LDS - Celestial Marriage

[Rocket_Man]

Jea 9,
The teaching is simple and clear. It can stand by itself as a teaching idea.

1. The Sadducees didn’t believe in Christ nor in the resurrection, but some Jews who were not Sadducees believed that there is marriage in heaven.
2. The brothers who had died would not have marriage in heaven. (Knowing Jesus’ teachings about needing to believe in Him in order to be “saved”, any reader can figure out that the Sadducees are not reflective of believing disciples of Christ.)
3. Christ said those dead Sadducee brothers would be “as the angels of God in heaven.”

Matthew 22:23: “The Sadducees, who say that there is no resurrection.”

1. The Sadducees wholehearted rejected Jesus’ teaching on the resurrection.
2. Since the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, how could they be asking Jesus directly about any of their Sadducees brethen who had died?
3. It is uncertain but more likely they were simply referring to a common illustration.

 

[ParkerD]

Matthew 22:23: “The Sadducees, who say that there is no resurrection.”

1. The Sadducees wholehearted rejected Jesus’ teaching on the resurrection.
2. Since the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, how could they be asking Jesus directly about any of their Sadducees brethen who had died?
3. It is uncertain but more likely they were simply referring to a common illustration.

Hi, Rocket Man,
Matthew 22 has three different cases in which Jesus is asked questions in such a way as to try and “entangle him in his talk.” (v. 15) First, the Pharisees do it with respect to the tribute money. Then, the Sadducees do it with respect to the doctrine of resurrection since they don’t believe in resurrection. (That is why it’s so important to realize that when they ask “in the resurrection, whose wife shall she be?” they are attempting to discredit the whole idea of resurrection, and do it by asking a complicated question that acknowledges the belief in eternal marriage.)

Thirdly, a “lawyer” Pharisee asks the famous question (“tempting him”) about “which is the great commandment in the law,” and he answers with the two great commandments–love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,… and love thy neighbor.

 

[PaulDupre]

Psul,

Just curious. Would you say that Mormonism is making more converts than losing members.

No, their numbers are steadily shrinking. They wildly inflate their membership numbers.

By the way. You still owe me a beer. I may get to CA on business in the next month or so and plan on collecting.

You’re on, just PM me when you know your schedule.

 

[Rocket_Man]

1. It is uncertain but more likely they were simply referring to a common illustration.

Every time the Sadducees are defined in Scripture, they are identified as disbelieving in resurrection. Luke declares in Acts 23:8: “The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees confess both.” They were in a continual theological debate with the Pharisees.

The phrase “there were with us seven brethren”, could also been refering to their Pharisees’ brethren, since it was Pharisee that believed in the resurrection. And knowing this they could set Jesus and the Pharisee in the trap of practicing polyandry in the resurrection.

Matthew 22 is a series of different traps from those who despised Jesus.

ParkerD if you interpret the Sadducees account as you have stated, you leave out the trap.

 

[Techno2000]

Every time the Sadducees are defined in Scripture, they are identified as disbelieving in resurrection. Luke declares in Acts 23:8: “The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees confess both.” They were in a continual theological debate with the Pharisees.

The phrase “there were with us seven brethren”, could also been refering to their Pharisees’ brethren, since it was Pharisee that believed in the resurrection. And knowing this they could set Jesus and the Pharisee in the trap of practicing polyandry in the resurrection.

Matthew 22 is a series of different traps from those who despised Jesus.

ParkerD if you interpret the Sadducees account as you have stated, you leave out the trap.

Rocket read post 172# Parker doesn’t believe in Hell, the worst thing that can happen to you in the afterlife is not being able to have “eternal marriage.”

 

[ParkerD]

Rocket read post 172# Parker doesn’t believe in Hell, the worst thing that can happen to you in the afterlife is not being able to have “eternal marriage.”

Techno 2000,
A thousand years will seem like forever to the people who suffer the pains of hell. I certainly do believe in hell. If Christ promised to rescue them eventually (except the sons of perdition), should I say He won’t keep His promise?

 

[ParkerD]

Every time the Sadducees are defined in Scripture, they are identified as disbelieving in resurrection. Luke declares in Acts 23:8: “The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees confess both.” They were in a continual theological debate with the Pharisees.

The phrase “there were with us seven brethren”, could also been refering to their Pharisees’ brethren, since it was Pharisee that believed in the resurrection. And knowing this they could set Jesus and the Pharisee in the trap of practicing polyandry in the resurrection.

Matthew 22 is a series of different traps from those who despised Jesus.

ParkerD if you interpret the Sadducees account as you have stated, you leave out the trap.

Rocket Man,
So are you saying the question the Sadducees asked was mistranslated and should have been translated “Therefore in the resurrection shall she be the wife of all seven?”

That is a pretty significant mistranslation, which I think would have been figured out by someone who looked at all the ancient original-language texts.

I think they were indeed talking about Sadducees when they said “there were with us,” particularly since Matthew would have knowledge concerning the Jewish customs and traditions and if “with us” meant Pharisees he would have written something about that as he wrote about the experience.

I think the Sadducees were pinning down Jesus with a question that was asserting that if Moses had taught that a brother should marry his deceased brother’s wife and that was the “law”, then Moses must not have really believed in the resurrection since that would create a dilemma about “eternal marriage” for the brothers. It was a “trap question” as is.

 

[why_me]

No, their numbers are steadily shrinking. They wildly inflate their membership numbers.

Do you have a refererence for this claim. You seem to make many claims without referencing them. But then again, most christian churches are shrinking in numbers. Here is an interesting article about Poland:

reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSTRE5682GE20090709

WARSAW (Reuters) - Fewer Poles attend church services every week or have confidence in the papacy than a decade ago but levels of religious belief remain very high in Poland, according to a survey published on Thursday.

Poland is probably the most religiously observant country in Europe and its churches are generally packed on Sundays, in strong contrast to the empty or half-empty pews commonly found in many other parts of the continent.

The poll, published in the Rzeczpospolita daily, showed 37 percent of Poles go to mass every Sunday, down from 42 percent in 1998, but the number of people going to church on a less regular basis showed a small increase.

Confidence in the papacy has slipped to 80 percent from 91 percent in 1998, when Polish-born Pope John Paul II led the Catholic Church, the poll showed. German-born Pope Benedict XVI took over the church in 2005 after John Paul’s death.

The poll, conducted by the Institute of Sociology attached to Warsaw’s University of Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski, showed 81 percent of Poles count themselves religious believers, against 86 percent in 1998.

A further 11 percent still feel attached to Catholic traditions even if they are not sure about belief, it said. Only three percent described themselves as non-believers, unchanged from 1998.

In line with church teachings, more than two thirds of Poles are opposed to abortion, up slightly from 1998, and more than half oppose divorce, also up from 11 years earlier.

“Poles are not abandoning (religious) belief… but are distancing themselves from systematic religious practices,” Slawomir Zareba, the professor and priest who organized the poll, told the newspaper.

It seems that catholicism, mormonism and protestantism are falling victims to the secular and material age.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno 2000,
A thousand years will seem like forever to the people who suffer the pains of hell. I certainly do believe in hell. If Christ promised to rescue them eventually (except the sons of perdition), should I say He won’t keep His promise?

Yes, Jesus opened the gates of Heaven to the just souls detained in sheol and the unjust went to Hell… like the Rich man Jesus talks about in the Bible, who are the “sons of perdition” the Demons ?jesus-passion.com/THE_PASSION6.htm#CHAPTER%20LIX

 

[Techno2000]

Techno 2000,
A thousand years will seem like forever to the people who suffer the pains of hell. I certainly do believe in hell. If Christ promised to rescue them eventually (except the sons of perdition), should I say He won’t keep His promise?

The closes thing I could agree with you on would be something like this…

trumpetersmission.com/messages_purgatory.php

 

[Rocket_Man]

I think the Sadducees were pinning down Jesus with a question that was asserting that if Moses had taught that a brother should marry his deceased brother’s wife and that was the “law”, then Moses must not have really believed in the resurrection since that would create a dilemma about “eternal marriage” for the brothers. It was a “trap question” as is.

The Sadducees were trapping by asking Jesus,

If you teach the resurrection, then you can’t be a follower of Moses law, as Moses would have never condoned polyandry. So are you with Moses or not?

ParkerD, to say that Jesus was only speaking only to the Sadducees where they “are like the angels of God in heaven” because of their unbelief an is quite elevaton of their status from Jesus’s usual interaction with them. Aren’t usually these encounters quite rather condeming?

 

[ParkerD]

The Sadducees were trapping by asking Jesus,

If you teach the resurrection, then you can’t be a follower of Moses law, as Moses would have never condoned polyandry. So are you with Moses or not?

ParkerD, to say that Jesus was only speaking only to the Sadducees where they “are like the angels of God in heaven” because of their unbelief and is quite elevaton of their status from Jesus’s usual interaction with them. Aren’t usually these encounters quite rather condemning?

Rocket Man,
I guess I agree with your first paragraph.

Your last paragraph raises a very good point. He didn’t condemn the Sadducees per se other than saying they erred by not knowing the scriptures, but he reminded them that the resurrection is true doctrine. I think He was being both compassionate and a teacher.

He didn’t condemn the dead brothers either. He focused on the question He had been asked, and answered what would happen to them with respect to their “hypothetical” marriages to one woman. What would happen to them? They would be “as the angels.” This is totally consistent with Biblical doctrine about people who do not accept Christ and His gospel during their mortal lives. They are taught in the spirit world. They receive the blessings noted in Isaiah 61:1 and 1 Peter 4:6. They are rescued from their condition of unbelief, and are resurrected after that rescue. They will be “as the angels” in their resurrected immortal state.

 

[Zundrah]

I’ll never get married! Even if the Pope himslef offered to bind me with the “man”!

 

[scottirey]

I am no Biblical scholar but I consider myself somewhat familiar with the piece of scripture in question. And as with all scripture it has to be both read in its entirety and considered in context. I think we can all agree that scripture read out of context is a grievous error when trying to understand what is meant by the scripture.

Given the context of the scripture I think it is reasonable to assume as our LDS friends assert that the seven brothers may very well have been Sadducees. Our Lords response is that they will not be married in heaven. This appears to be rather a matter of fact statement. Our Lord does not infer that because of their beliefs they would not be married in heaven. He simply states “At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage”

It is at this point that I have a problem with our LDS friends interpretation of the scripture. Our Lord goes on to say “And concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” When the crowds heard this they were astonished at His teaching.

Our Lord does not fall for the obvious trap the Saduccees laid for Him. He nulifies the trap by revealing the truth that “they neither marry nor are given in marriage”. But this is not what silences them. They are silenced by the fundamental error in their non-belief in the resurrection. How can there be no resurrection if God has stated that he is not the God of the dead, but of the living and the God of three long dead Patriochs of the Jews?

I am relatively certain that my insight into the scripture is not going to change the minds of any of our LDS friends. I am also relatively certain that there will be a well thought out rebuttal from one of our LDS friends. In the end I don’t think anybody here is going to “change sides” as it were. But I believe we will all come away from this with a better understanding of where we get our beliefs. My prayer of course is that it will lead our LDS friends, who are quite brave in coming here and sharing there beliefs and putting them up to scrutiny on this forum, to question their own faith in an objective manor and at least allow for the possibility that the Catholic Church may be what it professes to be.

In Christ,

Scott Irey