Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[lurquer]

Okay, last time going around the mulberry bush with you...

You DID (inadvertently?) express the following:

You can "marry" a woman and yet she is not your "wife" (Herod/Herodias)

When you quote the scripture which says Herod had "married" his brother's wife.  Then you say "she is not his wife".


Two can be "one flesh" but not be "married" (1 Cor. 6)

When you refer to the scripture from Paul, "What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh." Then you deny you have thus "married" yourself to the harlot.  One flesh; but not married.  Your view.

A man can "illegally marry" another woman in an adulterous affair (Matt 19:9). 

When you recognize Christ's words that a person who divorces his wife (without cause--no fornication occurred!), then "MARRIES" another commits adultery.  You are saying what I am saying. 

As for your original "lust" comments, you must have edited them out because I can't find them now.   

[Dave in Tenn]

1Co 7:28  But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

Yes, the mulberry bush is not going to be gone around much longer.  What you have, Neo, is an idol of the heart.  It is at best 'strife over words'.  You want to 'define' what 'getting married' is.  You err.  You want to define now what 'lust' is.  You err.  The best you can do against these scriptures others have provided you is to twist THEIR words against them, and misquote the scripture you use to 'support' your contention.  No amount of scripture provided is going to move you off your position.  And no doubt you are thinking the same thing about Alex and others. 

Know what...I can't even support EVERYTHING that's been said in these threads.  BUT...I'M NOT HERE TO DO THAT!  This forum has a purpose, and it is NOT to allow everybody with a bible to 'preach, teach, or contend'--certainly not unchallenged.

"We" agree on many things even concerning this topic.  Sexual sin is serious and wrong.  Beyond that, the one (from my chair) who is 'disagreeing' the most is YOU concerning the 'contractual nature' of 'getting married', which is what Ray taught.

I'd hope we also agree that God forgives sinners, but holds people to their vows.  One of the heroes of faith listed in Hebrews is there just for that reason.  He may well have wished he'd never made it.

I'm going to leave the thread open for an unspecified period of time, but I will lock it soon enough...and I will not allow this 'discussion' to be brought up again.  I hope that is understood. 


 

[lilitalienboi16]

Okay, last time going around the mulberry bush with you...

You DID (inadvertently?) express the following:

You can "marry" a woman and yet she is not your "wife" (Herod/Herodias)

When you quote the scripture which says Herod had "married" his brother's wife.  Then you say "she is not his wife".


Two can be "one flesh" but not be "married" (1 Cor. 6)

When you refer to the scripture from Paul, "What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh." Then you deny you have thus "married" yourself to the harlot.  One flesh; but not married.  Your view.

A man can "illegally marry" another woman in an adulterous affair (Matt 19:9). 

When you recognize Christ's words that a person who divorces his wife (without cause--no fornication occurred!), then "MARRIES" another commits adultery.  You are saying what I am saying. 

As for your original "lust" comments, you must have edited them out because I can't find them now.   

Definitely some serious twisting of scripture here.

You think that just because Herod married her but she was not his wife LAWFULLY that this somehow proves your twisted view that marriage and being married occurs through the act of sexual intercourse? You think John was insinuating that Herod had sex with her? Have you already forgotten what Christ said about lawful marriage?

Matthew 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
Matthew 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
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.

Mark 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

There is no indication that Herodias was put away by Philip. In fact, because John still call's her Herod's brother's wife, the wife of Philip, it is clear she was still legally married to THE BROTHER. Therefor Herod's marriage to her was NOT legal regardless of whether Herod went ahead and married her! This is why john by inspiration of God condemned the marriage and why he did not refer to Herodias as Herod's wife but the brother's. She was in God's eyes, LEGALLY, Herod's brother's wife! It has absolutely NOTHING to do with your twisted view on marriage.

I'm sorry but what? 1 Cor 6 say's nothing about being married to the harlot. It says joined to her as in you put your penis inside her and you two become ONE. Another term for that would be FORNICATION. You two are NOT married, you are ONE body and this is a reprehensible assault on the temple of God because you are to be the BODY OF CHRIST. ONE WITH THE LORD.

1 Cor 6 :18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
1 Cor 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
1 Cor 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Yes a man can ILLEGALLY marry a woman in an adulterous affair but that has NOTHING to do with SEX. That has to do with God NOT recognizing their marriage because the woman is currently MARRIED to ANOTHER man. A man commits adultery when he leaves his wife without a cause because he is still married to her and going and fornicating with your new "wife" is SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE--ADULTERY! What is so difficult in understanding that?

I'm in agreement with Dave that your perverted view on marriage is an idol of the heart. Marriage DOES NOT occur through SEX. There is a reason the BRIDE of Christ is preparing herself for the MARRIAGE which involves a SUPPER. The marriage supper happens AT THE WEDDING CEREMONY!

Revelation 19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

[rick]

"What marriage then is, or isn't, has nothing to do with "local customs" or "legally accepted practices", "requirements", or "traditions".  It is what God says it is or it is nothing at all."

That is the best answer I see in this entire thread, Dave is spot on !

This one thing I will add, Christ says that if a man looks upon a women with lust he has already committed adultery, the days of the physical act to be guilty were over a long time ago.

Be careful how you look upon a women from the time Christ said that til present day. 

[Dave in Tenn]

It's not mine, Rick, although it IS true that it is what God says it is. 

[lurquer]

Alex:

Yes a man can ILLEGALLY marry a woman in an adulterous affair but that has NOTHING to do with SEX.

Ok, I'll bite one more time...Tell me how--I mean precisely--one gets "illegally married".  How does it occur?   HOW did Herod marry his brother's wife? 

And how long have you been married, Alex?

