Jump to content

Conference Discussion


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, alter idem said:

This discussion reminded me of a similar situation presented in the Book of Mormon;  1 Nephi 15.  Laman and Lemuel were 'disputing one with another over prophesies/vision etc their Father had shared with them.  Nephi asked them 'have ye inquired of the Lord?'  It was the Lord who shared the Parable of the Virgins and their oil lamps, so why not let him help you understand it?  There's where you will find answers. Anyway,  I think that chapter would be worth reading and maybe it will help you gain some insight for yourself, as that is the best way to learn, imo.

Sounds good, alter idem.  I have read the chapters a number of times.  Of course, what we have here is a few issues, though.  If Jesus really was, the parable of the virgins is only assumed to have been taught by him.  Those who wrote down the Jesus story, didn't know Jesus, didn't speak his language, and relied on others to get it right.  It may be that the ten virgins story was a story used by others, or created to suit an agenda.  That is also true regarding whether Jesus was resurrected or is some sort of Lord over mankind.  In other words, we have to swallow a million assumptions to even take the story as a serious lesson from God.  

Link to post
21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What makes you think I'm bitter? 

Your tone might have something to do with it.

21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Because I question belief? 

Yeah.  That's gotta be it. :rolleyes:<_<

21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It sounds to me you only assume you know something which you do not know ...

Most all of the assumptions taking place in this conversation are yours.

21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

... and pretend that questions that arise about belief do not really impact what you've already assumed must be true, because you've assumed it. 

Most all of the assumptions, and all of the pretending, and all of the assumptions (again!) taking place in this conversation are yours.

21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I mean ok. 

Yeah.  Okay.

21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But, surely, and to me stated more accurately about the way I proceed, I do not presume to know that which I do not know.  

Okay.  We've come full circle it seems.  Because, earlier, you asked me what you missed about General Conference, and I told you that I couldn't presume to know what the Holy Spirit would have told you if you had paid closer attention to it.  And here we are again.

 

Link to post
50 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Your tone might have something to do with it.

Tone happens to be something assumed.  My tone might come off bitter to you, but that may simply be because you assume it.  I'm not bitter and my ideas shared aren't bitter.  

50 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Yeah.  That's gotta be it. :rolleyes:<_<

Most all of the assumptions taking place in this conversation are yours.

Most all of the assumptions, and all of the pretending, and all of the assumptions (again!) taking place in this conversation are yours.

Yeah.  Okay.

Okay.  We've come full circle it seems.  Because, earlier, you asked me what you missed about General Conference, and I told you that I couldn't presume to know what the Holy Spirit would have told you if you had paid closer attention to it.  And here we are again.

 

There is no Holy Spirit telling anyone anything. It's simply mindset, bias, assumption, feeling and such.  On such grounds anyone can get something out of anything.  I was simply looking for something other than the usual.  If usual is all there was, great.  No big deal.  

Link to post
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Sounds good, alter idem.  I have read the chapters a number of times.  Of course, what we have here is a few issues, though.  If Jesus really was, the parable of the virgins is only assumed to have been taught by him.  Those who wrote down the Jesus story, didn't know Jesus, didn't speak his language, and relied on others to get it right.  It may be that the ten virgins story was a story used by others, or created to suit an agenda.  That is also true regarding whether Jesus was resurrected or is some sort of Lord over mankind.  In other words, we have to swallow a million assumptions to even take the story as a serious lesson from God.  

I don't know, maybe you are a complex thinker and that's why you have difficulty understanding it.

I've always understood the parables of Jesus to have been everyday experiences that the people of his day would have been familiar with; he certainly didn't have to explain it, they were familiar with the events.  The one this parable describes would have been common.  Likely, the young unmarried women of the day (translated into English as 'virgins'), took part in the wedding festivities, which were drawn out, and they would go and wait for the Groom to arrive.  (Like kids today who decorate the bride and groom's car).   I'm sure it was considered a fun activity for the young women, and they were excited for his arrival and the festivities which would ensue.  But, If they had to wait long into the night, they would need their oil lamps, to greet him, and usher him to the event, but if he didn't come in the time they expected, some would inevitably end up running out of oil;   maybe they hadn't filled them completely before coming.   When their lamps went out, no one would share, because they were afraid they would run out too, and told them to go buy oil.  This was probably something that happened (having to go get more oil), and likely, some ended up being closed out of the event, because they weren't with the wedding party when it arrived and the doors closed, and no one could hear them calling and knocking, because inside they were all having a great time, but the gates were locked.

I think Jesus' hearers understood the importance of being prepared, and how if we aren't prepared for his coming we will miss out.  As most parables, it can be read on a simple level, to more complex, depending on the inspiration we receive when pondering and praying for answers.

Edited by alter idem
typos
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, alter idem said:

I don't know, maybe you are a complex thinker and that's why you have difficulty understanding it.

I've always understood the parables of Jesus to have been everyday experiences that the people of his day would have been familiar with; he certainly didn't have to explain it, they were familiar with the events.  The one this parable describes would have been common.  Likely, the young unmarried women of the day (translated into English as 'virgins'), took part in the wedding festivities, which were drawn out, and they would go and wait for the Groom to arrive.  (Like kids today who decorate the bride and groom's car).   I'm sure it was considered a fun activity for the young women, and they were excited for his arrival and the festivities which would ensue.  But, If they had to wait long into the night, they would need their oil lamps, to greet him, and usher him to the event, but if he didn't come in the time they expected, some would inevitably end up running out of oil;   maybe they hadn't filled them completely before coming.   When their lamps went out, no one would share, because they were afraid they would run out too, and told them to go buy oil.  This was probably something that happened (having to go get more oil), and likely, some ended up being closed out of the event, because they weren't with the wedding party when it arrived and the doors closed, and no one could hear them calling and knocking, because inside they were all having a great time, but the gates were locked.

I think Jesus' hearers understood the importance of being prepared, and how if we aren't prepared for his coming we will miss out.  As most parables, it can be read on a simple level, to more complex, depending on the inspiration we receive when pondering and praying for answers.

Thanks, alter idem.  I think there are different ideas shared that are confusing above.  If everyone understood Jesus because he used everyday experiences, then why is it said they simply didn't understand his parables and only those that had ears to hear could understand what he intended?  

Quote

Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

He claims he's being particularly coy because he doesn't want most people to understand his truths.  They "can't handle the truth" in his mind.  

I don't think I'm struggling to understand his parables at all.  I find them a bit more implicitly suggestive then say Robert's idea that the parables are weak and general teachings that mean very little and carry no unique meaning, but that doesn't seem to me to suggest I don't understand them.  How do I misunderstand them?  

I can see the lesson of needing to be prepared in the parable, but of course, it appears there is more to get out of it than that.  Its simply saying we don't know when Jesus will come back.  That believers have to do enough to keep their lamps filled with oil.  If they do not, then he will refuse to be married or united to them.  Of course the point is focused in on when Jesus comes back.  It doesn't apply to every believer who has come and gone before he might come back.  It seems only applicable to those who are around when Jesus does come.  

Some have suggested the oil is testimony (I think this was Kenngo).

Others have suggested that the brides who were to marry the bridegroom but didn't get oil were just hypocrites who, presumably, weren't really wanting ot marry him anyway...or something.

And Robert says, none of that matters. The only point of this story is people are generally good at procrastinating and we should try not to do that.  Without, apparently, any meaning about God rejecting people.  

Link to post
2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Tone happens to be something assumed.  My tone might come off bitter to you, but that may simply be because you assume it.  I'm not bitter and my ideas shared aren't bitter.  

There is no Holy Spirit telling anyone anything. It's simply mindset, bias, assumption, feeling and such.  On such grounds anyone can get something out of anything.  I was simply looking for something other than the usual.  If usual is all there was, great.  No big deal.  

Okay.  Keep in mind, you're on a faith-oriented board.  You're entitled to your opinions, and you're entitled to express them wherever you wish (and wherever the powers-that-may-be in that particular corner of cyberspace may allow you) to express them.  I don't think you should be surprised to see that members of this Board would approach dialogue with you from a perspective of faith, especially not since, however your perspective may have evolved over the years, you have been participating on this Board and its predecessors for at least as long as I have.  If you want something different than "that's all you got" and "other than the usual," you will probably need to take account of the fact that this board and many of its participants approach life, questions of faith, and so on from a particular perspective, and to account for that in your travels through cyberspace.

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks, alter idem.  I think there are different ideas shared that are confusing above.  If everyone understood Jesus because he used everyday experiences, then why is it said they simply didn't understand his parables and only those that had ears to hear could understand what he intended?  

He claims he's being particularly coy because he doesn't want most people to understand his truths.  They "can't handle the truth" in his mind.  

I don't think I'm struggling to understand his parables at all.  I find them a bit more implicitly suggestive then say Robert's idea that the parables are weak and general teachings that mean very little and carry no unique meaning, but that doesn't seem to me to suggest I don't understand them.  How do I misunderstand them?  

I can see the lesson of needing to be prepared in the parable, but of course, it appears there is more to get out of it than that.  Its simply saying we don't know when Jesus will come back.  That believers have to do enough to keep their lamps filled with oil.  If they do not, then he will refuse to be married or united to them.  Of course the point is focused in on when Jesus comes back.  It doesn't apply to every believer who has come and gone before he might come back.  It seems only applicable to those who are around when Jesus does come.  

Some have suggested the oil is testimony (I think this was Kenngo).

Others have suggested that the brides who were to marry the bridegroom but didn't get oil were just hypocrites who, presumably, weren't really wanting ot marry him anyway...or something.

And Robert says, none of that matters. The only point of this story is people are generally good at procrastinating and we should try not to do that.  Without, apparently, any meaning about God rejecting people.  

I don't know, I've always like the parables, and personally, I find them pretty straightforward and easy to understand.  I'm not sure why some didn't understand the meaning, maybe they dismissed them because they were 'stories', and they wanted straight-forward lectures of clear cut doctrine and teachings.  I can see the Jews, with their practices and traditions not really liking Jesus' style of teaching. To me, it is an interesting way to use the same parable to teach different ideas, I personally like that, but maybe it's not cut a dry enough for some.  Maybe like some want everything spelled out, but Heavenly Father tends to not do that.

As for 'oil', a lot of people have suggested the oil is testimony; I've seen 'good works' as a meaning for oil too.  I think the important point was that the 'oil' wasn't shareable, otherwise it ruins the story.  If it was shareable, then they should've shared, if they were followers of Jesus' teachings.

  I've never seen anyone suggest that the 'brides' (I assume you mean 'virgins') were  there to marry the bridegroom.  That's quite a stretch, imo. 

I think if you read the parable in context, you may have a better understanding of what Jesus was trying to teach his audience.

Link to post
9 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Alright, Robert.  I hate to re-point it out but it seems to me you are simplifying Jesus' teachings to the point of not being anything interesting or unique at all.  Ok.  if you feel that strongly about it.  

It's like going to church on Sunday and expecting to hear something profound from the pulpit.  Ain't gonna happen, Grasshopper.  What you will typically hear is the simple Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is often held in contempt for its very simplicity.  Any college class on the Bible as Literature is going to repeat the same message:  Jesus was a Jewish rabbi teaching the simple and direct message of high moral and ethical values.  What is so arresting about Jesus' parables (fables) is that they are indeed not unique -- except for us two thousand years later, imagining that our supersophistication gives us some special insight, which it does not.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
22 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks, alter idem.  I think there are different ideas shared that are confusing above.  If everyone understood Jesus because he used everyday experiences, then why is it said they simply didn't understand his parables and only those that had ears to hear could understand what he intended?  

He claims he's being particularly coy because he doesn't want most people to understand his truths.  They "can't handle the truth" in his mind.  

I don't think I'm struggling to understand his parables at all.  I find them a bit more implicitly suggestive then say Robert's idea that the parables are weak and general teachings that mean very little and carry no unique meaning, but that doesn't seem to me to suggest I don't understand them.  How do I misunderstand them?  

I can see the lesson of needing to be prepared in the parable, but of course, it appears there is more to get out of it than that.  Its simply saying we don't know when Jesus will come back.  That believers have to do enough to keep their lamps filled with oil.  If they do not, then he will refuse to be married or united to them.  Of course the point is focused in on when Jesus comes back.  It doesn't apply to every believer who has come and gone before he might come back.  It seems only applicable to those who are around when Jesus does come.  

Some have suggested the oil is testimony (I think this was Kenngo).

Others have suggested that the brides who were to marry the bridegroom but didn't get oil were just hypocrites who, presumably, weren't really wanting ot marry him anyway...or something.

And Robert says, none of that matters. The only point of this story is people are generally good at procrastinating and we should try not to do that.  Without, apparently, any meaning about God rejecting people.  

So do you count yourself as one who understands the parable, or not?  And if you do understand the parable do you se how the parable can apply to similar things, in principle, and by that have an even deeper meaning than the obvious in the parable?

Those who have eyes to see and ears to hear either see and hear to understand or they do not.  Truth is always obvious.  It just is whatever it is and the primary issue is whether or not someone can see and hear the truth, or not.

Link to post
22 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Okay.  Keep in mind, you're on a faith-oriented board.  You're entitled to your opinions, and you're entitled to express them wherever you wish (and wherever the powers-that-may-be in that particular corner of cyberspace may allow you) to express them.  I don't think you should be surprised to see that members of this Board would approach dialogue with you from a perspective of faith, especially not since, however your perspective may have evolved over the years, you have been participating on this Board and its predecessors for at least as long as I have.  If you want something different than "that's all you got" and "other than the usual," you will probably need to take account of the fact that this board and many of its participants approach life, questions of faith, and so on from a particular perspective, and to account for that in your travels through cyberspace.

Hey Kenngo, I apologize for any offense.  I'm not certain what I did, exactly, but I will certainly take your advice going forward.  

Link to post
22 hours ago, alter idem said:

I don't know, I've always like the parables, and personally, I find them pretty straightforward and easy to understand.  I'm not sure why some didn't understand the meaning, maybe they dismissed them because they were 'stories', and they wanted straight-forward lectures of clear cut doctrine and teachings.  I can see the Jews, with their practices and traditions not really liking Jesus' style of teaching. To me, it is an interesting way to use the same parable to teach different ideas, I personally like that, but maybe it's not cut a dry enough for some.  Maybe like some want everything spelled out, but Heavenly Father tends to not do that.

As for 'oil', a lot of people have suggested the oil is testimony; I've seen 'good works' as a meaning for oil too.  I think the important point was that the 'oil' wasn't shareable, otherwise it ruins the story.  If it was shareable, then they should've shared, if they were followers of Jesus' teachings.

  I've never seen anyone suggest that the 'brides' (I assume you mean 'virgins') were  there to marry the bridegroom.  That's quite a stretch, imo. 

I think if you read the parable in context, you may have a better understanding of what Jesus was trying to teach his audience.

Thanks for the comments, kind lady.  I was under the impression everyone was in agreement with all the scholarship that shows that the virgins were to all merry the bridegroom.  It was tradition, as it were, for grooms to go pick up the bride at night time.  I suppose it doesn't matter much although I"d question whether it really makes sense otherwise (why would they follow the customs of marriage in their day waiting for the groom?)  And it seems to take away the depth of commitment believers are supposed to have, comparing such to a  marriage.  But, again I don't really feel concerned either way.  

I'm not sure why you insist I haven't understood the parable.  I haven't seen anything that shows I don't understand it.  But if you insist I don't understand it, then so be it.  I find it problematic, as I described...but its hardly the only scriptural teaching I find problematic.  

Link to post
19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It's like going to church on Sunday and expecting to hear something profound from the pulpit.  Ain't gonna happen, Grasshopper.  What you will typically hear is the simple Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is often held in contempt for its very simplicity.  Any college class on the Bible as Literature is going to repeat the same message:  Jesus was a Jewish rabbi teaching the simple and direct message of high moral and ethical values.  What is so arresting about Jesus' parables (fables) is that they are indeed not unique -- except for us two thousand years later, imagining that our supersophistication gives us some special insight, which it does not.

I don't think it's useful to assume Jesus had high moral teachings.  They seem problematic when inspected--just as this parable of the virgins.  


Ahab says:

Quote

 

So do you count yourself as one who understands the parable, or not?  And if you do understand the parable do you se how the parable can apply to similar things, in principle, and by that have an even deeper meaning than the obvious in the parable?

Those who have eyes to see and ears to hear either see and hear to understand or they do not.  Truth is always obvious.  It just is whatever it is and the primary issue is whether or not someone can see and hear the truth, or not.

 

Thanks for the comments, Ahab.  I think I grasp the meaning of the parable just fine.  Not sure where the confusion has come.  

Edited by stemelbow
Link to post
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Hey Kenngo, I apologize for any offense.  I'm not certain what I did, exactly, but I will certainly take your advice going forward.  

I'm not offended.

At all. :unknw:

Again, you're entitled to your opinions, and to express them wherever and however the powers-that-be in that particular corner of cyberspace will allow you to do so.  All I said is that you seem to be expecting many faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to take a non-religious approach to the parable when I don't think that is realistic. It would be like going to a bulletin board dedicated to the Los Angeles Lakers and being confused or [fill-in-emotion-here] that more people aren't expressing more ardent affinity for the Utah Jazz, or going to a Board dedicated to all things NBA and expecting most people to talk about Major League Baseball.  This is a faith-based board, dedicated to discussions of topics largely from a Latter-day Saint perspective.  Of course the Major League Baseball guy is going to respond with diffidence to the National Basketball Association guy if the latter is on the former's board, or vice-versa, even if the response of the NBA guy is "Meh.  That's all you got?" 

"Holy Spirit?  That's all you got?"  Yeah.  That's all I got.  This is a religious board.  Do you want to go to the Post-Mo Board or the Atheist Board and giggle about those silly Mormons and their Holy Spirit?  Knock yourself out.  Your problem, it seems to me, is that you're trying to do that here, and expecting the same thing from religious people, and becoming puzzled when they don't giggle right along with you.

I'm not offended.

I'm not upset.

I'm simply saying that it seems as though you're looking for a loaf of bread in a hardware store, or for a crescent wrench at a grocery store, and becoming puzzled because you're not finding it.  It's not because the loaf of bread or the crescent wrench don't exist: You simply have to know where to look.

Edited by Kenngo1969
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I don't think it's useful to assume Jesus had high moral teachings.  They seem problematic when inspected--just as this parable of the virgins.  


Again, you're

... on ...

... a ...

... religious ...

... board ...

Dude!

"I don't think it's useful to assume Christ had high moral teachings" will go over as well here as, "The NBA is great!" goes over on an MLB board, or as well as, "The Jazz are great!" goes over on a Laker board.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Ahab says:

Thanks for the comments, Ahab.  I think I grasp the meaning of the parable just fine.  Not sure where the confusion has come.  

From what you don't see or hear or understand.  The same place it comes from anyone who is confused.

Link to post
5 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm not offended.

At all. :unknw:

Again, you're entitled to your opinions, and to express them wherever and however the powers-that-be in that particular corner of cyberspace will allow you to do so.  All I said is that you seem to be expecting many faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to take a non-religious approach to the parable when I don't think that is realistic. It would be like going to a bulletin board dedicated to the Los Angeles Lakers and being confused or [fill-in-emotion-here] that more people aren't expressing more ardent affinity for the Utah Jazz, or going to a Board dedicated to all things NBA and expecting most people to talk about Major League Baseball.  This is a [B]faith-based[/B] Board, dedicated to disussions of topics largely from a Latter-day Saint perspective.

Where'd you get the idea that I "seem to be expecting many faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to take a non-religious approach to the parable"?  All I did was point out how and why I see the parable as a problem.  I'm not sure I'm getting much in terms of a direct response.  But that's ok with me.  I like discussing these types of things.

Link to post
10 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:


Again, you're

... on ...

... a ...

... religious ...

... board ...

Dude!

"I don't think it's useful to assume Christ had high moral teachings" will go over as well here as, "The NBA is great!" goes over on an MLB board, or as well as, "The Jazz are great!" goes over on a Laker board.

 

I realize I disagree with people.  Are you saying there's a problem with disagreement?  Are you hoping I don't participate because my ideas differ from the norm here?   

Link to post
2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I realize I disagree with people.  Are you saying there's a problem with disagreement?  Are you hoping I don't participate because my ideas differ from the norm here?   

Sigh.  You seem determined to misinterpret anything I say.  No.  I'm saying that it's not realistic to expect people of faith to divorce a parable from the context of faith in which it was given.  Because this is a religious board, people are going to approach questions from a paradigm and a perspective of faith.  And while (for the third time :rolleyes:) you're welcome to your opinions and to express them wherever or however the powers-that-be in that particular corner of cyberspace will allow you to express them, I don't think it's realistic to go to an NBA board and want to talk about the MLB, or to a Los Angeles Laker board and demand that everyone swear fealty to the Utah Jazz.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Where'd you get the idea that I "seem to be expecting many faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to take a non-religious approach to the parable"?  All I did was point out how and why I see the parable as a problem.  I'm not sure I'm getting much in terms of a direct response.  But that's ok with me.  I like discussing these types of things.

The How and Why You See The Parable as a Problem is because you're divorcing it from the faith-based context in which it was given.

Link to post
2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I don't think it's useful to assume Jesus had high moral teachings.  They seem problematic when inspected--just as this parable of the virgins.  

.....................................

I recall now, taking my first course in Judaism, back in the early 60s in San Francisco.  I was in my early twenties, and knew nothing about Judaism in particular, nor religion in general.  The course was team taught by two rabbis, and everyone in class was either Jewish or converting to Judaism -- except me.  What truly astonished me was the course content which made it abundantly clear that Jesus was a rabbi teaching the standard high ethical and moral values of Judaism.  I had read the Gospels, and I had always thought of Jesus as a Christian.  Realizing that his method of teaching was rabbinic, and that the Jewish talmud contained the heart and soul of his teaching put a whole new face on who and what he was.  He was clearly a Pharisaic rabbi of Beit Hillel, same as Paul.  In the half-century since then, scholarship has only emphasized those lessons:

Walter P. Weaver says that "the trend in Jesus research is . . . toward locating Jesus precisely within his Judaic context."   "Introduction," pp. 3-4, n. 1, in J. H. Charlesworth and W. P. Weaver, eds., The Old and the New Testaments: Their Relationship and the "Intertestamental" Literature, Faith and Scholarship Colloquies (Valley Forge, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1993).

Anthony J. Saldarini says that "to wrench Jesus out of his Jewish world destroys Jesus and destroys Christianity." 

Quote

 

"A Christian Jesus is a parochial, self-serving myth and an Aryan Jesus a perverse one.  But why then have Christians so persistently thought of Jesus as a Christian and resisted admitting the obvious, that Jesus was a Jew?  Answer: the pervasive problem of uniqueness."

". . . many Christian scholars, . . seek to make Jesus dissimilar from the Judaism of his day and from the Greco-Roman world in which it was set."

 [Ferdinand] "Baur argued successfully that early Christianity had originated historically within Judaism . . . ."  His enduring, basic point was "the Jewish matrix of Christianity" . . . .

    "A Jesus who taught like a Jew and an early Christian community that looked like a Jewish sect troubled many 19th-century German Lutheran scholars, who preferred to envision a Jesus who taught a new and unique doctrine that overthrew the established tradition."

    "To wrench Jesus out of his Jewish world destroys Jesus and destroys Christianity, the religion that grew out of his teachings.  Even Jesus' most familiar role as Christ is a Jewish role.  If Christians leave the concrete realities of Jesus' life and of the history of Israel in favor of a mythic, universal, spiritual Jesus and an otherworldly kingdom of God, they deny their origins in Israel, their history, and the God who has loved and protected Israel and the church.  They cease to interpret the actual Jesus sent by God and remake him in their own image and likeness."   Saldarini, "What Price the Uniqueness of Jesus?" Bible Review, XV/3 (June 1999), 17, subheading/teaser.

 

David Noel Freedman said:

Quote

its substance lies in the time almost two thousand years ago, before the lines of demarcation were hardened, when normative Christianity was not merely congenial to Judaism but thoroughly Jewish in both personnel and praxis.  At the same time Judaism was itself sufficiently flexible and diverse to accommodate radical divergence in faith and structure including this dissident messianism.  Freedman, “Reader Response: An Essay on Jewish Christianity” [his reaction to the 1966 Harvard Conference on Judaism and Christianity, publ. 1969 in Journal of Ecumenical Studies 6:81-86

Bruce Chilton says:

Quote

...there is no denying Jesus' identity as a Jew.  Moreover, his Judaism was not just some ethnic happenstance, but the focus of his commitments.  That realization marks a shift in the contemporary debate about Jesus; it has been in process for some time, but Fredriksen's careful, engaging review of the discussion shows us plainly that the corner has been turned, and that Jesus can no longer be marginalized from his own Judaism.  The historicity of this rabbi has been recognized, and here we are shown that his history can only make sense to us when we locate his actions and teachings within his Jewish religious and cultural context.  Chilton, Bible Review, XVI/4 (August 2000), 54-55, 58

David Flusser said:

Quote

On one occasion, a serious scholar [R. Riesner] was truly astonished when I said to him that Jesus' rabbinic training was superior to that of Paul.  Reading Jesus' sayings without a thorough knowledge of Jewish, and especially of rabbinic sources, leads to wrong impressions.  The wording is mostly very simple.  Underneath the simple words of Jesus, however, runs another complex current of thought which is connected to the highest level of academic training.  Thus, the unlearned crowd was able to enjoy the profound simplicity of Jesus on one level, while the intelligentsia of his day grasped the deeper meaning of his teachings, which were embedded in his manifold hints on a higher level.  Jesus' distinctive manner of teaching was sophisticated.  Flusser, "Hillel and Jesus: Two Ways of Self-Awareness," in J. H. Charlesworth and L. L. Johns, eds., Hillel and Jesus: Comparisons of Two Major Religious Leaders (Minneapolis: Augsburg-Fortress, 1997), 93.

These are all prominent non-Mormon scholars.  I could cite many more such comments from my reading, but these are representative of the consensus.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
17 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Sigh.  You seem determined to misinterpret anything I say.  No.  I'm saying that it's not realistic to expect people of faith to divorce a parable from the context of faith in which it was given.  Because this is a religious board, people are going to approach questions from a paradigm and a perspective of faith.  And while (for the third time :rolleyes:) you're welcome to your opinions and to express them wherever or however the powers-that-be in that particular corner of cyberspace will allow you to express them, I don't think it's realistic to go to an NBA board and want to talk about the MLB, or to a Los Angeles Laker board and demand that everyone swear fealty to the Utah Jazz.

I'm asking for clarification here.  that's all.  I haven't expected anyone to divorce the parable from the context of faith.  

17 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

The How and Why You See The Parable as a Problem is because you're divorcing it from the faith-based context in which it was given.

I don't think so.  If you don't mind please support your criticism of me.  How am I doing so?  

 

17 hours ago, Ahab said:

The things you don't.  You don't claim to see and hear and understand EVERYTHING, do you???

Are we going to go in circles again?  I'm asking you to help by identifying those things.  

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I recall now, taking my first course in Judaism, back in the early 60s in San Francisco.  I was in my early twenties, and knew nothing about Judaism in particular, nor religion in general.  The course was team taught by two rabbis, and everyone in class was either Jewish or converting to Judaism -- except me.  What truly astonished me was the course content which made it abundantly clear that Jesus was a rabbi teaching the standard high ethical and moral values of Judaism.  I had read the Gospels, and I had always thought of Jesus as a Christian.  Realizing that his method of teaching was rabbinic, and that the Jewish talmud contained the heart and soul of his teaching put a whole new face on who and what he was.  He was clearly a Pharisaic rabbi of Beit Hillel, same as Paul.  In the half-century since then, scholarship has only emphasized those lessons:

I'm not sure why I too must assume Jewish teaching saves Jesus.  The Hebrew Bible is perhaps the least moral arrangement of teachings people might come up with, full of all sorts of murder, abuse, and such. 

Link to post
54 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

..............................

I'm not sure why I too must assume Jewish teaching saves Jesus.  The Hebrew Bible is perhaps the least moral arrangement of teachings people might come up with, full of all sorts of murder, abuse, and such. 

Jewish teaching doesn't save Jesus, but it describes who and what he was very accurately -- in a secular historical sense (which you seem to want to avoid).

Both the Hebrew Bible and the Book of Mormon certainly do have a surfeit of horrible events and death, which are an ever present part of real life.  Pretending that life is a Disney fantasy doesn't make for high ethical and moral teaching, rather it denigrates it.  The Bible tells it like it is, and pulls no punches.  King David, a man after God's own heart, and sweet singer of Israel, becomes an adulterer and murderer.  God sends his prophet Nathan to condemn David to his face.  You apparently want to read only about sweetness and light, instead of harsh realities in the uncompromising light of day.

Lehi's Law of Opposites allows no equivocation (such as you prefer):  Life is hard, overwhelmed by violence and disappointment, full of challenges and choices.  LIke normative Protestants and Catholics, you want to conveniently blame God, when your choices are actually your own.  You are here to be tested and to gain experience.  Stop complaining about it.  It isn't a Cinderella story.

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...