Put Away vs. Divorce Discussion 6

RW Please provide a link to a debate where someone easily defeated that position that divorce ends a marriage, as clearly taught in Deut. 24:1,2; Jer. 3:8. I know of no such debate. Thus, I find it very arrogant for someone to make the claim that LJ made.

LJ What claim was that? Looks like chinks in your armor are finally becoming visible to you; when in reality you have no armor. I would say you are rather naked. You have nothing to support your position.

CW Jesus defeated that position every time He addressed the topic......You can't have adultery if a divorce dissolves the union He created as One Flesh.

LJ Right, the last clause in 5:32, 19:9 and Luke 16:18 all make foolishness of the divorce for adultery position.

RW You do not know what you are talking about, Cindy. If you guys have the truth then there should be a debate where one of your champions taught and defended your position. If there is not one, let me know who he is and I'll consider debating him.

LJ Jesus plainly threw out Dt 24:1-4. So simple, a child can understand. "Till death do us part".

RW You have no idea what you ae talking about where is your champion? There is not one because your doctrine is so ridiculous no real Bible study would formally debate your position.

CW Champions? Is this what this is to you, RW---a contest? God's Word is God's Word. We don't need "champions". We (and the lost world around us), need TRUTH---according to the Words of Christ and His Apostles. What we DON'T need are those with "private interpretations", twisting and turning the Word of God to their own (and others) destruction.......for whatever reason is causing them to do such an ungodly thing.

LJ RW Divorce was 'not so' from the beginning and the tenor of Christ's words, a child could understand: divorce is 'not so' now under absolute Truth, who is Jesus. You do not have a sound foundation in the basics of Christianity. We are under Christ, not under Moses. Any clear contradictions are easily resolved. Jesus' words are absolute truth while much of what Moses wrote was necessary mere law for that time. Gal 3:19. Heb 7:12. New priest, new law. Gal 5:4. You are fallen from grace by your assertion that there is right standing with God under regulations abolished by the NT. Get over it. You are a babe in Christ. You have shamefully erred in your inability to rightly divide even the most basic scriptures.

RW LJ is no debater. Instead of dealing with problems for his position he just ignores it and makes his own arguments.

CW You continually ignore those points you have no answer for, RW. That tends to lessen one's credibility.

LJ Ask me any question, RW. Do you agree to also answer every question I ask?

CD Well he hasn't answered them all so far...lost credibility and the debate.

CD Nice dodge, RW You can't answer so you convince yourself that LJ can't debate. Well he sure slammed you in the debate because you couldn't answer.

RW I've had enough of LJ. Waste of my time. Who is your champion?
RW What denomination are you guys, mostly?

CW It's always something to me when someone thinks those who hold to a permanency of marriage view are involved in some cult.....or strange denomination. Funny thing, everyone I know who believes as I do (as the Early Church believed)......come from ALL different doctrinal backgrounds.......from Baptist, Church of Christ, Charismatic, Pentacostal, Brethren, etc. That tosses out the notion that we were "indoctrinated" somehow.

RW I do believe that divorce was intended to be permanent. I also do not believe that "fornication" is a reason to divorce. I just believe that God gave a divorce law to Moses and it was given for a good reason--a reason which still exists. I also know that God Himself used that law exactly as it was given and it was written to TEACH those who will hear. Some, however, have been taught error and will not hear his teaching (Jer. 3:8). I also know that Jesus did not and could not contradict Moses Law for that would have been sin and given the Pharisees reason to kill him. I also know that the Apostle Paul answered questions from Christians. He very clearly teaches that some "cannot contain" and need marriage to "avoid fornication" Verses 1,2; 8,; 27,28 are irrefutable. They can only be denied, as some of you have been doing.

CW VIRGINS need to marry in order not to fornicate......not MARRIED persons. If you believe one has to be able to commit adultery to fix their "burning".....I just have no answer for that, because it is all FLESH, not spirit at all. Paul taught that every man was to have his OWN wife, not another man's wife......and every woman is to have her OWN husband, not another woman's husband. The verses you listed above (I Cor. 7:27/28, 1, 2, 8, etc......have to be taken in CONTEXT of ALL Paul's teachings on the matter, most of all within this chapter. He ends the chapter clearly stating that only DEATH severs a marriage, freeing the wife to marry again (the same words he used in his teaching to the Roman Church (Rom. 7:2-3). The "law of marriage" is this: 1 man+1 woman= 1 Flesh, FOR LIFE. It is exactly God's created purpose for marriage, made in the Garden........and is exactly what Jesus brought marriage BACK to.......in the beginning.......

