• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does Paul Agree With LDS?

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
I agree with the conclusion.....but not how you arrived at it...
Then you may consider it a fallacious argument.

An admission that we all fail to bridle our tongue is what James was saying.....I don’t think that you are understanding him correctly, and it’s taking you to a whole different conclusion. Aren’t you demonstrating the issue?
Maybe? Maybe not, because in chapter one of his little five chapter book he says we are individually given birth through the word of truth. How can that word come through another person if they have a poisonous tongue? He appears to allude to Jeremiah 31:34 just like Hebrews 8:11 does. "No longer will they teach their neighbor or say to one another 'Know the LORD'" How we balance this with Paul's comments to Timothy requires forgiving other other for differing, because Paul tells Timothy to teach things. Is he not teaching Know the LORD? James and Timothy are fragments of information that we put together.

Not sure I’m on your wavelength here, but the canon is a compilation of what God wanted in his word....it is not the work of any church, but it is exclusively the work of Jews who penned every word under God’s inspiration. I believe that.

The Hebrew and Greek Scriptures have been interpreted by Christian scholars and some have brought their own biases into translation. Which is why I always consult the Tanakh to check that the translation of Hebrew Scripture is accurate. It’s their language and they should know what the words mean.....their application however is not always reliable because of the things Jesus said.
When I think of all of the newly uncovered information we have about the making of the canon such as the gnostic texts that were discovered in Qumran and the recent translation of Babylonian and of Egyptian I must take such comments with a grain of salt. I have read some terrific arguments about predictions made through the canon. I equate such arguments with divination. I also know men have a tendency to want to make permanent improvements and will struggle to institute their words as scripture. Such things should not be canon, and fortunately that is not how our canon comes to exist. Canon is considered inspired, because it is not made in that way. It doesn't matter if Noah's story is an altered version of Gilgamesh's story. What matters is why it was written. That is what makes it inspired. We know it is inspired, because we can see God in it. We can't know God has inspired it just because Bob or Ed says so or because it floats down on a blanket or tells who the next fifty US presidents are. That's not how to determine what is canon.

The ignorance I find most distressing in Christendom’s churches is that they refer to the Hebrew Scriptures as “old” and infer that it has been replaced by something “new”. It was only by studying the Hebrew Scriptures that the Christian scriptures made any sense to me. The Bible is one story, that begins in Genesis and finishes in Revelation. You begin to understand the magnitude of the effort God went to in order for his first purpose to be fulfilled. What God starts, he always finishes. (Isaiah 55:11)

What we lost in Eden is given back in Revelation....everything in between is how God accomplishes that.

Being raised in Christendom, I had no idea about any of it. I had bits of a puzzle that no one ever showed me how to put together....until I met Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The big picture now fills me with hope that what the Revelation depicts (Revelation 21:3-4) is not far away......I don’t think the world will know what hit them.....but the end result will be exactly what God had in mind at the outset.
This hope about Revelation is your pillar. I think its your strong city. You absolutely demand that it be true.
 

Orontes

Master of the Horse
That explanation is old and tired. People can certainly be experts in a subject without being within the subject themselves.

I mentioned scholars before. You rebutted. Therefore you disagree with my post about scholars. Not that hard Katzpur.

This attempted go at Katzpur demonstrates a fundamental failure to understand religion. Further, the general thrust of the several posts indicate a general sophomorism. I'll illustrate the failing. If the subject were Roman Catholicism, or more specifically transubstantiation, one might look to the Roman Catholic Catechism. One might also consider the role of aristotelian physics on Western Medieval Thought in the 13th Century. However, neither of those elements is sufficient. Neither can convey what occurs with the devotee as they partake of the body and blood of Christ during the Eucharist. In simple terms, the depth, significance, and meaning of a religious X can only be properly conveyed from within. Thus, the proper route to understand a religious tradition is from the perspective of the practitioner. Anything else confuses form for substance.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
He criticizes. What is a viper in scripture? What is a seraphim, and what is a fiery serpent?

I found something interesting when I looked up the Greek word for "viper".....(Strongs)

ἔχιδνα échidna, ekh'-id-nah; of uncertain origin; an adder or other poisonous snake (literally or figuratively):—viper.

Who knew?......I thought echidnas were only found in Australia....:shrug:

The Hebrew word for the serpent who tempted Ever is "nachash" which also means a "serpent, snake"...

So the "seraphim" (Isaiah 6:2) were not serpents, but angels of high rank that are attendant upon God's throne.
They are described as....."each had six wings. Each covered his face with two and covered his feet with two, and each of them would fly about with two." Certainly not the kind of angels who visited God's servants on earth.

I think what he denounces is their discipleship limitations, their selection process for disciples. He sets an opposite example by choosing apostles that they would consider unfit.

Actually he selected humble men who had not attended the rabbinical schools because what the Pharisees taught in them was "leaven"....a corruption of the scriptures.
Matthew 16:6; 11-12..."Jesus said to them: “Keep your eyes open and watch out for the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”. . .How is it you do not discern that I did not speak to you about bread? But watch out for the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they grasped that he said to watch out, not for the leaven of bread, but for the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees."

The Jews mocked Jesus and his disciples for failing to have an approved education, but Jesus was the greatest teacher who ever existed, and he was their instructor....so the joke was on them.

He takes over for John the Baptist who preaches like in Isaiah that the time has come when there are neither high nor low. His criticism of the Pharisee method is that being gatekeepers (like seraphim) prevents them from entering. He is radical and wants all the Jews to love the Romans like they are Jews.

Whoa....where did this come from? John was sent to prepare the Jews to receive their Messiah. (Isaiah 40:3)
Jesus was sent only to the Jews, but not to the Jewish leaders who had already proven themselves to be incorrigible.....he was sent to "the lost sheep...those whom the shepherds had neglected and treated like dirt.

Jesus had little to do with the Romans and he was by no means 'radical'.....he was forthright in campaigning for true worship because Judaism was not promoting it, and were about to be cast off as God's people. The murder of Jesus was the last straw. Pilate found him not guilty of breaking any law and tried to free him, but the Jewish leaders had whipped up the crowd who ended up cursing themselves and their own children with his blood. (Matthew 27:25)

It wasn't until after Jesus' death and resurrection that Peter used one of the Keys of the Kingdom that Jesus had given him.....to open the way for Gentiles to come to Christ. The Jews has been supplanted by hated Gentiles.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
A prophet can't just cancel the Torah, even if he calls it fulfillment. "Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy" is not a suggestion. "Honor your father and mother" cannot be canceled. A prophet shouldn't go against this, and its doubtful that Jesus would no matter how super powered he may be.

Jesus never canceled the Torah...what he did was institute a new covenant....one that they had been told to expect. (Jeremiah 31:31-33)....the old one had been fulfilled and now there was a new arrangement that did not require sacrifices because Jesus had paid for the sins of the whole world.....all they had to do was qualify for his sacrifice to apply to them.

Instead of the copious laws that bound Israel, Jesus now only commanded two......"love for God and for neighbor".
He said that on those two, the entire law and the prophets rested. (Matthew 22:35-40) Think about that for a moment.....that meant that to break the laws of God, no matter what they were, it would have been a violation of one or both of those two fundamental laws. The Jewish leaders were legalists, nit picking the law to the most ridiculous degree, and adding so much to burden the people....but Jesus said that they were the worst of hypocrites. (Matthew 23:1-12) Christians would no longer need someone to nit pick the law for them, but could exercise their conscience over any matter as to whether it violated either of those two commands.

Another approach is that the discussion in Acts about gentiles reveals that we aren't Jews, so we don't keep Torah necessarily but that Jews still should. Therefore Jesus cannot have been denouncing the practice of Torah, upholding Paul's comment in Romans 3:2 (KJV said 'Oracles') There are still Jews, and they are still entrusted with the very words of God according to Paul all that practice Torah.

Jesus to my knowledge never denounced the Torah...as a Jew, it was his law too. The new covenant meant that Jews were no longer bound by the written law but would obey what was written in their hearts of their own free will. Those born into Judaism had no choice but to obey the Law because they were bound to it by birth....now they had a choice.....to follow Jesus or to stay with an obsolete religious system that God had abandoned because they never kept their part of the covenant. They broke it again and again...but God never did. Once he produced their Messiah like he promised, God had no further use for those stiff necked people who could never stay faithful to their God for very long. He chose a new nation and called them "the Israel of God"...not fleshly Jews but spiritual Jews. (Romans 2:28-29; Acts 15:14)

"Let the little children come unto me." I think this is the criticism of Jesus against his generation. Its the same as the accusation of 'Viper' and worded differently.

Not how I see these verse at all. The disciples thought that their master would not have time for children, but they were wrong. Jesus told them to allow the children to come to him....he said the kingdom belongs to ones like these.....humble, meek, trusting and teachable.

We know God can forgive. The limitation is what humans can forgive. I think that the many, many churches out there all of which we hope are one church and the unchurched and the Jews and the pagans and the neopagans all have access to atonement if we forgive them for those wrongs which we perceive.

Again, not how I perceive things at all. Jesus focused on the Jews because his Father had promised Abraham that his descendants would produce the Messiah. The Jews were given first option to become the "kingdom of priests and a holy nation" as God had said....but they were not having a bar of it.....Jesus did not fit their expectation of the Messiah, so they silenced him just like all the prophets sent to correct these wayward people in the past. (Matthew 23:37-39)

God will forgive anyone who is repentant and prepared to become a disciple of his son.....those who do not, are not in line for anything but death. (John 3:16) At the end, there are only "sheep and goats"....true worshippers of Jehovah and those who pretend to be, or who don't want to know him. Jesus is the judge, so he knows which is which.

If those who know of god and know to forgive won't forgive then atonement is broken. How many times does Jesus say we should forgive? He says seventy times seven. He tells his disciples that what they forgive is forgiven. The power of forgiveness is not withheld by God. Its people who won't forgive. Its people who won't let the little children come. Its people.

The way we forgive our brothers is the criteria for how God forgives us. We do not need to forgive the world because if they don't come to Christ there is no basis to forgive them anyhow. Those who don't want to know God will not be around after the judgment......that is sad but its their choice.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
This hope about Revelation is your pillar. I think its your strong city. You absolutely demand that it be true.

Oh I demand nothing....I have a hope that buoys me in these troubled times and gives me an explanation for why the world is in such turmoil.....it takes me beyond these troubles and gives me something to look forward to.
Revelation 21:3-4 is a promise made by the only one who has the power to make it a reality. I have no reason to doubt him.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
I found something interesting when I looked up the Greek word for "viper".....(Strongs)

ἔχιδνα échidna, ekh'-id-nah; of uncertain origin; an adder or other poisonous snake (literally or figuratively):—viper.

Who knew?......I thought echidnas were only found in Australia....:shrug:

The Hebrew word for the serpent who tempted Ever is "nachash" which also means a "serpent, snake"...

So the "seraphim" (Isaiah 6:2) were not serpents, but angels of high rank that are attendant upon God's throne.
They are described as....."each had six wings. Each covered his face with two and covered his feet with two, and each of them would fly about with two." Certainly not the kind of angels who visited God's servants on earth.
Sorry that was an unplanned slip of the tongue on my part. I meant to say 'Cherabim' not 'Seraphim'. Let me attempt to explain better: The Cherabim blocks the way to the Tree of Life with its fiery sword, somewhat like the fiery bite of the fiery serpents in the wild. Fiery for the serpent translates to poison, but the term use the same I think. They bite the people, and the people begin to die unless they look upon the brazen serpent. The story is very strange but not more strange than the cherabim. When John the baptists calls them vipers in his sermons about high and low being made equal, he is accusing them of blocking the gate. They are too choosy for John B. They are like the brazen serpent and like the cherabim to John. John B then passes his ministry on to a Greater than himself. This fulfills (or demonstrates) his point. It is a prophetic sign, just as if he had been wearing a yolk or lying upon his side or something like that. His student is greater than he himself. This of monumental moment for Christianity. The greater may come from the lesser, however its not a new lesson. John and Jesus are simply hammering it home.

Actually he selected humble men who had not attended the rabbinical schools because what the Pharisees taught in them was "leaven"....a corruption of the scriptures.
Matthew 16:6; 11-12..."Jesus said to them: “Keep your eyes open and watch out for the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”. . .How is it you do not discern that I did not speak to you about bread? But watch out for the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they grasped that he said to watch out, not for the leaven of bread, but for the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees."

The Jews mocked Jesus and his disciples for failing to have an approved education, but Jesus was the greatest teacher who ever existed, and he was their instructor....so the joke was on them.
That is an alternative explanation, however a lot of these were not humble men. Leaven puffs up bread, makes it rise. We know today that it is due to the actions of gas bubbles expanding in the dough. It is like fat, representative of pride, that which much be removed from offerings and that which much not be consumed at the Passover. A tiny amount in a house will cause dough to become infected and to puff up. The Jews are not permitted to let this happen and must cleanse their homes just in case any yeast exists. Jesus accuses these pharisees of being proud, too proud to accept lesser people. The pharisees actually think of it differently and that they are doing their best to preserve the tradition, but Jesus asserts that it is pride to be so choosy. How does that sound to you?

Whoa....where did this come from? John was sent to prepare the Jews to receive their Messiah. (Isaiah 40:3)
Jesus was sent only to the Jews, but not to the Jewish leaders who had already proven themselves to be incorrigible.....he was sent to "the lost sheep...those whom the shepherds had neglected and treated like dirt.

Jesus had little to do with the Romans and he was by no means 'radical'.....he was forthright in campaigning for true worship because Judaism was not promoting it, and were about to be cast off as God's people. The murder of Jesus was the last straw. Pilate found him not guilty of breaking any law and tried to free him, but the Jewish leaders had whipped up the crowd who ended up cursing themselves and their own children with his blood. (Matthew 27:25)

It wasn't until after Jesus' death and resurrection that Peter used one of the Keys of the Kingdom that Jesus had given him.....to open the way for Gentiles to come to Christ. The Jews has been supplanted by hated Gentiles.
You ask where does this come from. John B preaches the message of Isaiah and we are told is the voice in the wild calling "Make the high places low and the low places high to prepare the way..." Thus he annoys those who are wealthy, educated and potentially righteous and encourages those who are poor, ignorant and ineligible for righteousness. Rather than direct quotations and copies of John B's sermons we have just a reference to the passage in Isaiah (since in those those days there were no chapter and verse numbers). In old times there are no chapters and verse numbers, so to refer to something that a prophet says a gospel may quote part of the passage, and that substitutes for a reference like what we would use today. The reference is a means of knowing what John B preaches before Jesus and why many Pharisees and leaders are upset with him. The gospels otherwise don't explain why pharisees are upset with John. They do say what he is preaching about by referring to Isaiah's quote. John also agitates by calling out the sins of Herod, but this alone doesn't explain why the Pharisees or the Jewish leaders would be annoyed by him. The passage in Isaiah enlightens us about it.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
This attempted go at Katzpur demonstrates a fundamental failure to understand religion. Further, the general thrust of the several posts indicate a general sophomorism. I'll illustrate the failing. If the subject were Roman Catholicism, or more specifically transubstantiation, one might look to the Roman Catholic Catechism. One might also consider the role of aristotelian physics on Western Medieval Thought in the 13th Century. However, neither of those elements is sufficient. Neither can convey what occurs with the devotee as they partake of the body and blood of Christ during the Eucharist. In simple terms, the depth, significance, and meaning of a religious X can only be properly conveyed from within. Thus, the proper route to understand a religious tradition is from the perspective of the practitioner. Anything else confuses form for substance.
Not interested in “spiritual evidence” and fairy tales. Mormon Church is a fraud as demonstrated by real evidence. I sucked down your sacrament for decades. I was on the inside. So perhaps my view is a bit broader and depose than those from within.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Jesus never canceled the Torah...what he did was institute a new covenant....one that they had been told to expect. (Jeremiah 31:31-33)....the old one had been fulfilled and now there was a new arrangement that did not require sacrifices because Jesus had paid for the sins of the whole world.....all they had to do was qualify for his sacrifice to apply to them.

Instead of the copious laws that bound Israel, Jesus now only commanded two......"love for God and for neighbor".
He said that on those two, the entire law and the prophets rested. (Matthew 22:35-40) Think about that for a moment.....that meant that to break the laws of God, no matter what they were, it would have been a violation of one or both of those two fundamental laws. The Jewish leaders were legalists, nit picking the law to the most ridiculous degree, and adding so much to burden the people....but Jesus said that they were the worst of hypocrites. (Matthew 23:1-12) Christians would no longer need someone to nit pick the law for them, but could exercise their conscience over any matter as to whether it violated either of those two commands.
A prophet cannot cancel the Torah and call this fulfillment. He may not replace it. He may not undo it, untie and retie it. He simply cannot. To suggest that Jesus does this is to suggest he is full of doubletalk. You can claim that the law can be replaced and call it fulfillment, but you can't make me process that logically. Anyways there are other explanations for Jesus fulfillment of the law which make sense. If you have a red house with a garage, and I explode it with dynamite and then give you a blue two story and say I have fulfilled your house you're going to say "No. What you did was destroy my old house then give me another house. You didn't fulfill my previous house. You blew it skyhigh."

Jesus to my knowledge never denounced the Torah...as a Jew, it was his law too. The new covenant meant that Jews were no longer bound by the written law but would obey what was written in their hearts of their own free will. Those born into Judaism had no choice but to obey the Law because they were bound to it by birth....now they had a choice.....to follow Jesus or to stay with an obsolete religious system that God had abandoned because they never kept their part of the covenant. They broke it again and again...but God never did. Once he produced their Messiah like he promised, God had no further use for those stiff necked people who could never stay faithful to their God for very long. He chose a new nation and called them "the Israel of God"...not fleshly Jews but spiritual Jews. (Romans 2:28-29; Acts 15:14)
I understand what you're saying, but its simply not possible to cancel the Torah. I understand. I simply don't accept this that I consider, and there are better explanations which I think I have mentioned. (Did I not? I don't remember.) If a covenant can be declared old and canceled then there is no security in covenants. When prophet Jeremiah says "The days are coming when I will make a new covenant" he simply doesn't have the authority to antiquate a covenant. It cannot be what he means, because he is speaking truth not changing the past.

Suppose Wonder Woman puts you into her lasso, forcing you to tell the truth. Does it really force you to speak truth or does everything you say become real thereby being true? This seems to be how you perceive Jeremiah's words, and I disagree. Jeremiah unfortunately cannot change reality. If he says there is a new covenant it nevertheless cannot end a previous covenant, which is arguably eternal. It must be an additional covenant, and the Jews must still keep their Torah. They don't have the freedom to leave their Torah, not ever. I'm pretty sure of this and don't see Jesus changing it nor Jeremiah.

Not how I see these verse at all. The disciples thought that their master would not have time for children, but they were wrong. Jesus told them to allow the children to come to him....he said the kingdom belongs to ones like these.....humble, meek, trusting and teachable.
Notice you are projecting reasons in the disciples minds? Just as you think the disciples think something, I think Jesus thinks something. They 'Thought' that their master would not have time for children? It doesn't say that, so you can't conclude it not as something to assure me of. Its an idea, certainly; but when I consider that Jesus directly tells the Pharisees that they go over land and sea to find a disciple and then only make them worse that indicates to me he has a problem with how they pick their disciples. That and all the other indications that he doesn't like how they pick their disciples. His repeated messages about casting seed on all kinds of ground, of investing not hiding, of casting the net on the other side, his speaking (alone) to a Samaritan woman stranger, his touching lepers... These and other passages just speak so loudly to me that he wants Jews to embrace the Romans and all people. He thinks that the time of separations is over. That is the reason I project which I think he thinks.

Again, not how I perceive things at all. Jesus focused on the Jews because his Father had promised Abraham that his descendants would produce the Messiah. The Jews were given first option to become the "kingdom of priests and a holy nation" as God had said....but they were not having a bar of it.....Jesus did not fit their expectation of the Messiah, so they silenced him just like all the prophets sent to correct these wayward people in the past. (Matthew 23:37-39)

God will forgive anyone who is repentant and prepared to become a disciple of his son.....those who do not, are not in line for anything but death. (John 3:16) At the end, there are only "sheep and goats"....true worshippers of Jehovah and those who pretend to be, or who don't want to know him. Jesus is the judge, so he knows which is which.
JW's (called "Jehova's Witnesses") have a reputation for peace, however the doctrine you've cited cannot be credited for causing that. It was previously held by Martin Luther, who if you didn't accept his teaching about it might have your skin flailed and your testicles pulled off with red hot irons, so I am told. Should I double check that? I guess I should; but I'm pretty sure. It is called the 'Replacement Theology' and is I think irrelevant.

As you must know I am not above criticizing the NT if I think it crosses the Tanach in some way, though it would be difficult for me to determine that it does or doesn't. The Tanach is the scripture relied upon by Paul, Peter, Jesus and all of them and has primacy. Therefore I don't understand the argument in Galatians as translated. I think its commonly misunderstood or poorly written or could even be wrong, though I think it is an important book and something we do need in the canon. I should read it again in case I have misunderstood, but let me quote something. It says something about the covenant which I think gets underplayed by you in this conversation! "Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case." (Gal 3:15 NIV) Even this writer of Galatians, arguing for freedom from the law, has to preface his argument with the admission that the covenant cannot expire. The covenant is everlasting, so there must always be Jews keeping the Torah. I don't see myself convinced to think otherwise.

