J
Javl
Guest
This is from a copy of the Book of Mormon that I have:
If this is not modalism and a teaching of the LDS, then I do not know what modalism is. Can you please explain this? Thank you.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
- Status
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
L
lax16
Guest
evanfaust -
menorahministries.com - Jesus Through Jewish Eyes
To wrench Jesus out of his Jewish world destroys Jesus and destroys Christianity, the religion that grew out of his teachings. Even Jesus’ most familiar role as Christ is a Jewish role. If Christians leave the concrete realities of Jesus’ life and of the history of Israel in favor of a mythic, universal, spiritual Jesus and an otherworldly kingdom of God, they deny their origins in Israel, their history, and the God who loved and protected Israel and the church. They cease to interpret the actual Jesus sent by God and remake him in their own image and likeness. The dangers are obvious. If Christians violently wrench Jesus out of his natural, ethnic and historical place within the people of Israel, they open the way to doing equal violence to Israel, the place and people of Jesus. This is a lesson of history that haunts us all at the end of the 20th century. [10]
Perhaps, most significant was his relationship to the Law and traditions, which some have described as “entirely orthodox”.[16] He declared the permanence of the whole Torah (Mt. 5:17-19) and even accepted Pharisaic extensions (Mt. 23:2-3). Some of these include: tithing of herbs (Mt. 23:23; cf. Maaserot 4.5), grace at meals (Mk. 6:41; 8:6), blessings over wine, and the recitation of the Hallel Psalms at the Passover seder (Mk. 14:22-23, 26).
…the Gospels provide sufficient evidence to the effect that Jesus did not oppose any prescription of the written or oral Mosaic Law.
The fact that Yeshua preached regularly in the synagogues, **which would not have been possible if his lifestyle or teachings had been recognizably different **from the current teaching or accepted halakah (authorized opinions), substantiates these observations. The incident in Matthew 9:18f. provides further corroboration. The “ruler”—in Lk. 8:41 and Mk. 5:22, the “head of the synagogue” (rosh knesset?)—comes to Yeshua. Both his request and his posture (kneeling) indicate this religious leader’s ready acceptance of and profound respect for Yeshua as an observant Jew and important religious leader.
Jesus…represents a point of development running **unbroken from the Hebrew Bible **and linked to it through an interpretive supplement that is characteristic of the great literary creation of the Rabbis, the Oral Torah. As Yehezkel Kaufmann put it: “The attitude of Jesus to the Torah is the very same attitude one finds among the masters of halakah and haggadah who followed in the Pharisaic tradition.”[18]
The following assessment of the parallels between the teachings of Yeshua and those of the Pharisees acknowledges this commonness but also recognizes the independence:
We have noted that the teachings of Jesus … are expressive of the method and substance of the Oral Torah as developed by the great masters of rabbinic Judaism. If, in some details, Jesus hewed an independent line, this was normal in rabbinic Judaism, which allowed a wide latitude for individual teachers to think independently. If, in some instances, his views might have aroused opposition from contemporary teachers, this too, was a normal phenomenon in Judaism. The debates between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel on the interpretation of the tradition and its application to contemporary life were sometimes fiercely acrimonious, but there was never any doubt that both were legitimate lines for the exposition of Judaism.[24]
Yeshua taught in a period of flux and transition, of various developing and occasionally conflicting interpretations of the Torah. In taking advantage of this liberty in interpretation, he nevertheless remained thoroughly Jewish and mainstream at that. For example, he accepted the laws concerning the Sabbath but differed in the interpretation of some of those laws concerning certain conditions which justify its suspension.[25] “In minor points … he showed a freedom from traditional custom which implied a break with the stricter rule of the more rigorous adherents of the Law at that time.”[26] However, “some of this, of course, may be allowable violation of traditions which, far from having a binding force, were subject to free and continuing intramural debate.”[27]
Yeshua said quite directly: “Observe the commandments of God” (Mk. 10:17-19; Mt. 19:16-19; Lk. 18:18-20). He also indicated that the Torah would not pass away with his coming (Mt. 5:18). Often his statements beginning with “but I say” are put forward as evidence for his setting aside the Torah. But, these statements—as will shortly be seen—appear to function more as an unfolding of the deeper, fuller meaning of the Torah, rather than as a sweeping away.[32] In fact, when compared with the traditions which serve as the foundations of the Oral Torah in classical Judaism…
However, Matthew 5:17-20 remains the crucial passage in understanding Yeshua’s perspective of his relationship to the Torah. It is here that he described his purpose or intent (“I have come/not come”) with respect to the Torah. He stated that his purpose was NOT to abolish the Torah. The term abolish (kataluo) carries the idea of: do away with, annul, make invalid, repeal, terminate.[34] Yeshua came to do none of the above. In fact, he mentioned “not abolish” twice so as to emphasize his intent. The strength of his statement is further reinforced by the phrase, “Don’t think that”, which has the thrust of “Never think that”.[35] He wanted people to clearly understand that he would not annul, repeal or terminate the Torah!
M
mmsiciliana
Guest
Yeah, and since the Mormon god himself couldn’t start a church that could withstand the gates of hell, both father and son in the flesh! appear to Joseph Smith who will then be able to bring it about. LOL!!!
J
Javl
Guest
Please keep in mind that Christianity is Jewish in origin. Christianity is both the fulfillment and continuation of Judaism. So, your statement is no arguement.
Code:
Sh'ma O Yisroel, Adonai Elienu, Adonai Echod.Shalom Aleichem
Shalom haMeshiach
E
evanfaust
Guest
Rebecca,
I think you need to research your Bible a little more. It is a must to get this knowledge through personal revelation. Entering the church alone is no garantee of it. One needs to seek and be worthy and clean to receive such revelation.
“For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” 1 Peter 1:13
“How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,” Eph 3:3
“That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:” Eph 1:17
“For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” Gal 1:12
We need the spiriti of prophecy and revelation to know that Jesus is the Christ.
“…worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Rev 19:10
“Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?” 1 Cor 14:6
E
evanfaust
Guest
You missed it Rebecca! The main point of this scripture is Revelation, not Peter! Christ is also the rock and a much more important one. Don’t you agree?
Here are some examples:
“He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.” Deut 32:4
“And he said, The Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer;
The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.” 2 Sam 22:2-3
“Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. **This is the stone **which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.” Acts 4:10-11
“Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.”1 Cor 10:1-4
E
evanfaust
Guest
Yes, I had that in mind when I made my comment. Christ teachings are the fulfilment and continuatiion of Judaism. But, the conflict between the teachings of Christ and the interpretations of the Jewish religions of the time are evident. Christ organized His Church anew and did not ammend any of the existing religions of the time. Christ did not endorse any existing Jewish organization.Please keep in mind that Christianity is Jewish in origin. Christianity is both the fulfillment and continuation of Judaism. So, your statement is no arguement.
PAX DOMINICode:Sh'ma O Yisroel, Adonai Elienu, Adonai Echod.
Shalom Aleichem
Shalom haMeshiach
The same was done in the restoration in the last days! A new prophet was called to restored that which was lost.
E
evanfaust
Guest
Javl,This is from a copy of the Book of Mormon that I have:
Mosiah 15
1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—
3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
If this is not modalism and a teaching of the LDS, then I do not know what modalism is. Can you please explain this? Thank you.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
This has been addressed before, but I will try it again in my own words.
The Bible presents the same dilema, which derivates different intepretations of the Godhead. Some interpret as Modalism, others as Trinitarianism and other isms. The Bible itself calls God “the Eternal Father” and yet we know that is referring to Jesus Christ, he becomes an “eternal father” as He is born as a mortal man. The reason behind is that He becomes the Father of our salvation through the atonement, but He is not the literal Father of mankind. He himself talks to His Father and our Father, His God and our God. The Father delegated all the power to the Son. The Son is invested with power given by the Father. So, in a way Christ performs the “role of a Father” and He becomes the Father and the Son for several reasons.
I will use the words of ParkerD, who eloquently explained the meaning of Christ becoming the Father and assuming the role of a Father to His siblings.
“Jesus can rightly be described as the “Everlasting Father” and the “Eternal Father” since He is both the Father of our salvation and redemption and the Father or Creator of this earth. He is also the Father in the sense that He had the inherited power over death and the inherited power to resurrect Himself. He explained this Himself from time to time during His ministry.”ParkerD
And I paste here the scripture he refers to:
“For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace,” (Isaiah 9:6).
J
Javl
Guest
I’m sorry, but I do not accept that explanation. The Church that Jesus founded on Peter did not need restoration. Jesus said that it would last forever without change. He said that “the gates of hell shall not prevail” and that He would be with it always. He also said that the Holy Spirit would guide and protect it. As proof, the Catholic Church has lasted for 2000 years teaching the same truths that Jesus and the Apostles taught, and it cannot be proven otherwise.
I would much rather believe Jesus’ word than that of a man who claims to have had a personal revelation from God to restore Jesus’ Church ( and Joseph Smith is not the only one, there have been many others down through the ages. ). For if I accept the man’s word for it, I am calling Jesus a liar. Doing so would destroy my faith in God and any so-called religions. Who, then, could I trust? Who, then, could I believe?
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
J
Javl
Guest
I understand your explanation, but anyone reading that passage would immediately think of modalism. Jesus cannot be Father and Son at the same time. A footnote should be very evident to present an explanation of the passage.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
I’d say your missing it. But that’s really no surprise.
P
ParkerD
Guest
To RebeccaJ and to the general reader, when thinking about “upon this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18):
It continues to amaze me that readers and students of the Bible would not see that when Peter said “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16), which was to say that the Person whom they rejoiced in being with was known by Peter to be the “Anointed One” spoken of by the Psalmist in Psalms 2:2 and by Isaiah in Isaiah 61:1-3, and that just as Isaiah prophesied of the opening of the prison by the “Anointed One”, that Jesus as the holder of the key of David would be the one who would “open” or “shut” the gates of hell, and could not be prevailed against as prophesied by Isaiah in Isaiah 22:22 and confirmed by John in Revelation 3:7. Here John even says “no man shutteth” and “no man openeth”, yet this specific scripture is disregarded and replaced by a singular word that is not used in the Bible at all–“Vicar”. Peter taught no such doctrine as that. He taught that Christ was the Rock, the corner stone, the stone which the builders had rejected and which it looks like more builders under the new covenant rejected yet again by replacing Him with Peter or by saying Peter was the “man” whom Christ appointed to be “the rock” in His stead. Alas.
It is such a loss to have lost that understanding from the scriptures! But it seems to be a loss that cannot be overcome, as far as I have been able to tell.
Peace to you and all. We ought to bring our minds as well as our hearts to the reading of the scriptures, and bridge passages that show how the Savior and the apostles taught using the Old Testament foundation to show fulfillment of the prophecies therein.
J
Javl
Guest
That may be your and/or the LDS interpretation of the scripture, but no Catholic can accept it. I cannot believe that from the early Church Fathers, down to the present day ( a period of 2000 years ), that all did not understand or correctly interpret Matthew 16:18-19 until the LDS came along and interprted it “correctly”. This is one of the many instances where scripture should be taken literally instead of symbolicly. Jesus told Peter that he is a rock and that He would build His church on him and that he would be in charge under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
As for the word “Vicar”. It is used, and meant, to denote a representative, just as Peter became Jesus’ representative ( Vicar ) when He told Peter to feed His lambs and sheep ( John 21:15-17 ).
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
T
TheosisM
Guest
One of the footnotes (for Mosiah 15:2) cites Isaiah 9:6, which refers to the Son as the Eternal Father/Everlasting Father/etc. depending on the translation.I understand your explanation, but anyone reading that passage would immediately think of modalism. Jesus cannot be Father and Son at the same time. A footnote should be very evident to present an explanation of the passage.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
L
lax16
Guest
Hi Parker - I am not sure what you are disagreeing with here.
According to Douay-Rheims Matt 6:16 means- As Simon Peter had been constituted the **first in the college of apostles **(see Matt 10:2) and therefore surpasseth the others in dignity as much as in zeal, without hesitation, and in the name of all, he answers: “Thou art the Christ…”
Matt 10:2 - Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew, his brother.
commentary: First, Simon. Simon was the **first **of the apostles, not in the time of his vocation, as his brother Andrew was called to the apostleship before him, but in dignity, in as much as he was constituted the vicar of Christ, and the head of the Church.
The name Peter (Cephas) means Rock.
John 1:42 - Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas, thou shalt be called Peter…
commentary from The New American Bible: Neither the Greek equivalent Petros nor, with one isolated exception, Cephas is attested as a personal name before Christian times.
Why would Jesus change Simon’s name to the **Rock **if he didn’t want to prove that Peter was the fundamental stone on which to build His Church?
Why would Peter be referred to as **first **in Matt 10:2?
P
ParkerD
Guest
Lax16,
If I were in the shoes of someone studying the life of Peter (which I have enjoyed doing during my life and study of the Bible), I would want to start with his calling as an apostle and how he comported himself during his calling and ministry, including his ministry after Christ had ascended. What did Peter emphasize–that he himself was the “vicar” of the church? No! He emphasized that Christ is the rock–the foundation or “chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.” (1 Peter 2:7)
What I don’t understand is how someone can bring a desire to learn truths from the Bible to their study of this wonderful word of God, yet reject the very teaching that is incorporated as Peter declared that “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”?
Peter knew the Old Testament scripture prophesying of the Christ, as I have noted:
He knew and declared, when asked the very key question, “Whom say ye that I am?”-- that Christ was the “Anointed One” spoken of by the Psalmist in Psalms 2:2 and by Isaiah in Isaiah 61:1-3. That is what Peter was saying when he said “Thou art the Christ.” He was saying that indeed Christ fulfilled the key prophecies about the coming of the Messiah, the Savior, the “Anointed One” who held the key of David and who would open the prison doors and “proclaim liberty to the captives”. He was declaring this truth because he knew it by the revelation of his Father in Heaven to his soul and mind.
This is why the Savior said that Simon son of Jonah was blessed–because Simon Peter knew by revelation that Jesus was the very Christ of whom the prophets had written in Old Testament times, and was the Son of God come to earth to redeem humankind.
Peter also would completely follow what the Savior was saying when He declared “upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Why? Because Peter was a student of the Old Testament prophecies. He shows this familiarity in his epistles, showing it when he referred to Christ–the Rock–as the “stone which the builders disallowed.” This is to tie and bridge three passages together: Isaiah 28:16 which speaks of the precious corner stone and sure foundation (Christ), and the Savior’s teaching as recorded in Matthew 21:42 where He says the builders had rejected that chief corner stone as prophesied in Psalms 118:22-23.
Who holds the key to the “gates of righteousness” spoken of in Psalms 118:19? Christ is the key-holder, the gate-keeper and the gate-opener. He opens the doors of the prison to them that are bound. He holds the key of the house of David prophesied by Isaiah in Isaiah 22:22–He “shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open”. He is the Anointed One who was to be fastened “as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father’s house.” (Isaiah 22:23)
Why can these things not be seen by students of the Bible? Why reject yet again the Stone whom the builders already rejected? Why pretend that Peter holds a “key of David” when John attested that “These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no many openeth.”? (Revelation 3:7)
Why reject the holder of the key of David? Why pretend that Peter opens the gates of hell or has power over the gates of hell, when it is so clear that Christ (not a mere man) is the holder of the key to the gates of hell, and has power over death and hell, and is He Who will be triumphant in that the “gates of hell shall not prevail” against that Rock who is the Rock of our salvation? Why reject these teachings so plain and precious?
Peace to all, on this beautiful day of rest and rejoicing.
L
lax16
Guest
Hi Parker - The following is a commentary from the Douay-Rheims on Rev 3:7:
…**Christ **takes the title of the Holy One, and True One, *who hath the key of *David; i.e. being the son of David, and the promised Messias, hath supreme power in the Church: who opens the gate of salvation, **and no one shuts it against **his elect. Wi. - By the key in this place may be understood either the key of the Church, or of the kingdom of heaven. Jesus Christ has both, he opens and shuts the heavens by his infinite power. But in the Church on earth he has entrusted this key (his power) to his apostles and ministers; whatever is bound or loosened by them is ratified by him in the kingdom of his glory…
As you can see, Catholics do not reject the teachings that you are claiming.
L
lax16
Guest
evanfaust - Please cite specific examples when claiming that “the conflict between the teachings of Christ and the interpretations of the Jewish religions of the time are evident” and clarify your statement “Christ did not endorse any existing Jewish organization.”
thanks!
P
ParkerD
Guest
Lax16,
Christ did indeed give keys to the apostles, but yet He holds the key to the gate of salvation and the keys to death and hell. He is the Rock of salvation. He is the Corner Stone whom the builders rejected. Why did they reject Him? Because they rejected revelation, and rejected that the Son of God would come with a spiritual kingdom rather than with a physical kingdom.
Peter did not replace Christ as the One upon whom the Corner Stone of the church was founded. Yet when Matthew 16:18 is made to mean that Peter is the “rock” upon which the “church” is built, then that is exactly what is being done; and when the teaching that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” is made to mean that “it” refers to “church body” rather than to “this rock” which is “the Corner Stone”, then “Peter” (who himself never taught this, so he is placed there in name only but not in spirit or in the attribute of his actual calling as the presiding apostle) and a human institution has been placed into a position of replacing Christ and His divine keys of salvation, revelation, and triumph over death and hell.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
ParkerD
It takes some odd understanding of Catholic teaching/belief to make the sort of argument you are making. It really has no point. It is a straw man.
It takes some odd understanding of Catholic teaching/belief to make the sort of argument you are making. It really has no point. It is a straw man.
- Status