Judaizers! They Live!!!! They walk among us!!!

[Grailhunter]

It was not only Moses who permitted them to divorce their wives; but God instituted this law to Moses to give to the people out of grace and mercy to their hardened hearts.

That is not what Christ said. "Moses permitted you" The Israelites were told the Laws came from God. I disagree with the explanation that I have heard many times, that the Laws were written in accordance to the evilness of the people. So the Laws were written to be evil. I disagree with that.

 

[justbyfaith]

That is not what Christ said. "Moses permitted you" The Israelites were told the Laws came from God.

Yes, they were told that. Was the person that told them that lying? was he considered to be a holy man? Would a holy man lie to the people about such a thing?

I disagree with the explanation that I have heard many times, that the Laws were written in accordance to the evilness of the people. So the Laws were written to be evil. I disagree with that.

You can disagree with that explanation all you want: it holds true nevertheless. It is not that the laws were written to be evil; but that they were written to deal with evil that could not be dealt with apart from Jesus dying early.

 

[justbyfaith]

Far from splitting hairs....it is a big deal. You know Hebrews....If the Old Covenant was not faulty there would be not reason for a New Covenant.

In Hebrews 8:8-10, the Old covenant law is said to be a part of the New Covenant, written on the hearts of believers.

That ministry of death. Do you really want me to quote the scriptures?

Yes, that would be wonderful.

You know, it sounds like you think that your goodness and righteousness exceeds God's! Like you would never have instituted these laws if you were God!

I don't pretend to understand all that is in the law, but I refuse to judge God's law as you have.
.

Amen; for it is written,

Jas 4:11, Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.

 

[justbyfaith]

What does anyone make of the following scriptures:

Rom 2:5, But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
Rom 2:6, Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
Rom 2:7, To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
Rom 2:8, But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
Rom 2:9, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
Rom 2:10, But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
Rom 2:11, For there is no respect of persons with God.
Rom 2:12, For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 2:13, (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

1Jo 3:4, Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

 

[Grailhunter]

In Hebrews 8:8-10, the Old covenant law is said to be a part of the New Covenant, written on the hearts of believers.



Yes, that would be wonderful.



Amen; for it is written,

Jas 4:11, Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.

In Hebrews 8:8-10, the Old covenant law is said to be a part of the New Covenant, written on the hearts of believers.
So of the Laws that are written in your heart....which ones are you going to observe...try killing a woman that does not bleed on her wedding night and see what it get'cha.

I don't pretend to understand all that is in the law, but I refuse to judge God's law as you have.
As I said, I do not have to judge them, all I have to do is copy and paste...they speak for themselves. Besides the basics, do not murder, do not steal etc...the vast majority, whether it be Law or the character of the prominent figures, it is not what Christians should emulate.
.

 

[Giuliano]

This passage is not just slavery, it includes concubinage. Women, all Hebrew women were property in this time period. And I am going to point out that dating does not occur until the last century and of course you remember the women's suffrage movement and the ERA. We are just coming out of this, even Christianity. Paul said there was no difference between male and female but He was slow to show that. Today women are still mostly second rate members in the church. Women pastors...preachers...OH my that from the devil!!!! Things move slow.

Exodus 21:7-11 If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

Let me go line by line. While there are different interpretations, I'll give the ones I favor.

Exodus 21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

The source I have says this applied to girls who had not reached puberty yet. The person buying the girl almost surely does so with the prospect of a possible marriage, either to himself or to a son. He would be buying her services for six years only. "Menservants" refers to male "slaves" who were granted liberty if their owners physically damaged them severely. Why make this exemption then? I think so a man who was displeased with a girl couldn't disfigure her as a way of getting rid of her.

8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

In other words, if his intention was to marry her when she was old enough and he changed his mind for some reason, he was not free to sell to foreigners. Since she had worked for so many years, he also could expect the same amount of money he paid for her. Her wages would be deducted from the redemption price. It was also interpreted to mean that her father could not resell her.

Don't forget that a central concept of Judaism is that a man is obliged to make his wife happy. If the man in this case had a girl who displeased him, why did she displease him? Uh, maybe she caused difficulty for him if she was a brute? It would be risky business then to buy a girl for a future marriage unless you were willing to make her happy.

9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.

He could not treat her as inferior in any way to other daughters of Israel. He owed her: Clothes, sustenance and sexual relations.

10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

This is more protection for her. He could take another wife if he wanted; but he still had to provide her with food and clothes, and he was expected to give her sexual satisfaction in bed.

11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

In other words, if he didn't treat her with respect, he couldn't claim anyone owed him money even if she hadn't served the full six years. He couldn't divorce her and claim financial damages in court over lost wages owed him.

We may not like the idea of concubinage today; but it existed then, and I see this rule as an effort to limit the harm to women if left unregulated.

Remember too that culture changes; and while the written rules were left unchanged on the books to avoid the idea that people were tinkering with them, the Jews knew that as culture changed, how the rules got applied needed to be changed. Thus there was a need for people educated in the past culture to reinterpret the laws of Moses so they applied to the current time. The average person wasn't expected to understand fully the laws of Moses; they were to supposed to take whatever the Sanhedrin ruled to be right. That's why Jesus told people to obey whatever the Sanhedrin said.

There is one law that was ruled "outdated" completely by the Sanhedrin -- the one about hitting someone with a shoe. It's now forbidden for a man to marry his brother's widow. Synagogues still have silk slippers though just so they can obey that rule. In today's culture, I think something similar could be said that this rule about selling daughters. Most Jews would frown on it, saying that while there is a rule about how it should be done, it's better not to do it at all.

I imagine that in that culture, some families who were very poor might be tempted to do worse things with their daughters if they needed money and having daughters at home was an economic burden. That situation doesn't exist today among Jews, so I'd say the rule became largely irrelevant.

However there are places today in the world where impoverished parents sell their children out of desperation. That "market" is unregulated; and the children often wind up as sex slaves with no rights at all. The laws on the books are impossible to obey for them; if you're desperately poor, some laws can't be obeyed without creating harm of another sort; perhaps laws that permitted them to "sell" them to humane owners might be an improvement. People in the United States would scream bloody murder if Mexico permitted poor parents to sell their children to humane owners who had obligations to fulfill; but they hide their eyes at the fact that much of the prostitution in the United States is the result of poverty in Central America with juveniles forced into it- -- being illegal, it's unregulated and the abuses are worse, it seems to me.

Does this help? Do you want to discuss it, or do you want to tackle another problematical passage?

 

[Grailhunter]

Let me go line by line. While there are different interpretations, I'll give the ones I favor.

Exodus 21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

The source I have says this applied to girls who had not reached puberty yet. The person buying the girl almost surely does so with the prospect of a possible marriage, either to himself or to a son. He would be buying her services for six years only. "Menservants" refers to male "slaves" who were granted liberty if their owners physically damaged them severely. Why make this exemption then? I think so a man who was displeased with a girl couldn't disfigure her as a way of getting rid of her.

8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

In other words, if his intention was to marry her when she was old enough and he changed his mind for some reason, he was not free to sell to foreigners. Since she had worked for so many years, he also could expect the same amount of money he paid for her. Her wages would be deducted from the redemption price. It was also interpreted to mean that her father could not resell her.

Don't forget that a central concept of Judaism is that a man is obliged to make his wife happy. If the man in this case had a girl who displeased him, why did she displease him? Uh, maybe she caused difficulty for him if she was a brute? It would be risky business then to buy a girl for a future marriage unless you were willing to make her happy.

9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.

He could not treat her as inferior in any way to other daughters of Israel. He owed her: Clothes, sustenance and sexual relations.

10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

This is more protection for her. He could take another wife if he wanted; but he still had to provide her with food and clothes, and he was expected to give her sexual satisfaction in bed.

11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

In other words, if he didn't treat her with respect, he couldn't claim anyone owed him money even if she hadn't served the full six years. He couldn't divorce her and claim financial damages in court over lost wages owed him.

We may not like the idea of concubinage today; but it existed then, and I see this rule as an effort to limit the harm to women if left unregulated.

