Will There Be Marriage In Heaven?

[prisonchaplain]

PC, are you saying that we will be as God?

There is some teasing in that question, but also some seriousness. You seem to be describing god-like love--hence the question.

In some ways we will be. Scripture says we will see as Jesus sees. We will rule and reign with Christ. We will judge angels. While we Protestants do not believe we will become God or Gods, with do, we will be glorified, and that will do much more than play harps on clouds.

[RanMan]

It's already been posted who they are, or was that the other thread? Those that live worthy enough to recieve a celestial glory but chose to remain single will of course remain single in heaven. Those that are single but would choose to be married if circumstance allowed will not be held accountable.

Have you personally noticed a reasonable chunk of people stating that they have chosen to remain single? I haven't. And this seems to be a topic that gets more attention than it would require to cover what I expect to be an incredibly small minority of the people.

I just think that the line about wanting to be married - in their heart - will apply to just about everyone, short of those that loudly proclaim "I never want to be married in the temple."

:)

[marts1]

Being a single adult rep I know many singles not wanting to be bothered with what it takes to find or be with a suitable partner. I have a brother who prefers single life.

[RanMan]

I was a single rep for awhile too. I did not find this to be the case. Not saying that it doesn't happen, but I think it is probably a very small portion of the population. Still, I don't care to disuade you. You made a statement about wanting to be married - in their heart - and I am saying that is a pretty handy defense for anyone who doesn't absolutely state they wish to remain single.

:)

[marts1]

The fact that we will be judged by the desire of our hearts is not my opinion as I'm sure you are aware.

[RanMan]

How does that counter what I posted? If not, what is the purpose for posting it?

:)

[marts1]

Apparently misunderstood your post and still do. :)

[Guest Goose]

Someone once suggested it only means that if you don't find your eternal companion while you are here on earth, then you will be single in heaven. But its worded so vaguely, that's not really clear... Also, that's almost like being punished for not finding your eternal companion. But how is it my fault if I don't find such a person? I mean, what if he's just nowhere near me? lol

Whilst it seems to be true that we can only find an eternal companion while here on earth, we need to remember that the 1000 years of millennium will also be here on earth and marriages could maybe occur then too. One way to see this is to say that marriage is only a 'flesh and bones' property and not a 'spiritual beings' property, if you get the analogy, so spirits don't get married.

I think that the most important factor is to resurrect at the start of the millennium with a celestial body or one capable of becoming a celestial body in due time, seeing that those people will be in exaltation as married persons. jmho...

[Guest Goose]

Being a single adult rep I know many singles not wanting to be bothered with what it takes to find or be with a suitable partner. I have a brother who prefers single life.

yes, I've meat people like this however after getting to know them its usually due to some issue, like kids or emotional distress or something similar.

[Dr T]

Maybe because it is? Gnostic Christians ARE Christians, after all.

Hi Ram,

A lot of heresy came out of Gnosticism so I do not consider it "Christian." Even if it was written by a Christian person, it does not make it real Christian info in my book. Thanks

[Guest mirancs8]

The thought of being sealed posthumously to one of my ex-wives seems scary if it brought with it the possibility of eternal nagging and bickering. Still, the thought of being sealed to my children had great appeal. My hope is that God transcends speculations of separateness and that he can set things right within his kingdoms.

But wait aren't we suppose to be perfect in the Celestial Kingdom. So with that said the ex-wives won't be doing all that nagging and bickering. Hummm makes you look at that scenario in a different light doesn't it??

[prisonchaplain]

Hi Ram,

A lot of heresy came out of Gnosticism so I do not consider it "Christian." Even if it was written by a Christian person, it does not make it real Christian info in my book. Thanks

I was writing a paper for seminary, and must have been tired, because I quoted the Gospel of Thomas, using it to indicate some particular practice that was common to the early church. The professor mercifully only docked me half a grade, as he reminded me that Thomas was a Gnostic heretical writing, not accepted early church gospel. Needless to say, I was mightily grateful and ever so ...

[Dr T]

Hahaha, thanks be for grace. :)

[rameumptom]

Hi Ram,

A lot of heresy came out of Gnosticism so I do not consider it "Christian." Even if it was written by a Christian person, it does not make it real Christian info in my book. Thanks

Well then, what if I told you that the Gospel of Phillip, while found in the Nag Hammadi/Gnostic library, is considered by many scholars to not be a Gnostic writing? Many think that it was a regular Christian writing that the Gnostics adopted, because it agreed with much of their belief.

Don't forget, Gnostics also embraced the Gospel of Luke and several other New Testament and Old Testament writings as authentic. Does that mean we should get rid of those, simply because Gnostics used them? I don't think so.

Besides, traditional Christianity was affected by non-Biblical Hellenistic ideas just as much, if not more, than were the Gnostics. You aren't Catholic, because you know there are wrong things in their teachings. Many of those teachings, and some the Protestants still embrace do not come directly from the scriptures, but from a Hellenized view of the scriptures. Many early Christian apologists quoted the Greek scholars in support of their Christian faith.

[Guest]

Hi Ram,

A lot of heresy came out of Gnosticism so I do not consider it "Christian." Even if it was written by a Christian person, it does not make it real Christian info in my book. Thanks

Dr. T, do you also consider the Book of Mormon non-Christian?

[prisonchaplain]

Well then, what if I told you that the Gospel of Phillip, while found in the Nag Hammadi/Gnostic library, is considered by many scholars to not be a Gnostic writing? Many think that it was a regular Christian writing that the Gnostics adopted, because it agreed with much of their belief.

Don't forget, Gnostics also embraced the Gospel of Luke and several other New Testament and Old Testament writings as authentic. Does that mean we should get rid of those, simply because Gnostics used them? I don't think so.

If heretics use our gospels it has no baring on their veracity. If they use writings that are not ours, we would approach them with suspicion. The writings might still be true--but we would be more cautious.

Besides, traditional Christianity was affected by non-Biblical Hellenistic ideas just as much, if not more, than were the Gnostics.

Or, as you pointed out above, those Hellenistic writings ended up agreeing with and supporting gospel--so we incorporated them into our understanding.

You aren't Catholic, because you know there are wrong things in their teachings. Many of those teachings, and some the Protestants still embrace do not come directly from the scriptures, but from a Hellenized view of the scriptures. Many early Christian apologists quoted the Greek scholars in support of their Christian faith.

All truth is ultimately from God.

[Dr T]

Dr. T, do you also consider the Book of Mormon non-Christian?

Hi Anatess,

To answer your question quoted above, I'd have to say yes, I do consider the BoM non-Christian.

[Dr T]

Thanks Ram. Yes, I am aware of the influence of the Hellenization. I liked PC's response and feel the same way about it. If a person writes about things that are not consistent with the whole of the Bible then I do not consider it Christian.

[Guest]

Hi Anatess,

To answer your question quoted above, I'd have to say yes, I do consider the BoM non-Christian.

Okay, just trying to gauge where you are coming from.

My understanding of Christian is something/somebody that believes in Christ as the Messiah. Whether the practice is correct or not is irrelevant to the definition. Because, in my opinion - there is no difference between the KJV, NIV, RCC, etc. Bibles - as far as their "level of" Christianity is concerned - they can't all be correct, otherwise, there wouldn't be a need for variations of "The Bible". So, gnostic scriptures, the Book of Mormon, and any other texts ever published that proclaim Jesus Christ as the Messiah are all the same as far as "level of" Christianity is concerned.

If I take your definition of what is Christian then the only Christian text is the Book of Mormon and possibly the KJV as far as it is translated correctly.

Okay, think of it this way - I claim to be Christian but I do not believe in the authority of Pope Benedict... so does that make me un-Christian? Of course not.

The correctness of practice/beliefs is not what makes you Christian. The belief in Jesus Christ as the Savior is what makes you Christian.

Edited April 20, 2010 by anatess

[Moksha]

Straying from the topic of marriage for a second, it was my understanding that early Christians came in at least three varieties: Jewish Christians, Gnostic Christians and Pauline Christians.

As to the Chaplain being docked half a grade for quoting the Gospel of Thomas, I find myself wishing that dogma was an accompaniment to reason rather than a substitute.

[prisonchaplain]

Straying from the topic of marriage for a second, it was my understanding that early Christians came in at least three varieties: Jewish Christians, Gnostic Christians and Pauline Christians.

As to the Chaplain being docked half a grade for quoting the Gospel of Thomas, I find myself wishing that dogma was an accompaniment to reason rather than a substitute.

Well the very early church was entirely Jewish. Paul did begin work amongst the Gentiles, but he too was "a Jew of the Jews." Gnosticism was deemed heretical from the get-go. There are even some hints at pre-Gnostic heresy described in Paul's writings. So, for me to quote a Gnostic source as if it were mainstream Christian practice was a pretty serious error on my part. Nevertheless, the professor did reason that my overall work was sound...so dogma as you call it (orthodoxy) did indeed work hand in hand with logic.

[rameumptom]

Thanks Ram. Yes, I am aware of the influence of the Hellenization. I liked PC's response and feel the same way about it. If a person writes about things that are not consistent with the whole of the Bible then I do not consider it Christian.

How about the writings of Origen? He was once the orthodox Church's premiere apologist. Yet centuries later, Augustine considered him a heretic and renounced his works.

I think Origen's writings do fit with the "whole of the Bible", even though Augustine disagreed with him. I also think the BoM writings fit with the "whole of the Bible" even though most traditional Christians do not agree with it.

BTW, you stated you believe the BoM is non-Christian. Have you ever read it, so you can say that for certain? Or are you only going from what others have told you about it? PC went through it, and gave his appraisal of it a few weeks ago. I appreciate what he did, as he went through the effort, as Paul teaches, to "prove all things" for himself.

[rameumptom]

Straying from the topic of marriage for a second, it was my understanding that early Christians came in at least three varieties: Jewish Christians, Gnostic Christians and Pauline Christians.

As to the Chaplain being docked half a grade for quoting the Gospel of Thomas, I find myself wishing that dogma was an accompaniment to reason rather than a substitute.

Not only that, but Gnostic/Coptic Christianity was at one time as widespread and powerful as Pauline Christianity.

And among the Jewish/Gnostic/Pauline Christians were a wide variety of beliefs. Even the Pauline Christians (otherwise known as proto-orthodox) disagreed on issues such as Trinity/Godhead/Modalism/Arianism/Athanasian beliefs.

[prisonchaplain]

Okay, just trying to gauge where you are coming from.

My understanding of Christian is something/somebody that believes in Christ as the Messiah. Whether the practice is correct or not is irrelevant to the definition. Because, in my opinion - there is no difference between the KJV, NIV, RCC, etc. Bibles - as far as their "level of" Christianity is concerned - they can't all be correct, otherwise, there wouldn't be a need for variations of "The Bible". So, gnostic scriptures, the Book of Mormon, and any other texts ever published that proclaim Jesus Christ as the Messiah are all the same as far as "level of" Christianity is concerned.

IMHO, this cannot be wholesale true. Concerning translations, those Bibles are all legitimate translations. They are all true. One may call six a half-dozen. The wording is different, but they are both true. Gnostic scriptures, on the other hand, teach doctrines in contradiction to the Bible. So they are not on the same level. As for the BoM, does it not depend on whether or not Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God? If he was, then it would be Christian scripture. If he was not, then no matter how well the book parallels the Bible, it would not be Christian scripture.

If I take your definition of what is Christian then the only Christian text is the Book of Mormon and possibly the KJV as far as it is translated correctly.

I could be wrong, but I'm led to believe that the church chooses to use the King James Version, but does not dismiss other translations. Part of the reason the church may adapt this version is that it's public domain, and thus, can be published with LDS notes, unhindered.

Okay, think of it this way - I claim to be Christian but I do not believe in the authority of Pope Benedict... so does that make me un-Christian? Of course not.

The correctness of practice/beliefs is not what makes you Christian. The belief in Jesus Christ as the Savior is what makes you Christian.

Yes and no. After all, God wants us to rightly divide his Word. So, he wants us to be right. Doctrine does matter. Whether or not a particular error is damnable is a different question--but getting truth right is surely important.

[Dr T]

Yes Ram, I have read it too.