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

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

On average the offspring of cousins whom have married lose around 7% IQ.

Jesus also says to forgive and repent and and looking at a woman with lust is also wrong and requires you to repent and pray for for forgiveness.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Because not too many actually pay much attention to what Jesus or God taught anymore.

More people are seeing religion for what is ; mostly nonsense.

originally posted by: blueman12

originally posted by: ketsuko
Because not too many actually pay much attention to what Jesus or God taught anymore.

More people are seeing religion for what is ; mostly nonsense.

Those bits about not killing, not stealing, not coveting ... nonsense. I gotcha.

a reply to: ketsuko
the idea that we needed the christian religion to teach us those lessons is kind of nonsense though.
don't think it took a god of any kind for man to accept those ideas... they just needed experience and empathy.

Yes, divorce is wrong.

There is another quote that also comes to mind:

"When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.""

Nobody is perfect. Perhaps work on your own life and let God do the judging of the lives of others.

One more reason to not blindly follow the teachings that were written by men thousands of years ago.

There are lots of valid reasons for divorce.. Abuse, lying, cheating, etc

You need to use your brain, not some old words

originally posted by: Swills
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.

Thanks for the interesting heads up, I hadn’t heard this before and it is big news. Although honestly, who is to know if anything anyone says about the afterlife is accurate.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: blueman12

originally posted by: ketsuko
Because not too many actually pay much attention to what Jesus or God taught anymore.

More people are seeing religion for what is ; mostly nonsense.

Those bits about not killing, not stealing, not coveting ... nonsense. I gotcha.

You can have views like that without religion, simply by using logic and reason. Just pointing that out.

a reply to: Komodo

Hi Commodus--

You wrote

QUOTE

'No understanding of English grammar...

Duh....re-read it...and get a basic understanding of how grammar works...

Seriously!!

UNQUOTE

I have a quick question : Was that post really addressed to me?

Here's a first-blush observation : Your jejune opening salvo was composed of five modern-English words comprising two modern-English nouns (viz. 'understanding' & 'grammar'), a single preposition ('of') and two adjectives ('no' & 'English'), but lacking an operative verb, the result of which produces a dangling, incomplete sentence.

I have another question for you : Have you taken your A-level examinations yet? I'm only curious about this because when I was in 6th Form studying for mine in the UK, I found the other 16-year-olds at my Public School in Beds. to be far ahead of me (i.e. scholastically-speaking...) and it took a good two-years of hard slogging for this 'rebel Colonial' from Hollywood to 'catch-up' with them, so that I could matriculate at University (after which I was able to read Theology at Durham having at last passed 4 A-levels with the necessary high marks).

I am assuming, of course, that you know where England is on the map.

These are merely a few thoughts off the top of my head to-day...

Cheers !

originally posted by: darkbake

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: blueman12

originally posted by: ketsuko
Because not too many actually pay much attention to what Jesus or God taught anymore.

More people are seeing religion for what is ; mostly nonsense.

Those bits about not killing, not stealing, not coveting ... nonsense. I gotcha.

You can have views like that without religion, simply by using logic and reason. Just pointing that out.

YOu can be anti-abortion without being religious too, but no one seems to want to figure that out. Just pointing that out.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Yes, divorce is wrong.

There is another quote that also comes to mind:

"When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.""

Nobody is perfect. Perhaps work on your own life and let God do the judging of the lives of others.

My favorite bit taken out of context.

Do you know what He also turned to her and said? "Go, and sin no more."

So apparently, it's not OK to live in sin. Also, the condemning He let them from doing was condemning her to Hell, not to judge that she had sinned. Everyone there, including the woman herself, knew she had. That was never in question and never inappropriate to point out by anyone.

a reply to: Plotus

Hi Plotus--

You wrote

QUOTE

'It would seem that the Royals have always been purely White with no other racial interruptions...'

UNQUOTE

Until a modern DNA test can be run on the dental remains of Queen Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (1744-1818) who married George III of England as a 17-year-old in 1761 and produced no less than 15 children, 13 of whom apparently survived infancy) we shall perhaps never know 'for sure' whether she had any Afro-portugese ancestry, despite her thickish-lips, light brown skin (which she regularly smothered with white powder to conceal) and notoriously 'frizzy' hair.

At her problematic Coronation ceremony, many 'commoners' in the street during her Royal Procession called out to her with some very rude comments including 'Pug !' with an explicit reference to her 'snub' nose. Her own Royal physician (Baron Christian Friedrich Stockmayr) used to say 'Her Royal Highness is small and bent and hath a Mulatto's Face...' Indeed, one of her royal ancestors (Alfonso III of Portugal) married 'a blackamoor' (in her case, an olive-skinned Arabic noblewoman named 'Madragana'). In 1953 there was a publication regarding the Commonwealth nations which suggested that part of the modern-day British royal family had in fact some members within their ranks who had descended from 'North African nobility'.

At any rate, the (calculated ?) introduction of mixed-race Rachel ('call-me Meghan') Markle into the British royal family last week was most likely considered by many in the Palace as a 'most-fortuitous happy accident' as it would no doubt allow the now-Duchess of Sussex to slip more easily into the role of 'co-Junior Ambassador to the Commonwealth', which (at least for the 'Windsor-Mountbattens' i.e. the Battenberg-Gotha-Hesse-Darmstadts) is (highly-inconveniently) filled with...well, 'brown-skinned' persons.

Let's just hope Ms Markle doesn't have to wear gloves when she shakes hands with any of them when conducting her tours of inspection for the Commonwealth. It might send the wrong message.

a reply to: cooperton


Hi Cooperton--

You wrote :

QUOTE

'Whichever of you has never done something sexually perverse go ahead and stone her.' Jesus, although he never committed adultery, still did not judge the girl. This is the standard we are compelled to live by.'

UNQUOTE

This cute little story that you allude-to (the so-called ‘pericopa adulterae' - aka 'The Whore Caught In The Act' - various parts of which keep getting quoted by a number of (apparently) well-inteltioned persons on this thread) was almost certainly not originally part of the ‘Bible’ but represents a later, spurious ‘floater’ pericope addition which interrupts what comes before and after it in the texts and is intrusively placed in different parts of the handwritten copies of 4th canonical Greek Gospel ('according to John', whoever he was) but is not attested in any Greek MSS prior to 380 CE (the earliest attestation being the ‘problematic’ Codex Bezae Biglot, i.e. D); the story is absent from the earlier (and more-important) Codex Sinaiaticus (‘Aleph) and Codex Vaticanus (B) as well as Codex Alexandrinus (A), along with a lot of its other middle-material), as well as the early papyri p66 and p75; in fact it is not found in over 267 of our very best MSS and where it is found, it is literally splattered all over the place (variously, John 7:53, 7:36, 7:44, 21:25) and even can be found in Luke 21:38. Certainly the literary ‘style-of-utterance’ (including its curiously un-Johanine koine Greek grammar, syntax, vocabulary etc.) is not written in the same ‘accent’ as the rest of the 4th Gospel at all--and even could be said to resemble a lost snippet from a mangled copy of the 3rd canonical Greek Gospel ('according to Luke', whoever he was)...

What is most telling of all is that if you remove the 'pericope adulterae' from the body of the Greek text, (i.e. directly proceeding from e.g. John 7:52 to 8:12) it allows for a smoother flow in the narrative without the ‘textual interruption.'

The 3rd century Bishop Papias claimed that a very similar story was found in ‘The Gospel According to the Hebrews’ which is not a part any canonical modern-day 'Bible'.

Don’t mis-understand me: I (personally) am very fond of this moving-story as it appears in some modern printed editions of the NT, but one must beware of building a case with this textually spurious floating addition to the 4th Gospel to bolster the idea that ‘Jesus’ somehow ‘condoned Divorce’, even though he regarded re-marriage afterwards as ‘Adultery’ (which in those days carried with it the ultimate penalty) ‘because he forgave the Whore they were stoning to death…and let her go free.’

At least, that is the implication I am drawing from some of the comments of those persons who never seem to tire of citing this spurious ‘addition’…

I myself would never condone stoning a woman to death (as they still do in places like Saudi Arabia) for such activity, nor do I condemn Rachel-Meghan-Markle for tastelessly divorcing her husband Trevor Engkleson via registered-post in 2013 to get re-married; my only objection (outlined in the OP) is that if she really wanted to set a (non-hypocritical) example by her wedding to Henry-Harry Windsor last week, she should have perhaps insisted on a ‘civil’ (perhaps ‘outdoor’) wedding far removed from any Christian Church or any of their high-ranking ecclesiastical officials (which unfortunately would have to include The Queen herself, as ‘Supreme Head of the Church in England’) simply because of the well-known fact that the purported ‘founder’ of what later became ‘Christianity’ railed so stridently against Divorce (under any circumstances) in his preaching ministry, that is, if we are to believe the words placed into his mouth in the Greek canonical Gospels and the earlier citations attributed him by ‘Saul of Tarsus (aka ‘Paul’) in 1 Corinthians, bearing in mind that ‘Paul’ never actually met ‘Jesus’ in the flesh, but only in dreams and visions, like my gardener.

Why is it SO hard for so many people on this thread to accept the fact that 'Jesus' believed that Divorce-and-Remarriage on any grounds was unthinkable and that if someone wishes to exercise their 'legal' right to proceed with such activity, they should do so as far away from any overtly 'Christian' trappings as possible. I suspect Rachel (call-me-Meghan) wanted as grand a celebration as possible for such an event (given her histrionic nature exhibited elsewhere) and chose to ignore the fact that by doing so (and Harry--along with the rest of the Royal Family--are equally as guilty of hypocrisy in pursuing their shameless & grossly hypocritical national popularity-charade) she spat all over her Catholic (and now Church of England) religious beliefs (if she ever had any to begin with) and is now currently spending c. USD $8,600.00 a night on her 'honeymoon' in a Luxury Canadian Hotel at tax-payers' expense, when a trip to Balmoral in Scotland would have perhaps made use of property just sitting there unused this month. You can feed and house a lot of people with that $8,600.00 they are spending each evening this week...)

Or am I missing something here?

a reply to: Sigismundus

themennonite.org...


Turns out ...In Jesus time there were no MArriage vows needed. just a father saying it was ok for his daughter or son to be with the person they wanted to be with.

a reply to: yuppa

Hi Yuppa--

You wrote

QUOTE

'Turns out ...In Jesus time there were no MArriage vows needed. just a father saying it was ok for his daughter or son to be with the person they wanted to be with...'

UNQUOTE

Apparently in 1st century Palestine, Judaeans (and presumably Samaratim & Galilean Jews followed the custom) still observed the contractual obligations of marriage with a written document called a Ketuvvah in Hebrew (lit. 'cutting', from the ancient practice of inscribing in stone) which was penned by a scribe (Heb. Sofer) and signed by the fathers of both bride and groom--which usually stipulated that an agreed payment (the payment (Heb. 'Mahar') was often paid in silver shekels but sometimes 'gifts' were added called 'Mattan' which might be jewelry, cloth, furniture, slaves, oxen or sheep or donkeys or other tangible assets) and the transfer of such assets would have to take place within 7 years of the signing of the document--a copy of which was to be kept as a permanent record of the agreement by the Bride's father.

It could be this Dam-Bethulim cloth evidence that lay at the root of the scribal gloss 'except for porneia' in Matthew 5:32 & 19:9 being the sole allowance for Divorce in the ethical teachings in the 1st Canonical Greek gospel ('according to Matthew', whoever he was) placed into the mouth of 'Jesus'--since even before payment of the bride was enacted, the marriage was still held to be legally in effect from the moment of betrothal ('Erusin'). Until the actual wedding day ('nissuin') she was still regarded as married, but still would live at her father's house.

We to-day would not consider an 'engaged-person to be 'married' but that was not the case during the lifetime of 'Jesus'; to-day we in the West would not call any breaking off of an engagement a 'divorce' but merely a 'cancelled engagement' although we still allow the posting of the public Banns prior to a wedding, and we still allow oral petitions right up to the moment of the vows that could (in theory) block any wedding proceedings from going forward (cf. 'If there be any man present who knows of any impediment whatsoever as to why these two should not be joined in holy matrimony let him speak now or forever hold his peace...')

After payment of the dowry to the father of the bride by the father of the bridegroom (Heb. Mohar-Nedunyah) the 'sexual-consummation' of the wedding contract was called the 'Chuppah' and took place in a specially assigned room with the Dam-Bethulim or 'tokens of virginity' (a cloth stained with spilled hymen-blood) had to be produced for the marriage to remain valid; the fathers of the bride and groom would be shown the stained cloth then generally the Bride herself would be presented with this important evidence for safe-keeping in case any doubts of her virginity ever arose later.

A wedding feast generally followed the 'ritual procession' of the bride to her husband's house (her new home) after all the necessary preliminary legalities had been settled by both parties to everyone's satisfaction, complete with ritual wine-drinking & dancing, but there were no vows spoken in front of a Rabbi under the modern Chuppa during the time of 'Jesus' in Palestine and thus the whole event was quite different from the way modern marriages are celebrated to-day. It is thought that the only formal words spoken would be from the lips of the groom to his prospective father-in-law uttering a stock phrase e.g. 'I have come to Thee for Thou to hand over to me Thy Daughter xxx (first name) to be my wife; she shall be my wife and shall live under my roof from this day forward forever...'

In those days marriage (as it is in many middle-eastern countries to-day) was more of an economic transfer-of-goods from one contracted party to another, with the wife regarded as little more than 'property' or 'chattel' which is linguistically cognate with our modern word 'cattle,' echoes of which are still seen in modern weddings in the West with 'the Father of the Bride giving-away' his daughter like a ceremonial bank-transaction.

Have we decided if we can burn her yet? Not had a good burning for ages.
She is an American also so that helps the burning argument.

a reply to: Sigismundus


IT WAS NOT PALESTINE THEN. it was judea and israel.

originally posted by: Sigismundus
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?

Does it really matter? People cherry pick the bible and koran. Should we all be doing the horrible, brutal and hateful stuff these books say too?

Never heard that Markle was a stripper.


Got any pics to back up that claim?


Inquiring minds want to know.