danielwoods Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 Matthew 16:19 has no such exclusion. 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. The above is a miss-translation of the passage. No where in the biblical text does it state that people get to tell Heaven what is bound and what is loosed. Do you believe that Christ, in heaven, is male or female or neither? I believe that he appears Male, but is neither. Maleness or femaleness is irrelevant in Heaven, just as black or white or red or yellow. All are one in Christ. In essence, the bonds that bind us in our marriage today are a small taste of the unity we all will have together with Christ in Heaven. As difficult as it is to imagine, consider we will be bonding with the Infinite Creator of all, which is why he calls us the Bride of Christ. Not interpreting a verse identically to you does not mean we ignore it. Do you believe an attribute can still exist and be irrelevant to how the Lord accepts us? Again, my example of hair colour. If LDS say that hair colour exists, does that mean we are ignoring verses that say such things as appearance don't matter to God? What I am seeing is people ignoring the statement that there is no male nor female. While the LDS emphasize gender as an important aspect of their roles here and in Heaven. So, no I don't see it interpreted by the LDS as being irrelevant, like hair color. You are driving that verse farther than it travels. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
thesometimesaint Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 The Bible puts NO exclusion on the Sealing. Neither is the man without the women, nor is woman without the man in the Lord. So we definitely have two sexes. Christ is always referred to as the SON of God. We don't believe in modalism.
wenglund Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 From my understanding, there are things that only men can do (hold a priesthood as an example). This is as it was in New Testament times. I believe it would be a mistake to equate baptism with priesthood authority. Further, the LDS make claims to eternal marriages, which would be effected by such a verse. Or maybe not? Not. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
danielwoods Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 The Bible puts NO exclusion on the Sealing. Neither is the man without the women, nor is woman without the man in the Lord. So we definitely have two sexes. Christ is always referred to as the SON of God. We don't believe in modalism. The doctrine of LDS sealing isn't derived from the biblical text. If you want to look at the miss translation of it, maybe a new thread? We have two sexes here on earth, yes. Christ's name indicates his role, no where in the Bible does it ever include a sexual connotation, for him or his father.
Stone holm Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 The above is a miss-translation of the passage. No where in the biblical text does it state that people get to tell Heaven what is bound and what is loosed. I believe that he appears Male, but is neither. Maleness or femaleness is irrelevant in Heaven, just as black or white or red or yellow. All are one in Christ. In essence, the bonds that bind us in our marriage today are a small taste of the unity we all will have together with Christ in Heaven. As difficult as it is to imagine, consider we will be bonding with the Infinite Creator of all, which is why he calls us the Bride of Christ. What I am seeing is people ignoring the statement that there is no male nor female. While the LDS emphasize gender as an important aspect of their roles here and in Heaven. So, no I don't see it interpreted by the LDS as being irrelevant, like hair color. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You got all of that out of that verse? You say Christ "appears male", is that like saying appearances can be deceiving? or do you think He sheds His body at will? What are you suggesting?
Stone holm Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 The doctrine of LDS sealing isn't derived from the biblical text. If you want to look at the miss translation of it, maybe a new thread? We have two sexes here on earth, yes. Christ's name indicates his role, no where in the Bible does it ever include a sexual connotation, for him or his father. While it is conceivable that the role of being a Christ in some creations might fall to the other gender, and that a heavenly mother might be the presiding god in some creations -- I can't see where the basis is to neuter all the Heavenly Host is located.
danielwoods Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 You got all of that out of that verse? You say Christ "appears male", is that like saying appearances can be deceiving? or do you think He sheds His body at will? What are you suggesting? No not just from this verse. The question was about Heaven. And just as everyone has an appearance in Heaven, unique to themselves (hair color for example), Christ also has an appearance, which I believe is similar to his body when he was on Earth, as a Male. God of course isn't male or female, so Christ's appearance as a male on earth was to fulfill a role and prophecy.
danielwoods Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 While it is conceivable that the role of being a Christ in some creations might fall to the other gender, and that a heavenly mother might be the presiding god in some creations -- I can't see where the basis is to neuter all the Heavenly Host is located. "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." (John 4:24) "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." (Luke 24:39)
thesometimesaint Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 The doctrine of LDS sealing isn't derived from the biblical text. If you want to look at the miss translation of it, maybe a new thread? We have two sexes here on earth, yes. Christ's name indicates his role, no where in the Bible does it ever include a sexual connotation, for him or his father. I never said it was. We have our own Scriptures that we follow. But those ideas are present in the Bible. Where in the Bible does it say that we become sexless after death. Did Christ suddenly loose his maleness upon death. Do we now call him "The it of God"? He is the Savior of all mankind, male and female. That is his roll. The Bible is replete with God, Christ, as males; and humans as being males and females. One of the first commandments by God given to Adam and Eve was to bear children.
thesometimesaint Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." (John 4:24)"See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." (Luke 24:39) Do we give up our bodies when we pray? So Jesus is no longer God?
danielwoods Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 (edited) I never said it was. We have our own Scriptures that we follow. But those ideas are present in the Bible. Where in the Bible does it say that we become sexless after death. Did Christ suddenly loose his maleness upon death. Do we now call him "The it of God"? He is the Savior of all mankind, male and female. That is his roll. The Bible is replete with God, Christ, as males; and humans as being males and females. One of the first commandments by God given to Adam and Eve was to bear children. The ideas aren't in the Bible. Otherwise we agree. The title of Son doesn't refer to his sex. The references in the Bible of God as a male is called an Anthropomorphism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism Do we give up our bodies when we pray? So Jesus is no longer God? Neither is implied in the verses I quoted. Edited November 8, 2013 by danielwoods
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 The ideas aren't in the Bible. Otherwise we agree. The title of Son doesn't refer to his sex. The references in the Bible of God as a male is called an Anthropomorphism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism Neither is implied in the verses I quoted.I guess it depends one what the defintion of "his" is. Lol!
thesometimesaint Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 From Genesis to Revelation the Bible is replete with God being a sexual being. We are made in his likeness and image male and female. God in the Bible confirms that mankind has become like God. So do we call the Son of God the "It" of God? Anthropomorphism is the giving of human qualities to non-humans. IE; When we look at the moon we "see" a man in the moon. but we know the moon isn't human. Is God now not human. Is he a giant green spaghetti monster that only chooses to look like humans. What are you implying then? If God has a physical body(which Christ certainly does) do we have to give up ours if we are to pray to him in spirit?
danielwoods Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 From Genesis to Revelation the Bible is replete with God being a sexual being. We are made in his likeness and image male and female. God in the Bible confirms that mankind has become like God. So do we call the Son of God the "It" of God? Anthropomorphism is the giving of human qualities to non-humans. IE; When we look at the moon we "see" a man in the moon. but we know the moon isn't human. Is God now not human. Is he a giant green spaghetti monster that only chooses to look like humans. What are you implying then? If God has a physical body(which Christ certainly does) do we have to give up ours if we are to pray to him in spirit? God isn't a sexual being even once in the Bible. God isn't human and never was, hence the anthropomorphisms. God clothed himself with human flesh in Jesus to connect/save us. We pray in the spirit by using our spirit to connect to his.
thesometimesaint Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 CFR CFR CFR I agree, but has nothing to do God having a body.
Stone holm Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 God isn't a sexual being even once in the Bible.God isn't human and never was, hence the anthropomorphisms.God clothed himself with human flesh in Jesus to connect/save us.We pray in the spirit by using our spirit to connect to his. So I take it that you don't believe God was the father of Jesus Christ by Mary?LDS believe otherwise.We agree that Christ was born to save us, but we don't believe he pops in and out of his body -- what would be the point of a resurrection if the spirit form without the body is the ideal form?True there is spirit to spirit connections, that is why the Holy Ghost is capable of the most intense interaction...but what does that have to do with whether God has a body?
Calm Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 What I am seeing is people ignoring the statement that there is no male nor female. While the LDS emphasize gender as an important aspect of their roles here and in Heaven. So, no I don't see it interpreted by the LDS as being irrelevant, like hair color. I am not asking about how you see the LDS interpretation, but your own interpretation. Do YOU believe that just because an attribute is irrelevant to whether Christ accepts us as one of his own, that it does not exist?
EllenMaksoud Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 So I take it that you don't believe God was the father of Jesus Christ by Mary?LDS believe otherwise.We agree that Christ was born to save us, but we don't believe he pops in and out of his body -- what would be the point of a resurrection if the spirit form without the body is the ideal form?True there is spirit to spirit connections, that is why the Holy Ghost is capable of the most intense interaction...but what does that have to do with whether God has a body?The idea that someone had intercourse to have Jesus Christ is something I had not heretofore explored. And God being God, it is my guess that he just took two of Mary's eggs and um made a baby. He can do that if he wants to. I just can't handle the idea of an angel sneaking in through the window.
danielwoods Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 CFR CFR CFR I agree, but has nothing to do God having a body. Not sure how to demonstrate two different negatives. You may attempt to show me scriptures that provide the positive side of your CFR's. However, God isn't a sexual being ever. Nor was God ever Human according to the Bible alone. And John 1:14 answers your third one. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. So I take it that you don't believe God was the father of Jesus Christ by Mary? LDS believe otherwise. We agree that Christ was born to save us, but we don't believe he pops in and out of his body -- what would be the point of a resurrection if the spirit form without the body is the ideal form? True there is spirit to spirit connections, that is why the Holy Ghost is capable of the most intense interaction...but what does that have to do with whether God has a body? Right, I don't see anywhere in the Bible where God is sexual and used that with Mary. I am not asking about how you see the LDS interpretation, but your own interpretation. Do YOU believe that just because an attribute is irrelevant to whether Christ accepts us as one of his own, that it does not exist? My goal was to understand how the LDS interpreted those verses. No I don't believe just because and attribute is irrelevant, that therefore it doesn't exist. I think there will be many ways that we're distinguishable in Heaven.
Calm Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 No I don't believe just because and attribute is irrelevant, that therefore it doesn't exist. I think there will be many ways that we're distinguishable in Heaven. So why is it a problem that LDS believe this?
danielwoods Posted November 9, 2013 Posted November 9, 2013 So why is it a problem that LDS believe this? I don't think I ever claimed it was a problem.
pogi Posted November 9, 2013 Posted November 9, 2013 The title of Son doesn't refer to his sex. Huh? How does the masculine "son" not refer to his sex? He is not and was not a daughter, a high priestess, or the Queen of Queens. His titles of son, priest, and king all refer to his sex.
Calm Posted November 9, 2013 Posted November 9, 2013 I don't think I ever claimed it was a problem. But you said this "people ignoring the statement that there is no male nor female" which to me implies that you see us as interpreting it wrongly when all we are doing is interpreting it in the way you do other attributes that have nothing to do with whether God saves us or not.
Stone holm Posted November 9, 2013 Posted November 9, 2013 The idea that someone had intercourse to have Jesus Christ is something I had not heretofore explored. And God being God, it is my guess that he just took two of Mary's eggs and um made a baby. He can do that if he wants to. I just can't handle the idea of an angel sneaking in through the window.Interesting concept. There are of course incidents of Virgin birth that occur in the manner you indicated. But there is one biological flaw in that concept. The flaw is that the when either two eggs somehow generate a pregnancy, or the more likely cause is one egg goes haywire and divides to create a pregnancy. The sex of the child is female. You see women have two X chromosomes and men have an X and a Y chromosome. In order to have a son be born, the father must provide a Y chromosome.But let's leave the fundamental biology out of this. On what occasion do the Scriptures teach that Christ was anything other than the Son of God. Is that not a belief which is a fundamental tenet of any group claiming the name Christian? Is not Christ born of the Father, crucified, and physical resurrected a part of the faith of any group claiming to be Christian?
EllenMaksoud Posted November 9, 2013 Posted November 9, 2013 Interesting concept. There are of course incidents of Virgin birth that occur in the manner you indicated. But there is one biological flaw in that concept. The flaw is that the when either two eggs somehow generate a pregnancy, or the more likely cause is one egg goes haywire and divides to create a pregnancy. The sex of the child is female. You see women have two X chromosomes and men have an X and a Y chromosome. In order to have a son be born, the father must provide a Y chromosome.But let's leave the fundamental biology out of this. On what occasion do the Scriptures teach that Christ was anything other than the Son of God. Is that not a belief which is a fundamental tenet of any group claiming the name Christian? Is not Christ born of the Father, crucified, and physical resurrected a part of the faith of any group claiming to be Christian?I've had to suspend my disagreement on certain issues because of the power of Heavenly Father in my own life, here and now, not on what happened to someone in 1820. I maintain that Heavenly Father is who he says he is and that he was fully able to create a male from two eggs, or create a male from one egg, or do what ever he wished to do at the time. The test of our faith is that God can do things outside our understanding, save who he wishes, condemn who he wishes, go where he wishes and assume the form he wishes. He is God and we are not. It is not a vital requirement that we understand or can justify what he does. That is the essence of faith.
Recommended Posts