Paul And Marriage

[Jesterss]

In 1 Corinthians: 7, we don’t know the exact content of the letter that the Corinthians sent to Paul, and the questions they asked, and most importantly, we don’t know, for sure, the context of their questions. However, it seems pretty clear that in verses one through six, he is simply explaining that sexual relations are acceptable, only in marriage.

Agreed.

Verses seven through nine, I think, are some of the most misunderstood verses in all of scripture, and maybe the most misused, as well. Many use this verse as proof text that Paul was not married, and that he wished all men were single, as he was. I disagree with this. Some think that Paul may have been widowed or divorced, which, I suppose, is possible, but I tend to disagree with this as well. Before I get into my reasoning behind this, let me first explain what I believe to be the context of this chapter, and most particularly, verses 25 through 40.

In verse 26, we read:

26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.

The key to understanding lies in the word, “distress”. It is translated from the Greek word, “anagke”, which means, “necessity”. Some interpret the word distress to refer to the belief that the second coming of the Lord was imminent, but this is not very consistent with other words of Paul, especially those found in Thessalonians. I think the “present necessity” was that of preaching the gospel. There was a sense of urgency concerning the spreading of the gospel, as seen in verse 29. The counsel that Paul is giving is for those who are being called to travel and preach the gospel. In this context, his instruction makes good sense and eliminates the difficult to reconcile contradictions with other words of Paul where he recommends and in some cases, requires marriage. Verse 29 is in complete contradiction with verse five, unless Paul is speaking to married men who are being asked to travel for a time to preach the gospel.

Verse 25 is also very important, and it leads me into the explanation I mentioned above concerning Paul’s marital status.

I don't think the word distress is misunderstood by anyone, everyone would agree with your interpretation of that word. I think in fact, your understanding is exactly what most everyone believes.

Verse 25 reads:

25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

Paul seems to be offering his personal instruction to those called to preach the gospel, based on his own experiences. My position is, that Paul was married, but traveled without his wife, which was not the case with other apostles. His personal experience was, that missionary work was much easier if one’s spouse did not travel along. His reason for giving this as his opinion, rather than by commandment was that other apostles did travel with their wives, which seemed to work fine for them. We see evidence for this in 1 Corinthians 9:5:

5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

So then you agree that other apostles had wives. And that it is ok for missionaries to have wives. But that's not the point here. Paul is pointing out that other apostles have wives.

1 Corinthians 9:15: But I have not used any of these rights.

Therefore, we understand that Paul has not used any of these rights that they have. Instead he has taken a different approach, one of singleness. He and Barnabas were the examples of singleness.

This is part of why I think Paul was married, but there is more. First, let’s look at verses 7-9:

7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

When Paul says, “even as I myself” and “abide even as I”, I don’t think he is referring to marital status, but to continence, or his gift to maintain self control while away from his wife. In context, this makes much more sense. Speaking to future missionaries, he desires that they serve their missions while still single, because he feels it will be easier for them, but if they cannot maintain themselves, then they should marry, even if this may complicate their missionary service.

Clearly in verse 7 we understand that Paul is saying that even though he wishes everyone were as he is, he understands that everyone has their own gift to be received of God and in their own manner.

If you think this means continence, what about Peter? He was the rock upon which Jesus built his church and he was married and never spoke to anyone about remaining single on missionary work. This could only be talking about Paul being a single man, and believing that if you abide as he has, you will be much better off. He immediately follows with verse 9 saying that if you cannot remain single or widowed because you cannot refrain from sexual immorality then it is better to marry. So either Paul was single, or widowed. I say single.

Now let’s look at more evidence of Paul’s marital status:

• 1

– Ignatius included Paul in his mention of men of God who were married:

• 2

- Philippians 4:1-3

1 Therefore, my brethren dearly beloved and longed for, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved.

2 I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord.

3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

I believe that in verse three, Paul is addressing his wife (yokefellow), who he left in the care of the Phillipians during his travels.

The word, “yokefellow” is from the Greek, “suzugos”, which means co-yoked and comes from the Greek word, “suzeugnumi”, which means to yoke together or to conjoin in marriage. We see this in Matthew 19:6:

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

The phrase, “hath joined together” is translated from, “suzeugnumi”.

Here is some additional information I found about these words:

Paul also used the word "yoke" (1 Timothy 6:1, quoted above). In the Bible, the word "yoke" is often used as a symbol, in different ways. In those days, a marriage was symbolically called a "yoke". The old Greek word suzugos (literally, "yoked together") was also used of people united through marriage. A zugon was "a pair" (or if you wish, "a couple"). The verb zugoo (zugoô) meant "to join together" or "to pair together". Azugos meant "unwedded".

Related words: Zeugnumi which meant "to join" (including joining a man and a woman in marriage); suzeugnumi (see Mark 10:9) which meant "joined together", "yoked together" (especially in marriage).

• 3

– Lastly, Eusebius and Clement of Alexandria agree with this:

Clement, indeed, whose words we have just quoted, after the above-mentioned facts gives a statement, on account of those who rejected marriage, of the apostles that had wives.

Well, I hope this makes sense.

Best regards,

T-Shirt

Yoke-Fellow is from the greek word "suzugos" correct but it refers to anyone bonded together with a common bond, not just marriage. What Paul was referring to in Phillipians 4 is someone who was working with him in spreading the word of christ. Perhaps it was Barnabas, or Peter, or any of the other apostles whom he felt Yoked too. But it certainly was not his wife, because he says "true yokefellow" and starts saying to help these women and clement and any other person who has laboured with him. My guess, because I obviously don't have the full answer to everything is that he was referring and calling upon Jesus, the true one. His ever lasting companion. The one who was with him when he did all of his teaching. Speaking on behalf of.

edit: spelling errors

Edited September 15, 2011 by Jesterss

[T-Shirt]

Agreed.

Good

I don't think the word distress is misunderstood by anyone, everyone would agree with your interpretation of that word. I think in fact, your understanding is exactly what most everyone believes.

I didn't say this verse was misunderstood, I specifically referred to verses 7-9 as being misunderstood, not verse 26.

So then you agree that other apostles had wives. And that it is ok for missionaries to have wives. But that's not the point here. Paul is pointing out that other apostles have wives.

No, he is pointing out that the other Apostles took there wives with them on their missionary journeys.

1 Corinthians 9:15: But I have not used any of these rights.

Exactly. He chose not to exercise his right to take his wife with him on his travels.

Therefore, we understand that Paul has not used any of these rights that they have. Instead he has taken a different approach, one of singleness. He and Barnabas were the examples of singleness.

No, they just chose to leave their wives behind while they traveled, unlike the other Apostles. Actually, this verse does not make any sense if Paul was single. Why would he say that he had the right to take a wife with him, just as the other Apostles, but he had chosen not to exercise that right, if he was not married? That doesn't make sense.

Clearly in verse 7 we understand that Paul is saying that even though he wishes everyone were as he is, he understands that everyone has their own gift to be received of God and in their own manner.

It is not easy for a married person to leave his or her spouse and go on a long trip without them, especially if they are allowed to do it, if they choose. Paul, for practical reasons, wished that others could do as he did in leaving his wife behind on his missionary journeys, but understood that this was not easy for everyone to do.

If you think this means continence, what about Peter?

Continence simply means, "self control". Just because Peter had taken his wife with him does not mean he had no self control. However, Paul understood that in order for a man to leave his wife behind for several months or years, it would be very difficult and that it would require great self control. He was able to do it, and he felt that it made his work easier, and encouraged others to do the same, if they were able.

He was the rock upon which Jesus built his church and he was married and never spoke to anyone about remaining single on missionary work.

Why would he?

This could only be talking about Paul being a single man, and believing that if you abide as he has, you will be much better off. He immediately follows with verse 9 saying that if you cannot remain single or widowed because you cannot refrain from sexual immorality then it is better to marry. So either Paul was single, or widowed. I say single.

He doesn't say, "refrain form sexual immorality", he said, "for it is better to marry than to burn", which, essentially, means if you cannot contain your sexual desires, it is better to be married.

Yoke-Fellow is from the greek word "suzugos" correct but it refers to anyone bonded together with a common bond, not just marriage. What Paul was referring to in Phillipians 4 is someone who was working with him in spreading the word of christ. Perhaps it was Barnabas, or Peter, or any of the other apostles whom he felt Yoked too. But it certainly was not his wife, because he says "true yokefellow" and starts saying to help these women and clement and any other person who has laboured with him. My guess, because I obviously don't have the full answer to everything is that he was referring and calling upon Jesus, the true one. His ever lasting companion. The one who was with him when he did all of his teaching. Speaking on behalf of.

Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius, both, disagree with you. Both of them lived very near to Paul's day and both of them spoke Koine Greek, as Paul did, and both of them said that Paul was referring to his wife when he wrote of his "true yokefellow". How do explain that? In addition, if you are correct, then why does Paul, in his letters to Timothy and Titus, include marriage as a requirement for those serving as bishops?

Best,

T-Shirt

Edited September 15, 2011 by T-Shirt

[Maidservant]

Not to mention that Paul got himself into quite a bit of hot water on his travels that he might would have liked to spare his wife. If I was Mrs. Paul and he explained about the shipwreck, the prison, and the horse-whipping, I might have said about the next time, "No, that's okay, honey, YOU go."

Edited September 15, 2011 by Maidservant

[Jesterss]

They say it's in one of his epistles, what epistle?

[LeSellers]

They say it's in one of his epistles, what epistle?

What are you talking about?

What "is in one of his epistles"?

Lehi

[Jesterss]

What are you talking about?

What "is in one of his epistles"?

Lehi

Alexander Clemente, he said that its in one of pauls epistles that he says he does not bring his wife..

Edited September 15, 2011 by Jesterss

[T-Shirt]

They say it's in one of his epistles, what epistle?

Phillipians 4:3

T-Shirt

[Jesterss]

Phillipians 4:3

T-Shirt

I'm not seeing where clemente said that he was referring to his wife when he said true yokefellow in phillipians 4:3.. Maybe I just lost myself..

[T-Shirt]

I'm not seeing where clemente said that he was referring to his wife when he said true yokefellow in phillipians 4:3.. Maybe I just lost myself..

In about AD185, Clement of Alexandria wrote the following about Phillipians 4:3:

Even Paul did not hesitate in one letter to address his consort. The only reason why he did not take her about with him was that it would have been an inconvenience for his ministry. Accordingly he says in a letter: "Have we not a right to take about with us a wife that is a sister like the other apostles?" But the latter, in accordance with their particular ministry, devoted themselves to preaching without any distraction, and took their wives with them not as women with whom they had marriage relations, but as sisters, that they might be their fellow-ministers in dealing with housewives. It was through them that the Lord's teaching penetrated also the women's quarters without any scandal being aroused.

(Clement’s Stromata, Book III, Chapter VI, 53)

And then, in the fourth century, Eusebius wrote the following:

Clement, indeed, whose words we have just quoted, after the above-mentioned facts gives a statement, on account of those who rejected marriage, of the apostles that had wives.

"Or will they," says he, "reject even the apostles? For Peter and Philip begat children; and Philip also gave his daughters in marriage. And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles, to greet his wife, whom he did not take about with him, that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry."

(Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History )

Best,

T-Shirt

[Jesterss]

You're a pretty intelligent guy so I'm going to assume you know that the clement (of rome) mentioned in phillipians 4:3 is different from the clement of alexandria you are quoting.

So with that said, neither of these men were in contact with Paul. Which would then bring about the LDS view of apostasy. Isn't it your POV that the apostasy soon began as all the original apostles/disciples died off? Wouldn't that then mean that Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius were quite possibly teaching false doctrine? It's been known that a lot of Clement of Alexandria's writings haven't been accurate with what biblical scholars believe. He may have been closer to the time of Paul, but that doesn't mean he had a correct understanding. He was just a scholar. No more sore than you and I.

[Jesterss]

edit: remove post

Edited September 16, 2011 by Jesterss

[LeSellers]

Isn't it your POV that the apostasy soon began as all the original apostles/disciples died off?

Even before then. See the infamous Gal 1:6 passage people keep ramming down our throats without understanding its context (i.e., that the Galatians, even with living Apostles, were already espousing false doctrine.

However, a more important point is that it was not the loss of true doctrine that defined the apostasy, it was the early Church's rejection of legitimate Priesthood authority, and accepting of a false priesthood(s) that was apostasy.

John, the Beloved Disciple, exposed this tendency among the early Saints:

⁹ I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. ¹⁰ Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.

¹¹ Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God. ¹² Demetrius hath good report of all men, and of the truth itself: yea, and we also bear record; and ye know that our record is true.

Lehi

Edited September 16, 2011 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

If we were to die and be eternally bonded, why then did Jesus agree with the samaritan woman that she had no husband yet she had been married 5 times. The sadducees believed she would be bonded to one of them, yet Jesus didn't agree.

Well, you've mixed up two separate stories.

The Samaritan woman at the well had had five husbands, who had all (presumably) died. She was living with a sixth man to whom she was not married. (Another option is that she was now bretrothed to a sixth man, and hence was not married on that specific day. Exegetes are mixed on this one.)

