Nosey wrote:
May I butt in?
..

Kev wrote:
Thanks MS yeah it is a great book. Yeah I am about to go into standby mode also. Seems like I just go in circles with some people. Take care 😃

We have trolls on here whose delight it is to promote their false views ad nauseum. Not naming any names cos you should know them by now. If not, ya'll recognise them by a number of distinguishing traits:

1. Ignorant of the Scripture and handle Scripture lightly (IOW they don't care for it, even if they pretend that they do)
2. Inability to think logically
3. Twist everything to their own ends
4. Keep making the same arguments even if proven incorrect
5. Refuse correction
6. Maintain the moral high ground even when they act rotten
7. Cause divisions and confusion
8. Act self righteous and superior
9. Name call, accuse and slander others but cry foul if they're ever called out

I could go on, but ya get the gist!

There's even one poster here who sounds more like an Islamist Sharia lover than a born again Christian whose been freed from sin and its power. I'll let ya guess who.

Problem is that over time these little people have made this forum their home and all the good regular posters the target of their contempt.

sf from tx wrote:
I hesitate to enter the hemp argument. I did study it recently and it brought this thread to mind. Hemp (pot)when ate in a powder form is a great source of protein. It also makes good clothes and strong rope. It has no psychological effects in powder form. I believe this is due to when and how it's harvested. Memory fails me on that. Unfortunately it has been abused. People smoke it which does cause psychological effects. So should I be forbidden to make hemp protein bars because some smoke it and abuse the herb. Nien. According to Penny it also has cancer healing potentials. Idk about that but it wouldn't surprise me.

They have a log in their eyes for a reason - to better enable them to find the speck in ours!

Let's make a list of all the stuff in life that could possibly be abused and let's make them live by their own rules.

1. Spoons
2.

Anyone like to add to the list?

17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

John UK wrote:
Thanks bro. I think the more we meditate on the definition of "marriage", the more difficult it will become.
If Lurker Bro is tuning in, maybe he would also like to contribute to the definition.
And any others who are interested in the thread.
Don't forget that we are not looking for how men define marriage, but what God says about it.
Just as an example, Observer Bro. If a 90 yr old man marries an 85 yr old woman; according to your off-the-cuff definition, they could not be accounted married, because they can't fulfill much of your definition.

So let me rework it to:

Marriage is an honorable estate being a covenant union between a man and woman who promise in the sight of God to devote themselves exclusively to each other till death do them part and, as God shall enable them, to fulfil the purposes of that holy estate for the benefit of their own family and society in general.

John UK wrote:
It would be helpful if someone could accurately define "marriage", "divorce", and "remarriage".
I know it won't be easy, but may be worth the effort.

I have very little time today, but just off the cuff, here are 2 quickly worked definitions which I hope will prove good starting points.

Marriage is an honorable life long covenant union according to the will of God between a man and woman for the purpose of promoting domestic felicity, preventing promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, the propagation of the human race and securing the maintenance and education of children.

Divorce is the God sanctioned annulment and dissolution of the marriage union occasioned by the sexual unfaithfulness of one party to the marriage or in the case of a union where both parties were unbelievers and subsequently one of the parties to the union becomes a believer the negating of the union by the unbelieving party deserting.

Sorry out of time. I will rework over the next few days and maybe attempt one for remarriage as well.

ladybug wrote:
..They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine." From Proverbs 23..

1 Timothy 5:23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

Paul clearly had not read Prov 20. Imagine recommending a mocker to an ill man!! How shocking!

If drinking wine is a sin, why is drunkardness condemned and not drinking? Look up the word drunkard. It is void of meaning if it means just one sip.

Ephesians 5:18 And be not drunk with wine

What does drunk mean here? One sip?

1 Timothy 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre..

Why "much wine" instead of "any wine"?

Wine was offered as a drink offering in the OT. Why would God want an offering of mocker?

Luke 21

34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.

Christopher000 wrote:
pastor who drinks, or the word "wine" in order to bring some attention. Anyway, thanks for taking the time, friend and brother who genuinly cares. I won't be back to this thread. : ) I hope you have a great day today.

Jude 1:25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

Hey Chris

I would've responded but was otherwise engaged bro. Wasn't try to ignore ya.

That's a strange story in many ways. Not knowing how old ya are kinda makes me wonder whether your group is typical in its representation of different views, all to one degree or another antithetical to true Christianity. If so, makes me worry even more than I was about the youth of today.

As for your reaction, how much of this is accounted for by ya own background in these things? I would of remained calm and given them food for thought about what they were doing. No doubt it would have led to a hate fest, but then lovingly answering their questions would of perhaps made them pause. Often the way the first seed is sown can determine how they come to view Christianity the rest of their days. I don't know whether ya's heard of STR but I like their call to Ambassadorship.

John for JESUS wrote:
4) Jesus is saying, "But I say" in contrast to what Moses said. blah blah

When they asked why did Moses etc. it is no more than we might say why did Paul or Matthew etc. It is still the word of God that is being referred to but by reference to the human writer.

What you are doing is stupidly discounting it as the fallible utterance of a man. If you understood it is God's word then you'd be asking "How can Deut 24.1,2 be reconciled with what Jesus is saying?".

John for JESUS wrote:
You aren't reading them, so how would you know? Haha. Matt 19:3-12 is different from Matt 5:31-32 which is different from Luke 16:18, which is different from Mark 10:2-12, etc. A couple are reitorations, but different text.

Way to go J4John!

John for JESUS wrote:
..if the consequence of divorce was accepted by all parties somebody should have told Jesus!..

Can you tell me whose word is Deut 24.1, 2? Who spoke those words?

