Jump to content

RevTestament

Contributor
  • Posts

    5,040
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RevTestament

  1. I don't see anywhere in scripture where Yeshua "preached" in the synagogue. He spoke up to make points - much as a student would. However, it is not like He was the Rabbi of any synagogue, so I take issue with the premise from that standpoint. Do I believe Yeshua married in mortality? Why yes, but not in this mortality. He knew he would be leaving. To leave a wife with the burden of raising a child without a father doesn't seem too cool. It is mentioned that He would have fulfilled all law, but as you note, there was no law that rabbis had to be married. He fulfilled the Mosaic law - not the sixth seal covenant. But that doesn't mean He didn't do that when He did all that He had seen His Father do.
  2. Capitalism by itself is not a form of governance. Unreigned and unrestricted it can lead to numerous inequities and evils. It should be the job of our government to reign it in where it leads to undesirable results. Even Trump had issues with some capitalist desires for mergers, etc. Capitalism is an economic model for efficient output. Combined and limited with basic Christian principles of fairness and decency, it has resulted in the growth into the greatest economy and scientific progress the world has ever seen. That is its strong points. I am typing and communicating with inventions spurred by the capitalist system. I would not want to live without the advances capitalism has brought about. However, I do agree that capitalism by itself is definitely not the perfect system. To work at its best it must be combined with Christian norms of love, fairness, and decency - otherwise it can break down into a fairly evil monopolistic system.
  3. I think Ralph M has made it pretty clear that his point was that the constitution itself does not have to stand in its present form for the Church to survive. I have to agree with this. At the least in order for the constitution to survive it needs an additional amendment so that the type of politics I disdain will be (mostly) eliminated. What we now see is a result of lobbying with large donations to back them up. Eliminate these large donations by single entities, and most of our problems with "politics" would dissipate. The money drives the politics when it should be the people driving the politics. That last verse, although scripture, was a prayer, and not necessarily the will of the Lord BTW. I think certain principles of self-governance and freedom are worth preserving, but I don't think it is necessary for our constitution our even our country to stand indefinitely for scripture to be fulfilled. In the end all nations shall fall in favor of Christ's government. What we are now seeing is only the beginning of the image of the beast prophesied in Revelation. I have to disagree with BY. What we are seeing is the fulillment of the time of the Gentiles. This will end at the time of His coming in the clouds. I guess it may depend on what one considers the time of His second coming. If one considers that to be the time of the next resurrection, then BY is wrong. The New Jerusalem will be built after the prophesied resurrection in 3 Nephi 21. If that city is the City of the New Jerusalem, I can agree with you. Yeah, I think the immediate future will see the image of the beast which will be constitution and freedom destroying. I have to agree with you there. But the basic principles of the constitution at least will be preserved in the New Jerusalem. Whether one wants to call this the constitution hanging by a thread doesn't really matter to me. That point is basically irrelevant to me. If it does survive in its present form at all, it will have to at least be amended significantly. The courts have read all too much into it.
  4. As we use the term socialism, I would say that you are right, but I would submit that Christ instituted the only truly communistic government the world has ever known, but it got stamped out with early Christianity when it was replaced with the Roman state religion. One could argue that Christ tried to reinstitute it with the United Order, but the Church couldn't live it sufficiently so now has reverted to living the lesser Mosaic law of tithing.
  5. Yeah, my old feebled mind tried to type tenent, and the spell-checker said it was wrong, but I was too tired to care. Thanks. I went back and corrected it.
  6. Do I sense another anti-pope arising around the corner? Do you really want to discuss apostasy? My LDS brothers like their Catholic brothers, and so don't want to call them apostate anymore.... but to me it is pretty clear that one of us is... for me it doesn't mean that you are a bad person or a bad "Christian" which seems to be the usual attitude towards apostates. Yet someone in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints trying to teach Catholic tenets and ideas is going to get themselves excommunicated. I'm sure it's the same result for someone in the Catholic Church teaching the tenets of some other group... Just FYI does our Church have contradictions and/or errors? Yes, it does. But, although it has never claimed "infallibility" there are some recent teachings pretty darn close to it.
  7. I will chime in here, because I have had a life-long or at least a half-life long journey to understand the atonement. This began soon after I joined the Church. My issue was that I didn't feel comfortable saying I had a testimony in the atonement of Yeshua if I did not understand it. This became an issue for me progressing in the Church when it came time to become a priest, because I didn't feel I could 100% say I had a testimony of the atonement in my priest interview. This in turn set me on my own journey to try to understand the atonement during which I went off to college and became inactive. While I was in graduate school, I pondered and prayed about the subject, and eventually hit upon an answer which satisfied my "why" questions. but it became more concrete for me while I was taking a leadership seminar/course. This led me in a different direction than the average "Christian" I knew - even within the Church. I will say also that it took a strength of conviction to pursue the truth to stick to it when the world tells you to conform. So Rivers, you are correct that the atonement is about oneness. God is about oneness - as a Father and a Son are one family, so God is one, which is why they choose to teach us out of such a covenantal relationship. The atonement is also an example. Yes, God suffered the punishment for our sins so that we don't have to. So why then does Yeshua say that he has given us an example to lay down our life for our brothers? There are basically two types of leaders in the world - one either leads with force and intimidation or leads out of love. Some hit upon an idea, and teach it out of love so that all can learn and become better. The latter is of course the type of teacher that Yeshua was. He led by example in hopes that others would learn and follow. There is no compulsion in His way. He told people merely to follow Him. It really is not complex, but people refuse to believe and make it complex. As Hebrews says He showed us the way to the holiest of all, yet because of the doctrine of the trinity, men lost that truth. Yeshua prayed that we could be one even as He is one with the Father. When one understands this the conclusion is that we must follow Him. It is a very open language, which people tend to put limits on. People interpret, and put on blinders, but I submit that this is at the heart of the atonement, and that the atonement is His greatest teaching.
  8. I would posit that man still does not fully understand the original event. Did not Christ say He was the door? If He is the lintel which keeps the doorway open, that explains why the blood was painted on the doorway. But then why was it painted on the two supporting door posts? I would posit for the same reason that every president has two counselors.... by which I gather that Peter was probably crucified on the Passover - which was indeed the midst of the year when the temple was destroyed, since their year began in Sept. My guess is you do not agree.
  9. Yeshua directly alludes the parable of the sower to the kingdom of heaven. The seed on the wayside is the telestial kingdom, which is the furthest from God. The unfruitful seed in the rocks and thorns are those misled because of the world, which is the terrestrial kingdom, and the last is the celestial kingdom - the doers of the word in which there is three levels granted to those who yield 30, 60 or 100 fold.
  10. Please list this list of a lot. Mormon was a full millennium removed from the events of the Babylonian diaspora... and he wasn't the author... more like the editor. So to be honest it is not surprising that he wouldn't understand the events all that well. He would be fully dependent on what his predecessors had written, and subject to the same assumptions a lot of people make.... But on this I think he was right... Lehi left at about the time of Zedekiah's first year.... Does it really matter if it was really the second or third year of his reign? Or do you just like to nitpik? ... because the Bible can definitely be nitpicked as well - as history has shown.
  11. I have learned many things by spending time on this forum with bright people. I have learned much, but still have much to learn. I'm glad you helped keep me humble to remember that.
  12. Hmm. Have to say it is in my 1830 copy. It appears you may be correct. I see what you were saying. I'm sorry I accused you of spouting off.
  13. That is doubtful. N. America had a species of forest elephants. Their exact date of extinction is unknown, but many large mammals went extinct around the end of the last ice age. This may have been due to a large asteroid that hit Greenland. Whatever the case, the forest elephants were hairy and more adapted to the temperate forests of N. America. A few could have lived on to a much later date, and I believe lived on in the art of Natives. They can be distinguished from African elephants by their much smaller ears. I personally do not believe they were brought on barges. Ether does not say that as you point out. That is an incorrect assumption.
  14. Not sure what you are talking about. The original English BoM had no chapter headings. It had no versation. Only books and chapters were identified. There is nothing in 3 Nephi which talks about the first year of Zedekiah at all. Mormon had no understanding at all about it in 3 Nephi. If The Plains wants to strain at gnats, let him. The summary chapter headings in our present Book of Mormon were mostly the work of Bruce McKonkie. May I suggest you research the matter a little before spouting off about it?
  15. So what's new? I disagree with the correlation committee and the people that make these headings in numerous places. Summaries can be nice, but are fraught with the perils of being inaccurate. It would be the same for trying to summarize any scripture - interpretation perils always loom. You want to criticize the Church, but if you picked up your Sunday School manual I could find numerous places I disagree with it. Christianity has been wrong on that front for almost 2000 years. As scripture says "every man went his own way, and the Lord laid upon Him the iniquity of us all." Let's see what Bruce McKonkie, who had much to do with writing the chapter headings in the Book of Mormon had to say about them: "[As for the] Joseph Smith Translation items, the chapter headings, Topical Guide, Bible Dictionary, footnotes, the Gazeteer, and the maps. None of these are perfect; they do not of themselves determine doctrine; there have been and undoubtedly now are mistakes in them. Cross-references, for instance, do not establish and never were intended to prove that parallel passages so much as pertain to the same subject. They are aids and helps only." (Mark McConkie, ed. Doctrines of the Restoration: Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1989]
  16. Actually, history shows that Nebuchadnezzar left and went to besiege Tyre. So yeah, he probably left with basically his entire army. Maybe he left a few troops and some administrators in Jerusalem, but his MO was to go from city to city to try to collect tribute. This is probably when some Sidonians left with Mulek to go find a new place to live, which is why there is a river named Sidon in the BoM. But this does not support the Pacific voyage beliefs of some in the Church regarding the Jaredites and Lehites. Yeah, like I said, it became apparent that Jerusalem was asking for it when Zedekiah's rebelliousness became manifest. I think a few years is close enough for me to be "immediately." That is a fairly ambiguous word. Nor do I think your interpretation is correct that Lehi left in the first year of Zedekiah. 1 Nephi 1 says that Lehi had a vision of the destruction of the city in the first year of Zedekiah. He then went out to prophesy about it and warn the people. How long this lasted we aren't told. At some point Zedekiah apparently decided to try to further an alliance with Egypt, and this is when it became apparent to the prophets that Jerusalem was headed for trouble. In fact he threw Jeremiah in jail, because he didn't want to listen to the Lord's warnings. By that point, I think it would have certainly been evident to Lehi too... but I do believe Lehi left before that point. You are just trying to read too much into that first year of Zedekiah's reign.
  17. Bigotry is not based on reason or fact. If you want to believe Helena was inspired, can't stop you.... She was inspired to support her son's rule and to do things to glorify the Roman Empire. I am not. I am inspired by truth.
  18. No surprise... the Catholics don't get anything right.
  19. Having a dwelling in the city is not the same as residing there 24/7. Lehi was probably a merchant who spent much of his time away from home. He had a tent already prepared for his trip out of the city apparently. He may have been somewhat familiar with the route for at least the first three days, because the Liahona did not show up until after that part of the journey. Lehi probably left soon after the second siege when Zedekiah became king. His warnings preceded that siege. He obviously wasn't around for the last siege when the city was totally destroyed. So the reluctance of the people at that point was somewhat predictable. Nothing much happened to them in the prior siege. When Zedekiah failed to heed Nebuchadnezzar, the writing was on the wall for Lehi. Time to get out of Dodge.
  20. Sorry, but no duh. We know from the BoM that Lehi was around until Zedekiah became king. It also appears from the record that the whole siege event took place because Jehoiachin's father provoked Nebuchadnezzar by being rebellious. So, Nebuchadnezzar came to remove him from office and teach the rebellious Jews a lesson. It follows that Zedekiah was placed into office quickly to be a puppet to Nebuchadnezzar. So yeah, Nebu put him in office, took gold from the temple to pay for his raid, took the city defenders with him, and left fairly promptly - having accomplished his goal. Nope. King Nebu left and the city began to prosper again. No ransacking going on. People liked the comfort of the city for the same reasons the Israelites wanted to return to slavery in Egypt rather than experience the harshness and uncertainties of the desert even though it is quite apparent they were being led by the Lord and should have nothing to fear.
  21. Since you are banned, I'm not sure you will ever be able to reply, and from what I can see, I am not sure of all your points, but the Jaredites' first voyage was through the Mediterranean Sea to the Iberian Peninsula where the barges were built for the trip across the Atlantic. The Atlantic tends to have storms for about half the year through the equator where they would be taking off from Iberia, so for this type of voyage, they needed to be very seaworthy. Nibley was just wrong.
  22. ignore - seems I am still stuck in the past with the prior software, and keep making the same mistake
×
×
  • Create New...