Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby

FAQ

Contact

Profile

Where are the 100% verse for verse bible believers?

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> Bible Doctrine

Author

Message

Silver Surfer
Emperor of the World

Joined: 12 Jul 2003
Posts: 3255

Location: Hayden, Idaho, USA

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:36 pm Post subject: Re: Where are the 100% verse for verse bible believers?

tonytony wrote:

Never a wit test question.
Never a test question on how perfect you are or ever will be at all.

If we're going to have an equal yoke with people in Christ like Paul said in 2 Corinthians 6:14-17 then we need company with bible believers that believe all the bible too.

How many people in the Christian world today, believe that the OT still has validity ?
There are MANY things there that apply to the modern Christian, which is ignored or forgotten......
Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God..."

Quote:

If you flunk the Titus 3:10 test I know what to call you.

If you pass the Titus 3:10 test and rebound back then I know what to call you also.

I admit I've never seen this Bible verse before today.

But, it was followed by Jesus Christ Himself.....hense, His wandering from one town to another.
_________________
Matthew 5:11 Blessed are ye, when [men] shall revile you, and persecute [you], and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

HeKkLeR
King Kong

Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Posts: 2280

Location: Europe

Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 6:36 am Post subject:

Wow... ... thats it... _________________ Peace The HeKkLeR

Silver Surfer
Emperor of the World

Joined: 12 Jul 2003
Posts: 3255

Location: Hayden, Idaho, USA

Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 4:53 am Post subject: Re: Where are the 100% verse for verse bible believers?

The true Bible test for who has the truth of God is....... Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them. _________________ Matthew 5:11 Blessed are ye, when [men] shall revile you, and persecute [you], and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

FoC
Goldfish

Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 62

Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 6:48 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Marriage is for as long as you both shall live, and remarriage while your spouse lives is adultery.

Ah David...always with an incomplete truth with you, isnt it?

EXCEPT for fornication, marriage is for life and remarriage after frivolous divorce is to commit adultery ( and by no means is it ongoing)

SealedEternal
Labrador

Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Posts: 312

Location: Milwaukee, WI

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 5:18 pm Post subject:

FoC wrote:

Quote:

Marriage is for as long as you both shall live, and remarriage while your spouse lives is adultery.

Luke 16:18"EVERYONE who divorces his wife and marries another COMMITS ADULTERY, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.

Everyone means except for nothing. The verses you are referring to are in reference to the Law of Moses and are therefore not applicable to my point. Also, adultery is ongoing for as long as it is being committed. The way to end an adulterous affair is to sever the adulterous relationship. Until this is done the adultery is ongoing.

SealedEternal
_________________
1 John 3:7-8 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.

FoC
Goldfish

Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 62

Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:19 am Post subject:

SealedEternal wrote:

FoC wrote:

Quote:

Marriage is for as long as you both shall live, and remarriage while your spouse lives is adultery.

See readers, THIS is why these lying doctrines are so easily exposed Wink

David here does just as I said before..quotes scriptures that he THINKS backs his error up, then leaves out the rest that expose his fabrications.

Mat 19:9 And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is put away commits adultery.

Mat 5:32 But I say to you that whoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry her who is put away commits adultery.

Quote:

The verses you are referring to are in reference to the Law of Moses and are therefore not applicable to my point.

Youre right, they ARE refering to the allowance for FRIVOLOUS (for EVERY cause/some uncleaness)divorce given by Moses and the REGULATION laid out by Moses FOR that FRIVOLOUS (for EVERY cause/some uncleaness) divorce.

And Jesus contained that issue by returning things to their original intent. Only for "fornication" can he divorce and remarry without committing adultery against her.

Quote:

Also, adultery is ongoing for as long as it is being committed.

Sorry, but that is YOUR addition to the text.
The adultery is committed once and is forgiven upon verbal repentance, as are ALL sins save one.

Quote:

The way to end an adulterous affair is to sever the adulterous relationship. Until this is done the adultery is ongoing.

Funny that Gods word NEVER makes this claim David.
All those remarried Jews coming into the church (a fact we KNOW because Jesus is preaching so hard against this issue) yet NOT ONE single instruction to put away these wives.

Something about your error just isnt lining up, David.
of course, I could post about 15 long articles exposing your error entirely here.
...shall we? What do you think? Smile

READERS interested in understanding all the details and seeing Gods word harmonized to PROVE that Jesus meant just what He said in the exceptions, that fornication IS still a breach of the marriage covenant, we have lot of refutations to the nonsense that folks like Daivd push on our brethren to try to destroy their marriages.

These Satanic attacks on godly marriages have to be warred against..

(edited, to remove links Advertizing another board)(Nobby)

SealedEternal
Labrador

Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Posts: 312

Location: Milwaukee, WI

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 6:47 pm Post subject:

FoC wrote:

See readers, THIS is why these lying doctrines are so easily exposed Wink

David here does just as I said before..quotes scriptures that he THINKS backs his error up, then leaves out the rest that expose his fabrications.

Those verses are the Word of God and not my "fabrications." I also answered your objection explaining that I wasn't referring to the Law of Moses and those under it, so your verses are irrelevant to my point.

Quote:

Youre right, they ARE refering to the allowance for FRIVOLOUS (advertisement removed) for EVERY cause/some uncleaness[/url])divorce given by Moses and the REGULATION laid out by Moses FOR that FRIVOLOUS (for EVERY cause/some uncleaness) divorce.

No I'm referring to the clause in the Law of Moses where a husband could divorce his wife if she was sexually indecent when he married her:

Deuteronomy 24:1 "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house

He finds sexual indecency or fornication in his wife when he marries her. This is what Jesus said the Law of Moses allowed for:

Matthew 19:7-9 They *said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?" He *said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. "And I say to you, [b]whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality (porneia), and marries another woman commits adultery." [/b]

They are clearly discussing this Law by the context of saying "why then did Moses command" and "Moses permitted", and by the fact that the Pharisees speak of the "CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE" which only appears in Deuteronomy 24:1. Therefore the allowance must be for porneia which means fornication, and must be found when the man married her. The man couldn't find fornication in his wife at a later date, because by then she would be expected to not be a virgin since presumably he would have consummated the marriage.

We have a scriptural example of this law in effect pertaining to Mary and Joseph:

Matthew 1:18-19, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.

Joseph mistakenly thinking that Mary had committed fornication while they were betrothed to one another, planned to send her away. It says that he was a righteous man, so he must have been following what the Law permitted.

Also, If you want proof that "porneia" was the proper term for betrothal fornication, we also have a scriptural reference for that:

John 8:41 "You are doing the deeds of your father." They said to Him, "We were not born of "porneia"; we have one Father: God."

In this text, the Pharisees give a bit of a back handed sneer at Jesus, claiming that the was born of "porneia." This claim could be made by anyone since it is obvious that Mary was pregnant before her and Joseph were married. Therefore they are accusing Jesus of being born by sexual promiscuity before his parents were married (in the betrothal period). This is what Jesus said was the one allowance in the Law of Moses, and therefore must be what Deuteronomy 24 was speaking about.

Quote:

And Jesus contained that issue by returning things to their original intent. Only for (shameless plug removed) can he divorce and remarry without committing adultery against her.

Jesus said to those under the Law that everyone who divorced except for pre-marital fornication commits adultery (Matthew 5:32 & 19:9) , and for those not under the Law He said "everyone who divorces and remarries commits adultery (Mark 10:11-12)(Luke 16:18).

Quote:

Also, adultery is ongoing for as long as it is being committed.

Sorry, but that is YOUR addition to the text.
The adultery is committed once and is forgiven upon verbal repentance, as are ALL sins save one.

Yeah sure. We can verbally repent of our sins while continuing to physically commit them. Good luck with that defense at the judgment.

Quote:

The way to end an adulterous affair is to sever the adulterous relationship. Until this is done the adultery is ongoing.

Actually that's why He condemned the Jews in Matthew 5:32 & 19:9 for their unlawful divorces and remarriages. He never told them go ahead and commit adultery, but just give me a "verbal repentance."

Quote:

Something about your error just isnt lining up, David.
of course, I could post about 15 long articles exposing your error entirely here.
...shall we? What do you think? Smile

I suspect given your past you will post all of your prefab drivel no matter what I do.

SealedEternal
_________________
1 John 3:7-8 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.

FoC
Goldfish

Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 62

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 2:13 pm Post subject:

Quote:

they werent irrelevant to my point about your error.

Quote:

Sorry about your luck chap, but it is only your perversion of the ACTUAL text that seems to make deut 24 be about sexual sin. It is not
READERS see this article

edit, link removed but that article is posted in the next post.

(edited, to remove links Advertizing another board)(Nobby)

Quote:

He finds sexual indecency or fornication in his wife when he marries her. This is what Jesus said the Law of Moses allowed for:

bZZZZ wrong. and not even the Jews were silly enough to interpret Deut 24 that way, david.
They understood it as simply meaning after being married.

Quote:

I suspect given your past you will post all of your prefab drivel no matter what I do.

Actually you are correct.
I WILL post my prefab drivel from this point forward when I see your nonsense because THAT was the purpose in writing it and making the website for it.
Im not a fool. I know your type likes to wear people down with repetition and hopefully we'll just shut up and go away and leave you standing in the pulpit alone.
But thats not goig to happen david.
I wrote my prefab drivel so I dont have to keep repeatign myself every time you say the same thing for the 700th time.
So youre going to have to get used to it if you plan on continuing your agenda to destroy godly marriages.

Last edited by FoC on Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:56 pm; edited 2 times in total

FoC
Goldfish

Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 62

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 2:15 pm Post subject:

SealedEternal wrote:

There is no divorce clause for sexual sin in the Old Testament -some uncleaness/for every cause/ervah dabar

"That She Find No Favor In His Eyes Because He Hath Found Some Uncleaness in Her"

Assertions/Conclusions of this article:

This article is to help discern those doctrines based on Deut 24:1-4 supposedly being about putting away a wife for sexual sin. These doctrines use this as their foundation to say that the rules were changed and that divorce, not death, was prescribed in the law for harlotry of a wife.

Some believe that the pharisees misinterpreted 'some uncleaness' in Deut 24:1 and that Moses really only meant it for sexual sins. Some also believe that Jesus is supposedly doing away with this mythical "allowance" for divorce for sexual sin in Matthew 19:9 by correcting their "interpretation' of Deut 24:1.

We show in this writing that ;

1) "some uncleaness" (ervah dabar) isnt refering to sexual sin or bodily nakedness (as ervah alone means) but is refering to a much broader range of 'uncleaness' instead.

Supporting evidence:

The Hebrew word 'ervah' is often used to convey the idea of "nakedness"...also inferring the idea of harlotry in many cases. This is the foundation for many doctrinal views out there that rely on Deut 24:1-4 being about sexual sin of a betrothed wife.

But the text of Deut 24 doesnt seem to imply a sexual sin at all, and the Israelites in general did not believe that it was meant to be limited to sexual sins but instead meant any 'uncleaness' about the wife that the husband had assigned to her. Take a quick look at Matthew 19:1-9 and you will see the phrase 'for every cause' there. This is in reference to Deut 24:1-4 and this term 'some uncleaness' used there.

What we are asserting in this article is that, while "ervah" alone does imply human nakedness and sexual sin, the phrase 'ervah dabar' isn't limited to those definitions but implies a broader range of 'uncleaness' instead.

Here is "ervah dabar" in Deut 24:1 :

Deu 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some1697 uncleanness6172 in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

This is the word 'some' just before 'uncleaness'

H1697
da?ba?r
BDB Definition:
1) speech, word, speaking, thing
1a) speech
1b) saying, utterance
1c) word, words
1d) business, occupation, acts, matter, case, something, manner

Hebrew and Greek are just alike in the aspect that a word can have a meaning that is modified by the wording and context around it. So if we wanted to get technical, it says "he has found unclean speech" in her. If we want to say it has to be sexually oriented, then what is actually said is "he has found sexual speech in her".
If we take the wording literally and precisely it shows that he has found some indecent (sexual?) speech in her or "has found her speaking indecently" as the case might be.

Now, we're not able to say that this IS actually refering to her saying anything because when we look at 'ervah dabar' in Deut 23, it hasnt the first thing to do with speech at all. Since the phrase is only used twice in the OT, we have to use the context in which it is used in Deut 23:14 to determine its use in Deut 24:1.
Looking at the use of the word "dabar" (H1697) we see that it is used just as often where it doesnt have anything to do with actual speech or a word, but in many other ways, including being once used as 'disease'. So its definition or intent is not limited to the spoken word by any means, which is made very apparent with its use in Deut 23:13-14.

The phrases "some uncleaness" (Deut 24:1) and "unclean thing" are "ervah debar" in Hebrew.

We see this very same use of "ervah debar" used just one chapter before in Deut:23 in the phrase "unclean thing" (ervah debar). From our studies, the phrase 'ervah dabar only occurs twice in the Old testament. Once in Deut 24:1 above and once here in verse 23:14. When trying to understand the meaning of the phrase in Deut 24:1, we look to see how it is used elsewhere, Deut 23:14 being the only other occurance we have to determine its exact use.

Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad: And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee: For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he see no unclean6172 thing1697 in thee, and turn away from thee.

(Deu 23:12-14)

(in laymans terms, take a shovel with you, dig a hole and when you have relieved yourself, bury it)

In that passage the phrase "ervah dabar" isn't restricted to the fornications as some assert that ervah always means, but is clearly being used blanketly against all uncleanness in the camp (the example given being human excrement).

In fact, it isn't until verse 23:17 that the harlots/whores and sexual sin are brought into the conversation. This is probably why the scholars don't believe that "ervah debar" is about sexual sins of the wife in Deut 24:1-4.

Seeing that those sins are covered already just two chapters previously and that there are terrible contractions caused by trying to assert that Deut 24:1-4 is about sexual sins, including Deut 22:23-24 that presents that the woman might still be put to death by anyone else other than the husband if caught sinning against her husband in this manner.

Given that the phrase is exactly the same, in Deut 24:1 as it is in 23:14, we can conclude, just as the translators did, that it isnt necessarily in reference to fornication but of a more broader understanding of 'uncleaness'...just as the Jews divorced for and just what they were asking Jesus about in Matthew 19.

If we were to use the meaning of the phrase "ervah dabar" in Deut 24:1 as it appears in Deut 23:12-14 then what this "uncleaness" he has found in her is.....well, Im sure you readers can connect the dots.
The main thing is that the phrase used in Deut 24:1 has nothing to do with her sexual sin but just a general uncleaness that has caused her to find no favor in his eyes...

"some uncleaness" in Deut 24:1 cannot be refering to sexual sins of the wife, betrothed or consummated for the following reasons.

1) These sins were covered just two chapters prior in Deut 22. It makes no sense that there would be a change in part of the law so quickly in Deut 24 without also changing the other laws that would still affect this situation (see #3 below).

2) If Deut 24:1-4 were actually an amendment to Deut 22:13-21, then this means that God put a law into place, then amended part of it within weeks. God and Moses both would have to be very absent minded for this to work.

3) Deut 22:23-24 would still be in effect. This means that while Deut 24:1-4 would be saying that the husband would put her away for sexual sins now instead of having her stoned at her fathers door, that ANY other Israelite could levy charges against her and have her put to death anyway. A terrible hole in this idea that Deut 24 is about sexual sins.

