A_Voice

You could have also identified the globe earth idea as also having been brought into question. The 'flat earthers' have some points that are not being sufficiently answered.

I agree that it was a Thursday death and two Sabbath days were back to back. I believe though that you are making a mistake concerning your assumption that Jesus did not die on Passover day. He was the Passover lamb and he died on Passover day, but during its daylight period. I think your mistake is misunderstanding the preparation day. The Passover day was simultaneously in the latter daylight hours thereof also designated to prepare for the following day, the 15th, which was always a rest day, a special Sabbath. "For that day was a high day". So Thursday, at the beginning of that day at sunset (Wednesday sunset, beginning of Thursday) the Passover came and he ate the Passover at night as he plainly said they ate it. The next daylight he was crucified, still within the 24 hour period of Passover. Jesus plainly said he was eating Passover with them. That does not have to be denied if we understand correctly how they kept the Passover. That year Passover fell on a Thursday, (The Passover was not a Sabbath day) the next day was the 15th of the month special 'Sabbath', making two Sabbaths back to back [Friday special Sabbath and Saturday normal Sabbath], which is why they had to wait for Sunday to bring the spices.

Trinitron, Your position is assuming the verses (Matt 5:31,32) make it necessary that fornication there has to mean adultery. But there is an alternative explanation what fornication means there as it would apply to their different kind of cultural divorce done BEFORE marriage while only betrothed, (a form of engagement). In that case the exception clause is read as disconnected from the rest of the verse as it simply identifies a different way to divorce that would not cause the divorcee to commit adultery. What has been discovered is that that kind of clause (that jumps out of context to some degree) to touch on a side point is called a "non essential clause". We have all used these in numerous sentences throughout our lives. But because we are not aware in Western and modern society with that weird OTHER kind of divorce [done premaritally for fornication, not for adultery] it is hard for us to re-adjust our mindset to see it in that way they were able to see it in the first century. Notice I pointed out that when Matt 5:31,32 is read with this understanding the exception clause becomes disconnected, it becomes a "non essential" clause. Amazingly, it is proven that the particular sentence structure in Matt 5:31,32 can ONLY accommodate a non essential exception clause. That means God chose a sentence structure that Jesus used in Matt 5:31,32 that proves beyond any shadow of doubt that adultery was NOT given as a grounds for divorce. When "fornication" in that sentence is assumed to mean adultery then the sentence falls apart grammatically; it becomes convoluted because then the exception clause is "essential", when in reality that particular kind of sentence can ONLY accommodate a 'non essential' exception clause. Try it yourself, make a sentence conforming to the sentence format Jesus used in Matt 5:31,32: A topic of discussion established, something done to someone, which causes that person to do something negative, with an exception clause in the middle identifying a reason or circumstance under which what would normally be caused would then NOT be caused. In every case when such a sentence is produced a "non essential" exception clause is found to be there. That is because that kind of sentence can ONLY accommodate that kind of exception clause. Interpreting fornication there to mean adultery is the wrong kind of exception clause, which accounts for the literally read verse contradicting itself under that interpretation. God placed internal evidence within the text itself to forbid adultery or any other post martially committed offence from being a grounds for divorce. There are no grounds for divorce from a joined lawful marriage. The exception clause touched on an entirely different kind of divorce done while betrothed (engaged). The old solemn phrase, 'till death do us part' happens to be the reality of the situation. Marriage is sacred. Once entered into lawfully (both parties being eligible) only death can terminate that union.

Mswright, Please clarify, What exactly do you think I am claiming without substance? Answer my questions and lets see where this goes. I am asserting that the sentence in Matt 5:31,32 is a literal convolution when the exception of fornication is assumed to be an allowance to divorce for adultery. So answer my question. Under the divorce for adultery explanation, to what woman does the last clause in Matt 5:32 pertain? Let me clarify: When the exception of fornication is presumed to give allowance to divorce for adultery then a comparison between two women is created: the one divorced for adultery and the other NOT divorced for adultery. Yet the last clause makes a blanket statement that whoever marries her that is divorced commits adultery. Does that last clause pertain to the woman divorced for adultery, the woman divorced for something else, or does it pertain to both? Here is your opportunity to defend what you say the text is saying. Answer me.

bopeep, You are assuming that "fornication" in Matt 5 and 19 means adultery. There is another explanation that makes it mean literally "fornication" after that word's specific definition, meaning the premarital sexual sin. Fornication has more than one definition. It has a specific premarital definition besides its ability to pertain to sexual sin in general. When adultery is tried in the context of Matt 5:31,32 then the sentence becomes convoluted. When the premarital sexual sin definition is used then there is no more convolution. It makes more sense to choose the definition of fornication that makes that particular sentence function competently and sensibly. We are not aware of the premarital divorce they exercised in their culture, so we naturally close our minds to the possibility.. We see Joseph was about to do that kind of divorce to Mary because he thought she had fornicated. Concerning abandonment, you are assuming that Paul gave a reason to divorce and remarry. See 1 Cor 7:39. Only death can part what God has joined together. Jesus identified remarriage to be adultery 5 times and Paul did so twice. Paul absolutely did not defy Christ's words nor did he contradict his own. He absolutely did not give permission to commit adultery by allowing remarriage. Remarriage is adultery.

Trinitron, you did not answer my question: What woman does the last clause pertain to in Matt 19:9?

Trinitron, When you interpret fornication in Matt 19:9 to mean adultery, the verse then contradicts itself. Answer me. What woman does the last clause pertain to in Matt 19:9 under your assumption that fornication means adultery? The wife who was divorced for adultery, the wife divorced for something else, or both? Answer me.

The NT does not throw out the truth. It upholds truth. The forgiveness in a broken marriage must relate to the sins committed in the marriage or the wrongs the parties individually have done. Forgiveness with regard to a past marriage has NOTHING to do with the marriage itself. That is the crime committed by those trying to erase the marriage itself. Erase the marriage and then the person can get married again. Guess what? No one can erase that marriage. Not even God, unless he decides to let one of the parties die. He is true to his word. The competing 'word', that tries to equate the marriage itself to sin, and thereby sweep it under the rug as if it does not exist, saying it is "passed away" is a message from that old serpent the devil. Remarriage is adultery. Adulterers shall not inherit the kingdom of God. The adultery has to stop; therefore the second marriage must be abandoned in repentance. It was NOT that which he has joined together because it violates what he has said what marriage is.

Seven seas, Jesus said there would be even believers who would become offended. People who are offended because of the hard things Jesus said are fulfilling what he said would happen. Nothing bogus about what Jesus said will happen. Self denial and cross bearing are necessary for Jesus' way. If a person will not die to their self, then they cannot be his disciple. He doesn't want lukewarmness.

Trinitron, Take 1 Cor 7:39 for example. Look what your perspective causes you to do to that verse. That verse is a lie as plainly written according to your perspective. The same with Mark 10:2-12. The explanation that allows what Jesus said to mean what it says is the correct explanation. Yours is wrong.

The Gospel carries offence. Jesus said he came to bring a sword. When people are offended at plain teachings Jesus gave, then that fulfils Jesus' words. The seed of the word was able to take root in the stony ground but when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word it withers. When people are offended at what Jesus taught, they are the hearts that are like stony ground. Jesus doesn't want us lukewarm. Stand on his side against what he calls adultery.

Sevenseas, what has caused Trinitron to hold to his unbalanced view is his assuming that Jesus allowed the man the right to get vengeance on his cheating wife by allowing him to divorce her. When that is how it is misunderstood then there is a case to take it that Jesus was very one sided. So it is that basic misunderstanding that Jesus allowed divorce in the first place that corrupts the thinking. The reality is that divorce is not allowed for either one no matter what. Jesus calls for forgiveness, while the misunderstanding that divorce is allowed for adultery provides the avenue to NOT forgive. Just divorce her, throw her away like a dirty rag. This topic manifests a very basic level of knowing Christ. By having misunderstood the exception clause, a false image of Christ's character is created. And propogated. And Jesus cringes under the slander and ignorance.

Mswright, If her first marriage was after the pattern of Adam and Eve, neither one having been previously married, then yes, the second is adultery. If that prior marriage was not lawful meaning he was a divorcee, then her second marriage to an eligible person would not be adultery. Jesus meant what he said. Remarriage is adultery. To not warn people is to not love them. To encourage them in what will put them in hell is what we would expect Satan to do.

Trinitron, Sounds a little unbalanced doesn't it. Like Allah, he says the women don't have equal treatment. The truth is in marriage they become one person, one flesh that only death can separate. That is how it was with Adam and Eve's marriage and all marriages afterward were patterned after that format. Sorry folks, Jesus is not some wimp who doesn't really mean what he says. No one is going to fool him with their claim they were forgiven and that gave them permission to continue committing adultery by remarriage. The adultery by remarriage has to be gotten out of like a person involved in extortion has to stop that crime. Calling adultery by remarriage, not a crime, doesn't make it so. These childish word games are not going to stand up against what Jesus said.

Steve, Jesus identified remarriage to be adultery 5 times and Paul did so twice. So you are saying remarriage is not adultery. So you are the one trying to assert justification by the law because it was Moses that allowed divorce and remarriage while the gospel of grace forbids both.