GeneralT001 said:

Jesus cannot claim to be human and not fulfill this commandment.

Click to expand...

Paul explains in 1 Cor 7 that not all are called to marriage. Only those who can't control the lusts of their flesh or those who want children.

Jesus was not married. He could control the lusts of His flesh, and He knew His calling was to make children of all mankind.

----------------------------

As for the 'law' insinuation, Gen 1:28 and Gen 2:24 are not 'laws'.

---------------------------

As for the 'needing to experience all' to be able to say He was 'truly' in the flesh type reasoning, this kind of thinking is extremely naive. Like saying you cannot counsel murderers unless you were one.

What matters is the fact that Jesus would have faced temptation from many pretty women and did not sin.

KingJ said:

Paul explains in 1 Cor 7 that not all are called to marriage. Only those who can't control the lusts of their flesh or those who want children.

Jesus was not married. He could control the lusts of His flesh, and He knew His calling was to make children of all mankind.

----------------------------

As for the 'law' insinuation, Gen 1:28 and Gen 2:24 are not 'laws'.

---------------------------

As for the 'needing to experience all' to be able to say He was 'truly' in the flesh type reasoning, this kind of thinking is extremely naive. Like saying you cannot counsel murderers unless you were one.

What matters is the fact that Jesus would have faced temptation from many pretty women and did not sin.

Click to expand...

I guess my reply would be, did Jesus say what Paul said wrt marriage? Do we not follow Jesus and not Paul? Was Paul a prophet? I do not believe it is about control of ones lust. We are all given that desire so that we can procreate. Its in our DNA, unavoidable. You show me some one who does not have lustful thoughts and I will show you a liar (or a eunuch ). Jesus was very pro God

If God says "be fruitful and multiply" that is not a suggestion, it is a Commandment re Law.

Perhaps, but it makes it a lot easier if you have committed the same sin. Do you not think that a married person would be much more able to relate to someone else who has been married when discussing marital affairs?

My post is not meant to be offensive. But as rational, thinking people we should always be questioning things. That is a positive trait. If someone thinks they have all the answers are are absolutely positive they know the Truth then that person is in trouble. The Bible is deep. There are so many layers that lay just beneath the surface. God is not simple.

The one and only Truth that we can all go to our graves knowing with absolute certainty is that God exists and this is HIS creation (probably not HIS only one). The rest we might find in The Bible as we study diligently and act like a Berean

GeneralT001 said:

I guess my reply would be, did Jesus say what Paul said wrt marriage?

Click to expand...

I would think it be a given at the time of Jesus. Paul perhaps needed to clarify this for gentiles like you and I. It is clearly clarified. He wrote a few chapters on the topic.

GeneralT001 said:

Do we not follow Jesus and not Paul?

Click to expand...

2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work

GeneralT001 said:

Was Paul a prophet? I do not believe it is about control of ones lust. We are all given that desire so that we can procreate. Its in our DNA, unavoidable. You show me some one who does not have lustful thoughts and I will show you a liar (or a eunuch ). Jesus was very pro God

Click to expand...

Your thinking is sound. Jesus actually agrees with you. This is why He used lustful thoughts as His case study for us all being guilty of sin in Matt 5:28.

GeneralT001 said:

If God says "be fruitful and multiply" that is not a suggestion, it is a Commandment re Law.

Click to expand...

As with all scripture, you cannot and must not ever cherry pick a line. When we do this, we are not better than the devil telling Jesus to jump as ''God said'' angels will catch you if you jump.

GeneralT001 said:

Perhaps, but it makes it a lot easier if you have committed the same sin. Do you not think that a married person would be much more able to relate to someone else who has been married when discussing marital affairs?

Click to expand...

Again, you do no need to be married to be tempted by a woman. That is a 'duh' fact. You need to move on .

GeneralT001 said:

My post is not meant to be offensive. But as rational, thinking people we should always be questioning things.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

GeneralT001 said:

There are so many layers that lay just beneath the surface. God is not simple.

Click to expand...

In His dealings with us I believe He is very simple. But as a God, who can grasp Him?

Rom 11:34 Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been able to give him advice?

GeneralT001 said:

The one and only Truth that we can all go to our graves knowing with absolute certainty is that God exists and this is HIS creation (probably not HIS only one). The rest we might find in The Bible as we study diligently and act like a Berean

Click to expand...

For sure. I have a lot of patience with atheists and non Christians as God's origin pops our little brains. It is certainly easier to believe we came from two atoms that collided and just ignore where they came from.

I am just grateful to know God in a very literal sense at my age. Also, properly grasp that He is truly a good God. We can be very grateful that our Creator is a good God. He could be evil.

Many Christians sadly teach the lost that He is both a mix of good and evil. But no prophet in scripture taught this. They all taught that He was only good and they knew Him better than anyone today.

No.
Anyone who has that idea needs to drop it.
He came to "seek and save the lost" and to start the church.
His sermons/preaching, miracles, etc. were all a part of that.

MedicBravo said:

He came to "seek and save the lost"

Click to expand...

Who are the lost He came to save? (hint Matthew 15:24)

So, he did not come as The Messiah then? More like a prophet to set the Jews back on a truer path of The Torah?

Yes. "Seek and save the lost" and "build His Church" include that.

GeneralT001 said:

It is very, very unlikely that an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi would not have been married in Jesus's time. It is one of the first commandments in the Bible:

• Genesis 1:28: "God blessed them, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it"
• Genesis 2:24: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh"

One cannot experience the totality of the human existence and suffering without the exquisite, Holy and righteous experience of becoming one with your soul mate and sharing your life together. God's greatest gift to us. Without having been married Jesus could not have "Fulfilled The Law". It would be going against God in a most fundamental way? Jesus cannot claim to be human and not fulfill this commandment.

Click to expand...

Foolishness.
If Jesus were but a man, the Resurrected Christ, who controlled the elements, healed the blind, brought the dead back to life, is the Alpha & Omera, you might be right.

What you are professing here is ignorance, and if you believe it to be true, it might be best that you leave Talk Jesus of your own volition before the decision is made for you.

Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><

Christ4Ever said:

Foolishness.
If Jesus were but a man, the Resurrected Christ, who controlled the elements, healed the blind, brought the dead back to life, is the Alpha & Omera, you might be right.

What you are professing here is ignorance, and if you believe it to be true, it might be best that you leave Talk Jesus of your own volition before the decision is made for you.

Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><

Click to expand...

Wow. Okay. I'm outta here. Good Luck

Dear Brother, @GeneralT001
When I saw your reply, I was convicted, and told you have accepted worst scenarios in the past and didn't reply as such, so why now?
That being said I must apologize for my post to you. I did it in haste, during a time I was not at my best, which I should know by now is not the time to reply to anything, and that I should just step away from the keyboard.

So, if you receive this post, I hope you will accept my apology, and if you decide to stay, again be welcomed. If not, then fair you well in whatever roads God has you traveling!

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC/Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><

Thank you for the apology. Accepted of course.

Its just your reply struck me as sort of "cultish" in that you seem (seemed) unwilling to entertain any contrarian view to the standard narrative. I am only trying to explore Jesus from different perspectives. I do not want to denigrate the historical Jesus in any fashion. I am pretty certain He would want all of us to do the same. What would be the point of true study otherwise?

GeneralT001 said:

Thank you for the apology. Accepted of course.

Its just your reply struck me as sort of "cultish" in that you seem (seemed) unwilling to entertain any contrarian view to the standard narrative. I am only trying to explore Jesus from different perspectives. I do not want to denigrate the historical Jesus in any fashion. I am pretty certain He would want all of us to do the same. What would be the point of true study otherwise?

Click to expand...

Thank you for accepting my apology. Rough day.

Still, to go along with the above, it depends on the perspective you are coming from.

His being married is one, but it could go on and on while usually clouding/cloaking an ulterior motive other than providing any great insight to the truth. Now if you had stated up front that this was going to be an exercise in apologetics, I could have quickly understood and accepted it...maybe.

Still, even now my thought would probably still have been does he believe that Jesus was actually married...I don't believe you actually do, because though the use of Genisis 2:24 and Jewish Traditions as a part of justifying it might seem on the face of it as being plausible. What that then causes in turn is another can of worms of Jesus still being sinless after becoming one flesh with a woman that is a sinner. So, the sacrifice would then be tainted. And so, the beats goes on and on and on. This, I do believe is not what Jesus would want for us and my objection.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><
P.S. If you are replying to another post, make sure you either quote a portion of what they have written or use the "@name". Otherwise, they won't know you've replied to them. \o/

GeneralT001 said:

Who are the lost He came to save? (hint Matthew 15:24)

So, he did not come as The Messiah then? More like a prophet to set the Jews back on a truer path of The Torah?

Click to expand...

General you have no idea of what the Bible really says.
Get a KJV Bible and learn to read it.