No, not really. As I said the Lord rarely speaks to the church. I don't think the apostles are going to try to add to God's word. The scriptures say what they say. It is not the job of apostles to change that or to interpret every verse for us. If they prayed about the subject, and received no answer, no response is warranted.
Well, we can agree the Lord rarely speaks to contemporary churches. I do submit Jesus promised to speak to and through His "disciples indeed" (John 8:31 KJV, John 14:16, 17, 26, Matthew 28:19), and Paul's disciple Ananias was a great example. But, there's no direct Biblical record that Ananias was a priest. All knowledge in His time and in His way. It's hard for me to accept your words, "The scriptures say what they say." Indeed, Scriptures are where we start, and John 14:26 KJV picks up from there.
No, I'm sure not all LDS interpret the scriptures the same. I certainly do not follow all the interpretations which have been offered by other LDS. I am the first to admit that.
2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
I have just as much right to my interpretation as they do, unless the Lord tells us that only a certain interpretation is correct. I believe the Lord hides things in His word for His own specific purposes - that He may fulfill His promises to His chosen.
How does "the Lord (tell) us that only a certain interpretation is correct"? John 14:16, 17, 26. Jesus' sheep hear His voice. Indeed, there are things hidden in His word, and Jesus touched on this in Matthew 13:10 KJV, Matthew 13:11 KJV speaking exclusively to His disciples. I get the impression many are called, few were chosen. Jesus chooses His disciples and His Father presents them for such purpose.
Perhaps no law had yet been given about murder. We know little about Adam's day. I do know he was given the covenant of the Sabbath and of works. However, it doesn't seem to me that Cain got off scot-free as you say. Do you know what "the mark" placed upon him was?
I suggest God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. God's laws, although written in the hearts of those like Noah before Mosaic Law, evolved into written form in the Books of Moses, most particularly. Please consider the Gentiles per Paul in Romans 2:14, 15. As far as the mark of Cain... sure, I know what the mark of Cain was. Surprisingly simple and unsophisticated.
I don't know that one can "objectively" come to that conclusion. My belief is based upon personal subjective knowledge and experience. "Subjective knowledge" being the scriptures. They are subjectively verified through practice and experience rather than objectively verifiable like a scientific experiment.
I'm merely pointing out that Satan does gain power over people and tries to mislead followers of the truth, so they must be mindful of this truth.
I appreciate your sincere testimony, Rev. I'm under the impression anyone who can perform genetic healing miracles of heritable afflictions, as not seen since those days, is of Divine origin. God the Creator of DNA, Jesus the restorer of DNA. Please consider John 9:1, 2, 3, 4, heritable blindness. Please consider Acts 3:1, 2, heritable palsy. Both cases were heritable afflictions. The woman with an issue of blood had heritable hemophilia, and was bleeding to death achieving her first menstrual cycle at the age of twelve. I could go on... but, there's no record of any bones healed. Even leprosy, caused by mycobacterium leprae... one is genetically predisposed as learned recently in the medical community around 2010 as I recall. Dapsone is the typical antibiotic, but those healed by that Rx can certainly get infected again.
On a second note, irrefutably 'knowing' Jesus would be at least as well as His disciples knew Him. I'd take that as an acceptable example of objectively knowing who Jesus was. And, we're back to John 8:31 KJV, John 8:32 KJV with John 8:38 KJV and John 8:40 KJV being the two testimonies of these two witnesses (John 8:18 KJV) to Jesus divine Paternity (John 8:12 KJV). Jesus paternity was challenged by those non-Israelite (John 8:33 KJV) impostor Jews (Revelation 2:9, 3:9) in John 8:13, 19, 25, even inherently in John 8:41 KJV among other places.
Yes, I do. I believe all followers were put under covenant in Christ through baptism, and were able to receive the priesthood through the apostles and seventy.
So, Paul's disciple Ananias was a priest? Were all disciples priests? Are all priests disciples, then? Since you mention baptism, I'll touch a bit on that hotly debated notion, momentarily.
Our Lord said He would go away and "not speak much," but promised another comforter to come and give guidance. This held true for about 1800 years, and still really holds true today.
Jesus was speaking to His disciples regarding His endeavor preparing for His crucifixion. Indeed Jesus spoke of the comforter in John 14:16, 17, 26, and He was speaking again exclusively to His disciples. At the risk of quenching the Sprit, I get the impression the comforter engages disciples. Who then is a disciple? That takes us back to John 8:12-47 with particular emphasis on John 8:30 KJV, John 8:31 KJV, John 8:32 KJV.
Well, let me offer my witness of the testimony of John 8:38 - Jesus is harkening back to the seed of the serpent as being their father from Gen 3:15, and not specifically Cain as you are probably thinking. But more importantly Jesus is referring to His mission as our Cornerstone and Revelator of the Father, whom He alone is able to account, and whom He follows in doing everything likewise - even in laying down his life I witness & publishing His name YHWH, Behold the Hand, Behold the Nail.
Well, I have to give you a lot of credit, Rev! That a pretty good response in my humble opinion. I was hoping to hear more along the lines of what Jesus saw with His father in John 8:38 KJV being Jesus' testimony as an eye witness to an event. Do you think Jesus was the tree of life in the Garden, then?
