Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: The_Reader_David
Actually your take on marriage is demonstrably wrong in historical terms: Roman civil marriage was also monogamous and owed nothing to Jewish Scripture. It was Roman civil marriage, not Jewish marriage, which became the basis for Christian marriage.

Christianity came from Judaism, which was long before the Romans were even a ‘shot in the dark.’ Yeshua was a Jew and there is a reference to marriage in the Gospel (forgive me, I'm not a Christian and cannot recall the text).

Now, you may make the argument that the basis for Roman Catholic marriage (which some Christians would argue is of a pagan nature) is from the Roman pagan culture.

Adultery was certainly condoned and sanctioned for the male in Rome and in Greece, something the Judaic culture had forbid, despite their history of polygyny.

But, even so, the nature of marriage is biological, establishing who the parents were for inheritance. It is a creationist model nevertheless, as even the pagan Romans, pagan Greeks and other ancient pagan cultures were. It just so happens that marriage in this country is based on the Judaic model, otherwise we would not have adultery as legal grounds for a woman seeking a divorce.

37 posted on 01/01/2006 11:22:00 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]


To: Sir Francis Dashwood

Yes, Christianity came from Judaism, but Christian marriage came from Roman marriage. There was no Christian marriage rite copied or adapted from the Jewish rite. Indeed within the Empire the Church had no specific rite for marriage until the 9th century (again I don't know what the Latins outside the Empire did about this). Until then Christian marriages were as I described them: Roman civil marriages undertaken with the blessing of the bishop.

Christ's reference to marriage is not bounded or conditioned on the Jewish notion either--Jews were permitted both multiple wives and concubines, while Roman marriages were monogamous, albeit with the defect of concubinage as in institution--rather Christ refers to the natural institution in its ideal form.

Nor is there any point in separating 'Roman Catholic' from Christian here: I am discussing the state of Christian marriage before even the schism of the Nestorians from the Church, and even the institution of the 'rite of crowning' and the transfer of the registration of marriages to the Church took place before the schism of the Roman patriarchate from the Church.


39 posted on 01/01/2006 4:58:10 PM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson