A
aspirant
Guest
“Son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing.” I guess Mormons get around this sort of thing by rejecting parts of Christian scripture.
- Status
D
dianaiad
Guest
Well, since we don’t actually USE the Book of Maccabees…that could be part of the problem, at least as far as using this verse as a prooftext is concerned…
(Diana, having JUST been rather snootily told that she had better NOT use the BoM, the PoGB or the D&C in any discussion regarding LDS thought, since of course Catholics don’t think they are scripture, and noting that double standards are still alive and kicking…)
X
Xavierlives
Guest
Catch us later, how?However, I also think that eternity is a very long time. As a former investigator, you are aware that WE believe that we grow, and learn, and progress after death. There is a great deal to lean and accomplish, and not everything has to be done right here and right now. So, if for some reason God thinks you are better off as a Catholic, or as a Budhist, or (heaven alone knows why…) a Calvinist…then there’s probably a reason for it. We’ll catch you later, when you are ready.
T
TheosisM
Guest
Not really actually. A number of Mormon apologists have directly addressed the issue of 2 Maccabees 7:28, and they cite non-LDS Biblical/Greek scholars in support of their understanding of what 2 Macc 7:28 is talking about. Basically, they do not see the Greek as referring to creation ex nihilo, creation from absolutely nothing (and therefore dispute the translation given as “out of nothing” by the DRB, instead preferring the literal Greek translation as “out of non-being”, which does not imply creation ex nihilo). Non-Mormon scholar Gerhard May writes in his book “Creatio ex nihilo”:
"“The best known, constantly brought forward as the earliest evidence of the conceptual formulation of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, is 2 Maccabees 7:28. The need for caution in evaluating this is apparent from the context in which there is talk of creation ‘out of nothing’. There is here no theoretical disquisition on the nature of the creation process, but a paraenetic reference to God’s creative power; the mother of the seven martyrs calls her youngest son to steadfastness by holding before his eyes that God, who has shown his might by creating the world and mankind ‘out of non-being’, will, ‘in the time of mercy’ awake the righteous from death. A position on the problem of matter is clearly not to be expected in this context. The text implies no more than the conception that the world came into existence through the sovereign creative act of God, and that it previously was not there…That the formulation found in the second book of Maccabees in no way necessitates the thought of the absolute unconditionality of the creation, is also clear from an informative parallel in Xenophon. He says in his “Memorabilia” that parents ‘bring forth their children out of non-being’. Naturally that does not mean that the children come to be out of nothing, and it will occur to no one to understand the statement in terms of a creatio ex nihilo.” "
James Hubler apparently also states in his doctoral dissertation on creatio ex nihilo and 2 Macc:
“Non-being [in 2 Maccabees] refers to the non-existence of the heavens and earth before God’s creative act. It does not express absolute non-existence, only the prior non-existence of the heavens and earth. They were made to exist after not existing.”
Other scholars have also addressed this issue. The matter of creation ex nihilo is actually something I’m very interested in, specifically whether Genesis 1 actually supports it (specifically the translation issues of Genesis 1:1, where the KJV implies things (specifically creation ex nihilo as well as an absolutist beginning) that other translations do not, such as the NAB).
The implications of creation ex nihilo are also interesting. I tend to agree with Sheed in his book Theology and Sanity, where he states that creation from nothing makes all things absolutely dependent on God for all manner of existence, because there is nothing intrinsic about ourselves that did not come from God.
S
sablouwho
Guest
Regarding whether God cares whether I drink a cuppa tea…
on the subject.)
Though this issue did give me an appreciation for something that I didn’t understand until later when I started hanging w/the Catholics. Namely, in LDS circles, or at least the ones I hung out in, there seemed to be a lack of appreciate for gravity. Some appeared to consider drinking tea as if it was somehow on the same level as some other sins that I would say are much more serious.
Whereas, one thing I appreciate in Catholicism is that they do, IMO, have a sense of gravity, and this appeals to me.
And I, personally, need this.
Wow Diana, in my experience I find that there are precious few Mormons who think as you do on the subject. Some of the explanations I’ve been given about why tea is inherently bad have bordered on the ridiculous, not to mention the un- or anti-scientific. (Not that I feel that the science on the subject is conclusive, I think that there is still going to be, ah “continuing revelation”
on the subject.)Yeah, I agree God would care about a person keeping promises. And I did not make a promise to follow the WoW. Even though I happen to follow a good part of the WoW by default simply because I very rarely drink alcohol (and when I do it’s in very small amounts), don’t even like coffee, don’t smoke/do drugs, etc. But I did give up “real” tea for a while and was only doing herbals for a bit when I was investigating.He DOES, however, care whether you keep your promises, even if that promise is only about drinking a cuppa tea.
Though this issue did give me an appreciation for something that I didn’t understand until later when I started hanging w/the Catholics. Namely, in LDS circles, or at least the ones I hung out in, there seemed to be a lack of appreciate for gravity. Some appeared to consider drinking tea as if it was somehow on the same level as some other sins that I would say are much more serious.
Whereas, one thing I appreciate in Catholicism is that they do, IMO, have a sense of gravity, and this appeals to me.
And I, personally, need this.
Yeah, I can’t really explain it any better than that. Frankly I find your view refreshing…and I appreciate that you aren’t trying to get me to “sign up” to be LDS.
Ditto!
A
Answersplease
Guest
A
Answersplease
Guest
A
aspirant
Guest
Like I said.
A
aspirant
Guest
Everything is correct until “which does not imply creation ex nihilo.”
Exactly.
A
Answersplease
Guest
A
Answersplease
Guest
A
Answersplease
Guest
A
Answersplease
Guest
Yes, it is sad to watch.It is something I noticed a long time ago, on my own, without any help from “antis” (whoever they are). Mormons claim priesthood authority can fail for certain reasons, this is how the apostasy is explained. You yourself go off on bigoted tirades about how Catholics are moral failures and therefore that is proof to you of an apostasy. Yet, when I bring up the same for your so-called priesthood, all of the sudden it’s a different story. Even show you side by side, two almost exact explanations, one for Catholic priesthood, the other for mormon priesthood. Yet, here you are, telling me they are different.
I understand, I really do. You put on one hat for one thing, another hat for another, and you hope to GOD that the two hats never happen to sit on your head at the same time.
The ifallible dogmas of the Catholic Church are not easy to criticize, it is far easier to attack all the sins made by imperfect human beings who happen to be leaders of the Catholic Church.
And the double standard is glaringly obvious.
A
Answersplease
Guest
Also, I see this issue of “Christianity” not accepting the supposed revelations of Joseph Smith in a similar way as to how Judaism saw the revelations given to the early Christians. Judaism was/is a strictly monotheistic religion (though it is debatable when Israelite religion became such), where there is essentially a Unitarian belief (basically there is only one God, who is one Person). Christianity then comes on the scene and posits the belief that there are three distinct Persons that are one in Being (i.e one God), introducing a plurality within the “one God”. Judaism “DOES NOT” accept this.
A
Answersplease
Guest
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Chapter 9 shows the imposition of hands upon Paul and tells he received the Holy Ghost.
The Church going into the wilderness? You mean leaving Jerusalem prior to it’s destruction?
I’m sorry, you haven’t demonstrated anywhere that more than one Apostle received the keys and you haven’t touched on the points I specifically pointed out when they were given. I can see there is an avoidance of an open discussion by the number of times I have to repeat questions and points. This goes for asking where the belief that John never died comes from as well. To be perfectly honest, I don’t see how any thinking person could consider believing something that they have to ask repeated questions too and still not receive a direct response.
That’s the biggest difference that I see between Catholicism and Mormonism. Catholics will take time to explain point by point, using sources, tieing all scriptures together, to support a view concerning the faith. Mormons give vague answers that don’t directly address a question or point raised., even after repeated requests, and if they use any sources at all, it’s vaguely pointed too or use just a verse or piece of a verse in attempt to support their view. There is so much ‘speculation’ added to the Mormon view, or that’s how it appears when one doesn’t take time to explain it properly.
Pieces of verses are read in context within the verse they are located and the verse is in a passage and a passage is in a chapter and a chapter is in a book and a book is in a Testament. The Old foretells the New and the New fulfills the Old.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
The thing you’re not saying is, you brought up one against the Catholic Church without mentioning that Mormons have their own history of sinful men. The dredging up was your post to begin with. When I called you on it, now it seems you want to say, oh yea, we both have a history of sinful men in our past. With a 2000 year old history, it’s common sense to see there are gong to be many more on the Catholic side, as compared to a 200 year old history Mormons have to offer.
T
TheosisM
Guest
I think you are misunderstanding what “creation ex nihilo” is saying. The difference between the traditional and Mormon views is not that creation ex nihilo says that the heavens and earth were made to exist, while Mormons don’t say that. Both say that the universe was made to exist. Creation ex nihilo states that the universe was made to exist from nothing. Mormons believe that the universe was made to exist from pre-existing matter. Hubler’s statement does not support creation ex nihilo, because he states (in reference to 2 Macc) " It does not express absolute non-existence". Creation ex nihilo posits absolute non-existence “in the beginning”. Bringing something from non-being (which is what the Greek says of 2 Macc, and not “from nothing”) to being (from non-existence to existence) does not necessitate that it occurred from nothing.
P
ParkerD
Guest
ProdigalSon1,
Sorry you have felt unanswered–I’ve tried, but have had time constraints.
Of course Paul received the Holy Ghost, and received a calling in the priesthood that meant he would have hands laid on his head, before James had been killed (that does not mean he was an apostle). The calling to be an apostle came later. He was ordained an apostle when the need was there for another apostle to be called. Read on after Acts 12 and you will see that in Acts 13 he received an additional responsibility along with Barnabas that required the “laying on of hands” (Acts 13:2-4).
I agree, by the way, that the scriptures ought to be read and understood in their full context. That is what one should do–agreed. You have used one single verse of scripture to say that only Peter held keys, yet I showed in Matthew 18:18 (you can read it, along with the entire chapter) that all the apostles were given the authority to “bind and loose”, and those words had been used when the keys were discussed in Matthew 16.
What boggles my mind is that you make the incredible assumption without any scriptural basis or support, that the keys Peter held were magically passed on to someone else. Yet you chide me for not having scriptural support for my belief that all the twelve held keys. You might ponder the whole issue of why Christ would specifically give keys, and that if they were important, He would have a “back-up” system for those keys staying on the earth–and it makes far more sense that He would begin that back-up system among the apostles who were special witnesses than relying on someone far down the historical road to take the keys from Peter, (magically it would seem).
I never wrote that John “never died”. I wrote that he was “translated”. That meant he would not die for a very long time, but it does not mean he would “never die.” It meant he would “tarry till I come” (John 21:22), and Peter was told essentially to mind his own business about John’s role.
Again, I make the assumption that one such as yourself has read the New Testament, studied it in all its contexts, and that I don’t need to “create the context” for you. That means I can refer to a verse or cite part of a verse and YOU CAN LOOK UP THE WHOLE VERSE or the WHOLE CHAPTER if you want to refresh your memory. I think that is the better thing to do.
The same thing goes for the Book of Revelation. I suggest you read the entire book. The church flies on the “wings of a great eagle” “into the wilderness” “for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent” which means that the serpent could not reach the church and have influence among the church because the church was gone away “into the wilderness”. (Revelation 12:14) Then after that, the dragon goes to “make war with the remnant of her seed” and that situation is more fully described in Revelation 13.
But all in all, I suggest we are worlds apart as you suggested also, and that each of us just carry on reading the Bible ourselves and you can have your set of beliefs that make you comfortable, and that is fine with me. We both love the Bible. We can learn more and more by reading it and being guided by the Holy Spirit as we read and think and pray.
A
Answersplease
Guest
- Status