Matthew's Exception Clause

  • Thread starter Thread starter rcwitness
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Darryl_B said:
The definition of porneia is sex in exchange for something. It is purely transactional. It is not based on mutual love, sex for sex, but rather sex in exchange for something other than sex.
Click to expand...
Ummm… what is your Greek source?

What is “exchanged” with the man in 1 Corinthians 5:1?
 
My Greek source was classical Greek at University, for some reason the lecturer made a great point in explaining the difference, and Greek dictionaries that are not published by religious organizations.

The transaction was lodgings, being kept.

There is a lost in translation going on here. Words which mean specific things in the original language are not immediately transferable into English. The boundaries of words are different in the two languages. There is no neat glove word for word.

For Matthew the problem is compounded by the fact that the original was written in Hebrew, not Greek, and I’m only working off the Greek, since I do not have a copy of the Hebrew.
 
Darryl_B said:
For Matthew the problem is compounded by the fact that the original was written in Hebrew, not Greek, and I’m only working off the Greek, since I do not have a copy of the Hebrew.
Click to expand...
No one does, nor do we know whether the Hebrew was translated into the Greek.

Moreover, your claim of a classical Greek usage of ‘porneia’ gets weakened if the original was in Hebrew, which would not have necessarily had that implication. 😉
 
Gorgias said:
No one does, nor do we know whether the Hebrew was translated into the Greek.

Moreover, your claim of a classical Greek usage of ‘porneia’ gets weakened if the original was in Hebrew, which would not have necessarily had that implication. 😉
Click to expand...
I agree, that is why I mentioned it.
 
I will add something to this, because I am not sure I will have the chance to say this within this thread, and it may not be picked up from the obvious, and I may never have the opportunity to say this again. The man in 1 Corinthians 5:1 was being a toy-boy, the woman was the dominant, he was the article, a possession, he was the concubine to the woman.
 
Darryl_B said:
My friend, it is very hard to follow what you are saying as I have no idea what your punctuation terms “>>” “>>>” “>” represent.
Click to expand...
Respectfully toward. Agree with Darryl_B:! :)Thank you kindly for bringing that to my attention and for my poor communication skills, doing so respectfully also!. Will work harder to improve on that! Enjoy reading the post of all, how one can learn. Peace 🙂
 
My friend, I could understand that, and I would love to be able to understand what you said earlier. Appreciate if you could say it again in another way.
 
Darryl_B said:
My friend, I could understand that, and I would love to be able to understand what you said earlier. Appreciate if you could say it again in another way.
Click to expand...
Respectfully toward, you are a compassionate kind soul, thank you! 🙂
 
Darryl_B said:
The man in 1 Corinthians 5:1 was being a toy-boy, the woman was the dominant, he was the article, a possession, he was the concubine to the woman.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the mercenary aspect of the relationship between the churchgoer and his stepmother is indicated solely by Paul’s use of the noun porneia?
 
Aulef said:
I meant that this quote alone is a good topic on its own.
Click to expand...
My bad…it indeed may be…I apologize for my jumping to conclusions and lack of understanding of where you were coming from.
 
So you think that Jesus was referring to these kinds of relationships which resulted in a type of marriage?
 
Last edited:
I don’t see anything mercenary, as such, about the transaction. Not only by porneia. The man is stated as living with his father’s wife. This would not be wrong by itself, yet it is still specifically mentioned.

Also this needs to be something even the pagans did not do, it’s a bit different in today’s society unfortunately.
 
That’s the problem, I don’t know whether the Jews could have considered this type of relationship “marriage”, and whether it would be something Jesus would discuss within the valid context of marriage.

I just have reservations. I would be interested in any further information brought to light on this.
 
Or what about the basic notion which Paul asserts:

1 Corinthians 6
Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two shall become one.”

???
 
Last edited:
Darryl_B said:
The man in 1 Corinthians 5:1 was being a toy-boy, the woman was the dominant, he was the article, a possession, he was the concubine to the woman.
Click to expand...
That is the relationship that I thought I was summing up in the one word “mercenary”. In your own words, “The definition of porneia is sex in exchange for something. It is purely transactional. It is not based on mutual love, sex for sex, but rather sex in exchange for something other than sex.”
 
The relationship could just be mutual convenience rather than mercenary. Mercenary sounds like one party is gaining much more at the expense of the other.
 
Darryl_B said:
The relationship could just be mutual convenience rather than mercenary. Mercenary sounds like one party is gaining much more at the expense of the other.
Click to expand...
If you object to the word “mercenary” I withdraw it. No problem. I was just using at as a shorthand. If you prefer your own term “transactional” or “for mutual convenience”, that’s okay. My question is this: Are you saying that the transactional or toyboy aspect of the relationship between the Corinthian churchgoer and his stepmother is indicated solely by Paul’s use of the noun porneia?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top