Protestants and adultry

[Our_Refuge]

Refuge…how do you get that Matthew 19 is talking about engagement? As it squares with verse 5 specifically?

Easy. Go to chapter 1 of Matthew verse 18-19
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame,** resolved to divorce her quietly**.”

As I posted earlier, Mary was betrothed {engaged} to Joseph. This was legally binding. The engagement could only be broken by death or divorce which is what Joseph was going to do, divorce Mary and end the engagement . Matthew 19:9 is about ending an** engagement **because of fornication, lewd conduct, it is not about divorce between married persons which was and is forbidden

 

[9Choirs]

Refuge…how do you get that Matthew 19 is talking about engagement? As it squares with verse 5 specifically?

If you looked at the culture of Jewish marriages 2000 years ago, by actually reading something other than the Bible, you’d know that there was often a long gap (1 year or so) between a couples legal marriage/engagement and its consummation (sex) where there was ample opportunity for either spouse to be unfaithful, which rendered the marriage officially sacramental. An engagement was legally binding too.

It was in this period of time when the couple were legally married where either the husband or wife could have had sexual relations with someone else, which was a valid reason to end the legal marriage.

Mathew1:18- 19
Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost. 19 Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately.

Mathew 19:9 clearly ties in with the above verse. It is clear that Mary and Joseph hadn’t consummated their marriage from the words ‘before they came together’, so their marriage was not yet sacramental, but only legal. Joseph wanted to dissolve his legal marriage to Mary, as he believed her to be unfaithful as she was pregnant.

In order to understand the Bible, you need to understand the Jewish culture at the time as the Bible was written from a predominantly Jewish point of view and mainly towards Jews (in the OT anyway)

Ave Maria

 

[Rightlydivide]

Valid.

I know it was a joke, but you should stay spokesperson for all Protestantism. It would help if they had one unified voice

A zing I have no answer for!

 

[Our_Refuge]

Written to the Jews? A Catholic ultra dispensationalist!!
Now…I have seen everything…

Yes, Matthew was written for a Jewish audience. All of the gospels were written for different groups. That is why the gospels highlight different events.
This is from, I believe ,a protestant site.

lifeofchrist.com/life/gospels/print.asp
Audience
**Matthew was written to Jews **who were familiar with Old Testament prophecy. Jewish customs were not explained in this gospel. Matthew often mentioned the Law of Moses.

 

[9Choirs]

So its ok to cherry pick what is right and wrong??
I get quotes from both OT and NT to point out things but what your saying is OT doesnt apply??

From taking a brief look at your profile, it seems that although you have no official religious affiliation, you are drawn to religions and are perhaps trying to understand the reasoning behind them.

If you want to understand why there are billions of Christians on this earth and how they reconcile some strict laws in the OT with the Good news in the NT, then you really need to approach your studies with an open mind. If there are billions of Christians who’ve come to a legitimate understanding and you haven’t, then it is likely that you need to engage in more in depth study. That is only how any of this will make sense to you.

There is no cherry picking from the OT and NT with Catholics, but only separating ceremonial laws from the moral laws, and laws which pertained to the Jewish people only, and penal laws which have been clearly abrogated such as stoning adulterous women. There is an overall fulfilment of the law which Jesus himself said he had specifically come to fulfil. As Catholics, we have the aid of the Magisterium to infallibly discern scripture, so much of the intense scripture studies have been done already.

Ave Maria

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightlydivide;3781337:

I’ll concede that the words ‘civil’ and ‘legal’ are not used in scripture, however if it is implied then I think it is not being intellectually dishonest to come to that conclusion.

!

Remember that many ‘gay Christians’ will use your argument that the word ‘homosexuality’ is not explicitly used in some scripture which most Christians believe to prohibit homosexuality, so homosexual acts are permissible.

The Bible clearly speaks against homosexuality, just because people claim it says otherwise in no way argues against a literal understanding standing of scripture anymore so than a offshot priest wearing a rainbow stole talking about Pope Joan negates your argument from tradition.
We should not attempt to define our views by using extreme examples.

Yet we Christians who take into consideration the whole of scripture which begins from the Adam and Eve Story in Genesis 2:24 onwards to conclude that God intended for only male and female relationships to exist and no other combinations.

Amen to that.

We also conclude that divorce was never part of God’s original plan but was permitted in the OT due to mans sinfulness: Jesus said "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so

." (Matt. 19:3–8; cf. Mark 10:2–9; Luke 16:18)
amen, you do well when you stick to the plain meaning of scripture.

However, if we’re going to play the ‘that word is not in the Bible game’ then perhaps you can point me to the word ‘altar call’ and ‘rapture’ in the Bible because I’ve tried my mighty darn hardest to find it without no avail? What say you, non denominational Christian?

I do not use those words, if you would have read my 970 plus posts first you would know that. I am not a nondenominational Christian, the word nondenominational is not in the Bible of course. Just a Christian is fine.

I

beg to differ. It contradicts your subjective interpretation of Mathew 19:9. It explicitly states that remarriage after divorce is adultery and there are NO exceptions cited

even if the divorce was a result of a spouses unfaitfulness.

except for fornication, its in the Bible

Nor does the word ‘trinity’ or a statement of Jesus’s full divinity and full humanity, does it? Jugding by the way you interpret the Bible, I think the Jehovah Witnesses are best suited for you.

You think? I believe everything in the Bible. Thats good enough for me.

Hmmm. Reading comprehension doesn’t seem to be your forte, does it? It doesn’t require an explanation- It says what it says: Divorce is unfavourable but if it occurs you must remain unmarried or reconcile with your husband. Comprende?

I detect a tone in your writing although due to poor reading skills I cannot be sure. I am also not bilingual so I will ask you to refrain from cussing at me in a foreign tongue.

Says Mr Sole Magisterium himself, who liberally interprets scripture according to his sinful desires.

I told Mom not to give me that name, I knew it would create problems.
Last I checked, we are all sinful…
and I am not divorced so I have no clue why you would think my interpretation has anything to do with that…

Just out of curiousity, do I listen to your interpretation of scripture, or should I settle on the interpretation of one of the other 33 thousand Christian denominations who mainly claim to derrive their Christian ethos from the Bible solely, just as you do? Your arguments are not much different from ‘gay Christians’ if you ask me…

Just follow the Bible, thats my advice.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Easy. Go to chapter 1 of Matthew verse 18-19
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame,** resolved to divorce her quietly**.”

As I posted earlier, Mary was betrothed {engaged} to Joseph. This was legally binding. The engagement could only be broken by death or divorce which is what Joseph was going to do, divorce Mary and end the engagement . Matthew 19:9 is about ending an** engagement **because of fornication, lewd conduct, it is not about divorce between married persons which was and is forbidden

It is absolutely nothing to do with ending an engagement.

 

[Rightlydivide]

If you looked at the culture of Jewish marriages 2000 years ago, by actually reading something other than the Bible, you’d know that there was often a long gap (1 year or so) between a couples legal marriage/engagement and its consummation (sex) where there was ample opportunity for either spouse to be unfaithful, which rendered the marriage officially sacramental. An engagement was legally binding too.

It was in this period of time when the couple were legally married where either the husband or wife could have had sexual relations with someone else, which was a valid reason to end the legal marriage.

Mathew1:18- 19
Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost. 19 Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately.

Mathew 19:9 clearly ties in with the above verse. It is clear that Mary and Joseph hadn’t consummated their marriage from the words ‘before they came together’, so their marriage was not yet sacramental, but only legal. Joseph wanted to dissolve his legal marriage to Mary, as he believed her to be unfaithful as she was pregnant.

In order to understand the Bible, you need to understand the Jewish culture at the time as the Bible was written from a predominantly Jewish point of view and mainly towards Jews (in the OT anyway)

Ave Maria

No, the before they came together indicates that she was a Virgin and that the birth was not the result of Joseph and her having relations. Quit reading things into the text.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Yes, Matthew was written for a Jewish audience. All of the gospels were written for different groups. That is why the gospels highlight different events.
This is from, I believe ,a protestant site.

lifeofchrist.com/life/gospels/print.asp
Audience
**Matthew was written to Jews **who were familiar with Old Testament prophecy. Jewish customs were not explained in this gospel. Matthew often mentioned the Law of Moses.

So what parts of the gospels are applicable for Christians?

 

[mark_a]

So what parts of the gospels are applicable for Christians?

The parts about adultry.

 

[Our_Refuge]

So what parts of the gospels are applicable for Christians?

All of the bible. Go to this christian website and learn something
lifeofchrist.com/life/gospels/print.asp

 

[9Choirs]

The Bible clearly speaks against homosexuality, just because people claim it says otherwise in no way argues against a literal understanding standing of scripture anymore so than a offshot priest wearing a rainbow stole talking about Pope Joan negates your argument from tradition.
We should not attempt to define our views by using extreme examples.

Some questioning of some scriptural verses prohibiting homosexual acts are in fact valid, however, like you and like the Holy Catholic Church, I have come to the reasonable conclusion that Gods plan from the beginning was one man and one woman, as Jesus confirmed in the Gospel.

I do not use those words, if you would have read my 970 plus posts first you would know that. I am not a nondenominational Christian, the word nondenominational is not in the Bible of course. Just a Christian is fine.

That has now been noted

except for fornication, its in the Bible

Have I ever said it wasn’t? It is in the Bible along with stoning adulteress woman, isn’t it? CONTEXT is the important word here, and you will only understand the context until you do some background reading on the culture of the time, as Mathew was writing to the Jewish people and so did not elaborate about Jewish customs as his target audience were already familiar with it.

You think? I believe everything in the Bible. Thats good enough for me.

So you don’t believe in the trinity and Jesus’s full divinity as it is not in the Bible, is it?

I detect a tone in your writing although due to poor reading skills I cannot be sure. I am also not bilingual so I will ask you to refrain from cussing at me in a foreign tongue.

Cussing at you? Comprende translates as understand. Basic Spanish is not hard to get your head around- it certainly isn’t for me and I’m not even Spanish.

But as I was saying , that piece of scripture pretty much speaks for itself. It states that divorce is unfavourable but if it occurs you must remain unmarried or reconcile with your husband. That is not difficult to comprehend.

I told Mom not to give me that name, I knew it would create problems. Last I checked, we are all sinful…
and I am not divorced so I have no clue why you would think my interpretation has anything to do with that…

Sarcasm noted. Such a name for you is fitting however. Regardless of whether or not you are divorced, you clearly are holding a get out card for any marriage you may enter by citing adultery as a legitimate reason for doing so and then remarrying.

Just follow the Bible, thats my advice.

33 thousand Christian denominations and counting all claim to follow the Bible, yet come to very different conclusions of scripture so please help me out

Ave Maria

 

[9Choirs]

No, the before they came together indicates that she was a Virgin and that the birth was not the result of Joseph and her having relations. Quit reading things into the text.

I don’t disagree with that explanation. Mary was a virgin who was betrothed to Jesus (engaged). A marriage is only official when consummated, i.e. when the husband and wife ‘become one flesh’. Their marriage was still only legal and not sacramental however, unless you take the word ‘betrothed’ to mean something other than engaged.

Ave Maria

 

[Our_Refuge]

It is absolutely nothing to do with ending an engagement.

You choose to remain blind. Several posters have pointed out Jewish custom to you and yet you do not want to hear the truth. Private interpretation of the scripture…the error of Protestantism.
Read a little history and maybe you will understand.

.
schreiberumc.org/sermons/Christmas%20Eve%20Sermon%2012-24-07.doc

"To begin with, as concerned as Joseph is about the Law, he has an even greater concern for people. As you know from the story, Mary and Joseph are already engaged. In those days, engagement was a binding arrangement between people already legally considered to be husband and wife. Engagements were not broken simply by giving back a ring; they could** be dissolved only by death or divorce**. Unfaithfulness during the engagement period was considered to be adultery, so in the legal sense, when Mary turns up pregnant during her engagement to Joseph, she is considered an adulteress.

Even before the angel of the Lord appears to Joseph, he decides to dismiss Mary quietly, **to divorce her **privately without degrading embarrassment. Joseph decides to treat Mary with mercy, with compassion, with sensitivity, with concern for her welfare, with kindness, with love and grace. He doesn’t give her what she deserves according to the Law; instead he treats her with respect and dignity. He refuses to shame and humiliate Mary. Joseph doesn’t violate the Law, but he takes the most gentle and lenient approach possible. He acts in a way that respects both the Law of the Bible and the Christian orientation to love And in so doing, he displays an even greater regard for Mary, the person he loves most, than for the Law, which he loves as well. This, this, this is what Matthew believes is the chief characteristic of the righteous person."

 

[Rightlydivide]

All of the bible. Go to this christian website and learn something
lifeofchrist.com/life/gospels/print.asp

It was a rhetorical question based upon your willingness to apply certain teachings applicable to the Jews and not Gentiles. A real distinction if utilized properly.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Have I ever said it wasn’t? It is in the Bible along with stoning adulteress woman, isn’t it? CONTEXT is the important word here, and you will only understand the context until you do some background reading on the culture of the time, as Mathew was writing to the Jewish people and so did not elaborate about Jewish customs as his target audience were already familiar with it.

Context is important. There is nothing in the 19th chapter to designate it is referring only to engagement. Specifically the 5th verse quote indicates the immediate context are those who have already left and are married. It does not preclude engagement but the focus only on that is not within the text or inferred.

So you don’t believe in the trinity and Jesus’s full divinity as it is not in the Bible, is it?

We have been down this route and I have been declared fully Orthodox based upon what scripture teaches, although we differ on the usage of terms. If you wish to go down that same route to discover I believe the Bible and have a couple of hours, knock yourself out.

Cussing at you? Comprende translates as understand. Basic Spanish is not hard to get your head around- it certainly isn’t for me and I’m not even Spanish.

It was a joke

Sarcasm noted. Such a name for you is fitting however. Regardless of whether or not you are divorced, you clearly are holding a get out card for any marriage you may enter by citing adultery as a legitimate reason for doing so and then remarrying.

I am quoting scripture, thats all.

33 thousand Christian denominations and counting all claim to follow the Bible, yet come to very different conclusions of scripture so please help me out

33,001 counting you and I do not feel responsbible for them anymore than you do, the degree they do or do not follow the Bible is not my fault

 

[Rightlydivide]

I don’t disagree with that explanation. Mary was a virgin who was betrothed to Jesus (engaged). A marriage is only official when consummated, i.e. when the husband and wife ‘become one flesh’. Their marriage was still only legal and not sacramental however, unless you take the word ‘betrothed’ to mean something other than engaged.

Ave Maria

Go to the chapters on the siblings of Jesus, it encapsulates my views for the most part:
www.confrontingcatholicism.com

 

[deb1]

Debate deb1, appears to be rampant amongst everyone…hence the Orthodox and Catholic threads who both appeal to common history and scripture…

I wasn’t speaking about the history of the Church, either Orthodox or Catholic. I was talking about the Jewish Culture of Jesus’ time.

 

[deb1]

The bible is full of examples on adultry :-
Abraham took the slave girl Hagar as a concubine…
King Solomon He had 700 official wives and 300 concubines…

Was it ok for them but not for the rest of humankind??

:knight1:

Stories like Lot with his daughters or the impregnantion of Hagar the slave girl, are mentioned without any judgement at all. This is because the stories are meant as narratives.

One thing that has always struck me about the Old Testament is that the main characters are so humanely flawed. This isn’t found in many myths of the time period. Most mythical heros are all good. But Old Testament men and women, although overall good, sometimes commit questionable acts that are not commented on. They are not cut and pasted good guys. You can often imagine such people, with all their faults, having lived at some time period.

It is interesting that many of the bad deeds that Old Testament men and women comment do have a resounding negative influence on their lives. Abraham did not trust God for a son and had discord between his wife and concubine, Hagar. King David commited adultery and lost his newborn child and his throne temporarily.

We get so used to the black and white, cut and paste, very flat characters of today’s movies and television that many people want the bible characters to be all good and all bad. But that is not the way people are in real life and the stories would have no resonance with us if they had flat, unreal characters.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I wasn’t speaking about the history of the Church, either Orthodox or Catholic. I was talking about the Jewish Culture of Jesus’ time.

What specifically are you saying about Jewish culture?
You do know they allowed remarriage?

Now no one would dispute that Jews,
Greeks, and Romans in the first century
assumed that a divorce entitled one to
remarry. It is plain too that the Old Testament
tolerates divorce with the right to
remarriage, though it also quite clearly
does not like it. But full divorce was certainly
legal.

sbts.edu/pdf/sbjt/SBJT_2002Spring3.pdf