RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Life] >> Marriage



Message

neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/2/2006 2:26:33 PM)

What your example says is this: whoever opens the doors for anything other than maintenance or emergencies will be fired.

What Jesus said is "whoever divorces for anything other than porneia will be an adulterer".

Using the logical opposite in each case and restating in the positive we have the following:

Your example: you may open these doors during the day for emergencies or maintenance only.

Jesus said: you may divorce your spouse for porneia only.



Fritzpw_Admin -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/2/2006 3:30:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska

"Dynamic equivalence" is just a subtil way of saying a loose paraphrase. That describes the NIV especially.


This thread is NOT about Bible translations.

Please do not side track this discussion in that direction.

If one wants to discuss Bible translations please go to the Bible folder and dig into one of the many threads on that topic.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Please do not reply to this message within the Community.

Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.

Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.



alaska -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/3/2006 8:06:20 PM)

I spoke today to a highly qualified English teacher at the Community College here where I live.
She agreed that the following statements (or very similar, I may not have copied it exactly as I shared it with her) are gramatically correct. I have changed my example slightly to more clearly illustrate the points I have been making. I have also numbered them again to correllate to the numbering of Jesus's statements in Matt. 5.


31 You have heard that it is being said that the back doors should be allowed to be opened for the receiving of goods.
32 But I say to you, that whoever opens those doors, unless it be for maintenance or emergencies, will cause themselves to be fired.

She agreed that:
1) The allowance made by, "unless it be for maintenance or emergencies", does NOT provide allowance for what is being directly addressed.
2) The words "unless it be for" (or "except it be for") as used above, does not provide allowance for that which is being directly addressed, which in this case is the opening for receiving.
3) Stating acceptable reasons for the use of those doors, other than what they have heard they should be allowed for, serves to emphasise prohibition and not allowance in this construct.
4) If "exception clause" is defined in the technical definitions of terms in English to mean an exception to the rule of what is being discussed as to make allowance to some degree of what is being directly discussed, then the use of the phrase "unless it be for" or ("except it be for") as used in the above example is not an "exception clause".

Seeing that it is proven above that an "except it be for" statement can in fact divert attention to something other that what is being addressed in order to emphasise total prohibition to what is being addressed, the opponents of the no-divorce position can no longer claim that Jesus' exception statement cannot relate to a different kind of divorce than that which is under discussion.

If there did not exist a premarital divorce for fornication, as we see referred to in the first chapter of the same book wherein is found the only two references of putting away for fornication, then the pro-divorce camp would have a no contest verdict, but there would then still be the problem that the full context of Matt. 5:32 shows the speaker to have contradicted himself by initially clearing the divorced woman from adultery, but in the next breath claiming whoever marries her commits adultery!
But since "adultery" is not the word used in the exception statement, but rather "fornication", which can be used to denote specifically what is committed by single people, along with that we see in Matt. 1 an example of a man about to divorce his wife for fornication, the exception statement can apply to a divorce other than what is being directly addressed as a means to emphasise prohibition. By this, the woman put away for fornication is not being caused to commit adultery, as the language states, which statement when applied to a woman still single would then NOT contradict the last clause in that verse.
Neuro's above post, is an oversimplification that totally omits the effect of verse 31 and the effect of "but I say to you". His simplified rendering omits;
1) that the exception statement does not provide allowance for what is being addressed.
2) that the exception statement is stated directly in connection with what is being caused.

Neuro writes:
What your example says is this: whoever opens the doors for anything other than maintenance or emergencies will be fired.

No Neuro, it says a great deal more than that.
My example indicates that discussion is being had to determine whether or not the doors should be allowed to be opened for a specific use. A serious declaration is made in verse 32 possessing an exception statement that does not provide allowance for their being opened for that use. In fact, the exception statement absolutely prohibits their use for that. My example also reveals that something negative is being caused if anyone is to do what some believe should be allowed.

Similarly, Jesus is oversimplified and thereby misrepresented with statements like this:
Jesus said no divorce except for adultery. This is totally out of context and the meaning which the full context reveals is lost.

Jesus' words in Matt. 5 indicate the common peoples acceptance, at least to some extent, of the postmarital divorce. He then makes a statement containing an exception statement that can be understood to not in any way provide allowance for a postmarital divorce, but rather the total prohibition thereof. And as in the case in my example, doing what is under discussion, the postmarital divorce, causes something negative that they should naturally want to avoid thereby providing reason for them not doing it.



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/4/2006 8:36:28 PM)

Alaska, you need to disconnect your example from the requirement for betrothal divorce. They are two entirely different debates. The English syntactic example you give only serves to answer the questions of verse 31 and 32 and no native English speaker could honestly agree that your example, even as modified, to mean "you can never open the doors". Your example both times clearly says "you may open the doors only for maintenance or emergencies". That is so simple, even a child understands that much English grammar.

The action statement in your example 31 is "opening the doors" and the reason statement is "receiving". In Matthew 5:31, the action statement is "divorce" and the reason statement is "any reason".

The prohibition in your example 32 is "never open the doors" and the consequence is "be fired". And in Matthew 5:32 the prohibition is "never divorce" and the consequence is "adultery".

By comparison the exception clause in your example 31 says "unless for maintenance or emergencies" and the exception clause in Matthew 5:32 is "except for porneia".

This is how your example lines up with Matthew 5:31-32.

Therefore, it is evident that the exception clause (or whatever you want to call it now) in both the example and Matthew 5:31-32 provides an exception to the prohibition given in the text. An exception to a prohibition by its use in this construct means precisely that the prohibition is not in place for the given exception.

Therefore, it is evident that the doors may not be opened for receiving at all. And no one may divorce for "any reason". And clearly the doors may be opened for maintenance or emergencies. And clearly as well, one may divorce for porneia.

Any other understanding of either of these texts is in error.

The assertion that you discussed this with an English teacher is irrelevant given that you are the only source of the text and the example and thus you were the one who provided the example and could steer it to your particular leaning. Which is exactly what anyone would do in such a position. I am not saying you did anything underhanded or wrong. I am saying that you sought an example to prove your point. You think you have. I still disagree if you are still trying to assert that your example says "you may never open the doors or you will be fired".

Answer this question from your example, and only your example. Can the doors be opened for emergencies and maintenance without being fired?

You answer that question now please. Otherwise, I have nothing more to say about your arbitrary example of an English sentence structure.

Now to the betrothal divorce. Answer this question. Do you believe the Mosaic Law provide a means for divorce from marriage, whether from betrothal or consumated marriage

Now if your answer to the first question regarding your example says anything other than "yes you may open the doors for maintenance or emergencies without being fired", then I am completely finished even discussing it as I would have to assume you are no longer debating in good faith but instead have ceased to be honest about the example.

And if your answer to the second question is "no, the Mosaic Law did not provide a means for divorce from marriage from betrothal through to consumated marriage", then I am completely finished even discussing that with you as I would have to assume you are deliberately denying the factual evidence of thousands of years of Jewish history.

In other words, I am completely tired of your example English text, and I am completely tired of having to remind you over and over of the facts of Jewish Law that exist now and have for thousands of years.



alaska -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/5/2006 12:47:24 AM)

quote:

Answer this question from your example, and only your example. Can the doors be opened for emergencies and maintenance without being fired?


That's the whole point, the statement possessing the word "except" did not make an exception to the rule of what is being discussed which was a particular kind of opening: the opening for receiving. Yes, the exception statement permits and pointed to the acceptable opening for maintenance and emergencies as a means of emphasising prohibition of the kind of opening under discussion.
Yet you maintain that Jesus' exception statement had to be an exception to what is under discussion in verse 31 relating to the postmarital divorce!
Yet you maintain even though evidence is there from Matt. 1 Deut 22:23, 24 and Deut 20:7 proving both that there existed in their culture the unmarried "wife" and also the premarital "putting away" of such a wife, that the statement containing "except" could not possibly have pertained to another kind of divorce than what we are familiar with in modern culture.
It is absolutely certain that the kind of divorce Jesus is addressing in Matt. 5;31 is the postmarital divorce. The statement with "except" in the next clause, 5:32, could have pointed to the other kind of divorce as a means of emphasising prohibition to the kind of divorce initially addressed, which type of language construct is proven to be correct and understandable by my example and by those knowledgeable in such easy to understand everyday use of language.
You wrote:

quote:

The prohibition in your example 32 is "never open the doors" and the consequence is "be fired". And in Matthew 5:32 the prohibition is "never divorce" and the consequence is "adultery".


You have very plainly misunderstood: The statement with "except" makes it very plain that opening the doors for maintenance or emergencies is completely allowable. "Never open the doors" is absolutely NOT what the context is saying which even a child will understand. Or is this another attempt at satire?
You should have rather written, The prohibition in your example 32 is "never open the doors for receiving" and the consequence is "causing yourself to be fired". And in Matthew 5:32 the prohibition is; never divorce postmaritally, with the consequences of causing the wife so divorced to commit adultery.


quote:

Answer this question from your example, and only your example. Can the doors be opened for emergencies and maintenance without being fired?


Yes, absolutely. this is verse 32. The stated allowance serves to prohibit the kind of opening spoken of in verse 31. Can you deny that?

31 You have heard that it is being said that the back doors should be allowed to be opened for the receiving of goods.
32 But I say to you, that whoever opens those doors, unless it be for maintenance or emergencies, will cause themselves to be fired.

Now answer this, is the kind of opening in verse 31 applying to any kind of opening whatsoever, or is it referring to a kind of opening that distinguishes it from other kinds of openings? If you maintain that 31 applies to only "opening", and not specifically to opening for receiving, as clearly worded, then it is you I believe who are being dishonest.

Ok, so you point out that Moses' allowance provided for "any uncleanness" as a grounds to divorce.
But Jesus was not addressing reasons, but the postmarital divorce itself. Going back to Adam and Eve, whose marriage all subsequent marriages are based, Jesus establishes the status of all marriages to be on equal footing with theirs, wherein only death could alter the reality of their being literally one flesh.
When asked about what Moses suffered, Jesus effectively and vehemently abolished what he allowed citing the original intention and reality upon which all marriages are based: one flesh until death. Hence the origin of the accurate reflection of truth as found in the old solemn and faithful; "till death do us part", which must also be deemed as deception along with Mark and Luke by those pushing for the putting asunder of that which God has joined together.

That is a horribly frightful place to be in.



stateofgrace -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/5/2006 10:00:29 AM)

You know, Alaska, I have found very few people around here in the forums "pushing" for putting asunder.

There are a number of people who were cast aside by their ex-spouses. There are some people who may have actually been active in the divorce proceedings due to adultry or flagrant abuse (which some consider breaking of the marriage contract) on the part of their spouse. But I don't there have been ANY I've run into that have considered divorce any less then a tragedy.

The only thing I've seen a number of people people "pushing" for...is separation in cases of severe abuse, and not for the intention of divorce, but for the intention of getting the victum to safety, usually with the hope that the abuser will seek help.



alaska -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/5/2006 1:42:28 PM)

Declaring that a divorce does in fact dissolve the marriage is in itself a pushing of putting asunder that which God has joined together.
Take some big names like John Hegee out of San Antonio who is seen on TV. He is pushing for the putting asunder of what God has joined together by lying on Jesus' behalf to say that the many remarried people in his congregation are not committing adultery by being involved with someone other than their lawful spouse. How is this done? Very simply by recognising the divorce as a dissolvement of that first and true marriage and then recognising the second spouse to have replaced the first. This sets the wrongly presumed power of the divorce over the actual permanency of marriage. In fact it denies the permanency of marriage. It is a pushing for the putting asunder of that which God has joined together. Jesus said let not man do that, but false teachers like Hegee and Graham and others assure those having difficulties that they may very well do that which Jesus said man is not to do!!

(edited for TOS 6)

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge."



Restored_Heart -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/6/2006 12:40:29 PM)

quote:

alaska
You have very plainly misunderstood: The statement with "except" makes it very plain that opening the doors for maintenance or emergencies is completely allowable. "Never open the doors" is absolutely NOT what the context is saying which even a child will understand. Or is this another attempt at satire?
You should have rather written, The prohibition in your example 32 is "never open the doors for receiving" and the consequence is "causing yourself to be fired". And in Matthew 5:32 the prohibition is; never divorce postmaritally, with the consequences of causing the wife so divorced to commit adultery.


Where do you see Jesus talking about postmarital divorce in these passages? His is talking about divorce (in general) and for any reason.


Mt 19: 3-12 (NASB)

3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" 4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5 and said, `FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? 6 "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." 7 They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?" 8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." 10 The disciples said to Him, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry." 11 But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 "For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."


Mt 5: 27-32 (NASB)

27 "You have heard that it was said, `YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 "If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 "If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell. 31 "It was said, `WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE'; 32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.


Please show where premarital divorce is being addressed, or deterimination of post-marital from pre-marital divorce.


In your example, you say that opening the doors for receiving is equal to divorce after marriage. You gave the situation - receiving, as an example of when not to open the doors (consequence - you will be fired). Please show where Jesus uses words to show postmarriage, as the situation as the example of when not to divorce (consequence - you will commit adultery).

These two examples do not appear to be congruous.



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/6/2006 12:47:29 PM)

The assertion that divorce in Matthew meant "pre-marital" only is absurd and defies the definition of divorce and marriage in Judaic history. Stick with facts, not your imagination.

Marriage from betrothal through consumated marriage was binding. Divorce was permitted for all marriages that failed and met the criteria set forth in the Scriptures. These are the facts of history. I suggest you learn them.



alaska -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/6/2006 2:45:42 PM)

What is really absurd is an interpretationof the exception statement that does not fit the context in Matt. 5 and denies the straightforward wording in Mark Luke and 1 Cor. 7:39.
In 5:32 what is being caused in connection with the exception statement (that exempts the causing thereof when done for the allowable reason of fornication), conflicts with the last clause thereby forcing an edition of what Jesus said. This places words in Jesus' mouth causing him to contradict his plain wording in Mark and Luke.
If we had been raised where we were very familiar with the divorce for fornication of the unmarried wife, then Jesus statement in 5:32 would have been as easy to understand as my real life example where an exception statement is inserted that prohibits what is being discussed.
By acknowledging the premarital divorce for fornication exemplified in Matt. 1 and interpreting the clause for fornication to apply exclusively to that, there is no need to do violence to Mark Luke and 1Cor. 7:39 as you are presently forced to do by your interpretation.

OK, lets go to 19:9.
If this means for adultery, then the man can marry another after divorcing for adultery. But the sentence is inextricably connected to the last clause! To whom does the last clause pertain? It is addressed to divorced women in general with no qualification. That would include her divorced for adultery. So the man would be free to marry another but the woman would commit adultery if she remarried which is total confusion as it defies then the dissolvement of the marriage. The man can marry another but the divorced for adultery cannot. To get around the apparent meaning created by the exemption and last clause, the perpetrators of pushing for putting asunder what God has joined together are again forced to commit violence against the Word and change the direction of the last clause by an amendment thereto.

But again, by acknowleging that the exception statement was understood by all to pertain to the premarital divorce, no need arises to butcher the Word. The man is free to marry someone other than who he divorced for fornication because he is still single as is the woman he divorced. The last clause pertains to the divorced from a joined marriage thereby validating the last clause.

OK now show everyone what I am talking about concerning the necessary amendment to the last clause in order to make 19:9 fit with your interpretation of the exception statement.



Restored_Heart -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/6/2006 3:20:22 PM)

quote:

alaska
OK now show everyone what I am talking about concerning the necessary amendment to the last clause in order to make 19:9 fit with your interpretation of the exception statement.


There is no ammendment needed, Jesus said what He said.

Betrothed was looked at the same as married, just not consumated. Divorce was necessary for dissolution in both cases. In fact, divorce was given to prevent further evil - see John Gill's commentary on the above verses.

You still did not address what I said. If you look at the cultural times, your interpretation of what culture was like at that time, is different than what the culture was like (according to the Jewish history I have researched). Can you provide historical background for your point of view?

(as an aside, you came across rather harshly. I am sorry that you felt like I warranted such a response, I thought that I had posed a legitimate question. I know topics such as these can get rather frustrating - I fight the urge to snap back at those that frustrate me all of the time. I apologize if I have seemed harsh to you. I will question and pull apart arguments, but hopefully, you will never see me attack anyone (but I will ask forgiveness if I do).)



lastblast -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/6/2006 5:35:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hunterjumper777

In fact, divorce was given to prevent further evil - see John Gill's commentary on the above verses.


John Gill: and shall marry another woman, committeth adultery;
Marks adds, "against her"; which may be understood either of the woman he marries, which not being lawfully done, she lives in adultery with the husband of another woman; or of his former wife, and who is still his wife, and to whose injury he has married another; and he not only commits adultery himself, but, as in (Matthew 5:32) "causeth her to commit adultery also", by being the occasion of marrying another man, when she is still his lawful wife:

and whoso marrieth her which is put away,
for any other cause than adultery,

doth commit adultery
also; since he cohabits with the wife of another man; (See Gill on Matthew 5:32)

Gill is VERY confusing on his interpretation of divorce allowance and the marriage covenant. Either the 1st marriage is dissolved through the husband's adultery (remarriage), or it's not---the divorce obviously did not dissolve the covenant in this case.

Gill says the woman who marries the husband who wrongly put away his wife is committing adultery through cohabitating with ANOTHER WOMAN'S husband. In the same vein, a woman WRONGLY put away is not free to marry another man----even though now he is committing adultery by cohabiting with another woman---who is not his wife in the Lord's eyes.......

Commentators are ok to check out, but as can be seen, they are just as confused on this issue and just as contradictory in their application as most are today in the Church. In Him, Cindy



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/7/2006 7:33:57 AM)

Its odd how God points things out. Last night we opened the Bible to read together and flipped to 1 Timothy. This passage reminds me so much of this thread.

1 Timothy 6:3-6

    3 If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness,

    4 he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions,

    5 and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.

    6 But godliness actually is a means of great gain when accompanied by contentment.

As I have explained from the beginning, God has a definition of marriage and a definition of divorce, both of which you deny. You have constructed arbitrary examples of word groupings as "proof" you are right. Yet in fact, you have only proven the scriptures true, exactly as they are written. You have proven Matthew 5:31-32 means exactly what Jesus said, divorce is permitted in cases of porneia. This proof comes from your own example. And likewise by your argumentation, you have proven other scriptures true too, including the one quoted above.

But for myself and my family, we will continue to read the Bible for what it is, in proper context, and we will not need to consult English teachers to look for tiny bits of word groupings to make us feel that we are right. In short, you seek to shape the word of God to fit your opinion. Instead, we read the Bible, study it, and shape our minds from it.

Be content that God is the God of mercy and grace and stop trying to find a God of wrath and judgment. Stop seeking the condemnation of your brothers and sisters because they do not believe as you do. Instead, see how God reveals Himself to all of us in our lives and in ways that for now, you believe to be "wrong". As for me, I don't want to attribute the good works of God to demons, I give God the glory in all good things, including my marriage.

"For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment." - James 2:13



alaska -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/7/2006 11:44:30 AM)

Mt. 1 simply reveals the existance of the premarital divorce as you admit. Seeing it existed it cannot be denied that the exception clause can apply to it as language accommodates the shifting of an exception clause to apply to a closely associated aspect of what is being addressed in order to emphasise prohibition of what is under discussion.

If those responding were real honest they would admit that the example I gave establishes the principle that an exception clause can in fact be used this way where duality exists. Duality exists (two kinds of divorces) qualifying the exception statement in Matt 5 and 19 to serve as does the one in the example wherein it prohibits what is being directly addressed. Jesus is directly addressing the postmariital divorce. The postmarital divorce is prohibited by the exception statement as the opening for receiving was prohibited by the exception statement in my real life example.

See Post 153

There also was not enough honesty to admit that the last clause in Matt. 5:32 and 19 :9 have to be edited to make it fit with the idea that adultery is a grounds for divorce.
If he meant for divorce then the whole context has to fit. What does it mean that she is not being caused to commit adultery if put away for fornication?
By cutting the statement the meaning is reversed like:
"This house was acquired, not by the payment of money."

By adding the last few words that have been left out the meaning is completely changed:
"This house was acquired, not by the payment of money that he earned".

Not with money/yes with money.

