volgadon
-
Posts
1446 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by volgadon
-
-
Define doctrine, then and now, please.
-
The Midrash on the Creation of the Child (Seder Yetzirat ha-Walad) details a child's life from the pre-existence of its soul through conception, the womb, and then birth. Upon birth an angel makes the child forget what he knew before. The midrash also has God pointing to exalted souls, who are exalted because they came to this earth. Kind of hard to say there are no LDS beliefs with counterparts in ancient Judaism.
-
This is from Howard Schwartz's "Tree of Souls: the mythology of Judaism".
The souls of the righteous existed long before the creation of the world.
God consulted these souls in creating the universe, as it is said, They dwelt there in the king’s service (I Chron. 4:23).
God called upon the souls of the righteous, who sat on the council with the Supreme King of Kings, to come together.
He then took counsel with them before He brought the world into being, saying, “Let us make man” (Gen. 1:26).
So too did they help Him with His work.
Some assisted in planting and some helped create the borders of the sea, as it is said, Who set the sand as a boundary to the sea (Jer. 5:22).
Nor does God make any important decision without consulting the Council of Souls.
So too did God take counsel with the souls of the righteous.
He asked them if they were willing to be created. And that is how the souls of the righteous, including the souls of Abraham and the other patriarchs, came into being.
While there are traditions that God took council with the angels or a divine partner such as Adam in creating the world, here the phrase, “Let us make man” from Genesis 1:26 is said to refer to a Council of Souls (nefashot shel Tzaddikim), with whom God consulted before creating the world. These souls of the righteous are said to have
existed before the creation of the world. In fact, it is not specified that they were created
by God at all, but only called together by God before He created the universe.
Further, they not only give their consent for the creation of the world, but they participate
in it, assisting God in planting and creating the boundaries of the sea. Rabbi Levi
Yitzhak of Berditchev interprets God’s consulting with the souls of the righteous to
mean that He asked them if they were willing to be created.
Evidence of a divine council can be found in several biblical passages, such as
Psalms 82:1, which states that God stands in the divine assembly; among the divine beings
He pronounces judgment. Here the term for the divine assembly is “adat el.” In Canaanite
Myth and Hebrew Epic, Frank Moore Cross describes this council as the Israelite counterpart
of the Council of El found in Canaanite mythology, referring to El, the primary
Canaanite god. It would thus seem that this obscure Jewish tradition is directly drawn
from the Canaanite. Psalm 82 adds a strange twist to this myth: God appears to condemn
the gods of the Council of Gods to death: “I had taken you for divine beings, sons of
the Most High, all of you; but you shall die as men do, fall like any prince” (Ps. 82:6). This
might be interpreted to mean that monotheism declares the death of polytheism.
Jeremiah 23:18 also describes a divine council: But he who has stood in the council of
Yahweh, and seen, and heard His word—He who has listened to His word must obey. Another
reference to the divine council is found in 1 Kings 22:19-22, where God addresses the
host of heaven, asking who will entice Ahab, and a certain spirit came forward and stood
before the Lord and said, “I will entice him.” Other passages suggesting the existence of
heavenly beings with whom God discusses His decisions include Isaiah 6 and Job 1-2.
Usually the term, “the souls of the righteous,” refers to the souls of the pious who
have died, and whose souls have ascended to Paradise. By pre-existing, these souls
become identified as primordial gods, such as are found in other Near Eastern mythologies.
By calling them together as a council, God implicitly recognizes their power.
It must be assumed that the council of souls gave its approval for the creation of the
universe, since God proceeded with it after that.
Another possible explanation would be to identify “the souls of the righteous” in
this midrash with the angels. In other sources, God is said to have consulted with the
angels before creating man, and there are traditions and countertraditions of the notion
that the angels somehow participated in the creation of the world itself. See “Creation
by Angels,” p. 116. However, it would be highly unusual to refer to the angels as
“the souls of the righteous,” although Philo does refer to angels as “unbodied souls.”
A prooftext for the existence of such a council of souls or angels can be found in
Daniel 4:14: The matter is by decree of the watchers, and the sentence by the word of the holy
ones. Both of these terms, the “watchers” and the “holy ones,” suggest some kind of
supernatural figures from the heavenly realm, whether angels, souls, or additional divinities.
The Council of Souls may also be identified with the heavenly court, and identified
as the Watchers. See “The Heavenly Court,” p. 208, and “The Watchers,” p. 457.
There are parallel myths about God consulting the angels, rather than souls, in the
creation of Adam. The text of Genesis 1:26 states that God said: “Let us make man in our
image, after our likeness.” But in the Pseudo-Yonathan Targum on Genesis 1:26, this is
changed to read: “And God said to the angels who minister before him, who were
created on the second day of Creation. `Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.’”
See “Creation By Angels,” p. 116.
In Genesis Rabbah 8:9 the question of how many deities created the world is directly
broached: “How many deities created the world? You and I must inquire of the first
day, as it is said, For ask now of the first days (Deut. 4:32).” The rabbis subsequently
debate whether the first sentence of Genesis describes creation by one God or by many,
since Elohim is plural. Read this way, the first line of Genesis reads: “In the beginning
Gods created the heaven and the earth.” That such a debate can take place at all is
remarkable, considering the centrality of monotheism. But it is also a tribute to the open-ended willingness of the rabbis to explore even apparently heretical interpretations of the Torah. The existence of this discussion and the fact that it was recorded in
a primary text such as Genesis Rabbah, indicates that the “heretical” had some advocates among the rabbis.
Perhaps it harks back to a residual pagan myth, a Canaanite myth about a council of gods.
Such divine councils rule in Mesopotamian, Babylonian, and Canaanite mythology.
In the Babylonian epic Enuma Elish, Marduk is made head of the divine council
by defeating Tiamat, the personification of the sea. It is likely that the existence of
such a council in Jewish tradition is a remnant of such an ancient myth. Ugaritic texts
describe the abode of El, the primary Canaanite god, and his council on the mountain
of El, where the gods are seated at a table. El’s abode is said to be in the north. This
setting and location is echoed in Isaiah 14:13: “I will sit in the mount of assembly, on the
summit of Zaphon.” (Zaphon is Hebrew for “north.”)
God’s perplexing use of the first person plural in verses such as Let us make man in
our image (Gen. 1:26), Behold the man has become like one of us (Gen. 3:22), and Let us, then,
go down and confound their speech there (Gen. 11:7) can be explained as addressing the
divine council. This same usage is found in the Ugaritic texts. Most midrashic texts
interpret “Let us” as God addressing the angels.
Sources:
Genesis Rabbah 8: 7; Maggid Devarav le-Ya’akov 1; No’am Elimelekh, Bo 36b.
Studies:
Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic by Frank Moore Cross, pp. 36-43, 186-190.
“The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah” by Frank Moore Cross.
“The Council of Yahweh” by H. Wheeler Robinson.
“God and the Gods in Assembly” by Matitiahu Tsevat.
Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature by E.
Theodore Mullen.
-
Agreed. As a Catholic, I knew that while praying the Rosary, we were not simply repeating prayers mindlessly or "in vain", but meditating on various parts of the life of Jesus Christ.
Absolutely. It can be a very beautiful thing.
I always get teary when I read Graham Greene's The Power and the Glory. The title says it all. A man, who in most ways is far from being Christ-like ends up embodying the Savior's love and sacrifice when he puts the spiritual needs of others above his own safety.
-
A simple apology would have sufficed, however, if you are to continue with your belligerent attitude and misrepresentation when someone crosses you, I'm not sure there is much point in continuing.
-
I should add that the purpose of the "vain repetition" was to force God's hand by a combination of precise words and holy names. That is why it had to be rigid and precise. What Jesus does here is reject that notion, providing instead a formula of the things we are to pray. This formula emphasises not us, but the father's glory. There is nothing in it which would force God to grant us what we pray for.
