another_poster Posted October 5, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 336 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 129 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/14/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 5, 2014 another_poster said So apostle Paul is following a different religion then? Paul does condone divorce for a different reason. Here is a interesting question. What is adultery? We know Israel committed adultery without a sexual act. So adultery is not neccesarily sexual. Since the root word can be translated in a non-sexual way then the question needs to be asked But the scriptural text that was "specifically" quoted by faith pleases God IS without question speaking precisely about a "sexual act" which is deliberately being done by a spouse outside of the marriage bed. The scripture is not in any way shape or form speaking about what is known as spiritual adultery. Sexual immorality in that passage of text was given as a bilblical ground permitted by God for a divorce should one choose "not" to put up with a cheating spouse. And if the person chooses to divorce and remarry in that particular situation then their marriage bed in the eyes of God will not be defiled. The Apostle Paul in that particular passage of text in 1 Corinthians specifically said, "except for sexual immorality" (speaking of a sexual act outside of marriage). To stretch that particular passages into "non-sexual acts" is reaching for what is not clearly written within it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
another_poster Posted October 5, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 336 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 129 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/14/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 5, 2014 Before I deal with InChrist, I am going to deal with Another Poster. Yes, Paul wrote 2 Corinthians after 1 Corinthians, but they are all part of one Bible. Surely you understand that? We have the entire Bible at our disposal, so we know not to marry an unbeliever. We know that if we do, there will be negative consequences. That means that from the time of the canon forward, we know that a Christian is not to marry a non-believer, so any time you follow what is written in 1 Corinthians about a situation where one person is a believer and one an unbeliever in a marriage, they had to have entered to marriage both as sinners, or they disobeyed God. I am not speaking about people 2000 years ago that didn't have a Bible. No you are changing your story. You claimed the passage in 1 corinthians was clearly talking about two unbelievers marrying because of the passage in 2 corinthians. You said if it had been talking about one being a christian when married then they had already broken the rule. You need to discuss 2000 years ago if you are to find out the proper meaning of the passage. Its called context. Context is not just the surrounding verses and chapters but it is the culture it was written to and the specific situation that was happening at the time. So when talking about what a passage means you need to look at when it was written. You can't take todays situation and say well clearly it means this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
another_poster Posted October 5, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 336 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 129 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/14/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 5, 2014 All you did in post #224 is tell us that Jesus didn't teach divorce for any cause was wrong, and you give a list of personal opinions like they are facts. You don't give any proof that anything you said is true. I gave you the actual words of Jesus, and he is very clear that the only grounds for divorce is fornication, pornieo. That is it. Paul gives the cause of physical abandonment, not spiritual abandonment, and it is up to the unbeliever to choose to stay or go. Your not reading what he said is hardly evidence he has just given personal opinion. You shouldn't ask people for things you yourself are not willing to provide. Not just talking about this discussion but other discussions where you make a claim without evidence and expect others to accept what your saying is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faith pleases God Posted October 5, 2014 Group: Senior Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 653 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 189 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/18/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/26/1977 Share Posted October 5, 2014 How can someone defend a stance the Bible does not permit? I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. How is this debated??? If someone holds to a different doctrine than what Christ teaches, what religion is that? Why justify disobedience? Only to feel okay about living in sin. So apostle Paul is following a different religion then? Paul does condone divorce for a different reason. Here is a interesting question. What is adultery? We know Israel committed adultery without a sexual act. So adultery is not neccesarily sexual. Since the root word can be translated in a non-sexual way then the question needs to be asked No offense, seriously, I take the personal out of this and do not mean this as an attack. We are in a doctrine forum, not a personal counseling one. I really don't, and I do love you. But this proves my point exactly How is this debated??? There are different types of adultery and what is alluded to here in Matthew should be obvious. No one can put away their wife except for the Greek word porneia which has been translated as fornication. Which is illicit sexual intercourse. moichaō is the word used for adultery which is to have unlawful intercourse with another's wife Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faith pleases God Posted October 5, 2014 Group: Senior Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 653 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 189 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/18/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/26/1977 Share Posted October 5, 2014 another_poster said So apostle Paul is following a