David and Bathsheba?

[Nikud]

So wifely bestiality is a get out of marriage free card? Given there is no longer stoning for adultery, you're basically saying she's free to remarry after divorce in all cases? Nor does this jive with Matthew 5:31-32.

Since you want to go there I join you. Same note different key, So a man commits beastiality or homosexual acts does he get "a get out of marriage free card" and is free to remarry? If a woman cannot divorce is she required to stay with a man who commits beastiality or homosexual acts? How about incest? A man is having sex with his daughter, is his wife still biblically bound to him even though he is committing porneia?

So your stance is if she commits act Porneia and a justified divorce happens, she is prohibited from marriage?
What about G-ds forgiveness, mercy and grace? They don't factor in? Do you only hold this opinion for women or for men as well?

1 Corinthians 7:8-9

But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them to remain as I am. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with desire.

Divorced are unmarried.

It's not so much that the guilt of adultery falls back exclusively on her first husband and she's innocent, but that the first husband share's the guilt. She could still elect to remain single.

Mark 10:11

And He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.
And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she is committing adultery.”

Applying the plain reading you do of Matthew to Mark, then would I be wrong to say that you hold the opinion that Divorce Men cannot remarry and if they do its adultery. After all he could still elect to remain single.

 

[The Revolting Man]

So, I’m pretty sure that I’m following the thought and agreeing with almost all of the post above, but I’m a bit curious about your thoughts on the unlawful shunning. What does this look like to you in real time, biblically or otherwise?

I think a shunning is simply a man refusing to either divorce or live with a woman.

 

[The Revolting Man]

So wifely bestiality is a get out of marriage free card? Given there is no longer stoning for adultery, you're basically saying she's free to remarry after divorce in all cases? Nor does this jive with Matthew 5:31-32.



She still commits adultery when he puts her away for wrong reasons. Notice also, the divorcing husband needn't remarry to cause adultery. And although it doesn't say here he is guilty of adultery it does in the other passages.



See Matthew 5:32 above again; "causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.". It's not so much that the guilt of adultery falls back exclusively on her first husband and she's innocent, but that the first husband share's the guilt. She could still elect to remain single.

I will have to look back in to it again. I'm sorry that's the best I can do at the he moment. You bring up some good points.

 

[rockfox]

@Kevin

I'll restate my question a little clearer; with less content to distract...

In your opinion, in what scenarios is a woman scripturally prohibited from marrying another man after a divorce from her husband?

 

[Nikud]

@Kevin

I'll restate my question a little clearer; with less content to distract...

In your opinion, in what scenarios is a woman scripturally prohibited from marrying another man after a divorce from her husband?

And another Side step

Stop avoiding answering questions.

If don't have any answers just say so.

As for your question if you go back and read my post it clear what my stance is on that, but just in case there's to much content I'll boil it down.

Opinions don't matter, scripture does. I made the argument about lesbiansism, an opinion based beleif, earlier so everyone would point out opinions don't matter scripture does. All of scripture together makes context. When you try to make a prohibition against something that scripture has multiple wittnesses saying your interpretation is wrong then it means you have taken something out of context.

The context here is not to focus on who can divorce and remarry but that you shouldn't divorce.

Just like the Pharisee and Sadducce we fall in the cycle of judgement, condemnation and self justification.

 

[Nikud]

Jesus did make new doctrine about marriage, specifically expanding the definition of adultery to include desire and (despite what this thread may lead one to believe) clarify both the theory and practice of divorce.

So your stance is that Yeshua added to the law, therefore sinned and did not live a sinless life as a mortal to become a perfect sinless sacrifice. Since y'all are into plain readings, at which point did he say this or that is a sin.

What he was saying about lust in the heart being Adultery, is a teaching that you need to chance your heart.

Matthew 5:27-30

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that everyone who looks upon a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. And if your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away! It is better for you that one part of your body should be destroyed, than that your whole body be thrown into Gehenna. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away! It is better for you that one part of your body should be destroyed, than that your whole body go into Gehenna.

Plain reading when we sin were suppose to cut of our hand or gouge out our eye when we use them to sin. Our eyes and hands don't cause us to stumble our heart does.

On another thread you said

http://therevoltingman.weebly.com/what-does-god-say-about-pornograpy.html

This link is to a study I posted to an aborted attempt at a website. It expresses my heartfelt thoughts on the subject of "porn".

This is an issue that I believe has been trumped up to drive some men out of the church, place others in a false bondage and give still others an excuse to shirk their duties.

Like many things; such as smoking, gambling, drinking,swearing, hobbies and overeating, it can get out of hand. And I don't think anyone would classify it as healthy. It will be progressively minimized in the maturing Christian's life. But God doesn't regulate it so we can't. The normal laws concerning sex apply though and while there is a lot of freedom there in principle, in practice there can be a lot of restrictions.

How can this be true if as you said Yeshua changed the defintion of àdultery to include lust. Watching porn inspires lust.

http://www.biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/is-porn-use-good-for-christians.13180/#post-142976

I agree he was telling us how we are supose to live in a way pleasing to G-d (himself), what he never did was declare something new to be sinfull and add to the law. I use to hold the same opinion that he was adding to the law but after a little bantering with @Mojo on a thread about a year ago, you were also. It seems we switched sides of the arguement.

Romans 7:7

"What shall we say then? Is the Torah sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the Torah. For I would not have known about coveting if the Torah had not said, “You shall not covet.”

I'm pretty sure that if Yeshua had declared something a sin Paul would have given him credit.

 

[The Revolting Man]

So your stance is that Yeshua added to the law, therefore sinned and did not live a sinless life as a mortal to become a perfect sinless sacrifice. Since y'all are into plain readings, at which point did he say this or that is a sin.

What he was saying about lust in the heart being Adultery, is a teaching that you need to chance your heart.

Matthew 5:27-30

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that everyone who looks upon a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. And if your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away! It is better for you that one part of your body should be destroyed, than that your whole body be thrown into Gehenna. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away! It is better for you that one part of your body should be destroyed, than that your whole body go into Gehenna.

Plain reading when we sin were suppose to cut of our hand or gouge out our eye when we use them to sin. Our eyes and hands don't cause us to stumble our heart does.

On another thread you said

How can this be true if as you said Yeshua changed the defintion of àdultery to include lust. Watching porn inspires lust.

http://www.biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/is-porn-use-good-for-christians.13180/#post-142976

I agree he was telling us how we are supose to live in a way pleasing to G-d (himself), what he never did was declare something new to be sinfull and add to the law. I use to hold the same opinion that he was adding to the law but after a little bantering with @Mojo on a thread about a year ago, you were also. It seems we switched sides of the arguement.

Romans 7:7

"What shall we say then? Is the Torah sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the Torah. For I would not have known about coveting if the Torah had not said, “You shall not covet.”

I'm pretty sure that if Yeshua had declared something a sin Paul would have given him credit.

Jesus clearly brought changes to the Law Kevin. We can't escape that. We have to figure out what those changes were and not go beyond them but the Law definitely evolved; at the very least. None of us have offered a sacrifice for our sins. And lust isn't a sin. God refers to Himself as lusting (I promise, look the word up). It's lusting after forbidden things that is a sin. Jesus expanded the definition of adultery to include lusting after a married woman, not simply laying with her. You can still lust after unmarried women.

 

[Nikud]

It's lusting after forbidden things that is a sin. Jesus expanded the definition of adultery to include lusting after a married woman, not simply laying with her. You can still lust after unmarried women.

That was already covered under do not covet thy neighbors wife. Nothing new was added. He didn't expand the defintion but point out that part of it was being over looked and we needed to change our hearts.

Edit: Spiritual adultery is unfaithfulness to G-d, it's always just called adultery. Lusting after a married woman is going against the will of G-d thus adultery.

 

[eye4them]

Jesus expanded the definition of adultery to include lusting after a married woman, not simply laying with her.

I trow not.

Mat 5:28 "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

 

[The Revolting Man]

That was already covered under do not covet thy neighbors wife. Nothing new was added. He didn't expand the defintion but point out that part of it was being over looked and we needed to change our hearts.

Edit: Spiritual adultery is unfaithfulness to G-d, it's always just called adultery. Lusting after a married woman is going against the will of G-d thus adultery.

Incorrect, not coveting your neighbor's wife was lumped in with not coveting his ass, or any of his property. It was in Matthew that Jesus separated it out and elevated it to adultery.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I trow not.

Mat 5:28 "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

I don't know what you're saying.

 

[eye4them]

I don't know what you're saying.

He didn't say that lusting after her is adultery, He said that lusting after her is adultery in the heart.
I don't see that any physical adultery has taken place.
Anyway, that's how I see it.

 

[Mojo]

None of us have offered a sacrifice for our sins.

Two responses:

1. We offer our bodies as "living sacrifices".
2. The sacrifice for sin was offered up "Once for all." This once and final sacrifice is sufficient to cover our sins in perpetuity! It is not an addition to the Law, though. God still requires shed blood to cover our sins, but he looks on us and sees the blood covering of Yeshua that satisfies it each time. The Law hasn't changed. Blood is required, blood was given, and continues to give...i.e..."perfect sacrifice."

 

[The Revolting Man]

Two responses:

1. We offer our bodies as "living sacrifices".
2. The sacrifice for sin was offered up "Once for all." This once and final sacrifice is sufficient to cover our sins in perpetuity! It is not an addition to the Law, though. God still requires shed blood to cover our sins, but he looks on us and sees the blood covering of Yeshua that satisfies it each time. The Law hasn't changed. Blood is required, blood was given, and continues to give...i.e..."perfect sacrifice."

I'm sorry. I wasn't specific. None of us have ever slit a goat's throat for our sins while we were standing next to another one that we then sent off into the wilderness. These were Laws that were given to performed in a precise manner. The Law was changed so that we don't have to do that anymore. You can use the term fulfilled if you like but the upshot of it is that we don't have to do somethings that we once did.

 

[The Revolting Man]

He didn't say that lusting after her is adultery, He said that lusting after her is adultery in the heart.
I don't see that any physical adultery has taken place.
Anyway, that's how I see it.

That's a fine line to walk and you have to throw that "in your heart" part out there very quick after the "you have committed adultery".

 

[Nikud]

Incorrect, not coveting your neighbor's wife was lumped in with not coveting his ass, or any of his property. It was in Matthew that Jesus separated it out and elevated it to adultery.

So your stance is he added to the law.

Deuteronomy 4:2

You must not add to the word that I am commanding you or take away from it—in order to keep the mitzvot of Adonai your G-d that I am commanding you.

Matthew 23:1-3

Then Yeshua spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying, “The Torah scholars and Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses. So whatever they tell you, do and observe. But don’t do what they do; for what they say, they do not do.

That would make Yeshua (G-d) a hypocrite for chastising them for saying and not observing, while He Himself said don't add then added. Which is saying and not observing.

If he changed the meaning of the law. He as a mortal was unable to keep the mitzvots therefore not the Messiah.
This is regardless if someone beleives we still must follow Torah or that the law was abolished.

Matthew 5:17-20
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Torah or the Prophets! I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. Amen, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or serif shall ever pass away from the Torah until all things come to pass. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever keeps and teaches them, this one shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees and Torahs cholars, you shall never enter the kingdom of heaven!

He had yet to fullfill prophecy when you say he changed the law. Meaning if He change the law that means Yeshua was a liar and did not full fill the role of a sinnless sacrifice.

That's a fine line to walk and you have to throw that "in your heart" part out there very quick after the "you have committed adultery".

Your trying to cut a complete statement off midpoint and ignore the realavent point to make a case for your stance.

You can argue that the law changed after the crucifiction and we don't have to follow it

But you can't argue the fact that

Yeshua did have to follow it to be the perfect sacrifice.

 

[Mojo]

I'm sorry. I wasn't specific. None of us have ever slit a goat's throat for our sins while we were standing next to another one that we then sent off into the wilderness. These were Laws that were given to performed in a precise manner. The Law was changed so that we don't have to do that anymore. You can use the term fulfilled if you like but the upshot of it is that we don't have to do somethings that we once did.

We can go down this road for a long time and even start to discuss whether God really required them or liked them to begin with, or did he really require an upright heart?

Bottom line for me:
Law required blood sacrifice, Yeshua gave/gives it.
Don't covet you're neighbors wife is reaffirmed, not changed.
I did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it.

 

[The Revolting Man]

So your stance is he added to the law.

Deuteronomy 4:2

You must not add to the word that I am commanding you or take away from it—in order to keep the mitzvot of Adonai your G-d that I am commanding you.

No. My stance is that Jesus is the Law and that He did elaborate and tweak some things when He was with us in the flesh. That seems so self evident to me that I can't even formulate a coherent argument. He changed many things.

He had yet to fullfill prophecy

when you say he changed the law. Meaning if He change the law that means Yeshua was a liar and did not full fill the role of a sinnless sacrifice.

This is not so self evident. I would have to see your line of reasoning on this. I suggest a different thread.

If he changed the meaning of the law. He as a mortal was unable to keep the mitzvots therefore not the Messiah.
This is regardless if someone beleives we still must follow Torah or that the law was abolished.

Again, I don't see how this is the case. It seems like a giant leap from thing to the other.

None of the things we're talking about changed a sin to a non-sin. Coveting your neighbor's wife was upgraded from a sin with no earthly consequences to a mortal sin that required death. The definition of adultery wasn't changed it was enlarged.

Your trying to cut a complete statement off midpoint and ignore the realavent point to make a case for your stance.

Absolutely not. I'm adding back in the part that says "you have committed adultery". The fact that it was in your heart doesn't change the sin. Coveting your neighbor's wife is now adultery. The Law was enlarged.

Look, God changed the Law when He gave the Law. There had been a Law prior to Moses that God expected people to live up to and then He enlarged it and even changed it. So I'm not sure why you think God can't do what He will with is Word/Law. I really don't see a conflict with Jesus statements about fulfilling the Law but not doing away with the Law and the fact that He changed some stuff. Maybe part of the fulfillment was that He made us have our minds right as well as our actions. That would fit in with the prophesy of serving God in fullness and in truth.

And Mojo pretty much punted and fled on the whole sacrifice thing but there is no doubt that there were specific commands to perform rituals in certain ways at certain times and NO ONE thinks they have to do those things now. Some things changed. If they didn't then we're all in a heap of hot water because none of us are even remotely trying to do it all.

 

[The Revolting Man]

We can go down this road for a long time and even start to discuss whether God really required them or liked them to begin with, or did he really require an upright heart?

Bottom line for me:
Law required blood sacrifice, Yeshua gave/gives it.
Don't covet you're neighbors wife is reaffirmed, not changed.
I did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it.

That's a very short road to go down Mojo. You know God liked His Word and that He really required them. If He didn't then He has a lot of explaining to do to all of the Israelites and other nations He unjustly punished for no good reason.

 

[Nikud]

This is not so self evident. I would have to see your line of reasoning on this. I suggest a different thread.

Naw, actually I just have one last thing and then I'm done. You can say enlarged, tweaked or what ever you want. It all means changed. Added to.

Deuteronomy 4:2

You must not add to the word that I am commanding you or take away from it—in order to keep the mitzvot of Adonai your G-d that I am commanding you.

Matthew 15:14

"And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a ditch." Don't allow someone, who has added to and taken away from G-d's word, to lead you. Open your eyes and read G-d's word for yourself. Those who have added to and taken away from G-d's word will be lost. If you continue to follow them, then you too will be lost"

Revelation 22:18-19

"For I testify unto everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book, if anyone adds to these things, G-d will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of this prophecy, G-d shall take away his part from the Book of Life, and from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Matthew 5:17-20

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Torah or the Prophets! I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. Amen, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or serif shall ever pass away from the Torah until all things come to pass.

If He changed the law then He did not fulfill messianic prophecy (I'll leave it to you to read through them) and He lied because when you change the law you change from what is written and those letters and serifs pass away and are replaced with the letters and serifs of a new meaning of the law.

Numbers 23:19

G-d is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

The stance that Yeshua is the law and can change them if he wants still makes Yeshua (G-d) a hypocrite for chastising the Pharasee for saying and not observing, while He Himself did the same thing. Look at the defintion of hypocrisy the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense....lieing.

If Yeshua (G-d) lied He is not who He says He is.

That seems so self evident to me that I can't even formulate a coherent argument.

Not being able to formulate a coherent argument for beleif is a sign that that beleif is not self evident.

These were Laws that were given to performed in a precise manner.

Do you listen to your self. One second your saying it's ok to change Torah then the next your saying that the mitzvots were meant to be followed in a precise manner. Only the ones you choose have to be, right. Not all of the word of G-d was supposed to be followed in a precise manner. It's not like G-d never destroyed someone for not following His mitzvots precisely,

Yeshua had to follow Torah to be the perfect sacrifice, without blemish. To do something perfectly you kind of have to be precise in your application.