Why do Gentiles assume they should follow the ten commandments?

[Harmonious]

As for the divorced-defiled thing, that would be Jeremiah 3:1. It actually says "Would not the land be completely defiled" (I did remember it incorrectly) which is not to say the woman is defiled, but the very idea of the 'Land being defiled" is a statement about what happens when sexual abominations occur upon it. Thus, Jeremiah is de facto saying that it's the same category of "Sexual abomination" which defiles the land as those listed in Leviticus 18.

Again, you have mistaken the context.

A woman getting remarried after getting divorced isn't what Jeremiah was complaining about. Far from it.

If you read it carefully, you would see that the abomination refers to a woman who 1) was married 2) divorced, 3) had sex with another man, and 4) remarries the FIRST man.

While this is the way of things in Islam, if a couple divorce and they change their minds and want to remarry, this isn't the JEWISH way.

If a Jewish couple gets divorced, the woman is free to marry any Jewish man who is not a Cohen. If, while the couple is separated, they change their mind, and she hasn't had sex with anyone else, the couple could remarry. No problem.

But if they are divorced and she has sex with someone else, the woman is forbidden to remarry the first husband. Ever.

It is that forbidden thing that Jeremiah is talking about, not a divorced woman getting remarried.

 

[Shermana]

Again, you have mistaken the context.

A woman getting remarried after getting divorced isn't what Jeremiah was complaining about. Far from it.

If you read it carefully, you would see that the abomination refers to a woman who 1) was married 2) divorced, 3) had sex with another man, and 4) remarries the FIRST man.

The context is nonetheless the same in the fact that a woman who remarries is now "Forbidden" for some reason. Why is he saying to not remarry a woman who's had sex with another man? That's the reason why divorce is not allowed according to Jesus, because it causes the other to "commit adultery". Have you actually defined the context and what the point of Jeremiah 3:1 is about to begin with? If there's a prohibition on remarrying a divorced and remarried and divorced woman, what's the basis for that reason?

While this is the way of things in Islam, if a couple divorce and they change their minds and want to remarry, this isn't the JEWISH way.

Exactly.

If a Jewish couple gets divorced, the woman is free to marry any Jewish man who is not a Cohen. If, while the couple is separated, they change their mind, and she hasn't had sex with anyone else, the couple could remarry. No problem.

So then this begins the question of why the land is defiled if he remarries after she has relations with another man.

But if they are divorced and she has sex with someone else, the woman is forbidden to remarry the first husband. Ever.

Right. Why?

It is that forbidden thing that Jeremiah is talking about, not a divorced woman getting remarried

Okay, so then why is it so polluting for a man to remarry a woman after she remarries to begin with?

 

[Harmonious]

It's a waste of time when you post things that are disputable and controversial and then say that your interpretation is correct as if matter of fact as if there's no debate needed, especially when the text is ambiguous or doesn't actually contain anything that directly says this is so, which is borderline prosletyzing. You have in no way demonstrated that this traditional view is supported by the text itself. You have merely insisted it is so, even though the text is not as clear as you're making it out to be.

You know what? YOU are a hypocrite.

If even Jesus mentioned that it was "unlawful" such that he was making excuses, even HE acknowledged that it was a measure of wrongdoing that needed to be explained away.

Then, in a passage that I've heard almost universally quoted by Christians, "Then he said to them 'The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.' So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27-28) is being waved away by you as "interpolated" because even Jesus acknowledges - on some level - that picking grains on Shabbat is unlawful.

And then you accuse ME of practically proselytizing.

Right.

It is too inconvenient for you to speak like a person without throwing these accusations around.

If I respond to you, it will be because I think SOMEONE will learn something from my response. You, personally, don't deserve one anymore.

 

[Shermana]

You know what? YOU are a hypocrite.

Personal attacks are always expected when the other side's argument has been exposed as flawed.

If even Jesus mentioned that it was "unlawful" such that he was making excuses, even HE acknowledged that it was a measure of wrongdoing that needed to be explained away.

This part I am indeed considering may in fact be interpolated from what I'm reading.

Then, in a passage that I've heard almost universally quoted by Christians, "Then he said to them 'The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.' So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27-28) is being waved away by you as "interpolated" because even Jesus acknowledges - on some level - that picking grains on Shabbat is unlawful.

That part is especially the one in question as to why it's not included in certain manuscripts, as I pointed out. There's a difference between "waving" and pointing out actual manuscript evidence. Perhaps you're unaware of the concept that there is such thing as manuscript basis for such claims. I never resort to the issue of interpolation unless there's a manuscript related reason. Perhaps the exception to this rule would be John 20:28 where I show that the ending clashes with Matthew. Many think John 21 is interpolated even though it's in all manuscripts. But that's the exception.

And then you accuse ME of practically proselytizing.

Prosletyzing is when you refuse to debate and simply say that you are right or such without actually addressing the arguments. Also, slow down, I didn't accuse you of prosletyzing. I said what you were doing by insisting your view (condescendingly) was borderline prosletyzing.

Right.

It is too inconvenient for you to speak like a person without throwing these accusations around.

I think my "accusation" fits perfectly according to the forum rules. When you say that it's matter of fact and then hand wave aside the counter argument without addressing it, that's what it's referring to. I simply pointed out that your view is not scripturally based. When you made the claim that you were wasting your time with your post on Exodus, I felt it was needed to demonstrate to you that your basis is circular and presumptive. The text simply does not indicate such, so insisting that it does would constitute such.

If I respond to you, it will be because I think SOMEONE will learn something from my response. You, personally, don't deserve one anymore

Feel free to respond as you wish. I think if anything the reader will learn that your arguments are based on circular presumptions.

 

[Harmonious]

If there's a prohibition on remarrying a divorced and remarried and divorced woman, what's the basis for that reason?

Deuteronomy 24

1. When a man takes a wife and is intimate with her, and it happens that she does not find favor in his eyes because he discovers in her an unseemly [moral] matter, and he writes for her a bill of divorce and places it into her hand, and sends her away from his house,

2. and she leaves his house and goes and marries another man,

3. if the latter husband hates her and writes her a bill of divorce, and places it into her hand and sends her away from his house, or if the latter husband who took her as a wife, dies

4. her first husband, who had sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, since she was defiled [to him], for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin to the land the Lord, your God, gives you for an inheritance.

The law is against women remarrying the FIRST husband. It is not against women remarrying anyone else.

YOU are interpolating reasoning that was neither in Deuteronomy nor in Jeremiah.

 

[Shermana]

Deuteronomy 24

1. When a man takes a wife and is intimate with her, and it happens that she does not find favor in his eyes because he discovers in her an unseemly [moral] matter, and he writes for her a bill of divorce and places it into her hand, and sends her away from his house,

2. and she leaves his house and goes and marries another man,

3. if the latter husband hates her and writes her a bill of divorce, and places it into her hand and sends her away from his house, or if the latter husband who took her as a wife, dies

4. her first husband, who had sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, since she was defiled [to him], for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin to the land the Lord, your God, gives you for an inheritance.

THank you but I didn't need where the Torah actually says its forbidden, I was asking WHY. Why would Jeremiah say that the Land is defiled?

Nice parenthesis by the way. Perhaps I was right with my original statement that she herself is defiled and I retracted too quickly.

Your addition of "To him" is a picture perfect example of what I'm talking about, much thanks for providing this excellent example of adding to the text to support your conclusions.

 

[Harmonious]

THank you but I didn't need where the Torah actually says its forbidden, I was asking WHY. Why would Jeremiah say that the Land is defiled?

Nice parenthesis by the way. Perhaps I was right with my original statement that she herself is defiled and I retracted too quickly.

Your addition of "To him" is a picture perfect example of what I'm talking about, much thanks for providing this excellent example of adding to the text to support your conclusions.

The parentheses weren't mine, but in the translation I used. Only the woman who remarried the first man after having sex with another man is defiled. Being married to another man does not make her defiled. Remarrying the first husband makes her defiled.

 

[Shermana]

The parentheses weren't mine, but in the translation I used.

Well hopefully you admit that it simply says she's defiled, and this is a blatant distortion of the text.

Now why would she be defiled for marrying another man.......hmmmmm......

(I'm assuming you're not going to insist on this blatant translation-interpolation, right?)

For the record, when I post a verse, I usually include the translation I use unless its a snippet to show an example of how to define a particular word like "oppressor". You should consider it too. That way you won't look like you're the one who went out of their way to change what it says.

Only the woman who remarried the first man after having sex with another man is defiled.

That's not necessarily what the text says. It most likely is saying that he can't go back to her because she's already defiled. Hopefully you are willing to admit that the text doesn't necessarily support what you're saying.

 

[Harmonious]

Why would Jeremiah say that the Land is defiled?

Deuteronomy 24:4

4. her first husband, who had sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, since she was defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin to the land the Lord, your God, gives you for an inheritance.

If - in the times of Jeremiah - married couples were swinging and rejoining, as the case is pointed out in the first four verses of Deuteronomy 24, that would bring sin to the land, so the land would be defiled.

 

[Shermana]

Deuteronomy 24:4

4. her first husband, who had sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, since she was defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin to the land the Lord, your God, gives you for an inheritance.

If - in the times of Jeremiah - married couples were swinging and rejoining, as the case is pointed out in the first four verses of Deuteronomy 24, that would bring sin to the land, so the land would be defiled.

Okay, now why was she "defiled"? Obviously she is defiled from merely marrying another man. It doesn't say she's defiled if she remarries the man, the man is forbidden from remarrying because she's been defiled from marrying someone else. That is probably why Jesus said its best to not divorce and cause your wife to remarry at all.

 

[Harmonious]

Okay, now why was she "defiled"? Obviously she is defiled from merely marrying another man.

Context. Verse 3 does not talk about anyone being defiled, and the woman remarried someone else.

Only verse 4 speaks of anyone as defiled, and that is because she married someone else AND RETURNED TO HER ORIGINAL HUSBAND.

A couple, once married, is supposed to BE married, but if they don't work, the couple should find happiness, love, and sanctity with another spouse.

