John for JESUS wrote:
..You may be right about the Pharisees not having any issues with divorce and remarriage blah..

John for JESUS wrote:
Are you for gay "marriage" also? If not, are you being a Pharisee? If someone feels like they have grown apart from their spouse and gets divorced, why not let them remarry too?

You're sounding pretty desperate in your confusion. You want to point me to anywhere where I even suggested this?

John for JESUS wrote:
What if someone commits adultery in a moment of temptation when they are 25 years old, would you say they couldn't ever get remarried? We all make mistakes! They couldn't possibly stay single the rest of their lives!
You have acted like a person can't have a fulfilled life without ever being married! What about all of those single people who will never find someone to marry? Life can only be "A veritable hell on earth!" for them. I guess that makes God "cruel!" to you! blah.

John for JESUS wrote:
More blah!...

If ya's gonna choose Mark 10 - then compare with Matt 19!

And then you'll discover that Jesus is only addressing Deut 24.1 not verse 2.

Plain fact is that you cannot show me a verse in the NT that annulled Deut 24.2, and so it was still in force.

What God himself allowed to dissolve in the OT he still allowed in the NT. So your false piety in constantly quoting what God hath joined blah blah is irrelevant if we have examples where God himself (not man) puts asunder.

Maybe God is a merciful God and don't require hard hearted legalistic people like you reframing his laws to make the life of his people burdensome? Ain't that what the Pharisees were good at viz.Man made doctrines and commandments? You're in good company!

I'll deal with your blindness about Israel another time.

I gotta go. I'll check in tomorrow.

s c wrote:
Yes,Moses...
Matthew 26:27-28
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
...just wondering how long it'll take until those who defend marijuana will "use" Scripture to defend being a moderate pot user. The word "herb",after all,is in there. :/

You're a real tiresome little stiff-neck!

John for JESUS wrote:
...blah..
...

In the NT gospels the whole issue of divorce centred around the OT passage dealing with the issue. The only question that needed to be resolved was for what cause a divorce was to be granted. The right to remarry was never questioned. IOW that was the status quo from the OT and never changed.

What you're doing is applying your newly invented interpretative rule to override Deut 24.2. You care to show me from the NT that this was ever changed for divorces?

John for JESUS wrote:
Observer...
The death of a spouse is true, but divorce is only allowed for unfaithfulness and desertion of an unbelieving spouse.

But you don't accept what the bible accepts are the consequence of divorce viz. the right to remarry. That's fine so long as you don't claim biblical warrant for that erroneous view.

John for JESUS wrote:
If a person like Limbaugh or Trump keep getting deserted then they would be able to marry thousands of times, which is fine by you. Just not God. God the Father never found Himself a new wife and in fact will one day reconcile with Israel.

BTW, you're wrong on Israel as well. Funny how errors compound!

________________________

Hey bro Frank

How'd I miss ya post to Stevie boy?

Now I don't think he'll take that kindly considering he meant his comment for evil!

John for JESUS wrote:
Did you just call me autistic?! Oh, ascetic! Nevermind.
Your doctrine allows men to divorce and remarry thousands of times and God to constantly be mistaken by who He joins together.
One problem:
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
Luke 16:18 KJV

BTW Luke 16.18 does not address those divorced for valid reasons!

There are only 3 valid reasons for ending a marriage and freeing someone to remarry:

1. The death of the spouse
2. Unfaithfulness by the spouse, and
3. Desertion by the spouse

How does that allow men to divorce and remarry thousands of times?

As I have said many times, you have a real comprehension problem!

______________________________

SteveR

Jeremiah 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Keep trying J4.

That's the thing about the commandments and doctrines of men, they :

Col 2.23
",,,have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh."

SteveR wrote:
Paul reached out for righteous exhortation, whereas you reach out in wicked justification of sin

SteveR wrote:
If you can keep the WHOLE law, you can put away your wife. The law isn't an a la carte item and accursed are those that appeal to it for wickedness yet don't keep it

Why then did Paul appeal to the law in 1 Cor 7.39? Because we are called to keep the whole law?

What were the Corinthians to make of 1 Cor 7.12 and the words "let him not put her away" without reference to the law?

SteveR wrote:
How lost, I answered that yesterday but SA deleted it. Divorce was allowed in the Mosiac law because of the lost hardened hearts of covenant people, marriage wasn't intended to be so. You mock the divine purpose of marriage when you appeal to the law when it suits you, but ignore it when it doesn't

When the Pharisees came to him in Matthew 19 and asked Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? The Lord could have put this beyond a doubt by stating what you maintain is the truth. The inconvenient thing for you is that he didn't. Instead, having stated that this was not so from the beginning and explaining that it was a provision because of their hardness of heart, here's his answer - now listen to his words carefully:

"..I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

He still provided for the putting away of the wife!!

Duh!

Psalm 34:3 O magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt his name together.

Some people here just don't seem able to think. So for the benefit of the impartial I'm gonna show you what the Bible teaches.

Let's start with the OT and Deut 24.1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

The point to note here is that the writing of divorcement not only annulled the marriage but enabled the parties to marry again. This is what the "divorce" issue is all about. So for anyone to say that one may divorce but not remarry, well they're just making it up. Plain and simple.

Now let's deal with I Cor 7.39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

We've just looked at the law and what it stated. How can we make sense of 1 Cor 7.39?

SteveR wrote:
Now we are lost without your heavenly insight. At least I have observers kristianeeze vulgarities and false accusations to guide me
Remember when your lovely wife gets fat and ugly that divorce was only offered because of hardened hearts, it wasn't intended that way

Well, I'm gonna leave you to stew in your bile, while I go and spend some time with the family that God's blessed me with.

SteveR wrote:
For those young in the faith, that's giving someone the finger while stomping your feet in faux kristianeeze
Poor observer isn't showing well in this topic

And since when did I ever care for your miserable opinion?

Chimera, you should know all about faux kristianeeze. You try hard enough, and you've been trying over a long period of time. Never succeeded though, eh? What a poor imitator you are! Kinda galling ain't it?

___________________

J4 - Oh so now you're changing your tune. There are exceptions to the married for life rule.

I Cor 7 again - believers married to unbelievers who refuse to live with them are not in bondage - IOW they are loosed and if they are loosed there is no marriage bond and they may remarry.

SteveR wrote:
Purgatory was indeed too nice of a term for one sentenced to be married to the wicked or 50 years and vexed for eternity. . At least those in purgatory have hope

The Lord have mercy on your miserable soul you servant of Satan.

And you claim to be reformed? Ha!

John for JESUS wrote:
So the unmarried and widows are actually tied to a husband?

Here is J4's suggestion to overcome fornication for a young man of 18 who has just been abandoned by his first wife. REMAIN SINGLE FOR AS LONG AS YOUR WIFE LIVES!! Duh!

The context of our Lord's conversations with the Pharisees was

Deut 24.1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

The issue was can this be done for any cause. The Lord answers save for the case of fornication no divorce should be given.

When did he change v2 that the divorced woman, and by implication the divorced man, may marry?

John for JESUS wrote:
...

Observer...
You act like you just thought it through and everyone is wrong who doesn't agree, but what about what Jesus says? If a man puts away his wife and gets remarried, is it not adultery? Has God said...?

Man o man, i've never heard anything so absurd!

You sure do like to make it up.

Actually, if you want the context, it starts with verses 1, 2 AVOIDING FORNICATION and hence v 5 defraud not one another because temptation from incontinency. He then goes on to address singleness, the unmarried and widows, advising all that it is better to marry than burn. He then turns his attention to the married. To believing couples that they should not leave each other, but if they do then to remain unmarried or be reconciled and not divorce. They have a choice! To those married to unbelievers he says they should not divorce if the unbelieiving spouse agrees to live with them, but if not they may divorce, they are not bound. He advises them, given the present distress, to remain in whatever condition they find themselves. Then he asks the question are you bound to a wife - don't seek divorce. If you are divorced, don't seek a wife. But if you marry you have not sinned etc..

I could almost say I rest my case.

John UK

Makes me wonder why some find the plain meaning so difficult to grasp.

Look at earlier verses for instance

8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

But divorcees apparently can burn even if they happen to be innocent parties!

You gotta wonder if some people think!

John for JESUS wrote:
Observer...
If it said, "if you remarry, you have not sinned" you would have a point....

Read the verses again!

Art thou loosed from a wife? .. if thou marry, thou hast not sinned.

J4, seriously, do you have comprehension problems?

Since meat and drink (including wine) are included in Romans 14 as issues of conscience, these verses are a sobering consideration. They prophesy of the Pharisees who will arise in the end times who think that their asceticism makes them special and that everyone should be an ascetic like them.

The verses speak for themselves.

Beware of people like sc who will rob you of your freedom in Christ!

Titus 2:3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

Yeah, not much wine, because too much grape juice has undesirable side effects!

She can't find non-alcoholic wine in the Bible and so has to import the notion from "authorities" outside the Bible. Let's not forget that the authorities right until the time of the prohibitionists were unanimous that wine in the Bible was always alcoholic. The prohibitionists changed the meaning of words like the Presbys do with baptism.

But, and get this, we're the proud ones refusing correction!