| Author |
 Topic  |
|
berkano
Advanced Member
uSA
129 Posts |
 Posted - 01 Jan 2006 : 05:08:33
|
This topic is in relation to an article I've been studying at:
http://ecclesia.org/truth/divorce.html
I have questions to ask on this forum. I request your thoughtful and prayerful answers and comments.
The article seems to say that under no circumstances can a man who was married be remarried, even if his wife divorces and deserts him.
But then the article states that there is a circumstance where a faithful man can remarry if deserted by his wife:
"What if a Faithful Man has been Deserted by his Wife? There is not one verse in the entire Bible that teaches that a man in this situation could not remarry another woman while his first wife was still alive. However, it would be wise to inform his potential second wife that should his first wife seek to be reconciled to him he is to accept her back (1 Corinthians 7:11)."
Here's the hypothetical scenario, and not too uncommon nowadays---
A man is married. His wife causes him to be jailed through foolishness and false witness against him. Then while he is in jail, she starts sleeping with other [multiple] men, then demands a divorce. He fights the divorce proceedings for about a year and pleads with her to return to him. He tells her specifically that marriage is permanent and getting a legal divorce does not break the covenant she made.
Eventually he stops fighting and agrees to let her have the divorce. She brings the divorce papers to him and he signs that he does not contest, and that he will take half of the marital debt. She disappears of her own accord and he has not heard or seen from her in about seven years. Since that time he has changed his identity, so there is no way she could ever find him, and he cannot seek for her because her relatives are enemies who want to destroy him in any way they can.
He meets and gets to know a woman who has never been married and would like to marry her. However he is concerned about the issues raised in the above-referenced article, and that it may never be lawful to marry another woman under any circumstances.
How should this man proceed (or not proceed)? If he were to marry the new friend, would he commit adultery?
|
|
|
Linc
Advanced Member
Canada
111 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jan 2006 : 20:17:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by berkano
He meets and gets to know a woman who has never been married and would like to marry her. However he is concerned about the issues raised in the above-referenced article, and that it may never be lawful to marry another woman under any circumstances.
How should this man proceed (or not proceed)? If he were to marry the new friend, would he commit adultery?
Short answer: absolutely no, he would not be committing adultery.
Jesus said it is ok to put away and divorce a woman for "whoredom", which is a broad word that includes many kinds of uncleanness, including the type of immorality you described.
Therefore, your divorce is endorsed by Jesus Christ himself.
Further, the bit that says a man who remarries commits adultery, is a later addition to the scriptures, and should not be in there.
A man not only has a right, but a duty to marry as many wives as he can keep fed, clothed, and pregnant.
For the Glory of Yahowah! |
 |
|
|
artsfree
Regular Member
Australia
38 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jan 2006 : 02:15:51
|
| And how many wives did King Soloman have or the other prophets. It may be out of societal favour these days but so are hot pants. God the same yesterday, today and forever and so are his laws forever,eternal and unchanging.If your actions are righteous in purpose and fact then they are righteous in action. |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jan 2006 : 12:28:01
|
Greetings brothers and sisters:
Peace be unto the house.
It is raining here, so you all must put up with me more than usual. Sorry.
There are some out there who seemingly love to castigate (chasten; chastise) those who are divorced, or who are divorcing, claiming the Scripture as their source for this mental abuse.
Yahwuah, it is written, hateth putting away (shalah),(Malachi 2:16) but we have been unable to find anywhere in the Book of the Law where He forbids divorce (keriythuth).
In the Old Testament/Covenant Yahuwah inspires the mention of divorce/divorced/divorcement only seven times.
(1) Leviticus 21:14 is for the Lewitical priests, Yahuwah says: A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.
Questions: How could a Lewtical priest take a divorced woman if there was no divorce? Were people other than the Lewitical priests allowed to take a widow, a divorced woman, a profane [woman], an harlot or virgin who was not of his own people to wife?
(2) Leviticus 22:13, again for the Lewitical priests: But if the priest's daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned unto her father's house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father's meat...
Question: How could a Lewtical priest take a divorced daughter back if there was no divorce?
(3) Numbers 30:9 ...every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced/expatriated, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her.
Question: How could a divorced woman bind her soul if there is no divorcement?
(4) Deuteronomy 24:1-4 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before Yahuwah: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which Yahuwah thy 'Elohiym giveth thee for an inheritance.
Don't those verses tell us of a woman who is married to one man, divorced from him, married to a second man and divorced from him as well? Remember this Law if you ever divorce the STATE and marry Him who has ascended the throne, for it will come to bear if you ever try to reverse it.
(6) Yasha'yahu [Isaiah] 50:1 Thus saith Yahuwah, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.
Now where, in those, did Yahuwah forbid divorce? Furthermore if Yahushua [JESUS] did not come to destroy the law, or the prophets: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil", and the only Law He has is the Law of Yahuwah, where did he find this Law of no divorce?
And, as any good writer should do, we saved the best for last!
(7) Yirm'yahu [Jeremiah] 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Yisra'el committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Yahu'dah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
It would seem that the Supreme Suveran Himself is divorced.
Having said all that, our Supreme Suveran does indeed hate putting away, and most likely divorcement as well, but, He does not forbid it. Neither does He want us marrying and divoring frivolously, either! This is an abomination to Him; it makes Him sick! Only for a very good cause should a bill of divorcement be given, as Yahushua has pointed out. This is what Yahushua [JESUS] is explaining at Mattith'yahu [Matthew] 19:7-9, that Mosheh allowed you to put away your wives "for the cause" of the hardness of your hearts, but from the beginning it was not so. He allowed you to take the Law out of context, "that she finds no favor in his eyes", and use it as your excuse to divorce and put away, but from the beginning the Law further stated, you must find a "a thing of uncleanness in her" for it to be Lawfully justified just as Yahushua points out in verse nine.
Foul with sin. Mat 10.
Not in covenant with God. 1 Cor 7.
Lewd; unchaste.
Let us pose a question for y'all. Suppose Mary (Miriyam) in the New Testament, had been raped by a Roman soldier as the Talmud states, and became pregnant by it; would Joseph (Yahu'caph), according to Yahuwah's Law, have cause to give her a bill divorcement and put her away? We would have to say that she is without sin, in this matter, and that she has in no way violated her covenant with Yahuwah, nor should she be considered lewd or unchaste, therefore, he would not have justifiable cause to put her away, and he didnt.
Is this a virgin birth? Well, in a way it may be considered so, for it is a birth of a baby without a known father.
Could this be why the Iewes said to Yahushua [JESUS]: "We be not born of fornication", when it seemingly had nothing whatsoever to do with their current conversation?
You be the judge.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 03 Jan 2006 08:50:27 |
|
|
|
kevin
Advanced Member
uSA
100 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jan 2006 : 13:41:32
|
Greetings,
Well, I have been married for a number of years almost thirty.
All I could say to this is.....
Hmmm, why would anyone in thier right mind want to be married?
To profess to spend the rest of your life living for another being is a big statement.
Me thinks there are more divorces becuase marriage is entered into so lightly.
I remembre when I did it, I even went to so called premarital counseling?? LoL it was three hours long given by an catholic priest,
It was all just a big party and we got lots uh babbl bucks ta get over the first few weeks.
Ha what a joke!!!!
My helpmeet and me have been through lotsa stuff from bad to worse
Two dumbed down folks tryin to find their way, Thanks Be to Yahuwah
for His grace and Mercy and everlasting kindness and Lonnnnggggg suffering.
If ya dont love her then divorce her, if she dont meet yer need or standard, divorce her, if she hinders you, divorce her.if she somehow in any way is a thorn in yer flesh, divorce her, if yer just not happy anymore divorce her.
It is a case by case thing if you are givin the word by your Father to divorce her then do it and do not worry what anyone else thinks or says.
My experiance has been to stay at the table if there is love, anything can be worked out.
And I do not pretend to live in some fairytale happliy ever after thing it is work it takes strving together it take a trip to the place of the Skull, (mabye many trips)
One thing I can say is If you love her you will keep her.
How many times should I forgive??? I cant count that far.
NO scripture to support any of this, Just the opinion of an old slave dude who woke up too latee;)
I would say Ask your Father He knows.
|
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jan 2006 : 22:18:24
|
Greetings to all,
If one understands the meaning of becoming of one flesh, then by all means understand what "let no 'man' come between you." It is evident that no "man" coming between you is wide in its meaning. Now a days, as surely before, this "man" is "man-made" rules and specifically POLICIES, which do not keep families together, but apart.
I am,
Manuel |
|
|
|
RevokeTheTrust
Senior Member
USA
57 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jan 2006 : 01:03:34
|
Tame the pen concealed in your pantaloons, and weild the Sword; thy flesh is consumed in worldly affairs, so fortify the spirit foremost; put on the armor of God, mend the cloak that grows-old each day, and quicken of the Spirit. Presumptions are made here and they need to be abated. A woman is to carry the existance of man, a condition no longer a time than the Lord think fitting, and for that purpose. The only marriage warranting multiple wives would be to keep an orphanage in the world to receive the children abandoned by man and willing for His glory. What more to have in this world, children in the flesh, when discarded and thrown to the appointment of governors and tutors by prodicle parents, a brokerage of coventry? They may meet their elder brothers and sisters for a spiritual revival; Shaker societies are built on this principle, and to the glory of God they quickly disappear from the world when the good work is done: no children remain for adoption. Thereby under God the Father, by His grace, what man can claim His sons to be sons of men? My idea of multiple wives is to contending with Hell on earth; gluttonous divertions, distractions to study for edification to men, and the spread of disease is quick as a rumor slow to quash. Stand at a woman's wheel, or on her deck, and discern the purpose of a woman contested by multiple husbandmen; the vanity of gluttony quickly is manifest when the purpose is not to His glory. Thieves are adulterers are they that propose such gesture.
What for the worldly marriage, the intercourse is but on paper, the deception forever indoctrinated, the slander to "twain as one flesh" compared to last as an unrelated sensation for barely minutes in a day. That's a marriage of the flesh, by the flesh, for the flesh. Let's talk Lexis, Ford, and Ferrari women; now those are the kind of women that a man can really sit down with, whether they're hauling grain or carrying the children on their backs. Even today, the usual to divide a man from his woman is Police asking for license and registeration. I will not be equally yoked with such nonsense, but if it were they bruise my heel are they to covet the crutch given by His church?
[Mark 12:25]
"[25]For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven."
[Luke 20:34-36]
[34]And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:[35]But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:[36]Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection."
[Luke 20:34-36]
"[34]And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:[35]But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:[36]Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection."
[1 Corinthians 7:37-39]
"[37]Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.[38]So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.[39]The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord."
I've good news for everyone; Scripturally, at the beginning, a female man was titularly referred to as a "him", and all the "her" and "she" non-sense is as perverted distinction as searching the nakedness of the flesh and reasoning for who's genitalia is extroverted or introverted. It is written to the beginning that Adam had neither and was complete, until he was isolated of certain qualities to be creatd dimorphically equal and manifest a man at ratio as male to female. Searching the medical journals for the detioration of the male genetics; What is it predicted, the male will be near-absent from the face of the earth in 168,000 world-years from this postmark? I thought it strange to remenisce of my older days in the desert, searching-out the various classes of reptiles that bear young without transfer of genetic traits; a world of only female, egg-laying creatures that are complete as cloned. It resounds of that Matrix.
With love,
Gregory-Thomas |
|
|
|
kevin
Advanced Member
uSA
100 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jan 2006 : 05:54:30
|
WOW!!!
Gregory-Thomas,
thats very interesting enuff study there to keep me busy for quite a while.
Kevin |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jan 2006 : 07:02:23
|
Greetings and salutations, Gregory-Thomas:
Peace be unto the house.
Without intending to offend, we could use some help.
We can find no definitions for the words “prodicle”, “divertions”, “dimorphically” and “detioration”, so if you would be so kind as to give us some it may serve to help us understand all that you have written. We realize that they may be the result of simple typos; if this is the case, would you please supply us with the proper words?
You wrote: “What more to have in this world, children in the flesh, when discarded and thrown to the appointment of governors and tutors by prodicle parents, a brokerage of coventry?”
We are also stumped as to what a “brokerage of Coventry” is…it seems to work out to, “a buying and selling of ostracism”, “or a buying and selling of exile”, whether or not this is the correct, would you be so kind as to clarify for us what that phrase or idiom means to you?
You also wrote: “…searching-out the various classes of reptiles that bear young without transfer of genetic traits; a world of only female, egg-laying creatures that are complete as cloned.”
Are there really “classes of reptiles that bear young without transfer of genetic traits”, with no blueprint? And, is there really a world of “only female, egg-laying creatures that are complete as cloned”? Even things that are reportedly cloned have a genetic code, do they not; other wise what were they cloned from?
Thank you for any time and efforts you may expend on our behalf.
- brother Robert: & sister Kathleen:
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 03 Jan 2006 07:07:14 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jan 2006 : 08:29:10
|
Greetings and saluations:
Peace be unto the house.
brother Kevin brings up some important points in his post; the first one being the fact that our Creator is long suffering.
With Yahuwah as our example, we must take notice that Yisra'el was not divorced by Him the first time she played the harlot, nor, we perceive, even the second or third.
Moreover Yahuwah said to me in the days of Yoshiyahu the king, Have you seen that which backsliding Yisra'el has done? she is gone up on every high mountain and under every green tree, and there has played the prostitute. I said after she had done all these things, She will return to me; but she didn't return: and her treacherous sister Yahudah saw it.
If you have seen me, you have seen my Father, means, to us, that we are made in His image, and that we are to, to the best of our abilities, resemble Him in our works, thus as brother Kevin has also pointed out, once we have committed ourselves, we should make every possible effort to keep that engagement.
Even after Yahuwah has "put her [Yisra'el] away and given her a bill of divorce" He later (verse 11-14) recants (retracts it) and says to her...
And Yahuwah said unto me, The backsliding Yisra'el hath justified herself more than treacherous Yahudah. Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Yisra'el, saith Yahuwah; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith Yahuwah, and I will not keep anger for ever. Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against Yahuwah thy 'Elohiym, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith Yahuwah. Return, O backsliding children, saith Yahuwah; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion...
Try to imagine how low the divorce rate would be if we all endured that kind of long suffering!! Thank you, brother Kevin, for bringing that out in regards to this subject.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 03 Jan 2006 08:46:25 |
|
|
|
RevokeTheTrust
Senior Member
USA
57 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2006 : 08:11:40
|
Greetings and blessings brothers and sister!
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
[font=Book Antiqua]Greetings and salutations, Gregory-Thomas:
Peace be unto the house.
Without intending to offend, we could use some help.
We can find no definitions for the words “prodicle”, “divertions”, “dimorphically” and “detioration”, so if you would be so kind as to give us some it may serve to help us understand all that you have written. We realize that they may be the result of simple typos; if this is the case, would you please supply us with the proper words?
Yes, slowly to put my hands on this keyboard yields a lenient touch; those words are typographic errors, mainly because of my shorthand training it is rendered as quickly as possible: adhering only to sound, but I've been under much stress lately and will leave this forum for some needed rest from this fortnight.
"prodicle" is wrong, should be written as "parodical", and the sentence corrected with a trailing semi-colon instead of that last comma as..."What more to have in this world, children in the flesh, when discarded and thrown to the appointment of governors and tutors by parodical parents; a brokerage of coventry?" This was intended as a lamentation to know learned and innocent children are coerced into the commerce of tutors (mercenary teachers); trustees moving fiction to manipulate the children from house-study; and further causing stress to the men the children return upon at the end of the day, where there is class-work/articles the tutor was payed to teach but sent along incomplete as "homework". None needs to be said on the lack of value in appointing a governor, when God gave his people an astute mind married to the cranium on the shoulders; not for concealing wickedness but to withstand worldly temptations and adhere to Him. You are correct that compelled education is to quiet the ignorance of the child while maturing the trust-fund; the child is cursed to a fictitious debt that can only be payed with fire and brimstone (put the light of the world under the debt paper). There is a Devil's Dictionary, and then there is the devil's dictionary. Children tacked to the fiction is slavery, not to study at school themselves, but to mature the value of the trust that it's liquidation/slaughter will be at its highest profit to the creditors' favor. Besides, reading a Devil's Dictionary for "coven" and to remove the apolitical definition would evince all institutions demanding Birth Certifications, FIRST MIDDLE LAST Name forms, and related charagma would prove to be the centre of the Witchcraft and debatable to their Black Sabbath as corporate-banking holidays. Somewhat off-topic, but related to the transmitting utility being "unconcious"; I'm hearing the audio of a video in the background "The Other Israel by Ted Pike", where the Talmud Jews claim only Israelites are Men, God is unconcious and unknowable and void of opinion, and it's lawful to have carnal-sexual intercourse with children under three-years old. It's the fourth time I've studied/heard this Ted Pike presentation, so if there is room on a fileshare then I'll send it for this ECCLESIA to experience (if not already).
"divertions"is a misplaced sound, correct to replace with "diversion", and the sentenced to be writ as... "My idea of multiple wives is to contending with Hell on earth; gluttonous diversions, distractions to study for edification to men, and the spread of disease is quick as a rumor slow to quash." The way I write may be incomprehensible or derogatory at times, and I assure this is not what I intended, should any think thus. I've seen glimpses of Hell about in the riotous behaviours of men, and thought the best remedy given by God was a different point-of-view. It's obvious the people are more comfortable and less tormented when various duties are divided by the reproductive alignment of the flesh; not for me to decide for another what is needing for that segregation. Looking into various polygamous relationships that offer such relegation to the confounds of idolatry manifest in lust for the flesh, it does more to disuade the presence of the husband from the wife and children in favor of quantity, and at such quantity that isn't to calm any environmental conditions but add more societal decay with such explosive increases in the populous. Here we are today, among people that can barely teach language, and their children don't suffer as the Lord intended; not by ill-stricken poverty but chastity, charity, lending without usury, and various deeds not of the world. Where would having multiple-wives improve the spread of the gospel and be for an example of God's love manifest in works and faith? Would multiple-wives help, by God, to prevent the spread of spiritual disease or is the concept of multiple-wives not of the "one-mind" and always-in-agreement legacy inspired of Paul? If a man asked for a hand in marriage, he covets; but would a hand be already in his hand, is it given by God or man's desire alone? Yet if a man set his desire in the hand of God, what more to say than every man is as though a brother and sister, and the path to rebuild the house is made clear to call the discarded/willing children of wicked men and exault them unto the admonishment of the LORD. It would be man's logic to consider multiple wives would increase the edification of men, and that is how I intended to write; the spread of the gospels to carry the Sword brought by Jesus and knight all them that are willing, or for the shield-bearers to put the Sword in their mouth to wield when no hands remain to lend.
"Dimorphically" doesn't exist, but was intended to write "dimorphic" usually defined as "occurring in two different forms." Now to express the thought prevailing in my stiff-neck in God's hands, consider some scripture and its tense;
Genesis [1:27]
"[27]So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
Genesis [5:2]
"[2]Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created."
Job [21:24]
"His breasts are full of milk, and his bones are moistened with marrow."
Matthew [19:3-5]
"[3]The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?[4]And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,[5]And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?"
Galatians [3:28]
"[28]There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
quote:
You also wrote: “…searching-out the various classes of reptiles that bear young without transfer of genetic traits; a world of only female, egg-laying creatures that are complete as cloned.”
Are there really “classes of reptiles that bear young without transfer of genetic traits”, with no blueprint? And, is there really a world of “only female, egg-laying creatures that are complete as cloned”? Even things that are reportedly cloned have a genetic code, do they not; other wise what were they cloned from?
Get ready for this determination of flesh in the world, but give it no thought.("http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/expeditions/treasure_fossil/Treasures/Unisexual_Whiptail_Lizards/lizards.html?50"). The greater truth is found in Galations [3:28]. Then there are more reptiles, such are ("http://www.crystalinks.com/grayeyes2.jpg"), ("http://www.think-aboutit.com/aliens/Varietyofaliens.htm"), ("http://www.ericsiegmund.com/images/fireant/babs.jpg"). Really, the reality does cross; among the reports, there are aliens evinced as being reptile. Just a lesser creature, as a little whiptail lizard, is an example of things to come. All birds/Aves are just Reptiles with feathers, by the fossill record.
I hope that corrected the bad or misconception.
With love,
Gregory-Thomas |
|
|
|
kevin
Advanced Member
uSA
100 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2006 : 18:31:23
|
HOLY COW!!!!
Are you serious Clark?
|
|
|
|
Linc
Advanced Member
Canada
111 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2006 : 01:05:32
|
The first commandment was to multiply and fill the earth. If you oppose polygamy, you support prostitution.
When emperor Constantine made the fornication laws stricter than the Bible, the result was an increase in promiscuity and unwed mothers, since girls were afraid to come forward and identify their lovers.
Forbidding polygamy has the same deleterious effect on society.
How we will be in heaven has no bearing in how we act now, other than to get there, we must obey His laws and statutes and judgements.
Does an embryo breathe air? Will it breathe air outside the womb? Does it profit from trying to breathe air inside the womb?
Profitless one! All the men that were blessed of God were polygamists. Your subtle attempts to condemn a blessed state of affairs shows you to have erred, as St. Augustine erred grossly, trusting the reason and philosophy of men.
Lizard-like aliens? Indeed, the word "Seraphim" doth refer to "dragons", and those four angels flying around the throne are fiery serpents, just as the original language says. But these aliens do not come from "outer space", they come from the spirit realm. |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2006 : 07:01:20
|
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
We write this not to correct our brother but rather to demonstrate that though the Word of Yahuwah may be inerrant, the translations and transliterations by men are not. We must rightly divide the Word of Truth, as it is written.
Job 21:24 (KJV) His breasts [H5845] are full of milk, and his bones are moistened with marrow.
Job 21:24 (HNV) His pails [H5845] are full of milk. The marrow of his bones is moistened.
H5845
atiyn
Brown-Driver-Briggs' [Hebrew Lexicon] Definition:
1) bucket, pail
It is our humble opinion that container would actually be the best choice, but bucket or pail would work well in virtually all instances. Had breasts been the inspired translation, we perceive that we would have seen this Hebrew word.
Job 3:12 (KJV) Why did the knees prevent me? or why the breasts [H7699] that I should suck?
Psalm 22:9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts [H7699].
Next we we would like to point out that in the oldest extant writings there are apparently no Hebrew words for his, him, us, our, them or their (See Strong's Appendix). Thus, those words were added to Genesis 1:27 and 5:2, as well as too many other verses to list here. This is one of the reasons why we see apparent contradictions. As one glaring example, we give you portions of these side by side verses of the Scripture.
Genesis 1:26 (KJV) And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...
Genesis 1:27 (KJV) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
So how do we decide which is right, the plural or the singular pronouns? We go to other parts of the Scripture for verification.
Exodus 20:11 For in six days Yahuwah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is...
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 11 Jan 2006 09:17:37 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2006 : 08:49:25
|
Greetings and salutations, Linc:
Peace be unto the house.
I don't know that it was necessary to attack the messenger ("Profitless one!"). But one thing is obvious, Linc, polygamy is high on your list of hot buttons. Is this because of Scriptural beliefs or because of an insatiable appetite?
How would this statement which you made, be true? "If you oppose polygamy, you support prostitution." Is it because one woman could not possibly satisify your sexual appetite or because you wish to "fill the earth"? Yahuwah said, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill* the earth..." Do you still feel that the earth needs filling, or is it getting pretty full already? (* Replenish is just one more errant translation.)
You asked: "Does an embryo breathe air?"
Answer: Yes! "..the life of the flesh is in the blood..." and there is oxygen in the blood, thus it has the breath of life.
You asked: "Will it breathe air outside the womb? Does it profit from trying to breathe air inside the womb?"
We ask: What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China on Saturday afternoon? Are you trying to condone aborticide? If Yahuwah has breathed life into him or her does he or she live? Yes! And if we murder that living, thinking, being have we shed innocent blood, perhaps the only innocent blood to be found on earth? And innocent blood shall not be shed in the midst of your land...
You wrote: "All the men that were blessed of God were polygamists."
We ask: All? Would you care to modify that statement?
POLYG'AMY, n. [Gr. many, and marriage.] A plurality of wives or husbands at the same time; or the having of such plurality.
Do you suppose that this apparently onesided polygamy we find in the Scripture could have been, not only to fill the earth at that time, but also, by extrapolation, to now teach us something else? Perhaps something like, "No man [wife] can serve two Masters/Gods [Husbands]", for example?
Thank you for your time.
- brother Robert:
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 11 Jan 2006 10:15:02 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2006 : 09:59:23
|
Greetings once more on this rainy day:
Peace be unto the house.
Now for something, perhaps, a little more in line with the subject.
Here is the beginning of Black's Sixth Edition (1991) definition of...
Marriage license. A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry...
And in this same source, here is what we find for intermarriage, "See Miscegenation."
The word miscegenation was evidently coined in America, c. 1864, and means, mix genus, and genus actually means "race, stock, kind". So, notwithstanding that it could be referring to race, we see also that it might be referring to kind.
Is it even remotely possible that it might be referring to, Disparata non debent jungi. Unequal things ought not to be joined, which may, or may not, be in reference to race at all.
Could it be alluding to an admixture which is contrary to nature, for example, a living, breathing being(s) mingled with a PERSON (a non-living, non-breathing entity) such as the STATE? Could this be the cause for the necessity of a license, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal, a trespass, a tort, or otherwise not allowable" (Ibid.); so that the STATE, a non-living, non-breathing entity could be the third party in our marriages?
