GeneV Posted February 4, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 36 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 720 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/23/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/20/1947 Share Posted February 4, 2007 FoC, thank you for your encouragement and the link I will have a look at it and let you know my thoughts. Please my brother in Him, don't for one moment think my barb was aimed in your direction. I just tend to get a little irritated and waspish at endless discussion at what He actually meant when He said..........I think you know what I mean. There is always so-called new epistemology being brought forward that I think we often get lost in the woods looking for the trees. In some way I am reminded of the Pharisees and their frantic efforts to get the Word to suit their purposes. Once again I do apologise for any offence. Blessings and peace, Gene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firehill Posted February 4, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,980 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/17/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 4, 2007 FoC: There is a case of a Jewish man who spent a lot of years in prison, and died there, for refusing to give his wife a divorce even tho she wanted one. Some of a certain erroneous belief seem to think this man a hero of the marriage covenant for supposedly being so honorable and thus willing to even go to prison to keep his marriage intact. I got a little suspicious about the whole thing and did some study to find the rest of the story. Turns out that this man married her at about 15, a forcible marriage if memory serves, not one she asked for, then very quickly failed to provide for her and within just a few years tossed her out into the streets entirely. Gods word In Exodus 21 shows that this woman would most likely would have had rights to walk out of this marriage herself if not for some terrible distortions by the Jewish men that would refuse her this right. I have to wonder about a person view who would not feel that this woman being deprived of support by this 'husband', then casually discarded like yesterdays trash, should be permitted a 'divorce' from this barbarian who makes a mockery of our Gods marriage covenant and is no hero, but little more than a base animal based on his behavior towards his wife. Few animals even treat their families in such a manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firehill Posted February 4, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,980 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/17/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 4, 2007 Since I obviously do not appear to understand the historical/cultural/literary/contextual meaning of scripture. And the history books, biblical commentries, concordances, transalations Hebrew and Greek, including study Bibles I use appear to be errant I cannot further add anything useful to this debate. I'm still confused, so don't go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smalcald Posted February 4, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 32 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,258 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 3 Joined: 06/16/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/22/1960 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Smalcald: My point about historical criticism is the idea that the bible is a product of the time and place and prejudices of those who wrote the bible and to understand the bible we must understand these cultural boundaries makes the bible a human document.That is the essence of historical criticism at least what they do at the university level. Moses law in Deuteronomy regarding divorce was a product of hard hearted men who were disposing of their wives and is an example of such a product and evenso yeilds much for us today. Can you explain how gaining knowledge of it's cultural boundaries and utilizing those boundaries in interpretaion makes it a human document? firehill There is an entire debate about this and I think it would take away from this thread. I will leave it that the point of historical criticism is mainly to find out what is behind the meanings of the words, what cultural prejudices are guiding the authors in writing what they are writing. If a document is from God, He is not bound by human constraints. Thus there are no cultural prejudices behind what is written in the bible. If it is bound by human constraints, then His Word itself cannot be seen as infallible or without error, because if it is a human document it by definition has both error and is fallible. I hold that Holy Scripture is both without error and infallible. But really that is an entire debate which would really de-rail this; we can start another thread if you like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firehill Posted February 4, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,980 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/17/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 4, 2007 Smalcald: My point about historical criticism is the idea that the bible is a product of the time and place and prejudices of those who wrote the bible and to understand the bible we must understand these cultural boundaries makes the bible a human document.That is the essence of historical criticism at least what they do at the university level. Moses law in Deuteronomy regarding divorce was a product of hard hearted men who were disposing of their wives and is an example of such a product and evenso yeilds much for us today. Can you explain how gaining knowledge of it's cultural boundaries and utilizing those boundaries in interpretaion makes it a human document? firehill There is an entire debate about this and I think it would take away from this thread. I will leave it that the point of historical criticism is mainly to find out what is behind the meanings of the words, what cultural prejudices are guiding the authors in writing what they are writing. If a document is from God, He is not bound by human constraints. Thus there are no cultural prejudices behind what is written in the bible. If it is bound by human constraints, then His Word itself cannot be seen as infallible or without error, because if it is a human document it by definition has both error and is fallible. I hold that Holy Scripture is both without error and infallible. But really that is an entire debate which would really de-rail this; we can start another thread if you like? Sure, we can start another thread when I've the time for it. That would be a great idea. 