Nothing Short Of Perfection

[rrosskopf]

I've come to Jesus, my pack's rocks have been thrown unto the bottom of the deepest ocean. Hallejujah, but if I turn aside later, does Jesus go to the ocean and dig up my rocks and put them back in my pack?

The rocks are sins. If you "turn aside", isn't that just your way of adding back the sins? Jesus doesn't put the rocks back; you do. People love their sins.

Jesus was my salvation and witness. There was me, there was Him, and I was saved. If I understand the quote you are sharing accurately, it smacks of the simony and priestly "class" the Reformation fought so hard against, and paid for with the loss of millions of lives over several centuries.

In Mormonism, every worthy male older than eleven is part of the priestly cast. Leaders are called of God by prophecy. Jesus doesn't work alone. He never has. He sends messengers and calls prophets and apostles to represent him. If angels take note of our every action, then why not his servants here on earth?

In Romans 13:2 we read "Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves." In Acts, chapter 8, we have Simon the Sorceror, who thought to buy the priesthood power with money. Did the apostles say that no authority was necessary? No. Did they sell the authority to Simon? No. The authority was a gift from God; a man cannot buy it and he cannot assume it. Both the Catholics and the Protestants are in error on this point.

Many churches where? The Moon? Mars? EVERY church I've ever been to--and in the course of work and life--having worked fulltime in missions--I've been to MANY churches--repeating--EVERY church I've been to had baptisms and the breaking of bread. Neither are salvific.

Many churches no longer require baptism, although it you request it, they will administer some type of ordinance. To baptize literally means to sink under; sprinkling isn't baptism. Most do have a version of the eucharist, but that too is not universal. Many of the Baptist churches don't offer a eucharist. The Salvation Army Church doesn't offer either ordinance. Many Evangelical churches don't offer the sacrament of the Lords supper.

Everything that Jesus asks of us is salvific.

 

[Clear]

1) Regarding the description of Billiardsballs’ post as a “muddle” : Orontes said to Billiardsball : “Your post is a muddle. It is a muddle because you make assertions that we've discussed before that have been shown to be void of substance. “ (post #240)

I agree with this. Simply repeating theories already demonstrated to be illogical, irrational, non-biblical, non-historical, is a waste of time. If a theory was irrational before, then repeating it will not make it rational, logical or historically accurate. Even illogical, irrational questions such as “What are the "metaphysical consequences" of a non-atoning atonement?” (Billiardsball #235) are illogical wastes of precious time IF religious education and understanding is a goal.



2) I noticed more textual "liberties" being taken with biblical "quotes" that are not really "quotes" of bible texts.
The offering of convenient but inaccurate biblical paraphrases with inaccurate word changes (inaccurate added words, missing words, or dyscontexted words, etc) placed next to a claim to be “biblical” is a nuisance since they do not tell us what authentic quotes are but are merely made to appear as though they came from a bible. False witnesses inhibit accurate communication and do not help support a theological theory.

Billiardsball : 1) IF you offer readers "quotes from the bible", you need to be CAREFUL that your quotes are actually from the bible and are not text embellished to support your theology. 2) You should offer readers references when you "quote" the bible.



3) REGARDING THE EARLY CHRISTIAN MODEL OF SALVATION
I think Orontes breakdown of the historically accurate Christian model of salvation is logical. It is rational. It is consistent with the historical Christian model. In post # 237 Orontes said :

A) There is a God
B) There is man
C) Man is separated from God.
D) The separation and barrier is twofold: man suffers from physical death and spiritual death
E) Christ is the vehicle through which the barriers can be breeched.
F) Physical death is overcome through resurrection via Christ
G) Spiritual death may be overcome through the atonement of Christ

Per G) Spiritual death is due to sin. Parts 1) through 3) noted below are further detail on G).

1) Salvation depends on Christ as the essential element to the equation.
2) Salvation has a moral component, therefore choice (agency) is necessarily involved.
3) per 1) and 2) while man is dependent, he nonetheless remains part of the equation. (Using logical verbiage: the subject's will and actions are necessary but not sufficient to achieve salvation.)

Orontes description of God’s plan to engage in the salvation of man is consistent with early Christian textual descriptions and discussions based on this model can give one a greater understanding of the early Christian worldview .

Billiardsballs’ recycled prior theory that only a momentary desire is necessary for salvation regardless of subsequent moral desires and actions (which are, in this model, irrelevant to salvation in heaven), has already been shown in two threads (so far) to be illogical, irrational, and not a part of historical Christianity. Thus, I do not believe this modern theory is relevant to historical Christianity nor can it give us correct understanding of authentic early Christian worldview.



Clear
φιδρτωδρω / פדטד

 

[BilliardsBall]

Master Billiards,

Your post is a muddle. It is a muddle because you make assertions that we've discussed before that have been shown to be void of substance.

1) Perfection is not the same as sinlessness. The words have different meanings. There is no connection between the two words. Perfection, in any theological sense, entails the maximalization of all positive traits. Sinlessness simply means absence of sin.

According to the new testament, and the meaning of the Greek word for sin, imperfection is sin. We can parse intentional from unintentional imperfection (sin) but…

2) Per faith and works: this is a false dichotomy. To have faith is to trust, trust is an action and thereby work of the subject. Therefore at even the most basic level the distinction you attempt fails.

I appreciate your intense logic and rational mindset, however, would you like Bible verses that faith and works are separate entities? One comes to mind immediately from Romans:

“Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.”

Would you mind if I made a request of you? Kindly share either Bible verses or Mormon canonical verses to support your points. I will be more influenced if you share what you think God believes and shares with the world in holy writ rather than your personal philosophies. Thanks.

3) Per enduring to the end: I am not referring to Reformed Christianity's "perseverance of the saints" that was the fifth point of the Synod of Dort in 1618. This is not "once saved, always saved". The concept of enduring to the end predates the 17th Century and can be found in the New Testament. One simple example: "But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." Matt 24:13 The effort of the subject is required. One is not divorced from their own salvation, but must be engaged throughout their life.

I’m familiar with the Matthew 24 passage. You know it is an eschatological passage and refers to a person who survives the tribulation being “saved” or rescued. However, did you know many evangelicals believe NO NT Christians will go through the tribulation? You need more context here. Also, you have not defined what “endured” means but you seem to think it is something inseparable from works, despite the quotation as above:

“Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.”

4) Per Priesthood and/or ritual: hostility to such is to be opposed to Christianity from its foundations up through the Modern Era. Your theology is a creature of the Post-Reformation and therefore a new thing. If you present something as new, you need to be able to justify it vis-a-vis the tradition you are rejecting. Prophets and revelation would be one option, but that is not part of your positioning. This means you are left with bald assertion. Note: you can't simply make Biblical appeal as the Bible itself contains rituals: baptism, laying on of hands etc. that you reject. Moreover, the Bible is a product of a Tradition you reject. One can't reject a tradition and still hold to the product of that rejected tradition.

