Ok brother you want to talk TITUS 3:9? Let's talk TITUS 3:9. Some comments on about your post here for your consideration.
Titus 3:9 But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile.
Did you read any of the your post you c&p in this post?
Titus 3:9 μωρὰς δὲ ζητήσεις καὶ γενεαλογίας καὶ ἔρεις
καὶ μάχας νομικὰς περιΐστασο· εἰσὶ γὰρ ἀνωφελεῖς καὶ μάταιοι.
The words in in Titus 3:9 shown in bold and underlined in English are also bold and underlined in Greek.
Here you go; Titus 3:9 But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions,
and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile.
Q1. What law is being referred to? The context your leaving out here is helpful which is..
μωρὰς δὲ ζητήσεις καὶ γενεαλογίας καὶ ἔρεις
CONTEXT is the foolish controversies and arguments in relation to
geneologies about the law.
Q2. Are we talking about and having arguments and controversies about the geneologies of the law?
Maybe in another thread I do not know but we are certainly not talking about the geneologies of the law in this thread are we?
In the definition shown below which is taken from "The Complete WordStudy Dictionary" of 1993 AD the word for "the law" is shown. It is νομικός nomikos. No mentioon of "ceremonial" is present. What is the source for the definition that you posted? νομικός nomikós; fem. nomikḗ, neut. nomikón, adj. from nómos (G3551), law. Pertaining to the law, a matter of law; subst. one skilled in the law, a lawyer. Lawyers appear together with the Pharisees in Luk 7:30 and Luk 14:3. Apparently they were from among the Pharisees (Mat 22:35) and with the scribes (Mar 12:28; Luk 10:25; Luk 11:45-46, Luk 11:52) and were experts in the Mosaic law. In all places where the word is employed and legal questions come into consideration, the scribes appear as authorities in questions concerning prophecy (Mat 2:4; Mat 13:52). It may be inferred that "scribes" is a generic name, and the nomikoí, lawyers, are the specialised ones skilled in law and jurisprudence of the Law of Moses. Nomodidáskalos (G3547), teacher of the law (Luk 5:17; Act 5:34), is apparently another name. Probably the members of the Sanhedrin and the Council were learned in the law. The lawyer Zenas, whom Paul mentions in Tit 3:13, was probably an attorney of Roman law and not Mosaic law.
Perhaps you need to re-read the definition you posted brother, which is in reference to the MOSAIC LAW *DEUTERONOMY 31:24-26; EXODUS 24:7 which God's WORD says is the BOOK of the law not God's 10 commandments that give us the KNOWLEDGE of what SIN is in the NEW COVENANT when broken *ROMANS 3:20; ROMANS 7:7; 1 JOHN 3:4. So brother the very reference your claiming in not talking about the ceremonial laws of Moses is actually referring to the cermonial laws of Moses.
Here are some other definitions of
νομικός nomikós;
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
about the law, lawyer. From
nomos; according (or pertaining) to law, i.e. Legal (
ceremonially); as noun, an expert in the (
Mosaic)
law -- about the law, lawyer.
Thayer's Greek Lexicon STRONGS NT 3544: νομικός νομικός, νομικη, νομικόν (νόμος), pertaining to (the) law (Plato, Aristotle, others): μάχαι,
Titus 3:9; ὁνομικός, one learned in the law, in the N. T. an interpreter and teacher of the
Mosaic law (A. V. a lawyer; cf.γραμματεύς, 2):
Matthew 22:35;
Luke 10:25;
Titus 3:13; plural,
Luke 7:30;
Luke 11:45f, 52;
Luke 14:3.
So summary your definitions agree with mine. The GREEK word used here in in reference to the MOSAIC ceremonial laws written in the BOOK of the law *DEUTERONOMY 31:24-26; EXODUS 24:7 not God's ETERNAL LAW (10 Commandments). The CONTEXT of the scripture is arguments of the geneologies of the MOSAIC law not God's 10 Commandments.
Commentaries do not generally refer "the law" to ceremonial matters exclusively.
For example Robertson's word pictures says
Titus 3:9 Fightings about the law (machas nomikas). “Legal battles.” See note on 1Ti 6:4; 2Ti 2:23. Wordy fights about Mosaic and Pharisaic and Gnostic regulations.Shun (periistaso). Present middle imperative of periistēmi, intransitive, step around, stand aside (2Ti 2:16). Common in this sense in the literary Koiné. Unprofitable (anōpheleis). Old compound adjective (a privative and ophelos), in N.T. only here and Heb 7:18.
And Albert Barnes says Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions and genealogies - See the 1Ti 1:4 note; 2Ti 2:16, 2Ti 2:23 notes. And contentions, and strivings about the law - Such as the Jews started about various matters connected with the law - about meats and drinks, etc.; the notes at 1Ti 1:4; compare the notes at Act 18:15. For they are unprofitable and vain - - They disturb and embitter the feelings; they lead to the indulgence of a bad spirit; they are often difficult to be settled, and are of no practical importance if they could be determined. The same thing might be said of multitudes of things about which men dispute so earnestly now.And the Cambridge Bible Commentary saysTitus 3:9 The summary of the other chief topic of the letter; the dealing with the false teaching and evil living of the day. See note above. avoid foolish questions] The Greek puts the errors first in stronger contrast to the good; ‘questions’ should be ‘questionings’ as in 1Ti 1:4. see note there; where also ‘genealogies’ is considered. ‘Genealogies’ would be a special and prevailing theme of the ‘questionings,’ and ‘fightings about the law,’ of the ‘contentions,’ as Bp Ellicott points out, following Wiesinger. Cf. 1Ti 6:4; 2Ti 2:23; and Introduction on the Gnostic heresy. Keeping the A.V. avoid we may give it the due emphasis at the close, as we cannot with ‘shun’ of R.V. ‘Avoid’ from Fr. vuider, vider, ‘to make empty,’ is used intransitively and transitively, exactly as the Greek word here is also used to ‘give a wide berth,’ ‘to stand off and make a circuit.’ Cf. 1Sa 18:11, where R.V. still has ‘David avoided out of his presence twice;’ Pro 4:15, ‘walk not in the way of evil men: avoid it, pass not by it.’
unprofitable and vain] ‘Vain’ is added to intensify ‘unprofitable’; from its use here then it should mean ‘vain’ in its results, and be opposed to ‘good,’ which is ‘seen to be good’ above. So in 1Co 15:17, ‘your faith is vain, ye are yet in your sins.’ While above, Tit 3:14, ‘our preaching is void; your faith also is void: we are found false witnesses;’ there is no true basis of fact for preaching or faith; the word there being different. See Bp Ellicott’s note, and references.
Now brother, did you read the commentaries you are posting from? All your commentaries are agreeing with what was already posted to you that TITUS 3:9 is in reference to arguments about the geneologies of MOSAIC laws written in the BOOK of the law of the OLD COVENANT *DEUTERONOMY 31:24-26; EXODUS 24:7 and are not referring at all to God's ETERNAL LAW that give us the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL; SIN and RIGHTOUESNESS in the NEW COVENANT *ROMANS 3:20; ROMANS 7:7; 1 JOHN 3:4.
Take a re-read of your use of the BARNES and the Cambridge Bible Commentary for example which is saying exactly what is being posted to you here. The TITUS 3:9 is in reference to avoiding arguments about the geneologies of the MOSAIC law. Not God's 10 commandments brother.
I was going to post a stack of bible commentaries on TITUS 3:9 but I do not think I need to.
Hope this help
