You should have gone with your better judgement. Jesus address this issue when He says: "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning". (Matthew 19:8) Clearly divorce was never God's plan or intention. 20% of the people are responsible divorce, 80% stay married. Most people would say that God allows divorce to protect the innocent person from harm and injury. Most people their love for each other grows over time. It does not diminish. They talk about how cute it is the love that old people have for each other.
An obvious contradiction?
- Thread starter NOV25
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
We are busy "discussing" 
the crucifixion of Christ and if it was on the Wednesday or the Friday.
the crucifixion of Christ and if it was on the Wednesday or the Friday.
Attachments
Sorry I didn’t use colors and numbers and stufff.
He does not make a clear argument. He makes a false statement about the term apoluo and then goes on to regurgitate his view on divorce completely ignoring the OP, in which I anticipate such behavior.
Not one person has addressed this text honestly without trying defending their current doctrinal beliefs on the matter.
"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. - Luke 16:18
If divorce and remarriage is allowed according to Duet 24 and this translation is true then the law is void.
Since we know Jesus does not void the law (Luke 16:17) there must be a problem with the translation.
Further study shows apoluo is not equal to apostasion.
Proverbs 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.
Spend a few hours prayerfully studying the topic, searching all scriptures, download a concordance they’re free.
He does not make a clear argument. He makes a false statement about the term apoluo and then goes on to regurgitate his view on divorce completely ignoring the OP, in which I anticipate such behavior.
Not one person has addressed this text honestly without trying defending their current doctrinal beliefs on the matter.
"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. - Luke 16:18
If divorce and remarriage is allowed according to Duet 24 and this translation is true then the law is void.
Since we know Jesus does not void the law (Luke 16:17) there must be a problem with the translation.
Further study shows apoluo is not equal to apostasion.
Proverbs 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.
Spend a few hours prayerfully studying the topic, searching all scriptures, download a concordance they’re free.
-
1
- Show all
I do not think that divorce is every allowed. Divorce never goes way, you continue to suffer for it for the rest of your life. I remember I was in a bar once and some drunk guy was complaining about his wife. Then he said that they had been divorced for over 21 years. I thought that somewhere along the way he should have gotten over it.
In the old Testament lots of people had more than one wife. David for example had 8 wives. Even God told him he could have had more but it was not lawful for him to take Bathsheba because she had a husband. Yet it was though Solomon that Jesus was born. They call this the scarlet thread.
I was engaged to another man's wife once. It was as if God told me if I married her then I would be on my own. If I had any problems He would not help me with them. I would have to resolve the issue as best I could on my own.
I have studied everything everyone has to say about divorce and remarriage. I still think it all comes down to what Paul says: "But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this." (1cor7:28) Is it fair to the virgin to marry a man who is divorced and have to deal with a marriage that has troubles? Most Christian women avoid divorced men for good reason. Why put themselves into a marriage that is going to have trouble to deal with.
In the old Testament lots of people had more than one wife. David for example had 8 wives. Even God told him he could have had more but it was not lawful for him to take Bathsheba because she had a husband. Yet it was though Solomon that Jesus was born. They call this the scarlet thread.
I was engaged to another man's wife once. It was as if God told me if I married her then I would be on my own. If I had any problems He would not help me with them. I would have to resolve the issue as best I could on my own.
I have studied everything everyone has to say about divorce and remarriage. I still think it all comes down to what Paul says: "But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this." (1cor7:28) Is it fair to the virgin to marry a man who is divorced and have to deal with a marriage that has troubles? Most Christian women avoid divorced men for good reason. Why put themselves into a marriage that is going to have trouble to deal with.
(And, it works both ways.)
Anyone who has never married is very highly not likely to want to inherit the problems of a past marriage.
Not only do I agree with the thinking behind this, I also "take it to the next level" --- I believe that - in general, at least - you cannot do better than to "pair like with like":
Singles should marry singles.
Divorced should marry divorced.
Widowed should marry widowed.
I believe that the best match is likely to be someone with a similar life experience.
For example -- I have never been married and have never gotten a woman pregnant.
(Needless to say, I don't have any children.)
Therefore, the best likely match is a woman who has never been married and never been pregnant.
(And, needless to say, she does not have any children.)
This way - we both have a common-ground experience whereby we learn and grow together.
If you have already "been there and done that", it is better to have for a mate someone who has at least a similar experience in life.
Is it possible for a "less-alike" pairing to work out well? Sure --- a lot of things are possible - especially if both man and woman are mature enough to handle the ramifications that can/may result from the difference in their life experiences.
However, I cannot help but think that the best results will likely be had when both man and woman have a similar life experience.
I believe that mixing together two life experiences that are too vastly different from each other is too likely to create significant "issues" that result from conflicts between experience-forming world-views.
Anyone who has never married is very highly not likely to want to inherit the problems of a past marriage.
Not only do I agree with the thinking behind this, I also "take it to the next level" --- I believe that - in general, at least - you cannot do better than to "pair like with like":
Singles should marry singles.
Divorced should marry divorced.
Widowed should marry widowed.
I believe that the best match is likely to be someone with a similar life experience.
For example -- I have never been married and have never gotten a woman pregnant.
(Needless to say, I don't have any children.)
Therefore, the best likely match is a woman who has never been married and never been pregnant.
(And, needless to say, she does not have any children.)
This way - we both have a common-ground experience whereby we learn and grow together.
If you have already "been there and done that", it is better to have for a mate someone who has at least a similar experience in life.
Is it possible for a "less-alike" pairing to work out well? Sure --- a lot of things are possible - especially if both man and woman are mature enough to handle the ramifications that can/may result from the difference in their life experiences.
However, I cannot help but think that the best results will likely be had when both man and woman have a similar life experience.
I believe that mixing together two life experiences that are too vastly different from each other is too likely to create significant "issues" that result from conflicts between experience-forming world-views.
-
1
- Show all
I just want you to know that I appreciate what you're saying about the distinction between divorce and putting away; and how the NT never contradicts the OT on this subject.
It looks like the KJV made a poor translation in Matthew 5:32.
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away [630 apaluo] his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced [630 apaluo] committeth adultery. Matt 5:32 (KJV)
It looks like they got it right the first time and made it confusing the second time.
I wonder what "uncleanness" in Deut. 24:1 refers to. It's usually rendered "nakedness". It seems like a pretty broad term, and not necessarily a reference to adultery or even premarital lack of virginity. If it were one of those she should be stoned (Deut. 22:21,22), instead of being free to marry the second husband (24:2).
It looks like the KJV made a poor translation in Matthew 5:32.
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away [630 apaluo] his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced [630 apaluo] committeth adultery. Matt 5:32 (KJV)
It looks like they got it right the first time and made it confusing the second time.
I wonder what "uncleanness" in Deut. 24:1 refers to. It's usually rendered "nakedness". It seems like a pretty broad term, and not necessarily a reference to adultery or even premarital lack of virginity. If it were one of those she should be stoned (Deut. 22:21,22), instead of being free to marry the second husband (24:2).
I appreciate that, it’s an interesting study.
The guidelines/qualifications for divorce, is also an interesting study. Most people just assume it means sex but if you read the 54 verses the word ervah: nudity, literally or figuratively, blemish or shame (H6172) occurs in one will not conclude that it strictly means sex/adultery.
To strictly limit the Duet 24 law to sex/adultery one has to ignore the “no favor” statement.
That’s the problem. The Jews were manipulating the law in order to Shalach: put away, dismiss their wives wrongly, for petty reasons.
Matthew 19:3 KJV 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?
They would put away their wives wrongly, without giving her the divorce certificate. When she remarried she and the one she married would be guilty of adultery according to Jesus. And Jesus says I’ll hold one who does this guilty of adultery as well.
Jesus didn’t use the word “divorce certificate”, he used the word “dismiss”
because that’s the issue he was correcting, the manipulation of the law, the wrongful abandonment of a wife because she lost favor in the eye of the husband.
The guidelines/qualifications for divorce, is also an interesting study. Most people just assume it means sex but if you read the 54 verses the word ervah: nudity, literally or figuratively, blemish or shame (H6172) occurs in one will not conclude that it strictly means sex/adultery.
To strictly limit the Duet 24 law to sex/adultery one has to ignore the “no favor” statement.
That’s the problem. The Jews were manipulating the law in order to Shalach: put away, dismiss their wives wrongly, for petty reasons.
Matthew 19:3 KJV 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?
They would put away their wives wrongly, without giving her the divorce certificate. When she remarried she and the one she married would be guilty of adultery according to Jesus. And Jesus says I’ll hold one who does this guilty of adultery as well.
Jesus didn’t use the word “divorce certificate”, he used the word “dismiss”
because that’s the issue he was correcting, the manipulation of the law, the wrongful abandonment of a wife because she lost favor in the eye of the husband.
-
1
- Show all
"Uncleanness" has to do with ceremonial shadows of the good things to come. The unclean represents death. To be clean represents the redeemed .
The cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery violating the law as the first commandment not to have any other gods before our living God, a form of blasphemy. Naked without God :
The cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery violating the law as the first commandment not to have any other gods before our living God, a form of blasphemy. Naked without God :