Jesus allows no divorce for his followers why?

[sojourner]

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 .

Nope. Not buying it. Ancient cultural contexts are not a good basis for determining “God’s standards.” Your take is an excuse for misogyny.

 

[Bree]

Nope. Not buying it. Ancient cultural contexts are not a good basis for determining “God’s standards.” Your take is an excuse for misogyny.

there is no misogyny in what Paul says above. It is Gods standard, not mans.

 

[sojourner]

there is no misogyny in what Paul says above. It is Gods standard, not mans.

Of course there is. And to claim that this is “God’s doing” is to protect this violence behind a sanctimonious shield of faux piety.

A woman (who, in that culture, has no rights) can leave her husband but not remarry. So, in essence, she has no home, no way to obtain housing or any protection under the law, and becomes a social outcast — all because she dared to leave her husband, who was in charge of her, just for beating on her. How dare she!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Title question

Doesn't he?

Luke 14:25-26:

25 Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. 27 And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

But at several points in the Gospels, Jesus encourages his disciples to completely abandon their families and spouses, so it doesn't seem like he cared much about keeping families together.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe however one can't blame all Jews for what the wicked ones did. After all the 3,000 in Jerusalem who received Jesus as Lord and Savior were Jewish.

 

[Bree]

Of course there is. And to claim that this is “God’s doing” is to protect this violence behind a sanctimonious shield of faux piety.

A woman (who, in that culture, has no rights) can leave her husband but not remarry. So, in essence, she has no home, no way to obtain housing or any protection under the law, and becomes a social outcast — all because she dared to leave her husband, who was in charge of her, just for beating on her. How dare she!

If anything, the bible defends the rights of women and upholds their dignity. Although Jehovah tolerated certain customs among his people Israel for a time, he regulated them and installed rules around them in order to protect women. Secondly, you can't really judge ancient customs by modern standards. Certain customs that might appear wrong to us today were not necessarily viewed as demeaning by women back then...some of those customs were put in place by women back then.

You are looking at a culture and claiming the bible and God created that culture which is quite wrong. Look at afghanistan today for an example....they dont' have the bible and look at the way they treat women. The bible condemns the misogynism of men...it upholds the rights of women. The problem is that when men reject Gods laws and the further they move away from God, they become a law unto themselves and behave badly.

Here are some examples of how the bible upholds womens rights and dignity.

Polygamy - If a man took a second wife, God put in a law to protect the first wife
Exodus 21:12 If he takes another wife for himself, the sustenance, the clothing, and the marriage due+ of the first wife are not to be diminished. 11 If he will not render these three things to her, then she is to go free without paying any money.


Ownership of women - God raised the value of women above that of property and wealth and put in law to prevent men 'selling' their wives as though they were mere property. Property or wealth could be bought, sold, and even inherited, but this was not so of a wife. “The inheritance from fathers is a house and wealth,but a discreet wife is from Jehovah.” She was said to belong to God, not to man.

Deut 21:14 But if you are not pleased with her, you should then let her go+ wherever she wishes.* But you may not sell her for money or treat her harshly, since you have humiliated her.


Womens views and wishes were to be respected. The advice of godly women was valued. When God-fearing Abraham hesitated to heed the advice of his godly wife, Sarah, on one occasion, Jehovah told him: “Listen to her voice.” (Genesis 21:10-12)
Children were to obey their mothers just as much as their fathers showing they had a measure of authority in the family. “Listen, my son, to the discipline of your father, and do not forsake the law of your mother.” (Proverbs 1:8)


Women had positions in temple service
Exodus 38:8 Then he made the basin of copper+ and its copper stand; he used the mirrors* of the women who were organized to serve at the entrance of the tent of meeting.


Women were used to speak on behalf of God as prophets and would instruct Kings.
Regarding the prophetess Deborah, we read: “The sons of Israel would go up to her for judgment.” (Judges 4:5) King Josiah sent to the prophetess Huldah a delegation that included the high priest. Huldah could authoritatively reply: “This is what Jehovah the God of Israel has said.” (2 Kings 22:11-15)


So you see, there is no basis in claiming that God is at all misoginistic or that he has a dim view of women. The problem is when men move away from God and his standards....that's when misoginistic thinking and behavior begins.

 

[sojourner]

Polygamy

I rest my case.

Ownership of women - God raised the value of women above that of property and wealth and put in law to prevent men 'selling' their wives as though they were mere property

Oh, I’m sure women enjoyed being “a higher form of property.”

When God-fearing Abraham hesitated to heed the advice of his godly wife, Sarah, on one occasion, Jehovah told him: “Listen to her voice.” (

Yeah. God had to instruct Abraham to listen to her, because normally, women weren’t given a voice.

Women had positions in temple service
Exodus 38:8 Then he made the basin of copper+ and its copper stand; he used the mirrors* of the women who were organized to serve at the entrance of the tent of meeting.

Notice the “at the entrance” part. Women weren’t allowed in. Oh, and this took place pre-temple, so it’s not a temple service.

So you see, there is no basis in claiming that God is at all misoginistic

But the laws you claim as God’s are...

I’m sure women enjoyed being property of men. Im sure they enjoyed levirate marriage. I’m sure they enjoyed being ritually unclean during their period. I’m sure they enjoyed not having a voice. I’m sure they enjoyed only being able to attain righteousness through their husbands. I’m sure they enjoyed not having God’s favor if they were barren. I’m sure women enjoyed the limitations of that culture just as much as you would enjoy life in modern Saudi.

Fact is, these aren’t “God’s laws.” They’re cultural norms for that time and place. And they’re misogynistic. So when one claims them as “God’s laws,” one claims God to be misogynistic.

 

[Bree]

I rest my case.

Oh, I’m sure women enjoyed being “a higher form of property.”


Yeah. God had to instruct Abraham to listen to her, because normally, women weren’t given a voice.


Notice the “at the entrance” part. Women weren’t allowed in. Oh, and this took place pre-temple, so it’s not a temple service.


But the laws you claim as God’s are...

I’m sure women enjoyed being property of men. Im sure they enjoyed levirate marriage. I’m sure they enjoyed being ritually unclean during their period. I’m sure they enjoyed not having a voice. I’m sure they enjoyed only being able to attain righteousness through their husbands. I’m sure they enjoyed not having God’s favor if they were barren. I’m sure women enjoyed the limitations of that culture just as much as you would enjoy life in modern Saudi.

Fact is, these aren’t “God’s laws.” They’re cultural norms for that time and place. And they’re misogynistic. So when one claims them as “God’s laws,” one claims God to be misogynistic.

you have completely misread everything i wrote.

 

[sojourner]

you have completely misread everything i wrote.

No I haven’t. You’ve completely misappropriated cultural idiosyncrasies as “God’s laws.”

I get it. Yes, the Law was at least somewhat mitigatory. But it didn’t go far enough. To claim that these are God’s laws,” (such as you’ve done with divorce) is to make them immutable and applicable to all cultures and societies. It doesn’t work that way. “God’s law” is love. And love seeks equity and the dignity of every human being, and makes allowances for human frailty and mistakes. It’s called “grace.” Our modern laws concerning marriage (for ALL people) and divorce are much closer to grace than the examples we find in the Bible, especially the Hebrew texts.

 

[Bree]

No I haven’t. You’ve completely misappropriated cultural idiosyncrasies as “God’s laws.”

I get it. Yes, the Law was at least somewhat mitigatory. But it didn’t go far enough. To claim that these are God’s laws,” (such as you’ve done with divorce) is to make them immutable and applicable to all cultures and societies. It doesn’t work that way. “God’s law” is love. And love seeks equity and the dignity of every human being, and makes allowances for human frailty and mistakes. It’s called “grace.” Our modern laws concerning marriage (for ALL people) and divorce are much closer to grace than the examples we find in the Bible, especially the Hebrew texts.

