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.

kwikphilly God is no respecter of persons. It is the institution of marriage that the Christian is to honour by refusing to contradict what Jesus says is the truth. The institution of marriage places each lawfully married couple in the same status of Adam and Eve: one flesh until death. The personal situation of suffering or being lonely is what may result from being faithful to Jesus. Just like in the case of a preacher in jail because he preached; he accepts the suffering as part of being a Christian. If the respect to what Jesus says brings suffering we are to accept that. He said if we do not deny ourselves we cannot be his disciples. Those who tread underfoot what Jesus said about remarriage being adultery are going to have a rude awakening when they find out how simple it all was. Just don't get remarried. If you get remarried you commit adultery like Jesus said 5 times and Paul twice. But the shock should be easy to accept because it comes with a very simple message: Jesus meant exactly what he said: Paul meant exactly what he said. Remarriage is adultery and adulterers shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Joe, In Matt 15:9, Mark 7:21, 1 Cor 6:9 and Gal 5:19, we see forms of the words fornication and adultery listed side by side. This is beside in Matt 5:31,32 and 19:9 where they are in the same sentence. That is a total of 6 times in the NT where the word fornication is seen alongside the word adultery. There is definitely a difference between the two words. A comparable other two words can be used to demonstrate how these kinds of pairs of words overlap in meaning but are not synonyms. The words thieves and extortioners. They are both a form of theft so that it can be said, all extortion is theft but not all theft is extortion. So it is mind boggling how you could not understand that all adultery is fornication but not all fornication is adultery. I even gave you a sentence about Jane and John having committed fornication, not adultery. Adultery is a specific type of sexual sin; one that violates a joined marriage. Extortion is a specific type of stealing, often the extortioner is in communication with his victim. This is not the done-unawares-behind-your-back kind of stealing. So while theft correctly describes more generally what extortion is, the word extortion itself identifies more precisely what king of theft it is. The same with adultery. Adultery is fornication meaning it is unlawful sexual activity, but the specific word adultery describes a particular kind of unlawful sexual activity; one that violates an existing marriage. In Matt 5:27,28 Jesus is addressing the specific sin of adultery. So the topic is established, it is adultery, not fornication. We see fornication committed in the heart in Matt 15:19 and Mark 7:21. We also see the specific sexual sin, adultery in the heart, in the same two verses. Jesus is pinpointing the specific sexual sin of adultery in the heart in Matt 5:27,28. He is not pinpointing fornication in the heart. Since adultery already has a clear definition then the adultery in the heart has to be done by a single man lusting after a married wife or a single woman lusting after a married husband or by two married people, but not married to each other, lusting after each other.

kwikphilly If we are to avoid having adultery in our heart, how much more should we be concerned that we do not commit it literally and physically? Yes, Jesus wants us to have pure hearts, and by his grace that is possible to keep unclean sexual thoughts out of our minds, but to actually be physically involved sexually with someone else's husband or wife, obviously that is a much greater sin. So Christians should be aware how grievous the sin is of becoming remarried. It is adultery. Adulterers shall not inherit the kingdom of God. It is assumed that because civil authority makes it legal to divorce and remarry, then the Christian can do the same thing. Nope, dead wrong. It is adultery. The sex done in the second marriage is adultery against the first and lawful spouse who God has ordained to be part of the same body. Only death parts a lawful marriage. Remarriage is adultery.

OneLight, You are assuming that the exception clause, by its use of "fornication" means a sexual sin committed by the married wife. That means the exception clause provides partial allowance for the action which is the specific topic of discussion. The specific topic under discussion is the normal post marital divorce since Matt 5:31 is referencing that kind of divorce. You are saying that the exception clause then is also referring to the same kind of divorce, the normal post marital kind, allowing it to be done, but for a limited reason. Did you know that when attempts are made to make any other sentence, on any other topic that conforms to the same format as Matt 5:31,32, that its exception clause NEVER provides partial allowance for the specific topic under discussion? It cannot be done. Try it.

OneLight Concerning the word fornication: The words fornication and adultery are listed side by side at least 3 times in the NT. This is beside where the two words are in the same sentences in Matt 5:31,32 and 19:9. There is a clear difference between the two words. Take for example "Jane and John, both 15, were caught committing fornication." Here it is obvious that this is a premarital sexual offence as evidenced by their young ages. The word adultery is not at all available to be used here. The word fornication has more than one definition. One of those is its exclusive premarital definition that would apply to the sentence above. If a sentence has such a word with more than one definition, and it is uncertain what definition was intended, then all the definitions can be tried. The one that makes the sentence perfectly competent is the right one. That is what has happened to Matt 5:31,32 and 19:9. The wrong definition was used. That is why BOTH sentences literally contradict themselves and each other when fornication in that particular context is assumed to mean adultery. That is why when the betrothal explanation is used for the kind of divorce the exception clause is referring to, the sentences function perfectly. Adultery has a specific definition. It is the sexual violation of a marriage. When adultery and fornication are listed side by side as we see in the NT, it is natural to see fornication as pointing mostly to the premarital since adultery is specifically the post marital. When listed side by side, they naturally compare with one another. Another example of two words that overlap are "thieves" and "extortioners". Both of these deal with wrongfully taking from someone. Both are theft. Extortion is a specific type of theft. But sometimes the word extortion is completely inappropriate to use. When speaking specifically of having had something taken from you unawares behind your back, then theft and not extortion is what is meant. So there we see two specific types of stealing yet both may be called theft. Extortion is theft, but not all theft is extortion. Adultery is fornication but not all fornication is adultery.

OneLight, What reference material are you referring to? You asked me to supply the reference material I am using? Using for what? I don't understand.

FresnoJoe, Notice in Matt 1, while in that state of not having become joined in marriage, while they were only betrothed, Joseph is identified as her "husband" and Mary as his "wife". In modern times we might say 'husband and wife to be'. We see the same scenario of the premarital uses of these terms in Deut 22:23,24 and Deut 20:7. In Gen 19:14 we see a reference to the word "married" apparently also used with regard to the betrothed state. In Matt 1 we see also the term, "put her away". That is the same term used for divorce. So Joseph, Mary's "husband", was contemplating "divorcing" his "wife" Mary, while they were only betrothed, BEFORE they joined in marriage and became husband and wife after how we use those terms today. . Lacking this understanding of their usage of terms, ('husband' 'wife' and 'divorce') has led many very highly respected Biblical scholars to not even begin to consider that the word fornication in Matt 5:31,32 and Matt 19:9 can reasonably refer to the premarital type of divorce we see in Matt 1. It is understandable for the mental block since they were not at all familiar with those usages in these modern times. They failed to discover this revelation or failed to put themselves in the shoes of the first century Christians and see how the betrothal explanation for the exception clause works perfectly.

OneLight, You continually keep asserting that the word fornication has to be identifying adultery in that context. Since "fornication" depending on context can be used to identify the premarital sexual sin exclusively, you have no grounds to ignore that possibility of intended use by Jesus. The interesting fact concerning this is that Matt 5:31,32 and 19:9 literally contradict themselves, and each other, when fornication is assumed to mean adultery. Those contradictions do not exist when fornication is understood to be pointing to that entirely different kind of divorce for fornication done premaritally in betrothal.

One light, The word fornication (porneia) has quite a bit more to it than what you have revealed. Three times in the NT, besides in Matt 5 and 19, the words fornication and adultery are listed side by side. That indicates a difference in meaning. Sometimes it can pertain exclusively to the premarital sexual sin if the context accommodates that. It has more than one definition. Those kinds of very flexible words, when used in a context where there is found some uncertainty, the different definitions may be tried to see if any particular definition will cause the entire function of the sentence to perform more perfectly. Such is the case with Matt 5 and 19 of the exception clause. When assumed that fornication means adultery some very weird contradictions exist in both verses as well as contradicting each other. When the other kind of divorce that was done in betrothal is embraced as Jesus' intention for the exception clause, those contradictions do not occur. There is no question which explanation works and which is false. The divorce for adultery explanation is false because of the contradictions that are created within the texts when that definition of fornication is used. The divorce in betrothal explanation fits perfectly with ALL the NT texts on the topic. Not one contradiction.

One light, "Till death do us part" has been held for centuries by very many Christians as what the reality of marriage is. It is derived from the very strong words in the long dialogue in Mark 10:2-12, by the short but powerful declaration by Jesus in Luke 16:18 and the two very strong statements by Paul in 1 Cor 7:39 and Rom 7:2,3. It seems that most Christians through the centuries simply ignored the exception clause or they were given suggestions on what it might mean, all designed to NOT contradict the strong verses mentioned above. Many Christians just could not get themselves to contradict the overwhelming testimony and convicting power of those verses that by all appearance are declaring "till death do us part". The fact that some kind of exception existed by only Matthew's hand was not going to get them to rush into a rash decision to violate those verses that are so plainly and strongly written forbidding divorce and remarriage. They refused to so easily abandon conviction. Good for them, even if they did not know about the premarital divorce that does NOT contradict "till death do us part". There is a simple challenge that exposes the divorce for adultery explanation of the exception clause to be absolutely false. Would like to accept that challenge to see if you can vindicate that theory?