volgadon
-
Posts
1446 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by volgadon
-
-
This "no current religion living the Law of Moses" reminds me of the "Mormons worship a different Jesus" accusation frequently levelled at us. Both are equally absurd.
-
So, do you believe that Judaism now is as the law of Moses was lived back then, including the inspired guidance?
No, I believe that Judaism is based around the observance of the 613 commandmnts contained in the Torah.
I appreciate your knowledge in these matters, don't get me wrong, but a covenant is only as good as the authority in which it is done.
A covenant is still a matter of deep devotion, even if you don't accept the validity of it.
I reccomend reading this.
ArchivesBack to the issue of Jewish identity, I want to share the following from "Hassidic Tales of the Holocaust" by Yaffa Eliach.
One of the forced laborers in the camps relates that one day he heard frightening cries of anguish the likes of which he had never heard before. Later he learned that on that very day a selection had been made -- of infants to be sent to the ovens. We continued working, tears rolling down our faces, and suddenly I hear the voice of a Jewish woman: "Give me a knife."
I thought she wanted to take her own life. I said to her, "Why are you hurrying so quickly to the world of truth..." All of a sudden the German soldier called out, "Dog, what did you say to the woman?"
"She requested a pocketknife and I explained to her that it was prohibited to commit suicide."
The woman looked at the German with inflamed eyes, and stared spellbound at his coat pocket where she saw the shape of his pocketknife. "Give it to me," she requested. She bent down and picked up a package of old rags. Hidden among them, on a pillow as white as snow, lay a tender infant. The woman took the pocketknife, pronounced the blessing -- and circumcised the child. "Master of the Universe," she cried, "You gave me a healthy child, I return him to You a worthy Jew."
You state that Elijah restored the keys, are you saying that Judaism has those keys?
It might help cut down on questions were you to read what I wrote.
... if not, then there is no current religion living the law of Moses, sorry, that is my view.
It may be your POV, but it is a non sequitur. What you mean to say is that in your view is that there is no current religion living the Law of Moses according to your own peculiar conception of it, in which case I can't say you're wrong...
It may mimic it, just like Catholicism mimics the Church of Christ as it was first started, but that is as far as it goes.
Of course, it is easy to pontificate from a 21st century American LDS POV.
-
In those versus it explains that the spirit of Elijah relates to the baptism of the dead, so I still don't understand why you said the "agency" of Elijah.
I provided a scripture showing through who, or rather, through whose agency that was restored.
Agency in this case speaks to instrumentality. By means of what or whom a certain action was carried out or a purpose was achieved.
And how does this relate to circumcision?
As Elijah is the agent through whom children are brought into the covenant of the fathers in Judaism, in LDS teaching due to the keys restored through Elijah we are able to perform ordinances bringing our ancestors to the same covenant we are in.
-
"[Rings on a door]
The Guru Maharishi Yogi: Hello, do you want to be a Hindu?
Woman: Yes, I have always wanted to become a Hindu.
The Guru Maharishi Yogi: Well, you can't! Have a nice day!"
- Goodness Gracious Me
-
I appreciate you sharing your extensive knowledge on these subjects, thanks. Could you explain what you mean by "agency of Elijah". Between what and what did he have agency over?
Try D&C 110:13-16 and 128:16-19.
-
Also, there is a newer tradition, called Zebed ha-Bat, a devotional party held for baby girls, during which they are given their name.
-
Here is something I had written almost two years ago on one of the traditions associated with circumcision.
In chapter 29 of Pirkei de-Rabi Eliezer, a pseudepigraphic work dated by most scholars to sometime around the Muslim conquest, several legends are related regarding circumcision. Circumcision was the sign of the covenant between the Lord and his people, and it was practiced by all the house of Israel until they split int two kingdoms. The kingdom of Ephraim (Israel) stopped its citizens from circumcising, which caused the covenant to be broken. Elijah arose in a fit of jealous or zealous rage, (the two words in Hebrew are identical) and swore the heavens to let no dew or rain fall upon the land.
As a result jezebel tried to kill Elijah. He prayed unto the Lord, who asked him if he were better than his fathers, listing many, from Jacob to David, who were forced to flee for their lives. Elijah gets the not-so-subtle hint, and takes off into the wilderness. Here the Lord again speaks to him and Elijah says that he has been zealous for the sake of the covenant, and the Lord replies that he has always been zealous.
By your life (an oath), Israel shall not circumsize a soul unless you behold it with your own eyes.
As a result, the sages made a seat of honour for the angel of the covenant, as it is said (Mal 3:1): and the messenger of the covenant whom ye delight in cometh. The God of Israel shall hasten and bring in our lifetime a messiah to comfort us.
In Sephardic and Eastern synagogues there stands a special chair, Elijah's chair.
Whenever a boy is circumcised, before being given to the godfather, he is placed in that chair (which is decorated with myrtle leaves), to be held by Elijah, who is present, but unseen.
The congregation then recites a line from Psalm 118:26, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!"
I myself was circumcised (whole other story, for a different time), it was in a Morrocan synagogue, and I too was placed in the Elijah seat.
Personally, I rather like the symbolism. It is through the agency of Elijah that we, as latter-day saints, are able to enter into some of the most precious and most sacred of covenants with the Lord, covenants that truly turn children's hearts to their fathers.
-
It has to do with the idea that what I said was offensive to currently living people, your friends.
There is no current religion living the law of Moses as it was lived back then that I know about, which was a religion guided by a living Prophet back then. No, I am not kidding about that.
I hate to burst that bubble, but a living prophet is not considered the salient point of the Law of Moses, so the notion that your statements aren't offensive because nobody really lives by the Law of Moses seeing as they don't have prophets hasn't a leg to stand on.
The reason I said that is because I think (maybe I am wrong) that some people think that Judaism is like the law of Moses. In fact there was a reference to that in this thread by someone. Is that religion guided by a living prophet?
I obviously can't stress this enough. THE central tenet of Judaism is that Jews are a covenant people of God, and that abiding in the covenant means following the 613 positive and negative commandments contained in the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses is central to Judaism (and to Samaritans), so to claim that The law of Moses doesn't relate to any current religion is patently absurd.
-
In the sense that seminarysnoozer meant that comment, its right, the law of moses is a dead law.
What sense might that be.
-
I don't know of anyone who is currently living under the law of Moses with a living prophet, guided by God, do you?
What has that got to do with anything, unless you are suggesting that not living under living prophet, guided by God = a lower, primitive mindset.
To me that is a primitive or first steps law. I don't see why that is so offensive or would in any way offend any current friends. The law of Moses doesn't relate to any current religion any more than the Church of Christ relates to Catholicism or branch of the original Church of Christ so that statement certainly wouldn't be offensive to any current living person or religion.
Please tell me that you are kidding.
-
If you want to lie and twist what I said into calling people primitive and lower then I can see how you would be so defensive. I didn't though. I said it was a primitive "mindset". If you want to misinterpret that as something else I don't have any defense.
I fail to see how I've misinterpreted that, unless you were using an extremely idiosyncratic definition of "mindset." In which case you can hardly blame me for misunderstanding.
Let's replace the word "mindset" with some of its standard definition and see if there is any improvement.
"The context of living under the mosaic law and having that lower, primitive mental inclination, tendency, or habit is something that most of us can't do with a flip of the switch, I would imagine."
The context of living under the mosaic law and having that lower, primitive attitude, disposition, or mood is something that most of us can't do with a flip of the switch, I would imagine"
"The context of living under the mosaic law and having that lower, primitive fixed mental attitude or disposition that predetermines a person's responses to and interpretations of situations is something that most of us can't do with a flip of the switch, I would imagine."
-
Slamjet, you forgot the line from "Men in Tights."
-I'll have two, please.
-
Exodus 34:1–2
When quoting from the JST you really ought to mention it.
-
I've met a few Jews who have that have that attitude because they are "of the house of Israel" and you cant honestly study judaism without realizing that being jewish is better.
And there are plenty of LDS who feel that way about LDS themes, Catholics on Catholic themes, Protestants, Napoleonic wars uniform enthusiasts, and philatelists. So?
The scriptures do say it is a lesser priesthood. I suppose you could argue about whether or not it is more "primitive" but to say that primitive equals derogatory is fallacious. The restored church is modeled after the "primitive" church.
Yes, the scriptures do say it is lesser, they don't however say that those who held or hold to it are of a lower, primitive mindset, which is the opinion Snoozer expressed.
I've seen plenty of that from your ancestors,
Oh, really. Considering that to the best of my knowledge you and I have never met, that is an interesting statement.
etc. I think you are taking primitive and lower as derogatory when that isn't necessarily the case. I read it more like they were simpler, easier to understand ordinances.
You'll forgive me for remianing unconvinced that "lower" was meant in a positive way, or that Snoozer was using "primitive" in the sense of "original."
-
Why, when it is described as a lower law and a lower priesthood?
Perhaps because it is an arrogant, condescending attitude of superiority?
"Lower law"and "lesser priesthood" do not imply a lower mindset, nor a primitive one. The Melchizedek Priesthood has more ordinances and more keys, yet that doesn't make the Aaronic Priesthood lower, more primitive.
The same holds true for the Law of Moses. It contains profound spiritual lessons and truths in its rituals and proscriptions. I recommend actually studying the Old Testament more.I speak of this because it is a principle that has been manifest in the church of God in this generation as well as in others. I had the administration of angels while holding the office of a priest. I had visions and revelations. I traveled thousand of miles. I baptized men, though I could not confirm them because I had not the authority to do it.
I speak of these things to show that a man should not be ashamed of any portion of the priesthood. Our young men, if they are deacons, should labor to fulfil that office. If they do that, they may then be called to the office of a teacher, whose duty it is to teach the people, visit the Saints and see that there is no evil or iniquity carried on. God has no respect for persons in this priesthood any further than as they magnify their callings and do their duty (Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, sel. G. Homer Durham [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1946], pp. 297–98).
You are characterising many of my friends and neighbours, as well as my ancestors and great men and women throughout the ages as primitive and lower. We can do without such gospel arrogance and borderline Zoramitery
-
I think that symbolism always requires putting it into the right context. The context of living under the mosaic law and having that lower, primitive mind set is something that most of us can't do with a flip of the switch, I would imagine.
I would take exception with classifying those who follow and followed the Law of Moses as having a a lower, primitive mindset.
-
The Bible Dictionary backs up that Egyptians practiced it:
See an ancient Egyptian illustration here http://www.dhushara.com/book/orsin/circ.jpg
-
What a coincidence, that's what her brother's situation would have been if the Doctor hadn't have noticed...
There is a really funny old Israeli skit in the form of a radio interview with a former mohel, that is, circumciser.
-Why did you quit?
-Instead of bringing infants into Judaism I accidentally took them out of Judaism.
-
You should check online if you can get the book of Shaye J.D. Cohen called "Why Aren't Jewish Women Circumcised?" Lots of research done there.
Thanks, I was trying to remember who wrote that! Cohen is a superb scholar of the ancient social history of Judaism.
One of the reasons for males being circumcised is that God covenanted with Abraham to give him physical, literal descendants and heirs. This is the main theme of the Abraham cycle. As Rameumptom pointed out, the male genitals were a symbol of vitality and fertility. Facsimile 2 of the Book of Abraham has a very graphic illustration of this.
God gave Abraham a token of the covenant (and his commitment to fulfilling it) in the very organ through which the promise would be fulfilled. An ancient Jewish tradition holds that God did not tell Abraham which part of the body was to be circumcised. Abraham pondered it until he saw a tree bearing fruit. The Hebrew word used for foreskin was also used of something unready, such as fruit on a tree. He reasoned that trees have foreskins where they bear fruit, then he should be circumcised where he bears fruits.
As to why women weren't involved, a partial answer can be found in Tikva Frymer-Kensky's "Reading the Women of the Bible." She was a feminist biblical scholar, but this work is a frank and non-judgemental look at the place of women in the Bible. Women weren't independant individuals, but an extension of first thier father, then their husband. A woman followed what her husband followed.
-
No doubt, you interpret it this way because it fits your belief. Inserting the word "belonging" is where you turn it into your idea. It doesn't have to mean "belonging to," in the way you portray. It can mean "belonging to" as He is supreme of all that belong to it, understaning that all that belong to it are lesser, but still gods. It's a very fine line of interpretation.
Actually, the Hebrew grammar requires that understanding. Edat is the possesive form of edah, and is possesed by the noun (or proper noun) following it.
I'm afraid it really isn't easy to follow what you are saying, but if you think I was claiming that edat El doesn't mean that the members were gods then you are mistaken.
-
Psalm 82 « Daniel O. McClellan
Lots of good stuff here.
-
David, a man of God, would not have called them mighty
He didn't. Laying aside the fact that Psalm 82 is attributed in the Psalter to Asaph, not David, "congregation of the mighty" is an egregious mistranslation. The Hebrew reads "adat El," the congregation of El, which is singular, not plural. It is also a proper name, the deity El. So this is the congregation belonging to El, the supreme deity. The gods who were assigned various lots abused their stewardship, and YHWH rails against them and passes judgement upon them.
-
Also Christians do not understand that Jews do not view the term "Messiah" as a God coming to save them and take them to heaven rather the hope for a Messiah to a Jew means a righteous human King sent by God to rule a completely peaceful. Jews do not think of this time as the end of the world either. They think of it as a time in life where all the world will live in peace led by a righteous King (Messiah).
I do apologise for centering in on a single remark. I promise to address this and the rest of your points in more detail later. What you describe is one Jewish conception of the Messiah, a very Maimonidean conception. In other currents of Jewish thought and belief the Messiah has a more spiritual role.
-
I recall from reading Edersheim that there were sacrifices to atone for individual sin, and sacrifices for national sin. Is that still a prevalent thought or is it considered outdated?
Yes, it still is. Since the temple has been destroyed prayer though is considered a substitute.
Circumcision
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
How does its fulfilment render the law non-existant, especially for people who don't believe that Christ was the fulfilment?
The underlying logic is the same.
Umm, no. You are flagrantly, wildly wrong here. Who died and appointed you Torquemada? First of all, it is not a vote but a statement of fact. Unlike the Law of Hamurabi, the Law of Moses is still around, as there is a major religion (Judaism) that continues to observe it. Second, accepting that fact does not mean that I am calling for a reinstatement of the whole of the Law of Moses, and calling for it to replace the gospelmof Jesus the Christ.