Just a rainy-day-thought we desired to pass by ya'll.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 11 Jan 2006 10:12:24 |
|
|
|
Linc
Advanced Member
Canada
111 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2006 : 15:52:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
I don't know that it was necessary to attack the messenger ("Profitless one!"). But one thing is obvious, Linc, polygamy is high on your list of hot buttons. Is this because of Scriptural beliefs or because of an insatiable appetite?
It is because if polygamy is a sin, then I am a mamzer/bastard, not allowed into the congregation of the eternal. If my grandfather was not a polygamist, I would not be alive today. I am proud of my grandfather, and ashamed of the rest of my family for cutting off all contact with my grandfathers branch of the family.
quote:
How would this statement which you made, be true? "If you oppose polygamy, you support prostitution." Is it because one woman could not possibly satisify your sexual appetite or because you wish to "fill the earth"?
Is there a difference? Historical fact, proven across millenia and on every continent, shows that when polygamy is forbidden, the number of prostitutes and orphans rises up.
quote:
Yahuwah said, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill* the earth..." Do you still feel that the earth needs filling, or is it getting pretty full already?
Our job is to fill the earth; YHWH will close up our wombs when it gets full enough. And there is always a need for more children of the righteous.
quote:
You asked: "Does an embryo breathe air? Will it breathe air outside the womb? Does it profit from trying to breathe air inside the womb?"
We ask: What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China on Saturday afternoon? Are you trying to condone aborticide?
By no means. Breathing air through the lungs happens after one is born, not before. Just so, our estate in the resurrection is completely different, and unknown. To base our behavior now on how we think things will be in the resurrection is vanity. There is a time for every thing under heaven. The time to refrain from marrying and bearing children is not now!
I grew up in a church that taught just this fallacy, that men and women should refrain from marrying and having children.
quote:
Do you suppose that this apparently onesided polygamy we find in the Scripture could have been, not only to fill the earth at that time, but also, by extrapolation, to now teach us something else? Perhaps something like, "No man [wife] can serve two Masters/Gods [Husbands]", for example?
God never does things for only one reason. You could draw any number of goodly lessons from it, including the one you presented. |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jan 2006 : 08:09:20
|
Greetings Linc:
Peace be unto the house.
We thank you for you answers.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
|
|
|
kevin
Advanced Member
uSA
100 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jan 2006 : 17:49:20
|
hey I think thats all possible as far as the definitions of who and who should not marry.
could be race related,
It is even possible that we the people alluded to in th constituion were only white male land owners,
the rest ??? who knows where they fit in.
mabye even gender related, Person or no PERSON related.
I think all these licenses and fees and statues and codes are just the result of free people doin whatever they want not nessacarily what the Creator intended.
as far as poly gamy hey if you can afford it and feel your God requires you to have multiple wives go for it.
Embryo thats a sad word like fetus.. EWWWWW!!!
Personaly I prefer to say child.
and I really love that whole Alien thing very interesting stuff Im tryin ta see what breed I come from.
But the one of Barbar srteisand ??? Is she an alien too?
|
|
|
|
RevokeTheTrust
Senior Member
USA
57 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jan 2006 : 03:45:00
|
Greetings and blessings ya'll
quote:
HOLY COW!!!!
Are you serious Clark?
Well said. If it is thought hillarious, then I suggest you check out that property held by Caleb (recorded in the Book of Joshua). I wouldn't have written such, if I thought it offensive; I'm still withstanding the property line as a rooster on the picket, to no tresspass upon even the world. As far as I know, the world looks flat and round at the same time; I don't move, I just walk in place and the world revolves under me; the world is transient. I was at a friend's cattle ranch separating an heffer cow, for him having an infected foot, and was to give this heffer a third round of injections of that PFIZER "LA200" as well as wipe "Betadine" on the general area near the wound; when from a neighboring horse riding-ring came the appearance of three blessed men to lend their help to sort and administer the injecting of the agent into this heffer. One lended the efforts of his horse (mounted beneath his seat) to sort the heffer into a smaller pen, because the bulls try to gore anything at their eye-level; thereby separating this heffer to limit from bucking the rump wildly when the needle peirces the hide. Just out of kindness and joy they took my place, and I took a rest a little that moment of the hour. The one performing for the injection was quite large and barrel-chested as cattle-ranchers come, their strength measurable to two-men, and with a politeness and skill that reflected of respect to such lesser creatures. They made quick work to that heffer. I suppose whatever bucket carries the milk is inferior to him that gave the milk, and am thankful God reserected such vessels of earth to make such delivery to pour God's will upon His babes. By the way, those three men that helped me that day are female. No marriage need be spoken for when love is the law. God be praised.
quote:
The first commandment was to multiply and fill the earth. If you oppose polygamy, you support prostitution.
When emperor Constantine made the fornication laws stricter than the Bible, the result was an increase in promiscuity and unwed mothers, since girls were afraid to come forward and identify their lovers.
Forbidding polygamy has the same deleterious effect on society.
How we will be in heaven has no bearing in how we act now, other than to get there, we must obey His laws and statutes and judgements.
Does an embryo breathe air? Will it breathe air outside the womb? Does it profit from trying to breathe air inside the womb?
Profitless one! All the men that were blessed of God were polygamists. Your subtle attempts to condemn a blessed state of affairs shows you to have erred, as St. Augustine erred grossly, trusting the reason and philosophy of men.
Lizard-like aliens? Indeed, the word "Seraphim" doth refer to "dragons", and those four angels flying around the throne are fiery serpents, just as the original language says. But these aliens do not come from "outer space", they come from the spirit realm.
Greetings and blessings brother Linc!
I'm good for an audition, whether [y]our words are particular to flesh or spirit, or are they crossed translucency as I am enjoined to diction? Is the multiple marriage you speak of to the spirit or the flesh? No marriage is allowed to the spirit, and the soul is granted by God and none-other to move about. I am not to join with another, and am not to declare a will to take for a wife what is not been given. The one helping hand for mine flesh, and I for them, is already decided; God had intended as already written on my Heart, before my soul had ascribed upon an reserected earthen vessel, and a spirit pulling it taught for honourable movement. For any to declare marriage would admit a second marriage; a marriage separate from what God had already joined and revealed as His time allows: a re-marriage made known to the world, as if admitting that the world may have part in the marriage to judge and tax. Many have tried, and few have been able to perceive the name written on their Heart, due to lust of the flesh; seeking-out whom they want, seeking-out whom they think they kneed, committing to promises with diverse witness, breaking those promises, and evincing that there is a separation or incompatibility between them. If marriage was declared by wandering reason, then it would be a tax to the discharge of its fruition; that is a marriage of the flesh, requesting benefice from the witness of the marriage, instead of uncovering a friend given by God that had been equally given a blessing of God that was unequally burdened; a joy more attractive, that another is willing to join the work. If you think God gave a helper to your hand, and you to theirs, is distributed among more than one and thereby call the manner "polygamy", then the house is greater divided and even more liquid. Is it more of man, to be mormon, or less of man to bring about a greater affection to God? As I say, multiple wives is the desire of man, not God; man is created complete before entering the world, by and through Him. Do you see the liberty yet, brother? I've only a perspective on a mountain of feces, thereby thrown to stimulate the growth of His little ones. Christ Jesus is to mediate between the Father and those of us that are aroused to tradition and customs of multiple wives; to annul for their fraud to the creation, so none would ever succomb to a further falling-away as accomplished with a divorce. So as to Jesus, him a helping hand extended by God the Father. As I've always ascertained, polygamists are just serial monogamists with a short attention-span. A man can't be in two carriages at the same time; the bed can only be defiled two at a time; what help can having multiple-wives to prevent sin, to slander a female as to a wife/woman and deny them their living will bestowed by God? If sin is not committed, then it can't be remedied; moreso what manner is it to defile their bed with polygamy? And what ilk to quest whether an embryo breathes air? A Hen breathed for the chick in the egg; enough air necessary to grow its caste and secure content for its growth. What act of man would try to limit the same in a female; does not the mother breathe for the babe, to bring life into the earthen vessel while the soul reaches its natural accommodation?
first book of Corinthians [7:37-39]
"[37]Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.[38]So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.[39]The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord."
Matthew [24:37-39]
"[37]But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.[38]For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,[39]And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."
If by "polygamy" you mean multiple wives/women, then it is accurate to say that they were chosen and blessed by God; not as mere polygamists, but as being discerned capable of repentance. You didn't read about the polygamists in the world that were ground to ashes and dust. Not to disuade from the case of your exhibit, the manner of choosing is not any more descriptive than a choice given to men whether to live or die in their sins; in a world where all is wicked, those wicked men willing to repent are evidenced they had cursed God; again repenting of their sins with much sacrifice to their sinful life-style. If it is said by Jesus to bless them that curese you, than what more evidence is there that of all them that blessed in the name of God, God blessed them that cursed Him? The Scriptures are not a record to be proud, but to study and be mindful to God's judgment. When Cain slew Abel, God discerned that Cain was able to repent; God blessed Cain, when Cain cursed God and Abel. Do you derive the same fruit and manner from Cain, because he killed his brother? I do not profit at His expense; all profits are accounted for the will of God; and by this, I may not be a profitable servant because there is no glory applicable here; brother Linc is a good man, and by his actions is his dishonour made known. I'm not cursing polygamy. I can point out that polygamy is just another basketfull of sin. I'm contending with all I can withstand in this world, so if you want to poke dirt in the woods with the big-finger, I'll not be there to prevent it; sin can't be remedied until it is committed.
A marriage admits and implies an original separation and mending, as an ass for every saddle, while them that are of God are one mind and spirit, manifest upon the flesh. The misleading judgments of man turn them aside from God, but the door is always open to them that repent; to know that God has always been with them, sending servants looking for His lost children. Any declaration of marriage would be to bring about a second marriage; a marriage after the fact, in an urelated matter such are politic or corporate. In other words, would not a marriage declared of the world be A SECOND MARRIAGE? Thereby, with crafty words and sheepskin-laden arms may a man try to echo his second marriage into God, but its discernment is taxed by the ridicule of fellow crafty men. Does a man respond of being married or once had a marriage and is no more? A marriage of man is only the movement and consolidation of HERALDRY (fiction). If it is a sacrifice of sin, to bring a worldly cause in marriage to test the water before entering, would it be tempting to marry more than the one written on the Heart so as to consolidate the sin? I see this often, a man tries to justify marriage to more than one "wife" to disuade them from lust; his affection reasoned they not be among another drunkard, but not comprehending of his own drunkedness. If I were to think of the Spirit of God, I think it as water enclosed by a a earthen flax flask, evinced worthy by His judgment.
Joshua [2:4-14]
"[4]And the woman took the two men, and hid them, and said thus, There came men unto me, but I wist not whence they were:[5]And it came to pass about the time of shutting of the gate, when it was dark, that the men went out: whither the men went I wot not: pursue after them quickly; for ye shall overtake them.[6]But she had brought them up to the roof of the house, and hid them with the stalks of flax, which she had laid in order upon the roof.[7]And the men pursued after them the way to Jordan unto the fords: and as soon as they which pursued after them were gone out, they shut the gate. And before they were laid down, she came up unto them upon the roof;[9]And she said unto the men, I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you.[10]For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed.[11]And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.[12]Now therefore, I pray you, swear unto me by the LORD, since I have shewed you kindness, that ye will also shew kindness unto my father's house, and give me a true token:[13]And that ye will save alive my father, and my mother, and my brethren, and my sisters, and all that they have, and deliver our lives from death.[14]And the men answered her, Our life for yours, if ye utter not this our business. And it shall be, when the LORD hath given us the land, that we will deal kindly and truly with thee."
By what manner of spirit is that "woman", that she repents and asks for mercy to her kindred, even so-far as admitting a tresspass to call her father to a forgiveness, when it is written to call no man on earth your father because only one is the father? How can a hand be given in marriage when they are of the same quality and being; are they not already married, and the consolation is a SECOND MARRIAGE? Without any intention to disrespect, does a Christian give or take a hand in marriage to a Seik, or a Muslim to a Hindu, or a Scientologist to a Budhist? The calibrations to measure light in each of their worlds are not equal, even if they reach consolations to bud into another codex and congregation; in this same likeness does a marriage evince inequality, or is the purpose of marriage to hide the iniquity of one-another as though in conquest? Such are marriages, coerced to strain a seed, sprouting therewith and competing for light to the dormancy of the other; such is today to slander and libel a female as the weaker vessel to man, when the truth is a woman is the weaker vessel; and the distinction has been intentionally lost in the fowl application of religion. Check that, a woman is with child; it is true and good that a man be the head of his wife, because durring pregnancy there is needing a helping hand on the wife's shoulders because all her actions are effecting the health of herself and them that are within her: this applies to all manner of ships. As far as I can determine, a marriage of men is a ranting deception, and are the ruining of an already good relationship. If marriage were record of the flesh, then it would be for the moment of any copulations or intercourse, known today as a congress; whether in complimentary kindness or reason of work; and to this day, a marriage in flesh is a lie manifest on the spirit, and said to never be forgiven for such a tresspass when done KNOWINGLY; however, a spiritual manifestation of love onto the flesh is given by God the Father, and this has become the hidden by the traditions of men. As many as are men to forbade study and knowledge to an endless supply of books, there are men to bring about a spiritual forthcoming of knowledge to sustain the weigth of the phylanthropological hysteria of increasing population at an uneven and often glutenous rate with hints of racial jealousy.
Further to these thoughts: the only marriage given to man is a picture sliced and converted into a multi-peiced puzzle, a deteriorating key of ignorance to a locked door, a patch and Holy cement to a puncture of an self-inflating tricycle tire. The event to mend the garment is forgiven by God the Father; why speak of such a Heavenly events on the Earth as would to justify the cause of a man's flesh? Surely, as many wives are recorded to King David or Solomon, they are counted sin to the husband. Is the marriage bonded by paper, and not by the will of God written on His Heart? What already twains as one flesh needs not admit to be marriage; to be of one mind and spirit is self evident, no different than the occupants of this forum having same interests; or figuratively as equal holders of common stock in a company. A marriage of man is libel to God, to be declared that all the blessing of God is mere foreplay in comparison to man. When a man is asked if he is married, and yet they are not at eachother's hand in hand or not know eachother's whereabouts, is it accurate to say they are married? The married always know where either one is walking, and constantly dividing and multiplying their thoughts and words to an affection. Consider Cain's respond to God the Father after he slew Abel, "Am I my brother's keeper"; whereas a good/repentant man may have been more honest even of his ignorance if he had not known the whereabouts of his brother. As I've entertained many cattle ranchers, and females soliciting for my flesh, I justify referring to them respectively as sisters or brothers when we are of one mind, and by what emancipation are we to be persuaded into a marriage of the world? Brothers and sisters don't date and can't mary eachother; it's not unpossible, just not impossible by the verry Word of God and the construct in His teachings; He sends his sons deep into the world to measure its foundations, and seek out living water that yet remains to be shut-up by wicked men, and draw from this godly substance to cleanse the world. Much is confused by the repetion of societal brotherhoods and sisterhoods; I call them guilds; these are where the Word is often made flesh, and to the greater tresspass. Where does a female have indebtedness to a SECOND MARRIAGE as a woman to wife? Please show by what authority of God, and not the sinful actions of those people recorded in the Bible. They are not indebted to be a helping hand in marriage, but by the will of God do they uncover an iniquitous condition whence interested to seek that second marriage only to mend it; and foremost, the children of God are of one mind: what manner of agreement is made between them to marriage? I've not yet seen a marriage of man today, that wasn't the temptation for benefits or satisfaction with the world: not one! The creations of God can't be given or taken, as they are always His glory; and to keep His commandment is to return to Him, because there is no place in or of the world for His.
Genesis [2:20-25]
"[20]And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.[21]And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;[22]And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.[23]And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.[24]Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.[25]And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."
Matthew [22:1-13]
"[1]And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,[2]The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,[3]And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.[4]Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.[5]But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:[6]And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.[7]But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.[9]Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.[10]So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.[11]And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:[12]And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.[13]Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Consider the above, comparing a foreign country we'll call "Columbia"; there is a State admininstered by CONGRESS that has a wife/woman to be given to you in marriage, and none want the marriage because someone else is already married to the same woman and are merely "swingers" as would any institution inspired of Rome; discern the foundation is fraud, comprehended as to poke out one's eye onto the top of a pyramid to look at oneself as from on High, or hold a mirror (admiralty) in front of the man to reflect upon the counterfeit. As a UCC Redemptorist once told me, "You need the Jersey to play their game", where I naturally scoffed away sad to think about that new Jersey; comes now Jesus, to pulverize the images and cast-out the men that hold them above the shoulder. So CONGRESS compels a marriage of You to their woman (mark my words, differentiate between you and You). When all is done by God to the creation of the vessel to breathe His life into, it is complete and enters the world upon the shoulders of a earthen vessel; they all appear unique, even to the bust of their specied face if were allowed to capture to paper. Would it be to God's logic or to man's logic, to ask to be divided; for man's perception of lack, or God's perception of lack (a heresy, I believe)? Furthermore, God called them Adam; implications of more than one Adam as though a class, or shall we say thee "Adam" is referred to both male and female and not yet any "women" Eve-class.
quote:
We write this not to correct our brother but rather to demonstrate that though the Word of Yahuwah may be inerrant, the translations and transliterations by men are not. We must rightly divide the Word of Truth, as it is written.
Job 21:24 (KJV) His breasts [H5845] are full of milk, and his bones are moistened with marrow.
Job 21:24 (HNV) His pails [H5845] are full of milk. The marrow of his bones is moistened.
H5845
atiyn
Brown-Driver-Briggs' [Hebrew Lexicon] Definition:
1) bucket, pail
It is our humble opinion that container would actually be the best choice, but bucket or pail would work well in virtually all instances. Had breasts been the inspired translation, we perceive that we would have seen this Hebrew word.
Job 3:12 (KJV) Why did the knees prevent me? or why the breasts [H7699] that I should suck?
Psalm 22:9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts [H7699].
Next we we would like to point out that in the oldest extant writings there are apparently no Hebrew words for his, him, us, our, them or their (See Strong's Appendix). Thus, those words were added to Genesis 1:27 and 5:2, as well as too many other verses to list here. This is one of the reasons why we see apparent contradictions. As one glaring example, we give you portions of these side by side verses of the Scripture.
Genesis 1:26 (KJV) And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...
Genesis 1:27 (KJV) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
So how do we decide which is right, the plural or the singular pronouns? We go to other parts of the Scripture for verification.
Exodus 20:11 For in six days Yahuwah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is...
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Do you swear by the milk, or the milk that is carried by the bucket? To carry a bucket is to His honor. The King James Version 1611 carries a train of thought not evinced in the Hebrew, yet is great for the admonishment. Perhaps to build from the light in this fine moment brought by the Holder of "oneisraelite"; By what debt is it evinced to carry the milk theretofore to squash the gift of God's milk and His bucket? One element of God's love was fullfilled in the law at breach of the seal to the womb; a hidden marriage was uncovered by the world, and a husband that had sewn the Carnal seed given him by God is usually pushed aside by a human(sailor) to claim credit for his duty of clearing/searching out the babe's lung/cavity for the first breath of the Institution's atmosphere (at the babe's expense). I will not deny a little-one's conscience and conciousness, for he is the seat of His government; the bench chosen by God, to descend upon the once-graven enriched earth that grew alive and responsive to the Spirit of God as a mere Host; this is the law of God, and it is fullfilled that the earthen cyst in the womb is filled and counted by Him a worthy Earn and grown to an honest tything put under the admonition of the LORD. Even so, in these earthly manners, all glory to God that gave the seed of man to be within man, to sow and multiply its worth; but of the seed sown of the Spirit is His, a blessing that can't be held because of its endless weight and value. This I think is the greater bucket of milk to feed the babes that are not hindered by their flesh; for as even that Chalice held by the Christ Jesus overflowed upon His disciples, so to it happens again and again whence the adversary attempts to slay the part of me again and again. The above "bucket" admonishment is remeniscent of a little conquest I have in entering a Liquor bar occupied by Lesbians; To wit, despite much facial-hair on my earthen husk, I agree to a lesbian because my flesh subconciously is attracted to female; in reasoning with the jestful inquiries of my presence among the Lesbians, I respond to witness that I've been given an likeness to an oviposittor to sew carnal seed. Obviously, I'm a Lesbian too. :-( A nearby brother Phillip, him not privvy to this ECCLESIA.ORG forum, histerically clenches his teeth and grinds out his words that I'm "in store for razor blades"; but my manner is not to have any razor come to me at all, even by a "dyke", loved by the uncut clan-dyke.
quote:
We ask: What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China on Saturday afternoon? Are you trying to condone aborticide? If Yahuwah has breathed life into him or her does he or she live? Yes! And if we murder that living, thinking, being have we shed innocent blood, perhaps the only innocent blood to be found on earth? And innocent blood shall not be shed in the midst of your land...
It is relative. Have your helper attach a cord to your ankle as you exit the House of God on a mission into the world; carefully treading onto cursed soil, we'll find that the price of eggs in China is directly related to the sale of the complete organelles sold to UNITED STATES doctors for transplant. This is a recurring matter, witnessed at PRISONPLANET.COM.
quote:
Marriage license. A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry...
And in this same source, here is what we find for intermarriage, "See Miscegenation."
The word miscegenation was evidently coined in America, c. 1864, and means, mix genus, and genus actually means "race, stock, kind". So, notwithstanding that it could be referring to race, we see also that it might be referring to kind.
Is it even remotely possible that it might be referring to, Disparata non debent jungi. Unequal things ought not to be joined, which may, or may not, be in reference to race at all.
Could it be alluding to an admixture which is contrary to nature, for example, a living, breathing being(s) mingled with a PERSON (a non-living, non-breathing entity) such as the STATE? Could this be the cause for the necessity of a license, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal, a trespass, a tort, or otherwise not allowable" (Ibid.); so that the STATE, a non-living, non-breathing entity could be the third party in our marriages?
quote:
It is because if polygamy is a sin, then I am a mamzer/bastard, not allowed into the congregation of the eternal. If my grandfather was not a polygamist, I would not be alive today. I am proud of my grandfather, and ashamed of the rest of my family for cutting off all contact with my grandfathers branch of the family.
I've gotten this far, with such a large post. I'm not to judge. Children are a blessing from God, and I learned this the hard way, and now defend them to the death. Whatever tresspass occurred, a blessing was given you in return: dirty-diapers that won't stop filling. :-) As much as it is pricey to raise children, the world is the most to benefit from your sin; to derive its sustenance from your actions that it deems unlawful. That's why it is called polygamy, because you claim to be able to have intercourse with more than one at a time and that is a double phallacy (hint). That proves you've been taught to be an unconcious liar, or your soul realy has been bonded to a "different" flesh.
quote:
Is there a difference? Historical fact, proven across millenia and on every continent, shows that when polygamy is forbidden, the number of prostitutes and orphans rises up.
That is true; and just as a Nunnery to open an orphanage to advertise their charity to the children that have been pulled/blessed into the world quicker than anyone can catch them. As I said before, this is why I thought why there would warrant multiple wives; after the fact, of course. Why make more work for yourselves when the good work is yet to be done? That is just damage control.
quote:
Our job is to fill the earth; YHWH will close up our wombs when it gets full enough. And there is always a need for more children of the righteous.
By no means. Breathing air through the lungs happens after one is born, not before. Just so, our estate in the resurrection is completely different, and unknown. To base our behavior now on how we think things will be in the resurrection is vanity. There is a time for every thing under heaven. The time to refrain from marrying and bearing children is not now!
I must say, the first miracle is the transition and moment when the heart begins moving blood; this is typical of a complete nervous system, muscles with a joined circulatory system. I am not to judge when the soul joins to the Lord's Vessel, but I do know another vessell is reserected in Washington's District of Columbia the moment a rogue handmaid coerces the child's foot to spontaneously tresspass onto a pallet of dead-tree paper owned by someone else. And on a related train of thought, my job isn't to fill the earth; I'm not a shovel to burry myself in tits and arse; I'm just passing through about my Father's business.
Greetings kevin!
quote:
It is even possible that we the people alluded to in th constituion were only white male land owners,
Embryo thats a sad word like fetus.. EWWWWW!!!
Personaly I prefer to say child.
and I really love that whole Alien thing very interesting stuff Im tryin ta see what breed I come from.
But the one of Barbar srteisand ??? Is she an alien too?
There is a small anomaly as to color and stain. The so-called White that people allude to the corners of their eyes are but a stain, whereas measuring color in skin is a question of pigmentation. The only way to get the effect of white is by blending the three primary colors; what are they, such as red and green and blue; but that is more a question of Light-supremacy as opposed to those supremacists of no merrit. Jesus pulled this matter taught;
John [8:12]
"[12]Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."
John [3:20]
"[20]For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved."
Psalm [119:130]
"[130]The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple."
Psalm 119:105
"[105]Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path."
Psalm [56:13]
"[13]For thou hast delivered my soul from death: wilt not thou deliver my feet from falling, that I may walk before God in the light of the living?"
|
Edited by - RevokeTheTrust on 14 Jan 2006 03:52:26 |
|
|
|
Linc
Advanced Member
Canada
111 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2006 : 02:49:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by RevokeTheTrust
lots of stuff
Sir, speak plainly. Jesus may have obfuscated his speech, but at least he kept it brief. You might find him a worthy model.
If baby-making isn't your Fathers business, then your Father is not my Father, who commanded all the living to "fill the earth". I worship the most potent fertility God ever. You appear to be a Gnostic, with your talk of spirit and flesh, carnality and constitutions. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Divorce & Remarriage
