Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Aprons of Fig Leaves and Coats of Skins


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
Matt 22 [11] And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
[12] And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. [
13] Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
[14] For many are called, but few are chosen.

 

 

Edited by cdowis
Posted

Exodus 40:12-15 

12 And thou shalt bring Aaron and his [daughters] unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and wash them with water.

13 And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office.

14 And thou shalt bring his [daughters], and clothe them with coats:

15 And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their [mother], that they may minister unto me in the [priestess] office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.

Posted
9 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Exodus 40:12-15 

12 And thou shalt bring Aaron and his [daughters] unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and wash them with water.

13 And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office.

14 And thou shalt bring his [daughters], and clothe them with coats:

15 And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their [mother], that they may minister unto me in the [priestess] office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.

Golly, I've heard that somewhere...

Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Exodus 40:12-15 

12 And thou shalt bring Aaron and his [daughters] unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and wash them with water.

13 And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office.

14 And thou shalt bring his [daughters], and clothe them with coats:

15 And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their [mother], that they may minister unto me in the [priestess] office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.

Love that you said mother / daughters.

Makes it LDS though most would see it differently, unfortunately. 

Edited by mfbukowski
Posted
19 hours ago, cdowis said:
Matt 22 [11] And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
[12] And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. [
13] Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
[14] For many are called, but few are chosen.

 

 

In light of Mormon practice and belief, this parable has meaning - how do other faiths interpret this parable?

Posted
On 7/20/2018 at 12:23 PM, Maestrophil said:

In light of Mormon practice and belief, this parable has meaning - how do other faiths interpret this parable?

From my evangelical perspective, I believe God never approved of Adam and Eve wearing the fig leaf
aprons (as it represented their effort to hide their nakedness and/or shame).  Wearing the fig leaf apron
any form of symbolic/religious aspect is therefore not approved of God.

As for the video depicting they were still allowed to remain the Garden to perform animal sacrifices, this is
not implied by scripture from what I can see.

Disobeying God in the Garden was not their only mistake.  Hiding was another mistake. This is in addition to
attempting to cover themselves instead of asking God how to fix things. This lead to another mistake - not
accepting responsibility for their actions (Adam blamed the woman and then God for giving him the woman).
Next, it was Eve - who blamed the serpent. Their original sin of disobedience began spreading its tentacles.
Adam's relationship with Eve and vice versa had changed (Genesis 3:16) and so did their relationship with
God.

Thanks,
Jim

Posted
23 minutes ago, theplains said:

From my evangelical perspective, I believe God never approved of Adam and Eve wearing the fig leaf
aprons (as it represented their effort to hide their nakedness and/or shame).  Wearing the fig leaf apron
any form of symbolic/religious aspect is therefore not approved of God.

As for the video depicting they were still allowed to remain the Garden to perform animal sacrifices, this is
not implied by scripture from what I can see.

Disobeying God in the Garden was not their only mistake.  Hiding was another mistake. This is in addition to
attempting to cover themselves instead of asking God how to fix things. This lead to another mistake - not
accepting responsibility for their actions (Adam blamed the woman and then God for giving him the woman).
Next, it was Eve - who blamed the serpent. Their original sin of disobedience began spreading its tentacles.
Adam's relationship with Eve and vice versa had changed (Genesis 3:16) and so did their relationship with
God.

Thanks,
Jim

I think it is the other way around. Their original transgression (the term used in the Bible*) led to their mistakes and other transgressions (however you want to qualify them, but not sin) such as you listed. Sin came only after  the transgression and the world as we know it began (Romans 5:12).

*

Job 31: 33

  33 If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom:

Rom. 5: 14

  14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

1 Tim. 2: 14

  14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Posted
9 hours ago, theplains said:

From my evangelical perspective, I believe God never approved of Adam and Eve wearing the fig leaf
aprons (as it represented their effort to hide their nakedness and/or shame).  Wearing the fig leaf apron
any form of symbolic/religious aspect is therefore not approved of God.

So, from your perspective, God does not approve of our acknowledging our sinful natures before Him, or remembering the complete inadequacy of attempting to cover our own sins instead of relying fully upon the cleansing power of Christ?

Posted
10 hours ago, theplains said:

From my evangelical perspective, I believe God never approved of Adam and Eve wearing the fig leaf
aprons (as it represented their effort to hide their nakedness and/or shame).  Wearing the fig leaf apron
any form of symbolic/religious aspect is therefore not approved of God.

Can’t be much worse than a cross, though, right?

 

Posted
4 minutes ago, FunOnlineMan said:

Can’t be much worse than a cross, though, right?

 

A cross is only a negative to the Catholic Church because they focus more on the death of Jesus, and not enough on the Resurrection and eternal life.

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Unaffiliated said:

A cross is only a negative to the Catholic Church because they focus more on the death of Jesus, and not enough on the Resurrection and eternal life.

How much do you know of Catholicism?  Best to let Catholics speak for themselves instead of claiming you know better.

Christ's death is hardly a negative to the Catholic Church since through that death and suffering we are saved.  They don't stop at the burial.  Celebrating and contemplating Christ's sacrifice is not negative.

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20091117_crocifisso_en.html

I suggest you read their Catechism if you think they focus too much on Christ's death and not about his Resurrection and his saving of mankind:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Edited by Calm
Posted
16 minutes ago, Unaffiliated said:

A cross is only a negative to the Catholic Church because they focus more on the death of Jesus, and not enough on the Resurrection and eternal life.

I’m just not sure you should speak for god on these matters, just in case, you know?

Posted
37 minutes ago, Calm said:

How much do you know of Catholicism?  Best to let Catholics speak for themselves instead of claiming you know better.

Christ's death is hardly a negative to the Catholic Church since through that death and suffering we are saved.  They don't stop at the burial.  Celebrating and contemplating Christ's sacrifice is not negative.

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20091117_crocifisso_en.html

I suggest you read their Catechism if you think they focus too much on Christ's death and not about his Resurrection and his saving of mankind:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

My dads a Catholic and I've been to 23 Catholic funerals. 

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Unaffiliated said:

Why dont Mormons have the cross?

We don't display it as much because we want to be different probably, also a low church tradition (no pictures or heavy ritual save in temple, which is rather high church, imo).

The cross is used in many places, including throughout our hymns.

Quote

And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me,” Jesus said, “is not worthy of me” (Matthew 10:38).

 

Edited by Calm
Posted
3 minutes ago, Unaffiliated said:

Why dont Mormons have the cross?

Have it where? My sister was buried with hers nestled amongst her temple robes. 

Posted
Just now, Calm said:

CTR rings, temple pictures in the homes, temple clothing, etc. The sacrament and bread and water.  The steeple on most church buildings.

I don't think you know what symbols are.

If they become worshipped like crosses and rosary beads are then they become idols.

Posted
21 minutes ago, Unaffiliated said:

If they become worshipped like crosses and rosary beads are then they become idols.

Thank goodness Catholics don't typically do that (there may be some just as there may be Mormons who turn some symbols or practices into idols essentially).

Posted
43 minutes ago, Unaffiliated said:

We should only worship God, not a piece of wood otherwise we are heading towards golden calf territory.

 poster removed

The Bible is technically a piece of wood pulp, and it is in many ways idolized by many Christians. 

Posted
17 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So, from your perspective, God does not approve of our acknowledging our sinful natures before Him, or remembering the complete inadequacy of attempting to cover our own sins instead of relying fully upon the cleansing power of Christ?

The problem was that Adam and Eve sought their own way, not God's way.

Jim

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...