Divorce according to the Bible

Ashley Amos said:

Many pastors have completely twisted the Scriptures based on greek meanings. I am very careful when dealing with Greek translations when they do not match up with the way that Jesus lived his life. If we are speaking about Greek meanings of divorce Then why did the Scriptures clearly state that Joseph was preparing to divorce his wife because he mistakenly thought she had committed adultery, And the Scriptures clearly call him a righteous man.

Click to expand...

Well many pastors twist things the way you have as well. In truth your assessment is completely contrary to how Jesus lived His life. So I guess that confirms you are wrong. And to be clear, the contention here is not with adultery.

Ashley Amos said:

You are clearly contradicting Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 which states that the only reason a man can divorce his wife is due to adultery this is why I’m saying please support with scripture or an example in the Bible which contradicts these two scriptures. Not Greek interpretations if they don’t line up with the teachings of Jesus or an example in the Bible then I have to come to the conclusion that you have misinterpreted the Scriptures due to false Greek translational arguments. The majority of your argument is based on Greek translation that is why I am asking for scriptural argument. I am not Trying to irritate you, this is not at all my intention if I am I apologize

Click to expand...

I'm defying your interpretation of those scriptures...not the scriptures themselves. Miles of difference between the two things.

Please refrain from the false accusations please.

Ashley Amos said:

Deuteronomy 23:23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her,24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

This is why Joseph wanted to divorce her quietly because he didn’t want to have her stoned.

Can you please provide a scripture which states the difference between your version of put away and divorce.

Click to expand...

Why should I provide them again for the third time?
Just so you can ignore them again?

Before the civil war in america pastor's used scriptures to validate and authorize the practice of slavery.
People have used the scriptures over the millenia to license acts of all sorts of evil actions.

I've posed a slew of questions with scriptures that you have deliberately ignored.
Why should I continue?

Ashley Amos said:

There is no other way to read the Scriptures they are clear, Joseph a righteous man understood that the only reason to divorce a woman was due to adultery.

Click to expand...

Yes there is and you have chosen to ignore it.

Ashley Amos said:

There is no other way to read the Scriptures they are clear, Joseph a righteous man understood that the only reason to divorce a woman was due to adultery.

Click to expand...

I don't think that the scriptures say anything about what Joseph understood. The scriptures may imply he was righteous. The scriptures say he intended to "put her away" because she was pregnant and must have committed adultery. It does not say that he did not believe that there may be other reasons to "put a woman away" whether or not he would ever act on such a belief (cuz he's a good guy and all.)

Carl Emerson said:

This simply shows that the spiritual battle is indeed raging - Satan hates good marriages.

Click to expand...

If you are implying that it is satan who has a hand in breaking up marriages that end in divorce, then all I can say is that your bogey man is not very good at it as to date he has had fifty years to break up my marriage but I have to give him a massive fail.
Divorce happens because a relationship breaks down for any number of reasons. It has nothing to do with some bogeyman.

When applying hermeneutics to any scripture the first rule is "Context is King".

Isolated scriptures prove nothing and say nothing....EVER.
This is how people have licensed all sorts of evil over the centuries.

Ashley Amos said:

The Bible in first John states that the Holy Spirit the anointing that was given to you shall teach you all things, you do not need anyone to teach you and so no I don’t read scholars interpretations. I only read the Bible, I read the teachings of Jesus and relate them to the way he lived his life or the way that the disciples lived their life and interpreted his teachings.

Click to expand...

Likewise I read nothing but scripture for 5 years during the rebuilding of my life.

Bottom line is you know nothing about my life and Godly folk have fellowshipped with me on my life journey.

I dont take much notice of No-names on cyberspace unless the Holy Spirit brings conviction.

Ashley Amos said:

How did Jesus live his life differently in regards to divorce when he was never married I do not understand what your point is.

Click to expand...

Hint: he who the son sets free is...... ?

Ashley Amos said:

Ok, so I looked back on your replies and you have not provided scriptures in your responses just your beliefs and opinions.

Click to expand...

That's very troubling...
You didn't recognize any of the scriptures that I quoted without numbers.

Are you sure that you actually know the scriptures and people well enough to claim pastoral status? After all you claim that you didn't recognize the plethora of scripture I quoted...or the questions I posed with them.

I'm beginning to really suspect any assertion that you make.

This is the internet... anyone can claim anything. I knew a guy that weighed over 300 pounds over 60 years old...he claimed to be a 9 year old little girl when online. But he worked for the TBI to catch predators...he caught a lot of them too.

Ashley Amos said:

Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses the only eyewitnesses out of the three out of Matthew Mark and Luke is Matthew. So it would seem that you are choosing Mark and Luke over Matthew not due to their correctness but due to their seemingly easier statement.

Click to expand...

Are you saying Mark and Luke got it wrong? Seems like it. That you are saying Mark and Luke erred on something as important as marriage and divorce? In the early Church would someone who did not have access to the Gospel of Matthew have to suffer through false teaching because they only had Mark or Luke?

I'm saying Matthew and Mark and Luke are all correct, that there is a Jewish specific clause contained in Matthew that would be irrelevant to other Christians. The teaching is, and has been until Henry VIII, that there is no general exception allowing divorce from the lips of Jesus. This is a tiny Jewish specific, and rather undefined at that, exception that doesn't actually mean 'adultery' as there is another perfectly fine and unused Greek word that means 'adultery' exactly.

When it comes to scripture you must go with the scripture that elaborates further and that is Matthews.

Click to expand...

Where is that supposed exegetical principle from? I don't recognize it. It seems that it could cause unending problems in exegesis. As in this case where you presume to manufacture a general exception for adultery where there has never been such a general exception until the reformers invented it.

Ashley Amos said:

How can it be unfounded when Jesus said it clearly in Matthew twice.

Click to expand...

Because Matthew doesn't mean what Amos thinks.

Ashley Amos said:

You are clearly contradicting Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 which states that the only reason a man can divorce his wife is due to adultery this is why I’m saying please support with scripture or an example in the Bible which contradicts these two scriptures. Not Greek interpretations if they don’t line up with the teachings of Jesus or an example in the Bible then I have to come to the conclusion that you have misinterpreted the Scriptures due to false Greek translational arguments. The majority of your argument is based on Greek translation that is why I am asking for scriptural argument. I am not Trying to irritate you, this is not at all my intention if I am I apologize

Click to expand...

Um, the Bible is inerrant in it's originals. Not in translation. In it's originals. For Matthew that means Greek. If you can find an actual Aramaic of Matthew you could argue that might take precedence. But an English translation simply does not take precedence. No way.