Talk:Religion and divorce

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Taylor0323.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

More information?

I find that while Judaism and Christianity is more or less well covered, the text about Islam and the Dharmic religions are wery thin and more exotic religions non-existent. Can anybody add more information? E.g., is it only the man that can initiate a divorce is Islam and if the Dharmic religions does not have the concept of divorce, how are they handling people splitting up and remarrying? TobiasPersson 11:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I will be editing under the Judaism section with the source Hoffman, Lawrence A. “The Jewish Wedding Ceremony.” Life Cycles in Jewish and Christian Worship, University of Notre Dame Press, 1996, pp. 129–153. Lawrence A Hoffman is a professor at the University of Notre Dame and is an established rabbi. I will add traditions regarding the get, including the tradition of the wife ripping the get and the traditions regarding the creation of the get. I also may rewrite the lead of this article after reading the entire work because more information could be added. The lead currently consists of only two sentences. In total I am hoping to add around 100 words. If anyone wants to comment on these changes, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk Page.Taylor0323 (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

NOTE: Copied from Divorce talkpage

Religious/cultural attitudes to divorce

I am editing this section to make it cleaner and less of a "bully pulpit" for one interpretation, but rather stick to what the Scripture says on the subject. After all, this is an encyclopedia, not a personal website.--God's Webmaster 18:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This section was "messed up" again. I cleaned it up, and also removed the "cleanup" tag as it is no longer needed. The other section should not be reverted back; it has serious POV and neutrality problems. --God's Webmaster 00:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

All right; after having my cleanup reverted again, I am looking for input. Does anybody have objections to the cleanup I had done? Ohnoitsjamie called the current information "sourced material". I disagree -- there are no references as to the "Any Cause" divorce interpretation. I see no reason to promote one particular, minority viewpoint (I'd never heard of this one before) on divorce as the major Christian viewpoint. As I said before, this article should not be a bully pulpit. I also think this section should be marked as having neutrality problems. If nobody raises any objections, I will put back my edits. Please speak up if you have problems with editing what's there now. --God's Webmaster 23:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the diff in question. I agree that the section I restored needs some work, but I think your replacement of that section with an decidedly singular perspective ignores the fact that there are different interpretations. Perhaps other editors who are better-versed (no pun intended!) in the Bible could chime in? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. To avoid inadvertently inserting original research (in violation of WP:NOR) in such a difficult matter of textual interpretation, it would be better to cite to analyses published by theologians from several denominations. --Coolcaesar 19:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, no one has helped out; in fact, it's even worse now. I think it would be best to take it back to what it was about six months ago, prior to the insertion of the section beginning "Recent research shows...". At least that would be better than the mess that is there now. In fact, just about anything shorter would be better than what's there now. God's Webmaster 20:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I just did what I mentioned above. Please edit it, rather than reverting, if you don't like it the way it is now. It is no more POV than it was before, considering that what I put in was already there. God's Webmaster 20:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Should keep this part. The answer that Jesus gave corresponded with the question from the Pharisees. (Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9) The Pharisees only asked about a man putting away a woman. Jesus only answered about a man putting away a woman. The disciples acknowledged this by referring to "the case of the man". (Matt 19:10) There is no reason to apply this language to women putting away men. There is no reason to misappropriate the language. The language obviously pertains to Jewish males putting away their wives in Matt 19. and Matt. 5. This was the first century Jewish cultural attitude about divorce in a male dominated society. There is no historical dispute about this. Christian 00:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The section that was added has a lot of speculation: "Some suppose", "probably", etc. Plus, in my view at least, it violates Wikipedia:No original research guidelines. God's Webmaster 20:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Please explain what parts are original research. A mere assertion is not enough. The Classical Commentators agree there was a debate between Hillel and Shammai. Many of them agreed that Jesus answered them according to their debate. Some say Jesus agreed with Shammai. I also refer to other works already written on Wikipedia. I ask some obvious questions that have been asked for years. Note that these are "questions" and not statements. Furthermore, there are different opinions about these questions. Christian 15:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For some original research I refer you to some Classical Commentators. These are not the only commentators I can refer you to, but they are Classical and perhaps therefore acceptable to you.

Adam Clarke Matthew 5 (Hillel and Shammai)

Adam Clarke Matthew 19 (Hillel and Shammai)

Adam Clarke Mark 10 (Notes Jewish women who divorced their husbands.)

Some Other Classical Commentators:

Jamison, Faussett, and Brown Matthew 5 (Hillel and Shammai)

Jamison, Faussett, and Brown Matthew 19 (Hillel and Shammai)

John Gill Matthew 5 (Hillel and Shammai)

John Gill Matthew 19 (Hillel and Shammai)

John Gill Mark 10 (Gives detail on Jewish women divorcing their husbands.)

John Lightfoot Matthew 5 (Notes: Our Saviour does not abrogate Moses' permission of divorces, but tolerates it, yet keeping it within the Mosaic bounds, that is, in the case of adultery, condemning that liberty in the Jewish canons, which allowed it for any cause. This indicates he thought these passages were exclusive to the Jews.)

John Lightfoot Matthew 19 (Hillel and Shammai)

If you can tell me there is harmony on this issue, even among some of the Classical commentators, then I will agree there are no questions that should be asked. However, there is not complete harmony among the Classical commentators. But the Classical commentators agreed this was a "Jewish Debate" between Hillel and Shammai. The obvious question is why should Christians borrow a "Jewish debate" about the rights of Jewish husbands to divorce their Jewish wives? Some Classical commentators note that Jewish women did not have the same rights as men. (For example, see John Gill on Mark 10 above.) However, it should be superflous to mention this because the language in Matt 5:32, Matt 19:9 and Deut 24:1-4 makes it very plain that Jewish women were being acted upon instead of doing the acting. Furthermore, the men may well have been "committing adultery" when they acted upon the woman. In fact, there is a debate about the Reflexive (snake swallowing its own tail) and/or the Deponent nature of the middle voice in the Greek when a man commits adultery by acting upon his own wife. Is he committing adultery by causing her to commit adultery? When the man acts upon his wife is he also acting upon himself? Is he involving his marriage in adultery by putting her away? After all, she is bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh.

It is also well-known that Jewish women could not initiate a divorce. (See Agunah.) Note also the commentary of John Gill on Mark 10 above.

It should be noted that many Classical commentators speak about these passages in Jewish terms. Some go into considerable detail about this "Jewish problem" and leave the assumption to Gentile Christians as to whether or not this "Jewish problem" pertains to them. Some obviously assume Christians are eventually involved since Jesus is doing the teaching. (This has always been a big assumption. It is anachronistic and Christian centric. If the Jewish right to divorce didn't even pertain to Jewish women, then how can we suppose this right applied to Christian women? There is no explanation except Christians often abuse "set theory" and become Judaizers. I have heard them say: "What Jesus said is good enough for me. Jesus said it. I believe it and that settles it." If you happen to believe that, as you mention in your blanket statement below that we should believe Jesus said this to Christians or eliminate all the Gospels, then let me refer you to Rudyard Kipling's six honest helping men. Let me also suggest that you ask "who", "when", "where", "why" and "how" as well as "what".

John Lightfoot, another Classic Commentator, goes even futher than those who remain silent about the application of these passages to Christians. He plainly insinuates that these passages applied to Jews. For example, he says in commentary on Matthew 5:31,

And yet hear them thus boasting of that law: "The Lord of Israel saith, That he hateth putting away, Malachi 2:16. Through the whole chapter, saith R. Chananiah in the name of R. Phineas, he is called the Lord of Hosts: but here, of Israel, that it might appear that God subscribed not his name to divorces, but only among the Israelites. As if he should say, 'To the Israelites I have granted the putting way of wives; to the Gentiles I have not granted it.' R. Chaijah Rabbah saith, Divorces are not granted to the nations of the world."

I repeat again the statement of John Lightfoot above.

I. Our Saviour does not abrogate Moses' permission of divorces, but tolerates it, yet keeping it within the Mosaic bounds, that is, in the case of adultery, condemning that liberty in the Jewish canons, which allowed it for any cause.

There you have it. If you will accept the original research of John Lightfoot about the Mosaic bounds, you will see that I have done no original research at all. Is a Gentile Christian within the Mosaic bounds? When I questioned that Matt 5:31-32, Matt 19:1-10 and Mark 10:1-6 pertained to Gentiles, I said nothing new. And I have merely mentioned some Classical Commentators who do not agree among themselves. Therefore, I ask, why do my questions imply original research? Am I more of an original researcher than John Lightfoot who was an English churchman and rabbinical scholar? Do you consider him to be a reliable source?

Therefore, please remove the original research notification or give me a good reason why you will not.

The differences between Jewish Christians trying to keep the Law and the Gentile Christians trying to avoid the Law is also well-known. (See Jewish Christians.)

Jesus, the greatest authority on Judaism I know, did not recognize no-fault divorce. He was a Jew. Hillel recognized no-fault divorce. Shammai accepted unchastity as a reason for divorce. Jesus recognized divorce for the reason he gave that corresponded with Deut 24:1-4. I am glad you qualified that "Judaism" always recognized no-fault divorce. (However, you did not specify which parts of Judaism always recognized no-fault divorce. This is inaccurate and too brief.) Christians who suppose that Matt 5:32 (where Jesus addressed the open ended no-fault divorce being taught in verse 31 by the Pharisees in opposition to Jesus and Mal. 2) and Matt 19:9 (where Jesus addressed a question from the Pharisees about no-fault divorce) often apply these verses to themselves and ignore the Jewish audience. Jesus did not evidently agree with the prevailing Jewish position. Christians abuse "set theory" because when the Pharisees asked Jesus "Is it lawful for a (Jewish) man to put away his (Jewish) wife for every cause (no-fault)?" they were asking Jesus about their Jewish no-fault divorce and not about a "Christian" no-fault divorce. Universal terms such as "man" and "whosoever" often apply to "all of those of a particular set" when the audience is appropriately considered. In this case, Jesus was addressing "all Jewish husbands". (Incidentally, "Jewish wives" did not have the same rights as their "Jewish husbands". This is a "cultural" point which you also have not included.) (See Agunah.) To expand the audience of Jesus to include all husbands past and future (Jewish or not) without reference to "Judaism" violates "set theory" and history or the cultural setting. Therefore, I commend you on your rewrite and your use of the term "Judaism". However, I wish you would point out that Jesus was a Jew and that he was speaking to Jews and not to "Christians". This would appropriately reflect the "historical" and "cultural" setting at the time Jesus was speaking. However, many Christians appropriating Jewish customs (Judaizers) do not accept this historical fact and apply these "Jewish" teachings to "Christians". This is very "anachronistic". I think you are perhaps seeing this Jewish culture from the eyes of a Christian and ignoring many cultural aspects? (This is just my protest that you did not specify which parts of Judaism have always recognized no-fault divorce when you did your rewrite. Was it Hillel, Shammai, Jesus or Rabbi Aqiba? (Gittin 9:10 of the Mishnah) Was it the later Rabbinic Judaism? Please be more complete and more specific. Thanks. (Incidentally, do you consider the scriptures an authoritative and reliable source? In my opinion, on these subjects, the scriptures should be considered the most authoritative. They are more authoritative than the teachings of one denomination Christian 23:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I did not add the section on Judaism; it was already there. That fact is that Jesus did address women divorcing their husbands in Mark 10. To say that Jesus was not speaking to Christians is wrong; Jesus' words are directly relevant to Christians. If we throw out everything he said to Jews, we have to throw out all four Gospels.

The Bible is THE final authority for Christian doctrine. What man says is pretty much irrelevant if it does not line up with the Scriptures.

I am not a Jew, so I will defer to someone else in editing the Judaism section.

I am not interested in discussing this topic further here. I do not have the time or inclination to "duke it out" to no purpose.

By the way, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~).

God's Webmaster 20:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me to sign. I really don't expect you to "duke it out" with me here. However, if you are going to write on subjects such as divorce, I (and perhaps others) expect you to defend your positions and not just assume your biases and blanket statements are automatically correct. Sorry, I thought you wrote the part on Judaism. (I know you deleted the very small qualification I made to one of your blanket statements.) My mistake.

I will take the time to insert a few remarks and will let you be the judge about purpose. I don't accept your blanket statement "If we throw out everything he said to Jews, we have to throw out all four Gospels". This is a very erroneous statement as well as an over simplification. Jesus made many futuristic remarks about the characteristics of a coming Kingdom. (He also gave more complete and more detailed teaching to his disciples.) However, I also believe he addressed current well-known Jewish issues as well. It is not too difficult to discern his audience and the kinds of issues he addressed. Furthermore, many of the underlying principles of truth, justice and mercy Jesus taught can obviously apply to anyone. However, when Jesus addressed Jewish issues of his day, I don't necessarily assume that he is talking to me. As a Gentile Christian, I don't go by the "Law of Moses". I am interested (but not too concerned) when Jesus asks Jews questions such as "What did Moses command you?" (That is, what did he command you Jews? I know he wasn't asking what Moses commanded me since I am a Gentile Christian.) However, it's nice to know what Moses commanded them for informational purposes. But I don't think it is an absolute requirement for Gentile Christians such as myself. I also think Jews who convert to Christianity are free from the Law of Moses. However, if I were a Jew living in the time of Jesus, I would think it would be an absolute requirement to know what Moses commanded me. For example, when Jesus told the lepers he cleansed "Go shew yourselves unto the priests", I recognize that not even Jews can do that today. This command simply does not pertain to me.

Incidentally, I personally think what Jesus said to Jewish women (that may seem to have been a superfluous reminder) in Mark 10 was very relevant. Some Jews were being assimilated by other cultures. (Jesus was not being assimilated because he was a strict Jew.) Some of their Jewish women, such as Herodias, were actually divorcing their husbands. John the Baptist lost his head because of that practice. Jewish women were not allowed to divorce their husbands under Jewish law. (Jewish women could not directly initiate a divorce like we find in Deut 24:1-4.) (See Agunah.) Some Christians think in Mark 10 Jesus was just giving a more complete doctrine to his disciples "in the house". Whatever. This was not part of his answer to the Jewish question asked by the Pharisees in Matt. 19. It was also not part of his response to the open ended no-fault divorce the Jews were teaching in Matt 5:31--which was based on their understanding of Deut. 24:1-4. You failed to consider the circumstances in Mark 10. I consider this to be an unreasonable blanket approach to the subject. I think you have painted this subject with too broad of a brush.

(Why do Christians fail to recognize that Jesus functioned as a Jew in a Jewish culture and he was not always addressing future Christians? Some Christians have a very Christian centric attitude. I am concerned when Christians assume they must comply with and conform to Jewish law. Whoever wants to be justified by the Law of Moses is fallen from grace—Gal 5:5. It is a very serious matter when Christians try to appropriate Jewish doctrines--at least Paul thought it was. It rules out grace. Therefore, it matters for me to know when Jesus is speaking to me. Since I don't try to keep parts of the Law of Moses, I don't consider myself a debtor to do the whole thing--Gal 5. But I consider you a debtor to keep the whole thing because you are trying to bind Matt 19:9 and Matt. 5:32 on me, on yourself and on other Christians. I know you can't be one of the original apostles. Only authorized disciples of Jesus could bind and loose. Note the "apostles' doctrine" in Acts 2:42. Note keys to the kingdom in conjunction with binding and loosing in Matt. 16:18 and Matt. 18:18. In Matthew 18, Jesus spoke to his disciples of discipline, future doctrine (binding and loosing), and assembling in his Name. Do you think you can keep the entire Law of Moses? If not, then don't try to bind it on me.) Christian 23:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

God's Webmaster marked a paragraph as "original research". However, he will not state what the original research is. Therefore, I removed his tag. Christian 19:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

IP 209.6.186.139 says it is nonsense that Jesus clashed with Judaism. His clash with the Pharisees is so well-known that it is taken for granted by the scholars of this world--past and present. Obviously, the Pharisees came testing Jesus. They were not looking for information. They were seeking to discredit him. Later, Rabbinic Judaism evolved from the Pharisees after the destruction of Jerusalem. (see Talmud#Origins_of_the_Talmud ) I wish that 209.6.186.139 would identify themselves and quit editing without justification. Christian 19:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Last section in religion and divorce clearly biased

The section about Jesus's clash with Judaism is a clearly biased and unsubstantiated section. I cannot believe this is allowed in the Wikipedia. Unless it is cleaned up and substantiated with more sources, I think it must be removed. 209.6.186.139 16:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It also has nothing to do with the treatment of divorce in Christianity or with the topic of divorce in general. Relationship between Judaism and Christianity (or the supposed relationship between Jesus and the rabbis) cannot be presented only from the Christianity's point of view, and in any event the discussion of this relationship does not belong in an unbiased article about divorce. The tone of that section is very ridiculous, like that of the discussion above. "Jesus is the greatest expert on Judaism that I've heard of." I mean, give me a break! How many experts have you heard of actually? I assume the greatest expert has read Deutoronomy 13:1-6. Aflyax 21:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Will you agree that the expression "tempting him" Matthew 19:3 indicates a controversy or a conflict, as I stated? Will you agree the expression "But I say unto you..." in opposition to the expression "It hath been said..." (Oral Tradition) represents a different opinion than the "oral tradition"? (See Matthew 5:31–32.) The expressions "said" and "heard" represent "oral" communication. No doubt, someone like Jacob Neusner would have another opinion about the expertise of Jesus and his grasp of Judaism. (I have read several books that indicate he would.) That is fine. He has a right to his opinion. I have read such opinions of the Rabbis often enough. I don't happen to agree with their opinions. The Pharisees were obviously curious enough (or vindictive enough) to pose questions to Jesus. Why did they bother to ask if Jesus was such a non-entity? Perhaps Jacob Neusner would put in a plug for Hillel instead. That is fine. I respect his opinions, but they are not mine. What I said about Jesus as an expert on Judaism represents my opinion as a Christian on just a talk page. I am assuming that 209.6.186.139 is a Hasidic Jew because of the edits 209.6.186.139 has made on Wikipedia. I would expect 209.6.186.139 to have another opinion. That is fine. I did not put my opinion about Jesus in the paragraph I wrote. However, conflict has a lot to do with the religious and cultural setting. All of the remarks about divorce were produced by conflict. There is also conflict among Christians. Some Christians suppose Jesus was teaching Christians and others suppose Jesus was merely giving his Jewish perspective to a Jewish problem. Besides, I put plenty of links to other more detailed treatments on these subjects. If it has the tone of conflict that is because the remarks of Jesus were born of a well-known conflict among the Jews. (Since when are Jews averse to conflict?) Since I consider Jesus to be the author of Christianity, I think this conflict belongs in the Christian remarks. (However, I don't consider Jesus to be a naive Jew who didn't know what was coming down the pike and never dreamed of Christianity.) I and others, such as John_Lightfoot, don't agree with some Christians that Jesus was speaking to a "Christian" problem. (Christianity didn't even exist.) I especially do not like the Judaism part that glosses over the opinions of such people as Shammai--pretending a united front has always existed. That's why I don't agree that the Jews have always recognized no-fault divorce. Some of the Jews did. I don't get that impression reading Mal 2:11–16. Jews do this because the opinion of Hillel prevailed in the evolution of the Mishnah. I may be a Christian, but I am not naive enough to suppose that all the Jews have always come to the no-fault conclusion. I want to thank you for the remarks--even if they are negative. This is much better than just deleting the material. Do you have anything substantial besides negative remarks? I would like to read it. Christian 22:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with the discussion of the relationship of Jesus with the Oral Torah in this context and your treatment of the events as if there is objective evidence that they have actually occured in the form positioned by Christianity. There are, for example, strong opinions backed up by attempts of objective literary analysis that Jesus was a pharisee (e.g., "Jesus the Pharisee" by Hyam Maccoby). Such a position would be contrary to your description of the argument as if it historically happened. More importantly, however, this whole discussion does not belong to this article. There is a view on divorce in Christianity, and it is expressed in the paragraph above (from "within Christianity" to the quote from Romans); the discussion below is one-sided and, I repeat, out of context of the article. As to your comment about "glossing over" Shammai's opinions, with all due respect, you don't seem to understand how Judaism's legal system functions, and what role the argument between the houses of Hillel and Shammai (and other arguments, e.g., between Jerusalem and Babylon Talmud or between various sages in the discussions of the Talmud) play in it. The opinion of the House of Shammai is never glossed over; it is simply not Halacha. This is not the place to discuss it, however. 23:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. I am familiar with your concept of Halacha. (However, I don't propose to lecture you on it.) But I think you would have been more accurate to recognize that Shammai is not now recognized. (Even I knew that.) At one time, divorces were had based on Shammai and on Hillel. (This was before Rabbinic Judaism.) I am just objecting to the idea that there has always been a consensus. There has not. There has been a majority viewpoint--I will agree. (Your prophet Malachi thought perhaps you were abusing the system?) Even the disciples of Jesus were startled at his opinion on the subject. However, at the time of Jesus, Shammai also had a legal and binding opinion on those who embraced it. This is where the controversy that includes Jesus comes to play. (I could refer you to other parts of Wikipedia to prove this. I certainly can go elsewhere to prove this.) At one time, Shammai's opinion was law for those who would accept it. (By the way, Jesus, my hero, also had a legal opinion. What better way to introduce divorce than to expose the roots of the subject?) Christian 00:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't argue that you may be familiar with the concept of Halacha, but I am not sure you fully understand how it works. During the rabbinic times, the opinion of the majority was binding, although the alternate opinions were still considered the "words of the living G-d". Today, opinions of Shammai are studied in no less detail by Talmud students in the yeshivas throughout the world, as well as the local opinions of the rabbis that were ultimately rejected. Shammai's opinion is not recognized as binding upon the Jews (at least in the pre-messianic times), but it is certainly recognized as a valid opinion within Judaism. I am not going to further argue about the exact nature of the supposed argument between Jesus and the Pharisees. (Although it seems strange to me that Jesus would side with the school of Shammai, while his teachings are much more like the teachings of the school of Hillel, unless I misunderstand what you're trying to say.) My argument is that this particular discussion does not belong in this article, as I explained above).

I have just reread the section. It asks several questions but does not seem to answer them. Did Jesus remove the potential problem of Agunah? I don't know, did he? I propose that you actually answer the questions in a positive way, indicating that this is what Christianity claims, and remove the part starting from the words "Expressions used by Jesus...", since it clearly (in my opinion) does not belong here. I mean, it's great that you guys think that Jesus had a problem with Pharisees (which were actual Pharisees of the time) in the sense that he contradicted not the Written Torah but only the Oral Law (and one can argue for some time about this, as well as about whether the two can be logically separated, and whether this disagreement was similar to that of Seducees, and whether the Pharisees of the New Testament are the historic Pharisees), but what does it have to do with the divorce? :) Cheers. Aflyax 00:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I am very tired of the spin and the slant on this subject. You see, some Christians appropriate or should I say misappropriate Jewish teachings and problems. They teach this controversy as if Jesus was putting forth opinions for Christians. Jesus was asked Jewish questions and Jesus gave Jewish answers. Jesus had a problem with some of the Jewish traditions. However, Jesus had tremendous and overwhelming respect for the written word. That's why I used all the expressions. They emphasize "but I say" in opposition to Moses. They forget all the other pro-Moses expressions Jesus used. (I personally think the Jews made a grave mistake in deciding their laws depend on an “oral tradition” that takes years to study. In my opinion, they also made it take precedence over the written word. They built such a “fence” around the Law you can’t even get at it.) I think Jesus had a very serious problem with the tradition. (But I don't expect the Jews to care what I think.) I definitely do not agree that Jesus was a Pharisee. (They said, but they didn't always do--just like many of us Christians.) As a Christian, I want Christians to be free from all of these Jewish details. I don't want them to be free from the principles. I just want them to be free from all the Jewish details. That's why I want them to understand that some of these details do not pertain to Christians. However, I think there are a lot of principles that Christians and Jews have in common. After all, Christians were originally Jews. Christianity grew out of Judaism. However, Paul released Gentiles from many problems such as Kosher Laws, Circumcision and other Jewish Laws. However, many Christians still try to borrow the "other Jewish Laws". However, as I go through Wikipedia, I see how Christians spin and slant the Kosher Laws in Mark 7 and Matthew 15. Jesus was talking about a Jewish purity law that had to do with "washing your hands" (useless traditions) and Christians make these passages pertain to the Jewish Kosher Laws. In fact all the translations except the KJV have “purging meats” mean making all meats clean. That is, Jesus did away with the Jewish kosher laws instead of just acknowledging meats travel through the body—kosher or not. (This was news to Peter because he still hadn't got the message by Acts 10. He never had eaten anything common or unclean.) Then Christians, and some Jews, have Jesus breaking the Sabbath. Yet Jesus did not do away with the Sabbath. He simply made arguments about the ways to keep it. (Later he became dead to it.) We should not bind Jewish Laws on Christians. There are many commentators and scholars that recognize Jesus was answering a Jewish Debate on the subject of divorce. Therefore, my research is not original.

Jesus did not release women from Agunah. Christians suppose that when you admit that a woman could not divorce her husband, then you are somehow admitting that she is equal with the man who also could not divorce his wife. Once you admit the woman was equal with her husband you can claim she had equal causes for a Jewish divorce. I think this is absurd. I believe Jesus was merely acknowledging that some Jewish women were divorcing their husbands because they were being assimilated. Therefore he was stating what should have been obvious but was not always practiced. John the Baptist stated what should have been obvious to Herodias. Was John the Baptist preaching "Christian" doctrine when he said it was not "lawful" for her to be married to Herod Antipas? No he was telling her what is obvious, or should have been obvious, to every Jew. (See Mark 10:10–11.)

Now don't get me wrong. Some Jews and some Christian scholars try to depict Jesus as a naive Jew who couldn't have possibly known the big impact he was going to make. But there is scripture after scripture that shows Jesus had foreknowledge of what was coming. Don't take offense, but I think you have missed the boat. (But what do you care what I think?) However, when Jesus is asked what is "lawful", then I figure he gives a "lawful" or legal opinion. I just ask myself what was lawful in those days. Well, Jesus was a Jew and he lived like one under the law.

This is why all these questions belong in the Christian section. I know Jews put a lot of emphasis on the disclaimers such as Matthew 5:17–18. (I see this on Larry King all the time. Don't you Christians get it, the Rabbis will say, Jesus supported the Law. Believe me, I have always gotten it.) However, I believe Jesus became "dead to the law" when he died. But he didn't destroy the Law. (This is a distinction you Jews may not get or accept.) I believe Jesus is the defender of all truth Jewish or not. However, Christians have Jesus fighting Moses. Nevertheless, I see Jesus as proving Moses and the Prophets right down to the last letter. I see validation. In fact, I believe Jesus validated everything Moses said about him. However, when you become dead to a relationship, then you are free to have another relationship--such as become Head of the Church which is your bride and your body. (They twain shall become one flesh.)

If it looks like Jesus was imposing on your Jewish traditions, it was because he was imposing on your Jewish traditions. (This is my tautology for the day.) I figure the Son of God ought to be able to understand the Law of Moses. In fact, I believe Jesus kept the Law of Moses to the last letter. I know Neusner won't agree because I have already read his book. However, I really don't care what Neusner thinks and he really doesn't care what I think. He just wants Christians to leave him well enough alone. I feel the same way. I want to be free from all Jewish details. (However, in my opinion, Neusner is on the losing end.) Why don’t you Jews help me to show Christians that Jesus was not speaking against the Law of Moses, and that teaching against it would have been blasphemy—a grave sin? I may try to think of a way to state it more positively. However, I really don't think the paragraph will stand after I have offended many of the Jews and a large part of Christendom. But I don't care, I will fight for it anyway. After all, this is not the mainstream media--thank G-d. Christian 03:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Jesus rant, and text, and resulting talk-page detrium, is bad.

Look, folks, we are here to build an encyclopedia. Not a debate about the piety of an unmarried woman like Mary and if her son was a bastard, not a debate about whether or not female popes can get a divorce, not an endless argument from masoretic texts.... this is not a religion page. Ronabop 08:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Like I said, "Jesus came into conflict...." Our true feelings are exposed. Perhaps Ronabop can put a positive spin on the religious/historical context? Christian 13:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Now this article has really gone to hell! (See my earlier comments above about how family law experts are WAY too busy dealing with crazy clients to help out here.) --Coolcaesar 05:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll peel some of this apart, because it's just such a nightmarishly bad article that I barely know where to begin. However, the first 400 years of the Early Church, the church maintained a unanimous voice opposing divorce. --- Er, totally wrong. Ever hear of the libertine gnostics? Pauline priviledge? In the first 400 years, the church wasn't even unanimous that Jesus had even existed as a real human being, let alone unanimous in interpretation of domestic laws regarding property, inheritance, and cohabitation. Expressions used by Jesus such as "you have heard", "it hath been said", "it is written", "have you never read", "keep the commandments", "why do you break the commandments with your traditions?" and "what did Moses Command you?" indicate that Jesus generally respected the Written Laws and sometimes opposed Jewish Oral Traditions. --Or, perhaps these phrases indicate that Jesus was big on speaking in 15th century english terms, that none of his audience could understand. The whole tone of the piece speaks down to our readers, as if they are not capable of serious biblical study, and to cap it off, much of the href's are just link-outs *not* to an actual source, but to some personal web page code that redirects to an actual source. I guess I know what my first cut to the article will be... removing the linkspam. Ronabop 06:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh lovely. It's a template. This will be... fun. Ronabop 06:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ronabop. Thanks for the headings. That helped a lot.

Thanks! Sometimes a tiny edit can mean a lot. Ronabop 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I was forced to put in the links because I was accused of "original research". Actually, the links were to online commentaries that are available for human consumption. They are public reproductions of the classical commentators--not personal web pages. I never wanted to use them in the first place. However, some people here seem to edit freely and make accusations about original research. However, I don't see any of their sources. I actually had real sources from commentators who have been respected in the past.

I guess you might be newish around here, this happens a *lot* in religious articles. I find that it is often much easier to say things in a passive way: "according to Hengels(citation), blah blah blah" rather than stating "blah blah blah (Hengels citation). Ronabop 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll take that into consideration. Christian 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I am not into textual criticism, I wouldn't know about the 15th century stuff. I don't think textual criticism belongs here either. I know Matthew was orginally written in Hebrew and then in Greek.

Well, you got the point, which is what matters. WRT Matthew, I'm not sure how you "know" that, see Gospel_of_Matthew for some of the details. Ronabop 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is another opinion.

One link to Early Reference about Matthew in Hebrew. Christian 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The authors of those opinions lacked a more modern opinion that language changes over time, and betrays the date of authorship. Ronabop 06:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The KJV is merely a rather poetic translation. I really think the expressions reveal the true attitude of Jesus about the "written word". We may not like the "written word" but that is not the real issue. What did Jesus think about it?

Well, considering that no modern or ancient scholar thinks that Jesus ever actually had a chance to personally proofread and correct the works, that's a rather challenging question. Ronabop 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I think Jesus is part of the Godhead, I am sure he had a personal hand in it. However, I really meant, what did he think about the Law and the Prophets. He certainly had a chance to read that. Christian 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Since most current scholarly dating posits that the synoptics were written well after the death, are you stating that the writers had *no* free will, and were forced to put pen to paper in the way that jesus intended? They were not allowed to invent things, change things, edit things? Or are you positing that jesus came down to correct bad passages, or bad phrasing, after his rise to heaven? Ronabop 06:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Free will has nothing to do with Divine Revelation. According to John 16:12 the disciples would be guided into all truth by the Spirit (Holy Ghost). Jesus would give them the Spirit. They were not to premeditate what they would say because they were guided by the Spirit. Jesus also gave them the "keys to the Kingdom" (Matt. 16:19). Whatever they "bound on earth would be bound in heaven" (Matthew Matt. 16:19 ,Matt. 18:18). You seem to be discounting the work of the spirit. This is also my reply for your other objections.

You have made it plain you do not respect the "written word" that Jesus used as a Jew. However, Jesus did respect the "written word"--that is the whole point. (I don't care what you think about what Jesus did. What did Jesus think? That is what is germane to the whole subject.) He also claimed to be in the beginning with God, so he did not have to travel back in time (see below). He inserted himself in history at the proper time. He said to the Jews, "before Abraham was I am." (I did not intend for my remarks on the opinions of Jesus about first century divorce to become a proof for the existence of God. I will leave that up to Thomas Aquinas.) Christian 13:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole divorce controversy, or cultural war, in the Gospels hinges on interpreting the written word (Deut 24:1-4).

For some, maybe. You keep going back to a JEDP book as a reference, and that same book advocates selling your children to pedophiles and slavers, if the price is right. It certainly *is* (IMNSHO) an interesting theological point, but I'm not sure it belongs in the divorce article. Ronabop 06:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am just trying to show that Jesus was not against the written word. He exhibited respect for it, so why should he try to oppose it? On the other hand, he was not so impressed with what the Jews had "heard" and what the Rabbis had "said" about the "written word" on this subject. That's why he used expressions like "you have heard".

I'll try to find a rabbit that chews cud. My personal opinion (which does not belong in the article at all) is that jesus' point was that the text was valuable, but any given person's interpretation of that text was not. Including mine. Or yours. Or his, as filtered through humans many years after his purported death. Ronabop 06:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand the debate. I'm not sure it belongs in this article, nor do selective interpretations of prior works, to lend credence to a debate... which probably doesn't belong in the article. Ronabop 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the orignial culture, indicated by the questions I asked, has a big impact on the application of these passages to Christians. Christian 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if the tone seems condescending, but that is really a large part of the whole culture war thing.

Well, sometimes christians favored raping and killing innocent people in the name of their god in their wars... I'll take condescending over that. Ronabop 06:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Christians keep making claims for the authority of Jesus versus the authority of Moses. Jews make claims for the authority of the Rabbis versus the authority of a Jewish rebel who was born of fornication, and should be put to death for preaching more than one God (as was mentioned above in the Deuteronomy 13:1-6 reference by one of my critics).

The Arius articles are a good place to learn from. Some christians consider it hersey to call jesus christ a "god". Ronabop 06:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're wandering, but welcome to wikipedia! :) Have you met Xenu yet? We have many followers of many traditions and faiths, but we have to remember that our goal here is *not* to be right. Our goal is to describe all of those who think they're right, and why they think it. Ronabop 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesus was in a culture war with the Pharisees. He opposed their opinions about divorce. Christian 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, there was no respect for Jesus in that remark. However, I have respect for Jesus, Moses and all the Prophets.

Do you have respect for Xenu? Ronabop 06:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a deep respect for all the "written word", and I have practically zero respect for textual criticism and "oral traditions". Some have respect for none of the above. Some just have respect for Moses and the traditions. It is all about respect. (This also is not original research.) But thanks for the restructure job. It helped a lot. Christian 13:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you got bitten, we try not to do that.... WP:BITE, but your encyclopedia writing style could likely upset less people if you... well... stepped away from stating the truth as you see it, and also made plain the truth as others saw it, in as few words as possible. Ronabop 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I do have strong opinions. I think conflict leads to emotion which leads to thought. After all, to fall from grace for trying to keep the Law of Moses by borrowing Jewish Laws is a heady thought. However, I have tried to keep emotion to the "talk page". If people get mad it's because they care. Christian 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand why all of this is necessary, including the explanations about Jesus's supposed (according to Pauline views) relationship with Judaism and Oral Torah

I think it has to do with things like whether or not it's okay to stone one's children for smart mouthing. Ronabop 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesus said it, I believe it, and that settles it, but I don't care. Some Gentile Christians find the teachings of Jesus to the Jews good info, but some of the details are irrelevant. That's the whole point. Christian 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

and your personal disrespect to the Oral Tradition, especially since it is not clear you understand its role and the reasons for its validity in Judaism.

I think we can all agree that word for word, sound for sound, has not been as meticulously scribed. Thus, we cannot treat oral tradition the same way. Ronabop 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I subscribe to the teachings of Paul on the divorce issue. I don't accept the majority Talmudic position. Christian 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(See Deutor. 17:8-12. This is the part of the written Mosaic law which was violated. Besides the fact that the majority of laws of Moses cannot be understood without some sort of Oral Tradition.

Oh, TV preachers do it all the time. :) Ronabop 06:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, your own religion, including especiall many areas of Gospels, cannot be understood without and oral tradition that must interpret the written text, and the whole claim to the validity of the Gospels is that they are the oral tradition of the events and teachings of Jesus written down many years after the actual events. Thus, the whole validity of Christianity is based on an acceptance of a specific oral tradition.) In any event, there is a perfectly good article on divorce according to Christianity here[1], and I have no problem with its language, neutrality or lack of biase. I think its major points must be summarized and expressed here in a clear positive language (with a reference to the actual article). Aflyax 15:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I would like to rephrase how I feel about "oral tradition". I don't disrespect all "oral tradition". (Sorry, my remark does leave that impression. There are many good ideas in the Talmud and in the Mishmash.)

