What obvious and well-known anthropology of the day are you talking about? What aspect of culture or social history does my previous post explain? You can read the same sort of thing I wrote about the historical background in multiple sources online. I've seen it in multiple places myself.
I would imagine most people here are Gentiles, living after Christ did. Hebrews were not allowed to marry Canaanites and members of the seven nations. Priests couldn't marry foreigners.
Ezra 9:1
Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.
Some passages of scripture are inspired accounts of people doing things that we are not to emulate. We shouldn't emulate the way Amnon treated Tamar. This book tells things Ezra did.
If the priests were married to Egyptians (and maybe Moabites), I see a justification for what Ezra did in the Torah. Regular Israelites were not forbidden from marrying Egyptians. There was a specific law about marrying Moabites.
Be that as it may, it is possible this passage was an issue for some early Christians. We do not know what letter the Corinthians referenced in I Corinthians 7:1 contained. It is possible that some Christians were concerned about whether their marriages to unbelievers were legitimate, considering this passage from Ezra. He was also dealing at least in part with Gentiles married to other Gentile believers or else Jewish believers married to Greeks. Paul's advice was to remain with an unbeliever willing to remain with an unbeliever.
I don't see how what Ezra did creates some secret doctrine you won't disclose that somehow changes the straightforward interpretation of what Christ said, or anything I wrote. If you see some kind of contradiction, feel free to share it.
I wouldn't call that 'antropology'. What is your objection to looking at the historical background to the debate? Their debates are either in the Mishneh Torah. This is the kind of stuff seminary students and grads look at on the topic. Do a search on Google scholar for 'Christ' 'Hillel' 'Shammai' and 'divorce'.
And it is also really clear from the context of Deuteronomy and Matthew 19 that the put away woman with a certificate is put away. And Jesus spoke of 'Whosoever shall put away his wife' as it says in the KJV. Whosoever means whosoever... unless you want to deny what the King James translation says.
Shaka when the walls fell.
What are you trying to say? What two sets of rules?
The KJV is against slandering brethren, too. You can't read my mind, but you are quick to make accusations.
The KJV supports well what Jesus said in the passage. I used the KJV2000B to preserve a Greek distinction that shows up in the KJV but not a lot of other translations, but doesn't obscure the verse with early 17th century grammar. Some people are unfamiliar with the earlier stage of English. I consider the KJV-only position to be an obviously stupid and ignorant doctrine, since the apostles clearly did not teach it and we are to hold to 'the faith once delivered to the saints.' It is clearly a doctrine that emerged after 1611 and was not an original teaching of the Christian faith. (Much later than 1611 of course.)
I personally like the KJV for its cadence, and I memorized this passage out of the KJV, so I have a vested interest in using it, but I used another translation out of consideration for others. Show me one thing the KJV2000B changes _in terms of doctrine_ when compared to the KJV of this passage.
Most people aren't Bible translators. The KJV says that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another commiteth adultery, also.
Quote me where I claimed piety above everyone else. Do you ever stop slandering and accusing? What is wrong with you? You aren't even making sense, and you are making things up? Who is being dishonest?
Name one dishonest thing I said in the whole thread.
Also, your response was rather pitiful and poorly thought out. You didn't address any of the issues. You referred to well known 'anthropology' of the day, but then don't share any sources or summarize it. How do I know that you arent' being dishonest by pretending you have some source you don't care to disclose when it doesn't exist?
But I don't accuse you of that because I have seen poor 'scholarship' on the topic online, and maybe you read that. I read some pseudoscholarship on the divorcehope website, where the author did admit he didn't know Greek, but went on in great detail to try to argue that the distinction in Greek words made it okay to divorce and remarry as long as you gave a certificate. But this is pure sophistry, as one can see by actually reading the passage in English in a translation (like the KJV, which does well in this case) which preserves the distinction between the words used in translation.
You can find what I wrote about Hillel and Shammai in the Mishneh or a great number of articles from Bible scholars or Christian Bible teachers with a Google search or a Google scholar search.
1
) 
