Lol despite ur rantings. Statistics show Christians get divorced the same rate as everyone else

Scholar8200:
Bro, you appear passionate about this but why not let's focus on the message?



God will forgive when there is true repentance and restitution. A divorcee that remarries and repents cannot retain the 'new' spouse, that will be insincere.


Here you are judging someone you have never met!



Relax bro! Pls have you met the op in person before or you assume he has a problem with anger?



Indeed you are correct! Good news is that His Grace can make us free from them all.

You see, the op was trying to address an issue. Let's focus thereon.


Where did the op do this?


I like this. And what makes you righteous is what Jesus did! And just as a sinner had to sin because that is who he is (partaker of the fallen nature); a righteous person will walk in newness/holiness of life because that is what he is(a partaker of the Divine Nature)

Can you expatiate on the highlighted.

Amen!!! And when this Light shines into our darkened hearts, we will be enabled to,"... awake to righteousness and sin not...1 Corinth 15:34 But if we say we have the Light and walk in darkness, we lie.


The Law justifies NO ONE before God. Through Jesus Christ we are reconciled to God; We are grafted into the True Vine and the Fruits He expects must be manifest in our lives!! Without these Fruits, we need to examine ourselves if we truly are in the faith.

Ahh! My very good friend, are you back?
It has been a long timeooo!

Okay, I have to settle facts here.

What divorces really need is not OPs like this, rather the gospel of grace that can make them happy(joyful) about the finished work of Christ, and making to reconcile with no condemnation and love.

I still not condemn the fact that the divorcees should reconcile , rather I fight that even when they are divorcees, for the sake of Christ death, they still have the FREE gift of "no condemnation"(eternal life) which is on the basis of faith alone and not works, if they can rely on the righteousness of Jesus. If you say no, then it makes no sense in christ's death, which occurred in place of the ungodly (including divorcees).


First of all, I appear passionate because I know where the op is about to head people to. As the bible say;"By their fruits we shall know them. And that is to rely on their right living, trying to please God by their works of righteousness with the MOTIVE of looking righteous before God, which of works of the law, which will end up making the person accursed.

Gal 3:10;
"Anyone who tries to please God by obeying the Law (right living) is under a curse. The Scriptures say, “Everyone who doesn’t obey everything in the Law is under a curse.”(CEV)


You know, there are messages that when not given, in respect to the FREE gift of no condemnation(cross), will cause people to live their lives in fear and works, to deliver themselves from the punishment of the sins Jesus was punished for, as if they are the author and finisher of their righteousness. And that simply makes them accursed!

Phil 3:19; made it clear that the righteousness God approves, is not our own right living(righteousness), or the righteousness that come through TRYING to please God but, the righteousness of Christ, HIMSELF.


Before you talk about forgiveness, you have to understand what forgiveness really is!

First of all, why are we forgiven? How?

We are not forgiven because we ask for forgiveness, repent(change of mind) and do restitution. BUT BY HIS BLOOD! THERE IS NO FORGIVENESS(remission) OF SIN, WITHOUT SHED BLOOD.

Heb 9;22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and WITHOUT SHEDDING OF BLOOD IS NO REMISSION OF SIN."

When a criminal is found guilty and condemned to death imprisonment in a law court, no matter how the criminal ask for forgiveness, his penalty cannot be cancelled. The ONLY way the criminal can receive forgiveness is when someone OFFERS HIMSELF, to take the place of the criminal and take the penalty of his crime. In our case, we were condemned to eternal death, NOT FOR OUR PAST SINS, BUT FOR OUR ETERNAL SINLESS IMPERFECTION(including divorce). Jesus came and die in our place. Now, we should know that Jesus also died for the sins of divorce. The divorcee deserves death but Jesus accepted it to be forgiven.

Our sins are not washed away by prayer of forgiven, restitution or change of mind(repentance) but our sins were washed by his BLOOD.


Restitution, which is to restore and correct our past mistakes is NEVER A REQUIREMENT OF BEING SAVED BY HIS BLOO.


READ THIS, ABOUT SIN, RESTITUTION

It is often implied in some circles that a person who
is born again will abstain from certain types or
patterns of sin. To these people, continually
committing the same sin could be convincing
evidence that salvation is lacking in the person under
scrutiny. I certainly don't intend to condone,
encourage, or make light of sin. All sin is serious and
should be so treated. Nor do I deny that the
Christian, one who is a child of God and indwelt by
the Holy Spirit, has a new nature and capacity for
living for the Lord that unsaved people do not have. I am attempting to show the inconsistency of
promoting the idea that living faithfully for the Lord
is somehow automatic for all "true" Christians. I hope
that by listing some sins which could easily apply to
many believers the need for the Free Grace position
will become obvious.


