-
The Marriage of Catholic monarchs King Ferdinand of Aragon and Queen Isabela of Castille
-
Father Abe, can you please help? I am anti divorce and i agree to the
Catholic's view on this subject. but when i came across a certain
Stephen Gola founder of www.divorcehope.com i get confused. He
biblically proves that divorce is God's will. I know some couple who are
in process of divorce or in it's final stage. and i know of someone who
is engaged to marry a divorced man. This website is usually their
defense and it worries me. Can you please comment, destroy, refute or
whatever that is needed to be done on that site so that I can share it
with them and change their minds. Kahit hindi yung buong site father.
Kahit itong particular topic lang that they always point out. Thanks in
advance and I will pray that you continue this blog as long as you live
and train other people to do the same para mapamana sa kanila when it's
time for you to go, and when it's time for me to go I'm confident that
the blog is still alive or at least more people will be inspired to
follow or create their own blogs for my children and future
grandchildren and grand grand children to read. here is the excerpt
from the website:
God Hates Divorce? Not True!
It's a half-truth that "God hates (ALL) divorce." God Himself calls for divorces. God does not desire His people to be in a bad or wrong marriage. If the couple will do what is necessary to have a godly marriage and friendship, great! Otherwise, divorce and remarriage is a way to get a new start.
God Hates Marriage?
Have you ever heard anyone say, “God hates marriage”? Of course not! Have you ever heard anyone say, “God hates divorce”? Sure we have, especially when they are not the ones faced with that dilemma. The phrase, “God hates divorce” has been used against married couples as a blanket answer to cover all types of marriage problems. As we will find out from God’s Word, that is just not true. Neither is it true that “God hates marriage.” On the contrary, God is the one who instituted marriage between a man and a woman. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).
Even though God instituted marriage, He does not approve of ALL marriages. This can be clearly seen in the lives of the people of Israel written in Ezra, chapter 9 and 10, and Deuteronomy 7:15. In Ezra, God disapproved of the marriages and His judgment was on them until they corrected the situation by divorcing their spouses and even separating from their children that were born from those marriages. In Deuteronomy, God said, “NOR SHALL YOU MAKE MARRIAGES WITH THEM. For they will turn your sons away from following Me” (Deuteronomy 7:3,4). In this situation, God hated these kind of marriages!
When people say, “God hates divorce” as quoted from Malachi 2:16, normally that has been taught to mean that divorce is not allowed AT ALL. We shall see that this is only a half-truth.
In Jeremiah the eighth chapter, Jeremiah mourns over the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The Lord gave them a warning through the prophet in verses 4-22. In verse 5, it says that they were “...in a perpetual backsliding [condition]” and in verse 9 that “...they have rejected the Word of the Lord.” Our wrong motives and attitudes will always reject “the Word of the Lord.”
Because their motives and attitudes toward God and people were so bad, God said in verse 10, “Therefore I WILL GIVE THEIR WIVES TO OTHERS, AND THEIR FIELDS TO THOSE WHO WILL INHERIT THEM.” Notice God’s attitude concerning the marriage. The marriage itself was not first priority, but second. God did not save the marriage, but broke it up because of their continual disobedience. There is a curse that actually comes upon the marriage relationship because of continual disobedience to God (See Deuteronomy 28:30).
DIVORCE ITSELF IS NOT WHAT GOD HATES, BUT THE “WHY,” AND “HOW COME” BEHIND THE DIVORCE.
-
Can Divorced Christians Remarry? Absolutely!
Can divorced christians remarry? Yes, of course! Forbidding someone to remarry after they're divorced is bad doctrine. Marriage after being divorced is our heavenly Father's heart! (Take notice of a wrong translation of only one single word (apoluo) that puts a divorced person in bondage.)
Divorce and Remarriage
“Now the Spirit [of God] expressly says that in latter times [the days we live in now] some will DEPART FROM THE FAITH, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies ...FORBIDDING TO MARRY…” (1Timothy 4:1,3).
“Forbidding [someone] to marry” after they have been divorced is a doctrine of the devil. The Bible is not saying that these people who hold to this belief are not true Christians, but that they teach out of ignorance — they don't understand God's heart in the Scriptures. Understanding God's heart only comes from the Holy Spirit revealing Him to us. Whenever we do not understand God's heart in the Scriptures, we have departed from sound doctrine.
This Scripture could not be talking about forbidding to marry in general. Nobody would listen to such nonsense preached. The desire that God put in man to have a companion and sexual partner is too great, especially if they were married before. In order that we don’t fall into “...sexual immorality, let EACH MAN have his own wife, and let EACH WOMAN have her own husband” (1Corinthians 7:2). “[For] IT IS NOT GOOD THAT MAN SHOULD BE ALONE…” (Genesis 2:18a).
The erroneous doctrine of forbidding one to marry after a divorce has been preached and taught in many churches. It has violated the conscience and hearts of those who’ve been divorced, driving them into a constant state of confusion and negatively impacting their lives. The only way for these people to come out of that confused state is to leave the church, and many have done just that. Not only do they leave the church to remarry, they also need to be able to make the right decision to divorce when it’s necessary in order to save themselves and their families before all is destroyed.
In order to understand that there IS marriage after divorce, we will examine the Scriptures in Matthew 19:3-12 focusing on the usage of the Greek word, apoluo. The Greek word apoluo that’s translated “divorce” or “to put away” is a general word. Its primary usage is: to “send” (apoluo) someone home when it’s getting late.11 When two people are leaving each other there is a “separation.” Apoluo is a separation in general, which does not involve the “legal” aspect of a permanent separation like a divorce. The common usage is seen in the Scripture “When it was evening, His disciples came to Him, saying ‘This is a deserted place, and the hour is already late. SEND (apoluo) the multitudes away, that they may go unto the villages and buy themselves food’” (Matthew 14:15). The Greek word apoluo doesn’t have a legal aspect to it. It’s just a common word that means, “I’m going to go” or, “away from, to separate.” Because of our wrong beliefs about divorce, this key word was purposely translated (incorrectly) so it would not conflict with our beliefs.
When used concerning a marriage it means a separation and NOT a divorce. If a spouse separates intending never to return, then the next step comes into play; the spouse obtains a “certificate of divorce.” This is what the confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees (the religious lawyers of His day) was about in Matthew 19:3-12. The legal question was, “Do you just separate, OR do you separate AND give a certificate of divorce?” The Greek word used for divorce in these Scriptures means, to “send away” or separate from, NOT a finalized legal divorce.
-
The lawyers of God’s law tested Jesus. Their motive was to justify when
they only separated from their wives and remarried without ever getting a
divorce. They asked Him if God accepts a separation to get remarried
without a divorce certificate for just any reason. Jesus responded that
when a male and female come together in a marriage union, “...they are
no longer two BUT ONE…” (Matthew 19:6a). Because the couple is still
united, He doesn’t want “man” (the marriage partners) to just separate
from each other and get remarried without a divorce. A SEPARATION ALONE
DOES NOT BREAK THE MARRIAGE UNION. IT TAKES A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE,
ALSO. So the question was NOT, “Can a spouse DIVORCE their mate for any
reason,” but “Can a spouse get a SEPARATION from their mate for any
reason and then remarry while just separated.”
When a husband just leaves his wife for another woman without ever giving her a certificate of divorce, this keeps the wife in limbo. She could not go back to her husband because he doesn’t want her; and she couldn’t “go and become another man’s wife” as Moses commanded because she is not legally divorced (See Deuteronomy 24:1-2). If she did remarry without a legal divorce, she and the man who married her would be committing adultery. This is why Jesus said, “...whoever separates (apoluo) from his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is [just] separated (apoluo) commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9 My Translation).
Because the Pharisees’ hearts were so hard “They said to Him [Jesus], ‘WHY then did Moses COMMAND to give a certificate of divorce AND to put her away [separate]?’” (Matthew 19:7). They agreed with the part of the law that said that you could leave your wife, but they didn’t understand that it was not right to keep their wives from getting remarried. A spouse with a hardened heart will not give the other spouse a divorce. They will want to control the person. A person who truly loves unconditionally will always give you a way out: an option not to love.
So it is with God; He always gives us the choice to not love Him. As we choose to love Him, it’s true love. At times the reason a marriage isn’t a truly unconditional loving marriage is because the partners feel that there is never a way out, if needed. If the marriage partners knew that there was a godly way to escape from a failing marriage it would give the couple the freedom to “choose to love,” even when it’s not convenient.
-
Jesus said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts,
PERMITTED you to divorce [separate from] your wives, but from the
beginning IT [being separated without a divorce] WAS NOT SO” (Matthew
19:8). Notice in verse seven that Moses COMMANDED them to give a
certificate of divorce AND to separate (put away) their wives. But in
verse eight, because their hearts were so hardened against their spouse,
Moses PERMITTED them to just separate without the husband giving the
wife a certificate of divorce. The reason Moses commanded that a
certificate of divorce be given was to guarantee that the wife could get
remarried. Simply, Moses commanded to give a certificate of divorce AND
to separate. But because of the hardness of their hearts, Moses
permitted them to separate only. The permission to separate and remarry
without a divorce was limited to sexual immorality. If the wife was
unfaithful, the husband could leave without ever being “officially
divorced” — by giving her a certificate of divorcement, and go take
another woman as his wife. But if there was no sexual immorality
involved, the husband could NOT separate from his wife without getting a
divorce first. If he didn’t get a divorce and went to live with another
woman or got remarried, they were committing adultery.
“Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed [for selfish reasons]. Are you loosed [divorced] from a wife? [In my opinion says Paul, the Apostle] do not seek a wife. BUT EVEN IF YOU DO MARRY, YOU HAVE NOT SINNED; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned” (1Corinthians 7:26-28a). Notice that the “virgin” AND the person “loosed [divorced]” are both put in the same category — they have “not sinned” by getting married. BOTH THE PERSON WHO WAS NEVER MARRIED AND THE PERSON WHO WAS DIVORCED ARE WITHOUT SIN IF THEY MARRY.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 tells of a situation where a man married a woman and then divorced her. This woman then married another man. The Scriptures go on to state that if the second marriage ends by her husband writing “...her a certificate of divorce ...OR if the latter husband dies…” (Deuteronomy 24:3,4), she could not remarry the first man she divorced because she had already married someone else. Therefore, if our spouse dies, or if we were divorced, we can get married again. Divorce and death are equal before God. The only stipulation in this Scripture is that if this is the second marriage, we cannot go back to the first spouse and remarry them because we married someone else after we divorced them.
The Hebrew word: shalach is the equivalent of the Greek word: apoluo.
-
[Father Abe, can you please help? I am anti divorce and i agree to the
Catholic's view on this subject. but when i came across a certain
Stephen Gola founder of www.divorcehope.com i get confused. He
biblically proves that divorce is God's will.]
HE HAS NOT PROVEN THAT DIVORCE IS GOD’S WILL. THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU DIDN’T CHECK PROPERLY THE BIBLICAL VERSES THAT HE GAVE. NONE OF THEM SUPPORTS DIVORCE. READ CAREFULLY HIS ARGUMENTS AND YOU WILL FIND OUT THAT THEY ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE VERSES HE WAS QUOTING.
[ I know some couple who are in process of divorce or in it's final stage. and i know of someone who is engaged to marry a divorced man. This website is usually their defense and it worries me. Can you please comment, destroy, refute or whatever that is needed to be done on that site so that I can share it with them and change their minds.]
I AM VERY BUSY NOW BUT I’LL GIVE IT TIME.
[ Kahit hindi yung buong site father. Kahit itong particular topic lang that they always point out. Thanks in advance and I will pray that you continue this blog as long as you live and train other people to do the same para mapamana sa kanila when it's time for you to go, and when it's time for me to go I'm confident that the blog is still alive or at least more people will be inspired to follow or create their own blogs for my children and future grandchildren and grand grand children to read.]
THANK YOU SO.
[here is the excerpt from the website:
God Hates Divorce? Not True!]
GOD HATES DIVORCE AND THAT IS TRUE. IT IS SPECIFIC AND DIRECTLY CLARIFIED BY JESUS :
Mt 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
THEIR INSISTENCE ON DIVORCE IS A DEFIANCE AGAINST THE TEACHING OF CHRIST. DIVORCE IS EVIL BECAUSE IT BREAKS THE SACRED UNION BLESSED AND ESTABLISHED BY GOD. NO AUTHORITY ON EARTH CAN DISSOLVE THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY AS THE LORD JESUS CATEGORICALLY DECLARED.
[It's a half-truth that "God hates (ALL) divorce."]
THAT IS THE TRUTH AND THE FULL TRUTH CONCERNING MARRIAGE. WHEN GOD UNITES THE HUSBAND AND WIFE THEN NOBODY SHOULD BREAK THAT BOND OF UNITY. DIVORCE THEN IS EVIL.
-
[ God Himself calls for divorces.]
LIAR, LIAR, LIAR... GOD DIDN’T CALL FOR DIVORCES. JESUS ALREADY EXPLAINED THAT THERE WAS DIVORCE DURING THE TIME OF MOSES BECAUSE OF THE HARDHEADEDNESS OF THE ISRAELITES AND THEREFORE JESUS ADMONISHED HIS FOLLOWERS TO FOLLOW THE WILL OF GOD:
Mt 19:7-8 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
SO, THEIR INSISTENCE ON DIVORCE IS A REBELLION AGAINST GOD. THEY ARE MAKING JESUS A LIAR BY INSISTING THAT GOD ALLOWED DIVORCE FOR HIS PEOPLE. DURING THE REIGN OF THE MOSAIC LAW DIVORCE WAS PERMITTED BUT WE ARE NO LONGER BELONGING TO THE MOSAIC LAW, WE BELONG TO CHRIST – THE NEW COVENANT:
Rom 7:6 But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.
THE PROBLEM WITH THESE PRO-DIVORCE THEY ARE STILL IMPOSING ON US THE OLD LAW OF MOSES. WE ARE ALREADY FREE FROM THAT BECAUSE WE ARE NOW UNDER THE LAW OF CHRIST – A NEW LIFE IN SPIRIT WHEREIN MARRIAGE IS ELEVATED TO A HIGHER DEGREE OF SANCTITY. MARRIAGE IS NOW A SACRED BOND THAT MUST NOT BE BROKEN BECAUSE IT IS SEALED BY GOD. WE ARE NOW NOURISHED BY THE BODY OF CHRIST IN COMMUNION OF LOVE NOT UNDER THE POWER OF THE OLD COVENANT WHICH HAS PASSED AWAY:
Heb 10:9-10 …He abolishes the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
WE BELONG TO THE NEW TESTAMENT, THE NEW COVENANT AND NOT UNDER THE OLD COVENANT ANYMORE.
[God does not desire His people to be in a bad or wrong marriage.]
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS BAD OR WRONG MARRIAGE THERE IS ONLY SINFUL HUSBANDS OR WIFE, UNFAITHFUL HUSBAND OR WIFE. THE BAD AND THE WRONG IS NOT ON THE SACRAMENT OF MARRIAGE BUT ON RELATIONSHIPS, ATTITUDES, ACTIONS AND DECISIONS DONE BY INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED. THE SO-CALLED FAILED-MARRIAGE IS ACTUALLY A FAILURE OF THE INDIVIDUALS NOT OF MARRIAGE ITSELF.
-
[ If the couple will do what is necessary to have a godly marriage and
friendship, great! Otherwise, divorce and remarriage is a way to get a
new start.]
IF THEY DO WHAT IS NECESSARY TO HAVE A GODLY MARRIAGE AND FRIENDSHIP THEN IT IS GREAT BUT IF THEY DO NOT THEIR SINFULNESS, INFIDELITIES ARE NOT EXCUSES FOR THEM TO BREAK THE MARRIAGE BOND AND RE-MARRY AS THEY WANT. O NO, NO, NO… THAT IS NOT STARTING A NEW LIFE THAT IS VIOLATING THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE AND THE WILL OF GOD WHO UNITED THE COMPLE IN AN UNBREAKABLE BOND THAT ENDS ONLY IN MORAL AND SPIRITUAL DEATH.
[God Hates Marriage?]
DEFINITELY NOT.
[Have you ever heard anyone say, “God hates marriage”? Of course not!]
GOOD FOR YOU.
[Have you ever heard anyone say, “God hates divorce”? Sure we have, especially when they are not the ones faced with that dilemma. The phrase, “God hates divorce” has been used against married couples as a blanket answer to cover all types of marriage problems. As we will find out from God’s Word, that is just not true. Neither is it true that “God hates marriage.” On the contrary, God is the one who instituted marriage between a man and a woman. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).]
IF GOD LOVES MARRIAGE AND DOES NOT HATE IT THEN GOD IS NOT IN FAVOR OF DIVORCE BECAUSE DIVORCE IS A VIOLATION OF THE MARRIAGE BOND. INDEED, GOD HATES IT. JESUS ALREADY STATED THAT WHAT GOD UNITED MAN MUST NOT PUT ASUNDER. FOR THAT YOUR SOUL IS IN DANGER FOR TEACHING AND PROMOTING DIVORCE WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW OF CHRIST.
[Even though God instituted marriage, He does not approve of ALL marriages. ]
HA HA HA… GOD DOES NOT APPROVE SOME MARRIAGES IF THE MARRIAGE WAS DONE AGAINST THE WILL OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR THERE ARE IMPEDIMENTS, REASONABLE OR LEGAL BARRIER FOR ANY OF THE COUPLE TO CONTRACT MARRIAGE. ONCE THERE IS NO IMPEDIMENT THEN GOD SANCTIFIES THE MARRIAGE.
GOD DOES NOT APPROVE MARRIAGES THAT ARE IMMORAL AND CONTRARY TO HIS WILL. MARRIAGE IS HOLY IF IT IS BLESSED BY GOD OTHERWISE IT IS SINFUL. THE MARRIAGE BLESSED BY GOD CANNOT BE DISSOLVED.
[This can be clearly seen in the lives of the people of Israel written in Ezra, chapter 9 and 10, and Deuteronomy 7:15. ]
LET ME CHECK THESE VERSES AND SEE HOW VALID YOUR CLAIM IS.
-
[In Ezra, God disapproved of the marriages and His judgment was on them
until they corrected the situation by divorcing their spouses and even
separating from their children that were born from those marriages. ]
JUST BY CHECKING THE FIRST TWO CHAPTER OF EZRA 9 IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE CASE AT BAR IN THIS CHAPTER IS NOT ABOUT DIVORCE BUT THE INFIDELITY OF ISRAEL BY DISOBEYING THE WILL OF THE LORD AGAINST INTER-RACIAL MARRIAGE WITH THEIR ENEMIES WHO WERE IDOLATERS.
THE ISSUE HERE IS NOT ABOUT DIVORCE OR BREAKING OF MARRIAGE BLESSED BY GOD RATHER THE DISOBEDIENCE OF ISRAELITES AND THEIR ABANDONMENT OF THE TRUE FAITH BY TAKING PARTNERS WHOSE FAITH IS ABOMINABLE TO GOD. THIS IS A VIOLATION OF COMMANDMENT NUMBER 1 WHEREIN ISRAEL ALLOWED IDOLATRY TO PENETRATE THEIR COMMUNITIES.
DIVORCE IS A VIOLATION OF A MARRIAGE BLESSSED BY GOD, THE CASE HERE IS CONTRACTING A MARRIAGE NOT BLESSED BY GOD AT ALL. IF THAT RELATIONSHIP IS NOT BLESSED BY GOD THEN THERE IS NO MARRIAGE, THERE IS AN IMPEDIMENT. THIS IS MORE ON ANNULLED UNION RATHER THAN CASE OF DIVORCE. THIS IS PROVEN BY THE PRAYER OF THE PROPHET INTERCEEDING FOR HIS PEOPLE:
Ezr 9:11 which thou didst command by thy servants the prophets, saying, 'The land which you are entering, to take possession of it, is a land unclean with the pollutions of the peoples of the lands, with their abominations which have filled it from end to end with their uncleanness.
Ezr 9:12 Therefore give not your daughters to their sons, neither take their daughters for your sons, and never seek their peace or prosperity, that you may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever.'
Ezr 9:13 And after all that has come upon us for our evil deeds and for our great guilt, seeing that thou, our God, hast punished us less than our iniquities deserved and hast given us such a remnant as this,
Ezr 9:14 shall we break thy commandments again and intermarry with the peoples who practice these abominations? Wouldst thou not be angry with us till thou wouldst consume us, so that there should be no remnant, nor any to escape?
Ezr 9:15 O LORD the God of Israel, thou art just, for we are left a remnant that has escaped, as at this day. Behold, we are before thee in our guilt, for none can stand before thee because of this."
IT IS NOWHERE STATED IN EZRA 9 THAT DIVORCE IS OK. RATHER, GOD REJECTS THE VALIDITY OF THE UNION CONTRACTED AGAINST HIS WILL. THE FIRST OFFENSE IS VIOLATION OF THE FAITH AND THE SECOND OFFENSE IS DISOBEDIENCE TO GOD:
Ezr 10:2 And Shecani'ah the son of Jehi'el, of the sons of Elam, addressed Ezra: "We have broken faith with our God and have married foreign women from the peoples of the land, but even now there is hope for Israel in spite of this.
Ezr 10:3 Therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all these wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.
THE LAW BEING MENTIONED HERE IS MOSAIC LAW STILL WHICH WAS LATER DISCARDED BY JESUS IN FAVOR OF THE NEW COVENANT, THE NEW LAW OF SPIRIT THAT HE TAUGHT.
-
[In Deuteronomy, God said, “NOR SHALL YOU MAKE MARRIAGES WITH THEM. For
they will turn your sons away from following Me” (Deuteronomy 7:3,4). In
this situation, God hated these kind of marriages!]
HA HA HA… ONCE AGAIN THIS VERSE DOESN’T STATE: “I ALLOW DIVORCE” OR “DIVORCE IS PERMISSIBLE”. NO, NO, NO… GOD IS SIMPLY TELLING THE ISRAELITES THAT THEY SHOULD AVOID UNION WITH CERTAIN PEOPLE. GOD DOES NOT PERMIT DIVORCE HERE BUT SIMPLY TELLS HIS CHILDREN THAT THERE ARE RULES FOR MARRIAGES. EVEN NOW THERE ARE RULES FOR MARRIAGE. THERE ARE PROHIBITIONS PRIOR TO MARRIAGE THAT THE CHURCH OR THE GOVERNMENT IMPOSES ON PEOPLE. BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT SINCE THERE ARE RULES GOVERNING MARRIAGE THAT DIVORCE IS ALREADY ACCEPTED AND ALLOWED BY GOD. NO, NO, NO!
[When people say, “God hates divorce” as quoted from Malachi 2:16, normally that has been taught to mean that divorce is not allowed AT ALL. We shall see that this is only a half-truth.]
SO FAR YOU HAVE NOT PRESENTED ANY IOTA OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM. THE FACT THAT THERE ARE PROHIBITIONS PRIOR TO MARRIAGE AND THERE ARE RULES CONCERNING MARRIAGE ARE NOT CONTRADICTORY TO OUR POSITION SINCE BOTH IN THE CHURCH AND IN THE GOVERNMENT THERE ARE CIVIL AND ECCLESIASTICAL LAWS GOVERNING MARRIAGE WHICH COULD MAKE IT VALID OR INVALID. BUT TO USE THAT FOR DIVORCE IS TOO MUCH STRETCH OF IMAGINATION… THAT IS DELUSION.
[In Jeremiah the eighth chapter, Jeremiah mourns over the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The Lord gave them a warning through the prophet in verses 4-22. In verse 5, it says that they were “...in a perpetual backsliding [condition]” and in verse 9 that “...they have rejected the Word of the Lord.” Our wrong motives and attitudes will always reject “the Word of the Lord.”]
ONCE AGAIN JEREMIAH 8 DOES NOT SPEAK OF GOD ALLOWING OR PERMITTING DIVORCE RATHER IT IS A WARNING AND DECLARATION OF GOD THAT HIS PEOPLE ARE NOT LISTENING TO HIS WORD. WHAT IS THE WORD OF THE LORD:
Mt 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
THAT IS THE WORD OF THE LORD. “LET NO MAN PUT ASUNDER WHAT GOD HAD JOINED TOGETHER”. SO DIVORCE IS A VIOLATION OF THE WORD OF GOD AND THEREFORE CONTRARY TO JEREMIAH CHAPTER 8. ONCE AGAIN THE POINT HERE IS DISOBEDIENCE TO GOD LEADS TO DAMNATION AND SUFFERINGS AND PAIN.
-
[Because their motives and attitudes toward God and people were so bad,
God said in verse 10, “Therefore I WILL GIVE THEIR WIVES TO OTHERS, AND
THEIR FIELDS TO THOSE WHO WILL INHERIT THEM.”]
HA HA HA… THAT GUY IS OUT OF HIS MIND. THAT DECLARATION OF GOD IS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE SACRED MARRIAGE OR A A SIGNAL FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF DIVORCE. NO, NO, NO… RATHER GOD IS SIMPLYH TELLING THE ISRAELITES THAT BECAUSE OF THEIR DISOBEDIENCE THEIR MARRIAGES SHALL VIOLATED AND DESECRATED AND THEIR PROPERTIES SHALL BE INVADED, CONQUERED BY FOREIGNERS. GOD HERE IS TALKING OF THE EFFECTS OF SIN WHICH IS DEATH, DESTRUCTION, PAIN AND SUFFERINGS, ETC.
THE CAUSE OF DESECRATION OF MARRIAGE HERE IS NOT THE FREE AND LOVING WILL OF GOD WHO BLESSED MARRIAGES BUT THE SINFULNESS OF THE PEOPLE.
THIS IS EVIDENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND IN EUROPE WHERE DIVORCE IS LEGALIZED. YOUR WIFE TODAY IS THE WIFE OF YOUR NEIGHBOR TOMORROW. AFTER GETTING MARRIED IN LAS VEGAS LAST NIGHT THEN THEY DIVORCE AFTER A ONE-NIGHT HONEYMOON THE FOLLOWING DAY AND THAT WOMAN OUT OF WHOM THE GUY FEASTED ON HER FLESH SHALL BE BEING FEASTED UPON ONCE AGAIN BY ANOTHER MAN IN ANOTHER ONE-NIGHT STAND. THUS, THEY HAVE CASES OF A MAN OR WOMAN WHO HAVE MARRIED 5 OR 7 OR 9 TIMES. THAT IS INHUMAN, THAT IS A LIFE PROPER FOR A DOG.
[Notice God’s attitude concerning the marriage. The marriage itself was not first priority, but second.]
HA HA HA… THE POINT IS DIVORCE IS NOT EVEN MENTIONED THERE.
NOW, CONCERNING MARRIAGE COMING AS SECOND. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE GUY IS NOT AWARE OF THE FACT THAT MATRIMONY IS UNDER COMMANDMENT NUMBER 6 WHILE THE LOVE OF GOD IS IN COMMANDMENT NUMBER 1. EVEN ELEMENTARY STUDENTS AMONG CATHOLICS KNOW THAT COMMANDMENT NUMBER 1-3 REFERS TO GOD MAKING HIM THE FIRST AND THE HIGHEST AND THE MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL. THUS, IF GOD CONSIDERS MARRIAGE SECONDARY TO OBEDIENCE TO HIS WILL IT IS NOT A PROBLEM FOR US. WE KNOW THAT GOD IS FIRST AND THE REST ARE SECOND IN IMPORTANCE. THE BLESSING OF MARRIAGE AND ITS SANCTITY COMES FROM GOD SO IT IS NATURAL THAT WHEN THE COUPLES ABANDONED GOD THEIR MARRIAGE SHALL LOOSE ITS SANCTITY AND HONOR. BUT THE ONE THAT DESTROYS MARRIAGE IS NOT GOD BUT SIN… THAT SIN IS NOT COMMITTED BY GOD BUT BY THE HUMAN PERSONS.
[ God did not save the marriage, but broke it up because of their continual disobedience. There is a curse that actually comes upon the marriage relationship because of continual disobedience to God (See Deuteronomy 28:30).]
O NO, NO, NO…. YOU ARE WRONG. YOU ARE BLAMING GOD HERE. THAT IS SATANIC. GOD DIDN’T BREAK MARRIAGES RATHER HE WAS ONLY WARNING THE PEOPLE THAT THEIR MARRIAGES AND THEIR PROPERTIES SHALL BE TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM BY THE ENEMIES IF THEY WILL NOT STOP IN THEIR SINFUL WAYS. THE ONE BREAKING MARRIAGES HERE ARE THE SINFULNESS OF PEOPLE AND THEIR DEFIANCE NOT GOD HIMSELF WHO WISHED THAT MARRIAGES BE PRESERVED AS SELL AS THE SANCTITY OF THE LAND.
-
[DIVORCE ITSELF IS NOT WHAT GOD HATES, BUT THE “WHY,” AND “HOW COME” BEHIND THE DIVORCE.]
HA HA HA… YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN US A SINGLE VERSE WHEREIN GOD IS ‘ALLOWING DIVORCE’. WHERE? CHAPTER AND VERSE PLEASE. HA HA HA… YOU ARE DELUSIONAL. YOU ARE INVENTING CONCLUSIONS OUT OF VERSES THAT DOES NOT STATE WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING. NO, NO, NO…
[Can Divorced Christians Remarry? Absolutely!]
NO, NO, NO…
[Can divorced christians remarry? Yes, of course! Forbidding someone to remarry after they're divorced is bad doctrine. Marriage after being divorced is our heavenly Father's heart! (Take notice of a wrong translation of only one single word (apoluo) that puts a divorced person in bondage.)]
APOLUO IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE. WHERE CAN YOU FIND IN THE BIBLE OUTSIDE THE LAW OF MOSES THAT GOD ALLOWED DIVORCE? CHAPTER AND VERSE PLEASE.
[Divorce and Remarriage
“Now the Spirit [of God] expressly says that in latter times [the days we live in now] some will DEPART FROM THE FAITH, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies ...FORBIDDING TO MARRY…” (1Timothy 4:1,3).]
ONLY IDIOTS WILL BELIEVE THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FORBIDS PEOPLE TO MARRY BECAUSE THERE ARE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF CATHOLICS CONTRACTING MARRIAGE EVERY WEEK. ONLY FOOLS WILL STATE SUCH A THING. THIS MAN IS OUT OF HIS MIND.
-
[“Forbidding [someone] to marry” after they have been divorced is a doctrine of the devil.]
THIS ONE IS A LIAR. LET US CHECK THE VERSE AGAIN:
“Now the Spirit [of God] expressly says that in latter times [the days we live in now] some will DEPART FROM THE FAITH, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies ...FORBIDDING TO MARRY…” (1Timothy 4:1,3)
WHERE CAN YOU FIND IN THAT TEXT THAT ONE CAN REMARRY AFTER DIVORCE? WHERE? NOTHING. NOWHERE. NADA, NUNCA… IN RUSSIAN: NYET, NYET!!! YET THAT DEMON CLAIMS THAT IT IS OK TO LET THOSE WHO DIVORCED TO REMARRY.
THE VERSE IS ABOUT THE PROHIBITION OF MARRIAGE NOT PROHIBITION TO REMARRY FOR THOSE WHO HAVE DIVORCED.
THIS GUY IS LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH. HE IS SON OF THE DEVIL HIS FATHER:
John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
THE PRO-DIVORCE ARE NECESSITATED TO TELL A LIE IN ORDER TO TWIST THE WORD OF GOD TO SUIT THEIR FORNICATIONS AND THEIR INCONTROLLABLE LUSTS FOR FLESH. THEY CANNOT FOLLOW THE WORD OF GOD TELLING THEM THAT “WHOM GOD HAD JOINED TOGETHER MUST NOT SEPARATED BY MEN”. WHY? BECAUSE THEY DO NOT BELONG TO GOD, THEY BELONG TO THE FATHER OF LIES THE DEVIL:
John 8:47 He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."
THEY ARE WILLING TO BREAK EVEN THE WORD OF GOD TO SUIT THEIR CAPRICES TO KEEP ON CHANGING THEIR SEXUAL PARTNERS AND THEIR FORNICATIONS.
[ The Bible is not saying that these people who hold to this belief are not true Christians, but that they teach out of ignorance — they don't understand God's heart in the Scriptures. Understanding God's heart only comes from the Holy Spirit revealing Him to us. Whenever we do not understand God's heart in the Scriptures, we have departed from sound doctrine.]
JESUS IS THE HEART OF GOD. JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD [JOHN 1:18]. JESUS IS THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE [JOHN 14:6]. THAT IS WHY WE KEEP THE WORD OF JESUS TELLING US THAT THOSE WHOM GOD JOINED TOGETHER MUST NOT BE SEPARATED BY MEN. THEY ARE THE ONES DESTROYING AND DISOBEYING THE WORD OF GOD BY INSISTING ON DIVORCE.
[This Scripture could not be talking about forbidding to marry in general. Nobody would listen to such nonsense preached. The desire that God put in man to have a companion and sexual partner is too great, especially if they were married before.]
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DOESN’T FORBID MARRIAGE. ONLY IDIOTS WILL CLAIM SUCH A THING AND THIS GUY IS ONE. IF HE TEACHES THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FORBIDS MARRIAGE THEN HE IS A LIAR AND A FOOL.
[In order that we don’t fall into “...sexual immorality, let EACH MAN have his own wife, and let EACH WOMAN have her own husband” (1Corinthians 7:2). “[For] IT IS NOT GOOD THAT MAN SHOULD BE ALONE…” (Genesis 2:18a).]
THAT IS A CATHOLIC TEACHING. THAT IS WHY WE ALLOW, WE PROMOTE AND WE PROTECT AND WE PRESERVE THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE. BUT ONCE AGAIN LOOK, IT IS NOWHERE STATED THERE BY ST. PAUL OR BY THE BOOK OF GENESIS THAT DIVORCE IS ALLOWED OR THAT THOSE WHO DIVORCED MUST BE PERMITTED TO RE-MARRY. NO, NO, NO… NOTHING AT ALL.
[The erroneous doctrine of forbidding one to marry after a divorce has been preached and taught in many churches.]
WE ALLOW REMARRIAGE IF ONE OF THE PARTNERS HAVE DIED ALREADY. WE DO NOT ALLOW DIVORCE AND CONSEQUENTLY REMARRIAGE AFTER DIVORCE BECAUSE JESUS REJECTED DIVORCE. WE BELIEVE JESUS MORE THAN YOU.
-
[ It has violated the conscience and hearts of those who’ve been
divorced, driving them into a constant state of confusion and negatively
impacting their lives.]
WE DIDN’T VIOLATE THEIR CONSCIENCE. IT IS THEY WHO VIOLATED THEIR CONSCIENCE FOR NOT OBEYING GOD AND INSISTING ON THEIR ABOMINABLE WAYS. THEY WANT TO IMPOSE SOMETHING THAT JESUS REJECTED CATEGORICALLY SO IF THEY HAVE PROBLEMS OF CONSCIENCE THEY CAUSED IT TO THEMSELVES. DON’T BLAME US FOR THE SINFULLNESS AND HARDHEADEDNESS OF OTHERS. “HE WHO WILL BRING TROUBLE TO HIS OWN FAMILY SHALL INHERIT THE WIND” [PROVERBS 11:29]. CONSEQUENTLY THEY ARE HAVING TROUBLE OF CONSCIENCE.
[The only way for these people to come out of that confused state is to leave the church, and many have done just that.]
THAT IS SATANIC. IMAGINE THAT. JESUS BUILT THE CHURCH PERSONALLY [MATTHEW 16:18-19] TO BE THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH [1 TIMOTHY 3:15] THEN HE WILL SUGGEST THAT THEY ABANDON THE CHURCH. THAT IS DEMONIC.
IF THEY INSISTS ON DIVORCE THEN LET THEM KNOW THAT WE WILL NOT GIVE IT TO THEM. WE DIDN’T GIVE IT EVEN TO KING HENRY VIII OF ENGLAND EVEN IF HE SEPARATED THE ENTIRE ENGLAND FROM THE CHUCH. WHO CARES? NOW, MORE AND MORE ANGLICANS ARE RETURNING TO US BECAUSE OF THE IMMORALITIES OF THE TEACHINGS OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH. IF THEY WANT TO GET OUT LET THEM BE. WE WILL NOT FORCE THEM TO REMAIN. NOT THAT WE WANT THEM OUT. WE WANT THEM IN. BUT IF THEY ARE IN THEY SHOULD LIVE AND ABIDE BY THE FAITH AND MORALS OF OUR CHURCH.
[Not only do they leave the church to remarry, they also need to be able to make the right decision to divorce when it’s necessary in order to save themselves and their families before all is destroyed.]
UNFORTUNATELY FOR THEM THE MATTER IS NOT FOR THEM TO DECIDE. IT IS FOR GOD TO DECIDE AND JESUS ALREADY MADE THE DECISION: “NO TO DIVORCE”.
[In order to understand that there IS marriage after divorce, we will examine the Scriptures in Matthew 19:3-12 focusing on the usage of the Greek word, apoluo.]
ONCE AGAIN, THAT IS GOOD. WE WILL BE ABLE TO CHECK IF YOUR CLAIM IS TRULY SUPPORTED BY THE SACRED SCRIPTURE.
SO, YOU HAVE DEPENDED YOUR POSITION ON A SINGLE WORD EH.. HE HE HE… LET ME CHECK ON THAT. HE HE HE…
-
[The Greek word apoluo that’s translated “divorce” or “to put away” is a
general word. Its primary usage is: to “send” (apoluo) someone home
when it’s getting late.11 When two people are leaving each other there
is a “separation.”]
HA HA HA… OBVIOUSLY THIS GUY HAS A VERY SUPERFICIAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE BIBLE AND OF THAT GREEK TERM. IT IS VERY EASY TO FIND IN THE INTERNET NOWADAYS THE BEST BIBLICAL DICTIONARY RESPECTED BY BOTH PROTESTANTS AND CATHOLICS YET HE DECIDED TO CLAIM EXPERTISE ON SOMETHING HE IS OBVIOUSLY IGNORANT OF.
WHERE DID HE GET THE IDEA THAT THE PRIMARY MEANING OF APOLUO IS “TO SEND SOMEONE HOME WHEN IT’S GETTING LATE"? HA HA HA… WELL, LET ME GIVE YOU THE VARIOUS MEANING OF APOLUO ACCORDING THE HIGHLY RESPECTED BIBLE DICTIONARY: - “STRONGS”. HERE IT IS:
G630 ἀĻĪæĪ»Ļ ́Ļ apoluō ap-ol-oo'-o
From G575 and G3089; to free fully, that is, (literally) relieve, release, dismiss (reflexively depart), or (figuratively) let die, pardon, or (specifically) divorce: - (let) depart, dismiss, divorce, forgive, let go, loose, put (send) away, release, set at liberty.
SEE, THE FIRST MEANING IS: “TO FREE FULLY, TO RELIEVE, TO RELEASE, TO DISMISS…” ARE THESE MEANING SIMPLY SENDING ONE HOME? IT IS SETTING FREE, SENDING AWAY.
THEN FIGURATIVELY IT IS EVEN WORSE: “TO LET DIE, TO PARDON, TO DIVORCE. TO LET GO, TO LOOSE, TO PUT AWAY, TO SET AT LIBERTY, TO RELEASE.” AGAIN, NONE OF THESE SIMPLY MEAN SENDING HOME.
HA HA HA… THIS GUY IS MAKING A FOOL OUT OF HIMSELF AND OF OTHERS. BOTH PROTESTANT AND CATHOLIC BIBLE SCHOLARS HAVE TRANSLATED AND INTERPRETED THAT WORD ‘APOLUO’ AS DIVORCE, SETTING FREE, RELEASING, PUTTING AWAY, ETC. HE PROVIDES A SUGAR-COATED MEANING TO THE TERM IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE ITS MEANING TO SUIT HIS HERETICAL STAND IN FAVOR OF DIVORCE.
-
[Apoluo is a separation in general, which does not involve the “legal” aspect of a permanent separation like a divorce. ]
HA HA HA… UNFORTUNATELY FOR YOU THE ENTIRE PERICOPE [MATTHEW 19:3-12] SPEAKS OF DIVORCE IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW OF MOSES. THAT IS VERY CLEAR:
Mt 19:7 They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away?
SEE, THE TEXT THAT YOU HAVE PROVIDED SPEAKS OF THE COMMAND OF MOSES, i.e., THE LAW OF MOSES… IT EVEN REFERRED TO THE BILL OF DIVORCE… TO AN SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE LAW CONCERNING THE LEGAL DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE LEGISLATED BY MOSES AS DEMANDED BY THE PEOPLE. THAT IS WHY YOUR DENIAL OF THE LEGAL MEANING OF THE TERM IS OUT OF CONTEXT… OUT OF REALITY. HA HA HA…
[The common usage is seen in the Scripture “When it was evening, His disciples came to Him, saying ‘This is a deserted place, and the hour is already late. SEND (apoluo) the multitudes away, that they may go unto the villages and buy themselves food’” (Matthew 14:15). The Greek word apoluo doesn’t have a legal aspect to it. It’s just a common word that means, “I’m going to go” or, “away from, to separate.” Because of our wrong beliefs about divorce, this key word was purposely translated (incorrectly) so it would not conflict with our beliefs.]
HA HA HA… THE CASE OF MATTHEW 14:15 IS CLEAR THE APOSTLES ARE NOT SPEAKING ABOUT THE SEPARATION OF HUSBAND AND WIFE BUT OF SENDING AWAY THE PEOPLE TO GO HOME. BUT IN MATTHEW 19:3-12 THEY WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT SENDING SOMEONE HOME BUT OF THE PARTICULAR BILL OF DIVORCE WHEREIN THE MAN COULD RELEASE HIS WIFE FROM THEIR MARITAL UNION. IT IS ABOUT DISSOLUTION OF THE MARITAL BOND. HA HA HA… IT IS ILLOGICAL AND UNREASONABLE TO USE IN THE TRANSLATION THE TERM DIVORCE IN MT 14:15 AND IT IS STUPID TO CLAIM THAT IN MATTHEW 19:3-12 JESUS AND THE PHARISEES SIMPLY MEANT THE HUSBAND MUST NOT SEND HIS WIFE HOME. HA HA HA…
[When used concerning a marriage it means a separation and NOT a divorce. If a spouse separates intending never to return, then the next step comes into play; the spouse obtains a “certificate of divorce.” This is what the confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees (the religious lawyers of His day) was about in Matthew 19:3-12.] The legal question was, “Do you just separate, OR do you separate AND give a certificate of divorce?” The Greek word used for divorce in these Scriptures means, to “send away” or separate from, NOT a finalized legal divorce.]
THIS GUY IS OUT OF HIS MIND. HA HA HA… THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE MAN CAN DIVORCE HIS WIFE OR NOT. WHEN JESUS STATED THAT WHAT GOD HAD JOINED MUST NOT BE SEPARATED BY MAN BY WHICH HE REJECTED DIVORCE THE PHARISEES ASKED HIM WHY MOSES PERMITTED DIVORCE. JESUS SAID THAT MOSES ALLOWED IT BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WERE HARDHEADED. YOUR CLAIM THAT THE ISSUE IS EITHER TO GET OR NOT TO GET THE CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE IS VERY FUNNY AND PATHETIC. HA HA HA… THE ISSUE IS ON DIVORCE ITSELF WHETHER IT IS TRULLY WILLED BY GOD OR NOT. IT'S NOT ABOUT HAVING OR NOT HAVING CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE. YOU ARE CHEAPENING THE ISSUE.
[The lawyers of God’s law tested Jesus.]
SEE, YOU ARE DEODORIZING THE PHARISEES... YOU ARE CALLING THEM 'LAWYERS OF GOD'S LAW'. THEY ARE LAWYERS OF SATAN... THEY ARE AGENTS OF THE EVIL ONE AS YOU ARE DOING IN PROMOTING DIVORCE.
THE PHARISEES WHO ARE EVIL MINDED PEOPLE TESTED JESUS. IT SO HAPPENED THAT BOTH YOU AND THE PHARIEES ARE IN FAVOR OF DIVORCE WHILE JESUS REJECTED IT. THAT MADE YOU BIRD OF THE SAME FEATEHR WITH THE PHARISEES... HE HE HE…
-
[ Their motive was to justify when they only separated from their wives and remarried without ever getting a divorce.]
HA HA HA… THIS IS ILLOGICAL AND SIMPLY STUPID. IF THEY ONLY SEPARATED IT MEANS THAT THEY CANNOT REMARRY BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL MARRIED, ONLY SEPARATED. LIKE THE WIFE WHO IS ABROAD AND THE HUSBAND REMAINED IN THE PHILIPPINES, THAT IS SIMPLE SEPARATION. BUT THEY CANNOT REMARRY BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL MARRIED. HA HA HA… THE CASE IS NOT ABOUT SIMPLE SEPARATION BUT DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE, SETTING ONE FREE FROM MARITAL OBLIGATION. IT IS A LEGAL MATTER BECAUSE IT MUST BE DONE ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF MOSES. THAT LAW IS NOT WILLED BY GOD BUT IMPOSED BY THE DEFIANCE OF THE PEOPLE.
[ They asked Him if God accepts a separation to get remarried without a divorce certificate for just any reason. Jesus responded that when a male and female come together in a marriage union, “...they are no longer two BUT ONE…” (Matthew 19:6a). Because the couple is still united, He doesn’t want “man” (the marriage partners) to just separate from each other and get remarried without a divorce. A SEPARATION ALONE DOES NOT BREAK THE MARRIAGE UNION. IT TAKES A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE, ALSO. So the question was NOT, “Can a spouse DIVORCE their mate for any reason,” but “Can a spouse get a SEPARATION from their mate for any reason and then remarry while just separated.”]
YOU DEMONICALLY TWISTED THE WORDS OF THE DIVINE MASTER. YOU HAVE TWISTED HIS WORD TO MEAN AS IF HE IS ALLOWING DIVORCE AS LONG AS THERE IS A CERTIFICATE. YOU ARE A LIAR . THERE IS NO SINGLE VERSE THEREIN WHEREIN JESUS SAID THAT DIVORCE IS OK. LET ME CHECK THE TEXT ONE BY ONE:
Mt 19:3 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?
THE QUESTION IS IF ITS LAWFUL TO DIVORCE OR DISMISS ONE’S WIFE. THE TERM LAWFUL IMMEDIATELY DISMISSES YOUR EXPLANATION THAT IT IS NOT LEGAL MATTER. IT IS LEGAL. IT IS ABOUT THE DIVORCE LAW OF MOSES.
YOUR CLAIM ABOUT GETTING OR NOT GETTNG CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE IS SIMPLY STUPID AND NON EXISTENT HERE.
Mt 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
HERE JESUS REMINDED THEM THAT MARRIAGE COMES FROM GOD WHO CREATED THE MAN AND THE WOMAN. SO MARRIAGE IS FOR MAN AND WOMAN, MALE AND FEMALE.
Mt 19:5 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?
THE MAN AND THE WOMAN MUST LEAVE THEIR FAMILIES TO FORM THEIR OWN AND THEY WILL BECOME ONE FLESH… THEY ARE UNITED BY GOD IN SPIRIT AND IN BODY.
Mt 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
THE HUSBAND AND ONE ARE ONE. THEY HAVE A VERY STRONG BOND OF UNITY. AND NO MAN MUST BREAK THAT UNITY. SO, MARRIAGE MUST NOT BE DISSOLVED BY HUMAN AUTHORITY… THIS IS A SLAP AGAINST YOUR ‘CERTIFICATE’ THEORY. HA HA HA..
Mt 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
SINCE JESUS SAID NO TO DIVORCE THE PHARISEES RUN TO THE AUTHORITY OF MOSES TO JUSTIFY THE LAW OF DIVORCE.
Mt 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
JESUS DISMISSED IT. HE TOLD THAT THAT MOSES CONSENTED TO ENACT THE LAW OF DIVORCE BECAUSE HE WAS COERCED BY THE PEOPLE. THEY HAVE HARDENED THEIR HEARTS LIKE YOU AND YOUR COHORTS.
-
Mt 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except
it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and
whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
THE MAN WHO PUT AWAY HIS WIFE AND MARRY ANOTHER COMMITS ADULTERY. HA HA HA… IF YOUR MEANING OF APOLUO IS SENDING HOME THEN IT WILL BECOME: “ANY MAN WHO SENDS HIS WIFE HOME AND MARRY ANOTHER COMMITS ADULTERY.” HA HA HA… THAT IS ILLOGICAL AND STUPID. HA HA HA…
LOOK CLOSELY, JESUS REPEATED TWICE THAT THOSE WHO PUT AWAY [DIVORCED] AND REMARRY COMMIT ADULTERY. ISN’T THAT YOUR POSITION… TO ALLOW DIVORCE SO THAT THEY CAN REMARRY? YOUR POSITION IS DEMONIC. IT PROMOTES ADULTERY. IT IS SINFUL AND ANTI-CHRIST.
JESUS PUT IN THE CLAUSE, EXCEPT IN CASE OF FORNICATION… WHY? BECAUSE THE MAN DOESN’T NEED TO PUT AWAY HIS WIFE… THE WIFE ALREADY COMMITTED ADULTERY AND HAD REJECTED HIM. IF THE PARTNER COMMITS FORNICATION THEN IT IS THAT ONE WHO VIOLATES THE SACREDNESS OF MARRIAGE.
[When a husband just leaves his wife for another woman without ever giving her a certificate of divorce, this keeps the wife in limbo. She could not go back to her husband because he doesn’t want her; and she couldn’t “go and become another man’s wife” as Moses commanded because she is not legally divorced (See Deuteronomy 24:1-2). ]
HA HA HA… JESUS MADE OBSOLETE ALREADY THE LAW OF MOSES. THIS LAW CONCERNING CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE IS NO LONGER APPLICABLE TO CHRISTIANS BECAUSE THE LORD JESUS IS HIGHER AND GREATER THAN MOSES. AND JESUS RULED THAT THE MOSAIC LAW ON DIVORCE IS MERE PRODUCT OF PEOPLE’S ARROGANCE AND DEFIANCE AGAINST GOD.
[If she did remarry without a legal divorce, she and the man who married her would be committing adultery. This is why Jesus said, “...whoever separates (apoluo) from his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is [just] separated (apoluo) commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9 My Translation).]
HA HA HA… DIVORCING ONE’S WIFE WITH OR WITHOUT CERTIFICATE IS EVIL AGAINST GOD BECAUSE WHAT GOD HAD JOINED MUST NOT BE PUT ASUNDER… CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE IS PUTTING ASUNDER LEGALLY AND DOCUMENTEDLY WHAT GOD HAD JOINED.
ONLY IDIOTS WILL ACCEPT YOUR EXPLANATIONS. YOU WILL ONLY BE BELIEVABLE IF JESUS SAID: “WHAT GOD HAD JOINED LET NO MAN PUT ASUNDER EXCEPT IF THERE IS CERTIFICATE.” HA HA HA… NO, NO, NO…
-
[Because the Pharisees’ hearts were so hard “They said to Him [Jesus],
‘WHY then did Moses COMMAND to give a certificate of divorce AND to put
her away [separate]?’” (Matthew 19:7).]
JESUS ALREADY ANSWERED THAT IN MATTHEW 19:8 THAT IN THE BEGINNING GOD DIDN’T GIVE A LAW ON DIVORCE, NONE AT ALL. SO, THAT LAW OF MOSES CONCERNING THE BILL OF DIVORCE AS STATED IN DEUT. 24:1 IS NO LONGER VALID TODAY. JESUS REINSTATED THE ORIGINAL STATE OF MARRIAGE WHEN THERE WAS NO DIVORCE AT ALL. SO YOUR CERTIFICATE THEORY IS PATHETIC AT BEST.
[They agreed with the part of the law that said that you could leave your wife, but they didn’t understand that it was not right to keep their wives from getting remarried. A spouse with a hardened heart will not give the other spouse a divorce. They will want to control the person. A person who truly loves unconditionally will always give you a way out: an option not to love.]
THAT IS NOT LOVE. THAT IS MERE FREE WAY TO SIN AND DAMNATION. THAT IS A FREE HAND TO COUNTLESS ACTS OF ADULTERY. THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE AND REJECTED BY THE LORD JESUS.
[So it is with God; He always gives us the choice to not love Him. As we choose to love Him, it’s true love. At times the reason a marriage isn’t a truly unconditional loving marriage is because the partners feel that there is never a way out, if needed. If the marriage partners knew that there was a godly way to escape from a failing marriage it would give the couple the freedom to “choose to love,” even when it’s not convenient.]
YOU ARE A FOOL. JESUS ALREADY STATED THAT IN THE BEGINNING THERE WAS NO DIVORCE . GOD DIDN’T ALLOW DIVORCE. IT WAS ONLY MOSES WHO AUTHORIZED IT AFTER HE WAS COERCED BY THE INSISTENCE OF THE PEOPLE. BUT JESUS ONCE AGAIN REJECTED DIVORCE. DIVORCE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO CHRISTIAN FAITH AND MORALITY.
[Jesus said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, PERMITTED you to divorce [separate from] your wives, but from the beginning IT [being separated without a divorce] WAS NOT SO” (Matthew 19:8).]
GOD CREATED MARRIAGE WITHOUT DIVORCE IN THE ORIGINAL STATE. DIVORCE EXISTED ONLY DURING THE TIME OF MOSES AND IT ENDED WITH THE COMING OF THE MESSIAH.
[ Notice in verse seven that Moses COMMANDED them to give a certificate of divorce AND to separate (put away) their wives. But in verse eight, because their hearts were so hardened against their spouse, Moses PERMITTED them to just separate without the husband giving the wife a certificate of divorce. The reason Moses commanded that a certificate of divorce be given was to guarantee that the wife could get remarried. Simply, Moses commanded to give a certificate of divorce AND to separate. But because of the hardness of their hearts, Moses permitted them to separate only. The permission to separate and remarry without a divorce was limited to sexual immorality. If the wife was unfaithful, the husband could leave without ever being “officially divorced” — by giving her a certificate of divorcement, and go take another woman as his wife. But if there was no sexual immorality involved, the husband could NOT separate from his wife without getting a divorce first. If he didn’t get a divorce and went to live with another woman or got remarried, they were committing adultery.]
THE COMMAND OF MOSES IS NOT THE COMMAND OF GOD. MOSES GAVE IN TO THE DEMAND AND COMMAND OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE EVIL LIKE YOU. THEY WANTED DIVORCE AND MOSES GAVE IN. BUT JESUS DIDN’T GIVE IN. HE REJECTED DIVORCE. HE SAID THAT GOD DIDN’T PLAN DIVORCE FOR MARRIED COUPLE IN ITS ORIGINAL STATE. JESUS RESTORED THAT ORIGINAL STATE. THAT IS WHY YOUR POSITION IS PHARISAICAL. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SHALLL NEVER GIVE IN TO PEOPLE LIKE YOU.
-
[“Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed [for selfish
reasons]. Are you loosed [divorced] from a wife? [In my opinion says
Paul, the Apostle] do not seek a wife. BUT EVEN IF YOU DO MARRY, YOU
HAVE NOT SINNED; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned”
(1Corinthians 7:26-28a). Notice that the “virgin” AND the person “loosed
[divorced]” are both put in the same category — they have “not sinned”
by getting married. BOTH THE PERSON WHO WAS NEVER MARRIED AND THE PERSON
WHO WAS DIVORCED ARE WITHOUT SIN IF THEY MARRY.]
LIAR, LIAR, LIAR. ST. PAUL SPEAKS OF VIRGINS LIKE HIM BECAUSE ST. PAUL DIDN’T GET MARRIED. AND HE ALSO SPOKE ABOUT GETTING MARRIED. BUT, ST. PAUL NEVER NEVER NEVER TAUGHT THAT MARRIED COUPLES COULD DIVORCE. NO, NO NO…. NADA, NUNCA, NEVER. IN RUSSIAN: NYET, NYET. HA HA HA… YOU DEMONICALLY INSERTED DIVORCE IN ST. PAUL'S TEACHING EVEN THOUGH THE BLESSED APOSTLE DIDN'T TEACH IT AT ALL.
ST. PAUL DIDN’T SAY: “BE A VIRGIN, OR GET MARRIED, ONCE MARRIED YOU CAN DIVORCE AS LONG AS YOU HAVE THE CERTIFICATE.” HA HA HA… NO, NO, NO…. SORRY FOR YOU. HA HA HA…
[Deuteronomy 24:1-4 tells of a situation where a man married a woman and then divorced her. This woman then married another man. The Scriptures go on to state that if the second marriage ends by her husband writing “...her a certificate of divorce ...OR if the latter husband dies…” (Deuteronomy 24:3,4), ]
WE ARE NO LONGER UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THAT LAW. THE LAW OF MOSES IS NO LONGER BINDING FOR US. WE ARE NO LONGER UNDER THE LAW OF MOSES BUT UNDER THE LAW OF CHRIST: “THOSE WHOM GOD HAD JOINED TOGETHER LET NO MAN PUT ASUNDER.” YOU DEVIL, THOSE WHO MADE YOUR CERTICATES OF DIVORCE ARE HUMAN BEINGS. THEY HAVE VIOLATED THE WORD OF GOD.
[she could not remarry the first man she divorced because she had already married someone else. Therefore, if our spouse dies, or if we were divorced, we can get married again. Divorce and death are equal before God.]
DIVORCE AND DEATH ARE NOT EQUAL IN THE EYES OF GOD. DEATH A NATURAL PROCESS OF ENDING ONE'S PHYSICAL LIFE IN ORDER TO START A NEW SPIRTUAL LIFE WITH GOD... IT IS GIVEN BY GOD AS THE OWNER OF LIFE. DIVORCE IS AGAINST THE WORD OF GOD AS DEFINITELY GIVEN BY JESUS CHRIST WHO IS THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE.
[The only stipulation in this Scripture is that if this is the second marriage, we cannot go back to the first spouse and remarry them because we married someone else after we divorced them.]
DIVORCE IS EVIL. WHAT GOD HAD JOINED LET NO MAN PUT ASUNDER. DIVORCE IS AGAINST THE WILL OF GOD. NO AUTHORITY ON EARTH CAN GRANT DIVORCE AGAINST THE UNION BLESSED BY GOD. YOUR TEACHING IS DEMONIC AND SATANIC.
[The Hebrew word: shalach is the equivalent of the Greek word: apoluo.]
IN FILIPINO WE HAVE AN APPROPRIATE TERM FOR THE LIKE OF YOU: “LUCO-LUCO”!!! HA HA HA…

.jpg)
PERTAINING TO CHURCH TEACHINGS
ReplyDeleteA question we can ask ourselves is whether Christ considered marriage as being indissoluble? We need to be very clear in this as when Christ teaches that marriage may not be dissolved that does not mean that He is stating that it cannot occur. The completeness of the marriage relationship can be tainted by erroneous behaviour by man or woman. In other words, it is the offence that breaks the bond. The divorce is ultimately a result of this break. This is also the teaching of the Eastern Church fathers. A quotation from the testimony of Cyril of Alexandria will be sufficient to make our point here: “It is not the letters of divorce that dissolve the marriage in relation God but the errant behaviour”
The Church recognizes that there are cases in which marriage life has no content or may even lead to loss of the soul. John Chrysostom says in this regard that: “better to break the covenant than to lose one’s soul”. Nevertheless, the Orthodox Church sees divorce as a tragedy due to human weakness and sin....."
PERTAINING TO LEGALITIES AND CHURCH CONSENT:
LEGALLY, I am single. If I were to marry again, there will be NO impediments, whether sa US or sa Philippines. Alam din ng mga 8 counselors, Church covering (pastors and bishops), relatives, churchmates ang naging situation namin (ex wife) and they have given me their support and blessing to my decision after several attempts to reconcile with my ex wife. BOTTOM LINE FOR HUSBAND IS TO LOVE, PROTECT, PROVIDE, WHILE WIFE IS TO HONOR, RESPECT, SUBMIT TO HUSBAND (PLS READ EPHESIANS 5:21-25)
In the US we have Divorce, in the Philippines you have the Annulment or Church Annulment. Divorce DISSOLVES a recognized marriage while Annulment says that the marriage is invalid in the first place therefore there is NO MARRIAGE to begin with.
If you will analyze, merong play of words but the essence is the same. Only that DIVORCE is 'nagpapakatotoo' while ANNULMENT is hindi nagpapakatotoo, using a sugar coat to avoid the term DIVORCE. From what I read, Filipinos, whether they know it or not are already practicing divorce but with the use of a more appealing terminology, that is, ANNULMENT.
I commend though the strictness of Philippine Laws and Church laws with regard ANNULMENT. Kasi dito sa America and many other countries, couples just divorce for any other reasons---minsan mababaw lang ang dahilan. And that is displeasing in the eyes of God. The thing about annulment in the Philippines is it is so expensive that only the rich and a few middle class can afford. Notice you have plenty of annuled celebrities (actors & actresses), while many middle class and poor ones resort to 'living in' because they can't afford annulment fees. This has caused greater damage to families by producing more illegitimate children na pinapanganak ng live-in partners na hindi nagpapa-annul ng previous marriage kahit matagal nang hiwalay, only because it is very expensive to do so.
PERTAINING TO CHURCH TEACHINGS
ReplyDelete[A question we can ask ourselves is whether Christ considered marriage as being indissoluble?]
OF COURSE JESUS CONSIDERED MARRIAGE AS INDISSOLUBLE. HE ALREADY DECLARED THAT HUMAN BEINGS DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO BREAK THE UNION MADE BY GOD:
Mt 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
IF HE WANTED MARRIAGE TO BE DISSOLUBLE HE SHOULD HAVE RETAINED THE STATUS QUO OF THE MOSAIC LAW CONCERNING DIVORCE.
[We need to be very clear in this as when Christ teaches that marriage may not be dissolved that does not mean that He is stating that it cannot occur.]
THE STATEMENT OF CHIRST PROHIBITING THE BREAKING OF MARITAL BOND IS CLEAR AND PRECISE. IT IS ONLY VAGUE TO THOSE WHO REFUSES THE TEACHING OF CHRIST.
THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS FIRMLY ROOTED ON THAT CLEAR AND SPECIFIC AND CATEGORICAL TEACHING OF CHRIST DISALLOWING DIVORCE.
IT IS YOU WHO IS NOT CLEAR. JESUS IS CLEAR. JESUS IS TELLING THAT WHAT GOD UNITED NO MAN MUST BREAK APART.
JESUS DIDN'T SAY THAT IT CANNOT OCCUR, IN FACT, HE RECOGNIZED IN MATTHEW 19:8 THAT MOSES ALLOWED DIVORCE DUE TO THE HARDENED HEARTS OF THE PEOPLE. SO, TO INSIST ON DIVORCE DESPITE THE PROHIBITION OF CHRIST IS TO HAVE A HARDENED HEART AGAINST THE WILL OF GOD. THIS IS WHAT THE PRO-DIVORCE ARE DOING. THEY ARE IN OPEN REBELLION AGAINST THE WILL OF GOD.
[The completeness of the marriage relationship can be tainted by erroneous behaviour by man or woman. In other words, it is the offence that breaks the bond. The divorce is ultimately a result of this break.]
INDEED, MARRIAGE CAN BE TAINTED BY SIN AND BY HUMAN FAILURES AS WELL AS ERRORS. AND IT IS EQUALLY TRUE THAT DIVORCE IS AN EFFECT OF SIN AND HUMAN FRAILTY. WHY DO WE HAVE TO IMPLEMENT THE EFFECT OF SIN? LET US BEAR IN MIND THAT THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH:
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
SO, IF WE WILL INSIST ON DIVORCE IT WILL LEAD US TO DEATH - MORAL AND SPIRITUAL DEATH. ON THE OTHER HAND IF WE WILL FOLLOW THE COMMAND OF THE LORD JESUS NOT TO BREAK THE UNION MADE BY GOD THEN WE WILL EARN ETERNAL LIFE.
[This is also the teaching of the Eastern Church fathers. A quotation from the testimony of Cyril of Alexandria will be sufficient to make our point here: “It is not the letters of divorce that dissolve the marriage in relation God but the errant behaviour”]
IT IS HUMAN ERRORS AND SINFULNESS THAT CAUSE DIVORCE IN MARITAL RELATIONSHIP BUT IF YOU ENCODE DIVORCE IN THE LEGAL DOCUMENT THEN YOU ARE LEGALIZING AND SUPPORTING SIN AND ERRORS. THEN THE LEGISLATORS AND THE THE LEGISLATED LAW OF DIVORCE ARE ALSO SINFUL AND ERRONEOUS. IT IS AN IMMORAL LAW. THAT IS WHY THERE IS A SAYING: "NOT EVERYTHING THAT IS LEGAL IS MORAL." THE DIVORCE LAW IS IMMORAL BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE WILL OF CHRIST THE LORD.
[The Church recognizes that there are cases in which marriage life has no content or may even lead to loss of the soul.]
WRONG. IT IS NOT MARRIAGE LIFE WHICH HAS NO CONTENT AND LEADS TO LOSS OF THE SOUL BUT IT IS THE SINFULLNESS OF THE PERSON INVOLVED IN MARRIAGE.
YOU ARE WRONG HERE. THE CHURCH NEVER CONSIDER MARRIAGE LIFE AS THE SOURCE OF PROBLEM BUT SIN AND HUMAN FRAILTY AND DISOBEDIENCE FROM GOD. IF A HUSBAND OR WIFE IS UNFAITHFUL IT IS THEIR INFIDELITY THAT MUST BE BLAMED NOT MARRIAGE.
[John Chrysostom says in this regard that: “better to break the covenant than to lose one’s soul”.]
HUH? WHERE DID ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM SAY THAT? PROPER CITATION PLEASE. BREAKING THE COVENANT WITH GOD IS AN ACT OF TREACHERY. IT IS COMMITTING ANOTHER SIN. HOW CAN YOU GAIN SALVATION FOR YOUR SOUL IF YOU WILL BREAK THE COVENANT? BOTH DIVORCE AND BREAKING OF COVENANT ARE SINFUL AND THEREFORE WILL BOTH BRING PUNISHMENT TO THE SOUL.
Nevertheless, the Orthodox Church sees divorce as a tragedy due to human weakness and sin....."]
RIGHTLY SO.
PERTAINING TO LEGALITIES AND CHURCH CONSENT:
ReplyDelete[LEGALLY, I am single.]
HOW ABOUT PRACTICALLY? DO YOU HAVE A PARTNER?
[If I were to marry again, there will be NO impediments, whether sa US or sa Philippines.]
OK.
[Alam din ng mga 8 counselors, Church covering (pastors and bishops), relatives, churchmates ang naging situation namin (ex wife) and they have given me their support and blessing to my decision after several attempts to reconcile with my ex wife.]
EX-WIFE? WHAT DO YOU MEAN? WERE YOU GRANTED DIVORCE IN THE U.S.? OR YOUR MARRIAGE IS ANNULLED?
[BOTTOM LINE FOR HUSBAND IS TO LOVE, PROTECT, PROVIDE, WHILE WIFE IS TO HONOR, RESPECT, SUBMIT TO HUSBAND (PLS READ EPHESIANS 5:21-25)]
I HAVE READ THAT.
[In the US we have Divorce, in the Philippines you have the Annulment or Church Annulment.]
YES. DIVORCE AND ANNULMENT ARE DISTINCT FROM EACH OTHER. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.
[Divorce DISSOLVES a recognized marriage while Annulment says that the marriage is invalid in the first place therefore there is NO MARRIAGE to begin with.]
CORRECT.
[If you will analyze, merong play of words but the essence is the same.]
ReplyDeleteNO, NO, NO... THIS IS NOT A PLAY OF WORDS BUT ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE. DIVORCE AND ANNULMENT ARE NOT THE SAME ESSENTIALLY.
DIVORCE IS BREAKING THE MARRIAGE. ANLULMENT IS DECLARING THAT THERE WAS NO MARRIAGE. IF THERE IS NO MARRIAGE THEN THERE IS NO BREAK OR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE.
[Only that DIVORCE is 'nagpapakatotoo' while ANNULMENT is hindi nagpapakatotoo,]
THIS IS A VERY STUPID DESCRIPTION OF DIVORCE IN COMPARISON WITH ANNULMENT. DIVORCE IS A VIOLATION OF THE WILL OF GOD WHILE ANNULMENT SHOWS THAT TEHRE IS NOTHING TO VIOLATE AT ALL BECAUSE THE ALLEGED MARRIAGE IS INVALID AND THEREFORE OF NO VALUE OR MERIT.
[using a sugar coat to avoid the term DIVORCE.]
THAT IS A MANIFESTATION OF IGNORANCE. YOU ARE IMPOSING YOUR IGNORANCE BY ATTACKING THE CHURCH. WE DO NOT AVOID DIVORCE... WE CONFRONTED IT WITH COURAGE AND DETERMINATION. WE FOUGHT KINGS AND PRESIDENTS AND PRIME MINISTERS AGAINST IT. AND WE LOST SEVERAL COUNTRIES DUE TO REJECTION OF DIVORCE. WE WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED BY DIVORCE.
IF YOU ARE TRYING TO AVOID DIVORCE THEN THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM. DON'T IMPOSE ON US YOUR OWN DELUSIONS.
[From what I read, Filipinos, whether they know it or not are already practicing divorce but with the use of a more appealing terminology, that is, ANNULMENT.]
WHAT YOU HAVE READ AND YOUR INTERPRETATION OF IT ARE BOTH WRONG. THERE IS NO DIVORCE IN THE PHILIPPINES BUT THERE IS ONLY ANNULMENT. THE TWO ARE VERY VERY DIFFERENT.
[I commend though the strictness of Philippine Laws and Church laws with regard ANNULMENT.]
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE STRICTNESS OF GOVT. LAWS ON ANNULMENT IS DUE TO CATHOLIC INFLUENCE.
[Kasi dito sa America and many other countries, couples just divorce for any other reasons---minsan mababaw lang ang dahilan. And that is displeasing in the eyes of God.]
THAT IS CORRECT. THE AMERICANS HAVE CHEAPENED THE MEANING OF MARRIAGE AND DESTROYED ITS SANCTITY BY THEIR DIVORCE LAS VEGAS STYLE.
[The thing about annulment in the Philippines is it is so expensive that only the rich and a few middle class can afford.]
BECAUSE IT REQUIRES LAWYERS TO STUDY AND CHECK EACH CASE. IT IS NOT THE FAULT OF THE GOVERNMENT AND OF THE CHURCH. THAT IS WHAT IS NEEDED. IF YOU WANT TO CAN GIVE THEM MONEY FOR LAWYER'S FEE.
[Notice you have plenty of annuled celebrities (actors & actresses), while many middle class and poor ones resort to 'living in' because they can't afford annulment fees.]
THESE ACTORS AND ACTRESSES ARE MOSTLY MARRIED ONLY IN CIVIL MARRIAGES. WE KNOW THEIR CASES BECAUSE THEY ARE CELEBRITIES. THE POOR EITHER PREFER TO LIVE WITH EACH OTHER UNTIL THE END OR PRACTICE 'LIVE IN' WHICH IS FREE FORNICATION.
[This has caused greater damage to families by producing more illegitimate children na pinapanganak ng live-in partners na hindi nagpapa-annul ng previous marriage kahit matagal nang hiwalay, only because it is very expensive to do so.]
THE EXISTENCE OF MANY ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN MUST NOT BE BLAMED ON EXPENSIVE ANNULMENT PROCESS BUT ON INFIDELITIES OF THEIR PARENTS. THERE ARE NO BASTARD CHILDREN THERE ARE ONLY BASTARD PARENTS. WHETHER THE ANNULMENT PROCESS IS CHEAP OR EXPENSIVE IT IS STILL THE FAULT OF THE ADULTEROUS LOVERS BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONES PRODUCING BABIES OUT OF WEDLOCK AND NOT THE ANNULMENT PROCESS.
Hello father! Thank you very much for your explanations. Marami akong natutunan. Eto na lang hindi ko pa maintindihan:
ReplyDelete1) 1 cor 7:10-11. "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: by saying "remain unmarried" this implies that "depart" means "divorce". I thought this is legal separation in our time but the phrase remain unmarried implies more on divorce.
2) I have read your explanation regarding the exception clause regarding "sexual immorality" that the person defiled himself/herself and that she is stoned to death so the widow can remarry. but i'm still confused. If Jesus made this exception for divorce then this means that at present time it should be ok for the church to accept divorce due to immorality since wala ng death penalty for adultery. Isn't this contradicting to our stand na "no to divorce?"
3)I saw in the Catholic encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm) this statements: "Christ abolished entirely the permission which Moses had granted, even though this permission was strictly limited; He allowed a cause similar to "uncleanness" as reason for putting away the wife, but not for the dissolution of the marriage bond." If it is referring to Mt 19:9 then it seems contradicting because your explanation is that the verse is talking about "divorce" not just "separation"
4)In legal separation, if Jesus only exempted the "sexual immorality" why then are here other grounds for legal separation? Is Legal Separation not Catholic?
Thank you very much father. I hope you can enlighten me.
Father the reason I asked those 3 questions earlier is because I'm finalizing my response to friends I know who are pro divorce and remarriage. I would like also to share with you some of my comments in addition to your comments regarding the goobledygook pro divorce guy. All of these things I am going to send to them after I hear from you that my comments are correct. If not i hope you can correct them. here they are:
ReplyDelete[Can Divorced Christians Remarry? Absolutely!]
No! But if you replace the word 'Christian' with 'anti-Christ' then that's the time you can say they can remarry by their standards! Those people are not true Christians as they claim! But if you annul a Christian couple, yes, they can marry. I used the word ‘marry’, not ‘remarry’, because annulment proved that the marriage was not valid which therefore means no marriage happened.
[Can divorced christians remarry? Yes, of course! Forbidding someone to remarry after they're divorced is bad doctrine. Marriage after being divorced is our heavenly Father's heart! (Take notice of a wrong translation of only one single word (apoluo) that puts a divorced person in bondage.)]
Yes of course? If you equate it to "Can a person eat a rock, a pencil, a ballpen, or worse, a dung?" then yes, of course! It is not impossible and he has the power to do so, as long as those things have the right sizes to fit his esophagus, or else he cannot eat them. The question should be more like this, "Is it permissible for divorced people to remarry? The answer is no! Except if they get annulled, or one partner died. But they must marry true Christians who keep God’s teachings.
[The erroneous doctrine of forbidding one to marry after a divorce has been preached and taught in many churches.]
ReplyDeleteWrong! Forbidding one to remarry after a divorce is not erroneous and does not violate any biblical verse. In fact it is supported by St Paul :
1 Corinthians 7:10-11 "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband ..."
Very clear! "...must remain unmarried..." Walang pinagkaiba sa "forbidding one to remarry," except for spelling of course. To claim that this is an erroneous doctrine is to claim that the scripture is erroneous. Mas magaling pa yata si Mr. Gola kaysa kay St. Paul.
The Catholic Church allows remarriage only if one of the partners have died.
1 Corinthians 7:36 "A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord."
Romans 7:1-2 "Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives? For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him.
[The Greek word apoluo that’s translated “divorce” or “to put away” is a general word. Its primary usage is: to “send” (apoluo) someone home when it’s getting late.11 When two people are leaving each other there is a “separation.”]
ReplyDeleteLook at how he twisted even the original Greek translations of the verse. Instead of sticking with the real meaning of the Greek word, he gives another example of “people leaving each other” and calls it "separation."
These are the various meanings of "apoluo" according to the highly respected bible source - Strongs. Here they are:
G630 į¼ĻολĻĻ apoluÅ ap-ol-oo'-o
From G575(apo) and G3089 (luo); to free fully, that is, (literally) relieve, release, dismiss (reflexively depart), or (figuratively) let die, pardon, or (specifically) divorce: - (let) depart, dismiss, divorce, forgive, let go, loose, put (send) away, release, set at liberty.
See, the first meaning is "to free fully". Others, "to relieve, to release, to dismiss...." Are these meanings the same as sending one home? It is setting free or sending away.
Figuratively and specifically, it is even worse: " to let die, to pardon, to divorce, to let go, to loose, to put away, to set at liberty, to release." None of these means sending home.
The dictionary also says divorce is a more specific meaning. Stephen says divorce is a general term. Who are we to believe, Stephen or Strongs?
Notice that "separation" or "being separated" or "to separate" was never found in the dictionary meaning of apoluo.
[They asked Him if God accepts a separation to get remarried without a divorce certificate for just any reason. Jesus responded that when a male and female come together in a marriage union, “...they are no longer two BUT ONE…” (Matthew 19:6a). Because the couple is still united, He doesn’t want “man” (the marriage partners) to just separate from each other and get remarried without a divorce. A SEPARATION ALONE DOES NOT BREAK THE MARRIAGE UNION. IT TAKES A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE, ALSO. So the question was NOT, “Can a spouse DIVORCE their mate for any reason,” but “Can a spouse get a SEPARATION from their mate for any reason and then remarry while just separated.”]
ReplyDeleteStephen's understanding of the verse is like this, "... Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement IN ORDER to put her away?" His purpose is to tell the readers that the Pharisees were only talking about the divorce paper and that the action of 'putting away' is just a result of it. Wrong! He twisted the verse for his own interest. Mind you, the topic stated in the verse is not only the paper/certificate/bill but also the putting away/apoluo. Both of them are the subjects as the conjunction 'and' implies. Hence both the noun and the verb are the "commands" of Moses. Not just the noun.
[If she did remarry without a legal divorce, she and the man who married her would be committing adultery. This is why Jesus said, “...whoever separates (apoluo) from his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is [just] separated (apoluo) commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9 My Translation).]
ReplyDeleteFirst he convinced himself that apoluo is a "separation in general" even though the dictionary does not state that. Next he says to himself that apoluo is a general term, which by the way is not, and then he uses it in a very specific subject, marriage, found in Matthew 19:3-12. Isn't that hilarious? How about I give him an example: The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. "Jumps" generally means "happy". So if a story goes, "Stephen Gola is sad. He went to the top of the tall building and jumps off." Using my translation, "Stephen Gola is sad. He went to the top of the tall building and 'happy' off! Hahaha! I hope you get what I mean. Yes, I used a verb and an adjective as examples, unlike Stephen who used both nouns, thus the grammar error. But that is not my point. The point is do not invent other meanings of the word or else it gives another meaning. All bible translations of those verses do not contradict each other but Stephen chose to contradict with the translations. The verse never said, “.. whoever marries her who is JUST separated commits adultery.” Not even the thought of it is present in that verse. Grabe na ito si Stepen Gola! Here is a question for him. When did Jesus or St. Paul ever teach that a separated couple WITHOUT DIVORCE CERTIFICATE commits adultery when they remarry? When did he say that a separated couple WITH A DIVORCE CERTIFICATE can remarry or does not commit adultery? WHERE? NONE! It is only Stephen who taught that.
So who are we to believe now, the expertise of bible translators and respected dictionaries or Stephen's expertise? He used his own translation "separate(s/d)" to suit his personal understanding of the Sacred Scriptures that he twisted on purpose knowing that ‘separate’ may mean a simple separation or non-legal separation. The different meanings of 'apoluo' are already stated above for reference. The interesting part is that the word ‘separate’ is not included in the definitions or on any other sources as I have searched. Why do you think? That is because ‘separation’ or its root word "separate" is NOT THE DEFINITION of apoluo. In fact, ‘separate’ has its own Greek term which is ‘chorizo.’
ReplyDeletechórizó: to separate, divide
Original Word: ĻĻĻίζĻ
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: chórizó
Phonetic Spelling: (kho-rid'-zo)
Short Definition: I separate, depart
Definition: (a) I separate, put apart, (b) mid. or pass: I separate myself, depart, withdraw
From G5561; to place room between, that is, part; reflexively to go away: - depart, put asunder, separate.
5563 xÅrĆzÅ (from 5561 /xį¹ra, "open, vacated space") – properly, separate, divide ("put asunder"), i.e. depart, vacate; create "space" (which can be very undesirable or unjustified).
5563 /xÅrĆzÅ ("vacate"), as in the papyri, refers to divorcing a marriage partner who vacates the relationship in soul or body (cf. Moulton-Milligan, 696).
If the word 'apoluo' in the original Greek translation of Mt 19:3-12 were to mean 'separate' then the translators should have used the word 'chorizo' instead. But why 'apoluo?' That is because 'apoluo' has a more specific meaning and intended for a specific subject. 'Chorizo' is the general one and it is the one used in Mt 19:6, 'asunder', separate. You can see that 'chorizo' in the papyri refers to DIVORCING a marriage partner who vacates the relationship in soul or body. This another slap to Stephen’s ‘separation’ theory. Yet, this man insists on the word 'separate' and used it for his own translation. Why? Because that word can lead his readers and followers to a new meaning, which is a simple non-legal separation. What a cheap trick! Kawawa naman yung mga nauuto niya. Granting, for the sake of argument, that ‘separation’ is the meaning of ‘apoluo,’ still, separation from one's wife with or without certificate is evil against God because once again, what God had joined must not be put ASUNDER. 'Asunder' in Greek is CHORIZO, meaning to separate. The verse, still, holds true and against divorce, or 'separation' as translated by Stephen genius. Any man in his right senses should not accept his explanations. He will only be believable if Jesus said: "What God had joined let no man put asunder, except if there is certificate." He he he. No matter how he twists the Word of our Lord he gets caught and makes a fool out of himself. This can only mean that the Holy Spirit is not with him. Who, then, is with him? Scary...
[Jesus said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, PERMITTED you to divorce [separate from] your wives, but from the beginning IT [being separated without a divorce] WAS NOT SO” (Matthew 19:8).]
ReplyDeleteNo bible versions translates "IT" as "being separated without divorce" nor implies the same. The noun that the pronoun "IT" substitutes is not "being separated without divorce" because the clause it is nowhere to be found, not even the thought of it. In the verse, the pronoun "it" stands for divorce paper and putting away or other words you can substitute for "apoluo" as seen on reliable dictionaries, not in Stephen's twisted dictionary.
[Notice in verse seven that Moses COMMANDED them to give a certificate of divorce AND to separate (put away) their wives. But in verse eight, because their hearts were so hardened against their spouse, Moses PERMITTED them to just separate without the husband giving the wife a certificate of divorce. The reason Moses commanded that a certificate of divorce be given was to guarantee that the wife could get remarried. Simply, Moses commanded to give a certificate of divorce AND to separate. But because of the hardness of their hearts, Moses permitted them to separate only. The permission to separate and remarry without a divorce was limited to sexual immorality. If the wife was unfaithful, the husband could leave without ever being “officially divorced” — by giving her a certificate of divorcement, and go take another woman as his wife. But if there was no sexual immorality involved, the husband could NOT separate from his wife without getting a divorce first. If he didn’t get a divorce and went to live with another woman or got remarried, they were committing adultery.]
ReplyDeleteWhat?! How twisted is Stephen, really? This time it's the other way around. He turned a general thought into a specific thought to mean something else. He said "..their hearts were so hardened against their spouse" to mean that the husbands' hearts were so hardened that they don't give a "Godly certificate" to their wives. The verse only said "... your hearts were hard" (TNIV) not "...your hearts were hard to your wives" (SGV, Stephen Gola's Version). He intentionally made it seem that the trouble was between the spouses to derive at a conclusion that the certificates were indeed necessary and that God's will is for the stubborn husband to give freedom to his wife. Hahaha! Jesus was speaking in general when He said the word 'you' or 'your.' Those words were used in a general sense, to those people with hardened hearts, not specifically between the spouses. Read again all the different bible translations of verse 8 above and see it was specific or general. And once again, where in that verse did Moses permitted them TO JUST SEPARATE WITHOUT THE HUSBAND GIVING THE WIFE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE? WHERE? NONE!
Going back to Stephen's earlier statement, he said in his own translation of Mt 19:8, "...but from the beginning IT [being separated without a divorce] WAS NOT SO" (SGV, Stephen Gola's Version). And his explanation is that Moses only permitted separation without divorce because of man's hardened heart to his wife. If we follow these allegations this means we should also accept that Moses was already permitting divorce (with certificates/papers) long time ago before he was forcefully compelled by the Pharisees. But the problem is that this is unacceptable. Why? When Jesus said, "in the beginning" what does He mean? Any person with a sound and reasonable mind will not think that Jesus was talking about Moses' time. Jesus, when He said, "in the beginning.." meant earlier than Moses' time. He was really talking about the THE BEGINNING. In fact what He was really talking about is "But it was not like that at the time of creation." as the Good News Translation (GNT) translates. Now, how can Moses be 'in the beginning' (as translated by most versions) or 'at the time of creation' (as translated by GNT)? To think that divorce law only started during Moses' time. How is that? Does Stephen mean divorce with paper was practiced at the time of creation? That is none sense! Or does he mean divorce with paper was practiced just before Moses was coerced by the Pharisees? Still none sense! "In or from the beginning" is not during Moses' time. How about Noah's time, Abraham's time, Jacob's time? Those names were not even seen in the beginning or at the time of creation. Siguro kung time ni Adam and Eve pwede pa because they were included in the beginning or at the time of creation. But the problem is hindi naman sila nag issue ng divorce certificate sa isa't-isa kasi nga divorce law only happened during Moses' time. Hahaha! Whichever angle tingnan palpak ang explanation niya.
ReplyDeleteRead the verses carefully. What the Pharisees were questioning is why Moses commanded to write a certificate AND put away their wives. This is the biblical one not only that it is the real passage mentioned in the bible but also it is the logical one. When Jesus said "from the beginning it was not so," the pronoun 'It' refers to divorce together with the papers, not just separation only. Besides when you write a certificate of divorce, it is automatic that your wife is put away or released. So going back to the verse, it makes sense if you say, “from the beginning ‘divorce’ was not so, instead of “from the beginning ‘being separated without a divorce’ was not so.” Huwag ibahin ang sinasabi ng banal na kasulatan.
[“Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed [for selfish reasons]. Are you loosed [divorced] from a wife? [In my opinion says Paul, the Apostle] do not seek a wife. BUT EVEN IF YOU DO MARRY, YOU HAVE NOT SINNED; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned” (1Corinthians 7:26-28a). Notice that the “virgin” AND the person “loosed [divorced]” are both put in the same category — they have “not sinned” by getting married. BOTH THE PERSON WHO WAS NEVER MARRIED AND THE PERSON WHO WAS DIVORCED ARE WITHOUT SIN IF THEY MARRY.]
ReplyDeleteFirst, when the verse said "do not seek to be loosed" it does not state or mean "for selfish reasons." Stephen enjoys adding words in order to mean another thing that will suit his illogical teachings. Let us remember in Mt 19:3 when Jesus was confronted by the Pharisees and asked if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason or cause? Jesus answered in the next verses saying, "Haven't you read the scripture that says that in the beginning the Creator made people male and female? And God said, for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and unite with his wife, and the two will become one. So they are no longer two, but one. No human being must separate, then, what God has joined together." Very clear! "Jesus did not answer, "No, but for selfless reasons, yes." Hahaha!
1 Corinthians 7:26-28 is the bible passage that closely supports divorce at first glance. But upon further study, it does not at all! If you are able to read different bible versions of the verses you can immediately notice that none of them mentioned, "But if you,DIVORCED/LOOSED/FREE FROM A WIFE, do marry, you have not sinned." They only said, "BUT IF YOU DO MARRY, you have not sinned. No extension. Nothing specific. Just 'YOU.' So that is one point. The word 'you' may refer either to the married, unmarried, widowed or divorced as seen in the whole Chapter 7. It would be stupid to say that it refers to the ‘married’, definitely it refers to the ‘unmarried’. I won't go further testing each one. I'll go straight to the phrase 'loosed from a wife' or ‘divorced’ in verse 27 which most people interpret to be the one which the word 'you' refers to because of how near they are arranged to each other. 'Loosed' from the Greek word 'luo' transliterated as 'lelysai' means to loose, to release, or to dissolve. We must also consider that loosed from a wife may also mean widowed because a husband is released/dissolved from a wife if she dies and vice versa. Therefore, we can safely say that both divorced and widowed are both unmarried by dictionary standards. But let us first focus on the favorite term of pro-divorce people, ‘DIVORCED’ as translated by CEB from the Greek phrase, Ī»ĪĪ»Ļ Ļαι į¼Ļį½ø Ī³Ļ Ī½Ī±Ī¹ĪŗĻĻ or lelysai apo gynaikos (have you been ‘loosed’ from a wife). Let us remember that St. Paul wrote this particular topic to the gentile believers (Christian converts) in Corinth as response to the questions raised by them, being neophytes or new to Christianity. They were once immoral gentiles. So it is not surprising if some of these newly converted Christians were already divorced before they were converted. Either they did not follow Christ’ teaching regarding divorce because they were immoral or they were just ignorant of it. Now, having this situation at hand, St. Paul gave an opinion because he had no direct teaching from the Lord. Maybe Jesus did not have this kind of situation questioned during His ministry.
ReplyDeleteAnd so, St. Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, responded with an opinion, instead of a direct teaching from Jesus. But the question is why did St. Paul say that marrying after divorce is not a sin? If St. Paul meant that the divorced people during that time can marry without sinning, then he must be contradicting himself on verse 11, "... and a husband must not divorce his wife," because divorce is a requirement in remarrying. So how can St. Paul teach that marriage after divorce is not a sin if he himself is anti-divorce? He will be contradicting Jesus because Jesus said remarrying after divorce is adultery (Mt 19:9). How can Paul, inspired the Holy Spirit and follower of Jesus, contradict Jesus, his Lord? Are they contradicting each other? The answer is no! How, then, did it look like they are contradicting? The answer is simple. Stephen Gola made it look like St. Paul contradicts himself and Jesus even though they do not contradict one another. His position is that divorced Christians can remarry and it is God's will. Well, those people who practice divorce are not Christians at all. They are like those immoral gentiles in Corinth who either reject or are ignorant of the Lord's will which is NO TO DIVORCE. Now, here is the explanation why Jesus and St. Paul are not contradicting one another. It is simple. Those marriages outside Christianity, especially from immoral gentiles are not acceptable to the Christian faith because those marriages were not approved or blessed by God. Thus they are null, void, invalid. If they are not valid then that means they are considered 'not married' in God's eyes. So, if they marry a Christian... they do not sin. Very simple! That is why even though CEB translates 'lelysai' as ‘divorce', still it doesn't contradict the true Christian teaching. Hindi sila pwede magsalungatan kahit guluhin pa ni Stephen Gola. Other bible versions chose not to use the word 'divorce' in order to save the readers from thinking further and more specifically to avoid the readers from thinking that marrying after divorce is not a sin, especially those who don't have the luxury of time to research.
ReplyDelete[Deuteronomy 24:1-4 tells of a situation where a man married a woman and then divorced her. This woman then married another man. The Scriptures go on to state that if the second marriage ends by her husband writing “...her a certificate of divorce ...OR if the latter husband dies…” (Deuteronomy 24:3,4), she could not remarry the first man she divorced because she had already married someone else. Therefore, if our spouse dies, or if we were divorced, we can get married again. Divorce and death are equal before God. The only stipulation in this Scripture is that if this is the second marriage, we cannot go back to the first spouse and remarry them because we married someone else after we divorced them.]
ReplyDeleteHuh? Hahaha! This is a very illogical statement! The funniest among the stupid things that he said! I mean, is he not thinking at all? Whenever you say “therefore” you must be able to make a conclusion supported by previous statements; or you must be able to show consequences as a result of previous statements. In those particular verses, where in the world did he derive his conclusion that when we divorce or when the spouse dies we can get married? Where is that from? Not that I don’t agree they can marry. Of course they are allowed to marry in the True Church as St. Paul taught, that is if the spouse died or if the marriage was not blessed by God, thus null. What I am referring to is his particular statement. I am after his basis and conclusion. The verses were saying that she cannot go to his first husband to marry again, or the first husband cannot marry her again. Why? That’s because she is already considered defiled. Now, nowhere in those statements say that she can marry others. His conclusion about marriage after spouse’s death would only be logical is he included in his statements St Paul’s teaching: “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.” (1 Cor 7:39). But his conclusion about marriage after divorce, it can never be approved anywhere in the bible except in Moses’ Law. So death and divorce are not equal in the eyes of God, most especially if Stephen is talking about marriage. Death is given by God as the owner of life. Divorce is against the word of God as definitely given by Jesus Christ who is the way, the truth and the life.
Christ abolished entirely the permission which Moses had granted, even though this permission was strictly limited. He allowed a cause similar to "uncleanness" as reason for putting away the wife (Mt 19:9), but not for the dissolution of the marriage bond. This is a case of legal separation in our time. Christ confirms this indissolubility in Saint Paul’s statement, “But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife.” (1 Cor 7:10-11). Christ, indeed restored the original indissolubility of marriage as it had been ordained by God in the Creation and was grounded in human nature.
Having read and learned so many things from the Bible, the Catholic stand and Stephen’s doctrines, I guess I can now go back to the 6 views and decide which is of them is biblical:
ReplyDelete[6 VIEWS ON DIVORCE:
1) Neither divorce nor remarriage are allowed. (A conservative Protestant – Catholic view)]
Insufficient. For Catholics, divorce is not allowed, correct. Remarriage after divorce is also not allowed. Remarriage can only be allowed not for the divorced but for the widows and those who have proven their previous marriage as void.
[2) Divorce is OK, but remarriage is forbidden. (A second conservative Catholic Protestant view)]
Wrong. Divorce is not OK and not Catholic.
3) Divorce is OK; remarriage is OK, in cases of adultery or desertion; (A conservative/mainline Protestant view)
Their view is wrong. Divorce and remarriage are not OK even in cases of adultery or desertion. Legal Separation is the appropriate one, hence no remarriage.
4) Divorce is OK for many reasons; remarriage is OK -- described below . (A mainline/moderate Christian view)
Disagree. Many or few reasons, it doesn’t matter. Even adultery itself, as being the only exception mentioned by Jesus during that time, doesn’t even count, what more for many other reasons.
5) Divorce is impossible, unless the marriage never existed. (Roman Catholic)
Wrongly stated. Divorce is impossible. Yes! But saying the word “unless” makes the statement wrong. The Roman Catholic does not make divorce possible “unless” marriage never existed. That is illogical. First, the Church does not permit divorce. Next, how can the Church allow divorce when there is nothing to divorce? See? This only shows how ignorant and illogical Protestants are with regards to Catholic doctrines. And they show their ignorance by telling everybody something that they don’t know about. Marriage is permitted if the previous one is proven null or never existed or if the spouse has died. That should have been the statement.
6) Divorce is OK in cases of marriage breakdown; remarriage is OK. (Religious liberal and secular view.)
Again, wrong.
VERY GOOD. YOU DID WELL. THANK YOU FOR SHARING.
ReplyDeleteThank you, thank you, father! I hope you can also answer my previous post. I have 3 or 4 questions there, I think. I don't remember kasi I forgot to save them in my computer. I hope you saw that. One of those questions is regarding Legal Separation. Another one is regarding passages I took from catholic encyclopedia (www.newadvent.org). The others I don't remember. I'm looking forward. Again thank you and may the Lord be with you always!
ReplyDeleteI RECEIVED THE QUESTIONS BROD. BUT AT THIS TIME I AM BUSY REFUTING THE ERRORS OF BISHOP TISSIER DE MALLERAIS OF SSPX. IMAGINE HE IS TEACHING THAT SINCE THE CHURCH IS IN CRISIS IT IS OK FOR SSPX TO DISOBEY THE POPE.
ReplyDeleteOk Father. Thanks. I'll wait for it na lang.
ReplyDelete[Hello father! Thank you very much for your explanations. Marami akong natutunan.]
ReplyDeleteWELCOME BROD. SORRY FOR THE LATE REPLY. I DEBATED THE SSPX TRAITORS EARLIER.
[Eto na lang hindi ko pa maintindihan:
1) 1 cor 7:10-11. "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: by saying "remain unmarried" this implies that "depart" means "divorce". I thought this is legal separation in our time but the phrase remain unmarried implies more on divorce.]
NO, BROD. YOU'VE GOTTEN IT WRONG. IT IS NOT DIVORCE BUT LEGAL SEPARATION.
THE WORD 'DEPART' DOES NOT MEAN DIVORCE BECAUSE IF IT IS DIVORCE THE MARRIAGE IS DESTROYED AND THUS THE WOMAN OR MAN CAN REMARRY FOR THE SECOND TIME. INSTEAD THERE IS A VERY CLEAR PROHIBITION NOT TO REMARRY: "But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband". THE FACT THAT SHE CANNOT REMARRY ATTEST THAT THERE IS NO DIVORCE.ST. PAUL INSISTS THAT THE MARRIAGE IS STILL VALID AND INTACT. THIS IS FURTHER PROVEN THAT THE OTHER OPTION IS BE RECONCILED WITH THE HUSBAND. IT MEANS IT IS MERE 'LEGAL SEPARATION' BECAUSE WHILE PHYSICALLY SEPARATED THEY ARE LEGALLY AND SPIRITUALLY HUSBAND AND WIFE STILL.
[2) I have read your explanation regarding the exception clause regarding "sexual immorality" that the person defiled himself/herself and that she is stoned to death so the widow can remarry.]
ReplyDeleteTHAT IS ONLY ONE OF THE EXPLANATIONS I HAVE GIVEN.
[but i'm still confused. If Jesus made this exception for divorce then this means that at present time it should be ok for the church to accept divorce due to immorality since wala ng death penalty for adultery. Isn't this contradicting to our stand na "no to divorce?"]
THE PHRASE 'except on the ground of unchastity' IS NOT AN EXCEPTION ON THE INDISSOLUBILITY OF MARRIAGE. THIS IS PROVEN BY THE VERY FACT THAT SUCH PHRASE IS EEMOVED LATER IN LK 16:18, MK 10:11-12 AND 1 COR 7:10-11 AND ANY DOUBT CONCERNING THE INDISSOLUBILITY OF MARRIAGE HAS BEEN REMOVED. THERE IS NO EXCEPTIONAL CLAUSE. THIS PASSAGE MUST BE VIEWED NOT AS AN EXCUSE FOR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE.
WHAT DOES IT MEAN? THE IGNATIUS CATHOLLIC STUDY BIBLE PROPOSES THREE EXPLANATIONS. BUT LET ME CITE ONLY TWO OF THEM SINCE IT IS NOT MY INTENTION TO PUT EVERYTHING HERE, IM NOT WRITING A BOOK BUT RESPONSES:
1. THE PATRISTIC VIEWS
The Church Fathers explained that Jesus allowed separation from an adulterious wife or husband but never permitted remarriage after. So this is really corresponds to LEGAL SEPARATION wherein the marriage bond is preserved intact. This is supported by St. Paul in 1 Cor 7:10-11 wherein the two options available to the couple who separated is RECONCILIATION or REMAIN SINGLE. There is NO REMARRIAGE at all.
2. THE LEVITICAL LAW ASPECT
That 'unchastity' referred in Mt 19:9 refers to INVALID MARRIAGES where the spouses are closely blood related which according to the Law of God is 'unchaste relation' or 'unclean'. This view is supported by 2 passages in the New Testament wherein PORNEIA refers to INCEST [cf. Acts 15:20, 29] where the apostles commanded the faithful to abstain from unchastity. This is supported in the Old Testament by Lev 18:6-18 which suggests that unchastity refers to prohibited marriages between closely related kinsfolk. The second passage is 1 Cor 5:1-2 where porneia clearly refers to an illicit union of a man and his father's wife.
[3)I saw in the Catholic encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm) this statements: "Christ abolished entirely the permission which Moses had granted, even though this permission was strictly limited; He allowed a cause similar to "uncleanness" as reason for putting away the wife, but not for the dissolution of the marriage bond."]
ReplyDeleteYES, VERY NICE.
[If it is referring to Mt 19:9 then it seems contradicting because your explanation is that the verse is talking about "divorce" not just "separation"]
THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION BUT ACTUALLY IT SUPPORTS MY EXPLANATION. REMEMBER MY ARGUMENTS SUPPORTS THE TEACHING OF JESUS AND THE CHURCH: DIVORCE IS PROHIBITED. NO TO DIVORCE. THE PROOF IS THAT THE LORD DECLARED: "WHAT GOD HAD UNITED LET NO MAN PUT ASUNDER." THAT IS CLEAR, CATEGORICAL REJECTION OF DIVORCE.
NOW, THE EXCEPTIONAL CLAUSE DOES NOT PRIVIDE FOR DIVORCE BUT ONLY FOR LEGAL SEPARATION. I NEVER ARGUED THAT DIVORCE CAN BE DONE IN AN EXCEPTIONAL CASE. WHERE? I ALREADY WROTE THAT WE ONLY ACCEPT 'LEGAL SEPARATION' AND 'ANNULMENT' BUT NOT DIVORCE. READ AGAIN MY STATEMENTS.
[4)In legal separation, if Jesus only exempted the "sexual immorality" why then are here other grounds for legal separation?]
JESUS GAVE JUSTIFICATION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION IN CASE OF UNCHASTITY BUT THAT UNCHASTITY IS BROAD AND MULTI-FACETED. IT IS NOT LIMITED TO ONE CASE ONLY. THIS IS TESTIFIED FOR BY ST. PAUL THE APOSTLE IN 1 COR 7:10-11
1 Cor 7:10-11 To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) --and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
SO, ST. PAUL TAUGHT THAT THE WIFE COULD SEPARATE FROM THE HUSBAND BUT MUST NOT REMARRY. THEY EITHER BE RECONCILED OR REMAIN SINGLE SINCE THEY ARE MARRIED LEGALLY. ST. PAUL DIDN'T PROVIDE REASONS FOR SUCH A SEPARATION. IT IS THE DUTY OF THE CHURCH TO CHECK ON THE PRACTIAL SITUATIONS SUCH AS 'PHYSICAL ABUSES' IN ORDER TO DISCERN IF THE SEPARATION IS JUSTIFIED OR NOT.
ANOTHER CASE OF SEPARATION THAT IS GIVEN BY THE BIBLE IS THE SO-CALLED PAULINE PRIVILEGE:
1 Cor 7:12-14 To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy.
1 Cor 7:15 But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.
SO, ST. PAUL PROVIDED ANOTHER REASON FOR LEGAL SEPARATION BESIDES UNCHASTITY... THAT IS, THE VOLUNTARY DECISION OF AN UNBELIEVING PARTNER TO LEAVE.
[Is Legal Separation not Catholic?]
LEGAL SEPARATION IS ACCEPTED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE DESTRUCTION OR DISSOLUTIONMENT OF MARRIAGE OR DIVORCE.
[Thank you very much father. I hope you can enlighten me.]
WELCOME BROD. HOPE THIS WILL HELP YOU.