Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mormon Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 31 of 264 (49662)
08-09-2003 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by doctrbill
08-09-2003 4:18 PM


8 entries found for paradise.
paradise ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-ds, -dz)
n.
often Paradise The Garden of Eden.
The abode of righteous souls after death; heaven.
An intermediate resting place for righteous souls awaiting the Resurrection.
A place of ideal beauty or loveliness.
A state of delight.
------------------
"I believe in christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."-C.S. Lewis
contact me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by doctrbill, posted 08-09-2003 4:18 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by doctrbill, posted 08-09-2003 9:33 PM Trump won has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 32 of 264 (49676)
08-09-2003 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Trump won
08-09-2003 4:27 PM


Whatever religious people may have made of the word, "paradise" was descriptive of manicured grounds.
Greek paradeisos, from Hebrew pardes = Park, Garden, Ground. Translated in King James OT as forest, and orchard.{Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible}.
See also Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible which reveals that paradeisos means "Park," and comes from a Hebrew word meaning, you guessed it: "Park."
How about that!?
In case you are wondering whether the ancient Hebrews understood the word "paradise" as defined by the dictionary you quoted ... they did not. Characterizing the home of the righteous dead as paradise did not occur until much later in Jewish Apocalyptic writings. The concept is fantastic and accepted on faith. We know that it was, eventually, widely embraced but we cannot be sure exactly when the concept was put forward; and we cannot be sure that Jesus accepted it. We do know, however, that both Jesus and the men crucified with him, became dead. We know Jesus went the cemetary. But since poor criminals were often sent to Gehenna, perhaps the thief took comfort in Jesus' assurance that they would both receive a civilized burial.
------------------
Doesn't anyone graduate Sunday School?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Trump won, posted 08-09-2003 4:27 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Trump won, posted 08-10-2003 12:27 AM doctrbill has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 33 of 264 (49685)
08-09-2003 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Agent Uranium [GPC]
08-08-2003 1:30 PM


I have a pretty neat Mormon friend, who lives a very moral life. Some of that "moral" means not going to R-movies and stuff, but the part I like is he's honest, goes out of his way to be kind to people, and they go to great pains to take care of their own. He kept one "brain-injured" fellow on his payroll for years, even though the guy was working for another (Mormon-owned) company. He paid half the guy's salary, anyway, and the guy was a real pain in the neck (because of the brain injury). It looked to me like the Mormons really took care of him.
Now, that said, it's a pretty bizarre religion with pretty bizarre beliefs, just based on what they say themselves. There's really no evidence that anything Joseph Smith wrote in the Book of Mormon really happened. It doesn't fit American history from 2,000 years ago.
I've read a lot of the Book of Mormon, and my thought is that Joseph Smith was very familiar with the Bible. I understand he may have borrowed a lot of his story of the travels to America from a book he read (such borrowing was not unusual in the 1800's, I think). The rest, the part's that not story, is borrowed directly from the King James Version of the Bible, with some commentary thrown in so that the strange or difficult to understand parts don't seem so unusual.
There ain't no way Joseph Smith translated it letter for letter out of a magic hat with a stone in it. They've had to make a lot of small corrections to it over the years.
But, like I said, they can be wonderful people who take care of each other, which is better than Christians, although the majority of Mormons I've met are "Jack Mormons" (I heard that name from one of them). They're Mormon mostly in name only. They don't attend their wards or avoid caffeine, etc. But they stay linked to each other. That part's pretty neat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Agent Uranium [GPC], posted 08-08-2003 1:30 PM Agent Uranium [GPC] has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Agent Uranium [GPC], posted 08-17-2003 9:49 PM truthlover has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 34 of 264 (49689)
08-09-2003 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by doctrbill
08-09-2003 4:18 PM


And Jesus replies: "Today I'd say, You'll be with me in the cemetary."
LOL. That's interesting. Were you being sarcastic, or did you mean that?
Obviously, Jesus didn't write that sentence for us to remember. The person who wrote that sentence was in the process of telling a story meant to prove Jesus is the Son of God and that he is alive, risen from the dead, seated with the Father in heaven.
So, whoever wrote that sentence (Luke), did not intend to convey that Jesus was talking about a cemetary.
I noticed later someone mentioned paradise in the afterlife belongs to later Jewish apocalyptic writings. However, Enoch predates Luke by a bit, and it has a description of Hades that is exactly like Jesus' story of the rich man.
Anyway, I think it's pretty clear that what Jesus was referring to in Luke was the afterlife, not a cemetary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by doctrbill, posted 08-09-2003 4:18 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 35 of 264 (49694)
08-10-2003 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by doctrbill
08-09-2003 9:33 PM


That statement would not hold true because Jesus said he would be with him. You may say "yeah they'd both be in the ground", the thief would be with Jesus in heaven. It wouldnt have made sense, you will be with me in a cemetary, Jesus professed about heaven so then would be describing heaven. I have a english to hebrew dictionary and next to paradise it says eden
------------------
"I believe in christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."-C.S. Lewis
contact me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by doctrbill, posted 08-09-2003 9:33 PM doctrbill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 08-10-2003 12:31 AM Trump won has not replied
 Message 37 by John, posted 08-10-2003 11:28 AM Trump won has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 36 of 264 (49695)
08-10-2003 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Trump won
08-10-2003 12:27 AM


I have a english to hebrew dictionary and next to paradise it says eden
So? The question isn't what the word means now, it's what it meant when Jesus said it then. Or didn't you know that words change over time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Trump won, posted 08-10-2003 12:27 AM Trump won has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 264 (49737)
08-10-2003 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Trump won
08-10-2003 12:27 AM


quote:
I have a english to hebrew dictionary and next to paradise it says eden
Did the dictionary also tell you that the NT wasn't written in Hebrew, but Greek? And that the Greek word used is derived from a word of eastern origin-- perhaps Persian, via the Hebrew-- and means pretty much what DrBill said, though his jump to 'cemetary' seems a bit unwarranted?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 08-10-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Trump won, posted 08-10-2003 12:27 AM Trump won has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by doctrbill, posted 08-10-2003 5:52 PM John has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 38 of 264 (49785)
08-10-2003 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by John
08-10-2003 11:28 AM


John writes:
means pretty much what DrBill said, though his jump to 'cemetary' seems a bit unwarranted?
Perhaps, but the earlier (Hebrew < Persian) use of it in the Bible does not does not appear to contain any supernatural implication. In fact, the word (pardes) is used only three times in the Bible.
It is once translated forest in the book of Nehemiah (2:8), where it is identified as a source of timber. It was the "pardes" of Artaxerxes (King of kings), so I would imagine it well manicured.
It is twice translated "orchard" (KJV). First in the book of Ecclesiates (2:4). The author, purportedly Solomon, is talking about his accomplishments.
He says,
"I did great things: built myself palaces, planted vineyards; made myself gardens and orchards, planting every kind of fruit tree in them." (Jerusalem Bible).
Some translations say, 'parks.'
It appears the third and last time (protestant canon) in an erotic poem from the Song of Solomon. Here, it is a pomegranite orchard. In the Song (of Solomon), pomegranites are a metaphor of female body parts. This may indicate a beginning of the "spiritual" interpretation of Paradise. Other than this last, there is no OT suggestion that it was understood to mean anything other than - well kept, park-like, garden-of-eden type, grounds.
I just can't get the image of Forest Lawn out of my mind. Imagine how this term may have become associated with the afterlife. The mere establishment of manicured interrment parks might have been enough to start the trend.
I would not be surprised if Jesus bought into the paradise/afterlife myth. But I don't think it's necessary to saddle him with that. He did indeed go from the cross to a well kept grounds. A garden. A park. A cemetary. Prophecy and fulfillment. Post haste.
db
------------------
Doesn't anyone graduate Sunday School?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by John, posted 08-10-2003 11:28 AM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by truthlover, posted 08-11-2003 11:51 PM doctrbill has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 39 of 264 (50063)
08-11-2003 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by doctrbill
08-10-2003 5:52 PM


I would not be surprised if Jesus bought into the paradise/afterlife myth. But I don't think it's necessary to saddle him with that. He did indeed go from the cross to a well kept grounds. A garden. A park. A cemetary. Prophecy and fulfillment. Post haste.
I just wanted to point out one more time that the issue is not whether Jesus bought into the paradise/afterlife myth (as you put it), but whether Luke did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by doctrbill, posted 08-10-2003 5:52 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by doctrbill, posted 08-13-2003 11:52 AM truthlover has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 40 of 264 (50369)
08-13-2003 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by truthlover
08-11-2003 11:51 PM


quote:
truthlover message 34: "... I think it's pretty clear that what Jesus was referring to in Luke was the afterlife, not a cemetary."
quote:
doctrbill message 38: "I don't think it's necessary to saddle him with that. He did indeed go from the cross to ... A cemetary."
quote:
truthlover message 39: "... the issue is not whether Jesus bought into the paradise/afterlife myth (as you put it), but whether Luke did."
I believe the issue is whether the word paradise was intended to indicate some mythical habitation of the righteous dead in an afterlife. It was certainly never used that way in the OT, as we have seen. The word appears in the Bible only six times, three of these in the NT. In the OT it is translated as forest and orchard. In the NT is not translated at all, only transliterated; so we have a bit of a challenge on our hands. We must consider the context of its use in the NT while keeping in mind how it was understood by OT writers. Look at the context here:
  • Luke simply states what Jesus presumably said. "You will be with me in Paradise."
  • Paul (2 Corinthians 12:3) speaks of it as if it were a mythical place. He seems to be mocking a man who claimed to have been there.
  • And John (Revelation 2:7) speaks of it as if it were the garden of Eden, "the tree of life, which is in midst of the paradise of God."
Compare this with the writings of Ezekiel, whom John often quotes. Ezekiel seems to use the expressions, garden of God and garden of Eden interchangeably. "... all the trees of Eden ... that were in the garden of God." Ezekiel 31:8,9; He envisions the rebuilding of Israel (recently devastated by Babylon) and the tilling of its desolate fields saying, "This land that was desolate has become like the garden of Eden;" {36:35}
Was Jesus referring to a place in the afterlife? If so, where is the evidence to support that view? I see no evidence. The idea is obviously traditional but apparently not well founded in scripture. And while I would not begrudge a dying man his fantasy, I would be more comfortable following a Lord who is strong enough to face the finality of his fate.
db
------------------
Doesn't anyone graduate Sunday School?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by truthlover, posted 08-11-2003 11:51 PM truthlover has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 41 of 264 (50372)
08-13-2003 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Rrhain
08-08-2003 9:15 PM


Hi Rrhain,
Um, am I the only one who remembers the Great Schism?
There's a third branch of Christianity that predates the Reformation: The Orthodox.
Both the Protestants and the Catholics have it wrong.
Although I'm aware of the existence of the Orthodox church, I know practically nothing about it, since it's never had any hold in england I've never studied it. I was under the impression it was virtually identical to the Catholic faith (much as Methodists and Anglicans have almost identical beliefs, just different hierachies), I am wrong on this count? If you wouldn't mind taking the time to give a quick overview of it, I'd appreciate it.
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Rrhain, posted 08-08-2003 9:15 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by truthlover, posted 08-13-2003 4:51 PM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 43 by Rrhain, posted 08-14-2003 11:43 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 42 of 264 (50410)
08-13-2003 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dr Jack
08-13-2003 12:43 PM


