Jesus allows no divorce for his followers why?

[Hold]

Strangely, we're right in the middle of studying different views of divorce during the Second Temple Era in one of my history courses. The topic is a specialty of the professor teaching us.

The core issue seems to be that there was a debate at the time whether divorce was allowed or not. Some people, like Jesus, thought that the Torah allowed divorce only because of the low spiritual level of the Israelites at the time, but when striving for a higher spiritual level, one should not divorce. The reason being that when man and wife marry, they become spiritually one, returning to the way man and woman were created in Genesis, as a unified entity. This unity is not something that may be reversed, not even through divorce, for they become "one flesh". Flesh cannot be divided without harming it.

@Harel, are you familiar with any Jewish research concerning the Apostle Paul(Saul). References to Paul (Catholic grammar and high school) and commercial reading I've done have neglected to mention Paul was a Jew.They left me with the impression Paul was a Roman.

 

[muhammad_isa]

@Harel, are you familiar with any Jewish research concerning the Apostle Paul(Saul). References to Paul (Catholic grammar and high school) and commercial reading I've done have neglected to mention Paul was a Jew.They left me with the impression Paul was a Roman.

That is not correct, whatever impression you might have got.
Paul [Saul of Tarsus] was a Hellenistic Jew, who took lessons from the Pharisees.

Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia

 

[Harel13]

They left me with the impression Paul was a Roman.

If only.

@Harel, are you familiar with any Jewish research concerning the Apostle Paul(Saul). References to Paul (Catholic grammar and high school) and commercial reading I've done have neglected to mention Paul was a Jew.They left me with the impression Paul was a Roman.

What do you mean by Jewish research? Jews have always been aware that he was Jewish.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@Harel, are you familiar with any Jewish research concerning the Apostle Paul(Saul). References to Paul (Catholic grammar and high school) and commercial reading I've done have neglected to mention Paul was a Jew.They left me with the impression Paul was a Roman.

I'm not sure what your mean by "Jewish research." There are Jews who are scholars who have done research, but it would be considered scholarly research, not Jewish research.

As far as I know, no one disputes that Paul was a Jew.

Dr Robert Eisenman, of CSU Long Beach, and Dead Sea Scroll Scholar, believes that Paul is the "wicked priest" mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The wicked priest is the adversary of the Teacher of Righteousness, whom Eisenman hypothesizes is James the brother of Jesus.

 

[Hold]

Brickjectivity: "No Jew kills Jesus."

The Jews and the Death of Jesus in Acts

The link above cites numerous sections of the bible that say that Jews did kill Jesus (of course, with the help of Roman soldier, Pontius Pilate). Yet, two modern popes insist that the crowd that suggested that Jesus die did not necessarily consist of Jews.

If that is the case, then the bible must have been rewritten by the Vatican (under Roman influence, ruled by Romans). The popes were Roman.

I urge everyone not to take out their wrath on modern Jews. This crucifixion took place thousands of years ago, and modern Jews had no part in it.

If only.


What do you mean by Jewish research? Jews have always been aware that he was Jewish.

If only.



What do you mean by Jewish research? Jews have always been aware that he was Jewish.

I'm not sure what your mean by "Jewish research." There are Jews who are scholars who have done research, but it would be considered scholarly research, not Jewish research.

As far as I know, no one disputes that Paul was a Jew.

Dr Robert Eisenman, of CSU Long Beach, and Dead Sea Scroll Scholar, believes that Paul is the "wicked priest" mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The wicked priest is the adversary of the Teacher of Righteousness, whom Eisenman hypothesizes is James the brother of Jesus.

Harel13 has pointed out the very same mistake I have made thinking Paul was a Roman....Thank you for your help....

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Harel13 has pointed out the very same mistake I have made thinking Paul was a Roman....Thank you for your help....

Well he was a Roman CITIZEN, but his ethnicity was Jewish. That's probably the reason why you had difficulty.

In the end, Paul chose to go against being Jewish. He was arrested by the temple police and rather than accept a decision by the Jewish court, he appealed to Rome. That was a bad move. Traditionally, a Jew who takes a Jewish matter to a non-Jewish court is despised as a "moser." Kind of like traitor. So while technically Paul is a Jew, he opted to be more of a Roman than a Jew.

 

[muhammad_isa]

In the end, Paul chose to go against being Jewish. He was arrested by the temple police and rather than accept a decision by the Jewish court, he appealed to Rome. That was a bad move. Traditionally, a Jew who takes a Jewish matter to a non-Jewish court is despised as a "moser." Kind of like traitor. So while technically Paul is a Jew, he opted to be more of a Roman than a Jew.

That's rather a simplistic view, I would have thought.

And immediately he proclaimed Jesus in the synagogues, saying, "He is the Son of God." And all who heard him were amazed and said, "Is not this the man who made havoc in Jerusalem of those who called upon this name? And has he not come here for this purpose, to bring them bound before the chief priests?" But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ.
— Acts 9:20–22

That is basically saying that Paul remained a Jew, but now believed that Jesus IS the promised Messiah. Nothing difficult in that to understand.
Clearly, the temple authorities denied that Jesus was the promised son of God, as Paul had done previously.

Paul underwent a purification ritual so that "all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself observe and guard the law." When the seven days of the purification ritual were almost completed, some "Jews from Asia" (most likely from Roman Asia) accused Paul of defiling the temple by bringing gentiles into it.

..forty Jews "bound themselves by an oath neither to eat nor drink until they had killed Paul"
=wiki-

Clearly, if Paul had claimed "Jesus is G-d", it would have been clear from this dispute. It was more about his stance on whether gentiles could become Jews while not being circumcised, for example.
It is no surprise that he didn't hang around in Jerusalem to be assassinated.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Sorry, I thought he was a Roman citizen persecuting the early Christians (as Saul). I did not realize he was a Jew.

He was a Roman citizen persecuting Christians (and Jewish).

 

[e.r.m.]

The Jews didn't kill Jesus and he acted nothing like the leader they want.

Not themselves. Peter said they handed Jesus over to be killed. And they asled Barabbas to be released to them and demanded for Jesus to be crucified. So although they did not perform the crucifixion, they can't just say they had nothing to do with it.

 

[pearl]

But why did he do this?

Maybe there's a simple answer; If Jesus expected the end of the world was eminent, why bother with divorce? now is not the time.

 

[Muffled]

Title question
But why did he do this? I skipped to the Gospels in my bible read through which is exciting but some things Jesus did I didn't like, this is one

Overall he seems nice, but Jews kill him even though he acts like their leader they always wanted? I don't like Peter he is too pushy sometimes

I believe that is not so. He is saying that it is a sin to dump your spouse for another person.

I believe He is showing how the written law is dead but a living law is in Jesus.

I believe that is a matter of setting oneself higher than God. You should remember He is a jealous God.

I believe the problem is simple. The love of God is not in you because you have not received Jesus as Lord and Savior.

 

[Muffled]

The Jews didn't kill Jesus and he acted nothing like the leader they want.

I believe by turning Jesus over to the Romans, the result was the wrath of God in the form of the destruction of the Temple and the dispersion of the people.

 

[Muffled]

In cases of adultery divorce is permitted. I think that’s about the only time. Why? Possibly because divorce destroys the family, the family was the basic unit that kept society together. That’s just my guess.

I believe you could say that adultery is a hardness of heart but make no mistake, it is also a sin.

 

[Bree]

Title question
But why did he do this? I skipped to the Gospels in my bible read through which is exciting but some things Jesus did I didn't like, this is one

Overall he seems nice, but Jews kill him even though he acts like their leader they always wanted? I don't like Peter he is too pushy sometimes

because Gods original standard for man and woman was to be paired for life.

In an imperfect world, divorce has been rife and it is misused by many. The only permissible reason in Gods view for divorce to be legal is if one or the other committs adultery. There is no other reason for divorce and Jesus role is to reinstate Gods laws morals and stgandards beginning with his followers.

So no divorce unless one committs adultery.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Title question
But why did he do this? I skipped to the Gospels in my bible read through which is exciting but some things Jesus did I didn't like, this is one

Overall he seems nice, but Jews kill him even though he acts like their leader they always wanted? I don't like Peter he is too pushy sometimes

I didn't kill Jesus. I wasn't even in the neighborhood.

 

[sojourner]

I deny that divorce is possible in a Sacramental marriage, even in the case of adultery, and I deny that He ever said such was possible. You will find that the passage people use to support that idea is much debated, although I consider my enemies in this case to be beneath my dignity to engage with.

In merely natural marriage (the sort Moses presided over) divorce and polygyny is possible, in Sacramental marriage it is not.

All my opinion of course.

What constitutes a “sacramental” marriage, and how can acts of violence carried out within such a marriage constitute an upholding and display of said sacrament? In fact, such acts of violence are indicators that such a “setting apart” does not exist.

 

[sojourner]

because Gods original standard for man and woman was to be paired for life.

In an imperfect world, divorce has been rife and it is misused by many. The only permissible reason in Gods view for divorce to be legal is if one or the other committs adultery. There is no other reason for divorce and Jesus role is to reinstate Gods laws morals and stgandards beginning with his followers.

So no divorce unless one committs adultery.

So, one can lie and be untrustworthy, and the marriage still be ok? One can commit acts of physical and/or emotional abuse and the marriage still be ok? One can steal from the other and that’s ok? The Bible makes other allowances for humanity’s imperfection. Your view is theologically untenable.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So, one can lie and be untrustworthy, and the marriage still be ok? One can commit acts of physical and/or emotional abuse and the marriage still be ok? One can steal from the other and that’s ok? The Bible makes other allowances for humanity’s imperfection. Your view is theologically untenable.

Quite so..
It is not the principle behind marriage which is failing in modern society. It is more of a fundamental nature.
Greed and urbanisation since the industrial revolution, is turning us away from G-d. It is a punishment for our own greed.

Unfortunately, the punishment does not just fall on the guilty. That is why it is so important that people with faith fight against corruption.
Climate-change is a case in point. It affects all, but does not discriminate between the perpetrators and those that have little to consume. [ i.e. the poor ]

 

[Bree]

So, one can lie and be untrustworthy, and the marriage still be ok? One can commit acts of physical and/or emotional abuse and the marriage still be ok? One can steal from the other and that’s ok? The Bible makes other allowances for humanity’s imperfection. Your view is theologically untenable.

those are Gods conditions for divorce. however that does not mean that a marriage mate must stay with an abusive partner.

The Christian scriptures make allowance for 'separation'

1cor7:10 To the married people I give instructions, not I but the Lord, that a wife should not separate from her husband.+ 11 But if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled with her husband; and a husband should not leave his wife.+

Why does Paul put in the caveat 'but if she does' ? Because sometimes separation may be necessary and if it happens for whatever reason the only requirement is that she 'remain unmarried' meaning being separated is not a ticket to find a new partner and commit adultery. Gods standards on marriage are still at play even when separated.

All personal choices are permissible by God if they are done for the right reason and uphold his requirements .

 

[oldbadger]

Title question
But why did he do this? I skipped to the Gospels in my bible read through which is exciting but some things Jesus did I didn't like, this is one

It's just a pity that you couldn't have 'skipped us' to those gospel reports.

Overall he seems nice, but Jews kill him even though he acts like their leader they always wanted? I don't like Peter he is too pushy sometimes

Jesus got arrested for rioting and picketing the Temple Courts, two days running.