'If a document is from God, He is not bound by human constraints.' If the Son is from God, ('Father which hath sent him') He is not bound by his humanity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherman Posted February 4, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 278 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/21/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/22/1962 Share Posted February 4, 2007 So you are in agreement that it should be granted on the basis of infidelity , or death? Actually, as I've noted, the very purpose of the bill of divorce was so that an abandoned wife could remarry legally without fear of her first husband reclaiming her. Moses was inspired to give the bill of divorce to stop the practice of a man putting away his wife, causing her to commit adultery and the man that marries her to commit adultery. It did this by bringing a proper end to the marriage, regardless of the reason for the divorce. Divorce was the legal end of the marriage covenant, freeing the woman to marry someone else and not commit adultery. There are a couple of biblical examples of relationships where the man abandoned his wife but did not give her a bill of divorce and thus caused her to commit adultery and the man that married her to commit adultery. Women were very much at the mercy of the men in their lives: husbands, fathers, and owners. The first is the story of Samson. Samson married a Philistine woman, Judg. 14. He then ran into some significant problems in their relationship and left for awhile. When he returned, her father had given her to another man to marry. The next story is even more revealing. David was given King Saul's daughter Michal in marriage. Saul plotted to kill David. Michal heard about the plot and helped David escape but left Michal. Saul subsequently gave Michal to another man to marry, Palti. Saul chases David for years. While on the run, David marries two other women. Saul and Johnathan die. The Kingdom of Israel divides; Judah takes David as King and Israel takes Ishboseth another son of Saul as King. Civil war errupts. David and Judah consistantly beat Abner (Ishboseth's General) and Israel. Abner gets tired of getting beat and conspires with David for David to reunify Israel and take the throne. David's one demand is for Michal to be given back to him. Abner convinces Ishboseth to take Michal from Palti and give her back to David. They do this. Abner and Ishboseth both die. Judah and Israel are reunited with David as king. And the last biblical seen of Michal's life is her having a marital dispute with David. Sadly, Michal ended up barren all of her life. If a princess of Israel was treated with such disrespect, one can only imagine the horos the average woman of the ancient near-east faced! This is a biblical example of a man (David) who abandoned his wife (Michal), subsequently caused her to commit adultery and the man that married her (Palti) to commit adultery. I point these two examples to show how important the bill of divorce was. It was a groundbreaking piece of legislation that broke some of the evil oppression of women in the ancient near-east. In fact, the bill of divorce was unique to Israel; no other ancient near-eastern culture had such a document that I'm aware of. This helps us understand what Jesus says in Mat.5 & 19. Unfortunately, when these passages are ripped from their cultural Jewish context, they are most often completely misunderstood and interpreted to mean something that Jesus never intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherman Posted February 5, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 278 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/21/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/22/1962 Share Posted February 5, 2007 (edited) Good evening FoC, It's pretty obvious that you've studied this subject extensively. I'm thankful to have you in this discussion. There are a couple of things concerning your post that I would like to ask/note. You noted that, "The discussion in Matt 19, and by extention Mark 10, isnt just about any old divorce, but frivolous divorce." First, please let me note that Mt.19 and Mk.10, though they record the same event, are significantly different in many ways and require being examined independently. As I'm sure you're aware, Matthew wrote to a Jewish audience and thus spoke of things that would be important to them. Mark wrote to a Roman audience and thus purposefully left out many things that only a Jewish audience would understand, and taylored his message to speak to the needs of his audience. So I find it helpful to discuss one passage at a time, because though similar they could convey very different messages because of being written by two different men to two different audiences. Concerning Mat.19, you said that the discussion was not about "any old divorce, but frivolous divorce." So are you saying that the Pharisees' question concerned frivolous divorce? The reason I ask is because from the evidence that I've seen, the best interpretation is that the Pharisees were asking Him concerning the "Any Matter" divorce philosophy and procedures promoted by the Hillelites and opposed by the Shammaites. This understanding seems to me to fit the cultural context better, as I've noted in previous posts. And it was something that was very important to the Jews of Matthew's audience. Or was there another debate concerning "frivolous divorce" that I'm not aware of? You then mention Exodus 21. I assume that you're aware that both 1st Century Rabbinical groups accepted many reasons as being morally acceptable based on this passage? I did not understand your following observations concerning this. I'll have to take time later when I can to read through the articles you linked. You then sum things up with, "There are accusations that one would have to levy in even Gods direction *IF* divorce were ALWAYS sin and for hardheartedness as some erroneously assume." Amen! Thanks for you input into this discussion. Blessings, Edited February 5, 2007 by Sherman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kat8585 Posted February 5, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 1,360 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 7,866 Content Per Day: 1.23 Reputation: 26 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/22/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/18/1946 Share Posted February 5, 2007 If the Son is from God, ('Father which hath sent him') He is not bound by his humanity? No, because He is 100% God, too. He is bound is the sense that He is no longer omnipresent--He is also 100%human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherman Posted February 5, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 278 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/21/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/22/1962 Share Posted February 5, 2007 I hold that Holy Scripture is both without error and infallible. AMEN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherman Posted February 5, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 278 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/21/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/22/1962 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Since I obviously do not appear to understand the historical/cultural/literary/contextual meaning of scripture. And the history books, biblical commentries, concordances, transalations Hebrew and Greek, including study Bibles I use appear to be errant I cannot further add anything useful to this debate. Hey GeneV, I hope you hang around and continue to contribute. I'm here to learn with all of my brothers and sisters the unsearchable riches of the Word of God. Sadly, many, if not most, commentaries and study bibles miss several key points imo in their analysis of Mt.19 and related passages. Most come from the traditional perspective of not taking into account the Jewish cultural and historical context surrounding the topic of MDR. One of the things I love about debating, wrestling over and with the Word. Whether you win or loose, you WIN! In fact, it's far better to loose and subsequently gain the truth! Hallelujah, God's amazing! your brother in Christ, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts