LDS A Visit to the LDS Temple

[He is the way]

What does your reply have to do with anything I've written? The statement that the followers of Christ were first called Christians in Antioch comes from Acts, not Luke. In fact, none of the contradictions I pointed out relied on Luke for a reference. What does the Gospel according to St. Luke have to do with anything at all?

What a strange non-reply. It would appear that you are now having your own conversation about some unrelated matter. Let me know if you ever actually address the points I have made, or back up your original claim. Right now, you are doing neither.

Didn't you know that Acts, where you got your quote, was written by Luke?

 

[mmksparbud]

Luke observed what was happening in his own area of the world. Luke disagreed with Mathew on who Joseph's father was:

(New Testament | Luke 3:23)

23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

(New Testament | Matthew 1:16)

16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke was not perfect. He also made other mistakes.

That is not a contradiction! By law, whoever is the husband of the woman bearing the child is the legal father of that child. Jesus would have been written down as being the son of Joseph at His circumcision. It was the common knowledge by everyone in town that Joseph was His father, Mary was the wife of Joseph.

 

[mmksparbud]

"why wasn't Christ baptized at age eight?" That should be obvious. Think about it for a minute..................
How old was John the Baptist when Jesus was eight?

At what age are your priests able to baptize others?

 

[He is the way]

That is not a contradiction! By law, whoever is the husband of the woman bearing the child is the legal father of that child. Jesus would have been written down as being the son of Joseph at His circumcision. It was the common knowledge by everyone in town that Joseph was His father, Mary was the wife of Joseph.

Who was the father of Joseph, Jacob or Heli? Who was right Luke or Matthew?

 

[dzheremi]

Didn't you know that Acts, where you got your quote, was written by Luke?

Yes I did. Didn't you know that the Gospel according to St. Luke is not the same as Acts? Even Biblical scholars who talk about "Luke-Acts" as a way of combining the two due to their presumed shared authorship and similar themes (the ministry of Jesus and the ministry of the apostles) recognize by doing so that it is a two-part work -- meaning that the first part is different than the second part. That's why one is a Gospel and the other isn't. They're not the same just because they can be paired together. You don't answer one by quoting from the other just because they were written by the same person. Your quotes at least have to make sense relative to what we're talking about.

If I quote from St. Paul's letters to the Corinthians and you reply with something from his letter to the Galatians, have you necessarily addressed the passage from Corinthians just because both were written by the same author? No. You haven't, particularly if the point I originally made is unrelated to the writing you subsequently posted.

Please learn how to discuss things properly before replying to any more of my posts. This is getting tedious.

 

[He is the way]

At what age are your priests able to baptize others?

A male can become a priest at the age of 15 after which time they can baptize someone. Edit A male can become a priest at the age of 16

 

[mmksparbud]

uk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
Luk 3:24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

Who was the father of Joseph, Jacob or Heli? Who was right Luke or Matthew?

Mat 1:15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
Mat 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.



I will give you what is said about it so you don't consider this as simply my view.

Some point to these differences as evidence of errors in the Bible. However, the Jews were meticulous record keepers, especially in regard to genealogies. It is inconceivable that Matthew and Luke could build two entirely contradictory genealogies of the same lineage. Again, from David through Jesus, the genealogies are completely different. Even the reference to Shealtiel and Zerubbabel likely refer to different individuals of the same names. Matthew gives Shealtiel's father as Jeconiah while Luke gives Shealtiel's father as Neri. It would be normal for a man named Shealtiel to name his son Zerubbabel in light of the famous individuals of those names (see the books of Ezra and Nehemiah).

One explanation, held by the church historian Eusebius, is that Matthew is tracing the primary, or biological, lineage while Luke is taking into account an occurrence of “levirate marriage.” If a man died without having any sons, it was tradition for the man’s brother to marry the widow and have a son who would carry on the deceased man’s name. According to Eusebius’s theory, Melchi (Luke 3:24) and Matthan (Matthew 1:15) were married at different times to the same woman (tradition names her Estha). This would make Heli (Luke 3:23) and Jacob (Matthew 1:15) half-brothers. Heli then died without a son, and so his (half-)brother Jacob married Heil’s widow, who gave birth to Joseph. This would make Joseph the “son of Heli” legally and the “son of Jacob” biologically. Thus, Matthew and Luke are both recording the same genealogy (Joseph’s), but Luke follows the legal lineage while Matthew follows the biological.

Most conservative Bible scholars today take a different view, namely, that Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), through David’s son Nathan. Since there was no Greek word for “son-in-law,” Joseph was called the “son of Heli” by marriage to Mary, Heli’s daughter. Through either Mary’s or Joseph’s line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother’s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke’s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph, “so it was thought” (Luke 3:23).
Why are Jesus' genealogies in Matthew and Luke so different?

 

[mmksparbud]

A male can become a priest at the age of 15 after which time they can baptize someone.

so John could have baptized Jesus at 15?

 

[He is the way]

so John could have baptized Jesus at 15?

It is believed that John started his ministry not long before Jesus started His ministry. It is likely that John was 6 months older than Jesus. It is not known when John started to baptize.

 

[mmksparbud]

It is believed that John started his ministry not long before Jesus started His ministry. It is likely that John was 6 months older than Jesus. It is not known when John started to baptize.

Yes--I know that--according to Jewish tradition, the age of priests were 25 to 50 years. Anyone younger or older was not eligible to serve. Interesting your priests start at 15.
Num 8:24 This is it that belongeth unto the Levites: from twenty and five years old and upward they shall go in to wait upon the service of the tabernacle of the congregation:
Num 8:25 And from the age of fifty years they shall cease waiting upon the service thereof, and shall serve no more:
Num 8:26 But shall minister with their brethren in the tabernacle of the congregation, to keep the charge, and shall do no service. Thus shalt thou do unto the Levites touching their charge.
Rabbis--were usually not called that until 30.

I was just seeing that according to your priesthood, john could have baptized Jesus by the age of 15.

 

[He is the way]

Yes--I know that--according to Jewish tradition, the age of priests were 25 to 50 years. Anyone younger or older was not eligible to serve. Interesting your priests start at 15.
Num 8:24 This is it that belongeth unto the Levites: from twenty and five years old and upward they shall go in to wait upon the service of the tabernacle of the congregation:
Num 8:25 And from the age of fifty years they shall cease waiting upon the service thereof, and shall serve no more:
Num 8:26 But shall minister with their brethren in the tabernacle of the congregation, to keep the charge, and shall do no service. Thus shalt thou do unto the Levites touching their charge.
Rabbis--were usually not called that until 30.

I was just seeing that according to your priesthood, john could have baptized Jesus by the age of 15.

Jesus wanted to start His earthly ministry when He was twelve years old but He couldn't because of the laws at the time. Jesus could not tell them who He was because of the laws at that time. The Jews were always looking for a way to find Him guilty of breaking their laws. The Jewish laws were harsh and unloving. Many of those laws were man made laws which Jesus detested because they were contrary to the commandments of love.

 

[Anto9us]

A male can become a priest at the age of 15 after which time they can baptize someone.

How bout girls?

 

[Jane_Doe]

How bout girls?

Note: an LDS male must be 16 before becoming a priest, not 15.

Ladies have their own path, growing as women in God. One path is not superior to the other.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Why would a just God not give everyone an equal opportunity to return to Him?

Why do you equate justice with being equal?

 

[He is the way]

Why do you equate justice with being equal?

God is not a respecter of persons:
(Old Testament | 2 Samuel 14:14)

14 For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; neither doth God respect any person: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him.

(New Testament | Acts 10:34 - 35)

34 ¶ Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

 

[BigDaddy4]

God is not a respecter of persons:
(Old Testament | 2 Samuel 14:14)

14 For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; neither doth God respect any person: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him.

(New Testament | Acts 10:34 - 35)

34 ¶ Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Another non-answer answer?

 

[mmksparbud]

Another non-answer answer?

they are very practiced at it--that and if they have no answer---they simply ignore.

 

[He is the way]

Another non-answer answer?

I guess you didn't understand the answer. God is not a respecter of persons, we are all equal in His eyes. Therefore His justice is equal for each of us according to our deeds. Besides He has made it possible for each of us to return to Him.

 

[mmksparbud]

I guess you didn't understand the answer. God is not a respecter of persons, we are all equal in His eyes. Therefore His justice is equal for each of us according to our deeds. Besides He has made it possible for each of us to return to Him.

How in the world does God seeing us as all equal to each other---add up to us being equal to Him? How does us all being equal in opportunity to return to Him, add op to us being equal to Him?

 

[BigDaddy4]

I guess you didn't understand the answer. God is not a respecter of persons, we are all equal in His eyes. Therefore His justice is equal for each of us according to our deeds. Besides He has made it possible for each of us to return to Him.

I guess you didn't understand the question. At least now you gave a little more context to your answer. But let's refresh your memory.
You asked:
"Why would a just God not give everyone an equal opportunity to return to Him?"
To which I replied:
"Why do you equate justice with being equal?"

So, your response of "we are all equal in His eyes" doesn't really answer the question of equal opportunity for everyone. Where is the evidence in the Bible that God gives everyone an equal opportunity to everyone?