I’m hardly rejecting liturgy or ritual, first as a Jew who grew up with eternal, unchanging fasts and festivals, and as someone who rebuked a Mormon poster above on this issue. But I am rejecting—from the Bible—the necessity for priestly intercession for me to be saved, unless you are referring to the priestly intercession of Jesus, as in Hebrews.

5) Per deification:

Deification is atonement: at-one-ment, to be one with Heavenly Father. It means being part of an indwelling loving relationship where you know as you are known. The idea of deification (or theosis) is not unique to Mormonism. Deification has been part of the Christian Movement from its earliest writings. It can be found in the New Testament, to the writings of multiple Patristic Fathers ( Christian theologians before the Ecumenical Councils) and on into the emergence of the Orthodox Tradition(s). Deification is part of the theology of Eastern Orthodoxy and can be found in the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. It is only with Protestantism that the idea became, among some, heretical. Below are some simple examples:

Again, commentary 200 years after Jesus, even heretical commentary, should not be accepted as “canon”. But you did mentioned John 1:12, “For He has given them power to become the sons of God.” Of course, that goes with the Tanakh statements about Israel all being sons of God!

Now, please explain using logic and verses, how every son of God is… God. Because not even the pagans believed such. Zeus’s children weren’t all gods, you know…

 

[BilliardsBall]

The rocks are sins. If you "turn aside", isn't that just your way of adding back the sins? Jesus doesn't put the rocks back; you do. People love their sins.

1. At the risk of another analogy—but the scriptures agree with my stance—how can I add the rocks back that have been utterly removed/destroyed/abolished?
   
   
   
2. Yes, all people love their sin. Therefore, salvation has to come through Jesus and not via my efforts. Yes.
   
   

In Mormonism, every worthy male older than eleven is part of the priestly cast. Leaders are called of God by prophecy. Jesus doesn't work alone. He never has. He sends messengers and calls prophets and apostles to represent him. If angels take note of our every action, then why not his servants here on earth?

In Romans 13:2 we read "Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves." In Acts, chapter 8, we have Simon the Sorceror, who thought to buy the priesthood power with money. Did the apostles say that no authority was necessary? No. Did they sell the authority to Simon? No. The authority was a gift from God; a man cannot buy it and he cannot assume it. Both the Catholics and the Protestants are in error on this point.

1. Did you know the Bible teaches that all who trust in Christ are priests, and not only Roman priests or Mormons over the age of 11?
   
   
   
2. Jesus DOES work alone in salvation: “I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.” – so is Jesus your savior or are you your own savior/rocks out of your own bag by your own effort?
   
   
   
3. Romans 13:2 is speaking of governmental authorities. “For RULERS are not a terror to good works, but to evil… For because of this you also pay TAXES…” Perhaps Mormon theology has moved away from this to justify the illegal actions of Joseph Smith and other Mormon leaders? I don’t know.

4. Acts 8 says: “But Peter said to him, “Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money!” No replace it with human effort: But Peter said to him, “Your human effort perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased with human effort!” – Salvation is a gift of God, Romans 6, 8.

Many churches no longer require baptism, although it you request it, they will administer some type of ordinance. To baptize literally means to sink under; sprinkling isn't baptism. Most do have a version of the eucharist, but that too is not universal. Many of the Baptist churches don't offer a eucharist. The Salvation Army Church doesn't offer either ordinance. Many Evangelical churches don't offer the sacrament of the Lords supper.

Everything that Jesus asks of us is salvific.

On what basis do you say “all Jesus asks of us” is salvific? Because then you have to be perfect: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” That’s the point of my OP—do you believe what Jesus said is salvific, then, truly?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Even illogical, irrational questions such as “What are the "metaphysical consequences" of a non-atoning atonement?” (Billiardsball #235) are illogical wastes of precious time IF religious education and understanding is a goal.

My question was rhetorical as asked of Orontes, who made this point—you and he believe in the atonement of Jesus that isn’t really an atonement! The writer of Hebrews emphasizes the completed and full nature of Jesus’s atonement—being Mormon, you believe that Jesus kind of-sort of-maybe-saves us IF we also save ourselves. You then take this to its fullest extent—YOU will become a god!

Salvation has a moral component, therefore choice (agency) is necessarily involved.

Of course choice is involved. You make one choice. Not thousands of choices, for “He remembers our frame, that we are but dust.”

 

[Katzpur]

[QUOTE="BilliardsBall, post: 4682860, member: 40171"...being Mormon, you believe that Jesus kind of-sort of-maybe-saves us IF we also save ourselves.[/quote]I really haven't been following this discussion, but since you are claiming Orontes believes this, would you mind directing me to the quote where he said this (just as a favor, so that I won't have to look through the entire thread to find something I can't imagine him having said in the first place). It would be a lot more meaningful than your merely attempting to paraphase him.

 

[Clear]

1) Mischaracterization as a “covert” means of bearing false witness and as a means of furthering false stereotypes.

Clear commented : “Illogical, irrational questions such as “What are the "metaphysical consequences" of a non-atoning atonement?” (Billiardsball #235) are illogical wastes of precious time IF religious education and understanding is a goal.
Billiardsball Claimed : “ …My question was rhetorical as asked of Orontes, who made this point…”

This witness is yet another mischaracterization. Orontes did NOT “make this point” but he had already told you that he did not even know what your mischaracterization described. Orontes said : “I don't know what an non-atoning atonement is, other than it is self contradictory.” (#237)

Billiardsball, If you allow yourself to leave logic and rational thought and historical reference for mischaracterization, and false witness, then conversation with you will lose value as a means of honest communication and as a means of accurate and efficient education. Importantly, credibility in the witness itself, is further eroded. Bearing a Mischaracterization as type of witness is harmful. This is partly why it is forbidden in the 10 commandments : “Thou shalt not bear false witness.”


2) Readers notice mischaracterizations and there are consequences of mischaracterizations :
For example :

Katzpur asked Billiardsball : “ …since you are claiming Orontes believes this, would you mind directing me to the quote where he said this (…..I can't imagine him having said in the first place). It would be a lot more meaningful than your merely attempting to paraphrase him.” (Post # 246)

What happens to the value of a Christians’ witness when they are willing to mischaracterize?


3) Mischaracterizations destroy credibility and make conversations muddled and tend to obscure truths, rather than to illuminate them.


Forum members : If we, as forum members, allow our conversations and discussions to simply turn into inaccurate innuendo and mischaracterization (which are forms of false witness, which, Christians are not allowed to bear), then what value will there be to such conversations other than to entertainment to those who enjoy verbal brawling?

IF, the forum is to ever become a religious education forum, then it makes sense to stay clear of dishonest mischaracterization.


4) A logical, rational, and historically accurate discussion of the base elements of the atonement

The following is Orontes' description of base elements of the atonement :

A) There is a God
B) There is man
C) Man is separated from God.
D) The separation and barrier is twofold: man suffers from physical death and spiritual death
E) Christ is the vehicle through which the barriers can be breeched.
F) Physical death is overcome through resurrection via Christ
G) Spiritual death may be overcome through the atonement of Christ

Per G) Spiritual death is due to sin. Parts 1) through 3) noted below are further detail on G).

