Sins of the flesh

[ilikeverin]

Sigh.  Rather than needlessly teaching you Reading Comprehension 102, which is that Sometimes Things Have Multiple Interpretations, I instead looked up other translations (something which I don't think either of you have a problem with).  Indeed, whenever the verses are ever disambiguated, the text evokes the jmfcst interpretation, not the Ernest interpretation:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, instead of debating a point based off a passage that reads fairly ambiguously, you guys could've just looked at an alternative translation, and solved the issue right away

(of course, there is always the risk that the translator of that one is either a fail, or the "translation" is actually just some guy reading one of the old translations of the Bible and "translating" it into modern English... though that's not too likely)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Sigh.  Rather than needlessly teaching you Reading Comprehension 102, which is that Sometimes Things Have Multiple Interpretations, I instead looked up other translations (something which I don't think either of you have a problem with).  Indeed, whenever the verses are ever disambiguated, the text evokes the jmfcst interpretation, not the Ernest interpretation:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, instead of debating a point based off a passage that reads fairly ambiguously, you guys could've just looked at an alternative translation, and solved the issue right away

(of course, there is always the risk that the translator of that one is either a fail, or the "translation" is actually just some guy reading one of the old translations of the Bible and "translating" it into modern English... though that's not too likely)

Of course every disambiguated translation and every commentary is going to side with my interpretation of John 4:16-18, because the interpretation is obvious to any rational person.  

But I didn’t feel the need to bring up other translations because another translation is NOT going to change my interpretation, for as I have ALWAYS stated on this forum:

Give me ANY commonly known translation of the bible in English (NAB, NIV, KJV, NASB, etc, etc), and even though they were ALL assembled by different groups of Greek interpreters, I would arrive at the exact same doctrine across the board regardless of which translation was chosen.

God's Truth is not lost in translation.  Pure and simple.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

(of course, there is always the risk that the translator of that one is either a fail, or the "translation" is actually just some guy reading one of the old translations of the Bible and "translating" it into modern English... though that's not too likely)

The NLT dies not attempt to be a literal translation.  Indeed, they intentionally are non-literal when doing creates a potential for ambiguity or confusion, so the fact that they resolved the ambiguity in one fashion.  The problem is that in the original Greek text, the word used, άνδρας. means both "man" and "husband".  (Greek is not the only language that relies upon context to make this distinction.)

There is no internal textual support that demands that either interpretation be correct.  Mine happens to reinforce the doctrine against remarriage after divorce, the other emphasizes the outcastness of the woman at the well.  The only argument I have seen put forth against my interpretation is that Jesus would never have used the "I Have No Son" trope.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The interpretation of John 4:16-18 is really a sideshow that is distracting from the doctrinal point that is being discussed in this topic.  For as I pointed out previously, even if my interpretation of John 4:16-18 is completely wrong, it doesn't contradict the teaching that remarriage after divorce is looked upon with disfavor that is found in multiple places in the New Testament with no potential ambiguity due to how one interprets a word whatsoever.

Even if my interpretation were wrong, that still doesn't address Matthew 5:31-32, Matthew 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18, or even 1 Corinthians 7:10-11.  Jesus clearly does not approve of remarriage after divorce, and only in Matthew is an exception given for the case in which a wife is adulterous.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The interpretation of John 4:16-18 is really a sideshow that is distracting from the doctrinal point that is being discussed in this topic.  For as I pointed out previously, even if my interpretation of John 4:16-18 is completely wrong, it doesn't contradict the teaching that remarriage after divorce is looked upon with disfavor that is found in multiple places in the New Testament with no potential ambiguity due to how one interprets a word whatsoever.

your hackery of John 4:16-18 is significant in that it shows you are not fit to enter into any serious scriptural debate, and not even those who believe in “perpetual adultery” of second marriage interpret John 4 the way you do.  And since you reject large portions of the NT and appose the teachings of the Apostles, you're not even really a Christian in any NT sense.  You're just another Jannes:

2Tim 3:8 "Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth—men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected."

The other scriptures you quoted merely state divorce and remarriage amounts to adultery because it breaks the sexual bond of the first marriage, but those passages can NOT be used to make a case for “perpetual adultery” within the new marriage because Mat 19:3 is NOT laying out “new rules” for marriage and divorce, but rather Jesus’ remarks are EXPLICITY related to a question regarding the Law of Moses:

Mat 19:3 They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

To claim Jesus is making an Old Testament (OT) case for “perpetual adultery” is simply laughable since the very passage (Dt 24:1-4) being discussed explains the remarriage has forever broken the bonds of the first marriage:

Dt 24:1-4 “If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD.”

Clearly, Dt 24:4 does NOT view the first marriage as still binding if a second marriage has taken place.  And if the first marriage is no longer en force, then there is no “perpetual adultery” in the OT, rather the adultery occurs at the point of breakage of the first marriage.

I merely brought up John 4:16-18 to prove that Jesus recognized that the woman had been married 5 times and had had 5 husbands, but that none of those marriages were still binding because Jesus agreed she had no husband.  But since John 4:16-18 refutes your ideal that Jesus would still view the first marriage as binding, you attempted to twist the clear meaning of John 4, but your folly is obvious to all.  

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In both Matthew 19 and Mark 10, Jesus explains that divorce was allowed by Moses because people's hearts were hard, but that divorce had not been part of God's intent in the beginning.

It is peculiar for you to claim that when it comes to the Mosaic dietary laws, Jesus could set them aside and return dietary restrictions to what they were before the Mosaic law came to be, but that he could not set aside the Mosaic law concerning divorce and return to God's original plan.  It is even more peculiar since the plain reading of those passages I quoted in my previous post is that he is indeed doing so.  The reference to Mosaic divorce made in Matthew 19 is not an endorsement of what had been allowed under the Mosaic law, but an acknowledgment that it had been.

The other scriptures you quoted merely state divorce and remarriage amounts to adultery because it breaks the sexual bond of the first marriage, but those passages can NOT be used to make a case for “perpetual adultery” within the new marriage because Mat 19:3 is NOT laying out “new rules” for marriage and divorce, but rather Jesus’ remarks are EXPLICITY related to a question regarding the Law of Moses:

I agree that Jesus is not laying out "new rules".  That's because he's laying out the "old rules", the rules that existed before the Mosaic law, the rules that apply not just to the Jews, but to all of mankind.

I merely brought up John 4:16-18 to prove that Jesus recognized that the woman had been married 5 times and had had 5 husbands, but that none of those marriages were still binding because Jesus agreed she had no husband.  But since John 4:16-18 refutes your ideal that Jesus would still view the first marriage as binding, you attempted to twist the clear meaning of John 4, but your folly is obvious to all.  

Actually, no, for even with your interpretation that she is living with a sixth man, you are making an assumption that one or more of the five marriages ended in divorce.  Nowhere in John 4 does it directly state that the woman is divorced.  That she had been widowed five times and was living with a sixth man who was not husband is consistent with your assumption that the word άνδρας found in the Greek original of John 4:16-18 sometimes means husband, yet other times means simply man.  I'll grant that being widowed five times, even with the higher mortality of those days would be unusual, but so would being divorced five times. (Or any mixture of the two ways of ending a marriage.)
 
Speaking of assumptions, there is also the assumption you've made previously that the woman at the well was considered among the "lowest of the low" in her own Samaritan community.  There is nothing in John 4 that states directly how she was perceived in that place.  Indeed, her reception suggests, but does not prove, that she was considered to be a respectable woman by the Samaritans of Sychar.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

In both Matthew 19 and Mark 10, Jesus explains that divorce was allowed by Moses because people's hearts were hard, but that divorce had not been part of God's intent in the beginning.

It is peculiar for you to claim that when it comes to the Mosaic dietary laws, Jesus could set them aside and return dietary restrictions to what they were before the Mosaic law came to be, but that he could not set aside the Mosaic law concerning divorce and return to God's original plan.  It is even more peculiar since the plain reading of those passages I quoted in my previous post is that he is indeed doing so.  The reference to Mosaic divorce made in Matthew 19 is not an endorsement of what had been allowed under the Mosaic law, but an acknowledgment that it had been.

The other scriptures you quoted merely state divorce and remarriage amounts to adultery because it breaks the sexual bond of the first marriage, but those passages can NOT be used to make a case for “perpetual adultery” within the new marriage because Mat 19:3 is NOT laying out “new rules” for marriage and divorce, but rather Jesus’ remarks are EXPLICITY related to a question regarding the Law of Moses:

I agree that Jesus is not laying out "new rules".  That's because he's laying out the "old rules", the rules that existed before the Mosaic law, the rules that apply not just to the Jews, but to all of mankind.

If Jesus were overturning divorce in the Law of Moses, then he wouldn’t have allowed divorce at all.  For there is no scriptural equivalent of divorce prior to the Law of Moses.  So, obviously by Jesus allowing divorce at all, he wasn’t reverting back to a scriptural precedent prior to the Law of Moses.  Yet there is a scriptural equivalent to the NT diet prior to the Law of Moses, and that is the diet given to Noah (Gen 9:1-4).  So your attempt to find a contradiction in my doctrinal constructions is unfounded.

What Jesus said about divorce does NOT contradict the Law of Moses which allowed divorce.  Since the Law of Moses didn’t define the moral limits of the use of divorce, Jesus was simply asked what were the moral limits (Mat 19:3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?") and Jesus answered by pointing out the sexual bond of marriage that had been in place since the beginning, and that therefore the moral limit of divorce was already established by the definition of marriage - the Law of Moses was NOT incomplete in its instruction regarding divorce because the sexual bond had always existed.

It’s an absurd argument to make that the sexual bond within marriage was no longer binding under the Law of Moses, so Jesus is NOT overturning the divorce regulations in the Law of Moses (nor did the Law of Moses overturn the sexual bond that had been established from the beginning), rather Jesus simply stated Moses’ divorce provision could only be properly practiced by respecting the preexisting sexual bond of marriage:  

Mat 19:9 "anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness..."

This is why I said Jesus was simply expounding upon the proper practice of Moses’ divorce provisions in light of the sexual bond of marriage.   And since the sexual bond of marriage has always existed from the beginning, Jesus’ answer is applicable not only within the Law of Moses, it is also applicable within the New Testament.

---

I merely brought up John 4:16-18 to prove that Jesus recognized that the woman had been married 5 times and had had 5 husbands, but that none of those marriages were still binding because Jesus agreed she had no husband.  But since John 4:16-18 refutes your ideal that Jesus would still view the first marriage as binding, you attempted to twist the clear meaning of John 4, but your folly is obvious to all.  

Actually, no, for even with your interpretation that she is living with a sixth man, you are making an assumption that one or more of the five marriages ended in divorce.  Nowhere in John 4 does it directly state that the woman is divorced.  That she had been widowed five times and was living with a sixth man who was not husband is consistent with your assumption that the word άνδρας found in the Greek original of John 4:16-18 sometimes means husband, yet other times means simply man.  I'll grant that being widowed five times, even with the higher mortality of those days would be unusual, but so would being divorced five times. (Or any mixture of the two ways of ending a marriage.)
 
Speaking of assumptions, there is also the assumption you've made previously that the woman at the well was considered among the "lowest of the low" in her own Samaritan community.  There is nothing in John 4 that states directly how she was perceived in that place.  Indeed, her reception suggests, but does not prove, that she was considered to be a respectable woman by the Samaritans of Sychar.

Yeah, I guess that is why commentaries on that passage agree with my interpretation and not yours.  And the fact that you’re undeterred by the uniqueness of your interpretation simply demonstrates your willingness to twist the passage to fit your predetermined doctrine.    

Oh, and BTW, your attempt to now claim the woman was widowed five times completely contradicts your claim that Jesus was teaching “perpetual adultery for the remarried” in John 4.  I do not have to change my interpretation of these passages, nor do I have to invent extra-biblical history as if the early church broke up homes and scattering children by dissolving second marriages that were completely recognized just a few years before under the Law of Moses, as if the teachings of Jesus were a gospel of chaos instead of a gospel of redemption.  
 
Just because you are unaware of the fact that I have patiently provided enough spiritual insight into John 4 and Mat 19 for several months’ worth of sermons, don’t think I’m as equally blind to your schemes.  You’ve also missed the fact that my interpretation of these passages works within any biblical timeframe (prior during and after the Law of Moses).  

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That she had been widowed five times and was living with a sixth man who was not husband is consistent with your assumption

Oh, and BTW, your attempt to now claim the woman was widowed five times completely contradicts your claim that Jesus was teaching “perpetual adultery for the remarried” in John 4.

No contradiction at all. Read what I said. I said that if her previous marriages had all ended due to being widowed, then it would be consistent with your interpretation that she is currently living with none of the five men she has married, but with a sixth man whom she has not married.

Nor am I claiming that she was widowed even once. The text does not state directly that she was ever widowed or that she was ever divorced.  Under your interpretation that there is a sixth man, then it would be consistent that she was divorced all five times, divorced four times and widowed once, divorced thrice and widowed twice, divorced twice and widowed thrice, divorced once and widowed four times, or widowed all five times.

Under my interpretation that there are only five men, then it would be consistent that she was divorced all four times, divorced thrice and widowed once, divorced twice and widowed twice, divorced once and widowed thrice, but not that she had been widowed all four times.  For if she had been widowed all four times, then her current fifth marriage would have been valid and Jesus would have had no reason to state that she has no man.

Not that I expect what I have just written to convince you in the least of anything about what I have said concerning John 4:16-18 except that I did not contradict myself when I referred to the possibility of her being widowed five times if your interpretation were correct.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

you have the last word