Paul And Marriage

[Jesterss]

*bump*.. LeSellers?

[Jesterss]

perhaps altersteve you have a further thought on this?

[T-Shirt]

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..

Provide some references from Tertullian, Hilary, Epiphanius & Jerome and I will tell you what I think.

Best,

T-Shirt

[T-Shirt]

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.

Since I specifically stated that Clement's quote comes from about AD 185, I think it is quite obvious that I am aware of that fact.

So with that said, neither of these men were in contact with Paul.

I never said that they had been.

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?

The apostasy had already begun at the time of Paul.

Wouldn't that then mean that Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius were quite possibly teaching false doctrine?

First of all, we are not talking about "doctrine", we are talking about Paul's marital status. Secondly, the LDS position of the apostasy does not presume that everything that was said after the New Testament was false. It appears that you might not fully understand the LDS perspective on the apostasy.

It's been known that a lot of Clement of Alexandria's writings haven't been accurate with what biblical scholars believe.

Would you please cite some references for this statement?

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.

Do you really think that Clement didn't understand Koine Greek as well as people do today? Not to mention the fact that with all of the material that has been lost over the centuries, it is highly likely that Clement had more information to draw on than we do.

Best,

T-Shirt

Edited September 19, 2011 by T-Shirt

[Jesterss]

Provide some references from Tertullian, Hilary, Epiphanius & Jerome and I will tell you what I think.

Best,

T-Shirt

Tertullian upon praising the unmarried state as the highest: De monogamia, xvii; Ad uxorem, i.3.

[Jesterss]

Since I specifically stated that Clement's quote comes from about AD 185, I think it is quite obvious that I am aware of that fact.

Thus why I said you must know, but I still wrote it to clarify to any others following along in this discussion... Not for your sake.. my apologies if you took this as condescending..

I never said that they had been.

You didn't, but this was to express the notion that just because they may have known the language, doesn't mean they studied with paul or understood what he meant..Just as you didn't understand what I meant with my explaining who Clement was.. Same inference..

The apostasy had already begun at the time of Paul.

So then it is true that the apostasy has never ceased to exist... As long as the devil is ever so present/doing his evil works, there will and always has been an apostasy..

First of all, we are not talking about "doctrine", we are talking about Paul's marital status. Secondly, the LDS position of the apostasy does not presume that everything that was said after the New Testament was false. It appears that you might not fully understand the LDS perspective on the apostasy.

How are we not talking about doctrine? You stated they believed Paul had a wife, I stated that I didn't believe he did... The preface was that of 1 Corinthians 7.. The doctrinal discussion of paul and marriage, hence the title of this discussion.. If Clement of Alexandria was teaching that he believed that paul was married, then he indeed was enforcing his "doctrine" of a married paul.. ergo, we were indeed discussing "doctrine" both of Paul and Clement...

I'm not able to see how the LDS belief of apostasy and my claiming that Clement of Alexandria preaching a possible false doctrine are intertwined.. I simply stated that it was a possibility that Clement could of been preaching a false doctrine.. Not that the LDS church believes others opinions are the result of apostasy...

Would you please cite some references for this statement?

For instance, Clement of Alexandria taught and recited a lot from the Gospel of the Egyptians which were not included in the canon, but actually teach of sexual asceticism. Which epiphanius taught of as well.. So it appears Clement has mixed feelings on marriage if you ask me..

Do you really think that Clement didn't understand Koine Greek as well as people do today? Not to mention the fact that with all of the material that has been lost over the centuries, it is highly likely that Clement had more information to draw on than we do.

I would agree, but as you have stated so yourself, the apostasy had already begun, therefore, what deems clement of alexandria as a believer when he and others of his time had mixed feelings on the same subject matters?

[T-Shirt]

Tertullian upon praising the unmarried state as the highest: De monogamia, xvii; Ad uxorem, i.3.

You will have to point out where Tertullian comments on Paul's marital status in this reference. And where are your other references?

Best,

T-Shirt

Edited September 19, 2011 by T-Shirt

[Jesterss]

You will have to point out where Tertullian comments on Paul's marital status in this reference. And where are your aother references?

