ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Remarry If Commit Adultery

Do you have any thoughts on WHY God allows a man to remarry when he divorces his wife who committed adultery but says that an innocent wife whose husband committed adultery must not remarry after divorce?

Join Our Christian Chat and Take The Dating & Marriage Quiz
 ---Rita_H on 5/12/15
     Helpful Blog Vote (5)

Reply to this BlogPost a New Blog



the time of our Lord's return is getting shorter and the church should use all the resources it has at its disposal to spread the gospel.

There are many (and many "good" people) destined to the fires of hell. To elect someone that has little talent or gifts as a elder or deacon and pass over someone that has been divorced years ago is an evil that many in the church will be judged. Such serve the devil in their twisting of the Scripture.

Olde Bob Jones III once stated that most fundamentals are NOT born again Christians. Would that be because the gospel is not preached?

I teach Sunday School at the Bible church that does not discriminate against those who have been victims of another's sinfulness.
---riolion on 12/1/16


---Carla on 11/24/16

I sincerely appreciate your words. But I expect they will be very hard to digest for MOST church attending wives of today, to forgive on a level where they can receive an adulterous husband with the same level of reverence, as shown in Ephesians 5, especially for those wives who have given themselves only to their husbands.

Most wives have not been taught to live completely for God, to suffer many things in order to please Him.

Yet, to those wives who can really do this, I expect God will be immensely pleased with their level of sacrifice.


---riolion on 11/24/16

Exceptional response!
---aservant on 11/25/16


My thoughts is initially based on the male being the head of the house, the fact that a man of God in all his ways that loved his wife like the church and as god intended, it able to marry again because of fornication or Adultery in the marriage. A woman however, is subjected to carrying the babies and it is not supported that a woman should have another husband while the head of her home is absent, or if he committed a sin basically because children in the womb should be unless death from one man, he then has the right to be able to come back if he has repented fully to the wife if she pleases. This is proved through biblical teachings based on moral ethic's and a social and spiritual order.
---Carla on 11/24/16


My 1st wife has dietary problems and got hooked on amphetamines, left me with 2 preschool age children to raise by myself. She ran off with one that she met in a sanitarium. I remarried after 6 years and that marriage lasted 35 years. Those that forbid remarriage of innocent party promote fornication and uncleanness especially among those who are young.It is not good that man be alone as not everyone has the gift of being a enunch. Nor is it good for a family to be without both parents.
---riolion on 11/24/16


says that an innocent wife whose husband committed adultery must not remarry after divorce?

Please cite the Scripture for this.

Mat 19:9 Says the ONLY LAWFUL reason to divorce your wife is if she commits fornication. If you divorce her for any other reason, 1.) you CAUSE HER to become an adulteress, 2.) you have committed adultery, 3.) the next man to marry your adulterous ex-wife commits adultery.

If you divorce her for the only lawful reason, you are free to marry any available woman, EXCEPT: a.) those ex-wives who were divorced for lawful reasons, and b.) those ex-wives whose husbands divorced then unlawfully, causing them to be adulteresses.
---aservant on 11/21/16




Jesus is clear in Matthew 19.

Men can not remarry either.

Jesus was speaking to men NOT women.
---Nicole_Lacey on 11/7/16


It is really better not to marry.

Matthew 19:10 "If this is the situation between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry."

God discourages divorce, and yet there are verses that FAVOR divorce.

Matthew 19:21 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.

Ezra 10:11 Now honor the Lord, the God of your ancestors, and do his will. Separate yourselves from the peoples around you and from your foreign wives.

David never divorced Michal though Michal took a second husband. David never divorced the ten that his son Absalom defiled. Hosea never divorced Gomer.
---mike4879 on 11/7/16


YES, (1 Corinthians 11:9), "neither was man created for woman, but woman for man."

If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. (Deuteronomy 24:1-4)
---mike4879 on 9/11/16


The truth is Matthew is clear on remarriage

11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given .
---Carla on 1/11/16


Thanks Carla, I know many people who wish to remarry, or who know of others who wish to get marry.

So they make EXCUSES of why they should divorce and remarry.

Jesus is clear!

Those who don't wish to take Jesus' Word are because of a personal involvement somehow.

The road to hell is wide, but the road to Heaven is narrow.

Living alone isn't hard because you are living with Jesus.
He wants to share that special time single people have with Him alone.
---Nicole_Lacey on 1/5/16




Nicole _Lacey your spot on Divorce is only permitted based on the points you have both read and projected its better to stand alone with the truth than with many on the wrong path to unrighteousness. Let the word be true and man a liar O.O
---Carla on 1/3/16


Nicole said, "No Orthodox Jew is reading the Gospels."
Actually, Nicole I knew one. He has since gone to his reward, but he read both Old and New Testaments (including the Gospels) every day. He remained an Orthodox Jew until his death.--Monk_Brendan on 11/29/15

Sorry, let me rephrase my statement.

NO Orthodox Jew BELIEVES in the Gospels.

He can read the NT, without believing in it.

As some Conservative Christians read the Koran just to understand the Muslims' thinking, but they don't intend to convert.

If they believe in the Koran, they are no longer a Conservative Christian
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/1/15


Nicole said, "No Orthodox Jew is reading the Gospels."

Actually, Nicole I knew one. He has since gone to his reward, but he read both Old and New Testaments (including the Gospels) every day.

He remained an Orthodox Jew until his death. He was a good friend.

Pray for me,
the unworthy monk Brendan
---Monk_Brendan on 11/29/15


\\Gentile was never a word uttered by Christ, prophet or any Apostle. It didn't exist. \\

Wrong again, as in everything you say, Trav.

The word "Gentile" is used 123 times in the KJV--93 of them in the NT.

Doesn't it bother you to say things that have no basis in reality?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 11/28/15


Of course, St. Luke was a Gentile--or did you know that?
Some Orthodox Jews have joined ...
---Cluny on 11/20/15

There is no evidence Luke was not of Israel. The scriptural marks and evidence are that he was of Israel. 1st of all by Christ own choice, Matt 10:6/15:24. Lukes knowledge of Israel, Israels laws, Israels temple and personal facts of Mary.
Gentile was never a word uttered by Christ, prophet or any Apostle. It didn't exist.
It is wise for you to be brief like you always are with no facts just conjecture of men. You gradually expose your ignorance when you venture out of the ortho/catholic ancient ruts.
Just because a "jew" says he is one does not confirm a fact. Wow.
Rev 2:9/Rev 3:9.
---Trav on 11/27/15


\\Also, a little bit of research reveals that Scripture was written by those of Jewish decent (Israelites from the lineage of Abraham) and the NT was written by Jews as well \\

Of course, St. Luke was a Gentile--or did you know that?

++Some Orthodox Jews have joined the Seventh day Adventist church. They know that the Bible is for Jews. All of it.++

Others have become Eastern Orthodox Christians, and even clergy. I personally know some.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 11/20/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Relief


According to Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:8-9,11-12 the man also commits adultery if he remarries.
Also, a little bit of research reveals that Scripture was written by those of Jewish decent (Israelites from the lineage of Abraham) and the NT was written by Jews as well .. Ones who knew the Messiah had come.
Jesus was a Jew. He was born into the line of David as foretold in the prophets and the lineage of Judah is also from the line of Abraham, the father of the Jews. See Matthew 1:1-17 and 2:1-2 and also Romans 11:1-31.
---Ruthanna on 11/19/15


Some Orthodox Jews have joined the Seventh day Adventist church. They know that the Bible is for Jews. All of it.

The general Jewish community does not accept the New Testament as truth.

But then neither do some who call themselves Christians accept the New Testament as truth.
---Samuelbb7 on 11/19/15


Mark, you want to go in circles and I won't.

If you care about Jewish feelings as you said with the movie.

