It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jesus said, NO DIVORCE: so how did Stripper/Actress Meghan Markle get a ‘Christian’ Wedding ?

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2018 @ 08:18 PM
link   
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 Divorce.’
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?

Tennis, anyone?




posted on May, 26 2018 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Meghan and Harry are supposedly 17th cousins.

Maybe that's why they let this "sacriledge" go forth..?



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Sigismundus


Its all a show and not one gives a rats toto about Jesus. Its really more like "impossible for a plain yellow pumkin to become a golden carriage". Besides this has done more to lift up women of color than Mrs. Obama in the White House.


Jesus also said that in the last days folks would be married and given in marriage.......marriage off the hook. left and right multiple marriage.


edit on 26-5-2018 by Logarock because: n


+20 more 
posted on May, 26 2018 @ 08:34 PM
link   
umm... you do know the history of how and why the english broke away from the catholic church don't you??
do believe it had to do with a king of england deciding he loved someone other than his wife and deciding he wanted to ditch his wife and marry her, just to ditch her because he wanted to marry someone else....
the catholic church wouldn't accept this, so, well, we have an anglican church now...



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Try this on for size.
Matthew 19:9
9 I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the grounds of sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery.



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 08:38 PM
link   
sorry I forgot what button i'm supposed to press...
give me a second, I've got this...


+23 more 
posted on May, 26 2018 @ 08:39 PM
link   
The groom apparently has no problem with his brides past so why should any of us. Seems to me that in this modern day, many people have amnesia when it comes to certain words of Jesus such as judge not.



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Because not too many actually pay much attention to what Jesus or God taught anymore.



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
The groom apparently has no problem with his brides past so why should any of us. Seems to me that in this modern day, many people have amnesia when it comes to certain words of Jesus such as judge not.


And too many people also only pay attention to the words of Jesus when they think they suit their purposes taking out of context and twisting them.



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 08:45 PM
link   
They are not Catholic, + who cares..how does it affect you?



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 08:46 PM
link   
My father was granted an annulment in the eyes of the church... when I was 17..because the Cath. Church based it on dad marrying a non-Catholic, my Methodist mother.

It happened and basically "bastardized" me.

That's me. I never.. well maybe a little.. held it against dad. He wanted to remarry and deserved to be happy.....
edit on 26-5-2018 by mysterioustranger because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 08:50 PM
link   
He didn't say "no divorce." He said divorcing your spouse to get a better one is as bad as adultery. He didn't impose any sentence for adultery, either; just told an adulterer to stop it already.



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
The groom apparently has no problem with his brides past so why should any of us. Seems to me that in this modern day, many people have amnesia when it comes to certain words of Jesus such as judge not.


And too many people also only pay attention to the words of Jesus when they think they suit their purposes taking out of context and twisting them.


Yes, I think that might be true but it is not mine to say just how many ''too many '' people may be.



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Sigismundus

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

That means that you probably shouldn't expect people to be sinless, eh.




posted on May, 26 2018 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Sigismundus

She probably eats shellfish too.



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Why would anyone care?



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Sigismundus

Everyones a sinner - pretty sure J said something like that too. The real question is: when she dies and then comes the judgement, what punishment is befitting for such a sin?

Being a sinner myself for a myriad of failings, I'm keen to get that answer, that way I can at least be somewhat prepared for the inevitable.




posted on May, 26 2018 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Sigismundus

She probably eats shellfish too.


And wears clothes made of more than one fabric!



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Cause Christians ain't Christians any more. Now they're just Christians™

Every five years, the Christians™ keep lowering their standards.

They allowed divorce
Then, they allowed interracial
Then, they allowed Homosexuals
Now, they're allowing anyone as long as they tithe. (tax free)
Organized religion is a scam that keeps changing with the times.

God's probably pissed, right? Unless the Bible is wrong. Right??
edit on 26-5-2018 by EmmanuelGoldstein because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Don't worry, according to the current Pope there no Hell, you just disappear from existence.



“They are not punished. Those who repent obtain God’s forgiveness and take their place among the ranks of those who contemplate him, but those who do not repent and cannot be forgiven disappear. A hell doesn’t exist, the disappearance of sinning souls exists.”


Not a bad way to go if you're a believer in such things, suffering in Hell for eternity vs just not existing, I'd take not existing if given the choice.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join