Does Lds Doctrine Contradict The Bible?

[danielwoods]

That's says a lot right there. I wonder how that has worked in the past...

Speaking or reading it all and understanding the message...would you like to read the whole chapter and let us know what Romans 7 is really about? Hint: it's not about marriage.

I should have said, a self-proclaimed prophet.

And are you saying that Romans 7 doesn't talk about marriage?

[Calm]

I should have said, a self-proclaimed prophet.

I am curious as to how many prophets you are aware of who are not self-proclamed...who are not the ones who declare themselves called of God. How do you think others found out about the burning bush at Moses' calling or that Samuel had heard the Lord calling him if they hadn't seen it themselves?

[cdowis]

I am curious as to how many prophets you are aware of who are not self-proclamed...who are not the ones who declare themselves called of God. How do you think others found out about the burning bush at Moses' calling or that Samuel had heard the Lord calling him if they hadn't seen it themselves?

Joseph Smith. He has multiple witnesses to his divine calling, including those who shared his visions and received the priesthood from angelic messengers.

[Flyonthewall]

I should have said, a self-proclaimed prophet.

And are you saying that Romans 7 doesn't talk about marriage?

All the prophets in the scriptures were "self-proclaimed"... it's a good thing somebody believed them.

It talks about marriage(under the Mosaic law) only as an example. Please tell me what you think the message of Romans 7 is.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I would just add that just because a church's doctrines do not clearly contradict the teachings of scripture, it does not mean that their interpretations are correct.

Show me where any "mainstream" Christian church clearly contradicts the Bible. Does the failure to do so indicate that their teachings are correct?

So goes it with the churches of the Restoration, relying on perceived non-"contradictions" with scripture does not indicate that the teachings/doctrines of the church in question are necessarily true.

Edited June 28, 2013 by BookofMormonLuvr

[Vance]

If I were you I'd look for a definition of marriage that doesn't require the use of the word marriage in the definition.

I mean, isn't the point to understand what the word "marriage" refers to? Use of the word doesn't define what it is.

I gave you the definition of "marry" not "marriage"

[Vance]

Neither of your quotes indicate there is another marriage in Heaven beside the one between Christ and his bride the church.

They talk about the eternal nature of marriage, which applies to heaven.

If "Whatsoever God doeth..." lasts forever, then there wouldn't a new Heaven and a new Earth in the future would there? Since it's clear in scripture that there will a new Heaven and new Earth, then this particular interpretation that you're resting your argument on must be flawed in some way.

That is a non-sequitur red herring. In other words, you are just grasping at straws and looking for distractions.

And that is the point. Interpretation. I understand that eternal Marriage is foundational to the LDS teachings, so I understand the motivation.

AND it is found in the Bible.

I just disagree with interpreting the Bible in such a way.

what ever floats your boat. But just because you don't want to see it doesn't mean that it isn't there.

I'd rather read it all, and understand the message for what it says, not what some prophet said about it.

Even when those prophets are Biblical, I get it.

For example, you have completely ignored Romans 7. Where marriage laws between men and women are only for here on Earth. That's it.

Romans 7, is talking about the law of Moses versus the gospel of Christ, not the eternal nature of marriage (when performed by the sealing power of God). But hey, any port will do in a storm.

[danielwoods]

I am curious as to how many prophets you are aware of who are not self-proclamed...who are not the ones who declare themselves called of God. How do you think others found out about the burning bush at Moses' calling or that Samuel had heard the Lord calling him if they hadn't seen it themselves?

It is a good point. However, where are the gold plates? Where is the box that held them? JS stories are quite different from Moses for example. One actually did have signs and wonders the other only claimed to have them. Further the fact that JS life and teachings contradict the known truths is the deal breaker. Anyone can claim to be a prophet (and many do).

[Calm]

It is a good point. However, where are the gold plates? Where is the box that held them? JS stories are quite different from Moses for example. One actually did have signs and wonders the other only claimed to have them. Further the fact that JS life and teachings contradict the known truths is the deal breaker.

Where are the Stone Tablets? Where is the Burning Bush? Where is the Ark of the Covenant?

There are numerous documented healings and signs surrounding Joseph Smith and the restoration of the Church. Now you can dismiss the documentation as lies just as many dismiss the Biblical miracles as made up but we have better documentation for the restoration miracles coming from multiple sources*** than the Biblical ones coming solely from the Bible (as far as I am aware of them). Having one source doesn't make them false, having multiple sources doesn't make them true but your claim that one only claimed to have them while the other has them when the documentation is at the very least equivalent seems to project a double standard of a sort.

As far as the contradictions...that has a lot to do with interpretation. I don't see the contradictions that you do because I interpret them differently. Is there any reason you can give me that I should accept your interpretation as having more validity than my own?

***for example: https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFLibrary/42.2HarperPentecost-f5e22c1b-d839-4204-a462-807a801f4304.pdf

add-on and on: I have not the time to confirm the accuracy of this site, but it could be used as a starting place for locating possible miracles related to Joseph Smith and the work of the Restoration: http://www.josephsmithacademy.org/wiki/joseph-smith-miracles/

Edited June 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[danielwoods]

All the prophets in the scriptures were "self-proclaimed"... it's a good thing somebody believed them.

It talks about marriage(under the Mosaic law) only as an example. Please tell me what you think the message of Romans 7 is.

Lets analyze Romans 7 shall we?

7 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

² For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

³ So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

-

Ok, so the law only has dominion over us while we are alive, Example used, is marriage. If the husband dies, she is free from that marriage. So far so good?

-

⁴ Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

⁵ For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

⁶ But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

-

And by way of application, we who follow Christ, are dead to the law, which frees us to be married to Christ.

Now, your point is that this is used only as an example. Yet, that doesn't change the facts. Death is the end of the law, which marriage is based on. The use of marriage here as an example, only demonstrates how similar the two concepts are. Our marriage to our spouses, and how we are no longer bound to the Mosiac Law, but that because of our death to it, through Christ, we are free from that law.

If your statement: "only an example" is intended to argue that people are still married after we die, then according to that interpretation we are still bound by the law of Moses, and Christ's death didn't free us.

[Bikeemikey]

Thanks Cal, that was quick!

This caught my eye, New Church Perspective (NCP) is a leading source of current and insightful Swedenborgian-influenced and New Christian exploration. It is a web based community that connects people from all over the world, fostering an expanding vision of the Lord and heaven and inspiring direct, individual connection with the Lord and His Word.

It certainly contradicts many widely accepted interpretations of the bible. We also go far beyond the detail and scope of doctrinal exposition found in the bible.

[Five Solas]

Lets analyze Romans 7 shall we?

7 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

² For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

³ So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

-

Ok, so the law only has dominion over us while we are alive, Example used, is marriage. If the husband dies, she is free from that marriage. So far so good?

-

Probably not, if you're even passingly familiar w/ LDS theology. This passage cannot / will not be taken at face value. Sorry...

--Erik

[Flyonthewall]

Lets analyze Romans 7 shall we?

7 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

² For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

³ So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

-

Ok, so the law only has dominion over us while we are alive, Example used, is marriage. If the husband dies, she is free from that marriage. So far so good?

Which law only has dominion while we are alive?

-

⁴ Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

⁵ For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

⁶ But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

-

And by way of application, we who follow Christ, are dead to the law, which frees us to be married to Christ.

Which law are we dead to?

Now, your point is that this is used only as an example. Yet, that doesn't change the facts. Death is the end of the law, which marriage is based on. The use of marriage here as an example, only demonstrates how similar the two concepts are. Our marriage to our spouses, and how we are no longer bound to the Mosiac Law, but that because of our death to it, through Christ, we are free from that law.

If your statement: "only an example" is intended to argue that people are still married after we die, then according to that interpretation we are still bound by the law of Moses, and Christ's death didn't free us.

You are relying on your interpretation of the Bible, rather than what the Bible actually says.

The message of Romans 7 is that the Law of Moses was a temporal law and has been done away with. Not only was it done away with but replaced by a spiritual law...the Law of the Spirit of Christ(Romans 8 ). And because the law changed, the priesthood changed also(Hebrews 7).

It is under this priesthood that that which is bound on earth, is bound in heaven. (Matthew 16)

The Law of Moses is a temporary law. The Law of Christ is an Eternal law.

Marriage in Romans 7, is used because it illustrates dominion, just like the Law of Moses had Dominion over us, until Christ fulfilled it and replaced it.

The woman is used in the example because she cannot marry a 2nd husband while the first is alive. It is only after the 1st husband is dead, that she is free to marry a 2nd husband.

The Mosaic Law is the 1st husband, and the Law of Christ or Christ is the 2nd husband in this imagery.

Verse 4 is simply an analogy that shows that now that the Mosaic law is dead, we are free to have another law have dominion over us...the Law of Christ.

Can you explain why the husband was not used in place of the woman in this analogy?

If you think that Romans 7 is talking about a literal marriage, what kind of conclusion can be drawn when males will be married to Christ, another man?

Edited June 29, 2013 by Flyonthewall

[Tacenda]

Which law only has dominion while we are alive?

-

Which law are we dead to?

You are relying on your interpretation of the Bible, rather than what the Bible actually says.

The message of Romans 7 is that the Law of Moses was a temporal law and has been done away with. Not only was it done away with but replaced by a spiritual law...the Law of the Spirit of Christ(Romans 8 ). And because the law changed, the priesthood changed also(Hebrews 7).

It is under this priesthood that that which is bound on earth, is bound in heaven. (Matthew 16)

The Law of Moses is a temporary law. The Law of Christ is an Eternal law.

Marriage in Romans 7, is used because it illustrates dominion, just like the Law of Moses had Dominion over us, until Christ fulfilled it and replaced it.

The woman is used in the example because she cannot marry a 2nd husband while the first is alive. It is only after the 1st husband is dead, that she is free to marry a 2nd husband.

The Mosaic Law is the 1st husband, and the Law of Christ or Christ is the 2nd husband in this imagery.

Verse 4 is simply an analogy that shows that now that the Mosaic law is dead, we are free to have another law have dominion over us...the Law of Christ.

Can you explain why the husband was not used in place of the woman in this analogy?

If you think that Romans 7 is talking about a literal marriage, what kind of conclusion can be drawn when males will be married to Christ, another man?

This is why I hate reading the scriptures, nothing is as it seems.

[Five Solas]

This is why I hate reading the scriptures, nothing is as it seems.

Applaud your candor, Tacenda. Sincerely,

--Erik

[Flyonthewall]

This is why I hate reading the scriptures, nothing is as it seems.

Christ used parables for this very reason...on the surface they are a good moral story, but they have deeper meanings, that the reader or hearer will not understand until they are ready to receive it.

[danielwoods]

Which law only has dominion while we are alive?

-

Which law are we dead to?

You are relying on your interpretation of the Bible, rather than what the Bible actually says.

The message of Romans 7 is that the Law of Moses was a temporal law and has been done away with. Not only was it done away with but replaced by a spiritual law...the Law of the Spirit of Christ(Romans 8 ). And because the law changed, the priesthood changed also(Hebrews 7).

It is under this priesthood that that which is bound on earth, is bound in heaven. (Matthew 16)

The Law of Moses is a temporary law. The Law of Christ is an Eternal law.

Marriage in Romans 7, is used because it illustrates dominion, just like the Law of Moses had Dominion over us, until Christ fulfilled it and replaced it.

The woman is used in the example because she cannot marry a 2nd husband while the first is alive. It is only after the 1st husband is dead, that she is free to marry a 2nd husband.

The Mosaic Law is the 1st husband, and the Law of Christ or Christ is the 2nd husband in this imagery.

Verse 4 is simply an analogy that shows that now that the Mosaic law is dead, we are free to have another law have dominion over us...the Law of Christ.

You make the accusation, that I am "relying on your interpretation of the Bible, rather than what the Bible actually says."

So, please explain where the Bible states that we use the new law of Christ to marry our spouses for eternity?

The reason I ask, is because you are agreeing with me that marriages here on earth are temporary (based on their similarity to the Mosiac law), yet you seem to be claiming that we marry for eternity under Christ's law (Which I haven't read in the Bible, so am curious, since you claim to be relying on what the Bible actually says).

Can you explain why the husband was not used in place of the woman in this analogy?

If you think that Romans 7 is talking about a literal marriage, what kind of conclusion can be drawn when males will be married to Christ, another man?

You don't believe that the Church is the bride of Christ?

[danielwoods]

This is why I hate reading the scriptures, nothing is as it seems.

I have been making this point for a while. That the LDS and non-LDS have different principles of interpretation, which effects how one understands what is said.

I was told, "You are relying on your interpretation of the Bible, rather than what the Bible actually says."

When the truth is that he is relying on his interpretation just as much as I am. The difference is that the LDS has to defend a particular interpretation, taught by their prophet and teacher Joseph Smith. That's the main difference. So, one question is why accuse me of not reading what the Bible actually says, instead of just acknowledging the different motivations in the process of interpretation?

[Flyonthewall]

You make the accusation, that I am "relying on your interpretation of the Bible, rather than what the Bible actually says."

So, please explain where the Bible states that we use the new law of Christ to marry our spouses for eternity?

The reason I ask, is because you are agreeing with me that marriages here on earth are temporary (based on their similarity to the Mosiac law), yet you seem to be claiming that we marry for eternity under Christ's law (Which I haven't read in the Bible, so am curious, since you claim to be relying on what the Bible actually says).

In the very beginning God married Adam and Eve and declared: "24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

Jesus even reiterated it and added: " 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Remember that since there was a change in the law, there needed to be a change in the priesthood under which the law is administered, and under which what is bound on earth is bound in heaven.

Paul even makes this comment: "11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."

Notice he didn't say "in the world", he said "in the Lord".

You don't believe that the Church is the bride of Christ?

The imagery of Christ as the bridegroom and the church being the bride helps support my point.

Christ is the head of the church eternally. The relationship between Christ and the church is eternal, just like the eternal nature of the marriage relationship.

Do you really believe that Jesus will literally marry the church? Do you also believe He is literally water? or a door? or bread? or a vine?

And do you think the "marriage" of Christ and the church will not last?

[danielwoods]

In the very beginning God married Adam and Eve and declared: "24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

Jesus even reiterated it and added: " 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Remember that since there was a change in the law, there needed to be a change in the priesthood under which the law is administered, and under which what is bound on earth is bound in heaven.

Paul even makes this comment: "11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."

Notice he didn't say "in the world", he said "in the Lord".

What I am noticing is that you didn't quote one verse from the Bible which represents your claim, that under a new law of Christ, that marriage is eternal.

You claim that "They shall be one flesh" or "What God hath joined..." Is somehow indicating this. But, it doesn't actually say that, now does it?

In other words, they shall be one flesh (while on Earth), and let no man put asunder (while on Earth). In essence, there is no reference to eternal marriage in your quotes from the Biblical text.

Your continued reference to the change in the priesthood is also read backwards into the text. IT simply doesn't say what you claim. What is bound on Earth is not bound in Heaven.

Not sure your point about quoting Paul. He uses, "in Christ" or "In the Lord" to refer to Christians. Certainly he doesn't mention the eternal nature of marriage as you would like to claim.

The imagery of Christ as the bridegroom and the church being the bride helps support my point.

Christ is the head of the church eternally. The relationship between Christ and the church is eternal, just like the eternal nature of the marriage relationship.

Do you really believe that Jesus will literally marry the church? Do you also believe He is literally water? or a door? or bread? or a vine?

And do you think the "marriage" of Christ and the church will not last?

The analogy of marriage (between a man and a woman) is used because it is the closest relationship we have on this earth to our relationship to God. No where does the Biblical text indicate that our human marriages will continue beyond death. God uses the analogy to communicate the depth of love he has for us.

The reference to the marriage supper of the Lamb, is the only marriage mentioned in Heaven. And as Rev. 19:7 states: "for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

⁸ And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints."

So, yes I believe that there will be a literal marriage between Christ and his church that our earthly marriages are only but a small foretaste of what is to come.

Edited July 1, 2013 by danielwoods

[cdowis]

What I am noticing is that you didn't quote one verse from the Bible which represents your claim, that under a new law of Christ, that marriage is eternal.

I agree with you that any reference to eternal marriage is missing from the Bible. It was certainly among those doctrines taught by Christ during His 40 day ministry after the resurrection. His teachings during those 40 days are missing/ unrecorded in the Bible.

Anyway, Peter certainly had that authority given to him by Christ ("whatsoever sealed on earth will be sealed in Heaven"

That authority and covenant was restored in our day.

Edited July 1, 2013 by cdowis

[danielwoods]

I agree with you that any reference to eternal marriage is missing from the Bible. It was certainly among those doctrines taught by Christ during His 40 day ministry after the resurrection. His teachings during those 40 days are missing/ unrecorded in the Bible.

Anyway, Peter certainly had that authority given to him by Christ ("whatsoever sealed on earth will be sealed in Heaven"

That authority and covenant was restored in our day.

I agree with you it isn't found in the Biblical text.

Peter, however, wasn't given authority in that way, that is a mistranslation of the text.

[Flyonthewall]

What I am noticing is that you didn't quote one verse from the Bible which represents your claim, that under a new law of Christ, that marriage is eternal.

You claim that "They shall be one flesh" or "What God hath joined..." Is somehow indicating this. But, it doesn't actually say that, now does it?

In other words, they shall be one flesh (while on Earth), and let no man put asunder (while on Earth). In essence, there is no reference to eternal marriage in your quotes from the Biblical text.

Your continued reference to the change in the priesthood is also read backwards into the text. IT simply doesn't say what you claim. What is bound on Earth is not bound in Heaven.

Not sure your point about quoting Paul. He uses, "in Christ" or "In the Lord" to refer to Christians. Certainly he doesn't mention the eternal nature of marriage as you would like to claim.

Ok. To me it is as plain as the nose on my face. To you, because it does not use the words "eternal marriage" then it does not exist. Fine. I will not force you to see what I see, that is up to you.

Here is Matthew 16:19:

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

By all means, tell me what the correct translation is.

The analogy of marriage (between a man and a woman) is used because it is the closest relationship we have on this earth to our relationship to God. No where does the Biblical text indicate that our human marriages will continue beyond death. God uses the analogy to communicate the depth of love he has for us.

Well I hope you find comfort in that...that the relationship you have with your spouse will be terminated.

The reference to the marriage supper of the Lamb, is the only marriage mentioned in Heaven. And as Rev. 19:7 states: "for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

⁸ And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints."

So, yes I believe that there will be a literal marriage between Christ and his church that our earthly marriages are only but a small foretaste of what is to come.

Then you must also believe that Christ is literally a vine, a door, bread, water, a lamb, etc. Sounds interesting. How can Jesus literally be all those things at the same time?

You do realize that the scriptures are full of imagery, and not all the words are to be taken literally, but they are used to paint a picture.

The imagery not only teaches a concept but keeps deeper meanings hidden to those that are not ready to receive it.

Perhaps in time you will scratch the surface, and your understanding will be opened.

[Vance]

What I am noticing is that you didn't quote one verse from the Bible which represents your claim, that under a new law of Christ, that marriage is eternal.

You claim that "They shall be one flesh" or "What God hath joined..." Is somehow indicating this. But, it doesn't actually say that, now does it?

Well, let's see how you add or subtract from what "it does actually say", ok?

In other words, they shall be one flesh (while on Earth), and let no man put asunder (while on Earth).

(to quote you,) "it doesn't actually say that, now does it?"

The analogy of marriage (between a man and a woman) is used because it is the closest relationship we have on this earth to our relationship to God.

So, it is temporary then?????

No where does the Biblical text indicate that our human marriages will continue beyond death.

like our relationship with God??????

God uses the analogy to communicate the depth of love he has for us.

Which is temporary, not eternal, right??????

The reference to the marriage supper of the Lamb, is the only marriage mentioned in Heaven. And as Rev. 19:7 states: "for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

⁸ And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints."

So is this marriage temporary or eternal????? You aren't making it clear.

So, yes I believe that there will be a literal marriage between Christ and his church that our earthly marriages are only but a small foretaste of what is to come.

So, are both temporary or are both eternal????????????????? Make up your mind!!!!!!!!!! Edited July 1, 2013 by Vance

[danielwoods]

Ok. To me it is as plain as the nose on my face. To you, because it does not use the words "eternal marriage" then it does not exist. Fine. I will not force you to see what I see, that is up to you.

Here is Matthew 16:19:

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

By all means, tell me what the correct translation is.

Given my short amount of time right now, I hope you don't mind if I copy and paste from a web site that explains the verse:

"Let’s look at these two verses in other translations.

The Amplified Bible translates Matthew 16:19 this way: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind (declare to be improper and unlawful) on earth must be what is already bound in heaven; and whatever you loose (declare lawful) on earth must be what is already loosed in heaven.” A footnote refers to “Charles B. Williams, [author of] The New Testament: A Translation [who said]: ‘The perfect passive participle, here referring to a state of having been already forbidden [or permitted].’” Matthew 18:18 is worded the same way as 16:19, and refers back to the same footnote.

The Interlinear New Testament, edited by Jay P. Green Sr., quotes Matthew 16:19 in the English as: “And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. And whatever you bind on earth shall occur, having already been bound in Heaven. And whatever you may loose on the earth shall be, having been already loosed in Heaven.” In the interlinear column it states: “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you bind on the earth shall be, having been bound in the heavens, and whatever you loose on the earth shall be, having been loosed in the heavens.”

When we understand the sense of the verse, and see what the context is, it becomes plain that Messiah is telling His disciples to judge righteous judgment (John 7:24), know God’s law and how to administer it, and to conduct the ekklesia with overflowing love of God and love of the brethren, rather than a bunch of legal do’s and don’ts or carnal ordinances."

From: http://livingtheway.org/binding.html

I hope that makes it clear where I'm coming from. The common usage of that passage ignores the fact that the phrase is in the "perfect passive", meaning it was already loosed or already decided.

Well I hope you find comfort in that...that the relationship you have with your spouse will be terminated.

Then you must also believe that Christ is literally a vine, a door, bread, water, a lamb, etc. Sounds interesting. How can Jesus literally be all those things at the same time?

You do realize that the scriptures are full of imagery, and not all the words are to be taken literally, but they are used to paint a picture.

The imagery not only teaches a concept but keeps deeper meanings hidden to those that are not ready to receive it.

Perhaps in time you will scratch the surface, and your understanding will be opened.

My goal is to know the truth. If it doesn't bring comfort, I'd rather that, than a false sense of comfort built on sand.

I understand that when Christ used those words (vine, door, bread, water, a lamb etc.), they are illustrative. However, in the Revelation passage it states, "the marriage of the Lamb has come..." indicating a real marriage. Do Lambs marry? no. Does "The Lamb" have a specific reference to someone? Of course it does. So, who is he going to marry? It seems to me that it is describing a real event, where the real Christ, who is also almightly God, will marry the church. In essence the whole purpose of our existence, why he created us in the first place will be fulfilled.

Edited July 1, 2013 by danielwoods