Put Away vs. Divorce Discussion 11

LJ This is a challenge presented to those embracing the "different-meanings" theory, which asserts that "put away" is different than "divorce" and this provides the means to continue to allow divorce like Moses did. Many will see that those refusing to take this challenge are admitting defeat, partly due to how simple and practical it is.

Here are the 6 parts of Matt 5:31,32 broken down for easier identification:
A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
B) But I say unto you,
1) That whosoever shall put away his wife,
2) saving for the cause of fornication,
3) causeth her to commit adultery:
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Here is a parallel, for an example:
A) You have heard it said that leaving that door open during the summer is OK
B) but I say to you;
1) Whoever leaves that door open,
2) saving that someone installs the new screen door.
3) causes flies to get in the house,
4) and whoever sees it open and does not shut it will also be guilty.

Line 1 continues with the same topic as established in Line A.
Please provide a parallel where line 1, can switch to a different topic and make sense. Any background story to establish context is welcomed.
The 'different-meanings' theory requires the topic to switch in line 1 after the "but I say unto you...".
Therefore if the 'different-meanings' theory has any credibility, a sentence after the same sentence format should be able to be created that can demonstrate how such a switch to a different topic can work.

CD I like what DJ said,... Nice observation about the relationship between the verb, apoluo, and the noun, apostasion. The apostasion is simply a legal document certifying that one spouse has apoluo'ed the other. If a man apoluo's his wife, then him giving her an apostasion will not change the fact that he is apoluo'ing his wife; and by apoluo'ing his wife, a man "causes her to commit adultery" (Mat 5:32).

CD RW's response from this challenge in the Biblical debates forum..... RW said," I'm sorry, I'm not able to follow your reasoning. But your idea that when Jesus said "but I say unto you" apparently makes no sense. Are you suggesting that he is taking about the teaching of Moses, which is GOD's word, and saying Moses said one thing but I'm telling you something different? The fact is, he was not taking issue with God but with the false notions of the Jews. They had turned from God and were "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men". This is the very reason Jesus came."

LJ to RW RW, If what you say is true, then you should be able to devise a sentence like we see in Matt 5:31,32 were the topic of discussion is identified in the parallel of 31. Then when the parallel says "But I say to you", the topic has to change and the sentence has to make sense. it is easy for you to say that happens in Matt 5:31 and provide a complete separate reasoning that does not fit the actual sentence format Jesus used. Try it in Jesus' sentence format and see if you can make the topic change after the "but I say to you". That would demonstrate that your perspective is reasonable.

Remember I gave you the example concerning "swear not at all". For Jesus to say 'But I say to you speak not loud at all' changes the topic. But the sentence makes no sense. You are saying the topic can change after the "But I say unto you" and the sentence is functional. Prove it. Make a sentence that can change topic and make sense.

CD RW never could give a parallel sentence to show that put away and divorce are not the same things.

KH Jesus said Moses suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

Whatever someone might want to change the definition of "apoluo" to, Jesus says that it was something that Moses permitted, but he is not going to allow it anymore. They are trying to make Jesus out to say, "Moses only permitted divorce when a certificate was presented, but lately some people have been only going half-way: putting away their wives, but avoiding the proper paperwork for selfish reasons. Now of course I would never go against anything Moses ever said, so I am really upset that people are not doing the proper paperwork, as this is creating a big legal headache."

The whole thing is completely ludicrous, but people will come up with anything to justify divorce and remarriage.

CD True. You can’t use legal cover (proper paperwork) to mask a moral failure.

LJ By their silly "different meanings" theory, the plainness of wording in Luke 16:18 becomes a blatant lie. But they will get around that by saying you do not understand the full context etc. Paul wrestled with beasts at Ephesus. We have beasts on FB to wrestle with.

KH Seriously. The Hebrew Roots heresy is destroying souls. We need to join forces to defeat this monster. I would appreciate any ammunition you might have against it.

LJ I have a list of scriptures that relate to the differences between the OT and NT. When I get a chance I can send them. The main scriptures I have been using are Heb 7:12, Gal 3:19, Heb 9;:9,10, 2 Cor 3:11-13, John 1:17

KH Thanks. These seem good against the Hebrew Roots heresy in general, but I was thinking something that more specifically refuted this apoluo nonsense.

LJ KH The challenge presented to RW seems pretty powerful to me. He refuses to take that challenge.

CD And RW has an entire website dedicated to put away vs. divorce plus he has written books about it. He should be able to refute the challenge IF he is correct.