Or a person doesn't see why anyone would go to such great lengths to torture language and usage to keep their own perspective, especially when the plain meaning is clear.
Saved by faith alone?
- Thread starter Lamar
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Lotta so-called scholars here doing that... Then we had an apostate atheist scholar recommended to us.
And doubly odd that the recommender ran off without sharing what good was seen in the guy!
It is not going to great lengths to torture language and usage, when someone is giving real examples of how we actually use words and language, in order to help others see that one sentence can be understood in different ways, depending on context and the readers predilections.
There is a picture that can look like an old lady or a young woman. Some people see one, and some see the other. It would not be going to great lengths to torture the image to explain to the person who sees the old woman where the features are of the young woman so that they could see both women. But a person might refuse even to follow the reasoning that would allow them to see the young woman, and call the explanation torturing the image, if they had previously denied there was any possibility of any such maiden, and they were the kind of person who hates being proved wrong.
I followed your reasoning. I even gave you credit for creativity. I simply think you are swallowing camels and straining at gnats.
I bet your feet don't touch the ground when you walk. Your preference is being right. What scripture plainly states is not a preference. You seem to be trying hard to make it one though.
Grace and peace.I bet your feet don't touch the ground when you walk. Your preference is being right. What scripture plainly states is not a preference. You seem to be trying hard to make it one though.
Cameron did not 'sound' like he did not understand to me. He was sounding out the other's understanding.Then perhaps don't 'sound' like you don't understand.
Mat 5:19
Whosoever therefore shall break (λύσῃ aorist active subjunctive, broke/breaks) one of these least commandments, and shall teach (διδάξῃ, aorist active subjunctive, taught/teaches) men so, he shall be called (κληθήσεται, future passive indicative) the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do (ποιήσῃ, aorist active subjunctive) and shall teach (διδάξῃ, aorist active subjunctive, taught, teaches) them, the same shall be called (κληθήσεται, future active indicative) great in the kingdom of heaven.
This statement has the same verbal structure as Matt. 12:32 -
32 And whoever (ὃς ἐὰν) spoke/speaks (εἴπῃ . aorist active subjunctive) a word (λόγον ) against (κατὰ) the son (τοῦ υἱοῦ) of man (τοῦ ἀνθρώπου) it shall be forgiven (ἀφεθήσεται, future passive indicative ) to him (αὐτῷ); but whoever (ὃς δ᾽ ἂν) said/says (εἴπῃ , aorist active subjunctive) against the Holy Spirit (κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου) it shall not be forgiven (οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται , future passive indicative) to him (αὐτῷ), either in this age (οὔτε ἐν τούτῳ τῷ αἰῶνι) or in the coming one (οὔτε ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι).
So, if we apply your faulty interpretation of Matt. 12:32 to Matt. 5:19, you would have to argue that any person who even once breaks one of the commandments of the Sermon on the Mount, s/he will be called least in the kingdom of God in perpetuity. Their is no chance of them being promoted to a greater status in the church than "the least". Do you really believe that?
Mat 10:32
Whosoever therefore shall confess (ὁμολογήσει , future active indicative, shall be confessing) me before men, him I will confess (ὁμολογήσω, future active indicative, I will be confessing) also before my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 10:33
But whosoever shall deny (ἀρνήσηταί , aorist deponent indicative, denied/denies) me before men, him I will also deny (ἀρνήσομαι, future deponent indicative) before my Father which is in heaven.
Matt 10:32 uses future indicatives in both clauses, indicating that Jesus will be confessing to the Father any person while they are confessing Him.
But Matt 10:32 uses the same verbal structure as Matt. 12:32.
So, you would have to insist, again applying your faulty interpretation of the Greek verbs, that any person whoever once denies Jesus will permanently be denied by Jesus before the Father. So, Simon Peter is toast, according to you.
Do you still insist that your reading of the text of Matt. 12:32 is the plain and obvious meaning? Or are you the one torturing the language to make it say what you have committed yourself to defending.
Did Peter blaspheme the Spirit? Did he say Jesus' works were done by the power of Satan?
You are not dealing with the linguistic grammatical argument I have presented to you. Peter denied Jesus three times. If we apply your interpretation of "aorist subjunctive .... future indicative" that you insist must be applied to the unforgiven sin in Matt. 12:33 (i.e. Someone commits slander against the Holy Spirit and there can be no subsequent forgiveness in perpetuity for that sin), then after Peter denied Jesus once before men, Jesus promised to deny Peter before the Father in perpetuity.... if you are correct about Matt. 12:32.
If you do not think the Greek of Matt. 10:33 supports Peter being perpetually denied by Jesus before the Father, then you must concede equally that the Greek of Matt 12:33, does not support a slanderer of the Holy Spirit being unforgiven in perpetuity in Matt. 12:32.
My apologies. I see that I gave an incorrect reference in the paragraph highlighted above in red. It should say -
Matt 10:32 uses future indicatives in both clauses, indicating that Jesus will be confessing to the Father any person while they are confessing Him.
But Matt 10:33 uses the same verbal structure as Matt. 12:32.
So, you would have to insist, again applying your faulty interpretation of the Greek verbs, that any person whoever once denies Jesus will permanently be denied by Jesus before the Father. So, Simon Peter is toast, according to you.