-
Using Matthew 6 to condemn Catholics for the rosary (and Orthodox for Our Father) or Jews for the Shema, or any other group for any rote prayer misses the mark. That the very next thing we find Christ saying is actually a rote prayer should be enough to alert us to the possibility that we are misreading Christ's injunction. LDS know that we have prayers both inside the temple and out of which which are rote prayers.
The key to understanding vain (the word meant something of none effect, not vainglorious) repetition lies in the prayers of the pagans. One need look no further than the Greek Magical Papyri to see examples of how prayers had to follow rigid and precise formulations, without which the prayer would have been of none effect.
-
LDSC, why leave out the pseudepigraphia, the midrashim, and others?
-
Why do members of the Church not read History of the Church? Why don't more members read The Once and Future King? Why don't more members read the newspaper?
Done, done, and done.
=)
-
Very interesting!
Let me reformulaze to be sure I understand well !
So Samson did commit adultary wife this woman and with the prostitue but this didn't make him lose his strengh that came from God ... But he told his secret to this dalila and that was a fault ?
So young man of the church, God change not !! Let it be know that one man can commit adulterary and not be left alone from God ! But Take attention ! Never give yourself to the woman you love ! Never put your life in her hands because of love ! Because this is a fault !
Marvelous teaching ! Very beautifull teaching !
Wow, you really are something. Take your miserable holier-than-thou attitude and go stew in it.
You couldn't have misrepresented my position more fully if you tried to purposefully. Oh, wait, you did...
-
I had answer all your question, you surely can answer a single one !
Then you really need to phrase your questions more clearly. When I answered about the number seven, you switched the question to one about the source of strength. When I answered that, you switched yet again, back to the number seven.
Come on!!
Calm down first of all. You come in here all high and mighty, the bearer of special spiritual truth, the wielder of the sharp sword, come to show us the way the truth and the light, blah blah blah blah blahbbing blah, yet when someone counters your points you become rude and belligerent.
the Bible has been wrotten by profets ! Every missionnary knows that !
An extremely simplistic POV, honestly. Much of the Old Testament is actually courtly chronicles of the reign of the kings. These were written by scribes, not prophets.
Why a profet would emphasis 7 locks if it had no importance ?
Who says it has no importance? I say it doesn't have the meaning you are trying to attach to it. Seven is mentioned twice in this account, and it conveys the same idea. See below.
At list, tell us what 7 means !
Honestly, nobody knows for certain. Some have speculated that it implies completeness. In the context of Samson and Delilah, then, it is showing that Delilah tied and later shaved all of Samson's hair. This still does not mean that the hair was the source of Samson's power. The unshoven hair symbolised his status apart, and the strength given to him by virtue of this status. Shaving it signified ending that status, as can be seen with the nazirite parallels.
You are in Israel! You know Hebrew !
Which is a contributing factor for my rejecting your interpretation of Samson.
You have the Holy gost given by the autority of the priestood !
And?
-
I am sure you can make a effort..
his strengh was in them !
And why seven? Why not, say, three, or fourteen, or even forty? You need to be a little clearer in the questions you ask, as I tend to assume that people mean what they say.
Samson's strength was not in his hair. Samson told Delilah about his hair. She cut it. This desacralised Samson because he told her how to do it. When his hair (symbol of his nazarite-like status as consecrated vessel) was cut it meant he was no longer in his special status. The hair, if you'll recall, was cut when a nazarite's vow ended.
-
Volgadon :
May be you can explain to us why he had seven locks ?
Juges 16:19 *And she made him sleep upon her knees; and she called for a man, and she caused him to shave off the seven locks of his head; and she began to afflict him, and his strength went from him.
Because seven is a formulaic number?
-
Juges 16:8 *Then the lords of the Philistines brought up to her seven green withs which had not been dried, and she bound him with them.
9 *Now there were men lying in wait, abiding with her in the chamber. And she said unto him, The Philistines be upon thee, Samson. And he brake the withs, as a thread of tow is broken when it toucheth the fire. So his strength was not known.
12 *Delilah therefore took new ropes, and bound him therewith, and said unto him, The Philistines be upon thee, Samson. And there were liers in wait abiding in the chamber. And he brake them from off his arms like a thread.
