volgadon
-
Posts
1446 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by volgadon
-
-
While I cannot find specifically where or when, I believe Joseph Smith stated on several occasions that Paul was an Apostle, or at least referred to him as such when speaking of him.
Since I do recall Joseph giving a pretty detailed description of what Paul looked like, and how he sounded when he spoke, it seems (along with the revelations he recieved) He would have been pretty authoritative on the issue.
Now, what does this mean for the biblical record? That it is incomplete. While this isn't really a news flash for most LDS members, it is a fascinating debate to study strictly within the confines of the NT itself. There may be no record in the NT of Paul being recognized as an Apostle, but that's not the same as saying it was never recorded. It could have been recorded and simply lost to time.
Before we get carried away, this description can be found in the Acts of Paul and Thecla, which was available in Joseph's day. Joseph also doesn't describe it as knowledge from a vision, so he could just have easily have taken an ancient, supposedly eye-witness source at its word.
-
I was referring to your personal attack in accusing me of a "self-righteous guilt-triping [sic] crusade".
I do apologise for the "self-righteous" epithet. The guilt-tripping crusade, however, is exactly how your posts on this topic come across.
But this is a false allegation, volgadon. See the previous link to remind yourself of the context of my remark.
Right, and the context supports what I was saying, that you are comparing those who would circumcise to those who would chop off a baby's toes.
As in your false claim that "One is able to function perfectly normally without a foreskin"? That one can successfully copulate and even have a fulfilling sex life is not at all the same thing as being "able to function perfectly normally".
No?
The mechanics of sex are not the same for circumcised men as for intact men. This is a fact, not an opinion.
It is far from being clear how significant this difference is. Your facts really aren't as clear-cut in their implications as you claim.
Yet you clearly did not know this (or else you were consciously telling an untruth -- but I gave you the benefit of the doubt in attributing your error to ignorance rather than dishonesty), so obviously you were ignorant on this matter.
I'm sorry, your claims of clairvoyance aside, you clearly don't know what you are talking about.
As for your being "all for barabrously [sic] amputating a baby's penis", I neither said nor suggested any such thing.
No?
"Just because you had the end of your penis amputated in infancy and today believe that you're doing A-OK, that does not imply nor even suggest that it is therefore a good thing to amputate the end of an infant boy's penis. The description alone sounds barbaric, and the large majority of the world views it as such."
"I only ask that you acknowledge your own prejudices in accepting the amputation of an infant's penis as somehow reasonable and acceptable..."
My expressions did not involve personal attacks, as yours did.
I beg to differ. I would suggest you seriously examine your tone and verbiage.
-
For the record, I have been nothing but respectful toward others in this conversation, including volgadon. Please do not attribute his rhetorical devices to me.
I think the difference is that you might have attempted more subtelty. Not a lot more though. I am not sure how stating that your arguments appeal more to emotionalist rhetoric and an extreme Western cultural bias rather than actual substance is any less respectful than than comparing me to someone chopping off a baby's toes, or insinuating that I am ignorant on this mattes and am all for barabrously amputating a baby's penis.
Of course, your fall-back defense seems to be special pleading, as you are merely voicing "an honest expression of heartfelt opinion," though one is reminded of the proverbial goose and gander.
-
Did u read my posts? I never claimed to the know the day im just saying that BIBLICAL PROPHECY IS BEING FULFILLED, nobody can deny that.
The day is just as likely to mean the general time period. It isn't necessarily a specific 12 hours.
-
Not at all. I have given my argument above, and it's not "emotionalist rhetoric" nor any cultural bias. On the contrary, I have encouraged research into the issue.
The two are far from being mutually contradictory, especially when you are dictating the results of said research.
But while we're on the subject, your argument appears to be, "I'm circumcised and I'm OK!", which really isn't much of an argument at all.
Your argument seems to be that being circumcised means one isn't ok.
Are you equally open-minded about cutting off your infant's toes or branding his face?
My, there is an awful lot of this non-existant emotionalist rhetoric.
Or is it only your culturally induced biases that allow you to participate in foreskin amputation without guilt? I suggest it is the latter.
One is able to function perfectly normally without a foreskin, which isn't quite the case with amputated toes.
I don't ask that you accept my reasoning or that you agree with me. I only ask that you acknowledge your own prejudices in accepting the amputation of an infant's penis as somehow reasonable and acceptable, and that you engage in real research on the issue and encourage others to do so.
I have engaged in real research. This isn't the first time I've been involved in such a debate. And your baloney about amputating an infant's penis is yet another example of that baseless, emotionalist rhetoric which you deny spouting.
If, after honest and open-minded research, you conclude that amputating the foreskin of your infant son's penis is an appropriate and worthwhile activity that in no way violates the integrity of his body, then I will have no criticism to offer (other than that I think you reached the wrong conclusion).
Alright, case closed. You can drop the self-righteous guilt-triping crusade.
-
I remember reading an article about 20 or so years ago about an African tribal woman in New York who scarified her infant son's face with a hot iron, in accordance with her tribal traditions. She was put on trial for the act. In her defense, a man who was a member of her tribe said essentially the same thing you are saying: He experienced no trauma, no recollection of pain, no miserable life, no ill effects, and he's considered handsome.
So should the woman be allowed to brand her son's face with a hot iron, or not?
I vote not.
Just because you had the end of your penis amputated in infancy and today believe that you're doing A-OK, that does not imply nor even suggest that it is therefore a good thing to amputate the end of an infant boy's penis. The description alone sounds barbaric, and the large majority of the world views it as such.
So, basically, your argument boils down to emotionalist rhetoric and an extreme Western cultural bias. To each his own.
I do admit to having a cultural bias, on top of the things I listed above, I grew up in a country where the majority of males are circumcised, so you are going to have to come up with something far more compelling than the arguments you currently use. My cultural bias however doesn't have me either encouraging circumcision or discouraging it. Each parent is free to decide without feeling guilty either way.
-
I'm a male.
I was circumcised, and by traditional methods to boot.
Have no traumas from it, no recollection of pain, no discomfort, no adverse health effects, no complexes, no complications, I'm married and enjoy a satisfying sex life. Try as I may, I fail to see how this is a "barbaric abomination."
-
Israel’s perception of God’s love and mercy become less clear as they are taught the meaning of law and justice.
Baloney.
-
There may also be a more simple answer for cicumcision.
It is my feeling that the Israelites were told not to eat pork because of the health risk of undercooking it. Perhaps if not for undercooking, then at least for some other (unknown to them) health risk. It could be with water scarce and baths at a minimum, circumcision could have prevented a (unknown to them) health risk.
Possibilities, but no definite answers.
The hygienic explanation fails to account for most of the evidence.
-
Are you serious? :/ I thought everyone worldwide knew they were mounted policemen i.e. police on horseback.
Policemen in the military??
They mean provosts.
-
Ha'aretz is saying the number is over 300,000.
That is what my parents said.
-
Here's an example of where my thinking is coming from on this: Did Jesus advocate that man could become God in John 10:34?
Here are some examples of where my thinking is coming from.
Calba Savua's Orchard: Ye are Gods
Calba Savua's Orchard: Philo on Reviling Gods, or: Are Gods Really Magistrates
Calba Savua's Orchard: Who is Like Unto Thee Among the Gods
Calba Savua's Orchard: Moses vs. Moses, or Two Medieval Jews on Idolatry
-
Judaism--which the Old Testament comes from, remains stridently monotheistic. The most basic and fundamental example is in the recitation of the schema. Shema, Hear O Israel the Lord your God is One
If the point was to proclaim a fierce monotheism, then why not pick a scripture like Isaiah 44:6-8?
The Shema actually says nothing about monotheism. It affirms that YHWH is one YHWH.
I could say that Allen is one (or a single) Allen, but that is as far as it goes.
The reason for picking the Shema is because it is a call to love and serve God completely. Have you ever read about R. Akiva? His martyrdom illustrates this very well.
I believe that all major branches of Judaism--even the most liberal--embrace God's absolute onesss--so much so that they dismiss Trinitarianism as heresy. What is Judaism - Basic Judaism
They are today, but that is as a result of philosophers such as Saadiah and Maimonides.
The "gods" of the Old Testament are either false ones (i.e. they do not actually exist), or they are demons mascerading as gods, or they are powerful men (judges, mighty soldiers, kings, etc.).
This position is untenable. The word "elim" or "elohim" refers to a divine being, and when it does refer to humans they are considered divine.
-
The Deuterocanon and Apocrypha are two different things. The Apocrypha books are considered "hidden" while the Deuterocanon are considered to be a second canon. People interchanging these two words have confused people and caused them to think they're the same.
The difference is in 3 books arranged in a different section in the Church of England canon than in the RC.
-
Exodus 24:7
the deuterocanonical books. They're not technically part of the Apocrypha. Its separate. These are the books the Catholics use along with the Bible such as Maccabees. I think PC can verify that.
Those are the Apocrypha.
-
Clever.
So, what word would they have used for "plan" and we'll look for that. My guess is it's not there either, not spelled out as God's plan.
That everything is a plan and was known before the foundation of the earth is hinted at in the Bible in some locations, mostly attributing that knowledge to God, but not man. That the plan extended back to pre-earth life would have to be part of the outline, which is only very shallowly mentioned in the Bible.
My point is still valid. The plan isn't really discussed in any depth in the Bible like in the Book of Mormon. It couldn't have been allowed if the theory of the Trinity was the decided belief about deity, and that man was first brought into existence in the Garden of Eden. Discussion of the plan would have been too damning to these two staples of modern Christian belief.
You need to know where to look in order to find the concept. The way that "plan" is used in the BoM is most closely reflected by the word "sod," which in the KJV of Amos is translated as "secret." The sod as used here was the divine council, where God decides upon a plan and picks an agent to fulfil it. Other places to look include the creation of the world and its parallel in Bezalel's work on the tabernacle.
-
I am teaching the Plan of Salvation in an adult Sunday School class this coming week. I am very familiar with the plan, as I have studied it my whole life, have taught Sunday School, Young Men, Primary, Seminary, and my kids the plan. However, I always study fresh and pray and ponder for new ways to tell the same stories that might be meaningful to some.
I searched the LDS on-line scriptures for "Plan" in an attempt to see all the different names that are attributed to Father's plan.
I was astounded to find that the word "plan" does not appear in neither the Old or New Testaments. Yes, that's right, the word plan doesn't even appear in the King James Bible one time (unless the search engine is broken or glitchy). Assuming it is correct, I think this is remarakble.
I have been pondering on why the word plan doesn't even appear in the Bible, not even when discussing plans other than the Plan of Salvation. I have considered that if you are to remove the fact that Father had a plan, then you would remove a major point of clarity and unity. If you see the parts of the plan within the plan, you can stay centered and focused, regardless of what a certain prophet may call a part of the plan. For instance, some say "hell" or "outer darkness" or "lake of fire" in the Bible.
Without seeing these things in an outline or plan, they may be considered different things, when they are meant to be the same, or the same if meant to be different. You can tell by the usage in many cases what is being talked about because the overall plan centers us.
Without a "plan" there would be more chaos and confusion about what is being discussed.
I'll post again about what I found when I search the Book of Mormon for "plan."
Stay tuned...
In all likelihood, the reason that the term "plan" doesn't appear in the KJV is due to the simple fact that it only appeared in the English language in the 1670s and didn't acquire the modern meaning until the firt decade of the 18th c.
-
Don't you think that is a little bit harsh? I understand that you may have more incite than me into the subject and you may have a stronger spiritual influence in your life than a 15 year old...but I'm just asking an honest question and looking for some advice, yetit seems like you are belittling me and criticizing me for even asking the question.
Lets look at it this way. Would the Lord want you to give up an opportunity to become the priesthood holder that you could be over a haircut? I think the answer is no. Some things are more important in an eternal perspective than conservative American fashion values.
-
The verse doesn't equate gospel with a book of any sort.
-
It is given through one that has recieved the authority to do so, directly from God.
Ok, so by "as given" you didn't mean in a form like it was in originally, you mean rather that if there isn't a prophet it doesn't exist. ok, whatever...
If you believe that the major world religion that you believe is living the law of Moses right now, according to what you are saying, is doing so under the direct power of God and continued priesthood authority, given through His authority (not passed on by someone who doesn't have the authority), then we are simply on different pages.
We must be on different pages because you adamantly refuse to listen. For the last time, I am not stating that Judaism has continued priesthood authority. I must say that you are the only person I have ever met who doesn't believe that the Law of moses is central to Judaism, and that it (the Law) doesn't exist anymore.
The idea that there is another religion besides one that has been given God's authority is foreign to me.
Lets see if I understand what you are trying to say. Choose the option that best expresses your point.
A) God has given his authority to one religion, hence no other religion exists.
B) Only one religion has God's authority.
I don't see that as a condescending, arrogant idea that you are making it out to be.
Are you telling me that you wouldn't find it arrogant, condescending, and insulting if a Jew or Muslim were to state that Christianity, especially LDS beliefs, are for people with a primitive, lower mindset?
I would say most in the LDS religion see it that way.
If that be the case then I am happy to be in the minority.
I realize that many people would say that believing that there is only one religion (and therefore only one body of authority to perform covenants with God at a time) that is true and has God given authority is arrogant. That is not a new accusation to mormons.
Which is not at all what I am saying. I don't find that belief offensive, it is however a far cry from saying that people who aren't part of it have a primitive, lower mindset.
-
The law of Moses, I believe, was a living gospel just like our current gospel is a living gospel.
The Law of Moses was a set of observations and prohibitions which the children of Israel were to abide by. You are muddling the issue by viewing it through the lense of your own modern-day experience, a time and place far removed from those of the Bible.
-
I don't know what was given, do you? You want to try to tell me that what is known about the law of Moses now is exactly what was given to Moses, I think that is not correct.
You still haven't explained what you mean by "as given" and if you don't know, then how come you claim that I'm wrong.
What prior covenants are you talking about? Are you talking about circumcision? If you think there was a covenant involved there, that is false. A covenant requires authority to make them.Oh, so are you saying that the Bible and modern revelation got it wrong and that there never was a covenant that God entered into with Abraham and the children of Israel and that circumcision wasn't its token? Why don't I ask the other Young Women leaders in your ward if they've ever heard that taught.
What "prior covenants" are you talking about?The ones you meant when you said "those covenants."
The lesser law was a preparatory law. To prepare for what? What Christ brought.Rameumptom did a far better job at explaining the difference.
If they had been living the preparatory law then they would have accepted Christ and there were many that did, all those that followed John the Baptist, Christ Himself and the apostles. But all those that held onto the traditions and the "law" did not believe Christ and therefore they were not really following the law. Just like today, if one lived the law of Moses, as soon as they receive the gospel of Christ they would accept it. That was the purpose of the law.One can follow the law itself without necessarily following a certain interpretation of it.
The fact that they stay with what they think is the law tells me that they are not living what was given to Moses.There is nothing in the Law of Moses which demands that it be interpreted in such a way that makes belief in Christ inevitable. Such doctrine has to be read into it, which, coincidentally, is precisely what Christ instructed people to do.
Christianity also has a long history of forcing its interpretations down the throats of Jews, and considering that many were persecuted and even martyred for their beliefs, of course Jews would be devoted to their own interpretations.
.One enters the first grade with intentions of going onto the second grade. First grade does not exist so that one can stay in the first grade foreverIf someone becomes an English major that does not obliterate out of existence the alphabet and fundmanetals of grammar, nor does it render them void and useless.
If you are getting mad at me for calling that law primitive and something that has passed and is no longer valid then how is that different than the Jews that stoned Stephen? or those that threw Peter and John in jail for similar statements?First of all, I wasn't getting mad, nor was I really angry (the two are not synonymous), I just find your statements incredibly insulting, arrogant, and condescending. Your statements are that those who live the law of Moses have a primitive mindset.
I am using the word primitive because to me that implies it is not matured, it has not reached its full potential, the messages and teaching are basic, simple and primitive. That should not be offensive at all. I am sorry that you take offense to that, even though I can't understand why.I am glad to hear that you have finally understood that your remarks were condescending, arrogant, and insulting.
One can appreciate previous covenants that those that lived the law of Moses during Moses day did, I appreciate the covenants they made as even Jesus did those things.Yet you just stated that it is very hard to do so IF one believes in Christ's redemptive acts.
Nobody today is living a law that is passed though.A major world religion does, despite your baseless assertions to the contrary.
... there is no authority to teach "first grade" right now, as far as I know. If you believe there are people living the Law of Moses right now, under what authority are they making covenants?They believe that the covenants between the Patriarchs and God and between God and the children of Israel are perpetual. Passages like Deuteronomy 6 would support that idea.
-
There is no current religion living the law of Moses as it was given because it was fulfilled and there is no reason for it now and there is no authority for it.
Since your r posts seem to stretch words far beyond their usual semantic range, please elucidate what you mean by "as given."
This is what LDS believe, you are saying LDS beliefs are absurd?
No, I'm saying that your interpretation is absurd. I'm LDS too, I don't share the belief you outlined, nor do I appreciate your not-so-subtle insisnuations that I'm a Christ-denying apostate.
D&C 74: "3And it came to pass that there arose a great contention among the people concerning the law of circumcision, for the unbelieving husband was desirous that his children should be circumcised and become subject to the law of Moses, which law was fulfilled.
