Husband of one wife

[BeauJangles]

The Beaumeister only wants to know, vic66.

[vic66]

2 hours ago, BeauJangles said:

The Beaumeister only wants to know, youvic66.

You have not read the post properly

Remember he that has a hear let him hear.

Many can hear words but are not able to listen to or hear the spirit of God.

Many people can see but are able to see or comprend spiritual  Matters, because they are not quicken .

Edited June 29, 2020 by vic66

[BeauJangles]

1 hour ago, vic66 said:

You have not read the post properly

Remember he that has a hear let him hear.

Many can hear words but are not able to listen to or hear the spirit of God.

Many people can see but are able to see or comprend spiritual  Matters, because they are not quicken .

You are so way off base here, bro. You severely underestimate my keen sense of discernment. You razzle-dazzle here dancing around senseless words and phrases, grappling to get away from the issue at hand and this is it. You won't answer my question, because you are not willing to admit erroneous and fictitious doctrines of made up biblical misinterpretations. It's plain and simple. Answer the question, Vic.

That's posted prose of faux scriptural nonsense.

You can continue to smoke screen, sidestep, play a bunch of meaningless attempts of spiritual knowledge, and keep on thinking you're getting any headway at all. You are not making it. Neither is this making any sense at all. You are stooping to levels of Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. You could do better by answering the question, but yet remain steadfast in refusal. These are methods of heretics.

I can't even recognize you in a sense of true Christianity anymore.

What's happening to you?

Edited June 29, 2020 by BeauJangles

[Daniel Marsh]

On 6/20/2020 at 11:49 AM, vic66 said:

Apostles Paul teaching that pastors, bishop, elders in the ministry  and deacon can only have one wife in their whole life time. No second marriage after the death of there first wife.

Some believe he was writing against unfaithfulliness and loyalty to there wife. Yet all christians should be faithful, loyal to their wife's.

I believe the best way to understand this is to study the apostle paul in person (1) and his teachings on marriage.(2)

Let not a widow be taken into the number under three score years old having been the wife of the one man.

Note Paul teaches widows can't be taken into the ministry and be supported by the church if she is under sixty years old or have had more than one husband in a live time. He commanded that the younger widows should marry bear children and not to give a occasion to the devil.

1cor7,1tim5 and 2cor11

1Cor7 show Paul perverence for singleness using his life as a teaching tool to help church government and set an example for those who would follow in church ministry.

You best read the whole chapter 1cor 7 and 2cor 11

Though Paul did not forbids pastors or elders for getting married like the Catholic church there was a limit set for elders,bishops, pastors, Shepards of the flock of God.

1cor7:29-38

Paul and the spirit of God wanted ministers to attend to the work of the Gospel with out a second family to care for, and the distractions which it inevitably would bring. Jesus,the gospel, the saints and the kingdom of heaven. Deny even their very self

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sister, yea , and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Luke14:26 kjv

 

 

Widows were allowed to remarry.   I am not taking the rest of your post seriously. 

 

 

[Daniel Marsh]

On 6/23/2020 at 12:58 PM, vic66 said:

Although Paul stated his perferance for singleness, remember he was a chosen vessel specially risen up by Christ,on the road to Damascus and ordain by God before the foundation of the world.

His whole train of thought bears careful consideration.

We should be extremely careful when it come to trashing his writings. Dangerous ground.

All twelve apostles lives are a written epistle for our learning. 

Peter even spoke about the wisdom given to Paul and how he wrote of some things which were hard to be understood, which they who are unlearn wrest to their own destruction.

2Peter3:15-16

Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

https://churchleaders.com/outreach-missions/outreach-missions-articles/321152-was-the-apostle-paul-married-yes-he-was-heres-how-we-know-denny-burke.html

[BeauJangles]

12 minutes ago, Daniel Marsh said:

 I am not taking the rest of your post seriously. 

I'd like to say I'm not taking this seriously, but I do take doctrinal errors the opster has made over several topics extremely serious. This and the one pertaining to women not dressing in slacks as against biblical morals is absolute rubbish. These are false doctrines strictly set against females as is this one placing bondage over widows. I've heard the trousers issue before, but this one is way off biblical truth. Knowing the "oneness" doctrine in some churches places too much emphasis on exterior instead of looking into the heart. It's judgemental and of a critical spirit. 

[BeauJangles]

On 6/20/2020 at 8:49 AM, vic66 said:

Apostles Paul teaching that pastors, bishop, elders in the ministry  and deacon can only have one wife in their whole life time. No second marriage after the death of there first wife.

Let's run back through this quickly now. 

6 hours ago, BeauJangles said:

 

That's all fine and good, Vic. But what about the topic? 

Husband of one wife

I'm still waiting on the answer to this. You're saying this is the Apostle Paul's biblical teaching, or is it your "oneness" doctrine and/or denomination's teaching? What's up with this? You keep coming back to this topic and I'll continue to ask you to make yourself accountable for it. 

What's your answer, Vic?

Still asking my question to you. And you said this:

6 hours ago, vic66 said:

Keep reading, keep searching, keep praying

I replied by responding accordingly. 

6 hours ago, BeauJangles said:

Yeah, I did all that. When are you gonna stop being evasive and answer the question?

Then you came back with: 

5 hours ago, vic66 said:

here a little there a little line upon line, line upon line . making my case by showing pauls train of thought on the subject on qualification for those who would be part of ministry.

Pauls / Christ  life was a very good example.  living epistles indeed.

And that was a dodgy answer, so I came back with: 

5 hours ago, BeauJangles said:

Here a little there a little? Where at all a little is this teaching as alleged to have been taught by the Apostle Paul, Vic? Nowhere, bro. Not any post, not on any page, throughout the entire thread here. What kind of cat-and-mouse game is this, anyway? I'm really not interested in playing with you. Can't you simply admit to the error? All you have to do is swallow a little spiritual pride. Pride is not from the Lord either. What's the big problem? 

So once again, I'm asking is this the Apostle Paul's teaching, or was this some kind of simple mistake? Does your church teach this? Or what? All I'm requesting is an answer for this. Is that too difficult for you? I really didn't think it was unreasonable to respond to this. Is admitting to a mistake a bad thing? I don't think so. And I promise not to bash you for it either. Honest!  

Oh, dear. I did say this didn't I.  Well, bro. Sorry 'bout that. Perhaps if you hadn't said this: 

2 hours ago, vic66 said:

You have not read the post properly

Remember he that has a hear let him hear.

Many can hear words but are not able to listen to or hear the spirit of God.

Many people can see but are able to see or comprend spiritual  Matters, because they are not quicken .

And incensed my intelligence so haphazardly and foolishly, I wouldn't have gotten upset by saying this:

1 hour ago, BeauJangles said:

You are so way off base here, bro. You severely underestimate my keen sense of discernment. You razzle-dazzle here dancing around senseless words and phrases, grappling to get away from the issue at hand and this is it. You won't answer my question, because you are not willing to admit erroneous and fictitious doctrines of made up biblical misinterpretations. It's plain and simple. Answer the question, Vic.

That's posted prose of faux scriptural nonsense.

You can continue to smoke screen, sidestep, play a bunch of meaningless attempts of spiritual knowledge, and keep on thinking you're getting any headway at all. You are not making it. Neither is this making any sense at all. You are stooping to levels of Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. You could do better by answering the question, but yet remain steadfast in refusal. These are methods of heretics.

I can't even recognize you in a sense of true Christianity anymore.

What's happening to you?

But I did. Well, all this is still true, but perhaps I should have tempered my response. But, this is true. 

21 minutes ago, BeauJangles said:

I'd like to say I'm not taking this seriously, but I do take doctrinal errors the opster has made over several topics extremely serious. This and the one pertaining to women not dressing in slacks as against biblical morals is absolute rubbish. These are false doctrines strictly set against females as is this one placing bondage over widows. I've heard the trousers issue before, but this one is way off biblical truth. Knowing the "oneness" doctrine in some churches places too much emphasis on exterior instead of looking into the heart. It's judgemental and of a critical spirit. 

So we'll just hang this up as a learning experience for both of us. Let's both leave the topic now.  

Tell you what. I'll come by and pick you up and we'll go get a pizza. Sound good? 

Here I come now...

I've got you on my GPS. 

                                      

                                             vic66

[Daniel Marsh]

17 hours ago, BeauJangles said:

I'd like to say I'm not taking this seriously, but I do take doctrinal errors the opster has made over several topics extremely serious. This and the one pertaining to women not dressing in slacks as against biblical morals is absolute rubbish. These are false doctrines strictly set against females as is this one placing bondage over widows. I've heard the trousers issue before, but this one is way off biblical truth. Knowing the "oneness" doctrine in some churches places too much emphasis on exterior instead of looking into the heart. It's judgemental and of a critical spirit. 

The proof text about women wearing men's clothes is really about the shame of a warrior wearing women's clothes to avoid fighting.

The male clothes there was battle armor.

Men and Women back then wore Tunics.

 

https://www.ancienthistorylists.com/greek-history/top-10-famous-clothes-ancient-greece/

https://www.ancienthistorylists.com/rome-history/top-10-ancient-roman-armor-and-costume/

 

Edited June 30, 2020 by Daniel Marsh

[vic66]

In old testament God had a higher martial standard for priests and Levites. The sons  of Aaron were not to marry a harlot, or a divorced woman(lev.21:7) The high priest was not to marry a harlot, divorced woman, or even a widow. he must marry a virgin.(lev21:13-15). It is admitted that these standards are not totally analogous with those of elders and deacons but the comparison is made to show that God does require higher standard for those in leadership than those in the general congregation.

source: one flesh: biblical perspective on the permanence of marriage google books 

Edited June 30, 2020 by vic66

[Rosenberg57]

15 minutes ago, vic66 said:

In old testament God had a higher martial standard for priests and Levites. The sons  of Aaron were not to marry a harlot, or a divorced woman(lev.21:7) The high priest was not to marry a harlot, divorced woman, or even a widow. he must marry a virgin.(lev21:13-15). It is admitted that these standards are not totally analogous with those of elders and deacons but the comparison is made to show that God does require higher standard for those in leadership than those in the general congregation.

source: one flesh: biblical perspective on the permanence of marriage google books 

You call that a Higher standard? Do not marry a Harlot?

Ask your parents want they think about you marring a Harlot.