Yekcidmij

I realize what "one" means. Clearly in the context of Deuteronomy it is talking about devotion and worship of one, unique God. It has nothing to do with analyzing the inner being of God. It has nothing to do with believing or denying that other deities exist or don't exist. It has nothing to do with Trinitarian theology and nothing to do with unity within a Godhead. Those are not the purposes of the author. If you understand Deuteronomy 6:4 as refering to devotion and worship of this rather unique God, then it flows right along with the surrounding context. Deuteronomy 4:15 is where it starts and it goes through chapter 11-ish. I won't post all of it (it's entirely too much) but I will highlight some things surrounding the passage in question, all of it should be read though: In chapter 4 Moses is reminding people of what God had done for them, and he is imploring them to obey and worship God and God alone. Don't worship the stars like your neighbors. What other god has dared invade a land other than his own? What other god speaks out of a fire? Remember the covenant he made with us! Remember Egypt! Follow God and God alone. Don't go after the gods of the land we are about to go into. That's what Moses is trying to tell the people. Moses continues this in chapter 5: Moses is imploring the people to covenant obedience. They hold up their end of the covenant because God has been gracious enough, not only to enter into a covenant with them, but He has held up to His end of the deal. "Listen Israel" (Shema Yisrael!), "remember what God did for you". And the immediate context of Deut 6:4: The correct meaning of Deut 6:4 has nothing to do with analyzing the inner being of God. Trinitarian theology or unity within the godhead are the farthest things from Moses mind. Moses is doing all he can to just get the people to obey God and serve Him only. The dangers of going into Canaan and settling/conquering the lands of other peoples were going to be theological as well as physical. The Canaanites had their own gods of their own lands and one of the many hazards of living in the area was going to be the temptation to worship these other tribal/national deities and to forget about the God who rescued them from Egypt and entered into a covenant relationship with them. Moses had been leading the people long enough and knew the tendency of the people was to grumble against God, question God, and forget God. Heck, Moses had no sooner gone up Sinai than the people made a golden calf to worship. They must remeber God, serve Him, trust Him, and obey Him, and nothing else: Hear O Israel, the LORD our God, He is One! You must love the LORD your God with all your mind, soul and strengeth. Moses picks keeps on trucking with this theme through Deuteronomy 11 that Israel should worship, follow, trust and obey God alone. Jesus even repeats Deut 6:5 as the greatest commandment. Deut 6:4 doesn't have anything to do with Trinitarianism, nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of other deities, and northing to do with a united godhead. It has everything to do with covenant love and faithfulness on the part of Israel to God because God lives up to His end of the covenant.

I think it's: polytheistic: believes/worships many gods monolatry: believes in many gods, but devotes worship to one kathenotheistic: many gods, but only worships one at a time. (the one they worship can change due to whatever factors: battle between gods, etc..) henotheistic: many gods, but only one is supreme (may worship a different god other than the supreme one). pantheistic: everything is god. (this is actually a curious/strange version of monotheism) panentheistic: God is in everything and everything is in God. Kind of like Luke Skywalker stuff I think, or at least that's the mental image I get. Deism: There is a god but he has little to nothing to do with the universe. (or polydeism: same thing, just many gods instead of one) Atheism: no god Agnostic: nobody knows Cosmotheism: Man is the creator and Ultimate Will of the cosmos. Sounds like Oprah stuff. I think that hits most of the options. There are variations within those. Some beliefs may overlap a little depending on the consistency of the person who adheres to one of those.

I was thinking the other day how actual mind blowing it was to know that 1 guy and 12 or so of his buddies, with limited influence starting out, and limited assets, literally changed the planet forever! Or that it was amazing that of all the Ancient tribes and peoples with their ancient deities, Hittites, Ammorites, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Assyrians, Babylonians, etc...only One came out of the ancient world still standing. If the ancient world was a royal rumble among gods, and in many respects it was, then there is only One that came out of the ring even alive. Chemosh is gone. Baal - gone. Ra - gone. Marduk - gone. Ashur - gone. Zeus - gone. Poseidon - gone. Pretty funny how only One manages to keep sticking around. I fail to see that big picture sometimes. So far, YHWH has done everything He has set out to do and hasn't failed. He said HE was going to bring His people out of Egypt - Israel came out of Egypt. He said He was going to send His people into exile if they didn't obey - it happend. He said He would bring them out of exile for His Name's sake - it happened. He said He would bless all nations of the earth through Israel - He did. He said people would come from all nations to worship Him - they do. If I were looking at history, and I were a betting man, I don't think I would bet against this God. He says He's going to judge the living and the dead - hey, you don't have to persuade me anymore.

Ah, I think it's a common misconception that it's refering to earthly, human judges. That is what the Jews thought (cf: m. avot and Targum Isaiah), but that's definitely not what the passage is talking about. The passage talks about divine elohim in an assembly.

I think we are still waiting for: Resurrection Final Judgment Consumation of New/renewed Creation Peace on earth I think those take place at the end of the messianic age (whenever you think that is). What has come to pass? Lot's of stuff prophecied has come to pass. Israel coming out of Egypt, taking CAnaan, exile, return, messiah, covenant renewal, judgment on Israel, new temple, holy spirit, Abraham blessing nations,...lots of stuff.

If you read my earlier post, I don't dispute that there is an assembly there. It should be noted also that the assembly in Psalm 82 is sentenced to death. And if I didn't say it earlier, I do see connections to Job and to Deut 32, and possibly a few other places. The post and my reasoning on PSalm 82 was rather lengthy, so I'm not going to repost it. The literal Hebrew says, "assembly of El" not "divine assembly". The New American Bible is giving a little interpretation to their translation. And there is a distinction drawn in vs 6 between the elohim and men. The elohim will die just like men do. The implication is that men die and elohim normally do not, but this will be an exception due the the Elohim standing in the assembly that renders judgment on them. The elohim of El's assembly are unjust and so will die like men do. In any case, the elohim here are not members of the human race nor are they humans who have progressed to become members of El's assembly, and if they were, they aren't anymore because they are dead according to the Psalm. The elohim in Psalm 82 are not elohim you want to identify yourself with. They are unjust, unknowing, impotent, and ultimately, judged and dead.

Actually word print study isn't as conclusive as you think. First, the Qumran document matches our current Isaiah very well. It doesn't show any evience of massive doctoring. It shows no evidence of major redactional editors or the like. The only "evidence" that ever comes foward is a word print analysys. And maybe the word print analysis is correct and there were many authors. There is no conclusion among scholars on how many authors there were. It ranges from 1 to many. For example Y. Radday did an investigation and concluded that 1-12 was one author, 23-35 was another, 40-48 was another, 49-55 another, and 56-66 another. And word print analyis does show a degree of unity to the work, for example, the phrae "Holy One of Israel" is a very rare phrase in the Bible and it shows up in chs 1-39 16 and chs 40-66 7 times. Similiar concepts also show up in various parts of the book. So word print analysis hardly leads to the conclusion of just 2 authors and there is no consensus on how many. And word print analysis does not lead to the conclusion of Barker. That's her theory and is not the natural conclusion from the evidence. If the work is not a unity, I think it becomes difficult to explain how we got the present form of the book at all. You have to end up positing a school of "I Isaiah" who followed their master before the exile, and a group of "II ISaiah" students who grew out of the first school during the exile. The tendency seems to have become to whittle down Isaiah into very small units of which later redactors, presumably of these various "Isaiah" schools, add their prophecies and that the actual original Isaiah was limited to the first part of the book and wasn't much more that Amos and Hosea in size. It should be noted though that contemporaries of Isaiah (Amos, Hosea) did not spark such movements of prophetic schools nor is there any other evidence that there was a school of Isaiah with which to redact more prophecies onto the original. The only consensus among scholars is that Isaiah isn't a unity. But that is where we began and an argument can be made to the unity of the book. (can provide a bibliography of works that do if anyone is interested). Also, of the disputed chapters from Deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, it only includes the chapters that do not make Yahweh and Elohim one being: one of the clear points of the Deuteronomist view. Well, the problem is that 961 times in the OT, YHWH is explicitly called Elohim. It's not limited to Isaiah. Deut 6:5 is a good example that even Jesus quotes in Matt 22. So saying that all instances in the OT of YHWH being equated to Elohim is a carry over from a Babylonian corruption is premature. This also fails to take into account both the DSS and the SP, both groups of which had no love for followers of Ezra's reforms, aka the Pharisees, but both groups also include the equating of YHWH to Elohim and both groups include all of the Torah with only a few slight variations. Also, I Nephi 22 quotes Deut 18 which includes the exact same "Lord your God" phrase that translates to "YHWH Elohim" 20 And the Lord will surely prepare a way for his people, unto the fulfilling of the words of Moses, which he spake, saying: A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass that all those who will not hear that prophet shall be cut off from among the people.

Quoting the church fathers is fine, but if they think Psalm 82 is refering to deification of man, they are simply wrong. The "gods" in Psalm 82 are killed according to the Psalm. That's the extreme opposite of deification. If Jerome misread it that bad, well I'm sorry for Jerome. If Jerome wants to talk to me about it, that's fine too. I also unfortunately don't have access to the entire work by Jerome so I can't read the snippet in it's context. Since you are quoting the work, what is the context of the quote? Surely you check sources, right? Church fathers aren't scripture and I laid out my take on Psalm 82, and it's relation to John 10, so quoting church fathers is nothing more than an interesting footnote, and calling it "interesting" is a formality of respect.

I don't even know that we need to discuss a Deutero-Isaiah theory. I don't have much of a problem with it and do find the subject interesting. Barkers theory is somewhat like a Deutero Isaiah theory, but a little different. In any case, if you want to accept biblical criticism, and remain consistent and rational in your thinking, you must reject 1 Nephi 20-21, 2 Nephi 6-8, 3 Nephi 20 & 22, Mosiah 12, and Mosiah 14. Those chapters all quote from what would then be considered the corrupted deutero-Isaiah and would also be terribly anachronistic. You would probably also have to reject 2 Nephi 12-24, 27, 30 since those chapters represent an inappropriate division in the text of 1st Isaiah. Not that I reject the deutero-Isaiah (or even tritero-Isaiah, since there is no consensus among scholars on the composition of the book) theory, but I just want to point out the logical conclusion of its acceptance by LDS. The logical conclusion would be that Joseph Smith was not a true prophet. Now I personally lean toward a unity in Isaiah rather than multiple authors to the book. So those entire chapters in the Book of Mormon contain very little for me to object about.

----nvm

I was using Deut 6:4 in terms of the context it occurs in. It refers to the uniqueness of Israel's God and that He is the sole object of their worship. It is not an analysis of the inner being, contrary to what PassionForHisWord says. It has nothing to do with unity either. Neither of those are the appropriate context of Deuteronomy. It has to do with uniquness and devotion. I happen to affirm the Nicene Creed, but I'm afraid it's not entailed in Deut 6:4. Not always. It can be used to refer to 1 figurel, such as Gen 1:27, or it can be used to refer to an unspecified many figures, such as Psalm 82. Gen 1:27 and Psalm 82:1 use 'elohim' in the sense of 1 figure since the helping verbs and pronouns denote 1 figure. Not really.

I think that the bible speaks of 2 kinds of what the old testament calls "elohim" (gods). Both uses can be seen in Psalm 82. First, the very word "elohim" is not a proper name, but is a generic title that usually refers more to a plane of existence. There are a few instances when it is used to talk about human judges (Ex 21:6; 22:8-9), and I think it's used to denote the function as an elohim rather than being, in the present tense, an elohim. The elohim are in heaven, men are on earth. I think this has carried over to our language today to what we call "angels" and "demons". Angels and demons are elohim (and yes I have verses). Then there is a unique use of the of the title elohim when it refers to Israel's God. He is THE Elohim, Ha'elohim. He is utterly unique from everything else and is incomparable to anything else. He is the One and only Creator of everything, including all other elohim. Nothing is, was, or will be like Him. YHWH (Jehovah) is Elohim and no ther elohim is YHWH. Deut 6:4: Shema Yisrael,.. YHWH.........Eloheinu,. YHWH....... Ehud. Hear O, Israel, Jehovah [is] our God, Jehovah [is] One. Until now.

This Psalm has fascinated me mainly because of a constant reference to it from people outside traditional orthodoxy and Judaism. I respectfully, and humbly (since they are much smarter than me), disagree with Geisler and Howe on this one (I'm protestant, btw). Here's my take on Psalm 82. I think it's used as a polemic tactic against the gods of the nations. The Psalm does not address explicitly whether or not those gods are real or fake idols. It does seem to assume they are real in some sense, otherwise who is it God is judging? The Psalm carries with it a strong Canaanite theme to it: 82:1 Elohim stands in the assembly of El; in the midst of the elohim he renders judgment. The "assembly of El" is a phrase only used here in the entire bible. There is another possible reference to it in Isaiah 14 where it says, "stars of El". I see only 2 real possibilities here. (1) vs. 1 is a polemic tactic against the Canaanite high god El. Israel's God stands in El's assembly and just begins to run the show thereby showing the impotence of El to do anything about it. (2) El is refering Israel's God Himself and the one taking a stand in His assembly is a plenipotentiary agent. I think (2) is more likely since at the end of the Psalm the standing elohim that has been rendering judgment calls on Elohim to stand and render judgment. The picture is that the El in vs. 1 is seated as judge and at the end of the Psalm the Elohim that has been rendering judgment on the gods of the nations calls on the seated One to stand and execute judgment on the nations themselves. The other "elohim" (gods) mentioned in the passage are the gods of the nations. But they are not god in the same sense as either El that is seated or the Elohim that is standing. They are in fact incapable of executing justice properly as they make unjust decisions according to vs. 2. These gods don't even "know or understand" and they stumble around in darkness. In fact, they will die "like men" and fall like any other ruler. There is a distinction drawn between the elohim and men. The elohim here are not men. But they are not elohim in the same sense as the standing one or the seated one are because they are being judged by these other 2 and can't do anything about it. The standing Elohim would be a plenipotentiary of the seated El since it seems that the execution of the verdict depends solely on the seated El. Now, since I am Christian, I must also be able to cohere this understanding with the way Jesus is using it in John 10 or I must find another way to explain it. In the conext of the passage, Jesus is defending His unique relationship to the Father. And He does this by appealing to Psalm 82. The first thing to note is that He says "Is it not written in your law". This is interesting because this is a Psalm and is not located in the Torah. What is Jesus talking about? Does Jesus not understand what the Torah is? Of course he understands, and I think this shows a high degree of understanding of Torah. I think He is talking about the "Oral Torah" which many Jews adhered to, and Jews today adhere to. This was a Pharisee belief that God had delivered a written Torah and an oral Torah to Moses on Sinai. Lucky for us, the Rabbi's eventually wrote down the oral Torah. So, what does the Oral Torah say about Psalm 82? Mishnah Avot: And also in the Targum, an interesting version of Psalm 82 shows up: This is the mindset Jesus is addressing. In Hebrew, "elohim" doesn't always refer to deity, and that reading was how the Jewish people were reading the Psalm ("rulers" or "judges"). The people he was addressing thought that Psalm 82 was talking about rulers/judges of Israel who God gave the Torah to on Sinai. In John 10, Jesus is using this and turning it in on them and this is evident in the passage: 10:35 If those people to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’ (and the scripture cannot be broken), and he was doing this while defending His unique relationship to the Father. He is not affirming that they are indeed gods. He is using the Psalm with the same intent that the original author did - polemic. If they had applied the entire Psalm to themselves they would have seen that the "gods" there do not "know or understand", a phrase Jesus picks on in John 10 also: 10:38b so that you may come to know and understand that I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” and they would have been aware that these gods in the Psalm are killed. Not really someone you want to identify with huh? I think Jesus is also identifying Himself with the elohim that is standing in Psalm 82 and rendering judgment since the context is Jesus defending His unique relationship with the Father and since Jesus says, "I said you are gods". I think Jesus is identifying Himself as the One that is rendering judgment. In Psalm 82 the judgment is rendered on the gods of the nations. In John 10 the judgment is rendered on the Jewish leaders, who identify themselves as the "gods" in the Psalm. Jesus is not affirming they are gods; that grossly takes the passage out of context. He's, if anything, doing the opposite by rendering judgment on them, but I think affirming or denying their deity is not involved in the passage or a concern of the passage at all, especially since Jews didn't consider themselves to be divine. He is not affirming that their understanding of Psalm 82, "rulers" or "judges" of the Torah, is correct either since there is a remark to "your law" that seems to draw a distinction between what Jesus was affirming and what they affirmed (kind of like, "your law, not mine"). The original context of Psalm 82 is judgment on the gods of the nations. If anything, the the oral law has misapplied that Psalm and Jesus exploits the opprotunity to defend His unique relationship to the Father and their subordination to Him. Just as Psalm 82 was a polemic against the gods of the nations, Jesus uses Psalm 82 as a polemic against those standing there due to their understanding of Psalm 82. Hope that helps.

I pick a theme or a book and approach it that way. (not sure what "pmg" is).

I can't speak for the Book of Jacob, but as for the OT and NT, I think Hemidakota hit on it a little bit. In the OT, Israel is compared to an olive tree: That's the background (there are more verses of course) for Jesus' and Paul's use of olive tree imagery. There are in the Old Testament a couple of really interesting uses of olive tree imagery that are a little more.....unusual. First, in a few places there is a strange reference to a "branch" of a tree, and I think an olive tree is in mind since the branch is used to describe the ideal king: Then there is an interesting use of Olive Tree imagery, and "Branch" imagery in what I think is a fascinating and "packed" passage that is echoed again in the Book of Revelation: Zecharaiah had quite an experience. With regards to the 2 olive trees that he sees, the angel interprets them to be "two anointed ones". No doubt, within the context of the passage it's talking about the High Priest (Joshua) and the King (Zerubbabel), since both the king and high priest were anointed by God Himself. This passage could also be taken messianically, that is, refering to the messiah. Some Jews interpreted it to mean there would be 2 messiahs, one a priestly figure (Messiah ben Joseph) and the other a kingly figure (Messiah ben David). The New Testament authors apply both the role of High Priest and King to Jesus, the ideal/ultimate King and High Priest. The Book of Revelation uses this same imagery in one of the most interesting passages in all of scripture: Here John has applied the imagery to "two witnesses". Now if John is consistent to the imagery used in Zech. then he should interpret the Olive tree imagery in some related fashion. I think he applies it to Jesus' people, who are charged with carrying on Jesus' mission. Indeed, John does apply the roles of priests and kings to the church: There, John applies the roles of king and priest to Jesus and then turns right around and applies the same role to Jesus' people. He does it again in Rev 5: So, I think Olive tree imagery in the bible and Jewish tradition is used to refer to Israel and/or Israel's representative King and/or High Priest. The New Testament applies the role of King and High Priest to Jesus, the "branch" (from the OT messianic passage) or "vine" (Jesus' words), and Jesus charges the church with carrying out this mission in Jesus' Name through the Holy Spirit. Basically, Jesus' people are the Olive branches, Jesus is the Olive Tree. Jesus' people here on earth should act as "stand ins" for Jesus, that is, we should act, by the power of the Holy Spirit, as Jesus would act. How that relates to the Book of Jacob is beyond my scope. Interesting thread though since a theme of Olive Trees runs through scripture.

It was a poor choice of words on my part. You assume that God reveals things to people based on something within themselves. Whether or not one is a theologian or a prophet or not, has no bearing on God's choice of revelation. God doesn't act based on something inherent within us. God chose to act on Cyrus, pagan king of Persia, and even called him "messiah". Really, we are all called to be theologians. Shouldn't we all be learning more about God, learning how to better obey and please, and learning and improving in our worship? Not exactly. Moses was a Hebrew, raised in Pharoah's court, but I see your point. There is little basis for assuming Moses knew nothing of YHWH. When Jehovah revealed Himself in the burning bush, He introduced Himself as the God of his fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and referenced covenants and promises made to them, indicating that Moses already knew something about Him. Moses was definately aware of who God was, though he didn't know him by the personal name "YHWH" (Jehovah) until God told it to him. Moses would have been educated, well beyond that of the average Hebrew, since he grew up in Pharoah's court. Moses seems to have possessed some ability to write, hence we have Gen-Deut. The ability to write would have been uncommon among Hebrew slaves. Moses also posessed some knowledge of what YHWH had done in the past for Abraham and his descendents - Moses wrote about it in Genesis. Gen-Deut - Moses: Highly, Educated. No doubt knew Egyptian and Hebrew ways Josh. - General Isaiah - Probably a priest Jer - a priest Ezek - a priest Dan - member of the court of the king of Babylon Hos - no biography Joel - no bio Amos - a herdsman Obadiah - no bio Jonah - no bio Micah - probably not a priest or rich. Nahum - no bio Habakkuk - probably a priest (liturgical song at end of book, referenced in Jewish work "Bel and the Dragon" as being a Levite) Zephaniah - probably a member of the kingly line. Haggai - could have been a priest. Had Psalms attributed to his authorship in the LXX. Other than that, text doesn't say. Zech - a priest. Mal - no bio So, Priest/Theologian - 6 High status individual - 4 Other - 2 No bio - 6 It's also bad to assume that the Prophets of the OT had no, or little, theological understanding. A faithful Israelite would have known, and been taught, the Torah and been familiar with God's promises to His people. The idea that prophets were not students learning about God is unsupported from the text. Now does God work exclusively through priests or theologians? Of course not. Most of the 12, with the possible exception of Matthew (and I would say Peter and John too) appear to be regular guys. God also seems to have a knack for choosing riff-raff and troublemakers on occasion. Peter was a little rough. Thomas was a model for doubt. Moses and Paul were murderers. Ezekiel seemed to have a slight attitude in his writing, like when YHWH told him to play in dung (pretty gross). Jonah was a run-away. David and Solomon were adulterers. Jesus' brother, James and Jude, had turned Jesus' down at one time. So, God does what He deems necessary, regardless of background. Forgive me, I don't mean this rude, but those 2 sentences seem contradictory. I'm sure God had it planned out, but we weren't designed to sin and rebel against God, we were designed to bear His image. Absolutely. The priests at the time were corrupt. The High Priest himself could only be appointed by, or with the consent of the Romans. In other words, the high priest was in league with the Romans. Jesus also fussed at the Pharisees a lot, but his beef with most of them seemed to be on their application of the law and their failure to recognize him as messiah. Side note: I think Paul's teacher before the Jesus encounter was Gamaliel. I don't see why one has to come at the expense of the other. There's nothing at all wrong with praying and asking God for wisdom, or taking your requests to God. We are told to do so. But we are also told to apply wisdom. This might mean a little time and effort on our part. God may choose to reveal things about Himself when we study a little. I'm not talking about chasing after a theology degree, anyone can do it without that, though there's nothing wrong with one either. We shouldn't shun a little leg work on our part. Don't forget that to them the Law was a revelation given on Sinai from God to them. So, they did rely on revelation and a very direct form of it. The problem with the prophets was that Israel got caught up in idolatry. See the first few chapters of Ezekiel where they were worshiping the sun in the temple. The problem with later prophets was corruption and lack of repentence on the part of the people. It wasn't that they were worshiping the Law, it's that they weren't even following the Law. So, they also discarded the prophets too. By the time of Jesus, they still weren't following the Law correctly. The Pharisees didn't practice what they preached. The Essenes had moved out to the desert to be alone. The Sadducees were the ruling party, and were in cahoots with Rome. Herod was in league with himself. The Zealots resorted to violence. When Jesus was asked, "What's the greatest commandment", He said, "Love the Lord with all your heart soul strength and mind" (Deut 6:5), and said the Law and Prophets depended on that commandment. The second was like it, "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18). None of the sects were doing those. They weren't following the Law as they should have been. Their beef was more with some of Jesus' actions. They didn't understand Jesus' identity. Jesus walked around forgiving sins. Only God can forgive sins, they said. Jesus healed, touched, and hung out with the unclean, outcasts, and sinners. Exactly what the messiah was supposed to do! Unfortunately, shaking the establishment can sometimes be bad. The problem wasn't that the Pharisees and scribes were studying the Torah to discern God's will, it's that they had missed the point. They were to be a light of the world, and they missed it. They were to be a demonstration on how God wants people to live, and they were failing, not because they were theologians, but because they were theologians who just got it wrong. That doesn't mean study should stop, but like them, we need to look at it from the same standpoint of Jesus' outlook. Being "smart" and using our heads was commanded by Jesus Himself when He quoted from Deut 6:5, "Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, and mind". The problem comes in when pride, or some other destructive thing, seeps in. That was Jesus' point in Matt 23, listen to the teachers and do what they say, but if they are hypocrites, don't do what they do. If they are prideful, don't be prideful. And sometimes we study and just miss something, which is why it's great to have other believers to rely on and bounce ideas off of, and why it's even better to have and listen to teachers and check things out for ourselves. Jesus reveals Himself to all who are looking for Him, theologians, bums, yuppies, and hippies included.

I don't understand how being "trained" or "educated" is a bad thing. Presumably, most theologians today start as simple men and work from there. I'm not aware of a theologian class. You should also be aware that more than just Paul were trained. Moses was a member of the Egyptian court. No doubt he was trained, and probably wealthy and elite to boot. Ezekiel was a priest and theologian. Ezra was a priest and theologian. Jeremiah was a priest and theologian. It's arguable, due to his writing style, that Matthew had scribal training. The author of Hebrews was an obvious theologian since he quotes heavily from the OT. What's even more alarming are the words from Jesus' own mouth concerning the most distrusted groups in all of scripture, the Torah experts and the Pharisees: Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 23:2 “The experts in the law and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat. 23:3 Therefore pay attention to what they tell you and do it. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they teach. Jesus' complaint isn't that the Pharisees and experts of the Law were teaching wrongly, it's that they weren't practicing what they preached. Refering to why they didn't recognize Jesus as Messiah, Paul makes it clear why: The implication is that Jesus' death was necessary for the sacrifice of sin. If they had understood that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, there would be no final sacrifice for sin.

The Torah commanded God's people, repeatedly, not to touch or come in contact with dead bodies because it made them ceremonially unclean. Other than that they are told not to contact spirits: As far as I can tell the prohibitions are against physically coming in contact with dead bodies and trying to contact spirits through mediums or what have you. If someone came in contact with a dead body they became ritually unclean, which was a big deal then since they couldn't participate in temple worship until they were ceremonially clean again. This is why Jesus' parable about the good Samaritan carried a lot of force, and would have been more shocking, with his audience. The man in Luke 10:30 was left "half dead" which explains why the priest and the Levite (of the priestly class) passed by him. The man was ceremonially unclean; Jesus audience may have even thought the priest and the Levite were correct in their action. What's a priest supposed to do? Be unclean? How will he perfom temple duties?The good news was that they could become ceremonially clean again for 7 days. It looks like if one tried to contact the dead he was "cut off from the people", which I'm not sure if it meant they were simply sent away or killed. Now, if a person WAS a medium and contacted the dead themselves, the penalty was a little steeper - stoning. Forbidden: 1) Physical contact with dead bodies 2) Contacting the dead through mediums 3) Contacting the dead yourself 4) Being indwelt by other spirits Those are pretty much the facts, how that relates to Moroni, I'm not really sure, I'm protestant and haven't really concerned myself with it that much. I have limited knowledge on Moroni.

That's a good question, and a deep one. It's a really tough philosophy question. What is a belief? What is a thought? Decartes "I think therefore I am" is fallacious. He assumes there is an "I", assumes what he wants to prove, to do the thinking and so begs his question. 1) I think -> I am 2) I think 3) Therefore I am What he should have done is say 'thinking is occuring' and then try to get from there to "I am": 1) I think -> I am 2) thinking (thinking is occuring) 3) therefore, ? Decartes tried to doubt everything, but ultimately was just unable to be consistent. I think the quick answer is that there is a "spiritual"/"soul" ascpect of us that has been created by God and in His image. We are created with cognative faculties designed by God that are designed to work in the environment (broadly speaking) that we find ourselves in and are meant to function properly at exploring, discovering, and glorifying God and being stewards of His creation by trying to form true beliefs and form thoughts that lead us to true beliefs. I dunno, that's kind of what I think.

The Holy Ghost is not spoken of as being a Son of God. The Holy Ghost is equated to Jehovah: In Isaiah 63, Israel rebelled and grieved Jehovah's Spirit. It specifically calls the Holy Spirit, "His" Holy Spirit and the "Spirit of Jehovah". In Psalm 78 when Israel's rebellion is spoken of, they "rebel" and "grieve" Jehovah: Jehovah and His Holy Spirit can't be seperated. Of course there may be an issue on whether or not the Holy Spirit is Jehovah's or Elohim's (if you were me though, that's not a problem).

I think the core Law of God is found in Genesis - Deuteronomy (the Torah). Jesus even affirms this: Love God with all your being (Deut 6:5) Love your neighbor as yourself (Lev 19:18) Sacrificial Laws (Lev 1-9, 16-17, 19) Tithing was taught in several places in the Torah as well as taking care of the priests needs, which were met largely through eating certain offerings. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are the core Torah.

There is nothing "reverend" about Freddy Phelps. Now, Westboro Baptist church - THAT IS a cult, and a dangerous one at that.

I think someone already said it. The "evanvelical movement" is just that, a movement. You will find evangelicals who beleive different things and are at different understandings. One may believe that the KJV is the inerrant, infalliable, perfect word of God in every sense. Another may accept the deuterocanon. Really? Tell me what you disagree with here: Which part of that creed do you reject? Maybe you take issue with the word "catholic" which simply means "universal" and doesn't necessarily mean the Roman version. Actually I think it is in the bible. In that case, I will use only non hellenized bibles: the MT, SP, DSS, Targumim, and a gospel of your choosing and I still arrive at the conclusions. Though, if I were you, I would be a little slower in rejecting the LXX and the Greek NT. Sure it's in there. It's never defined as "John 54:14, And there is a Trinity". The Trinity, if defined correctly and not simply as "3 in one, one in three", stems out of Jewish ways of speaking about God. Oh, but that means it's not a RCC idea of the 4th century. Of course God is anthropomorphic in some sense. He comes in embodied form all the time in the OT. I begin with Jesus. I know it sounds a like a little churchy-sunday-schooly response, but that's where I begin. I have about 9 (plus or minus a couple) ancient sources that attest to Him and His teachings. All of them attest to His being the Jewish Messiah. But something doesn't add up when they do that. Why is Yeshua the Messiah? Why not Bar-Kochba (135 AD)? Bar-Kochba seems like a much more likely candidate at first glance. He actually did more that was expected of the messiah that Yeshua did. Bar-Kochba led a rebellion against Rome, and actually had some early victories. He minted his own coins, captured Jerusalem, and possibly even laid a foundation for the Temple. Bar-Kochba was actually thought by the great Rabbi Akiba to be the Jewish messiah. Heck, his name means "son of the star". Why don't people follow Bar-Kochba and his teachings? He fits the bill except for one major problem, he's dead. He ultimately failed. Look to either side of Jesus in history you find messianic claimants all over the place, but like Bar-Kochba, they too quit having followers after they died at the hands of the Romans. Their messianic movements failed. Yeshua, however, not only managed to have followers after his death, but He has billions (millions?) of followers to this day. Why was he different from these other messianic movements? He died at the hands of the Romans just like the whole lot of them. He never, seemingly, did anything to the temple in Jerusalem. He never beat the Romans in battle. What made His movement different? His followers claimed that He had been raised from the dead. So, I start looking at what Jesus claimed about Himself and His messianic movement. I compare the sources we have. Skipping around a little bit, I look at what kind of view he had of the Jewish scriptures. First of all, what would Jesus and his immediate rag-tag band of followers view as scripture? Well, I know from their writings they quote from the LXX. That's a starting point. What is included in the LXX? Well, there is Genesis-Malachi plus the Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, Prayer of Manasseh, an extra Psalm (151), and a little more to Daniel and Esther. What else would the culture of Jesus have read in their synagogue services? Well, according to other Jewish sources, they were to read the Targum also (that's the Aramaic version) and had probably been reading from the Targum since the exile in Babylon. So now I have the same collection of books in two different languages (Greek and Aramaic) that were used by the culture at the time. I'm going to ignore the Samaritian Penteteuch and the Dead Sea Scrolls for now since I think I've made my point. Now, does Yeshua Himself, since His followers were pretty adamant about His messianic and living status, adhere to any of these writings? Well, yes, He does. There, Yeshua affirms the validity of the "Law and Prophets", so now I'm on ground with some of Jesus' teachings. He's at least affirming Genesis-Deuteronomy and the Prophets (Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Isaiah, etc..) and is affirming their validity until "everything takes place". I could also go through and look where Jesus cites from the Torah and the Prophets, and he does it plenty of times. Jesus cites from the Psalms on several occasions, most importantly at His trial when he uses a Psalm and Daniel to explain Himself. Jesus also explains Himself in terms of being 'Wisdom', though that one is a little more cryptic and less obvious, so I'm on firm grounds with Proverbs (see Prov 8-9). I'm also on more firm grounds with Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, and Baruch because of that. There may be some allusions to Job there too. I also take a look at how his followers wrote about him and what his followers thought. I would naturally think that a Rabbinical type of teacher, and Jesus was refered to as such in 4 gospels, would teach his followers his ways. James cites Job on one occasion. Hebrews cites extensively from the OT as does Paul. Heck, Paul's theology is centered smack in the middle of the Torah. Peter cites from the OT as do John and Jude. Paul calls Jesus "wisdom" in 1 Cor 1, so there's another point for Proverbs and possibly Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, Sirach, and Job. So far the only ones I think I haven't touched on or covered are the Chronicles, the Kings, the Samuels, the Maccabees, Judges (well, Hebrews 11 quotes from Judges), Ezra, Esther, and Song of Solomon. Yeshua alludes to David, Solomon, and Temple plenty of times which we find information about in the Chronicles, Kings, and Samuels. There are going to be allusions to the Chronicles, Kings, and Samuels inherent in any messianic movement (cf: 2 Sam 7:14). I can even bounce those three off of each other to corroborate things. I can use those 1 Chr to find a little information about Ezra. I can bounce the historical books of Ezra and Nehemiah off of each other for corroboration too since those are historical in nature. I can also appeal to the New Testament to get the validity of Ezra. The Pharisees in the New Testament probably spawned from the teachings of Ezra who was seen as restoring Judaism after the exile. Maccabees is a little tougher probably because it was much more contemporary too the NT writers. There are Maccabean allusions in the NT, particularly Jesus riding into the Temple with palm branches waving, a move that was almost just like Judas Macabbeus except Judas M. cleansed the temple then the people waved the palm branches because of his victory whereas Jesus rode in with palm brahnces waving, then rode into the temple. One thing about the historical types of books is that they aren't used as authoritatively as the Torah or Prophets. They are used mostly when alluding to promises to David, things about David's son (be it Solomon or messiah), the Temple, and thematic elements like exile/return, messiahship, and YHWH defeating His enemies. The historical books are just what they suppose to be - historical. They may be used in Midrash techniques in the NT, I'm not sure off the top of my head if they are. So, that's one way that I as a protestant start approaching the question of what to consider canonical. Basically, I've given a really quick reconstruction. It all centers on Jesus, as it should if that's who you claim to follow. Not everyone has the kind of time to go look into this stuff though, which is one reason Jesus commissioned a bunch of followers to carry on His work and why we have teachers and, heaven help us - tradition. Formulaic expressions, such as creeds and songs, along with traditional elements are really really tough to dislodge, which can be good or bad. It's good if it's right/true since it becomes almost impossible to move. Take for example the name "Jesus Christ". That is assumed to be a proper name by lots of people, however, "Christ" is a title to first century Jews and not a proper name. But already by the time of Paul it has become a formulaic expression ('Jesus Christ', "Lord Jesus Christ", 'Jesus Christ our Lord') and hasn't been moved from Christianity ever since. Jesus and Messiah have been tightly bound togther for a really long time. A good example of a creed is found in 1 Cor 15: That is a very early christian creedal formula, and it's found in Paul's writings. Kinda scary if you don't like creeds. An example of a good tradition is the Lord's Supper which carries really heavy symbolic connotations along with it as does baptism (you may think there's more to those than symbolism, but they do at least carry heavy symbolism, which is my point, don't get sidetracked). Don't cozy up to me too close though you RCC's that hang aound here :) I'm probably a little a-typical for a protestant.

Depends on which parts of Isaiah we are talking about. There is lots going on in the book. The main point is prophecying the exile and then the return from exile and the return of YHWH to Zion in Jerusalem. Then there are some oracles of judgment in places. Cyrus is identified as "messiah" which I always found interesting. Which parts are you having trouble understanding? I love Isaiah and Ezekiel...they are my fav's.

Why do you think that? Also, why does the LDS church use the exact same OT and NT canons that protestants do? If the councils were apostate, it seems they managed to stop being apostate long enough in AD 393, 397, and 419 (68 - 94 years after Nicea) to compile the correct canon. Why not go back and add Enoch to the LDS canon if it's really inspired? Is that a quote from Nicea or is that from Aquinas? That's not quite what it says. I see this thread is swirling into a trinitarian/Nicea issue, even though Nicea didn't canonize scripture. That's cool. Let's be honest, Nicea members weren't stupid, ignorant drunkards who spent the entire proceedings in a stupor. They probably knew of a few verses (leaving Divine names with proper transliteration): I'm going to venture a guess that Nicea knew of these verses and others like these and knew they could either deny these verses, for whatever reason, or uphold all of scripture. Jehovah says it's His power and no "elohim" besides Him. Has Jehovah just usurped Elohims power and taken Elohims worship? I think it's made abundantly clear to Moses on Mount Sinai: Ok...so both Elohim and Jehovah are there on Mt. Sinai with Moses. Moses is speaking to Elohim and Elohim is speaking back. Unfortunately, or fortunately, Jehovah makes a bold move there on Sinai just a few verses later: Why doesn't Elohim object to this? Jehovah says HE is Elohim, then He forbids the worship of other Elohim. Why doesn't Heavenly Father object? Jehovah just forbid us to worship Heavenly Father! Elohim doesn't object because Jehovah is Elohim. He's not lying in Exodus 20:2 (or in Mosiah 12:33-37 where it's repeated word for word by Abinadi). Nicea was probably aware of things like this (probably not the Abinadi quote though) and knew better than to posit more than one god. Jesus claims were pretty bold, yet it's clear that there is only One God. What do you do with the information found in the New and Old Testament and the Deuterocanon? Scripture is clear that there is one God, yet Jesus made some rather blasphemous remarks and actions, and was raised from the dead in spite of what should have been blasphemy and a free ticket strait to Sheol. What is a council to do with that? God has revealed the information over many years, surely He left it such that we (or Nicea in this case) could apply the command to love the Lord with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind (Deut 6:5) and come to an understanding on what God has revealed about Himself. The answers are there in scripture. Rather than just say Nicea was a bunch of drunk, rowdy apostates (a genetic fallacy btw), why don't we check and see if their creed can actually be collaborated with what God has already revealed to us. I believe it can. Now, having said that, and to try to get back on topic somewhat, Nicea still didn't compile the canon. The canon was finalized later by the Synod of Hippo (AD 393) and the Councils of Carthage (397 and 419). Were those 3 councils also drunken apostates? If they were apostate, why does the LDS OT and NT canon match the protestant rendition of it? Of course, if there wasn't a total apostasy by that point, and/or those 3 councils got it right, then maybe Nicea deserves a fresh look and another shot.