Well, you could spend a bit of time on LDS.org searching through stories. I've posted several that can be linked to from my signature. But I don't think God wants people going to a church because they want to be healed.
REV: Well, you could spend a bit of time on LDS.org searching through stories. I've posted several that can be linked to from my signature. But I don't think God wants people going to a church because they want to be healed. He wants to heal them because they have faith and want to serve Him. I've also heard first hand accounts from members which don't appear online - just "little" things like coming back from being dead. But, I will admit I do not know of a "genetic healing." I assume that would be something like being made hearing?
I appreciate the notion God doesn’t want people going to church to be physically healed, Rev. The purpose of those genetic healings in the Bible was to affirm Jesus’ divine authenticity: John 10:36 KJV, John 10:37 KJV, John 10:38 KJV. Please listen again to John 9:1 KJV, John 9:2 KJV, John 9:3 KJV, with particular emphasis John 9:4 KJV and John 9:5 KJV. Among all of Jesus’ healing miracles, that was the only time His disciples asked the heritability question (John 9:2 KJV). That happened to be the second time Jesus said He is the Light of the World (John 9:5 KJV). The first time, of only two, was in John 8:12 KJV when His Paternal origin was challenged (John 8:13, 19, 15) by those circumcised non-Israelites occupying priest’s positions plotting Jesus’ crucifixion (John 8:33 KJV, John 8:37 KJV, John 8:39 KJV, John 11:47, 48, 49, 50, 51, Luke 3:2, 7, 8, 9; Romans 9:6, 7, 8, Revelations 2:9, 3:9).
With full appreciation for those first hand accounts of “coming back from the dead”, I want to see the medical records. The definitive results of a supernatural healing will reveal DNA changes before and after. I insist Jesus could provide those tests, today. With all due respect, Jesus was no ordinary physician at your local urgent care or ER.
REV: Then how do you explain both Jesus and Peter place the blame for His crucifixion on the priests and levites? The Jews are clearly blamed. What's more in order for them to return to Jerusalem after Babylon, their Jewish heritage had to be confirmed by Urim and Thummim. Did you note that?
If you’ll note, Jesus never spoke a name in condemnation, other than ‘devil’ already judged (John 8:15 KJV), even though He was speaking to specific priests. I could give you a classic example of Jesus’ indirect reference to avoid condemning individuals, but Smith’s rendering of the KJV (sure, he re-translated the KJV) inaccurately sets the stage. Smith wrote that God told Cain:
The father of lies was Satan, found in Smith’s prior chapter:
4 And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.
10 And the serpent said unto the woman: Ye shall not surely die;
http://sacred-texts.com/mor/pgp/moses4.htm
Now, you may wish to argue the difference between Cain being the “father of his lies”, and Satan being the “father of all lies,” Jesus’ words in John 8:44 KJV provide evidence of Jesus’ direct (‘devil’), and indirect reference (circumventing individual condemnation) speaking to His accusers (instigators) who were priests (my parentheses):
John 8:44 KJV “Ye (accusers) are of you father the devil, and the lusts of your father (the devil) ye (accusers) will do. (Jesus now expounds how Satan is their literal father). He ( ) was a murderer from the beginning (Genesis 4:8 KJV), and abode not in the truth (Genesis 4:9 KJV), because there is no truth in him ( ). When he ( ) speaketh a lie (Genesis 4:9 KJV), he ( ) speaketh of his own : (note the KJV colon reveals further clarification of “his own”, his own what
For he ( ) is a liar (Genesis 3:4 KJV), and the father of it (Genesis 3:4 KJV, Genesis 3:5 KJV).
Who were those ‘he’s’ Jesus was referring to, Rev? Maybe John 14:26 KJV comes into play. Most folk simply render John 8:44 KJV out of context as only figuratively referring to Satan exclusively, and not Cain, in a strictly spiritual sense. I beg to differ... their (Jesus and His accusers) entire dialogue between John 8:12 KJV and John 8:47 KJV was about ‘who’s ya daddy’: John 8:13, 18, 19, 25, John 8:33 KJV, John 8:37 KJV, John 8:38 KJV, John 8:39 KJV, John 8:41 KJV, John 8:42 KJV, John 8:43 KJV, John 8:44 KJV, John 8:47 KJV. Smith’s aforementioned re-translation of Genesis confounds John 8:44 KJV, but I don’t hear any better rendering from any other churches, either.
I do know the OT notion of Urim and Thummim was first mentioned several years after Joseph Smith actually used magical seer stone(s) placed in his hat, with his face buried therein, to translate the Book of Mormon (BoM). He’d previously as a mid-teen with his father, and continued shortly after translating the BoM, to use said seer stone in similar fashion to ‘see’ and dig for buried treasure for folk. Didn’t Smith dig up those golden tablets he alleged came from the angel, Maroni? The accounts of his scribes reveal Smith didn’t translate from those 220 pounds of alleged golden tablets. Smith translated the BoM from that magical seer stone he found twenty feet deep while digging a well around age 14. Maybe seer stones work for some folk, even the OT Urim and Thummim mentioned several years after Smith translated the BoM from that seer stone. The NT suggests the Holy Spirit of Truth “shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever (Jesus) said unto you” (John 14:26 KJV). My bet’s on the latter.
KAY: Assume an Israelite priest’s daughter (like one of Levi’s daughters, as I proffer Tamar was) procreated with an Israelite non-priest (like Judah, the lawgiver). Would their son be a priest, then? I understand the paternalistic (to say the least) LDS/Mormons have a little difficulty with priesthood lineages.
REV: For one thing the question is ambiguous.
Appreciating your mention of different priesthoods, the question is perfectly clear: Can the daughter of a priest confer priesthood status to her son sired by a non-priest Israelite father?
REV: Well thank you for your kind expression, but
I expect you do too in my view. Let me go further. Do you accept that Jesus saw the Father lay down His life for the sheep? Do you accept that the Father lived His name of YHWH, Behold the Hand, Behold the Nail which name Jesus inherited? Do you accept that the Father was about to glorify His name "again" when His only Begotten Son followed Him to the tree? John 12:28 Do you accept that Jesus did all things He saw the Father do? Do you accept that Jesus was made in the express image of the Father? Do you accept that Jesus showed us plainly of the Father up on the tree? Do you accept this notion of the tree of life? Do you accept that except a word die, it abideth alone? John 12:24
You’ve thrown many questions on the table, Rev. You’re simply circumventing the question: What explicitly did Jesus see, what event did Jesus visualize with His Father (John 8:39 KJV)? That was Jesus’ testimony to His divine origin being one of two testimonies (John 8:18 KJV). That visualization was one of the two testimonies that “converted” (Matthew 13:15 KJV) Jesus’ ‘believers’ (John 8:31 KJV) into Jesus’ “disciples indeed” (John 8:31 KJV) knowing “...the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32 KJV).
REV: Well, as I have pointed out on Clete's paradigm thread, we all tend to follow Jesus and God somewhat imperfectly. The church's role is that of our Mother - to ensure that we are fed the word. It is up to us as individuals to live in or abide that word. I believe what you are intonating to is living the oracles of God, but Hebrews teaches us to live the oracles we must be weaned from the milk, and be willing to accept the meat of the gospel which is for men rather than babes.
Indeed Rev, only One was perfect without spot or blemish. We SHOULD be fed the word in churches, Rev. But, churches are breast feeding their flocks (Matthew 24:19 KJV). If churches were putting meat o the table I’d be hearing countless responses to the explicit and succinct details of those two testimonies (John 8:38 KJV, John 8:40 KJV) of these two Divine witnesses (John 8:18 KJV) that “converted” (Matthew 13:15 KJV) Jesus’ “believers” (John 8:30 KJV) into Jesus’ “disciples indeed” (John 8:31 KJV), who KNOW “the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32 KJV). So, where are all those “disciples indeed” fulfilling Matthew 28:19? The absence of explicit and succinct details of those two testimonies (John 8:38 KJV, John 8:40 KJV) is prima facie evidence churches have NOT been putting Scriptural meat on the table fulfilling Matthew 28:19. Was Ham a gay voyeur, Rev (Genesis 9:22 KJV)?
KAY: What was Jesus’ explicit and succinct visualization (John 8:38 KJV)?
REV: See above. But to a lesser extent it was live His words as best we can. This is far from just accepting His name and thereby "being saved" as is often taught these days. I call this getting to first base. But I think we basically agree on this much.
We certainly agree with your perception, Rev. First base is becoming a believer. Where we go from there is a matter for the Holy Spirit of Truth (John 14:16, 17, 26). As possibly do you, I get the rather disconcerting impression believers (pending disciples) might not “endure to the end, the same shall be saved” (Matthew 24:13 KJV, Matthew 24:14 KJV). Please realize Jesus was speaking exclusively to His disciples in Matthew 24 regarding the end times (Matthew 24:3, 4, 5...). But, in my perception, as I’ve already alluded to several times, churches seem to be a little short on leading believers into Jesus’ discipleship (John 8:30, John 8:31 KJV, John 8:32 KJV).
REV: Well, if you are a "believer" that makes one basically a disciple, but I think I catch your drift.
You’re an intelligent fellow, Rev. Quite likely you do catch my drift, but it’s not really my drift, with sincere appreciation. Jesus delineated between believers (multitudes) and disciples in Matthew 13:10 KJV, Matthew 13:11 KJV, Matthew 13:12 KJV, Matthew 13:13 KJV, Matthew 13:14 KJV, Matthew 13:15 KJV, Matthew 13:16 KJV, Matthew 13:17 KJV. Jesus was speaking exclusively to His disciples in that dialogue. Furthermore, Jesus fulfilled His words (Matthew 13:15 KJV) in John 8:30 KJV, John 8:31 KJV, John 8:32 KJV... all captured within that dialogue (except for those three verses) between Jesus and those circumcised, non-Israelite Pharisee priests plotting Jesus’ crucifixion (John 8:12-47, ‘who’s ya daddy’). With as much interest as you have in priesthood Rev, I figure you would zero in exploring their ancestry, more than they were merely appointed by the Romans. I don’t think they were appointed by the Romans, btw. Those priests were appointed by the people, and merely accepted by the Romans. If the priests couldn’t keep folk calm, and Jesus was stirring up a ruckus to say the least, their status would be revoked (John 11:45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51). I think the Romans appointed governors and the like, not religious leaders, but such was certainly a risk when Jesus came on the scene!
There are certainly LDS who talk the talk, but
don't walk the walk in every day life. But I proffer that most at least try - which is one of the things that initially attracted me to the church.
Like I’ve said... I’ve not met a 100% “church” person, yet. It appears as though all churches offer some manner of apostolic walk, Rev. Some are more strict than others, so to speak, more ‘the right way.’ Yet, all fall short, Rev. The Church of Christ blesses baptismal water to become the literal blood of Jesus whereby one’s sins are washed away at baptism, and ONLY then. The Catholic Church has their Holy Sacrament where the bread and wine are literally turned into the flesh and blood of Jesus, whereby one becomes God (Jesus is God in their rendering) by partaking. Catholic baptismal water is consecrated (made holy) whereby one receives the Holy Spirit, and achieves salvation short of a major infraction. Baptismal spiritual regeneration is rather popular.
I get the impression LDS baptism all but achieves that same notion to be priests in the first resurrection. Said churches, among others no doubt, spend considerable time and effort justifying water baptism in Scripture as a salvation prerequisite. Certainly, I don’t. Water baptism is not a mystery; it’s a delusion when water baptism offers any more than a public profession, appreciating our disagreement.
But is Jesus happy with everyone in the church? I proffer no.
D&C 112: 24 Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.
25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;
26 First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.
Here we are again, Rev: “who have professed to know my name and have not known me.” Jesus’ divine Paternity was captured in those two testimonies (John 8:38 KJV, John 8:40 KJV). How can one say one knows Jesus, but not know the explicit and succinct details of those two testimonies corroborating Jesus’ divine origin (John 8:12, 13, 19, 25)? His healing genetic miracles corroborated his Divinity in my first, clearer understanding of who Jesus is... one of the only two times Jesus said He is the Light of the world (John 9:1, 2, 3, 4, and John 8:12, 13, 18, John 8:30 KJV, John 8:31 KJV, John 8:32 KJV...).
REV: I'm not sure what Mary you are referring to, but my guess is that all the Marys in the NT are Israelite. This however, doesn't make her a priestess. Were daughters brought to the temple to present them to the Lord?
Sacrifice was the responsibility of the priesthood, and exclusively a male responsibility. I do not know why per se.
But to continue to the next verse in Luke we see that:
23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord
24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.
Agreed Rev, but the question still remains: Can the daughter of a priest convey priesthood
status upon her son sired by a non-priest Israelite father?
REV: Paul was instructed to go to Ananias. Ananias laid his hands on Saul who received his sight. Giving blessings of healing is a priesthood function performed this way in Acts. It is substantial evidence that Ananias held the priesthood.
I certainly submit likewise, Rev. But, Scripture didn’t identify Annanias as a priest. He was foremost identified as a disciple.
KAY: Do you think Tamar was a Canaanite? Could Jesus just as easily have been the Son of any ole virgin, even a Canaanite virgin descendant of Judah, prophesied progenitor of Messiah (Isaiah 65:9 KJV), and his Canaanitess wife (1Chronicles 2:3; Genesis 38:1, 2)?
REV: No, because Judah was the law-giver and therefore as a law-giver, Jesus came of Judah as prophesied in Isaiah 65. As Hebrews points out tho, the law said nothing concerning Judah and the priesthood of Aaron, therefore Jesus held a different priesthood - the same Moses, Jethro, Abraham, and Melchizedek held. One did not have to be a Levite to hold this priesthood - which is where you run into problems with poking at the BoM and the restored priesthood of LDS.
You state, “Jesus came of Judah as prophesied in Isaiah 65.” Well... Judah sired sons via TWO females, Rev: his Canaanite wife, and his daughter-in-law Tamar. Why wasn’t Messiah a descendant of Judah and his Canaanitess wife, then (1Chronicles 2:3)? That was the quandary of the day, Rev. And, this begs the question: Could the daughter of a priest confer priesthood status upon her son sired by a non-priest Israelite father? I poke at all churches Rev, so try not to feel too special, lol! And, I poke at the LDS/Mormon church for making priests out of believers circumventing the aforementioned status of Jesus’ “disciples indeed” (John 8:30, John 8:31 KJV, John 8:32 KJV). You admonish the status of priest, and virtually discount being a “disciple indeed” as little more than a believer, if that much. Paul’s disciple Annanias was identified as a disciple, not a priest, although we agree he was. Matthew 28:19 didn’t say anything about being a priest. Where does JESUS explicitly and distinctly open the door (akin to John 8:30 KJV, John 8:31 KJV, John 8:32 KJV) for believers to become ‘priests indeed’? Therefore, LDS/Mormons jumped the gun as have most if not all churches not explicitly and succinctly unveiling those two testimonies (John 8:38 KJV, John 8:40 KJV). I have some appreciation that not everyone can arrive at the overwhelming circumstantial conclusion Jesus was a genetic healer.
REV: First, I don't necessarily agree with all your characterizations. I don't think it possible for Judah to have a "Canaanite" son. I believe no matter who Judah took for a wife, their son would be Israelite.
Please allow a simple illustration, Rev. If a male German Shepherd mates with a Rottweiler, is the puppy a German Shepherd? Please consider Ezra: “The sons of Judah; Pharez (via Tamar, Genesis 38:29), Hezron (aka Esrom, son of Pharez, 1Chronicles 2:5), etc., found in 1Chronicles 4:1 KJV and corroborated in Luke 3:33 and Matthew 1:3. I’m not suggesting Shelah was not a first degree son of Judah; but, the sons of Shelah by Judah’s Canaanitess wife (1Chronicles 2:3) were not included as “The sons of Judah...” (1Chronicles 4:1) as Ezra noted in 1Chronicles 4:21 KJV, 1Chronicles 4:22 KJV. Therefore, Shelah & Co. were NOT a component of the ‘tribe’ of Judah as Ezra made this distinction.
Please consider further: The “sons of God (Adamite/Sethites) saw the daughters of men (Cain’s daughters) that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose” (Genesis 6:1 KJV). There were a bunch of Sethite-Cainite progeny (Genesis 6:3, 4, 5, 6), and along came the flood (Genesis 6:7 KJV, God was pretty serious. Noah, “perfect in his generations (ancestry)” (Genesis 6:8 KJV, Genesis 6:9 KJV) sanctioned procreation between the Gentiles and Shemites (Genesis 9:27 KJV), and the descendants of Ham and Canaan were excluded by default. Said default left the ‘Hamites’ and descendants of Canaan in a dilemma when it came to seeking mates, right? The Land of Canaan was reserved for the descendants of Ham and Canaan, and said land was separate from the Gentiles and Shemites.
Abraham said NO Canaanite wives for Isaac (Genesis 24:3 KJV). Moses said Abraham’s progeny via Keturah were “the sons of Keturah”, NOT Abraham... they weren’t Hebrews. Isaac and Rebekah said NO Canaanite wives for Jacob (Genesis 27:46, 28:1, 2, 3, 4). God and Moses said NO Canaanite wives among the Israelites (Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3). Ezra said marriage to Canaanite wives was a “great trespass” (Ezra 9:1, 2, 7), and even set those “strange wives” and offspring aside from the congregation in Ezra 10:2, 3.
So, what part of NO Canaanite wives am I not able to corroborate, Rev? How many times have I said, “No hanky panky with the Canaanites”? But, you’re going to turn a blind eye to all that documented evidence to the contrary? Judah transgressed s hooking up with a Canaanite wife (Genesis 38:2, 1Chronicles 2:3).
You defend King Solomon, king of polygamy, with “strange wives”, saying he didn’t sin until he started worshipping other gods. That’s when Solomon lost his kingship Rev, and that was what God and Moses said would happen in Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, 4. Solomon transgressed the written law before he began worshipping other gods, Rev. Are you defending polygamy? Joseph Smith, abusing his authority at the age of 37, hooked up with a near 15 year old daughter adding to his harem.
As you interpret the law, Jacob's sons could only marry their sisters or their seed would no longer be Israelite. But we see this is not so. Joseph married a woman in Egypt. Yet Ephraim and Manasseh are considered to be tribes of Israel.
I and we have already discussed this, Rev. I said Noah sanctioned procreation between Gentiles and Shemites in Genesis 9:27 KJV. Gentile wives were not Canaanites. Didn’t we agree Joseph’s wife was a Gentile? Even if she was Egyptian by blood, consider Deuteronomy 23:7, 9, another time, perhaps.
I'm not sure who all the other brothers married, but I am sure it was someone outside the family of Israel - ie not their sisters. You are very preoccupied with maintaining a "pure" line, but nothing seems smart about that. Did you want Judah to marry his sister so that Jesus could come out of a "pure" Israelite line?
Was Jesus a pure pedigree Israelite, Rev? Judah, the prophesied progenitor of Messiah, and specific patriarch being discussed, definitely married outside the tribe: a Canaanitess. Had Tamar not played the harlot, Judah’s name, his ancestry, would have disappeared from the house of Israel with no sons to inherit Promised Land. I’ve already documented God’s intervention in the conceptions of Isaac, Jacob, even Judah’s conception being a son of Jacob’s barren sister-cousin wife, Leah (Genesis 29:31, 35 KJV). What’s smart about a “pure” line is that it produced Jesus. Gentiles were not Canaanites. Egyptians were not Canaanites. So, it’s not me who originated the idea of Jesus descending from a pure Israelite line, it’s God’s, Noah’s, Moses’, and Ezra’s: NO Canaanites, Rev. Jesus’ ancestry didn’t just begin with Mary, an Israelite, agreed. Why wasn’t Messiah born of a virgin Canaanite descendant of Judah and his Canaanitess wife?
REV: I don't see anywhere God prohibited Cain from procreating or denied him the privilege of marrying.
Do you hear conjugal rights being an option for a “fugitive and vagabond shalt thou be in the earth” (Genesis 4:12 KJV)? Cain was incarcerated in solitary confinement, Rev. It wasn’t until Cain pleaded for mercy (Genesis 4:13) that that God amended sentence putting Cain on parole for good behavior (no procreation) for the remainder of his long life. The mark of anonymity put Cain on parole to mingle, which inherently afforded God’s unintended option for Cain to then mingle
and procreate, so there was a price: Cain’s otherwise extremely long life would be cut short by CAIN’s “sevenfold” generation: Lamech, seventh generation of Eve (Genesis 4:16, 17, 18). Who do you think Lamech killed if not his beloved and relatively very young great-grandfather, Cain (Genesis 4:23 KJV)? Was Lamech’s kill just some random act of violence in God’s Word?
REV: Again, do you propose that Judah marry his sister to avoid have a non-Israelite wife? The problem with Canaan arose only when Canaan went away and worshiped other gods. Most other nations had that problem.
Judah could have married a Gentile (Genesis 9:27 KJV). Try again Rev... “the problem with Canaan” preceded worshipping other gods: Cursed be Canaan (Genesis 9:25 KJV).
