Comments on: Singles in the Church http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/ ...as of first importance...that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:40:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: phd4jesus http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/comment-page-2/#comment-1350 phd4jesus Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:43:56 +0000 http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/#comment-1350 <i>Or maybe we can discuss MA marriage statutes</i> Sure. I was there during the whole proceding. Where do you want to start? Perhaps you could show me a biblical example of gay marriage. There are a number of marriages in the bible, but my bible does not contain hundreds of examples. I have given you two examples of marriages in the bible and have asked you to indicate whether they are sacremental or civil marriages. Would you answer those two simple questions please. Clearly what is needed here is what is God's definition of marriage. Or maybe we can discuss MA marriage statutes

Sure. I was there during the whole proceding. Where do you want to start? Perhaps you could show me a biblical example of gay marriage.

There are a number of marriages in the bible, but my bible does not contain hundreds of examples. I have given you two examples of marriages in the bible and have asked you to indicate whether they are sacremental or civil marriages. Would you answer those two simple questions please.

Clearly what is needed here is what is God’s definition of marriage.

]]> By: Ellen http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/comment-page-2/#comment-1349 Ellen Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:31:00 +0000 http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/#comment-1349 It's also hard to discuss "annulment" and leave out the Roman Catholic church, is it not? It’s also hard to discuss “annulment” and leave out the Roman Catholic church, is it not?

]]> By: Carrie http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/comment-page-2/#comment-1348 Carrie Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:27:17 +0000 http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/#comment-1348 <i>We are having a discussion, and you are launching off into anti-Catholic-land. You are impossible to have a discussion with because you can’t stick to one point.</i> Tony, I looked through my comment and didn't see one mention of "Catholicism" so I'm not sure where this is coming from. Second, the only theme in my comments here has been the biblical definition of marriage. In other words, what does God consider marriage. I don't see how I am "all over the place". Lastly, your snip back tells me I may have offended you. I apologize as that was not my intention. We are having a discussion, and you are launching off into anti-Catholic-land. You are impossible to have a discussion with because you can’t stick to one point.

Tony,

I looked through my comment and didn’t see one mention of “Catholicism” so I’m not sure where this is coming from.

Second, the only theme in my comments here has been the biblical definition of marriage. In other words, what does God consider marriage. I don’t see how I am “all over the place”.

Lastly, your snip back tells me I may have offended you. I apologize as that was not my intention.

]]> By: Ellen http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/comment-page-2/#comment-1347 Ellen Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:54:05 +0000 http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/#comment-1347 Tony, unless you can give any Scriptural backing for the distinction that you need to make - and a Biblical basis for a marriage that was entered into never having existed in the eyes of God, you might want to drop this. Where in Scripture do you find this doctrine? Tony, unless you can give any Scriptural backing for the distinction that you need to make – and a Biblical basis for a marriage that was entered into never having existed in the eyes of God, you might want to drop this.

Where in Scripture do you find this doctrine?

]]> By: Tony http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/comment-page-2/#comment-1346 Tony Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:41:31 +0000 http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/#comment-1346 <i>It is a biblical example. It’s David’s story. Bathsheba was David’s wife. Is this an example of a Sacramental marriage or a civil marriage?</i> It's only one example out of hundreds of good marriages in the Bible. Because it's rare, by your own admission, you can't use it. (Or maybe we can discuss MA marriage statutes). It is a biblical example. It’s David’s story. Bathsheba was David’s wife. Is this an example of a Sacramental marriage or a civil marriage?

It’s only one example out of hundreds of good marriages in the Bible. Because it’s rare, by your own admission, you can’t use it.

(Or maybe we can discuss MA marriage statutes).

]]> By: Ellen http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/comment-page-2/#comment-1345 Ellen Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:18:14 +0000 http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/#comment-1345 I know. And Tony knows that we know. That should be all that needs to be said. I know. And Tony knows that we know. That should be all that needs to be said.

]]> By: phd4jesus http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/comment-page-2/#comment-1344 phd4jesus Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:13:09 +0000 http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/#comment-1344 I remember the dig. It was just unnecessary. I remember the dig. It was just unnecessary.

]]> By: Ellen http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/comment-page-2/#comment-1343 Ellen Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:08:35 +0000 http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/#comment-1343 phd - it's just a dig that carried over from Carrie's blog. It can be easily ignored for what it is. I will ask that any further points be made from Scripture. phd – it’s just a dig that carried over from Carrie’s blog. It can be easily ignored for what it is.

I will ask that any further points be made from Scripture.

]]> By: phd4jesus http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/comment-page-2/#comment-1342 phd4jesus Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:06:08 +0000 http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/#comment-1342 <i>That example hardly ever happens (like “gay marriage” in MA.) so you can’t use that as an example</i> <b>It is a biblical example.</b> It's David's story. Bathsheba was David's wife. Is this an example of a Sacramental marriage or a civil marriage? It was God's will that the Israelites marry only other Israelites. Solomone didn't. He married many woman of peoples and nations that the Lord had commanded that Israel not associate with (1 Kings 11:1-2). Were these marriages sacramental or civil. The issue here is that you are trying separate out what marriages are (i.e. sacramental v. civil) and it isn't there in the bible. P.S. I also use a "study bible". Should I be insulted as well with your comment to Carrie? That example hardly ever happens (like “gay marriage” in MA.) so you can’t use that as an example

It is a biblical example. It’s David’s story. Bathsheba was David’s wife. Is this an example of a Sacramental marriage or a civil marriage?

It was God’s will that the Israelites marry only other Israelites. Solomone didn’t. He married many woman of peoples and nations that the Lord had commanded that Israel not associate with (1 Kings 11:1-2). Were these marriages sacramental or civil.

The issue here is that you are trying separate out what marriages are (i.e. sacramental v. civil) and it isn’t there in the bible.

P.S. I also use a “study bible”. Should I be insulted as well with your comment to Carrie?

]]> By: Ellen http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/comment-page-2/#comment-1341 Ellen Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:11:03 +0000 http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/#comment-1341 Carrie, I think that where Tony is getting the governmental thing is from when he said that (something like, I'm not going to look for an exact quote) there was no civil marriage in the Bible. I pointed out where marriage was regulated by civil law (The Jews divided their law into "civil", "ceremonial" and "moral".) It is the Roman Catholics that need to see some marriages as something less than a marriage in the eyes of God. For us, marriage has been from the beginning, in the eyes of God. Carrie, I think that where Tony is getting the governmental thing is from when he said that (something like, I’m not going to look for an exact quote) there was no civil marriage in the Bible. I pointed out where marriage was regulated by civil law (The Jews divided their law into “civil”, “ceremonial” and “moral”.)

It is the Roman Catholics that need to see some marriages as something less than a marriage in the eyes of God. For us, marriage has been from the beginning, in the eyes of God.

]]> By: Ellen http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/comment-page-2/#comment-1340 Ellen Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:04:45 +0000 http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/#comment-1340 Tony, we can look to the New Testament, where all were under the juristiction of Roman law. You cannot point out in Scripture where a marriage is not a marriage. A marriage is a marriage is a marriage and there is no place in the Bible where you can point to and say differently. A marriage is a marriage is a marriage. There is no place in the Bible where a marriage is labeled "civil" but not "sacramental". You are the one making the distinction, not me. You are the one that sees a difference that is not in the Bible. I have asked many times for you to show a Biblical difference, but you cannot. Tony, we can look to the New Testament, where all were under the juristiction of Roman law.

You cannot point out in Scripture where a marriage is not a marriage.

A marriage is a marriage is a marriage and there is no place in the Bible where you can point to and say differently.

A marriage is a marriage is a marriage.

There is no place in the Bible where a marriage is labeled “civil” but not “sacramental”.

You are the one making the distinction, not me. You are the one that sees a difference that is not in the Bible.

I have asked many times for you to show a Biblical difference, but you cannot.

]]> By: Tony http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/comment-page-2/#comment-1339 Tony Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:02:19 +0000 http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/#comment-1339 <i>This has been an interesting discussion. Would an unrepentant Catholic man who had an adulterous relationship with a woman and murdered her husband (like King David did) be allowed to marry said woman in the RCC?</i> That example hardly ever happens (like "gay marriage" in MA.) so you can't use that as an example. <i>I don’t remember God requiring specific ceremonies to occur or hoops to be jumped through for a “valid” marriage.</i> I don't either. When have heard me say that they were? This has been an interesting discussion. Would an unrepentant Catholic man who had an adulterous relationship with a woman and murdered her husband (like King David did) be allowed to marry said woman in the RCC?

That example hardly ever happens (like “gay marriage” in MA.) so you can’t use that as an example.

I don’t remember God requiring specific ceremonies to occur or hoops to be jumped through for a “valid” marriage.

I don’t either. When have heard me say that they were?

]]> By: Tony http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/comment-page-2/#comment-1338 Tony Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:48:37 +0000 http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/#comment-1338 Whoops, bad closing tag. Only the word "Ellen" ought to be bolded. Maybe Ellen can edit that for me. ;) Whoops, bad closing tag. Only the word “Ellen” ought to be bolded. Maybe Ellen can edit that for me. ;)

]]> By: Tony http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/comment-page-2/#comment-1337 Tony Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:47:41 +0000 http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/#comment-1337 <i>Here, on marriage, you are defining marriage by man’s traditions and government through history. But history and the ways of man are completely irrelevant as it is GOD who defines marriage and there is nothing in the Bible that tells us that his definition of marriage has changed with time.</i> No, Carrie, <b>Ellen is defining civil marriage through Biblical history. Please do try and keep up. We are having a discussion, and you are launching off into anti-Cahtolic-land. You are impossible to have a discussion with because you can't stick to one point. You jump all over the place and are surpised when it doesn't make sense. You'd better go back to your "study bible".</b> Here, on marriage, you are defining marriage by man’s traditions and government through history. But history and the ways of man are completely irrelevant as it is GOD who defines marriage and there is nothing in the Bible that tells us that his definition of marriage has changed with time.

No, Carrie, Ellen is defining civil marriage through Biblical history. Please do try and keep up.

We are having a discussion, and you are launching off into anti-Cahtolic-land. You are impossible to have a discussion with because you can’t stick to one point.

You jump all over the place and are surpised when it doesn’t make sense. You’d better go back to your “study bible”.

]]> By: Carrie http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/comment-page-2/#comment-1336 Carrie Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:41:29 +0000 http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/#comment-1336 <i>Because to the OT Jewish government would never solemnize a non Biblical marriage. All civil marriages (since they were a theocracy) followed their religious law and were thus deemed sacramental.</i> Tony, I have to say. You absolutely fascinate me. In every debate we have you are always arguing for what MAN has deemed, not necessarily God. When we talked about the Bible you would say things like “the authority of the Bible is dependent on the men who determined it (the canon). To me that is an utterly ridiculous thing to say since the authority of the Bible comes from God alone. Here, on marriage, you are defining marriage by man’s traditions and government through history. But history and the ways of man are completely irrelevant as it is GOD who defines marriage and there is nothing in the Bible that tells us that his definition of marriage has changed with time. Adam and Eve were not Jewish and did not live in a theocracy so I’m not sure how your definition can account for them or anyone else pre-Israel. So you have to ask yourself, how did GOD define marriage and when or if did that definition ever change. But this is what is so fascinating. You seem to think that God defines things according to man and therefore you look to man to make your definitions. As if God has somehow formed his truths around the comings and goings of men. I look to God for the definitions and then try to figure out whether man has it right or wrong. I don’t know any other way to arrive at the truth. Because to the OT Jewish government would never solemnize a non Biblical marriage. All civil marriages (since they were a theocracy) followed their religious law and were thus deemed sacramental.

Tony, I have to say. You absolutely fascinate me.

In every debate we have you are always arguing for what MAN has deemed, not necessarily God.

When we talked about the Bible you would say things like “the authority of the Bible is dependent on the men who determined it (the canon). To me that is an utterly ridiculous thing to say since the authority of the Bible comes from God alone.

Here, on marriage, you are defining marriage by man’s traditions and government through history. But history and the ways of man are completely irrelevant as it is GOD who defines marriage and there is nothing in the Bible that tells us that his definition of marriage has changed with time.

Adam and Eve were not Jewish and did not live in a theocracy so I’m not sure how your definition can account for them or anyone else pre-Israel. So you have to ask yourself, how did GOD define marriage and when or if did that definition ever change.

But this is what is so fascinating. You seem to think that God defines things according to man and therefore you look to man to make your definitions. As if God has somehow formed his truths around the comings and goings of men.

I look to God for the definitions and then try to figure out whether man has it right or wrong. I don’t know any other way to arrive at the truth.

]]> By: phd4jesus http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/comment-page-2/#comment-1335 phd4jesus Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:59:05 +0000 http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/#comment-1335 This has been an interesting discussion. Would an unrepentant Catholic man who had an adulterous relationship with a woman and murdered her husband (like King David did) be allowed to marry said woman in the RCC? Bathsheba did become David’s wife prior to David’s repentance (2 Sam 11:27). What about those Patriarchs that married prior to the establishment of the nation of Israel? It seems to me that to be married was to “go into her” as is described for Jacob and Leah (Gen 29:23). <i>Because what the government calls “marriage” is not Biblical.</i> What does the Government call marriage that is different from God? (Please don’t use the example of MA because this is an exception to the rule). Whatever “ceremonies” occur during marriage (both in the past and presently) are not of God, but of man. I don’t remember God requiring specific ceremonies to occur or hoops to be jumped through for a “valid” marriage. This has been an interesting discussion. Would an unrepentant Catholic man who had an adulterous relationship with a woman and murdered her husband (like King David did) be allowed to marry said woman in the RCC? Bathsheba did become David’s wife prior to David’s repentance (2 Sam 11:27). What about those Patriarchs that married prior to the establishment of the nation of Israel? It seems to me that to be married was to “go into her” as is described for Jacob and Leah (Gen 29:23).

Because what the government calls “marriage” is not Biblical.

What does the Government call marriage that is different from God? (Please don’t use the example of MA because this is an exception to the rule). Whatever “ceremonies” occur during marriage (both in the past and presently) are not of God, but of man. I don’t remember God requiring specific ceremonies to occur or hoops to be jumped through for a “valid” marriage.

]]> By: Tony http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/comment-page-2/#comment-1334 Tony Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:11:51 +0000 http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/#comment-1334 <i>Tony, marriage was set up by God from the very beginning of time. If there was different “kinds” of marriage, why do we not find that in the Bible?</i> Because what the government calls "marriage" is not Biblical. <i>The civil Law in the Old Testament gave the Jews laws that regulated marriage - the concept of “civil marriage” is Biblical.</i> Because the OT Jews lived in a theocracy. There was no discernable difference between the concepts of religious or civil from a Biblical (Torah) standpoint. We don't live in a theocracy. Our governmental laws of marriage are not guided by the Bible, the Torah or (thankfully) the Koran. <i>The concept of a marriage being sacramental or not - is not in the Bible.</i> Because to the OT Jewish government would never solemnize a non Biblical marriage. All civil marriages (since they were a theocracy) followed their religious law and were thus deemed sacramental. Just like I'd imagine all marriages in Iran follow Islamic law. <i>Will you, or will you not, give an example from the Bible of a marriage that is civil, but not sacramental (and that the Bible tells us so)?</i> I won't. Because in OT Palestine, because they were a theocracy, all marriages solemnized were deemed valid and bound by God. That having been said. We don't live in a theocracy. As a matter of fact, our government is actively hostile to religion in general, Christianity in particular. There is no connect as there was in OT palestine with the state and the will of God. Can <b>you</b> admit the fact that concept of civil (theocratic) marriage in OT Palestine doesn't necessarily jibe with our societal reality today? Tony, marriage was set up by God from the very beginning of time. If there was different “kinds” of marriage, why do we not find that in the Bible?

Because what the government calls “marriage” is not Biblical.

The civil Law in the Old Testament gave the Jews laws that regulated marriage – the concept of “civil marriage” is Biblical.

Because the OT Jews lived in a theocracy. There was no discernable difference between the concepts of religious or civil from a Biblical (Torah) standpoint. We don’t live in a theocracy. Our governmental laws of marriage are not guided by the Bible, the Torah or (thankfully) the Koran.

The concept of a marriage being sacramental or not – is not in the Bible.

Because to the OT Jewish government would never solemnize a non Biblical marriage. All civil marriages (since they were a theocracy) followed their religious law and were thus deemed sacramental. Just like I’d imagine all marriages in Iran follow Islamic law.

Will you, or will you not, give an example from the Bible of a marriage that is civil, but not sacramental (and that the Bible tells us so)?

I won’t. Because in OT Palestine, because they were a theocracy, all marriages solemnized were deemed valid and bound by God.

That having been said. We don’t live in a theocracy. As a matter of fact, our government is actively hostile to religion in general, Christianity in particular. There is no connect as there was in OT palestine with the state and the will of God.

Can you admit the fact that concept of civil (theocratic) marriage in OT Palestine doesn’t necessarily jibe with our societal reality today?

]]> By: Carrie http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/comment-page-2/#comment-1333 Carrie Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:04:09 +0000 http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/#comment-1333 <i>I’m tired of playing your “gotcha” game. (Especially when you don’t “got me”). If you are willing to discuss, specifically with me, the realities of the society in which we live, please carry on. Otherwise I’m going to ignore your comments</i> There is no “gotcha game” on my end. I accused you of espousing Catholic doctrine instead of biblical doctrine and you chastised me for it. But you still have yet to give scriptural support for your marriage doctrines. See, I am frustrated by the fact that you call me “obsessed with Catholicism” b/c I inferred that your Catholic doctrines on marriage are not supported by the Scriptures, and yet you still haven’t given me any scriptural support. So can you explain to me how holding you accountable for your statements is now a “gotcha game”? I don’t really care about society or government laws on marriage. All I care about is what God considers a marriage. You are allowing for dissolution of marriage (by annulment) of whatever is not a “sacramental marriage” or ordained by God. I do not see in scriptures where such an idea is presented. You can ignore this comment, that is fine. I am not the one playing games by claiming to have biblical foundations for my church’s doctrine but yet never producing such support and then lashing out against anyone who tries to hold me accountable for my claims. I’m tired of playing your “gotcha” game. (Especially when you don’t “got me”). If you are willing to discuss, specifically with me, the realities of the society in which we live, please carry on. Otherwise I’m going to ignore your comments

There is no “gotcha game” on my end. I accused you of espousing Catholic doctrine instead of biblical doctrine and you chastised me for it. But you still have yet to give scriptural support for your marriage doctrines.

See, I am frustrated by the fact that you call me “obsessed with Catholicism” b/c I inferred that your Catholic doctrines on marriage are not supported by the Scriptures, and yet you still haven’t given me any scriptural support. So can you explain to me how holding you accountable for your statements is now a “gotcha game”?

I don’t really care about society or government laws on marriage. All I care about is what God considers a marriage. You are allowing for dissolution of marriage (by annulment) of whatever is not a “sacramental marriage” or ordained by God. I do not see in scriptures where such an idea is presented.

You can ignore this comment, that is fine. I am not the one playing games by claiming to have biblical foundations for my church’s doctrine but yet never producing such support and then lashing out against anyone who tries to hold me accountable for my claims.

]]> By: Ellen http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/comment-page-2/#comment-1332 Ellen Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:50:02 +0000 http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/#comment-1332 <em>But if you insist on asking for specific Biblical references to concepts that are not necessarily Biblical (such as governmental laws set up by countries, governmants and municipalities that are not necessarily Christian) I’m going to have to stop answering your questions. </em> Tony, marriage was set up by God from the very beginning of time. If there was different "kinds" of marriage, why do we not find that in the Bible? The civil Law in the Old Testament gave the Jews laws that regulated marriage - the concept of "civil marriage" <strong>is</strong> Biblical. The concept of a marriage being sacramental or not - is not in the Bible. Will you, or will you not, give an example from the Bible of a marriage that is civil, but not sacramental (and that the Bible tells us so)? But if you insist on asking for specific Biblical references to concepts that are not necessarily Biblical (such as governmental laws set up by countries, governmants and municipalities that are not necessarily Christian) I’m going to have to stop answering your questions.

Tony, marriage was set up by God from the very beginning of time. If there was different “kinds” of marriage, why do we not find that in the Bible?

The civil Law in the Old Testament gave the Jews laws that regulated marriage – the concept of “civil marriage” is Biblical.

The concept of a marriage being sacramental or not – is not in the Bible.

Will you, or will you not, give an example from the Bible of a marriage that is civil, but not sacramental (and that the Bible tells us so)?

]]> By: Tony http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/comment-page-2/#comment-1331 Tony Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:17:10 +0000 http://mzellen.com/2006/10/22/singles-in-the-church/#comment-1331 Carrie: You don't accept that there is governmental construct called marriage that bestows rights and responsibilities on couples (not necessarily heterosexual couples) that is distinct from the covenant of marriage ordained by God? I am really trying to be charitable here. But if you insist on asking for specific Biblical references to concepts that are not necessarily Biblical (such as governmental laws set up by countries, governmants and municipalities that are not necessarily Christian) I'm going to have to stop answering your questions. I'm tired of playing your "gotcha" game. (Especially when you don't "got me"). If you are willing to discuss, specifically with me, the realities of the society in which we live, please carry on. Otherwise I'm going to ignore your comments. Carrie: You don’t accept that there is governmental construct called marriage that bestows rights and responsibilities on couples (not necessarily heterosexual couples) that is distinct from the covenant of marriage ordained by God?

I am really trying to be charitable here. But if you insist on asking for specific Biblical references to concepts that are not necessarily Biblical (such as governmental laws set up by countries, governmants and municipalities that are not necessarily Christian) I’m going to have to stop answering your questions.

I’m tired of playing your “gotcha” game. (Especially when you don’t “got me”). If you are willing to discuss, specifically with me, the realities of the society in which we live, please carry on. Otherwise I’m going to ignore your comments.

]]>