Galatians 1:6-9

[Ron Beron]

'LeSellers' writes,

I disagree. The idea of a church as we know it was fundamental to the whole Israelite nation from the days of Moses onward. Judah had let herself become paganized and the idea corrupt, but the church was integral to her history and culture.

From the captains of tens and of fifties and of hundreds (home teaching and quorums) to the seventy elders and the twelve princes, the structure of the church is prominent in the Old and New Testaments. It is not a perfect match, but it has strong parallels to the organization of the modern version of His Church.

That is not necessarily a church, but an organization. There wasn't even a word for church in Hebrew. There was a word for assembly which was what was done in the case of Israel.

And, if He was moving away from Temple worship as the central feature of Judaism, and wanted smaller congregations, I submit that we have the same today. The Temple is central to our theology, but we do not make it the only means of worship, and, in fact, the ward house and one's private home, are the most frequent places of devotion among us, even while the Temple is never far from our hearts.

Let me explain a bit more. While it is somewhat evident that Jesus sought for a cessation of temple ceremonies it was specifically the sacrifice of animals that he denigrated. After his death his apostle specially James continued to operate within the temple.

James was the Stake President in Jerusalem. Peter was the head of the Church.

Aside from modern day writings on this can you supply some info from the NT? In respect, there is absolutely no evidence for this.

You insult me thus and want me to listen to you? I have read the verse dozens or hundreds of times. It says the same thing I claimed it said: "He said He came to fulfill the Law and that it was complete in Him. The existing church was all about the Law of Moses."

I apologize for any perceived insult. I didn't mean to insult you. It must be the teacher in me.

So where, pray tell, did I say the first word that triggered this? I said nothing about abolishing the Law.

So, do you feel that Jesus believed that the law should be maintained?

When we read the word "fulfill" it is only with great wrestings and twistings that we can see "to enforce" therein.

If I understand you correctly are you stating that "fulfill" should not be rendered as "to enforce"?

[LeSellers]

That is not necessarily a church, but an organization. There wasn't even a word for church in Hebrew. There was a word for assembly which was what was done in the case of Israel.

I don't see that there is a difference between "church" and "(religious) organization" or "(religious) assembly". The derivation of the English word "church" is Middle English chirche, from Old English cirice, ultimately from Medieval Greek kūrikon, from Late Greek kūriakon (dōma), the Lord's (house), neuter of Greek kūriakos, of the lord, from kūrios, lord.

Since "house" and "people" are interchangeable in this kind of usage, e.g., "the House of Israel" = "Israelites" (the people of Israel), we are fully justified in reading "church" as "the people of the Lord". The Lord calls Israel "my people" frequently in scripture. He calls the Saints "my Church" in modern scripture, but the terms are equivalent. The people of the Lord are a religious people, and the people of Israel were a religious people.

Let me explain a bit more. While it is somewhat evident that Jesus sought for a cessation of temple ceremonies it was specifically the sacrifice of animals that he denigrated. After his death his apostle specially James continued to operate within the temple.

Which is about what we do, is it not?

However, I'm not seeing anything in the New Testament that supports you idea that Jesus "sought for a cessation of temple ceremonies [and] it was specifically the sacrifice of animals that he denigrated" unless you mean He was substituting Himself for the pascal (and other) lambs.

Aside from modern day writings on [James' being the President of the Jerusalem Stake] can you supply some info from the NT? In respect, there is absolutely no evidence for this.

"Absolutely no evidence"?! There is evidence or I (and others, as you indicate) would not have made the claim. You reject that evidence, but your decision does not make it evaporate.

James seems to operate exclusively in Jerusalem, the Apostles work throughout the world. That is the single most convincing piece of evidence in scripture. In addition, by comparing the titles "Bishop" as used in the New Testament (and by Catholics and even Protestants) and "Stake President" as we use it in the Church of Jesus Christ today, I see overwhelming parallels. Then, by looking at how James operated in the few places we view him in the Bible, I notice that he worked in the office of "Bishop". Then, using "a = b", I can substitute "Stake President" for "Bishop" without doing harm to the message.

Besides, why should I not use modern writings? They are, after all, no less foundational to my belief system than are the ancient.

I apologize for any perceived insult. I didn't mean to insult you. It must be the teacher in me.

Yeah, I've noticed that about teachers, especially in grtf-welfare schools.

So, do you feel that Jesus believed that the law should be maintained?

Not as the Jews had been worshiping it, no.

I do believe He wanted them to get beyond the mindless observance of the rituals and see the point of the Law (Him), and to get past the point of believing that the Law itself was that means of salvation.

However, we LDSs believe that "the sons of Levi [will] offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness." What that means in practical fact is a subject of ongoing discussion.

I add here, by way of edit, that it is evident from the scriptures that there were almost always devout Jews who did understand the Law and its purpose. It is impossible for me to see Zacharias, John's father, and Elizabeth as being anything but Christ-centered Jews, or that Hannah, mother of Samuel, worshiped the Law rather than the Law-Giver. But their societies were largely apostate, "nomolaters" for want of a better word, as were the Jews who crucifed Jesus. We see a similar propensity among modern "nomolaters" who, rather than worshiping the Law, worship the Bible. Their idolatry, bibliolatry, is no less misleading and destructive.

If I understand you correctly are you stating that "fulfill" should not be rendered as "to enforce"?

'Tseems rather a stretch, or, as I said, a wresting or twisting, to see it as such.

Lehi

[Ron Beron]

'LeSellers' writes,

I don't see that there is a difference between "church" and "(religious) organization" or "(religious) assembly". The derivation of the English word "church" is Middle English chirche, from Old English cirice, ultimately from Medieval Greek kūrikon, from Late Greek kūriakon (dōma), the Lord's (house), neuter of Greek kūriakos, of the lord, from kūrios, lord.

That is fine except the word used in the scriptures is not doma, but ekklisia which has the different meaning of assembly as in a congregation. The term you use above, kūriakon, was used by Jerome in his translation of the bible and was a substitute for the more appropriate ekklisia or "those who are called out". Again, the the term "church" refers to a people not a building or organization.

Which is about what we do, is it not?

Certainly we do under a restored gospel. It was not so in the 2nd temple period.

However, I'm not seeing anything in the New Testament that supports you idea that Jesus "sought for a cessation of temple ceremonies [and] it was specifically the sacrifice of animals that he denigrated" unless you mean He was substituting Himself for the pascal (and other) lambs.

"Absolutely no evidence"?! There is evidence or I (and others, as you indicate) would not have made the claim. You reject that evidence, but your decision does not make it evaporate.

James seems to operate exclusively in Jerusalem, the Apostles work throughout the world. That is the single most convincing piece of evidence in scripture. In addition, by comparing the titles "Bishop" as used in the New Testament (and by Catholics and even Protestants) and "Stake President" as we use it in the Church of Jesus Christ today, I see overwhelming parallels. Then, by looking at how James operated in the few places we view him in the Bible, I notice that he worked in the office of "Bishop". Then, using "a = b", I can substitute "Stake President" for "Bishop" without doing harm to the message.

I have looked in most Mormon sources and have not been able to find a reference to James as a "stake president". The NT uses the term "Pillars of the Church" for James as well as for Peter and John. We also have it from extra-canonical patristic writings that James was the leader of the church. Jerome, De Viris Illustribus, quotes Hegesippus' account of James from the fifth book of Hegesippus' lost Commentaries:

After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just

was made head of the Church at Jerusalem. Many indeed are called James.

This one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank neither wine nor

strong drink, ate no flesh, never shaved or anointed himself with

ointment or bathed. He alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies,

since indeed he did not use woolen vestments but linen and went alone

into the temple and prayed in behalf of the people, insomuch that his

knees were reputed to have acquired the hardness of camels' knees.

Besides, why should I not use modern writings? They are, after all, no less foundational to my belief system than are the ancient.

I was referring specifically to LDS literature.

Yeah, I've noticed that about teachers, especially in grtf-welfare schools.

