Put Away vs. Divorce Discussion 4

RW The command was not intended to be taken as a refutation of the divorce law. Rather. It was designed to assure the priests did not marry a woman that was still bound to another man be legal/scriptural marriage. A put away woman was not divorced, and the priests were instructed to not marry a woman in that situation. Jesus said he too commits adultery. Matt 5:31,32

LJ RW You are mixing OT and NT things that are not compatible with each other. the OT preists were under Dt 24 as well. And we know that has been abolished by Jesus.

LJ We know it existed but the question is why. The other question is does it exist for Christians? Or is it something we expect for those "under the law", meaning they are not in Christ? You have some things to sort out that you apparently have not given much thought to.

LJ There is a difference between "law" and truth. John 1:17. The kingdom of God that is within believers; those in that kingdom follow the higher laws of truth that Jesus introduced. But those who have not been 'translated into the kingdom of his dear son' are still "under the law". They are not regenerated. They will follow laws that were given to pertain to that fallen state. The new covenant presented for all of mankind has been declared. That truth will judge all of mankind. Those remaining under laws made for the unregenerate are not in grace. Some have fallen from grace by after becoming Christians they have gone back under the law for the unregenerate. Gal 5:4.

RW If there is no divorce law for Christians, as you say, how do you deal with those who want to become Christians who have been divorced and are in another marriage?

LJ There IS a divorce law for Christians. You need to stop talking in that slanderous misrepresentative way. The Jews questioned Jesus specifically about the law and Jesus revealed that the truth of the matter is from a very literal, very simple and straightforward perspective of Gen 2. The NT law for divorce is that there is no divorce after becoming lawfully joined in marriage. Then when they apparently thought he was contradicting Dt 24 and asked him about what Moses wrote, he affirmed their suspicion. Yes indeed, he threw out Dt 24. Divorce was not from the beginning and even though it was allowed for a time to deal with sin (Gal 3:19) divorce is also "not so" now under the NT. It is not difficult to understand.

RW You EVADED my question. Why did you do that?

LJ Now to the simple answer to your simple question: The remarriage, which Jesus clearly identifies as adultery, and who tells us adultery defiles us, and who instructed Paul to inform us that adultery will keep someone out of eternal life; that adultery must be abandoned. The same as a lifestyle of theft or extortion or murder must be gotten out of, all of which are on the same list of what will NOT inherit eternal life. So simple. A child can understand this.

RW So, you are saying you tell them they have to break up their family and live celibate?
Do you tell them they can go back to their first spouse?
What if they have married another?
Can they still go back?
What about the woman or man that married that first spouse.
What a tangled web we weave. "doctrines of devils".
Sir, will you listen to me for one minute? Jesus did not say a "divorced" person may not marry. The word is "apoluo". There is another word for divorce. The ONLY reason why a woman would commit adultery if put away is because she was not divorced. But you use Jesus teaching, misuse actually, to teach your "no divorce at all" doctrine. Are you aware that He was teaching Jews under the Jewish dispensation before the New Testament went into effect. Furthermore, he promised that not one thing would be changed in the law before the cross. Matt 5:17-19 This was said before He said one word about the putting away issue.

LJ RW, your 7 questions followed by answers.
1) So, you are saying you tell them they have to break up their family and live celibate?
2) Do you tell them they can go back to their first spouse?
3) What if they have married another?
4) Can they still go back?
5) What about the woman or man that married that first spouse.
6) Sir, will you listen to me for one minute?
7) Are you aware that He was teaching Jews under the Jewish dispensation before the New Testament went into effect.

