Are some of these passages really speaking of marriage or man and woman as being separate people, or are they speaking of the soul?
One example-
Matthew 19
4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
Twice Jesus speaks of the beginning.
Pretty slick, Cman. I hope it was not intentional. You just did the same thing to these wonderful patrons of the diner that the Pharisees did to Jesus...
Mat 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
As you can see in verse 3, they were talking SPECIFICALLY about married people - husbands and wives. Jesus makes it clear that when a man and woman are married they are one flesh - The concept is hard to understand in these latter days, but to God married people are one. A unit. A set. Like 2 sides to the same coin. Front and back, heads and tails. Joined at the hip.
If you think you have some new light to shed on a subject, just share it and then we'll comment on what you
have set forth. OK?
Uuhhmm, I think he tried to, ... by asking what looks to me like an honest question.
You just did the same thing to these wonderful patrons of the diner that the Pharisees did to Jesus...
??? WTF is up with that? :unsure: How did he do "the same thing that the Pharisees did"? How can you tell that it wasn't an honest question? Where in Cman's question was the supposed 'tempting'?
Uuhhmm, I think he tried to, ... by asking what looks to me like an honest question.
??? WTF is up with that? :unsure: How did he do "the same thing that the Pharisees did"? How can you tell that it wasn't an honest question? Where in Cman's question was the supposed 'tempting'?
Well, after putting up with Mike's toying with everyone and then taking up to 150 friggin posts just to get half of it out.....
Kinda looked like that's what Cman was about to do....hey what do you think about this?
So my first response upon reading it was....OMG! Another one!
I believe I said I hope the tempting was not intentional. I was not accusing you of starting .....
That being said, the context here was divorce. Which is why I posted verse 3. I think you took it somewhere else mentally Cman - Here is your question:
"Are some of these passages really speaking of marriage or man and woman as being separate people, or are they speaking of the soul?"
I responded the way I did because it is obvious that, Yes - It is REALLY speaking of marriage. By you leaving out verse 3, the whole thing is skewered. The Pharisees were not tempting him with the SUBJECT at hand - They wanted to see if He would disagree with what Moses wrote about DIVORCE.
Jesus said it was not so from the beginning - There was no divorce in the beginning, and Moses took it upon himself to allow it, but it was not allowed by God.
You asked 3 questions actually, and the second and third are not relevant in light of the scriptures used to validate your question. That is what I was referring to when I mentioned you tempting people. In the context of the verses you chose, there is no answer to your 2nd and 3rd question, because Jesus was talking about marriage, and divorce. Which was not so in the beginning. And should not be so now. When a man and woman are joined together, to God that's it.
Romans 7 gives a very good example about this - If a woman marries and divorces and marries again, she and the man she gets with are adulterers, unless and until her first husband is dead. Now, this is in the epstles - and it confirms The Law - thou shalt not commit adultary. From the beginning, married people are one.
Are some of these passages really speaking of marriage or man and woman as being separate people, or are they speaking of the soul?
One example-
Matthew 19
4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
Twice Jesus speaks of the beginning.
In the first place, some clarifications need to take place before I get into this post. First, so that there are not any illusions as to what I refer to with spirit, soul and body; I believe in a tripartite being, that said, spirit is spirit and soul is soul, etc.
v4 Jesus is speaking about the beginning of beginnings, if you will - at the very original creation of ADAM, s/he or their individual spirits were in the same body. After some time went by, when ADAM noticed all of the animals copulating and having babies, I'm sure ADAM approached GOD and wondered where s/he's mate was located. Whenever this occured, who knows, then did God put ADAM's (flesh) into a deep sleep. This is when he took the female spirit out of the body of ADAM, leaving only the male spirit and
then GOD would of necessity have had to form a new body for the female spirit. Which we know that HE did.
It is when the SPIRIT enters into the BODY that then a SOUL is formed. Voila! MALE ADAM wakes up and sees FEMALE ADAM and then GOD has the LAST LAUGH! For then GOD COMMANDS THEM TO NOW BE ONE! I guess you had to be there or have the same dry humor that I do. I can just imagine God listening to ADAM whine saying that s/he didn't like what GOD made and GOD responding to them, "You don't like the way that I arranged you? Well, then how about this?" Adam responds after the ultimate make-over: "Oh, hey, this is great, now I have a mate!" God then tells them to GO AND DO what GOD had originally and automatically allowed them to do. GEEZ! Some people are hard to please, aren't they?
This pericope has several levels, CMAN:
First of all, Rachel is correct when she said that the Pharisees were tempting Jesus, plus they wanted to see:
1. Would he agree with Moses' law?
2. Would he agree with the comtemporary views of marriage/divorce?
3. Can we trap him and discredit him?
There were two major schools of thought in Judaism during the Lord's walk on earth. The first one was the "School of Shammai" which was ultra strict, you followed every jot and tittle in the law even if it killed you to do it, literally. Then there was the "School of Hillel" which was a very liberal school of thought and pretty much allowed anything. The two schools of thought were in constant conflict with each other and if one said, "First you sweep the floor and then wash the hands," the other school said "You wash your hands and then you sweep the floor."
Thus we get to the idea of divorce in culture, and Shammai only allowed divorce for the cause of adultery, but Hillel allowed divorce for any reason, even as one case in point, Hillel allowed for divorce if your wife burnt your toast. So the Pharisees were wanting to see which "school" that he would side with but Jesus sidestepped their trap and pointed to a time before any such "schools" were prevalent, before Moses even and point to how God created then in the beginning. And so Jesus sides with GOD, thus stepping out of any party factions.
Yes, it is talking about man and woman who are NOW separate, but should desire to find a mate and become ONE as GOD COMMANDED. Is it talking about SOUL? Yes. But not for salvation of it, because Jesus was yet to bring in the perfect salvation.
V.6 Jesus is pointing out that as at the beginning, ADAM (male and female spirits) were housed in ONE FLESH, now the two separated BODIES, albeit only through intercourse, were to NOW BECOME ONE FLESH. Which they become if only for however long the mood lasts (trying to be genteel about this), but the neat thing about how GOD made
sexual intercourse...while the two BODIES are being joined temporarily, a UNIQUE BOND is formed between the MALE/FEMALE SOULS, which is why if the two separate
BODIES decide to divorce, that it is so painful because TWO SOULS THAT HAVE BECOME ONE in essence are now being RIPPED ASUNDER, which is why GOD had it written that no one was to PUT ASUNDER what GOD HAD JOINED.
That said, but Jesus goes on to speak about eunuchs, or those who choose to not marry in this life for whatever reason: some are born that way; some are made that way by other men (like a eunuch who takes care of a king's concubines); and some who choose to become this way in order to serve GOD without distraction of any sexual yearnings.
But in v.7-9 Jesus does address the two schools in that he states that Moses gave divorce because of the hardness of your hearts (currently Hillel's liberal school) and that no one should TRULY DIVORCE except for the most aggregious cause, such as ADULTERY OR FORNICATION.
if i may point out that there has been virtually no agreement...or community "contract"...as to how a (this) doctrinal thread should or should not ....happen
its way too easy to assert one's own assumptions and expectations as to how things should go when writing about things of God
without such an agreement...or attempt at an agreement...we are almost always putting the proverbial cart before the horse
Uuhhmm, I think he tried to, ... by asking what looks to me like an honest question.
??? WTF is up with that? :unsure: How did he do "the same thing that the Pharisees did"? How can you tell that it wasn't an honest question? Where in Cman's question was the supposed 'tempting'?
How can you tell that it was an honest question?
How can you tell the Pharisee's question wasn't honest?
I guess you just call it like you see it, and so do I. And by the way - I didn't say if I thought he was sincere or not. And you know what they say about sincerity. (It is still good)
I just do not see where it's only talking of married couples when there is so much else covered.
