Divorce and remarriage

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Before we move on, I would like for you to acknowledge that God appears to have used the “innocent party” doctrine that you disparage. And even more importantly that God equated adultery with fornication.

Let’s get this settled first. Then we will move on. Okay?

Bump for james34

[james34]

Adultery may be a type of fornication(pornea), just as is man visiting a harlott, mankind with beast,and much more.
A very distinguishing characteristic for when the type of fornication was adultery, was the following punishment. The punishment for adultery was (under the Law) to be stoned.

2)Adultery was punishable by stoning
3) If the fornication spoken of in Matthew 5 was "Adultery", then according to the law stoning would have been the answer not "putting away".
4)putting away of a wife for fornication, would be where after marriage takes place, that the spouse is found to have been sexually involved with someone before the marriage, under the law Moses allowed the putting away for this kind of fornication.
From the beginning up until the allowance was made, putting away was not allowed. What was this time,About 2000 yrs? This is a significant amount of time where putting away was not an option. So what was in existence during this time?
: Answer - What God hath joined together let not man put asunder!
Ironically this is where we also are at under grace/the dispensation of the Church.
You only become freed from the law of your spouse if they die.
If they depart they are to remain unmarried or be reconciled.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by james34

Adultery may be a type of fornication(pornea), just as is man visiting a harlott, mankind with beast,and much more.
A very distinguishing characteristic for when the type of fornication was adultery, was the following punishment. The punishment for adultery was (under the Law) to be stoned.

2)Adultery was punishable by stoning
3) If the fornication spoken of in Matthew 5 was "Adultery", then according to the law stoning would have been the answer not "putting away".
4)putting away of a wife for fornication, would be where after marriage takes place, that the spouse is found to have been sexually involved with someone before the marriage, under the law Moses allowed the putting away for this kind of fornication.
From the beginning up until the allowance was made, putting away was not allowed. What was this time,About 2000 yrs? This is a significant amount of time where putting away was not an option. So what was in existence during this time?
: Answer - What God hath joined together let not man put asunder!
Ironically this is where we also are at under grace/the dispensation of the Church.
You only become freed from the law of your spouse if they die.
If they depart they are to remain unmarried or be reconciled.

Regarding the bold. May be? Brother, let your yea be yea, and your nay be nay.

I’ve shown with Merriam Webster AND scripture that adultery IS fornication. Until that is settled anything else is founded on a fallacy.

Take your time.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by james34

!!!Hardly from silence!!!
Jesus said, Moses allowed a writ of divorcement.

Why do you from silence, assume Moses "allowed" what was already in existence?
If the "allowance" of a writ of divorcement had to be given, then it stands to reason that another way must have been in place from the beginning. The context makes this obvious. Do you care to comment on what that way might have been or what it was not?

First let me clarify something. My last comment to you was made on my phone, and the spell check did something weird. The word "coffee" should have been "offer." And I reiterate here that you OFFER nothing to support your "pre-Law" view but conjecture. You are the one making the claim divorce even for adultery was forbidden "from the beginning," and prior to the Law. You further assert that Christ was NOT affirming the true intent of the existing Law, but was revering man back to the "pre-Law" standard. This is the goofiest explanation I have ever heard.

While scripture is silent on whether divorce was permitted for adultery prior to the Law, it stands to reason it was, and that Christ including adultery (poreneo) as the sole justification for divorce and remarriage points to that being the standard prior to the Law. This is why you won't wait that Borneo is adultery, because you know it blows your theory out of the water.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by james34

Adultery may be a type of fornication(pornea), just as is man visiting a harlott, mankind with beast,and much more.
A very distinguishing characteristic for when the type of fornication was adultery, was the following punishment. The punishment for adultery was (under the Law) to be stoned.

2)Adultery was punishable by stoning
3) If the fornication spoken of in Matthew 5 was "Adultery", then according to the law stoning would have been the answer not "putting away".
4)putting away of a wife for fornication, would be where after marriage takes place, that the spouse is found to have been sexually involved with someone before the marriage, under the law Moses allowed the putting away for this kind of fornication.
From the beginning up until the allowance was made, putting away was not allowed. What was this time,About 2000 yrs? This is a significant amount of time where putting away was not an option. So what was in existence during this time?
: Answer - What God hath joined together let not man put asunder!
Ironically this is where we also are at under grace/the dispensation of the Church.
You only become freed from the law of your spouse if they die.
If they depart they are to remain unmarried or be reconciled.

You are so lost. Christ was including things as adultery that might not necessarily constitute adultery as a capital offense under the Law. Though they might not get a woman stone, they are still grounds for divorce and remarriage according to Christ.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Originalist

First let me clarify something. My last comment to you was made on my phone, and the spell check did something weird. The word "coffee" should have been "offer." And I reiterate here that you OFFER nothing to support your "pre-Law" view but conjecture. You are the one making the claim divorce even for adultery was forbidden "from the beginning," and prior to the Law. You further assert that Christ was NOT affirming the true intent of the existing Law, but was revering man back to the "pre-Law" standard. This is the goofiest explanation I have ever heard.

While scripture is silent on whether divorce was permitted for adultery prior to the Law, it stands to reason it was, and that Christ including adultery (poreneo) as the sole justification for divorce and remarriage points to that being the standard prior to the Law. This is why you won't admit that Porneo is adultery because you know it blows your theory out of the water.

Brother James. I am still having spell check issues. Please read the corrected version above. Thanks.

[james34]

Originally Posted by Originalist

First let me clarify something. My last comment to you was made on my phone, and the spell check did something weird. The word "coffee" should have been "offer." And I reiterate here that you OFFER nothing to support your "pre-Law" view but conjecture. You are the one making the claim divorce even for adultery was forbidden "from the beginning," and prior to the Law. You further assert that Christ was NOT affirming the true intent of the existing Law, but was revering man back to the "pre-Law" standard. This is the goofiest explanation I have ever heard.

While scripture is silent on whether divorce was permitted for adultery prior to the Law, it stands to reason it was, and that Christ including adultery (poreneo) as the sole justification for divorce and remarriage points to that being the standard prior to the Law. This is why you won't wait that Borneo is adultery, because you know it blows your theory out of the water.

well at least you admit there was a pre-law standard.

[james34]

Originally Posted by Originalist

You are so lost. Christ was including things as adultery that might not necessarily constitute adultery as a capital offense under the Law. Though they might not get a woman stone, they are still grounds for divorce and remarriage according to Christ.

under the law , what was the penalty for adultery?

[james34]

Originally Posted by Originalist

First let me clarify something. My last comment to you was made on my phone, and the spell check did something weird. The word "coffee" should have been "offer." And I reiterate here that you OFFER nothing to support your "pre-Law" view but conjecture. You are the one making the claim divorce even for adultery was forbidden "from the beginning," and prior to the Law. You further assert that Christ was NOT affirming the true intent of the existing Law, but was revering man back to the "pre-Law" standard. This is the goofiest explanation I have ever heard.

While scripture is silent on whether divorce was permitted for adultery prior to the Law, it stands to reason it was, and that Christ including adultery (poreneo) as the sole justification for divorce and remarriage points to that being the standard prior to the Law. This is why you won't wait that Borneo is adultery, because you know it blows your theory out of the water.

The sole definition of (porneo)is adultery?
Then why did Moses have to allow it, if it already existed?

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by james34

under the law , what was the penalty for adultery?

Irrelevant. Christ said that God counted looking at a woman to lust after her is adultery, though the death penalty would not be administered by Jewish leaders in such cases. In like manner, acts of "pornea" that could not be counted as capital offenses by Jewish leaders, would be grounds for divorce and remarriage according to Christ.