Jesus is known to have said:

Matthew 5:

32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

If this an injunctions against the marrying of someone who has experienced a divorce in their life, even if they were not the culpable party in the divorce?

Is such an injunction calculated to inspire love and harmony in the society?

Hehehe

stillwater:

Hehehe

Just as expected. I would have been more surprised if you had attempted a proper answer. Just as expected, you couldn't.

Look huxley, there is an important thing to establish here:

1. the unsaved (like you sir) have no business with the laws of Christ. You can divorce yourselves 900 times, when you die go to your own specially created heaven or wherever you think dead people go.

2. That verse speaks as it were to a couple that regards itself as born again. The warning is meant for them not the rest of society.

DavidDylan:

Look huxley, there is an important thing to establish here:

1. the unsaved (like you sir) have no business with the laws of Christ. You can divorce yourselves 900 times, when you die go to your own specially created heaven or wherever you think dead people go.

2. That verse speaks as it were to a couple that regards itself as born again. The warning is meant for them not the rest of society.

This is quite new to me. I thought Jesus also said "Go and preach the gospel to all nations and all peoples"

So this verse was only meant for those who have already converted to be born again? How did you come to that understanding?



Are there other "Good News Message" that were only meant for the born again.

OK, let me grant your position. Supposing a born again man meets a born again woman who is divorce. (in fact, my very own brother is in this position). Would it be adultery for him to get married to her?

huxley:

This is quite new to me. I thought Jesus also said "Go and preach the gospel to all nations and all peoples"

So this verse was only meant for those who have already converted to be born again? How did you come to that understanding?

Are there other "Good News Message" that were only meant for the born again.

The first gospel preached to the unsaved is about the need for salvation. You cant be preaching civics lessons to an illegal immigrant. He must first regularise his status first before you start talking to him about the penalties for voter fraud.

The same way the commandments of God are meaningless to a man who is unsaved. You're just putting the cart before the horse.

huxley:

OK, let me grant your position. Supposing a born again man meets a born again woman who is divorce. (in fact, my very own brother is in this position). Would it be adultery for him to get married to her?

Your brother has a bible and claims to be born again. He is free to either follow the bible or follow ur advice.
One thing you also have to note is this . . . if both couples married as unbelievers and then decided to divorce along the line then that verse is NOT binding on them. This issue is dealt with in Romans or Corinthians.

Now that the woman is saved she is free to marry again.

DavidDylan:

The first gospel preached to the unsaved is about the need for salvation. You can't be preaching civics lessons to an illegal immigrant. He must first regularise his status first before you start talking to him about the penalties for voter fraud.

The same way the commandments of God are meaningless to a man who is unsaved. You're just putting the cart before the horse.

Your brother has a bible and claims to be born again. He is free to either follow the bible or follow ur advice.
One thing you also have to note is this . . . if both couples married as unbelievers and then decided to divorce along the line then that verse is NOT binding on them. This issue is dealt with in Romans or Corinthians.

Now that the woman is saved she is free to marry again.

Yes, but according to Jesus, anyone who marries her commits adultery.  Who would want to touch a woman like that.

Mind you, if Jesus said these words, that is Matt 5: 32, there would have been said on or before 33CE.  Romans was not wriiten until about 55 - 60 CE, about 30 years after Jesus's injunction.  We have no record of Jesus reversing this position.

So, in the intervening year, that is 33 - 60 CE, when Romans did not exist, was the bar on remarrying of divorce ladies likely to have been binding?

By the way, what gives Paul authority to abrogate an injunction made by God?

huxley:

Yes, but according to Jesus, anyone who marries her commits adultery.  Who would want to touch a woman like that.

doesnt seem you read my post at all. Here is what i said again - if both couples married as unbelievers and then decided to divorce along the line then that verse is NOT binding on them.

huxley:

Mind you, if Jesus said these words, that is Matt 5: 32, there would have been said on or before 33CE.  Romans was not wriiten until about 55 - 60 CE, about 30 years after Jesus's injunction.  We have no record of Jesus reversing this position.

So, in the intervening year, that is 33 - 60 CE, when Romans did not exist, was the bar on remarrying of divorce ladies likely to have been binding?

By the way, what gives Paul authority to abrogate an injunction made by God?

Paul wasnt "reversing" anything in Romans. He was simply clarifying the fact that God considers divorce among those who are saved a sin! The unsaved is already a sinner anyway so divorcing 200 times in 5 minutes wont make much of a difference.
When the sinner becomes saved he becomes a NEW CREATURE, OLD THINGS ARE PASSED AWAY . . . He starts a new life in Christ . . . his past divorces (of course there will be physical consequences) are wiped out and he is free to marry a fellow believer again.

David: fine to see a return of Paul as author of Christianity theme.



.

Nimshi:

David: fine to see a return of Paul as author of Christianity theme.

continue beating the islamic drums of incoherence and falsehood.

DavidDylan:

doesnt seem you read my post at all. Here is what i said again - if both couples married as unbelievers and then decided to divorce along the line then that verse is NOT binding on them.

Paul wasnt "reversing" anything in Romans. He was simply clarifying the fact that God considers divorce among those who are saved a sin! The unsaved is already a sinner anyway so divorcing 200 times in 5 minutes wont make much of a difference.
When the sinner becomes saved he becomes a NEW CREATURE, OLD THINGS ARE PASSED AWAY . . . He starts a new life in Christ . . . his past divorces (of course there will be physical consequences) are wiped out and he is free to marry a fellow believer again.

Jesus main a statement that is as clear as the nose on your face, namely;


Matt 5: 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

You are arguing that this was only binding to those you are born again.  That is an ad hoc statement, as you have not shown why this might be the case.

For instance, Jesus also said:

1)  You love neighbour as yourself (Matt 5: 43) - Was this binding only to the saved?

Was Jesus entire teachings directed only at those who were already saved?  If so,  what is the point?  


How do we know which parts of his Jesus were meant for the saved and which for the unsaved?


You also failed to address my point about the standard of people for people before Paul came into the scene.  Paul did not become converted and write until about 50 - 60 CE, about 20 years after Jesus's dead.  If Paul addressed these issues in Romans and Corinthian, Pauls views would not have become wide knowledge amongst the Christians until after about 325CE, after the council of Nicea.  Some for many hundreds of years Christians would have lived without the benefit of Paul's teachings.

Why would God arrange for such a cruel injunctions as this to pervade for hundreds of years before being "abrogated" by Paul?

By the way, where is this addressed in Romans and Corinthians?  Chapters and Verses, please?

huxley:

You are arguing that this was only binding to those you are born again.  That is an ad hoc statement, as you have not shown why this might be the case.

I'm not "arguing", i'm telling you a fact. The bible, its laws and promises are not binding to the unsaved. Cry from now till tomorrow, you're wasting ur time quoting it without salvation. You can buy textbooks and even purchase a school uniform, as long as u havent passed the common entrance exam u cant attend high school.

huxley:

For instance, Jesus also said:

1)  You love neighbour as yourself (Matt 5: 43) - Was this binding only to the saved?

The "love" Christ is talking about here is not the generic one you talk about. He's talking about a greater love, the one that God gives us as a gift when we get born again. We obtain that love thru Him alone because God IS LOVE.

So yes, Matt 5:43 has no place for the unsaved.

huxley:

Was Jesus entire teachings directed only at those who were already saved?  If so,  what is the point?  

His entire ministry was geared towards one purpose - SALVATION. Much of the epistles were geared towards the GROWTH of the already saved.

huxley:

How do we know which parts of his Jesus were meant for the saved and which for the unsaved?

None is meant for the unsaved except for this - Ye must be born again.

huxley:

You also failed to address my point about the standard of people for people before Paul came into the scene.  Paul did not become converted and write until about 50 - 60 CE, about 20 years after Jesus's dead.  If Paul addressed these issues in Romans and Corinthian, Pauls views would not have become wide knowledge amongst the Christians until after about 325CE, after the council of Nicea.  Some for many hundreds of years Christians would have lived without the benefit of Paul's teachings.

The fact that we dont have it recorded does not mean the jews did not understand what Christ was talking about. If this was new the other apostles would have confronted Paul about teaching an alien message. We hear of no such thing. Omission is not the same as non-existence.

huxley:

Why would God arrange for such a cruel injunctions as this to pervade for hundreds of years before being "abrogated" by Paul?

see above.

huxley:

By the way, where is this addressed in Romans and Corinthians?  Chapters and Verses, please?

Look for it urself or best ignore it. Why shld u want to read the words of a "wicked" God?

Just as expected.  I would have been more surprised if you had attempted a proper answer.  Just as expected, you couldn't

There's a possibilty I'm dumb.