Become one flesh - part 2

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!!

 

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?"

 

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.

 

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".

 

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.

 

"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"

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.