volgadon
-
Posts
1446 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by volgadon
-
-
It may seem to reinforce other scriptures that you hold to, but without that, I have never encountered any interpretation of this passage that would suggest, much less insist, that it requires the Father to have a body. I previously posted a link from a Jewish educational site that explains part of their basic understanding about God's nature is that he is IN-corporeal (Judaism 101: The Nature of G-d). Nothing in the New Testament suggests any kind of break with that understanding of the Father. The shocker was Jesus appearing as the Son of God, in the flesh.
That understanding, unfortunately for your position, was the minority view in Judaism until the 13th c. AD. It was mainly held by philosophers heavily influence by the Aristotelian Mu'tazilites in the Muslim world.
-
Concerning the schema, although there are arguments about the precise translation and meaning, it is largely seen as supporting Jewish monotheism. I especially like how the site below refers to creation, saying no other God created the world.
If the point was to support monotheism, then there are plenty of verses more suited to the task. The classic use of the Shema in Judaism is as a call for absolute love towards God, manifested in complete obedience to his laws, even if you lose your life.
-
However, understanding that even Tri-unity is not accepted by the other children of Abraham, sure the henotheism that comes out of the argument that the Godhead is three Gods united only in purpose would be a doctrine they would never accept, and never see as consistent with the Old Testament.
They don't see it as any different to classic notion of the trinity.
OTOH, Judaism used to be binatarian, that is, henotheistic. There was God and another lesser but still divine being.
-
The Old Testament clarifies that they should not worship other gods because they are false. They are made by men, out of wood, clay, and metal. They cannot speak, hear, or act. They are not real. There are no other gods. God is 1. 2 billion Christians, nearly 2 billion Muslims, and 15 million Jews agree on this understanding.
That other gods are false doesn't negate their existence, merely their efficacy. Most of the information contained in the Hebrew Bible on idols and their worshippers is polemic meant to mock and downplay its target. Isaiah 44:10-21, where the idol worshipper uses the same block of wood for fire and for bowing down to, is a classic example. It is worth noting that polemic rarely takes into account the meaning of the thing targeted to its devotees or adherents. In other words, the attitude of an idol worshipper to his idol might differ substantially from the portrait painted by Isaiah.
"The Babylonian might have pointed out that for several centuries Yahweh, after emerging from the obscurity of a remote desert, had lived inside, or at the least in close association with, a decorated chest made of acacia wood. He was of rather uncertain temper, but in the main could be kept good-humoured by regular offerings of the smoke of burnt beef fat, of which he was inordinately fond. In contrast, Marduk was a spiritual being, creator of heaven and earth, and so transcendent that it was impossible to see or to comprehend him."
H.W.F. Saggs, The Encounter with the Divine in Mesopotamia and Israel (London: Athlone Press, 1978), p. 15.
-
It's also difficult to reconcile the schema: Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is one, with a vision of the One God as two essential beings (not to mention the Holy Spirit):
The Shema is not a particularly useful verse for establishing your sort of monotheism. It is sort of like saying the following.
"Listen, readers. Your writer, Somerset Maugham, is one (or a single) Somerset Maugham."
-
PrisonChaplain, yet a good portion of the nearly 2 billion Muslims, and 15 million Jews tend to consider that Christians believe in more than one God.
-
What does the word "monogenes" mean ?
That is the Greek word translated by "only begotten."
-
ok, I have a few more moments-- I believe Jesus is called "the only *begotton* Son of God?
I do not remember where is says "only son of God" without the begotton, in there?
by the way, I understand the way begotten is used in the bible, indicates physical father of, and not adopted or like father of a nation, (not human)?
Monogenes was usually used to indicate a favoured or unique status, rather than literally "begotten" or only one in existence.
-
Technically speaking, "son of" more often than not meant that one belonged to a certain group.
Son of a carpenter = carpenter.
Son of god = a god.
-
Well... they can... but I advise against it. This one time, this guy I knew at band camp read some non-Mormon literature, CS Lewis I think, and nothing happened right away, but the next day, he suddenly exploded into flames and died a horrible fiery death.
That's not to say that everyone who read non-LDS literature self-immolates automatically. Another guy I knew once read some St. Augustine, City of God and now he is doing hard time in the Big House in Sing Sing.
Lesson learned, I guess.
I wish someone had cared enough to warn about these kinds of things. My life is now a never-ending downward spiral of scholastics, deontology and requiems-n-spirituals.
-
help me out here. the hebrew transliteration I have from the LDS electronic scriptures does not refer to the hebrew word bara
?????
Bereshith bara Elohim eth has-hamayim wa-eth ha-aretz.
א בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ. 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Listen to the second word.
-
As I said - check out day one of creation in Genesis and then understand the difference in light concerning day 4 of creation. Thus the work of G-d is a great Chiasm that begins in creation (day 1) with the “separating” of light from darkness and ends at the great Judgment of G-d in the “separating” of light from darkness.
The Traveler
I very recently did quite a bit of research into the interpretations of the light of the 1st day. Despite the symbolical nature of light, the word doesn't function in a similar way to "intelligence" in the BoA.
-
All the statements are directed at the ruler of Tyre. The first one compares him to Danel, one of the ancient heroes of the Canaanites. In the second he is compared to the first inhabitant of the Garden of Eden, here termed a cherub. The cherub was perfect until he spoiled his ways, and was cast off from a land of great wealth.
-
There is a connection between light and intelligence, but the way "intelligences" is used in the BoA corresponds more to the essential portion of the soul. I'm looking for the equivalent(s) in the Bible.
-
Volgadon, I think it was you that helped me understand that "way" may be the Bible terminology for "plan." Looking at those scriptures in this new light really helped me a lot with something I was studying.
What I'd like to know now is what the Bible may use for the term "intelligences." Could you look that up in your brain somewhere and help me again?
Thanks, friend, I really appreciate it.
It goes without saying that all are certainly free to respond if they have insight.
So far, the closes that I've found is Aristotle, but I'll take another look.
-
Why do you ask?
Are you implying Abraham is the subjectt of Mal. 2:10?
No, I am saying that the verse you quoted doesn't mean what you want it to mean.
-
If you are asking me then I think it means "Abraham our father"
Right. Called such by people at many removes from Abraham.
-
Do you know what Abraham Avinu means?
-
I think the reason we use "Elohim" is partly the same reason we use "Jesus" rather than Joshua or Yeshua.
I'm afraid that I don't follow. Jesus is the Anglicised version of the Latin Iesus, taken from the Greek for Yeshua. Elohim, OTOH, is transliterated Hebrew appearing instead of the more usual English equivalent "god."
Another may be that in old English, royalty sometimes was denoted witha plurality, or a plural aspect.
You can scour the OT in vain for the royal pronoun. Pluraity was however used as a superlative, such as behemoth.
-
Scripture in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is as follows:
Bible - King James Version as far as translated correctly, Article of Faith Eight
ONLY in the English-speaking world.
-
You misunderstand me. I am not attempting a critical analysis. I am making a rather obvious observation: We do not and cannot know how "the original" read, so it is not out of the realm of speculation that the whole "plural subject/singular verb" construction was dreamed up well after the original revelation was recorded. Given that most scholars speculate the Genesis account was an oral tradition for a very long time before being written down, this is perhaps even more likely.
I do not read very much into the "Elohim as singular" construction. It may represent some profound eternal truth, or it may be an artifact of propagation. I am supposing the latter, but not as a point of critical analysis.
If we "do not and cannot know how "the original" read" then everything is fair game. Who is to say that Elohim was even in the original? This gets to the point of being utterly silly. We work with what we have. Let us, for the sake of convenience, call it the earliest recoverable text. If it was altered in Gen. 1:1 so as to hide that the text speaks of gods, then why not alter the most damning piece of evidence? Oral texts were often considered more reliable than written ones, so that by itself is no indication of accuracy.
There is a really simple explanation which doesn't require wild assumptions of textual tampering, which tend to be cop-outs unless clearly supported. The simplest explanation is that Elohim is singular, but this does not mean that the role of others is excluded! The ancient world wasn't too concerned with the artisans and workers. Solomon declares that he built the temple. We know that he didn't build it with his own two hands!
-
Hi Jestress,
Just FYI, this is not a debate board. This is a 'learn what Mormons believe' board. If you're here to prove us wrong or argue, I would suggest LDS apologetic boards like mormondialogue.org. You can contend and debate all you like over there.
He is there. I guess that he forgot to mention the fact.
-
Nope. And it's really a good idea. The divorce rate is already sky high in the U.S. And all the studies show traditional marriage seems to be on the down slope. There would be no "divorce" after two years, it just ends. That would let all kinds of people in all age groups to try out marriage with someone who they think they want to spend the rest of their life with but is not 100% certain. Give it a two year shot. After two years they can renew again for two years or get a traditional marriage or simply walk away from each other. Of course there should be a few provisions - two year marriages should not be used to make an illegal person a legal person in the country.
This reminds me of something that happened back home in Israel, only a few minutes from where I live. We had been having a severe drought and the water in the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee) was very low. This was serious because it supplies water to a good third of the country (and to Jordan too). There is a red line which is supposed to mark the limit of pumping. If the water level reaches the red line then that is it. To continue pumping would risk turning the lake saline. Well, the water level reached the red line. What did our water company do? Lowered the red line...
-
Huh? You have LDS church leaders who have said that open mouth kissing is wrong, but it is ok to have sex outside of marriage?
I think he was talking about the sharp transition from very strict rules before marriage to "everything goes" once married.
I am that i am
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Not in the past tense, it is more like present continuous.