REV: I'm sure there is since the Israelites did not kill them all out. We treat all alike unto God, and all are allowed to receive the priesthood, so if one converts, they can receive it. Are there any Canaanite priests in Kayaker's view of the priesthood?
You’ve pulled a time warp on me, Rev. Now you’re talking from a NT perspective looking at the OT. How did God tell the Israelites to deal with those Canaanites, Rev: Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, Deuteronomy 7:3 KJV, Deuteronomy 7:4 KJV, Deuteronomy 7:5. Did you catch Deuteronomy 7:2 KJV? Deuteronomy 7:5 KJV? The notion of ‘conversion’ was rarely mentioned in the OT, and prophetically, then: Isaiah 1:27, 6:10, 60:5; Psalm 19:7, 51:13. Jesus talked about multitudes (believers) being “converted” in Matthew 13:15 KJV... His believers (John 8:30 KJV) were “converted” into Jesus’ “disciples indeed” in John 8 (John 8:31 KJV). “Conversion” is a NT concept and application.
Kayaker is not a priesthood expert, Rev. Such is your skill set as you admonish water baptism and priesthood genealogy. My skill set is Jesus’ genealogy, being baptized in His ‘name’, and Jesus’ door into His discipleship.
REV: In my view the NT covenant replaced the Black letter of the law, leaving only the spiritual law. Under the spiritual law, a Canaanite convert to Christ is not forbidden.
Zoom... another time warp, Rev. Paul made it perfectly clear ancestry was insignificant, as we’re both familiar. But, that was after the “pure line” of Israelites produced Jesus. In the OT, NO hanky panky with the Canaanites, “...thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them; 3) Neither shalt thou make marriages with them...” (Deuteronomy 7:2, 3). Ezra 9:1, 2, 7.
REV: Onan was not slain because he was "Canaanite" but because he refused to follow the law and raise up seed to his brother.
I’ll not argue the law wasn’t yet written then, Rev. Evidently, we’ve come to same conclusion God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. What you’re not seeing here is a German Shepherd male mates with a Rottweiler... your answer will likely be the puppy will be a dog. God’s chosen were the Israelites (Deuteronomy 7:6, 7, 8, 9, 10), and God with the flood, Noah, Abraham, Isaac/Rebekah, God, Moses and Ezra said God’s chosen Israelites were to have NO hanky panky with the Canaanites. You might want to explore the definition of a mamzer (somewhat similar to ‘bastard’) when considering Deuteronomy 23:2 KJV.
In the English use of the word, a child neither born nor begotten in lawful wedlock; an illegitimate child. There is no Hebrew word of like meaning. The mamzer, rendered "bastard" in the A. V., is something worse than an illegitimate child. He is the offspring of a father and mother between whom there could be in law no binding betrothal: issuing either from adultery between a married woman and a man other than her husband, or from incest within the forbidden degrees of kinship or affinity defined in Lev. xviii. and xx. The child of a marriage simply forbidden, as that between a cohen and a divorced woman, is legitimate but "profane"; that is, a son can not officiate as a priest, a daughter is not eligible to marry a priest.
But a mamzer, according to Deut. xxiii. 3, must not "enter the congregation of the Lord," that is, marry an Israelite woman, "nor shall his tenth generation enter," etc., which includes also the female mamzer (Ḳid. iii. 12; Mak. iii. 1). The older Halakah, however, was more rigorous, Akiba declaring any child of a forbidden connection a mamzer (Yeb. iv. 12, 13; Yer. ib. 6b; Bab. ib. 44a, 49a).
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2648-bastard
Rev... even “Onan knew the seed should not be his...” Genesis 38:9 KJV). Onan, the second son of Judah the
lawgiver KNEW he was a mamzer. And, Onan KNEW his progeny with Tamar would be a mamzer. And that’s why Onan withdrew spilling his seed on the ground. God killed Onan for getting THAT close to siring a child with the ISRAELITE Tamar, particularly the daughter of a priest that surely Onan knew. Churches are too busy authenticating themselves and confabulating salvation paradigms to consider the weightier matters of Scripture Rev, the LDS/Mormon Church included. Had Onan been an Israelite, your observation would have been utterly accurate.
REV: Your insistence of having a "pure" line from which Jesus sprang necessitates Judah to marry a sister, and females being priests. I just don't follow that kind of reasoning. It is not taught in the Bible.
Reconsider a Gentile or Egyptian wife, which I do not suggest Tamar was. Considering God opening the wombs of Abraham’s half-sister wife, Isaac’s cousin-wife, Jacob’s cousin-sister wives... Leah was Judah’s mother. Judah hooking up with his niece, as I maintain Tamar was, was a walk in the park: “Is anything too hard for the Lord?” (Genesis 18:13 KJV). So I suggest you dig a little deeper before laughing at that kind of reasoning that is taught in the Bible, simply connect the dots.
KAY: I admire the notion of having faith in His words and those of His chosen witnesses, speaking of John 8:18 KJV, John 8:38 KJV, John 8:40 KJV. I suspect you’re referring to the LDS/Mormon prophet Joseph Smith being a chosen witness among the LDS/Mormon church elders. To each their own, but it sounds to me like churches, the LDS/Mormon Church included, are just a few slices short of the truth on quite a number of issues. Churches are too busy authenticating themselves and confabulating salvation paradigms for their flocks. Churches don’t have time to delve into the weightier issues in Scripture. With all due respect for churches, I think I’ll paddle on in my kayak with the Bible as my map, and the Holy Spirit being my compass. Thank you for addressing my concerns!
REV: So in your interpretation of the Spirit, Judah had to marry his sister, as well as his other brothers, etc down through all their progeny? That's quite a view there Kayaker. The Spirit doesn't show me that at all. I'm sure they married outside of the family all the time.
Indeed there was marriage outside the Israelite family, Rev. Ezra made it perfectly clear such was a “great trespass” (Ezra 9:1, 2, 7). Judah hooked up with his niece playing the harlot, not his sister Rev, his daughter-in-law the age of Judah’s brothers’ daughters. And, I’ve already provided the violations of that relationship in Leviticus. Those non-Israelite priests plotting Jesus’ crucifixion said THEY were “not born of fornication” (John 8:41 KJV); they were descendants of Judah and his Canaanite wife. Are you suggesting Jesus was born of fornication being a descendant of Judah and his niece daughter-in-law? Didn’t you bring up Abraham being married to his sister? God wrote the law, and only God can change it, and He did: His Messiah arrived as an unadulterated Israelite. The problem was Judah was married to a Canaanitess that you clearly see no problem with despite countless Scripture to the contrary. Same with Solomon’s hotties. So, you might want to test that Spirit you’re listening to.
And, we are instructed to test the Spirit, Rev:
1John 4:1-3, KJV “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2) Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3) And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is in the world”
I’m here testifying Tamar was a “pure” Israelite daughter of a priest, and Jesus was a “pure” Israelite from among God’s chosen Israelites (Deuteronomy 7:6, 7, 8, 9, 10). Who do you think Tamar was, then?
I wasn't actually referring to Joseph Smith as one of those witnesses, but I do believe he was. He too was an imperfect person and had his foibles, but he was a chosen vessel none the less, and the Lord did speak through him. As He will through the 2 witnesses, etc until His mystery is finished. What do you say to that? Do you think the Lord will speak through the 2 witnesses of Revelation 11?
Many LDS/Mormons believe Joseph Smith was a flesh descendant of Jesus. Do you think Jesus sired literal flesh children on planet earth, Rev? Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon looking at a seer stone in his hat with his face buried within, just like he used that same stone and process divining and digging for buried treasure. Several years later, Smith’s seer stone was referred to as the Urim and Thummim to ‘whitewash’ that seer stone associating it with the OT. Smith’s alleged skill to translate Egyptian writing has been totally debunked, even if he had the Dead Sea scrolls. Joseph Smith was a sexual predator. Chosen you suggest? Joseph was no more chosen than anyone else, being optimistic. But, I will give him credit for translating Scripture in the Book of Mormon from a King James Bible... he even included the italicized words provided by the KJV translators for clarification. I do have some differences with his rendering of the KJV, but I have to give him credit on some of his re-translation, rather rendering of the KJV. I suppose it’s of no consolation Rev, but I give you more credit being chosen than I do Joseph Smith.
Sure the Lord will speak through the 2 witnesses of Revelation, but Joseph Smith won’t be one of them. Smith will be too busy doing the hanky panky on his planet Kolob, or thereabouts, with all those wives he sealed in the flesh, lol!
kayaker
