Christian Forums

Quote from: dallasapple on Tue Dec 08, 2009 - 13:31:48

Hey brother Im fine and dandy and thank you for asking and are you O.K this day?How is Laura tell her I said hey!

She says hey back 

QuoteIm as you know Im not divorced and remarried I have no reason to be offended personally at that preaching.Im offended for others .Its offensive to insinuate that married couples are in an adulterous relationship or that they have more than one husband or wife.(if they are divorced and remaried)

Thats the one thing that kills me when Im talking to a lot of people is that if they cant just prove their arguments they will try to turn the whole thing into that we're just trying to defend our own sin or whatever....like we cant be offended for others.

You know how much time and effort I put in the whole MDR thing, Im sure, so you can probably guess that Im personally not going to fall for the nonsense statements in the OP...like you Im more worried that someone else WILL become confused and do something wrong.

Not sure if you remember but at FL before the big change over there, there was a woman who came in and was having trouble in her second marriage and lastblast immediately pounced on this poor woman telling her the reason her marriage was failing was because she wasnt really married.
As far as I remember the woman didnt come back. Did she use that nonsense to divorce...or worse, does she live now thinking God hates her because shes remarried rather than just working on her marriage?

A horrid teaching in the OP can literally cause those who dont know better to simply STOP working on their marriage problems because if they buy the crap some dish out they'll believe that theyre marriage is doomed and CANT be fixed because supposely they are 'living in sin' with this person.

If some here cant figure out why I take offense at that sort of thing, I really dont know what to tell them...tho Im not really concerned if they cant or not. False teachings MUST be corrected for all to see.

Quote
Its also completely cruel and unreasonable to expect that if your spouse leaves you that you are to remain alone for the rest of your life.Or that both of you shoudl stay in a miserable realtionship allowing for  anything no matter what or divorce and remain single.

Whats funny about that one is that some in the church are doing EXACTLY what the hardhearted Jews did when they cast out a wife but refused to give her a writ, thus making it impossible for her to remarry.
Some professing Christs name do EXACTLY the same thing, but simply using this line that theyre still married to the former husband and so can never remarry.
its like Satans typical method....if he cant get in one way, he gets in another.

Quote
I witnessed a 21 year old girl being preached this.Her husband left her after a year or two of marriage and she was being told that she needed to remain single and pray for reconsciliation with her husband.FOREVER.I believe that is cruel .

Send her over our way, if you could.
We've had a number of brothers and sisters the last 4 years or so who have come around to the truth.
Even the one big preacher who lives in India whom Ive fought with for so long sent me a few emails telling me that he'd seen the light.
It was very comforting to know that he and others have come out of this godless marriage wrecking fallacy.

QuoteLove

Dallas

hope you have a great and SAFE holiday season, DA


[/quote]

Quote from: FoC on Sun Dec 06, 2009 - 23:48:34

Quote from: lightshineon on Sun Dec 06, 2009 - 23:30:03
Well FOC that was uplifting, and encouraging. Thanks for spreading your form of the fruit of joy, and kindness.

it wasnt meant to be uplifting.
It was meant to refute unscriptural error.

The OP isnt fooling me. This was just one more anti-remarriage hate rhetoric thread just like ten thousand others.
What was said COULD have been said about marriage without bringing the crap in that damns my remarriage to hell because SUPPOSEDLY Im still somehow 'married' to a wife put away for adultery.

If these people dont want to be corrected then let them start preaching truth instead of false doctrine.
.

That, by Christ's own words, is due solely to the hard hearts of those who do the putting away.

Quote from: FoC on Mon Dec 07, 2009 - 21:29:46

Quote from: farouk on Mon Dec 07, 2009 - 21:20:01
FoC:

Umm...the first poster simply mentions about the permanence of marriage in a God honoring way, and you use words like 'attacking'....

There IS NO permanence in marriage. It is an entirely conditional covenant that will not exist after these lives.
Gods intent is that it be for life...that does not make it 'permanent' by any means. Nor does scripture show that it is 'permanent'.
That is a fallacy created by those who do not know the scriptures.

.

Foc, you stated that you took permanence to be refering to continuance after this life.  Did the post state that meaning, or was it merely assumed on your part?  Permanence can easily be seen as solely applied to this life.  In context of the OP, that would be the natural meaning of it.  Did you leap to a conclusion?

Quote from: FoC on Sun Dec 06, 2009 - 23:48:34

Quote from: lightshineon on Sun Dec 06, 2009 - 23:30:03
Well FOC that was uplifting, and encouraging. Thanks for spreading your form of the fruit of joy, and kindness.

it wasnt meant to be uplifting.
It was meant to refute unscriptural error.

The OP isnt fooling me. This was just one more anti-remarriage hate rhetoric thread just like ten thousand others.
What was said COULD have been said about marriage without bringing the crap in that damns my remarriage to hell because SUPPOSEDLY Im still somehow 'married' to a wife put away for adultery.

If these people dont want to be corrected then let them start preaching truth instead of false doctrine.
.

This is where the statements of your attitude come from, Foc.  "Anti marriage hate rhetoric".  It would seemt that the OP is contrary to your statement, for it upholds it stronger than you seem to.  "the crap that damns my marriage" is simply more of that bad attitude.  It would seem that you are lashing out at those that hold a view from the Word that would condemn your position.  Whether or not the position that you don't hold is correct, your responds condemns you, for it reveals your attitude.  It is based upon self perception of a personal attack, for the other position sees yours as sin.  Obviously you can't handle that.  There is a huge difference between correction and being nasty. 

Quote from: son of God on Tue Dec 08, 2009 - 15:10:52
That, by Christ's own words, is due solely to the hard hearts of those who do the putting away.

Which is putting away 'for EVERY cause'....precisely what they ASKED Him about, friend.
Something we ALL would agree is 'hardhearted'.

Getting it yet ?

Quote from: son of God on Tue Dec 08, 2009 - 15:13:33

Foc, you stated that you took permanence to be refering to continuance after this life.  Did the post state that meaning, or was it merely assumed on your part?  Permanence can easily be seen as solely applied to this life.  In context of the OP, that would be the natural meaning of it.  Did you leap to a conclusion?

What leap did I need to make, poster?
The OP said what it did VERY clearly.
I even highlighted the parts that are unscriptural and still you seem unable to grasp the issue.

.

Quote from: lightshineon on Mon Dec 07, 2009 - 22:58:41

Quote from: FoC on Mon Dec 07, 2009 - 21:16:09

Quote from: son of God on Mon Dec 07, 2009 - 18:45:07
Foc sounds like others on this one in their words of unkindness.  The OP wasn't rude or derogatory.  The reply of foc was.  And it was based upon situational ethics. 

Sorry gent, but the OP was directly attacking EVERY second/third marriage in existence by telling us we are STILL married to our first spouse.
I see this nonsense 7 days a week...I know what is being said.

QuoteSame sort of reasoning, and thus the same sort of response.  No matter which side of the issue is taken, it doesn't take rocket science to see through the smoke screen.

When you can prove any attempts of my trying to smokescreen anything Im all eyes and ears, friend :)

FoC, now I did not see that as condemning to people in second or third marriages, where do you see commendation or false doctrine?

Yes, it is condemning of them, for it states that they sinned.  However, it was done civily. 

And your reply to post #38, foc?

Quote from: son of God on Tue Dec 08, 2009 - 15:19:15
This is where the statements of your attitude come from, Foc. 

(Part A) As I said, stop playing analyst, something no one here is being paid to do, and stick to the TOPIC at hand.  

Quote"Anti marriage hate rhetoric".  It would seemt that the OP is contrary to your statement, for it upholds it stronger than you seem to. 

Wrong.
The ONLY thing the OP does is cause those who ARE remarried to not take those vows seriously.
The OP and that teaching, thankfully, will be answering for EVERY marriage they help to destroy on that day.

Quote"the crap that damns my marriage" is simply more of that bad attitude.

See (Part A) of this post...

QuoteIt would seem that you are lashing out at those that hold a view from the Word that would condemn your position. 

I am exposing godless, marriage wrecking error. Of course that spiritless dogma is against my position.

Again, (see Part A)

This is my last response to you unless you can actually stick to the TOPIC

Quote from: son of God on Tue Dec 08, 2009 - 15:24:54
And your reply to post #38, foc?

I think youd better learn to hold your horses there hoss.
Im not required to respond to ANY of your posts, friend. I do so on my own good humor.
Secondly I was responding while you were typing this nonsense post, apparently...so again, youd better learn some patience.

Quote from: FoC on Tue Dec 08, 2009 - 10:19:09

Quote from: farouk on Tue Dec 08, 2009 - 09:51:43
FoC:

I think my case rests.

You may think it does, friend, but all youre doing is showing us that you cant read the OP and see exactly what it SAYS.

*IF* Im still married to my ex then what does that make THIS marriage Im in now ?


IT'S CALLED ADULTERY

Im either an adulterer or a polygamist.
How you are missing what the OP presents simply boggles the mind.

QuoteBut to be more specific, and reading between the lines, so to speak, you seem to be implying that unless your own circumstances are favorably covered by whatever ppl might write about the historic and time honored, Biblical idea of the permanence of marriage, ppl should not post about the subject.

Im sorry, did I SAY the OP wasnt allowed to post what they believe ?  No, I didnt.

I DID, however, point out the unscriptural fallacy therein.

THAT WAS BASED UPON YOUR PRESUPPOSITION, AS IS YOUR INTERPRETATION.  IT'S CALLED SITUATIONAL ETHICS.

And as previously stated, either you CAN refute what Ive presented regarding the OP.....or you CANNOT.

CAN.  BUT YOU DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE IT.  SO WHY BOTHER?

Given how many times youve posted in my direction in the matter now and how youve NOT refuted my position, I assume you cannot do so at this point.
In which case youre wasting both of our times here  

QuoteIf I'm not mistaken, this is more or less your underlying point.

I made my 'underlying point' VERY clear in my first post directed at the OP.

Quote from: FoC on Tue Dec 08, 2009 - 15:21:26

Quote from: son of God on Tue Dec 08, 2009 - 15:10:52
That, by Christ's own words, is due solely to the hard hearts of those who do the putting away.

Which is putting away 'for EVERY cause'....precisely what they ASKED Him about, friend.
Something we ALL would agree is 'hardhearted'.

Getting it yet ?

EVERY CAUSE includes adultery.  Or what dictionary do you use?

QuoteIT'S CALLED ADULTERY

Fallacious nonsense, chap.
Jesus Himself gave exception for sexual sin in the marriage.
Just using ONLY Christs words without even looking at the CONTEXT or anything else, MY marriage is not 'adultery' by Christs own words.
 

QuoteTHAT WAS BASED UPON YOUR PRESUPPOSITION, AS IS YOUR INTERPRETATION.  IT'S CALLED SITUATIONAL ETHICS.

Sorry friend, would you care to debate the MDR doctrine with me here ?
Feel free to offer your own 'interpretation' and we'll see if it stands up against the whole word of god....'situational ethics' entirely aside....we'll leave ALL personal detail out of the discussion entirely.
You game ?

QuoteCAN.  BUT YOU DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE IT.  SO WHY BOTHER?

Cant.
And I already know you cant because Ive spent the time in the study MYSELF and KNOW what the whole of scripture teaches in the matter of divorce and remarriage.

Feel free to present your case and  your evidence at any time, friend 

Quote from: son of God on Tue Dec 08, 2009 - 15:33:53
EVERY CAUSE includes adultery.  Or what dictionary do you use?

Oh brother.
No, friend, it doesnt.
They were asking if they were permitted to divorce for ANY and EVERY reason. THAT was what they were asking and that is what Hillel believed.

Jesus told them that divorcing to remarry EXCEPT for harlotry is to commit adultery against that wife.
Jesus' own words make exception for adultery NOT being committed when that man had put away his wife for sexual sin.
Also, Jesus made NO case for any second marriages being any preposterous 'state' of adultery, Im afraid.

Anything else ?

(Mat 5:31)  It was also said, Whoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce.

(Mat 5:32)  But I say to you that whoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry her who is put away commits adultery.

"except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery."  Why would it cause her to commit adulter in all the other situations?  Because divorce is adultery.  It causes them to commit adultery.  It doesn't state that they have to go have sexual relations after that to commit adultery, for some wouldn't do that.  It also doesn't state that they ahve to remarry to commit adultery, as some wouldn't do that, either.  It does state that for a person that is divorced who hasn't committed adultery to cause the divorce, divorcing them causes them to commit adultery.  It has made them an adulterer.  The person divorced because of adultery is already an adulterer.  Pretty simple, that.  So it would be impossible to make them an adulterer if they are already and adulterer.  That's pretty simple, too.  So no matter how you cut it, a divorced person has commited adultery, either delliberately and that's why they were divorced, or undeliberately by being divorced.  Even the law of Moses had sacrifices for the sins commited unintentionally.  It's just like the kid that accidentally broke the window: "I didn't mean to break the window!"  But the window is still broken, and they are still the ones that broke it, and the window cannot be made as it was: the glass is all shattered and cannot be melted back to it's original state.  It's broken.  The divorced person is made to commit adultery, by Christ's own words.

"And whoever shall marry her who is put away commits adultery."  It doesn't state "and whoever shall marry her who is put away because she committed adultery, commits adultery", does it?  It simply states that whoever marries the person put away, commits adultery.  Pretty simple, that.  It doesn't take a doctorate in sentence structure to see this.  We were taught sentence diagraming in junior high.  But then again, that wasn't in the US and Europe, which sadly lacks much of the world in basic grammatical understanding.  "My people perish for lack of understanding."  It's interesting how the position of the church has changed from what it was for centuries, and that change is coincidental with the extreme divorce and divorce/remarriage rate.  Perhaps it is correct whent he Word states that "every man does what is right in his own eyes, but the end of it is death."  And no wonder the unsaved don't listen much to us: why should they?  Christians have the same track record, but are more than conquerors.  Perhaps Christians do have a different dictionary, for many lives don't fit the defnition of "conqueror", let alone "MORE than conquerors".  Perhaps there is a problem with mainstream Christendom.  Perhaps we should look at the pudding and see the proof?

(Mar 10:10)  And in the house His disciples asked Him again about the same.

(Mar 10:11)  And He said to them, Whoever shall put away his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.

(Mar 10:12)  And if a woman shall put away her husband and marries to another, she commits adultery.


Simple, isn't it?  Remarriage is adultery.

Quote from: son of God on Tue Dec 08, 2009 - 15:51:24
(Mar 10:10)  And in the house His disciples asked Him again about the same.

(Mar 10:11)  And He said to them, Whoever shall put away his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.

(Mar 10:12)  And if a woman shall put away her husband and marries to another, she commits adultery.


Simple, isn't it?  Remarriage is adultery.

Firstly, gent, Mark 10 there and Matthew 19 record the SAME event...so what was said in one account was said in the other....ie the exception applies to BOTH...


The accounts in Mark 10 and Matthew 19 are refering to the same event
concerning Jesus and the pharisees on divorce.
By WmTipton

Assertions/conclusions of this article
We assert here that Matt 19 and Mark 19 both record the same event with Jesus speaking to the pharisee's about divorce

Supporting Evidence
Some claim that since Matthew was written to Jews and Mark to gentiles that the exception clause applies to the jewish betrothal period (the many greatly varied claims of the diverse doctrines on this matter are very hard to keep track of).

We will show here that both accounts are one and the same and were spoken to ALL.
Jesus did not give exception due to custom, Jesus gave exception due to sexual sin.

The details and their precision are proof that the accounts in Mark 10 and Matthew 19 are speaking of the same occurance.

QuoteMatthew 19

19:1  Jesus leaves Galilee and goes to coasts of  Judea.
Pharisees tempt Him with divorce

19:13 Little children are brought to Him

19:16 ''what may I do to have eternal life''

19:24 Camel/ eye of needle

19:29 whoever has lost for the sake of the kingdom will recieve a hundredfold

QuoteMark 9
Jesus passes thru Galilee (as above)

9:30 "And they departed thence, and passed through Galilee; and he would not that any man should know it.
(Mar 9:30 KJV)


Mark 10.
10:1 Jesus leaves Galilee (as in Matt 19) and goes to the coasts of Judea and is tempted by the pharisee's about divorce.

10:13 Little children are brought to Him

10:17 "what shall I do to inherit eternal life"

10:25 Camel/ eye of needle

10:30 whoever has lost for the sake of the kingdom will recieve a hundredfold

In both accounts the series of events are identical.Jesus leaves Galilee and goes to the coasts of JudeaThere He is tempted by the pharisees concerning divorceLittle children are brought to HImHe is asked ''what can I do to have eternal life''whoever has lost for the sake of the kingdom will recieve a hundredfold


The EXACT details of this shows that both of these are the SAME instance in Mark 10 and Matthew 19.
Whatever Jesus said here was said to ALL that He was teaching. There was not one story for the Jews and one to the Gentiles. Jesus was speaking to the JEWs in Mark 10, just as He was in Matt 19.

Whatever Jesus was teaching in Matthew 19 was surely being said in the Mark 10 passage as the evidence proves it is the same occurance of this confrontation with the pharisees.

Mark seemingly just did not feel the need to record the exception clause for one reason or another.
The fact that whoredom has ALWAYS been a breach of the marriage covenant may have been why Mark did not think it necessary to record what Jesus clearly had said to His jewish audience . He may have just figured ''everyone knows that'' and not felt the need to record it, the fact is we dont know.
What we DO know, however, is that both of these passages ARE refering to the same incidence and unless Matthhew was a liar, Jesus DID make His exception that day to the pharisees.
When Jesus taught, He taught His teachings for ALL men to follow, not one set of rules for one set of customs and another for another. Jesus was God, He didnt need to custom tailor His teachings to fit MANS customs.

Why exactly Mark did not record the exception clause is conjecture altogether. Some like to pretend they know why Mark failed to mention the exception clause, but there are also those who pretend to have some insight into the ''seven thunders'' in Revelation.

There is not a shred of evidence anywhere in the bible that shows that it was for any particular reason....Mark simply did not record it. We know there are differences in other accounts between gospels, including the angels at the empty tomb. ...these differences arent written differently for different peoples/cultures, they are simply each mans perspective on the matter he is speaking about. He recorded the details as he knew or remembered them.

Those who teach that the exception clause was only in Matthew for the express reason of it being FOR the Jews over their betrothal customs are in truth telling YOU to accept one of two lies....either 1) Matthew INTENTIONALLY added to Jesus words for this custom; OR, 2) Mark INTENTIONALLY omitted the exception clause for the gentiles.

Now I ask, do ANY of you believe that Matthew OR Mark would INTENTIONALLY CHANGE Jesus words over Jewish customs ? Most likely it was simply like the different accounts of the angels at the empty tomb....each man was writing the details as he thought them to be...from his own perspective.

We dont hear the anti-remarriage camp going on about how Marks followers were taught one story about the angels at the empty tomb and Matthews another...they only make the exception to pull this type of stunt on this one issue.

This is just another preposterous claim by some to keep from just accepting the FACT that Jesus did indeed, agreeing with the whole of the scriptures on the marriage covenant, agree that sexual immorality by a wife is just cause for her dismissal.

(1Co 7:11)  But if she is indeed separated, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to leave his wife.


Simple, isn't it?  Either remain separated, or be reconciled to spouse.  Marrying another after separation is sin.

And divorce isn't separation.  Even our legal system knows this.  So does the dictionary.  Does the church?  It doesn't seem like it.  Divorce is worse than separation.  From the beginning God made them one.  Than Christ says that what God has made one, man is not to separate.  But the church does.  And then joins to another.  But from the beginning it was not so.  Why is it so now?  Why?

Quote from: son of God on Tue Dec 08, 2009 - 15:49:12
(Mat 5:31)  It was also said, Whoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce.

(Mat 5:32)  But I say to you that whoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry her who is put away commits adultery.

And THERE you go....condition whereby adultery ISNT committed upon remarriage.
So your previous blanket assertion is invalid to say the least.

Quote"except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery."  Why would it cause her to commit adulter in all the other situations?  Because divorce is adultery.  It causes them to commit adultery. 

Wrong gent.
The word used for 'causes her to commit adultery' is NOT the same as the other instances.
ALL of the others are in the Present Indicative, where she is 'caused' to commit adultery (supposedly) is in the aorist. NOT the same tense as ANY Of the other instances and thus NOT the same exact intent.



Matthew 5:32a - "Causes her to commit adultery"
By WmTipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article

In this writing we will show that in Matthew 5:32 that the husband who has put his wife away, does not cause her to 'commit adultery' as many bibles are interpreted as, including the KJV. The Greek in each other instance literally means to 'commit adultery' in the present tense, but in Matthew 5:32 where he 'causes' her to commit adultery, the the base word is the same, but the suffix shows that it is in the aorist sense (past tense) and the word means 'to be adultered' instead of to 'commit adultery'.

Supporting Evidence

Lets look at 'commits adultery' in a few passages, shall we?

QuoteBut I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
(Mat 5:32)

(in part A where he "causeth her

Quote from: son of God on Tue Dec 08, 2009 - 15:49:12
"And whoever shall marry her who is put away commits adultery."  It doesn't state "and whoever shall marry her who is put away because she committed adultery, commits adultery", does it?  It simply states that whoever marries the person put away, commits adultery.  Pretty simple, that.

Too bad its PART of the REST of the statement and you dont get to rip out a sentence or PART of a sentence out of its original context.

you certainly dont think Im fool enough to fall for this , Id hope.

I agree that it is the same account.  It would appear to be rather plain.  I also agree that the more stringent statement overrule the general ones, to use those words to get the point accross.  It's just like in diagrams or law: the more detailed statement or drawing always defines the general or "ambiguous" ones.  This is commons sense.

We differ on the understanding of the passage.  We both think it simple statements for the way we see it.  This is also civil discussion.  Thank you.

Quote from: son of God on Tue Dec 08, 2009 - 15:57:18
(1Co 7:11)  But if she is indeed separated, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to leave his wife.


Simple, isn't it?  Either remain separated, or be reconciled to spouse.  Marrying another after separation is sin.

And divorce isn't separation.  Even our legal system knows this.  So does the dictionary.  Does the church?  It doesn't seem like it.  Divorce is worse than separation.  From the beginning God made them one.  Than Christ says that what God has made one, man is not to separate.  But the church does.  And then joins to another.  But from the beginning it was not so.  Why is it so now?  Why?

Oh gee....I guess you got a point there.

Oh wait..there are TWO groups there Paul is speaking to.
One WITH command from the Lord who are equally yoked
And the second WITHOUT command from the Lord who are UNequally yoked....hmmm


"Remain Unmarried or reconcile

Quote from: son of God on Tue Dec 08, 2009 - 16:01:02
I also agree that the more stringent statement overrule the general ones,

Nice try ;-)
We dont pit scripture AGAINST scripture....ie the one that sounds the worst is the right one....
We HARMONIZE the scriptures into a coherent whole.
I dont study like you apparently do...therefore  agreement is impossible between us.

Quote
to use those words to get the point accross.  It's just like in diagrams or law: the more detailed statement or drawing always defines the general or "ambiguous" ones.  This is commons sense.

WRong.
EVERY word has meaning and intent where doctrinal statements are given. One is not more powerful than another. They MUST BE HARMONIZED to grasp the full and exact intent.

After seeing this, Im personally convinced that this man doesn't cause her to 'commit adultery' as in the other uses of the phrase, but I believe Jesus is simply assigning guilt to this man who has frivolously cast his wife aside by telling him that he has caused her to be 'adultered' (not committing adultery present tense, but past tense 'adultered' just as the greek actually presents )

Adding to this thought, I personally believe, based on the evidence above (going to the GREEK as God 'intended'), that this man does not 'cause her to commit adultery' present tense by putting her away as some believe, but that he simply causes her a state of having been 'adultered' by his actions, past tense (aorist).

This is where I have issue with your position: "Im personally convinced".  How is that the basis for a stance?  Muslims are personally convinced that they do God service for killing you.  Paul was very personally convinced that he was doing God service for killing Christians.  But that is not an acceptable stance.  Could you give any other scripture for your position?

Also, NT Greek is an extinct language, in that none know how it was actually spoken.  It was not passed down in that state to where we have it now.  Our understanding of it is completely reverse engineered, which is problematic.  There are many scholars that don't even agree on the basics of NT Greek: how is was pronounced, how sentence structure is understood, the grammatical "rules", etc..  Why?  Because all the rules of grammar, etc., are derived by scholars, who have their own beliefs going into it.  And which Greek texts were you using?  There are vast variations.  I could pick a handful that would tie your undies in a knot.  It still comes down to the previous statements, which are yet to be ascertained.

Quote from: FoC on Tue Dec 08, 2009 - 16:04:32

Quote from: son of God on Tue Dec 08, 2009 - 16:01:02
I also agree that the more stringent statement overrule the general ones,

Nice try ;-)
We dont pit scripture AGAINST scripture....ie the one that sounds the worst is the right one....
We HARMONIZE the scriptures into a coherent whole.
I dont study like you apparently do...therefore  agreement is impossible between us.

Quote
to use those words to get the point accross.  It's just like in diagrams or law: the more detailed statement or drawing always defines the general or "ambiguous" ones.  This is commons sense.

WRong.
EVERY word has meaning and intent where doctrinal statements are given. One is not more powerful than another. They MUST BE HARMONIZED to grasp the full and exact intent.

You missed the whole point of the first statement.  Let me reword it: the more stringent clarifies the less definitive.  If that still caffudles, let me know and I will reword it again, hopefully making myself clearer on it.

Many scholars have different opinions that Thayer.  That's why there's so many different lexicons out there.  Pick one to suit your fancy.  Go back to an old thread of mine titled "syntax".  Perhaps understanding the basics would be helpful.  Limiting yourself to accidence is quite problematic.  When accidence is used to determine syntax, as you have done, any passage can be used for any position on anything.  When you have researched this long enough to utilize it, come back and discuss with me.  That would be profitable for both of us, no matter the positions we hold.

Quote from: son of God on Tue Dec 08, 2009 - 16:09:20

This is where I have issue with your position:

And it doesnt matter if you have issue with it or not.
Ive presented FACTUAL evidence that the word in this ONE instance IS different from ALL of the others.

Quote"Im personally convinced".  How is that the basis for a stance? 

Oh please.
YOU are 'personally convinced' of EVERY single thing you 'know' and 'believe' gent...dont throw rocks in your glass house here.

Quote from: son of God on Tue Dec 08, 2009 - 16:11:17
You missed the whole point of the first statement.  Let me reword it: the more stringent clarifies the less definitive.  If that still caffudles, let me know and I will reword it again, hopefully making myself clearer on it.

No, the HARMONY of the WHOLE defines EVERY individual statement.
Which is why many will never come to the WHOLE truth...theyre too busy straining at gnats to see the full picture.

My friend, I haven't thrown anything yet.  It is the person who uses the words perviously quoted from you that is throwing things.  Remember those words?  I quoted them from you, and they were uncivil.  Others saw this, too.  Until there is a change in this underlying stance, perhaps we both waste our time?

Ciao.

Quote from: son of God on Tue Dec 08, 2009 - 16:14:23
Many scholars have different opinions that Thayer.

Irrelevant.
I didnt only present the Thayer but also included material from interlinear bibles which show that the tense IS different in Matthew 5:32a

QuoteThat's why there's so many different lexicons out there.  Pick one to suit your fancy.

No, I pick MANY and use most of the material I can find. I trust NO one mans word for anything.
Most of what Ive seen shows that Matthew 5:32a is in a different tense than the others thus it IS showing something not quite the same as the others are.

QuoteGo back to an old thread of mine titled "syntax". 

It is of no interest or consequence on my part.

Quote
Perhaps understanding the basics would be helpful.  Limiting yourself to accidence is quite problematic.  When accidence is used to determine syntax, as you have done, any passage can be used for any position on anything.  When you have researched this long enough to utilize it, come back and discuss with me.  That would be profitable for both of us, no matter the positions we hold.

laughable.
Ive given you my position and Ive supported the position with the work of scholars.
Im hardly interested in any dodges you have to offer in some other thread.

Quote from: son of God on Tue Dec 08, 2009 - 16:25:27
My friend, I haven't thrown anything yet.  It is the person who uses the words perviously quoted from you that is throwing things.  Remember those words?  I quoted them from you, and they were uncivil.  Others saw this, too.  Until there is a change in this underlying stance, perhaps we both waste our time?

Was Jesus worried about 'tone', friend ?
EVEN IF my tone is what you claim it certainly should not be used by you as an excuse to not expose my false doctrine (?) here for everyone to see.

If it is waste of time, it is simply because one of us has the overwhelming evidence from scripture on his side....

.

Quote from: son of God on Tue Dec 08, 2009 - 15:57:18
(1Co 7:11)  But if she is indeed separated, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to leave his wife.


Simple, isn't it?  Either remain separated, or be reconciled to spouse.  Marrying another after separation is sin.

And divorce isn't separation.  Even our legal system knows this.  So does the dictionary.  Does the church?  It doesn't seem like it.  Divorce is worse than separation.  From the beginning God made them one.  Than Christ says that what God has made one, man is not to separate.  But the church does.  And then joins to another.  But from the beginning it was not so.  Why is it so now?  Why?

The only thing simple here is that you have a comprehension problem with the English language.

There is a reason why the KJV translators chose the words 'put away' instead of divorce in this context.

Put away != divorce.

If I were to 'put away' my wife and marry another.. indeed I would be sinning.

If I were to 'divorce' my wife and marry another.. I would not be sinning.

Big difference... its amazing how many people think they can rip the bible out of the cultural context of when it was written and try and yoke people with false doctrines.. you should be ashamed of yourself.

Quote from: son of God on Tue Dec 08, 2009 - 16:26:06
Ciao.

its really ok SoG....there was no hope of you convincing me that 6000+ hours of study on the matter of marriage from Gods word was all in vain.
I have to admit, however, that you gave up quicker than most .

.