Paul And Marriage

[altersteve]

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

Si senior. Don't you?

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..

We can discuss it elsewhere if you wish.

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.

Exactly. You only have the Bible. We have much more than that.

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.

Let's examine Luke 20 then, starting with verse 27:

27 ¶Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him,

28 Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

29 There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children.

30 And the second took her to wife, and he died childless.

31 And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died.

32 Last of all the woman died also.

33 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife.

34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:

35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

36 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.

This passage describes the Sadducees asking Jesus about marriage and how it deals with the resurrection. The Sadducees, who deny the resurrection, refer to Deuteronomy 25:5 and proceed to ask Jesus about what is probably the Book of Tobit, which describes a Jewish girl named Sara who was married to seven brothers; none of these marriages were ever consummated, however, so they were not real marriages, or, as the Book of Tobit says, this girl was not "named after any of them" (Tobit 3:8 ). Each marriage ends with the death of the husband, after which Sara herself dies. Now, the Sadducees ask, which of these men is this woman married to in the resurrection? Allow me to repeat what is said in the article I gave you.

The context in which this question was posed makes it clear that the Sadducees were trying to entrap the Lord. Since the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection (Luke 20:27), asking a question based on that belief (Luke 20:33) was an obvious ruse. We should also note that the Pharisees had made a similar attempt that same day which had failed to "entangle him" (as shown in Matthew 22:15-22). The question posed by the Sadducees was based on a dilemma contrived from the law of Moses (Deuteronomy 25:5-10). Because the law of Moses constituted a lower law, the law of marriage it contained was for this life only (Rom 7:1-3). By contrast, the Lord was teaching the higher law of the gospel which brought with it a higher law of marriage for eternity. In fact, the Sadducees' question is confirmation that the Lord and others were apparently teaching the eternal nature of marriage. Otherwise, the question would have made little sense.

So if the Sadducees were indeed referring to this story from Tobit, then they did indeed err, not knowing: 1) the scripture which made it clear that Sara was really married to none of the seven, so the seven brothers died unmarried, and 2) the power of God, who could send an angel to see that she married the husband to whom she rightly belonged and by whose priesthood she could be married to him, not to the others, for eternity.

As for "they neither marry nor are given in marriage," the New Testament was originally written in Greek, and the tenses of verbs in Greek can convey very different information from those in English. The Greek verb for 'marry' is gameô. In verse 30, it is written in the form gamousin, indicating that it is in third person plural (they) and in the present tense, so it is translated simply as "they marry."

Now it is important to note that the present tense represents an action, something performed at some particular time. It does not represent a condition. We can be sure of this because the Greek does have a verb tense called the 'perfect tense' that represents a present condition resulting from a past completed action. There is no English counterpart to this tense, so it is hard to translate unambiguously, but the point here is that the verbs in Matthew 22:30 are not in the perfect tense. If Matthew had wanted to report that Christ said, "Neither are they now in a married state," the Greek in which he wrote would have let him say so unambiguously. He would have simply written in the present perfect tense, oute gegamêkasin. He did not; so that cannot be what he meant. Christ said nothing about the marital state of those who are in heaven.

Please note that the use of the perfect tense is just standard Greek. Everyone used it. Matthew used it. A few chapters later, Matthew writes "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you"Matthew 25:34, in which 'blessed' is the perfect-tense Greek eulogêmenoi, literally 'those who are now in a blessed state due to a previously completed blessing,' and 'prepared' is the Greek hêtoimasmênen, meaning 'now in a prepared state due to a previously completed preparation.' We also have Paul writing to the Corinthians, saying "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord" 1 Corinthians 7:10, where the Greek word translated 'married' is gegamêkasin, meaning 'those who are now in a married state due to their previously completed marriages.' This is the same perfect-tense Greek word that Matthew could have used in Matthew 22:30 if he had wanted to state that there are no married couples in Heaven. By using the present tense, Matthew has Jesus simply saying, "In the resurrection, there are no marriages performed." And, of course, the requirement that marriage ceremonies be performed on Earth, not in heaven, is one of the main themes of LDS temple work. Our reason for seeking the names of our ancestors and then, by proxy, sealing them together as couples and families, is just what the Savior said to the Sadducees — that the ordinance itself is not done in heaven. And, since work for the dead did not begin until after the resurrection, the seven brothers the Sadducees asked about were unmarried when they died and were still unmarried in heaven.

But what about the Savior's statement that these seven brothers, who were unmarried in heaven, will be as the angels of heaven? Doesn't that indicate that the unmarried state is the heavenly ideal? Well, what is an angel? It is a wonderful calling, but it is not the heavenly ideal. The ideal would be Christ, whom the Epistle to the Hebrews identifies as "Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they" (Hebrews 1:4).

Christ receives his place in heaven by inheritance, and he will not inherit alone, for "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together" (Romans 8:16-17).

The angels are not heirs of God. That place in heaven is reserved for Christ and all those who are glorified with him. The place of the angels in heaven is explained in Hebrews. There, speaking of the angels, Paul writes: "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" (Hebrews 1:14). The verb 'to minister' is diakoneô, literally 'to serve.' Those who are fail to marry will, like the seven brothers in Matthew 22 (or Luke 20), serve on Earth and in heaven and will assist those righteous married couples who are heirs of God with Christ. Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree entirely with the Doctrine & Covenants on this subject:

"Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world. Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory" (D&C 132:15-16).

Ben Witherington, a non-LDS biblical scholar, understands this exchange in a similar way. In The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2001), page 328, he writes:

"The case put forward by the Sadducees is particularly extreme. Not only had six brothers attempted and failed to impregnate the woman in question, but she had also outlived them all and was single when she died. It is perhaps this last fact which prompts the question: Whose spouse will she be in the resurrection?...Jesus stresses that in the age to come people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Notice what Jesus does not say. He does not say there will be no marriage in the age to come. The use of the terms “γαμουσιν” (gamousin) and “γαμιζονται” (gamizontai) is important, for these terms refer to the gender-specific roles played in early Jewish society by the man and the woman in the process of getting married. The men, being the initiators of the process in such a strongly patriarchal culture, “marry,” while the women are “given in marriage” by their father or another older family member. Thus Mark has Jesus saying that no new marriages will be initiated in the eschatological [resurrection] state. This is surely not the same as claiming that all existing marriages will disappear in the eschatological state."

Sorry, Jesterss, but I don't think you read that article at all.

[Zakuska]

This passage describes the Sadducees asking Jesus about marriage and how it deals with the resurrection. The Sadducees, who deny the resurrection, refer to Deuteronomy 25:5 and proceed to ask Jesus about what is probably the Book of Tobit, which describes a Jewish girl named Sara who was married to seven brothers; none of these marriages were ever consummated, however, so they were not real marriages, or, as the Book of Tobit says, this girl was not "named after any of them" (Tobit 3:8 ). Each marriage ends with the death of the husband, after which Sara herself dies. Now, the Sadducees ask, which of these men is this woman married to in the resurrection? Allow me to repeat what is said in the article I gave you.

Good heavens. Was Sara a black widow?

[Jesterss]

Si senior. Don't you?

I do, but I was under the impression that LDS did not view it as such, apparently I was wrong. No argument here on that subject then. Interesting.

We can discuss it elsewhere if you wish.

Up to you, I haven't read it yet so I wouldn't have an opinion, and if I did, it would most likely be premature.

Exactly. You only have the Bible. We have much more than that.

Which is why our opinions will differ.

Let's examine Luke 20 then, starting with verse 27:

27 ¶Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him,

28 Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

29 There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children.

30 And the second took her to wife, and he died childless.

31 And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died.

32 Last of all the woman died also.

33 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife.

34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:

35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

36 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.

This passage describes the Sadducees asking Jesus about marriage and how it deals with the resurrection. The Sadducees, who deny the resurrection, refer to Deuteronomy 25:5 and proceed to ask Jesus about what is probably the Book of Tobit, which describes a Jewish girl named Sara who was married to seven brothers; none of these marriages were ever consummated, however, so they were not real marriages, or, as the Book of Tobit says, this girl was not "named after any of them" (Tobit 3:8 ). Each marriage ends with the death of the husband, after which Sara herself dies. Now, the Sadducees ask, which of these men is this woman married to in the resurrection? Allow me to repeat what is said in the article I gave you.

The context in which this question was posed makes it clear that the Sadducees were trying to entrap the Lord. Since the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection (Luke 20:27), asking a question based on that belief (Luke 20:33) was an obvious ruse. We should also note that the Pharisees had made a similar attempt that same day which had failed to "entangle him" (as shown in Matthew 22:15-22). The question posed by the Sadducees was based on a dilemma contrived from the law of Moses (Deuteronomy 25:5-10). Because the law of Moses constituted a lower law, the law of marriage it contained was for this life only (Rom 7:1-3).

Couldn't agree more. So far you have been on par with what I have said. But.

By contrast, the Lord was teaching the higher law of the gospel which brought with it a higher law of marriage for eternity. In fact, the Sadducees' question is confirmation that the Lord and others were apparently teaching the eternal nature of marriage. Otherwise, the question would have made little sense.

Then you went and changed what was being questioned. See, You were on the right path with saying that the Sadducees were indeed questioning the resurrection because they did not believe in the resurrection, but then you change it to say that it is now about eternal marriage. See, the sadducees believed in an everlasting covenant of marriage on earth, but they did not believe in the resurrection as you stated, so this made them question their idea on marriage, if it were everlasting, then it must be everlasting in heaven now if a resurrection is to take place, so they asked which one of the 7 would she be with then if a resurrection does indeed take place.

So if the Sadducees were indeed referring to this story from Tobit, then they did indeed err, not knowing: 1) the scripture which made it clear that Sara was really married to none of the seven, so the seven brothers died unmarried, and 2) the power of God, who could send an angel to see that she married the husband to whom she rightly belonged and by whose priesthood she could be married to him, not to the others, for eternity.

She was obviously married to each of them, through the law of moses, that's what the sadducees pointed out first, since this was indeed the tradition, she must bear a child for the first husband with one of his brothers, yet the err in scripture was the belief that she would be with any of them in the resurrection. They knew the law of moses, they didn't know the resurrection.

As for "they neither marry nor are given in marriage," the New Testament was originally written in Greek, and the tenses of verbs in Greek can convey very different information from those in English. The Greek verb for 'marry' is gameô. In verse 30, it is written in the form gamousin, indicating that it is in third person plural (they) and in the present tense, so it is translated simply as "they marry."

Now it is important to note that the present tense represents an action, something performed at some particular time. It does not represent a condition. We can be sure of this because the Greek does have a verb tense called the 'perfect tense' that represents a present condition resulting from a past completed action. There is no English counterpart to this tense, so it is hard to translate unambiguously, but the point here is that the verbs in Matthew 22:30 are not in the perfect tense. If Matthew had wanted to report that Christ said, "Neither are they now in a married state," the Greek in which he wrote would have let him say so unambiguously. He would have simply written in the present perfect tense, oute gegamêkasin. He did not; so that cannot be what he meant. Christ said nothing about the marital state of those who are in heaven.

Please note that the use of the perfect tense is just standard Greek. Everyone used it. Matthew used it. A few chapters later, Matthew writes "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you"Matthew 25:34, in which 'blessed' is the perfect-tense Greek eulogêmenoi, literally 'those who are now in a blessed state due to a previously completed blessing,' and 'prepared' is the Greek hêtoimasmênen, meaning 'now in a prepared state due to a previously completed preparation.' We also have Paul writing to the Corinthians, saying "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord" 1 Corinthians 7:10, where the Greek word translated 'married' is gegamêkasin, meaning 'those who are now in a married state due to their previously completed marriages.' This is the same perfect-tense Greek word that Matthew could have used in Matthew 22:30 if he had wanted to state that there are no married couples in Heaven. By using the present tense, Matthew has Jesus simply saying, "In the resurrection, there are no marriages performed." And, of course, the requirement that marriage ceremonies be performed on Earth, not in heaven, is one of the main themes of LDS temple work. Our reason for seeking the names of our ancestors and then, by proxy, sealing them together as couples and families, is just what the Savior said to the Sadducees — that the ordinance itself is not done in heaven. And, since work for the dead did not begin until after the resurrection, the seven brothers the Sadducees asked about were unmarried when they died and were still unmarried in heaven.

Notice what you've done again? Gone back to Matthew solely in need of a justification for marriage, yet left Luke out again.

But what about the Savior's statement that these seven brothers, who were unmarried in heaven, will be as the angels of heaven? Doesn't that indicate that the unmarried state is the heavenly ideal? Well, what is an angel? It is a wonderful calling, but it is not the heavenly ideal. The ideal would be Christ, whom the Epistle to the Hebrews identifies as "Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they" (Hebrews 1:4).

Christ receives his place in heaven by inheritance, and he will not inherit alone, for "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together" (Romans 8:16-17).

The angels are not heirs of God. That place in heaven is reserved for Christ and all those who are glorified with him. The place of the angels in heaven is explained in Hebrews. There, speaking of the angels, Paul writes: "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" (Hebrews 1:14). The verb 'to minister' is diakoneô, literally 'to serve.' Those who are fail to marry will, like the seven brothers in Matthew 22 (or Luke 20), serve on Earth and in heaven and will assist those righteous married couples who are heirs of God with Christ. Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree entirely with the Doctrine & Covenants on this subject:

"Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world. Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory" (D&C 132:15-16).

Ben Witherington, a non-LDS biblical scholar, understands this exchange in a similar way. In The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2001), page 328, he writes:

"The case put forward by the Sadducees is particularly extreme. Not only had six brothers attempted and failed to impregnate the woman in question, but she had also outlived them all and was single when she died. It is perhaps this last fact which prompts the question: Whose spouse will she be in the resurrection?...Jesus stresses that in the age to come people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Notice what Jesus does not say. He does not say there will be no marriage in the age to come. The use of the terms “γαμουσιν” (gamousin) and “γαμιζονται” (gamizontai) is important, for these terms refer to the gender-specific roles played in early Jewish society by the man and the woman in the process of getting married. The men, being the initiators of the process in such a strongly patriarchal culture, “marry,” while the women are “given in marriage” by their father or another older family member. Thus Mark has Jesus saying that no new marriages will be initiated in the eschatological [resurrection] state. This is surely not the same as claiming that all existing marriages will disappear in the eschatological state."

So here you go pasting basically what I had already read from the FairMormon yet none of it included references from Luke. See the err in this? Let's actually break down what Luke says again.

Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him,

Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children.

And the second took her to wife, and he died childless.

And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died.

Last of all the woman died also.

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.

Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.

Seems to me we now have differing opinions on who They is referring to. See, it's one thing to take someone elses words who you deem credible based on his understanding of the language and breakdown of a single episode of the same story, but to neglect what Luke says on this matter, completely nullifies the argument for what Matthew may have meant even if it should have been "they" or "they marry", it becomes irrelevant when understanding who Luke really says "they" are. It is indeed those worthy to obtain the afterlife. Of the world beyond this one.

Sorry, Jesterss, but I don't think you read that article at all.

As I stated, nowhere in that article did it ever address Luke, your idea of Luke was not mentioned in that article. I did read it. All the way through, now it makes two times.

[Jesterss]

DELETED.. was irrelevant

Edited September 20, 2011 by Jesterss

[altersteve]

All you did was comment on the fact that Matthew was mentioned more than Luke or Mark. You didn't comment on the actual content of the post. The only thing with some substance that you posted was this:

She was obviously married to each of them, through the law of moses, that's what the sadducees pointed out first, since this was indeed the tradition, she must bear a child for the first husband with one of his brothers, yet the err in scripture was the belief that she would be with any of them in the resurrection. They knew the law of moses, they didn't know the resurrection.

Exactly. Read the article again and think hard about it.

Anyway, I can tell this discussion isn't going to go anywhere. You are so desperate to find flaws where there are none, and you don't even comment on the information that is given to you. You change the subject constantly. Discussing things with you is very frustrating. Because of that, I'm done trying to have an intelligent conversation with you.

Have a great day.

