Originally posted by LadyV
March at the front of a gay rights parade.

Lead a boycott of companies that enjoy double-digit profit margins, but still lay off workers to boost profits.

Publicly chastise politicians who invoke His name and then vote to cut welfare.

Not own a gun.

Refuse to play golf at a club that excludes people based on their religion, race or income.

Just hand the ball to the ref after a touchdown, then quietly jog back to the sideline.

Not sell His house when a family of a different race moved into the neighborhood.

Chastise for-profit hospitals and HMOs for taking money that could be spent on health care for the sick, and instead keeping it as profit for stockholders

Have nothing to do with companies whose products kill people.

Use His carpentry skills to build homes for the homeless, not fancy new sanctuaries for well-to-do congregations.

Protest an execution.

Inform thousands of pro athletes and politicians that He really doesn't prefer them over their competition.

Point out that "conservative" and "Christian" are mutually exclusive.

Walk a picket line.

no he'd demand them to repent and beg for forgiveness.

probably

no....welfare really isnt needed, he'd expect people who rely on it to work harder.

yes but why would one be needed for him anyways?

uh he wouldnt play anything anyways.

again..

his only house it heaven, he had no house on earth so why would he then?

eh, but we're not him, so its all guessing.

I think we both are starting to sound like broken records, so it's probably best the posts stand behind our viewpoints. Just a few more points I wanted to address:

Originally posted by Amadeus
I do have a question: Why on earth did you dare to quote the spurious addition-ending to the Gospel of Matthew (Matt 28:18 and Matt 28:19) which has long been known to be a later Trinitarian forgery (verses 18 and 19 are textually corrupt in the earliest MSS or missing altogether----sometimes by having that page of Matthew actually torn out to hide from Orthodox bishops!).

Ah, I see. So you're saying Jesus did not say this. A forgery. Okay, point taken what your belief is on the Bible.

Originally posted by Amadeus
The “historical” Yeshua (“jesus”) knew of no Father Son and Holy Spirit Trinitarian Doctrine. Even “Paul” didn’t.

Interesting thought since throughout the Bible, the Father (God) and Holy Spirit are mentioned in various books as a recurring theme. I'm not up to quoting all of them and causing a great deal of spam when it's already in there.

We both have books (mine the Bible and yours, the other accounts of history) we declare as 'proof' so best thing we can do is take it up with God. I honestly don't care about being right, only discovering what is true.

Originally posted by saint4God
I honestly don't care about being right, only discovering what is true.

Would your concern extend to accepting the possibility that the Bible -- which has been repeatedly edited through the centuries as established by credible historical sources -- may contain errors?

Originally posted by favouriteslave
The idea that Jesus is coming back soon has been happening for over 2000 years. How soon is that exactly?

Matthew 16:28
Verily I say unto you. There be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the son of man coming in his kingdom.

Mark 9:1
And he said unto them, "Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste death, till they have seen the kingdom of god come with power

Luke 9:27
But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of god.

Yes it's said 3 time since Matthew Mark and Luke are the same book translated by 3 different people. AND NO they were not written by Matthew, Mark, Or Luke. Christian really need to read the bible and not believe everything they are told. They need to learn the history of the bible and how it came to be. Google search the Counsel of Nicea and see for your self how the Catholic church decided what books you should be reading in your holy bible. Maybe we should be reading what was tossed out of the bible for a clearer picture of Jesus and what he really was like.

Most christians don't read the bible for themselves. THey don't even know that although Matthew Mark and Luke appear to be the same they contradict each other in huge ways about the rising of christ after the crucifixion. The bible is a book full of contradiction and errors. After all is was written by MAN so don't take it so seriously. But if you must take it seriously know one thing, the bat is not a bird and according to the bible God and Christ are not always so kind and loving.

If he did come he would take a look at this mess and think "Everything that could go wrong, evidently did" What a mess. It was never Jesus intention to establish a new religion. He was a jew who wanted a revival of the jewish ways and tradition. He didn't come to change the old testament law he came to fulfill it. As far as I am concerned the Old Testatment should be just as important and valid as the new. Most christian will claim that Jesus abolished the old laws, untrue, your bible tells you so.

Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law or prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill.
Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Some things in that book have been changed to suit THEIR plans

64 [59]. Jesus says: "Seek to see Him who is living, while you are living; rather than to die and to seek to see Him when you can no longer see Him!" -Gospel of St. Thomas

2 [3]. Jesus says: "If those who seek to attract you say to you: 'See, the Kingdom is in heaven!' then the birds of heaven will be there before you. If they say to you: 'It is in the sea!' then the fish will be there before you. But the kingdom is within you and it is outside of you!" 3 [3]. "When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will know that it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you will be in a state of poverty, and it is you the poverty!"

56 [51]. His disciples said to him: "On what day shall rest come to those who are dead, and on what day shall the new world come?" He said to them: "This that you wait for has (already) come, and you have not recognised it."

86 [82]. Jesus says: "He who is near me is near the fire, and he who is far from me is far from the Kingdom."

88 [84]. Jesus says: "Now, when you see your appearance, you rejoice. But when you see your images which came into being before you, which do not die and do not show themselves, how will you be able to bear such greatness?"

Some things to ponder

Originally posted by defcon5
Down to 38 books yet?


[edit on 10/28/2004 by defcon5]

To what do you refer defcon?

per your previous:

I have yet seen you respond to the fact that if it was against Old Testament Law, it is still in effect unless Christ either through his actions or speech said otherwise. And Yet again a quote from Christ, not Paul:

My dear sir, do not try and make this about me since it was you who challenged my statement that nowhere did Christ speak to homosexuality. May I remind you, that you are the one offering Paul’s scriptures to back your claim, and when further called to task several times for randomly choosing some Hebrew laws, you have done your very best to duck the question, and represent same with more of Paul and irrelevant personal interpretations of marriage. My question therefore still remains unanswered by you. So you see, your position has yet to be defended, where mine has yet to be proven incorrect.

Once again., where is Christ’s admonition to homosexuality?

With reference to Jesus saying he came not to dispute Moses’ law but to fulfil same you respond now:

So, if you cannot answer this, then you have no dispute.

Allow me to refresh your memory and so drag you back into reality as to who cannot dispute that. But first an obvious explanation of that text is necessary for you. If Christ’s intentions are to fulfil Moses’ laws, then he sees to it they are upheld, carried out, not changed, embellished or discarded, as you try to hide behind. My query was, why given your propensity to choose which laws you think Christ enforced are at your discretion, when given his statement on fulfilling Moses’ laws? You claim that he had no need to mention those he did not need to change, yet you have consistently shied away from answering why Christians do not celebrate the jubilees, and are not ritually circumcised, two basic laws which Christ did not reverse, and therefore proves your position fraudulent.

Back to you then, why, if Christ was here to fulfill Moses’ laws, Christians do not adhere to the above, when by your definition, he did not address them and therefore did not find a need to change them? Can you attempt an honest answer?

I see, so now you quote Genesis 1:27-28 ”And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him male and female created he them,” as your source for procreation. Allow me to give you a bit of insight into how the Bible is structured. There is an introduction to what is coming in the chapter(s), prior to the pertinent passages to follow. Now let’s follow through with the construction and your misinterpretation: God’s orders to man, could not have happened prior to his making same which was not until Gen2:7, at which time his first commandment was to not eat of the tree of life. In other words, he could not have blessed them prior to being made and told them to be “fruitful and multiply.” The problem I find with those who quote scripture, is that generally they have no understanding of same, for if you did then you would not be quoting Gen1:28 to me as his first commandment, when Eve had not been mentioned until Gen2:21.

While we never agree on our biblical view of things, I would hope that at the least we can agree that 3 comes after 1.

I have no idea what that means, and yes, I can tell you now that given your lax interpretations, we will never agree.

As far as the sin committed being Sexual, I SIR, did not comment one way or the other on what the sin in fact was. It does imply that Eve had relations with the serpent;….

Not the issue here. It is another topic, my reference to yours was to correct your misunderstanding of what God’s first commandment was to the human, and I took the opportunity to explain the Tree of life to you. If you wish to discuss that further, by all means start a new thread.

By the way, I am not a female. And I do not mean to insult you, but from what I ascertain, you may have read, but you have not understood, for if you had, then you: A) would not have challenged me that Christ said nothing about homosexuality and B) would not have attempted to suggest God told Adam and Eve to multiply and be fruitful prior to their creation, and C) would understand the narrative of the scriptures as to how they relate to the following.

I take real personal offence at being called Blasphemous, especially by someone that is trying to tell me that Homosexuality is acceptable. Where is it that Christ changed the Old Testament ruling on this?

I cannot apologize for your feeling of being slighted, for it is blasphemous according to that letter, what you have proffered, and it blasphemous verses you have offered as evidence.

That is the burden of proof I am going to ask from you. Where did Christ say, “I know it is written that sex is only allowed between man and woman, but…”? Until you can answer that, YOU are the Blasphemer here, not I.

This is what you do not understand. Every coin has two sides, yours is a representation of one side only. For neither did he say so or not say so, therefore, neither you nor anyone else should be invoking his name for either side. As long as you or anyone else chooses to speak for Christ ,words that he did not say, then I am pleased to be a blasphemer in your eyes, for I have the evidence on my side, and know that it is you not I who blasphemes.

I have already explained that Christ FULFILLED Passover with his death on the cross, the day after he celebrated the Last Passover with his disciples. Now Passover is what we call Communion…

You have explained Paul’s version, not Christ’s, who up until his death celebrated same. Nowhere can you establish that Christ denounced or did away with the jubilees. The only recourse you have is to refer to Paul. Until you explain Christ’s then you have explained absolutely nothing.

Once more you quote Acts, Paul’s ideals. I have stated many times, do not quote Paul to me if you wish to attribute anything to Christ. He was not him, he did not meet him, he opined as he thought necessary, and he destroyed laws Christ never touched. Why do you continue to quote to me this man?

The marriage is between GOD AND HIS CHURCH, not between GOD AND MAN. The one about wine has nothing to do with the subject.

Fine, then in your eyes all other marriages are sacrilegious, including men with women. And you’re right it has nothing to do with the subject, but you are the one who in an attempt to find support in your argument brought this up, not I.

I reject those verses of John yes, because they have nothing to do with asexuality, heterosexuality or homosexuality. In essence, you are striving to find anything to support your faltering case that Christ disavowed homosexuality, to the point that you have now defined marriage as between human and God not human and human. A point I may note that suggests you even abhor heterosexual marriage.

Regardng Enoch, I have not seen you discuss his writings at all, and that as well as mention of Gilgamesh is another topic.

As far as what was written about things that occurred when not in the presents of the disciples, that seems easy enough to explain. They where together of THREE YEARS, I am sure that there is MUCH that occurred, conversations and such, that they did not write down. I would imagine that if Christ thought it was significant and wanted it recorded he TOLD them about it.

Yes, I suppose that can be so, especially when one looks for excuses as to why the scritures have been hijacked. But when one reads from Acts through James, one is clearly given the interpretative and biased nature of the apostles. One must also heavily consider the person who does most of that interpretation; Paul. The man to whom Christianity has been forged. The man unto whom the Christian faith serves.

Where is it that Christ changed the Old Testament ruling on adultery/ fornication/ homosexuality?

try not to obfuscate my friend. My statement was as it was in my first post, and this whole circular argument of yours is because you have yet to answer: where specifically did Christ reverse circumcision and the Jubilees?

It would be good of you if you would try to stay focused on the crux of your initial disagreement with my first statement and not wonder off so as to avoid my question.

Jesus did not mention homosexuality directly in the gospels however he did speak of the old testament city of sodom.

Sodom was a city of sexual deviance and perticularily homosexuality that god destroyed.


matthew
11:23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
11:24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.


what i pick up from this; is that jesus is saying that sodom would have repented, if it had been given the chance.

now in order to repent, one must be doing something wrong

i would like to hear both defcon5 and somewhereinbetween interpretation of this passage

I think it is a good and valid post of a good and valid quote.

When you hear back from SomewhereinBetween I am sure you’ll find out why I did not bother to use it, as a matter of fact I’ll U2U you what I think he is going to say before he even says it.

Originally posted by Ashlar
Jesus did not mention homosexuality directly in the gospels however he did speak of the old testament city of sodom.

Yes he did mention Sodom, which I have already mentioned, in fact in my very first post, the one which neither you nor Defcon have responded to since Jesus places sodomites above the non-believers. I repeat the quote:But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that dayfor sodom, than for that city.'

matthew
11:23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
11:24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee. See above, one and the same.

what i pick up from this; is that jesus is saying that sodom would have repented, if it had been given the chance.

now in order to repent, one must be doing something wrong

What you pick up, is subject to what you desire to pick up.

i would like to hear both defcon5 and somewhereinbetween interpretation of this passage

As already mentioned, it was in my first post, the very same post you responded to, how many posts and rebuttals by yourself and defcon, ago was that? But I do have patience.

has it ever occured to you that jesus never mentioned homosexuality directly because he never came across the subject (he never encountered homosexuals, they would have been stoned to death back then)

the law of jesus's day was that sodomy was a capital offense, if he disagreed would he not have mentioned it?

Actually, I am somewhat impressed that you did not refute the sin of Sodom being homosexuality that is what I figured you would write.

To be honest if I was in busy answering other people back then, as it seems to me I was, such as Lady V and Misfit, it most likely slipped right by me without my noticing it. Doubly the case if it was not directed at me. Look at how many one liner posts that have been ignored, and so on. I only have a finite amount of time I can spend at this, and to be honest I am running out of time right now.

Originally posted by defcon5]Although I am getting the profound impression from the couple of times that I have had discussions with you, your screen name, and your signature line, that no matter what I say its never going to be good enough.

Don’t allow my ID to baffle you, it is my signature that you should be attracting your attention. I would like to say we have had discussions, even one actually, but thus far you keep evading same. And no, defcon, I am not playing devil’s advocate or whatever your multiple childlike emoticons are suggesting, I have served into your court and you have chosen to lob the ball back from the court across the way. My questions were direct, and your answers off on tangents.

I am referring to the fact that you are going to have to throw out Genesis because it clearly states that God made man in 1st Genesis, and told him to be fruitful and multiply.

Try again! Which came first, the law or the human?

Christ never mentions the word by name but addresses it in the multiple places as being fornication and adultery.
Again, he did not specifically change the Old Testament ruling on this, nor the Ten Commandments.

Part A: Congratulations, even though you attempt to camouflage your answer, however, he does not address it AT ALL. Part B: Correct, in part! The Ten Commandments has no such law regarding homosexuality. Now when will you be admitting that your rendition of his not changing the laws, requires you to uphold the sanctity of circumcision and the Jubilees, given your previous position, or do you wish to now revisit that position?

To the first part, these where the things you chose, not I. I did not avoid anything but Jubilees, and even then explained that I would have to read up on this before answering your question.

Yes, I did choose them true, in the very first post I made, the very same post you decided to declare that you do not know where I got that Jesus made no statement against homosexuality, and as you can see, many posts later, you finally agree with my statement on that. The issue I raise regarding the selectivity of Christians was also raised in that first post, and despite your desire to escape that, you cannot because my position was all encompassing, and that is why you try to break it into parts and hope to adequately answer only that which will not render your rebuttal a farce.

To my knowledge being ritually circumcised never applied to Gentiles, it only ever applied to Hebrews. Ritual circumcision does not apply to Gentile Christians, It looks like Christians have celebrated Jubilees: Here, it only happens once every 15 years though.

Circular logic again? To your knowledge as I have already provided, all of God’s laws were only to the Hebrews. Now again, who is supreme, God the father, or God the Son, and whose orders came first, God the Father’s or God the Sons? If you are going to quote Genesis as law, then please be sure to remember that all of the OT is also law. And when was the last time gentiles celebrated Yom Kippur, or Purim or Passover, or Rosh Hashana?

Acts was written by Luke, not Paul and therefore should be acceptable under the criteria of having not been written by Paul that you have placed on me. I have not continued to quote Paul,

Indeed, Luke seems to be the culprit credited with Acts. Luke was a fellow who traveled with Paul, and yet Luke cannot be consistent in his accounting of Paul’s epiphany, which seriously undermines Paul’s credentials, the very man you consistently use as your reference. Need I say more to show how idiosyncratic your argument? Now I direct you to Acts 9 and then Acts 22 and advise you to try and understand the difference between first and third person as supposedly relayed by one person in a singular authorship.

Typical crap of misquoting a post to make yourself look better, you only placed a piece of my answer because it did not fit your agenda. Here is my full answer again read it this time.

That is your response to my showing you the flaw within your ideology of marriage. I am unimpressed by your inability to rescue your position.

Did you catch it this time, “ Man is to Marry his wife, and be faithful, ”, where do you get I am against the sanctity of heterosexual marriage?

Once more, is man to cleave unto God, or his wife? Is marriage between that of God and whatever you wish to insert or man and his wife? Those are your definitions defcon, not mine. I still await your explanation as to which he should cleave unto, and if God, then why have a wife, and if a wife, then does that mean more than one God? The problem with debating those who have no support for their argument is that they will veer off into tangents to try and convolute the argument. After all this time, and your doing so, you have finally only answered the first question I posed, now maybe you will be kind enough to concentrate on those obfuscations you threw in and answer my rebuttals on same before you start quoting Julius Caesar too.

He did not. Again, circumcision does not apply to Gentiles,

Once more, where did Jesus proclaim this to be so? I remind you that in your own words, if he did not address the law then it did not need to be changed, and Christ did not reverse circumcision. So why does it not apply? If you use the excuse that gentiles were not required to obey that law of Moses, then you must accept that gentiles are also not required to obey Moses’ law on homosexuality.

Where did Christ change the Old Testament verdict on Fornication/ Adultery / Homosexuality?
Where did Christ change the verdict that marriage only exists only between man and woman?

Even if you can argue that Christ did not mention homosexuality BY NAME, he DID speak about adultery and fornication. So if nothing else this would be covered as fornication.

I am not the one who claimed Christ changed anything am I? You are. As to the latter, look back and you will find the true law regarding same as posted by me, and not your excised version as it suits you.

jesus would come down straight into the white house with a million angels kill bush and kerry and run 4 election and then start the war on the real terrorist Satan lol

Originally posted by Majic
Would your concern extend to accepting the possibility that the Bible -- which has been repeatedly edited through the centuries as established by credible historical sources -- may contain errors?

I can accept the possibility that the Bible may contain errors. Here's something that I always keep in mind though. The people of this time were very skeptical (arguably moreso then than most people today), relied heavily on verbage, the interpretation of law, and were proof driven. Rightfully so. If I met a man claiming to be the Son of God, I would not just drop to my feet. Unlike the popular image people like to convey about Christians, we are not 'mindless sheep'. The reason I am a Christian is because I demanded proof of anything greater than a person to show itself in order to believe. The people then were not that different, nor would I expect anyone to accept based on only words and not experiences. Heh, looking back I wish I did. Life would have been less risky but that's what it took for me.

Thanks Majic, it's a good thinker question and I got to say a few things I was thinking. By the way, enjoyed reading your post 'Confessions of a Dark Sorcerer'.

Hi Ashlar:

Since the four council-approved Greek "canonical" (and heavilly edited-redacted) Gospels in today's modern "bibles" record less than 1% of what R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean actually spoke during his lifetime, we have no idea what his stance on "homosexuality" would have been.

The Gospels and the early church "remembered" what "the Teacher spoke" but did not walk around with a video camera or a tape recorder to catch his every intonation. Otherwise we would have 10,000 pages of his sayings and speculations/utterances, and probably a lot of internal contradiction in his teachings as time went on....

So......any speculation on his "official stance" on "homosexality" is AN ARGUMENTUM EX SILENTIO (i.e. an argument from silence: remember the caveat "Absence of Evidence is NOT EVIDENCE of ABSENCE..."

At any rate, there was NO EXACT WORD for HOMOSEXUALITY in Jesus' day in Aramaic or Hebrew the way we know it "clinically" today.

To say the Iesous never encountered what we today would call "homosexuals" would be assuming that he did not have a very deep interest or involvement in the outside world, and the picture (for what it's worth !) in the "gospels" tells exactly the OPPOSITE story: he is repeatedly picrtured as speaking freely with females and with prostitutes and tax collectors and Samaritans etc. (supposedly) and thus we can assume that he did not exactly live in a vaccum.

Open instances of homosexual practice was probably rare in 1st century Palestine, but since they too were homo-sapiens-sapiens, approx 10% of their population would have engaged in homosexual and bi-sexual acts (most likely very privately) just as other cultures in the middle east of the time---they just didn't speak or write about it because of the ritual taboo associated with it, especially as long as the 2nd temple stood, and "toq'eboth" (ritual taboo-abominations) were still being enforced by the priestly powers etc.

The Greek world was of course very different in relation to homosexuality practiced between two males. In Socrates/Plato (cf: The Symposium and several other dialogues) the beauty of male-male love is extolled at some length and gives testimony concerning the wide Hellenistic (Greek) and especially Athenian social acceptance of homosexual practices and bi-sexual attachments, especially an adult male taking a young male-lover (man-boy and male-male love), mainly for the purposes of teaching-learning.

R. Yeshoshua ("Jesus") seems to have taken a great dislike to the Kittim (i.e. the gentiles) seeing them as "occupiers" and we can assume he would have interpreted any homosexual attachments between males or between two femailes as "toq'eboth of the goyim" (abominations of the gentile "goyim" nations, whom he called "dogs") and he would have probably supported the prohibitions of Leveticus right along with mixing cotton and linen together in the same garment or eating shellfish and told his "patients" to "go show yourselves to the Cohen Priest as Moses commanded you...")

Also see: ("The Softim [scribes] sit in the Seat of Moses: therefore do everything that the Sofrim tell you...just do not act like they do... Amen I say unto you, let not a JOT not a TITTLE of the Torah go unperformed by you" etc.)

However the council approved Greek canonical gospels (e.g. Mark and Luke) show him "reclining" at dinner like the Greeks at the final Pesach (Passover or Last Supper), and John's gospel, who dates this meal one day before, i.e. a preliminary "Hagigah" Meal with his disciples---even shows him "snuggling up" to another male disciple:

See John 21:20-23 "And Peter turning saw the Disciple WHOM IESOUS LOVED WHO WAS THE MAN WHO SNUGGLED UP AGAINST HIS BREAST DURING THE "SUPPER" AND ASKED "WHICH ONE IS IT?")

So we begin to wonder if these "Pseudo Greek Loving" scenes were meant to draw in a Greek Audience as fake imagery or theology (and not as "historical memories") and at any rate, it is impossible for us to know exactly where the history ends and the "imaginative history" of midrashic interpretation of any basic facts actually begins.

Perhaps the author of John (whoever he was) was trying to draw an ancient typological parallel (i.e. with all of his Greco-Roman images of male to male snuggling at the Hagigah Last Supper ) between "Iesous" as "king od the Judaeans" and "King" David his ancient ancestor (so as with David, so also with the Son of David) whose relationship with Jonathan (see 1 Sam 20:18 and 2 Sam 1:28) went beyond "holding hands" to put it bluntly.

Also,"Iesous" seems to have agreed to cure the Centurion's ("boy") i.e. his male lover of a dangerous febrile condition if we are to beliee anhything in Luke's gospel, since Roman (or even Syrian mercenary) Centurions were not allowed to marry in AD 30-70AD. ]

"Iesous" according to Luke's gospel account seems to have seen this Centurion as a "god fearer" (who donated funds to the Synagogues, and therfore was "not one of THEM" i.e. not a typical goy-dog-gentile) and therefore who was "worthy of his Daviddic attention" and did not treat his lover as he did the SyroPhoenecian gentile in Matthew 15.

But that's about as close as we get from stories attributed to "Iesous" in the gospels on the subject of homosexuality. He seems to have accepted it as a fact of life---whether he engaged in it himself, or allowed his followers to engage in such activities is doubtful, considering his harsher than normal Rabinnic stance on Divorce ("there shall not be any Divorce, ever...period") etc.