Question for Mormons

[EchoPneuma]

I came across Gnosticism on the Internet, in an Internet Search I believe, about seven years ago. I had heard someone somewhere mention something about "Lost Books of the Bible" and "Gnosticism" and "The Gospel of Thomas", and it got me curious and searching. I quickly found "The Gnosis Archive: Resources on Gnosticism and Gnostic Tradition" and several other Gnostic Websites on the subject.

God has different ways to show us what we need to see. If we are genuinely searching for truth, then Jesus PROMISES that we will find it.

God had forbidden those practices in the Old Testament specifically for "in the land which I have brought you" and He explained that it was because they were common practices that had been used in neighboring lands by Pagans, and God would have none of that in his chosen land. God wanted their Spiritual Focus entirely on Himself.

Notice that Hebrew Law speaks against actual contact of the actual dead, it does not refer to the dead as asleep or demons (as some Christians try to claim), but as the actual contact of the actual dead. This is reinforced by the Prophet Samuel appearing to Saul as a Ghost summoned by a Medium, and the Scripture very clearly states that it was the Spirit of Samuel himself who appeared, and he even prophecised Saul's Destruction.

On a higher level, why did God forbid it? Because He wanted the Jewish people to look to Him for everything, all their worldly and spiritual needs, through Mystical Experience and the Words of the Prophets. God knew that the Spirits of the Dead, if they were wicked or had an imperfect knowledge in life or death, could potentially lead His chosen people astray. He probably also worried that they may be informed of things by the dead that He didn't want them to know at that time, kind of like what happened when the Grigori appeared (Genesis; 1 Enoch) and taught humanity all sorts of knowledge God didn't want them to know at that time. "Why look to the dead, when you can speak to God Most High?" I feel that was the true context.

The Israelites in the Old Testament aside from the Prophets were not the brightest sort of people, they would go off worshipping other gods and worshipping golden calfs at the drop of a hat.

Personally, as a Christian not living in the Promised Land, I see the practice of Mediumship in this day and age to be a neutral practice.

So you think God's mind changed on it? I don't. I still don't believe He wants us to attempt to contact the dead. They are in HIS realm and should be left in His care alone. He is perfectly capable of showing them whatever they need to know and guiding them wherever they need to be without our help. Be careful.....God doesn't like us to play "god".

Various Christian Saints and Christian Mystics (Especially Padre Pio) have had encounters with the Spirits of the Dead that they helped to find their rest. Jesus Christ spoke with the deceased Spirit of Moses on the Mountain of Transfiguration and the Apostles witnessed it. Jesus Christ Himself said, "Touch me and see, for a Ghost hath not flesh and bones as you see I have", which at least proves the existence of Ghosts and Hauntings and such. The verses where Jesus Christ first appeared to the Apostles after the Resurrection, it said, "they at first thought that he was a Ghost". Which indicates the Apostles believed in the existence of Ghosts.

Yes, they believed in them apparently. But there's no indication that they ever tried to contact them or engaged in any type of "medium" activities. Only Jesus could cross over because He was of both worlds.

There are Shamans and Mediums whose main purpose is to help the Spirits of the Dead "Cross Over" rather than remaining Earth Bound here. I see that as Noble as opposed to being an evil practice.

Just be careful. I do believe there are still unclean spirits....they are the spirits of the "nephilim" who have no habitat because they are neither of earth or heaven since they are half fallen angel and half human.

I feel it all boils down moreso to intent.

God sees our hearts for sure...but He still intends for us to heed His warnings and not tread on His turf.

Many people in Mainstream Christian Churches are generally not very open to Spiritual Mysticism and they thus apparently do not open themselves to actually Spiritually Discerning by the Holy Spirit to the degree that persons such as Spiritual Driven Mystics can and do, but rather go more by the Head and their own Personal/Grouped Interpretations of Scripture that they have been raised with or came to accept as being the only valid rigid way of looking at things, and thus refuse to change their views to consider anything else as valid. They are told that the way they were raised or eventually came to accept is the only valid way of seeing Christianity, and none else is, and it sinks in, and to change is fear driven, fear of losing their own salvation to "seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you, for there is nothing hidden that will not become manifest".

Yes, I have seen this as well. I speak about it on my "spiritual struggle" thread. People believe what they are trained and raised to believe for the most part. Seems everyone seeks the interpretation of someone else and trusts in the knowledge of someone else for what they are supposed to believe, rather than throwing off those yokes of men and listening only to the voice of God and taking the yoke of Jesus.

Yeah, Clement of Alexandria was interesting. He had strong Gnostic tendencies. He spoke of there being a True Gnosis in Christianity. Clement of Alexandria also believed in a secret oral tradition that was handed down through the apostles. (Stromateis 1:11;2.3)

Concerning these secret teachings, Clement of Alexandria stated:

"James the Righteous, John and Peter were entrusted by the Lord after his resurrection with the higher knowledge. They imparted it to the other apostles, to the seventy..." (Outlines Book VI)

I love reading Clement. He believed what Christians believed before Constantine got a hold of what was orthodox and what wasn't.

Well, I feel Joseph Smith had an imperfect knowledge of things to begin with, being human, more so around the Nauvoo Period, when he went into rampent doctrinal speculation mode, much of which later turned into official doctrine. I feel he was partially right, but partially wrong, on various "advanced" theological issues. I feel his Spiritually Discernment got weaker nearing the end of his life, possibly due to ego and it all going to his head. The RLDS would agree with me here. I tend to follow the Joseph Smith of Kirtland moreso than the Joseph Smith of Nauvoo, although I do recognize some very awesome theological gems from the Nauvoo period. I feel the Endowment Ceremony was suppose to be, as Joseph Smith said, "Shadows, Types, and Images", of what they Spiritually Represent in the Heavens. Not actual requirements for Salvation and Entry, but Symbols of it.

Don't know what alot of your terminology means, but I get your drift.

The Book of Mormon is my primary Spiritual Focus in Mormonism, I absolutely love and adore those Scriptures, it Strongly Resonates as Spiritual Truth to me. There are many Spiritual Mystical Experiences recorded in that Book.

You believe that the book of Mormon is like the bible in that it has a deeper meaning that what the text actually says? That there is deeper knowledge to be found underneath the text?

Like the Parable of the Three Blind Men and the Elephant?

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]Blind Men and the Elephant, The
by: Author Unknown, Source Unknown [/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]There is an analogy to how differently we each understand or experience God in a classic story about three blind men and the elephant. As each of the three blind men are trying to understand exactly what the elephant is like, but experiencing different parts of the same thing.
[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]The first blind man is feeling all over the leg of the elephant and says to the others, "It is like a strong tree." But, the second is holding the trunk, explaining, "It is like an ever changing vine."[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]Still, the third blind man is running his hands across the large body of the elephant, exclaiming, "No, it is endless, like a wide mountain."

[/FONT]

Yeah, just like that. God and His ways are the elephant....and all the religions are like those "feelers". WIth each one just KNOWING that the other one is wrong.
[/FONT]

I've attended a Roman Catholic Church, an Eastern Orthodox Church, a Pentecostal Church, a Baptist Church, a Mormon Church, etc. I keep much to myself when attending a Church.

I've pretty much stuck with the S. Bapt. church although I've visited in various other denoms. They all have something positive to offer and there are good folks to be found everywhere.


[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=arial,helevetica,sans-serif]

Shamanism is a world-wide practice; its ancient roots can be glimpsed in the history of every culture.

From the poster Ursulaw on BeliefNet's Shamanism Forum:

[/FONT]

[/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Shamanism is an ancient set of techniques, found in tribal cultures all over the world, that help us do certain things:

- 1. Connect with aspects of reality we aren't ordinarily aware of (often called non-ordinary reality, or NOR);
- 2. Connect more deeply with the Earth, the animals and plants and all beings;
- 3. Connect with parts of ourselves we have lost touch with;
- 4. And out of those experiences, bring greater power and knowledge and healing into our "ordinary reality" lives, for our own benefit and the benefit of others.

Shamanism is rooted in an ancient worldview in which everything is seen as having life, or spirit, or a spiritual dimension. A rock, a tree, the wind, all have spirit, & consciousness -- though not exactly like human consciousness.

We have a natural connection with the consciousnesses around us. By deepening that connection we grow in power and in joy.

In shamanic belief, nobody makes it alone. If you have survived this far, help has flowed to you through your connections with the web of life -- whether you've been aware of that or not.

Though you are connected with all beings, there are certain ones who are your "inner circle" -- certain animals, trees, stones, places, with which you have a particularly deep spiritual kinship. One of the things we do in shamanic practice is to become aware of those special connections and consciously work with them. This helps us in many ways, and allows us to better help others, and besides that -- it is a joy.

As you explore your special connections, it's likely that the first one you will become aware of will be with an animal (or perhaps more than one animal). The animals are very close to us spiritually, and are our natural companions and guides in exploring non-ordinary reality. There are world-wide beliefs in guardian animals or totems or animal allies or spirit friends -- they've been given many names. "Power animal" is one name for your guardian animal or animal ally.

Over time you can also find special plant helpers and spirit teachers, connect with ancestor spirits, etc.

To explore these connections, you need to go into a different state of being, you need to alter your consciousness, so you can experience dimensions of reality that we are usually not directly aware of.

To sum up: A practitioner of shamanism is a person who consciously, voluntarily goes into an altered state in order to explore non-ordinary reality, communicate with spirits (animal, plant, ancestral, and other), and bring back knowledge, power, or healing for themselves and others.[/FONT]

So it's like a native "witch doctor" for lack of a better word? The problem I have with it is that "sorcery" is condemned in the bible and that seems like sorcery to me. And witchcraft is condemned as well....and that seems like a form of witchcraft. I don't know that much about it, but from what you've described that is what it sounds like to me. If it was OK for a Christian to be involved in these things then why is it condemned as sin?

 

[skylark1]

You have to be very careful when using Owens. He is attempting to explain the King Follett Discourse in terms of Kabbalah, but this can be shown to be completely erroneous. This isn't to say that Joseph didn't have any contact with Kabbalah (through Neibaur or some other source), it simply shows that Owens is over-reading the KFD.

Thanks for your response, Ben. After reading it a few times, I think that I understand your point. I wish that I knew Hebrew.

I thought that since Lance Owens is a minister of the "Gnostic Ecclesia," that he would have a good understanding of the Kabbalah and other gnostic beliefs.

We also have this statement:The composite text reads near this point:Based on this, and on evidence from the JST, it seems much more likely that Joseph is referring to a German Bible - probably Luther's translation, and not to the Zohar - or any Kabbalistic text.

In the article, Owens wrote:

Joseph Smith and Alexander Neibaur were frequent associates. Neibaur had been engaged by Joseph a few days after his arrival in Nauvoo in April 1841. During the last months of the prophet's life, both his and Neibaur's diaries indicate that Neibaur read with and tutored Smith in Hebrew and German.129 Given this friendly relationship, the interests of the prophet, and the background of Neibaur--and perhaps even the books in Neibaur's library--it seems inconceivable that discussions of Kabbalah did not take place. Kabbalah was the mystical tradition of Judaism, the tradition which claimed to be custodian of the secrets God revealed to Adam. These secrets were occultly conveyed by the oral tradition of Kabbalah throughout the ages--so it was claimed--until finally finding written expression in the Zohar and the commentaries of the medieval Kabbalists, books Neibaur possessed. Kabbalah was the custodian of an occult re-reading of Genesis and the traditions of Enoch, it contained the secrets of Moses. And it was a subject that Joseph Smith had probably already crossed in different versions several times in his life. Can anyone familiar with the history and personality of Joseph Smith--the prophet who restored the secret knowledge and rituals conveyed to Adam, translated the works of Abraham, Enoch, and Moses, and retranslated Genesis--question that he would have been interested in the original version of this Jewish occult tradition? And here, in Neibaur, was a man who could share a version of that knowledge with him.​

Do you know if Joseph Smith learned German from Neibar? I'm not sure if he was studying Kabbalah and the German Bible with Neibar, if the study of one influenced the understanding of the other.

 

[skylark1]

I've never heard this before. In Baptist circles we believe that the spirit is wholly spiritual and none material...that the unseen spiritual realities are in no way material....not even of a higher order. Is this an important thing with M? Or just a matter of esoteric minutia?

I don't think any other sect of Christendom holds this view. The Neo-platonic influence on Christian thought was fairly pronounced as the Church moved into the Medieval Period. Victorinus, St. Anselm and St. Augustine are three simple examples.

This is a standard position within Mormonism. I'll give you an example from the Doctrine and Covenants (a canonical work in Mormonism: a collection of Modern Revelations from Joseph Smith forward).

It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance. There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter." D&C 131 6-8

Hi Orontes,

Would you mind clarifying? Is the belief that all spirit is matter found in the Book of Mormon, or is it only discussed in other LDS standard works?

M takes being as absolute and would therefore agree with Parmenides and reject the notion something can arise from nothing.Your question revolves around contingency and necessity. God is typically seen as necessary, as in cannot not be, by definition. His creations are contingent, as in their being is directly tied to God's creative act and could be otherwise. This is fundamental to creatio ex nihilo. The difficulty is such a rubric means the Creator is ultimately responsible for His creation. This is where the demons of the theodicy raise their ugly heads. M sees the core of the self as necessary being: something that has always existed:

He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things. Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be." D&C 93:28-29

Intelligence is the vernacular in M for this fundamental aspect of self that is particular, self aware and capable of expansion. This standard allows M to see moral action as ultimately amenable to the subject alone and thus God remains untainted by the evils of men.

So these types of things are pretty cut and dried in the BOM. Since we don't espouse to it, we don't see it the same of course. But I respect your views.

Is this concept that man has always existed in some form discussed in the Book of Mormon? (If it is, I missed it.) Or is this belief found only in other LDS scripture?

 

[Orontes]

Yes, I see what you're talking about. Basically M teaches that spiritual "stuff" is still "stuff" nonetheless but of a higher order and therefore unseen. We see it as "since it can't be seen or experienced by the senses that it is wholly spiritual"...ie...but I can see how on a subatomic level how all of reality as we know it could be considered "spiritual". So you believe that God Himself (the Father) is actually made up of atoms and molecules, but "vibrating" at a higher frequency and therefore invisible? Or is that not right either?

M believes that the Father is a Resurrected being the same as the Son. This resurrected state is referred to as: the joining of spirit and element: the two designates reflecting two basic orders of materiality. This is considered a superior type of being. What speed or vibration any atom, molecule etc. of a resurrected being operates at or whether that is the proper discourse is not mentioned.

I think we agree here. We also believe that God is eternal and has always existed and always will exist. He didn't have a beginning, He will not have an end....and He lives in the eternal "present"....meaning He transcends time. So He IS the First Cause of all that exists....but He Himself was not created.

The "method" of Him creating the physical realities are what the Zohar and Sephiroth are concerned with. That's why there is talk about the "veil of negative existence" and the "emanations". Kabbalists surmise that since God is so transcendent above physical matter and so "other" (alien) to physical existence, that He had to emanate from Himself lesser powers to do these things. These "powers" are the sepharoth which comprise the tree of life. ALways remaining in balance and fherefore that is why all the physical laws of nature and physical reality are always in balance. They reflect back on the invisible spiritual balancing of the "forces" of creation.

Mormon reference to God is equivocal: it can refer to a glorified personage or a state of being. As a state of being M would agree God is eternal and has always existed. Individuals can progress to participate in God via a transformative relationship of love or they can remove themselves, as in Jehovah's incarnation (kenosis). If you wanted to argue God is the First Cause (I'm going to stay with the Aristotelian vocabulary for the sake of the point) as in the efficient cause or final cause then I don't see any disagreement between that idea and M thought. I think there would be disagreement if this were taken to mean God is the material cause as materiality is taken to be necessarily always already there.

The Zohar and Sephiroth are not part of V. You are shifting esoteric systems on me. Kabbala does move in the very direction you note. That direction can be seen in Neo-Platonism. The Enneads use the exact same framework: particularly the essential otherness of the One. This also plays out in negative theology that informs Christian mysticism and Orthodox thought.

By "man" does the BOM means the souls of man? That they were "light and intelligence" and were in the beginning with God? M believes that souls of men were neither made or created? How is that?

The "man" reference does refer to the essential part of the self. Yes, man is considered co-eternal with God, as in always existing though not existing at the same level of Being. God is being perfected and part and parcel of the Divine activity is allowing others that same opportunity to progress. Progress is a moral exercise.

So you basically believe "Jehovah" is the Son. ie Jesus?

Yes.

Is there some reason by M says reincarnation isn't possible? I also remember how preexistence was a common understanding among the early church fathers. Origen being a main one. He also believed in reincarnation. He said "every soul enters this life either strengthened by it's past successes or weakened by it's failures". Of course, hundreds of years after he died he was declared a "heretic" and a belief in reincarnation was declared "anathema" by the Catholic CHurch. Before then, Origen was revered and considered a foremost theologian and orthodox.

I think there are a number a ways to answer and some of those answers depend on the type of reincarnation (R) being discussed. One obvious difficulty is multiple rebirths stands at odds with the canon: "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment..." Heb 9:27 There are also theoretical tensions. An R schema that includes animals and plants would then need to argue such are moral beings as each must be judged. This seems problematic as it is contrary to experience and strained textually as only men are recognized as morally responsible among the created order: "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil" Gen 3:22.

I understand your take with Origen, but I don't actually think Origen argued for reincarnation. I don't think he ever argued for a cyclical standard. Rather, I think his reference to pre-existence experience informing mortality is very similar to M positions. In the pre-existence the children of God were already moral beings and had to choose whether to follow the Lord or another way.

"And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell; And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them; And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever." Abr: 3: 24-26




The first estate refers to the pre-existence and the second estate is mortality. The base notion is: the was informs the is. This may include particular traits and penchants as well.

So in M there is a belief in a "forgetfulness" of our potential and where we came from?

Yes. There is a necessary veil, whereby men can choose freely which course to take: the path of light or another way.

Does "waking up" from this forgetfulness equal to resurrection like the gnostics taught?

No, knowledge or understanding is one thing, but resurrection is a separate physical phenomenon that all who enter mortality will experience. Resurrection is necessary for final glorification, but not sufficient. It is part of the earned standing of those who kept their first estate (mentioned above).

Yes, I hate that the mainstream church doesn't take that command literally and believe Jesus said what He meant. I do. I believe we have the potential to be "remade into the image of Christ".

I'm sure you know deification or theosis has always been a critical feature of Eastern Christianity. In my personal opinion, I think its relative loss in the West is due more to language than any other single factor. Latin and Greek are quite distinct languages. Latin has much more of a practical here and now feel to it. Whereas Greek lends itself toward the speculative and nuanced distinction. The difference between substantia and ousia is a simple example. This may be why in the Latin Christian West the focus turned to personal worthiness and indebtedness to the Savior while in the East the themes were the nature of Deity/Christ. In short, I don't think its arbitrary that Pelagianism was an issue in the West and just the opposite in the East while in the East the great Christological controversies raged with little occurring in the West.

By your phrase "capacity for deification" do you mean we can actually be equal with God? Or that we can partake of the divine nature and be Joint-heirs with Christ?

We become partakers of the Divine nature and Joint-heirs with Christ. M sees the cosmic order along the lines of a family. Deity is referred to as Heavenly Father and the family unit is considered a reflection of the Divine order. Like on the earth when a child matures their parents do not cease being parents. The same is the case with theosis. The Father remains distinct. There is no merger or erasure of self. Rather there is the possibility to have a perfect indwelling of love via the Spirit (which we have not discussed: this is distinct from the Holy Spirit or, in M vernacular, the Holy Ghost) with Deity. This relation perfected is glorification: becoming divine.

Quite the contrary. There aren't many people who I can discuss these things with who understand what the heck I'm talking about. I appreciate your patience.

Sure. I'm glad it wasn't boring you.

Yes, I have exegeted that passage carefully. It does say "INSIDE you all"...entos primary meaning was always "inside" of something or "within" something. It was only used 2 times in the NT and the other usage was in Matt 23:26 where Jesus is talking about cleaning the inside of the cup as opposed to the outside of the cup. This shows that it didn't mean "among" but INSIDE...as opposed to outside.

I believe He meant just what He said....that the kingdom of God was INSIDE those unbelieving Pharisees. What that means and it's implications are what we struggle with.

You are right about the number of times entos appears in the NT. It doesn't follow however that any one usage informs another. If you check a Greek lexicon you will note that entos can and does mean both "within" and "among" as standard meanings. From my understanding of Greek grammar, the preposition entos added to the pronoun, as I mentioned, does seem to move toward the other meaning given "you" (humon) is a personal possessive and genitive plural. Even so, what you should find interesting is Joseph Smith's commentary is not exegesis but a flat statement: X should be Y which means he is trumping the text. Now if Joseph Smith is a prophet that is telling. If not, then he can be ignored. I thought you would be interested.

If we stay with the standard reading where entos is within, one still needs to decide what that something is. What does it mean a kingdom is within? The noun is the key as that is what is being modified.

But Jesus didn't say that they potentially had the kingdom inside them. He said it was THERE.

I don't think you would be interested in my "interpretation" of what Jesus meant. But if you are just ask.

What do you think?

Thanks for the time spent answering these questions. I am learning alot I didn't know about how M thinks and believes and on what it is based. Surely this can't be a bad thing

I never mind discussions that aren't full of histrionics and agendas. I think its unfortunate so much of this forum is full of invective. I could show you the private posts I've gotten from others who have seen the posting in the UT forum and been ashamed at the behavior of those claiming to be the defenders of Christ. I think it's actually sad.

 

[skylark1]

Orontes,

If you found my questions to be offensive, they weren't intended to be. I was simply curious.

 

[Orontes]

Would you mind clarifying? Is the belief that all spirit is matter found in the Book of Mormon, or is it only discussed in other LDS standard works?

Hi Skylark,

The Book of Mormon is primarily a Christological work. There isn't anything on materiality in it.

Is this concept that man has always existed in some form discussed in the Book of Mormon? (If it is, I missed it.) Or is this belief found only in other LDS scripture?

This isn't in the Book of Mormon either. You didn't miss anything. It's in the other stuff.

If you found my questions to be offensive, they weren't intended to be. I was simply curious.

I don't think your question is offensive in the least. I couldn't respond to you earlier. Right after I replied to EchoPneuma I guess "Erwin" started some maintenance of the site so I couldn't (I imagine no one could) post anything. I hope this maintenance means the quoting quotes will work better (I have problems since the change) I didn't get to edit the post I had just finished even.

 

[skylark1]

Hi Skylark,

The Book of Mormon is primarily a Christological work. There isn't anything on materiality in it.



This isn't in the Book of Mormon either. You didn't miss anything. It's in the other stuff.



I don't think your question is offensive in the least. I couldn't respond to you earlier. Right after I replied to EchoPneuma I guess "Erwin" started some maintenance of the site so I couldn't (I imagine no one could) post anything. I hope this maintenance means the quoting quotes will work better (I have problems since the change) I didn't get to edit the post I had just finished even.

Thank you. I think that the D&C states that Sections 93 and 131 (that you posted quotes from) are believed by LDS to be revelations that were given to JS in 1833. Do you know if these beliefs were taught by LDS prior to 1833?


I'm sorry, I didn't realize that CF had been down and misinterpreted a comment in your other post.

 

[Orontes]

Thank you. I think that the D&C states that Sections 93 and 131 (that you posted quotes from) are believed by LDS to be revelations that were given to JS in 1833. Do you know if these beliefs were taught by LDS prior to 1833?

I don't know. I rather doubt it. The whole posture is markedly different from any standard theological position.

 

[Eteponge]

So you think God's mind changed on it? I don't. I still don't believe He wants us to attempt to contact the dead. They are in HIS realm and should be left in His care alone. He is perfectly capable of showing them whatever they need to know and guiding them wherever they need to be without our help. Be careful.....God doesn't like us to play "god".

Do we still circumcise the flesh? Do we still offer animal blood sacrifices in the Temple for the remission of our sins? Do we still obstain from eating shellfish and the huge list of dietary laws? Do we still adhere to the Old Jewish Law in all of it's over 600 rules and commands, which included those restrictions against contacting the dead, which was specifically for the Ancient Israelites in the land which God had brought them? (The Scripture even clearly states such). Saint Paul spoke out against the Judaizers who were intent in following the Old Law while accepting Jesus Christ, who set us free from the Old Law...

Jesus became the curse to uncurse us.

Deuteronomy 27:26 states, “Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all these commands that are written in God's Book of the Law.”

What that says is that everyone who transgresses any of the Ten Commandments is cursed. But Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree. Therefore, Jesus, by being crucified on the cross of wood, took upon Himself the status of “cursed” for mankind. He became cursed to bear the curse for us.

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Proclaiming himself free in dietary and sexual matters (1 Cor. 9:4-5), Paul is 'free from all' (1 Cor. 9:19), free from the psychic (soulful) law. Yet he stands in the pneumatic (spiritual) law (1 Cor. 9:21), which is the law of love. For this reason he refuses to assert his own freedom and authority, so that he may not offend the psychics (soulfuls) to whom he preaches the gospel (1 Cor. 9:18).

KJV Colossians 2:14 Describes Jesus, "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us."

RSV Rendering is, "Erasing the record that was against us, with its legal demands."

The Greek is, "exaleipho," meaning to, "wipe out, erase". (Liddell-Scott).

NIV Colossians 2:14 Having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

NIV Colossians 2:15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

Yes, they believed in them apparently. But there's no indication that they ever tried to contact them or engaged in any type of "medium" activities. Only Jesus could cross over because He was of both worlds.

Saint Padre Peo had several deceased persons appear to him and request for him to say prayers for them at mass. Several other Saints have visited people after their death, some raised the dead, and some Saints even cried out to other long dead Saints to appear to help them fight demons who were attacking them. At least in Roman Catholicism, this isn't uncommon among the Saints.

Saint Joan of Arc said she heard voices from a trio of Saints telling her to deliver France from the English.

Just be careful. I do believe there are still unclean spirits....they are the spirits of the "nephilim" who have no habitat because they are neither of earth or heaven since they are half fallen angel and half human.

I believe some of the "unclean spirits" are probably earth bound human spirits who lust after the pleasures of the flesh again and wish to possess human bodies to regain physical life.

So it's like a native "witch doctor" for lack of a better word? The problem I have with it is that "sorcery" is condemned in the bible and that seems like sorcery to me. And witchcraft is condemned as well....and that seems like a form of witchcraft. I don't know that much about it, but from what you've described that is what it sounds like to me. If it was OK for a Christian to be involved in these things then why is it condemned as sin?

It is not condemned as a sin, it was merely forbidden to the Ancient Israelites in the land which God had brought them, and the Scripture plainly states such. But then again, so was eating shellfish, wearing two types of clothing with the same thread, etc.

To quote from ReligiousTolerance.Org:

Biblical Condemnation of the Occult:

There are many Biblical passages that described some prohibited types of occultic activity by the ancient Israelites. These include Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 19:26-26; 19:31; 20:6; Deuteronomy 18:10-11; Isaiah 8:19 and Malachai 3:5. Of these, Deuteronomy 18 is perhaps the most important. They forbade the Israelites from engaging in human sacrifice and in eight specific practices which some have been regarded as occultic.

The 8 original Hebrew words:

yid'oni Making contact with spirits (not of God).
sho'el 'ov Making contact with the dead .
qosem q'samim Foretelling the future by using lots or a similar system.
m'onen Predicting the future by interpreting signs in nature.
m'nachesh Enchanting (perhaps related to nachash, a snake).
chover chavar Casting spells by magical knot tying.
m'khaseph evil sorcery; using spoken spells to harm other people.
doresh 'el hametim "One who asks the dead", probably via another method than sho'el 'ov

Regardless of this, something interesting... (Quoted from Wikipedia and ReligiousTolerance.Org)

***Divination***

In Genesis 44:5, Joseph's household manager refers to a silver drinking cup "...in which my lord drinketh and whereby indeed he divineth". Later, Joseph accuses his brothers of stealing the cup, saying "that such a man as I can certainly divine". These passages show that Joseph engaged in scrying. This is an ancient occultic method of divination in which a cup or other vessel is filled with water and gazed into.

***Urim And Thummim***

The Urim and Thummim were two objects mentioned in Numbers 27:21 and 1 Samuel 28:6 of the Hebrew Scriptures. They were apparently devices (perhaps in the form of flat stones) that the high priest consulted to determine the will of God. They might have worked something like a pair of dice.

Urim and Thummim typically translated as "lights and perfections" or "revelation and truth" - were a divination medium or process used by ancient Hebrews (usually Israelites) in revealing the will of God on a contested point of view or other problem.

According to the teachings of Judaism, a small parchment with God's holy name, the Tetragrammaton, inscribed on it was slipped into an opening under the Urim and Thummim on the high priest's breast plate, which caused the breastplate to "glow" and thereby "transmit messages" from God to the Children of Israel.

There is some evidence that Urim and Thummim were/was used as a lot that provided "yes" or "no" answers, depending upon whether the Urim or the Thummim came into play, as manipulated by a Hebrew oracle. There is also evidence that the medium was used as an ordeal to establish a person's guilt or innocence.

***Lots***

Lots -- pieces of wood or stone with markings -- were used to determine the will of God. They were similar to dice. See: Numbers 26:55; Proverbs 16:33 Proverbs 18:18.

Casting Lots: Even commentators critical of the occult have had to acknowledge the magickal dimension of biblical "casting of lots" -- Not a vote by ballot, the casting of lots was outwardly identical to sortilege practiced throughout the ancient world by Pagans who sought to know the will of their various gods.

More examples:

OLD TESTAMENT:

* In Genesis 30:37-39 Jacob used wooden rods to magickally produce spotted sheep, just by (their parents) looking at the rods -- a typical form of Middle Eastern magick in those days.

* See the Patriarch Joseph -- According to Gensis 44:2,5, the Patriarch Joseph had a special silver cup with which "he divineth". Divination was a well-used form of magick throughout the Middle East and indeed all over the world.

* Moses -- In Numbers 21:9, Moses uses a brass serpent to heal those bitten by serpents -- a practice "well known outside the bible as well as within it, namely, making an image of a pest or affliction and presenting the image to the deity who in turn, would banish the pest."

* Daniel, the prophet, was employed for many years in Babylon as the chief occultist to the king. He was supervisor "of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans and soothsayers". See Daniel 5:11.

* In 2 Kings 13:21, a corpse was revived to mortal life when it came in contact with the bones of the prophet Elisha.

* Jewish and Christian lore contains many references to occult incantations, amulets, charms, spells, exorcisms, etc.

NEW TESTAMENT:

* Paul's Magick Handkerchiefs: Perhaps one of the best examples of New Testament use of magickal healing was the apostle Paul's sending special handkerchiefs among the people to heal (Acts 19:12).

* Early Christians used "objects, rites, words and formulas charged with divine potency to force demons to yield, all in accordance with well-known contemporary rules of magick....they may have claimed this it was not magick, but it certainly looked like magick to others." (Ernest Cassirer, "An Essay on Man: An Introduction ot a Philosophy of Human Culture" 93)

* Jesus - In many of the miracles of Jesus, the techniques parallelled closely the magic practices of the ancient world -- using spittle to heal, changing water into wine, using foriegn language incantations, raising people from the dead, etc.

Odd that various Old Testament and New Testament figures engaged in what would technically be considered Occult activity that was forbidden in Jewish Law, yet they weren't struck down for it because God was considered the source of it.

 

[cromis]

Skylark1 writes:

Do you know if Joseph Smith learned German from Neibar? I'm not sure if he was studying Kabbalah and the German Bible with Neibar, if the study of one influenced the understanding of the other

I am sure that Joseph learned some German from Neibaur. However, I do not know how much actual discussion of the Kabbalah occured (no one does). I myself have at least a dozen (some quite old) Kabbalistic texts packed away some place, and I have read several of them, but this doesn't mean that Kabbalah is of significant interest to me, or that I discuss it frequently. More importantly, there isn't any real evidence to suggest that Neibaur read the Bible Kabbalistically - or that he would have read the Bible in such a way with Joseph Smith. This is why my arguments are such a problem for the Owens article. He is attempting to find these Kabbalistic constructs in Joseph's sermon where (in all likelihood) the constructs don't actually exist, or which have better alternate explanations.

A bit later in the King Follett Discourse, one of the note takers recorded these comments from Joseph Smith referring to the German Bible:

I know the text is true. I call upon all you Germans who know that it is true to say, Eye [sic]. (Loud shouts of 'Aye.')"

Certainly Joseph Smith was probably exposed to Kabbalistic ideas in his lifetime. But it seems less likely that these offered the kind of overt influnece on his doctrine that Owens is suggesting. I think that if we want to look for influences, we can find them elsewhere. And here, in particular, there doesn't seem to be any suggestion that Joseph was referring to the German text as a Kabbalistic text, but rather as a better translation of the Hebrew (which he had learned from Seixas, and which Neibaur also helped him study).

Ben

 

[EchoPneuma]

M believes that the Father is a Resurrected being the same as the Son. This resurrected state is referred to as: the joining of spirit and element: the two designates reflecting two basic orders of materiality.

If the Father needs be resurrected, then how is he the ever existant One? Are you saying that M believes at one time the Father was dead and needed to be resurrected? Wouldn't this contradict this statement you made..." As a state of being M would agree God is eternal and has always existed". How can God have always existed and yet need resurrection?

The Zohar and Sephiroth are not part of V. You are shifting esoteric systems on me.

Sorry bout that. Just going with the flow of thought...

Kabbala does move in the very direction you note. That direction can be seen in Neo-Platonism. This also plays out in negative theology that informs Christian mysticism and Orthodox thought.

Yes, I wonder if most Christians realize that Plato expounded on the trinity doctrine before the NT writers...and spoke of the "Logos"? God's truth is in many places.

The "man" reference does refer to the essential part of the self. Yes, man is considered co-eternal with God, as in always existing though not existing at the same level of Being

Meaning that the human souls are actual "sparks" of the divine like in gnostic thought? or are co-eternal with God in some other understanding?


.

God is being perfected and part and parcel of the Divine activity is allowing others that same opportunity to progress. .

Why would God need to be perfected? Who defines "perfect" if not God Himself? If God is being perfected, then who or what defines when He Himself attains perfection and how would He know He had attained it if He Himself did not define it?

Yes.

That's interesting. Some Christians see it that way too. I see Jesus ie. the "Word of God" throughout the OT as well manifesting Himself as the Angel of the Lord, Melchizedek, Captain of the Host (who appeared to Joshua) etc. Since the bible says that "no man has seen the Father"....then anytime God manisfested Himself in any form that could be seen in the OT it had to be Jesus in His preincarnate form.

I think there are a number a ways to answer and some of those answers depend on the type of reincarnation (R) being discussed. One obvious difficulty is multiple rebirths stands at odds with the canon: "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment..." Heb 9:27

But how do we know if the judgement might be that the soul has to return again in another body of flesh? The "man" died once, but since the soul is everlasting it returns again in another "man"....who will one day die too, his soul facing judgement etc. I don't feel like this verse nullifys the possibility of reincarnation. ALso given the fact that Solomon says "there is NOTHING new under the sun. Is there ANYTHING that can be said of it "look this is new?". If a soul was "new" when it was put into a body of a baby, then it could be said about it "look, this is NEW".....Solomon says that's not the case.

I'm not saying I believe in the transmigration of souls. I'm just leaving the possibility open that it MIGHT be true....especially since Jesus said that John the Baptist IS Elijah and the disciples asked Him if the man born blind was born blind because of HIS SINS or his parents sins. That questions alone shows that the disciples believed it was possible that the man was BORN blind because of sins in another life.

and this...

Hebrews 7:10
because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor

HUH? Anyway, these things make me keep my mind open.

There are also theoretical tensions. An R schema that includes animals and plants would then need to argue such are moral beings as each must be judged.

Gen 3:22.

Yes, anyone who went to the extreme and said that it includes inanimate objects or animals is getting their belief from some other place than the bible. Nothing in the bible to indicate that is even a possibility.

I understand your take with Origen, but I don't actually think Origen argued for reincarnation. I don't think he ever argued for a cyclical standard. Rather, I think his reference to pre-existence experience informing mortality is very similar to M positions. In the pre-existence the children of God were already moral beings and had to choose whether to follow the Lord or another way.

We will have to disagree here. I see Origen as believing in R and talking about it as standard belief. One of the reasons he was later called a heretic.

Yes. There is a necessary veil, whereby men can choose freely which course to take: the path of light or another way.

You teach a veil to keep men from understanding their pre-existence and gnostics say the veil was to make one forget their past reincarnations. Very similar.

No, knowledge or understanding is one thing, but resurrection is a separate physical phenomenon that all who enter mortality will experience. Resurrection is necessary for final glorification, but not sufficient. It is part of the earned standing of those who kept their first estate (mentioned above).

What of the scriptures that speak of one being resurrected NOW and of effecting their own resurrection? Like these....

Ephesians 5:14
for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why He (Jesus) said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."

Colossians 3:1
Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God.

I'm sure you know deification or theosis has always been a critical feature of Eastern Christianity. In my personal opinion, I (snip)...

Yeah, everyone was trying to figure out which part of the elephant they were feeling. I believe that God's purpose is to remake us into the image of Christ as the bible says and I DO believe we can perfect holiness as Paul commands. Look what Paul says to the Galatians....

Galatians 4:19
My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you...


What does it mean to have CHrist "formed in you"? that is the theological $64,000 question. You guys say one thing, we say another....yet who is right? I believe we all have parts of it.

We become partakers of the Divine nature and Joint-heirs with Christ.

See, that is EXACTLY what we believe too. We don't believe a person can become equal with God, but can partake of the divine nature and be a joint heir with Christ.

2 Peter 1:4
by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
Romans 8:17
and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.

M sees the cosmic order along the lines of a family. Deity is referred to as Heavenly Father and the family unit is considered a reflection of the Divine order.

Yes, I can see this idea in scripture....
Ephesians 3:15

14 For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,[a] 15 from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named

Like on the earth when a child matures their parents do not cease being parents. The same is the case with theosis. The Father remains distinct. There is no merger or erasure of self. Rather there is the possibility to have a perfect indwelling of love via the Spirit (which we have not discussed: this is distinct from the Holy Spirit or, in M vernacular, the Holy Ghost) with Deity. This relation perfected is glorification: becoming divine.

Perfected in love in other words? Since God IS love, then it would follow that if a person was perfected in love, then they were be a partaker of the divine nature and be divine to a degree...but never to the degree that they are equal with God Himself. Have a got that right?

You are right about the number of times entos appears in the NT. It doesn't follow however that any one usage informs another. If you check a Greek lexicon you will note that entos can and does mean both "within" and "among" as standard meanings. Fro

m my understanding of Greek grammar, the preposition entos added to the pronoun, as I mentioned, does seem to move toward the other meaning given "you" (humon) is a personal possessive and genitive plural.

Scripture must interpret scripture. Since Jesus is the only one who used that word then His usage must be taken. Since the usage in regards to the Pharisees could be vague, then we take the other time He used the same word to set the meaning. That time it is clear that He meant the word "entos" to mean INSIDE and not among. Hence, when He used it again with the Pharisees it must retain the same meaning or He would have used a different word. That the pronoun is plural doesn't mitigate it. He said the kingdom is "inside you all".

Even so, what you should find interesting is Joseph Smith's commentary is not exegesis but a flat statement: X should be Y which means he is trumping the text. Now if Joseph Smith is a prophet that is telling. If not, then he can be ignored..

I don't understand what you're saying here.

If we stay with the standard reading where entos is within, one still needs to decide what that something is. What does it mean a kingdom is within? The noun is the key as that is what is being modified.

That has been another $64,000 theological question.

What do you think?

I believe that the "kingdom" means the place where Jesus rules and reigns....for what else would a kingdom be but a place where a monarch reigns. How ever far his authority and dominion reaches would be considered his "kingdom". It may only encompass 10 people or may reach to 10 million people...whoever he rules and reigns over is his kingdom....be it 1 mile or 1 million miles.

BY Jesus saying that HIS kingdom was inside the hearts of those unbelieving Pharisees, I believe He meant that His kingdom was within the hearts of ALL men. That He was the ruler of the hearts of ALL men, but just like the Pharisees didn't know it and wouldn't acknowledge it, many other men don't either. It doesn't mean it's not there, it means they haven't woke up yet to the realization that it is there. That's why Jesus also told them that they hadn't yet entered into the kingdom even though it was inside them....and also why He told his followers to "seek FIRST the kingdom of God and His righteousness". In other words, seek WITHIN for the place in your soul that Jesus rules and reigns and then enter into that place and abide there.

At least that is my interpretation of it. Otherwise, I can't see how to reconcile it.

I never mind discussions that aren't full of histrionics and agendas. I think its unfortunate so much of this forum is full of invective.

Me too. I had to leave a debate on another thread for this very reason.

I could show you the private posts I've gotten from others who have seen the posting in the UT forum and been ashamed at the behavior of those claiming to be the defenders of Christ. I think it's actually sad.

If I was an unbeliever checking out this forum and saw all the insults, name calling, judging, unkindnesses, lack of respect, sniping and general rancor among those who claim the name of CHrist I wouldn't want anything to do with it or HIM. I would surmise that "CHristianity" and the things of CHrist are all about one upmanship and nonny nonny boo boo I'm right and you're wrong and you're so ignorant and I'm so spiritual and dueling scriptures..yada yada yada .... ad nauseum.

No one seems to EVER want to admit that the other guy just MIGHT have a point and just MIGHT see it differently than you, and just MIGHT also have a reason to believe the way he does.

We should be completely humble and gentle....and I'm not saying I'm perfect in this regard. I know that I use sarcasm too much sometimes. But I try to never insult, snipe, be disrespectful or not be willing to look at the other guys point of view...even if I disagree totally.

 

[EchoPneuma]

Do we still circumcise the flesh? Do we still offer animal blood sacrifices in the Temple for the remission of our sins? Do we still obstain from eating shellfish and the huge list of dietary laws? Do we still adhere to the Old Jewish Law in all of it's over 600 rules and commands, which included those restrictions against contacting the dead, which was specifically for the Ancient Israelites in the land which God had brought them? (The Scripture even clearly states such). Saint Paul spoke out against the Judaizers who were intent in following the Old Law while accepting Jesus Christ, who set us free from the Old Law...

I'm talking about this out of the NT.

Galatians 5:19-21
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders,[b] drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Jesus became the curse to uncurse us.

Deuteronomy 27:26 states, “Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all these commands that are written in God's Book of the Law.”

What that says is that everyone who transgresses any of the Ten Commandments is cursed. But Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree. Therefore, Jesus, by being crucified on the cross of wood, took upon Himself the status of “cursed” for mankind. He became cursed to bear the curse for us.

But this doesn't mean that we can then turn around and do those very things that were forbidden in the OT. Is it OK to murder now, OK to commit adultery, OK to lie, OK to bear false witness? NO, those things are still sins just like calling on the dead is still a sin. Where do you see that it is OK to do this under the new covenant?

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Yes, we no longer have to obey the Jewish sacrificial system of worship and the laws of the temple. BUt that has nothing to do with the morality laws.

Proclaiming himself free in dietary and sexual matters (1 Cor. 9:4-5), Paul is 'free from all' (1 Cor. 9:19), free from the psychic (soulful) law. Yet he stands in the pneumatic (spiritual) law (1 Cor. 9:21), which is the law of love. For this reason he refuses to assert his own freedom and authority, so that he may not offend the psychics (soulfuls) to whom he preaches the gospel (1 Cor. 9:18).

You are extrapolating here. By Paul saying he is free from the law doesn't mean he is free to just do anything he wants now. It means he is free to be holy unto God and walk by the Holy Spirit without a system of sacrifices and circumscision to be right with God.

KJV Colossians 2:14 Describes Jesus, "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us."

RSV Rendering is, "Erasing the record that was against us, with its legal demands."

The Greek is, "exaleipho," meaning to, "wipe out, erase". (Liddell-Scott).

NIV Colossians 2:14 Having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

NIV Colossians 2:15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

Yes, I understand all that. But it still doesn't make it OK to call on the dead. If it was OK Jesus would have advocated it or the apostles would have taught about it. The only example in the NT that I see of someone being able to tell the future and have "mediumship" was in Acts 16 and it's NOT a positive picture.....

16Once when we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a slave girl who had a spirit by which she predicted the future. She earned a great deal of money for her owners by fortune-telling. 17This girl followed Paul and the rest of us, shouting, "These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved." 18She kept this up for many days. Finally Paul became so troubled that he turned around and said to the spirit, "In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her!" At that moment the spirit left her.

Through this "spirit" she was telling the truth about who the apostles were. Yet, Paul casts this spirit out of her in the name of Jesus. This shows it WAS NOT a thing that was OK with Jesus.

Saint Padre Peo had several deceased persons appear to him and request for him to say prayers for them at mass. Several other Saints have visited people after their death, some raised the dead, and some Saints even cried out to other long dead Saints to appear to help them fight demons who were attacking them. At least in Roman Catholicism, this isn't uncommon among the Saints.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I'm saying it's not something we are supposed to be doing. It's dangerous.

Saint Joan of Arc said she heard voices from a trio of Saints telling her to deliver France from the English.

How do you know it wasn't GOd who was talking to her and she just misunderstood? She was also burned at the stake as a heretic.

I believe some of the "unclean spirits" are probably earth bound human spirits who lust after the pleasures of the flesh again and wish to possess human bodies to regain physical life.

I don't believe this is the case. Paul says "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord"...and if an unbeliever then they are dealt with accordingly. Do we see any instance in the bible of the spirit of a person left to wander in "limbo"?

It is not condemned as a sin, it was merely forbidden to the Ancient Israelites in the land which God had brought them, and the Scripture plainly states such. But then again, so was eating shellfish, wearing two types of clothing with the same thread, etc.

If it was "forbidden" then it was sin. Is it OK to lie, cheat and steal now?....since the "law" is done away with?

We will just have to disagree on this portion. I believe wholeheartedly in the spiritual gnosis and some gnostic docrines. I believe that Jesus will teach us intimately inside our own temples/bodies. I believe we are spiritual beings who need to seek out a spiritual relationship with God. BUt I can't see anywhere in the bible where that includes trying to contact spirits of the dead or be a "medium". I see "sorcery" (witchcraft) called a sin of the flesh and a woman who was acting as a spirit "medium" so she could tell the future, having the spirit cast out of her by an apostle. Nowhere do I see it advocated. So I have to reject it.

But you are free to ignore me of course....

NEW TESTAMENT:

* Paul's Magick Handkerchiefs: Perhaps one of the best examples of New Testament use of magickal healing was the apostle Paul's sending special handkerchiefs among the people to heal (Acts 19:12).

There were many things the apostles did that others couldn't do. That passage says that God did SPECIAL miracles by the hand of Paul It was the "signs" that would follow them to show they were apostles of the true Messiah (since there were many in those days who claimed to be Messiah). That doesn't mean it was sorcery or magic. It was just the power of God to heal flowing through Paul.

* Early Christians used "objects, rites, words and formulas charged with divine potency to force demons to yield, all in accordance with well-known contemporary rules of magick....they may have claimed this it was not magick, but it certainly looked like magick to others." (Ernest Cassirer, "An Essay on Man: An Introduction ot a Philosophy of Human Culture" 93)

May I have an example from the New Testament?

* Jesus - In many of the miracles of Jesus, the techniques parallelled closely the magic practices of the ancient world -- using spittle to heal, changing water into wine, using foriegn language incantations, raising people from the dead, etc.

He also walked on water and raised the dead. Are we to assume we can do that too? When did Jesus use "foreign language incantations"? He worked MIRACLES to fulfill the OT scriptures, but that doesn't equate to saying it's OK to contact the dead.

Odd that various Old Testament and New Testament figures engaged in what would technically be considered Occult activity that was forbidden in Jewish Law, yet they weren't struck down for it because God was considered the source of it.

God SPECIFICALLY said to not contact the dead on behalf of the living. He said to come near to HIM and consult of HIM.

Don't you believe God is capable of taking care of the spirits of the dead and sending them where they are supposed to go? Why would you want to dabble in things that could be deceptive and dangerous?

 

[Eteponge]

EchoPneuma: Simply put, I disagree with your interpretation on the matter, and I feel I can back up my side just as easily as you can your own. You are the one calling it a sin, when the Bible says no such thing anywhere. It merely forbade the Israelites from practicing it, and it specifically states that it was in effect in the land which God has brought them. Gentiles who converted to Judaism had a seperate set of Laws to follow. The Old Law had over 600 Laws. Do you follow them all, or are you a hypocrite? Galatians and Collosians and Romans are clear that the binding old law was done away with, you can scream otherwise until you are blue in the face but it changes nothing. What else was forbidden (which you equate with being a sin)? Eating shellfish, wearing two types of the same thread, eating pork, etc. Eat bacon,and you're sinning EchoPneuma, accourding to the Old Law, so watch out and don't eat bacon or it's a sin! Learn a little something called "context". How come eating pork and shellfish was "forbidden" and thus a "sin" (in your interpretation) and now "not what goes into you defiles you, but what comes out of you"? What about "eye for an eye" turning into "turn the other cheek"? Follow the Old Law and become a Judaizer (Which Paul said were accursed because they wished to keep the Old Law and still be Christian.)

More on the Old Law...

http://www.gnosis.org/library/flora.htm - Ptolemy's Letter to Flora (Valentinian)

First, you must learn that the entire Law contained in the Pentateuch of Moses was not ordained by one legislator - I mean, not by God alone, some commandments are Moses', and some were given by other men. The words of the Savior teach us this triple division. The first part must be attributed to God alone, and his legislation; the second to Moses - not in the sense that God legislates through him, but in the sense that Moses gave some legislation under the influence of his own ideas; and the third to the elders of the people, who seem to have ordained some commandments of their own at the beginning. You will now learn how the truth of this theory is proved by the words of the Savior.

The Elders of Israel had a hand in making the Old Law (which indicates some laws didn't even come from God, such as Moses' law of divorce), aside from the Ten Commandments the rest was thrown away in the New Testament, and other parts become Symbolic.

As for the New Testament verse, relying upon a fallible english translation of what you call "sorcery" is meaningless to me unless you post the *Original Greek Word* along with it's true meaning. I already referanced the original words in the Hebrew and they were *very different* in meaning than the english translations that are normally used. Regardless, most Mediums were *born* with the Gift, or had a Near Death Experience or some significant spiritual event in their lives that unearthed it. How the hell is that "sorcery"? In the Old Testament, the words used for "sorcery" were talking about enchanting snakes and passing through the fire and harmful black magic (against a person), etc. It had nothing to do with contracting the dead.

Also, there was an Unclean Spirit *Possessing* the Fortune Teller woman, true, but what does that have to do with Ghosts existing?

Saint Joan of Ark was *very clear* that she was speaking with a trio of Saints. She was burned at the stake as a heretic, true, but she was later canonized as a Saint.

Saint Padre Pio spoke with several different deceased spirits, who requested him pray for them at mass. You cannot argue against that.

To quote an online source (a poster on BeliefNet):

At death, man becomes a rephaim, i.e., "ghost," "shade," or "disembodied spirit," according to Job 26:5; Ps.88:10; Prov.2:18; 9:18, 21:16; Isa.14:9; 26:14, 19. Instead of describing man as passing into nonexistance, the Old Testament states that man becomes a disembodied spirit. The usage of the word "rephaim" irrefutably establishes this truth. Langenscheidt's Hebrew-English Dictionary to the Old Testament (p.324) defines refaim as referring to the "departed spirits, shades." Brown Driver and Briggs (p.952) define rephaim as "shades, ghosts...name of dead in Sheol."

It is a Hebrew fact that "rephaim" (ghost) means a disembodied spirit.

So there are your wandering spirits. Don't like it? Snip those parts out of your Bible. Also, 1st & 2nd Peter mention Jesus Christ preaching unto the dead.

In addition:

The deceased Moses appeared to Jesus Christ on the mountain of transfiguration and the Apostles witnessed it.

The Apostles seeing Jesus Christ walking on the water, and they exclaimed, "It is a ghost!", which proves the Apostles believed in a Soul.

Jesus Christ after His Resurrection stated, "Touch me and see, for a Ghost hath not flesh and bones as you see I have."

Indicating that Ghosts without flesh and bones do exist, thus proving a Soul.

Samuel's Ghost appearing to Saul, and the Scripture being very clear that it was actually Samuel himself and not a demon. Samuel's Ghost even prophecised Saul's destruction.

Hebrew Law warns against contacting the dead. Notice it does not call the dead "asleep" or "demons", but actual contact of the actual dead. This is reinforced by Samuel's appearance.

 

[Eteponge]

*Sigh* Nevermind. It's really pointless to debate this. I do not accept the Old Testament & New Testament as being perfect infallible complete compositions without containing human error or scribal error regardless. I feel the biases and fears of the authors apart from God (as well as post-writing insertions by later scribes) could attribute to banning certain practices out of fear and ignorance. We do not have the autographs of the original writings, and there are many scholars who speculate they were not even written by the Apostles and Prophets of whom they are ascribed, being second handed at best. Arguments go both ways, so it's really moot to argue.

On a side note, I don't generally contact the dead or generally have anything to do with contacting deceased spirits. I just find that field very interesting.

 

[LittleNipper]

*Sigh* Nevermind. It's really pointless to debate this. I do not accept the Old Testament & New Testament as being perfect infallible complete compositions without containing human error or scribal error regardless. I feel the biases and fears of the authors apart from God (as well as post-writing insertions by later scribes) could attribute to banning certain practices out of fear and ignorance. We do not have the autographs of the original writings, and there are many scholars who speculate they were not even written by the Apostles and Prophets of whom they are ascribed, being second handed at best. Arguments go both ways, so it's really moot to argue.

On a side note, I don't generally contact the dead or generally have anything to do with contacting deceased spirits. I just find that field very interesting.

I have no problem with the Old Testament because the oldest Hebrew copies of the Old Testament go back BEFORE the time of Christ. Christ HIMSELF establishes their validity. As for the New Testament. We have a gospel or two that existed to within 35 years of Jesus. There is more to substantiate the Bible then there is to back Egyptian, Greek and Roman history combined. You believe what you will; however, I can fin no fault with anything the Bible has to say.

 

[EchoPneuma]

*Sigh* Nevermind. It's really pointless to debate this. I do not accept the Old Testament & New Testament as being perfect infallible complete compositions without containing human error or scribal error regardless. I feel the biases and fears of the authors apart from God (as well as post-writing insertions by later scribes) could attribute to banning certain practices out of fear and ignorance. We do not have the autographs of the original writings, and there are many scholars who speculate they were not even written by the Apostles and Prophets of whom they are ascribed, being second handed at best. Arguments go both ways, so it's really moot to argue.

On a side note, I don't generally contact the dead or generally have anything to do with contacting deceased spirits. I just find that field very interesting.

OK, then we won't debate it. But this IS a DEBATE forum and I assumed that was why you were here. If I was wrong I'm sorry.

You of course are free to practice whatever you wish. My word to you is.... just "be careful".

Blessings..
EP

 

[Orontes]

If the Father needs be resurrected, then how is he the ever existant One? Are you saying that M believes at one time the Father was dead and needed to be resurrected? Wouldn't this contradict this statement you made..." As a state of being M would agree God is eternal and has always existed". How can God have always existed and yet need resurrection?

Recall I said in M God can refer to a glorified personage (a being) or a state of being (as in a way of being). God as a state of being (in M vernacular this is often referred to as the Godhead or Church or the Firstborn) is eternal, everlasting etc. God as a being, by the particular/personal designate, can have history. The class is distinct from participants in it. Thus the Son could experience mortality (including death) and reassume Divine status. There is nothing in the M canon that explicitly states the Father's history, but given He also is a Resurrected being (which M asserts) then it follows He also experienced mortality. M does not believe the mortal experience is arbitrary, but rather a necessary process whereby one can assume Divinity. This would apply to all so ascribed.

Yes, I wonder if most Christians realize that Plato expounded on the trinity doctrine before the NT writers...and spoke of the "Logos"? God's truth is in many places.

I think you meant Plotinus and Neo-platonic influence on what became the Trinity is fairly obvious.

Me: The "man" reference does refer to the essential part of the self. Yes, man is considered co-eternal with God, as in always existing though not existing at the same level of Being

Meaning that the human souls are actual "sparks" of the divine like in gnostic thought? or are co-eternal with God in some other understanding?

Co-eternal as in necessary being and tied to the Divine as in M does not recognize any fundamental ontic divide between God and man.

Me: God is being perfected and part and parcel of the Divine activity is allowing others that same opportunity to progress.

Why would God need to be perfected? Who defines "perfect" if not God Himself? If God is being perfected, then who or what defines when He Himself attains perfection and how would He know He had attained it if He Himself did not define it?

I was using "being" as a noun, not a verb.

Me: I think there are a number a ways to answer and some of those answers depend on the type of reincarnation (R) being discussed. One obvious difficulty is multiple rebirths stands at odds with the canon: "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment..." Heb 9:27

But how do we know if the judgement might be that the soul has to return again in another body of flesh? The "man" died once, but since the soul is everlasting it returns again in another "man"....who will one day die too, his soul facing judgement etc. I don't feel like this verse nullifys the possibility of reincarnation. ALso given the fact that Solomon says "there is NOTHING new under the sun. Is there ANYTHING that can be said of it "look this is new?". If a soul was "new" when it was put into a body of a baby, then it could be said about it "look, this is NEW".....Solomon says that's not the case.

I'm not saying I believe in the transmigration of souls. I'm just leaving the possibility open that it MIGHT be true....especially since Jesus said that John the Baptist IS Elijah and the disciples asked Him if the man born blind was born blind because of HIS SINS or his parents sins. That questions alone shows that the disciples believed it was possible that the man was BORN blind because of sins in another life.

and this...

Hebrews 7:10
because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor

HUH? Anyway, these things make me keep my mind open.

If Hebrews is to be believed, then death cannot be to repeated as it is a one time event.
I don't believe Solomon's statement is a statement on being, but the vanity of men. If it were a statement on being then he was wrong as my computer is a new thing under the sun. I don't think Hebrew 7:10 is saying Levi was literally inside Abraham either, rather the focus is on the Priesthood. I believe the reference to the possible sin of the blind fellow reinforces the idea of a Pre-existence. It does not suggest any cyclical pattern.

We will have to disagree here. I see Origen as believing in R and talking about it as standard belief. One of the reasons he was later called a heretic.

We disagree. I can't recall anywhere in Origen's writings where he argues for a cyclical pattern of life. Rather, there was a pre-mortal past that informs the present.

Me: No, knowledge or understanding is one thing, but resurrection is a separate physical phenomenon that all who enter mortality will experience. Resurrection is necessary for final glorification, but not sufficient. It is part of the earned standing of those who kept their first estate (mentioned above).

What of the scriptures that speak of one being resurrected NOW and of effecting their own resurrection? Like these....

Ephesians 5:14
for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why He (Jesus) said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."

Colossians 3:1
Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God.

Conceptually, resurrection presupposes death. A living being, cannot while living, be resurrected. Regarding the above scriptures: baptism is considered a symbolic death, as one life is abandoned in the hope of another, both verses suggest that understanding to me.

See, that is EXACTLY what we believe too. We don't believe a person can become equal with God, but can partake of the divine nature and be a joint heir with Christ.

As I mentioned, M does not believe the devotee is absorbed into God: Deity retains His distinct personhood, but M does affirm the goal or central purpose of man is Divinity. To be an heir is to inherit, thus to be gods.

Perfected in love in other words? Since God IS love, then it would follow that if a person was perfected in love, then they were be a partaker of the divine nature and be divine to a degree...but never to the degree that they are equal with God Himself. Have a got that right?

Being perfected does include being perfected in love as love is a moral category. The Father retains His standing as any father does to his child. Our God is our God forever.

Scripture must interpret scripture. Since Jesus is the only one who used that word then His usage must be taken. Since the usage in regards to the Pharisees could be vague, then we take the other time He used the same word to set the meaning. That time it is clear that He meant the word "entos" to mean INSIDE and not among. Hence, when He used it again with the Pharisees it must retain the same meaning or He would have used a different word. That the pronoun is plural doesn't mitigate it. He said the kingdom is "inside you all".

The Gospels were not written by Jesus. The Gospels we have are not originals. The Gospels were written by different men with different foci. I think it's a mistake to assume one usage implies another usage is the same.

Me: Even so, what you should find interesting is Joseph Smith's commentary is not exegesis but a flat statement: X should be Y which means he is trumping the text. Now if Joseph Smith is a prophet that is telling. If not, then he can be ignored..

I don't understand what you're saying here.

Sorry. I was pointing out a critical difference between M and V (or any Gnostic stance). Gnostic writings follow a general pattern: the gnosis being given is traced back to X who was a disciple of Apostle Y who received the esoteric understanding during the Forty Day Ministry of the Resurrected Christ. M makes direct appeal to a living prophet with full apostolic authority given by the Heavens. In short, in M a living Apostle trumps a dead one.

I believe that the "kingdom" means the place where Jesus rules and reigns....for what else would a kingdom be but a place where a monarch reigns. How ever far his authority and dominion reaches would be considered his "kingdom". It may only encompass 10 people or may reach to 10 million people...whoever he rules and reigns over is his kingdom....be it 1 mile or 1 million miles.

BY Jesus saying that HIS kingdom was inside the hearts of those unbelieving Pharisees, I believe He meant that His kingdom was within the hearts of ALL men. That He was the ruler of the hearts of ALL men, but just like the Pharisees didn't know it and wouldn't acknowledge it, many other men don't either. It doesn't mean it's not there, it means they haven't woke up yet to the realization that it is there. That's why Jesus also told them that they hadn't yet entered into the kingdom even though it was inside them....and also why He told his followers to "seek FIRST the kingdom of God and His righteousness". In other words, seek WITHIN for the place in your soul that Jesus rules and reigns and then enter into that place and abide there.

At least that is my interpretation of it. Otherwise, I can't see how to reconcile it.

That's interesting. There seems to be a tension: you stated the kingdom is within unbelieving Pharisees and also recongized they hadn't yet entered it. How can something be in you if you haven't yet entered it?

If I was an unbeliever checking out this forum and saw all the insults, name calling, judging, unkindnesses, lack of respect, sniping and general rancor among those who claim the name of CHrist I wouldn't want anything to do with it or HIM.

Quite.

We seem to be wandering. Is the focus still M/V contrast or something else? If you are just asking me questions that is fine, but maybe we could narrow it to a couple at a time as these long posts eat a lot of time in replying. What do you think?

 

[Eteponge]

I have no problem with the Old Testament because the oldest Hebrew copies of the Old Testament go back BEFORE the time of Christ. Christ HIMSELF establishes their validity. As for the New Testament. We have a gospel or two that existed to within 35 years of Jesus. There is more to substantiate the Bible then there is to back Egyptian, Greek and Roman history combined. You believe what you will; however, I can fin no fault with anything the Bible has to say.

Jesus Christ seems to take a more Symbolic Approtch to the Hebrew Scriptures (Temple is Within, Circumcision is Spiritual, Greatest Commandment is Love, Etc), so does Saint Paul. Some Old Laws were canceled out with New Laws "Eye for an Eye" was changed to "Turn the Other Cheek", Etc. Jesus Christ and Paul mention "completing" the Hebrew Scriptures and "doing away" with the Old Law (Except the Ten Commandments), causing much of the Old Law to be done away with under the New Covenant and some portions revised and others turned Symbolic. Jesus made indication that some Laws were from Moses and Other Men apart from God, I.E. the whole of the Old Law was not from God alone. Nevertheless, the Old Testament points to Jesus Christ. Many Christians ignore most of the Old Testament though, except for some well known Old Testament Stories, and instead focus on the New Testament.

As for preservation, there are over a dozen missing books mentioned within the Old Testament, and quite a few disputed passages and authorships among Scholars. I've heard that *some* archeological evidence suggests that some portions of the Old Testament did not happen as it said it did, but I don't recall which. Early Christians such as Justin Maryter claimed that the Jews removed passages from Old Testament Scripture that prophecised of Jesus Christ, and cited several examples. The Dead Sea scrolls are an excellent preservation of a specific line of preserved Old Testament texts, but I hear there are other lines (traditions) of preservation that have the Old Testament Scriptures vary considerably from the other line (tradition).

 

[Eteponge]

OK, then we won't debate it. But this IS a DEBATE forum and I assumed that was why you were here. If I was wrong I'm sorry.

You of course are free to practice whatever you wish. My word to you is.... just "be careful".

Blessings..
EP

This is indeed a debate forum, but when it's obvious that the debate will just go back and forth without resolution, I do not wish to continue it further. I seek fruitful debate, not endless debate.

I will certainly take the advice of "being careful" though. And God Bless.

 

[EchoPneuma]

Orontes,
I agree that the posts have escalated too big. You've answered my questions clearly and succinctly and have helped me understand much about what M believes. I thank you....

As for your question thus:

"That's interesting. There seems to be a tension: you stated the kingdom is within unbelieving Pharisees and also recongized they hadn't yet entered it. How can something be in you if you haven't yet entered it?"

A good question. Jesus said both. He told them the kingdom was within them and yet also told them they had not yet entered in. I believe this means that even though they had the kingdom "planted" inside their own hearts, they had never entered into that place inside themselves where the Lord was present and reigning. Jesus was "knocking on the door", but they hadn't yet entered through the "narrow gate". It's an inner spiritual journey that they were unwilling to take because they were too focused on the carnal physical elements of the world.

Each man must make that same inner spiritual journey to the kingdom that is within them, entering through the narrow gate, and opening the door to Jesus who is knocking. When a person does this they become "God conscious", and they realize that it is Jesus who has been there all along. When they embrace Him and believe His testimony in their heart, thereby repenting and walking in His steps.....they enter into the kingdom that is inside them...because they enter into the place in their spirit where Jesus is truly Lord and Master.

That's what I believe.