Exactly what am I tempting anyone to do or think.
Think for themselves about what Jesus is saying, that much is sure. The pharisees had there own problems, Jesus was not a pharisee. Jesus had a different look at the opportunity to speak imo. To which we are all entitled to. Consider it or not. Argue, but I will not argue back. You can think as you please.
In all honesty I am not trying to start a fight, but to think on these things. It's anyones option. Their choice, not mine.
I can answer questions, though it may not be to the satisfaction of the asker.
And I can decline further comment when I see it leading to war.
I state what I feel I should state in this or any other forum.
Perhaps not as gracious as some but it gets out.
If some take it as offensive, I didn't intend it to be.
Some things have a shock to it, and people react differently.
I'd be glad to hear your thoughts on the matter.
Respectfully,
cman
i must confess that your question opens a pandora's box with me
touching most directly into fields of study and practice that interest me
and have for a number of years
but i will try to take a very brief stab at it
and to be honest...until i can literally focus to sit and write about this topic for days and weeks on end
the more effective way for me would be to have live conversations about it all with a transcriber in the room
otherwise, i can only leak in small written spastic bursts ... and honestly...i can hardly stand writing about things i am passionate about in small spastic bursts any more
that said...
there is a wide range of styles and types and methods and manners and degrees and processes of human dialogue and civil discourse
and the higher more effective forms involve utilization of some sort of coherent body of contracts, agreements, assumptions, etc...
...almost like having another level of conversations parallel to the other conversations
so as to help us keep our bearing
and from spiralling off into a free-for-all where assumptions are mostly private, veiled, distorted, unspoken, etc...
and we mostly fill the air with noise
i personally have come to call this din "the cocktail party" level of conversation
or "trees full of birds chirping over one another"
there is a time and place for it
but not only do we happen to live in a mainstream that has never known much about any higher forms of civil discourse
but we have this new hypertextual gizmo that we've barely even begun to teach ourselves how to use it
but there is no shame in being born into such madness, imo
we are all more-or-less soaking wet with the same "inheritance"
but to start...it seems we would do well to lean towards creating some sort of anatomy of agreements parallel to the daily jibber jab
but i also think that means we would have to use this softare a bit differently than we are used to
for example...as it relates to this thread...i can see the value of having a separate threaded conversation in the doctrinal forum about how we want to have conversations in the doctrinal forum.
if we could somehow pin that thread...or better yet, have the post at top always editable (or maybe even a link to something such as a wikispace for the more ambitious), we could "polish the touchstones" that we have created together. This "anatomy of our assumptions" would be like a reference point for other conversations.
we would have a mutually supporting dynamic of both linear conversations and non-linear conversations
without some sort of ability to create our own document
this "body" of folks will have a mostly hidden "constitution"
and as an example...one of the first kinds of things i would put up for discussion...something i might want to ask of everyone, something we kind of already do ..kinda
...is if we can all assume that it is ok for thread starters to set the "rules of play" for the threads they start...and participants agree to abide by those rules...and that any aggressive deviation from those requests are basically considered uncivil and disruptive.
This would foster thread starters to be even more free to get creative with suggested ways, types, styles of conversational invitations
and its even less likely for one to be suprised or confused if someone makes such a request
...or why someone is restricted from posting after having ignored the agreement
again...that is just an example of how contracts can help alongside dialogue.
and constitutions work best if they are considered to always be renogotiable
with a method of re-negotiation being the same as the method of the initial negotiation
which is a whole nuther subject
and we dont need to be anal or dogmatic about what we call them
I just do not see where it's only talking of married couples when there is so much else covered.
Exactly what am I tempting anyone to do or think.
Think for themselves about what Jesus is saying, that much is sure. The pharisees had there own problems, Jesus was not a pharisee. Jesus had a different look at the opportunity to speak imo. To which we are all entitled to. Consider it or not. Argue, but I will not argue back. You can think as you please.
In all honesty I am not trying to start a fight, but to think on these things. It's anyones option. Their choice, not mine.
Cman - I am not trying to argue with you; In fact, I find you quite refreshing. If you look at my posts a bit more closely I am sure you will see that I am not offended. I hope you are not as well.
As to what else Jesus might have been referring to, It does speak volumes. I will tell you what I see...
Jesus was reaffirming the 10 Commandment laws - specifically about adultery - It is unlawful to put away your spouse unless they have cheated on you.
He was also pointing out that Moses was wrong. Just because something has been recorded in the Bible, like Moses allowing Israel to divorce, does not mean it is correct and the Will of God.
I see this very plainly in regards to Paul and circumcision. Paul convinced the elders to slack off on Gentile circumcision, but biblically he was wrong...Circumcision is a sign that we are children of promise, under Abrahams' covenant and was re-established under the law of Moses. If you read the record of Abraham, you will see that it is rewuired forever by the people of God, but Paul allowed something else. And he was wrong.
Recommended Posts
RachelYsrael
Pretty slick, Cman. I hope it was not intentional. You just did the same thing to these wonderful patrons of the diner that the Pharisees did to Jesus...
Mat 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
As you can see in verse 3, they were talking SPECIFICALLY about married people - husbands and wives. Jesus makes it clear that when a man and woman are married they are one flesh - The concept is hard to understand in these latter days, but to God married people are one. A unit. A set. Like 2 sides to the same coin. Front and back, heads and tails. Joined at the hip.
Rachel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
think what you like Rachel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
CMAN,
please do not start imitating Mike! If you think you have some new light to shed on a subject, just share it and then we'll comment on what you
have set forth. OK?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
??? WTF is up with that? :unsure: How did he do "the same thing that the Pharisees did"? How can you tell that it wasn't an honest question? Where in Cman's question was the supposed 'tempting'?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Thanks Garth, it is an honest question.
Especially considering how he answered and the rest of his answers in this particular subject of which he knew about.
Why did he bring up eunuchs? And more.
If it was about the traditional marriage as we know today?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
a few things...
i cant help but notice the obvious difference between an individual offering a question to a group
and a group questioning an individual
i also cant help but notice the many obvious differences between cman and Mike, in doctrine (as posted) and practice (as posted)
...which seems to make the comparison unfair to both of them..and perhaps unwise
that aside...
i do think its an and/also situation with what Jesus may have meant
perhaps even speaking of the manifold layers of marriage (and sexuality) with one fell swoop of his tongue
i would expect no less from him
to speak of spirit and soul while also speaking of the carnal
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Well, after putting up with Mike's toying with everyone and then taking up to 150 friggin posts just to get half of it out.....
Kinda looked like that's what Cman was about to do....hey what do you think about this?
So my first response upon reading it was....OMG! Another one!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Yes, sirguess, the answer offers a greater view of the question and adding even more to question and learn. More then was expected I expect.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RachelYsrael
I believe I said I hope the tempting was not intentional. I was not accusing you of starting .....
That being said, the context here was divorce. Which is why I posted verse 3. I think you took it somewhere else mentally Cman - Here is your question:
"Are some of these passages really speaking of marriage or man and woman as being separate people, or are they speaking of the soul?"
I responded the way I did because it is obvious that, Yes - It is REALLY speaking of marriage. By you leaving out verse 3, the whole thing is skewered. The Pharisees were not tempting him with the SUBJECT at hand - They wanted to see if He would disagree with what Moses wrote about DIVORCE.
Jesus said it was not so from the beginning - There was no divorce in the beginning, and Moses took it upon himself to allow it, but it was not allowed by God.
You asked 3 questions actually, and the second and third are not relevant in light of the scriptures used to validate your question. That is what I was referring to when I mentioned you tempting people. In the context of the verses you chose, there is no answer to your 2nd and 3rd question, because Jesus was talking about marriage, and divorce. Which was not so in the beginning. And should not be so now. When a man and woman are joined together, to God that's it.
Romans 7 gives a very good example about this - If a woman marries and divorces and marries again, she and the man she gets with are adulterers, unless and until her first husband is dead. Now, this is in the epstles - and it confirms The Law - thou shalt not commit adultary. From the beginning, married people are one.
RachelIsrael
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
In the first place, some clarifications need to take place before I get into this post. First, so that there are not any illusions as to what I refer to with spirit, soul and body; I believe in a tripartite being, that said, spirit is spirit and soul is soul, etc.
v4 Jesus is speaking about the beginning of beginnings, if you will - at the very original creation of ADAM, s/he or their individual spirits were in the same body. After some time went by, when ADAM noticed all of the animals copulating and having babies, I'm sure ADAM approached GOD and wondered where s/he's mate was located. Whenever this occured, who knows, then did God put ADAM's (flesh) into a deep sleep. This is when he took the female spirit out of the body of ADAM, leaving only the male spirit and
then GOD would of necessity have had to form a new body for the female spirit. Which we know that HE did.
It is when the SPIRIT enters into the BODY that then a SOUL is formed. Voila! MALE ADAM wakes up and sees FEMALE ADAM and then GOD has the LAST LAUGH! For then GOD COMMANDS THEM TO NOW BE ONE! I guess you had to be there or have the same dry humor that I do. I can just imagine God listening to ADAM whine saying that s/he didn't like what GOD made and GOD responding to them, "You don't like the way that I arranged you? Well, then how about this?" Adam responds after the ultimate make-over: "Oh, hey, this is great, now I have a mate!" God then tells them to GO AND DO what GOD had originally and automatically allowed them to do. GEEZ! Some people are hard to please, aren't they?
This pericope has several levels, CMAN:
First of all, Rachel is correct when she said that the Pharisees were tempting Jesus, plus they wanted to see:
1. Would he agree with Moses' law?
2. Would he agree with the comtemporary views of marriage/divorce?
3. Can we trap him and discredit him?
There were two major schools of thought in Judaism during the Lord's walk on earth. The first one was the "School of Shammai" which was ultra strict, you followed every jot and tittle in the law even if it killed you to do it, literally. Then there was the "School of Hillel" which was a very liberal school of thought and pretty much allowed anything. The two schools of thought were in constant conflict with each other and if one said, "First you sweep the floor and then wash the hands," the other school said "You wash your hands and then you sweep the floor."
Thus we get to the idea of divorce in culture, and Shammai only allowed divorce for the cause of adultery, but Hillel allowed divorce for any reason, even as one case in point, Hillel allowed for divorce if your wife burnt your toast. So the Pharisees were wanting to see which "school" that he would side with but Jesus sidestepped their trap and pointed to a time before any such "schools" were prevalent, before Moses even and point to how God created then in the beginning. And so Jesus sides with GOD, thus stepping out of any party factions.
Yes, it is talking about man and woman who are NOW separate, but should desire to find a mate and become ONE as GOD COMMANDED. Is it talking about SOUL? Yes. But not for salvation of it, because Jesus was yet to bring in the perfect salvation.
V.6 Jesus is pointing out that as at the beginning, ADAM (male and female spirits) were housed in ONE FLESH, now the two separated BODIES, albeit only through intercourse, were to NOW BECOME ONE FLESH. Which they become if only for however long the mood lasts (trying to be genteel about this), but the neat thing about how GOD made
sexual intercourse...while the two BODIES are being joined temporarily, a UNIQUE BOND is formed between the MALE/FEMALE SOULS, which is why if the two separate
BODIES decide to divorce, that it is so painful because TWO SOULS THAT HAVE BECOME ONE in essence are now being RIPPED ASUNDER, which is why GOD had it written that no one was to PUT ASUNDER what GOD HAD JOINED.
That said, but Jesus goes on to speak about eunuchs, or those who choose to not marry in this life for whatever reason: some are born that way; some are made that way by other men (like a eunuch who takes care of a king's concubines); and some who choose to become this way in order to serve GOD without distraction of any sexual yearnings.
But in v.7-9 Jesus does address the two schools in that he states that Moses gave divorce because of the hardness of your hearts (currently Hillel's liberal school) and that no one should TRULY DIVORCE except for the most aggregious cause, such as ADULTERY OR FORNICATION.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Well...glad you all got that out of the way.
I'm interested in what Jesus said.
No matter what Jesus said the pharisees would not hear because they were tempting him.
All they were interested in was catching him in his words.
But no, you can't catch the wind and bottle it up and say
'here, here's your wind'
And for life being body soul and spirit.
It certainly is.
Jesus speaks of many things here including what the pharisees addressed.
Yet they do not even understand that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Well, Cman you state here "the answer offers a greater view of the question..."
Are you going to post what you have studied?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
No, I'll post what is seen to post.
Just how many things do you think Jesus addressed in what he said in his response there in Matt.
Not only what the pharisees thought, but much, much more. imho.
You can read, you tell me what he addressed.
In part anyway.
There is always more to learn.
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
if i may point out that there has been virtually no agreement...or community "contract"...as to how a (this) doctrinal thread should or should not ....happen
its way too easy to assert one's own assumptions and expectations as to how things should go when writing about things of God
without such an agreement...or attempt at an agreement...we are almost always putting the proverbial cart before the horse
starting off on the wrong foot
jumping the gun
yada yada yada
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Do you have any suggestions as to how it can go sirguessalot?
I can answer questions, though it may not be to the satisfaction of the asker.
And I can decline further comment when I see it leading to war.
I state what I feel I should state in this or any other forum.
Perhaps not as gracious as some but it gets out.
If some take it as offensive, I didn't intend it to be.
Some things have a shock to it, and people react differently.
I'd be glad to hear your thoughts on the matter.
Respectfully,
cman
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
And Rachel, when I said think what you like, I meant it in no bad way.
I cannot nor will not attempt to turn how you think.
It's not my job.
There was nothing offensive or 'slick' in my post.
People have bibles, and there are plenty online to look at the surrounding verses.
I posted what I was interested in, which does not leave out the rest.
But I will not need to post entire contexts to make an observation.
I trust folks can see for themselves what is before and after any verses I post.
Though posting verses imo, is only a starting point for further discussion.
And not an end in itself.
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
RachelYsrael
How can you tell that it was an honest question?
How can you tell the Pharisee's question wasn't honest?
I guess you just call it like you see it, and so do I. And by the way - I didn't say if I thought he was sincere or not. And you know what they say about sincerity. (It is still good)
Rachel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I just do not see where it's only talking of married couples when there is so much else covered.
Exactly what am I tempting anyone to do or think.
Think for themselves about what Jesus is saying, that much is sure. The pharisees had there own problems, Jesus was not a pharisee. Jesus had a different look at the opportunity to speak imo. To which we are all entitled to. Consider it or not. Argue, but I will not argue back. You can think as you please.
In all honesty I am not trying to start a fight, but to think on these things. It's anyones option. Their choice, not mine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
i must confess that your question opens a pandora's box with me
touching most directly into fields of study and practice that interest me
and have for a number of years
but i will try to take a very brief stab at it
and to be honest...until i can literally focus to sit and write about this topic for days and weeks on end
the more effective way for me would be to have live conversations about it all with a transcriber in the room
otherwise, i can only leak in small written spastic bursts ... and honestly...i can hardly stand writing about things i am passionate about in small spastic bursts any more
that said...
there is a wide range of styles and types and methods and manners and degrees and processes of human dialogue and civil discourse
and the higher more effective forms involve utilization of some sort of coherent body of contracts, agreements, assumptions, etc...
...almost like having another level of conversations parallel to the other conversations
so as to help us keep our bearing
and from spiralling off into a free-for-all where assumptions are mostly private, veiled, distorted, unspoken, etc...
and we mostly fill the air with noise
i personally have come to call this din "the cocktail party" level of conversation
or "trees full of birds chirping over one another"
there is a time and place for it
but not only do we happen to live in a mainstream that has never known much about any higher forms of civil discourse
but we have this new hypertextual gizmo that we've barely even begun to teach ourselves how to use it
but there is no shame in being born into such madness, imo
we are all more-or-less soaking wet with the same "inheritance"
but to start...it seems we would do well to lean towards creating some sort of anatomy of agreements parallel to the daily jibber jab
but i also think that means we would have to use this softare a bit differently than we are used to
for example...as it relates to this thread...i can see the value of having a separate threaded conversation in the doctrinal forum about how we want to have conversations in the doctrinal forum.
if we could somehow pin that thread...or better yet, have the post at top always editable (or maybe even a link to something such as a wikispace for the more ambitious), we could "polish the touchstones" that we have created together. This "anatomy of our assumptions" would be like a reference point for other conversations.
we would have a mutually supporting dynamic of both linear conversations and non-linear conversations
without some sort of ability to create our own document
this "body" of folks will have a mostly hidden "constitution"
and as an example...one of the first kinds of things i would put up for discussion...something i might want to ask of everyone, something we kind of already do ..kinda
...is if we can all assume that it is ok for thread starters to set the "rules of play" for the threads they start...and participants agree to abide by those rules...and that any aggressive deviation from those requests are basically considered uncivil and disruptive.
This would foster thread starters to be even more free to get creative with suggested ways, types, styles of conversational invitations
and its even less likely for one to be suprised or confused if someone makes such a request
...or why someone is restricted from posting after having ignored the agreement
again...that is just an example of how contracts can help alongside dialogue.
and constitutions work best if they are considered to always be renogotiable
with a method of re-negotiation being the same as the method of the initial negotiation
which is a whole nuther subject
and we dont need to be anal or dogmatic about what we call them
...such friendships can be seriously playful
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Thanks sirg, I know it took a bit to keep it short.
As far as the references I cited.
I count at least six different subjects to consider.
Besides the many different directions one can go with each.
And with the context, much more then the book of Matthew could hold.
Or quite a number of books with just the six.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RachelYsrael
Cman - I am not trying to argue with you; In fact, I find you quite refreshing. If you look at my posts a bit more closely I am sure you will see that I am not offended. I hope you are not as well.
As to what else Jesus might have been referring to, It does speak volumes. I will tell you what I see...
Jesus was reaffirming the 10 Commandment laws - specifically about adultery - It is unlawful to put away your spouse unless they have cheated on you.
He was also pointing out that Moses was wrong. Just because something has been recorded in the Bible, like Moses allowing Israel to divorce, does not mean it is correct and the Will of God.
I see this very plainly in regards to Paul and circumcision. Paul convinced the elders to slack off on Gentile circumcision, but biblically he was wrong...Circumcision is a sign that we are children of promise, under Abrahams' covenant and was re-established under the law of Moses. If you read the record of Abraham, you will see that it is rewuired forever by the people of God, but Paul allowed something else. And he was wrong.
Rachel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
hmmm...I think the divorce thing happens because of hardness of heart.
And thinking of 'the beginning' as Jesus stated, I really do not think it's about after Eve was taken out of Adam.
That would not be the beginning imo.
Which brings me to now, which says there is neither male nor female in Christ.
And then for a man to put that asunder would be more in line of what I was thinking.
Divorcing from Christ, the man not abiding in Christ.
Separating from in a selfish hardhearted way.
And I think the pharisees knew the law and knew that Jesus knew the law.
So what was the temptation?
To speak about what Moses wrote in error or to practice divorce.
And why would the pharisees say 'for every cause'.
Moses law, a shadow of things to come.
Yet one flesh had already been in the beginning.
Coming again, and is even here now.
As in the beginning.
With a little extra kick to it.
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.