No Orthodox Jew is reading the Gospels
---Nicole_Lacey on 11/18/15


I know Obama thinks he is a King, but he isn't.
---Nicole_Lacey on 11/11/15

Good people like StrongA from Canada, perhaps with a Canadian mindset, have a twisted idea what a "Public Servant" is.
Everyone always sees clearly after the damage is done. Israel documented a whole book of it.
Luk_22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the heathens/nations/ethnos exercise lordship over them, and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

I have only one King and he proven and not a poser.
---Trav on 11/18/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Settlement


Jesus is a Jew.
All Christians are followers of a Jewish Rabbi!
---Mark_Eaton on 11/18/15

Jesus was not a "jew". He was of the House and lineage of Judah. Jew was not a word in his day nor was "gentile".
Few Christians today follow Jesus including yourself. Referring only to Paul. Who was a Benjamite Rabbi. Who preached to the "lost sheep", put away, scattered, dispersed, "ethnos" of the North House of Israel. Familiar with the North House to which he belonged.
Paul refers to the prophets...why don't you?
Rom_9:25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people, her beloved, which was not beloved.
(Which is the divorced Nth House)
---Trav on 11/18/15


So, unless you are speaking about a converted Jew who is NOW CHRISTIAN, the NT isn't Jewish Scripture TO THEM.
---Nicole_Lacey on 11/18/15

I am speaking to all Believers, Jew and Gentile.

We as Gentiles are grafted into a faith that is essentially a Jewish faith. Paul says to us that the gospel is to the Jew first, then the Greek.

As a Believer, I do not see the Scriptures as Jewish and Christian. I see the Scriptures of God, the same God of the Jews and Christians. The non-Messianic Jews will really be surprised when they meet their God, Jesus!

Jesus is not a Christian, Jesus is a Jew.

All Christians are followers of a Jewish Rabbi!
---Mark_Eaton on 11/18/15


How can you say the Bible is anything but a Jewish Book of Scriptures?---Mark_Eaton on 11/18/15

Are you saying the NT isn't in the Bible?

I believe you know that the BIBLE comprise of both the OT and the NT.

So, unless you are speaking about a converted Jew who is NOW CHRISTIAN, the NT isn't Jewish Scripture TO THEM.
They deny that Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus is all in the NT stating HE is the Messiah.

So, if the NT isn't Scripture to the Jews it is Logical to understand the Bible isn't Jewish Scripture.

Mark, I know you KNOW THIS.

I think you are just messing with me.

You are too smart to keep up this debate with me.

If you know you are wrong just admit it or not, but move on.
---Nicole_Lacey on 11/18/15


What Orthodox Jew you know believes Jesus Christ is the Messiah spoken about in the OT?
---Nicole_Lacey on 11/17/15

Who said anything about Orthodox Jews?

The Jews have the Oracles of God. I believe every book in the Bible was written by a Jew (I know about Luke). My Lord Jesus is a Jew.

How can you say the Bible is anything but a Jewish Book of Scriptures?
---Mark_Eaton on 11/18/15


Send a Free Father's Day Ecard


Unless I am missing something, the Bible is ENTIRELY Jewish Scriptures. ---Mark_Eaton on 11/17/15

Really?

What Orthodox Jew you know believes Jesus Christ is the Messiah spoken about in the OT?

It is called the NT because the New books are Testaments proving Jesus is the One spoken about in the OT.

Old and New Testament makes up the Bible.

BTW, Orthodox Jews hate it when we state the OT is Jewish Scripture.
It implies their is a new testament somewhere.

No, they call it the Torah or just Jewish Scripture.

Not Old at all to them.

We shouldn't hurt their feelings, right?
---Nicole_Lacey on 11/17/15


You are confusing Jewish Scripture with the Bible.
---Nicole_Lacey on 11/16/15

Unless I am missing something, the Bible is ENTIRELY Jewish Scriptures.
---Mark_Eaton on 11/17/15


No, the first manuscripts were black ink on parchment. Look in any museum. Monks only created beautiful illuminated books centuries later.--StrongAxe on 11/16/15

You are confusing Jewish Scripture with the Bible.

Monks FIRST decorated the Bible with multiple colorful ink. As I said, even real Gold melted down for ink.

Goggle it and I am sure you will find pictures of very old Bible written by Monks.
---Nicole_Lacey on 11/16/15


Nicole_Lacey:

You wrote: WRONG! 1500 years, not 2000.

OK, people suddenly lost the ability to read black and white 500 and not 100 years ago? The principle is the same. By your own words, they could read black and white for more than a millenium.

The first Bible where VERY COLORFUL and REAL Gold was used for ink in certain sections of the Bible. It took years for Monks to complete just ONE BIBLE.

Now the 'black and white' print occurred during the START of the printing press age to SPEED up making copies of the Bible for everyone and making it cheaper.


No, the first manuscripts were black ink on parchment. Look in any museum. Monks only created beautiful illuminated books centuries later.
---StrongAxe on 11/16/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Distance Learning


that the Gospels were written in black and white for almost two millenia, and people had no problems understanding from "Jesus said XYZ"..---StrongAxe

WRONG!
1500 years, not 2000.

The first Bible where VERY COLORFUL and REAL Gold was used for ink in certain sections of the Bible.
It took years for Monks to complete just ONE BIBLE.

Now the 'black and white' print occurred during the START of the printing press age to SPEED up making copies of the Bible for everyone and making it cheaper.
Color printing was invented later. Then someone Decided to copy the Monks centuries ago to display Jesus' Words (God made Flesh) in red.

All agreed, and followed suit.

Technology is a BEAUTIFUL thing!
---Nicole_Lacey on 11/15/15


Nicole_Lacey:

So the Words are placed in red to make sure everyone understanding: these Words are from the Son of Man.

It's odd then, that the Gospels were written in black and white for almost two millenia, and people had no problems understanding from "Jesus said XYZ" that Jesus did, in fact, actually say "XYZ", but somehow people lost the ability to understand this in the past century?

But what does having a body have to do with it? Jesus's specialness was because he was God (just as God was in Genesis 1:1), NOT because he had a body (as we all have).

Okay so using your logic, if killing God's Agent is bad, killing His Son is worse.

Yes, it was.
---StrongAxe on 11/14/15


Okay StrongAxe, promise me after I answer this question you will answer one of my many questions by me.

No Jesus isn't less important than God.

In the OT, God was speaking BUT not speaking from a Body.

Jesus who is God now in Flesh is speaking in the NT.

So, that you and I can know that even though the Words are coming out of a Man's Mouth, we are NOT to forget the Words are from God Himself and not just any man speaking in the NT.

So the Words are placed in red to make sure everyone understanding: these Words are from the Son of Man.

Can you now please return the favor?
---Nicole_Lacey on 11/14/15


Nicole_Lacey:

You said: Okay so using your logic, if killing God's Agent is bad,
killing His Son is worse.


This is still getting far afield of the original question (which you still haven't answered). Why are Jesus's own words in the New Testament considered so important as to be changed into red, when God's own words in the Old Testament are not? Is God less important than Jesus?
---StrongAxe on 11/14/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Education


Exactly. Because they were God's agents, it made it much worse...
So you admit killing the Son of Man ISN'T the same as killing the Prophets...I did not say that.---StrongAxe on 11/13/15

Killing is killing.

Why according to you killing a Prophet is WORSE than killing anyone else?

You answered because they were God's Agent

Okay so using your logic, if killing God's Agent is bad,
killing His Son is worse.
---Nicole_Lacey on 11/13/15


Nicole_Lacey:

This whole long discussion started about why the words of Jesus in the NT were changed to red, while the words of God in the OT weren't. You still haven't answered how "God said 'Let there be light'" doesn't qualify.

I said: Why was killing the prophets much worse that ordinary murder?

You said: Because they are Prophets of God.

Exactly. Because they were God's agents, it made it much worse.

So you admit killing the Son of Man ISN'T the same as killing the Prophets.

I did not say that.
---StrongAxe on 11/13/15


Close. Why was killing the prophets much worse that ordinary murder?---StrongAxe on 11/11/15

Because they are Prophets of God.

So you admit killing the Son of Man ISN'T the same as killing the Prophets.

Thanks
---Nicole_Lacey on 11/12/15


I said: If an ambassador negotiates a treaty, it is EXACTLY the same as if a king does it.

You said: Not exactly, not in America. The President still has to sign it and Congress has to approve it as well.

I was speaking generically about the concept of agency, specifically as it applied in the Old Testament. US law is not relevant here.

