tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post2695870481173255286..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: Jesus and the Definition of MarriageKent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-4972133546932601282013-04-26T12:55:39.559-07:002013-04-26T12:55:39.559-07:00Thanks again.
In the Matthew text, Jesus says the...Thanks again.<br /><br />In the Matthew text, Jesus says they did not know scripture, and, you're right, it is more than just the quote from Exodus to which Jesus refers at the end. They didn't understand the resurrection, even as presented by the OT. In the first part, the understanding of non-procreative beings, like the angels, is the other scriptural idea. Angels don't procreate because there is no need to replenish, since they don't die. That's the point.<br /><br />It doesn't relate to the verses to which you refer. The hypothetical is, if they had not sinned, would they have had children? When God told them to replenish the earth, He had the knowledge that they were in fact going to sin. He knew that. He had to know that in His foreknowledge and omniscient. For that reason, we can't make a conclusion about a fictional sinless man and woman reproducing eternal children on earth. As a matter of fact, we have to submit that idea to what Jesus did say in Luke 20. They were only going to replenish the earth as a sinful man and woman who would die.<br /><br />Jesus talks about saved people, yes. He doesn't mention the body, the bride, or the church in Luke 20, but, yes, people who are saved will inhabit eternity with God, and in that resurrection, they will not reproduce. That's who he's talking about, but that point doesn't affect the procreation point I'm drawing attention to, one way or another.<br /><br />You are arguing against a point that Jesus does make, and you are arguing with speculation or hypotheticals, as if Jesus Himself couldn't make that point because of the possibility of Adam and Eve having children who wouldn't die. They didn't have any kids until after the curse. And by doing so, you are helping out the same-sex marriage argument against procreation. You are giving them some fake ammo.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-73509886429235682122013-04-26T11:57:08.249-07:002013-04-26T11:57:08.249-07:00Kent,
Of course you were reporting what Jesus sai...Kent,<br /><br />Of course you were reporting what Jesus said, but it was said by him with the condition of "knowing the scriptures", for it was that which he was accusing the religious elite from ignoring. Therefore, the Lords conclusions were based on knowing the OT scriptures!<br /><br />Wherein, the quote from Genesis has always been understood as God's design of man and woman as procreative creatures when they were without sin. If not, then what is your understanding of Genesis 2:23-24?<br /><br />The last paragraph explained what I believe is that group which:<br />(1) were accounted worthy to obtain that world<br />(2) were of the resurrection from the dead, <br />(3) neither marry, nor are given in marriage.<br /><br />The group which Jesus is speaking about would be the born-again believers, the body of Christ, who is that "chaste virgin" espoused as his wife. That is why born-again, resurrected believers cannot marry or be given in marriage, for they are already married to Christ.<br /><br />I hope that clarifies my understanding.The Preacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00555338497068482867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-72595679752685949192013-04-25T21:16:12.487-07:002013-04-25T21:16:12.487-07:00George,
Thanks for coming back. I wasn't try...George,<br /><br />Thanks for coming back. I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was just reporting what Jesus said. I do think we want to be sure it is what He said, because it doesn't work as an argument if He didn't.<br /><br />Your quote from Genesis says nothing about living together forever in the garden and still having children. Those are not statements that are made in your own quote.<br /><br />I don't know what you're talking about in your second and third paragraphs.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-36335465353007284922013-04-25T18:48:25.623-07:002013-04-25T18:48:25.623-07:00Kent,
For one thing, it is not "hypothetical...Kent,<br /><br />For one thing, it is not "hypothetical", for the scripture saith:<br /><br />Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.<br />24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.<br /><br />So, where did the idea of mother and father come from? Were they in sin or not? Since Genesis 2 is before Genesis 3, they were PERFECT, just like the angels and the Lord God set procreation as a pattern for those in the world, whether sinless or not. <br /><br />Also, what you failed to see in Luke 20 and Matthew 22 is the part of: <br /><br />(1)"worthy to obtain THAT world"<br />(2) "in the resurrection"<br /><br />The only group that I know of that are from this world and have obtained that world in the resurrection, and who are not given in marriage since they are already "an espoused, chaste virgin" (2 Corinthians 11:2) is the body of Christ, flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone.<br /><br />Therefore, you have not proven your procreation argument is only valid for the fallen race of Adam, so my questions are still quite valid.<br />The Preacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00555338497068482867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-73569397344174498492013-04-24T19:20:52.624-07:002013-04-24T19:20:52.624-07:00George,
I've been on the road so I haven'...George,<br /><br />I've been on the road so I haven't had access so much, but I don't try to reconcile what the Bible says with hypotheticals. I take my doctrine from what it says, and it is in fact what Jesus said. I'm not deciding anything on something that didn't happen. I think you want to start with, "Did Jesus say that?" And "Is that what He is saying?" Jesus gives authority to the procreation argument. You should start with that as an argument, and block out what might have happened, could have happened, the what ifs. Just argue what is said, not what isn't.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-49681201630448441482013-04-22T10:05:11.837-07:002013-04-22T10:05:11.837-07:00Kent,
The implication of your teaching it in this...Kent,<br /><br />The implication of your teaching it in this manner is to then say this:<br /><br />If Adam and Eve never sinned, then there would have been no need for procreation, since they would be sinless and live forever. They would be as the angels, the sons of God. Not sure why God would create a man and a women based on your teaching of Luke 20 if procreation was required because of death. It seems like a resonable understanding, until you consider Genesis 2 and 3.<br /><br />Therefore, how do you reconcile a sinless Adam and Eve based on your teachings of Luke 20? Are you saying at the time they were sinless, they would have never procreated?<br />The Preacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00555338497068482867noreply@blogger.com