1) Salvation depends on Christ as the essential element to the equation.
2) Salvation has a moral component, therefore choice (agency) is necessarily involved.
3) per 1) and 2) while man is dependent, he nonetheless remains part of the equation. (Using logical verbiage: the subject's will and actions are necessary but not sufficient to achieve salvation.)

As a base point : I do not think that the modern Christian theories have any advantage (in their interpretations of these elements) over the earlier Judeo-Christian witnesses. Instead, I think the earliest Christian textual witnesses describe a more coherent and logical theory of atonement than the later Christian theories.

For example, if one starts with a historical discussion of the base elements A &B (God and Man), then I believe that early Judeo-Christian concepts of pre-creation existence of spirits of mankind is more logical, more rational, more historically accurate and forms a more coherent framework and basis for the atonement than the later Christian theories of instantaneous ex-nihilo creation. In fact, without consideration of early conditions of existence BEFORE creation of earth, then the atonement will not make sense and does not have the same coherency as when one considers conditions that existed before creation of material earth.


Clear
φιφιειδρω

 

[BilliardsBall]

I really haven't been following this discussion, but since you are claiming Orontes believes this, would you mind directing me to the quote where he said this (just as a favor, so that I won't have to look through the entire thread to find something I can't imagine him having said in the first place). It would be a lot more meaningful than your merely attempting to paraphase him.

Happy to do so—except there is no need. Each Mormon here has represented Mormonism (accurately and honestly, I believe) that Jesus FIRST saves us and then unless we do our part, we are again LOST. We can thus lose ourselves, so that Christ’s work is undone. Further, we can do enough work to become gods ourselves.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Billiardsball, If you allow yourself to leave logic and rational thought and historical reference for mischaracterization, and false witness, then conversation with you will lose value as a means of honest communication and as a means of accurate and efficient education. Importantly, credibility in the witness itself, is further eroded. Bearing a Mischaracterization as type of witness is harmful. This is partly why it is forbidden in the 10 commandments : “Thou shalt not bear false witness.”

Excellent, I will certainly continue to abide by that rule. Perhaps you can tell me how you know if this is indeed what the scripture says:

“Thou shalt not bear false witness”

…since you have been firm that only a fool believes every verse in the Bible is accurate/inerrant. How do you know THIS verse is accurately stated, please?

IF, the forum is to ever become a religious education forum, then it makes sense to stay clear of dishonest mischaracterization.

I agree, and I apologize for posts that have been rushed or hurried, or confusing in any way.

As a base point : I do not think that the modern Christian theories have any advantage (in their interpretations of these elements) over the earlier Judeo-Christian witnesses. Instead, I think the earliest Christian textual witnesses describe a more coherent and logical theory of atonement than the later Christian theories.

I agree, wholeheartedly. The earliest Christian textual witnesses are superior to modern, newfangled ideas. Even in a court of law, the documents would speak first and foremost above the commentaries. Therefore, since you have requested of all forum members that we not mischaracterize the Christian witness, may we hold you to that standard? To wit:

Are the “earliest Christian textual witnesses” Paul, John, Jude, James and the NT authors or commentators who wrote two or three centuries or more after these writers, and who said that THOSE writers were divinely inspired?

And also:

Are the “earliest Christian textual witnesses” Paul, John, Jude, James and the NT authors or Joseph Smith and Brigham Young et al, who introduced ideas nowhere found in the Bible and ITS earliest text writers? You have already written that you find the Mormon doctrines in SOME of the early writers—how is it then that ONLY Mormons have some doctrines which are considered non-Christian heresies by thousands and thousands of Christian sects, each of whom reviewed the Bible (and early Christians in many cases) to formulate doctrines? At some point, you are going to have to admit that Mormon doctrine must be right AND that Christians of the prior 17 centuries were all misguided/mischaracterizing the scriptures, etc.

For example, if one starts with a historical discussion of the base elements A &B (God and Man), then I believe that early Judeo-Christian concepts of pre-creation existence of spirits of mankind is more logical, more rational, more historically accurate and forms a more coherent framework and basis for the atonement than the later Christian theories of instantaneous ex-nihilo creation. In fact, without consideration of early conditions of existence BEFORE creation of earth, then the atonement will not make sense and does not have the same coherency as when one considers conditions that existed before creation of material earth.

I’m surprised at this last. The more so since:

1. The earliest textual witnesses taught ex nihilo creation.
   
   
2. Modern science 100% agrees with ex nihilo creation. That is, universally, cosmologists, physicists and others have discarded Steady State theory for the Big Bang. The Big Bang teaches that into darkness came a sudden flood of light and matter. Without light, there was no linear time. Without matter, there was nothing.
   
   
3. David says “he was knit together when God knew him and made him” in his mother’s womb. Why didn’t he say, “I was made fearfully and wonderfully in heaven before I was incarnate in my mother’s womb”. I know you’re not a big fan of my English paraphrases AND quotations of verses, but if you like, I’m sure I can find a dozen verses in both testaments refuting pre-creation spirit existence of men (not angels in heaven).Thanks.

 

[Clear]

Dear Orontes :

I am in the midst of performing an experiment on the consequences of illogic and irrational thinking to try to understand Billiardsballs way of coming to conclusions.

For example : In post 231 Billiardsball concludes that neither you, nor I, I as mormons, actually represent what mormons believe (#237) and he, as a “non-mormon” feels qualified to tell you say what we actually believe : “being Mormon, you believe that Jesus kind of-sort of-maybe-saves us IF we also save ourselves”. I’d be lying if I said he was truthful. BUT,, if I hold my head just right and spin around and around in my office chair while drinking rockstar energy drink, it starts to make more sense. (try it….) It made me nauseated and so I had to stop.

The mormons responding here don’t believe Billiardsball is offering a true point to them. Katzpur asked him: “…since you are claiming Orontes believes this, would you mind directing me to the quote where he said this…”

Billiardsball tells her : “Happy to do so—except there is no need.” (#248) but then he is unable to tell anyone where Orontes actually said this.

I would be lying if I said I thought Billiardsball could actually offer a source for this quote. BUT, but if you squint read hard (REAL hard) and pretend the page is written in pig-latin, while pressing on your eyeballs from the sides with your fingers, then one of Orontes posts seems to read : (and I quote) “Bildinglkc is a pokine amunka le boingo boingo”, which, of course means, “I am satan and have horns.” In some lexicon I recall hearing about. The point is, that I can see what motivates Billiardsballs claim about what Orontes REALLY believes if he is REALLY “mormon”. Cool huh?

In the same vein Orontes, Billiardsball tells us that you brought up the subject of a “non-atoning atonement”.
For example, you said :
1) People sin
2) I don't think Christ died simply to be an example. I hold that the atonement has real metaphysical consequences.
3) I don't think men can save themselves. Christ is an essential and indispensable element in any salvatory model. (Orontes) Post # 233

There, in response to your point : I don't think men can save themselves", Billiardsball concludes you think men can save themselves. And in response to your statement : "I hold that the atonement has real metaphysical consequences." Billiardsball concluded you are describing of a "non-atoning atonement". Cool, huh?

In response to this, Billiardsball asked : “What are the "metaphysical consequences" of a non-atoning atonement? “(post #235). I admit that I would be lying if I thought Billiardsball actually saw this description in your post. BUT, I lost my chex cereal decoder ring, and I ran out of rock star energy drink and the nurses say I have to clean up the vomit before I am allowed to spin in my chair again.

Orontes responded to Billiardsball : “I don't know what an non-atoning atonement is, other than it is self contradictory.” # 237

I'd be lying if I saw any logical connection between your logical statement and Billiardsballs irrational interpretation.
However, Here, it gets tricky. Do you actually BELIEVE Billiardsballs comment “non-atoning atonement” is contradictory, or are you just unwilling to think irrationally and illogically or try drugs? Hmmm? My point is, IF you will consider creative thinking, then this point CAN make sense…..Somewhere….In another universe……on another planet……somewhere……far away…. Ok. Point being made.

When asked about strange interpretation, Billiardsball then indicated YOU (Orontes) were the one who brought up this idea of a “non-atoning atonement”.

I’d be lying if I thought Billiardsball actually believes you brought up a “non-atoning atonement”.
Still, I am going to use this line ("non-atoning atonement) in a stage play about four nerds caught up in a tornado when their house drops on and kills a wicked witch who is a rationalist and has a sister.

Have you, Orontes, considered that, perhaps, you, as a mormon, don’t really know what you believe and that Billiardsball, as a non-mormon, knows what you believe better than you? Have you considered the reason to put words in your mouth might not be to create and support a sterotype and false impression, but some other reason?

I’d be lying if I said I saw any evidence of that.

I don't see the point of continuing if the conversation we are involved with is going to be an irrational, illogical, unhistorical, irrelevant discussion.

Clear
φιφιακτωω

 

[leibowde84]

Gentlemen,

We are so far afield of the OP (again) that I direct your attention to my (I've simplified it for convenience's sake) thought process:

1. Nobody's perfect except Jesus
2. Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead to pay for our imperfection
3. Trust Jesus and be saved

This is what you have been warring against. Let me restate what I wrote:

1. Nobody's perfect (because they commit sin) except Jesus
2. Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead to pay for our sin
3. Trust Jesus and be saved

Everyone sins. Do you really want to war against these concepts, still? I must conclude that if you do, that contrary to my previous experience with members of LDS, that the Mormons must be at this time some kind of wacky, non-Christian cult.

And if you insist that rather, you believe Jesus died and rose for human sin, but that it's highly important to correct my doctrine, my history, my false understandings, I repeat, you are merely assaulting what non-Mormon fundamentalists and evangelicals believe, that is, you are being cultic and non-Orthodox in your doctrine and outlook. Repent.

Do you have any evidence, beyond mere claims in scripture, to support your claim that 1. Jesus was perfect, and 2. That no one else can be?

 

[Clear]

First : Regarding the claim that the Big Bang somehow proves matter was made from “nothing”. The “Big Bang” theory does not prove matter was made from nothing, but rather the theory speculates as to the behavior of pre-existing form of material at the beginning of the universe. That is, it is a theory as to how a “thing” went “bang” (and not how “nothing” went “bang”). The theory describes how the behavior of this original form of matter at that time partly explains the behavior of matter since that time.


THE IMPORTANCE OF THE EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF CREATION FROM MATTER
Secondly, before we begin a discussion about the early Judeo-Christian belief about the creation of a material universe from matter, I simply wanted to make a few points as to why this early logical and rational belief of creation from "things" matters to and affects Christian theory and why in the subsequent age of theologians (i.e. the period after prophets and apostles died off), the theologians’ speculations would have evolved in different directions than if matter and “things” existed before a creation from “nothing”.


GOD’S PURPOSE IN CREATION - CONDITIONS UNDERLYING THE SPECULATIONS

Philosopher-theists speculate endlessly regarding God’s purpose in creating and populating the earth. I believe that the TYPE of speculations regarding God’s motive for creation are different between Philosopher-Christians who believe God created using "nothing " (ex-nihilo) and Philosopher-Christians who believe god created using pre-existing matter (chaotic matter).



A) SPECULATIONS REGARDING GOD’S MOTIVES IF HE CREATED OR ORGANIZED EVERYTHING FROM "NOTHING"

For "ex-nihilist" christians (those believing in "creation from ‘nothing’"), speculations regarding Gods Purpose in the creation and populating of earth seem vast and varied. The dominant theme of most (not all) of their speculations as to why a lone God would create and populate the earth (that I’ve read) relate to his “aloneness”.

Typical speculations as to God’s purpose in creation of the earth and mankind might include "God was Bored"; "God was lonely"; "The act of creation was a source of enjoyment for God" - "Mortality is a Game God plays for enjoyment -(like chess)", "God wanted ‘children’ "; God wanted to create ‘something to love’; "God wanted other creatures to be aware of his "grandeur", etc, etc, etc.

If any one of these speculations are correct, a repeated argument the philosophers bring against all of these speculations is that, if an omnipotent and Charitable God was able to create the entire end product, from nothing, and in a moment, then there was no need for the type of suffering and evil that accompanies this existence. In this model, existence of evil doesn’t help God reach his “goal” of creation if these speculations are correct. In this model, God is responsible in creating the evil and indescribable suffering as part of existence.

For example, If God’s purpose in creation was “relief from loneliness”, then why not create suitable “company” without having the creation undergo suffering or have great evil acts associated with his creation at all? Why not simply create the type of morally perfect “company” that was wanted from the very beginning? Or, If God simply enjoyed creating “things”, then why have evil be part of what he created?



B) SPECULATIONS REGARDING GOD’S MOTIVES IF HE CREATED OR ORGANIZED FROM ETERNALLY EXISTING MATTER

For "pre-existent" Christians (those believing in creation from eternally existing "chaotic material") the speculations seem to narrow considerably and the logic applied to these speculations is of a different character. A creation from eternally existing matter (which possesses it’s own innate characteristics) affects (and logically narrows) the principal speculations as to God’s purpose in creating and populating this earth.

For example: If there are other principles which co-exist eternally with God (such as matter of different types which have varying characteristics and capabilities or such as eternal Natural physical and moral laws, having their own innate characteristics.. etc), then “aloneness” is not necessarily a primary speculation for this type of Christianity, (In this model, God was not “alone” per se.) and there are other principles which explain the source of and the role of evil in God’s creation.

If speculations for these type of Christianities are correct, then the philosophers argument regarding unnecessary evil need not apply.


THE PURPOSE AND GOAL OF GOD IN CREATING AND POPULATING THE EARTH

Perhaps an example comparison will serve to clarify this principle:

“CCPA” was a poster from an ex-nihilo Christianity who, when asked to speculate WHY God created the universe, (post #6, a different thread). CCPAs’ speculation was that God created "to bring him glory”. In this specific example, God has a self-serving reason to create.

Katzpur, in pre-existent Christianity suggests, (post #2) that God created so that men’s “spirits would be able to advance” . In this specific example, God is not self-serving. (God doing something for them, and not for himself.)


Originally Posted by Katzpur

”He saw fit to organize this highly refined matter into spirit beings and to set into motion a plan whereby these spirits would be able to advance in knowledge, power and glory. It strikes me as a completely unselfish course of action, and one that would be completely in keeping with His nature. “


Do you see how the difference in underlying beliefs affect the speculation regarding God's purpose; how that affects the speculations as to God's character; and will affect other speculations that follow? Theologians, in their creation of religion and doctrine are also affected by base assumptions, interpretations, innate intelligence, religious insight, textual versions they are exposed to, and a host of other principles as they create religion for mass consumption.

Specific initial beliefs (whether right or wrong), affect subsequent speculations (in this case the speculation regards why God created and populated the earth). In the same way that creation is "self-serving" in one theological model, and creation is "a service to others" in another theological model, other speculations are affected by beliefs.

I think that it is the specific condition of “aloneness of God” in ex-nihilo theologies that drive their frequent speculation that God created "in order to NOT be alone".

In pre-existent theologies, their beliefs do not drive them to make this sort of speculation as to God’s purpose in having created and populated the earth, since, in their theology, God is NOT "alone".

If a speculation is repeated, over a period of years, it tends to become a belief (perhaps even a doctrine or a dogma). Once it becomes a doctrine, it affects other speculations. (all of which adds up in our various theological models). I believe that this process is one of the many causes of the doctrinal evolution and doctrinal "shift" in christianity and probably all other religions.

For example, If a christian believes that God created and populated the earth "to bring himself glory", then does such a belief contribute to (or create) the “doctrine” that heaven will be a place of endless (and monotonous) giving glory to and praising of God? (Thus, having accomplished God's initial purpose of wanting to be "glorified"); Does heaven then become a place where an endless eternity is spent as a member of a heavenly choir that simply exists to sing praises (thus accomplishing the initial purpose of SIMPLY and EXCLUSIVELY “glorifying God”?)

Does the doctrine of God having created "to bring himself glory" relieve the philosophers concern as to why evil was part of “bringing himself glory”? If the later doctrine of creation from “nothing” drives creation of theology in one direction, then the earlier doctrine of creation from “matter” also drives the creation of theology, but not necessarily in similar directions.

Thus, a historical discussion of the abandonment of creation of matter from matter and the adoption of creation of matter from “nothing” is important theologically and affects how mankind create religious theory which others then believe, adopt, and teach.


Clear
φιφυειφυω

 

[Orontes]

According to the new testament, and the meaning of the Greek word for sin, imperfection is sin. We can parse intentional from unintentional imperfection (sin) but…



I appreciate your intense logic and rational mindset, however, would you like Bible verses that faith and works are separate entities? One comes to mind immediately from Romans:

“Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.”

Would you mind if I made a request of you? Kindly share either Bible verses or Mormon canonical verses to support your points. I will be more influenced if you share what you think God believes and shares with the world in holy writ rather than your personal philosophies. Thanks.



I’m familiar with the Matthew 24 passage. You know it is an eschatological passage and refers to a person who survives the tribulation being “saved” or rescued. However, did you know many evangelicals believe NO NT Christians will go through the tribulation? You need more context here. Also, you have not defined what “endured” means but you seem to think it is something inseparable from works, despite the quotation as above:

“Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.”



I’m hardly rejecting liturgy or ritual, first as a Jew who grew up with eternal, unchanging fasts and festivals, and as someone who rebuked a Mormon poster above on this issue. But I am rejecting—from the Bible—the necessity for priestly intercession for me to be saved, unless you are referring to the priestly intercession of Jesus, as in Hebrews.



Again, commentary 200 years after Jesus, even heretical commentary, should not be accepted as “canon”. But you did mentioned John 1:12, “For He has given them power to become the sons of God.” Of course, that goes with the Tanakh statements about Israel all being sons of God!

Now, please explain using logic and verses, how every son of God is… God. Because not even the pagans believed such. Zeus’s children weren’t all gods, you know…

Master Billiards,

I read through your post.


-Per the Greek on a linkage between the meaning of sin and perfection: This notion is fundamentally wrong. Hamartia (sin) and teleios (perfect) are completely distinct. Per Koine Greek hamartia doesn't convey a moral element of guilt. It ties in with missing the mark, failure to achieve a goal or defeat. Teleios refers to maturation. The attempt to combine perfection with sinlessness into a single concept is both bad linguistics and bad theology.


-Per your Romans reference: you have misunderstand the text. The scriptural reference you make illustrates the point. For one who understands Classical Greek rhetoric and the posture Paul is adopting, this verse does nothing to support your case. The law Paul references is the Law of Moses, not an abstract notion of metaphysical legalism. Paul is contending with Judification: having would be converts first become Jews a la the Law of Moses, before the Christian course would be available. Your reading of the Book of Romans is anachronistic. It doesn't relate to the Classical Mind for whom the text was written.

-Per Matt. 24:13 whether one takes the verse as eschatological or no, doesn't detract from my point. The predicate 'endure' is noted as a requirement of the subject to be saved. Endure entails the effort or act(s) of the subject, thus it is a work.


-Per priests: I'm not sure how you are defining priestly intercession. If you recognize a role for ritual in the salvatory process, then we have no argument. Ritual, includes a performer of the rite. You cite Christ's priestly role from Hebrews. This reinforces the point. No where in the text does it cite Christ is the only priest. Rather He is the High Priest, that necessarily entails other priests whose status the High Priest is over.


-Per theosis: I quoted from the official Catechism of the Catholic Church and from a renowned Bishop of the Orthodox Church. Further, all the historical figures I quoted are from the orthodox tradition of Christianity (none are seen as heretics), being either Patristic Fathers, or in the case of Athanasius, the very fellow who was directly tied to the creation of the Trinity at the Council of Nicaea. The point is deification has been part of Christianity from its earliest phase.

As to your question on how "every son of God is...God": this was not my claim. I claimed deification is basic to Christianity and it is only within the ranks of some Protestants that this idea turned to a heresy. I can explain to you why this happened if you wish. But, for just some general scriptures on deification:

You noted John 1:12 "“For He has given them power to become the sons of God.” this was used by the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church in explaining deification. Your response that this ties in with Tanakh statements about Israel being the sons of God does not challenge the base point. The point the author of John is making that all people who receive Him are thereby empowered to be the sons of God. This fits with a larger scriptural narrative on deification. One simple example:

"And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together" -Romans 8:17


Let me explain the posture I take when engaging you. We come from different Christian Traditions that do not agree. You assume a different interpretive stance when reading the Bible than I do. If I cite verse X, Y or Z it's likely you will say verse X means something I don't agree with and the reverse. This means we immediately come to a cross roads. I can spend time explicating the verse, but that usually means spending time on the hermeneutic, rather than the larger topic. Because of this, the tact I take is to appeal to early Christian understanding to shed light on how the Jesus Movement understood things. These understandings are not the Bible, but shed light on the meaning of the Bible from the perspective of early Christianity. Thus one can see what interpretive model of the Bible carries greater weight. Does that make sense?

Earlier I noted points we've engaged on. These were:


1) The Penal Substitution Model (which I reject)
2) Christ can make one perfect (which I reject)
3) The Bible is inerrant. (which I reject)
4) The reality and importance of repentance (which you reject)

5) A Mormon Salvatory Model (this ties in with 1) above the difference being you reject free will where I embrace it.
6) Deification or theosis (which you reject)



Note 1: in a reply to another you mention creatio ex nihilo. Creatio ex nihilo is a product of the Third Century. It developed as Christians were trying to justify their faith vis-a-vis Stoics and Middle Platonists. It is not a stance derived from Hebrew Thought, but is a product of a Greco-Roman Mind. It is also bad logic.


Note 2: per Greek Myth and Zeus' philandering: all of Zeus' children were either gods, or demigods (depending on if the mother were a god or human).

 

[Orontes]

Happy to do so—except there is no need. Each Mormon here has represented Mormonism (accurately and honestly, I believe) that Jesus FIRST saves us and then unless we do our part, we are again LOST. We can thus lose ourselves, so that Christ’s work is undone. Further, we can do enough work to become gods ourselves.

Master Billiards,

I have stated in post 233:

I don't think Christ died simply to be an example. I hold that the atonement has real metaphysical consequences.
I don't think men can save themselves. Christ is an essential and indispensable element in any salvatory model.

I have also laid out a salvatory model, per your request:

A) There is a God
B) There is man
C) Man is separated from God.
D) The separation and barrier is twofold: man suffers from physical death and spiritual death
E) Christ is the vehicle through which the barriers can be breeched.
F) Physical death is overcome through resurrection via Christ
G) Spiritual death may be overcome through the atonement of Christ

Per G) Spiritual death is due to sin. Parts 1) through 3) noted below are further detail on G).

1) Salvation depends on Christ as the essential element to the equation.
2) Salvation has a moral component, therefore choice (agency) is necessarily involved.
3) per 1) and 2) while man is dependent, he nonetheless remains part of the equation. (Using logical verbiage: the subject's will and actions are necessary but not sufficient to achieve salvation.)


You have mischaracterized my view and of Mormonism in general. That is poor form

 

[Orontes]

Dear Orontes :

I am in the midst of performing an experiment on the consequences of illogic and irrational thinking to try to understand Billiardsballs way of coming to conclusions.

For example : In post 231 Billiardsball concludes that neither you, nor I, I as mormons, actually represent what mormons believe (#237) and he, as a “non-mormon” feels qualified to tell you say what we actually believe : “being Mormon, you believe that Jesus kind of-sort of-maybe-saves us IF we also save ourselves”. I’d be lying if I said he was truthful. BUT,, if I hold my head just right and spin around and around in my office chair while drinking rockstar energy drink, it starts to make more sense. (try it….) It made me nauseated and so I had to stop.

The mormons responding here don’t believe Billiardsball is offering a true point to them. Katzpur asked him: “…since you are claiming Orontes believes this, would you mind directing me to the quote where he said this…”

Billiardsball tells her : “Happy to do so—except there is no need.” (#248) but then he is unable to tell anyone where Orontes actually said this.

I would be lying if I said I thought Billiardsball could actually offer a source for this quote. BUT, but if you squint read hard (REAL hard) and pretend the page is written in pig-latin, while pressing on your eyeballs from the sides with your fingers, then one of Orontes posts seems to read : (and I quote) “Bildinglkc is a pokine amunka le boingo boingo”, which, of course means, “I am satan and have horns.” In some lexicon I recall hearing about. The point is, that I can see what motivates Billiardsballs claim about what Orontes REALLY believes if he is REALLY “mormon”. Cool huh?

In the same vein Orontes, Billiardsball tells us that you brought up the subject of a “non-atoning atonement”.
For example, you said :
1) People sin
2) I don't think Christ died simply to be an example. I hold that the atonement has real metaphysical consequences.
3) I don't think men can save themselves. Christ is an essential and indispensable element in any salvatory model. (Orontes) Post # 233

There, in response to your point : I don't think men can save themselves", Billiardsball concludes you think men can save themselves. And in response to your statement : "I hold that the atonement has real metaphysical consequences." Billiardsball concluded you are describing of a "non-atoning atonement". Cool, huh?

In response to this, Billiardsball asked : “What are the "metaphysical consequences" of a non-atoning atonement? “(post #235). I admit that I would be lying if I thought Billiardsball actually saw this description in your post. BUT, I lost my chex cereal decoder ring, and I ran out of rock star energy drink and the nurses say I have to clean up the vomit before I am allowed to spin in my chair again.

Orontes responded to Billiardsball : “I don't know what an non-atoning atonement is, other than it is self contradictory.” # 237

I'd be lying if I saw any logical connection between your logical statement and Billiardsballs irrational interpretation.
However, Here, it gets tricky. Do you actually BELIEVE Billiardsballs comment “non-atoning atonement” is contradictory, or are you just unwilling to think irrationally and illogically or try drugs? Hmmm? My point is, IF you will consider creative thinking, then this point CAN make sense…..Somewhere….In another universe……on another planet……somewhere……far away…. Ok. Point being made.

When asked about strange interpretation, Billiardsball then indicated YOU (Orontes) were the one who brought up this idea of a “non-atoning atonement”.

I’d be lying if I thought Billiardsball actually believes you brought up a “non-atoning atonement”.
Still, I am going to use this line ("non-atoning atonement) in a stage play about four nerds caught up in a tornado when their house drops on and kills a wicked witch who is a rationalist and has a sister.

Have you, Orontes, considered that, perhaps, you, as a mormon, don’t really know what you believe and that Billiardsball, as a non-mormon, knows what you believe better than you? Have you considered the reason to put words in your mouth might not be to create and support a sterotype and false impression, but some other reason?

I’d be lying if I said I saw any evidence of that.

I don't see the point of continuing if the conversation we are involved with is going to be an irrational, illogical, unhistorical, irrelevant discussion.

Clear
φιφιακτωω

I want a chex cereal decoder ring!

 

[Katzpur]

Clear, you and Orontes have been unbelievingly patient with Billiardsball. I'm sure you realize by now, that even a chex cereal decoder ring isn't going to help you. If someone wants to accurately understand Mormon doctrine, it's not the slightest bit difficult, is it? If someone doesn't want to understand, he will lead you around in circles until the day you die and never once acknowledge that everything you've said is entirely in line with what the Bible teaches and makes perfect sense. As Martin Luther King once put it, "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." I am amazed that either of you have the time to devote to someone who is so overwhelmingly devoted to remaining ignorant.

 

[Clear]

Hi Katzpur ;
I am not Billiardsballs enemy but I think I can see how he might feel that way. No one likes to have their cherished ideas torn apart publicly. I would have quit after readers have been shown that these theories on perfection are illogical, irrational and unhistoric but I also think it does readers good to see that there is a logical, rational and historically accurate set of principles in juxtaposition to the silliness, and that a return to the ancient interpretations and the early Christian interpretations and theories are superior to the modern interpretations and theories. I do not even think most restorationists who are trying to return to early Christian doctrines realize how strong this position really is historically.


Orontes : If you will PM me, your name and address, I will send you a secret decoder ring….really.



Forum readers :

1)The Jewish abandonment of all textual traditions and witnesses regarding pre-creation themes

Multiple ancient Judeo-Christian textual witnesses describe and discuss conditions and events occurring in heaven before God created the earth in many of the important Jewish texts from early Judeo-Christianity. Yet modern rabbinic Judaism (which is the main surviving Judaism nowadays) has a dearth of this textual material dealing with this time period.

The Talmud partly explains in Genesis Rabba why this happened in Rabbinic Judaism.

After the babylonian captivity, later Judaism, as the Talmud tells us, forbade any texts which referenced pre-creation themes or any inquiries into pre-creation time periods. “It is forbidden to inquire what existed before creation, as Moses distinctly tells us (Deut. 4. 32): 'Ask now of the days that are past which were before thee, since the day God created man upon earth.' Thus the scope of inquiry is limited to the time since the Creation.--Gen. Rabba 1. Once Rabbinic Judaism, with it's many prohibitions became the main surviving Jewish movement among the many movements, this prohibition caused many of the earlier texts and teachings concerning pre-creation themes to be abandoned. This abandonment of specific prior knowledge and textual witesses, created many problems for Rabbinic Judaism and for downstream Judaic movements and for certain Christianities who inherited these later Rabbinic traditions which lacked pre-existent textual traditions and the understanding associated with them.


2) THE IMPORTANCE OF KNOWLEDGE REGARDING THE PRE-CREATION CONDITIONS AND MANKIND

The abandonment of knowledge of pre-creation conditions has caused endless headaches, confusion and arguments for the Judeo-Christians who abandoned the older textual witnesses and traditions.

For examples :

Many of the greatest existential questions concern the pre-mortal period of time. Without a knowledge and understanding of THIS time period, one cannot understand in context many of the greatest controversies and the most profound and sublime doctrines of Christianity.

1) The original purpose and plan of God and conditions under which God decided to initiate his creation have to do with this time period. Modern Christian theories that have no contextual knowledge of such events will have less contextual understanding of such things.

2) Some of the most profound considerations concerning the origin of evil relate to conditions Prior to creation of the earth. Simply put, philosophers ask "Why did God Create such Evil" and suffering if he could have accomplished the same purpose without evil? (i.e. if he "omnipotent").

This is important since the critics of religion have legitimate curiosity regarding such issues and are unsatisfied with many modern theories regarding this subject. The critics of religion often have legitimate reason for their criticisms. The early Christian context of pre-creation existence of spirits creates a contextual framework to understand such questions.

3) The nature of the devil and his fall from “heaven” has to do with the Pre-mortal time period. The origin of evil and it’s manifestations by another powerful agent having free will (lucifer) produces profound questions for anyone trying to understand why God allows Lucifer such rein on earth.

Even the prophet Sedrach asked God “If you loved man, why did you not kill the devil, the artificer of all iniquity? ” (Apocalypse of Sedrach 5:1-7) Abraham also, asked God “How then, since he [Lucifer] is now not before you, did you establish yourself with (him)? “ (The Apocalypse of Abraham 20:5-7).

Agnostics have a right to have authentic answers to such questions as well. The best contextual answers are to be found in pre-mortal/pre-earth creation conditions. Modern non-historian Christians lack important concepts concerning why an angel in authority (i.e. Lucifer) would become an enemy to God. They have little information concerning the "war in heaven" when Satan "fell as lightning".

4) The nature of and issues underlying the “war in heaven” have to do with the pre-creation period. Virtually ALL of the facts surrounding this this controversy and the reasons underlying it are found in early Judao-christian texts that begin their considerations with the time period in which the controversy took place; the pre-creation/pre-mortal time period.

5) The role of the Fall of man in God’s plan has much to do with events PRIOR to Adam having been placed in the Garden. Modern christianities who have little understanding of pre-mortal issues often view the atonement of Jesus as a hastily prepared “plan B”, necessitated by a crafty Lucifer who scuttles God’s “plan A” for Adam in a Garden of Eden.

The ancient christians, having a more complete understanding that the fall of Adam WAS part of the pre-mortal/pre-creation plan did NOT feel that God was "duped" by Lucifer, but that all had proceeded according to the original plan of God as they understood it.

6) The underlying reasons why some individuals are born into apparently arbitrary and unjust life scenarios are placed into a more understandable context by the greater data provided by conditions during the pre-mortal existence. Arbitrariness, capriciousness and unjustness are consistent complaints that some individuals make about God since the world God created does not seem (if there are no other conditions which justify it).

If God creates men ex-nihilo at an instant, and places some men into conditions where they live happy lives and hear of Jesus and are ultimately “saved” and yet God creates other men and places them into terrible and torturous conditions where they die before hearing of Jesus and ultimately suffer eternal punishment for not living laws they were never exposed to is seen as arbitrary and unjust. Without a consideration of events PRIOR to life, then some lives cannot make proper sense. It’s like coming into a movie that is more than half-over.

Knowledge of the pre-existence gives us much greater insight into philosophical and logical controversies which have plagued non-pre-existent Christianities for over 1700 years. Many of these millennia-long debates are neatly answered, simply by a return to the early doctrines. This is part of the immense value of a restoration to early Christian Salvational doctrines.

Pre-existent themes are becoming more common focuses of discussions among Religious historians of the peri-c.e. periods and before. Much of this discussion of pre-existence theology is driven by the wonderful textual discoveries of the last century. I believe that more early Judao-Christian texts were discovered in the 19th century than in all other centuries combined. Such texts include Early Judao-christian scriptures and other sacred texts, early diaries, early psalms and odes; early christian actus and fiction literature; early mishnas; early sermons; etc.

While Christians in forums spend energies debating whose MODERN interpretative views on religion are correct; such early Judao-Christian textual discoveries offer us knowledge concerning how the ancient Judao-christians themselves (often in their own words) interpreted scriptures and what their beliefs were, in the earlier periods. Such discoveries are not just changing our view of what the early scriptures might have said, but they are changing our view as to what early Judao-Christians believed.

Increasing understanding of early beliefs regarding conditions and events during pre-mortality and Pre-creation periods is profoundly important since conditions and events happening there and then, determined and affect conditions and events happening here and now.

Once one becomes more aware of pre-creation themes, it is even easier to see the reasons why we honor Jesus not merely for his superlative life, but for Jesus' characteristics and acts before creation of the world.

