Weddings

[Churchwork]

Why do you have to lie to make your case? You know I didn't say that one woman and one man for life is fornication. You're a phony and a liar. Then you say "How evil to say so" when you know full well I never said so. You're a self righteous hypocrite who has no interest in truth, and lies and mischaracterizes others to puff yourself up.

Why accuse me of lying? It is a sin to bear false witness. If for you one man and one woman for life is not a fornication then you should accept that marriage is at sex. This has been your whole issue that it is not which is rejecting being made one body. If you can't accept this, you are a phony and a liar. This was your first accusation on the matter and it shows something wrong about you. Indeed, "how evil to say so". I know full well this is what you are saying. You are a self-righteous hypocrite who has no care for the truth and who lies, accuses falsely and mischaracterizes others to self-exalt yourself. Remember, this began with your claim that marriage is not at sex, but after, thus allowing for fornication in your corrupted conscience before what you think to be marriage afterwards. Marriage is not built on fornicating but uniting bodies as one.

Again, here is your mischaracterization which is self-centered, when you wrote, "I disagree with your position that fornication is a marriage however".


I never said fornication is a marriage. I said sex is a marriage: "(A) marriage already commences when you have sex". Do you see how the devil has caused you to confuse sex as being the sin of fornication which causes you deceive, to act like that great false accuser. You are exposed. Only the devil could turn (A) into what you said in your accusation.

And you also had the gall to say, "You know I didn't say that one woman and one man for life is fornication". Then why accuse? You can't have it both ways. Be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8).

You are too self-righteous to retrace to the beginning your first mistake in your second post in this thread. See how you misrepresent in your flesh, and repent to God. If you can not, you know there is something very wrong with you and it would be due to the evil spirits who have a hold on you.

I don't know why I wasted my time trying to reaon with you. You're not interested in finding the truth, but only in debating, and defending your false theology. You're unreasonable, intellectually dishonest, and arrogant. It's pointless to discuss anything with you any longer.

You are not reasoning with me. You are being selfish. You refuse to see your first false accusation in this thread confusing fornication with sex commencing marriage of uniting bodies as one. This is not a sin to unite as one, for as a matter of origin God willed there was one man and one woman.

This is your false theology to accuse in your conniving and to attempt to deflect from this sinful accusatory behavior that misrepresents bearing false witness. You don't care for the truth, but are projecting your own spirit of dissension and defending your own false theology that marriage does not commence at sexually uniting bodies, but afterwards, making sex fornicating, which it is not. The Bible does not place emphasis on ceremonies, nor should you. You are unreasonable, intellectually dishonest and arrogant. You should not speak again unless it is words of repentance. But so often the false accuser can not repent because something is wrong for him to falsely accuse in the first place. Sin begets sin.

Since you can't repent from your first false accusation which you are trying to cover up, I realize you won't repent, and your being so arrogant and belligerent you do not fit in well with this forum, so what else can be done but ban you! Your behavior pattern will not change.

[Simba]

I must apologise for my english (i will do this lots)I agree that man and woman should marry for love and that when married they must live with each others. And that divorce is not good in Gods view / ideasBut i am confused as why God is against gay people when he made them that way??(i am not gay i must say)

[Churchwork]

He did not make them that way. Understand that they are born into sin, so aberrations due to sin will no doubt manifest, and though some may have such tendency, they are perfectly capable of rejecting that sin.

[Simba]

Hi again :) im still online heheWhen you say born into sin, do you mean that the evil their parent did has been put into the child? I hate to think that the bad my parent did has been put within me when born :(I want to be good and follow God, but why do i get told off (sorry cant think of right word) by God if its my parent fault

[Churchwork]

Though it is not your fault that you were born into sin, it is your fault if you don't receive forgiveness of your sins. You will not be forgiven if you do not believe in Christ.

It is not your parents fault. It is Adam's fault.

[FoC]

Why accuse me of lying? It is a sin to bear false witness.

this is very typical behavior for david (sealedeternal)
We had to ban him from our forum recently as he insisted on breaking the one and only rule we have put into place there in his very first post. Then keeps harassing us by by passing the IP block and continuing to harass our members.
You may do well to simply report his behavior to moderation and ignore him.

[FoC]

Why do you have to lie to make your case? You know I didn't say that one woman and one man for life is fornication. You're a phony and a liar. Then you say "How evil to say so" when you know full well I never said so. You're a self righteous hypocrite who has no interest in truth, and lies and mischaracterizes others to puff yourself up.

I don't know why I wasted my time trying to reaon with you. You're not interested in finding the truth, but only in debating, and defending your false theology. You're unreasonable, intellectually dishonest, and arrogant. It's pointless to discuss anything with you any longer.

THIS is the kind of behavior, david, that gets you into trouble.
I know because Ive done it enough myself.

Hopefully moderation here wont tolerate your calling their members names and behaving so rudely as you do everywhere else.

Just because folks see thru your errant views doesnt make them unreasonable or dishonest or arrogant.

Why dont you simply argue your case and walk away if this is so aggitating for you to deal with so that you end up calling people names.

Im new here, and Im giong to report this immediately to moderation myself.

[FoC]

Not so. Fornication exists because what is to be marriage uniting bodies by sex is not treated accordingly. Living in sin is sin because of not accepting together that the having sex was in fact marriage. Your rejecting of this makes fornication acceptable to live in sin before marriage or after marriage because you do not realize marriage was to be established as a matter of origin when bodies are united.

Now, I have shown you fornication can exist if sex is immediate marriage, because of not accepting sex is marriage. You should accept this truth.


If you accept this is a sin, then you must accept that the sex is marriage in God's eyes and when not treated as such by the partners, they are sinning. Again, fornicating is because they do not accept the marriage in sex so by waiting even one day after having sex to be married is one day of fornicating.

There is no such thing as unmarried sex. All sex is married sex. Do you see how you mistakenly assumed there can be some sex which is unmarried? It is no the case at all. You would be going against God's Word which says when two bodies are united they are one; this is marriage.

By not accepting this you unwittingly accept such a thing as unmarried sex, as you say.

Churchwork.
I will say that I disagree with your view wholeheartedly.

There is a such thing as unmarried sex....please see 1 Corinthians 7:1-2 where each man is told to avoid 'whoredom' to have his own wife.
By what you present, this would be a fairly pointless statement as the woman he was having sex with....ANY woman he was having sex with...would literally be his wife....thus the passage is entirely without meaning.

[FoC]

I read what Watchman Nee wrote on 227-229 of KKH regarding Matt. 19. What joy! What accuracy in reading of the Scriptures.

The Lord Gives His Final Decison (v.6) - "One Flesh"
- these are my findings of significance (Troy)

v. 4, three points deduced:
- marriage is instituted by God since He made both male and female.
- monogamy is God's will for He made only one Adam and one Eve.
- God dislikes divorce because the Lord in answering implies that it is not a question of the law, but a matter of origin.

Note these points:
- (A) marriage already commences when you have sex (see 228-229).
- (B) if an unsaved person has sex with one who had sex before then nonetheless, they are both under the blood of Christ and there should be no putting away. This means that indeed the law has passed, and there is no right to divorce for any cause as was the case under the law which was permitted during the dispensation of the law. Moses did not command this but permitted it ("suffered").
- (C) if you have sex with someone who was put away (divorced or separated because of cheating), then you commit yourself adultery. Seriously!
- bottom line: the Bible gives very little significance to ceremonial weddings since marriage takes place when two people have sex and are made one flesh. As a Christian you would not go to non-Christian weddings, not because they should not be married but because they reject Christ. People will blame you for not going to their ceremonial weddings and blame you for all kinds of speculative reasons, but the reason you don't go is because they still refuse Christ, which is making a mockery of the matter of origin.

I for one have peace in knowing why I don't go to non-Christian weddings, but would go to the wedding if there was only one Christian in the marriage.

Hi churchwork.
This is my page on 'one flesh'...my conclusions based on my own studies.
Feel free to comment where you wish, possibly we can discuss our differing views :)


What is ''one flesh'' and what is it that God joins together?

Firstly let us see and agree that ''one flesh'' is sexual relations between a man and a woman.
To prove this we see that a husband and wife will become ''one flesh''..

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

Eph 5:31 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

We see that a husband and wife will be ''one flesh''.
to further understand what this ''one flesh'' is lets look to something outside the marriage union....

Do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her?
For "the two," He says, "shall become one flesh."
(1Co 6:16-)

Paul shows that even having sex with a harlot, one to whom we arent married, obviously, is the same as ''one flesh'' in marriage.
Paul even quotes God/Jesus when he states..."For "the two," He says, "shall become one flesh".

A man is also 'one flesh' or 'one body' with a harlot he is with (1 Cor 6:16) showing that 'one flesh' is not exclusive to the marriage union.
So we see that ''one flesh'' is merely the sexual union between a man and a woman, married or not.
================================================== =============================
If anyone other than Jesus would understand what 'one flesh' was, it would be Moses.
The man wrote the law, we can rest assured that he understood Gods intent from the beginning.

That Moses were ever permitted to allow divorce/remarriage (as proven in Deut 24:1-4) shows absolutely that this perpetual 'one flesh' bond is nothing more than unscriptural nonsense.

Moses had permitted a man to put away a wife just because she found no 'favor in his eyes''.
She was permitted to REmarry.
*IF* 'one flesh' from the beginning were UNbreakable, then so it would be in Moses day, Moses would have KNOWN that if it were the case, and ongoing adultery would have been the crime of this woman put away and REmarried, as she most likely would have been.

Are we naive enough to think that Moses was sentencing an innocent woman to hell by permitting her to REmarry ?
All he had to have done *IF* one flesh were perpetual was tell the INNOCENT they couldnt remarry so as to not be in 'adultery' as some suppose today.

But he didnt.

Because Moses understood that this one flesh is not continued perpetually when a divorce has happened.
If the divorce is scriptural, then the bond is broken, ended....no adultery is committed when one REmarries.
Just as in Jesus exception. He narrowed the allowance to fornication alone, but He did not change the definition of divorce, nor did HE disallow remarriage in the case where fornication has happened.

Adultery is committed now when a spouse is put away for any reason short of fornication, and we then remarry.
================================================== =============================
Lets look at Joseph and Mary now.
Firstly we know that Jesus was not illegitimate. He was born to two lawfully married people. The Jews accepted this and called Joseph Jesus' father (many not knowing any different).

*IF* marriage was not valid without consummation....the two being ''one flesh'' as it were, then Joseph and Mary wouldnt be ''married'' and Jesus would have been illegitimate....without a lawful earthly father.

Joseph had not yet been with Mary before Jesus was born, yet WAS said to be her ''husband'' and she his ''wife'' or espoused (betrothed) wife. He was going to put Mary away when he found her with child, showing that she was indeed his ''lawful'' wife....if she werent his wife he could have just left her obviously.

What bound Joseph to Mary was not sex, as is blindingly apparent, since they had had no sexual union at that point, but what DID bind them was they were joined in matrimony, Gods holy marital covenant.

So when we look at ''one flesh'', we can clearly see that because of 1 Cor. 6:16 that ''one flesh'' is sexual relations between a man and a woman, married or not.
And since we know that we arent married to the harlot just because we make ourselves ''one flesh'' with her, that this ''one flesh'' is NOT any tie that is unbreakable.

There is no such thing as breaking the ''one flesh'' union, otherwise 1 Cor. 6:16 would show that every person who has had sex with someone they werent married to is permanently ''one flesh'' with them for life...and we know that isnt the case based on the context of 1 Cor. 6.

Conclusions:
-''one flesh'' is sex, plain and simple.... as proven by 1 Corinthians 6:16
-Sex is not the tie that binds, the covenant is...as proven by Joseph and Mary.
-What binds a man and woman for life is the marriage covenant..... which we know is a conditional covenant, for Jesus has said ''except''.

*IF* ‘’one flesh’’ is what makes a man and wife ‘’married’’ (as some see it), then Joseph and Mary were NOT married and our Lord was born illegitimate.
Proof that is not the case is in Luke 3:23, Luke 4:24, John 1:45, John 6:42. Jesus WAS Josephs ‘’son’’ as far as being born into a LAWFUL, binding marriage covenant.

To add...
When the union is 'dissolved' is defined in Deut 24:1-4.
Jesus never altered that definition, He merely reigned in the allowances FOR the divorce.
When a divorce is filed for the reasons Jesus (GOD) has excepted for, THAT is when the marriage is 'dissolved'.

http://divorceandremarriage.bravehos...soneflesh.html

[FoC]

Additionally, churchwork, I believe, based on Gods word, that an intent to be 'married' and faithful must be present to be married.

Now, under the law, if a man had sex with a woman not betrothed, he had to marry her and could not put her away all his days.

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. (Deu 22:28-29)

Notice it doesnt say he WAS marrried to her, she wasnt already married to him, but it shows clearly that she 'shall be' his wife as tho this is determined after the fact, not during the sexual act.

Marriage requires, as far as scripture goes, an intent to be married.
Ceremonies arent required, nor are ceasars licensing, but an intent to be husband and wife is required...otherwise every person we had sex with would be our wife and 1 Cor 7:1-2 is pretty much meaningless (as well as some other passages I could probably remember and post).

I hope this has been helpful.

I apologize for sealedeternals rudeness, thats his nature and not at all representative of Christ.