A
If the bible is impossible to understand why does anyone continue to read it? Jesus says that it is not permissible to remarry except for grounds of adultery but it turns out that He didn't really mean this after all.
This is what he said:
Matt 5:
[SUP]31 [/SUP]It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
[SUP]32 [/SUP]But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
The words adultery and fornication are very different. In the NT they are seen listed side by side 3 times, (besides being seen together in both Matt 5:31,32 and Matt 19:9), indicating a difference between the two words. The big 'teller' is that when it is assumed that the exception for fornication was meant to be an allowance to divorce for adultery, then the texts in Matt 5:31,32 and Matt 19;9 contradict themselves AND each other. But when it is acknowledged that they had a strange-to-us divorce, literally for fornication (not for adultery) after one of its available definitions, which definition identifies exclusively the premarital sexual act, then the texts in both Matt 19:9 as well as Matt 5:31,32 DO NOT exhibit self contradiction, neither do they contradict each other. So what makes more sense,
1) acknowledge that a different kind of divorce existed, and when that kind of divorce is understood to be a side point the exception clause refers to, then that makes the entire complex sentences in Matt to function literally and coherently, or
2) maintain the normal hasty assumption that "fornication" must mean adultery in that context, and ignore that that assumption makes the sentences (Matt 19 and 5) to contradict themselves and each other?
The purpose of the challenge is to get people to make a parallel after the same format of Matt 5:31,32. What they discover is that on whatever topic they choose, the exception clause will ALWAYS be pointing to something off to the side, a side point. It is impossible for that sentence format that Jesus chose, to be providing permission for the specific kind of thing being addressed. The normal post marital divorce is being addressed and the exception clause under the divorce-for-fornication-while-betrothed explanation jumps to an aside; true to form for how that sentence functions. But under the divorce-for-adultery explanation of the exception clause, the exception clause is assumed to provide partial allowance for the specific thing under discussion! Then why cannot any sentence on any topic be created that can demonstrate that function while many sentences can be produced that demonstrate the function of the exception clause jumping off to a side point?
It is because the sentence format forbids it.
There was designed by God a built in mechanism within the texts of Matt 5:31,32 and Matt 19:9 to prove that the exception clause CANNOT be providing permission to put asunder what God has joined together.