Best,

T-Shirt

De monogamia'] The rest, while I do not find them married, I must of necessity understand to have been either eunuchs or continent. Nor indeed, if, among the Greeks, in accordance with the carelessness of custom, women and wives are classed under a common name----however, there is a name proper to wives----shall we therefore so interpret Paul as if he demonstrates the apostles to have had wives? [6] For if he were disputing about marriages, as he does in the sequel, where the apostle could better have named some particular example, it would appear right for him to say, "For have we not the power of leading about wives, like the other apostles and Cephas?" [7] But when he subjoins those (expressions)which show his abstinence from (insisting on) the supply of maintenance, saying, "For have we not the power of eating and drinking? "he does not demonstrate that "wives" were led about by the apostles, whom even such as have not still have the power of eating and drinking; but simply "women," who used to minister to them in the stone way (as they did) when accompanying the Lord.

For the full read if interested it can be found here: http://www.tertullia...f04-17.htm#10_9

He does make some interesting points regarding marriages though that I think you may find interesting as well...

Edited September 19, 2011 by Jesterss

[Zakuska]

Tertullian upon praising the unmarried state as the highest: De monogamia, xvii; Ad uxorem, i.3.

I find the whole argument on a foundation of sand.

Matt 19

11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Yes all men can't receive the command of Marriage, some being unable physically to procreate. But its intresting what Deuteronomy has to say about all these eunuchs.

Duet 23

1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

For the full read if interested it can be found here: http://www.tertullia...f04-17.htm#10_9

He does make some interesting points regarding marriages though that I think you may find interesting as well...

Not very sound argumentation at all... Beings how several of these "women" are identified as wives and mother in laws.

Mark 1:30

30 But Simon’s wife’s mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.

Matthew 8:14

14 ¶And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.

John 19:25

25 ¶Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

Yep folks... the first "bishop" of Rome was a married man.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Zakuska

[Jesterss]

I find the whole argument on a foundation of sand.

Matt 19

11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Yes all men can't receive the command of Marriage, some being unable physically to procreate. But its intresting what Deuteronomy has to say about all these eunuchs.

Duet 23

1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.

You bring out NT combined with OT to make it seem as if that's a valid argument. That my friend, would be a sand castle being built on the beach.. SWOOSH, tidal wave just took it out.. Deuteronomy does not attest for the new testament stance on marriage..

[Jesterss]

Not very sound argumentation at all... Beings how several of these "women" are identified as wives and mother in laws.

Mark 1:30

30 But Simon’s wife’s mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.

Matthew 8:14

14 ¶And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.

John 19:25

25 ¶Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

Yep folks... the first "bishop" of Rome was a married man.

This is trite.. Already been addressed, however, my last comments to lesellers have not been addressed... See, there is no argument that some were married, but there is that some were not.. You say because they were eunichs, but others say because they were continent.

[Zakuska]

You bring out NT combined with OT to make it seem as if that's a valid argument. That my friend, would be a sand castle being built on the beach.. SWOOSH, tidal wave just took it out.. Deuteronomy does not attest for the new testament stance on marriage..

Talking about an argument built upon Sand. Didn't every single one of the Apostles combine the OT with their NT teachings? And backed themselves up with OT scripture? Infact, Christ just a few verses before used the OT Genesis accout to show how Moses went against OT scripture by allowing divorce.

Take for another example Pauls Gospel of Faith, Repentance, Baptism, Gift of the Holy Ghost, in which he quotes from all over the OT to support his doctrine!

Edited September 19, 2011 by Zakuska

[Jesterss]

Talking about an argument built upon Sand. Didn't every single one of the Apostles combine the OT with their NT teachings? And backed themselves up with OT scripture? Infact, Christ just a few verses before used the OT Genesis accout to show how Moses went against OT scripture by allowing divorce.

Take for another example Pauls Gospel of Faith, Repentance, Baptism, Gift of the Holy Ghost, in which he quotes from all over the OT to support his doctrine!

You have very bad tactics..

See, the disciples and Jesus used the OT to back up their scriptures because that's what all the believers of old had, and they repeated SOME of what was in the OT but not ALL. But, if you claim that the OT must be strictly followed, then you must believe that anyone not of the patrilineal descent of abraham is also not worthy of the kingdom of God. So then, are you saying that the crucifiction of Jesus was all for not? You have totally ignored my conversation with LeSellers, only to reply to these trite questions T-Shirt asked me... So go back and dissect me and LeSellers discussion on the previous page and comment from there.. the discussion you are guiding isn't much of a discussion..

[altersteve]

You have very bad tactics..

See, the disciples and Jesus used the OT to back up their scriptures because that's what all the believers of old had, and they repeated SOME of what was in the OT but not ALL. But, if you claim that the OT must be strictly followed, then you must believe that anyone not of the patrilineal descent of abraham is also not worthy of the kingdom of God. So then, are you saying that the crucifiction of Jesus was all for not? You have totally ignored my conversation with LeSellers, only to reply to these trite questions T-Shirt asked me... So go back and dissect me and LeSellers discussion on the previous page and comment from there.. the discussion you are guiding isn't much of a discussion..

Zakuska never said "the OT must be strictly followed."

And by "the crucifixion of Jesus," I hope you mean "the Atonement of Jesus." They're two different things.

[Zakuska]

You have very bad tactics..

See, the disciples and Jesus used the OT to back up their scriptures because that's what all the believers of old had, and they repeated SOME of what was in the OT but not ALL. But, if you claim that the OT must be strictly followed, then you must believe that anyone not of the patrilineal descent of abraham is also not worthy of the kingdom of God. So then, are you saying that the crucifiction of Jesus was all for not? You have totally ignored my conversation with LeSellers, only to reply to these trite questions T-Shirt asked me... So go back and dissect me and LeSellers discussion on the previous page and comment from there.. the discussion you are guiding isn't much of a discussion..

The OT never says this. Otherwise the Gentile Ruth or 3 other Gentiles who are in the Geneological line of the Savior wouldn't have been able to convert to Judiaism and end up in the Blood line of Christ.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Zakuska

[Jesterss]

Zakuska never said "the OT must be strictly followed."

And by "the crucifixion of Jesus," I hope you mean "the Atonement of Jesus." They're two different things.

No, I meant what I said, as the crucifiction lead to the atonement and salvation.

[altersteve]

No, I meant what I said, as the crucifiction lead to the atonement and salvation.

The Crucifixion was part of the Atonement; it did not lead to it. Christ began the Atonement in the Garden of Gethsemane, before He was lifted up on the cross.

But that's a discussion for another time and place.

[Jesterss]

The Crucifixion was part of the Atonement; it did not lead to it. Christ began the Atonement in the Garden of Gethsemane, before He was lifted up on the cross.

But that's a discussion for another time and place.

start a topic on it..

anyone willing to reply to my last reply to LeSellers?

[altersteve]

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.

CFR that they understood marriage to be "an earthly bondage." Christ is not saying that marriage does not endure past death, He is merely saying that no weddings take place in heaven. Lehi has already explained this to you.

You assume it's the power of the priesthood. God is above the priesthood.

The priesthood is the power and authority of God. Is God above His own power and authority?

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.

What does this have to do with marriage? Nevertheless, CFR that "gentiles had no heavenly right until Jesus came." Were all of the individuals born outside this bloodline all sent to h***? Why or why not? I'll want a CFR on your answer to that question too.

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.

No one ever made the claim that it does.

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..

So if marriage is compared to the relationship between Christ and the Church, then wouldn't marriage be eternal, since the relationship between Christ and the Church is also eternal?

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

Is there a difference between "given in marriage" in heaven and "get married" in heaven? I don't see one.

Edited September 19, 2011 by altersteve

[Jesterss]

CFR that they understood marriage to be "an earthly bondage." Christ is not saying that marriage does not endure past death, He is merely saying that no weddings take place in heaven. Lehi has already explained this to you.

