Ken Starr and his homophobic agenda.

[Berzerker]

I'm reading up on these patriarchs from before Mosaic Law and it appears they all had numerous wives. Abraham founded several nations thru several wives. Jacob had 4 wives, etc etc etc.

[Agathon]

Aggie and Straybow, good debate. But I have a question: this two into one is either just mystical BS or it refers to the children, true?

Neither. It's an ancient idea present in several religions, which seeks to explain heterosexual attraction and provide a naturalistic explanation for marriage.

Well, not BS, but just a nice way of saying the two have committed to sharing their lives and they kept the commitment.

The whole point is that it isn't just an agreement. If you read it that way, then you make Jesus a sophist who's just BAMing against the Pharisees.

Any account of this passage that doesn't want to make Jesus merely assert, and wants to account for the fact that the Pharisees are "testing" him, has to assign some genuine meaning to the "one flesh stuff". To say that it is merely figurative robs it of any factual power it would have to support Jesus contentions about divorce.

Yet Jesus allowed divorce for infidelity, but Adam and Eve didn't divorce at all, much less over infidelity. That was "from the beginning", not divorce for infidelity.

Just what "from the beginning" is contrasted with is unclear. The contrasting particle is δέ, which is often used with the particle μέν to indicate "on the one hand... on the other hand" (the "not two, but one" phrase uses a different, stronger, word). But there is no μέν in the preceding phrase. It isn't clear whether the contrast is with divorce, or with hardheartedness, or with divorce on account of hardheartedness.

But "from the beginning" (ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ) here most likely refers back to verse 4, where it is referring to the creation of Adam and Eve.

What is clear is that Jesus is rejecting the Mosaic Law because he sees it as a degeneration. But the only reason he gives for this is the naturalistic "one flesh" explanation. If we want to know why he allows for divorce in the case of adultery, we need to explain it in those terms, because nothing else is offered.

Again, in this passage Jesus is being tested by the Pharisees. Having him simply blurt out his own convictions without any real supporting reasons would make him look like a goof.

Polygamy doesn't violate that idea, the children of each relationship are still the flesh of two into one...

But the passage unambiguously states that the two people become of the same flesh. No child is mentioned. When it says "let them not be separated", it isn't talking about a child.

Btw, God didn't marry Adam and Eve... I cant see where God said much of anything about their relationship until the serpent taught them (Eve) about procreation and God saw Eve's pregnancy.

It isn't even clear that some sort of marriage ceremony is required. The "one flesh" remark obviously refers to sexual congress.

If you want to justify polygamy, then you need to show why verses 4-6 are not to be taken literally, and at the same time how this doesn't make Jesus simply a BAMer.

But if you take versus 4-6 literally, then "one flesh" has to be assigned a literal meaning as well (just how that works is not quite clear, but it is required on pain of making his initial response nonsense).

But if the two people literally become one flesh, then a polygamous marriage is going to make three people become one flesh (by the law of identity), but that isn't allowed, because the natural basis of marriage is a union of opposites, and not a same sex union.

I think Jesus (or whomever wrote this) saw this quite clearly, and thus concluded that the Mosaic Law was degenerate. Something like this seems necessary to me to prevent making him look like a liar and a fraud.

I don't see the big deal here. It's pretty clear from other cases that Jesus was quite capable of criticizing earlier Jewish traditions and claiming that they had abandoned the one true way. That's because what he is doing is quite novel.

The Christianity of the Gospels is quite different from the religion of the Old Testament. It's much more sophisticated and humane. The only people who have a problem with this are those who, for religious reasons, want to assert that everything in the Bible is really consistent. Even Jesus himself probably wanted to believe that he was the true bearer of the torch. But he wasn't. Like Mohammed, he was a religious innovator who worked within a tradition, but created something new.

[Ben Kenobi]

An atheist and a Catholic ripping into a protestant for failing to interpret scripture literally?

What is Poly coming to?

[Berzerker]

I'm not any of those Ben Well, I was baptized a Catholic and did go to catechism (zzz) This stuff is fascinating, not ripping. I'm more into the ancient mythology than theological disputes but this debate links the two nicely.

Aggie

It isn't even clear that some sort of marriage ceremony is required. The "one flesh" remark obviously refers to sexual congress.

But the passage unambiguously states that the two people become of the same flesh. No child is mentioned. When it says "let them not be separated", it isn't talking about a child.

Thats a good point, Jesus said dont separate them except for infidelity so it aint a child. Adam says Eve came from his rib and that was why they were of one flesh (the narrator jumps in with that stuff about a man leaving his parents to be with his wife implying marriage - Adam and Eve didn't have parents) but this was long before the first indication of a sexual relationship. The sexual metaphors become obvious after the Serpent gets involved. Nevertheless Jesus did "quote" Adam and he sure didn't mean every wife comes from her hubby's rib, so it looks to me to be just mystical symbolism based on Jewish tradition. But given the fact the early patriarchs - pre Mosaic Law - practiced polygamy in various forms I cant see that Jesus was criticizing multiple marriages. He would be criticizing polygamists who divorce without cause...

If you want to justify polygamy, then you need to show why verses 4-6 are not to be taken literally, and at the same time how this doesn't make Jesus simply a BAMer.

I am taking it literally, I'm just not expanding what he said to pre-Mosaic Law marriage practices. In the OT God repeatedly blesses multiple marriages to produce heirs and found nations and peoples. This was his promise to the patriarchs. Now I'm supposed to believe some mystical reference from Adam about Eve and his rib is a criticism of polygamy? Just dont make sense...

But if the two people literally become one flesh, then a polygamous marriage is going to make three people become one flesh (by the law of identity), but that isn't allowed, because the natural basis of marriage is a union of opposites, and not a same sex union.

But polygamy is a union of opposites and a polygamous marriage is still between a man and a woman. The fact other wives are already married to the guy is irrelevant unless he's divorcing one or more without cause.

[Agathon]

But polygamy is a union of opposites and a polygamous marriage is still between a man and a woman. The fact other wives are already married to the guy is irrelevant unless he's divorcing one or more without cause.

It's a violation of the law of identity.

[Berzerker]

that would mean monogamy was the practice from the beginning and it wasn't, the patriarchs pre-date Mosaic Law and all I see in the OT from God about the subject is repeated endorsements of polygamy.

[Straybow]

Aggie and Straybow, good debate. But I have a question: this two into one is either just mystical BS or it refers to the children, true? Well, not BS, but just a nice way of saying the two have committed to sharing their lives and they kept the commitment.

No, it isn't refering to children. The two become "one flesh" even if they have no issue. What made Adam and Eve "one flesh" wasn't that God made Eve from Adam's body. It was that Adam took Eve as his wife, saying, "This now is flesh of my flesh."

Yet Jesus allowed divorce for infidelity, but Adam and Eve didn't divorce at all, much less over infidelity. That was "from the beginning", not divorce for infidelity. Polygamy doesn't violate that idea, the children of each relationship are still the flesh of two into one... Btw, God didn't marry Adam and Eve... I cant see where God said much of anything about their relationship until the serpent taught them (Eve) about procreation and God saw Eve's pregnancy.

The covenant of marriage was "from the beginning." Adam didn't need to be taught what God thought about marriage as a covenant, he was created with knowledge we would consider encyclopedic in scope. Nor did the serpent teach them about procreation. He taught them about lust.

[Straybow]

But the passage unambiguously states that the two people become of the same flesh. No child is mentioned. When it says "let them not be separated", it isn't talking about a child.

...But if you take versus 4-6 literally, then "one flesh" has to be assigned a literal meaning as well (just how that works is not quite clear, but it is required on pain of making his initial response nonsense).

But if the two people literally become one flesh, then a polygamous marriage is going to make three people become one flesh (by the law of identity), but that isn't allowed, because the natural basis of marriage is a union of opposites, and not a same sex union.

No, the passage reiterates the phrase used in Genesis of the first marriage. To say you are interpreting it "literally," and then say that the flesh isn't really "literal," nor is the "one" literal in any measurable way but some metaphysical oneness... that is utter nonsense. That's where the gentile church fathers (who were somewhat more gullible about metphysical gobbledygook) went wrong.

"Flesh of my flesh" is hugely significant in a culture where family and lineage is everything. The marriage covenant is to be of greater moment than the parent to adult child relationship, not a casual thing cast aside at any offense.

[Ben Kenobi]

The marriage covenant is to be of greater moment than the parent to adult child relationship, not a casual thing cast aside at any offense.

What you fail to grasp is the significance of sexual congress. I guess sleeping with someone is trivial in your world?

[MrFun]

BK get your ass over to the thread about photos of veterans' coffins.

[Agathon]

that would mean monogamy was the practice from the beginning and it wasn't, the patriarchs pre-date Mosaic Law and all I see in the OT from God about the subject is repeated endorsements of polygamy.

No. It would mean that Jesus thinks that the Mosaic law is deficient, and doesn't reflect the way God intended things.

[Straybow]

What you fail to grasp is the significance of sexual congress. I guess sleeping with someone is trivial in your world?

You misunderstand. The tempting hottie is that for which one might wrongly cast aside the marriage.

[Agathon]

No, the passage reiterates the phrase used in Genesis of the first marriage. To say you are interpreting it "literally," and then say that the flesh isn't really "literal," nor is the "one" literal in any measurable way but some metaphysical oneness... that is utter nonsense. That's where the gentile church fathers (who were somewhat more gullible about metphysical gobbledygook) went wrong.

Once again, you do not address the argument. Hence, I have no option but to regard you as a fraud. Address the argument, or STFU.

In this passage, the relationship must be regarded as having some natural status which supports his contention on divorce, or Jesus' comments are fraudulent, and he's just BAMing rather than giving reasons, and the participle peirazontes makes no real sense when applied to the Pharisees.

You aren't even reading the text in the original language (Greek primacy), so your opinion is already based on someone else's translation, and I have demonstrated to you why it makes your interpretation wrong. English translations have trouble with the Greek sentence structure and with translating certain Greek words, the most notorious example being λόγος in the opening sentence of the Gospel of John.

I have no problem with saying that the ancient Hebrews didn't believe the same thing as Jesus believes here. In fact, that's part of my argument. The church fathers were right about what Jesus said, but wrong if they assumed it was consistent with everything in the Old Testament. God's #1 carpenter was a religious innovator. There might be religious reasons for trying to make the entire Bible consistent, but that's a different story.

You are trying for religious reasons to make the text fit with your preconceived beliefs. I am not religious in any way, and just look at what the text says and the language it is written in and historical beliefs about the sexes that were current at the time.

Look, we have absolutely no idea who wrote this book, and all we have to go on in the end is the text.

[Straybow]

In this passage, the relationship must be regarded as having some natural status which supports his contention on divorce, or Jesus' comments are fraudulent, and he's just BAMing rather than giving reasons, and the participle peirazontes makes no real sense when applied to the Pharisees.

"Must be regarded?" Really? Is that because the Greek says it is a natural status? No, it does not. Jesus doesn't say, "Hey, don't you understand the natural status of marriage?" No, that isn't his argument at all, it is that the application was uncorrupted "in the beginning."

The problem with the Pharisees in Jesus' day, and the patriarchs in their day, is not that they failed to understand, but that they deliberately voided it with escape clauses and oh-so-clever work-arounds. For Abraham and Sarah, the handmaid thing was the custom of pagan tribes and they convinced themselves God would work through that. But God didn't. And so on, through story after story.

I have no problem with saying that the ancient Hebrews didn't believe the same thing as Jesus believes here. In fact, that's part of my argument. The church fathers were right about what Jesus said, but wrong if they assumed it was consistent with everything in the Old Testament. God's #1 carpenter was a religious innovator. There might be religious reasons for trying to make the entire Bible consistent, but that's a different story.

Backwards. The term is "flesh," which speaks of the physical. Not the soul, not the spirit, not some spooky intangible essense. Contrast this with 1 Samuel 18, "...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David." Our gay marriage advocates would like to think that speaks of a homosexual relationship, but it does not. It has nothing to do with flesh or sex.

You are trying for religious reasons to make the text fit with your preconceived beliefs. I am not religious in any way, and just look at what the text says and the language it is written in and historical beliefs about the sexes that were current at the time.

No, you are the one trying to say that "one flesh" is literal yet somehow doesn't mean flesh, so that it may conform to some philosophical platform external to the text.

[Agathon]

You still haven't answered the argument. Your interpretation makes Jesus a sophist, and his answers provide no real backup for his eventual view on the permissibility of divorce. Your view makes the entire exchange a non-sequitur. Presumably the Catholic church isn't as stupid as yours. "One flesh" has to be more than metaphorical. Whatever meaning you assign to it, has to be more than metaphorical. The text demands that in order to make sense. Of course it's a weird idea, but the Bible is full of weird ideas.

Why on earth should your opinion carry any weight when you can't actually read the book you are making claims about? How many times do I have to instruct you that your translation is borked? How many times do you have to ignore that fact because you can't read what the text says? If you want to be taken seriously, then learn to read the book you are attempting to interpret.

Go away and spend a couple of years learning to read Greek. Then you can come back and waste some more of my time.

As if you care about anything more than parroting the discredited interpretations of whatever church it is you belong to.