Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Tell me what we're talking about again, nadiine. Show me that you even know what we're disagreeing on at this point as Im starting to doubt that you do.he still wasn't wrong about THAT tho.
Youre really funny.who's arguing HM???
can't YOU just drop it??
Looking at this post once more there is NO way to confuse that CiC is very clearly attacking ALL remarriage as a SEPARATE issue from UNmarried sex...precisely what I responded to originally...just as it is clear they are also speaking about homosexuality and a few other non-related points.What *I* responded to was very much a error on the part of the poster in question, Im afraid. He blanketly condemns something that scripture does not.
he also seems to be attacking women who use birth control and abortion and adding them to this list of 'heresies' hes created....I suppose THOSE are solely about PREmarital sex too according to some here.The Church predicted this would happen with the advent of modernism and social liberalism.
Now we have people who say re-marriage isn't a sin, homosexuality is a gift from God, 2 men or women can get married, motherhood is a curse, and the murder of the unborn is a human right. What you talk about is an after-effect of all these heresies that have come into play. It began all the way 2000 years ago beginning with Gnosticism and it continues on till this day(and probably till the end when the Day of Judgment comes)
let me requote you his post since you just cannot let anyone disagreeTell me what we're talking about again, nadiine. Show me that you even know what we're disagreeing on at this point as Im starting to doubt that you do.
What *I* responded to was very much a error on the part of the poster in question, Im afraid. He blanketly condemns something that scripture does not.
He never ONCE specified what aspects of remarriage he was evenThe Church predicted this would happen with the advent of modernism and social liberalism.
Now we have people who say re-marriage isn't a sin, homosexuality is a gift from God, 2 men or women can get married, motherhood is a curse, and the murder of the unborn is a human right. What you talk about is an after-effect of all these heresies that have come into play. It began all the way 2000 years ago beginning with Gnosticism and it continues on till this day(and probably till the end when the Day of Judgment comes)
Ok, so don't get me wrong, I am not at all arguing that this type of action would be alright. But, I have to admit, I don't know anyone that has done this. Perhaps it is just the community in which I live, but I don't think that it is nearly as widespread as you think.
Please tell me you're kidding.Every single couple I knew from Church that divorced were living with someone new before their marriage was officially dissolved by the courts. It is unfortunate but my perspective is entirely the polar of yours.
READ his post again, N....he was blanketly covering ALL remarriage...period...there was no need to define any details.let me requote you his post since you just cannot let anyone disagree
with something you post.
He never ONCE specified what aspects of remarriage he was even
referring to - it was left completely vague.
ONLY in ONE case where two believers have divorced without just cause.You yourself have even stated here that unlawful means of divorce
in certain situations does not give license for remarriage.
Jesus was dealing with a very specific situation...just as Paul was.Jesus said except for fornication or adultery, there is NO remarriage
allowed.
No, his post was far from accurate. He condemns all remarriage here as he has in other threads.His post IS accurate, it is simply generalized as a list of morals
that quite a few in the church are overturning as they become more and more liberal. & clearly MANY in the church ARE wrongly divorcing
for simply not getting along anymore & moving onto others.
Ill believe it when I see you stop posting in my direction, N....But whatever, I have no intention of continuing this back and forth
w/ you.
Every single couple I knew from Church that divorced were living with someone new before their marriage was officially dissolved by the courts. It is unfortunate but my perspective is entirely the polar of yours.
Mat 19:1 When Jesus had finished these words, He departed from Galilee and came into the region of Judea beyond the Jordan;Jesus is dealing with Jews such as Herod and Herodias who met, fell in lust and then conspired to put away their spouses without cause to have each other...THAT is the context of His words to the Jews.
I realize that some false doctrines like to run to absolutes but Im sorry that only ends in error.
False dilemma. You forgot another option- that your interpretation is wrong.Tell me this, GC.....who was lying here..Mark or Matthew....or maybe Jesus was ?
Are they the same event? If not, there is nothing to say that you are right.Tells us.. was Mark lying in his ABSOLUTE statement that NO SIGN would be given ?
Or is Matthew the liar when he says that no sign EXCEPT the one would be given ?
No. You tell us if the two accounts are of the same event:Mark offers NO exception....NO SIGN is listed at all.
Matthew shows that a sign WILL be given...that of Jonah.
So tell us which account is the accurate one if you please.
I do look at the whole thing. I also see that the only reference to Herod in Matthew is in the Nativity story and in Matthew 14, and that in Mark it's separated by 4 chapters. There's nothing in Matthew 19 or Mark 10 that would indicate that a sin similar to Herod's was being committed. There's nothing in either of them to suggest that it's just one person leaving their spouse for another. It says that they left their spouse and got married to someone else:The facts from the WHOLE show us that a sign WAS given....the sign of Jonah even tho Mark does not provide that data.
So please understand if I reject the idea that I have to ONLY use Christs word in a couple passages about divorce and remarriage and instead do what I have to do about Marks account of this sign and look to the WHOLE of Gods word for my information.
Hyper-Calvinists do just what a few do here and run to a select few verses to create fallacies and error.
READERS SEE->Click->>> Comparing Hyper-marital doctrines to Hyper-Calvinism
And the context of Bible verses- the surrounding chapter, not the one chapter 4-5 chapters before the verse- determines their meaning, not jumping around and connecting dots that aren't meant to be connected.The WHOLE truth is in the WHOLE bible....not 3 pet passages.
laughable statement.Red herring.
What on earth ?THAT is the context of that passage. Not Herod. Herod's problem was that he married his brother's wife, and that has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. It's not even referenced anywhere near Matthew 19, it's 5 chapters earlier.
False dilemma. You forgot another option- that your interpretation is wrong.
Amazing response.Are they the same event? If not, there is nothing to say that you are right.
Irrelevant.In one instance, Jesus is talking to his disciples. In the second, Jesus is talking to a large group of people.
No, chap...I made NO such assertion...you are bearing false witness.No. You tell us if the two accounts are of the same event:
Mat 15:39 And sending away the crowds, Jesus got into the boat and came to the region of Magadan.
Fact..In BOTH accounts a 'sign from heaven' is requested.That's the word used for 'sign' in both Matthew and Mark. This word has several meanings. In Matthew, the context indicates that it's talking about everything BUT 1b2 above. The sign of the prophet Jonah wasn't a miracle in any sense of the word. Whereas Mark was clearly using only 1b2, indicating a physical sign. The sign of Jonah is not a physical sign. The two passages do not contradict at all. Mark is talking about a miracle, Matthew is talking about a sign as it pertains to a symbol.
The ENTIRETY of Gods word applies chap....your rejection of that fact is irrelevant.And the context of Bible verses- the surrounding chapter, not the one chapter 4-5 chapters before the verse- determines their meaning, not jumping around and connecting dots that aren't meant to be connected.
"Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart"
Jesus versus Paul ?
By WmTipton
Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
Here we will show that not only can one put asunder a marriage (that its possible), but Paul even gives instruction to do just that in certain cases. These seemingly different statements ("Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart")are actually about the same exact thing...putting asunder/Chorizo...as proven very conclusively by the greek.
Supporting Evidence
1.0
There is an errant teaching out there that claims that when Jesus said 'let not man put asunder' regarding marriage, that He 'meant' man CANNOT put asunder.
What we will show briefly in this article that there IS an occurance in scripture where it is shown absolutely that man can indeed 'put asunder' what God has joined together.L: “When God joins two together, they are now ONE. What GOD joins, man CANNOT separate”
See 'put asunder' in each of these passages?
Bear in mind that, in the context these are in, Jesus and the pharisees are discussing putting away of a wife there in BOTH of those passages. The context of 'put asunder' is putting away of a marriage/wife, nothing less.So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate(G5563-CHORIZO)."
(Mat 19:6 EMTV)
(Mar 10:9) 'and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has united together, let not man separate(G5563-CHORIZO)."
(Mar 10:8-9 EMTV)
Jesus is CLEARLY discussing not putting asunder of this 'one flesh' that is being spoken of there.
The word is (G5563)chorizo and it only appears a few times in scripture.
That word 'put asunder' is the EXACT same word for "depart" in 1 cor 7:11G5563
χωρίζω
chōrizō
Thayer Definition:
1) to separate, divide, part, put asunder, to separate one’s self from, to depart
1a) to leave a husband or wife
1a) of divorce
1b) to depart, go away
...in other words, Paul has just said this woman has done the exact thing that some claim that Jesus said men CANNOT do....'put asunder'.(1Co 7:11) But and if she depart(G5563), let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
Notice Paul makes no claim that she 'cannot' put asunder (depart), but clearly presents that IF she DOES do so, then this is the situation....she is to remain "agamos" (literally "UNmarried").
*IF* putting asunder were IMPOSSIBLE for man to do...then why doesnt Paul REstate (*IF* that were Jesus actual meaning) this fact ?
WHY does he simply say *IF* she puts asunder then ...... ?
*IF* no man can put asunder, then Paul makes absolutely no sense here whatsoever. He should have simply stated that it was impossible to do so.
The word in question pretty much just means to "place room between", "depart" or to "separate"...its not some magical phrase that Jesus used to make a marriage bond unbreakable...
What I find striking is that Paul could have used a number of other choices in demonstrating that this woman had left her husband...but chose the one word that was used in rendering Jesus' words about putting asunder.
Was it coincedence or intentional? Was Paul literally reaching out and using the one word that would make it clear that putting asunder IS indeed possible?
We wont know until that day, for sure...but we do know now that regardless of what some say, that Paul has shown that man CAN 'put asunder'....that is factual.
Certainly a call to reconcile is made to the believers...but this doesnt negate what is clearly presented in Gods word....man CAN indeed put asunder (separate) by Pauls own words.
2.0
Now that its been established that man can indeed ‘put asunder’ (chorizo) a marriage, we move on to something even more astounding. Clear instruction for the believer to actually allow the unbelieving spouse to ‘put asunder’ the marriage.
Heres a very remarkable passage that blows L’s statement above, that man CANNOT separate right out of the water. And not only that, it is our very own Paul giving INSTRUCTION for this believer to let it be so.
Remember “chorizo”G5563 our word from above ? Can you guess what greek word ‘depart’ there is rendered from ?1Co 7:15 KJV But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
You got it...the very same ‘chorizo’ (put asunder from Jesus’ statement ‘let not man put asunder”is right there in Paul own instruction to let the unbeliever do.
So we not only see absolute proof that man CAN put asunder a marriage, but we now have Paul even telling the believer to let the unbeliever do so !
This hardly sounds like a ‘cannot’ situation to me.
Now, of course this is not our Lords desire for marriage that it would ever have to be ended, but clearly He had enought forsight to show Paul to let the believer do EXACTLY what He Himself had told man not to do.
Why?
Because Jesus knows that no matter what we do as believers, there will always be unbelieving spouses who will not honor the covenant of marriage.
3.0
As we can see here in this passage, the believing wife who has departed (chorizo) her believing husband is considered 'agamos'.....'unmarried'.
(1Co 7:10 KJV) And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart(chorizo)from her husband:
(1Co 7:11 KJV) But and if she depart(chorizo), let her remain unmarried(agamos), or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
Logically carrying this 'agamos' over to this passage where this unbeliever also has departed the marriage its quite easy to conclude that this person would also be deemed as 'agamos' (unmarried)
(1Co 7:15 KJV) But if the unbelieving depart(chorizo), , let him depart(chorizo), . A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
in the former case where both are believers there is commandment to remain UNmarried or reconcile.
In the latter case tho, where one is unequally yoked, Paul clearly states that he is speaking, not the Lord, in this matter.
To these Paul gives concession not given to those who are equally yoked with another believer.
"BUT to the REST"....to these who are unequally yoked, Paul says quite plainly that they are not in bondage to that union where it has been put asunder.
4.0
Another point of interest is in verse 7:11 where it says 'let her remain unmarried or reconcile to her husband" the actual greek means 'let her remain unmarried or to the man let her be being conciliated"
It is often pushed that the use of 'her husband' there means that she is still married to the man, but that is not proven from the actual Greek at all. The greek word for 'man' is also used for 'husband'.
Paul used 'agamos' to describe this woman for a reason.
No, you seem to be stuck in Mark 10 and Matthew 19 where MDR is concerned...just as others of your fallacies areI do look at the whole thing.
Nuff said.I also see that the only reference to Herod in Matthew is in the Nativity story and in Matthew 14, and that in Mark it's separated by 4 chapters.
There's nothing in Matthew 19 or Mark 10 that would indicate that a sin similar to Herod's was being committed. There's nothing in either of them to suggest that it's just one person leaving their spouse for another. It says that they left their spouse and got married to someone else:
Herod and Herodias
By WmTipton
Some assert that because John accused Herod of having his brothers wife, that ALL divorce and remarriage is adultery.
But lets look at the facts that will show there is far more to this picture than many want to present.
The first thing to remember is that Jesus had not yet begun His ministry when John started accusing Herod and Herodias.(Luke 3:19-23)
Johns ministry was the beginning of, the transition into, the gospel kingdom
Herodias was the niece of Phillip and Herod, the daughter their own brother Aristobulus, and as such a close kinswoman.....
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
(Lev 18:14 KJV)
....thus marrying her was unlawful for either Phillip or Herod as she was closely related.
Another sin that was committed was that Herod and Herodias met and conspired to put away their spouses for no good reason, then marry each other. (Josephus XVIII, 5)
Not that God approved of this incestuous marriage to begin with, but this frivolous manner in which they held the marriage covenant exposes just how morally corrupt they were.
Some will try to assert a point of 'while his brother still lived" that it was unlawful for Herod to have Herodias, but we see that "while his brother lived" is a moot point entirely.
.
*IF* Herodias had not been a niece, and *IF* Philip HAD been dead even, Herod STILL could not have her.
He was ONLY permitted to marry His brothers widow *IF* she was childless according to Gods WHOLE law.
A man is not permitted to marry his brother wife.
He could ONLY marry his brothers widow IF she was left childless...otherwise it was unlawful.
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.
(Lev 18:16 KJV)
"If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.
(Deu 25:5 KJV) (not dissimilar to Matt 22:25-28)
The Law does not say..."until your brothers death" as would be the case normally where a man can marry a widow.
Gods law is clear...you SHALL NOT marry your brothers wife. Plain and simple.
The only exception to this rule seems to be Deut 25:5 above.
Johns use of 'your brothers wife' in his accusation of Herod quite possibly is explained by the law showing that Herod could NEVER have Herodias as his wife, even if she wasn’t his niece, simply because Herodias DID have a child with his brother Philip...thereby making it UNLAWFUL for Herod to EVER have her.
Of course, neither was Philip lawfully permitted to have this niece, so who knows what all John held against them?
Now lets approach this from the NEW covenant pov.
My assertion is that Jesus has done away with frivolous divorce....lets see if that fits as well.
Josephus shows us a great deal on this matter in book 18.
Chapter 5
"ABOUT this time Aretas (the king of Arabia Petres) and Herod had a quarrel on the account following: Herod the tetrarch had, married the daughter of Aretas, and had lived with her a great while; but when he was once at Rome, he lodged with Herod, (15) who was his brother indeed, but not by the same mother; for this Herod was the son of the high priest Sireoh's daughter.
However, he fell in love with Herodias, this last Herod's wife, who was the daughter of Aristobulus their brother, and the sister of Agrippa the Great. This man ventured to talk to her about a marriage between them; which address, when she admitted, an agreement was made for her to change her habitation, and come to him as soon as he should return from Rome: one article of this marriage also was this, that he should divorce Aretas's daughter"
FRIVOLOUS DIVORCE !!
He’s married, she’s married, but these two met and conspired to put away thier spouses for NO reason other than they wanted each other.
Josephus elsewhere also mentions Herodias’ own divorce from her uncle/husband Philip. Not to mention the fact that she was his own NIECE, and thus closely related. In both the old and the new covenants this union was morally corrupt and for more than one single reason !
In either covenant these two were in opposition to Gods instruction for marriage and presented NO remorse at all for thier actions. They were led by lust, and put away spouses for no reason at all to have each other. They would have been defying Mosiac law under that covenant, and been going against Jesus own exception in the new.
In NO way does their vile incestuous affair NULLIFY our Lord Jesus' own exception.
Jesus was asked by the Pharisees’s in Matt 19 (the same event as Mark 10s) if they could put her away ‘for every cause’... precisely what Herod was guilty of doing (as was Herodias) and precisely what Jesus was condemning, as the text clearly shows...’For EVERY cause’ divorce and subsequent remarriage ... a Jewish epidemic ..
Under Moses this ‘for every cause’ divorce had been tolerated....’suffered’ by Moses. Jesus came to set things straight.
And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him. And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation. And he left them, and entering into the ship again departed to the other side. Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, neither had they in the ship with them more than one loaf. And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread.
And when Jesus knew it, he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet hardened? Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember? When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve. And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? And they said, Seven. And he said unto them, How is it that ye do not understand?
(Mar 8:11-21)
versus
A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed. And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.
Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
(Mat 16:4-12)
Mat 16:5-12
The account in these verses is also recorded in Mar_8:13-21.
Alberte Barnes
I wanted to show a point here about context and harmony and taking one passage TOO literally while rejecting others that should be worked TOGETHER with the rest.
Scripture says what it says and means what it means, correct?
We take each passage as absolutely as it is stated by what some seem to present. Some seem to believe that scriptures cannot be modified by other, similar scriptures and we ALL seem to have the problem of pushing our pet passages as absolute while rejecting anything that doesnt agree with our views.
Here is something that is stated VERY clearly in Mark and why we can NEVER just look at ONE passage and believe that it presents any absolutes without consulting the spirit of the WHOLE of Gods word.
This is expressed as an absolute here in Mark;
See there ?Mar 8:11-13 KJV And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him. (12) And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation. (13) And he left them, and entering into the ship again departed to the other side.
An ABSOLUTE statement given and by Jesus Christ Himself.
If I wanted to pull a legalist stunt here with this verse I could keep going on about how CLEAR it is, how direct and how unyeilding it is presented.
It is stated AS an absolute fact, no questions asked. ...NO sign shall be given to this generation.
Now, do you believe it because Jesus SAID it or not, dear reader ?
Decide now before we go on whether you take HIm at HIS word or not.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
and now let us continue with related scriptures elsewhere in the NT.
See that ?...the REST of the story.The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven. He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
(Mat 16:1-4 KJV)
The statement in Mark was given as an ABSOLUTE....no exceptions, no excuses, absolutely absolute.
..but then we come to OTHER details in the NT...other writers....who give us MORE detail in the matter and make us realize that what is said in Mark IS true...but it ISNT the entire picture.
When you hear someone giving you a verse or two....someone pushing ONE side of a story on you and showing you the scriptures THEY want to have you believe, ALWAYs be a noble minded Berean and check the REST of Gods word in the matter.
Lets say you didnt know the scriptures and someone was pushing the Mark passage on you....you would literally believe that NO sign was to be given based on that narrow set of details, wouldnt you ?
This MDR thing is precisely the same.
Some here want you to accept THEIR pet passages as absolute without harmonizing ALL of the facts from the whole of Gods word in the matter.
They want you to see 'except for fornication' and 'God hates divorce' and base what you believe on THAT limited information instead of looking at the spirit of the WHOLE word of God.
Whatever Marks reasons for leaving out this sign of Jonah were, we know factually that Christ DID make the statement.
This is why we need all four gospels. It doesnt matter 'why' Mark didnt record the words, we KNOW that when Christ spoke about no sign being given that He DID say that the sign of Jonah would be given, even if Marks account seems to directly conflict with Matthews by not presenting it.
2.0
Additionally...curiousity got the better of me to see if Matthew and Marks accounts DO record the same event.
Heres both accounts after Jesus speaking about this sign....
Ive color coded some of the events to PROVE that this IS the same event...or maybe GC wants to claim that this exact discussion happened more than once with Christ disciples apparently being pretty dumb...needing to be taught the same exact thing a second time ??
And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him. And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation. And he left them, and entering into the ship again departed to the other side. Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, neither had they in the ship with them more than one loaf. And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread.
And when Jesus knew it, he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet hardened? Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember? When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve. And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? And they said, Seven. And he said unto them, How is it that ye do not understand?
(Mar 8:11-21)
versus
A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed. And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.
Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
(Mat 16:4-12)
Actual SCHOLARS of scripture show that this WAS the SAME event, btw...
Mat 16:5-12
The account in these verses is also recorded in Mar_8:13-21.
-Alberte Barnes
What fallacies? Do point them out.No, you seem to be stuck in Mark 10 and Matthew 19 where MDR is concerned...just as others of your fallacies are
Well, He compares us to sheep too, so yeah, I would expect that they're pretty dumb. How long did Judas stick with Jesus? 3+ years? And he still betrayed Jesus and didn't understand His message. How many times did Jesus predict his death and resurrection? Yet Peter tried to prevent it. And just a few verses before the event in Matthew Jesus asks, "Are you still so dull?" So yes, I would expect that they are different events. Especially considering the differences between who is addressing Jesus and how.Additionally...curiousity got the better of me to see if Matthew and Marks accounts DO record the same event since GC seems to want to make THAT the issue here instead of what is actually important...the question and the response given.
Heres both accounts after Jesus speaking about this sign....
Ive color coded some of the events to PROVE that this IS the same event...or maybe GC wants to claim that this exact discussion happened more than once with Christ disciples apparently being pretty dumb...needing to be taught the same exact thing a second time ??
One guy hardly makes up enough to back your case. Other commentaries reference Matthew 12:39. Is that also the same event?Actual SCHOLARS of scripture show that this WAS the SAME event, btw...
I thank you GC....Ill be adding this to the study just in case this diversion comes up in the future
At least one where you make the issue whether the accounts are the same to divert attention off the actual issue of what the question was and what the response was.What fallacies? Do point them out.
Entirely irrelevant.Well, He compares us to sheep too, so yeah, I would expect that they're pretty dumb. How long did Judas stick with Jesus? 3+ years? And he still betrayed Jesus and didn't understand His message. How many times did Jesus predict his death and resurrection? Yet Peter tried to prevent it. And just a few verses before the event in Matthew Jesus asks, "Are you still so dull?" So yes, I would expect that they are different events. Especially considering the differences between who is addressing Jesus and how.
Thats pretty funny.One guy hardly makes up enough to back your case. Other commentaries reference Matthew 12:39. Is that also the same event?
And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him. And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation. And he left them, and entering into the ship again departed to the other side. Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, neither had they in the ship with them more than one loaf. And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread.
And when Jesus knew it, he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet hardened? Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember? When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve. And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? And they said, Seven. And he said unto them, How is it that ye do not understand?
(Mar 8:11-21)
versus
A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed. And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.
Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
(Mat 16:4-12)
That's called taking things out of context, which I have shown you I haven't done several times now. It has nothing to do with hypercalvinism. We're not talking about election.laughable statement.
I suggest you actually study the matter out some poster. These MDR heresies work EXACTLY like 'hypercalvinism' does....pushing PART of the data to create fallacy that seems scriptural.
Why is that? I cling to all the relevant data- including the fact that Matthew and Mark are 2 different people and thusly record things differently but still include important things about who's talking to whom.You want to cling to 2 or 3 verses instead of accepting ALL of the relevant data and harmonizing it....such as Jesus saying 'let not man put asunder CHORIZO) while Paul turns right around and says LET the unbeliever depart (CHORIZO).
If I studied like some here Id have to believe Paul a heretic and Mark a liar.
Yes, I do know the situation with Herod. I read my Bible just like you do. However, there is nothing in Matthew 19 or Mark 10 that references their situation. Nothing at all.What on earth ?
Do you even KNOW the situation with Herod and Herodias, chap ?
Read Josephus for crying out loud if you cant figure it out.
The Context there that you quoted....divorcing without cause...for EVERY cause...is EXACTLY what Herod and Herodias did...they met and without cause conspired to put away their spouses to have each other.
Claims without backing aren't going to win you any points with me.Its no wonder you folks constantly disagree with facts...you clearly dont investigate the details beyond yoru own fallacious doctrines.
It's not a deflection. I have eyes too. See who was asking the query in the first place. See how 'signs' is being used in both places. That's what I look at. The essential parts of the passage.yeah....thats it.
It seems anytime those of your error cant deaL with fact its time for the smoke and mirrors
The rest of us have eyes, GC....we can SEE what Jesus is asked for and we can SEE how Mark and Matthew record His response TO that query.
Your deflection is apparent and quite irrelevant.
I've asked people the same question more than once. Why should Jesus be any different? His ministry spanned 3 years. You're saying He can't have repeated things in that time?Amazing response.
The question is the same...that they wanted to see a 'sign from heaven'...so it is irrelevant if its the same exact event or not.
I see that dodging is your only response here.
Are you so bold as to accuse me of things without backing? Just because something looks like something to you doesn't mean it actually is what you think it is. It's called differences in perception. Given that one response was when Jesus was talking to the crowd and one was talking to the disciples, I'd say the disciples were different than the group and needed to hear something different.Irrelevant.
Are you so bold as to claim that Jesus LIED to the large group because you certainly seem to be saying as much.
You said the events are the same.No, chap...I made NO such assertion...you are bearing false witness.
I presented that the QUESTION is the SAME...that they wanted to see a 'sign from heaven'...and to THAT question Mark gives an answer that DOESNT line up with Matthews.
I certainly hope you have better than this nonsense to offer...
Are you now lying and accusing me of lying about you? It's sitting right there.Additionally...curiousity got the better of me to see if Matthew and Marks accounts DO record the same event since GC seems to want to make THAT the issue here instead of what is actually important...the question and the response given.
Heres both accounts after Jesus speaking about this sign....
Ive color coded some of the events to PROVE that this IS the same event...or maybe GC wants to claim that this exact discussion happened more than once with Christ disciples apparently being pretty dumb...needing to be taught the same exact thing a second time ??
Fact: Jesus is talking to only one religious group in Mark.Fact..In BOTH accounts a 'sign from heaven is requested'
Fact..Christs RESPONSE in Mark does NOT agree with Christs response in Matthew.
I'm sorry you ignore all the facts pertaining to both verses in pushing yours.Im sorry if you are so determined to push your agenda that you will twist the facts to suit that agenda.
Are you keeping Jesus' command to love by insulting me here?Those of use with eyes can read for ourselves and SEE what the texts present
Not the entirety of God's word dictates the meaning of both verses, however.The ENTIRETY of Gods word applies chap....your rejection of that fact is irrelevant.
Red herring and straw man argument. We're not talking about Paul's intent. We're not talking about Jesus or Paul being a liar. We're talking about whether or not Christians should divorce and remarry when it doesn't involve adultery.Pauls words in the situation that HE was dealing with show us MORE of the details that help us understand what Christs intent was..what it HAD to be so that Paul is not made a liar and a heretic.
Jesus said 'LET NOT man put asunder' while Paul turns right around and says to LET the unbeliever do just that...so which one are you calling a liar ?
REAGARDLESS of what YOU and others choose to believe a LOT of things in scripture have to be understood in the context they are given in and in light of the REST of Gods word...
It's entirely relevant if you ask 'I suppose you think the disciples are dumb enough that Jesus has to repeat himself'. And you did.Entirely irrelevant.
Judas was doomed from the start as it was already known what he would do.
I suppose youre going to blame Jesus too since Jesus KNEW what Judas would do yet chose him anyway ?
You left out a few facts that differentiate them. I merely did the same thing you did without the highlights. Are you accusing yourself of ignoring facts now?Thats pretty funny.
I hightlighted the text to show how they perfectly align, poster.
Its amazing what you folks will do to keep from accepting simple fact.
Mark records Jesus addressing one party, and Matthew records him addressing two.As I said...it is irrelevant to begin with...the question itself was the same..they asked for a 'sign from heaven'.
Mark records that NO sign would be given while Matthew records that one would be given.
Oddly enough, it doesn't matter.Oddly enough it is agian Mark who does not record the exception pertaining to divorce and remarriagre while Matthew does record it. Seems to be a pattern there
Fact is fact, and you're not citing fact when you say we can remarry and not commit adultery.this is enough for me, poster..even if you cant find a way to accept the facts in the matter.
its the same event or Jesus disciples were living in a movie called 'Groundhod Day' starting Bill Murray where they kept reliving the same events over and again.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?