Please go back and consider my entire post, you are picking and choosing what you wish to get out of this and ignoring the rest..

The priesthood is the power and authority of God. Is God above His own power and authority?

Are you then saying you believe God to be equal to Jesus?

What does this have to do with marriage? Nevertheless, CFR that "gentiles had no heavenly right until Jesus came." Were all of the individuals born outside this bloodline all sent to h***? Why or why not? I'll want a CFR on your answer to that question too.

Same as the first, don't pick and choose, rather digest the entirety of the post... I misworded the use of gentiles not making it into heaven by referencing "all", my mistake, but do you not agree that it was only those Gentiles who were familiar with the Jewish customs and believed by faith in the God of the Israelites? and that Jesus then brought the resurrection and way to God to all of us? Not just the Jews?

No one ever made the claim that it does.

That's been my point. So who made it? This was a newly appointed covenant given only to JS?

So if marriage is compared to the relationship between Christ and the Church, then wouldn't marriage be eternal, since the relationship between Christ and the Church is also eternal?

Marriage shows us what our relationship to Jesus should be like. One of devotion and full faith. Marriage is everlasting on earth unless loosed by God, just as in the afterlife, our bondage to Jesus will be everlasting there.

Is there a difference between "given in marriage" in heaven and "get married" in heaven? I don't see one.

YES, big difference actually. Two completely different meanings.. One is the act of getting married, the other is the act of being handed over having already been married... So yes, I don't see how you don't see that...

[altersteve]

Are you then saying you believe God to be equal to Jesus?

We've been over this. Jesus is God, so yes.

Same as the first, don't pick and choose, rather digest the entirety of the post... I misworded the use of gentiles not making it into heaven by referencing "all", my mistake, but do you not agree that it was only those Gentiles who were familiar with the Jewish customs and believed by faith in the God of the Israelites? and that Jesus then brought the resurrection and way to God to all of us? Not just the Jews?

Christ brought salvation to all mankind long before He died on the cross. His Atonement applies even to those who were on earth before Him.

That's been my point. So who made it? This was a newly appointed covenant given only to JS?

Nobody did. The covenant of marriage has been known since the time of Adam. Unfortunately, it has not adequately been passed down to our time with just the Bible. This is one of the reasons why a Restoration was needed.

Marriage shows us what our relationship to Jesus should be like. One of devotion and full faith. Marriage is everlasting on earth unless loosed by God, just as in the afterlife, our bondage to Jesus will be everlasting there.

And vice-versa.

YES, big difference actually. Two completely different meanings.. One is the act of getting married, the other is the act of being handed over having already been married... So yes, I don't see how you don't see that...

http://en.fairmormon.org/Marriage/As_a_requirement_for_exaltation/Jesus_said_%22neither_marry_nor_given_in_marriage%22

Read the whole thing.

[Jesterss]

We've been over this. Jesus is God, so yes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you say Jesus is God, you are not literally meaning Jesus is the one and only God, you are meaning that Jesus is God in the sense that he has become God through his eternal progression to become equal to God the Father? The one and only?

Christ brought salvation to all mankind long before He died on the cross. His Atonement applies even to those who were on earth before Him.

In a sense, that is correct, but only because of his plan for the death of our sins through his death. Had he not died for our sins, Gods will would not have been carried out and none of the atonement for anyone past present or future would have occurred. So in a sense, I understand your statement, but you are generalizing on the precept that the crucifiction was going to happen so therefore it was already done, but had the crucifiction not occurred, it would not have been done..

Nobody did. The covenant of marriage has been known since the time of Adam. Unfortunately, it has not adequately been passed down to our time with just the Bible. This is one of the reasons why a Restoration was needed.

No, that is your belief. I believe that it has been passed down adequately...

And vice-versa.

no, not vice versa. will elaborate below..

http://en.fairmormon..._in_marriage%22

Read the whole thing.

In fact, the New Testament says exactly the opposite. In 1 Corinthians 11:11, Paul says: Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

which certainly sounds like an eternal principle. And Jesus says, in Mark 10:8-9, And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Neither of those talk about heaven, they talk about earth, So I will not disagree with the fact that here, on earth, we are bound as one, and are actions are seen as one. So that each of us may live according to the other as to love one another so deeply not to put the other in damnation. Now regarding the rest of it, refer back to my last discussion with LeSellers, again, as you have refused to full read the concept I put forth. LeSellers discussed the "ye do err in knowledge of scripture" and who was being discussed, as I pointed out in Luke, as it appears mormons forget that it wasn't just Matthew who discussed this topic. Luke and Mark also discuss it.

[altersteve]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you say Jesus is God, you are not literally meaning Jesus is the one and only God, you are meaning that Jesus is God in the sense that he has become God through his eternal progression to become equal to God the Father? The one and only?

No. I don't believe Jesus ever "became" God.

In a sense, that is correct, but only because of his plan for the death of our sins through his death. Had he not died for our sins, Gods will would not have been carried out and none of the atonement for anyone past present or future would have occurred. So in a sense, I understand your statement, but you are generalizing on the precept that the crucifiction was going to happen so therefore it was already done, but had the crucifiction not occurred, it would not have been done..

The Atonement was always going to happen. That was God's plan from the beginning. I'm not speculating on what would have happened if the Atonement had not have taken place. Remember, the traditional Christian and LDS views of the Atonement differ in many areas. That's a discussion for another place, though.

No, that is your belief. I believe that it has been passed down adequately...

If it was known during the time of Adam, then it wasn't.

Neither of those talk about heaven, they talk about earth, So I will not disagree with the fact that here, on earth, we are bound as one, and are actions are seen as one. So that each of us may live according to the other as to love one another so deeply not to put the other in damnation. Now regarding the rest of it, refer back to my last discussion with LeSellers, again, as you have refused to full read the concept I put forth. LeSellers discussed the "ye do err in knowledge of scripture" and who was being discussed, as I pointed out in Luke, as it appears mormons forget that it wasn't just Matthew who discussed this topic. Luke and Mark also discuss it.

I said read the whole thing, not just those sentences. And the fact that Mark and Luke discuss it is completely irrelevant. The fact that they do discuss it is mentioned in the article I gave you. But obviously, this discussion is not going anywhere. It is obvious to us that Jesus was not saying that nobody in heaven is married; non-LDS Christians have difficulty understanding that. The article I gave you does a very good job of explaining it. Please do read it carefully.

Edited September 20, 2011 by altersteve

[Jesterss]

No. I don't believe Jesus ever "became" God.

So you believe he has always been God? The one and only God?

The Atonement was always going to happen. That was God's plan from the beginning. I'm not speculating on what would have happened if the Atonement had not have taken place. Remember, the traditional Christian and LDS views of the Atonement differ in many areas. That's a discussion for another place, though.

I agree, it was his plan. And I actually am not certain on LDS view of the atonement, I've actually never discussed that with anyone. So I can't say I understand your complete view. I'll have to research that to further understand your viewpoint..

If it was known during the time of Adam, then it wasn't.

Again, it's ones own interpretation or speculations in this case what was known there. I have stated what the NT tells and what the OT tells us, anything not mentioned in those is of course, pure speculation, which I will not try to address.

I said read the whole thing, not just those sentences. And the fact that Mark and Luke discuss it is completely irrelevant. The fact that they do discuss it is mentioned in the article I gave you. But obviously, this discussion is not going anywhere. It is obvious to us that Jesus was not saying that nobody in heaven is married; non-LDS Christians have difficulty understanding that. The article I gave you does a very good job of explaining it. Please do read it carefully.

I did read the whole thing. But I also told you to read everything between me and LeSellers, because we discussed those points. You take everything out of Matthew as being an incorrect interpretation by non-LDS, and have refused to look at Luke's statements on the same subject matter, leaving one to assert that it's because there is no ability to twist what was said by Luke. Furthermore, that article does not mention anything refuting the words of Luke, other than stating that non-LDS use it to refute their claim. LDS keep trying to go back to Matthew without ever addressing Luke. or even Tertullians view to the singleness of Paul.