Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 6, 2006 13:15:25 GMT -4
I have heard, but don't know if it is true, that Jesus was asked about a child born blind, is it his or his parents' fault. he said: it is neither, but the soul has many sinns. That is, it is not his fault here, but in other lives. John 9: 1-3 " 1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. 2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? 3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him." Jesus then restored the man's sight. So Jesus said there was no sin involved in the man being born blind, before his birth or after.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 6, 2006 13:26:37 GMT -4
Born again of water = the baptism Born again of the Spirit = the gift of the Holy Ghost.
How can you be 100% certain that those interpretations are literally correct? Churches usually demand that you see things they way they have worked them out and no other. They don't want you to do your own investigation. Jesus clearly used metaphors and figures of speech that were peculiar to his time, just as we do. Hyperbole (extreme exaggeration) was sometimes used back then. Jesus also had one teaching for the average folk and another for the more advanced, which was never revealed -- the "mysteries," which I believe, from the little I've learnt of them, more clearly point to reincarnation as a reality.
When I typed up my Mum's and Dad's life histories as they wrote them, I had to reintrerpret some of the jargon and figures of speech they used because their grandchildren and later generations couldn't possibly understand what they really meant.
We have to recognise that Nicodemus was talking about an old, physical man and his current, even older, mother. He clearly wasn't talking about a "spirit" that now and then came to Earth and took up different bodies from babyhood to old age. Perhaps Jesus had difficulty explaining things in a way that Nicodemus could understand. Perhaps you and I don't have the same comprehension problem. Who knows?
So it sort of comes back to which cloud looks more like a horse.
I've heard that the Bible can be read on three different levels. I can quite often see two levels, and the inconsistencies in the first level that are probably there to intrigue the second-level people, but I'm certainly not clever enough to recognise a third level.
Think of it this way:; How would you explain the same complex thing to 1.) a well-read, intelligent 18-year-old, and 2.) a four-year old? Differently, huh? And which of Jesus's teachings made it into commonly-available print? More likely the four-year-old stuff, I'd say.
But I don't think it really matters whether that cloud looks more like a Palamino than a Clydesdale. As long as both of us can see a horse, we'll probably get along okay.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 6, 2006 13:31:57 GMT -4
Well I can't be 100% sure that that's what was meant, but you seem to say you don't know what he meant either. What my church has told me it means makes sense to me, so I might as well accept that unless I find a better explanation.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 6, 2006 13:33:58 GMT -4
Lionking, here you go:
PSALM 82:6 You are gods.
PSALM 90:3 You tell man to return to what he was.
PSALM 139:16 You saw me before I was born.
PROVERBS 8:23 I was made in the very beginning, at the first, before the world began.
ECCLESIASTES 1:9 What has happened before will happen again. What has been done before will be done again. There is nothing new in the whole world.
ECCLESIASTES 1:11 No one remembers what has happened in the past.
ISAIAH 65:17 "The events of the past will be completely forgotten."
JEREMIAH 1:4-5 The Lord said to me, "I chose you before I gave you life, and before you were born I selected you to be a prophet to the nations."
DANIEL 12:2 Many of those who have died will live again.
MALACHI 4:5 "I will send you the prophet Elijah."
MATTHEW 11:14-15 "John is Elijah, whose coming was predicted. Listen, then, if you have ears!"
MATTHEW 14:2 "He [Jesus] is really John the Baptist, who has come back to life."
MATTHEW 16:13-14 Jesus... asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" "Some say John the Baptist," they answered. "Others say Elijah, while others say Jeremiah or some other prophet."
MATTHEW 17:12-13 "I tell you that Elijah has already come and people did not recognise him..." Then the disciples understood that he was talking about John the Baptist.
MARK 6:14-15 Some people were saying, "John the Baptist has come back to life!" Others, however, said, "He is Elijah."
MARK 8:27-28 "Tell me, who do people say I am?" "Some say you are John the Baptist," they answered; "others say that you are Elijah, while others say that you are one of the prophets."
MARK 9:13 "I tell you, however, that Elijah has already come and that people treated him just as they pleased, as the Scriptures say about him."
LUKE 9:7-8 Some people were saying that John the Baptist had come back to life. Others were saying that Elijah had appeared, and still others that one of the prophets of long ago had come back to life.
LUKE 9:18-19 "Who do the crowds say I am?" he asked them. "Some say that you are John the Baptist," they answered. "Others say that you are Elijah, while others say that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to life."
JOHN 1:15 "He comes after me, but he is greater than I am, because he existed before I was born."
JOHN 1:21 "Who are you then?" they asked. "Are you Elijah?" "No I am not," John answered. "Are you the Prophet?" they asked.
JOHN 3:3 "I am telling you the truth: no one can see the Kingdom of God unless he is born again."
JOHN 3:7-8 "Do not be surprised because I tell you that you must all be born again. The wind blows wherever it wishes; you hear the sound it makes, but you do not know where it comes from or where it is going. It is like that with everyone who is born of the Spirit."
JOHN 8:58 "I am telling you the truth," Jesus replied. "Before Abraham was born, 'I Am’."
JOHN 9:2 "Teacher, whose sin caused him to be born blind? Was it his own or his parents' sin?"
JOHN 10:34 Jesus answered, "It is written in your own Law that God said, 'You are gods.' We know that what the scripture says is true."
JOHN 14:2 "There are many rooms in my Father's house."
ACTS 23:8 The Sadducees say that people will not rise from death and that there are no angels or spirits; but the Pharisees believe in all three.
ROMANS 9:11-13 He said this before they were born, before they had done anything good or bad; so God's choice was based on his call, and not on anything they had done.
1 CORINTHIANS 13:12 What we see now is like a dim image in a mirror.
1 CORINTHIANS 15:36 What you sow does not come to life unless it first dies.
1 CORINTHIANS 15:38 God gives it a body just as it has pleased him and to each of the seeds its own body.
1 CORINTHIANS 15:55 "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?"
2 CORINTHIANS 12:2-4 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know... He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell.
GALATIANS 4:3 We too were slaves of the ruling spirits of the universe before we reached spiritual maturity.
PHILIPPIANS 1:21 Death, then, will bring more.
REVELATION 1:7 Everyone will see him, including those who pierced him.
REVELATION 3:12 Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it.
THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON 8:19-20 (THE APOCRYPHA) A good soul fell to my lot. Nay, rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 6, 2006 13:48:11 GMT -4
Well I can't be 100% sure that that's what was meant, but you seem to say you don't know what he meant either. What my church has told me it means makes sense to me, so I might as well accept that unless I find a better explanation. Exactly. And I believe that, at least for now, there's nothing you could do that's better. The main thing is that neither you nor I are hitting the other on the head with a hammer and saying "I [wack} am [wack] holier [wack] than [wack] thou [wack-bash]. And that's quite good!
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jul 6, 2006 14:55:30 GMT -4
thanks for both of you for clarifiying things. but if you think about God's work in the man, it can't be unfair. it should be just. regards
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 11, 2006 21:17:56 GMT -4
As promised, a brief overview of the LDS idea of the godhead (trinity). There are three sepearte persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. When we speak of God we usually mean God the Father, also known as Elohim. All mankind are his children. The personage known as Jehovah in the Old Testament is the Son, known as Jesus Christ after his birth on Earth. Jesus is also a God and works under the direction of the Father and is in complete harmony with him. All of mankind are his brothers and sisters. Many times when the scirptures refer to God they are actually referring to Jesus Christ, such as in Genesis when it says "God created heaven and Earth" - we know from the New Testament that Jesus created the earth. The Holy Ghost is also a God, and acts in harmony with the other two personnages in the Godhead. These three can be said to be one God because they always act in perfect harmony and are one in purpose with each other. They are one in the same way that Christ prayed that his followers might be one with him "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thous has given me, that they may be one, as we are," not one in substance but one in purpose. That's the short version.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jul 12, 2006 10:58:27 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jul 13, 2006 6:59:31 GMT -4
