Put Away vs. Divorce Discussion 14



To RW: There you go again evading. I have the former discussions saved. Anyone wanting to see how you evaded and then banned me, are very welcome to read the discussions themselves. Anyone interested can contact me or CD and we can send them the discussions showing the tough questions that you had no answer for that manifested the extreme folly of what you are teaching. Divorce (Dt 24:1-4) was suffered for the hardness of their hearts. Yet you uphold that "carnal ordinance" as if Jesus fully allows hardness of hearts!! So the new man in Christ is thrown out the window by your filthy doctrine? Jesus came to tolerate hardness of hearts like Moses did?

RW, you are in denial of some of the most basic tenets of Christianity:
Heb 5:
12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
Your adherence to Moses means you are fallen from grace:
Gal 5:
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
You justify divorce by the law (Dt 24:1-4) and so spit in Jesus' face.
You do not understand that the exception clause touched on the side point of their premarital divorces that only ended engagement, hence a "divorce" that is OK since it does NOT put asunder what God has joined together. Your hatred and direct opposition to "what therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder" has been duly noted.

CD LJ Since you were banned, I placed a link from here to the challenge in that thread to RW

CD from DF to CD the problem with LJ's illustration is that he assumes that Jesus in Matt 5:31 was *condemning* the "putting away" when the Writing of Divorce was given. But Jesus did not condemn the putting away if the writing of divorce was given to the woman according to the Law God gave Moses. As a matter of Fact you can read the verses prior to verse 31 and see Jesus was agreeing with what was said of them of Old.

Look at what the people of Old had said that Jesus referred to... Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; was this Statement made by Jesus True? YES.

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: was this Statement made by Jesus True? YES.

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: was this Statement made by Jesus True? YES.

So what Jesus was doing to these "Righteous" Laws that God gave to Moses was using them to correct the Jew's perversions and how they had changed these Laws to suit themselves. Now Jesus set the Jews straight on the way they were putting away their wives without the writing of divorce. You can see this because Jesus uses the Correct Law Deut 24:1-4 and says, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement" And then Jesus shows how the Jews had corrupted this Law by only putting the woman away and not giving her the writing of divorce. Look at what Jesus followed up with. "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." Here in Matt 5 Jesus showed a contrast in Right and Wrong ideas that the Jews had. This is what He was doing in Matt 5. Not changing the Law! And to prove this Jesus said in the very beginning..."Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Please CD copy/paste my answer to LJ's Group. I am sure it will be helpful.

CD to DF If so then the parallel sentence should STILL be able to be made. .....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.

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.

LJ DF, You wrote: "As a matter of Fact you can read the verses prior to verse 31 and see Jesus was agreeing with what was said of them of Old."

He was agreeing that it was written, and that he was quoting what Moses allowed, yes. However, you conveniently left out how after each time he responds with something like "But I say unto you". Jesus is changing the law there in the Sermon on the Mount. In the NT we serve God in newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. Jesus is manifesting the newness of the spirit the Christian is to manifest.

Early on when Jesus said "Blessed are the meek' and "Blessed are the peacemakers", we can expect someone to have reacted in zeal for Moses and say something like 'hey, wait a minute; what about eye for eye, tooth for tooth? This guy sounds like he is bringing in something new and different than what Moses commanded". And they would have been right. Each time Jesus said something like "But I say unto you" he was fulfilling the prophesy that referred to the Messiah magnifying the law and making it honourable. The Christian is under a higher and more honourable law. Remember "eye or for eye"? Let us see the higher standard the NT lays down:
Matt 5:
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Six times in the Sermon we see Jesus have something different to say about what they had been familiar with all their lives as what was acceptable, such as divorce. Divorce is no longer acceptable as later in Matthew we see the reason WHY divorce was granted in the first place. Divorce from the God-joined state was never right or "true" after the NT higher definition of "truth". The "carnal ordinance" allowing divorce was written long after the fall and accommodated the fallen man in their unregenerated and hard-hearted state. That was a temporary law to regulate the evil as is the purpose for many secular laws to govern the unregenerated. Jesus revealed the "truth" of the matter as he went back to the beginning. From the beginning divorce was 'not so' and is 'not so' under Jesus as he provided the new birth of regeneration and grace so that the new man in Christ is able to handle the truth and not be hardhearted. The abolishment of that carnal ordinance allowing divorce is clearly revealed by Jesus' absolute statement of "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder". DF, can't you see you are on the wrong side of the fence? Your position demands that you deny Jesus. You must declare in opposition to Jesus and in agreement with Moses that man MAY in fact divorce.

KH This is the Hebrew Roots heresy, which essentially denies Christ, and makes a way back to Judaism, where divorce and remarriage were plainly allowed. Jesus was not hearkening back to the days of Moses, but breaking out into the new Messianic age, where we are no longer under the Law of Moses, but rather the higher and better Law of Christ. Who is teaching this error? DF?

LJ They have a group where RW is a main figure or admin. I was kicked off for challenging RW again, a challenge he refused to take.

KH When Jesus says in Matthew 19:8 "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." He is plainly acknowledging that Moses permitted "putting away". No mention of a certificate here. It has nothing to do with whether there was a certificate or not. Putting away means divorce. Trying to separate these things is a novel judaizing heresy.

LJ That is why my challenge is something he cannot take. Reference to an action, then a "but I say unto"; the next line HAS TO BE a continuation of referring to the action under discussion. If the topic can change after the "But I say unto you", then some sentence on some action has to be able to be fabricated that can demonstrate such a function.

Such a parallel sentence cannot be produced.

However, numerous parallel sentences have been produced showing an action that causes something with an exception in between showing that when the factors are present as per the exception clause then the action does NOT cause what it would normally cause. RW’s explanation cannot be made to correlate with the basic mechanics of the sentence; something done that causes something with an exception. He must assert that the Bible is wrong so his explanation can be correct.

KH Many of us disagree with various particulars, but we seek the truth. There are others who only seek to deceive others. That is why a debate is of no use to them.

LJ RW very sincerely believes he is standing for truth. His wrong assumptions, such as that Jesus could NOT have been in disagreement with Moses, fuels his delusion.

LJ Also his apparent assumption that he translated it right while the KJV translators goofed it up.

LJ KH I agree that he seems beyond any hope. The hope is that others that agree with him may see the argument against his folly and so get delivered from the “put away vs. divorce” delusion.

CD I think that sometimes continuing with those like RW helps the readers and lurkers see the holes in their doctrines, i.e., like not accepting our challenge to create the parallel sentence.