Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

Oct 12, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: CNN

Editor's note: Dean Obeidallah is an award-winning comedian who has appeared on TV shows such as Comedy Central's "Axis of Evil" special, ABC's "The View," CNN's "What the Week" and HLN's "The Joy Behar Show." He is executive producer of the annual New York Arab-American Comedy Festival and the Amman Stand Up Comedy Festival.

Comments
21,741 - 21,760 of 32,001 Comments Last updated Jul 25, 2014

Since: Sep 12

West Plains, MO

#22886 Mar 30, 2013
Lil wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong!
In Acts 23:8 it states "For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both. Furthermore, since the Sadducees lived according to the Law of Moses, a lesser law, the law of marriage contained within it was for this life only.

BTW- your post above was a word for word rip-off from this website: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-cc/cc-etern...

Next time supply your source and give credit where credit is due.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22887 Mar 30, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like justification for your ugliness. "Mommy, she did it first!"
My ugliness? lol...fricking please! And that comes from the guy that loves to get as ugly and foul with his words about Smith and Mormons in general?
That is funny! I would actually have to spend a few months refining my character to even be a novice of ugly speech compared to you and nomo, the masters of ugly speech...
By the way, all I have been doing is running her logic/reasoning ugly speech back at her as she uses it for others. Neither you or she seems to think that should be done back on her.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22888 Mar 30, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
But while supporting the belief we are to be resurrected, he was clearly saying there was no conflict because there will be no marriages.
Jesus didn't say it the way you rephrase it.
Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
You should read the verse as it was written, not as you wish to redefine it.
Jesus stated that IN THE RESURRECTION, he referenced nothing of this mortal life and what happened to those married here who would die a married couple.
He neither didn't answer their question. The woman in this scenario presented by the Sadducee, had by the law of Moses legally wedded seven brothers one after another as they died. Jesus didn't say she would remain married to one brother or all three or none of them. You can show anything from Jesus where he actually answered the original question they asked of him.
Jesus went on to state that in the resurrection AFTER THIS MORTAL LIFE WAS DONE AND OVER, "...they neither marry, nor are given in marriage,.." IN THE RESURRECTION. In the resurrection "..THEY NEITHER MARRY, NOR ARE GIVEN IN MARRIAGE,.."
Jesus said nothing, not a single thing, not even a clue did he give as to what would happen to a couple that was married in the MORTAL LIFE who died. Jesus didn't say their marriage was ended at death and he didn't say it continued on in the resurrection. HE DIDN'T ANSWER THE ACTUAL QUESTION. GET IT????
The answer Jesus gave had nothing directly to do with their actual question. Jesus made a statement that THEY would neither marry nor be given in marriage IN THE RESURRECTION.
A married couple here in mortal life couldn't be remarried in the after life in the resurrection. Not possible according to what Jesus said. So what he said couldn't pertain to people married in this mortal life that die man and wife. Get it yet?
Jesus was speaking of people that died single. Only single people according to Jesus's statement can be married. So Jesus's statement could have only been referencing single people, not already married people from the mortal life, get it?
If you think you can prove that Jesus was referencing a Sadducee belief that married mortals that died could marry and be given in marriage a second time in the resurrection, please show your proof. Because that is your logic. That the Sadducee believed people in the mortal life that married and died, that in the resurrection the Sadducee believed those married couples could be married and given in marriage a second time.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22889 Mar 31, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus didn't say it the way you rephrase it.
Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
You should read the verse as it was written, not as you wish to redefine it.
Jesus stated that IN THE RESURRECTION, he referenced nothing of this mortal life and what happened to those married here who would die a married couple.
He neither didn't answer their question. The woman in this scenario presented by the Sadducee, had by the law of Moses legally wedded seven brothers one after another as they died. Jesus didn't say she would remain married to one brother or all three or none of them. You can show anything from Jesus where he actually answered the original question they asked of him.
Jesus went on to state that in the resurrection AFTER THIS MORTAL LIFE WAS DONE AND OVER, "...they neither marry, nor are given in marriage,.." IN THE RESURRECTION. In the resurrection "..THEY NEITHER MARRY, NOR ARE GIVEN IN MARRIAGE,.."
Jesus said nothing, not a single thing, not even a clue did he give as to what would happen to a couple that was married in the MORTAL LIFE who died. Jesus didn't say their marriage was ended at death and he didn't say it continued on in the resurrection. HE DIDN'T ANSWER THE ACTUAL QUESTION. GET IT????
The answer Jesus gave had nothing directly to do with their actual question. Jesus made a statement that THEY would neither marry nor be given in marriage IN THE RESURRECTION.
A married couple here in mortal life couldn't be remarried in the after life in the resurrection. Not possible according to what Jesus said. So what he said couldn't pertain to people married in this mortal life that die man and wife. Get it yet?
Jesus was speaking of people that died single. Only single people according to Jesus's statement can be married. So Jesus's statement could have only been referencing single people, not already married people from the mortal life, get it?
If you think you can prove that Jesus was referencing a Sadducee belief that married mortals that died could marry and be given in marriage a second time in the resurrection, please show your proof. Because that is your logic. That the Sadducee believed people in the mortal life that married and died, that in the resurrection the Sadducee believed those married couples could be married and given in marriage a second time.
Sorry, but the fact he was answering a question about a woman who was married 7 times, says you're wrong.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22890 Mar 31, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way, if you have any doubts of what I said about who and by what agenda set forth the Bible and the NT that is minus polygamy stories and any one of Israelite leadership partaking in polygamy, than read some recent words from the new pope...
"For now, though, "the discipline of celibacy stands firm," he said, adding that priests should quit if they can't abstain from sex or if they get a woman pregnant."
And you wonder not where the doctrine of Jesus always being single and a virgin came from. It wasn't from the NT, just saying.
If you want to claim that the Catholic church rewrote the NT, provide something besides your conspiracy theories. There is no record of Jesus being married.
For many centuries priests were allowed to marry until the 4th century.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22891 Mar 31, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
The definment of a one man one woman relationship is of proven Christian origin. We have historical writings proving a monogamous marriage/union between a single man and a single woman came from the church in Rome. We have no evidence that this strict concept was ever taught from the early church Jesus set forth.
Deacons and Bishops where forbidden, and Genesis 2:24 was written long before Jesus was born.
Everyone has an opinion on this. But understand this fact: Jesus never set forth requirements about how marriage was to be of any disciple that held an office he created in his church. The fact is that it was Paul, long after the death of Jesus who set forth writings concerning church positions and marriage status, not Jesus. And at mentioning that it is well to remember Paul's opinion of marriage in spite of what God told us by way of commandment to do.
Paul was his chosen representative, if he taught it, it was by the authority of Christ. Jesus certainly never taught the principle of eternal marriage, the plan of salvation, or the need for a temple endowment, yet you swallow those teaching hook, line, and sinker. No one ever was taught that polygamy was a requirement for their salvation.
Now were monogamous marriages/unions the custom of even pre-Christian times? of course. But so were polygamous marriages.
Of the warning to the kings of Israel and having to many wives, what does history state that kings of ancient times do that even kings in some countries do today? They acquire things to make themselves appear powerful/important.
Israelite kings were adding things to themselves that God was not giving to them. Understand? The old testament is rife with leaders and kings having polygamous marriages. The marriages given to them by God were sanctioned by God. Any marriages they took unto themselves without God's approval, not they fell into God's disapproval. Just like them taking extra horses and silver and gold etc. The kings of Israel usually had a prophet that told them God's will. When to war, when not to war, where to go, how to handle disputes and the prophet was there to teach the will of God and give revelation. He had what are called 'minor prophets' that took his words and spread them out to the tribes and people.
You can find weak reasons for being offended by polygamy all you want. The fact remains that God through out the OT allowed many prophets/leaders/kings to have multiple wives and never disciplined them unless they took wives God didn't allow for, as was the case with Solomon and David and Bathsheba.
And you forget this one fact. Who brought forth volumes of writings to compile a book that would one day be called the Christian Bible? Anti-polygamists who taught against marriage as Paul for the first 20 popes of that early church in Rome. Polygamy stories do not exist in the NT. No Abraham and Sarah and and other wife stories. No stories of God giving wives of one king to another king. No stories of leaders/prophets/kings having extra wives or why they had them.
Paul clearly taught that to be able to hold an office, a person was only to be married to one wife. Setting the standard of the church. To be "blameless". If there is no sin against polygamy, there would be no breaking of a law, they would be blameless. But the order for the leaders to be married to only one wife says otherwise.
Polygamy was never a bad taste in God's mouth. There is no evidence of it except a warning and it concerns Israelite kings taking unto themselves wives, horses, gold, silver, lands, slaves, etc that God had not blessed them to have. Understand?
God set the standard in Genesis 2:24, one man, one woman, one flesh.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22895 Mar 31, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but the fact he was answering a question about a woman who was married 7 times, says you're wrong.
He didn't answer the question. Do you understand? Stupid question on my part, of course you don't understand because you have a pre-set agenda for what you are predisposed to believe of this conversation. And that blinds you as usual.
I on the other hand claim the verse states nothing either way. It states nothing because Jesus didn't answer the question. So you will be forever wrong to think he answered the question when he didn't in fact answer it.
Jesus stated in the resurrection, IN THE RESURRECTION, there would be no marrying nor being given in marriage. This woman was already marred. Married seven times.
The Sadducee didn't ask if the woman could be married a eighth time in the resurrection. If they had asked Jesus if this woman could be married an eight time in the resurrection, Jesus's response would make total sense because he said..."..they are neither married nor are given in marriage in the resurrection."
THAT ISN'T WHAT THEY ASKED.
They asked... "28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her."
Jesus said without answering their actual question..."30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage,"
That response DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHO'S WIFE SHE WOULD BELONG TO OF THE SEVEN BROTHERS BECAUSE SHE MARRIED THEM ALL IN THIS MORTAL LIFE. Get it yet?
I'm not debating marriage. I'm not debating eternal marriage and or if it exists.
You claim this verse states marriages don't exist in the next life. And your wrong. You will always be wrong. Jesus said nothing if marriages in this life would continue on in the next life. Jesus said as they are preformed in this mortal life, marriages, in the resurrection marriages will not take place. Jesus was describing a condition of marriage that if you didn't marry in this life and you want to marry in the next life it wouldn't happen.
Open your mind and read what was written, quit reading by your anti-Mormon agenda and you'll begin to understand more than your allowing your self to understand.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22896 Mar 31, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want to claim that the Catholic church rewrote the NT, provide something besides your conspiracy theories. There is no record of Jesus being married.
For many centuries priests were allowed to marry until the 4th century.
lol...you really need to quit saying I said what I didn't say. I never said they rewrote the NT. The bishops didn't rewrite the NT. the bishops PUT TOGETHER THE NEW TESTAMENT.
And that was their influence of what was in that compilation of writings and what wasn't included in it. That's a historical fact of what they did to compile what we call the NT.
The early church leaned heavily on things Paul wrote even if what Paul said had some base contradictions with what God said.
The early church founded a requirement to be a priest on this single verse..."1 Corinthians 7:32-34, Paul writes,An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided."
That verse is what kept the first TWENTY POPES CELIBATE AND SINGLE.
That verse though not law, was an unsaid law that the first twenty popes and to many priests to mention went by to hold clergy positions. They believe Jesus was celibate. Regarding marital status, the pope and priests followed Jesus's words literally to be like him, to be single and celibate and that is how a true man of God was, single and celibate, not married. They felt if you married, your eye wasn't single to the glory and purpose of God. They taught this concept as an iron clad law for so long females took on celibacy to Jesus with these priests and pope. Concerning Jesus, they were against marriage in order to be as Jesus.
FYI, look it up. It was a disgrace to be clergy in the early Roman church and be married. Twenty popes and 99% of their clergy for centuries swore off marriage as ill and wrong if you wanted to be a true follower of Jesus. They believed only the weak and weak in faith became married.
From the web...
FIRST LATERAN COUNCIL

The first of these councils was held in 1123 during the pontificate of Callistus II; it was the first general council held in the West. Its most important decision was the confirmation of the Concordat of Worms (1122), which ended the controversy between ecclesiastical and secular authorities over investiture. The council also adopted canons forbidding simony and the marriage of clergymen, and it annulled the ordinances of the antipope Gregory VIII (reigned 1118-1121).
SECOND LATERAN COUNCIL

The second council was held in 1139 under Pope Innocent II (r. 1130-1143). It was called to heal the schism caused by the antipope Anacletus II (r. 1130-1138) and decreed excommunication for his followers. The council renewed the canons against clerical marriage and forbade dangerous tournaments.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22897 Mar 31, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Deacons and Bishops where forbidden, and Genesis 2:24 was written long before Jesus was born.
Okay, so let's use your reasoning, not mine.
Deacons and bishops were to be the husband of one wife. That is your claim of the scripture.
Well that verse excludes apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers and seventies as having a choice to have multiple wives instead of just one.
Now what?

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22898 Mar 31, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, so let's use your reasoning, not mine.
Deacons and bishops were to be the husband of one wife. That is your claim of the scripture.
Well that verse excludes apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers and seventies as having a choice to have multiple wives instead of just one.
Now what?
Straining on gnats isn't going to make you or the LDS church right. People without an agenda to promote polygamy see it clearly.

How do those gnats taste?

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22899 Mar 31, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
He didn't answer the question. Do you understand? Stupid question on my part, of course you don't understand because you have a pre-set agenda for what you are predisposed to believe of this conversation. And that blinds you as usual.
I on the other hand claim the verse states nothing either way. It states nothing because Jesus didn't answer the question. So you will be forever wrong to think he answered the question when he didn't in fact answer it.
He was asked a question about marriage in the next life. He answered by telling what it was going to be like. Just because you don't want to see it, doesn't make it so.
Jesus stated in the resurrection, IN THE RESURRECTION, there would be no marrying nor being given in marriage. This woman was already marred. Married seven times.
While Crazy isn't part of the dialog, I wish you would talk to him before you answer. Because he said Jesus was only talking about the old covenant. That she wouldn't be married because of that. Now you are claiming she will. Which is it? If she will be married, as you are claiming, why didn't Jesus say that, instead of "you don't the scriptures?" Your answer makes zero sense.
The Sadducee didn't ask if the woman could be married a eighth time in the resurrection. If they had asked Jesus if this woman could be married an eight time in the resurrection, Jesus's response would make total sense because he said..."..they are neither married nor are given in marriage in the resurrection."
THAT ISN'T WHAT THEY ASKED.
They ask who she was going to be married to, he clearly was saying none of them when he said she was going to be "like the angels." The phrase "given in marriage" means there will be no married people.
They asked... "28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her."
Jesus said without answering their actual question..."30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage,"
That response DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHO'S WIFE SHE WOULD BELONG TO OF THE SEVEN BROTHERS BECAUSE SHE MARRIED THEM ALL IN THIS MORTAL LIFE. Get it yet?
Yeah, I get it, none of them. Clear as a bell. He answered their question. He was clearly saying they don't understand what the next life will be like when he said
Luke 20
34 Jesus said to them,The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, 35 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

They didn't know the scriptures, and neither do you.
I'm not debating eternal marriage and or if it exists.
Then why are you talking about it?
You claim this verse states marriages don't exist in the next life. And your wrong. You will always be wrong.
I thought you wasn't debating it? Do you read what you post?
Jesus said nothing if marriages in this life would continue on in the next life. Jesus said as they are preformed in this mortal life, marriages, in the resurrection marriages will not take place. Jesus was describing a condition of marriage that if you didn't marry in this life and you want to marry in the next life it wouldn't happen.
He was clearly answering their question of who she will be married too:

34 Jesus said to them,The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, 35 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

Learn how to read.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22900 Mar 31, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Deacons and Bishops where forbidden, and Genesis 2:24 was written long before Jesus was born.
<quoted text>
Paul was his chosen representative, if he taught it, it was by the authority of Christ. Jesus certainly never taught the principle of eternal marriage, the plan of salvation, or the need for a temple endowment, yet you swallow those teaching hook, line, and sinker. No one ever was taught that polygamy was a requirement for their salvation.
I want you to remember your own very words as I write the following... "Paul was his chosen representative, if he taught it, it was by the authority of Christ."
Jesus taught Paul ONLY deacons and bishops were to have one wife.
Jesus didn't teach Paul that apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists, pastors and seventies had to have one wife.
That means Jesus left it open to the disciple holding one of those positions the right to marry a single wife or several wives because he didn't make the same marital status for them as he made for deacons and bishops.
And Jesus set forth the offices and positions to be held by his disciples, not Paul. Jesus set forth apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, deacons, bishops and seventies.
This means/insinuates that in his church, in the church that Jesus the Christ set forth himself, this means he allowed of his disciples to have polygamous marriages as it was allowed in the law of Moses if they choose it in his church also.
This means Jesus wasn't against polygamous marriages. That means he wasn't offended by them as you erringly claim since he allowed for a "choice" to take place.
What say ye now? Going to call Jesus a liar again?

Since: Sep 12

West Plains, MO

#22902 Mar 31, 2013
OOdle wrote:
<quoted text>Not only do the Mormons promote polygamy they promote the good old boy system and they have their fingers in every facet of Utah life. Church is state in Utah. And then the Mormon lawmakers and elected officials get caught drunk driving or like Larry Craig soliciting another male and worse.. Mormons can't even practice what they preach.
That's in every faith. For you to think otherwise is just plain stupid.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22903 Mar 31, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Straining on gnats isn't going to make you or the LDS church right. People without an agenda to promote polygamy see it clearly.
How do those gnats taste?
lol...this is really fricking sad. You want to get respect while speaking like some small minded child that just got bested. What is your problem? Do you even know? gnats??? lolol.....
You made a statement of the NT. I agreed to discuss it.
You stated a deacon and a bishop were to be the husband of a SINGLE wife. I didn't dispute it. That is the English rendition. So I made comment according to your statement.
Apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists, pastors and seventies WERE GIVEN NO MARITAL REQUIREMENT BY GOD THROUGH PAUL. Thats a fact! That's a NT fact. It is not my personal opinion or belief.
Jesus was born in the land of Israel where Israelites could have one or more wives as stated by the laws of Moses with laws about from God himself before he was born as a human.
God is now flesh.
God now sets forth a new religion, very different from Judaism.
God sets forth offices in the church for his disciples to hold as apostles, prophets, bishops, deacons, pastors, teachers, evangelists and seventies. THOSE ARE OFFICES SET FORTH BY GOD HIMSELF and you can't handle that fact. You can't handle that fact from Jesus because though he restricted two offices of disciples to having a single wife, he did not say the other offices had to also have one wife.
That means God aka Jesus the Christ was allowing the laws for polygamous marriages to continue from the Mosaic era into all the other offices of his new church he set forth.
And you can't handle that fact! So instead of considering it and making an intelligent reply you revert to some childish non-sense and why am I not surprised.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22904 Mar 31, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
He was asked a question about marriage in the next life. He answered by telling what it was going to be like. Just because you don't want to see it, doesn't make it so.
Your error began in those first three sentences. Take your own pathetic advice and read and learn yourself.
Jesus was asked a SPECIFIC question about marriage in the resurrection. Jesus was asked which husband would the widowed wife belong to in the resurrection.
Jesus wasn't ask if polygamy or eternal marriage or divorce took place in the resurrection.
Jesus wasn't asked if in the resurrection a man already married could have more wives.
Jesus wasn't asked if a single person could marry in the resurrection.
Jesus wasn't asked if a single person could marry one wife or several wives in the resurrection.
..........
Jesus was asked which widowed husband she would remain wedded to in the resurrection.
Jesus didn't answer them.
Jesus didn't tell them which husband she would belong to.
Jesus didn't tell them she would belong to none of them.
Jesus didn't tell them marriages in this life don't continue in the resurrection.
Jesus didn't tell them marriages in this life did continue in the resurrection.
Jesus didn't answer the question.
..........
Jesus made a statement to a question they didn't ask.
The Sadducee never ever asked Jesus at that time if people could be married in the resurrection.
If the Sadducee had in fact asked Jesus... "Is it true or is it not true that in the resurrection people can be married and be given in marriage as it is done now in this mortal life?" ...if the Sadducee had asked that explicit question of Jesus, than Jesus's answer would have been spot on because he would have responded as he did respond saying, "..they neither marry nor are given in marriage in the resurrection."
..........
But the conversation never went like that. Fricking read. Jesus's answer had not a thing to do with their actual question. They wanted to know who's husband would the widow belong to in the next life, meaning they were pretending to believe a marriage preformed in this mortal life continued on into the next life.
Instead of answering them, unlike marriage taking place in this life, Jesus told them a marriage could not be preformed in the next life as it was preformed in this life. Get it yet?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22905 Mar 31, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
While Crazy isn't part of the dialog, I wish you would talk to him before you answer. Because he said Jesus was only talking about the old covenant. That she wouldn't be married because of that. Now you are claiming she will. Which is it? If she will be married, as you are claiming, why didn't Jesus say that, instead of "you don't the scriptures?" Your answer makes zero sense.
Are you high? Maybe a bit tipped? To much wine or beer? I never made any claim to the marital status of this widow in the next life dude...lol. I never said she'd be married or not married by any covenant...lol.
Holy crap read what I write pllleaseeee????????? lol....I was discussing the differences between the question the Sadducee asked Jesus and the response he gave them that had no actual bearing on their question.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22906 Mar 31, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
They ask who she was going to be married to, he clearly was saying none of them when he said she was going to be "like the angels." The phrase "given in marriage" means there will be no married people.
lol...Jesus never ever said she'd be married to none of them. He gave no such response. That's your bent, twisted interpretation only. Jesus gave no such response that there would be no married people from this mortality existing into the next life. Jesus said no such thing. That's your bent, twisted interpretation only.
Jesus made a statement that IN THE RESURRECTION THERE WOULD BE NO MARRYING NOR WOULD THERE BE ANY BEING GIVEN IN MARRIAGE. READ HIS WORDS. That was a statement Jesus made concerning if people could marry in the resurrection.
People already married don't get married a second time as they did the first time EXCEPT to renew the previous vows already having been made. So obviously a person in this life married, they can't marry again in the next life if they are already married from this life even if it were possible, Jesus said it isn't. Jesus stated in the resurrection no one has the opportunity to find someone and to marry them. Jesus stated in the resurrection someone can't give you away in a marriage to another person.
But Jesus didn't state marriages solemnized in this mortal life would not continue on into the next. He didn't state any such thing.

Since: Sep 12

West Plains, MO

#22907 Mar 31, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>lol...Jesus never ever said she'd be married to none of them. He gave no such response. That's your bent, twisted interpretation only. Jesus gave no such response that there would be no married people from this mortality existing into the next life. Jesus said no such thing. That's your bent, twisted interpretation only.
Jesus made a statement that IN THE RESURRECTION THERE WOULD BE NO MARRYING NOR WOULD THERE BE ANY BEING GIVEN IN MARRIAGE. READ HIS WORDS. That was a statement Jesus made concerning if people could marry in the resurrection.
People already married don't get married a second time as they did the first time EXCEPT to renew the previous vows already having been made. So obviously a person in this life married, they can't marry again in the next life if they are already married from this life even if it were possible, Jesus said it isn't. Jesus stated in the resurrection no one has the opportunity to find someone and to marry them. Jesus stated in the resurrection someone can't give you away in a marriage to another person.
But Jesus didn't state marriages solemnized in this mortal life would not continue on into the next. He didn't state any such thing.
I found this which seems to coincide with what you are trying to say, I believe, or hope rather.

Ben Witherington, a non-LDS biblical scholar, understands this exchange in a similar way: The case put forward by the Sadducees is particularly extreme. Not only had six brothers attempted and failed to impregnate the woman in question, but she had also outlived them all and was single when she died. It is perhaps this last fact which prompts the question: Whose spouse will she be in the resurrection?...Jesus stresses that in the age to come people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Notice what Jesus does not say. He does not say there will be no marriage in the age to come. The use of the terms "γαμου" (gamousin) and "γαμιζ" (gamizontai) is important, for these terms refer to the gender-specific roles played in early Jewish society by the man and the woman in the process of getting married. The men, being the initiators of the process in such a strongly patriarchal culture, "marry," while the women are "given in marriage" by their father or another older family member. Thus Mark has Jesus saying that no new marriages will be initiated in the eschatological [resurrection] state. This is surely not the same as claiming that all existing marriages will disappear in the eschatological state.

[note] Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2001), 328. ISBN 0802845037.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22909 Mar 31, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lol...this is really fricking sad. You want to get respect while speaking like some small minded child that just got bested. What is your problem? Do you even know? gnats??? lolol.....
You made a statement of the NT. I agreed to discuss it.
You stated a deacon and a bishop were to be the husband of a SINGLE wife. I didn't dispute it. That is the English rendition. So I made comment according to your statement.
Apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists, pastors and seventies WERE GIVEN NO MARITAL REQUIREMENT BY GOD THROUGH PAUL. Thats a fact! That's a NT fact. It is not my personal opinion or belief.
Jesus was born in the land of Israel where Israelites could have one or more wives as stated by the laws of Moses with laws about from God himself before he was born as a human.
God is now flesh.
God now sets forth a new religion, very different from Judaism.
God sets forth offices in the church for his disciples to hold as apostles, prophets, bishops, deacons, pastors, teachers, evangelists and seventies. THOSE ARE OFFICES SET FORTH BY GOD HIMSELF and you can't handle that fact. You can't handle that fact from Jesus because though he restricted two offices of disciples to having a single wife, he did not say the other offices had to also have one wife.
That means God aka Jesus the Christ was allowing the laws for polygamous marriages to continue from the Mosaic era into all the other offices of his new church he set forth.
And you can't handle that fact! So instead of considering it and making an intelligent reply you revert to some childish non-sense and why am I not surprised.
The reason given for the one wife limit was so they "are blameless." So, according to you "apostles, prophets, bishops, deacons, pastors, teachers, evangelists and seventies" don't have to be blameless? They can do what they want and still keep their office? Because, according to your logic, he also required that Bishops be "vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous". So that means because he didn't say that about "apostles, prophets, bishops, deacons, pastors, teachers, evangelists and seventies" they don't. According to your logic.

Great reasoning, if you are 5 yrs old. I can also point out he didn't have to tell the Apostles, because none of them had more than one wife, and there was NO prophets in the church.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22910 Mar 31, 2013
I'll be back later to address your inability to read and comprehend what Jesus was actually saying. It's a shame I have to, but I will.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Television Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution Theory Facing Crisis 13 min The Dude 220
Response to Bill O'Reilly: Jesus Didn't Start a... 55 min Eric 160
We Need More Gay Sex on TV 2 hr Big mike 29
Can pop stars call themselves feminists? 3 hr N8 the Grrr8 1
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 4 hr Eaddae 305,478
Women Hid Stolen Watches in Their Vaginas in Bi... 6 hr szell 19
UFO Memo Tops FBI's Most-Viewed List (Jan '14) 8 hr PleaseResearch 10
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Television People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••