A Christian is keep repeating this, please answer.

[submit]

in conclusion, you are saying Moses issued a new method in dealing with adultery in cases of when witnesses cant be accounted for.
1) as stoning no longer viable
2) divorce certificate (for 1st husband , for 2nd husband knew, for 3rd husband, and con't with any future husbands shall they knew about indecency)

it still contradicts because in a Greek chapter about Jesus, which is Mat 5:32.
After mentioning about divorce certificate, it continues with whoever marries a divorced woman who had been sent away commits adultery. And in Deut 24:3 the new husband is not commiting any adultery under the permission of Moses even until he dies. And after new husband dies, the divorced woman is still allowed to remarry under the permission of Moses as long as not with 1st husband.

[thetruthseeker]

in conclusion, you are saying Moses issued a new method in dealing with adultery in cases of when witnesses cant be accounted for.
1) as stoning no longer viable
2) divorce certificate (for 1st husband , for 2nd husband knew, for 3rd husband, and con't with any future husbands shall they knew about indecency)

it still contradicts because in a Greek chapter about Jesus, which is Mat 5:32.
After mentioning about divorce certificate, it continues with whoever marries a divorced woman who had been sent away commits adultery. And in Deut 24:3 the new husband is not commiting any adultery under the permission of Moses even until he dies. And after new husband dies, the divorced woman is still allowed to remarry under the permission of Moses as long as not with 1st husband.

I have tried to explain in great detail several times. I don't know how else to put it for you to understand. Perhaps read over my posts again. Thanks for the conversation.

[submit]

Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 mentions specifically about remarriage = adultery. So the explanation of no longer 2 flesh in 1 doesnt apply there.

And if you read 5:31-32. You will know that 5:31 means divorce due displease towards wife. Followed by the word BUT in the following line. The word BUT here is to show contradiction to previous line as divorce was carried out due to displease towards wife. Not due to sexual immorality.

If divorce in 5:31 was due to sexual immorality, 5:32 will be redundant in meaning certainly its a contradiction hence the use of word BUT

[thetruthseeker]

Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 mentions specifically about remarriage = adultery. So the explanation of no longer 2 flesh in 1 doesnt apply there.

And if you read 5:31-32. You will know that 5:31 means divorce due displease towards wife. Followed by the word BUT in the following line. The word BUT here is to show contradiction to previous line as divorce was carried out due to displease towards wife. Not due to sexual immorality.

If divorce in 5:31 was due to sexual immorality, 5:32 will be redundant in meaning certainly its a contradiction hence the use of word BUT

As I said, I have tried to explain in great detail several times. I don't know how else to put it for you to understand. Perhaps read over my posts again. Thanks for the conversation and I will not be responding again as I don't see a point after posts I have given you.

[submit]

Im just sharing some new knowledge with you that Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 disagrees with Mat5:32 about 2 flesh in 1 can be broken like you proclaim.

Even in the event of wife committing adultery, Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 disallowed divorce and abolish the permission to divorce.

In Mat 5:32 its totally different situation as divorce is allowed if its due to adultery. But in Mat 5:31, the application of divorce certificate was not solely due to adultery hence the  word  BUT was used in the beginning of Mat 5:32

[thetruthseeker]

Im just sharing some new knowledge with you that Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 disagrees with Mat5:32 about 2 flesh in 1 can be broken like you proclaim.

Even in the event of wife committing adultery, Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 disallowed divorce and abolish the permission to divorce.

In Mat 5:32 its totally different situation as divorce is allowed if its due to adultery. But in Mat 5:31, the application of divorce certificate was not solely due to adultery hence the  word  BUT was used in the beginning of Mat 5:32

All the gospels agree. As Christians, we do not separate these scriptures to have different meanings. Just because Mark and Luke do not mention "except for the cause of sexual immorality" doesn't mean we ignore what Matthew said. This is not proper exegesis of scripture. Not every New Testament writer included everything Jesus said which is why we must look at them all. There are differences between the gospel writers, some add more details, some leave some details out, but it does not change the message.

That is right, that the divorce certificate was not solely due to adultery and I understand what you are saying by the word "but". The Jews knew that Moses allowed divorce for "improper behavior". They would divorce her for any reason they considered to be improper behavior. This is why He says, "Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce." Jesus knew that this is what they were doing. Using "improper behavior" to mean anything. Then Jesus says, BUT I SAY, (divorcing for any reason you consider to be improper behavior is not what God wants). The improper behavior that God considers to be improper enough for divorce is adultery.

The case of divorce was not any law of Moses, or of God by him; but only a permission, because of the hardness of the hearts of the Jews: and as to the controversy, about the causes of divorce, this was not debated by them of old time, but was a new thing, just started in the time of Christ; and was a controversy then, between the schools of Hillell and Shammai: one allowing it upon any frivolous cause; the other, only on account of adultery.

Do you see what I am saying? I hope this makes it clear.

[thetruthseeker]

Im just sharing some new knowledge with you that Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 disagrees with Mat5:32 about 2 flesh in 1 can be broken like you proclaim.

Even in the event of wife committing adultery, Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 disallowed divorce and abolish the permission to divorce.

In Mat 5:32 its totally different situation as divorce is allowed if its due to adultery. But in Mat 5:31, the application of divorce certificate was not solely due to adultery hence the  word  BUT was used in the beginning of Mat 5:32

And may I also add, that of the two schools, Shammai and Hillel, one interpreted "some uncleanness" to mean adultery and the other interpreted it to include anything the wife did that was offensive. Obviously, one of them had it right for a reason and viewed it to be only mean adultery.

The one legitimate ground of divorce allowed was "some uncleanness"—in other words, conjugal infidelity. But while one school of interpreters (that of Shammai) explained this quite correctly, as prohibiting divorce in every case save that of adultery, another school (that of Hillel) stretched the expression so far as to include everything in the wife offensive or disagreeable to the husband. And, indeed, to this day the Jews allow divorces on the most frivolous pretexts. It was to meet this that Jesus said: "But I say to you, That whoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery: and whoever shall marry her that is divorced commits adultery."

[submit]

Greek chapters in Mark and Luke is quite specific that 2 flesh in 1 will never broke (Mark10:8-9) hence even if wife commit adultery, divorce was not warranted and shall one were to marry the divorced wife its considered adultery.

But in Matt 5:32 its in disagreement to Mark 10:8-9. As you said, 2 flesh in 1 had been broken due to act of adultery. Thus remarriage is allowed in the case of adultery. But in Mark and Luke, divorce+remarriage is forbid.

As for the Jewish schools, they interpret it as adultery, displeased of behavior or appearance.
 And if you look at Matt 5:31 is obviously referring to the interpretation of School of Hillel being the proper usage of it. And Jesus reemphasize with the word BUT to only do divorce in case of adultery.

[thetruthseeker]

Greek chapters in Mark and Luke is quite specific that 2 flesh in 1 will never broke (Mark10:8-9) hence even if wife commit adultery, divorce was not warranted and shall one were to marry the divorced wife its considered adultery.

But in Matt 5:32 its in disagreement to Mark 10:8-9. As you said, 2 flesh in 1 had been broken due to act of adultery. Thus remarriage is allowed in the case of adultery. But in Mark and Luke, divorce+remarriage is forbid.

As for the Jewish schools, they interpret it as adultery, displeased of behavior or appearance.
 And if you look at Matt 5:31 is obviously referring to the interpretation of School of Hillel being the proper usage of it. And Jesus reemphasize with the word BUT to only do divorce in case of adultery.

I'm sorry, but you are not interpreting the scriptures correctly and I just explained why there is a difference between Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Again, I have explained repeatedly. I guess we will agree to disagree on this matter and move on.

Have a wonderful day!

[submit]

they were different authors from different locations. Disagreement can happen.

Secondly, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 will be read in different manner from your p.o.v.
 Basically Moses is writing permission about an adulteress to remarry and she even get issued divorce certificates couple of times due to adultery based on your quote from School of Shammai being correct meaning.
That means in 24:3 her new husband began to dislike her as he caught the adulteress in indecency. So the new husband issues another divorce certificate based on the interpretation of School of Shammai.
But then again, the 1st husband is not allowed to remarry. Shouldn't the 1st husband be allowed to marry the adulteress as the concept of 2 in 1 flesh had been broken. That is why the purpose here is to shows that Moses and Jesus were in disagreement if you were to read how Jesus spoke about Moses making his permission in the past.