Edited September 20, 2011 by altersteve

[Jesterss]

All you did was comment on the fact that Matthew was mentioned more than Luke or Mark. You didn't comment on the actual content of the post. The only thing with substance that you posted was this:

Exactly. As I already pointed out, God provided her with another husband, other than the seven brothers, that she would be with for eternity, as the Book of Tobit says.

Anyway, I can tell this discussion isn't going to go anywhere, so I'm done trying to have an intelligent conversation with you.

Have a great day.

No, you just realize that this whole time I've asked you to comment on what Luke said, and FairMormon nor any other dialogue has any answer for Luke, so you refuse to address that issue, which is what was brought up before you started replying back to me, which was indeed, the reason I bumped this conversation, to get a reply on my statements about Luke. Not a continual circle on what you believe you can translate Matthew to mean what you want it to mean to justify your stance.

[Jesterss]

All you did was comment on the fact that Matthew was mentioned more than Luke or Mark. You didn't comment on the actual content of the post. The only thing with some substance that you posted was this:

I believe what you meant to say was: the lack of any exegesis of Luke.

[LeSellers]

All you did was comment on the fact that Matthew was mentioned more than Luke or Mark. You didn't comment on the actual content of the post. The only thing with some substance that you posted was this:

Exactly. Read the article again and think hard about it.

Anyway, I can tell this discussion isn't going to go anywhere. You are so desperate to find flaws where there are none, and you don't even comment on the information that is given to you. You change the subject constantly. Discussing things with you is very frustrating. Because of that, I'm done trying to have an intelligent conversation with you.

Have a great day.

You now know why I didn't respond to him.

Lehi

[Jesterss]

You now know why I didn't respond to him.

Lehi

Because you also couldn't come up with any LDS doctrine discussing the difference in opinions on your interpretation of Luke with Matthew? I've conceded valid points when made, but not when you reach and twist.

[altersteve]

No, you just realize that this whole time I've asked you to comment on what Luke said, and FairMormon nor any other dialogue has any answer for Luke, so you refuse to address that issue, which is what was brought up before you started replying back to me, which was indeed, the reason I bumped this conversation, to get a reply on my statements about Luke. Not a continual circle on what you believe you can translate Matthew to mean what you want it to mean to justify your stance.

Haha. This kind of thing is exactly what I'm talking about.

[Jesterss]

Haha. This kind of thing is exactly what I'm talking about.

Everything you stated when talking about Luke agreed with my standpoint. Then you broke away from it and brought up other doctrines such as FairMormon that started discussing Matthew again.. Therefore, never addressing what Luke says that differs from your interpretation of Matthew.

[LeSellers]

Because you also couldn't come up with any LDS doctrine discussing the difference in opinions on your interpretation of Luke with Matthew? I've conceded valid points when made, but not when you reach and twist.

Mindreading (aka, putting words into another's mouth) is not permitted in this forum. Please refrain.

You still have not shown any reasonable response to the query, "Why did the Sadducees ask a question about eternal marriage when there are hundreds of questions on the resurrection they could have asked?"* So, why did they choose that one, unless Jesus had been talking about eternal marriage at some point? Their belief in an eternal nature of marriage, which in any case, per their beliefs) had no meaning beyond death (they did not believe in a resurrection, you recall), is pointless. Why insist on an eternal arrangment if there is no "eternal"?

* For instance: when a blind (or halt) man rises, will he still be blind or crippled? Or, if a child dies, will he be resurrected as a child? Or, if a woman dies before childbirth, will she arise pregnant? Or, if the just are resurrected, are the unjust resurrected, as well?

Your rather unimpressive dodge (because "they were curious about the resurrection"), simply does not address the issue in the least. They were not curious about the resurrection: they were convinced there was no such thing. They were trying to show that the doctrine of eternal marriage in a resurrection, in which they did not believe, was contradictory. Jesus showed them it was they who were confused, and that it was only through the power of God (the Priesthood), according to the scriptures (which they, like you, did not understand) that this teaching could be confirmed and effected.

Lehi

[Jesterss]

Mindreading (aka, putting words into another's mouth) is not permitted in this forum. Please refrain.

You still have not shown any reasonable response to the query, "Why did the Sadducees ask a question about eternal marriage when there are hundreds of questions on the resurrection they could have asked?"* So, why did they choose that one, unless Jesus had been talking about eternal marriage at some point? Their belief in an eternal nature of marriage, which in any case, per their beliefs) had no meaning beyond death (they did not believe in a resurrection, you recall), is pointless. Why insist on an eternal arrangment if there is no "eternal"?

* For instance: when a blind (or halt) man rises, will he still be blind or crippled? Or, if a child dies, will he be resurrected as a child? Or, if a woman dies before childbirth, will she arise pregnant? Or, if the just are resurrected, are the unjust resurrected, as well?

Your rather unimpressive dodge (because "they were curious about the resurrection"), simply does not address the issue in the least. They were not curious about the resurrection: they were convinced there was no such thing. They were trying to show that the doctrine of eternal marriage in a resurrection, in which they did not believe, was contradictory. Jesus showed them it was they who were confused, and that it was only through the power of God (the Priesthood), according to the scriptures (which they, like you, did not understand) that this teaching could be confirmed and effected.

Lehi

So you're telling me that they didn't believe marriage was everlasting? See, you agree they didn't believe in the resurrection, yet you then twist their beliefs. They believed that so long as they live, which to those not believing in the resurrection, is all there is, and God commanded to them that they are not two but one. So if they interpret this to mean that they are one person, when a resurrection occurs, who then would they be bound to? That was a legit question, because they understood the law of moses and the statements in Genesis of two being one. So they wanted to know that if a resurrection existed, who then would someone be with, specifically this case of a woman who had 7 husbands. There is no mentioning of this woman being unfaithful to her first husband, nor any of the rest, she was only abiding by the law, as were the first husbands brothers, therefore a legit marriage in the eyes of God. So they wanted to know, if according to the law, who would she be bound to. Jesus then told them that they err in their understanding of scripture. Read my last response to you and you'll understand that I have not dodged a thing.

So yes, I addressed that already in my last reply to you before you went absent.

Also. I did not put any words in your mouth. I simply phrased a question.

[Jesterss]

Not only this, but temple marriages were something instituted by the Mormons. It was and has never been a practice for eternal sealing's. Of course, that's not the scope of this thread, but further enforces my stance on marriage.

[Jesterss]

Also: let's break down some of JS's logic on this topic as well then..

“15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.”

So wait a second, JS says so himself that angels are ministering servants. And less worthy than those married. So therefore, we can come to the conclusion that he believes Angels are single. Yet wait a second, now we really have a dilemma.

27 Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him,

28 Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

29 There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children.

30 And the second took her to wife, and he died childless.

31 And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died.

32 Last of all the woman died also.

33 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife.

34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:

35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

36 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

So now we have a biblical conundrum. Joseph Smith tells us that those who are not married are angels, therefore angels are unmarried. Yet Matthew, Mark and Luke tell us that we will be liken to the angels of heaven during the resurrection. And according to JS, that means single.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Also: let's break down some of JS's logic on this topic as well then..

So wait a second, JS says so himself that angels are ministering servants. And less worthy than those married. So therefore, we can come to the conclusion that he believes Angels are single. Yet wait a second, now we really have a dilemma.

So now we have a biblical conundrum. Joseph Smith tells us that those who are not married are angels, therefore angels are unmarried. Yet Matthew, Mark and Luke tell us that we will be liken to the angels of heaven during the resurrection. And according to JS, that means single.

Hmmm I don't think you have an argument here. This is comical actually, surely you jest.. The scriptures (The bible) says nothing

explicitly about those that are married prior to the resurrection. What we do know is that at the resurrection no marriages will be performed.

We know those that are not married prior to the resurrection will be angles. Both the D&C and the bible agree with this. Yet you think there is some "biblical conundrum". That is really funny. Is this why your name is Jester? Lol.

[Jesterss]

Hmmm I don't think you have an argument here. This is comical actually, surely you jest.. The scriptures (The bible) says nothing

explicitly about those that are married prior to the resurrection. What we do know is that at the resurrection no marriages will be performed.

We know those that are not married prior to the resurrection will be angles. Both the D&C and the bible agree with this. Yet you think there is some "biblical conundrum".

Here we go again, another individual ignoring Luke.

34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:

35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

36 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

In line 34, who is Jesus referring to? Answer = the children of this world, which means ??.

In line 35 to 36, who is Jesus referring to? Answer = they which shall be accounted worth to obtain that world, the world of the resurrection, the ones who will see eternity. And he says for they are equal unto the angels....

So, what does this mean? Are you telling me there still is no conundrum? Jesus tells us himself in Luke 18:29-30

And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake,

Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting

Clearly anyone including those who are single will receive the full praises of God.

JS compares those being single to angels. Therefore, who that are worth to obtain that world, as we are told in luke are angels, must either be single or there is a biblical conundrum between your belief and that which we have just read in the bible.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Jesterss

[altersteve]

Not only this, but temple marriages were something instituted by the Mormons. It was and has never been a practice for eternal sealing's. Of course, that's not the scope of this thread, but further enforces my stance on marriage.

CFR, please.

[Jesterss]

CFR, please.

You would have to reference that they did exist. There is no recording of such events. What temple did Abraham have? What temple did David marry in? And Solomon himself? How about Peter? How about that Peter was not near the temple for his missionary work, therefore, no marriage performed in his temple. None were recorded. Lots of things were recorded and we are taught of many things that took place at temples, none ever mention marriages..

[Zakuska]

You would have to reference that they did exist. There is no recording of such events. What temple did Abraham have? What temple did David marry in? And Solomon himself? How about Peter? How about that Peter was not near the temple for his missionary work, therefore, no marriage performed in his temple. None were recorded. Lots of things were recorded and we are taught of many things that took place at temples, none ever mention marriages..

Thats funny...

Protestant scholar Philip Schaff said of Marraige in the Bible, “as a spiritual union of two souls for time and eternity.”

[Jesterss]

Thats funny...

Protestant scholar Philip Schaff said of Marraige in the Bible, “as a spiritual union of two souls for time and eternity.”

I guess I miss the humor.

You're quoting some protestant scholar and what his belief was of marriage. That doesn't make it so.

[Zakuska]

I guess I miss the humor.

You're quoting some protestant scholar and what his belief was of marriage. That doesn't make it so.

You also miss the point that Luke is speaking of people in the ressurection become "equal to Angels". (Joseph Smiths - Single Angels).

What of those who are placed in heaven above the angels in the world to come?

1 Cor 6

1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?

2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Zakuska

[altersteve]

You would have to reference that they did exist. There is no recording of such events. What temple did Abraham have? What temple did David marry in? And Solomon himself? How about Peter? How about that Peter was not near the temple for his missionary work, therefore, no marriage performed in his temple. None were recorded. Lots of things were recorded and we are taught of many things that took place at temples, none ever mention marriages..

So you avoid my CFR by telling me that I need to provide a reference instead. Sorry, but that's not how it works. Answer the CFR, please.

Besides, the fact that marriage was "never" mentioned as something that took place in ancient temples doesn't mean they never did. That's called an argument from silence. You're going to have to do better than that.

Edited September 21, 2011 by altersteve

[Jesterss]

So you avoid my CFR by telling me that I need to provide a reference instead. Sorry, but that's not how it works. Answer the CFR, please.

Besides, the fact that marriage was "never" mentioned as something that took place in ancient temples doesn't mean they never did. That's called an argument from silence. You're going to have to do better than that.

Please reference "King James Bible" or "NIV Bible" and when you're reading it and come across anything that discusses temples, let me know if any of it says anything about marriages. There's your reference. The fact that it doesn't exist, means there is no reference. You must reference if it does exist since you so believe that it does.

[altersteve]

Please reference "King James Bible" or "NIV Bible" and when you're reading it and come across anything that discusses temples, let me know if any of it says anything about marriages. There's your reference. The fact that it doesn't exist, means there is no reference. You must reference if it does exist since you so believe that it does.

You're avoiding the CFR again. Answer it.

How is he going to document something didn't happen? Think of another way around this than demanding CFR.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Minos