Home
Search
Register
Log inA challenge_in opposition to the idea Jesus allows divorce
+2
clark thompson
AVoice
6 posters
Page 1 of 1
A challenge_in opposition to the idea Jesus allows divorce
by AVoice Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:20 am
The challenge is to make a sentence like this:
Matt 5:
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Let us break it down and identify what the sentence does on a very basic level:
A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: [Something the listeners are familiar with is brought to their attention]
B) But I say unto you, [An enlightenment or clarification or correction of some sort is forthcoming]
1) That whosoever shall put away his wife, [if a particular act is done)
2) saving for the cause of fornication, [unless done for a reason or under certain circumstances]
3) causeth her to commit adultery: [causes whoever or whatever has been the recipient of that action to do something negative]
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. [a third party becomes involved and thereby becomes guilty of the same thing the recipient of the original action was caused to do.]
Now let us isolate what the parallel is supposed to do:
A) [Something the listeners are familiar with is brought to their attention]
B) [An enlightenment or clarification or correction of some sort is forthcoming]
1) [if a particular act is done)
2) [unless done for a reason or under certain circumstances]
3) [causes whoever or whatever has been the recipient of that action to do something negative]
4) [a third party becomes involved and thereby becomes guilty of the same thing the recipient of the original action was caused to do.]
Now an example of a parallel that sufficiently performs after the manner required:
A) You have heard it said, that students, whose families own orchards, should be allowed to leave apples on the hoods of their cars at the beginning of harvest time in thankfulness to God.
B) But I say to you:
1) Whosoever shall leave his apple on the hood of his car,
2) saving for the cause of rottenness,
3) causes a passing child to commit theft:
4) and whosoever takes an apple found sitting on the hood of another's car, committeth theft".
Another example of a parallel that sufficiently performs after the manner required:
A) You have heard it said that if you need something at home, go ahead and take it, the boss won’t even know it’s gone
B) But I say to you
1) that whoever takes something
2) Except with permission to borrow
3) causes their employer monetary loss
4) and whoever urges an employee to pilfer is an accomplice in the crime.
Another example of a parallel that sufficiently performs after the manner required:
A) You have heard it said that the spacesuits of our older comrades should be taken from them:
B) But I say to you that
1) Anyone who takes a space walking spaceman’s spacesuit from him,
2) except in the case where he’s already dead,
3) will cause him to die
4) and anyone using the spacesuit taken from a spaceman will be deemed an accomplice.
The kind of sentence that Matt 5:32 is, doing what it has been shown to do on a very basic level, cannot have an exception clause that provides partial allowance of what the sentence is addressing, as established by A), and make sense. In the first example about apples, the topic is obviously about apples in good condition. The exception clause does not give partial permission to put good apples on the hoods of cars. Rather, the exception clause jumps to what was not under consideration or even hinted at; rotten apples. In the second example, pertaining to a culture of pilfering by employees, the exception clause also does not give partial permission to take what is needed at home without permission. The exception clause jumps to something other than what the topic of the sentence is as established by A). In the third example, as well, the exception clause jumps to taking from a dead spaceman when the topic of discussion was about taking from a live spaceman. In these cases, if attempts are made to make the exception clause provide partial allowance for what is established in A), then the sentence becomes literally non coherent. That is because such an attempt is in reality an attempt to force a sentence that can only accommodate a non essential exception clause, (that jumps to a side point not under discussion) to accommodate an essential exception clause (that provides partial allowance of what is under discussion). It is impossible for this kind of sentence to have an exception clause that provides partial allowance for what is being discussed as established in A) and at the same time to make literal sense.
Notice how the sentences in the three examples above have a reasonable flow of comprehension. They are coherent. It is not necessary to read and reread numerous times and speculate what the author was trying to convey and devise different theories concerning what was the intended meaning. But if the exception clause of these parallels were changed to possess an essential exception clause, providing partial allowance of what is being discussed, then there would be good reason to start speculating because there would not be a flow of comprehension. For example, in the last parallel, if the exception clause were to provide partial allowance by saying “unless the astronaut is over 60 years old” then the sentence becomes convoluted. So it is with Matt 5:31,32; the entire sentence makes no literal straightforward sense and is convoluted when it is assumed that Jesus is providing partial allowance to do what he is addressing, which is the post marital divorce. He is speaking of post marital divorces as per Matt 5:31 and Deut 24:1 and the exception clause is assumed to be providing partial allowance of that kind of divorce; for her having committed adultery. Notice the convoluted mess it is when fornication is assumed to mean adultery:
Matt 5:
A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
B) But I say unto you,
1) That whosoever shall put away his wife,
2) saving for the cause of fornication [read as adultery]
3) causeth her to commit adultery:
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
If whosoever marries her that is divorced commits adultery as per 4), then how can the mechanics of the sentence simultaneously say that she that was divorced for adultery was not caused to commit adultery if divorced for that reason? If she that was divorced for stinky feet is caused to commit adultery, obviously because she becomes vulnerable to other men after being put out of her husband’s house, then isn’t the woman divorced for adultery likewise not caused to commit adultery by virtue that she is not made vulnerable to other men after being put out of her husband’s house? The whole long sentence cannot be taken literally and make sense. Interjecting phrases and making complex deductions becomes necessary to arrive at theories what the author must have intended.
Now read the exception clause as NOT providing partial allowance, but rather as a non essential exception clause that jumps away to identify something other than what the sentence is centrally addressing as established in A)
Matt 5:
A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
B) But I say unto you,
1) That whosoever shall put away his wife,
2) saving for the cause of fornication [read as the premarital kind of divorce Joseph was about to do with Mary while only engaged, as revealed in Matt 1-24]
3) causeth her to commit adultery:
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
The wife divorced after this manner is not caused to commit adultery. That makes perfect sense, since she is still single not having cleaved to her husband, from which status if she had entered and thereby becoming joined together by God, only death can part. All divorces not after this manner, all post marital divorces, are wrong because they cause the wife to commit adultery. A frightful crime to be charged with in judgment before a jealous God. This reading, taking the exception clause as not providing partial allowance of what is under discussion, the non essential kind, the only kind of exception clause the sentence can accommodate, makes perfect sense and is in line with the rest of Matt 5 where Jesus is establishing kingdom commandments and identifying things derived from the law that under the new testament were to be no longer allowable. This particular prohibition in effect declares that the only way a man can divorce his wife is if it is a betrothed wife, which kind of divorce was identified for the common reason it was done, for “fornication”, not adultery. In their culture the man and woman who were engaged possessed the titles of “husband” and “wife” and the termination of the engagement was called a ‘putting away’, the same term used for divorce.. The exception clause jumped to that other kind of divorce just like the 3 parallels above, whose non essential exception clauses jumped to what was not the topic of discussion. The non essential exception clause, the kind that jumps to something other than what is being addressed is the only kind that can work in this kind of sentence. This kind of clause can also be omitted from the sentence containing it and no damage occurs since it touches on a point the sentence is not directly addressing.
It is fitting that we give Jesus the last word on this. Notice how the straightforwardness of his words in Mark and Luke, which authors did not include the exception clause, fully agree with the understanding that the exception clause of Matt 5:32; 19:9 is “non essential” and therefore does not give partial allowance of what is under discussion:
Mark 10:
11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
Luke 16:
18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
Matt 5:
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Let us break it down and identify what the sentence does on a very basic level:
A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: [Something the listeners are familiar with is brought to their attention]
B) But I say unto you, [An enlightenment or clarification or correction of some sort is forthcoming]
1) That whosoever shall put away his wife, [if a particular act is done)
2) saving for the cause of fornication, [unless done for a reason or under certain circumstances]
3) causeth her to commit adultery: [causes whoever or whatever has been the recipient of that action to do something negative]
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. [a third party becomes involved and thereby becomes guilty of the same thing the recipient of the original action was caused to do.]
Now let us isolate what the parallel is supposed to do:
A) [Something the listeners are familiar with is brought to their attention]
B) [An enlightenment or clarification or correction of some sort is forthcoming]
1) [if a particular act is done)
2) [unless done for a reason or under certain circumstances]
3) [causes whoever or whatever has been the recipient of that action to do something negative]
4) [a third party becomes involved and thereby becomes guilty of the same thing the recipient of the original action was caused to do.]
Now an example of a parallel that sufficiently performs after the manner required:
A) You have heard it said, that students, whose families own orchards, should be allowed to leave apples on the hoods of their cars at the beginning of harvest time in thankfulness to God.
B) But I say to you:
1) Whosoever shall leave his apple on the hood of his car,
2) saving for the cause of rottenness,
3) causes a passing child to commit theft:
4) and whosoever takes an apple found sitting on the hood of another's car, committeth theft".
Another example of a parallel that sufficiently performs after the manner required:
A) You have heard it said that if you need something at home, go ahead and take it, the boss won’t even know it’s gone
B) But I say to you
1) that whoever takes something
2) Except with permission to borrow
3) causes their employer monetary loss
4) and whoever urges an employee to pilfer is an accomplice in the crime.
Another example of a parallel that sufficiently performs after the manner required:
A) You have heard it said that the spacesuits of our older comrades should be taken from them:
B) But I say to you that
1) Anyone who takes a space walking spaceman’s spacesuit from him,
2) except in the case where he’s already dead,
3) will cause him to die
4) and anyone using the spacesuit taken from a spaceman will be deemed an accomplice.
The kind of sentence that Matt 5:32 is, doing what it has been shown to do on a very basic level, cannot have an exception clause that provides partial allowance of what the sentence is addressing, as established by A), and make sense. In the first example about apples, the topic is obviously about apples in good condition. The exception clause does not give partial permission to put good apples on the hoods of cars. Rather, the exception clause jumps to what was not under consideration or even hinted at; rotten apples. In the second example, pertaining to a culture of pilfering by employees, the exception clause also does not give partial permission to take what is needed at home without permission. The exception clause jumps to something other than what the topic of the sentence is as established by A). In the third example, as well, the exception clause jumps to taking from a dead spaceman when the topic of discussion was about taking from a live spaceman. In these cases, if attempts are made to make the exception clause provide partial allowance for what is established in A), then the sentence becomes literally non coherent. That is because such an attempt is in reality an attempt to force a sentence that can only accommodate a non essential exception clause, (that jumps to a side point not under discussion) to accommodate an essential exception clause (that provides partial allowance of what is under discussion). It is impossible for this kind of sentence to have an exception clause that provides partial allowance for what is being discussed as established in A) and at the same time to make literal sense.
Notice how the sentences in the three examples above have a reasonable flow of comprehension. They are coherent. It is not necessary to read and reread numerous times and speculate what the author was trying to convey and devise different theories concerning what was the intended meaning. But if the exception clause of these parallels were changed to possess an essential exception clause, providing partial allowance of what is being discussed, then there would be good reason to start speculating because there would not be a flow of comprehension. For example, in the last parallel, if the exception clause were to provide partial allowance by saying “unless the astronaut is over 60 years old” then the sentence becomes convoluted. So it is with Matt 5:31,32; the entire sentence makes no literal straightforward sense and is convoluted when it is assumed that Jesus is providing partial allowance to do what he is addressing, which is the post marital divorce. He is speaking of post marital divorces as per Matt 5:31 and Deut 24:1 and the exception clause is assumed to be providing partial allowance of that kind of divorce; for her having committed adultery. Notice the convoluted mess it is when fornication is assumed to mean adultery:
Matt 5:
A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
B) But I say unto you,
1) That whosoever shall put away his wife,
2) saving for the cause of fornication [read as adultery]
3) causeth her to commit adultery:
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
If whosoever marries her that is divorced commits adultery as per 4), then how can the mechanics of the sentence simultaneously say that she that was divorced for adultery was not caused to commit adultery if divorced for that reason? If she that was divorced for stinky feet is caused to commit adultery, obviously because she becomes vulnerable to other men after being put out of her husband’s house, then isn’t the woman divorced for adultery likewise not caused to commit adultery by virtue that she is not made vulnerable to other men after being put out of her husband’s house? The whole long sentence cannot be taken literally and make sense. Interjecting phrases and making complex deductions becomes necessary to arrive at theories what the author must have intended.
Now read the exception clause as NOT providing partial allowance, but rather as a non essential exception clause that jumps away to identify something other than what the sentence is centrally addressing as established in A)
Matt 5:
A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
B) But I say unto you,
1) That whosoever shall put away his wife,
2) saving for the cause of fornication [read as the premarital kind of divorce Joseph was about to do with Mary while only engaged, as revealed in Matt 1-24]
3) causeth her to commit adultery:
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
The wife divorced after this manner is not caused to commit adultery. That makes perfect sense, since she is still single not having cleaved to her husband, from which status if she had entered and thereby becoming joined together by God, only death can part. All divorces not after this manner, all post marital divorces, are wrong because they cause the wife to commit adultery. A frightful crime to be charged with in judgment before a jealous God. This reading, taking the exception clause as not providing partial allowance of what is under discussion, the non essential kind, the only kind of exception clause the sentence can accommodate, makes perfect sense and is in line with the rest of Matt 5 where Jesus is establishing kingdom commandments and identifying things derived from the law that under the new testament were to be no longer allowable. This particular prohibition in effect declares that the only way a man can divorce his wife is if it is a betrothed wife, which kind of divorce was identified for the common reason it was done, for “fornication”, not adultery. In their culture the man and woman who were engaged possessed the titles of “husband” and “wife” and the termination of the engagement was called a ‘putting away’, the same term used for divorce.. The exception clause jumped to that other kind of divorce just like the 3 parallels above, whose non essential exception clauses jumped to what was not the topic of discussion. The non essential exception clause, the kind that jumps to something other than what is being addressed is the only kind that can work in this kind of sentence. This kind of clause can also be omitted from the sentence containing it and no damage occurs since it touches on a point the sentence is not directly addressing.
It is fitting that we give Jesus the last word on this. Notice how the straightforwardness of his words in Mark and Luke, which authors did not include the exception clause, fully agree with the understanding that the exception clause of Matt 5:32; 19:9 is “non essential” and therefore does not give partial allowance of what is under discussion:
Mark 10:
11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
Luke 16:
18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
AVoice- Posts : 40
Join date : 2014-01-05
Re: A challenge_in opposition to the idea Jesus allows divorce
by clark thompson Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:35 am
The word says God hates divorce.
clark thompson- Posts : 262
Join date : 2013-04-02
Divorce
by VelikaBuna Fri Mar 14, 2014 12:27 pm
clark thompson wrote:The word says God hates divorce.
About divorce; http://catholicdefense.blogspot.de/search/label/divorce
VelikaBuna- Posts : 5
Join date : 2014-03-07
Re: A challenge_in opposition to the idea Jesus allows divorce
by AVoice Fri Mar 21, 2014 1:24 am
clark thompson wrote:The word says God hates divorce.
Yes. Sadly though, many Christians simultaneously say Jesus allowed what God hates. Since the law came by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus, how can anyone taking a stand for truth promote as truth that Jesus allows what God hates? The vast majority of churches are taken by that delusion. Jesus' statement, "what therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder", is simply ignored because they have been led into error to believe God does indeed now under the NT allow divorce.
AVoice- Posts : 40
Join date : 2014-01-05
Re: A challenge_in opposition to the idea Jesus allows divorce
by zone Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:32 pm
the vast majority of churches...blah blah.
you mean except the RCC.
i think RCC has much more to worry about than the protestant divorce rate.
mind you acts of contrition and 10 hail marys can take care of all those other sins.
you mean except the RCC.
i think RCC has much more to worry about than the protestant divorce rate.
mind you acts of contrition and 10 hail marys can take care of all those other sins.
zone- Mod
- Posts : 3653
Gender :
Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31
Re: A challenge_in opposition to the idea Jesus allows divorce
by SarahM777 Wed Apr 02, 2014 10:29 am
AVoice wrote:
Yes. Sadly though, many Christians simultaneously say Jesus allowed what God hates. Since the law came by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus, how can anyone taking a stand for truth promote as truth that Jesus allows what God hates? The vast majority of churches are taken by that delusion. Jesus' statement, "what therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder", is simply ignored because they have been led into error to believe God does indeed now under the NT allow divorce.
You do understand that Jesus was speaking to the Jews when He said that. You need to remember that the method of dealing with people caught in adultery was DEATH. Death ends a marriage real quick. You can't leave that out. Do you honestly think that God did not leave a way out for those whose spouses are committing adultery a way to deal with the situation and that He would leave the innocent spouse to suffer that way?
SarahM777- Posts : 29
Age : 66
Gender : Location : Just a Stranger in a Strange Land
Join date : 2013-05-30
Re: A challenge_in opposition to the idea Jesus allows divorce
by AVoice Thu Apr 03, 2014 1:16 am
Jesus was speaking absolute truth. It applies to all who are married. Remarriage is adultery, adulterers have to go to hell. Sad reality.
The innocent often suffer. If our hope is in this world we are of all men most miserable. Tribulation or persecution arises because of the word; hence a man or woman may suffer by having to live singly for the rest of their lives. What's the big deal? Many have had to suffer in prison or suffer execution because of the Word. What's the big difference between the two? Both sufferings are caused by the word. The ground of which the seed was scorched was the heart that became offended when tribulation or persecution arose because of the word. He suffered for us leaving an example that we should follow his steps.
The innocent often suffer. If our hope is in this world we are of all men most miserable. Tribulation or persecution arises because of the word; hence a man or woman may suffer by having to live singly for the rest of their lives. What's the big deal? Many have had to suffer in prison or suffer execution because of the Word. What's the big difference between the two? Both sufferings are caused by the word. The ground of which the seed was scorched was the heart that became offended when tribulation or persecution arose because of the word. He suffered for us leaving an example that we should follow his steps.
AVoice- Posts : 40
Join date : 2014-01-05
Re: A challenge_in opposition to the idea Jesus allows divorce
by Angela53510 Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:25 pm
First, we need to put the passage in modern English, and maybe look at the Greek if we want to understand what Jesus said.
“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Matt 5:31-32 ESV
" Ἐρρέθη δέ· Ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, δότω αὐτῇ ἀποστάσιον. 32 ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευθῆναι, καὶ ὃς ἐὰν ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσῃ μοιχᾶται." Matt. 5:31-32 Greek
παρεκτὸς - except
λόγου - Genitive Case - Word, matter, reason. So except for the "reason."
πορνείας - unchastity, fornication of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse, including incest.
ποιεῖ - present indicative active with the infinitive following, it means "to cause to make"
μοιχευθῆναι - aorist infinitive passive - commit adultery
ἀπολελυμένην - Aorist infinitive passive - to release, to divorce
γαμήσῃ - Aorist subjunctive, active - to marry, used of the man
μοιχᾶται - present indicative passive - to cause one to commit adultery, passive, to be an adulterer, to commit adultery.
First, Jesus is addressing the husband, which is interesting, because the rest of the Bible always accuses the woman of being the unfaithful one. Maybe their society is radically different than ours, but in most cases, adultery is committed by the husband (not all cases, of course). But Jesus is addressing the husbands, or really, the Pharisees, and who knows what evil was in their hearts!
As Zone said, the penalty for being caught in adultery was stoning to death. Instead, Jesus is saying that adultery is on the man, and it forces a woman who does not want to live with a philandering man to have to leave him and because women in those days had no shelters, no financial resources, she was basically forced into a position of having to marry someone else to survive.
Jesus was saying that God hates divorce, but I think even more, he hates the men that commit to their wives and then run around committing adultery. That is why he uses the word "EXCEPT" or παρεκτὸς. Because adultery taints the marriage, and the man is at fault here. He forces a helpless woman to seek help from someone else. He has lied, betrayed and broken his marriage vows.
So EXCEPT for adultery, remarriage is wrong. I don't know why the RCC can't go back and read the Bible in the original language, instead of Jerome's bad Latin translation, which gets so many things wrong.
PS If Jesus was here today, I'll bet he would also excuse divorce on the grounds of severe abuse. Beating your wife and/or kids to a pulp is not righteous behaviour either. It is downright immoral.
“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Matt 5:31-32 ESV
" Ἐρρέθη δέ· Ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, δότω αὐτῇ ἀποστάσιον. 32 ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευθῆναι, καὶ ὃς ἐὰν ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσῃ μοιχᾶται." Matt. 5:31-32 Greek
παρεκτὸς - except
λόγου - Genitive Case - Word, matter, reason. So except for the "reason."
πορνείας - unchastity, fornication of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse, including incest.
ποιεῖ - present indicative active with the infinitive following, it means "to cause to make"
μοιχευθῆναι - aorist infinitive passive - commit adultery
ἀπολελυμένην - Aorist infinitive passive - to release, to divorce
γαμήσῃ - Aorist subjunctive, active - to marry, used of the man
μοιχᾶται - present indicative passive - to cause one to commit adultery, passive, to be an adulterer, to commit adultery.
First, Jesus is addressing the husband, which is interesting, because the rest of the Bible always accuses the woman of being the unfaithful one. Maybe their society is radically different than ours, but in most cases, adultery is committed by the husband (not all cases, of course). But Jesus is addressing the husbands, or really, the Pharisees, and who knows what evil was in their hearts!
As Zone said, the penalty for being caught in adultery was stoning to death. Instead, Jesus is saying that adultery is on the man, and it forces a woman who does not want to live with a philandering man to have to leave him and because women in those days had no shelters, no financial resources, she was basically forced into a position of having to marry someone else to survive.
Jesus was saying that God hates divorce, but I think even more, he hates the men that commit to their wives and then run around committing adultery. That is why he uses the word "EXCEPT" or παρεκτὸς. Because adultery taints the marriage, and the man is at fault here. He forces a helpless woman to seek help from someone else. He has lied, betrayed and broken his marriage vows.
So EXCEPT for adultery, remarriage is wrong. I don't know why the RCC can't go back and read the Bible in the original language, instead of Jerome's bad Latin translation, which gets so many things wrong.
PS If Jesus was here today, I'll bet he would also excuse divorce on the grounds of severe abuse. Beating your wife and/or kids to a pulp is not righteous behaviour either. It is downright immoral.
Angela53510- Posts : 19
Join date : 2014-04-08
Re: A challenge_in opposition to the idea Jesus allows divorce
by AVoice Sun Apr 13, 2014 12:30 am
In 5 places in the NT (besides Matt 5:32; 19:9, which would make 7) the words fornication and adultery are listed side by side. There is obviously some difference.
The reason why so many are so adamant that fornication has to mean adultery is because he is speaking of post marital divorce (Matt 5:31) and therefore it is assumed that the exception clause HAS TO BE providing a partial allowance for such a divorce. The deduction is then made that fornication has to be referring to adultery and not literally "fornication" after a very common way it is used, identifying premarital sex. What is missed is that the terms "husband", "wife", "put away" or "divorce" were used in their culture to apply to two completely different situations. These terms were applied to an engaged couple as well as to a couple joined in marriage. The exception clause then is opened up to be read as a "non essential" clause, jumping over to touch on an entirely different kind of divorce that what he was primarily referring to. The very interesting thing about this is that the kind of sentence Jesus used cannot accommodate an exception clause that provides partial allowance of what the sentence is addressing.
Would you like to give a crack at it? Make the same kind of sentence that Matt 5:31,32 is, on any topic imaginable. The exception clause, I guarantee you will jump away to touch on something OTHER than what the sentence is mainly addressing.
Jesus is mainly addressing divorce as we understand it in modern times, which takes place AFTER being joined in marriage. The exception clause jumps to identify a completely different kind of divorce; which took place BEFORE joining in marriage. We see that Joseph was about to do this kind of divorce to Mary because he thought she had fornicated.
This understanding liberates a person from believing that the exception clause forces them to contradict Jesus' own words: "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder".
Jesus never excused divorce, he condemned it. It was written for the hardness of their hearts. It was only a necessary temporal law, not absolute moral truth. What Moses allowed in Deut 24:1-4 directly contradicted God's intention at creation, which Jesus established is what the new covenant upholds. The old faithful saying 'till death do us part' was right all along. The modern heresy of 'till adultery, abuse, abandonment or death do us part', is what we would expect in these last times of the falling away before Jesus returns in the clouds as a thief in the night to destroy the heavens and the earth.
The reason why so many are so adamant that fornication has to mean adultery is because he is speaking of post marital divorce (Matt 5:31) and therefore it is assumed that the exception clause HAS TO BE providing a partial allowance for such a divorce. The deduction is then made that fornication has to be referring to adultery and not literally "fornication" after a very common way it is used, identifying premarital sex. What is missed is that the terms "husband", "wife", "put away" or "divorce" were used in their culture to apply to two completely different situations. These terms were applied to an engaged couple as well as to a couple joined in marriage. The exception clause then is opened up to be read as a "non essential" clause, jumping over to touch on an entirely different kind of divorce that what he was primarily referring to. The very interesting thing about this is that the kind of sentence Jesus used cannot accommodate an exception clause that provides partial allowance of what the sentence is addressing.
Would you like to give a crack at it? Make the same kind of sentence that Matt 5:31,32 is, on any topic imaginable. The exception clause, I guarantee you will jump away to touch on something OTHER than what the sentence is mainly addressing.
Jesus is mainly addressing divorce as we understand it in modern times, which takes place AFTER being joined in marriage. The exception clause jumps to identify a completely different kind of divorce; which took place BEFORE joining in marriage. We see that Joseph was about to do this kind of divorce to Mary because he thought she had fornicated.
This understanding liberates a person from believing that the exception clause forces them to contradict Jesus' own words: "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder".
Jesus never excused divorce, he condemned it. It was written for the hardness of their hearts. It was only a necessary temporal law, not absolute moral truth. What Moses allowed in Deut 24:1-4 directly contradicted God's intention at creation, which Jesus established is what the new covenant upholds. The old faithful saying 'till death do us part' was right all along. The modern heresy of 'till adultery, abuse, abandonment or death do us part', is what we would expect in these last times of the falling away before Jesus returns in the clouds as a thief in the night to destroy the heavens and the earth.
AVoice- Posts : 40
Join date : 2014-01-05
Re: A challenge_in opposition to the idea Jesus allows divorce
by Angela53510 Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:09 am
Where do you get this kind of nonsense? Definition of except:
"Except for the reason" is in the genitive case in the Greek, along with the word logos for "reason". That means it is descriptive of what has come before. NOT something totally different, as you seem to be implying.
It is also a conjunction. That means it joins two things of equal value. In other words, Jesus is saying that as bad as divorce is, he allows the exception on account of adultery. The clauses are of equal value. I have no idea where you get in grammar that the "exception clause" is about something different. It is not an "exception clause" but a principle clause, joined by the coordinate conjunction, "except." This means that it has equal value. Jesus hates divorce, but adultery is hated even more! (Maybe because Do Not Commit Adultery is in the 10 Instructions, but divorce is not??)
So simple, but hard for you to see, I guess! Maybe trying reading a modern version, instead of reading into the passage something that is not there, because your ancient version of the Bible is so confusing to read!
- preposition: not including: other than
- conjunction: used before a statement that forms an exception to the one just made.
- verb: Formal - specify as not included in a category or group, Exclude.
"Except for the reason" is in the genitive case in the Greek, along with the word logos for "reason". That means it is descriptive of what has come before. NOT something totally different, as you seem to be implying.
It is also a conjunction. That means it joins two things of equal value. In other words, Jesus is saying that as bad as divorce is, he allows the exception on account of adultery. The clauses are of equal value. I have no idea where you get in grammar that the "exception clause" is about something different. It is not an "exception clause" but a principle clause, joined by the coordinate conjunction, "except." This means that it has equal value. Jesus hates divorce, but adultery is hated even more! (Maybe because Do Not Commit Adultery is in the 10 Instructions, but divorce is not??)
So simple, but hard for you to see, I guess! Maybe trying reading a modern version, instead of reading into the passage something that is not there, because your ancient version of the Bible is so confusing to read!
Angela53510- Posts : 19
Join date : 2014-04-08
Re: A challenge_in opposition to the idea Jesus allows divorce
by zone Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:16 am
ah, we have a greek scholar and pastor among us Voice.
we will all do well to give thanks for Angela.
love you sistah
we don't have click LIKE here or REP. but i like and rep.
seriously, i'm so pleased you're here.
we will all do well to give thanks for Angela.
love you sistah
we don't have click LIKE here or REP. but i like and rep.
seriously, i'm so pleased you're here.
zone- Mod
- Posts : 3653
Gender : Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31
Re: A challenge_in opposition to the idea Jesus allows divorce
by Angela53510 Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:22 am
Zone, I am happy to be here, and to discuss with people the various issues, using the Greek, proper grammar, but even more, to discuss my faith, which is based on God's amazing love, mercy and forgiveness.
It really is not about me, but about Jesus Christ, whom God sent as a sacrifice for my sins. It is him we need to glorify!
Looking forward to reading your posts, too!
It really is not about me, but about Jesus Christ, whom God sent as a sacrifice for my sins. It is him we need to glorify!
Looking forward to reading your posts, too!
Angela53510- Posts : 19
Join date : 2014-04-08
Re: A challenge_in opposition to the idea Jesus allows divorce
by zone Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:27 am
amen Angela.
Voice, i apologize for my tone.
but i have to add, that catholicism, though i KNOW the RCC started off orthodox (people will spew their ignorance and blah blah Constantine), she left orthodoxy during the so-called Enlightenment.
if you are truly dedicated to the RCC, you will fight to recover the beliefs and practices of orthodoxy for your family and friends...the institution is hopeless and antichrist.
but i believe the Lord has people in many cities.
and i DO appreciate your presence here.
zone
Voice, i apologize for my tone.
but i have to add, that catholicism, though i KNOW the RCC started off orthodox (people will spew their ignorance and blah blah Constantine), she left orthodoxy during the so-called Enlightenment.
if you are truly dedicated to the RCC, you will fight to recover the beliefs and practices of orthodoxy for your family and friends...the institution is hopeless and antichrist.
but i believe the Lord has people in many cities.
and i DO appreciate your presence here.
zone
zone- Mod
- Posts : 3653
Gender : Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31
Re: A challenge_in opposition to the idea Jesus allows divorce
by AVoice Sun Apr 13, 2014 4:15 am
The challenge in the OP is pretty much straightforward. What is it that you do not understand?
Did you even read the OP?
The examples given, prove that the kind of sentence Jesus chose to use in Matt 5:31,32 cannot have an exception clause that can provide partial allowance of what is under discussion. The normal post marital divorce is under discussion, (as established in Mat 5:31), and you claim that the exception clause provides partial allowance for that kind of divorce; for adultery. The challenge is easy: provide a sentence, on any topic you can think of, conformable to the sentence format of Matt 5:31,32 wherein its exception clause can provide partial allowance for what is under discussion. I gave some examples. All you have to do to prove me wrong is to provide the same kind of sentence that Matt 5:31,32 is, whose exception clause provides partial allowance for what is under discussion.
That should be easy, right?
Did you even read the OP?
The examples given, prove that the kind of sentence Jesus chose to use in Matt 5:31,32 cannot have an exception clause that can provide partial allowance of what is under discussion. The normal post marital divorce is under discussion, (as established in Mat 5:31), and you claim that the exception clause provides partial allowance for that kind of divorce; for adultery. The challenge is easy: provide a sentence, on any topic you can think of, conformable to the sentence format of Matt 5:31,32 wherein its exception clause can provide partial allowance for what is under discussion. I gave some examples. All you have to do to prove me wrong is to provide the same kind of sentence that Matt 5:31,32 is, whose exception clause provides partial allowance for what is under discussion.
That should be easy, right?
AVoice- Posts : 40
Join date : 2014-01-05
Re: A challenge_in opposition to the idea Jesus allows divorce
by Angela53510 Sun Apr 13, 2014 9:59 pm
There is NO exception clause! There is a principle or coordinate clause that begins with the conjunction "except."
It has equal value with the original principle clause.
What do they teach them in the schools these days??
It has equal value with the original principle clause.
What do they teach them in the schools these days??
Angela53510- Posts : 19
Join date : 2014-04-08
Re: A challenge_in opposition to the idea Jesus allows divorce
by AVoice Sun Apr 13, 2014 11:10 pm
Angela, what is the difference between what you call it and an 'exception clause'? The clause is giving permission to do something (divorce), for a certain reason, which if done for that reason or under those circumstances then does NOT cause what would normally be caused: ("causeth her to commit adultery").
Am I correct that you choose to not accept the challenge that the OP presents to you?
Am I correct that you choose to not accept the challenge that the OP presents to you?
AVoice- Posts : 40
Join date : 2014-01-05
Re: A challenge_in opposition to the idea Jesus allows divorce
by AVoice Sun Apr 13, 2014 11:25 pm
Angela, I have been in many discussions on Matt 5:32; 19:9, and the common identifier of the clause is that it is an exception clause, "saving for the cause of fornication" and "except it be for fornication". It seems you need to explain why everyone is wrong for using the identifier "exception clause".
I would like to discuss this with you or anyone else, but I would like that there be some ground rules before proceeding.
Asking questions is a good way to get to the bottom of where a person stands on an issue. A discussion cannot go anywhere if one or all parties ignore important questions that they are being asked, questions that are crucial for going forward in the discussion. I commit to answer any and all questions anyone asks. I believe it is reasonable that I be equally respected with the same commitment that all questions that I ask will be answered. If the sentence has a question mark at the end, this indicates the other party or parties in the discussion are obligated to answer it with a straightforward yes or no before elaborating. If a request for explanation is sought then it too must end with a question mark, such as "can you please explain how ... ?"
Agreed?
I would like to discuss this with you or anyone else, but I would like that there be some ground rules before proceeding.
Asking questions is a good way to get to the bottom of where a person stands on an issue. A discussion cannot go anywhere if one or all parties ignore important questions that they are being asked, questions that are crucial for going forward in the discussion. I commit to answer any and all questions anyone asks. I believe it is reasonable that I be equally respected with the same commitment that all questions that I ask will be answered. If the sentence has a question mark at the end, this indicates the other party or parties in the discussion are obligated to answer it with a straightforward yes or no before elaborating. If a request for explanation is sought then it too must end with a question mark, such as "can you please explain how ... ?"
Agreed?
AVoice- Posts : 40
Join date : 2014-01-05
Sponsored content
Similar topics» Controlled Opposition Shills
» Jesus in the OT.
» The One True God
» Jesus is God
» Jesus out side a church
» Jesus in the OT.
» The One True God
» Jesus is God
» Jesus out side a church
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
