Interesting conversion story

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Depending on which Bible translation you read, Christ's answer to "Which of them--those 7 guys--will be her husband in the resurrection?" was "None of them" because "In the resurrection, THEY won't have marriage ceremonies."

But each of them were already married to the women. Did you forget that part of the story?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Y
The verses I was referring to are the verses that those Sadducees were also referring to: The verses in the Book of Tobit.

And do you believe that this book is part of the inspired canon? I don't nor does Judaism consider it canonical.

[cheachea]

People are Not Married in Heaven Period.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

But each of them were already married to the women. Did you forget that part of the story?

No, the "scriptures" the Sadducees were plagiarizing the story from don't say that, but the Sadducees made the same mistake you did. According to OT law, none of the brothers had really been the woman's husband (each died on the wedding day, before the honeymoon). Anyone who studied Tobit carefully would have realized that.
The Sadducees, and you, didn't "get it."

But Jesus knew both the scriptures and the power of God quite well, and therefore gave the answer He did.
None of the brothers had really been the woman's husband in mortality--but in the Sadducees' incorrect version, they claimed otherwise. That's why Jesus said they didn't know the scripture.

Jesus knew that God has the power to enable married people to stay married in the resurrection. But the Sadducees didn't believe that. That's why He said they didn't know the power of God.

[Sir]

Originally Posted by cheachea

People are Not Married in Heaven Period.

delete............

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

And do you believe that this book is part of the inspired canon?

What I believe is irrelevant to the issue. What's important is that the Sadducees believed Tobit was scripture, and Jesus apparently thought so, too, since His reply to them referred to it.

I don't nor does Judaism consider it canonical.

Currently, that is probably true. But again, irrelevant. The relevant question is whether the average 1st-century Jew, particularly the Sadducees, considered it to be scripture. Evidence says they did.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

What I believe is irrelevant to the issue.

It certainly is relevant to the issue because if you don't even believe that it is scripture then why use it to try and back up your case? That makes no sense at all.

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

What's important is that the Sadducees believed Tobit was scripture, and Jesus apparently thought so, too, since His reply to them referred to it.

The "Tobit" is not even part of the Jewish cannon so why do you think that Jesus was referring to the "Tobit" as scripture?

[MacG]

Did you see my post above between Billy's two posts(post 16?)? Was I just too obtuse to reply? My Doctor said the other day that I was morbidly obtuse.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

It certainly is relevant to the issue because if you don't even believe that it is scripture then why use it to try and back up your case?

Tobit doesn't need to currently be considered canonized scripture in order to explain what Jesus meant when he said what He said to the Sadducees. What's relevant is:

a) Whether the ancient Sadducees called it scripture, as they evidently did from the context in Matt. ;
b) What Jesus was referring to when He said the Sadducees misunderstood both the scriptures and the power of God.

That makes no sense at all.

Now you can see that it makes perfect sense.

The "Tobit" is not even part of the Jewish cannon so why do you think that Jesus was referring to the "Tobit" as scripture?

"The Book of Tobit is listed in the canon of the Councils of Hippo (393 AD), Carthage (397 AD), and Florence (1442), and is part of the canon of both the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Churches...fragments of Tobit were among the Dead Sea Scrolls...Tobit may have been considered historical by ancient Jewish rabbinic scholars, as a truncated Aramaic version of Tobit is included in Midrash Berei**** Rabbah, an aggadic commentary on the Book of Genesis compiled circa 400–600 AD. It was also considered part of the Greek Hebrew Bible (the Septuagint)...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Tobit

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Tobit doesn't need to currently be considered canonized scripture in order to explain what Jesus meant when he said what He said to the Sadducees. What's relevant is:

a) Whether the ancient Sadducees called it scripture, as they evidently did from the context in Matt. ;
b) What Jesus was referring to when He said the Sadducees misunderstood both the scriptures and the power of God.

Jesus wasn't referring to the "Tobit" as scripture since it is not scripture.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

"The Book of Tobit is listed in the canon of the Councils of Hippo (393 AD), Carthage (397 AD), and Florence (1442), and is part of the canon of both the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Churches...fragments of Tobit were among the Dead Sea Scrolls...Tobit may have been considered historical by ancient Jewish rabbinic scholars, as a truncated Aramaic version of Tobit is included in Midrash Berei**** Rabbah, an aggadic commentary on the Book of Genesis compiled circa 400–600 AD. It was also considered part of the Greek Hebrew Bible (the Septuagint)...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Tobit

And don't forget to read the second line of the quote that you just gave me.


"It is listed as a book of the "Apocrypha" in Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England.[2] Tobit is regarded by Protestants as apocryphal because it was not included within the Tanakh nor considered canonical by Judaism."

[Sir]

Originally Posted by Billyray

And don't forget to read the second line of the quote that you just gave me.


"It is listed as a book of the "Apocrypha" in Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England.[2] Tobit is regarded by Protestants as apocryphal because it was not included within the Tanakh nor considered canonical by Judaism."

So because man deems something to NOT be scripture, it isn't possible for it to be scripture (ie. truth of God)?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Sir

So because man deems something to NOT be scripture, it isn't possible for it to be scripture (ie. truth of God)?

Do you believe that the "Tobit" is scripture?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Do you believe that the "Tobit" is scripture?

It's called the BOOK of Tobit I think. The Sadducees who tried to trick Jesus borrowed a story from it and used it as the basis of the tale they told Jesus. Jesus told them they understood neither the scriptures nor the power of God.

Whether Jews in general considered Tobit to be part of their canon is irrelevant to the "There's no such thing as married people in heaven" fallacy. The fact is that Jesus told the Sadducees who were questioning Him that their understanding of it was incorrect, because even though they CLAIMED that all 7 brothers were married to the woman, it wasn't true because each of them had died on their wedding day. Therefore NONE of the 7 would be her husband in the resurrection. In the Tobit story, the eighth man to come along DID become her husband, and she lived happily ever after as a result. That 8th man was sent to her by an angel of God, who protected him from being killed by the evil spirit. Thus, none of the 7 would be her husband in the resurrection, but the 8th man COULD be.

[Sir]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Do you believe that the "Tobit" is scripture?

Do you ever answer a question posed to you before trying to ask a question?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Sir

Do you ever answer a question posed to you before trying to ask a question?

You are being evasive. Here is the question again for you.

Do you believe that the "Tobit" is scripture?

[MacG]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

It's called the BOOK of Tobit I think. The Sadducees who tried to trick Jesus borrowed a story from it and used it as the basis of the tale they told Jesus. Jesus told them they understood neither the scriptures nor the power of God.

Whether Jews in general considered Tobit to be part of their canon is irrelevant to the "There's no such thing as married people in heaven" fallacy. The fact is that Jesus told the Sadducees who were questioning Him that their understanding of it was incorrect, because even though they CLAIMED that all 7 brothers were married to the woman, it wasn't true because each of them had died on their wedding day. Therefore NONE of the 7 would be her husband in the resurrection. In the Tobit story, the eighth man to come along DID become her husband, and she lived happily ever after as a result. That 8th man was sent to her by an angel of God, who protected him from being killed by the evil spirit. Thus, none of the 7 would be her husband in the resurrection, but the 8th man COULD be.

If that be true then Jesus would have said You don't know the scriptures for she IS the 8th man's wife for God is the the God of the living not the dead. Tobit is not a parable.

They clearly are not talking about Tobit.

The Saducee's 'trap' was about the resurrection. They were in a dead lock of proof texts with the Pharisees and were trying to show their own that Jesus did not know what he was talking about.

Perhaps the Saducees got the idea from Tobit but added the twist of consummated marriages, knowing that if they were not valid marriages the Resurrection Trap would not work.

"What about the seven brothers in Tobit? Whose wife will she be in this, this supposed resurrection?"
"He's no dummy. He'll just say they were not valid marriages, he knows the law."
"Ah! He knows the law! We say that we had "a friend" (wink wink, nudge nudge), seven of them really, all brothers consummated their wedding ceremonies with her just like the law requires before each of them died. Then whose bride will she be in this supposed 'resurrection'?"
"YES! If all marriages are valid then the trap exists. BRILLIANT!! We finally got him!"
"Yes but don't say 'supposed' resurrection. It can sound condescending and we are anything but."

Their scriptural error was denying the resurrection nor knowing the power of God to resurrect and to make the wise into fools.

[Sir]

Originally Posted by Billyray

You are being evasive. Here is the question again for you.

Do you believe that the "Tobit" is scripture?

Oh. So you are being evasive by ignoring my question.

Got it.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by MacG

If that be true then Jesus would have said You don't know the scriptures for she IS the 8th man's wife for God is the the God of the living not the dead.

Not necessarily. Their question was "WHICH OF THE SEVEN will be her husband in the resurrection?" and the correct answer to that was exactly what Jesus said: None of them.

They clearly are not talking about Tobit.

Seems to me they obviously were basing their trap on the Tobit story. What are the chances that it was just a random coincidence that these Sadducees just happened to know 7 brothers who all married the same woman because each husband died? Do you know what the odds are of such a situation actually happening in the lifetime of those Sadducees? I bet if you looked up the recorded marriages in Jerusalem between 20 A.D. and 30 A.D., you'd find ZERO that happened the way the Sadducees "claimed" to have personal knowledge about.

Plus, evidence shows that Sadducees were familiar with the Book of Tobit, even if most of them didn't consider it to be canonized scripture.

What seems most likely to me is that these Sadducees ripped off the Tobit story and tried to p*** it off as something that really happened to friends of theirs. I guess they ***umed that Jesus wasn't familiar with Tobit, and they hoped to trap Him into an answer they could use to accuse Him of something.

But Jesus was pretty wise, and well-read. He saw through their trap like He always did in these cases.

I see you have proposed a very similar scenario below.

The Saducee's 'trap' was about the resurrection. They were in a dead lock of proof texts with the Pharisees and were trying to show their own that Jesus did not know what he was talking about.

No argument from me on that.

Perhaps the Saducees got the idea from Tobit but added the twist of consummated marriages, knowing that if they were not valid marriages the Resurrection Trap would not work.

Makes sense to me.

"What about the seven brothers in Tobit? Whose wife will she be in this, this supposed resurrection?"
"He's no dummy. He'll just say they were not valid marriages, he knows the law."
"Ah! He knows the law! We say that we had "a friend" (wink wink, nudge nudge), seven of them really, all brothers consummated their wedding ceremonies with her just like the law requires before each of them died. Then whose bride will she be in this supposed 'resurrection'?"
"YES! If all marriages are valid then the trap exists. BRILLIANT!! We finally got him!"
"Yes but don't say 'supposed' resurrection. It can sound condescending and we are anything but."

Their scriptural error was denying the resurrection nor knowing the power of God to resurrect and to make the wise into fools.

An entertaining version of what happened. I like it even if I don't agree with a few small parts of it.

[MacG]

The Saducee's 'trap' was about the resurrection. They were in a dead lock of proof texts with the Pharisees and were trying to show their own that Jesus did not know what he was talking about.

No argument from me on that.

Perhaps the Saducees got the idea from Tobit but added the twist of consummated marriages, knowing that if they were not valid marriages the Resurrection Trap would not work.

Makes sense to me.

So are we down to none of the husbands are her husband in the resurrection?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by MacG

So are we down to none of the husbands are her husband in the resurrection?

We are down to 'none of the 7 mentioned by the Sadducees will be her husband in the resurrection.'

I think our main disagreement is on whether Jesus was confining His comment about the power of God to the question of whether God has the power to resurrect people, or whether He also referred to God's power to keep people married in the resurrection.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Sir

Oh. So you are being evasive by ignoring my question.

Got it.

It is a simple question, one I am sure you are able to answer.

Do you believe that the "Tobit" is scripture?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Sir

Oh. So you are being evasive by ignoring my question.

Got it.

Here was the question that you asked me.

Originally Posted by Sir

So because man deems something to NOT be scripture, it isn't possible for it to be scripture (ie. truth of God)?

No I don't believe that the Tobit is scripture. Now that I answered your question let's see if you answer my question whether or not you believe the Tobit is scripture.

[nrajeffreturns]

Here's a question for ya, Billy:

Why should the book of *** be included in the canon, but not the book of Tobit?

[Sir]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Here was the question that you asked me.

No I don't believe that the Tobit is scripture. Now that I answered your question let's see if you answer my question whether or not you believe the Tobit is scripture.

Not surprising that you didn't actually answer MY question. You answered the question you wish I had asked. Ironic tactic coming from an anti-Mormon.