Meat I kissed Joshua Harris good-bye

[Verifyveritas76]

@Verifyveritas76 you say all that predicated on your original ambiguous 'provide a roof over her head' line. Unfortunately, 'covering' or 'shelter' is a bit broader and is not defined according to whatever she feels like... you are creating a strawman with your initial oversimplification, then when called on it want to get huffy.

There's a lot of distance between the original statement you made and the assumptions you build your above retort on.

For the record, I do know that covering and shelter is broader. It also includes clothing and spiritual and legal leadership and advocacy.
Obviously its not defined according to whatever she feels like, and I am on record as saying a tent counts as covering. . . .somewhere. A box is probably going too far!

Anywho, to reiterate the initial thought, a male can also destroy his own house by failing to be a husband in the simplest of things. A man who wont provide for his own (whether they need it or not) is an apostate and worse than an infidel
IMO, a male who wont, shouldn’t present himself as a candidate. And shouldn’t whine when his house falls down around his ears.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I love you, brother, but I just have to go on record as not seeing it that way. I won’t be defending that position here.

It’s a difficult and delicate topic Steve and I won’t condemn anyone in pracfice. We do need to defend the principles though.

 

[The Revolting Man]

In my understanding, the only difference the New Testament makes is that Christ restricted and more clearly defined what constitutes justifiable.

That is the only difference. You just misinterpreted what the Old Testament says.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

That is the only difference. You just misinterpreted what the Old Testament says.

Sorry, that approach results in massive contradictions even within the New Testament passages, let alone compared to the whole of Scripture.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Sorry, that approach results in massive contradictions even within the New Testament passages, let alone compared to the whole of Scripture.

Not a one you don’t read in to it.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Sorry, that approach results in massive contradictions even within the New Testament passages, let alone compared to the whole of Scripture.

Actually not a one. You can’t even read them in, you have to make them up. Jesus and the Pharisees fell is what the Old Testament says about divorce. They weren’t even sure under what circumstances a man could divorce his wife. There was not even a mention of a woman doing so. Jesus said even a man getting a divorce was not God’s Will, merely a safety valve (one of the few) built in for a hard heart.

Jesus is clear. A man who divorces his wife unlawfully can not remarry. A man can remarry if he divorces his wife because of adultery. A woman can’t divorce her husband at all (remember in this case divorce is referring to an ability to remarry in God’s eyes) but she can separate herself if she does not remarry. That’s it. Those are the teachings of Jesus who actually taught very few direct commands or doctrines. If he addressed it directly it must be important. Don’t over complicate it or dish adding to it. There is forgiveness for people like me who have transgressed these Laws but only if we acknowledge them and repent.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Not a one you don’t read in to it.

The exception clause mentioned in Matthew is not mentioned in either Mark or Luke. Matthew clearly supports a justifiable/non justifiable bias (which is also clearly seen and witnessed in all historical studies of Jewish Marriage and divorce) and as you also pointed out in your next post by saying “Jesus is clear. A man who divorces his wife unlawfully [unjustifiable] can not remarry. A man can remarry if he divorces his wife because of adultery [justifiable]”

Neither Mark or Luke in the plain reading support the exception clause given in Matthew in any way shape or form. The plain reading gives no room for justifiable/non justifiable exceptions. At all! Zip! Zero! Nada!

Um, that’s a massive contradiction. A contradiction which is totally reconciled when asked, is the passage talking about justifiable divorce or unjustifiable divorce?

You have to read the exception into the Mark and Luke accounts to prevent a massive contradiction. And for the record, I do not believe that they contradict each other, thus I believe that there is an underlying Jewish cultural POV that Matthew, Mark and Luke were written from that demands a justifiable/unjustifiable criteria to be able to rightly divide these and other passages.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Could someone add the MEAT label to this thread? I think it would be appropriate.

 

[rockfox]

Could someone add the MEAT label to this thread? I think it would be appropriate.

Even better, we could get back on topic.

 

[frederick]

Even better, we could get back on topic.

Why make this thread an exception?

 

[rockfox]

Maybe we need a corollary to Goodwin's law...."As a Christian marriage discussion grows longer, the probability of it turning into a debate on divorce approaches 1."

 

[cnystrom]

Maybe we need a corollary to Goodwin's law...."As a Christian marriage discussion grows longer, the probability of it turning into a debate on divorce approaches 1."

We can call it "Rockfox's Law" !

 

[PeteR]

I recommend Wayne O'Donnell's Polygamy, Divorce and Remarriage available on Kindle at Amazon for $1.00. It is a pretty good detailed look at all the divorce passages in compare/contrast identifying the each has a specific and slightly different focus that explains a lot. Best treatment I know of in less than 100 pages.

 

[The Revolting Man]

The exception clause mentioned in Matthew is not mentioned in either Mark or Luke. Matthew clearly supports a justifiable/non justifiable bias (which is also clearly seen and witnessed in all historical studies of Jewish Marriage and divorce) and as you also pointed out in your next post by saying “Jesus is clear. A man who divorces his wife unlawfully [unjustifiable] can not remarry. A man can remarry if he divorces his wife because of adultery [justifiable]”

Neither Mark or Luke in the plain reading support the exception clause given in Matthew in any way shape or form. The plain reading gives no room for justifiable/non justifiable exceptions. At all! Zip! Zero! Nada!

Um, that’s a massive contradiction. A contradiction which is totally reconciled when asked, is the passage talking about justifiable divorce or unjustifiable divorce?

You have to read the exception into the Mark and Luke accounts to prevent a massive contradiction. And for the record, I do not believe that they contradict each other, thus I believe that there is an underlying Jewish cultural POV that Matthew, Mark and Luke were written from that demands a justifiable/unjustifiable criteria to be able to rightly divide these and other passages.

The consensus seems to be that no one wants to do this again and as I was only putting out the alternative to future readers anyway there’s no need for us to try and change each other’s mind. Everyone knows where we stand on this. All I will say is that giant nothing wad you just posted is completely made up. There are no contradictions if you don’t over complicate it. Saying a bunch of words real fast is not a new trick and it’s never been effective anyway.

 

[rockfox]

We can call it "Rockfox's Law" !

Rockfox's Law #2....Any discussion that proceeds long enough will invariably drift to other subjects.

Real life conversations do that all the time. Someone who insisted to a chatting group that they repeatedly going back to the original topic would be viewed as spurgy.

Yet for some reason on forums the decorum is opposite that.

So it's actually a good sign that we sometimes get off topic, it means we're relating well to one another.

But ya, back to Joshua Harris

You know who marches in Gay Pride parades right? Gays. That would sure explain: his loss of faith, his divorce immediately upon loss of faith, his youthful amiability on passionless courtship, and why he had sexual hangups such that he would find things like holding hands, kissing, etc objectionable.

I don't mean that in a critical way either; he was at ground zero in a church with child abuse issues. He may very well have been a victim.

 

[Cap]

Before this gets pushed aside

to future readers anyway

This is my response to add.

Actually not a one. You can’t even read them in, you have to make them up. Jesus and the Pharisees fell is what the Old Testament says about divorce. They weren’t even sure under what circumstances a man could divorce his wife. There was not even a mention of a woman doing so. Jesus said even a man getting a divorce was not God’s Will, merely a safety valve (one of the few) built in for a hard heart.

Jesus is clear. A man who divorces his wife unlawfully can not remarry. A man can remarry if he divorces his wife because of adultery. A woman can’t divorce her husband at all (remember in this case divorce is referring to an ability to remarry in God’s eyes) but she can separate herself if she does not remarry. That’s it. Those are the teachings of Jesus who actually taught very few direct commands or doctrines. If he addressed it directly it must be important. Don’t over complicate it or dish adding to it.

Since BF is here to support real life families, in real life situations this is the most discouraging subject that women, and men, who have been through a divorce or are looking to remarry or are remarried, this

total falsehood.

and this

advance this false and dangerous teaching

all it really does is it keeps trying to push people away.

There is forgiveness for people like me who have transgressed these Laws but only if we acknowledge them and repent.

We all live in a world in need of Grace. You found some, give others the chance to find it too instead of trying to cram an old Pharisaical interpretation of the law down everyone's throat when a spiritual interpretation is what people need. Maybe this is some kind of repentance mechanism for you and not really meant for anyone else.

Sorry just bringing out my

flair for the dramatics

which was run through my cap

filter.

We're all good because in the end,

that leaves more candidates for me, and it really doesn’t affect my life or beliefs

And in closing I would like to add,

Obviously there’s an underlying reason why this topic strikes a nerve. Might wanna check up on that.

Thanks to all who participated.

 

[FollowingHim]

That has got to be the most artfully constructed post I have ever seen!

 

[FollowingHim2]

But ya, back to Joshua Harris

You know who marches in Gay Pride parades right? Gays. That would sure explain: his loss of faith, his divorce immediately upon loss of faith, his youthful amiability on passionless courtship, and why he had sexual hangups such that he would find things like holding hands, kissing, etc objectionable.

I don't mean that in a critical way either; he was at ground zero in a church with child abuse issues. He may very well have been a victim.

This is such a good point! I never thought of it this way. Thanks for pointing that out @rockfox.

 

[Delta]

Video of skillet’s lead singer talking about this subject.

 

[rockfox]

What kind of state of affairs are we in that a single church's worship leader is some kind of popular 'christian faith leader'?

So when the church embraced the modern music styles, they also brought with it the hero worship of the musicians. The same problems that caused the fundamentalists to condemn rock music were not really changed when the subject of the music is God and the concert hall a church. I wonder if this has to do with the man up front performing format and the focus on entertainment.