Is it okay to date another Christian whose been divorced?

[Kenny'sID]

Do you know Peter addressed the issue of abusive husbands, and divorce didn't enter into it as an answer. The heart of Paul would say to "separate."

That's what I gather as well....sad as it seems.

 

[I'm_Sorry]

So, how old were you when you said you received the Spirit. I thought you said it was when your friend was sick.

I received the Holy Spirit in 2005, 21 y/o
I received a top up (Dont know correct word (almost complete humbling and prep for love)) with my second wife 2015. 31 y/o

 

[98cwitr]

Because her first husband still lived. This is in scripture if she had done some sexual sin. Her husband put her away. They had different methods of purifying Israel. Either they stoned them to death, or put them out of the camp with a writ of divorcement. (Divorce for any reason came much latter from the teachings of Rabbis, the Talmid)

Thats a pretty far stretch. it simply says "finds something indecent." One could easily say that it could be she wasn't a virgin prior to marriage.

 

[98cwitr]

I received the Holy Spirit in 2005, 21 y/o
I received a top up (Dont know correct word (almost complete humbling and prep for love)) with my second wife 2015. 31 y/o

Bless you, sir. I wish you well.

 

[I'm_Sorry]

Bless you, sir. I wish you well.

God Bless you too brother!

 

[Light of the East]

Ok brother, I'm sorry but there is no way we can meet on gospel grounds.

You're a catholic and salvation is within the Church and mary is an idol and the pope is a false christ.

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)

 

[1stcenturylady]

Thats a pretty far stretch. it simply says "finds something indecent." One could easily say that it could be she wasn't a virgin prior to marriage.

Right. But how did she get that way?

 

[PollyJetix]

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)

If you believe that salvation is only in YOUR church, then why are you in here talking to us as if we are Christians?

 

[I'm_Sorry]

Confusion

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.

 

[Light of the East]

If you believe that salvation is only in YOUR (uh uh.....THE CHURCH) church, then why are you in here talking to us as if we are Christians?

Because you are not culpable for the deception which has been given you by 500 years of Protestantism. As Metropolitan Kalistos Ware said "Salvation is in the Church, but we do not know exactly where the boundaries of the Church are."

It may well be that those who are sincere in heart, having only been taught what they were raised with or proselytized to, are in the Church in heart even now.

Here is his full article on the Church and those who are outside of it.

http://constans_wright.tripod.com/romans.html

QUOTE: " There is only one Church, but there are many different ways of being related to this one Church, and many different ways of being separated from it. Some non-Orthodox are very close indeed to Orthodoxy, others less so; some are friendly to the Orthodox Church, others indifferent or hostile. By God’s grace the Orthodox Church possesses the fullness of truth (so its members are bound to believe), but there are other Christian communions which possess to a greater or lesser degree a genuine measure of Orthodoxy. All these facts must be taken into account: one cannot simply say that all non-Orthodox are outside the Church, and leave it at that; one cannot treat other Christians as if they stood on the same level as unbelievers.

Such is the view of the more moderate party. But there also exists in the Orthodox Church a more rigorous group, who hold that since Orthodoxy is the Church, anyone who is not Orthodox cannot be a member of the Church. Thus [St.] Metropolitan Antony [Khrapovitsky]*, head of the Russian Church in Exile and one of the most distinguished of modern Russian theologians, wrote in his Catechism:

Question: Is it possible to admit that a split within the Church or among the Churches could ever take place?

Answer: Never. Heretics and schismatics have from time to time fallen away from the one indivisible Church, and, by so doing, they ceased to be members of the Church, but the Church itself can never lose its unity according to Christ’s promise’ (Italics not in the original)."

Of course (so this stricter group add) divine grace is certainly active among many non-Orthodox, and if they are sincere in their love of God, then we may be sure that God will have mercy upon them; but they cannot, in their present state, be termed members of the Church. Workers for Christian unity who do not often encounter this rigorist school should not forget that such opinions are held by many Orthodox of great learning and holiness."

Nonetheless, I will continue to insist upon the truth that there is but one Church which Christ established upon the Apostles and that heresy is harmful to people. And this is a place of free discussion wherein one can be taught. It was such a place like this in which I was taught the error of my beliefs and came into the Church in 2001 from the heresies of Protestantism.

 

[I'm_Sorry]

Not on topic

Why defile this thread with with your off topic non sense.

Can we get back on topic.

Seriously put me to the guillotine if the beast rises to power again.

 

[PollyJetix]

That's what I gather as well....sad as it seems.

Actually, Paul didn't have to address the subject.
God had already given His word on that... way back at the very beginning of the Law.

At Sinai, before He ever gave instructions on how to build the Tabernacle or how to anoint priests, he gave a few social-order laws of conduct. And that's how important it was to Him, to make a way for abused and neglected women, to find freedom. It was among the very first laws given to Israel.

Exodus 21:7-11 speaks of a slave wife, and not only just any slave wife. He speaks of the lowest of all slave wives--the first one, who has been displaced by a second wife.

This first slave wife could not be put away by letting her go free in the seventh year, like other slaves. The only way that marriage could be nullified, was if SHE accused him of neglecting her... whether it be in type of food, clothing, or "duty of marriage".

Among the Jews, Rabbis tell us that if a law was given to a specific level of society, that law applied to that level, and to all levels ABOVE it.

For instance, if a law was made for kings, then that law only applied to kings. Not to anyone else.

But if a law was given to a free man, the law applied to all free men, to princes, and even to kings.

And if a law was given to slaves, the law applied to everyone. Everyone.

This particular law was addressed to the lowest of all slaves. The first slave wife, who was replaced by a younger wife.

Rabbis tell us that the way this law was enforced, was that the neglected, abused wife was to bring accusation formally against her husband-owner, to the judges who sat before the gates of her city. Those elders of the city were to bring the husband physically to the place of judgment, and FORCE him to give her "a writing of divorcement" like that prescribed in Deuteronomy 24:1-2.

And the Jews have no concept of divorce papers, without the right to remarry.

After all, that's why God prescribed such papers be given in the first place, in Deut. 24.
So that she could go and be the wife of another man.

Now. You may say that all that was Old Testament.
But the early Jewish church kept the law carefully. They had no concept of the moral code of the Old Testament no longer being in effect. They figured that what God once said was right would forever remain right. And what He said once was wrong, will forever remain wrong.

Yes, God has removed the CURSE of the law from us, who are now in Christ.
But the Blessings of the Law remain.

The Law itself remains, as the moral definition of right and wrong.
Paul said so, repeatedly.
John said so.
And Jesus said so.

Therefore, Paul didn't have to go into the matter of whether or not abused wives could separate or divorce. God had already said they could.

 

[Light of the East]

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.

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'm_Sorry]

Back on topic

 

[PollyJetix]

Light of the East... I have a very dear friend and coworker who is Greek Orthodox. I respect his genuine love of God and faith in Jesus Christ. But he also respects mine. He does not do what you do on this forum.

if you want to talk about the merits of the Greek Orthodox church, please feel free to start your own thread on that.

This thread is not about that subject.

 

[Light of the East]

Light of the East... I have a very dear friend and coworker who is Greek Orthodox. I respect his genuine love of God and faith in Jesus Christ. But he also respects mine. He does not do what you do on this forum.

if you want to talk about the merits of the Greek Orthodox church, please feel free to start your own thread on that.

This thread is not about that subject.

Let's go back to where the cookies hit the fan, shall we?

Ok brother, I'm sorry but there is no way we can meet on gospel grounds.

You're a catholic and salvation is within the Church and mary is an idol and the pope is a false christ.

Maybe you take insults to your Church lightly -- I DON'T. Perhaps you should talk to "I'm Sorry" about making pejorative, false, and inflammatory statements in a thread about divorce and remarriage, eh?

You wave a red flag of false ideas and lies about the Church in front of me and yeah, I'm coming for ya!

 

[PeterDona]

This topic has been hotly debated while I had my sleep. Let me say this,

FOR A CHRISTIAN THERE IS NOT AN EXCEPTION

I think almost all possible exceptions in the bible have been dug up, and "God leading me to a new marriage" by prophecy or by my own heart feeling this.

If we take Jesus teaching at word, there is no exception. Why do you think that the disciples said, "if this is the case between a man and a woman, it is better not to marry" (matthew 19)?

Honestly it is better not to marry. Or why do you think that Paul said so in the openinng of 1 Cor 7?

 

[PeterDona]

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.

 

[I'm_Sorry]

You wave a red flag of false ideas and lies about the Church in front of me and yeah, I'm coming for ya!

All the way to the pyre no less.

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.

Being in the kingdom and waiting for reunion in heaven is worth it.

The flesh is a really bothersome, lingering, sinful thing that we must endure against until the end.

 

[PeterDona]

Therefore, Paul didn't have to go into the matter of whether or not abused wives could separate or divorce. God had already said they could.

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.