Killing the Person giving the message isn't the same as Killing the Person who gave the Message, right?

Close. Why was killing the prophets much worse that ordinary murder?

Why isn't "God said 'let there be light'" in red then? That wasn't a prophet quoting God, but God speaking directly?
---StrongAxe on 11/11/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Home Equity Loans


If an ambassador negotiates a treaty, it is EXACTLY the same as if a king does it.---StrongAxe on 11/10/15

Not exactly, not in America. The President still has to sign it and Congress has to approve it as well.

I know Obama thinks he is a King, but he isn't.

Killing an Ambassador isn't the same thing as killing the King. Right?

Killing the Person giving the message isn't the same as Killing the Person who gave the Message, right?

Killing the Prophets was bad, but killing the Son of God was WORST.

Luke 20:9-16
Study V 13 the most.
Even Jesus knows His Words are Superior THAN the Creatures.

---Nicole_Lacey on 11/11/15


Nicole_Lacey:

You said: Because one comes from the MOUTH of God, and the other came from the Mouth of a Man who heard it from the Mouth of God and is Repeating what he heard?

Why are these different? If a prophet is acting as God's agent, when he speaks for God, it is exactly as if God is speaking himself. This is the nature of agency. If an ambassador negotiates a treaty, it is EXACTLY the same as if a king does it.

And no scripture we have is actually "from the mouth of God", because it is translations of copies of transcriptions of summaries, written by the hands of prophets and apostles.
---StrongAxe on 11/10/15


"Thus said Jesus". If their declaring Jesus's words is no different than Elijah declaring God's words, why are one in red, and the other in black?---StrongAxe on 11/10/15

Because one comes from the MOUTH of God, and the other came from the Mouth of a Man who heard it from the Mouth of God and is Repeating what he heard?

Got it?

If you were my brother and I told you "Momma said don't eat that cookie!" You might still consider eating it.

But, if Momma told you "Don't eat that cookie!" you won't consider eating it.
---Nicole_Lacey on 11/10/15


Nicole_Lacey:

You said: They all are speaking on God's Authority.

Jesus is speaking on His OWN Authority.

That is the difference!


You are still missing my point. We don't have Jesus speaking to us. All we have is Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John effectively saying "Thus said Jesus". If their declaring Jesus's words is no different than Elijah declaring God's words, why are one in red, and the other in black?
---StrongAxe on 11/10/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Interest Rates


Paul's, Peter's, John's, James' and the others spoke on Jesus' Authority.
And Moses and Elijah spoke on God's authority. So where is the difference?--StrongAxe on 11/9/15

What's the difference from Moses, Elijah, Paul, John, Peter, and James?

None.

They all are speaking on God's Authority.

Jesus is speaking on His OWN Authority.

That is the difference!
---Nicole_Lacey on 11/9/15


Nicole_Lacey:

I wrote: Yes, as the prophets said "This saith the LORD...", but nobody put THOSE words in red, did they?

You wrote: It wasn't God SPEAKING, it was the Prophets speaking.

To nitpick, the Gospels aren't Jesus speaking (which would have been in Aramaic), but rather, the Apostles quoting (and re-translating into Greek) what they claim Jesus said.

So the Apostles claiming "Jesus said..." is no different from the Prophets claiming "God said...".

Paul's, Peter's, John's, James' and the others spoke on Jesus' Authority.

And Moses and Elijah spoke on God's authority. So where is the difference?
---StrongAxe on 11/9/15


Yes, as the prophets said "This saith the LORD...", but nobody put THOSE words in red, did they? ---StrongAxe on 11/8/15


REALLY?

It wasn't God SPEAKING, it was the Prophets speaking.

When God was speaking in the OT HE wasn't Man walking on earth.

On Earth, when Jesus is Walking and TALKING, His Words were without meaning!

His own Authority.

Paul's, Peter's, John's, James' and the others spoke on Jesus' Authority.

Jesus' Words Had Authority.

That's why the People were amazed because He spoke as One with Authority!

Remember reading those words in the Bible?
---Nicole_Lacey on 11/8/15


Cluny:

Nicole_Lacey wrote: Jesus said you must be Baptized to be Saved.

I wrote: The thief on the cross wasn't.

You wrote: This was before Jesus gave the commandment to be baptized.

Jesus said that those who believe and are baptized are saved, and those who don't believe are damned. But he didn't say what happens to those who believe but were not baptized.
---StrongAxe on 11/8/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Marketing


\\Jesus said you must be Baptized to be Saved.

The thief on the cross wasn't.\\

This was before Jesus gave the commandment to be baptized.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 11/8/15


Nicole_Lacey:

You said The later Publishers are the Translators.

No. The King James translators translated the various scriptures into English before 1611. The red letter versions came MUCH later, and used the same words as before. The red letters were added by PUBLISHERS, not TRANSLATORS.

I KNOW you KNOW God's Words are not on the same level as His creatures.

Yes, but scripture uses the same grammar for both.

when someone calls for the President and REPEATS his words they say: "I am calling on behalf of the President. He said....."

Yes, as the prophets said "This saith the LORD...", but nobody put THOSE words in red, did they?
---StrongAxe on 11/8/15


No translators treated Jesus's words differently than any others. It's only later publishers that changing his words to red. But offly, they didn't do the same to OT "thus saith the LORD:"---StrongAxe

Read your post again.

The later Publishers are the Translators.

StrongAxe, I KNOW you KNOW God's Words are not on the same level as His creatures.

We even distinguish creatures words.

When the President calls someone they tell you it is the President of the Unite States.

But, when someone calls for the President and REPEATS his words they say: "I am calling on behalf of the President. He said....."

There is a difference. Please don't try to argue that there isn't a difference.
---Nicole_Lacey on 11/6/15


You wrote: Even the Translators of the Bible realized Jesus being God means His Words needed to be separated from the rest.

No translators treated Jesus's words differently than any others. It's only later publishers that changing his words to red. But offly, they didn't do the same to OT "thus saith the LORD: ..."

you try to use Paul's, James' or Peter's words to go against Jesus very own Words. Why?

Paul's letters are the word of God or they aren't. If they aren't, call him a heretic and burn them all. But if they are, but seem to disagree with Jesus, one must study why. You can't have it both ways.

Jesus said you must be Baptized to be Saved.

The thief on the cross wasn't.
---StrongAxe on 11/6/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Life Insurance


Do you mind my asking why you have come to the conclusion that only the words in red are God's Word to us? ---Ruthanna

Literally, they are God's Words. God didn't come on earth named Paul.

Are you saying Jesus Words are on the same LEVEL as Paul's words?

Even the Translators of the Bible realized Jesus being God means His Words needed to be separated from the rest.

It seems to me when you all don't agree with Jesus, you try to use Paul's, James' or Peter's words to go against Jesus very own Words. Why?

If you are not sure who to follow, follow Jesus because HE is God.

Example: Jesus said you must be Baptized to be Saved.

Some run to Romans claiming 'the sinner's prayer' and Baptism isn't needed.
---Nicole_Lacey on 11/3/15


Hi, Nicole.

According to Scripture, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God..." 2 Timothy 3:16-17


The very fact that He has preserved His Word for thousands of years through all the attacks and attempts of the enemy to destroy it is proof that it is God's work and not man's.


God chooses to work through human instruments who are wholly submitted and surrendered to Him as is obvious throughout all of Scripture.


What an amazing God who would do such a thing as using weak, unworthy vessels when He could bypass us altogether if He wished!


Do you mind my asking why you have come to the conclusion that only the words in red are God's Word to us?
---Ruthanna on 11/2/15


Yes to both of your questions, Trey.

Why do you think the WORDS of Christ are in RED?

(BTW red color is used to grab your attention as when the Teacher marked your assignment wrong)

If those who reprinted the KJ Bible over and over think as you, why did they WASTE their time and ink making sure everyone KNEW which words were Jesus and everyone else?

No different ink for the Narrator, Paul, King David, Moses, Joseph (Foster Father of Jesus never spoke), or esp the Prophets.

Now the Prophet had some important things to say, need not be confused with other human beings.

Why not?