You keep quoting the same passage but don't seem to be able to get your head around what is being said.

What part of "except it be for fornication" do you have a problem with?

Maybe it's because you're not reading the sentences correctly. I'm really baffled where the disconnect is with you and that passage.

Maybe its the verse that reads "....and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." You realise that that should be qualified and read as follows:

"..and whoso marrieth her which is SO put away doth commit adultery" IOW for any reason other than fornication. Any woman who is not guilty of fornication is still deemed married to the husband and therefore if the husband divorces her he causes the next man to marry her to become an adulterer. What if she is guilty of fornication? Then the divorce is valid and the next man that marries is not committing adultery because the divorce really did end the marriage.

Mike wrote:
..you don't think we need more spoon control? Semi automatic spoons can be openly purchased in every mall and grocery store, and without proof of competence! ..

i have heard of said Gov'ment concerns and tend therefore to avoid the semi-automatic variety (also because I doubt my own competence in handling the same) , but the double barrelled manual load and swallow ones I have to admit are not as effective.

I have heard a rumor on the grapevine that food is also suspected of causing obesity and that there may be moves soon to deny access to the general public. I have to admit the argument is persuasive because it seems self evident that there can be no food addiction if food is also removed from the equation. And of course then G'ment access to the spoons becomes unobjectionable because we would not need them and then we'll be safe and be able to rejoice in having such concerned people in G'ment.

There is plenty more to say on interpretative methodology which again and again is at the base of incorrect Scriptural views, but I shall leave that for another occasion.

Christopher000 wrote:
Why are we stuck on "wine is a mocker", while ignoring the rest of contextual scripture which concerns it? Seems to me that wine is a mocker when used irresponsibly, not in moderation, etc.

Matt 15
16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?

17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

Imagine that!! They can sin even with no wine in the equation!!

But I come back to the point that the question raised was about the valid grounds of divorce (IOW Deut 24.1) and NOT about the valid consequence of divorce (IOW Deut 24.2) which was accepted by all parties as the ability to remarry, following to the letter Deut 24.2!!

In the Matt chapter the Lord gives his considered response that divorce could not be given for any reason other than for fornication. That sorted the question of the grounds of divorce. Period.

Does that mean that there are no other grounds for divorce? Let's remember that the gospel had not gone international yet, and so issues about marriage and divorce regarding the gentiles is not something that the Lord answered when he was here in the flesh, BUT he had promised to lead his apostles into all the truth and hence Paul addresses the problems in 1 Cor 7, all under the heading of FORNICATION because marriage is designed as a preventative to sexual temptation.

s c wrote:
Proverbs 21:17
17 He that loveth pleasure shall be a poor man: he that loveth wine and oil shall not be rich.
...and wine is a mocker.
Rarely does scandal occur apart alcohol.
Mark Driscoll has it in his church as well.
Whoever might take this guy's place,will probably have to continue on the road of compromise to appease the many who attend this church.
Sadly,now it's not just many "pentecostals" who fall into compromise.

Back to the pet peeves

John UK wrote:
"except it be for fornication" ..= impurity in the wife found after betrothal but before.. marriage was consummated...

The Jewish engagement period is beside the point. The point is that they were considered married, and don't forget that the entire conversation refers back to Deut 24 which was clearly about marriage and divorce and even further back to Adam and Eve.

Some, who consider themselves clever, see a distinction here between fornication and adultery as though one applied to single people and the other to married people. However this is not the biblical position.

So for instance the Grk porneia is used of marital unfaithfulness (Matt 19.9), incest (1 Cor 5.1) and homosexual sins (Jude 7). Never is the word limited to single people.

Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics points out that the idea that fornication meant an offence committed before marriage was not even thought of for the first 4 centuries!

Marriage was made for man, not man for marriage. That is God did not make marriage and then make a man and woman just so that someone could get married! No, he created man and woman and instituted marriage for them. It was intended for their happiness and peace - a blessing and benefit!

Kev wrote:
Your right not trying to trick though wanted to know what you guys thought about that situation. This situation I do not know about see support for both view points though and was wanting input.

Kev wrote:
I want to ask a hypothetical question. What if two divorced unbelievers come together get married then come to Christ and are born again. Are they to seek divorce or stay together?
Would this verse apply?
1 Corinthians 7:20–27

You ask if a verse applies and then cite 8 verses!

Good trick.

John for JESUS wrote:
..
However, aren't you and Observer arguing that there are a plethora of reasons why people could get divorced and still remarry? Jesus says to do so is to commit adultery. So what? The man is then disqualified to ever be a pastor or deacon. That's okay though because the church will still survive!
I also believe there was a time limit to whether or not a husband believed his wife was not a virgin and could back out of the marriage. Also, the fornication is a type of premarital adultery. Either way, adultery is the only reason for divorce, except if the unbelieving spouse first leaves you. blah..

I gave you the reasons for remarriage in my post 7/9/16 12:40 PM, as loss of a spouse, marital infidelity and desertion by an unbelieving spouse, which is pretty much what you are conceding here.

So I'm real keen to find out from you where the plethora comes from. You keep making baseless accusations, so now I'm gonna tie you down to prove this one. And while you're at it perhaps the accepting homosexual marriage and divorce for any reason.

John UK wrote:
...
Good morning bro,
As I read the passage which J4 quoted, it seemed clear to me that Jesus was actually supporting the Deut reference, seeing as he included the clause in what he said about divorce. I wonder why J4 didn't see that?????

Thanks for what ya stated, and ya's right. But, I was thinking even more fundamentally viz. that Deut 24.1, 2 are God's words, not the words of a fallible man and so for J4John to say Jesus didn't agree with the verses is what? God contradicting himself!

Doh!