Hagar was his wife, Gen 16:3. He was 86 years old then (Gen 16:16). When Isaac was promised and born he was 99 years old. My reading of the scripture is the circumcision and taking a second wife were not related. I’ll have to think on this a bit.Abraham, even with Sarah’s permission, had sex with a woman not his own wife…that’s pretty licentious, and hence, from then on circumcision was mandatory. Essentially: this is what you sinned with, now watch it bleed. I am in control (G-d) not you.
And even if I couldn’t find any more examples (Jacob and 2 concubines other than his 2 wives, David and Bathsheba etc) still does not detract that they COULD be licentious, but as men of G-d, they chose not to.
You have not shown through the verses that marriage is a requirement to live in the “highest level of heaven”. Not one verse you use says anything about requiring marriageThis is simply an oppinion. You have not even tried to ground it in the Bible, yet I have explained it verse by verse. This comment holds no weight.
I think it was a Scott Hahn book (but I can’t really remember off the top of my head, sorry) that I first saw Abram illicitly sleeping with another woman and circumcision as a link. It makes sense to me. The covenant to be the “Father of nations” was already made, Abram tried to force his promised child before G-d’s time, so G-d mandated it. Just like the Israelites in the Desert. The covenant was already promulgated, but they worshiped the calf anyways. It was only after this idolatry did G-d mandate sacrifice (other than the Passover lamb). “This is what you sinned with, now watch it bleed.”I looked in the Catholic Encyclopedia and find no correlation to Abram taking a 2nd wife and circumcision. Rather, it seems to support the idea that Abram borrowed the concept from other ethnicities he had contact with, and that God made this a sign of a covenant. Do you have other information re this?
Given that the commandment to circumcise was given 13 years after the marriage to his 2nd wife, i don’t think there is a connection. Could be there is more to the story and there is though. It is an interesting thought.This is a take it or leave it…no one is bound to this…I just find it an interesting theory.
I told him that and he has not spoken to me since.You have not shown through the verses that marriage is a requirement to live in the “highest level of heaven”. Not one verse you use says anything about requiring marriage
There are allusions to the sacrament of marriage for time and all eternity, but as currently practiced, it is not in the Bible.You have not shown through the verses that marriage is a requirement to live in the “highest level of heaven”. Not one verse you use says anything about requiring marriage
Ah, yes…God talks to your prophets personally. Told BY that Adam was our God. Told BY that Adam came from another plant with one of his wives.There are allusions to the sacrament of marriage for time and all eternity, but as currently practiced, it is not in the Bible.
I understand the criticism regarding the most sacred acts of the Church. It is like trying to teach someone the Average Logarithmic Energy Decrement per Collision formula who doesn’t first understand basic algebra. If a person cannot get the idea that God talks to us personally, that He can testify to us through the Holy Spirit to the Eternal Sacrifice of Christ, to the basics of the Gospel of Christ, then the idea of Eternal Marriage is meat that chokes the baby.
So gnostic to believe that it is higher knowledge of secret rituals that save you.There are allusions to the sacrament of marriage for time and all eternity, but as currently practiced, it is not in the Bible.
I understand the criticism regarding the most sacred acts of the Church. It is like trying to teach someone the Average Logarithmic Energy Decrement per Collision formula who doesn’t first understand basic algebra. If a person cannot get the idea that God talks to us personally, that He can testify to us through the Holy Spirit to the Eternal Sacrifice of Christ, to the basics of the Gospel of Christ, then the idea of Eternal Marriage is meat that chokes the baby.
See, this is why I do drive by’s here. Possibly this is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard. I mean ignorant in its strictest definition. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. None of what i said can be inferred by someone to mean what this nonsense is. Gnostic? There is nothing secret about what goes on during a marriage ceremony. It is sacred. In fact the whole thing takes only a few seconds. I never said God doesn’t guide you if you are not LDS. In fact, you know full well I have said the complete opposite. Sooo, Rebecca, if you do not get baptized, do you get to go to heaven? What if you do not attend confession ‘sufficiently’? Does this mean you are gnostic? What if the ‘secret’ knowledge is confession in the Lord Jesus Christ? Shame, all those poor indians in South America who never heard the Gospel preached, who were never baptized, all going to hell because they didn’t have the secret knowledge you possess.So gnostic to believe that it is higher knowledge of secret rituals that save you.
