Your line of thinking is called moral relativism, and it's not Christian. God is not interested in today's standards, and neither am I.
If your god is going to care that much about pronunciation then I'm glad I don't serve it.
Ressurection question
by Sookie 108 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
drwtsn32
-
drwtsn32
It seemed like an odd place for that word, so I decided to check the Greek to see if it's accurate.
Too bad you can't do the same for the BOM.
-
dan
The problem is the words are not the same. The Greek word denotes a ransom. Reconcile is loosely translated that way, but look closer. "Atonement" has meaning in many languages. Let us begin (by the way, I'm not copying this from another site. I'm taking it out of my head).
Hebrew - kaphar - to cover, more accurately, to embrace tightly (in order to become one - at-one-ment).
Arabic - kafat - to cover tightly. In the middle east a man fleeing for his life would run into the tent of a sheik and cry "ana dakhiluka" (I am thy supplicant) and the sheik would cover the man with his robe, taking him under his protection.
Latin - capto - to grasp tightly, to grasp at.
Egyptian - hpet - (the heiroglyph is a torso with outstretched arms, signifying an intimate embrace).
The word "atonement" denotes a cover (the mercy seat? a.k.a. a cover, a.k.a. kippurim, the place of atonement) or, more accurately, an intimate embrace.
Reconcile has a completely different meaning. It comes from the Latin - reconcilio. Some tranlslate it "to restore to original favor." "Concilio" is where we get the word "council," (to sit down with someone) while reconcilio means to sit down with someone again. In a way to be restored to original favor is accurate. When were we first sitting with God? Well, in the pre-mortal existence, of course. The early Christian church firmly believed in this doctrine until Aristotelian monism forced it out of the church. The apostasy caused many doctrines to be changed so that they could be wedded to human philosophy. Through the atonement our sins are covered and we are made worthy to sit down again with our Father in Heaven.
Look at the parable of the prodigal son and imagine what you would do if your wayward son walked into your living room after years of rebellion. What's the first thing you would do? You would hug him, wouldn't you? Then you would have him sit a spell with you, so you could talk. God is only waiting for us to go back home. We're only sojourners here on the earth, trying to find our way back to our heavenly origins. The words are not the same, as a comprehensive understanding of the Bible and its languages will show. Atonement only appears in the Old Testament, and its presence in the NT didn't seem right (and its not).
You're up.
-
drwtsn32
When were we first sitting with God? Well, in the pre-mortal existence, of course. The early Christian church firmly believed in this doctrine until Aristotelian monism forced it out of the church.
I am aware this is an LDS teaching so I'm not surprised by your "of course." Care to back up this statement?
-
dan
Sure, why not. I'll begin in the Olt Testament, take you to the New Testament, and then show some writings of early church authorities.
Jeremiah 1:5 - "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee". God tells Jeremiah he was ordained to be a prophet before he was formed in the womb.
John 9:2 - "who did sin, this man or his parents that he was born blind?" This is in reference to the Jewish belief in the pre-mortal existence. How could this man otherwise have sinned before he was born? They were off in thinking he could have sinned, but they weren't following the prophet anyway, so they weren't 100% accurate in a lot of things.
How about early church leaders? They had a lot of beliefs that you've never heard of.
The doctrine of premortal existence of the soul seems to have been part of the secret tradition. In the Clementine Recognitions, Peter tells Clement, "after all these things He made man, on whose account He had prepared all things, whose internal species is older, and for whose sake all things were made." And yet, when confronted by the heretic Simon Magus about the same question, Peter responded quite differently. "You seem to me not to know what a father and a God is: but I could tell you both whence souls are, and when and how they were made; but it is not permitted to me now to disclose these things to you, who are in such error in respect of the knowledge of God." Similarly, R. G. Hammerton-Kelly traces the concept of preexistence in the Bible and finds that it is everywhere presupposed in Paul's writings but nowhere made explicit. "Although Paul would never have used the term 'pre-existence', the concept which it describes is constitutive of his whole soteriological scheme."
The Recognitions also allude to an esoteric tradition regarding salvation for the dead:
When he had thus spoken, I answered: "If those shall enjoy the kingdom of Christ, whom his coming shall find righteous, shall then those be wholly deprived of the kingdom who have died before His coming?" Then Peter says: "You compel me, O Clement, to touch upon things that are unspeakable. But so far as it is allowed to declare them, I shall not shrink from doing so . . . for not only shall they [the righteous dead] escape the pains of hell, but shall also remain incorruptible, and shall be the first to see God the Father, and shall obtain the rank of honour among the first in the presence of God."
What about the practice of "baptism for the dead," alluded to by Paul (see 1 Corinthians 15:29) and adopted by the Latter-day Saints (see D&C 127-28)? In another passage, Peter intimated that the unbaptized righteous would obtain some reward in the present life but that future rewards were reserved for those who preserve righteousness through baptism. "But so well pleasing . . . is chastity to God, that it confers some grace in the present life even upon those who are in error; for future blessedness is laid up for those only who preserve chastity and righteousness by the grace of baptism."
Yeah, baptism for the dead was also practiced. Freaking chrstians always copying us Mormons 2,000 years before we existed. Pre-mortal existence was a commonly accepted belief, but Aristotle had the idea that there was only one existence, not two (like the neo-platonic ideas that had already raped the Gospel of her virtue) and St. Thomas Aquinas set out to wed the two philosophies (Christianity and Aristotelian ideas), without making one singe effort to change Aristotle's ideas. He molded Christianity to fit into Aristotle's beliefs, thereby doing away with many of the original Christian beliefs that you now call blasphemy.
-
drwtsn32
Thanks for sharing why you believe in pre-mortal existence. I don't think I would have been convinced of those arguments back when I actually believed the Bible to be an inspired book, but it is interesting in any case.
The reason I wouldn't buy that belief today is because there is zero evidence to support it. You have no memory of this supposed pre-mortal existence, but that doesn't falsify the belief because there's probably some elaborate excuse that god conceals that previous knowledge from you. The only thing that supposedly supports the belief at all are a few scriptures that, if you thought they was talking about pre-mortal life, appear to support it.
Also, the baptizing the dead thing doesn't make sense at all. What kind of god would refuse to reward you unless a relative happened to speak up for you and get you baptized in the LDS church? On top of that, according to the bible your sins are paid for when you die. So getting baptized after death should do nothing.
It's about as logical as being reincarnated as a superior/inferior life form depending on how you behaved in your past life.
Scripture can be twisted to support almost any theology. Talk to a JW about some of their crazy beliefs and they will throw several scriptures at you that seem to support it.
Religion is rarely logical... that's one of my biggest problems with it.
-
ellderwho
Dan,
In a way to be restored to original favor is accurate. When were we first sitting with God? Well, in the pre-mortal existence, of course.
Your word gymnastics deserve a 10. Who do you think your fooling? Read the scripture in context and you and your churches theories are all but laughable.
But you cannot read in context because of your position on scripture, your words "Im not tied down like ya'll"
This is typical of the LDS. IE. Vicarious baptism. Your still empty handed on this.
As every other cult member has to do, exchange truth for the lie. And in LDS theology you dont need God because you will become God.
Yeah, baptism for the dead was also practiced. Freaking chrstians always copying us Mormons 2,000 years before we existed.
Numerous explanations have been offered for this verse ranging from the inane to the sophisticated. Mormonism, in particular, has claimed that this verse supports their view of baptism for the dead. In their practice, individuals go to their local Mormon temple, dress appropriately for a baptism, representatively adopt the name of a person who has died, and then the Mormon is baptized in water for that deceased person. This way, the dead person has fulfilled the requirements of salvation in the afterworld and can enjoy further spiritual benefits in the spiritual realm.
But, the Mormons are incorrect. They have usurped this verse and taken it out of context. So, let's examine 1 Cor. 15 briefly so we can see what Paul is talking about when he mentions baptism for the dead.
In Verses 1-19, the fact of Christ's resurrection is detailed by Paul. Beginning in verse 20 and going through verse 23, Paul speaks about the order of the resurrection. Christ is the first one raised -- in a glorified body -- and then who are His at His return. Next, verses 24 - 29 mention Christ's reign and the abolition of death. This is when this controversial verse occurs: "Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?"
Just north of Corinth was a city named Eleusis. This was the location of a pagan religion where baptism in the sea was practiced to guarantee a good afterlife. This religion was mention by Homer in Hymn to Demeter 478-79. (1) The Corinthians were known to be heavily influenced by other customs. After all, they were in a large economic area where a great many different people frequented. It is probable that the Corinthians were being influenced by the religious practices found at Eleusis where baptism for the dead was practiced.
Paul used this example from the pagans in 1 Cor. 15:29, when he said, "...if the dead are not raised, then why are they baptized for the dead?" Paul did not say we. This is significant because the Christian church was not practicing baptism for the dead, but the pagans were.
Paul's point was simple. The resurrection is a reality. It is going to happen when Jesus returns. Even the pagans believe in the resurrection, otherwise, why would they baptize for the dead?However, some are not convinced by this argument and state that the word "they" is not in the Greek and, therefore, Paul is not speaking about the pagans.. Let's take a look.
Literally, the verse is translated as " Since what will do the being immersed on behalf of the dead if wholly dead not are raised why also are they immersed on behalf of them."
The issue here is the word, "baptizontai" -- "they are baptized." It is the present, passive, indicative, 3rd person, plural. In other words, it is THEY ARE BEING BAPTIZED or, THEY ARE BAPTIZED.Copied from CARM.
E.
-
dan
All of these arguments are just histrionics and semantics. All you are doing is taking my arguments and saying, "NU-uh. You're a liar. You're wrong. You're stupid. There's, like, zero evidence to support it, man." There's also zero evidence to support the fact that the two of you exist, but I still believe you do. Don't jump on my case like that. Present evidence or quit whining.
-
drwtsn32
Present evidence or quit whining.
You want me to present evidence that we did NOT have a pre-mortal existence? How am I supposed to do that?
-
dan
Well, you seem to be demanding the same of me, so I fail to see how your argument logically trumps mine so as to render your responsibility towards evidence null and void.