From jswranch, is a comment on this post that begins with a statement "...before we can begin to look at something like annulments, we have to understand marriage is indissolveable. If it is dissolveable, the whole annulment thing is bunk. Is marriage dissolveable?"
I believe that God created marriage to be between a man and a woman, to be a life-long covenantal arrangement.
But does this mean that it cannot be dissolved? What does the Bible say?
First, what is a covenant? Strong's says, b@riyth {ber-eeth'},
1) covenant, alliance, pledge
..a) between men
....treaty, alliance, league (man to man)
....constitution, ordinance (monarch to subjects)
....agreement, pledge (man to man)
....alliance (of friendship)
....alliance (of marriage)
..b)between God and man
....alliance (of friendship)
....covenant (divine ordinance with signs or pledges)
2)(phrases)
..a) covenant making
..b) covenant keeping
..c) covenant violation
Covenants are not meant to be broken, but can they be?
Between men (or - in the case of marriage - a man and a woman) can treaties be broken, or agreements between monarchs and subjects? Obviously, treaties are broken nearly every day. Between humans, covenants can be broken.
(NOTE: Before the next accusation comes, this does not mean that I think they should be; I do not. Repeat: I believe that God created marriage to be between a man and a woman, to be a life-long covenantal arrangement.)
If we take the stand that marriage covenants cannot be broken, then divorce cannot happen. Or, at the very least, breaking a covenant in order to divorce would be a sin and that puts God in the difficult position of regulating (and not prohibiting) sin (Search the Levitical Law). Levitical priests were the only men who were prohibited from marrying divorced women, and they were also prohibited from marrying widows.
We know that covenants have terms.
Can a Covenant be broken? Can a divorce (for Biblical cause) validly break a covenant?
God seemed to say so. Jeremiah 3:6-8
The LORD said to me in the days of King Josiah: "Have you seen what she did, that faithless one, Israel, how she went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and there played the whore? And I thought, 'After she has done all this she will return to me,' but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce. Yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but she too went and played the whore.
God sent Israel away (for the cause of adultery) with a writ of divorce. This is a clear confirmation that sexual sin within a covenant is cause for a divorce.
What does this do to the covenant?
From Hebrews 8:6-7
But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.
Verse 13
In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Note: In this passage, the author writes (verses 8-9):
"Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah,
not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.
For they did not continue in my covenant,
and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
God will make a NEW covenant with Israel and Judah - IT IS NOT THE SAME COVENANT, THE OLD ONE WAS BROKEN.
(NOTE: Before the next accusation comes, this does not mean that I think they should be; I do not. Repeat: I believe that God created marriage to be between a man and a woman, to be a life-long covenantal arrangement.)
Biblically, we cannot say that a covenant cannot be broken, because God Himself has demonstrated that covenant can be broken.
Biblically, with God as the model, God Himself has demonstrated that there is Biblical cause to break a marriage covenant - because God Himself has done it.
(NOTE: Before the next accusation comes, this does not mean that I think they should be; I do not. Repeat: I believe that God created marriage to be between a man and a woman, to be a life-long covenantal arrangement.)
This is Biblical and I have used Scripture as a foundation for my belief.
Ellen
The biblical basis, comes with the authority.
That is the disagreement.
Does Rome have the authority to teach and enforce extra-biblical doctrine?
Ellen
The biblical support for annulment i based on the very biblical fact the Roman Catholic Churh has authority over matters of morals and faith.
That one truly is a dead horse and there are lots of forums for that.
the "very biblical" fact is "very debatable"
Elena
Because the one that I wrote says,
- 2) Marriage means to leave and hold fast (sex can happen without leaving and holding fast)
- 3) Marriage is a covenant - and God is the witness. (sex can happen without that)
- 4) Marriage is a relationship that is recognized and/or regulated by law. (sex can happen without that)
Ahh I see. Well then following that explanation. Jacob and Leah were not married. They did not make a true covenant because Jacob thought he was marrying Rachel and his covenent was with her not Leah.
Elena
That is the disagreement.
Yep. Take any one of these discussions on your blog or Carrie's and in essence, that is the basic disagreement.
Elena
Who has the authority, the church, or God’s Word?
I'd take it one step further. Does God's word lie only in the written scriptures?
Ellen
Jacob and Leah were not married. They did not make a true covenant because Jacob thought he was marrying Rachel and his covenent was with her not Leah.
Uh...
The "covenant making" of that time in history included...the bride price (did Jacob work for the woman under the veil that the woman's father gave him?), the taking (did Jacob take the woman under the veil, regardless of his stupidity in not checking), the consummation (did Jacob consummate the marriage with the woman that was under the veil that he agreed to take from the woman's father?
He took her from her father, which was a covenant based in deceit - and still was a covenant.
Elena
He took her from her father, which was a covenant based in deceit - and still was a covenant.
But would it have been a sacramental marriage? No.
Ellen
Let me make a point here.
I wrote two posts explaining my belief (based on Scripture) of what makes a marriage, and is a marriage indissolveable.
- Neither of these posts were about the Roman Catholic church.
- Anybody who has read my blog for a while knows that singles, marriage, divorce and remarriage are an interest and passion with me.
- As a woman who hopes to remarry, this topic must be of an interest and passion to me.
If you care to Biblically discuss my post, we can do that.
But if you want to make this another cat fight, please don't.
Elena
As a woman who hopes to remarry, this topic must be of an interest and passion to me.
Well now I'm confused. You're a widow. Of course you could remarry!
Elena
Now I don't want a cat fight either, but just to be historically correct, this entire topic came up when Barbara Curtis told a divorced woman to leave the Catholic Church. Lots of words and bandwidth have since been used up first to show how bad the Catholic Church was to divorced people, and then how bad the Catholic Church was for having annulments! Directly or indirectly of course your point in both of these blog posts was to make some sort of point against the Catholic Church. Do you deny this?
Secondly, I have been discussiong this biblically! David, Bathsheba, Dinah, Jacob, Lean... all biblical.
Ellen
By your teaching, no. Of course, you've also said that "David and Bethsheba did not have a sacramental marriage because sacraments simply did not exist at that time."
So, none of the marriages in the Old Testament existed in the eyes of God, anyway?
Or, was it all of the marriages existed and it was only when Rome decreed it that there were marriages and "not marriages"?
Elena
But would it have been a sacramental marriage? No.
By your teaching, no. Of course, you’ve also said that “David and Bethsheba did not have a sacramental marriage because sacraments simply did not exist at that time.”
They weren't sacramental because sacraments did not exist. The marriages existed of course. The Old Testament pre-figures the New Testament and many of the lessons from the Old Testament come to fullness with Christ in the New Testament.
So, none of the marriages in the Old Testament existed in the eyes of God, anyway?
No. They existed. They prefigured the sacramental marriage that came about with the teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament.
Ellen
Well now I’m confused. You’re a widow. Of course you could remarry!
Ah...but who can I marry?
Lots of words and bandwidth have since been used up first to show how bad the Catholic Church was to divorced people, and then how bad the Catholic Church was for having annulments!
A lot of things trigger posts...I don't deny that the study into divorce vs. annulment (and the fact that post is title "I WAS WRONG" seems to have been missed). I was wrong about the Roman Catholic church and divorce. That sent me on a study of what they do teach.
That leads to a "what I believe" post. I've spent days countering all sorts of things. I'd rather spend time on what I DO believe than what I DON'T believe.
Just like when considering a gentleman. Do I want to base my next marriage on what I don't want? Or what I do want?
Do I want my blog to reflect what I DO believe, or simply be a rant about what I DON'T believe?
Singles that read this blog now know what I've studied about what I don't believe.
Have I offered encouragement and hope in the form of what I DO believe? That is what I want to do now.
You can do what you want with that.
David, Bathsheba, Dinah, Jacob, Lean… all biblical.
Absolutely. And nowhere does the Bible say that these marriages were invalid or "not a marriage" in the eyes of God.
Ellen
No. They existed. They prefigured the sacramental marriage that came about with the teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament.
Can you show me a New Testament basis for some marriages being "marriages" in the eyes of God, and some not?
Where does it say that there are "marriages" and "not marriages"?
Ellen
And now...it's shop or starve time...
Elena
Well now I’m confused. You’re a widow. Of course you could remarry!
Ah…but who can I marry?
Oh I'll bet you can find a nice guy to marry if that's what's meant to be.
Lots of words and bandwidth have since been used up first to show how bad the Catholic Church was to divorced people, and then how bad the Catholic Church was for having annulments!
A lot of things trigger posts…I don’t deny that the study into divorce vs. annulment (and the fact that post is title “I WAS WRONG” seems to have been missed). I was wrong about the Roman Catholic church and divorce. That sent me on a study of what they do teach.
OK then perhaps you can see how the Tony, John and myself are under the impression that we are still discussion marriage doctrines and the Catholic Church!
David, Bathsheba, Dinah, Jacob, Lean… all biblical.
Absolutely. And nowhere does the Bible say that these marriages were invalid or “not a marriage” in the eyes of God.
Dare I use the E word again? Exegesis?
I'll just say that I did present you with a biblical discussion. You rejected it. shrug... didn't expect otherwise.
Carrie
Ah…but who can I marry?
Ellen, my family member who had his to-be spouse's 5 marriages annuled so they could get married in the Catholic Church is now available. His wife divorced him.
I was feeling bad for him after this conversation but I am sure he get get that marriage annuled.
Actually, I think I was the one that started this annulment topic on your first post (with this ssame story). Sorry!
Ellen
I’ll just say that I did present you with a biblical discussion. You rejected it. shrug… didn’t expect otherwise.
Regardless of the personal injection...I'll make a note here...if you want to discuss Rome, I'll do a post on it. But not on this one, since I'd really like to stick to the Biblical idea that covenants can be broken.
Dare I use the E word again? Exegesis?
Technically, exegesis means explaining what IS there.
I keep asking "where is it"?
Show me where the distinction between "marriage" and "not a marriage" is in the Bible, so that the concept can even be exegeted?
Carrie
Elena,
Just out of curiousity, how is annuling a marriage and making the person now a fornicator any better than allowing for divorce/remarriage and making that person an adulterer?
Elena
I think the premise of the question is wrong. The Catholic Church isn't saying some marriages existed and others did not, but rather whether or not a sacrament existed. SO since we are no longer discussing the Catholic Church doctrines, we can set that aside.
The question then becomes is there a biblical distinction beteen marriages that were pleasing and licit to God and ones that were not. The answer is yes, David and Bathsheba's marriage initially falls into that category.
Elena
how is annuling a marriage and making the person now a fornicator any better than allowing for divorce/remarriage and making that person an adulterer?
I thought we weren't discussing Ctholic Doctrines?
However, annullment doesn'tmake anyone a fornicator. It simply says the marriage was never sacramental. The civil union still existed.
Carrie
However, annullment doesn’tmake anyone a fornicator. It simply says the marriage was never sacramental. The civil union still existed.
I guess I am confused. I thought the RCC did not recognize civil unions?
Carrie
No matter which way you turn it, two people who were living "as married" are fornicating if they are not married.
So they either are married or they are not.
Carrie
Ellen, feel free to delete this comment if you want to drop this discussion. I am just trying to understand how the RCC gets around the issue of fornication.
According to Tony in the original post:
Sacramental marriage: A marriage covenant blessed by God, lasting until the death of one of the spouses.
Civil marriage: A marriage contract approved by the state. May or may not also be a covenant blessed by God.
Tony used gay marriage as an example of civil marriage which would obviously not be the same as sacramental.
My understanding of the RCC position after all this discussion is that the RCC annuls civil marriages that are not sacramental marriages (in the RCC's opinion). I am assuming the RCC wouldn't annul a sacramental marriage according to Tony's definition as that would make the person(s) remarrying adulterers according to Jesus.
But by annuling a civil (but not sacramental) marriage, the people are now left with having been in a sexual relationship without the marriage covenant and are therefore fornicators.
So does the RCC recognize civil marriages or was Tony wrong in his definition?
Carrie
Here is the verse which I referred to earlier in response to John when he mentioned the dire consequences of adulterers (those who remarry):
Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Cor 6:9-10 from the NAB
I took that from your NAB. Note that fornicators are listed along with adulterers.
I just don't understand how you can avoid the fornication part with an annulment.
Ellen
However, annullment doesn’tmake anyone a fornicator. It simply says the marriage was never sacramental. The civil union still existed.
Can you show me a New Testament basis for some marriages being "sacramental", and some not?
Ellen
I think that we are at a point where one side is asking for Biblical evidence of a distinction between marriages...and we keep asking...
I'm ready to move on.
Elena
Ellen, "sacrament" is not a word found in the bible. Neither is "trinity." The doctrines from both came thorough careful and studied exegesis.
Your continued asking, "where is it" reminds me of my preadolescent son, Gabriel, who also has become very Pharisical when it comes to rules, as in if they are not specifically written out, they don't exist. At least that's the loophole he likes to use.
Tony
I think that we are at a point where one side is asking for Biblical evidence of a distinction between marriages…and we keep asking…
I’m ready to move on.
You're welcome to if you like. I believe I have answered the question on a couple of occasions, though not with the answer you want, so it doesn't count. I think that's the way the game is played here. That's ok. It's your blog, your game, and your rules.
I have said that there's no distinction in the Bible between civil marriage and sacramental marriage, because in a Jewish theocracy, they were one in the same. Jewish society would not have allowed marriages that did not pass strict Levitical muster to happen.
Oh, sure. The pagans had different customs with regard to marriage, but why would you expect to see those in the Old Testament?
We live in a different society now. The state "blesses" marriages that the church would never touch, simply because all you need for the State's blessing is $25 and a justice of the peace.
You asked if your relative's marriage via a justice of the peace was valid and I rightly answered how could I know? I don't know your relative or her spouse. I don't know whether he's still married to someone else, or is unable legally to give consent.
So no. You won't fine it in the Bible, because theses are pagan marriages, and there is no need to mention them in the Bible.
You bring up the Old Testament rules for divorce and call them Biblical, when Jesus said otherwise. If we are talking about the old testament, allow me to steal from a letter to Dr. Laura:
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16.
Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Ellen
I have said that there’s no distinction in the Bible between civil marriage and sacramental marriage, because in a Jewish theocracy, they were one in the same.
Elena has said, " David and Bethsheba did not have a sacramental marriage because sacraments simply did not exist at that time.
Which? (According to the magisterium)
Tony, this latest rabbit hole won't hold my interest for long.
(Can you define "antagonist"?)
We've established that the concept of any distinction between sacramental marriage and "not sacramental" in not in the Bible (Paul wrote about marriage, it would seem that he could have addressed it).
We've established that (according to John) that if marriage is not indissolvable, the concept of annulment is "bunk" (to use John's word).
I've written a post that shows that covenants are breakable (as sad and tragic as that is).
(Antagonist: a muscle or group of muscles that oppose or reverse the action of the primary mover)
As far as your rabbit hole, I referenced the Levitical Law to point out that God does not regulate sin, He prohibits it.
(What is the purpose of menenges)
Even in the New Testament, I don't think that has changed. Does God regulate sin, or prohibit it?
The Old Testament Law shows us the character of God. We are not under the Law, but I still believe that "All Scripture is useful..."
Do you believe that, Tony? Because if you do, then we can use the example of the Old Testament Law to show that God does not regulate sin, He prohibits it.
(Menenges: to cushion and protect the gray matter of the brain and spinal cord)
jswranch
on nullifing sacraments:
Do you guys require a Trinitarian Baptism?
We (CC), require a baptism to be made in,
"The name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." If it did not happen that way, it was not valid. Do you require rebaptism for folks who were baptized only in "The name of Jesus?"
Do you require rebaptism for ex-Mormons who were baptized with a Trinitarian baptism?
Tony
Do you guys require a Trinitarian Baptism?
By "you guys", I'm assuming you are referring to the Catholic Church, as opposed to "us guys".
We (CC), require a baptism to be made in,
“The name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” If it did not happen that way, it was not valid. Do you require rebaptism for folks who were baptized only in “The name of Jesus?”
Yes we do. In the case of some "creative" baptisms done by some Catholic priests in some sort of gender neutral way such as "In the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier" These were declared null, and the person had to be re-baptized.
Do you require rebaptism for ex-Mormons who were baptized with a Trinitarian baptism?
We recognize all baptisms with proper form, substance and intent. Meaning water, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (you can substitute Holy Ghost here if you like ;)"
If there is any question on the validity of a non-Catholic baptism, a "conditional baptism" will be performed. This will basically take effect if a baptism already isn't in place, but will be simply a nice ceremony (not sacrament) if it is.
When my first daughter was born, it was touch and go. If she had been in danger of death, I (or any other person, Christian or not) can perform an emergency baptism with some water from the tap, sprinkled on the baby with the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
She would be legitimately and forever baptized at that point. If she recovered, we could still take her to the Church, have a baptismal ceremony performed by a priest with all the traditional prayers and oil and salt, etc. But this would be for the benefit of the family. There would be no sacrament because the sacrament already took place.
Tony
Whoops, I guess I'm posting too late. That wasn't addressed at me, jswranch 🙂
Ellen
The difference (of course) being that baptism was aimed at Christians - marriage is for humanity.
(That is not a "yes, we require rebaptism" - that will have to come later in the day when I'm not trying to get ready for work - it sounds more like a "I need a break from studying" question)
Carrie
I believe I have answered the question on a couple of occasions, though not with the answer you want, so it doesn’t count.
I have said that there’s no distinction in the Bible between civil marriage and sacramental marriage, because in a Jewish theocracy, they were one in the same.
No Tony, you have not answered the questions. Talking about the Jewish theocracy doesn't not explain why things have changed now under the new covenant.
Ellen has asked you repetitively for NEW TESTAMENT scriptural support for the idea of sacramental marriage. And that does not mean you have to find the words "sacramental" and "marriage" together, but give us some verses that describe or even hint to this concept.
Second, your reference to the Dr. Laura letter once again shows your need to belittle the scriptures to make your point. I don't understand how someone claiming they are Christian could post those things which belittle God's Word and act like they are making a point. Shame on you.
Carrie
John,
I'm glad you are back.
BUT, I am not sure what your reference to baptism has to do with anything.
Before talking about whether or not someone is baptized properly, can you tell me why any of that matters biblically? Can you give me some NT verses that define the requirements around baptism with regards to marriage?
Second, I have been waiting for you to explain to me how an annuled couple is now not in danger of fornication.
In case you missed my earlier comment to you:
Tony used gay marriage as an example of civil marriage which would obviously not be the same as sacramental.
My understanding of the RCC position after all this discussion is that the RCC annuls civil marriages that are not sacramental marriages (in the RCC’s opinion). I am assuming the RCC wouldn’t annul a sacramental marriage according to Tony’s definition as that would make the person(s) remarrying adulterers according to Jesus.
But by annuling a civil (but not sacramental) marriage, the people are now left with having been in a sexual relationship without the marriage covenant and are therefore fornicators.
So does the RCC recognize civil marriages or was Tony wrong in his definition?
Tony
No Tony, you have not answered the questions. Talking about the Jewish theocracy doesn’t not explain why things have changed now under the new covenant.
1614 In his preaching Jesus unequivocally taught the original meaning of the union of man and woman as the Creator willed it from the beginning permission given by Moses to divorce one's wife was a concession to the hardness of hearts.106 The matrimonial union of man and woman is indissoluble: God himself has determined it "what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder."107
106 Cf. Mt 19:8.
107 Mt 19:6.
That is the new covenant.
Second, your reference to the Dr. Laura letter once again shows your need to belittle the scriptures to make your point.
That letter isn't belittling Scripture. It's belittling Scriptural literalists.
I don’t understand how someone claiming they are Christian could post those things which belittle God’s Word and act like they are making a point. Shame on you.
If I were belittling God's Word, that would be a problem.
Which brings us back to the main point of the letter... How do you apply God's Word to today's society in the U.S.? Can we own slaves? Should we not be wearing polyester blends (two different fibers)? If those are God's unchanging words, how do we reconcile it?
If we can reconcile those passages to today's society, we should also be able to reconcile the new covenant of marriage after Jesus' redeeming sacrifice.
1615 This unequivocal insistence on the indissolubility of the marriage bond may have left some perplexed and could seem to be a demand impossible to realize. However, Jesus has not placed on spouses a burden impossible to bear, or too heavy - heavier than the Law of Moses.108 By coming to restore the original order of creation disturbed by sin, he himself gives the strength and grace to live marriage in the new dimension of the Reign of God. It is by following Christ, renouncing themselves, and taking up their crosses that spouses will be able to "receive" the original meaning of marriage and live it with the help of Christ.109 This grace of Christian marriage is a fruit of Christ's cross, the source of all Christian life.
108 Cf. Mk 8:34; Mt 11:29-30.
109 Cf. Mt 19:11.
We are given the grace by God to live the married life that He wants us to live. To deny the ability to live a lifetime marriage covenant denies God's grace.
Carrie
Tony, I don't even know what your point is.
We were talking about the biblical basis for annulment which you have never shown and now you are showing the biblical basis for the permanence of marriage.
Which side are you choosing now? Is marriage permanent or not?
That letter isn’t belittling Scripture. It’s belittling Scriptural literalists.
No Tony, it is belittling scripture.
I have heard many an atheist use those kind of verses from the Bible to defend their position that the Bible is worthless. Read the ending again Tony, and ask yourself whether a follower of Christ would write such a letter.
How do you apply God’s Word to today’s society in the U.S.? Can we own slaves? Should we not be wearing polyester blends (two different fibers)? If those are God’s unchanging words, how do we reconcile it?
So you do not understand how to interpret the Levitical Law in light of the New Covenant?
If you do not understand how to interpret the OT in light of the NT, or the Bible as a whole for that matter then I think I understand why you are confused and call us names like "Scriptural literalists" or "Bible SamIAm's".
Unfortunately that is way beyond the scope of this post and I don't think I can help.
Elena
Read the ending again Tony, and ask yourself whether a follower of Christ would write such a letter.
I'm not sure that it matters. The point is that the bible isn't always clear cut and easy to understand. It needs interpretation. With no interpretation you have problems.
Tony
Tony, I don’t even know what your point is.
We were talking about the biblical basis for annulment which you have never shown and now you are showing the biblical basis for the permanence of marriage.
Which side are you choosing now? Is marriage permanent or not?
If marriage were not permanent, declaration of nullity would make no sense.
Jesus says: "What God has joined let no man tear asunder". A declaration of nullity says: "God didn't join this."
I don't know how much simpler I can explain this to you.
Ellen
That letter isn’t belittling Scripture. It’s belittling Scriptural literalists.
And with that, Tony, I'm closing this down.
Period.
I'm sure you'll whine about not being able to finish, or not getting answers. Fine.
We have read accusations of personal hatred, yet it was you who said on your blog, "I hate those "SamIAms". It was you, Tony, who said that you hate us. YOU.
Now, it is YOU, Tony, who say that (after Elena stating that we are such literalists...) that you're belittling Scriptural literalists.
You claim that you're not belittling Scripture, you're belittling US. YOU, Tony.
For all of the accusations that you level at us, you sure show a level of animousity and hatred (and even use the words "I HATE") and openly admit that you're belittling us...
I have done my absolute best to stay away from personalities and keep to factual (as we believe it) debate.
It was Elena that I've had to ask a number of times to stop being sarcastic and then to refrain from using well known derogatives, saying that I would make a good one.
And we're the hateful ones. right.
It's YOU.
And yes, unlike you, who only "feel", I can give quotes.
If either one of you would like to contact me, the way to do it is in the sidebar.