Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,020 Excellent

About RevTestament

  • Rank
    Brings Forth Plants

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,996 profile views
  1. Does Christ have a Father? Isaia 9:6 For unto unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Can the Son become the Father? Isaiah seems to think so, and indeed that is His inheritance - to inherit all the Father hath. Is the Son now our brother or as the scriptures say, our Fellow? The secret is in His begotteness, in which orthodoxy has led man astray by teaching He was never really begotten as the Son, but is eternally begotten instead.
  2. I am confused then because you said: " Moses' father-in-law was the kohen gadol of Midian, the same office later held by Aaron, which was a non-Melchizedek priesthood." Is there some third type of priesthood then? I don't understand how Jethro could hold a non-Melchizedek priesthood before there was a Levitical priesthood. If it is not Levitical as you say, and is "non-Melchizedek" what exactly was Jethro? In your estimation is a cohen an Aaronic priesthood holder? It seems to me you are confusing Hebrew terminology with priesthood office. It seems to me Jethro was called cohen simply because that was their word for priest, rather than that he held some type of third priesthood. Jethro was a Melchizedek order priest. Plain and simple. We also know from D&C that the Melchizedek priesthood was held by Israelites until the time of Elijah. It had to be inherited from somewhere unless it was restored, and that was obviously from Jethro. I think you need to reassess your position. While we are on terminology what do you think of Jethro being called Reuel? Did he have a different name in Hebrew than he did to the Midianites, or is it some kind of title or descriptor or something else?
  3. So you are asserting there was a Levitical priesthood before God set up the Levitical priesthood under Aaron? I don't think this is supported by D&C 84 which strongly implies that Jethro received the same priesthood Melchizedek had. There was no "Levitical priesthood" before it was set up under Aaron as far scripture indicates or as far as I know - only the Melchizedek priesthood. Do you believe any Israelites after Moses held the Melchizedek priesthood, and if so who? Wasn't Elijah a High priest of the Melchizedek priesthood? How did he get that priesthood if it wasn't through Jethro?
  4. A lot of the reasons for the suffering of Europeans is that the Muslims cut off trade from the east. As you note, the Europeans eventually found their way around Africa, and resumed trade, which caused a lot of problems for the Muslims, and a decline in their economy. It was no fault of colonialism. It is not too surprising that the colonial powers were not kindly disposed towards Islam after that. Thomas Jefferson's Koran which is used in the United States' congress was obtained by Thomas Jefferson because the Muslims were pirating everything in the Mediterranean. When the United States complained to these Muslims, and tried to keep good relations, the Muslims did not respond with kind overtures, but resumed their pirating. Thus, Thomas Jefferson decided he needed to try to understand these Muslims. Despite his efforts, the United States ended up being forced to pay them off. It was thanks to these Muslim aggressions that the United States formed the first marine corp, and that we have the song singing about the shores of Tripoli. Muslims have never successfully experimented with democracy, and never will because it is contrary to their Sharia. The one good thing Dubya did do is give the Iraqis a chance to develop a democracy, but the first thing which happens is that the more "radical" parts of Islam will have nothing to do with it, and they destroyed Iraq's fledgling democracy - through no help of Obama... that's for sure. I agree that the United States has meddled in their affairs, and therefore has earned some hate. We need to change our energy policy to stop this temptation to meddle in Middle Eastern affairs. Let them battle it out themselves. However, the oil lobby, and other special interests are against any discretionary funds from the DOE going towards a rational technology such as thorium-based nuclear energy in LFTR plants or some other new, improved technology, and rather we get all kinds of spending on "renewables" which end up getting manufactured in China, and which as a practical matter are just not going to meet our energy needs any time soon. Well, I doubt my little rant will get anyone anywhere so I am going to stop now.
  5. My point was they were supposed to be given a chance to surrender to Israel and God's rule. It is not a clear cut case of God saying just go wipe them out. Some did like the woman in Jericho who helped Israel and lived. God gives life and He takes it away - the vast majority of people on this earth will die because God made them mortal. Dying a little earlier because one refuses to heed God's warnings is not so bad in this light as you paint it. If people refuse to live under God's law, they really are kind of wasting their time here. Now, I am not saying that Israel lived this law perfectly. It seems they failed to do much the Lord instructed them to do - so the Lord stopped striving with them, and their campaigns stopped being successful with the death of Yehoshua.
  6. Not just them, but Catholics too. Yep, Judaism became very politicized - that's true. It's why God didn't want them to get a king. The Lord wanted to be their king...
  7. The religion of Islam is based upon its law or Sharia. Sharia is much more than the Koran. Most of it is comprised of the Hadith and to a lesser extent other sunnah or biographies of Muhammed. Together these comprise Sharia or "the way/path." What is meant is that Muhammed was considered the way as opposed to Christianity in which Christ is the way. The Koran/Qu'ran provides little instruction in the way of governance, but does set forth punishments etc. There are a very few Muslims who strive to follow the Koran only - believing that the Hadith are not reliable, but are the musings of men after Muhammed. Political Islam is mainly derived from the Hadith in which the original "rightly guided caliphs" interpreted the Koran and what Mohammed had supposedly said. These set forth the governmental system of Islam. However, there are two main branches of Islam - the Sunni and the Shi'ites. Their main differences are based upon different hadiths which they believe set forth their governance - the shi'ites by lineal inheritance and the Sunni by other means. Political Islam seeks to impose its will on all peoples - not just Muslims. If one refuses to convert to Islam, the best they can hope for is to pay the jizyah tax, and be mostly left alone. Islam is not some benign set of rules for Muslims only. It seeks to take over all other peoples through various means of jihad - settlement or colonization is one. Once Muslims approach being a majority in an area, they historically seek to impose Sharia on all peoples of the area/country. This is another aspect of political Islam. Their "police" harass or arrest anyone breaking the rules of Sharia such as drinking alcohol. These are "religious rules" but are imposed through political means. There is no separation of Church and state in Islam.
  8. Well, specifically verses like Rev 2: 26 aAnd he that bovercometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give cpower over the nations: 27 And he shall rule them with a arod of iron; as the bvessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.
  9. Islam is a political religion so being "politically motivated" is practically moot. What about these murders leads you to believe that it was in response to US foreign policy which killed "millions?" In the first Persian Gulf war, the Unites States intervened at the behest of Kuwait whom Saddam Hussein overran. I do agree that the 2nd Persian Gulf War was unjustified, but I don't think that resulted in millions of civilian casualties. If you are talking about Obama's policies of supporting various Muslim rebels in Libya and Syria, I could probably concede the policy was a bad one, but it seemed to be an answer to the wishes of the Muslim brotherhood... but then I guess you don't think they understand their religion. I'm a little put out though by people who seem to always blame all the problems of the Middle East on the United States. If there were no United States, they would definitely be fighting each other until there was only one caliphate left or would be fighting all their neighbors as 1400 years of history has shown.
  10. Nope. Here is the instruction: Deut 20: 10 ΒΆ When thou comest nigh unto a city to afight against it, then proclaim bpeace unto it. 11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be atributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. 12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: 13 And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: 14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt aeat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee. 15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. 16 But of the acities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
  11. Not at all. Perhaps you need to reread Revelation... just suggesting. The thing is people don't seem to believe what it says. They read right over it.
  12. Um no. Nephi was commanded to kill Laban. The Jews were commanded to kill people who broke certain aspects of the law. It is not based upon one person's judgment of whether someone else broke the law, unless it is in self-defense.
  13. Thought provoking OP. I've never really cared for that position of Joseph Smith. Personally, I view Christ as the keystone of our religion. He did say He is the door. In the passover sacrifice He is represented by the blood on the lintel of the door. Without the door lintel, there would be no door through which to pass or in an arch there would be no passage without the keystone. Could I believe in the Church without the BoM? Yes, I could, and actually did for a number of years before gaining a testimony of the Book of Mormon. But from a scriptural standpoint the Book of Mormon is the other side of the door. Without the rod of Joseph, the scriptures are incomplete and more difficult to understand. I don't believe the OT is so plain as the BoM. In that sense it might be said that the BoM is more than just a keystone, it is a whole side of the doorway - so I guess it depends on one's perspective - funny though that JS didn't seem to preach much out of the BoM...
  14. This organized and still functional priesthood has been governed by tight marriage regulations designed to prevent assimilation, and by the detailed rules in the mishnaic/ talmudic order Kodashim. I'm not sure what you are responding to or trying to say. I agree that Aaron was a high priest. Moses too was a high priest. But, I would say not all the high priests have been descended from Aaron. I believe as far as God is concerned the Jews lost the high priesthood. I am a high priest, and I doubt I am descended from Aaron. Yeshua was a high priest, and there is little indication he was descended from Aaron although Mary was apparently Elizabeth's cousin. As Moses' brother both Aaron and Moses were descendants of Levi. The sons of Aaron were only some of the sons of Levi. Descending the high priesthood through the sons of Aaron is a symbological thing for those foreordained to a certain task in these latter days as those who heed the song of Moses in Revelation.
  15. No. Murder is the unauthorized killing of an innocent person. God authorized killing under certain circumstances for which people forfeited their lives. Critics point out that Israel committed "genocide" but under the law the people they killed in battle were to first be offered the chance to live under God's law, and then be warned. If then they did not agree or leave, they were to be killed in order to put "evil out of Israel." Nephi did not murder Laban. Laban had broken the law by stealing from Lehi, and then trying to murder his sons by which his life was forfeited to God. The Nephites went to battle to defend themselves from the unauthorized taking of their lives, so typically were justified.
  • Create New...