This increased contextual gratitude toward and honor of Jesus makes sense only as we become aware of all that our redeemer Jesus has done AND THE CONTEXT of his praiseworthy character and indescribably honorable actions in the pre-creation time period when the Lord God first said “I thought up the idea of establishing a foundation, to create a visible creation“. (2nd Enoch (version “J”) 26:1)

Knowledge of conditions and plans at the beginning allow a more clear context for the nature of the atonement and the context of our ENTIRE existence. The complaints of unfairness of the philosophers and theists can be put to rest. The principle of "knowing what went on before" is critically important to our understanding of what is happening now.

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO

The Pirke (d rabi Eliezer) relates a story of the young Moses (before he was a Prophet and was herding sheep in Midian) that illustrates this principle of how knowledge of the past informs us and improves understanding of present conditions and events and our judgments.

"Moses was sitting on a hill, overlooking a well and meditating about life and it’s meaning, when he noticed a traveler come and stop at the well to refresh himself. Unnoticed, a purse of money dropped out of his garments and fell on the ground before he continued on his journey.

After a short while another traveler appeared. He refreshed himself with the cool water and while standing near the well, found the money-bag on the ground. He picked it up, rejoiced about the stroke of luck and went happily on his way.

Yet another stranger came after a while who also drank of the water from the well and then proceeded to take a nap nearby. Meanwhile, the first traveler had noticed the loss of his purse and hurriedly returned to the area since he surmised that he could have only lost it while refreshing himself at the well.

When he saw the sleeping man, he awakened him and asked him whether he had found the money, to which the other replied, truthfully, that he had not. However, the first stranger evidently did not believe the other’s assurance and after some accusations and shouting, a fight between the two ensued. It was at this point that Moses came running from the place of meditation to quell the disturbance and calm the tempers because he had witnessed what had happened.

But it was too late. The man who had lost the purse had already killed the innocent man when Moses arrived at the scene. The prophet related his observations to the man, who was quite shaken at his deed, and departed in great sorrow over the loss of his possessions and the knowledge of having killed for no cause. Moses was also shaken by this experience and he wondered deeply about the justice and benevolence of a God who had permitted such an act to happen.

"Lord of the Universe, spoke Moses, "can it be thy will to punish the innocent and let prosper the guilty? The man who hath stolen the money-bag is enjoying wealth which is not his, whilst the innocent man hath been slain. The owner of the money, too, hath not only lost his property, but his loss hath been the cause of his becoming a murderer. I fail to understand the ways of Providence and workings of Divine justice O Almighty, reveal unto me Thy hidden ways that I may understand."

And so the Lord proceeded to tell Moses why what had happened was just. The man who had lost the money had inherited it from his father who, in turn, had stolen it from the father of the man who had found it. Therefore that situation had now been corrected. The man who had been killed, had in yearspast, killed the brother of the man who had killed him during the quarrel. Said the Lord to Moses:

"Know thou, O Moses, that I ordained it that the murderer should be put to death by the brother of the victim, whilst the son should find the money of which his father had once been robbed. My ways are inscrutable, and often the human mind wonders why the innocent suffer and the wicked prosper."

In this life, we are all like Moses at the well. This is why I described this life like coming into a movie when the movie is half way through. What we see and experience in this life may does not make full sense unless we have access to prior context and data as to what went on before we came on the scene.

Without the larger context and information, so much of what is going on in this life seems unfair and tragic, and often tends to undercut faith in God and in the Savior. However, once we obtain more information, then God’s purposes and what he is doing with mankind, can make much more sense and faith is more easily obtained and less easily damaged.

I hope it makes sense why foundational principles of early Judao-christianity such as material creation and pre-creation themes, events happening there are so important.

Clearly
φιφυακφιω

 

[BilliardsBall]

Do you have any evidence, beyond mere claims in scripture, to support your claim that 1. Jesus was perfect, and 2. That no one else can be?

Why don't we begin with # 2. You start. Who else in the past or present, other than the biblical Jesus, was or is perfect, meaning they never say or do anything wrong, and never make any mistakes?

Thanks.

 

[Katzpur]

POST TWO OF TWO

The Pirke (d rabi Eliezer) relates a story of the young Moses (before he was a Prophet and was herding sheep in Midian) that illustrates this principle of how knowledge of the past informs us and improves understanding of present conditions and events and our judgments.

"Moses was sitting on a hill, overlooking a well and meditating about life and it’s meaning, when he noticed a traveler come and stop at the well to refresh himself. Unnoticed, a purse of money dropped out of his garments and fell on the ground before he continued on his journey.

After a short while another traveler appeared. He refreshed himself with the cool water and while standing near the well, found the money-bag on the ground. He picked it up, rejoiced about the stroke of luck and went happily on his way.

Yet another stranger came after a while who also drank of the water from the well and then proceeded to take a nap nearby. Meanwhile, the first traveler had noticed the loss of his purse and hurriedly returned to the area since he surmised that he could have only lost it while refreshing himself at the well.

When he saw the sleeping man, he awakened him and asked him whether he had found the money, to which the other replied, truthfully, that he had not. However, the first stranger evidently did not believe the other’s assurance and after some accusations and shouting, a fight between the two ensued. It was at this point that Moses came running from the place of meditation to quell the disturbance and calm the tempers because he had witnessed what had happened.

But it was too late. The man who had lost the purse had already killed the innocent man when Moses arrived at the scene. The prophet related his observations to the man, who was quite shaken at his deed, and departed in great sorrow over the loss of his possessions and the knowledge of having killed for no cause. Moses was also shaken by this experience and he wondered deeply about the justice and benevolence of a God who had permitted such an act to happen.

"Lord of the Universe, spoke Moses, "can it be thy will to punish the innocent and let prosper the guilty? The man who hath stolen the money-bag is enjoying wealth which is not his, whilst the innocent man hath been slain. The owner of the money, too, hath not only lost his property, but his loss hath been the cause of his becoming a murderer. I fail to understand the ways of Providence and workings of Divine justice O Almighty, reveal unto me Thy hidden ways that I may understand."

And so the Lord proceeded to tell Moses why what had happened was just. The man who had lost the money had inherited it from his father who, in turn, had stolen it from the father of the man who had found it. Therefore that situation had now been corrected. The man who had been killed, had in yearspast, killed the brother of the man who had killed him during the quarrel. Said the Lord to Moses:

"Know thou, O Moses, that I ordained it that the murderer should be put to death by the brother of the victim, whilst the son should find the money of which his father had once been robbed. My ways are inscrutable, and often the human mind wonders why the innocent suffer and the wicked prosper."

In this life, we are all like Moses at the well. This is why I described this life like coming into a movie when the movie is half way through. What we see and experience in this life may does not make full sense unless we have access to prior context and data as to what went on before we came on the scene.

Without the larger context and information, so much of what is going on in this life seems unfair and tragic, and often tends to undercut faith in God and in the Savior. However, once we obtain more information, then God’s purposes and what he is doing with mankind, can make much more sense and faith is more easily obtained and less easily damaged.

I hope it makes sense why foundational principles of early Judao-christianity such as material creation and pre-creation themes, events happening there are so important.

Clearly
φιφυακφιω

That is one incredible story, Clear! Thank you for posting it.