quote:

ORIGINAL: SealedEternal

So your claim is that God made a Law that was impossible to be understood, and then judged people who didn't follow it properly?

quote:

I would contend that God is not the author of confusion, but it is the wicked hearts of men that prevent us from accepting what He says. In the same way we have countless professing Christian religions with virtually every imaginable contradicting doctrine, but I don't believe it is because God's Word is indiscernable, rather that people don't want to accept what it truly says, and try to make it say what they wish it said.

quote:

You say: "3) You respond by telling me that "no saint today NEEDS to KNOW the original languages", and then call me a pharisee because I do???"

"Now you claim that I have called YOU a Pharisee - you PERSONALLY, a Pharisee? And where in my post did I call you this benelchi? In this section:
Look where it - all this learning, got the Pharisees in Christ and the apostles time, or the scholars of the Romish religion down through the centuries; and where all the learning has lead so many 'scholars' in the numerous sects of modern Christendom within Protestism..."

Reread more carefully here and I think that you'll see that what I am saying below is not something I'm making up right now; but was really what I meant and truly my original point.

And that point was this: I was pointing to the fact that it was and has been the so-called 'scholars' throughout the centuries that have claimed things about the scriptures that were and are not supported by a careful reading of the scriptures themselves. Not that others did not miss the meaning of the scriptures or outright corrupt it (though few had the knowledge of the original languages to even read the scriptures if they even had a copy of them to read during the 'middle ages' at least).

But it was and is the so-called 'scholars' that have had and still have the position of power and persuation over the masses, not the other way around. So it behoves us to be alert to this principle and realize also that they are much more accountable in the eyes of God than the 'commoner' or 'peons' are.

The most popular and influential 'scholars' of Christ and the apostles time were mostly within the sect of the 'Pharisees' (and Sadducees); the 'scholars' through out the middle ages, were mostly found in the Roman religion; and then there are all the 'scholars' that rose within the Protestant sects of modern professing Christendom.

I was not in any way, subtlely or otherwise implying that I judge you to be a 'Pharisee'. Whether according to the actual meaning of the word; or the meaning in which it has come to be indicative of - that of an actor, a phony, demanding others to deem their corrupted interpretations of scripture as authoritative and claiming that all are bound to follow it, while not lifting their own finger to follow their interpretation themselves.

And how could I justly have done such a thing, I don't know you personally and cannot observe what you 'do' (your actions) and compare them to the things that you 'say' (evevrything you teach).


Now as to this section:

[color=#990000]"...I care not for any of it. So I am in no way concerned even less impressed by your alleged superior credentials or your too obvious attempts at trying to take on the role of a 'priest' who alone holds the secrets to the scriptures, etc., etc., etc. Discovery of the truth does not require I be so 'learned' as you put out that you are." [/color]

I'll repeat there this: [color=#990000]"I certainly spoke strongly about those who for all their superior learning, yet have ended up more corrupt then those that they thought to be superior to. I even equate you with those who certainly seem to imply (my perception from your posts) that alleged knowledge sets them apart from the unlearned, and that it is implied that to really come to a correct understanding of the meaning of the scriptures requires such learning. I did not call you a Pharisee benelchi. In this you are falsely accusing me of at least this one thing."

"If you are a Pharisee, it is such a thing, which in my understanding and defintion of that word, I would have to be able to observe you in order to determine this one way or the other. And this 'thing' I cannot do, in that I do not know you or your habits to make that judgment call."

"Please be careful in what you say and claim I said. And please, as I have said again and again, let us stick to the issues at hand.




So now I ask you plainly here: What have I said in my presentation - my claims about the scriptures and their meaning in regard to the question of the OP, that are contextual incorrect? I have laid out much to chew on and if in error here or there or altogether so, show me where. Let us 'debate' these things.

Reread what I've said in the posts above - read ALL that I'VE SAID, and show me from the texts I cite and appeal to, the error I am guilty of; my alleged error and "strange doctrine".



I repeat. You say: "To tell you the truth, this kind of argument is so dishonest I don't know how you can present it and keep a straight face. The FUNNY (or SAD) part is that you expect people to accept this kind of reasoning!"

Edited: "Ok now I'm outright dishonest." I have to say here, that I still do stand behind this and say to you: "Shame on you. You don't know me, but you make a judgment that requires evidence that my short (though long) posts don't supply you with to make such an accusation. You've take SOME things I've said, way, way out of context. You could have said it appears that you are this and so or doing this and so - NOT I AM this and so, here 'dishonest.

You (I am forced to think) have so confused yourself with what you 'think' I've said, with what I actually did say. And I believe what I said, was not that difficult to grasp if you'd taken the time to really read and hear my words. And you 'think' that you've made a "righteous judgment" regarding me, accusing me of being dishonest - consciously dishonest...NOT just misguided or ignorant or something of that nature, which an 'elitist' scholar might think and refer to an 'unlearned men' like myself, as. But literally dishonest? Again benelchi I still have to say shame on you.


In addition:
I added a line to you in an above post of mine [pg.391 #9761], where I said these words to you before all:
"Thank you [i.e SealedEternal], Look at what I have had to deal with.
And benelchi I see that I myself at times have spoken wrongly to you, please forgive me this wrong."

I meant this then and still do even now.

I am not interested in entering into a biting and devouring match. When I reread some of my posts to check to see whether I had said anything beyond what my understanding of correcting, instructing, "provoking..." [heb.10:], admonishing, encouraging, reproving, rebuking and even the call to reject another means as scripture defines and illustrates these; I found several statements I made, that upon rereading them, bothered me. I 'felt' I had spoken outside of what I believe is right and appropriate for a son of God (saint, believer, etc.) to speak.

In asking you to forgive me I referring to such statements, but not the many other statements that I have said which you may not accept in the light in which they were given; which was this, to correct you; not merely correct the things that I disagree with you about in 'doctrine', but disagree with you in the manner...the attitude in which they are to be presented in. All this is what my sense is, my impression, my opinion, as I see it.

THE STRUGGLE OF ONE'S SOUL TO ADMIT FAILURE AND ERROR

It is not easy to admit of one's error either in 'doctrine' or attitude. The doctrine part is extremely difficult even when one begins to see that they have been in error in their conclusions (understanding and teaching). There is alot of pressure to not come clean with oneself...especially in 'public'. The investment in time, one's reputation, both as one personally thinks of themselves, and then the reputation that has been 'established' among others. The desire to be respected (esteemed or highly esteemed and honored) by men and to maintain this is a very formibal (?) foe. I see that the desire for the 'praise' of men and the 'fear' of men (one's fear of losing one's reputation among man), combined with the unconscious swallowing and following of the 'doctrines' of men is a "threefold cord" not quickly broken. There is also the pressure within us to be dishonest with the truth, because to utter it and contend for it will - as far as uttering and contending for it among "the many" is concerned - means death....if not literally in one's generation and culture, then is a form of 'social suicide'.

WHAT I BELIEVE ON THE QUESTION OF MARRIAGE - DIVORCE - ADULTERY

I am convinced of the truth that what you and others have been calling 'remarriage' ("the right to remarry") is a very serious corruption of the scriptures teaching on the subjects of marriage, divorce and adultery.

There are only so many passages in the scriptures that address these subjects (issues), but there happens to be a number of them. All of which must be gathered together, read, reread and reread and reread and reread and reread over and over again...which is part of the process of studying them. Studying effectively requires good study skills. And among other things, this requires as well an awareness of one's potential for 'missing things'. Hence the necessity of rereading over and over again all the passages that deal with these subjects. Including being aware of several other problems in determing the truth of a matter: that is, one's potential towards being or 'getting' mislead - even from the 'get go'; which includes the danger of continuing to go down 'rabbit trails'; and getting caught up in myopically focusing on some aspect of study.

One aspect of this is myopically 'zeroing in on' just one aspect of study, or lets say, just one 'piece' of the puzzle within the whole 'puzzle' which makes up the WHOLE PICTURE PUZZLE.

One can be so caught up this way that they become and remain unaware of the fact that they have stopped their "searching the scriptures", and have 'circled' their mental 'wagons around' perhaps only a small portion of "what saith the scriptures" on a matter. One must remain in readiness to pick up on other pieces of the Divine puzzle that they have yet to discover on an 'issue' or subject.

And to 'find everything' scripturre says on a particular subject requires to be able to see how that the complete answer to the 'puzzle' of one subject, is to understand that there is no way to obtain the complete picture unless one sees where other (related) subjects are interwoven with the one in study at the moment.

Being ignorant of these things and potential rabbit trails can cause one to miss and continue to be unaware of further evidence that needs to be gathered on a subject or 'issue'. We need to be ready minded and thus not allow oneself to get 'stuck' in a 'rut' of one's own or anothers making, which you keep you from moving on and digging deeper and expanding your search of the truth, the whole "counsel of God". Which search is not over, until you have virtually exhausted everything that could be found within scripture dealing with the subject(s) at hand.

CONFORMED OR TRANSFORMED?

There is a real danger to us all, of failing to 'escape' what I'll call the 'gravitational force and pull' of the cultural paradigms one has been watered, fed and formed in conformity to - a product of. Think of the people of the 'dark ages' who generation after generation grew up in the dogmas of a very dominate version (perversion) of 'Christianity'. Dogmas that were not only erroneous, but were silly, foolish, dangerous and damning as well, when observed from the vantage point of better knowledge.

I even think of poor George Washington, who though he had a copy of the scriptures by his bedside, died not of a cold; but of the 'medical' practice of blood-letting. Yet the scriptures say that the life of the flesh is in the blood. I am pretty sure had I lived back then as well, that I probably wouldn't have connected the phrase "the life of the flesh is in the blood", to how literal God meant that to be taken, if for no other reason then I would have been blinded by my tendency to 'go along' with those things that were taught as fact, in the culture of that time.

IT'S EASIER TO JUST GO ALONG AND BELIEVE WHAT EVERYONE WANTS TO BELIEVE IN SO

I do not want to believe, what I believe, for the sake of trying to be more 'piest' or 'holier' than others. To vainly gloat that 'my way', is stricter and thus somehow purer and truer, in a world where the majority of professing Christians appear to have let loose all restraints and have a form of godliness, but denies the true power of grace that provides the saint to "both will and to do" of God's "good pleasure".

A BRIEF GLIMPSE OF THE PERSONAL GRIEF, LONELINESS & TRIALS
OF ONE WHO KNOWS WHEREOF HE SPEAKS

My own personal life groans in some areas against this teaching I hold, because of the personal circumstances I have been forced to live with as a result of other grievous factors, arising from our present culture's and generation's ignorances and disobedience to the teaching of the God.

God who made man and ordained how they are to conduct themselves in this world and between themselves, has in his higher will (as I might refer to it) permitted circumstances and individuals to conspire to defraud me of my wife and family. You would I hope be so shocked and heartbroken to hear the ungodly and unrighteous cruelities to which I been subjected to - and that at the hands of professing 'born again' believers, and so-called grace filled conservative groups. That is altogether another story that is neither permitted nor needed to give any details of here in this forum.

I briefly bring this up, so that you might understand, that I am not eager from an emotional - and let me be somewhat frank here - from a physical physiological standpoint, to accept or teach what I teach about all this.

The declaration of God he announced in the unspoiled earth at the beginning that, "It is not good that man should be alone" is a very powerful point, filled with poignant truths I dare say we have yet to plumb the depths of. This declaration remains true, as I can attest to it; in that I live with the very real and exceedingly personal pain of living in the vacuum left by her departure.

But even though my 'help' mate deserted me (so you might know, she's a professing - a seriously professing 'godly' Christian); I know that I am not free to write her off, and then "marry another".

It hurts beyond belief, and has been literally maddening at times, less so now, to have had to experience such a thing. But that is life in this world, and I am not exempt from suffering. I believe that I can marry, but not another, I can 'remarry' my wife if or when she comes to her self and sees the error of her ways. If she "marrys another", then "she shall be called a adulterous" - not by me, but by God himself. If I write her off TO "marry another" then I as well would be rightly referred to (called) by God...condemned as "marrying another". How can I 'repent' of this AFTERWARDS and yet continue in that adultery? There is no way to do so, only in the theater of the mind - a vainly puffed up and reprobate mind.

I have listed as others have, the many or at least more than sufficient passages found in the scriptures that point to a conclusion that no doubt the flesh of men and women can not and DO NOT accept but cast behind their backs...water them down with the mumbo-jumbo incantations that are conjured up from several more vague or less clear portions of scripture, found in some passages regarding these subjects.

I am neither a Hebrew or Greek scholar to be sure; but neither am I a fool, nor so inept in the art of interpretation that I cannot decifer when someone is fabricating an explanation out of thin air (their own imagination). If the scriptures do not explain themselves on a matter; then I would be truly be "simple" [rms.16:17-18], ignorant and "unlearned" - a FOOL - to blindly accept, 'swallow' and 'follow' the verbal fabrications that some so-called teacher, preacher, scholar or popular leader put out as 'What God is saying in this passage'. A fabrication, meaning: something claimed as true, yet not only does the alleged 'proof-text' being cited NOT contain the meanings and/or explanations being promoted as 'true' by some 'teacher'; but there are no other passages that contain the explanations being claimed as 'so' (true/fact) by such 'teachers'.

CONJURED UP FROM THE LEAST CLEAR EXPRESSIONS FOUND IN THE TEXT

The passages that are used to claim that God allows the adulterer (-ous) to continue in their adultery are (in my opinion) conjured up in the minds of those that promote them, as they imagine them to be somehow contained in phrases...vague, that is the least clear phrases found in Mat.5:27-28, 30-31, Mat.19:9-10, 1-12; 1Cor.7:11a, 1Cor.7:28-29a, 1Cor.7:8a-9, Mal.2:16a,13-16, Jer.3:1,1-14,20 and Deut.24...primarily.

All of these passages - phrases (words) contained therein, are easy prey to be 'wrested' out of their contextual joints, by not only the "unlearned", but by those that "lie in wait to deceive" and by the kind of 'teachers' Paul referred to as "proud knowing nothing". And when these two latter types of individuals use this sort of hocus-pocus, they employ language that Peter and Jude label as "great swelling words of vanity", Paul calls it "good words and fair speeches" - all of which is aimed at persuading the "simple", the "unlearned and unstable" and those who are vulnerable to being "allured by the flesh" by men who use this kind of persuative speech, to swallow their claims.

The unsupportive claims of men 'based' on the less clear and less plain phrases in such passages, do not outweigh or dullify what is spoken of to the contrary, in the CLEAR, the PLAIN portions of these passages - passages that are found to REPEAT that God forbids adultery and no where explains that he has santified the deeds of adultery and now permits them. The sriptures that speak to this subject do not support the notion that God permits what he clearly forbids in these passages. It is the desire to enjoy the pleasures that a honorable marriage provide, that drives men to 'see' in God's word this kind of "promise" of "liberty"...a "liberty" that Peter warns will be handed out like candy for the flesh peddlers that he warned would come into the Ekklesia of God, via false teachers.


If I am wrong, then I am ready to be shone from the scriptures themselves, and ready to be directed to read where it says that God promises or allows for that which other passages 'seem to' say otherwise, and forbid. If I am wrong, I am not going to be held responsible for promoting adultery - potential or otherwise. I will not be able to be held responsible either for teaching: "forbidding to marry". God said, Paul said and taught that marriage is good. But Paul and Christ also taught that some marriages are not permitted: The woman who leaves her husband; the virgin who's father does not wish to "give her" in 'marriage' but "keep" her from marrying [1co.7.36-38]; the man that puts away his wife; the wife that puts away her husband; the wife who was put away BY her husband... and others.

It may be that a wife may not return to her husband or a husband take back his wife in numerous instances, but that does not mean that the adulterer or adulterous is then permitted to remain in the adulterous relationship they've gotten themselves entangled in on this account or any other account. A legal divorce from an unlawful relationship IS NOT what Malachi was forbidding, condemning or warning about when he says that "the Lord God hatheth the putting away". He was speaking about a man putting away his wife, the wife of his "youth" and "convenant" - not a so-called 'wife' that was 'taken' unlawfully and against God's express will.

Use this passage in Malachi as its contextual application speaks to, and then you'll see that it fits perfectly with my stance on this whole question about whether it is right or not to "marry another", or wrong or right to put away one's adulteries that has been legally recorded in ungodly civil courts as a so-called 'marriage'.


I'll leave this there as well, but understand I say this graciously though strongly here:
"So stop writing to me. Rebuke me twice and then reject me benelchi; that's what your suppose to do with a "heretick" you think or have claimed that I am.

"For God's sake, care about me, do as I asked, show me my error and you'll find me amiable to that. In gentleness instruct me. I'm very serious if you think that I am so out there. Just start correcting the substance of my claims, and stop attacking me or focusing on secondary peripheral things you want to chide me or others for. Take me serious here and do that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaveW

quote:

ORIGINAL: SealedEternal

So your claim is that God made a Law that was impossible to be understood, and then judged people who didn't follow it properly?

I have said nothing about God judging people who do not clearly understand His word. Indeed, IMO, He does not do that. God is not a tyrant or unfeeling computer that indiscriminately metes out puninshment. He is a loving and fair father. Hebrews speaks of his being touched by our weakness and empathising in our temptation. David wrote in the Psalms that He "...is mindful of our frame that we are but dust."

quote:

From Origin:

"The Saviour then commanded, 'What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,' but man wishes to put asunder what God hath joined together, when, "falling away from the sound faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron, forbidding," not only to commit fornication, but 'to marry,' he dissolves even those who had been before joined together by the providence of God."

From Augustine when he addressed the Duet. 24:1-4 passage:

"No good or prudent man would write the bill unless it were a case of such obstinate aversion as to make reconciliation impossible."

Tertullian did accepted remarriage if the dissolution of the first had occurred prior to one's conversion.

Again the early church DID NOT ACCEPT your strange doctrines, nor has most of the church for the entire history of its existence!

quote:

Again, Jesus expected that they could understand it just fine, so He didn't believe His Word was unclear or indiscernable.

quote:

The early church permitted remarriage for those who divorced prior to conversion, and I agree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: keepingfaith

quote:

From Origin:

"The Saviour then commanded, 'What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,' but man wishes to put asunder what God hath joined together, when, "falling away from the sound faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron, forbidding," not only to commit fornication, but 'to marry,' he dissolves even those who had been before joined together by the providence of God."

From Augustine when he addressed the Duet. 24:1-4 passage:

"No good or prudent man would write the bill unless it were a case of such obstinate aversion as to make reconciliation impossible."

Tertullian did accepted remarriage if the dissolution of the first had occurred prior to one's conversion.

Again the early church DID NOT ACCEPT your strange doctrines, nor has most of the church for the entire history of its existence!

You believe this constitutes "the early church" teachings? Your own interpretation of what a couple of people said? I am beside myself at the lengths you have gone to mislead people about the early church.

quote:

ORIGINAL: p.progress

Greetings SealedEternal. I have some questions and/or comments - I don't know which as yet - regarding what you state here in this protion. You said:

"In fact, when the Pharisees asked Jesus about this particular Law in Matthew 19, He responded saying that whoever had divorced, apart from the cause that Deuteronomy 24 specified, which He said in Greek was "porneia", was committing adultery if they remarried."