1) a considerate and decent way of dealing with children and visitation etc can be found. They should not have violated God's truth to have created the chaos in the first place.
2) Yes, if that first was their original or truly lawful by Jesus' designation from Gen 2.
3) That remarried spouse must also deal with the same chaos they should never have created in the first place by violating God's order.
4) Yes, by Jesus' going back to Gen 2, the prohibition to go back as per Dt 24:4 is invalidated; the same as polygamy or 'eye for eye' or swearing is now invalidated by the higher new covenant in Christ.
5) If that person had not ever entered lawful marriage, then after departing from being involved in the adulterous remarriage, which should not ever have been entered to begin with, that person is still eligible for lawful marriage since they had not yet entered lawful marriage.
6) I have, for much more than one minute.
7) Jesus is in that chapter introducing his kingdom commandments as shown by Matt 5:19. For example, among the 6 topics where he says "but I say...", swearing is prohibited. Yet under Moses it was absolutely not prohibited. Jesus is changing things in Matt 5, he being the new and final high priest, not even from Levi. Heb 7: 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

SV The church has to stop telling divorced people they can remarry, we are in a big pickle because of it. People that divorce know perfectly well that it is wrong, believers or not, they have hard hearts and disobey and get divorced. In Ezra's days the men disobeyed and took pagan wives, years and years went by, finally they had to come and divorce their wives, they had to repent. Why didn't God just forgive them, cause He can't agree with sin and disobedience as a lifestyle. So it is with remariage, years and years have gone by and now people have to understand that they need to repent. You speak of breaking up the remarriage family, but what about the first broken up family, do they not matter? The people in Ezra's days had to put even the children away. There are consequences when we disobey, but I would rather divorce if I was in adultery and have a relationship with God than stay with my adultery and remarriage and burn.

RW Crickets? Something to think about, isn't it? While your thinking, chew on this. Your doctrine drives those people away about 90 percent of the time. This has to be one of the reason God put it into the category of "doctrines of devils" (1Tim. 4:1-3).

LJ You misplaced it into the category of doctrines of devils. Since Jesus prohibited the kind of marriage you assert is OK, you make JESUS to be guilty under your accusation of promoting doctrines of devils. You tread on dangerously thin ice. And if you fall in, it will not be cold.

LJ At one point some of Jesus' followers were ready to leave, and some DID leave. The hard sayings of Jesus do not change because a person does not have a heart for truth, which brings self denial into play. You are basically exalting humanistic ideas above the higher NT standard that requires self denial.

RW Some is not true just because it is a hard saying. By you argument Jim Jones justified his command to for his 900 followers to kill themselves.

LJ RW You seem to be unaware of the NT reference to 'hard sayings' by Jesus in John. It was obvious where I was coming from.

LJ I answer your questions, but you refuse to answer my questions. Is that how it works. RW, please answer me: Is that how it works? Yes or no.

RW What question did I not answer? Please just ask it by itself and do not throw in a bunch of other stuff with it.

LJ Jesus forbade people to remarry. Adultery is a sexual sin that violates an existing lawful marriage. If a single man marries a divorced woman HE, listen to that, HE commits adultery. What man then is he committing adultery against by having sex with that divorced woman?

RW First, you make some comments that are not substantiated by the Scriptures. I have showed you that Jesus was talking about putting away rather than divorce, which reasonably explains why he said what he said. Your exegesis of what he said has him contradicting Moses, which is not acceptable. You try to get around that but you are just blowing smoke. Regarding your question, Jesus spoke of a MAN sending away his wife. Divorce is not mentioned. She would have welcomed a divorce so she "may go be another man's wife' (Deut. 24:1,2). But He says he "committeth adultery against her". Mk 10:11. Can you answer this? No, because it does not fit with your teaching. But you ask what MAN is he committing adultery against? He is not if she was divorced. Your doctrine denies Deut. 24:1,2 and Jer. 3:8 and Paul's clear teaching to Christians.

LJ RW Anyone can see that you have to change the actual wording in the actual texts to make it fit what you have manufactured from the chaos under which you operate.

You say divorce is not mentioned, indicating that if she was indeed divorced and not merely "put away" then indeed she could marry afterward as per Dt 24. So let us use the last clause in all 3 places to see if your manufactured chaotic mess actually fits:

Matt 5:
32 ... and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. Matt 19:
9 ... and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. Luke 16:
18 ... and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

So you are asserting that 5:32 is incorrect? That the last clause in 5:32 is different than the last clause in 19:9?

RW It is the same word. The KJV erred on that passage.

LJ RW No, The KJV is absolutely correct here. The KJV only reiterated what had already been established in the same sentence. The word for "put away" and "divorce" are the same thing. Those words are used interchangeably. The explanation you use trying to make a big deal out of the difference between "put away" and "divorce" is similar trying to make a difference between "execute" and "kill".

LJ Matt 5:31,32 is one long sentence:

A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: B) But I say unto you,
1)That whosoever shall put away his wife,
2) saving for the cause of fornication,
3) causeth her to commit adultery:
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Notice how line A is referring to what you call "divorce", since he is coming from Dt 24:1 by referring to the writing of divorce. Is that correct?

Now notice how Jesus refers to the same thing, in lines B and 1 but uses the term "put away". Can you see how it is very reasonable to view the sentence as early on establishing that "divorce" and 'put away' are simply interchangeable terms?

Please answer my questions. I will answer all of your questions.

RW I can see how you could think put away and divorce are the same thing. This is because you deny divorce exists. apoluo is used about 86 times in the N.T. see how it is used. But it does not matter to you because you deny Deut 24 where God defines divorce to include a certificate

LJ RW Let us get back on topic. You claim there has to be a distinction between "divorce" and "put away". You then say in effect it is reasonable to see it that way, wherein there is no difference. Then you bring in Dt 24 to say that based on Dt 24, that is what makes the difference between "divorce" and "put away" necessary.

So in reality, based solely on the NT scriptures of Matt 5:31,32; 19:9 and Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18, there is no actual difference between the words. Are you admitting that?

LJ RW With regard to my questions and how you seem to evade and not answer in a very straightforward way, as I have answered you, then I will format it for you, to show some decent reciprocation. My questions, followed by your apparent answers: 1) Notice how line A is referring to what you call "divorce", since he is coming from Dt 24:1 by referring to the writing of divorce. Is that correct? 2) Now notice how Jesus refers to the same thing, in lines B and 1 but uses the term "put away". Can you see how it is very reasonable to view the sentence as early on establishing that "divorce" and 'put away' are simply interchangeable terms? Your apparent answers: 1) Yes. 2) Yes. Thank you.

LJ RW Seeing it is the same word and therefore completely interchangeable with both "put away" and "divorce" it is you who are making something out of it that does not exist.

RW You are not listening.

LJ RW We cannot communicate while you refuse to answer questions so we can understand one another. I asked a question, please respect and answer: So in reality, based solely on the NT scriptures of Matt 5:31,32; 19:9 and Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18, there is no actual difference between the words. Are you admitting that?

LJ RW In Matt 5 Jesus says something like "but I say to you" 6 times. So 6 topics he brings up a topic and then addresses it likewise by something like, "but I say to you". Doesn't it make sense that when he says but I say to you he is referring to the same thing that is the topic of discussion? For example about swearing; when he says but I say to you, does it make sense that he would refer to something else as what he refers to? Do you see what I mean? For example:
33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

Could we change the reiteration of what is being discussed in verse 34? It is talking about swearing and the "but I say unto you" is also about the same thing; it is about swearing, right? Can that be changed and it make sense? Let's try it:
33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34 But I say unto you, Talk loud not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

See I have changed 'swear not at all' to 'talk loud not at all'. It does not fit to change the topic. Yet you say in 5:31,32 the 'But I say to you' changes topic to something else other than the topic identified which starts the topic in 31!!

In 5:31,32 he starts off talking about what you would recognize as an actual recognized "divorce", then when he says but I say to you, he switches over to talk about something that is not recognized; a mere putting away. I have not tried this before, but can you give a parallel sentence on any topic imaginable where this could be done after the same general format and make sense? In the example above about 'talk loud not at all', a nonsensical sentence is created. Literally, a nonsensical sentence is created also when the topic is switched over in Matt 5:32.

Vindicate what you say. Provide an example of how that switch over is literally functional.

RW Again. Jesus was dealing with the false notions of the jews who had left following the Bible. Read Albert Barnes on these passages. Jesus certainly was not taking issue with Moses" teaching because he taught what God wanted.

LJ RW You are evading the real issues. If the topic was being shifted as you claim, then an example of such a shift in a similar kind of sentence should be able to be produced. Can you produce such evidence? The correct explanation of Matt 5:31,32 does not require that it be concluded that poor Matthew had written an embarrassing disaster of a logical fallacy. When the exception clause is changed to "adultery", another grievous logical fallacy is created. No logical fallacies under the correct explanation.

LJ RW More questions you choose to ignore:
1) Doesn't it make sense that when he says 'but I say to you', he is referring to the same thing that is the topic of discussion?
2) For example about swearing; when he says but I say to you, does it make sense that he would refer to something else as what he refers to?
3) Do you see what I mean?

CD LJ I see exactly what you mean...

Here is the example of Jesus using two different words to mean the same thing..
33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not FORSWEAR thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34 But I say unto you, SWEAR not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

FORSWEAR VS. SWEAR = same thing

LJ makes perfect sense, in the verses above he is using two different word but saying the same thing JUST AS IN...the case of putting way vs. divorce... LJ so your question of........ If the topic was being shifted as RW claims, then an example of such a shift in a similar kind of sentence should be able to be produced. Can you produce such evidence?.....is valid....as in the Lord's church we must go by scriptural EXAMPLES....

RW You guys have no idea what you are talking about. The only problem is here the KJV putting doctrine into the translation. I can give you a list of 12 good version that do not use "divorce" in that passage.

RW LJ The exception clause was not changed to adultery Adultery is what the woman would do if she married another man being only sent out of the house, separated. This did not apply to the man at all. He could have more than one wife at the time. Jesus said his sin was "adultery against her", which is not a sexual sin, obviously. Israel committed adultery with stocks and stones The exception clause explained: It is where the man that sent away but did not divorce, according to the Law, would not be guilty of adultery against her. It would not be sin to do what he did because the marriage was illegal (incest). We have two N.T. examples of this. 1 Cor. 5:1 and Herod who married his brothers divorced wife while he was still living, which the Law did not allow.

LJ CD Moses was allowing swearing. At one point he plainly like commanded swearing. So the message in 33 is correct concerning what they were familiar with: swearing is OK, nothing wrong with it, just be sure that you keep your word: do not "forswear thyself" which would be like lying under oath. So swearing is OK as long as you do it correctly under Moses. But Jesus did the same thing there as he did with divorce. He threw it out. Under the NT there is NO swearing. He said 'swear not at all'. In the NT there is no divorce; Jesus teaches 'divorce not at all' after becoming joined in marriage. They thought swearing was OK as long as you do not "forswear" which means swear falsely. So Jesus is talking about acceptable swearing in 33 as he begins the topic and the topic of swearing is continued in 34. But unexpected to them he completely throws it out in the NT. Swearing is no more in the NT. Like divorce is no more in the NT. If we can find a sentence that shifts topics then RWs argument could appear to have some validity. But looking high and low, and behold, no such thing can be found.

LJ RW People changed the word fornication in 5:32 to adultery. Two different words. The word fornication there does NOT mean adultery. Adultery is NOT a grounds for divorce in the NT.

LJ RW So RW, you suppose that you can just dismiss and ignore what other people write and refuse to answer questions; while at the same time expecting others to respect what you say and answer you? You must show some respect by answering questions or you should admit to everyone you do not have the maturity to carry on a decent conversation and then exit.

LJ RW You are getting really weird. You say the word "adultery" in the main NT verses, explaining the marriage doctrine, does NOT mean the literal sexual sin we all know adultery to be. Adultery is a specific kind of sexual sin; it violates an existing lawful marriage.
So:
Luke 16:
18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
So according to RW the two places "adultery" is used have nothing to do with "adultery" as what it really is, the sexual sin that violates an existing lawful marriage?

RW LJ you guys have a lot of questions and I answer them. But I'm on about a hundred groups and cannot spend the time I would like with each question. Besides, I think I have answered most of your questions but you don't listen. Virtually every question you could come up with is answered either on my website or in my book. Here is the link to the website: www.TotalHealth.bz If you brush off simply because it is not posted here, or that you have to click on a link, then we gottta wonder if you are as concerned about truth as you are about defending your tradition. ONE EXAMPLE of what you will find is an article on ADULTRY.

LJ RW You would not spend time going to various sites I link you to, yet you expect me to go to your sites. Your superiority complex is really disgusting. You are confronted with questions that show your argument is unsupportable so it is very convenient to evade and dismiss. Again the pertinent questions that you ignore:
1) Doesn't it make sense that when he says 'but I say to you', he is referring to the same thing that is the topic of discussion?
2) For example about swearing; when he says but I say to you, does it make sense that he would refer to something else as what he refers to?
3) Do you see what I mean?

RW Just as I thought. I'm not sending just any link. These link are mostly to what I have written after much study and debate.

LJ RW As if I have not done much study and debate for many years? Like I said, your superiority complex and ultra-dismissiveness is disgusting.

RW LJ, would you give me a link to your written debates, your website and the publisher of your books and the names of them? Also you degree and number of years you have preached the gospel. I'd like to know if you are just blowing smoke. This will me decide whether our discussion is at a stalemate.

LJ RW You are evading. You have been confronted with a serious problem from a straightforward reasoning that brings your theory into serious question. You have asserted that it is reasonable to shift gears between verse 31, and 32 concerning the very topic itself based on an alleged difference of meaning between the terms 'put away' and 'divorce'.

Create a sentence on any topic where that can be done and make literal sense. You are pushing a private interpretation and this dilemma you face by this challenge brings that out into the light. I am not sending you to a link. Your problem is expressed here, for all to see. Answer responsibly.

RW So, you can provide no evidence that you are a serious student on this issue, yet you assert that I exhibit a superiority disposition.

LJ RW You are evading the actual point being discussed. Anyone can see a valid point has been presented that challenges what you assert and you are not answering it. Now, it is coming across that it is beneath you to answer it. Similar to the Pharisees who dismissed the former blind man:
"34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out." Go ahead, do your Pharisee thing. Or do what is honourable and answer the valid point brought to your attention. You have asserted that it is reasonable to shift gears between verse 31, and 32 concerning the very topic itself, based on an alleged difference of meaning between the terms 'put away' and 'divorce'.

Create a sentence on any topic where that can be done and make literal sense. You are pushing a private interpretation and this dilemma you face by this challenge brings that out into the light. Your problem is expressed here, for all to see. Answer responsibly.

RW LJ, your arguments do not make sense. I'm not wasting any more of my time with you. I have had numerous written debates with some of the best debaters, so your charge that I am not able to answer you is baseless.

LJ Then copy and paste the pertinent section of text that addresses the valid point brought up. Everyone can see that a practical point has been presented and you appear to have weasled out of it, citing your own superiority, as the basis of your weasling.

CD LJ...I think this below is what RW is skipping over and not answering...He says it doesn't make sense. I understand it, so then, how can some who claims to debate, written a book etc. not understand it....Simple he CAN'T ANSWER THIS.......................................

In Matt 5 Jesus says something like "but I say to you" 6 times. So 6 topics he brings up a topic and then addresses it likewise by something like, "but I say to you". Doesn't it make sense that when he says but I say to you he is referring to the same thing that is the topic of discussion? For example about swearing; when he says but I say to you, does it make sense that he would refer to something else as what he refers to? Do you see what I mean? For example:
33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

I have changed 'swear not at all' to 'talk loud not at all'. It does not fit to change the topic. Yet you say in 5:31,32 the 'But I say to you' changes topic to something else other than the topic identified which starts the topic in 31!!

Vindicate what you say. Provide an example of how that switch over is literally functional.

BH NT covenant 101 The law of Christ, i.e. his words is the basis not Moses. He fulfilled the law, obeyed it perfectly, cursed by it dying on a tree, died under it, so as Ezekiel prophesied Yahweh himself would come to shepherd His people and bring them His law... the perfect Law that gives freedom as James called it. Moses provided a law that would produce spiritual slavery... Jesus' taught one that he said in John 8:31-34 gives freedom from sin.

LJ RW is refusing to answer questions. I asked him a question with regard to the error BH has identified RW is stubbornly holding to; concerning OT and NT differences. I asked RW a question. Please, someone encourage RW to show himself honourable and cooperate in the discussion by answering the question.

Copied from another thread: RW, The purpose of the exercise for you to put in brackets what you are reading between the lines is to get at the foundational assumptions that support your conclusions. You have manifested those assumptions in your above writing.

You are asserting that what Moses said has the same binding authority now as when he said it, in spite of anything Jesus said about it. So let us get the sections of scripture where Jesus responded to questions about Dt 24:1 and see if we can insert into brackets anything that will make what you are assuming, to somehow fit. If what you are asserting is true, then it should be able to fit right into what Jesus said and make perfect sense.

Below in brackets is what you could insert to make Moses and Jesus in complete accord, which you assert they had to be: Matt 19:
3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, [They understood that Jesus by his above statements was in complete agreement with Moses] Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. [But it was completely OK for Adam to divorce Eve from the beginning, even though we do not see that in Gen 2]
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, [fornication is defined to mean "some uncleanness" in order to agree with Dt 24:1] and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away [for something OTHER than for "some uncleanness"] doth commit adultery.

Please can you modify by inserting in brackets to more accurately reflect what can fit to represent your view? That is a question.

CD RW wants a "written debate", still waiting for all these questions to be answered from LJ.

LJ I was mean to him, so he is not going to answer me. RW, I am sorry I was mean to you. As you can see, I have been behaving myself fairly well for some time now. Please answer questions, and as I have assured you, I will answer all questions you ask.

BH is saying the same thing as myself. You are misunderstanding the difference between the OT and NT. Personally, I am shocked that you can not have acquired the correct understanding by now. Ask us questions. We may be able to help. Gal 3:19, John 1:17 Heb 7:12.

If righteousness come by the law then Christ is dead in vain. Righteousness came by the NT and regeneration of the new birth in Christ. New wine in new wine skins. New doctrine in new creatures able to handle the truth. Jesus revealed things hidden from ages and generations. For example what Gen 2 meant when it was said, exposing divorce from the beginning, to NOT put asunder what God hath joined together. 2 Cor 3

CD Well some people get mean in debates. I'm not saying one should, but if they have the "truth" as they claim, then being mean shouldn't stop them from posting. I've had people be mean to me but we should she always remember it's about the WORD not the PERSON.

LJ RW, You also have been abrasive. Even CD warned me of your insulting manner, and lo, it came to pass. My responses, deemed mean perhaps, are not that much different than how you have also responded. So let us put that aside and focus on the actual topic at hand and allow the points made from scripture determine what the truth is.

CD LJ RW also has another group here....Maybe take some of these questions over there and see if he dodges there also.

RW CD I have not dodged the questions. LJ has, however, dodged mine. He is trying to make me say what he wants me to say. Jesus did not answer questions in the manner his enemies tried to get him to answer. I'll look at what he said again tonight and consider further reply.

LJ I will answer your questions after a manner you would like me to answer in a straightforward way. It is reasonable that we both agree to answer questions.

RW Okay. Tomorrow.

RW Sorry, after hearing comments from various ones on the list I decided I was wasting my time here.

LJ The questions I asked were very reasonable. It appears to me that anyone paying attention may conclude that you are sticking your head in the sand. I have answered your questions. If I have missed one please bring it to my attention. My question concerning 1 Cor 7:27,28 was very practical and straightforward. Am I correct to anticipate an excuse for you to not answer?