The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a covenant church. By that I mean that covenants are an important part of LDS faith and culture. Members make covenants with God when being baptized, when getting married, when being ordained to the priesthood, when taking the sacrament, and when receiving their endowments.
A covenant is an agreement between two (or more) parties that carries with it certain terms, obligations and responsibilities. To be accepted at LDS Church-owned Brigham Young University a potential student must agree to live by a code of honor. This agreement is a covenant of sorts. The student obligates himself to maintain a certain level of moral behavior; if he fails in this responsibility, he will suffer the consequences to which he has previously agreed.
Last week BYU announced that basketball forward Brandon Davies has been suspended from the BYU Cougars for the remainder of the season because of an Honor Code violation. The rules for BYU students, and the consequences for breaking those rules, have been clearly set forth. There are no surprises here, and BYU should be commended for putting its moral principles ahead of winning basketball games.
This story gives me pause, though. I think there’s a parallel within Mormonism that is worth considering.
According to LDS doctrine, each of the three heavenly kingdoms — telestial, terrestrial, and celestial – has a set of laws, or an honor code if you will, that must be obeyed in order for a person to live eternally in that particular kingdom. The LDS scripture Doctrine and Covenants 88:22 explains, for example, “…he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.”
Since “celestial law” is defined as “the whole law” and “keep[ing] all of the commandments,” (Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, 206-207), this is a pretty tough honor code to maintain. In fact, according to the Bible, no one is able to do it (Romans 3:9-18; James 2:10).
In one of his books, the LDS Apostle Spencer W. Kimball included “covenantbreakers” in a chapter titled, “These Things Doth the Lord Hate.” He said covenant breaking is a sin that will keep people from eternal life. Mr. Kimball wrote,
“Of those who break covenants and promises made in sacred places and in solemn manner, we can apply the Lord’s words as follows: ‘… a wicked man, who has set at naught the counsels of God, and has broken the most sacred promises which were made before God, and has depended upon his own judgment and boasted in his own wisdom’ (D&C 3:12-13).” (Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, 57)
So according to Mormonism, one must fully live and obey Celestial Law – the celestial honor code – in order to dwell eternally in the presence of God. But given the fact that no one actually does it – everyone violates the celestial honor code repeatedly – as Aaron Shafovaloff has asked elsewhere, shouldn’t we all be kicked off the team?
Thats great that you got your info from some source that is not Of God or From God. How about you stick to reading your Bible. I also dont care if the People that wrote that article were or are Jews. The vast majority of Jews are atheists and do not believe Jesus is the messiah. Lastly, who created the Sabbath? God did. Did God say this was for the rich and wealthy only?
Enki said
Well I guess you never Read Genesis where God created the world in 6 days and rested on the seventh. I guess that means God is part of some ruling class of people.
Young earth creationists believe the earth is about 7 to 8 thousand years old not 5. And I mention that for a time line not saying or asking if you were. As to that, I really dont care of people are or are not. I have my thoughts but regardless of where I stand on young earth or old earth, that does not save me or condemn me to hell.
Rick,
Someone with all power and knowledge, I would say is the ruler. Your really using a double standard here. Even the apostles in the NT did not strictly quote from the OT. Some things were novel, and some even quoted pagan sources. How can you confirm the truth of anything from only one source?
I have been guilty of making sweeping statements about any religious body, but that takes the cake. Is there any agreement amoung christians as to what is the nature of god, what constitutes scripture. There are also evolution believing christians, so what does that have to do with anything? I thought the author commenting abobut the sabbath did an excellent job of research to explain the sabbath, and refers to the torah in doing so.
Well, isn't that the point then? Joseph Smith made it all up. It was not of God, as God would know what is best and what isn't for his children.
I said that some scholars suggested that the OLD Testament could be considered an anti-semitic book because it really exposes Israel´s wickedness – contrary to other kingdoms of their time their failures and falls were not erased but highlighted and God humbled them quite often. So, the Old Testament isn´t political propaganda in favor of Israel.
Mormons do that in arrogance, you´re right about that, Enki. They have nothing to do with God´s covenant with Israel but they want us to think they have so that they will claim authority over us and that was never what the old covenant was about.
Enki, that´s something Jesus rebuked the Jewish leadership in His time for – placing their traditions above the word of God.
I really like the fact that you´re doing research on the subject! That being said you should do that with discernment. This is a better site to read about Judaism – http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=…
It still should be read and regarded with discernment, but it has much more data than opinion like that of the Sabbath being all about freedom…
" that reveal the prophet to be only teaching guesses
That brought back to mind the arrogance of the LDS saying that every teacher of religion who has had formal education on Theology is corrupt and doesn´t teach the truth but only false traditions. That´s pure blindness and empty name calling because as you said their leaders are guessing most of the time even though the Mormon urban legends say otherwise.
"This should cause LDS to step back and ask some very probing questions about the reliability of their prophets."
I´ve tried that before and all i got was "we follow the current prophet now, we don´t have to worry about past prophets".
"Concerning the sin of drinking a cup of coffee possibly keeping a Mormon from eternal life in God's presence"
I remember discussing that in Elder´s Quorum a while back, and people were making the point that caffeine wasn´t the reason why we shouldn´t drink coffee otherwise we couldn´t eat a number of other things. The "instructor" then summed up the issue by saying that we obey out of faith without really understanding what that was all about. Some people also compared that with some of Israel´s commandments that they thought didn´t make any sense but they obeyed it anyways, such as circumcision. Of course mormons are fast and loose when using the Bible to justify their odd practices, even though taking it out of its proper context, yet i was glad to see that people actually did question those things and we were actually having a good discussion about it, arriving at the conclusion that we obeyed that out of blind faith.
That was a big issue when the news came of Neal Maxwell´s death. The excuse propagated was that God only promised to give us health so that we would be enabled to fulfill our mission on this earth, and that was never meant to say that we wouldn´t suffer with diseases(even though, as you said, the wording of the promises of D&C 89 makes it clear that you should be super healthy).
Yep. Here's the quote from D&C 89, which I found on the scriptures.lds.org page:
18 And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, shall receive health in their navel and marrow to their bones;
19 And shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures;
20 And shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint.
21 And I, the Lord, give unto them a promise, that the destroying angel shall pass by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them. Amen.
"Is there any agreement amoung christians as to what is the nature of god, what constitutes scripture.
Well, i think that´s settled among Christians – i don´t see anybody denying the nature of God with the exception of the cults, Mormonism and Jehovah´s witnesses, and whatever other groups that are trying to say they are the one true denomination. As to what constitutes scriptures, that´s a very interesting study, you should read the early writings about that and about the criterias used to determine the canon of scriptures we have today.
Interrogation – lol!
I don´t know how it was done in the 60s, but these days is pretty easy to go through one. All the questions are yes or no, you don´t have to elaborate. It´s funny how i saw "unworthy" people getting their recommend – i always thought the Church leaders had some supernatural power of discernment and they could detect those lies when they were about something as important as the temple. Yet i´d see people who i knew weren´t "worthy" going in and out, no problem… That was another myth that was killed even before i started having any doubts about the Church.
"What it means to take of ones body isn't so clear cut."
I think it´s pretty easy to see if someone isn´t taking care of their bodies… but i get what you mean. Also they have to have people to go to the temple, otherwise the tithing numbers would drop down dramatically if people that are not in a recommended health condition were to be forbidden to enter.
F melo,
No its not really settled. Catholic bibles have books I never read, they were never in my KJV. Catholics have a slightly different idea about the nature of god, and what is required for salvation than evangelicals.
The other thing I thought of is commentary and statement of opinion. Nobody strictly goes by the Bible. Those little bible tracks may quote sections, but then give commentary about its meaning. MC itself is a collection of commentaries about the Bible, of course giving references. But I don't understand why a commentary about the Torah with references is not biblical teaching. Christians use findings from anthropology, also historical comments to make an appeal. I don't see anyone just posting the Bible without commentary. MC could do that, just print what they think is 'the word of god' and totally remove any commentary section.
Rick,
"Did God say this was for the rich and wealthy only? " No, thats not the point, the sabbath was meant to 'lift up' and provide something which was ASSOCIATED with wealth, royalty. You didn't comment about the sense of freedom from slavery it provides. I don't think that being wealthy in and of itself is a bad thing in the OT. However, the NT seems to have some judgements about it.
Sarah,
What specifically? I think there are a few things about not having tatoos, not shaving the sides of the head, and not wearing a mix of wool and linen. Also not wearing clothes of the opposite gender. That one is so time and culture dependent. Isn't there something in the NT about men having short hair as an ideal, and women having long hair, and having it covered? Something like how the virgin mary is often pictured as having?
F melo,
I thought they weren't absolutely concerned about numbers and money. Like they didn't have any problem adhering to rules and restricting entry if someone didn't qualify. I guess on certain matters that are grey that can be overlooked?
I have 2 kids with Celiac Disease and there would be absolutely NO WAY they could partake of the sacrament. It's horrible. I'm not sure what the church does for that situation now, but when we were LDS my kids just didn't take the bread. I guess I never really thought much about the covenant part of it. I just assumed God would understand. This is a great discussion!
At the time, health was a very 'hot topic'. When this was written this was a current event, a cultural thing. It would be like writing about 'going green' in today's times. Of course, its better to be healthy. But do you need to be healthy to get into the temple? Its like creating the perfect race. Ugh. Very icky. A little cultic don't you think? I like the new United Church of Christ commercial. Its the anti- to the mormon.org. A little, very young girl saying, 'Here is the church. Here is the steeple. Open the doors. And see all the people.' 'We at the United Church of Christ accept ALL people.' Then they show different races, all men and women. It implies same-sex, all people. Also refers to women may 'hold priesthood.' I was raised in UCC and we had a woman doctor, Reverend, who preached services. Accepting all people, includes those who dare to drink coffee, eat lots of red meat, and all that.
He didn't make it up. It was a popular idea at the time. Quaker Oats, etc. See Shawn McCraney, Heart of the Matter episode on Word of Wisdom. It would be like me writing about hybrid cars, organic foods, green energy, Charlie Sheen. It was a Hot Topic.
It was a student at Rutgers, a student. Remember what it was like to be a student? These are young kids we are talking about. Not 45 year olds.
F melo,
What does discernment mean? Doing a search defines it as "The ability to judge well." Is that what you mean? Does this refer to a Christians knowledge of the NT, and OT? I know there are other senses of discernment in other contexts. Why have you selected the link you determined to be better commentary about the OT?
F melo,
Doing a scan of the material it looks very similiar. The exception perhaps is that it appears to include a lot more sources outside of the Torah, or even the NT. Historical references, and other sources, I would say that its better in that reguard. Although do you agree with Rick that only the Bible can inform itself about the information it contains? I suppose not?
"Catholics have a slightly different idea about the nature of god"
Could you give me an example?
"Catholic bibles have books I never read, they were never in my KJV"
Right, the Apocrypha. There are different churches that accept few other books in addition to the KJV, but all you have to do is little study on the matter to find out which books and why. All of them though have the same books as the KJV, so you didn´t really miss anything. For example, the book of 1st Maccabees never claims to be scripture, it doesn´t have "thus saith the Lord" and the writer even acknowledged they didn´t have prophets among them. I use it more to get an idea of what was going on during the silent years of the Old Testament, not as inspired scripture.
"The other thing I thought of is commentary and statement of opinion. Nobody strictly goes by the Bible. Those little bible tracks may quote sections, but then give commentary about its meaning."
Sure and that´s because none of the original authors are alive today to explain it in detail. Everyone interprets the Bible. I definitely interpret the Bible differently from a Hebrew scholar. So our duty is to try to interpret it according to its context in a way faithful to the message the author was communicating, instead of just saying "this is what it means to me and that´s all that matters". It´s not an easy task, and it can´t be done without the help of the Holy Spirit.
I think also what you´re referring to is Rick rejecting your explanation on the sabbath day from that website. My opinion is that that website you quoted didn´t start from the plain meaning of the Biblical text, that infers nothing about freedom or pagan observance of Saturn´s day, etc. That´s why a serious study of the Bible is important, because it can be taken out of context and twisted in many different ways for many different reasons, the most popular of which is to try to make the Bible a product of human myths and traditions, and not inspired by a real God. And as for anything else for you to dispute a claim that is supposedly based on the Bible you have to substantiate it with clear passages of scripture, the original Greek and Hebrew, etc.
"You didn't comment about the sense of freedom from slavery it provides"
I don´t recall Scripture saying that was what the Sabbath was about. All it said is that it was a day of rest and also to distinguish them from the pagans.
"I don't think that being wealthy in and of itself is a bad thing in the OT. However, the NT seems to have some judgements about it."
There´s nothing wrong about being wealthy in either one of the books. In the OT God promised wealth to Israel if they kept the covenant, and that must be kept within that context which isn´t applied to anyone else other than Israel before Christ´s atonement and the fulfillment of the old and the establishment of the new testament(see the book of Hebrews). In the New Testament Jesus strongly criticizes those that put their trust in wealth. Money is also mentioned as the root of all evil, Jesus also says that a person´s life doesn´t consist of possessions, etc. In other words, money and wealth are not evil as long as your heart isn´t turned to them as your god.
"What does discernment mean? Doing a search defines it as "The ability to judge well." Is that what you mean?"
Yes.
" Does this refer to a Christians knowledge of the NT, and OT? I know there are other senses of discernment in other contexts. Why have you selected the link you determined to be better commentary about the OT?"
What i was talking about is that you have to compare what you read with what is actually said in the Old and New Testament(Christ being a Jew and also as i believe the God of the Old Testament, He should know what He was talking about). Much of what you cited is opinion that i really didn´t think had anything to do with what the actual text says. I agree more with the "Biblical data" from that link i gave you of the Jewish Encyclopedia, for example:
"—Biblical Data:
On the completion of His creative work God blessed and hallowed the seventh day as the Sabbath (Gen. ii. 1-3). The Decalogue in Exodus (xx. 8) reverts to this fact as the reason for the commandment to "remember" the Sabbath day to keep it holy. The Sabbath is recognized in the account of the gathering of the manna; a double portion was gathered on the previous day, and the extra supply gathered for consumption on the Sabbath, when no manna descended, did not spoil (xvi. 22-30). The Sabbath is a sign between Yhwh and Israel, an everlasting covenant (xxi. 13). Death or excision (xxxi. 14, 15) was the penalty for its profanation by work. An instance of this is afforded by the case of the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath and was condemned to die by lapidation (Num. xv. 32-36). Work is prohibited, even during harvest-time (Ex. xxxiv. 21), and is declared to be a profanation of the holy Sabbath; and the kindling of fire in the habitations is especially interdicted (Ex. xxxv. 3)."
That´s a correct exposition of the Biblical data on the subject. It says nothing about freedom, or it was only for the masters and not the slaves, etc.
Another point is you can have two approaches to the Bible: 1) It´s a collection of traditions attributed to a God made up by a local tribe 2) It´s what it says it is, inspired by God. So, of course you´re going with number 1 considering your assumptions and opinions, but try to consider the possibility that number 2 is correct, then try to investigate that scenario as well.
I'm running of to work and dont have much time right now, But the Bible tells us that all scripture is inspired by God. The Bible tells us that God places His Word above His name, and the Bible tells us to search the scriptures to know if these things are true. Jesus quoted from the Bible and told people they were in error of scripture and that they dont know scripture, so that pretty much settles it for me.
"Although do you agree with Rick that only the Bible can inform itself about the information it contains? I suppose not?"
I really don´t understand what you mean by "only the BIble can inform itself about the information it contains", please clarify that.
I believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God. While you can find plenty of extra Biblical information about the Biblical times and practices, when that information comes with interpretation and explanations according to the opinions of the authors, i have to compare those opinions with what the Bible says. If the Bible says the Sabbath is a day of rest and whatever author says the Sabbath was all about freedom, i have to disagree with the author and go with the Bible.
I don´t believe that what the Bible claims to be inspired by God was actually inspired by surrounding cultures, even though much of the Bible is about how Israel was influenced by those cultures. So i believe that the Ten Commandments were given by God to the people of Israel as a whole as described, in a miraculous event, and not that the they were actually created over a long period of time out of a need to display their blessed state and to be different from other cultures to establish some self-appointed superiority.
So i guess that´s the difference between us, that i believe the Bible´s supernatural origins and you seek for naturalistic explanations for it. I don´t deny that much of what is in the Bible is metaphor, and much is described in poetic language(which we can tell by looking at the Hebrew language) so i also have to have discernment before i accept, for example, Disney´s depiction of Israel crossing the red sea, as beautiful as that was, but my concern should always to be faithful to what the text says.
"But do you need to be healthy to get into the temple? Its like creating the perfect race. Ugh. Very icky. A little cultic don't you think?"
Yes, why can´t they just tell the members to be moderate when it comes to alcohol. The fact also that people accept that is almost an acknowledgement that they can´t control themselves, they can´t be disciplined that´s why they have to be ruled by an iron hand that dictates what they have to do in all aspects of their lives otherwise they risk losing their souls.
Wasn´t that Satan´s plan in the pre-existence, to eliminate people´s freedom of choice by ruling every aspect of their lives and forcing them to comply to his plan to get everyone in the right shape to become exalted gods? The Mormon Church is trying to accomplish Satan´s plan according to their own scriptures, how ironic!
"I thought they weren't absolutely concerned about numbers and money. Like they didn't have any problem adhering to rules and restricting entry if someone didn't qualify"
Oh, there are many, many grey areas overlooked, you would be surprised by the hypocrisy and wickedness of many people in the Church. Like setfree said, it´s all about maintaining public image.
As for the money, they only build temples in areas where they reach a certain percentage of tithe payers. I remember living in a city where the church was very small and yet people were always talking about how good it would be if they had a temple so that they didn´t have to travel so many hours, etc. The Bishop said that for them to realize that dream they had to have more tithe payers, they had to be more faithful because why would the church build a temple where just the minority were actually "worthy" of entering it… Right, that´s all about worthiness, sure…
"I guess I never really thought much about the covenant part of it. I just assumed God would understand."
I´d assume that as well. It´s the same thing when it comes to fasting – pregnant women don´t have to do it, and people with any health problems that could be aggravated by it. You can even eat a little bit before taking some medicine if necessary without that being a problem. That´s what they call the spirit of the law – too bad that´s not applied more often.
The church I'm attending right now (not LDS, but progressive evangelical) offers one communion station with gluten free "bread". I think it's fantastic!
F Melo,
"Catholics have a slightly different idea about the nature of god" Could you give me an example? "
I was thinking about the use of images, idols etc. and offering prayers to saints. Those in the catholic ideal are acceptable forms of asking god for divine favor. You ask the saint to help them ask god for some favor. I guess technically its about the same as asking a friend to help you by praying in addition on your behalf. I don't know if thats exactly a real difference in the nature of god. I was taught to only pray directly to god. I also was taught to never use images, either statues, paintings, etc…I never equated a crucifix with god. But they bow in front of them, offer prayers to them, not only jesus, but mary, some saint or even a statue of the pope.
The KJV is most closely associated with protestants. Catholics and some others use different translations. Wasn't the KJV issued by King James over the issue of divorce, amoung other things? Thats what started the church of england.
Enki, First off let me say this, You really need to set up an account, with one I will know if you reply to me or not, otherwise I dont know and I might miss a question from you. I would hate to think that you feel I am dodging questions when in fact I simply missed it. Now onto what you said.
Enki said
According to God, He is all powerful and ruler of all Outside of that what is the double standard?
Enki said
Many people dont know this and I think with some it's because they dont want to know or dont care. The Bible is not one single source, If you break the Bible down it really is 66 different books written by 40 different authors from different countries and over thousands of years. With all of that they all agree and have a central theme and message. I challenge anyone to find me 66 different books written by 40 or more different authors written thousands of years apart that all have a central message. So when I quote the bible it is not one book quoting from another book.
Enki said
There are disagreements about minor issues like, Can women be pastors, Is the rapture Pre, mid or Post trib Things like that. But even on these issues I believe the Bible is clear and answers these questions. It's more a matter of people dont like the answers. So you find churches that claim women can be pastors because they dont like how scripture says they cannot be. But the Bible tells us about God and God Himself tells us about Himself, So either you believe Him or you dont. If so called Christians claim I dont understand or we dont agree on the nature of God, It's more a matter of, Not you and me disagree but it's You dont agree or believe God.
It's like saying I Told You and F_melo I hate the Color Pink and love watching the UFC fights. So know that I told you this, F_melo goes around saying, According to Rick He hates Pink and loves the fights. Yet you Enki say I know what Rick said, But I dont believe him, I think Rick loves Pink and hates fighting. Same with God, He told us what He is like and is about, either you believe Him or you dont.
Enki said
My point was as I explained If you believe in a young earth, then you have a timeline, otherwise if you believe in an old earth, then their is no time line since the earth does not come with a (Earth was created on this day) Sticker.
Enki said
Thats great, but I would rather stick to what God said about the sabbath.
Enki said
Enki, Where are you getting your info? and why do you ignore what God said in the Bible? God said the Sabbath was a day of rest, God never said anything about the sabbath and that it was meant to LIFT up or provide anything. It's simply a day of rest according to scripture and nothing more, your reading way to much into it.
Enki said
The Bible never mentions the sabbath as a sense of freedom from slavery, Again your reading way to much into it. Then as far as slaves go, slaves are exactly that, Slaves. Like it or not slaves did not get freedoms, they were used and abused and like it or not that was part of slavery, and slavery was a result of the fall of Adam and Eve, It was never part of Gods plan. God did not create the garden of Eden and then say to Adam, enslave people and use them to tend to the garden.
Rick, Alright, that wasn't the best construction of sentances. The double standard was how MC can comment about scripture, quote it etc, and thats ok, but someone with a different point of view could not. The only real way one could possibly stick completely to just the bible would be to just post it, and close the comment sections. That is interesting about the bible being a collection of books with different sources and authors over a long period of time and places. Hinduism has a very large selection of writings, with various authors, and over a long period of time. I couldn't pretend to know it all, but it would be interesting to know just how far apart in time and space is the available literature. India is a large country, but its possible some of the works of Hinduism could be from places other than India. I don't know, thats something to look into. And yes there is a common sense to all Hindu works, even though various moments within it vary considerably.
I do have an account, and I do log in, but for some reason it doesn't take my comments unless I use the guest login. I will have to try again to login and try another way. I recently selected a new password, but still doesn't do it. I guess I need to take an internet basics class or something. I can't make heads or tails of the F melo and pink comments. But it makes me smile, and I like that seems to accepts that two people can have different ideas and thats ok.
When you mention the works of Hindu and say they are many authors and over much time, let me say this again.
The Bible is 66 books written by 40 authors from many different county's all over a span of 4,000 or more years.
The central theme from all these people is God loved us, died for us, is spending time trying to reach out and make Him known to us and that he provides prophecy's in very detailed accounts. None of these books or people contradict each other like Mormons do.
Read the Bible, All through out the Bible God claims He is the Only God, their is no other that He knows of. Now I'm talking an all powerful God Not little gods, when the Bible mention gods, it is either God the father or false pagan gods.
The Bible tells us people create these gods, like baal, or take wood and carve out gods, Or satan the god of this world. Satan is called a god, but he is a powerless god compared to the real God who claims to be All powerful and All knowing.
Mormonism teaches We can become gods, God the father claims their will be no gods formed after Him. So either LDS are correct and we will be gods, and God the father lied, Or God the father is correct.
Now with your issue to MC quoting sources from the Bible and other sources being a double standard, I'm not sure of what your talking about, you need to help clarify things by giving me an example or two and more detail as to what your talking about.
Also I had issue a while back setting up an account, maybe you should try setting up a whole new account and add a few numbers or (-) space line and add like a last name. I was simply under Rick b, but it would not let me use that saying there was a user with that name, I thought, no duh thats me. So I changed it to Rick_the_Hammer.
Otherwise Contact the Mods and see if they can help. I really dont want people thinking I am avoiding questions when you really have honest questions that I can answer. It just gets harder and harder the more replys I have to sift through trying to see if you replied to me me or not.
Lately it seems that many of the churches I've visited in my new area have a gluten-free option for communion. It's wonderful to see such increasing sensitivity to the genuine needs of some members with medical conditions.
Rick,
What I am meaning is that Jewish author was explaining his religion by quoting the Torah, his experience and understanding, as well as what I am assuming is knowledge of history, anthropology. That is what most people do when trying to explain their faith. I could very well read the torah just by itself, or the NT just by itself. But its helpful to have someone sum up what they think are important points. There is always the possibility that something important is overlooked, or someone could misrepresent something by doing so. Either on purpose or ignorance, or just the fact that humans have limited knowledge and ability to explain things. I don't see anyone relying completely on just reading the text, or just simply presenting the text without commentary.
Someone assembled a collection of works with the Abrahamic theme. There isn't total agreement as to what they mean. Some became Jews, some christians, some Muslims. Other works got excluded for whatever reason. I don't think the Jews believe that God could die, not even for us. This doesn't even cover more far out things like Sufi, mystic Judaism, Kabbalah etc….
Rick,
The author of Judaism 101 got that from his understanding of the torah. Maybe its not specifically stated as to what its exact message is. But is everything clearly stated?
There could be implied messages, and more subliminal messages. Such as the list of animals which are considered unlcean. Someone not raised as a jew, it might be difficult to see what is unclean about Pork, Dog or rats. Especially Pork, that is a fairly commonly consumed item for christians. Does it really explain why its unclean?
I never said it was only for masters or the wealthy, and not for slaves. that it was associated with wealth and royalty. Its like a sikh wearing a turban. It costs very little to put on a turban, but I am sure it raised peoples sense of worth by doing so. LDS folks go to great lengths to wear clothes which look like a rich business man. Clean cut, manicured appearance. It doesn't necessary cost a lot to look something like a business person of high social standing.
They were the chosen people, a peculiar people, a royal priesthood a holy nation. Its stated in 1 peter 2:9, but I believe its a restatement of something from the O.T.
Engkei said
I have no problem with people explain what or why they believe what they believe. My problem is, does it line up with the bible. Here are a few examples, You mentioned to F_melo about Catholics believing something different. Well much of what they teach and believe either cannot be supported and backed up from the Bible or is simply made up by them. Catholics teach that Mary the mother of Jesus is sinless, well the Bible tells us Everyone is a sinner and Even Jesus rebuked Mary His mother. So do I believe the Catholics or the Bible?
Catholics claim we are to pray to Mary, Yet the Bible tells us their is ONLY ONE MEDIATOR between man and God, The Man Christ Jesus. Again is the Bible correct or the Catholics? The Catholics teach that popes and priests cannot marry, Yet they also teach that Peter is the first Pope. Well the Bible tells us that Jesus healed Peters mother in-law. You cannot have a mother in-law unless your married. So we have a problem, the first "Pope" as it were is married. Also the Bible does not say priests cannot marry. So you tell me, who's right, the Catholics or the Bible. The Bible answers all these question that the Catholics are wrong on.
Engkei said
Your right about things being over looked or being misrepresented, I showed you that above with the Catholics. You said no one just uses the text and relies on that, wrong, I did, again with the Catholic issue.
engkei said
Some people dont just become Jews, Your either born a Jew or your not. As I said God created the nation of Israel and the people the Jews. A Gentile could convert to being in the Jewish faith but your still not a natural born Jew by birth. Christians did not come about until after Jesus was crucified and rose again and created His Church. Muslims are a false faith and and are not believers in Jesus.
Engkei said
Just because the Jews dont believe God cannot die means nothing. I could believe the sky is hot pink, but that does not mean it is true. The more far out things you mention cannot be found in the Bible.
Engkei said
The issue of eating clean vs unclean animals was for the Jews only not the gentiles. So in all honesty I dont see why this is an issue. Then add to that in the Book of Acts God told Peter to rise, Kill and eat, Peter said No Lord, I have never had anything unclean pass my lips. God told Peter do not call anything common or unclean that He has made clean, so according to God these things are now clean and we even Jews can eat them.
Rick,
WHY was it ever unlcean? Any explanation as to what made it unlcean? Thats a seperate question as to IF its still considered unclean by anyone, and why.
Rick,
Thats the nature of belief. I am sure there is some reason why somenone believes what they do.
Engkei,
It boils down to a few things.
1. Athiests believe God is not real and does not exist because they do not want to be held accountable to an Almighty creator. Some simply are mad at God, so since they are mad at Him they choose to reject Him. Either reason is not good and they will be held accountable for rejecting Him.
2. Some people believe because of the evidence. Christianity is not a blind faith. We have evidence, Eye witness account from people in the Bible, and people who were not believers and sources outside of the Bible, example. We found Cities, coins, the dead sea scrolls, very detailed prophecy's, The fact that the Jews are still around, all these are overwhelming evidence for the Bible.
3. Some people believe what they believe despite the lack of evidence and in spite of how people or books contradict themselves, Like Mormonism for example. Just read over the years of research and debates on this blog alone for the evidence.
4. Some people purposely lie to achieve Power, money or whatever it is they want. Examples, We see modern day politics and with politicians. We see this with company's trying to acquire power and many examples in life.
The Bible also speaks of false prophets and teachers. We see these in scam artists who lie to get money.
You probably will not like my answer but it simply boils down to God said it was unclean and that should be good enough, the problem is a matter of our hearts.
God says something and either we dont understand, so we ignore Him or we understand and still ignore Him. We can know look to science and understand that certain animals we unclean because like Shellfish, crabs, lobster and some fish, like catfish are bottom feeders and eat dead things.
Pigs or swine will eat each other if they had the chance and will eat pretty much anything, But God should not have to lay all this out in order for the Jews to say, Ok we wont eat those things. They should simply say, God said so that settles it.
Rick,
No thats a very honest answer on your part. However, I don't think that science has ever determined that any animal is unclean in the Jewish sense. Some animals eat only fresh alive things, and yet are still considered unlcean by Jewish standards. Certain whales eat only plankton. Paddlefish eat fresh live plankton like creatures. Alkali lake fly eats only algae, and not rotting things like other flies.
In all of this you say because god says so, but you do comment on some speculations as to why, some spiritual implied massage behind the code. Is that particularly stated anywhere in the Bible?
According to the Bible God said certain things were unclean, But now they are clean. Science has never said things are clean or unclean in the Jewish sense, Why would they, they dont care. Also Not everything that God said was unclean was unclean because of what they ate. Ask God why He made somethings unclean, I cannot speak for Him and say 100 percent why. But all I know is they are now clean.
As far as the Jews Go, the animals are now clean to them but they dont believe it, but still they are hypocrites because they claim Pigs are unclean, but to this day Jews over in Israel eat and sell pork, bacon, ham sandwiches etc. They just renamed it and are calling it short cow. Also they raise pigs and slaughter them over there, but to get around the "Law" they pour slabs of concrete and kill the pigs on the concrete so in there minds the pigs are not actually standing upon Jewish soil, but upon concrete slabs. So tell me exactly where you stand with the Bible and what you believe, so seem to focus upon minor trivial things and make a big deal out of them.