| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 216.1 | Bible Scholars Say Jesus Never Promised to Return | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Tue Mar 14 1989 08:38 | 54 |
| Bible Scholars Say Jesus Never Promised to Return
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A group of biblical scholars agreed that Jesus
Christ never promised to return and usher in a new age and would have
been "appalled" about becoming a cult figure in a new religion, the
group's founder said Monday.
About 100 scholars, theologians and historians discussed the teachings
of the historical Jesus during a three-day seminar. They agreed, with
some dissensions, that Jesus did not promise a Second Coming in which
he would bring a new age.
Gospel writers and later followers of Jesus were the ones who predicted
a second coming of Jesus, most scholars participating in the Jesus
Seminar said. The seminar was held in Sonoma about 40 miles north of
San Francisco.
Robert Funk, 50, a New Testament expert and seminar founder, said most
of its members believe that Jesus was a wandering sage and did not
think he was divine, "although he felt very close to God."
Funk said the seminar's stand does not contradict the faith in God
expressed in the Apostles Creed but is at odds with my traditional
Christian beliefs.
In one vote of 30 scholars, 26 said they strongly disagreed that Jesus
expected to return and usher in a new age. The scholars almost
unanimously agreed, though, that Jesus spoke the words attributed to
him in which he said the kingdom of God already was present in his day.
Although there was no vote taken on the issue of whether Jesus intended
to start a new religion and be its central figure, the subject is key
to the seminar's debates and has come up in virtually all of its nine
meetings over the past four years.
"The overwhelming answer (among the seminar's scholars) is Jesus had no
intention of starting a new religion," said Funk. "Most of the fellows
think Jesus led some kind of reform movement in Judaism. I'm quite
certain he had no idea that a new religion would transpire or that he
would become a cult figure in it. ... He would have been appalled by
it."
He said the scholars are almost unanimous that Jesus "didn't think of
himself as divine."
The seminar's findings reflect what is being taught in most major
universities and seminaries, said the Rev. Edward F. Beutner, a Jesuit
and campus minister at Santa Clara University and seminar member.
"These are not maverick scholars," Beutner said. "They take a very
careful approach to how sayings of Jesus were transmitted and to the
evolution of the Bible texts."
(From the Billings Gazette, March 8, 1989)
|
| 216.2 | | CLIMB::LEIGH | Blessed are the merciful; | Tue Mar 14 1989 08:52 | 6 |
| Let's use that article as a challenge to show through Biblical and LDS
scriptures that Jesus did claim to be divine. The emphasis needs to be
on Jesus himself making that claim rather than his Apostles and the other
authors of the New Testament books making the claim.
Allen
|
| 216.3 | 3 Nephi 21 and 22 | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | quality first 'cause quality lasts | Tue Mar 14 1989 09:47 | 23 |
|
I was reading Nibley the other night (An Approach to the Book of Mormon) and
he pointed out that there is evidence that much that was attributed to
Christianity was actually rooted in Judaism, but that it had been carefully
edited out of Judaic records. Christ and his disciples had access to and
often referred to these records. We find further evidence in the Book of
Mormon that many teachings thought to originate with Christianity had
foundations in records from before Christ's time. This includes the coming of
the Messiah a second time (2 Nephi 6:14, referring to the words of Isaiah).
In 3 Nephi 22 the Savior also quotes from Isaiah in reference to his second
coming.
The Scribes in New Testament times were like lawyers and were familiar with
the records. Nibley points out that there is no record of a Scribe being
converted to Christianity. Seems to me the scholars described in this article
have some parallel with the Scribes of the New Testament times. Funny how
nowadays it is pretty easy to profess to be a Christian, yet not believe in
Christ. I notice that Deism, Humanism and Agnosticism seem to be working
craftily into the weave of the Christian community.
Steve
|
| 216.4 | Something is missing from their analysis... | ONFIRE::PERM | Kevin R. Ossler | Thu Mar 16 1989 09:43 | 9 |
| Emphasis mine:
> "These are not maverick scholars," Beutner said. "They take a very
> careful approach TO HOW SAYINGS OF JESUS WERE TRANSMITTED AND TO THE
> EVOLUTION OF THE BIBLE TEXTS."
But not, I notice, to personal revelation. Or to prayer.
/kevin
|
| 216.5 | ...The "key" ingredient | DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV | | Thu Mar 16 1989 15:52 | 25 |
|
I agree, Kevin. The way of natural, or worldly person is to look
at things in an analytical, clinical fashion. In doing this one
can find reason to deny anything he or she wants. I've read a
book recently called "Jewish Expressions on Jesus" By the way
that the historical Jesus was treated in the various essays, would
give one the impression that he did not even exist, that if he did
his teachings were largely traditional in nature; that the gospels
were sayings attributed to Jesus, not necessarily by him; that his
followers "built" this christian faith by deifying this teacher
named Jesus. But here's the rub... Do any of these analysts or scholars
consider the Book of Mormon? Without this witness, doubts remain,
but with it, this shining light casts all doubts away on the divinity
and mission of our Savior. I'm not attacking scholars or those
who wish to seek answers. They need to be guided by the spirit
in such matters. Is not our belief one of faith that grows as we
live in harmony with our Savior's teachings. If Jesus wished,
he could cast away no doubt and appear to the world and he will
someday soon, but the spiritual man needs to awaken. Until he
becomes as such, he will have doubts. Once he becomes spiritual,
he will seek answers and will be guided through faith, prayer,
and revelation to the truth.
Kevin St Thomas (not the doubting one!)
|
| 216.6 | He trembled because of pain... | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Sat Mar 18 1989 19:16 | 31 |
| One of my favorite passages regarding the divinity of Christ is this
one, which also is appropriate for contemplation at this time, with
Easter approaching. In this passage, Christ refers to himself as God,
and testified of his divine sacrifice for us.
Therefore I command you to repent -- repent, lest I smite you by
the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your
sufferings be sore -- how sore you know not, how exquisite you
know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.
For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they
might not suffer if they would repent;
But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;
Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to
tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer
both body and spirit -- and would that I might not drink the
bitter cup, and shrink --
Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished
my preparations unto the children of men.
Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with
my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer
these punishments of which I have spoken...
I am Jesus Christ; I came by the will of the Father, and I do his
will. (D&C 19:15-20,24)
Rich
|
| 216.7 | They have eyes, but do not see... | VAOU02::DIUS | Donald V. Ius - DTN: 638-6927 | Sun Apr 02 1989 21:27 | 19 |
| It is amazing to me that a so called scholar can study a book of
scripture such as the New Testament and turn around and claim that
Jesus never claimed to be Divine (i.e. the Son of God). The words
are plainly written for all to see.
One is free to disregard the testimony of the authors of the New
Testament, but to claim it does not say something, when in fact it
does is like claiming the book never mentions the word God either.
In any case, I know as do most of you reading this conference that
Jesus *is* divine. He was the Son of God during His mortal ministry
and was resurrected. He lives today and remains our Saviour. I only
hope that more people will strive to learn this for themselves and not
rely on the foolish votes of a group of so called experts.
These people, they think that because they are learned, they are
wise...
/Don (a faithful member with a testimony of Christ)
|
| 216.8 | Yes, Jesus Christ was divine. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Fri Sep 22 1989 13:39 | 225 |
|
Even though this is a reply to 4.3, I figure it should really
go here.
>===============================================================================
>Note 4.3 My Beliefs as a Mormon 3 of 70
>CACHE::LEIGH 60 lines 28-JAN-1988 12:15
> -< The Virgin Birth of Jesus >-
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> My church does NOT teach that God the Father had physical contact
> with Mary. The Lord has not revealed and we do not know how the
> event took place, other than God the Father was the physical
> father of Jesus and the power of the Holy Ghost made it all
> possible. It is possible that individual Mormons may have made
> claims about physical contact, but if so, they are speaking with
> their own wisdom.
>
I am a little surprised at this statement, given all the research you
have done and the fine detailing on doctrine. However, I will have
to tell you that I think you are wrong on this one - but I will leave
the decision up to you with the following article.
Charles
THE FATHER IN HEAVEN WAS LITERALLY THE FATHER OF JESUS CHRIST
-------------------------------------------------------------
"I feel very humble this morning as well as grateful to
have the privilege of meeting with such a large number of good
people and the dear little children of these good people who are
striving to build up Zion and who are doing all they can, all
that is in their power, to bring up their little children in the
way they should go, that when they get old they will not depart
from the right way.
I commend the remarks of George Albert Smith, and I want
to tell these little folks, who George Albert Smith is. He is
the son of John Henry Smith, who was the son of George A. Smith,
who was the son of John Smith, who was the brother of Joseph
Smith, Sen., who was the father of the Prophet, so you can
account for the spirit and the feeling and the testimony that
dwells in the heart of this good boy who has spoken to us here
this morning, and why he is so earnest and so interested in the
well-being of the children of Zion.
Some of the things that have been mentioned this morning
have touched the sensitive part of my Soul, and I possess that
degree of human weakness that I cannot help being affected by
the sentiment that has been expressed not only in relation to
the Prophet and his brother, but related to the Master,
Jesus Christ, the son of God.
We are all sons and daughters of God, and I want the
little folks to hear what I am going to tell you. I am going
to tell you a simple truth, yet it is one of the greatest
truths and one of the most simple fact ever revealed to the
children of men. Yet it is one that has been mystified and
philosified by men, more perhaps if I talk to the little folks
so they understand, the parents and teachers will be able to
understand.
Now in the first book in the Bible - and the Bible has
been the standard of the Christian faith for nineteen centuries,
yet nearly all the Christian believers and advocates of the
Bible throughout the world have seemed to ignore one of the
great truths that is taken from this book - we read: "In the
beginning God created man in His own image, and in his own
likeness, male and female," Right on the face of this great and
yet simple truth that is revealed in Genesis, the Christian
world has formulated a God that is incomprehensible. One of the
greatest syndicates of learned men known in history were once
chosen to determine the definition of the being called God, and
after deliberating over it for months, rendered the decision
that "God was incomprehensible," and that "to comprehend God
would be to destroy Him:" Yet he said He created man in His own
image, the God is in the image of man. Little children, can you
not see that? If man is made in the likeness of God, then he is
like God, and God is like man. The Savior, Jesus Christ,
begotten of God, was in the likeness of His Father, resembling
Him so nearly that He said on one occasion that, "He that has
seen me has seen the Father." I see a little boy. He has hair,
he has eyes and he has a face which resembles his father's.
Perfect is the resemblance between the boy and the father. The
boy looks like the father and the father looks like the boy. Of
course, you can tell that father from the boy because he is a
little older than his son. Jesus Christ was created just like
His father, had the same features, same form, same kind of body,
and was so like Him that when you saw Him you saw an exact
likeness and similitude of His Father.
You all know that your fathers are indeed your fathers
and that your mothers are indeed your mothers. You all know that
don't you? You cannot deny it. Now, we are told in the
scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God in
the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones,how are
children begotten? I answer, just as Jesus Christ was begotten
of His Father. The Christian denomination believe that Christ
was begotten not by God, but of the spirit that overshadowed
His mother. This is nonsense. Why will not the world receive
the truth? Why will they not believe the Father when He says
that Jesus Christ is His only begotten son. Why will they try
to explain this truth away and make mystery of it?
Now, if God is a man, a glorious man - that is, perfect
in all His glorious attributes, and infinite in power, there
never will come a time when God the Father will not have power
to extend His dominion and His glory. He is the maker of Heaven
and earth on which we dwell, for He made this earth by His word
and by His Power. How did He make it? He called the elements
that are invisible to our eyes. He formed the earth on which we
dwell, and Has formed millions of worlds, and they are peopled
with His children, for there is no end to His dominion, and the
worlds that He has created cannot be numbered unto man.
Now, little boys and girls, when you are confronted by
infidels in the world who know nothing of how Christ was begotten,
you can say He was born just as an infidel was begotten and born,
so was Christ begotten by His Father who is also our Father -
The father of our spirits - and he was born of His mother, Mary.
The difference between Jesus Christ and other men, is
this. Our fathers in the flesh are mortal men who are subject
unto death, but the Father of Jesus Christ in the flesh is the
God of Heaven. Therefore, Jesus, as declared, received the
power of life from His Father and was never subject unto death
but had life in himself as His Father had like in Himself.
Because of His power He overcame death and the grave and became
master of the resurrection and the means of salvation to us all.
Shall we as Latter-day Saints deny the truth and then
claim that God made man in His likeness in the beginning? Shall
we come under the impression that God possesses the power of
creation and yet did not literally create? He is not without
His companion any more than I am without my companion, the mother
of my children.
These are truths and I wish they could be instilled into
the hearts of these little children so that they will not be
tossed about by every wind of doctrine and be confused by the
teachers of atheism. Now, by and by, you will be able to
understand this better far more than you can today. Some of us
grandparents find it difficult to conceive the truth - we want
to think something marvelous. We want to try to make it appear
that God does not do things in the right way, or that He has
another way of doing things than what we know, we must come down
to the simple fact that God Almighty was the Father of His Son,
Jesus Christ. Mary, the virgin girl, who had never known mortal
man, was His mother. God by her, begot His son, Jesus Christ and
He was born into the world with power and intelligence like that
of His Father.
He was God with us, He was indeed Immanuel for He came
for a purpose and possessed power that no human being possessed.
He had power to lay down His life and take it up again. He had
power to resist His murderers, if He had willed it they never
could have taken His life. He came for a purpose - what was it.
To redeem man from death. Life ever-lasting came into the world
by the death and sacrifice of this one man.
He went to the spirits in prison to proclaim liberty to
them. As Jesus Christ proclaimed liberty to the living so also
he proclaimed liberty to the dead for He has passed from mortality
to immortality. To make the proclamation to the dead as He had
to those in mortal life that all must obtain salvation through
obedience to the simple ordinance of the gospel.
I was so impressed to hear these little boys sing as they
did. Their beautiful voices were so harmonious with each other.
All that has been sung has been pleasing to hear. I glory in the
Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth, the Babe of Bethlehem, having power
to redeem all mankind from all their sins. You must understand
that it is said here in the Doctrine and Covenants that God cannot
look on sin with any degree of allowance.
Now, my little friends, I will repeat again in words as
simple as I can, and you talk to your parents about it, that God,
the Eternal Father is literally the Father of Jesus Christ. Mary
was married to Joseph for time. No man could take her for
eternity because she belonged to the Father of her Divine Son.
In the revelations that have come through Joseph Smith, we learn
that it is the eternal purpose of God that man and woman should be
joined together by the power of God here on earth for time and
eternity.
If a man and woman should be joined together who are
incompatible to each other, it would be a mercy to them to be
separated that they might have a chance to find other spirits that
will be congenial to them. We will be loosed in Heaven. I would
like teachers of the Sunday School to take these simple facts and
teach them to the children so that they may understand the truth,
that their faith may be founded in fact and in truth, for nothing
that is not built on truth will stand. That which is false will
fall. Only that which is based on God's truth will stand. That
will endure. Now my brothers and sisters and the Sunday School
workers, we want you to teach the children the truth and nothing
but the truth.
Those who partake of the Sacrament without the spirit of
forgiveness in their hearts, eat and drink condemnation to their
souls, because they do it without recognizing their power of His
redeeming grace to them, they come to the table of the Lord's
supper without forgiveness in their hearts, without repentance in
their souls, I shall read the prayer on the bread : (Here the
speaker read from the Doctrine and Covenants.)
That they will always keep the commandments of God, that
they may always have his spirit to be with them and that they are
willing to take upon them His name and remember Him, and that we
are always willing to keep His commandments that He has given us.
Do we think of that when we partake of the Sacrament? He has
said, "I the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it
is required to forgive all men."
We are responsible for what we do. It is nobler to forgive
than to be forgiven. We should feel that it is greater, more Godly
to say to those who trespass against us, "I will forgive you, I
will not allow my soul to be corroded by bitter enmity against my
fellowman."
Oh, if this spirit could be possessed by the Latter-day
Saints where would be your high council trials? You bishop's
courts? Where your prisons and your prisoners? Men would say no
matter what you do, "I will forgive you."
It is better to say "Let God judge between me and my
enemy." It is good when a man can say to those who trespass
against him, "The Lord have mercy on you, but for me I forgive you."
May God help us to forgive all men as we hope to be
forgiven by Him. May the Lord bless us with the spirit of the Lord,
Jesus Christ, who in the last moments of agony upon the cross, when
He looked down upon His murderers and said, "Oh, Father, forgive
them for they know not what they do."
God bless you, this is my prayer in the name of Jesus, Amen."
Conference Address of
President Joseph F. Smith
From Box Elder News,
January 28, 1915
|
| 216.9 | Did I miss something? | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Fri Sep 22 1989 16:12 | 12 |
| Re: Note 216.8 by BSS::RONEY
Hi Charles,
I found your note very interesting. However, I do not find anything in
the conference address of Joseph F. Smith that refutes what Allen wrote
in note 4.3. He emphasized that God the Father is the literal father of
Jesus Christ, but does not say exactly how it happened. Did I miss
something?
In Christ's Love,
Rich
|
| 216.10 | just like prego...It's in there! | DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV | | Fri Sep 22 1989 16:49 | 22 |
| re: -1
As to the comment and entry by Charles, I draw this line out of Joseph
F. Smith's text
>Now, we are told in the scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten
>son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones,how
>are children begotten? I answer, just as Jesus Christ was begotten
>of His Father.
in Websters, we read that to beget is to father or sire. Now, I know what
the normal method is and I find it amazing that the above statement could
mean much else. It doesn't say that he had intercourse with Mary, but
come on, the implication is there. I'm not about try to make any case
for any alternative method. Procreation is sacred, and I'm sure that the
Prophet was handling this topic in an appropriate manner. BTW, thanx
Charles for the text of Joseph F. Smith. Also, I'll check on some other
references to support J. F. Smith's statement... I'm sure they'll be
similar.
Kevin
|
| 216.12 | | MILPND::PERM | Kevin R. Ossler | Fri Sep 22 1989 18:08 | 18 |
| My thoughts:
1.) Never in a million, billion years did Joseph F. Smith imagine that
Jesus Christ was begotten by a carnal act involving God and Mary. To
imagine such a thing is blasphemy of the worst sort. Jesus Christ is the
literal Son of God, and Mary is His literal mother; how this came about, I
don't know; nor do I care to insult the Lord by inquiring about it, since
this is obviously a subject too sacred to bandy about. It is enough for me
to know that Jesus is the Son of God and Man. The mechanism was not deigned
to be revealed to man, nor should it be.
2.) Joseph F. Smith was and is a prophet of God. I found his sermon as
reproduced here inspiring. I think his major point was to reaffirm that
Jesus Christ is the Son of God, which I and every Mormon NOW AND FOREVER
EMPHATICALLY PROCLAIM, despite the fact that the world calls this into
question continually.
/kevin
|
| 216.13 | Don't think on a telestial plane. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Fri Sep 22 1989 18:10 | 27 |
|
The whole matter of (pro)creation is a sacred concept because
it was given from from God, the Father, to His children. In His
context, it is creation - in our context it is procreation. Now, God,
the Father, has a glorious, resurrected, "spiritual" body, and our
bodies are patterned after His, but mortal. Corruptible, if you will,
as Paul points out. However, I do not in any way believe that God
would give us anything that was not patterned after His existence.
Why do people have such an aversion to Mary and her husband having
anything other than His other children? Because we are carnal in
nature and have a hard time raising our sights, and thoughts, above
a telestial concept. That is why the Holy Ghost had to "overshadow"
Mary. She, being carnal in nature and therefore not sinless, and
since God can not stand the presence of anything not clean, there
had to be a way to "clean" her. Isaiah had "hot coals" clean him,
but it was just symbolic of the Holy Ghost. How do you think Moses
could stand the presence of God and talk to Him "face to face?" The
prophet, Joseph Smith, was always overshadowed by the Holy Ghost in
his interviews with God. I remember one story when he and Sidney
Rigdon received a revelation, probable D&C 76, that afterwards Sidney
could hardly stand, and Joseph told him he would have to get used to
it. So I have no doubt as to why the Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary.
Everyone can believe what they may, but try to be as a child and see
with your heart to simple, basic concepts that our Heavenly Father
has given us, and don't make things any harder than they really are.
Charles
|
| 216.14 | | QBUS::MUELLER | | Fri Sep 22 1989 19:01 | 23 |
|
>Finally, this is a very sacred topic, and I wonder at the wisdom of our
>discussing the "how" of Mary's conception.
>
>Allen
I want to second this. This is obviously something which Heavenly Father
felt was not something that we needed to know to assist us in our eternal
progression. Too often we get carried away worrying about the mechanics of
something and not the reason that it was done.
I KNOW that Heavenly Father is the literal father of Jesus Christ and that
Mary is the literal mother. I need to KNOW this for my eternal progression
and salvation. I or anybody else who is on this earth right no does not
need to know how it happened only that it did happen. After all how many of
us invited our offspring into the room while being intimate with our mates.
OK I'm done blowing of some steam. If I have offended anyone please
forgive me.
Frank
|
| 216.15 | | CACHE::LEIGH | Do not procrastinate repentance | Fri Sep 22 1989 19:01 | 12 |
| > Everyone can believe what they may, but try to be as a child and see
> with your heart to simple, basic concepts that our Heavenly Father
> has given us, and don't make things any harder than they really are.
Well, Charles, you may be right. Someday those who become exalted will know.
But for now, you and I are welcome to believe what we want, but we need
to admit to ourselves that the scriptures don't say how the conception
occurred, and neither did Joseph F. Smith. So, to paraphrase your sound
advice above, let us not put things into the scriptures that aren't explicitly
there.
Allen
|
| 216.16 | Time to stop | CACHE::LEIGH | Do not procrastinate repentance | Sun Sep 24 1989 00:51 | 21 |
| As I mentioned before, I'm concerned about the wisdom of our speculating
on such a sacred topic, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Lord were
very displeased with us.
Some of you may be wondering why I spoke briefly of this topic in Note 4.
The reason is that "The God Makers" accuses the Mormon church of teaching
that God and Mary did have sexual relations. I felt when I saw the movie
that that accusation was false, I felt the same way when I wrote Note 4,
and I feel the same way now. As I said in Note 4, if individual Mormons
have made such a claim about God and Mary then they are speaking for
themselves and not for the Church, and it makes no difference whether those
people are lay members like us or General Authorities.
It should be obvious to everyone that the scriptures do not say *how* the
conception occurred. I know of no President of the LDS Church who has
presented such a claim as Church doctrine. Charles has presented a statement
by Joseph F. Smith. Brigham Young made a similar statement. However, in the
context of the conception, their statements are not clear, and we have to apply
our own interpretation to them. I think that for anyone to present those
statements as evidence that the Church teaches as doctrine a physical
relationship between God and Mary is really stretching things.
|
| 216.11 | We tend to see the world only from our perspective | CACHE::LEIGH | Do not procrastinate repentance | Mon Sep 25 1989 09:09 | 33 |
| The scriptures clearly teach that Jesus Christ was begotten by the Father
in a literal, physical sense, i.e. he was the literal Son of God. Today, we
know of at least three different ways in which that could have happened, and
only one way involves physical contact with Mary. I think it is important
for us to recognize that all three ways are ways in which Mary's conception
could have occurred, that all three are normal and do work. It is also
important for us to recognize that there could be other ways in which conception
can occur that are presently unknown to our scientists.
Sure, you can read into Joseph F. Smith's statement an implication of
physical contact, but you can also read an implication of the other two
methods. We need to keep in mind two things. First, any implication is your
interpretation of his sermon. It isn't clear that he was referring to the
*how* rather than the *what*. As I read his sermon, I think he was referring
to the *what*, that Christ was begotten of the Father, and I don't think he was
referring to the *how*. However, that is my interpretation, and I can
understand how others could interpret his remarks differently. Second, in his
day, physical contact was the only way that was known for conceptions to occur,
and it is possible that President Smith drew a conclusion in his mind that
physical contact was used without actually having receive a revelation to that
effect.
I think it is very important that we understand what both the scriptures and
the General Authorities say and do not say. They say that God literally
begot Christ, that Mary was literally the mother of Christ, and that the
power of the Holy Ghost made it possible. They do not say that God and Mary
had physical contact. Thus, we don't know how it happened, only that it
did happen.
Finally, this is a very sacred topic, and I wonder at the wisdom of our
discussing the "how" of Mary's conception.
Allen
|
| 216.17 | yes, you should stop | DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV | | Mon Sep 25 1989 09:23 | 23 |
|
re -1:
Agreed, the church does not explicitly teach that there was "physical"
contact. Yes this is a sacred topic, procreation is also. We should
approach these things with the proper spirit. The point is that we
teach that Heavenly Father is the "literal" father of Jesus Christ.
I submit that even though doctrine doesn't suggest "contact" it doesn't
deny it either. I can't understand why some can be offended by such
a suggestion. Are you possibly ashamed of this one great truth,
that Jesus is the literal son of God, that he was sired by Heavenly
Father himself. I see nothing shameful in this. I don't think that
it is particularly important how this might have occured. The fact
that Jesus Christ is of divine spiritual and physical parentage is
the important point. I object to the word "carnal"; this implies
not spiritual, and sensual. By whatever means this took place, it
was not carnal, nor blasphemous in nature, but sacred. If you imply
that any contact is carnal, then you are degrading the very act of
procreation, which is the most sacred act we can perform when married
to one another.
Kevin
|
| 216.18 | | CACHE::LEIGH | Do not procrastinate repentance | Mon Sep 25 1989 09:48 | 54 |
| Hi Kevin,
> The point is that we
> teach that Heavenly Father is the "literal" father of Jesus Christ.
> I submit that even though doctrine doesn't suggest "contact" it doesn't
> deny it either.
I agree! My concern in this matter is that we take the scriptures and
statements from our leaders and don't add to or subtract from them. The Church
does not answer the question of the "how", and people who accept a particular
solution to the "how" need to be honest with themselves and admit that it is
their thinking and not Church doctrine.
> I can't understand why some can be offended by such
> a suggestion.
I'm not offended, but I can understand how others might be, and that's OK
because they look at things from a different perspective than I do.
> Are you possibly ashamed of this one great truth,
> that Jesus is the literal son of God, that he was sired by Heavenly
> Father himself. I see nothing shameful in this.
If you read Note 4 as well as other comments I've made in this and the
CHRISTIAN conference, it should be clear that I'm not ashamed of Christ in
any way. I assume, Kevin, that you were asking a rhetorical question.
> I don't think that
> it is particularly important how this might have occured. The fact
> that Jesus Christ is of divine spiritual and physical parentage is
> the important point.
Ah, now we have agreement on what is important.
> I object to the word "carnal"; this implies
> not spiritual, and sensual. By whatever means this took place, it
> was not carnal, nor blasphemous in nature, but sacred. If you imply
> that any contact is carnal, then you are degrading the very act of
> procreation, which is the most sacred act we can perform when married
> to one another.
I agree, I don't like the word "carnal" in this context either. Physical
relations between a man and his wife can be and should be very spiritual.
Unfortunately, the world has made those relations very carnal when seen from
the viewpoint of the world. Certainly God is not carnal, and everything He
does is spiritual.
Allen
|
| 216.19 | our paths meet! | DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV | | Mon Sep 25 1989 10:38 | 22 |
| Allen,
We come from different paths yet we converge on the same truths!
I often deliberately pose rhetorical questions so I will not offend
individuals or put them on the spot. In this file we have a varied
group of people with different perspectives on the same matters.
What I say may offend some, but not others. I hope that people
will be encouraged to speak out on matters they feel prompted on,
such as this one, or whatever. I'd like to add that the things I
bring out from time to time are my own thoughts and do not neces-
sarily represent established doctrine of this church. When I bring
out items that are doctrine I will state them as such. I pray that
this file remains one where we may discuss in an enlightened manner
and not be one where we just throw out the "official" line. I apolo-
gise if I offend some people, for none is intended. BTW, there are
many topics I would like to discuss, but the sometime speculative
nature of them does not fit well with the MORMONISM notefile. I do
not have a problem talking about such things, but others may. Maybe
we could have an note entry covering such things.
Kevin..........
|
| 216.20 | | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Tue Sep 26 1989 13:55 | 105 |
|
Brethren,
I can sympathize with your reluctance to want to
discuss a topic that has always been that way with decent and
honest people. But I have to take exception with your attitudes.
First is that I firmly believe that Joseph F. Smith did
indeed implicate that there was the same marital relations between
Heavenly Father and His wife Mary as we on earth have experienced,
and that that is the ONLY way He could behave. Allen, your other
two ways would have to be rejected concerning beings with bodies
that were able to conceive correctly. But, that is not the point
I am trying to make by bringing this subject up.
Let me start by indicating that Joseph Smith has constantly
impressed upon the saints that we must come to know the character
and attributes of our Heavenly Father. This is throughout his Lectures
on Faith, in the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and Bruce R.
McConkie's Articles Of Faith. So in trying to really understand the
plan of salvation, these characteristics and attributes of God would
allow us some kind of indication of how we should be.
IN D&C 130:22 we are told that "the Father has a body of
flesh and bones as tangible as man's;" but this should be expected
as we are His children and are made in His image. But what kind of a
body does He have? A resurrected body that feels not the pain of
mortality. In John 4:24 we are told that "God is a Spirit: and they
that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth." This would
seem to contradict what we know of him, unless we take into
consideration Paul. In 1 Cor. 15:42-54 Paul goes into great detail
and depth as to resurrected bodies and their difference with the
mortal body.
Paul talks about the differences of the mortal and immortal
bodies which we will inhabit. The mortal body is referred to as
a corruptible, dishonored, weak, natural body. This is the body we
now have. After our resurrection, we will then inherit an
incorruptible, glorious, powerful, spiritual body. This will be the
status of our immortal body! This will not be an disembodied spirit,
but a spiritual body. The spirit which now resides in this mortal
tabernacle will then reside in an immortal tabernacle whose attributes
can be referred to as "spiritual." Now, if we are in the likeness of
God, I propose that He, God, the Father, has the same kind of body
right now - exactly like the one which we are destined to inherit in
the resurrection.
In obtaining a knowledge about the attributes of our God, I
think that we should realize that He sets the precedence, just as
Jesus Christ has. Jesus was resurrected to the same kind of immortal
body His Father has, and we will too. What is wrong with that? Nothing.
But if your idea of God is different, or you think that what
God has is His to keep, and we inherit something else, then you are
sorely mistaken. He has promised that we will be joint heirs with
Christ in His kingdom. We will be with and like Him! We are His
children and will take on the attributes of our parents. And we will
live with Him forever. But the most important concept to remember is
that the children take the attributes and characteristics of their
parents. With Jesus Christ, this is most important!
Jesus Christ was not really "slain" on the cross. No power
on earth could do that. He died, that is true, but His life was not
taken from Him. He voluntarily gave it up after he had completed
the last and final step to Heavenly Father's plan of salvation. And
how could He do that without those attributes and characteristics of
His parents? From His father He received immortality and the power
over death; from His mother He received mortality and the power to
die. He has been, and will ever be, the only person on the face of
this earth to have these two powers at the same time. Without them
He could not have finished His preparations for the children of men.
So I think it is important that we understand that everything
our Heavenly Father does has a purpose, and that He does not do things
which are not given for us to do also. We may not have the knowledge
to heal the blind, sick, infirmed, cripple, or dead; but He has given
us the power and authority to act in His name under His direction.
When we do not have the power, He sends the Holy Ghost to overshadow
us and allow us to go beyond our normal mortal means. We are then
strengthened to enormous proportions that not even Satan can stand
against us. Why do people have to give God some other way of doing
things than what He has already given us? He is not mystical in His
actions. Yes, He does have more knowledge and understanding than we
do, but does that mean He does not obey the same rules as He has given
us. Yes, He does obey the same rules or laws, else He would cease to
be God. But He has not ceased to be God, and He does not give anything
unto the children of men that He Himself does not already obey.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the most wonderful and joyous
thing that can come into our lives, because it is our way of returning
to our Father in Heaven. And He awaits us as does any earthly loving
father does with his returning children. But His thoughts are much
higher and greater than ours, and yours must get that way if you are
going to be like Him.
I have known this principle for over twelve years, being taught
it in a Sunday School class. It was hard for some people to accept
then, and it looks like it is so now. Why? Because our hearts are
not open to the simple truths our Heavenly Father has given us. Just
the same as people who can not accept Joseph Smith and the Book of
Mormon, because their hearts are set upon the things of the world.
Lift your sights, thoughts, and actions to those of our Heavenly
Father's, and you will find that He does not do anything wrong.
I leave you these thoughts with love in my heart for all,
and in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
|
| 216.21 | | CSCOA5::ROLLINS_R | | Tue Sep 26 1989 15:27 | 129 |
| <<< Note 216.20 by BSS::RONEY "Charles Roney" >>>
> First is that I firmly believe that Joseph F. Smith did
> indeed implicate that there was the same marital relations between
> Heavenly Father and His wife Mary as we on earth have experienced,
> and that that is the ONLY way He could behave. Allen, your other
> two ways would have to be rejected concerning beings with bodies
> that were able to conceive correctly. But, that is not the point
> I am trying to make by bringing this subject up.
Well, I also take the statement by Joseph F. Smith to imply
that there was consentual relations between the two. However, he does
not say so directly. It seems to me that when we read a statement by
someone, often times there are things implied that are left unsaid.
IN MY OPINION, I think that Joseph F. Smith left a very strong
impression that Christ was formed in this way, and it seems to me to
be a deliberate attempt to justify one's own feelings to the contrary
in order to suggest that he wasn't imlying such. However, it's not a
key issue for me.
However, I have not read a statement that said that God the
Father had Mary as his wife. I have read many scriptures that said
that said Mary was the legal and lawful spouse of Joseph. Perhaps
people have to make such a claim when they think that the Father had
a sexual relationship with Mary. However, I know of no statement in
the standard works or from the presidents of the Church which even
slightly implies such. Ifa nyone can come forth with one, than please
inform me of such.
Moreover, to claim it is the ONLY way in which Christ could
have been created is without foundation. There are many ways in which
Christ could have been formed. There is no reason to infer that because
mortals are created through sexual intercourse, that this is the ONLY
way by which God's only begotten Son in the flesh could have been
created. That seems to me to be putting severe limitations on a being
whom we are only beginning to comprehend. If by faith we can cause
mountains to move, certainly in a similar way our Father could cause
elements to come together to form an embryo with the appropriate genetic
information and qualities.
> Paul talks about the differences of the mortal and immortal
> bodies which we will inhabit. The mortal body is referred to as
> a corruptible, dishonored, weak, natural body. This is the body we
> now have. After our resurrection, we will then inherit an
> incorruptible, glorious, powerful, spiritual body. This will be the
> status of our immortal body! This will not be an disembodied spirit,
> but a spiritual body. The spirit which now resides in this mortal
> tabernacle will then reside in an immortal tabernacle whose attributes
> can be referred to as "spiritual." Now, if we are in the likeness of
> God, I propose that He, God, the Father, has the same kind of body
> right now - exactly like the one which we are destined to inherit in
> the resurrection.
> In obtaining a knowledge about the attributes of our God, I
> think that we should realize that He sets the precedence, just as
> Jesus Christ has. Jesus was resurrected to the same kind of immortal
> body His Father has, and we will too. What is wrong with that? Nothing.
> But if your idea of God is different, or you think that what
> God has is His to keep, and we inherit something else, then you are
> sorely mistaken. He has promised that we will be joint heirs with
> Christ in His kingdom. We will be with and like Him! We are His
> children and will take on the attributes of our parents. And we will
> live with Him forever. But the most important concept to remember is
> that the children take the attributes and characteristics of their
> parents. With Jesus Christ, this is most important!
I don't think anyone has argued over any of these points.
Jesus Christ and Jehovah/Yahweh are one and the same being. Jesus
was in the Godhead before, during, and after his earthly ministry.
He is the Son of His Father; indeed, the Only Begotten Son of God
in the flesh. In the resurrection we can claim His inheritance, and
become like him. In saying one doubts that there was a physical
relationship between God the Father and Mary, we do not have to deny
any of these other statements.
> Jesus Christ was not really "slain" on the cross. No power
> on earth could do that. He died, that is true, but His life was not
> taken from Him. He voluntarily gave it up after he had completed
> the last and final step to Heavenly Father's plan of salvation. And
> how could He do that without those attributes and characteristics of
> His parents? From His father He received immortality and the power
> over death; from His mother He received mortality and the power to
> die. He has been, and will ever be, the only person on the face of
> this earth to have these two powers at the same time. Without them
> He could not have finished His preparations for the children of men.
> So I think it is important that we understand that everything
> our Heavenly Father does has a purpose, and that He does not do things
> which are not given for us to do also. We may not have the knowledge
> to heal the blind, sick, infirmed, cripple, or dead; but He has given
> us the power and authority to act in His name under His direction.
> When we do not have the power, He sends the Holy Ghost to overshadow
> us and allow us to go beyond our normal mortal means. We are then
> strengthened to enormous proportions that not even Satan can stand
> against us. Why do people have to give God some other way of doing
> things than what He has already given us? He is not mystical in His
> actions. Yes, He does have more knowledge and understanding than we
> do, but does that mean He does not obey the same rules as He has given
> us. Yes, He does obey the same rules or laws, else He would cease to
> be God. But He has not ceased to be God, and He does not give anything
> unto the children of men that He Himself does not already obey.
First of all, your statement that "he does not do things which
are not given us to do also" does not follow logically from your
previous or following arguments. Moreover, if it were a fact, it
still doesn't follow that the means the Father has of accomplishing
something would not necessarily have to be the same means by which we
must accomplish it. For example, we have the ability to be clean
through the prinicple of repentence; this principle does not apply in
the life of Christ.
> The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the most wonderful and joyous
> thing that can come into our lives, because it is our way of returning
> to our Father in Heaven. And He awaits us as does any earthly loving
> father does with his returning children. But His thoughts are much
> higher and greater than ours, and yours must get that way if you are
> going to be like Him.
I agree that the Gospel has the power to truly revolutionize
one's soul, and also that we must allow ourselves to receive the
impressions from Him in order to become like Him, and know Him as He
is. I am truly amazed at the transforming power of the Gospel, and
have great awe and reverence as I think upon Christ and the atonement.
I am also stricken with awe when I think of the many ways in which
Our Father and His Son can do things in which ways I cannot even begin
to comprehend, and acknowledge that there are many things which are
yet to be revealed, when the people are ready for them, whether in this
life or the next.
|
| 216.22 | Theories cloud the important issue | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Tue Sep 26 1989 15:38 | 36 |
| Re: Note 216.20 by BSS::RONEY
Hi Charles,
Even though you were taught this in Sunday School does not mean that it
is true. There are many personal opinions that are sometimes taught in
Sunday School classes that are not official church doctrine, and some
that are not true. I doubt very much that the manual for the class
draws the same conclusion that you do. If it does, then I would very
much like to see it.
This is a major aggravation of mine, when some teachers in the church,
as well as some class participants, take it upon themselves to preach
concepts that go beyond what is found in the scriptures. It always
results in contention and confusion, which is not from God.
I do not doubt that God the Father is the father of Jesus' body and
that Mary is the mother of His body. I just do not find justification
for your conclusion in the statement that you quoted. I also do not
find justification for it in the scriptures.
What I *do* find justification for is that Jesus is the Only Begotten
of the Father, and that the power of the Holy Ghost was involved in the
conception. I also find that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to
Jesus, and that she "knew no man". To me, it is quite clear from the
scriptures that the conception happened in a miraculous way that has
not been explained, and for us to conclude that it occured like
ordinary conceptions do is unfounded.
I think that the important thing is to focus on the divinity of Jesus
Christ, that he really *was* begotten of the Father and that he is our
Savior? Let's focus on that, and not on theories that cloud that issue.
In Christ's Love,
Rich
|
| 216.23 | | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Tue Sep 26 1989 16:56 | 41 |
|
RE : 216.21
> However, I have not read a statement that said that God the
> Father had Mary as his wife. I have read many scriptures that said
> that said Mary was the legal and lawful spouse of Joseph. Perhaps
> people have to make such a claim when they think that the Father had
> a sexual relationship with Mary. However, I know of no statement in
> the standard works or from the presidents of the Church which even
> slightly implies such. If anyone can come forth with one, than please
> inform me of such.
From my article in 216.8 I have extracted the following :
"Now, my little friends, I will repeat again in words as
simple as I can, and you talk to your parents about it, that God,
the Eternal Father is literally the Father of Jesus Christ. Mary
was married to Joseph for time. No man could take her for
eternity because she belonged to the Father of her Divine Son."
> Moreover, to claim it is the ONLY way in which Christ could
> have been created is without foundation. There are many ways in which
> Christ could have been formed.
The context of this statement was against the three ways offered.
The other two are not needed in normal, standard situations.
> must accomplish it. For example, we have the ability to be clean
> through the principle of repentance; this principle does not apply in
> the life of Christ.
Then why was Christ baptized? He still went through everything we have
to do. He set the example. Just because He didn't need it does not
make any difference; He was still obedient to Heavenly Father's
commandments.
|
| 216.24 | | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Tue Sep 26 1989 17:03 | 20 |
|
RE : 216.22
> Even though you were taught this in Sunday School does not mean that it
> is true.
My only point is that it has been around for a while. Now, I did not
grow up in the church, so I can only go back a certain amount of time.
My outlook at what I have presented is extremely difficult to present
in this manner. It has been a help to me and I just wanted to share
it. I am sorry that so much controversy has resulted in it. I guess
that the Lord gives understanding in different ways to different
people. What is important to one person is of no consequence to
another. As long as we continue on the right path, then that is all
that matters.
|
| 216.25 | on a clear day you can see for miles... | DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV | | Tue Sep 26 1989 17:13 | 21 |
|
Hi!
The official church doctrine is not explicit, nor would I expect
it to be. The thing I see in Charles' statement is that he is
pointing toward our own path that will lead to divinity, and the
importance of knowing the character of God. We are taught that
the literal father of Jesus Christ is Heavenly Father, that he
has an exalted body and that our path will be the same. The fact
that "literal" is emphasized is to show us the divine and the
earthy, or mortal have parallels, that we might understand more of
the nature of God. In our eternal progression, there are many
great truths we will learn and each of us will eventually come
to the same understanding. We shouldn't be alarmed if we have
different perspectives on this subject, each individual is entitled
to personal revelation on this, (emphasize personal); as long
as we don't pass it as official doctrine, then we are safe.
Kevin
|
| 216.26 | | DNEAST::PUSHARD_MIKE | | Wed Sep 27 1989 12:02 | 17 |
|
I personally believe that Joseph was the means for Jesus to obtain a
physical body,and,that the Father provided the spirit within it.
I believe the soul enters the body at the time the body is formed
according to the instructions contained in the DNA. The physical body
is a shell for the soul,and,is created according to the rules of
nature. The soul inhabits this shell until it dies. The method of
creating the body is by sexual contact. I believe this happened between
Mary and Joseph. The Christs' spirit then inhabited the body by
direction of the Father. Christs' body was as ours,therefore,it was
subject to the same pains as ours,otherwise he could not have suffered
as he did.
Peace
Michael
|
| 216.27 | ...in the express image of the Father | DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV | | Wed Sep 27 1989 12:46 | 35 |
|
re: .26
Hi Mike!
On this point concerning Joseph being the physical father, I recalled
some scriptures concerning Christ's image, and checked McConkie's
Mormon doctrine for reference and come up with the following (from
Lectures on Faith:
" ...the Son, being a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like
unto man, or being in the form or likeness of man... he is also the
express image and likeness of the personage of the Father."
McConkie, Mormon Doctrine,pg. 320
Also, in the definition of the Virgin birth, McConkie, explains:
"Our Lord is the only Mortal ever born to a Virgin, because he is the
only person who ever had an immortal Father"
Ibid,pg. 822.
Given the earlier statements that Heavenly Father was the literal
Father of Jesus Christ, given he being in the express image of The
Father; and the statement that the parentage is immortal, and if
I remember, the statement that Joseph never knew Mary at that time,
(someone help me with the verse in the Bible), it is reasonable
to conclude that Jesus Christ's physical, and spiritual father was
God, the father.
The statement about the Virgin Birth is to show that physical contact,
even though not explicitly stated, *could* have occured, given state-
ments by Church leaders; that the "miracle" of the Virgin birth, is so
only in the sense of the condescension of the Father, and not in terms
of the process.
Kevin
|
| 216.28 | | DNEAST::PUSHARD_MIKE | | Wed Sep 27 1989 13:12 | 16 |
|
Hi Kevin,
I understand your point,based on the material you stated. I also see a
contradiction of statements between the Bible and Joseph F. Smith. If
Mary was a virgin then,no physical contact could be made,yet,Smith is
alluding to contact being made. How then,is a woman conceived without
the usual process? We all know it takes an egg and sperm to conceive.
What other process would work? Why would God have to go outside the
realm that he created?
Peace
Michael
|
| 216.29 | she knew no man | DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV | | Wed Sep 27 1989 13:53 | 14 |
|
Hi Mike,
I look at the word "virgin" as meaning, pure and untouched by MORTAL
man. I believe that she remained pure, for Heavenly Father is immortal
and perfect Himself. In being prepared by the Holy Ghost made her able
to be in His presence. One other point, I remember reading in Luke 1:27
about Mary being espoused to Joseph. I believe, Talmage, in Jesus the
Christ, brings out that they were engaged (espoused)at the time of
this event. Given this, Mary would be pure, as it states she knew no
man, and wasn't married to mortal man either. Please, anybody, correct
me if I'm in error on this.
Kevin
|
| 216.30 | Born of a virgin... | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Wed Sep 27 1989 16:18 | 29 |
| Re: Note 216.29 by DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV
Hi Kevin,
> I look at the word "virgin" as meaning, pure and untouched by MORTAL
> man.
I think this is stretching the meaning of the word virgin. To me, it
means a person that has not had intimate relations AT ALL. The
scriptures say that Jesus was born of a virgin, and that Mary "knew no
man" prior to Jesus' birth. To me this means that she did not have
intimate relations AT ALL prior to Jesus' birth.
The miracle of the conception is that it did NOT occur by natural
means, but that it occurred by divine means. This is why the Holy Ghost
overshadowed her, so that this could be accomplished.
If Mary "knew no man", then I think this would include God the Father,
for He is a man, though he is a perfected and glorified man. One of the
names for God the Father is Man of Holiness, and one of the names for
Jesus is Son of Man.
Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God! He is the Only Begotten of
the Father! He is the Redeemer of mankind! He was born of a virgin,
lived a sinless life, and took upon Himself the suffering of all
mankind, that we might be redeemed, if we will come unto Him!
Witnessing of Christ,
Rich
|
| 216.31 | untouched by man... | DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV | | Wed Sep 27 1989 17:29 | 21 |
|
Hi Rich,
Ok, we differ on this point. I see it from a different perspective;
I look at McConkie's statement and see the word "virgin" as being
pure and untouched. The conception took place by the power of the
Holy Ghost. LDS teachings indicate that the Holy Ghost is not the
Father of Jesus Christ, but is Heavenly Father.(see JoD, Brigham Young
Discourse,V 1:50, I believe). Doctrine also conforms with what Nephi
described concerning this event.
I will leave it as something that has not been *explicitly* revealed
at this time, concerning the process. We all are hopefully in agreement
on the intent. Like I said before, I believe we can receive our own
personal revelation on how this might have occurred. I suspect that He
might be more than slightly amused at our attempts to explain this
away. I suggest that if we have concerns on this we seek out Heavenly
Father in prayer for guidance on it.
Kevin
|
| 216.32 | Definition or Daffynition? | BOSHOG::HARVEY | | Wed Sep 27 1989 23:26 | 6 |
| I heard in a book called "The Christian Agnostic" that the original
phrase "virgin woman" originally meant "a woman able to bear children."
Any one else heard this?
Drew
|
| 216.33 | Jesus the Christ | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Thu Sep 28 1989 04:23 | 49 |
| On this subject, I came across the following, from "Jesus the Christ"
by James E. Talmage, which I thought might be of interest:
Gabriel had announced that Mary would conceive and bring forth Jesus...
...Mary, conscious of her unmarried status and sure of her virgin
condition, asked: "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?"
The answer to her natural and simple inquiry was the announcement
of a miracle such as the world had never known -- not a miracle in
the sense of a happening contrary to nature's law, nevertheless a
miracle through the operation of higher law, such as the human
mind ordinarily fails to comprehend or regard as possible. Mary
was informed that she would conceive and in time bring forth a
Son, of whom no mortal man would be the father: -- "And the angel
answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,
and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also
that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the
Son of God."
His message delivered, Gabriel departed, leaving the chosen Virgin
of Nazareth to ponder over her wondrous experience. Mary's
promised Son was to be "The Only Begotten" of the Father in the
flesh; so it had been both positively and abundantly predicted.
True, the event was unprecedented; true also it has never been
paralleled; but that the virgin birth would be unique was as truly
essential to the fulfillment of prophecy as that it should occur
at all. That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the
Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance
with a higher manifestation thereof; and, the offspring from the
association of supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure
though mortal maternity, was of right to be called the "Son of the
Highest." In His nature would be combined the powers of Godhood
with the capacity and possibilities of mortality; and this through
the ordinary operation of the fundamental law of heredity,
declared of God, demonstrated by science, and admitted by
philosophy, that living beings shall propagate -- after their
kind. The Child Jesus was to inherit the physical, mental, and
spiritual traits, tendencies, and powers that characterized His
parents -- one immortal and glorified -- God, the other human --
woman. (Pages 80-81)
With respect to those who assert that Joseph was actually the father
of Jesus, Talmage quotes from the Holy Bible:
Joseph... "did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took
unto him his wife: and knew her not till she had brought forth her
firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus. (Page 85)
Rich
|
| 216.34 | good reference | DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV | | Thu Sep 28 1989 10:09 | 3 |
| re: -1
Thanx for posting that reference, Rich!
|
| 216.35 | FROM WITHIN I KNOW I AM | DNEAST::PUSHARD_MIKE | | Thu Sep 28 1989 13:34 | 13 |
|
One problem that I see,which accounts for all the different splits of
religion,is a basic feature of Man. That is the different ideas and
interpretations that abound about the same thing! There is no answering
the question. What someone else says does not give me the answers,its
looking within myself,feeling for them. If we all have a oneness with
God,then each of us can get our answers from THAT SPIRIT WITHIN US THAT
LINKS US WITH GOD!
Peace
Michael
|
| 216.36 | | CSCOA5::ROLLINS_R | | Thu Sep 28 1989 17:35 | 11 |
| It's true, we must all learn how to communicate with God; in fact,
in all the activities of human life, the ability to distinguish
communications from God from our own will, or even worse yet, the
"spiritual" forces of the adversary, will be the most important
ability we can gain in this life.
It's not so easy; Satan can deceive even the very elect. There are
influences which would fool many into believeing they were communicating
with God, when in fact, those persons were not. The scriptures provide
us with a reliable checkpoint to see if what we are receiving is from a
divine source.
|
| 216.37 | need to confirm LDS facts about Jesus' birth | FRETZ::HEISER | no D in Phoenix | Tue May 03 1994 12:07 | 6 |
| Where (city) was the Mormon Jesus born and was He the product of a virgin
birth? I've heard LDS members believe it was Jerusalem and that Jesus
was conceived via relations between God and Mary.
thanks,
Mike
|
| 216.38 | | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Tue May 03 1994 19:59 | 20 |
| > <<< Note 216.37 by FRETZ::HEISER "no D in Phoenix" >>>
> -< need to confirm LDS facts about Jesus' birth >-
>
> Where (city) was the Mormon Jesus born and was He the product of a virgin
> birth? I've heard LDS members believe it was Jerusalem and that Jesus
> was conceived via relations between God and Mary.
I, personally, find this question quite insulting. Just because we,
"Mormons", worship Jesus Christ differently from others, does not give
justification for calling him the "Mormon Jesus". There is one, and
only one, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the living God. He
was born in Bethlehem, and the virgin birth is discussed in topic 4.3
and any person believing it was in Jerusalem has not read the Bible,
LDS or not.
As for the last part, I do have an opinion, but decline to discuss it
with those who believe in the trinity concept as it would be, IMHO,
very non-productive. How other people worship God is their business,
and I allow them that God given right. I would just expect the same.
|
| 216.39 | | FRETZ::HEISER | no D in Phoenix | Wed May 04 1994 12:55 | 11 |
| Charles, I meant it in the same inoffensive manner as you when you use
the phrase "secular Christianity." While we're talking about insulting
phrases, my faith is firmly grounded on the foundation of the Bible, and
I don't find offense (though I dislike it) when I constantly hear things
like "as far as it's translated correctly," and "full of contradictions and
errors," etc. Just something for you to consider...
Finally, thanks for confirming for me that LDS members believe Jesus
was born in Bethlehem and not Jerusalem.
Mike
|
| 216.40 | | QBUS::F_MUELLER | HOME but not forgotten! | Wed May 04 1994 19:28 | 7 |
| Now, now, children. Let us remember that this conference is for sharing
of ones views and not insulting (directly or otherwise) anyone.
I know that when the Savior was challenged by the Pharisees, He set an
example that we all need to follow.
f.m.
|
| 216.41 | My apologies if necessary. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Wed May 04 1994 22:06 | 60 |
| > Now, now, children. Let us remember that this conference is for sharing
> of ones views and not insulting (directly or otherwise) anyone.
You are right, and I guess I used the wrong word. Instead of "insult"
I should have said that I take offense at the term "Mormon Jesus" when
there was probably no offense meant. I am a firm believer that one
person does not offend another, but that said offended person "takes"
offense. It is our responsibility to take offense or not, but this
issue is, for me, something that dates back to when I was on a Stake
mission in 1980.
We were teaching a person, and he refered to his belief of multiple
Jesuses (sp?) that are worshiped. That is, the Mormons had one, this
denomination had one, and that denomination had another. It was a new
concept to me, and I had to dwell upon it. I came to the conclusion
that it was an incorrect concept. There is one, and only one, Jesus
Christ. The different denominations just worship him differently. To
refer to the "Mormon Jesus" could be just a short way of saying "the
way Mormons worship Jesus Christ" or maybe a sarcastic, mean, put down
of the way Mormons worship Christ. If I though it was the latter, I
would have hidden the note and got clarification, and, if necessary,
a re-write of the question. But since this conference is for sharing
views, I just put down my reaction to it, and did a poor job of it.
Mormon belief of Jesus Christ is directly rooted in the Bible. There
is basically no difference in our belief of Isaiah's and other prophets
Messianic prophecies. In fact, I find it quite ironic to observe the
"Christian" world community put Jews down when Jesus Christ was a Jew
himself. He grew up observing Jewish laws and customs. His lineage
was such that he was indeed the "King of the Jews". In using the word
Jew to refer to the whole House of Israel, and not just the tribe of
Judah, we must remember that once God has said something he does not
take it back, and that the Jews ARE the choosen people of Jehovah. To
be a member of Gods people, we must be of the House of Israel in one
form or another. My lineage is Ephraim, but to qualify for the
promises God has made, I must observe to keep the covenant under which
it was made. The Bible is extremely important in this manner to help
understand this covenant because that is where it is recorded. All
the Book of Morman provides is a second testimony, so that out of the
mouths of two or more witnesses shall every word be established. Jesus
Christ has another witness that he is the devine son of God, and the
savior and redeemer of all mankind. That through him, and no other
way, will we be able to return to the presence of God from which we
came. In my mind, a complete picture of all the ramifications of the
Plan of Salvation and the mission and purpose of Jesus Christ can not
be had without ALL of the scripture available to us at this time. Just
as the Jew did not have all that was available to them through Jesus
Christ (because of their unbelief and stifneckedness), there is still
more to come as the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated
from were sealed to us. We were not ready and able to handle that
information. When John had his vison of Revelations, there was much
that he could not write as we would not have been able to handle it.
But the basic principle of Jesus Christ has to start from the Bible.
As Mormons, we teach Jesus Christ, we preach Jesus Christ, and we
worship Jesus Christ as our saviour and redeemer. A complete picture
of him can not be had from just the Book of Mormon. Salvation can and
will come from no other source but through Jesus Christ.
Charles
|
| 216.42 | No apology needed :-) | QBUS::F_MUELLER | HOME but not forgotten! | Thu May 05 1994 19:37 | 13 |
| re .41
I too had someone ask me what Jesus Christ we worshipped since we were
not Christians. After explaining who I believed Jesus was, there seemed
to be more acceptance of the church.
As far as Jesus being born in Jerusalem. This is what was told to the
Nephites because (IMHO) their "Fathers" came from there and they had
some point of reference. Just as I now live in Roswell, Gerogia which
most people have never heard of, however when I'm travelling I tell
people that I'm from Atlanta. It saves a lot of explanation.
f.m.
|
| 216.43 | 100% fulfillment of the specific Messianic prophecies is critical | FRETZ::HEISER | no D in Phoenix | Fri May 06 1994 11:39 | 24 |
| FWIW, There are 2 other problems associated with stating Jerusalem is
where Jesus was born. The first comes from Micah 5:2. Here Micah under
divine inspiration, clearly delineates the town and county where the
Messiah would be born by stating "Bethlehem Ephrathah." It was the Hebrew
custom of the day to add the county to specify the exact location. Why?
Because there were duplicate city names. Most Bible Encyclopedias or
Dictionaries verify the historical fact that there was more than 1
Bethlehem in Judah. God gave Micah the foresight to distinguish which
Bethlehem the Messiah would be born in so that there would not be any
questions.
The second problem with the Messiah being born in Jerusalem is the
vagueness or generality, which is extremely uncharacteristic in the
Messianic prophecies. They are all detailed and specific, as shown above.
Daniel prophecied Jesus' entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday to the
*exact* day, more than 500 years before it happened! Remember, the spirit
of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus Christ - Revelation 19:10. For
someone to be the Messiah, they would have to fulfill all 332 Messianic
prophecies in the OT. One single failure means total failure and this
is how we test those claiming to be Christ today. There are quite a few
New Agers and Hindus claiming to be the new christ, but they all fail to
fulfill these Messianic prophecies.
Mike
|
| 216.44 | Couple of questions... | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Sun May 08 1994 11:25 | 13 |
| > The first comes from Micah 5:2. Here Micah under
> divine inspiration, clearly delineates the town and county where the
> Messiah would be born by stating "Bethlehem Ephrathah." It was the Hebrew
> custom of the day to add the county to specify the exact location.
What exactly does "Bethlehem Ephrathah" tell us?
> For someone to be the Messiah, they would have to fulfill all 332
> Messianic prophecies in the OT.
Do you have a book or reference you can point us to that outlines all
332 prophecies?
|
| 216.45 | sorry for the delay | FRETZ::HEISER | no D in Phoenix | Wed May 18 1994 16:53 | 194 |
| > What exactly does "Bethlehem Ephrathah" tell us?
Ephrathah was provided to distinguish the county in Judah. I've seen
references claim that there was more than one Bethlehem in Judah. Micah
was most certainly under divine inspiration to provide us this
distinguishing feature.
> Do you have a book or reference you can point us to that outlines all
> 332 prophecies?
I do, but it's at home. A lot of the more commonly known ones can be
found on your own and I've entered quite a few of them below (actually
from a school paper I wrote a couple years back). This should give you
an idea of what to look for.
What's even more remarkable is when you apply the probabilities that
any 1 person can come along in history and fulfill everyone of them to
lay claim to the Messiahship. The prophecies are an excellent test to
weed out those today that claim to be the new Messiah.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"For Jesus to be the heralded Messiah, he would have to make that claim, meet
all the criteria to support that claim, and prove that claim to be true. The
Old Testament section of the Bible contains 332 references and prophecies
related to the Messiah. Jesus would have to fulfill every single one of them,
in his lifetime of 33 years, without one failure to be the Messiah, and do so
convincingly. To rule out coincidences, there are many prophecies fulfilled by
Jesus that were totally beyond his control. Eight of these are his place of
birth, time of birth, manner of birth, betrayal, manner of death, people's
reactions, piercing, and burial. In dealing with the science of mathematical
probabilities for these 8 prophecies, Peter Stoner writes, "We find that the
chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled
all 8 prophecies is 1 in 10^17 " (McDowell, vol. 1, 167). That's 10 followed by
17 zeros for those keeping score. Stoner further illustrates this with an
analogy, "we take 10^17 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas.
They will cover all of the state 2 feet deep. Now mark one of these silver
dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a
man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up
one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he
have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would
have had of writing these 8 prophecies and having them all come true in any
one man, from their day to the present time, providing they wrote them in
their own wisdom" (McDowell, vol. 1, 167). Stone also states that when 48 of
the 332 prophecies are considered, the odds increase to 1 in 10^157. Only
divine guidance could defy these odds in absolute perfection. Jesus Christ
was part of a divine plan and fulfilled it to the last detail."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Messianic Prophecies
The historic completion of the Old Testament is 450 B.C., so all 332 Messianic
prophecies were first recorded before then. The Septuagint, which is the
Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, was initiated in the reign of
Ptolemy Philadelphius (285-246 B.C.). To initiate the Greek translation in 250
B.C., the Hebrew text had to have been already written. There is at least a
250 year gap between the Messianic prophecies and the birth of Jesus Christ!
Prophecies Concerning His Birth Prophecy Fulfilled
1. Born of the Seed of Woman - Genesis 3:15 Matthew 1:20, Galatians 4:4
2. Born of a Virgin - Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:18-25, Luke 1:26-35
3. Son of God - Psalms 2:7 Matthew 3:17
I Chronicles 17:11-14 Matthew 16:16
II Samuel 7:12-16 Mark 9:7, Luke 9:35, 22:70,
Acts 13:30-33, John 1:34,49
4. Seed of Abraham - Genesis 12:2-3 Matthew 1:1
Genesis 22:18 Galatians 3:16
5. Son of Issac - Genesis 21:12 Luke 3:23,34, Matthew 1:2
6. Son of Jacob - Numbers 24:17 Luke 3:23,34
Genesis 35:10-12 Matthew 1:2, Luke 1:33
7. Tribe of Judah - Genesis 49:10 Luke 3:23,33
Micah 5:2 Matthew 1:2, Hebrews 7:14
8. Family Line of Jesse - Isaiah 11:1 Luke 3:23,32
Isaiah 11:10 Matthew 1:6
9. House of David - Jeremiah 23:5 Luke 3:23,31
II Samuel 7:12-16 Matthew 1:1,9:27,15:22
Psalms 132:11 20:30-31,21:9,15,22:41-46,
Mark 9:10,10:47-48,
Luke 18:38-39,
Acts 13:22-23, Revelation 22:16
10. Born at Bethlehem - Micah 5:2 Matthew 2:1,4-8, John 7:42,
Luke 2:4-7
11. Time of Birth - Daniel 9:25, Luke 2:1-7
Genesis 49:10
12. Presented with Gifts - Psalms 72:10-15 Matthew 2:1,11
Isaiah 60:6
13. Herod Kills Children - Jeremiah 31:15 Matthew 2:16
Prophecies Concerning His Nature Prophecy Fulfilled
14. His Pre-Existence - Micah 5:2, Colossians 1:17,
Isaiah 9:6-7,41:4, John 1:1-2,8:58,17:5,24,
Psalms 102:25, 44:6,48:12,
Proverbs 8:22-23 Revelation 1:17,2:8,22:13
15. He will be God, the Eternal Father -
Isaiah 9:6 John 8:58, John 20:28,
Revelation 2:8
16. He Shall Be Called Lord - Psalms 110:1, Luke 2:11, Matthew 22:43-45
Jeremiah 23:6
17. Shall Be Immanuel - Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:23, Luke 7:16
(God With Us)
18. Shall Be a Prophet - Deuteronomy 18:18 Matthew 21:11, Luke 7:16,
John 4:19,6:14,7:40
19. Priest - Psalms 110:4 Hebrews 3:1,5:5-6
20. Judge - Isaiah 33:22 John 5:30, II Timothy 4:1
21. King - Psalms 2:6, Matthew 27:37,21:5,
Zechariah 9:9, John 18:33-38
Jeremiah 23:5
22. Special Anointment of - Isaiah 11:2,42:1, Matthew 3:16-17,12:17-21,
Holy Spirit 1:1-2, Psalms 45:7 Mark 1:10-11, Luke 4:15-21,43
John 1:32
23. His Zeal for God - Psalms 69:9 John 2:15-17
Prophecies Concerning His Ministry Prophecy Fulfilled
24. Preceded by Messenger - Isaiah 40:3, Matthew 3:1-3,11:10,
Malachi 3:1 John 1:23, Luke 1:17
25. Ministry to Begin in - Isaiah 9:1 Matthew 4:12-17
Galilee
26. Ministry of Miracles - Isaiah 35:5-6, Matthew 9:32-35,11:4-6,
32:3-4 Mark 7:33-35,
John 5:5-9, 9:6-11,11:43-47
27. Teacher of Parables - Psalms 78:2 Matthew 13:34
28. He Was to Enter The - Malachi 3:1 Matthew 21:12
Temple
29. Triumphal Entry into - Daniel 9:20-27 Mark 11:1-11
Jerusalem
30. He Was to Enter - Zechariah 9:9 Luke 19:35-37, Matthew 21:6-11
Jerusalem on Donkey
31. "Stone of Stumbling" to - Psalms 118:22, I Peter 2:7, Romans 9:32-33
Jews Isaiah 8:14,28:16
32. "Light" to Gentiles - Isaiah 60:3, 49:6 Acts 13:47-48, 26:23, 28:28
Prophecies Concerning Events After His Burial Prophecy Fulfilled
33. Resurrection - Psalms 16:10,30:3, Acts 2:31,13:33,
41:10,118:17, Luke 24:46, Mark 16:6,
Hosea 6:2 Matthew 28:6
34. Ascension - Psalms 68:18 Acts 1:9
35. Seated at the Right Hand - Psalms 110:1 Hebrews 1:3, Mark 16:19,
of God Acts 2:34-35
Prophecies Concerning His Crucifixion Events Prophecy Fulfilled
The following prophecies in this section were all 500 years old
on the day of the crucifixion and were all fulfilled within a 24
hour period.
36. Betrayed by a Friend - Psalms 41:9,55:12-14 Matthew 10:4,26:49-50,
John 13:21
37. Sold for 30 Pieces of - Zechariah 11:12 Matthew 26:15,27:3
Silver
38. Money to Be Thrown in - Zechariah 11:13 Matthew 27:5
God's House
39. Price Give for Potter's - Zechariah 11:13 Matthew 27:7
Field
40. Forsaken by His - Zechariah 13:7 Mark 14:50,27,
Disciples Matthew 26:31
41. Accused by False - Psalms 35:11 Matthew 26:59-60
Witnesses
42. Dumb Before Accusers - Isaiah 53:7 Matthew 27:12
43. Wounded and Bruised - Isaiah 53:5, Matthew 27:26
Zechariah 13:6
44. Smitten and Spit Upon - Isaiah 50:6, Matthew 26:67,
Micah 5:1 Luke 22:63
45. Mocked - Psalms 22:7-8 Matthew 27:31
46. Fell Under the Cross - Psalms 109:24-25 John 19:17, Luke 23:26,
Matthew 27:31-32
47. Hands and Feet Pierced - Psalms 22:16, Luke 23:33, John 20:25
Zechariah 12:10
48. Crucified with Thieves - Isaiah 53:12 Matthew 27:38, Mark 15:27-28
49. Made Intercession for - Isaiah 53:12 Luke 23:34
His Persecutors
50. Rejected by His Own - Isaiah 53:3, John 7:5,48,1:11,
People Psalms 69:8,118:22 Matthew 21:42-43
51. Hated Without a Cause - Psalms 69:4, John 15:25
Isaiah 49:7
52. Friends Stood Afar Off - Psalms 38:11 Luke 23:49, Mark 15:40,
Matthew 27:55-56
53. People Shook Their Heads - Psalms 109:25,22:7 Matthew 27:39
54. Stared Upon - Psalms 22:17 Luke 23:35
55. Garments Parted and - Psalms 22:18 John 19:23-24
Lots Cast
56. To Suffer Thirst - Psalms 69:21,22:15 John 19:28
57. Gall and Vinegar - Psalms 69:21 Matthew 27:34,
Offered to Him John 19:28-29
58. His Forsaken Cry - Psalms 22:1 Matthew 27:46
59. Committed Himself to God - Psalms 31:5 Luke 23:46
60. Bones Not Broken - Psalms 34:20 John 19:33
61. Heart Broken - Psalms 22:14 John 19:34
62. His Side Pierced - Zechariah 12:10 John 19:34
63. Darkness Over The Land - Amos 8:9 Matthew 27:45
64. Buried in Rich Man's - Isaiah 53:9 Matthew 27:57-60
Tomb
There are 268 more, all fulfilled by Jesus Christ against incomprehensible odds.
|
| 216.46 | Physical or soemthing else | DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR | | Tue Aug 30 1994 14:08 | 44 |
|
Normally I'm read-only in this conference, however this one caught my eye
and I wanted to express my view.
Jesus conception : physical or something else?
As an orthodox Trinitarian Christian I would opt for "something else"
and I am of the impression that that which follows is probably representive
of (or close to) the orthodox belief.
First the "seed" of the woman in Genesis. After Adam and Eve were expelled
from Eden, Our Heavenly Father relayed to Eve that there would be emnity
between her "seed" (Shemesh or shemen in Hebrew, sperma in Greek) and the
"seed" of the serpent (presumably Satan and his children). This to me
indicates that there would be no male "seed" involved with the conception
of Jesus. To speak of female "seed" was almost a contradiction in terms.
Secondly "a virgin would conceive". Technically speaking a virgin who
conceives is no longer a virgin. The things leading up to and just before
conception ending the status of virginity.
in other words conception would occur while Mary was *still* a virgin, this
is impossible in the natural realm. In fact the Gospel of Matthew uses the
wording "Behold the virgin shall be with child", indicating that Mary's
virginity survived the conception of Jesus.
Thirdly Mary was betrothed to Joseph. Under the Law of Moses a betrothed
woman was considered married and if she had *sexual* relations with another
man she was guilty of adultery. It dosn't seem fitting to me that Our heavenly
Father should break His own laws to accomplish this miraculous conception.
Fourth the scripture plainly states that after Joseph found Mary to be
pregnant, he suspected the worse (naturally) but was told by the Lord in a
dream "that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit" Matthew 1:20.
Putting all of the above together indicates to me that although Our
Heavenly Father is the literal father of Jesus Christ, He impregnated
Mary in a non physical (miraculous) way via the Holy Spirit to start the
cell division of an egg (seed of the woman) in Mary's womb which would
develope into the body of our Savior.
Hank
|
| 216.47 | | FRETZ::HEISER | Maranatha! | Tue Aug 30 1994 15:26 | 1 |
| Excellent reply, Hank!
|
| 216.48 | Geneaology of Adam through Noah | FRETZ::HEISER | Maranatha! | Tue Sep 06 1994 15:25 | 40 |
| The 5th chapter of Genesis holds an amazing message for those that think
geneaologies are boring. The same holds that doubt the Bible is God's
word, for no man could've planned this.
Read the chapter, and starting with Adam, underline the name of every son
that was born. When finished, go back and translate the meaning of each
name and string them together. Strong's Concordance with Hebrew & Greek
dictionaries or the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge should have all the
names in it. You should be amazed by what your result is. I certainly
was!
Spoiler follows:
Okay, after reading Genesis 5:1-32, you should have come up with this list of
names and their translations:
Name Translation
---- -----------
Adam Man
Seth Appointed
Enosh Mortal
Kenan Sorrowing
Mahalalel Blessed God
Jared Shall Descend
Enoch Dedicated or Teaching
Methuselah His Death Shall Bring
Lamech Power or Disparing
Noah Rest
So what do we get? We get the Gospel message encoded in the names of Adam's 9
descendants. Lowercase text and punctuation added for legibility.
"MAN was APPOINTED, became MORTAL, he hid and was SORROWING. the BLESSED GOD
SHALL DESCEND, DEDICATED to save and TEACH. HIS DEATH SHALL BRING POWER to the
DISPARING and REST."
There is no way man wrote the Bible and was clever enough to encode that into
Adam's lineage!
Mike
|