Salvation, Restitution, and Sins of Commission

Suppose a man who worked in a job where he was
in contact with money actually embezzled some of
the money entrusted to his care. Suppose the money
wasn't missed and he was never caught. Some years
later he hears a sermon in which he is told that
continuing sin proves that a person committing such
a sin was never saved in the first place or that in
order to receive the free gift of salvation one must
turn from his sins (i.e., stop sinning). Under the
theology being discussed here, it would seem that
restitution or confession to the party from whom the
money was stolen would be necessary for the man to
be saved (or to prove he is a believer). But what if the
amount of money was relatively small, say 30 cents?
And say it occurred 40 years ago when the man as a
teenager worked at an ice cream stand? I can
imagine many who hold to this persuasion telling the
man, "Forget it, you can be saved without paying
back the 30 cents." But what if the amount were
greater, say, 30 dollars? Manymight still tell him the
same thing: "Forget it." Let's keep raising the
amount. How about 300 dollars—3,000—30,000? At
what point in this theology would the "continuing
sin" of not paying back the stolen money prevent
salvation? And who decides?


This example is no bizarre daydream. Whether it's
money or some other issue, such things are surely
common in the affairs of mankind and can't be
glossed over by those who tie works onto grace in
this way. Boldfaced lies as well as subtle deception,
grumpiness, rudeness, and gossip can all fall into
this category of "continuing sins."


How many people, because of skeletons in their
closet, of one kind or another, have been made to
think that they can't be saved until they "go back
and make it right"? And how many have "gone back"
for that reason and then thought themselves saved
because they did so? Wittingly or unwittingly this
belief does not value Christ's sacrifice as adequate to
save all those who trust in Him.


If going back and correcting past wrongs is
required to receive the free gift of salvation (or
required to prove one has salvation), then we are all
"goners." What are those people thinking about who
claim salvation for themselves and who advocate the
idea that "continuing sins" disallow or disprove
salvation? Do their consciences accuse or excuse
them? Either way, such imagined personal purity is
surely as unlikely in their case as it is in the case of
any fallen human.


Salvation, Restitution, and Sins of Omission

What about neglecting the things we ought to do—
sins of omission? This might seem similar to the
failure to correct past wrongs as discussed
previously, but I'm thinking more of Christian duties.
These could include the following: Skipping prayer or
church (Heb 10:24-25), neglecting Bible study (2 Tim
2:15), not being ready with an answer when
someone asks us about the hope that lies within us
(1 Pet 3:15), ignoring the needs of others (1 John
3:17), failing to visit the orphans and widows (Jas
1:27). The list goes on. The point is that we're all
guilty, and to deny it is folly and self deception.


CHRIST'S SACRIFICE IS SUFFICIENT FOR ALL SIN.

All sin is an affront to God's holiness, whatever
"kind" or "degree," whether "large" or "small,"
"continuing" or "non-continuing," "deliberate" or "not
deliberate." The Free Grace position does not ignore
"lesser" sins, but recognizes Christ's sacrifice as
necessary and sufficient to cancel all sin and looks to
Him for salvation
. I'm not arguing here against restitution or
correcting past sins. As believers "we must all appear
before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one
may receive the things done in the body, according
to what he has done, whether good or bad" (2 Cor
5:10). I am, however, attempting to show that such
"corrections" cannot be made requirements for
receiving, maintaining, or proving salvation.

Although, in many such circumstances, knowing
whether it is best to try to correct past wrongs or not
might be difficult, we can be sure that the Lord Jesus
in His atonement has forever nullified sin's power to
condemn the believer (Rom 5:8-11).
That the Lord Jesus gives eternal life to those who
trust in Him for it is good news (John 6:47; Acts 4:12;
Rom 10:15). Trying to get saved, stay saved, or prove
we are saved by undoing our wrongs is a hopeless
proposition.

God's grace is a wonderful motivation and
encouragement to faithful Christian living (Titus
2:11-12). It should not be used to promote sin (Rom
6:1-2) or viewed as something that automatically
infuses us with behavior that supposedly proves we
are saved. As Christians may we never forget our
desperate need of God's grace and may we never
cease to feel the relief of having received it.

promise101:

Ahh! My very good friend, are you back?
It has been a long timeooo!

Okay, I have to settle facts here.

What divorces really need is not OPs like this, rather the gospel of grace that can make them happy(joyful) about the finished work of Christ, and making to reconcile with no condemnation and love.

I still not condemn the fact that the divorcees should reconcile , rather I fight that even when they are divorcees, for the sake of Christ death, they still have the FREE gift of "no condemnation"(eternal life) which is on the basis of faith alone and not works, if they can rely on the righteousness of Jesus. If you say no, then it makes no sense in christ's death, which occurred in place of the ungodly (including divorcees).