Believing that God doesn’t guide us personally is a false teaching of Mormonism about other beliefs, that you have believed. You have been lied to.
Put this nonsense aside, it is not only false it is poison.
The Good News of Jesus Christ is out in the open for all. It isn’t marriage that brings you into the presence of God for eternity. It is Jesus Christ.
You really should learn what’s up.See, this is why I do drive by’s here. Possibly this is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard. I mean ignorant in its strictest definition. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. None of what i said can be inferred by someone to mean what this nonsense is. Gnostic? There is nothing secret about what goes on during a marriage ceremony. It is sacred. In fact the whole thing takes only a few seconds. I never said God doesn’t guide you if you are not LDS. In fact, you know full well I have said the complete opposite. Sooo, Rebecca, if you do not get baptized, do you get to go to heaven? What if you do not attend confession ‘sufficiently’? Does this mean you are gnostic? What if the ‘secret’ knowledge is confession in the Lord Jesus Christ? Shame, all those poor indians in South America who never heard the Gospel preached, who were never baptized, all going to hell because they didn’t have the secret knowledge you possess.
So what is the truth here? One is right, one is wrong or both are wrong. Rebecca is right, the church holds open the possibility that are all saved but through Christ and his Catholic church. American Indians, SDAs, Southern Baptists and even Mormons.You really should learn what’s up.
The Gnosticism is seen in your mathematics analogy. Our judgement is not dependent on what we know but how we live according to what we understand about God.
Your condensation towards Native Americans aside, no, it is not Catholic teaching or belief that “those poor indians” are going to hell.
I recommend you read something about Catholicism that wasn’t written by Talmage.
Not according to St. Augustine, In the seventh session, it declares (can. v) anathema upon anyone who says that baptism is not necessary for salvation. The Catholic Encyclopedia says: “The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, on Scripture and tradition, and the decrees of the Church. Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274.”So what is the truth here? One is right, one is wrong or both are wrong. Rebecca is right, the church holds open the possibility that are all saved but through Christ and his Catholic church. American Indians, SDAs, Southern Baptists and even Mormons.
Catholic.com has a tract on this subject: catholic.com/tracts/the-necessity-of-baptism.Not according to St. Augustine, In the seventh session, it declares (can. v) anathema upon anyone who says that baptism is not necessary for salvation. The Catholic Encyclopedia says: “The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, on Scripture and tradition, and the decrees of the Church. Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274.”
So, if a baby does not get baptized, it goes to hell. Right.
Something I have always wondered…you people claim to be virulently anti-abortion because life begins at conception. So, for example, conception happens for Federico and Janet on Feb 3. Janet now has a living person growing inside her. Feb 4, (not even realizing she was pregnant), Janet miscarries. Clearly this living person could not be baptized, yet what is the fate of the soul?
Hope for the infants? You are unable to say definitively the infant has salvation in Christs arms? You certainly see the conclusion of an incomplete understanding of the Plan of Salvation, but fail to rectify the failings through ‘hope’-ful rationalizations. The doctrine of infant baptism denies the saving power of Christ. Surely you see the irony here…through vagueries of accusation, my Church is accused of denying the saving grace of Christ…of asserting a doctrine of ‘saved by works’, yet in practice the rc denies the unborn infant entry into heaven. Sorry, the lay of a church should not wallow in the despair of hoping their dead baby will be offered salvation.Catholic.com has a tract on this subject: catholic.com/tracts/the-necessity-of-baptism.
This is a false dilemma.But your response omits answering my question from my previous post on the American Indians. Who is right? Joseph Smith or the Science of Genetics?
