Are you married, or are you committing adultery?

[Mojo]

Proverbs 22:6 (Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it) I believe the best way to protect our children is to teach them the law of God from the very beginning, so that by the time they reach adulthood they would of already know how to protect them selves. If we have to keep protecting our children even after they have passed the adult age, then we did not do a good enough job parenting them while they were kids, we do not need authority over anyone to teach them or to guide then, all we need is to gain their trust and their respect.

I do agree with this in principle.

The training will never leave the child, but the child may leave the training, if that makes sense.

Proverbs 22 is a principle, not a guarantee.

 

[Tally]

Wrong. Deadly wrong. Read Matthew 5:17 through 19 and ask yourself whether the Messiah is a Liar, or some translator is.

Otto has given more background, just for starters. I contend, however, that "the Law is done away with," is the biggest lie in all human history, surpassing even the first two in Genesis 3.

Beyond that, any actual further discussion is probably Verbotten. Sorry - but you're welcome to ask privately if you want.

I'm sure you can't find the text where I said that any law was done away with, I do believe that it you break one of the ten commandments you break all, but what I clearly said is that Jesus set us free from the BONDAGE of the law, Galatians 3:13 (Christ hath REDEEMED US [or in some other translation SET US FREE]from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree). (weather the Messiah is a liar, or some translator?) This is intense.

 

[Mojo]

This is intense.

Yes it is. If it’s not a conversation or topic you’re interested in and it starts to go a direction you’re not comfortable with, just let the posters know. They are expected to follow courtesy and decorum at all times.

This forum can get intense, but that’s not the purpose of the ministry. Support and fellowship are primary.

Which leads me to another stab at getting you to consider the in person fellowship retreats. It’s generally not so INTENSE.

 

[Tally]

Yes it is. If it’s not a conversation or topic you’re interested in and it starts to go a direction you’re not comfortable with, just let the posters know. They are expected to follow courtesy and decorum at all times.

This forum can get intense, but that’s not the purpose of the ministry. Support and fellowship are primary.

Which leads me to another stab at getting you to consider the in person fellowship retreats. It’s generally not so INTENSE.

Thank you for the information and for laying out the primary purpose of the ministry, I appreciate that much. I don't mind the intensity of the conversation unless someone is offended, because Im always carful not to offend a brother or sister in Christ.

 

[Tally]

I do agree with this in principle.

The training will never leave the child, but the child may leave the training, if that makes sense.

Proverbs 22 is a principle, not a guarantee.

I understand your point, but I believe that if the child leave the training, that child never received the training in their heart.

 

[Mojo]

because Im always carful not to offend a brother or sister in Christ.

That’s a great attitude. Some aren’t as mindful as you. Your graciousness is appreciated and needed around here.

 

[MemeFan]

Sons of Jacob - the father of Israel:

Genesis 34:31
“But why should we let him treat our sister like a prostitute?” they retorted angrily.

Just because there is no exchange of money (currency in our generation) - doesn’t mean that it’s not prostitution. It could be an exchange for dinner, gifts, or simply pleasure. Sex without covenant is always prostitution. Go through the Bible - that’s what you’ll see it labeled as.

Hosea 4:14
I will not punish your daughters when they prostitute themselves, nor your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery. For the men themselves go off with prostitutes and offer sacrifices with shrine prostitutes. So a people without understanding will come to ruin.

If fathers taught this to their daughters - they wouldn’t be sleeping around with little boys in the first place. They wouldn’t fool around with boys that regard them as prostitutes - but instead - men that wish to enter into life long covenants with - imitating the Father in Heaven.

Payment can be something not money.

Also sex can be for pleasure too, freely given. So non-covenant sex isn't prostution by itself.

Here is brutal fact which you won't believe it. Even sluts refuse 90%+ of men.

 

[MemeFan]

I believe the divorce can be the result of the man and woman not putting God first when seeking a spouse, proverbs 18:22 kjv (whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the Lord) A wife is a good thing for a husband, so there should not be need for a divorce if both persons are believers. 2Corinthians 6:14 (Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness.) Proverbs 6:27 kjv (Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his cloths not be burned?)

Choosing good doesn't mean divorce won't happen. Only chances will be lower.

You can't assume couple will have good enough social, communications, sexual etc.... skills. Nkt everything can be made to work.

Besides many Christian women are worst possible wives. All least for hard core feminists you will know they hate you as man. These "Christians" will be same, just way better camouflaged. For example, it was never good idea for women to shame huaband's sexuality, but these women are fine with that.

 

[Tally]

That’s a great attitude. Some aren’t as mindful as you. Your graciousness is appreciated and needed around here.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

 

[Tally]

Choosing good doesn't mean divorce won't happen. Only chances will be lower.

You can't assume couple will have good enough social, communications, sexual etc.... skills. Nkt everything can be made to work.

Besides many Christian women are worst possible wives. All least for hard core feminists you will know they hate you as man. These "Christians" will be same, just way better camouflaged. For example, it was never good idea for women to shame huaband's sexuality, but these women are fine with that.

I believe that choosing good doesn't means disagreements, bad choices, or mistakes won't happen, but Good is equal to love which brings forgiveness, because God is good and Love is of God who is also a forgiven God. The love for your spouse will cower all their imperfections and faults, and their love for you will do the same, if the love of God is in the hearts of both spouses, divorce is dead.1Peter 4:8 (And ABOVE ALL THINGS have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins). Mathew 18:21-22 ( Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven). I came to understand that alot of people get married, not because they love their spouse, but because they love what their getting from their spouse, so when they had already gotten all they could get, the spouse becomes somewhat redundant.
If I'm focus on my own wants and needs, then I will neglect my spouse.
I believe that the love of God we should have for our spouse is an unselfish love, where you focus not on you wants and needs, but only on the wants and needs of your spouse, happiness, security, and well-being of your spouse, and your spouse should focus only on your wants and needs the same, rather than themselves. You love and take care of me and I love and take care of you, I like to call this the exchange of love.

Choosing good doesn't mean divorce won't happen. Only chances will be lower.

You can't assume couple will have good enough social, communications, sexual etc.... skills. Nkt everything can be made to work.

Besides many Christian women are worst possible wives. All least for hard core feminists you will know they hate you as man. These "Christians" will be same, just way better camouflaged. For example, it was never good idea for women to shame huaband's sexuality, but these women are fine with that.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

If I'm focus on my own wants and needs, then I will neglect my spouse.

I agree with alot of what you said in that post but here I would say that it is only if you are ONLY focused on your own wants and needs that you would then tend to neglect your spouse.

I believe that the love of God we should have for our spouse is an unselfish love, where you focus not on you wants and needs, but only on the wants and needs of your spouse, happiness, security, and well-being of your spouse, and your spouse should focus only on your wants and needs the same, rather than themselves. You love and take care of me and I love and take care of you, I like to call this the exchange of love.

And to this second part that I am highlighting, it seems a little like egalitarianism to me. As men, we are called to lead. If we only look at the wants and needs of our spouse, then we are not leading, we are following.
A Leader chooses how and what they want to do and then rallies their followers to support that cause. Does a leader consider the needs and wants of their followers? Yes, absolutely. But that is not the driving force. They are the leader and their goals and aspirations are the focus. The followers/helpmates are there to help.

 

[Tally]

I agree with alot of what you said in that post but here I would say that it is only if you are ONLY focused on your own wants and needs that you would then tend to neglect your spouse.



And to this second part that I am highlighting, it seems a little like egalitarianism to me. As men, we are called to lead. If we only look at the wants and needs of our spouse, then we are not leading, we are following.
A Leader chooses how and what they want to do and then rallies their followers to support that cause. Does a leader consider the needs and wants of their followers? Yes, absolutely. But that is not the driving force. They are the leader and their goals and aspirations are the focus. The followers/helpmates are there to help.

Yes, I agree, but when I said (only) I did not mean (Above all things) I meant it to be above the love for one's self. A man first and main purpose is to lead his house in the will of the Lord and the wife first purpose is to follow as a helpmate, I was only speaking on the part of marriage when it comes to showing loving to each other, I don't believe this has anything to do with leadership.
Thank you for helping me make this clear, much appreciated.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

Two witnesses just isn't enough? Why is that sufficient for Acts 15, as Zec'd?

Mark, I have stumbled across a few more...

Exo_20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

Deu_5:14 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.

No mention is given to the age of anyone in these verses but the command is to the Patriarch of the household. It commands him to prevent everyone within his gates from working on the sabbath. This is implicit authority over everyone within his gates.

That includes his daughter as much as it does his servants. Son's also if they are still within his gates.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Lev_19:29 Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.

The command in verse 29 also implies authority over ones own daughter. If the man is causing her to whore, he is sinning.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Gen_38:24 And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.

Tamar is clearly of marrying age and she chose to have a baby without the covering of a marriage and the blessing of the Patriarch over her.
So, Judah exercised his authority over her to call to bring her forth to have her put to death. How could he do this if she was able to do as she pleased? She was NOT even within his physical control yet he was still her headship legally.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Deu_7:3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

Here in verse 3 of chapter 7 it is abundantly clear that the daughter is not to be "given" unto the sons of the pagans in the land.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Deu_12:18 But thou must eat them before the LORD thy God in the place which the LORD thy God shall choose, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite that is within thy gates: and thou shalt rejoice before the LORD thy God in all that thou puttest thine hands unto.

Deu_16:11 And thou shalt rejoice before the LORD thy God, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite that is within thy gates, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are among you, in the place which the LORD thy God hath chosen to place his name there.
Deu_16:14 And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite, the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are within thy gates.

Here in these verses it instructs the Patriarch and all those that are within his gates to eat and rejoice before Yah. This again is implicit authority given in scripture over all that are within his gates.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Deu_22:17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

The beef the man has is with the father of the bride. He was the one that gave her as a virgin. So, the issue has to be settled with the father, not the bride.


Mark, bookmark these for reference if ever needed....

 

[The Revolting Man]

Mark, I have stumbled across a few more...

Exo_20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

Deu_5:14 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.

No mention is given to the age of anyone in these verses but the command is to the Patriarch of the household. It commands him to prevent everyone within his gates from working on the sabbath. This is implicit authority over everyone within his gates.

That includes his daughter as much as it does his servants. Son's also if they are still within his gates.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Lev_19:29 Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.

The command in verse 29 also implies authority over ones own daughter. If the man is causing her to whore, he is sinning.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Gen_38:24 And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.

Tamar is clearly of marrying age and she chose to have a baby without the covering of a marriage and the blessing of the Patriarch over her.
So, Judah exercised his authority over her to call to bring her forth to have her put to death. How could he do this if she was able to do as she pleased? She was NOT even within his physical control yet he was still her headship legally.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Deu_7:3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

Here in verse 3 of chapter 7 it is abundantly clear that the daughter is not to be "given" unto the sons of the pagans in the land.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Deu_12:18 But thou must eat them before the LORD thy God in the place which the LORD thy God shall choose, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite that is within thy gates: and thou shalt rejoice before the LORD thy God in all that thou puttest thine hands unto.

Deu_16:11 And thou shalt rejoice before the LORD thy God, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite that is within thy gates, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are among you, in the place which the LORD thy God hath chosen to place his name there.
Deu_16:14 And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite, the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are within thy gates.

Here in these verses it instructs the Patriarch and all those that are within his gates to eat and rejoice before Yah. This again is implicit authority given in scripture over all that are within his gates.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Deu_22:17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

The beef the man has is with the father of the bride. He was the one that gave her as a virgin. So, the issue has to be settled with the father, not the bride.


Mark, bookmark these for reference if ever needed....

So these laws are written to patriarchs? So non- patriarchs don’t have to obey them? A single man is freed from them? Who enforces these laws of the father is dead? Can uncles enforce them? Brothers? Sons? Cousins?

Are mothers excluded from enforcing the laws?

You have some pretty complex questions to answer about this if your interpretation is accurate.

 

[Mark C]

So these laws are written to patriarchs? So non- patriarchs don’t have to obey them? A single man is freed from them? Who enforces these laws of the father is dead? Can uncles enforce them? Brothers? Sons? Cousins?

Why do you insist on making ASSUMPTIONS and then try to draw conclusions from them? What about "Scripture as Written?" Or is that just for anyone else?

And I shouldn't have to remind you about context, but it continues to be necessary.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Why do you insist on making ASSUMPTIONS and then try to draw conclusions from them? What about "Scripture as Written?" Or is that just for anyone else?

And I shouldn't have to remind you about context, but it continues to be necessary.

Trying to take verses about keeping the sabbath and trying to make them about a father’s authority seems like a pretty blatant disregard for context.

 

[Mark C]

Evidently anything nuanced escapes you. You missed his point - again.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Evidently anything nuanced escapes you. You missed his point - again.

Our God is pretty good at communicating his precepts. If he wants us to know something then he says it in way that’s pretty unequivocal. If you’re getting to deep into nuance then you’re probably straying farther and farther from the truth.

 

[Mark C]

Our God is pretty good at communicating his precepts. If he wants us to know something then he says it in way that’s pretty unequivocal. If you’re getting to deep into nuance then you’re probably straying farther and farther from the truth.

"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." - Proverbs 25:2

I'll stick with Solomon's understanding.

 

[Mojo]

Our God is pretty good at communicating his precepts. If he wants us to know something then he says it in way that’s pretty unequivocal. If you’re getting to deep into nuance then you’re probably straying farther and farther from the truth.

Again, this topic isn’t one I’m taking a side on.
However, I think I understand your point in this post.

Am I close to what you’re thinking?

Interpretation is not application.
Interpretation is direct and unequivocal to a strict constructionist. It’s point blank (“Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved).

Doctrinal Application is nuanced. There may be a body of evidence that can be used to extrapolate implications, but they are still subject to point of view (Free will vs. Sovereign election).

Are you arguing that without a direct “Father has right to…such and such” it’s not possible to derive a truth, only an opinioned perspective that is subject to misapplication?