All Activity

David Aune’s argument hinges on a specific, highly controversial reading of Luke 20:35, claiming that celibacy in mortality is a "prerequisite for resurrection." Mainstream scholars refute Aune. Dale C. Allison Jr. (Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, History, p. 182–184) "Jesus’ statement in Luke 20/Mark 12 is an explanation of the condition of the resurrected state, not an ascetic entrance requirement for salvation. To read the text as demanding celibacy in order to achieve resurrection forces an ascetic monk-theology back onto a Jewish prophet who was explicitly maligned by his contemporaries for eating, drinking, and celebrating with families." As for Kloppenborg's thesis, Kloppenborg himself acknowledges that the historical Jesus was famously not an ascetic wilderness hermit like the Qumran Essenes. Jesus dined in family homes (Peter's home, Mary and Martha's home), celebrated at wedding feasts (John 2), and was condemned by Pharisees for not practicing strict ascetic fasting (Matt 11:19). Even scholars who argue Jesus had an imminent apocalyptic worldview like E.P. Sanders and Bart Ehrman recognize that apocalyptic Jews did not stop marrying as a rule. The Essenes were apocalyptic too, yet archaeology and the Temple Scroll prove that even among sectarian apocalyptic groups, marriage and family structures were regulated and preserved. If Kloppenborg’s extreme view was correct, that Jesus wanted everyone to stop marrying immediately because time was up, why would Jesus issue the most radical, anti-divorce marital commandment in all of antiquity? If marriage was an obsolete institution about to be wiped out in weeks, forbidding divorce makes zero sense. Jesus’ forbidding of divorce proves He held a high, sacred, and enduring view of the marital covenant itself. 1 Enoch 15 proves my point. Why were the angels forbidden to take wives? Because while in heaven, heaven is not the place where marriages are instituted. That is still identical to Jesus’ statement, "In the resurrection they neither marry [active verb: contract marriage] nor are given in marriage." Also, identical to LDS theology. Your argument selectively ignores mainstream non-LDS biblical scholarship on the historical Jesus. W.D. Davies & Dale C. Allison (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, Vol. 3) "Jesus does not say that human beings will be turned into angels, only that in a particular respect they will be like them... The comparison with angels implies immortality and freedom from physical decay, not the complete erasure of personal identity or divine human structure." Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. (The Gospel According to Luke X–XXIV, Anchor Bible) "The phrase 'equal to the angels' (isangeloi) does not connote an ontological alteration of human gender or nature, but rather participation in angelic immortality, where death no longer reigns and the earthly necessity for procreative succession ceases." On Jesus's view of marriage E.P. Sanders (Jesus and Judaism & The Historical Figure of Jesus) "The historicity of Jesus prohibiting divorce is beyond reasonable doubt... In citing Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 ('God made them male and female... and the two shall become one flesh'), Jesus treats marriage not as a human concession or a civil transaction, but as a divine creation ordinance." "Jesus’s stance on divorce is remarkable precisely because it is so rigorous: what God has joined together, no human being has the right to separate. This is not the stance of an ascetic who views marriage as a worldly evil to be discarded." E.P. Sanders (The Historical Figure of Jesus, p. 198) "Jesus was not an ascetic in the sense of John the Baptist. His opponents called him a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners... He did not demand that all his followers renounce marriage or family life as an absolute precondition for the kingdom." On "eunuchs for the kingdom" John P. Meier (A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 1, Ch. 11) "The saying on eunuchs in Matthew 19:12 is a voluntary renunciation for the sake of an immediate, urgent ministry task... It is a charismatic exception, not a categorical imperative or a universal command for the entire Christian community." "When Jesus speaks of those who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven, he is employing shocking, exaggerated metaphor typical of his prophetic style—not establishing an ascetic hierarchy that brands marriage as inferior." On Paul teaching celibacy as the "higher way" Gordon D. Fee (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT) "Paul’s preference for celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7 is explicitly context-bound: it is 'in view of the present distress' (dia tēn enestōsan anankēn). Paul is giving pastoral counsel for an emergency situation, not writing a systematic theology that repudiates the Genesis creation order." Richard Bauckham (Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels) "Paul's affirmation in 1 Corinthians 11:11 ('Neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord') anchors his long-term theology of redemption in mutual interdependence, balancing his situational advice regarding the impending crisis."

No, that was the general consensus on angels in Judaism at the time. If we ignore that and try to push LDS concepts onto the passage it makes even less sense. In LDS belief mortals are the angels so why would Jesus say they are like the angels and not that they just are the angels. The original Genesis story is almost certainly more about explaining legendary heroes and demigod legends. The concept of angels as we understand them wasn’t really around. These were divine beings, not rebelling angels. At the time all divine beings were considered to be gendered including Yahweh and El and all the rest of the pantheon. The Book of Enoch was a heretical text in most of the Jewish world. There is a reason it was at Qumran and not well loved by the general Pharisees and Sadducees though some of them knew about it. It was trashed almost completely by Judaism after the destruction of the Second Temple because the Rabbis (and Jews) in general were really done with the whole apocalyptic thing as the end result of expecting the messiah to be coming any second now and marching out to fight to usher in the end of days was just a lot of dead Jews. As one of my favorite Jewish scholars says (paraphrased): “If your military plan for victory is a deus ex machina, STAY HOME.” This is a really tortured reading of the text and attempts to read Jesus’s mind. Being against divorce doesn’t mean not advocating for celibacy which Jesus (according to this text) he definitely did. Nope, the “present distress” was the same to both Jesus and Paul. You shouldn’t marry because the messianic age is imminent. Both Jesus and Paul expected it to happen very soon. Jesus said it would be in that generation. Paul had to grapple with the question of what would happen to the people who had believed but then died before Jesus returned. That should have been Gospel 101 unless you were sure Jesus was about to show up so it wouldn’t matter. Jesus was telling people to cut off their hands and pluck out their eyes. Why is castration seen as extreme by comparison? At least one early Christian council had to decide that voluntary self-castration was bad and should disqualify you from joining the clergy. You don’t ban something unless people are doing it. Neither Jesus or Paul was talking about individuals who took temporary vows. They were given as general admonitions. The comparison doesn’t work. Paul almost certainly didn’t write the pastoral epistles. There are too many anachronisms. The “forbidding to marry” bit was probably an anti-Gnostic polemic. Also the pastoral epistles are much more misogynistic and authoritarian than the epistles virtually everyone thinks are authentically written by Paul. In Paul’s epistles women and slaves held positions in the church. In the pastoral epistles only men can lead and they have to be a reputable man in harmony with patriarchal Greco-Roman values to do so. Oh, and those widows are awful. Here are a bunch of excuses for why you shouldn’t help them. YUCK!

- “I suggest that Jesus—anticipating the final tribulation, general resurrection, the incoming of the exiles, a last judgment, even his own end-time role—did not expect there to be a next generation. He thought of himself as inaugurating the new age, when people would be like the angels, when marriage and childbirth would be no longer needed. To advocate a celibate lifestyle for everyone is no simple social program; it signals the end of the age. Thus it is the apocalyptic setting that substantially drives his so-called ‘moral’ program.” Kloppenborg, John S., and John W. Marshall. 2005. Apocalypticism, Anti-Semitism and the Historical Jesus: Subtexts in Criticism. Vol. 275. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series. London; New York: T&T Clark International. - The correctness of this interpretation is assured by the fact that it is difficult to conceive of an act of “being counted worthy” as occurring at any time subsequent to physical death. This logion, then, reflects the view that humanity is currently divided into two classes, the “sons of this age.” who marry, and “those who are counted worthy to attain that age and the resurrection from the dead,” i.e., “sons of God” or “sons of the resurrection,” who do not marry. That is, celibacy is regarded as a prerequisite for resurrection. (p. 121) Aune, David E., “Luke 20:34-36: A ‘Gnosticized’ Logion of Jesus?”, Jesus, Gospel Tradition and Paul in the Context of Jewish and Greco-Roman Antiquity: Collected Essays II (WUNT.1 303), 2013. And of course in Jewish apocalyptic literature, only the wicked, fallen angels have relations with women. 1 Enoch 15:6-7 1 And He answered and said to me, and I heard His voice: 'Fear not, Enoch, thou righteous 2 man and scribe of righteousness: approach hither and hear my voice. And go, say to the Watchers of heaven, who have sent thee to intercede for them: "You should intercede" for men, and not men 3 for you: Wherefore have ye left the high, holy, and eternal heaven, and lain with women, and defiled yourselves with the daughters of men and taken to yourselves wives, and done like the children 4 of earth, and begotten giants (as your) sons And though ye were holy, spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten (children) with the blood of flesh, and, as the children of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those also do who die 5 and perish**. Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget 6 children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. But you were formerly 7 spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling.**

Mustard is asking for understanding not agreement (and certainly not a counter-argument, as we see here). Are you interested in understanding what she is saying or are you only interested in countering what she is saying? I think if you could honestly answer that question it would be very helpful.

Can you point to that being the consensus of Biblical scholars?

Jesus says they're "like the angels in heaven." So yes, sexless. Jesus never makes any such distinction. There is no reason to read contemporary LDS doctrine into an ancient first century text. Your argument is sophistry. Biblical scholars read Jesus' statements on marriage the same way I do. The only reason you're trying to lawyer in an exception is because of your commitment to contemporary LDS dogmas. No, it's not an assumption, this is all coming from historical scholarship of the Bible. Jesus praises the sexless and never praises family relationships. Jesus forbids divorce and remarriage, not divorce per se. Timothy, a second century forgery, is the prime example of Roman family values creeping into Christianity, as I mentioned in my previous post. Some early Christian ascetism was based on philosophy, but in Paul and Jesus' case, it was likely just due to their belief in the impending eschaton. There is no use in getting married and starting families when the end of history is coming any day now. Paul and Jesus didn't forbid marriage, but they treated celibacy as a higher way of living.

A reasoned assessment can also be an emotional assessment. In my opinion, your biggest weakness (among your many wonderful strengths) is your faulty understanding of emotion in social discussions. Anyone who can divorce emotion from discussions of sexual assault accusations and rape culture in the US isn't human, or at the very least isn't a human that is at all useful. (To be clear, I am not accusing you of that. I reiterate what many others have been saying as well: You have not divorced emotion from this discussion, and thank goodness)

Some mortal conditions of human nature that lead to serious addictions due to wrong choices that was not corrected with repentance. Such as partaking of mind altering substances, a highly sexualized lifestyle, extreme anger issues in dysfunctional families, etc, etc. However, some predispositions and vulnerabilities may have been present in the pre-existence? To be burned away in the refining fire?

"Bodily" ones. Ones that require bodies to develop, like self mastery and aspects to your intelligence.

This week's Come Follow Me deals with Jeremiah 1–3; 7; 16–18; 20 Here is what President Russell M. Nelson said about the premortal life: "Your Heavenly Father has known you for a very long time. You, as His son or daughter, were chosen by Him to come to earth at this precise time, to be a leader in His great work on earth. You were chosen not for your bodily characteristics but for your spiritual attributes, such as bravery, courage, integrity of heart, a thirst for truth, a hunger for wisdom, and a desire to serve others. You developed some of these attributes premortally". Which attributes were not developed in the premortal period?

Therefore, your earlier statement "The Nephite leadership and priesthood pass through Nephi's line rather than Sam's" is not accurate.

That is in fact what I said, as you are quoting me, and you can either say “ok now I understand what you’ve been trying to say” or you can dig in with your pride so as not to have to say “ gosh now that makes sense. I misunderstood you.” At any rate now, you know my position. Take it or leave it.

You merely assume angels are sexless and "being like the angels" means to lose their gender and relationships. But Jesus specifies why they are like the angels, in the context of not marrying or being given in marriage in heaven. Angels do not perform marriage ceremonies or enter into new domestic contracts while in heaven. In Second Temple Jewish literature such as 1 Enoch and apocalyptic texts, the angels, once they leave heaven and descended to earth, took wives and had children. They are not presumed to be neutered, sexless entities. If Jesus intended to teach that existing marriages are dissolved in heaven, He would have used permanent, state-of-being terminology indicating a dissolved bond. Instead, He reinforced what LDS scholars maintain, the resurrection is not the time where marriages are performed nor consummated. You merely assume Jesus was an ascetic, citing His call to leave houses and families for the gospel is an ideal state. Yet, the same Jesus gave the strictest defense of marriage as enduring. When asked about divorce, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matthew 19:6). Jesus' mention of becoming "eunuchs" (Matthew 19:12) and of the three categories, only one was "for the kingdom of heaven's sake" referencing special callings that had a common temporary or focused vow for the sake of serving God, identical to Paul's counsel during times of service or due to "the present distress" (1 Corinthians 7:26) the severe local persecutions and impending upheavals facing early Christians in Corinth. He notes that marrying is not a sin (1 Corinthians 7:28) and his theology of the sexes was, "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 11:11). Mosaic Law (Leviticus 21:20; Deuteronomy 23:1), forbid Jews to castrate themselves. But vows like Nazirites (Numbers 6) had temporary, highly specialized vows of consecration and ascetic restrictions. The vow was specifically bounded by time "all the days of his separation" (Numbers 6:4-8). Once the consecrated period ended, the Nazirite returned to normal life (Numbers 6:13–20). Tragic physical conditions and extraordinary circumstances are not blueprints. Far from teaching that celibacy is the higher spiritual norm for all, Timothy is warned that apostate movements will arise characterized by "forbidding to marry" (1 Timothy 4:1-3). Early Christian asceticism and permanent celibacy actually grew as Christianity interacted with Hellenistic and Roman philosophical dualism which viewed the physical body and sex as inherently corrupt.

Do you think it is fair to say "Every gay man has a latent pedophile waiting to escape in the right situation, ergo there is nothing wrong with saying that 'all gay men are potential pedophiles?'" you can't make this stuff up.

dup

Are there any that are permanent/eternal no matter what? I'm under the impression that everything depends on our faithfulness.

24 Jesus said to them, “Is not this the reason you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God? 25 For when people rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like angels in heaven. The angels in heaven of course being sexless. It strikes me as a dishonest reading to parse out the words to suggest that Jesus was suggesting that existing marriages would be valid in the afterlife. Jesus wasn't pro-marriage to begin with - he asked his followers to abandon their families and praised those who lived as eunuchs. In fact both Jesus and Paul were in favor of celibacy and didn't celebrate family relationships. That narrative in Christianity only came later, as Roman cultural values started to creep in.

oops, wrong thread

It’s interesting how you interpret things this way. It's interesting that "all men are potential rapists" is, in the minds of some, distinguishable from "all gay men are potential pedophiles," "all Muslims are potential terrorists," "all black men are potential rapists," and so on. "All men are potential rapists" is not ambiguous. I have to wonder why, if you mean "situational awareness requires women to not assume that they are 100% safe with anybody," you don't just say that. I have some surmises about why. Yes it is. "All men are potential rapists" refers to all men. I am a man. Ipso facto, it is a description of me. "All men are potential rapists" is not a statement about men? Thanks, -Smac

Do you agree that "all Muslims are potential terrorists?" Do you agree that all Jewish settlers "are potential terrorists?" Do you agree that "all men are potential rapists?" I ask this rhetorically, as I think you do agree with this statement. I still ask it and hope you will answer because I think you also do not think that "all Muslims are potential terrorists" or "all gays are potential pedophiles." Some Muslims are terrorists, and some gay men are pedophiles, but I don't think you feel this validates the foregoing categorical statements or removes them from the ambit of prejudice. Nor do I. That might change, though, if I was running through a crime-ridden neighborhood at 2:00 a.m. I do listen and disagree. I disagree with the sentiment that "all men are potential rapists" for the same reasons I disagree with "all gays are potential pedophiles" and "all black men are potential rapists" and "all Muslims are potential terrorists." Do you agree or disagree with these sentiments? Do you think it is fair to say "Every gay man has a latent pedophile waiting to escape in the right situation, ergo there is nothing wrong with saying that 'all gay men are potential pedophiles?'" Or would you find, as I do, that characterization to be prejudiced and abhorrent? In your view, if a woman has a "lived, shared, traumatic experience" caused by a black man, would she be justified in publicly declaring that "all black men are potential rapists?" Thanks, -Smac

I intend to respond to what you say, as I infer it is reflective of what you think. So when you say "All men are potential rapists," I infer that you think that all men are potential rapists. You: And on and on and on. "All {black} men are potential rapists." I think black men would feel denigrated by that. Judges and juries are regularly called upon to read the words/language in a statute or whatnot and interpret it by its plain and ordinary meaning. This is a "rule of construction" ("construction" meaning interpretation, "to construe"). See here: The very fact that you feel compelled to add an asterisked paragraph-long explanation of what this claim means is intended to guide others on construing/interpreting it. As it is, there is no ambiguity in "all men are potential rapists." You: "I am not denigrating all men or harboring prejudicial views by describing them as potential rapists." There are certainly circumstances in which a scripture or phrase can be ambiguous, or can be interpreted in ways other than their "plain and ordinary meaning." There are also circumstances in which a statement can be read per its "plain and ordinary meaning." A speed limit sign that says "25 MPH" is a good example. It does not require, say, a paragraph-long explanation. Similarly, "all men are potential rapists" is a pretty straightforward statement. You can, of course, add a paragraph-long explanation and expect others to intuit and/or credit it. But then, so can someone saying "All gays are potential pedophiles" or "All Muslims are potential terrorists." "All black men are potential rapists" is facially prejudiced and abhorrent. A person can come along and offer a paragraph-long explanation about how it should not be read using the "plain and ordinary meanings" of the words, and should instead be construed in some sort "hey, I'm not denigrating black men by calling all of them 'potential rapists'" sort of way. I suspect many of these folks would not be persuaded by this stuff. Thanks, -Smac

To "have a dog in the fight" means to have a personal stake, vested interest, or direct involvement in the outcome of a situation, argument, or competition. I have no personal stake, vested interest, or direct involvement in the Cornell matter. If the accusations are substantively true, those found guilty should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. If the accusations are substantively embellished or fabricated, there should be serious repercussions for that. I don't know the accuser or the accused, nor have any connection with any of them. I abhor prejudice, and I see that in the "all men are potential rapists" sentiment so frequently advanced and defended by your and others, and which sentiment is being made manifest in this matter. I am opposed to mobocratic rage, rushing to judgment, and the inversion or disregard of the presumption of innocence, and I am in favor of the rule of law, due process, and dispassionate evaluation of evidence. Are you? I am striving for dispassionate analysis. I do not think most of the participants in this discussion are, at least those who are inverting the presumption of innocence, are rushing to judgment, etc. Yes. "All men are potential rapists" is not rational. It is, instead, abject prejudice. It is borne of emotion, not reason. The presumption of innocence matters, or should matter. Fair-minded and dispassionate evaluation of evidence should matter. You and yours are running roughshod over these things. I think assessing the evidence can hew toward dispassionate and fair-minded analysis, and it can also hew toward anger and rage and prejudice. The latter are emotionalisms. I abhor prejudice because it is irrational and immoral. That is a reasoned assessment, not an emotional one. I think we need to abstain from prejudice, from inverting or ignoring the presumption of evidence, from rushing to judgment, and from assessing the evidence based on rage and anger. Thanks, -Smac

While it was definitely an allusion to the Book of Tobit the questioners were also being sneaky. The Book of Tobit was not about Levirate marriages but their question was. That might also have been intended to trip up Jesus. Also Levirate marriage was on the way out if not already gone so Jesus endorsing Levirate marriage might be seen as something that could trip him up. I don’t find the apologetic about eternal marriage sidestepping this verse that convincing. I only know the basics of the Jewish afterlife of the time so have only a vague idea what a typical Pharisee would think of Jesus’s reply. The Sadducees doing the questioning would not believe in the resurrection at all.

Deadlines seem so unnecessary in eternities to me.

Which of the covenants that are entered into in mortality are permanent / eternal no matter what , and which are contingent upon worthiness of the participant ?