Where Does Apologetics Fall Short?????

[Benjamin McGuire]

mathoniah writes:

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 made to look like the real thing. A "true church" is a genuine, authentic church which God acknowledges to be his.

Not at all. Any church that people attend is by this defintion an "actual" church, or a "real" church, or a "genuine" or an "authentic" church. We don't stand up in testimony meeting and assert that the Mormon church is "real" or "actual" or "genuine" or "authentic" when we say "the church is true" - that would be like stating the obvious - we are here, so this must be a real experience, right? The last sentence though shifts and misapplies these definitions to try and defend your point - when we talk about a "true rock" we never mean by this that its a rock because God has deemed that it is and acknowledged it to be his.

And, as a side note, being a true rock is dependant on the definition of a 'rock', and definitions are, of course, somewhat malleable. Ten years ago, Pluto was still a true planet.

I am not suggesting that we can't use the notion of a true church, or that we shouldn't use the notion of a true church. I am just pointing out that the notion is ambiguous. We can say that there are true and false churches. But, those terms aren't actually very useful until we start creating meaningful definitions and using specific propositions - what things are true within a church, and what things are not true within a church. Obviously, Mormonism doesn't have all the truth, and certainly isn't the only repository of truth. And within this context of epistemological concerns - where we are very much interested in asking what is truth and where do we find it, and how do we recognize it, to use these kinds of ambiguous terms that tend to be exclusive rather than inclusive hampers the discussion not helps it. In the context I was responding to, Randall wants to use the notion of the "true church" as a blunt instrument. And I am simply refusing to engage from that perspective.

Aren't semantic arguments fun?

Ben M.

[rodheadlee]

The offshoot folks reap the whirlwind of living the restored gospel.

But as a methodology for knowing the truth, as two people following the exact same method can come to such differing conclusions, the method seems full of vagaries and wholly unreliable.

So where can I and my wife go to be sealed fo all eternity by someone with the Keys and Authority to do so in one of these offshoots? Do they have temples world wide? Do they have the Authority from Jesus Christ to seal us for all eternity?

[mathonihah]

Not at all. Any church that people attend is by this defintion an "actual" church, or a "real" church, or a "genuine" or an "authentic" church. We don't stand up in testimony meeting and assert that the Mormon church is "real" or "actual" or "genuine" or "authentic" when we say "the church is true" - that would be like stating the obvious - we are here, so this must be a real experience, right? The last sentence though shifts and misapplies these definitions to try and defend your point - when we talk about a "true rock" we never mean by this that its a rock because God has deemed that it is and acknowledged it to be his.

"True Church" means true church of God. It is one that he acknowledges to be his church. There are many churches which claim to be his; but there is one which he acknowledges to be his, and that is called to be the true Church.

[Benjamin McGuire]

No, Mathonihah, it doesn't mean that. You certainly will not find any dictionary that supports your point of view. You understand it to mean that - but your interpretation isn't the meaning of the phrase (only the meaning of the phrase that you associate with a very specific context - as you point out). But, whatever floats your boat.

Ben M.

[mathonihah]

No, Mathonihah, it doesn't mean that. You certainly will not find any dictionary that supports your point of view. You understand it to mean that - but your interpretation isn't the meaning of the phrase (only the meaning of the phrase that you associate with a very specific context - as you point out). But, whatever floats your boat.

Ben M.

Wrong! I gave you dictionary references. Here are the definitions:

From the Free dictionary

Definition 2

. Real; genuine.

See Synonyms at authentic

.

From dictionary.com

Definition 2

. real; genuine; authentic:

true gold; true feelings

.

From MacMillan Dictionary

Definition 2

. real/actual:

[ONLY BEFORE NOUN] real or actual, especially when compared with how something seems to be

Lara never shows her true feelings.

The study shows that the true cost of nuclear energy is much higher than most people think

.

Definition 3

. with right qualities:

[ONLY BEFORE NOUN] a true friend, leader etc, or true love, happiness etc, has the qualities that you would expect that type of person or thing to have

Lynn has always been a true friend to me.

Curry was a true champion in every sense.

Nelson has a true passion for literature

.

[Randall57]

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.

I am the one posting links for back up, all one has to do is read them (and do their own simple google search), and many are from Jewish sources. I'm sure Volgadon is very bright and learned, much more than I, but I am sorry the evidence shows he is mistaken on this subject. I pasted a dozen or so links, and I can post many more, supporting this view, I received hit after hit on the subject. If I am wrong, which I certainly can be, then show me. But keep in mind if the view I hold is incorrect there are allot of folks equally mistaken, and it will rewrite 2 thousand years of biblical interpretation of passages like the one in question and pose problem even in today's Jewish orthodox service in that in my reading some of the hits I received, it appears that many of the tradition, although abridged, are in the wedding service.

Again all he has to do is show me different, the only link he provided more or less supported my view, and after all this, I still do not understand his view in that he has not clearly laid it out.

I tell you what, I'll dig in it a little more and if I am incorrect I have no problem saying so.

[volgadon]

I am the one posting links for back up, all one has to do is read them (and do their own simple google search), and many are from Jewish sources. I'm sure Volgadon is very bright and learned, much more than I, but I am sorry the evidence shows he is mistaken on this subject. I pasted a dozen or so links, and I can post many more, supporting this view, I received hit after hit on the subject. If I am wrong, which I certainly can be, then show me. But keep in mind if the view I hold is incorrect there are allot of folks equally mistaken, and it will rewrite 2 thousand years of biblical interpretation of passages like the one in question and pose problem even in today's Jewish orthodox service in that in my reading some of the hits I received, it appears that many of the tradition, although abridged, are in the wedding service.

Again all he has to do is show me different, the only link he provided more or less supported my view, and after all this, I still do not understand his view in that he has not clearly laid it out.

I tell you what, I'll dig in it a little more and if I am incorrect I have no problem saying so.

You posted a bunch of internet links, almost none of them sourced. That doesn't quite cut it. As for today's orthodox wedding services, I've been to more than a few of them. Different communities have different traditions, and the books Ben has suggested are a good place to start.

[volgadon]

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.

It was more an issue of the man moving somewhere outside the normal reach of the community, where none knew him, and worst of all, possibly dying there without witnesses who could inform the court. I've seen Grossman's book in the library, haven't delved into it yet.

[volgadon]

the only link he provided more or less supported my view

Less rather than more. It did not support your eccentric notions that the virgins here are brides awaiting their bridegrooms. It did not support your notion tht the bridegroom appeared out of the blue, at an unexpected date, and that dates weren't set for weddings. If anything, the source I quoted mentioned meticulous preparations, which is quite out of place with your claims.

[Randall57]

It was more an issue of the man moving somewhere outside the normal reach of the community, where none knew him, and worst of all, possibly dying there without witnesses who could inform the court. I've seen Grossman's book in the library, haven't delved into it yet.

You posted a bunch of internet links, almost none of them sourced. That doesn't quite cut it. As for today's orthodox wedding services, I've been to more than a few of them. Different communities have different traditions, and the books Ben has suggested are a good place to start.

Well, again, lay out for me, in your own words, like I did for you, the typical wedding steps in the time of Christ.

Ben made a good point in regards to waiting nine months that a women would show in three months, and I guess we can take it further to 30 days or so, yet much harder to prove. The point being the waiting time waiting for the groom to prepare a place, was also a waiting time to prove the purity of the bride. Also one thing I failed to mention and was reminded of in my reading was the future brides wearing of a veil representing "bought with a price."

My point still stands which generally follows like this ( and I understand more is involved):

the choosing of the couple by their folks

the contract

the legal binding of the two

the groom leaves to prepare a place (up to two years)

the bride prepares, waits, and keeps oil in the lamp knowing the groom can come at anytime (usually at night)

when the place was ready by approval of the father, he would tell his son to get his bride ( if asked when before this, the groom would say something like "only my father knows" )

the groom and his party would go to the bride, and the horn would be blown.

the ceremony

the bride and groom would consummate the marriage

the seven day festival.

If the souses I posted are wrong, please point out the error and again, and more importantly give me, in your own words, the general process. You asked me where I got such "nonsense", and although my original post was posted from memory, I have given you more than enough data that shows, whether correct or incorrect, that this is a/the prominent interpretation and understanding of a traditional Jewish wedding at the time of Christ. You are quick to say I am wrong, but slow to provide how that actual wedding went down?

It did not support your eccentric notions that the virgins here are brides awaiting their bridegrooms.

Hardly "eccentric" my any stretch, tens of millions of folks hold this view, who do you believe the virgins are, and how does it fit in the context of the text, what I have laid makes the passage come alive. The brides who had oil in the lamps were ready for their husband to retrive them, the five foolish ones were not, the text is clear.

Christ will come to take His possestion, the Church, which was bought with a price, so be ready in that we do not know when He will return, Only His Father knows. He went to prepare a place for us, again we were bought with a price on the cross, and we had better not be foolish like the five who did not have oil for their lamps.

Matthew 25

New King James Version (NKJV)

The Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins

25 “Then the kingdom of heaven shall be likened to ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. ² Now five of them were wise, and five were foolish. ³ Those who were foolish took their lamps and took no oil with them, ⁴ but the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. ⁵ But while the bridegroom was delayed, they all slumbered and slept.

⁶ “And at midnight a cry was heard: ‘Behold, the bridegroom is coming;^[a] go out to meet him!’ ⁷ Then all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps. ⁸ And the foolish said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ ⁹ But the wise answered, saying, ‘No, lest there should not be enough for us and you; but go rather to those who sell, and buy for yourselves.’ ¹⁰ And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding; and the door was shut.

¹¹ “Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, ‘Lord, Lord, open to us!’ ¹² But he answered and said, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, I do not know you.’

¹³ “Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour^[b] in which the Son of Man is coming.

You tell me what the parable means to you?

John 14

New King James Version (NKJV)

The Way, the Truth, and the Life

14 “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. ² In My Father’s house are many mansions; (lit rooms or dwellings...mine) if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.^{[b] 3} And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. ⁴ And where I go you know, and the way you know.”

⁵ Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, and how can we know the way?”

⁶ Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

1 cor 6;20

²⁰ For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body^[c] and in your spirit, which are God’s.

[volgadon]

Well, again, lay out for me, in your own words, like I did for you, the typical wedding steps in the time of Christ.

Not before you answer my call for references using a credible source, preferrably one in print.

Ben made a good point in regards to waiting nine months that a women would show in three months,

He also pointed out that it applied to leviritical marriage only.

and I guess we can take it further to 30 days or so,

Says who?

yet much harder to prove. The point being the waiting time waiting for the groom to prepare a place, was also a waiting time to prove the purity of the bride. Also one thing I failed to mention and was reminded of in my reading was the future brides wearing of a veil representing "bought with a price."

I'm not even sure that a veil was worn in daily life. THe Mishnah makes a point of Jewish women in Arabia veiling themselves on the Sabbath. If women were veilied at all times, why would it be noteworthy?

My point still stands which generally follows like this ( and I understand more is involved):

the choosing of the couple by their folks

the contract

the legal binding of the two

the groom leaves to prepare a place (up to two years)

the bride prepares, waits, and keeps oil in the lamp knowing the groom can come at anytime (usually at night)

when the place was ready by approval of the father, he would tell his son to get his bride ( if asked when before this, the groom would say something like "only my father knows" )

the groom and his party would go to the bride, and the horn would be blown.

the ceremony

the bride and groom would consummate the marriage

the seven day festival.

I've bolded the more serious inaccuracies.

If the souses I posted are wrong, please point out the error and again, and more importantly give me, in your own words, the general process.

I seriously suspect that you wouldn't read it, either.

You asked me where I got such "nonsense", and although my original post was posted from memory, I have given you more than enough data that shows, whether correct or incorrect, that this is a/the prominent interpretation and understanding of a traditional Jewish wedding at the time of Christ. You are quick to say I am wrong, but slow to provide how that actual wedding went down?

Please. I've already remarked on that. Merely throwing a ton of incorrect internet links at me proves nothing.

Hardly "eccentric" my any stretch, tens of millions of folks hold this view,

Tens of millions? Feel free to provide hard evidence backing this statement. Yes, this is another call for references. I know of no serious commentary holding your view.

who do you believe the virgins are, and how does it fit in the context of the text,

I already said bridesmaids. The source I quoted also raises other possibilities.

what I have laid makes the passage come alive.

So would inserting an attack by godzilla, and just as plausible.

The brides who had oil in the lamps were ready for their husband to retrive them, the five foolish ones were not, the text is clear.

Were they all his brides he would have had to have given them a bill of divorce, not merely locked them out.

[Randall57]

Not before you answer my call for references using a credible source, preferrably one in print.

He also pointed out that it applied to leviritical marriage only.

Says who?

I'm not even sure that a veil was worn in daily life. THe Mishnah makes a point of Jewish women in Arabia veiling themselves on the Sabbath. If women were veilied at all times, why would it be noteworthy?

I've bolded the more serious inaccuracies.

I seriously suspect that you wouldn't read it, either.

Please. I've already remarked on that. Merely throwing a ton of incorrect internet links at me proves nothing.

Tens of millions? Feel free to provide hard evidence backing this statement. Yes, this is another call for references. I know of no serious commentary holding your view.

I already said bridesmaids. The source I quoted also raises other possibilities.

So would inserting an attack by godzilla, and just as plausible.

Were they all his brides he would have had to have given them a bill of divorce, not merely locked them out.

LOL, I said people, not commentaries, J. Vernon McGee, Matthew Henry, John Mac Aurthur, so and so on hold this view and have tens of Millions of followers, this a a very evangelical and protestant view, not ecentric as you claim.

Not before you answer my call for references using a credible source, preferrably one in print.

What would you consider credible...John MacAurtur? A rabbi? Jewish Customs and Manners?

If you want to play a game fine, but if you can not offer your take on the parable, then it shows a complete weakness and lack of a position and argument, and a lack of ability to discuss what each of us believe and why we believe it.

Tell me what sourses are credible to you, so I don't waste our time.

Moderator note: You are expected to produce credible scholarship in the form of books or articles written by scholars or experts accredited in their fields when asked to. Google links by unknown parties are not acceptable. If you cannot produce documentation for your claims you are not allowed to continue arguing about it. You will be removed from the thread if you do.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Randall -

The problem is simple. The best resources for Jewish marriage customs in New Testament times are Halakhic material, and not the New Testament. Using a parable of Jesus to define the wedding process is deeply problematic. It's even worse to speak of the whole metaphor of Jesus and the church as a replacement for discussion of historical marriage practices in Israel.

You speak, for example, of arranged marraiges, but this is only true of women - and only true of women under the age of maturity. Most of the time father's made that arrangement when they could because there was an economic incentive to do so (they got money from the son-in-law). (There is, in the Talmud the story of R. Aqiva, whose wife proposed to him - and who was then punished by her father, because she took that economic decision away from him). We also have several texts dscribing how older women could initiate marriage proposals. And in all of the discussion of arranged marraiges in rabbinic material, the only references for men is that they always represent themselves - either in person or through an agent. They are never represented by their parents. This doesn't mean that their parents couldn't help arrange a marriage, it means that they couldn't arrange a marriage for their son without their sons consent. Jewish halakhic law is very clear on this point. Once a woman is considered an adult, her father is forbidden to make an arranged marriage for her (she must act as her own agent at that point, and her formal consent is a requirement). Or consider this passage from the Talmud (M. Taanit 4:8 ):

There were no happier days for Israel than the fifteenth of Av and Yom ha-Kippurim in which the daughters of Jerusalem would go out in borrowed white garments so as not to shame those who do not have (their own garments). And the daughters of Jerusalem went forth to dance in the vineyards. And what did they say? Young man lift up your eyes and see what you would choose for yourself.

Once a daughter was over the age - once she was an adult, there wasn't a necessity to pay the father a price (this didn't change the other economic issues).

Scholars (those that I have read at any rate) suggest that arranged marriages were much more common among the upper classes. While situations like the one described above in Mishnah Taanit were much more popular among the lower classes. It makes sense of course - marriage was very much an economic issue. If you couldn't afford to pay the price, then it limited the options for making an advantageous marriage for yourself (or for your son).

The problem with the websites you link to is that they aren't interested in relating to actual real weddings, but to the metaphorical wedding between Jesus and the Church. The one that doesn't and which provides some useful information doesn't cover most of these incorrect details. This is why your links are useless in this discussion, and why it feels pointless arguing with you. If you only use them for your sources, and demand that they are good evidence, no one is going to take you seriously.

The thing about parables is that they are only partially supposed to relate to the real world. Part of them isn't. The fact that we aren't familiar with common life at the time sometimes makes it hard for us to understand what is supposed to be startling or surprising to us. Like the parable of the harvest. The yield is so staggeringly high (at the upper ends) as to be recognizable as a pipe dream to anyone who knows much about agriculture in Palestine at the time of Jesus. If you want a good discussion on the major interpretations of the parable of the wise and foolish virgins - I recommend this link:

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

It should take you to the appropriate page where the discussion of the parable begins in ernest. The book is 'While the Bridegroom is with Them': Marriage, Family, Gender and Violence in the Gospel of Matthew (2005) by Marianne Blickenstaff. It seems to cover most of the salient points.

Ben M.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Benjamin McGuire

[DBMormon]

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.

What if god answers through other people, you then may need to turn to them

[Randall57]

Moderator note: You are expected to produce credible scholarship in the form of books or articles written by scholars or experts accredited in their fields when asked to. Google links by unknown parties are not acceptable. If you cannot produce documentation for your claims you are not allowed to continue arguing about it. You will be removed from the thread if you do.

Well I did, at least I thought I did. John MacAurthur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._MacArthur http://johnmacarthur.org/

There is without out a doubt few that know more about New Testament theology than JM, he is a expert. I recommend his 4 volume commentary on Matthew.

Also, the Expositors Bible Commentary, Zondervan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_L._Barker

http://www.amazon.com/John-R.-Kohlenberger/e/B001IGHPGM

Both agree with my exegesis, I wish that expensive commentaries were available to cut and paste online, but I do not know of any, but i will keep looking, that is why I asked what commentaries he would except. I have both commentaries above, but not online. Honestly I know Volg. believes I am wrong, and that's Okay, but I think it would be fair if I knew what his position is so I can respond in context to his thought.

I am trying,

[Nemesis]

Wikipedia scholarship? Really? Most grade schools don't even allow Wikipedia to be used a source we don't allow it here either.

Nemesis

[Randall57]

Wikipedia scholarship? Really? Most grade schools don't even allow Wikipedia to be used a source we don't allow it here either.

Nemesis

I used wiki for credentials only.

[Randall57]

Randall -

The problem is simple. The best resources for Jewish marriage customs in New Testament times are Halakhic material, and not the New Testament. Using a parable of Jesus to define the wedding process is deeply problematic. It's even worse to speak of the whole metaphor of Jesus and the church as a replacement for discussion of historical marriage practices in Israel.

You speak, for example, of arranged marraiges, but this is only true of women - and only true of women under the age of maturity. Most of the time father's made that arrangement when they could because there was an economic incentive to do so (they got money from the son-in-law). (There is, in the Talmud the story of R. Aqiva, whose wife proposed to him - and who was then punished by her father, because she took that economic decision away from him). We also have several texts dscribing how older women could initiate marriage proposals. And in all of the discussion of arranged marraiges in rabbinic material, the only references for men is that they always represent themselves - either in person or through an agent. They are never represented by their parents. This doesn't mean that their parents couldn't help arrange a marriage, it means that they couldn't arrange a marriage for their son without their sons consent. Jewish halakhic law is very clear on this point. Once a woman is considered an adult, her father is forbidden to make an arranged marriage for her (she must act as her own agent at that point, and her formal consent is a requirement). Or consider this passage from the Talmud (M. Taanit 4:8 ):

Once a daughter was over the age - once she was an adult, there wasn't a necessity to pay the father a price (this didn't change the other economic issues).

Scholars (those that I have read at any rate) suggest that arranged marriages were much more common among the upper classes. While situations like the one described above in Mishnah Taanit were much more popular among the lower classes. It makes sense of course - marriage was very much an economic issue. If you couldn't afford to pay the price, then it limited the options for making an advantageous marriage for yourself (or for your son).

The problem with the websites you link to is that they aren't interested in relating to actual real weddings, but to the metaphorical wedding between Jesus and the Church. The one that doesn't and which provides some useful information doesn't cover most of these incorrect details. This is why your links are useless in this discussion, and why it feels pointless arguing with you. If you only use them for your sources, and demand that they are good evidence, no one is going to take you seriously.

The thing about parables is that they are only partially supposed to relate to the real world. Part of them isn't. The fact that we aren't familiar with common life at the time sometimes makes it hard for us to understand what is supposed to be startling or surprising to us. Like the parable of the harvest. The yield is so staggeringly high (at the upper ends) as to be recognizable as a pipe dream to anyone who knows much about agriculture in Palestine at the time of Jesus. If you want a good discussion on the major interpretations of the parable of the wise and foolish virgins - I recommend this link:

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

It should take you to the appropriate page where the discussion of the parable begins in ernest. The book is 'While the Bridegroom is with Them': Marriage, Family, Gender and Violence in the Gospel of Matthew (2005) by Marianne Blickenstaff. It seems to cover most of the salient points.

Ben M.

Thanks I will read through it.

[volgadon]

Well I did, at least I thought I did. John MacAurthur http://en.wikipedia....hn_F._MacArthur http://johnmacarthur.org/

There is without out a doubt few that know more about New Testament theology than JM, he is a expert. I recommend his 4 volume commentary on Matthew.

Also, the Expositors Bible Commentary, Zondervan

http://en.wikipedia....nneth_L._Barker

http://www.amazon.co...er/e/B001IGHPGM

Both agree with my exegesis, I wish that expensive commentaries were available to cut and paste online, but I do not know of any, but i will keep looking, that is why I asked what commentaries he would except. I have both commentaries above, but not online. Honestly I know Volg. believes I am wrong, and that's Okay, but I think it would be fair if I knew what his position is so I can respond in context to his thought.

I am trying,

Found MacArthur's commentary, here is what he said on the identity of the virgins. "moment the foolish bridesmaids realized their predicament: they had no oil. It

was not that they had been unaware of their lack of oil but that they were not

concerned enough about it to acquire it before the bridegroom's arrival. Perhaps

they ..."

So, he also says that they are bridesmaids, not brides.

[Randall57]

Found MacArthur's commentary, here is what he said on the identity of the virgins. "moment the foolish bridesmaids realized their predicament: they had no oil. It

was not that they had been unaware of their lack of oil but that they were not

concerned enough about it to acquire it before the bridegroom's arrival. Perhaps

they ..."

So, he also says that they are bridesmaids, not brides.

And? it is a parable, the virgins represent people, 5 were ready, 5 weren't, for the coming of the groom (Christ)...okay they were bridesmaids, it does not change a thing. Did you read the rest of what JM wrote?

What is your interpretation of the parable?

Edited February 19, 2013 by Randall57

[volgadon]

it does not change a thing.

It changes a lot. It was one of the linchpins of your argument, not to mention that it shows how relaible your claims are when your own sources directly contradict them.

[DBMormon]

you guys should start a new thread on this

[Randall57]

It changes a lot. It was one of the linchpins of your argument, not to mention that it shows how relaible your claims are when your own sources directly contradict them.

I assume you are not going to answer my questions, or address the context of the parable?

[volgadon]

you guys should start a new thread on this

Ok.