smac97 Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 > Some time ago one of our LDS critic friends posted that THE LORD OF LIFE JESUS CHRIST was not male anymore after he ascended to Heaven in Acts 1:9-10 and has no real sexual identity there in the Heavenly sphere where [He ?] resides. I was under the impression that we [along with millions of other Christians call him the GOD "MAN"]. What are the thoughts of any on this Topic/Subject ?. Grace to all.==Christ's sonship (and, hence, his gender) is referenced in the context of several post-Ascension events: Matt. 13: 41: The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity.Matt. 16:27: For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.Matt. 16:28: Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.Matt. 19:28: And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.Matt. 24:27: For as the lightning cometh out of the beast, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.Matt. 24:30: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.Matt. 24:37: But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.Matt. 24:39: And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.Matt. 25:31: When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory.Matt. 26:64: Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.Mark 8:38: Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.Mark 13:26: And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.Mark 14:62: And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.Luke 9:26: For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father Link to comment
roman Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 The term "son of man" is more of a title having to do with position and absolutly nothing to do with gender Link to comment
johnny Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 smac97 writes, ==Christ's sonship (and, hence, his gender) is referenced in the context of several post-Ascension events: Does the Holy Spirit have a gender?"Angels" (spirits who do not have a resurrected body) are called "sons of God" ... does this mean that they are "sons" or are their some "angels" who are "daughters of God"? Link to comment
dacook Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 After watching "Sister Act" last night I was curious about catholic nuns, so I looked up a few things. I found the following in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, refering to nuns;"From the earliest times they were called the spouses of Christ, according to St. Athanasius, the custom of the Church ("Apol. ad Constant.", sec. 33; Migne, "p.G.", XXV, 639)"This is pertinent here, I think. If nuns are the spouses of Christ, wouldn't Christ necessarily have to be male, given the Catholic church's known stand for marriage as a man/woman-only arrangement?If the term spouse is only metaphorical, why are not priests or other male Catholics metaphorically wedded to this sexless being as well? Why only women?Though it's off the topic a bit, this status of nuns as spouses of Christ seems to be tacit acceptance of polygamy by the Catholic church, at least on a spiritual level .Comment from our Catholic friends? Link to comment
Mormon Factor Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 Neither the woman without the man and the man without the woman in the Lord. MF Link to comment
emaughan Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 Does the Holy Spirit have a gender?Yes - LDS theology, and I guess not in Catholic theology."Angels" (spirits who do not have a resurrected body) are called "sons of God" ... does this mean that they are "sons" or are their some "angels" who are "daughters of God"?YES, isn't it clear to you guys from the scriptures and our very creation that "gender counts". Why do you promote the almighty Father as some sort of asexual, incomprehensible, 3 in 1 - 1 in 3, mystery!? How can we come to obey the commandment to know God when philosophers have turned Him (or should I say It) into this convoluted mess?I hear Roman say that son of God does not imply gender!?!?! What does the word son mean Roman? Why are you changing the simple meaning in the scriptures to steal away the divine sonship and realationship between Christ and His Father - His God and our God? Likeness doesn't mean likeness, he doesn't really mean he, son does not imply gender nor does father imply masculinity. Don't you guys see just how much you've moved away from plain and simple truths in order to adapt a non-biblical philosophy?Mankind has gender.The angels have gender.The Holy Spirit has gender.Christ is a Man as is His Father.All above are of the same family. Gender in man exist because we come from the family of God. Turn God into a strange, incomprensible thing which has more incommon with an amoeba (no shape, no gender, asexual) than the higher forms of life that HE created. As I said, I'll stick with what the bible says. Link to comment
mnn727 Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 The term "son of man" is more of a title having to do with position and absolutly nothing to do with gender Says you! Link to comment
smac97 Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 > The term "son of man" is more of a title having to do with position and absolutly nothing to do with gender==I disagree. Meanwhile, what do you make of Acts 1:11, which says " this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven?" When he comes, will he be a "he?"> Does the Holy Spirit have a gender?==Yes, I believe so.> "Angels" (spirits who do not have a resurrected body) are called "sons of God" ... does this mean that they are "sons" or are their some "angels" who are "daughters of God"?==Perhaps. That's a question I'll have to ponder.-Smac Link to comment
johnny Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 dacook writes, This is pertinent here, I think. If nuns are the spouses of Christ, wouldn't Christ necessarily have to be male, given the Catholic church's known stand for marriage as a man/woman-only arrangement? The Catholic Church does teach that Christ is male ... it teaches that his " Christ's Ascension marks the definitive entrance of Jesus' humanity into God's heavenly domain, whence he will come again" and that "Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father ... his flesh was glorified" Though it's off the topic a bit, this status of nuns as spouses of Christ seems to be tacit acceptance of polygamy by the Catholic church, at least on a spiritual level The Catholic Church does not accept polygamy ... it teaches that " Polygamy is incompatible with the unity of marriage". Link to comment
johnny Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 emaughan writes, > Does the Holy Spirit have a gender? Yes - LDS theology, and I guess not in Catholic theology. The Holy Spirit is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. YES, isn't it clear to you guys from the scriptures and our very creation that "gender counts". Why do you promote the almighty Father as some sort of asexual, incomprehensible, 3 in 1 - 1 in 3, mystery!? How can we come to obey the commandment to know God when philosophers have turned Him (or should I say It) into this convoluted mess? I promote the almighty Father as some sort of mystery because this is what the Bible reveals ... 1Tim 1:3:16 talks about "they mystery of godliness". I do not see it as a convoluted mess. I hear Roman say that son of God does not imply gender!?!?! What does the word son mean Roman? I would agree that the "son of God" is a title. In the Old Testament, "son of God" is a title given to the angels, the Chosen People, the children of Israel, and their kings. [Cf. Dt 14:1; (LXX) 32:8; Job 1:6; Ex 4:22; Hos 2:1; 11:1; Jer 3:19; Sir 36:11; Wis 18:13; 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 82:6] It signifies an adoptive sonship that establishes a relationship of particular intimacy between God and his creature. Why are you changing the simple meaning in the scriptures to steal away the divine sonship and realationship between Christ and His Father - His God and our God? Christ is son of God by nature and not by adoption. Men can become adopted children of God by partaking of the divine nature. Likeness doesn't mean likeness, he doesn't really mean he, son does not imply gender nor does father imply masculinity. Don't you guys see just how much you've moved away from plain and simple truths in order to adapt a non-biblical philosophy? What part is non-biblical ... could you provide scriptures to support your reasoning? Mankind has gender.The angels have gender.The Holy Spirit has gender.Christ is a Man as is His Father. Mankind and Christ have gender.Angesl, the Holy Spirit, and the Father do not have gender because they are pure spirit.All above are of the same family. If we are all the same family why must man be adopted?Gender in man exist because we come from the family of God. If we comes from the family of God why must man be born again? Turn God into a strange, incomprensible thing which has more incommon with an amoeba (no shape, no gender, asexual) than the higher forms of life that HE created. As I said, I'll stick with what the bible says. God is the creator ... man is his creation ... this is what the bible reveals. Link to comment
johnny Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 mnn727 writes, The differance is that God the father and Jesus Christ are 2 different 'beings' God and the Son of God are "one in being" (John 1:1). Link to comment
Dale Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 LDS might reply to the one being thing by asking who say's? They appear to be treated as two modern persons in John 17. Nothing in scripture wholly defines them as One being completely. John 1 might start out by expressing the Godhead mono-theistically but does John 17 go as far? Where does scripture say whenever it discusses the three that they are persons in another sense. I heard the creedal writers compared the persons to an actor & his face mask in pa play that's three persons but not really. Who say's the three arn't real persons like human persons are? Mixing mono-theism & polytheism is hardly Jewish mono-theism. LDS can believe anything they want. Just some words for thought.Sincerely,Dale Link to comment
johnny Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 Dale writes, LDS might reply to the one being thing by asking who say's? It is not "one being" but it is "one in being" ... their is a difference ... John 1:1 reveals "one in being". 2Cor 5:19 reveals God was in Christ. They appear to be treated as two modern persons in John 17. John 17 and John 1 are describing two different things. John 17 is a prayer of unity. John 1 is describing "one in being".For more discussion see the following link:John 17 - Jesus' prayer of unityNothing in scripture wholly defines them as One being completely. Try the following verses:- In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Col 2:9) - God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself (2Cor 5:19) John 1 might start out by expressing the Godhead mono-theistically but does John 17 go as far? God is one but not solitary ... again John 1 and John 17 are describing two different things ... John 17 is talking about glory.Where does scripture say whenever it discusses the three that they are persons in another sense Where in in the Bible does it talk about three Gods like Joseph Smith taught?The Bible reveals one God ... the bible reveals three persons ... the bible reveals one God in three persons. Who say's the three arn't real persons like human persons are? For one thing the Bible does not reveal that the three are real persons like human persons, only the teachings of Joseph Smith reveal this. mnn727 writes, 1 IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was GodSorry, 2 seperate beings fits this verse perfectly. Two seperate persons fit this verse ... two seperate Gods does not fit this verse ... LDS theology teaches two seperate Gods. Link to comment
LDS4EVER Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 Two seperate persons fit this verse ... two seperate Gods does not fit this verse ... LDS theology teaches two seperate Gods.IF John 1 tells us that God and the word (Jesus) are two separate beings....which it does.AND IF John 1 tells us the Jesus is God...which it does.THENYou have two Gods.NON-LDS churches may not teach the plurality of Gods, but the scripture clearly do....unless, as Johnny has told me once before, Jesus is not God. Link to comment
johnny Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 LDS4EVER writes, IF John 1 tells us that God and the word (Jesus) are two separate beings....which it does.AND IF John 1 tells us the Jesus is God...which it does.THENYou have two Gods. If it is two seperate Gods how can it be that "the Word was with God, and the Word was God" ... could you explain this ...How does your answer fit with other scriptures found in 1Timothy? 1 Timothy 1:2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. NON-LDS churches may not teach the plurality of Gods, but the scripture clearly do....unless, as Johnny has told me once before, Jesus is not God. The Bible reveals that the Son (Jesus) is not the Father (God). Link to comment
mnn727 Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 Though it's off the topic a bit, this status of nuns as spouses of Christ seems to be tacit acceptance of polygamy by the Catholic church, at least on a spiritual level The Catholic Church does not accept polygamy ... it teaches that " Polygamy is incompatible with the unity of marriage". Then why does Christ have so many brides (ie nuns) they are DEFINATLY called the Brides of Christ. The RCC's Christ is the ultimate polygamist Link to comment
emaughan Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 I'm still shocked to learn that Catholics believe God is genderless. King, Lord, Prince (of Peace), He, Son, Father, Man of Rightousness - how did Satan manage to castrate God given all the clear masculine langauge in reference to Him. Even if one believes He is only a spirit - where did the doctrine that spirits have no gender by nature originate? Using biblical language (again even if you believe God is spirit only) why ignore all the masculine pronouns that refer to HIM our God?I can understand why some may believe that God is just a spirit based on the bible. I can understand why some think that they should go to church on Saturday instead of Sunday - based on the bible. There are many doctrines that I can see how, just using the bible, one could come to different conclusions. I do not see how people - using just the bible - can state that our almighty Father in Heaven is not really a Man but some asexual mystery being?Why has gender come to viewed as something lesser, or evil and asexuality is higher or more noble? God's very creations show us the opposite. It is the higher life forms that have gender and the lower that are genderless. I believe folks can learn much about the creator by studying His works as well as His words. Part of the justification that God is genderless is because He is only a spirit. Not only do I disagree with the premise that spirits must be genderless, but I also disagree with the assumption that God is only a spirit - but that leads us into a seperate issue. You also have the quandry of why Christ has a body and God does not, and if Christ is genderless as is His Father (wow - more genderles terms ) - who neutered the body of Christ? Did Christ just ditch His body (if so show me where it states that)? Link to comment
LDS4EVER Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 that makes...TWO GODS! Both of which are male. There, I didn't hyjack the thread. Link to comment
johnny Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 mnn727 writes, Then why does Christ have so many brides (ie nuns) they are DEFINATLY called the Brides of Christ. The RCC's Christ is the ultimate polygamist The Bible calls the Church "the bride, the Lamb's wife" ... it does not say "the brides". Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.