divorce and remarriage?

[Grailhunter]

Scripture for that? I don't think so, and so I disagree.

The history of the word fornication....is just that....history.....not biblical. You are not disagreeing with me....you are disagreeing with reality....easy enough to look up....but still Beliefs....Truths....Facts....where do you want your religion to be?

I have heard that from a Christian girl using that for her excuse for sleeping around; hence, she was not treating the first time as meaning she just married the guy.

And this means what?

Why not read what was written before 1 Corinthians 7th chapter?

1 Corinthians 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. 16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. 17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. 18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. 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? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Now you could say harlot is referring to prostitution, but the description here for why it is wrong of what the man does to his own body with sex outside of marriage makes every woman and himself a harlot.

What has this got to do with a church asking Paul if it was better to never touch a woman?
All women are whores?

Even fornicators will call other fornicators today as whores and sluts for having their former lover.

Whores and whore mongers. Again easy enough to look up.

There is studying in depths in the scripture and then there is studying Jews & Christians down through history. One should not apply backsliding in history nor what Moses had written in the Bible as a license to sin as if really permitted by the Lord. All we have to do is read the words of Jesus, Whom is God, to know really what He says about it.

As Tweety Bird said, "He don't know me real well."
I am the last one that would justify sinning.
And we are not discussing backsliding but rather modification to the scriptures by introducing a non biblical word to change the meaning of the scriptures.....what level of hell do these people go to?
The name of God the Father appeared nearly 6,000 times in the Old Testament....they completely removed his name. What level of hell is awarded for that?
The copy process and the translational process was always the line demarcation for those that wanted to modify the scriptures.

 

[Christ4Me]

The history of the texts both Old and New Testament is interesting and you need to look into that.
Each "church" had it own collection of texts it favored. Copy processes is another issue. The first bound copy of the favored texts were the 50 Bibles of Constantine. Why were these the first bound copies? Look into that and you will learn a lot.

Not sure why, when I am agreeing with you in part that they had not a Bible as we have it today but a collection of books/scrolls. I am sharing the insight that what educated scholars says when they had the collected books in one Bible first, it may have been sooner than that. The one that they are referring to just happened to be the one that survived from usage that it did not wear out as the ones before did. If the same can be said for manuscripts, then the same can be said for the collected books in one Bible.

Whatever copies we are talking about were handwritten copies. Even the first bound Bibles 350 AD ~

I can agree with that.

The Gutenberg's press came out in the mid 1400's.
Some people think they were copying and distributing these texts in large quantities.
If that were true we would have a lot more copies of the older texts.

Not if they were using them in large quantities in wearing them out. Christians were not like today where they have access to the Bible but collecting dusts. Back then, they were zealous for the scriptures & instructed by those scriptures to study the scriptures. They did not have the distractions of the media, or whatever to steal their zeal away.

As it is most of the oldest texts (scrolls) have been found in churches. Some have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
For the Geneva Bible and the King James Bible their sources were prior translations of Greek and Latin.

Textus Receptus

As it is now we have copies of the older texts....and it is always copies. And we have enough now to see that as the copies came forward things were added to them. Some of them were good stories like the story of the adulterous woman brought before Christ.
But by the time the Geneva Bible and King James Bible came out there were popular theological doctrines and "buzz words and phrases" that made their way into these translations.

I can agree that a message can be lost in translating from the Greek into English. Example are Matthew 5:21-22 & Matthew 5:29-30 & Matthew 18:8-9 where Matthew 5:22,29-30 & Matthew 18:9 has "hell" & "hell fire" derived from the Greek Word "geena". Matthew 18:8 has the word everlasting fire derived from the Greek word "aionios" which is defined as "from aiwn - aion 165; perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well):--eternal, for ever, everlasting, world (began)."

I deem this word is what threw scholars off because Jesus was referring Gehenna to a place on earth; not the actual hell. He was warning about a hell that was coming on earth that believers will find themselves cast into for not found as abiding in Him when the Bridegroom comes.