Let me first say: you need to hold your tongue. It’s bad enough with Catholics here talking disrespectful, but you are on enemy territory, which gives you no right to talk like this. Watch the venom in your speech, and then we can have a decent discussion.Hope for the infants? You are unable to say definitively the infant has salvation in Christs arms? You certainly see the conclusion of an incomplete understanding of the Plan of Salvation, but fail to rectify the failings through ‘hope’-ful rationalizations. The doctrine of infant baptism denies the saving power of Christ. Surely you see the irony here…through vagueries of accusation, my Church is accused of denying the saving grace of Christ…of asserting a doctrine of ‘saved by works’, yet in practice the rc denies the unborn infant entry into heaven. Sorry, the lay of a church should not wallow in the despair of hoping their dead baby will be offered salvation.
But your response omits answering my question from my previous post on the American Indians. Who is right? Joseph Smith or the Science of Genetics?
This isn’t a false dilemma for those outside of the Church of the LDS because a doctrine is seen as completely un-scientific and biologically false. This isn’t the same as Genesis not explaining the Big Bang nor evolution (both only theories and not scientific law) and therefore the Bible is un-scientific, because we all know Genesis was written mythologically and not meant to be scientific. Joseph Smith, being a prophet, should only speak in matters of the truth, so when we says something scientific, like biological genetics of Native Americans, he should be correct as science does not contradict religious truth.This is a false dilemma.
I will speak clearly, without ad hominems. I re-re-re-read what I wrote. No venom hear. Just clarity. Nobody should be told their baby is going to hell because he wan’t baptized.Let me first say: you need to hold your tongue. It’s bad enough with Catholics here talking disrespectful, but you are on enemy territory, which gives you no right to talk like this. Watch the venom in your speech, and then we can have a decent discussion.
What you are proclaiming here is common sense. It belies reason to think a loving God will deny the infant his presence due to a literal ‘work’ of man, even if that work is a sacrament of God. It makes God unfair, an impossibility. Therefore a doctrine that does not adequately explain this most basic of concerns is either incomplete or false. Or both.[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 28:19[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]John 3:5-7[/BIBLEDRB]
These verses, we know that Christ DEMANDS baptism as means of entering the Kingdom of Heaven, to be baptized with water, and “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” This both the Catholic and the LDS can agree. But what of the children passing away before baptism? What of the Hindi man who has never heard the Gospel a day in his life? We can only trust them to the mercy of a loving Father. Obviously they are not culpable of not choosing Christ, for they were not given the opportunity to deny Him nor accept Him, but we are still commanded by Christ to baptize and only through baptism do we enter the Kingdom of Heaven. There is nothing more in Revelation that says otherwise. How is this reconciled? By faith that God knows what He’s doing.
It is a false dilemma, there are other alternatives. The science of Modern genetics began began with Fr. Mendel in his famous paper, Versuche über Pflanzenhybriden, in 1856. Joseph Smith never talked of genetics.This isn’t a false dilemma for those outside of the Church of the LDS because a doctrine is seen as completely un-scientific and biologically false. This isn’t the same as Genesis not explaining the Big Bang nor evolution (both only theories and not scientific law) and therefore the Bible is un-scientific, because we all know Genesis was written mythologically and not meant to be scientific. Joseph Smith, being a prophet, should only speak in matters of the truth, so when we says something scientific, like biological genetics of Native Americans, he should be correct as science does not contradict religious truth.
Scripture says baptism is necessary for salvation. The bible does not address infant baptism so we have trust and hope in God, that he will save the innocent ones. No one is denying the saving grace of God. Just the opposite.Hope for the infants? You are unable to say definitively the infant has salvation in Christs arms? You certainly see the conclusion of an incomplete understanding of the Plan of Salvation, but fail to rectify the failings through ‘hope’-ful rationalizations. The doctrine of infant baptism denies the saving power of Christ. Surely you see the irony here…through vagueries of accusation, my Church is accused of denying the saving grace of Christ…of asserting a doctrine of ‘saved by works’, yet in practice the rc denies the unborn infant entry into heaven. Sorry, the lay of a church should not wallow in the despair of hoping their dead baby will be offered salvation.
Agree that this is a dilemna for Mormons.This is a false dilemma.