99 thoughts on “God’s Design for Sexual Relationships: the Gospel According to Don”

1. You have a talent, Neil. If you’d really like to know what Jesus had to say about marriage, I recommend Matthew 19:4-6. This is bottom line as far as God’s design for life and in particular marriage.

   [Jesus] answered, “Haven’t you read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,Genesis 1:27 5 and said, ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall be joined to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh?’Genesis 2:24 6 So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, don’t let man tear apart.”

   But that is an inconvenient passage, isn’t it.

   I do hope your readers take the time to read more broadly on this subject and more closely than you have.

   BTW, some do choose to live celibate lives. Marriage is not commanded. But if marriage is your path, then follow God’s design.

   LikeLike

   Reply ↓

   • Of course I’m aware of the passage you quote. It immediately precedes the one I referred to where Jesus agrees with the disciples that is better not to marry but to be a eunuch for the sake of the Kingdom. Why should he add that to his recitation of Genesis? Because he is proposing a new way: those who want a part in the kingdom will forsake this kind of arrangement, as he makes clear in Luke 20: 34-36 which I also quoted. Context, Don. All the teaching on a given subject needs to be taken into account, not just the bits you like.

     LikeLiked by 1 person

     Reply ↓

   • Interesting. You quote one verse, while Neil offers several. Hmmm.

     LikeLiked by 1 person

     Reply ↓

     • I quote the one that is the foundation for the others and the one that is God’s design from creation. Neil avoids that. Is it because Jesus places the marriage of one man to one woman as the norm and the cornerstone upon which the others are built?

       Neil takes the verses that speak to special circumstances and are if anything the exceptions that prove the rule and he makes them the rule. Both Jesus and Paul even explain the special circumstances. Why does Neil avoid the rule?

       LikeLike

     • Strange Jesus never mentions ‘marriage’ in this ‘foundational cornerstone’ text (who says it’s more important than the others?) Nor is marriage mentioned in the Genesis original. God makes Adam and Eve and they cleave together. That’s it.

       How do you account for the sayings of Jesus and the teaching of Paul that clearly state that marriage is about to end with the coming of the Kingdom? You can’t.

       LikeLiked by 2 people

     • Marriage is a legal contract. Jesus was talking about a relationship that was more basic, cleaving.

       LikeLike

     • Yes, this was the point I was making. Glad you agree.

       You work hard to make the Bible consistent and coherent when, as those who look at it more impartially will tell you, it isn’t. Why? What is the basis of your belief that compels you to defend it, to come up with convoluted arguments and to make unfounded assumptions that impose an unwarranted consistency on it? It’s more than an intellectual pursuit for you; what motivates this defence of the defenceless?

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • Fair question. Over my life I have found the Bible to be an extraordinary source of wisdom and direction in life. More than that I have found it to be the voice of God who sometimes teaches, sometimes comforts, sometimes corrects. And I have found in every case those to be good. In addition, the result in my life has been soul rest. (Matthew 11:29)

       Undermining that, which is the object of every attack on the scripture from unbelievers is (questioning by believers is another thing) , is an attack on the foundation of my life. So, it is personal. But it is an attack on every other believer as well. I feel called to defend them and the scripture.

       Though those attacks are spiritual and spiritually motivated, the response is intellectual. But that is the good news: none of the criticisms of the scripture as far as conflicts and contradictions make any sense when they are examined. Certainly, none you have pointed out. None I have read on any of the atheist websites that collect them. But I enjoy the exercise. It simply confirms what I already felt in my spirit to be so.

       LikeLike

     • ‘…what I already felt in my spirit to be so.’ That’s it. An admission that your defence of the Bible and your faith itself rest on what you ‘feel’. You then bolster these ‘feelings’ with post hoc quasi-intellectual justification (as is the human way.)

       Do you attribute the feelings in your spirit to the Holy Spirit?

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • Yes, I do.

       LikeLike

     • So your convictions come from the Holy Spirit. That’s it. That’s your primary evidence that everything about Christianity is true: your subjective feelings. Everything else is secondary.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • No.

       LikeLike

     • Your beliefs and interpretation of the Bible stem from your conviction that your subjective feelings are a resurrected man who lives inside you.

       LikeLiked by 2 people

     • No. And again, no.

       I’ve explained my own journey many times and posted it on my blog and other places.

       I became a follower of Jesus as a teen after hearing and considering the gospel for a number of weeks. I accepted the message because I felt it made sense. I still think it makes sense.

       I heard no voices. I did not have an emotional experience. I had hardly even heard about the resurrection. My deciding that the gospel made sense was not based on the resurrection.

       You know, Neil, the resurrection is not the key piece of many messages. At least in my experience, but my experience spans sixty years.

       I hope that put’s your idea to rest.

       LikeLike

     • Not really what I asked: do you now believe that the spirit of a long dead 1st century preacher lives inside you and guides you, voicelessly perhaps, through your feelings and intuitions?

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • No, Neil’s listings are just as scriptural as yours. As with all religious text, you pick and choose what supports your personal beliefs/training and ignore the rest. But you’re in good company.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

   • Out of interest, Don how do you know the quoted passage was spoken by the character Jesus of Nazareth?

     LikeLiked by 1 person

     Reply ↓

     • Fair question. First, I am convinced that three of the four Gospel writers actually were present during the teaching ministry of Jesus. Luke is the only one who was not, but his sources were people who were. (See my examination of Mark as an eyewitness https://biblicalmusing.blogspot.com/2022/11/eyewitness.html ) All the testimony we have from the late first century and early second agrees, and these were people who knew personally some of the Apostles who had walked and talked with Jesus or knew those who had known.

       Second, the words of Jesus have every mark of coming from a source prior to the Gospels. The words in Greek we have in the texts are, of course, translations of Jesus actual words, which were in the language of the Jews. But the consistency of the translation in the synoptics, argues for a single source of the translation. I am inclined to think that was Matthew. John is the exception, but the voice of Jesus in John is consistent with his voice in the other three, just not translated by the same person.

       Finally, I find his words to be just as powerful as those who heard him speak found them. I would say along with them, no man ever spoke like this. There is a divine quality to what he said that I have not heard in any of the literature I have read over the years, and I am a student and teacher of literature. Some literature, I find sublime. But only Jesus words do I find penetrating. I do not think they came from a man who created them, and they just caught on. There are plenty of examples of that in the history of literature. Jesus’ words are different.

       LikeLike

     • So Matthew, an eye-witness, instead of writing his own account of Jesus’ ministry, lifts 80% of his story from someone who wasn’t an eye-witness. Sure, that makes sense. It’s what any eye-witness would do.

       Then the second eye-witness writes a tale totally different from either of the other two: different stories, different events – his crucifixion occurs a day earlier – and with a lead character who has different priorities and a completely different agenda. Yup, sounds plausible to me.

       You’re completely deluded, Don.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • I know. They call me deluded Don in some circles.

       However, re: Matthew. Actually 80% (or there abouts) of Matthew is not included in Mark. Just consider the size if you are unwilling to do any actual investigation on your own. (What website are you getting this all from? I’d choose a different source if I were you.)

       1. If you bother to compare, and you can easily with something like the Synopsis of the Gospels by Albert Huck, you will find that there are many episodes recorded by Matthew that are totally absent in Mark. Or just use an NIV Study Bible. Many parables are conspicuously absent in Mark. Obviously no coping there.

       2. No only so, but in both the volume by Huck and the NIV Bible you will find that there are very few places where Mark and Matthew are verbatim the same, even when they both record the same event. My recent reference to the walking sticks is a very good example.

       3. Every early 2nd century source we have knowledge of attributes Matthew to the disciple Matthew/Levi. In fact, Papias says Matthew wrote the first Gospel, though in the language of the Jews. The second was written by Mark. Of course, the Greek Matthew came later, but by the end of the first century it was the most often quote test by every church father. And it was used by the author of the Didache, a turn of the century guide to ecclesiastical practices.

       Fact is, Matthew became early on the primary text for the church, not Mark. Pity that because I find Mark a beautifully written piece, but Matthew has more practical instruction for the church.

       LikeLike

     • I despair, Don. I didn’t say Mark contained 80% of Matthew. It’s Matthew that contains 80% of Mark.

       You claimed Matthew was an eyewitness. I pointed out how unlikely it is that an eyewitness would rely so heavily on someone who wasn’t (i.e. Mark). I’m sure you knew this was what I was saying.

       As much of what Matthew lifts from Mark is repeated verbatim this would account for the similarities in tone, voice and style you seem to think are so important.

       As for John, it has a completely different tone, voice and style from the synoptic gospels. You make a ridiculous excuse for why this is; it’s because it’s focused on Jesus’ Jerusalem ministry. How do you know this? Where does John indicate this? Where’s the external evidence? Where are the serious scholars who say this? Why should Jesus’ ministry be so radically different just because he’s in Jerusalem? You have to make stuff up, like the gospel writers themselves, to explain John’s radically different Jesus.

       Again, you work hard to make the Bible say what you want it to say. No serious scholar thinks Mark is based on Peter’s recollections – that’s just you. It’s far more likely Mark is based on Paul’s theology. Be that as it may, I do hope you’ll honour your promise to stop commenting if Goyo is too direct for your liking in his next comment.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • @Don
       Website?
       As I already told you Encyclopedia Britannica.
       Go read the bloody thing!

       LikeLike

     • Re: Matthew and Mark versus John. A number of modern Bible scholars have considered your evaluation of John’s “lead character with… different stories” criticism. One quite well-known scholar Richard Baukham in The Gospels for All Christians attributes John’s “different stories” to his filling in a portion of Jesus’ ministry the synoptics do not cover, his ministry in Jerusalem. (pp. 158,159. 169) That does make sense, but I rather think that the difference is due to his audience and purpose.

       John was writing at a time when the person and divinity of Jesus was under attack. (See 1st John.) The focus of John’s Gospel was then apologetic and without any attempt to tell the whole story, though what he does tell does fill in Mark as Bauckham says.

       Because John is apologetic, he is also much more theological. His prologue in chapter 1 is a good example. He is not interested in Jesus’ birth but his origin as the Son of God. So too Jesus’ identifying himself as the bread of life and the water of life are theological at a deeper level than any of the other Gospels.

       That would explain, I think, what you call his different agenda. As for the crucifixion on different days, that can be reconciled by carefully working through the two different ways days were measured, the Greek way and the Hebrew way, and how the Passover/Feast of Unleavened bread was determined. But even if there was a discrepancy here, how does that invalidate everything else? How?

       LikeLike

     • You may be convinced but scholarly consensus agrees the gospel writers are unknown and we’re certainly not eyewitnesses to anything.
       Again,how do you know the words credited to have been spoken by the character Jesus of Nazareth are his actual words.
       You are aware I presume that the scholarly view is that less than tenoer ent if what is claimed to be the words if the character Jesus were likely spoken by him?

       LikeLike

     • What scholars? That makes a big difference. It is also worth parsing what any particular scholar says. I do assume you have read the actual scholar in question.

       Actually, there are a lot of scholars who believe the words of Jesus are his words. If I parse that, they don’t mean the actual Greek words in the texts are the literal words of Jesus. Jesus almost certainly spoke the language common to the Jews, either Hebrew or Aramaic. There are, however, a few words in Hebrew and Aramaic in Mark and Matthew, so those are pretty likely the very words of Jesus.

       Those words are translated by the Gospel authors. But why put the Hebrew words in at all? 99% of Jesus’ speech is not Hebrew and then translated by the authors. Why these? I take that as good evidence that Jesus spoke the Jewish languages. I also consider it good evidence that the Gospel authors were serious about capturing Jesus’ words accurately. No one creating these narratives would throw in Hebrew words randomly. If they even knew Hebrew.

       However, the Greek words we do have are reasonably a translation of Jesus;’ words. They are marked by Hebrew idioms – true of all the Gospels – and to a degree that the Gospel narrators’ are not. Even Matthew who is clearly a Jew does not write with any hint of Hebrew idioms. His language is Greek and quite sophisticated Greek. Johm, who also is a Jew, does not write with a hint of Hebrew idiom, though his writing may be that of another man who was recording his words and translating them into Greek. Luke, of course, does not. His language was Greek and not Hebrew. Mark is the only exception.

       Much of the core of Mark is actually the words of Peter who spoke in what might be called simple and halting Greek. His words are heavily loaded with Hebrew idioms and because Peter is speaking in a language, he is not fluent in, his sentences are simple grammatically and repetitive in construction. They are just like how I would speak in Spanish as a speaker who did not know Spanish well. Mark’s part in the Gospel is markedly different. He is a well-educated and probably native Greek speaker and writer. His sentence have little of the flavor of Hebrew and are complex and sophisticated.

       That and more lends strong support to Peter, Matthew, and John being eyewitness to Jesus. So, what is the evidence the scholars you refer to put forth?

       LikeLike

     • A follow up. The consistency of voice, tone, and style across all four Gospels argues for a single source which can only be a real man who spoke them.

       There are other gospels, as you know. Some of them quote Jesus. But except for a few places, they do not have the same voice, tone, or style as those written by men who knew Jesus. Some may actually be quotes – the Gospel of Thomas, for example, but second hand – they have been spun by the authors to the place where they are inconsistent with the four Gospels.

       Just as finger prints are unique to the individual, so in literature voice is unique to a every real person. The literary voice of Jesus is consistent and unique.

       LikeLike

     • Sheesh! You make SO MANY assumptions!

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • When there is evidence presented it is a conclusion not an assumption. If you disagree with the conclusion, explain why and take the evidence and derive a different conclusion from it. Just waving it off as an “assumption” is not adequate in any serious examination of the scriptures – or any other topic for that matter.

       Just to be clear, the evidence is the similarity in voice, tone and style across the four Gospels.

       The term voice means the unique grammar, syntax, and idioms that characterize a person’s speech or writing. Tone can be different in different circumstances. It can be serious, joyful, urgent, demanding, sarcastic, or as in most of Jesus’ speech, gently authoritative.

       Style, in Jesus’ case, is regular uses of parables to teach and somewhat cryptic proverbs and metaphors. It is also the regular use of idioms unique to the individual. Mark’s regular use of “immediately” is an example of an idiom common to Peter but not to many others.

       So, take a long careful look at how Jesus communicated and how his voice, tone, and style is the same across the Gospels, and tell me how that consistency can be if it is not one man speaking. I don’t think I could recreate that voice, tone, and style in a short piece. I doubt very much that four authors could create out of thin air that same voice, tone, and style in extended narratives. But that is what had to happen if different authors created the Gospels sometime in the mid-1st century. Sorry, I just can’t believe that.

       LikeLike

     • Gee, thanks for the extended lesson on communication. I most certainly was not aware of ANY of this!!??!

       BTW, taking a “long careful look at how Jesus communicated” only helps if one actually believes that (1) such an individual existed, and (2) if the words are really his.

       LikeLiked by 2 people

     • The gospel writers of Luke and Matt copied from gMark, some of the text is almost verbatim so consistency would be expected.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • Show me, Ark. I have been looking carefully for verbatim wording in the Gospels and have found very little. There are bits and pieces where the wording in Greek is the same, but it would be hard to make a case that they are the same because one copied from another.

       A case may be made for similar episodes in more than one Gospel. But as I said to Neil, these very often are not in the same place in the flow of the Narrative. And they rarely have much beyond being similar episodes in common.

       Neil recently tried to make the case for the episode of Jesus sending out the twelve disciples as being a contradictory. He could do that because all three of the quotations came from the same episode and sounded somewhat similar. A close comparison, however, showed that even in English they were very dissimilar. In Greek the dissimilarity is quite obvious. And that is how most of the these so-called copied pieces go.

       I think you are being bamboozled by these scholars or by those who misrepresent their work. In the same way Bart Ehrman has bamboozled his readers about the number of errors in the manuscripts. Lots of other scholars have pointed out that though Ehrman is technically right he is misusing the data. The fact is that those errors are mostly minuscule and do not change the meaning of then text. Even I can see that as I examine the UBS critical text, and I am not a professional.

       So, make a case for copying that arises from the text. I think a better case can be made for prior original sources that the Gospel writers used but which were not quite the same, having been orally transmitted by a number of people. Peter is excepted. He actually represents the oral gospel that he had been teaching and preaching, and as an eyewitness, he is pretty reliable, I think.

       LikeLike

     • So let me get this straight.

       According to you, at least two of the gospel writers were eye-witnesses and a third, Mark, reports Peter’s recollections of Jesus.

       At the same time, according to you, these accounts were based on an oral tradition which preserved Jesus’ words and deeds.

       This oral tradition gave rise to variations in some sayings and events, but the differences are, according to you, inconsequential. (The one to which you refer here was not supplied by me. Despite your very weak refutation, it is nonetheless valid.)

       If your first claim is true, that three gospels are essentially eye-witness accounts, then what need is there for an oral tradition? The recollections of those who walked and talked with Jesus wouldn’t need supplemented by Chinese-whispered accounts passed around for decades. Alternatively, if an oral tradition gives us most of what we find in the gospels it speaks against they’re being eye-witness accounts.

       ******

       According to you, there is no evidence Luke copied from Matthew, even though we know he copied extensively from Mark and he tells us at the start of his gospel that he makes use of existing material. He implies this material was in the form of written accounts (‘I too decided to write‘: Luke 1:3).

       So, Luke tells us outright he used existing material in composing his gospel. You suppose he means by this a hypothetical oral tradition. Yet Mark and Matthew existed when Luke started writing and we know he used both; he has extensive material from both in his gospel.

       We know too he, or possibly someone before him, made a lot of the other stuff up; all those stories of angels, demons and apparitions and the elaborate Greek poems that burst ‘spontaneously’ out of characters’ mouths. Almost all of the first two chapters of his gospel and certainly some later supernatural episodes are invented.

       To summarise: Luke makes use of pre-existing written accounts – by which he evidentially means Mark and Matthew, parts of which he lifts and amends, and possibly other written sources – together with elements from his own or maybe a forerunner’s imagination.

       It’s all right there in front of your eyes. Oh, I forgot; they’re tightly and determinedly shut.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • Not according to me. According to the post-apostolic father of the second century who wrote on this subject. I only confirmed their word by my own investigation.

       Luke is not an eyewitness account, though he says he collected eyewitness accounts and depended as well upon written accounts. Maybe Mark, though Luke was gathering his material when Marks Gospel would have not been widely available and may not even have been written yet.

       John is also an eyewitness account and is so despite the fact that his account is likely translated or composed in Greek by a companion who wrote Greek much better than John.

       Need for an oral tradition: None of the written Gospels were composed until at the very least 30 years after the events of Jesus life. At the beginning the Apostles taught the growing church in Jerusalem in groups and orally (Acts 2:42). There were twelve Apostles, so even if there was agreement among them as to the narrative of Jesus’ life there was certainly opportunity to insert their own recollections, which may have differed one from another in wording and perspective.

       As the church expanded beyond Judea, others shared the message of Jesus’ life. Eventually some of the Apostles who traveled to other regions felt the need to write down the narrative for churches who had Matthew present for only a short time. Matthew’s Gospel was written for that purpose. It was written in Hebrew originally and then in Greek, probably because the further he got from Jerusalem the more Greek speaking even Jews became.

       I have not seen if you did the search for verbatim passages in Mark, Mathew, or Luke. But I did. There is one that stands out. It is the parable of the Sower and the Seed in Mark 4 and Matthew 13. It is word for word the same. Luke’s version is similar but is only the same in brief phrases.

       But was it copied? That is one possibility. It is the one we in the age of printing and books gravitate to because that seems the most reliable, though in a hand copied culture it is not perfect. But in an oral culture, oral transmission was and is very reliable, probably as reliable as hand copied texts. Jewish schoolboys memorized large sections of the Talmud. This small parable would have presented no problem. So, that possibility remains just as possible.

       LikeLike

     • Your tactic when your views are challenged is simply to restate them, as you do here. You need to provide evidence for your assertions; lecturing and hectoring are not persuasive, merely tediously condescending.

       Incidentally, I did not ‘get it backwards’ regarding Matthew’s plagiarising of Mark. Here’s what I wrote:

       ‘So Matthew, an eye-witness, instead of writing his own account of Jesus’ ministry, lifts 80% of his story from someone who wasn’t an eye-witness. Sure, that makes sense. It’s what any eye-witness would do.’

       It was you who interpreted it ‘backwards’, as I pointed out to you in a subsequent comment. Yet you still insist that I have it the wrong way round.

       This is also characteristic of your approach: deliberately misinterpreting what others say in order to dismiss their arguments. There’s a technical term for this of course, but I prefer to call it dishonesty.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • Neil: You need to provide evidence for your assertions; lecturing and hectoring are not it, they’re merely condescending.

       Don: Oh my goodness, Neil, do I need to provide what is almost everywhere available? Peter’s influence on the Gospel of Mark is even mentioned in Ark’s favorite – and only? – source. It is so common in the scholarly literature that I wonder that it is actually disputed.

       In this article – written by a scholar from Brigham Young University – she provides footnotes to her sources. Read them. <Richard Bauckham is good, but I doubt you’ll read him. https://www.byunewtestamentcommentary.com/was-peter-a-major-source-for-marks-gospel/

       Or use this website and follow the biblical evidence and reasoning. https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/good-reasons-to-believe-peter-is-the-source-of-marks-gospel/

       LikeLike

     • Following up: A website that identifies itself as atheist or is written by Austin Cline who identifies as atheist https://www.learnreligions.com/authorship-of-marks-gospel-248658

       Cline does a good job of identifying the evidence and reasoning behind the hypothesis of Peter as the source for Mark. He comes to a different conclusion – or at least expresses reservations. That’s fair and reasonable if reasons are given.

       But there are assumptions behind many of the reservations.

       1. Eusebius had doubts about Papias. Yes. but they had nothing to do with this issue. They had to do with Papias’ theology of the millennium. Eusebius was amillennial and believe the Roman empire would be transformed by Christianity and gradually bring in the kingdom of God. Papias was premillennial and agreed with Revelation that the kingdom would replace the kingdoms of this world in a final cataclysmic event. That is a red herring in this discussion.

       2. Mark’s so-called geographical errors have been debunked numerous times. That is holding onto old and VERY disputed evidence. I deal with this objection in http://biblicalmusing.blogspot.com/2020/01/debunking-debunkers.html and http://biblicalmusing.blogspot.com/2020/01/debunkin-g-debunkers-pt-2.html

       3. Mark is anonymous. That is simply silly. Everyone with boots on the ground knew who wrote Mark. And they identified Mark as the author without exception in early literature. That isn the important evidence. If Mark had Marks name in the first verse as author, would you believe it? No. You would claim it is an addition.

       4. Mark died before Peter. Does that really matter? The testimony of the Clement of Alexandria is that Mark finished his Gospel while Peter was still alive and in Rome preaching. If Mark died before Peter, it would not make that impossible.

       It is fair to look carefully at the evidence from history and from the text, which Cline does. But if the conclusion does not fit the evidence, that is a problem, or if Cline creates problems with the evidence by innuendo, that is a problem. And that is not fair.

       LikeLike

     • Most of this is a red herring. It’s not evidence that Mark recorded Peter’s recollections.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • Follow up: I’ve referred to Dr. Richard Bauckham’s book on the subject of Peter’s part in the Gospel of Mark. But I really don’t expect you are anyone else will actually make the effort to read it. However, Dr. Ben Witherington wrote a great review that covers many of the topics Bauchman wrote about. Here’ a link to the PDF of that review.

       https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NwIyCD_O5hZKsGVt6gOoH61RsCjZSoXe/view?usp=sharing

       LikeLike

     • I never suggested they were in the same place.
       The scholarly consensus is that the anonymous author of gMatt used gMark as a template for his gospel. It is a similar story for gLuke.

       Around 80% of gMatt material can be found in gMark, some of it almost verbatim.
       If you doubt scholars go read an encyclopaedia Britannica.
       I am not here to argue with a disingenuous Christian fundamentalist.
       Do your own homework.
       I did.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • Ark: Around 80% of gMatt material can be found in gMark, some of it almost verbatim.

       Don: You are copying from Neil, and he had it backwards. It is that 80% of Mark may be found on Matthew. But even that is misleading. That is why I urged you to do some research – In the actual work of these scholars.

       What they mean is that 80% of the episodes in Mark can be found in Matthew. But as for copying, very, very few of the episodes are the same verbatim. The only one I have been able to find in a search today is the parable of the Sower and the Seed in Mark 4 and Matthew 13. That is perfectly the same in both. Interestingly Luke version is quite different. It says the same thing but the wording is very much not the same.

       The problem with your procedure in acquiring information about these subjects is that you believe without verifying. That amounts to belief without evidence. And in this case, belief in something that is quite a bit different were you to actually verify by reading the scholars’ papers or books.

       Brittanica really does not work. Nor does Wikipedia. They may provide links to their sources, and those are valuable if you follow up, but encyclopedias are not primary sources or even secondary sources. They are tertiary sources. https://libguides.usask.ca/c.php?g=16390&p=718492#:~:text=Examples%20of%20tertiary%20sources%20include%3A%201%20textbooks%20%28sometimes,manuals%2C%20guidebooks%2C%20directories%2C%20almanacs%204%20indexes%20and%20bibliographies

       Their accuracy on any subject is dependent upon their sources, and those sources may be quite biased or be selected to support the encyclopedia author’s opinion. So, find the origin of the ideas or facts in primary sources.

       LikeLike

     • The author’s ‘opinion’ (sic) is based on scholarly works which rely on available evidence, something you have yet to produce for your claims.
       One reason why the Britannica does not, as far as I am aware have Opinion Pieces.

       Britannica’s primary sources for the information regarding the character Jesus are the gospels, obviously.

       To reiterate. The consensus scholarly view- and has been for decades is:
       The gospels are anonymous.
       GMark was the first to be written.
       It contains what is known as the Long Ending. It is an interpolation ( fraudulent) You know this of course, yes?
       Upwards of 80% of gMatt is made up from text found in gMark. Although the borrowed text is not necessarily in chronological order it is nevertheless not original.
       Some of the text is almost verbatim.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • I suggest you go back to the encyclopedia and check your figures. The 80% of Matt is found in Mark is backwards.

       Why not check it out with another encyclopedia?

       An addition or interpolation is not fraudulent if the author is not expecting it would be seen as Mark’s work. Since there are at least three ending to Mark (check that out in the encyclopedia) all of those written by different people, it seems like no one expected to be taken for Mark’s actual writing, and everyone knew Mark ended with verse 8. And I am convinced Mark meant it that way.

       https://biblicalmusing.blogspot.com/2022/09/with-e-cstasy-last-verse-in-mark-is.html

       LikeLike

     • No one is arguing 80% of Matthew is in Mark. 80% of Mark is in Matthew. Why do you – and it is only you – persist in putting this the other way round? Because it’s easier to refute that way. But… no one is making that case. It’s a strawman.

       LikeLike

     • Listen, D******d, at least 80% of the material found in gMatt was ripped from gMark.
       In other words, the anonymous author of gMatt used the anonymous gospel of Mark as his template ,embellishing it with his own garbage and stuff from the supposed Q source to make it more appealing to his own particular audience.
       Such material of his own imagination included the idiotic tale of the saints rising from their graves to go walkabout in downtown Jerusalem and the Virgin birth. The latter, I grant you was ripped off from Isaiah 7:14 , but the anonymous author of gMatt gave this his own spin as well.
       And yes, I am well aware of the 3 endings of gMark, thank you for pointing it out though, and I could give a monkey’s uncle what you are “convinced” of, it is an interpolation, a fraudulent addition and the church likely settled for the version they thought they could pass off the easiest.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • Ark, one last time. I paste here part of the Britannica article.

       Most scholars agree that it was used by St. Matthew and St. Luke in composing their accounts; more than 90 percent of the content of Mark’s Gospel appears in Matthew’s and more than 50 percent in the Gospel of Luke.

       That is the reverse of what you are saying. Even then percentages are different.

       But SAYS WHO? There is no author or source attached. No citations of sources. There is only the name of the editor Melissa Petruzzello who is not a scholar and has no credentials in biblical studies.

       I repeat what I said to Neil: check the primary sources or at least determine who the nameless “most scholars” are. If there are no citations of sources, look elsewhere. Ark, this is basic high school level research standards. I would not accept the Britannica article as a source for any research paper in my class.

       LikeLike

     • This is not, not, not the reverse of what we are saying. It is the reverse of what you are saying. We have been saying all along that Matthew and Luke plagiarised large chunks of Mark. Why can’t you see this, especially when we have all attempted to correct you. Evidently you don’t read comments before launching into yet another lecture based on your own misunderstanding. Incredible.

       LikeLiked by 2 people

     • I am NOT talking about whether one copied from another. I am talking about the percentage of Mark found in Matthew. Your comments and Ark’s have it the other way around: what percentage of Matthew is found in Mark. No, no no. They do not and never have done. We have told you this repeatedly; the evidence is there in my posts and Ark’s and my comments: we have always been talking about the amount of Mark in Matthew (and to a lesser extent in Luke.) This is why we’ve asked why a supposed eye-witness (Matthew) would lift most of his account from someone who wasn’t (Mark). This is a question you’ve repeatedly avoided answering by pretending we are saying the reverse of what we’re actually saying

       You corrected that. No, no, no. I did not. I had nothing to correct. Ark did not. Because he didn’t need to. He didn’t have anything to correct. Go back and look. As it happens Ark has even the percentages wrong, (he hasn’t. See quote below from Britannica ) if he is looking at the same Britannica page I am looking at. This one?

       ‘Most scholars agree that (Mark) was used by St. Matthew and St. Luke in composing their accounts; more than 90 percent of the content of Mark’s Gospel appears in Matthew’s and more than 50 percent in the Gospel of Luke.’ 9 Jan 2023
       https://www.britannica.com/topic/Gospel-According-to-Mark

       IF we are talking about the percentage of Matthew found in Mark it would be very little since Matthew has much more content than Mark. We’re not talking about this and never have been.

       …No article will talk about the details of how those percentages were derived and what they mean. You mean none you’ve read. They do not mean that 80% of Mark is found in Matthew verbatim. That’s right, and none of them claim this. Some is verbatim, however They mean that 80% of the episodes in Mark are found in Matthew. Do they? Where did it say this in the articles you’ve never read? But that does not indicate copying. Of course it does, particularly where there are verbatim passages.

       That’s it, Don. You resort to a whole range of underhand strategies to discredit what serious scholars and the commenters here have to say about the relationship between the synoptic gospels. It’s as if you think your salvation depended on it.

       It’s become more difficult to reason with you when you misrepresent our views and those who know considerably more about the Bible than you. I think another rest is called for so you can broaden your reading while repenting of your unreasonableness.

       LikeLike

     • If we are to proceed in an open manner first, do you finally acknowledge that the anonymous author of gMatt used gMark as the primary source for his own gospel?
       Straightforward question
       Yes or no reply will suffice

       Let’s get this out the way before we move to the second part of your comment regarding source.

       LikeLike

     • No.

       LikeLike

     • Well, if you are going to go against the scholarly consensus and behave like an ignorant, Indoctrinated fundamentalist then there is no chance of us having any sort of reasonable dialogue.

       There are other idiots on the blogs who have a similar view as you who are more fun to engage.
       I will leave you to your disingenuity or wilfull ignorance?
       I must say though, I am surprised Neil tolerates you.
       Be grateful he does…

       LikeLike

     • Actually, Ark, I consider the endings of Mark as a window into what Christians AFTER MARK had witnessed during the 1st and 2nd centuries. They have value. But the idea that they were something the church could “pass off” as Mark’s Gospel is a little nutty. Any Greek reader would know that the endings are not Mark’s words. They are completely different in style and syntax than anything in the Gospel. The very fact of multiple endings is evidence that the early church was adding an ending they thought important, and they knew it. It was only later readers who were reading a translation who missed that fact. And that includes you.

       You think that because you are so remote in time and place from the situation of the 1st and 2nd century church. There is no indication that the early church did any such thing.

       LikeLike

     • We are saying the same thing only you consider there was no subterfuge, whereas I consider there was.
       The church, and I’m saying the church as there is little likelihood of anyone else having access or bothered with the texts – were obviously not happy with the abrupt ending so decided to concoct an ending that suited their religion/political motivations.
       “Any Greek reader”
       Of course! Why would the church balk at such a small detail?
       They controlled the texts.
       What was included in the canon was entirely at their discretion,fraudulent text or otherwise.

       LikeLike

     • I notice you didn’t answer my question.
       I reiterate.
       Do you finally acknowledge that the anonymous author of gMatt used gMark as the template for his own gospel.
       Yes or no?

       LikeLike

     • Oh, and I didn’t copy from Neil. I wrote my reply first and besides, I have know this fact to for over a decade.

       LikeLike

     • “I have found very little.”
       So you did find some verbatim, then?
       Perhaps you need to look closer?
       If they copied from gMark and used material from each other then they are the same.
       Are you ten years old and still reading whije using your finger and moving your lips?
       FFS.
       If the author of gMatt was an eyewitness why would he need to use someone else’s material?
       Rather stick with your disingenious fundy chums like Strobel or Koukl.
       I prefer those with a little more savvy and Integrity.

       LikeLike

     • ‘If the author of gMatt was an eyewitness why would he need to use someone else’s material?’

       Absolutely. Don just can’t see this.

       LikeLike

     • Licona is another indictinated halfwit who argues for eyewitnesses and Ehrman takes him to the cleaners every time he mentions it, especially when it is pointed out these lot were illiterate.

       “Oh, they would have used a secretary!”

       I despair of these disingenious morons at times.
       That they indoctrinate children with this garbage is beyond the pale.

       LikeLike

     • Don:
       “prior original sources that the Gospel writers used but which were not quite the same, having been orally transmitted by a number of people. Peter is excepted. He actually represents the oral gospel that he had been teaching and preaching, and as an eyewitness, he is pretty reliable, I think.”

       I think?
       Orally transmitted?

       Here’s Don’s admission that everything we have has been corrupted and cannot be used as evidence! Play the telephone game Don…there’s your incorruptible evidence.

       Don:
       “It simply confirms what I already felt in my spirit to be so.”
       And, here it is…no evidence!
       Feelings and interpretations of feelings.
       And you’re surprised, Don, when I sound angry…here’s a grown man in the 21st century trying to convince us that everything we see around us was created by magic.
       Prove your god exists!

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • You forgot the cardinal rule, Goyo: Don is always right. Everybody else, including…

       Historians,

       Qualified Bible scholars,

       Historians and Bible scholars who are only interested in ‘making a name for themselves’,

       Those who interpret the Bible literally,

       Those who interpret the Bible symbolically,

       Anyone else who views the Bible differently from Don,

       You, me and every other commenter on this blog and numerous others,

       Homosexuals,

       Those who are busy being immoral on every street corner in America,

       …is wrong.

       Simple, really.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • “The consistency of voice, tone, and style across all four Gospels argues for a single source which can only be a real man who spoke them.”

       “Some may actually be quotes – the Gospel of Thomas, for example, but second hand – they have been spun by the authors to the place where they are inconsistent with the four Gospels.”
       (But thankfully, we have you who knows the correct spin!)

       “Just to be clear, the evidence is the similarity in voice, tone and style across the four Gospels.”

       “When there is evidence presented it is a conclusion not an assumption. If you disagree with the conclusion, explain why and take the evidence and derive a different conclusion from it. “

       This is NOT evidence of anything…here, I’ll derive a different conclusion:

       Neil’s post:
       A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum.

       THAT makes perfect sense, and follows the historical narrative much better than your “oral tradition “, and “voice, tone, and style” bullshit.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • Yes, Neil, Don is stuck in the never ending “how does this round peg fit in this square hole dilemma” that everyone that actually studies the bible finds themselves in.
       I spent years trying to find a systematic theology from Charles Finney to Norman Geisler and others, to no avail. The problems were still there. The only one that actually used both the testaments and tried to blend them together was Calvinism, and that’s where I said “enough!”
       And that’s the theology that RJ Rushdoony, Van Til, Bahnsen, and Gary North have pushed here in the US for Christian Reconstructionism.
       Rushdooney’s most important work was The Institutes of Biblical Law, where he proposed that Old Testament law should be applied to modern society. He published a list of civil crimes that carried the death penalty including homosexuality, apostasy, and blasphemy!
       Sound familiar?
       Like Don, he saw immorality on every street in the US.
       And guess what? He justified every claim with scripture.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • “ Not according to me. According to the post-apostolic father of the second century who wrote on this subject. I only confirmed their word by my own investigation.”

       Who is this father, please?
       I’d like to do my own investigation so I can confirm their word also.

       LikeLike

     • Yeah, me too!

       LikeLike

     • Papias, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Origen. Some are quoted in Eusebius.

       LikeLike

     • Aah, the ever unreliable Papias, whom Eusebius himself held in low esteem, and not for the reasons you suggest.
       https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis
       Here’s Erhman in Jesus Interrupted: ‘scholars have almost uniformly rejected just about everything else that Papias is recorded to have said…’ p109.

       LikeLiked by 2 people

     • Have you read, actually, read, what Eusebius said about Papias? Eusebius regards Papias as less than reliable BECAUSE he espouses millennialism. Eusebius does not. And Eusebius does not because he believes that the Roman Empire will be converted to Christianity and will become the kingdom of God.

       On a similar topic, have you actually read Clement of Alexandria’s remarks on Mark and his source of Peter in the Gospel? And how would he know? Because Mark established the church in Alexandria and was the bishop there into the 60s, and that is the church of which Clement was bishop in the later second century. He heard it from people who knew. Do the research.

       That is the problem with you guys; you get your information from Wikipedia and do not read the primary sources – or secondary if the primary sources are not available. But instead you choose encyclopedias where in most cases the author is not known nor are his credentials as a scholar known. Good heavens, high school students in American are taught to go to the primary sources for their research papers. What happened to British education? Even when Wikipedia agrees with you, you should follow the trail to the sources. You can do that because there are copious footnotes.

       BTW it turns out Richard Bauckham and Ben Witherington agree on that, so I am not just proposing something the scholars so not.

       LikeLike

     • No. Nor do I plan to. I really don’t care what some quarrelsome Christians, decades and centuries after the gospels were written, thought – without evidence – was their provenance.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • But you believe what certain scholars declare 2000 years after the fact. Though you don’t actually know who those scholars are and have not read their books or papers. That really makes no sense. That is believing something to be true for which you have no evidence.

       But the last sentence is telling: “I really don’t care”. Then why bother with any of this? You quarrel about things you haven’t bothered to actually check out. That makes no sense. But it is typical. Most atheists I have ever conversed with do not care. They have their opinions and are not about to let the facts change their mind.

       LikeLike

     • I don’t ‘believe’ what modern author’s ‘declare’. I read their work (not Wikipedia) and consider their evidence and arguments, acknowledging the likelihood that what they say is correct. I can’t do that with Papias. He offers neither evidence nor argument, he simply asserts.

       Nor can I read him as a primary source because his writing no longer exists. We only know of his assertion because Iraneus and Eusebius refer to it. So you can’t access this primary source either and must resort, despite your huffing puffing here, to secondary sources.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • I just have to insert this here. Even though I have no desire to argue semantics or who said what and/or when … I can guarantee you that when I wrote my book, I consulted a plethora of sources (all listed in the bibliography) … and as it so happens, no encyclopedia was included. IOW, the facts are out there … one just has to be willing to search for them beyond their own prejudices.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • “Need for an oral tradition: None of the written Gospels were composed until at the very least 30 years after the events of Jesus life. At the beginning the Apostles taught the growing church in Jerusalem in groups and orally (Acts 2:42). There were twelve Apostles, so even if there was agreement among them as to the narrative of Jesus’ life there was certainly opportunity to insert their own recollections, which may have differed one from another in wording and perspective.”

       Do you not see a problem here, Don?
       Oral tradition for at least 30 years?

       “Insert their own recollections, which may have differed from one another”…really?

       You’ve just admitted that their recollections would be different, and you’ve admitted that the gospels have been corrupted.

       I rest my case.

       LikeLiked by 2 people

     • “Any Greek reader would know that the endings are not Mark’s words. They are completely different in style and syntax than anything in the Gospel. The very fact of multiple endings is evidence that the early church was adding an ending they thought important, and they knew it. It was only later readers who were reading a translation who missed that fact. And that includes you.”

       Really? What about any English reader? Is that why for literally 2 thousand years people have been reading and understanding that ending to be legitimate?
       And dying after drinking poison and handling snakes?
       What was the importance of that ending that they fabricated?

       LikeLike

     • Aaargh! I’ve let myself get sucked back into arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin…until you , Don, can show jesus actually existed and was DIVINE, this whole discussion is meaningless!

       You can’t!

       LikeLiked by 1 person

2. Tried to comment … page disappeared??

   If you get this, I was going to reinforce your suggestion that “others” might say that Paul’s views are his own. But if this is the case, why would believers reference and defend ANY of “Paul’s views”?

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply ↓

   • Sorry, Nan, it was my fault the post disappeared. It’s now back. Your comment posted okay.

     All Paul’s views are his own, of course. Deluded folk who think he was on the receiving end of messages from God are those likely to defend him. I find it incredible that they would.

     LikeLiked by 3 people

     Reply ↓

3. goyo1951: Calvinism isn’t the only pony in the race. By the numbers I understand that Arminian or some version his theology of that has more adherents than Calvin in the USA. I do not think you’ll find triumphalism or reconstructionalism in Arminianism. And really a small percentage of Calvinists subscribe.

   I encountered triumphalism in a Baptist church 40 years ago. But it was one or two who were proponents – out of several hundred. In all the years since as a Baptist pastor and a teacher in an interdenominational Christian school I have met very few.

   The recent iteration is even more unpopular among Christians I know. We consider it a cult.

   Not that it does not pose a threat. It does, but the threat really is chaos not the imposition of Old Testament law in America. But armed insurrection is nothing to sneeze at.

   LikeLike

   Reply ↓

4. I’m just waiting for the day Don tries to tell us how man co-existed with dinosaurs ‘cos , you know, there’s a fossilized ‘human’ footprint on the bed of the Paluxy River.
   🤦‍♂️

   LikeLike

   Reply ↓

5. Okay. I’ve been away for a while. A bit of insomnia tonight (well, this morning) and I found myself reading Neil’s original post and all the comments in one go.

   Neil very clearly represents Paul’s and Jesus’ view on marriage – in context. Don cherry picks his desired ‘truth’ out of context then derails the subject from sex and marriage to biblical authorship. Don knows full well his opinion on the matter, while traditional, is not the consensus today among biblical scholars. He also knows it’s a great way to distract from the fact that modern Christianity’s view on marriage diverge 180° from those of Paul and Jesus.

   Both Paul and Jesus teach that marriage isn’t part of this new kingdom. A kingdom Don has insisted is very real in the billions of Christians alive today. So why does this kingdom not teach and live by Paul’s and Jesus’ teachings on marriage in the kingdom? Simple. They don’t like them. So, like Don, they cherry pick their way out of having to even acknowledge them.

   The New Testament’s views on marriage are ridiculous. It’s no wonder the Church disregards them. But the Church can capitalize on Paul’s homophobia. Always punch down at the minorities and most vulnerable in society. It lets Christians prove their righteousness and superiority.

   Anyway, the New Testaments views on marriage, as Neil points out in the article, and homosexuality are a big flashing neon sign pointing out that the Bible and the Church are immoral at their foundation and shouldn’t be taken seriously by anyone. One of the many, many reasons I left.

   LikeLike

   Reply ↓

   • Always at it, Kos. The kingdom of which Jesus spoke was present in the lives of his followers but also coming. And for the sake of that kingdom, some may live celibate lives (as eunuchs) and some do. But must all now?

     Both you and Neil miss a crucial phrase:” For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like God’s angels in heaven.” That refers to the final stage of then kingdom, that which will be after the resurrection of the people of the kingdom.

     BTW that is pretty what Paul says also. He lived a celibate life, but not all the Apostles did. He advised that as an option for those who wanted to be unencumbered with a wife and family because of the present time of opposition and for the sake of the kingdom, but he did not make it incumbent upon all.

     You all really should read more widely if you are going to use the scriptures to make your points.

     LikeLike

     Reply ↓

     • I didn’t miss the phrase ‘in the resurrection’. If you think I did you didn’t understand a word of what I was saying. Quelle surpris!

       LikeLike

6. There has never been a time the Bible and the church have not been considered immoral by the world outside Judaism and the church. For different reasons, of course, but the Bible contradicts every culture. This blog is a good example of what believers have faced in every age.

   LikeLike

   Reply ↓

   • This blog is a good example of what believers have faced in every age.

     One would think they might get the idea after awhile …

     LikeLiked by 1 person

     Reply ↓

     • We’ve gotten the message for a very long time, Nan. But our calling to show mercy, to be peace-makers, to care for the outcasts and hungry, to lift up those who have been beaten down, and to heal the hurting and broken-hearted trumps fitting in with the immorality and selfishness of the world around us. We’ll willingly accept your disapproval that we might be approved of God.

       LikeLike

     • Ahhhh. Such a loving and tender response. My heart is just bursting with compassion and love!

       NOT!!

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • I think you prove my point.

       LikeLike

     • Your point being??? It is YOUR calling, not mine. I can be whatever and however I choose. I’m not bound by any guy-in-the-sky as to what I think, say, or do. My only boundaries are what I put on myself … and whether they are good or bad is a judgment made by those who are affected … not by some ethereal being.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • Wow! What a sanctimonious pile of rubbish! I can’t believe you said this about yourself!

       Allow me to translate:
       Us xtians, of whom I am supreme explainer, are so good, perfect, and moral compared to you dirty, filthy, degenerate liberal heathens, and I can’t wait for my god to burn you forever so I can say, “I told you so!”

       Vengeance is Don’s, sayeth Don.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

   • Don:
     “Re: slavery. The law was addressed to Israel and not to other nations. It was given to regulate slavery which for Israel was largely slavery of people who were destitute and in debt or enemy captives. That made sense and was a necessary social safety net. It pre be vented people from starving and provided a new beginning after seven years. In the case of enemy captives, it provided a way to protect Israel from continued aggression without killing the captives. In the case of women captives, it provided a way for them to survive and be protected and to find a way back to normal life in Israel: They became the wives of their masters.”

     Don:
     “But our calling to show mercy, to be peace-makers, to care for the outcasts and hungry, to lift up those who have been beaten down, and to heal the hurting and broken-hearted trumps fitting in with the immorality and selfishness of the world around us. We’ll willingly accept your disapproval that we might be approved of God.”

     Too bad we can’t institute biblical slavery again, right Don? That was god’s model…you said that made sense!
     Oh, how Don must long for those beautiful OT days, when men were men, and if they weren’t, we could just kill them!
     That’s what xtian nationalism is all about!

     LikeLiked by 1 person

     Reply ↓

     • We have a social safety net – in most countries. Though there are places were indentured ‘slavery’ is still the means of a destitute person surviving. Most do not walk away after seven years with a grubstake so they can begin over. They did in Israel.

       LikeLike

     • On Feb 12, Don said:
       “Slavery in the past even in the Roman Empire was not necessarily harsh. Slaves often had important roles in the family and were treated well. That was true in Hebrew culture as well. They resembled a family member though not in every feature. Abraham had a servant/slave who he would have made the heir of his property if he did not have a son. In that sense he was treated as a son. But we, despite history, have a tendency to read back into history the experience of slavery in the Americas. That is a terrible way to treat history.”

       Here’s what the Bible says about slaves:
       Lev. 25:44-46:
       44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

       Now, that doesn’t give them a grubstake, does it Don?

       That says they are your property FOREVER and are an inheritance for your children.
       NOT after 7 years. Don’t try and lie about your bible.

       Couple of questions:
       1. Could they rape their women slaves?
       2. Could they sell the slave’s children?
       3. Could they forcibly breed them to other slaves?

       How were things back in ancient Israel, Don? Were they really caring for their property like you want to portray it?

       LikeLike

     • Not to mention Exodus 21: 20-21 – ‘When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.’
       Sounds like the good life to me…

       LikeLike

     • Slavery is not usually a “good life.” But it is better than what they had. Otherwise, they would not have been a slave.

       LikeLike

     • So they had a say in the matter? Hardly!

       You do talk some rubbish in defence of your disreputable little book.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • Had a say? You know that we are talking about ancient societies, right? Slavery was part of life everywhere. If the histories were right, indeed if present history has anything to tell us, slavery is cruel. The laws we have been talking about were instituted not to establish slavery but to regulate it and to protect the slave.

       So, among those slaves were those who became slaves out of poverty and to satisfy their debts. In Israel if they were Hebrews, that slavery could only last 7 yrs. The slave was then to be set free and given a grubstake so they could reestablish their life as a free man. Women were to go free with their husbands. If they became slaves as unmarried women, they were to become the wife of the man who bought them. Essentially they were bought as a man in those days bought or gave a bride price for a wife. And they were to receive all the protections of any wife.

       Captives of war were not set free, but they were to be treated with kindness. If they were not the were not the laws of Israel made the master accountable just as they did between Hebrews. See Judges chapter one for a description of how the Canaanite captives were treated. That kind of slavery kept the enemy captives from organizing a rebellion. Eventually, as in Judges, their descendants were assimilated into Hebrew culture as free man and women. David had men in his army who were from Canaanite backgrounds but were treated as equals with the Jews.

       Was that as good a life as you and I enjoy? Probably not. But it was better than the alternative. It was better than the lives of slaves in neighboring societies.

       At the same time, the laws of Israel prevented people from carrying on a slave trade, as was carried on in England and America. There was no going out to places like Africa to capture and enslave people or buying of people who had been captured. It kept them from kidnapping boys and girls to sell them into the sex trades, as in India and America, or to capturing by force free men or women to force them into working for a captor who forced them into labor, like what is done in some Asian countries today.

       Slavery is a fact of life today as it was then. It is often cruel and inhumane. Israel at least made it less harsh and more humane and more hopeful than any other slavery then or now.

       LikeLike

     • Well, that’s all right then. You could have a lovely time as a slave in Israel or you could live a miserable existence in your own territory with your own tribe.

       Are you sure these were the only two options? Of course not. You made all this stuff up when you previously offered this comment and a half.

       Slavery is still slavery however much you dress it up and bluster about it being ‘better than the alternative’. How remarkable that YHWH endorsed slavery at the exact time the Israelites wanted to practise it. Who are we to question the Almighty, eh Don?

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • “… this comment and a half”

       HA! Even in written commentary, preachers are long-winded!

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • Well, you are right about that. Who are we to question the Almighty. His wisdom exceeds ours exponentially. His knowledge as well. His justice and righteousness also. His love exceeds ours – except for our love for ourselves. His purpose is largely incomprehensible to those who do not spend time pondering it. Yes, who are we?

       LikeLike

     • Of course.

       If only he existed.

       LikeLike

     • Don:
       “The laws we have been talking about were instituted not to establish slavery but to regulate it and to protect the slave.”

       Regulate means to establish!

       Protect the slave…
       Exodus 21: 20-21 – ‘When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.’
       That’s protection?

       Don:
       “ among those slaves were those who became slaves out of poverty and to satisfy their debts.”

       How many were indentured servants and how many were slaves?

       Don:
       “In Israel if they were Hebrews, that slavery could only last 7 yrs. The slave was then to be set free and given a grubstake so they could reestablish their life as a free man. Women were to go free with their husbands. “

       No sir:
       Exodus 21
       2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

       5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

       The wife does not go with the husband! He becomes a slave for LIFE!

       You’re lying about this.
       To me, this is a defeater for the xtian religion. If your holy book tells you how to regulate slavery, it’s not much of a holy book.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.