volgadon
-
Posts
1446 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by volgadon
-
-
Why is Origen an early African Christian yet Clement an Alexandrine?
-
You're taking what i said to literally,
In that case I could draw parallels to the temple with practically anything I could find.
There are such things as invalid or weak parallels. We need to look at context, function, and history before declaring a parallel.
obviously you're not converting from one religion to another but you are 'converting' from a lower level of commitment to a higher one.
Which has little to do with the Jewish custom of name change.
and for that matter recieving a new name isn't really apart of the temple covenants either except that you are not to reveal it.
Actually, I think you are forgetting a very important bit, but I certainly won't go into why the new name is an integral part of temple covenants.
In Judaism there is no religious requirement for changing your name. It is a social custom. It doesn't serve a religious function either, though naturally in places with a high degree of assimilation the foreign-sounding name would tend to be used on formal ocassions and not so much every day life.
thats really neither here or there anyway, i still find it interesting to draw parallels to our religion from others, especially regarding the temple.
I do too, if you looked at my blog that would be apparent, but I don't believe in drawing parallels where none are to be found.
-
Honestly, the Jews most likely to "sell out" Israel are not the secular Leftists, but some of the extremist Hasidic types, like the Satmars, opposed to the state of Israel with every fibre of their being. They carry on cordial relations with Hamas, if that tells you anything.
-
Perhaps i am creating parrallels instead of seeing one that are already there but, as far as recieving your endowment, you are in a sense 'converting' and 'becoming part of a different people and culture' maybe not to the same extent as someone converting to Judaism but i still think a parallel exists.
Umm, no, you are still LDS, you would have converted over from another religion earlier, not as part of the temple covenants. At the risk of repeating myself, receiving a new name is not a religious requirement or ritual in Judaism. Indeed, in Second Temple and early Rabbinic Judaism, most converts did not take a new name, such an example being Aquilas the Proselyte.
Names usage varies. In a predominantly Jewish or predominantly religious environment, one is likely to use the Hebrew name almost exclusively. In a more secular Western environment, one is likely to use the original name the most.
This is a social phenomenon, not a religious one.
-
I think the discussion is fairly generalised.
-
Furthermore... Leaders (General authorities) mention that lessons should be consistent so that a person who happens to travel would find that the lesson in his home ward and the lesson taught in another ward that he visits some place else, would be teaching the same lesson (?)
In theory, but never in practice. Lets say that you are traveling, but the city you have travelled to has a conference that Sunday. This means that you don't find the same lesson in that ward or branch as your home one is teaching! Why then does it matter if you give lesson 10 instead of skipping to 11.
-
I was reading some information about converting to Judaism and i found this:
How to Go About Converting to Judaism | eHow.com
I found it very interesting that not only is the new 'jewish' name usually a biblical figure it is also usually only used at specific times in ones life. while Jews might not hold there name as sacred as we do i find it interesting anytime there is evidence that elements of temple worship are older than the 1860's
Not in this case. I don't mean that the idea of a new name is new to the 1840s, it is biblical. Your example simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Receiving a Jewish name upon conversion is a social custom, not a religious rite. There is actually no halachah requiring a name change or which insists upon biblical names.
Converting to Judaism involves becoming part of a different people and culture, naturally one wants to fit in, hence a name change. Most converts change their name, some use it exclusively, others only on formal occasions.
-
they know hate speech and angry rhetoric does nothing but get more innocent people killed, both Israelis and Palestinians.
Like this?
-
It's the opinion of one of the most respected experts on the Mideast.
It is one-sided, deceptful rubbish. I'm a left wing Israeli BTW.
-
The population of the State of Israel is comprised approxinmately 75 percent Jews (Christian, Muslims and other religions make up the other 25 percent. And of that approximately 42 percent of the Jews define themselves as secular.
Things are actually a little more complicated. At both extremes you have hilonim and haredim. Hilonim are secular, they don't observe halachah. The haredim observe halachah in its minutest details. In the middle, and by far the largest group, are the shomrei masoret, they observe halachah to varying degrees.
-
I have the opportunity to study abroad on a scholarship for two to four years. The program itself recommends that you study in places that you wouldn't automatically pick, like Indonesia, or Russia. I would have a much better chance choosing a country like that instead of picking France, Italy, or a place like that. I was just wondering if anyone has studied abroad. I know that a lot of you have gone on missions, but I think that is a bit different than actually studying abroad; awesome, but different. Can you attend and actual school, or is more or less a study the culture type of thing? I am not sure I would want to go if that is what it entails, because I want to be smart about what I can eventually major in, and not back myself up into a corner like my french teacher confessed to doing. So in short, Study Abroad, good or bad, and personal experiences would be so appreciated =]
Before life intervened with other plans I was planning on studying in Russia or Ukraine. The thing is, what are you studying that would relate to, say, Russia. If you have studied nothing about Russia, not the culture, not the history, not the language, then it will be an overwhelming case of culture shock and probably not extremely useful for you.
-
Has no one done one of these tours?
I'm looking at Holy Land Tour with Scot & Maurine Proctor | Facebook - holy lands tour
No, but I've seen the itinerary before. It is laid out very poorly indeed. A lot of needless bussing around. You'll waste half your trip getting to places.
-
My husband finds them hot (we live in a very warm climate),
My last summer in Israel I worked in a factory in Ashdod, that is, along the southern coastal strip. Wearing garments was inconvenient to say the least, but I had made a covenant with the Lord.
I'm not judging, nor do I want to sound holier-than-thou. What matters is one's attitude.
Glad you are both coming back.
-
Most of Nibley is very dated. I've gotten several concrete examples which I'll post on.
-
Hello I am just wondering someone mentioned something interesting to me the other day that if your mother is Jewish then your Jewish regardless of the father background is this true?
and if its true does mothers blood line means the Priesthood goes through the mothers line as well? just wondering
:) kinds regards Avrham
In modern Judaism, well, since late talmudic times, Judaism was through matrilineal descent. Your tribal identity, however, is through your father's line. For example, our Persian Jewish neighbours were cohens, though their mother was not.
Also, the Talmud records R. Judah the Patriarch as saying if the Babylonian Exlirach immigrated to Israel, then he'd step down as patriarch, because he is only from Judah on his mother's side.
-
And I personally agree with you, Volgadon. There are early versions of the Akedah (Abraham sacrificing Isaac), wherein Abraham actually slays Isaac. The Lord then comes and raises Isaac back to life. So it isn't like human sacrifice is unknown to Israel in its early period.
There is actually more in both chapters which supports the notion of sacrifice.
-
Why would we have a Relief Society instead of sending the women home early so they could cook us lunch? Your friend's comment was ridiculous.
-
Samuel had sons, so he obviously was married. It was Bullinger that suggested the And/or. You can read more about it here:
Bullinger's solution is a way of making the text more palatable. It is hard to understand the grief and horrified reactions presented in the text if all we were talking about was a lifetime of cultic worship.
-
My parents were at a lecture given many years ago by a prominent Israeli archaeologist. A scholar you'd despise. He spotted an old kibbutznik in the back who was still wearing his work clothes. The archaeologist pointed to the old man and said this guy is perhaps the most knowledgeable person on the planet when it comes to such-and-such a dig, he should be delivering the lecture instead of me. Guess what, the old guy wasn't the sort who would lash out with derision and contempt at scholars like you seem to. He worked at the dig and carried out research on his own, using the tools of scholarship.
BTW, I'm an autodidact.
-
Considering that most of the Middle Eastern side of the BoM took place in unknown stretches of desert (Potter not withstanding), touring there is rough.
-
Yes I will, unless you explain the obvious to me.
Unless? I think the words you intended are even when.
The way the terms "uphold" and "fulfil" were used in ancient Jewish scripture interpretation meant that you would show that the text was in agreement with your teaching, even if yours was not the obvious explanation. See for example the Mekhilta on Exodus 14:29 where R. Pappias proposes several obvious readings of scripture only to have R. Akiva reject them in favour of a less apparent interpretation, which he then proceeds to "uphold."
-
What "changed"?
Righteousness has ALWAYS been by grace through faith. The Messiah was first preached to Adam and Eve. (Gen 3:15)
Jesus said again; (Matt. 5:17) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Which usually meant something other than the obvious, literal sense. However, I've no doubt you'll ignore this as well.
-
Climate is also different in Southeast Asia than in Arizona or even the Middle East. Deserts are dry. The Philippines is a tropical climate -- humid. I'd rather have 100 dry degrees than 80 humid ones.
Israel is very humid but the Philipines are worse that way.
-
To me, eternal marriage just seems like common sense. The Bible says whatsoever God binds let man not put asunder. If a marriage is ordained and bound by God how can death break what God binds? That would be saying death has power over God.
The question would be for what duration did God bind it. A lot also has to do with what you consider the purpose of marriage. We LDS tend to approach it from the POV of temple sealings whereas the sources quoted approached it from the POV of sex and childbirth. If those things are superfluous in heaven then so is marriage.
Early teachings of Christianity
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
I think in the case of the 13th century Thomas aquinas that the quote very much is out of context, given Aquinas' specific set of philosophical categories and the preservation of the divide between creature and Creator. It would be nice to see more than a brief sentence so we can appreciate the context.