Does Romans 7:1-3 affirm different rules for women and men regarding adultery?

[Sonnet]

It confirms that a man can divorce his wife if she commits adultery. It's only 'sexual discrimination' in your feminized bias- women were made for the man, not man for the woman. A man is not obligated to remain with a woman defiled by another man.



Polygamy was something only men were allowed to do.
Here we go right back around to the key point- women were made for the man and not man for the woman.

The apostles state that matrimony should be between one man and woman because the only thing polygamy was good for was giving women status in return for giving the man a patent on legacy.
In other words, they were employed baby cannons :chuckle:

So this means what:

Mat 5:27-28
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

?

 

[Crucible]

So this means what:

Mat 5:27-28
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

?

Exactly what it means :idunno:

In truth, everyone is guilty of what that verse states. It sounds good that a person marries another and, for the rest of their life, never peers at another with lust.
But
That's all it is, a raw sentiment- it's not actually something that happens.

Jesus expresses the futility in thinking perfection is what grants salvation. He also illustrates that indulgence in sin is not applicable to God's favor.
This is likely one of those instances.

 

[Sonnet]

Exactly what it means :idunno:

In truth, everyone is guilty of what that verse states. It sounds good that a person marries another and, for the rest of their life, never peers at another with lust.
But
That's all it is, a raw sentiment- it's not actually something that happens

You are advocating polygyny which violates Jesus's admonition against lusting after other women.

 

[Crucible]

You are advocating polygyny which violates Jesus's admonition against lusting after other women.

Since when did this become about polygamy? I mean really- your loyalty is obviously not with biblical standards, it's with man's standards, because what you are essentially doing is attempting to conflict the scriptures with themselves.
I don't think you even realize it :chuckle:

Polygamy was something God really only tolerated among his elected leaders. Otherwise, polygamy really went out of fashion- it was a rare thing to begin with.

 

[Sonnet]

Since when did this become about polygamy?

In the OP

I mean really- your loyalty is obviously not with biblical standards, it's with man's standards, because what you are essentially doing is attempting to conflict the scriptures with themselves.
I don't think you even realize it :chuckle:

I realise what you say. I am not aware that anyone has resolved the conflict.

Polygamy was something God really only tolerated among his elected leaders. Otherwise, polygamy really went out of fashion- it was a rare thing to begin with.

That you think it is permissible for a man to have more than one wife amazes me.

You didn't address the specifics of my last post.

 

[Sonnet]

Since when did this become about polygamy? I mean really- your loyalty is obviously not with biblical standards, it's with man's standards, because what you are essentially doing is attempting to conflict the scriptures with themselves.
I don't think you even realize it :chuckle:

Polygamy was something God really only tolerated among his elected leaders. Otherwise, polygamy really went out of fashion- it was a rare thing to begin with.

I am only doing as the Bereans did.

 

[chair]

Thanks.

Are you disinguishing Mosaic law from the law that included such tradition? Could you expound a little please?

Actually, I am doing quite the opposite. The written law is part of a larger tradition. Halacha is alive- it is not something frozen and unchanging.

 

[Sonnet]

Actually, I am doing quite the opposite. The written law is part of a larger tradition. Halacha is alive- it is not something frozen and unchanging.

Thanks.

Do you still maintain that Jesus came against this law in Mat 19:9?

 

[Sonnet]

Actually, I am doing quite the opposite. The written law is part of a larger tradition. Halacha is alive- it is not something frozen and unchanging.

Yet it relies on rabbinic interpretation does it not?

 

[chair]

Thanks.

Do you still maintain that Jesus came against this law in Mat 19:9?

The Rabbis often disagreed on what was the proper Halacha for particular circumstances. Usually one view was accepted as the normative practice- but the opposing viewpoints were considered legitimate as well.

"These and these are the words of the Living God"

 

[Sonnet]

The Rabbis often disagreed on what was the proper Halacha for particular circumstances. Usually one view was accepted as the normative practice- but the opposing viewpoints were considered legitimate as well.

"These and these are the words of the Living God"

Does this not justify scepticism? Acts 17:11.

 

[Sonnet]

1 Cor 14:33?

 

[chair]

1 Cor 14:33?

As I said- many Christians have a hard time understanding a culture that is really quite different than theirs. We thrive on debate, not on doctrine.

Here is a video you might watch. It is partly in Korean.


You can skip the first minute and a half. You might get an idea of how this works. Jesus was familiar with this (or an earlier form of it).

 

[Sonnet]

As I said- many Christians have a hard time understanding a culture that is really quite different than theirs. We thrive on debate, not on doctrine.

Is there room for debate here:

Mat 5
27“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Surely, such a statement explicitly outlaws polygyny.

 

[chair]

Is there room for debate here:

Mat 5
27“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Surely, such a statement explicitly outlaws polygyny.

Jesus was a Jewish scholar in his time, and he had his own particular view on these matters- that got recorded in your New Testament. It may have been a common viewpoint, but not the only one, in his time.

The New Testament is not part of the Jewish tradition.

 

[Sonnet]

Jesus was a Jewish scholar in his time, and he had his own particular view on these matters- that got recorded in your New Testament. It may have been a common viewpoint, but not the only one, in his time.

The New Testament is not part of the Jewish tradition.

It's not my New Testament.

You reject Jesus then?

 

[chair]

It's not my New Testament.

You reject Jesus then?

I am Jewish.
When you say "you reject Jesus" you imply that Jesus is the default, and anybody who thinks differently "rejects" the default belief. Belief in Jesus is not the default position, and I don't "reject" that any more than I reject Krishna.

In any case, I was asked to join this thread to provide mt viewpoint on particular topics. If you want to discuss how Jews view Jesus further, I suggest that you start a separate thread.

 

[Sonnet]

I am Jewish.
When you say "you reject Jesus" you imply that Jesus is the default, and anybody who thinks differently "rejects" the default belief. Belief in Jesus is not the default position, and I don't "reject" that any more than I reject Krishna.

No - I don't say he is the default. I am not a believer myself. I'm just inquiring...have been for a long time.

You do appear to affirm that Jesus is in conflict with the OT on this matter.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I am Jewish.
When you say "you reject Jesus" you imply that Jesus is the default, and anybody who thinks differently "rejects" the default belief. Belief in Jesus is not the default position, and I don't "reject" that any more than I reject Krishna.

In any case, I was asked to join this thread to provide mt viewpoint on particular topics. If you want to discuss how Jews view Jesus further, I suggest that you start a separate thread.

No - I don't say he is the default. I am not a believer myself. I'm just inquiring...have been for a long time.

You do appear to affirm that Jesus is in conflict with the OT on this matter.

Now perspective is building a very healthy and well rounded database for this discussion.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I am Jewish.
When you say "you reject Jesus" you imply that Jesus is the default, and anybody who thinks differently "rejects" the default belief. Belief in Jesus is not the default position, and I don't "reject" that any more than I reject Krishna.

In any case, I was asked to join this thread to provide mt viewpoint on particular topics. If you want to discuss how Jews view Jesus further, I suggest that you start a separate thread.

If only many Christians would take notes and learn to debate and discuss scripture void of denominational dogma, they would appreciate your stance and study much more. I know there are those here that do (appreciate your stance), but it is refreshing to see a question asked and an answer given that is completely out of the norm from typical response here.

You referenced rabbinical divisions earlier and in doing so (I assume) expressed that you have studied their various stances. This is the heart of solid study!