The story of the Orthodox church is kind of neat, if Rrhain will forgive me for jumping in.
The Council of Nicea (I'm about 90% sure that's right council) set up four patriarchs, who were basically in charge of final decisions for the church (one or perhaps two have been added since). That was the fourth century. The fall of Rome led to a geographical and political separation between the patriarch in Rome and the rest of the patriarchs, who were all in the east.
In the 9th century, the world situation restored better communication between the eastern and western churches and the eastern patriarchs and the western patriarch/pope. By then, the Roman patriarch had changed the Creed of Nicea (apostles' creed) by adding the phrase "and the Son" (Latin: filioque) to the phrase "We believe in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father."
The patriarchs of the east argued for 200 years that the Roman patriarch couldn't do this without permission of the others. The Roman patriarch said he could. After 200 years they gave up arguing and split ("The Great Schism").
It was all over one latin word (three English words). A couple years ago, Pope John Paul II recited the Nicene Creed without the filioque, and it was taken note of.
The Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic church have been "evolving" mostly separately since late in the 4th century. There are a lot of differences that wouldn't be significant to outsiders, but are extremely significant to informed members, especially if they're Orthodox.
The Orthodox aren't allowed to make big doctrinal changes, because, in their opinion, they don't have all the patriarchs. One is fallen away. The Romans can make all the doctrinal changes they want, because they only recognize one of the patriarchs.
The two groups have different rites, baptize differently, view the Trinity differently, Mary differently, and salvation differently. The Orthodox consider the use of statues to be idolatry. They use icons, which are two dimensional and not exact replicas (they're more cartoon like).
Real committed Orthodox believers can be very rude, a lot like fundamentalists. To the Orthodox, Protestantism is just a part of Catholicism, all of them equally separated from the true catholic (universal) Church.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dr Jack, posted 08-13-2003 12:43 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 43 of 264 (50554)
08-14-2003 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dr Jack
08-13-2003 12:43 PM


truthlover gave a pretty decent rundown.
One quick method that you can use to tell Orthodox from the others is the way they cross themselves. Catholics and Protestants cross from left to right. Orthodox cross from right to left. You wouldn't expect it to be important, but it is...as I found out when my Orthodox mother sent me to Catholic school (why?)
There have been a few attempts over the years to try and heal the schism, but the Pope keeps screwing it up. The recent declaration by John Paul II that while the other sects of Christianity have some connection to the truth, it is only Catholicism that has the complete set (I can't recall the exact phrasing, but I remember the symbology that Catholicism sits atop the ranking list) didn't help any.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dr Jack, posted 08-13-2003 12:43 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Agent Uranium [GPC]
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 264 (50780)
08-17-2003 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by truthlover
08-09-2003 11:40 PM


I have a pretty neat Mormon friend, who lives a very moral life. Some of that "moral" means not going to R-movies and stuff, but the part I like is he's honest, goes out of his way to be kind to people, and they go to great pains to take care of their own.
...
Now, that said, it's a pretty bizarre religion with pretty bizarre beliefs, just based on what they say themselves.
Thank you. I do, in fact, look forward to talking to those two Sisters. This thread has certainly helped me out a lot, especially with respect to further investigation on my part. I doubt they can convert me away from Islam, but it has certainly made me take more notice of what I used to class as a "fringe religion".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by truthlover, posted 08-09-2003 11:40 PM truthlover has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by A_Christian, posted 08-18-2003 11:22 AM Agent Uranium [GPC] has replied
 Message 77 by Buzsaw, posted 11-04-2003 10:35 AM Agent Uranium [GPC] has not replied

  
A_Christian
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 264 (50845)
08-18-2003 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Agent Uranium [GPC]
08-17-2003 9:49 PM


As the Church has drifted away from the truth towards heresy, fables,
traditionism, cultism, and modernism; two things have ALWAYS been
the root cause:
1> People turn away from the Scripture and apply their own wisdom.
2> People turn to other people to lead them.
However, GOD ALWAYS establishes a remnant who HOLD to the TRUTH...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Agent Uranium [GPC], posted 08-17-2003 9:49 PM Agent Uranium [GPC] has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Agent Uranium [GPC], posted 08-18-2003 5:27 PM A_Christian has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024