In the section where you say, "...apart from the cause that Deuteronomy 24 specified, which He said in Greek was 'porneia'...". Perhaps I am not as well versed, or have as much light on this portion of Deut.24:1-as you and others have, so I am coming from another, perhaps ignorant posisiton; but I don't see that Christ was instructing the Pharisees or us today, that the words, which benelchi has referred to as the 'construct' ''ervat devar'', or KJV translates as "some uncleanness" was for "some pornia" or "some whoredom", or "some harlotry". Perhaps he did equate "some uncleanness" with "porneia", I just have not been able to see this as the case.

quote:

The only thing that I know at present that might lean some weight to that argument in my present opinion is to take what God did in the case of his whorish and adulterous wife Israel (spoken of in Jer.3:1,8); and in the case where Joseph was contemplating whether to put away Mary or not for her assumed whordom. The law is not ambiguous about what it prescribed as the penalty and punishment to meted out for a betrothed maiden (virgin), who had "played the whore in her father's house" - it was to be death; NO other options are mentioned in that text or in any other text elsewhere in the Law given from Mt.Sinai says: "...save for..." or "...except for the casue of fornication", not that I am aware of any way.

quote:

Yet here we read of Joseph who we are told as well, was a righteous man; that he was not willing to have Mary suffer the extreme penalty of this Law, and looked to save her from the death penalty - not by going ahead and taking her to wife, but by putting her away. But by what law or provision in the Law? Where does it provide this kind of an option for the transgressor? I don't know. And I do not see that Deut.24:1-4 was speaking of "saving for...except for fornication", but for "some uncleanness", falling short of the sins of unlawful sexual intercourse.

quote:

But let us say for now that is precisely the meaning of "some uncleanness" found in the Deut. passage; here we have two statements that appear to be in conflict with one another: That of the statement by Christ that the provision in the precept of Deut. 24 was for the "hard-hearted". And that of the scriptures testimony that Joseph was a righteous man: "Then Joseph her husband, being a just [man], and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily." [mat.1.19]

quote:

How could Joseph put her away - allegedly invoking Deut 24:1 - without seemingly being worthy then of being considered a hard hearted man? Can the just minded man, that has sufficient compassion for his betrothed, yet *unfaithful whorish wife (to be), be rightly called 'hard hearted', if he spares her and her family the disgrace of being made a public spectacle, and save her the punishment of death for *her unfaithfulness (and of "playing the whore in her father's house")???
[* Supposed unfaithfulness]

quote:

ORIGINAL: SealedEternal

quote:

ORIGINAL: p.progress

Greetings SealedEternal. I have some questions and/or comments - I don't know which as yet - regarding what you state here in this protion. You said:...



You are referring to Deuteronomy 22:

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 "If any man ...

The Old Covenant was written on stone to...

SealedEternal

Thank you SE for your response. I have copied your response, and will take it home (from library) and go over it. I'll let you know what I think and/or ask you some other questions I'm sure, to clarify the things I think I need to be elaborated on or explained. If you have anymore thoughts and details to add, please feel free to post an addenum. Thank you again, P.Progress (Scot).

quote:

ORIGINAL: huckfinn327

Greetings from Huckfinn,

The attached document was written by Leslie McFall in Feb. 2008 ... He contends that the "exception clause" in Matt. 19:9 of Erasmus' edition of Greek NT is a corruption of the true text ... a corruption that was specifically introduced by Erasmus. This new paper has a place in this debate.

http://www.btinternet.com/~lmf12/DivorceMcFALLview.pdf

Huckfinn

quote:

Do you realize that Origin and Augustine are some of the most prominent and influential leaders of the early church? If you expect people to believe the their opinion was unimportant and did not reflect the opinion of the early church, then it is clearly you who are trying to mislead people about what the early church believed!