As Christians how do people feel about David Quinn's response to yes vote?

oldrnwisr wrote: »

To say that Jesus teaches that man-woman marriage is the ONLY valid form of marriage on the basis that he doesn't mention any other forms of marriage or relationship is highly disingenuous.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

You've made the case for man-woman marriage on the basis of Mark 10 and Matthew 19. This is problematic for several reasons.

Firstly, you claim above that if Jesus had mentioned such a thing that it would be recorded in the gospels. However, it is clear that this is not the case. The gospels were written over a period of approximately 40 years beginning 40 years after Jesus death. They contain many factual inaccuracies and contradict each other in many places. The idea that they are a faithful and more importantly trustworthy account of what Jesus said and did is weak at best.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Secondly, let's talk about the specific claims made in Mark 10 and Matthew 19. Mark, Matthew and Luke are referred to as the synoptics since they share the same basic narrative. This is because Matthew and to a lesser extent Luke both copy heavily from Mark's gospel. So it is unsurprising when we see a story pop up again in Matthew or Luke's gospel. So the reference in Matthew 19 is just a result of Matthew copying over 90% of his gospel from Mark. However, when Luke deletes the reference to Genesis in Luke 16:18, we get a different story which doesn't fit with the thrust of the argument made by Mark 10.
What is also interesting is that while there is only 12% of the content shared between the synoptics and the gospel of John there are 11 events which are retold in all four gospels. Now while some of these bear the hallmarks of copying too, the fact that the teaching about marriage isn't one of them is quite telling.

barretsimpson wrote: »

Haha ya got them . . .
Exactly, no mention of drugs, porn etc. all those good things. Yeah baby.

barretsimpson wrote: »

you'd be better to lay off that, you'll go blind

JohnBee wrote: »

Not sure if people have heard David Quinn comment on the yes vote but just wondering how Christians feel?

Basically his attitude was that they had an uphill battle, that their tactics failed and that they started their campaign too late.

I found this very patronizing. It almost suggests that the outcome of the referendum, in his view, is that it represents the outcome of the best campaign. To me this is quite small minded of him. Why can he (and Iona) not just accept that this is a sign of the will of the people and that his views (and that of the mothers and fathers group) are minority views that are out of place in 2015?

hinault wrote: »

Hold on there.

We possess over 5,000 copies of the gospels dating from the 1st centures, found throughout disparate locations all hand written, which agree with each other in 99% throughout.
In other words the copy of Mark found in 1st century Rome, is exactly the same as the copy of Mark found in 1st century Syria, is exactly the same as the one found in 1st century Israel, among those 5,000 copies. OK?

And this applies with each of the other copies of the 1st century gospels.
Matthew, John, Luke, each of the copies of the 5,000+ first century versions replicate each other in 99%.

In other words the copy of John found in 1st century Rome, is exactly the same as the copy of John found in 1st century Syria, is exactly the same as the one found in 1st century Israel, among those 5,000 copies. OK?


In other words the copy of Matthew found in 1st century Rome, is exactly the same as the copy of Matthew found in 1st century Syria, is exactly the same as the one found in 1st century Israel, among those 5,000 copies. OK?


In other words the copy of Luke found in 1st century Rome, is exactly the same as the copy of Luke found in 1st century Syria, is exactly the same as the one found in 1st century Israel, among those 5,000 copies. OK?

I'm going to deal separately with the spurious points that you raise about gospel contradiction separately.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

[hysterical laughter] Ahahahahahaha [/hysterical laughter]

Of course they contradict each other. It has nothing to do with detail, it has to do with specific claims made by certain gospel authors which are contradicted by other gospel authors regarding events which are depicted by both of them. We'll be here all day if we have to go through all of them but let's look at a few.

In Matthew's gospel Jesus' birth is depicted as occurring during the reign of King Herod who died in 4BCE. However, Luke's gospel has Jesus' birth occur after a census ordered while Quirinius was governor of Syria. Quirinius was not appointed governor of Syria until 6CE. So both stories cannot be true. This is not a difference in detail. This is a direct contradiction.

St. Luke had made careful inquiry about the facts he relates in his Gospel; he had "diligently attained to all things from the beginning", and that too from those who "were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" (i, 2, 3). For such a man it seems incredible that he should not have taken the trouble to inquire, not as to some petty Jewish custom, but as to such a public and important event as a Roman census, and to have made himself acquainted with the name of the Roman governor at the time.

At the same time it is not clear what the explanation of the note about Quirinius is. Some suggest that próte has, as it undoubtedly has sometimes in classical Greek, the force of prótera, so that the sense of the passage would be: "This census was held before that which took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria". But there is another explanation. It is true the writer of the article on Chronology in Cheyne's "Encyclopædia" says, with characteristic positiveness, that "any census in Judea before the well-known one in the year A.D. 7 is impossible". But on the other hand, Turner, in Hastings' "Dictionary", thinks that there is no inherent improbability in the hypothesis of a census in Judea somewhere within the years 8-5 B.C. There is very little doubt, from an inscription found at Tivoli in 1764, that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria; once, as is well known, from a. D. 6-11, but also once at an earlier period. Not at the time of Herod's death, for Quinctilius Varus was then governor; and before him came Sentius Saturninus from 9-6 B.C., before him Titius. But there is no reason why Quirinius should not be placed after Varus. In that case Saturninus would have been the one to begin the census; it would have been suspended for a time, on account of the death of Herod, and then continued and completed under Quirinius, so that his name would have been associated with it. Perhaps this may explain why Tertullian speaks of a census made by Sentius Saturninus under Augustus (Adv. Marcionem, iv, 19); but it is hardly likely, if he had found another and, apparently, a wrong name in St. Luke, that he would not have taken any notice, or given any explanation of it

oldrnwisr wrote: »

And here's another one.

In Mark's gospel Jesus and his disciples celebrate the Last Supper which is the passover sedr, the feast eaten on passover eve. He is then arrested, taken away, tried and executed the next day on Passover (something btw the Jews would never have done). However, John's gospel places the last supper on the day before and the execution on Passover eve. This is a direct contraditiction. It's not a disagreement over detail.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Or another one:

And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. Matthew 1:16

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
Luke 3:23

The solution given by some to this difficulty is that Joseph was by nature the son of Jacob, but by law the son of Heli. By the old law (Deut. xxv. 5) a surviving brother had to raise up seed to his dead brother, and the brother who had died childless was held to be the legal father of these sons. Now Jesca, says Euthymius, married Mathat, and by him had Heli, then she married Mathan, and by him had Jacob. Heli died without issue, and his brother Jacob married his wife in accordance with the law, and Joseph was his son by her, being, therefore, naturally the son of Jacob, but legally of Heli.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Neither Matthew or Mark are directly reporting what Jesus said because neither of them were contemporaries or eyewitnesses.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Well I don't accept it's inerrant for a start, so let's get that out of the way.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Anyway, getting back to the point, the fact that Jesus doesn't mention any other type of relationship means just that he doesn't mention it. We can't say whether Jesus would or would not have condoned a gay marriage.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, there are a couple of mistakes with your argument here.

Firstly, none of the early NT manuscripts that have been discovered date to the 1st century. The earliest manuscript which has been found to date is the Rylands Papyrus P52 which contains a fragment of John (18:31-33; 18:37-38) and is dated to 125CE. Of the early manuscripts only 5 date to the 2nd century, all of the rest are much older.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

There are not 5000 copies of each gospel.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

There are not 5000 copies of whole documents.

oldrnwisr wrote:

However, since none of the gospels were written before 70CE and none of them by eyewitnesses, we cannot have much confidence that the events they describe are recorded accurately. The early church fathers and even the evangelists themselves realised that the gospels are not historical accounts, they are theological accounts, stories intended to stoke the fire of faith in existing Christians and converts alike.

This saying therefore went abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die. And Jesus did not say to him: He should not die; but, So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee?

This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.

But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

hinault wrote: »

No.

What we can say unambiguously is that Jesus Christ countenanced only form of marriage namely marriage between one and one woman.

By all means waste time your own time trying to second guess what isn't countenanced.

hinault wrote: »

Live Science reported in January 2015 that Craig Evans, a professor of New Testament studies at Acadia Divinity College in Nova Scotia, and an associated team of three dozen researchers and scholars have unmasked what is thought to be a written portion of the Gospel of Mark, that possibly dates back as early as 80 A.D in Egypt. The fragment was discovered in the tomb of a pharaoh.

hinault wrote: »

The gospels claim to be an account of the life and works of Jesus Christ. In that context they are an historical document of that life and ministry.

hinault wrote: »

In terms of the gospels not being an eye witness account. John's gospel, thought to be the most recently written gospel finishes with

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Have you read your own link, because it doesn't support your argument in the way you think it does.

Firstly, there is disagreement between scholars as to whether there even could have been another census in the timeframe you mention. As Cheyne comments:
"any census in Judea before the well-known one in the year A.D. 7 is impossible"

However, let's say that there might have been a second census. The sticking point however is Luke's claim that Quirinius was the governor at the time of the census. Even your own link shows that Quirinius, even had he held the position earlier, could not have been governor at a point when Matthew places the nativity:

"Not at the time of Herod's death, for Quinctilius Varus was then governor; and before him came Sentius Saturninus from 9-6 B.C., before him Titius. But there is no reason why Quirinius should not be placed after Varus."

The earliest that Quirinius could have taken up position as governor was after the death of Herod, so the contradiction with Matthew's version of events remains.

Finally, the linguistic argument in your link is also wrong.

"Some suggest that próte has, as it undoubtedly has sometimes in classical Greek, the force of prótera, so that the sense of the passage would be: "This census was held before that which took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria". "

Prote in Greek is used in the context of the line in Luke:

"This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria."

The word prote is never used in the NT with the suggestion of something happening before something else. It is only ever used to indicate the beginning of something as in Ephesians 6:2 where it refers to the first commandment.

So, all in all, there's no evidence to support the idea that there is any way to reconcile the disparity between Matthew's and Luke's version of events.




Except that the passages in the gospels are quite specific.

Mark 14:12 for example states that:

"On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”"

while John 19:14 states:

"It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon.“Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews.

So both gospels are explicitly talking about different days. Moreover John 13 also puts the last supper on a different day to Mark. However, the reason for this is quite clear, Mark who is unfamiliar with Jewish law makes several key mistakes about Jesus' trial which John corrects. Among the mistakes made by Mark are:

• The trial would never have been held at night as it would have been contrary to Jewish law.
• The trial would only have taken place in the Hall of Hewn Stones in the temple and not in the home of a council member.
• The trial would never have been conducted so close to Passover (Passover eve in the synoptics)
• Sentences in such trials were not pronounced for 24 hours and not immediately in the case of Jesus.

If Mark's gospel is correct then Jesus would have been executed during Passover, something not permissible under Jewish law. John moves the date so that the crucifixion takes place on the day before Passover, removing the mistake.








OK, there are two prevailing theories which try to reconcile the different genealogies in Matthew and Luke, neither of which are what you would call persuasive. Firstly though, let's look at both lists in the interests of clarity.

Matthew

Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of King David.

David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife, Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa, Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram, Jehoram the father of Uzziah, Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah, and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.

After the exile to Babylon: Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, Zerubbabel the father of Abihud, Abihud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, Azor the father of Zadok,

Zadok the father of Akim, Akim the father of Elihud, Elihud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob,
and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.


Luke



He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josek, the son of Joda, the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melki, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.


The first observation is that there are only two names in common between the two lists (highlighted above) so its not a minor disagreement, its a major contradiction.

The first theory which attempts to reconcile the two lists was put forward by the early Church father Eusebius. This theory states that Luke's list recounts levirate marriage i.e. that if a man died without having any sons, it was tradition for the man’s brother to marry the widow and have a son who would carry on the deceased man’s name. Thus Eusebius suggests that Joseph's mother was originally married to Heli but when Heli died without a son, she married his half-brother Jacob who fathered Joseph. Eusebius also claims further that in a previous generation that Melchi and Matthan were both married to the same woman Estha giving birth to the half-brothers Jacob and Heli. However, Eusebius doesn't reference any primary source for this or back up his claim with reference to any other text. He merely states this as a hypothesis to explain the disparity. However, if Eusebius were correct then every mother on Matthew's list (with the exception of Shealtiel) have had to have been widowed and then remarry to the names on Luke's list. That's over 40 widows who remarried in a single lineage between Abraham and Jesus. I'd like to get the odds on that in Vegas.

A second, more recent theory has been put forward by some conservative biblical scholars namely that Matthew is tracing Jesus' patrilineal heritage through Joseph and that Luke is tracing Jesus' matrilineal heritage through Mary. They claim that both lists translate as son because there is no Greek word for son-in-law. Unfortunately, that claim is demonstrably untrue. Both Hebrew and Greek have clear words for son in law, the relevant word in this case being
γαμπρός

Neither of these theories are supported by evidence from either the NT or other ancient writings. They are also both based on a preconceived assumption, i.e. that there must be a way to reconcile the two lists. By excluding the idea that one or both of the lists are just plain wrong both theories are fundamentally flawed