Does Lds Doctrine Contradict The Bible?

[Vance]

Binding and Loosing are legal terms in Jewish vernacular.

Ok.

In essence, what is right and wrong is as basic as it gets.

But the verses don't say any thing about "right" and "wrong". So, again you are adding something that isn't there. Why is it ok to do that when you do it but not when we do it?????

Acts 15, Peter used the keys to access the knowledge that we don't have to be Jews first to be saved.

If that truth was already in the past tense, why did Jesus contradict it earlier??

The verse in question actually doesn't say we bind or loose things in Heaven. Only on Earth.

But someone in Heaven does the binding and the loosing, right?

[teddyaware]

And if a "Living prophet" declares that this passages means he has the keys to tell God (heaven) what will be bound or loosed, then in your opinion, that prophet must be right?

The prophets receive revelation from God. They don't tell God (or heaven) what to do; God reveals to the Prophets what they must do. Peter was given the power to bind on earth and heaven because he was a Prophet, given mighty power and authority to act in the name of God because God was in him, revealing his will. These concepts are foreign to you because you don't believe in living Prophets. Yet living prophets were the rule of the day throughout all of Biblical history. Your church. without living Prophets, would be totally alien to the experience of any person who lived during Biblical times. All they knew was living Prophets, but folks today think they're following the pattern of the Apostolic Church without Prophets to guide them, One wonders how you would have fared in Peter's day, when he was the living Prophet of the Church of Christ. If you could find a time machine to go back to the days of the Apostolic Church, that Church would be utterly at odds with what you consider the church of Christ. Edited July 3, 2013 by teddyaware

[Vance]

No. I don't see prophets of today adding to scripture.

Baptized into Christ is not new:

Galatians 3^{27 "}For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

Romans 6^{3 "}Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?⁴ We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."

Both of those verse are talking about "water" baptism.

[Anakin7]

name='Vance' timestamp='1372861671' post='1209275250']

Both of those verse are talking about "water" baptism.

That is True, anchiently t Water Baptism was a requirement for complete Salvation.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[danielwoods]

However, chapters 6, 7, and 8 are about the opening of the seals of the book, which describe events that will happen on earth, so again, just because they are in heaven does not automatically mean they speak of events that happen in heaven.

And don't you think your argument is one from silence? Scriptures don't mention any other marriage in heaven so that means there are no other marriages in heaven? You didn't accept that when I brought up eternal marriages.

It does not matter if it is a parable or not, it has always been that prophets are the ones that expound upon the scriptures. The meaning of the scriptures are found in God, and God has always given prophets to be a mouthpiece for Him on earth. However, there are those that have essentially told God: "We don't need the tools you have given us to interpret your word, we got it".

The reason we know the events are happening to the Earth is because it is specifically mentioned. However, John's perspective is not as one who is being judged (as those on the earth), but as one looking down at it all, as it's happening. Then, in Chapter 19, the words, "people in Heaven" is used. It is clear that he is not talking about all the people on Earth who were judged by God in the earlier chapters.

The reason I make the statement that this is the only marriage talked about in Heaven, is because it is. In essence, I'm simply reporting the facts as they are. You call this an argument from silence. Could the marriage take place on Earth? I don't know, the Earth is a complete mess at this time, so it doesn't really make sense, and will be destroyed and a new Heaven and a new Earth will be made.

The case is made that marriages on Earth are eternal. I pointed out, that it doesn't say that. Here, the only marriage mentioned in Heaven is the one with the Lamb of God. If there are other marriages, then the Bible is silent about that. If we are to accurately report what the Bible says, then it certainly doesn't talk about eternal marriages or marriages other than this one in Heaven.

God uses all his tools, Prophets, Teachers, Pastors, Bishops, and anyone willing to listen. He doesn't limit himself simply to "living prophets."

Edited July 3, 2013 by danielwoods

[danielwoods]

The prophets receive revelation from God. They don't tell God (or heaven) what to do; God reveals to the Prophets what they must do. Peter was given the power to bind on earth and heaven because he was a Prophet, given mighty power and authority to act in the name of God because God was in him, revealing his will. These concepts are foreign to you because you don't believe in living Prophets. Yet living prophets were the rule of the day throughout all of Biblical history. Your church. without living Prophets, would be totally alien to the experience of any person who lived during Biblical times. All they knew was living Prophets, but folks today think they're following the pattern of the Apostolic Church without Prophets to guide them, One wonders how you would have fared in Peter's day, when he was the living Prophet of the Church of Christ. If you could find a time machine to go back to the days of the Apostolic Church, that Church would be utterly at odds with what you consider the church of Christ.

Peter wasn't given the power to bind things in Heaven. That is the point.

Why do you say I don't believe in living prophets? I believe that all believers have the same access to God that the living prophets of old had.

[Vance]

Peter wasn't given the power to bind things in Heaven. That is the point.

Actually, he was. Quite clearly, if what Peter bound on earth, that same thing would be(future tense) bound (past tense and past participle of bind) in heaven. Thus giving Peter the power to bind in heaven. It is similar to this, what ever Daniel shall eat on earth shall be eaten in heaven. So, according to the basis of your argument, before Daniel can eat (future tense) anything on earth, it has to be eaten (past participle of eat) in heaven. Your argument just doesn't make sense.

[teddyaware]

Peter wasn't given the power to bind things in Heaven. That is the point.

Why do you say I don't believe in living prophets? I believe that all believers have the same access to God that the living prophets of old had.

So then, your claimed accurate interpretation and knowledge of what the scriptures really mean comes to you by revelation from God? If so, for my edification, please interpret what the Saviour meant when he declared the following to his disciples: "21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

23 Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." (John 20:23)

[cdowis]

No. I don't see prophets of today adding to scripture.

Why not? Let's look at this example below where they can help us with an issue.

Baptized into Christ is not new:

Galatians 3^{27 "}For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

Romans 6^{3 "}Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?⁴ We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."

And one of your modern prophets gave your this interpretation? To me, they were baptized in the name of Christ , but let's see what your prophets have revealed.

This would be an opportunity to write those revelations, that water baptism is unnecessary. The Catholics and especially the Pope needs to hear about this.

danielwoods, on 03 July 2013 - 10:44 AM, said:

Peter wasn't given the power to bind things in Heaven.

Who told you that? If you have a source of such knowledge, we need to know about it.

Don't keep it a secret.

Edited July 3, 2013 by cdowis

[danielwoods]

Actually, he was. Quite clearly, if what Peter bound on earth, that same thing would be(future tense) bound (past tense and past participle of bind) in heaven. Thus giving Peter the power to bind in heaven. It is similar to this, what ever Daniel shall eat on earth shall be eaten in heaven. So, according to the basis of your argument, before Daniel can eat (future tense) anything on earth, it has to be eaten (past participle of eat) in heaven. Your argument just doesn't make sense.

Notice how you changed the phrase because it didn't make sense to you.

You stated:

"Peter bound on earth, that same thing would be (future tense) bound (past tense and past participle of bind) in heaven. Thus giving Peter the power to bind in heaven."

Then:

"what ever Daniel shall eat on earth shall be eaten in heaven."

The word "Shall be" is incorrect, it isn't in the phrase. It should be "Having been"

Then you stated:

"before Daniel can eat (future tense) anything on earth, it has to be eaten (past participle of eat) in heaven. Your argument just doesn't make sense."

You're getting it. It doesn't make sense if you don't understand the unusual greek rendering. Just like the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world.

The only way Peter could bind anything in Heaven is if it was done so based on God's foreknowledge.

[danielwoods]

So then, your claimed accurate interpretation and knowledge of what the scriptures really mean comes to you by revelation from God? If so, for my edification, please interpret what the Saviour meant when he declared the following to his disciples: "21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

23 Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." (John 20:23)

"My claimed interpretation" comes from wanting to read the revelation that was given to us, accurately. You disagree with how I've interpreted it, or read it, feel free to show me where I might have missed something.

As to Jn. 20:23 - The key to this verse is the context of "as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you."

The only one who actually forgives sin is God, so what do these statements mean?

I think that in context he is saying, they were being sent out into the world to make disciples, just as the Father sent him. Their message of the gospel is forgiveness of God. Not that they forgive sin themselves, but that they are able to tell people with confidence, that God will forgive their sin, if they repent. And if they don't they can likewise say with confidence that God will not forgive their sin. That's my take on that verse.

[danielwoods]

No. I don't see prophets of today adding to scripture.

Why not? Let's look at this example below where they can help us with an issue.

Baptized into Christ is not new:

Galatians 3^{27 "}For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

Romans 6^{3 "}Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?⁴ We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."

And one of your modern prophets gave your this interpretation? To me, they were baptized in the name of Christ , but let's see what your prophets have revealed.

This would be an opportunity to write those revelations, that water baptism is unnecessary. The Catholics and especially the Pope needs to hear about this.

Who told you that? If you have a source of such knowledge, we need to know about it.

Don't keep it a secret.

As far as baptized into Christ is concerned, it says what it says. Those verses don't reference water baptism.

As far as Peter not being able to bind things in Heaven, it's found in the Greek Tenses of the words used.

It doesn't say, "What you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven." It actually says, "What you bind on Earth, Shall already have been bound in Heaven."

I know it doesn't make sense in our english rendering. If we were to translate it, we'd probably say something like, "You now have the keys to bring what is already bound and loosed in Heaven (a reference to what is legal), to the Earth."

[cdowis]

"My claimed interpretation" comes from wanting to read the revelation that was given to us, accurately. You disagree with how I've interpreted it, or read it, feel free to show me where I might have missed something.

The Catholic and Protestant scholars are intelligent, learned, trained in languages and history. They use lexicons and greek grammar textbooks. And they disagree on how to interpret the scriptures.

That is the nature of things. A prophet gets the interpretation directly from the source, Divinity. He is not required to have language skills, learning, and a brilliant mind, only the spirit of revelation. So, telling you how and why we differ in the interpretion of the scriptures is not very useful, because "that is the nature of things".

I prefer to go to a living prophet for the interpretation.

[cdowis]

Ok, you rely upon yourself for the interpretation. Your modern prophets, their revelations, have nothing to add to the discussion. You certainly have a boldness to declare the inerrancy in how you see the scriptures. "It says what I declare it says".

At this point, I can only wish you all the best and tol give you the last word.

Edited July 3, 2013 by cdowis

[Vance]

Notice how you changed the phrase because it didn't make sense to you.

You stated:

"Peter bound on earth, that same thing would be (future tense) bound (past tense and past participle of bind) in heaven. Thus giving Peter the power to bind in heaven."

Then:

"what ever Daniel shall eat on earth shall be eaten in heaven."

The word "Shall be" is incorrect, it isn't in the phrase. It should be "Having been"

This is where you are wrong, at least according to Strong's Concordance, http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=16&t=KJV#conc/19 Notice "shall be" G2071, http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2071&t=KJV is the FUTURE OF e'-so-mi (G1510)

Then you stated:

"before Daniel can eat (future tense) anything on earth, it has to be eaten (past participle of eat) in heaven. Your argument just doesn't make sense."

To you, it doesn't, and I am not surprised.

The only way Peter could bind anything in Heaven is if it was done so based on God's foreknowledge.

That doesn't detract AT ALL from our understanding of the verse. I think you are back peddling. . . . . . . . . . So, you KNOW better than nearly ALL of the scholars that brought us the different translations. Feel free to pat yourself on the back. Edited July 3, 2013 by Vance

[danielwoods]

The Catholic and Protestant scholars are intelligent, learned, trained in languages and history. They use lexicons and greek grammar textbooks. And they disagree on how to interpret the scriptures.

That is the nature of things. A prophet gets the interpretation directly from the source, Divinity. He is not required to have language skills, learning, and a brilliant mind, only the spirit of revelation. So, telling you how and why we differ in the interpretion of the scriptures is not very useful, because "that is the nature of things".

I prefer to go to a living prophet for the interpretation.

And even living prophets disagree too. That too is the nature of things.

My goal is to be like Timothy.

^{2 Tim.2:15 "}Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

[danielwoods]

So, you KNOW better than nearly ALL of the scholars that brought us the different translations. Feel free to pat yourself on the back.

Nope. In fact I relied on them. Since not all of them agree, I am of course "Picking sides" as it were.

[Vance]

Nope. In fact I relied on them. Since not all of them agree, I am of course "Picking sides" as it were.

I have edited my post, see above.

[Jude2]

At the time I’ve started writing this there are some 459 replies and I apologies if I’m repeating something someone else has already said.

I’m returning to Tacenda thread #12

1. Is God a man? Numbers 23:19 states "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

*My answer;

The Hebrew word “man’ there is not adam but ‘ish’ which is a comparative word. It is not often expressed in our English but it compares one type of man to another as a tall men to a short man. It is used in Gen 6:9 “Noah was a just man..” If it were expressed it would say ‘Noah was a just man but the rest of mankind are unjust’. The reader is just suppose to understand the comparison.

The phrase “the son of man” is son of Adam, God is not a mortal descendant of Adam.

So what the verse is really saying is God is not mortal man that lies he’s a immortal man who does not lie. The verse always assumes God is a man.

2. Do members of the church place Christ's atonement in the Garden or the Cross first? Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that parish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (Note: It seems the Garden of Gethsemane takes precedence over the cross when I read the many talks from church leaders.)

*My answer;

From Isa 53 “when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin… He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities…he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”

When Christ entered the Garden He was “sore amazed” and began to feel “very heavy”. Luke wrote that he was "in an agony" and he says to his disciples “My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death”.

Yes we believe it was in the Garden that he made the actual payment for sin. BUT after the Garden he went through a series of events which also were part of the process. He was sold like a slave, went through a false trial, lied about, imprisoned, betrayed, denied, spit upon, humiliated, whipped, he saw his mother suffer and then suffered the excruciating pain of the crucifixion. All of these represent each of the many pains and suffering mankind goes through, he needed to experience these things so that we could turn to him in our trials. At the cross he uttered, “It is finished” and then “he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost”

The atonement started in the Garden and ended upon the cross.

3. Are you married in the hereafter? In Matthew Chapter 22 it talks of the question by the Sadducees in vs. 24-30

*My answer;

Let’s turn to Mark 10 first where the Lord chastise the Jews for their bill of divorcement.

He says;

“But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

William Barclay writes it this way;

“…the two will become so completely one that they will no longer be two persons but one. What God has united man must not separate…”

The phrase ‘till death do us part’ is not a Biblical one.

In Eph 5 Paul uses this same argument and likens the joining of a man and woman in marriage to the relationship between Christ and his Church. Did that relationship end upon the death of Christ, NO!

And then there are these two passages; “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord” 1 Cor. 11:11 and “….. being heirs together of the grace of life” 1 Pet. 3:7 .

So the Bible does teach the concept of Eternal Marriage.

Now we can return to Matt 22, the key phrase is “ Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God”

Although Jews seem to believe in eternal marriage they did not understand that they did not hold the power to bind on earth that which would be bound in heaven.

4. No God before and no God after: Isaiah 44:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

*My answer;

Formed? God was formed?

One of the elements or other thoughts which Strong’s Concordance gives is “to be predetermined, be pre-ordained” which we know Yahweh/Jesus was.

In verses 25-26 He says;

“I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins. Put me in remembrance: let us plead together: declare thou, that thou mayest be justified”

If Yahweh stands alone then to whom is the “us” pleading to? What he is saying is there was no other of the Host of Heaven who were chosen and ordained to the Savior.

5. Does God have flesh and bones? Jesus told the woman at the well in vs. 21 -26 Jesus saith unto her, Woman believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

*My answer;

First we need to look at the topic of discussion the Samaritan woman says “Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye (meaning Jews) say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship”. Samaritans were denied the opportunity to worship in the Jerusalem temple because of bigotry so they worshiped by performing their sacrifices on their own mountain.

Jesus is saying this is about to come to an end. William Barclay interprets it this way;

“But a day is coming -it is here- when the true worshippers will offer the Father a truly spiritual worship, for such are the worshippers whom the Father is looking for. God is a spiritual being, and his worshippers must offer him a truly spiritual worship”

Why does he say “it is here”? Because the physical law of sacrifice was coming to an end and a new covenant was being made, one that would be a more spiritual nature.

“But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.” Jer 31:33

That is all that passage is about and nothing more.

Yes God has flesh and bone! What in the world is the purpose of the resurrection if we are to be made in his image and he is an immaterial substance?

In Deut 4 Moses warns Israel “And the Lord shall scatter you among the nations…. And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell”

Now the Trinity has gotten rid of the wood and stone but like those kinds of gods I don’t see how an immaterial substance can eat.

After his resurrection and Jesus appears to the 12 and he says “a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have” they then handle his body and he eats with them several different times.

In Hebrews 1 it says

“God…Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person…”

God the Father is a person and Christ is in his image, thus they are both flesh and blood.

So No, Mormon Doctrine does not contradict the Bible.

[danielwoods]

This is where you are wrong, at least according to Strong's Concordance, http://www.bluelette...6&t=KJV#conc/19 Notice "shall be" G2071, http://www.bluelette...ngs=G2071&t=KJV is the FUTURE OF e'-so-mi (G1510)

To you, it doesn't, and I am not surprised.

That doesn't detract AT ALL from our understanding of the verse. I think you are back peddling. . . . . . . . . . So, you KNOW better than nearly ALL of the scholars that brought us the different translations. Feel free to pat yourself on the back.

I do appreciate your attention to detail. Yes. I made a mistake. I'm not a greek scholar.