RW Cindy, you have been soo deceived. Persons who have been married, whether because of divorce or death, need marriage worse than a virgin. And clearly, "Unmarried" persons was NOT limited to virgins and widows.

BL *[[Jer 3:14]] KJV* Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:

RW I have answered this about three times. You guys can't keep denying what verse 8 says by perverting verse 14. Not and continue to be honest, if you were before.


RW Did you not READ the answer I have given previously? Did you forget. Or did you choose to ignore it and dismiss it from your mind because verse 8 destroys your doctrine and you think verse 14 nullifies it?

BL Write your answer again, here.

RW BL No. I will not write it again until you answers my questions to you about why you did not get it.

BL Haha your right CD!!

CD You demand everyone to answer your question but still waiting for you to answer LJ ...me thinks YOU CAN'T.

RW You guys evidently have no intention of learning the truth. You just are bent on promoting the error you were taught.

CD Really? When you go back and answer all of LJ's questions....we may take you seriously.

BL RW you just described yourself, with your comment.

RW Since you guys dismiss sound arguments and are willing to have the scriptures contradict to defend your position, I see I'm wasting my time here. If you have a champion that is willing to do a formal written debate, I'm game. I'm done going in circles with you guys.

LJ You already showed that you evade answering questions. You said you were too busy on numerous other discussions. You did not have time to answer. Now you say you want to debate. You cannot be taken seriously. Even in this thread I asked if you would answer every question I ask. You did not answer. I will answer every question. Do you agree to do the same?

CD Yes, how can you do a written debate when you can't even answer most of LJ's questions on an FB forum?

LJ RW Please be completely transparent concerning your assumptions. Take for example the straightforward wording in Mark 10:2-12. What are just two assumptions behind your belief that make it impossible for you to take that section spoken by Jesus at literal face value? Once we dig deep and examine the root assumptions behind why we have arrived at conclusions, we can begin to identify the basis for errors. If there are no errors in our assumptions that are responsible for our conclusions; then our conclusions will also not have error. Can you please answer my question?

RT In both Matthew 19 and in Mark 10 Jesus makes it clear that Deut 24 was given to the hard hearted because of their hard hearts, a sinful condition. And then He forever did away with Deut 24 when He issued His decree that no one should separate who God has joined together, as long as they both live, as shown in Romans 7:1-3 and 1 Corinthians 7:30

LJ Yes, divorce was not so from the beginning, and it is not so now. Jesus would not, could not, did not, make this a vague thing. Eternal life and death hang in the balance. He spoke plainly. A child could understand.

RT Oooops 1 Corinthians 7:39

LJ RT You know you can edit to correct, right? I have to do it all the time.

LJ RW , For the sake of brutally honest transparency, I am going to insert in brackets what I am reading into the text in my own mind when I read it. We all read into texts in our own minds when we read. So this is a matter of being transparent since we ALL read things into texts. The question is, are we reading the right things into the text? Or is it the wrong things we are reading into the text. My understanding revealed by inserting in brackets: 1 Cor 7: 27 Art thou bound unto a wife [lawfully by Christ's word]? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife [lawfully, by Christ's teaching, which make you eligible for marriage]? seek not a wife.

28 But and if thou marry, [after being loosed lawfully by Christ's teaching, which make you eligible] thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

There are 3 ways that I know of where under the strict permanence of marriage doctrine how a man can be loosed lawfully by Christ's teaching, whereafter that man is eligible for marriage. So there is no problem reading the above passage after the manner shown above in brackets.

Now let me insert into the text in brackets what I understand YOU are reading in-between the lines: 1 Cor 7: 27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife [by Moses' law, which make you eligible for marriage] ? seek not a wife. 28 But and if thou marry, [after being loosed by Moses' law, which make you eligible] thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

RW , can you please modify what I have put in brackets on your behalf above, in order to more correctly represent your position? That is a question.

RW One last effort here. There is ONLY one law given from God on marriage/ divorce. It was for all people--not just Jews. It comes from God, not man. Man might say, no, the Old Testament is abolished, we are not own our on. Or, he might say, we are under the New Testament. But this reject the idea that the Old Testament is still God's word and there are things in it that are very important. Do we reject the fact that God created the world in 6 days because it is in the New Testament. No, we believe it and teach it.

