Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've come to believe that much of the supposed-sayings of Jesus as found in the gospels are not reliable--that much of what is attributed to Jesus He never really said, particularly with regards to the now-infamous "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven"---that this particular verse, along with most of His hellfire and damnation stuff was actually added decades, even centuries after His crucifixion--that corrupt church leaders doctored much of the gospel writings as the writings were taking shape to fit their own pagan bent and personal theologies.
Historically we know that no such persons as the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote their respective gospels. They weren't even alive when the earliest writings surface in the 3rd century. Before that, for hundreds of years these various stories--the parables, the widow's mite, the raising of Jarius' daughter, etc that occurred during His three 1/2 year ministry were embellished as they were passed down from generation to generation before somebody decided to start writing some of it down a few hundred years later and attach the name "Mark" to the document, the supposed "First" gospel. We also know that whoever wrote Matthew and Luke merely copied 90% of their material from Mark and from "Q" and then just embellished it with their own imaginations. The gospel attributed to John followed last and by by this time a solid theology of Christ was starting to formulate and the gospel bearing John's name merely solidified what was nearly concrete in the Church as of its writing, hence it's astonishing difference in style from the synoptics.
Anyway, I digress. Can anyone steer me to any evidence that shows that Jesus likely never said, "In the resurrection there is no marriage"? I'm not looking for a theological debate as to why I'm wrong--just solid leads pointing me toward an answer to this vexing question. Thanks for any and all help.
So because of the similarities to the other Gospels, you think Matthew was a fake? Really? If it was completely different, would you believe it?
So because of the similarities to the other Gospels, you think Matthew was a fake? Really? If it was completely different, would you believe it?
I'd probably want to examine it in any case, but the similarities to the other gospels is easily explained: Matthew and Luke copied directly from Mark's gospel (remember none of these people are the actual authors---they had been dead 200 years by the time the first writings show up). So I write a treatise on what Sir Isaac Newton said and did. A thousands years from now somebody uncovers it and says, "Wow, this guy must've know ol' Isaac because he says this and this and this." So how is this any different from the gospels we have in our possession now?
Notable is the fact that John, who supposedly was by Jesus' side the entire time Jesus was on earth, never once mentions the incident with the Sadducees. Now don't you think that such an important event that John surely would have witnessed would have been recorded by him in his gospel? So why wasn't it? Why was it recorded by three other individuals who weren't even born when this incident supposedly happened? Not to digress, but why was the story of the adultress that Jesus saved from stoning inserted into John's gospel hundreds of years after John died?
Darn! I said I didn't want to get into a debate and that's just exactly what I did.
Anyone have any credible leads that might prove or even hint that what is recorded in Matthew, Mark and Luke about not marrying in the resurrection is not Jesus' actual words?
I love these sort of pronouncements. Faith building is what I call them.
Sorry but the evidence says otherwise:
Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the First Century. If Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years. This is important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament documents were penned who could have contested the writings. In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the First Century that contest the New Testament texts. Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing (John Rylands Papyri 125 A.D.). This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a First Century document.
PAPYRI FRAGMENTS...
1. CHESTER BEATTY BIBLICAL PAPYRI (dated 200-250 A.D.)
a. Made public in 1931
b. Contains the Gospels, Acts, Paul's Epistles, and Revelation
2. PAYPRUS BODMER II (dated 200 A.D.)
a. Discovery announced in 1956
b. Contains fourteen chapters of John, and portions of the
last seven chapters
3. EARLY CHRISTIAN PAPYRI (dated 150 A.D.)
a. Made public in 1935
b. Written by someone who had the four gospels before him and
knew them well
4. JOHN RYLANDS MSS (dated 130 A.D.)
a. This is oldest fragment of the NT
- GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE BIBLE, Geisler & Nix
PATRISTIC WRITINGS...
1. EPISTLE OF POLYCARP TO THE PHILIPPIANS (dated 120 A.D.)
a. A personal acquaintance of John, the apostle
b. He quotes from the Synoptic Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 & 2
Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 2 Thessa-
lonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and 1 John
2. LETTERS OF IGNATIUS (dated 115 A.D.)
a. Written to several churches in Asia Minor
b. He quotes from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians,
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus
3. EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS (dated 95 A.D.)
a. This letter was written to encourage the church to respect
their elders
b. He quotes from the Synoptic Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 Corin-
thians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter
I love these sort of pronouncements. Faith building is what I call them.
Sorry but the evidence says otherwise:
Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the First Century. If Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years. This is important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament documents were penned who could have contested the writings. In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the First Century that contest the New Testament texts. Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing (John Rylands Papyri 125 A.D.). This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a First Century document.
PAPYRI FRAGMENTS...
1. CHESTER BEATTY BIBLICAL PAPYRI (dated 200-250 A.D.)
a. Made public in 1931
b. Contains the Gospels, Acts, Paul's Epistles, and Revelation
2. PAYPRUS BODMER II (dated 200 A.D.)
a. Discovery announced in 1956
b. Contains fourteen chapters of John, and portions of the
last seven chapters
3. EARLY CHRISTIAN PAPYRI (dated 150 A.D.)
a. Made public in 1935
b. Written by someone who had the four gospels before him and
knew them well
4. JOHN RYLANDS MSS (dated 130 A.D.)
a. This is oldest fragment of the NT
- GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE BIBLE, Geisler & Nix
PATRISTIC WRITINGS...
1. EPISTLE OF POLYCARP TO THE PHILIPPIANS (dated 120 A.D.)
a. A personal acquaintance of John, the apostle
b. He quotes from the Synoptic Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 & 2
Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 2 Thessa-
lonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and 1 John
2. LETTERS OF IGNATIUS (dated 115 A.D.)
a. Written to several churches in Asia Minor
b. He quotes from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians,
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus
3. EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS (dated 95 A.D.)
a. This letter was written to encourage the church to respect
their elders
b. He quotes from the Synoptic Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 Corin-
thians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter
Bart Ehrman might disagree with you and he's the expert. He says that most biblical scholars say just the opposite---that the earliest texts we have that can be relied upon date from about 300AD and God only knows how badly scribes and copiers mutilated them in the meantime. Watch some of his dissertations on YouTube. They're very informative.
I've come to believe that much of the supposed-sayings of Jesus as found in the gospels are not reliable--that much of what is attributed to Jesus He never really said, particularly with regards to the now-infamous "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven"---
Not trying to debate you, or argue you out of your belief about what Jesus said about marriage in heaven...but I want to say that if you get hung up on those words you are missing the point Jesus was making to the Sadducees.
See, they were trying to trap him into saying something that could be construed as blasphemy so they could have him arrested.
Jesus was telling them that it is more important to understand God's power than to know what heaven will be like. See, many people make the mistake of thinking of God and heaven in human terms.
Jesus was saying, heaven won't be like you are imagining - it won't be like your life on earth. He wanted us to concentrate on God and our relationship with him rather than what things will or won't be happening once we get to heaven.
Historically we know that no such persons as the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote their respective gospels. They weren't even alive when the earliest writings surface in the 3rd century. Before that, for hundreds of years these various stories--the parables, the widow's mite, the raising of Jarius' daughter, etc that occurred during His three 1/2 year ministry were embellished as they were passed down from generation to generation before somebody decided to start writing some of it down a few hundred years later and attach the name "Mark" to the document, the supposed "First" gospel. We also know that whoever wrote Matthew and Luke merely copied 90% of their material from Mark and from "Q" and then just embellished it with their own imaginations. The gospel attributed to John followed last and by by this time a solid theology of Christ was starting to formulate and the gospel bearing John's name merely solidified what was nearly concrete in the Church as of its writing, hence it's astonishing difference in style from the synoptics.
.
I can only give you the Catholic perspective on this, but maybe it will help...
It is true, we have nothing in written form from Jesus's own lifetime.
And it is also true that most scholars date the writing of gospels somewhere between 45 and 120 years after the death of Jesus.
The Catholic Church believes that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not actually write the Gospels attributed to them, but that does not mean the teachings in them did not come from the Four Evangelists.
The gospels bear their names because in ancient times it was common for literary works to be credited to the person of whom the teachings were based.
The writers of the gospels were educated Greeks that heavily relied on the oral tradition of the time in which they lived.
See, the earliest Christians learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Paul even said that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).
Simply put, sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching.
So while you may struggle with belief in what was eventually put in written form, try to remember that "oral tradition" is how entire histories of many cultures, including our own Native Americans, were preserved and are still taught today.
So because of the similarities to the other Gospels, you think Matthew was a fake? Really? If it was completely different, would you believe it?
......I would never even start to agree with these denier of Scriptures , because you will invite the devil to be your friend , where the spirit of the white serpent of religion will say `you are a good friend to me ``. and walk hand in hand with antichrist ........... best if people are looking to discredit and devalue and demean Lord Jesus , it would be best to leave the curse behind and have No commit ....
I've come to believe that much of the supposed-sayings of Jesus as found in the gospels are not reliable--that much of what is attributed to Jesus He never really said, particularly with regards to the now-infamous "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven"---that this particular verse... that corrupt church leaders doctored much of the gospel writings as the writings were taking shape to fit their own pagan bent and personal theologies....
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
Anyway, I digress. Can anyone steer me to any evidence that shows that Jesus likely never said, "In the resurrection there is no marriage"? I'm not looking for a theological debate as to why I'm wrong--just solid leads pointing me toward an answer to this vexing question. Thanks for any and all help.
I don't know that we need to prove that Jesus never said that in the resurrection there is no marriage." I think that we need, instead, to understand His statement in the context in which He made it. I believe that the verse you mentioned is among the most universally misunderstood of any in the New Testament. At first glance, it does appear to be saying that marriage does not survive the grave. But for those willing to look a little deeper, there are some significant clues which imply that the truth is a bit more involved. Matthew, Mark and Luke all relate this same conversation, but with some slightly different details, so I'm quoting all three of them.
Matthew 22:23-31 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. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
Mark 12:18-25 “Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed. And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise. And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also. In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? 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.”
Luke 20:27-36: “Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him, Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children. And the second took her to wife, and he died childless. And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died. Last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.”
I would also post the entire text of John 17, because it is very important to an accurate understanding of these passages on marriage, but I don't want to clutter my post up with any more scriptures than I already have. Interested readers may, however, wish to review that chapter themselves. Anyway, here are my thoughts on the subject:
1. We need, as always, to be aware of who Jesus’ audience was. In this instance, He was speaking to the Sadducees. What do we know about the Sadducees? First of all, they didn’t believe in a resurrection at all. In asking a question of this sort, do you honestly think they were looking for the truth? Or do you think that, as on many other occasions, they were simply trying to stump Jesus by asking a question that would cause Him to have to contradict something He’d previously taught. (It's also likely that the subject of marriages enduring beyond the grave had been mentioned before. At least this question seems to be hinting that it had.) At any rate, it’s entirely logical to assume that Jesus, knowing their hearts as perfectly as He did, would have given them an answer that, while entirely honest, would pertain to them specifically. In teaching a truly receptive audience, His answer would likely have reflected His concern with their genuine interest in knowing.
2. John 17 (which I referred to earlier) makes frequent use of the phrases “of the world” and “not of the world.” These phrases are, in fact, used so many times that it’s almost impossible to brush them off as inconsequential. In the prayer recorded in this chapter, Jesus made a clear distinction between His followers, in other words, those individuals who, like Him, were “not of this world,” and those who rejected Him, thereby falling into the group who were “of the world.”
In Luke’s account of this event, Jesus once again uses the phrase, “ofthe world.” Jesus was telling the Sadducees, who were obviously “children ofthe world” what they could expect in the next life. Because they were not His followers, they would not receive the blessings of eternal marriage, but would instead be as angels. Jesus did not explain to them the blessings that the children “not ofthis world” would receive. Why should He have done? They would have believed Him to exactly the same extent that they believed they would be resurrected.
3. Looking at Mark’s account, we see another important indication of what Jesus really meant. Here, Jesus is recorded as having said, “Ye know not the power of God.” What on earth could He have meant by that? The power of God to do what – un-marry someone? In the context of His statement, He could only have meant that the Sadducees did not understand that God has the power to unite a husband and wife forever. Without such power, death would certainly end the marriage covenant, but with it, the covenant is eternal. Jesus gave Peter the keys to bind in heaven that which he would bind on earth. Having that authority, he would be able to exercise the power of God to make the marriage relationship endure. We know from the Old Testament that “whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever.” When Peter received the keys to the kingdom of God, he received the power of God to do something that would have eternal significance. A marriage performed by someone not holding that power would endure only under one or the other partner died.
4. Finally, it is significant that Jesus never did say that no one would bemarried in Heaven. He merely said that no one would getmarried in Heaven. There is a difference between these two things. The Greek word translated as “marry” is “gamosin,” the third-person form of the verb “gameo,” which means “to enter into the marriage state or to get married.” The term “gamizonai” (“giving in marriage”) is another way of saying the same thing. But, He never used the word, “gemesas,” (as is found in 1 Corinthians 7:33) to describe “a married person.” He never said that there will be no married individuals in Heaven; He only said that marriages won’t be performed there. And I believe this to be the case.
(I know, I know... It's just the LDS perspective. Consider the source. )
Not trying to debate you, or argue you out of your belief about what Jesus said about marriage in heaven...but I want to say that if you get hung up on those words you are missing the point Jesus was making to the Sadducees.
See, they were trying to trap him into saying something that could be construed as blasphemy so they could have him arrested.
Jesus was telling them that it is more important to understand God's power than to know what heaven will be like. See, many people make the mistake of thinking of God and heaven in human terms.
Jesus was saying, heaven won't be like you are imagining - it won't be like your life on earth. He wanted us to concentrate on God and our relationship with him rather than what things will or won't be happening once we get to heaven.
I greatly appreciate you approaching my question from an intellectual POV rather than blasting me as so many do in the Christianity forum, part of the reason why I came here rather than there--because I knew I'd get a more balanced, unbiased view here.
I know that lots of people with more on the ball Moderator cut: deleted realize that Jesus may be saying a great deal more than what appears on the surface. I gave one example regarding the levirate marriages that were in practice at the time. The Mormons speculate that Jesus was referring to this practice when He said, "Those in the resurrection do not marry nor are given in marriage". The Mormons rationalize their precept of consecrating their marriage for eternity by pointing to this: "Well, Jesus wasn't referring to marriage in general; He was referring to levirate marriage because that's what the Sadducees approached him with Him to begin with." There are other arguments. Here's an example: "In short, marriage in the halakhic sense meant that the man possessed (owned) his wife as property. This is the kind of marriage you would not have in heaven."
So it obviously can be approached from a number of directions depending on your particular bent--are you for it or against it. I'm more interested in getting away from personal biases and looking at the actual earliest records we have; are there any words in Greek Textus's that give any indication that the phrase was jimmied or altered to reflect a copiest's personal bias. We know that this went on regularly in the thousands of copies in our possession. An example: when Jesus said "But of that day know not the angels, neither the Son of Man, but My Father only" many scribes looked at that and said, "Wait a minute. How could Jesus, being the Son of God, not know that day?" So they arbitrarily decided to lift out the "neither the Son of Man" part, which is why you have one gospel with that phrase in it and another gospel with it missing. I'm trying to find out if such a thing occurred with Matthew 22:30. Perhaps an earlier manuscript indicates Jesus said something like, "There will be marriage in heaven but not arranged marriages" and some idiot scribe decided "Nah, I don't like the idea of Jesus saying there's marriage in heaven. I'd prefer everyone to be bachelors and spinsters like myself. So I'll tweak it a little and no one will be the wiser."
Honest. These sorts of shenanigans went on all the time when copies were being made.
Last edited by june 7th; 06-14-2013 at 06:10 AM..
Reason: Bashing attitude toward specific mindset of believers.
I greatly appreciate you approaching my question from an intellectual POV rather than blasting me as so many do in the Christianity forum, part of the reason why I came here rather than there--because I knew I'd get a more balanced, unbiased view here.
I know that lots of people with more on the ball intellectually than the Fundies realize that Jesus may be saying a great deal more than what appears on the surface. I gave one example regarding the levirate marriages that were in practice at the time. The Mormons speculate that Jesus was referring to this practice when He said, "Those in the resurrection do not marry nor are given in marriage". The Mormons rationalize their precept of consecrating their marriage for eternity by pointing to this: "Well, Jesus wasn't referring to marriage in general; He was referring to levirate marriage because that's what the Sadducees approached him with Him to begin with." There are other arguments. Here's an example: "In short, marriage in the halakhic sense meant that the man possessed (owned) his wife as property. This is the kind of marriage you would not have in heaven."
So it obviously can be approached from a number of directions depending on your particular bent--are you for it or against it. I'm more interested in getting away from personal biases and looking at the actual earliest records we have; are there any words in Greek Textus's that give any indication that the phrase was jimmied or altered to reflect a copiest's personal bias. We know that this went on regularly in the thousands of copies in our possession. An example: when Jesus said "But of that day know not the angels, neither the Son of Man, but My Father only" many scribes looked at that and said, "Wait a minute. How could Jesus, being the Son of God, not know that day?" So they arbitrarily decided to lift out the "neither the Son of Man" part, which is why you have one gospel with that phrase in it and another gospel with it missing. I'm trying to find out if such a thing occurred with Matthew 22:30. Perhaps an earlier manuscript indicates Jesus said something like, "There will be marriage in heaven but not arranged marriages" and some idiot scribe decided "Nah, I don't like the idea of Jesus saying there's marriage in heaven. I'd prefer everyone to be bachelors and spinsters like myself. So I'll tweak it a little and no one will be the wiser."
Honest. These sorts of shenanigans went on all the time when copies were being made.
Sorry, as I am no scripture scholar, I cannot answer your question (are there any words in Greek Textus's that give any indication that the phrase was jimmied or altered to reflect a copiest's personal bias).
I do believe if you do further in-depth research you could possibly find this information though.
While I understand and respect your quest for "truth", this is just not the kind of thing I personally spend any time wondering or worrying about myself. It's so easy to lose yourself in details sometimes that you miss the bigger picture, which for me is GOD himself and my relationship with him
Best of luck finding answers
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...... best if people are looking to discredit and devalue and demean Lord Jesus , it would be best to leave the curse behind and have No commit ....
)