It is very possible that the English word has brought about false teachings about believers losing salvation, for why they believe OSAS is not true.

There is a consequence for not abiding in Him, as in denied by Him for being in iniquity still for when He comes, but He still abides in those saints & former believers left behind. 2 Timothy 2:11-13 as they will be "damned" as vessels unto dishonor but still in His House 2 Timothy 2:18-21

As far as Christ or people reading from the Old Testament....that is no surprise....scrolls of the Old Testament did exist and if you look they were not reading them on a street corner. These scrolls were kept in the temple or synagogues.

As I am sure in churches too, but Paul and other missionaries seem to carry the scrolls, books around for use out in the mission fields. I am sure they did not carry all the books & scrolls just as all the churches did not either. Indeed, extrabiblical sources reported debates to defend the Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ went far back in 200 A.D. as to why we do not find 1 John 5:7 about the three Witnesses in Heaven in Greek manuscripts as much, even though it was cited as originally scripture. Believers back then have the same trouble as believers now in wrapping their heads around the Three Persons in the One God truth as found in His words.

Chick.com: Is 1 John 5:7 not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If it is true, why is it in the KJV?

But as you refer to the Holy Spirit teaching us and you got that from scripture, scripture also says scripture is what we are to study in as instructed to do even back then in the early churches that these epistles were sent to. So the Holy Spirit teaches us from scripture; John 14:26

 

[Christ4Me]

The history of the word fornication....is just that....history.....not biblical. You are not disagreeing with me....you are disagreeing with reality....easy enough to look up....but still Beliefs....Truths....Facts....where do you want your religion to be?

My religion? Christianity is about our reconciled relationship with God thru Jesus Christ. Since He raised the bar, it is His words we should tend to rather than to the history of backsliders.

And this means what?

Try correcting her, then. You say sex before marriage is okay as if doing it for the first time, they are married in that way ( if I understand you correctly ), but this girl does not do that. And she is not charging for her services ( she said to one guy that if he doesn't use it, he'll lose it, at the work place, boldly and in public and she had a friend beside her to agree with her ) so you cannot say it is prostitution.

Or are you going to amend what you say about sex before marriage?

What has this got to do with a church asking Paul if it was better to never touch a woman?
All women are whores?

Sex before marriage makes men and women harlots. It takes two to commit adultery & it takes two to commit harlotry.

Whores and whore mongers. Again easy enough to look up.

Still sex before marriage. You are not going to find any distinction in the scripture from harlotry as if sex outside of marriage is okay.

As Tweety Bird said, "He don't know me real well."
I am the last one that would justify sinning.

Well, anyone that says this is not a sin, when scripture says otherwise, it can be seen as justifying sinning.

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

With unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and sexually transmitted diseases, I would think people would blame God if sex before marriage was okay by Him.

And we are not discussing backsliding but rather modification to the scriptures by introducing a non biblical word to change the meaning of the scriptures.....what level of hell do these people go to?
The name of God the Father appeared nearly 6,000 times in the Old Testament....they completely removed his name. What level of hell is awarded for that?

Now prove that was the name of the Father that was removed, and not the name of the Son as God in scripture;

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life...... 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Jesus was the God men had seen in the O.T. Jesus said so in John 8:56-59 of Abraham seeing Him back in Genesis 18:1-8 where Abraham provided a meal and drink and He and two others did eat.

So maybe you were reading other teachings into scripture or you were looking at "scripture" that was done that way to believe it was the name of the Father.

The copy process and the translational process was always the line demarcation for those that wanted to modify the scriptures.

O.T. scribes' guidelines at this link.

Meticulous Jewish Scribes

When it comes to the N.T., the documents originating from Antioch where disciples studied for a year look promising Acts 11:26 then the ones originating from Alexandria where poetic licensing was known to exists along with Gnosticism where I get the idea for why they have the oldest manuscripts was because they stopped using written scripture & and sought self edification by speaking in tongues without interpretation. Gnosticism aka hidden knowledge best fit the errors of the believers today for assuming God's gift of tongues can also be for private use. It is not.

I can believe Paul was addressing this in 2 Timothy 2:15-16 for why we are to call them to depart from iniquity, that snare of the devil, by praying normally and give the Father thanks in Jesus's name for known answers to prayer. 1 Thessalonians 5:17-18 & John 14:13-14

 

[Grailhunter]

Not if they were using them in large quantities in wearing them out. Christians were not like today where they have access to the Bible but collecting dusts. Back then, they were zealous for the scriptures & instructed by those scriptures to study the scriptures. They did not have the distractions of the media, or whatever to steal their zeal away.

Because these are prizes texts....if there was a huge copy processes going on we would have more of them.
Beyond that we can think, we can believe, we can speculate.....but we do not know.
What we do know is that not just anyone was given the job of copying these religious texts and it was expensive.
We do not have any historical evidence that churches were handing them out to just anyone.

As it is most of the oldest texts (scrolls) have been found in churches. Some have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

For the Geneva Bible and the King James Bible their sources were prior translations of Greek and Latin.
Textus Receptus

Correct.
Translating from also the Vulgate. The words Lucifer and fornication is a corruption that the KJV inherited from the Vulgate. The Johannine Comma addition is thought to have originated from study notes...margin notes in the later copies of the Vulgate.
And they probably referenced William Tyndale's Bible.

I can agree that a message can be lost in translating from the Greek into English. Example are Matthew 5:21-22 & Matthew 5:29-30 & Matthew 18:8-9 where Matthew 5:22,29-30 & Matthew 18:9 has "hell" & "hell fire" derived from the Greek Word "geena". Matthew 18:8 has the word everlasting fire derived from the Greek word "aionios" which is defined as "from aiwn - aion 165; perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well):--eternal, for ever, everlasting, world (began)."

I deem this word is what threw scholars off because Jesus was referring Gehenna to a place on earth; not the actual hell. He was warning about a hell that was coming on earth that believers will find themselves cast into for not found as abiding in Him when the Bridegroom comes.

It is very possible that the English word has brought about false teachings about believers losing salvation, for why they believe OSAS is not true.

The topic of hell is complicated....you pretty much have to be a linguist to understand it and people have played on the lack of education to twist what was going on.

To start with the Apostles were dealing with a language set in a culture that did not have Christian morals. So they were actually having to redefine Koine Greek words. Looking at it one way, there is no belief of a temporary punishment.....it is all eternal. They describe Hell in different ways using the worst way people could comprehend....fire...in the dark. I don't think it is actually fire, I think it is something much much worse....more pain....more horror. But they did not have anything worse than fire.

And of course OSAS is a lie of the worst kind. I say the worse kind because the belief in it, can lead to Hell and on Judgment Day if you have preached it, you may have to answer for the loss of other souls.

 

[Christ4Me]

Because these are prizes texts....if there was a huge copy processes going on we would have more of them.
Beyond that we can think, we can believe, we can speculate.....but we do not know.
What we do know is that not just anyone was given the job of copying these religious texts and it was expensive.
We do not have any historical evidence that churches were handing them out to just anyone.

In the early church, I believe it was a labor of love. God provides the parchments and His disciples to keep His sayings.

Correct.
Translating from also the Vulgate. The words Lucifer and fornication is a corruption that the KJV inherited from the Vulgate.

You can claim that about Lucifer, whic is just a reference to Venus and not inferring the original name for Satan, but not fornication as the Greek manuscripts has it. How do I know? Modern Bibles has it. So fornication is in there.

The Johannine Comma addition is thought to have originated from study notes...margin notes in the later copies of the Vulgate.

