Become one flesh - part 2

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by natters, Oct 20, 2004.

  1. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a comment about the original post in the 'Become one flesh' thread, but that thread has gone off into a discussion about divorce, so I thought I'd start a new thread. Maybe some of my thoughts will affect the divorce discussion, but I think this thought is separate enough to warrant a new thread.

    The original question was "How do men divide that which God has made one flesh?"

    There are several verses that talk about marriage, where a man leaves his parents and cleaves to his wife and becomes "one flesh". However, there is one other verse that talks about becoming "one flesh":

    1 Cor 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

    This seems to be saying that simply having sex with another person makes you "one flesh" with that person. If this is the case, what happens when someone does this and later repents? Is the "one flesh" ever divided? If you've had sex with someone, whether they are your spouse or not, are you "one flesh" until death? Can someone be "one flesh" with more than one person at a time? What does "one flesh" even signify in the first place?
     
  2. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    You have now hit on the ramifications of having sex as that of now being matrimony,no matter how "un-holy" it is.

    There was the time when God-fearing people considered having "marital relations" as consumating the marriage, BTW, which ONLY falls under the guise of Holy Matrimony; anything else is promiscuous and fornicating, else it really boils down to adultry if that "partner" is not married to the "joiner".

    We're instructed to return to the old paths, re-establishing the landmarks of the once trodden paths.

    "Joining" to another mandates "one flesh", but adjoining another introduces adultry which in turn is polygomy, which BTW, is still against the law here in the USA, but most assuredlyis against the Law of God as you have brought to light.

    Thanks, it seems you are headed in the Right direction,now if you would just stand on the RIGHT Bible!! :D ;) [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  3. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    If this is the case, what happens when someone does this and later repents? Is the "one flesh" ever divided? If you've had sex with someone, whether they are your spouse or not, are you "one flesh" until death?
     
  4. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah! but for the Blood of Christ!!!

    I'm afraid many still miss the eternal ramifications of their actions, but then fail of the grace of God and realize it's eternal blessing.

    Where sin abounds GRACE doth much more ABOUND!!

    Once a sin is forgiven, we DO NOT have any privilege to commit that sin anymore, but we do have an advoctae with the father,the man Christ Jesus.

    Jesus clearly told the woman at the well she had five husbands, so there we have CLEAR teaching that these unions are not done away, but their ensuing penalty for becoming sin is done away, we are still sinners, but not under condemnation for sin.

    This has hit on the BIGGEST concern of those of us who are saved and those who stop and think this thought,"What if I sin again?" [​IMG]
     
  5. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Plain ol' Ralph, I'm looking for direct answers to my direct questions. I don't see answers to my questions in your responses, can you be clearer?

    BTW, Jesus didn't tell her she had five husbands, notice:

    The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had [past tense] five husbands; and he whom thou now hast [present tense] is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.

    The woman currently had no husband. Did the previous sexual relationships ("one flesh") end the "one flesh"? Did the current sexual relationship ("one flesh") not constitute marriage?
     
  6. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, no, not at all. This is actually a good passage that refutes your positon. The union of marriage was done away in these five cases, and the one she was currently living with was not her husband.
     
  7. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    To your last question, which I already answered, Yes, and now we see the extreme of her previous condition. Her last five still had ramification and the relationship she had then was rrequired she marry the sixth time, which meant more adultry.

    When Holy Ghost conviction does come, there is no alternative but to turn to Jesus for "living water", else rejection occurs and the Holy Ghost is not required to convict that individual again.

    None of her previous five marriages had been annulled, Jesus referred to them as "husbands".
     
  8. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, no, not at all. This is actually a good passage that refutes your positon. The union of marriage was done away in these five cases, and the one she was currently living with was not her husband. </font>[/QUOTE]No, not scripturally, Jesus said "husbands", not men. Husbands only means one thing, they were her husbands still. It's almost as if Jesus told her, "You've already had five, one more is required by law, now what are you gonna do? Thirst from now on, or receive Living Water that you never thirst again?"

    "Had five husbands", does not read "former" or "previous", but indicates the building up of offenses.
     
  9. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Plain ol' Ralph said ""Had five husbands", does not read "former" or "previous", but indicates the building up of offenses."

    Perhaps you missed the part where Jesus said "Thou hast well said, I have no husband" and "in that saidst thou truly"? Perhaps you missed where he said "hast had" (past tense), instead of something present tense?

    Yes, there were ramifications, but was the woman still "one flesh" with those who used to be her husband but were no longer her husband (for Jesus said she had no husbands).
     
  10. Gershom

    Gershom
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    2,030
    Likes Received:
    0
    "The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands"

    Fundamental stuff here. Difference of meaning between "past" and "present."

    "Thou has well said, I have no husband."

    "thou hast had five husbands"
     
  11. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    What yall are saying would be correct, except we're not talking about modern day application here. You're missing her point, "I have no husband". This is indicative of her reproach against what was sociably acceptable, as well, yall have misseed the point of her being a Samaritan, which the Jews in that day had "nothing" to do with them.

    Also of note, you're pitting scripture against the very scripture you introduced, not advisable, it only leads to false doctrine.
     
  12. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    "You're missing her point, "I have no husband".

    What???? Jesus agreed with her statement. Are you saying Jesus was wrong?
     
  13. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have to say Ralph, you seem not to understand. The women said "I have no husband." Christ said, "You are right." You, Ralph, say that she did have husbands, in fact five of them. Why would you contradict Jesus?

    This is not an issue of modern vs. ancient times. It is an issue of language. So when Jesus said that the woman was right to say she had no husband, was he lying? Of course not.

    Actually the word andra means either man or husband depending on the context. HEre, it does clearly mean husband. But you have read your premise onto Scripture. You have assumed once a husband, always a husband. That is a premise you have brought to the text, not one you took from the text. All you need to do to understand that is look at your previous statement.

    No it doesn't. It means past. Just read it without your premises already in place.
     
  14. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, she was saying she had no one to take away her reproach of being unmarried, Jesus agreed. Learn Scripture, then espostulate.

    Yall keep applyingmodern thinking to an age old concept where scripture applies. Won't work, never has, never will, not until modern thinking aligns with the old paths and the Ancient of Days
     
  15. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually the word andra means either man or husband depending on the context. HEre, it does clearly mean husband. But you have read your premise onto Scripture. You have assumed once a husband, always a husband. That is a premise you have brought to the text, not one you took from the text. All you need to do to understand that is look at your previous statement.

    No it doesn't. It means past. Just read it without your premises already in place.
    </font>[/QUOTE]I see your limited view of what thus saith the Lord and you'll wrest at the scripture to yours and others destruction until you learn to understand the passage.

    You incite sin in the ideal you're promoting.
     
  16. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ralph said "No, she was saying she had no one to take away her reproach of being unmarried, Jesus agreed."

    The woman answered and said, I have no husband.

    Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband

    and he whom thou now hast [present tense] is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.

    Comprenez-vous l'anglais?

    Jesus said she didn't have husband. Ralph said she did have a husband. Hmmmm, I wonder who is right?
     
  17. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    No, in one of his posts he contradicts himself. He says that Jesus referred to her past five husbands as husbands, and states that Jesus says that she is with someone who isn't her husband making it necessary to marry the sixth...therefore committing more adultery. He's basically saying Jesus condoned her sin of the sixth (if you hold Ralphs view), and that she still had five husbands. Jesus well acknowledged that at that time SHE HAD NO HUSBAND! Ralph can't have it both ways, but, he's trying.
     
  18. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ralph, you were proven 100% wrong on this by exact quotation of Jesus (which was the OPPOSITE of what you said). The woman was NOT married. Men had BEEN (PAST TENSE) her husbands.

    The honorable thing would be to cut your losses and not look ludicrous and say "oops". Maturity admits mistakes.
     
  19. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    Uh, ok, Doc, sure.

    A vow is a vow. A broken vow is still a vow,but broken. It is better not to have made a vow than break a vow.

    On the topic of marriage,one cannot be divorced unless they have been previously married. When asked the question : Single, Widowed, Divorced, Married, can any of you see the conotations here? Obviously not.

    Single denotes a vow not made.

    Widowed denotes a vow released, but not broken.

    Divorce reflects a broken vow.

    Married states a vow intact.

    Your ad-hominem is not even noteworthy in regards to my maturity. If anything you've made yourself look more of the likes of a peanut and butter jelly sandwich smeared on your shirt with kool-aid mustache and a "I know it all" smerk on your face.

    Obviously you know very little about the word "husband" and it's conotations, coupled with your lack of discernment in the area of a woman of illrepute who has "had" five chances at taking away her reproach, usually that of being a harlot,by-which, many refer to Mary Magdalene as to have been since her physical maturity associated by her age.

    Also you seem to stand in the area of disregard of the sanctity of Holy Matrimony, so what else do you incite? SIN.

    I suppose also the disregard for the woman's "thirst" for refreshing and life giving water is in totallity as well? CERTAINLY.

    If Jesus just hadn't used the term "husbands" and used "men", you might have a case for what you spue forth, BUT HE DIDN'T! You fail to see the importunity of the word "husband", that which Jesus is our Betrothed, Husband to be, our Bridegroom.
     

Share This Page

Loading...