First of all, I appear passionate because I know where the op is about to head people to. As the bible say;"By their fruits we shall know them. And that is to rely on their right living, trying to please God by their works of righteousness with the MOTIVE of looking righteous before God, which of works of the law, which will end up making the person accursed.

Gal 3:10;
"Anyone who tries to please God by obeying the Law (right living) is under a curse. The Scriptures say, “Everyone who doesn’t obey everything in the Law is under a curse.”(CEV)


You know, there are messages that when not given, in respect to the FREE gift of no condemnation(cross), will cause people to live their lives in fear and works, to deliver themselves from the punishment of the sins Jesus was punished for, as if they are the author and finisher of their righteousness. And that simply makes them accursed!

Phil 3:19; made it clear that the righteousness God approves, is not our own right living(righteousness), or the righteousness that come through TRYING to please God but, the righteousness of Christ, HIMSELF.


Before you talk about forgiveness, you have to understand what forgiveness really is!

First of all, why are we forgiven? How?

We are not forgiven because we ask for forgiveness, repent(change of mind) and do restitution. BUT BY HIS BLOOD! THERE IS NO FORGIVENESS(remission) OF SIN, WITHOUT SHED BLOOD.

Heb 9;22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and WITHOUT SHEDDING OF BLOOD IS NO REMISSION OF SIN."

When a criminal is found guilty and condemned to death imprisonment in a law court, no matter how the criminal ask for forgiveness, his penalty cannot be cancelled. The ONLY way the criminal can receive forgiveness is when someone OFFERS HIMSELF, to take the place of the criminal and take the penalty of his crime. In our case, we were condemned to eternal death, NOT FOR OUR PAST SINS, BUT FOR OUR ETERNAL SINLESS IMPERFECTION(including divorce). Jesus came and die in our place. Now, we should know that Jesus also died for the sins of divorce. The divorcee deserves death but Jesus accepted it to be forgiven.

Our sins are not washed away by prayer of forgiven, restitution or change of mind(repentance) but our sins were washed by his BLOOD.


Restitution, which is to restore and correct our past mistakes is NEVER A REQUIREMENT OF BEING SAVED BY HIS BLOO.


READ THIS, ABOUT SIN, RESTITUTION

It is often implied in some circles that a person who
is born again will abstain from certain types or
patterns of sin. To these people, continually
committing the same sin could be convincing
evidence that salvation is lacking in the person under
scrutiny. I certainly don't intend to condone,
encourage, or make light of sin. All sin is serious and
should be so treated. Nor do I deny that the
Christian, one who is a child of God and indwelt by
the Holy Spirit, has a new nature and capacity for
living for the Lord that unsaved people do not have. I am attempting to show the inconsistency of
promoting the idea that living faithfully for the Lord
is somehow automatic for all "true" Christians. I hope
that by listing some sins which could easily apply to
many believers the need for the Free Grace position
will become obvious.


Salvation, Restitution, and Sins of Commission

Suppose a man who worked in a job where he was
in contact with money actually embezzled some of
the money entrusted to his care. Suppose the money
wasn't missed and he was never caught. Some years
later he hears a sermon in which he is told that
continuing sin proves that a person committing such
a sin was never saved in the first place or that in
order to receive the free gift of salvation one must
turn from his sins (i.e., stop sinning). Under the
theology being discussed here, it would seem that
restitution or confession to the party from whom the
money was stolen would be necessary for the man to
be saved (or to prove he is a believer). But what if the
amount of money was relatively small, say 30 cents?
And say it occurred 40 years ago when the man as a
teenager worked at an ice cream stand? I can
imagine many who hold to this persuasion telling the
man, "Forget it, you can be saved without paying
back the 30 cents." But what if the amount were
greater, say, 30 dollars? Manymight still tell him the
same thing: "Forget it." Let's keep raising the
amount. How about 300 dollars—3,000—30,000? At
what point in this theology would the "continuing
sin" of not paying back the stolen money prevent
salvation? And who decides?


This example is no bizarre daydream. Whether it's
money or some other issue, such things are surely
common in the affairs of mankind and can't be
glossed over by those who tie works onto grace in
this way. Boldfaced lies as well as subtle deception,
grumpiness, rudeness, and gossip can all fall into
this category of "continuing sins."


How many people, because of skeletons in their
closet, of one kind or another, have been made to
think that they can't be saved until they "go back
and make it right"? And how many have "gone back"
for that reason and then thought themselves saved
because they did so? Wittingly or unwittingly this
belief does not value Christ's sacrifice as adequate to
save all those who trust in Him.


If going back and correcting past wrongs is
required to receive the free gift of salvation (or
required to prove one has salvation), then we are all
"goners." What are those people thinking about who
claim salvation for themselves and who advocate the
idea that "continuing sins" disallow or disprove
salvation? Do their consciences accuse or excuse
them? Either way, such imagined personal purity is
surely as unlikely in their case as it is in the case of
any fallen human.


Salvation, Restitution, and Sins of Omission

What about neglecting the things we ought to do—
sins of omission? This might seem similar to the
failure to correct past wrongs as discussed
previously, but I'm thinking more of Christian duties.
These could include the following: Skipping prayer or
church (Heb 10:24-25), neglecting Bible study (2 Tim
2:15), not being ready with an answer when
someone asks us about the hope that lies within us
(1 Pet 3:15), ignoring the needs of others (1 John
3:17), failing to visit the orphans and widows (Jas
1:27). The list goes on. The point is that we're all
guilty, and to deny it is folly and self deception.


CHRIST'S SACRIFICE IS SUFFICIENT FOR ALL SIN.

All sin is an affront to God's holiness, whatever
"kind" or "degree," whether "large" or "small,"
"continuing" or "non-continuing," "deliberate" or "not
deliberate." The Free Grace position does not ignore
"lesser" sins, but recognizes Christ's sacrifice as
necessary and sufficient to cancel all sin and looks to
Him for salvation
. I'm not arguing here against restitution or
correcting past sins. As believers "we must all appear
before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one
may receive the things done in the body, according
to what he has done, whether good or bad" (2 Cor
5:10). I am, however, attempting to show that such
"corrections" cannot be made requirements for
receiving, maintaining, or proving salvation.

Although, in many such circumstances, knowing
whether it is best to try to correct past wrongs or not
might be difficult, we can be sure that the Lord Jesus
in His atonement has forever nullified sin's power to
condemn the believer (Rom 5:8-11).
That the Lord Jesus gives eternal life to those who
trust in Him for it is good news (John 6:47; Acts 4:12;
Rom 10:15). Trying to get saved, stay saved, or prove
we are saved by undoing our wrongs is a hopeless
proposition.

God's grace is a wonderful motivation and
encouragement to faithful Christian living (Titus
2:11-12). It should not be used to promote sin (Rom
6:1-2) or viewed as something that automatically
infuses us with behavior that supposedly proves we
are saved. As Christians may we never forget our
desperate need of God's grace and may we never
cease to feel the relief of having received it.

May God grant us grace to serve Him acceptably with reverence and godly fear , enable us to follow peace with all men and holiness without which no man will see Him and give us the grace to be watchful so that we can be that Glorious church without spot or wrinkle that He wants us (and washes us in His Blood) to be, Amen.

Scholar8200:
May God grant us grace to serve Him acceptably with reverence and godly fear , enable us to follow peace with all men and holiness without which no man will see Him and give us the grace to be watchful so that we can be that Glorious church without spot or wrinkle that He wants us (and washes us in His Blood) to be, Amen.

Yea, amen too!!

God is NOT about to grant us grace to serve him, he has ALREADY granted us the grace and it happen at the cross! So, when we do anything that makes no relevance of the cross, we frustrate that grace.

GALATIANS 2:21;"What actually took place is this: I tried keeping rules and working my head off to please God, and IT DIDN'T WORK. So I QUIT being a “law man” so that I could be God’s man. Christ’s life showed me how, and enabled me to do it. I identified myself completely with him. Indeed, I have been crucified with Christ. My ego is no longer central. It is NO LONGER IMPORTANT that I appear righteous before YOU or have your good opinion, and I AM NO LONGER DRIVEN TO IMPRESS GOD. Christ lives in me. The life you see me living is not “mine,” but it is lived by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I am not going to go back on that(right living, law, works of righteousness). Is it not clear to you that to go back to that old rule-keeping, peer-pleasing religion would be an abandonment of everything personal and FREE in my relationship with God? I refuse to do that, to REPUDIATE God’s grace. If a living relationship with God could come by rule-keeping, then CHRIST DIED UNNECESSARILY.(MSG version).


And as well his grace shown to us at the cross enables us to follow peace with all men and holiness without which no man will see Him. And the holiness, which will make us see him, is not the holiness that comes through law keeping(right living), it the holiness that makes God(himself) holy, which cannot to be established but imputed on us on the BASIS OF FAITH.

Our righteousness and holiness is a person, Jesus and not the keeping of the law, which ends up making it's followers accursed.

1cor 1:30. New International Version
It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus,
who has become for us wisdom from God--that is,
our righteousness, HOLINESS and redemption.

So, when we put our trust and rely on him we become righteous and holy, not having our own righteousness which comes from "DOs and DON'Ts"
, the law.

Phil 3:9;"and may be found in Him [BELIEVING AND RELYING ON HIM], NOT HAVING any righteousness of MY OWN(dos and don'ts)derived from [MY OBEDIENCE TO] the Law(right living) and its rituals, but [possessing] that [GENUINE RIGHTEOUSNESS] which comes THROUGH FAITH IN CHRIST, the righteousness which comes FROM GOD ON THE BASIS OF FAITH.(AMP)

I agree with you on this. He has ALREADY given us the grace, at the cross, to be watchful so that we can be that Glorious church without spot or wrinkle.

We shall be without wrinkles or spot, NOT BECAUSE we were watchful(works), or because we lived rightly(works) and strived to look sinless perfect by WORKS(which we know no one is justified with).

RATHER, we shall be without wrinkles or spot, BECAUSE we believe that we have been eternally Justified by his blood, ALL our eternal sins being laid on christ and him being punished for it, in exchange for ETERNAL SALVATION(heb 5:9). And the penalty NEVER ended at the cross, he had to go to hell also, so that we won't have to go!

That's why we will continue to trust in him for our righteousness because he is the AUTHOR and the FINISHER of our FAITH.

promise101:

Yea, amen too!!

God is NOT about to grant us grace to serve him, he has ALREADY granted us the grace and it happen at the cross! So, when we do anything that makes no relevance of the cross, we frustrate that grace.

But Hebrews 4 says to come boldly to the Throne of Grace that we might receive... Grace in time of need?

GALATIANS 2:21;"What actually took place is this: I tried keeping rules and working my head off to please God, and IT DIDN'T WORK. So I QUIT being a “law man” so that I could be God’s man. Christ’s life showed me how, and enabled me to do it. I identified myself completely with him. Indeed, I have been crucified with Christ. My ego is no longer central. It is NO LONGER IMPORTANT that I appear righteous before YOU or have your good opinion, and I AM NO LONGER DRIVEN TO IMPRESS GOD. Christ lives in me. The life you see me living is not “mine,” but it is lived by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I am not going to go back on that(right living, law, works of righteousness). Is it not clear to you that to go back to that old rule-keeping, peer-pleasing religion would be an abandonment of everything personal and FREE in my relationship with God? I refuse to do that, to REPUDIATE God’s grace. If a living relationship with God could come by rule-keeping, then CHRIST DIED UNNECESSARILY.(MSG version).


And as well his grace shown to us at the cross enables us to follow peace with all men and holiness without which no man will see Him. And the holiness, which will make us see him, is not the holiness that comes through law keeping(right living), it the holiness that makes God(himself) holy, which cannot to be established but imputed on us on the BASIS OF FAITH.

Indeed, it (holiness) is a fruit that proves we have really received that we claim by faith.

Our righteousness and holiness is a person, Jesus and not the keeping of the law, which ends up making it's followers accursed.

1cor 1:30. New International Version
It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus,
who has become for us wisdom from God--that is,
our righteousness, HOLINESS and redemption.

So, when we put our trust and rely on him we become righteous and holy, not having our own righteousness which comes from "DOs and DON'Ts"
, the law.

Indeed, and that makes us shine before men who will see our good works and glorify God (not us).

Phil 3:9;"and may be found in Him [BELIEVING AND RELYING ON HIM], NOT HAVING any righteousness of MY OWN(dos and don'ts)derived from [MY OBEDIENCE TO] the Law(right living) and its rituals, but [possessing] that [GENUINE RIGHTEOUSNESS] which comes THROUGH FAITH IN CHRIST, the righteousness which comes FROM GOD ON THE BASIS OF FAITH.(AMP)

I agree with you on this. He has ALREADY given us the grace, at the cross, to be watchful so that we can be that Glorious church without spot or wrinkle.

We shall be without wrinkles or spot, NOT BECAUSE we were watchful(works), or because we lived rightly(works) and strived to look sinless perfect by WORKS(which we know no one is justified with).

RATHER, we shall be without wrinkles or spot, BECAUSE we believe that we have been eternally Justified by his blood, ALL our eternal sins being laid on christ and him being punished for it, in exchange for ETERNAL SALVATION(heb 5:9). And the penalty NEVER ended at the cross, he had to go to hell also, so that we won't have to go!

But we still need to watch and be steadfast in the faith and keep ourselves (1 John 5) because we have an adversary. No need to watch if no danger of being defiled existed.

That's why we will continue to trust in him for our righteousness because he is the AUTHOR and the FINISHER of our FAITH.

Very true. We trust in Him Who works in us both to will and do of His good pleasure and as He does, we , by faith, work out our salvation with fear and .trembling

my ppl perish bkos dey lack understanding.

highyo:
■ You can not remarry if you divorce your partner whosoever does things like that is an adultrer
and rev21;8 no adultrer or furnicators shall enter the kingdom of God you are in this shoe, go back to him or her, ie your first date. If you cant stay with him or her and you leave, you must remain single, and never remarry God hate things like that.. Whosoever divorces his or her partner, exposed her to adultary and whosoever marry a divorce woman is an adultrer secondly, any youth that get her girl friend pregnant, she is your wife and you must pay her diory even if you dont love her. But if her parent will not want to give her to you. Even if you disvirgin a lady, you must pay her diory, and must not put her away thirdly, do not admire another lady, like lusting after her or him
dont even say, how i wish this man is my husband, or how i wish this woman is my wife. Fourtly She was once your girlfriend when you were both in school, not she is marry to someone else, dont even hug him or her. Its over

This is what results when you let religion turn your ability to reason upside down.

In the Gospels, Jesus Christ does not teach that divorce is a sin. Instead, He speaks instead of remarriage being a potential sin for those already divorced, and even those about to marry for the first time.
■ Matthew 5 vs 31 - 32

31 “It was also said, ‘Any man who divorces his wife must give her a written notice of divorce.’
32 But I tell you that any man who divorces his wife, except for the problem of sexual sin, is causing his wife to be guilty of adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman is guilty of adultery. - Matthew 5 vs 31 - 32

■ Matthew 19 vs 7 - 9

7 The Pharisees asked, “Then why did Moses give a command allowing a man to divorce his wife by writing a certificate of divorce?”
8 Jesus answered, “Moses allowed you to divorce your wives because you refused to accept God’s teaching. But divorce was not allowed in the beginning.
9 I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for the problem of sexual sin, and marries another woman is guilty of adultery.” - Matthew 19 vs 7 - 9

■Mark 10 vs 10- 12

10 Later, when the followers and Jesus were in the house, they asked him again about the question of divorce. 
11 He said, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman has sinned against his wife. He is guilty of adultery. 
12  And the woman who divorces her husband and marries another man is also guilty of adultery.” - Mark 10 vs 10- 12

■ Luke 16 vs 18

18 “Any man who divorces his wife and marries another woman is guilty of adultery. And the man who marries a divorced woman is also guilty of adultery.” - Luke 16 vs 18

Divorce in and of itself is not a sin, so says Jesus Christ.

Kobojunkie:
This is what results when you let religion turn your ability to reason upside down.

Yet you that didn't let religion turn your reasoning ability upside down couldn't make use of it.

In the Gospels, Jesus Christ does not teach that divorce is a sin. Instead, He speaks instead of remarriage being a potential sin for those already divorced, and even those about to marry for the first time.
■ Matthew 5 vs 31 - 32

■ Matthew 19 vs 7 - 9

■Mark 10 vs 10- 12

■ Luke 16 vs 18


Divorce in and of itself is not a sin, so says Jesus Christ.

You're the very one who cited all these verses and you can still make the @bold statement, so pathetic.

From the scripture you cited, we can infer that:
1. People who ACCEPT God's teaching aren't supposed to divorce because “Moses allowed you to divorce your wives because you refused to accept God’s teaching." Question: is it a sin to reject God's teaching or not?

2. Divorce should not happen EXCEPT for sexual sin. So what happened when divorce is based on what is not sexual sin?

3. God says "He hates Divorce" - Malachi 2:16

So does doing what God hate is a sin or not?

Emusan:
■ Yet you that didn't let religion turn your reasoning ability upside down couldn't make use of it. You're the very one who cited all these verses and you can still make the @bold statement, so pathetic.

From the scripture you cited, we can infer that:
1. People who ACCEPT God's teaching aren't supposed to divorce because “Moses allowed you to divorce your wives because you refused to accept God’s teaching." Question: is it a sin to reject God's teaching or not?
2. Divorce should not happen EXCEPT for sexual sin. So what happened when divorce is based on what is not sexual sin?
3. God says "He hates Divorce" - Malachi 2:16
So does doing what God hate is a sin or not?

Is it that you can't read or what? Again, In the Gospels, Jesus Christ does not teach that divorce is a sin. Instead, He speaks instead of remarriage being a potential sin for those already divorced, and even those about to marry for the first time.
■ Matthew 5 vs 31 - 32

31 “It was also said, ‘Any man who divorces his wife must give her a written notice of divorce.’
32 But I tell you that any man who divorces his wife, except for the problem of sexual sin, is causing his wife to be guilty of adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman is guilty of adultery. - Matthew 5 vs 31 - 32

■ Matthew 19 vs 7 - 9

7 The Pharisees asked, “Then why did Moses give a command allowing a man to divorce his wife by writing a certificate of divorce?”
8 Jesus answered, “Moses allowed you to divorce your wives because you refused to accept God’s teaching. But divorce was not allowed in the beginning.
9 I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for the problem of sexual sin, and marries another woman is guilty of adultery.” - Matthew 19 vs 7 - 9

■Mark 10 vs 10- 12

10 Later, when the followers and Jesus were in the house, they asked him again about the question of divorce. 
11 He said, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman has sinned against his wife. He is guilty of adultery. 
12  And the woman who divorces her husband and marries another man is also guilty of adultery.” - Mark 10 vs 10- 12

■ Luke 16 vs 18

18 “Any man who divorces his wife and marries another woman is guilty of adultery. And the man who marries a divorced woman is also guilty of adultery.” - Luke 16 vs 18

Jesus Christ never said anywhere in His Gospel teachings that divorce, in and of itself, is sin, so what part of that are you having a hard time comprehending?

Kobojunkie:
Is it that you can't read or what? Again, In the Gospels, Jesus Christ does not teach that divorce is a sin. Instead, He speaks instead of remarriage being a potential sin for those already divorced, and even those about to marry for the first time.
■ Matthew 5 vs 31 - 32

■ Matthew 19 vs 7 - 9

■Mark 10 vs 10- 12

■ Luke 16 vs 18
Jesus Christ never said anywhere in His Gospel teachings that divorce, in and of itself, is sin, so what part of that are you having a hard time comprehending?

Smile....see boldness in arrogance.

Jesus said Divorce was not ALLOWED from beginning.

Jesus said those who divorce are allowed because they didn't follow the TEACHING OF GOD.

lastly, God says "He hates Divorce" will Jesus contradict God on divorce issue?

The yoke of religion is on you.

Emusan:
Smile....see boldness in arrogance. Jesus said Divorce was not ALLOWED from beginning. Jesus said those who divorce are allowed because they didn't follow the TEACHING OF GOD. lastly, God says "He hates Divorce" will Jesus contradict God on divorce issue? The yoke of religion is on you.

These musings of yours aside, Jesus Christ never said anywhere in His Gospel teachings that divorce, in and of itself, is sin, so what part of that are you having a hard time comprehending?

Jesus Christ never in fact says anywhere in His Gospel that those who divorce are guilty of sin or of adultery. Understand that and you will maybe come close to realizing the needlessness of what you are going on about.

Kobojunkie:
These musings of yours aside, Jesus Christ never said anywhere in His Gospel teachings that divorce, in and of itself, is sin, so what part of that are you having a hard time comprehending?

Jesus Christ never in fact says anywhere in His Gospel that those who divorce are guilty of sin or of adultery. Understand that and you will maybe come close to realizing the needlessness of what you are going on about.

But Jesus said:


1. Divorce was not ALLOWED from beginning in His gospel.

2. Those who divorce are allowed because they didn't follow the TEACHING OF GOD in His gospel.

Lastly, God says "He hates Divorce" will Jesus contradict God on divorce issue?

You haven't answered this question, why?

The yoke of religion is on you.

Emusan:
■ But Jesus said: Divorce was not ALLOWED from beginning in His gospel.
■ Those who divorce are allowed because they didn't follow the TEACHING OF GOD in His gospel.
■ Lastly, God says "He hates Divorce" will Jesus contradict God on divorce issue?
■ You haven't answered this question, why? The yoke of religion is on you.

1. Jesus Christ said that in reference to the beginning, before the fall of man- Matthew 19 vs 1 - 8 makes that clear since it was also the time when God made the world and still His hand in marriage. The beginning is a reference to when God made the world.

2. Jesus Christ never said this which you claim. Rather what He said is that Moses allowed men to divorce because men refused to accept God's teaching. Which of God's teachings did men refuse to accept? Care to guess?

3. God says He hates divorce but the same God is recorded to have allowed divorce in His Old Covenant — recall that God is the one who gave His Law to the people of Israel through Moses and not that Moses came up with those laws on His own—, and even proclaimed of how He, at one point, divorced Israel — Jeremiah 3. Try to read passages in context so you can better understand what God is in fact saying to you.

4. Keep your yoke to yourself because it is to blame for why you feel it is OK to add to God's Law a definition to sin that God Himself never included. The rule is "Do not add, remove or change any of that stipulated in God's Law". Suggesting, by way of these musings of your mind, that divorce ought to be a sin when Jesus Christ Himself never did stipulate it as such amounts to shoving your own rules into God's own mouth, what religion is known for.

Kobojunkie:
1. Jesus Christ said that in reference to the beginning, before the fall of man- Matthew 19 vs 1 - 8 makes that clear since it was also the time when God made the world and still His hand in marriage. The beginning is a reference to when God made the world.

Which means DIVORCE was not ALLOWED by God.

That's the point of Jesus, did divorce do outside sexual sin a sin?

2. Jesus Christ never said this which you claim. Rather what He said is that Moses allowed men to divorce because men refused to accept God's teaching. Which of God's teachings did men refuse to accept? Care to guess?

Look at the @color

If men ACCEPTED God's teaching, would they divorce? Which means DIVORCE isn't what God endorsed. Definitely, divorce is a sin done outside sexual sin.

3. God says He hates divorce but the same God is recorded to have allowed divorce in His Old Covenant — recall that God is the one who gave His Law to the people of Israel through Moses and not that Moses came up with those laws on His own—, and even proclaimed of how He, at one point, divorced Israel — Jeremiah 3. Try to read passages in context so you can better understand what God is in fact saying to you.

Jesus has already clarified reason why God ALLOWED and Jesus point was that IT WASN'T LIKE THAT FROM THE BEGINNING which means DIVORCE is a sin reason why GOD HATES IT.

4. Keep your yoke to yourself because it is to blame for why you feel it is OK to add to God's Law a definition to sin that God Himself never included. The rule is "Do not add, remove or change any of that stipulated in God's Law". Suggesting, by way of these musings of your mind, that divorce ought to be a sin when Jesus Christ Himself never did stipulate it as such amounts to shoving your own rules into God's own mouth, what religion is known for.

Smile..
Who is adding to God's law btw me and you?

You quoted scripture where Jesus clarified the issue of divorce but you still went ahead to twist it.

Lastly, the scripture boldly says "God hates Divorce" is what God hate a sin or not?

The yoke of religion on you.

Emusan:
■ Which means DIVORCE was not ALLOWED by God. That's the point of Jesus, did divorce do outside sexual sin a sin? Look at the @color If men ACCEPTED God's teaching, would they divorce? Which means DIVORCE isn't what God endorsed. Definitely, divorce is a sin done outside sexual sin. Jesus has already clarified reason why God ALLOWED and Jesus point was that IT WASN'T LIKE THAT FROM THE BEGINNING which means DIVORCE is a sin reason why GOD HATES IT. Smile..Who is adding to God's law btw me and you? You quoted scripture where Jesus clarified the issue of divorce but you still went ahead to twist it. Lastly, the scripture boldly says "God hates Divorce" is what God hate a sin or not? The yoke of religion on you.

You are still struggling as far as comprehension of what Jesus Christ is telling you. Jesus Christ said divorce was not allowed in the beginning — when God made the world. However, after man rejected God's teaching i.e. man fell — Genesis 3 vs 16 - 22 — God not only washed His hands off marriage, but divorce then became an option in marriage. Hence the reason why in His Law of Moses, God granted the people divorce. I hope this is still not over your head cause I am done with this.

Jesus Christ never said in His Law and Gospel that divorce is a sin, for good reason. We do not live in the time of the beginning when God first created the world, but rather we continue to live in the world after man's fall — when God washed His hands off marriage entirely— and it is equally for this reason that the same Jesus Christ proclaimed that marriage is of the world and not of the Kingdom of God meaning God's judgment against marriage from the beginning remains intact even for those in the Kingdom of God(Law).

You shove your own words into God's mouth when you add your own laws to His Law where He has commanded that no man do so. Jesus Christ wasn't being foolish by not listing divorce as a sin in God's New Law. No, He in fact meant that it isn't sin even in God's New Law. You suggesting that it should amounts to adding to God's Law and that is antiChrist.

Kobojunkie:
You are still struggling as far as comprehension of what Jesus Christ is telling you.

But the evidence of person who lacks simple comprehension here is you.

Jesus Christ said divorce was not allowed in the beginning — when God made the world. However, after man rejected God's teaching i.e. man fell — Genesis 3 vs 16 - 22 — God not only washed His hands off marriage, but divorce then became an option in marriage. Hence the reason why in His Law of Moses, God granted the people divorce. I hope this is still not over your head cause I am done with this.

You're the one claiming someone add to the law of God but where did God say he washed his hands off marriage?

Yet after all these God still says "He hates Divorce"

Jesus Christ never said in His Law and Gospel that divorce is a sin, for good reason.

But he teaches that you can only divorce on sexual sin outside this can you divorce?

We do not live in the time of the beginning when God first created the world, but rather we continue to live in the world after man's fall — when God washed His hands off marriage entirely— and it is equally for this reason that the same Jesus Christ proclaimed that marriage is of the world and not of the Kingdom of God meaning God's judgment against marriage from the beginning remains intact even for those in the Kingdom of God(Law).

Where in the scripture did God told you He washed His hands off marriage?

My question you're still dodging is, outside sexual sin, can you divorce?

And if one divorce without sexual sin, what has happened?

You shove your own words into God's mouth when you add your own laws to His Law where He has commanded that no man do so.

At least I'm not the one, who says God has washed his hands off marriage.

Jesus Christ wasn't being foolish by not listing divorce as a sin in God's New Law. No, He in fact meant that it isn't sin even in God's New Law. You suggesting that it should amounts to adding to God's Law and that is antiChrist.

Can you divorce outside sexual sin?

Why are you dodging this simple question if you know what you're saying?

God says "He hates Divorce" when Jesus came, did God later say He now likes divorce?