COGOP Members ONLY on this one!

ImaPK · Postby **ImaPK** » April 27th, 2004, 6:11 pm

Oh ok my definition is wrong...from now on me and my spouse will abstain from sex and THEN we can stay married :wink:

ImaPK · Postby **ImaPK** » April 27th, 2004, 6:24 pm

Here is one of the online definitions of adultery...

ADULTERY

conjugal infidelity. An adulterer was a man who had illicit intercourse with a
married or a betrothed woman, and such a woman was an adulteress. Intercourse
between a married man and an unmarried woman was fornication. Adultery was
regarded as a great social wrong, as well as a great sin. The Mosaic law (Num.
5:11-31) prescribed that the suspected wife should be tried by the ordeal of
the "water of jealousy." There is, however, no recorded instance of the
application of this law. In subsequent times the Rabbis made various
regulations with the view of discovering the guilty party, and of bringing
about a divorce. It has been inferred from John 8:1-11 that this sin became
very common during the age preceding the destruction of Jerusalem. Idolatry,
covetousness, and apostasy are spoken of as adultery spiritually (Jer. 3:6, 8,
9; Ezek. 16:32; Hos. 1:2:3; Rev. 2:22). An apostate church is an adulteress
(Isa. 1:21; Ezek. 23:4, 7, 37), and the Jews are styled "an adulterous
generation" (Matt. 12:39). (Comp. Rev. 12.)

If we are going to "split hairs" then I will have to change my belief that Bill and Monica did not have sex because they did not have intercourse but then if we split hairs on that then we will have to quit using the term "oral sex"

It all goes back to the wedding vow part that says "what God has joined together let NO MAN put asunder"

JACKALLEN · Postby **JACKALLEN** » April 28th, 2004, 3:41 am

Hello Everyone ,

I am the Youth and Children's minister at the Restoration Chapel COGOP in Williamsotn S.C. . It is about 70% against , 30% for the change in this area. This is not just my local church but about three other COGOP's in my area.

Brother Jack

scooter · Postby **scooter** » April 28th, 2004, 3:45 am

JACKALLEN wrote:Hello Everyone ,

I am the Youth and Children's minister at the Restoration Chapel COGOP in Williamsotn S.C. . It is about 70% against , 30% for the change in this area. This is not just my local church but about three other COGOP's in my area.

Brother Jack

Response: My condolences.

JACKALLEN · Postby **JACKALLEN** » April 28th, 2004, 3:52 am

Thanks for kind thought Scooter but I had rather have your prayers . This will not be easy for any of us .

Pastor Bill · Postby **Pastor Bill** » April 28th, 2004, 5:23 am

ImaPK wrote:So in other words if my spouse and myself are the "wronged" party in a previous marriage it is ok for us to marry and live in adultary contrary to the scriptures?(just asking)

Please support your statement with scriptures.

why does remarriage = adultry this is NOT a biblical stance, but that is your definition.

Yes adultry is wrong, but how can you be adulterous to a non-existant marriage? If you look at the verse I quoted it says "the brother or sister is not under bondage"

Pastor Bill · Postby **Pastor Bill** » April 28th, 2004, 5:29 am

ImaPK wrote:Here is one of the online definitions of adultery...

ADULTERY

conjugal infidelity. An adulterer was a man who had illicit intercourse with a
married or a betrothed woman, and such a woman was an adulteress. Intercourse
between a married man and an unmarried woman was fornication. Adultery was
regarded as a great social wrong, as well as a great sin. The Mosaic law (Num.
5:11-31) prescribed that the suspected wife should be tried by the ordeal of
the "water of jealousy." There is, however, no recorded instance of the
application of this law. In subsequent times the Rabbis made various
regulations with the view of discovering the guilty party, and of bringing
about a divorce. It has been inferred from John 8:1-11 that this sin became
very common during the age preceding the destruction of Jerusalem. Idolatry,
covetousness, and apostasy are spoken of as adultery spiritually (Jer. 3:6, 8,
9; Ezek. 16:32; Hos. 1:2:3; Rev. 2:22). An apostate church is an adulteress
(Isa. 1:21; Ezek. 23:4, 7, 37), and the Jews are styled "an adulterous
generation" (Matt. 12:39). (Comp. Rev. 12.)

If we are going to "split hairs" then I will have to change my belief that Bill and Monica did not have sex because they did not have intercourse but then if we split hairs on that then we will have to quit using the term "oral sex"

It all goes back to the wedding vow part that says "what God has joined together let NO MAN put asunder"

Notice your definition says "a married or a betrothed woman" and also refers to "a married man" (this was probably termed only fornication, because it was acceptable for a man to have multiple wives). Either way there is one common theme here THEY ARE MARRIED. IF they are no longer married, then how can it be considered adultery?

The only way to accept this line of thinking would be to say that the divorce didn't happen in the first place, and that divorce was impossible, but even Christ recognized it's existance.

Anonymous · Postby **Anonymous** » April 28th, 2004, 6:34 am

I want to see God move. I did not see a place for "I don't know" I do want to truely know how HE feels!!! Pastor Rick

scooter · Postby **scooter** » April 28th, 2004, 6:37 am

Tip. If you want to sound like you know what you all are talking about spell it right. :shock:

Adultery.

Pastor Bill · Postby **Pastor Bill** » April 28th, 2004, 7:18 am

scooter wrote:Tip. If you want to sound like you know what you all are talking about spell it right. Adultery.

Thanks scooter, I missed that one!

ImaPK · Postby **ImaPK** » April 28th, 2004, 1:09 pm

Ok I guess we will split hairs on the difference between fornication and adultery...like I said in one of my very early post on Jude 2 I was taught one way(the COGOP teachings) on D&R but I didn't completely see it that way...my thinking then and now was like most of the answers/comments I have gotten from my question...I don't think that the "wronged" party should have to suffer for the rest of their life...now if I may give yall a scenerio and see what you think...again I'm not trying to argue just get some thoughts...here it is(by the way this is a true incident that happened)...a man and a woman get married and stay married for two years...they divorce and the woman remarries, the man doesn't...another two years go by and she divorces her second husband and patches things up with her first husband...they get back together and LIVE TOGETHER(not married) for a little over two years...during that time two children are born...then they split up again and she marries for the third time...during the time of living together in the sight of the law they were not married but the COGOP accepted them as STILL being married in the sight of God...was this the proper way to look at it and why or why not?

ImaPK · Postby **ImaPK** » April 28th, 2004, 1:11 pm

Sorry scooter...I went 2 colage 2 B a englich magor no I ar 1 :lol:

Blended · Postby **Blended** » April 28th, 2004, 1:37 pm

Iamapk

in answer to your question

NO

ImaPK · Postby **ImaPK** » April 28th, 2004, 1:39 pm

No why or why not,Jason?(btw I have a son named Jason)

Blended · Postby **Blended** » April 28th, 2004, 1:45 pm

ImaPK wrote:No why or why not,Jason?(btw I have a son named Jason)

Great name was he born in may?

improper because they failed to recognize #1 a legal marriage 2 failed to follow the deuternomy I believe 24 or 29 remarriage prohibition This was the law Jesus was reestablishing in matt.3 because they are judging all marriage based on improper definitions.

I'll get more later gtg to biblestudy

Jude 2