www.elevated.fsnet.co.uk/index-page14.html[qoute]The following verse is used to refute the John the Baptist/Elijah reincarnation connection. The Bible tells us that John the Baptist possessed, "... the spirit and power of Elijah." (Luke 1:17) Those who refute this reincarnation connection say that John the Baptist merely came in the spirit and power of Elijah. However, this is a perfect description of reincarnation: the spirit and power. This is reincarnation - the reincarnation of the spirit. The Bible itself states that John the Baptist possessed the spirit that had previously lived in, and as, the man Elijah - not his physical being and memory, but his spirit. John carried Elijah's living spirit, but not his physical memory. And since John did not possess Elijah's physical memory, he did not possess the memories of being the man Elijah. Thus, John the Baptist denied being Elijah when asked: They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "No." Finally they said, "Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?" John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, "I am the voice of one calling in the desert, 'Make straight the way for the Lord.'" Now some Pharisees who had been sent questioned him, "Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?" "I baptize with water," John replied, "but among you stands one you do not know. He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie." (John 1:21-27) But Jesus knew better, and said so in the plainest words possible: "This is the one ... there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist.... And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. He who has ears, let him hear." (Matthew 11:11-15) It basically comes down to this: Jesus said John was Elijah, and John said he wasn't. Which of the two is to be believed - Jesus or John? [/quote] At the end, I don't rely on the bible as there are other biblical accounts proved by specialists as Philip Jenkins to be closer and more appropriate than the bible in the hands of people, such as the Bible of thomas. These show a gnostic Jesus rather than the painted photo of him. Read about the Essenes who believed in reincarnation and their connection to Jesus.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 13, 2006 18:01:14 GMT -4
Actually, Dead Hoosiers and I agree on this one. I believe that John the Baptist was an Elijah, in that he had a similar role to Elijah, not a literal reincarnation of the Elijah.
The Joseph Smith translation of the Bible supports this, and other prophets are called "an Elias (the greek form of Elijah)" in other LDS scripture.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jul 15, 2006 5:36:08 GMT -4
probably
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 17, 2006 17:57:04 GMT -4
As promised, a brief overview of the LDS idea of the godhead (trinity).
I normally stay away from the bottom half of the board, but I'm having an unbelievably slow day today. Forgive the musings of a bored mind.
I came to the conclusion about ten years ago that theology was bunk. Not that religion and its associated beliefs necessarily are bunk, but that theology was bunk. In my opinion it's largely an exercise in shaving irrelevant nuances of meaning in words of different languages, and piling on useless layers of abstraction.
That said, I've sat in rooms with LDS theologians ("general authorities", not BYU professors) and non-LDS theologians discussing such matters. I've formed the opinion that the perceived difference between the LDS Godhead and the mainstream Trinity are so slight as to escape significance.
The main problem is that the Trinity in mainstream doctrine is defined formally as a mystery, meaning we will never fully understand it. That makes it hard for people to define what it is and what it isn't in terms of telling someone else he got it wrong. Along with this comes tautologies like "trinity" and consubstantialem (Lat. "of one substance [or being]") -- words defined to gloss over the reluctance to decide on a specific belief.
When a Mormon reads trinitarian language, he (and many non-Mormons too) is likely to interpret the word "substance" as physical matter. That is not right. What the Mormon assumes the Trinity intends by the word "Substance" or "Being" is more properly given to the word "Person". Thus in the key phrase, "...neither dividing the Substance or confounding the Persons," the distinction must be kept clear.
In the language describing the Trinity, "substance" means the attributes, features, qualities, and other properties that define the nature of godhood -- i.e., what one must manifest or exemplify in order to be defined as God. It is the farthest thing imaginable from physical matter. Thus when trinitarian doctrine describes the indivisible "substance" of God, it is only to express that the nature of God is undivided because it is inherently indivisible. It is possible for persons to share in the nature of God because that nature does not have to be divided to be shared. Just because I'm happy, for example, doesn't take away from someone else's happines; we don't have to "divide" happiness in order to share it.
This is akin to our metaphysical use of "substance" in English as in the "substance" of an argument, meaning its most fundamental and essential nature. Keeping in mind that abstract thought was not necessarily a pastime of the common man (although certainly of the gentry), one can see why the notion of indivisible "sharing" had to be expressed in such careful language. The language of the Trinity is meant not to posit some magical form of matter or paradoxical form of existence, but to describe what kinds of things make God God.
But the proper understanding of "substance" in the Trinity should not disturb even the most orthodox Mormon. The LDS Godhead is composed of three physically separate persons who indivisibly and equally share in the properties and attributes of godliness. The difference is mostly one of emphasis. Mormons tend to emphasize the roles of the Persons while mainstream Christians tend to emphasize the importance of the shared substance.
There remain, of course, key differences. For example LDS doctrine says that the person of the Father has corporeal form and a physical representation while mainstream belief holds otherwise. This leads to hair-splitting and largely fruitless debates on the nature of omnipresence and the exact makeup of different forms of matter. (LDS doctrine posits the existence of incorruptible matter, whereas mainstream doctrine considers matter the paragon of corruption. The two ideas are fundamentally incompatible with each other, but reasonable within each system's axioms.)
Mormons would have few quibbles with the Nicene Creed, a widely-accepted traditional expression of Christian belief. LDS doctrine does not recognize the creed as binding upon it, naturally, but if the question is whether Mormon belief qualifies as Christian, I think a strong enough case can be made. The creed itself is a theological can of worms without worrying about whether Mormon belief is functionally equivalent to it (however LDS doctrine chooses to express it).
"Maker of heaven and earth, of all things seen and unseen," might cause a bit of a problem because Mormons reject creation ex nihilo while many others profess it. But since LDS doctrine uses the same language as everyone else to describe the creation, and since that language is too general in both cases to support a distinction, it's simply a matter of preferred definition. Mormons and non-Mormons are each content to understand a certain thing by "made" and "created", and they can certainly understand that same thing in the creed. The creed itself does not require one detailed belief or the other.
The next troublesome passage is troublesome for everyone -- in Latin, consubstantialem Patris, variously translated as "one in substance with the Father," or "of one Being with the Father," or any one of half a dozen other mealy-mouthed evasions. In fact the word consubstantialis,-em was invented solely to refer to the undefinable and problematic relationship of Jesus to his father where godliness is concerned. No one solved the problem; they just gave it a name. The modern formulations of this doctrine, as discussed above, are hardly incompatible with LDS belief, so while this phrasing of it would seem foreign and alien to Mormons, what the theologians understand by it should not be.
The last potential point of contention is the "one holy catholic and apostolic church." This is little-c catholic (not big-C [Roman] Catholic), which even many Mormons are taught simply means "conventional" or "standard". And Mormons do believe in a "standard" church led by apostles -- and that theirs is it. Mainstream professors of the creed cast a wider net than Mormons in deciding what's "catholic", but since both Mormons and non-Mormons draw the line somewhere, the difference is simply quantitative and not qualitative.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 17, 2006 18:59:25 GMT -4
The main problem is that the Trinity in mainstream doctrine is defined formally as a mystery, meaning we will never fully understand it. That makes it hard for people to define what it is and what it isn't in terms of telling someone else he got it wrong. This is an excellent argument in favor of my point in starting this thread - that the average critic of Mormonism (and other faiths) doesn't really have the in-depth knowledge of LDS doctrine or theology in general to engage in an educated discussion. They rely on rumors from other critics of "what mormons believe" and brandish them as rhetorical weapons without really considering the veracity of the rumors or if they are really all that different from the stated beliefs of their own faith anyway.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 17, 2006 19:58:09 GMT -4
That's true, Jason. Unfortunately I've noticed it cuts both ways. Mormons as well are generally not very well informed about what other faiths actually believe. It's simply not wise in either case to rely upon one's own church for information about what other churches believe and why. I base my knowledge of churches on years spent worshiping in them, not what one says about the other.
Personally I find the interdenominational debates rather pointless and counterproductive. Those who angrily claim, for example, that Mormons should be shunned because they worship an extraterrestrial from Planet Kolob and not Jesus are not, in my opinion, very well in tune either with Mormons or with Jesus. Any practitioner of religion who has the time to worry about whether someone else is doing it right, isn't doing it right.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 17, 2006 21:29:40 GMT -4
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in they brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
|
|