I never claimed 'polygamy' was Gods law.
It was actually a man made construct that went against Gods law. But God put laws in place to protect womens rights should a man choose to practice polygamy.

Gods law to an Isrealite King was this : “He should . . . not multiply wives for himself, that his heart may not turn aside.” Deuteronomy 17:15, 17
And later Jesus Christ reinstitute Gods original standard of monogamy. (John 8:28 When asked about marriage, Jesus said: “He who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh.’”—Matthew 19:4, 5.

One of Jesus’ disciples was later inspired by God to write: “Let each man have his own wife and each woman have her own husband.” (1 Corinthians 7:2)

hence God has reinstated his perfect standard of monogomy which is why christians dont practice polygamy.

 

[sojourner]

I never claimed 'polygamy' was Gods law.
It was actually a man made construct that went against Gods law. But God put laws in place to protect womens rights should a man choose to practice polygamy.

Gods law to an Isrealite King was this : “He should . . . not multiply wives for himself, that his heart may not turn aside.” Deuteronomy 17:15, 17
And later Jesus Christ reinstitute Gods original standard of monogamy. (John 8:28 When asked about marriage, Jesus said: “He who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh.’”—Matthew 19:4, 5.

One of Jesus’ disciples was later inspired by God to write: “Let each man have his own wife and each woman have her own husband.” (1 Corinthians 7:2)

hence God has reinstated his perfect standard of monogomy which is why christians dont practice polygamy.

That’s what I said: this is all cultural practice, masquerading as “God’s law.”

 

[Bree]

That’s what I said: this is all cultural practice, masquerading as “God’s law.”

no, thats not what you said and all you are doing is repeating yourself. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[sojourner]

no, thats not what you said and all you are doing is repeating yourself. Thanks for the discussion.

Stop gaslighting. That is, in fact, what I said. See the first sentence in post #90.

 

[Triumph]

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

The death of Jesus was caused by the Jews that demanded he die even after the secular Roman court judged Jesus innocent and wanted to set him free. The Romans did not want to kill Jesus and P. Pilot after listening to Jesus, respected him. The Jews threatened a bloody uprising if Jesus was not killed because their religious court judged Jesus guilty, The High Priest said kill him. Jews did not accept the verdict of the Roman court that judged with correct justice. The Jews lied in the court of law accusing Jesus of things that were not true.
Jesus saw the situation. Either one man dies or perhaps thousands would die trying to protect the right to life of Jesus. Jesus with deep love for all, laid down his life and agreed to die to prevent a horrific war over religion. The church/religion that Jesus established had a chance of survival into the future if his beloved disciples that taught the true words of God were not killed in a war with Jews.

 

[Wildswanderer]

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

Peter is just like most of us, he messes up sometimes, that actually makes him likable to me.
God hates divorce because it hurts people IMO.
Doesn't mean he hates divorced people.
Good observation about the Jewish people at that time.

 

[Triumph]

There is more to it. The RC stopped recognizing divorce somewhere along the way. Protestant churches usually recognize it. Some do not.

Christ Jesus (in Matthew) recognizes divorce, however he says that the cause for divorce (by men) is stubborn pride. For that reason a man is sometimes referred to in churches as the priest of his household, because it is up to the male to make peace. This a quality that I presume is inherited from Jewish culture.

I think you are mistaken. Did you know that 30,000 Jews were crucified by the Romans around the times we are discussing?

Jews don't speak directly of their dead. I don't know why this is, however they do not. Combine this with the knowledge that 30,000 Jewish men are killed by the Romans around the time of Jesus. The streets are lined with their crosses. Blood flows everywhere. Perhaps Jesus is like a type of all of the Jews who are butchered by the Romans. In other words he could be a way to speak about them indirectly and to deal with questions about why such things take place. You and I live thousands of years later and may not have a good grasp of why the gospels are written the way they are. We are looking into someone else's phone conversations and only seeing part of the dialogue. Its that long ago, and people don't talk the same way.