4And it came to pass that the children, being brought up in subjection to the law of Moses, gave heed to the traditions of their fathers and believed not the gospel of Christ, wherein they became unholy.
5Wherefore, for this cause the apostle wrote unto the church, giving unto them a commandment, not of the Lord, but of himself, that a believer should not be united to an unbeliever; except the law of Moses should be done away among them,
6That their children might remain without circumcision; and that the tradition might be done away, which saith that little children are unholy; for it was had among the Jews;
7But little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ; and this is what the scriptures mean."
Without the appreciation for what Christ did to sanctify the little children, then that is a primitive mindset for which primitive covenants are designed.
Please note that nowhere in that revelation is there mention of "a primitive mindset for which primitive covenants are designed." Instead of reading into the text why don't you read the text?
The main reason given there for Paul's de facto abolition of circumcision is rather different to yours.
Jewish fathers reared their children according to their own religion. Here BTW, is a good quote on what religion meant in the time of Paul. Page 51 of Cohen's "From the Macabbees to the Mishnah."
"In the eyes of the ancients, the essence of religion was neither faith nor dogma, but action.
Humanity was commanded by the gods to perform certain acts and to refrain from certain acts, and these commandments and prohibitions (espe*cially the prohibitions) constituted the essence of religio. " And on page 45. " In preexilic times, when conversion did not exist for either man or woman, a foreign woman was assimilated into the community through mar*riage with an Israelite husband.
Solomon may have sinned by marrying foreign wives, but no one suggested that they should be divorced or that his children were not members of the people of Israel. In fact, Solomon's successor was his son Rehoboam, the offspring of an Ammonite woman (1 Kgs. 14:21).
In the first cen*tury of our era, Josephus still adheres to the same system: intermarriage is pro*hibited, but if a Jewish man marries a non-Jewish woman she joins his house and bears him legitimate children.
Marriage with a Jew was the de facto equivalent of conversion for a woman."
Paul's gripe was that Jewish fathers were raising their children according to their religion, not the one centered around Christ.
That little child were unholy was a secondary issue, which I'll address later.
Anyway, it appears that I was right when stating that you weren't using primitive in a positive sense.
We have a hard time appreciating those covenants because we believe in Christ and His redeeming acts.
Speak for yourself. My belief in Christ my redeemer certainly hasn't hindered my ability to appreciate prior covenants.
-
Just because someone believes a law exists doesn't mean it exists.
Just as disbelieving that a law exists doesn't obliterate it.
I don't have to accept the validity of Roman Catholic truth claims in order for the Rule of St. Benedict to exist. As long as at least one living person intentionally abides by a set of rules then that law exists. It isn't binding for anyone else, but it exists.
Forgive me for trying to understand this, what you are saying is foreign to me.
It seems quite obvious to me that what you are hearing is not what I'm saying. That is probably why it is foreign to you.
I am having a hard time understanding the idea that Christ runs two religions on the earth at the same time. That there are two separate bodies of priesthood authority, that are kept separate from each other, not one being a part of the other as is the Aaronic priesthood with the Melchizedek.
Perhaps you wouldn't have such a hard time understanding if you bothered to read what I am saying, seeing as I had not stated that. So stop huffing and puffing and blowing that strawman down.
How can you say that it is still around and then the next statement suggests that it could be "reinstated"? If it is around, it doesn't need to be reinstated. It is one way or the other not both.
I am not calling for the Law of Moses to be reinstated for followers of Christ. This certainly doesn't mean that the law doesn't exist. It does.
Unless you are trying to say that there can be both the true gospel of Christ and also the old gospel of Christ at the same time. They are both His gospels and His law. Are there two current gospels and corresponding laws or one right now? I have never been taught in church that there are two current gospels and corresponding sets of priesthood authorities, that is a bizarre and foreign thing to me. Even if we say that aspects of the law of Moses were kept in with the new gospel then there is still only one gospel and corresponding priesthood authority.
The Law of Moses exists. Has nothing to do with priesthood validity.
Can there be a law without authority?
Yes. I really don't see why that is abysmally hard for you to grasp.
Was Paul an Apostle?
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Neither Joseph nor whoever wrote it down records it as being from a vision.
The main difference between the two is that APT describes Paul's countenance, whereas Joseph describes his voice. As for Paul's height, that would be Joseph defining what short meant according to the standards of his day. A Roman nosed is a large, hooked nose.