[Renee]

Guys,(includes gals)

Time to back off and leave off. We have reached the point of contention. Our Lord is the only one that can can convience and convict in the above matter. What say we let The Lord rule and put this thread to rest?


Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

1 Corinthians 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.


If we need to contend, Let us contend for the faith.


Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

There are many guest on this forrum, some of whom may not be saved. we are not presenting a very good christian testimony.

You can say I am picking out verses if you like, but boy it sure fits!

May Our Lord grant each of us the peace and understanding of His written word.

Renee

[biblereader]

Hello, Custer!

[custer]

Originally Posted by Renee

Guys,(includes gals)

Time to back off and leave off. We have reached the point of contention. Our Lord is the only one that can can convience and convict in the above matter. What say we let The Lord rule and put this thread to rest?


Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

1 Corinthians 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.


If we need to contend, Let us contend for the faith.


Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

There are many guest on this forrum, some of whom may not be saved. we are not presenting a very good christian testimony.

You can say I am picking out verses if you like, but boy it sure fits!

May Our Lord grant each of us the peace and understanding of His written word.

Renee

Renee,

How can we possibly have "reached the point of contention?" It is very telling that you would like to "put this thread to rest," since NONE of the errors in the original post have even been addressed. It is extremely apparent who has "private opinions" and "preconceived ideas" here AND who is trying to suppress the truth. Your post SOUNDS nice, but if there are forum guests reading this (or any) thread, they should be able to tell that our "very good Christian testimony" is that we are "valiant for the truth," not afraid to discuss scripture or to admit when we are wrong!

Speaking of 'wrong,' your post #6 also contained obvious errors... For example, you said, "When you are yoked and do not agree it is impossible to walk together. When you are yoked it is easy to unyoke, you just take off the harness." I dealt with some of the problems with this when I addressed George's incorrect info (in my post #22; ) but I will explain again/further... When two oxen are yoked, if they do not "agree," one is actually LED by the other. Also, when you are yoked, IT IS NOT "EASY TO UNYOKE" - an ox would DIE right there in the yoke before it could "unyoke" itself. (The master, NOT one ox in the pair, would have to do the unyoking!) The point is, from every angle you and George are WRONG about your 'yoked oxen' pictures. Can't you see that this is a problem because it skews the conclusion of the whole study?

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

[custer]

First, the "study" in the original post of this thread is terribly one-sided - we were asked to read and study the verses and then "Tell me if a Biblical marriage is being 'joined together' or is it being 'yoked together'." The "study" then went on to list all the Bible references to "yoke" and all its biblical forms, but never listed ANY for "join" or ANY of its forms...so how was anyone supposed to study and give an answer to George's "tell me," since we were only HALF INFORMED? Obviously, George had a purpose in mind - to disconnect the separation principles in II Corinthians 6:14-18 from a marriage situation at any cost. I have already shown (in post #22) that one of these costs was to completely forfeit the TRUTH. (I am asserting that this was George's purpose because of his stance on the issue in the "Love and Race" thread.)

Those of us who believe that the II Cor. passage CAN be applied to marriage partners have been accused of trying to misapply scripture and take it "out of context" in order to prove our "preconceived ideas!" We were reprimanded with the fact that II Cor. only has to do with "workers," as in verse one of the chapter. But, after Paul gives us the admonition and explanation in verses 14-16, he tells us what to do (with a promise) in verses 17-18 (and part of 16.) Where did Paul get this "saith the Lord?" It certainly WASN'T from a passage having anything to do with "the ministry!!!" Anybody who does a fair amount of Bible study knows that in addition to their historical or prophetical context, passages can also have a practical application. (Peter does the same thing in Acts 2:16-21; James does it in Acts 15:13-17!)) And, back to II Cor. - if the separation principles in chapter six were not clear enough (which obviously for some, they are not,) chapter seven starts out: "Having therefore these promises [that would be the promises that Paul just used 'out of context'], dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from ALL filthiness of the flesh and spirit,..." Since this clearly applies to ALL areas, how can anyone assert that these separation principles do not apply to the choice of a marriage partner?

I need to tell you also that if I don't type out every passage in its entirety, I am not trying to rob you of proper context; I am not (as George is) adept at copying and pasting...I am working off the assumption that everyone here has access to a King James Bible and probably a concordance, so I beg you to read as much as is necessary on either side of any passage I mention to have each in its own context. Also, I have relied on Cruden's Complete Concordance, so if Cruden has missed something, I probably have too! With this in mind. please notice...

The phrase "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers" cannot be lifted out of II Cor. 6:14 and isolated. It is followed (praise the Lord) by at least two-and-a-half verses of explanation...actually the thought continues into the next chapter as mentioned above. The explanation is in the form of parallels; they are as follows:

command : yoked......ye (believers) - unbelievers
explanation: fellowship......righteousness - unrighteousness
communion......light - darkness
concord......Christ - Belial
part......he that believeth - infidel
agreement......temple of God - idols

Now, if you run (and read) all the references for "yoked," "fellowship," "communion," "concord," "part," "agreement," and all the various forms of these words, you will find that NONE of them can be directly connected with marriage anywhere in the Bible! The closest any of them come is:
"Fellowship" is in Eph. 5:11 but not in direct reference to the husband/wife verses; when I ran this reference in the "Love and Race" thread, post #68, no one acknowledged its relevance. "Communed" is in I Sam. 25:39, but it is David communing with Abigail BEFORE they are married. "Part" in Ruth 3:13 is the "part of a kinsman," which still does not refer to the marriage relationship of Boaz and Ruth; it is only the description of the duty of Boaz. Unless I missed something, those are the nearest that any of the parallel words from II Cor. 6 ever come to the subject of marriage...and they don't ever touch it DIRECTLY. By extension of George's premise then, this means that if "yoked together" can in no way be related to a "genuine Biblical marriage," then neither can "fellowship," "communion," "concord," "part," or "agreement." I am asserting that this is a LUDICROUS position, and when I'm done here, you will see that I have taken my assertion from the Bible! (Keep in mind George's position that "JOIN" is THE term for marriage, and his position that we can't take the separation principles in II Cor. 6 and apply them to marriage.)

Upon reading the aforementioned references, I found several very interesting correlations...For example, in Daniel 11:6a, the parties "JOIN themselves together" by "mak[ing] an AGREEMENT." In I Cor. 1:9-10, since we "were called unto the FELLOWSHIP of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord," Paul beseeches us to be "perfectly JOINED together." In I Cor. 10:16-17, the "COMMUNION of the body of Christ" is because we are "one body," which is "one flesh." (I Cor. 6:16 and Eph. 5:31) Also, in Isaiah 28:15 and 18, an "AGREEMENT" IS a covenant; in Jer. 50:5, you "JOIN...in...a...covenant," and covenants are directly connected to marriage in Deut. 7:1-3 and Mal.2:14. Yet another - in I Cor. 12:12-27, "one body" is made of "parts;" and in Eph. 4:16, "every PART" is "fitly JOINED together!"
These verses provide CONCLUSIVE SCRIPTURAL PROOF that "yoked," "fellowship," "communion," "concord," "part," "agreement," AND, YES, "JOIN," and "one body"/"one flesh" are connected and relevant to each other!

Another angle...George, your idea was that we would be taking I Cor. chapter six "out of context" to try to apply the "yoked together" analogy to a married couple; your contention was that the analogy could only be applied to "workers," and for marriage, we must use the term "joined." Well, it is very interesting that the Lord uses "joined" for spouses AND for workers in "the ministry." (See Numbers 18:1-4.) On a completely unrelated note, Genesis 29:34 casts a totally different light on being "joined" to a spouse!

Please note that there has been NO "twisting, wresting, and CHANGING the Holy words of God!" (George's quote) All that I have done is to run some references to show how THE LORD HIMSELF DEFINES AND CONNECTS HIS OWN WORDS!!! There is simply no scriptural reason to shy away from saying that a married couple is "yoked together." Yes, two oxen can be "paired together for work," and when they are "paired," they are JOINED with a yoke! Not only is this plain common sense, but it is clearly shown as biblically related if one will take the time to run all the references in the passage to get the whole picture! And it's a wonderful picture - I can certainly think of no one or nothing that I would rather be yoked to, paired together with, or joined to than my husband. The bottom line is that TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICATION OF GEORGE'S WORD STUDY, if one has a problem with "yoked together" being applied to a marriage relationship, he must also reject that a husband and wife can have "fellowship," "communion," "concord," a "part," or "agreement" with each other. This is simply an effort to have George apply his own Bible study principles to ALL the associated words in II Cor. 6:14-16. Why bother with a word study if it's not going to be complete? In order to see the Bible's commentary on itself, we must scripturally define all the elements of a passage!

So, you see, George and greenbear, there was much left to play out because all the original post did was to scratch the surface...and by staying on the surface, George, you could make the Bible line up with YOUR "private opinion" and "preconceived ideas."

I do still believe that when it comes to simply defending the idea that saved/lost marriage is FORBIDDEN, all this cross-referencing is rather superfluous - I Cor. 7:39 ("only in the Lord") is a crystal clear defense. But, for those who reject that plain verse, I do think it's 'nifty' that the Lord has all the separation principles unmistakably connected! I'm sure you will all concur! (ha ha - that's a joke!)

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

[custer]

Originally Posted by biblereader

Hello, Custer!

Oh, are you back?! You'd better play nice!

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

[biblereader]

Originally Posted by custer

we are "valiant for the truth," not afraid to discuss scripture or to admit when we are wrong!

I agree, we have a zeal for the truth. And, I agree we are not always right.
That would be nigh impossible, IMO.

[biblereader]

Originally Posted by custer

Oh, are you back?! You'd better play nice!

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

Yes, ma'am! I intend to!

[biblereader]

Originally Posted by custer

First, the "study" in the original post of this thread is terribly one-sided - we were asked to read and study the verses and then "Tell me if a Biblical marriage is being 'joined together' or is it being 'yoked together'." The "study" then went on to list all the Bible references to "yoke" and all its biblical forms, but never listed ANY for "join" or ANY of its forms...so how was anyone supposed to study and give an answer to George's "tell me," since we were only HALF INFORMED? Obviously, George had a purpose in mind - to disconnect the separation principles in II Corinthians 6:14-18 from a marriage situation at any cost. I have already shown (in post #22) that one of these costs was to completely forfeit the TRUTH. (I am asserting that this was George's purpose because of his stance on the issue in the "Love and Race" thread.)

Those of us who believe that the II Cor. passage CAN be applied to marriage partners have been accused of trying to misapply scripture and take it "out of context" in order to prove our "preconceived ideas!" We were reprimanded with the fact that II Cor. only has to do with "workers," as in verse one of the chapter. But, after Paul gives us the admonition and explanation in verses 14-16, he tells us what to do (with a promise) in verses 17-18 (and part of 16.) Where did Paul get this "saith the Lord?" It certainly WASN'T from a passage having anything to do with "the ministry!!!" Anybody who does a fair amount of Bible study knows that in addition to their historical or prophetical context, passages can also have a practical application. (Peter does the same thing in Acts 2:16-21; James does it in Acts 15:13-17!)) And, back to II Cor. - if the separation principles in chapter six were not clear enough (which obviously for some, they are not,) chapter seven starts out: "Having therefore these promises [that would be the promises that Paul just used 'out of context'], dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from ALL filthiness of the flesh and spirit,..." Since this clearly applies to ALL areas, how can anyone assert that these separation principles do not apply to the choice of a marriage partner?

I need to tell you also that if I don't type out every passage in its entirety, I am not trying to rob you of proper context; I am not (as George is) adept at copying and pasting...I am working off the assumption that everyone here has access to a King James Bible and probably a concordance, so I beg you to read as much as is necessary on either side of any passage I mention to have each in its own context. Also, I have relied on Cruden's Complete Concordance, so if Cruden has missed something, I probably have too! With this in mind. please notice...

The phrase "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers" cannot be lifted out of II Cor. 6:14 and isolated. It is followed (praise the Lord) by at least two-and-a-half verses of explanation...actually the thought continues into the next chapter as mentioned above. The explanation is in the form of parallels; they are as follows:

command : yoked......ye (believers) - unbelievers
explanation: fellowship......righteousness - unrighteousness
communion......light - darkness
concord......Christ - Belial
part......he that believeth - infidel
agreement......temple of God - idols

Now, if you run (and read) all the references for "yoked," "fellowship," "communion," "concord," "part," "agreement," and all the various forms of these words, you will find that NONE of them can be directly connected with marriage anywhere in the Bible! The closest any of them come is:
"Fellowship" is in Eph. 5:11 but not in direct reference to the husband/wife verses; when I ran this reference in the "Love and Race" thread, post #68, no one acknowledged its relevance. "Communed" is in I Sam. 25:39, but it is David communing with Abigail BEFORE they are married. "Part" in Ruth 3:13 is the "part of a kinsman," which still does not refer to the marriage relationship of Boaz and Ruth; it is only the description of the duty of Boaz. Unless I missed something, those are the nearest that any of the parallel words from II Cor. 6 ever come to the subject of marriage...and they don't ever touch it DIRECTLY. By extension of George's premise then, this means that if "yoked together" can in no way be related to a "genuine Biblical marriage," then neither can "fellowship," "communion," "concord," "part," or "agreement." I am asserting that this is a LUDICROUS position, and when I'm done here, you will see that I have taken my assertion from the Bible! (Keep in mind George's position that "JOIN" is THE term for marriage, and his position that we can't take the separation principles in II Cor. 6 and apply them to marriage.)

Upon reading the aforementioned references, I found several very interesting correlations...For example, in Daniel 11:6a, the parties "JOIN themselves together" by "mak[ing] an AGREEMENT." In I Cor. 1:9-10, since we "were called unto the FELLOWSHIP of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord," Paul beseeches us to be "perfectly JOINED together." In I Cor. 10:16-17, the "COMMUNION of the body of Christ" is because we are "one body," which is "one flesh." (I Cor. 6:16 and Eph. 5:31) Also, in Isaiah 28:15 and 18, an "AGREEMENT" IS a covenant; in Jer. 50:5, you "JOIN...in...a...covenant," and covenants are directly connected to marriage in Deut. 7:1-3 and Mal.2:14. Yet another - in I Cor. 12:12-27, "one body" is made of "parts;" and in Eph. 4:16, "every PART" is "fitly JOINED together!"
These verses provide CONCLUSIVE SCRIPTURAL PROOF that "yoked," "fellowship," "communion," "concord," "part," "agreement," AND, YES, "JOIN," and "one body"/"one flesh" are connected and relevant to each other!

Another angle...George, your idea was that we would be taking I Cor. chapter six "out of context" to try to apply the "yoked together" analogy to a married couple; your contention was that the analogy could only be applied to "workers," and for marriage, we must use the term "joined." Well, it is very interesting that the Lord uses "joined" for spouses AND for workers in "the ministry." (See Numbers 18:1-4.) On a completely unrelated note, Genesis 29:34 casts a totally different light on being "joined" to a spouse!

Please note that there has been NO "twisting, wresting, and CHANGING the Holy words of God!" (George's quote) All that I have done is to run some references to show how THE LORD HIMSELF DEFINES AND CONNECTS HIS OWN WORDS!!! There is simply no scriptural reason to shy away from saying that a married couple is "yoked together." Yes, two oxen can be "paired together for work," and when they are "paired," they are JOINED with a yoke! Not only is this plain common sense, but it is clearly shown as biblically related if one will take the time to run all the references in the passage to get the whole picture! And it's a wonderful picture - I can certainly think of no one or nothing that I would rather be yoked to, paired together with, or joined to than my husband. The bottom line is that TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICATION OF GEORGE'S WORD STUDY, if one has a problem with "yoked together" being applied to a marriage relationship, he must also reject that a husband and wife can have "fellowship," "communion," "concord," a "part," or "agreement" with each other. This is simply an effort to have George apply his own Bible study principles to ALL the associated words in II Cor. 6:14-16. Why bother with a word study if it's not going to be complete? In order to see the Bible's commentary on itself, we must scripturally define all the elements of a passage!

So, you see, George and greenbear, there was much left to play out because all the original post did was to scratch the surface...and by staying on the surface, George, you could make the Bible line up with YOUR "private opinion" and "preconceived ideas."

I do still believe that when it comes to simply defending the idea that saved/lost marriage is FORBIDDEN, all this cross-referencing is rather superfluous - I Cor. 7:39 ("only in the Lord") is a crystal clear defense. But, for those who reject that plain verse, I do think it's 'nifty' that the Lord has all the separation principles unmistakably connected! I'm sure you will all concur! (ha ha - that's a joke!)

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

I see this is still being discussed, and that's good. IMO.

[chette777]

PAm,

I reread this thread wanting to see if I missed something.

You were the first to make some indications of a problem I couldn't see in post #4 "pam ducking" I could not see any reason for that statement. Were you ducking blows or are you saying George was ducking away from you?

so you see you came into the thread with something on your heart. I have to do that with Parish. Often I have to come into thread posts he made and clear my heart of personal biased of him in order to read his post simply for what it is and not with my personal feelings.

then you came into posts 21 and 22 where you came in with a PRECONCEIVED idea that Greenbear would quickly accuse you of manipulating. Can you see it you came in with your guns blazing. you did the same in post 22 to George.

As I see it you brought over from another thread your emotions and hurts and started applying it to this thread. that is where you went wrong. not that you were wrong in what you said. but your own personal bias was implanted into everything your opponents said. though they were not really trying to be your opponents. so it is your heart where the issue lay. Try coming into the threads without bringing with it past or events that took place in other threads, give an abundance of grace (we all need it) and try to learn from it.

It would seem George came out with his view only after you seemed to be ignoring the Yolked references of which you said you agreed. but your statements seem to indicate that yolked to you is a marriage. that is What George was stating.

it is easy to be offended but harder not to offend.

I do see why you are upset. Slow down and consider more what is being shared and try not to react with strong emotions. when responding be sure not to make remarks that would seem like you missed understood the reason for the thread in the first place. it really looks like a misunderstanding that started on your part though you may have understood the yolked references.

don't be so sensitive as you read. George is really a good man.

[custer]

Originally Posted by chette777

PAm,

I reread this thread wanting to see if I missed something.

You were the first to make some indications of a problem I couldn't see in post #4 "pam ducking" I could not see any reason for that statement. Were you ducking blows or are you saying George was ducking away from you?

so you see you came into the thread with something on your heart. I have to do that with Parish. Often I have to come into thread posts he made and clear my heart of personal biased of him in order to read his post simply for what it is and not with my personal feelings.

then you came into posts 21 and 22 where you came in with a PRECONCEIVED idea that Greenbear would quickly accuse you of manipulating. Can you see it you came in with your guns blazing. you did the same in post 22 to George.

As I see it you brought over from another thread your emotions and hurts and started applying it to this thread. that is where you went wrong. not that you were wrong in what you said. but your own personal bias was implanted into everything your opponents said. though they were not really trying to be your opponents. so it is your heart where the issue lay. Try coming into the threads without bringing with it past or events that took place in other threads, give an abundance of grace (we all need it) and try to learn from it.

It would seem George came out with his view only after you seemed to be ignoring the Yolked references of which you said you agreed. but your statements seem to indicate that yolked to you is a marriage. that is What George was stating.

it is easy to be offended but harder not to offend.

I do see why you are upset. Slow down and consider more what is being shared and try not to react with strong emotions. when responding be sure not to make remarks that would seem like you missed understood the reason for the thread in the first place. it really looks like a misunderstanding that started on your part though you may have understood the yolked references.

don't be so sensitive as you read. George is really a good man.

Chette,

I cannot tell you just how much I REALLY APPRECIATE your sincerity...unless I am mistaken, it is very obvious in your posts to me!

I would like you to note that George is the one who brought the "parts of speech" thing over from the other thread (Love and Race) by harping on it in his original post here. I brought it up over there (post #74, I believe) because whether a word is a noun or a verb makes such a difference a lot of times in the meaning of the word (as it does in this case...) so my post #4 (I believe) on here was an effort to have him tell us HOW IN THE WORLD the part of speech could be unimportant to this argument. That's one of those things he never answered because HE IS WRONG!

As far as greenbear, in the Love and Race thread, EVEN WHEN I QUOTED HER VERBATIM, she accused me of manipulating her words...when I asked her 'how?' she, of course, never answered! I tell you that here because I was just wanting to make sure from the 'get-go' that she knew I wasn't trying to do that...I was attempting to have a civil discourse with her and George (even if we still disagreed at the end) but, sadly, that proved to be impossible! I am still willing to try! I WILL still be frustrated if they continue to refuse to talk about scripture with me...call me simple, but on "AV1611.com" I thought that was what we were here for!

Again, just trying to clarify for you what's going on at my end!

Oh, I almost forgot, I came into this thread "ducking" because George was definitely swinging at ME (not my info) in the other thread!

And, while you're here, what do you think of my posts #43 and 44...besides that I could show more grace? (ha ha!)

MY MOST SINCERE THANKS FOR YOUR ADVICE!

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com