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

a reply to: openminded2011

That's what is so disgusting about the Christian church, well some of it
They are more judgemental and arrogant than the non Christians, for that I apologise

We are just human after all and your message won't fall on deaf ears, well let's hope

Broken people, broken hearts, broken lives
Why we need Jesus who wasn't broken

a reply to: yuppa

ALOT of stuff jesus mentions only effect hebrews and jews.

Who is hebrews? last time i checked Hebrew was a language not a person...
how do the Jew[ish] listen to Jesus? or better said, how does what Jesus said apply to the Jewish people when they don't believe in him? It's the Christians that have to follow the word of Jesus. Jews have to listen to the Torah [which is more or less the old testament].

a reply to: Kryscent
originally, most of his followers were jewish and followed a branch of that religion. and, Jesus seemed to impress on them that thy should keep to the laws of their forefathers.
but, eventually, the religion expanded into other areas, areas that had different beliefs and laws, and I do believe it was paul that made the argument that the gentiles didn't have to abide by jewish law and emphasized faith as being more important.

a reply to: Sigismundus

On another sidenote, why does Jesus say to Mary Magdalen by the grave that she must not touch him until he had met the father? Because she couldn't touch him until he had asked her for her hand, by the father. Her father. It's rather obvious Jesus (possibly deliberately) divorced someone during his momentary endgame at Golgotha, and that he and John the Baptist used necromancy to divorce people and free them of charges. It's not merely Jesus who held the idea that death would mean divorce, they sawrit as a way out, there seems to have been some sort of consent on the matters. Everything tells me the semi widowed and former spouse of Jesus was named Isabel or Jezebel.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: openminded2011

That's what is so disgusting about the Christian church, well some of it
They are more judgemental and arrogant than the non Christians, for that I apologise

We are just human after all and your message won't fall on deaf ears, well let's hope

Broken people, broken hearts, broken lives
Why we need Jesus who wasn't broken

He was broken...and broken bad...forsaken...sinned and got outraged multiple times.

Not once did he claim to be unbroken and without sin..that is obvious enough...the thing is he saw things differently but sure alot of claims about the man that are not even remotely necessary.

The bible is nothing but God tring to cover for his own screw up .
A perfect god ? Who made the most imperfect angle the devil him self ?
Then goes on to make imperfect copy's of him self KNOWING full well they are imperfect ( after all would have been no reason to test them would there ?

So once he sees for a fact they are imperfect he then tries to force them to be perfect by creating laws which No one who isn't perfect could ever follow all the time .

Once even that does not work he tries killing them all off except 5 . And again he fails to purify his creation .
So through out history he just keep killing them . You would think a guy who could create a universe in the blink of a eye could find a better way to solve the problem HE him self created with his creation .

You do realize NON of these problems would exist with this god Creating them to begin with correct ?

a reply to: rnaa

Hi RNA--

You wrote : 'By all means, express your indignation at what you see as immorality. Please just improve your aim, and your facts...' etc.

You chose an unfortunate example from a spurious portion of the Bible to support an alternative past-history of our Meghan Markle (the 'pericopa adulterae' aka 'The Whore Caught In the Act') which you claim is from the 4th Gospel ('according to John', whoever he was) but is not attested in any Greek MSS that I know of prior to 380 CE (Codex Bezae Biglot, D); the story is absent from Sinaiaticus and Vaticanus (as well as Alexandrinus, along with a lot of its other middle-material), p66 and p75; in fact it is not found in over 267 of our very best MSS and where it is found, it is splattered all over the place (variously, John 7:53, 7:36, 7:44, 21:25) and even found in Luke 21:38. Certainly the literary style-of-utterance (including its koine Greek grammar, syntax, vocabulary etc.) is not Johannine at all--and resembles more of a floating snippet from a mangled copy of the 3rd canonical Greek Gospel ('according to Luke', whoever he was). What is perhaps more telling is that if you remove the pericope from the body of the text, thus proceeding from 7:52 to 8:12 allows for a smoother flow in the narrative without the 'interruption.' Papias claimed that the story is found in The Gospel According to the Hebrews, which I don't believe is part of your 'Bible'.

But back to Rachel ('call me Meghan') Markle's somewhat sordid sexual-past, full of short-lived trysts (which makes one wonder how she could possibly have the nerve to have worn white at her second wedding ceremony in St George's Chapel following her mail-the-rings-back by certified-mail divorce from Trevor Engleson in August of 2013); besides some childhood quickie-flings e.g. with Steve Lapore, a basketball hunk, but it was at Northwestern that she was able to throw herself at that Argentinian millionaire diplomat's son (a millionaire who shall remain nameless) when perhaps she should have been hitting the books (there is no physical evidence that she ever 'graduated' with a 'degree', as far as I am aware) but it didn't take long for her to land in bed with Hockey player Michael del Zotto around 2001, and around the time she slept her way via a string of infamous Hollywood Casting Couches into bit-parts on General Hospital and 90210 she had an affair with the notorious bisexual porn star (and male-stripper) Dirt Nasty (aka Simon Rex) then between half a dozen casting directors between 2002 and 2004, she landed in bed with Brett Ryland (with Shaun Zaken and Glenn Hugill as aperitifs on the side) and soon found herself attached to up-and-coming producer Trevor Engleson, whom she eventually married 'as the love of her life' in 2011 (until the summer of 2013) when she shacked-up in bed with Toronto boyfriend Canadian chef Cory Vitiello (2014-2016) before landing Henry ('call me Harry') Windsor-Mountbatten at a supposedly 'Christian' altar last week.

And you still choose to believe all of this well-known-in-Hollywood sex-for-advantage-history of Ms. Markle is nothing but a string of Urban Legends ?

I was born and raised in Hollywood myself; the Casting Couch is the ONLY route that a mediocre acting talent such as Markle, despite her 'looks', could have taken to land parts such as the coveted (eponymous?) role of Rachel on Suits; or do you imagine it was solely due to her stellar acting ability that is of such a dramatic quality and force that it puts the RST to shame?

a reply to: midnightstar

perfection is oh so boring!!!
and, maybe, just maybe.... there is more than one god speaking through the bible.. along with alot of mere mortal men.

give ya a clue... the god the levite priests served was not the Father that jesus spoke of... there was another line or priesthood, higher, the Melchizedek priesthood, most of the notable prophets of the old testament were from that priesthood. both held authority, but the Melchizedek line served a higher god, and had a higher authority.

a reply to: Gothmog

Hi Goth--You wrote

QUOTE

'Divorce was always allowed

1) If a person is Christian and the spouse not , that is legitimate grounds for divorce
2) In the case of infidelity , absolutely
3) The Church accepts it.

So , now you are informed , what has changed ?'

UNQUOTE

I can't tell you (that is, right off the bat) which self-proclaimed 'Christian' Protestant churches actually condone divorce; but I can tell you that the ones that do condone divorce are wiping their arses with the words placed into the mouth of the Greek-speaking 'Jesus' in the canonical Greek gospels, and far-earlier echoes of his teaching quoted (albeit third-hand) by Saul of Tarsus in his Corinthian correspondence.

R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir (Gk. 'ho Iesous', aka 'Jesus', c. BCE 12 - 36 CE) was an itinerant Apocalyptic ('End of Days') Palestinian Rebbe posing as a Messianic-Daviddic Pretender (see Mark 11:9-10)--complete with his own purportedly Daviddic lineage--who was arrested and strung up on a Roman crux by the State for armed sedition at the beginning of a Feast during 'The Rebellion' (Mark 15:7) i.e. at the 100th Anniversary of the Invasion of Jerusalem by Pompey's Roman Army in 63 BCE. This followed on the heels of a riot in the Temple (complete with home-made whips and cords) where, according to the surviving fragment of The Gospel According to Peter (v. 26) he started a fire in the Court of the Gentiles, apparently screaming at the top of his lungs, 'I shall destroy this Shrine made with hands and raise-up another one in its place not made with hands in Three Days !'

In other words, the Daviddic Galilean Rebbe who lived in 1st century Palestine was certainly no mealy-mouthed shrinking violet when it came to laying down the law as he saw it. If he really were to rise from his grave and attend last week's farcical Chapel Wedding, he would have assuredly knocked over a little more than a few tables and chairs.

His curiously ultra-conservative stance on the particular subject of Divorce was even more strict than that of his famous contemporary R. Shammai (c. 51 BCE - c. 29 CE) who sought to curb divorce-related abuses in the early part of the 1st century CE (i.e. compared with the laxer divorce-related stipulations on Divorce from his other near-contemporary R. Hillel the Elder (C. 109 BCE to c. 12 CE)

Here is a modern English translation of the koine Greek placed into the mouth of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef in the canonical Greek Gospel ('according to Matthew', whoever he was) 19:4-10

'Have you not read the account [in Bereshyt] that the Most High created them Male and Female so that when a man leaves his father and mother to cleave unto this wife, the two of them, no longer two separate beings, have thus become one bone? Therefore I say unto you: what the Most High hath woven together, let no [son of] man unravel...and although Mosheh permitted Divorce on account of the hardness-of-heart of Yisro'el, from the Beginning, it was not so. Amen, I say unto you, any man who divorces his wife [except on the grounds of Dam Bethulah] and re-marries commits Adultery against her.'

So you can 'bluff-away' and claim until your blue-in-the-face that Protestant Churches, especially in the US, see absolutely no issue with Divorced couples re-marrying other people--but this flies in the face of what R. Yehoshua specifically railed-against.

There seems to be a gross-disconnect between modern 'Christian' churches views on Divorce/Remarriage and that of R. Yehoshua bar-Yosef, their purported founder, at least in terms of what words/sentiments are placed into his mouth in the 'New Testament'.

I myself see no ethical problem with Divorce & Remarriage in extremis--but 'Jesus' clearly thought very differently on this sore subject--which might well be a reflection of his own sordid childhood where his own mother was accused of pre-marital violations of Dam-Bethulim (when found to be 'with-child' but without the benefit of marriage) at least if you believe what is hinted at in 'Matthew' (see the Genealogy in Matthew which lists five females in the cropped-Daviddic line, all of them sexually promiscuous whores [Rahab the Harlot, Tamar, Ruth, Bath-Sheba, with the final female in the list being Miryam of Galilee, his mother] and the implications of the lurid cattle-trough story in the Infancy Narratives in 'Luke' etc.

Whatever the reason for the bug-up-his-arse about 'No Divorce Ever' stance of 'Jesus', no Church which claims any theological descent from this man should be able to take his purported words (however harsh and uncomfortable they may be to us living in the 21st century West) and trash them merely for the sake of convenience.

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein
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??

'Cause divorce, interracial marriage and homosexuality never existed within Christian™ communities since day one?

... and also, there are Christian™ laws against those things, right??

a reply to: Sigismundus
And , how did that refute anything I posted ?
Did I say divorce was accepted or did I say divorce was allowed ?
Divorce has never been accepted as Jesus said he hated divorce.
That was a waste of ATS space.

originally posted by: highveinPeople shouldn't have to live in an abusive relationship.
People should also know what they are getting into before they get into it.
People also make mistakes that is usually to their own detriment.
Didn't she know who she was marrying?

She had little choice in the matter. It was not an ideal situation at all. She got pregnant and her parents (my grandparents) pushed her into it for my sake. To create a family out of it as was common. Shotgun wedding is the term, yes? Back then, a single mom was not looked at kindly and she was only 17 and no way to deal with the pregnancy on her own.

He didn't start the drinking and abuse until after the marriage. From all I've heard, he was nothing like the monster he turned into. Many abusive partners don't show any signs of such leanings until you're under their thumb, so to speak. I learned later on, his father was an abusive man and he carried on the tradition with my mom.

Yes, my mom made mistakes and got pregnant as a teen. But that does not excuse her being put into a hellish situation with zero way out according to fundamental ideology. After a certain point, she was terrified he would go too far and kill her. She called my two uncles to keep him at bay after a particularly bad beating and she fled.

His drinking only got worse over the years after she left. He abused every woman he was with until he got with one that didn't take his crap and was big enough to defend herself. Tough lesson for him to learn, I suppose. He even had the brass balls to get mad at me for not choosing to come live with him after the divorce. WTF? How delusional do you have to be?

Regardless, weren't marriages arranged for financial reasons in the days of the bible? Women had zero choice, is it not true? Weren't many of them child brides? Didn't matter how awful the men were and how badly they treated the women, she had to stay and endure, but he could kick them aside and find another. That is one reason I find the insistence on following such an outdated idea foolish. Marriage wasn't a choice for women. Good or bad, they were stuck.

a reply to: Gothmog

Hi again, Goth--

You wrote

QUOTE

'And, how did that refute anything I posted ?
Did I say divorce was accepted or did I say divorce was allowed ?
Divorce has never been accepted as Jesus said he hated divorce.
That was a waste of ATS space.'

UNQUOTE


R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir (if you believe what words are placed in his Greek-speaking mouth in the 4 canonical Greek Gospels as well as Saul of Tarsus' much earlier claims in 1 Corinthians 7:6-24) NEVER 'allowed' OR 'accepted' Divorce E-V-E-R.

The 'Dam-Bethulim' (i.e.'porneia') scribal-gloss added in the 1st canonical Greek Gospel (c. 90 CE, 'according to Matthew', whoever he was) at Matt. 19:9 was clearly NOT part of the original tradition reflected in the fact that it is TOTALLY ABSENT from the canonical council-approved Greek gospels of 'Luke' (c. 85 CE) and also from 'Mark' (c. 72 CE) whoever they were AS WELL AS 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 (c. 54 CE) where 'Saul of Tarsus' states emphatically, 'It is not I that say this, but our Lord...' a claim he rarely used so explicitly.

The overtly strict stipulation of 'No Divorce Ever' that it 'came from our Lord' must have come from the earliest strands of the Nazorean preaching material of the earliest Christian churches.

This important aspect of this particular discussion thread is NOT in any way, shape, or form a 'waste of ATS space; it is, in fact, a vital part of the nuanced argument presented herein that 'Jesus' NEVER ACCEPTED DIVORCE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, full-stop.

Against that specific point, (whether you agree wirth the Rebbe on this or not) there can be no Argument. It is clear from the earliest strands of the Christian Kerygma that DIVORCE WAS UNTHINKABLE among the earliest Christian Communites which only serves to set the Mockery of what we watched last Saturday in the Windsor Chapel in stark relief against the earliest teachings of the nascent Nazorean Christians, who, quite apart from using the 'words of Jesus' as toilet-paper, clung with all their righteous-might to their received legacy within mid 1st century Palestinian Messianic-Judaism.

a reply to: Sigismundus


That is all B***S***, Sigismundus and you know it. Discordianism can be fun, but only when you don't get caught.

a reply to: rnaa

Hi again, RNA--

Oh, do tell, say what's on your mind...and please feel free to go into as much detail as you wish. I would really love to see how on earth any thinking person would be able to defend the 'Newest British Duchess' getting married in a Christian Church 'on holy ground' in view of her sordid sexual past expressed so flagrantly in so many men's bedrooms since her 'high-school days' !!

Now don't be shy...

a reply to: Subrosabelow

She had little choice in the matter. It was not an ideal situation at all. She got pregnant and her parents (my grandparents) pushed her into it for my sake. To create a family out of it as was common. Shotgun wedding is the term, yes? Back then, a single mom was not looked at kindly and she was only 17 and no way to deal with the pregnancy on her own.

For your sake. Something good came from a bad situation.

He didn't start the drinking and abuse until after the marriage. From all I've heard, he was nothing like the monster he turned into. Many abusive partners don't show any signs of such leanings until you're under their thumb, so to speak. I learned later on, his father was an abusive man and he carried on the tradition with my mom.

Her Father should have ended that tradition.

Yes, my mom made mistakes and got pregnant as a teen. But that does not excuse her being put into a hellish situation with zero way out according to fundamental ideology. After a certain point, she was terrified he would go too far and kill her. She called my two uncles to keep him at bay after a particularly bad beating and she fled

There is no excuse for her being put in that situation except they were all in agreement when she got put in that situation, that resulted in a lesson. Did she have any other relationships, and if so were they better?

His drinking only got worse over the years after she left. He abused every woman he was with until he got with one that didn't take his crap and was big enough to defend herself. Tough lesson for him to learn, I suppose. He even had the brass balls to get mad at me for not choosing to come live with him after the divorce. WTF? How delusional do you have to be?

Yeah, he sounds like a real stand up guy.

Regardless, weren't marriages arranged for financial reasons in the days of the bible? Women had zero choice, is it not true? Weren't many of them child brides? Didn't matter how awful the men were and how badly they treated the women, she had to stay and endure, but he could kick them aside and find another. That is one reason I find the insistence on following such an outdated idea foolish. Marriage wasn't a choice for women. Good or bad, they were stuck.

There are no good people, only good choices.

a reply to: Sigismundus

JEsus didnt preach to the greeks did he?

a reply to: Plotus

The subject was marriage/divorce Royalty.

Atheist have just as much a stake as to who they're ruled by. Royalty and the alliance it has with the Church are open to criticism.

I dont mock I debate. As I stated previously Jesus never founded a church. What happened after his death is the same tired story. Subjugation of the common folk by a ruling elite.

Marriage/childbearing etc play into the same formula; its all about control.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Now that post is interesting and worthy of a thread of its own. Pm me if you get one going

Your insight is always treasured on ATS

Now that I think about it, Jesus was called a wine bibber and a glutton (he enjoyed living) so ... I don't think he really gives a crap about trivial things like what Jack and Jane are pissed off at from moment to moment.

Live and Let Live. Mind your own business. Stay Calm and Carry on.