Perhaps. Not everything in the scriptures is apparent to man. The LDS church does not claim to presently reveal all things.
Agreed certainly that everything is the scriptures is not apparent to man. I think John 14:16, 17, 26 suggests some see more than others as Jesus alluded to in Matthew 13:10, 11 speaking exclusively to His disciples. Were His disciples, priests? Where are all the disciples, today (Matthew 28:19)?
Yes, I am sure. The LDS church believes the Gentiles, as being sons of Japheth, are grafted into the branches of Israel when they accept Christ and follow Him. However, I personally believe that Ephraim was scattered amongst the Gentiles, and that their seed have become mixed so that some Gentiles are literally of the house of Ephraim. I believe this came about when the Teutons who were originally from the East moved into Europe and later conquered the western Roman Empire: the Goths, the Franks, the Saxons, the Bergundians, etc. It seems these people may have come from Parthia when it fell to the Persians. Notably Josephus says the "lost" ten tribes were still in the area of Parthia "beyond the Euphrates" and couldn't be numbered for their multitude.
I'm quite inspired to hear this. I navigated Ephraim's scenario a while back, quite a fascinating journey, indeed. Wasn't Herod an ethnic Gentile? I suspect he was.
Not really, because the right of priesthood generally followed the right of the firstborn along genealogical lines. Judah was the law giver, so Jesus arose from that line. As Hebrews tries to point out, that line generally had nothing concerning priesthood, as I believe it got bifurcated after the time of Moses, and the High Priesthood was lost.
Can females be priests? I'm of the pretty firm opinion Judah's daughter-in-law Tamar was a Levite priestess. She would have been about the age of Judah's Canaanite sons, and she evidently wasn't from the area where Judah hooked up with a Canaanite wife considering Genesis 38:1, 2, and Genesis 38:11 KJV (Tamar "went and dwelt"). Appreciating the notion Judah was a lawgiver, then please consider Leviticus 21:9 KJV. Where did that law come from? Judah's case with Tamar is the only Biblical record of a female being threatened by fire as Judah suggested in Genesis 38:24 KJV. Consequently, I suggest Tamar was most likely a daughter of Judah's brother Levi. In that case, their eldest twin son Pharez would have received priesthood status as well as lawgiver status. And, Pharez is found in the generations of Jesus (Matthew 1:1, 2, 3; Luke 3:33). I suggest Mary was the second Tamar, btw.
I don't see a key of knowledge in a genealogical line there Kayaker.
I believe the key of knowledge referred to by Jahoshua was right interpretation of the law. The Jews had formed their own interpretation of the law in midrashes, Kabbalah, etc, and had missed its correct spiritual interpretation that He was revealing. This key of knowledge is reflected in the hearts of the disciples burning as the Son of God opened the scriptures to them.
Knowledge certainly has it's way of impacting our hearts. With much regard for the twisted rendering of the Law you mention, is there a specific Mosaic Law that comes to mind? I've asked the question several times elsewhere: Was Judah's marriage to a Canaanitess (Genesis 38:2; 1Chronicles 2:3) contrary to Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, affirmed by Ezra 9:1, 2, 7 some 1,400 years later? Then, didn't the lawgiver Judah, prophesied progenitor of Messiah (Isaiah 65:9 KJV), then trespass the Law?
Noah sanctioned procreation among Japhethite/Gentiles and Shemite/Semites in Genesis 9:27 KJV. But, Noah separated the Canaanites in the land of Canaan away from the Gentiles and Shemites. No hanky panky with the Canaanites. Please consider Abraham's infamous quest for a wife for Isaac (Genesis 24:3 KJV), and Isaac's and Rebekah's dire concerns for a wife for Jacob (Genesis 27:46 KJV, Genesis 28:1, 2, 3, 4). How could Judah NOT know there was to be no hanky panky with a Canaanite? Can you imagine then Judah's Shelanite descendants (Numbers 26:20) had a bone to pick with Jesus, a descendant of Judah and his daughter-in-law, Tamar? indeed! Listen to their bold proclamation in John 8:33 KJV. Were those Shelanites, Israelites? Were they ancestrally authentic Jews? Was Judah's Canaanite father-in-law Shuah (Genesis 38:2 KJV), son of Abraham's wife Keturah (v. 2 in Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4) a Hebrew, then?
Yep, there were most definitely some legal issues going on! The above bears reflection on Paul's mention in Romans 9:6, 7, 8, even Revelation 2:9, 3:9. But, like I said, Mary's ancestry, likely scrubbed from the records, is really quite secondary to Jesus' and His Father's two testimonies to His divinity (John 8:18, John 8:38 KJV, John 8:40 KJV). And, Jesus' divine healing miracles speaks volumes, alone.
I have briefly offered my "revelation" of those passages, and will be happy to further discuss them, but perhaps we need to do so elsewhere so as not to hijack PJs thread further.
I appreciate your contribution, Rev. And, as I recall, it was your mention of my position being sorta contrary to 'church', and rightfully so in a traditional sense. But, on that notion of baptism you mentioned. I know such is of paramount importance to LDS/Mormons. I though I'd toss a little out, speaking of churches, that you might find my next post less appreciated.
kayaker
