The word ‘absolute’ is not actually correct if you are to describe my genre of reading what Jesus meant. It would be more correct to say I read it in a manner where the actual meanings of the words used are allowed to apply.mattrose wrote:I don't think you read very carefully in this case. I said initiating a divorce is a sin, but I added necessary nuance. If someone unrepentantly commits sexual sin, they are initiating divorce (breaking the covenant) whether they initiate paperwork or not. The wronged party may initiate the paperwork without initiating the divorce.AVoice wrote:If initiating a divorce is sinful as you say it is, then you have Jesus saying that that certain sinful act is OK. What other act can you find Jesus saying is OK even though it is sinful? Did you mean to say "initiating a divorce [unless it is for adultery, abandonment or any other among the list that are at least as sinful] is sinful"?
The rest of your most recent round of posts offer nothing new, nor do they further the discussion. You are still reading the statements as absolute statements. You are still mis-using the context of Jesus' teaching. You are still clinging to a very particularized reading of the greek. Etc.
You've been at this discussion for a long time (not just here, but I assume on other boards). Have you convinced anyone yet?
Under your post marital divorce model, the liberality of changing numerous meanings and basic function of language could be called the non restrictive genre.
For example, under your model, saving for the cause of fornication is not restricted to the post marital sexual sin. Your model claims it means that abandonment or anything at least as bad as either the post marital sexual sin or abandonment are allowed on the list of acceptable reasons to divorce.
So the word ‘absolute’ can apply to both of our models. Mine claims that Jesus’ words and sentences are “absolutely restrictive” to acceptable meanings they can actually commonly possess. Your model claims that the exception of fornication can apply to a list of varying offenses, some sexual, others not sexual, hence Jesus’ words are “absolutely non restrictive” to acceptable meanings they can actually commonly possess.
The question your position is hereby constrained to answer is, are your words as you explain what Jesus meant, absolutely restrictive? Can we take the liberty with your explanation so that words can apply to other meanings they cannot actually possess? Haven’t you rendered Jesus’ words as non restricted to their actual meanings while not permitting such liberty to be taken with your own words?
Take for example the claim that while the post marital sexual sin is what fornication means, the adulterous act itself somehow renders the marriage as broken, yet the offended party still has the choice to either divorce or not. Then at the same time it is claimed that it cannot be only adultery, but an ongoing unrepentant state of adultery. And then the offended party is supposed to offer the Matt 18 solution to resolve the issue before actually divorcing. Are the varying conditions your model places on the situation 'absolutely restrictive’, after having rendered Jesus’ words as 'absolutely not restrictive’?
The offer is still open to present questions or reasons why the betrothal divorce does not fit perfectly within the actual contexts of all 4 sections of scripture spoken by Jesus.
And answers to my numerous questions not yet attempted to be answered are still being waited for.