By taking Jesus' words out of context of the effect of the causal statement, a meaning is created that is opposite to what what is stated. Interpreting the exception to mean allowing divorce for adultery means the causal statement is confusion as written and must be amended to fit. By acknowledging the existance of two kinds of divorce and how an exception applying to "the other way" as a way to emphasise prohibition as my example demonstrated, then the postmarital divorce is prohibited by the exception statement and the causal statement makes perfect sense as written because the man and woman in this kind of divorce are still single and therefore free to marry. They are not committing adultery if they marry after the divorce for fornication as Matt. 5 provides this for the woman and Matt 19 provides this for the man.



laura... -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/7/2006 11:54:37 AM)

quote:

Duality exists (two kinds of divorces)


The only two kinds of divorces addressed in scripture is 1) putting away without a certificate of divorce 2) legal divorce which must include a certificate of divorce. Number one is NOT a divorce and anyone who puts away their wife without giving them a certificate of divorce is still married and thus any remarriage is illegal and adultery. Number 2 is a legal divorce and severs the marriage relationship and the parties are no longer married. In the culture of the time the betrothal period was just as binding as the post-consumated marriage and both states of marriage required a certificate of divorce in order to be legally divorced.



Restored_Heart -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/7/2006 1:40:11 PM)

Disagreeing with something that is flawed and incorrect is not being dishonest. Accusing someone of dishonesty, because they disagree with the question is like the lawyer that asks the question in this situation:

quote:

A "loaded question", like a loaded gun, is a dangerous thing. A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.

Since this example is a yes/no question, there are only the following two direct answers:

"Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which entails "I was beating my wife."
"No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which entails "I am still beating my wife."
Thus, either direct answer entails that you have beaten your wife, which is, therefore, a presupposition of the question. So, a loaded question is one which you cannot answer directly without implying a falsehood or a statement that you deny. For this reason, the proper response to such a question is not to answer it directly, but to either refuse to answer or to reject the question.


Saying that we disagree with you and your relation of the example to pertain to post-marital divorce only is not dishonesty, but truth. We DO disagree with what you say.

We have done less twisting and manipulating of Jesus' words in Mt 5:31-32, and Mt 19 than you have in trying to explain your complicated exception clause example.

Just because your example is grammatically correct, does not mean that it is contextually correct. Nor does it mean that it directly translates to what Jesus is saying. I do not agree that your example shows that Jesus is addressing post-marital divorce only. There is an example that showed that betrothal divorce could happen, but that just goes to show that culturally, the Jews viewed betrothal as seriously as consumated marriage. This goes along with the cultural Jewish history, but it does NOT prove your assertion.

You will need to prove your point from using Jewish cultural history, otherwise you are just manipulating words.



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/7/2006 5:05:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska

Mt. 1 simply reveals the existance of the premarital divorce as you admit.

That is absurd. Divorce meant dissolution of the marriage bond from betrothal through consumated marriage. All marriage is binding, from betrothal on. To insist that divorce means something different is to deny the facts of Judaic reality.

Your continued denial of this is annoying.



alaska -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/8/2006 9:31:23 AM)

Had Joseph left father and mother and cleaved to his wife thereby becoming one flesh?
Did not Jesus specify that as spoken in Gen. 2 as the definition of what God has joined together that man may not put asunder?
So it should be agreed that they were not "married" after the definition we are familiar with in modern culture, which definition the ancients were also familiar with.
So there did in fact exist a premarital divorce after that definition of "married" as proven by the fact that Joseph was about to "put away" (the same term used for divorce) Mary "BEFORE they came together".
They had not yet entered that door of having left and cleaved therefore the declaration "what therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder" did not apply.
Since they therefore had not crossed that threshhold, terminating the plans to do so is permitted and does not put asunder what God has joined together. Well, because they have not gotten married yet! And she would therefore not have been caused to commit adultery by being so divorced as per Matt. 5:32.

But it is hopeless to quote that declaration to the divorce pushers because they don't believe it to really means that.
Please write underneath that quote what it really means by your estimation.



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/8/2006 11:25:48 AM)

I just posted about Mark 10 in the remarriage thread. In that I discuss a little about "one flesh union".

A person was married once they agreed to marry someone. Once they had sex the marriage was consumated. The "one flesh union" does not mean marriage, it is a distinction about marriage and relationships (including those illicit ones with harlots).

Marriage is the vowed covenant to marry, and the vowed covenant of marriage. It is not a one flesh union.

When Joseph was bethrothed to Mary, he would be required to divorce her to put her away because that was required to end a marriage. The fact that they had not consumated the marriage does not reduce the covenant of the marriage promise they had made.

Here is an odd thought on that situation. Joseph took his "betrothed" wife with him to report for taxation in Bethlehem. This would imply that Joseph and Mary were "living together" if they were not married. But if they were married, we know that they did not have sex at this time until after Jesus was born. So then was Mary his wife or not? Hmmmm... just an odd thought.



onefamily3 -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/11/2006 6:48:24 PM)

Divorce is sometimes used a just a way out . When you stand before the Pastor or Judge and made a vow to do this for better or worse until death do you part. Now if you not in an abusive situation or your spouse is constantly commiting adultery who should seek all way of reconciling and making the marriage work. Because God didn't force anyone to get married and I'm sure there wasn't a gun place to your head to make you get married. For anyone thinking about marriage you and your mate need to go through some pre-marriage counseling and sit down and talk to find out what you what for a spouse and what your mate want for a spouse.



alaska -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/12/2006 11:04:42 AM)

The pdf (pro divorce folks) are the ones manipulating words. They force their own take on the two verses containing the exception clause disregarding that those verses can pertain to the premarital divorce because of the duality of definitions of "wife", "putting away" and "adultery" and also because of the available meaning of fornication pertaining exclusively to the unmarried.
"What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder" is plainly manipulated to not mean what those words plainly say. According to them, man may very well put asunder what God has joined together. Whosoever is manipulated to mean something other that what that word says.
Mark 10:2-12 Luke 16:18 and 1 Cor. 7:39 are false as plainly written if the pdf interpretataion of the exception clause is correct. Those believing those verses as written are considered as deceived by those corrupted with the lack of knowledge that there did exist a premarital divorce for fornication and that language accomodates the use of an exception statement to prohibit what is being directly addressed. Jesus is directly addressing divorce from the joined- in-marriage wife and the exception statement prohibits that as the exception statement in my example prohibits what is being directly addressed.

Someone competent in languages will agree that an exception statement can in fact as my example demonstrates, emphasise prohibition.

So the honest thing to do is admit that an exception statement can in fact be used to prohibit what is being addressed as my example proves. And then if you honestly don't believe that the exception statement in 5:32 and 19:9 is being used in that same way, you should state the reasons from a how-language-works perspective.
Everything I have read about ancient Jewish culture that did not conflict with what the scriptures say, supports the premarital divorce we see in Matt. 1. What aspect of the premarital divorce for fornication do you not understand? Jesus clarified that the leaving and cleaving is what constitutes "married" after our definition. Though "married" as the word "wife" and "divorce" could also relate to the betrothed (those words had dual definitions) this does not alter the fact that the betrothed couple were not deemed as that which God had joined together according to Jesus' definition of "what God has joined together". An argument from Jewish culture disregarding the commentary and definitions clarified by Jesus is a non argument.
Your references from Jewish culture in support of your view need to be presented here and judged whether or not they fit with what Jesus said. I suspect that this supposed "Jewish culture" is being twisted to deny what we see plainly about to take place in Matt. 1: the premarital divorce for fornication. That happens to be the only feasible explanation of the putting away for fornication Jesus referred to because it can be understood to perfectly fit the entire contexts of those two verses and also to not deny the plain meaning of Mark Luke and Paul.
The pdf are forced to change the meaning of Mark Luke and Paul by their interpretation of the putting away for fornication.
So I again ask you to write Mark 10:11, 12 and underneath it write what it has to mean according to the pd position.
The pdf folks cannot write underneath those words, those very same words. That is because their interpretation of the exception statement prohibits them from doing so.

The tdf (till death folks) on the other hand can find no better meaning to Mark 10:11,12 than those exact words. This is because their interpretation of the exception statement in Matthew fully supports Mark 10:2-12 as written, word for word. The same is true of Luke 16:18 and 1 Cor. 7:39

So are you pdf in denial that an exception statement can be used to prohibit what is being addressed and can pertain to something other than what is being addressed though closely associated? Surely Greek, like English is very capable of this seeing that the verses in the KJV were straight across word for word renderings of words written in Greek.
I am sure that my example concerning the opening of the doors can be translated into Greek and that it will possess the same meaning and effect we see in English.



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/12/2006 2:53:31 PM)

Alaska, your contrived example is no longer relevant.



Fritzpw_Admin -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/14/2006 10:43:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fritzpw_Admin

ADMIN'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE

To everyone,

I want to be very clear about something.

The purpose of this thread is to dicuss the TOPIC of divorce.

It is NOT for the purpose of discussing YOUR divorce.

I have found that people who post with statements like, "so because I divorced my spouse I am now forever a sinner and never to be forgiven?" are opening themselves up to being hurt or hurting someone else.

If you are not able to participate in this topic without discussing the experience of YOUR divorce then I must request that you stay out of the thread.

Posts which ignore this warning will be removed without warning and may result in other action in accordance with the Terms of Service.

Thank you for your attention, understanding, and cooperation.

Please do not reply to this message within the Community.

Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.

Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.

Just a reminder



alaska -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/14/2006 3:42:17 PM)

quote:

Someone competent in languages will agree that an exception statement can in fact as my example demonstrates, emphasise prohibition.

So the honest thing to do is admit that an exception statement can in fact be used to prohibit what is being addressed as my example proves. And then if you honestly don't believe that the exception statement in 5:32 and 19:9 is being used in that same way, you should state the reasons from a how-language-works perspective.



Neuro claims:
Marriage from betrothal through consumated marriage was binding.


But this is not fact according to Jesus as he commented on the intent at creation in connection with all lawful marriages, then and now. Leaving and cleaving is what constitutes what God has joined together that man may not put asunder. The bond which you speak of, according to you starts at betrothal instead of when they get married after our definition which is what Jesus is talking about: the leaving and cleaving.
You are equating the postmarital divorce with the premarital!
Jesus is more reasonable than you. He permits the customary termination of the betrothed wife for her fornication and does not bind the man to a woman for whom he has not left father and mother to cleave to.
But this is confusion because you state that both situations were "binding" but as one of the pdf you deny the concept of marriage being binding! I suspect you are giving joined marriage and betrothal the identical status, which Jesus flatly contradicts.

Please present your definition of "binding".



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/14/2006 5:51:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska

Neuro claims:
Marriage from betrothal through consumated marriage was binding.


But this is not fact according to Jesus as he commented on the intent at creation in connection with all lawful marriages, then and now.

Really? All those Jews for thousands of years had it wrong? You now assert that not only did Jesus remove the Law allowing divorce but He now redefined betrothal and marriage?

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska

Please present your definition of "binding".

Legally bound in a covenant of marriage. When a Jewish man asked a woman to marry him, he did it in front of witnesses. A document was signed. And there were consequences for breaking the betrothal. This is quite different from the modern view of engagement.

Ok, I got lazy, I pulled this from Wikipedia.

    According to the traditional view, Jewish betrothal could only be contracted in one of three ways (Mishna, tractate Kiddushim 1:1):

    1. With money (as when a man hands a woman an object of value, such as a ring or a coin, for the purpose of contracted marriage, and in the presence of two witnesses, and she actively accepts);
    2. Through a shtar, a contract containing the betrothal declaration phrased as "through this contract"; or
    3. By sexual intercourse with the intention of creating a bond of marriage, a method strongly discouraged by the rabbinic sages.

    Today only the betrothal ceremony involving the object of value (i.e. the equivalent of "with money"), almost always a ring, is practiced, but the others may be fallen back upon should a halachic dispute occur.

    Engagement for marriage was generally brought about by a third person, often a professional match-maker ("shadchan"). The process is called Shidduchim (Hebrew: matches). The shadchan received a "brokerage-fee" fixed by law or agreed upon by custom, as a rule a small percentage of the dowry. It was paid by either of the parties, or each paid one-half, at the betrothal or after the wedding. The rabbi, as a person enjoying special confidence, was also often employed as intermediary. Although the marriage preliminaries were the concern of the parents, their children were not forced into marriage over their objections.

Legal documents, consequences, lots of witnesses. This sounds pretty binding to me.

Of course the fact that Joseph was betrothed to Mary and she was called his "wife" and they had never had sex and he would have to divorce her to get out of it also lends evidence to the binding. I think more than wikipedia.



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI