True2Ourselves
Already a member? login
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
  
+
Register FAQ A-Z directory Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

True2Ourselves Forums   > Community Topics > Theology  > Jesus specifically said...

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-23-2012, 01:37 AM
xenic101's Avatar
Knight of the Forum
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,341
Default Jesus specifically said...

The thread containing the post I'm responding to was closed prior to me seeing this post, which I'm responding to here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maizie View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinderAsh View Post
The discrepancies lie with the actual teachings compared with the varying degrees of practice to those teachings and interpretation of expression within the disputes.

Some of the words chosen seem baited to create conflict.
Do we bait on purpose?
Fishing for conflict?

We may be behaving like children.
Doesn't seem to be like the children Jesus would like us to be.
The fact is Mary did actually intercede on behalf of a situation and went to her Son. It is in scripture. Period. Is it wrong to honor Mary as the mother of Jesus? Because who does Mary say to listen to? Her Son? Mary told the wedding workers to do whatever her Son tells them to do.

Therefore, it is in scripture. If it were not there then it would be a situation of "adding to" but it is there. Yes, it is there in the Word. Written down and recorded.

That is all I am trying to say.

If you were to say there are celestial marriages which some churches teach, then I would disagree because Jesus specifically said "no marriages would take place in heaven".
Therefore the celestial marriage teachings are "added to" which is verboten.
If that's all you were trying to say, why keep talking? Tearing down what you believe doesn't belong in the Lord's Kingdom, does not BUILD UP the Lord's Kingdom.

Matthew 5:14-16 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

"A city on a hill can not be hidden," no mention though of hiding any other cities you don't like. The city is built on firm foundation, not on the rubble of thrown down falsehoods.

"and it giveth light unto all that are in the house," no mention of putting forth an effort to make sure yours is the only light.

The question becomes, is denying someone else's doctrine, a doctrine in itself. It seems to be an integral doctrine for many people on this forum. Whether it's Maize with her frequent jab's at Mormonism despite the topic having nothing to do it, her idea of Mormonism any way, or if it's the many assaults on Catholic beliefs. It's as if some are seeking to prove their truth by default. By declaring everyone else wrong, they must be right. As if they need to stamp out other's light to make their own seem brighter.

It's always interesting to me when people state that "the Bible says..." or "Jesus said..." and then add in an interpretation or understanding of what was said, sometime replacing what was recorded with something that better supports their view, and then use that to 'disprove' or attack another's beliefs.

Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels of God in heaven.

I assume that's the reference quoted, since it's as close as the Bible comes to recording what is stated that "Jesus specifically said". Of course, paraphrasing is often valid, restating something in ones own words helps show how they understand it. But the word "specifically" and the quotation marks somewhat suggests that's not what's being done here.

In the Greek, the words used are gamousin and gamizontai. "do they marry," and "are given in marriage," respectively. Both distinctly refer to the act of getting married, not to the state of being married. Which is supported by LDS doctrine. There is no getting married after the resurrection, it is a covenant that must be entered through mortality, as far as has been revealed. This is why "celestial marriages" are being performed by proxy much like baptisms. To give those who dies without the opportunity in life, the chance to be sealed to their spouse for eternity.

An interesting bit of history:
Matthew 22:30 is usually the verse used to support the idea that there will be no marriage in heaven. It's also the verse that Joseph Smith was bothered by. He had been raised with the common understanding of the verse, but the more he learned the less true it seemed. Eventually he sought an answer from the Lord and the response is recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 132. The verse that is supposed to refute the idea of eternal marriage is the very reason it was revealed.

But lets look at the context of what Jesus said.
The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

First, they were referring to marriage law as set forth in the Law of Moses, which Jesus fulfilled on the cross. After the the first husband they would have been legal marriages only. But the Sadducees weren't interest in marriage at all, their question was intended to be a logic trap to disprove the resurrection. And Christ's answer is directed to that.

Second, the Sadducees stated that the brothers were with them, so Sadducees as well. Sadducees were a worldly group which didn't believe in the resurrection and generally rejected Christ, their marriages would have only been for life, and not for eternity anyways.

Christ says something interesting before he answered them, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God." The Sadducees were the supposed scripture experts of their day, yet Christ said they didn't know them. Interesting parallels there.

The Bible records Christ giving the sealing authority to Peter, so that what he binds on Earth will be bound in Heaven. What would Peter be binding, if not husband and wife. In Matt. 19:4-6, shortly after Christ gave Peter power to seal in heaven what was sealed on earth, Christ spoke of marriage: "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them in the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Christ, fully authorized to do so, gave that same authority to Peter. If Peter, acting with that authority joins together man and women, then God fully upholds it.

God created man and woman and He saw that it was good. If God declared the union of a man and woman good, why would it end? Why would death undo what God had joined together?

Malachi 2:14-16 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

This specifies that he was in a covenant marriage with his wife, and the Lord hates that he put her away. Why then would the Lord put away every husband and wife, if this is a good thing, and the Lord hates the desecration of it, why wouldn't it continue for eternity?

The relationship between the Lord and His people is often compared to a marriage.
Isaiah 54:5 For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.
Jeremiah 3:14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:
Hosea 2:19 And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in loving kindness, and in mercies.
Why would our union with God be compared to something which ends with death and has no part in heaven?

It's not. Prophets called by God in modern times have proclaimed, "...marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children...The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan."

Not only does the Bible not refute eternal marriages, but it uses marriage as a model for our relationship with God.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Maizie View Post
Therefore the celestial marriage teachings are "added to" which is verboten.
There has been a great deal of adding to since Moses. How is it that centuries after the books of the New Testament were written, well after revelation is supposed to have ended, the cannon was declared closed? What authority, without revelation made that decision? Who declared that the Lord was done talking to His people and that He wouldn't again call a prophet to lead people back to Him as He did, and promised He would continue to do, in the Old Testament? It was the new Sadducces, separated by generations from the Apostles and relying on their reasoning to explain what the Apostles once declared as ones with authority.

The idea that the Bible is all the Lord has to say from then until His return, that the Lord won't see the need to add to it to prepare the world for his return, that the Lord said, "The End, good luck!" is "added to" and in no way verboten. It's just inconvenient, in the same way the Sadducees and Pharisees found it inconvenient when John began preparing the way for the Messiah, when Christ and the Apostles taught a Gospel that differed from what they had worked out long before from the record they had from the ancient prophets.

But congratulations on finally denouncing a Mormon doctrine that actually is a Mormon doctrine.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-24-2012, 09:49 AM
Maizie's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 3,443
Default Re: Jesus specifically said...

Building up the Mormon Kingdom is not my work.
So when you say that exposing a false teaching is "tearing down" it is the Mormon idealogy to which you refer.

If you continue to stay in the Mormon Church then you should not be offended when the Mormon doctrines which are unscriptural are discussed.
You can't have it both ways.

There is no need to marry--see Mark 12:25.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-25-2012, 07:28 AM
JoJo's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 193
Default Re: Jesus specifically said...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maizie View Post
Building up the Mormon Kingdom is not my work.
So when you say that exposing a false teaching is "tearing down" it is the Mormon idealogy to which you refer. If you continue to stay in the Mormon Church then you should not be offended when the Mormon doctrines which are unscriptural are discussed. You can't have it both ways. There is no need to marry--see Mark 12:25.

I sure wish you would have post that scripture, where you said …“Jesus specifically said” …”Building up the Mormon Kingdom is not my work“. I’ve never seen that one. Also what do you think Jesus meant by what he said at , (Mark 12:25), you said…“There is no need to marry“ peace
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-25-2012, 09:30 AM
Maizie's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 3,443
Default Re: Jesus specifically said...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoJo View Post
I sure wish you would have post that scripture, where you said …“Jesus specifically said” …”Building up the Mormon Kingdom is not my work“. I’ve never seen that one. Also what do you think Jesus meant by what he said at , (Mark 12:25), you said…“There is no need to marry“ peace
Well how hard was that to take my words, mix them around and concoct your own version of what I said in response to Xenic??

If you are going to post to what I have said try not to mangle it please.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-25-2012, 09:32 AM
Maizie's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 3,443
Default Re: Jesus specifically said...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maizie View Post
Building up the Mormon Kingdom is not my work.
So when you say that exposing a false teaching is "tearing down" it is the Mormon idealogy to which you refer.

If you continue to stay in the Mormon Church then you should not be offended when the Mormon doctrines which are unscriptural are discussed.
You can't have it both ways.

There is no need to marry--see Mark 12:25.
This post is in answer to Xenic. If you read this then it will not make sense to you if you forego Xenic's post because this, my post, is a REPLY to his post.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-29-2012, 04:20 AM
xenic101's Avatar
Knight of the Forum
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,341
Default Re: Jesus specifically said...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maizie View Post
This post is in answer to Xenic. If you read this then it will not make sense to you if you forego Xenic's post because this, my post, is a REPLY to his post.
I read xenic's post, in fact I made xenic's post being as I am him, and your reply still makes no sense relative to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maizie View Post
Building up the Mormon Kingdom is not my work.
Clearly not, since I've not heard of any Mormon Kingdom and I'm sure I would have been told, but if there was and you were, you'd be doing it wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maizie View Post
So when you say that exposing a false teaching is "tearing down" it is the Mormon idealogy to which you refer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maizie View Post
Well how hard was that to take my words, mix them around and concoct your own version of what I said...
I did specifically state "the Lord's Kingdom" and that is what I referred to. Your posts carry a fair amount of negativity, you routinely focus on what you perceive to be wrong. Outside of religious discussion, that behavior is recognized as a dysfunctional attempt to increase ones own self confidence or social status by lowering others. The Lord laid a sure and true foundation to build up His Kingdom on, and you keep returning to the ditch to beat at weeds. It's like ancient Israel, showered with blessings yet continuing to pine for the slavery they had been freed from. Or Lot's wife, offered salvation, but unable to keep from looking back. The Lord doesn't need you in the field marking the tares for Him. Focus on what's good and righteous, and leave the rest behind you.

Recently you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maizie View Post
...unlike man, the Lord Jesus does not have prejudices nor does He teach them. He has only truth and He leads us to green pastures and quiet waters.
Why not follow His example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maizie View Post
If you continue to stay in the Mormon Church...
I certainly hope so, I work so hard to be here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maizie View Post
...then you should not be offended...
You bring up offense a lot. Elsewhere you told someone essentially that they should expect to be offended when they come to a Christian forum and begin arguing. My first thought was "of course, Christians are great at giving and taking offense, it's in the Bible. Though I think the intended message was not to do so, I'm sure someone's come up with a great explanation of how that doesn't mean even when you really want to." Now there is mention in the Bible of the Gospel causing offense to people, but it's the Gospel, not the people who cause it. There's a distinct difference, though they might seem to be the same thing...if only I could think of a doctrine that causes offense to use as an example...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maizie View Post
...when the Mormon doctrines...
It's true, after several false starts you did finally bring up an actual Mormon doctrine.

But I'm not offended. In fact I've never shied away on the few occasions they've come up. You just brought this up and here I am, un-offended discussing it and your made up proof against it based on almost what Jesus said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maizie View Post
...which are unscriptural are discussed...
Well that depends on how one understand the scriptures doesn't it. When 'unscriptural' beliefs held by Catholics are discussed, they have no problem fitting scripture around them, if someone dares insist they are unscriptural, we get a 20 page thread, 4 supporting threads, a Scott Hahn video and eventually locked threads and people suspended for review. When 'unscriptural' beliefs held by Protestants are discussed, well so many of them just make stuff up as they go along it's hard to pin them down on any doctrine other than the doctrine of someone else being wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maizie View Post
You can't have it both ways.
I'm not trying to have it both ways. But it's not much of a discussion, if it were you'd address some of the points I raised in my post above instead of concocting your own version of what I said, ignoring my response to your claim as to what Jesus specifically, and taking offense at JoJo's post, which I took to clearly be in mockery and not a serious question.

I addressed Matthew 22:30, which is as close to a recorded statement of Christ as I can find to what you say he said. And I agreed with it. However it fails as a proof against celestial marriage, both in the meaning of the words recorded, and in context. The state of marriage exists in Heaven, but it's not entered into there. That fits with both Christ's words and LDS doctrine.

I also listed several supporting evidences that marriage can be an eternal covenant. Instead of addressing them, you changed tactic...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maizie View Post
There is no need to marry--see Mark 12:25.
This moves farther away from being what the scripture says. Mark in no way implies that there is no need to marry. In fact, looking at it...
Mark 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
It appears to record the same event I already discussed, using the same relevant words, unless the Sadducee were in the habit of just repeating the same tired logic fallacies as if repetition makes it true.
So the discussion seems to be moving backwards, I point out the flaws in an argument, and then you make it.

But here, and on not having it both ways....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maizie View Post
There is no need to marry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maizie View Post
1 Corinthians 7:14
For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
So it appears that in some situations, marriage can be a determining factor in sanctification...Of course the problem there is that judgement comes after death, which is when marriage ends apparently. How can someone be sanctified through their spouse, if the marriage ended at death. Sanctification is an eternal condition, someone sanctified by their spouse's righteousness wouldn't be sanctified eternally if the marriage wasn't eternal also.

Last edited by xenic101 : 07-29-2012 at 04:25 AM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-29-2012, 09:20 AM
Maizie's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 3,443
Default Re: Jesus specifically said...

Quote:
Originally Posted by xenic101 View Post
I read xenic's post, in fact I made xenic's post being as I am him, and your reply still makes no sense relative to it.



Clearly not, since I've not heard of any Mormon Kingdom and I'm sure I would have been told, but if there was and you were, you'd be doing it wrong.




I did specifically state "the Lord's Kingdom" and that is what I referred to. Your posts carry a fair amount of negativity, you routinely focus on what you perceive to be wrong. Outside of religious discussion, that behavior is recognized as a dysfunctional attempt to increase ones own self confidence or social status by lowering others. The Lord laid a sure and true foundation to build up His Kingdom on, and you keep returning to the ditch to beat at weeds. It's like ancient Israel, showered with blessings yet continuing to pine for the slavery they had been freed from. Or Lot's wife, offered salvation, but unable to keep from looking back. The Lord doesn't need you in the field marking the tares for Him. Focus on what's good and righteous, and leave the rest behind you.

Recently you said:

Why not follow His example.


I certainly hope so, I work so hard to be here.


You bring up offense a lot. Elsewhere you told someone essentially that they should expect to be offended when they come to a Christian forum and begin arguing. My first thought was "of course, Christians are great at giving and taking offense, it's in the Bible. Though I think the intended message was not to do so, I'm sure someone's come up with a great explanation of how that doesn't mean even when you really want to." Now there is mention in the Bible of the Gospel causing offense to people, but it's the Gospel, not the people who cause it. There's a distinct difference, though they might seem to be the same thing...if only I could think of a doctrine that causes offense to use as an example...


It's true, after several false starts you did finally bring up an actual Mormon doctrine.

But I'm not offended. In fact I've never shied away on the few occasions they've come up. You just brought this up and here I am, un-offended discussing it and your made up proof against it based on almost what Jesus said.


Well that depends on how one understand the scriptures doesn't it. When 'unscriptural' beliefs held by Catholics are discussed, they have no problem fitting scripture around them, if someone dares insist they are unscriptural, we get a 20 page thread, 4 supporting threads, a Scott Hahn video and eventually locked threads and people suspended for review. When 'unscriptural' beliefs held by Protestants are discussed, well so many of them just make stuff up as they go along it's hard to pin them down on any doctrine other than the doctrine of someone else being wrong.


I'm not trying to have it both ways. But it's not much of a discussion, if it were you'd address some of the points I raised in my post above instead of concocting your own version of what I said, ignoring my response to your claim as to what Jesus specifically, and taking offense at JoJo's post, which I took to clearly be in mockery and not a serious question.

I addressed Matthew 22:30, which is as close to a recorded statement of Christ as I can find to what you say he said. And I agreed with it. However it fails as a proof against celestial marriage, both in the meaning of the words recorded, and in context. The state of marriage exists in Heaven, but it's not entered into there. That fits with both Christ's words and LDS doctrine.

I also listed several supporting evidences that marriage can be an eternal covenant. Instead of addressing them, you changed tactic...


This moves farther away from being what the scripture says. Mark in no way implies that there is no need to marry. In fact, looking at it...
Mark 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
It appears to record the same event I already discussed, using the same relevant words, unless the Sadducee were in the habit of just repeating the same tired logic fallacies as if repetition makes it true.
So the discussion seems to be moving backwards, I point out the flaws in an argument, and then you make it.

But here, and on not having it both ways....



So it appears that in some situations, marriage can be a determining factor in sanctification...Of course the problem there is that judgement comes after death, which is when marriage ends apparently. How can someone be sanctified through their spouse, if the marriage ended at death. Sanctification is an eternal condition, someone sanctified by their spouse's righteousness wouldn't be sanctified eternally if the marriage wasn't eternal also.
And to think this was all started by my pointing out the fallacy of celestial marriage and its being taught as if it were scriptural. It is not scriptural and is not taught by Jesus.

Futhermore, the marriage design given to us by God is a design for specific purposes. It is a structure which does not follow into heaven (for man and woman).
Mormon doublespeak does not change this fact.

Your teaching of sanctification is also wrong. While it may "be right" in Mormonology it isn't correct as taught by the Holy Scriptures.



And once again, for the record, Catholicism does not teach Jesus has several wives, that God was once human, that celestial marriages are scriptural and that Jesus' blood atonement was not sufficent for "all sin" and these to name only a few of the rude deceptions.
Therefore, Catholicism does not have a "reworked and rebooted" Jesus brought to you by "Another Testament" called the Book of Mormon.
You may not like Catholicism but it has not taught anything but the truth of Jesus Christ unlike Mormonism.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-30-2012, 05:19 AM
xenic101's Avatar
Knight of the Forum
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,341
Default Re: Jesus specifically said...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maizie View Post
And to think this was all started by my pointing out the fallacy of celestial marriage and its being taught as if it were scriptural. It is not scriptural and is not taught by Jesus.
Well since by "scriptural" you mean the Bible, no, it's not directly taught therein. Given the difficult with such things that are explicitly taught in the Bible, it shouldn't be surprising that some things don't get more than supporting evidence. Take the Catholic view that what was taught during Christ's ministry and recorded in the Bible serves as a 'seed' from which other doctrine's are revealed. It's a similar idea, only instead of a good deal of thought and philosophical work going into those doctrines being revealed more fully, they're revealed more fully through a prophet and revelation, as God has done before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maizie View Post
Futhermore, the marriage design given to us by God is a design for specific purposes. It is a structure which does not follow into heaven (for man and woman).
Mormon doublespeak does not change this fact.
Looking at what the words actually mean and at the context isn't double speak, it's looking at the scriptures and seeing that they support the idea that marriages can be eternal. Do you have any that support your view that marriage ends at death?

Genesis 2:23-24 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

The Lord established marriage before the Fall, before mortality was in effect. So why would it end with the end of mortality?

1 Corinthians 11:11-12 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

Paul says that man and woman are incomplete without the other, and that this is of God.

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Matthew 19:5-8 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Christ discusses marriage, referring back to Adam and Eve and that their marriage was ordained by God, along with the reminder that what God joins together, no man should put asunder. Why then would death? Isn't God's power eternal, if He joins man and woman together wouldn't it be for eternity?

Matthew 19:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Jesus said that what Peter bound on Earth would be bound in Heaven when He gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, why wouldn't that apply when God binds something on earth as well?

The Jews seem to have believed in eternal marriage from at least second-temple times. Even though the Sadducee rejected the idea of the resurrection, they acknowledged the belief that marriage continues after death with their question to Christ. The question likely refers to an account recorded in the Book of Tobit. The idea also turns up in other ancient Jewish works like the Zohar (which is likely more middle-ages than ancient) and in 5 Baruch.

The idea of eternal marriage can also be found in early Christian works, the previously mentioned 1 Corinthians, the pseudepigraphic Joseph and Aseneth...

Tertuillian teaches the idea of eternal marriage in his discourse on the widow...
Indeed, she prays for his soul, and requests refreshment for him meanwhile, and fellowship (with him) in the first resurrection; and she offers (her sacrifice) on the anniversaries of his falling asleep... Or else shall we, pray, cease to be after death, according to (the teaching of) some Epicurus, and not according to (that of) Christ? But if we believe the resurrection of the dead, of course we shall be bound to them with whom we are destined to rise, to render an account the one of the other. “But if ‘in that age they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but will be equal to angels, is not the fact that there will be no restitution of the conjugal relation a reason why we shall not be bound to our departed consorts?” Nay, but the more shall we be bound (to them), because we are destined to a better estate—destined (as we are) to rise to a spiritual consortship, to recognise as well our own selves as them who are ours. Else how shall we sing thanks to God to eternity, if there shall remain in us no sense and memory of this debt; if we shall be re-formed in substance, not in consciousness? Consequently, we who shall be with God shall be together; since we shall all be with the one God—albeit the wages be various, albeit there be “many mansions”, in the house of the same Father having laboured for the “one penny”661 of the self-same hire, that is, of eternal life; in which (eternal life) God will still less separate them whom He has conjoined, than in this lesser life He forbids them to be separated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maizie View Post
Your teaching of sanctification is also wrong. While it may "be right" in Mormonology it isn't correct as taught by the Holy Scriptures.
By all means, explain what you think the Holy Scriptures mean by "sanctified" in 1 Corinthians 7:14 and why this would end at death.
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Maizie View Post
And once again, for the record, Catholicism does not teach Jesus has several wives, that God was once human, that celestial marriages are scriptural and that Jesus' blood atonement was not sufficent for "all sin" and these to name only a few of the rude deceptions.
1.25 out of 4. Not a great score. If you're going to try to discuss Mormon beliefs, please try to discuss actual Mormon beliefs. And you are the one who keeps bringing them up. And as for discussing them, do you have any basis for your position other than name calling, throwing out baseless accusations, and self-righteous declarations of certainty?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maizie View Post
You may not like Catholicism but it has not taught anything but the truth of Jesus Christ unlike Mormonism.
I never said I don't like Catholicism, I did say I don't agree with much of it's doctrines. But that's to be expected, they don't agree with much of mine either. There is a difference though, I'm sorry to hear you don't understand that.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-30-2012, 07:39 AM
eddybear's Avatar
Knight of the Forum
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 526
Default Re: Jesus specifically said...

The first few verses of Romans 7 say that the law of marriage only applies up to death, and that after the death of one partner, the other is free to re-marry.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-30-2012, 08:32 AM
Maizie's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 3,443
Default Re: Jesus specifically said...

Quote:
Originally Posted by eddybear View Post
The first few verses of Romans 7 say that the law of marriage only applies up to death, and that after the death of one partner, the other is free to re-marry.
Exactly right. And praise God we know the truth of this.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:51 AM.


true2ourselves
 
 
 

Flashcoms

You need to upgrade your Flash Player.

Version 8 or higher is required.

download from http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29