Recommended Posts

Shabbat Shalom!

 

May the L-RD bless thee, and keep thee;

The L-RD make His face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee.

The L-RD lift up His countenance upon thee, and give thee shalom.

-Numbers 6: 24-26

 

May HaShem bless you and your families during the new and glorious week.

 

Edited by Aish HaTorah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always loved hearing that prayer in Fiddler on the Roof. It's just a movie/musical, but it still has impact whenever I see it.

I am sometimes jealous that we have (outside of our Sabbath – Sunday – meetings) no real Sabbath traditions. But that's a major difference between what we see as the Gospel of the Old Testament and that of the New: fewer specific commandments, and more reliance on the "spirit of the law".

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

I always loved hearing that prayer in Fiddler on the Roof. It's just a movie/musical, but it still has impact whenever I see it.

I am sometimes jealous that we have (outside of our Sabbath – Sunday – meetings) no real Sabbath traditions. But that's a major difference between what we see as the Gospel of the Old Testament and that of the New: fewer specific commandments, and more reliance on the "spirit of the law".

Lehi

A bit off topic, but does Replacement Theology fall under the umbrella of LDS dogma?  If so, to what extent?  Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Aish HaTorah said:

A bit off topic, but does Replacement Theology fall under the umbrella of LDS dogma?  If so, to what extent?  Thank you!

Never heard the term. But I doubt it.

Please recall that our scriptures document the baptism of Adam post Eden, and that Shem/Melchizedek had the same general form of the Sacrament we use today. In essence, the Gospel of Jesus Christ was the first message of God in 4,000 bce, was changed outwardly at the foot of Sinai, and came back to its original structure ca. 34 ce.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Never heard the term. But I doubt it.

Please recall that our scriptures document the baptism of Adam post Eden, and that Shem/Melchizedek had the same general form of the Sacrament we use today. In essence, the Gospel of Jesus Christ was the first message of God in 4,000 bce, was changed outwardly at the foot of Sinai, and came back to its original structure ca. 34 ce.

Lehi

Thank you for that.  It doesn't sound like it.  Basically, Replacement Theology is a term to describe certain Christian groups that believe that the church (or the New Testament) has replaced Israel in G-d's plan.  In other words, The Old Testament was for G-d's people in ancient times (i.e. Jews) and that the New Testament replaces that for Christians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Aish HaTorah said:

Basically, Replacement Theology is a term to describe certain Christian groups that believe that the church (or the New Testament) has replaced Israel in G-d's plan.

It's the precise opposite of our "Israeology". We believe we are of Israel. I'd guess that the majority of the Saints here are from Ephraim, me included. I'd also guess that there are people from at least three other tribes (likely Benjamin, Manasseh, and Judah), possibly as many as five or even six. Most by blood descent, but some of us have been adopted into the House of Israel.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Vort said:

We don't have a "replacement theology"; we have an "adoption theology". Those who covenant with God are adopted into his people Israel.

What does this adoption entail?  What are the "benefits," for lack of a better term?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Aish HaTorah said:

What does this adoption entail?  What are the "benefits," for lack of a better term?

You become one of God's chosen people, meaning you stand to inherit all the blessings he gives to his children. You are also under all the covenants that you accept that God offers to his children, and are expected to abide those covenants. If you do not abide them, or if you refuse to make them, you are outside the covenant and are no longer one of God's chosen. In fact, you are worse off than those who never knew God to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Vort said:

You become one of God's chosen people, meaning you stand to inherit all the blessings he gives to his children. You are also under all the covenants that you accept that God offers to his children, and are expected to abide those covenants. If you do not abide them, or if you refuse to make them, you are outside the covenant and are no longer one of God's chosen. In fact, you are worse off than those who never knew God to begin with.

This is quite a lot for me to take in.  I will have to try to wrap my mind around that.  I appreciate your candor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Aish HaTorah said:

What does this adoption entail?  What are the "benefits," for lack of a better term?

As far as I know, there is no "process", it's just a matter of being part of Israel when one's bloodline doesn't trace back to Israel.

The "benefits" are all those that being Israelite entails: part of the Kingdom of God (Israel means the prince of God, if my Hebrew is even close). Each tribe has its own blessings (see Genesis and Deuteronomy).

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Aish HaTorah said:

It literally means "G-d contended."  The Hebrew word for prince is "sar" or "nagid."

Sarah is princess, the SR. ISR looks a lot like SR, which is why I see prince of God.

I know the story where God changed Jacob's name, and it involved wrestling. Interesting, though, that it is "God contended" because I believe that it was really God Himself, not "an angel" who wrestled with Jacob.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Sarah is princess, the SR. ISR looks a lot like SR, which is why I see prince of God.

I know the story where God changed Jacob's name, and it involved wrestling. Interesting, though, that it is "God contended" because I believe that it was really God Himself, not "an angel" who wrestled with Jacob.

Lehi

I presume your "ISR" is for Israel?  Are you thinking of a "vav" or a "yod?"  And those silly diacritical marks (or lack, thereof) will get you every time.  I am definitely NOT on Team Diacritics.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Aish HaTorah said:

I presume your "ISR" is for Israel?  Are you thinking of a "vav" or a "yod?"  And those silly diacritical marks (or lack, thereof) will get you every time.  I am definitely NOT on Team Diacritics.  ;)

Yes, ISR(L) is for Israel. I don't even pretend to have Hebrew in the least degree. But there are things I've learned that probably only serve to make me over confident.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Yes, ISR(L) is for Israel. I don't even pretend to have Hebrew in the least degree. But there are things I've learned that probably only serve to make me over confident.

Lehi

Got it.  :D I hope you don't think I was trying to give you a hard time.  I am honored that you would have a desire to learn Hebrew.  Israel, in Hebrew, is spelled with five letters:

YOD (which makes a "y" sound), SHIN/SIN (which makes an "s" sound), RESH (which makes an "r" sound), ALEPH (which makes no sound by itself), and LAMED (which makes an "l" sound).

Sarah in Hebrew is spelled with three letters:

SHIN/SIN (which makes an "s" sound), RESH (which makes an "r" sound), and HAY (which makes an "h" sound normally.  The HAY in this case is all but silent.  Sarah does indeed mean noble woman or princess as you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Aish HaTorah said:

Got it.  :D I hope you don't think I was trying to give you a hard time.

I was a technical writer for thirty years (a "writer" is not a "typist"), and have developed rhino hide. People, even those who try, cannot offend me: I have neither the time nor the energy to waste on it.

I appreciate the effort to help. Thanks.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

I was a technical writer for thirty years (a "writer" is not a "typist"), and have developed rhino hide. People, even those who try, cannot offend me: I have neither time or energy to waste on it.

I appreciate the effort to help. Thanks.

Lehi

You are more than welcome.  And "rhino hide"...I am pretty sure they have a cream for that.  Just saying.  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Aish HaTorah said:

You are more than welcome.  And "rhino hide"...I am pretty sure they have a cream for that.  Just saying.  :D

Don't want to change it: too valuable in a world where so many are professionally and eternally offended. Someone here said they (the p&e offended) get offended at the drop of a hat. Methinks the hat is optional.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the subject of adoption...  First two postulates

G-d is no respecter of persons...

G-d has a covenant with Israel includes blessing not available to anyone else (through Abraham)...

Now reconcile the two why does Israel get special blessings?...

The LDS answer.

Jesus declared the G-d was able to raise up stones to be Abraham seed if need be when challenged by those claiming special privilege due to birth.

This is part of the answer.  Those all who listen and follow G-d will receive the blessings that G-d offers. Non Israelite who hear and follow G-d will be adopted in (raised up as stones as it where).  The other part is those of Israel who do not listen will be cut off.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On ‎4‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 7:23 PM, Aish HaTorah said:

The Old Testament was for G-d's people in ancient times (i.e. Jews) and that the New Testament replaces that for Christians.

Aish,

I believe, based on the above statement, that your question has not yet been answered.  If I understand you correctly, Christians believe that the New Testament is now the guiding document and the Old Testament is only for historical reference and background.  There are some sects that believe that.  Some don't.

What we believe is that there have been dispensations, each of which required a different "covenant".  There are strings of eternal commandments and principles throughout all of them.  But the terms of the covenant to make a people God's "covenant People"  has changed over the millennia.  There was the "Patriarchal Order" which was from Adam to Melchizedek.  Then there was the Abrahamic covenant which was from Abraham to Moses.  The Law of Moses was from Moses to Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ set up another covenant, but it was not given enough time to really get fully implemented (I'm saying this statement very loosely).  Then there was an apostasy -- the great apostasy -- which lasted until the time of Joseph Smith.  God then revealed to Joseph everything needed to re-establish the same organization that Jesus had organized earlier, but was lost.  Such a re-instatement included restoration of authority to act in God's name just as prophets of old.  And it included a new covenant for this dispensation.

It is never a complete replacement because there are some principles and commandments that are eternal and will always be true and correct.  But the specific covenants contain covenants that are dispensation specific.

Does that explain it?

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a challenge. I accept your superior knowledge. Heck, a Jewish mouse has more Hebrew than I. I'm trying to show how I arrived at my definition, nothing more.

On 4/17/2016 at 7:07 PM, Aish HaTorah said:

[Israel] literally means "G-d contended."  The Hebrew word for prince is "sar" or "nagid."

The verse in question is in Genesis 32 (as found in the AV; both Webster and Young's Literal Translation render this similarly):

Quote

28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.

(Webster)  And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God, and with men, and hast prevailed.

(YLT)  And he saith, `Thy name is no more called Jacob, but Israel; for thou hast been a prince with God and with men, and dost prevail.'

I have found literally dozens of places where the text of the passage near a name tells us what it means. It is primarily with this context that I arrived where I did.

Yes, sar is prince, and "יִשְׂרָאֵל" contains the requisite letter pair: shin rosh,  שְׂרָ, (tooth/ivory, head/chief). The leading yod, י (hand/fist), I did not include in the interpretation, but the concept of strength is also a regal attribute, along with being the chief and having a sharp (i.e., toothlike) mind or personality.

Strong gives Israel as "he will rule as God". Brown-Driver-Briggs has "God prevails". Obviously I prefer the first. It lends itself to my "prince of God".

I have heard it said that Hebrew is basically a poetic language, meaning that each word is a small puzzle, and a sentence a bigger one, puzzles that the hearer/reader must work out for himself. (One reason I like the older English of the AV is that one must struggle with the meaning in the same way — although I'll readily grant it ain't nearly as tough as Hebrew).

Lehi

 

Edited by LeSellers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm.  I always thought "Israel" translated roughly as "he who prevails with God".

Re replacement theology--I would just add that Mormonism believes God still has a special place in His heart for the Jews.  Nearly from its inception Mormonism contemplated a return of the Jews to the Holy Land (Mormon apostle Orson Hyde was dispatched to Jerusalem in the 1840s to dedicate the land for that purpose).  We do anticipate the construction of a new temple on the Temple Mount (most LDS authors think the LDS church will somehow be involved, though I am skeptical of that), and that Jesus' Second Coming will happen in Jerusalem where he will save the city and the Jewish people from utter annihilation following a disastrous military defeat.  

Being Christians, we do believe that individual Jews would need to embrace Jesus in order to maximize the eternal blessings available to them.  But I think most Mormons have tremendous respect and affection for Judaism, and would be appalled at the notion that they (the Jews) are no longer part of God's covenant people.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Aish,

I believe, based on the above statement, that your question has not yet been answered.  If I understand you correctly, Christians believe that the New Testament is now the guiding document and the Old Testament is only for historical reference and background.  There are some sects that believe that.  Some don't.

What we believe is that there have been dispensations, each of which required a different "covenant".  There are strings of eternal commandments and principles throughout all of them.  But the terms of the covenant to make a people God's "covenant People"  has changed over the millennia.  There was the "Patriarchal Order" which was from Adam to Melchizedek.  Then there was the Abrahamic covenant which was from Abraham to Moses.  The Law of Moses was from Moses to Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ set up another covenant, but it was not given enough time to really get fully implemented (I'm saying this statement very loosely).  Then there was an apostasy -- the great apostasy -- which lasted until the time of Joseph Smith.  God then revealed to Joseph everything needed to re-establish the same organization that Jesus had organized earlier, but was lost.  Such a re-instatement included restoration of authority to act in God's name just as prophets of old.  And it included a new covenant for this dispensation.

It is never a complete replacement because there are some principles and commandments that are eternal and will always be true and correct.  But the specific covenants contain covenants that are dispensation specific.

Does that explain it?

It does explain it, thank you.  But it also raises a few more questions, if I may.

What is the determinating factor for "some principles and commandments that are eternal and will always be true and correct?"

Why do you believe that different covenants would be necessary instead of one covenant for all people?

What terms have changed over the millennia to make a people "covenant People," and where do Jews stand within the Abrahamic covenant today?  Is it no longer relevant to Jews, specifically, and to all of G-d's children in general?

Finally, are there specific "covenants" or mitzvot (commandments) that are no longer relevant today for anyone, in your belief?  For example, and please correct me if I am mistaken in this, but it is widely believed (based upon his own writings as well as those of others) that the Paul of the New Testament continued to live, in essence, as a Jew, even after his "conversion" to Christianity and a professed faith in Yeshua.  (Paul is a topic that could probably have its own separate thread.  He was a fascinating man, in my opinion.)  How is this to be explained?  (I am NOT trying to be contentious.  I am simply trying to wrap my head around your view as a Mormon.)

Thank you for indulging me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now