What's grtf?

Not as the Jews had been worshiping it, no.

I do believe He wanted them to get beyond the mindless observance of the rituals and see the point of the Law (Him), and to get past the point of believing that the Law itself was that means of salvation.

However, we LDSs believe that "the sons of Levi [will] offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness." What that means in practical fact is a subject of ongoing discussion.

We can probably agree on this in substance. I think that what Jesus was trying to get the Jews at the time to realize was that attitude was more important than behavior in obeying the Torah. Not only did they have to obey, but they had to know why and embrace the law. Consequently, not only should we pay tithing, but enjoy doing so. Having said this it is indeed a wonder that Paul seems to denigrate this in his statements in Galatians.

'Tseems rather a stretch, or, as I said, a wresting or twisting, to see it as such.

I don't think so since that it is the meaning of the word. In this passage though I believe Jesus is referring the deeper meaning of fulfill. For example, it is not enough one avoids food that is impure, but to avoid all things that are impure or corrupting. Contemporaneously, the Word of Wisdom is simply a guideline. While we shouldn't imbibe certain drinks or eat certain foods the WofW goes much further and teaches to avoid all things in excess and enjoy them in moderation.

[LeSellers]

That is fine except the word used in the scriptures is not doma, but ekklisia which has the different meaning of assembly as in a congregation. The term you use above, kūriakon, was used by Jerome in his translation of the bible and was a substitute for the more appropriate ekklisia or "those who are called out". Again, the the term "church" refers to a people not a building or organization.

Yes, I know. I was not referring to the Greek, but to the English. And I rarely use the word "church" to refer to a building. For me, it's the organization or assembly/congregation. The building is a "ward/stake house/center".

"ἐκκλησία" means "(the assembly of) those called out", and I retain my position. There is no difference between "ἐκκλησία" and "assembly of the Saints" which is a synonym for "the church".

Certainly we do under a restored gospel. It was not so in the 2nd temple period.

While this is true, I do not see how it supports your premise.

(After we acknowledge the Atonement) Jesus came, as far as I can tell, to restore His church in the I. The reasons for that Restoration are myriad, not least of which was the obvious apostasy of the Jews under the Quisling High Priests named in the Gospels.

A "reformation" (which is how I interpret your position) of the Jewish church (however you define it) would have either replaced the High Priest and the other General Authorities with legitimate office holders or legitimizing those in place at the time but with explicit orders to correct the follies of their day.

I have looked in most Mormon sources and have not been able to find a reference to James as a "stake president". The NT uses the term "Pillars of the Church" for James as well as for Peter and John.

You implied earlier that I was not alone in using the title "Stake President" for James the Just. I built on that implication.

However, I have already said why I believe that James was the head of the Jerusalem Church: the Jerusalem Stake of Zion.

I was referring specifically to LDS literature.

So was I.

What's grtf?

"Government-run, tax-funded" indicates the true owners and operators of the misleadingly called "public" schools (and other "public" entities). They are government agencies run for the benefit of the state, and are not run for or on behalf of the public. They are welfare agencies, since they are funded, through the coercive power of the state, by taxpayers including those who do not use them and even those who could, but choose not to.

I don't think so since ["enforce"] is the meaning of ["fulfill"]. In this passage though I believe Jesus is referring the deeper meaning of fulfill.

1. to make full, to fill up, i.e., to fill to the full
   1. to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally
      
      1. I abound, I am liberally supplied
         
      2. to render full, i.e., to complete
         
         1. to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim
            
         2. to consummate: a number
      3. to carry into effect, bring to realization, realize
         
         1. of matters of duty: to perform, execute
            
         2. of sayings, promises, prophecies, to bring to pass, ratify, accomplish
            
         3. to fulfill, i.e., to cause Godâ??s will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and Godâ??s promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfillment

While your definition appears in this listing, it is not the preferred connotation, and it still seems contrived. All the more so because the more prevalent meanings meet the needs of the Lord's statement, especially as we LDSs understand His mission.

Lehi

to make complete in every particular, to render perfect
to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking)