Update

[lurquer]

Moises, I think it's more of a thing as Paul said "customs to whom customs" (Rom 13:7). We follow the custom, that's just the accepted practice for society of the culture and time period in which we live. ...

I think it's actually going through those motions of satisfying whatever requirements/traditions there is, to be seen and accepted as legally married by the community you are living in...

But I do believe God, who is actually the great designer of what civilization has been down through the ages and is now, recognizes the marriage rituals.

Even the "gay" ones?

[Kat]

Michael my comments were specifically to Moises concerning marriage between a man and a woman... I have clearly said I do not agree with a same sex union. In scripture Paul makes it clear how he feels about this.

Rom 1:24  Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,
v. 25  who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
v. 26  For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
v. 27  Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

So I think we can conclude what Paul calls "vile" "dishonor their bodies" "against nature" "shameful" "error" is sinful. What does Scripture say about how God feels about sinners.

John 9:31  Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him.

Psa 66:18  If I regard iniquity in my heart, The Lord will not hear.

Pro 15:29  The LORD is far from the wicked, But He hears the prayer of the righteous.

mercy, peace and love
Kat

[lurquer]

Kat,

I know you don't agree with a "same sex union".  I wasn't challenging that. Of course, I would argue such a "union" is a fantasy anyway and simply doesn't exist.  Homosexual behavior exists, and state-sanctioned "marriage" of same-gendered persons exists vis-a-vis the so-called "license"...Because, well, that's the law. 

Doesn't make it right, or true.  But that's my point, and maybe others' as well.

You said marriage is 'legal' or 'right' or 'accepted' in the eyes of God so long as "we follow the custom, that's just the accepted practice for society of the culture and time period in which we live."   So I merely was pointing out that you can't really have it both ways,can you?

If you define marriage as you have (see my bolded citations of yours in my prior post), then you have to have it the STATE'S WAY.  Because THEY define the matter--the "accepted practice", the "requirements", the "traditions", as they've legally defined.  And they've said same-sex "unions" are valid.

But if you say they are not valid, then how do you not contradict yourself?

And why does what's accepted by the masses--the customs/traditions of (evil) men--have ANY relevance to followers of Christ? You said we "follow the custom"... WHY??  I couldn't disagree more.  "Learn NOT the way of the heathen."

[Kat]

You said marriage is 'legal' or 'right' or 'accepted' in the eyes of God so long as "we follow the custom, that's just the accepted practice for society of the culture and time period in which we live."   So I merely was pointing out that you can't really have it both ways,can you?

Well since we are still physically in this world we do have to live according to the laws of the land - society and there is nothing wrong with partaking of the benefits the gov offers, when we have paid taxes. Peter teaches that we are to submit ourselves to ordinances of man.

1Peter 2:12  having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation.
v. 13  Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme,
v. 14  or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good.

But as we are also to obey God, first and foremost, and Scripture certainly does ordain and promote marriage, then we should get married. Now how are we to go about the marrying of 2 people, when the Bible only gives us the rudimentary bases for it, "leave father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh"? Well we follow the accepted custom for where we live. Is this a contradiction, by saying it needs to be both ways... you need to marry according to Scripture and society? I don't think so.

Now when you insert same sex marriage into the equation, that is a whole other aspect and I have shown, in Scripture, it's not an acceptable practice in the eyes of God, according to Paul. So there you have it, unless you are in accordance with what the Scripture teaches is God's will, as same sex marriage is not, so God certainly does not honor it.

State/gov can validate whatever they choose... and there is much in this world that believers do not partake in.  That is an absolutely key element in believers walk, to know how to "live peaceably" (Rom 12:18) in this world and not be conformed to this world.

Rom 12:2  And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

1Peter 4:1  Therefore, since the Messiah suffered in a mortal body, you, too, must arm yourselves with the same determination, because the person who has suffered in a mortal body has stopped sinning,
v. 2  so that he can live the rest of his mortal life guided, not by human desires, but by the will of God.

mercy, peace and love
Kat

[lurquer]

State/gov can validate whatever they choose... and there is much in this world that believers do not partake in.  That is an absolutely key element in believers walk, to know how to "live peaceably" (Rom 12:18) in this world and not be conformed to this world.

