Is it okay to date another Christian whose been divorced?

[1stcenturylady]

So the Holy Spirit left me? I find that hard to accept? I received the Spirit at 21 y/o.

If a sin is forgiven surly that means your sin is wiped away with the blood of Jesus. So can you can try again if you're absolved from your previous marriage (forgiven)? A relationship with the opposite sex is not evil, in the beginning.

E.g. IF I get drunk should I never touch alcohol again, not even for the stomach?

The marriage was drunk.

I know this was a few pages ago, but I'm trying to catch up...

You had a relationship after you said you received the Holy Spirit at age 21. Curious, did you have sex outside of marriage in that relationship, or was that relationship actually a marriage, with no fornication beforehand?

 

[1stcenturylady]

Indeed, salvation is only within the Church, just as in the Old Covenant, salvation belonged to the Jews. God establishes His Kingdom on earth and invites all who wish salvation to freely enter within. Please find me a scripture which states that one can be normally saved by rejecting the Body of Christ (the Church) and doing one's own thing. I will find you scripture which says that if one ignores and despises the Church, he is to be considered as a heathen and a publican. (Matthew 18: 17). Furthermore, the Church is called "the pillar and ground of truth." (1 Tim. 3: 15). Why would anyone think to find truth outside the Church? All truth that the Protestants have they borrowed from the Church, such as the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the Sacraments, etc.

Mary is not an idol. Find a dictionary and look up the word "idol" please. An idol is a creature or thing that is called "God." We do not call Mary "God." There is one God, existing in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

And if you will find me anything in the Catholic Catechism that says that the Holy Father is Christ, I will gladly give you $100. That has never been taught as official dogma of the Church. He is Christ's representative on earth, the head of the Church who holds the keys to the Kingdom (Matthew 16: 18 - 19)

Hi. Could you tell me if the Roman Catholic Church is THE Church, or the Greek Orthodox Church is THE Church, or the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is THE Church? What about the 30,000 plus denominations? Are any of them THE Church, or do you believe they ALL are THE Church?

 

[1stcenturylady]

As I said not here to debate.

Eucharist and Priests. There is no perpetual sacrifice of Christ.

Queen of heaven = Semiramis

Christmas = Nimrod Bday

Easter = Semiramis ishtar, egg laying rabbit

Its a deception and you would be wise to get out of satan's church masquerading as an angel of light.

Look at your avatar, how deceived to you want to be (Ishtar egg laying rabbit = easter egg)? 10min of youtube would cure this.

Just curious as I am reading all I missed. Do you celebrate Christmas and Easter?

 

[1stcenturylady]

If you are not here to debate, then don't make statements that are the equivalent of throwing raw meat in front of a lion.

I recognize the stuff you are posting. It's the same old tired Chick tract stuff I used to believe when I was in Fundamentalism. Not a lick of truth to it, and the man who wrote that book (TWO BABYLONS by Alexander Hislop) has been exposed as an utter fraud. His work was so bad that his publisher refused to publish a second edition, citing shoddy and falsified historical narrative. Yet this garbage keeps going around and going around. I guess it will be around until Christ returns.

It was shocking to me to actually put down my Chick tracts and the other polemics written by anti-Catholics and do some serious historical study. I found out that my Presbyterian Calvinist ideas didn't exist in the first century - but the practices of the Church which came to be called "katholicos" (universal) did. I was shocked to find that my heroes, men such as Lorraine Boettner, Alexander Hislop, Jack Chick, and others, played rather fast and loose with historical facts in their desire to trash the Catholic faith. And I was most shocked of all to find that only the Catholic faith fulfilled the operating principles of the Covenant of God as shown in the Bible. It was that study of covenant which led me out of Protestantism and into the Church.

I hope you will consider a more detailed study of the men and teachings you believe, with special emphasis on what the Apostles taught in the first century. You will find they were distinctly Catholic.

I checked out the publishing dates on The Two Babylons. It was published in 1916, 1943, 1959, and maybe more since then as my copy is old, at least from 1959.

I'm not a Catholicism hater. But I do take issue with some of its practices. Mostly those originating in paganism. Why has that mixture never been cleaned out of the Catholic and Orthodox churches, and even some Reformation churches are a hold-over to paganism. Never understood why. Maybe you can tell me.

 

[1stcenturylady]

The Bible has no talk of annulment, the catholic church is at fault in that one.

1 Cor 7:15 is a verse that is often propagated. But honestly it says, in the original greek, preserving the tense, "were not enslaved". This most probably talks about the marriage being a bond but not an enslavement. Meaning that if the unbelieving partner opposes your fulfilment of your marriage vow, then you can live alone in peace. (it was your partner who went for divorce and not you, so you can rest in peace until he maybe returns).

If really Paul gave permission to remarriage here, it would be amazing that he did so without any elaboration. Just throwing out a permission to remarriage shortly after warning that adulterers will not inherit eternal life, and not qualifying that statement, would make no sense. There would have to be a lengthy explanation why he suddenly gives approval of remarriage. So this passage does not address the breaking of the marriage bond.

Thank you for the Greek interpretation. I like that.

 

[1stcenturylady]

While I agree on your view on the Law, that it still should be regarded, take note that this enlargement of the rule of Exodus 21:7-11 is your own rationalization and not something that the text itself presents.

Yes, I'll have to agree with you (and Peter)

 

[PollyJetix]

Polly, I would like to agree with you on 1 Cor. 7, because we are so much alike, but I just don't know if Paul would agree that his verse can be forced to say that a Christian who has adultery is the same as a pagan. But, you could be right. John might agree with you, as he said those who commit (willful) sin, has as their father, the devil. Christians do not commit willful sin, because they are dead to sin, thus any sins are unintentional. And as James would say, their desires may not have been become sin.

Because adultery was punishable by death in the OT, I think that is more in keeping with why the innocent party is free just as a if their spouse is dead; but ONLY if the adulterer leaves as in your verse. So it could be a combination of both of our views.

But, Paul's verse could also mean something far less than the "unbeliever" committing adultery. Say a married couple is in Wicca or Scientology, and one becomes a Christian. If the other decides to leave, the Christian is free, but they must not instigate the divorce. Stay put, as you and I did in our marriages, until God causes the mentally ill abuser, or the adulterer to leave. I for one learned obedience to God through suffering. The suffering was so bad, it has caused me to be super vigilant to not sin willfully - ever.

The basis of my belief that 1 Corinthians 7 allows for remarriage is not only the fact that it says clearly what it does... but more than that, Matthew 5:17-18 says what it does.

Jesus was a Law-abiding Jew. He lived among Law-abiding Jews. When he preached, he was preaching to Law-abiding Jews.
Yes, Jesus fulfilled the law. But what does that mean? It simply means that He did it all. He BECAME all that God foreshadowed in all the types and figures of the Old Testament Law.

But Jesus' fulfilling the Law in no way took away or changed God's morality.
What was once holy, will forever be holy.
What was once an abomination to God, will forever be an abomination to Him.
And Paul says clearly in Romans 7:12 that the Law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Paul says in Romans 8:4 that it's the old, once-established moral law of God, that is fulfilled in us, who walk after the Spirit.

And John backs this up, by defining sin, under the New Covenant, like this:
"sin is the transgression of the LAW." 1 John 3:4
THAT'S the New Testament definition of SIN.

Jesus fulfilling the law does not do away with God's eternal moral code of good behavior.
Jesus never came to give us a new rule-book.
He came to remove the condemnation from those of us who believe in Him.
The condemnation of the Law.

But the moral code still stands. It was given for sinners. For the lawless, for the disobedient, etc. And it still applies to them!

Therefore, the moral code once given by God in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is still holy, just, and good, according to Paul.

All that Jesus and the Apostles said about the Law, did not do away with or change the moral code of God's holy Law. Because it was perfect. Psalm 19:7

The idea that Jesus did away with all those old rules, and gave us a new set, says the Old Testament Law was imperfect, as a standard of right and wrong.
But that is not what the Bible says, in either Testament!

 

[1stcenturylady]

Firstly, the verse in question says this:

My husband left me with 2 children to raise, about 15 years ago. He had been abusive.
I loved him deeply, and was willing to die at my post. It took 14 years to realize I didn't have to take him back if he wanted to come back. Those 14 years were not peaceful years.
There is no worse bondage to put someone in, than to tell a woman she has to keep her heart soft and open toward an abuser and an abandoner. She is always looking over her shoulder, wondering if her heart will be broken all over again. If her children will find their worlds torn apart again. If she will be betrayed again.
As long as that marriage is said to be alive, that woman will remain in bondage. The worst sort there can be. A slave on the run, being chased, as it were, by dogs.
Don't tell me it is not so.
I have LIVED this torment. You have not.

Furthermore, this one verse cannot be understood out of context.
Paul addressed 4 separate categories of people in this chapter.
Those who are married to unbelievers ('the rest') are addressed very differently than those married to believers (them that are married.)
What he said to each category did not apply to the other categories.

And virgins were not included in the category that included the "unmarried".
Paul had a commandment from God to the "unmarried" but not to virgins.
Also, Paul clearly defines "unmarried" (agamos) as those separated from former spouses. (v.11)

Now, secondly, as for permission to remarry...

Verse divisions and punctuation are not inspired. These are later additions of man, and are subject to being wrongly applied.
Read this excerpt with that fact in mind:


Furthermore, Paul was highly educated, and knew how to give a cogent presentation of thought. he did not change subjects in the middle of I Corinthians 7, and then change back to his original subject. That section in the middle that deals with "if thou mayest be made free, use it rather" is a discussion about servitude in marriage to unbelievers. Paul was talking about legal permission to find freedom from a marriage.

"...a slave on the run, being chased, as it were, by dogs."

I'm not clear - who were the dog/dogs? Your husband or the Mennonite Church people?

 

[PollyJetix]

"...a slave on the run, being chased, as it were, by dogs."

I'm not clear - who were the dog/dogs? Your husband or the Mennonite Church people?

My ex husband. An emotional manipulator par excellence.

 

[1stcenturylady]

The basis of my belief that 1 Corinthians 7 allows for remarriage is not only the fact that it says clearly what it does... but more than that, Matthew 5:17-18 says what it does.

Jesus was a Law-abiding Jew. He lived among Law-abiding Jews. When he preached, he was preaching to Law-abiding Jews.
Yes, Jesus fulfilled the law. But what does that mean? It simply means that He did it all. He BECAME all that God foreshadowed in all the types and figures of the Old Testament Law.

But Jesus' fulfilling the Law in no way took away or changed God's morality.
What was once holy, will forever be holy.
What was once an abomination to God, will forever be an abomination to Him.
And Paul says clearly in Romans 7:12 that the Law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Paul says in Romans 8:4 that it's the old, once-established moral law of God, that is fulfilled in us, who walk after the Spirit.

And John backs this up, by defining sin, under the New Covenant, like this:
"sin is the transgression of the LAW." 1 John 3:4
THAT'S the New Testament definition of SIN.

Jesus fulfilling the law does not do away with God's eternal moral code of good behavior.
Jesus never came to give us a new rule-book.
He came to remove the condemnation from those of us who believe in Him.
The condemnation of the Law.

But the moral code still stands. It was given for sinners. For the lawless, for the disobedient, etc. And it still applies to them!

Therefore, the moral code once given by God in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is still holy, just, and good, according to Paul.

All that Jesus and the Apostles said about the Law, did not do away with or change the moral code of God's holy Law. Because it was perfect. Psalm 19:7

The idea that Jesus did away with all those old rules, and gave us a new set, says the Old Testament Law was imperfect, as a standard of right and wrong.
But that is not what the Bible says, in either Testament!

So you keep the 7th day Sabbath? That's okay if you do, just wondering.

 

[1stcenturylady]

My ex husband. An emotional manipulator par excellence.

He wanted you back AFTER he left you? What a nut. Can't he make up his mind. Oh sorry, his mind wasn't working too well was it? LOL

 

[1stcenturylady]

No you didnt.... you tried to paint Messiah as changing the Torah which is even possible. Yeshua himself did not speak on his on initiative but ONLY that which the Father had him speak.

The Lord DOES NOT CHANGE... that is scripture

I really would like to read what you guys are referring to, but Kenny didn't give us your whole quote to back-track (I wish he would stop doing that!). Could you give me the # of the post he was responding to?

 

[PollyJetix]

So you keep the 7th day Sabbath? That's okay if you do, just wondering.

Jesus became the Sabbath Rest of Christians. Hebrews 4:3.
Same as He became our Passover Lamb.

And about my ex wanting me back... no. He just wanted to harass me. He's mentally ill. Schizophrenic-paranoid. Afraid of me, hiding from me, showing up any old time he wished, to try to force me to sign papers he wrote up himself... coming around when he knew I was gone, to take more stuff from the house... Trying to mess with the kids' minds, etc.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I am now divorced, and if your interpretation is correct, I have to go back to her.
The pastor did not scream at me that I had to marry her. The pastor screamed at me because I had tried to open up about some things that I felt were wrong in the church. Only 3 days later came the pastor then and suggested that I married this divorced woman. And I considered for myself that if I went into the engagement, I would have time to prepare myself to leave the church, and I did not think too high of the divorced woman in the leadership since she had also been present at the harassment event, as a leader, but without stopping the harassment. She had been my "mentor", but I felt betrayed by her. So I thought, well, she is not completely human anyway when she can betray me like that. So what is the problem if I use the situation to protect myself? It was a very wicked act from me, and it ended up all bad. He who digs a pit for others, will fall into it himself.

Wow! That was horrendous. They sure do things differently in Denmark!

 

[1stcenturylady]

Jesus became the Sabbath Rest of Christians. Hebrews 4:3.
Same as He became our Passover Lamb.

And about my ex wanting me back... no. He just wanted to harass me. He's mentally ill. Schizophrenic-paranoid. Afraid of me, hiding from me, showing up any old time he wished, to try to force me to sign papers he wrote up himself... coming around when he knew I was gone, to take more stuff from the house... Trying to mess with the kids' minds, etc.

I thought you said nothing changed from the old law. But you are right, the law did change the Sabbath rest to rest in Jesus. In actuality, nothing changed in the law UNTIL ALL BE FULFILLED. Jesus fulfilled not only the prophets, but the law and how we keep the eternal law of loving God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself. Loving God is loving His Son, Jesus

 

[1stcenturylady]

The basis of my belief that 1 Corinthians 7 allows for remarriage is not only the fact that it says clearly what it does... but more than that, Matthew 5:17-18 says what it does.

Jesus was a Law-abiding Jew. He lived among Law-abiding Jews. When he preached, he was preaching to Law-abiding Jews.
Yes, Jesus fulfilled the law. But what does that mean? It simply means that He did it all. He BECAME all that God foreshadowed in all the types and figures of the Old Testament Law.

But Jesus' fulfilling the Law in no way took away or changed God's morality.
What was once holy, will forever be holy.
What was once an abomination to God, will forever be an abomination to Him.
And Paul says clearly in Romans 7:12 that the Law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Paul says in Romans 8:4 that it's the old, once-established moral law of God, that is fulfilled in us, who walk after the Spirit.

And John backs this up, by defining sin, under the New Covenant, like this:
"sin is the transgression of the LAW." 1 John 3:4
THAT'S the New Testament definition of SIN.

Jesus fulfilling the law does not do away with God's eternal moral code of good behavior.
Jesus never came to give us a new rule-book.
He came to remove the condemnation from those of us who believe in Him.
The condemnation of the Law.

But the moral code still stands. It was given for sinners. For the lawless, for the disobedient, etc. And it still applies to them!

Therefore, the moral code once given by God in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is still holy, just, and good, according to Paul.

All that Jesus and the Apostles said about the Law, did not do away with or change the moral code of God's holy Law. Because it was perfect. Psalm 19:7

The idea that Jesus did away with all those old rules, and gave us a new set, says the Old Testament Law was imperfect, as a standard of right and wrong.
But that is not what the Bible says, in either Testament!

Can you give me any example in the Bible, a story maybe, or a verse that speaks it is okay for remarriage after divorce. Every marriage I've found after divorce is described as adultery

 

[1stcenturylady]

Can you give me any example in the Bible, a story maybe, or a verse that speaks it is okay for remarriage after divorce.

,

 

[PollyJetix]

,

The woman at the well had 5 husbands, and then one more that she wasn't married to... and when Jesus told her so, she said, "He told me all that ever I did!"
Evidently, getting one husband after another was all she ever did!

 

[PollyJetix]

I thought you said nothing changed from the old law. But you are right, the law did change the Sabbath rest to rest in Jesus. In actuality, nothing changed in the law UNTIL ALL BE FULFILLED. Jesus fulfilled not only the prophets, but the law and how we keep the eternal law of loving God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself. Loving God is loving His Son, Jesus

Then can you tell me how the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us who walk after the Spirit, if we are living by different rules of moral behavior?

 

[1stcenturylady]

Then can you tell me how the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us who walk after the Spirit, if we are living by different rules of moral behavior?

Sure. If you love your neighbor, are you going to steal from him, kill him, commit adultery with their spouse, covet everything, dishonor your parents? It would never occur to you to do so, why do we need a law to tell us NOT to do something you are not even thinking of?