• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christian: Eternal nature of marriage and family

Aqualung

Tasty
Oohh! Oooh! I just thought of something else. The law that if a person died without sons the wife would marry her late husband's brother was a Mosaic law. Mosaic law, the lesser law, had no provisions for eternal marriage, but you need the higher law for it.
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
Katzpur said:
I'm sure you're right, Scott. If I were writhing in pain, the main thing that would be on my mind would be to find some sort of release. I also agree with you that God's love is more intense than fire. But it's also a good kind of intense and not something that we would want to avoid.
Amen... in this analogy, God's love is the fire and His divine mercy the water... God is the source of all that comforts us.
When you say your love for your wife will be overshadowed, I'm assuming that you mean that once you are in the presence of God, nothing else will matter. But I don't see how a relationship built over several decades could suddenly cease to matter.
It still would matter... life matters... love matters.... and more importantly the Sacrament of Marriage can NEVER be broken..... so we agree, but on different levels. I don't believe my Church has a teaching one way or the other on this.... one of the few things we get to "guess" about... hehe... thanks for the chat.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Katzpur said:
Why on earth wouldn't you want to be like Him?


Satan, Adam, and Eve tried this already. Didn't got so well. I hope you don't mean it in this way. :shout

~Victor
 

glasgowchick

Gives Glory to God !!!
Hi Katz, Personally I don't see these verse as you do, I don't believe that we can be married in this life and seal it for the next life..while the children marry in this life, we marry til death do us part..While all three Scriptures you reffer to all talk about the same thing,these three apostles who heard Jesus speaking on this very subject. All record what He said and meant. Jesus said that the people who believed those married here on earth would also be married in heaven were in error. It was believed by the ungodly Sadducees and not a doctrine of Christ.

In Romans 7:2 Paul says, "For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband." So the statement of, "until death do us part" or "as long as we both shall live" is in accordance with the Bible.

The only eternal marriage in the Bible is the spiritual marriage of all believers to Jesus Christ. "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to him; for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife (the church) hath made herself ready. " -.Rev. 19:7
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Victor said:
Satan, Adam, and Eve tried this already. Didn't got so well. I hope you don't mean it in this way. :shout

~Victor
Satan's sin was trying to exalt himself above God. I don't believe trying to emulate something that is infinitely good is the same thing at all. Adam's and Eve's trangression wasn't that they wanted to be like God. It was that they disobeyed His instructions. I meant it in terms of Jesus' commandment: "Be ye perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect."
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
glasgowchick said:
Hi Katz, Personally I don't see these verse as you do, I don't believe that we can be married in this life and seal it for the next life..while the children marry in this life, we marry til death do us part..While all three Scriptures you reffer to all talk about the same thing,these three apostles who heard Jesus speaking on this very subject. All record what He said and meant. Jesus said that the people who believed those married here on earth would also be married in heaven were in error. It was believed by the ungodly Sadducees and not a doctrine of Christ.

In Romans 7:2 Paul says, "For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband." So the statement of, "until death do us part" or "as long as we both shall live" is in accordance with the Bible.

The only eternal marriage in the Bible is the spiritual marriage of all believers to Jesus Christ. "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to him; for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife (the church) hath made herself ready. " -.Rev. 19:7
Hello, Chick.

I respect your opinion on this subject, but it really isn't accurate to say that the Sadducees thought that marriage would extend beyond the grave and that Jesus was explaining to them that their belief was incorrect. The Sadducees didn't believe that anything was going to extend beyond the grave. That's why their question wasn't asked out of a sincere desire for information. It was typical of the way they often approached Jesus.

This is obviously a doctrine I'm not going to convince you or anyone else to believe. My main point in posting this explanation was to point out some reasons why I believe all of what the Bible says has to be understood in terms of the context in which the statements appear. I wanted to demonstrate that there is more than one way of looking at these verses, and I think I was successful in doing that.

Kathryn
 

glasgowchick

Gives Glory to God !!!
Hi Katz, how do you see what paul is talking about in these verses thanks.

1 Cor 7 ..teachings on marriage..

32 But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord;

33 but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife.

34 and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

35 This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.

36 But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry.

37 But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well.

38 So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better.

39 A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. 37But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well.

40 But in my opinion she is happier if she remains as she is; and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.

The way I see what he is saying, there is nothing wrong with being married but it would be better to remain as we are because then we have no distractions ALL our attention will be focused on God and Him alone..Since I believe our marriages end at death why would paul say these things if we can be married all eternity..wouldn't he encourage us to get married instead of saying we would be better off single..thanks...
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
glasgowchick said:
Hi Katz, how do you see what paul is talking about in these verses thanks.
Well, he obviously appears to be discouraging marriage among Christians.

The way I see what he is saying, there is nothing wrong with being married but it would be better to remain as we are because then we have no distractions ALL our attention will be focused on God and Him alone..Since I believe our marriages end at death why would paul say these things if we can be married all eternity..wouldn't he encourage us to get married instead of saying we would be better off single..thanks...
Well, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, he also said, "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without theman, in the Lord." So it appears to me that marriage is the ideal, and if a man cannot love both the Lord and his wife, he should forego marriage. You've got to admit that if everyone who heard Paul's advice had taken it, you and I wouldn't be here to have this discussion!

Kathryn
 

glasgowchick

Gives Glory to God !!!
Katzpur said:
Well, he obviously appears to be discouraging marriage among Christians.


Well, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, he also said, "Nevertheless neither is theman without the woman, neither the woman without theman, in the Lord." So it appears to me that marriage is the ideal, and if a man cannot love both the Lord and his wife, he should forego marriage. You've got to admit that if everyone who heard Paul's advice had taken it, you and I wouldn't be here to have this discussion!

Kathryn

youv'e got to admit that if everyone who heard pauls advice had taken it you and I wouldn't be here to have this discussion!
Nice one Katz LOL !!!!!! I do love your sense of humor, was it Peter who said some of Pauls letter were hard to understand ? :)
 

Dentonz

Member
glasgowchick said:
Hi stewpidloser, maybe this will answer your question..On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Him and questioned Him,
Matthew 22:24 saying, "Teacher, Moses said, 'If a man dies, having no children, his brother as next of kin shall marry his wife, and raise up offspring to his brother.'
Matthew 22:25 "Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no offspring left his wife to his brother;
Matthew 22:26 so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh.
Matthew 22:27 "And last of all, the woman died.
Matthew 22:28 "In the resurrection therefore whose wife of the seven shall she be? For they all had her."
Matthew 22:29 But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, no understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God.
Matthew 22:30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. .
Looks like the Bible does a pretty good job of speaking for itself.
 

Aqualung

Tasty
Dentonz said:
Looks like the Bible does a pretty good job of speaking for itself.
Did you read people's replies? Because it would be helpful if you would adress the replies, instead of us having to re-post them, and then you adress them.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Katzpur said:
Hello, Chick.

I respect your opinion on this subject, but it really isn't accurate to say that the Sadducees thought that marriage would extend beyond the grave and that Jesus was explaining to them that their belief was incorrect. The Sadducees didn't believe that anything was going to extend beyond the grave. That's why their question wasn't asked out of a sincere desire for information. It was typical of the way they often approached Jesus.

This is obviously a doctrine I'm not going to convince you or anyone else to believe. My main point in posting this explanation was to point out some reasons why I believe all of what the Bible says has to be understood in terms of the context in which the statements appear. I wanted to demonstrate that there is more than one way of looking at these verses, and I think I was successful in doing that.


Kathryn
Which I think you achieved. Good post.;)
 

Aqualung

Tasty
What about neither is the man without a woman, nor woman without a man, in christ?

Are you going to ignore both this scripture and our explanation of the other? Will you just sit there blindly refusing to look at it? Now, don't get me wrong, if you look at our argument and provide a nice reason for beleiving it is wrong, good for you, and I respect that. But if you just say, "I'm right, you're wrong, end of story," that doesn't engender much credibility, let alone respect. How about giving some sort of rebuttle to our descriptions of what the verse could mean.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
StewpidLoser said:
Yep!
Especially when taken in context :D
Which Dentonz evidentally didn't even attempt to do. I at least addressed the context of Christ's remarks in my response, and all he did was quote the exact same scriptures that had already been quoted. Doesn't show a great deal of effort in my opinion.
 

Snowbear

Nita Okhata
Are you responding to my post? If so, why the hostility?
Aqualung said:
What about neither is the man without a woman, nor woman without a man, in christ?
What are you saying? That a single woman or man is not in Christ?
Aqualung said:
Are you going to ignore both this scripture and our explanation of the other? Will you just sit there blindly refusing to look at it?
Where's that in the bible and what is your doctrine's explanation of it?
Just because I don't agree with your doctrine doesn't mean I'm blindly ignoring it.
Aqualung said:
Now, don't get me wrong, if you look at our argument and provide a nice reason for beleiving it is wrong, good for you, and I respect that. But if you just say, "I'm right, you're wrong, end of story," that doesn't engender much credibility, let alone respect. How about giving some sort of rebuttle to our descriptions of what the verse could mean.
I thought I did say why I disagreed.... but maybe that was in the other thread. I fully admit to being a crappy communicator though, so probably it didn't come out very clearly. I was told multiple times that I am wrong and you guys are right. Why should I keep rehashing the same stuff and getting the same response?

As for my credibility and respect, you guys have made it perfectly clear where you stand on that. Thankfully, I have spent a lifetime building the protective shell of not giving a rat's patootie what people think of me. Especially people I've never met ;)
 

Aqualung

Tasty
StewpidLoser said:
Are you responding to my post? If so, why the hostility?
Yes, I am responding. Teh hostility is because I hate when people come into a debate, say, "You're wrong!" refuse to look at any of the evidence we have supplied to the contrary, and then duck back out again.
StewpidLoser said:
What are you saying? That a single woman or man is not in Christ?
Well, you have to be married for time and all eternity to enter into the highest degree of glory . . . so in a way, yes.
StewpidLoser said:
Where's that in the bible and what is your doctrine's explanation of it?
It's 1 Cor 11:11. My doctrine's explanation of it is that families, and marriages, can last for eternity.
StewpidLoser said:
Just because I don't agree with your doctrine doesn't mean I'm blindly ignoring it.
Well, you seemed to be blindly ignoring all the stuff I said after that quote. You just looked at the one quote you agreed with, and just said, "Oh, I agree" (which does absolutely nothing to further a discussion) instead of looking at our rebuttle of that quote and adressing that, instead (which can work wonders in futhering a discussion).
StewpidLoser said:
I thought I did say why I disagreed.... but maybe that was in the other thread. I fully admit to being a crappy communicator though, so probably it didn't come out very clearly. I was told multiple times that I am wrong and you guys are right.
Well, that's okay. Just explain it better, then. And of course I'm telling you're wrong and I'm right. But you're telling me I'm wrong and you're right. Now, if we could each supply reasons, we would have a nice little debate going here . . . :D
StewpidLoser said:
As for my credibility and respect, you guys have made it perfectly clear where you stand on that. Thankfully, I have spent a lifetime building the protective shell of not giving a rat's patootie what people think of me. Especially people I've never met ;)
Well, you seem to have built up quite a negative attitude too. I'm just trying to engage in a constructive debate with you. (because I do respect your opinion. Why debate some one if you don't even care what they say?)

I enjoy debating you when you actually debate. But I don't enjoy debating anyone who won't back up their arguments.
 

Snowbear

Nita Okhata
Aqualung said:
Teh hostility is because I hate when people come into a debate, say, "You're wrong!" refuse to look at any of the evidence we have supplied to the contrary, and then duck back out again..
I didn't say "You're wrong!" to you or anyone else in this thread. In fact, until you attacked me for agreeing with someone, though I asked a couple questions for clarification and made a couple of comments on others' posts, I have not entered this debate (I had already been pounded enough in the other thread).
Aqualung said:
Well, you have to be married for time and all eternity to enter into the highest degree of glory . . . so in a way, yes.
Well, since I am not likely to ever marry, I'm truly glad that I'm not in your church.... the Jesus I know has already secured a place for me just the way I am.
Aqualung said:
It's 1 Cor 11:11. My doctrine's explanation of it is that families, and marriages, can last for eternity.
Again, taken out of context, that one single verse can be interpreted any way you want. But when I read it in the context in which it's written, the man and woman who are married need to both be living for Christ in order to be in the Lord. It says nothing about single people being less worthy or unable to be in Christ or not being able to be with God for eternity.

Sooooooo..... how does your doctrine's explanation of families and marriages lasting for eternity translate into people who are not married not being in Christ.... or is this just YOUR interpretation of a single verse taken out of context?
Aqualung said:
Well, you seemed to be blindly ignoring all the stuff I said after that quote.
Just because I don't respond to it doesn't mean I'm ignoring it. Just as I haven't ignored the many other posts in this and in other threads. I'm one of those who tends to read a whole pile more than I post. You're out of line telling me what I looked at and what I didn't and what I'm thinking.
Aqualung said:
You just looked at the one quote you agreed with, and just said, "Oh, I agree" (which does absolutely nothing to further a discussion) instead of looking at our rebuttle of that quote and adressing that, instead (which can work wonders in futhering a discussion).
So? This is a debate, not a discussion. I had no intent to participate in this debate/discussion. Does that mean I'm not allowed to ask questions or make comments? Your 'rebuttal' of "Did you read people's replies? Because it would be helpful if you would adress the replies, instead of us having to re-post them, and then you adress them." didn't do much to further the 'discussion' either. Nor did your attack on me.
Aqualung said:
Well, that's okay. Just explain it better, then.
Remember that part about being a crappy communicator? I'm too stewpid to do that. Which is why I stayed out of this debate.
Aqualung said:
Well, you seem to have built up quite a negative attitude too.
Yup. Thanks to attacks from folks like you.
Aqualung said:
I'm just trying to engage in a constructive debate with you.
Hostility won't accomplish that.
Aqualung said:
because I do respect your opinion.
Yeah. Riiiiight :rolleyes:
Aqualung said:
But I don't enjoy debating anyone who won't back up their arguments.
I wasn't arguing. I was commenting on someone else's comment. I don't particulary enjoy debating at all, especially when it gets openly personally hostile.

OK mods.... I'm done publically defending myself against this attack .... back to your regularly scheduled debate....
 
Top