Exactly. What the state passes for "law" is relevant to believers only in as much as it agrees with God's laws.  All else is man's law, useful only to corral the masses of humanity which know not God.  None of us here should NEED the law of the state to know what is the right thing to do.  It's not for us.  Much of it actually contradicts our (God's) law.  That much is irrelevant for us.

You've agreed with this in that you distinguish those state laws which are in enmity with God's laws by saying (as Peter did), "We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29)  Therefore when Peter later says, "submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake", we have to be careful in interpreting that lest we make Peter contradict himself.  Perhaps the bolded phrase may help some to understand what he was saying.

What therefore the state defines as "lawful" (such as homosexual unions) is nevertheless NOT lawful in our eyes.  We disregard it.  We "conduct ourselves honorably," yet without "honoring" the state.  We don't submit to their traditions or ordinances or customs UNLESS they are from God's Law through His Word.  God's Word--His definitions are the primary thing and they always trump man's.  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.

The reality is, as you said, "we are still physically in this world and do have to live according to the laws of the land"--but NOT because we necessarily agree with them. We follow the righteous laws because they were already written in our hearts.  The others we follow to avoid unrighteous persecution from the hands of the enforcers.  None of us desire to be kidnapped, caged, beaten or killed, and that is why we "pay our taxes".  At least that's the reason I pay my taxes.  And the only reason.

[Mike Gagne]

Hi Neo, Your Quote ; None of us here should NEED the law of the state to know what is the right thing to do. End of Quote.  Yes Neo I agree and we could carry that over to wether or not we should go to a gay couples wedding! 
         R.P.J

[Dave in Tenn]

"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."

Neo, what Ray taught was that the WORD translated marry/married/a marriage in the bible referred to the act of GETTING MARRIED for people who were NOT YET MARRIED.  That's the way we're born.  There are other words which refer to the state of BEING married, that is being husband and wife. 

So I'll ask you again.  What do you tell a young couple (or older couple) who are not yet married if they want be get married according to the way God says, so that it might be not nothing at all.

[lurquer]

Neo, what Ray taught was that the WORD translated marry/married/a marriage in the bible referred to the act of GETTING MARRIED for people who were NOT YET MARRIED.  That's the way we're born.  There are other words which refer to the state of BEING married, that is being husband and wife. 

Dave, forgive me; I know you are a smart man and don't want to debate you but I just don't get your point.  I understand the difference between the act of "becoming" and the state of "being"...  That the one leads to the other...cause and effect. People are certainly not born married; they GET married and then they ARE married. We agree.

I think I know what Ray taught on the subject (I've listened to it and studied it).  "Marriage" is a "union". A very specific union described by God.  I think we all here agree with that.  HOW the union occurs is the point of contention.  But whatever the process of "becoming married", the ultimate STATE of the union is the kernel.    What have the couple become? And why? And did the State make this happen?  Does the State define reality?  I say they don't.

As I've said before, "marry" is just a word. It actually means "to unite".  Then once united, you are United!  It's not a holy word either.  You can be "married to a harlot", says Paul... But, she is not your wife!  Deep things, brother.

[John from Kentucky]

Neo, what Ray taught was that the WORD translated marry/married/a marriage in the bible referred to the act of GETTING MARRIED for people who were NOT YET MARRIED.  That's the way we're born.  There are other words which refer to the state of BEING married, that is being husband and wife. 

Dave, forgive me; I know you are a smart man and don't want to debate you but I just don't get your point.  I understand the difference between the act of "becoming" and the state of "being"...  That the one leads to the other...cause and effect. People are certainly not born married; they GET married and then they ARE married. We agree.

I think I know what Ray taught on the subject (I've listened to it and studied it).  "Marriage" is a "union". A very specific union described by God.  I think we all here agree with that.  HOW the union occurs is the point of contention.  But whatever the process of "becoming married", the ultimate STATE of the union is the kernel.    What have the couple become? And why? And did the State make this happen?  Does the State define reality?  I say they don't.

As I've said before, "marry" is just a word. It actually means "to unite".  Then once united, you are United!  It's not a holy word either.  You can be "married to a harlot", says Paul... But, she is not your wife!  Deep things, brother.

Where are the two Scriptures where Paul teaches that, "You can be married to a harlot, but she is not your wife"?

I know a Scripture that says you can have sex with a prostitute and be one body, but nothing that says that action makes her a wife.

Jesus told the woman at the well that she had, had five husbands, and that the man she was living with was not her husband.  Sex and living together does not a marriage make.

There is massive ignorance of the Scriptures.  The only way to understand the Scriptures is through the Holy Spirit and only to those of a humble heart who tremble at the Word of God, as opposed to their own false understanding.

[lilitalienboi16]

Neo, what Ray taught was that the WORD translated marry/married/a marriage in the bible referred to the act of GETTING MARRIED for people who were NOT YET MARRIED.  That's the way we're born.  There are other words which refer to the state of BEING married, that is being husband and wife. 

Dave, forgive me; I know you are a smart man and don't want to debate you but I just don't get your point.  I understand the difference between the act of "becoming" and the state of "being"...  That the one leads to the other...cause and effect. People are certainly not born married; they GET married and then they ARE married. We agree.

I think I know what Ray taught on the subject (I've listened to it and studied it).  "Marriage" is a "union". A very specific union described by God.  I think we all here agree with that.  HOW the union occurs is the point of contention.  But whatever the process of "becoming married", the ultimate STATE of the union is the kernel.    What have the couple become? And why? And did the State make this happen?  Does the State define reality?  I say they don't.

As I've said before, "marry" is just a word. It actually means "to unite".  Then once united, you are United!  It's not a holy word either.  You can be "married to a harlot", says Paul... But, she is not your wife!  Deep things, brother.

Where are the two Scriptures where Paul teaches that, "You can be married to a harlot, but she is not your wife"?

I know a Scripture that says you can have sex with a prostitute and be one body, but nothing that says that action makes her a wife.

Jesus told the woman at the well that she had, had five husbands, and that the man she was living with was not her husband.  Sex and living together does not a marriage make.

There is massive ignorance of the Scriptures.  The only way to understand the Scriptures is through the Holy Spirit and only to those of a humble heart who tremble at the Word of God, as opposed to their own false understanding.

I couldn't find that verse either that Neo was referencing but I did find the one about sex joins you to her body.

Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

Paul makes clear only the marriage bed is undefiled. If sex a marriage makes, then paul made a big mistake not to include the "elopement" bed into the "undefiled" catagory as well. Seeing as an eloped couple prior to marriage can be considered husband and wife. Nevertheless, paul makes no mention of the elopement bed. It is pretty clear to me that lawful marriage only occurs through the exchanging of vows before witnesses to move a couple out of the "elopement" bed and into the "marriage" bed. Once a couple is married as defined by God (not gay marriage) then sex becomes lawful.

God bless,
Alex

[Kat]

This is the passage I believe Michael was referring to, verse 16 in particular.

1Co 6:15  You know that your bodies belong to the Messiah, don't you? Should I take what belongs to the Messiah and unite them with a prostitute? Certainly not!
v. 16  You know that the person who unites himself with a prostitute becomes one body with her, don't you? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."
v. 17  But the person who unites himself with the Lord becomes one spirit with him.
v. 18  Keep on running away from sexual immorality. Any other sin that a person commits is outside his body, but the person who sins sexually sins against his own body.
v. 19  You know that your body is a sanctuary of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have received from God, don't you? You do not belong to yourselves,
v. 20  because you were bought for a price. Therefore, glorify God with your bodies.

Paul is not saying that to have sex with a harlot is the same as to marry her. No, he is appealing to the sense of a believer as to how precious the gift of the Holy Spirit indwelling is and to have casual sex with somebody outside of marriage, which a harlot clearly is, was indecent and a detestable "sin" against the Spirit indwelling. Paul is warning about "sin" and here it is sexual immorality, certainly not comparing the sex act to marriage.

The bodies of believers are the members of Christ, we are His temple and should never be so caught up in lust as to join/have sex with anybody other than a lawful husband/wife. Paul says to "flee sexual immorality" because a believers that does not control (by the Spirit indwelling) these lusts will not be in the first resurrection.

1Cor 6:9  You know that wicked people will not inherit the kingdom of God, don't you? Stop deceiving yourselves! Sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals,
v. 10  thieves, greedy people, drunks, slanderers, and robbers will not inherit the kingdom of God.

mercy, peace and love
Kat

[Dave in Tenn]

Neo, I was much less trying to make a point than asking a question.  I shouldn't be surprised that it wasn't answered. 

Joh 4:16  Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.
Joh 4:17  The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:
Joh 4:18  For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.
Joh 4:19  The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.

Here's what I think made Jesus a prophet.  She had no husband.  If I am gathering your point in this and the other thread, you think she had no husband either because 1.  She hadn't had sex with this man, or 2.  He was at least "One Husband" past her limit on how many she could have and still have him be a "husband". 

I think Jesus is saying to her, "You have said the truth.  You have had five husbands (He called all five of these men 'husbands') but the one you have NOW is a husband also...only he isn't YOUR husband.

 

[Joel]

The way I see it; the male, and the female are married as long as they are faithful.
Being unfaithful produces whores, adulterers, prostitutes, whoremongers, and harlots, in the physical or the Spiritual sense.
Scripture that came to mind, studying how God looks at things can go in many directions as it concerned God and the Jews, Israel, Judah, and also Christ and the NEW TESTAMENT Church, and Babylon.
Hosea 1:2-The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath commited great whoredoms, departing from the LORD.

Joel

[lurquer]

John and Alex, I have no desire to rehash what was well-covered in the Marriage Vow thread. Anyway, it was locked, as you know; probably for good reason.  But for reference, please go back and re-read all that is in there (I did--it still makes sense).  I honestly don't think either of you have any real interest in hearing an opinion contrary to your own so I won't indulge it. My time is just as precious as yours. Nevertheless, I'll bet my answer to your questions is found there. 

Dave, I addressed the 'Woman at the Well' in that thread, and I AGREE with you! Go back and read it! 

Further, you said:

Neo, I was much less trying to make a point than asking a question.  I shouldn't be surprised that it wasn't answered... "What do you tell a young couple (or older couple) who are not yet married if they want be get married according to the way God says, so that it might be not nothing at all."

My answer is as before: 1 Corinthians 7.  It's actually Paul's answer. 

[lilitalienboi16]

John and Alex, I have no desire to rehash what was well-covered in the Marriage Vow thread. Anyway, it was locked, as you know; probably for good reason.  But for reference, please go back and re-read all that is in there (I did--it still makes sense).  I honestly don't think either of you have any real interest in hearing an opinion contrary to your own so I won't indulge it. My time is just as precious as yours. Nevertheless, I'll bet my answer to your questions is found there. 

Dave, I addressed the 'Woman at the Well' in that thread, and I AGREE with you! Go back and read it! 

Further, you said:

Neo, I was much less trying to make a point than asking a question.  I shouldn't be surprised that it wasn't answered... "What do you tell a young couple (or older couple) who are not yet married if they want be get married according to the way God says, so that it might be not nothing at all."

My answer is as before: 1 Corinthians 7.  It's actually Paul's answer.

I remember your argument Neo.

Paul's words remove all doubt as to what makes a marriage and it isn't the act of sex. The act of sex between an eloped couple is not the marriage bed, its the ELOPED bed. Paul makes no mention of it being undefiled but rather only the marriage bed is undefiled. Hence there is a step between elopement, and marital sex, which moves a couple from eloped to marriage and that allows for an undefiled marriage bed.

I really don't see any ambiguity in this as you claim and I think the scriptures are quiet clear on what marriage is. People do not become married through the act of sexual intercourse.

[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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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?

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]

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.

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.