Put Away vs. Divorce Discussion 8

RW
DEBATE CHALLENGE

The Scriptures teach that Jesus Contradicted the Law of Moses.
Affirm: LJ
Deny: RW

The Scriptures teach that Jesus was faithful to the established word of God and never contradicted it.
Affirm: RW
Deny: LJ

The idea that Jesus contradicted Deut. 24:1-4, is the basis LJ and a few other use to defend their teaching that Jesus taught that the divorced commit adultery if they marry. Most understand that it is basic that Jesus faithfully taught the LOM and therefore seek a way around the argument that their doctrine that breaks up marriages and imposes celibacy has Jesus sinning and therefore cannot be true.

If LJ is willing to put his doctrine to the test then we will endeavor to work out the details. I predict he will crawfish, but we will see. I just cannot imagine that a man who claims to Love the Lord and his word would contend that Jesus contradicted the word of God regarding divorce and marriage--making things worse for BOTH men and woman. But then LJ has already taken that position. But it remains to be see if he will endeavor to defend it in a formal debate.

RW LJ's comment on another post indicates he is not going to debate and excuses himself based on my not responding to an argument of his that I did not think was worthy of a response. His whole doctrine falls if it can be shown that Jesus could NOT have contradicted Moses, and did not. He makes this assertion but is not willing to debate it, as I expected.
He excuses himself from debating because I would not respond to an argument that he made that I did not think worthy of a reply. However, I did reply with a link to an article of mine that explains in detail the very passage he noted (Matt 19:3-12).

JM He changed from living under the Mosiac law to being saved by grace and the New Testament is our"ONLY RULE & FAITH TO GO BY !! PRAISE GOD were not under the OT law

RW True, the church is not governed by the Law of Moses. But Jesus lived and died under the Law. He was responsible to teach it and responsible to live it. The Law clearly says a divorced person may marry. The problem is that LJ says Jesus contradicted it. I'm saying there is a better interpretation of what Jesus said. LJ's interpretation is bad hermeneuitics. It has Jesus sinning.

JM I don't no what other people but when we got saved & heard this in the COGOP I BOUT WORE OUT ABIBLE TRUING TO PROVE THEY WERE WRONG BUT ITS NOT THERE THAT YOU CAN MARRY SOMEONE ELSES WIFE ! Now they preach you can. The Word tells us plainly that in the last days there would be a falling away. I'm not going thru this again you have a blessed day I'm out of this

RW Sir, GOD, not men, came up with the divorce law. He defined it and then said the woman "may go and be another man's wife". The men could have more than one wife in those days so it did not even apply to the men. Now, you seem to have concerns about someone taking someone else's wife. Well, yes, that would be a concern if divorced does not do what God said it does. But I'm going to go with what God says rather than what human tradition says.

RW Is LJ or someone going to step up and defend what LJ has been asserting?

LJ Stop flattering yourself. Your position denies Jesus. Only a fellow Hebrew roots movement heretic will put Moses above Jesus as you are doing.

RW How so? I never said anything that would lend support to such a ridiculous charge.

LJ You have been challenged to provide evidence to support your claim. You refuse to take that challenge.

RW My challenge was to debate you regarding you false charge that Jesus contradicted the word of God that taught that the woman "may go and be another man's wife". It is YOU, sir, that is refusing to take the challenge. This has to be because you know you cannot prevail. You are among the FEW that has stooped so low as to charge Jesus with sin, which is something even his enemies did not do regarding this issue.

LJ You are the one who is in the minority who does not understand that we are not under Moses but under Jesus.
Jesus has established a higher moral standard. You err at one of the most basic tenets of Christianity. Jesus changed the law:
Heb 7:
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. 6 times in Matt 5 Jesus says, but I say to you. Each of those topics manifest change. Divorce is no more under the NT.

RW Sir, you are showing not only your ignorance but that you are dishonest. You have NO evidence that I believe we are under the Law of Moses, NONE. This is because I do not believe it and have writings to prove it. This, sir, is NOT the issue. The issue is that you claim Jesus contradicted the Law that he lives under--the law that said the divorced woman "may go and be another man's wife". You insist that when Jesus said a divorced woman is divorced that she will commit adultery if she marries. This is what contradicts Moses' teaching, which means your doctrine is false because that is not possible, and it DID NOT happen. I contend that the Greek word "apoluo" does not mean divorce. What the men were doing was actually WORSE than divorce. Jesus called it "adultery against her" MK 10:11.
Since you cannot defend your argument that Jesus contradicted Moses how do you explain the problem with the idea that Jesus said a divorced woman would commit adultery rather than one put away?

LJ RW You confirm what I said. You are subject to Moses on this topic and not to Jesus. You have to claim Luke 16:18 is a lie.

RW You are showing yourself to not be an honorable or competent debater. Virtually all respected commentators take the position that Jesus DID NOT contradict Moses. I'm about done replying to you.

LJ RW Jesus never said a divorced woman would commit adultery rather than one put away. That foolishness is based on your assumption that put away and divorce are two different things, which my challenge to you proves they are not.

RW A challenge does not prove anything. Sound arguments based on scripture provides proof. You are a very mixed up man.

CD RW LJ asked this in another thread..you did not reply. Put in brackets after each clause (1-4) to illustrate how you are reading this:
Luke 16:18
1) Whosoever putteth away his wife,
2) and marrieth another,
3) committeth adultery:
4) and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

I will go first
1) Whosoever putteth away his wife, [his real God-joined wife]
2) and marrieth another, [marries another woman after the divorce]
3) committeth adultery: [literal adultery, which is a sexual violation of an existing binding marriage]
4) and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. [the committing adultery here is likewise the literal sexual adultery, violating an existing binding marriage]

LJ RW Jesus brought a New Covenant. Paul also referred to things from under the OT having been abolished. So we have Paul identifying that things have been changed and abolished. All the while you keep trying to support Dt 24:1-4. That was for the hardness of hearts. For you to assert that that law is carried over into the NT is to admit that you assert Jesus allows hardness of hearts. He does not. Moses did. Can you see the difference?
2 Cor 3:
11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
13 And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

CD RW Please provide the parallel sentence asked for if put away and divorce are not the same......from LJ.... This is the challenge that you are to accompany with your admission that you refuse to answer this challenge:

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 perfect sense. 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 of Matt 5:31,32 should be able to be created that can demonstrate such a switch to a different topic.

RW It does not make any sense, as does nothing LJ says.

LJ CD Thanks CD, I also wanted to post that again about Luke 16:18, as a second challenge that has been presented to RW, which he also appears to refuse to answer. It is like you read my mind! Thanks.

LJ RW Now you are really embarrassing yourself. Anyone can read that and see it makes sense.
1) Whosoever putteth away his wife, [his real God-joined wife]
2) and marrieth another, [marries another woman after the divorce]
3) committeth adultery: [literal adultery, which is a sexual violation of an existing binding marriage]
4) and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. [the committing adultery here is likewise the literal sexual adultery, violating an existing binding marriage]

CD RW Funny other people say it makes sense to them...problem is you can't make a parallel sentence show the change over from one topic to another.

CD Here it is again...slightly different... Matt 5:31,32 is one long sentence:
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.

Notice how line A is referring to what you call "divorce", since he is coming from Dt 24:1 by referring to the writing of divorce. Is that correct?
Now notice how Jesus refers to the same thing, in lines B and 1 but uses the term "put away". Can you see how it is very reasonable to view the sentence as early on establishing that "divorce" and 'put away' are simply interchangeable terms?

You claim there has to be a distinction between "divorce" and "put away" in Matt 5:31,32. Then you bring in Dt 24 to say that based on Dt 24, that is what makes the difference between "divorce" and "put away" necessary.
But inreality, based solely on the NT scriptures of Matt 5:31,32; 19:9 and Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18, there is no actual difference between the words.

In Matt 5 Jesus says something like "but I say to you" 6 times. So 6 topics he brings up a topic and then addresses it likewise by something like, "but I say to you". Doesn't it make sense that when he says but I say to you he is referring to the same thing that is the topic of discussion? For example about swearing; when he says but I say to you, does it make sense that he would refer to something else as what he refers to? Do you see what I mean? For example:
33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

Could we change the reiteration of what is being discussed in verse 34? It is talking about swearing from 33 and the "but I say unto you" is also about the same thing; it is about swearing, right? Can that be changed and it make sense? Let's try it:
33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34 But I say unto you, Talk loud not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

See I have changed 'swear not at all' to 'talk loud not at all'. It does not fit to change the topic. Yet you say in 5:31,32 the 'But iI say to you' changes topic to something else other than the topic identified which starts the topic in 31!!

In 5:31,32 he starts off talking about what you would recognize as an actual recognized "divorce", then when he says but I say to you, he switches over to talk about something that is not recognized; a mere putting away. I have not tried this before, but can you give a parallel sentence on any topic imaginable where this could be done after the same general format and make sense? In the example above about 'talk loud not at all, a nonsensical sentence is created. Literally, a nonsensical sentence is created also when the topic is switched over in Matt 5:32.

For those who say put way does not mean divorce...Provide an example of how that switch over is literally functional.

CD @ RW or try to understand this one.......Others have said that they understand it. You have written books on this subject so therefore you should understand... 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.

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 perfect sense. 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 such a switch to a different topic.

LJ CD I feel sorry for poor RW. He bit off a lot more than he could chew.

CD .Matt 5:31 starts off talking about the proper certificate to divorce. Then in 32 he says but I say to you. Obviously referring to the same thing. He did not all of a sudden change the topic of discussion. When any sentence like that starts off talking about one thing and then says 'but I say to you' and changes the topic, the sentence is a garbled mess. Try it in the other 5 topics where he says "but I say to you". The topic cannot change and still be a meaningful statement. You are promoting confusion. God is not the author thereof. RW, you say that there is a switch over from a topic "put way" to divorce in Jesus' statement..provide a sentence where this happens and makes literal sense.

LJ KH, You were looking for a strong case against the heresy RW is propagating. I think the posts CD has posted are quite effective. What do you see in those arguments that is weak?

RW LJ. Divorce ends marriage. It is not adultery when an unmarried person marries. In fact, there us the clear command to "let them marry".

LJ RW According to the outdated first covenant, divorce ends marriage.
Jesus took as back to what was established BEFORE the fall. He is reinstating what was instituted BEFORE the fall, and rightly so, because he came to redeem man from his fallen state. You shame yourself and slander Jesus by continuing to uphold what was instituted AFTER the fall and refuse to understand that Moses' allowance for the hardness of hearts was only a temporary measure UNTIL Jesus came.
Gal 3:
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Jesus is that "seed".
Heb 9:
9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
"till the seed should come"
"until the time of reformation".
You need to come up to speed and line up behind the Reformer and his changed laws of his new covenant.

RW Latry, the Law was in effect when Jesus was alive. You really should lay off trying to teach on this till you study it for a few years.

LJ RW So you are saying his teaching in Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:2-12 was not intended to be establishing the new covenant teachings that changed the law?

RW It applied to the people to whom he spoke.

LJ RW answer my question: you are saying his teaching in Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:2-12 was not intended to be establishing the new covenant teachings that changed the law?

RW So, you think When Jesus "but I say into you" he was taking issue with Moses, which is tantamount to taking issue with God, because God inspired him to write that law. This is not what any real scholars believe. It is what the debate proposal is about.

LJ RW I think anyone who has had dealings with you is familiar how you put a subtle spin on things. As long as you embrace that Jesus did not change the law, even after Paul made it plain he did, then there is no use even trying to discuss the issue.

RW The Law changed after his death. This is fundamental. You demonstrate you do not know Bible fundamentals.

SV Jesus didn't contradict it, He got rid of it all together. It is now adultery for a remarriage after a divorce...When Jesus says, "you have heard it say, but I say....His is the Last Word. Scratch off the previous ordinance concerning marriage, now this is the NEW Executive LAW, from the ONE who CREATED marriage. Luke 16:18, and reiterated by Romans 7:2-3 they do not contradict each other.

JM AMEN

LJ Yes, Luke 16:18 does not contradict Gen 2. Rom 7:2,3 was also referring to the law established in Gen 2, which Jesus expounded on in Mark 10:2-12. It is Dt 24:1-4 that Luke 16:18 and Rom 7:2,3 are contradicting. That carnal ordinance has been crucified with Christ and did not rise with him as a carryover into the NT. It is dead; it has been abolished. 2 Cor 3:11-13

LJ Certain things are flatly contradicted in the NT. Some things from the old are no longer allowed. For example to obey Dt 24:1-4 now under the NT is damnable. So anyone teaching that a Christian must adhere to that outdated OT carnal ordinance is teaching damnable heresy. Peter had harsh words for such, which apply to RW' attempt to bring people back under bondage to the OT.

RW Obeying God's law on marriage and divorce does not put one under bondage.

LJ But you are not up to speed concerning what God has done under the NT. The OT law from Dt 24:1-4 is abolished and has given way to the NT law that represents absolute truth. Law is not always truth. Sometimes it is mere law to regulate the evil the best that is possible under the circumstances. This difference between law and truth is reflected by Jesus himself. John 1:17. But I would not be surprised if you do not understand this either as you seem to use the I-do-not-understand card to dismiss valid points against your position. Moses warned that the Prophet that was to come, Jesus, was to be heard, and there is stern warning against those who will not hear. That is you, RW. Paul warned of the bondage from the OT as opposed to the freedom in the new. That is in relation to absolute truth being compared to mere law imposed at that time before Jesus. Heb 9:9,10. You wanted a debate, so now you have it and you are not doing well. Instead of answering appropriately with regards to the various points from scripture, you ignore those things and dismiss them as not valid, and then you keep reiterating your same old refuted arguments. Your name shall no longer be RW, but Mr Dismissive shall thy name be.

RW Understanding the O.T. to be God's word and valuable for "doctrine, reproof, for correction...." and seeking to be justified by it are two different things. Please stop misrepresenting me.

LJ RW Then answer the question, when Jesus commented on what Gen 2 meant when it was spoken at creation, was he identifying his new Covenant commandment? If not, then what was he doing? The same with the sermon on the mount, were the instructions there reflecting the New Testament commands that if someone were NOT to keep they would be labeled as the least, in the bad kind of way! Matt 5:19? Keeping Jesus' commandments means the better covenant commands, which Covenant has replaced all things it identifies have been replaced. Dt 24:1-4 was crucified with Christ, and in verification of Christ bringing the new and better and changed covenant, His resurrection solidified the power of his words; abolishing that carnal command and it being replaced by the Chrystal clear commandment of Mark 10:2-12, Luke 16:18, 1 Cor 7:39, all which forbid divorce AND remarriage. Some of the permanence people who are allowing the divorce and are only forbidding the remarriage are misrepresenting and slandering Jesus. Not as badly as you are, but they are still an offense to the truth. Divorce and remarriage are both forbidden under the NT. The "sex-first" explanation of the exception clause, derived from Dt 22:13-21 also horribly offends the truth of scripture by allowing a post marital divorce. The divorce allowed by the exception merely amounted to ending engagement.

LJ Mr Dismissive, please answer me. When Jesus commented on Gen 2 after having been asked about Dt 24:1-4; was he clarifying what that section in Gen 2 meant WHEN it was spoken at creation? If your answer is yes, then Jesus' plain words in Mark 10:2-12 have always been the absolute truth even if for all of the time before that, they were unaware. The prophecy that Jesus would be the light of the world INCLUDED Israel, even though they had the law. Paul plainly made it known we are not under the law. We are under what faith in Christ's teachings; which have given the whole world light. But you choose, like those taken by the HRM to remain in bondage by refusing to hear "that "Prophet". I think I hear a "I do not understand" coming.

CD LJ @ RW LJ's challenge again if put away in Not divorce then a parallel sentence should be made...try to understand this one.......Others have said that they understand it. You have written books on this subject so therefore you should understand... 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.

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 perfect sense as you sayu believe happens with put away and divorce.
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 such a switch to a different topic.

Matt 5:31 starts off talking about the proper certificate to divorce. Then in 32 he says but I say to you. Obviously referring to the same thing. He did not all of a sudden change the topic of discussion. When any sentence like that starts off talking about one thing and then says 'but I say to you' and changes the topic, the sentence is a garbled mess.

Try it in the other 5 topics where he says "but I say to you". The topic cannot change and still be a meaningful statement. You are promoting confusion. God is not the author thereof.

RW, you say that there is a switch over from a topic "put way" to divorce in Jesus' statement..provide a sentence where this happens and makes literal sense.

RW I provided a link that explained the passage.

LJ RW Having an explanation of the passage does not diminish the validity of the challenge. Howsoever persuasive your explanation of Matt 5:31,32 is; factors exist in how that verse operates from a basic grammatical perspective that makes the challenge indeed a challenge. Your denial that the challenge has merit seems to me to be a purely dismissive tactic. If your answer is so good concerning what the sentence means, then you should be able to demonstrate its validity by providing what the challenge calls for.

CD LJ So by providing the link to his website above means that he understands what is being asked thus it cannot be said that he does not understand any longer. Now a parallel sentence showing the change of topic must be provided.

LJ RW Did you read what CD wrote? Can you confirm to us that you understand what the challenge entails? Beforehand, you more than once, if I remember right, affirmed that you did not understand the challenge. Is CD right, that you now understand the challenge?

LJ RW, In order to have an effective discussion, some basic ground rules must be agreed to:

If you ask any question of me, I am obligated in my next reply, and at the beginning of that reply, to answer any and all questions you present. All that is required is that it have a question mark at the end of the sentence. If it is asked that it be a yes or no answer, then I must answer, first of all, with a yes or no before explaining myself. The same rules apply to you with regard to your answering my questions. Is that fair?

Let us agree from this point forward to not say anything personal. It is a conflict between two very different positions, therefore let us address the difference with regard to the doctrines differing and not ourselves. Also using mutually respectful language. We should both express our positions, liberally sprinkled with "I believe". It is a disagreement between what you believe versus what I believe. So we should avoid at all costs saying "You are" (doing this or that). Address rather something like, "that position, or your position requires that that scripture be seen as....". This way we can focus on the merits related to the actual doctrine and related scriptures and avoid emotional drama.

RW LJ, you did MORE than ask me to answer a question. You demanded that I form a sentence. I don't have to do that, and whether I can or can't either way you doctrine is not proven nor disproven, nor is my doctrine proven or disproven. I did, however, answer. I provided a link to my article that explains the text, in question, in detail.

I do appreciate that you are committed to not say anything personal in the future. I'll try to do the same.

LJ Is it reasonable that if a sentence is explained in a manner so that it functions in a certain way, then a parallel sentence should be able to be made after the same general format, which will demonstrate that function? Please, yes or no. For the betrothal explanation, numerous parallel sentences are able to be made that demonstrate how the exception clause does NOT give partial allowance to do the action which the sentence started off talking about. You should be able to make a parallel to support your claim of how the sentence functions. CD assumed that you understand what the challenge entails. She assumes that based on the fact that you responded with the challenge by posting your article explaining your take on the passage. Previously you said you did not understand the challenge. Is CD correct that you now understand the challenge? Please, yes or no.

LJ RW, I asked if that was fair in the above post about basic rules to govern the discussion. You did not answer. Are those rules fair? Do you agree that we can abide by those rules to help the discussion be a success? Please answer.

RW Sure, the rules are fair, but demanding someone come up with some kind of parallel as being THE answer is NOT reasonable.

LJ You reworded my question, then you answered how you reworded it. How about just answering my question as I asked it? You agreed that the rules are fair, then refuse to follow the rules. By refusing to answer the question as I asked it, then you are in effect disagreeing with the same rules you said you agreed with.

LJ Go back to my actual question. Is your answer a yes or no?

LJ For the record, let it be known that RW refused to answer my question. I will give you another chance to avoid looking like you simply refuse to follow reasonable rules.

LJ This is the question you answered, which you replaced my question with. "Is it reasonable to demand someone to come up with some kind of parallel as being THE answer?" To that question you answered no. That is not the question I asked. I think they call what you have done a straw man fallacy.

RW Are you trying to build a case to get me ousted? I have explained that I did in fact reply to your question. You refuse to acknowledge that this action IS AN ANSWER. You cannot MAKE someone reply in the way you wish.

LJ RW Is it reasonable that if a sentence is explained in a manner so that it functions in a certain way, then a parallel sentence should be able to be made after the same general sentence format, which will demonstrate that function? Please, yes or no. For the betrothal explanation, numerous parallel sentences are able to be made that demonstrate how the exception clause does NOT give partial allowance to do the action which the sentence started off talking about. You should be able to make a parallel to support your claim of how the sentence functions. CD assumed that you understand what the challenge entails. She assumes that based on the fact that you responded with the challenge by posting your article explaining your take on the passage. Previously you said you did not understand the challenge. Is CD correct that you now understand the challenge? Please, yes or no.

CD If one cannot make a parallel sentence to demonstrate that put away and divorce are NOT the same then we must conclude they ARE the same.

CD If you keep saying that put away and divorce are NOT the same in that passage of scripture then a parallel sentence in that same format should be created to show the case, no?

LJ CD Yes, the explanation to make the words work as having different meanings, can only stand while being kept SEPARATE from the actual text in Matt 5:31,32. When put to the test, using the actual source as the measuring stick, then the "different-meanings" theory falls apart. This challenge is basic and common sensical. It is akin to providing someone with a round hole of 2 inches diameter and a 2 inch square peg. RW, please show us how the peg fits into the round hole.

RW It is "basic and commin sense" that Jesus sinned if he contradicted the Law, but you refuse to debate it while saying he did it. Is your doctrine more important that truth? Are you willing to so charge Jesus but not willing to take a stand against human tradition that promotes what Paul put into the category of "doctrines of devils"

LJ CD I think RW's answer reflected that he understands that. I believe that is why he could not answer with a straightforward 'yes or no' to the question he was asked; even though having agreed that answering with a non evasive 'yes or no' was reasonable, as a way to ensure success of the discussion.

LJ RW You are sidetracking. Answer the question plainly and deal with the consequences. If it was true that Jesus did not contradict Moses, as your position asserts, then that simply creates a further question that needs to be dealt with AFTER having established that you cannot support your theory by using the actual source of Matt 5:31,32.

If you were correct concerning Jesus not having contradicted Moses, while you also admit that Matt 5:31,32 does not support your "different-meanings" theory, then the question could be, "how does that work: is Matt 5:31,32 translated wrong?" Maybe you can find a way to rectify the failure to mesh the actual source with your theory, while simultaneously maintaining that Jesus did not change the law in Dt 24:1-4. But instead, your theory seems to be forcing you to not cooperate in a decent manner with the discussion. Please cooperate and let the facts as they are presented lead us to the truth. Ask me any question, I will not evade. Your question, did Jesus contradict Moses, is easily answered by me with a loud Yes, after which I can comment further, giving examples how the OT and NT work; the NT having replaced the OT with a higher standard, which is able to be abided in due to the regeneration made available by the death and resurrection of Jesus.

RW Here is one. Another later. Is it okay if I just answer with scripture?

God said I put her away and gave her a writing of divorce.ent. Jer 3:8

LJ RW No, it is not OK. You agreed that the rules applying to both; to answer with a straightforward yes or no, were fair rules to ensure success of the discussion. I will answer you in that manner and I expect you to cooperate in this honourable manner. The "God-divorced-Israel" argument is a side-track, leaving the same general scenario as identified above. That becomes another and separate issue to deal with, (if what you say about it is correct), similar to how the other sidetracking topic should then also be dealt with. First things first. Answer the question and then introduce arguments to support your position in spite of your answer.

LJ RW Let me make it easier for you since you refuse to answer: Your position admits that a parallel sentence cannot be created to demonstrate the function you say the sentence performs. Do you admit that? Please, yes or no. Admitting to that failure on the part of your position simply gives a point to the opposing position. We can then move on, and perhaps your arguments can ensure points of victory over our position in other areas pertaining to the topic. Please answer the question.

RW No. The scriptures provide what you ask, but you ate not willing to accept and inspired answer, so why would anyone think you would accept any answer worded be me?

LJ RW This was the question: "Your position admits that a parallel sentence cannot be created to demonstrate the function you say the sentence performs. Do you admit that? Please, yes or no." This was your answer:
"No".
If you do not admit that a parallel cannot be produced; then that suggests that a parallel CAN be produced.
So am I correct that you are saying a parallel CAN in fact be produced to demonstrate the function you say Matt 5:31,32 performs?
Please stop evading so we can get this one point behind us and go forward.
Can we conclude then, by your last answer that you are saying a parallel CAN be produced but you choose to not reveal it, and therefore leaving that issue, we can go on to another aspect of the discussion?
If that is what you want, then please just communicate clearly.

CD RW, you said, "NO. The scriptures provide what you ask,"JESUS has a sentence structure in SCRIPTURE (Matt 5) that show that a topic cannot change from one definition to another. You say it does. The sentence structure itself shows that it does not. You should be able to provide the parallel sentence that CAN SHOW how Jesus switches topic from one meaning to another as you say happens with the case of put away vs. divorce. If not, then your doctrine is "busted". Writing books and websites showing that put way and divorce are not the same by just saying so without proving it by providing a parallel sentence ON ANY other subject to demonstrate it.... does not make what you say SO!

If what you say is true than a parallel sentence would show it, no?

Since you said NO..... you can't provide a parallel that shows how put away does not mean divorce then one can safely assume that put away and divorce are are the same then?

LJ CD Yes, the challenge is very generous and opens a huge door of opportunity to simply demonstrate the function claimed that is being performed in that sentence. A background story to establish parameters and definitions is also very welcome. The sentence can be on any topic imaginable that will work to show a switch-over to different meanings between two words that can also be seen as synonyms. While numerous such parallels can be produced that demonstrate that the two words function as obvious synonyms, there should be at least one such parallel demonstrating that the sentence can ALSO function competently where the two words are identifying different things. We await the evidence that can be presented in support of his claim of "difference of meaning".

LJ CD RW has been quiet for a little while now. Could it be that he is working on actually trying to make a parallel? To that, I say, I wish him the best.

LJ What would the best be? That he realizes that Jesus knew exactly what he was saying. Jesus, being the "Word of God", (made flesh, by way of having been begotten through Mary,) he obviously knew what he was saying. The particular sentence structure, not only forbids that there can be a switch-over in meanings with regard to the flow of the sentence, but also that the exception clause cannot function as an 'essential' part of the sentence in that particular God-engineered sentence format. The exception clause, being able to ONLY function as a "non essential" part of the sentence, completely destroys the various 'divorce after consummation' theories of the exception clause. Thank God for the very important "first-mention" of the doctrine in the NT in Matt 5:31,32. God's providence for mankind on this heaven and hell issue is indeed wonderful. In and of itself it destroys both the "different meanings" heresy as well as the divorce for adultery heresy and any other heresy that allows divorce after the consummation.

RW See my recent post, which is my response to LJ.

LJ You said this:
"Sure, the rules are fair,"
The rules require that we answer the questions put to us. You are not doing that. The rules are that if you require a 'yes or no' answer to a question, I must give that, before explaining myself, how or why, it is either yes or no.

RW The problem here obviously, is that you just do not like my answer.

LJ RW This was the question: "Your position admits that a parallel sentence cannot be created to demonstrate the function you say the sentence performs. Do you admit that? Please, yes or no."

RW My position does not admit anything. That is your argument, FWIW.

LJ RW The rules are, that you answer with a yes or no, when required to do so, before explaining how or why it is a yes or no. Your answer above amounts to a refusal to answer yes or no, and a refusal to then explain why or how it is a yes or no.

RW IF you think EVERY demand must be answered by a yes or know then you know KNOWING about debating. Here you go: HAVE YOU STOPPED BEATING YOUR WIFE? Yes or NO. The "rules" demand you answer. LOL\

LJ RW You seem to be admitting that our question to you does indeed have you over a barrel. The question, "have you stopped beating your wife" does not in any way get close to the kind of question you are being asked. For you to make that kind of comparison, reflecting how much of a dilemma you are in, is a kind of flattery to our position. You are indeed stumped.
AGAIN, the debate police would issue yet another citation for yet another failure to abide in the recognized rules of debate. You have committed the logical fallacy of presenting a non sequitur: the question we are asking is not anything like the question you assert it is like.
The rules you agreed to, say we both answer each others questions. You agreed to those rules. Please make it plain for everyone to see: are you now wanting to backtrack and therefore do you now NOT accept the rules you previously said were fair? Please, a yes or no.

LJ RW You were the one that wanted the debate. And now that you have it, you are not doing well.

RW You never agreed to a debate. Can you comprehend at all what you read? Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no. The rules require....

LJ RW That question is a non sequitur. Your position forces these kinds of evasive maneuvers.

LJ RW I shared rules to abide in for the debate and then you said they were fair and then we have been debating. Are you saying we have not been debating?

RW You are irrational. I'm wasting my time. Done with you .

RW The rules were the group rules.

LJ RW Everyone sees what you have done. Your evasive tactics and repeated breach of the universally accepted rules of debate are there recorded for all to see. But you will just deny your failures as you deny to take the challenge. The challenge presented to you to present a parallel sentence is fair and valid.

LJ CD, RW has decided to jump ship. Please record this debate. Anyone else he draws into a debate can be shown what has happened here.

RW You never agreed to debate. I was speaking of a formal debate, and I supplied the proposition. You never responded to the request.

LJ RW It does not matter, because you still responded to the various arguments levelled against your position. Those same arguments would arise in a formal debate and the outcome would be the same. You have manifested that you respond with non sequiturs and other logical fallacies that are identified in lists of logical fallacies that should NOT be used in a debate. You have already manifested the kind of debater you are. I agree that it is good that you are done with me now as you have said you are.

RW You have manifested that you know nothing about debating and that you are unreasonable. Please do not reply to me again. I do not want to gave to block you again.

LJ RW Would you like me to quote you when you have made various logical fallacies? I can do that. I can identify which particular fallacies have been committed by particular posts you have written. If I am not mistaken you have committed at least 3 different logical fallacies that I can see. Please, yes or no.

RW I asked you to not respond further.

LJ RW I asked you lots of things, which you refused to answer.

RW Every sees why I blocked you before and why I'm blocking you again.

LJ RW Yes they do