Divorce according to the Bible

[JohnDB]

The original was actually spoken in Aramaic but written in Greek so the God breathed scripture was actually spoken by Jesus in Aramaic what I’m saying is Greek or English it must flow with the rest of the scriptures in the Bible and the example of Jesus and the disciples.

Somewhat debatable... probably a hybrid of Aramaic and Hebrew both because of to whom he was speaking.

 

[Ashley Amos]

So...this has something to do with another theological position you are holding onto desperately and you can't see your way past it to even look at what we are saying...

Gotcha.

Hosea doesn't exist in your Bible?

So in the book of Hosea Hosea was told by God to marry a promiscuous woman or a prostitute are you stating that that scripture is for all of us to follow that we are to marry prostitutes and promiscuous women. In the same way I am saying God was making a point with Hosea to take back a promiscuous woman but that doesn’t mean that we all have to take back wives that commit adultery against husbands does it.

 

[Carl Emerson]

You care for Men’s reputations Jesus Peter and the rest of the men of Galilee were men of low reputations. The mighty men of valour in the time of David were men of low reputation as well, outcasts. Even king David was a lowly Shepherd and king Saul was a donkey Herder.

But you seem concerned with scholars with great reputations.

Really? I just acknowledge those who have done the hard yards and devoted their lives to loving Jesus and a deep study of the Word.

Like the man who officiated at my second marriage - the late Rev Dr. David Stewart principal of the Bible College of New Zealand, a top academic with a deep love for Jesus and a Father to Pastors all over the world.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I disagreed with it but at least I read it.

Care to elaborate on which points you took exception to?

 

[topher694]

Adultery is adultery what I’m saying is if we commit adultery against God will he forgive us so then why do you think that he would tell a husband that he hast to stay with a wife who has committed adultery. I can’t see how you can’t make the connection.

I never said anything of the sort. Not once. You keep implying I did because you are so focused on that. Perhaps now you can see why I keep saying you are missing the point?

 

[Ashley Amos]

I never said anything of the sort. Not once. You keep implying I did because you are so focused on that. Perhaps now you can see why I keep saying you are missing the point?

What is your point then?

 

[JohnDB]

So in the book of Hosea Hosea was told by God to marry a promiscuous woman or a prostitute are you stating that that scripture is for all of us to follow that we are to marry prostitutes and promiscuous women. In the same way I am saying God was making a point with Hosea to take back a promiscuous woman but that doesn’t mean that we all have to take back wives that commit adultery against husbands does it.

Possibly...
That's not the focus of the passage. I'm sure that your understanding of it does...but that's not what Jesus was saying. (First assertion I've made and here's another).

Jesus was giving the Pharisees a verbal beating (as he usually did) after they asked him a question to trap him based upon the two wildly opposing viewpoints of two prominent schmeekah Rabbi...as Jesus was also in the role of a schmeekah Rabbi that they didn't like...they wanted a "no win" answer out of him. Instead He issued a scathing lecture so that both would be equally offended.
God gives grace to the humble but opposes the proud.
And one side held the viewpoint you currently are holding. The other side was "if she burnt your pot of beans you could divorce her.

So....
Since Jesus was rather infamous for saying "Neither" when in this situation what was it that He told them?

 

[Carl Emerson]

Er ... I might've thought some proverbs are intended to stand on their own.

All scriptures must be interpreted by scripture.

 

[Ashley Amos]

Possibly...
That's not the focus of the passage. I'm sure that your understanding of it does...but that's not what Jesus was saying. (First assertion I've made and here's another).

Jesus was giving the Pharisees a verbal beating (as he usually did) after they asked him a question to trap him based upon the two wildly opposing viewpoints of two prominent schmeekah Rabbi...as Jesus was also in the role of a schmeekah Rabbi that they didn't like...they wanted a "no win" answer out of him. Instead He issued a scathing lecture so that both would be equally offended.
God gives grace to the humble but opposes the proud.
And one side held the viewpoint you currently are holding. The other side was "if she burnt your pot of beans you could divorce her.

So....
Since Jesus was rather infamous for saying "Neither" when in this situation what was it that He told them?

There is no double standard in Jesus message there is no message for the Pharisees and a message for the true followers of Christ there is only one message for all.

 

[Ashley Amos]

Let's see...there were quotes from Malachi, Matthew, Deuteronomy, Luke, Timothy, Corinthians, Ephesians and Genesis.

Those are in most standard Bibles... maybe not in the one you are using.

Matthew is saying exactly what I’m saying please show me in Deuteronomy where it speaks against Matthew, as a matter of fact show me any of the scriptures of the books that you have quoted that are contrary to Matthew 5:32 and 19:9.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Try only reading the bible. Other people’s interpretations confuse what the bible is saying with clever arguments in Greek lol.

Peter didn't say that about Paul. Paul was a serious academic and his teachings were hard to understand - yet they were from God.

 

[JohnDB]

There is no double standard in Jesus message there is no message for the Pharisees and a message for the true followers of Christ there is only one message for all.

How about the end of Chapter 13 in Matthew?
Where Jesus said that basically he would speak plainly to the apostles but only in parables to Pharisees and grammitons.

Doesn't chapter 19 come after 13?

 

[JohnDB]

You sure you want to continue?

You aren't doing so well. I've buried you in scriptures and you haven't even begun to dig your way out yet...

I was so hoping for a good debate...there is an argument to be made in favor of your position but you haven't gotten anywhere close to it yet. *Sigh *

 

[topher694]

What is your point then?

See, that wasn't so hard was it?

Part of what you posted was if a man divorces a woman NOT because of adultery and she remarried, she is committing adultery. That puts her (and him) into bondage to one another and to the law, which Jesus continually set people free from and never enslaved them into.

 

[JohnDB]

See, that wasn't so hard was it?

Part of what you posted was if a man divorces a woman NOT because of adultery and she remarried, she is committing adultery. That puts her (and him) into bondage to one another and to the law, which Jesus continually set people free from and never enslaved them into.

And there was that whole polygamy thing that men were allowed...

 

[JohnDB]

I'm guessing that he went home for the night...he wasn't doing well anyway.

Maybe tomorrow after a good night sleep.

 

[topher694]

And there was that whole polygamy thing that men were allowed...

Just because the Bible reported it doesn't mean God supported it

 

[Carl Emerson]

The English word use of the Bible is not inerrant. The Greek word use is

Mmmm... not sure about that - leaning on the Greek text is not an absolute reference to truth either.

At the end of the day - without the Holy Spirit to inspire our understanding we are sunk.

 

[Carl Emerson]

This thread seems to be more about a clash of spirits than anything else...

My expectation of fruitful exchange is rather low...

 

[chevyontheriver]

Mmmm... not sure about that - leaning on the Greek text is not an absolute reference to truth either.

At the end of the day - without the Holy Spirit to inspire our understanding we are sunk.

The texts in the original languages are inerrant but our meager understandings of the text are not. In that I agree with you that leaning on a Greek text is not an absolute. Augustine tells the story of how a little child told him to 'pick up and read' (Tolle lege) That was just the beginning.