I disagree for the simple truth that by removing verse 7 as the KJV has it, verse 9 falls flat because then how can God's witness be grater then men's witness? So I believe just as we have believers today that do not believe in the deity of Christ & the Triune God, they did not back then for why they would get rid of that troublesome texts, or better yet, just not copy it any more in the Greek fr why there aren't that many.

And they probably referenced William Tyndale's Bible.

Since Tyndale was the first to coin the phrase passover from pascha as it is usually left untranslated and the first to coin Easter as meaning the same thing as passover but in the N.T., we can suspect something is not right for why they changed all of "Easter" to passover in the N.T. except for Acts 12:4. Since it cannot be confirmed, we can accept that Easter in Acts 12:4 is referring to the passover event where it should have been written as "after the 7 days of unleavened bread" rather than after "Easter" when Herod went to the Jews.

Martin Luther had "ester" for Easter in its German Bible around the time of Tyndale and signified it better in his language by referring to the sacrifice at Passover as "esterlambe" which I think our Englsh Bible should apply as well. There is a specific day that is the Passover and then followed by the 7 days of unleavened bread and then there is that sacrifice; all referenced from pascha. It does need better translation into English. It seems the Martin Luther did a better job of it into German.

The topic of hell is complicated....you pretty much have to be a linguist to understand it and people have played on the lack of education to twist what was going on.

There are references to hell which is about the afterlife that is not derived from "Gehenna" which is a place on earth. Jesus refers to the after life and He also refers to a place of slaughter on earth; hence Gehenna.

To start with the Apostles were dealing with a language set in a culture that did not have Christian morals. So they were actually having to redefine Koine Greek words. Looking at it one way, there is no belief of a temporary punishment.....it is all eternal. They describe Hell in different ways using the worst way people could comprehend....fire...in the dark. I don't think it is actually fire, I think it is something much much worse....more pain....more horror. But they did not have anything worse than fire.

John 14:23-24 & John 15:20 are assurances from the Lord that we will have His words to follow Him by.

And of course OSAS is a lie of the worst kind. I say the worse kind because the belief in it, can lead to Hell and on Judgment Day if you have preached it, you may have to answer for the loss of other souls.

Actually, I preach OSAS because Jesus is the Savior for I am saved. To preach against it is to deny Him as our Savior. Indeed, where is the Good News to share with others if one can lose their salvation? Should you not be saying instead "Jesus might be my Savior," to others?

But by His grace & by His help, I also warn believers why we are to be ready or else be left behind at the rapture event which will occur before that fiery calamity will come on the third of the earth that sets up the new world order and the mark of the beast system in the coming great tribulation.

 

[Grailhunter]

My religion? Christianity is about our reconciled relationship with God thru Jesus Christ. Since He raised the bar, it is His words we should tend to rather than to the history of backsliders.

Define "history of backsliders"

Try correcting her, then. You say sex before marriage is okay as if doing it for the first time, they are married in that way ( if I understand you correctly ), but this girl does not do that. And she is not charging for her services ( she said to one guy that if he doesn't use it, he'll lose it, at the work place, boldly and in public and she had a friend beside her to agree with her ) so you cannot say it is prostitution.

Or are you going to amend what you say about sex before marriage?

I am not addressing the girl.
What am I saying? The truth.
My religion is not defined by what I like or dislike. If God consulted me there are a lot of things I would have changed. But that is not my paygrade...LOL
The facts are....like it or not......
Nowhere in the Bible is a wedding ceremony required.....the Jews did not even have a word for it.
The union formed the marriage.....just as God had described. For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
Wedding ceremonies come from Pagan customs...
Christianity did not adopt the Jewish Law of a Letter of Divorce....the word divorce does not occur outside of Christ's discussion with Jews about the Mosaic Law...so not outside the Gospels.
Now once the Pagans....called Gentiles in the Bible were invited in to share salvation....they brought some of their customs into Christianity. History records the first Christian wedding in the 9th century. I personally believe that Christian weddings occurred before that, but I cannot prove it.
The history of Christianity and women and sex and marriage is a long and ugly story.
The Catholic Church did not regulate marriages. They thought sex in a marriage was still lust and a sin.
But eventually the Catholic Church made marriage a sacrament.
The protest reform came along and...slowly changed the focus on marriage and the family. And there is more to that story because Martin Luther was not all that warm and fussy on that....even though he had taken a wife. But in the mid 1500's they required a wedding to be married. They were the first to require a marriage.
The eventually the Catholic Church required weddings to be married.
Then in 1753 the Clandestine Marriage Act required weddings to be public.