A couple who has no problem being married, and then trying to avoid adultery by getting divorced, and then remarry each other, just so they can experiment with sex with other people before settling down with each other, is the abomination.

The idea is to marry and be unified. No one but Jesus is saying that getting out of a toxic marriage to be married to a better human being is a bad thing.

But trying to sleep around with the veneer of marriage and divorce IS a bad thing. So...

Marrying someone, divorcing that someone, and then marrying someone else is an okay step.

If a woman decided that her first husband was more exciting, that is too bad. If she goes back to him, THAT is an abomination that would not only defile her, it would defile the land of Israel.

 

[Shermana]

Only verse 4 speaks of anyone as defiled, and that is because she married someone else AND RETURNED TO HER ORIGINAL HUSBAND.

Nope. It's the other way around. He can't marry her because she's defiled. It doesn't say she's defiled because she returned to her husband. Another great example of reading something into the text that's simply not there.

You're welcome to believe that's the context, but the text itself is what we're discussing here. The text itself says that she is defiled because she married someone else, it does not say whatsoever that the reason is because she returned to her original husband. That's why your translation resorted to adding in that little (To him). Because without it, it most clearly says what I'm saying.

Now if you want to discuss the text itself and what the text says apart from the context you're reading into it, feel free to explain why my interpretation is wrong going by the text itself. But remember, put your perceived context aside and go by what the text alone says.

 

[Harmonious]

Honestly... She might even have been happy with her second husband. 24:3 doesn't talk about her indiscriminately sleeping around, but that her second husband dies. Now, she is lonely. It is too late to "make up" in marriage with her first husband.

The second marriage was perfectly fine. The whole scenario involving the remarriage to the first husband is the one that ended up with anyone being defiled.

 

[Harmonious]

Nope. It's the other way around. He can't marry her because she's defiled. It doesn't say she's defiled because she returned to her husband. Another great example of reading something into the text that's simply not there.

You are missing the concept of a Leverite marriage, which very specifically involves someone who is widowed remarrying. That is particularly important.

So the concept of remarriage isn't abhorrent in any way.

If a woman gets divorced and remarried, that isn't much different than a widowed woman being remarried, only the divorced woman cannot marry a Cohen.

You know... The idea of a divorcee getting remarried as a problem is patently ridiculous. There is a particular commandment that says that Cohanim (sons of Aaron) are forbidden from marrying divorcees.

The logic of this says that COHANIM are forbidden from marrying divorcees. It doesn't mean that ALL MEN are forbidden from marrying divorcees.

Saying that divorcees remarrying are being defiled is ridiculous. It is marrying the first man after sleeping with a different man is the aspect that defiles anyone.

 

[Shermana]

Once again, if you want to go over the text itself and discuss the Hebrew, that'd be great. Just leave your preconceived notions of context at the door.

 

[roberto]

Deuteronomy 24:4

4. her first husband, who had sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, since she was defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin to the land the Lord, your God, gives you for an inheritance.

If - in the times of Jeremiah - married couples were swinging and rejoining, as the case is pointed out in the first four verses of Deuteronomy 24, that would bring sin to the land, so the land would be defiled.

And that is why Yeshua had to die on the stake/cross.
So that he could remarry his bride[Northern Kingdom] and take her again without bringing sin to the land.
He came up/out of the earth as a new man.
Mat 15:24 (HNV) But he answered, "I wasn’t sent to anyone but the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Note that he does not say he was sent to/for the house of Yehudah.

Eph 2:13 (HNV) But now in Messiah Yeshua you who once were far off are made near in the blood of Messiah.
Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who made both one, and broke down the middle wall of partition,
Eph 2:15 having abolished in the flesh the hostility, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man of the two, making peace;
Eph 2:16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, having killed the hostility thereby.

 

[Harmonious]

And that is why Yeshua had to die.

I would say that Jeremiah's complaint ended when the Jews were exiled and stopped having the lifestyle of swingers.

Jesus was never necessary, except to those of that belief system.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"I wasn’t sent to anyone but the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Note that he does not say he was sent to/for the house of Yehudah.

No doubt reliably quoted verbatim a half century later by our anonymous author. It's wonderful to witness so much faith invested in agenda-driven hearsay testimony.

 

[roberto]

I would say that Jeremiah's complaint ended when the Jews were exiled and stopped having the lifestyle of swingers.

Jesus was never necessary, except to those of that belief system.

I would say using your Judaism concept of "jews", looking at the lifestyle of who you guys "see" as "jews" that have returned, that that lifestyle never ended. Just read the haretz newspaper online, or here>>> http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/routine-emergencies/gay-pride-is-kosher-in-ra-anana-as-long-as-it-stays-modest-1.447748
.

 

[Harmonious]

:sarcastic

Homosexual liaisons are still forbidden. If people wanted to make a parade to announce that they are homosexual, like the guy in the article said, they are wired the way they are wired.

Torah law hasn't changed all that much. It is the action of a liaison that is forbidden, not having desires for the wrong sex.

I'm not sure of the point the article was meant to highlight.