Because they were not GOD, but just CREATURES!

You, Paul and I are not God.

Jesus is God.
---Nicole_Lacey on 10/12/15


Nicole Lacey,
Let me give you 2 verses:
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

All scripture means all scripture whether spoken by Christ or written by Paul.

2Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Do you believe that Paul did not write under inspiration of the Holy Ghost?

Do you consider Paul's writing to NOT be scripture?
---trey on 10/11/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Make Money


Nichole Lacey, where exactly did Jesus say no divorce? I think you misquoted the previous verses you posted. You quoted them as saying "divorce", when accurate texts actually say "put away", not "divorce". ---Jed on 10/10/15

Nope,
'put away and divorce is the same thing'

I'll repost what I said:

Matthew 19:9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

As you can see Jesus is speaking about MEN remarrying after divorce is committing an adultery.
Jesus doesn't allow DIVORCE. Which made His Disciples suggest it is better NOT to marry ---Nicole_Lacey on 10/8/15
---Nicole_Lacey on 10/11/15


Nichole Lacey, where exactly did Jesus say no divorce? I think you misquoted the previous verses you posted. You quoted them as saying "divorce", when accurate texts actually say "put away", not "divorce".
---Jed on 10/10/15


It doesn't matter if Christ said it or Paul wrote it. The author is one and the same. 2nd Timothy 3:16. ---trey on 10/8/15

NOOOOOOOO! That is your biggest problem.

Note the Author.
One is God and the other not.

One is the Creator and the other a Creature.

If Jesus said something, but it seems Paul is saying something different, FOLLOW JESUS' WORDS.

Note I said seems, because Paul ALWAYS repeats Jesus commands and Words.

Protestants love to say what you said because you all want to follow Paul and not Jesus.

Jesus SAID no Divorce.
End of story.

I don't care what Paul says because I don't NEED a 2ND OPINION.
---Nicole_Lacey on 10/9/15


I am not God I question the motives of those who permit people to remarry without consulting the scriptures and quoting as it is written.
---Carla on 10/9/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Rehab Treatments


I will add my story, which is different but similar.

I was married in 1999, and in 2001 my wife was depressed, and moved to divorce me, as far as I know only due to depression.

After trying to stop this, in the end I had to allow it, due to US laws. Later, about six years later, I did remarry.

Now I am not sure if what I did was right.

What would you say?
---Peter on 10/9/15


Nicole and Carla,

If you are addressing me, please read my post a little slower. Did you see where I quoted Matthew 5:32.

By the way Carla, Matthew 5:32 is Christ speaking.

Nicole and Carla, please understand that all scripture is given by inspiration of God. It doesn't matter if Christ said it or Paul wrote it. The author is one and the same. 2nd Timothy 3:16.
---trey on 10/8/15


Nicole_Lacy I was beginning to think I am the only person to whom it was given couldn't have said it better no Usurping just pure unadulterated TRUTHS. So I can sit down I am not the only one that can read plain black and white ENGLISH praise The Most High God for agreement Xxx
---Carla on 10/8/15


So many people here misquoting scripture saying "divorce" where the Bible actually says "put away". They are not the same. Putting away is abandonment or neglect without divorce. Try rereading those scriptures in proper context and it makes complete logical sense. Of course if a husband abandons his wife without giving her a divorce and marries another he is committing adultery.
---Jed on 10/8/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks


Matthew 19:9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

I think you are confusing Jesus with Paul.

As you can see Jesus is speaking about MEN remarrying after divorce is committing an adultery.

Please give Chapter and verse stating what you wrote.

Jesus doesn't allow DIVORCE. Which made His Disciples suggest it is better NOT to marry.

Jesus DIDN'T correct them, but told them
V11-12 "For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by othersand there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. THE ONE WHO CAN ACCEPT THIS SHOULD ACCEPT IT.
---Nicole_Lacey on 10/8/15


Rita, and Clara, let us examine what the scriptures say:
Mt 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. (KJV)
-Here is an un-scriptural divorce. Neither had committed adultery so if the man puts away his wife so if she remarries she is committing adultery.
---trey on 10/7/15


The woman was made for the husband not the husband for the wife, the masculine is first not the feminine, which is a biblical order of things and therefore we are to be faithful towards the husband man of god in his entirety and respect sexual intercourse as the ruling factor to which means one husband and one wife till death. The permission is not to belittle the wife it is there for protection as the Most High is the head of Christ and Christ the head of the husband, the wife comes under Christ, when husband is absent. The husband is under Christ.
---Carla on 10/7/15


Do you have any thoughts on WHY God allows a man to remarry when he divorces his wife who committed adultery ...
---Rita_H on 5/12/15

GOD gives example in his marriage to Israel.

Jer_3:1 They say, If a man put away his wife, she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers, yet return again to me, saith the LORD.

Isa_48:11...my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.

Law: 1Co_7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth,...

The Return: Heb 8:8
Christ dies cleaning Israels adulteries. No broke laws and a New Marriage Covenant.
---Trav on 5/21/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes


Rita, Christ freed us from the law, but Paul made a whole bunch of new ones.
A Pharisee trait !
---1st_cliff on 5/21/15


On 5.13.15 I said that I would quote another verse if I could find it. I think that these two are what I had in mind at the time.

"1 Corinthians 7:10 I command the married--not I, but the Lord--a wife is not to leave her husband.

7:11 But if she does leave, she must remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband--and a husband is not to leave his wife.
---Rita_H on 5/15/15


Sorry. The Bible does not say a women cannot remarry. Where did that come from?

Both the man and women who divorce if neither one have committed adultery. Neither one can remarry.

This is not a law from the Old Testament. Jesus was talking about a law from the OT but changed the way it was understood. Some of the Jews thought a man could divorce a woman for any reason he felt like. But Jesus was saying that is wrong. Read the context of the passages.

As for the law being done away with. Paul says that is a lie.

Romans 3:31
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

So explain this verse.

On Christ the solid Rock I stand.
---Samuelbb7 on 5/15/15


Bill "So, why are people so sure that sexual sinning is where He draws the line?" I have absolutely no idea but it always seems to be that way, doesn't it?

However, my question was not about the seriousness of this particular sin (as compared with others) but was about why the woman who has not committed 'it' seems to always come off as the 'loser' (where reputation is concerned).
---Rita_H on 5/14/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Depression


Luke 16:18 - Whosoever puttheth away His wife and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her as put away from her husband committeth adultery,

Mark 10:11 - And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife , and marry another, committeth adultery against her,

Mark 10:9 - What therefore God has Join together, let no man put asunder
---RichardC on 5/13/15


We are not under law, we are under grace !
---1st_cliff on 5/13/15

You got it Cliff, its all or nothing. Either I am under law or under grace but not both at the same time.

Rom 7:4 "Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another - to Him who was raised from the dead..."
---Mark_Eaton on 5/13/15


Rita, The law that Jesus was citing was part of the 613 Jewish laws , the "law" had not yet been nailed to the cross !
We are not under law, we are under grace !
---1st_cliff on 5/13/15


The question "might" be WHY someone told you that, since it is not in the Bible, that I know of.

People's motives can effect how they . . . we . . . interpret the Bible.

Jesus had more of a problem with those hypocrites, than He had with an adulteress. So, why are people so sure that sexual sinning is where He draws the line?

If we have an affair with Satan by being unforgiving, does our Groom Jesus dump us for committing adultery with Satan?
---Bill on 5/12/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study


Putting together these 2 verses (Matthew 5:32 and Mark 10:12) we can see that if he divorces her for ANY reason (other than HER adultery) and she remarries she is considered an adulteress anyway. Likewise if she divorces him (for any reason - even HIS adultery it seems) she is still the adulteress if she remarries.

In other words it would appear that a woman who remarries, regardless of her husband's behaviour, is an adulteress BUT he can 'put her away' and remarry with no blemish to his character.

Am I mis-reading this? I have another verse in mind also but cannot find it at the moment. I'll add it later if I can find it.
---Rita_H on 5/13/15


Specifically, where in Scripture does it say a woman who divorces her adulterous husband can't remarry Rita?
---Leon on 5/12/15


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.