The way we forgive our brothers is the criteria for how God forgives us. We do not need to forgive the world because if they don't come to Christ there is no basis to forgive them anyhow. Those who don't want to know God will not be around after the judgment......that is sad but its their choice.
Somewhat agree and disagree. To go into further discussion about it would derail. Let us table it.

Oh I demand nothing....I have a hope that buoys me in these troubled times and gives me an explanation for why the world is in such turmoil.....it takes me beyond these troubles and gives me something to look forward to.
Revelation 21:3-4 is a promise made by the only one who has the power to make it a reality. I have no reason to doubt him.
I also have hope in these troubled times.
 

Orontes

Master of the Horse
Not interested in “spiritual evidence” and fairy tales. Mormon Church is a fraud as demonstrated by real evidence. I sucked down your sacrament for decades. I was on the inside. So perhaps my view is a bit broader and depose than those from within.

The position explained made no reference to Mormonism. That same point is not dependent on any particular claims of Mormonism. Neither is any personal drama you may have relevant, other than your demonstrated animus toward things Mormon explains why you went after Katzpur, who is Mormon. The point concerns religion qua religion. To whit, the meaning of any religious claim X can only be grounded in and through the devotee. It is the baseline for data. This lack of understanding is a fundamental flaw on your part and why your post(s) is sophomoric. No one with even the most basic of academic rigor would attempt to explain the width and depth of a religion, minus that dependence on the believer who is the source of all ritual, cannon, and doctrine.
 
Last edited:

Orontes

Master of the Horse
To reiterate:

1) I have made no comment about any Mormon specific claims
2) The point presented is not dependent on any Mormon specific claims.
3) The point presented is not dependent on your personal drama with Mormonism.

You need to read more carefully. My post 63 states:

"This attempted go at Katzpur demonstrates a fundamental failure to understand religion. Further, the general thrust of the several posts indicate a general sophomorism. I'll illustrate the failing. If the subject were Roman Catholicism, or more specifically transubstantiation, one might look to the Roman Catholic Catechism. One might also consider the role of Aristotelian physics on Western Medieval Thought in the 13th Century. However, neither of those elements is sufficient. Neither can convey what occurs with the devotee as they partake of the body and blood of Christ during the Eucharist. In simple terms, the depth, significance, and meaning of a religious X can only be properly conveyed from within. Thus, the proper route to understand a religious tradition is from the perspective of the practitioner. Anything else confuses form for substance. "

My follow up post 70 states:

"The position explained made no reference to Mormonism. That same point is not dependent on any particular claims of Mormonism. Neither is any personal drama you may have relevant, other than your demonstrated animus toward things Mormon explains why you went after Katzpur, who is Mormon. The point concerns religion qua religion. To whit, the meaning of any religious claim X can only be grounded in and through the devotee. It is the baseline for data. This lack of understanding is a fundamental flaw on your part and why your post(s) is sophomoric. No one with even the most basic of academic rigor would attempt to explain the width and depth of a religion, minus that dependence on the believer who is the source of all ritual, cannon, and doctrine. "



The issue is an epistemic one and turns on the basis by which religion itself is understood. It has to do with the grounding of meaning in religion. Your stance is, as previously stated, fundamentally flawed and sophomoric. If you don't understand the point being made, which may be the case as you've not addressed it, I can explain further. Otherwise, the absurdity of your stance remains starkly evident.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Sorry that was an unplanned slip of the tongue on my part. I meant to say 'Cherabim' not 'Seraphim'. Let me attempt to explain better: The Cherabim blocks the way to the Tree of Life with its fiery sword, somewhat like the fiery bite of the fiery serpents in the wild.

The Cherubs (Heb "keruwb)" were the guardians in Eden and the sword was not in their hand as far as I can tell....There was apparently more than one Cherub, but only one sword, and they were to guard the way to the "tree of life", which ensured that the death penalty would eventually be carried out.....

"With that Jehovah God expelled him from the garden of Eʹden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken. 24 So he drove the man out, and he posted at the east of the garden of Eʹden the cherubs and the flaming blade of a sword that was turning continuously to guard the way to the tree of life." (Genesis 3:23-24)

Satan was a "covering cherub" who was stationed in Eden by God. (Ezekiel 28:13-15) He abused his position and underhandedly misled the human race away from their Creator, but faithful cherubs were used to deal with the consequences. The blade of the sword was what was fiery, according to that scripture, and it turned every which way on its own.

Fiery for the serpent translates to poison, but the term use the same I think. They bite the people, and the people begin to die unless they look upon the brazen serpent.

I think you are reading more into these scriptures than what is actually there....that can be confusing IMO.
What does the copper serpent have to do with Eden?

This representation of a serpent was made by Moses during Israel’s trek in the wilderness. When the people showed a rebellious spirit, (complaining about the miraculously provided manna and the water supply) Jehovah punished them by sending poisonous serpents among them, and many of them died from serpent bites. After the people showed repentance and Moses interceded for them, Jehovah told him to make a figure in the form of a serpent and to place it upon a signal pole. Moses complied, and “it did occur that if a serpent had bitten a man and he gazed at the copper serpent, he then kept alive.” (Numbers 21:4-9; 1 Corinthians 10:9)

The story is very strange but not more strange than the cherabim. When John the baptists calls them vipers in his sermons about high and low being made equal, he is accusing them of blocking the gate. They are too choosy for John B. They are like the brazen serpent and like the cherabim to John.

I don't read it like that at all......Calling the Pharisees "offspring of vipers" is in line with what Jesus said at Matthew 12:33-34...
"Either you make the tree fine and its fruit fine or make the tree rotten and its fruit rotten, for by its fruit the tree is known. 34 Offspring of vipers, how can you speak good things when you are wicked"

John 8:44..."Jesus said to them: “You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a manslayer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie.
I believe that this is describing who their father was.....Not Jehovah, but the original viper, the serpent, satan the devil.


John B then passes his ministry on to a Greater than himself. This fulfills (or demonstrates) his point. It is a prophetic sign, just as if he had been wearing a yolk or lying upon his side or something like that. His student is greater than he himself. This of monumental moment for Christianity. The greater may come from the lesser, however its not a new lesson. John and Jesus are simply hammering it home.

Jesus was not a student of John. John was a prophet. He was actually a relative, 6 months older than his cousin, Jesus. When Jesus came to John to be baptized, John hesitated because he knew who Jesus was, since their mothers had both been given miraculous pregnancies. "Filled with holy spirit even before his birth" (Luke 1:15) John knew that he was the one sent to "prepare the way of the Lord". He baptized the repentant Jews in symbol of their desire to obtain a clean standing with God in preparation for the Messiah's arrival.....the Jews were expecting him at that time because of Daniel's prophesy.

The Pharisees hated him because he did not have a good word to say about them, and the people knew that he was a prophet, which prevented them doing away with him, (like the Jewish leaders had done with other prophets who spoke badly of them in the past). (Luke 20:1-8; Matthew 23:37)

That is an alternative explanation, however a lot of these were not humble men. Leaven puffs up bread, makes it rise. We know today that it is due to the actions of gas bubbles expanding in the dough. It is like fat, representative of pride, that which much be removed from offerings and that which much not be consumed at the Passover. A tiny amount in a house will cause dough to become infected and to puff up. The Jews are not permitted to let this happen and must cleanse their homes just in case any yeast exists. Jesus accuses these pharisees of being proud, too proud to accept lesser people. The pharisees actually think of it differently and that they are doing their best to preserve the tradition, but Jesus asserts that it is pride to be so choosy. How does that sound to you?

Ummm, not what I have studied...."leaven" was a corrupting agent representing sin....which is why they cleansed their houses of it, and this is pictured by Jesus' flesh being represented by unleavened bread....he was sinless.

You ask where does this come from. John B preaches the message of Isaiah and we are told is the voice in the wild calling "Make the high places low and the low places high to prepare the way..." Thus he annoys those who are wealthy, educated and potentially righteous and encourages those who are poor, ignorant and ineligible for righteousness. Rather than direct quotations and copies of John B's sermons we have just a reference to the passage in Isaiah

Matthew 11:7-13..." Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John:. . . .This is the one about whom it is written: ‘Look! I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way ahead of you!’ 11 Truly I say to you, among those born of women, there has not been raised up anyone greater than John the Baptist, but a lesser person in the Kingdom of the heavens is greater than he is. . . .For all, the Prophets and the Law, prophesied until John; 14 and if you are willing to accept it, he is ‘E·liʹjah who is to come.’ 15 Let the one who has ears listen."

Jesus clearly identified John as the one whom God sent as "Elijah" was to the people.

John was under no illusions as to what God thought of the Pharisees....." he said to them: “You offspring of vipers, who has warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Therefore, produce fruit that befits repentance. 9 Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children for Abraham from these stones. 10 The ax is already lying at the root of the trees. Every tree, then, that does not produce fine fruit is to be cut down and thrown into the fire." (Matthew 3:7-11)

Just being "a son of Abraham" wasn't going to cut it....they were not producing the fruits. The ax was already poised to cut those unproductive trees, down....at their roots.

And John acknowledged that he was sent first and that another 'stronger than he' was to follow.....

11 I, for my part, baptize you with water because of your repentance, but the one coming after me is stronger than I am, whose sandals I am not worthy to take off. That one will baptize you with holy spirit and with fire."

His baptism was not just with water....
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
To reiterate:

1) I have made no comment about any Mormon specific claims
2) The point presented is not dependent on any Mormon specific claims.
3) The point presented is not dependent on your personal drama with Mormonism.

You need to read more carefully. My post 63 states:

"This attempted go at Katzpur demonstrates a fundamental failure to understand religion. Further, the general thrust of the several posts indicate a general sophomorism. I'll illustrate the failing. If the subject were Roman Catholicism, or more specifically transubstantiation, one might look to the Roman Catholic Catechism. One might also consider the role of Aristotelian physics on Western Medieval Thought in the 13th Century. However, neither of those elements is sufficient. Neither can convey what occurs with the devotee as they partake of the body and blood of Christ during the Eucharist. In simple terms, the depth, significance, and meaning of a religious X can only be properly conveyed from within. Thus, the proper route to understand a religious tradition is from the perspective of the practitioner. Anything else confuses form for substance. "

My follow up post 70 states:

"The position explained made no reference to Mormonism. That same point is not dependent on any particular claims of Mormonism. Neither is any personal drama you may have relevant, other than your demonstrated animus toward things Mormon explains why you went after Katzpur, who is Mormon. The point concerns religion qua religion. To whit, the meaning of any religious claim X can only be grounded in and through the devotee. It is the baseline for data. This lack of understanding is a fundamental flaw on your part and why your post(s) is sophomoric. No one with even the most basic of academic rigor would attempt to explain the width and depth of a religion, minus that dependence on the believer who is the source of all ritual, cannon, and doctrine. "



The issue is an epistemic one and turns on the basis by which religion itself is understood. It has to do with the grounding of meaning in religion. Your stance is, as previously stated, fundamentally flawed and sophomoric. If you don't understand the point being made, which may be the case as you've not addressed it, I can explain further. Otherwise, the absurdity of your stance remains starkly evident.
You swooped in to Katzpur’s defense because you are both Mormon, and you’re too blinded by your own fantasy to see that a scholar could know more about a religion than a true believer of that religion. I talked about scholars. Katzpur tried to switch it to JWs. I brought it back to scholars. Done.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Orontes

Master of the Horse
You swooped in to Katzpur’s defense because you are both Mormon, and you’re too blinded by your own fantasy to see that a scholar could know more about a religion than a true believer of that religion. I talked about scholars. Katzpur tried to switch it to JWs. I brought it back to scholars. Done.

You've not addressed the criticism of your position. You continue to deflect. This is because:

A) You do not understand the criticism
B) You do not know how to reply to the criticism
C) Both A) and B)

Would you like to try again?

If there are any words you don't understand, let me know.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
You've not addressed the criticism of your position. You continue to deflect. This is because:

A) You do not understand the criticism
B) You do not know how to reply to the criticism
C) Both A) and B)

Would you like to try again?

If there are any words you don't understand, let me know.
I’m not interested in addressing the so-called criticism. You’re ignoring the obvious fact that you’re a religious fanatic who is incapable of recognizing the truth of my statements.
 

Orontes

Master of the Horse
I’m not interested in addressing the so-called criticism. You’re ignoring the obvious fact that you’re a religious fanatic who is incapable of recognizing the truth of my statements.

Another deflection. You aren't doing so well.

If one is going to assume the role of dismissive critic, as you did toward Katzpur, in a discussion not related to you or directed to you, then best be prepared to defend the would be criticism. You have failed in spectacular fashion, both regarding the lack of substance of the criticism, and when called out for it. A very poor showing.

Perhaps a bit more circumspection is in order.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
The Cherubs (Heb "keruwb)" were the guardians in Eden and the sword was not in their hand as far as I can tell....There was apparently more than one Cherub, but only one sword, and they were to guard the way to the "tree of life", which ensured that the death penalty would eventually be carried out.....

"With that Jehovah God expelled him from the garden of Eʹden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken. 24 So he drove the man out, and he posted at the east of the garden of Eʹden the cherubs and the flaming blade of a sword that was turning continuously to guard the way to the tree of life." (Genesis 3:23-24)

Satan was a "covering cherub" who was stationed in Eden by God. (Ezekiel 28:13-15) He abused his position and underhandedly misled the human race away from their Creator, but faithful cherubs were used to deal with the consequences. The blade of the sword was what was fiery, according to that scripture, and it turned every which way on its own.
Sin crouches at Cain's door in Genesis ch4, and it overpowers him causing him to kill Abel. If sin can do that then that is plenty Satan enough both for me and Paul and James I think.

I think you are reading more into these scriptures than what is actually there....that can be confusing IMO.
What does the copper serpent have to do with Eden?

This representation of a serpent was made by Moses during Israel’s trek in the wilderness. When the people showed a rebellious spirit, (complaining about the miraculously provided manna and the water supply) Jehovah punished them by sending poisonous serpents among them, and many of them died from serpent bites. After the people showed repentance and Moses interceded for them, Jehovah told him to make a figure in the form of a serpent and to place it upon a signal pole. Moses complied, and “it did occur that if a serpent had bitten a man and he gazed at the copper serpent, he then kept alive.” (Numbers 21:4-9; 1 Corinthians 10:9)
The copper-serpent association works without worrying about the Genesis cherub, so there is no need to put much importance upon a connection to Eden. I could have left that out. Jesus uses the term viper, so the easier symbol is that of the serpents in the wild and the associated brazen serpent which becomes a snare. His calling them vipers provides the allusion to the brazen serpent. Another item is Jesus accusation of some as gatekeepers who guard the gate but won't go in., and that is a reason to think of his accusation of vipers as allusions to these Edenic symbols as well though no reason is perfect.

I don't read it like that at all......Calling the Pharisees "offspring of vipers" is in line with what Jesus said at Matthew 12:33-34...
"Either you make the tree fine and its fruit fine or make the tree rotten and its fruit rotten, for by its fruit the tree is known. 34 Offspring of vipers, how can you speak good things when you are wicked"

John 8:44..."Jesus said to them: “You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a manslayer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie.
I believe that this is describing who their father was.....Not Jehovah, but the original viper, the serpent, satan the devil.
The quote from Mathew 12:33-34 in your post sounds extremely like James 3 which says the tongue is filled with deadly poison and is itself set on fire by hell and sets fire to things. This applies to all people including good people. You seem to take his accusations against the Pharisees as baseball card representations of them, but these are complex people probably trying to do the right thing just like you and I. James says our own tongues are poisonous, so..this is not much different. If the Pharisees got their poison tongues from their father the devil, then from whence do we get our poisonous tongues? Conclusion: Jesus doesn't like the Pharisee opinions about how we are born spiritually. Is it through another person's speech? These people think it is, and that's what Jesus is disagreeing with them about. It is probably why he calls them vipers.

As an aside consider the possibility that because they all live in a country occupied by Rome and Jesus is preaching "The kingdom is here," they don't agree with him. Maybe it is that he is suggesting that the Romans become disciples and not proper disciples chosen with rigor and exclusions.

Jesus was not a student of John. John was a prophet. He was actually a relative, 6 months older than his cousin, Jesus. When Jesus came to John to be baptized, John hesitated because he knew who Jesus was, since their mothers had both been given miraculous pregnancies. "Filled with holy spirit even before his birth" (Luke 1:15) John knew that he was the one sent to "prepare the way of the Lord". He baptized the repentant Jews in symbol of their desire to obtain a clean standing with God in preparation for the Messiah's arrival.....the Jews were expecting him at that time because of Daniel's prophesy.

The Pharisees hated him because he did not have a good word to say about them, and the people knew that he was a prophet, which prevented them doing away with him, (like the Jewish leaders had done with other prophets who spoke badly of them in the past). (Luke 20:1-8; Matthew 23:37)
You're right in that he wasn't John's student but fulfilled the image of student by being baptized by John. He reversed the order of teacher baptizing student, just as he reversed the order of teacher washing feet of disciple. Teacher and student with him became equal before God, not one placed above the other.


Ummm, not what I have studied...."leaven" was a corrupting agent representing sin....which is why they cleansed their houses of it, and this is pictured by Jesus' flesh being represented by unleavened bread....he was sinless.
I argue that pride is considered a corrupting agent in Judaism. I can imagine it symbolized well by leaven and can consider it the primary cause of problems among brothers -- that which causes men to fight. This is what Jesus likely refers to as the leaven of the Pharisees. It is the forerunner to the later term 'Antichrist'. They won't accept that the kingdom has arrived and embrace the new people. They want to have restrictions as usual.

Leaven is mainly important at Passover. At Passover only those in covenant and circumcised may attend, plus women. The house must be cleansed of leaven and only the circumcised may be in attendance. These things seem related. The men must be circumcised in heart and body, the pride removed. The fat of the meal also must be burned, so that they may all be brought out of Egypt from which they are called -- Egypt the land of war where war is worship. Psalm 34:18 advises "The LORD is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit." (NIV)

Matthew 11:7-13..." Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John:. . . .This is the one about whom it is written: ‘Look! I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way ahead of you!’ 11 Truly I say to you, among those born of women, there has not been raised up anyone greater than John the Baptist, but a lesser person in the Kingdom of the heavens is greater than he is. . . .For all, the Prophets and the Law, prophesied until John; 14 and if you are willing to accept it, he is ‘E·liʹjah who is to come.’ 15 Let the one who has ears listen."

Jesus clearly identified John as the one whom God sent as "Elijah" was to the people.

John was under no illusions as to what God thought of the Pharisees....." he said to them: “You offspring of vipers, who has warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Therefore, produce fruit that befits repentance. 9 Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children for Abraham from these stones. 10 The ax is already lying at the root of the trees. Every tree, then, that does not produce fine fruit is to be cut down and thrown into the fire." (Matthew 3:7-11)

Just being "a son of Abraham" wasn't going to cut it....they were not producing the fruits. The ax was already poised to cut those unproductive trees, down....at their roots.

And John acknowledged that he was sent first and that another 'stronger than he' was to follow.....

11 I, for my part, baptize you with water because of your repentance, but the one coming after me is stronger than I am, whose sandals I am not worthy to take off. That one will baptize you with holy spirit and with fire."

His baptism was not just with water....
This I also reply to above with the section in this post which begins "Notice the quote from Matthew."
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Another deflection. You aren't doing so well.

If one is going to assume the role of dismissive critic, as you did toward Katzpur, in a discussion not related to you or directed to you, then best be prepared to defend the would be criticism. You have failed in spectacular fashion, both regarding the lack of substance of the criticism, and when called out for it. A very poor showing.

Perhaps a bit more circumspection is in order.
I wouldn’t expect anything less from a true believing Mormon. Totally incapable of seeing your own blindness. Enjoy your fantasy.
 

Orontes

Master of the Horse
I wouldn’t expect anything less from a true believing Mormon. Totally incapable of seeing your own blindness. Enjoy your fantasy.


The name calling, deflecting, and venom in all your last several posts # 68, #71, #74, # 76, #79 is telling. Go review each of those posts. It's a sad display. You go that route, because you can't defend your position, but don't want to admit the failure. You feel a need to reply with something, but have no other alternatives. You have no alternatives, because your original criticism that I called you out on is/was vacuous. Your criticism is/was vacuous because your baseline position is driven by hostility. Hostility blinds you to bad arguments and positions, because you are looking to self-justify said hostility. This is a species of cognitive dissonance.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
The name calling, deflecting, and venom in all your last several posts # 68, #71, #74, # 76, #79 is telling. Go review each of those posts. It's a sad display. You go that route, because you can't defend your position, but don't want to admit the failure. You feel a need to reply with something, but have no other alternatives. You have no alternatives, because your original criticism that I called you out on is/was vacuous. Your criticism is/was vacuous because your baseline position is driven by hostility. Hostility blinds you to bad arguments and positions, because you are looking to self-justify said hostility. This is a species of cognitive dissonance.
There’s a LOT of this going around!

Your statement...”You go that route [of vitriol], because you can't defend your position, but don't want to admit the failure. You feel a need to reply with something, but have no other alternatives.”.... is right on!

As one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I’ve experienced it many times myself.
 
Last edited:
Top