Put Away vs. Divorce Discussion 7

RW I have decided that I'm wasting my time here because no one is listening to anything I have said? I've been charged with not answering questions, but the questions I have not responded to are convoluted. There is no respect shown by anyone. I've been charged with blasphemy for teaching what the Bible clearly says. I make arguments using clear passages but what is said in them is not believed.

LJ said there is no foundation for what I believe even though 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 with 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's 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 for 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.

I'm stopping the notifications on this list. You can charge that I'm running or say what ever you want. But the reason I'm bowing out is that virtually no one that has posted has shown any respect nor have you given any indication that you are listening. Evidence has no affect on a closed mind.

(Picture of monkey with his fingers in his ears) – in orginal post.

LJ So you admit you are the monkey in the picture putting his fingers in his ears. But you are not smiling.

A foundational verse you are bringing up again is 1 Cor 7:27,28. I said today I want you to answer the question I had about that. Is that why you have decided to put your fingers in your ears? My question being very reasonable and showing you ain't so smart after all. Can you please answer my question?

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? 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. What basis do you have for saying the way I read it is wrong?

LJ If RW wants to be listened to he has to be transparent. I have provided a means where we are equally transparent for the sake of very honest analysis of each of our positions. He seems to not be able to appreciate the wisdom of being transparent as offered to him.

DW LJ, wisdom is humble. Your mode of talking down to those with whom you disagree is neither.

LJ DW He puts a picture of a monkey to mock those who he says do not listen. Ask those with who he communicates, if RW in any way appears humble. He deserves rebuke. His doctrine is complete foolishness and he refuses to be transparent. If Jesus called RW a serpent, would you also deem that as unwise and not humble?

LJ DW RW provokes with his arrogant talking down, so he can expect to be talked down to.

LJ DW Please encourage your friend RW to cooperate in transparent discussion and answer questions. I have answered all of his questions that I am aware of. He has not responded in kind.

CW DW Is humility posting a picture of a monkey with it's fingers in it's ears because people will not cow-tow to "your" interpretation of scripture? True humility is LISTENING to others (not just demanding they listen to you and embrace YOUR ideas). Humility is answering questions given to you, not just demanding others answer YOUR questions.

DR If people already want to follow their flesh, James can convince them that it is okay in minutes. The faithful are few...smh.

KWT Many want to "follow their flesh," sadly. Or try to make God's Word say what they want it to say to justify their sin.

RW The faithful seek to truly understand what Jesus actually taught and to obey Paul's clear commands regarding letting the divorced marry.

KLB That is false teaching! CW has clearly and patiently given great information based in truth... not your twisted version that allows remarriage after a divorce while a covenant spouse lives!

CW Paul never gave any commands, clear or otherwise, that divorced persons (from covenant marriages God joined together as One Flesh) can marry without committing adultery.

KWT Amen, this is biblically correct.

RW Oh, so "let them marry" is not a command. Was it a suggestion? Or was he talking about the person's father? No? Perhaps he was not really talking about those "unmarried" but persons who were still married? Maybe not, they would not NEED to get married? He must have been talking about people who had been married but are now UNmarried due to death of a spouse of divorce, which GOD, not me, not anyone else, says ends a marriage.
CW "Let them marry" does not mean "let them commit adultery by separating what "I" have joined together as One Flesh".......Jesus said, "no more two, but one flesh".......what do you not understand about that?
RW What do you not understand about Jesus' words that those who DO separate what God joined together and "marry" others........commit adultery in His sight?
RW CW, what do you think this means? "It is not good that man should be alone". Do you know WHO said it? Should we insist on forcing someone to do something, against his/her will, that God says is not good?

CW So "if a women departs" she is to remain unmarried or reconciled to her husband......you believe the husband....because he is alone (his wife departed).......he is free to disobey God because "it is not good for man to be alone"? How about this: people who DO forsake each other----if there was NO possibility of OTHER people being inserted in their lives......they would CHANGE to become GOOD spouses that their husband/wife would want? THAT is God's purpose for marriage........

RW Are you not aware of the meaning of "depart"? Separations happen all the time. They get back together. No divorce. No need to get married again. You need this to be about divorce, but it is not good to force a passage to agree with you because it is tantamount to perverting the passage. Here is a link to a chapter in my book where I deal with the accusation that Paul taught celibacy:

CW RW, do YOU understand what the word, "separate" means as Jesus used it numerous times?

CW Truth is: if your FOUNDATIONAL understanding of "let not man separate what GOD HAS JOINED together" is skewed (because you are trying so very hard to get around THOSE words to support DISOBEDIENCE to those words), nothing else you say/teach is to be considered.

RW You seem to think "let not..." means "cannot". Divorce ends marriage and if it is done GOD'S way (Deut. 24:1,2) it is GOD, not man that is doing the putting asunder.

CW "Let not man separate what God has joined together.......unless you have a piece of paper to go along with the separation........THEN, it's ok to separate what "I" joined together"...... THINGS JESUS NEVER SAID.

RW I did not say it was Okay in every situation. But since God did it in ONE situation than why, pray tell, do you insist that divorce does not exist?

CW Why do you keep misrepresenting what I say to you? I never said.....and even clearly said that to you.....I KNOW divorce exists. What I have said several times is this: Jesus does not acknowledge divorce as dissolving the union HE joined together----biblically OR civilly. YOU keep making this about a play on words (send away vs. legal divorce).....Jesus NEVER made a distinction. Jesus brought marriage back to the BEGINNING, when there was NO DIVORCE. He did not take us back to the MOSAIC law (which we are not under).

RW If divorce does not dissolve the union then it is mere separation, which is to say divorce does not exist. You are so confused.

CW BINGO!!!! To God, it no longer DOES exist in marriage (the ability to separate and then remarry lawfully when one has a living spouse)---Per Jesus' words. He tolerated it during the Old Covenant days.....due to men's HARDHEARTEDNESS. Now, as Jesus said, marriage is to be practiced as in the beginning---where HE joins two as ONE FLESH, no longer two. A command: man is NOT to separate what God joined together---no qualifiers, except where Paul gave one (Not I, but the Lord): A woman is not to depart from her husband, but if she does depart, she is to remain unmarried OR be reconciled to her husband. And.....this other pesky command: A man is not to DIVORCE his wife.