-
Posts
12725 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Dr T
-
Did Human Spirits Exist Before Creation?
Dr T replied to prisonchaplain's topic in LDS Gospel Discussion
Hello Ray, You said above. What does that mean? Retired from what?Thanks -
Why's that Miztrniceguy!?! Maybe the real question is WHERE WERE YOU on the 20th? (I think I may have stumbled onto an accomplice!)
-
Where WERE you on the night of the 20th? I hope you have an airtight alibi maam...
-
any garden gnomes lately. They are missing from my garden!!! Dr. T
-
How Many Mormons Does It Take To Change A Light Bulb?
Dr T replied to prisonchaplain's topic in General Discussion
Hello PC, That was funny Hope you are well. -
Hey AK, How was Hawaii?
-
Hello Jisa, Nice to meet you. From my experience parenting is work. You call it a battle. Is the battle with yourself or with your children's behavior? It sounds like you are beating yourself up for not having it down. Is that it or is it that your children are not responding to your attempts? I understand the frustrations that can come from parenting. Paul also comments on the things that he does not want to do, he continued doing: Rom 7:14 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. Rom 7:15 For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I {would} like to {do,} but I am doing the very thing I hate. Rom 7:16 But if I do the very thing I do not want {to do,} I agree with the Law, {confessing} that the Law is good. Rom 7:17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. Rom 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good {is} not. Rom 7:19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. Rom 7:20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. Rom 7:21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. Rom 7:22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, Rom 7:23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Rom 7:24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Rom 7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. Do you have specific behaviors that you continue to do that you hoped would stop? Thanks, Dr. T
-
Hello all, Thanks for the PM a while ago AK. I miss you man. Just saw that this thread was about to be out of the line. I'll come back to continue. I promise. C U all soon, Dr. T
-
Hello all, I'm still alive (why did I hear some groans when I said that?). Just reading LDS material like crazy. When I get some time, I'll be back. Hope you all are well. Dr. T
-
Hello Winnie, I find it hilarious! Someone took an alligator candle that I had and did the same thing. I got pictures and letter from my alligator in Italy, Disneyland, on a prom date, at restaurants, and a number of other places. Since I wasn’t able to go, I'm glad someone (thing) did. Dr. T
-
Thanks for your thoughts Pushka. I thought that I might have misread her intention. Just wanted to clarify. :) Thanks for the thoughts and prayers Shan. I really appreciate that. Prayer is the best medicine! To answer your question, Yes. I've been blessed. I am married and we have 4 beautiful, amazing, super brilliant, loving, compassionate, trustworth, respectful, obediant, loyal, industrious, pure, grateful, cheerful, and athletic children. If you really want to know what I think of them, I'd be here allll day. We have 3 boys and a girl. Dr. T
-
Hello Lindy, I'm not sure if I interpreted your last post correctly but just to clarify, I did not "dump on someone because I had a bad day." Maybe you didn't understnd what I was trying to do in my offensive post. I don't remember what my questions were for you. When I have more time, maybe I'll find them and ask them again. Yes MS is a strain (on multiple levels) but I'm still alive and will not die from it... I most likely will just feel like this every now and then. Mostly I have numbness, I went blind in my right eye (temporarily), I can't walk (or stand up) so great sometimes, I'm easily fatigued, sometimes it gets so bad I can't button my own shirt, etc. but I'll still use what mental abilities while they last. Thanks, Dr. T
-
Thanks AK, Have a great time in Hawaii! Maybe we can talk about your aunt who has MS sometime. Thanks, Dr. T
-
Hello AK/all, Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. My last post is/was out of character for me. I wish I could say that my screen name was hijacked, but it wasn’t. It might be hard for you to believe but my last post was designed with a purpose. Looking back on that decision, I see that it was foolish and that I ought to have approached it with more honor and “just discussed it” with you instead. I’m not excusing it and I wanted to let you know that perhaps, in some part, it is related to the scars I have on my brain. I was dx’ed with Multiple Sclerosis and the MRI shows many lesions on my spine and brain. Like I said, I’m not excusing my actions but I do understand that my decision making skills are not always up to what they were. My intention in writing that last post was geared at “feeling you out.” I wanted to see how you would respond to direct opposition/challenge that was supported by both text and context of the Biblical account. As you read, I offered a quick prayer asking for this conversation to continue. But then I wrote some very challenging and rude words to see if you would dismiss me and my thoughts or if you would interact with the argument, not the ad homs. I then proceeded to attack you (stupidly I might add) in a greatly exaggerated way. I understand that you are an intelligent person, AK. I knew that you did not really mean things that I attacked (“crucify” for example), and I was trying to needle you to see if our conversation could withstand some direct opposition and razzing. You rightly might be asking, “Why would you do that Dr. T?” My answer is, while it has been very fun and pleasant, I see (and my wife is starting to complain) that I have been spending more time than I should on this site and I wanted to see if my time here would be worth the time I put in. I’m enjoying learning from you all and I’m starting to see a lot of differences in the LDS church and the historic Christian church (I’m sure you would agree). Because of seeing these discrepancies, I knew that I would be drawn to address them in conversation with you. Since, I’m sure, we will take different views on those other issues, I was fearful of spending more time with you and then in the end you saying, “Dr. T is just an anti-Mormon” and our conversations would end. I hope you know by now, I am not an anti-Mormon (but I do sometimes make poor decisions). So, you see, I wanted to lay out a harsh post now to see if you were willing to continue interacting with me or not. Like I said, that was a dumb approach to take. I could have just talked to you about it like I’m doing now to see if you were still willing to participate in that discussion. For that, ApostleKnight, I apologize to you. If you decide to forgive me and are willing to interact with the major questions that I'm starting to have, I would really enjoy your company on this journey. Dr. T P.S. Ray, I appreciate how you've been posting. Thank you. edited to fix typo
-
Christos you said Is being in monastery not work? Dr. T
-
Hi AK/all, Lindy, I’m glad you are enjoying this thread (as am I) and I hope others are too. Ray continues with the refrain, “Only God can reveal it to you.” So with that, please allow me to offer up a quick prayer before we continue: Father God, I come before you today with thankfulness. I thank you for who you are, your majesty, your greatness and willingness to be aware of us, mere human creatures. I thank you for the opportunity to have theological discussions with some very nice and sincere people. I thank you for allowing us to participate in discussion such as these and to do so without the fear of physical retribution/danger because of our beliefs (like so many in the world). I thank you for the ability to utilize the brains that you have blessed us with. I thank you for sending the Holy Spirit to help guide us in our discernment of your revelation. I humbly ask that you bless this conversation and ask that you continue it with the goal of truly seeking you out. Please do not allow this friendly conversation to turn negative, lead to verbal hostility and animosity or be wasted/idle talk. I ask that you humble me through this process and help me learn all I can about whatever it is you want to teach me through this. Please help me be reflective and thoughtful. Help me to be respectful and polite even in light of differences that we might discover. Please allow others to feel comfortable participating in sharing their ideas and beliefs. I ask that you guide us all in our understanding of what you would have us know at this time. Please open my eyes, ears, and mind (thoughts) about what we discuss. I also ask that you do the same for everyone who might be interested in this thread. I thank you for ApostleKnight, PC, Ray, Shanstress, Snow and others that you have brought to this site. I ask that you help this discussion benefit all involved for your ultimate glory. Please obstruct any Satan lead attempts to end this journey of understanding. Again, I ask that you allow us to learn whatever it is you will have us learn and understand. In Jesus’ holy name, I pray. Amen. Thanks to all of you for that opportunity. I understand that AK and I have been doing most of the “talking” on this thread and I want to make sure you all know that does not mean that you would be intruding on someone else’s conversation. I’d be happy to hear your ideas so when you feel led, please share. Lets continue. AK said, You’re right. There is a lot that needs to be addressed there. I’ll respond to your response with some clarification (and a little bit of nit picking-all good natured, not meant to offend). "Using the Jews' reaction here to mean they understood Jesus's claims of divinity as a Nicene declaration ... " I think I know what you are saying about the Nicean claim here and I wanted to interject something in case someone understood it differently than me. If you were talking about the Jews not understanding Jesus to be saying that He is part of a Triune Godhead, then I would have to agree. They didn’t know or think He meant that. They knew he was making himself out to be God, period. Some might read your response and say, “The creeds weren’t even developed until later so why is AK bringing up Nicea?” I don’t think you are talking directly about the council in your response but about the understanding of the Trinity that has developed. The argument above is 1) the contemporary audience was in a far better position to understand what He (Jesus) meant than we are, and 2) if they misunderstood Jesus, He would have corrected them. Instead of correcting them, He strenghtened His claim. He said, in essence, "You're right. I am claiming to be God. But given Who I am, what's wrong with that? There wasn’t a suggestion that Jesus was afraid. Throughout the Gospels there are incidents when Jesus' life was threatened. I do not think fear was the central concern as did the "timing." He wasn't "afraid of angry Jews. . ." He was preserving the hour and manner of His death. Respectfully, AK, you are missing the point. The argument is “If they were ready to kill Him over a mere misunderstanding, why would He just rile them up even more instead of correcting their misunderstanding?” That would imply a complete lack of respect for His audience. It follows that Jesus riled them up because there was not a misunderstanding. He fearlessly proclaimed the truth. He did not fearlessly "rouse the rabble" for the sake of mischief. AK/all if you use a concordance to check from Genesis to Revelation, you will find that the Bible never uses "gods" in the plural except to designate things that are not God. That might be true if they were not only one God, but also only one person, but they are not only one person, they are three persons. Jesus was not saying, "I am one with Myself," because the Son is not the Father. To say that the Son is the Father is Sabellianism, and Sabellianism is not orthodox Christianity and actually contradicted at Nicea. The "founder of Christianity" was a Jew, so this is a very odd remark, AK. Maybe I’m just misunderstanding you here. I also think you missed the point on the parables. Everyone knew exactly what the parables meant. They all knew what a "virgin" was, what a "wedding" was, what "wheat and tares" were, what a "talent" was, what a "sower" was, etc. Nobody had any question about what the parables meant. The question was, what did they teach? The question was what the message of the parables was. That was where the confusion and misunderstanding occurred. The meanings of the words were never in doubt. John 10:30 is not a parable. There is no hidden meaning. There are just the words themselves and what they meant. The fact that the Jews He addressed were immersed in the language and culture of Jesus is precisely why they were in a better position than us to understand the connotative meanings of His words, AK. (But see below.) It is no speculation to say that the Jews understood what Jesus meant - if they hadn't, He'd have corrected their misunderstanding. Instead, He emphasizes it's truth. What "dilemma" AK? I hear what you are trying to say but that is not an example of a connotative meaning. It's just a pair of different definitions of the same word. For clarification, Connotations are associations implied by a word in addition to it's literal meaning. They are not alternate definitions. If we take "cool" to mean "nifty, marvelous and swell," that's a denotative meaning. Many words have multiple denotative meanings. If we say "Hollywood" and imply movie stars, studios and glamor, those are connotative meanings. (If we say "Hollywood" and literally mean movie stars, studios and glamor, that's called metonymy. When you read in the newspaper, "The White House said today," that's a metonymy.) Jesus made an a fortiori argument. "Jesus answered them, 'Has it not been written in your Law, "I SAID, YOU ARE GODS"?'" This was a typical rabbinic method of argument. He starts with a passage from which He reasons. In the Old Testament, human judges were called "gods." "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken) ... " Even people who just received the word of God were called "gods." "... do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?" If those who merely received the word of God were called "gods," all the more it is right to call He who was sanctified by the Father and sent into the world by the Father the "Son of God." They didn't misunderstand. They knew perfectly well what He meant. He wasn't minimizing His nature and status, He was proclaiming it by arguing in a very familiar form. We have heard, "Son of God" so many times that it seems to mean almost nothing to us. Jesus' audience were shocked by the phrase, "Son of God." They knew it meant equality with God. The claim to have been "sanctified and sent" by the Father may not mean much to some people, but to the Jews it was an enormously significant claim. Jesus was claiming to be even more than a prophet like Isaiah. No, you’re being "figurative," not connotative. That's just the point - they didn't believe in His divinity at all. They did know that He WAS proclaiming His own divinity, they just didn't believe Him. They rejected His divinity because they knew He was claiming divinity. If He hadn't claimed it, they would have had nothing to reject. The question is not whether they believed Him, the question is whether they knew what He meant. They certainly did. We aren't reading anti-Christian tracts when we read John 10, we are reading a dialogue between Jesus and an audience. Whether the audience believed Him or not, they knew what He meant. They understood Jesus to be saying He was God. That was what riled them up. We know that's what they understood because John 10 explicitly says so. "... You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." John 10:33 I’d advise against that wager AK. We know how the Jews reacted. We know exactly how they reacted. In response to John 10:18 they said He was "insane." (John 10:20). They did not accuse Him of blasphemy or try to stone Him for that. When did they pick up stones to stone Him? Not until He said, "I and the Father are one." That's what the text says. What did they say riled them up? "... You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." John 10:33 When did He claim to be God? When He said, "I and the Father are one." Again, that's not speculation, it's what the text says. Good thinking but what does the text actually say? The text tells us what their reaction was - they said Jesus was cuckoo. Being cuckoo was not a capital offense. I’m glad it’s not in the U.S. either-I would really be in trouble. . Nope. We can't ignoring the text A.K. They did not pick up stones when Jesus said that. They picked them up when Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." We don't have to "speculate" about it, we need only follow the text. Another nit picky thing-They didn't say "crucify Him" at all. They tried to stone Him. And that for saying that He was God, not for a theological analysis of the Godhead. Like Joseph Smith putting "Jesus Christ" into Genesis 6 (another topic we should tackle later), it appears that you are trying to put the language of Nicea into the ministry of Jesus. Strike 3 (sorry if that sounded rude-I was just trying to keep it good-humored. If that was offensive let me know and I will not say that again). They did not accuse Him of claiming to have the same power as God. They said, "You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." That's not an interpretation, that's what the text says. I’m not concerned about the "justification" of their condemnation. What matters is what caused their condemnation - Jesus saying, "I and the Father are one." The text tells us that it was when Jesus said that that they picked up stones to stone Him. Not before. Your right; nobody said it did. The whole Nicea piece here comes from a combination of verses that show traces of the Trinity. The text tells us what enraged them, AK. Not Jesus claiming to have power, but "You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." We don't have to guess, speculate or wonder, the text tells us. True. Nobody said it was a "philosophical disagreement." (Nitpick #1000) Neither the Pharisees nor the Sadducees nor any other Jew crucified anybody. That was a Roman punishment, not a Jewish punishment. Again, the text tells us why they hated Him. It isn't ambiguous, it tells us very clearly: "You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." Not the "literal Son of God," not "one Who undermines our power," but because He claimed to be God. Jesus accepted it sir and I have a bias that He was in a better position to know. One of Dan’s points was that “Jesus made it clear that He was claiming equality with God.” He didn't pacify them, He only stirred them up more. He reminded them that He had claimed to be the very Son of God. Nowadays that falls easily on the ear, because we've heard it so often. To them, it was an extraordinary claim. To which you replied, Jesus never made such a claim and whether or not it would have been blasphemous is besides the point. An observation about your approach here that is interesting to me, you say that you are not satisfied with reading Nicea back into Jesus' ministry, but its ok to read Mormon theology back into it. Why is that? If you are saying that it is not in the text, how do you justify it? We have the text in this case. We know what He said. No sir. We know that because they bore it. What they did not bear was His claim, "I and the Father are one." No, if they had understood Him to be saying that, which they did not, they would have stoned Him! Understanding and believing are two different things. Forgive the broken record feel of this but “They didn't. The Romans did. As for why they condemned Him, it was for the simple reason that they disbelieved Him. They had no trouble understanding His basic claim; they rejected it.” "You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." I’d have to say that from my reading, none of that is to be found in John 10. I’m starting to think that you hit it on the head when you said, “it all comes down to whether or not you believe Joseph Smith.” I think we will have to start another thread on the topic of Joseph Smith. . If we research him and find out there are errors in his claims then all of this is a house of cards. If he can stand up to scrutiny, then you are building on a rock and should have no fears. No, Jesus made it clear on many occasions that He was not the Father. "You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you ' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." John 14:28 I don’t think that is accurate. We have no reason to think that they believed He was claiming to be the Father. Are you saying that you don’t think that Jesus nor the Jews meant what they said? In that case, we can speculate anything. Perhaps (tongue in cheek) they were really talking about last night's chariot races. Perhaps they were complaining about the price of bread. Perhaps they were having a cheerful discussion about the weather. Yes, to think that they were quoting from Nicea about 300 years before the council took place would be a bit of a stretch. But as I have been trying to show, the concept of His claim to be God is clear. Somewhat of a “straw man,” sir. Nobody has claimed that John 10 was an exposition on the Nicene Creed. In conclusion, even people with very little knowledge of the Bible or Christianity say that Jesus was a "great teacher." Great teachers get their points/message across. S/He addresses his/her students in a way that they understand. From your responses I would infer that Jesus was a poor teacher. Hope none of this was taken as offensive. Just laying out the importance of not ignoring the Text and Context (the first two rules of good hermeneutics) of the passage. Thanks, Dr. T
-
Hello Palerider, How do you distinguish between "knowing" that and "believing" that? Dr. T
-
Thank you for the resource, AK. PC, You said, I've bought Lego toys for my children for a lot less. Dr. T
-
Hello Miztrniceguy. Nice to meet you :) You said, What does it mean to "need the sacrament"? Thanks, Dr. T