posted on May, 26 2018 @ 08:18 PM
If the Christian Founder (‘Jesus’) said, ‘There Shall Be No Divorce—EVER’ then WHY was ex-Stripper (& B-Actress) Rachel ‘Call me Meghan’
Markle allowed to be married (in white !) in a ‘CHRISTIAN’ Royal Wedding ?
To quote the Queen herself on many earlier occasions, ‘There’s Something Wrong There…’
Did the Royal Family of Britain wipe their Royal Behinds with the words of ‘Jesus’ by allowing a divorced ex-stripper and mildly talented
B-actress/model marry into The Firm? Shouldn’t Prince Harry have been married in a (non-Christian) Civil Ceremony ?
It seems to me that many modern persons who style themselves ‘Christians’ suddenly (and conveniently) get ‘Amnesia’ when it comes to following
certain specific apodeictic commands placed into the mouth of ‘Jesus’ in the canonical council-approved Greek Gospels, especially when it comes to
inconvenient little things like…well, Divorce for one (to say nothing about his command for Christians to sell all of their material assets and
hand them all over to the Ebionim in order to take upon their shoulders the ‘yoke of the Kingdom’ to ‘follow’ him…)
Here are some of the apodeictic (‘Thou shalt never…’) commands placed into the Greek-speaking ’Jesus’ of the canonical Gospels, which are
exceptional in his overall teaching elsewhere in that he rarely issued ‘negative’ Thou Shalt Not commandments.
See Mark 10:2ff
’And the Pharisim come to him asking, Rabbi, is it lawful for a man to divorce this wife or is it not?’
And [ho Iesous] spake unto them saying, ‘[Why don’t you] tell me what Mosheh wrote on that subject.’
And they spake unto him saying, ‘Rabbi, Behold, is it not written in the Law that a man is able to issue a Certificate of Divorce in order that he
might separate from her legally?’
And he responded to them saying, ‘[Thou hast spoken well], but, behold, it was from hardness of their hearts that Mosheh wrote this precept for
Yisro’el. For is it not written in Beresht, in the Account of Creation [of Mankind], that the Most High created them male & female and does not a
man leave [the house of] his Father and Mother and join to his Wife, so that the two become one bone [with each other]? And because [they have become
one bone] what the Most High hath woven-together, let no son of man unravel.’
And when he had entered into his [own] house, [some of] his disciples asked him privately, Rabbi, tell us further about your teaching on
And he spake unto them, saying, Any son of man who [issues a certificate of Divorce] to abandon his wife and marries another, commits adultery against
her. And if any woman who is divorced from her husband, and marries another [man, not her husband] commits adultery against him.’
[Admittedly there have been doubts that the last phrase couldn’t possibly have come from R. Yehoshua himself as in Palestine in the 1st century CE,
females could not ‘legally’ initiate a divorce, although Roman women (and Rome was where the Gospel of Mark was written) could do so legally. But
it could be referring to already-divorced women re-marrying another man after her husband had previously divorced her…]
But perhaps what is even more telling about ‘Jesus’ stance on ‘No Divorce Ever’, is yet another stipulation placed into the mouth of the Greek
speaking ‘Jesus’ in Paul’s letters (and he rarely ever quotes ‘Jesus’ words or commands overtly/directly) see 1 Ciorinthians 7:10-12
‘To the married I give this command (this is not from me, but comes from our Lord):
‘A wife must never separate from her husband. But if she is divorced [already], she must remain unmarried or she must be reconciled to her husband.
And he said furthermore that a husband must never divorce his wife.’
So the ‘good-Rebbe’ seems to have had quite a bug up his arse when it came to this thorny subject, possibly a result of his own dysfunctional
family, especially with regards to the (ostensibly) sordid events surrounding his birth; at any event, the figure of ‘Joseph’ seems to have
disappeared fairly early from the Gospel-narratives, and there does not seem to be any further mention of a living Joseph being around after the age
of 12 (if you believe the words of the canonical 3rd Greek Gospel, ‘according to Luke’ whoever he was, which seems to be describing some kind of
early 1st century bar-mitzvah ceremony in the partially-built Jerusalem Temple…).
The fact that most Greek MSS of the 1st Gospel add [‘except for ‘porneia’] as the only thing allowing a divorce is telling—the additional
phrase is curiously absent from Mark and Luke and may have been an scribal gloss (addition by a copyist) added at a later date. The technical Greek
term ‘porneia’ can mean ‘non-virginity’ or ‘unchastity’ and refers to the inability of a bride to spill ruptured-hymen-blood on the
marital cloth on the wedding night, as ‘tokens of virginity’ (Heb. Dam bethulim) see Deut. 22:17
Now I for one cannot understand why the good-Rebbe seemed so bloody-minded on this whole subject of divorce; and I personally see no reason why two
mis-matched persons should not separate by divorce for the sake of everyone incvolved. My only issue here is when the ‘Supreme Head of the Christian
Church in England’ (in this case, The Queen) allows an ex-stripper to dress-up in white and then allows her to parade down the middle aisle of a
‘sacred’ Christian chapel as some kind of viregin-bride, we are here dealing with the issue of Ecclesiastical hypocrisy.
Perhaps The Queen, as the titular Head of the Church, and Justin Welby (the present Archbishop of Canterbury) should have allowed only a
civil-ceremony (not a Christian style Church-wedding ‘on holy ground’) as was the case a few years ago with Camilla Parker-Bowles and the current
Prince of Wales.
Otherwise how on earth could the Church condone such a modern-day sacrilege—when even the Queen’s own sister (Margaret Windsor) was refused her
burning desire to marry Peter Townsend (‘for love’) following his messy 1952 divorce, or King Edward VIII was forced to abdicate the throne
because his fiancee Wallis-Simpson was already twice divorced?