Significant Questions of Belief

[_Gazelam]

Did he state, "As the days of Noah were thought to be?

[_Jersey Girl]

Did he state, "As the days of Noah were thought to be?

No, what difference does that make if the story was ancient allegory?

[_Gazelam]

Were Paul and Peter speaking of allegory as well?

Heb. 11: 7
7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

1 Pet. 3: 20
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

2 Pet. 2: 5
5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

[_Jersey Girl]

Were Paul and Peter speaking of allegory as well?

Heb. 11: 7
7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

1 Pet. 3: 20
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

2 Pet. 2: 5
5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

You didn't answer my question. As to the above, what there tells you they were NOT referring to allegory? See? I asked the same question again...was it too hard the first time around?

;-P

[_Gazelam]

At the moment, I cannot prove they were not speaking regarding allegory. I'll simply have to rely on common sense.

If you want to open up that can of worms, I'm sure you can apply the same trian of thought to numerous other statements all over the scriptures.

[_Jersey Girl]

At the moment, I cannot prove they were not speaking regarding allegory. I'll simply have to rely on common sense.

If you want to open up that can of worms, I'm sure you can apply the same trian of thought to numerous other statements all over the scriptures.

Why do you think it's opening a can of worms? I think I could apply the same train of thought to most of the parables of Christ. Don't you?

Okay, I'll get back to scrapbooking and leave you alone.

Jersey

(don't count on it, bud ;-)

[_huckelberry]

For Gaz, a couple of observations. First Jesus makes a comparison of the days of Noah to the future. Doing that does not requre that the events of Noah actually happened. All it means is that the story of Noah presents an image which is usefull for communication. There is a further consideration which may sound strange but is very important to my mind. Is there any reason I should think that Jesus actually knew one way or the other whether the flood happened or not. He had no access to the scientific data collected in the last few centuries which indicate that the flood did not happen. (I might allow such evidence may not be absolutely final but it is considerable)

But we think of Jesus has lots of special knowledge. Should we? He was supposed to be human, human like the rest of us. He was suppose to suffer temptation like all the rest of us. Let me attempt to be plain. I cannot find anyway to concieive of that being meaningfully true if he was running about with divine knowledge of past and future. A huge portion of the struggle we go through is dealing with the reality of our ignorance. We do not know the past and the future and must deal with the fear involved there. It is in how we deal with uncertainty and fear which reveals the substance of faith. This is a faith which is real love through hope not the crap about believeing the right words which unbelievers accuse faith of being. But Jesus is the our source and leader as a human in this form of faith and love.

I believe to deny innorance to Jesus is to betray him. It is in his sharing our ignorance that he is one with us. It is through his ignirance that he can express a form of faith which we can share. We do not share some divine knowledge of past and future. We have instead fragments of knowledge floating in ignorance. Death approaches us as unknown. I believe that when Jesus said OH my God why have your forsaken me" He was expressing genuine uncertainty and fear like any real human being with death coming on. (have I done right or been a fool?)

Maybe repeating will not make my point clearer but unless we share faith with Jesus I do not see how the atonement can connect with us. Jesus ignorance is a necessary point for the most important Christian doctrines, atonement and salvation through faith.

For Roger. you state you do not believe in a fall so no atonement. I could start to believe such a think if I looked out into the world and saw no evil. It is evil which needs atonement not an apple or whatever story image.

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Gaz, ya been a looong time responding to my last post: March 19, 2007. Which by the way was my Birth Day, LOL... Are ya going to answer it now??

Huck, yer making a lot of sense here. As i see Jesus, THE Magnanimous Man, he was limited in academics, and influenced by the teachings of his time and religious culture. Much of the latter he determined did NOT fit his concepts, as he seriously considered them.

So we have a vast change in his teachings to the folks than were those of the Scribes, Pharsees, and Saducees, generally speaking. The Two New Commandments seem to be his summary. One we are yet to fully understand. Consequently, we can't fully apply it. Still too much tied to the Old Testament, IMSCO.

For Roger. you state you do not believe in a fall so no atonement. I could start to believe such a think if I looked out into the world and saw no evil. It is evil which needs atonement not an apple or whatever story image.

Could be... OTOH, evil is best overcome with understanding/discovering its source, then applying appropriate remedies. I respectfully suggest we have been slow in acknowledging a lot of what bases 'evil'. I think Jesus set out some pretty good guidelines to reduce--to erradicate is yet far away--what tends to cause human suffering, which tends to incubate sin, in the world we look out at, and live in.

I think this is the case because "Jesus' Social Gospel", was trumped by the "Gospel of Redemption and Salvation", put forward by man. This conveniently side-stepped Jesus' message of caring & sharing one with another here & now--loving your neighbor--with one of, loving "God" who can get along just fine without it, and worrying about my-life (narcissism) in some mystical place. (Topic of another thread :-)

At blame for this miscarriage of Jesusism is Institutionalized Christianity in general. Certainly disparity, while targeted by Jesus, is readily justified in our world. One that has been, and is generally shaped by Christian influence (in the wrong direction). To not see this, is to deny reality.

So-called Christian Institutions have been to blame through the ages. Not the attendees who have been conditioned to obey at risk of Heaven's rejection. A just, and honest distribution of world resources (and wealth) to those in need from those who greed, is THE only enlightened answer to the problems Jesus addressed that WE continue to ignore, and deny having any responsibility for. As i see it... Warm regards, Roger

[_harmony]

A just, and honest distribution of world resources (and wealth) to those in need from those who greed, is THE only enlightened answer to the problems Jesus addressed that WE continue to ignore, and deny having any responsibility for. As I see it... Warm regards, Roger

A couple of observations:

1. All things being equal, I have no problem sharing the world's resources with everyone. The sun shines equally on the just and the unjust. I do object to sharing the wealth without caveat. Wealth is earned (or taken... that which is taken should definitely be shared). When a person works to accummulate wealth, and then is required to share it with those who don't work out of laziness or poor choices, that's not fair. The resources are for everyone, but that which a person earns through their own endeavors should not be required to be shared. If a person has sacrificed in order to gain an education, they should be able to enjoy the fruits of the labor that education affords them without having to give it away to those who chose to not get that education. DCP should not have to share the fruits of his education with me, since I made the decision to not pursue the same education he did. If he chooses to share, and he chooses with whom he will share, that is one thing; to be required to share doesn't seem fair to me.

2. At no point is there ever going to be a just and honest distribution. There is simply no one capable of making those decisions; we are all biased.

3. I agree that the Bible, mostly the Old Testament, is myth. Myths have great worth to us, but they cannot take the place of history, and that is the crime that is associated with the Bible: myth is mistaken for history. Just because words are ancient doesn't make them right, doesn't make them accurate, and sure as heck doesn't mean they are accurate renditions of something that actually happened. The day the TRI revolves around the Flood or the Garden is the day I have to give mine back. I can live with myth; I cannot live myth.

[_Gazelam]

Huckleberry,

It is the privilege of prophets, especially those who stand as dispensation heads in times of renewal, to be ministered to by angels who reveal to them gospel truths that have been lost in time.

Christ stood as a dispensation head after a time of apostacy, where the gospel, specifically the Law of Moses, had become so corrupted that the head of the church himself did not recognize the Savior when He stood before him.

Peter, James, and John saw Moses and Elijah (“Elias” is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew Elijah; see Luke 4:25–26; 1 Kgs. 17) talking with Christ. Luke tells us that Moses and Elijah spoke of the Savior’s “decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.” (Luke 9:31.)

If Christ was conversing with those great leaders, there is no reason to assume that he did not speak with Noah as well. Noah appeared to other prophets under the name of Gabriel. As this messenger he appeared to Joseph Smith and bestowed keys of his dispensation.

Gabriel also appeared to Daniel (Dan. 8:16, 9:21), Zacharias the father of John the Baptist (Luke 1:5-38) And to Mary, the mother of our Lord (ibid.)

Christ no doubt knew Noah firsthand, and could therefore testify of him. At the least, his own mother could testify of Noah to him.