Jesus allows no divorce for his followers why?

[PureX]

Now that's the whole Cirque du Soleil. Any evidence that this was the case?

I just forgot. Catholic school was a very long time ago, for me.

But his was a complicated story, and he was a zealot, regardless. Both before and after his conversion experience. I don't take my Jesus strained through the mind of Paul of Tarsus, thank you. You can take him any way you like, of course. Some people really like being 'ruled' by their religion. I'm just not one of them.

 

[Lain]

I just forgot. Catholic school was a very long time ago, for me.

But his was a complicated story, and he was a zealot, regardless. Both before and after his conversion experience. I don't take my Jesus strained through the mind of Paul of Tarsus, thank you. You can take him any way you like, of course. Some people really like being 'ruled' by their religion. I'm just not one of them.

I barely know what any of this means, but God bless you I guess.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

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 was aware that the Lord Jesus Christ discouraged divorce (save for adultery) - and that He condemned the practice of "putting away" one's wife - but I don't think He commanded that His followers never be allowed to divorce.

 

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

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

It says he did what they want like in this spot
◄ Matthew 8:17 ►
Do they want something instead?

 

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

Sacramental marriage has no divorce because it is an image of the Lord Jesus and His Church, and He does not divorce the Church ever. Moreover He also gives His reasoning for it saying:

"From the beginning of creation ‘he [God] made them male and female. Because of this a man will leave his father and mother and will be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh,’ so that they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, man must not separate."

As for why the some of the Israelites after the flesh in that time participated in the murder of the God of Israel, hardness of heart, spiritual blindness, and so on. As St. Paul says: "we speak the hidden wisdom of God in a mystery, which God predestined before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew. For if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

Yet all of these events were predestined, and in studying one sees them being fulfilled daily and why they occurred, in part. St. Paul's Epistles go into it a lot and so do the Church Fathers.

St. Peter was a bold soul indeed, but he was the first in rank among them, so it makes sense.

All my opinion of course.

So it is like Adam and Eve before
Thank you for an answer

 

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

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.

I never thought of that, it is very considerate

 

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

Strangely, we're right in the middle of studying different views of divorce during the Second Temple Era in one of my history courses. The topic is a specialty of the professor teaching us.

The core issue seems to be that there was a debate at the time whether divorce was allowed or not. Some people, like Jesus, thought that the Torah allowed divorce only because of the low spiritual level of the Israelites at the time, but when striving for a higher spiritual level, one should not divorce. The reason being that when man and wife marry, they become spiritually one, returning to the way man and woman were created in Genesis, as a unified entity. This unity is not something that may be reversed, not even through divorce, for they become "one flesh". Flesh cannot be divided without harming it.

Is your class online?

 

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

He allowed divorce in the case of adultery, but for some reason the Catholic church has ignored that, and other Christians don't really follow that either. The Protestants seem to see laws like this as suggestions. There was very little in terms of religious law given by Christ, and Christians have come to see that as a virtue and slam religions that have religious laws. Just stating an observation.

If I become one I want to follow it proper

 

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

Yes the teaching on divorce is tough. I don't have a good explanation, except that it might have been to protect the women in that era, who could easily be got rid of with no obligation to support them - and who might find it hard to remarry, not being virgins. But I'm speculating a bit.

Peter is generally considered to be an impulsive character, but to have the strongest faith of all of them. So yes pushy maybe at times.

Christ was put to death by the Roman governor, after annoying the Jewish religious establishment enough for them to want to get rid of him. And he was not the leader they hoped for. What they wanted was to be liberated from their colonial oppressors. Christ did not offer anything like that.

That would be considerate and kind of him

 

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

Can you quote where Jesus said a divorcing was wrong? It is found in the beginning of Matthew 19. If you look at the context it was the religious leaders, the Pharisees, that asked him in verse 3, if it was lawful for a man to divorce on every sort of grounds.

Now in the law to Moses a divorcing was allowed, but it was not for any petty thing. And obviously was not pertaining to adultery. Why? Because under the law an adulterer was to be put to death. But getting a divorce was to be no petty or easy matter. The law stipulated he had to find “something indecent” in her. The man had to have a certificate of divorce drawn up. That means he had to consult with a duly authorized authority that could write up this certificate. This would allow for both time for the husband to reflect on what he was doing, as well as have the authorized persons/s try to affect a reconciliation. (Deuteronomy 24:1)

By Malachi’s day Jews were divorcing their wives for all sorts of reasons, which was displeasing in God’s eyes. (Malachi 2:10-16). No wonder the Pharisees asked Jesus if it was okay on “every sort of grounds” as had become the custom. But Jesus’ response clears things up for us in Matthew 19:4-9. He shows that Jehovah God allowed for the certificate of divorce because of their hard-heartedness (a trait the Jews as a whole always had). But that Jehovah hates a divorce. And then corrects things the way they should have originally been to begin with stating that divorce was wrong expect on the grounds of adultery. (In the Christian congregation which was soon to be instituted the law of Moses was done away with along with the stipulation of putting to death an adulterer and fornicator. Therefore it would be acceptable for a Christian to divorce their marriage mate if that mate wronged the innocent mate by committing an act of adultery.)

Why do you view Jesus’ explanation of divorcing as unlikeable? I can see a couple of reasons aside from adultery that a marriage mate may need to leave their spouse. One would be gross neglect on the part of the husband to care for his family, and the other would be gross abuse, emotional and physical by a spouse to the point where the welfare of the innocent mate is in jeopardy. In these extreme cases a separation would no doubt be beneficial and necessary. But a remarrying would not be granted under God’s stipulation, if the spouse had not committed adultery. In that case the innocent mate would remain separated but not remarry.

Those two reason why you gave is what I imagined up
It would be very hard not to marry again and to die alone because someone else is evil

 

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

It's important to understand that Jesus was a Jew, preaching. mostly, to other Jews.

As a Jew, he followed the Judaic laws and proscriptions. And he admonished his fellow Jews to do the same. But Jews both then and now are NOT evangelical. They did not and do not believe that any non-Jew needs to become a Jew to fulfill his or her place before God. Jesus would not have admonished any non-Jew to abide by any Jewish religious customs or proscriptions regarding marriage or divorce, or anything else. He even declared these as empty religious posturing among the Jews unless they were engage in accompanied by the requisite spiritual intention.

So no Christian, today, is being held to any Judaic religious standards regarding marriage or divorce (or diet, or worship, or anything else) from Jesus' perspective, as we are not Jews.

What do they obey? They say his lords prayer which is from the same part

 

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

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.

I did not know this that is very sad and evil

 

[PruePhillip]

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

Because divorce is a sin according to the Jewish bible.
And if your marriage isn't working and divorce is simple
and acceptable then it becomes easier for others to also
divorce - and these days, divorce even for marriages that
haven't failed. Half of all Western kids now come from
broken homes, so you can understand why people back
then fully supported the biblical attitude towards divorce.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I did not know this that is very sad and evil

Yes, and what is also evil is the reason that Rome did this. It did this because the Jews were preaching peace. Their city was called 'City of Peace', and in it was a temple dedicated to peace. Its status and its reputation was growing. Rome believed in order and might and in absorbing the greatness of other societies to merge all into one, as if by mixing all paints it could obtain the greatest possible color. Jerusalem did not fit in. It preached differences, rainbows, gemstones. The city had to go. It was a city which taught the madness of not conquering. It was inconvenient, and it had to be destroyed in such an awesome and terrible manner as to silence its message. Yes Rome's actions and its reasons were evil.

 

[Clara Tea]

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

The bible says that Jews killed Jesus. Please see Acts 4:10 below.

The Jews and the Death of Jesus in Acts

Be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified (estaurōsate), whom God raised from the dead, by him this man is standing before you well. (Acts 4:10) (source: above)

But, it is obvious that the bloodthirsty Romans were killing and crucifying large numbers of people. Could it be that Acts is wrong? Could it be that the Vatican rewrote the bible...especially the part of the bible called Acts? The Vatican is surrounded by Italy, but it is actually its own separate domain. Rome is now called Italy. For years, kings and popes altered the bible to suit their whims.

Can we now trust an altered bible?

Two recent popes concluded that Jews didn't kill Jesus, but the crowd that was asked about crucifying Jesus consisted of random people. How could these popes conclude this unless they discounted Acts?

Does it really matter that Jews "might have been" responsible for crucifying Jesus? That was thousands of years ago, and surely no one can hold a grudge against Jews today who were not even born at the time.

.Luke describes this in typically varied and colourful language: the Jews delivered (3:13), denied (3:13-14), condemned (13:27), betrayed (7:52), killed (2:23; 10:39; 13:28), murdered (7:52), crucified (2:23; 2:36; 4:10), and hanged (5:30; 10:39) him. (source: above)

Was Luke (chapter of the bible) also altered by the Vatican?

I urge everyone to not blame modern Jews for the death of Jesus. Many Jewish kids were beaten in schools.

 

[Clara Tea]

Yes, and what is also evil is the reason that Rome did this. It did this because the Jews were preaching peace. Their city was called 'City of Peace', and in it was a temple dedicated to peace. Its status and its reputation was growing. Rome believed in order and might and in absorbing the greatness of other societies to merge all into one, as if by mixing all paints it could obtain the greatest possible color. Jerusalem did not fit in. It preached differences, rainbows, gemstones. The city had to go. It was a city which taught the madness of not conquering. It was inconvenient, and it had to be destroyed in such an awesome and terrible manner as to silence its message. Yes Rome's actions and its reasons were evil.

You write very well, Brickjectivity. I agree, all places that might disagree with Rome were seen as threats.

 

[Clara Tea]

I barely know what any of this means, but God bless you I guess.

I think that Purex was saying that he doesn't want to rely on an analysis of biblical events by Paul of Tarsus, but prefers to reach his own conclusions.

 

[Clara Tea]

Because divorce is a sin according to the Jewish bible.
And if your marriage isn't working and divorce is simple
and acceptable then it becomes easier for others to also
divorce - and these days, divorce even for marriages that
haven't failed. Half of all Western kids now come from
broken homes, so you can understand why people back
then fully supported the biblical attitude towards divorce.

A local rabbi also told me that it is a sin not to procreate.

 

[Harel13]

Is your class online?

Depends if you consider Zoom online or not. The lecturer of this particular class can't come to university due to being in a high-risk group because of Covid.

 

[Clara Tea]

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.

Brickjectivity: "No Jew kills Jesus."

The Jews and the Death of Jesus in Acts

The link above cites numerous sections of the bible that say that Jews did kill Jesus (of course, with the help of Roman soldier, Pontius Pilate). Yet, two modern popes insist that the crowd that suggested that Jesus die did not necessarily consist of Jews.

If that is the case, then the bible must have been rewritten by the Vatican (under Roman influence, ruled by Romans). The popes were Roman.

I urge everyone not to take out their wrath on modern Jews. This crucifixion took place thousands of years ago, and modern Jews had no part in it.