mdb

Anyone else?

What about the man who claims to be the truth? Do you believe Him? A man seeking the truth is wise, but if a man claiming to already have found it is proved to have done so, I'd believe him.

What was the reason for the priests? What did they do for the people?

What does that mean? Explain.

By that standard, you must reject not only the New Testament but Jesus Christ himself. Paul shows this clearly: For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. (Hebrews 7:14) So Christ's priesthood authority is false since he came from the tribe of Judah, and Jehovah was clear that only the tribe of Levi was to officiate in ordinances due to their integrity on Mt. Sinai (see Ex. 32:26-28). So Jesus's claims to authority were false, thus his disciples' teachings were false, thus the gospel as contained in the New Testament is false and we should still be living the Law of Moses as explained in the Old Testament. The Passover should still be observed, not some supper of bread and wine like Jesus taught. Baptism is unnecessary, regardless of what Jesus said. Christ had no authority to teach or institute new ordinances as a Judaean. Man, I'm glad you explained that God does not use new revelation to contradict previous revelation! And here I was believing Jesus's claims! Phew! Free at last! Melchizedek's priesthood (OT) was not of the Levite tribe either. He was without genealogy and a priest before Levi was born. For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace,” without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually. (Heb 7:1-3) Regarding Hebrews 7:14, you should read a little further. While reading it I felt compelled to paste three or four chapters of it, but I think most people have access to it and posting so much would be a waste of time. Jesus' priesthood came not through the flesh, but by oath and was written in the Psalms that it should happen this way (Psalm 110:4). That's not a contradiction but a fulfilling of the Scriptures. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. For He testifies: “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.” For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. Greatness of the New Priest And inasmuch as He was not made priest without an oath (for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him: “The Lord has sworn And will not relent, ‘You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek’ ” ), by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant. (Heb 7:14-22) The Lord has sworn And will not relent, “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.” (Ps 110:4)

I look forward to more of a response from you. If I may comment on the above, I do not believe that God could not and does not receive glory in any other way, but this passage is specifically noting glory given "in the Church ... to all generations". In the context of the verse, "all generations" cannot include those generations of pre-Christ origin since the Church was non-existent until Jesus ordained it. The Church is the body of Christ and through it, by Christ Jesus, God will be given glory. Additionally, the priesthood is no longer needed. Jesus is a priest forever and there is no need for any other priest, temple or ordinances. Read the book of Hebrews very carefully. It is quite clear on the subject. Respectfully,

But if this apostasy happened then how would God, by Jesus Christ, be given glory in the church? And this to ALL generations. There would have been a large "generation gap" where no glory would have been given to God in the Church since the Church had fallen until Mormonism appeared. That causes a major problem. Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us, to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen. (Eph 3:20-21)

In order for me to read and accept any of Joseph Smith's words as genuine revelation from God, Joseph Smith has to first be proved credible (This might get deleted because I uttered such a thing). All I'm saying is to check what is said against our only credible source, the Holy Bible. If there's a discrepancy, there's something wrong with the source, not God's word. Any additional revelation God may give will not contradict what has already been spoken since God does not contradict Himself. Joseph Smith said it was given by revelation. That's fine. I can claim the same thing of anything I want to. What authority proves it to be revelation or not? If I prophesy or say, "thus says the Lord" and what is said does not come true, I'm a false prophet. If I say this or that is the truth and it goes against the word of God, I'm a false teacher. God is the authority and His word will always stand. There once was a man who made a false prophecy about a certain temple which was to be built in Missouri within his generation. This event failed to happen. What does that make of the man and how do we know that anything he says is true? Take it for what it is. Your "truth" has to be true before it can hurt.

I don't know how after two postings this got off onto the topic of marriage. That's a whole different can of worms. What about this "falling away"? Isn't it taught that the Church completely fell away? That for a time, after the martyring of the early Church disciples and leaders (Paul, Matthew, Peter, Timothy, etc.), the gates of hell prevailed (so to speak)? That's why Joseph Smith was told not to associate with any of them isn't it? ... start a new thing, they've all fallen into apostasy.

Was there really a complete falling away of the true Church on earth and if so, what proof is there of this happening? The reason for the establishment of the Mormon church is because of this great apostasy.

First, you choose to ignore Numbers 21:5 where it says it was "Elohim" the people spoke against and then in the same passage it says it was Jehovah. Which one was it (if you believe they are two separate Gods)? Second, your "God is love" response is not productive. Love is a trait or quality, not a descriptive of being. Being Spirit and being "love" are not comparable here. Jesus is also the way, the truth and the life - the only means of salvation. That doesn't make Jesus non-physical. I would agree that God is love. He is a loving Spirit. More than just being loving, God IS love - it is His nature. He cannot be unloving. The Scriptures also say that God is light and that there is no darkness in Him at all (1 Jn 1:5). I don't see what your argument is suppose to accomplish? Love, light, truth, life, the way - these are descriptive of God's nature similar to: sinless, holy, beyond reproach, blameless, righteous, perfect, etc. Saying God is flesh and bone or Spirit is a physical description, not an attribute for purpose. He is unchanging. The scriptures say that God is Spirit and you will not find a single place that says He is flesh and bone. This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. (1 Jn 1:5)

Something more to think about below... Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness. Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.” Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell; nor let us tempt Christ [Ex 17:2,7], as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents [Num 21:5-9]; nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer. (1 Co 10:1-10) And the Lord [Yhwh] went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so as to go by day and night. He did not take away the pillar of cloud by day or the pillar of fire by night from before the people. (Ex 13:21,22) And the Angel of God, who went before the camp of Israel, moved and went behind them; and the pillar of cloud went from before them and stood behind them. So it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel. Thus it was a cloud and darkness to the one, and it gave light by night to the other, so that the one did not come near the other all that night. (Ex 14:19-20) Now it came to pass, in the morning watch, that the Lord [Yhwh] looked down upon the army of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and cloud, and He troubled the army of the Egyptians. (Ex 14:24) Who went before the Israelites? Was it the Lord or the Angel of God? Actually, both. The Scriptures do not contradict here since the Angel of God (the Angel of the Lord) was the Word who later became flesh, the pre-incarnate Christ. We can clearly see throughout scriptural evidence that Jesus is God. In fact, Christ has to be Lord if the people tempted Him during the exodus. The OT account claims that it was Jehovah that the people tempted and spoke against. If Jesus Christ is not Jehovah, there is a contradiction within the Scriptures. This is not so and can not be true because the holy Scriptures are the words of God and He does not contradict and can not lie. Below are the passages which give an account of the people tempting Christ in the wilderness. Therefore the people contended with Moses, and said, “Give us water, that we may drink.” So Moses said to them, “Why do you contend with me? Why do you tempt the Lord? [Yhwh]” (Ex 17:2) So he called the name of the place Massah and Meribah, because of the contention of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the Lord [Yhwh], saying, “Is the Lord [Yhwh] among us or not?” (Ex 17:7) And the people spoke against God [Elohim] and against Moses: “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and our soul loathes this worthless bread.” So the Lord [Yhwh] sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and many of the people of Israel died. Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, “We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord [Yhwh] and against you; pray to the Lord [Yhwh] that He take away the serpents from us.” So Moses prayed for the people. Then the Lord [Yhwh] said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and it shall be that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, shall live.” So Moses made a bronze serpent, and put it on a pole; and so it was, if a serpent had bitten anyone, when he looked at the bronze serpent, he lived. (Num 21:5-9) When the Israelites came out of Egypt and Pharaoh and all his army were thrown into the sea, the people sang a song to the Lord. In it a prophetic word regarding the Messiah was sung which says, The Lord [Yah] is my strength and song, And He has become my salvation; He is my God, and I will praise Him; My father’s God, and I will exalt Him. (Ex 15:2) And again in Isaiah it says, Behold, God is my salvation, I will trust and not be afraid; ‘For Yah [Lord], the Lord [Yhwh], is my strength and song; [‘Yah, the Lord’ or ‘Lord, Jehovah’] He also has become my salvation.’ ” (Is 12:2) The Savior is Christ Jesus our Lord, Emmanuel – God with us. He came in the flesh, becoming our salvation by becoming a curse for us (hung on a tree) and rising to life again, conquering death and paying the penalty for our sins. God was pierced for our transgressions (Zec 12:10). And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me [refering to Yhwh] whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn. (Zec 12:10) ------------------------------ On another note, someone above said that God the Father has flesh and bone the same as the risen Christ. I would have to disagree. Jesus said, "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” (Jn 4:24) And regarding the Godhead, how can Jesus our Lord be a God separate from the Holy Spirit (a distinctly separate God in the Godhead according to Mormon theology) when it says, "the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."? (2 Co 3:17)

Discuss as you will. I just thought I would post it as a good scriptural truth. Then the blind and the lame came to Him in the temple, and He healed them. But when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that He did, and the children crying out in the temple and saying, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” [Jesus] they were indignant and said to Him, “Do You hear what these are saying?” And Jesus said to them, “Yes. Have you never read, ‘Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants You have perfected praise’?” Then He left them and went out of the city to Bethany, and He lodged there. (Matt 21:14-17) O Lord [Yhwh], our Lord, How excellent is Your name in all the earth, Who have set Your glory above the heavens! Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants You have ordained strength, Because of Your enemies, That You may silence the enemy and the avenger. (Ps 8:1-2) The chief priests were indignant because the people were giving praise to Jesus. Hosanna translates as, “oh save!” or “save, we pray” – an exclamation of adoration and praise. Jesus’ response to the chief priests is noteworthy since by it He points to His true identity – being God. Jesus quotes a scripture which is given to the Lord (Yhwh), the one and only true God, and indicates this prophetic passage as being fulfilled at that moment in Himself through the praise given by the people toward Him. Without question, by His use of this passage from the Psalms, Jesus says, “I am the Lord. I am Yhwh.” This is in agreement with many other scriptures such as when he asked His disciples, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter responds, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” To Peter’s answer Jesus says, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.” (Matt 16:15-17) And Thomas also later responds to seeing the risen Lord by exclaiming, “My Lord and My God!” (Jn 20:28) A great confession to His deity.

The baptism Jesus was speaking of is a spiritual baptism, not physical (by water). John came baptizing by water, but Jesus came baptizing with the Holy Spirit. Anyone being baptized for the dead does not grant that person already passed entrance into the kingdom of heaven. Paul wasn't condoning the act of baptizing for the dead, but was asking, "if you do not believe in a resurrection, why do you who practice this baptizing for the dead do it? It's of no use if they in fact do not rise." Each individual has there time in this life to make a decision to follow Jesus Christ or to deny Him. It is the believing on the Son of God for salvation that saves a man. The ritual of baptism for the dead is futile because it creates a different path to salvation (other than through faith alone) for the one being baptized for. Not only that, but if this work can make provision for another, then one man's salvation is attained by the works of another. The Scriptures say that each man will have to give an account for his own deeds. I cannot do something on your behalf which would save you; I cannot accept Jesus as my Savior for your salvation.

And wine cannot be made in any other way than that of which we know, and that from grapes - except for when our Lord makes it from water because He is all powerful and able. And how can a tree whither under rebuke, a sea part in two, a wooden staff be made a snake, a storm calmed, and Jesus walk on water but by some way men can understand - except for by the power of God? All creation came into existence by God's powerful word and even light was created when He spoke into darkness and said it should be so. I would contend that (as it says in the Scriptures) nothing is impossible for God. As He made you from a sperm and egg so small you need a microscope to see it, He can make Adam out of dust and Eve from a rib.

LXX Auth KJV KJV NKJV NAB NLT NRS RS NRSV W/ Apocrypha NCV NIV NA 1890 DARBY OT Hebrew Latin Vulgate Nestle 27th ed Greek NT Nestle NT Greek Interlinear JW lit. NWT 1959 (NT only) NWT 1961 NWT 1971 Kingdom Greek Interlinear LDS lit. BOM POGP C&D

Daniel 10:13 says Michael is “one of” the chief princes, not “the” chief prince. He is one among equals and therefore not unique. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; and behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left alone there with the kings of Persia. (Dan 10:13) This is not to say Michael is not an important angel. He is, but he's not unique and certainly not "the chief" angel over all angels.

How does the LDS contend with such verses as Zech 12:1 that says a man's spirit is formed within him? This verse seems to point to the creation of the spirit rather than a pre-existent spirit placed in a man at birth. The burden of the word of the Lord against Israel. Thus says the Lord, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him: (Zech 12:1) The Hebrew word for form means: form, to be formed or to be created, fashion, frame, potter, make.

That is what I've always understood it to be. :) Dr. T “And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven. (Lk 12:10) If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. (1 Jn 5:16) What is this blasphemy that is spoken of the Holy Spirit? Look in the book of Matthew. Now when the Pharisees heard it they said, “This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons.” But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you. (Matt 12:24-28) As Jesus responds to the Pharisees, He then says, "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come. (Matt 12:31) The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the attributing of some work of the Holy Spirit to an unclean spirit or to call the Holy Spirit unclean. That is my understanding from the Scriptures.

I think you meant "and hold them accountable." In any case, it is written in the Scriptures that the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Therefore, murder is forgivable. It is also written that if you hate your brother you are a murderer because if you break any part of the law you become a law-breaker. Therefore, if you believe a murderer cannot be forgiven his sins, then neither can the one who hates his brother, unless you show partiality toward the sinner based on the severity of the offense, and we know God does not show favortism.

I don't mean to meander from the topic, but this really needs to be cleared up. There are so many passages that refer to Jesus being Jehovah (yhwh). What did Jesus mean when He claimed to be the I AM (Jn 8:24,28,58; 18:6,8; Ex 3:14)? Who's glory did Isaiah see - the glory in Isaiah is Yhwh's (Isaiah 6:1-5; Jn 12:41)? Other references to Jehovah that are given to Jesus Christ: everlasting light – Isaiah 60:19,20; Rev 21:22,23 glory, the – Isaiah 6:1-5; 42:8; 48:11; Jn 12:41 hair like pure wool (Ancient of days) – Dan 7:9; Rev 1:14 kingdom/ dominion – Dan 4:2,3,34; 6:26; 7:13,14 voice in the wilderness – Isaiah 40:3; Mk 1:2-4 voice like rushing waters – Ezek 43:2; Rev 1:15 This is a VERY small sampling. The doctrine that Jesus is yhwh is one that the LDS has correct. JoshuaK, what religious background are you from? Your belief of Jesus not being Jehovah makes me wonder if you are a JW. Forgive me if you are not. I have not read enough of your posts to determine this. Your statement here about Jesus has struck my curiosity.

As I said, When you say "Christian organizations", does that include the LDS? You do say that you are "Christian" don't you? The wrong actions of men do not nullify the word of God, but their actions prove themselves to be false (may God be true and every man a liar). Men make mistakes and many will on that final day say, "Lord, Lord" and He will reply, "I never knew you." The actions were not the actions of those who follow Christ. We should follow Christ Jesus, not men because men are sinful. We should follow Christ, not the LDS or some other organization. Those who love Him are His children, not all those who go to church on a Sunday morning or even those who profess to be Christian, but deny their own faith in Him by their actions. The Jews are God's chosen people. Why did the Pharisees, teachers of the law and the Jewish people kill the Prince of Peace, giving Him over to the Gentiles to be put to death? Why did their fathers kill the prophets? I do not use this as an arguement to justify the actions of men who profess to be under grace and not the law. Jesus said we should live in peace with all men and should turn the other cheek to those who strike. Let's remember that Mormon history is not without stain. What of Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows (1857) where 120 men, women and children were murdered? What of the "Blood Atonement" doctrine once taught of Brigham Young (references below)? Brigham Young's blood atonement sermon of 1856: Joseph Smith, (1805-1844), the founder of the original Mormon church, was assassinated. Two years later Brigham Young (1801-1877 CE) became the second prophet of the church and led about 19,000 Mormons to Salt Lake City, UT. A minority of members, totaling about 1,000 stayed behind and eventually formed the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, now called the Community of Christ. On 1856-MAR-16, Young delivered an instruction to the bishops. Referring to a hypothetical man who violated the solemn covenants he had made in the Temple, young said: "You say, 'That man ought to die for transgressing the law of God.' Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them. You would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands..." "There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it; and the judgments of the Almighty will come, sooner or later, and every man and woman will have to atone for breaking their covenants." ["Brigham Young Blood Atonement Sermon," Journal of Discourses, Volume 3, Pages 243 to 249] Young indicates that Jesus' death on the cross can never wipe out an individual's serious personal sin. The sinner's own blood must be shed to atone for the sin. The sinner must be murdered and his or her blood spilled on the ground. Brigham Young's blood atonement sermon of 1867: On 1867-FEB-08, Young delivered a second important discourse in the Tabernacle at Salt Lake City on the topic of "blood atonement" He confirmed that concept that God cannot forgive serious sins unless the sinner is killed and his blood mixes with the earth. He also expressed confidence that the end of the world as he knew it would occur in his immediate future. He was wrong about at least the second belief. Young said in part: "....the time will come, and is now nigh at hand, when those who profess our faith, if they are guilty of what some of this people are guilty of, will find the axe laid at the root of the tree, and they will be hewn down. What has been must be again, for the Lord is coming to restore all things....it is one of the laws of that kingdom where our Father dwells, that if a man was found guilty of adultery, he must have his blood shed, and that is near at hand. But now I say, in the name of the Lord, that if this people will sin no more, but faithfully live their religion, their sins will be forgiven them without taking life...." Referring to the possibility of any believer in the congregation committing a serious sin, Young continued: "...suppose that he is overtaken in a gross fault, that he has committed a sin that he knows will deprive him of that exaltation which he desires, and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding of his blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin, and be saved and exalted with the Gods, is there a man or woman in this house but what would say, 'shed my blood that I may be saved and exalted with the Gods' ?" All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers or sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? That is what Jesus Christ meant. He never told a man or woman to love their enemies in their wickedness, never. He never intended any such thing.... Jesus Christ never meant that we should love a wicked man in his wickedness...." "I could refer you to plenty of instances where men, have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance (in the last resurrection there will be) if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil, until our elder brother Jesus Christ raises them up—conquers death, hell, and the grave. I have known a great many men who have left this Church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them...." "This is loving our neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it. Any of you who understand the principles of eternity, if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind." ["Brigham Young 'Blood Atonement' Sermon," Journal of Discourses, Volume 4, Pages 215 to 221] Thus, it would be an act of love to murder anyone who you felt had committed a serious sin which is said that God could not forgive in any other way than to have the person die and his or her blood spilled. How is that biblical or loving? Do you believe this is a doctrine the Lord Jesus would approve?

That's a lot of programs (not all of them are). Programs are not fruit. The fruits of the Spirit are these: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. (Gal 5:22) And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing. (1 Cor 13:3) You can have all the things you listed and still lack fruit and love. For example, you can fast and still strike with the fist of wickedness (read Isaiah 58), or like Robinhood you can steal from the rich to feed the poor. There are a lot of religions that do many of the same things you mentioned and even many non-religious pagans do these things. It does not prove they have truth. Equally, the LDS organization's practicing these things does not prove they are following the truth. A Mormon may be genuine in their faith and do many good works, but so do many non-Mormons. I do agree that the Scriptures say, "by their fruits you will know them." (Matt 7:20)

On the contrary. But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. For it is better, if it is the will of God, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. (1 Pet 3:15) And, you aught to test all things: Acts 17:11; 2 Cor 13:5; 1 Thess 5:21; 1 Jn 4:1 So, you might be wrong then. Is that a chance you are willing to take? Do we all take that chance?

Why did Paul teach that it is better for a man not to marry and to be as he was? Was he teaching heresy? Not only did Paul teach this, but he did not marry, something you say is required. You would think that Paul, a bondservant of Christ and God, would have been married if that is what God commanded of us in order to enter the celestial kingdom. But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (1 Cor 7:8) Even Jesus agreed that some do not marry and that they do it for the sake of the kingdom. Did Jesus teach contrary to the ordinances required for a man to become like God? Why would He teach against the purpose for which He came (if marriage is a requirement)? And how is it that a man who does not marry does it for the sake of the kingdom when you say that it is a requirement even to enter that kingdom? His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.” (Matt 19:10) If I am not understanding correctly, please explain.