[By What Name?]

If all things are and come from the Light, then does the name Alan mean "rock of light"?

[By What Name?]

Don't get me wrong (just as a figure of speech, I don't think you do), I appreciate the discussion and it has value. It's value is just not to the level Bert10 is making it out to be. I think the Bible dictionary definition of "Christ" is sufficient for most of us; "Christ. The anointed (Gk.) or Messiah (Heb.). ..." There is more to the description.

Whether it was by oil or light or some other substance not known to us at this time it doesn't change the fact that Christ is the Chosen One before the world began and had a special mission here in this life, to be our Savior.

I think, like most words in the gospel, it has multiple meanings, all of which are valid and useful at certain times.

Unfortunately, two different ideas are beinng mixed here. Philologically there is no possible way for "Jesus the Christ" to mean "He who saves is the anointed with light". Jesus is the Greek form of the Hebrew Yeshua, or salvation. "He who saves" would have to be "moshia" according to the rules of Hebrew. Christ is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Mashiah (messiah), and neither explicitly make mention of any substance used in anointing (though in Hebrew the root is used in connection with oil only). What Bert is doing is conceptualising. He has decided that the anointing means receiving "light" and thus Christ must mean "anointed with light". This is somewhat similar to the Kabbalistic song "Bar Yohai". One of the lines reads "Bar Yohai, blessed are you, for you have been anointed with the oil of Gladness above your fellows. Bar Yohai, by the oil of holy anointing were you anointed, from the degree of holiness. "

This takes Psalms 45:8 and turns it into a kabbalistic secret. Gladness is God, and anointing oil here is turned into the sefirah Malchut pouring its essence onto Bar Yohai. Are we to take this to mean Gladness philologicaly means God, and anointing oil means essence of Malchut?

[Ex-future Mormon]

Hello FunkyTown. Yes, my first language is English. I use unusual way of writing sometimes to bring your attention to certain words. Sorry you had trouble understanding. My post means my Introduction and i wrote a tiny part about my religious views. Thank you.

I was going to say something about Sevres vases, but then I changed my mind. Welcome to the board.

[By What Name?]

I said you were completely wrong about the etymology of Jesus the Christ. As for faith being a principle of power, you presume to lecture people who've known and taught this for years, as if we should be bowing to your superior knowledge and revelations.

[By What Name?]

And it doesn't require anyone knowing that "Christ" means "Annointed by light" to obtain faith, wisdom or experience sufficient enough to have eternal increase in the next life and eventually understand the true meaning of the word "Christ", whatever that is.

You are right, it doesn't require us knowing the etymology of Jesus the Christ. Even less so do we need to know it when we realise Bert is completely wrong here.

[Ever heard of someone from 2 tribes?]

Ever heard of someone from 2 tribes?

And, my seminary teacher told me if your from the tribe of Manasseh you have African American 'blood' in your line.

Is that true? Because i thought it didn't matter who was related to you by blood.

I would be extremely interested in finding out how my wife would have African American 'blood' in her line. She is Ukrainian. Nobody at all from America in her line anywhere. Honestly, I have no idea where your teacher got that silly notion from.

[By What Name?]

Entering into the rest of the Lord his not been taught to us yet.

Baloney, Bert. Temples dot the globe. I would rather trust the Lord than you.

[By What Name?]

To me, asking for a name also reinforces the idea that there is power obtained by being sealed to each other as one family, as in the spirit of Elijah. We take on Christ' name by participating in ordinances that adopt us into the same family name with which Christ claims His authority. They probably knew of that importance without really understanding what that means, to ask for a name. Like you quoted there, name has to do with authority but they probably had a post-exile understanding of the power of a name.

For us though, we know the name has to do with our taking on the name of Christ and our falling under the Abrahamic covenant. ... through our family sealing.

I like the connection you made with sealing families.

Taking upon us the name of Christ, well, a name is inseparable from the essence of the being who carries it. This concept was fundemntal to how amulets (and many other form os magic) were thought to work in the ancient world. My blog has much more on that aspect. When I posted here I wanted to focus on New Testament applications.

[By What Name?]

The truth is that we don't really know what the exact real meaning of the name is because we use an imperfect language.

If you could say what the meaning of the word is using a perfect-God language and we all understood perfect God language, maybe then there would not be so much anxiety over a single word like "light" or "Christ".

Considering that the name is half-Hebrew and half-Greek, both imperfect, human languages, I think we have a %99 or understanding of what it means.

[Introducing the Synagogue]

Well, Jesus WAS a Rabbi. It means Master or Teacher (IIRC). It was not a professional calling/duty as it is now. And he was a master teacher. In his time, the requirement to teach in the synagogue was that the man had to be 30 years of age or older. This is perhaps the main reason Jesus did not begin his mission earlier - no one would have listened to him, because any younger and they would not consider him experienced enough to be a teacher.

Well, yes and no. During Christ's day, and even a generation or so after the temple was destroyed, the word rabbi was not used to describe a teacher or expounder of the law. It was an honorific like sir and could be applied to anyone. The closest thing we have to a rabbi word-wise would be either moreh (teacher) or hacham (sage).

As for age requirements, I know that the age of 30 is popularly repeated, but I am unable to find that requirement anywhere. It seems that each community had its own rules and traditions. Ben Zoma was fairly young, and unmarried, yet served as a teacher and preacher, because he was good at it. Of course, most communities were probably conservative, so the older and more established in the community, the better.

[By What Name?]

Bert, again you are insinuating that all who share not your unsupported conjectures mingled with scripture are spiritually tone-deaf apostates-in-the-making, and that only you have the humility and charity to see it and to inform us of it.

[Is Not This the Carpenter?]

I'm glad you mentioned that Jesus came from a lower middle class family, as many think that Joseph and Mary were poor, having to give birth to Jesus in a manger. It is a perfect example of us not thinking it entirely through. There were many people in Bethlehem, supposedly for the tax, but possibly for some other major Jerusalem event (Bethlehem is just a few miles from it). That Joseph sought a room means he had money and the means to pay for one.

We also note that tradition shows that Christ was born on Dec 25th in a manger, but by Jan 6th, the day the wise men traditionally appeared, they were already in a house.

There are many early traditions of Jesus working with his father in the carpentry field, including making a new throne for the king. I may be including some of those stories in the NT Gospel Doctrine lessons soon.

I like what you said about not thinking it entirely through. This is so important if we want to move beyond prooftexts to contexts. Christ's robe was very expensive. Even the lower quality ones could cost about a year's wages (if I remember Feinberg Vamosh's reference correctly). He obviously was not poor!

[Introducing the Synagogue]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_3k9vmXe8pgU/TS98iBhxW7I/AAAAAAAAAB0/h-4NFSDlPZA/s1600/caprnm.bmp

Last week in Sunday school someone commented that "Jesus never taught in the synagogues. He went out to the people."

I held my peace.

Laying aside the fact that the gospels do state that Jesus taught in synagogues, I want to address the assumption that synagogues were some sort of stronghold of a distant, detached religious elite. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In Hebrew a synagogue is beit-kneset, the place of the assembly, or congregation. Knesset Israel is one of the epithets frequently applied to the entire Jewish community. Another term for synagogue was beit ha-am, or place of the people.

The synagogue was a building for the community, built and maintained by the community.

Theodotus, son of Vettanos, a priest and

an archisynagogos (head of the synagogue), son of an archisynagogos

grandson of an archisynagogos, built

the synagogue for the reading of

Torah and for teaching the commandments;

furthermore, the hostel, and the rooms, and the water

installation for lodging

needy strangers. Its foundation stone was laid

by his ancestors, the

elders, and Simonides

-The Theodotus Inscription

.

This inscription shows the dual role of the synagogue both as a religious building and as a secular one. The scriptures were read and expounded in it, but it also contained guest rooms for lodging strangers. Lee I. Levine describes the synagogue as "the Jewish public building par excellence," and states that it functioned "first and foremost as the central communal institution in each community."[1]

The synagogue was where the community gathered, where meetings of all kinds were held, where children were given an education, where the community dealt with internal discipline and legal squabbles, where communal feasts were given, and where visitors could be lodged. On sabbaths and holidays people would gather to the synagogue to offer prayer and to read and expound portions of the Pentateuch and other biblical writings.[2] This was particularly important for members of the community in an age where literacy rates were lower than today, and where scrolls were rare and costly.

The synagogue readings were their most frequent exposure to the scriptures.

Rabbis, as we understand them, did not exist during Christ's day. They grew out of a Pharisaic movement led by Yohanan ben Zakkai in Jamnieh after the temple was destroyed. Even during the 3rd century the rabbis did not control the synagogue.

Rabbi Simeon would translate (and expound in the process) the Bible verses read in the synagogue of Tarbanat. The congregation requested that he only translate half a verse at a time, so they could explain it to their children. When R. Simeon refused, the congregation had him dismissed from his role as preacher.[3]

This would have been unimaginable if the people did not control the synagogue.

There is much more that could be written about ancient synagogues, but this introduction should be enough to dispell some common misconceptions encountered by readers of the New Testament.

A final word on the picture at the beginning of my post. This is part of the synagogue discovered at Capernaum. It is several centuries later than Jesus, but is probably built over the one he frequented.

[1]Lee I. Levine, Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity, pg. 139.

[2]Lee I. Levine, From Community Center to 'Lesser Sanctuary': The Furnishings and Interior of the Ancient Synagogue, Cathedra 60.

[3]Lee I. Levine, The Galilee in Late Antiquity, pg. 212.

[Is Not This the Carpenter?]

Continuing with my New Testament material in aid of this year's Sunday school, the traditional image of Christ's profession is that of a carpenter. Through the ages this image has been featured in works of art[1], literature[2], music[3], and even film[4].

In the 1970s, Geza Vermes challenged this understanding of Christ as a carpenter.

Those familiar with the language spoken by Jesus are acquainted with a metaphorical use of 'carpenter' and 'carpenter's son' in ancient Jewish writings.

In Talmudic sayings the Aramaic noun denoting carpenter or craftsman (naggar) stands for a 'scholar' or 'learned man' :

'This is something no carpenter, son of carpenters, can explain.'

'There is no carpenter, nor a carpenter's son, to explain it'

Thus, although no one can be absolutely sure that the -sayings cited in the Talmud were current already in first-century AD Galilee, proverbs such as these are likely to be age-old. If so, it is possible that the charming picture of 'Jesus the carpenter' may have to be buried and forgotten.

-Geza Vermas, Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels, 21-22.

On the face of it, Geza Vermes presents a strong case. Is it though?

The talmudic passage Geza Vermes refers to begins at the very end of the Babylonian Talmud, m. Avodah Zarah, 50a.

R. Joseph b. Abba said: Rabbah b. Jeremiah once visited our town. When he came he brought with him this teaching: If an idolater took stones from a Mercurius and paved roads and streets with them, they are permitted; if one of Israel took stones from a Mercurius and paved roads and streets with them, they are prohibited; and there is no carpenter nor carpenter's son who could dismantle it. R. Shesheth said: I am neither a carpenter nor a carpenter's son, yet I will dismantle it.

אמר רב יוסף בר אבא איקלע רבה בר ירמיה לאתרין ואתא ואייתי מתניתא בידיה <עובד כוכבים> {גוי} שהביא אבנים מן המרקוליס וחיפה בהן דרכים וטרטיאות

מותרות ישראל שהביא אבנים מן המרקוליס וחיפה בהן דרכים וסרטיאות אסורות ולית נגר ולא בר נגר דיפרקינה אמר רב ששת אנא לא נגר אנא ולא בר נגר אנא ופריקנא

The phrase we-leyith naggar we-la bar naggar diparkeina literally means there is no carpenter or son of a carpenter to dismantle it.

The context is of a rabbinic debate in Babylon over the propriety of a Jew taking stones from a pile dedicated to Mercury and using them in construction. If a Jew does it, the road he paved is forbidden for Jewish use, yet the same thing done by an idolater is permitted. This is said by the Amoraic rabbis to be such a difficult question that there is no carpenter or son of a carpenter to dismantle it. We are obviously dealing here with a proverb, one that seems to mean a problem none can solve. Rav Sheshet says that though he is no carpenter or son of a carpenter, he can solve the problem. Rav Sheshet was a Torah scholar addressing other Torah scholars! If a carpenter was a metaphor for scholar, then the use of it here is rather bewildering. Geza Vermes' interpretation seems to be drawn from what Rashi had wriiten centuries earlier in his commentary to the Babylonian Talmud.

Carpenter... carpenter's son - scholar... scholar's son.

Diparkeinah - who could explain it and explain why the matter before us is difficult.

נגר בן נגר - חכם בן חכם

דיפרקינה - שיוכל לתרצה ולקמן מפרש מאי קא קשיא ליה

Elsewhere in the Talmuds, whenever the word naggar appears, it is always in the context of an actual carpenter or woodworker. Even Rashi explains bar naggara (carpenter's son) as an ordinary woodworker[5].

The context of Mark 6 does not fit a metaphorical reading of the word carpenter either.

And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him. And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

-Mark 6:1-3.

The people of Nazareth hear Christ teaching in the synagogue on the Sabbath and are surprised, indeed, startled by his wisdom (and perhaps his originality as well). Why would that come as a surprise if carpenter were a metaphor for learned scholar? The surprise of the people is due rather to their not expecting one of the regular guys, a carpenter whose family everybody knows, to be able to expound scriptures like that.

An added factor to consider is that next door almost to Nazareth was the big, bustling city of Sepphoris, which was undergoing a building boom during Christ's lifetime. A carpenter would be a logical choice of profession. In those days, a carpenter was more of a contractor, he helped with blueprints, and tricky, technical work, such as hinges and shutters. It was one of the only professions to be paid in money. By today's standards, Christ was probably lower middle class.

All in all, I think the "charming picture" stands.

[1]Luca Cambiaso, "The Holy Family in the Carpenter's Shop: Jesus hold a lamp while Joseph carves a design."

[2]Elizabeth Linton, "The True History of Joshua Davidson."

[3]Christopher Wren, "Jesus Was a Carpenter."

[4]Owen Wilson's character in "Meet the Parents."

[5]See Rashi's commentary on the Babylonian Talmud, m. Baba Bathra, 73b.

[6]Miriam Feinberg Vamosh, Daily Life at the Time of Jesus, pg. 51.

[By What Name?]

So to reiterate, the anointed with light forms no part of the etymology or meaning of Christ, but is a conjecture on your part.

[Importance of location]

I don't believe the scriptures are nuanced about Israel. The word of God is clear that the LDS church is the family of Israel.

The word of God in scripture and through latter-day prophets is also clear that physical Israel is not replaced and displaced by the LDS church.

[Importance of location]

Their denial and stubbornness will gain them access to the Telestial kingdom, which glory is limited to that of the Holy Ghost.

One really hopes that you won't judged by the same measure you judge others. Hope though springs eternal.

[By What Name?]

Just a minor correction, Jesus the Christ does not mean "He Who Saves it the ANOINTED ONE with Light", but Salvation, the Anointed.

[By What Name?]

In Acts 4:7 the high priest and his circle see the miracles and deeds of the apostles, and ask them the following question. “By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?”

A name was considered to carry with it power.

Gershom Scholem wrote that, “The name is a real, non-fictitious quantity. It contains a declaration about the nature of its bearer or at least something of the potency attaching to it; it is, further, identified with the nature and essence of what is named by it.”[1]

Ephraim E. Urbach went as far as to say that the name and the power were synonyms.[2]

Names, then, were a big deal. They had to do with authority.

[1]Scholem, The Name of God and the Linguistic Theory of the Kabbala, Eranos lecture, 1970.

[2]E. E. Urbach, The Sages, pg. 124.

[Is this considered a revelation?]

But in Nephi's day Jews were also the inhabitants of the kingdom of Judah.

[Modern Temples]

Make him prove that statement.

Hint: 'rending the veil' does not mean they were done away with.

Indeed, rending the veil had to do with mourning customs.

[The Prophetic High Priest]

As we are studying the New Testament this year, I was working on a few posts illuminating the world and beliefs of the New Testament. They aren't following the lesson layout, but skip around. This one is on the perception of high priests as prophets.

But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.

Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.

If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.

And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,

Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.

-John 11:46-53.

Christ raised Lazarus from the dead, which alarmed the religious and political elite. Raising the dead was a distinctly messianic act, and the leaders were afraid that the majority of people would follow Jesus as the king and probably attempt to reestablish a Jewish kingdom. The Romans most certainly would come down like a ton of bricks on anything they considered a threat to their political hegemony. In the ancient world, where religion was public and political, this would mean that Jewish practices, such as temple worship, dietary laws, festivals and circumcision would have been abolished. The reign of the seleucid Antiochus Epiphanes and the disastrous aftermath of the Jewish revolts against the Romans bear ample witness that such fears were justified.

Caiaphas, the high priest at the time, spoke up, offering realistic political advice. By killing Jesus you would stop the popular movement. The author of John, however, interprets this as an unconscious prophecy of Jesus' true role.

John connects Caiaphas' ability to prophecy true prophecies with his role as high priest.

This is in keeping with how the high priesthood was understood in the Judeo-Hellenistic millieu, as the following quotes will show.

Photius, patriarch of Constantinople in the mid 9th century AD, compiled the Bibliotheca, reviews of a couple hundred books he had read. He provides many extracts, including one from the Roman historian Diodorus, quoting On the Egyptians, a work of ethnography by Hecataeus of Abdera, a member of Ptolemy I's court.

Authority over the people is regularly vested in whichever priest is regarded as superior to his colleagues in wisdom and virtue. They call this man high priest [archierea], and believe that he acts as messenger [angelon] to them of God's commandments. It is he, we are told, who in their assemblies and other gatherings announces what is ordained.

-Diodorus, Library of History, 40.3.

Josephus relates an incident involving the Hasmonean high priest and ruler John Hyrcanus.

Now a very surprising thing is related of this high priest Hyrcanus, how God came to discourse with him; for they say that on the very same day on which his sons fought with Antiochus Cyzicenus, he was alone in the temple, as high priest, offering incense, and heard a voice, that his sons had just then overcome Antiochus. And this he openly declared before all the multitude upon his coming out of the temple; and it accordingly proved true; and in this posture were the affairs of Hyrcanus.

-Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 13.10, 3.

Josephus also describes an earlier incident of prophecy which occured when Alexander the Great fought at Tyre and Gaza. The high priest Jaddua, a vassal of Darius, was reluctant to aid Alexander. This naturally did not sit well with Alexander, who planned to march on Jerusalem and punish its inhabitants. Jaddua called for public penitence and supplication in hope that God would avert the approaching disaster.

Whereupon God warned him in a dream, which came upon him after he had offered sacrifice, that he should take courage, and adorn the city, and open the gates; that the rest should appear in white garments, but that he and the priests should meet the king in the habits proper to their order, without the dread of any ill consequences, which the providence of God would prevent. Upon which, when he rose from his sleep, he greatly rejoiced, and declared to all the warning he had received from God. According to which dream he acted entirely, and so waited for the coming of the king.

-Josephus, Antiquites, 11.8, 4.

Philo, the Jewish philosopher of Alexandria, says of high priests that they were also prophets.

The real genuine priest is at once also a prophet, having attained to the honor of being allowed to see the only true and living God, not more by reason of his birth than by reason of his virtue. And to a prophet there is nothing unknown, since he has within himself the sun of intelligence, and rays which are never overshadowed, in order to a most accurate comprehension of those things which are invisible to the outward senses, but intelligible to the intellect.

Philo, The Special Laws, 4.36.

In contrast with John's description of Caiaphas prophesying, the above accounts are all positive, revolving around pious, virtuous high priests. This contrast shows how intertwined the idea of prophecy with the high priesthood was in John's time, that even a wicked high priest could make true prophecies.

[Evidence of Christ in America]

The wonderful thing about life, volgadon, is that I don't have to show anything.

Ah yes, not backing up wild claims truly is a wonderful thing about life.

I fear you may have misinterpreted what I was saying. I did not mean that you absolutely MUST show something, but rather that in order for anyone to take your claim seriously what you would need to do is show that Moore was influenced by shamanism and incoprporated it into his poem.

We all discover what we discover for ourselves.

Shades of Bert?

Without getting into a protracted debate about it, I was merely hinting about shamanic practices of flying up to 'heaven' by the shaman, usually entwined in smoke, as smoke having ethereal qualities it's been seen for thousands of years as a conduit or helper in spiritual things. The shaman then came back via the same path taken heavenwards, the smoke being the unmissable trail to stop him from getting lost 'up there'. He returned with treasures for the tribe, though of course in the form of healings, predictions, etc.

Yet what we have in the case of Santa Claus is someone coming down through a chimney to deposit gifts secretly, then (naturally) leaving the same way (how else?). He doesn't fly up to heaven entwined in smoke, nor does he fly up to heaven at all. He flies through the sky, which is not the same thing at all.

Interestingly enough, the areas of Europe most influenced by shamanism (namely, Ukraine and Russia) are also the ones in which the St Nicholas story bears the LEAST traces of shamanism.

The chimney thing is easibly traceable to one of the most popular stories about St Nicholas, that of the three dowries he secretly provided for the daughters of an impoverished nobleman who planned on selling them to a brothel. In popular accounts Nicholas threw gold through a window, or chimney.

[Evidence of Christ in America]

Also, in the reindeer case, we are dealing with literary constructs, not folk traditions. You have to show that Moore cosnciously selected those particular shamanist traditions (unfortunately they are bogus so that might be a little difficult to show) to fuse into his story inspired by American Dutch heritage.

[Evidence of Christ in America]

Nice catch! Yep, I should have looked back a bit further for the red coat there. Mind you, regarding the reindeer, I was referring to shamans of the Laplands. The reindeer there specifically seek out and gorge on hallucinogenic mushrooms, though it's not clear from what I've read whether they go off on trips like shamans have done in the past.

I don't know about reindeer seeking out toadstools, but they do eat them from time to time. From what I can tell they act somewhat drunk. Connecting that to Santa Claus' flying reindeer is a stretch.

Lapps did not have gers. They lived in teepee-like tents, and trust me, you couldn't climb in through the smoke hole without destroying the tent. The same holds true for gers. The most damning factor (apart from people equivocating Laps and Buryats) is that in shamanism we are dealing with heavenly ascents. The shaman would undertake a journey, a soul flight, into the heavens, not vice-versa. Also, Buryats worshipped in sacred groves, not through smoke holes.

It seems to me like people are saying Santa Claus comes in through the chimney, yurts have smoke holes, so Sanata must be derived from shamanism. This is a case of absurd parallelomania. When the only practical source for heating your house was fire, then naturally you would have an opening to let out the smoke. If santa were going to sneak into a house, would he go through the bolted door or shuttered window?

Honestly, I don't see any evidence supporting the claim that Santa derives from shamanistic folklore.