Early Signs Of Canon Process For The Old Testament

• The Author Of Ezra Recognized The Pentateuch As Authoritative:

           -"Then Jeshua the son of Jozadak and his brethren the priests, and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel and his brethren, arose and built the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt offerings on it, as it is written in the Law of Moses the man of God." (Ezra 3:2)

• The Author Of Nehemiah Recognized The Pentateuch As Authoritative:

           -"Now all the people gathered together as one man in the open square that was in front of the Water Gate; and they told Ezra the scribe to bring the Book of the Law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded Israel." (Nehemiah 8:1)

• Joshua Added Further Content To The Book Of The Law:

           -"Then Joshua wrote these words in the Book of the Law of God. And he took a large stone, and set it up there under the oak that was by the sanctuary of the Lord." (Joshua 24:26)

• The Prophets Samuel And Jeremiah Put Into Writing Further Divine Revelation:

           -"Then Samuel explained to the people the behavior of royalty, and wrote it in a book and laid it up before the Lord. And Samuel sent all the people away, every man to his house." (1 Samuel 10:25)

           -"Thus speaks the Lord God of Israel, saying: ‘Write in a book for yourself all the words that I have spoken to you." (Jeremiah 30:2)

• The Books Of Chronicles Are Mentioned In 1 Kings:

           -"Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, how he made war and how he reigned, behold, they are written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel." (1 Kings 14:19)
           -"Now the rest of the acts of Rehoboam and all that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah?" (1 Kings 14:29)

• The Prophet Daniel Refers To The Writings Of Jeremiah As Inspired Scripture:

           -"in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, understood by the books the number of the years specified by the word of the Lord through Jeremiah the prophet, that He would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem." (Daniel 9:2)

• The Prophet Zechariah Implicitly Refers To The Writings Of Other Prophets Who Were Alive Beforehand:

           -"Yes, they made their hearts like flint, refusing to hear the law and the words which the Lord of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets. Thus great wrath came from the Lord of hosts." (Zechariah 7:12)

Does Genesis 15:6 Preclude Us Being Reckoned Righteous By Meritorious Works?

• Discussion:

          -Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers wrote an article on the text of Genesis 15:6 as it relates to justification by faith and how he thinks the text should be applied in soteriological discussions. Each of his comments are cited in bold and are followed with a critique:

          "Abraham is already a follower of God, someone who already has faith in him, and the context stresses Abraham’s good works and righteousness: (1) He defeated the evil kings. (2) He rescued Lot and the other captives. (3) He went to a priest of God and gave thanks for the victory. (4) He refused any reward from the wicked king of Sodom. (5) And so God himself promised to give Abraham a reward instead. (6) The fact that God is rewarding Abraham for what he has done shows this isn’t a case of a sinner coming to God and repenting so he can obtain forgiveness. It’s God rewarding a follower for faithful service. That means Abraham isn’t acquiring righteousness here for the first time. He is already righteous, as his actions have shown. Then Abraham believes the incredible promise that he will have a multitude of descendants, despite his age (cf. Rom. 4:19, Heb. 11:12), and God reckons that act of belief as a new act of righteousness on Abraham’s part."

          None of the above comments really address the text of Genesis 15:6 on its own terms. The "it" is a reference to Abraham's faith. His faith is the basis for receiving righteousness. That belief does not preclude the obedience of Abraham. His trust in God and His promises was the instrumental cause of him being counted righteous, not any good works that he did. 

 

          "Some translations bring this aspect out better than others. The New American Bible does a particularly good job. It says that the Lord “attributed it to him as an act of righteousness.” Notice, by the way, that Abraham’s act of faith also wasn’t generic in nature. Abraham already believed in and trusted God in a general way. Here he is believing something very specific: that God will give him a multitude of descendants—a point Paul recognizes when he uses the verse (Rom. 4:17-22). And notice that the righteousness isn’t a counterfactual, purely legal thing. Instead, believing God when he tells you he will do something is a righteous act. Abraham did something actually righteous here."

          There are translational differences. Many readings are legitimate. However, it is important to note that the addition of the word "act" is not present in the vast majority of translations. Moreover, it is absent from the Hebrew. The Hebrew word in Genesis 15:6 is "tsedaqah," which refers to justice or righteousness. It denotes a state of being righteous or just. It refers to what something is. The New English Translation has this footnote on Genesis 15:6:

           "tn The sentence begins with vav (ו) plus a perfect verb. It does not show simple sequence, which would have been indicated with a vav plus preterite as in the surrounding clauses. The nuance may be that Abram had already come to believe or did so while God was speaking. For a detailed discussion of the vav plus perfect construction in Hebrew narrative, see R. Longacre, “Weqatal Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose: A Discourse-modular Approach,” Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, 50-98. The verb אָמַן (ʾaman) occurs with a Niphal and Hiphil opposition. In the Niphal it means “to be faithful, reliable, firm, enduring.” While in the Hiphil, the form used here, it means “to consider or treat something as reliable, or dependable.” Abram regarded God as reliable for this promise; he believed."

           The Jewish Study Bible has this excerpt on Genesis 15:6:

           "With nothing more than an extravagant reiteration of the promise of offspring, Abram drops his question and trusts in the LORD. "And thus you find," observes an ancient midrash about this verse, "that our father Abraham inherited this world and the world-to-come only as a reward for the faith that he had" (Mek. of Rabbi Ishmael, beshallab 7). In the Tanakh, faith does not mean believing in spite of the evidence. It means trusting profoundly in a person, in this case the personal God who has reiterated His promise."

           Richard D. Phillips, in the book titled By Faith Alone, p. 81-82, expounds on Paul's usage of Genesis 15:6 in Romans 4:

           "Paul is contrasting two approaches to righteousness. The one is secured by works and the other by faith. The one is based on merit ("his due") and the other on grace ("as a gift")...Most significant is Paul's contrast between something that is earned, so that it is credited to the person "as his due," verses something that is received by faith, which is received "as a gift." In other words, Paul says that Abraham received righteousness not as something he did but because of God's gracious gift. Carson explains: "Romans 4:4 establishes that there is a crediting, an imputing, that means something is credited to your account that you do not deserve." This means that "when faith is imputed to Abraham as righteousness, it is unmerited, it is all of grace, because it is nothing more than believing God and his gracious promise." Paul's whole argument here is that while Abraham's believing is correlated to his being credited with righteousness, this is not because he did something to earn it."

           This line of reasoning employed by Jimmy Akin seems to reduce the promises made by God to Abraham to be something short of the gospel. Galatians 3:8, however, clearly says that gospel was announced to him in advance in seed form. Abraham looked forward to Jesus' day, and rejoiced (John 8:56-58).

Is Justification Before God Ongoing Or A One Time Act?

• Discussion:

          -Tim Staples of Catholic Answers wrote an article on how Roman Catholics should respond when critics cite Romans 5:1 as a supporting text for the doctrine of justification by faith alone. He tries really hard to sandwich the text to fit with Catholic theology, even though it does not. The author's claims are cited in bold and are followed by a critique:

          "First, as baptized Catholics, we can agree that we have been justified and we have been saved. Thus, in one sense, our justification and salvation is in the past as a completed action. The initial grace of justification and salvation we receive in baptism is a done deal. And Catholics do not believe we were partially justified or partially saved at baptism."

          Romans 5:1 says that we are justified before a holy God by faith. Romans 5:2 elaborates on that thought and states that we have been reconciled to Him. In other words, we can now approach God with confidence because of what Christ has done for us. Nowhere does Romans 5:1 speak of getting justified and saved "in a sense" at infant baptism. Such an assertion utterly misses the point of Romans 5:1 in its context. Faith is our point of access to God. In fact, the gospel presented by the Roman Catholic Church is so complicated that it would be virtually impossible to even accurately describe what it is on a witnessing tract!

          "This text indicates that after having received the grace of justification we now have access to God’s grace by which we stand in Christ and we can then rejoice in the hope of sharing God’s glory. That word “hope” indicates that what we are hoping for we do not yet possess (see Romans 8:24)."

           In the New Testament, the term "hope" does not denote a state of doubt or uncertainty. It is a confident expectation that things will turn out as God wills them.

          "The major part of the puzzle here that our Protestant friends are missing is that there are many biblical texts revealing both justification and salvation to have a future and contingent sense as well as these we have mentioned that show a past sense. In other words, justification and salvation also have a sense in which they are not complete in the lives of believers. Perhaps this is most plainly seen in Galatians 5:1-5."

           Justification is the first aspect of salvation. It is fully completed at the moment of our conversion. Sanctification will be completed at the end of our redemption. The idea of justification being "in a sense" incomplete should be rejected, unless we are referring to the evidential type spoken of in texts such as James 2:14-26.

         "The Greek word used in verse 6 [actually referring to Galatians 5:5] and here translated as “righteousness” is dikaiosunes, which can be translated either as “righteouness” or as “justification.” In fact, Romans 4:3, which we quoted above, uses a verb form of this same term for justification. Now the fact that St. Paul tells us we “wait for the hope of [justification]” is very significant."

          In Romans 4:3, the term "righteousness" is not a verb but a noun.

           "The truth is: this example of justification being in the future is not an isolated case. There are numerous biblical texts that indicate both justification and salvation to be future and contingent realities, in one sense, as well as past completed realities in another sense [Matthew 10:22; Romans 2:13-16; 6:16; 13:11; 1 Corinthians 5:5]."

           In what sense is the term "justification" being used in the above texts? If it is used in the sense of proved or vindication (i.e. evidence of a changed heart), then they do fit into a forensic justification framework.

           "While the Catholic Church agrees that Abraham was justified by faith in Genesis 15:6 as St. Paul said, we also note that Abraham was justified at other times in his life as well indicating justification to have an on-going aspect to it. Again, there is a sense in which justification is a past action in the life of believers, but there is another sense in which justification is revealed to be a process."

           This is nothing but circular reasoning. Even granting that Abraham was justified multiple times throughout his life, that does not prove he was justified in the sense of having been declared righteous in the sight of God. He could have been justified in an evidential sense, which we would expect to be ongoing. 

            "For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has taken all of Sacred Scripture into the core of her theology harmonizing all of the biblical texts. Thus, we can agree with our Protestant friends and say as Christians we have been (past tense) justified and saved through our faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. But we also agree with our Lord that there is another sense in which we are being saved and justified by cooperation with God’s grace in our lives, and we hope to finally be saved and justified by our Lord on the last day (Matthew 12:36-37)."

             The author would be correct only if he admitted that the Roman Catholic Church has tried to force a harmonization between its theology and biblical passages that contradict it. The one thing that he does here is resort to semantics. Romans 5:1 focuses on justification by faith, not the complexities Staples adds, like baptism or ongoing justification. Cornelis P. Venema offers this commentary on the meaning of being judged according to our works on the last day:

            "Paul regards justification as a thoroughly eschatological blessing...The notion of a final justification on the basis of works inevitably weakens the assertion that there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1). A final justification on the basis of works also undermines Paul’s bold declaration that no charge can be brought, now or in the future, against those who are Christ’s (Rom. 8:33–34). Rather than treating the final judgment as another chapter in the justification of believers, we should view Paul’s emphasis upon the role of works in this judgment in terms of his understanding of all that salvation through union with Christ entails. Because believers are being renewed by Christ’s Spirit, their acquittal in the final judgment will be a public confirmation of the genuineness of their faith and not a justifying verdict on the basis of works....these good works are the fruits of faith, not the basis for a future justification. For this reason, Paul speaks of a judgment “according to,” not “on the basis of” works."

Details On The Accuracy Of The New Testament

Archaeological discoveries have done much to confirm the historical accuracy of the Scriptures. Hammurabi, Sargon II, the Hittites, and Belshazzar are no longer problems to the historian. Garstang has now established the date of the Exodus on solid ground,12 which makes it possible to work out a consistent chronology from Abraham to Solomon. The large sums of money of which we sometimes read can be partly explained as required by the recurring changes in the value of money and partly as transcriptional errors. This latter suggestion applies also to the large armies of which we sometimes read. Robt. Dick Wilson shows that forty-some kings of Scripture have been found in archaeological research.13 Geo. L. Robinson, formerly of the Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Chicago, says: "No explicit contradiction of Scripture of any moment whatever moment has ever been found. More and more, scholars are coming to recognize the substantial verity of the Bible. And less and less do archaeologists endorse the evolutionary hypothesis of Higher Criticism to explain the growth of Law and religion in Israel."14

Similar solutions may be adopted for the problems that are brought forward from the New Testament...The "level place" in Luke 6:17 was probably on the same mountain as is mentioned in Matt. 5:1, and so the "Sermon" in the two gospels is the same sermon. There was an old Jericho and a new Jericho, and the blind man was probably between the two Jerichos (Matt 20:29; Mark 10:46; Luke 18:35).The fact that Matthew speaks of two men and Mark and Luke only of one may be explained on the ground of the particular interest of the writers. This is also true of the account of two (Matt. 8:28) or one (Mark 5:2; Luke 8:27) demon-possessed men in Decapolis. The so-called mistakes of Stephen (Acts 7) have been harmonized satisfactorily.15

Archaeological discoveries also confirm the truthfulness of the New Testament Quirinius (Luke 2:2) was apparently twice governor of Syria (B.C. 16-12 and 6-4), the latter being the time referred to by Luke. "Lysanias the tetrarch" is mentioned in an inscription on the site of Abilene at the time to which Luke refers. An inscription at Lystra, by the native Lycaonians, records the dedication of a statue to Zeus (Jupiter) and Hermes (Mercury), which shows that these gods were classed together in the local cult, as implied in Acts 14:12. Ramsay found that when Paul went from Iconium to Lystra he crossed from Phrygia into Lycaonia (Acts 14:6); but before this discovery every authoritative geographer taught that Acts was wrong.16 Luke calls the officials of Philippi "praetors," which is not technically correct, but Ramsay declares that the inscriptions indicate that the term was "frequently employed as a courtesy title for the superior magistrates of a Roman colony."17 An inscription from Paphos refers to the "proconsul Paulus," who has been identified at the Sergius Paulus of Acts 13:7.

Henry Clarence Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 92-94

Does God Infuse Righteousness Into Our Souls Or Declare Us To Be Righteous?

• Discussion:

           -Karlo Broussard of Catholic Answers wrote an article on how we should understand the word reckoned as translated in Romans 4:3. Are we to understand that term as a legal status that God declares us to be or is righteousness infused into our souls? His claims are cited in bold and are followed by a critique:

           "First, just because the Bible uses the language of God “reckoning” a person as righteous, it doesn’t follow that there is no ontological transformation—a change in what the sinner is. There is no reason why God’s declaration of our righteousness and our transformation by grace must be mutually exclusive. The two can be harmonized."

            The legal declaration of us being righteous in His sight (i.e. justification) is to be distinguished with the gradual process by which God makes us righteous (i.e. sanctification). He not only erases our record of transgressions against Him, but also transforms us to live in accordance with His will.

           "But God’s forgiveness of David’s sins [Romans 4:8, where Paul quotes Psalm 32:2] was not merely a legal declaration without some existential effect on David. To the contrary, David describes God’s forgiveness of his sins as being made “clean” and “whiter than snow” (51:7). And herein lies the key to God no longer reckoning David’s sin: the objective guilt of those sins had been removed. God’s reckoning was an evaluation that correctly corresponded to the objective reality of that which was being reckoned."

           The forgiveness of sins enables us to overcome personal guilt and be at peace with God. Everything that surrounds justification is not to be conflated with that instance itself. Forgiveness is an aspect of justification, but it does not make up its entirety.

           "There are other passages that fit the same pattern. For example, in Romans 8:18 Paul “considers” [logizomai] that our current sufferings are not worth comparing with our glory that is to be revealed in heaven. Paul’s mental evaluation of our present sufferings compared to our glory in heaven matches the objective reality about the two. In Romans 9:8, Paul “reckons” [logizomai] Abraham’s spiritual children as God’s children. Paul’s evaluation about Abraham’s spiritual children corresponds to what they really are: God’s children."

           Notice that in each of the above examples a reckoning according to reality takes place—a mental evaluation that correctly corresponds to reality. Never does the reckoning in these verses suggest a mere declaration that is not intended to match up to the reality. There are some passages in Scripture where people “reckon” something in a way that doesn’t match the true nature of the thing being reckoned (see Mark 15:28; Rom. 2:3). But in these cases the reckoning is seen as flawed."

           The King James Version translates Strong's G3049 (logizomai) in the following manner: think (9x), impute (8x), reckon (6x), count (5x), account (4x), suppose (2x), reason (1x), number (1x), miscellaneous (5x). It has a slightly wide semantic range of meaning (i.e. to reckon, count, compute, calculate).

           The term logizomai has many instances in which something is accounted, reckoned, or regarded in a manner that corresponds with reality. But this accounting term does not always have to carry that meaning. This is the grounds for the Apostle Paul’s argument in Romans 4.

           Interestingly, the form of logizomai that occurs in Romans 2:26 is an instance that can clearly be understood in a judicial or declarative sense. It would be absurd to assert that circumcision is infused into somebody. God treats a righteous man who is uncircumcised as if he is circumcised. 2 Timothy 4:16 also has a form of logizomai that can mean impute something on somebody’s behalf. So we can indeed interpret the Greek word in the sense of Christ’s righteousness being credited to our account. 

           Furthermore, opponents of penal substitutionary theory have the dilemma of explaining what it means for God to not impute sin to believers in passages such as Psalm 32:1-2, Romans 4:7-8, and 2 Corinthians 5:19. God credits righteousness to the ungodly "apart from works." Their sins have been "forgiven" and "covered" (Romans 4:7-8). This source sheds more light on the meaning of logizomai in Romans 4: 

          "...In the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint), the term often appears where individuals must treat a person or object as if it were something other than what it is inherently. For example, when the Levites received tithes, they were not to treat these tithes as actual tithes that had already been devoted to the Lord. Instead, they had to regard these tithes as their income and then pay a tithe to the Lord themselves from what had been given to them. Inherently, what the people gave were tithes. But the Levites reckoned them as income (Num. 18:25–32). Taking this all together, we see that in Romans 4 logizomai means to credit something to a person’s account and regard that person not according to what he has done or who he is but according to what is credited to his account."

           "So, when we come to Romans 4:3, where God “reckons” Abraham as righteous, it’s reasonable to conclude, in light of the foregoing analysis, that God evaluates Abraham to be righteous because in reality his faith truly has a righteous quality to it, thus making Abraham ontologically righteous. To say that God “reckons” Abraham as righteous even though he’s not, you either have to say that God was wrong in his reckoning or that you’re using the term reckon in a way that Paul does not. No Protestant wants to concede the first horn of the dilemma. And I doubt that many want to concede the second. So, rather than undermining the Catholic view of justification, God’s reckoning of Abraham as righteous in Romans 4:3 supports it."

           Following is an excerpt from John Gill's Exposition of the Bible on the text of Romans 4:4:

           "of debt: it must be his due, as wages are to an hireling. Now this was not Abraham's case, which must have been, had he been justified by works; he had a reward reckoned to him, and accounted his, which was God himself, "I am thy shield, and exceeding, great reward", Genesis 15:1; which must be reckoned to him, not of debt, but of grace; wherefore it follows, that he was justified, not by works, but by the grace of God imputed to him; that which his faith believed in for righteousness. The distinction of a reward of grace, and of debt, was known to the Jews; a the one they called פרס, the other שכר: the formerF4 they say is הגמול, "a benefit", which is freely of grace bestowed on an undeserving person, or one he is not obliged to; the other is what is given, בדין, "of debt", in strict justice."

           We are under no obligation to conclude that God was wrong to credit a righteous status to Abraham even though he was not. The Lord knows what is in our hearts. Believers are covered in the righteousness of Jesus Christ. His righteousness belongs to us. This "legal transaction" is not a lie just because it is a gift. This is not a matter of legal fiction. Christ is a real Mediator. Christ is truly our Advocate. He truly obeyed the Law perfectly. He paid the penalty for sin on our behalf. These points are all rooted in fact.

Religious Titles Of Honor In The Roman Catholic Hierarchy

           Roman Catholic priests are addressed by the name of "Father" as a formal religious title of honor. In addition, the pope uses the title "Holy Father." It is believed that doing so is following the custom of the apostles, since spiritual fatherhood was a known concept to them (Luke 16:24; 1 Corinthians 4:15). Therefore, not using such a title as "Father" is viewed as failing to acknowledge the gifts and responsibilities that God has bestowed on ordained clergy members. However, these titles of exaltation become problematic in light of Jesus Christ's teaching on this matter:

           "But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." (Matthew 23:8-12)

           The context of this passage focuses on religious elitism and hypocrisy. The scribes and Pharisees loved being the center of attention. They did good works with the intention of receiving praise from other people. That is, in essence, what those men craved. The scribes and Pharisees were outwardly righteous, but were depraved to the core of their being. They had no love in their hearts for God or other people. Jesus, knowing all things in His divinity, was insulted by their behavior. Human pride is an affront to the Triune majesty.

           True greatness lies in servitude and genuine love for God and others. Jesus' critique of the religious leaders of His day underscores the emptiness of outward righteousness without inner transformation. Pride and hypocrisy are fundamentally at odds with the heart of the gospel. Christ's message is just as relevant today as it was when first given. Human pride is one of the pinnacle problems existing throughout the ages. It has always been a competition of who is the greatest or who gets to control who. We all are thrilled to receive words of praise, but not so much words of criticism or rebuke.

            It is appropriate to recognize an individual as being a spiritual father, a teacher, bishop, elder, overseer, pastor, or a deacon. It is proper to note the academic qualifications of other people. Christ was undoubtedly using hyperbole when saying that no one on earth should be called father. His intent was to further strengthen His denunciation of self-righteousness. However, there is no biblical warrant for emphasizing titles to the point of self-exaltation. Interestingly, we never see people in the New Testament called "Father David," "Reverend Peter," "Doctor Timothy," etc. We have no business claiming for ourselves a deference that we do not deserve. The church is God's kingdom.

           We are "brethren" in Jesus Christ. That would logically deemphasize any role of exaltation in the church. No one has intrinsic superiority over another. The point is that we are all servants of Christ, not one another. He is our Master to whom absolute allegiance is owed. We are not to use titles to call attention to ourselves. They are not to be used to call attention to our accomplishments. God already knows our hearts. He knows whether or not we are faithful to Him. That should be our utmost priority in life and service. There is nothing scriptural about leaders in the church requiring others to address them by special titles of honor.

           Matthew 23:5-13 specifically forbids the love of flattering religious titles and believers striving to be placed on a pedestal. The underlying problem with insisting that we be addressed by formal titles of honor in the church is our tendency to become puffed-up. Further, ministers should not demand to be addressed by a particular title, especially when there may be older and more accomplished individuals than themselves in the assembly. Ministers may not even know everyone around themselves personally. God honors those who are humble. He despises arrogance. It is those characterized by that vice He judges.

        Lastly, nothing could be more haughty than the pope being called "Holy Father." That title in Scripture is applied only to God (John 17:11). Only He is worthy of that kind of exaltation (Revelation 15:4). It would seem that a true man of God would shutter at the idea of such a title being applied to himself by others or even thinking himself fit to possess it. No man who claims to represent Christ on this earth should feel comfortable with being called "Holy Father." If Roman Catholic officials truly are humble people, then why not give up any special titles of honor that they currently wield? Why not strive to be different than the scribes and Pharisees that Jesus Christ scolded?

A Damning Mormon Quotable

"I have a hard time with historians because they idolize the truth. The truth is not uplifting; it destroys. I could tell most of the secretaries in the church office building that they are ugly and fat. That would be the truth, but it would hurt and destroy them. Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting."

Elder Boyd K. Packer, Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History, p. 103, fn 22

Addressing The Mormon Dogma Of Celestial Marriage

• Discussion:

           -A peculiar concept of Mormonism is that of celestial marriage. It is believed by Mormons that husbands will reign as gods in their own universes with their families and procreate for eternity. However, the teachings of Jesus Christ relating to the status of marriage in the resurrection of the dead is problematic for such an idea:

           "Some Sadducees (who say that there is no resurrection) came to Jesus, and began questioning Him, saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves behind a wife and leaves no child, his brother should marry the wife and raise up children to his brother. “There were seven brothers; and the first took a wife, and died leaving no children. “The second one married her, and died leaving behind no children; and the third likewise; and so all seven left no children. Last of all the woman died also. “In the resurrection, when they rise again, which one’s wife will she be? For all seven had married her.” Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God? “For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." (Mark 12:18-25, emphasis added)

           The question posed by the Sadducees reflected the Jewish custom of passing childless married women whose husbands were deceased on to younger brothers in the same family. Christ answered their faulty premise, pointing out that there will be no marriages taking place in heaven. Humans will become immortal like the angels. There will be no need to produce offspring. See also the parallel text of Luke 20:34-36. 

           What takes place in the heavenly realm is quite unlike our experiences on earth. Jesus continues His reprimanding of the Sadducees with the following remarks:

           "But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; you are greatly mistaken.” (Mark 12:26-27)

           God will give us much more fulfilling things in the eternal state than any temporary pleasures available to us in this life. He does value the institution of marriage, but it will not exist in heaven. The same is true of family units. 

           The Mormon concept of celestial marriage expressly contradicts the teaching of Christ. In fact, wives who lost their husbands on earth and chose to remarry would be guilty of committing adultery because according to Mormon theology, they would be forever bound to their first spouse.

Luke 1:1-4 And The Reliability Of The Gospels

        "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:1-4)

        If Luke was able to select from a wide variety of sources in putting together an accurate account of the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ, then it stands to reason that he had access to other earlier material. He also would have had contact with direct eyewitnesses to the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:6).

        Luke's preface shows us that the four gospel accounts are rooted in history. He carefully sifted through oral traditions in compiling a truthful narrative. Luke did not make up things to fit an underlying agenda, but researched various claims to ensure the credibility of his message. He intended that his work be understood as history. 

        His gospel account is not a work of fiction or myth. His account is not a forgery or intended to be deceptive. Luke told the person to whom he had dedicated his work that it was to be understood as what actually took place. Thus, human imagination was not used to fill in unknown details. The author did not go out of his way to embellish things.

        William Barclay wrote in his Commentary on the Gospel of Luke:

        "It is the best bit of Greek in the New Testament. Luke uses here the very form of introduction which the great Greek historians all used. Herodotus begins, "These are the researches of Herodotus of Halicarnassus." A much later historian, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, tells us at the beginning of his history, "Before beginning to write I gathered information, partly from the lips of the most learned men with whom I came into contact, and partly from histories written by Romans of whom they spoke with praise." So Luke, as he began his story in the most sonorous Greek, followed the highest models he could find. It is as if Luke said to himself, "I am writing the greatest story in the world and nothing but the best is good enough for it."

        Craig Keener, in his IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, notes in regard to the prologue of Luke's gospel:

        "...Ancients often trained their memories in ways that could put modern intellectuals to shame. Orators could recite speeches hours in length; one exceptional orator even claimed to recall samples of scores of practice speeches offered by classmates decades before. Such memory was not the exclusive domain of the educated; uneducated oral storytellers could recite full works like Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey from memory. To object to all such examples because this one is Greek, that one is late, and so forth, is to dismiss all extant evidence in favor of pure speculation. We should expect the material to have been preserved. Because Luke writes while eyewitnesses are still alive, and because they were accorded a place of prominence in the early church, we may be confident that his traditions are reliable. (Eyewitness sources were accepted as the best.)"

        The Historian Daniel J. Boorstin, in his work The Discoverers, p. 480, recounts how the ancient world depended so heavily on memory in daily life:

        "Before the printed book, Memory ruled daily life and the occult learning, and fully deserved the name later applied to printing, the "art preservative of all arts" (Ars artium omnium conservatrix). The memory of individuals and of communities carried knowledge through time and space. For millennia personal Memory reigned over entertainment and information, over the perpetuation and perfection of crafts, the practice of commerce, the conduct of professions. By Memory and in Memory the fruits of education were garnered, preserved, and stored. Memory was an awesome faculty which everyone had to cultivate, in ways and for reasons we have long since forgotten. In these last five hundred years we see only pitiful relics of the empire and the power of Memory."

        This would be a strong indication that the underlying traditions on which the gospels rest are reliable. The text of Luke 1:1-4 gives us an idea as to how the authors of these four narratives went about compiling their narratives. The eye-witnesses to Jesus' bodily resurrection lived in a culture that was heavily reliant on the mental faculty of memory. We, therefore, have good reason to take the four canonical gospels as reliable accounts of the life and teachings of Christ.

A Philosophical Argument For The Immateriality Of The Soul

"...in metaphysics, he held the view that ordinary objects (tables, chairs, etc.) are ‘logical fictions’, and that what exists “in the strict and philosophical sense” are parcels of matter. Parcels of matter cannot lose parts and continue to exist as the same things, according to Chisholm. But what we think of as ordinary objects are gaining and losing parts all the time, he noted. Some molecules that once composed the table in front of me no longer do so. They have been chipped off, and the table worn away with time. The same holds for human bodies. They gain and lose parts all the time, and thus for Chisholm, human bodies don’t persist through time “in the strict and philosophical sense.” But persons – whatever they are – do persist through changes in the matter that composes a body. Therefore, he concluded, persons are not identical with their bodies, nor with any part of the body that can undergo change."

Argument articulated by Roderick Chisholm
https://philosophynow.org/issues/75/On_Roderick_Chisholm