Was Jesus Christ Married?

"The canonical Gospels, (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) preclude any option of understanding Jesus as married. He operates as an unmarried teacher with a band of devoted disciples. He is not the head of a household, but builds a household of faith — the church. At the crucifixion, he assigns John responsibility for caring for Mary, his mother. There is no mention of any wife, and certainly no mention of children."

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/historical-propaganda/

Catholic Apologists And The Perpetual Virginity Of Mary

• Discussion:

          -Roman Catholic apologist De Maria rebutted my comments relating to the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary. He appeals to church tradition, makes false claims about Jewish culture, and tries really hard to wiggle around texts which mention brothers and sisters of Jesus. Excerpts from the author are cited in bold and followed with critical commentary:

          "The New Testament was originally passed on in Tradition. This is what Jesus commanded (Matthew 28:18-21)."

          Those teachings have been written down for us in epistles. Further, the Great Commission is about the preaching of the gospel, also identified in Scripture. For a more in-depth examination of claims regarding "Sacred Tradition," see this article:

           https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2017/09/roman-catholic-apologists-and-circular.html

          "The original Scriptures were not written in English. Nor were they written in modern Greek. They were written in ancient Greek and Latin. And they were written by Catholics who were simply writing down Catholic Doctrine. The same Doctrine which Jesus Christ passed down."

          The original New Testament was not composed in Latin, but Koine Greek. The Vulgate was a translation of the original manuscripts, and textually deficient. Moreover, it is not as though the overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars who know this type of Greek would affirm the perpetual virginity of Mary. They will merely say that it is possible that she was.

          "You're reading the New Testament in modern English 2000 years removed from the ancient Jewish culture which gave birth to the Christian faith."

           Biblical translations convey with a remarkable degree of accuracy what the authors of such texts intended to say, so wholesale dismissals of them are unjustified.

          The following excerpt from the Jewish Encyclopedia is also helpful here:

          "In post-Biblical literature Jewish opinion stands out clear and simple: marriage is a duty, and celibacy a sin. "The world was created to produce life; He created it not a waste, He formed it to be inhabited" (Isa. xlv. 18; Giṭ. iv. 5 = 'Eduy. i. 13). "Be fruitful, and multiply" (Gen. i. 28) is taken as a command; marriage with a view to that end is a duty incumbent upon every male adult (according to some the duty devolves also upon woman; Yeb. vi. 8; Maimonides, "Yad," Ishut, xv.; Shulḥan 'Aruk, Eben ha-'Ezer, 1, 13)...Abstention from marital intercourse on the part of the husband exceeding a legitimate limit, which varies with the different occupations, may be taken by the wife as ground for a divorce (Ket. v. 6, 7). A single man who is past twenty may be compelled by the court to marry (Shulḥan 'Aruk, l.c. i. 3)."

          "[in response to Matthew 13:55-57 and Mark 6:3-4] Only if you follow the traditions of men which Protestants believe. However, Tradition and Scripture tell us that Jesus was an only child. Therefore, any use of the word "adelphoi" must be in the general sense that we use the word "brother" today. As in good friend, cousin, church companion, and many other senses."

          Nowhere does the New Testament state that Jesus Christ was an only child or that Mary remained a virgin for her entire life. Never do we see the Angel Gabriel or some other messenger sent by God to tell Joseph that he was not to consummate his marriage. The basis for Mary's perpetual virginity is uninspired legends and unreasonable assumptions.

          Adelphoi does not always refer to physical brothers, but the New Testament uses the Greek word in just that way. The context of Matthew 13 and Mark 6 demands that we understand His brothers and sisters to mean blood relatives. For instance, the phrase "a prophet is not without honor except in his own household" implies the presence of close family members, such as biological siblings. They lived with Him and were part of His immediate family. British Methodist theologian and scholar Adam Clarke said the following when commenting on Matthew 13:55:

          "Why should the children of another family be brought in here to share a reproach which it is evident was designed for Joseph the carpenter, Mary his wife, Jesus their son, and their other children? Prejudice apart, would not any person of plain common sense suppose, from this account, that these were the children of Joseph and Mary, and the brothers and sisters of our Lord, according to the flesh?"

          If a person wants to argue that the brothers and sisters of Jesus are from a previous marriage, then why were they were nowhere mentioned during the escape to and return from Egypt (Matthew 2)? The context only presents Mary, Joseph, and the baby Jesus. Why were the relatives not mentioned when Joseph traveled with Mary to Bethlehem for the census (Luke 2)?

          "And the writer knew that Catholics would understand the true meaning of the word. And if they didn't, they have an infallible Teacher to correct them."

          The point being stressed here is that the New Testament uses language in such a precise fashion that the Roman Catholic dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity is rendered unlikely. Why would the Holy Spirit move people to write in a way that contradicts our common sense? If the inspired writers of the New Testament actually believed this dogma, then why did they not forthrightly proclaim it as truth?

          "[In response to Matthew 1:24-25] The entire idea presented there is "knew her not". This is a perfect example of you treating ancient Jewish speech patterns the same as modern English. But you assume too much. heos hou, or "until", was used differently by Jews than by modern English speakers. So, let's look at the Scripture. Matthew "knew her not until". To, English speakers, that means that Matthew did not know her until a certain point in time and then he did. But to an ancient Jew, that isn't the case. Let me give you an example (2 Samuel 6:23)."

           The Greek New Testament contains instances in which the word "until" denotes a change in circumstances as well as a figurative sense meaning an indefinite point. Therefore, the Jews would have been familiar with both usages. There is nothing giving the word until in Matthew 1:25 a meaning other than a change in situation or status, except prior theological commitments. 2 Samuel 6:23 (which was originally written in Hebrew, not Greek) is a case in which until means an unspecified point in time or never again, but it does have the temporal sense in other texts such as Matthew 17:9 and 24:39.

          "Even that doesn't show a change of status after the wedding day, if read in the culture of the ancient Jews."

           Relations between marital partners is seen as normal in the Old Testament (Genesis 2:22-24). According to Jewish law, one could not be considered married without consummation. Celibacy was never the norm, except among certain sects such as the Essenes. Judaism in general placed a special emphasis on marriage and childbearing, as did most of the ancient world. That is why men married females who were even decades younger than themselves, something which we today would consider abhorrent. The underlying reason for that was fertility, which decreases with age. As far as a biblical theology of marriage is concerned, sexual relations are a part of God's design for it. It is a measure that brings about sanctity and honor (Hebrews 13:4).

          "[In response to Matthew 1:18] Again, since Catholics have always knows that they never came together sexually, then we know that there must be an alternate meaning. That meaning must be "before they came together in one household."

          Matthew 1 speaks of being betrothed, but not yet having slept together. The details provided by the gospel narratives strongly indicate normal marital relations between Mary and Joseph. Merely stating that an idea should be accepted as true because that is how it has always been is an instance of begging the question. Since there is not enough evidence to support the perpetual virginity of Mary, Catholic teaching on this matter can most certainly be trashed, even centuries worth of it.

          "[In response to Psalm 69:8-9] Lol! Really? That is a prophet saying that he has alienated himself from the entire nation of Israel. Have you ever heard that Israel killed the prophets. Come on."

          Psalm 69 is obviously messianic in nature, although not every detail is pertinent to Jesus Christ. Psalm 69:8 was quoted in John 7:3-5. Psalm 69:9 was quoted in John 2:17. Psalm 69:21 was quoted in Matthew 27:34. Psalm 69:25 was quoted in Matthew 23:38. Reading the context of Psalm 69 gives us the imagery of one being alienated. That is exactly what has been reported in the gospel accounts regarding Christ. The text is a problem for the Roman Catholic dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity because it refers to "my brothers" and "my mother's sons."

          "[Responding to Luke 2:7] Read about Jewish culture. It would do you a world of good. Ok, let's see. OT Jews were polygamous. Let's say that Jew#1 had two wives. One of them had the Firstborn son and that's all. The other had the rest of the children. All boys. The Firstborn would receive double the inheritance of the other boys. That's all. It doesn't mean that wife #1 had any more children. Jesus was Mary's first and only son."

           There is no way of knowing whether most Jews in ancient times were polygamous, much less if Joseph himself was. It is questionable if he could even have afforded to have multiple wives. Even if any of these points are true, they are tangential to the core issue.

          "[Responding to the question of how marriage consummation would defile Mary] One of the main reasons is that we know that Joseph was a righteous man. In Scripture, righteous men do not have sexual relations with other men's wives. Joseph knew that the Holy Spirit had brought about the birth of Christ. And that means that Mary had become the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Joseph would not dare come to know her physically."

          Scripture never affirms or even hints at the idea that the Holy Spirit "married" Mary or she became His spiritual wife. The Holy Spirit is not like a Roman or Greek god who has sexual relations with a human being and a god-man is born. The Holy Spirit is not physical, but immaterial. Mary was simply "overshadowed" by Him. His divine power created the physical body of Jesus Christ in her womb.

          "[In Response to John 7:1-10, Acts 1:13-14, and Galatians 1:18-19] In all those passages, the context shows that they were either some other relative or close friends, but in context with the Traditions which were passed down by Jesus Christ, we know that they were not the children of Mary."

          There is simply no valid reason to dogmatically assert that the siblings of Jesus were cousins or from some previous marriage. Those theories are bereft of a truthful foundation.

The False Authority Of The Mormon Priesthood

         “There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek and Aaronic, including the Levitical Priesthood. Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest. Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God. But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood. All other authorities or offices in the church are appendages to this priesthood. … The second priesthood is called the Priesthood of Aaron, because it was conferred upon Aaron and his seed, throughout all their generations. Why it is called the lesser priesthood is because it is an appendage to the greater, or the Melchizedek Priesthood, and has power in administering outward ordinances.” (Doctrine and Covenants 107:1–5, 13–14)

          The Old Testament distinctly delineates the roles and lineage of priesthood, confining it exclusively to Aaron and his descendants within the tribe of Levi (Numbers 3:6; Leviticus 6:19-23). This genealogical specificity underscores the legitimacy and authenticity of the Aaronic and Levitical priesthoods within the Judaic tradition. By contrast, the priesthood claimed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), which includes members outside this lineage, diverges significantly from this scriptural foundation.

         In traditional Judaic practice, priestly roles were inextricably linked to one's lineage within the tribe of Levi, specifically the descendants of Aaron. Numbers 18:1-7 explicitly delineates that the Aaronic priesthood was a hereditary office, underscoring the exclusivity and sanctity of this role. The Mormon claim to the Aaronic priesthood, conferred upon members not descended from Levi but believed to be restored through divine revelation, thus appears unorthodox and scripturally unsupported.

         The New Testament introduces a paradigm shift in the understanding of priesthood through the person and work of Jesus Christ. Hebrews 7 particularly emphasizes this transition, portraying Christ as the eternal high priest in the order of Melchizedek. This priesthood is described as "unchangeable" or "non-transferable," signifying a permanent and exclusive role for Christ, unlike the temporal and lineage-bound Levitical priesthood. Hebrews 7:11-12 and 23-25 highlight that Christ’s priesthood supersedes the old covenant, rendering traditional Levitical roles obsolete. This theological framework challenges the LDS Church’s interpretation and application of these priesthoods within their ecclesiastical structure.

         The restoration claims of the LDS Church, particularly regarding the priesthood, encounter significant historical scrutiny. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery’s accounts of angelic visitations and ordinations were not publicly revealed until several years after the alleged events. This delayed disclosure raises questions about the veracity and authenticity of their claims. The absence of early documentation and the subsequent inclusion of these revelations in later publications, such as the Doctrine and Covenants, further complicate their historical credibility.

         The New Testament extends the concept of priesthood to all believers, as articulated in 1 Peter 2:5-9 and Revelation 1:5-6. This doctrine, known as the "priesthood of all believers," democratizes spiritual authority, contrasting sharply with the hierarchical priesthood structure within the LDS Church. The tearing of the temple veil at Christ’s crucifixion (Matthew 27:51-54) symbolizes the end of exclusive priestly mediation, emphasizing direct access to God for all believers through Christ.

         The LDS Church’s theological stance on priesthood, rooted in the belief of restored divine authority, diverges significantly from traditional Christian interpretations. While the LDS Church views its priesthood as a restoration of ancient authority, traditional Christianity interprets the New Testament as signifying the fulfillment and cessation of such roles through Christ’s atonement. This fundamental theological discrepancy underpins the critique of the LDS priesthood as lacking scriptural and historical legitimacy.

The Superior Morality Of The Judeo-Christian God

"Recently, archaeologists working in northern Peru made a discovery they called “disturbing and disquieting.”

Digging in the outskirts of the pre-Columbian city of Chan-Chan, they found the remains of about 140 children and 200 animals, mostly llamas. The condition of the children’s remains made it clear that they had been sacrificed along with the animals, perhaps in response to some emergency or dire threat. According to the Washington Post, it’s the site of “the largest known child sacrifice in the world.”

While this is a very unpleasant subject, it serves as a gruesome reminder of how biblical religion, especially Christianity, changed the course of human history.

Chan-Chan was the capital of the Chimú empire. Before their disturbing find, the archaeologists were not aware that this ancient people practiced child sacrifice. Their hypothesis is that the sacrifices were in response to a severe weather event, perhaps a strong El Niño, which caused catastrophic flooding.

Whatever precipitated the child sacrifice, the Chimú were far from alone in their attempts to placate the gods by slaughtering their children. Their conquerors, the Incan Empire, also practiced child sacrifice in times of emergency.

In the Old World, the Carthaginians, who were descended from the biblical city of Tyre, sacrificed children to their gods at shrines the Hebrew Bible called “tophets.” The Romans made a big deal out of this fact in their anti-Carthaginian propaganda, conveniently omitting the fact that they did the same in response to the Carthaginian general Hannibal’s invasion of Italy.

The Carthaginians weren’t the only ancient people who emulated Canaanite child sacrifice. Pre-exilic Israel practiced this demonic rite, as well. In Jeremiah 7, the Lord denounces the “high place of Topheth” where the people “burn their sons and daughters in the fire.”

On account of this abomination, the Lord said that “I cause to cease from the cities of Judah, and from the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride; for the land shall become a waste.”

Then, of course, there’s that one specific example cited by the Washington Post in its article about the find in Peru: the “Binding of Isaac” in Genesis 22. While parts of this story are perplexing and even troubling, it’s inclusion along with the other examples misses a crucial point: There was never a chance Isaac would be sacrificed.

If Abraham, to quote Bob Dylan’s paraphrase, had replied to God “Man, you must be putting me on,” Isaac lives. If, as actually happened, Abraham was willing to be fully obedient to God’s instruction, Isaac lives because God prevents the sacrifice.

This God, as Christianity would later teach the world, doesn’t demand our children as a sacrifice, but rather sacrificed His own Son on our behalf."

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/john-stonestreet/obvious-parallels-between-discovered-child-sacrifice-site-and-recent

Answering The Mormons On Baptism For The Dead

          "Many people, however, have died without being baptized. Others were baptized without proper authority. Because God is merciful, He has prepared a way for all people to receive the blessings of baptism. By performing proxy baptisms in behalf of those who have died, Church members offer these blessings to deceased ancestors. Individuals can then choose to accept or reject what has been done in their behalf...Because He is a loving God, the Lord does not damn those people who, through no fault of their own, never had the opportunity for baptism. He has therefore authorized baptisms to be performed by proxy for them. A living person, often a descendant who has become a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is baptized in behalf of a deceased person. This work is done by Church members in temples throughout the world." (https://www.lds.org/topics/baptisms-for-the-dead?lang=eng)

          Mormons cite 1 Corinthians 15:29 as biblical evidence that Jesus Christ and the apostles sanctioned their strange practice of members getting baptized on behalf of loved ones who passed away. However, the Apostle Paul (or any other biblical author) nowhere approves of Christians holding such a custom. The concept is not taught here. Rather, he uses baptism of the dead as evidence that even pagans believed in some concept of a resurrection and afterlife. Some of the Corinthians had embraced the heretical notion that there would be no physical resurrection. So, Paul reasoned that if such were the case, their baptism was done in vain. There would be no hope of seeing loved ones again. 

          In other words, the Apostle Paul said that a tradition among unbelievers was to get baptized for the sake of their deceased loved ones with the yearning and aspiration of being united when they were raised from the grave. His intention is not to provide commentary regarding the efficacy or truthfulness of baptism for the dead, but to illustrate that even the pagan world looked forward to being raised from the dead. This excerpt on the Mormon practice of baptism for the dead is insightful here:

         "The silence of the Book of Mormon on baptism for the dead is an important fact, for it means that a single verse in the Bible — 1 Corinthians 15:29 — constitutes its sole mention in ancient Christian Scripture. This is acknowledged by the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (a 1992 work published under the supervision of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the LDS church) — “He [Paul] refers to a practice of vicarious baptism, a practice for which we have no other evidence in the Pauline or other New Testament or early Christian writings."

          This practice is patently absurd when approached from a biblical standpoint. One's eternal destiny is forever sealed at the moment of physical death (Luke 16:22-26). Further, God only rewards individuals according to their own conduct in this life (Ezekiel 18:20). Thus, Scripture contradicts any notion of baptism for the dead.

The Philosophical Incoherence Of The Mormon God

        The Mormon church professes belief in a plurality of gods. It teaches a concept called eternal progression, which is the idea that men can work to attain godhood. The Mormon understanding of deity can not only be easily refuted from a biblical point of view, but also suffers due to being by its very nature logically incoherent.

        The problems arise from the fact that Mormons believe God to have once been a mortal man who needed to reach a standard of perfection in order to be considered divine. The propositions of God being uncreated and God once being formed are mutually exclusive.

        If God is not without beginning or end, then He must be subject to an additional transcendental truth (which cannot exist without an infinite mind). He must be held accountable to a standard higher than Himself. He must be under the dominion of some other gods. It would be self-contradictory to argue that God has always been eternal and unchanging while at the same time believing that He had to become a perfect deity. Yet, that is what the Mormons proclaim as truth.

        The Mormon concept of God leaves us with numerous questions. Who was the first god? Who within the infinite succession of gods set the universe into motion? On what basis could there be moral absolutes? How did the Mormon god obtain omniscience in the first place (appealing to infinite regression does not get us anywhere)? If all Mormon gods are supposed to have mortal human bodies, then what about the Holy Spirit who does not have one and is considered a god?

Should Translators Place A Comma Before Or After The Word "Today" In Luke 23:43?

          "And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise." (Luke 23:43)

          This passage of Scripture has played a crucial role in the debate on the immortality of the soul. It has traditionally been argued that, since Jesus Christ promised the repentant thief who was crucified with Him entrance into heaven that very day upon physical death, our souls must continue to remain conscious after physical death. That interpretation, if upheld, would indeed fly in the face of the erroneous doctrine of conditional immortality.

          Proponents of soul sleep correctly point out that the Greek language has no commas. Punctuation marks were added to manuscripts after the New Testament was written. Based on that fact, it has been argued that the correct placement of the comma should be incorporated after the word today. In other words, it has been suggested that Luke 23:43 should read as follows: "Truly I say to you today, you shall be with Me in Paradise." It would change the meaning of the text to mean that Christ spoke to him at that moment the promise of entering into paradise at some undefined point in the future as opposed to that same day of death. The timing of believers entering into paradise would therefore be at the final resurrection.

          While both variant readings are theoretically acceptable, the objective of here is to argue in defense of a comma being inserted prior to the word today. First and foremost, the context demands that we understand the reference to today as meaning on that very same day. The dying criminal understood on what day that Christ spoke those comforting words. There was no need for Him to emphasize the timing of today. It would literally make no sense for a man who is suffocating and dying on a crucifix to make such a hasty waste of his words. 

          In this grand episode of the incarnate Lord gently and affectionately showing forth clemency in response to the converted convict's petition, we see Him referencing to a paradise consistent with popular Jewish thought about the unseen Edenic realm. This abode for the righteous is analogous to Abraham's bosom, which is mentioned in Luke 16:22. Further, "today" in Luke 23:43 is contrasted with "When you come into your kingdom" in Luke 24:42. Thus, the repentant thief entered heaven the instant he died.

          Dr. Timothy E. Saleska gives these comments on the placement of the word "today" in Luke 23:43:

          "The reason that almost all translators place the comma before “today” is because of the expression by Christ: “Verily I say unto you…” That expression, used exclusively by Christ, occurs approximately 100 times in the Gospels and its intent is always to emphasize the statement that follows; in this case, “…today you shall be with me in paradise.” This is the strongest reason for placing the comma where almost all translators throughout the history of the church have placed it. It fits the meaning and intent of Christ’s promise to the thief that he would be with him that day in paradise. Christ wants him to be certain of that. If the comma is placed after “today” i.e. “verily I say unto you today, you shall be with me in paradise” the word “today” is superfluous. It is obviously “today,” there is no reason to say it; it confuses the meaning and intent. Also, why would Christ change the formula “verily I say unto you” emphasizing what follows, in just this one instance, when it is stated with the specific purpose I have indicated, everywhere else?"

1 Timothy 2:5 ("One Mediator Between God And Man") And Roman Catholic Apologetics

• Discussion:

          -The purpose of this article to rebut claims made by Sonja Corbitt in defense of Roman Catholic Mariology and an ordained ministerial priesthood in light of 1 Timothy 2:5. She largely just uses semantics here rather than actually addressing relevant issues. This critique begins with a citation from the author in bold letters and is followed with critical comments:

          "Indeed. Did Jesus carry you in his womb? And after your conception, gestation, and birth, what then? Have you not been fed, clothed, educated, loved, provided for, and protected by someone who is not Jesus unto this day?"

          This rhetoric is only designed to sidestep the real issue at hand. How could the Apostle Paul consistently affirm Jesus Christ to be our "one mediator" when there is supposedly a bunch of other lesser mediators? The author does not provide a clear-cut explanation as to how or why this can be. In that same text, Paul says that there is "one God." Based on the reasoning of the author, should we deduce the existence of mini-gods?

          "Does everything you know about Christ come from Christ himself? Did Jesus baptize you? Did Jesus teach you to read or read the Scriptures to you? Did Jesus hand-write your Bible, gather its writings, or physically protect the Deposit of Faith for 2000 plus years until you could receive it from his literal mouth?"

          The author merely filibusters the issue of what it means for Jesus Christ to be the one mediator between God and man. Christ came to reconcile sinners to a holy God. Only He, being sinless and divine, could make our redemption happen through His atonement sacrifice. We are to place our trust in Christ alone. He handles our prayers before God. Christ alone is our intercessor before God.

          "You are prayed for by other people. You are taught the Word of God by a person. And people even forgive one another! All the time if they’re obedient to Jesus, “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."

          When we pray on behalf of other Christians, we are not praying to them or through them. Prayer is done to God through Christ alone. The New Testament establishes Him as being the mediator between God and man without any reference to saints and angels (Hebrews 9:13-15; Hebrews 12:24).

          There is a distinction between the forgiveness of sin committed between offended parties and the forgiveness before God made available through the cross. It is also fallacious to conflate teaching Scripture with being a mediator of His grace. Petitioning God in prayer nowhere amounts to functioning as a channel of God's mercy or applying the benefits of Christ's atonement to other people.

          "Catholic confession and forgiveness through a priest follows the same pattern. The Pharisees also made the “God is the only mediator” claim against Jesus in this very matter: “No man can forgive sins, but God only” (Luke 5:21).

          The point that Jesus Christ makes in Luke 5 is that He is God in the flesh. As such, He would indeed have the authority to pardon our iniquity. Also, there is an element of irony that is worthy of consideration here. Even the Scribes and Pharisees of the Law were not arrogant enough to think that they had the ability to forgive the sins of God's people. Yet, the Roman Catholic priesthood has without guilt or embarrassment took upon itself precisely that role!

          Some may argue that God alone forgives sin through a priest, but that premise is self-defeating. In that scenario, there would still be an additional party involved in Jesus Christ's mediatorship. Believers are to approach God for the forgiveness of sin directly through Christ. We do not need to consult sinful men in order to access the grace provided through the cross (Hebrews 4:14-16). We are to approach Jesus Christ directly for the forgiveness of any and all sins.

Does 1 Corinthians 15:50 Say That We Will Not Be Raised With Physical Bodies?

• Discussion:

          -A common proof text of the Jehovah's Witnesses cited in their rejection of Jesus Christ resurrecting bodily from the grave and for its so-called special class of 144,000 being resurrected as spirit beings is 1 Corinthians 15:50, which is cited as follows:

          "Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable."

          Notice how Jesus Christ said that He had flesh and bones so as to prove to His disciples that He was not merely a ghost (Luke 24:39-40). The presence of His hands and feet shows that He was not only immaterial, for it would have been impossible for Him to do so had things been otherwise. Moreover, God took His faithful servant Enoch directly into heaven in his physical body (Genesis 5:24). We are given no indication of him becoming only a spirit being.

          The final resurrection of the dead will not involve us leaving our mortal bodies behind to decompose. Rather, we will "put on" the imperishable (1 Corinthians 15:53-55). God will eventually perfect our physical bodies. Our nature will be restored back to what it was prior to the fall. This process will be done instantaneously (1 Corinthians 15:52). The phrase "flesh and blood" is a euphemism for humanity in its fallen state.

          We must be raised up and glorified to enter into the New Heavens and New Earth in the same manner that Christ was. He has a real, tangible body. He ascended in a human body (Acts 1). He currently is a man mediating between believers and God (1 Timothy 2:5). He will come again to judge the world as a man (Acts 17:31). In Christ dwells (present tense) all the fullness of deity in bodily form (Colossians 2:9).

Debunking The Jehovah's Witness Teaching On The 144,000

• Discussion:

          -The Watchtower Society teaches that there is a literal, anointed class of 144,000 Christians who will inherit the kingdom of God and reign with Christ. Other believers who qualify to fit into a secondary rank will get to dwell together in a world of paradise under the headship of the 144,000. To summarize, the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain a distinction among types of redeemed people.

           The Bible does not place a specific limit on the number of people who can enjoy spending eternity with God in heaven. Everybody who asks receives, and everybody who seeks will find (Matthew 7:8). There is no spiritual distinction among those who have placed their trust in the righteousness of God (Romans 3:21-22). The Apostle Paul says without setting forth any categories that our citizenship is in the heavenly sanctuary above (Philippians 3:20). Jesus Christ said that the "household" of the Father is comprised of "many rooms" (John 14:2-3).

          If the Jehovah's Witnesses are correct in their understanding regarding the 144,000 people spoken of in Revelation chapters 7 and 14, then that would mean (in order to remain consistent with the rest of the context) only a small remnant of Jewish people could be saved. With that point comes other inferences that are ludicrous. Charles Taze Russell would be excluded from heaven because he was not a Jew. The Apostle Peter would be excluded from heaven because he was not a virgin. All women would be excluded from heaven because the context identifies all members of this group to be males (which would be sexist).

          These believing Jewish males could very well be ordained by God from the twelve tribes of Israel to preach the gospel in the midst of tribulational calamity (Revelation 14:1-3). Other commentators take this reference to the 144,000 to be a symbolic representation of the entire body of the saints. After all, Revelation 7:9-10 says that countless multitudes of people were standing before the throne of God worshiping and singing praises. Nonetheless, the idea that only 144,000 people will enter heaven is untenable.

          Strangely enough, the idea of an eternal paradise earth for a secondary class of believers was introduced into the Jehovah's Witness sect by Joseph Rutherford, the second president of the Watchtower Tract and Bible Society. It was not taught by Charles Taze Russell, who is reputed to be the founder of what has been termed the Bible Study Movement. This teaching has not been present among the Jehovah's Witnesses from the very beginning.