Poll: Most Americans Oppose Gay Marriage

[Reilly]

Oops. I forgot to tell you that I was using the New International Version.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Reilly
Matthew 14:12-19 - the Passover meal; 15:1 - Jesus before Pilate in the morning (and later in the book he is crucified)

It is taking me too long to find the cites for the second example, and it is not that important. Any analysis of any of any apparent inconsistency is all I seek.

Matthew 14:12-19 is taking place when he is already dead. I think what you are looking for is the following two which reference each other in relation to the story of the crucifixion.

John 19:12-14

AV1611: "12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.
13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.
14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
16 Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away. "


Matthew 27:62

AV1611: "62 Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
64 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.
65 Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
66 So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch."

This is in clarification of who authorized the details of how the tomb was to be prepared. The story of the sequence of events is directly prior and the Book ends with this final section detailing the prep of the tomb since it is critical to His resurrection that we all know the details.

I am unsure exactly where you see the supposed discrepencies. I am more than happy to adress them, but I cannot find them in the versions I have. You also did not list the versions YOU have so I can't even start there.

If you can open another thread or PM me with more details, we can address it further.

 

[NewGuy]

NIV....hang on.....

 

[NewGuy]

OK....This isn't version related. This is history and passover related:
My stupid computer wont copy and paste the verses right now...., I am typing....gimme a minute.

 

[NewGuy]

John 18:28
"Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of jugment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the jugment hall, lest they be defiled; but that they might eat the passover."

Here, they did not want to defile themselves ceremonially (example :by entering the dwelling of a Gentile. ) because they wanted to eat the passover. However, the "passover" is not the same as "passover supper" as the general "passover" lasted a week.

John 19:14
"And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he sayith unto the Jews, Behold your King!"

In John's time, 'preperation" was used as a term used for the day of the week we now designate as Friday. -Every Friday was the preperation day for the weekly Sabbath.

The mention of the evening meal with Jesus was then the Passover supper its self, not merely a fellowship meal.

I think this gets you out of the whole "timing" thing that it appears was the cause. Did I get this right, or did I miss your point?

 

[Big D]

Big D 2004:

Thou shall not porkith thy friend in thy cornholith

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Reilly
New Guy,
Perhaps I should have been more clear. I only meant that I have never heard it stated that any references to homosexuality in the bible were placed there (or altered) subsequent to the initial writing.

Maybe it is because it is late or maybe the meds are affecting me, but I still do not get your point here. Are you saying that the Bible appears to have no references to homosexuality unless documented AFTER original writings and therefore corrupt the Bible?

 

[Hobbit]

Well, there is the whole destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah. God rained fire down on them for practicing...sodomy. That's why we call it sodomy, after all.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by acludem
Very nice, Matt. And Jimmy, men who perform these acts can get married, just not to each other.

I really lose patience with the argument that gay relationships are based solely on sex. I have never been married, but I would assume a marriage should be based upon love and trust, not just whether the sex is good. Why when we assume heterosexual marriages are based upon love and trust, do we assume that the only thing that binds gay couples is sex?

acludem

And who can they marry then? People of the opposite sex? I guess that eliminates 2 men doing it in the pooper then, doesn't it?

Why am I not surprised that you aren't married? LOL

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by mattskramer
jimnyc said "It's not erroneous".

The premise: "If a gay individual is married to another gay individual,then you must associate with him" is erroneous. You do not have to associate with a gay individual regardless of his marital status. Therefore your argument that people should oppose gay marriage because people don't want to be associated with gays is erroneous.

jimnyc said "...we don't want our marriages put on the same level as those that think it's ok to have another mans penis jammed in their ass".

You, jimnyc, are moving to a different argument now. The new argument is a clear example of two classic fallacies: "the appeal to the masses" and "the appeal to emotion". You appeal to the masses with the word "we" and you appeal to emotion with the word "want".

(1) "The appeal to the masses" - Someone tries to justify something based on the amount of popular support he has behind it. Yet masses have been wrong. Consider the "Jewish Holocaust". Popular feelings that oppose a policy do not necessarily make the policy wrong.

(2) "The appeal to emotion" - People try to influence other peoples' emotions rather than reason in order to get them to accept a policy. If people could inspire strong hatred, in other people, for the claim that 1+1 = 2 and get them to love the idea that 1+1 = 3, the claim that 1+1 = 3 would still be mathematically false.

Holy Christmas, give it up! Get it through your head that people just don't want the vile fudgepackers around! I don't need a valid argument in your eyes - you are inconsequential.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by acludem
Matt, I was a debater in high school and know all of these rules very well. Unfortunately, some on this board would rather call people names than actually engage in intelligent discussion.

I support allowing gay couples to be married. If we really want to protect the so-called sanctity of marriage, then why don't we outlaw divorce? I'd say the skyrocketing divorce rate is the primary threat to the "sanctity of marriage".

acludem

Oh joy, you were on the debate team! What a geek! LOL

Then you go on to completely avoid the argument by bringing up a completely irrelevant 'statistic'. Marriage has problems admittedly, so you think that justifies allowing queers to get married?

How long were you on the debate team before they kicked you off?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Big D
Big D 2004:

Thou shall not porkith thy friend in thy cornholith

Amen

 

[Reilly]

New Guy or Hobbit,

I realize you may not see this message because I didn't respond to your last post until this morning. This seemed an odd thing to start a thread on, and I wouldn't know where to put it anyway. So here is hoping you see this.

First, to clear up my message regarding references to homosexuality in the bible, it was in the context of Hobbit's previous observation that over the many years of recopying and translation, some versions of the bibile contain newly incorporated or altered statements (for political reasons or merely due to mistranslation - Hobbit gave an example from the K.J. Version). ACLU had suggested that the prohibition of homosexuality in the bible could be the result of these alterations. I had merely stated that I had done some research on this, and that to my knowledge, none of the statements in the bible regarding homosexuality are suspected of deviating from an original text. That is, these references were not added at some later time.

Second, I must apologize, I screwed up. The apparent inconstitency lies not in Matthew, but in Mark.

John 19:14 places the time of Jesus's crucifixion as "the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour." I agree that this would be the Friday before Passover, which (I think) begins at sundown.

Mark 14:12 states that Jesus and his disciples had the last supper "on the first day of the Feast of Unleaved Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb." Again, this appears to be the Friday of the passover meal, after nightfall being when the Passover or Sabbath would begin. Then, after the Last Supper, Jesus goes and prays and on the next day (the day after the Preparation of Passover Week), in the morning after the rooster crows the second time (14:72, 15:1), Jesus is crucified at the third hour (15:25) and dies at the ninth hour (15:33-24).
So I guess there are two apparent inconsistencies, - the day, and the time (in John, Jesus is still before the Pilate at the sixth hour, and in Mark, he has already been crucified by the third hour).

This stuff fascinates me. Any input from you guys or anyone else is appreciated. Thank you.

 

[Hobbit]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Oh well, continuing.

The books of John and Mark use different day and time systems. Although I can't remember which is which, one uses the Greek while the other uses the Hebrew. I think the Greek is the one we use today, but he Hebrew day starts at 6 pm (or 7, I can't remember). No inconsistency, just using a different system of units.

 

[Reilly]

But weren't both gospels written in Greek?

 

[Reilly]

Thanks for responding by the way.

 

[Hobbit]

Yes, all the Gospels were written in Greek, but they weren't all written for the Greek culture. All but one uses the Hebrew calender, because they were all Jews and had used that calender from birth. The one that used the Greek calender did so because, like the Greek language, the Greek calender was more widely used, thus making the scripture more understandable.

 

[Reilly]

I appreciate your efforts in indulging me in this. Thanks.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Reilly
I appreciate your efforts in indulging me in this. Thanks.

For sake of clearing up confusion, I am in full agreement with Hobbit. This style of writing is common in the Bible. You get different people sometimes talking about the same topic from different points of view. While they are all different in THAT regard, they DO always line up. If necessary, I can try to dig up reference material on how the systems of calendering worked in that period of time.

As far as Biblical validity hanging on this sort of thing, remember that original Biblical validity came from coordinated Greek and Hebrew manucripts. All else that follows MUST line up with IT not the other way around. Therefore, when we see what may look like an inconsistency, the best way to handle that is to go back to original text and see what it says.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by acludem
I support allowing gay couples to be married. If we really want to protect the so-called sanctity of marriage, then why don't we outlaw divorce? I'd say the skyrocketing divorce rate is the primary threat to the "sanctity of marriage".

acludem [/B]

acludem, I agree - not about gay marriage, but that no-fault divorce has screwed up marriage worse than anything else. I am in favor of getting rid of no-fault divorce laws - which, IMO, will drastically reduce the number of homosexuals who want to get married.