Is it just me? [moved from Ministry]

[Zebra1552]

based on thousands of hours of study on this matter and comparing your error to Gods whole word.

Evidence?

Again you must then claim that there was more than one resurrection of our Lord then as those accounts differ....must I keep repeating myself here ?

And must I keep continuing to ask why I must be saying there are two resurrections? Do try answering it yourself instead of sending me to some article about contradiction.

 

[HuntingMan]

I'm not going to lay off the logical fallacies, we're in Philosophy and Ethics.

Hey..anything that makes you feel better. Ill just ignore them from now on

If you don't like it, then leave.

We both know that isnt going to happen

You don't have to respond to me. And you don't have to like my method. My method, I'd wager, is more consistent than yours.

Based on the fallacy Ive seen so far Id say thats hardly believable.
You seem to think if Mark failed to mention something that Matthew remembered then it cant possibly be the same event. That is hardly consistent...

Based on what?

...uh...based on the fact that you seem to claim that any major differences in the accounts means that its a different event ?

That's not in Scripture. Anywhere. It says 'divorces and remarries' not 'divorces to remarry'.

And thus your error and lack of understanding.
CONTEXT, friend...CONTEXT.
What Jesus is DEALING with has much bearing on WHAT His response is

 

[HuntingMan]

Evidence?

hmmmm..

well these for starters...


READERS SEE->Click->>> A little background on divorce
READERS SEE->Click->>> The conditional marriage covenant
READERS SEE->Click->>> Ephesians 5 and the 'mystery' of the church and marriage
READERS SEE->Click->>> Evidences of divorce and remarriage in the Church
READERS SEE->Click->>> Evidences of Remarriage II - Polygamy

READERS SEE->Click->>> What is ''one flesh'' and what is it that God joins together
READERS SEE->Click->>> Jesus was not accused of being born of fornication
READERS SEE->Click->>> Matthew written to Jews, do the differences matter ?
READERS SEE->Click->>> "Causes her to commit adultery"
READERS SEE->Click->>> “Committeth adultery” The Present Indicative deception
READERS SEE->Click->>> Why Jesus didn’t say ''except for ADULTERY''

READERS SEE->Click->>> "Remain Unmarried or reconcile” vs "not in bondage"
READERS SEE->Click->>> "Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart"
READERS SEE->Click->>> Does the bible permit putting away a spouse for abuse?
READERS SEE->Click->>> 1 Corinthians 7 Study
READERS SEE->Click->>> Unmarried” - 1 Corinthians 7

READERS SEE->Click->>> "Bound by Law" (Romans 7, 1 Cor 7:39)
READERS SEE->Click->>> "Porneia...aka "fornication"

READERS SEE->Click->>> Are vows always ''unbreakable
READERS SEE->Click->>> What is putting away/divorce-When is a marriage dissolved
READERS SEE->Click->>> Refuting "only during betrothal"


READERS SEE->Click->>> The shock value/distraction of divorce statistics
READERS SEE->Click->>> Gay ‘unions’ are incomparable to remarriages
READERS SEE->Click->>> Deuteronomy 24:1-4 "some uncleanness"
READERS SEE->Click->>> Deuteronomy 24:1-4; not a ‘permission’ to divorce
READERS SEE->Click->>> Moses...the biggest sinner and lawbreaker of all time
READERS SEE->Click->>> Comparing Hyper-marital doctrines to Hyper-Calvinism


And the rest found here..
Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage (MDR)

...then comparing all that Ive come to understand to what you present here...

And must I keep continuing to ask why I must be saying there are two resurrections? Do try answering it yourself instead of sending me to some article about contradiction.

Im amazed that you seem unable to get the point.
YOU have shown that YOU seem to feel that any major differences between accounts means that its NOT the SAME event being recorded.
There are some pretty huge detail differences in the accounts of the resurrection....so....you know

Not sure what was so hard to understand about that point, GC...

 

[Zebra1552]

Hey..anything that makes you feel better. Ill just ignore them from now on

It's not anything that makes me feel better. It's more about what works as a valid argument. Not much of what you're arguing here is valid, so of course I'm going to point it out. If you choose not to respond, that's your problem, not mine.

We both know that isnt going to happen

And how do I somehow know that? Am I a mindreader or something?

Based on the fallacy Ive seen so far Id say thats hardly believable.
You seem to think if Mark failed to mention something that Matthew remembered then it cant possibly be the same event. That is hardly consistent...

Straw man argument. I've not said anything about Matthew being better than Mark...

...uh...based on the fact that you seem to claim that any major differences in the accounts means that its a different event ?

I didn't say 'any major differences'. I said 'any key differences'. That leaves you to ask what those are.

And thus your error and lack of understanding.
CONTEXT, friend...CONTEXT.
What Jesus is DEALING with has much bearing on WHAT His response is

I have error and lack understanding because I read what's in the Bible? Sad day.

 

[Zebra1552]

hmmmm..

well these for starters...


READERS SEE->Click->>> A little background on divorce
READERS SEE->Click->>> The conditional marriage covenant
READERS SEE->Click->>> Ephesians 5 and the 'mystery' of the church and marriage
READERS SEE->Click->>> Evidences of divorce and remarriage in the Church
READERS SEE->Click->>> Evidences of Remarriage II - Polygamy

READERS SEE->Click->>> What is ''one flesh'' and what is it that God joins together
READERS SEE->Click->>> Jesus was not accused of being born of fornication
READERS SEE->Click->>> Matthew written to Jews, do the differences matter ?
READERS SEE->Click->>> "Causes her to commit adultery"
READERS SEE->Click->>> “Committeth adultery” The Present Indicative deception
READERS SEE->Click->>> Why Jesus didn’t say ''except for ADULTERY''

READERS SEE->Click->>> "Remain Unmarried or reconcile” vs "not in bondage"
READERS SEE->Click->>> "Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart"
READERS SEE->Click->>> Does the bible permit putting away a spouse for abuse?
READERS SEE->Click->>> 1 Corinthians 7 Study
READERS SEE->Click->>> Unmarried” - 1 Corinthians 7

READERS SEE->Click->>> "Bound by Law" (Romans 7, 1 Cor 7:39)
READERS SEE->Click->>> "Porneia...aka "fornication"

READERS SEE->Click->>> Are vows always ''unbreakable
READERS SEE->Click->>> What is putting away/divorce-When is a marriage dissolved
READERS SEE->Click->>> Refuting "only during betrothal"


READERS SEE->Click->>> The shock value/distraction of divorce statistics
READERS SEE->Click->>> Gay ‘unions’ are incomparable to remarriages
READERS SEE->Click->>> Deuteronomy 24:1-4 "some uncleanness"
READERS SEE->Click->>> Deuteronomy 24:1-4; not a ‘permission’ to divorce
READERS SEE->Click->>> Moses...the biggest sinner and lawbreaker of all time
READERS SEE->Click->>> Comparing Hyper-marital doctrines to Hyper-Calvinism


And the rest found here..
Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage (MDR)

...then comparing all that Ive come to understand to what you present here...

Again, you send me to a biased site. Address it yourself.

Im amazed that you seem unable to get the point.
YOU have shown that YOU seem to feel that any major differences between accounts means that its NOT the SAME event being recorded.
There are some pretty huge detail differences in the accounts of the resurrection....so....you know

Straw man. I've never said anything about major differences. I've said stuff about key differences. Which, again, leaves you to ask what they are.

 

[HuntingMan]

CONTEXT, friend...CONTEXT.
What Jesus is DEALING with has much bearing on WHAT His response is

For you readers, on this point Id like to show that many false doctrines also like to push things in 1 Cor 7 as absolute in every case without looking to the fact Paul was not simply laying out instruction in a vaccuum without any context.
The very first verse says ;

Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
(1Co 7:1)

Just as with Christs words in the gospels, Paul isnt speaking in a vaccuum to every possible issue that could ever happen in the history of man.
Paul and Christ BOTH were dealing with very specific details....Paul apparently was simply responding to direct questions asked of him by the Corinthian church....and givne those questions Paul responded TO their own unique situation....one of which was appaarently thinking that they ought to divorce an unbelieving spouse if they became born again because seemingly they thought they were being defiled by the unbeliever.

THAT is the context from which Pauls speaks. He in no way is trying to lay out EVERY possible thing that could ever give cause to have to divorce over....and neither is Christ in the gospels.
Jesus is dealing with callous Jews who were casting away one spouse to take another...just as we see evidenced with Herod and Herodias (tho some here dont seem to understand that Herod is the picture of Jewish depravity that Christ was coming against).
In THAT context Christ is telling them that if she hasnt committed this heinous sin then what they are doing is committing adultery against her by casting her aside to take someone else who pleases them more (as evidenced by Deut 24:1-4).

There is MUCH more to this issue than 4 verses in the gospels that some would have you stuck in....

 

[HuntingMan]

Again, you send me to a biased site. Address it yourself.

That is MY site and the result of MY many hours of study in the matter.
See, *I* want to know the truth...Im not just in here preaching from 2 small passages but instead spend my days trying to know the WHOLE truth in the matter so I am not accountable for misleading His children...

-snipped- I've never said anything about major differences. I've said stuff about key differences.

When all else fails play the semantics game.
Tomato, tomahto.....a rose by any other name still wreaks....

Which, again, leaves you to ask what they are.

Ive presented that information as much as I intend to. Reread the thread if you need a refresher course, poster.

 

[HuntingMan]

It's not anything that makes me feel better. It's more about what works as a valid argument. Not much of what you're arguing here is valid, so of course I'm going to point it out. If you choose not to respond, that's your problem, not mine.

Thats pretty funny.

Hey reader...have you EVER known me to NOT want to respond to anything anyone anywhere has EVER presented ?

Dont yoiu worry yourself GC...as long as anyone here is presenting half truths and fallacies where marriage is concerned Ill be right here and quite willing to response

-snipped- I've not said anything about Matthew being better than Mark...

semantics.

I have error and lack understanding because I read what's in the Bible? Sad day.

Just as those who say that God is the CAUSE of mans sin also read whats in the bible

The jews READ what was in the scriptures, friend....reading it isnt enough.

 

[HuntingMan]

Godschild87, I have a question to ask.

Im going to post something that Jesus instructed for this new covenant, something very direct and quite impossible to wriggle around..and I want to see if you practice what you preach here as far as obeying what Christ supposedly instructs.

Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your belongings, do not ask for them back.
(Luk 6:30)

Give to the one asking you, and to the one desiring to borrow from you, do not turn away.
(Mat 5:42)

Im asking.....are you obeying ? Or will you do as everyone else Ive presented this to and find some 'loophole' to ignore our Lords instruction there?
When you fail to respond to my asking, you are in direct defiance of our Lords clear instruction....just as much in defiance of Him as anyone who has remarried post divorce not for adultery.

 

[Zebra1552]

That is MY site and the result of MY many hours of study in the matter.
See, *I* want to know the truth...Im not just in here preaching from 2 small passages but instead spend my days trying to know the WHOLE truth in the matter so I am not accountable for misleading His children...

Then all I'd be reading is hours of opinion.

When all else fails play the semantics game.
Tomato, tomahto.....a rose by any other name still wreaks....

Red herring. There can be major differences and still be the same event- you cannot, however, have key differences and still have it be the same event.

Ive presented that information as much as I intend to. Reread the thread if you need a refresher course, poster.

You've presenting nothing more than an opinion that Herod is being spoke of in Matthew 19 and Mark 20- clearly not the case.
Try using my name instead of constantly saying 'poster'. I'm a person. I'd appreciate it if you started treating me like one.

 

[Zebra1552]

Thats pretty funny.

Hey reader...have you EVER known me to NOT want to respond to anything anyone anywhere has EVER presented ?

I don't go around stalking people. I wouldn't know.

Dont yoiu worry yourself GC...as long as anyone here is presenting half truths and fallacies where marriage is concerned Ill be right here and quite willing to response

Accusations without backing is just gossip and slander.

semantics.

No, it's called the truth. Go back and check.

Just as those who say that God is the CAUSE of mans sin also read whats in the bible

The jews READ what was in the scriptures, friend....reading it isnt enough.

Red herring.

 

[HuntingMan]

There can be major differences and still be the same event- you cannot, however, have key differences and still have it be the same event.

And you wonder why I think this is all some joke ?
WHO gets to determine what is a major and a key difference ? You ?

SCHOLARS show that Mark 10 records the SAME event as Matthew 19....Ill take their views and the fact that MOST of the details ARE the same to cause ME to understand the fact that they ARE the same event...same as the other issue we've discussed here is.

You've presenting nothing more than an opinion that Herod is being spoke of in Matthew 19 and Mark 20- clearly not the case.

I see misrepresenting the facts is all you have left.
I did NOT say that they spoke directly of Herod, bearer of false witness.
I said that Herod is the typical type of Jew of whom Christ was dealing with.
learn the difference.

irrelevance snipped.

 

[HuntingMan]

No, it's called the truth. Go back and check.

you mean its your version of truth...just as saying that God is the source and cause of mans sin is the hypercalvinists version of truth.

are we done here, GC ? Im getting a bit bored at this point since you have stopped providing any relevance pertaining to the actual topic here.

 

[HuntingMan]

Mods...this post and others like it are to show a point that you will see is brought to light in the next page or so...

Again...

Godschild87, I have a question to ask.

Im going to post something that Jesus instructed for this new covenant, something very direct and quite impossible to wriggle around..and I want to see if you practice what you preach here as far as obeying what Christ supposedly instructs.

Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your belongings, do not ask for them back.
(Luk 6:30)

Give to the one asking you, and to the one desiring to borrow from you, do not turn away.
(Mat 5:42)

Im asking.....are you obeying ? Or will you do as everyone else Ive presented this to and find some 'loophole' to ignore our Lords instruction there?
When you fail to respond to my asking, you are in direct defiance of our Lords clear instruction....just as much in defiance of Him as anyone who has remarried post divorce not for adultery.

 

[Zebra1552]

And you wonder why I think this is all some joke ?
WHO gets to determine what is a major and a key difference ? You ?

Well it's about time you asked! It's not who that determines it. It's what determines it. A major difference would be something like who the audience is. Because Matthew is largely aimed at Jews, it has information that the Jews will care more about- like the letter of the law. Because Mark is aimed at Romans, it involves things that the Romans will care more about- like events and action. Those kinds of differences are thematic- they don't have a real impact on what the overall message is, but they do have an impact on what kind of picture one gets from that message.
Key differences are differences in time, place, event, message, and people involved- for example, if Jesus talked about being born again to someone named Cornelius during the day, you wouldn't assume that it's the same event as in John 3 because it involves different people and a different time.

Now, there is one key differences between Mark 10 and Matthew 19 that indicate Jesus was not saying the same thing to the same people. Between Mark 8 and Matthew 15, there are 3 key differences- differences in event, message, and people involved. Mark 8 states that just the Pharisees are involved (people), that in the previous feeding only 4000 TOTAL people were present and in the events after Jesus heals a blind man and doesn't talk with his disciples right away (event), and Jesus is talking about miraculous signs not just a sign of the times like in Matthew's account. (message).

SCHOLARS show that Mark 10 records the SAME event as Matthew 19....Ill take their views and the fact that MOST of the details ARE the same to cause ME to understand the fact that they ARE the same event...same as the other issue we've discussed here is.

I never argued otherwise on Matthew 19 and Mark 10...

I see misrepresenting the facts is all you have left.
I did NOT say that they spoke directly of Herod, bearer of false witness.
I said that Herod is the typical type of Jew of whom Christ was dealing with.
learn the difference.

irrelevance snipped.

I'm not misrepresenting anything. You've stated earlier that Jesus was talking about the kind of immorality that happened between Herod and his bro's wife. In other words:
You've presenting nothing more than an opinion that Herod is being spoke of in Matthew 19 and Mark 10- clearly not the case.

I didn't say that you said it spoke directly of Herod either. And you argue semantics.

 

[Zebra1552]

you mean its your version of truth...just as saying that God is the source and cause of mans sin is the hypercalvinists version of truth.

Then quote me. Where have I said 'Matthew is better than Mark'?

are we done here, GC ? Im getting a bit bored at this point since you have stopped providing any relevance pertaining to the actual topic here.

Well, I'm sorry you're bored. You're the one that chose to respond to my posts. Again, if you don't like them, feel free to stop responding. The fact of the matter is that Jesus is talking about divorce and then remarriage, not divorce in order to remarry.

 

[Zebra1552]

Again...

Godschild87, I have a question to ask.

Im going to post something that Jesus instructed for this new covenant, something very direct and quite impossible to wriggle around..and I want to see if you practice what you preach here as far as obeying what Christ supposedly instructs.


Im asking.....are you obeying ? Or will you do as everyone else Ive presented this to and find some 'loophole' to ignore our Lords instruction there?
When you fail to respond to my asking, you are in direct defiance of our Lords clear instruction....just as much in defiance of Him as anyone who has remarried post divorce not for adultery.

When I fail to respond to you I'm disobeying God? Since when?

I do lend to people who ask, provided that I have it. I can't very well give someone a quarter I don't have on me.

 

[HuntingMan]

Well it's about time you asked!

Frankly the questoin was quite rhetorical. I have very little interest in what you have to offer here, friend.

It's not who that determines it. It's what determines it. A major difference would be something like who the audience is. Because Matthew is largely aimed at Jews, it has information that the Jews will care more about- like the letter of the law. Because Mark is aimed at Romans, it involves things that the Romans will care more about- like events and action. Those kinds of differences are thematic- they don't have a real impact on what the overall message is, but they do have an impact on what kind of picture one gets from that message.
Key differences are differences in time, place, event, message, and people involved- for example, if Jesus talked about being born again to someone named Cornelius during the day, you wouldn't assume that it's the same event as in John 3 because it involves different people and a different time.

Now, there is one key differences between Mark 10 and Matthew 19 that indicate Jesus was not saying the same thing to the same people. Between Mark 8 and Matthew 15, there are 3 key differences- differences in event, message, and people involved. Mark 8 states that just the Pharisees are involved (people), that in the previous feeding only 4000 TOTAL people were present and in the events after Jesus heals a blind man and doesn't talk with his disciples right away (event), and Jesus is talking about miraculous signs not just a sign of the times like in Matthew's account. (message).

all that to say pretty much nothing.

The DETAILS that surround the event prove if it was the same event elswewhere or not...NOT because ONE man recorded an earthquake and one didnt.
There is no contradictory data between Matthew 10 and Mark 10....but the details surrouding those passages PROVE that they are the same event....do you want to break those details down here GC ? Im willing if you are since it is ONLY the reader who is my concern here.

By the same token Marks account pertaining to NO sign being given is very easily proven as being the SAME exact event given the occurances that surround the event in both mens accounting of that event.

Ive listed them already...your rejection of them is irrelevant.

I never argued otherwise on Matthew 19 and Mark 10...

The logic previously used here would dictate that you should be...

I'm not misrepresenting anything. You've stated earlier that Jesus was talking about the kind of immorality that happened between Herod and his bro's wife.

Are you calling me an idiot or a liar, GC ?
I KNOW that Jesus did NOT deal directly with Herod and NEVER said any such thing.
I have said that Herod is the TYPE of Jew Jesus was dealing with....nothing more than that sort of thought was given.
And it is FACT based on the type of man Herod was, what he did, and what Jesus spoke against.
Im afraid you will have to learn to cope with that fact.

In other words:
You've presenting nothing more than an opinion that Herod is being spoke of in Matthew 19 and Mark 10- clearly not the case.

Complete fabrication.
I NEVER said that Herod was THE person Jesus was speaking to, poster....but I can understand why you have to resort to this nonsense now since the facts have failed your error miserably.

Herods type of sinful Jew is what Christ was speaking out against.....that is fact based on the historical details.

I didn't say that you said it spoke directly of Herod either. And you argue semantics.

Hilariolus.
See what I highlighted above in red ? read it and tell me that you didnt just say it....you do understand what 'is being spoken OF' would clearly indicate, no ?

I offered NO opinion that Herod was being spoken OF by Christ....only that Herod was the typical type of Jew that Jesus was dealing with based on the evidence.

Im about to put you back on ignore because honestly Im remembering why I put you there to begin with. completely fruitless discussion...nothing but an argument on your part to the point of rejecting even the simplest of concepts....just to have someone to argue with.

 

[HuntingMan]

Then quote me. Where have I said 'Matthew is better than Mark'?

Dude...I dont even know what youre reading or quoting.
Nothing in that post said anything of the sort.
Seems that YOU are the one with the red herrings and strawmen here...

Well, I'm sorry you're bored. You're the one that chose to respond to my posts. Again, if you don't like them, feel free to stop responding. The fact of the matter is that Jesus is talking about divorce and then remarriage, not divorce in order to remarry.

As long as you or anyone here pushes fallacy that I see I will continue to respond poster....regardless of your desire to silence me.

The CONTEXT Jesus speaks from IS concerning the Jews who were casting out innocent wives TO take someone else. That you are unable to understand that fact is quite inconsequential. Facts dont change to suit your whims.

 

[HuntingMan]

Mods....this was to show a point...

When I fail to respond to you I'm disobeying God? Since when?

I do lend to people who ask, provided that I have it. I can't very well give someone a quarter I don't have on me.

Ill take all the cash you have on hand and in any bank accounts, please.
Im asking....are you giving ?
If you have none of those Id like the computer youre sitting at and/or any other items of value you have on hand.

Are you rejecting the CLEAR instruction of your Lord, GC..who instructs you to give to EVERY person who asks and not to turn away anyone who does ask ?

If you have no money, Im asking for your personal belongings then.

Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your belongings, do not ask for them back.
(Luk 6:30)

Give to the one asking you, and to the one desiring to borrow from you, do not turn away.
(Mat 5:42)

lets not play games here, friend...we BOTH know you arent going to DO what Christ SAYS to DO in these verses....You will disregard them as ALL others of your doctrinal error have....