volgadon Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 Jesus isn't being asked whether there will be marriage ceremonies in heaven.Yet the two verbs used indicate respectively men and women entering into marriage. 2
Five Solas Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 Yet the two verbs used indicate respectively men and women entering into marriage.Okay, let's suppose Christ's answer was evasive or otherwise has been broadly misunderstood. Of the seven deceased brothers--whose wife do you say the widow will be, volgadon?
Stargazer Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 (edited) Okay, let's suppose Christ's answer was evasive or otherwise has been broadly misunderstood. Of the seven deceased brothers--whose wife do you say the widow will be, volgadon?Ooh, ooh! Let me answer!She will be wife to the first one. This was a parable over the principle of Levirate marriage, and she was taken to wife by the six brothers for the purpose of raising up of seed for the first brother. And what would be the point unless she and the first brother had an eternal marriage bond that seed was being raised up for. The Sadducees, who didn't believe in the resurrection, were just bringing up the question in order to trip Jesus up. The story was out of the Apocrypha, I believe, or it was a favorite point of argument between the Pharisees and Sadducees. Maybe.Now, I wouldn't think Christ was being evasive at all. I just don't think he said exactly what was being reported. It's going to be hard to argue with LDS about biblical scripture when the opening principles being put forward by the Prophet upon the Lord's say-so was that there were many plain and precious truths taken out of the scriptures, for all that they are of great worth.And I am convinced that I can trust the Bible only so far -- Bart Ehrman has pretty much decided this for me. The fact that the Book of Mormon endorses the Bible as the Word of God does not say to me that it is without fault and always completely accurate.But I still love it. Edited January 29, 2013 by Stargazer 2
volgadon Posted January 29, 2013 Posted January 29, 2013 Okay, let's suppose Christ's answer was evasive or otherwise has been broadly misunderstood. Of the seven deceased brothers--whose wife do you say the widow will be, volgadon?Let us not forget that the Sadducees' question (and my reason for posting this in the first place) was meant to trick Jesus into providing an absurd answer to an absurd question. Jesus refused to answer the precise question asked, but attacked the Sadducees for not understanding the Law. Look up the laws on levirate marraige, and you'll see why the question is a non sequitor. 1
Five Solas Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 Ooh, ooh! Let me answer!She will be wife to the first one. This was a parable over the principle of Levirate marriage, and she was taken to wife by the six brothers for the purpose of raising up of seed for the first brother. And what would be the point unless she and the first brother had an eternal marriage bond that seed was being raised up for. The Sadducees, who didn't believe in the resurrection, were just bringing up the question in order to trip Jesus up. The story was out of the Apocrypha, I believe, or it was a favorite point of argument between the Pharisees and Sadducees. Maybe.Now, I wouldn't think Christ was being evasive at all. I just don't think he said exactly what was being reported. It's going to be hard to argue with LDS about biblical scripture when the opening principles being put forward by the Prophet upon the Lord's say-so was that there were many plain and precious truths taken out of the scriptures, for all that they are of great worth.And I am convinced that I can trust the Bible only so far -- Bart Ehrman has pretty much decided this for me. The fact that the Book of Mormon endorses the Bible as the Word of God does not say to me that it is without fault and always completely accurate.But I still love it.If only Jesus could have spoken so clearly: "She will be wife to the first one." Would have cleared up a whole lot of Christian confusion over marriage. But as you say, the Bible is unreliable. We don't know what Jesus really said. We can't know what the question really was. Heck, for all we know, Jesus called in sick that day and the whole thing with the Sadducees is made up. If only we had a living prophet instead of a dead, discredited book...;0)While I don't agree, I do appreciate and respect that you put it all out there and don't hold back. Volgadon--Is there anything Stargazer wrote that you'd disagree with? If so, kindly share.--Erik
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 If only we had a living prophet...As the Bible itself would indicate, they do come in handy. 2
volgadon Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 If only Jesus could have spoken so clearly: "She will be wife to the first one." Would have cleared up a whole lot of Christian confusion over marriage.If only Christians had paid better attention to the Hebrew Bible. 1
Five Solas Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 If only Christians had paid better attention to the Hebrew Bible.Starting with Jesus, apparently. How about it, volgadon--do you agree with Stargazer?
volgadon Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 Starting with Jesus, apparently. How about it, volgadon--do you agree with Stargazer?Show me some indication that you read my response in post #54, first.
Five Solas Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 You told me, "Look up the laws on levirate marraige"--which is exactly what Stargazer was referring to. Your turn: Do you agree with Stargazer?
volgadon Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 You told me, "Look up the laws on levirate marraige"--which is exactly what Stargazer was referring to. Your turn: Do you agree with Stargazer?So, did you look them up?
Five Solas Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 Yes. How high are you going to make the bar to get a question answered, volgadon?
Five Solas Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 I gotta get to bed. But looking forward to your answer (in the event you provide it), volgadon--Erik
volgadon Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 Yes. How high are you going to make the bar to get a question answered, volgadon?So, what would be the status of the other 6 brethren? 1
Stargazer Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 Yes. How high are you going to make the bar to get a question answered, volgadon?I shall make it easy for you to reach the bar: Yibbum, or Levirate Marriage in Judaism 1
Five Solas Posted January 31, 2013 Posted January 31, 2013 So, what would be the status of the other 6 brethren?As the last dozen or so posts on this thread would suggest--you're always going to have another hoop for me to jump through, aren't you volgadon? And it won't matter how many I jump through--you have no intention of ever disclosing whether you share Stargazer's interpretation of Matthew 22 based on your understanding of Levirate marriage. You intend to keep playing your game until I get tired and move on.Any reason I (or anyone esle following the thread) should draw a different conclusion?--Erik
Calm Posted January 31, 2013 Posted January 31, 2013 (edited) Because the history of his posting doesn't indicate that this is his intention. He typically has an end in mind and works toward it.If you had looked up the laws on levirate marraige, than you would know what that status of the other brothers would have been considered in Jewish law. Edited January 31, 2013 by calmoriah
Stargazer Posted January 31, 2013 Posted January 31, 2013 Because the history of his posting doesn't indicate that this is his intention. He typically has an end in mind and works toward it.If you had looked up the laws on levirate marraige, than you would know what that status of the other brothers would have been considered in Jewish law.I read the article I posted and found myself much greatly educated on the subject. I hadn't realized just how complicated it all was/is. Five Solas, it is worth reading up on just for the sake of learning something new. Just do it; Volgadon is a good guy, he will stand and deliver.
Five Solas Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 Just do it; Volgadon is a good guy, he will stand and deliver.I'll happily look at your article latter tonight (or perhaps over the weekend), Stargazer. And as I said previously, I appreciate & respect your putting it all out there (even though I disagree). Others on the board may see it differently, but I don't think it was unreasonable of me to have asked volgadon whether he share's your interpretation of Matthew 22 (based on Levirate marriage or anything else). It certainly seems like he's playing game. No doubt the next thing he will insist upon is for me to write a review of your article.;0)It would certainly be easy enough for him to answer the question and make a demonstration of good faith.--Erik
Five Solas Posted February 2, 2013 Posted February 2, 2013 To close off on this, that was an interesting Wikipedia link, Stargazer. And I did learn a couple things about the topic of Levirate marriage. So thanks for that. And it sounds like you did too.As a result, do you still hold the opinion that the correct answer to the Sadducees question, "Whose wife will she be?" (Matt 22:28) is "She will be wife to the first one" (your post #53)?I suppose someone could make an argument to say that because there is no need for a marriage ceremony in Levirate marriage (the widow and the participating brother are already bound by divine decree)--then she's not truly married in the eyes of God, and therefore is still wife to the first (deceased) husband.Of course, Christ in His response doesn't say or imply anything about Levirate marriage. Instead of telling us the widow will be wife of the first, He denied anyone will be given or taken in marriage, and tells us heaven's inhabitants will be "like the angels" (v. 30 ).Hard to reconcile, no matter how deep we dig into the subject of Levirate marriage.--Erik
Recommended Posts