42 replies to this topic

[BCSpace]

Approach it from the other side. Biblical context shows that "paradise" was not the place or condition of salvation for the thief because John 20:17 shows that the Father was not there.  So for sure, what "paradise" means to the rest of the christian world is incorrect.  Salvation cannot be attained by deathbed repentance or faith confession and there is a space between death and salvation.

Edited by BCSpace, 25 June 2010 - 07:56 PM.

[hagoth7]

Rob Bowman, on 25 June 2010 - 07:49 PM, said:

On the one hand, you suggest that Joseph Smith's remarks in History of the Church may have meant "that the baggage surrounding the English word 'paradise' didn't align with Christ's intended meaning of the parent word in Greek." On the other hand, when I ask why Joseph didn't use another term in the JST at Luke 23:43, you ask, "Which more correct English term would you suggest?"

OK.

Quote

I'm having trouble believing you're serious.

I get that a lot. Not sure why.
I am, however, quite serious. (Although in a very good mood.)

Quote

How about the expression "world of spirits" that he claimed in History of the Church was the correct translation?

Methinks we have different interpretations of the word "translation."
1. You apparently think it means something akin to flipping to a place in a bilingual dictionary.
2. I think it instead means conveying the gist of what that passage was intended to mean.

The two often overlap. But not always.

Quote

As for your suggested explanation of his remarks, you can believe anything you want, but he explicitly said that there was nothing answering to the word paradise in the original Greek.

You choose to take that literally. I'm OK w/that.
But I don't see the need to do so.

Quote

Here's the oddity: In this instance, I am letting Joseph Smith mean what he said, and (frankly) you are not.

I can honestly see why you might feel that way.

Quote

The reason is obvious: It is more important to you that Joseph be cleared of an obvious mistake than that you accept that he meant what he clearly said.

Actually, there is another reason you might not have considered (since I don't have an issue with a true prophet sometimes sayings things that simply ain't so). There was no voice recording. Joseph's comments are, at best, a stitching together of what people remember of what he said...often after the fact. Because of that, I give him the benefit of the doubt, and don't see the need to pin him to the wall with literal meanings. When's the last time you took notes of a college lecture - and either left much out (because you couldn't write Reformed Egyptian quickly enough) OR tried to stitch it back together much later based on assumptions? So I try to reconstruct what he might have meant - which is precisely what subsequent editors have done - and which you are also doing here. Yes?

Like you, I'm a reasonable guy.
And I understand full well the limitations of note taking when a dynamic speaker is talking freely.
Do you feel there's anything unreasonable in such an approach?
And do you still feel that I haven't considered or understood your concern?

Edited by hagoth7, 25 June 2010 - 08:30 PM.

[hagoth7]

...

Edited by hagoth7, 25 June 2010 - 10:24 PM.

[selek]

The worst case that can be made here is that Joseph missspoke, that he should have said the word "paradise" as referenced was "a modern concept" rather than a "modern word".

Isn't it interesting to note that our friend from the I.R.R. (also known as IRReligious) is LITERALLY trying to make Joseph an "offender for a word"?

Perhaps Dan Peterson should sue for copyright infringement?

[Nathair]

Rob Bowman, on 25 June 2010 - 02:46 PM, said:

Nathair,

Let's get something straight here. Are you claiming that Elisha acted wrongly?

Well, what would you think if I did something like that?


Yours under the fallible oaks,


Nathair /|\

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

selek, on 25 June 2010 - 08:32 PM, said:

The worst case that can be made here is that Joseph missspoke, that he should have said the word "paradise" as referenced was "a modern concept" rather than a "modern word".

Isn't it interesting to note that our friend from the I.R.R. (also known as IRReligious) is LITERALLY trying to make Joseph an "offender for a word"?

Perhaps Dan Peterson should sue for copyright infringement?

I could not agree more.

[volgadon]

It seems like Joseph got the philology wrong but the theology right.

[Mortal Man]

Rob Bowman, on 25 June 2010 - 05:53 PM, said:

Three short sentences (Luke 23:34, 43, 46) constitute "chatting away on the cross like he's at a picnic"?

It's the tone of Luke's additions:

"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."
"Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise."
"Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit"

There's nothing but peace and serenity here.

Quote

And did you miss Mark 15:34 (which reports a statement by Jesus prior to his final cry, v. 37)?

No, that's what I was referring to. "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" sounds like a cry of agony to me. Verse 37 may be another (unintelligible) cry or just a retelling of this one.

How can he commend his soul to someone who's just forsaken him? It's a total clash. There's no sensible way to merge the two stories. You have to pick one or the other.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mortal Man, on 25 June 2010 - 10:28 PM, said:

It's the tone of Luke's additions:

"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."
"Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise."
"Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit"

There's nothing but peace and serenity here.


No, that's what I was referring to. "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" sounds like a cry of agony to me. Verse 37 may be another (unintelligible) cry or just a retelling of this one.

How can he commend his soul to someone who's just forsaken him? It's a total clash. There's no sensible way to merge the two stories. You have to pick one or the other.

I think these verses could be used against the nicean creeds. I should start a new thread as to not derail this one.

[Mortal Man]

Mola Ram Suda Ram, on 25 June 2010 - 07:53 PM, said:

Jesus didn't speak Greek.

Sure he did.

Matthew 16:18
???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??????, ??? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?????????? ??? ??? ?????????, ??? ????? ?|??? ?? ????????????? ?????.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mortal Man, on 25 June 2010 - 10:59 PM, said:

Sure he did.

Matthew 16:18
???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??????, ??? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?????????? ??? ??? ?????????, ??? ????? ?|??? ?? ????????????? ?????.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Ok.

[Mortal Man]

Mola Ram Suda Ram, on 25 June 2010 - 11:19 PM, said:

Ok.

Well actually it depends on what you think he was trying to say. In Aramaic he may have just said, "you are Kepha, and on this kepha", since the name he gave Simon, "Cephas", means "rock". You can't use "petra" for a man's name in Koine Greek because it's feminine, so you pick up the "pebble" vs. "boulder" subtlety, which has caused raging wars between Catholics and Protestants for all these centuries.

[Bernard Gui]

Rob Bowman, on 25 June 2010 - 01:29 PM, said:

In 1843, Joseph Smith made the following remarks about Luke 23:43:

“There has been much said by modern divines about the words of Jesus (when on the cross) to the thief, saying, ‘This day shalt thou be with me in paradise.’ King James’ translators make it out to say paradise. But what is paradise? It is a modern word: it does not answer at all to the original word that Jesus made use of. Find the original of the word paradise. You may as easily find a needle in a haymow. Here is a chance for battle, ye learned men. There is nothing in the original word in Greek from which this was taken that signifies paradise; but it was—This day thou shalt be with me in the world of spirits: then I will teach you all about it and answer your inquiries” (Teachings, p. 310; History of the Church 5:424-25).

He was taking issue with the sectarian misunderstanding of the meaning of "paradise.
He does not give a reason for believing it is a modern word, which may just indicate he didn't
know Greek very well. That can be forgiven, IMO. He does make his understanding clear, however.
What Jesus said on the cross was not what has traditionally been misunderstood as "paradise," but
meaning the world of spirits. He makes it even more emphatic a few lines later in the same speech:

Quote

Hades, the Greek, or Shaole, the Hebrew' these two significations
mean a world of spirits. Hades, Shaole, paradise, spirits in prison, are
all one: it is a world of spirits.

So he wasn't an expert linguist.

Bernard

Edited by Bernard Gui, 26 June 2010 - 01:14 AM.

[zerinus]

Rob Bowman, on 25 June 2010 - 02:46 PM, said:

Nathair,

Let's get something straight here. Are you claiming that Elisha acted wrongly?

Nathair, on 25 June 2010 - 02:39 PM, said:

If we grant that this may be an example of Brother Joseph's hubris, will you grant that this does not disqualify him from being the Lord's anointed Prophet any more than Elisha's siccing a bear on some kids for mocking his baldness disqualifies him from the same position?

Yours under the standardized oaks,

Nathair /|\

No; but Jonah did, Samson did, Solomon did, Peter did, Moses did  . . .

And what is your answer to that?

Edited by zerinus, 26 June 2010 - 01:01 PM.

[zerinus]

Rob Bowman, on 25 June 2010 - 01:52 PM, said:

Mola,

Would you also agree with me (assuming I am correct about Joseph getting the point at issue wrong) that it was rather arrogant for him to criticize the translators and modern scholars of his day, when clearly it was Joseph who did not know what he was talking about?

Not at all. Joseph said that in response to the Protestant/Evangelical belief in "justification by faith alone without works," and their use (or rather misuse) of that scripture to prove their point. Whether his "translation" was correct or not I wouldn't know; but I find no fault with his motives for saying what he said. Traditional Christianity being apostate, those kinds of errors unfortunately abound within it.

Edited by zerinus, 26 June 2010 - 11:54 PM.

[zerinus]

Duplicate post

Edited by zerinus, 26 June 2010 - 11:53 PM.

[Uncle Dale]

Rob Bowman, on 25 June 2010 - 01:29 PM, said:

I have a couple of questions concerning Joseph Smith’s handling of Luke 23:43.
...

A little research on this particular "prophet, seer, revelator and translator,"
shows that he was content to allow his name to be subscribed to a prophet's
pronouncement (by "the true spirit of prophesy, which is the testimony of Jesus")
that "Mormon" literally translates "more good," from a contraction of "more"
and a transliteration of the Egyptian "mon."

Whether or not he also affixed the "testimony of Jesus" imprimatur to the
pronouncement regarding "paradise," I do not know --- but like begets like.

UD

[Ron Beron]

Rob Bowman, on 25 June 2010 - 01:29 PM, said:

ripts. By the way, Joseph’s claim is simply false: the word occurs in Greek literature dating from

• Perhaps Joseph meant that the word “paradise” in Luke 23:43 does not mean “heaven” but refers to the “world of spirits” where the dead go awaiting the future judgment. No doubt something like this explanation reflects Joseph’s theological point, but it is not what he says. Rather, he says that the translators erred by using the word “paradise,” that the word is a modern word, and that nothing corresponding to it is in the Greek text.

Prof. Hamblin was correct in his assertion.  Jesus did not use it in the same as its original meaning, i.e., Persian for a fruitful field.  Instead JS saw it is terms of its real, perhaps Aramaic "the part of Hades which was thought by the later Jews to be the abode of the souls of pious until the resurrection: but some understand this to be a heavenly paradise".  For Jesus to have used the word in a traditional sense he would have to invoke the Persian or "a grand enclosure or preserve, hunting ground, park, shady and well watered, in which wild animals,were kept for the hunt; it was enclosed by walls and furnishedwith towers for the hunter.".  Instead he used the modern meaning which invoke the former meaning.

[Vance]

Nathair, on 25 June 2010 - 02:39 PM, said:

If we grant that this may be an example of Brother Joseph's hubris, will you grant that this does not disqualify him from being the Lord's anointed Prophet any more than Elisha's siccing a bear on some kids for mocking his baldness disqualifies him from the same position?


Yours under the standardized oaks,


Nathair /|\

Or say, Samuel lying to Saul?

(Putting on my anti-Mormon blinders and looking at Samuel)

In 1 Sam 13:8 Samuel had LIED to Saul and told Saul that he, Samuel would arrive in seven days.

Saul waited the seven days, but no Samuel.

(Anti-Mormom style conclusion) Samuel couldn't be a true prophet because he lied to Saul.

AND THEN,
Samuel "hewed Agag in pieces" even after Agag plead for mercy.  Now how could a true prophet do such a thing?

(Anti-Mormom style conclusion) Samuel couldn't be a true prophet because he violently MURDERED Agag.

WOW!!!  Those anti-Mormon blinders are fun!!!

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

Mormon Apologists have a problem with explaining what is the conclusion drawn from what doesn't seem to strictly be relevant to point out; that others had done it or done worse. Leaving you to ask yourself, what do Mormons consider the mark of a false prophet? It seems its not fallibility, its not even sinfulness. A false prophet is defined as either the prophet of a false god, or one who falsely claims God said something he didn't say. Even a prideful and ignorant prophet is still a prophet, in need of some elective redemption or a lesson in humility, he still is God's mouth piece until God removes him.

Hence, a supposed public laps in his knowledge of Greek is not enough to dissuade us much. It is not clear where Joseph's "knowledge" on the matter originated. Prophets commonly use their own "modern" knowledge when they feel there is a correction in those things that they think permits the gospel to be understood and applied to "modern" people. The ancient Prophets clearly accepted a geocentric (earth centered) cosmos, a flat earth, heavens supported by four pillars, etc. Yet, God does not correct them, He sends revelation about matters of more eternal significance, those things simply get integrated in their explanations. Despite all their the inspiration, we find their knowledge is sometimes no higher than that of their contemporaries.

In this Mormon Apologetic realization, we try to explain that we need to be forgiving of prophets in the past the we perceive as being unsophisticated in both their thoughts and actions when compared to the present day expectations of how a prophet should be.