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.
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...
semantics.I've not said anything about Matthew being better than Mark...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.
Then quote me. Where have I said 'Matthew is better than Mark'?
And you haven't proved that. Not even by citing Barnes.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.
Speaking of doctrinal error, I'm not going to do any of what you asked because of the following reasons: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.
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....
laughable.And you haven't proved that. Not even by citing Barnes.
3 days, seven loaves, 4000 men....yeah Id say that denial is a pretty powerful thing....In those days the multitude being very great, and having nothing to eat, Jesus called his disciples unto him, and saith unto them, I have compassion on the multitude, because they have now been with me three days,and have nothing to eat : And if I send them away fasting to their own houses, they will faint by the way: for divers of them came from far. And his disciples answered him, From whence can a man satisfy these men with bread here in the wilderness?
And he asked them, How many loaves have ye? And they said, Seven. And he commanded the people to sit down on the ground: and he took the seven loaves, and gave thanks, and brake, and gave to his disciples to set before them; and they did set them before the people. And they had a few small fishes: and he blessed, and commanded to set them also before them. So they did eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets. And they that had eaten were about four thousand: and he sent them away. And straightway he entered into a ship with his disciples, and came into the parts of Dalmanutha.
(Mar 8:1-10)
versus
And Jesus departed from thence, and came nigh unto the sea of Galilee; and went up into a mountain, and sat down there. And great multitudes came unto him, having with them those that were lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and cast them down at Jesus' feet; and he healed them: Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they glorified the God of Israel. Then Jesus called his disciples unto him, and said, I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat : and I will not send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way. And his disciples say unto him, Whence should we have so much bread in the wilderness, as to fill so great a multitude?
And Jesus saith unto them, How many loaves have ye? And they said, Seven, and a few little fishes. And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the ground. And he took the seven loaves and the fishes, and gave thanks, and brake them, and gave to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude. And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets full. And they that did eat were four thousand men, beside women and children. And he sent away the multitude, and took ship, and came into the coasts of Magdala.
(Mat 15:29-39)
Mat_15:39
Coasts of Magdala - Mark says, “The parts of Dalmanutha.” Magdala was probably the same place which was formerly called Migdol, Jos_19:38. It is now called Mejdel, and is situated a few miles north of the city of Tiberias, in the land of Gennesaret, on the western side of the Sea of Tiberias, and directly east of Cana of Galilee. “It is a wretched hamlet of a dozen low huts huddled into one, and the whole ready to tumble into a dismal heap of black basaltic rubbish.” - The Land and the Book (Thomson), vol. ii. p. 108. This was the birthplace of Mary Magdalene, out of whom the Saviour cast seven devils, Mar_16:9. Dalmanutha was probably a small village near to Magdala, of which no remains have been discovered. There is no contradiction in the statements of the two evangelists here, for they do not say that Jesus went to either of these towns, but only to the coasts or parts where they were situated.
Barnes
The coasts of Magdala - In the parallel place, Mar_8:10, this place is called Dalmanutha. Either Magdala was formed by a transposition of letters from Dalman, to which the Syriac termination atha had been added, or the one of these names refers to the country, and the other to a town in that neighborhood. Jesus went into the country, and proceeded till he came to the chief town or village in that district. Whitby says, “Magdala was a city and territory beyond Jordan, on the banks of Gadara. It readied to the bridge above Jordan, which joined it to the other side of Galilee, and contained within its precincts Dalmanutha.” The MSS. and VV. read the name variously - Magada, Madega, Magdala; and the Syriac has Magdu. In Mark, Dalmanutha is read by many MSS. Melagada, Madegada, Magada, Magidan, and Magedam. Magdala, variously pronounced, seems to have been the place or country; Dalmanutha, the chief town or capital.
Clarke
Speaking of doctrinal error, I'm not going to do any of what you asked because of the following reasons:
In short, because you're trying to abuse Scripture and frame it to say something it's not. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get any of what I'd give to you back. So it wouldn't be lending. And when it talks about giving, it's talking about doing good. Giving to someone who doesn't have need isn't good just like giving to a bully isn't good just like giving to someone who will destroy what you give them isn't good.
- You're not my enemy.
- I wouldn't be following Jesus' 'do unto others' rule that the context of your verses indicates.
- Giving to you wouldn't be 'doing good' in any sense of the phrase.
- You're not asking, you're demanding.
Then why are you here?Frankly the questoin was quite rhetorical. I have very little interest in what you have to offer here, friend.
And you dismiss what I have to say. What does that tell me about the other arguments I've given? That you've probably just dismissed them too.all that to say pretty much nothing.
We're not talking about the resurrection.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's plenty of contradictory data between Matthew and Mark 10. They're not the same event at all, by any stretch of the imagination.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.
It's not talking about the same kind of sign- different message. You never refuted that point.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.
The only thing you've listed so far is a bunch of links to more of your writing. And that doesn't prove anything.Ive listed them already...your rejection of them is irrelevant.
Why?The logic previously used here would dictate that you should be...
Are you calling me an idiot or a liar, GC ?
\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 didn't say that you did.I KNOW that Jesus did NOT deal directly with Herod and NEVER said any such thing.
Yes there was- you said it was the context for Matthew 19, and I say differently.I have said that Herod is the TYPE of Jew Jesus was dealing with....nothing more than that sort of thought was given.
Then show me for a fact that what you say about the context is true, without quoting yourself and using acceptable scholarly articles.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.
I didn't say you said Herod was the person Jesus was talking to, I said you said Herod was what Jesus was talking about. You said yourself that you're talking about Herod's behavior being the context. Where'd that claim go now?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.
Then give me the historical details from an acceptable scholarly article.Herods type of sinful Jew is what Christ was speaking out against.....that is fact based on the historical details.
You do understand the difference between speaking of someone and directly speaking of someone, no?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 ?
What evidence?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.
You make claims about what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 19, without backing them. You make claims about me being a liar, a false witness, one who distorts the truth and a number of other things. Yet you don't have any evidence for that either. The purpose of this little exercise is to show that you consistently post fluff- empty claims- despite being asked to back them. If you want that claim to be wrong, I suggest you start posting evidence. Quoting yourself does not provide me or anyone else any scholarly information. It just provides us with more claims.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.
The point is, it's talking about two different kinds of signs. Whether or not they're the same event is irrelevant. I won't deny that they're the same event- I deny that they're saying the same thing. Accept it or reject it, you haven't addressed it.laughable.
I quoted a commentator AGAIN so you wouldnt pull some nonsense that *I* was making it up...to show that OTHERS have drawn the SAME conclusion. I hardly need Barnes to prove the case. Tho it is humorous to see that you reject the very clear evidence just to keep from accepting the truth.
Even the preceeding events of feeding the 4000 are identical, poster....there is no way around the facts for you, Im afraid...
3 days, seven loaves, 4000 men....yeah Id say that denial is a pretty powerful thing....
Additionally...before more distractoin comes...
Then you ignored your own point just to show me up and are therefore a hypocrite.
Sorry but it says to give to EVERYONE who asks...you dont get to decide who 'everyone' applies to.
Thanks for proving my point tho....we can rest assured that you apply scripture to your own life as you see fit....so you are no better thant the remarried divorcee...
Also thanks for PROVING my point that just because scripture SEEMS to say something we have to take OTHER data in scripture into account
THAT was the whole point in even bringing it up
.
to give the readers the data your error would keep from them so they can see the WHOLE truth.Then why are you here?
OH please. Ive read your posts and responded to them in detail. Dont even go there.And you dismiss what I have to say. What does that tell me about the other arguments I've given? That you've probably just dismissed them too.
We're talking about your poor manner of study that has been exposed here as presenting error. That study method is shown for what it is in details such as the resurrection where the accounts seem to show quite different detail.We're not talking about the resurrection.
Sorry but the accounts given in Mark 10 and Matthew 19 are the exact same event...Im sorry that you are unable to accept this fact.There's plenty of contradictory data between Matthew and Mark 10. They're not the same event at all, by any stretch of the imagination.
Riiiiight.It's not talking about the same kind of sign- different message. You never refuted that point.
I suggest you REread the thread then....this time pay attentionThe only thing you've listed so far is a bunch of links to more of your writing. And that doesn't prove anything.
Jesus is dealing with Jews such as Herod and Herodias who met
"such as" ....as in the 'same type as'....if thats the best you can do....Jesus is dealing with Jews such as Herod and Herodias who met
Then you are wrong.Yes there was- you said it was the context for Matthew 19, and I say differently.
I will quote whatever *I* see fit to quote...is that in any way unclear for you GC ?Then show me for a fact that what you say about the context is true, without quoting yourself and using acceptable scholarly articles.
you have fingers and a PC....do your own research poster...Then give me the historical details from an acceptable scholarly article.
What I understand is that, as in our previous discourse, nothing you have to offer amounts to much more than just wanting to argue....since you have yet to prove anything in this thread and havent actually refuted a single thing.You do understand the difference between speaking of someone and directly speaking of someone, no?
Read the thread again...Im not going to keep reposting for your amusement.What evidence?
Complete fabrication.You make claims about what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 19, without backing them.
I dont remember using the liar word.....maybe you can go back in insert it into one of my quotes so you can feel better.... ?You make claims about me being a liar, a false witness, one who distorts the truth and a number of other things.
Ive provided evidence at every point here...your handwaving it away is meaningless.Yet you don't have any evidence for that either.
excerciseThe purpose of this little exercise is to show that you consistently post fluff- empty claims- despite being asked to back them.
REread the thread....again Im hardly interested in REposting what Ive posted a few times again for your amusement. IIf you want that claim to be wrong, I suggest you start posting evidence.
Then do yourself a favor and REFUTE my claims....this is a DISCUSSION forum...get it ?...for DISCUSSION.....that means I make an assertion and YOU try to refute itQuoting yourself does not provide me or anyone else any scholarly information. It just provides us with more claims.
Then you ignored your own point just to show me up and are therefore a hypocrite.
Not even a good deflection.The point is, it's talking about two different kinds of signs.
hmmm...see *I* remember saying this a while back and YOU making off like it was a big deal.Whether or not they're the same event is irrelevant.
So youve just shifted your error from one falsehood to another...not a very good way to learn truth, Im afraid.I won't deny that they're the same event- I deny that they're saying the same thing. Accept it or reject it, you haven't addressed it.
When I posted something from a scholar you rejected it outright...now you are demanding that I post scholars....I find that quite amusing.Then show me for a fact that what you say about the context is true, without quoting yourself and using acceptable scholarly articles.
hey...*I* just wanted to comment earlier about the erroneous statements that presented that remarriage is sin. That poster didnt need you to come to their defense, N...YOU chose that path.
I have no intention on continuing a 4 page long derail HM.
& it WAS a great thread prior to it being taken over.
Why did I know this was going to happen?
I'm limiting your evidence to actual evidence rather than what your opinion is. Is that a problem for you? Jesus is talking about divorce for any reason, and remarriage of a divorced person. It's not talking about divorce with the sole intent to remarry.Then you are wrong.
Jesus is dealing with putting away 'for EVERY cause' (ie some 'uncleanness') that is precisely what the Jews as a whole practiced. Amazing that youve managed to miss that fact.
I will quote whatever *I* see fit to quote...is that in any way unclear for you GC ?
Its pretty funny that you insist that I limit my evidence....that tells us the truth about your error.
And Jesus responds that divorce isn't okay except in cases of adultery. It's not talking about divorce with intent to remarry. It's just talking about divorce and divorced people getting remarried.The context is shown quite conclusively when they asked Christ if they could divorce 'for EVERY cause' and then reference the writ of divorce from Deut 24 that was regulation to putting away for some ambiguous 'uncleanness' ...ie any frivolous reason they could come up with....
And again, Ill quote what Im permitted to quote according to the rules here, not YOUR whims..
READERS SEE->Click->>> Deuteronomy 24:1-4 "some uncleanness"
.
I've asked you to stop calling me poster. I'm a human, and if you can't treat me like one, we're done.you have fingers and a PC....do your own research poster...
Oh please.I'm limiting your evidence to actual evidence rather than what your opinion is.
When this forum becomes owned by you THEN you will have right to restrict what material I cite.Is that a problem for you?
No, Jesus is speaking in the CONTEXT that EXISTED at the time He preached. Which is divorcing 'for EVERY cause' (some ambiguous 'uncleanness') to take someone else.Jesus is talking about divorce for any reason, and remarriage of a divorced person.
Sorry that that is very much what the Jews He was speaking to WERE doing.It's not talking about divorce with the sole intent to remarry.
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?