Jump to content

Marriages in the Second Temple?


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I'll confess I find you hard to read, clarkgoble.  Perhaps Jane_Doe is right (see above) and nothing you wrote contradicts her position.  I can't tell if you're softly advocating "two breaks" with your prose or if you're honestly indifferent & merely open to the possibility.  But she's certainly not open to two breaks, she asserts--

You're misunderstanding me Fivesolas.  I said that there's "One Great Apostasy, *all* keys were lost" (no emphasis).  The Great Apostasy is defined as the time when *all* the keys were lost.  Yes, there were other apostasies other time (note the lower case) as clearly shown in scripture.  But only one Great Apostasy wherein all keys were lost.  

Link to comment
12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm saying we have no way of knowing from the data. I then was going through the history and the possible ways to read the history. I then gave my personal opinion that it was done in limited amounts from the time of the Temple of Solomon to the destruction and possibly in a more limited form in the second temple period. But there's really no convincing evidence one way or an other. There's also no theological need one way or an other.

In other words, we don't know & we don't need to know.  That answer feels vaguely familiar...

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems to me most LDS would want to make the case their temple rituals are of ancient practice and origin, not something invented and put to use in the past 19 decades (especially since anyone interested can go to youtube and see them).  In a charge of novelty, the Second Temple and its known functions are going to be exhibit A.  So if there's no evidence any contemporary LDS practices went on in the Second Temple--LDS would want a clear & concise explanation for their absence.  Otherwise exhibit A looks highly relevant to the question and contemporary LDS temple practices look very novel indeed, to the outside world. 

Or maybe it's just to validate a former temple president, if my other reason is lame.

;0)

But no worries.  Appreciate your input, clarkgoble. 

--Erik

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems to me most LDS would want to make the case their temple rituals are of ancient practice and origin, not something invented and put to use in the past 19 decades (especially since anyone interested can go to youtube and see them).  In a charge of novelty, the Second Temple and its known functions are going to be exhibit A.  So if there's no evidence any contemporary LDS practices went on in the Second Temple--LDS would want a clear & concise explanation for their absence.  Otherwise exhibit A looks highly relevant to the question and contemporary LDS temple practices look very novel indeed, to the outside world. 

Well I explained all that in the stuff you found confusing. There are pretty strong theological reasons for why we might not expect to find it in the second temple period that I outlined already. Put an other way, for your objection to carry much weight you'd have to explain why we should expect them in the second temple given Mormon views of the law of Moses.

Link to comment
On 11/20/2017 at 8:49 PM, Five Solas said:

Here's how I always had it in my head: LDS believe their religion to be a "restoration"--including temple ordinances.  Until the past few days, it honestly never occurred to me LDS would concede their latter-day temple practices are a novelty, existing for less than 19 decades of human history. 

There's simply no way for me to reconcile what I'm reading here with the experience I shared in my OP.  Recall it was my skepticism (expressed in a small joke) that was considered out of step.  But I do appreciate the replies & the schooling I'm getting.  And it's certainly not the first time I've been wrong.

I didn't see anyone give my viewpoint so, I am presenting it here.

The sealing ordinances were not a restoration of the practices of Solomon's temple. They represent a new and everlasting covenant with the Gentiles:

Isaiah 61:6 But ye shall be named the Priests of the Lord: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.

7 ¶ For your shame ye shall have double; and for confusion they shall rejoice in their portion: therefore in their land they shall possess the double: everlasting joy shall be unto them.

8 For I the Lord love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.

9 And their seed shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among the people: all that see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the Lord hath blessed.

This is not the covenant the Lord brought in the fifth seal - that He brought to the Jews and to the lost tribes as well as Gentiles.

Link to comment

Edit- some of these points which I  had not read have already been made

The entire idea of Dispensationalism is that the gospel is revealed and then lost, revealed and then lost, etc.

Islam essentially teaches the same principle, and of course there are other dispensationalist faiths as well.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

Edit- some of these points which I had not read have already been made

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
On 11/21/2017 at 8:44 AM, clarkgoble said:

I think "lost" carries a misleading image. I know that the Church has used that terminology a lot but I also think it's led to some confusion about keys. I think the evidence is pretty compelling that keys were withdrawn. To me the image of the woman fleeing to the wilderness as a type of the church is that idea of withdrawal from the earth. Nibley has a fairly convincing argument that fairly early on in Christianity it was clear many things weren't taught to everyone and were withdrawn. He appeals to 1 Clement for many of these things.

When speaking of the sweep of history though it's not enough to talk about time but one must also talk about place. For instance if by the end of the 1st century the higher keys had been withdrawn in Palestine it's simultaneously clear that they persisted in the Bountiful region in the new world to around 400 AD. It's unclear what other communities may also have had keys. Clearly Mormons think the Nephites weren't the only group. It's just that we don't have records (yet) of the other groups.

With regards to the pre-Christian era I think it's complex and there's not necessarily agreement on it. (This isn't helped by the paucity of pre-exilic records and even pretty lousy records for the early 2cd temple period) So a common belief was that the original law Moses brought down from the mountain was tied to what we consider the covenants of the Melchezedek Priesthood. It was the Israelite's not being prepared to live that which led to the 40 years wandering and imposition of the Law of Moses. As I mentioned though there's indication of Melchezedek Priestood even if it wasn't given to everyone. Not just because of the Sons of Moses but because it seems like Moses' father in law represented a community independent of the Israelites with the gospel and Melchezedek Priesthood. It's also quite possible that with the conquest of Israel by Babylon that there were communities with the priesthood. I mentioned Elephanti in Egypt but there may have been other communities. The whole temples outside of Jerusalem isn't something well understood by scholars. Are these "apostate" syncretistic groups or were they accepted by the main body in Babylon? There's a lot of indication for the later. However one thing I think scholars agree upon is that with the exile Judaism because broken up in to very different groups, each with their own beliefs.

To your main point I think we have to distinguish between apostasy (of which there have been many including in the modern church) and withdrawal of keys in toto from the geographic community. A common 20th century belief was that the priesthood in general was withdrawn with Elijah but that individual prophets had it either given by other prophets (like the mantle fell on Elisha) or by angels. So the perception is that Malachi had the priesthood for instance. Yet the evidence for this view which was common the Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie isn't great.

Anyway, I think there's a fair bit of confusion over apostasy partially due to the influence of JFS/BRM and Talmage whose theories were sometimes misleading as much as they were helpful. Again Nibley's work on apostasy, while still as speculative as Talmage or BRM, is an interesting competing view. And of course there's been people discussing the issue in the contemporary Mormon studies era since the 90's.

Yeah, this gets the official MFB stamp of approval.  ;)  That's my understanding as well

Link to comment
On 11/21/2017 at 8:54 AM, clarkgoble said:

By the time of Christ it seems like there was a restoration, but even there it's unclear. For instance we know of Jesus going to the mountain with Peter, James and John in a fashion that sounds similar to the restoration of temple rites and the Melchezedek Priesthood for Joseph Smith. But is that just bringing Peter, James and John into the higher mysteries with those traditions still persisting? It's not at all clear. Such things just weren't put in the gospels and weren't discussed by Paul. At best we get glimpses of them in passing but they aren't the focus of any of the records we have in the New Testament.

Agree.

For Five Solas:

Note the admonition to "tell the vision to no man" after the Transfiguration on the mountain.

And yes Paul makes what appear to be VERY DIRECT temple references in Hebrews (ie - the author of Hebrews does) if you see them with LDS eyes.   I have learned much about the meaning of the temple from the NT and my scripture margins are full of scribbles in these sections.

Link to comment
On 11/21/2017 at 8:55 AM, Jane_Doe said:

Note: nothing in @clarkgoble's post disagrees with the statement that the Melchizedek Priesthood was held by Christ and Peter (that's just a fact).  Rather's he's discussing various human's speculations about  Melchizedek Priesthood  in the time between Moses and Christ.  

And then we have to recall the BOM peoples having the Melchizedek Priesthood as well and yet performing Aaronic priesthood ordinances in their temples.

Link to comment
On 11/21/2017 at 9:56 AM, JLHPROF said:

 

  • 1 And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two other tables of stone, like unto the first, and I will write upon them also, the words of the law, according as they were written at the first on the tables which thou brakest; but it shall not be according to the first, for I will

Never noticed "brakest" vs "breakest" before.

All KJV's seem to have it the same way.

Interesting linguistic development I guess.   Spelling changes I presume this is an example.

It made my eyes put on the brakes.  ;)

 

Link to comment
On 11/26/2017 at 8:40 AM, Five Solas said:

In other words, we don't know & we don't need to know.  That answer feels vaguely familiar...

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems to me most LDS would want to make the case their temple rituals are of ancient practice and origin, not something invented and put to use in the past 19 decades (especially since anyone interested can go to youtube and see them).  In a charge of novelty, the Second Temple and its known functions are going to be exhibit A.  So if there's no evidence any contemporary LDS practices went on in the Second Temple--LDS would want a clear & concise explanation for their absence.  Otherwise exhibit A looks highly relevant to the question and contemporary LDS temple practices look very novel indeed, to the outside world. 

Or maybe it's just to validate a former temple president, if my other reason is lame.

;0)

But no worries.  Appreciate your input, clarkgoble. 

--Erik

The endowment is different than the PRESENTATION of the endowment.

The endowment itself consists of making covenants and God promising to give blessings to us if we fulfill those convenants.   It is essentially like a contract

Then we have the PRESENTATION which is like a temple drama- for example the Book of Job is a temple drama.  It is essentially a "play" presenting sublime truths symbolically.

So yes the PRESENTATION changes regularly- many times in the last 150 years- and yes the PRESENTATION as we have it today did not NECESSARILY exist anciently yet PORTIONS and elements did exist anciently- certain symbolic representations have not changed as shown by Nibley etc and others.

In fact some new films were recently put out, and in 1990 there were more substantive changes to the PRESENTATION but the covenants and promises remained unchanged.

So no problem with it not being all ancient.

That relates to the similarities between temple rites and Masonry- yes the presentation in some cases are similar but not the covenants etc.  Big difference.

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The endowment is different than the PRESENTATION of the endowment.

The endowment itself consists of making covenants and God promising to give blessings to us if we fulfill those convenants.   It is essentially like a contract

Then we have the PRESENTATION which is like a temple drama- for example the Book of Job is a temple drama.  It is essentially a "play" presenting sublime truths symbolically.

So yes the PRESENTATION changes regularly- many times in the last 150 years- and yes the PRESENTATION as we have it today did not NECESSARILY exist anciently yet PORTIONS and elements did exist anciently- certain symbolic representations have not changed as shown by Nibley etc and others.

In fact some new films were recently put out, and in 1990 there were more substantive changes to the PRESENTATION but the covenants and promises remained unchanged.

I agree 100% that the endowment and the presentation of the endowment are two very different things.  One is ancient, the other can and has changed over the years.

But I don't think it is historically accurate to say only the presentation has changed since it was restored.  Just on the other thread the changes to the covenant of chastity have been noted.  Also many of the things eliminated as presentation were actually key to the endowment the Lord restored.

- "Let me give you a definition in brief. Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the house of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell." Brigham Young

Link to comment
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree 100% that the endowment and the presentation of the endowment are two very different things.  One is ancient, the other can and has changed over the years.

But I don't think it is historically accurate to say only the presentation has changed since it was restored.  Just on the other thread the changes to the covenant of chastity have been noted.  Also many of the things eliminated as presentation were actually key to the endowment the Lord restored.

- "Let me give you a definition in brief. Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the house of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell." Brigham Young

I haven't seen the "other thread"

What were the changes?   I don't have a problem with any changes frankly I was only trying to deliver the party line.

I see all these words as inaccurate anyway- and I see multiple paradigms at the same time as I speak to conservatives and progressives at once so I try to make it ambiguous enough to communicate to both sides of the community

But I have not noticed changes in the wording, so I would appreciate it if you linked to the post or just told me- whatever is easier for you.  :)

Oh wait- was the word "relations" involved?   If that is it just confirm.   Seems to me that was a change and a good one that cleared up ambiguity

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The endowment is different than the PRESENTATION of the endowment.

The endowment itself consists of making covenants and God promising to give blessings to us if we fulfill those convenants.   It is essentially like a contract

Then we have the PRESENTATION which is like a temple drama- for example the Book of Job is a temple drama.  It is essentially a "play" presenting sublime truths symbolically.

So yes the PRESENTATION changes regularly- many times in the last 150 years- and yes the PRESENTATION as we have it today did not NECESSARILY exist anciently yet PORTIONS and elements did exist anciently- certain symbolic representations have not changed as shown by Nibley etc and others.

In fact some new films were recently put out, and in 1990 there were more substantive changes to the PRESENTATION but the covenants and promises remained unchanged.

So no problem with it not being all ancient.

That relates to the similarities between temple rites and Masonry- yes the presentation in some cases are similar but not the covenants etc.  Big difference.

I have to confess, part of me admires your approach, mfbukowski.  Leave it to you to reconcile the irreconcilable.  It stands to reason that if LDS believed in your distinction, there would be a lot less concern about leaked temple content on the internet.  After all, the viewer only sees the presentation layer which is subject to change and which is separate & apart from the underlying substance--which does not change

Perhaps a helpful analogy is the scroll images published with the Book of Abraham.  To the mere student of ancient Egyptian history--they represent an unremarkable funerary text.  But if one looks through this presentation layer, with spiritual eyes & discernment--one will then begin to see Joseph Smith's book.  That's a pretty good analogy, right?

I will say when you appeal to Nibley to back up your argument, it's generally not going to go well (been there, done that, got the t-shirt).  But are there any "elements" you could call out and share with the thread's readers, without making us wade through acres of Nibley's invariably unhelpful prose?

--Erik

__________________________________________________________

Only came outside to watch the night fall with the rain
I heard you making patterns rhyme
Like some New Romantic looking for the TV sound
You'll see I'm right some other time

--Duran Duran, 1981

Link to comment
4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I haven't seen the "other thread"

What were the changes?   I don't have a problem with any changes frankly I was only trying to deliver the party line.

I see all these words as inaccurate anyway- and I see multiple paradigms at the same time as I speak to conservatives and progressives at once so I try to make it ambiguous enough to communicate to both sides of the community

But I have not noticed changes in the wording, so I would appreciate it if you linked to the post or just told me- whatever is easier for you.  :)

Oh wait- was the word "relations" involved?   If that is it just confirm.   Seems to me that was a change and a good one that cleared up ambiguity

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69920-variety-lds-musician-confronts-his-church’s-lgbt-stance-in-new-sundance-documentary/?do=findComment&comment=1209776791

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I have to confess, part of me admires your approach, mfbukowski.  Leave it to you to reconcile the irreconcilable.  It stands to reason that if LDS believed in your distinction, there would be a lot less concern about leaked temple content on the internet.  After all, the viewer only sees the presentation layer which is subject to change and which is separate & apart from the underlying substance--which does not change

Perhaps a helpful analogy is the scroll images published with the Book of Abraham.  To the mere student of ancient Egyptian history--they represent an unremarkable funerary text.  But if one looks through this presentation layer, with spiritual eyes & discernment--one will then begin to see Joseph Smith's book.  That's a pretty good analogy, right?

I will say when you appeal to Nibley to back up your argument, it's generally not going to go well (been there, done that, got the t-shirt).  But are there any "elements" you could call out and share with the thread's readers, without making us wade through acres of Nibley's invariably unhelpful prose?

--Erik

__________________________________________________________

Only came outside to watch the night fall with the rain
I heard you making patterns rhyme
Like some New Romantic looking for the TV sound
You'll see I'm right some other time

--Duran Duran, 1981

Not exactly at all.

Have you ever thought that in English we have 26 squiggles on a page to express every thought ever conceived by God or man at least that man has made up about how God is?

That even if you believe the Bible is "God breathed" He has limited Himself to those 26 squiggles to try to get his message through our thick skulls?

Do you really think that tells us all God wants us to know?

That maybe those 26 symbols are inadequate for the job?

The promises are between you and God and if you understood the symbols you would know 

You have not understood one word of what I have said and have re-constructed it according to your own limited understanding, I suppose as we all do.  Not meant to be a derogatory comment- you know I like you a lot.  I never said the "substance" does not change as if they ever could "represent" anything like a "substance" or some underlying unchanging "TRVTH" etched in stone.

I said the PROMISES do not change.   PROMISES are about relationships between people or "Beings" if you prefer.   Relationships of love and commitments made are deeper than the words which express them.   You know that.  Your commitment to those you love is not contained in the words "for better or worse" or "til death do we part".

If you said it a different way would it better express the "substance" of that commitment?   If maybe you said it in Egyptian with different symbols  then it would be more or less real?

What really matters- the words and the 26 squiggles or your personal commitment?

To use your words, the words "for better or for worse" "represent an unremarkable (marriage) text".  But beneath it there is an "unchanging substance?"

You think that about sums up your marriage?

It is not about "seeing Joseph Smith's book."  It is about seeing the universality of certain rituals and commitments.

What Nibley is saying is that there are parallels just like this one:

 

Quote

 

The Book of the Dead also contains a spell for this process, which the deceased may use on themselves:[2]

My mouth is opened by Ptah,
My mouth's bonds are loosed by my city-god.
Thoth has come fully equipped with spells,
He looses the bonds of Seth from my mouth.
Atum has given me my hands,
They are placed as guardians.
My mouth is given to me,
My mouth is opened by Ptah,
With that chisel of metal
With which he opened the mouth of the gods.
I am Sekhmet-Wadjet who dwells in the west of heaven,
I am Sahyt among the souls of On.

Connections with Psalm 51[edit]

Parallels between the Opening of the Mouth and Psalm 51 have been noted.[3] The parallels include:

  • Mentions of ritual washing with special herbs (Psalm 51:2,7).
  • Restoration of broken bones (verse 8).
  • "O Lord, open thou my lips" (verse 15).
  • Sacrifices (verses 16, 17, and 19).

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opening_of_the_mouth_ceremony

So no, when you open Psalm 51 you do not "see the Book of the Dead" nor does the Egyptian translate into Hebrew with the same meanings.

And if you married your wife in an ancient Egyptian marriage ceremony - your COMMITMENT to your wife would not be different, not because of "substance" but because of the nature of human relationships.

We all live, we all die, we all make commitments and promises to our loved ones and to our God. 

THAT is the connection.

The connection is in the FUNCTION of the ceremony but not too many cultures/religions have ceremonies for theosis.

Not surprising there would be similarities.  

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I have to confess, part of me admires your approach, mfbukowski.  Leave it to you to reconcile the irreconcilable.  It stands to reason that if LDS believed in your distinction, there would be a lot less concern about leaked temple content on the internet.  After all, the viewer only sees the presentation layer which is subject to change and which is separate & apart from the underlying substance--which does not change

Perhaps a helpful analogy is the scroll images published with the Book of Abraham.  To the mere student of ancient Egyptian history--they represent an unremarkable funerary text.  But if one looks through this presentation layer, with spiritual eyes & discernment--one will then begin to see Joseph Smith's book.  That's a pretty good analogy, right?

I will say when you appeal to Nibley to back up your argument, it's generally not going to go well (been there, done that, got the t-shirt).  But are there any "elements" you could call out and share with the thread's readers, without making us wade through acres of Nibley's invariably unhelpful prose?

--Erik

__________________________________________________________

Only came outside to watch the night fall with the rain
I heard you making patterns rhyme
Like some New Romantic looking for the TV sound
You'll see I'm right some other time

--Duran Duran, 1981

And you want "elements" in early Christianity?

The Coptic Orthodox (EGYPTIAN) annointing for confirmation

http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/sacraments/2_confirmation.html

What if I told you there were striking parallels there as well?

So from the Book of the Dead even through Coptic rites to the LDS temple.

Boy that old Joe Smith sure got around!

Quote

 

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems to me most LDS would want to make the case their temple rituals are of ancient practice and origin, not something invented and put to use in the past 19 decades (especially since anyone interested can go to youtube and see them).  In a charge of novelty, the Second Temple and its known functions are going to be exhibit A.  So if there's no evidence any contemporary LDS practices went on in the Second Temple--LDS would want a clear & concise explanation for their absence.  Otherwise exhibit A looks highly relevant to the question and contemporary LDS temple practices look very novel indeed, to the outside world. 


 

Yeah, perhaps you are missing something all right.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
On 12/2/2017 at 10:15 PM, mfbukowski said:

Not exactly at all.

Have you ever thought that in English we have 26 squiggles on a page to express every thought ever conceived by God or man at least that man has made up about how God is?

That even if you believe the Bible is "God breathed" He has limited Himself to those 26 squiggles to try to get his message through our thick skulls?

Do you really think that tells us all God wants us to know?

That maybe those 26 symbols are inadequate for the job?

The promises are between you and God and if you understood the symbols you would know 

You have not understood one word of what I have said and have re-constructed it according to your own limited understanding, I suppose as we all do.  Not meant to be a derogatory comment- you know I like you a lot.  I never said the "substance" does not change as if they ever could "represent" anything like a "substance" or some underlying unchanging "TRVTH" etched in stone.

I said the PROMISES do not change.   PROMISES are about relationships between people or "Beings" if you prefer.   Relationships of love and commitments made are deeper than the words which express them.   You know that.  Your commitment to those you love is not contained in the words "for better or worse" or "til death do we part".

If you said it a different way would it better express the "substance" of that commitment?   If maybe you said it in Egyptian with different symbols  then it would be more or less real?

What really matters- the words and the 26 squiggles or your personal commitment?

To use your words, the words "for better or for worse" "represent an unremarkable (marriage) text".  But beneath it there is an "unchanging substance?"

You think that about sums up your marriage?

It is not about "seeing Joseph Smith's book."  It is about seeing the universality of certain rituals and commitments.

What Nibley is saying is that there are parallels just like this one:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opening_of_the_mouth_ceremony

So no, when you open Psalm 51 you do not "see the Book of the Dead" nor does the Egyptian translate into Hebrew with the same meanings.

And if you married your wife in an ancient Egyptian marriage ceremony - your COMMITMENT to your wife would not be different, not because of "substance" but because of the nature of human relationships.

We all live, we all die, we all make commitments and promises to our loved ones and to our God. 

THAT is the connection.

The connection is in the FUNCTION of the ceremony but not too many cultures/religions have ceremonies for theosis.

Not surprising there would be similarities.  

As always, you give me things to think about.  (Too many sometimes, and then I can't make timely response.)

I do think it's interesting you believe human language puts a constraint on God & His ability to communicate (if I'm understanding you correctly).  That seems odd to me (as any externally imposed limit on God seems contradictory).

And I'll confess some amusement with the previous Nibley quote likening one of the Psalms to "a spell" from the Book of the Dead.  Between the bible-believer & the magician--so much common ground waiting to be discovered there.  That Nibley, I wonder why he's not more popular with younger readers?  (At the risk of creating a stereotype, I can pretty accurately guess the speaker/writer's generation when Nibley's name gets dropped.)  Too much academic rigor for them, I guess...

;0)

--Erik 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I do think it's interesting you believe human language puts a constraint on God & His ability to communicate (if I'm understanding you correctly).  That seems odd to me (as any externally imposed limit on God seems contradictory).

Surely you don't think we understand God perfectly- do you?

The mathematics of the atonement to "pay the bill" for the sins of mankind?  How much suffering precisely was "enough"?  How exactly does God's grace boost our spirits to make them good enough to enter his presence?  What is the calculus of his will for us- why some of us have trials and others do not?   Why do bad things happen to good people ?   

How did God create the earth through his word?   I keep trying to command things to exist and somehow it never works.....  A chocolate milkshake that was perfectly healthy might be nice instead of eating broccoli .... I keep snapping my fingers to make that exist and it doesn't seem to work.   Could God do it?  I think no problem.

So why does He not communicate all that to us?   How did Joshua make the sun stand still without causing the earth to fall apart?

Do you really think the human mind can comprehend all that?   Why does he want to keep it a secret then?

Yes he only teaches us what we need to know but why not the rest?  Could our paltry carnal brains actually understand this or is our inability to comprehend a "constraint" on God?

I think clearly that our stupidity is not a constraint on God any more than our inability to talk to worms is a constraint on us.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...