Jenda
-
Posts
1542 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Jenda
-
-
No problem, Pam.
I suggest for Jenda and those responding to her that all such discussion that is unrelated to the OP be done in PM or elsewhere. Let's not drag down this thread with side snarks from either side.
I apologize for getting drawn into a fight and responding in kind. I came to discuss valid issues surrounding this topic and am sorry that a few questions has led to such nasty postings. If thekabalist wishes not to discuss the issues surrounding the topic, that is fine.
-
Jenda right now you are the only one debating it. Thekabalist was invited here and we like having him here. But I would also question your agenda as you haven't been on this site in how long? So I question why now?
I can discuss the issue with you in a PM, where those who are upset because I have asked a question won't butt in with issues that are not related.
-
Wow. Jenda is so mean, not even Heather will be his friend. Is this like the old joke, "Will Rogers never met So-and-so"?
(I'll be your friend, Jenda!)
Thanks! (Actually, I am a she.
) -
Mormonmusic, when it comes to conversion experiences, the normal pattern is to sense conviction of sin, combined with a sense that God is calling. With repentence comes the tremendous sense of being clean and pure before God. At this point, rather than saying they found truth, they are more likely to say they've found God.
Amen! When I was RLDS I could not say I was saved. It was just such absolutely foreign language to me, but yet I had an experience that most Evangelical Christians would classify as a salvation event. My heart was changed from stone to flesh and I have lived for Christ since the mid 70s. I have had other such 'saving' events. Sometimes I think I'm the only person who's been saved multiple times (even though I never was unsaved inbetween). I have learned to call these events "epiphanies", and recognized that what I have experienced was when Biblical truths finally made themselves clear through the muddied beliefs and doctrine I was holding to help guide me to more Biblical truths God wanted me to know. I know I have lots more truths to be awakened to, and my prayer is that I'm always open to where God wants to draw me and not put up resistance because I like where I'm at.
-
Well, yes, but whether it was asked before matters if it was already answered before. Unlike the last inhospitable place, where this was asked, this particular forum is not a debate forum. You are welcome to discuss these things, but just keep that in mind. We will take appropriate action if there is even a hint of harassment towards our distinguished guest.
See, here we believe whole heartedly that the Book of Mormon is true, and that it is an ancient Hebrew record of God's dealings in ancient America. So, we are not surprised, when proper names appear to be Hebrew or Semitic, at the very least. Thekabalist has adequately explained how he derives at his interpretations, and also admits that they are highly speculative. We are okay with that.
It's still pretty interesting, wouldn't you say?
Take Abinadi, for example. When it was first offered for him to tell us the meaning, Pam accidental misspelled the name as "Abinidai" (see post #4). There was no way for thekabalist to look up the name in the Book of Mormon and find out what happened to him, because that's not how it is spelled. Yet here is his answer.
If you know any thing about Abinadi, you will at least be impressed at the fact that his name suggests that he was persecuted. He was in fact burned to death for his prophecies.
Regards,
Vanhin
And my question specifically related to how much of the context he took into account when he assigned meaning to that name.
If you decide this is not a debatable area, that is fine, I follow the rules (I was a moderator here for 2 to 3 years, after all), and the discussion is interesting, but sometimes questions need to be asked.
-
Yes it is a valid question. And this is why it was answered in anticipation in the first post. But when you say you are confused about it when you asked the same question at the other forum and received an explanation then I have good reason to question your motives. If you did get an answer before why come here and make it look like you didn't know anything about the process? Or if the answer before wasn't satisfactory why not mention it in this post? I may be wrong but it seems to me that there is a hidden agenda here. Still, back to the subject I have no reason to transliterate your name into Hebrew and try to apply meaning to it when your name is not of Hebrew origin. In fact I doubt that I could find any meaning at all. But in the case of the BoM there are certain transliterations which even match the context of the book. Still I acknowledge that it is speculative. I said so in the very first post and in boldface! But scholars do this all the time. I've never seen anyone question those who transliterate Jesus into Yehoshua or Yeshua or Yeshu and yet the truth is that nobody knows what the real name of Jesus was in Hebrew. Same goes for the other characters of the NT. And while it is speculative it is still appreciated by scholars so are you not using double standards because of your belief that the BoM is not of Hebrew origin?
b'shalom!
There are lots of people who question why Yeshua or Yehoshua is transliterated Jesus into Yeshua or Yehoshua, and insist on only using Yehoshua or Yeshua. If you looked around on the other board, you'd find many such discussions. The issue, though, is not that things are transliterated, but that meanings are being assigned to transliterated names. Pointing out parallels is one thing, assigning meanings seems to go beyond what would be appropriate under the circumstances.
-
Jenda,
Weren't you the same person who asked me this in the other forum?
I don't see a reason to be confused when at the very first post I disclaimed that this can at many times be highly speculative. Anyway, I am assuming that the origin of the word is Hebrew and that the word has been transliterated into English. Then I am transliterating it back to Hebrew to see what the possible roots could be in Hebrew.
The idea is to show the possible meaning of such names and to prove that they could easily have come from Hebrew root-words. Does this mean that all the names mean precisely what I suppose? Of course not.
b' shalom!
Whether or not I, or anyone else, asked you this question before, it is still a valid question. If you transliterated my screen name into Hebrew and tried to assign a meaning to it, it would certainly not convey a valid meaning. As you said, it is all conjecture. How much of the conjecture is based on the textual story you are taking the name from?
-
Jenda, sounds mostly like my #1 & #5, and some affirmation of the LDS reliance on personal spiritual revelation. Yes?
Out of your list, I think that #1 and #5 are key. The others might help guide and define, but the truth has to come from God. I do have to say that I don't believe that reliance on personal spiritual revelation is an LDS thing. I don't believe that anyone can be a true Christian without revelation that Jesus is the Christ.
-
As you might already know, I'm an LDS person.
There have been discussions about the LDS view of determining truth from error. However it's dawned on me that I never learned how non-LDS churches say a truth-seeker should discover the truth. Can anyone share the process of discovering the truth according to your own, non-LDS demonination? If you could indicate your denomination in your post, that would be helpful.
I am not a member of a denomination, so perhaps my answer doesn't count, since it is based on personal experience, but I'd say that it happens when you've prayed and studied the scriptures and you have an enlightenment of mind. Suddenly, everything fits and you see things in a new light. I believe that the Bible interprets the Bible, so when you know everything the Bible has to say on a matter, then you know the truth.
-
•The Bible's contents was determined by the Catholic Church with the HS's guidance.
This is not true. There technically was no Catholic Church at that time. There was just local assemblies very loosely bound. This is just something that the RCC says to try to disavow the authority of Protestant religions. The Bible was assembled under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (God), not a church body.
-
thekabbalist, I am confused by how you derive meanings from words when you admittedly use transliteration from the English word contained in the Book of Mormon to get to a Jewish-sounding word. If the word/name was a direct translation of a Jewish word, I can understand just translating it back, but how do you assign a meaning to a phonetical Jewish word?
-
To me, the Nicene Creed seems soundly based on scripture -- as do other attempts to describe the true nature of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. And these other conceptions aren't inconsistent with the Nicene Creed. All make sense when you hear the arguments and the scriptures used to back them up. And I've believed in both the Nicene Creed and the Godhead concept at different points in my life as a result.
What disturbs me is why such a Creed was necessary in the first place. The Bible is considered the ultimate souce of knowledge, so why wasn't it sufficient to settle this question -- without the Nicene Creed that came from it?
There are probably plausible answers I haven't considered, and I'd like to hear them. I hope my question doesn't offend anyone -- it's one that always comes to mind when the issue of the Nicene Creed comes up, and I've never had the benefit of asking informed people, who accept the Nicene Creed, what they think.
And this is one of those threads where I think I'll be listening more than talking...:)
The Nicene Creed was a result of heretical teachings. In particular, Bishop Arius, out of a desire to explain Jesus to polytheistic pagans, chose to emphasize God's oneness, by saying that Jesus was subordinate to the Father. Fast forward 1600 years, and my own church developed a creed (Statement of Faith), primarily as a reaction against the modalism of Oneness Pentecostalism.
I would say not just that, but because at the time, there wasn't a Bible to put in everyone's hand and it (the NC) was a clear, concise statement of belief that could be referred back to that was supported by accepted NT texts.
Are the D&C primarily answers to questions that Joseph Smith and other church leaders raised?
Yes. Many of the sections in the D&C were direct answers to direct questions asked to, or by, Joseph Smith in the early formative time of the church.
-
I've been in and out over the years, lurking. How are you doing?
-
T.D. Jakes preaches a prosperity gospel, and I don't believe that that is a correct interpretation of the gospel.
-
Do you find it strange that not a single bible author, no prophet, apostle or even the Savior had an understanding of the today's dogma of the Trinity?
I find the accounts of Christ's baptism in Matthew (3:16, 17), Mark (1:10, 11), and Luke (3:21, 22) to be exceptional demonstrations of the Trinity in action.
-
Dr. Who is the only show I watch (and I love it!) but I "hear" a lot of shows that my hubby and daughter watch.Doctor Who
Bob
-
<div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'>
Why do you accept the Bible?
Because the same spirit that brought me to Christ dwells within me adding testimony that the Bible is true.
Interesting, because the same spirit that brought me to Christ still dwells within me too, adding testimony that the Book of Mormon and others writings written by men who were ALSO inspired by Christ.
Which I suppose pretty much means that unless you come to know like I do, or I come to know like you, we'll just have to wait until final judgment to hear the verdict from Jesus Christ.
And btw, I thought about saying I already know, because I have already received revelation from Christ, but then I thought that would sound kinda tacky, since you would say that too.
I appreciate you being my brother in Christ, Ray.
As I have read through the BoM in the past, I felt that there were some passages that were inspired. I haven't had the opportunity to go back and read through it to see if they strike me the same now, but I have no problem believing that God inspired whoever wrote the BoM in places. I find inspiration in many places, though, and do not consider them all to be scripture. So I see no problem with accepting those passages in the BoM that give spiritual inspiration.
-
I do not believe, and never have, that God has a body. I believe, and always have, that we are created in the spiritual image of God.So what "form" do you perceive God to be in now, Jenda?
And btw, I'm simply wondering if you perceive God to be without form, and without body, parts, or passions, in agreement with the doctrine from other Christians, considering the fact that you once accepted the idea that God is in form like Man... or more correctly stated, that Man is in form like God?
-
LOL. My 16 year old daughter said she liked it but it had so many NT parallels.I found the Christian symbolism fairly mild...it was only obvious in the death of the lion. I actually thought his resurrection sort of cheapened his sacrifice though.
In any case, I liked the movie alot, but didn't love it. It was alot of fun to watch, and although I like fantasy movies, it seemed the huge number of races of Narnia didn't have much depth to them (as in Lord of the Rings). However, being aimed at kids, that is understandable.
-
Yeah, that about captures it. At least it would have until June. In June, God showed me that the restoration was wrong, and that is the main reason I broke with the church. Had I just felt it was intolerable believing in it and worshipping in that environment, I would have just stopped attending and found a place to worship that taught basic Bible principles and taught restoration beliefs at home. The net outcome would have been similar to what happened in June (when I left and found a church that teaches basic Bible principles), but the added belief that God let me know that the restoration was wrong solidified the understanding that I can never go back, no matter how much they might re-embrace the beliefs of the restoration.To summarize this whole church dilemma: When we start believing we have to compete with the golf course, we start downplaying sin, up-playing fellowship, downplaying holiness, up-playing prosperity, down-playing sin and conviction and right and wrong, and up-playing the "fun" that is Christianity...well, the golf course will always have easier fellowship, it will give you the sense of wealth, and it will be more fun. So, maybe it's time to forgo competing with the golf course, and start conducting our church worship, teachings, and practice the way Jesus originally intended. Did I capture the spirit of your disappointment?
Because the same spirit that brought me to Christ dwells within me adding testimony that the Bible is true.Why do you accept the Bible?
-
I don't think there will be a test, either, but if we leave out some of the qualities, it creates a different "God". And, while not implying that you do that (or at least not meaning to), some do. They choose the qualities they think are important and skip over others, thus distorting the picture of God that they present to others. I think the whole picture is important.I'm sorry I didn't tick every box on the list.
I think you will find that those three properties sum up everything that you said.
Remember being a Christian is not academic, if it was the means of salvation would be some sort of examination.
I could sum it up even more and simply say that God is Good!
Everything from God is good, God is Good.
I do not create my own God. I refuse to do that.
Greatest of all God is the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Everlasting Father.
Laudamus Te -
No, I only consider the Bible the word of God now.So what do you now consider to be the "plain word of God", Jenda?
Do you now re-accept the Book of Mormon as the word of God, and Joseph Smith as a true Prophet?
-
<div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'>
Just out of curiosity, prisonchaplain, do you consider the Community of Christ "evangelical" since they still profess belief in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine & Covenants?
Probably not. On the other hand, perhaps similar to the Worldwide Church of God (formerly led by Herbert W. Armstrong) they seem to be moving towards a more mainstream Christianity. I'm guessing that is why I included them.
Well, I suppose it could appear that way. But they are bypassing mainstream Christianity and heading straight for liberal protestantism. IMO, a step away from Christianity.
I've only seen cursory bits about this group--the name change, giving up certain distinctives. It sounds like you are more in the know on them than I.
So, give us a few highlights, if you don't mind.That's because I'm a member/used to be a member (however one chooses to look at it).
I gave a brief description in the post above, the difference between how I view mainstream Christianity and liberal Christianity, and how the RLDS/CoC fits in.
In a bit more detail, back in the early 60's, in response to the church feeling an identity crunch, and a new prophet that was fairly weak with strong counsellors giving him counsel, the church started down the road toward liberalism. At first, that looked like mainstream Christianity, with the church backing off on stating belief in the restoration story, a backing off on stating a belief in the BoM, and an embracing of beliefs that were not common to the restoration. This kinda backfired for the church because a good many of the saints did not want to become mainstream Christians. They were perfectly happy being RLDS, and so spoke out against the direction the church was going. It came to a head in the mid 1980's when they started ordaining women. A huge group broke off and started meeting separately. The church silenced all the priesthood who went with the group that split off, and at that time, IMO, the church started dying while the "restorationists" (the group that broke off) are fairly thriving.
I noticed a big change, though, around the year 2000. It started with seeing the church refusing to take a stand on many issues. Everything was OK. It was a sin, but OK, to get an abortion. It was a sin, but OK to be homosexual. It was a sin, but OK to have an affair. Now, the church is even stepping back on the "sin" part of some of those issues. It is obviously OK to be homosexual and be an active one because they are ordaining homosexuals into the priesthood AND marrying them.
I, being (at the time) a restorationist, spoke out against the stand of the church on the church's discussion board, and was banned from it. Now, since last June, I no longer believe in the restoration, and so have no issue with them foregoing the restoration principles, but still have issue with them rejecting the plain word of God. So I have broken completely with them.
It was good to see that many conservative members who did not break with the church in the mid 80's put up a fuss regarding leaving behind the restoration distinctives, so the church moved slightly back in their direction to at least claim that for some, the BoM is considered the word of God (how big of them.
) It was good because they were forced to take a stand on some issues, which they are not keen on doing. -
There are many more than three qualities to God.The three qualities of God are:
Omnipotence : All Powerful
Omniscience : All Seeing
Benevolence : All Good
Laudamus te, Benedicimus te, Adoramus te Glorificamus te
We Praise thee, We Bless thee, We Worship thee, We Glorify thee.
God is:
- Omniscient
- Holy
- Just
- Love
- True
- Free
- Omnipotent
- Infinite and Eternal
- Immutable
- Omnipresent
- Sovereign
But more than anything else, He, alone, is worthy to be praised!
Baptized!
in Christian Beliefs Board
Posted · Edited by Jenda
Congratulations, Dr T! I hope there were great shouts of praise and joy!
I am not sure what you mean by optional. It isn't required for salvation, but Christ commanded it, so it needs to be done out of obedience.