[lurquer]

Dave, I’ve considered what you said and your accusation against me. I wasn’t going to respond as I know it’s pointless—you are convinced of your belief and honestly, I don’t care much at all to change your mind.  But at the same time I’d like you to know where I was coming from in my thoughts on this matter of marriage…Because you’ve misjudged me. It is you who have erred.

You tell me I have an “idol” because I won’t agree with your contrary opinion. You subscribe to a nebulous “contract theory” of marriage—most likely, merely because, as you said, “Ray taught it". Yet I’ve asked wherein this “contract” is outlined in Scripture…  Still,  nothing.  But you most assuredly believe in it.  And yet I have an idol. 

Well, we all have idols Dave.  But I believe I’ve searched the scriptures enough to reject the contract theory.  I’ve asked here what the Contract was--what the Vow was-- that you are 100% convinced exists, and NO ONE has produced even a watery theory of it. Not ONE SCRIPTURE for my consideration…  A contract is a promise.  If ‘marriage is a promise’, then you have the burden of explaining what it is I am promising, to be “legally married”. 

That’s all I’ve asked.  You, Dave, said “God holds people to their vows”.  I’m not so sure about that, but even so, WHAT is the VOW I am being held to if I’ve married a wife?  You tell me and I’ll forever shut up about this. And that’s a promise.

This subject has been on my heart for many years now… I’m not real sure why, and I’m not sure it matters as much as  perhaps I think it does.  If you’ll never marry, it probably doesn’t matter at all to you.  But I’ve seen a parallel among a few here which reminds me of the anger I’ve seen in others who are confronted by our refutation of hell and ‘free will’.  THAT is an idol of the heart of almost all churched Christians I’ve ever known. They truly WANT their free will and Hell for those who disagree.

I just sense a greasy similarity amongst some here (and others I’ve spoken to) who otherwise seem to “get it”, but when it comes to sexual sin, they manage to contort themselves into fantastic theo-logic pretzels.  Is there a simple explanation for this?  Like maybe those who KNOW the scriptures sufficiently well want an excuse to “marry” (another) mate of their choosing without the guilt of knowing it is adultery?  In other words, if your ‘youthful sin’ of fornication with another is just that—a childish mistake—then you’re not disqualified for “marriage” to another! (per Jesus’ commands to the contrary in Matt 19:9)  Having a ‘legitimate Christian marriage’ then is still possible—with God’s blessing!—because you were never (legally) married before!  A simple accounting error is all.  Forgot to submit the paperwork.  Transaction voided…

So God gives you a Mulligan. Right?

Well, believe me, I‘ve seem this play out before my own eyes, even amongst my own family.  Time and time again. And the rotten consequences to follow.  Maybe that’s why it matters to me.

Or, maybe it’s just a silly idol of my heart.  Judge rightly my friend.  But don't accuse from a lack of evidence.

[John from Kentucky]

Neo,

You are very close to the unpardonable sin, which is boring me to tears  .

Everyone here is free (?) to believe what they will (?). 

But Ray's study on marriage was backed up by Scriptures.  Ray convinced me from the Scriptures.

I have read your posts----no cigar.  I find your statements incoherent and twisting of the Scriptures.

So, did I say this about you before or someone else?  "Fox in the hen house, Run chicks, Run!

John, the bored one

[rick]

I know Paul the apostle said that a man who does not take care of his family is worst than a man without faith, so we can say that taking care of one’s family is a part of the contract or maybe the entire contract.

Don’t forget about adultery, that would be another part of the contract too, no other than the one you married. 

[Dave in Tenn]

Neo, you're essentially asking me to 'back up' every statement made by everybody else.  No can do.

For instance:  I don't know about this concept of "being married in God's eyes".  Maybe it's in scripture...I'm not the world's greatest bible-scholar by a long shot...but it sounds to me like a 'made-up' phrase.  I am also unsure about the concept of God "honoring" ANYTHING we do, including the marriage of two opposite-sexed virgins.  He is known to 'bless' and to 'condemn' and to 'forgive' all our many choices (and I'm probably leaving some out), but I don't know about Him "honoring" those choices.  Surely some of our choices are 'honorable' and some 'dishonorable', but I believe it's the nature of the choice and not that God 'honors' the choice that determines these things.

I also don't see Jesus EVER having a conversation with any NOT His disciples where He talks plainly without riddles or questions, or parables.  I don't believe He is the new Moses explaining or arguing law with scribes and pharisees.  There is something in His statement that "it was not so from the beginning" and "the hardness of your hearts" that take his discourse with them out of that scenario.

Breaking a vow is a serious sin in Scripture--one that is repeatedly mentioned in multiple contexts.  It doesn't much matter what the vow is--if you made it, you are bound to keep it unless released from that obligation.  Still, Jesus died for our sins.  I know it's not fair that He did.  And though we cannot 'un-wring' a bell, we can accept forgiveness and get on with the rest of our lives. 

Ya see...I've also thought about these things for a long time...only not 'topically'.  I think you are unable to 'agree' with what Ray taught mostly because you have gone far beyond what he taught and so even his simple definition and explanation of the use of the word to denote a contract 'contradicts' your assumption that 'sex seals the deal' and any act of sex by a virgin "marries" them "in the eyes of God" forever (or at least as long as this life lasts).

I believe what Paul is saying is:  don't wring the bell.  There are consequences to our actions, and we may well have to live with them.  But they are not "marriage".  If some are 'greasy', it's often because they themselves are "scribes" and have neither desire nor intention to 'live godly in Christ Jesus'.  They are just the other side of the coin.

Anyway.  We aren't a church.  We're a web-forum.  And a web-forum different from most.  It's all right there in the rules.  Nobody is required to 'agree' with anything Ray taught.  And we're not required to try to 'change your mind'.