History of a Doctrine on Divorce and Remarriage

Ask the question you always wanted to ask, and were afraid to. There is no dumb question. Be courageous, for here you will find people ready to talk.<P>All Villagers may post here.

Moderators: jochanaan, MatthewNeal, jimmy, natman, Senior Moderator, Moderators

Re: History of a Doctrine on Divorce and Remarriage

Postby Petros » Mon Sep 21, 2015 1:23 pm

Now I am going to have to run back through our interchanges and sort you for enneatype - unless you know where you fit?

I am a 5w4 - many [not all] of us are well advised to wait and be selective - wish I had, though in my case the choice of wife was not bad, the choice of mother in law disastrous. I was taken out of that, thank God, into a life with a perfect wife [but for the nudity issue] and an incredibly good mother in law.

A 5w6, on the other hand, can make a series of really bad choices.
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5608
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Upper Michigan

Re: History of a Doctrine on Divorce and Remarriage

Postby nakedpreacher » Sun Sep 27, 2015 9:15 pm

I can not guess where the doctrine started but it has always bothered me the idea that the actions of one person can cause guilt in another (Causes her to commit adultery) the problem is that English really has no passive form of adultery. A better translation would be causes her to be adultered. When we look at this we should look at the voice (active or passive) of divorce which does not come across in English. In ancient times men could have multiple wives (this was not outlawed in Judaism until the 13th century I believe) so sexual morality was vastly different between men and women. Divorce laws favored the man and I am not sure that a woman could divorce a man under any circumstances. Her only option was to run away. My reading of it, both the words of Christ and those of Paul is that the wronged party is never held accountable for the actions of the guilty party. To say that Pornea only refers to unconfessed premarital intercourse is ridiculous. It is defining the word in light of the transliterated root's derivatives. Pornea as previously mentioned refers to any sexual irregularity.
If, when we judged others, our real motive was to destroy evil; we should look for evil where it is certain to be found, and that is in our own hearts. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship
nakedpreacher
Native Resident
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Lexington, South Carolina, USA

Re: History of a Doctrine on Divorce and Remarriage

Postby Bare_Truth » Sun Sep 27, 2015 10:30 pm

nakedpreacher wrote:...... the problem is that English really has no passive form of adultery. A better translation would be causes her to be adultered. When we look at this we should look at the voice (active or passive) of divorce which does not come across in English. .......

That is certainly a plausible explanation of the strangness of the interpretation that I have cited. Do you know of any authoritative examination of this sort of problem that one might study into. The attempt to translate a passage of a foreign language structure into english that does not have such a structure is like trying to translate a foreign word which has no cognate in English, only much harder!

nakedpreacher wrote:... To say that Pornea only refers to unconfessed premarital intercourse is ridiculous. .
Those who try to make such a tortured interpretation often confuse the issue by saying that the KJV use of the word "fornication" is inaccurate, (which it is), and then try to figure out a replacement which seems to fit their on preconceived idea.


nakedpreacher wrote:... It is defining the word in light of the transliterated root's derivatives.
Actually that is not all that bad as a method for seeking avenues of inquiry as to what a word might mean, but as such is suitable for producing questions, not answers.
I never met anyone that I could not learn something from.
User avatar
Bare_Truth
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2518
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:07 pm
Location: Ozark Plateau, Southwest Missouri

Re: History of a Doctrine on Divorce and Remarriage

Postby Petros » Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:00 am

It won't be today - too much on [in more senses than one]. But I will want to see what the Syriac does with it. Though those who think it predates the Greek are wrong, the translation team were Aramaic speakers who could look at the Greek and guess within a syllable or two what Jesus and the guys were saying - often that helps disambiguate. Maybe tonight - when I have something I will let you know.
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5608
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Upper Michigan

Re: History of a Doctrine on Divorce and Remarriage

Postby Ramblinman » Mon Sep 28, 2015 7:24 pm

nakedpreacher wrote:I can not guess where the doctrine started but it has always bothered me the idea that the actions of one person can cause guilt in another (Causes her to commit adultery) the problem is that English really has no passive form of adultery.


You forget the word "cuckold" referring to the husband of an adulterous woman.
Ramblinman
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:22 am

Re: History of a Doctrine on Divorce and Remarriage

Postby Petros » Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:11 pm

Nice one.
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5608
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Upper Michigan

Re: History of a Doctrine on Divorce and Remarriage

Postby nakedpreacher » Mon Sep 28, 2015 11:57 pm

I did not find this interpretation anywhere but simply studied the words myself. I made up the word adultered to get the point across. I preached my way through the sermon on the mount about six months ago and I have to admit this one was probably the most challenging of them all. I have to admit that I began with the premise that the actions of one person can not cause guilt in another and started looking for a way around what appears in English to be the meaning. I could possibly be wrong if there is some Idiom in Greek of which I am not aware, but the phrase "causes her to commit adultery" the word adultery is in the passive voice and commit is simply not there. When they speak of divorce. The one spoken of is the divorcer not the victim of divorce. There are many minds greater than mine who have written on this subject and none of them came up with the same interpretation as me but if you will look at the Greek I think my interpretation is bourn out. If you find something different please let me know
Naked Preacher
If, when we judged others, our real motive was to destroy evil; we should look for evil where it is certain to be found, and that is in our own hearts. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship
nakedpreacher
Native Resident
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Lexington, South Carolina, USA

Re: History of a Doctrine on Divorce and Remarriage

Postby Petros » Tue Sep 29, 2015 8:21 am

But is that the issue? Passing lightly over the visiting of the sins of the fathers and the doctrine of original sin:

Suppose Reginald Perrin fakes his suicide and runs off to escape his life. It was an intriguing premise for a strange series.

Suppose his wife, after Reggie is presumed dead, finds a nice m,an and marries.

Even before Reggie appears and throws off his disguise, she is undeniably a bigamist.

She is operating with no sinful intent and unaware - but the crime is there, pu on her by Reggie's selfish action.
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5608
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Upper Michigan

Re: History of a Doctrine on Divorce and Remarriage

Postby Ramblinman » Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:44 am

Petros wrote:But is that the issue? Passing lightly over the visiting of the sins of the fathers and the doctrine of original sin:

Suppose Reginald Perrin fakes his suicide and runs off to escape his life. It was an intriguing premise for a strange series.

Suppose his wife, after Reggie is presumed dead, finds a nice m,an and marries.

Even before Reggie appears and throws off his disguise, she is undeniably a bigamist.

She is operating with no sinful intent and unaware - but the crime is there, pu on her by Reggie's selfish action.


She would not be a bigamist: by virtue of his abandonment of her, the husband cannot make a criminal out of his wife, but could make her a victim.
It is de facto, if not de juris divorce. Even the Bible speaks of such cases, the unbelieving spouse wishing to depart.
But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
I Corinthians 7:15

There is also the matter of a woman whose shrew-like behavior goads her husband to divorce.
If she thinks that he is trapped in a bad marriage and that she can abuse him because he cannot scripturally leave her.
She would have God to answer for the vexation she caused.

It is better to dwell in the corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman and in a wide house.
Proverbs 25:24

If a man is forced to turn his wife on his knee, bottom side up and spank her as a child, then that is not a marriage of equals, but two brawlers living under one roof, one of which shall be the master and the other the slave.
Ramblinman
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:22 am

Re: History of a Doctrine on Divorce and Remarriage

Postby natman » Tue Sep 29, 2015 2:35 pm

I praise God EVERY SINGLE DAY for my wonderful, godly wife. I wish ALL marriages could be like ours. The key, in my opinion, is that we have the same Master and Spirit. We truly are BEST FRIENDS and LOVERS and enjoy every moment we can be together.
SON-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Get exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.
User avatar
natman
Mayor (Site Admin)
 
Posts: 7364
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: History of a Doctrine on Divorce and Remarriage

Postby Ramblinman » Tue Sep 29, 2015 3:02 pm

natman wrote:I praise God EVERY SINGLE DAY for my wonderful, godly wife. I wish ALL marriages could be like ours. The key, in my opinion, is that we have the same Master and Spirit. We truly are BEST FRIENDS and LOVERS and enjoy every moment we can be together.

Nathan, are you offering to be a matchmaker for all the bachelors here? :bow:
Ramblinman
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:22 am

Re: History of a Doctrine on Divorce and Remarriage

Postby Ramblinman » Tue Sep 29, 2015 3:14 pm

Wish list:
A woman who, compared to me is:
almost half my age
Equal or somewhat higher IQ
twice as easy going
Three times as forgiving
At least four times as good looking as I
Five times more beautiful inwardly than I
Six times bigger sense of humor
Seven times more compassionate
Eight times more comfortable in her skin
Nine times better organized
Ten times more faithful to the things of God.

On second thought, what would I have to offer a lady such as that?
May the Lord prepare me NOW so that when the time comes, I will be more help than hindrance to her
and we could truly work as a well-matched team of oxen plowing the fields of the Lord.
Ramblinman
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:22 am

Re: History of a Doctrine on Divorce and Remarriage

Postby Bare_Truth » Tue Sep 29, 2015 3:16 pm

Ramblinman wrote:Nathan, are you offering to be a matchmaker for all the bachelors here? :bow:

Quick, sombody send Nathan an 11 foot pole because I don't think he will touch that with a 10 foot poll.
I never met anyone that I could not learn something from.
User avatar
Bare_Truth
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2518
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:07 pm
Location: Ozark Plateau, Southwest Missouri

Re: History of a Doctrine on Divorce and Remarriage

Postby Bare_Truth » Tue Sep 29, 2015 3:17 pm

Ramblingman,
You probably have better hope of getting all that out of marriage if you become a polyginist.
I never met anyone that I could not learn something from.
User avatar
Bare_Truth
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2518
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:07 pm
Location: Ozark Plateau, Southwest Missouri

Re: History of a Doctrine on Divorce and Remarriage

Postby Ramblinman » Tue Sep 29, 2015 3:24 pm

Bare_Truth wrote:Ramblingman,
You probably have better hope of getting all that out of marriage if you become a polyginist.


I have heard someone say that if you feel yourself prone to boredom, it would be cheaper for your brunette wife to wear a blonde wig to bed than to pay a divorce lawyer and alimony for cheating on her with a blonde (who probably dyes her hair anyway).

It may be a tall order, but I am praying for that 10-in-1 woman.
The Lord can answer any way he sees fit.
If he says, "You ain't fit to set on the porch with one of my daughters jist yet!"
Then I would simply pray, "Lord make me into an acceptable son/son-in-law as fast as you can!"
Ramblinman
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:22 am

PreviousNext

Return to Unanswered questions about Christianity

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest