|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 11/26/2008 9:46:38 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3631
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
Well then Mr. Greek scholar, what does "pas" mean in Greek if not "everyone"?
SealedEternal
First, I am hardly a Greek scholar, just a student.
Second, if I provide you sources that discount the erroneous claims made about Πᾱς, are you willing to acknowledge the error and move on, or is this going to be another "it couldn't possibly be wrong argument". For the record, the claim made is that Πᾱς can grammatically only refer to "everyone" without any possibility of exception. While most scholars recognize that it CAN be understood that way, none that I know would insist that it MUST be understood that way. So, if you want to offer this up as a possible understanding of the passage, I will accept that. If you insist that the Greek in this passage requires that this be the only understanding of this passage, I ask you provide a reference from a recognized Greek scholar that supports this claim. If you agree to disregard the arguments that you cannot support, I will provide you with references that do support the claims I have made, but I am not willing to waste my time providing references if it will make absolutely no difference anyway.
< Message edited by benelchi -- 11/26/2008 9:54:33 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 11/26/2008 9:55:41 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1192
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
Well then Mr. Greek scholar, what does "pas" mean in Greek if not "everyone"?
SealedEternal
First, I am hardly a Greek scholar, just a student.
Second, if I provide you sources that discount the erroneous claims made about Ðᾱò, are you willing to acknowledge the error and move on, or is this going to be another "it couldn't possibly be wrong argument". For the record, the claim made is that Ðᾱò can grammatically only refer to "everyone" without any possibility of exception. While most scholars recognize that it CAN be understood that way, none that I know would insist that it MUST be understood that way. So, if you want to offer this up as a possible understanding of the passage, I will accept that. If you insist that the Greek in this passage requires that this be the only understanding of this passage, I ask you provide a reference from a recognized Greek scholar that supports this claim. If you agree to disregard the arguments that you cannot support, I will provide you with references that do support the claims I have made, but if I am not willing to waste my time providing references if it will make absolutely no difference anyway.
If it doesn't mean "everyone" then why is it always translated as such? And what do you claim the word means?
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 11/26/2008 10:01:47 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3631
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
Well then Mr. Greek scholar, what does "pas" mean in Greek if not "everyone"?
SealedEternal
First, I am hardly a Greek scholar, just a student.
Second, if I provide you sources that discount the erroneous claims made about Ðᾱò, are you willing to acknowledge the error and move on, or is this going to be another "it couldn't possibly be wrong argument". For the record, the claim made is that Ðᾱò can grammatically only refer to "everyone" without any possibility of exception. While most scholars recognize that it CAN be understood that way, none that I know would insist that it MUST be understood that way. So, if you want to offer this up as a possible understanding of the passage, I will accept that. If you insist that the Greek in this passage requires that this be the only understanding of this passage, I ask you provide a reference from a recognized Greek scholar that supports this claim. If you agree to disregard the arguments that you cannot support, I will provide you with references that do support the claims I have made, but if I am not willing to waste my time providing references if it will make absolutely no difference anyway.
If it doesn't mean "everyone" then why is it always translated as such? And what do you claim the word means?
SealedEternal
Let me repeat myself, "If you agree to disregard the arguments that you cannot support, I will provide you with references that do support the claims I have made, but if I am not willing to waste my time providing references if it will make absolutely no difference anyway."
Have you agreed to disregard those arguments for which you cannot find any scholarly support?
In this case, are you willing to accept that there are other grammatically valid interpretations of the Luke 16 passage?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 11/26/2008 10:05:52 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1192
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
Well then Mr. Greek scholar, what does "pas" mean in Greek if not "everyone"?
SealedEternal
First, I am hardly a Greek scholar, just a student.
Second, if I provide you sources that discount the erroneous claims made about Ðᾱò, are you willing to acknowledge the error and move on, or is this going to be another "it couldn't possibly be wrong argument". For the record, the claim made is that Ðᾱò can grammatically only refer to "everyone" without any possibility of exception. While most scholars recognize that it CAN be understood that way, none that I know would insist that it MUST be understood that way. So, if you want to offer this up as a possible understanding of the passage, I will accept that. If you insist that the Greek in this passage requires that this be the only understanding of this passage, I ask you provide a reference from a recognized Greek scholar that supports this claim. If you agree to disregard the arguments that you cannot support, I will provide you with references that do support the claims I have made, but if I am not willing to waste my time providing references if it will make absolutely no difference anyway.
If it doesn't mean "everyone" then why is it always translated as such? And what do you claim the word means?
SealedEternal
Let me repeat myself, "If you agree to disregard the arguments that you cannot support, I will provide you with references that do support the claims I have made, but if I am not willing to waste my time providing references if it will make absolutely no difference anyway."
Have you agreed to disregard those arguments for which you cannot find any scholarly support?
In this case, are you willing to accept that there are other grammatically valid interpretations of the Luke 16 passage?
First of all, I asked you to explain what you think the word means. Secondly I can support that it means "everyone" because all literal translations of the Bible render it that way and you agreed that it was a valid translation of the text.
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 11/26/2008 10:10:55 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3631
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
Well then Mr. Greek scholar, what does "pas" mean in Greek if not "everyone"?
SealedEternal
First, I am hardly a Greek scholar, just a student.
Second, if I provide you sources that discount the erroneous claims made about Ðᾱò, are you willing to acknowledge the error and move on, or is this going to be another "it couldn't possibly be wrong argument". For the record, the claim made is that Ðᾱò can grammatically only refer to "everyone" without any possibility of exception. While most scholars recognize that it CAN be understood that way, none that I know would insist that it MUST be understood that way. So, if you want to offer this up as a possible understanding of the passage, I will accept that. If you insist that the Greek in this passage requires that this be the only understanding of this passage, I ask you provide a reference from a recognized Greek scholar that supports this claim. If you agree to disregard the arguments that you cannot support, I will provide you with references that do support the claims I have made, but if I am not willing to waste my time providing references if it will make absolutely no difference anyway.
If it doesn't mean "everyone" then why is it always translated as such? And what do you claim the word means?
SealedEternal
Let me repeat myself, "If you agree to disregard the arguments that you cannot support, I will provide you with references that do support the claims I have made, but if I am not willing to waste my time providing references if it will make absolutely no difference anyway."
Have you agreed to disregard those arguments for which you cannot find any scholarly support?
In this case, are you willing to accept that there are other grammatically valid interpretations of the Luke 16 passage?
First of all, I asked you to explain what you think the word means. Secondly I can support that it means "everyone" because all literal translations of the Bible render it that way and you agreed that it was a valid translation of the text.
SealedEternal
But you cannot demonstrate that the language and grammar requires that it mean "everyone with out exception"; are you acknowledging that there are other understandings of this verse that are grammatically valid? The translators of the the versions of the bible you like to quote believe there are.
If this is something you will not accept, can you find any scholarly source that makes a case for your claim?
Will you disregard this claim, if you cannot find scholarly support for it?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 11/26/2008 10:13:47 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1192
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
But you cannot demonstrate that the language and grammar requires that it mean "everyone with out exception"; are you acknowledging that there are other understandings of this verse that are grammatically valid? The translators of the the versions of the bible you like to quote believe there are.
If this is something you will not accept, can you find any scholarly source that makes a case for your claim?
Will you disregard this claim, if you cannot find scholarly support for it?
Every Lexicon I read says it's an all inclusive term. Again I ask; How do you define it?
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 11/26/2008 10:19:28 PM
|
|
|
keepingfaith
Posts: 870
Joined: 5/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Keepingfaith...by your questioning, are you saying that there havent been "saved" people who have done these things?
Rom 8:1
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."
Gal 5:19-23
"The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control."
1 Cor 5:11
"But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat."
1 Cor 6:9
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you WERE. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
_____________________________
"My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." John 15:12-13
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 11/26/2008 10:20:47 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3631
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
But you cannot demonstrate that the language and grammar requires that it mean "everyone with out exception"; are you acknowledging that there are other understandings of this verse that are grammatically valid? The translators of the the versions of the bible you like to quote believe there are.
If this is something you will not accept, can you find any scholarly source that makes a case for your claim?
Will you disregard this claim, if you cannot find scholarly support for it?
Every Lexicon I read says it's an all inclusive term. Again I ask; How do you define it?
SealedEternal
First, have you read any lexicon besides the limited on in the back of Strong's? What are the references?
Second, everyone of my Greek lexicon's says something different?
Last, if I provide references that list alternative understandings of πᾱς will you acknowledge that there are other interpretations of this verse that are grammatically valid, unless you can find a source a Greek scholar that argues that no other understanding of πᾱς and explains why other Greek scholars are mistaken? I will acknowledge your right to continue to make the argument you have if you can provide such a source (even if I don't agree with it). Will you agree to abandon your argument if you cannot provide such a source, if I provide a source that demonstrates an alternate understanding of πᾱς?
The fact that you will not make this agreement is very telling of your position, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 11/26/2008 10:26:56 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1192
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
But you cannot demonstrate that the language and grammar requires that it mean "everyone with out exception"; are you acknowledging that there are other understandings of this verse that are grammatically valid? The translators of the the versions of the bible you like to quote believe there are.
If this is something you will not accept, can you find any scholarly source that makes a case for your claim?
Will you disregard this claim, if you cannot find scholarly support for it?
Every Lexicon I read says it's an all inclusive term. Again I ask; How do you define it?
SealedEternal
First, have you read any lexicon besides the limited on in the back of Strong's? What are the references?
Thayer's
quote:
Second, everyone of my Greek lexicon's says something different?
What do you mean? Do some say it's not an all inclusive term, and if so; which ones?
quote:
Last, if I provide references that list alternative understandings of ðᾱò will you acknowledge that there are other interpretations of this verse that are grammatically valid, unless you can find a source a Greek scholar that argues that no other understanding of ðᾱò and explains why other Greek scholars are mistaken?
I will acknowledge your right to continue to make the argument you have if you can provide such a source (even if I don't agree with it). Will you agree to abandon your argument if you cannot provide such a source, if I provide a source that demonstrates an alternate understanding of ðᾱò?
It depends on the validity of your evidence.
quote:
The fact that you will not make this agreement is very telling of your position, isn't it?
The fact that you continually refuse to define what you think the term means is far more telling.
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 11/26/2008 10:30:43 PM
|
|
|
AbbyGrace
Posts: 660
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: keepingfaith
quote:
Keepingfaith...by your questioning, are you saying that there havent been "saved" people who have done these things?
Rom 8:1
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."
Gal 5:19-23
"The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control."
1 Cor 5:11
"But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat."
1 Cor 6:9
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you WERE. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
Keepingfaith....the question that I ask you was simple...either yes or no.
_____________________________
Hebrews 12:14 "Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord." 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 11/26/2008 10:30:58 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1192
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
Also looking at my NASB concordance, the term occurs roughly 1000 times in the New Testament and is always translated as an all inclusive word without exception.
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 11/26/2008 10:36:03 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3631
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
But you cannot demonstrate that the language and grammar requires that it mean "everyone with out exception"; are you acknowledging that there are other understandings of this verse that are grammatically valid? The translators of the the versions of the bible you like to quote believe there are.
If this is something you will not accept, can you find any scholarly source that makes a case for your claim?
Will you disregard this claim, if you cannot find scholarly support for it?
Every Lexicon I read says it's an all inclusive term. Again I ask; How do you define it?
SealedEternal
First, have you read any lexicon besides the limited on in the back of Strong's? What are the references?
Thayer's
quote:
Second, everyone of my Greek lexicon's says something different?
What do you mean? Do some say it's not an all inclusive term, and if so; which ones?
quote:
Last, if I provide references that list alternative understandings of ðᾱò will you acknowledge that there are other interpretations of this verse that are grammatically valid, unless you can find a source a Greek scholar that argues that no other understanding of ðᾱò and explains why other Greek scholars are mistaken?
I will acknowledge your right to continue to make the argument you have if you can provide such a source (even if I don't agree with it). Will you agree to abandon your argument if you cannot provide such a source, if I provide a source that demonstrates an alternate understanding of ðᾱò?
It depends on the validity of your evidence.
quote:
The fact that you will not make this agreement is very telling of your position, isn't it?
The fact that you continually refuse to define what you think the term means is far more telling.
That's pretty funny. I have a copy of Thayer's Lexicon. The entry for πᾱς is almost 3 pages long, and Thayer specifically gives examples where πᾱς is not all inclusive.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 11/26/2008 10:40:02 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1192
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
That's pretty funny. I have a copy of Thayer's Lexicon. The entry for ðᾱò is almost 3 pages long, and Thayer specifically gives examples where ðᾱò is not all inclusive.
And what does Thayer claim it means? And again, what are you claiming it means?
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 11/26/2008 10:43:27 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3631
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
That's pretty funny. I have a copy of Thayer's Lexicon. The entry for ðᾱò is almost 3 pages long, and Thayer specifically gives examples where ðᾱò is not all inclusive.
And what does Thayer claim it means? And again, what are you claiming it means?
SealedEternal
Let me repeat myself, "If you agree to disregard the arguments that you cannot support, I will provide you with references that do support the claims I have made, but if I am not willing to waste my time providing references if it will make absolutely no difference anyway."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 11/26/2008 10:44:36 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3631
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
Also looking at my NASB concordance, the term occurs roughly 1000 times in the New Testament and is always translated as an all inclusive word without exception.
SealedEternal
All of the Greek scholars that I am aware of disagree with this statement, do you have any sources from Greek scholars that say otherwise?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 11/26/2008 10:45:26 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1192
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
I just skimmed over those three pages, and Thayer definitely agrees that it is all inclusive repeatedly using terms such as every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything, etc.
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 11/26/2008 10:47:20 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1192
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
Also looking at my NASB concordance, the term occurs roughly 1000 times in the New Testament and is always translated as an all inclusive word without exception.
SealedEternal
All of the Greek scholars that I am aware of disagree with this statement, do you have any sources from Greek scholars that say otherwise?
I'm not dealing in opinions, I'm asking what the text says. Every source I know of says this term means something other than what you're attempting to claim. So please tell me what you think it means.
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 11/26/2008 10:48:19 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3631
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
I just skimmed over those three pages, and Thayer definitely agrees that it is all inclusive repeatedly using terms such as every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything, etc.
SealedEternal
You can choose to try and mislead people if you want, but the fact is that this is a widely availbe source and those who do not trust you can check this reference for themselves. It is only your credibility that you hurt when you make such false claims.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 11/26/2008 10:49:26 PM
|
|
|
keepingfaith
Posts: 870
Joined: 5/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Most of the others supporting the view you hold on this thread consistently and very vocally disregard all scholarship.
I highly regard the writings of the earliest church 0-400 AD. These men lived in closest proximity to Jesus and the Apostles, were fluent in Greek, and took God's Word so seriously most were martyred for their stand for truth.
Not one of the earliest church fathers taught that adultery was an exception that allowed for remarriage. Not one of them taught that remarriage was a "one time" act of adultery. They taught that it was entering an adulterous affair and not a marriage. They did not teach anything that even resembles what modern "scholars" teach or the modern church teaches...in fact what the modern church teaches doesn't even resemble what it taught 100 years ago.
These teachings were consistent for 1500 years until the heretic Erasmus introduced this doctrine allowing for remarriage. He was known as the "prince of humanism" who Martin Luther called an "enemy of God who died without the light and the truth." His works were burned by the church.
It is very telling to see how far we've come from the truth, very sad... and very frightening.
2 Timothy 4:3-5
"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."
For more on earliest church teachings...
http://www.marriagedivorce.com/mdebook.pdf
_____________________________
"My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." John 15:12-13
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 11/26/2008 10:50:28 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3631
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
Also looking at my NASB concordance, the term occurs roughly 1000 times in the New Testament and is always translated as an all inclusive word without exception.
SealedEternal
All of the Greek scholars that I am aware of disagree with this statement, do you have any sources from Greek scholars that say otherwise?
I'm not dealing in opinions, I'm asking what the text says. Every source I know of says this term means something other than what you're attempting to claim. So please tell me what you think it means.
SealedEternal
You have, as anticipated, already demonstrated that it doesn't matter. I will save my time and effort for those who are interested in an honest debate.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 11/26/2008 10:50:51 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1192
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
I just skimmed over those three pages, and Thayer definitely agrees that it is all inclusive repeatedly using terms such as every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything, etc.
SealedEternal
You can choose to try and mislead people if you want, but the fact is that this is a widely availbe source and those who do not trust you can check this reference for themselves. It is only your credibility that you hurt when you make such false claims.
I hope they do. So you're saying if they find that Thayer says it's an all inclusive term, then they may assume that you're teaching falsely?
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 11/26/2008 10:53:05 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3631
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
I highly regard the writings of the earliest church 0-400 AD. These men lived in closest proximity to Jesus and the Apostles, were fluent in Greek, and took God's Word so seriously most were martyred for their stand for truth.
If I provide quotes from the writings of the early church that contradict some of your positions, will you abandon those positions unless you can find support from the early church writings for the position you hold? Or if not from their writings, from the writings of accepted scholars?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 11/26/2008 10:54:35 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1192
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
You have, as anticipated, already demonstrated that it doesn't matter. I will save my time and effort for those who are interested in an honest debate.
An "honest" debate means that you present a position when you're repeatedly asked instead of trying to change the subject. You don't want to debate what the text of God's Word says but would rather hide behind some elites who claim it doesn't actually mean what it says.
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 11/26/2008 10:58:54 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3631
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
I just skimmed over those th | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
