Is it just me? [moved from Ministry]

[Zebra1552]

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...

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

semantics.

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'?

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.

And you haven't proved that. Not even by citing Barnes.

 

[Zebra1552]

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....

Speaking of doctrinal error, I'm not going to do any of what you asked because of the following reasons:

1. You're not my enemy.
2. I wouldn't be following Jesus' 'do unto others' rule that the context of your verses indicates.
3. Giving to you wouldn't be 'doing good' in any sense of the phrase.
4. You're not asking, you're demanding.

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.

 

[HuntingMan]

And you haven't proved that. Not even by citing Barnes.

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...

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)

3 days, seven loaves, 4000 men....yeah Id say that denial is a pretty powerful thing....

Additionally...before more distractoin comes...

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

 

[HuntingMan]

moved....

 

[HuntingMan]

Mods....and this was the point. To show that there are many statements in scripture that we can take as absolute but have to be harmonized to fully understand. GC seemingly wants to present any passage GC wishes to be absolute as such, but when one is applied in GC's direction that affects GC's life then GC changes GCs method of interpretation. That was the point. Not trying to manipulate anyone for belongings or money. God has provided me all that I need so I hardly needed GCs things.

Speaking of doctrinal error, I'm not going to do any of what you asked because of the following reasons:

1. You're not my enemy.
2. I wouldn't be following Jesus' 'do unto others' rule that the context of your verses indicates.
3. Giving to you wouldn't be 'doing good' in any sense of the phrase.
4. You're not asking, you're demanding.

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.

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

.

 

[Zebra1552]

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

Then why are you here?

all that to say pretty much nothing.

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.

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.

We're not talking about the resurrection.

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.

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.

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.

It's not talking about the same kind of sign- different message. You never refuted that point.

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

The only thing you've listed so far is a bunch of links to more of your writing. And that doesn't prove anything.

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

Why?

Are you calling me an idiot or a liar, GC ?

Now I am, because you're denying what you've said:

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.

\
From this post.

I KNOW that Jesus did NOT deal directly with Herod and NEVER said any such thing.

I didn't say that you did.

I have said that Herod is the TYPE of Jew Jesus was dealing with....nothing more than that sort of thought was given.

Yes there was- you said it was the context for Matthew 19, and I say differently.

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.

Then show me for a fact that what you say about the context is true, without quoting yourself and using acceptable scholarly articles.

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.

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?

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

Then give me the historical details from an acceptable scholarly article.

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 ?

You do understand the difference between speaking of someone and directly speaking of someone, 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.

What 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.

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.

 

[Zebra1552]

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...

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.

 

[Zebra1552]

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

.

Then you ignored your own point just to show me up and are therefore a hypocrite.

 

[HuntingMan]

Then why are you here?

to give the readers the data your error would keep from them so they can see the WHOLE truth.

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.

OH please. Ive read your posts and responded to them in detail. Dont even go there.

We're not talking about the resurrection.

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.

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.

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.

It's not talking about the same kind of sign- different message. You never refuted that point.

Riiiiight.
They asked for a 'sign from heaven', poster...in BOTH accounts.
Its the SAME event therefore its the SAME question in both records...

The only thing you've listed so far is a bunch of links to more of your writing. And that doesn't prove anything.

I suggest you REread the thread then....this time pay attention

Jesus is dealing with Jews such as Herod and Herodias who met

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....

 

[HuntingMan]

Yes there was- you said it was the context for Matthew 19, and I say differently.

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.

Then show me for a fact that what you say about the context is true, without quoting yourself and using acceptable scholarly articles.

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.

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"



.

 

[HuntingMan]

Then give me the historical details from an acceptable scholarly article.

you have fingers and a PC....do your own research poster...
When Ive cited reputable scholars youve rejected them....so Im hardly going to spend an hour finding more material for you to dismiss.

You do understand the difference between speaking of someone and directly speaking of someone, no?

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.

What evidence?

Read the thread again...Im not going to keep reposting for your amusement.

You make claims about what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 19, without backing them.

Complete fabrication.
Jesus was dealing with putting away 'for EVERY cause'....for any reason imaginable...ie NO just cause at all. Precisely what Herod and Herodias did.
The evidence is there, poster...that you reject it is of no consequence at all

You make claims about me being a liar, a false witness, one who distorts the truth and a number of other things.

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.... ?

Yet you don't have any evidence for that either.

Ive provided evidence at every point here...your handwaving it away is meaningless.

The purpose of this little exercise is to show that you consistently post fluff- empty claims- despite being asked to back them.

excercise
PUHlease....your error has been exposed here...dont even try to play off as if you had some agenda thats been accomplished..

If you want that claim to be wrong, I suggest you start posting evidence.

REread the thread....again Im hardly interested in REposting what Ive posted a few times again for your amusement. I
I suggest READING the material next time....

Quoting yourself does not provide me or anyone else any scholarly information. It just provides us with more claims.

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 it


or can you ?

 

[HuntingMan]

Then you ignored your own point just to show me up and are therefore a hypocrite.

No, I led you right down the path I have seen dozens of your error take.
You force absolutes down our throats pretending as tho you are presenting truth, but when your own rules of interpretation are applied to scritpures YOU dont want to obey yourselves, suddenly the WHOLE word of God becomes important to your cause.

Just as giving to EVERYONE that asks has an intent...even tho NO exception is offered in those passages....we KNOW that there are OTHER limitations in scripture that show us that Christ DIDNT mean what many false doctrines try to say that He meant...same with these fallacious prosperity teachings that have passages that SAY what they will tell us that they say....but the INTENT is not what they claim it is.

Just as giving to EVERYONE who asks of us.
Certainly it SAYS what it says...but to what extent are we required to give ? Till our children are starving and living in the streets?
Paul shows that giving is for EQUALITY...so Jesus clearly is teaching a precept to those hardhearted Jews....not literally showing that we cannot keep enough back to feed our own children.

But as I said, there is MORE than 3 small passages in Gods word....both pertaining to Jesus telling us to give to EVERYONE....and Jesus speaking on divorce and remarriage....even if you wish to reject the one and embrace the other...

 

[HuntingMan]

The point is, it's talking about two different kinds of signs.

Not even a good deflection.
Sorry but its NOT ....tho I see the reason why you need it to be.
Its a 'sign from heaven' they asked for...some miraculous wonder they could be impressed by.
Jesus said NO sign would be given but the sign of Jonah.

Mark doesnt record this fact for whatever reason...Matthew does.
Just as Mark also doesnt record 'except for fornication' while again, Matthew does.

Whether or not they're the same event is irrelevant.

hmmm...see *I* remember saying this a while back and YOU making off like it was a big deal.
Maybe you ought to have stopped talking long enough to listen for a moment ?

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.

So youve just shifted your error from one falsehood to another...not a very good way to learn truth, Im afraid.

BOTH accounts show that a 'sign from heaven' is asked for....sorry but you will just have to reconcile that with your own distorted views...

 

[HuntingMan]

great...the gangs all here

 

[Nadiine]

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?

 

[HuntingMan]

I just cant get past the hilarity of this one..

Then show me for a fact that what you say about the context is true, without quoting yourself and using acceptable scholarly articles.

When I posted something from a scholar you rejected it outright...now you are demanding that I post scholars....I find that quite amusing.
Seems that what you want from me is for me to post what YOU want to hear and IF you agree with anything I post then its 'acceptable'....if not then you will simply handwave it away just as you did previously.

I think Ill stick with posting MY work that I can reference quickly enough.
If you can refute it, have at it....many have made the attempt. If you cant, as you havent, then Id say that you and I are finished here...kwim ?

 

[HuntingMan]

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?

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.
Id have left it at that had you and GC not felt to get into anything more than that. I read those posts and felt to respond to them....YOU two have perpetuated this beyond what was needed.

All that needs to be done here is for GC to stop posting in my direction and Ill leave it at what has been presented here.

Fact is tho that you folks want to push YOUR view onto others...but then you dont want anyone to have anything to say in response.
You all know me better than that....

deleted...I suppose that thought wasnt accurate...

 

[Zebra1552]

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.

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.

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"
.

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.

It's not my whims, it's what's acceptable in debate or not. Articles that you've written are not acceptable, whether you like that or not.

 

[Zebra1552]

you have fingers and a PC....do your own research poster...

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.

 

[HuntingMan]

I'm limiting your evidence to actual evidence rather than what your opinion is.

Oh please.
As I said, when I posted a scholar you presented that THAT wasnt enough either.
Just admit the fact that you want me to post in agreement with you and be done with it.

Additionally, you arent limiting me in any way. I will cite material as I see fit within the rules of this forum. I hope we are finished on that point.

Either you CAN refute what Ive offered....or you CANNOT.
Im guessing that you cannot

Is that a problem for you?

When this forum becomes owned by you THEN you will have right to restrict what material I cite.

Jesus is talking about divorce for any reason, and remarriage of a divorced person.

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.

It's not talking about divorce with the sole intent to remarry.

Sorry that that is very much what the Jews He was speaking to WERE doing.

Id suggest more study, but Im guessing that will be ignored so why bother.