Let the reader decide (Eph 4:14).
each:
Does Romans 7:1-3 affirm different rules for women and men regarding adultery?
- Thread starter Sonnet
- Start date
each:
You will be condemned for your attempted distortion of the scriptures (Prov. 30:5, 6). :burnlib:
Sonnet
New member
Let the reader decide (Eph 4:14).
That doesn't constitute a refutation of the Hebrew scriptures apparent acceptance of polygamy.
Sonnet
New member
You're not in a position to know that that is the case.
Sonnet
New member
Sonnet
New member
Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
I have one other thread on this site and I have dealt with individuals that are disruptive to the topic, but I am letting you know that I have permanent-ignored [MENTION=10856]serpentdove[/MENTION]. I perceive them as disruptive and incapable of being reasoned with. I don't do this ever, but it seems they have a holier than thou mannerism and are full of pride that causes them to disrupt meaningful discussion in exchange for religious condemnation.
If more people like [MENTION=5868]chair[/MENTION] chip in, this thread will grow a deeply meaningful knowledge base to draw from.
Last edited:
You will be shocked to hear me say this, but in Patriarchal context of the Torah, I agree.
Further scriptures reign this matter in and I'm certain you and I disagree on this, but on your statement, in reference to the Torah, I completely agree.
There is something basic about the "Law" that Christians have difficulty understanding- but Jesus understood. You tend to think that the Law is only what is in the 5 books of Moses. That is not the case. There is also an oral tradition, and traditions that allow the rabbis in their generation to apply the Law differently, and in many cases to be stricter than the original Law of Moses. Which is exactly what Jesus was doing.
By the way, we called the rules that we live by Halacha, a term which is based on the root for WALKINg, so one could translate it as "the path" or "the way".
By the way, we called the rules that we live by Halacha, a term which is based on the root for WALKINg, so one could translate it as "the path" or "the way".
This is powerful! It brings new context to Jesus. I will dig on this matter too!
But if he doesn't remarry?
Women aren't really allowed to divorce their husband for adultery even in this age. The New Testament settlement of divorce in the event of adultery is given only to men- women are never given any authority.
In fact, Paul states that they are saved through childbirth, which ultimately means that they are pretty much grafted to men by the role they were given.
People need to stop pretending otherwise, Abrahamic religion is Patriarchy with God as it's head.
That's the way it's always been, stop trying to change itlain:
In fact, Paul states that they are saved through childbirth, which ultimately means that they are pretty much grafted to men by the role they were given.
People need to stop pretending otherwise, Abrahamic religion is Patriarchy with God as it's head.
That's the way it's always been, stop trying to change it
lain:
Sonnet
New member
Thanks.
Are you disinguishing Mosaic law from the law that included such tradition? Could you expound a little please?
Sonnet
New member
..then he remains within the law.
Sonnet
New member
Women aren't really allowed to divorce their husband for adultery even in this age. The New Testament settlement of divorce in the event of adultery is given only to men- women are never given any authority.
In fact, Paul states that they are saved through childbirth, which ultimately means that they are pretty much grafted to men by the role they were given.
People need to stop pretending otherwise, Abrahamic religion is Patriarchy with God as it's head.
That's the way it's always been, stop trying to change it
Mark 10:12
Yes, meaning that she only divorced him in her own mind :chuckle:
The Hellenized Jews, for example, knew more about divorce than their Israeli brothers, as Rome and Greece didn't share the same concepts relating to matrimony. What's being illustrated there is that a woman divorcing is an illusion of divorce, just in case one wants to mistake secular or pagan law as legitimate.
Sonnet
New member
That Jesus gives the example proves that it could occur does it not?
Temporary separation was something allowed in a certain circumstance- women could petition to separate herself from her husband for a time until a matter between them was resolved.
Among the Israelis, it wasn't much of a problem, but among those in other places, particularly Greece and Rome, women were separating and then remarrying.
The message is an affirmation, not a liberation, of women in regard to marriage.
Sonnet
New member
Matthew 19:9 confirms that she may lawfully divorce an adulterous husband and remarry...unless you think Jesus was upholding sexual discrimination.
If the Hebrew scriptures permit polygyny - and Jesus upheld the law (Mat 5:17-18) - then polygyny would still be permissible wouldn't it?
It confirms that a man can divorce his wife if she commits adultery. It's only 'sexual discrimination' in your feminized bias- women were made for the man, not man for the woman. A man is not obligated to remain with a woman defiled by another man.
Polygamy was something only men were allowed to do.
Here we go right back around to the key point- women were made for the man and not man for the woman.
The apostles state that matrimony should be between one man and woman because the only thing polygamy was good for was giving women status in return for giving the man a patent on legacy.
In other words, they were employed baby cannons :chuckle: