volgadon
-
Posts
1446 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by volgadon
-
-
There is a nother consideration, aside from any philological ones. In a community of mainly adult converts, would Peter be talking of baptism at the age of eight, or would he be speaking of the cleansing power of water.
-
The Greek is anitypos- which is what the term "antitype" derives from. THis isn't a number.
-
Dravin is right. Words can have different semantic fields in another language. For example, the English "thing" doesn't mean "commandment" or "speech" but the Hebrew "dabar" includes all three.
-
The book, Jesus the Christ, by James E Talmage is one of the most comprehensive studies about the Savior ever written.
And?
It has no out of date timeline.
I wish I could say that with confidence of the scholarly sources Talmage used.
Psalm 82 is a classic example. Shall we take a look at it?
The Standard Works of the Gospel are the most reliable sources of infomation you will be able to study about the Savior. Always pray for guidance as you study and your mind will be enlightened by the Holy Ghost.
They definitely are authoritative, but they weren't written with sound historical methodology in mind.
-
The replies to this question, and to many other questions, highlight the difficulties of scriptural interpretation. One particular approach to scriptural interpretation might result in a correct understanding of this verse, but the same approach might produce a faulty understanding when applied to another verse. Is there any non-spiritual means of determining which interpretive approach might apply to which verse? How can we know which is the correct tool to use for each particular verse? I suspect that sometimes, as Latter-Day Saints, we apply the interpretive tool that is most likely to produce the result that fits with our pre-conceived ideas, regardless of whether that is the correct tool to use.
Were there a foolproof method of interpreting anything then, for instance, there would be no need for the discipline known as historiography, which examines how historians approach and interact with their sources.
There are many approaches to interpreting the scriptures. Literary, historical, socio-rhetorical, comparative, philological, etc. ad nauseum. The key is finding which approach (or combination of them) to use. One method which I think yields fairly good results is to read through the early interpreters, Jewish and Christian. It helps to see how others percieved things.
Last- but certainly not least- are spiritual methods: prayer, likening the scriptures unto ourselves, personal revelation, the Holy Ghost.
-
There is an interesting line of thought in the medieval Jewish commentaries on Amos. I think it has some merit in understanding the verse. As the whole chapter is filled with imagery of violence and destruction, the "secret" would be a decree of destruction or disater. It is revealed to the prophet in order for him to raise a warning voice, and if the people heed the warning, the decree would be annulled.
-
The word translated as "secret" is sod. Not sod as in certain hostile instructions of the English language, but, as the Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testaments puts it, a circle of confidants. From this developed an abstract, secondary meaning of something confidential, a secret if you will. What this verse says is that the Lord's council will carry out no plan without making the prophet privy to it at some point.
-
You are right that Orthodox Jews and Muslims do not accept Trinitarianism as monotheism. We disagree, and since we do not wish to be accepted as Jews or Muslims, there is not too much contention (with the possible exception of Messianic Jews).
Which comes down to self-definition rather that cold, hard logic. If you can define yourself as monotheistic rather than politheistic, why can't we?
I have heard you, and a couple others here, speak of passages such as Ps 82, and suggest that ancient Jewish belief was actually henotheistic. Some here would even agree that LDS theology is more accurately described in that way.
This will be a matter for my continued study. I find it ironic, though not impossible, that LDS have picked up an allegedly ancient Israelite view that the modern Orthodox reject. Then again, we have all picked up on the teachings of one rabbi from the first century, that the Orthodox have rejected.
The modern Orthodox Jewish view of monotheism is derived to a large extent from Saadiah Gaon, Maimonides, and a whole constellation of philosophers inspired by Greek, Muslim and Karaite teachings and polemics.
-
Why would my opinion induce any more difficulty in engagement that yours or others? It may be a different style--but is there just one style that is proper? Why does taking a particular stance draw the conclusion that there is only one interpretation? You are aware that the LDS do have particular doctrines that they believe are true? Why does that exclude all others from having a point? They are free to post their points also.
Fourth Bruce: In addition, as he's going to be teaching politics, I've told him he's welcome to teach any of the great socialist thinkers, provided he makes it clear that they were wrong.
(They all stand up.)
All: Australia, Australia, Australia, Australia, we love you. Amen!
(They sit down.)
-
Calba Savua's Orchard: Did Saadia Gaon & Maimonides Believe in Eternal Marriage?
This is a blogpost I wrote on one of the problems of "The Mortal Messiah." A source used by Elder McConkie was not only outdated, but it misinterprated primary sources as well, resulting in a very skewed presentation.
-
161sn I am! is an explicit claim to deity. Although each occurrence of the phrase “I am” in the Fourth Gospel needs to be examined individually in context to see if an association with Exod 3:14 is present, it seems clear that this is the case here (as the response of the Jewish authorities in the following verse shows).
And?
BTW, why are you cutting and pasting from something that isn't your own work without making that clear?
-
The Bible describes God in anthropomorphic characteristics but there are many believers that do not take these descriptions literally.
Right, but ancient believers did take anthropomorphisms literally.
-
Huh??? I'm not sure the point of your question Volgadon. I don't see any problem with referencing other good work. General Authorities quote non-LDS people in conference quite frequently. Truth is truth, no matter who wrote it.
The point is that Talmage relied heavily upon Victorian biblical scholarship, which scholarship is seriously outdated. There have been many discoveries and advances made since then which cast a significantly different light on the world of the Bible.
-
I don't think you can go too wrong with a book written by an Apostle in the Temple.
Perhaps, but what do you do with the heavy referencing of non-LDS works by Victorian scholars who obviously did not write in the temple?
-
The Bruce R McConkie series is just superb - just be ready for a heavy but interesting and gripping read!
Am on with the Millennial Messiah, the last of the series of 6 books
To be honest, the scholarship isn't very good. Given the choice, I'd rather go with Talmage both on that and on spiritual insights.
-
Now that everyone has had over a week to think about it, can believers in the Trinity accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God, as our language defines "son," or does it need to be a symbolic or created type of sonship to fit with that particular belief system?
Symbolic and adoptive senses were used inthe past just as frequently as the literal sense.
-
So, what's so special about this regime? Why do you want the US troops to focus on this one? Why not North Korea? Why not Darfur? Why not one of the others that are doing atrocious things to their own people?
Why not Syria, where over 5000 have been murdered without recourse to a trial.
-
We try to pick a fight with Iran.
You guys really aren't trying very hard.
-
You cannot actually believe this, especially since you declaim the very idea of God as a sexual being. Surely you do not believe we will be having sex with God, and thus be one with him.
I think you've misunderstood. Sexual metaphors have been used to describe the mystical relationship with God fora very long time.
-
For one thing, it is important to note that non-LDS do not use Person and Being interchangeably. This is what is so confusing. To us, if something is three beings, then it is three separate things: you are a being separate from me, and I am a being separate from you and also from the president, who is also separate from the two of us. You can't be me or the president, I can't be you or the president, and the president cannot be either me or you; we are three separate, unique, complete beings. (No matter how perfectly we agree with each other.) This is why, point blank, any non-LDS who hears an LDS member say the Godhead is three separate Beings will automatically claim polytheism. We are viewing the word "being" in a way that *would* make the LDS church polytheistic.
Now, if the LDS church is using the word to mean something else, then that's another issue altogether.
There is also apparently a differing definition of "one" between the two groups. With the LDS members saying that the "one" in the Bible refers to a oneness of unity, as in, the Godhead is a single unit, who are similar in purpose. The non-LDS members feel this is a stretch (is it possible for the word "one" to be interpreted to mean "oneness in purpose?' Well, I guess so, but since I don't have the Greek in front of me right now, I wouldn't be able to say for sure. Let's just leave it at: LDS interpret it one way and non-LDS interpret it another.), and simply take the word "one" to mean "one:" there is one God.
Yet Jews and Muslims feel that Trinitrian usage of "one" is a stretch. As I said in an earlier reply to you, there is nothing inherently more logical in your use of of "one" than there is in the LDS faith's.
-
The reason why the Catholic Church believes that God's Church will never leave the Earth for any period of time is because we believe the Holy Spirit was sent down to the Earth at Pentecost to the Apostles, and the Apostles passed on the Faith through the ages. Now, I know humans have free will. But, to me at least, there is a problem with this argument: how can we exercise our free will and choose Christ, if His Church is not on the Earth? Yes, individual people might abandon God, but God doesn't abandon His children. I do not believe He would allow His Church to be completely wiped off the face of the planet and give no one the opportunity to choose Him with their free will. Christ established the Church, then sent the Spirit to enlighten and embolden the members and ensure its continuity throughout the ages.
This argument doesn't work too well if we look to the time before Christ was born.
-
For some reason I didn't see your previous post, sorry.
But I'm confused on a couple of points simply in the first paragraph you wrote. From my reading of the BofM, a group of Jews comes to South/Central America across the Atlantic and begin civilizations. So, wouldn't their civilizations look, if not identical to, at least extremely similar to the Jewish cultures of the Holy Land?
What similarities do you mean? Tels? Why would they do so when most of the topography was different?
City plans would have been adapted to the locale, circumstances, capacities and taste of the settlers.
There is no indication that Lehi was an architect or a builder, or that they continued the massive Syrio-Phoenician tradition by the time they became numerous.
I was born and raised in the Galilee. There are two villages built by Adygs, also known as Circassians. They came from the northwestern Caucasus after being brutally expelled by the Russian Empire. The Ottomans settled them along key frntiker outposts, mainly to keep the Bedouins in check.
This is the old mosque in Rihaniya. It is built in a traditional Caucasian style, but it has some small differences.
This is the more recent mosque in Kfar Kama. It is similar to the Circassian mosque in Amman, Jordan, which was constructed in 1961. How similar does it look to the Rihaniya mosque?
This wasn't the only thing that changed.
The historic villages of Rihaniya and Kfar Kama were built in an Adyg style (with local variations). All houses faced into a shared courtyard with the mosque in the center and together they formed a continuous wall used as fortification. Since 1948 the inhabitants spread out of the old village walls and built in an Arab style. The traditional architecture had all but vanished in less than 100 years!
How similar was Abraham Lincoln's log cabin to the homes built by his Norfolk ancestors?
A 19th c. Ukrainian Jewish shtetl did not look like a jewish village in the Yemenite highlands.
And since they multiplied into great numbers, then there would be evidence for large cities modeled after the Old World cities that the Jews knew?
Why, if by the time they became numerous most of them had never set foot in Judah?
How would they not understand Old World imagery, if they came from the Old World?
What do you mean by imagery?
I'm a little rough on some parts of the BofM, so I can't remember if the Americas were supposed to already have been inhabited when the Jews got there. If so, wouldn't there be a very evident difference in ancient Indian culture and the new Jewish culture?
The BoM is silent on the topic, but contains some intriguing hints that they weren't the only ones.
If we assume that there were locals with their own culture, Lehi's material culture could very easily have been absorbed in the predominant one, as is indeed the case with most Jews throughout history.
-
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this.
What I mean is that your definition is flawed.
-
A.) The LDS church, even aside from the doctrine of the Trinity, is polytheistic anyway. Even if this Earth should only worship one god, the church still believes that other gods exist.
Perhaps a better dictionary is in order.
What Will 2012 Mean for the Saints?
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Why is the Euro listed first, considering that it is stabler?