrongful divorce (invalid reason for obtaining a "get").
But anyway, the hard-hearted men that Jesus was referring to, were obtaining divorces for frivolous reasons.... That is why Jesus talked about the certificate of divorce. Many of the men in question were not obtaining the "get", just issuing a verbal "I divorce you" and sending the woman away.
_____________________________
<------- Lil Peanut.... due ~11/3
Yes, this will make 6...
Formerly Hunterjumper777
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