Juges 16:19 *And she made him sleep upon her knees; and she called for a man, and she caused him to shave off the seven locks of his head; and she began to afflict him, and his strength went from him.
And absolutely none of this shows that Samson was aware of his enemies lurking there, let alone that he had them there in order to respect the law of chastity.
-
????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Says quite clearly that he loved her. So, there is a romantic interest there, not platonic.
Juges 16:9 *Now there were men lying in wait, abiding with her in the chamber. And she said unto him, The Philistines be upon thee, Samson. And he brake the withs, as a thread of tow is broken when it toucheth the fire. So his strength was not known.
well in french it is not exactly the same traduction :
it means : that the ennemy were waiting in her house in a room...
I am working off of the Hebrew. I don't speak French, but I have an appreciation for the great French writers: Dumas, Balzac, Mollierre, Maupassant, Herge, Goscinny and Uderzo, Brel and Brassens...
Anyway, back to the Hebrew. It shows that Samson spent the night in Delilah's room.
I don't know how men (numerous ? ) could be waiting in the same room as Samson without he knew !!
I don't know, but obviously enough to capture him in his weakened state, yet not enough to attempt it otherwise.
Are you trying to argue that Samson was completely aware that the people out to kill him were hiding time and time again in the room he slept in, and that he was ok with it because he respected the law of chastity. That is a stretch.
Listen, I don't know if I will continue arguing with you..
You aren't the only one with a sword.
You want to see Samson as a weak man.. ok. Paul said of him :
Hebreux 11:32 *¶And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets.
Who am I to defend Samson ?
You were trying to convince us that Christ = Samson, your arguments so far have been untenable.
-
This is your own point of view.
As if what you were saying wasn't your own point of view? Should I dismiss your points so lightly?
First I don't want to argue.
A little language barrier, I think. To argue also means to present a line of reasoning.
And I don't know every thing. But It may have a sense (may be the temptation... don't know yet)
Or it might be a literal account of how we can fall from where we are no matter who we are. It is a cautionary tale. David gave in to temptation, to adultery, and murder. Christ resisted temptation.
Remember that it is said in the book of mormon about a symbol of Christ. I am agree with that.
Yet the BoM doesn't indicate that every Old testament figure or prophecy is a carbon copy of Christ, or that all scriptural examples are positive.
Well as I explained You don't have to, and may be mine its is not the good one !
But I still prefer mine because the scripture have an interest, and in your case to have faith in the goodness of our heavenly father, but in yours... I don't see...
Mine explains what the authors intended, and going on from there we can apply it spiritually to our lives in a more precise manner.
not yet...
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homme_de_paille_(rh%C3%A9torique)
2 Samuël 5:8 *And David said on that day, Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind, that are hated of David's soul, he shall be chief and captain. Wherefore they said, The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.
Well it can be can be many way of explain it : But again I am not saying I know every thing ! I just try to explain my believe that there is a symbolic meaning ! And that we can try to find it out ! Because the Lord is willing that !
Well I can give my opinion now (but it is not a definitive one) ok? Because I believe we can grow in knoledge little by little.
The problem is that you were setting forth your views as definitive.
Well David is trying to take possession of the country (we , our land), but there is people who's hart and minds are so hard that they will stay his ennemy. This scripture spake of them.
However, for other, who where blind and lame but can be cure !
So in the scripture of Jeremy.
Again, you are saying that the blind and lame of Jebus are a spiritual allegory of how Christ will heal us. Using that passage of scripture only, where do we see such?
I Hope every one will be in that kind than in the other.
Naturally.
Can we make peace?
What happened to the sword? =)
Nothing personal, just discussion boards.
-
where do you read that ??
Judges 16:4. Samson loves Delilah.
Judges 16:9. Her room.
-
but not your ennemies Usually
They weren't his enemies yet.
-
You know the scripture about the charity I am sure :
1 Corinthiens 13:5 *Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
As it is not written anywhere that Samson did comit adultary, I will consider him as inocent !
And even I will defend his integrity !
Aren't you judging without proof?
That fails to answer my question. You are so eager to turn Samson into Jesus that you will grasp at any possible interpretation, no matter how forced or far-fetched, that could spin a positive light on Samson.
In a time and culture where a woman out alone in the fields or by the roads was considered a prostitute or woman of easy virtue, I don't see why the author of Judges would have had to spell it out. Samson loves a woman and sleeps in HER room, with no indication of their being married. None of these comes close to being respectful of the law of chastity.
How does Samson's enemies hiding in a room in order to capture him = Samson was respectful of the law of chastity?
-
No where in this scriptures, you will find that he did commit adultary.
Even with Dalila, the men where hidden in the room. (So Samson was Known to be respectuous of the chastity low).
How does Samson enemies hiding in his room in order to capture him = Samson was respectful of the law of chastity?
You are clutching at straws, at whisps of smoke.
-
Hebrew Bible and ancient versions ... - Google Books see particularly note 68.
-
Ok, it is true "litteraly", but what is the lesson for us? what does it teach to us if you take just this scriputure in this sense?
First of all, not every episode in Samuel-Kings is mean to have a deep, spiritual lesson for us. A god portion of those four books is a chronicle of the kings of Israel, and focuses on the national and political aspects rather than on the purely spiritual.
Do you believe that the lord (David is a representation of the Lord, LDS church admit it) hates really the blind(physicaly) and the lame?
David is a type and shadow of the Lord in many things, and is used allegorically in later books of scripture to mean the Messiah, but this is not to say that everything that David did is a representation of the Lord, unless you are willing to argue that the Lord approves of adultery and murder in order to conceal a sin.
You have completely ignored my points. David did not hate the blind and lame. David called on people to kill the blind and lame on the Jebusite walls of Jerusalem. Those blind and lame were placed on the walls as a simile curse. The man to attack us will end up like these.
If you are looking for a spiritual message, then when struggling to take Jerusalem (be it your soul or your salvation or whatever else the prize may be) no curse or threat should stop you.
I don't believe so and that is why I said It wasn't true litteraly (in fact half spiritualy half litteraly if you want)
Again, what is the spiritual lesson there is in this scripture? What did the profets want us to understand?
That David don't like them? litteraly?
As I've demonstrated above, it has nothing to do with David disliking the blind and lame. If you keep down this track you will never arrive at the meaning of the text.
you asked me also why you should believe my view?
Well you don't have to !
I know I don't have to. I asked you why I should.
One reason, the word is "hidden", I believe, is so that those who want to believe in a spiritual sense can and those who don't can also.
That doesn't answer my question. Why should I accept your explanations as being the spiritual sense?
So, if you find instructive for your knowledge of God to believe that David don't like the the blind and the lame, it is fine with me.
Do you know what a strawman is?
Personaly, I prefer to understand that when we are blind and lame (spiritualy) we can reject the Christ. But one day the lord will Cure and he also will bring them :,
Jérémie 31:8 *Behold, I will bring them from the north country, and gather them from the coasts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together: a great company shall return thither.
Ok, but where in the account of David ordering people to kill the blind and lame do we see any indication of the Lord healing and gathering them?
-
The eternal life is to know God and Jesus Intimely as you say.
No more than that.
But If reading the scripture in a litteral sense, without looking for the real teaching there is in it, I not sure it helps to know God.
What more can I say?
Except that this is not a case of my interpreting a scripture on a purely literal level, and you doing so on a more exalted spiritual plane. This is you misinterpreting a word you have torn out of ts philological and culturo-historical context. You aren't sure that forming an intimate relationship with God the Father and Jesus helps to know God?
-
Is It not amazing how David (the lord) seems to reject the blind and the lame?
Would you take it literally?
Is it true literally?
Yes, I would take it literally, and yes, it is true, literally. This is a classic example of how not knowing (indeed, disregarding) the original cultural and historical contexts leads to artificial interpretations.
LDS and a Catholic
in Christian Beliefs Board
Posted
Not sure I understand what you are trying to say.