Be it unto Me According to Thy Word

[zil]

4 minutes ago, zil said:

Best threadjack ever!  (Except now I want ice cream. )

And it's always bothered me that it was "neapolitan" not "neopolitan".  But it hasn't bothered me much, because I don't actually like neapolitan ice cream.  So really, if my hankering¹ for ice cream were strong enough, I'd probably just go get a milk shake with bits of crushed up Heath bar in it.

¹²There's a word.  Do you suppose it's related to handkerchief?  And if so, hmmm.

²Apparently you can't superscript a superscript, but really, I much prefer superscripts to ever-increasing numbers of asterisks.

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It's not a threadjack if it's asterisked.

I'm trying to help it break free of asterisks.

I now have two options - round umpteen of scrubbing the kitchen floor, or going to look up the origins of "hankering" and "handkerchief".  Guess which one comes in first.  Go ahead, guess!

[zil]

I looked up hankering and handkerchief and there's no relation - not that I really expected one - hankering is assumed to have come from "hang" in some way, which seems reasonable.  I guess I'm off to the kitchen...  Sigh.

Edited January 10, 2019 by zil

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, zil said:

Best threadjack ever!  (Except now I want ice cream. )

HYG

Edited January 10, 2019 by Guest

[Vort]

41 minutes ago, zil said:

I now have two options - round umpteen of scrubbing the kitchen floor, or going to look up the origins of "hankering" and "handkerchief".  Guess which one comes in first.  Go ahead, guess!

I will guess that a "hankering", meaning a yearning or desire, is an older word than the compound construction "hand-kerchief", a piece of cloth wielded by hand (instead of e.g. wrapped around the head). I would guess the latter to be of roughly late Renaissance England or thereabouts, maybr 15th or 16th century, while the former looks like it might have old Germanic roots and perhaps originate in Middle English or even earlier.

There's my guess. Mock away.

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, zil said:

I looked up hankering and handkerchief and there's no relation - not that I really expected one - hankering is assumed to have come from "hang" in some way, which seems reasonable.  I guess I'm off to the kitchen...  Sigh.

BTW, I've just come across the internet trend that says WD-40 is a tremendous cleaner for more than oily stuff.  I've got one particular toilet that has calcium deposits in it.  The internet says that WD-40 will do the job.  I'm going to try it tonight.

You could try it on the stain you're trying to get rid of from the kitchen floor.  Try it.  Who knows?

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

"the thread" is what it is -- derailments and all.

I certainly understand your defense of the posted topic and the potential value therein. And it is entirely fair to point out that my criticism of "the thread" is for what the thread became rather than the original intent.

Along the same lines I have been decidedly disappointed in several threads I have started due to what they became. Certainly, in the fact that I started them, I was not under the impression that what the threads became was due to the original topic.

Your disappointment is quite understandable.  You have high hopes of things going in a certain productive direction, and then the treads take on a life of their own and head in a seemingly counterproductive direction. Who would want that?

I say "seeming" because productivity is oft in the eye of the beholder.

Perhaps I am overly optimistic, but in spite of this thread experiencing some seismic jacks, I have received substantial positive results. I have learned things of value that I hadn't considered before,   and I have come to view things from a different perspective that has enlightened my mind and will positively affect my behavior.

Even the derailments haven't been entirely void of benefit. As I explained to Zil, my beliefs have been strengthened by some of the exchanges, and perhaps I have been of some help in changing some minds or at least raising some constructive doubts. That, to me, is a good thing.

But, there again, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Edited January 10, 2019 by wenglund

[Guest]

@zil,

I was cross-threading again.  In another thread, we were talking about neapolitan ice cream and it drifted into the quantum realm.  And I declared all those pretty lights were 5-dimensional ice cream.

[zil]

16 minutes ago, Vort said:

I will guess that a "hankering", meaning a yearning or desire, is an older word than the compound construction "hand-kerchief", a piece of cloth wielded by hand (instead of e.g. wrapped around the head). I would guess the latter to be of roughly late Renaissance England or thereabouts, maybr 15th or 16th century, while the former looks like it might have old Germanic roots and perhaps originate in Middle English or even earlier.

There's my guess. Mock away.

Hanker is the newer of the two, by a century or so.  I think we're going to need some new words to play with.  Or you are.  Once I'm done reading the latest round of new posts, I'm headed back into the kitchen.  (No more dogs.  Loved them to death, but no more dogs.)

[zil]

15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

BTW, I've just come across the internet trend that says WD-40 is a tremendous cleaner for more than oily stuff.  I've got one particular toilet that has calcium deposits in it.  The internet says that WD-40 will do the job.  I'm going to try it tonight.

You could try it on the stain you're trying to get rid of from the kitchen floor.  Try it.  Who knows?

Not a stain - an unfortunate sequence of years which resulted in utter indifference toward the kitchen floor (it was just too much to deal with seriously).  So now I'm cleaning years of dog & husband off the floor.  Today's tools are making a quick job of it.   I should finish scrubbing today and put a polish-like thing on it tomorrow and call it done.

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

@zil,

I was cross-threading again.  In another thread, we were talking about neapolitan ice cream and it drifted into the quantum realm.  And I declared all those pretty lights were 5-dimensional ice cream.

Sweet!  5x the ice cream!

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, zil said:

Sweet!  5x the ice cream!

You're forgetting that additional dimensions are exponential.

[zil]

41 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You're forgetting that additional dimensions are exponential.

Hope floor scrubbing === calorie burning!  (Or do calories from outside our normal dimensions not count?)

[wenglund]

Getting back on topic:

Prior to this year I would skim quickly past the genealogies in the New Testament, thinking they were of no particular interest or relevance to the gospel, a meaningless holdover from Old Testament times, except perhaps as an object lesson for saints in the latter days to do genealogy..

That all changed for me when my Sunday School teacher mentioned, last week, that there were women named in the genealogy, and how  deeply this moved her as a women.

Naturally, I had no idea that women were mentioned, and it caused me to wonder why that might be of significance, and this to the point that it was moving to at least one women.

I have since been deeply moved as well from what I have learned (not a little bit through the relevant participation on this thread).

I now understand yet another way in which Christ gathers together all things in one--which, as it happens, is the subject-matter for our Elders Quorum meeting this coming Sunday: Elder Bednar's General Conference Talk, October 2018

Thanks, -Wade Englund-.

Edited January 10, 2019 by wenglund

[wenglund]

On 1/8/2019 at 11:30 AM, mikbone said:

Just to clarify.  I agree with President Nelson

I greatly dislike quotes like the following:

Go look up "Only Begotten in the Flesh" in the scriptures - you will not find it.  Jehovah was the "Only Begotten" prior to his mortal ministry...

I agree with President Nelson.  Mary and her womb - placenta nourished the savior.  And if you know anything about embryology you know that the mother and child's blood do not mix.  It is an extremely beautiful arrangement.  Without Mary, Jesus could not have performed his mortal ministry.  It is obvious that Jesus obtained the power over death from Heavenly Father.  That power came from priesthood keys though, not genetics.  IMHO

To bring the tangent back on topic and perhaps close out the thread, here is what Elder Talmage wrote on the subject in "Jesus the Christ," Chap 7, Gabriel's Annunciation of John and of Christ,:

Quote

Mary’s promised Son was to be “The Only Begotten” of the Father in the flesh; so it had been both positively and abundantly predicted. True, the event was unprecedented; true also it has never been paralleled; but that the virgin birth would be unique was as truly essential to the fulfillment of prophecy as that it should occur at all. That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof; and, the offspring from that association of supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure though mortal maternity, was of right to be called the “Son of the Highest.” In His nature would be combined the powers of Godhood with the capacity and possibilities of mortality; and this through the ordinary operation of the fundamental law of heredity, declared of God, demonstrated by science, and admitted by philosophy, that living beings shall propagate—after their kind. The Child Jesus was to inherit the physical, mental, and spiritual traits, tendencies, and powers that characterized His parents—one immortal and glorified—God, the other human—woman.

Jesus Christ was to be born of mortal woman, but was not directly the offspring of mortal man, except so far as His mother was the daughter of both man and woman. In our Lord alone has been fulfilled the word of God spoken in relation to the fall of Adam, that the seed of the womanshould have power to overcome Satan by bruising the serpent’s head.^r

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

9 minutes ago, wenglund said:

To bring the tangent back on topic and perhaps close out the thread, here is what Elder Talmage wrote on the subject in "Jesus the Christ," Chap 7, Gabriel's Annunciation of John and of Christ,:

Not to put too fine a point on it, but there is also the prophesies concerning the Abrahamic and Davidic linage in to which Christ would be born, a literal descendant. Tlamage writes (ibid):

Quote

Two genealogical records purporting to give the lineage of Jesus are found in the New Testament, one in the first chapter of Matthew, the other in the third chapter of Luke. These records present several apparent discrepancies, but such have been satisfactorily reconciled by the research of specialists in Jewish genealogy. No detailed analysis of the matter will be attempted here; but it should be borne in mind that the consensus of judgment on the part of investigators is that Matthew’s account is that of the royal lineage, establishing the order of sequence among the legal successors to the throne of David, while the account given by Luke is a personal pedigree, demonstrating descent from David without adherence to the line of legal succession to the throne through primogeniture or nearness of kin.^a Luke’s record is regarded by many, however, as the pedigree of Mary, while Matthew’s is accepted as that of Joseph. The all important fact to be remembered is that the Child promised by Gabriel to Mary, the virginal bride of Joseph, would be born in the royal line. A personal genealogy of Joseph was essentially that of Mary also, for they were cousins. Joseph is named as son of Jacob by Matthew, and as son of Heli by Luke; but Jacob and Heli were brothers, and it appears that one of the two was the father of Joseph and the other the father of Mary and therefore father-in-law to Joseph. That Mary was of Davidic descent is plainly set forth in many scriptures; for since Jesus was to be born of Mary, yet was not begotten by Joseph, who was the reputed, and according to the law of the Jews, the legal, father, the blood of David’s posterity was given to the body of Jesus through Mary alone. Our Lord, though repeatedly addressed as Son of David, never repudiated the title but accepted it as rightly applied to Himself.^b Apostolic testimony stands in positive assertion of the royal heirship of Christ through earthly lineage, as witness the affirmation of Paul, the scholarly Pharisee: “Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh”; and again: “Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead.”^c

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mikbone]

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

Our Lord, though repeatedly addressed as Son of David, never repudiated the title but accepted it as rightly applied to Himself.

Matthew 22:41-46

Sometimes, even James E. Talmage is incorrect.

Edited January 14, 2019 by mikbone

[zil]

8 hours ago, mikbone said:

Matthew 22:41-46

Sometimes, even James E. Talmage is incorrect.

All that passage means is that no one was able to explain the conundrum - how Christ could be both a son of David and David's Lord.  It does not mean that Christ was denying being a descendant of David.

[CV75]

9 hours ago, mikbone said:

Matthew 22:41-46

Sometimes, even James E. Talmage is incorrect.

The answer to the question in verse 45, which the Pharisees would not dare answer, is that Christ is David's son through Mary, but Davids' Lord through God the Father.

[anatess2]

I didn't read all the responses, so this might have already been said.

Matthew, being a Jew, knows the proper way to trace ancestry in Jewish tradition.  But, Matthew's genealogical account is not written for the purpose of outlining Christ's descendancy from David because... Christ doesn't descend from David through Joseph (in Jewish law, Jewish ancestry follows the Mother in the case of adoption and Matthew claimed Jesus is the son of God and not the son of Joseph).  Rather, Matthew's genealogical account shows how Jesus fulfills other prophecy other than the Davidian claim, such as bringing together Gentiles and Jew and the forgiveness of sins - to which the mention of the 4 women shows Gentiles and sinners (all 4 women had soiled reputations) getting brought into the house of David within the line of Joseph (as opposed to other Davidian ancestral lines) making God's choice of Joseph being the adoptive father of Jesus and an important influence in Christ's upbringing a fulfillment of prophecy.

Luke's genealogical account is written in the proper Jewish tradition, even as Luke was not a Jew, because this is the ancestry that shows the fulfillment of the prophecy of Christ's descendancy from David.

Edited January 14, 2019 by anatess2

[wenglund]

11 hours ago, mikbone said:

Matthew 22:41-46

Sometimes, even James E. Talmage is incorrect.

In addition to what @ziff and @CV75 have said, it helps to view the passage in context so as to not ironically and incorrectly assume that an Apostle of the Lord is incorrect. 

If you look at the mirrored passage in Mark 12:28-37, you may see that what is at issue isn't the Davidic lineage of Christ, but the Jewish concept of the "oneness" of God.

Christ was actually using the Jewish belief in the Davidic lineage (which was also attested to by the Angel Gabriel to Christ's Mother, Mary--see Lk 1:32), as a way of challenging the belief in the ontological "oneness" of God (as opposed to the social "oneness, etc.) held by the Jews , thereby implicitly affirming the Davidic lineage., contrary to what you supposed.

I have used this same passages (though I prefer to use Lk 20:39-44)  with modern Christians who have a similar misconception about the "oneness" of God.

It should also be noted that another Apostle (the very one you are quoting from) attested to the Davidic ancestry of Christ when he declared, "The book of the generations of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." (Mt 1:1)

This is in addition to the two related declarations of the Apostle Paul in the Talmage quote you were responding to.

From the mouth of one angelic and three apostolic witnesses....

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 14, 2019 by wenglund

[mikbone]

I was just pointing out that Talmage's statement was incorrect.  

"Our Lord, though repeatedly addressed as Son of David, never repudiated the title but accepted it as rightly applied to Himself."

From a legal standpoint, the Matthew 22: 41-46 is a clear repudiation.

When we make absolute statements we are bound to be incorrect. 

I'm not trying to slander the Lord's anointed.  But when anyone publishes as much material as Talmage or McConkie they are bound to get some things incorrect.  And I love Bruce R. McConkie, his books were instrumental in my quest for biblical / spiritual knowledge.  I have 2 versions of Mormon Doctrine a 2nd edition paperback edition that I destroyed via reading it from cover to cover and constant reference during my 20's & 30's.  But Mormon Doctrine is NOT scripture and it is flawed.  I don't uses it as a reference any more.  I go to the source.

Quote

Shortly after McConkie’s book was published and because McConkie wrote his book “in an authoritative tone of style” with neither church support nor direction from the First Presidency, McKay asked apostles Mark E. Petersen and Marion G. Romney to review Mormon Doctrine.  In their reports Petersen noted over 1,000 “doctrinal errors” and Romney cited nearly forty “problem areas.”  The First Presidency concluded that the book is “full of errors and misstatements, and [that] it is most unfortunate that it has received such a wide circulation.  Paul, Erich Robert. Science, Religion, and Mormon Cosmology 1992. University of Illinois Press. p. 179

Mormon Doctrine went on to have a second edition in 1966, and a third edition in 1978.  The Book has been out of print since 2010.  I cannot recall Mormon Doctrine ever being quoted from the pulpit during General Conference, but it is probably the most quoted non-canonical book in the United States Latter-Day Saint meeting houses. 

I think that McConkie was somewhere on the spectrum.  An absolute genius with a mind that memorized and compiled things like a computer before computers were useful.  But today we can use computers to do the same thing that McConkie was doing but with better and more accurate results.

The Scriptures and General Conference talks will always trump books like Jesus the Christ or Mormon Doctrine.  

And thank you for quoting scripture.  I actually read them.  

BTW Palms 110:1, is the scripture that Jesus Christ was quoting.  

Edited January 14, 2019 by mikbone

[wenglund]

17 minutes ago, mikbone said:

I was just pointing out that Talmage's statement was incorrect.  

"Our Lord, though repeatedly addressed as Son of David, never repudiated the title but accepted it as rightly applied to Himself."

From a legal standpoint, the Matthew 22: 41-46 is a clear repudiation.

How is it legally a repudiation, let alone a clear repudiation?

As I read it in context, it is just the opposite, but I am willing to hear you out.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[anatess2]

37 minutes ago, mikbone said:

I was just pointing out that Talmage's statement was incorrect.  

"Our Lord, though repeatedly addressed as Son of David, never repudiated the title but accepted it as rightly applied to Himself."

From a legal standpoint, the Matthew 22: 41-46 is a clear repudiation.

When we make absolute statements we are bound to be incorrect.  

 

13 minutes ago, wenglund said:

How is it legally a repudiation, let alone a clear repudiation?

As I read it in context, it is just the opposite, but I am willing to hear you out.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yeah, I don't understand either how Matthew 22 is a repudiation.  Jesus IS the prophesied Messiah that is the Son of David (hailing from that lineage).  Matthew 22 doesn't repudiate that fact.  Jesus was talking to the Pharisees who simply sees the Messiah as a Man (descended from the House of David) and not as a God (who David calls Lord) which is why Jesus called the Pharisees on it.  It is not a repudiation of the title.  It's an enhancement of the title - he's not MERELY the Son of David.

 

 

[mikbone]

Quote

 

41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,

42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.

43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,

44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

 

In order to understand this passage one must comprehend the Pharisees belief of the Messiah. 

According to the Pharisees the Messiah was to be a second Moses or David that would liberate the Jews from the Roman occupation and would return Israel to its prior preeminence.

The Pharisees did not believe, as we do, that the Messiah would be the Son of God.  

When Christ quoted Psalms 110:1 He was confounding the Pharisees on multiple levels.  

Quote

יְהוָה, לַאדֹנִי--שֵׁב לִימִינִי;    עַד-אָשִׁית אֹיְבֶיךָ, הֲדֹם לְרַגְלֶיךָ.

The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

The 'make thine enemies thy footstool" phrase for a Pharisees would be an obvious link to the promised Messiah.  But the Lord Lord part must have been aggravating.  As written in the Hebrew text (as highlighted above) it reads YHWH Lord.  Thus Jesus was teaching that David obviously associated the Lord Almighty with the Messiah.  This alone made them cringe inside - because it is plain beyond dispute.  But the follow up question really got them thinking.  Obviously no reasonable Pharisee would call his own descendant Lord.  So this was also infurating.

And they hated that many Jews were associating Jesus with the promised Messiah.  The Pharisees obviously did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah.

They were so baffled and confused that they feared to ask Him any more questions.

Therefore Jesus Christ was repudiating the Pharisees belief that the Messiah was the Son of David.  While at the same time proclaiming his divine nature.

Edited January 15, 2019 by mikbone

[wenglund]

4 hours ago, mikbone said:

In order to understand this passage one must comprehend the Pharisees belief of the Messiah. 

According to the Pharisees the Messiah was to be a second Moses or David that would liberate the Jews from the Roman occupation and would return Israel to its prior preeminence.

The Pharisees did not believe, as we do, that the Messiah would be the Son of God.  

When Christ quoted Psalms 110:1 He was confounding the Pharisees on multiple levels.  

The 'make thine enemies thy footstool" phrase for a Pharisees would be an obvious link to the promised Messiah.  But the Lord Lord part must have been aggravating.  As written in the Hebrew text (as highlighted above) it reads YHWH Lord.  Thus Jesus was teaching that David obviously associated the Lord Almighty with the Messiah.  This alone made them cringe inside - because it is plain beyond dispute.  But the follow up question really got them thinking.  Obviously no reasonable Pharisee would call his own descendant Lord.  So this was also infurating.

And they hated that many Jews were associating Jesus with the promised Messiah.  The Pharisees obviously did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah.

They were so baffled and confused that they feared to ask Him any more questions.

Therefore Jesus Christ was repudiating the Pharisees belief that the Messiah was the Son of David.  While at the same time proclaiming his divine nature.

I can see where Christ challenged the Pharisees  (and perhaps the Scribes in other passages) in their disbelief that the Messiah was the Son of God--a point not in dispute..  

Nor do I dispute that  the Pharisees and Scribes did not believe Jesus was the Messiah.

What I don't see anywhere in your comments is where Christ disputes or repudiates the belief that the Messiah was the Son of David.

What I see  from the context, is Christ affirming both the belief that the Messiah is the son of God and the son of David.

So, I ask again, where is the legal repudiation, let alone the clear repudiation. that Jesus Christ, the Messiah, is the son of David?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mikbone]

Jesus placed the Phaeisees in checkmate.

But presenting the dilemma of verse 45

“If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?”

The obvious answer to this question is -because He is not David’s son.  (The repudiation).  And the Pharisees realized their error.

For if they answer this question they would have to concede that the Messiah is God.  Thus Jesus is God. 

And if they answer with a lie, and say that the Messiah is the Son of David, then they are conceding that Jesus is their Messiah. 

Hence silence.

 

 

Edited January 15, 2019 by mikbone