SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Marriage/Divorce & Remarriage- What does God say about it?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 )
PosterThread









 Re:

Quote:

MrBillPro wrote:
So did yaw folks figure this one out? or are you more confused now more than ever? :-?


Well, Jesus gives a CLEAR exceptoin for harlotry.
there 'should' be no confusion on this issue at all, except that some brethren cannot accept our Lords CLEAR exception and add their own confusing distortions into the mix... ("fornication = betrothal sex", Deut 22 was amended by Deut 24 approx 3.5 days later, "fornication = incest", "fornication = miscegenation", etc)

Id think that if one just accepts it as He stated it,then thered be no need for folks like me to have to weed thru the details for two solid years just to finally conclude that, just as it appears, Jesus was indeed offering an exception that causes no adultery to be committed upon remarriage after the ex was put away for sexual sin.

Its actually the folks who cannot just take 'EXCEPT for fornication" (harlotry, illicit sex) as He stated it that pretty much cause ALL of the confusion in this matter.

 2006/5/11 14:43
MrBillPro
Member



Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 3233
Texas

 Re:

Quote:

FOC wrote:
Well, Jesus gives a CLEAR exceptoin for harlotry.
there 'should' be no confusion on this issue at all, except that some brethren cannot accept our Lords CLEAR exception and add their own confusing distortions into the mix...





150 Replies and over 7239 views that's pretty clear to me everyone totally understands:-? no distortions here, at least not on your posts, you cleared it up for all of us thanks for explaining all this to us great job!


_________________
Mr. Bill

 2006/5/11 18:11Profile









 Re:

Quote:

150 Replies and over 7239 views that's pretty clear to me everyone totally understands:-? no distortions here, at least not on your posts, you cleared it up for all of us thanks for explaining all this to us great job!



You know whats funny ?
Youre the first person Ive run into in these years since the internet came about that Im completely lost as to your intent :-)
I cant tell if youre being sarcastic or stating how you feel :-D

do you feel im distorting anything?
If so, please show me where and Ill be more than happy to try to show how I drew my conclusions :-)

 2006/5/11 20:48
MrBillPro
Member



Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 3233
Texas

 Re:

No sarcasm here just looks as if you have done your homework with 150 Replies and over 7239 views and no others here debating you, I was just kinda summing this thread up, sorry I know I can be confusing sometimes, even after being married 32 years my wife will tell you the same thing, but she say's it keep her on her toes. :-)


_________________
Mr. Bill

 2006/5/11 23:08Profile









 Re:

Quote:

MrBillPro wrote:
No sarcasm here just looks as if you have done your homework with 150 Replies and over 7239 views and no others here debating you, I was just kinda summing this thread up, sorry I know I can be confusing sometimes, even after being married 32 years my wife will tell you the same thing, but she say's it keep her on her toes. :-)


32 years....quite a long time....still got her guessing, eh ? ;-)

Well, I came into the thread rather late and I guess lastblast pulled out for some reason.
Id bet there will be plenty of discussion as soon as folks digest my ramblings here :-)

 2006/5/12 0:46









 Re: Marriage/Divorce & Remarriage- What does God say about it?

Hi Cindy,

I think FOC has this interpretation correct,

Quote:
technically it says the mans prayers are the ones hindered (cut off) if he isnt treating her as a co-heir in Christ.

Because of the shift from the plural pronoun 'ye', to the singular 'your, in the verse he quotes.

1Pe 3:7
Likewise, [b]ye[/b] husband[u]s[/u], dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto [u]the wife[/u], as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that [b]your[/b] prayers be not hindered.

Perhaps the plural 'prayers' adds to the confusion, and possibly a modern version of scripture does not show clearly the change from an address to husband[u]s[/u] in general, to [u]one[/u] husband in particular.... but that's what Peter said.

EDIT: Obviously, if a husband's prayers are being hindered, there will be repercussions on the wife, but Peter is laying the responsibility with the man.

This is completely in keeping with the emphasis on masuline / male responsibility which Jesus puts in His re-statement of God's heart, even when making the exception in Matt 19:9. You will notice when comparing all the references to His statements, that all but a couple, are spoken to (the) men (who had asked the question).

Had He thought that women should take an equal share of the responsibility, that was His opportunity to include it in what He knew would go down in our scriptures, but He didn't change what had been said in the beginning, about a man leaving his father and his mother and [i][b]cleaving[/i][/b] to his (own) wife.

I'm sure this is another reason for the way Jesus dealt with the Pharisees in John 8. Not only did they know the law (and did not bring the man) but, Jesus knew that God places the [i]responsibility[/i] on the man, for making the invitation in the first place - in this case, to someone else's wife - God [i]knowing[/i] that He has created women to be responsive to such invitations.... (or no-one would ever get married!)... Further, He re-inforces this [i]order[/i], by phrasing the fate of a woman divorced for anything other than porneia - "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

This does not absolve women of the responsibility to say 'no' when it's appropriate, especially if she rightly wishes to be treated as an equal in every other way within a EDIT (?Christian) EDIT end; marriage.

I believe that Jesus was underlining the truth in 'We love Him because He first loved us', which is the pattern to which Adam was made.

This whole teaching about the leadership of men in relationships with women, is counter-intuitive to fallen man*, and seeks to re-instate God's intended order. It gives 'Adam' the opportunity to redeem himself (in this respect), in the same way as Paul says women will be saved in childbearing [b]if[/b].... 1 Timothy 2:15 - where 'Eve' has an opportunity to redeem herself.

There are so many variations in the last three qualities mentioned in that verse 15, I'd be interested in comment from those who know Greek.


"Notwithstanding through bearing of children they shall be saved, so they continue in faith, love and holiness with discretion."

Thus Tyndale renders the verse, throwing the conditional feel of the 'if' (which is in many translations), completely in the other direction, and putting the emphasis on the [i]salvation[/i] of the woman (as one would expect the Lord also does) - salvation (from physical death) being a pre-requisite to their being [i]able to [b]continue[/b][/i] in showing forth [i]any[/i] qualities of godliness.

EDIT * I think Adam [i]gave away[/i] his instinctive leadership quality, when [u]he chose[/u] to follow Eve rather than [i]insisting[/i] that [u]she follow him[/u] [b]into obedience to God[/b].

 2006/5/13 9:22





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy