Let's compare Jesus and Muhammed (and debate homosexuality) (and Tombstone).

#1,176
#1,176
ridethelightening said:
Sorry, it was divorce and remarriage, although one could make the case for multiple wives. Passage hits on other things in this thread too.

Matthew 19: 3-9

3*And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" 4*He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5*and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast 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 not man separate." 7*They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" 8*He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9*And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."
Click to expand...

I see that as a rebuke of divorce (except in cases when the marriage was unlawful or the wife is unfaithful), but not a specific rebuke of polygamy.

In a lawful situation, why could it not be that God joined a man and woman, made them one flesh, then the man married again, and God made them one flesh?

The only place I have found polygamy rebuked, in the New Testament, is from Paul in discussing the requisite lifestyles of deacons.
 
#1,177
#1,177
IPorange said:
I feel like that just kicked even more dust up on this. I actually read this recently in my current New Testament run-through I started last week.

It seems that Moses was bending rules for the ole grumpy Israelites and their shrew wives.

And why didn't Jesus answer the original question directly?
Click to expand...

Because he never does that. He speaks in platitudes and veers off topic.
 
Last edited:
#1,179
#1,179
therealUT said:
I see that as a rebuke of divorce (except in cases when the marriage was unlawful or the wife is unfaithful), but not a specific rebuke of polygamy.
Click to expand...

It's not, but I don't feel like it's really that crazy to interpret that quote as anti-polygamy.
 
#1,180
#1,180
tvolsfan said:
I honestly think it seemed pretty direct. He didn't simply say 'no,' but he didn't really dance around the question, either.
Click to expand...

Seems extremely qualified, IMO.

Divorces were not just given out on a whim in the Old Testament; there are rules laid down in the Pentateuch which constitute the grounds for divorce: namely, the man and/or the woman break their marriage vows and/or the woman could request a divorce to escape an actively or passively abusive husband. Other than that, the Old Testament view of divorce is that it is a permanent covenant with God.
 
#1,181
#1,181
tvolsfan said:
It's not, but I don't feel like it's really that crazy to interpret that quote as anti-polygamy.
Click to expand...

Right, it is easy for one to jump to the conclusion and interpret that as anti-polygamy; however, given in such a vague manner, one cannot specifically say that Jesus was rebuking polygamy.

As with all the references to Mosaic Law, they are sophisticated dances by Jesus and/or Paul.
 
#1,184
#1,184
The whole Bible is riddled with question marks if you ask me.

The famous "he who has not sinned shall cast the first stone" story is one. At the end, according to most interpretations, it was just him and the prostitute talking. If that is the case, who hell really knows what was said, and who is narrating the story?
 
#1,185
#1,185
rjd970 said:
The whole Bible is riddled with question marks if you ask me.

The famous "he who has not sinned shall cast the first stone" story is one. At the end, according to most interpretations, it was just him and the prostitute talking. If that is the case, who hell really knows what was said, and who is narrating the story?
Click to expand...

Morgan Freeman.
 
#1,186
#1,186
therealUT said:
Right, it is easy for one to jump to the conclusion and interpret that as anti-polygamy; however, given in such a vague manner, one cannot specifically say that Jesus was rebuking polygamy.
Click to expand...

True, but he wasn't being asked about polygamy, so I don't fault him for the response he gave.
 
#1,187
#1,187
tvolsfan said:
True, but he wasn't being asked about polygamy, so I don't fault him for the response he gave.
Click to expand...

He did not in anyway confront the Mosaic Law regarding divorce, either; he said marriage is permanent, unless one of the partners is unfaithful and/or the original marriage was unlawful.

The thing he left out from the Mosaic Law was the divorce concession for abusive relationships. The consequences of that omission were probably pretty dire for a handful of Christian wives over the next two-thousand years.
 
#1,188
#1,188
therealUT said:
Seems extremely qualified, IMO.

Divorces were not just given out on a whim in the Old Testament; there are rules laid down in the Pentateuch which constitute the grounds for divorce: namely, the man and/or the woman break their marriage vows and/or the woman could request a divorce to escape an actively or passively abusive husband. Other than that, the Old Testament view of divorce is that it is a permanent covenant with God.
Click to expand...
I'm a little confused about this response. Were you agreeing that his answer was pretty direct about this issue?
 
#1,189
#1,189
I don't know if I'm a good Christian for defending Jesus, or a bad Christian for not being in church today for the Good Friday service.
 
Last edited:
#1,190
#1,190
tvolsfan said:
I'm a little confused about this response. Were you agreeing that his answer was pretty direct about this issue?
Click to expand...

His response did not provide any correction to the Mosaic Law; he confirmed what Moses taught (aside from the omission regarding abuse). Of course, the Mosaic Law had been exploited or perverted many times throughout the Old Testament, and each instance the Jewish community was punished with the wrath of God (exile, destruction of the Temple, etc.) The Jewish aristocracy had definitely made it easier for some persons to be granted divorces out of convenience; yet, this is not in accord with the Mosaic Law.

Ergo, Jesus' response to the question, really did not address the letter of the question as much as it addressed the current practice of the time.
 
#1,192
#1,192
tvolsfan said:
Are we talking about the same question?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Matthew 19: 3-9

3*And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" 4*He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5*and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast 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 not man separate." 7*They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" 8*He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9*And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful), except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."
Click to expand...

(Unless the marriage is unlawful): this is included in the NAB and is part of the Latin Vulgate. I am not sure what version of the Bible ridethelighting posted those verses from; apparently, that qualifier is not in his Bible.

It was never lawful, under the Mosaic Law, for a man to divorce his wife "for any reason". Then, Jesus states that it is lawful to divorce the wife if one of two conditions are met (which, is one less condition than was given in the Mosaic Law: that of abuse).
 
#1,195
#1,195
therealUT said:
"Are you the Son of God?"

"You say that I am."

What?!?! At that moment he knew he was going to be crucified anyway, why dodge the question?
Click to expand...

Read the previous chapter. As with the whole Bible, the teachings and the covenant cannot be explained in a few verses. It is the teachings as a whole.

But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" 62*And Jesus said, "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."
 
#1,199
#1,199
g8terh8ter_eric said:
That's what I am getting at, how can a heterosexual set of parents, raise a kid to believe being gay is good or OK, and yet have never experienced it themselves?? Other than teaching them tolerance, how can any heterosexual parent be OK with their child being gay?? I mean, if your not willing to do it yourself, how can you say it's OK for your child to do??
Click to expand...

Good god... ummm...

So, if you were a parent, you wouldn't raise your child to embrace tolerance... or least to be accepting of themselves? Homosexuality is a priori. It's not an acquired trait that needs to be incubated at a young age.

My parents don't smoke pot, but when they found out I was at age 16, they let it go as long as my grades were satisfactory and I didn't partake in anything else. I guess they knew alcohol, cigarettes, and hard drugs were worse for you and took the logical, open-minded approach. Now, if they don't smoke, how does one explain their acceptance of it? Was it love and logic, or was it all a lie?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top