I said, "The word "Shall be" is incorrect, it isn't in the phrase. It should be "Having been""

You stated, "Notice "shall be" G2071, http://www.bluelette...ngs=G2071&t=KJV is the FUTURE OF e'-so-mi (G1510)" And you are correct. However, where I made a mistake, you also didn't point out that the following word (either Bind or Loose) is in the Perfect Past tense (a completed action). The problem as I have pointed out, is that there is a future tense (shall be) followed by a perfect past tense (having been bound). The mistake I made is saying that there isn't a "shall be" in the phrase. You are correct, there is. However, this doesn't change the problem I raised with translating it as most people do.

What is interesting is that the problem doesn't show up in Strong's interlinear, but it does in others. Strongs appears to use a KJV translation for their english portion.

This interlinear uses a more literal english version, which shows the problem I've identified:

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat16.pdf

[danielwoods]

At the time I’ve started writing this there are some 459 replies and I apologies if I’m repeating something someone else has already said.

I’m returning to Tacenda thread #12

3. Are you married in the hereafter? In Matthew Chapter 22 it talks of the question by the Sadducees in vs. 24-30

*My answer;

Let’s turn to Mark 10 first where the Lord chastise the Jews for their bill of divorcement.

He says;

“But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

William Barclay writes it this way;

“…the two will become so completely one that they will no longer be two persons but one. What God has united man must not separate…”

The phrase ‘till death do us part’ is not a Biblical one.

In Eph 5 Paul uses this same argument and likens the joining of a man and woman in marriage to the relationship between Christ and his Church. Did that relationship end upon the death of Christ, NO!

And then there are these two passages; “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord” 1 Cor. 11:11 and “….. being heirs together of the grace of life” 1 Pet. 3:7 .

So the Bible does teach the concept of Eternal Marriage.

Now we can return to Matt 22, the key phrase is “ Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God”

Although Jews seem to believe in eternal marriage they did not understand that they did not hold the power to bind on earth that which would be bound in heaven.

So No, Mormon Doctrine does not contradict the Bible.

I figured it'd be too long and take too much time to reply to all, so I picked out just this portion.

1) You stated, "William Barclay writes it this way;

“…the two will become so completely one that they will no longer be two persons but one. What God has united man must not separate…”

-The idea that man must not separate, doesn't indicate marriage between man and woman is eternal. Romans 7 tells us that the woman is only bound to the law of marriage while on Earth. And the only marriage referenced in Heaven is between Christ and his church.

The Bible does not explicitly teach eternal marriage.

2) The power to "bind in Heaven" from Matt. 16 and 18 are a mistranslation of that passage.

[Jude2]

I figured it'd be too long and take too much time to reply to all, so I picked out just this portion.

......Romans 7 tells us that the woman is only bound to the law of marriage while on Earth. And the only marriage referenced in Heaven is between Christ and his church.

The Bible does not explicitly teach eternal marriage.

You've taken Rom 7 soooo out of context, it’s about the law of Moses

“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? 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.….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….But now we are delivered from the law…”

He’s using marriage under the law of Moses as an example of how the law of Moses is no longer enforce.

With the law of Moses they knew not the power of God, they did not have the sealing power. Christ gave that power to Peter no matter how hard you try to deign it.

I’ll repost this from Paul

“Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord”

And then give you Barclay’s full rendition of Eph 5 starting with verse 25. In verse 31 Paul quotes the same passage Christ quotes in Mark 10.

“…Husbands you must love your wives, as Christ too loved the church and gave himself for it …. No one ever hated his own body. So far from that, he nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ too nourishes and cherishes the church because we are parts of his body. For this cause a man will leave father and mother, and will be inseparably joined to his wife, and they two will become so completely one that they will no longer be two persons, but one. There is here a very great symbol. As I see it, that saying is a symbol of the relationship of Christ and the Church…”

Just as Christ is inseparably joined to his church so too are a husband and wife.

[danielwoods]

You've taken Rom 7 soooo out of context, it’s about the law of Moses

“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? 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.….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….But now we are delivered from the law…”

He’s using marriage under the law of Moses as an example of how the law of Moses is no longer enforce.

With the law of Moses they knew not the power of God, they did not have the sealing power. Christ gave that power to Peter no matter how hard you try to deign it.

I’ll repost this from Paul

“Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord”

And then give you Barclay’s full rendition of Eph 5 starting with verse 25. In verse 31 Paul quotes the same passage Christ quotes in Mark 10.

“…Husbands you must love your wives, as Christ too loved the church and gave himself for it …. No one ever hated his own body. So far from that, he nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ too nourishes and cherishes the church because we are parts of his body. For this cause a man will leave father and mother, and will be inseparably joined to his wife, and they two will become so completely one that they will no longer be two persons, but one. There is here a very great symbol. As I see it, that saying is a symbol of the relationship of Christ and the Church…”

Just as Christ is inseparably joined to his church so too are a husband and wife.

Right, Romans 7 uses the example of marriage, which means that our earthly marriages end at death.

Now it has been argued earlier that Christ introduced an eternal marriage. This of course isn't found anywhere in the NT.

The argument that Peter was given the power to bind or loose things in Heaven is false (sealings) because it is based on a mistranslation of the text (again see the last few pages of this thread).

Your last reference to Ephesians 5 doesn't state that our earthly marriages are eternal. "Inseparable" or "Let no man put asunder" is in the context of this earth. There is only one marriage mentioned in Heaven.

[Vance]

Right, Romans 7 uses the example of marriage, which means that our earthly marriages end at death.

Now it has been argued earlier that Christ introduced an eternal marriage. This of course isn't found anywhere in the NT.

The argument that Peter was given the power to bind or loose things in Heaven is false (sealings) because it is based on a mistranslation of the text (again see the last few pages of this thread).

Your last reference to Ephesians 5 doesn't state that our earthly marriages are eternal. "Inseparable" or "Let no man put asunder" is in the context of this earth. There is only one marriage mentioned in Heaven.

Your dogmatic adherence to weak and sometime spurious arguments is almost admirable.

[teddyaware]

Right, Romans 7 uses the example of marriage, which means that our earthly marriages end at death.

Now it has been argued earlier that Christ introduced an eternal marriage. This of course isn't found anywhere in the NT.

The argument that Peter was given the power to bind or loose things in Heaven is false (sealings) because it is based on a mistranslation of the text (again see the last few pages of this thread).

Your last reference to Ephesians 5 doesn't state that our earthly marriages are eternal. "Inseparable" or "Let no man put asunder" is in the context of this earth. There is only one marriage mentioned in Heaven.

Daniel,

Please carefully consider my multipoint answer to the following question:

What state or condition did Adam and Eve exist in while in the Garden of Eden?

a) They lived in the immediate presence of God, communing closely with Him.

b) They were immortal, having full access to the tree of life.

c) They were in a state of sinless innocence before God.

d) They possessed glorious bodies of flesh and bone.

e) God first having said it was not good that the man, Adam, be alone, He created the woman, Eve, to be

the female counterpart to Adam, in order to be his consort and helpmeet.

f) Adam and Eve were married by God, becoming one flesh through the ordinance of marriage.

g) While yet in the Garden, prior to the fall, God commanded Adam and his wife Eve to multiply through

divinely ordained sexual relations.

H) Adam and Eve were meant to be married forever, bone of each other's bone, flesh of flesh of each other's

flesh (what God hath joined together, let no man put asunder), the fall only bringing what otherwise would

have been their eternal marriage to an end.

To utilize one of your frequently used phrases, 'what I find fascinating is that' non LDS Christians believe Christ came to redeem men from the fall, to return man to the paradisiacal state he lost as a consequence of the fall. So a non-LDS Christian might say Christ came to:

a) Bring mankind back into the immediate presence of God to commune with Him for ever.

b) Restoring to man immortality and full access to the tree of life.

c) Make man innocent before God, to dwell forever in eternity without sin.

d) Change man's vile fallen body to glorious, resurrected spiritual bodies of flesh and bone.

All well, correct and good. But why do the non-LDS Christians not believe in restoring fallen man to the other glorious divine blessings man enjoyed prior to the fall? Namely...

e) God restoring to man the blessing of a special, intimate companion of the opposite sex with which to enjoy

the glories of eternity.

f) God restoring to man that the intimate companion of the opposite sex would be consummated in the

eternal marriage union, just as originally intended for Adam and Eve.

g) Restore to man the blessings eternal family life, divine intimacy and continuation of seeds just as promised

to Adam and Eve before the fall.

h) Restoring to mankind the blessing of being bone of bone and flesh of flesh with a glorious eternal

companion of the opposite sex.

Like it or not, this is the way it was for Adam and Eve before the fall. Nevertheless, we Latter-day Saints are ridiculed when we say we believe in returning to God's original model and plan of happiness. What say you?

Edited July 6, 2013 by teddyaware