volgadon
-
Posts
1446 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by volgadon
-
-
In order for God to be three distinct, separate *Beings* there would have to be three Gods. Those Gods might work in harmony together, but if their beings are separate, then they are separate : three different, distinct, separate Gods. (But the Bible is frequently and continuously clear that there is only *one* God.)
Why don't we look at Maimonides on the Trinity.
It is not rare that a person aims to expound the intent of some conclusions clearly and explicitly, makes an effort to reject doubts and eliminate far-fetched interpretations, and yet the unbalanced will draw the reverse judgment of the conclusion he sought to clarify. Some such thing occured even to one of God's declarations. When the chief of the prophets wished by order of God to teach us that He is One, without associates, and to remove from our hearts those wrong doctrines that the Dualists propound, he proclaimed this fundamental: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone [Deut. 6:4]. But the Christians utilized this verse to prove that God is one of three, teaching that Lord, our God, the Lord makes three names, all followed by one, which indicates that they are three and that the three are one. Far be God from what they say in their ignorance. If this is what happened to God's proclamation, it is much more likely and to be expected to happen to statements by humans. -Moshe ben Maimon, the Rambam or Maimonides, in his The Essay on Resurrection, trans. Abraham Halkin in The Epistles of Maimonides: crisis and leadership.
It is no exaggeration to state that the Rambam (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon), or Maimonides as he is commonly reffered to in English, is one of the major figures in Jewish history, culture and thought. One of the foremost physicians and philosophers of his day, his fame spread worldwide, and he was held in great esteem even by Christians and Muslims. When facing severe tribulations, Jewish communities as distant as Morocco and Yemen sought his help and advice. As he was court physician to the Ayyubids in Cairo, with his strong political connections the Rambam could also play a vital role in his community's life, and did.
The Rambam wrote many commentaries on the Torah and the Mishnah, that codification of the Halakha, or Jewish oral law, and explained the reasons (or ta'amei hamitzvot) for the 613 commandments of the Torah on rational, philosophical grounds. His thirteen articles of faith were adopted by all Jewish communities, indeed, the 12th of them- professing complete faith in the coming of the Messiah, even were he to tarry- has become a symbol of the unbreakable Jewish spirit, being on the lips of many Treblinka inmates marching to the gas chambers.
The Rambam's lifelong work, however was that of an educator. He seeks to draw the people away from ignorance and idolatry (the two, for him, are inseparably linked) and towards the true intent of the law- knowing God.
This for him is love, an exalted, all-consuming intellectual love.
There is hardly a more fitting description of the Rambam than the title of his most famous work, the "Guide of the Perxplexed" (Dalalat al-Ha'irin).
This philosophical treatise par excellence is directed towards those torn between the conflicting worlds of traditional Judaism as passed down by Moses through the sages on the one hand, and modern philosophy and science on the other. In other words, the revealed truth of the Bible and the sages which seems to conflict with natural, inherent reason and logic, as laid out by the followers of Aristotle. While one may seem incomprehensible as opposed to the logic of the other, the Rambam attempts to bridge the two. He showed that they were not implacable enemies to each other, but went hand-in-hand.
This work, written in Arabic, was translated by others into Hebrew (Moreh Nevuchim) and Latin (Dux Neutrorum), both during the Rambam's own lifetime. Its influence was huge, even on the development of Jewish mysticism, which seems at odds with much of the Rambam's own approach, as well as influencing the Scholastics, such as Albert the Great and St. Thomas Aquinas. Of course they did not accept it uncritically. The value of the work for them was that it showed how to accept both the Bible and Aristotle as truth without offending either. In other words, you don't have to take "because it is" as a valid answer. The Rambam showed the way to a synthesis of the two.
The opening paragraph to the Essay on Resurrection is a fascinating look at the reaction of a fierce monotheist and gifted philosopher to the doctrine of the Trinity. It shows that the Trinity- three are three yet only one- is a matter of faith rather than inherent logic.
-
Coe is an expert on the Maya, a brilliant man, but sadly he has never risen above treating the BoM as a caricature.
-
As an example, many passages describe God as one. Learned LDS will often point to early Jewish belief in polytheism or henotheism, and allow that "one" may not be literal. Yet, when traditionalists say that the image of God in us is that of character and immortality, not physical, there is an insistence that reading be literal--a "plain reading" so to speak.
Actually, I try to see how terms were used and understood. There is plenty of evidence showing that "one" was used to denote a special relationship, rather tha a cold, hard, precise mathematical formulation. The "image" (tzelem and demuth) was believed to be a corporeal one by ancient Jews, and the etymology of the words support it.
The "plain reading" is not necessarily literal, but it is the one intended by the text.
-
Afghanistan is in the dark ages. Those men are very corrupt and evil.
If you think that only men encourage and endorse that culture then you are mistaken.
-
I am seldom confrontational; the subject matter is when discussing the souls of men and woman when the two parties disagree.
Ecclisiastes said, and I paraphrase, there is a time for everything.
The reason for the no testimony/preaching rule at thatsite is because if someone is in preaching mode that tends to drop discussion dead in its tracks.
-
Can't stand Abba, but I did see a documentary which had footage from their earliest years, and they played stuff like Mr. Tambourine Man.
-
I used to work for DirecTV and I received many calls where customers stated that their box's were broken and they needed a replacement. Yet in many cases it was proven that the fault was not with the machine but with the person using it who didn't know how to operate it.
They were convinced that the box was broken. Yet the truth was a different story. They were not operating the device correctly
I work for a different company, same sort of thing, same sort of calls.
-
If the Apostles of Christ's day believed that the end was near (and they did) how do we know that Modern-day Apostles are right about their counsel?
By prayerfuly pondering it.
-
To me, "edit" seems to be implying that he made the edits based on his own understanding or opinions.
In which case you would be reading your own idiosyncratic definition into the term. An edit is an edit, be it divinely-inspired or be it secular, mundane.
-
Dravin, isn't editing the Bible, or a canon of scripture already in place, different than editing even a historical work?
Only in theological implications, not dictionary definitions.
-
When you are done don't forget Plain Tales from the Hills.
-
I was a little underwhelmed.
-
Sort of. Paul was convinced that the end days were just around the corner, which makes it the time for focusing on God, not the pursuing the worldy concerns and distractions that come with having a wife and children.
I should add that he wasn't always consistent or comprehensive either.
Our investigations in the previous chapter also demonstrate that Paul is dealing with a variety of issues in 1 Corinthians 7. These include being married versus becoming celibate, being married to a non-Christian versus obtaining a divorce, remaining celibate versus marrying a Christian, and marrying a Christian versus marrying a non-Christian. This, in turn, should alert us to the danger of construing any one statement in Paul's discussion as constituting his position "on marriage," as if his subject throughout was the institution of marriage per se.
It should also alert us to the fact that Paul's treatment of marriage in 1 Corinthians 7 is not designed to cover everything. He gives no ruling, for example, regarding remarriage for Christians whose non-Christian husbands or wives have left them, nor is it clear that his judgment limiting widows to marriage "only in the Lord" applies to all other Christians as well (see below).
The diversity of issues Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 7 has also put limitations on his discussion in another way. Inasmuch as he argues here in favor of marriage, here against it, here in favor of celibacy, here against it, he has restricted the range of what he can say. He does not want to set the value of marriage too high and thereby discourage all forms of celibacy, nor does he wish to praise celibacy in a way that undermines the institution of marriage.
Hence Paul offers no laudation of the ends of marriage, nor does he enumerate the advantages of having a wife to watch over one's affairs.
-Will Deming, "Paul on Marriage and Celibacy" p. 211.
-
So are you saying Paul was against the continuance of the human race?
Sort of. Paul was convinced that the end days were just around the corner, which makes it the time for focusing on God, not the pursuing the worldy concerns and distractions that come with having a wife and children.
-
So, anyone who writes a book simply edits it because the blank paper changed?
Ah yes, reductio ad absurdum. A new edition of a book often includes material not present earlier. You seem to be using a very narrow deifintion of "edit".
C'mon, you can't "edit or revise" something if there's nothing there to edit. I understand he started with the KJV, but there are writings in his translation that don't exist anywhere else. Some of what he did can certainly be called "edit or revise," but when you add a story that was not there, although you "change the existing text" it can't be considered a "revision of the Bible" if an entire chapter was added.
What do you mean "nothing there to edit" He edited the KJV, it was there. Part of his editing involved incorporating material that wasn't in the KJV.
-
Redaction might be a better term, but I don't know of any definition of "to edit" which rules out adding material.
-
I know quite a few lds who use a bunch of different bible translations.
So do I, they are called non-English speakers... =)
-
Instead of translation would you accept the terms inspired correction and commentary?
Which isn't necessarily the original form, but rather an inspired commentary on how we are to view scripture and apply it. It fits an old Jewish practice of targum, which is a reinterpretation of scripture acheived by translating it.
-
Since God made humans warm-blooded, why did he invent snow?
Perhaps an unfortunate choice of words.
-
most scholars agree that these cherubim represented “redeemed and glorified manhood” or “glorified saints and angels” (Wilson, Old Testament Word Studies, s.v. “cherubim,” p. 75).
Most scholars? Wilson's work relies heavily on something from 1866.
-
Doe we necessarily interrupt cherubim and seraphim to be angels?
What, then, if not angels?
Malach, the word translated as angel, is a role, not a being. The role is that of a messenger. If we are talking about special beings, then cherubim and seraphim definitely count.
Are those verses to be taken literally or is symbolism involved?
Taking the "symbolic" approach is fine, as long as you are willing to concede that it could also be applied to such things as descriptions of God as a man.
Aren't seraphim described to have 4 faces of various beasts.
You are thinking of the creatures in Ezekiel's vision. The Book of Revelation amalgamates them with seraphim.
6 wings that cover their body
Six wings that can be used for covering their body.
with eyes all over the wings?
In Isaiah 6, no. In Revelation 4, yes.
(definitely not the modern day take on angels) I've had these described to me as being symbolic rather than actual physical descriptions. Even by mainstream Christians.
Doesn't matter if it is the modern take on angels or not, Loudmouth asked for a scripture showing that angels have wings.
If the Holy of Holies can have a depiction of winged angels, then why not a primary play?
-
I've always answered this by asking for scriptures that say they do have wings.
Isaiah 6
1In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.
2Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.
Exodus 25
18And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.
19And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof.
20And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.
-
and baptism of the dead ( I know Paul mentions this, but his epistle was a sizzling rebuke)
A sizzling rebuke? Where?
The most that can be said is that Paul moderately disapproved and used the 3rd person plural to distance himself from th practicionars. I'm not sure how likely that is seeing how Paul used baptism for the dead as one of his key arguments in proving the veracity of a bodily resurrection.
It would be like someone trying to convince the Southern Baptist Convention of reincarnation. If there is no reincarnation then why do they [new-agers] meditate? The answer from the listeners would probably be along the lines of so what, who cares what cultists do.
I think one could argue that baptsim for the dead was a limited practicein Paul's day, or that a particular group of Christians made it their focus, but that Paul delivered a sizzling rebuke? THe evidence doesn't support that reading.
Shame that you have decided to leave.
-
When I was on my mission in Bulgaria, there was a lot of persecution by the people and police there. I remember my first month in the country, there was an article in the paper about the Mormon cult who was going to have a meeting to sacrifice (kill) some of their members to their god. They named all the missionaries in my district except me! I was so disappointed to not see my name in print.
Plus, I was mad at my companion for not telling me about this sacrificial meeting we were to attend--I wasn't sure what to wear!And you wonder why you weren't invited? What a question! Anything in white, red, or black would work.
All kidding aside, when I served my mission in Russia a former member had taken a branch president to court, testifying to all manner of old slander, such as the church tracking down apostates and murdering them. I've since lost the copy, but during the trial one of the larger newspapers in the area ran an expose, which included instructions on how to avoid being hypnotised by Mormon missionaries. Avert your gaze when you see them on the street!
Plus, I was mad at my companion for not telling me about this sacrificial meeting we were to attend--I wasn't sure what to wear!
The Holy Spirit
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
He is the third member of the Godhead, which itself is a form of social triniatrianism.
We don't know the details.
"He sanctifies believers and testifies of the Father and Son" as well as providing continuous, personal revelation.
See above.