Christ taught Eternal Marriage
Jonathon Endfinger
to be married for all eternity. And to know that there is evidence that he
taught this from looking at the Bible is so plain and precious to our
understanding.
Alan Faircloth
Would you care to debate that?
>
>
>
title: God
http://community-2.webtv.net/faircloth/doc/ or http://www.alanfaircloth.com or http://expage.com/whaut
Jonathon Endfinger
believed not in a "RESURRECTION". asking questions that pertained to
something he didn't believe in, trying to confuse the Lord. The Lord saw a
good teaching point, so he listened patiently as the Sadducees explained his
case. It consisted of Jewish Law, which commanded a woman to lie with the
brother of her deceased husband. In this particular case, the woman's first
husband died, so she went to the next in line and died and this went down to
the seventh. After he had died, she died. Now the question was "WHO SHALL
SHE MARRY IN THE RESURRECTION?" Christ said "she will not marry in the
resurrection, for in the resurrection they neither marry not are given in
marriage." He taught that it was an earthly ordinance , and must be
performed before the resurrection. He then said, "ye greatly err, not
knowing the scriptures or the power of God." But God's power he gave to the
Apostles-- To bind on earth what would be bound in heaven". The same
question was asked by Pharisee in matt 19:4-6 and he answered the Pharisee,
WHO BELIEVED IN A RESURRECTION, a little differently. He said "WHATSOEVER
GOD HAS JOINED TOGETHER , LET NO MAN PUT ASUNDER". Since God joined man and
woman together, how clear is it to put us in Eccl. 3:14 that reads " I know
that whatsoever God doeth, it will be forever". They understood it. That's
why in 1 Cor 11:11 we read, "neither is the man without the woman, neither
the woman without the man, in the Lord" That's why in 1 Peter 3:7 Peter
assured the people that man and woman would be "heirs together of the grace
of life" that their "prayers be not hindered" The apostles today bind on
earth what will be bound in heaven-- and they understand the power of God.
It shall be forever as Ecclesiastes pointed out crossed with Matthew 19:4-6;
and man is not without the woman in the lord. Therefore, Christ answered
the Sadducees according to his knowledge-- and his answer was an often
misinterpreted one, but still a universal truth
"Alan Faircloth" <Al...@alanfaircloth.com> wrote in message
news:3a9c...@spamkiller.newsfeeds.com...
Agkistrodon
"Jonathon Endfinger" <lep...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:dgYm6.918$421....@news2.atl...
> What a wonderful thing the Lord has done for us. He has provided us a way
> to be married for all eternity.
To the same woman????
>And to know that there is evidence that he
> taught this from looking at the Bible is so plain and precious to our
> understanding.
>
>
>
Post your evidence that this "god" critter even exists, much less taught
anyone anything. It's been asked for and there have been, like the Randi
Prize, no winners.
Agkistrodon
Agkistrodon
TheJordan6
>Date: 2/27/2001 10:20 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <97hqu4$nus$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>
>
>
>"Jonathon Endfinger" <lep...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:dgYm6.918$421....@news2.atl...
>> What a wonderful thing the Lord has done for us. He has provided us a way
>> to be married for all eternity.
>
>To the same woman????
Naw, man, to dozens of different women. Why, the most faithful Mormon
"prophets" will have so many wives in the celestial copulatorium, that they
could go a year without having sex with the same one twice.
Randy J.
Jonathon Endfinger
Testament Prophets? even the ones with many wives? heh whatever man
"Agkistrodon" <Agkis...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:97hqu4$nus$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
Jonathon Endfinger
ignore the evidence here. Do you not see my point? heh
"TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010228001501...@ng-md1.aol.com...
Jonathon Endfinger
Christ because he taught marriage in the ressurection. Why would they ask
this paticular question? They were trying to get Christ to contradict
himself proving himself to be confused but he wasnt he merely answered them
with a basic truth. that people cannot be married in the next life. they
must be married in this life. I believe we shall be as ourselves when we
are resurrected, we shall see the people we spent our lives with (wives) i
think it would be kinda hurtfull to know you couldnt be with the person you
loved all your life. That isnt so. 1 corinthians 11:11-12: "nevertheless,
neithe ris the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in
the Lord."
"Agkistrodon" <Agkis...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:97hqu4$nus$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
>
Agkistrodon
Agkistrodon
"Jonathon Endfinger" <lep...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:hM7n6.1151$e37....@news3.atl...
PetePanaro
Christ said otherwise.
Jonathon Endfinger
your comments if you feel otherwise
My original post:
"PetePanaro" <petep...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010228123431...@ng-de1.aol.com...
Alan Faircloth
Re: Christ taught Eternal Marriage
Group: alt.religion.mormon Date: Tue, Feb 27, 2001, 10:43pm (MST+2)
From: lep...@bellsouth.net (Jonathon Endfinger)
Alan Says:
Matthew chapter 22
verses 23-33 We have here Christ's dispute with the Sadducees
concerning the resurrection; it was the same day on which he was
attacked by the Pharisees about paying tribute. Satan was now more busy
than ever to ruffle and disturb him; it was an hour of temptation, Rev.
3:10. The truth as it is in Jesus will still meet with contradiction, in
some branch or other of it. Observe here, I. The opposition which the
Sadducees made to a very great truth of religion; they say, There is no
resurrection, as there are some fools who say, There is no God. These
heretics were called Sadducees from one Sadoc, a disciple of Antigonus
Sochaeus, who flourished about two hundred and eighty-four years before
our Saviour's birth. They lie under heavy censures among the writers of
their own nation, as men of base and debauched conversations, which
their principles led them to. They were the fewest in number of all the
sects among the Jews, but generally persons of some rank. As the
Pharisees and Essenes seemed to follow Plato and Pythagoras, so the
Sadducees were much of the genius of the Epicureans; they denied the
resurrection, they said, There is no future state, no life after this;
that, when the body dies, the soul is annihilated, and dies with it;
that there is no state of rewards or punishments in the other world; no
judgment to come in heaven or hell. They maintained, that, except God,
there is not spirit (Acts 23:8), nothing but matter and motion. They
would not own the divine inspiration of the prophets, nor any revelation
from heaven, but what God himself spoke upon mount Sinai. Now the
doctrine of Christ carried that great truth of the resurrection and a
future state much further than it had yet been revealed, and therefore
the Sadducees in a particular manner set themselves against it. The
Pharisees and Sadducees were contrary to each other, and yet
confederates against Christ. Christ's gospel hath always suffered
between superstitious ceremonious hypocrites and bigots on the one hand,
and profane deists and infidels on the other. The former abusing, the
latter despising, the form of godliness, but both denying the power of
it. II. The objection they made against the truth, which was taken from
a supposed case of a woman that had seven husbands successively; now
they take it for granted, that, if there be a resurrection, it must be a
return to such a state as this we are now in, and to the same
circumstances, like the imaginary Platonic year; and if so, it is an
invincible absurdity for this woman in the future state to have seven
husbands, or else an insuperable difficulty which of them should have
her, he whom she had first, or he whom she had last, or he whom she
loved best, or he whom she lived longest with. 1. They suggest the law
of Moses in this matter (v. 24), that the next of kin should marry the
widow of him that died childless (Deu. 25:5); we have it practised Ruth
4:5. It was a political law, founded in the particular constitution of
the Jewish commonwealth, to preserve the distinction of families and
inheritances, of both which there was special care taken in that
government. 2. They put a case upon this statute, which, whether it were
a case in fact or only a moot case, is not at all material; if it had
not really occurred, yet possibly it might. It was of seven brothers,
who married the same woman, v. 25–27. Now this case supposes, (1.) The
desolations that death sometimes makes in families when it comes with
commission; how it often sweeps away a whole fraternity in a little
time;: seldom (as the case is put) according to seniority (the land of
darkness is without any order,) but heaps upon heaps; it diminishes
families that had multiplied greatly, Ps. 107:38, 39. When there were
seven brothers grown up to man's estate, there was a family very likely
to be built up; and yet this numerous family leaves neither son nor
nephew, nor any remaining in their dwellings, Job 18:19. Well may we say
then, Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build
it. Let none be sure of the advancement and perpetuity of their names
and families, unless they could make a covenant of peace with death, or
be at an agreement with the grave. (2.) The obedience of these seven
brothers to the law, though they had a power of refusal under the
penalty of a reproach, Deu. 25:7. Note, Discouraging providences should
not keep us from doing our duty because we must be governed by the rule,
not by the event. The seventh, who ventured last to marry the widow
(many a one would say) was a bold man. I would say, if he did it purely
in obedience to God, he was a good man, and one that made conscience of
his duty. But, last of all, the woman died also. Note, Survivorship is
but a reprieve; they that live long, and bury their relations and
neighbours one after another, do not thereby acquire an immortality; no,
their day will come to fall. Death's bitter cup goes round, and, sooner
or later, we must all pledge in it, Jer. 25:26. 3. They propose a doubt
upon this case (v. 28); "In the resurrection, whose wife shall she be
of the seven? You cannot tell whose; and therefore we must conclude
there is no resurrection.'' The Pharisees, who professed to believe a
resurrection, had very gross and carnal notions concerning it, and
concerning the future state; expecting to find there, as the Turks in
their paradise, the delights and pleasures of the animal life, which
perhaps drove the Sadducees to deny the thing itself; for nothing gives
greater advantage to atheism and infidelity than the carnality of those
that make religion, either in its professions or in its prospects, a
servant to their sensual appetites and secular interests; while those
that are erroneous deny the truth, those that are superstitious betray
it to them. Now they, in this objection, went upon the Pharisees'
hypothesis. Note, It is not strange that carnal minds have very false
notions of spiritual and eternal things. The natural man receiveth not
these things, for they are foolishness to him. 1 Co. 2:14. Let truth be
set in a clear light, and then it appears in its full strength. III.
Christ's answer to this objection; by reproving their ignorance, and
rectifying their mistake, he shows the objection to be fallacious and
unconcluding. 1. He reproves their ignorance (v. 29); Ye do err. Note,
Those do greatly err, in the judgment of Christ, who deny the
resurrection and a future state. Here Christ reproves with the meekness
of wisdom, and is not so sharp upon them (whatever was the reason) as
sometimes he was upon the chief priests and elders; Ye do err, not
knowing. Note, Ignorance is the cause of error; those that are in the
dark, miss their way. The patrons of error do therefore resist the
light, and do what they can to take away the key of knowledge; Ye do err
in this matter, not knowing. Note, Ignorance is the cause of error
about the resurrection and the future state. What it is in its
particular instances, the wisest and best know not; it doth not yet
appear what we shall be, it is a glory that is to be revealed: when we
speak of the state of separate souls, the resurrection of the body, and
of eternal happiness and misery, we are soon at a loss; we cannot order
our speech, by reason of darkness, but that it is a thing about which we
are not left in the dark; blessed be God, we are not; and those who deny
it are guilty of a willing and affected ignorance. It seems, there were
some Sadducees, some such monsters, among professing Christians, some
among you, that say, There is no resurrection of the dead (1 Co. 15:12)
and some that did in effect deny it, by turning it into an allegory,
saying, The resurrection is past already. Now observe, (1.) They know
not the power of God; which would lead men to infer that there may be a
resurrection and a future state. Note, The ignorance, disbelief, or weak
belief, of God's power, is at the bottom of many errors, particularly
theirs who deny the resurrection. When we are told of the soul's
existence and agency in a state of separation from the body, and
especially that a dead body, which had lain many ages in the grave, and
is turned into common and indistinguished dust, that this shall be
raised the same body that it was, and live, move, and act, again; we are
ready to say, How can these things be? Nature allows it for a maxim, A
privatione ad habitum non datur regressus—The habits attaching to a
state of existence vanish irrecoverably with the state itself. If a man
die, shall he live again? And vain men, because they cannot comprehend
the way of it, question the truth of it; whereas, if we firmly believe
in God the Father Almighty, that nothing is impossible with God, all
these difficulties vanish. This therefore we must fasten upon, in the
first place, that God is omnipotent, and can do what he will; and then
no room is left for doubting but that he will do what he has promised;
and, if so, why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that
God should raise the dead? Acts 26:8. His power far exceeds the power of
nature. (2.) They know not the scriptures, which decidedly affirm that
there shall be a resurrection and a future state. The power of God,
determined and engaged by his promise, is the foundation for faith to
build upon. Now the scriptures speak plainly, that the soul is immortal,
and there is another life after this; it is the scope both of the law
and of the prophets, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead,
both of the just and of the unjust, Acts 24:14, 15. Job knew it (Job
19:26), Ezekiel foresaw it (Eze. 37), and Daniel plainly foretold it,
Dan. 12:2. Christ rose again according to the scriptures (1 Co. 15:3);
and so shall we. Those therefore who deny it, either have not conversed
with the Scriptures, or do not believe them, or do not take the true
sense and meaning of them. Note, Ignorance of the scripture is the rise
of abundance of mischief. 2. He rectifies their mistake, and (v. 30)
corrects those gross ideas which they had of the resurrection and a
future state, and fixes these doctrines upon a true and lasting basis.
Concerning that state, observe, (1.) It is not like the state we are now
in upon earth; They neither marry, nor are given in marriage. In our
present state marriage is necessary; it was instituted in innocency;
whatever intermission or neglect there has been of other institutions,
this was never laid aside, nor will be till the end of time. In the old
world, they were marrying, and giving in marriage; the Jews in Babylon,
when cut off from other ordinances, yet were bid to take them wives,
Jer. 29:6. All civilized nations have had a sense of the obligation of
the marriage covenant; and it is requisite for the gratifying of the
desires, and recruiting the deficiencies, of the human nature. But, in
the resurrection, there is no occasion for marriage; whether in
glorified bodies there will be any distinction of sexes some too
curiously dispute (the ancients are divided in their opinions about it);
but, whether there will be a distinction or not, it is certain that
there will be no conjunction; where God will be all in all, there needs
no other meet-help; the body will be spiritual, and there will be in it
no carnal desires to be gratified: when the mystical body is completed,
there will be no further occasion to seek a godly seed, which was one
end of the institution of marriage, Mal. 2:15. In heaven there will be
no decay of the individuals, and therefore no eating and drinking; no
decay of the species, and therefore no marrying; where there shall be no
more deaths (Rev. 21:4), there need be no more births. The married state
is a composition of joys and cares; those that enter upon it are taught
to look upon it as subject to changes, richer and poorer, sickness and
health; and therefore it is fit for this mixed, changing world; but as
in hell, where there is no joy, the voice of the bridegroom and the
voice of the bride shall be heard no more at all, so in heaven, where
there is all joy, and no care or pain or trouble, there will be no
marrying. The joys of that state are pure and spiritual, and arise from
the marriage of all of them to the Lamb, not of any of them to one
another. (2.) It is like the state angels are now in in heaven; They are
as the angels of God in heaven; they are so, that is, undoubtedly they
shall be so. They are so already in Christ their Head, who has made them
sit with him in heavenly places, Eph. 2:6. The spirits of just men
already made perfect are of the same corporation with the innumerable
company of angels, Heb. 12:22, 23. Man in his creation was made a little
lower than the angels (Ps. 8:5); but in his complete redemption and
renovation will be as the angels; pure and spiritual as the angels,
knowing and loving as those blessed seraphim, ever praising God like
them and with them. The bodies of the saints shall be raised
incorruptible and glorious, like the uncompounded vehicles of those pure
and holy spirits (1 Co. 15:42, etc.), swift and strong, like them. We
should therefore desire and endeavour to do the will of God now as the
angels do it in heaven, because we hope shortly to be like the angels
who always behold our Father's face. He saith nothing of the state of
the wicked in the resurrection; but, by consequence, they shall be like
the devils, whose lusts they have done. IV. Christ's argument to confirm
this great truth of the resurrection and a future state; the matters
being of great concern, he did not think it enough (as in some other
disputes) to discover the fallacy and sophistry of the objection, but
backed the truth with a solid argument; for Christ brings forth judgment
to truth as well as victory, and enables his followers to give a reason
of the hope that is in them. Now observe, 1. Whence he fetched his
argument—from the scripture; that is the great magazine or armoury
whence we may be furnished with spiritual weapons, offensive and
defensive. It is written is Goliath's sword. Have ye not read that
which was spoken to you by God? Note, (1.) What the scripture speaks God
speaks. (2.) What was spoken to Moses was spoken to us; it was spoken
and written for our learning. (3.) It concerns us to read and hear what
God hath spoken, because it is spoken to us. It was spoken to you Jews
in the first place, for to them were committed the oracles of God. The
argument is fetched from the books of Moses, because the Sadducees
received them only, as some think, or, at least, them chiefly, for
canonical scriptures; Christ therefore fetched his proof from the most
indisputable fountain. The latter prophets have more express proofs of a
future state than the law of Moses has; for though the law of Moses
supposes the immortality of the soul and a future state, as principles
of what is called natural religion, yet no express revelation of it is
made by the law of Moses; because so much of that law was peculiar to
that people, and was therefore guarded as municipal laws used to be with
temporal promises and threatenings, and the more express revelation of a
future state was reserved for the latter days; but our Saviour finds a
very solid argument for the resurrection even in the writings of Moses.
Much scripture lies under ground, that must be digged for. 2. What his
argument was (v. 32); I am the God of Abraham. This was not an express
proof, totidem verbis—in so many words; and yet it was really a
conclusive argument. Consequences from scripture, if rightly deduced,
must be received as scripture; for it was written for those that have
the use of reason. Now the drift of the argument is to prove, (1.) That
there is a future state, another life after this, in which the righteous
shall be truly and constantly happy. This is proved from what God said;
I am the God of Abraham. [1.] For God to be any one's God supposes some
very extraordinary privilege and happiness; unless we know fully what
God is, we could not comprehend the riches of that word, I will be to
thee a God, that is, a Benefactor like myself. The God of Israel is a
God to Israel (1 Chr. 17:24), a spiritual Benefactor; for he is the
Father of spirits, and blesseth with spiritual blessings: it is to be an
all-sufficient Benefactor, a God that is enough, a complete Good, and an
eternal Benefactor; for he is himself an everlasting God, and will be to
those that are in covenant with him an everlasting Good. This great word
God had often said to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and it was intended as
a recompence for their singular faith and obedience, in quitting the
country at God's call. The Jews had a profound veneration for those
three patriarchs, and would extend the promise God made them to the
uttermost. [2.] It is manifest that these good men had no such
extraordinary happiness, in this life, as might look any thing like the
accomplishment of so great a word as that. They were strangers in the
land of promise, wandering, pinched with famine; they had not a foot of
ground of their own but a burying-place, which directed them to look for
something beyond this life. In present enjoyments they came far short of
their neighbours that were strangers to this covenant. What was there in
this world to distinguish them and the heirs of their faith from other
people, any whit proportionable to the dignity and distinction of this
covenant? If no happiness had been reserved for these great and good men
on the other side of death, that melancholy word of poor Jacob's, when
he was old (Gen. 47:9), Few and evil have the days of the years of my
life been, would have been an eternal reproach to the wisdom, goodness,
and faithfulness, of that God who had so often called himself the God of
Jacob. [3.] Therefore there must certainly be a future state, in which,
as God will ever live to be eternally rewarding, so Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, will ever live to be eternally rewarded. That of the apostle
(Heb. 11:16), is a key to this argument, where, when he had been
speaking of the faith and obedience of the patriarchs in the land of
their pilgrimage, he adds, Wherefore God is not ashamed to be called
their God; because he has provided for them a city, a heavenly city;
implying, that if he had not provided so well for them in the other
world, considering how they sped in this, he would have been ashamed to
have called himself their God; but now he is not, having done that for
them which answers it in its true intent and full extent. (2.) That the
soul is immortal, and the body shall rise again, to be united; if the
former point be gained, these will follow; but they are likewise proved
by considering the time when God spoke this; it was to Moses at the
bush, long after Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were dead and buried; and
yet God saith, not, "I was,'' or "have been,'' but I am the God of
Abraham. Now God is not God of the dead, but of the living. He is a
living God, and communicates vital influences to those to whom he is a
God. If, when Abraham died, there had been an end of him, there had been
an end likewise of God's relation to him as his God; but at that time,
when God spoke to Moses, he was the God of Abraham, and therefore
Abraham must be then alive; which proves the immortality of the soul in
a state of bliss; and that, by consequence, infers the resurrection of
the body; for there is such an inclination in the human soul to its
body, as would make a final and eternal separation inconsistent with the
bliss of those that have God for their God. The Sadducees' notion was,
that the union between body and soul is so close, that, when the body
dies, the soul dies with it. Now, upon the same hypothesis, if the soul
lives, as it certainly does, the body must some time or other live with
it. And besides, the Lord is for the body, it is an essential part of
the man; there is a covenant with the dust, which will be remembered,
otherwise the man would not be happy. The charge which the dying
patriarchs gave concerning their bones, and that in faith, was an
evidence that they had some expectation of the resurrection of their
bodies. But this doctrine was reserved for a more full revelation after
the resurrection of Christ, who was the first-fruits of them that slept.
Lastly, We have the issue of this dispute. The Sadducees were put to
silence (v. 34), and so put to shame. They thought by their subtlety to
put Christ to shame, when they were preparing shame for themselves. But
the multitude were astonished at this doctrine, v. 33. 1. Because it was
new to them. See to what a sad pass the exposition of scripture was come
among them, when people were astonished at it as a miracle to hear the
fundamental promise applied to this great truth; they had sorry scribes,
or this had been no news to them. 2. Because it had something in it very
good and great. Truth often shows the brighter, and is the more admired,
for its being opposed. Observe, Many gainsayers are silenced, and many
hearers astonished, without being savingly converted; yet even in the
silence and astonishment of unsanctified souls God magnifies his law,
magnifies his gospel, and makes both honourable.
hblack
> Really? Can you prove that he didnt teach it ? Read this please and give me
> your comments if you feel otherwise
>
> My original post:
> In Matthew 22:23-30 a Sadducee came to Christ "TEMPTED HIM" and "which
> believed not in a "RESURRECTION". asking questions that pertained to
> something he didn't believe in, trying to confuse the Lord.
The Pharisees believed that in the resurrection everyday life would go on
much as before, except people wouldn't die, and foreign nations wouldn't occupy
Israel.
The Sadducees, however, rejected the idea of a reurrection, since Moses had
never mentioned it. To them people lived on through their posterity. The
levirate law in Deuteronomy, which they quote, was meant to ensure that through
the intervention of their brothers, sonless men who died prematurely, would get
a posterity. One way they made the resurrection appear absurd was to show the
predicaments that would result from having all these people, including widows,
widowers, husbands and brothers, come back from the grave.
Jesus, however, while taking the Pharisee side in admitting a resurrection,
denies there are any marriages in it. Marriage only belongs to the present age.
All worthy persons become like angels, but none become Gods, as in Mormonism:
Luke 20:34-36 (NRSV)
Jesus said to them, Those who belong to this age marry and are given in
marriage; but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the
resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. Indeed they
cannot die anymore, because they are like angels and are children of God, being
children of the resurrection.
Pretty simple stuff, really. All you have to do is read the plain and simple
text. Nothing here about marriage in heaven, becoming Gods, or ruling over your
very own planet.
> The Lord saw a
> good teaching point, so he listened patiently as the Sadducees explained his
> case. It consisted of Jewish Law, which commanded a woman to lie with the
> brother of her deceased husband.
You deny she married the brothers -- she just "laid with them" (!)
> In this particular case, the woman's first
> husband died, so she went to the next in line and died and this went down to
> the seventh. After he had died, she died. Now the question was "WHO SHALL
> SHE MARRY IN THE RESURRECTION?"
This was a stupid question, if you claim she was married to one husband.
Now, if she WAS married to all seven, then you would have Jesus gave a
stupid answer -- telling them she cannot marry anyone NEW in the resurrection.
The problem is called "polyandry," a woman being married to more than one
man at the same time. Their question presupposes that polyandry is immoral, and
Jesus does not disagree. Interestingly, the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith,
was invloved in several polyandrous relations when he died.
> Christ said "she will not marry in the
> resurrection, for in the resurrection they neither marry not are given in
> marriage." He taught that it was an earthly ordinance , and must be
> performed before the resurrection. He then said, "ye greatly err, not
> knowing the scriptures or the power of God."
Exactly, the Sadducees did not believe in the power of God to raise the
dead.
Mormons, however, pretend to marry dead marriage partners posthumously.
Jesus knew nothing of such an alleged ordinance.
> But God's power he gave to the
> Apostles-- To bind on earth what would be bound in heaven". The same
> question was asked by Pharisee in matt 19:4-6
No it wasn't.
In Matthew 19:4-6 the question put to Jesus by the Pharisees is about the
morality of divorce. It has nothing to do withlevirate law.
> and he answered the Pharisee,
> WHO BELIEVED IN A RESURRECTION, a little differently. He said "WHATSOEVER
> GOD HAS JOINED TOGETHER , LET NO MAN PUT ASUNDER".
What God joins together in marriage certainly ends at death:
Romans 7:2
the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long
as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her
husband.
> Since God joined man and
> woman together, how clear is it to put us in Eccl. 3:14 that reads " I know
> that whatsoever God doeth, it will be forever"
If so, God never put Adam in the Garden of Eden. You do believe God kicked
Adam out, don't you?
> . They understood it. That's
> why in 1 Cor 11:11 we read, "neither is the man without the woman, neither
> the woman without the man, in the Lord"
But obviously only while the husband and wife are alive. See Romans 7:2
quoted above.
> That's why in 1 Peter 3:7 Peter
> assured the people that man and woman would be "heirs together of the grace
> of life"
No, this passage makes no assertioons about marriage being eternal:
1 Peter 3:7 (NRSV)
Husbands, in the same way, show consideration for your wives in your life
together, paying honor to the woman as the weaker sex, since they too are also
_heirs [sugkleronomois "joint-heirs"]_ of the gracious gift of life—so that
nothing may hinder your prayers.
In point of fact, all Christians are said to be joint-heirs of exaltation,
but they are not all married to each other:
Romans 8:17
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and _joint-heirs [sugkleronomoi]_
with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified
together
The Gentiles are all said to be fellow heirs of salvation, but this also
doesn't imply they are all married:
Ephesians 3:6
the Gentiles should be _fellowheirs [sugkleronoma]_, and of the same body, and
partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
Nor does the idea that Christians are fellow heirs with the Patriarchs imply
any Christians are married to them:
Hebrews 11:9
By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country,
dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the _heirs with him
[sugkleronomon]_ of the same promise:
> that their "prayers be not hindered" The apostles today bind on
> earth what will be bound in heaven-- and they understand the power of God.
Christ gave this power to every Christian. Self-styled Mormon Apostles have
no special authority.
> It shall be forever as Ecclesiastes pointed out crossed with Matthew 19:4-6;
> and man is not without the woman in the lord.
All Christians are one in the Lord. Jesus' prayed for Christian unity:
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is
neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
John 17:20-21
Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me
through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I
in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou
hast sent me.
> Therefore, Christ answered
> the Sadducees according to his knowledge-- and his answer was an often
> misinterpreted one, but still a universal truth
Yes, Exactly.
Harry Black
Jonathon Endfinger
why were they asking Christ who shall she be married to in the resurrection?
WHAT MADE THEM ASK THAT QUESTION? SOMEONE WAS OBVIOUSLY TEACHING IT. THEY
WERE TRYING TO CONFUSE CHRIST BECAUSE SHE HAS 7 HUSBANDS AND THEY WANTED TO
CONFUSE HIM AND GET HIM TO SAY SHE WOULD BE MARRIED TO ALL 7. He did teach
a truth. THERE ARE NO MARRIAGES IN THE RESSURECTION. All marriages must be
done on this earth and in this life.
"hblack" <hbla...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3A9DF85E...@earthlink.net...
Wow you dont get it. All you know is to disagree with Mormons. We dont
believe we can make ourself higher than God. We never said that. WE WILL
ETERNALY WORSHIP OUR FATHER IN HEAVEN. HE IS OUR GOD.
> > The Lord saw a
> > good teaching point, so he listened patiently as the Sadducees explained
his
> > case. It consisted of Jewish Law, which commanded a woman to lie with
the
> > brother of her deceased husband.
>
> You deny she married the brothers -- she just "laid with them" (!)
>
> > In this particular case, the woman's first
> > husband died, so she went to the next in line and died and this went
down to
> > the seventh. After he had died, she died. Now the question was "WHO
SHALL
> > SHE MARRY IN THE RESURRECTION?"
>
> This was a stupid question, if you claim she was married to one
husband.
> Now, if she WAS married to all seven, then you would have Jesus gave a
> stupid answer -- telling them she cannot marry anyone NEW in the
resurrection.
Yes thats true but you dont see whats going on in this story.
> _heirs [sugkleronomois "joint-heirs"]_ of the gracious gift of life-so
Jonathon Endfinger
Joseph smith practiced Polygamy but what you fail to recognize that the
prophets in the Old Testament did this too. You dont understand Gods ways
or his power. How do you account for all those prophets who had many
wives.
Here is an interesting scripture:
2 Samuel 12:7-8 the Lord says to David "thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I
anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of
Saul; and I GAVE THEE THY MASTER'S HOUSE, AND THY MASTER'S WIVES INTO THY
BOSOM"
The Lord Gave David his wives? how interesting.
Don't forget that the Lord called David the apple of his eye, and blessed
him all the time he had many wives, and chastised him only when he had
committed adultery with Uriah's wife.
Galatians 3:7 says that Christians are "the children of Abraham" in other
words, children of a polygamist. All born again Christians want to enter
the New Jerusalem, but they might be offended, because written on the twelve
gates are the names of the twelve sons of Jacob, a polygamist, and many of
them were polygamists themselves. (Revelation 21:14) Christians the world
over wish to worship Jesus, a descendant of Judah, who was a polygamist, and
David, who was a polygamist. (Revelation 22:16). I have a feeling that
the polygamists Joseph Smith and Brigham Young will feel right at home but
some might feel uncomfortable.
This is why a full restoration of the gospel was needed because the original
chruch died away. This is why we have all these different religions
believing in all sorts of things. My wife used to go to a Baptist Church
she was very strong in that faith. There were 3 other Baptist Churches on
that same road. They all taught against each other saying that they were
the correct one and all this. Kinda humerous.
"hblack" <hbla...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3A9DF85E...@earthlink.net...
> _heirs [sugkleronomois "joint-heirs"]_ of the gracious gift of life-so
Jonathon Endfinger
prophets who had many wives.
Here is an interesting scripture:
2 Samuel 12:7-8 the Lord says to David "thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I
anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of
Saul; and I GAVE THEE THY MASTER'S HOUSE, AND THY MASTER'S WIVES INTO THY
BOSOM"
The Lord Gave David his wives? how interesting.
Don't forget that the Lord called David the apple of his eye, and blessed
him all the time he had many wives, and chastised him only when he had
committed adultery with Uriah's wife.
Galatians 3:7 says that Christians are "the children of Abraham" in other
words, children of a polygamist. All born again Christians want to enter
the New Jerusalem, but they might be offended, because written on the twelve
gates are the names of the twelve sons of Jacob, a polygamist, and many of
them were polygamists themselves. (Revelation 21:14) Christians the world
over wish to worship Jesus, a descendant of Judah, who was a polygamist, and
David, who was a polygamist. (Revelation 22:16). I have a feeling that
the polygamists Joseph Smith and Brigham Young will feel right at home but
some might feel uncomfortable.
"hblack" <hbla...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3A9DF85E...@earthlink.net...
> _heirs [sugkleronomois "joint-heirs"]_ of the gracious gift of life-so
Jonathon Endfinger
It is important to note that the Sadducees question confirms that the Lord
and his disciples were teaching the eternal nature of marriage. HOW COULD
THE SADDUCEES HOPE TO ENTRTAP THE SAVIOR WITH A DOCTRINE HE HAD NEVER
TAUGHT?
The answer Christ gave the Sadducees effectively dismissed their question
about marriage so thtat he could get to the fundamental problem--the
Sadducees disbelief in the resurrection.
Power was given to the apostles to bind in earth what would be bound in
heaven (Matt 16:19).
Whatsoever God does will be forever (Eccl. 3:14).
The New Testament likewise teaches that our earthly families are merely
reflections of a heavenly family in which we are sons and daughters of God
(John 20:17; Acts 17:28-29; Eph. 3:15; Heb 12:9). Those who become "like
him" (Matt. 5:48; 1 John 3:2) will thus have the opportunity to become
fathers and mothers of other eternal families (2 peter 1:3-4; D&C 132:19,
30-31).
C;e,emt pf A;examdroa imeqiovpcally taught that all should marry as the
apostles did (who is the real man that shall be saved? pp 14,22,27).
Eusebius (History of the Church, III:30) lists Peter, Philip, and Paul among
"THE APOSTLES THAT LIVED IN MARRIAGE". Clemenet also understood Pual's
words in 1 Corinthians 9:5 to mena that the apostles traveleed about with
WIVES; Acts 1:12-14 records that all were present with their wives and
children in the UPPER ROOM after the Resurrection. the Epistles generally
indicate that marriage was expected of biships, elders, deacons and the lke
(1 Tim. 3:2, 5; 5:14; Titus 1:6; Rom. 16:3; 1 Cor. 7:2; etc). IN FACT ABOUT
FORTY OF THE EARLY POPES WERE MARRIED (John A. O'Brian, Why Priests Marry,
The Christian Century, 87:417; see also William Fops, Was Jesus Married?, pp
99). Eugene Seaich, Mormonism, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Nag Hammadi
Texts. pp 35,39).
"hblack" <hbla...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3A9DF85E...@earthlink.net...
Yes nothing here about ruling over a planet or becoming Gods. Although i
thank you for puting that in there to make fun. Nice Job.
> > The Lord saw a
> > good teaching point, so he listened patiently as the Sadducees explained
his
> > case. It consisted of Jewish Law, which commanded a woman to lie with
the
> > brother of her deceased husband.
>
> You deny she married the brothers -- she just "laid with them" (!)
No sorry. Under Mosaic Law, if a man died, his widow was to marry his
brother so that the brother could raise up seed in the name of him who died.
Because the law of Moses constitued a lower law, the law of marriage it
contained was for this life only (Rom 7:1-3).
> _heirs [sugkleronomois "joint-heirs"]_ of the gracious gift of life-so
Jesus gave apostles this authority in the New Testament.
The scriptures, as the Lord was about to demonstrate, testified of the
resurrection and the power of God to raise men from the dead (Luke 20:37-38)
and TO BIND ON EARTH WHAT WOULD BE BOUND IN HEAVEN (Matt 16:19).
>
> > It shall be forever as Ecclesiastes pointed out crossed with Matthew
19:4-6;
> > and man is not without the woman in the lord.
>
> All Christians are one in the Lord. Jesus' prayed for Christian unity:
It is saying that man is not without the woman point blank. Why did God
create 2 sexes? Hello?
Jonathon Endfinger
Do you believe in the Old testament? Well how do you account for all those
prophets who had many wives.
Here is an interesting scripture:
2 Samuel 12:7-8 the Lord says to David "thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I
anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of
Saul; and I GAVE THEE THY MASTER'S HOUSE, AND THY MASTER'S WIVES INTO THY
BOSOM"
The Lord Gave David his wives? how interesting.
Don't forget that the Lord called David the apple of his eye, and blessed
him all the time he had many wives, and chastised him only when he had
committed adultery with Uriah's wife.
Galatians 3:7 says that Christians are "the children of Abraham" in other
words, children of a polygamist. All born again Christians want to enter
the New Jerusalem, but they might be offended, because written on the twelve
gates are the names of the twelve sons of Jacob, a polygamist, and many of
them were polygamists themselves. (Revelation 21:14) Christians the world
over wish to worship Jesus, a descendant of Judah, who was a polygamist, and
David, who was a polygamist. (Revelation 22:16). I have a feeling that
the polygamists Joseph Smith and Brigham Young will feel right at home but
some might feel uncomfortable.
"Jonathon Endfinger" <lep...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:S4un6.1560$421....@news2.atl...
Alan Faircloth
Yes
Well how do you account for all those
>prophets who had many wives.
They were imperfect human beings just like everybody else.
>Here is an interesting scripture:
>2 Samuel 12:7-8 the Lord says to David "thus saith the Lord God of Israel,
I
>anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of
>Saul; and I GAVE THEE THY MASTER'S HOUSE, AND THY MASTER'S WIVES INTO THY
>BOSOM"
probably overlooked, him having all those wives.
>
>The Lord Gave David his wives? how interesting.
We need to get a correct interpretation of the scripture.
>Don't forget that the Lord called David the apple of his eye, and blessed
>him all the time he had many wives, and chastised him only when he had
>committed adultery with Uriah's wife.
Nevertheless, he was still not perfect.
>
>Galatians 3:7 says that Christians are "the children of Abraham" in other
>words, children of a polygamist. All born again Christians want to enter
>the New Jerusalem, but they might be offended, because written on the twelve
>gates are the names of the twelve sons of Jacob, a polygamist, and many
of
>them were polygamists themselves. (Revelation 21:14)
This is symbollic, of course.
Christians the world
>over wish to worship Jesus, a descendant of Judah, who was a polygamist,
and
>David, who was a polygamist. (Revelation 22:16).
Isn't it interesting that there is no Biblical record of Jesus Christ even
being married, at all???
I have a feeling that
>the polygamists Joseph Smith and Brigham Young will feel right at home but
>some might feel uncomfortable.
Yeah, in a brothel!!!
title: God
http://community-2.webtv.net/faircloth/doc/ or http://www.alanfaircloth.com or http://expage.com/whaut
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
PetePanaro
>being married, at all???
>
It sure is! In fact, I would tack on to that, there is no record of any note by
any reputable Biblical or Christians scholar, any of the Early Church Fathers,
famed and widely read Christian writers and philosophers such as St. Augustine,
Thomas a Kempis, or St. Thomas Aquinas, any Pope or any statement at any
Council, by any famed Protestant leader who would try to reform the corruption
of Christian doctrine (which one might think would include Christ's marital
status) such as Martin Luther or John Calvin, and straight on into today, that
has ever suggested that Christ was married or sexual, much less a
polygamist!!!!
*That* I think says it all. However, Mormons use the flip side of the argument
of "Well, no one says he wasn't married" and make a huge doctrinal leap based
on that idea. That's just irresponsible academically. No one said Jesus used
the toilet either and I sure as heck don't doubt that he did! Excuse the
example if anyone is offended.
Let's face it, even if the Bible didn't clearly affirm Christ's celibacy, his
teachings support the orthodox views on monogamy. None support the Mormon view,
except the ways of the Old Testament. Mormons also would do well to note that
the Old Testament had tons of restrictions and allowances that Christ abolished
in the New Testament. It makes me wonder if Mormons want to be Christians or
ancient Jews.
I would also ask any Mormon that if they are such experts on Jewish law, why is
it that no Jews, even the Orthodox today embrace or practice polygamy???? If
you're gonna pimp Jewish theology for your own ends don't insult the Jews and
act like you know better than them!
Its clear that Christ, in his teachings against adultery was against the idea
of polygamy. Think about it, for Jesus to tell us that we are not to remarry as
widowers lest we be adulterers, you really think he would smile on people
remarry while there spouse is A) alive, but even crazier B) while they are
still married!!!!????!!!!
Really now!
Jonathon Endfinger
If Jesus was a polygamist, that shouldnt' offend us; so were Abraham and
Jacob, King David and King Solomon.
Mark 6:2 where it records that Jesus taught in the synagogue. That was
against Jewish law and custom and would never have been tolerated unless he
was married.
John chapter 11 tells how Lazarus died while Jesus was away. Mary sat in her
house until Jesus returned and called her out. This is found in verse 28.
Under Jewish custom, a woman in mourning stays indoors until her husband
calls her out.
Luke 24 certain women came to anoint the body of Jesus, following his
crucifixion, with burial spices. In verse 10 Luke says this included Mary
Magdalene, Joanna, and the other Mary. Under Jewish custom, it was the
widow's responsibility to anoint the body of their dead husbands.
Psalms 45:6 "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and
ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of they kingdom" Let's read
in Psalms 45:6-9. Thy throne, O god is forever and ever: the sceptre of
they kingdom is a right sceptre. thou lovest righteousness, and hatest
wickedness: therefore god, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of
gladness above thy fellows. All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and
cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee glad. King's
daughters were among thy honourable women: UPON THY RIGHT HAND DID STAND THE
QUEEN IN GOLD OF OPHIR. Was this scripture speaking of Jesus having wives?
Jesus being married is commonly accepted by Bible scholars who are
acquainted with Jewish law and customs. For instance, under Jewish law, a
Rabbi had to be a married man, and Jesus is called Rabbi in John 1:38 and
49; and in John 3:2, and in John 6:25. In fact, Mary Magdalene called Jesus
Rabboni in John 20:16. Even those who opposed Jesus called him Rabbi.
At the wedding in Cana, in John chapter 2:1-10, Jesus was in charge of
supplying the wine at the wedding. That was the responsibility of the
bridegroom, according to Jewish customs.
Verse 3, it reads, "and when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith
unto him, "they have no wine". Jesus then commanded the servants to take six
waaaaterpots of stone and fill them with water. Then Jesus told the
servants to draw out the water and give it to the governor of the feast.
Now let's read verses 9 and 10. "when the ruler of the feast had tasted the
water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was; (but the servants
which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called th BRIDEGROOM,
and saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and
when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but THOU HAST KEPT THE
GOOD WINE UNTIL NOW". And in the next verse it reads "this beginning of
miracles did Jesus in Canan of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory and
his disciples believed on him"
Who was the bridegroom?
Jesus supplied the wine, turned water into wine, and the ruler of the feast
asked the bridgegroom, who was Jesus, why he had kept the best wine until
the last part of the wedding feast."
Even a hint to Jesus having children
Isaiah 53:10 " Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put himto
grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, HE SHALL SEE HIS
SEED. he shall prolong his days, and hte pleasure of the Lord shall prosper
in his hand.
Would this make Jesus sinfull? I donot believe so. It is in perfect harmony
with the Bible teachings. Jesus was the only sinless one that ever lived or
that ever will live.
In 2 Nephi 25:20 in the Book of Mormon, the Prophet Nephi says, "yea,
behold, I say unto you, thta as these things are true, and as the Lord God
liveth, there is none other name given under heaven save it be this Jesus
Christ, of which I have spoken, whereby man can be saved".
"PetePanaro" <petep...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010301141148...@ng-ck1.aol.com...
Jonathon Endfinger
make him sinfull because it is a commandment of God to multiply and
replentish the earth.news:20010301141148...@ng-ck1.aol.com...
hblack
that the non monogamous wives of David were all an abomination before God:
Jacob 2:24
Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was
abominable before me, saith the Lord.
Further, the text of 2 Samuel 12:7 no more says that David MARRIED the
widows of Saul than it says he married Saul's house. "Into thy bosom" is rather
a Hebrew idiom that means nothing more than "into thy care/ custody."
But I guess you don't believe your own Book of Mormon, anyway (Jacob 2:24).
Finally, Chrstians normally read their doctrines out of the New Testament,
which defines marriage as between exactly two persons, and expressly forbids
polygamy. Here is a brief sample:
Mark 10:7-8
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
And they twain shall be one flesh:
Matthew 19:5
For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his
wife: and they twain shall be one flesh
Ephesians 5:31
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto
his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
1 Corinthians 6:16
What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two,
saith he, shall be one flesh.
1 Corinthians 7:2
Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let
every woman have her own husband.
1 Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife
1 Tmothy 3:12
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife
1 Timothy 5:9
Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been
the wife of one man,
Titus 1:5-6
ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the
husband of one wife
Harry Black
Jonathon Endfinger wrote:
> Do you believe in the Old testament Hugh? You like to make fun of how
> Joseph smith practiced Polygamy but what you fail to recognize that the
> prophets in the Old Testament did this too. You dont understand Gods ways
> or his power. How do you account for all those prophets who had many
> wives.
> Here is an interesting scripture:
> 2 Samuel 12:7-8 the Lord says to David "thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I
> anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of
> Saul; and I GAVE THEE THY MASTER'S HOUSE, AND THY MASTER'S WIVES INTO THY
> BOSOM"
>
> The Lord Gave David his wives? how interesting.
<snip more such nonsense>
hblack
on this earth.
Thus you would have Jesus stupidly reply that she would be married to all
seven in the resurrection.
But this is obviously not what Jesus said.
Rather, Jesus said there would be no marriages at all in the next world, and
to the dismay of Mormons, he says all people worthy of a place in the next world
will be "like angels," not God.
Harry Black
hblack
Why should I care what he says?
Harry Black
Jonathon Endfinger wrote:
<snip>
hblack
How do you account for the fact that it condemns Davids plural wives as
abomination before God?
Jacob 2:24-28
Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing
was abominable before me, saith the Lord. ... there shall not any man among you
have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord
God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before
me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
Harry Black
Fastleaf
> Do you believe in the Book of Mormon?
> How do you account for the fact that it condemns Davids plural wives
as
> abomination before God?
It wasn't authorized.
hblack
A standard reference on NT Jewish custom says that ANY Jew could speak in
synagogue, even an underage boy, or a woman. Re: Hermann L. Strack and Paul
Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, 6 vols.,
(Munich:1965), 4:157.
Harry Black
Jonathon Endfinger wrote:
<snip>
Woody Brison
>
> To the same woman? lol thats the same question the saducees were asking
> Christ because he taught marriage in the ressurection. Why would they ask
> this paticular question? They were trying to get Christ to contradict
> himself proving himself to be confused
It's the old 'reductio ad absurdum' logical strategy. If you
can take a proposition (or your opponent's teaching) and
extend it by valid reasoning to an absurdity, this proves
the teaching to be false. It's also funny, it humiliates
your opponent if the audience laughs at them. The story
is given in all three gospels as a brilliant parry by the
Saviour of a devious trap, right next to the one about
paying taxes.
If Jesus had taught only resurrection with nothing said
about marriage there, the Sadducees conundrum would have
been pointless. It is clearly an extension of the idea
of marriage in eternity -- here's seven brothers all
married to the same wife in the resurrection! Nothing
funnier than watching a bunch of Jews argue, and this
would be a side-splitter of an argument.
Jesus' answer was that their reasoning was not valid. If
they had known the scriptures and the power of God, they
would have joined him by being baptized, then they could
have entered the celestial kingdom eventually and enjoyed
eternal marriage. As it was, they rejected him -- didn't
believe in the resurrection, which was taught in the
scriptures. So, they don't go to the celestial kingdom,
they don't get to enjoy eternal marriage, and remain as
angels to all eternity.
Joseph Smith taught that the "they" referred to by Jesus
was those seven men.
Paul taught that Christians will /not/ be as angels in
eternity: "Know ye not that we shall judge angels?" --1 Cor.
6:3. They will be something higher. Ergo, Jesus' teaching
was not that all mankind would be unmarried angels in
eternity, it must be someone other than mankind in general,
and Joseph's teaching is logical and consistent with the
wording of the Savior's answer.
There is additional proof that the Sadducees were trying
to oppose a teaching by the Savior, that there can be
eternal marriage in his programme. Just look back over
what went before: Jesus spoke of a king who made a marriage
supper for his son! It takes no great intelligence to see
that the king is God, the son is Jesus, and the subject is
marriage. We cannot suppose of course that we have the
whole of Jesus' sermon, it would only take 3 minutes to
deliver what we have there.
And why would not the Savior of the World crown his teachings
with the most glorious doctrine of all, during his last
week on earth, in the house of God?
>...but he wasnt he merely answered them
> with a basic truth. that people cannot be married in the next life. they
> must be married in this life.
If they can't get married any more they must be dead. God
is God of the living, not the dead. We know he himself made
a marriage after he was exalted. Adam was his son, Luke 3:38,
and there must have been a mother too. If you suppose God to
be an adulterer you don't know much about him. Ergo, God had
a wife, by whom he had Adam; and Eve had a mother too. Later,
God was the father of Jesus, and Mary was the mother. Again,
God doesn't go around having children out of wedlock, like
some of the Greek legends assert. Ergo, Mary and Father got
married sometime before Jesus was begotten -- maybe around
1 BC. She is not the same person as the mother of Adam or
Eve, because she was not born at that time. She didn't have
a physical body, she was a premortal spirit, so she couldn't
have borne Adam or Eve as physical children. Ergo, there ARE
weddings for exalted people.
>...I believe we shall be as ourselves when we
> are resurrected, we shall see the people we spent our lives with (wives) i
> think it would be kinda hurtfull to know you couldnt be with the person you
> loved all your life. That isnt so. 1 corinthians 11:11-12: "nevertheless,
> neithe ris the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in
> the Lord."
True love is truly a gift of God. If you are lucky enough
to be married to the one you truly love, it is definitely
a blessing from God. So, "what God hath joined together,
let not man and his irrational doctrine put asunder!"
"It is not good for man to be alone." -- Genesis 2:18.
When does this cease to be true? Never. As long as the
universe continues it is good for man and woman to be
married.
Wood
Woody Brison
>
> Mormons often forget that The Book of Mormon denies this, but says
rather
> that the non monogamous wives of David were all an abomination before God:
>
> Jacob 2:24
was
> abominable before me, saith the Lord.
Which thing is "which thing"? It wasn't the mere fact that
he had several wives, but that he had too many. Which thing
= MANY wives and concubines. At the time he became king of
Jerusalem, entering in on a white donkey, which thing was
repeated by Jesus, David was married to three women. Quite
a victory and blessing from God for a detestable adulterer.
> Further, the text of 2 Samuel 12:7 no more says that David MARRIED the
> widows of Saul than it says he married Saul's house. "Into thy bosom" is
rather
> a Hebrew idiom that means nothing more than "into thy care/ custody."
Into thy bosom is an idiom among all people everywhere for
close physical affection. Gen. 16:5, Num. 11:12, Deut.
13:6, 28:54,56, Ruth 4:16, 2 Sam. 12:3 -- I would have
thought that you had at least read the chapter you cite --
1 Kgs. 1:2, 3:20, 17:19, Prov. 5:20, 6:27, Eccl. 7:9
(figurative, putting anger as a lover) Isa. 40:11, Lam. 2:12,
Micah 7:5, Luke 16:23, John 1:18, 13: 23 -- just read the
whole Bible once, will you? and stop making these pestiferous
gaffes.
> But I guess you don't believe your own Book of Mormon, anyway (Jacob
2:24).
Why do you never read verse 30? Why do you pound on this
over and over and over, doesn't matter how many times it's
read and explained to you, next month here you are again
claiming the Book of Mormon prohibits polygamy at all times.
Oh, duh!~ it /is/ a new month.
> Finally, Chrstians normally read their doctrines out of the New
Testament,
> which defines marriage as between exactly two persons, and expressly forbids
> polygamy. Here is a brief sample:
>
> Mark 10:7-8
> For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his
wife;
> And they twain shall be one flesh:
Nowhere does it say that the man doesn't have another
marriage with another wife, and they twain are one flesh
also.
> Matthew 19:5
> For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his
> wife: and they twain shall be one flesh
By the way, did you notice who Jesus was quoting here?
God said Adam had a mother.
> Ephesians 5:31
> For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined
unto
> his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
>
> 1 Corinthians 6:16
> What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two,
> saith he, shall be one flesh.
You aren't making the error again of confusing marriage with
adultery are you? Oh, it's a brand new month! Why don't you
read <http://web.lds.net/pages/wwbrison/pppratt.htm> like I've
told you a dozen times to do
> 1 Timothy 3:2
> A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife
>
> 1 Tmothy 3:12
> Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife
Ah, now we are getting somewhere. If everyone in the congregation
had been monogamous or less, there had been no rationale for this
regulation in the church, eh? It looks like the church was told
by the Lord to go to monogamy. But John the Apostle wrote letters
from the house and family of one lady to the house and family of
another (2nd John, note especially v. 13), and the terms used are
most definitely those of married folks.
Wood
Alan Faircloth
Re: Christ taught Eternal Marriage
lep...@bellsouth.net (Jonathon Endfinger)
believe in the Old testament? Well how do you account for all those
prophets who had many wives.
Here is an interesting scripture:
2 Samuel 12:7-8 the Lord says to David "thus saith the Lord God of
Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of
the hand of Saul; and I GAVE THEE THY MASTER'S HOUSE, AND THY MASTER'S
WIVES INTO THY BOSOM"
The Lord Gave David his wives? how interesting.
>The correct context for those scriptures, in the chapter, is saying
that 'God let David take'.
hblack
of Mormon.
Jacob 2:24, 26-27
David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was
abominable before me, saith the Lord. ... I the Lord God will not suffer that
this people shall do like unto them of old. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and
hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save
it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none
Got that, Woody? According to the Book of Mormon, God says more than one wife
is too many, and just one concubine is too much.
Riplakish was another offender identified in the Book of Mormon:
Ether 10:5
Riplakish did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did
have many wives and concubines
Joseph Smith himself knew that polygamy was immoral and denied it all the days
of his dishonest life:
[Joseph Smith, Editorial]
Inasmuch as the public mind has been unjustly abused through he fallacy of Dr.
Bennett's letters, we make an extract on the subject of marriage, showing the rule
of the church on this important matter. The extract is from the Book of Doctrine
and Covenants, and is the only rule allowed by the church. 'All legal contracts of
marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred
and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the
crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man
should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death,
when either is at liberty to marry again.'
-- Re: Times and Seasons 3 (1 Sep 1842): 909.
Harry Black
Woody Brison wrote:
> hblack wrote:
> >
> > Mormons often forget that The Book of Mormon denies this, but says
> rather
> > that the non monogamous wives of David were all an abomination before God:
> >
> > Jacob 2:24
> > Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing
> was
> > abominable before me, saith the Lord.
>
> Which thing is "which thing"? It wasn't the mere fact that
> he had several wives, but that he had too many.
<snip more rubbish>
TheJordan6
>Date: 3/1/2001 10:19 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A9F15C3...@earthlink.net>
>
> Woody proves once again he can't, or won't, read or understand his own
>Book
>of Mormon.
>
>Jacob 2:24, 26-27
> David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was
>abominable before me, saith the Lord. ... I the Lord God will not suffer
>that
>this people shall do like unto them of old. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me,
>and
>hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have
>save
>it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none
>
> Got that, Woody? According to the Book of Mormon, God says more than one
>wife
>is too many, and just one concubine is too much.
If Professor Woody thinks David had "too many" wives and concubines, what must
he think of Joseph Smith's 33?
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 3/1/2001 6:39 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A9EE21C...@earthlink.net>
Looks like Reformed Fawnician to me, Harry.
Randy J.
Fastleaf
> Woody proves once again he can't, or won't, read or understand his
own Book
> of Mormon.
> Jacob 2:24, 26-27
> David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing
was
> abominable before me, saith the Lord. ... I the Lord God will not suffer
that
> this people shall do like unto them of old. Wherefore, my brethren, hear
me, and
> hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you
have save
> it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none
> Got that, Woody? According to the Book of Mormon, God says more than
one wife
> is too many, and just one concubine is too much.
Bzzt, wrong. More then one wife and having concubines is forbidden unless
authorized by God. Abraham had a ton of concubines. I'm not sure how many
wives he had, but I think it was at least two. God promised Abraham many
many children and that he would be the father of many nations even. How
could that be accomplished with only one wife? And how could he have more
then one woman and still be righteous, except polygamy be authorized by
God?
<snip>
TheJordan6
>Date: 3/1/2001 7:13 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <2BBn6.13$4F5....@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com>
>
>"hblack" <hbla...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:3A9EE300...@earthlink.net...
>
>> Do you believe in the Book of Mormon?
>> How do you account for the fact that it condemns Davids plural wives
>as
>> abomination before God?
>
>It wasn't authorized.
Well then, it's rather stupid of Mr. Endfinger to use David's "unauthorized"
women to justify Mormon polygamy, isn't it.
A question for you: When did Joseph Smith claim to receive "sealing powers"
from "Elijah the prophet" which allegedly gave Smith "authority" to perform
plural marriages?
Randy J.
CharlesSWaters
Jonathon Endfinger wrote:
>
> Hahaha you cant read?
While I may or may not agree with hblack, he uses logic and reason and
doesn't yell and scream. Please respond in kind.
> why were they asking Christ who shall she be married to in the resurrection?
> WHAT MADE THEM ASK THAT QUESTION? SOMEONE WAS OBVIOUSLY TEACHING IT. THEY
> WERE TRYING TO CONFUSE CHRIST BECAUSE SHE HAS 7 HUSBANDS AND THEY WANTED TO
> CONFUSE HIM AND GET HIM TO SAY SHE WOULD BE MARRIED TO ALL 7. He did teach
> a truth. THERE ARE NO MARRIAGES IN THE RESSURECTION. All marriages must be
> done on this earth and in this life.
Except that some Mormons believe that Mary is the wife of Heavenly
Father for eternity, that Joseph only had her for time. Hence, the
doctrine has holes.
--
Charles
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
- George Bernard Shaw
"In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place."
- Mahatma Gandhi
CharlesSWaters
Alan Faircloth wrote:
>
> "Jonathon Endfinger" <lep...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Do you believe in the Old testament?
>
> Yes
Problematic. Some parts are literal, some are not, some are myth.
>
> Well how do you account for all those
> >prophets who had many wives.
>
> They were imperfect human beings just like everybody else.
There is nothing ethically wrong with having more than one wife.
CharlesSWaters
Jonathon Endfinger wrote:
>
> Yes. just because Jesus might have been married and had children dosent
> make him sinfull because it is a commandment of God to multiply and
> replentish the earth.
It was an obligation for a good jew to be married and reproduce, and
Jesus was a good Jew and obeyed the commandments perfectly. Recall the
commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. If he hadn't obeyed
this commandment within marriage, he would have been imperfect. He was
perfect.
CharlesSWaters
hblack wrote:
>
> According to the Saducees, the woman had in fact been married to all seven
> on this earth.
> Thus you would have Jesus stupidly reply that she would be married to all
> seven in the resurrection.
>
> But this is obviously not what Jesus said.
> Rather, Jesus said there would be no marriages at all in the next world, and
> to the dismay of Mormons, he says all people worthy of a place in the next world
> will be "like angels," not God.
That's because it's share and share alike in the resurrection - inherit
all things. <wink>
Jonathon Endfinger
"Fastleaf" <Fast...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:fGEn6.24$4F5....@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com...
Jonathon Endfinger
of marriage in the resurrection? Would it have made sense for them to pick
this topic if he wasnt teaching marriage in the
resurrection???????????????????????????????????????/
"hblack" <hbla...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3A9EE157...@earthlink.net...
Jonathon Endfinger
wives. They were authorized. Please read 2 Samuel 12:8. " I gave thee
thy master's house, and thy master's WIVES."
Why are you going on a new subject about getting sealing keys. Why dont you
stick to this subject. Its rather tiresome proving to you everything we
teach is true. :)
"TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010301224558...@ng-mi1.aol.com...
Jonathon Endfinger
"hblack" <hbla...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3A9EF671...@earthlink.net...
Jonathon Endfinger
Why dont you read verse 30 like an honest individual seeking
truth???????????????????????????
It would have answered the question for you. It reads " FOR IF I WILL SAITH
THE LORD OF HOSTS RAISE UP SEED UNTO ME, I WILL COMMAND MY PEOPLE;
OTHERWISE, THEY SHALL HARKEN UNTO THESE THINGS" Notice he said "UNLESS I
BUILD UP A SEED, YOU SHALL HEARKEN TO VERSES 22-27."
Please dont try to quote from the Book of Mormon when you cannot even
understand the Bible.
"hblack" <hbla...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3A9F15C3...@earthlink.net...
Jonathon Endfinger
and sometimes i forget to check my grammar and spelling hehe.
Clement of Alexandria unequivocally taught that all should marry as the
apostles did (Who is the real man that slall be saved? pp 14, 22, 27)
I was just giving a reference to a history book that helps with the
evidence with eternal marriage.
"TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010301224306...@ng-mi1.aol.com...
hblack
> >From: hblack hbla...@earthlink.net
> >Date: 3/1/2001 10:19 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3A9F15C3...@earthlink.net>
> >
> > Woody proves once again he can't, or won't, read or understand his own
> >Book
> >of Mormon.
> >
> >Jacob 2:24, 26-27
> > David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was
> >abominable before me, saith the Lord. ... I the Lord God will not suffer
> >that
> >this people shall do like unto them of old. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me,
> >and
> >hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have
> >save
> >it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none
> >
> > Got that, Woody? According to the Book of Mormon, God says more than one
> >wife
> >is too many, and just one concubine is too much.
>
> If Professor Woody thinks David had "too many" wives and concubines, what must
> he think of Joseph Smith's 33?
Woody's defense is indeed pathetic.
In point of fact, Joseph Smith himself secretly dictated a revelation that
says David's "many wives and concubines" were given him of God:
LDS Doctrine and Covenants 132:38-39
David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, .... David's
wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant,
and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these
things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife
Now, a reasonable person must ask, Which Mormon canonized Standard Work is
lying about the status of David's "many wives and concubines" and about the
morality of having more than one wife?
Mormon scriptures are literally a pastiche of lies.
Thanks Randy,
Harry
hblack
wives and concubines," but informs us that Abraham was not.
In this he flatly contradicts his own prophet Joseph Smith, who secretly
dictated a revelation, in which he has his god say that David's "many wives and
concubines" were truly given him of God:
LDS Doctrine and Covenants 132:38-39
David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon ... David's
wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my
servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none
of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife
Now, a reasonable person must ask, Which Mormon canionized Standard Work is
lying about the status of David's "many wives and concubines" and about the
morality of having more than one wife?
Further, our Mormon apologist fails to observe that polygamy in the Book of
Mormon is forbidden on moral grounds:
Jacob 2.27-28
hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man
among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; For I,
the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an
abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
Ether 10:5
Riplakish did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he
did have many wives and concubines
Jacob 3.5
Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their
filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous
than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was
given unto our father -- that they should have save it were one wife, and
concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed
among them.
Interestingly, polygamy was never practiced by righteous people in the Book
of Mormon -- even during the Golden Age after Christ converted them all to
Christinity. The Book of Mormon is a rabidly anti-polygamist tract.
Polygamy was one of con man Joseph Smith's later opportunistic inventions.
Harry Black
hblack
were an abomination before God, because that is what the Book of Mormon says
(Jacob 2:24).
Unfortunately, 13 years later, Joseph Smith secretly dictated a revelation
from his god that contradicts the Book of Mormon by stating that David's "many
wives and concubines" were given him of God:
LDS Doctrine and Covenats 132:38-39
David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon ... David's
wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my
servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none
of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife
Now, a reasonable person must ask, Which Mormon canonized Standard Work is
lying about the status of David's "many wives and concubines" and about the
morality of having more than one wife?
Jacob 2:30, of course, says that had God wished, God could have given David
"many wives and concubines" but Jacob 2:24 certainly says God did not give David
his wives, but rather considered them to be a stinking abomination before Him:
"Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was
abominable before me, saith the Lord.".
In the 19th century, when some apostate Mormons in Utah under Brigham Young
were practicing polygamy, they taught something quite different from Jacob's
doctrine in the Book of Mormon. They taught that monogamy was a corrupt marital
system that promoted social decay and corruption, and that polygamy was rather
the true order for a righteous people of God to practice in all ages of the
world. In 1890, the U.S. Government broke the power of the impotent Mormon god,
and forced them to stop the practice.
Today, broken god prophets, like senile Gordon Hinckley, sing only the
praises of monogamy, just like the Book of Mormon tells them to.
So why don't you?
Harry Black
CharlesSWaters
Jonathon Endfinger wrote:
>
> Saducees came to make fun at the Lord. Why? Why did they pick the subject
> of marriage in the resurrection? Would it have made sense for them to pick
> this topic if he wasnt teaching marriage in the
> resurrection???????????????????????????????????????/
The Saducees didn't even believe in a resurrection.
--
hblack
following
1- This passage (2 Samuel 12:8) doesn't say, nor can it be made to say that
David _married_ Saul's wives.
2- There is no statement in the Bible that does say David married any of Saul's
wives
3- The Book of Mormon declares in no uncertain terms that it was in fact an
abomination before God for David and Solomon to have more than one wife. Re:
Jacob 2:24. Further, Mormons are routinely warned by their authorities to
dismiss any Bble teaching that contradicts the Book of Mormon.
4- Joseph Smith's own private polygamy was an immoral aberration. It violated
civil law, as well as his own Church law, articles of faith, and his publicly
professed morality. Joseph Smith in fact never openly endorsed the crimes of
bigamy, fornication, or polygamy, but openly condemned these all the days of his
life, and boldly declared that "We believe .. in obeying, honoring, and
sustaining the law" (Article of Faith #12.) Re: "Article on Marriage" Chapter
101, LDS D&C, 1835 edition (removed in 1876). "the only rule allowed by the
church. '... Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the
crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man
should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death,
when either is at liberty to marry again." Joseph Smith, Editorial, Times and
Seasons 3 (1 Sep 1842): 909.
5. Joseph Smith's private justification of polygamy rested on a spurious
revelation (D&C 132; note especially vv 38-39) that flatly contradicts the
spirit and letter of the Book of Mormon. Further, since extramarital liasons
constitute adultery, Church law (D&C 42:21-25 ) specifically says Joseph Smith
was not competent to receive revelations from God anytime during his lying
polygamous period (1833-1844): "he that committeth adultery, and repenteth not,
shall be cast out" (D&C 42:24.)
6. The New Testament defines marriage as a strictly two person contract, and
frequently specifies that worthy Christians must be strictly monogamous. Mormons
often forget that the New Testament is a professed Standard Work for them "We
believe the Bible to be the word of God" (Article of Faith #8).
Harry Black
Jonathon Endfinger wrote:
<snip>
Fastleaf
> Our Mormon apologist admits below that David was immoral in having
"many
> wives and concubines," but informs us that Abraham was not.
No I didn't.
> In this he flatly contradicts his own prophet Joseph Smith, who
secretly
> dictated a revelation, in which he has his god say that David's "many
wives and
> concubines" were truly given him of God:
No I don't.
<snip>
Ugh, is it really so hard to understand something so simple? Polygamy is
only justified when the Lord commands it of his servants.
hblack
All the evidence is rather to the negative.
Jesus, and Paul, were quite comfortable with men making themselves
permanently celibate for the Kingdom of God:
Matthew 19:12 (NRSV)
there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the
kingdom of heaven.
1 Corinthian 7:8, 38 (NRSV)
To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain
unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should
marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. .... he who
marries his fiance does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.
hblack
Where's Clovis?
Harry
hblack
I have to believe that the presence of God surpasses any joys of the flesh. God is
what is shared in common. I don't feel guilty contemplating that the incomparable
gratification of the soul in union with God is a far greater, satifying experience
than any drug or physical activity. Men will kill themselves trying to get crack, yet
mystical experience can be more wonderful.
The presumption of some Mormons (compare Islamic Paradise) seems to be that sexual
activity must play a key role in the next life. But this is a too narrow perspective,
and they should discard it.
Harry
hblack
with Jesus' teachings, and were surprised by it.. If, as you claim, the
Sadducees had already known Jesus' doctrine, they would not have embarrassed
themselves by asking him the questions they did.
The purpose of the Gospels telling this story is to show that Jesus'
doctrine was superior to the Pharisee doctrine, in being invulnerable to the
kinds of reductios that Sadducees successfully used on them. Jesus, like the
Pharisees, believed in a resurrection. But quite unlike the Pharisees, Jesus, as
the Sadducees soon found out, denied that in the next world the order of things
would be comparable to any social arrangements we have seen in this world.
Specifically, there will be no marriage relationships there at all.
Not surprisingly, you will find this to be the universal view of both the
Church Fathers, and of heretics, as well.
hblack
married or celibate, which is irrelevant ot our discussion.
In the West, the Church eventually preferred celibacy. In the East, the
Church preferred marriage. Both agreed that celibacy was a special gift of God,
and both agreed that marriage is till death do you part.
There is no such thing as eternal marriage. There are no saving marriage
ordinances. God created the sexes to fill the earth, but other callings can take
precedence, as Jesus acknowledged, and Paul instructed (Matthew 19:12; 1
Corinthians 7:8-9, 38). When men and women die they are relieved of any
reproductive duties. All the worthy will be made "like the angels" (Luke
20:34-36.)
John Manning
'Justified' heavenly copulatorium for Jonathon? (Does he have an early
post-pubescent excited weenie? Kind of like our friend Joe Smith and his
buddy Brigham?)
Do you think Hinckley takes Viagra to maintain his 'godly' sexual
prowess? According to his prostitutes, Hinckley has a very small weenie.
Christie says that he demanded that she bow down to him as a god or he
could not 'get off'. She refused to bow down to him. The black hookers
were treated worse. Christie knew most of them. As she tells it,
Hinckley was physically abusive to them, but they were paid very well.
Do you get a bigger weenie if you are a 'prophet' in the highest level
of the Celestial Kingdom? Or do the multiple wives just say that they
don't mind so much? Do you think Emma is there with Joe and Fanny? (Emma
caught Joe in the barn 'porking' Fanny.)
Aren't Mormon family values 'delightsome'. Can you imagine 'Leave It To
Beaver', and Ward Cleaver had 52 wives? Gosh, what would June Cleaver
do? Maybe the 'Beaver' would be motivated to get some multiple beaver.
'Wally' would already have the whole girl's swimming team. Gosh. Maybe
they could ALL go together to Disneyland and rent a whole hotel and on a
special night, watch the Osmonds perform. Donny is still 'cute'. He just
might have a really big weenie for all the Celestial Kingdom babes.
Don't you get that 'burning in the bosom' feeling at moments like this?
Ooops, I dropped my apron, but my weenie is ready for godhood. My hand
clasp is in order and now I will copulate, become a god and create a new
world.
JRM
>
> Harry Black
>
(snip)
PetePanaro
>> Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing
>was
>> abominable before me, saith the Lord.
>
>= MANY wives and concubines
You are just being dishonest. David's many wives were an abomination. For you
to read into it that God said its cool to have 2 or 3 or 4 wives and its not
cool to have 5 or 6 or 7 wives, where is the justification of that
rendering??????
Why do you have to play Scriptural hopskotch???? My 8 year old cousin could
read that and figure out that God thought polygamy to be an abomination!
>> Mark 10:7-8
>> For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his
>wife;
>> And they twain shall be one flesh:
>
>Nowhere does it say that the man doesn't have another
>marriage with another wife, and they twain are one flesh
>also.
WHAT!?!?!?! It says it RIGHT THERE! PLAIN AS DAY! "A man shall leave his
father and mother and cleave to his wife! WIFE! W_W_W_W_W_W_W_W_WIFE!!" Is a
man expected to leave his mother and father on several occasions?
PetePanaro
>Ugh, is it really so hard to understand something so simple? Polygamy is
>only justified when the Lord commands it of his servants
OK fine. And THE LORD commanded us to only have one wife at most in the NEW
TESTAMENT, which is where most CHRISTIANS (not ancient Jews) get their doctrine
from.
Jesus is the Lord no?
PetePanaro
>49; and in John 3:2, and in John 6:25. In fact, Mary Magdalene called Jesus
>Rabboni in John 20:16. Even those who opposed Jesus called him Rabbi.
Was John the Baptist married as well? He was called Rabbi too.
TheJordan6
>Date: 3/1/2001 10:26 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <97n3s...@enews4.newsguy.com>
>
>
>
>Alan Faircloth wrote:
>>
>> "Jonathon Endfinger" <lep...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >Do you believe in the Old testament?
>>
>> Yes
>
>Problematic. Some parts are literal, some are not, some are myth.
>
>>
>> Well how do you account for all those
>> >prophets who had many wives.
>>
>> They were imperfect human beings just like everybody else.
>
>There is nothing ethically wrong with having more than one wife.
>Charles
If the canonized doctrine of a particular religious specifically forbade having
more than one wife, wouldn't it be ethically wrong for members of that sect to
attempt to take more than one wife?
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 3/2/2001 12:44 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <saGn6.1972$e37.1...@news3.atl>
Since you're apparently not going to stop responding to my posts, I guess I'm
forced to rebut your inanity.
>I am stupid?
Yes, you're stupid. Incredibly, irretrievably stupid.
>You are the one who cannot read.
Not only can you not write, but you obviously cannot read either, because Harry
Black has refuted your idiotic point below at least three times, and you just
ignore it and continue with your ravings.
> The Lord gave David his
>wives. They were authorized. Please read 2 Samuel 12:8. " I gave thee
>thy master's house, and thy master's WIVES."
Harry Black has already quoted from the alleged "most correct book on earth",
the Book of Mormon, that David's wives and concubines were "whoredoms," and an
abomination before the Lord.
So, who should we believe, Mr. Endfinger? The Book of Samuel, or the Book of
Mormon? Which one is wrong? You seem to agree with the Book of Samuel, so I
assume that you believe the Book of Mormon to be wrong.
>Why are you going on a new subject about getting sealing keys. Why dont you
>stick to this subject.
It IS part of the subject. If you weren't so STUPID, you'd know that.
Fastleaf asserted that David's polygamy was "unauthorized." I asked Fastleaf
for the date of Joseph Smith's alleged reception of "authority" to perform
"plural marriages" because Smith claimed to receive such "authority" on April
3, 1836. However, the historical record shows that Smith was engaging in a
sexual relationship with a 16-year-old girl named Fannie Alger, beginning in
1833.
Now, I realize that you're too stupid to comprehend the import of this, but for
those who aren't, it means that Smith's 1833 relationship with Fannie was
"unauthorized," just as Fastleaf claimed that David's polygamy was
"unauthorized."
That means that Joseph Smith was an adulterer, beginning as early as 1833.
"Thous shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and thou shalt cleave unto her
and none else....Thou shalt not commit adultery; and he that committeth
adultery, and repenteth not, shall be cast out."
(Doctrine and Covenants 42:22,24, February 9, 1831.)
Tell us, Mr. Endfinger---why wasn't Joseph Smith excommunicated from his church
for committing adultery with Fannie alger?
> Its rather tiresome proving to you everything we
>teach is true. :)
Well, I've been posting on ARM about four years, and I've never grown tired of
teaching Mormon about their own history and doctrines. I'll warrant that
you'll grow tired of it long before I do.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>4- Joseph Smith's own private polygamy was an immoral aberration. It violated
>civil law, as well as his own Church law, articles of faith, and his publicly
>professed morality. Joseph Smith in fact never openly endorsed the crimes of
>bigamy, fornication, or polygamy, but openly condemned these all the days of
>his
>life, and boldly declared that "We believe .. in obeying, honoring, and
>sustaining the law" (Article of Faith #12.) Re: "Article on Marriage" Chapter
>101, LDS D&C, 1835 edition (removed in 1876). "the only rule allowed by the
>church. '... Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the
>crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man
>should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of
>death,
>when either is at liberty to marry again." Joseph Smith, Editorial, Times and
>Seasons 3 (1 Sep 1842): 909.
And let's not forget my personal favorite quote of Joseph Smith's, which even
Mr. Endfinger should be able to look up and verify for himself:
"Do the Mormon believe in having more wives than one? No, not at the same
time. But they believe that if their companion dies, they have a right to
marry again."
(May 8, 1838, "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith," page 119.)
Now, I wonder if Mr. Endfinger, being an eminent scholar on Mormonism, would
like to inform us as to when Joseph Smith first proposed to reverse his
church's strict rule of monogamy, and attempt to introduce his "revelation on
celestial marrage" before the ruling body of his church elders.
And surely Mr. Endfinger can tell us the result of Smith's attempt to do that.
Randy J.
Jonathon Endfinger
argue in left field somewhere.
"PetePanaro" <petep...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010302105819...@ng-ba1.aol.com...
Jonathon Endfinger
Jonathon Endfinger
YOU PEOPLE LISTEN TO TEACHINGS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM MEN WHO WERE
POLYGAMISTS BUT MAKE FUN OF MORMONS? Pretty lame.
"John Manning" <joh...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:3A9F7B95...@cableone.net...
CharlesSWaters
I disagree, polygamy is ethical whenever a society permits it among
consenting adults.
Within "mormonism", the story is as you say _but_ men can institute
marriage laws(or contracts) as they see fit.
CharlesSWaters
hblack wrote:
>
> Bad shallow wicked thought, Charles but close to the truth.
> I have to believe that the presence of God surpasses any joys of the flesh. God is
> what is shared in common. I don't feel guilty contemplating that the incomparable
> gratification of the soul in union with God is a far greater, satifying experience
> than any drug or physical activity. Men will kill themselves trying to get crack, yet
> mystical experience can be more wonderful.
> The presumption of some Mormons (compare Islamic Paradise) seems to be that sexual
> activity must play a key role in the next life. But this is a too narrow perspective,
> and they should discard it.
I disagree, the "selfish gene" aka evolution is the driving force on
earth and appears to be the driving force in heaven too. The process
may or may not be sexual, but that's immaterial.
> Harry
>
> CharlesSWaters wrote:
>
> > hblack wrote:
> > >
> > > According to the Saducees, the woman had in fact been married to all seven
> > > on this earth.
> > > Thus you would have Jesus stupidly reply that she would be married to all
> > > seven in the resurrection.
> > >
> > > But this is obviously not what Jesus said.
> > > Rather, Jesus said there would be no marriages at all in the next world, and
> > > to the dismay of Mormons, he says all people worthy of a place in the next world
> > > will be "like angels," not God.
> >
> > That's because it's share and share alike in the resurrection - inherit
> > all things. <wink>
--
CharlesSWaters
Are only the "orthodox" of a particular religion ethical?
chris mccabe
chris
Fastleaf
<snip>
> Fastleaf asserted that David's polygamy was "unauthorized."
I did?
<snip>
Fastleaf
news:97ots...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> I disagree, polygamy is ethical whenever a society permits it among
> consenting adults.
Ethical to whom though? I'm saying polygamy is only acceptable to the Lord
when he commands it of any of his people.
hblack
> Harry Black wrote:
>
> >4- Joseph Smith's own private polygamy was an immoral aberration. It violated
> >civil law, as well as his own Church law, articles of faith, and his publicly
> >professed morality. Joseph Smith in fact never openly endorsed the crimes of
> >bigamy, fornication, or polygamy, but openly condemned these all the days of
> >his
> >life, and boldly declared that "We believe .. in obeying, honoring, and
> >sustaining the law" (Article of Faith #12.) Re: "Article on Marriage" Chapter
> >101, LDS D&C, 1835 edition (removed in 1876). "the only rule allowed by the
> >church. '... Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the
> >crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man
> >should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of
> >death,
> >when either is at liberty to marry again." Joseph Smith, Editorial, Times and
> >Seasons 3 (1 Sep 1842): 909.
>
> And let's not forget my personal favorite quote of Joseph Smith's, which even
> Mr. Endfinger should be able to look up and verify for himself:
>
> "Do the Mormon believe in having more wives than one? No, not at the same
> time. But they believe that if their companion dies, they have a right to
> marry again."
> (May 8, 1838, "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith," page 119.)
Good quote for Mormons to ponder, Randy.
This was Ptresident Joseph Smith's thoroughly dishonest 1838 FAQ posting,
widely published in his LDS Elders' Journal, of which he was also Editor..
Harry
CharlesSWaters
chris mccabe wrote:
>
> you're so full of crap, john. you know that, right?
>
> chris
That's not the problem, the problem is that so much of it comes out of
his fingers. Place him in your kill file. Works for me.
> John Manning wrote:
>
> > hblack wrote:
> > >
chris mccabe
chris
TheJordan6
>Date: 3/2/2001 6:33 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <A5Wn6.194$4F5....@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com>
Yes, you did.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 3/2/2001 4:02 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <aCTn6.3681$P.13...@news1.atl>
>
>OH so you want to throw out the Old Testament?
Only where it's superseded by the New Testament, Mr. Endfinger.
Are you Jew, or a Christian?
Randy J.
Fastleaf
> > From: "Jonathon Endfinger" lep...@bellsouth.net
> > Message-id: <aCTn6.3681$P.13...@news1.atl>
> > OH so you want to throw out the Old Testament?
> Only where it's superseded by the New Testament, Mr. Endfinger.
> Are you Jew, or a Christian?
That depends on how many scriptures you limit yourself to, and how many
prophets you reject.
TheJordan6
>Date: 3/2/2001 3:02 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <97ou9...@enews4.newsguy.com>
>
>
>
>TheJordan6 wrote:
>>
>> >From: CharlesSWaters "cswaters"@NOS...@newsguy.com
>> >Date: 3/1/2001 10:26 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <97n3s...@enews4.newsguy.com>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Alan Faircloth wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Jonathon Endfinger" <lep...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >Do you believe in the Old testament?
>> >>
>> >> Yes
>> >
>> >Problematic. Some parts are literal, some are not, some are myth.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Well how do you account for all those
>> >> >prophets who had many wives.
>> >>
>> >> They were imperfect human beings just like everybody else.
>> >
>> >There is nothing ethically wrong with having more than one wife.
>>
>> >Charles
>>
>> If the canonized doctrine of a particular religious specifically forbade
>having
>> more than one wife, wouldn't it be ethically wrong for members of that sect
>to
>> attempt to take more than one wife?
>
>Are only the "orthodox" of a particular religion ethical?
>
>--
>
>Charles
Do you always answer questions with a question?
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 3/2/2001 1:19 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <hHGn6.1988$e37.1...@news3.atl>
>
>I apologize. I had my fingers on the wrong keys. I am very fast at typing
>and sometimes i forget to check my grammar and spelling hehe.
>
>Clement of Alexandria unequivocally taught that all should marry as the
>apostles did
Was Paul one of those apostles who was married, Mr. Endfinger?
>I was just giving a reference to a history book that helps with the
>evidence with eternal marriage.
Oh. So Mormons can assert that the Bible is incorrect and/or
mistranslated---but if something's not taught in the Bible, Mormons can
proof-text their doctrines with the extra-canonical writings of other early
Christians, who were supposedly in an "apostate" condition.
Randy J.
>"TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
Fastleaf
> >From: CharlesSWaters "cswaters"@NOS...@newsguy.com
> >Message-id: <97ou9...@enews4.newsguy.com>
> >Are only the "orthodox" of a particular religion ethical?
> Do you always answer questions with a question?
Didn't a certain philosopher do that?
TheJordan6
>Date: 3/2/2001 2:51 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A9F5563...@earthlink.net>
>
> Jonathan deserves a Min jello mold for his incredible argument, Randy.
> Where's Clovis?
>
>Harry
Word is, Clovis is busy adding another shift at the Min Jello Mold Award
factory, just to service the new Endfinger account.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 3/2/2001 4:02 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <YCTn6.3682$P.13...@news1.atl>
>
>Make your little comments all you like but the fact still remains. WHY DO
>YOU PEOPLE LISTEN TO TEACHINGS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM MEN WHO WERE
>POLYGAMISTS BUT MAKE FUN OF MORMONS? Pretty lame.
It's because Old Testament polygamy wasn't a "commandment", but rather merely a
cultural phenomenon, and there were no laws nor societal taboos against it. The
New Testament makes it clear that Christians are to have only one wife.
The LDS church's original Doctrine and Covenants included a section that
specifically forbade polygamy, which was canonized in 1835 and was in force
during Joseph Smith's entire lifetime.
Polygamy was specifically against the laws of the State of Illinois, enacted in
1833, and in force during the entire time Joseph Smith secretly practiced
polygamy in Nauvoo. That is why, when he was indicted on charges of polygamy
and adultery in May of 1844, Smith flatly denied the charges, stating "What a
thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven
wives, when I can find only one."
It was that kind of lying that got Joseph Smith killed. Anyone who sets
themselves up as a leader of an allegedly Christian sect, which vows to follow
Christian principles and "obey the laws of the land," but then practices the
opposite of what he preaches, is liable to meet the same fate as Smith.
We make fun of Mormonism because of its irreconciliable contradictions, and the
twisted reasoning and misrepresentations its apologists, such as yourself,
employ in defending it.
Randy J.
Fastleaf
> >From: "Jonathon Endfinger" lep...@bellsouth.net
> >Message-id: <hHGn6.1988$e37.1...@news3.atl>
> >I apologize. I had my fingers on the wrong keys. I am very fast at
typing
> >and sometimes i forget to check my grammar and spelling hehe.
> >Clement of Alexandria unequivocally taught that all should marry as the
> >apostles did
> Was Paul one of those apostles who was married, Mr. Endfinger?
Probably. It's a commandment.
> >I was just giving a reference to a history book that helps with the
> >evidence with eternal marriage.
> Oh. So Mormons can assert that the Bible is incorrect and/or
> mistranslated---but if something's not taught in the Bible, Mormons can
> proof-text their doctrines with the extra-canonical writings of other
early
> Christians, who were supposedly in an "apostate" condition.
Apostate does not mean devoid of truth.
Fastleaf
> >From: "Jonathon Endfinger" lep...@bellsouth.net
> >Message-id: <YCTn6.3682$P.13...@news1.atl>
> >Make your little comments all you like but the fact still remains. WHY
DO
> >YOU PEOPLE LISTEN TO TEACHINGS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT
> > FROM MEN WHO WERE POLYGAMISTS BUT MAKE FUN OF
> > MORMONS? Pretty lame.
> It's because Old Testament polygamy wasn't a "commandment", but rather
merely
> a cultural phenomenon, and there were no laws nor societal taboos against
it. The
> New Testament makes it clear that Christians are to have only one wife.
Polygamy was a commandment. The prophets such as Abraham wouldn't have
partook in it if it wasn't. Marraige was established by God in the first
place.
It was a cultural phenomenon to worship idols in Abrahams time.
> We make fun of Mormonism because of its irreconciliable contradictions,
and the
> twisted reasoning and misrepresentations its apologists, such as
yourself,
> employ in defending it.
It's a sign to me that when someone teases another for their beliefs, they
don't know the truth themself. From what I've observed at least.
Alan Faircloth
Subject: Re: Christ taught Eternal Marriage
Newsgroups: alt.religion.mormon
Date: 2001-03-01 20:22:07 PST
>
> "Jonathon Endfinger" <lep...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Do you believe in the Old testament?
>
> Yes
Problematic. Some parts are literal, some are not, some are myth.
>Alan says:
The Bible is completely true. Only our interpretations have the
possobility of being myth.
>
> Well how do you account for all those
> >prophets who had many wives.
>
> They were imperfect human beings just like everybody else.
There is nothing ethically wrong with having more than one wife.
>Alan says:
God only allows marriage as an act of grace because the urge to
have sex is even stronger than the urge to eat and because if there was
no marriage control over human sexual activity we'd probably all be dead
by now from deformities and vd. Have you ever wondered why there is no
Biblical account of Jesus Christ ever being married, or having sex; the
only person who ever lived a human life and never sinned? These are some
things to think about.
--
Charles
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
- George Bernard Shaw
"In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place."
- Mahatma Gandhi
title: God
http://community-2.webtv.net/faircloth/doc/ or
http://www.alanfaircloth.com or http://expage.com/whaut
Alan Faircloth
Re: Christ taught Eternal Marriage
lep...@bellsouth.net (Jonathon Endfinger)
Yes. just because Jesus might have been married and had children dosent
make him sinfull because it is a commandment of God to multiply and
replentish the earth.
>Alan says:
That was only a command to Adam and Eve, doesn't necessarily have
any thing to do with marriage, and is mentioned no where else in the
Bible. BTW, why do you contine on in this thread, debating people about
the subject you started this thread with, and refusing to respond to my
message containing Matthew Henrys' commentary on the scriptures you
povided on the subject; a commentary which has most assuredly buried all
your arguments to the contray in the ground? You're absolutely not
gonna' convert me, and I really don't think you're gonna' convert any of
the other participants in this thread that Jesus Christ taught eternal
marriage.
"PetePanaro" <petep...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010301141148...@ng-ck1.aol.com...
Isn't it interesting that there is no Biblical record of Jesus Christ
even being married, at all???
It sure is! In fact, I would tack on to that, there is no record of any
note by any reputable Biblical or Christians scholar, any of the Early
Church Fathers, famed and widely read Christian writers and philosophers
such as St. Augustine, Thomas a Kempis, or St. Thomas Aquinas, any Pope
or any statement at any Council, by any famed Protestant leader who
would try to reform the corruption of Christian doctrine (which one
might think would include Christ's marital status) such as Martin Luther
or John Calvin, and straight on into today, that has ever suggested that
Christ was married or sexual, much less a polygamist!!!!
*That* I think says it all. However, Mormons use the flip side of the
argument of "Well, no one says he wasn't married" and make a huge
doctrinal leap based on that idea. That's just irresponsible
academically. No one said Jesus used the toilet either and I sure as
heck don't doubt that he did! Excuse the example if anyone is offended.
Let's face it, even if the Bible didn't clearly affirm Christ's
celibacy, his teachings support the orthodox views on monogamy. None
support the Mormon view, except the ways of the Old Testament. Mormons
also would do well to note that the Old Testament had tons of
restrictions and allowances that Christ abolished in the New Testament.
It makes me wonder if Mormons want to be Christians or ancient Jews.
I would also ask any Mormon that if they are such experts on Jewish law,
why is it that no Jews, even the Orthodox today embrace or practice
polygamy???? If you're gonna pimp Jewish theology for your own ends
don't insult the Jews and act like you know better than them!
Its clear that Christ, in his teachings against adultery was against the
idea of polygamy. Think about it, for Jesus to tell us that we are not
to remarry as widowers lest we be adulterers, you really think he would
smile on people remarry while there spouse is A) alive, but even crazier
B) while they are still married!!!!????!!!!
Really now!
Alan Faircloth
Re: Christ taught Eternal Marriage
Fast...@hawaii.rr.com (Fastleaf)
Do you believe in the Book of Mormon?
How do you account for the fact that it condemns
Davids plural wives as abomination before God?
It wasn't authorized.
>Alan says:
Has this message been authorized? hahaha
Jacob 2:24-28
Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives
and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
.. there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and
concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the
chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus
saith the Lord of Hosts.
Alan Faircloth
RE: Christ taught Eternal Marriage
Group: alt.religion.mormon Date: Thu, Mar 1, 2001, 9:00pm (MST+2) From:
wwbr...@MailAndNews.com (Woody Brison)
Jonathon Endfinger wrote:
To the same woman? lol thats the same question the saducees were asking
Christ because he taught marriage in the ressurection. Why would they
ask this paticular question? They were trying to get Christ to
contradict himself proving himself to be confused
It's the old 'reductio ad absurdum' logical strategy. If you can take a
proposition (or your opponent's teaching) and extend it by valid
reasoning to an absurdity, this proves the teaching to be false. It's
also funny, it humiliates your opponent if the audience laughs at them.
The story is given in all three gospels as a brilliant parry by the
Saviour of a devious trap, right next to the one about paying taxes.
If Jesus had taught only resurrection with nothing said about marriage
there, the Sadducees conundrum would have been pointless. It is clearly
an extension of the idea of marriage in eternity -- here's seven
brothers all married to the same wife in the resurrection! Nothing
funnier than watching a bunch of Jews argue, and this would be a
side-splitter of an argument.
Jesus' answer was that their reasoning was not valid. If they had known
the scriptures and the power of God, they would have joined him by being
baptized, then they could have entered the celestial kingdom eventually
and enjoyed eternal marriage. As it was, they rejected him -- didn't
believe in the resurrection, which was taught in the scriptures. So,
they don't go to the celestial kingdom, they don't get to enjoy eternal
marriage, and remain as angels to all eternity.
Joseph Smith taught that the "they" referred to by Jesus was those seven
men.
Paul taught that Christians will /not/ be as angels in eternity: "Know
ye not that we shall judge angels?" --1 Cor. 6:3. They will be something
higher. Ergo, Jesus' teaching was not that all mankind would be
unmarried angels in eternity, it must be someone other than mankind in
general, and Joseph's teaching is logical and consistent with the
wording of the Savior's answer.
There is additional proof that the Sadducees were trying to oppose a
teaching by the Savior, that there can be eternal marriage in his
programme. Just look back over what went before: Jesus spoke of a king
who made a marriage supper for his son! It takes no great intelligence
to see that the king is God, the son is Jesus, and the subject is
marriage. We cannot suppose of course that we have the whole of Jesus'
sermon, it would only take 3 minutes to deliver what we have there.
And why would not the Savior of the World crown his teachings with the
most glorious doctrine of all, during his last week on earth, in the
house of God?
..but he wasnt he merely answered them
with a basic truth. that people cannot be married in the next life. they
must be married in this life.
If they can't get married any more they must be dead. God is God of the
living, not the dead. We know he himself made a marriage after he was
exalted. Adam was his son, Luke 3:38, and there must have been a mother
too. If you suppose God to be an adulterer you don't know much about
him. Ergo, God had a wife, by whom he had Adam; and Eve had a mother
too. Later, God was the father of Jesus, and Mary was the mother. Again,
God doesn't go around having children out of wedlock, like some of the
Greek legends assert. Ergo, Mary and Father got married sometime before
Jesus was begotten -- maybe around 1 BC. She is not the same person as
the mother of Adam or Eve, because she was not born at that time. She
didn't have a physical body, she was a premortal spirit, so she couldn't
have borne Adam or Eve as physical children. Ergo, there ARE weddings
for exalted people.
..I believe we shall be as ourselves when we are resurrected, we shall
see the people we spent our lives with (wives) i think it would be kinda
hurtfull to know you couldnt be with the person you loved all your life.
That isnt so. 1 corinthians 11:11-12: "nevertheless, neithe ris the
man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."
True love is truly a gift of God. If you are lucky enough to be married
to the one you truly love, it is definitely a blessing from God. So,
"what God hath joined together, let not man and his irrational doctrine
put asunder!"
"It is not good for man to be alone." -- Genesis 2:18. When does this
cease to be true? Never. As long as the universe continues it is good
for man and woman to be married.
>Alan says:
You ain't got nothin' on Matthew Henry!
Wood
hblack
adultery or any other act with impunity. On April 11, 1844, he had himself anointed
God's "King on Earth," by his newly formed secret world government, the Council of
Fifty.
In July, 1843, after his only legal wife, Emma had discovered his adulteries,
he threatened her (message delivered by his brother Hyrum) that God would surely
"destroy" her if she interfered with his polygamy. She poisoned him the following
November, and he promptly stopped taking new wives (or at least concealed them
better), until his death 7 months later. Insiders report that he was burning
evidence, and vowing to cease the practice, when he realized he was likely to soon
get killed over it.
Ever a pathetic coward and cheating husband, Joseph Smith never acknowledged
any of his 33+ illegitimate "wives" in public.
Harry
hblack
CHILDLESS wife to give her slave as a surrogate to produce children for her
husband IN HER STEAD. Sarah was therefore entitled to remedy her childless
state in accordance with prevailing custom and law.
Marriage never was a religious ceremony in the Old Testament, and it was
covered by civil law.
Unlike Joseph the hypocrite Smith, Abraham was not a philandering con
artist who insulted his wife by violating marriage law, and continually lying
about it.
Harry Black
Jonathon Endfinger
"TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010302222549...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
Jonathon Endfinger
I already explained the Jacob Scriputer read other posts up above.
"TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010302112129...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> >From: CharlesSWaters "cswaters"@NOS...@newsguy.com
> >Date: 3/1/2001 10:26 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <97n3s...@enews4.newsguy.com>
> >
> >
> >
> >Alan Faircloth wrote:
> >>
> >> "Jonathon Endfinger" <lep...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >Do you believe in the Old testament?
> >>
> >> Yes
> >
> >Problematic. Some parts are literal, some are not, some are myth.
> >
> >>
> >> Well how do you account for all those
> >> >prophets who had many wives.
> >>
> >> They were imperfect human beings just like everybody else.
> >
> >There is nothing ethically wrong with having more than one wife.
>
> >Charles
>
> If the canonized doctrine of a particular religious specifically forbade
having
> more than one wife, wouldn't it be ethically wrong for members of that
sect to
> attempt to take more than one wife?
>
> Randy J.
>
Jonathon Endfinger
READ VERSE 30 AND IT WILL EXPLAIN THE SCRIPTURE TO YOU.
"Alan Faircloth" <fair...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:16844-3A...@storefull-124.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Jonathon Endfinger
Bible?????????????????????????
"TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010302114422...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> >From: "Jonathon Endfinger" lep...@bellsouth.net
> >Date: 3/2/2001 12:44 AM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <saGn6.1972$e37.1...@news3.atl>
>
> Since you're apparently not going to stop responding to my posts, I guess
I'm
> forced to rebut your inanity.
>
> >I am stupid?
>
> Yes, you're stupid. Incredibly, irretrievably stupid.
>
> >You are the one who cannot read.
>
> Not only can you not write, but you obviously cannot read either, because
Harry
> Black has refuted your idiotic point below at least three times, and you
just
> ignore it and continue with your ravings.
>
> > The Lord gave David his
> >wives. They were authorized. Please read 2 Samuel 12:8. " I gave thee
> >thy master's house, and thy master's WIVES."
>
> Harry Black has already quoted from the alleged "most correct book on
earth",
> the Book of Mormon, that David's wives and concubines were "whoredoms,"
and an
> abomination before the Lord.
>
> So, who should we believe, Mr. Endfinger? The Book of Samuel, or the Book
of
> Mormon? Which one is wrong? You seem to agree with the Book of Samuel,
so I
> assume that you believe the Book of Mormon to be wrong.
>
> >Why are you going on a new subject about getting sealing keys. Why dont
you
> >stick to this subject.
>
> It IS part of the subject. If you weren't so STUPID, you'd know that.
>
> Fastleaf asserted that David's polygamy was "unauthorized." I asked
Fastleaf
> for the date of Joseph Smith's alleged reception of "authority" to perform
> "plural marriages" because Smith claimed to receive such "authority" on
April
> 3, 1836. However, the historical record shows that Smith was engaging in
a
> sexual relationship with a 16-year-old girl named Fannie Alger, beginning
in
> 1833.
>
> Now, I realize that you're too stupid to comprehend the import of this,
but for
> those who aren't, it means that Smith's 1833 relationship with Fannie was
> "unauthorized," just as Fastleaf claimed that David's polygamy was
> "unauthorized."
> That means that Joseph Smith was an adulterer, beginning as early as 1833.
>
> "Thous shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and thou shalt cleave unto
her
> and none else....Thou shalt not commit adultery; and he that committeth
> adultery, and repenteth not, shall be cast out."
>
> (Doctrine and Covenants 42:22,24, February 9, 1831.)
>
> Tell us, Mr. Endfinger---why wasn't Joseph Smith excommunicated from his
church
> for committing adultery with Fannie alger?
>
> > Its rather tiresome proving to you everything we
> >teach is true. :)
>
> Well, I've been posting on ARM about four years, and I've never grown
tired of
> teaching Mormon about their own history and doctrines. I'll warrant that
> you'll grow tired of it long before I do.
>
> Randy J.
>
>
> >"TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20010301224558...@ng-mi1.aol.com...
> >> >From: "Fastleaf" Fast...@hawaii.rr.com
> >> >Date: 3/1/2001 7:13 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: <2BBn6.13$4F5....@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com>
Jonathon Endfinger
all that polygamy going on in the Old Testament????
"hblack" <hbla...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3AA0375C...@earthlink.net...
Jonathon Endfinger
wont believe the Bible maybe you will believe some history about the Bible
times.news:20010302223044...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
hblack
The Book of Mormon condemns polygamy as an abomination before God:
Jacob 2:24-28
Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing
was abominable before me, saith the Lord. Wherefore,thus saith the Lord, I have
led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm,
that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of
Joseph. Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like
unto them of old. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of
the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and
concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of
women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
The Book of Mormon is a rabid anti-polygamy tract:
Ether 10:5
Riplakish did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he
did have many wives and concubines
Jacob 3.5
Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their
filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous
than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was
given unto our father -- that they should have save it were one wife, and
concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed
among them.
Harry
TheJordan6
>Date: 3/3/2001 11:46 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <cY8o6.3341$421.1...@news2.atl>
>
>The question I want answered, which was my original question, what about
>all that polygamy going on in the Old Testament????
Old Testament polygamy is said to be an "abomination", according to the "most
correct book on earth" (the Book of Mormon,) by the commandments of the god of
Mormonism as laid out in the Doctrine and Covenants, 1835 edition, and by
numerous statements by Mr. Joseph Smith, Jr., supporting those teachings.
Seeing as how the alleged "prophet of the Restoration," Joseph Smith, Jr.,
strongly taught against polygamy his entire life, and denied that he practiced
it, his "inspired" words should obviously carry more weight for Mormons than
that ol' faulty, mistranslated Bible.
Randy J.