News Reports Re: Columbus being Jewish --> Any significance?

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, theplains said:

Does 1 Nephi 13:12 ("a man among the Gentiles") mean that man is a Gentile or could it be a
man of any nationality that just happened to be sailing with the rest of the group?

Christopher Columbus first landed in the New World in October 1492, on an island in the 
Bahamas, which he named San Salvador. After his initial landing in the Bahamas, he explored
several other areas in the New World. He traveled to Cuba, which he believed might be part
of Asia, and then to Hispaniola (present-day Haiti and the Dominican Republic). On his subsequent
voyages, he also visited parts of Central America, including the coast of present-day Honduras,
Nicaragua, and Panama. He did not explore areas north of Central America. His voyages primarily
focused on the Caribbean and parts of Central America. The lands that are now the United States
and Canada were explored by other European explorers, such as John Cabot and Jacques Cartier,
after Columbus's time.

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

And?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Does 1 Nephi 13:12 ("a man among the Gentiles") mean that man is a Gentile or could it be a
man of any nationality that just happened to be sailing with the rest of the group?

Christopher Columbus first landed in the New World in October 1492, on an island in the 
Bahamas, which he named San Salvador. After his initial landing in the Bahamas, he explored
several other areas in the New World. He traveled to Cuba, which he believed might be part
of Asia, and then to Hispaniola (present-day Haiti and the Dominican Republic). On his subsequent
voyages, he also visited parts of Central America, including the coast of present-day Honduras,
Nicaragua, and Panama. He did not explore areas north of Central America. His voyages primarily
focused on the Caribbean and parts of Central America. The lands that are now the United States
and Canada were explored by other European explorers, such as John Cabot and Jacques Cartier,
after Columbus's time.

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

I take the phrase, "a man among the Gentiles," as follows: the man of unspecified lineage living among one of the nations of the Gentiles (referring to verses 3, 4 and 10). Our prophets have put forth the idea that it is Columbus. Some have additionally put forth that Columbus was of Jewish ancestry. I think the important thing is that God was behind the Gentiles making contact with the seed of Lehi, a remnant of Israel, which is how I take the phrase, "the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man." This interaction set the stage for the Restoration of the Gospel. As it turns out, the lineage of Ephraim was among the Gentiles and has a central role on the Restoration as foreseen in the rest of 1 Nephi 13, with some expansion in the D&C. Eventually the roles of the seed of Lehi (Manasseh) and all the other remnants of the house of Israel will become evident as they return to the covenant and assume their inheritance literally/geographically and figuratively/spiritually. Thus the literal (lineal) and spiritual (adopted) covenant seed of Joseph and Judah fulfill the prophecies.

Edited October 18, 2024 by CV75

[Zosimus]

13 hours ago, CV75 said:

I take the phrase, "a man among the Gentiles," as follows: the man of unspecified lineage living among one of the nations of the Gentiles (referring to verses 3, 4 and 10).

The interpretation that this man was Columbus feels off to me. Mostly because the horrible things the Spanish monarchy was involved in at the time they funded the voyages:

Spanish Inquisition

Ferdinand and Isabella declared the Edict of Expulsion the same year they agree to fund Columbus? That seems to be totally contrary to what's happening in 1 Nephi 13. The Spanish monarchy was exactly the type of monarchy that God intended to keep off the promised land. We're supposed to believe that the Spirit of God "came down and wrought upon the man" so his patrons could bring their inquisition to the promised land? 

Mexican Inquisition

This makes no sense.

A more compatible "man among the gentiles" is Sir Walter Raleigh, the man who organized the first European settlement(s) in North America. Raleigh's efforts to create colonies is more compatible with the subsequent verses in 1 Nephi:

13 And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity, upon the many waters. 

Edited October 19, 2024 by Zosimus

[The Nehor]

I don’t get who the people who came out of captivity even are. It is not the Puritans or the colony at Jamestown. In a lot of areas the Europeans increased the level of captivity.

[CV75]

9 hours ago, Zosimus said:

The interpretation that this man was Columbus feels off to me. Mostly because the horrible things the Spanish monarchy was involved in at the time they funded the voyages:

Spanish Inquisition

Ferdinand and Isabella declared the Edict of Expulsion the same year they agree to fund Columbus? That seems to be totally contrary to what's happening in 1 Nephi 13. The Spanish monarchy was exactly the type of monarchy that God intended to keep off the promised land. We're supposed to believe that the Spirit of God "came down and wrought upon the man" so his patrons could bring their inquisition to the promised land? 

Mexican Inquisition

This makes no sense.

A more compatible "man among the gentiles" is Sir Walter Raleigh, the man who organized the first European settlement(s) in North America. Raleigh's efforts to create colonies is more compatible with the subsequent verses in 1 Nephi:

13 And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity, upon the many waters. 

Most prophecy is fulfilled in hindsight, and further revelation has not yet identified a particular individual. But yes, there are both "a man" and "other Gentiles" involved. I think the horrible things either did (rooted in their homelands, 1 Nephi 13: 5 - 9) are covered in the general scattering and destruction of the remnants of Israel they affected, in addition to the "saints" who were killed and brought down into captivity. No one is purely good or purely evil that I can judge; most of the remnants were wiped out by germs brought in by the Gentiles, any of them having evil, good, and neutral intentions. God saw what would and did happen, and wrought upon and blessed those who could eke any good out of their circumstances. I take "wrought" to imply that the individual was not aware of the bigger picture, only that he attributed the sense that he was pressed forward and helped in his immediate quest to divine means. Maybe the sailor's version of a foxhole!  

[Robert F. Smith]

On 10/18/2024 at 7:12 AM, CV75 said:

But for some reason we do not call it the "Abrahamic Unconditional Promise." Considering as such recognizes only part of the equation. As long as the metaphors are involved, it is also conditional ("Amen to the priesthood and authority..."). The right to the Priesthood for the seed of Abraham (and who are his seed?) is unconditional; becoming his seed by adoption, remaining his seed whether born or adopted, and keeping the right and the Priesthood are not.

There is no need to find a way around anything. We ultimately choose the laws we observe, and all kinds are built into the Abrahamic Covenant. The broadest way I can think of something being both unconditional and conditional is that everyone (of which Abraham, the house of Israel and the Jews are a subset, for very practical, foreordained or foreseen purposes) is given the unconditional promise of eternal life and exaltation through Christ -- He accomplished it already --  but we have to choose it.

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

You sound very much like a politician trying to please everybody.  "Unconditional" means no conditions.  None.  Zero.  Nada.  You can find a firm discussion online at What is the Abrahamic Covenant? | GotQuestions.org .

There are bilateral covenants, which do have conditions.  You don't seem to know the difference, which is not at all unusual.  Most Latter-day Saints miss this point entirely.

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You sound very much like a politician trying to please everybody.  "Unconditional" means no conditions.  None.  Zero.  Nada.  You can find a firm discussion online at What is the Abrahamic Covenant? | GotQuestions.org .

Coincidently I just read that Got Questions article yesterday.  I am not sure I agree that the Abrahamic Covenant is 100% unconditional (as the website article says), and I'm interested in your feedback.

Here is my reasoning:  

First, after stating that the Abrahamic Covenant is unconditional, the article you linked also says: "Later, God gave Abraham the rite of circumcision as the specific sign of the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 17:9–14). All males in Abraham’s line were to be circumcised and thus carry with them a lifelong mark in their flesh that they were part of God’s physical blessing in the world. Any descendant of Abraham who refused circumcision was declaring himself to be outside of God’s covenant".  So basically there was that condition of being part of the covenant, and so it's really not completely unconditional.

My second thought is somewhat related to my first.  I was thinking of the discussion Jesus had with some Jews that didn't like him very much in John 8:33-44, but specifically where the Jews say:  "We be Abraham's seed", and Jesus says, "I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you....  If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham"(etc.).  So behaving like Abraham also seems to be a conditional aspect of taking part in that covenant.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You sound very much like a politician trying to please everybody.  "Unconditional" means no conditions.  None.  Zero.  Nada.  You can find a firm discussion online at What is the Abrahamic Covenant? | GotQuestions.org .

There are bilateral covenants, which do have conditions.  You don't seem to know the difference, which is not at all unusual.  Most Latter-day Saints miss this point entirely.

Thank you for the link, I have a read a few of these types of essays and they are helpful for looking at one aspect of the arrangement. I see the Abrahamic Covenant as also containing the expectation of obedience and faithfulness from Abraham and his descendants, otherwise certain priesthood blessings could or would be lost. I suppose this is a theological debate where several good points can be make.

I do think one unconditional aspect is that Christ would come into mortality through Abraham's lineage, as reiterated in Jacob's blessing to Judah. This must have been through Boaz since Ruth was a Moabite: ethnically the seed of Israel (the right) but religiously (the priesthood) dependent on conversion. I would say even Jesus had to become converted, grace for grace, to exercise His right to actuate His Priesthood, so there is one conditional aspect going along with that.

 

[InCognitus]

34 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Thank you for the link, I have a read a few of these types of essays and they are helpful for looking at one aspect of the arrangement. I see the Abrahamic Covenant as also containing the expectation of obedience and faithfulness from Abraham and his descendants, otherwise certain priesthood blessings could or would be lost. I suppose this is a theological debate where several good points can be make.

I do think one unconditional aspect is that Christ would come into mortality through Abraham's lineage, as reiterated in Jacob's blessing to Judah. This must have been through Boaz since Ruth was a Moabite: ethnically the seed of Israel (the right) but religiously (the priesthood) dependent on conversion. I would say even Jesus had to become converted, grace for grace, to exercise His right to actuate His Priesthood, so there is one conditional aspect going along with that.

 

I was also thinking of the unconditional aspects of the Abrahamic covenant last night after I made my post above.  For example, the promise that "All the families of the earth will be blessed" is unconditional, as is the blessing that Christ would come through his seed (as you pointed out).  But whether or not an individual person is considered part of the covenant family of Abraham is conditional for the reasons you stated above. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I was also thinking of the unconditional aspects of the Abrahamic covenant last night after I made my post above.  For example, the promise that "All the families of the earth will be blessed" is unconditional, as is the blessing that Christ would come through his seed (as you pointed out).  But whether or not an individual person is considered part of the covenant family of Abraham is conditional for the reasons you stated above. 

I can see how Genesis 17:9, 10, “Thou shalt keep my covenant… my covenant, which ye shall keep…,” can be taken two ways: 1) in that no one will take it away from Abraham and his seed (through Isaac), which is unconditional, and 2) in that they must observe the commandments, signs and tokens, ordinances, etc., which is conditional.

Another aspect I see is that, had the full covenant (both the temporal and spiritual aspects) been established through both Ishmael and Isaac as the seed of Abraham, it would be unconditional, but since it was only through Isaac, it is conditional (the lineal “seed” is conditioned upon who the mother is; the adopted “seed,” conditioned upon repentance, is not). It is interesting to me that Ishmael still had to get circumcised to keep his blessings, so maybe that is only the “tip” of the iceberg (had to get that in there!).

[Robert F. Smith]

On 10/19/2024 at 10:44 PM, InCognitus said:

Coincidently I just read that Got Questions article yesterday.  I am not sure I agree that the Abrahamic Covenant is 100% unconditional (as the website article says), and I'm interested in your feedback.

Here is my reasoning:  

First, after stating that the Abrahamic Covenant is unconditional, the article you linked also says: "Later, God gave Abraham the rite of circumcision as the specific sign of the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 17:9–14). All males in Abraham’s line were to be circumcised and thus carry with them a lifelong mark in their flesh that they were part of God’s physical blessing in the world. Any descendant of Abraham who refused circumcision was declaring himself to be outside of God’s covenant".  So basically there was that condition of being part of the covenant, and so it's really not completely unconditional.

My second thought is somewhat related to my first.  I was thinking of the discussion Jesus had with some Jews that didn't like him very much in John 8:33-44, but specifically where the Jews say:  "We be Abraham's seed", and Jesus says, "I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you....  If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham"(etc.).  So behaving like Abraham also seems to be a conditional aspect of taking part in that covenant.

Nope. The Abrahamic Covenant is unilateral.  It doesn't matter what a given individual or whole nation does.  The unilateral covenant remains in force and comes to pass despite any sort of human failure.  No circumcision, no problem.  The unilateral covenant (God's unconditional promise) remains in full effect.  Jacob 5 and Romans 11 are not namby-pamby about it.  God brings back Israel at the end time, when the times of the Gentiles are over.  Israel is an entire community which repeatedly sinned and was sent into repeated Exile -- for broaching conditional covenants.  Yet the eternal guarantee of the Abrahamic Covenant remains in full force.  And what we have of that eternal community still practices ritual circumcision.  Yet it is the cardinal principle of Judaism that no works or actions by Jews gain a heavenly reward.  That reward is a matter of God's grace, as pointed out by Professor Amy-Jill Levine.

[CV75]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nope. The Abrahamic Covenant is unilateral.  It doesn't matter what a given individual or whole nation does.  The unilateral covenant remains in force and comes to pass despite any sort of human failure.  No circumcision, no problem.  The unilateral covenant (God's unconditional promise) remains in full effect.  Jacob 5 and Romans 11 are not namby-pamby about it.  God brings back Israel at the end time, when the times of the Gentiles are over.  Israel is an entire community which repeatedly sinned and was sent into repeated Exile -- for broaching conditional covenants.  Yet the eternal guarantee of the Abrahamic Covenant remains in full force.  And what we have of that eternal community still practices ritual circumcision.  Yet it is the cardinal principle of Judaism that no works or actions by Jews gain a heavenly reward.  That reward is a matter of God's grace, as pointed out by Professor Amy-Jill Levine.

Israel and “Zion above” are both comprised of individuals who covenanted with God in at least one estate. He guarantees to prevent the earth from being utterly wasted because they demonstrated their willingness to act (turn the hearts) upon the original promises and the planted promises, long enough ago to call it foreseen and foreordained.

Edited October 21, 2024 by CV75

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, CV75 said:

Israel and “Zion above” are both comprised of individuals who covenanted with God in at least one estate. He guarantees to prevent the earth from being utterly wasted because they demonstrated their willingness to act (turn the hearts) upon the original promises and the planted promises, long enough ago to call it foreseen and foreordained.

Again, you are failing to distinguish between conditional and unconditional covenants, and then calling upon John Calvin to rescue you from the consequences.  Free agency is also at stake.  Latter-day Saint theology is much stronger than you sense.

[CV75]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Again, you are failing to distinguish between conditional and unconditional covenants, and then calling upon John Calvin to rescue you from the consequences.  Free agency is also at stake.  Latter-day Saint theology is much stronger than you sense.

I think 3 Nephi 29 is a good example reflecting both unconditional and conditional aspects of the Abrahamic covenant, expressed in his seed Israel, unless you take the two aspects as distinct covenants. But even in that case, the unconditional one is conditioned upon the establishment of the preexisting conditional one, otherwise Abraham would have no covenant seed: Abraham's covenant seed is Israel, and Israel was organized from among the willing in the first estate, and continues to be added upon in this second estate with converts. 

[theplains]

On 10/18/2024 at 10:31 AM, Calm said:

And?

Just putting it out there. I had no question.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 10/22/2024 at 8:11 AM, CV75 said:

I think 3 Nephi 29 is a good example reflecting both unconditional and conditional aspects of the Abrahamic covenant, expressed in his seed Israel, unless you take the two aspects as distinct covenants. But even in that case, the unconditional one is conditioned upon the establishment of the preexisting conditional one, otherwise Abraham would have no covenant seed: Abraham's covenant seed is Israel, and Israel was organized from among the willing in the first estate, and continues to be added upon in this second estate with converts. 

Nope.  You are mixing separate aspects of God's dealing with humans.  When God makes a unilateral declaration and promise, there is no condition applicable.  Otherwise God would be a liar.  Proverbs 6:17, 12:33, I John 1:10, 5:10

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nope.  You are mixing separate aspects of God's dealing with humans.  When God makes a unilateral declaration and promise, there is no condition applicable.  Otherwise God would be a liar.  Proverbs 6:17, 12:33, I John 1:10, 5:10

The principle that there are no conditions applicable when God makes a unilateral declaration and promise is fundamental to the view you've expressed of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Edited October 23, 2024 by CV75