> Off Topic Discussions
Update
Dave in Tenn:
I waded back through that thread until I found your post on the woman at the well. I don't agree with it. You said her 'five husbands' were immoral unions (or words to that effect). Scripture does not say they were. One can have five husbands in a row and all five of them be legitimate, moral, biblically lawful marriages. Reference the questions posed by the Pharisees to try and trap the Lord. Reference real life. You say this (in part) because she said later that Jesus had told her everything she had done. Is getting married something one does not DO?
Admit it. You just made that up because it fits your theory.
You asked us to replace 'apples' with husbands. Ok. Here goes.
Joh 4:16 Jesus saith unto her, Go, get thy apple, and come hither.
Joh 4:17 The woman answered and said, I have no apple. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no apple:
Joh 4:18 For thou hast had five apples; and it which thou now hast is not thy apple: in that saidst thou truly.
Joh 4:19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
The woman said she had no apple. Jesus said she spoke the truth. Then he told her as a prophet that she had had five apples, but it which she now had is not her apple. He didn't say it was not an apple. He said it was not HER apple.
It may be possible to read that and conclude that the man she 'had' was single and the two were unmarried. But I think it was the wisdom of Christ which said the one (husband) she now had was not HER HUSBAND. In other words, she "had" an apple--but it wasn't HER apple. The apple belonged to someone else. The sixth man was a husband (assuming "the one..." is a modifier for 'husbands'), but not HER husband. He was the husband of another woman.
This kind of stuff actually happens. And it is neither necessary nor helpful to to assume what is not in Scripture in this account. I used to teach my sunday school boys along the lines of what you are saying here. I felt it was important to let them know how important the sexual act was. But it was not needed or helpful to lay on them the burden of being 'eternally' ""married"" to someone just because they had fallen to temptation. There is already 'sin' by that name--adultery and fornication. Both of those relate to MARRIAGE, ultimately. But they are NOT marriage...one is an act against marriage, and the other an act against one's own body.
I find plenty of fault with other assumptions you make in that thread (and this one, to a lesser degree) in defense of sexual union=being wed, but I bowed out of that one because, as a moderator, it became impossible to moderate and I, frankly, had a life to live.
In the olden days, if somebody had started a thread clearly with the intent to 'teach' something contrary to what Ray taught, I/we would have had no compunction about 'nipping it in the bud'. I hope you can appreciate the leeway we've given here, and that we can both hope that we will not live to regret it.
lurquer:
Dave, I said I agreed with you on your interpretation of the Woman at the Well.. that the "husband" she had was not HER husband (another's!). That was my point in bringing it up. Yes, I interpreted the other "5 husbands" to mean illicit husbands from the context of the reading, but no, I can't prove that. I don't see, however, how that changes my point (and yours) that the "husband she had" was actually another's. She was an adulteress. I guess you're trying to say that Jesus was not actually calling her (illicit husband) HER HUSBAND, but rather, A HUSBAND. I'm fine with that. But I showed many other scriptures which do use the word "husband" or "wife" of one who is NOT lawfully married to that person (just in a 'sexual union')--matter of fact the parallel scripture of this account is John the Baptist's decrying of King Herod's "wife" (not his--actually his brother's). I showed that as well.
--- Quote ---
I used to teach my sunday school boys along the lines of what you are saying here. I felt it was important to let them know how important the sexual act was. But it was not needed or helpful to lay on them the burden of being 'eternally' ""married"" to someone just because they had fallen to temptation.
--- End quote ---
Well, Dave that's where I may have done differently, if I was apt to teach. Paul (and nature itself) teaches that a sexual union with another-- is either a sin against your own body, the consequences of which follow you for life--else it's a "marriage" wherein you've become "one flesh" (until death). We absolutely should teach others that truth and not be as the heathen with their casual, inconsequential attitudes towards sex.
That being said, I did not start the Marriage Vow thread to teach anything, as I explicitly stated (unless you imply I'm lying). I was, and am, still seeking clarity on all of this. I DO NOT think Ray "completed his thoughts" with his (short) study of marriage and said so up front. I asked the very same questions to the forum as I'd asked Ray himself. Neither gave a satisfactory answer. And still haven't.
And I do appreciate the "leeway" Dave. I think this subject is the cusp of many other important subjects that are either poorly understood or are conceived in complete error by the church. I would be happy to contribute more to this conversation if you're interested...if not, I'll reserve further comments.
Btw, page 5 of that thread addresses some of these very questions--no need to "wade through" the rest. One point I made there sort of went over everyone's head, but Jesus said, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.."
I have to wonder how you who believe a marriage isn't "legitimate" (or even a "marriage" at all) without the proper legal procedures, paperwork, rituals and accoutrements, can make sense out of Jesus' words above? If you've divorced your wife, according to scripture, you shall NOT marry another, because if you do, you will be "committing adultery". But, then how can you have "married another" if it was, by definition, ILLEGAL to do so? ...Jesus said one can "marry" into an illegitimate (adulterous) marriage. What do you make of that?
lilitalienboi16:
--- Quote from: Neo on April 14, 2015, 10:39:24 AM ---Dave, I said I agreed with you on your interpretation of the Woman at the Well.. that the "husband" she had was not HER husband (another's!). That was my point in bringing it up. Yes, I interpreted the other "5 husbands" to mean illicit husbands from the context of the reading, but no, I can't prove that. I don't see, however, how that changes my point (and yours) that the "husband she had" was actually another's. She was an adulteress. I guess you're trying to say that Jesus was not actually calling her (illicit husband) HER HUSBAND, but rather, A HUSBAND. I'm fine with that. But I showed many other scriptures which do use the word "husband" or "wife" of one who is NOT lawfully married to that person (just in a 'sexual union')--matter of fact the parallel scripture of this account is John the Baptist's decrying of King Herod's "wife" (not his--actually his brother's). I showed that as well.
--- Quote ---
I used to teach my sunday school boys along the lines of what you are saying here. I felt it was important to let them know how important the sexual act was. But it was not needed or helpful to lay on them the burden of being 'eternally' ""married"" to someone just because they had fallen to temptation.
--- End quote ---
Well, Dave that's where I may have done differently, if I was apt to teach. Paul (and nature itself) teaches that a sexual union with another-- is either a sin against your own body, the consequences of which follow you for life--else it's a "marriage" wherein you've become "one flesh" (until death). We absolutely should teach others that truth and not be as the heathen with their casual, inconsequential attitudes towards sex.
That being said, I did not start the Marriage Vow thread to teach anything, as I explicitly stated (unless you imply I'm lying). I was, and am, still seeking clarity on all of this. I DO NOT think Ray "completed his thoughts" with his (short) study of marriage and said so up front. I asked the very same questions to the forum as I'd asked Ray himself. Neither gave a satisfactory answer. And still haven't.
And I do appreciate the "leeway" Dave. I think this subject is the cusp of many other important subjects that are either poorly understood or are conceived in complete error by the church. I would be happy to contribute more to this conversation if you're interested...if not, I'll reserve further comments.
Btw, page 5 of that thread addresses some of these very questions--no need to "wade through" the rest. One point I made there sort of went over everyone's head, but Jesus said, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.."
I have to wonder how you who believe a marriage isn't "legitimate" (or even a "marriage" at all) without the proper legal procedures, paperwork, rituals and accoutrements, can make sense out of Jesus' words above? If you've divorced your wife, according to scripture, you shall NOT marry another, because if you do, you will be "committing adultery". But, then how can you have "married another" if it was, by definition, ILLEGAL to do so? ...Jesus said one can "marry" into an illegitimate (adulterous) marriage. What do you make of that?
--- End quote ---
Where did John the baptist refer to Herod's brother's wife, Herodias, as Herod's wife? He told him it was not lawful to take his BROTHER'S wife, and to marry her, but nevertheless he did marry her and this is why John withstood him. So we ask you to provide the reference on where paul say's "you can be married to a harlot, but she is not your wife" and now I ask you also for this reference where John the baptist calls Herod's brother's wife, herod's wife? This is what I've seen:
Mark 6:17-19
17 For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife: for he had married her.
18 For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife.
19 Therefore Herodias had a quarrel against him, and would have killed him; but she could not:
luke 3:18 And many other things in his exhortation preached he unto the people.
luke 3:19 But Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him for Herodias his brother Philip's wife, and for all the evils which Herod had done,
luke 3:20 Added yet this above all, that he shut up John in prison.
Matthew 14:3 Now Herod had arrested John and bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife,
Matthew 14:4 4 For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her.
I'm pretty sure I answered your last question in the other thread but I will give you a second reply. Jesus can say what He said the same way He could say that lusting after a woman in your heart is committing ADULTERY. You don't have to physical touch her OR have SEX with her. Lusting is enough! The law is SPIRITUAL. Christ's words are SPIRIT.
Jesus didn't say that marrying again is adultery. You really are twisting His words. He said if you marry again and the DIVORCE is NOT legal i.e. due to PORNEA, then the new marriage is illegal and therefor any sexual intercourse to folllow-- adultry.
Matthew 19:9 And 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.
It is the SUM of the word that is truth. Remember this. Two or three witnesses. I have added the sum for you.
lurquer:
Let me see if I understand your doctrine, Alex...
You can "marry" a woman and yet she is not your "wife" (Herod/Herodias)
Two can be "one flesh" but not be "married" (1 Cor. 6)
A man can "illegally marry" another woman in an adulterous affair (Matt 19:9).
Do you realize you're in essence saying what I've said?
Somewhere also, you said a man can "lust after his wife".. 'Fraid not. The word is associated with sin and sinful thoughts...from the Greek epithymeō, to "covet something forbidden". Doesn't apply. You seem a little confused, Alex.
lilitalienboi16:
--- Quote from: Neo on April 14, 2015, 03:42:30 PM ---Let me see if I understand your doctrine, Alex...
You can "marry" a woman and yet she is not your "wife" (Herod/Herodias)
Two can be "one flesh" but not be "married" (1 Cor. 6)
A man can "illegally marry" another woman in an adulterous affair (Matt 19:9).
Do you realize you're in essence saying what I've said?
Somewhere also, you said a man can "lust after his wife".. 'Fraid not. The word is associated with sin and sinful thoughts...from the Greek epithymeō, to "covet something forbidden". Doesn't apply. You seem a little confused, Alex.
--- End quote ---
I am not saying what you've said. Here is what you said:
"You can be "married to a harlot", says Paul... But, she is not your wife! Deep things, brother."
This is not true. Paul never said that. Kat and John have both refuted you on this point as well as myself.
"But I showed many other scriptures which do use the word "husband" or "wife" of one who is NOT lawfully married to that person (just in a 'sexual union')--matter of fact the parallel scripture of this account is John the Baptist's decrying of King Herod's "wife" (not his--actually his brother's). I showed that as well."
Again this is not true. No where does John the baptist call King Herod's brother's wife, Herodias, King Herod's wife. I did not found this in any of the gospels.
One point I made there sort of went over everyone's head, but Jesus said, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.."
I have to wonder how you who believe a marriage isn't "legitimate" (or even a "marriage" at all) without the proper legal procedures, paperwork, rituals and accoutrements, can make sense out of Jesus' words above? If you've divorced your wife, according to scripture, you shall NOT marry another, because if you do, you will be "committing adultery". But, then how can you have "married another" if it was, by definition, ILLEGAL to do so? ...Jesus said one can "marry" into an illegitimate (adulterous) marriage. What do you make of that?
What? Jesus never said it was illegal to remarry another. He didn't say if you marry another you are comitting adultry. He said if you marry again and the DIVORCE is NOT legal i.e. due to PORNEA, then the new marriage is illegal and therefor any sexual intercourse to folllow-- adultry.
Don't try and lump me into your twisted perspective of marriage. How dare you do that?
Lastly, Lusting is not only associated with only negative things. Jesus greatly desired, LUSTED, to eat the final feast with His apostles.
Luk_22:15 AndG2532 he saidG2036 untoG4314 them,G846 With desireG1939 I have desiredG1937 to eatG5315 thisG5124 passoverG3957 withG3326 youG5216 beforeG4253 IG3165 suffer:G3958
Mat_5:28 ButG1161 IG1473 sayG3004 unto you,G5213 ThatG3754 whosoeverG3956 lookethG991 on a womanG1135 to lustG1937 after herG846 hath committed adulteryG3431 with herG846 alreadyG2235 inG1722 hisG848 heart.G2588
pithumeō
ep-ee-thoo-meh'-o
From G1909 and G2372; to set the heart upon, that is, long for (rightfully or otherwise): - covet, desire, would fain, lust (after).
Total KJV occurrences: 16
You're wrong Neo.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version