Where Does Apologetics Fall Short?????

[Randall57]

Where on earth did you come up with this interpretation?

I have taken several new testament survey classes over the years, and study in commentaries and via the net. Do a google search on the subject.

Please tell me where I error in my interpretation?

[Randall57]

You are talking a lot of nonsense and you know it. Your question has been answered, and need not be answered again.

Point out the nonsense and we can discuss it? Would you like to go through the text? But you are standing firm by your statement that you will not answer questions. You have failed to back up one of your points, all you have given is general talking points.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Randall writes:

What then are the boundries of your understanding of this, what if a persons spiritual witness is that Christ is not the only way and not necessary for ones salvation. What and where is yardstick as to what is truth, and what is precieved truth. John says we are to test all spirits to what is true, so when your spiritual witness contridicts anothers spiritual witness, how do you measure what is truth? I will guess you answer will be circular, with the only answer being faith...example is that you used 1&2 Nephi as a yardstick, I used John, and they contridict each other.

Why the need to create boundaries?

John's statement follows up with the details of his test right (as I am sure you are aware). In fact your comment moves somewhat beyond the test that John gives. Quoting from the KJV:

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, ...

You don't really seem to understand the point I am trying to make. What someone else's spiritual witness is, is completely irrelevant to me. I won't be judged by their spiritual witness. I won't be held accountable somehow for the things that they believe. In fact, you talk about comparing them ("when your spiritual witness contradicts anothers spiritual witness") we run immediately into the problem that you cannot really compare them. After all, you didn't receive their spiritual witness (it is an experiene, not some artifact that can be viewed in any sort of objective sense), they did, and they are a completely different person than you are.

If I experience something, that seems to be a quite reasonable basis for rational belief. We do this all the time. In fact, most of us aren't hyper-skeptical of these kinds of things most of the time. We tend to treat religious beliefs as something quite different from all of the other equally (ir)rational things we believe every day. The fact remains that we experience the world around us - including any spiritual witness we may receive - from rather unique places filtered as it is through a whole host of issues - our language, our economic status, our political views, our cultural and societal norms and expectations.

If someone else comes to a view that contradicts our own, it can be for a whole host of reasons, but, unless we understand the entirety of the reasons why that person experiences the things the way they do, then it is, to some extent trivial to our own beliefs and expectations. The problem occurs when we assume for whatever reason that our truth is equivalent to some absolute truth, and when we privilege our own beliefs as somehow being able to see in some objective way through Paul's darkened glass as if it was clear. And then we insist that because we have our belief that everyone else should be held to that same standard. Mormonism, at least in its theology, rejects this idea, as does, I believe the New Testament. But, we don't experience what others experience so we cannot actually compare them. And that is a real flaw in your reasoning. We can question whether or not they are being honest about what they tell us. But, we cannot actually evaluate their experience. I have found it is better to simply allow others to have their experiences that seem to contradict my own. Not only is it more charitable to them, it also allows me to avoid having to judge them (it isn't my place after all) or to try to understand why God might give them a different witness than my own (something I am not equipped to handle here in mortality). Their witness will never be a rational basis for my own beliefs or actions. My own witness is.

But, you say, look here in John, doesn't John claim to have some access to an absolute, external truth? Doesn't he provide us with a yardstick? Doesn't the Book of Mormon claim to confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh? I don't think 1 and 2 Nephi contradict John at all.

But then, isn't this last point really just a contradiction in interpretation? Who is right?

Ben M.

[volgadon]

I have taken several new testament survey classes over the years, and study in commentaries and via the net. Do a google search on the subject.

Please tell me where I error in my interpretation?

You err in your assertion that "weddings were not announced with a date, the groom would go to his fathers house and build a place for the bride and himself to live, When the father felt that the room was ready he would tell his son to call for his bride."

Weddings very much had dates set, they were significant celebrations involving multiple families.

"if the brides were ready for the husbands call, then they should be ready to travel at night and have "batteries for their flashlights." Five did, five did not."

These are not brides going out to meet their husbands, these are bridesmaids waiting for the bride and groom who tarried quite a while at the festivities in (presumably) the bride's house.

So, again, where are you coming up with this interpretation?

[cdowis]

The first ward I attended (born into), we basically built, I was to young (early 60s) but the people none the less built it? Not sure how that has anything to do with the questions I asked, and I am not sure why you are offended?

I am not offended in the least. You made a comment about the finances of the church, giving no substantiation, and I responded with facts.

I personally have not seen a substantial change in activity level in the church. Indeed I understand that the percent of sacrament attendance has remained stable if not improving. I have used the same references as you did in your post -- namely, nada.

The church has not ignored the issue of youth activity, and I suspect that the recent effort to address this issue will be successful. The recent change in age requirement for missionary callings has had a dramatic response.

I hope none of this offends you.

[Hamba Tuhan]

You don't really seem to understand the point I am trying to make. What someone else's spiritual witness is, is completely irrelevant to me. I won't be judged by their spiritual witness. I won't be held accountable somehow for the things that they believe. In fact, you talk about comparing them ("when your spiritual witness contradicts anothers spiritual witness") we run immediately into the problem that you cannot really compare them. After all, you didn't receive their spiritual witness (it is an experiene, not some artifact that can be viewed in any sort of objective sense), they did, and they are a completely different person than you are.

It was my privilege Saturday morning to escort a new member of our ward as he received his endowment. In the meeting beforehand with the counsellor from the temple presidency, we were expressly advised to turn to God for answers and not to other people specifically because God personalises His answers for each questioner, and therefore what He may tell one is not what he will tell another.

[Randall57]

I am not offended in the least. You made a comment about the finances of the church, giving no substantiation, and I responded with facts.

I personally have not seen a substantial change in activity level in the church. Indeed I understand that the percent of sacrament attendance has remained stable if not improving. I have used the same references as you did in your post -- namely, nada.

The church has not ignored the issue of youth activity, and I suspect that the recent effort to address this issue will be successful. The recent change in age requirement for missionary callings has had a dramatic response.

I hope none of this offends you.

Not at all, I was referring to the term "jack" you used in response to me, I will take it as term of endearment

You seem to be contradicting yourself, are saying youth attendence is not included in church attendence? Seeing that the youth is the future, in all walks of life, isn't that alone supporting my assertion?

I will add this as support, quoting Elder Jenson. Full article http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/Number-of-faithful-Mormons-rapidly-declining/rvih3gOKxEm5om9IYJYnRA.cspx

Not since a famous troublespot in Mormon history, the 1837 failure of a church bank in Kirtland, Ohio, have so many left the church, Jensen said.

"Maybe since Kirtland, we've never had a period of - I'll call it apostasy, like we're having now," he told the group in Logan.

I also addressed other issues such a financial accountability to the body, do you believe I am wrong in that point also?

[Randall57]

You err in your assertion that "weddings were not announced with a date, the groom would go to his fathers house and build a place for the bride and himself to live, When the father felt that the room was ready he would tell his son to call for his bride."

Weddings very much had dates set, they were significant celebrations involving multiple families.

"if the brides were ready for the husbands call, then they should be ready to travel at night and have "batteries for their flashlights." Five did, five did not."

These are not brides going out to meet their husbands, these are bridesmaids waiting for the bride and groom who tarried quite a while at the festivities in (presumably) the bride's house.

So, again, where are you coming up with this interpretation?

Like I said I have studied this in that past at many different levels. I just did a quick google and here, please don't hold me to any theology from these sites, I didn't really read through them to much. I googled " Hebrew calling of the bride" and these were the first few hits on this topic. The first is a paste from a PDF , I couldn't paste the link sorry, but you can find it if you google the above. (bold mine)

•

Toward the end of the yearlong betrothal period, the bride waited with

great expectancy for the groom to come and for the ceremony to take

place. Even late in the evening, the bride and her wedding party

would keep their oil lamps burning in case it was time for the wedding

to take place.

•

The day of the ceremony was a surprise to both the groom and the

bride.

14 When the bridegroom was asked the date of the wedding, he

could only say something like, “No man knows except my father.”

15

•

When the time was right, the groom’s father would issue the approval

for the ceremony to begin. The groom and his wedding party would

leave the groom’s house to go get his bride. The friends of the bridegroom

would shout, “Behold, the bridegroom comes!” and then they

would blow the shofar. The groomsmen would lead the wedding party

through the streets and bring the bride back to the groom’s home

where the wedding canopy or

huppah awaited.

•

The wedding ceremony, or the nissuin, was performed under the huppah.

The vows made during the betrothal ceremony were completed in

the marriage ceremony. The ceremony was once again sealed with a

cup of wine to indicate the great joy that would accompany the festive

celebration. After the ceremony, the couple consummated the marriage

with sexual relations and lived together as husband and wife

from that point forward.

16

http://www.opendoorm...ishwedding.html

http://www.thewayoft....com/BDbty.html

http://www.staffands...e of Christ.htm

http://www.myjewishl..._Marriage.shtml

http://www.oneagleswingsinc.org/The_Greatest_Mystery_The_Heavenly_Purpose_of_Marriage.html

I surprised this is so new to you, it is esential to understanding the NT and in all reality the message of Christ. What do you think He means when He says He is going to prepare a place for us (many mansions) , and that He will be back for His bride?

[Randall57]

Randall writes:

Why the need to create boundaries?

John's statement follows up with the details of his test right (as I am sure you are aware). In fact your comment moves somewhat beyond the test that John gives. Quoting from the KJV:

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, ...

You don't really seem to understand the point I am trying to make. What someone else's spiritual witness is, is completely irrelevant to me. I won't be judged by their spiritual witness. I won't be held accountable somehow for the things that they believe. In fact, you talk about comparing them ("when your spiritual witness contradicts anothers spiritual witness") we run immediately into the problem that you cannot really compare them. After all, you didn't receive their spiritual witness (it is an experiene, not some artifact that can be viewed in any sort of objective sense), they did, and they are a completely different person than you are.

If I experience something, that seems to be a quite reasonable basis for rational belief. We do this all the time. In fact, most of us aren't hyper-skeptical of these kinds of things most of the time. We tend to treat religious beliefs as something quite different from all of the other equally (ir)rational things we believe every day. The fact remains that we experience the world around us - including any spiritual witness we may receive - from rather unique places filtered as it is through a whole host of issues - our language, our economic status, our political views, our cultural and societal norms and expectations.

If someone else comes to a view that contradicts our own, it can be for a whole host of reasons, but, unless we understand the entirety of the reasons why that person experiences the things the way they do, then it is, to some extent trivial to our own beliefs and expectations. The problem occurs when we assume for whatever reason that our truth is equivalent to some absolute truth, and when we privilege our own beliefs as somehow being able to see in some objective way through Paul's darkened glass as if it was clear. And then we insist that because we have our belief that everyone else should be held to that same standard. Mormonism, at least in its theology, rejects this idea, as does, I believe the New Testament. But, we don't experience what others experience so we cannot actually compare them. And that is a real flaw in your reasoning. We can question whether or not they are being honest about what they tell us. But, we cannot actually evaluate their experience. I have found it is better to simply allow others to have their experiences that seem to contradict my own. Not only is it more charitable to them, it also allows me to avoid having to judge them (it isn't my place after all) or to try to understand why God might give them a different witness than my own (something I am not equipped to handle here in mortality). Their witness will never be a rational basis for my own beliefs or actions. My own witness is.

But, you say, look here in John, doesn't John claim to have some access to an absolute, external truth? Doesn't he provide us with a yardstick? Doesn't the Book of Mormon claim to confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh? I don't think 1 and 2 Nephi contradict John at all.

But then, isn't this last point really just a contradiction in interpretation? Who is right?

Ben M.

Why the need to create boundaries?

Maybe I chose the wrong word, I believe "benchmark of truth" would serve my point better. It is essential for most faiths, and according to LDS thought, the standard works would serve as the benchmark for the Saints, although I will admit is is tough to nail down how it's context is interpreted at any given point of time.

Please correct me if I am wrong; then according to your line of thought, the LDS teaching that the LDS church is the only true church, is actually nothing more than a opinion (and not a absolute for all) for those that chose to believe this, and that all absolute truth is therefore subjective and therefore binding to God as absolute truth? Is that a fair assessment?

Regards

[volgadon]

Like I said I have studied this in that past at many different levels. I just did a quick google and here, please don't hold me to any theology from these sites, I didn't really read through them to much. I googled " Hebrew calling of the bride" and these were the first few hits on this topic. The first is a paste from a PDF , I couldn't paste the link sorry, but you can find it if you google the above. (bold mine)

•

Toward the end of the yearlong betrothal period, the bride waited with

great expectancy for the groom to come and for the ceremony to take

place. Even late in the evening, the bride and her wedding party

would keep their oil lamps burning in case it was time for the wedding

to take place.

•

The day of the ceremony was a surprise to both the groom and the

bride.

14 When the bridegroom was asked the date of the wedding, he

could only say something like, “No man knows except my father.”

15

•

When the time was right, the groom’s father would issue the approval

for the ceremony to begin. The groom and his wedding party would

leave the groom’s house to go get his bride. The friends of the bridegroom

would shout, “Behold, the bridegroom comes!” and then they

would blow the shofar. The groomsmen would lead the wedding party

through the streets and bring the bride back to the groom’s home

where the wedding canopy or

huppah awaited.

•

The wedding ceremony, or the nissuin, was performed under the huppah.

The vows made during the betrothal ceremony were completed in

the marriage ceremony. The ceremony was once again sealed with a

cup of wine to indicate the great joy that would accompany the festive

celebration. After the ceremony, the couple consummated the marriage

with sexual relations and lived together as husband and wife

from that point forward.

16

http://www.opendoorm...ishwedding.html

http://www.thewayoft....com/BDbty.html

http://www.staffands...e of Christ.htm

http://www.myjewishl..._Marriage.shtml

http://www.oneaglesw...f_Marriage.html

I surprised this is so new to you, it is esential to understanding the NT and in all reality the message of Christ. What do you think He means when He says He is going to prepare a place for us (many mansions) , and that He will be back for His bride?

For years I've been studying the realia of Israel throughout the centuries. Even a quick glance at your links shows how most of the information is bunk. A few examples from the second one.

"Next would be what we would call an engagement. Instead of a ring they would have the marriage contract, or ketubah. The ketubah was a legally binding agreement of marriage that could only be broken by a divorce."

The ketubah could hardly have been broken by divorce when it was meant to prevent quick and easy divorce by stipulating that any portion of the husband's property could be used to provide the sum to be given the wife at the time of their divorce.

"The ketubah would state what was expected of each other. It would clearly state the rights of the bride during the marriage, what the groom would be expected to provide for her, as well as what was expected of her. There would also be provisions made for her in the case of death of her husband or divorce."

The ketubah didn't stipulate the wife's responsibilities, it stipulate the sum that the Husband would pay the wife. This is even the case in one of the earliest midrashim likening the Torah to a ketubah.

"The bride would give her consent to the ketubah and then it would be read aloud in the presence of the witnesses gathered. As unusual as this seems to us today, the bride would agree to the ketubah before it was read aloud. While it is generally believed that the contents of the ketubah were agreed upon prior to the actual reading aloud of it, this still shows the trust of the bride and her father in the integrity of her groom. This ketubah was given to the bride to keep with her."

The bride and the groom had to agree on the sum before a ketubah could be written, which is not the same thing that the link claims.

"The ketubah was not given in Abraham’s time but instead was given to the Hebrew children on Mt. Sinai more than 400 years later. And in true Hebrew fashion the children of Abraham agreed to the ketubah before it was read to them.

‘The people all responded together, "We will do everything Yahweh has said."’ Exodus 19:8

What are the terms of the ketubah? The bride’s ketubah is recorded in chapters 19-23 of Exodus. The ketubah, or the Torah, was given to teach the bride how to live so she could be His treasured possession. It informs the bride of what is expected of her as the bride of Y’shua. The bride is to keep the ketubah, she is to keep the Torah."

No ketubah was meant to teach the bride how to live. In the midrash I alluded to above, the king's bride takes out her ketubah and reads the promises made in it to her. This gives her the strength to remain faithful while she waits for the absent king. The ketubah is also held by rabbinic source themselveds as an innovation established by R. Shimeon b. Shatah, in other words, not even the rabbinic sources trace it all the way back to Sinai.

Edited February 18, 2013 by volgadon

[Randall57]

For years I've been studying the realia of Israel throughout the centuries. Even a quick glance at your links shows how most of the information is bunk. A few examples from the second one.

"Next would be what we would call an engagement. Instead of a ring they would have the marriage contract, or ketubah. The ketubah was a legally binding agreement of marriage that could only be broken by a divorce."

The ketubah could hardly have been broken by divorce when it was meant to prevent quick and easy divorce by stipulating that any portion of the husband's property could be used to provide the sum to be given the wife at the time of their divorce.

"The ketubah would state what was expected of each other. It would clearly state the rights of the bride during the marriage, what the groom would be expected to provide for her, as well as what was expected of her. There would also be provisions made for her in the case of death of her husband or divorce."

The ketubah didn't stipulate the wife's responsibilities, it stipulate the sum that the Husband would pay the wife. This is even the case in one of the earliest midrashim likening the Torah to a ketubah.

"The bride would give her consent to the ketubah and then it would be read aloud in the presence of the witnesses gathered. As unusual as this seems to us today, the bride would agree to the ketubah before it was read aloud. While it is generally believed that the contents of the ketubah were agreed upon prior to the actual reading aloud of it, this still shows the trust of the bride and her father in the integrity of her groom. This ketubah was given to the bride to keep with her."

The bride and the groom had to agree on the sum before a ketubah could be written, which is not the same thing that the link claims.

"The ketubah was not given in Abraham’s time but instead was given to the Hebrew children on Mt. Sinai more than 400 years later. And in true Hebrew fashion the children of Abraham agreed to the ketubah before it was read to them.

‘The people all responded together, "We will do everything Yahweh has said."’ Exodus 19:8

What are the terms of the ketubah? The bride’s ketubah is recorded in chapters 19-23 of Exodus. The ketubah, or the Torah, was given to teach the bride how to live so she could be His treasured possession. It informs the bride of what is expected of her as the bride of Y’shua. The bride is to keep the ketubah, she is to keep the Torah."

No ketubah was meant to teach the bride how to live. In the midrash I alluded to above, the king's bride takes out her ketubah and reads the promises made in it to her. This gives her the strength to remain faithful while she waits for the absent king. The ketubah is also held by rabbinic source themselveds as an innovation established by R. Shimeon b. Shatah, in other words, not even the rabbinic sources trace it all the way back to Sinai.

So tell me how the wedding was held in Jesus' day, and please provide a cf?

Walk me through it? Tell me the steps?

[volgadon]

So tell me how the wedding was held in Jesus' day, and please provide a cf?

Walk me through it? Tell me the steps?

The general contours are betrothal, a process in which the parents set the conditions for their children to be married, and then, at some interval or another the wedding itself. This time in between was the time for extensive preparation, but parents began preparing from the moment their child was born. A talmudic source considers that one of the causes of the Bar Kochba revolt was the high-handed and insensitive behaviour of the Romans, who chopped down cedars which had been planted for children's future weddings. It is inconceivable that the groom's father simply walked in with the groom and collected the bride out of the blue. The New Testament and other sources describe not only processions, but also feasts, which could last up to a week. As I already said, a wedding was a significant event involving multiple families. The procession would then noisily and brightly make its way back to the groom's dwelling (usually in his parent's home or thereabout).

I'll quote at length from one source I have easily at hand.

Until the judgment scene, the setting is largely realistic, fitting what Jesus' Galilean hearers knew of weddings, the sort of details Jesus used in other parables (e.g., 9:15; 22:3). Wedding processions from the bride's to the groom's home, accompanied by song and dancing, normally happened at night, hence requiring light. The lamps here are not the small, hand-held Herodian period lamps, which would generate very little light, but torches (as in weddings in the rest of the Mediterranean world — Eurip. Daughters of Troy 343-44; Virg. Aen. 4.338-39; 7.388; Culex 246; Ecl. 8.29; Ovid Metam. 1.483, 763; 4.758-59; 6.430; 10.6; Lucan C.W. 2.356; Plut. R.Q. 2, Mor. 263F; Ach. Tat. 2.11.1; cf. Safrai 1974/76b: 758). In poorer villages these torches may have been sticks wrapped with oiled rags, as in traditional Arab weddings (Jeremias 1965b; idem 1972: 174-75; followed by Gundry 1982: 498; pace Edersheim 541). Although details differ from one village to the next, traditional Palestinian village weddings in recent centuries climax with women torchbearers leading the bride to the bridegroom's home, and the torchbearers going out to meet the groom and his male friends (Jeremias 1972: 173). Presumably the bridesmaids wait outside the bride's home for his coming, to escort her en route to his home (Argyle 1963: 189; cf. Safrai 1974/76b: 758; pace Fenton 1977: 396; Meier 1980: 295).²⁰⁵

Greek and Roman weddings also included the torchlit procession to the groom's residence (Ferguson 1987: 55); the groom's residence was usually his parents' home, which would for a time after the banquet become the new couple's residence (Tob 6:13; Derrett 1973: 38; cf. also for other patrilocal cultures, e.g., Mbiti 1970: 182).

In this particular parable (in contrast to 24:42-44), the issue is not that the virgins went to sleep — both the wise and foolish did so; this detail is merely part

203. Although in its Matthean context the parable plainly addresses Jesus' return, some sug-

gest that the original story could address other impending tests of faith (cf. F. F. Bruce 1972a: 71). A

sage could demand preparation for such tests, but an eschatological reading of the parable better suits

the eschatological content of Jesus' message as a whole. This parable may derive from a pre-Synoptic

source collecting much eschatological material (see D. Wenham 1984b: 51-52).

204. This detail, alongside Mk 2:19, supports the authenticity of the parable's present form

more than Dodd and Jeremias suppose; see Witherington 1984: 43 (though Gundry 1982: 497, 501,

derives the whole wedding setting from the tradition behind Lk 12:36).

205. Conducting someone en route to his or her destination often functioned to honor the per-

son so escorted (e.g., Dion. Hal. 7.7.2; Char.

Chaer.

4.7.6; Judg 4:18; 11:31, 34; 1 Sam 13:10; 16:4;

21:1; 25:32; Acts 28:15); it appears in royal parousia contexts (e.g., 1 Thess 4:17; cf. 2 Sam 19:25;

Jdt 5:4; 7:15; Pesiq. R. 51:8; Moulton and Milligan 1976: 53; Best 1977: 199; F. F. Bruce 1982: 102;

Marshall 1983: 131).

of the narrative's setting. The issue is that some were not watchful enough to have sufficient oil (Beare 1981: 482; Schweizer 1975: 467).²⁰⁶ Some scholars have suggested that the torches could burn only fifteen minutes before being rewrapped with more oiled cloth (e.g., France 1985: 351; Witherington 1984: 43). Some other details, like going to buy the oil, fit the logic of the narrative, although most shops would not have been open at night (though for exceptions see Argyle 1975, retracting idem 1963: 189). In traditional Palestinian Arab weddings, messengers might repeatedly announce the bridegroom's coming,²⁰⁷ yet it might be delayed for hours (Jeremias 1972: 173); delays occur while the bride's relatives haggle over the value of presents given them, emphasizing the bride's great value and hence the wisdom of the groom's selection (Jeremias 1972: 17374).²⁰⁸ That the bridesmaids would be sleepy around midnight is not surprising; because ancient lighting tended to be poorer than today, most people were asleep by midnight (e.g., Ovid Metam. 10.368).

All the virgins would have been ready for the groom had he arrived when they expected, but grooms' delays were common enough that they should have anticipated it; this provides clear warning that the parousia might be delayed — perhaps for Jesus' first disciples who expected the kingdom to appear immediately, and surely for those who were disappointed at Jesus' nonreturn at the temple's demise in 70 (cf. 24:22-23, 48; 25:19).²⁰⁹ The apantēsis, or [meeting,] [rendezvous] (25:6), often suggested going out to meet someone and forming his escort into the place where he would be honored.²¹⁰ The [going out] itself, however, fits the parable's story line and should not be pressed for further significance (cf. 24:26).

Some think that [the calculating self-centredness of the 'wise' virgins] contradicts the piety of Jesus' authentic teaching (Vermes 1993: 113), but this is not quite true. First, the parable represents an analogy arguing that personal

206. Boring 1995: 138 cites Plut.

Precepts of Statecraft

1 for another analogy with lamps but

rightly points out that it is the necessity of

oil

for lamps that leads both sources to share the same image.

207. The single [cry] of v. 6 may parallel the trumpet call of 24:31, with 1 Thess 4:16 reflect-

ing a tradition including both (Blomberg 1992a: 370); but the [cry] in 1 Thess 4 is probably a war cry

and thus might be unrelated to the present image.

208. Cf. Eickelman 1989: 174, where the bride's relatives are engaged in [a farewell celebra-

tion … at the bride's house,] and weep when the groom's relatives arrive to escort the bride to the

party that has already begun in his house. The groom has no reason not to delay: he is the central per-

sonage of the event, the timing of which will center around him (Malina 1993: 159).

209. Naturally those who think that the delay of the parousia is only a later motif find the par-

able inauthentic (e.g., reasonably, Vermes 1993: 113), but the delay is already an issue in what is

probably our first NT document (1 Thess 4:13), and if the initial disciples expected only a single

coming or barely an interval between comings (cf. Dodd 1980), an issue already present in Jesus'

ministry could easily translate into this problem by the time of the Gospels. Scott 1989: 70-72 rejects

the parable because it describes community boundaries; yet the very selection of the Twelve began

that process in Jesus' lifetime.

210. As in 1 Thess 4:17; see Milligan 1908: 62; F. F. Bruce 1963: 68-69; idem 1977a:

527n.26; idem 1982: 102; Best 1977: 199; Marshall 1983: 131; cf. Payne 1962: 68; Jdt 7:15;

Pesiq. R. 51:8.

choice determines one's responses to God's gift of the kingdom, an analogy that does not ask all possible moral questions surrounding that determination (cf. 13:44-45). Second, even if the characters exhibited negative features, this hardly precludes their function in the analogy; Jesus characteristically provides unpleasant analogies even for God (as tyrannical or naive; 18:12-14, 23-25; 21:37; Lk 18:1-

and himself (Mt 24:43-44). But, finally, the image is simply not a negative one: the unwillingness of the wise virgins to share their oil reflects their concern for their friend's wedding. Having only enough for their own torches, sharing would cause all the torches to be extinguished, ruining the whole procession (Meier 1980: 295; Gundry 1982: 500).²¹¹

Bridal processions were so important that later rabbis even suspended their lectures so they could hail the passing bride (ARN 4A; 8, §22B); for the groom and (some held) for the attendants, weddings even took precedence over some ritual obligations (t. Ber. 2:10; b. Sukk. 25b; p. Sukk. 2:5, §1). Later teachers even insisted that God specifically supervised Adam's wedding (ARN 8, §23B; b. B. Bat. 75a; Gen. Rab. 8:13; 18:1; Qoh. Rab. 8:1, §2). In short, Palestinian Jewish people regarded weddings as critical events (contrast Romans — O'Rourke 1971: 181), and a breach of etiquette was therefore serious.

Those who fail to watch will suffer shame. The host or groom excludes the foolish virgins as a punishment, not merely because the bolt on the door was cumbersome (cf. Meier 1980: 296).²¹² Doors could be bolted or barred shut (e.g., Aristoph. Wasps 154-55), but the door would hardly be locked throughout the feast, which lasted seven days.²¹³ New guests sometimes arrived during those days, requiring the repeating of the blessings (Safrai 1974/76b: 760; cf. b. Ketub. 7b-8b; p. Ketub. 1:1, §6); elsewhere in the first-century Mediterranean world doorkeepers watched the doors during weddings (Demetrius On Style 3.167). The foolish virgins were not excluded simply because the door was locked (25:10-11), nor because the host actually did not recognize them (25:12), but because they had insulted the bride and groom, as well as all their relatives! The expression [i do not know you] was sometimes used when one wished to treat others as strangers and keep them from approaching (Blomberg 1992a: 371n.76, following Green 1975: 205). This was an offense they would never be allowed to forget.²¹⁴

211. For another bold request for

oil,

cf. Diog. Laert.

Lives

7.1.17; but there the boldness is

that of Cynic impudence in begging, whereas here it stems from desperation.

212. The bridegroom image in the OT represented God (Is 49:18; 54:5-7; Jer 2:2; Ezek 16:8-14;

Hos 2:16-23; Witherington 1990: 212, following Payne 1981b); the banquet host in Jewish parables is

typically God as well. Yet while the parable may assume christological implications (Matthew's audi-

ence would certainly apply the image to Jesus), they remain secondary or tertiary to the parable's focus.

213. Judg 14:12, 17; Tob 11:19; Jos. and Asen. 21:8/6; Sifra Behuq. pq. 5.266.1.7; b. Ketub.

8b; p. Ketub. 1:1, §6; Meg. 4:4, §3; probably Pesiq. Rab Kah. 28:9; Lam. Rab. 1:7, §34; Safrai 1974/

76b: 760; cf. fourteen days in Tob 8:19-20.

214. Vermes 1993: 113 thinks that this [heartless refusal of the 'bridegroom' to admit those

who failed to be properly prepared] speaks against authenticity; but what then of Jesus' many other

images of damnation (e.g., Mk 9:42-48; Mt 8:12//Lk 13:28; Mt 22:13; 24:39-41) or deadly judgment

(Mk 12:9; Mt 22:7)?

-"A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew," Craig S. Keener - Author, W.B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, 1999, p. 596-598

[Randall57]

The general contours are betrothal, a process in which the parents set the conditions for their children to be married, and then, at some interval or another the wedding itself. This time in between was the time for extensive preparation, but parents began preparing from the moment their child was born. A talmudic source considers that one of the causes of the Bar Kochba revolt was the high-handed and insensitive behaviour of the Romans, who chopped down cedars which had been planted for children's future weddings. It is inconceivable that the groom's father simply walked in with the groom and collected the bride out of the blue. The New Testament and other sources describe not only processions, but also feasts, which could last up to a week. As I already said, a wedding was a significant event involving multiple families. The procession would then noisily and brightly make its way back to the groom's dwelling (usually in his parent's home or thereabout).

I'll quote at length from one source I have easily at hand.

-"A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew," Craig S. Keener - Author, W.B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, 1999, p. 596-598

So,

The bride was chosen

The bride gave consent (typically)

Terms were agreed upon by the two families

A contract was written

The groom went away to prepare a place to live (typically at his father house)

The bride prepared for the the wedding, making a dress etc

After a time...always after 9 months for obvious reasons, usually about year the father would then call for his son to get his bride

The bride after the nine months would keep oil in the lamp in anticipation of her husband coming to get her

When the time came the father would tell the son to get his bride and the grooms party would blow the horn and announce the coming of the groom

he would come and get his bride

then the ceremony

consummation

then the festival which was usually around seven days

agreed this is pretty much it?

[volgadon]

After a time...always after 9 months for obvious reasons, usually about year the father would then call for his son to get his bride

The bride after the nine months would keep oil in the lamp in anticipation of her husband coming to get her

When the time came the father would tell the son to get his bride and the grooms party would blow the horn and announce the coming of the groom

No, no, and no.

[Randall57]

No, no, and no.

Then tell me how it came down, you are certainly re-writing history.

[volgadon]

Then tell me how it came down, you are certainly re-writing history.

Are you seriously trying to lose even more credibility? There was not a nine month waiting period (if anything, it would have been less shameful to quickly marry once the deed had been done and it wasn't that terrible once a pair was betrothed), nor was the shofar blown (done on prescribed holidays and in times of alarm), and the father didn't send his son whenever he felt like it to pick up the bride, a date would have been set.

[volgadon]

I should also add that men in Jesus' day got married rather late in life, so they were likely to be more or less independent or orphans. Some sources also indicate that the son had a great deal of say in the timing of the wedding, too. Men also sought out prospective brides at festivals, which provided members of the opposite sex with greater opportunity to fraternise with each other.

[Randall57]

Are you seriously trying to lose even more credibility? There was not a nine month waiting period (if anything, it would have been less shameful to quickly marry once the deed had been done and it wasn't that terrible once a pair was betrothed), nor was the shofar blown (done on prescribed holidays and in times of alarm), and the father didn't send his son whenever he felt like it to pick up the bride, a date would have been set.

Again, show me a cf. It was always after nine months to prove the purity of the bride, I've read of the displaying the sheet (kinda gross). The father sent his son when he felt the home (honeymoon suite) was prepared. Often when the groom was asked when the wedding would take place he would say something along the line of "only my father knows." I'm sorry but this can be proved over and over again with a simple google search.

I am certainly no Hebrew historian, or scholar, but I can read and study and like I said, I have studied this in the past.

Blowing of the Shofar

In Biblical times the shofar was blown to announce important events, such as a call to worship, a wedding, the alarm of war or the coming of peace. http://www.yeshuatyisrael.com/wedding.htm

The wedding chamber and the Chuppah

Before leaving the young man would announce, " I am going to prepare a place for you ", and "I will return for you when it is ready". The usual practice was for the young man to return to his father's house and build a honeymoon room there. This is what is symbolized by the chuppah or canopy which is characteristic of Jewish weddings. He was not allowed to skimp on the work and had to get his father's approval before he could consider it ready for his bride. If asked the date of his wedding he would have to reply, "Only my father knows."

Meanwhile the bride would be making herself ready so that she would be pure and beautiful for her bridegroom. During this time she would wear a veil when she went, out to show she was spoken for (she has been bought with a price) http://www.wildolive.co.uk/weddings.htm

The preparations have to be approved by the groom’s father before he can consider it ready for his bride. The groom, therefore, cannot declare with any certainty the date of his wedding. It is incumbent upon the approval of the Chuppah by his father. Consequently you will find that as per the Ancient Jewish marriage customs the groom must answer “Only my father knows” to any query regarding the date of his wedding. The bride spoken for or betrothed will spend the time between the betrothal and the wedding under a veil whenever she steps out of the house. http://www.muslim-marriage-guide.com/jewish-marriage-customs.html

Back at his father's house, he would build her a "chuppah" (bridal chamber, small mansion) in which they would have their future honeymoon. This was a separate building on his father's property and it had to be very beautiful yet simple since it would only be used for seven days. This construction would usually take the better part of a year and the father of the groom would decide when it was finished. If anyone asked the bridegroom when the wedding was, he would answer, "Only my father knows that." http://www.gindorf.us/coolstuff/writings/articles/wedding.html

[Randall57]

I should also add that men in Jesus' day got married rather late in life, so they were likely to be more or less independent or orphans. Some sources also indicate that the son had a great deal of say in the timing of the wedding, too. Men also sought out prospective brides at festivals, which provided members of the opposite sex with greater opportunity to fraternise with each other.

They were sometimes part of the negotiation of the contract, it does not change the steps of typical marriage. This is a general and typical wedding ceremony and one that Jesus models in the NT. I am sure some Jews did what ever they wanted, as with any cultural tradition.

[volgadon]

Again, show me a cf.

Kind of hard to show you a cf proving a negative.

It was always after nine months to prove the purity of the bride,

CFR, that is a call for references. Feel free to provide credible sources, even if they are only secondary.

I've read of the displaying the sheet (kinda gross). The father sent his son when he felt the home (honeymoon suite) was prepared. Often when the groom was asked when the wedding would take place he would say something along the line of "only my father knows."

This, I'm sure, has as much validity as that nonsense about the shroud being folded like a napkin.

I'm sorry but this can be proved over and over again with a simple google search.

By using a simple google search one can prove that the world is flat, which proves exactly nothing.

I am certainly no Hebrew historian, or scholar, but I can read and study and like I said, I have studied this in the past.

I'm neither a scholar nor the son of a scholar, but I do know how to read Jewish sources.

[Calm]

I'm neither a scholar nor the son of a scholar, but I do know how to read Jewish sources.

Randall, you should be aware that volgadon is an Isreali and is familiar enough with Hebrew to read original Jewish sources among other things and if you were to go and read his many past posts, you will find he practically wallows in history.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Randall writes:

Please correct me if I am wrong; then according to your line of thought, the LDS teaching that the LDS church is the only true church, is actually nothing more than a opinion (and not a absolute for all) for those that chose to believe this, and that all absolute truth is therefore subjective and therefore binding to God as absolute truth? Is that a fair assessment?

Despite its use in the D&C, the notion of a "true church" is largely a meaningless construct. That is, in general terms we don't have "true" nouns. You can't speak of a true rock, or a true tree, and so on. You can speak of ways in which something is true. And this is done usually by dealing with propositions, which can be true or false, and which may be implied.

So, take for example, an LDS Sacrament meeting. Someone gets up, and announces in their testimony that they know the church is true. In making this assertion, what they are really saying is that they hold to a series of propositions about the church which they believe are true. And when a member of the congregation gives his assent in the amen, he is agreeing that there is a series of propositions about the church which they believe are also true. But, within the process, the two sets of propositions (or the 150 sets of propositions) do not have to be the same.

So when we see those two references (D&C 1 and D&C 23) there is this challenge in that neither section really explains what the propositions are, and we simply have ambiguity (which is not the same as some sort of absolute truth or objective list of what is true about the church). In fact, in reading Section 1, I prefer to to focus on the idea of a living church (which sometimes takes a backseat in our discourse to the true church part) because the living implies change. And perhaps the church is true because it is living, and not because in some way it is a repository of absolute truth at all.

The rest of your comment didn't seem to make a lot of sense to me - perhaps you could reword it.

Ben M.

[Kevin Christensen]

SNIP

Please correct me if I am wrong; then according to your line of thought, the LDS teaching that the LDS church is the only true church, is actually nothing more than a opinion (and not a absolute for all) for those that chose to believe this, and that all absolute truth is therefore subjective and therefore binding to God as absolute truth? Is that a fair assessment?

Regards

D&C 1 is a formal revelatory statement concerning "Behold, this is mine authority, and the authority of my servants," v 6, so I think it pays to read the whole thing very carefully. I notice that is explicitly declares the personal and moral fallibility of the leaders (verses 24-28), including the incomplete state of their knowledge, and declares that ongoing revelation is typically conditioned upon seeking. The section also declares that neither truth nor revelation nor goodness is exclusive to the LDS community. (See the verse 18 reference to unspecified "other" and the verse 34 declaration that the Lord is willing to make these things known to "all flesh."

And if we get down to the key verse 30, notice that it does not contain the popular phrase, "only true church" nor the variant "one and only true church,"

And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have ^apower to lay the foundation of this ^bchurch, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of ^cdarkness, the only true and living ^dchurch upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well ^epleased, ^fspeaking unto the church collectively and not individually...

When I parse this verse, I notice that "only" related to the phrase "with which I, the Lord, am well pleased" dealing with church as a collective. And the qualities that underlie the well pleasingness have to to with the word pair, "true and living." In reading the New Testament for clues as to how to understand, rather than assuming I already knew, I looked up passages like "true vine," (menorah and priesthood) "living bread" (sacrament), "living stones," (priesthood holders) "living waters" (revelation and sacrament and baptismal images), "living way" (temple veil imagery), tree of life, truth and life, etc, true God, living God (Jer. 10:10 in a voice of warning passage. The passages in which the Biblical verses appear match the themes of D&C 1 point for point, verse for verse. I think of "true and living" as a merisum that concisely express the themes of D&C 1 as a whole, and also happen to point out the features which in actual practice distinguish the LDS faith from others, not in terms of exclusive or complete truth and virtue, but in well pleasingness relative to those paired qualities.

The source of the common reading, is, I think, most evidence in reading the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth:

POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate. (Resisting snake)

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds. They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong. They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently.

The exclusive truth reading is not so much a doctrine as a phase of individual human development. I think that taking what "true and living" actually means is a good way help a person begin to move to position 9. I have a summary of the Perry Scheme on my profile.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited February 18, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[Benjamin McGuire]

The waiting period to check for pregnancy would have only been three months, Never nine months. This is because by the time three months has passed, the pregnancy is obvious (there isn't a need to wait nine). A required waiting period only occured within the context of Levirate marriage (on the chance that the widow was pregnant due to relations with her now deceased husband). If the widow is pregnant, and the pregnancy is viable, then early consummation between the levir and the widow would result in accidental incest. Issues arising from this come up in Yevamot chapter 4. So, while the Mishnah required the three month wait in these cases (and a longer wait if the widow is found to be pregnant within that time period to see if the baby is viable), it also lays out a number of stipulations to deal with the woman's state during this period of time. This situation is the basis for the present day rulings that halitzah is required by the end of three months, after which the levir becomes automatically responsible for the upkeep of the widow until the ceremony is performed (it can be performed sooner, but three months is the longest waiting period that a widow remains in an indeterminate status). There is a detailed discussion of this in Dvora E. Weisberg's recent book: Levirate Marriage and the Family in Ancient Judaism (2009), 128-141.

It's also possible that Randall is referring to the period of time between qidesh and huppah. But this was mainly an issue in polygamous areas, with the consequent problem of abandoning a betrothed woman and marrying another (and generally most of our literature and examples stem from Medieval Europe (predominantly Spain - although it comes up in France, Germany and Egypt as well). There was, of course edicts by Maimonides dictating that if qiddushin lasted longer than a year, divorce was automatic (suggesting, of course, that a one year waiting period wasn't common at all post-Mamionides). A similar edict was made by Rabbenu Tam. In no instance that I am aware, was this waiting period linked to some kind of purity test - or explained as waiting to verify a woman's purity. There is a great deal of information on this aspect in last year's (2012) Pious and Rebellious: Jewish Women in Medieval Europe by Avraham Grossman.

You can also find some discussion of marriages arranged between men and girls (minors) who were not old enough, forcing a waiting period in Minna Rozen's A History of the Jewish Community in Istanbul: The Formative Years, 1453-1566 (2010). In these circumstances, a waiting period was also necessary - but not for the "obvious reason" that you hint at. Of course, the Mishnah contains a stipulation that a father can arrange a marriage for his daughter only if she is younger than twelve and a half years old at the time. Divorce sometimse occurred because the man simply got tired of waiting for his bride to be to become old enough.

I also have the 1993 The Jewish Family in Antiquity which isn't nearly as accessible as it sounds, but does have one of the more interesting technical articles available on the Ketubah. And I have the 2006 Sex, Marriage, and Family in World Religions which has a lengthy section (75 pages) devoted to Jewish sources with commentary, and which is reasonably accessible. I have the 1995 Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture, and the 2009 The Passionate Torah: Sex and Judaism, and a few other probably less directly related volumes. So I have done a bit of reading on the subject. My interest though, has primarily been focused on the practice of Levirate marriage and its history.

Ben M.

[mathonihah]

Despite its use in the D&C, the notion of a "true church" is largely a meaningless construct. That is, in general terms we don't have "true" nouns. You can't speak of a true rock, or a true tree, and so on. You can speak of ways in which something is true. And this is done usually by dealing with propositions, which can be true or false, and which may be implied.

That is nonsense. The word "true" has many different meanings, one of them being "real," "actual," "genuine," "authentic". It can appear before a noun and qualify a noun, such as "true gold," meaning real gold. See here, here, and here for examples dictionary definitions. So you certainly can have a "true rock" or a "true tree". A true rock is a real, naturally occurring rock, as opposed to a false one, like one made of plastic for example. You can have a true flower or an artificial one made to look like the real thing. A "true church" is a genuine, authentic church which God approves of acknowledges to be his.

So, take for example, an LDS Sacrament meeting. Someone gets up, and announces in their testimony that they know the church is true. In making this assertion, what they are really saying is that they hold to a series of propositions about the church which they believe are true. And when a member of the congregation gives his assent in the amen, he is agreeing that there is a series of propositions about the church which they believe are also true. But, within the process, the two sets of propositions (or the 150 sets of propositions) do not have to be the same.

The word phrase "true church" as used in scripture means a true or authentic denominational church. That is how it is used in the Book of Mormon as well as in the D&C:

“That he has spoken unto the Jews, by the mouth of his holy prophets, even from the beginning down, from generation to generation, until the time comes that they shall be restored to the true church and fold of God; when they shall be gathered home to the lands of their inheritance, and shall be established in all their lands of promise.” (2 Nephi 9:2)

“And they began to be divided into classes; and they began to build up churches unto themselves to get gain, and began to deny the true church of Christ.” (4 Nephi 1:26)

“And again, there was another church which denied the Christ; and they did persecute the true church of Christ, because of their humility and their belief in Christ; and they did despise them because of the many miracles which were wrought among them.” (4 Nephi 1:29)

“And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—” (D&C 1:30)

“And, behold, it is your duty to unite with the true church, and give your language to exhortation continually, that you may receive the reward of the laborer. Amen.” (D&C 23:7)

So when we see those two references (D&C 1 and D&C 23) there is this challenge in that neither section really explains what the propositions are, and we simply have ambiguity (which is not the same as some sort of absolute truth or objective list of what is true about the church). In fact, in reading Section 1, I prefer to to focus on the idea of a living church (which sometimes takes a backseat in our discourse to the true church part) because the living implies change. And perhaps the church is true because it is living, and not because in some way it is a repository of absolute truth at all.

True Church in D&C 1 and 23 means authentic denominational church, as distinct from thousands of others which are not. In the Scriptures the Lord also talks a lot about "my Church," as distinct from those which are not his. In D&C 1:30 the Lord does explain what distinguishes his true Church from the rest; it is the one with which he is "well pleased". The implication of that is that with the rest of them he is not, otherwise there would not be a need to start a new one. The fact that he has decided to start a new church means that he didn't like any of the other ones; and that is what the "true Church" means. It is the one that he likes best, and which he approves of more than any other.

Edited February 18, 2013 by mathonihah