Tuesday, April 14, 2015

How the Jewish Festivals are connected to Christ in the New Testament

Jewish Feast Days Associated With Important Events in the Gospel of John

What follows is a copy of my collection of quotes on the subject (along with a few of my own notes), and as such, there is very little original content included here.  Nevertheless, I thought that it might be of interest to my readers.

“One evangelist, the author of the Fourth Gospel, stands out as having a special interest in the Temple…As is so often the case in this text, what this evangelist seeks to provide is a radical rethinking of early Christian affirmations.  In the process, he appropriates imagery connected with the temple as a way of affirming his understanding of the significance of Jesus.

“A major vehicle for further connecting Jesus with the temple is the evocation of Israel’s sacred calendar, invoked at key points in the first half of the gospel” (Attridge, 2014).

Attridge, H. W., (2014). The temple and jesus the high priest in the new testament.  In Charleswoth, J. H. (Ed.), Jesus and temple: Textual and archaeological explorations. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.)

John 2:  Passover #1 Turning of water into wine at Cana & the first cleansing of the temple immediately precede Passover

“Four cups of wine mixed with water were drunk at different stages of the [Passover] feast (compare Luke 22:17, 20; 1 Cor. 10:16, the cup of blessing)” (LDS Bible Dictionary, “Feasts,” https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/feasts).

Saturday, April 11, 2015

The Parable of the Talents and Predestination

“No one is predestined to receive less than all that the Father has for His children.” (D. Todd Christofferson, “Why Marriage, Why Family,” Ensign, May 2015, lds.org).

The Parable of the Talents which Jesus taught to His disciples in Matthew chapter 25 can be fairly instructive when considering the question of foreordination and election, and how it governs our placement in this world and our relationship to each other.

The Parable of the Talents teaches the importance of exercising righteous stewardship with those things that the Lord gives to us while we are in our second estate.  Even though each servant in the parable received differing amounts to start with, they were each expected to wisely manage the talents with which they had been entrusted, in order that the wealth could grow and increase in their care before they had to return what they had been given to the master.

We all start out with differing gifts in life, and some are seemingly given greater advantages and blessings in this life than others, such as being born into the covenant, or living in a country where freedom and prosperity reign instead of tyranny and strife.  We also come into life with certain abilities and talents which are innate, or which we developed during our life before we came here, and it may seem that some have received more natural talent or advantageous opportunity than others.

Thursday, April 9, 2015

A More Excellent Way: Are Mormons Living the Higher Law?

WARNING:  This post contains several mentions of a word and subject which is probably unsuitable for children.

I spend a great deal of time writing, speaking, and answering questions about religion, so I tend to encounter the whole spectrum of Mormon doubts and problems (as well as the best that we have to offer) as I get to know people across the world and the church.  As I have interacted with other Mormons on questions of religion, I have noticed a certain tendency that I find especially disturbing.  Specifically, I have noticed that Mormons like to ask some variation of the “Is [blank] a sin?” question, which is usually accompanied by phrases like “It isn’t expressly forbidden by the general authorities,” or, “it isn’t spelled out in the scriptures (or the policy or manuals of the Church),” with the implication that unless it is spelled out explicitly as a sin, then it must be OK to do.  This attitude can only be called legalism, and it can be very dangerous.

Legalism:  Noun.  usage: strict conformity to the letter of the law rather than its spirit.”  (http://thesaurus.infoplease.com/legalism, n. d.)

Case in point, the following question was posted in a Facebook discussion group for Mormons in order to solicit responses for a podcast:

“I got into a downright weird conversation with someone on whether or not the LDS Church teaches masturbation as breaking the Law of Chastity.

His defense was that there isn't a section in the Aaronic Priesthood Manual or some such work (you know - the Fifth Standard Work) about masturbation and so it isn't a sin” (Joe Rawlins, Facebook post, April 9, 2015).

In response, one person stated that she has never viewed a proscription against masturbation to be part of the law growing up, and that she still doesn’t, and then she posted a link to the Wikipedia definition of the Law of Chastity (as taught by the LDS church).

Another person posted a talk from President Spencer W. Kimball which specifically stated that the law of chastity forbids “all sexual relations outside marriage,” including masturbation, to which the first person replied that she did not see anything expressly forbidding the practice in the youth booklet.

Several individuals argued back and forth about whether or not pornography addiction is an actual or fictional condition, and others made statements criticizing the church’s stance on the subject as being a relic of Victorian era hang-ups about sex, and/or misconceptions about the sin of Onan (as it is often referred to) in the Bible, even going so far as to post a link to an article from Wiktionary defining onanism (see Genesis chapter 38 if you really care to know more).  There was also a protracted argument among several individuals concerning the severity of the sin, and its ranking in comparison to the severity of certain other sins.  Of course the crux of the entire argument had to do with the fact that teachings forbidding the practice of masturbation are not clearly spelled out in scripture.

This whole argument is an example of the irritating legalism that has crept into the attitude of many church members:  "If it isn't specifically spelled out, then I don't have to do it, and if it isn't expressly forbidden then I can do as I please."  Or, more subtly, ranking or defining sins so that some seem less severe than others.  Legalism is a problem for members of the church because it can cause us to miss the whole point of the gospel (and commandment keeping) and the atonement of Jesus Christ, and cause us to become lost in a maze of petty bickering over tiny points of the law. Worse, "by looking beyond the mark" (see Jacob 4:14) we may cause ourselves (and others) to "stumble" and "fall" because of confusion over what is and isn't sin.

Thursday, April 2, 2015

Why Did Jesus Have to Die on the Cross?

This post is actually a response to two questions, and as such it is organized into two parts:  First, why did Jesus have to die for the atonement to work? Second, why did Jesus have to die on the cross, as opposed to some other way? 

Q1: Did Jesus need to die on the cross? Had he already paid for our sins at this point or was it part of the atonement? And in what way?

A1:  Jesus did indeed need to die for our sins.  While Christ had made an atonement offering in the garden by His suffering and by shedding his own blood (acting in his capacity as the great high priest), the atonement was not yet finished.

The law of justice says that if a man sins somebody has to pay the price.  Fortunately, Christ paid the price for us, but the price is very high.

Alma 34: 9-12  For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened; yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement which it is expedient should be made.  For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.  Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another.  Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother?  I say unto you, Nay.  But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.
Web Statistics