09/28/2012

NEXT POST
Divorce Law That it regulates the law of the divorce. The doctor Alfred Edersheim affirms that the Jewish legislation allowed to the divorce for almost all the reasons. The divorce was very common in those days, between the Jews. Jesus, in this declaration, was limiting the reasons that led to the divorce. Already we saw that the followers of the school of Hiller found that they could be divorced its women indiscriminately: it was enough not to prepare a good food, to put much salt in the soup, or simply not to find so pretty how much in the day knew that it. In hypothesis some Jesus argued the validity of the rule mosaic. It said: ' ' Also he was dito' ' , mentioning the law to it of Moiss (Dt 24,1-4). ' ' I, however, say ' to you; ' in this expression it was making restrictions, as speech made many times in this exactly, in regards to the law. The law did not leave the reason clearly for the divorce. The expression ' ' thing indecente' ' it is much vacant. The men, therefore, had invented many arrangements, using Dt 24,1 to consubstanciar its peculiar interpretations. The law left clearly that the divorce is the dissolution of the marriage bond. The bases for the divorce had been of interminable debates between rabbis during all the Temple as subjects period. If the divorce had been total revoked, would be registered, in this ticket or any another part of the New Will, however this was not registered. It says the Theological Historical Encyclopedia of the Christian Church: ' ' If Jesus was introducing some radically new thing, would wait that this was left claro' '.
PREVIOUS POST
Wedge Pepper Safe from the Casualties of Passengers can in such a way be made in as well as private the public scope, this has for objective the indemnity of accidents occurred to the passengers of the vehicle, and possesss with main guarantees the death and permanent invalidity; other guarantees; expenditures health care, amongst others. 3.2. Of the direct action of the victim against the insurer This question tries controversy in some countries sufficiently, in the foreign law diverse is the positionings on the subject, the legislaes if they shock when dealing with the text of possibilities, some legislators understand that the possibility of the victim exists yes to directly file a suit action in face of the insurer, others understand that the victim will have to petition action in face of the insured and the insurer in set, as well as other legislators has a more restricted vision, where they initially allow the victim to file a suit the insured and later the insurer to be called deals. Melisa Wedge Pepper cites in its workmanship some examples of the boarded subject in the legislaes of the foreign law. In the Dutch right, in the Portuguese and Mexican legislation the victim will be able to directly interpose action in face of the insurer and indemnified being, in the law of Spain is the criterion of the victim, being able to set in motion the insured or the insurer, as well as to file a suit action against both. No longer Equator exists norms that forbid the possibility of the victim to petition direct action in face of the insurer. 6 In Brazil does not exist devices that forbid or allow the interposition of direct action of the victim in face of the insurer in the safe from civil liability, but already exists...

Recent Comments