You think Jesus changed the divorce Law. Had he wanted it changed it would have had to be done by Paul. They way you think he did it is it absurd. The Jews were looking for any reason to kill him. They did not understand him to be contradicting the Law on anything. He was a teacher of the Law. The Jews had turned away from God, which was why Jesus came to earth--to save God's people. A text from the prophet "In vain do they worship me teaching for doctrine the commandments of men". Yet you insist they were teaching the truth on divorce an other things. No. Jesus was taking issue with THEM, not GOD. If you want to understand each passage read comments from Barnes,

Deut. 24:1,2 and Jer. 3:8. Destroys your teaching that there is not divorce. If you really believed that saying we are not under the O.T. is a valid argument to support your teaching you would not need to pervert verse 14 and make it contradict verse 8.

Below is a paragraph from my book that explains verse 14:

"After alluding to the fact that he had been previously dispatched to plead for Israel‘s return during the separation, Jeremiah stated that God had ―given her [Israel] a bill or certificate of divorce,‖ thus, dissolving the marriage and relieving God of any responsibility to Israel as his ―chosen‖ or as his ―wife‖ whom he had married (Jeremiah 3:14). In verse fourteen, we see that the Lord had instructed Jeremiah to plead with his ―backsliding wife‖ to return and he would take her back. Considering verse twelve, it is indisputable that Jeremiah was talking about what he had been told to say before the divorce had actually been given."

When Paul speaks of the "Loosed" he is referring to the ONLY law that God has ever given on divorce. "Let not MAN' put asunder." You take away God's law on divorce and that leave only man's. Separation is not divorce. This is what Jesus condemned. Man disregarding his law and making and using his own. This results in "forbidding to marry" which is "doctrines of devils". It results in fornication because you take away God's tool to prevent it.

Some of you continually pervert Romans 7:1-3. But you leave out verse 4, which destroys your doctrine. God divorce Israel and Jesus married her. These are FACTS. Accept it or reject it. Your choice. If your preconceived idea on this subject and your circle of friends mean more to you than truth then you are tempted to reject it and maybe make some off the wall argument and dismiss what God teaches you.

1 Cor 7:39 is your other passage. It teaches that death ends a marriage. But it does not say ONLY death. If it did what would you prove? You would prove that the WOMAN was only freed by death of the husband and this would not apply to the men. If you are honest you cannot disregard this observation.

LJ RW , I asked a question so we could get out in the open what each of us believes: RW , can you please modify what I have put in brackets on your behalf above, in order to more correctly represent your position? You again have not answered the question. You refuse to cooperate. If you have questions I will answer. Yet you refuse to answer questions that I have. Please modify and so be transparent with what exactly you are reading into the text. I have been transparent, it is not unreasonable to ask that you also be transparent.

LJ RW , Since you have seen what I was transparent about, concerning what I am reading into verses 27,28; it seems reasonable, in being of a charitable attitude toward you, that you see how practical and sensible it is for me to read it in that way. Is that a correct assessment on my part? That you acknowledge the practicalness of my reading it in that way? Please respond so we can make some progress in moving forward.

LJ 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 to more accurately reflect what can fit to represent your view? That is a question.

LJ RW , you wrote: "If you are honest you cannot disregard this observation." That statement reveals a very basic failure of understanding on your part regarding discussion. The underlying assumptions a person holds as WHY something has to be read a certain way, is what determines whether or not, how they view it is dishonest. The Muslim kills people who disagree and are vocal against the Quran. That is completely honest in their minds. That is their duty to God, for which they understand God is pleased. You blatantly contradict that remarriage is adultery, as plainly stated in Luke 16:18, Mark 10:11,12. You, like the Muslim, have underlying reasons and conclusions based off of assumptions that lead you to strongly believe what you believe. It is incorrect to place at your feet "dishonesty" as your motivation. For someone to believe as you do; that plainly stated passages such as 1 Cor 7:39 and Mark 10:11,12, which literally forbid remarriage cannot mean what they literally say, is "honestly" deceived; having a complex contradictory mish-mash of convoluted reasonings which they feel are necessary, based off of their foundational assumptions. Please stop falsely accusing people of dishonesty because they honestly view something very literally true. Would you agree with me, that it is not wise to make the accusation of 'dishonesty' against those who disagree with you? That is a question.

CW So many words.........when all we truly need are the Words of Christ: "let NOT man separate what GOD has joined together"........pretty simple, pretty straight forward. Brings us right back to the Garden.......long before Moses.......

LJ RW , There we have in Cindy another amazement at how simple it is and how you cannot see it. I am willing to extend myself to get you to examine the assumptions you have made that have led you away from the simplicity that is in Christ. The exercise of inserting in brackets what your position forces you to read in between the lines is a helpful means to bring to your attention how the error you embrace is based on incorrect assumptions. By realizing that assumptions are indeed at the root and examining whether they are right or not, is hugely helpful.

JM CW you are right on target

RW Still no link? I wanted to see if there are any serious Bible students that take the position that there is no divorce and that remarriage is adultery regardless of the reason. The arguments you guys are making are not sound. You dismiss my arguments that not the props out from under your doctrine. I'm wasting my time here. No one that is commenting is listening.

LJ You are viewed as not serious by us. You refuse to answer questions. You insult others as "dishonest" because they do not share your same foundational assumptions.

RW You are lying. I did answer. You just did not like my answer. You did not even hear it.

LJ I have asked numerous questions today that you have not answered. Answer my question concerning verses 27,28.

RW You came up with a crazy scenario. I've debated a lot of great debaters and no one ever made such ridiculously weak arguments.

CW RW You insist "repenting" of adultery is heartless---not of God.....yet I asked you if you believed people who enter into gay marriages (legal), who have children together, are expected to forsake those relationships when they come to faith in Jesus........you never answered that question????

RW Is ANYONE on this list listening to anything I have said? I have established that God authorized divorce and that he used it Himself. I have shown that Jesus even married God's x. I have shown that Jesus did not teach that a divorced person commits adultery in marring but that it was a "put away" person, which is one that IS NOT divorced. I have shown several passages where the apostle Paul, who answered questions asked by Christians, said to let the divorced marry, gave the reason for it and said they do not sin. Yet LJ says there is nothing to support my position. Honest people can see the Bible clearly supports my position. I have taught 1000 of people the truth. If someone does not have preconceived ideas that he is determined to defend I can teach them in a matter of a couple of minutes. So, LJ, do you really want to be taken seriously? If so, then stop with this kind of rhetoric. I do not know who you think you are, but not only do YOU, sir, not have a reputation of soundness in teaching on MDR, or any other subject for that matter, you cannot even provide me with someone who does that teaches what you are teaching. I know what you teach. I understand it perfectly. But you do not understand what I teach. That is because you are not listening.

LJ You said you will answer questions tomorrow. OK so we will see. I asked some very practical questions. There should be no reason why you cannot answer them in a straightforward way.

CW Oh, we have listened and rejected YOUR interpretation of: "put away" is just sending away without a writ of divorcement, Jesus married the Father's "x", Paul said the divorced COULD marry while their original spouse lived, etc. We also have seen you make statements based on emotional human reasonings----challenged that thinking.......and then our questions went UNANSWERED/IGNORED. The CLEAR thing is this: Jesus said, "let NO MAN separate what GOD has joined together"......and, "NO LONGER TWO, but ONE FLESH"......and Jesus NEVER talks about the METHOD of putting away (with or without a writ of divorcement), but rather speaks of the actual SEPARATING what God has joined together---the SEPARATING being the issue He deals with, not the METHOD. So, if He does not approve of the separation, whatever happens afterwards, legal or not, is SIN in His sight. As for the Son marrying His Father's "x"........that is just an unbelievable falsity. In the NT, I Cor. 5, we can see that it is SIN to take the Father's wife (incest).......yet you maintain that Jesus marries the Father's wife? Jesus has ALWAYS been the entity "ISRAEL"----true believers have been joined with (and now Gentile believers who are grafted in). Regarding what Paul taught........how does he end I Cor. 7? DEATH frees a woman to marry again......in the Lord......yet you continue to maintain that's not really what he meant to the 2 churches he spoke about this issue to.......... I think someone else.....wink.....wink.....is putting his fingers in his ears and not willing to hear anything other than the view he wants to hold fast to......in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

LJ RW writes this: "the majority of preachers think Jesus taught that the divorced are not really divorced and/or they are not free to marry. This doctrine has benefited no one but the devil."

This is blasphemy. An expression of hatred toward Jesus by way of reading all kinds of contradictory things between the lines where Jesus plainly spoke. Jesus plainly said what RW deems to be evil. RW deems Jesus' words to be evil by way of mentally inserting words between the lines where Jesus spoke. What Jesus said, RW CANNOT take at face value. That means RW is very plainly not a believer in Jesus. He believes what even Moses did not mean. Moses never made a distinction between a certified divorce versus a non certified divorce.