The people were afraid and didnt have faith in God, despite all He had done for them. They were judged for their unbelief and consined to wander in the desert for 40 years. Not one of that generation entered into the land except for the scouts.
Repent of unbelief, or you too will not enter into His rest. Gods word is true.
Posted by: US-conscience
________________________________
Boy are you off track. Not even near the station. Best advice: Stick to your own book, the Christian Testament. Leave the Tanakh to those for whom it was intended and who can comprehend it. (Not you.)

You cannot even comprehend Crossan, one of your Christian compadres.

"ccnl writes: Farnaz,
You neglected to add the Professor Crossan reference that you copied and pasted"

I typed in the author's name at the closes of the article, assuming that among ccnl's single-celled co-religionist congregants of the Catholic New Testifiers (see C.Christian Nut-Louse, "The New in the New Testament": "The You in the New in the New Testament") would be some who could manage google. It was quite late when I posted, a foolhardy effort to save what remains of ccnl's dwindling protoplasm.

Considering ccnl's contempt for honesty, misrepresntation of sources, omissions of same when it suits it, I confess I'm pleasantly surprised he sought the help of a co-organism in locating the source of Crossan's publication.

Too bad, he can't comprehend the text.

Farnaz,

You neglected to add the Professor Crossan reference that you copied and pasted i.e.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/john_dominic_crossan/2007/07/back_to_greek_or_better_aramai.html

Considering your issues with being honest, please cite references in the future.

Additional thoughts on divorce and various scriptural references- as noted by some experts:

From http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?title=015_Against_Divorce

"In his discussion of ten key issues where the Dead Sea Scroll are relevant to historical Jesus studies ["Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls" in Doris Donnely (ed.), Jesus. A Colloquium in the Holy Land with James D.G. Dunn, et al. Continuum, 2001. Pp. 27-44], Harrington briefly considers Jesus' teaching "no divorce":

By the criteria of dissimilarity and multiple attestation, the prohibition of divorce belongs to the corpus of Jesus' authentic sayings. It went against Jewish practice and even against the permission of the Scriptures (Deut. 24:1-4), and it appears in Mark (10:2-12), Q (Luke 16:18 and Matt. 5:31-32), and 1 Corinthians (7:10-11).

Of course, one must take account of the exceptions introduced by Matthew (see Matt. 5:32 and 19:9) and Paul (see 1 Cor. 7:12-16).

One must also ask how Jesus intended this teaching to be taken---whether as an ideal, a legal principle, a protection for women, a temporary measure (in the face of the coming kingdom of God), or whatever else.

Nevertheless, it is fair to say that Jesus taught "no divorce."
After a brief reference to the well-known debates between the rabbinic traditions associated with Hillel, Shammai and Aqiba, Harrington (page 38f) cites two Qumran texts on the issue:

Damascus Document 4:20-5:6 declares that "taking a second wife while the first is alive" is fornication. ... The problem here, however, is that the topic at issue seems to be polygamy rather than divorce and remarriage, as the rest of the passage with its concern to explain David's several wives suggests.

The Temple Scroll (11QTemple) contains a long section about the king. With regard to marriage (57:15-19), the ideal king should marry within the royal household of Israel. The text goes on to say: "He shall not take another wife in addition to her, for she alone shall be with him all the time of her life."

Again the "no divorce" interpretation is problematic. The first problem is whether the directive applies to anyone beyond the king. And the second problem is whether it refers to polygamy on the king's part or to divorce and remarriage, though here the evidence for "no divorce" is stronger.

"I interpreted this lifesaving scripture as: if your husband leaves, let him! He doesn't believe, and you can't change him."

Doesn't believe in what? The Bible?

There is two sides in every divorce and dismissing the husband as an "unbeliever" is feminist and neochristian arrogance.

I was an "unbeliever" after 28 years in a marriage with the last six years of verbal and physical abuse from my wife (yes, men are physically abused, too, and some don't fight back because of how they were raised or fear of jail because, in a physical altercation, the husband almost always goes to jail).

The neochristian author typically implies that she had no fault in this divorce.

" The Scouts returned and reported what was up ahead. They had seen the future and the People followed them into it."

The people were afraid and didnt have faith in God, despite all He had done for them. They were judged for their unbelief and consined to wander in the desert for 40 years. Not one of that generation entered into the land except for the scouts.

Repent of unbelief, or you too will not enter into His rest. Gods word is true.

Abram was the son of Terach, an idol merchant, but from his early childhood, he questioned the faith of his father and sought the truth. He came to believe that the entire universe was the work of a single Creator, and he began to teach this belief to others.

Abram tried to convince his father, Terach, of the folly of idol worship. One day, when Abram was left alone to mind the store, he took a hammer and smashed all of the idols except the largest one. He placed the hammer in the hand of the largest idol. When his father returned and asked what happened, Abram said, "The idols got into a fight, and the big one smashed all the other ones." His father said, "Don't be ridiculous. These idols have no life or power. They can't do anything." Abram replied, "Then why do you worship them?"

Genesis Rabbah 38, Tanna Debei Eliyahu

Back to Greek or, Better, Aramaic?

If a religion changes, it may go wrong; if it does not, it must go wrong.
The reason is that change is an inevitable feature of life and conscious or deliberate change is a necessary feature of human life. Any living religion will change as it continues through history but, of course, a dead religion does not change. And, one of the ways you know a religion is dead or dying, is its refusal to change and/or its attempt to return were once it was.

Roman Catholic tradition is not exempt from change as the law of creation and creation’s God. But any religious tradition is carried by its religious community which make and remake each other in reciprocal interaction. Leaders may assist or resist that process but they cannot do it by will alone. The most serious delusion of leaders is to think that they alone are in sole charge of a community’s past, present, or future. It is ultimately the community—which is simply the incarnate and living tradition—that will determine what stays and what goes, what changes and what develops. And, for community, tradition, or hierarchy, it is ultimately impossible to hold back the inevitable future by returning to the abandoned past.

In terms of Roman Catholicism, our ancestors in faith began with Aramaic, changed to Greek, then tried Latin, and finally, moved into the various vernaculars. If we wish to revert to our linguistic origins, why just to Latin, why not to Aramaic with Jesus or Greek with the New Testament?

Finally, I suggest this meditation for Pope Benedict—courteously, of course, as one author of a Jesus-book to another.

When the People of God were on trek towards their Promised Land, they needed both a Leader and some Scouts. The Scouts went ahead and were the first to enter the Promised Land—although they did end up there on some surprising rooftops. The Scouts returned and reported what was up ahead. They had seen the future and the People followed them into it. But the Leader never made it into the Promised Land. He only glimpsed it from the peak of Pisgah and was buried in the midst of Moab.

John Dominic Crossan

From our continued studies of the New Catholic Testifiers, the cult founded by C.Christian Nut-Louse, we read:

"And I say unto you, once married, stay that way, no matter the consequences to health, particularly, your children's. After all, they grow up at some point, and who really cares what happens to them in the meantime???" (Nut-Louse: 34:12)

C. Christian Nut-Louse. You and the New in the New Testament. Antarctica: Antarctic UP, 1957.

Available in Bent Glacier, Antartica. Starting at 1.26. (ending at 1.32)

Contains information on why terrorism isn't so bad, how to brutalize Bahai, molest Muslims, debase Judaism, why divorce is unnecessary, child abuse not so abusive, the trinitarian question (mark), etc., based on the C.Christian Nut-Lousian reading.

Professor JD Crossan, an On Faith panelist and author of over 20 books on the historic Jesus, typically deals with what the historic Jesus really said. His conclusions are basically what was given previously in this thread.

Significantly more details can be found in one of his newer books,

"The Historical Jesus in Context" By Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison, John Dominic Crossan

From our continued studies of global religious cults we see different attitudes about divorce.

e.g. with regard to the Baha'ist cult:

"Baha'is believe marriage is a divine institution ordained by God and the foundation of a unified society. The key purpose of this union between a man and a woman -- beyond physical, spiritual and intellectual companionship -- is to procreate and raise children."

CCNL writes in his consistently charitable manner. What, I wonder, does Crossan say on divorce?

Might both of you profited from reading Matthew 19:6 and 19:9(King James Version) every morning of your marriage?:

"Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Matthew 19:9 (King James Version)

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and who so marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

Jesus' commentary about divorce has been rated authentic: i.e.

Against Divorce: (1) 1 Cor 7:10-11; (2) 1or2?Q: Luke 16:18 = Matt 5:31-32; (3) Mark 10:10-12 = Matt 19:9; (4) Herm. Man. 4.1:6b,10 multiple attestations from the first stratum, 30-60 CE

See http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?title=015_Against_Divorce for added information.