“Oh there’s PLENTY of it that I have a hard time swallowing. There are hard things to ponder within the Word. This verse, though, is not one of them... And what your church has extrapolated from this verse proves out that the original premise (as interpreted by y’all) is stone-dead wrong.”
How so? Because it disagrees with your own personal interpretation?
“Context and witness. Two invaluable friends when deciphering the oracles of YHWH.”
Ahh. I see. So Christ nowhere says that “if it’s only in one verse, it doesn’t count”. I suppose that goes for ‘except for in cases of marital infidelity.
You’re making this all up as you go along, aren’t you? What other ‘special rules’ do you have that appear nowhere in scripture?
Do these ‘special rules’ count as Tradition?
No. Because it disagrees with the Torah.
Ahh. I see. So Christ nowhere says that “if it’s only in one verse, it doesn’t count”. I suppose that goes for ‘except for in cases of marital infidelity.
Again, Torah, and the example of the Pharisees. Them that do not know history are doomed to repeat it... and repeat it, they do.
You’re making this all up as you go along, aren’t you? What other ‘special rules’ do you have that appear nowhere in scripture?
Nothing really. Just a sure knowledge that the Bible can say anything you want it to, especially if one is free to build it out of a verse here and a verse there.
What locks it down into it's meaning is the law and the prophets. And necessarily, if it destroys the law or the prophets, it cannot be true - 'Every jot and tittle', as it were.
So a literary interpretation must conform to the Torah, and if a prophecy, must be built upon the prophets that have come before. Work with that and see how far your tradition holds up.
Do these ‘special rules’ count as Tradition?
Nope. Torah. You should read it sometime. :)