different religion then? Paul does condone divorce for a different reason. Here is a interesting question. What is adultery? We know Israel committed adultery without a sexual act. So adultery is not neccesarily sexual. Since the root word can be translated in a non-sexual way then the question needs to be asked But the scriptural text that was "specifically" quoted by faith pleases God IS without question speaking precisely about a "sexual act" which is deliberately being done by a spouse outside of the marriage bed. The scripture is not in any way shape or form speaking about what is known as spiritual adultery. Sexual immorality in that passage of text was given as a bilblical ground permitted by God for a divorce should one choose "not" to put up with a cheating spouse. And if the person chooses to divorce and remarry in that particular situation then their marriage bed in the eyes of God will not be defiled. The Apostle Paul in that particular passage of text in 1 Corinthians specifically said, "except for sexual immorality" (speaking of a sexual act outside of marriage). To stretch that particular passages into "non-sexual acts" is reaching for what is not clearly written within it. That is how translators have decided to interpret it. however consider the word used can mean either so you can't declare that. We know that translators change the way things are translated which gives false impressions. The worst time they did this is to make lusting a sin when it is is what you lust after that makes it right or wrong. If you want to disagree then you better explain why God divorced due to non sexual adultery and if you disagree with my comment about lusting then you need to explain why it was okay for Jesus to lust if lusting is automatically wrong. Note the word translated as lust in matt 5:28 is the same word used when Jesus describes how he is feeling about sharing the passover with the disciples. Also you should address the fact that Jesus said adultery is the ONLY reason for divorce yet nobody says hey wait Paul said there was another reason divorce was acceptable. If it was that hard and fast surely Paul would have made it clear if a unbelieving spouse leaves then the believer is not free to remarry yet it seems to indicate they are free to remarry. After all if adultery is the only reason then a unbelieving spouse leaving is not adultery so the remaining believer should treat it as if they were still married. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
another_poster Posted October 5, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 336 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 129 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/14/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 5, 2014 What is Paul's other reason for divorce? The only reason you can leave is adultery but you can let an unbeliever leave if they choose. This does not contradict Christ's only reason you can divorce. In Matthew 19 it says whoever. This includes everyone. So if a unbeliever leaves for some reason other than adultery it is still wrong according to the words Jesus spoke. Yet Paul says look Jesus didn't know what he was talking about so instead do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
another_poster Posted October 5, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 336 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 129 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/14/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 5, 2014 @ Another Poster, I am saying that what I read of his case study was out of context, all of it. When I went back and read more, it was out of context. Talk about a waste of time! Lets take that passage in Corinthians again, and lets go back 2000 years. If they somehow weren't aware marrying someone who was not a believer was wrong, because it happened between the writing of 1 and 2 Corinthians, and that wasn't many years, it is still left up to the unbeliever to choose to stay or leave, so this is irrelevant. It is still relevant as it is a legitimate reason why divorce is allowed. If they choose to go then divorce is not a sin despite Jesus saying there was only one reason for divorce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
another_poster Posted October 5, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 336 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 129 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/14/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 5, 2014 Im specifically talking about Matthew 18v.15-17 and 1 Corinthians 7:15 , please all I ask is just stay focused, its really not a difficult question that I'm asking. If the church then views a Christian now "as unsaved" what is the treatment then for one who is "as unsaved" and wishes to remain "as unsaved" in a marriage? What are the scriptural guidelines if a Christian wishes to divorce "as unsaved" spouse? The scriptural guidelines are they should stay together. If a person refuses to repent after being challenged in the proper biblical way then yes they can be cast out of the church. It does say that if the unbeliev er wants to stay in the marriage then stay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faith pleases God Posted October 6, 2014 Group: Senior Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 653 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 189 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/18/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/26/1977 Share Posted October 6, 2014 What is Paul's other reason for divorce? The only reason you can leave is adultery but you can let an unbeliever leave if they choose. This does not contradict Christ's only reason you can divorce. In Matthew 19 it says whoever. This includes everyone. So if a unbeliever leaves for some reason other than adultery it is still wrong according to the words Jesus spoke. Yet Paul says look Jesus didn't know what he was talking about so instead do this. Where did Paul say Jesus didn't know what He was talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Openly Curious Posted October 6, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 55 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,568 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 770 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted October 6, 2014 another_poster said: That is how translators have decided to interpret it. however consider the word used can mean either so you can't declare that. I can declare that and I do declare it pertaining to that particular passage or verse of scripture which said,...1 Matthew 5:32 - But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. In that verse of scripture the meaning is obvious as it is speaking directly to the physical "act" of sexual immorality outside of the bond of marriage and the marriage bed. It is not speaking of spiritual adultery within that verse. But rather speaking of taking your physical body and literally having sex with another person while joined and married to another person. Please note I am only speaking concerning the meaning of the word in this particular verse and it's meaning is not spiritual adultery but it's meaning is a literal physical act. I am not addressing any of the other scriptural references that have been discussed within the thread thus far. Not that I want but I haven't thus far. We know that translators change the way things are translated which gives false impressions. The worst time they did this is to make lusting a sin WHEN it is what you lust after that makes it right or wrong. No it is what is in your heart that is evil (wrong) and then you act outwardly and commit the evil or wrong sinful act you was lusting after or wanting within your heart. Nowhere have I ever read personally in the scriptures where the lust of our flesh are "good or right lusts". But instead they are always "evil or wrong sinful lusts" of our hearts. I have found in scripture that the fruit of the spirit is something we bear as we walk in the Spirit and the fruit of the Spirit are "not lusts" of the Spirit. So I do disagree because if you are following the Spirit you are not walking in the lust of your flesh because you are doing what is right in the eyes of the Lord shunning the wrong and doing the right which is the counsel of God and the wisdom of God. If a person however is lusting after another person sexually when they are married to another person then the sin of adultery is within the heart of the person already. A person has a choice if the sin of adultery in in their heart in wanting to have sex with another person other than their spouse. Either you will fulfill the lusts or pleasures of your flesh and will give in and outwardly with your body commit the physical sexual act and have sex with another person other than your spouse. Or you can crucify or put to death the lusts of your flesh and say "No" to them remaing faithful to your spouse doing what is right in the eyes of God which is called walking in the Spirit bearing the fruit of the Spirit. A person is drawn away after their own lusts and enticed. But we are not to walk in the lusts of our flesh and do things displeasing to God. So in light of that there is "no" lusts of the Spirit only fruit that is bore because we choose to obey God and do what is right instead of giving in to the sin or lust of the flesh within our hearts. A person cannot act on what is not in there heart good or bad. If you want to disagree then you better explain why God divorced due to non sexual adultery[/q] and if you disagree with my comment about lusting then you need to explain why it was okay for Jesus to lust if lusting is automatically wrong. Note the word translated as lust in matt 5:28 is the same word used when Jesus describes how he is feeling about sharing the passover with the disciples. Again I was speaking to the direct meaning of the word in that particular verse and not any other scripture when I addressed you and in that verse it is clear that it was speaking about the physical bodily act of having sex with someone other than your spouse. Now pay close attention here so there is no misunderstanding on my part. I have never said that there isn't such a thing as spiritual adultery. Spiritual adultery is better known as "idolatry" or whoring around with other gods except for the one and true living God. Because there is such a thing as spiritual adultery and it is rampant. And when the scriptures that are in question or being discussed are specifically addressing spiritual adultery or idolatry. Then I will address it as such and not strech it out to mean in those passages to also be a physical sexual act with another person other than your spouse. They are two different things and have to be addressed as such. Now I think it is not me that needs to explain why it was okay for Jesus to lust but you. Because I do not believe that Jesus lusted after evil or wrong things. Sin did not lurk in his heart He was God in the flesh he was pure in heart and did the will of the Father as he said not my will but thine will be done agognizing in prayer in the garden of Gethsemane before he went to the cross. However He was in all points tempted just like we are yet "without" sin. Jesus was sinless and spotless neither was guile found in His mouth. So I will not respond to the scripture you mentioned in Matthew 5:28 giving you a chance to explain and respond first. I cannot and I don't see for the life of me in how you are linking these things together like you are. Especially in light of the "feelings" of Jesus concering the passover as being "lusts". Just like or being the same as the sin of adultery. Which lurks in the darkness of a person heart. So I think you need to explain not me. I mean what was the "lust" suppose to be within the heart of Jesus? Also you should address the fact that Jesus said adultery is the ONLY reason for divorce yet nobody says hey wait Paul said there was another reason divorce was acceptable. If it was that hard and fast surely Paul would have made it clear if a unbelieving spouse leaves then the believer is not free to remarry yet it seems to indicate they are free to remarry. After all if adultery is the only reason then a unbelieving spouse leaving is not adultery so the remaining believer should treat it as if they were still married. Can you provide me with the scripture concerning adultery that you are specifically referring too which actually uses the word "ONLY" reason for divorce within it? So that I may look at it within it's context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts