Tags:
Permalink Reply by J. Jury (אליהוא) on February 17, 2011 at 8:03pm Is any such condition laid out in the text of Hosea?
The burden of proof is on you.
Anayahu Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:
Hosea was not commanded to marry an adulterous woman. he was commanded to marry a fornicating woman. he was then commanded to marry the woman again, but only on the condition that she always be faithful to him.
Permalink Reply by cheryl lynn montalvo on February 18, 2011 at 12:08am
Permalink Reply by J. Jury (אליהוא) on February 18, 2011 at 1:33am Andrew vs. Andrew
Anayahu Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:
Hosea was not commanded to marry an adulterous woman.
Anayahu Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:
Hosea is commanded by God to actively seek out the reconciliation with his former wife who was currently an adulterer.
Permalink Reply by Onieu bahn Duid on February 18, 2011 at 5:24pm Christian, James Trimm is of the opinion as myself that Sirach is Scripture. So, what if they contradict? Then one or both of them would obviously not be able to be Scripture.
Jesse, you misunderstand the language. Hosea is commanded by God to actively seek out the [future] reconciliation with his former wife who was currently and adulterer [but would not be such if they were going to be married again].
Permalink Reply by J. Jury (אליהוא) on February 18, 2011 at 9:23pm So the following statement, "Except that Hosea was instructed by God to marry an adulterous wife." is correct.
Anayahu Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:
Christian, James Trimm is of the opinion as myself that Sirach is Scripture. So, what if they contradict? Then one or both of them would obviously not be able to be Scripture.
Jesse, you misunderstand the language. Hosea is commanded by God to actively seek out the [future] reconciliation with his former wife who was currently and adulterer [but would not be such if they were going to be married again].
Permalink Reply by 命 on February 19, 2011 at 7:28am ...Sirach is Scripture. So, what if they contradict? Then one or both of them would obviously not be able to be Scripture.
Permalink Reply by Onieu bahn Duid on February 19, 2011 at 12:24pm Jesse, the following two statements are correct:
"Hosea was instructed by God to marry an ex-adulterous wife."
"Hosea was instructed by God to eventually marry a currently adulterous wife."
God teaches it is a sin to be married to an adulterer. The only one can marry someone who has committed adultery is if they are no longer an adulterer. Thus, God told Hosea to marry a woman who was currently an adulterer, but only when she stopped being an adulterer.
Permalink Reply by Onieu bahn Duid on February 19, 2011 at 12:27pm And Christian, the following, if you were to be in any way logical whatsoever, would be the only possibilities:
1.You regard Sirach and Matthew are regarded as Scripture.
2.You eventually come torealize Sirach and Matthew contradict.
3.You stop believing either Sirach or Matthew or both are Scripture.
If you do not do all three steps, you are illogical. If you continue to hold to contradictory Scriptures as both being true, you have embraced utter idiocy.
Permalink Reply by J. Jury (אליהוא) on February 19, 2011 at 3:03pm That's putting your own subjective spin on it, even if your conclusions happen to be correct. (They might be in this case.)
Needless to say, the statement, "Except that Hosea was instructed by God to marry an adulterous wife." is still correct, as it is true to the literal (not implied) reading of the text.
Anayahu Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:
Jesse, the following two statements are correct:
"Hosea was instructed by God to marry an ex-adulterous wife."
"Hosea was instructed by God to eventually marry a currently adulterous wife."
God teaches it is a sin to be married to an adulterer. The only one can marry someone who has committed adultery is if they are no longer an adulterer. Thus, God told Hosea to marry a woman who was currently an adulterer, but only when she stopped being an adulterer.
Permalink Reply by J. Jury (אליהוא) on February 19, 2011 at 3:08pm This is why I believe in a hierarchy of Scripture, that not all Scripture is created equal. It means there is a lot less hoops to jump through and contexts to blatantly twist and change to support my suppositions. I just read things literally, and compare everything to the Torah- which has the final say.
Different writers write with their own opinion, their own voice, their own teaching, etc. Paul even said a couple of times, "This is just my opinion." Yet YHWH spoke openly to Moses, and not to any other prophet since then.
Anayahu Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:
And Christian, the following, if you were to be in any way logical whatsoever, would be the only possibilities:
1.You regard Sirach and Matthew are regarded as Scripture.
2.You eventually come torealize Sirach and Matthew contradict.
3.You stop believing either Sirach or Matthew or both are Scripture.
If you do not do all three steps, you are illogical. If you continue to hold to contradictory Scriptures as both being true, you have embraced utter idiocy.
Permalink Reply by 命 on February 19, 2011 at 3:40pm Are you dense?
You didn't catch my drift at all.
My clearly inferred point is, I suspect you would, upon finding a hypothetical, big contradiction:
A - ignore it, since you have a predisposition toward the text
B - find some way to rationalize, not matter how big the discrepancy might be
Anayahu Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:
And Christian, the following, if you were to be in any way logical whatsoever, would be the only possibilities:
1.You regard Sirach and Matthew are regarded as Scripture.
2.You eventually come torealize Sirach and Matthew contradict.
3.You stop believing either Sirach or Matthew or both are Scripture.
If you do not do all three steps, you are illogical. If you continue to hold to contradictory Scriptures as both being true, you have embraced utter idiocy.
© 2013 Created by James Trimm.