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

steamengine wrote: »

Really ? A better method would be for posters to back up their hypothetical alluding to possible alternative forms of marriage, at that period of history.

'Jesuitical' types of arguments just come across as being weak.

It is so weak that very few agree with your stance.

Jesus does not specifically talk about same sex marriage, taking the approach well he only talked about the union between a man and a women therefore anything that falls outside this wrong and a sin.. This is how children think or people with a stunted ability to think about complex situations... Or maybe people who lived 2000 years ago with a limited understanding of sexuality and orientation.

Let me ask a question do you know what a hermofrodit is? What is the stance on them getting married?

The Church takes the stance it is a mortal sin... Bit of a jump from what Jesus said to go from marriage is the union between and man and a woman to "Oh if you are a practicing homosexual you're going to hell"..

If Jesus was here I do not know what his stance would be on this I would need to ask him, but you seem to think you know, so the onus is on you to back up your (by today's standards) backward thinking intolerant bigoted view with something a little more than "Jesus only talked about a union between a man and a woman" a weak and arguably cowardly argument at best.

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.

I'm not trying to second guess anything. As I pointed out in my post, the fact that each of the gospel writers put their own theological spin on what they wrote makes it impossible to determine what would or would not have been countenanced.

What we can say is that Jesus "according to the gospels" countenanced man-woman marriage. Since there is no mention of other relationship types, we cannot say anything about his position on them one way or the other.

You're trying to argue for plenitude, the idea that if Jesus condoned something then it would be recorded in the gospel. But you haven't either logically or with reference to the text shown why this must be the case.

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.

There are two problems here. Firstly, this claim of Evans is just that, a claim. He has not published his work and so therefore the veracity of his claim cannot be assessed. Secondly, Evans has in advance of the paper spoken about his methodology in dating the fragment. This has already attracted strong criticism from a number of scholars including archaeologist Paul Barford, historian Roberta Mazza and theologian Brice Jones.
It remains to be seen whether Evans claims actually hold up to scrutiny but even if the fragment is dated to 80 it still doesn't help to bridge the gap between the composition of Mark in 70CE and they events it describes.

hinault wrote: »

No one here said that there was.

You said it when you said:

"We possess over 5,000 copies of the gospels"

We possess fragments not whole copies as you inferred.

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.

The gospels have never claimed to be a wider account of history generally for that region during the life of Jesus Christ.

There are two problems with this.

Firstly, the reliability of the gospels as historical accounts are weakened by the things that they contain such as factual mistakes, contradictions and syncretic borrowings.

Secondly as I pointed out to katydid in another post, the gospels are not written as historical documents. They differ in a number of ways from actual historical writings of the era including:

1. The gospels make little or no attempt to identify the sources they draw upon in writing their stories. (e.g. Luke mentions that he draws on sources but does not name them)
2. The later gospel authors make no attempt to resolve contradictions with earlier works (e.g. Luke makes no attempt to reconcile his nativity narrative with Matthew's)
3. The author does not place himself in the story.
4. The gospels are written for the common man rather than the social and literary elite audience of Greek and Roman histories/biographies.
5. The gospels contain far too many hagiographical elements to be historically reliable.
6. There is no attempt to warn the reader that certain events or words may not be recorded clearly. None of the gospel authors make any attempt to identify where they speculate on content.
7. The interdependence of the gospels makes them unlike the historical writings of the time.
8. Unusual events disappear from the wider narrative. The aftermath of the graves opening in Matthew is not discussed in any other text.

The gospels are not reliable historical accounts but then they are not intended to be. They are part-fact, part-fiction hagiographic backstories for Jesus intended to encourage the faith of both believers and converts alike.

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

So the last of the gospels, written over 60 years after the events it depicts claims to be an eyewitness account and you think that's proof of what exactly? Circular reasoning isn't going to help your argument. If John's gospel is an eyewitness account on the basis that it claims to be then so is the Book of Mormon and any other number of religious texts.

hinault wrote: »

Here is a useful discourse as to the eye witness reliability of the Gospels.
http://www.bethinking.org/is-the-bible-reliable/new-evidence-the-gospels-were-based-on-eyewitness-accounts

Peter Williams is very much in the minority of biblical scholars in that he continues to maintain views which are very much against the consensus.

For example, in an article he wrote on the historical reliability of Mark's gospel he states:

"We can take it therefore that the Gospel is ascribed to him because it genuinely is by him."

The overwhelming consensus is that the author of Mark's gospel is not the John Mark referenced in the New Testament. I have previously outlined the reasons why this is the case here.

Secondly, he also makes this claim about Mark:

"Yet at the same time, the author knows Palestine sufficiently that he can quote a number of words in Aramaic, which was spoken there."
It would have been very hard for anyone who had not spent time in Palestine or at least been with some from Palestine to have composed this narrative.

This claim is directly contradicted by the geographical errors made by Mark which shows him to be completely unfamiliar with Palestine:

For example take this storyfrom Mark 5.

"A large herd of pigs was feeding on the nearby hillside. The demons begged Jesus, “Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them.” He gave them permission, and the impure spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned."


Now, the chapter opens by mentioning that Jesus and his posse have just landed in Gerasa (the land of the Gerasenes). So the demons who possessed the pigs run down the steep bank into the sea of Galilee.





As you can see on the map, Gerasa is quite far from the Sea of Galilee (about 30 miles to be exact), so that would have to be one massively steep hill.

Later in Chapter 7, Mark makes another criminal geography mistake:

"Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis."

Again, when we look at the map we see the problem:

"

Going from Tyre to Sidon means going almost completely in the opposite direction to the Sea of Galilee. Also, since there was no road between Sidon and the Sea of Galilee, this verse makes even less sense. It's also worth noting that older translations of the Bible make an even bigger mistake by having go through the Decapolis (a group of 10 cities SE of the Sea of Galilee) on his way to the Sea of Galilee from Sidon.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I'm not trying to second guess anything. As I pointed out in my post, the fact that each of the gospel writers put their own theological spin on what they wrote makes it impossible to determine what would or would not have been countenanced.

What we can say is that Jesus "according to the gospels" countenanced man-woman marriage. Since there is no mention of other relationship types, we cannot say anything about his position on them one way or the other.

You're trying to argue for plenitude, the idea that if Jesus condoned something then it would be recorded in the gospel. But you haven't either logically or with reference to the text shown why this must be the case.





There are two problems here. Firstly, this claim of Evans is just that, a claim. He has not published his work and so therefore the veracity of his claim cannot be assessed. Secondly, Evans has in advance of the paper spoken about his methodology in dating the fragment. This has already attracted strong criticism from a number of scholars including archaeologist Paul Barford, historian Roberta Mazza and theologian Brice Jones.
It remains to be seen whether Evans claims actually hold up to scrutiny but even if the fragment is dated to 80 it still doesn't help to bridge the gap between the composition of Mark in 70CE and they events it describes.






You said it when you said:

"We possess over 5,000 copies of the gospels"

We possess fragments not whole copies as you inferred.




There are two problems with this.

Firstly, the reliability of the gospels as historical accounts are weakened by the things that they contain such as factual mistakes, contradictions and syncretic borrowings.

Secondly as I pointed out to katydid in another post, the gospels are not written as historical documents. They differ in a number of ways from actual historical writings of the era including:

1. The gospels make little or no attempt to identify the sources they draw upon in writing their stories. (e.g. Luke mentions that he draws on sources but does not name them)
2. The later gospel authors make no attempt to resolve contradictions with earlier works (e.g. Luke makes no attempt to reconcile his nativity narrative with Matthew's)
3. The author does not place himself in the story.
4. The gospels are written for the common man rather than the social and literary elite audience of Greek and Roman histories/biographies.
5. The gospels contain far too many hagiographical elements to be historically reliable.
6. There is no attempt to warn the reader that certain events or words may not be recorded clearly. None of the gospel authors make any attempt to identify where they speculate on content.
7. The interdependence of the gospels makes them unlike the historical writings of the time.
8. Unusual events disappear from the wider narrative. The aftermath of the graves opening in Matthew is not discussed in any other text.

The gospels are not reliable historical accounts but then they are not intended to be. They are part-fact, part-fiction hagiographic backstories for Jesus intended to encourage the faith of both believers and converts alike.







So the last of the gospels, written over 60 years after the events it depicts claims to be an eyewitness account and you think that's proof of what exactly? Circular reasoning isn't going to help your argument. If John's gospel is an eyewitness account on the basis that it claims to be then so is the Book of Mormon and any other number of religious texts.

Peter Williams is very much in the minority of biblical scholars in that he continues to maintain views which are very much against the consensus.

Some of us have jobs to hold down.

If I have time later to copy and paste replies to the content that you post, I will do.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Peter Williams is very much in the minority of biblical scholars in that he continues to maintain views which are very much against the consensus.

Williams may not be older, but he is far more wise.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

But this does show that the version of the Gospels we have now differ from the original....

Actually this is unfair it suggests that parts have been altered and parts added.
As we do not have the original copy there is really no way to know.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

this does show that the version of the Gospels we have now differ from the original....

This is almost as funny as the other charge made here that the 4 gospels contradict each another.

One can't say truthfully that what we possess differs from the original - given that we don't possess an original to compare it to what we now possess.

RecordStraight wrote: »

You were given specific examples and were unable to refute them with your rather unpersuasive bluster.

The specific claim made was that the 4 gospels in the NT contradict one another.

That claim, that the 4 gospels contradict one another, is disingenuous to quote the poster here who's fond of trying to (mis)label other posters here.

Each of the four gospels contain different levels of detail, different narrative styles, different aspects of the same events.
Most knowledgeable readers of the gospels concede these differences.

To deliberately assert that these differences contradict one another is thoroughly bogus.

But then the same poster is busy trying to tell us that what isn't in the gospel - and which he/she holds to be errant anyhow - holds some level of validation.

You really couldn't make it up.

hinault wrote: »

This is almost as funny as the other charge made here that the 4 gospels contradict each another.

One can't say truthfully that what we possess differs from the original - given that we don't possess an original to compare it to what we now possess.

You are clearly a fool.

You do know the link you posted by Dr Williams that guy you say you highly recommend, this was what he said not me.

I as a courtesy then say on my next post that it suggests as we do not have the original documents.

Williams says at this point in time right now we have varying translations of the bible, they are not exactly the same.. He even goes on to say most modern bibles will actually list ambiguities in texts and passages.

So let me try and explain this for you as you really appear to be very slow on the uptake.... If we have varying versions of the gospels now it does mean at least one of them differs from the original text.

galljga1 wrote: »

Selective reasoning, as per usual.

I think they call it confirmation bias, only looks at areas where they think they have a point then completely ignores any rebuttal that makes them look foolish.

Does anyone have an issue with Adam & Eve, having two sons Cain & Abel, & going on to populate the earth?

steamengine wrote: »

Prove what your alluding to - the other types of marriage - that somehow he forgot to mention !

Well, yibbum or levirate marriage for one. Jesus is asked about levirate marriage by a group of Jews in Matthew 22 because of Jesus' claims about heaven. Jesus dodges the question and simply states that there is no marriage in heaven.

That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. Finally, the woman died. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?” Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’URL="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22#fen-NIV-23905b"]b[/URL? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

Now there are other forms of marriage described in the OT.

Take this one for example.

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
Deuteronomy 22:28-29

This is not mentioned by Jesus in the NT. Does he therefore allow it or condemn it?

Or this one:

"When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife."
Deuteronomy 21:11-14

Now, whereas the example from Deuteronomy is merely a permission, the marriage in Deuteronomy 22 is a commandment. Therefore, it would fall within the remit of what Jesus says in Matthew 5:19

"Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Since Jesus is speaking to a Jewish audience they would understand the commandments to mean all of them, all 613.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Well, yibbum or levirate marriage for one. Jesus is asked about levirate marriage by a group of Jews in Matthew 22 because of Jesus' claims about heaven. Jesus dodges the question and simply states that there is no marriage in heaven.

That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. Finally, the woman died. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?” Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’URL="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22#fen-NIV-23905b"]b[/URL? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

Now there are other forms of marriage described in the OT.

Take this one for example.

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
Deuteronomy 22:28-29

This is not mentioned by Jesus in the NT. Does he therefore allow it or condemn it?

Or this one:

"When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife."
Deuteronomy 21:11-14

Now, whereas the example from Deuteronomy is merely a permission, the marriage in Deuteronomy 22 is a commandment. Therefore, it would fall within the remit of what Jesus says in Matthew 5:19

"Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Since Jesus is speaking to a Jewish audience they would understand the commandments to mean all of them, all 613.

Where in the Gospels or where throughout the New Testament did Jesus Christ countenance a marriage other than between one man and one woman?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

What people believe does not make it fact, I was simply stating for historical purposes let's assume he exists.

This has to be the dumbest use of logic I have ever encountered!
The bible does not look kindly on fornication, self gratification and homosexuality among a litany of other things, I totally understand why bigotry can be derived from the Bible.

You're logic is stating that because Jesus did not mention any other form of marriage therefore he is against it it is wrong and it is a sin!
Even if he was against it the logic still does not add up!
I mean if this was on an IQ test you would fail.

Where in the Gospels or where throughout the New Testament did Jesus Christ countenance a marriage other than between one man and one woman

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You are running in circles now, the youtube video talks about it.
If we have even slight variants now it puts into question which is correct?

At very best one variant could be correct therefore the other is not.

Without the original we are now left questioning which is correct.

Look, Williams knows well that humanity doesn't possess an original copy of any of the 4 NT gospels.
Because Williams knows this, the claim that you say Williams made makes no sense.

If Williams is going to make a comparison, he needs to have something to make a comparison with.

I can tell you that Luthers "bible" is a variation on earlier bibles, because we can compare Luthers "bible" to an earlier bible.

For Williams to assert that we can make a comparison to the original - without ever possessing an original - is illogical and nonsensical.

Where in the video did Williams make the claim that you assert?
Because I don't believe that Williams did make the claim which you assert he did.

hinault wrote: »

Look, Williams knows well that humanity doesn't possess an original copy of any of the 4 NT gospels.
Because Williams knows this, the claim that you say Williams made makes no sense.

If Williams is going to make a comparison, he needs to have something to make a comparison with.

I can tell you that Luthers "bible" is a variation on earlier bibles, because we can compare Luthers "bible" to an earlier bible.

For Williams to assert that we can make a comparison to the original - without ever possessing an original - is illogical and nonsensical.

Where in the video did Williams make the claim that you assert?
Because I don't believe that Williams did make the claim which you assert he did.

Here we go in circles again! I never said we can make a comparison to the original.
Williams makes mention in two distinct translation of Mark, one said he was angry they other said he felt pity... He goes on to say we do not have an original copy... He also talks about an entire passage in the gospel of john that might have been added much later....
He then says some bibles make mention of this...
If we have variation and no original then we are left not know which is the correct interpretation.

Stop trying to avoid what I am saying by trying to run round it.