Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
The Bible and marriage?
14 Answers
What does the Bible teach about marriage?
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by delirious. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Gee, I clik on it and it's OK... This is the URL... again...
http://www.broadcaster.org.uk/section2/transcr ipt/marriage1.htm
Sorry, works for me!
http://www.broadcaster.org.uk/section2/transcr ipt/marriage1.htm
Sorry, works for me!
The link was down whenever I tried it yesterday but it�s OK today.
It gives a one-sided view of the issue in that it doesn�t deal with those embarrassing incidents where highly-regarded biblical characters show their contempt for marriage. The patriarch Abraham, for example, was quite happy to pretend that his wife Sarah was his sister so that he could lend her to various men for his own political purposes. The hero David sent one of his officers (Uriah) to certain death so that he, David, could possess Uriah�s wife, Bathsheba, after whom he
lusted. And Jesus� supposed observance of marriage has to be balanced with his order that men who wanted to follow him had to abandon their wives and families. As in all other subjects the Bible is hopelessly contradictory, a mish-mash of writings containing some commonsense and a lot of absurdity. Hardly surprising when you consider that it was written by a horde of completely unknown people - with one exception. Paul certainly wrote most of the epistles attributed to him, otherwise the Bible is completely anonymous.
I wouldn�t go to the Bible for �teaching� on any subject, delirious There are many more intelligent sources.
(Would somebody tell me how to do things like 'bold' in AB so that I can make names like "delirious" stand out?)
It gives a one-sided view of the issue in that it doesn�t deal with those embarrassing incidents where highly-regarded biblical characters show their contempt for marriage. The patriarch Abraham, for example, was quite happy to pretend that his wife Sarah was his sister so that he could lend her to various men for his own political purposes. The hero David sent one of his officers (Uriah) to certain death so that he, David, could possess Uriah�s wife, Bathsheba, after whom he
lusted. And Jesus� supposed observance of marriage has to be balanced with his order that men who wanted to follow him had to abandon their wives and families. As in all other subjects the Bible is hopelessly contradictory, a mish-mash of writings containing some commonsense and a lot of absurdity. Hardly surprising when you consider that it was written by a horde of completely unknown people - with one exception. Paul certainly wrote most of the epistles attributed to him, otherwise the Bible is completely anonymous.
I wouldn�t go to the Bible for �teaching� on any subject, delirious There are many more intelligent sources.
(Would somebody tell me how to do things like 'bold' in AB so that I can make names like "delirious" stand out?)
Realizing it'll make absolutely no difference in attitudes, one has to point out that any hallmark of originality and probable authenticity in the study of any purported historical document(s) is the inclusion of information detrimental to the image of the supposed "heroes" of the subject matter. In each of the cases referenced by chakka, the subjects, (Abrahma and David) were severely chastised and suffered greatly because of their actions. Yet, the timelessness of the moral and cultural teachings on marriage shine through. The inclusion of these references is unique in such writings. There's simply never enough time nor room along with waning interest to debate the authorship of the Books of the Old Covenant and the well attested authorship of most of those in the New... most as eyewitnesses that, for some reason doesn't resonate with those who wish only to find fault... in my opinion...
Yes Clanad, you and I have been here before and I seem to remember that our correspondence finished because you failed to answer a challenge of mine on roughly the same subject. I repeat that the only known author in the New Testament is Paul. The gospels remain anonymous and were given their present names quite arbitrarily late in the 2nd Century. The rest of the books in the NT also have no known authors despite their vague names. As for �eyewitnesses�, eyewitnesses to what? If it is to the Jesus story then there is not a single eye- or ear-witness to anything that Jesus did or said or to any other part of the tale. If you can identify one convincingly than you will astound not just me but all the rest of the NT scholarship.
You seem to acknowledge that Paul was a verificable writer of the New Covenant, chakka, so let's start there. If Paul is an historical writer of events then we would have to give credence to his reporting of places, events and people, would we not? Then, why is it he relates in more than one instance, personal knowledge of Peter, James (the brother of Yeshua) and John? He does this in Galatians 18-2:16 If these weren't historical personalities why would he reference them... especially as pillars of the Jerusalem church? As you must know, each were authors of significant amounts of the New Covenant. Additionally, Clement of Rome (c. A.D. 95-96), Ignatius (c. A.D. 107), and Polycarp (c. A.D. 110) quote or otherwise refer to statements in twelve of the thirteen letters traditionally attributed to Paul. This is within 30 yearos or so of the supposed original writings. (Paul's 1 Corinthians., written when Paul first visited the city of Corinth roughly A.D. 51-52 (cf. Acts l8:l-18) is very early.
The vast majority of people in the first-century Mediterranean world were illiterate, so it was necessary for them to learn orally. This requirement meant that the easiest way for the central elements of a message to be remembered long after they were heard was for them to be presented in a brief, easily retainable manner. Hence,in the New Testament, we find numerous statements that actually predate the texts in which they are embedded. These creeds or traditions are often concise, catchy sayings that are packed with meaning in a minimal number of words. They provide the clearest examples of the apostolic teaching that occurred in the earliest years after Yeshua's death but prior to the first canonical writings.
Contd
The vast majority of people in the first-century Mediterranean world were illiterate, so it was necessary for them to learn orally. This requirement meant that the easiest way for the central elements of a message to be remembered long after they were heard was for them to be presented in a brief, easily retainable manner. Hence,in the New Testament, we find numerous statements that actually predate the texts in which they are embedded. These creeds or traditions are often concise, catchy sayings that are packed with meaning in a minimal number of words. They provide the clearest examples of the apostolic teaching that occurred in the earliest years after Yeshua's death but prior to the first canonical writings.
Contd
-- answer removed --
Contd
As such, this is one of the most important, as well as most exciting, topics in recent New Testament studies. Scholars have pointed out several textual indicators that these creeds are present. The clearest indication of a creedal statement occurs when a writer specifically tells us that he is passing on such a tradition. The best example is in Paul, who distinctly states on various occasions that he is repeating teachings or traditions, sometimes explaining that they have been given to him by others, such as 1 Cor. 11:2,23.
The early church unanimously held that the gospel of Matthew was the first written gospel and was penned by the apostle of the same name (Matt. 10:2). Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70 and was the disciple of Peter, who recounted to Mark, the evnets contained hin his Gospel.
An excerpt from Luke states "...To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God," (Acts 1:1-3). Notice how Luke speaks of "them," of those who had personal encounters with Christ. Luke is simply recounting the events from the disciples. Since Luke agrees with Matthew, Mark, and John and since there is no contradictory information coming from any of the disciples stating that Luke was inaccurate, and since Luke has proven to be a very accurate historian, we can conclude that Luke's account is very accurate. Scholars generally agree that Luke was written before A.D. 62. (Source Mays, James Luther, Ph.D., Editor, Harper�s Bible Commentary). By the way, we now have an excerpt from the Dead Sea Scrolls Manuscript 7Q5 which contains Mark 6:52-53 and confirmed to have been written before 68 A.D.
Contd
As such, this is one of the most important, as well as most exciting, topics in recent New Testament studies. Scholars have pointed out several textual indicators that these creeds are present. The clearest indication of a creedal statement occurs when a writer specifically tells us that he is passing on such a tradition. The best example is in Paul, who distinctly states on various occasions that he is repeating teachings or traditions, sometimes explaining that they have been given to him by others, such as 1 Cor. 11:2,23.
The early church unanimously held that the gospel of Matthew was the first written gospel and was penned by the apostle of the same name (Matt. 10:2). Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70 and was the disciple of Peter, who recounted to Mark, the evnets contained hin his Gospel.
An excerpt from Luke states "...To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God," (Acts 1:1-3). Notice how Luke speaks of "them," of those who had personal encounters with Christ. Luke is simply recounting the events from the disciples. Since Luke agrees with Matthew, Mark, and John and since there is no contradictory information coming from any of the disciples stating that Luke was inaccurate, and since Luke has proven to be a very accurate historian, we can conclude that Luke's account is very accurate. Scholars generally agree that Luke was written before A.D. 62. (Source Mays, James Luther, Ph.D., Editor, Harper�s Bible Commentary). By the way, we now have an excerpt from the Dead Sea Scrolls Manuscript 7Q5 which contains Mark 6:52-53 and confirmed to have been written before 68 A.D.
Contd
Contd
At any rate, memory fails me concerning your challenge, since I enjoy a reasonable debate and don't think I would have missed the opportunity. However, sometimes I don't check back to previous entries.
Integrity demands that all ancient writings be examined in the same light to the same standards. To do so reveals the New Testament to be at least their equal in document testimony of all generally accepted modes of inquiry... in my opinion...
At any rate, memory fails me concerning your challenge, since I enjoy a reasonable debate and don't think I would have missed the opportunity. However, sometimes I don't check back to previous entries.
Integrity demands that all ancient writings be examined in the same light to the same standards. To do so reveals the New Testament to be at least their equal in document testimony of all generally accepted modes of inquiry... in my opinion...
Not wanting to be accused of non-responsiveness in any area, I see that I've not adequately addressed your concern about eyewitness testimony... There is total lack of proven fraud or error on the part of any New Testament writer(s). But there is evidence of careful eyewitness reporting throughout. The caution exercised by the writers, their personal conviction that what they wrote was true and the lack of demonstrable error or contradiction indicate that the Gospel authors and, indeed, all the New Testament authors pass the second test as well (Luke 1:1-4; John 19:35; 21:24; Acts 1:1-3; 2:22; 26:24-26; 2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:1-3).
Cleraly, Peter says: (2Pe 1:16) - For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty...
Cleraly, Peter says: (2Pe 1:16) - For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty...
Once again, Clanad, you use a smoke-screen of verbiage to evade the central point: that you cannot point us to a single eye-witness to the Jesus story in the NT or anywhere else. The fact that Paul is the only identifiable writer in the NT (and, indeed, in the Bible) means that we know what sort of chap he was: we can read about him in various books and make our own judgments as to what might be useful in what he writes. He was, after all, a strange man and we cannot take everything at face value. We have no similar information about the other NT authors because we don�t know who they were. In any case Paul was not an eye-witness.
The other people you quote were not either. In our last encounter I gave solid reasons why the evangelists �Matthew� and �John� could not possibly have been the disciples so named, as you claim. I also pointed out that the idea that �Mark� was a disciple of Peter was invented out of nothing by Bishop Eusebius in the 4th Century AD! You did not reply to, or attempt to counter, my facts and reasoning; our correspondence ended when I challenged you to produce evidence for your claims. I won�t be so cruel to so challenge you again; I know that you can�t and that no-one else can either.
The quotes you give from �Luke�, Acts (also �Luke�), and �John� are not eye-witness statements. You also quote 2Peter. However much you like to think that 1Peter was written by Simon Peter (for which there is no evidence) 2Peter certainly wasn�t. It is dated AD 80 at the earliest but more likely well into the 2nd century. The other NT letters are merely named with no indication as to whom the names relate.
You are fully entitled to your faith, Clanad, but, alas, you allow it to interfere with the facts of history. You should not try to mix the two.
The other people you quote were not either. In our last encounter I gave solid reasons why the evangelists �Matthew� and �John� could not possibly have been the disciples so named, as you claim. I also pointed out that the idea that �Mark� was a disciple of Peter was invented out of nothing by Bishop Eusebius in the 4th Century AD! You did not reply to, or attempt to counter, my facts and reasoning; our correspondence ended when I challenged you to produce evidence for your claims. I won�t be so cruel to so challenge you again; I know that you can�t and that no-one else can either.
The quotes you give from �Luke�, Acts (also �Luke�), and �John� are not eye-witness statements. You also quote 2Peter. However much you like to think that 1Peter was written by Simon Peter (for which there is no evidence) 2Peter certainly wasn�t. It is dated AD 80 at the earliest but more likely well into the 2nd century. The other NT letters are merely named with no indication as to whom the names relate.
You are fully entitled to your faith, Clanad, but, alas, you allow it to interfere with the facts of history. You should not try to mix the two.
Well, chakka, it's disconcerting is trying to construct a reasonable debate with you to look at what you state "... are solid reasons..." since you cite no references whatever. You, as well, are welcome to your faith and noone, least of all me, is trying to convert you. You accuse me of using "...a smoke screen of verbiage..." but the verbiage consists of references, explanations and reliance on in-depth scholorship of well credentialed individuals who have been peer reviewed and spent their entire professional lives investigating this subject and have the requisite initials following their names.
Notably, you overlook the writings of Papias who wrote at the latter stages of the first century. His investigation precedes by years that of Eusubius and clearly identifies the writers. His information comes from interviews of eyewitnesses including who knew the aged Apostle John, and was acquainted with men who had known the other Apostles.The corpus of work verifying the identities of the writers is enormous... that is not to say that you and others are not able to marshall investigators who have come to a different conclusion.
Contd.
Notably, you overlook the writings of Papias who wrote at the latter stages of the first century. His investigation precedes by years that of Eusubius and clearly identifies the writers. His information comes from interviews of eyewitnesses including who knew the aged Apostle John, and was acquainted with men who had known the other Apostles.The corpus of work verifying the identities of the writers is enormous... that is not to say that you and others are not able to marshall investigators who have come to a different conclusion.
Contd.
Conts
I'm reminded that at the end of the 19th century and beginning of th 20th century, Rudolph Bultmann, et al posited for their self-proclaimed textual criticism that the man Yeshua had never existed. Yet, today, even the most antagonsistic scholar readily admits and presumes the existence of the man. Obviously, their conclusions are different, but the see Him as an historical person. The textual cristicism school of investigation has largely been relegated to the dust bins of history.
I assume you probably give great weight to other ancient secular authors, such as Pliny, Tacitus, Josephus and other contemporary to the Gospel writers. Yet, I think I've shown the internal and external witness for the Gospel and entire New Testament writings is far superior to the others. The earliest extant copy of Tacitus is written nearly 1,000 years after he wrote the original, as an example. So, as I early suggested, investigation into the validity and truthfullnes of the Biblical writings should, as honetsy demands, be done on the same basis as those accorded to other ancient writings. To not afford the Biblical writings the same diligence simply because they include information of a religious nature is not honorable... in my opinion...
I'm reminded that at the end of the 19th century and beginning of th 20th century, Rudolph Bultmann, et al posited for their self-proclaimed textual criticism that the man Yeshua had never existed. Yet, today, even the most antagonsistic scholar readily admits and presumes the existence of the man. Obviously, their conclusions are different, but the see Him as an historical person. The textual cristicism school of investigation has largely been relegated to the dust bins of history.
I assume you probably give great weight to other ancient secular authors, such as Pliny, Tacitus, Josephus and other contemporary to the Gospel writers. Yet, I think I've shown the internal and external witness for the Gospel and entire New Testament writings is far superior to the others. The earliest extant copy of Tacitus is written nearly 1,000 years after he wrote the original, as an example. So, as I early suggested, investigation into the validity and truthfullnes of the Biblical writings should, as honetsy demands, be done on the same basis as those accorded to other ancient writings. To not afford the Biblical writings the same diligence simply because they include information of a religious nature is not honorable... in my opinion...
1 to 14 of 14
Latest Posts
ChatterBank66 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles73 mins ago
ChatterBank77 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles88 mins ago