Jesus is crucified by the Romans just like tens of thousands are crucified by the Romans. The reason he is accused (by some Jews) in the gospels is complicated and perhaps mystical, but his execution is by the hand of the Romans. Its simple. Romans kills Jews and don't respect Judaism and generally are warlike anger monsters relatively speaking. No Jew kills Jesus. As so many Jews are crucified by Romans, so is Jesus.

What is interesting is Jews have no separation between their religion and their government/nation. Their military can do nothing without the approval of their religious leader. Jews did not want to pay taxes to Rome for their temple land as they felt the Romans should serve their government not the other way around. There was huge resentment between the Jews and Rome and Jews believed they had the right to kill people that did not believe in their religion. The Jews were killing Christians in the Roman district because they had left the Jewish religion by joining Jesus. The Romans had problems keeping the Jews peaceful.
Understand the day that a Jew became water baptized in Roman territory, they were no longer a "Jew" and became by law a Roman citizen no longer a member of the Jewish nation. This is like a German deciding to leave their place of birth and become a citizen of England. They are no longer called a German but are called British under different laws. The Jews that followed Jesus were no longer Jews but were Christian by religion and Roman by nationality since Rome had control of the land where they lived. The Romans judged Jesus innocent allowing freedom of religion to his church (before Nero used Christians as a scapegoat for his own transgressions) and the Romans would have fought the Jews to uphold their just Roman court verdict if Jesus had allowed it. Pilot did not want a war in his jurisdiction but also did not approve of the death of Jesus for crimes he did not commit. Pilot let Jesus decide his fate but tried to appease the Jews in hopes they would agree to let Jesus live. The Jews would not accept anything but the death of Jesus.
Jesus taught separation of church and state and Rome approved of that. I think the Roman soldiers were especially cruel to Jesus hoping he would change his mind; say he did not want to die and stand up against the war mongering Jews that refused to accept Roman law. Jesus knew the Romans were trained fighters and did not want to back down in this situation. But Jesus did not want Roman lives destroyed in a religious war either as he loved all people. Jesus kept his strength, love of God and love of humanity as he went to his death that was demanded by Jewish injustice and threat of war.

 

[Brickjectivity]

What is interesting is Jews have no separation between their religion and their government/nation. Their military can do nothing without the approval of their religious leader. Jews did not want to pay taxes to Rome for their temple land as they felt the Romans should serve their government not the other way around. There was huge resentment between the Jews and Rome and Jews believed they had the right to kill people that did not believe in their religion. The Jews were killing Christians in the Roman district because they had left the Jewish religion by joining Jesus. The Romans had problems keeping the Jews peaceful.
Understand the day that a Jew became water baptized in Roman territory, they were no longer a "Jew" and became by law a Roman citizen no longer a member of the Jewish nation. This is like a German deciding to leave their place of birth and become a citizen of England. They are no longer called a German but are called British under different laws. The Jews that followed Jesus were no longer Jews but were Christian by religion and Roman by nationality since Rome had control of the land where they lived. The Romans judged Jesus innocent allowing freedom of religion to his church (before Nero used Christians as a scapegoat for his own transgressions) and the Romans would have fought the Jews to uphold their just Roman court verdict if Jesus had allowed it. Pilot did not want a war in his jurisdiction but also did not approve of the death of Jesus for crimes he did not commit. Pilot let Jesus decide his fate but tried to appease the Jews in hopes they would agree to let Jesus live. The Jews would not accept anything but the death of Jesus.
Jesus taught separation of church and state and Rome approved of that. I think the Roman soldiers were especially cruel to Jesus hoping he would change his mind; say he did not want to die and stand up against the war mongering Jews that refused to accept Roman law. Jesus knew the Romans were trained fighters and did not want to back down in this situation. But Jesus did not want Roman lives destroyed in a religious war either as he loved all people. Jesus kept his strength, love of God and love of humanity as he went to his death that was demanded by Jewish injustice and threat of war.

Is this speculation? Because of the serious nature of this claim I cannot accept it without some evidence or some path to confirming it. I am aware that some groups and some individuals are in favor of rebellions and of driving the Romans out, and I am aware that the Romans are particularly odious and oppressive.

Are you referring to the occasional angry group of insurgents or to something more widespread and a general dismissal of all Roman life?

I don't understand how to confirm those things, but I can see how that might be important. Is there a book about this with some footnotes etc or a video with some bibliography? Paper? Thanks.

 

[Triumph]

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 love our brother, Apostle Peter. Understand that Peter did not have the advanced secular education that many around him had. Peter made his living as a simple fisherman, and he had a big, generous heart. Peter listened to the lessons Jesus taught him and tried to uphold them and teach them. The highly educated, worldly wise, Pharisee Paul often confronted Peter with contention because they did not preach the same gospel. Peter knew he was right, but Paul would try to present his own gospel as superior to Peter's which was very frustrating.
For example: The gospel of Jesus Christ is equality of race and gender under the exact same laws. Although Paul said all are one in Christ, Paul sets up religious laws in his own church that make gender inequality and different laws for males and females. Jesus never wanted that to happen and wanted inheritance rights for women to be equal to males so a widow would not lose her house. Paul would bar young widows and their orphaned children from entering his church. But Jesus said "suffer not to bring children to him" as Jesus loved children wanting to protect them and teach them and wanted children in his church.
A major point in Paul's false doctrine is Paul tells women they are never to teach their husband or any male anything but are to remain silent.
That is not the gospel of Jesus Christ as Jesus told Apostle Peter women should teach men shown in
1 Peter 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;" That means if the husband does not know the words of God taught by Jesus and are behaving in a way that opposes the Words of God, that the wife that understands what Jesus taught is to teach her husband so he can learn the gospel of Jesus and be converted also to the true religion. She is to teach the man with gentle respect with love not contention, but she absolutely is told to teach her husband with conversation and NOT be silent! When Jesus said a man and wife are one, he includes the concept as equals in love, respect, faith and human rights as equals under the law. Being in subjection to her husband means honor her marriage vow and don't act disrespectful even if her husband is wrong about something.
That is not what Pharisee Paul teaches in his unstable doctrine,
1 Timothy 2:
11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."
Understand "I" is not referring to Jesus Christ but to Paul and how Paul wants to run his own church and the oppressed way Paul wants women treated in it as not equal to a man.
There is no inequality of race or gender in the true religion that Jesus Christ established but Paul's inferior church is established with the concepts of inequality of race as everyone must say they are spiritually a Jew and accept inequality of gender with women punished but not men.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The death of Jesus was caused by the Jews that demanded he die even after the secular Roman court judged Jesus innocent and wanted to set him free. The Romans did not want to kill Jesus and P. Pilot after listening to Jesus, respected him. The Jews threatened a bloody uprising if Jesus was not killed because their religious court judged Jesus guilty, The High Priest said kill him. Jews did not accept the verdict of the Roman court that judged with correct justice. The Jews lied in the court of law accusing Jesus of things that were not true.
Jesus saw the situation. Either one man dies or perhaps thousands would die trying to protect the right to life of Jesus. Jesus with deep love for all, laid down his life and agreed to die to prevent a horrific war over religion. The church/religion that Jesus established had a chance of survival into the future if his beloved disciples that taught the true words of God were not killed in a war with Jews.

Who was in charge? Pilate. Washing his hands doesn't diminish his responsibility. It was Pilate's decision to crucify Jesus. That's where the buck stops.