₦airaland Forum

Apart from the fact that the Exodus story has been thoroughly discredited by archeology, there are droplets of evidence in the Bible itself that show that the were other stories of how the loose confederation of tribes that would later become the nation of Israel emerged.

At IsThatInTheBible blog, the author presents a compelling case: The Story of Ezer and Elead (and What It Means for the Exodus)

Hard and narrow is the way to everlasting life.

Don't you realize that money is needed to rehabilitate and expand it?

Hmmm...

I think the reason for posts like these is to show how human the supposedly God-breathed laws were. The laws in the OT are precisely what you would expect from a patriarchal ANE society e.g women are to be unclean for twice as long if she gives birth to a girl as opposed to a boy.

It is hard to phantom why a just God, as described by Christians, needs such discrimination. It is not hard though to understand the law coming from a thoroughly patriarchal system: it is to reinforce that the female is inferior.

There are countless examples of such laws in other societies. These are what you would expect to be absent in a true divine law. The argument the these were OT times does not cut it. God convinced men to cut a part of their genitals why can't he convince them to treat women equally? Think about it.

Was the prophesy in Isaiah 7:14 about the vigin birth?

Now that we have confirmed who has done the greatest act of love, can we now demonstrate who has done the greatest evil?

I raise you [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lamentations+4%3A9+-+10&version=ESV]Yahweh [/url]

dionysus7:
Jesus banging christ!

Now that's something I wouldn't like to see.

DoctorAlien:
Polygamy is one thing which was not in GOD's plan but, because of the fall of man, found its way...

Where does the Bible teach this?

DoctorAlien:
This is what you said:

A hypothetical Matthew-alone reader who is rational will go like this:

"Other women may have accompanied the two Marys to the sepulchre, since Matthew didn't say that only the two Marys went there. Therefore, I can't really say who left and who did not leave, since the passage didn't say 'the two Marys left with great joy.'"

Oh and by the way, that would mean Matthew is talking a whole lot of nonsense and he is not communicating at all.

DoctorAlien:
Do well to google "four accounts, one reality".

Thank you.

I haved googled

The Events on Resurrection Day

2

2 of 6

Nearing Jesus’ tomb, the women notice the stone rolled away. Mary Magdalene leaves to tell Peter and John while the other women continue to the open tomb.

The problem is that this does not reconcile with Matthew at all as he has Mary returning with joy after both Marys, atleast, have communicated with an angelic being.

DoctorAlien:
This is what you said:

A hypothetical Matthew-alone reader who is rational will go like this:

"Other women may have accompanied the two Marys to the sepulchre, since Matthew didn't say that only the two Marys went there. Therefore, I can't really say who left and who did not leave, since the passage didn't say 'the two Marys left with great joy.'"

From this, I take it you are still re-sitting your WASSCE if you have taken it before because your comprehension skills are woefully lacking.

DoctorAlien:
And since we know, through the four accounts, that the two Mary's weren't the only ones that went, we can conclude that all the "they" which Matthew used in Matt. 28:1-9 applied not only to the two Marys.

In addition, for this part of Matthew to even harmonize with John, Mary couldn't have been amongst the "they" as she would have to have fled the tomb upon realizing the stone had been moved.

I and AgentOfAllah actually don't have much of a problem with other women in Matthew however inconsistent it may be. It is you that has to show that Mary was not part of the "they" that left with joy since in John the same Mary apparently fled without much joy.

DoctorAlien:
Anybody that reads Matthew alone has no contradiction to point out. Contradictions are only pointed out when two or more accounts exist.

Thank GOD we have the four accounts. And since we know, through the four accounts, that the two Mary's weren't the only ones that went, we can conclude that all the "they" which Matthew used in Matt. 28:1-9 applied not only to the two Marys.

Thank you.

Wow wow wow!

I mean where do I even begin. No one said a Matthew-alone reader will point out contradictions. But Matthew will be mischievously putting a huge strain on his readers' comprehension skills. I mean if you ask an hypothetical Matthew-alone reader if Mary Magdalene left the tomb with joy, what do you think his answer will be?

By the way Matthew-alone readers is not that hypothetical considering that John was written decades after Matthew and Matthew seemed to target a Jewish audience unlike, at least, Luke. Then there are likely those who would have read Matthew alone.

Finally, you seem to think that the Gospels fit each other like jigsaws, like lovers finishing each other's sentences. Well, that is both naive and wrong.

Each document were created to be self consistent (whether they achieved this is another story) and were atimes created to subvert another.

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

If you refuse to accept that Matthew didn't mention all the women that went to the sepulchre, I think it's pointless quoting me.

John wrote that if all that Jesus did were to be recorded, the Bible would be too big. The gospel writers did their best to summarize a host of events their own way. Comparing the 4 accounts gives a more complete picture of Jesus' life.

Thank you.

I don't think you are reading any of your critics properly.

Let us even grant that in Matthew's mind there were more women; that he just didn't mention them at the beginning of his narration. Then how else is his readers supposed to know that Mary Magdalene is not amongst the women that "... departed... with great... joy" when he makes no reference whatsoever to any other women?

What you fail to see is that Mary here, contradicts with John's version and there is no way a reader of Matthew alone will know that Mary was not amongst the women that left with joy.

@4everGod

All that one na story.
Do you have anything to contribute to this topic?

Wait, are we still taking this man seriously!

1. It will be a year of surprises
2. For prophets both true and false it will be a year of surprises
3. There will be quite a large number of weddings

This man should just quit.

By the way the insistence of the definition of "contradiction" to mean only "opposite" and not include "inconsistent" is rather disingenuous.

One cannot insist on simple opposite statements in different accounts of an event. One only has to show that the accounts are inconsistent enough to be irreconcilable.

felixomor:
Source:
[url]
https://answersingenesis.org/jesus-christ/resurrection/christs-resurrection-four-accounts-one-reality/[/url]

Sorry, the page is 404ed.

dalaman:
Luke mentions the 11. But according to the gospel his apologist formed, Peter and John were in Jerusalem while the others where in Bethany.

Oh sorry my bad!

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

Please google "four accounts, one reality" and stop asking those uninformed questions.

Mary went with the company of women, but as they neared the sepulchre, she saw the stone rolled away and she left the rest and ran to inform Peter and John who were probably in nearby Jerusalem.

Well, then we agree on one contradiction. Because according to Matthew, Mary (another Mary) met an angelic being who apparently convinced both women of Jesus' resurrection. That is the reason for the women departing the tomb.

Whereas in John, the same Mary flees the tomb as soon as she sees that the stone has been rolled away.

felixomor:
Read carefully,
He is even guilty by that law.
It was never written that all the eleven disciples were told at once, in one place.

But he concluded that the eleven disciples were in one place at one time.
He is guilty too, my dear.

John 20:18
Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”—and that he had said these things to her.

Matthew 28:8
So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.

To be sure neither passages mention eleven disciples but that will be rather uncharacteristically pedantic. There is absolutely no reason to assume these passages do not refer to the eleven.

DoctorAlien:
Again, mental blindness did not allow you to notice that Matthew didn't even mention the whole women that went: he mentioned just two. His account is not comprehensive.

The four accounts shed more light on the same event. Read that piece again, this time slowly.

Are you dense?
Surely the number of women is not the main concern here but Mary Magdalene who plays important but seemingly contradictory roles in atleast 3 of the accounts.

felixomor:
"If something is not written, its not written"

Has it gotten to that level?

I was expecting something that i have not heard before.
Please continue the Argumentum..

His argument is not that simply because something was not written, then it did not happen.

Rather, what I think he is trying to say is that we cannot know for sure about what is not written and therefore should notin anyway form the basis of an argument.

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

Please google "four accounts, one reality" and stop asking those uninformed questions.

Mary went with the company of women, but as they neared the sepulchre, she saw the stone rolled away and she left the rest and ran to inform Peter and John who were probably in nearby Jerusalem.

Nonsense!

How can the same Mary Magdalene who "departed... with great... joy" in the Matthian account not contradict the apparently confused Mary Magdalene in the Johannine account? The Mary that had to be consoled by Jesus?

DoctorAlien:
There is scientific evidence that as little as 20 000 years ago, the earth would have been a magnetic star had evolution been correct. Of course, life cannot form or survive on or near a magnetic star because, in such an environment, the atoms that form our bodies, trees, planets and even water cannot adhere to each other. How do you reconcile this with your statement that dinosaurs existed 65 million years ago and that homo sapiens arrived 20 000 years ago?

How does evolution determine that the earth would have been a magnetic star 20000 years ago?
Are you always this stupid or is it just a one-time thing?

Anas09:
See? Matt 5:27 hung you. You are of the opionion that only women commit adultery. lol. But Jesus is referring to men here, if they as much as look lustfully, they are guilty.

I never said only women commit adultery.

Anas09:
Pathrachial (Man) may try to twist it to mean what he wants it to mean, but deep down you know the truth.

Pathrachy did not start in our time. The pathrachial tradition in the Bible was fixed there by men, just like devorce was. Jesus said, in the beginning, it was not so.

Well God's laws seems to reinforce it and sometimes even establish it. @ the bolded, are you suggesting that the laws found in Deuteronomy and Leviticus are the works of men? Are you sure you want to make that claim?

Added bonus: The Deuteronomy passage commonly sited about divorce actually never gives commandments about divorce but only assumes it. The passage is actually about a woman's eligibility to remarry. What do you make of Jesus actually failing to properly interpret it along with the Pharisees? Was he not in a sense, considering the trinity theology, the one that actually gave Moses the laws? Food for thought...

Anas09:
God created One man for one woman.

The Bible never actually teaches this... maybe except Paul's teachings were he specified conditions to be a bishop (or deacon?)

Anas09:
Thats the reason he rebuked the Pharisees for abandoning the love of God and were preaching the Traditions of men.

Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
1 Corinthians:7:2

This passage only advocates marriage as a means to avoid fornication. It says nothing about multiple marriages. Interestingly, monogamy in new testament times owed more to Roman/Hellenistic influence on Jews, especially in the diaspora (a major constituent of Paul's ministry), than traditional Jewish traditions which very much supported polygamy.

Anas09:
(To avoid sexual sin. The case in point here is sexual sin) Let EVERY MAN HAVE HIS OWN WIFE not Wives.

Admittedly, by the time of Paul, the focus was more of sexual purity than social cohesion.

Anas09:
Talking about the woman caught in Adultery, have you not asked why the man wasnt brought out? Thats the very reason The Master asked them to cast their stones if they were not guilty of the same sin.

Jesus did not ask the men if they were guilty of the same sin. He asked them if they are not guilty of any sin.

Anas09:
Okay. But what did Jesus say about Adultery?

In addition to what he said above?

1. Matt 5: 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[a] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

This passage can be interpreted in many ways. The most common common interpretation of this passage is of course that it condemns any feelings of sexual attraction by a one person to another with the possible exception of one's spouse. Any feelings of lust towards a non-spouse is a major sin, equivalent in seriousness to actually committing adultery.

However, another interpretation is found on the Christian Marriage web site. Pastor Don Milton notes that the word "adultery" means sexual intercourse by a man with a woman who is either engaged or married to another man. Milton notes that:

"Every reference to adultery in the entire Bible concerns sexual intercourse between a married or betrothed woman and a man other than the one to whom she is married or betrothed."

Finally, the webmaster of StudyToAnswer.net notes that

"...the Greek word translated as "lust" here, epithumeo does not merely mean 'to have a desire.' It is a word which actually indicated a strong, even consuming, desire, most often for something which, for whatever reason, is not lawful for one to possess. This is the way in which the word is used at many points in the New Testament ... it seems quite obvious that the Lord Jesus is describing, per the connotation of the word being used, looking upon a woman with an intense desire. Not a mere glance, not a general sort of attraction that may be normal to any heterosexual man, but an intense desire, with an idea towards POSSESSING the desired object (remember Paul's application of "lust" to the tenth commandment, against covetousness, in Romans 7:7?) What the Lord Jesus is talking about here is looking upon a woman in such a way as to desire to take her for yourself, even if it is not lawful for you to have her, in this specific example because she is another man's wife. Clearly Jesus is attaching the particular "sin" connotation to epithumeo, and applying it to the sort of ogling that a man might do which would lead him to then think about and develop a strong desire for the woman who it would be unlawful for him to pursue. ... From all this, it is apparent that the Lord's exposition in Matthew 5:28 is not talking about normal male heterosexuality. It is not talking about never being attracted to a woman who you might like to marry one day. It is talking about abstaining from a strong and persistent desire to possess or take, even in the temporariness of adultery, a woman who is not your wife, and who in fact is probably the wife of another man. "

2. John 8:1-11 New Living Translation (NLT) A Woman Caught in Adultery:
I am sure you are familiar with the Bible passage so I will not quote it. Adultery can only mean this woman was sleeping with man other than her husband. Note that Jesus did not argue her innocence or that she didn't deserve the punishment but only that those who are condemning her were not righteous enough to carryout the punishment.

Anyway further consideration:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sex_jesu.htm:
John 8:1-11 records a meeting between Jesus, some scholars, Pharisees, and a woman who has been caught in adultery. The Mosaic law (Leviticus 20:10, and Deuteronomy 22:22) required that she must be executed by stoning. The passage in Deuteronomy is quite definite: "both the man...and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel." They asked Jesus what should be done with the woman. He recommended that the thrower of the first stone be required to be without sin. Since no individual is without sin, his suggestion is equivalent to pardoning the woman. He thus recommended that the woman be allowed to live. This was a quadruple violation of Mosaic Law:
- Deuteronomy 22:22: Each incidence of adultery was considered an evil blot on the land itself; it had to be purged from Israel. The only method of doing that was to kill the adulterers.
- Deuteronomy 17:7: When a person is to be executed under Jewish law, the first stones were to be thrown by the witnesses to the crime. (An trial leading to an execution had to have at least two witnesses. Only then were the remainder of the people allowed to take part in the murder of the criminal.)
- There is no passage in the Mosaic law which states that executioners have to be sinless.
- There is no passage in the Mosaic law which allows an adulterer to be pardoned.

Later, Jesus said to the woman: "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." Through these words, he recognized her adultery as a sin.

This passage is apparently a forgery that was not written by the author(s) of the gospel of John. It was written by an anonymous individual and later inserted after chapter 7 by an anonymous editor. The New International Version of the Bible has a footnote at this point stating: "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53 - 8:11." Other manuscripts place it at the end of the Gospel of John. Still others insert it after Luke 21:38. The Jesus Seminar calls it a "floating" or "orphan" story. 1 The Fellows of the Jesus Seminar -- a group of liberal theologians -- agreed that while "the words did not originate in their present form with Jesus, they nevertheless assigned the words and story to a special category of things they wish Jesus had said and done." The passage is apparently a traditional Christian story that found its way into various later manuscripts but was not part of the original writings by the author(s) of the Gospel of John.

Faithful followers how market?

LambanoPeace:
Adonbelivit


I hope you are joking?

No, I am not joking
See my comment above.

Anas09:
We are here right? Why not help me understand those and it will help the Op.

Many are reading and will learn. You know how the issue of sex is so porous in our society even in church.

Who knows who you'll help by posting your information here?

First of all you have to understand that most Mosaic laws were addressed to males in the Israelite society alone.
As Phyllis Bird puts it,

The majority of the laws, especially those formulated in the direct-address style of the so-called apodictic law (the style used primarily for the statement of religious obligations), address the community through its male members. Thus the key verbal form in the apodictic sentence is the second person masculine singular or plural. That this usage was not meant simply as an inclusive form of address for bisexual reference is indicated by such formulations as the following:
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife. (Exod. 20:19)
You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. If you do . . . then your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless. (Exod. 22:22-24)
You shall be men consecrated to me. (Exod. 22:31)
Similarly, the typical casuistic law (case law) begins with the formula “If a man does X . . .” The term used for “man” in this formulation is not the generic term, ’adam, but the specifically and exclusively masculine term, ’ish.

As such, all adultery laws have the formula "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife..." No where in the law is a woman commanded not to sleep with another woman's husband. See Lev. 20:10

A man (that is, married or unmarried) can seduce a virgin, who is not engaged he then has to pay a dowry to the father for her to be his wife, but the father has the option to refuse to give his daughter to the seducer. In that case, the man pays anyway, for spoiling the virgin. (Exod 22:16-17)

If you look closely at both the adultery and fornication laws above you will notice a pattern. That is, both laws are treated as much as a property law as they are sexual laws. That is the reason that the covetousness of a mans wife is listed right in the middle of a general condemnation of covetousness of other properties of a man. The wife is regarded as a property of a man; hence the bride price. This is also the reason why a man must pay a dowry for an non engaged girl to her father since she is considered the property of her father.

Coveting another man's wife could lead to jealousy, jealousy leads to strife, strife threatens the very fabric of a society. This is the reason why sleeping with another man's wife is taking very seriously by many ancient society and this is also true for our local customs here in Africa.

So I would argue that laws concerning adultery and fornication are less about sexual purity but more about maintaining a stable patriarchal society.

Anas09:
The problem i have is you justifying sexual sin for the man.

Sexual sin is sin, both for male a females.

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female. (Not Male and females).

And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (Not wives, and they two, not three or more shall become one).


Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Matthew:19:4-6

When it comes to men marrying more than one wife, Jesus says, from the beginning it was not so.


Bros, marriage goes far beyond two people coming together to have children.

Marriage is a service to God.

That statement was not my opinion about adultery but a deduction from the laws concerning adultery abd fornication.
You might want to read those laws more carefully next time so as to make an informed opinion.

Anas09:
Hmmm. Did i just hear this?

What problems do you have with my statement?

Anas09:
When he is married and meets a single woman?

Actually Joagbaje is right. The commandments concerning adultery only about sleeping with a married woman.
Married men could, in theory, sleep with an unmarried woman and still marry her afterwards.