T
TexanKnight
Guest
Sadly, it is what the LDS here do. If they cannot explain are outdebate you, they get personal and question your integrity or profession, etc.
- Status
P
ParkerD
Guest
Telstar,
I think we figure it out from the context.
As far as the verse in Luke, I guess I might as well ask if you think it means there is a certain group of people who live on this earth who aren’t going to be resurrected?
K
Khalid
Guest
We already know that at a minimum Mary will not be resurrected, as she was Assumed in to Heaven (or Translated, in LDS jargon).
I believe, was Enoch, “who walked with God, and was no more” after a life of 365 years (when everyone else was living near a millennium). So, yes, there are people who will not be resurrected. (Not to mention it’s completely beside the point of your argument, and the statement itself - even if it had relevance, which it does not - is based on eisegesis.)
I believe, was Enoch, “who walked with God, and was no more” after a life of 365 years (when everyone else was living near a millennium). So, yes, there are people who will not be resurrected. (Not to mention it’s completely beside the point of your argument, and the statement itself - even if it had relevance, which it does not - is based on eisegesis.)
T
Telstar
Guest
No offense, Parker, but I think we actually figure it out when we have fluency in the original languages to be translated, as well as in the target language, and we have the guidance of the Holy Spirit to know and understand the original intention expressed by those that wrote the original text, which is always the primary goal of the Catholic Church in any process of the translation of Scripture. If you want to quibble over the choice of an article in order to make it fit with LDS doctrine, then you can do whatever floats your boat (or sinks your battleship), as long as you understand the consequences of doing it. Just remember the words of Peter: “[15] And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: [16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.”
When Jesus referred to those who would be living in the resurrection, especially those that He called “worthy”, He usually only meant those that would follow Him and be saved. Even though all souls will be resurrected, many of them will not be saved. When their souls are rejoined with their bodies, they will be cast into hell, along with the devil and his fallen angels, to suffer eternal death, forever separated from God. They will not have any “life” in them. That’s what Jesus and the Apostles referred to as the “second death”, aka: the death of the soul.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Telstar,
Just so I understand your point of view about the meaning of Luke 20:35, would you be willing to state the meaning of the entire verse, specifically about the resurrection given the words in the passage?
T
Telstar
Guest
To make it a little more clear, I’ll post the entire response from Jesus, to the question of whose wife the woman would be in the resurrection, after being married to 7 brothers. I’ll post my own interpretation of each line in blue.
*[34] And Jesus said to them: The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
In this line, Jesus is speaking about those of us living on the earth during our regular lifetime, who get lawfully married.
[35] But they that shall be accounted worthy of that world, and of the resurrection from the dead, shall neither be married, nor take wives.
Here, He is referring to those of us who have been saved by His Blood, since they are ‘accounted worthy’ of Heaven, and afterwards of enjoying eternal life in the general resurrection. They will no longer be married, nor will they ever get married to anyone, anymore. There is no need for marriage in Heaven because there will only be one enormous family, and that will be the family of mankind, with God as our Father. Brothers and sisters don’t get married!
[36] Neither can they die any more: for they are equal to the angels, and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
In the resurrection, there will be no more fear of death for anyone because they will live with God, forever. They will be just like the angels, who are full of love and innocence, like young children who all play together, without a care in the world. (Angels can never die, either, because they’re pure spirits.) They will be able to enjoy all of the pleasures of Heaven with their families and friends, as well as with all of the angels and other Saints, throughout all eternity. Every desire of their hearts that God allows, will be given to them. We will all be brothers and sisters, and God will truly become our only Father.
[37] Now that the dead rise again, Moses also shewed, at the bush, when he called the Lord, The God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; [38] For he is not the God of the dead, but of the living: for all live to him.
These last two lines are self explanatory, but basically, Jesus is saying that God is the God of the living. Everyone that is Baptized in Christ becomes a member of God’s family, through adoption. When we die in Christ, we are not really dead, at all. We are alive in Heaven, awaiting the resurrection along with everyone else that has been found worthy of Heaven. This is why Catholics have the tradition of praying (talking) to Saints and asking them to pray to God for us, because they’re still just as much alive as we are here on earth, and they’re already in the presence of God. Asking them to pray for us is just like us asking our own friends and relatives on earth to pray for us.*
I know I embellished a little more than the actual meaning, but I thought it might help to understand how a Catholic might explain the concepts behind the interpretation of the words. I hope it helps.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
And after all the contortions and back-flipping with the “eternal family” thing what one winds up with is a traditional Christian heaven.
T
theidler
Guest
With all due respect to Parker and other Mormons, your signature "Invisible griffins nest in the eaves outside my window. " makes more sense to me than some of these doctrines. :whacky: Though, to be fair, I am sure that many Mormons find the doctrine of the Trinity to be just as hard to understand I guess. I don’t know.And after all the contortions and back-flipping with the “eternal family” thing what one winds up with is a traditional Christian heaven.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
A griffin for youWith all due respect to Parker and other Mormons, your signature "Invisible griffins nest in the eaves outside my window. " makes more sense to me than some of these doctrines. :whacky: Though, to be fair, I am sure that many Mormons find the doctrine of the Trinity to be just as hard to understand I guess. I don’t know.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
T
theidler
Guest
Thanks buddy
K
KathleenGee
Guest
So true while on their BYU station you see the other side…
Take a look at their disinformation about our Church…the Catholic Church withholding the print Bible in the hands of the faithful…the caricatures on their program just shown again the other night on their take of the King James Bible…indoctrinating their people that the Catholic Church made no effort to teach Christians Sacred Scripture.
the anonymous ‘thousand eyes’ of Mormons who lurk here at CAF gleaning all they can to counter point and camouflage their teachings to make them look like ours…
If they were so much like us, then why are they trying to get records of deceased Catholics…they were rubbing their hands and drooling over the records, this ‘treasure trove’ they called it, sacramental records of thousands of priests and nuns going back a thousand years to baptize them in their temples…until the Vatican stepped in. The Mormons were really tiffed and the Vatican said it was not something to pull back from dialogue.
Put the shoe on the other foot…
You don’t see the Catholic Church and its evangelical arm putting dubious and undocumented programs together about Mormonism.
The Mormon Church double speak…the divided tongue…
Take a look at their disinformation about our Church…the Catholic Church withholding the print Bible in the hands of the faithful…the caricatures on their program just shown again the other night on their take of the King James Bible…indoctrinating their people that the Catholic Church made no effort to teach Christians Sacred Scripture.
the anonymous ‘thousand eyes’ of Mormons who lurk here at CAF gleaning all they can to counter point and camouflage their teachings to make them look like ours…
If they were so much like us, then why are they trying to get records of deceased Catholics…they were rubbing their hands and drooling over the records, this ‘treasure trove’ they called it, sacramental records of thousands of priests and nuns going back a thousand years to baptize them in their temples…until the Vatican stepped in. The Mormons were really tiffed and the Vatican said it was not something to pull back from dialogue.
Put the shoe on the other foot…
You don’t see the Catholic Church and its evangelical arm putting dubious and undocumented programs together about Mormonism.
The Mormon Church double speak…the divided tongue…
M
Miriam1947
Guest
I will be very glad when we get a new page and the page width goes back to normal.
Too huge graphic makes the rest of the posts hard to read.
Too huge graphic makes the rest of the posts hard to read.
T
Telstar
Guest
There is a way to get around that problem. Well, two ways. One would be that the original pic was made smaller so it would fit the page, properly. The second is by using Firefox and getting AdBlock Plus. Then, you can block that particular image so it doesn’t mess up the page. But, I did get a chuckle out of that pic before I blocked it.
T
theidler
Guest
OOF! Now there’s a militant defense of the Church against Mormonism if I ever saw one. Love it.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
I would hate to have to tell my children that when they die, they will get new different papa whom they have never met, and I would get assigned to some other woman and have a new family.
Sorry, but that just seems terribly sick to me.
Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
T
theidler
Guest
Well, it’d be interesting anyways.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Paul,
So, then, you wouldn’t marry the woman who had had a husband who had died and who had been sealed in her marriage to him. There would be nothing at all that “makes” you make a choice one way or the other.
As for the children, if the woman was from a Latter-day Saint family then those children would have some knowledge about the man and the grandparents, and those grandparents would be involved in those children’s lives because they love them; and if the woman were intelligent she would not create “competition” between the memory of the one man she married who died, and the other man who was now helping her raise the children of the first husband and perhaps new children of the second marriage.
Children can understand when explained to about death, especially when they feel supported by Jesus Christ. The memory of the first husband who had died need not be shut up in a picture book back in the closet and never be talked about.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
Yes, interesting in the Chinese curse (“may you live in interesting times”) sort of way.Well, it’d be interesting anyways.
Paul
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
We are talking only about children of the second marriage. Jeez
T
theidler
Guest
Good grief…this is just giving me a headache. :whacky:
- Status