This event had nothing to do with the Sadducees' hypothetical woman who was married, in succession, to each of seven brothers. Each had died without posterity, and, under the Law of Moses version of the Law of the Levirate, each was required to take her as his wife, to impregnate her, and raise up seed to the dead brother. Since the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, their question is a puzzle: why would that even ask about this? It was only because Jesus had been (without anyone's recording it—or with the record altered) preaching the doctrine of eternal marriage. (I have never had any non-LDS Christian reasonably explain why the Sadducees, of all people, would pose this question to Him, btw.)

Your claim, that the Sadducees believed that she would be "bonded" to one of the brothers, is ludicrous, since they didn't even accept the resurrection; her being married to any of the brothers was not in their belief system.

Then you claim that Jesus disagreed with their (presumed) take, i.e., that He said she was not. Well, in truth He did say she was not eternally married to any of the brothers, but, and this is key: it was not because He rejected eternal marriage, it was because none of them (keeping in mind that the husbands and the wife were also Sadducees—"there were among us ...") had been married by the power of God. Because not, none of these marriages had been sealed by the "power of God."

If you're going to try to argue from the scriptures, it would be wise if you actually used (and understood) the scripture you advance to support your position.

Lehi

Edited September 16, 2011 by LeSellers

[Jesterss]

Well, you've mixed up two separate stories.

The Samaritan woman at the well had had five husbands, who had all (presumably) died. She was living with a sixth man to whom she was not married.

This event had nothing to do with the Sadducees' hypothetical woman who was married, in succession, to each of seven brothers. Each had died without posterity, and, under the Law of Moses version of the Law of the Levirate, each was required to take her as his wife, to impregnate her, and raise up seed to the dead brother. Since the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, their question is a puzzle: why would that even ask about this? It was only because Jesus had been (without anyone's recording it—or with the record altered) preaching the doctrine of eternal marriage. (I have never had any non-LDS Christian reasonably explain why the Sadducees, of all people, would pose this question to Him, btw.)

Your claim, that the Sadducees believed that she would be "bonded" to one of the brothers is ludicrous, since they didn't even accept the resurrection; her being married to any of the brothers was not in their belief system.

Then you claim that Jesus disagreed with their (presumed) take, i.e., that He said she was not. Well, in truth He did say she was not married to any of the brothers, but, and this is key: it was not because He rejected eternal marriage, it was because none of them (keeping in mind that the husbands and the wife were also Sadducees—"there were among us ...") had been married by the power of God. Because not, none of these marriages had been sealed by the "power of God."

If you're going to try to argue from the scriptures, it would be wise if you actually used (and understood) the scripture you advance to support your position.

Lehi

Yeah I deleted my post, I'm at work and got to talking and then came back to my post, lol, my mistake... that's why I removed it, somehow you were still able to see it I guess? weird.. anyway, I had initially put 5 in there, got to talking put 7, then realized that I needed to start over so I deleted it.. still not sure how u could see it after I removed it.. but yeah.. ill continue this shortly..

Edited September 16, 2011 by Jesterss

[Jesterss]

Even before then. See the infamous Gal 1:6 passage people keep ramming down out throats without understanding its context (i.e., that the Galatians, even with living Apostles, were already espousing false doctrine.

However, a more important point is that it was not the loss of true doctrine that defined the apostasy, it was the early Church's rejection of legitimate Priesthood authority, and accepting of a false priesthood(s) that was apostasy.

John, the Beloved Disciple, exposed this tendency among the early Saints:

Lehi

Most definitely, but you quoted a guy who was been known to also provide false doctrine on the matters of biblical scholar. I agree that apostasy was/has/still is occurring. As the devil is always at work. But Jesus told us that his words would not be lost, and they haven't been... true yokefellow is used, but you think he is saying wife, but taken with the context of that sentence in phillipians 4:3, wife wouldn't make any sense.. did his wife teach clement of rome? or anyone for that matter?

[LeSellers]

Most definitely, but you quoted a guy who was been known to also provide false doctrine on the matters of biblical scholar. I agree that apostasy was/has/still is occurring. As the devil is always at work. But Jesus told us that his words would not be lost, and they haven't been... true yokefellow is used, but you think he is saying wife, but taken with the context of that sentence in phillipians 4:3, wife wouldn't make any sense.. did his wife teach clement of rome? or anyone for that matter?

Methinks thou hast confused me with another forum member. I was not commenting on any of those points, and I didn't quote anyone outside the Bible.

My message was exclusively in response to your erroneous statement about how we Saints view the apostasy.

Whether Paul was married and divorced; married and separated from an unbelieving wife; married, but suffering from same-sex attraction (his "thorn in the flesh)"; or any other situation; is not anything I care to deal with.

Lehi

Edited September 16, 2011 by LeSellers

[Jesterss]

Methinks thou hast confused me with another forum member. I was not commenting on any of those points, and I didn't quote anyone outside the Bible.

My message was exclusively in response to your erroneous statement about how we Saints view the apostasy.

Whether Paul was married and divorced; married and separated from an unbelieving wife; married, but suffering from same-sex attraction (his "thorn in the flesh); or any other situation; is not anything I care to deal with.

Lehi

methinks thou is right in my confusion of peoples, I keep getting you and T-Shirt confused... I dunno why... methinks thou is wrong saying that my view on the LDS apostasy was erroneous.. did you not agree that you believe it had started before clement of alexander and eusebius? therefore, you would agree with me that you feel that the world was already in an apostasy.. therefore, saying I was right, in a round about way, but commenting that I'm still wrong just so I can't be right.. good try though..

[Franktalk]

*reviving a not so alive thread*

But paul did not know the historical Jesus. He wrote the Pauline epistles 20 to 40 years after Jesus' death. Meaning he was not of age to marry during Jesus' time. Therefore, any argument stating it was social norm is irrelevant as his age of marriage didn't occur until after Jesus. Therefore would have stayed unmarried if we go along with his teachings.

And your point is?

My point is that he wrote as if he had personal experience in marriage. The exact dates don't matter.

[LeSellers]

methinks thou is [sic, "art" would be better] wrong saying that my view on the LDS apostasy was erroneous.. did you not agree that you believe it had started before clement of alexander and eusebius? therefore, you would agree with me that you feel that the world was already in an apostasy.. therefore, saying I was right, in a round about way, but commenting that I'm still wrong just so I can't be right.. good try though..

Yes, the apostasy started well before either Clement or Eusebius. But that's not the issue.

Your case rests on the idea of the apostasy's being the loss of correct doctrine. That's only a secondary (or tertiary) result of apostasy. Real apostasy was the loss of legitimate Priesthood authority. The loss of true doctrine comes about when valid Apostles are not around to maintain correct teachings.

John's observation about Diotrephes, among other similar statements in the scriptures, demonstrates that the early Saints were not all true believers, and that they rejected the valid Priesthood. That's why there were no more Apostles after John on Patmos: even the Saints rejected them (and, in doing so, rejected God, Himself).

Clement and Eusebius, and the other Early Church Fathers could well have promulgated true doctrine (and I submit they did), but they had little or no authority to do so, and certainly not beyond the limits of their stewardships (if they had any).

Lehi

Edited September 16, 2011 by LeSellers

[Jesterss]

Well, you've mixed up two separate stories.

I already agreed that I had confused myself, due to discussions with co-workers about work related stuff, then came back and posted confusing information, therefore I deleted it.. and I still stand confused on how you were still able to quote it.. anyway, on to my rebuttle..

The Samaritan woman at the well had had five husbands, who had all (presumably) died. She was living with a sixth man to whom she was not married. (Another option is that she was now bretrothed to a sixth man, and hence was not married on that specific day. Exegetes are mixed on this one.)

I said 5, therefore I wasn't wrong with that remark.. I said 5 and the samaritan woman said 5..

This event had nothing to do with the Sadducees' hypothetical woman who was married, in succession, to each of seven brothers. Each had died without posterity, and, under the Law of Moses version of the Law of the Levirate, each was required to take her as his wife, to impregnate her, and raise up seed to the dead brother. Since the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, their question is a puzzle: why would that even ask about this? It was only because Jesus had been (without anyone's recording it—or with the record altered) preaching the doctrine of eternal marriage. (I have never had any non-LDS Christian reasonably explain why the Sadducees, of all people, would pose this question to Him, btw.)

Again, I admit I mixed up two stories after discussing the samaritan woman, due to getting side tracked, I didn't re-read what I had previously typed, my mistake there. But I will address this. The sadducees asked about a brother who had died and the woman was to marry her brothers since the two had no children for the first, so she was to marry his brother to bear a child for her first husband. Agreed, she did this 7 times, because the same thing happened as the first, all men died, no child bore. Now it's Jesus' response that draws the attention. The sadducees last asked who this woman would be married to at the resurrection. As in, which of these 7 men, would she be bonded too? So we agree that their belief is that when a resurrection occurs (which they didn't believe in), that this woman would have to be bonded to one of these men. Jesus answered: “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. ³⁰ At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. ³¹ But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, ³² ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’^[b]? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

So we want to know what this means. You say Jesus taught of an eternal marriage yet nobody recorded it, so that's why they asked. See, that's an interesting approach. Jesus told them they knew nothing about the scriptures, therefore directly claiming that what they have just said was extremely erroneous thought. Just as many mormons believe non-mormons interpretation of their religion is. Same thing. The sadducees had incorrectly interpreted what Jesus had taught. As I bolded the important statements, jesus tells them that people will neither marry, nor given in marriage. They will not marry while in heaven, or be given to God in an earthly marriage. The angels are single in heaven but married to God to serve as God's instruments. Just as we are to be when we go there. To be of a single entity, married to God, not anyone else. To continue to serve God. Just as the angels do.

Jesus taught of the church being married to him, being his Bride. He will return for his Bride, the church.

Your claim, that the Sadducees believed that she would be "bonded" to one of the brothers is ludicrous, since they didn't even accept the resurrection; her being married to any of the brothers was not in their belief system.

Then you claim that Jesus disagreed with their (presumed) take, i.e., that He said she was not. Well, in truth He did say she was not married to any of the brothers, but, and this is key: it was not because He rejected eternal marriage, it was because none of them (keeping in mind that the husbands and the wife were also Sadducees—"there were among us ...") had been married by the power of God. Because not, none of these marriages had been sealed by the "power of God."

See above for claim on sadducees. He never said it was because of the power of God or sealed by God. He said they knew not the law, and that nobody would be given in marriage at the resurrection. Meaning, nobody will be sent to heaven as a married couple. We are judged on our own accord. You twist it to make it fit your belief, but what is said is plain and simple. Nobody will be given in marriage at the resurrection.

If you're going to try to argue from the scriptures, it would be wise if you actually used (and understood) the scripture you advance to support your position.

See above..

[LeSellers]

I removed it, somehow you were still able to see it I guess? weird.. anyway,

I just saw it and started my reply before you deleted the content: no mystery, no conspiracy.

Lehi

[Jesterss]

Yes, the apostasy started well before either Clement or Eusebius. But that's not the issue.

But it is the issue. Not that it started before, simply that it had been ongoing...

Your case rests on the idea of the apostasy's being the loss of correct doctrine. That's only a secondary (or tertiary) result of apostasy. Real apostasy was the loss of legitimate Priesthood authority. The loss of true doctrine comes about when valid Apostles are not around to maintain correct teachings.

But you yourselves state that you only believe the bible so long as it has been translated correctly. So then when did the loss of legitimate priesthood occur? John passed long before eusebius and shortly before clement of alexandria. John was the last living apostle.

John's observation about Diotrephes, among other similar statements in the scriptures, demonstrates that the early Saints were not all true believers, and that they rejected the valid Priesthood. That's why there were no more Apostles after John on Patmos: even the Saints rejected them (and, in doing so, rejected God, Himself).

This is my point as to the validity of Clement of Alexandria.. You agree with my above assertion that John was the last living apostle, therefore, the priesthood had been lost before clement of alexandria, therefore, begging the idea that the apostasy had become full blown apostasy...

Clement and Eusebius, and the other Early Church Fathers could well have promulgated true doctrine (and I submit they did), but they had little or no authority to do so, and certainly not beyond the limits of their stewardships (if they had any).

But it's been proven that clement of alexandria did not promote pure doctrine. He has twisted many things. He was not alive when Paul was. He had no direct correlation to Paul.

[Jesterss]

If you hold to what Clement says, what about the other fathers of the early church had to say such as Tertullian, Hilary, Epiphanius & Jerome, who all preached of a single Paul..

[LeSellers]

The sadducees asked about a brother who had died and the woman was to marry her brothers since the two had no children for the first, so she was to marry his brother to bear a child for her first husband. … The sadducees last asked who this woman would be married to at the resurrection. As in, which of these 7 men, would she be bonded too? So we agree that their belief is that when a resurrection occurs (which they didn't believe in), that this woman would have to be bonded to one of these men. Jesus answered: “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. ³⁰At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. ³¹ But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, ³² ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’^[b]? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

It seems this is one of your problems: The quote you use is not what the Bible (in Greek) actually says.

29 And Jesus answering said to them, 'Ye go astray, not knowing the Writings, nor the power of God; 30 for in the rising again they do not marry, nor are they given in marriage, but are as messengers of God in heaven.

31 'And concerning the rising again of the dead, did ye not read that which was spoken to you by God, saying, 32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not a God of dead men, but of living.'

Where the NIV puts “people do not marry …” Jesus said (although in Aramaic), “they do not marry..”. That’s because He was telling them “those particular people [i.e, the seven brothers and their wife] do not marry. In addition, the verbs are active: they (men) do not marry nor are they (women) given in marriage (by their fathers). In other words, there are no weddings in heaven. It says nothing about whether people are husbands and wives based on their legitimate Priesthood sealings performed on Earth (whether by proxy or for themselves while alive). This is yet another example of modern translators’ adding to the word of God. There is noting in the Greek text that indicates that the NIV version is correct; nothing!

Moreover, we constantly hear that our Plural Marriage doctrine is in conflict with the Bible. (It is not, but that’s grist for another mill.) People on your side of the argument claim that Adam and Eve’s marriage was the model; that God did not create Adam, Eve, Martha, Susan, and Irmegard. But you all do not apply this same logic to the idea of eternal marriage because, you’ll note that the marriage God performed in the Garden of Eden was before the Fall, and that Adam and Eve were both immortal at the point God sealed them to each other. Jesus tells us “what therefore God did join together, let not man put asunder.'” But the “’til death do you part” crowd puts asunder what God did join together.

So we want to know what this means. You say Jesus taught of an eternal marriage yet nobody recorded it, so that's why they asked. See, that's an interesting approach.

Then do you have an explanation for why the Sadducees asked such a question? Surely there were other things they could have used to trap the Lord—why ask about eternal marriage unless He had been teaching it?

Jesus told them they knew nothing about the scriptures, therefore directly claiming that what they have just said was extremely erroneous thought. Just as many mormons believe non-mormons interpretation of their religion is. Same thing. The sadducees had incorrectly interpreted what Jesus had taught.

Indeed they had. But what was it that He had taught, what was it they had misunderstood?

They asked about eternal marriage, about whether a man would be “bonded” to a woman in the resurrection. Where is the record of Jesus’ teachings on that matter? The Sadducees were wrong, but they were not stupid. Had they asked Him this particular question and He had not taught anything on the matter, He’d have told them they were ‘way off base. But He did not. As was typical with Him, he deflected their inquiry with a technicality, and left the root of the question unanswered.

Furthermore, He also told them that they knew not the power of God (which power is the Priesthood). He goes on to illustrate their ignorance by re-enforcing the teaching of the resurrection: God Is not the God of the dead, but of the living (Abraham, Isaac, and Israel); therefore, there is a resurrection.

As I bolded the important statements, jesus tells them that people will neither marry, nor given in marriage. They will not marry while in heaven, or be given to God in an earthly marriage.

Whoa! There pardner! Where does the Bible say what you claim here?

The text does not say “they will not … be given to God in an Earthly marriage” (by which I assume you meant that God will not recognize an earthly marriage).

You are right: Jesus did say that there are no weddings in heaven. And we agree fully.

The angels are single in heaven but married to God to serve as God's instruments. Just as we are to be when we go there. To be of a single entity, married to God, not anyone else. To continue to serve God. Just as the angels do.

Jesus taught of the church being married to him, being his Bride. He will return for his Bride, the church.

His Church is a group of people. Are you saying that Christ will marry all Christians? Because that sounds much like Plural Marriage to me, although warped beyond all recognition.

He said they knew not the law, and that nobody would be given in marriage at the resurrection. Meaning, nobody will be sent to heaven as a married couple.

“Meaning that” you have added your interpretation of the words of the scripture, because it does not say that at all.

We are judged on our own accord. You twist it to make it fit your belief, but what is said is plain and simple. Nobody will be given in marriage at the resurrection.

And we do not claim that anyone will wed in the resurrection. This is a straw man.

Lehi

Edited September 16, 2011 by LeSellers

[Jesterss]

It seems this is one of your problems: The quote you use is not what the Bible (in Greek) actually says.

Where the NIV puts “people do not marry …” Jesus said (although in Aramaic), “they do not marry..”. That’s because He was telling them “those particular people [i.e, the seven brothers and their wife] do not marry. In addition, the verbs are active: they (men) do not marry nor are they (women) given in marriage (by their fathers). In other words, there are no weddings in heaven. It says nothing about whether people are husbands and wives based on their legitimate Priesthood sealings performed on Earth (whether by proxy or for themselves while alive). This is yet another example of modern translators’ adding to the word of God. There is noting in the Greek text that indicates that the NIV version is correct; nothing!

Moreover, we constantly hear that our Plural Marriage doctrine is in conflict with the Bible. (It is not, but that’s grist for another mill.) People on your side of the argument claim that Adam and Eve’s marriage was the model; that God did not create Adam, Eve, Martha, Susan, and Irmegard. But you all do not apply this same logic to the idea of eternal marriage because, you’ll note that the marriage God performed in the Garden of Eden was before the Fall, and that Adam and Eve were both immortal at the point God sealed them to each other. Jesus tells us “what therefore God did join together, let not man put asunder.'” But the “’til death do you part” crowd puts asunder what God did join together.

Suppose the translation is incorrect and it is indeed "they". Does that still change my understanding? No, but it somehow changes yours. And I get your reasoning. But it does not hold a candle to the other parts that depict this scenario. Luckily for us, this event occurred in 3 different accounts. Matthew, Mark and Luke. Let's take a look at Luke from a KJV perspective then, since you deny the NIV.

Luke 20:33-36..

Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife. ¶ And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: but they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

What say you about this? It becomes pretty clear what Luke is talking about. Those who are to obtain the world of heaven, of eternal life, of a life after this, do not marry, nor are they given in marriage. This is not talking just about the made up woman and her 7 husbands scenario. This is about ALL. For those who are to receive gift of eternal life, of the world beyond this one.

Not only that, he likens them again to the angels of heaven.

Then do you have an explanation for why the Sadducees asked such a question? Surely there were other things they could have used to trap the Lord—why ask about eternal marriage unless He had been teaching it?

Because they did not believe in the resurrection. They were more curious about the resurrection, that is what he had been teaching.

Indeed they had. But what was it that He had taught, what was it they had misunderstood?

That a resurrection would occur. That there is a resurrection and that God and Jesus are the rulers of the living. Those that drink of the water of Jesus will not die. Those who revel in the truth shall not die, but live in the light. Resurrection would occur.

They asked about eternal marriage, about whether a man would be “bonded” to a woman in the resurrection. Where is the record of Jesus’ teachings on that matter? The Sadducees were wrong, but they were not stupid. Had they asked Him this particular question and He had not taught anything on the matter, He’d have told them they were ‘way off base. But He did not. As was typical with Him, he deflected their inquiry with a technicality, and left the root of the question unanswered.

They asked him which woman she would be with in heaven since he preached that there would be a resurrection. See they had the same belief as you that marriage on earth is an everlasting covenant under the sun. But only that. They understood marriage to be an earthly bondage that would not separate them but they didn't believe in a resurrection. So if we would be bonded here on earth as one, they believed that it would last in heaven. That's why they asked this question.

Furthermore, He also told them that they knew not the power of God (which power is the Priesthood). He goes on to illustrate their ignorance by re-enforcing the teaching of the resurrection: God Is not the God of the dead, but of the living (Abraham, Isaac, and Israel); therefore, there is a resurrection.

You assume it's the power of the priesthood. God is above the priesthood. But you make my point, he preaches of the resurrection. Why would he preach further of the resurrection and what happens then if that was not the sadducees intention? He knew what their intentions were and he gave them a sound answer. One they could not refute. See, before Jesus, the saviour, those of us not born under the patrilineal descent of David and Moses, etc. were not considered to be allowed into the kingdom of heaven. The gentiles had no heavenly right until Jesus came and broke this chain. He brought salvation to everyone.

Whoa! There pardner! Where does the Bible say what you claim here?

It doesn't say it, just as the bible never says you will be married in the afterlife with your wife where you will have spirit children together. Same inference.

The text does not say “they will not … be given to God in an Earthly marriage” (by which I assume you meant that God will not recognize an earthly marriage).

read above.

You are right: Jesus did say that there are no weddings in heaven. And we agree fully.

Ok. Agreed then. But you don't address the "given in marriage" part either..

His Church is a group of people. Are you saying that Christ will marry all Christians? Because that sounds much like Plural Marriage to me, although warped beyond all recognition.

His Church are his followers, the believers in him. In a round about way, I am saying that, but not in the sense you take it. I am saying that Jesus is the bridegroom to the Church who is his Bride. We are his followers, we make up the church, the believers in his words and ways. plural marriage? no, it's a bondage, a right of passage.. Jesus explains this much better than I ever will to you..

“Meaning that” you have added your interpretation of the words of the scripture, because it does not say that at all.

Joseph Smith attached many of his own interpretations with his book. That would be why we have difference of opinions...I thought that was obvious.

And we do not claim that anyone will wed in the resurrection. This is a straw man.

And I did not say that either. Please read. I said given in marriage. Not married in heaven.