Baptism In Ot? A Bom Problem

[Vance]

Whose interpretation of the JST?

Well, duh, mine of course. And until I hear from someone in higher authority it will stay that way.

Are you positive the 'fulness' of this 'key' is describing textual quantity and not the power/context/meaning?

Are you positive that it is ONLY describing "power/context/meaning" and NOT "textual quantity"?

"I doubt your position is that the Pharisees/Scribes/Lawyers Jesus was addressing took away all previous prophetic writings ever existing (IE, that there was a completeness of the textual record before they got their hands on it).

Jesus didn't name the offenders with more specificity than "lawyers". I don't see any need to add any either.

We say that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon contain the fulness of the Gospel (at least that's still the current claim in the introduction to the BoM) - the BoM is praised for its directness, power, and clarity on the essentials, yet not quantitative documentation.

Nah, that isn't what we say at all (sorry, but the introduction isn't scripture). What we say is, "the Book of Mormon . . . contains . . . the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ" (See D&C 20:8-9).

Or JSH 1:34 He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants;

Can you provide a scriptural reference that makes that claim for the Bible, because I haven't seen one.

Although, I did find this,

1 Nephi 13:24 And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God.

25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.

26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

Edited October 24, 2011 by Vance

[volgadon]

Now, what motive would the Jewish leaders have for removing prophesies from OT text that predict that they will kill their own Messiah?

Gee, I just can't think of any possible motive. /sarc

WHy would they go to all that effort yet leave embarassing texts such as Zechariah?

[volgadon]

Whose interpretation of the JST? Are you positive the 'fulness' of this 'key' is describing textual quantity and not the power/context/meaning? I doubt your position is that the Pharisees/Scribes/Lawyers Jesus was addressing took away all previous prophetic writings ever existing (IE, that there was a completeness of the textual record before they got their hands on it).

We say that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon contain the fulness of the Gospel (at least that's still the current claim in the introduction to the BoM) - the BoM is praised for its directness, power, and clarity on the essentials, yet not quantitative documentation.

Thank you, I was going to post a response too, but your post says it nicely. I would add that in any of the relevant ancient sources key is never used to mean a text but is always something that opens something else, or imbues a person with full authority in whatever matter it is.

Charles W. Penrose made the famous statement about what "fullness of the Gospel" meant, pointing out Joseph's usage in D&C 76. I don't see why fullness in this case would indicate a complete and and exhaustive textual compendium. Christ's instructions to to search the scriptures (which is what midrash is bout) would weaken Vance's position. Something else he failed to address is why Christ didn't restore the missing passages that he damned the Pharisees for removing.

[Vance]

WHy would they go to all that effort yet leave embarassing texts such as Zechariah?

What, exactly, is in Zechariah that must be emarassing?

Edited October 25, 2011 by Vance

[volgadon]

What, exactly, is in Zechariah that must be emarassing?

Try 12:10.

[Vance]

Try 12:10.

You are exhibiting a bit of presentism, don't you think.

What makes you think they would have understood that then, the way we understand it now?

Or, in other words, what part of the verse says that they will kill their own Messiah?

Edited October 25, 2011 by Vance

[volgadon]

You are exhibiting a bit of presentism, don't you think.

Not at all. I could point to targumic evidence, but I'll post an indisputably earlier source.

What makes you think they would have understood that then, the way we understand it now?

Or, in other words, what part of the verse says that they will kill their own Messiah?

Take a look at John 19:34-37 and Rev. 1:4-8.

[Vance]

Take a look at John 19:34-37 and Rev. 1:4-8.

Sorry, but citing post resurrection written materal hardly supports your position. (You know, that stuff written by Christians.)

Edited October 25, 2011 by Vance

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

We accept the Doctrine of Dispensations, that the gospel was not a recent invention of the Apostolic era, but, in fact, is very ancient. The Doctrine of Dispensations has been abandoned in modern Christianity. So I now see how they may not know this widespread doctrine found in the first few centuries after Christ. This doctrine is that the gospel of Christ may have been preached in the past (only to eventually be lost), as oppose to the theory of a "once for all" gospel of Christ.

Paul talks of Abraham in Romans 3 and 4 where Paul quotes Genesis 15 and calls that the gospel being preached unto Abraham. Again that Abraham had the gospel (Gal. 3:8]

Paul also insisted that the gospel was preached to the Israelites. "For unto us was the Gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith." (Hebrews 4:2) Paul declares that the gospel was preached unto the Jews of Moses’ day just as it was preached in his day. Gal. 3:19,Paul preached that the Law of Moses was a shadowy or preparatory gospel, designed to lead Israel to Christ, that was [added] on top of the gospel because of their transgression. "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator." (Galatians 3:19) It was added to what? The gospel, the same gospel Paul said he preached also, excluding the law of Moses. From these few facts, we conclude that whenever the Lord commanded them to offer sacrifice to Him, that it was still done in conjunction of having faith in the coming the anointed messiah, and rely upon the power of his atonement for a remission of their sins. It was still the gospel. Notice how Paul explains that the Israelites were babtised by Moses in (1 Cor. 10: 1-4).

John the baptist was performing baptisms before Christ came to him. Notice that people came from afar, including Pharisees and Sadducees, to be baptised of John the Baptist. Jesus had not yet begun his ministry amongst the people, yet this ordinance was accepted without question as to its authenticity. There were Prarisees that stood watching in unapproved was because they understood the significance of him baptizing, and were upset that he was baptizing non-descendants of Abraham as though it was a rite reserved for only descendants of Abraham. John rebukes, "I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham." (Matt 3:9)

It is logical, therefore, that there aren't more references to baptism previous to Jesus' ministry is because baptisms would have been performed in the Temple as an unwritten mystery rite or it was lost or removed from scriptures in Israel's apostasy.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Ray Callis Hatton III