Pyreaux Posted May 19, 2022 Share Posted May 19, 2022 (edited) What kills me is when I discuss something with a mainstream Christian about Mormon belief, they tell me something their church innovated from their modern culture and sola scriptura. They seem to run away from all ancient Jewish beliefs. For an example, my JWs are the worst about this because they believe in Bible alone. The angel Michael is Jesus, apart their other evidences, the part that gets to me, and I believe is the heart of the whole problem is because in the Biblical Michael is the only angel called an "Archangel" a chief of an angel army and Jesus was a pre-incarnate being and in the future is the leader of the Angel Armageddon Army. This would be dispelled if they ever considered Jewish texts for context, there are many Archangels, like Gabriel is a known Archangel. Without this foundation, they go astray (**In my opinion, don't take my head off, if there are any JWs reading this. I merely don't understand it.) All i can do say is, "Beware the person of a single book" - Eric Geiger I have a bunch of topics like this, I don't know where to start. When I speak about the virtues of the Gospel that find its roots in the most ancient of ideas; a Tripartite Cosmos, the Guph (Pre-mortal Existence), Temple Marriage of the King and Queen, Sunday worship (Eighth Day worship) and Christmas (the Autumn Kingship Festival and the Day of Atonement). So to begin, perhaps a more classic example: The doctrine of Creato Ex Nihilo (Latin: creation from nothing) dictates that Creation is a creation from nothing by a metaphysically "omnipotent" God. There is no ancient context for this. This idea was not evident in writers before Tatian and Theophilus, and using Apocryphal text like the Shepherd of Hermas and 2 Maccabees using the terms to describe creation as the creation of a piece of art, like a painter or potter. But a potter creates things from non-being, not nothing. He uses clay to form a bowl, where a bowl didn’t exist. The art piece didn't exists, but the clay existed, so being "created" like art does not mean to be made from nothing. They ignore other Apocrypha scriptures that say that God formed the world out of hyle, “formless matter” (Wisdom of Solomon 11:17). There is nothing in the Bible that was created from nothing. Nowhere in the seven-day creation scheme of Genesis 1 does God create the darkness, the earth which was “without form (in chaos)", the water, the void, the wind, the angels, the throne, the abyss, all preexisting things and uncreated materials in which this habitable world was made with (Psalm 104). On the first day the light was created, not from nothing but was forged out of preexistant darkness. The psalmist says that God took existing light and stretched it out (Ps 104:2). Isaiah says God “formed [yotzer] light and create [borei] darkness” (Isaiah 45:7). The Hebrew is saying the light was formed out of the darkness. If you form something from something that already exists means that what you created already existed inside of it. Genesis 1 gives the impression that the earth existed but was covered in water until the third day, when the water was drained to expose dry land. Psalm 104 states the waters already existed when God created his heavenly palace, before God created the heaven and the earth. The doctrine of creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) might had some foundation only if one translates its first verse as "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" and understands it to refer to some comprehensive creative act on the first day. Instead, the heavens were created on the second day to restrain the preexisting waters, and the earth came forth from the waters on the third day, “Let the water below the sky be gathered into one area, that the dry land may appear” (Gen 1:9). Other Jewish sources say the water itself was the material that the land was made from, that the water solidified to become earth (2 Enoch 28:2). As the first century Jewish Scholar Philo says the “earth and water being mingled together and kneaded like a mass of dough, into a single element, without shape or distinction of its parts” (Philo, On Creation 38). This seems to be what the Apostle Peter believed, that the waters preexisted the creation and that this preexisting material was utilized to make everything. God created "the heaven and earth" by "forming" them out of the "water" (2 Peter 3:5). My point is that Early Judao-Christians believed God made the earth out of matter. Later Christians came to believe the earth was made out of nothing. When Mormonism teaches earlier beliefs that contradict the later doctrine, we get a negative reaction without a coherent reason. Why? Protestants who are not beholden to any doctrines and dogma, who on one side claim to reject Catholic traditions they disagree with, proudly hold tight to other Catholic traditions when confronted by our (oxymoronic) new-old doctrines. Why do they even care whether God created the earth from something or nothing. Why can't you just shrug it off? Just because Mormonism is right about one thing doesn't mean Joseph was a Prophet. Agreeing with me doesn't make you a Mormon. But that seems to be how many take it. Edited May 20, 2022 by Pyreaux Grammar Link to comment
Pyreaux Posted May 19, 2022 Author Share Posted May 19, 2022 (edited) Shoot, I made sure to double check all my grammar in that post, forgot to double check the Title bar. No one takes you seriously online when you don't use proper grammar. The Grammar Nazis get distracted. I can see it now, I'm going to be reposted on an Anti-Mormon forum and half of them won't know what I'm talking about, but they'll be laughing at my poor grammar... Edited May 20, 2022 by Pyreaux 1 Link to comment
pogi Posted May 19, 2022 Share Posted May 19, 2022 2 hours ago, Pyreaux said: Shoot, I made sure to double checked all my grammar... Including this sentence? Just playin' with ya. Link to comment
pogi Posted May 19, 2022 Share Posted May 19, 2022 3 hours ago, Pyreaux said: What kills me is when I discuss something with a mainstream Christian about Mormon belief, they tell me something their church innovated from their modern culture and sola scriptura. They seem to run away from all ancient Jewish beliefs. I get your frustration with sola scriptura, but didn't Jesus also have a problem with a lot of ancient Jewish beliefs too? I think it can be helpful to study to some extent, as Christianity is born out of Judaism, but I think the biggest problem with sola scriptura is that it is used to discredit personal revelation as a source of truth confirmation. Just as Christians disagree about beliefs today, so too did Ancient Jews back then. It is hard enough to deal with present disagreements let alone try and tackle ancient ones. I don't think appealing to ancient Jewish belief is going to be very convincing to most. It is personal revelation that will be the most convincing and the best approach to conversion. Link to comment
strappinglad Posted May 19, 2022 Share Posted May 19, 2022 Which ancient belief are we to support? The Pharisees and the Sadducees beliefs on the resurrection were polar opposites. Paul took advantage of that ! Link to comment
Pyreaux Posted May 19, 2022 Author Share Posted May 19, 2022 (edited) Jesus had a problem with the newer Mosaic traditions while he was all about the ancient Jewish teachings from Abraham. The origins Christianity goes back ages. Jesus didn't introduce innovation, he restored baptism, anointing, the Eucharist, etc. These are all on display in the Testament of Levi, a pre-Christian text discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls which are the most ancient texts we have. Even "Pseudo" (false) books are getting a second look also, to be used as contemporary evidences, using a similar language, and containing memories of traditions that are much older than even the texts themselves, all in the great search for context. The ancient beliefs become important when put into a context. When you void the Bible of history and context, or if you alter or replace the context, you altered what the Bible is saying. Without the Jewish context about archangels, suddenly get Jesus is Michael the Archangel. We should look for any ties to the Israel's royal court. If you had me look to the New Testament Era groups, the Essenes were closer to Christianity than the Pharisees. John the Baptist was likely an Essene, he seemed to have lived and baptized in their area. He probably had Rechabite vows to make him a holy man. Edited May 20, 2022 by Pyreaux Grammar Link to comment
Calm Posted May 20, 2022 Share Posted May 20, 2022 (edited) 4 hours ago, Pyreaux said: Shoot, I made sure to double checked all my grammar, forgot to double check the Title bar. No one takes you seriously online when you don't use proper grammar. The Grammar Nazis get distracted. I can see it now, I'm going to be reposted on an Anti-Mormon form and half of them won't know what I'm talking about, but they'll be laughing at my poor grammar... You have over 25 posts now so you can edit, including the title. Click the three dots in upper right hand corner of your post to find the edit ‘button’. Edited May 20, 2022 by Calm Link to comment
InCognitus Posted May 20, 2022 Share Posted May 20, 2022 5 hours ago, Pyreaux said: My point is that Early Judao-Christians believed God made the earth out of matter. Later Christians came to believe the earth was made out of nothing. This all came about (in my opinion) by later Christians undoing what Jesus taught us in the New Testament. Jesus came to bring God and man back together. He taught us that God is our "Father" in heaven, and that we are his children. But later Christians, in their attempts at defending Christianity against the critics and philosophers, thought it necessary to increase the distance between God and man, pushing the gap farther and father, ultimately making God the only eternal thing in the universe, and everything else contingent upon him. Creation ex-nihilo became necessary from that point of view. And it's interesting that creation ex-nihilo is at the center of several other doctrinal changes and issues, like the problem of evil and the shift toward absolute monotheism. Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted May 20, 2022 Share Posted May 20, 2022 13 hours ago, Pyreaux said: ....................................... My point is that Early Judao-Christians believed God made the earth out of matter. Later Christians came to believe the earth was made out of nothing. When Mormonism teaches earlier beliefs that contradict the later doctrine, we get a negative reaction without a coherent reason. Why? Protestants who are not beholden to any doctrines and dogma, who on one side claim to reject Catholic traditions they disagree with, proudly hold tight to other Catholic traditions when confronted by our (oxymoronic) new-old doctrines. Why do they even care whether God created the earth from something or nothing. Why can't you just shrug it off? Just because Mormonism is right about one thing doesn't mean Joseph was a Prophet. Agreeing with me doesn't make you a Mormon. But that seems to be how many take it. Your main problem here is that you think that those outside the Latter-day Saint faith will even listen to you. They already know that you are wrong before you say anything. They will not even entertain the possibility that you might be right. Hugh Nibley handled that problem by finding "Gentile respectability" for LDS views. He cited well known non-LDS scholars in each field to show that the Latter-day Saint faith is foundational and can easily be derived from the earliest sources. 3 Link to comment
telnetd Posted May 21, 2022 Share Posted May 21, 2022 On 5/19/2022 at 3:21 PM, Pyreaux said: Later Christians came to believe the earth was made out of nothing. When Mormonism teaches earlier beliefs that contradict the later doctrine, we get a negative reaction without a coherent reason Do you believe in the 6 days of creation like Mosiah 13:16-19 teaches? "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; But the seventh day, the sabbath of the Lord thy God, thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is; wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it". Link to comment
Pyreaux Posted May 21, 2022 Author Share Posted May 21, 2022 I believe. If you are wondering how I believe it, like if its meant to be literal, I believe in multiple ancient thoughts with literal possibilities about the six days of creation. Like there are some Jews that thought that Genesis 1 is a six day vision that Moses had on the Top of Mount Sinai while he waited six days to see the Lord on the seventh day and this became a liturgy for setting up the Tabernacle in a six day scheme. Concerning non -literal interpretations, as six days [yom], there are some Jews that read the Psalm of Moses about a day being a thousand years to the Lord to means the Creation was six thousand years instead of days. If you are wondering if the Laws of the Mosaic covenant was binding to Gentiles, and that everyone today is to observe the Sabbath day, no so much, for multiple reasons. Link to comment
Recommended Posts