Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

Ingledsva · May 22, 2014

Part two.

[/FONT]
4) Ingledsvacommented ING - What is your point here? It is not accepted by the majority of Christians or Jews.
Split 2 -
Clear responded : For some reason you seem unable or unwilling to think historically. You keep speaking in the here" and the "now and refer to modern Christians and modern Jews as though they were the same as the earliest Christians and earliest Jews. If you are unwilling to think historically, your posts will not be as historically relevant as they could be.

The majority of modern Christians and Jews no longer ride donkeys in their travels, but they used to. Your inability to think historically is a lot like my Kids who wondered why the Apostles didnt just use cell phones to keep in touch. If you want to talk about history, you are going to have to learn to think historically rather than try to discuss something you look up on Wikipedia and then try to quote in a post and your naive assumptions that modern Christians and Jews are the same as they were anciently.

The first point is that the book of Enoch was accepted anciently. It was accepted and used by the writers of the New Testament, it was used by the Jews; it is still used by eastern Christians. It is referenced more than 125 times in the New Testament alone.

The second and more important point is that the book of Enoch is merely one genre from hundreds (perhaps thousands) of early texts which serve as witnesses of the beliefs of ancient Christians. There are over 2000 pages of pseudepigraphia just in Charlesworth alone. And this, simply represents ONLY old testament pseudepigraphs. And this, only what has been translated into English. And this does NOT include apocryphal libraries or other Christian or Jewish libraries (e.g. Nag Hamadi, Qumran, New Testament era texts, didache, apostolic fathers, psalms, lectionaries, hymns, synagogal prayers, sybiline texts, early Christian fiction, early Christian diaries, etc. etc. ) If the Enochian literature is not important to you, then simply avoid it and use the other ancient sacred literature to learn more about a doctrine that was common among early Christians.

ING - LOL! I suggest you look up when these texts were put aside by the orthodox and the majority.

5) Ingledsva commented : Perhaps because they realized it falsely turns humans into spirits, and such?

We've already touched on some early sacred literature that describes the Early Judeo-christian belief that spirits of mankind existed prior to birth.

ING - AND AGAIN - WITHIN GOD - NOT SPIRIT PEOPLE that just happened to be surrounding God waiting to become GOD-LIKE!

I knew you before you were born, - would obviously mean - because he created you, and imbued you with life-spirit.

You are twisting the meaning of SPIRIT in these texts, and adding things that are NOT there.

Will you give us examples from early sacred Judeo-Christian texts that describe your interpretation that spirits did not exist prior to being born?

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
[/QUOTE]

See above. I repeated the same information OVER AND OVER!

Clear · May 22, 2014

Ingledsva:

In at least the last four posts I have asked you multiple times to give us examples from early sacred Judeo-Christian texts that describe your interpretation that spirits did not exist prior to being born? This should be incredibly easy if you are as educated and as well-versed as you claim.

1) Ingledsva claims : “I have plenty of history under my belt, I am an Archaeologist, I also took Comparative Religions in college, and a separate history course offered by the Catholic Church. I also translate the Hebrew and the Greek. My interest is the ancient spread of language, philosophy, and religion. “

This is all very, very good, since, if this is all true, you should be very able to refer to multiple, and early Christian texts that support your position that early christians did not believe spirits existed prior to being born.

2) Ingledsva said : The Hebrew believe in ONE GOD that CREATED EVERYTHING, including spirit and angels. We are told humans are a like a pot which GOD places spirit within.

You have said this before. What you have not done is to any textual from any of the earliest sacred textual sources supporting the claim that early Christians did not believe spirits existed before birth. Give us data from the earliest texts to analyze.

3) Ingledsva said : Spirit existing - is not the same thing as saying God found himself surrounded by spirit beings
So, you are going to tell me how I must interpret my own religions text to support your theories? As a linguist, you must recognize this as an error and a very, very bad approach to deriving meaning of any provencial text.

4) Ingledsva said : “THEY BELIEVED IN SPIRIT. THEY DID NOT BELIEVE IN A BUNCH OF SPIRIT PEOPLE AROUND GOD - IN NEED OF ASSISTANCE BECOMING GOD-LIKE!“

You have already repeated your interpretation of what YOU believe early Christians believed. Now give us textual data from any of the earliest textual sources supporting your interpretation that the earliest Christians did not believe the spirits of mankind existed before birth. (Or are you actually admitting cognizant spirits existed.)

5) Ingledsva said : “According to Tanakh, GOD'S SPIRIT is what is within us giving us life.”
So what, give us textual data from any of the earliest textual sources supporting your interpretation that the earliest Christians did not believe the spirits of mankind existed before birth. (Or are you actually admitting cognizant spirits existed.)

6) Ingledsva “I repeated the same information OVER AND OVER!”

But you have NOT given us "information". What you are doing is repeating your CLAIMS over and over and tried to label it as “information”.

We have yet to receive any substantial textual data or objective information from any of your posts.

We are all waiting to see what sort of historical data you are going to present. For an Archaeologist who took comparative religions and a history course who translates Hebrew and Greek, there should be NO PROBLEM at all in simply giving us actual early period textual data that shows the earliest Christians did not believe the cognizant spirits of mankind existed before they were born.

Where is your data?

I am glad to hear you have such a deep background in early texts and in languages since this will make it very, very, very easy for you to provide substantiation and data from the earliest textual sources so as to support your claim that Christians believed that cognisant spirits of mankind did not exist before birth. I'm glad to hear that you are so educated in languages, since this should make it very easy for you do discuss nuances of the Early Christian greek that may underlie the texts you present to us.

Where is your data?

Clear

Ingledsva · May 23, 2014

Clear said:
Ingledsva:

In at least the last four posts I have asked you multiple times to give us examples from early sacred Judeo-Christian texts that describe your interpretation that spirits did not exist prior to being born? This should be incredibly easy if you are as educated and as well-versed as you claim.

ING - Again this has become stupidity beyond belief! Why would I look for texts stating no spirit - when I have repeatedly stated that there is in Tanakh?

It is just NOT as you state, and nothing you have provided proves your case.

1) Ingledsva claims : “I have plenty of history under my belt, I am an Archaeologist, I also took Comparative Religions in college, and a separate history course offered by the Catholic Church. I also translate the Hebrew and the Greek. My interest is the ancient spread of language, philosophy, and religion. “

This is all very, very good, since, if this is all true, you should be very able to refer to multiple, and early Christian texts that support your position that early christians did not believe spirits existed prior to being born.

ING - Indeed, however I don't need to, as Tanakh is the base upon which the texts you are using, supposedly expound. Tanakh does not say what you are saying. Jews do not believe God is just one of many becoming such. They do not believe there are a bunch of spirit people out there floating around waiting to began their journey to Godhood. You are reading later texts with the eyes of your religion. They do not mean what you think.

You folks can believe whatever you want. However, it is a different matter when you are trying to claim these texts prove your religion's ideas on spirit people.

2) Ingledsva said : The Hebrew believe in ONE GOD that CREATED EVERYTHING, including spirit and angels. We are told humans are a like a pot which GOD places spirit within.

You have said this before. What you have not done is to any textual from any of the earliest sacred textual sources supporting the claim that early Christians did not believe spirits existed before birth. Give us data from the earliest texts to analyze.

ING - If you don't know this basic Hebrew idea - you have a big problem.

If you don't understand that they believe in only ONE GOD, with NO spirit people floating around waiting to become other Gods - you have a big problem.

What do you not understand about -

Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

NO others in any of the religions of Abraham. This means you are misreading texts, such as I showed in the Enoch text you posted.

This would be a good place for our Jewish and Christian members to chime in, as he is saying early Jewish and Christian texts say God found himself surrounded by spirit people and wanted to help them become like himself, which obviously they do not say.

3) Ingledsva said : Spirit existing - is not the same thing as saying God found himself surrounded by spirit beings
So, you are going to tell me how I must interpret my own religions text to support your theories? As a linguist, you must recognize this as an error and a very, very bad approach to deriving meaning of any provencial text.

ING - I didn't tell you how to interpret your religion! You can believe anything you want. I am rebutting the idea that these texts support your religion's spirit ideas.

4) Ingledsva said : “THEY BELIEVED IN SPIRIT. THEY DID NOT BELIEVE IN A BUNCH OF SPIRIT PEOPLE AROUND GOD - IN NEED OF ASSISTANCE BECOMING GOD-LIKE!“

You have already repeated your interpretation of what YOU believe early Christians believed. Now give us textual data from any of the earliest textual sources supporting your interpretation that the earliest Christians did not believe the spirits of mankind existed before birth. (Or are you actually admitting cognizant spirits existed.)

5) Ingledsva said : “According to Tanakh, GOD'S SPIRIT is what is within us giving us life.”
So what, give us textual data from any of the earliest textual sources supporting your interpretation that the earliest Christians did not believe the spirits of mankind existed before birth. (Or are you actually admitting cognizant spirits existed.)

ING - See above.

6) Ingledsva “I repeated the same information OVER AND OVER!”

But you have NOT given us "information". What you are doing is repeating your CLAIMS over and over and tried to label it as “information”.

We have yet to receive any substantial textual data or objective information from any of your posts.

We are all waiting to see what sort of historical data you are going to present. For an Archaeologist who took comparative religions and a history course who translates Hebrew and Greek, there should be NO PROBLEM at all in simply giving us actual early period textual data that shows the earliest Christians did not believe the cognizant spirits of mankind existed before they were born.

Where is your data?

I am glad to hear you have such a deep background in early texts and in languages since this will make it very, very, very easy for you to provide substantiation and data from the earliest textual sources so as to support your claim that Christians believed that cognisant spirits of mankind did not exist before birth. I'm glad to hear that you are so educated in languages, since this should make it very easy for you do discuss nuances of the Early Christian greek that may underlie the texts you present to us.

Where is your data?

Clear

And why would I bother wasting my time researching such when every person on this site knows the basic theology of the Abrahamic religions, - and that theology does NOT include Spirit people beside God - whom are becoming Gods/Godlike?

Also note - I did give you information on Enoch when I rebutted your understanding of the meaning.

Also if you would read Enoch in full context you would understand that he is calling the angels "spirits." Not spirit people waiting to become god-like.

8"And now, the giants, who are produced from the spirits and flesh, shall be called evil spirits upon the earth, and on the earth shall be their dwelling. 9Evil spirits have proceeded from their bodies; because they are born from men and from the holy Watchers is their beginning and primal origin; they shall be evil spirits on earth, and evil spirits shall they be called. 10 As for the spirits of heaven, in heaven shall be their dwelling, but as for the spirits of the earth which were born upon the earth, on the earth shall be their dwelling.

19 And Uriel said to me: "Here shall stand the angels who have connected themselves with women, and their spirits assuming many different forms are defiling mankind and shall lead them astray into sacrificing to demons as gods, here shall they stand, till the day of the great judgement in which they shall be judged till they are made an end of. 2And the women also of the angels who went astray shall become sirens."

In 22:10-11 it is talking about the spirit within people AS I SAID.

10 And such has been made for sinners when they die and are buried in the earth and judgement has not been executed on them in their lifetime.
11 Here their spirits shall be set apart in this great pain till the great day of judgement and punishment and torment of those who curse for ever and retribution for their spirits. There He shall bind them for ever.

39:6 And the righteous and elect shall be without number before Him for ever and ever.
7And I saw his dwelling-place under the wings of the Lord of Spirits.
And all the righteous and elect before Him shall be strong as fiery lights,

It is very obvious when read in context, that the "spirits" are humans and angels imbued with such by God.

Not spirit people that God found around himself, waiting to become god-like.

*

*

Katzpur · May 23, 2014

Lyndale said:
Some men forget the words of Jesus when He said "It is Finished".

And what exactly do you believe Jesus meant when he said, "It is finished?" His minstry and atoning sacrifice? God's love for mankind? The Church He said He intended to establish? Life on this earth? He used the word "it." What do you believe he was referring to?

Seems like men think Jesus forgot to do something? Like God sent a faulty Gift, that couldn't fulfill it's promises?

Who thinks that?

Why would men think such things? Jesus forgot nothing.

I've got to agree with you there. Jesus forgot nothing. Jesus got nothing wrong. Jesus is perfect. Human beings, on the other hand, are not.

Ingledsva · May 23, 2014

Katzpur said:
And what exactly do you believe Jesus meant when he said, "It is finished?" His minstry and atoning sacrifice? God's love for mankind? The Church He said He intended to establish? Life on this earth? He used the word "it." What do you believe he was referring to?

...

John tells us this, but it is still a bit vague.

John 19:28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
John 19:29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.
John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

*

Clear · May 23, 2014

POST ONE OF FIVE

1) Clear commented : In at least the last four posts I have asked you multiple times to give us examples from early sacred Judeo-Christian texts that describe your interpretation that spirits did not exist prior to being born? This should be incredibly easy if you are as educated and as well-versed as you claim.
ING responded - Again this has become stupidity beyond belief! Why would I look for texts stating no spirit - when I have repeatedly stated that there is in Tanakh? It is just NOT as you state, and nothing you have provided proves your case.

Do not be hard on yourself ingledsva. I do NOT think you are being stupid beyond belief, but rather you are simply being recalcitrant regarding a position you hope to discredit. If you DO admit that spirits of mankind exist prior to birth, then this is consistent with the LDS base claim. You are, however, elaborating upon the LDS claim in ways that reveal ignorance (still, I do not think you are being stupid beyond belief).

You repeat over and over that the Hebrew bible (i.e. Tanakh) supports your interpretation, yet you do not offer us supporting textual data. You merely repeat your unfounded claim that the bible (tanakh) supports you.

Ive asked for DATA, and TEXTUAL INFORMATION that supports your theory and its interpretation. Nowhere in this or other posts have you done this. For example, look at your next response below.

2) Ingledsva claims : I have plenty of history under my belt, I am an Archaeologist, I also took Comparative Religions in college, and a separate history course offered by the Catholic Church. I also translate the Hebrew and the Greek. My interest is the ancient spread of language, philosophy, and religion.
Clear responded : This is all very, very good, since, if this is all true, you should be very able to refer to multiple, and early Christian texts that support your position that early christians did not believe spirits existed prior to being born.
Ingledsva offered : Indeed, however I don't need to, as Tanakh is the base upon which the texts you are using, supposedly expound. Tanakh does not say what you are saying.

Again, you are simply repeating your claim that your interpretation of the bible (tanakh) does not support a claim you disagree with.

Your next response is simply more of the same. It is another empty claim regarding what you think is Hebrew belief.

Ingledsva responded : The Hebrew believe in ONE GOD that CREATED EVERYTHING, including spirit and angels. We are told humans are a like a pot which GOD places spirit within.

I might remind you that the claim we are discussing relates to CHRISTIANITY and CHRISTIAN BELIEF so your claims regarding hebrews exclusively, are fairly irrelevant.

Since you keep referring to the Hebrew bible (tanakh), I might remind you that the Christians did not use the tanakh (i.e. the HEBREW BIBLE), in the main, but rather they mainly used the Septuagint. How can you be such a great archaeologist-historian with deep linguistic and historical education as you say and have missed these very basic points?
IF you are an archaeologist with deep linguistic and Religious-historical education as you claim, you should be able to provide us SOME sort of textual data rather than mindlessly repeating your claim that you are correct. Read your next response, it is more of the same.

Ingledsva said : If you don't know this basic Hebrew idea - you have a big problem.

It is yet more of the same claim, repeated over and over and over what you think the Hebrews believe. But no textual data accompanying it nor how it relates to the Christian concept of existence of the spirits of mankind before they were born.

3) Regarding your Claim that you : "... have plenty of history under my belt, I am an Archaeologist, I also took Comparative Religions in college, and a separate history course offered by the Catholic Church. I also translate the Hebrew and the Greek. My interest is the ancient spread of language, philosophy, and religion.

If you want people to believe these claims, then act like an archaeologist who has plenty of [religious] history under their belt. Act like someone "who once took a history course" and Act like someone who is able to "translate" Greek of the Christian Bible. Give us DATA.

Instead of doing this, read your next response :
Ingledsva said If you don't understand that they believe in only ONE GOD, with NO spirit people floating around waiting to become other Gods - you have a big problem.

This is not the response of an educator. If you are truly educated, then educate. Share what you think you know in the form of data rather than jibes. Rather than discuss irrelevant claims, tell us what you actually have read and your research about the topic at hand. Read your next response.

Ingledsva said : What do you not understand about - Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

This data you offer has nothing to do with the pre-mortal existence of spirits. You ARE confused and constantly drift from the point at hand as though you would rather speak of other issues rather than the uncomfortable one in front of you. FOCUS on the subject at hand and GIVE US TEXTUAL DATA REGARDING YOUR DISAGREEMENT WITH THE SPIRITS OF MANKIND HAVING PRE-MORTAL EXISTENCE.

POST TWO OF FIVE FOLLOWS

Clear · May 23, 2014

POST TWO OF FIVE

4) Ingledsva said : This would be a good place for our Jewish and Christian members to chime in, as he is saying early Jewish and Christian texts say God found himself surrounded by spirit people and wanted to help them become like himself, which obviously they do not say.
Why cry for “help” from bystanders? And why add words to my claims?

If you are as bright and educated an archaeologist as you claim, with deep historical, religious history, and linguistic background as you claim, it should be VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY EASY for you to offer us textual DATA.

OFFER US THE DATA that individual spirits do not exist before birth as the early Christians believed. On the other hand, if you AGREE with the base principle that spirits existed before birth, then you are agreeing with the LDS claim. Where is your DATA?

5) Ingledsva said : Spirit existing - is not the same thing as saying God found himself surrounded by spirit beings
Clear responded : So, you are going to tell me how I must interpret my own religions text to support your theories? As a linguist, you must recognize this as an error and a very, very bad approach to deriving meaning of any provencial text.
Ingledsva responded : ING - I didn't tell you how to interpret your religion! You can believe anything you want. I am rebutting the idea that these texts support your religion's spirit ideas.

Surely you realize that any “rebuttal” should include SOME DATA which serves to rebut and refute other data, rather than to repeat the claim that “the bible (tanakh) supports me!” over and over (and over). Offer us some DATA, some TEXT, something that supports your position rather than simply claiming the bible (tanakh) supports you.

6) Ingledsva said : “THEY BELIEVED IN SPIRIT. THEY DID NOT BELIEVE IN A BUNCH OF SPIRIT PEOPLE AROUND GOD - IN NEED OF ASSISTANCE BECOMING GOD-LIKE!“

If you believe the early christians believed in spirit (I hope you are smart enough to refer to CHRISTIANS rather than HEBREWS– since my claim refers to CHRISTIANITY&#8230

then tell us WHY you believe in “spirit” (singular) and not in “spirits” (plural). Give us textual data from any of the earliest textual sources supporting your interpretation that the earliest Christians did not believe the spirits of mankind existed before birth. (Or are you actually admitting cognizant spirits existed.)

7) Ingledsva said : “According to Tanakh, GOD'S SPIRIT is what is within us giving us life.”

So what?

1) You are simply making a claim that the bible (tanakh) says something to you.
2) How does the source of life show that the early Christians did not believe that spirits of mankind existed before they were born?
3) If you are so sensitive to sources of information, why don’t you use the ancient Christian Bible to discuss Christian doctrine rather than the Hebrew bible (tanakh)?
4) There are issues with your interpretation and relevance that we cannot even discuss without references to your text (as you should know if you are a translator&#8230

.

8) Ingledsva “I repeated the same information OVER AND OVER!”

[FONT=&quot]This IS the Problem.

STOP simply repeating your claim that the bible (tanakh) agrees with you over and over and over and START GIVING US DATA that either supports or rebuts my claim that the early Judeo-Christian traditions were that spirits of mankind existed before they were born.

We have yet to receive any substantial textual data or objective information from any of your posts.

We are all waiting to see what sort of historical data you are going to present. For an Archaeologist who took comparative religions and a history course who translates Hebrew and Greek, there should be NO PROBLEM at all in simply giving us actual early period textual data that shows the earliest Christians did not believe the cognizant spirits of mankind existed before they were born.

POST THREE OF FIVE FOLLOWS.

[/FONT]

Clear · May 23, 2014

POST THREE OF FIVE

Ingledsva responded : And why would I bother wasting my time researching such when every person on this site knows the basic theology of the Abrahamic religions, - and that theology does NOT include Spirit people beside God - whom are becoming Gods/Godlike?

IF you ARE the high-powered and well educated “archaeologist”, linguist, expert in ancient religion that you represent yourself as, then you will have ALREADY DONE the research and simply need to present it. If you truly have NOT done the research and educated yourself on these issues, then you should simply admit your ignorance.

Ingledsva responded : Also note - I did give you information on Enoch when I rebutted your understanding of the meaning.

Perhaps you should note that your “rebuttal” was a failure, (especially for someone who claims to be a “translator” of Hebrew and Greek….).

When enoch says : ”... I saw a hundred thousand times a hundred thousand, ten million times ten million, an innumerable and uncountable (multitude) who stand before the glory of the Lord of the Spirits.” (1st Enoch 40:1) did you think forum members were all stupid enough not to notice enoch is speaking of PLURAL "spirits" (“millions”, “uncountable”, “multitude&#8221

, whereas your explanation shifted to SINGULAR "spirit".

A) If you were trying to trick us, you should know that Not all forum members are gullible.
B) If you didn't realize your error, then your translating skills are very, very poor.

Again, it is obvious that Enoch is speaking in the PLURAL when enoch says ““... write all the souls of men, whatever of them are not yet born, and their places, prepared for eternity. 5 For all souls are prepared for eternity, before the composition of the earth. .” (2nd Enoch 23:4-5)

These SPIRITS (plural) are not a single, amorphous SINGLE spirit. Your rebuttal imploded upon itself by lack of coherence.

THIS is why I reminded you to be rational and logical. The observations regarding your confusion, illogic, irrationality and failure to provide us with information which might support your claims were Not meant as a taunts, but instead, efficient communication cannot move forward efficiently unless you do these things.

POST FOUR OF FIVE FOLLOWS

Clear · May 23, 2014

POST FOUR OF FIVE

Regarding the ancient Judeo-Christian tradition that spirits of mankind existed before they were born.

LET ME GIVE YOU EXAMPLES OF THE TYPE OF TEXTUAL DATA YOU COULD OFFER WHICH YOU COULD USE AGAINST THIS EARLY TRADITION

1) Clear offered an example of this ancient tradition : At the time that the Holy One, be blessed, was about to create the world, he decided to fashion all the souls which would in due course be dealt out to the children of men, and each soul was formed into the exact outline of the body she was destined to tenant. Scrutinizing each, he saw that among them some would fall into evil ways in the world. Each one in its due time the Holy One, be blessed, bade come to him, and then said: Go now, descend into this and this place, into this and this body. Yet often enough the soul would reply: Lord of the world, I am content to remain in this realm, , and have no wish to depart to some other, where I shall be in thralldom, and become stained. Whereupon the Holy One, be blessed, would reply: Your destiny is, and has been from the day of thy forming, to go into that world. Then the soul, realizing it could not disobey, would unwillingly descend and come into this world. (The Zohar - The Destiny of the Soul)

Ingledsva could offer a rebuttal example of her tradition :
Here, Ingledsva (if you can find it), you could try to find a text that says God did NOT fashion All the souls and spirits which would be dealt out to the children of men, etc. FIND SOME SORT OF DATA THAT SUPPORTS YOUR POSITION and give it to us.

2) Clear offered an example of this ancient tradition : The soul and body of man are united in this way: When a woman has conceived...God decrees what manner of human being shall become of it whether it shall be male or female, strong or weak, rich or poor, beautiful or ugly, long or short, fat or thin, and what all its other qualities shall be. Piety and wickedness alone are left to the determination of man himself. Then God makes a sign to the angel appointed over the souls, saying, Bring me the soul so-and-so, which is hidden in Paradise, whose name is so-and-so, and whose form is so-and-so. The angel brings the designated soul, and she bows down when she appears in the presence of God, and prostrates herself before him. At that moment, God issues the command, Enter this sperm. The soul opens her mouth, and pleads: O Lord of the world! I am well pleased with the world in which I have been living since the day on which you called me into being. Why do you now desire to have me enter this impure sperm, I who am holy and pure, and a part of your glory? God consoles her: The world which I shall cause you to enter is better than the world in which you have lived hitherto, and when I created you, it was only for this purpose. The soul is then forced to enter the sperm against her will, and the angel carries her back to the womb of the mother. ...In the morning an angel carries here to Paradise, and shows her the righteous, who sit there in their glory, with crown upon their heads. The Angel then says to the soul, Do you know who these are? She replies in the negative, and the angel goes on: These whom you behold here were formed, like you, in the womb of their mother. When they came into the world, they observed Gods Torah and his commandments. Therefore they became the partakers of this bliss which you see them enjoy. Know, also, you will one day depart from the world below, and if you will observe Gods Torah, then will you be found worthy of sitting with these pious ones. But if not, you will be doomed to the other place. ..... Between morning and evening the angel carries the soul around, and shows her where she will live and where she will die...and he takes her through the whole world, and points out the just and the sinner and all things. In the evening, he replaces her in the womb of the mother, and there she remains for nine months. When the time arrives for her to emerge from the womb into the open world, the same angel addresses the soul, The time has come for you to go abroad into the open world. The soul demurs, Why do you want to make me go forth into the open world? The angel replies : Know that as you were formed against your will, so now you will be born against your will, and against your will you shall die, and against your will you shall give account of yourself before the King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed be he. But the soul is reluctant to leave her place. Then the angel fillips the babe on the nose, extinguishes the light at his head, and brings him forth into the world against his will. Immediately the child forgets all his soul has seen and learnt, and he comes into the world crying, for he loses a place of shelter and security and rest. The Haggadah (The Soul of Man)
Clears Comment : The context is obvious that this spirit is a personal spirit who is intelligent and communicative and has will. It is obvious that this soul/spirit IS the spirit that is placed into the body of the baby being born.

Ingledsva could offer a rebuttal example of her tradition : Here, ingledsva, you could try to find a sacred text that says soul/spirits do NOT exist, are NOT cognizant, are NOT intelligent, etc. And you could offer commentary on your example.

3) Clear offered an example of this ancient tradition : In his vision the angel bids Enoch, Come and I will show you the souls of the righteous who have already been created and have returned, and the souls of the righteous who have not yet been created. After seeing various pre-existent souls, the ancient midrashic explanation is given us by himself Enoch regarding these many souls says : the spirit shall clothe itself in my presence refers to the souls of the righteous which have already been created in the storehouse of beings and have returned to the presence of god; and the souls which I have made refers to the souls of the righteous which have not yet been created in the storehouse. (3rd Enoch 43:1-3)

Ingledsva could offer a rebuttal example of her tradition : You could find a text that shows these souls/spirits of the righteous in this storehouse does not refer to the souls/spirits of mankind.

POST FIVE OF FIVE FOLLOWS

Clear · May 23, 2014

POST FIVE OF FIVE

4) Clear offered an example of this ancient tradition : When the Prophet Sedrach is about to die, the only begotten refers to this same tradition, saying : “give me that which our Father deposited in the womb of your mother in your holy dwelling place since you were born.” (The Apocalypse of Sedrach 9:1-2 and 5). Is there anyone thinks this is not referring to Sedrachs soul/spirit?

Clears Comment : As Sedrachs’ body dies, ...” …the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.” This same tradition of return of the spirit to heaven is referred to in Thomas : “Blessed are the solitary and elect, for you will find the Kingdom. For you are from it, and to it you will return.” (THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS v 49), In Apo Ezra the tradition is the same : “Therefore, fear not death. For that which is from me, that is the soul, departs for heaven. That which is from the earth, that is the body, departs for the earth from which it was taken.” (The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 6:26 & 7:1-4)

Ingledsva could offer a rebuttal example of her tradition: Here, you could try to find a sacred text that says the preexisting spirit of mankind is NOT placed in a mother’s womb, and you could offer other clear supporting texts that make your point. You could offer commentary for us to look at.

5) Clear offered an example of this ancient tradition : In the early Christian text Clementing recognitions, the Apostle Peter refers to tradition as the Zohar (… At the time that the Holy One, be blessed, was about to create the world, he decided to fashion all the souls which would in due course be dealt out to the children of men&#8230 in the very same context (almost the same words as the Zohar) in explaining to Clement that " that "This world was made so that the number of spirits predestined to come here when their number was full could receive their bodies and again be conducted back to the light." (Clement-Recognitions)

Ingledsva could offer an example of her tradition : Here Ingledsva, you could attempt to find a text that says that God did NOT send pre-existent spirits here to receive bodies (and experience mortality) and then be conducted BACK to the light.

6) Clear offers an example of this ancient tradition : The Sethian literature refers to heaven as the “home” of our spirits, which we then left and came into this world into bodies : “After we went forth from our home, and came down to this world, and came into being in the world in bodies, we were hated and persecuted, not only by those who are ignorant, but also by those who think that they are advancing the name of Christ, …” (The second treatise of the Great Seth)

Ingledsva could offer a rebuttal example of her tradition Here, you could try to find a text that says "Our personal spirits did not exist in heaven before coming into this 'world in bodies'."

7) Clear offered an example of this ancient tradition : Multiple texts describing this tradition are quite consistent. Haggadah uses almost the same words as Jewish Zohar on this point. : “Instead of being the last, man is really the first work of creation...With the soul of Adam the souls of all the generations of men were created. They are stored up in a promptuary, in the seventh of the heavens, whence they are drawn as they are needed for human body after human body.” The Haggadah (The Soul of Man)
Clears Comment : With the generation of Adams soul, all other spirit/souls of mankind were created and existed before they were born and come to earth according to God’s plan.

Ingledsva could offer a rebuttal example of her tradition : Here, you could attempt fo find a text that said all souls/spirits of men were NOT created together or stored up until the time of their birth to be placed in human body after human body.

8) Clear offered an example of this ancient tradition : The great scribe Enoch is commanded by the angel to : “... write all the souls of men, whatever of them are not yet born, and their places, prepared for eternity. 5 For all souls are prepared for eternity, before the composition of the earth.” (2nd Enoch 23:4-5)

Ingledsva could offer a rebuttal example of her tradition : You could attempt to find an early text that says “I was just kidding here”, or “the souls/spirits of men that are not yet born didn’t really exist.”

9) Clear offered an example of this ancient tradition : ”... I saw a hundred thousand times a hundred thousand, ten million times ten million, an innumerable and uncountable (multitude) who stand before the glory of the Lord of the Spirits. (1st Enoch 40:1)
Ingledsva could offer a rebuttal example of her tradition : You could attempt to find a text that says these spirits do not include the spirits of mankind.

INGLEDSVA, IF YOU ARE WHAT YOU SAY YOU ARE, AN ACCOMPLISHED AND EDUCATED ARCHAEOLOGIST WHO TOOK COMPARATIVE RELIGION AND A HISTORY COURSE WHO IS A LINGUIST ABLE TO TRANSLATE HEBREW AND GREEK WHO HAS STUDIED THE ANCIENT SPREAD OF LANGUAGE, PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION, THEN YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO GIVE US SOME DATA, RATHER THAN MINDLESSLY REPEATING YOURSELF OVER AND OVER.

THE MEMBERS OF THE FORUM HAVE A RIGHT TO SEE YOUR DATA AND LOOK AT IT FOR THEMSELVES. WHERE'S YOUR DATA?

In any case, I honestly hope your life’s journey is Good Ingledsva.

Clear
φυτζνεακσιω

Katzpur · May 24, 2014

Ingledsva said:
John tells us this, but it is still a bit vague.

John 19:28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
John 19:29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.
John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

*

Good point, and I agree. On the other hand, I'd still say that "all things" being accomplished, has to refer to Jesus' own mission and not to "all things" that God would cause to take place in the future. Clearly, God is still accomplishing things as we speak, so Lyndale's reference to the phrase "it is finished" meaning anything other than Christ's mission doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Clear · May 26, 2014

Katzpur said in post 1365 : “And what exactly do you believe Jesus meant when he said, "It is finished?" His minstry and atoning sacrifice? God's love for mankind? The Church He said He intended to establish? Life on this earth? He used the word "it." What do you believe he was referring to?”
And in # 1372 “….I'd still say that "all things" being accomplished, has to refer to Jesus' own mission and not to "all things" that God would cause to take place in the future. Clearly, God is still accomplishing things as we speak, so Lyndale's reference to the phrase "it is finished" meaning anything other than Christ's mission doesn't make a whole lot of sense. “

Hi Katzpur :

I did not find Lyndales’ reference to “ALL THINGS being accomplished" (plural and generalized)” so I do not know the context of Lyndale’s point and am simply speaking to your point regarding Jesus saying "IT is finished" (singular and specific). Since reading your question I’ve considered what it might have meant when Jesus said “When Jesus therefore took the vinegar, he said, “It has been finished”, and bowing his head, he gave up the [his] spirit.”

I agree that Jesus' statement does not, and cannot mean that Jesus finished all that he was sent here to do.

For concrete examples, He had not yet accomplished the decensus; he had not been resurrected by his Father; he had not given the apostles a witness of his resurrection (which IS a major principle that distinguishes him from other religious leaders – none had resurrected before) ; he had not yet given his apostles the 40 days of higher teachings; He had not yet brought Adam and the others from Sheol ; no others had yet been resurrected, etc, etc. The point is that many of the other designs and process in the Fathers plan had not yet been accomplished and thus Jesus’ saying “It has been finished” does not apply to all things he was sent by the Father to accomplish.

My current model (pending any better data) is that Jesus was referring specifically to his role as a redeemer in the payment for mankinds sins as part of their ultimate salvation in a social heaven.

A note on manuscript and linguistic nuances : The root verb used in “finished” in 28 and 30 is the same root word used in vs 28 where it is : “rendered … Jesus said….to fulfill the scripture” (τελειωθη – i.e. literally – “having reached it’s end&#8221

. In other manuscripts (sinaiticus, D, θ,f, etc) use a form of the “fulfill” (πληρωθ&#951

in this spot. The point is that the different greek words for “finished” and “fulfill” were used as synonyms between manuscripts and both create meaning as to what is happening. Just as “fulfill” is most often used in NT to indicate a single process or point being accomplished, almost all of the uses of greek “finished” in NT refer to a specific process having reached its end or being fulfilled rather than all related processes coming to an end (exceptions to this include references to “time”, etc) .

In any case, it makes little sense to try to apply this word to ALL processes coming to an end in John 19:30 since Christ continues to do other things he was sent by his Father to accomplish.

Whatever the actual meaning is, I wish you a good journey in this life Katzpur.

Clear
φυειειφυνεω

Katzpur · May 26, 2014

Clear said:
Katzpur said in post 1365 : “And what exactly do you believe Jesus meant when he said, "It is finished?" His minstry and atoning sacrifice? God's love for mankind? The Church He said He intended to establish? Life on this earth? He used the word "it." What do you believe he was referring to?”
And in # 1372 “….I'd still say that "all things" being accomplished, has to refer to Jesus' own mission and not to "all things" that God would cause to take place in the future. Clearly, God is still accomplishing things as we speak, so Lyndale's reference to the phrase "it is finished" meaning anything other than Christ's mission doesn't make a whole lot of sense. “

Hi Katzpur :

I did not find Lyndales’ reference to “ALL THINGS being accomplished" (plural and generalized)” so I do not know the context of Lyndale’s point and am simply speaking to your point regarding Jesus saying "IT is finished" (singular and specific). Since reading your question I’ve considered what it might have meant when Jesus said “When Jesus therefore took the vinegar, he said, “It has been finished”, and bowing his head, he gave up the [his] spirit.”

Hello, Clear.

It was this post that prompted my response to Lyndale and my follow-up comment to Ingledsva. The notion that Jesus's statement, "It is finished," is somehow evidence that Mormon doctrines are false is nothing short of preposterous. If Lyndale wants to prove Mormonism to be false, he needs to come up with a better argument than he did in that post. Furthermore, he never even bothered to respond to my post, which was disappointing.

Desert Snake · May 26, 2014

Katzpur said:
Good point, and I agree. On the other hand, I'd still say that "all things" being accomplished, has to refer to Jesus' own mission and not to "all things" that God would cause to take place in the future. Clearly, God is still accomplishing things as we speak, so Lyndale's reference to the phrase "it is finished" meaning anything other than Christ's mission doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I don't know what he meant. What I take it to mean is the beginning of the New Covenant, as law. We ALREADY HAD aspects of the new Covenant, but it wasn't law yet, not established law, or even if it was, this was the statement making it final, 'putting it in writing' so to speak. I view these things in more parable manner than many might.

Katzpur · May 26, 2014

disciple said:
I don't know what he meant. What I take it to mean is the beginning of the New Covenant, as law. We ALREADY HAD aspects of the new Covenant, but it wasn't law yet, not established law, or even if it was, this was the statement making it final, 'putting it in writing' so to speak. I view these things in more parable manner than many might.

Basically, I think that Lyndale was accusing Mormons of thinking Jesus "forgot something" or that God's gift to mankind was flawed. When I explained that this is the last thing in the world that Mormons believe, I got no response. On second thought, it really doesn't matter. I'm pretty unimpressed with most of what I've read on this thread anyway. At least 50% of what's been posted is nothing more than personal attacks.

Desert Snake · May 26, 2014

Katzpur said:
Basically, I think that Lyndale was accusing Mormons of thinking Jesus "forgot something" or that God's gift to mankind was flawed. When I explained that this is the last thing in the world that Mormons believe, I got no response. On second thought, it really doesn't matter. I'm pretty unimpressed with most of what I've read on this thread anyway. At least 50% of what's been posted is nothing more than personal attacks.

O.k., but the 'it is finished' topic is a good one imo regardless.

Katzpur · May 26, 2014

disciple said:
O.k., but the 'it is finished' topic is a good one imo regardless.

I agree. It's a very good topic. Want to start a new thread?

Katzpur · May 26, 2014

disciple said:
Might be a good idea. What do you think, DIR?

I'd say either "Biblical Debates" or "Same Faith Debates -- Christian Only." It's going to end up being a debate, no matter where you put it, so you might as well put it on a forum where debating is allowed.

I think a DIR would maybe be too restrictive.

AmbiguousGuy · May 26, 2014

Mestemia said:
Based solely upon her posting history thus far on RF, Nymphs is not the least bit interested in truth or facts.

Third-party insults don't seem like the way to truth or facts.

McBell · May 26, 2014

AmbiguousGuy said:
Third-party insults don't seem like the way to truth or facts.

I have not insulted anyone.
I merely made a statement of fact.

Now if Beckysoup would like to prove me wrong....

But I shan't hold my breath.

Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

HEATHEN ALASKAN

Well-Known Member

HEATHEN ALASKAN

Not your average Mormon

HEATHEN ALASKAN

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Not your average Mormon

Well-Known Member

Not your average Mormon

Veteran Member

Not your average Mormon

Veteran Member

Not your average Mormon

Not your average Mormon

Well-Known Member

Resident Sourpuss