Discussion in 'Religion' started by ThazzarBaal, Jun 27, 2023.
So only married woman commit adultery?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I don’t know, it does not seem to be that straightforward as it is today.
Ancient Rome link which influenced Jewish culture and thinking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marri...was made a crime,as many children as possible.
Leviticus 20:10 defines what constitutes adultery in the Hebrew Bible, and it also prescribes the punishment as capital punishment.
In this verse, and in the Jewish tradition, adultery consists of sexual intercourse between a man and a married woman who is not his lawful wife:
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
NT- extended that with Jesus- committing adultery “in your heart” if you even think about lusting after a woman.
What makes a wife? A piece of paper? A priest? A justice of the peace?
What about fornication? What's that? The difference? Vows? No vows? Love? No love or property obtained in the trade agreements?
Hard of heart?
Ahh, divorcement ... But sex?
No intent to honor?
Adultery ... Go figure.
What about Lot and his 2 daughters? I think he stood at the city gates and pimped them out for money with no intent to ever marry anyone ... Why else would the whole town circle his home demanding to have sex with the newbies in town under his roof?
Almighty mammon and the ammonites of Moab - Lots share as one ousted from Sodom and Gomorrah. I guess they were tired of his love of mammon and his 2 daughters too who must have been raking in the dough, ahem ... I mean mammon.
Since we're talking about the Bible, this is not an open question.
"...the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."
In other words, it is a covenant, made in the presence of God that he has reified.
A relationship vow made in God's presence ... In that case, is there anywhere it can't be honored as such? Omnipresent, I would assume ... Err, that's God right? Everywhere at all times. There's nowhere where God isn't present, so the question is more about what marriage came to be as opposed to what marriage is. It came to be about the property and gains. A daughters hand was worth an enormous amount of goods sometimes. What's a harlot?
Sorry, I updated it after you quoted me.
This is a red herring. It may change how we interpret what we can do with it - or even how we value it - but it doesn't change how a marriage is defined.
How's that? Vows made in God's presence? Where two are in agreement ...
Which doesn't mention property, gains or dowry.
We're speaking about adultery and the woman who was to be stoned for it. If not for money and if two people were in agreement, with or without papers and/or witnesses, then why the accusation? I've read she was a harlot, and I assume one of the men had something to lose, so they formed a group to oust her to protect whatever it was he was protecting. It was the standing law after all. Jesus didn't dare defy the laws, but I'm pretty certain he saw his mother in the woman, given she wasn't married to Joseph and he hid her pregnancy and left town. Mary would have been stoned to death if not. So, it comes down to men becoming hard of heart, and it would seem for a plethora of reasons, and by broadening the scope what constitutes adultery enabled them to enforce the law itself.
Prostitution was legal, commonly practiced, and largely accepted, so ... Who was protecting what from whom in the scenario presented in the new testament? What did Jesus write in the dirt?
Or maybe a jealous husband had had enough.
The term being used was 'wife'. That is not an ambiguous term. Everything from post 43 onward has been moot.
It actually is a bit ambiguous, particularly as it relates to my first questions to you about certificates and priests and justices of the peace. What constitutes a marriage? In terms of history, there's a lot of differences, but typically it's between two consenting adults, and sometimes it involved gains from the suiter to the families or father's for the hand of the daughter, a right to wed. Beyond this, before martial social constructs, I'm fairly sure the long standing understanding that it is between two consenting adults holds true. Today, you get a certificate, sometimes ask for the daughters hand, go before a priest or justice of the peace, and have the option to divorce for even greater monetary gain.
It's just part of human marital history and it could be that a separation was made with the addition of certificates and whatnot to determine the differences between prostitutes and legitimate wives and wedlock.
All for the long standing sanctity of marriage. What's love got to do with it anyway?
“What makes a wife? A piece of paper? A priest? A justice of the peace?”
As per today in some cultures, 7th C BCE Israel (when the Bible was written) was a patriarchy (a real one) so women had very few rights and were treated like chattel.
Marriage mostly arranged and for political manoeuvre in the Elite, for convenience for the not so well off.
I will marry your daughter and take her off your hands but I want four of your goats kind of a thing.
“What about fornication? What's that? The difference? Vows? No vows? Love? No love or property obtained in the trade agreements?”
Fornication is just sex outside marriage, not really a word we use to today.
In terms of vows? I suppose there was some sort of ceremony and even celebration.
Jesus himself allegedly ignored the homeless, hungry and destitute to get his family and mates hammered on wine at a wedding reception.
Love? Your guess is as good as mine in that culture.
“Hard of heart? Ahh, divorcement ... But sex?
Money? Prostitution? No intent to honor? Adultery ... Go figure.”
Complicated rules on divorce, I would have to skim through Deuteronomy /Leviticus/Exodus
“What about Lot and his 2 daughters? I think he stood at the city gates and pimped them out for money with no intent to ever marry anyone.
Why else would the whole town circle his home demanding to have sex with the newbies in town under his roof?”
Lot offering his daughters was to appease the mob who wanted to “know” the angels, one of which was Yhwh himself.
Not a smart move, Yhwh not keen on that.
The above is debatable, although I'm sure you were on spot with the onset of the trade agreements for the daughters hand. Prior to the cultural development of marriage in Jewish cultures, I'm sure the two consenting adults were enough, which I think the real intent of being a help mate was to infact help mate and sometimes play the family role as providers. I prefer the provider mindset over just the mating, but hey .... I'm an old fashioned type of guy.
Jesus having to serve at a wedding and the homeless neglect dig is moot. I'd suggest he lived most of his life a homeless type nomad, so I doubt neglect played a role in his choice to serve at the wedding of Cana, which oddly enough likely goes back to his Cannanite roots and possibly a reason for his rejection by the Jewish religion over the years.
They had been known enemies and those at Cana were at the very least sympathizers. Balthazar Baal protects the king and the wise men all relevant to the plot against him as the "King of the Jews" - a title no doubt attributed to him by others.
Adultery - sex with no intent to be a help mate, or is it about infidelity? If infidelity, then I can understand the animosity, but without the stoning to death legal mandate attached.
Prostitution, harlots, and whoremongering men ... Well, one of the worlds longest standing professions with plenty of eager participants providing monetary gain for those in the profession itself, ahem except most don't like being called out for the extra curricular activities involving that type of scandal.
Just as a reminder.
A crowd soon gathered, and he sat down and taught them. 3 As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. They put her in front of the crowd.
4 “Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”
6 They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” 8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.
9 When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. 10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”
11 “No, Lord,” she said.
And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”
I think you have highlighted some important points.
What was adultery exactly in first century Palestine? What happened to the male in the story?
There is no mention of the woman being a prostitute.
There is no mention of the woman being Mary Magdelin.
Although there some blurred edges as to dates, this story was not in the earliest and best manuscripts of John.
From memory I think the writing style is also different indicating a different author, so even if Jesus was historical (consensus says yes) this story is not.
Yup, and they tested him on their laws. I'll assume as an effort to get him to stand in defiance of them, given his history of doing things contrary to the way they did things. My issue, and I've read that she was a prostitute and possibly Mary Magdalen, but that much is certainly debatable. The prostitution possiblity may well be also, but it is presumed in many circles. I'll presume as much and take the story for what it's worth. There was no mention of her "husband", but she was accused of adultery and there was a crowd ready to stone her for that type of transgression. I'm assuming, of course, that the men making the accusations were both testing Jesus and possibly covering for their own transgressions of infidelity ... Or maybe they got caught with their pants down as authority figures with something to lose.
Either way, Jesus wrote something in the dirt. It doesn't say what exactly, but maybe it was a list of the transgressors guilty of infidelity with the woman in question. I guess they were all guilty of infidelity, given they dropped the stones and Jesus didn't defy the laws, or maybe they were just testing him and the woman wasn't guilty at all and they had no real intentions of stoning her.
It just seems an odd thing for a crowd ready to inlist capital punishment on someone to resist doing so because a guy they didn't like very much makes a statement like: let he who is without sin cast the first stone.". It just seems highly unlikely is all, so I read a little extra in the presented text.
…and scholars do not think it is historical.
Don’t forget that part.
Context applied, we have an entire world with a very large Christian population who have varying opinions about the text in question, and myself coming from a Christian background, have invested a great deal of time and effort sifting through the writ in its entirety. I'm wrong and I'm right and I enjoy the mental exercises, and if movies are to be made to illustrate a more "human like realism" from the texts and events such as the one we're speaking about, I find it profitable to go through and consider different scenarios. Scholars opinions are quite moot at this point, and I'm sure you understand enough to understand this much.
I disagree, New testament Scholars are exactly the people to read on this subject.
They do not read the Bible in English for a living, they learn Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Coptic, Syriac and the read the ancient manuscripts that contain the texts in those languages.
Like any discipline there are areas of conjecture and areas on consensus, this is in the consensus camp.
Separate names with a comma.