• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Caesar's Messiah

Poisonshady313

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
Popeyesays said:
Perhaps you might give us the example of divorce law from the Torah and compare it with the actual words of Jesus.
Click to expand...
This one is so simple, I don't even need to provide a Torah quote for you:

2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied.
4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.
6 "But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.'
7 `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.
9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.
11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."


Mind you, IF Jesus is Who He said He was, He has every right to ab rogate the social laws of the Torah, different times demand laws to b e amended.
Click to expand...
False, sir, false.

Deuteronomy 4:2. Do not add to the word which I command you, nor diminish from it, to observe the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Granted, but where did Jesus, in His own words seek converts. He sought repentance.
Click to expand...
[FONT=arial, helvetica]Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age" (Matt 28:18-20, NIV).[/FONT]

Again, I suspect you can't quote those actual words because you have been echoing what you have been told, not what you have learned.
Click to expand...
Your suspicions are ill founded. I refuse to dignify your accusation/challenge... so if you want me to me more specific with where Jesus and Judaism are at a disconnect, I shall do so in the course of conversation.

Please invite her.
Click to expand...
Ok.
 
Popeyesays

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
The whole misunderstanding of 'divorce' in the New Testament is a result of the Greek translation of the Hebrew texts.

Apoulos is Greek meaning to put away or to leave. It is separation, and refers not to just marriage but to any departure. That's the exact reference in Matthew which you cite.

The Pharisees wanted to believe that seperation was sufficient, and they did not HAVE to grant divorces to their wives as a means of controlling them and denying those wives of the right to re-marry. This is the reference to "hardening their hearts". Divorce was what was required and Christ is upholding that Judaic tradition.

There are some nice explanations of this available on the web, one in particular is found at:

Divorce and Remarriage - Can Christians Remarry After Divorce? Absolutely! Apoluo, Shalach

Regards,
Scott
 
Popeyesays

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
Poisonshady313 said:
[FONT=arial, helvetica]Therefore go and make disciples of all nations[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica]He wasn't reaching out to wayward Jews... he sought to make the world believe in him.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica]That = seeking converts.[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Mikva.

Regards,
Scott
 
Popeyesays

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
Poisonshady313 said:
Non-Jews don't require a mikvah for repentance.
Click to expand...

It is the whole thrust of Jesus' teachings that all of God's children require repentance. Such is evidenced by His words with the Centurion. That's a new teaching, of course, but if it had taken with the Jews of His day, the Temple might never have been destroyed at all.

Amongst the people of Palestine He was amassing numbers of followers. The Pharisees feared Him just because He threatened their privileges and livlihoods.

Regards,
Scott
 
Poisonshady313

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
Popeyesays said:
It is the whole thrust of Jesus' teachings that all of God's children require repentance. Such is evidenced by His words with the Centurion. That's a new teaching, of course, but if it had taken with the Jews of His day, the Temple might never have been destroyed at all.

Amongst the people of Palestine He was amassing numbers of followers. The Pharisees feared Him just because He threatened their privileges and livlihoods.

Regards,
Scott
Click to expand...

You didn't hear what I said. Non-Jews don't require the use of a mikvah for repentance. All that's necessary is that the recognize what they did wrong, ask God for forgiveness, and correct their behavior.

Non Jews don't need to follow the Torah to be righteous before God. They have a much easier set of rules to play by.

If the pharisees feared him, it was because he was encouraging people to follow him instead of the Torah... people not following the Torah being the # 1 reason for prophets like Jeremiah to show up, proclaiming gloom and doom.

It might be said that Jesus' baseless hatred for the pharisees contributed to the reason why the Temple was destroyed.
 
H

Harmonious

Well-Known Member
Poisonshady313 said:
This one is so simple, I don't even need to provide a Torah quote for you:

2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied.
4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.
6 "But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.'
7 `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.
9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.
11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
Click to expand...
Right, then.

The first problem with this is the idea that "Moses wrote you this law." Moses didn't "write" any law, but he faithfully transcribed GOD's laws.

Second, up until over 1000 years after Jesus died, Jewish men (by and large) were permitted to have more than one wife. So declaring that said man commits adultery is patently ridiculous.

Third of all, divorce is PERMITTED. It isn't a happy thing. It is said that whenever a coupld divorces the Altar (the copper altar on which sacrifices were brought) cries. But sometimes they are necessary, and definitely for reasons other than adultery.

It would be a very cruel decree (if Jews took Jesus seriously) to say that a woman who managed to escape from an abusive marriage by way of divorce would be forbidden to marry anyone else if the abusive husband managed to stay sexually faithful to her, despite phyiscal and/or emotional abuse.

Fourth of all, it would have honestly helped Jesus' case if he actually would have studied in the Yeshiva and learned about divorces. There is a whole Tractate in Mishna (and Gemara) called "Gittin," which explains all about divorces, in amazing detail. This goes on and on about what instances a man is permitted to divorce his wife, and all kinds of details about what kind of recompensation the wife is to be given should this occur.

In all honesty, I haven't actually studied it yet, but I know plenty of guys who have.

If Jesus would have paid more attention to what was being taught rather than make blanket statements, he might have been more credible. As it was, he didn't, and he isn't.
 
Popeyesays

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
"It would be a very cruel decree (if Jews took Jesus seriously) to say that a woman who managed to escape from an abusive marriage by way of divorce would be forbidden to marry anyone else if the abusive husband managed to stay sexually faithful to her, despite phyiscal and/or emotional abuse."

It would be a sad case, indeed. The law is specific, a woman is not allowed under any circumstances to divorce her husband. If a husband in the time of Jesus elected to set aside a wife and never grant her a divorce that was within his rights. Ity was an abuse of the woman for sure, but a permitted abuse.

"
Inequality of the Sexes


The position of husband and wife with regard to divorce is not an equal one. According to the Talmud, only the husband can initiate a divorce, and the wife cannot prevent him from divorcing her. Later rabbinical authorities took steps to ease the harshness of these rules by prohibiting a man from divorcing a woman without her consent. In addition, a rabbinical court can compel a husband to divorce his wife under certain circumstances: when he is physically repulsive because of some medical condition or other characteristic, when he violates or neglects his marital obligations (food, clothing and sexual intercourse), or, according to some views, when there is sexual incompatibility.
A peculiar problem arises, however, if a man disappears or deserts his wife or is presumed dead but there is insufficient proof of death. Under Jewish law, divorce can only be initiated by the man; thus, if the husband cannot be found, he cannot be compelled to divorce the wife and she cannot marry another man. A woman in this situation is referred to as agunah (literally, anchored). The rabbis agonized over this problem, balancing the need to allow the woman to remarry with the risk of an adulterous marriage (a grave transgression that would affect the status of offspring of the marriage) if the husband reappeared. No definitive solution to this problem exists. To prevent this problem to some extent, it is customary in many places for a man to give his wife a conditional get whenever he goes off to war, so that if he never comes home and his body is not found, his wife does not become agunah. "

Judaism 101: Divorce

It is possible under the strict interpretation of the law for a man to send a woman away and NEVER ive her a 'get' at all. In modern times this is mitigated as is noted above, but in the time of the Roman occupation there was no such mitigation.

Regards,

Scott
 
H

Harmonious

Well-Known Member
Popeyesays said:
It is possible under the strict interpretation of the law for a man to send a woman away and NEVER ive her a 'get' at all.
Click to expand...
It is possible, but unconscionably cruel. And the Jewish court would have worked hard to try to fix that, if at all possible.

In modern times this is mitigated as is noted above, but in the time of the Roman occupation there was no such mitigation.

Regards,

Scott
Click to expand...
Understood, but even then, I'm pretty sure that the Jewish courts would have tried to make life less bitter for the would-be Aguna.
 
Poisonshady313

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
Popeyesays said:
That seems a non-sequitur to me. Perhaps you could explain it for me?

Regards,
Scott
Click to expand...

The general Jewish explanation for why we lost the second temple (the first was because of idolatry) was because of a baseless hatred between the Jewish people. I don't quite know how to describe it in more depth than this...

Jesus had a habit of calling the pharisees liars, vipers, hypocrites, etc. I think if he was right about that, there would be literature besides the "gospels" documenting this.

Just like a guy who gets pulled over by the cops a couple of times decides all cops are out to get him, he develops a disdain for them... a baseless hatred if you will, for all cops... calling them pigs... even cops who are just minding their own business.

Similarly, Jesus developed a sort of baseless hatred for the pharisees... and did what he could in Matthew 23 to spread this to his followers.

That might be only one small piece of the puzzle... but it's worth considering.
 
Popeyesays

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
Poisonshady313

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
Popeyesays said:
I agree that Jesus was not condemning ANY divorce, just the sham divorce of sending a woman away without giving her a final, written bill of divorce. I already said that.
I think that the OP did not realize that however.
Click to expand...

There is no way to gather that from the NT text I posted.
 
Popeyesays

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
Poisonshady313 said:
There is no way to gather that from the NT text I posted.
Click to expand...

It has to be read in context with the times and the Judaic traditions.

You're blindsiding yourself by trying to argue from your conclusion, rather than your premise. Jesus was a rabbi, do you think He would not have known what He was saying? He did not have to provide context as all the people He was talking with knew the context as well as they knew the palms of their hands.

Regards,
Scott
 
Poisonshady313

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
I disagree that Jesus was a rabbi, and I do not think he would have known what he was saying.

As far as context.... the verse in question has him answering a question about divorce in general.

There is no indication whatsoever that he's specifically talking about a particular kind of divorce.

Just because the people he knew understood the context and the law doesn't make them mind readers.

If someone gives a general question, and you give a general answer, it is not my place to assume you were talking about something specific.

He was asked if divorce was permitted. He said no. He didn't say this type or that type was or was not... he said if a man divorces a wife and remarries, he commits adultery, and if a woman divorces and remarries, she commits adultery (if he were a rabbi, you'd think he'd know that at this point in history, women couldn't initiate divorce)
 
Poisonshady313

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied.
4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.
6 "But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.'
7 `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.
9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.
11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

Popeyesays said:
I agree that Jesus was not condemning ANY divorce, just the sham divorce of sending a woman away without giving her a final, written bill of divorce. I already said that.
Click to expand...

If what you say is true, then his answer would have been that yes, as long as he gives her the certificate of divorce that Moses spoke about.


Instead, he says this:

9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.
11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

To say he was only condemning a particular type of divorce in which the man refuses to give a written bill of divorce is to put words into Jesus' mouth... to read into the text what is in no way there.
 
Popeyesays

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
The people of the time addressed Him as Rabbi or Rabboni. His closest followers might call Him 'Master', but the people called Him Rabbi:
King james
  1. Matthew 23:7
    And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
    Matthew 23:8
    But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
  2. John 1:38
    Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?
  3. John 1:49
    Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
  4. John 3:2
    The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
  5. John 3:26
    And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.
  6. John 6:25
    And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?
Youyng's Literal:

  1. Matthew 23:7
    and the salutations in the market-places, and to be called by men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
  2. Matthew 23:8
    `And ye -- ye may not be called Rabbi, for one is your director -- the Christ, and all ye are brethren;
  3. Matthew 26:25
    And Judas -- he who delivered him up -- answering said, `Is it I, Rabbi?' He saith to him, `Thou hast said.'
  4. Matthew 26:49
    and immediately, having come to Jesus, he said, `Hail, Rabbi,' and kissed him;
  5. Mark 9:5
    And Peter answering saith to Jesus, `Rabbi, it is good to us to be here; and we may make three booths, for thee one, and for Moses one, and for Elijah one:'
  6. Mark 11:21
    and Peter having remembered saith to him, `Rabbi, lo, the fig-tree that thou didst curse is dried up.'
  7. Mark 14:45
    and having come, immediately, having gone near him, he saith, `Rabbi, Rabbi,' and kissed him.
  8. John 1:38
    And Jesus having turned, and having beheld them following, saith to them, `What seek ye?' and they said to them, `Rabbi, (which is, being interpreted, Teacher,) where remainest thou?'
  9. John 1:49
    Nathanael answered and saith to him, `Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the king of Israel.'
  10. John 3:2
    this one came unto him by night, and said to him, `Rabbi, we have known that from God thou hast come -- a teacher, for no one these signs is able to do that thou dost, if God may not be with him.'
  11. John 3:26
    and they came unto John, and said to him, `Rabbi, he who was with thee beyond the Jordan, to whom thou didst testify, lo, this one is baptizing, and all are coming unto him.'
  12. John 4:31
    And in the meanwhile his disciples were asking him, saying, `Rabbi, eat;'
  13. John 6:25
    and having found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, `Rabbi, when hast thou come hither?'
  14. John 9:2
    and his disciples asked him, saying, `Rabbi, who did sin, this one or his parents, that he should be born blind?'
  15. John 11:8
    the disciples say to him, `Rabbi, now were the Jews seeking to stone thee, and again thou dost go thither!'
You are tryimng to put the modern spin on it to suit your point of view and refusing to see that Jesus is obviously part of the culture of Palestine and the First Century CE.

It's also the mistake the authors of Caesar's Messiah make--they cannot see that a different era had differnt cultural assumptions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top