Remember too that culture changes; and while the written rules were left unchanged on the books to avoid the idea that people were tinkering with them, the Jews knew that as culture changed, how the rules got applied needed to be changed. Thus there was a need for people educated in the past culture to reinterpret the laws of Moses so they applied to the current time. The average person wasn't expected to understand fully the laws of Moses; they were to supposed to take whatever the Sanhedrin ruled to be right. That's why Jesus told people to obey whatever the Sanhedrin said.

There is one law that was ruled "outdated" completely by the Sanhedrin -- the one about hitting someone with a shoe. It's now forbidden for a man to marry his brother's widow. Synagogues still have silk slippers though just so they can obey that rule. In today's culture, I think something similar could be said that this rule about selling daughters. Most Jews would frown on it, saying that while there is a rule about how it should be done, it's better not to do it at all.

I imagine that in that culture, some families who were very poor might be tempted to do worse things with their daughters if they needed money and having daughters at home was an economic burden. That situation doesn't exist today among Jews, so I'd say the rule became largely irrelevant.

However there are places today in the world where impoverished parents sell their children out of desperation. That "market" is unregulated; and the children often wind up as sex slaves with no rights at all. The laws on the books are impossible to obey for them; if you're desperately poor, some laws can't be obeyed without creating harm of another sort; perhaps laws that permitted them to "sell" them to humane owners might be an improvement. People in the United States would scream bloody murder if Mexico permitted poor parents to sell their children to humane owners who had obligations to fulfill; but they hide their eyes at the fact that much of the prostitution in the United States is the result of poverty in Central America with juveniles forced into it- -- being illegal, it's unregulated and the abuses are worse, it seems to me.

Does this help? Do you want to discuss it, or do you want to tackle another problematical passage?

The Laws were written in a time period that were harsh. Slaves were common even in Christ's period. A father selling his daughter as a slave or concubine did occur in the Old Testament. This as with many things the Israelite did, these practices spans several cultures. My point is, this is a Law and or practice that does not need to be in Christianity.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

The Laws were written in a time period that were harsh. Slaves were common even in Christ's period. A father selling his daughter as a slave or concubine did occur in the Old Testament. This as with many things the Israelite did, these practices spans several cultures. My point is, this is a Law and or practice that does not need to be in Christianity.

Oh, I think you and Geronimo are making a point much broader than this about God and his word, and it’s not good.

I edited this comment.

 

[Giuliano]

In Hebrews 8:8-10, the Old covenant law is said to be a part of the New Covenant, written on the hearts of believers.
So of the Laws that are written in your heart....which ones are you going to observe...try killing a woman that does not bleed on her wedding night and see what it get'cha.

The Jews interpret "spread the garment" in a way that might surprise you. That included getting testimony from people too. There also had to be witnesses to her having had sex after she had been betrothed to the man in order for the stoning to take place. If she was a virgin when betrothed and still living with her parents, she had taken advantage of the situation and lost her virginity while under her parents' noses.

My guess is that people had tested the woman's virginity by manual means by witnesses before the betrothal was agreed to. If the man didn't find what they had found, something was wrong. Then it would come down to whether there was a cloth with blood on it to vindicate the woman's innocence as well as what other witnesses might have to say. If there was no such bloody cloth, then at least two witnesses would have been required for her to be put to death. It would require more than a lack of bleeding.

Deu 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

 

[Giuliano]

The Laws were written in a time period that were harsh. Slaves were common even in Christ's period. A father selling his daughter as a slave or concubine did occur in the Old Testament. This as with many things the Israelite did, these practices spans several cultures. My point is, this is a Law and or practice that does not need to be in Christianity.

I don't think the Jews would argue it needs to be in Judaism either. I think there is a legitimate moral lesson in it however about how we should treat the unfortunate among us. That part still rings true to me. How should foster parents treat the children in their care?

 

[Grailhunter]

The Jews interpret "spread the garment" in a way that might surprise you. That included getting testimony from people too. There also had to be witnesses to her having had sex after she had been betrothed to the man in order for the stoning to take place. If she was a virgin when betrothed and still living with her parents, she had taken advantage of the situation and lost her virginity while under her parents' noses.

My guess is that people had tested the woman's virginity by manual means by witnesses before the betrothal was agreed to. If the man didn't find what they had found, something was wrong. Then it would come down to whether there was a cloth with blood on it to vindicate the woman's innocence as well as what other witnesses might have to say. If there was no such bloody cloth, then at least two witnesses would have been required for her to be put to death. It would require more than a lack of bleeding.

Deu 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

The Jews interpret "spread the garment" in a way that might surprise you. That included getting testimony from people too. There also had to be witnesses to her having had sex after she had been betrothed to the man in order for the stoning to take place. If she was a virgin when betrothed and still living with her parents, she had taken advantage of the situation and lost her virginity while under her parents' noses.

My guess is that people had tested the woman's virginity by manual means by witnesses before the betrothal was agreed to. If the man didn't find what they had found, something was wrong. Then it would come down to whether there was a cloth with blood on it to vindicate the woman's innocence as well as what other witnesses might have to say. If there was no such bloody cloth, then at least two witnesses would have been required for her to be put to death. It would require more than a lack of bleeding.

Deu 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

I think that most of this is right. It is a cultural thing that the Jews of today still know. But clinical virginity is not exactly what they understood completely. How do you think they tested the captured women for virginity, sometime thousands. The custom was for the mother to gather the sheets...what did that prove? Not all women bleed enough to spot. Some women barely have a hymen. Some of us are old enough to remember the concern for virginity in regard to the lady we choose as a wife. Back then it was near to paranoid, and some of that revolved around the concern for disease. Not that they knew all about diseases, just the effects and they saw it as caused by sin and evil. Either way, not all women bleed and some were probably killed that were actually virgins. Then again the point, is this something we want to incorporate into Christianity, the Law or even the spirit?

As far as witnesses....lol....women did not count as witnesses in this culture. So would a man allow other men to test his perspective wife? lol And how?

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Oh, I think you and Geronimo are making a point much broader than this about God and his word. Thanks for talking to me, friend.

And to think I was afraid that you thought yourself equal with God. Now I see that you really do think that you are better than God. Maybe you think the world that you will oversee is greater than the one God oversees?

I will pray for you and Geronimo, that the ONE AND ONLY TRUE GOD of the Bible will have mercy of you.

 

[Grailhunter]

I don't think the Jews would argue it needs to be in Judaism either. I think there is a legitimate moral lesson in it however about how we should treat the unfortunate among us. That part still rings true to me. How should foster parents treat the children in their care?

That is why I like talking to you...your smart. What does your average person do when they look back at history. If they do not like it they try to deny it or explain it away. Or they look back at the past and see ignorance or cruelty. Slavery it a good example, most can relate to this topic. You can look back and criticize slavery. An historian is less likely to do that. Particularly back in ancient times, slavery was very much the norm. And there was different types of slavery. Not all slaves were captured. Being a slave meant that you were feed and clothed, and had somewhere to lay your head, that was big thing in the ancient world. A lot of it was about who was your master. Slavery was an important part of the economic structure of the ancient world.

Depending on your translation of the Bible, Christ spoke of slaves, that they should obey their masters and masters should treat them well. The Roman Empire was big on slaves, even after merging with Christianity. That continued into the Holy Roman Empire.
The United States got involved in the tail end of it. We look at it today and some say, oh those horrible southerners. By no means was it a new practice, nor was it against the morality of the Bible and was still being practiced. That practice was stopped and that is a good thing, but only so much condemnation is justified. The credit goes to stopping it.

The same thing, to some degree can be said of the status of women through history and Christianity. Those corrections are still in progress.

 

[Grailhunter]

And to think I was afraid that you thought yourself equal with God. Now I see that you really do think that you are better than God. Maybe you think the world that you will oversee is greater than the one God oversees?

I will pray for you and Geronimo, that the ONE AND ONLY TRUE GOD of the Bible will have mercy of you.

Oh come on Prayer Warrior, no one here thinks they are God. lol

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Oh come on Prayer Warrior, no one here thinks they are God. lol

Oh, I know, I know..... Joseph Smith didn't think he was God either. He just thought he was becoming a god/God of his own world. Made a whole religion to suit his lusts. I mean, polygamy here...eternal sex there.... What more can a man want???

 

[Grailhunter]

Oh, I know, I know..... Joseph Smith didn't think he was God either. He just thought he was becoming a god/God of his own world. Made a whole religion to suit his lusts. I mean, polygamy here, eternal sex there? What more can a man want???

Oh, here we go.....did the prophets of the Old Testament think they were Gods.

Lusts....you would not believe what kind of topic that is in the ancient world. One man, five wives, one tent...who-ra!

Good men want love. And grandchildren to spoil so they will drive their parents nuts.

 

[Giuliano]

I think that most of this is right. It is a cultural thing that the Jews of today still know. But clinical virginity is not exactly what they understood completely. How do you think they tested the captured women for virginity, sometime thousands. The custom was for the mother to gather the sheets...what did that prove? Not all women bleed enough to spot. Some women barely have a hymen.

I think that might have been noted in the premarital exam and the husband informed. Odds are too that he might notice other signs that hsi wife wasn't as pure as he wanted. In cultures like that, sometimes people restricted their premarital activity to oral sex, manual stimulation and perhaps more rarely anal sex. If you were expecting a virgin but she had experience in some of those things, you might get a strong idea about it by how she acted in bed and divorce her not for adultery but because you thought she was behaving in a way a virgin wouldn't.

Some of us are old enough to remember the concern for virginity in regard to the lady we choose as a wife. Back then it was near to paranoid, and some of that revolved around the concern for disease. Not that they knew all about diseases, just the effects and they saw it as caused by sin and evil. Either way, not all women bleed and some were probably killed that were actually virgins.

Some had that concern, others didn't. Boaz wasn't so bothered that Ruth wasn't a virgin. It wasn't even his duty to marry her, but he did. The man who declined to marry her gave a flimsy excuse that she was from the tribe of Moab. The rule against marrying someone from Moab was only about Jewish women marrying men from Moab. It was legit for him to marry her.

Then again the point, is this something we want to incorporate into Christianity, the Law or even the spirit?

I think the "spirit" would apply in that people should not lie to each another about their pasts or who they are to get into marriage.

When Jesus said fornication was the only reason to justify divorce, I rather think he meant lying about premarital activity in order to trap a man. He said fornication, not adultery. While adultery could be called fornication, I think if he meant adultery, he would have said adultery.

As far as witnesses....lol....women did not count as witnesses in this culture. So would a man allow other men to test his perspective wife? lol And how?

Right you are women couldn't be witnesses. Neither could people with vested interests or with bad reputations. It was next to impossible to stone anyone unless you did it out in public or in a private house where others could discover you easily. You know what Catholics mean by "scandal." In a way, sexual sins were winked at somewhat -- unless you created a scandal.

I think the same reason holds true for the man stoned for gathering sticks on the sabbath. He could have gotten away with it if he had been discrete. It was a scandal because if he got away with it, it would encourage others to do the same thing. Thus it was an offense against everyone else in the community; so the whole community was to participate in his execution. Ha, I know I'm arguing in favor of someone being a hypocrite; but it might be a good thing sometimes for people to be hypocrites sinning in private instead of sinning publicly in a way that encourages others to sin too. At first glance, his punishment looks unduly harsh, but was it? Couldn't he have done his sinning in a more discrete way that didn't scandalize the whole community?

 

[Grailhunter]

I think that might have been noted in the premarital exam and the husband informed. Odds are too that he might notice other signs that hsi wife wasn't as pure as he wanted. In cultures like that, sometimes people restricted their premarital activity to oral sex, manual stimulation and perhaps more rarely anal sex. If you were expecting a virgin but she had experience in some of those things, you might get a strong idea about it by how she acted in bed and divorce her not for adultery but because you thought she was behaving in a way a virgin wouldn't.

Some had that concern, others didn't. Boaz wasn't so bothered that Ruth wasn't a virgin. It wasn't even his duty to marry her, but he did. The man who declined to marry her gave a flimsy excuse that she was from the tribe of Moab. The rule against marrying someone from Moab was only about Jewish women marrying men from Moab. It was legit for him to marry her.

I think the "spirit" would apply in that people should not lie to each another about their pasts or who they are to get into marriage.

When Jesus said fornication was the only reason to justify divorce, I rather think he meant lying about premarital activity in order to trap a man. He said fornication, not adultery. While adultery could be called fornication, I think if he meant adultery, he would have said adultery.


Right you are women couldn't be witnesses. Neither could people with vested interests or with bad reputations. It was next to impossible to stone anyone unless you did it out in public or in a private house where others could discover you easily. You know what Catholics mean by "scandal." In a way, sexual sins were winked at somewhat -- unless you created a scandal.

I think the same reason holds true for the man stoned for gathering sticks on the sabbath. He could have gotten away with it if he had been discrete. It was a scandal because if he got away with it, it would encourage others to do the same thing. Thus it was an offense against everyone else in the community; so the whole community was to participate in his execution. Ha, I know I'm arguing in favor of someone being a hypocrite; but it might be a good thing sometimes for people to be hypocrites sinning in private instead of sinning publicly in a way that encourages others to sin too. At first glance, his punishment looks unduly harsh, but was it? Couldn't he have done his sinning in a more discrete way that didn't scandalize the whole community?

Some had that concern, others didn't. Boaz wasn't so bothered that Ruth wasn't a virgin. It wasn't even his duty to marry her, but he did. The man who declined to marry her gave a flimsy excuse that she was from the tribe of Moab. The rule against marrying someone from Moab was only about Jewish women marrying men from Moab. It was legit for him to marry her.

So do you thing that it was his feet that Ruth uncovered? And why do you think that Ruth said, "So spread your covering over your maid, for you are a close relative."

I think that might have been noted in the premarital exam and the husband informed. Odds are too that he might notice other signs that hsi wife wasn't as pure as he wanted. In cultures like that, sometimes people restricted their premarital activity to oral sex, manual stimulation and perhaps more rarely anal sex. If you were expecting a virgin but she had experience in some of those things, you might get a strong idea about it by how she acted in bed and divorce her not for adultery but because you thought she was behaving in a way a virgin wouldn't.

I like the ancient premarital exam thing. Still think that there were virgins that were killed.

When Jesus said fornication was the only reason to justify divorce, I rather think he meant lying about premarital activity in order to trap a man. He said fornication, not adultery. While adultery could be called fornication, I think if he meant adultery, he would have said adultery.

This opens a whole can of worms...interesting as it is. Since you brought up the fornication thing, I am going to assume that you know that this topic is a little broad.

 

[Giuliano]

That is why I like talking to you...your smart. What does your average person do when they look back at history. If they do not like it they try to deny it or explain it away. Or they look back at the past and see ignorance or cruelty. Slavery it a good example, most can relate to this topic. You can look back and criticize slavery. An historian is less likely to do that. Particularly back in ancient times, slavery was very much the norm. And there was different types of slavery. Not all slaves were captured. Being a slave meant that you were feed and clothed, and had somewhere to lay your head, that was big thing in the ancient world. A lot of it was about who was your master. Slavery was an important part of the economic structure of the ancient world.

Depending on your translation of the Bible, Christ spoke of slaves, that they should obey their masters and masters should treat them well. The Roman Empire was big on slaves, even after merging with Christianity. That continued into the Holy Roman Empire.
The United States got involved in the tail end of it. We look at it today and some say, oh those horrible southerners. By no means was it a new practice, nor was it against the morality of the Bible and was still being practiced. That practice was stopped and that is a good thing, but only so much condemnation is justified. The credit goes to stopping it.

The same thing, to some degree can be said of the status of women through history and Christianity. Those corrections are still in progress.

I think the world is progressing, yes. Some see the "gender" confusion as a vast problem; but I think it may be a symptom of confusion boiling to the surface as the world is moving towards actual equality between men and women. I for one don't understand why someone born with a male body would feel as if he's really a woman -- I ask, what does it matter? Yet it seems to matter very much to some -- enough so that they'll pay for expensive surgery. They still see a big difference between male and female. They have to see a big difference. Someone in my family is transgender. It doesn't offend me; it just makes me wonder what the big deal is.

I found a wonderful story just now too about the Prophet and a slave boy.

Slaves in the History of Islam

Zayd bin Harithah bin Sharahil al-Kalbi, an Arab boy, was abducted in his childhood and sold as a slave. This happened before Islam. Hakim bin Hizam bin Khuwaylid purchased him in the market of 'Ukaz, and presented him to his aunt, Khadijah bint Khuwaylid, who gave him to the Holy Prophet.

Zayd's father was searching for him. After a long time he came to know that Zayd was in Mecca. He came to Mecca and offered to pay ransom so that Zayd might be set free. The Prophet said that if Zayd wanted to be united with his family, then there was no need of any ransom. He was free to go. But Zayd declined to go with his father and preferred to remain with Muhammad. Harithah, Zayd's father, was extremely grieved and said, “O son, do you prefer to remain a slave rather than a free man? And do you prefer to leave your own father and mother for Muhammad?” Zayd said, “What I have seen of the life of Muhammad is compelling me that I should not leave him for any person”. Such was the loving attitude of the Holy Prophet that it had captured the hearts of all those who came to know him. And it was this unique characteristic of his generosity which made almost the whole Arabia accept Islam within a short period of twenty three years.

Anyhow, Harithah was shocked and announced in Ka'bah that from then on neither he was father of Zayd nor Zayd was his son. It was then that Prophet Muhammad announced in the hijr Isma'il (besides the Ka'bah) that “I declare that from now on Zayd is my son.” Harithah, hearing this, returned to his home but in a less gloomy mood.

Zayd bin Harithah was now called Zayd bin Muhammad.

There is another story at that site about a slave who was made Governor of Iran. He had a very troubled past which the article gives.

Salman was appointed governor of Iran. He came to Mada'in, the capital at that time. The people of Mada'in, long accustomed to the splendour and glory of the imperial court of Iranian emperors, came out to welcome the governor designate. They were waiting for a pompous caravan. But no caravan or entourage ever came. Instead, an old man, carrying a few of his belongings on his shoulder was coming towards them on foot. They asked the newcomer whether he had seen the entourage of their governor. The newcomer said, “I am your governor.” And that simple-hearted governor of Mada'in ruled with such knowledge, compassion, justice and firmness that within a short period whole Mada'in was in his hands. That conquest was made not by police or army, but by the power of his spiritual perfection, piety and forbearance.

He died in 36 AH in Mada'in. Imam 'Ali came from Medina to Mada'in in half a day by miracle just to perform the burial rites of his trusted companion and brother. It was a unique distinction of Salman. His grave in Mada'in (in Iraq) is visited by hundreds of pilgrims every day. The pilgrimage (ziyarat) prescribed for that visit shows his greatness in the eyes of Allah.

Sad to say many Muslims have not been as compassionate with their slaves. I rather think the Prophet would have wanted slavery wiped out.

 

[Giuliano]

So do you thing that it was his feet that Ruth uncovered? And why do you think that Ruth said, "So spread your covering over your maid, for you are a close relative."

I think it was only his feet. Spreading his skirt over her meant extending his protection and intention to marry her if he could. There was still that other "near kinsman" who should have offered her protection but had not. I'm sure he may have wanted more, especially since he had been drinking wine; but I don't anything sexual happened since it says she lay at his feet. They hadn't done anything wrong so far as I can see; but Boaz was clever enough to want to avoid any appearance of evil, so he told her to sneak away before dawn. Maybe I'm prejudiced, but I like them both and want to believe the best. I also admire Naomi's cleverness.

It also depicts how male and female are joined together spiritually. I think we err if we think the "lower" position means "inferior." Both are required to be in the proper positions -- the female is closer to the earth so she is positioned between the earth and the feet of the man. Compare to the "fallen woman" anointing Jesus' feet with her hair.

In some ways, the "lower" position can be seen as the better one. I think Eve's error was to buy the serpent's idea that maybe she was inferior somehow -- and that idea is still with us! I suppose it will be with us as long as the struggle between the seed of the woman and seed of the serpent is with us.

Luke 14:11 For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

This opens a whole can of worms...interesting as it is. Since you brought up the fornication thing, I am going to assume that you know that this topic is a little broad.

Indeed, and we probably have enough to talk about already.