Posted on 09/01/2007 8:44:09 AM PDT by Ottofire
“If it was the will the God, it would have been done.”
Agreed. And we can’t say with any certainty either way on it. The issue just isn’t addressed.
“You haven’t been spending much time with the New Testament.”
Actually that’s what we’ve been reading and studying all this year in Sunday School.
“Obviously, you know nothing of God but only the delights of man.”
Hate to break it to you, but God gave us sex, we are designed for it, and commanded to it within the bounds of marriage. This was done BEFORE the fall so don’t pass it off as some dirty thing God holds his nose and tolerates out of practical necessity, it was part of his intention from the beginning.
Abusing it is immoral and deeply offensive to God, but for a husband and wife to love each other and to be with each other is pleasing to God, and enjoying doing what is pleasing to God is not wrong.
If you have a problem with any of that, take it up with God.
“as well as 1 Nephi 11:21, 1 Nephi 11:32, 1 Nephi 13:40, all insert the phrase “Son of God”, taking the original and twisting the diety of Jesus out of it to fit later ‘revelations’ of the Prophet.”
I already explained very clearly that we refer to Christ as God, and we also refer to Heavenly Father as God. The term ‘God’ on it’s own is not as precise as the term ‘Son of God’ which can only refer to Christ. Both versions of those verses are doctrinally equivalent to us, but the latter one is less prone to be misunderstood. The change is only a clarification of the original intent and not a doctrinal change in any way.
“If you do not see this as major I do not know what to say.”
If you think the change represents a doctrinal change you do not understand LDS theology.
“It underlines the fact that the book was changed to fit the idea that Jesus was simply just another one of us.”
Wow, you really don’t understand LDS theology. Christ was not merely ‘another one of us’, he was the divine Son of God, the only Begotten of the Father after the manner of the flesh, the Jehovah of the Old Testament, the great I AM, the only one to live a sinless life, the only Savior we have or need.
You keep confusing your mormon agenda with the bible. You've never answered the question. To who's glory would it benefit if Jesus was married. Don't change the subject please keep focused.
Agreed. And we can’t say with any certainty either way on it. The issue just isn’t addressed.
The issue is addressed. Jesus died on the cross.
Hate to break it to you, but God gave us sex, we are designed for it, and commanded to it within the bounds of marriage. This was done BEFORE the fall so don’t pass it off as some dirty thing God holds his nose and tolerates out of practical necessity, it was part of his intention from the beginning.
Never said sex was dirty. You are projecting. We are talking about the mission of God's son Jesus, not men.
Abusing it is immoral and deeply offensive to God, but for a husband and wife to love each other and to be with each other is pleasing to God, and enjoying doing what is pleasing to God is not wrong.
Where does this have to do with God's plan for Jesus?
If you have a problem with any of that, take it up with God.
But down the book of mormon and read the bible.
Isaiah 55
7 Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will freely pardon.
8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD.
“To who’s glory would it benefit if Jesus was married.”
Being a righteous husband and father glorifies God and furthers his plan for mankind every time it is done.
“The issue is addressed. Jesus died on the cross.”
Dying on the cross and having a family are not mutually exclusive. There is no reason in scripture to think that having a family would prevent him from atoning for our sins, that is an idea men invented.
Nor is there any cause to claim it would be contrary to God’s will. Christ was obligated to keep the same commandments as the rest of the Jews. He did not need a remission of sins, yet he was baptized in order to be obedient, there was no exemption for him even though he was God. It isn’t a big stretch at all to suggest the command to multiply and replenish the earth was also a command he was obligated to obey.
“But down the book of mormon and read the bible. Isaiah 55...”
I read the Bible quite a bit, what you quote settles absolutely nothing in this matter or any other specific issue. I can just as easily toss it back saying it applies to your opinion.
And what plan did God have for his son?
Dying on the cross and having a family are not mutually exclusive. There is no reason in scripture to think that having a family would prevent him from atoning for our sins, that is an idea men invented.
You're reading out of the mormon book again. Go back and read the New Testiment. This time, try not to "ponder" but read the word of God.
. It isn’t a big stretch at all to suggest the command to multiply and replenish the earth was also a command he was obligated to obey.
It's obvious you don't read the bible so I'll stop and let you catch up. Try putting away the mormon book and focus on God's word, ( which is in the bible) not the ramblings of a polygamist.
You love to sneer and smear ideas you don’t like, but you have yet to present any valid rational from the scriptures for your views.
“You’re reading out of the mormon book again.”
Nope, the Book of Mormon doesn’t say anything about Christ having a family (or not) either. It is the Bible that commands us to multiply and replenish the earth, if you want to argue that Christ had an exemption from that (or that doing that, plus being the Savior would just be too much for the guy), show me in the scriptures where it says so.
I don’t know if he did or didn’t, I don’t really care since it makes no difference to the fact that he is my Savior.
“focus on God’s word, ( which is in the bible) not the ramblings of a polygamist.”
You mean like Abraham, or Jacob? God so favored Jacob that he blessed him that all children from all his wives were made God’s chosen people.
You are spinning again, please focus. Go back and answer the question I asked.
What was God's plan for his son?
If you have trouble with that question, please read the New Testament. Mark, Luke, John, etc...
“You are spinning again”
Asking you to back up your claim is spinning? Yeah, right.
“What was God’s plan for his son?”
I already addressed this point, just because someone is sent to do some specific task, whether it is to atone for our sins or to lead Israel out of Egypt or whatever doesn’t mean that is the ONLY thing they are supposed to do.
If you want to get picky about it, part of God’s plan for his Son was to have his Son set the example for us, to lead a perfect and righteous life. He obeyed the Law of Moses, he obeyed the command to be baptized even though he had no sins he needed remission for. If you are going to assert that he was somehow exempt from the command to multiply and replenish the earth, that avoiding marriage somehow sets a good example for the rest of us, then the burden is on YOU to make your case.
So go for it, present your evidence, have the guts to lay out your reasoning and proof for your claim. Tell us what God’s plan was for Christ from the age of 12 to 30. Do you think he just sat around waiting or what?
If all you are going to do is ask vague questions in the hope of finding something in my reply to find fault with, then you are no better than the hypocrites Christ so soundly condemned.
It is the Bible that commands us to multiply and replenish the earth, if you want to argue that Christ had an exemption from that (or that doing that, plus being the Savior would just be too much for the guy), show me in the scriptures where it says so.
Some men are exempted from such an expectation ... and are led, by God, to live unmarried lives. So states Jesus Himself ...Matthew 19:10 His disciples said to him, "If this is how it is between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry."
11 Jesus answered, "This teaching does not apply to everyone, but only to those to whom God has given it.
12 For there are different reasons why men cannot marry: some, because they were born that way; others, because men made them that way; and others do not marry for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. Let him who can accept this teaching do so."
In all the writings of the scriptures ... there is no mention of Christ possibly being married ... or of any theoretical children.
Other members of His family are ofter mentioned ... His mother, His (step)-father, His brothers, His sisters, etc. ... but never any mention of any wife or children ... from Matthew to Revelation.
Circumstantial though the case may be ... the scriptures support the conclusion that Christ was not married.
“Some men are exempted from such an expectation ... and are led, by God, to live unmarried lives. So states Jesus Himself”
I would disagree with interpreting those verses as endorsing the practice. Just prior to that he re-iterates the command to marry given in the Garden of Eden. His disciples said it would be easier for a man to just not marry, and Christ his teachings would be hard for some to take. He recognizes that some are born eunuchs, and that some make themselves eunuchs for religious reasons, but I don’t see his remarks as endorsing celibacy (or self mutilation).
“In all the writings of the scriptures ... there is no mention of Christ possibly being married ... or of any theoretical children...Circumstantial though the case may be ... the scriptures support the conclusion that Christ was not married.”
No, that is a logical fallacy. Absence of proof means nothing, especially where it is very common for wives and children to go unmentioned or unnamed in scripture when they don’t play a role in some event.
The scriptures are not conclusive on the subject either way, and both sides can find things that imply the possibility of their view being correct. Who is right is unknown and will be unknown for some time. In the end, does it really matter as long as we accept Christ as our Savior and do our best to follow him?
Some men are exempted from such an expectation ... and are led, by God, to live unmarried lives. So states Jesus Himself ...
I would disagree with interpreting those verses as endorsing the practice. Just prior to that he re-iterates the command to marry given in the Garden of Eden. His disciples said it would be easier for a man to just not marry, and Christ his teachings would be hard for some to take. He recognizes that some are born eunuchs, and that some make themselves eunuchs for religious reasons, but I don’t see his remarks as endorsing celibacy (or self mutilation).Matthew 19:12 For there are different reasons why men cannot marry: some, because they were born that way; others, because men made them that way; and others do not marry for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. Let him who can accept this teaching do so."It is here that Jesus exhorts those that are called (by God) to the single life ... to accept that teaching (calling).
Circumstantial though the case may be ... the scriptures support the conclusion that Christ was not married.
No, that is a logical fallacy. Absence of proof means nothing, especially where it is very common for wives and children to go unmentioned or unnamed in scripture when they don’t play a role in some event.
The scriptures are not conclusive on the subject either way, and both sides can find things that imply the possibility of their view being correct. Who is right is unknown and will be unknown for some time. In the end, does it really matter as long as we accept Christ as our Savior and do our best to follow him?
The life that Christ lived, as described in the New Testament, was that of a single man. Nothing that we see about Christ's life in the scriptures ... is incongruent wih His being single.
One must extrapolate beyond what is testified to in the scriptures ... to even suppose that Jesus was married.
I don't think that we ought to do that.
But if they had a BB to back it up; then it was straight from God's mouth!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.