Interesting Switch Of Topics

[Nathair/|\]

According to the Sacred Tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church the True Cross was made from three different types of wood: cedar, pine and cypress.^[7] This is an allusion to Isaiah 60:13: "The glory of Lebanon shall come unto thee, the fir tree, the pine tree, and the box [cypress] together to beautify the place of my sanctuary, and I will make the place of my feet glorious." The link between this verse and the Crucifixion lies in the words, "the place of my feet", which is interpreted as referring to the suppendaneum (foot rest) on which Jesus' feet were nailed (see Orthodox cross).

There is a tradition that the three trees from which the True Cross was constructed grew together in one spot. A traditional Orthodox icon depicts Lot, the nephew of Abraham, watering the trees.^[7] According to tradition, these trees were used to construct the Temple in Jerusalem ("to beautify the place of my sanctuary"). Later, during Herod's reconstruction of the Temple, the wood from these trees was removed from the Temple and discarded, eventually being used to construct the cross on which Jesus was crucified ("and I will make the place of my feet glorious").

from Wikipedia

[Damien the Leper]

That's where the argument falls flat. It is a fun little exercise, though Calmoriah's comment makes me feel goofy for pursuing it. 

 

So would you say that it's this divine spark that allows reproduction between beings were biology would normally block?

 

I don't know how to explain it. However it may happen is a mystery and not tied into "same species".

 

(On a side note the idea of the "divine spark" is traditionally a gnostic idea, you aren't going cathar on me are you?!  )

 

No way! I like heresy. It's fun but Gnosticism is ridiculous.

[JLHPROF]

We have the NT Canon, Works of Josephus, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Ignatius of Antioch and many others who wrote extensively on the orthodoxy of the first century church. To say there is doctrine and ordinances missing from the NT Canon is a mere rabbit hole and look where that got the Gnostics.

 

I don't claim to be an expert in these ancient writings.  But when I read through the New Testament I see MANY hints, references, clues, and items that are part of Mormonism that aren't in the sectarian Christianity.  But as I said, it can't be really proven. 

 

Nibley (please, let's not get into a Nibley debate) did write a book called Mormonism & Early Christianity, which whether you agree or not with his conclusions and scholarship  is just absolutely full of items found in early Christianity that are found in Mormonism that are absent from other Christian beliefs.

I don't believe there is doctrine and ordinances missing from the NT Canon, I just think we don't recognize them for what they are.

[Damien the Leper]

I don't claim to be an expert in these ancient writings.  But when I read through the New Testament I see MANY hints, references, clues, and items that are part of Mormonism that aren't in the sectarian Christianity.  But as I said, it can't be really proven. 

 

Nibley (please, let's not get into a Nibley debate) did write a book called Mormonism & Early Christianity, which whether you agree or not with his conclusions and scholarship  is just absolutely full of items found in early Christianity that are found in Mormonism that are absent from other Christian beliefs.

I don't believe there is doctrine and ordinances missing from the NT Canon, I just think we don't recognize them for what they are.

 

Nibley is of no concern to me.

 

One of the most mistaken practices is drawn from Corinthians concerning proxy baptism. Tertullian and Chrysostom of the ECFs declared this very Marcionite practice as heresy. All practices and beliefs under Marcion are heretical and should be condemned. Many scholars disagree with the proof texted practice as orthodox or actually Christian. Therefore, proxy baptism isn't a first century practice hidden in the layers of the Corinthian letter. This is just an example.

 

Also, if someone could point out temple practices that are not derived from or share similar characteristics to the heretical Freemasons that can be found in actual antiquity as a real practice that would be great. Otherwise, not even 'revelation' sustains the endowment.

[MormonMason]

We have the NT Canon, Works of Josephus, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Ignatius of Antioch and many others who wrote extensively on the orthodoxy of the first century church. To say there is doctrine and ordinances missing from the NT Canon is a mere rabbit hole and look where that got the Gnostics.

There are things missing.  Paul fed his readers with milk because they weren't ready for meat, and so told them.  The author of Hebrews did the same thing.  Jesus taught things in such ways that his true meaning was not to be understood by the masses, and that he had things to teach them that they could not yet bear (these teachings never made it into the Bible).

 

Paul mentions "a wisdom" that is communicated to the "initiated" (most translations say "the prefect") and that it is communicated "in a mystery."  (See 1 Corinthians 2:6-7).  The vocabulary in the passage is the same vocabulary used in the mystery religions.

 

As to Ignatius, which text recension? There are at least three (short, middle, long), if not more.  It is hard to judge something of this nature with his work because it has been rewritten so extensively.  As to Irenaeus, he dated to the second century as did Justin Martyr.  It is a hard thing to judge first century orthodoxy by means of a second century writer.  And, how to judge orthodoxy of first century Christianity via a first century Jewish historian?

 

...

 

One of the most mistaken practices is drawn from Corinthians concerning proxy baptism. Tertullian and Chrysostom of the ECFs declared this very Marcionite practice as heresy. All practices and beliefs under Marcion are heretical and should be condemned. Many scholars disagree with the proof texted practice as orthodox or actually Christian. Therefore, proxy baptism isn't a first century practice hidden in the layers of the Corinthian letter. This is just an example.

 

Also, if someone could point out temple practices that are not derived from or share similar characteristics to the heretical Freemasons that can be found in actual antiquity as a real practice that would be great. Otherwise, not even 'revelation' sustains the endowment.

 

Proxy baptism most certainly was mentioned by Paul.  He does not condemn it but uses it as an example of a vain work if the resurrection is not real.  The Greek of the passage does state that the work of baptism is done on behalf of the deceased by those who performed the rite.  This predated Marcion by quite a long time.  The Greek structure of the passage also shows that the event occurred regularly and was known to every Corinthian.  Surely a heretical practice would have earned some sort of condemnation from Paul, wouldn't it? That was, after all, his practice.

 

And, heretical Freemasons? Freemasonry is not a religion and is not a substitute for religion.  How is it, therefore, heretical?

 

As to the endowment not being sustained by revelation, were you not aware that it is talked about in Section 124 of the Doctrine and Covenants? Washings and anointings are mentioned there (part of the endowment) as is mention of "memorials for your sacrifices of the sons of Levi", oracles, and "conversations and statutes and judgments" to be received in the temple.  As to Freemasonry, it itself is very syncretistic, having borrowed ritual and other elements from a number of sources both ancient and modern.

Edited October 3, 2013 by MormonMason

[Damien the Leper]

There are things missing.  Paul fed his readers with milk because they weren't ready for meat, and so told them.  The author of Hebrews did the same thing.  Jesus taught things in such ways that his true meaning was not to be understood by the masses, and that he had things to teach them that they could not yet bear (these teachings never made it into the Bible).

 

Then please enlighten me on the examples Paul would have been absolutely familiar with and verify them. IOW, CFR. And no mere allusions. Those are inconsequential and will not satisfy the CFR.

 

Paul mentions "a wisdom" that is communicated to the "initiated" (most translations say "the prefect") and that it is communicated "in a mystery."  (See 1 Corinthians 2:6-7).  The vocabulary in the passage is the same vocabulary used in the mystery religions.

 

From the Matthew Henry Commentary:

 

 

In this part of the chapter the apostle shows them that though he had not come to them with the excellency of human wisdom, with any of the boasted knowledge and literature of the Jews or Greeks, yet he had communicated to them a treasure of the truest and the highest wisdom: We speak wisdom among those who are perfect (v. 6), among those who are well instructed in Christianity, and come to some maturity in the things of God. Those that receive the doctrine as divine, and, having been illuminated by the Holy Spirit, have looked well into it, discover true wisdom in it. They not only understand the plain history of Christ, and him crucified, but discern the deep and admirable designs of the divine wisdom therein. Though what we preach is foolishness to the world, it is wisdom to them. They are made wise by it, and can discern wisdom in it. Note, Those who are wise themselves are the only proper judges of what is wisdom; not indeed the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, but the wisdom of God in a mystery (v. 6, v. 7); not worldly wisdom, but divine; not such as the men of this world could have discovered, nor such as worldly men, under the direction of pride, and passion, and appetite, and worldly interest, and destitute of the Spirit of God, can receive. Note, How different is the judgment of God from that of the world! He seeth not as man seeth. The wisdom he teaches is of a quite different kind from what passes under that notion in the world. It is not the wisdom of politicians, nor philosophers, nor rabbis (see v. 6), not such as they teach nor such as they relish; but the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom of God —what he had a long time kept to himself, and concealed from the world, and the depth of which, now it is revealed, none but himself can fathom. It is the mystery which hath been hid from ages and generations, though now made manifest to the saints (Col. 1:26 ), hid in a manner entirely from the heathen world, and made mysterious to the Jews, by being wrapped up in dark types and distant prophecies, but revealed and made known to us by the Spirit of God. Note, See the privilege of those who enjoy the gospel revelation: to them types are unveiled, mysteries made plain, prophecies interpreted, and the secret counsels of God published and laid open. The wisdom of God in a mystery is now made manifest to the saints. Now, concerning this wisdom, observe,I. The rise and origin of it: It was ordained of God, before the world, to our glory, v. 7. It was ordained of God; he had determined long ago to reveal and make it known, from many ages past, from the beginning, nay, from eternity; and that to our glory, the glory of us, either us apostles or us Christians. It was a great honour put upon the apostles, to be entrusted with the revelation of this wisdom. It was a great and honourable privilege for Christians to have this glorious wisdom discovered to them. And the wisdom of God discovered to them. And the wisdom of God discovered in the gospel, the divine wisdom taught by the gospel, prepares for our everlasting glory and happiness in the world to come. The counsels of God concerning our redemption are dated from eternity, and designed for the glory and happiness of the saints. And what deep wisdom was in these counsels! Note, The wisdom of God is both employed and displayed for the honour of the saints-employed from eternity, and displayed in time, to make them glorious both here and hereafter, in time and to eternity. What honour does he put on his saints!

 

From Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible:

 

 

6, 7. Yet the Gospel preaching, so far from being at variance with true "wisdom," is a wisdom infinitely higher than that of the wise of the world.

we speak--resuming "we" (preachers, I, Apollos, &c.). from "we preach" ( 1 Corinthians 1:28 ), only that here, "we speak" refers to something less public (compare 1 Corinthians 2:7 1 Corinthians 2:13 , "mystery . . . hidden") than "we preach," which is public. For "wisdom" here denotes not the whole of Christian doctrine, but its sublimer and deeper principles.

perfect--Those matured in Christian experience and knowledge alone can understand the true superiority of the Christian wisdom which Paul preached. Distinguished not only from worldly and natural men, but also from babes, who though "in Christ" retain much that is "carnal" ( 1 Corinthians 3:1 1 Corinthians 3:2 ), and cannot therefore understand the deeper truths of Christianity ( 1 Corinthians 14:20 , Philippians 3:15 , Hebrews 5:14 ). Paul does not mean by the "mystery" or "hidden wisdom" ( 1 Corinthians 2:7 ) some hidden tradition distinct from the Gospel (like the Church of Rome's disciplina arcani and doctrine of reserve), but the unfolding of the treasures of knowledge, once hidden in God's counsels, but now announced to all, which would be intelligently comprehended in proportion as the hearer's inner life became perfectly transformed into the image of Christ. Compare instances of such "mysteries," that is, deeper Christian truths, not preached at Paul's first coming to Corinth, when he confined himself to the fundamental elements ( 1 Corinthians 2:2 ), but now spoken to the "perfect" ( 1 Corinthians 15:51 , Romans 11:25 , Ephesians 3:5 Ephesians 3:6 ). "Perfect" is used not of absolute perfection, but relatively to "babes," or those less ripe in Christian growth (compare Philippians 3:12 Philippians 3:15 , with 1 John 2:12-14 ). "God" ( 1 Corinthians 2:7 ) is opposed to the world, the apostles to "the princes [great and learned men] of this world" ( 1 Corinthians 2:8 ; compare 1 Corinthians 1:20 ) [bENGEL].

come to naught--nothingness ( 1 Corinthians 1:28 ). They are transient, not immortal. Therefore, their wisdom is not real [bENGEL]. Rather, translate with ALFORD, "Which are being brought to naught," namely, by God's choosing the "things which are not (the weak and despised things of the Gospel), to bring to naught (the same verb as here) things that are" ( 1 Corinthians 1:28 ).

7. wisdom of God--emphatically contrasted with the wisdom of men and of this world ( 1 Corinthians 2:5 1 Corinthians 2:6 ).

in a mystery--connected in construction with "we speak": We speak as dealing with a mystery; that is not something to be kept hidden, but what heretofore was so, but is now revealed. Whereas the pagan mysteries were revealed only to a chosen few, the Gospel mysteries were made known to all who would obey the truth. "If our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost" ( 2 Corinthians 4:3 ), "whom the God of this world hath blinded." Ordinarily we use "mystery" in reference to those from whom the knowledge is withheld; the apostles, in reference to those to whom it is revealed [WHATELY]. It is hidden before it is brought forward, and when it is brought forward it still remains hidden to those that are imperfect [bENGEL].

ordained--literally, "foreordained" (compare 1 Corinthians 2:9 ), "prepared for them that love Him."

before the world--rather, "before the ages" (of time), that is, from eternity. This infinitely antedates worldly wisdom in antiquity. It was before not only the wisdom of the world, but eternally before the world itself and its ages.

to our glory--ours both now and hereafter, from "the Lord of glory" ( 1 Corinthians 2:8 ), who brings to naught "the princes of this world."

 

As to Ignatius, which text recension? There are at least three (short, middle, long), if not more.  It is hard to judge something of this nature with his work because it has been rewritten so extensively.  As to Irenaeus, he dated to the second century as did Justin Martyr.  It is a hard thing to judge first century orthodoxy by means of a second century writer.  And, how to judge orthodoxy of first century Christianity via a first century Jewish historian?

 

Josephus was more than merely a historian. However, his critical and crucial writings helped to put into perspective what Christianity looked like in the first century. This has hardly been debatable.

 

The original long form of Ignatius' work would be best.

 

The ECFs were very familiar with the teachings and practices that were in circulation from 30 CE to 125 CE. This is also hardly debatable. Where do you think Irenaeus got his information from? Also, was it not Ignatius who was a student of John? The information has been collected and passed on. Any derailment from theology and praxis in popular circulation in the time frame given above do not hold water.

 

Proxy baptism most certainly was mentioned by Paul.  He does not condemn it but uses it as an example of a vain work if the resurrection is not real.  The Greek of the passage does state that the work of baptism is done on behalf of the deceased by those who performed the rite.  This predated Marcion by quite a long time.  The Greek structure of the passage also shows that the event occurred regularly and was known to every Corinthian.  Surely a heretical practice would have earned some sort of condemnation from Paul, wouldn't it? That was, after all, his practice.

 

Here is the Greek:

 

 

ἐπεὶ τί ποιήσουσιν οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν εἰ ὅλως νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται τί καὶ βαπτίζονται ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν

 

It is perplexing to me that many misrepresent and misinterpret what Paul is talking about. Paul is dealing with skepticism in the Corinthian church on the subject of Resurrection. Baptism is being used as a teaching method. Essentially, what Paul is getting at is that if there is no resurrection then what is the point of any of this? If Jesus did not rise, as the Sadducees claim, then we will not rise. This text has nothing to do with actual baptism but is, like I said, about Resurrection. The text and history could not be more clear!

 

And, heretical Freemasons? Freemasonry is not a religion and is not a substitute for religion.  How is it, therefore, heretical?

 

The symbolism found in Masonic rites, artwork, lodges are all worthless. They mean absolutely nothing! If Freemansonry is not religious, as you say, then none of its symbolism should be in the LDS temple or on your underwear. Plain and simple. There is nothing Christian about the compass and square you see on Masonic signs. Nothing.

 

As to the endowment not being sustained by revelation, were you not aware that it is talked about in Section 124 of the Doctrine and Covenants? Washings and anointings are mentioned there (part of the endowment) as is mention of "memorials for your sacrifices of the sons of Levi", oracles, and "conversations and statutes and judgments" to be received in the temple.  As to Freemasonry, it itself is very syncretistic, having borrowed ritual and other elements from a number of sources both ancient and modern.

 

Pay much closer attention to what I said. I asked for evidence that demonstrated similarity in actual biblical temple practices and symbol. If the endowment can be found in Jewish or (supposed) early Christian temple practice then I will gladly retract my statement. But as antiquity stands Jews nor Jewish Christians would be familiar with the LDS temple ceremonies as they exist.

Edited October 3, 2013 by Valentinus

[Damien the Leper]

DO NO POST TEMPLE CONTENT REGARLESS OF YOUR PERCEPTION OF IT'S CONTEXT.

 

~Mods

[Damien the Leper]

 

None of this symbolism is Christian nor can it be applied to any Christian practices.

[JLHPROF]

 

None of this symbolism is Christian nor can it be applied to any Christian practices.

 

Now this is where someone throws out a reference or picture that they believe alludes to the Endowment.  Then you show a reason why it's invalid.  Then you show a reference against the validity of the Endowment.  Then some other scholarly person shoots down your reference.  And so on and so on, proving nothing to anyone.

That's my point - we see what we want to see and cannot prove anything.  For me, there is ample allusion and hidden symbolism to prove the ancient origins of the endowment.  For you, there are absolutely no valid evidences.

[Tacenda]

None of this symbolism is Christian nor can it be applied to any Christian practices.

I didn't know about JS's borrowings of Masonic symbols and handshakes until late in life, it hurt my belief in temple rituals henceforth, bummer.

[JLHPROF]

I didn't know about JS's borrowings of Masonic symbols and handshakes until late in life, it hurt my belief in temple rituals henceforth, bummer.

 

Well, that's why EVERYTHING in the gospel really ends up as a matter of faith.  See, I believe Joseph Smith (et al) when they said that they didn't borrow form masonry, but that masonry had corrupted forms of the endowment dating back to Solomon's temple.  I also read an article a while back showing that there are martial arts grips (tai chi I think) that are basically identical to these masonic handshakes.  (Sorry, don't remember where).

For me the fact that these grips appear in european masonry AND and oriental discipline speaks to their ancient origins disseminating down through various channels.

 

I have no issue with the idea that his involvement in masonry might have led Joseph towards revelation.  But that is what my faith allows for.

[Damien the Leper]

Now this is where someone throws out a reference or picture that they believe alludes to the Endowment.  Then you show a reason why it's invalid.  Then you show a reference against the validity of the Endowment.  Then some other scholarly person shoots down your reference.  And so on and so on, proving nothing to anyone.

That's my point - we see what we want to see and cannot prove anything.  For me, there is ample allusion and hidden symbolism to prove the ancient origins of the endowment.  For you, there are absolutely no valid evidences.

 

Then demonstrate historical evidence in antiquity that proves anything in either of these pictures meant anything to early Christians.

[Damien the Leper]

Well, that's why EVERYTHING in the gospel really ends up as a matter of faith.  See, I believe Joseph Smith (et al) when they said that they didn't borrow form masonry, but that masonry had corrupted forms of the endowment dating back to Solomon's temple.  I also read an article a while back showing that there are martial arts grips (tai chi I think) that are basically identical to these masonic handshakes.  (Sorry, don't remember where).

For me the fact that these grips appear in european masonry AND and oriental discipline speaks to their ancient origins disseminating down through various channels.

 

I have no issue with the idea that his involvement in masonry might have led Joseph towards revelation.  But that is what my faith allows for.

 

Random coincidence not divine revelation. There's a difference. Masonry and all it's symbols are more like a children's occult club but for adults.