The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

[AVoice]

AVoice,

A few posts back I asked and you did not answer:

Also consider:

Acts 15:20-21
New King James Version (NKJV)

20. but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. 21. For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

When the council at Jerusalem instructed the Gentiles to refrain from sexual immorality (porneia) do you think it more likely they had in mind only premarital sex or the sexual acts forbidded in the Law, Leviticus 20?

A simple yes or no will suffice. By your method it can be established that gentile converts were allowed to commit adultery:

Acts 15:28-29
New King James Version (NKJV)

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things[/u]: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

No adultery mentioned! Only premarital sex is banned! Or do you think there might have also been some unspoken things that were understood? (Hint Mark 10 & Luke 16)

I am not surprised that you are insisting that porneia can not mean adultery in your arguments regarding Matthew 5 and 19. You make an assumption yourself, without which your whole argument falls apart.

Even many of the pagans differentiated between fornication and adultery. Trespassing against another man by having sex with his wife is obviously a more recognizable sin. But a single man having sex with a woman who is single, even by modern pagan American standards is often viewed as acceptable, she is fair game, and if she consents, no harm done. The conclusion of the counsel in Acts 15 was not intended to be an exhaustive list of what the NT requires but a touching on the main things that would be the responsible things to emphasize to prevent new converts from corrupting themselves. Still having their pagan culture ingrained within them not having attained to much maturity, having lived their lives up to that point under the conscience that there was nothing wrong whatsoever with fornication, the emphasis on that particular stumblingblock is appropriate.
I have made it clear that in certain contexts the word fornication by itself can possess a definition applicable to unlawful sexual activity in general, but in some contexts it would be impossible for fornication to mean adultery. The latter is the case concerning the use of fornication in 5:32 and 19:9.
Do you or do you not agree that in some contexts it is imposssible to define fornication to include adultery?
I have answered your question, now answer mine.

Absolutely, fornication cannot mean adultery in the contexts of 5:32 and 19:9.
This is established by a process of elimination: identifying the numerous contextual incompetencies when fornication is interpreted to mean adultery. That is where the focus should stay.
I understand that Mattrose is placing the actual texts on one side and descriptive commentary on the other as though if the commentary is reasonable enough, any incompetencies or conflict within the actual texts, (that are supposed to justify the commentary), can be ignored.

It makes perfect sense that if the exception clause was in fact written and intended by the author as non essential, pertaining to an interjected aside; that there would exist competency problems with the mechanics of the grammar, if read otherwise. The same can be said concerning the authors actual intent of having made absolute statements; if read as non absolute, there is no suprise when serious competency problems are manifested. If when read as 'non essential' and absolute there exists no competency problems whatsoever, but when read as 'essential' and non absolute, there exists competency problems, a very interesting question needs to be answered:
What are the chances that in a compound sentence possessing 4 main interconnecting clauses, that the correct intention of the author is accompanied by the fact that the grammar is incompetent, while at the same time the wrong explanation is perfectly grammatically competent?
Give me some numbers, 50 to 1, 100 to 1, 1000 to 1, 10,000 to 1, 1,000,000 to 1? I don't think you realize that the adultery model is grammatically incompetent and you are claiming it to be correct, while the betrothal explanation is competent and you are claiming it to be incorrect!

It will have already come as a shock to many that what they have been taught [that under the adultery model the last clause applies to the guilty party, liberating the innocently divorced wife] is completely indefensible by the actual texts. In fact, the texts show that that rendering is impossible to have been the authors intent if we are to agree that the texts have been preserved.
These texts were easily translated. We have competently written Greek, that was able to be easily translated into competently written English.
Now, when the betrothal explanation is tried and is found to competently work within the actual texts, [and you have already agreed by your answer to the above question, that given the potential in the definitions and uses that the word 'fornication' possesses, that the betrothal explanation is a reasonable read] then the ignoring/dismissing of the betrothal explanation is VERY innapropriate. The focus should be the questioning and testing how each model works within the actual texts.

It is very 'Catholic" to place reasonings and commentary above the actual scriptural texts under consideration. The condescending attitude toward the uneducated believer (but who simply and genuinely believes and is educated by the scriptures) that such believers are being deceived by scripture because they have not received the training of the supposed 'more highly educated', is similar to the conflict that Luther faced as he attacked certain long held established heresies within the Catholic church. His opponents were too smart to listen.

[Homer]

AVoice,

You asked:

Do you or do you not agree that in some contexts it is imposssible to define fornication to include adultery?

I do not know about impossible, but I can certainly agree to "extremely difficult". For example, in 1 Corinthians we know it means incest because in the context (the very same verse) Paul tells us that it is. What you are doing is ignoring the entire context of Matthew 19:3-10 which is all about real married people. Note the following:

v.3 Pharisees' question - real married people
v. 4-6 Jesus' response to Pharisees- real married people
v.7 Pharisees' 2nd question - real married people
v. 8-9 Jesus 2nd response to Pharisees- real married people
v. 10 Disciples response - real married people
v. 11-12 Jesus' response to disciples - real married people

You imagine that in the discussion Jesus interjects an aside with absolutely no indication that it was on anyone's mind. The subject is real married people six times over! The context is completely against your position.

It is not possible to prove in the context of Matt. 19 that fornication does not include all sexual immorality, including incest, which I believe is a legitimate reason for divorce. I suppose you would say that if a husband rapes his 12 year old daughter his wife is not allowed to divorce him but must forgive him and keep the family together.

I have a question for you. Jesus said "What God has joined together, let not man put asunder". Do you believe man can actually put asunder what God has joined together?

[AVoice]

It is reasonable to concede that in certain cases within scripture that the construction of a sentence may appear incompetent in and of itself and yet a practical meaning can be arrived at by way of comparing other related verses. But on the other hand, it would be impossible for a clearly written grammatically competent piece of writing to be contradicted by a mere commentary of the piece that was written incompetently. If that occurred, then that would in turn render the competently written piece as incompetent and a mere guess based on logic and assumptions of the incompetent piece, making that commentary the final word instead of what is actually written, which makes perfect sense as written!
In that case the troubling question would directly apply; what are the chances that the commentary on the incompetent piece is correct, while the very clear and concise grammatical meaning the competent piece possesses cannot be true?

There is like a law that pertains to written language. A function a certain sentence is claimed able to perform should be able to be demonstrated by a similarly constructed sentence that performs similarly.
There is only one way to give credibility to the manner in which the divorce for adultery model is forced to read the verses that contain the exception clauses:
Provide a grammatical parallel after the same formats of 5:32 and 19:9 and Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:11,12 demonstrating the ability of language to accomplish such a feat as is claimed by the divorce for adultery model. Failure to produce is equivalent to the concession that language is incapable of such a feat. Produce the parallel sentence with the exception clause and then without the exception clause. If each of these sentences in and of themselves, are different to each other, one providing allowance, the other not providing allowance, the exercise has failed.

There is only one way for an exception clause to exist within such constructions wherein there will not be a clear difference of meaning; one showing prohibition, the other making a clear allowance. That is, if the exception clause is “non essential” as I have demonstrated. The topic, being the joined married wife, when the exception clause is understood to pertain solely to the betrothal divorce, that meaning does not in any way allow for that which the discussion is about. So there is an exception clause which provides NO allowance for what is under discussion.
The divorce for adultery model means the exception clause interpreted to mean 'for adultery" is very much “essential” and cannot be omitted without radically disrupting the overall understanding of what Jesus taught.

As I have demonstrated that language can in fact function after the manner I have claimed, by my presenting a 'non essential' in the form of an exception clause, the burden of proof now rests with the divorce for adultery camp to provide a parallel sentence demonstrating that language can in fact perform the feat they claim is possible.

[mattrose]

AVoice,

Though you have stopped responding to my actual arguments, I do feel compelled to respond to the de-evolution of your arguments. I find them to be troubling. Since you are losing ground in the actual debate, you have resorted to tactics which, I believe, are beneath a fellow brother in Christ. For example...

If all we had was Matthew's Gospel, which contains the exception clauses, then it would be more easily excusable for someone to abandon their God given conscience that should be screaming that divorce is plainly wrong.

Here, you are accusing your brothers/sisters of 'abandoning their God given conscience.' You are also implying that we don't think divorce is wrong. We are all in agreement that there is always sin involved in divorce. This is a low blow.

So the "plainly stated exception clause" is not really so plain after all unless you read one of the modern trashy corruptions aiding in the falling from the truth that the scriptures warn us of.
The Greek word is porneia, Satan loves to eliminate "fornication" as being a straight acoss equivalent of the word

Here, you are accusing modern translations (more often than not made by people who have devoted their lives to God's word) of being trashy corruptions. Your reason for this intense accusation? They didn't translate porneia as fornication like the KJV. Who was behind their decision? Satan, of course. This only highlights the decreasing quality of your argument.

I understand that Mattrose is placing the actual texts on one side and descriptive commentary on the other as though if the commentary is reasonable enough, any incompetencies or conflict within the actual texts, (that are supposed to justify the commentary), can be ignored.

Here, I am not even sure you make sense. You describe my commentary as 'reasonable enough' and then say that is has 'incompetencies' and is in 'conflict within the actual texts'. Which is it? (And if you pick the latter, please show as much!). Then you accuse me of ignoring the text? How can you accuse a brother of ignoring a text that we have just spent hours discussing and to which I just provided a commentary?

Then you add

It is very 'Catholic" to place reasonings and commentary above the actual scriptural texts under consideration.

This is just mud slinging. Your aim, here, seems to be to use the bad reputation of the Catholic Church to cast mud on those who don't agree with you by comparing them to Catholics. But I ask, how is providing a commentary of a text putting the commentary 'above' the text? I was commentating on the text, just like you have been doing. Are you "Catholic" too?

Finally, you keep accusing those who disagree with you of creating a 'messy' doctrine, yet your posts have consistently been the most difficult to understand and the most wordy. If your view is so simple, you should argue it simply.

At this point, even if your position was correct (which you haven't demonstrated) and the more common interpretation was deficient (which you also haven't demonstrated), you have lost the debate simply because of the style of argumentation which you have implemented.

[AVoice]

AVoice,

You asked:

Do you or do you not agree that in some contexts it is imposssible to define fornication to include adultery?

I do not know about impossible, but I can certainly agree to "extremely difficult". For example, in 1 Corinthians we know it means incest because in the context (the very same verse) Paul tells us that it is. What you are doing is ignoring the entire context of Matthew 19:3-10 which is all about real married people. Note the following:

v.3 Pharisees' question - real married people
v. 4-6 Jesus' response to Pharisees- real married people
v.7 Pharisees' 2nd question - real married people
v. 8-9 Jesus 2nd response to Pharisees- real married people
v. 10 Disciples response - real married people
v. 11-12 Jesus' response to disciples - real married people

You imagine that in the discussion Jesus interjects an aside with absolutely no indication that it was on anyone's mind. The subject is real married people six times over! The context is completely against your position.

It is not possible to prove in the context of Matt. 19 that fornication does not include all sexual immorality, including incest, which I believe is a legitimate reason for divorce. I suppose you would say that if a husband rapes his 12 year old daughter his wife is not allowed to divorce him but must forgive him and keep the family together.

I have a question for you. Jesus said "What God has joined together, let not man put asunder". Do you believe man can actually put asunder what God has joined together?

You must not have read the post where the issue of the special definition of 'fornication is addressed. It is extremely easy to make sentences where "fornication has nothing to do with either adultery or incest.

If in fact the exception clause was spoken as an interjected side point as a reference to that OTHER kind of divorce, which was done premaritally as we Joseph about to do, then the one word to describe that sexual offence would be "fornication".
The word adultery would not apply since it was a sin committed while as the person was single and the divorce took place also before the marriage. They both retain their status as single. Hence the man does not cause her to commit adultery.

Based on the popular interpretation of the exception clause they define "fornication". That is circular reasoning. In the same line of circular reasoning "fornication is changed to "sexual immorality". The Greek is able to make the equivalent of the word 'sexual' and also of the word 'immorality'. Jesus did not use that terminology.
He used the equivalent of the English "fornication" which like in English can apply specifically to the unmarried sexual offence.
For example ask a Greek scholar if the following is reasonable, which context indicates the sexual offense CANNOT be adultery but which is in fact "fornication". So some 'fornication" CAN be adultery but it is possible that the particular context absolutely rejects "adultery" as being what fornication can mean in that context.
Knowing that Jane and John are single:

"Jane and John were caught fornicating"

To allocate adultery as what fornication means in this context would be an act of illiteracy.

Would not the equivalent statement about Jane and John, if translated into Greek, also use the word fornication? Are you asserting that the word fornication in Greek is not used in this same way applying specifically to the premarital where contexts can accomodate that application?
The word fornication has a specific premarital application since it is the one single word (at least in English) that can by itself describe the sexual sin of the single. It has connotation that "sexual immorality" does not possess. Since 'adultery' specifically relates to the violation of a marriage, the word fornication when listed alongside "adultery" (as it does 7 times in the NT) naturally points to, and absolutely includes, the premarital sexual sin in comparison.

Granted it would not be the death knell necessarily to the divorce for adultery model, but this, alongside the contexts of 5:32 and 19: that are irreconcilable to the divorce for adultery model, alongside the reality of the cultural premarital divorce for fornication (not for adultery) wherein "husband and wife" had dual meaning, alongside the availability to read the exception clause as "non essential" due to their culture, alongside two other separate authors not even hinting at allowing divorce and giving every indication that divorce and remarriage are absolutely forbidden, (which makes an omission of the exception clause completely understandable because it had nothing to do with the joined-in-marriage), alongside the fact that 5:32 and 19;9 can be read smoothly and without the major hiccups and contradictions inherent in the divorce for adultery model.
ALL wives, who had been lawfully joined in marriage (neither in the couple had been previously married and if they had the former spouse is dead) if any single one of them is divorced for any single reason, the man is charged with causing her to commit adultery, he has dealt treacherously with her, she is made vulnerable to other men and to hell for the adultery that may follow. Whoever marries her commits adultery for as long as her first and lawful husband is still alive.

The one flesh status in marriage (totally different than in fornication) is not dependent on the behaviour of the indivuals involved, it is based on the precedent set in Adam and Eve. Only death was able to terminate their status of "one flesh".

Your objection that it is not possible to have an out-of-context, 'non essential' phrase, inserted within a sentence, which phrase comes in the form of an exception clause, has been thoroughly answered. For example, go to page two of this thread and read the document titled "What Does Jesus' Exception Clause Mean?"

[Homer]

Avoice,

You must not have read the post where the issue of the special definition of 'fornication is addressed. It is extremely easy to make sentences where "fornication has nothing to do with either adultery or incest.

Whether it is easy or hard provides zero proof for your claim that it does not mean adultry in Matthew 5 and 19.

IF in fact the exception clause was spoken as an interjected side point as a reference to that OTHER kind of divorce, which was done premaritally as we Joseph about to do, then the one word to describe that sexual offence would be "fornication".

Yes fornication would be appropriat IF that is what Jesus meant, which you can not substantiate.

The Greek is able to make the equivalent of the word 'sexual' and also of the word 'immorality'. Jesus did not use that terminology.

You must mean Mattew and Mark did not use that terminology when they gave their versions of what Jesus said. Jesus did not speak Greek.

Could you please show some examples in the Greek text of the New Testament where the authors used two Greek words to express the idea of "sexual immorality"?

He used the equivalent of the English "fornication" which like in English can apply specifically to the unmarried sexual offence.

Which proves nothing for your cause. He could have meant all forms of sexual immorality.

The word fornication has a specific premarital application since it is the one single word (at least in English) that can by itself describe the sexual sin of the single. It has connotation that "sexual immorality" does not possess. Since 'adultery' specifically relates to the violation of a marriage, the word fornication when listed alongside "adultery" (as it does 7 times in the NT) naturally points to, and absolutely includes, the premarital sexual sin in comparison.

If I taught converts to Christianity that God regarded premarital sex, adultery, incest, and homosexual acts as sinful you might say they are all "in comparison" but they are all included in porneia. What's your point?

alongside the fact that 5:32 and 19;9 can be read smoothly and without the major hiccups and contradictions inherent in the divorce for adultery model.

Read them for years. They are smooth and straight forward to me. Apparently its only a "hiccup" for your point of view.

The one flesh status in marriage (totally different than in fornication) is not dependent on the behaviour of the indivuals involved, it is based on the precedent set in Adam and Eve.

Could you explain just how and when a couple became "one flesh" in the Jewish culture at the time of Christ?

Your objection that it is not possible to have an out-of-context, 'non essential' phrase, inserted within a sentence, which phrase comes in the form of an exception clause, has been thoroughly answered.

I suggest you carefully reread my post; I never said this. Here is what I said:

"It is not possible to prove in the context of Matt. 19 that fornication does not include all sexual immorality, including incest, which I believe is a legitimate reason for divorce."

Are you referring to another post of mine?

So again I pose two items to you that you never responded to:

I suppose you would say that if a husband rapes his 12 year old daughter his wife is not allowed to divorce him but must forgive him and keep the family together.

I have a question for you. Jesus said "What God has joined together, let not man put asunder". Do you believe man can actually put asunder what God has joined together?

You berate Matt for providing a clear and concise, verse by verse, comment on scriptures relevant to this issue. I would very much like to see the same from you; perhaps we can learn something from you. You would do well to emulate him. I thought it was just me having difficulty understanding your posts, but I see Matt has had the same difficulty.

[AVoice]

AVoice,

Though you have stopped responding to my actual arguments, I do feel compelled to respond to the de-evolution of your arguments. I find them to be troubling. Since you are losing ground in the actual debate, you have resorted to tactics which, I believe, are beneath a fellow brother in Christ. For example...

If all we had was Matthew's Gospel, which contains the exception clauses, then it would be more easily excusable for someone to abandon their God given conscience that should be screaming that divorce is plainly wrong.

Here, you are accusing your brothers/sisters of 'abandoning their God given conscience.' You are also implying that we don't think divorce is wrong. We are all in agreement that there is always sin involved in divorce. This is a low blow.

So the "plainly stated exception clause" is not really so plain after all unless you read one of the modern trashy corruptions aiding in the falling from the truth that the scriptures warn us of.
The Greek word is porneia, Satan loves to eliminate "fornication" as being a straight acoss equivalent of the word

Here, you are accusing modern translations (more often than not made by people who have devoted their lives to God's word) of being trashy corruptions. Your reason for this intense accusation? They didn't translate porneia as fornication like the KJV. Who was behind their decision? Satan, of course. This only highlights the decreasing quality of your argument.

I understand that Mattrose is placing the actual texts on one side and descriptive commentary on the other as though if the commentary is reasonable enough, any incompetencies or conflict within the actual texts, (that are supposed to justify the commentary), can be ignored.

Here, I am not even sure you make sense. You describe my commentary as 'reasonable enough' and then say that is has 'incompetencies' and is in 'conflict within the actual texts'. Which is it? (And if you pick the latter, please show as much!). Then you accuse me of ignoring the text? How can you accuse a brother of ignoring a text that we have just spent hours discussing and to which I just provided a commentary?

Then you add

It is very 'Catholic" to place reasonings and commentary above the actual scriptural texts under consideration.

This is just mud slinging. Your aim, here, seems to be to use the bad reputation of the Catholic Church to cast mud on those who don't agree with you by comparing them to Catholics. But I ask, how is providing a commentary of a text putting the commentary 'above' the text? I was commentating on the text, just like you have been doing. Are you "Catholic" too?

Finally, you keep accusing those who disagree with you of creating a 'messy' doctrine, yet your posts have consistently been the most difficult to understand and the most wordy. If your view is so simple, you should argue it simply.

At this point, even if your position was correct (which you haven't demonstrated) and the more common interpretation was deficient (which you also haven't demonstrated), you have lost the debate simply because of the style of argumentation which you have implemented.

I am not here to win a debate, as it appears you are.
I am here to speak the truth. In my last post on this same page 9,at 1:15 which also relates to you, I asked for an example that would prove that language is able to perform the feat that you say is possible to be performed, which your commentary in effect claims concerning the 4 NT readings where Jesus directly addressed the issue. Commentary means nothing if the actual texts purported to back such a commentary are impossible to grammatically back up that interpretation. I asked for a grammatical example of sentences performing the feat you say 5:32 19:9 and Luke 16:18 have performed. Will you not provide proof of such grammatical function?

Let's agree to answer each others questions. If you want something answered put it in question form to indicate that you want it answered and not that you are simply making a contradictory statement. If you make a statement in disagreement and want response, then indicate by putting it in question form.

Here, I am not even sure you make sense. You describe my commentary as 'reasonable enough' and then say that is has 'incompetencies' and is in 'conflict within the actual texts'. Which is it? (And if you pick the latter, please show as much!). Then you accuse me of ignoring the text? How can you accuse a brother of ignoring a text that we have just spent hours discussing and to which I just provided a commentary?

This response indicates you did not understand what I had written. Please read again and try again if you want.

The topic, being the joined married wife, when the exception clause is understood to pertain solely to the betrothal divorce, that exception clause does not in any way provide an allowance pertaining to what the discussion is about. So there we have an exception clause which provides NO allowance for what is under discussion.
The divorce for adultery model means the exception clause interpreted to mean 'for adultery" is very much “essential” and cannot be omitted without radically disrupting the overall understanding of what Jesus taught. Under that model the exception clause provides direct allowance for what is under discussion.
Since there has been no argument showing how the betrothal divorce explanation cannot work within the actual text, the next logical step is for the divorce for adultery camp to provide a grammatical example which will support their claim of the ability of language to function as they say it does. This is a good challenge, why turn down the opportunity to make full proof of what you minister?



As I have demonstrated that language can in fact function after the manner I have claimed, by my presenting a 'non essential' in the form of an exception clause, the burden of proof now rests with the divorce for adultery camp to provide a parallel sentence demonstrating that language can in fact perform the feat they claim is possible.

This is what I am waiting for.

[mattrose]

I am not here to win a debate, as it appears you are.
I am here to speak the truth.

I'm not really interested in playing word games like this. A debate is simply an exchange of differing opinions about what the 'truth' is. You say that your view is the truth, I am debating that. You want to 'win' this debate (make the case that your view is true) just as much as I do.

In my last post on this same page 9,at 1:15 which also relates to you, I asked for an example that would prove that language is able to perform the feat that you say is possible to be performed, which your commentary in effect claims concerning the 4 NT readings where Jesus directly addressed the issue. Commentary means nothing if the actual texts purported to back such a commentary are impossible to grammatically back up that interpretation. I asked for a grammatical example of sentences performing the feat you say 5:32 19:9 and Luke 16:18 have performed. Will you not provide proof of such grammatical function?

I'm not really interested in playing word games like this. I am under no obligation to play 'fun with sentences' with you. You have not shown that the text cannot mean what I said it means. In other words, you have not shown that the sentence, as it exists, creates a problem for the more common understanding. You keep insisting that our interpretation is 'impossible' but you haven't demonstrated it. I provided a simple commentary that shows how each phrase makes sense and you have done nothing to prove me wrong.

Let's agree to answer each others questions. If you want something answered put it in question form to indicate that you want it answered and not that you are simply making a contradictory statement. If you make a statement in disagreement and want response, then indicate by putting it in question form.

We've been doing this for 10 pages. I, myself, feel like we've gotten to the point where we're just flat out disagreeing. For example.

1. You think the grammar doesn't make sense in my view. I think it does. We've talked about it plenty and still disagree. So be it.
2. You think Jesus' statement is an absolute statement banning divorce after sexual union in all circumstances. I take Jesus' statement as a strong truth with possible exceptions. We've talked about it plenty and still disagree. So be it.

Since, in my opinion, the conversation is at a standstill and you're beginning to resort to lower rhetorical tactics, I don't think it's very edifying to continue at this point. I'd be a bit more open to continuing dialogue past 10 pages if I knew you were open to changing your mind. But think about this.... you've posted lots of posts on this site over the past month or so and EVERY SINGLE post is about this issue. I fear you are just one of those people that goes from message board to message board obsessed with 1 thing and insistent that people see the 'truth' of your position.

I appreciate learning more about your view. I understand it better having dialogued with you. Thanks. But I don't think I can understand your view much better at this point than I do, and I still disagree with it. So what else can be said?

[AVoice]

I am not here to win a debate, as it appears you are.
I am here to speak the truth.

I'm not really interested in playing word games like this. A debate is simply an exchange of differing opinions about what the 'truth' is. You say that your view is the truth, I am debating that. You want to 'win' this debate (make the case that your view is true) just as much as I do.

In my last post on this same page 9,at 1:15 which also relates to you, I asked for an example that would prove that language is able to perform the feat that you say is possible to be performed, which your commentary in effect claims concerning the 4 NT readings where Jesus directly addressed the issue. Commentary means nothing if the actual texts purported to back such a commentary are impossible to grammatically back up that interpretation. I asked for a grammatical example of sentences performing the feat you say 5:32 19:9 and Luke 16:18 have performed. Will you not provide proof of such grammatical function?

I'm not really interested in playing word games like this. I am under no obligation to play 'fun with sentences' with you. You have not shown that the text cannot mean what I said it means. In other words, you have not shown that the sentence, as it exists, creates a problem for the more common understanding. You keep insisting that our interpretation is 'impossible' but you haven't demonstrated it. I provided a simple commentary that shows how each phrase makes sense and you have done nothing to prove me wrong.

Let's agree to answer each others questions. If you want something answered put it in question form to indicate that you want it answered and not that you are simply making a contradictory statement. If you make a statement in disagreement and want response, then indicate by putting it in question form.

We've been doing this for 10 pages. I, myself, feel like we've gotten to the point where we're just flat out disagreeing. For example.

1. You think the grammar doesn't make sense in my view. I think it does. We've talked about it plenty and still disagree. So be it.
2. You think Jesus' statement is an absolute statement banning divorce after sexual union in all circumstances. I take Jesus' statement as a strong truth with possible exceptions. We've talked about it plenty and still disagree. So be it.

Since, in my opinion, the conversation is at a standstill and you're beginning to resort to lower rhetorical tactics, I don't think it's very edifying to continue at this point.

Then please do not continue if that is what you choose. But the request for an example of grammatical function to validate your claim of grammatical function is very valid and is no word game.
The very apparent absolute tone that is visible in Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18 and 1 Cor 7:39 is not contradicted by the betrothal explanation and yet no evidence is offered from you why the betrothal view cannot fit within the grammatical context. The liberal view of changing the word fornication into adultery and hence invalidating "let not man put asunder" directly contradicts the absolute sense ALL 4 references spoken by Jesus possess. The last clause under your model is also rendered as applicable only temporarily, if at all.
Under your model:
The man divorces her for burning dinner and marries another, which is adultery on his part. She then 'divorces' him lawfully for his adultery and marries another. In his state of remarriage prior to her 'counter divorce', he is committing adultery.
So since by definition, a lawful divorce will end a marriage, doesn't this immediately make his remarriage lawful? So the charge of his committing adultery is also rendered as only temporarily applicable in many cases under your model, very different to the absolute tone all 4 NT references project.
If the exception clause is general, [even though more precisely it is for adultery,] as your model tries to claim, Jesus could have said "saving for any offense at least as severe as adultery". It cannot be claimed under your model that Jesus only allows divorce for a sexual sin because your model also allows divorce for desertion by its misunderstanding of 1 Cor 7. Look at Pat Robertson; the same slippery slope of opening the door for divorce now has him endorsing divorce for when a spouse gets Alzheimers! So under your model, let's say a married wife does not commit adultery but goes crazy and kills and eats the kids. She also does not desert her husband. Would not a model that allows divorce for serious offenses as adultery and desertion also render the worse offenses of murder and cannabalism as therefore also acceptable for divorce?
So under that model many things have to be read between the lines. If the actual texts were consulted after a person were exposed to such extensive confusion and explanation, what a shock they would experience.

[mattrose]

Then please do not continue if that is what you choose. But the request for an example of grammatical function to validate your claim of grammatical function is very valid and is no word game.

It's simple enough to reproduce Matt 19:9 with a different topic in mind

If Michael Jordan quits basketball,
(if a man divorces his wife)

Except for the case of a league lockout/work-stoppage
(except it be for sexual immorality)

and becomes a baseball player,
(and marries another woman)

He is doing a disservice to the world of sports:
(he commits adultery)

And whatever baseball team signs him is also doing a disservice to the world of sports
(and any man who marries his wife also commits adultery)

That makes sense to me on both sides of the parallel. It makes sense with or without the exception clause. Michael Jordan shouldn't have left basketball to join baseball since God had blessed him with such incredible basketball skills. But if there would have been a legitimate reason for leaving basketball (like the owners had violated the players somehow), then it would have been understandable. Without the exception it is a general and true statement. With the exception clause it is a general and true statement. We use this kind of speech all the time.

The very apparent absolute tone that is visible in Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18 and 1 Cor 7:39 is not contradicted by the betrothal explanation

You yourself don't take Mark 10 & Luke 16 as absolute, since you recognize the exception clause. Nonetheless, passages need to be read in light of all of Scripture, not in isolation. You seem to have a tendency to interpret Jesus' preferred genre as absolute statement. I think you have genre and canonical... issues.

and yet no evidence is offered from you why the betrothal view cannot fit within the grammatical context.

Ugh... I've already told you multiple times. I think the betrothal view can fit within the grammatical context. I will say again, the betrothal view is an interpretive option. It just isn't the best option for the reasons we've been discussing for 10 pages.

The liberal view of changing the word fornication into adultery and hence invalidating "let not man put asunder" directly contradicts the absolute sense ALL 4 references spoken by Jesus possess.

I'm not changing fornication into adultery. Your actually wrong on both fronts. I'm changing porneia into sexual sin. You are changing porniea into fornication. Some change porneia into adultery. You write as if Jesus spoke in King James English!

Under your model:
The last clause under your model is also rendered as applicable only temporarily, if at all. The man divorces her for burning dinner and marries another, which is adultery on his part. She then 'divorces' him lawfully for his adultery and marries another. In his state of remarriage prior to her 'counter divorce', he is committing adultery. So since by definition, a lawful divorce will end a marriage, doesn't this immediately make his remarriage lawful? So the charge of his committing adultery is also rendered as only temporarily applicable in many cases under your model, very different to the absolute tone all 4 NT references project.

No, it wouldn't immediately make it lawful. It's simple.
1. He unlawfully divorces her
2. He unlawfully gets married
3. She goes through the Matthew 18 process
4. He is established as an unbeliever wishing to depart
5. They are legitimately divorced
6. They are both, then, single individuals
7. He is currently shacking up with a woman who was never lawfully made his wife
8. She (the first wife) lawfully gets married to another man

Picking up after point 8, the man (from #1) would have to be convicted of and repent his original sin (divorcing his wife without grounds), his subsequent sin (adultery), his other subsequent sins (refusal to repent). If this period of repentance was genuine, he would be re-established as a single Christian man. He could then pursue a marriage relationship with another single Christian woman. If the so-called 2nd wife had also been through genuine repentance over her seeming issues, she could potentially be a possible spouse.

If the exception clause is general, [even though more precisely it is for adultery,] as your model tries to claim, Jesus could have said "saving for any offense at least as severe as adultery". It cannot be claimed under your model that Jesus only allows divorce for a sexual sin because your model also allows divorce for desertion

I have never claimed that my model only allows divorce for sexual sin. I have simply claimed that Jesus does allow divorce for sexual sin. My position also allows for an unbeliever to initiate divorce by communicating a desire to leave.

So under your model, let's say a married wife does not commit adultery but goes crazy and kills and eats the kids. She also does not desert her husband. Would not a model that allows divorce for serious offenses as adultery and desertion also render the worse offenses of murder and cannabalism as therefore also acceptable for divorce?

Of course. By killing and eating children, the wife shows herself to be an unbeliever wishing not to be part of the marriage/family. What an ABSURD suggestion that such a case would still be a legitimate marriage!

I can't believe I just had to type that.