So as far as monogamous couples living together....according to the Bible they are married.
Which brings up a different standard of morality....don't have sex with someone if you do not intend to be married.
If you do and stay together....no biblical sin.
But if you are a member of a Protestant or Catholic church and agree to their rules, then it is wrong to have sex before marriage.
But is that wrong a sin....that is a matter of opinion.

Now sexual misconduct.....sexual sins....not too many Christians are going to be involved with orgies or Pagan rituals.
But sexual misconduct......adultery....prostitutes....carousing for sex.....one night stands.....casual sex....those are biblical sins.

Sex before marriage makes men and women harlots. It takes two to commit adultery & it takes two to commit harlotry.

Wrong. Biblically you had to have sex to be married....wedding ceremonies not required in the Bible.
But what did happen.....Sometimes....not always...fathers would get together and planning a wedding for their sons and daughters.
The daughter might not have a choice in this.....and sometimes fathers would sell their daughters as concubines....but even in weddings there was a bride price. Then the couple would be engaged...betrothed. Then the official day of coupling to consummate the marriage happened in different ways.

This consummate marriage stipulation still exists today....if you get married and do not have sex, in most places you can get the marriage annulled.

But....this did not have to happen at all. If a man and women got together and joined, they were married. They may have been out in the middle of nowhere.

Now prove that was the name of the Father that was removed, and not the name of the Son as God in scripture;

LOL This is nutz.

 

[Grailhunter]

You can claim that about Lucifer, whic is just a reference to Venus and not inferring the original name for Satan, but not fornication as the Greek manuscripts has it. How do I know? Modern Bibles has it. So fornication is in there.

This is not true.

Am I to assume you are Jehovah's Witness?

 

[Behold]

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Jesus has already fulfilled it.
All of it.
So, this is why we are not "Under the law", as believers, we are "under Grace".
Its because God, as Christ has fulfilled the law and commandments, already.....which resolves this that was against us, judging us and condemning us.
THis is why "there is now no condemnation for those who are IN CHRIST"......Romans 8:1

See, the unbelievers, are "under the law".
The Believers, the born again, not the water baptized but the BORN AGAIN, are not under the law, we are "IN CHRIST" and He has already fulfilled it.

See that?
That is SALVATION. that is "the GIFT of RIGHTEOUSNESS".

 

[Behold]

would it be a sin for a single never married to marry a divorced person? many people believe the spouse is still married to the first spouse.

IF neither of them is born again, then this marriage isn't their issue....their issue is that they are here..... John 3:36

Now, if both are born again.......then if they marry, its fine.
They are not doing anything but getting married.
THere is no adultery being committed , and there is no issue at all.
See the issue is.......when Jesus was teaching before the Cross was raised, then he taught prophetically or he taught often, according to the OT.
So, once He died, and rose again, then the NT started, and this allows for believers to have eternal sanctification, that is not based on our behavior, but its only based on Christ's sinlessness.

Now, Look at this verse, if you are stuck in the "well ive always been told that if you remarry, you are committing adultery, unless the husband is dead....ect, ect, ect.""

This verse....>"As JESUS IS, so are the born again, in this world".

Now, how is He? He is RIGHTEOUS, and we are the "made righteous"...
So, if a "made righteous" born again, marries a "made righteous" divorced born again, then 2 who are "made righteous" by the blood of Jesus are about to have a honeymoon. And God bless you to enjoy it.

 

[Grailhunter]

IF neither of them is born again, then this marriage isn't their issue....their issue is that they are here..... John 3:36

Now, if both are born again.......then if they marry, its fine.
They are not doing anything but getting married.
THere is no adultery being committed , and there is no issue at all.
See the issue is.......when Jesus was teaching before the Cross was raised, then he taught prophetically or he taught often, according to the OT.
So, once He died, and rose again, then the NT started, and this allows for believers to have eternal sanctification, that is not based on our behavior, but its only based on Christ's sinlessness.

Now, Look at this verse, if you are stuck in the "well ive always been told that if you remarry, you are committing adultery, unless the husband is dead....ect, ect, ect.""

This verse....>"As JESUS IS, so are the born again, in this world".

Now, how is He? He is RIGHTEOUS, and we are the "made righteous"...
So, if a "made righteous" born again, marries a "made righteous" divorced born again, then 2 who are "made righteous" by the blood of Jesus are about to have a honeymoon. And God bless you to enjoy it.

And @lilygrace
One of the things that we do not talk about much is that some Protestants believe that we are buried in Christ with Baptism and the person that comes up out of the water...is a new person from the perspective of God. At that instant, that person is sinless, and nothing they did in the past will be held against them....or even remembered by God.

This was a belief in first years of Christianity because people would wait to be baptized just before they died.

 

[Christ4Me]

Define "history of backsliders"

The nation of Israel in the O.T. for one.

The one you gave about how polygamy was practiced in early history in Jews & Christian circles for the other..

I am not addressing the girl.
What am I saying? The truth.
My religion is not defined by what I like or dislike. If God consulted me there are a lot of things I would have changed. But that is not my paygrade...LOL
The facts are....like it or not......
Nowhere in the Bible is a wedding ceremony required.....the Jews did not even have a word for it.
The union formed the marriage.....just as God had described. For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
Wedding ceremonies come from Pagan customs...
Christianity did not adopt the Jewish Law of a Letter of Divorce....the word divorce does not occur outside of Christ's discussion with Jews about the Mosaic Law...so not outside the Gospels.
Now once the Pagans....called Gentiles in the Bible were invited in to share salvation....they brought some of their customs into Christianity. History records the first Christian wedding in the 9th century. I personally believe that Christian weddings occurred before that, but I cannot prove it.
The history of Christianity and women and sex and marriage is a long and ugly story.
The Catholic Church did not regulate marriages. They thought sex in a marriage was still lust and a sin.
But eventually the Catholic Church made marriage a sacrament.
The protest reform came along and...slowly changed the focus on marriage and the family. And there is more to that story because Martin Luther was not all that warm and fussy on that....even though he had taken a wife. But in the mid 1500's they required a wedding to be married. They were the first to require a marriage.
The eventually the Catholic Church required weddings to be married.
Then in 1753 the Clandestine Marriage Act required weddings to be public.

Although I can understand your point of view, just a man & a woman agreeing to have sex for the first time is them getting married, but Jesus referred to the leaving of the father & the mother; hence a wedding ceremony or something publicly done that they are notifying their parents and those who know them that they are leaving their parents to be joined together as a married couple.

It has to be God's design because Jesus is the Bridegroom, warning believers to be ready or else, they will miss out on the reception.

In the parable of the ten virgins, which is likened unto the kingdom of heaven in verse 1 of Matthew 25:1-13 , although they missed out on the reception and can never get in after the door is shut, they are still part of that kingdom of heaven because that was how the kingdom of heaven was described.

So as far as monogamous couples living together....according to the Bible they are married.
Which brings up a different standard of morality....don't have sex with someone if you do not intend to be married.
If you do and stay together....no biblical sin.
But if you are a member of a Protestant or Catholic church and agree to their rules, then it is wrong to have sex before marriage.
But is that wrong a sin....that is a matter of opinion.

Now sexual misconduct.....sexual sins....not too many Christians are going to be involved with orgies or Pagan rituals.
But sexual misconduct......adultery....prostitutes....carousing for sex.....one night stands.....casual sex....those are biblical sins.

I disagree still because of wat Jesus said.

Wrong. Biblically you had to have sex to be married....wedding ceremonies not required in the Bible.
But what did happen.....Sometimes....not always...fathers would get together and planning a wedding for their sons and daughters.
The daughter might not have a choice in this.....and sometimes fathers would sell their daughters as concubines....but even in weddings there was a bride price. Then the couple would be engaged...betrothed. Then the official day of coupling to consummate the marriage happened in different ways.

Again, Jesus said a man leaves his father & mother and then married when he & his wife are one flesh and not before.

This consummate marriage stipulation still exists today....if you get married and do not have sex, in most places you can get the marriage annulled.

I am aware of what society allows today but not okay in God's eyes when He had joined them together to be one flesh. Not the sex that does that.

But....this did not have to happen at all. If a man and women got together and joined, they were married. They may have been out in the middle of nowhere.

If on a deserted island with no other witnesses but God, when they got married, then God who joined them together is why they are married

LOL This is nutz.

If no man has seen the Father at any time but Jesus did in John 1:18 & John 6:46, then the God men had seen in the O.T. was Jesus before His incarnation as the Son of Man to give His life as a ransom for many. That is why He testified that Abraham had seen Him in John 8:56-59 which was the event in Genesis 18:1-8 where the Lord ate & drank. The Lord had appeared to Abraham before in Genesis 12:7 & Genesis 17:1.

The Lord appeared to Isaac in Genesis 26:1-2 & again in Genesis 26:24

The Lord appeared to Jacob and they had wrestled together where Jacob had seen His face & lived in Genesis 32:24-30

So like it or not, the name Jehovah, is one of the Lord's name, before He had come to earth as the prophesied Son of Man to give His life as a ransom for many.

 

[Christ4Me]

This is not true.

Well then we disagree.

Am I to assume you are Jehovah's Witness?

No, brother. They believe the name of Jehovah is addressing only the Father.

I believe the name of Jehovah is the Son's as He was the One that was appearing before men that had seen him on earth.

 

[Behold]

And @lilygrace
One of the things that we do not talk about much is that some Protestants believe that we are buried in Christ with Baptism and the person that comes up out of the water...is a new person from the perspective of God. At that instant, that person is sinless, and nothing they did in the past will be held against them....or even remembered by God.

This was a belief in first years of Christianity because people would wait to be baptized just before they died.

The Dying Thief on the Cross, is currently in Heaven, with Jesus, Paul, Peter, Thomas, Andrew, and Billy Graham.

The Dyning Thief was never water baptized.

So, if a person is getting water baptized, its because they already have believed the message of the Cross, or they have been lied to by a "water cult" that told them that water saves you.
In that Case, they are trusting the water, and not trusting in Christ.
Millions do this, and they are only water baptized INTO a CULT, by a CULT.

THe way it is designed is that you get wet because you already have FAITH, and God has received this faith, to give you His Salvation.
Then, you get in the water.
Water follows Salvation.....it does not cause it.
The water is just water.....and the baptism, is just symbolism....of death and resurrection.........You go down, as this is symbolic of death to sin, death to the old nature....ect.
Then you come up out of that water, and this is symbolic of being risen in Christ, born again.
However, you are already saved, before you got wet, and that is why you are getting wet.

The water follows the redemption......it does not cause it.

 

[Grailhunter]

The Dying Thief on the Cross, is currently in Heaven, with Jesus, Paul, Peter, Thomas, Andrew, and Billy Graham.

The Dyning Thief was never water baptized.

There is a lot that did not happen with the thief on the cross.
All we have is that He went with Christ to a place designated as paradise.
The word Heaven is not used.
If we can come up with a scripture that says Christ went to Heaven from the cross....we got something.
If not, it is a biblical mystery or anyone can say anything they want.....the Bahamas?

So, if a person is getting water baptized, its because they already have believed the message of the Cross, or they have been lied to by a "water cult" that told them that water saves you.
In that Case, they are trusting the water, and not trusting in Christ.
Millions do this, and they are only water baptized INTO a CULT, by a CULT.

I am aware of the belief running around in your head.....But no one believes water saves or works saves, it is just part of the process.

THe way it is designed is that you get wet because you already have FAITH, and God has received this faith, to give you His Salvation.
Then, you get in the water.

This is not biblical but again I am aware of the belief. And you have the decision to believe in Christ....repentance....Baptism.....the Bread and Wine ritual....things that Christ told us to do, and Judgment Day.....What and where is the instant that you are saved from Hell and then what instant are you on your way to Heaven? It is all a discussion that is called beliefs.
Beliefs....Truths....Facts.....

 

[Behold]

I am aware of the belief running around in your head.....But no one believes water saves or works saves, it is just part of the process.

.

Im aware that you are ither a Catholic who does not understand the Catholic position on "baptismal regeneration", or you are not a Catholic who does not understand this at all.
In fact, their Bible teaches that you are "born again by or of water".

See that? "born again BY or OF water"...

Not BORN of water......but> BORN AGAIN< by water.
See that?
That's the devil's lie.

A Catholic will argue with you till the sun explodes that "Noah and his family were saved by water".....as in SALVATION by water.

What is the problem with this lie that water saves or regenerates the spirit?? Well, it denies that you are born again by the Spirit of God.
It is teaching that the act of spiritual regeneration, is caused by WATER BAPTISM.
Its not.

 

[Grailhunter]

I am not a Catholic or a Fundamentalist.

In fact, their Bible teaches that you are "born again by or of water".

This I agree with...We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.....dead and reborn... Romans 6:4

 

[Behold]

I am not a Catholic or a Fundamentalist.


This I agree with...We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.....dead and reborn... Romans 6:4

Buried in water, is not to be born again.
You can be water baptized 234 times and still go to hell, as the water can't deal with your SIN.
The water can't deal with your sin.
The water can't deal with your sin.

ONLY THE BLOOD OF JESUS, can deal with your sin.......not the water.

Only the Cross can deal with your sin, and that situation is not related to water.
So, its best not to believe that you can't go to heaven unless you are water baptized.
And Reader.... its best to get out of a water cult that omits the Holy Spirit as the author of the New Birth, and instead teaches that water has the power to cause spiritual regeneration.
It does not.

 

[Oceanprayers]

would it be a sin for a single never married to marry a divorced person? many people believe the spouse is still married to the first spouse.

I think that is a holdover of,from, the Jewish tradition related to tribes and bloodlines.
Just like the prohibition against what today is called race mixing.

A living hell is staying married to the wrong person. A new living hell is staying unmarried for the rest of your life because the first marriage was a mistake.

As if God didn't see that.
Marry if you're in love.
Man's traditions I think sometimes paint God's will onto themselves in order to give those man made traditions and rules more teeth.

Jesus didn't marry. If we're to be like Jesus in all things marriage isn't possible.

But it is. I think God wants us to be happy and in love. Not scared and alone.
I think God has more to do than watch our love life.

 

[GodsGrace]

Did your pastor give scripture for this? This has been a question in my mind for a long time.

No scripture necessary.
Abuse is grounds for annulment.
Annulment means the marriage never happened.

 

[Grailhunter]

You can be water baptized 234 times and still go to hell

This I agree with......not all saved Christians are going to get their ticket stamped at Judgment Day.

We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.....dead and reborn... Romans 6:4

Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. John 3:5