Exegesis

"Trumpian" has nothing to do with it. A person who enters the country illegally is an illegal alien. A person who enters the country legally is an immigrant. A migrant is just a person who moves around. Basic English. Jesus also instructed Paul and Peter to give instructions to obey the law of the land. That would mean you do not enter someone else's territory illegally. It has nothing to do with loving one's neighbor. Progressives always try and hinge it on love when what people who believe in controlled borders want is for outsiders to not be able to arbitrarily break our laws and then get rewarded for it. What you support tells people to actively break the law. And if you also claim to be a Christian, then you support a political position that directly violates scripture.

Basic English does not seem to be your long suite. Your sentences above make no sense in their present form. The guilty party is the one who instigates the divorce, in your flawed scenario. That is biblical fact. It is also biblical fact that according to the OT law, divorce had no terms for fault. So you are also saying Jesus changed the law, which we know He did not. You also evidently don't know that the New Testament was not originally written in English. It was written in Greek. In Matthew 1:19-21, Matthew 5:31-32, Mathew 19:7-9, Mark 10:11-12, and Luke 16:16-18 most of the words translated in later translations as "divorce" are not the Greek word for divorce. They are the Greek word for "putting away" which means a man getting rid of his wife without giving her a certificate of divorce. That is what Jesus was condemning and calling adultery, not divorce itself. A person marrying an un-divorced woman was committing adultery. Pretty simple concept.

I certainly do not need a prophecy page from this board when I have the Bible. I've been studying prophecy for 50 years. Seems you have a problem answering simple questions. And spell check is your friend.

"why we should ignore it." Your words. If you know you are doing this, keeping this commandment, why is it so difficult for you to explain how you are keeping it? Surely it should be the easiest thing for you to explain, and since you think everyone else should be doing it, you would be anxious to explain it to anyone who asked. Right? You can avoid the question by saying you've never told anyone else they need to keep the Sabbath, but your posts say something else. Like this earlier one: Come on. Take a chance. Tell everyone here on this board how you keep the Sabbath. It can't be that hard.

Words, words, and more words. It ALWAYS boils down to those who say we must keep the Sabbath, but can never explain how we are supposed to keep it. Go out on a limb. Be the first, on this board or any other Christian forum out there, and actually tell people exactly how you keep the Sabbath. Without doing so, your constant assertions that you do keep it are nothing but empty words. You are a self-proclaimed Sabbath-keeper. Let's match your explanation of how you keep the Sabbath with what the Bible says are requirements to keep it and see if they match up. Is that too difficult?

In other words, you cannot explain to anyone how you keep the Sabbath, even though you have been one of those on this board who continually tells others they have to keep it. But you won't explain to them how to do so. I find nowhere in this thread where I have "dissed" the Sabbath. Perhaps you could point me to a specific post where I have done so. I am openly questioning a flawed rational that people such as you use in regards to this commandment. Telling people they must do something, but, at the same time, steadfastly refusing to tell them exactly how they should do it. In regards to spiritual matters, when you take it upon yourself to tell someone they have to do something you claim God commands them to do, at the same time, you have to be able to explain to them how they must keep that command, in any detail they ask you to explain. You cannot just divorce yourself from your responsibility to explain something to people after you have told them they have to do something. Why is this question so difficult for you to answer? If you are so confident that you are keeping this commandment, then it should be patently easy for you to explain to other people exactly how you keep it. Why the constant avoidance of an actual explanation?

When you place your salvation on a work, i.e. the Sabbath, you cannot claim Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Using a rather unique spelling of Jesus' name gets you no points either. If Jesus' sacrifice on the cross delivered us from our sins completely, why would we need to observe a certain day of the old covenant when you are telling me all of that covenant is done with, except for a day? I will ask again, because you still have not answered the question: How are you keeping the Sabbath? Explain it to me. In terms an unbelieving secularist could understand, as if I just walked up to you off the street with no spiritual or biblical knowledge at all . . . In the post above you plainly say you are keeping the Sabbath, so explain to all of us here exactly how you are doing that, in 2020. Surely, since you are telling all of us that we need to do it, you can explain to us, in great detail, exactly how you, yourself, are keeping the Sabbath. I will also add that you have absolutely no idea of my position on the Sabbath yet, but you call me disobedient, because I question you on your methodology. You have made a clear claim. I am waiting for you to explain to us exactly how you keep that claim, biblically. So far, you have not answered the question.

Not a satisfactory answer. I asked you a specific question, and you gave me the same tired reply every so-called Sabbath keeper gives me. I ask again: How are you keeping the Sabbath? Because unless you are offering a sacrifice at the Temple every Sabbath as well as all the other daily and Festival Sabbaths, you are not keeping the Sabbath. Explain to me how you are keeping the Sabbath without a Temple, the Levitcal Priesthood and the daily sacrifices.

Have you not, in the past, been a protagonist of "keeping" the Sabbath?

That is not a satisfactory reply. The Old Testament has very specific mandates as to how the Sabbath is to be kept. Which of those are you keeping? Such as, perhaps, the ritual Sabbath sacrifices at the Temple?

That is not keeping the Sabbath. If someone claims to be keeping the Sabbath there are very specific mandates that have to be kept, well-stated in the Old Testament. Since you are so familiar with them, perhaps you could tell us what those rules are?

Point those people out. Name names. It is easy to toss a supposition out there. It is a great deal more difficult to prove it. Try again.

That was a fail. I asked for textual proof that what you are trying to sell passes biblical scrutiny. Your response failed. Show me biblical proof that divorce and re-marriage is an unforgivable sin.

No, right now, in this country, most colleges and universities are intent on indoctrinating students in the Liberal way of thought and activism. Plain and simple.

If you are claiming to keep the Sabbath, can you please explain to us exactly how you are keeping it? Thank you.

Why would you couch it the terms of "frightening people?" The country is in grave danger, and as Christians, it is our job, every day, all day to warn others around us of danger. There is no fear to it. It isn't so much about what is happening to the country itself. The Christians in this country, collectively, are letting evil in the country go on, and grow, un-checked, and un-challenged. And they will have to answer for that, if they don't quickly change their hearts, and their behavior.

Long-winded. Self-righteous, but it isn't what I asked for. I'll try again: You have yet to provide evidence, textually, that says a person who remarries is in a continual state of adultery. Show biblical proof for that. Divorce is not always wrong and it is certainly not unforgivable. Neither is adultery. If I am married, and the other person divorces me, for whatever reason, I am under no obligation to remain unmarried, whether that other person lives or dies. You are saying, without putting it into actual words, that divorce and/or marriage are unforgivable sins. And you base that on no biblical standard, because there is only one unforgivable sin in the Bible. I'm waiting for textual proof. You are cherry-picking, and this is by no means good, or accurate exegesis. You are also clearly saying that God punishes one person for the supposed sins of another. We know that is false.

You have yet to provide evidence, textually, that says a person who remarries is in a continual state of adultery. Show biblical proof for that. Divorce is not always wrong and it is certainly not unforgivable. Neither is adultery. If I am married, and the other person divorces me, for whatever reason, I am under no obligation to remain unmarried, whether that other person lives or dies. You are saying, without putting it into actual words, that divorce and/or marriage are unforgivable sins. And you base that on no biblical standard, because there is only one unforgivable sin in the Bible. I'm waiting for textual proof.

I understand your line of reasoning, and your conclusions above, to some extent. But they are a non-sequitur for a couple of reasons. In some cases are people getting or giving the wrong gospel? Of course they are. Not everyone who labels themselves a Christian actually is one. So they will either preach a super-holiness doctrine, or a super lax doctrine which says a Christian can do basically anything they want as long as the say Jesus' name once in a while. Both doctrines are wrong. Using the logic of "Christians shouldn't have almost the same rate of divorce as the secular world" is both skewed and unrealistic logic, and you could insert just about any sin out there in that statement, compare it to the secular world, and end up with the same result. It's a fallen world, and redeemed people are still just as fallen as the ones who aren't redeem, operationally. They just have an avenue with which they gain forgiveness after repentance. Does that mean the frequency and severity of the sins should be greatly reduced once you are saved? Absolutely. But the reality is not going to match the theoretical application because we are still fallen in spite of our relationship with Christ. 'Ole vic66 will have some problems himself which he should probably be working on instead of trying to guilt shame people who have been divorced and or re-married, but yet, here we are . . . Looking at his topics, I see no thread about abortion. I see no thread about homosexuality. I see no threads about theft, or gossiping, or slander. Just holiness stuff and divorce. That is telling. That's a clear sign of someone who is looking out, at other peoples perceived actions in regards to their relationship with Christ, and not inwards and focusing on what they themself still need to work on.

If you have noticed, he does not answer direct questions very well, if he doesn't want to answer them. That is what Beaujangles was trying to point out early. He conveniently fails to answer questions that he does not wish to deal with. And that is duplicitous behavior. A person who is confident and above-board answers all questions asked of them. There is no reason not to.

Good point, and the answer is "no." Because by His very words, Jesus legitimized all 5 of her previous marriages or He would have replied to her very differently. John 4:16 He told her, "Go, call your husband and come back." 17 "I have no husband," she replied. Jesus said to her, "You are right when you say you have no husband. 18 The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true." Jesus did not tell the woman she had had 1 original husband and all the other ones were not her husband. If what vic66 is teaching were true, Jesus would have said something along those lines. The holiness doctrine, which is 100% false, leaves no room for compassion, and it leaves no room for mistakes. He has implied many times over in this thread that if someone divorces and remarries out side his doctrine that they are living in perpetual sin. Which is false. There is only one unforgivable sin. It is not divorce or remarriage.

Sadly, yes, that is what he is saying. People like him would have people stay with a person they married to no matter how bad it is. It wouldn't matter if they were being verbally, sexually, or physically abused. It wouldn't matter if they had been abandoned by the other person. They got married, it turned out to be a mistake, and now God has condemned them to live their life alone, for the rest of what is left. And what he is also teaching, even though he isn't saying it bluntly is this: That if a person divorces, or remarries, their sin is unforgivable.

Perhaps you can show me where I said we should keep these things a secret? What I am saying is many people who rail against "sin" have a pet sin they constantly whinge about, but they ignore others. Homosexuality is not the only sexual sin.

You must have. Try reading 1 Corinthians chapter 6.

You are missing the point. Jesus plainly says that any sexual sin is worse than than stealing your neighbors hedge shears. Because you willingly involve someone else in your sin. You can sleep with your neighbors wife. That is a much worse sin than stealing that same neighbor's hedge shears because you have defiled yourself, and your neighbor's wife through your act of using her, sexually. The theft of the hedge shears can debase no one but you. The sins you are fixated on anger God extremely, but they are not the only ones He abhors. He also abhors sins that people repeatedly fail to speak out about beyond abortion and homosexuality.