Question: Why do mopologists ignore the Bible so much?

[_Buffalo]

Sure, direct quote from Mark, once more:

"When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven."

Once again, that's not a reference and it differs from the actual references from the Bible I gave.

Don't you know your Bible?

"When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." - Mark 12:25

That's merely a different translation. You're aware that there is more than one translation of the Bible, right bcspace?

[_bcspace]

That's merely a different translation. You're aware that there is more than one translation of the Bible, right bcspace?

Yes I am. But it took you nearly a whole day to figure that out. What it means is that there is no conflict between LDS doctrine and the Bible since the verses I referenced do not contain any notion of "they" meaning "all the dead". But it does make one wonder if the translation you are using was changed in order to reflect someone's personal doctrine.

It really is impossible to show a conflict with LDS doctrine and the Bible. One will always end up bashing the Bible and/or one's own christianity instead.

[_Buffalo]

That's merely a different translation. You're aware that there is more than one translation of the Bible, right bcspace?

Yes I am. But it took you nearly a whole day to figure that out. What it means is that there is no conflict between LDS doctrine and the Bible since the verses I referenced do not contain any notion of "they" meaning "all the dead". But it does make one wonder if the translation you are using was changed in order to reflect someone's personal doctrine.

It really is impossible to show a conflict with LDS doctrine and the Bible. One will always end up bashing the Bible and/or one's own christianity instead.

On the contrary, it took YOU a whole day to figure that out. You kept wondering what verse I was quoting, when it was the exact same verse you were quoting. And it completely contradicts Smith's doctrine.

[_bcspace]

On the contrary, it took YOU a whole day to figure that out. You kept wondering what verse I was quoting, when it was the exact same verse you were quoting. And it completely contradicts Smith's doctrine.

Nope. I was waiting for you to fall into the translated correctly trap which you did quite nicely. My quotation of Mark and Matthew are more valid since the notion of death = all the dead is not found in the extant mss.

[_Buffalo]

On the contrary, it took YOU a whole day to figure that out. You kept wondering what verse I was quoting, when it was the exact same verse you were quoting. And it completely contradicts Smith's doctrine.

Nope. I was waiting for you to fall into the translated correctly trap which you did quite nicely. My quotation of Mark and Matthew are more valid since the notion of death = all the dead is not found in the extant mss.

You're just a puppet master, bcspace. Even when you have no idea what's going on, it was all a part of your devious plan all along. I salute you.

Still, if you can find me some human beings who will never be a part of "the dead" you'll have better luck defending your claims.

[_bcspace]

Still, if you can find me some human beings who will never be a part of "the dead" you'll have better luck defending your claims.

Well, if you can find such a definition in the following Bible references...

25For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

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

...my hat's off to you. Or feel free to go to the mss and show us that the Bible version you are using is merely correcting the language into modern English. The fact of the matter is you thought you had me, but then didn't realize that I was using a more accurate translation.

You're just a puppet master, bcspace. Even when you have no idea what's going on, it was all a part of your devious plan all along. I salute you.

Oh there is a puppet involved here, but it isn't me. I've debated this issue probably for longer than you've been cognizant of religion. Walter Martin, James White, and some Biola professors couldn't handle it back in the day, you're doing no better.

[_Buffalo]

Well, if you can find such a definition in the following Bible references...

25For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

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

...my hat's off to you. Or feel free to go to the mss and show us that the Bible version you are using is merely correcting the language into modern English. The fact of the matter is you thought you had me, but then didn't realize that I was using a more accurate translation.

Your defense relies entirely on presentism, and creating entirely new doctrines which Jesus did not teach and which are alien to first century Christianity. Whereas all I have to do is take what Jesus said at face value.

[_bcspace]

Your defense relies entirely on presentism, and creating entirely new doctrines which Jesus did not teach and which are alien to first century Christianity. Whereas all I have to do is take what Jesus said at face value.

Actually my defense is based on the extant mss and you're left to defend multiple mistranslations of the Bible. The fact remains that there is no "they = all the dead" in those verses and that is born out in the Bible earlier version I gave. Your more modern translation appends doctrine that isn't there and thus you come under condemnation of Revelation 22:18.

[_Buffalo]

Your defense relies entirely on presentism, and creating entirely new doctrines which Jesus did not teach and which are alien to first century Christianity. Whereas all I have to do is take what Jesus said at face value.

Actually my defense is based on the extant mss and you're left to defend multiple mistranslations of the Bible. The fact remains that there is no "they = all the dead" in those verses and that is born out in the Bible earlier version I gave. Your more modern translation appends doctrine that isn't there and thus you come under condemnation of Revelation 22:18.

Jesus said the dead are single. You can't undo that with any amount of apologetic wriggling. Joseph's idea about eternal marriage is found nowhere in the Bible.

[_Buffalo]

Early Christian fathers' writings reflect that position as well. A pro-marriage, pro-family stance is a modern invention. Jesus was anti-family. The end was nigh, there was no point in raising families.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_ ... ch_Fathers

Building on the example of Jesus and Paul, first-century Christians placed less value on the family, and rather saw celibacy and freedom from family ties as a preferable state.

Nicene Fathers such as Augustine believed that marriage was a sacrament because it was a symbol used by Paul to express Christ's love of the Church. However, there was also an apocalyptic dimension in his teaching, and he was clear that if everybody stopped marrying and having children that would be an admirable thing; it would mean that the Kingdom of God would return all the sooner and the world would come to an end.[16] Such a view reflects the Manichaean past of Augustine.

Both Tertullian and Gregory of Nyssa were church fathers who were married. They each stressed that the happiness of marriage was ultimately rooted in misery. They saw marriage as a state of bondage that could only be cured by celibacy. They wrote that at the very least, the virgin woman could expect release from the "governance of a husband and the chains of children."[17]:p.151 Tertullian argued that marriage "consists essentially in fornication."[18]

Some Fathers of the Church advocated celibacy and virginity as preferable alternatives to marriage. Jerome wrote: "It is not disparaging wedlock to prefer virginity. No one can make a comparison between two things if one is good and the other evil."[19] St. John Chrysostom wrote: "...virginity is better than marriage, however good.... Celibacy is...an imitation of the angels. Therefore, virginity is as much more honorable than marriage, as the angel is higher than man. But why do I say angel? Christ, Himself, is the glory of virginity."[20]

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, said that the first commandment given to men was to increase and multiply, but now that the earth was full there was no need to continue this process of multiplication.[21]

This view of marriage was reflected in the lack of any formal liturgy formulated for marriage in the early Church. No special ceremonial was devised to celebrate Christian marriage—despite the fact that the Church had produced liturgies to celebrate the Eucharist, Baptism and Confirmation. It was not important for a couple to have their nuptials blessed by a priest. People could marry by mutual agreement in the presence of witnesses.[16]

At first, the old Roman pagan rite was used by Christians, although modified superficially. The first detailed account of a Christian wedding in the West dates from the 9th century. This system, known as Spousals, persisted after the Reformation.[16]