eFTee @eFTee2

Your interpretation is a doctrine of demons, and you’re misleading people with arguments that lack any consistent standard of reasoning. You’re denying Jesus’ explicit words given in Matthew 19:9 and misinterpreting them because you think people would be less forgiving to their spouses otherwise. What emotional, illogical rubbish 😂 Your argument that Mark and Luke’s “absolute statements” take precedence over Matthew is a rule you’ve invented. Matthew’s statement is also absolute. Paul himself distinguishes between the Lord’s teaching and his own instructions in 1 Corinthians 7:10–15. He first repeats Jesus’ prohibition against divorce, then says, “To the rest I say, I, not the Lord,” before addressing marriages involving unbelievers. In verse 15, he permits the unbelieving spouse to depart and says the believer is not enslaved in such circumstances. Paul isn’t contradicting Jesus. He’s addressing a circumstance not explicitly covered in the teaching he’s just repeated. Whether that freedom includes remarriage is debated, but your supposed rule would make Paul’s additional qualification subordinate to the earlier general prohibition. On what biblical or logical basis? Your dismissal of Peter walking on water misses the point. Matthew records Peter walking on water while Mark and John omit it. The issue is whether one Gospel can supply information another omits without contradiction. How does the principle change simply because one example concerns a historical event and the other a moral teaching? You failed to explain why. You just asserted they’re different. Go ahead and explain how that difference affects the point being made. You can’t, eh? Just more assumptions and assertions from your demonic mind. Your speculation that our interpretation would make spouses less forgiving or encourage mistreatment is exactly that: speculation and opinion based on your emotions. Was your wife less forgiving to you or something? 😀 How does any of that establish what Jesus meant? Even if people abused a legitimate exception, that wouldn’t invalidate it. Forgiveness doesn’t require remaining married to an unfaithful spouse. By your logic, every moral law given by God should be interpreted according to how people might mistreat one another. Makes absolutely no sense 🤦🏻‍♂️ Your Herodias comparison is another false equivalence. Her marriage to Herod was independently prohibited by Scripture. How is that equivalent to an innocent spouse remarrying after a legitimate divorce for sexual immorality? I’m done schooling you. Go back and do some deeper studies, apply some critical thinking, and stop letting demons whisper false doctrines in your ear. Ciao now.

You’re confusing recognition with infallible authority. Hebrews being anonymous and 2 Peter being disputed doesn’t change that distinction. The Church recognised Scripture; it didn’t make those writings inspired. Nor does that establish its infallibility in declaring other practices apostolic. And now you’re making another jump..Scripture condemns denying that Christ came in the flesh (1 John 4:2–3), not refusing to venerate his image. I fully affirm the Incarnation. The question is how rejecting icon veneration logically constitutes denying it. Nicaea II asserting that implication doesn’t prove it. Prove it through Gods word teaching it explicitly and by the apostles.

This post here just proves many people lack critical thinking, particularly when distinguishing historical evidence from proof of apostolic doctrine. Much of Truglia’s evidence concerned Christians possessing or using images, which proves absolutely nothing about whether the apostles taught their religious veneration. The existence of images, their devotional use, and obligatory veneration are distinct categories. His analogies also failed to establish the necessary equivalence. The burden was on Truglia to demonstrate that icon veneration as defined by Nicaea II was apostolic, not merely that Christians historically used images. On the actual debate resolution, White had the stronger case.

Seraphim Hamilton☦️ 🇺🇸 @seraphim199

3 days ago

I'm not a big debate guy, but I watched the debate between James White and Craig Truglia. Craig performed masterfully. It seems to me evident (which is strange, as White has traditionally prepared thoroughly for these debates) that White simply was not prepared for or aware of

25 33 393 11K 37

@Alex_Ortodoxie @OverEazy3 Where does it say that

@Alex_Ortodoxie So st basil is infallible and can make up any claim he wants🙄

You accuse me of encouraging adultery and leading people to hell simply because I defend the exception Jesus gives in Matthew 19:9. My position is that divorce and remarriage are sinful except on the grounds of sexual immorality. You’re treating your interpretation as unquestionable and condemning anyone who disagrees with it. You claim Mark and Luke were obligated to mention an exception if one existed, yet you argue Matthew’s exception refers ONLY to betrothal, despite Matthew 19 never identifying betrothal as its subject. Why must our interpretation be explicitly qualified while yours doesn’t? Mark being the earliest Gospel, Luke consulting eyewitnesses, and some early Christians not possessing all four Gospels do not establish that their accounts are exhaustive or that their omissions invalidate Matthew. Matthew records Peter walking on water, yet Mark and John omit it. Matthew records two blind men, while Mark focuses on Bartimaeus. There are plenty of other examples. By your logic, these would also be contradictions. Mark and Luke don’t explicitly reject Matthew’s exception. They simply don’t record it. On what basis do you give Mark and Luke’s unqualified statements precedence over Matthew’s explicit exception? Your argument that Matthew would’ve used moicheia if he intended adultery assumes that moicheia and porneia cannot overlap in meaning. Yet both word families are even used figuratively for Israel’s unfaithfulness to God. As for your suggestion that Matthew was translating an original Hebrew or Aramaic word restricted to premarital harlotry, where’s the evidence for that original wording? You’re reconstructing an unrecorded expression and using it to restrict the Greek text we actually possess. Then there’s your insistence that Matthew would’ve been obligated to list specific sexual offences if porneia had a broader meaning. Yet Matthew doesn’t explicitly identify betrothal misconduct as the meaning of porneia in chapter 19 either. You’re demanding clarification for our interpretation while excusing its absence from yours. Joseph’s situation establishes that a betrothal could be dissolved through divorce. But Matthew 19 concerns the Pharisees asking whether a man could divorce his wife for any cause. Jesus responds with the one-flesh marriage union and Moses’ certificate of divorce. You still haven’t explained why an exception within that discussion must refer exclusively to an unconsummated betrothal. Regarding Moses, Deuteronomy 24 recognises divorce followed by another marriage. Jesus acknowledges Moses permitted divorce because of hardness of heart, rejects divorce on arbitrary grounds, and states an exception within a sentence addressing both divorce and remarriage. You’ve yet to establish why that exception permits only separation while the marriage bond necessarily remains. Your appeal to the early church doesn’t establish your interpretation either. Some early writers prohibited remarriage even following adultery, but that doesn’t prove Matthew’s exception was restricted to betrothal. Origen himself reports that some church leaders permitted remarriage while the former spouse lived, although he disagreed with them. So disagreement existed among early Christian leaders. All I’ve seen you do is make assertions and assumptions. 1. Identify the Aramaic word or concept you claim was translated. 2. The many examples of differences in details between the Gospels directly challenge your claim that Matthew’s account must contain only what Mark and Luke record. By your logic, these differences would also be contradictions. 3. The early church did not hold exclusively and unanimously to your view of that passage. The fact that church fathers disagreed with one another, and sometimes contradicted themselves on other theological matters, doesn’t help your case. 4. You haven’t provided a single shred of evidence demonstrating why porneia must mean exclusively premarital sexual misconduct.

You’re conflating the Church recognising apostolic writings with possessing infallible authority to declare practices apostolic. The canon was given by God, not created by the Church. Peter identifies Paul’s letters as Scripture (2 Peter 3:16), while Paul cites teaching also found in Luke 10:7 as Scripture (1 Timothy 5:18). These writings already possessed authority before the Church formally recognised the canon. But Nicaea II declaring icon veneration apostolic doesn’t establish that the apostles taught it. As James White pointed out, where is the apostolic teaching, instruction or even a sermon establishing this practice? For a doctrine considered so vital that rejecting it warrants condemnation, why is there no identifiable apostolic instruction requiring it? So no, I reject your premise that the Church is infallible in its decisions about what should be venerated as holy. God determines what is holy, not the Church.

So I’m argumentative because I defend the orthodox interpretation of those texts you misuse? That’s funny. Your argument that Matthew would’ve used moicheia instead of porneia if Jesus meant adultery doesn’t hold up. Both terms can describe the same conduct, including Israel’s idolatry and covenant unfaithfulness. Scripture uses both adultery and prostitution imagery for that very betrayal. The words aren’t identical in every context, but their meanings clearly overlap. So the fact that Matthew uses porneia doesn’t exclude adultery. It could also indicate that Jesus intended sexual immorality more broadly. And Matthew 19 is discussing divorce within the one-flesh marriage union, not specifically betrothal. Joseph’s situation proves betrothal could be dissolved, not that Jesus restricted his exception to it. You still haven’t demonstrated why porneia MUST refer exclusively to premarital misconduct. That’s a restriction you’re imposing on the text.

Your argument depends on proving that Matthew’s exception applies ONLY to premarital sexual misconduct, but you haven’t established that. Porneia broadly refers to sexual immorality. Matthew distinguishing it from moicheia (adultery) doesn’t mean their meanings cannot overlap. Paul uses porneia in 1 Corinthians 5:1 for a man having his father’s wife. Calling Paul’s usage corrupted doesn’t prove your claim. Joseph’s contemplated divorce of Mary proves betrothal could be dissolved, not that Matthew’s exception is restricted to betrothal. And Matthew 19 concerns divorce generally, with Jesus appealing to the one-flesh marriage union. Where does Jesus limit his exception to Deuteronomy 22? Mark and Luke don’t reject Matthew’s exception. They simply don’t mention it. Omission isn’t contradiction. Nor have you demonstrated that Matthew’s Greek must carry the narrow Hebrew meaning you’re insisting upon. Regarding wives, Mark 10:12 explicitly addresses women divorcing their husbands, while 1 Corinthians 7:15 says an abandoned brother or sister is not enslaved. Your claim that this merely means they needn’t pursue the departing spouse is itself an interpretation. Appealing to early church writers doesn’t establish your interpretation either. The Shepherd of Hermas discusses divorce for adultery within marriage while prohibiting remarriage. That doesn’t support restricting porneia to premarital misconduct. Your appeal to Hosea also overlooks Jeremiah 3:8, where God explicitly gives adulterous Israel a certificate of divorce. You can’t selectively use God’s faithfulness as a universal marriage rule while ignoring that passage. And I don’t dispute that Jesus defines marriage as between man and woman. That’s irrelevant to whether his stated exception applies within marriage. You’ve presented several arguments compatible with your interpretation, but none establishes its exclusivity. Where does Scripture actually restrict Matthew’s exception to premarital sexual misconduct?

Mark 10:12 explicitly addresses wives divorcing husbands, while 1 Corinthians 7:15 says neither brother nor sister is enslaved when an unbelieving spouse departs. Appealing to early church leaders doesn’t establish what Jesus meant by porneia. You haven’t demonstrated why Matthew’s exception must refer exclusively to premarital misconduct.

Porneia is not restricted to premarital sexual misconduct. Matthew 19 concerns divorce within marriage, and nothing explicitly limits Jesus’ exception to Deuteronomy 22 or betrothal. Joseph’s situation proves such a divorce was possible, not that it was the ONLY exception Jesus allowed. And Mark and Luke omitting Matthew’s qualification doesn’t negate it. You’re importing a restriction into the text, not deriving it from the text.

God commanding sacred imagery doesn’t establish religious veneration of those images, much less the doctrine of Nicaea II. And claiming a practice existed before the apostles doesn’t shift the burden onto me to prove it stopped. First demonstrate that the same practice existed, was authorised by God, and was actually taught or endorsed by the apostles.

@GibranStormcrow @DefiantBaptist What about Mathew 5:32 and Mathew 19:9??!! Did you conveniently forget to mention it?

@RibtardLapist Yeah what was that example of pre apostolic again? Something about venerating a cross in the book of Galatians ? Amongst other unbelievable out the gate examples….

@catholicdads_ Jesus: “I will build my church” Catholics: “ The church was built on Peter”

@MethodMinistry Yeah that interpretation was craaaaaazy🥴

@ANotionToPonder Agree to disagree then

@HisLifeNMe @CCalvinism @RCSproul Nope. I have no problems with man making his free will choices too. I agree.

Nicaea I is a false equivalence. Nobody is demanding the apostles used the exact wording of later councils. The issue is whether the underlying doctrine was apostolic. The Trinity’s substance is grounded in apostolic Scripture. Where is the equivalent evidence that the apostles taught icon veneration?

@QuietOrthodoxy @seraphim199 It’s not that difficult to grasp. The question remains whether the practice genuinely originated with the apostles, not whether a later council declared it apostolic. It’s not the same thing my friend.

@HisLifeNMe @CCalvinism @RCSproul Yes the fault was there’s. So what’s the problem?