Why Are You Here? -for Non-lds Christians

[Islander]

Again, you are not reading the post carefully. I did not say it was "bad" to be educated. I suggest that I would always wait for God to reveal himself to a prophet than to a theologian. I guess you do agree with me that out of the 40 or so books in the OT, most refer to or were written by prophets that had no theological training. Moses was an Egyptian so he certainly knew nothing about YHW until He revealed to him.

Let's avoid the causality loop here. The Atonement did not happen because anything man did. I was going to happened regardless and precisely because all of the things that man did. It was God's plan from the beginning.

Jesus DID chastised the priestly class and called them liars and hypocrites. I am sure that there were some that were good and indeed tried to live the Law of Moses and practiced the Torah as required. Some were wise (Gamaliel) as to point to the fact that they should not kill Jesus and his followers but to leave them alone since if it was just a revolt it would not come to much. But he recognized that if indeed it was of God they could do nothing about it.

In summary, I take a position that it is much safer to seek prophesy and revelation than just study and shared theological interpretation. Ancient Israel substituted the guidance of prophets and revelation for the scholarly study and interpretation of the Law. They elevated the study and observance fo the Torah to a worship and discarded the prophets. To them point that when the Law-giver came they accused Him of breaking the Law, that he had a devil and of being a sinner. And, mind you, these were the "smart ones" that accused the Savior.

Goes to show, don't you think?

[Yekcidmij]

Again, you are not reading the post carefully. I did not say it was "bad" to be educated.

It was a poor choice of words on my part.

I suggest that I would always wait for God to reveal himself to a prophet than to a theologian.

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?

I guess you do agree with me that out of the 40 or so books in the OT, most refer to or were written by prophets that had no theological training. Moses was an Egyptian so he certainly knew nothing about YHW until He revealed to him.

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.

The Atonement did not happen because anything man did. I was going to happened regardless and precisely because all of the things that man did.

Forgive me, I don't mean this rude, but those 2 sentences seem contradictory.

It was God's plan from the beginning.

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.

Jesus DID chastised the priestly class and called them liars and hypocrites.

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.

I am sure that there were some that were good and indeed tried to live the Law of Moses and practiced the Torah as required. Some were wise (Gamaliel)

Side note: I think Paul's teacher before the Jesus encounter was Gamaliel.

In summary, I take a position that it is much safer to seek prophesy and revelation than just study and shared theological interpretation.

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.

Ancient Israel substituted the guidance of prophets and revelation for the scholarly study and interpretation of the Law. They elevated the study and observance fo the Torah to a worship and discarded the prophets.

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.

To them point that when the Law-giver came they accused Him of breaking the Law, that he had a devil and of being a sinner. And, mind you, these were the "smart ones" that accused the Savior.

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.

Edited September 15, 2008 by Yekcidmij

[book_worm]

I was raised Catholic but have gone to the "dome churches" and baptist churches just to get an idea how different everyone worships...it was definitely different that what I'm used to..(the boring mass) but I feel comfort in it. One church I went to was a Christian church called Christian Life which had a college attached to it. I went with a friend of mine and some of the members came up to me and after finding out that I was raised Catholic bombarded me with rude comments, telling me that my faith was bogus and I needed to turn away...that I was brainwashed. This I thought was not very Christian.

That was wrong of that church to pick on someone because of their religion, no one should play the judge no matter what. I love running into people from other churchs, I think their special and I enjoy talking to them about what I believe and what they believe:lol:

[book_worm]

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.

Actually we are designed to live and decide (agency) to be like God or to follow on the path of least resistance. That's what I love about being on this Earth, God let us choose, he gave us the freedom to decide our kingdom.

[book_worm]

You know what I love most about the fact that the Lord chose Joseph? He was a humble farm boy curious about the word, Joseph did what most men now a days don't even consider. He went before the Lord and put his whole heart in, He placed his fate completely in the Lord's hands, how many people would be willing to do that? Totally give themselves to the Lord and be willing to dedicate their whole life to what the Lord tells them to. It's like with Jesus, when he told the rich man to give all his stuff away and come follow him, the rich man couldn't do it. And that's another thing about Jesus, he is the son of God, he could have come to the Earth, as anything, but he came as a humble carpenter, how awesome is that? I think there is a lesson in there, you can be smart, you can be a total Bible scholar, but when it comes down to it, only when you humbly place yourself before the Lord, will he truly be able to answer you. Knowledge is power, but Humility is Love

[abqfriend]

There is some interesting discission here-but we are off topic. Perhaps another thread needs to be started.

I/we are here to learn, study and grown in our faith tradition-and to learn about other faith traditions-and in my case learn and interact with members of the LDS Church who I deeply respect and hold much in common with. I and my husband are Catholics.

-Carol

[bytor2112]

Actually we are designed to live and decide (agency) to be like God or to follow on the path of least resistance. That's what I love about being on this Earth, God let us choose, he gave us the freedom to decide our kingdom.

And I might add book_worm...that we bear his image by becoming like him. It is interesting to note that "Adam fell that men might be....",.... " had there been no fall of Adam, If Adam had not fallen, he would be there today, six thousand years later, in all the glory and beauty of his immortal nature. Such is the word of holy writ."

If not for the fall, we would not be......there would be no atonement of Christ, everything would have remained in it's Edenic state.

[Hemidakota]

Let me change the old prophetic phrase that Moses gave us from his observation that I consider a greater credence and gives accreditation for both of them, “Adam and EVE both fell, that we might be."

"would have remained in it's Edenic state." I still hold reservation that it may of been the opposite over a given frame of Celestial time. Just my opinion and not the church. :)

[Guest ceeboo]

Let me change the old prophetic phrase that Moses gave us from his observation that I consider a greater credence and gives accreditation for both of them, “Adam and EVE both fell, that we might be."

HI hemi, long time no post :)

Certainly you would agree that Eve is more at fault, don't you??:)

God bless,

Carl

[Vort]

HI hemi, long time no post :)

Certainly you would agree that Eve is more at fault, don't you??:)

Speaking only for myself, I'm not sure I would agree. I am not sure that "blame" really has anything to do with it. Eve didn't cram the forbidden fruit down Adam's throat; he freely chose that path.

In any case, the story of Adam and Eve in Eden is certainly a figurative parable, though Latter-day Saints believe it is fundamentally a literal occurrence. But what was the "forbidden fruit"? What, exactly, were Adam's and Eve's state? What was the true nature of their transgression and the Fall? These things are not given to us, so we can only speculate, which in this particular case is (forgive the pun) fruitless.

Paul certainly lays the "blame" squarely on Eve. But I'm not convinced that Paul had a perfect understanding of what the story meant, or if he did, that he was trying to convey that deeper meaning.

[Guest ceeboo]

Speaking only for myself, I'm not sure I would agree. I am not sure that "blame" really has anything to do with it. Eve didn't cram the forbidden fruit down Adam's throat; he freely chose that path.

.

Hi Vort,

To clarify, I was kidding about Eve being more at fault, BUT I will add that if Eve had not sprinkled cinamon and sugar on said apple, then !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

On a slightly more serious note, for what it may be worth to you , Catholics also believe it to be a literal occurrence as well.:):)

God bless,

Carl

[Hemidakota]

HI hemi, long time no post :)

Certainly you would agree that Eve is more at fault, don't you??:)

God bless,

Carl

Eve was inquisitive, in seeking knowledge at once vice waiting for the next instruction

[abqfriend]

Hey Carl/Ceebo,

I do not take the Genesis story literally. I am for equal rights--and equal blame. The story tells us that mankind went apart from God's desire-or sin -as we sometimes call it.

Augustine-called this theology "original sin" and in Catholic theology-that concept is very important.

BBC - Religion & Ethics - Beliefs: St Augustine and original sin

Carol

Eve was inquisitive, in seeking knowledge at once vice waiting for the next instruction

[Guest ceeboo]

Hey Carl/Ceebo,

I do not take the Genesis story literally. I am for equal rights--and equal blame. The story tells us that mankind went apart from God's desire-or sin -as we sometimes call it.

Augustine-called this theology "original sin" and in Catholic theology-that concept is very important.

BBC - Religion & Ethics - Beliefs: St Augustine and original sin

Carol

Hello abqfriend,

First, I also believe in equal blame ( sorry for my weak attempt at humor ):)

I must also suggest ( if i am understanding your offering correctly ) that if you do NOT take the Genesis story literally ( Adam and Eve and forbiden fruit ) than you do not agree with what the Cathoilic church teaches on the matter.

That's certainly ok by me :)

God bless,

Carl

[abqfriend]

I am not a fundamentalist. No where does the Catholic Church say I have to take the genesis account as literal. The message meaning is what counts-and I have no problem with Genesis account if taken as a whole story with a divine purpose.

I am an evolutionist and the Catholic Church does not forbid a belief in that either-as long as the belief involves that evolution is the work of God.

Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 390 states that:

"The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeaval event..."

-Carol

Hello abqfriend,

First, I also believe in equal blame ( sorry for my weak attempt at humor ):)

I must also suggest ( if i am understanding your offering correctly ) that if you do NOT take the Genesis story literally ( Adam and Eve and forbiden fruit ) than you do not agree with what the Cathoilic church teaches on the matter.

That's certainly ok by me :)

God bless,

Carl

[Guest ceeboo]

No where does the Catholic Church say I have to take the genesis account as literal. l

Hi Carol,:)

I have greatly admired your kind and loving contributions you have made in many of your posts here and I do appreciate your knowledge of things.:)

Not to argue this with you ( I was originally just giving Vort a piece of info ) but the Catholic Church DOES say that IT IS NOT permissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall as fiction. The Church does allow for the evolution matter as explained very well IMHO at Catholic answers/Adam&Eve evolution.

God bless,

Carl

[abqfriend]

Nowhere did I say the story is fiction. I said I did not take it as literal.

Catholic Answers is not an official Catholic site-although a very good one I must admit.

I prefer use of the Catechism. I have no problem with Adam and Eve Story-I take it as figuratively as the Catechism indicates it can be taken.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 1 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 1 PARAGRAPH 7

How to read the account of the fall

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

Hi Carol,:)

I have greatly admired your kind and loving contributions you have made in many of your posts here and I do appreciate your knowledge of things.:)

Not to argue this with you ( I was originally just giving Vort a piece of info ) but the Catholic Church DOES say that IT IS NOT permissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall as fiction. The Church does allow for the evolution matter as explained very well IMHO at Catholic answers/Adam&Eve evolution.

God bless,

Carl

[Guest ceeboo]

Nowhere did I say the story is fiction. I said I did not take it as literal.

Catholic Answers is not an official Catholic site-although a very good one I must admit.

I prefer use of the Catechism. I have no problem with Adam and Eve Story-I take it as figuratively as the Catechism indicates it can be taken.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 1 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 1 PARAGRAPH 7

How to read the account of the fall

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

Hello again Carol,

Fair enough,

Not sure if we are splitting hairs or if I am not getting what you are trying to share with me in regards to " true story of creation and fall of man " vs. literal account of Adam and Eve??

At any rate, I think , we are almost in agreement on what the Catholic Church teaches

God bless,

Carl

[Emohawk]

I don't really know why i'm here. I left the church to become a Catholic and never really discussed it with anyone. I also have friends that I still try to keep in touch with in the church as well as my family who are still members. So I'm just curious...