I just laughed soda out of my nose. Mishnah, perhaps? Ronabop 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I made a mistake but left it in because it is a Yiddish term for the kinds of "free for all" displayed in the Mishnah. After all, are the writings of Paul respected by my critics? Christian 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I disrespect it as a corpus that must be accepted even if there are other more accurate and valid interpretations of the "written word". I am familiar with your "Jewish Manual" analogy. I also know that you must consult your local Rabbi when you get confused. I guess that is where I diverge. I don't believe in religious democracy. Truth is more important than the "majority" or the "Rabbinical" opinion. (I feel the same way about Christian pastors and evangelists.) I don't think the Rabbinical opinion is something I must endure.

Even if that rabbi is jesu christi? Ronabop

I consider him primarily to be God. Rabbi was once one of his secondary functions. Christian 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I also think this is where Jesus diverged. He diverged when the traditions became more important than the commandments.

You think that some faiths hold traditions higher than their rules? I am aghast. Ronabop 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think faiths should be based on what I consider to be the scriptures and the epistles. Paul wrote most of them. His friend Luke wrote Acts and Luke. (If we just had these writings, it would have all we would essentially need. Textual critics ignore the fact that these writings could have been disputed during the life of Paul because many of the people who could refute them were "eye witnesses". See 1 Cor. 15. I am not speaking about the Judaizers of course. They attacked Paul wherever he went for trying to free Christians from the Law of Moses.) Christian 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It is kind of like the policy of Wikipedia. We are not interested in the truth. We are interested in creating an encyclopedia and maintaining the "status quo".

Nope. We maintain "what is known by many". Ronabop 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Known by many" is very subjective don't you think? When the insiders here vote on a paragraph, are they the many? Christian 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. The vote stays until a new user comes in. Which is often. Ronabop 06:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That is why Wikipedia has an "original research" disclaimer. I respect that. But if Wikipedia becomes like the "mainstream media" then I am sorry. I am not interested. I don't like gate keepers.

Hi! Ronabop 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Given your background in "system security" (such as for the NSA and the Department of Army) I think you are well qualified as a gatekeeper. However, this is not "system security". Christian 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The gatekeepers are folks who know their work. Ronabop 06:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand the need for sources. (I don't understand it when I cite sources and they are disregarded.) However, I understand their function. I am not saying Jesus agreed with Shammai or Hillel on the divorce issue. He may have agreed with Shammai. But I strongly believe he supported the correct interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Since I consider him to be the original author of Deuteronomy 24:1-4,

Jesus teleported back in time? Now even *I'm* confused. Ronabop 06:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

by giving it to Moses through the disposition of angels, I accept his interpretation of the passage. (I don't expect you to agree with me on that because I know we subscribe to different authorities. Actually, I love Jewish material very, very much. I read it very, very often. I often refer to the opinions of Rabbis when I want to try and figure something out in the Bible. However, I don't recognize Rabbis as final authorities.) In Matthew 5, Jesus used the formula "You have heard...but I say." He refuted the Rabbinical method. Rabbi Hillel says .... got refuted. He did not recognize Rabbis as the final authorities. (If he truly is the Son of God, and I believe he is, then he is the final authority. Again, I don't expect you to agree.) However, this is the context of the divorce debate. This is real history. This is real culture. I think people ought to understand this culture up front. I provide plenty of links to the other material. However, I disagree with many of their unsourced statements. Their lack of bias is also very questionable. (There is more than one way to slant and spin without showing overt disagreement. You ought to know. You are a Jew and the Jews have majored in the media.

Dude.

DUDE.

Please apologize. Ronabop 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. Christian 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The Jews are especially good at gate keeping. After all, why else would Jews create a Talmud and challenge you to understand it?) Sorry, Jesus is my man--let's keep it in the Christian section. Christian 16:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

To Alyax.

I tried to take some of the edge off the paragraph by removing some redundancy and some emphasis. I also substituted the word "Pharisee" for "Jewish" wherever I could. This pulls the paragraph back in time and obscures identity. I want to keep the "Expressions"--mostly for Christian reasons. Christian 01:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

(I have not addressed the Pauline part of the paragraph above. I didn't write it in the first place. This is also very contoversial issue and I didn't want to cause more offense.) Christian

Split out

I split out to an article about religions, and another article about nations/societies. The implications section could also likely be split out. Ronabop 08:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Agunot

I wanted to make clear that I added the line in Judaism re: a woman who wants a divorce but the husband refuses - she is called an agunah. I added the line and created a link from the word... There is also a word for a divorced woman in Judaism, it is a gerushah... didn't know if I should add it, or where to put it in, really, before I sound like a mediocre high school paper.Rivka 21:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RivkaRebecca (talk • contribs)

Single paragraph sections for small religions

This edit is part of a string of recent edits to multiple articles where a user is tendentiously creating new single-paragraph sections for relatively tiny religions. I have reverted once, but will refrain from further reverting until further discussion. It would probably be helpful to have discussion in a central location, so I propose Talk:Afterlife if there are any interested parties who would like to participate. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Single paragraph sections for small religions

The first paragraph is quite incoherent and seems to start mid-thought. It isn't introductory or an overview.

johlstei  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.68.178 (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC) 

Wiki Education assignment: JMC 440 Research Methods in Public Relations

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2022 and 1 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Selfrink (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Selfrink (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)