Gender Is Eternal

[pogi]

1Corinthians 9:5 what say you?

 

You answer me first on 1Corinthians 7:8-9.  In fact, try to explain vs. 25-27, 32-34, 37-38.

 

Paul makes it pretty clear that to remain single and celibate is "better" (vs 38) than getting married.  He believes that those who are married are burdened with the cares of the world and cannot serve God as well as those who are unmarried.  Of course, he is careful to point out that this is only his opinion and not doctrine.  In verse 25 he says "now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord; yet I give my judgment…"  He closes in vs 40 by saying "and I think also that I have the Spirit of God." He feels strongly about his beliefs but falls short of stating, "thus sayeth the Lord."

Edited November 10, 2013 by pogi

[pogi]

Romans 7:1 "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."

 

Which points out that what "God joined together..." is no longer together after death. 

 

 

I don't come to the same conclusion.   These verses are speaking of mortal law, not eternal sealing.  

 

 

 

Flyonthewall is correct. And the verse hasn't anything to do with marriage. As Jesus plainly stated that there is no married or marriage in heaven (except his). Luke 20:35 "But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage."

 

Compare Matt 16:19 to 1corinthians 7:27.  Would not the "whatsoever" in Matt 16:19 apply to 1corinthians 7:27?  I would have to conclude that Matt 16:19 is about marriage, and everything else that the keys and authority of God binds. 

[Stone holm]

I don't come to the same conclusion.   These verses are speaking of mortal law, not eternal sealing.  

 

 

 

Compare Matt 16:19 to 1corinthians 7:27.  Would not the "whatsoever" in Matt 16:19 apply to 1corinthians 7:27?  I would have to conclude that Matt 16:19 is about marriage, and everything else that the keys and authority of God binds.

The first is merely refusing to recognize divorce, not granting an eternal divorce because of death.

[danielwoods]

I don't come to the same conclusion.   These verses are speaking of mortal law, not eternal sealing.  

 

 

 

Compare Matt 16:19 to 1corinthians 7:27.  Would not the "whatsoever" in Matt 16:19 apply to 1corinthians 7:27?  I would have to conclude that Matt 16:19 is about marriage, and everything else that the keys and authority of God binds. 

 

Romans 7 is talking about marriage. There is no "eternal sealing" (aside from salvation) in the biblical text. The idea that we have enough information to "seal" ourselves eternally to another human isn't taught either. The only sealing that is eternal is in relationship to God. 

 

 

The "key's to the kingdom" are to know and have access to what is already bound and loosed in heaven, as seen in Peter's example in Acts 10. It has nothing to do with marriage or eternal sealing to another human. 

 

"Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." - Paul instruction to new believers who thought they should do something drastic due to the circumstances at that time. 

[pogi]

 

The "key's to the kingdom" are to know and have access to what is already bound and loosed in heaven, as seen in Peter's example in Acts 10. It has nothing to do with marriage or eternal sealing to another human. 

 

 

That's not what the text says in Matt 16.  I know that you think it is a mistranslation, so we are just going to have to agree to disagree.  I don't understand your reference to Acts 10.  It does not mention "keys" or binding and loosing powers.  Can you explain?  

 

 

"Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." - Paul instruction to new believers who thought they should do something drastic due to the circumstances at that time. 

 

I agree with you on this verse.  I used this verse to point out that the "binding" and "loosing" powers given to Peter would indeed apply to marriage as "binding" and "loosing" is required.  Before the keys were given to Peter, the binding powers were for time only.  That is as far as the law could go.  Christ gave Peter the authority to bind couples eternally.  

Edited November 10, 2013 by pogi

[Sleeper Cell]

 

Matt. 16:19 is miss-translated. We never tell heaven what will be bound or loosed. 

Please clarify.  Are you aware of any version of the Bible that has translated Matt 16:19 correctly, or did you conclude that this verse must have been translated incorrectly because you believe it contradicts Biblical doctrine?  If the former, please identify the version that “got it right” and provide us with the correct translation of this verse.

[thesometimesaint]

I do believe BY taught it, could be wrong but think he did.

He said it was in an natural way. Whatever that means. It is possible that he knew about AI in farm animals.

[thesometimesaint]

Thank you. 

 

 

 

What do I make of them? 

 

Mark 10 is talking about here on Earth only. 

 

How do we know that death stops the binding power of God? Because Romans 7 states that is the case. 

 

Matt. 16:19 is miss-translated. We never tell heaven what will be bound or loosed. 

 

Not supportable from the Bible. IE; Repentance and Baptism are just two things that are bound in both.

[danielwoods]

That's not what the text says in Matt 16.  I know that you think it is a mistranslation, so we are just going to have to agree to disagree.  I don't understand your reference to Acts 10.  It does not mention "keys" or binding and loosing powers.  Can you explain?  

 

 

I agree with you on this verse.  I used this verse to point out that the "binding" and "loosing" powers given to Peter would indeed apply to marriage as "binding" and "loosing" is required.  Before the keys were given to Peter, the binding powers were for time only.  That is as far as the law could go.  Christ gave Peter the authority to bind couples eternally.  

 

Binding and loosing are simply legal terms in Jewish vernacular. Something is legal if it is loosed, and illegal if it is bound. In Acts 10 God tells Peter, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” In essence, it wasn't Peter telling God what was bound or loosed (legal or illegal), rather the "Keys to the Kingdom" were access to knowledge about what is legal and not or clean or not. I have given you keys of knowledge, not to tell heaven what is bound or loosed, but to learn what is already bound and loosed from heaven. 

 

Please clarify.  Are you aware of any version of the Bible that has translated Matt 16:19 correctly, or did you conclude that this verse must have been translated incorrectly because you believe it contradicts Biblical doctrine?  If the former, please identify the version that “got it right” and provide us with the correct translation of this verse.

 

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.

 

http://livingtheway.org/binding.html

 

Translators make interpretive decisions too. Initially the phrase doesn't make sense unless you understand the culture and concepts of binding and loosing.

In essence, God never gives us the ability to dictate to him what is right or wrong or legal or illegal. The flow of authority is always from God.

Here's two: 

Matthew 16:19 NAS

New American Standard

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

Matthew 16:19 YLT

Young's Literal Translation

and I will give to thee the keys of the reign of the heavens, and whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens.' 

 

 

Not supportable from the Bible. IE; Repentance and Baptism are just two things that are bound in both.

 

Repentance and Baptism aren't binding and loosing (legal and illegal) concepts. Rather are submission to God's authority. 

 

You are correct, though. The only thing that we determine on Earth that has eternal consequences is our salvation. 

[pogi]

Binding and loosing are simply legal terms in Jewish vernacular. Something is legal if it is loosed, and illegal if it is bound. 

 

Christ's use of the words in Matt 16 were beyond simple legal terms used on earth, but are eternal and heavenly principles used in heaven and enacted through the "keys of the kingdom."

 

"Binding and loosing" do not mean "legal and illegal."  At least that is not how Paul used the words in 1Corinthians 7.  He used them in reference to being married (bound) or divorced (loosed).

 

 

Repentance and Baptism aren't binding and loosing (legal and illegal) concepts. Rather are submission to God's authority. 

 

 

Baptism is a binding into the covenant and to the Savior much like a binding in marriage as spoken of in 1Corinthians 7.  It has many symbolic parallels to marriage such as becoming one, entering into a new covenant and a new family.  It is a binding adoption through the authority and keys of God.  It has eternal consequences.  That is what Christ meant when he said whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.  In other words, whomsoever you baptize on earth through the proper authority shall be recognized in heaven.  

Edited November 11, 2013 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

God isn't human and never was, hence the anthropomorphisms.

God clothed himself with human flesh in Jesus to connect/save us.

These are two contradictory statements, unless Jesus was never God.

[Stone holm]

These are two contradictory statements, unless Jesus was never God.

Oh I think the JWs believe something similar with Christ popping in and out of a physical body.

[danielwoods]

Christ's use of the words in Matt 16 were beyond simple legal terms used on earth, but are eternal and heavenly principles used in heaven and enacted through the "keys of the kingdom."

 

"Binding and loosing" do not mean "legal and illegal."  At least that is not how Paul used the words in 1Corinthians 7.  He used them in reference to being married (bound) or divorced (loosed).

 

 

Baptism is a binding into the covenant and to the Savior much like a binding in marriage as spoken of in 1Corinthians 7.  It has many symbolic parallels to marriage such as becoming one, entering into a new covenant and a new family.  It is a binding adoption through the authority and keys of God.  It has eternal consequences.  That is what Christ meant when he said whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.  In other words, whomsoever you baptize on earth through the proper authority shall be recognized in heaven.

 

From everything I've read on the subject of binding and loosing you are incorrect. Feel free to point me to a source that states that binding and loosing are not Jewish legal terms.

Being "bound" in marriage is certainly based on the law.

As for Matt. 16, the words, "Shall be bound in heaven" isn't what it says based on the greek tense.

I understand what you are saying, and the point of view of the LDS, and how foundational it is. My intent is not disrespect, my only point is that this isn't what the biblical text states.

 

These are two contradictory statements, unless Jesus was never God.

Correct. If I was using "God" and "Jesus" to refer to the same person. I was not.

Further, there is a timing difference as well. Jesus didn't have a body until he became flesh and dwelt among us.

[pogi]

 

From everything I've read on the subject of binding and loosing you are incorrect. Feel free to point me to a source that states that binding and loosing are not Jewish legal terms.

 

I don't disagree that they are legal terms.  Because they were legal terms does not mean that they cannot also be eternal principles such as justice, law, judgment, etc.  Christ clearly was not using them in a legal sense. 

 

It doesn't matter if you use the "perfect passive" translation of Matt 16 or not, you cannot ignore the fact that binding and loosing happens in heaven as Christ pointed out.   We then see in 1Corinthians that those exact same terms are used in reference to marriage.  Makes one wonder what Christ meant by "whatsoever ye shall bind...", doesn't  "whatsoever" include marriage?  If not, why?  Peter would have recognized those terms to mean marriage and diverse in one sense as used by Paul later in Corinthians. 

 

 

Something is legal if it is loosed, and illegal if it is bound. 

 

This is what I was disagreeing with.  They may have been legal terms, but that is not what they meant.  

 

So, what was binding and loosing in reference to if not the ordinances of the gospel of baptism, etc?  What binding do we do on earth that "has already been done" or "shall be done," in heaven, depending on how you translate that verse?  What is your understanding of that verse?  What are the keys of the kingdom and what are their relation to binding and loosing?

Edited November 11, 2013 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

Correct. If I was using "God" and "Jesus" to refer to the same person. I was not.

Oh yes, the magic of the "trinity". What a wonderful word that can mean anything you like! It can be one when you need it to be or three if that is convenient! Great stuff! Edited November 11, 2013 by mfbukowski

[strappinglad]

I'm curious , danielwoods, how do interpret Genesis 1: 26-27 ? Who is the " us " spoken of ? And if God create mankind in His /Our own image , then is God male or female or both or neither ? And I will need a CFR  on your answer whatever it is. Perhaps there is more than one God involved in the creation process. Maybe there is a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father and they are both involved in the creation process so that the statement in Genesis 1 makes complete sense. Or perhaps God has a masculine side and a feminine side. I think mfb has the correct idea about the OP. Much of this is unknowable for now. Other than God not being able to build a stone so big that He cannot lift it, let's not arbitrarily restrict His abilities.

[danielwoods]

I don't disagree that they are legal terms.  Because they were legal terms does not mean that they cannot also be eternal principles such as justice, law, judgment, etc.  Christ clearly was not using them in a legal sense. 

 

It doesn't matter if you use the "perfect passive" translation of Matt 16 or not, you cannot ignore the fact that binding and loosing happens in heaven as Christ pointed out.   We then see in 1Corinthians that those exact same terms are used in reference to marriage.  Makes one wonder what Christ meant by "whatsoever ye shall bind...", doesn't  "whatsoever" include marriage?  If not, why?  Peter would have recognized those terms to mean marriage and diverse in one sense as used by Paul later in Corinthians. 

 

 

 

This is what I was disagreeing with.  They may have been legal terms, but that is not what they meant.  

 

So, what was binding and loosing in reference to if not the ordinances of the gospel of baptism, etc?  What binding do we do on earth that "has already been done" or "shall be done," in heaven, depending on how you translate that verse?  What is your understanding of that verse?  What are the keys of the kingdom and what are their relation to binding and loosing?

 

Marriage on this earth is what they are talking about, since there is only one marriage in heaven (with Christ). 

 

You may infer, "What they meant." I am only able to analyze what we have written down. 

 

As to what does binding and loosing mean? Christ was telling Peter that as a believer, he has access (keys) to the kingdom of heaven, to learn and understand what is already bound or loosed in heaven, just as Peter found out in Acts 10 that all foods are clean. 

 

Oh yes, the magic of the "trinity". What a wonderful word that can mean anything you like! It can be one when you need it to be or three if that is convenient! Great stuff!

 

The LDS view isn't that much different, not that we need to get into it. 

[danielwoods]

I'm curious , danielwoods, how do interpret Genesis 1: 26-27 ? Who is the " us " spoken of ? And if God create mankind in His /Our own image , then is God male or female or both or neither ? And I will need a CFR  on your answer whatever it is. Perhaps there is more than one God involved in the creation process. Maybe there is a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father and they are both involved in the creation process so that the statement in Genesis 1 makes complete sense. Or perhaps God has a masculine side and a feminine side. I think mfb has the correct idea about the OP. Much of this is unknowable for now. Other than God not being able to build a stone so big that He cannot lift it, let's not arbitrarily restrict His abilities.

 

The Jewish answer is that the "royal we" is used in Gen. 1. For believers in Christ, the answer is that it's both. The "Royal We" and an allusion to God's nature as three in one. 

 

As for the "image of God" I don't think it has much to do with male or female or even our body shape. I think it has more to do with who we are inside, as in our Moral/Intellectual/Emotional/Spiritual aspect to our being. 

[thesometimesaint]

Binding and loosing are simply legal terms in Jewish vernacular. Something is legal if it is loosed, and illegal if it is bound. In Acts 10 God tells Peter, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” In essence, it wasn't Peter telling God what was bound or loosed (legal or illegal), rather the "Keys to the Kingdom" were access to knowledge about what is legal and not or clean or not. I have given you keys of knowledge, not to tell heaven what is bound or loosed, but to learn what is already bound and loosed from heaven. 

 

 

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.

 

http://livingtheway.org/binding.html

 

Translators make interpretive decisions too. Initially the phrase doesn't make sense unless you understand the culture and concepts of binding and loosing.

In essence, God never gives us the ability to dictate to him what is right or wrong or legal or illegal. The flow of authority is always from God.

Here's two: 

Matthew 16:19 NAS

New American Standard

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

Matthew 16:19 YLT

Young's Literal Translation

and I will give to thee the keys of the reign of the heavens, and whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens.' 

 

 

 

Repentance and Baptism aren't binding and loosing (legal and illegal) concepts. Rather are submission to God's authority. 

 

You are correct, though. The only thing that we determine on Earth that has eternal consequences is our salvation. 

 

Sophistry. We are all subject to Gods' authority when we repent and are baptized in this life and it is in effect in the next.

[wenglund]

Marriage on this earth is what they are talking about, since there is only one marriage in heaven (with Christ). 

 

You may infer, "What they meant." I am only able to analyze what we have written down. 

 

As to what does binding and loosing mean? Christ was telling Peter that as a believer, he has access (keys) to the kingdom of heaven, to learn and understand what is already bound or loosed in heaven, just as Peter found out in Acts 10 that all foods are clean. 

 

 

The LDS view isn't that much different, not that we need to get into it. 

 

There is sufficient ambiguity in the Bible to allow for various beliefs on this matter, including your's.

 

I happen to prefer the LDS interpretation (which includes marriage of the Church to Christ, but also authorized eternal marriages between men and women), which I believe fits nicely with the declaration in Matt, 19:6, "What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." (See also Matt 19:3-; Gen 2:24), as well as 1Pet 3:7, where the grace of life is said to be "their's together" (referring to husbands and wives).

 

To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Lightbearer]

It's not scripture as long as it hasn't been presented by the First Presidency as such and accepted by vote by the membership of the church.

Not a part of the standard works yet, but I think it could be defined as scripture from the following definition:

 "And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation."

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 68:4)

It is definitly doctrine, because it is published in the current Gospel Doctrine Sunday School manual. So it is TRUE! Notwithstanding the political blige that is being spewed daily in the media.

[Stone holm]

Not a part of the standard works yet, but I think it could be defined as scripture from the following definition:

It is definitly doctrine, because it is published in the current Gospel Doctrine Sunday School manual. So it is TRUE! Notwithstanding the political blige that is being spewed daily in the media.

 

Which "bilge"?

[mfbukowski]

The LDS view isn't that much different, not that we need to get into it.

The LDS view is totally different. For us, "God" is a family essentially. Three persons, one purpose.

Three

Totally

Separate

Persons.

Totally different. It makes sense. And yes, I have read the Book of Mormon.

[pogi]

 

As to what does binding and loosing mean? Christ was telling Peter that as a believer, he has access (keys) to the kingdom of heaven, to learn and understand what is already bound or loosed in heaven, just as Peter found out in Acts 10 that all foods are clean. 

 

 

Just to clarify, are you saying - 

 

Keys of the kingdom of heaven = Authority to receive revelation?

 

Binding and loosing = Making illegal (forbidden) and legal (acceptable)?

[danielwoods]

Just to clarify, are you saying - 

 

Keys of the kingdom of heaven = Authority to receive revelation?

 

Binding and loosing = Making illegal (forbidden) and legal (acceptable)?

 

Yes that is essentially correct.