The fact is that all of the evidence is against "some uncleaness" being about sexual sin. The only thing that is any sort of 'evidence' for the view that it does mean sexual sins is that it 'sounds similar' to Deut 22:13-21....but in looking at the actual wording we see that its not that similar at all.

A little background on divorce.

The error made by some teachings is that they believe, or seem to, that Deut 24:1-4 is a permission to divorce and thus it lays out the allowances for divorce. This simply is not true.

Putting away a wife had been going on for quite some time in the desert there during the times of Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. This putting away was being done by very hardhearted Hebrews, remember, this is the same group of people who had made the golden calf to worship it. Many Hebrews had little concern for God or His statutes.
One symptom of this hardheartedness, among others, was a complete lack of regard for Gods union of marriage. These were casting aside their wives for no reason (among other sexual immoralities), which Moses had to permit or else risk having this monstrous men literally torment or kill their wives.

If you break open your bibles to Leviticus 21, you will see that neither the priests, nor the high priest, could marry a woman who was put away ('divorced') from her husband. Nor could they take widows, harlots, etc. They were to marry ONLY a virgin of Israel.

These women who were not permitted to be taken by the priests there are these that had been put away from their husbands for just about any reason that the man could think up.

When we get to Deut 24:1-4, Moses laying out regulation for this putting away that had already been going on. He isnt laying out an ordinance for some new thing called 'divorce', he was placing limitations on what was already occuring in Israel.

Thus he isnt 'defining' what is permissible for divorce in Deut 24:1, they had already defined this putting away 'for EVERY cause' with the manner in which they had been tossing their wives out, Moses is simply stating that if this man has put her away for the causes he had been, which is pretty much anything he deemed as 'unclean' about her, then he MUST give her a bill of divorce and once REmarried she could never be his wife again.

Moses didn't define exactly what the cause of divorce was for, the Hebrew people did with their frivolous reasonings for this putting away, thus the reason for the ambiguous phrase "ervah dabar"...he is, in this regulation, saying that when this man has taken a wife and has found disfavor with her (as the Jews were doing), some ambiguous 'uncleaness' (ceremonial uncleaness is not completely out of line here), then he is to write her a bill of divorce and put it in her hand and send her out (if he wishes to do so, this wasnt a commandment obviously since God would never "command" a man to divorce frivolously or at all).

To make it clearer, Moses isn't defining what they CAN put their wives over in Deut 24:1-4, he is defining what they HAD been putting away their wives for...which any study will show that it was for just about any reason they could think up.

The problem in Jesus day was that instead of helping the situation, Deut 24:1-4 made it worse because now the men turned this 'allowance' into a 'commandment' (see Matt 19) so that not only were these hardhearted ones putting away their wives for no just cause, but now they had a scapegoat to put the blame on....Moses...since supposedly he had commanded them to divorce.

When you read all the relevant passages regarding this issue, keep these things in mind and see if they dont start all making sense to you

Last edited by FoC on Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:57 pm; edited 1 time in total

FoC
Goldfish

Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 62

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 2:27 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Also, If you want proof that "porneia" was the proper term for betrothal fornication, we also have a scriptural reference for that:

it figures youd try to make that perversion of the text word Rolling Eyes

They were not born of 'whoredom' david, of 'harlotry' outside of wedlock. There isnt a SINGLE thing there that shows that that adultery would not be included in that statement.
Only YOUR narrowing of the definition makes it say anything other than what it does.

"porneia" = ANY sexual activity outside of a man and his lawful wife....even if both of the persons committing the sin are married to someone else porneia/whoredom STILL covers it regardless of what you believe.

You dont have any scriptural reference at all. You have simply found a way to piece some verses together to make it sound like you have a point.

The hypercalvinist does the same thing with Gods sovereignty and ends up coming up with a 'God made me do it' theology that is no more accurate than yours even tho it might sound somewhat convincing to someone who doesnt know the context of the whole of scripture on the matter.
Smoke and mirrors, bro, thats all I see.

Readers, when you see 'fornication' in the NT it is not narrowed to premarital sex or illicit betrothal sex.
Next time youre reading your bible when you see 'fornication' in your NT in your mind replace it with 'harlotry' (the actual meaning of the word, btw, meaning ANY ullicit sexual act by the married or the unmarried) and see if it doesnt fit in every single place where the word is used.

The pharisees werent born of whoredom david, outside of a lawful marriage.
Im happy to be the one to tell you this, david but EITHER of the two folks committing 'whoredom could have been married to someone else for 40 years and it is STILL the act of whoredom. It would also be the marriage specific crime of 'adultery'.

For you interested readers...these might fill in some blanks...

Quote:

Porneia...aka ‘’fornication’’

Some claim that fornication in Matthew is PRE marital sex alone and that divorce and remarriage for any other reason is not permissible.
But we see that conflicts with the use of the word throughout the NT.
Porneia is whoredom, harlotry, illicit sex of any kind.
This included every sexual sin of every nature.
Sex with men, women, animals or any other perversion in existance or any new ones that a person can come up with.
This can be commited by anyone. A husband or wife or a single person.
When porneia (any sexual sin) is carried out by the married, the crime of adultery is commited.

Even the current english definition of ‘’fornication’’ is against these false doctrine as it says NOTHING about Unmarried people, but only that the two engaging in ‘’forication’’ are not married to each other.

Here is the current definition...

Main Entry: for·ni·ca·tion
Pronunciation: "for-n&-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun
: consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other
Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Notice not a single word about either person being ‘’unmarried’.
One or both could be married to someone else, they just arent marrried to EACH OTHER.
Or both could be single.

Fornication means just what porneia presents,...having sex with someone who ISNT your lawful spouse, whether youre married or not.
Here is the greek word rendered as ''fornication'' in your KJV bibles.

G4202
porneia
por-ni'-ah
From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.

Also....

In Acts 15 and 21, four items are given for gentiles to abstain from as presented in the following verses.

Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication (G4202, same as the exception clause in Matthew).

1. Things offered to idols
2. blood
3. Things strangled
4. fornication (G4202 same as the exception clause).

I ask those who say fornication (porneia G4202) is premarital or betrothal sex only and not “adultery”, why is it that the writer ONLY used ''porneia'' in Acts 15 and 21 and didnt seem to think it necessary to mention ''adultery'' as something to abstain from as well?
Hes already on the topic of sexual sin here, why not mention the big one *IF* adultery is a separate sin?

The reason is "porneia'' covers ANY sexual sin. Paul knew that as did whoever rendered Jesus words in Matthew into greek.
When it was used it in Acts 15, he was laying out a blanket coverage for ANY sexual sin, that we abstain from ALL sexual sin. Just as Jesus meant all sexual sin in Matthew 19.
''Porneia'' (whoredom, harlotry), by default, would be ''adultery'' within a marriage, there was no need to mention adultery, it was covered. And neither was there any need for Jesus to use the word adultery, which would have left a hole or two in His teaching (see ''why didnt Jesus say ''except for adultery)

1 Corinthians chapter 5

We see in the following passage that only the fornicator is mentioned..

I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
(1Co 5:9-13 KJV)

Now, *IF* adultery isnt included in 'porneia' or 'fornication', why on earth didnt Paul mention not keeping company with the adulterer ?
Was Paul stating to not keep company with the fornicator ... but hey, its ok to hang out with adulterers ?

Hardly.
Paul used a word that covers all sexual sin.
He mentions a ''brother'' and isnt it odd that the word he chose rendered as 'fornicator' here is the masculine form of porneia ?

G4205
pornos
Thayer Definition:
1) a man who prostitutes his body to another’s lust for hire
2) a male prostitute
3) a man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse, a fornicator

Paul was clearly stating to not keep company with any man called a brother who is out having illicit sex.....married or not.
Porneia and its forms are all inclusive of sexual sin of the married and the Unmarried.

In Ephesians and Colossians both we see references to Fornication, but none about adultery.

But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
(Eph 5:3-5 KJV)

(whoremonger being the masculine form ...pornos)

and

When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
(Col 3:4-6 KJV)

So if this porneia (fornication) does not include all sexual sin, then we would have to suppose that Paul is only directing these two churches to abstain from SOME sexual sins (incest, premarital sex, etc) , and surely not adultery (if it were the case that porneia is not all inclusive of sexual immorality)

When Jesus' words were rendered as ''porneia'' in Matt 5:32 and 19:9, He was saying the same thing ''Sexual Sin'' or whoredom. Jesus did not mean just PREmarital sex, and neither does the definition of ‘’fornication’’ present that idea either.

He used a word, the same as in Acts 15, that covers ALL sexual sin....whoredom....as ‘’fornication’’ clearly shows as well. ....porneia even covers the possiblity of bestiality if it has occured.
We cannot divorce our spouse and remarry without committing adultery against that union, EXCEPT for any sexual sin...EXCEPT that this person we marry has had sex with someone they arent married to.

That is what is clearly conveyed with ‘’porneia’’ and what is also presented with the REAL definition of ‘’forncation’’ (not the Unmarried tripe that some pass off on us )

Quote:

Did Jesus say ''wife'' or "espoused" wife

In His exception clause, Jesus is clearly refering to a lawful wife. If Jesus had been only refering to the betrothal period in the exception clause, He would have used the very term used for Mary at times...."espoused wife'' or ''espoused'' (see G3423) in His exception clause.
*IF* He were restricting His exception to the betrothal period, there is no reason to believe that our Lord would have been so vague about it.
The fact is NOTHING presented in scripture backs this silly assertion by some who say that Jesus only meant to except the betrothed wife.
This is all deceptive propaganda created to further a false doctrine... this idea does not come from Gods word.

Jesus clearly used the word that means ''wife'' or woman. A mans woman was his wife. She was his lawful wife from the moment the marriage was contracted. The betrothed wife was a lawful wife.
Jesus being a Jew and being God, knew this.
When He said ''wife'' He was refering to whoredom of a wife, pre or post consummation.
(compare Matt 19.9 and 5:32 with Luke 2:5)

Conclusion:
Jesus could have said "espoused' or 'betrothed' ("mne?steuo?" as is used for Mary) in His exception, yet He chose to use the normal word for a 'wife'(gune?) in Matthew 19.
If Jesus WAS discerning one OVER the other, His ACTUAL words would be pertaining to the consummated wife and not the betrothed at all.

But seeing that the betrothed wife was lawfully contracted in marriage, she was just as much a 'wife' for legal and religious reasons as the consummated wife.

Quote:

Why Jesus didn’t say ''except for ADULTERY''

Assertions/conclusions of this article
We assert here that Jesus was giving exception for any sexual immorality when He says ‘except for fornication’ and not only for pre-marital sex.

Supporting Evidence

Some argue that because Jesus didnt say ''except for adultery''...but instead used fornication (harlotry) (rendered from Hebrew as "porneia" and into english in the KJV bible as ''fornication'')...that Jesus wasnt permitting a husband to put away / divorce his wife AFTER they had come together.

In the later section on ''porneia....aka ''fornication'', I will show overwhelming evidence that the word porneia used in the exception clause is all inclusive of every sexual sin committed by anyone, single, betrothed or consummated....the word ''porneia'' covers it all.

If Jesus had used ''adultery'' instead of ''harlotry'' in the exception clause, He would have actually been DISallowing the right of a man to put away a woman who had had sex BEFORE marriage and wasn’t a virgin.
The crime of ADULTERY is unique to the marriage covenant, a woman having had sex BEFORE marrying would not be covered under this crime...only illicit sex POST marital vows would it apply.

If Jesus had said ''except for adultery'' then ONLY unlawful sex by a spouse committed AFTER marriage (consummated or not) would have been grounds for divorce.

The definition of ''porniea'' is basically ''harlotry'' or ''whoredom'' or "illicit sex". (see G4202 in your Strongs)
The crime of adultery is committed when a married individual in involved in ''harlotry''.

Given the REAL definition of the word ''porneia'', Jesus covered sexual immorality committed before marriage (Deut 22:20-21), during the betrothal period (Deut 22:23) or a consummated wife (Deut 22:22).

Even tho many try to pull the stunt, there is not a single reason to believe that Jesus MEANT for PREmarital sex alone in His exception clause.

It makes perfect sense that Jesus would use a word that would cover ALL sexual sin, both before and AFTER marriage in His exception.

IN Deuteronomy 22 there are three scenarios listed that are all punishable by death.
- a woman found to not be a virgin when her husband takes her to his bed.
- willful illicit sex of a betrothed wife.
- willful illicit sex of a consummated wife.

*IF* Jesus had said ''except for adultery'', then #1 above would not have been included IF this woman had had sex BEFORE the marriage covenant was in place. Adultery is a marriage specific crime.
What He did say however, ''except for harlotry'' (from Hebrew most likely, rendered as ''porneia'' in greek) DOES cover the woman who has had sex BEFORE marrying and is found to not be a virgin.

Jesus chose His words well, as He always did.
He chose a word, that when rendered into the greek ''porneia'', would keep Gods holy covenant of marriage intact... a whoring spouse would be sentenced.

A whoring spouse was sentenced to death under Mosiac law.
Over time, and due to Roman law at the time, that penalty for the above scenarios evolved into divorce instead of death/stoning.

When asked by the pharisees '' can we put away a wife for ANY cause'', Jesus has shown that it was never Gods will that divorce happen, and surely trivial reasons would no longer be tolerated.....she MUST breach the marriage covenant or putting her away and remarrying is adultery for you and it will cause her to commit adultery as a woman most likely would have to remarry at that time to survive.

Jesus said ''except for sexual immorality" you cannot divorce and remarry without committing adultery and causing the wife who is put away to commit it as well.
Since the death penalty was already pretty much not being carried out, Jesus continuing the permission for divorce for sexual sins alone, previously punished by death, is right in line with scripture as a whole.
It is frivolous, “for any cause’’ divorce that Jesus is clearly condemning... Hence His words ‘’except’’.

When Jesus said this He has shown Himself in perfect agreement with Deut 22 as a whole, and that He has now disallowed the instructions Moses had given in Deut 24:1-4 that said a man could divorce simply if "she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her".

Jesus exception clause is rooted in scripture all the way back to Exodus....''YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY''....and keeps right in stride with sexual sin having been a breach of Gods holy marriage covenant right from the beginning.....punishable by death under the law....permission for divorce and remarriage by His own exception.

Last edited by FoC on Tue Jun 26, 2007 8:06 pm; edited 1 time in total

FoC
Goldfish

Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 62

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 5:52 pm Post subject:

Quote:

sorry, but this is based on nothing but the assertion that there is some intent in the exceptions being in one book and not another.

For this to work then it would have to be assumed that the gentile nations didnt use and completely understand betrothal ...and we KNOW factually that isnt the case.

What youre saying is that the gentiles are just too ignorant to figure it out, so lets not confuse them with the concept of betrothal, but the fact is that the Romans who were occupying Israel at that time practiced betrothal, so there is NO reason to leave out the exceptions *IF* it were pertaining to betrothal, as you claim, solely based on the idea that matthew was written to a jewish audience.

ANY Roman at that time would have had the understanding to read the exceptions *IF* it applied only to betrothal and would have understood entirely what was being refered to....again, *IF* that had actually been the case.

Quote:

Refuting the argument: "The jews understood that Jesus meant only during the betrothal period"

Assertions/Conclusions of this article

That Matthew (to Jews) containing the exception clauses, while Mark (to gentiles) not having them has nothing to do with betrothal. There were gentile nations who used betrothal, including the Roman Empire, and so stating that Matthew contains the exceptions because Jews used betrothal is a moot/irrelevant point and argument entirely.

Supporting Evidence

Some say that Jesus' exception only appears in Matthew because it was intended for Jews who used betrothal and who would understand it. But this is a moot point because even Gentile nations used betrothal well before the time of Jesus' ministry who would have understood what betrothal was just as easily as any Hebrew would have.

In our studies we found that even the Romans used and understood betrothal of some sort. I'll add some items here for your inspection, and when you are finished reading, check out my facts and see if any, most or all can be shown as fact. Even a single Roman or gentile betrothal will show conclusively that there was no need whatsoever for allowance to be given to the Hebrews/Jews for betrothal while not giving the same to gentiles who also use arranged marriages and betrothal.

Here we see a Roman betrothal more than a century before Christ was born of Mary.

·

-In about 186 BC Tiberius was betrothed to a woman who died before the marriage could take place.

Also do a google search for “Matrimonium - Roman Marriage”.
The pages you will find will show conclusively that betrothal of whatever form WAS practiced and understood by the Romans, and also by many other gentile cultures, and so there was no need for Matthew to restrict divorce solely to Jews seeking to end a marriage during betrothal.

This was found in my research of Roman betrothal...

·

The Betrothal, Dowry, and Engagement Rings - Engagements and engagement parties were optional, but if an engagement were made and then backed out of, breach of contract would have had financial consequences. The bride's family would give the engagement party and formal betrothal (sponsalia) between the groom and the bride-to-be (who was now sponsa). Dowry, to be paid after the marriage, was decided on. The groom might give his fiancee an iron ring (anulus pronubis) or some money (arra).

One thing easily concluded is that the largest group of gentiles in or around Israel at the time of Christ would FULLY have comprehended what His intent would have been *IF* He were actually referring to betrothal in His exceptions. Thus it is quite illogical to conclude that He gave His exception to the Jews alone because they used betrothal.

*IF* fornication were actually about premarital sex, or illicit betrothal (ie “covenanted in marriage”) sex, then there was no need whatsoever for Mark or Luke to have left it out of their writings because Gentiles would have understood the concept entirely.

The facts are that the word Jesus used is not restricted to premarital sex. Neither does the context of His exceptions show that He is restricting the definition of ‘fornication’ to such.

In Matt 5 Jesus is laying out HIS teachings for His followers.

Heres a clip....

·

“You have heard that it was said to the ancients, "You shall not kill" --and, "Whoever shall kill shall be liable to the judgment." But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be liable to the judgment. (Mat 5:21)

And again...

·

“You have heard that it was said to the ancients, "You shall not commit adultery." But I say to you that whoever looks on a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Mat 5:27-28)

In both of those Jesus shows what has been taught in Gods law, and He ADDS His own ‘law’ to these ancient precepts for His followers. It doesnt just take the physical ACT of killing or committing adultery now to be guilty of sin.

“This is what you have been told in the Law and this is what *I* say will be from this day forth”

When we get to His words on marriage, divorce and remarriage, it is quite the same...

·

“It was also said, Whoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce. But I say to you that whoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry her who is put away commits adultery. (Mat 5:31-32)

He does not say that this was only about Jewish betrothal. He states quite clearly that even though Moses had allowed divorce (for some “uncleaness” as presented in the texts), that He was not going to allow this sufferance any longer...that only if she broke the covenant would this act not be considered adultery.

Romans occupying Israel at that time would have completely understood Jesus' words about betrothal, *IF* it were the case that His exception were only applying to betrothal and as such there was NO cause to leave out the exceptions for the writings to the gentiles.
If anything this shows that they SHOULD have been shown that they also were being disallowed any permission to put away a wife during betrothal as well *IF* that were the case seeing that they practiced betrothal as well.

What these false doctrines are asking you to believe here is that the writers of the gospels would have told the Jews to stop putting away their wives during the betrothal year, while leaving the gentiles who DID practice betrothal completely oblivious to this new instruction.
Does that sound like our Lords way to you?

Romans occupying Israel at that time would have completely understood Jesus' words about betrothal, *IF* that were the case and as such there was NO cause to leave out the exceptions for the writings to the gentiles.
If anything this shows that they SHOULD have been shown that they also were being disallowed any permission to put away a wife during betrothal as well *IF* that were the case seeing that they practiced betrothal as well.

What SE is asking you to believe here is that the writers of the gospels would have left the gentiles who practiced betrothal completely oblivious to this supposed new restriction of 'no putting away during betrothal' which apparently was completely possible since they DID practice betrothal as well.

There is also another issue...

Quote:

Matthew written to Jews, do the differences matter ?

Some state that because Matt. was written to Jews that the difference of the exception clause (Matthew 19:9 and 5:32...the part that says ‘’except for fornication” (porneia) applied only to the Jews because of their betrothal customs.
The assertion that because the exception clause is present in Matthew, yet not in Mark that it is only for Jews is absurdity.
Lets look at the example of the empty tomb and see the great differences there. between these two writers.

Mat 28:2-6 And behold, a great earthquake occurred; for an angel of the Lord, having come down out of heaven, came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. (3) And His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. (4) And the guards were shaken for fear of him, and became like dead men. (5) But the angel answered and said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. (6) He is not here! For He is risen, just as He said. Come; see the place where the Lord was lying.

Mar 16:5-8 And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right clothed with a white robe, and they were alarmed. (6) But he said to them, "Do not be alarmed. You are seeking Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has arisen! He is not here! See the place where they put Him. (7) But go, say to His disciples, and Peter, that He is going before you into Galilee; there you shall see Him, just as He said to you." (8) And going out, they fled from the tomb, but trembling and amazement held them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

See how Marks description of the Angel(s) is lacking greatly compared to Matthews?
Marks writing seems many times to just be recording occurances without adding a lot of detail.
Possibly why Mark is the shortest of the Gospels
Mark doesnt even mention this "Great Earthquake" that Matthew tells about.

So WHICH is right.....Mark to the Gentile, Matthew to the Jews ?
Was it One angel or two?
Did they appear like a young man in a white robe to Marks audience, or like lightening to Matthews?
Do these record TWO different events or one ?

Did the great earthquake happen according to Matthews account or not?
Was the earthquake taught to Jews and not to Gentiles ?
Some would have to say as much by the way they teach that Matthew is written to Jews and Mark to Gentiles.

ALL of them are right, we take the TOGETHER in CONTEXT and find the HARMONY between them.

We see other "discrepancies", even among the SAME writer Luke in Acts.

And the men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.
(Act 9:7 EMTV)

versus

"And those who were with me observed the light and became terrified, but they did not hear the voice of the One speaking to me.
(Act 22:9 EMTV)

We have them hearing, but not seeing in chap 9, then just the opposite in chap 22.
Which is correct?

Possibly its meaningless as that isnt the point of the text, but we can cleary see that even when its the same writer discrepancies can occur, let alone a writer simply not recording every detail that another has.

Matthew being written to Jews has NO bearing on this matter.
There are other books such as Hebrews to those Hebrew converts and James being written to those of the twelve tribes scattered abroad.
Will we say ''these are written to Jew and therefore not for us gentiles" ?
Will we cast aside ANY teaching we dont like if it wasnt written to us gentiles specifically?

Jesus didnt SAY it was only for Jews and their betrothal year. He made on clear exception for divorce and remarriage.

We know this, God gives His law to humanity. He wants all people everywhere to obey Him.
When God distinguishes that a rule is for one group and not the whole, He states it clearly (below about Levitical priests forbidden to take wives ''put away'').

Since Jesus did not specify that this only applied to Jews, there is no reason to think that it did.
Since Jesus also did not specify ''espoused wife'' but clearly the word for ''wife'' was used, He must have been upholding that, as it always has, the sexual sins of the guilty break the conditional covenant of marriage. Jesus states we can put away a wife for this reason alone.

So we know that when some proclaim that Matthew was written to Jews, that it is irrelevant, it was written for the followers of Jesus Christ.
The rules apply evenly to all, the Jews do not receive some special ability to protect themselves from a whoring spouse while the rest of His children are left open to abuse. To state as much would be an absurdity.

*IF* it made ANY difference that Matthew had differences, then to follow proper rules of interpretation, we would have to do the same with EVERY book in the bible. Anything that was written to a Jewish christians would NOT apply to gentile christians if it were not repeated in a book written TO gentiles.

The fact is this is absurd.
The rules of Christianity are given to ALL of us, not some rules for this group and some to the other.
When you hear someone hand you a line like ''Matthew was written to Jews and applies to the betrothal period'' ask them to PROVE it conclusively...keeping in mind all the other material in this site.
They have not a single clear verse that makes the assertion...all they do is fill in the gaps with thier own ideas, rejecting the facts in the matter as we have discussed on this website. (ex. Porneia being ALL inclusive of sexual sin and NOT just premarital sex)

I dont want to post too much here because it would needlessly add to the owners database size.

Sorry David, your ideas just do not line up with logic and the facts.[/quote]

Last edited by FoC on Tue Jun 26, 2007 8:03 pm; edited 1 time in total

FoC
Goldfish

Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 62

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:52 pm Post subject:

to the mod removing the links to those articles, please let me know if posting the links isnt permitted. Its kind of hard to argue a point if your going to remove my evidence I can post the writings instead, but Id decided against that because of increased DB size for your forum, but of course its your call.

Nobby
Board - Admin

Joined: 16 Sep 2002
Posts: 5286

Location: Missouri

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:43 pm Post subject:

FoC, You have a PM. I would suggest that you read the board rules at the top of the page. _________________ Much Love Nobby CVP Smilies dictionary Bible

FoC
Goldfish

Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 62

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 4:58 am Post subject:

my bad. I havent been thru here much and I usually end up here because of a google search. Im going to have to start making notes in my links about which forums want the articles posted, which want only links and which want a small quote AND the link I do understand the database issue. Even those smilies add up The newbie links was one Im not sure if i read before or not. thanks Nobby

Nobby
Board - Admin

Joined: 16 Sep 2002
Posts: 5286

Location: Missouri

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:49 am Post subject:

FoC, your welcome! _________________ Much Love Nobby CVP Smilies dictionary Bible