3 Nephi 18: 5b, 7, 11 [Book of Mormon]
“Behold there shall one be ordained among you and to him will I give power that he shall break bread and bless it and give it unto the people of my church, unto all those who shall believe and be baptized in my name….and this shall ye do in remembrance of my body, which I have shown unto you, and it shall be a testimony unto the father that ye do always remember me, and ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you…. And this shall ye always do to those who repent and are baptized in my name; and ye shall do it in remembrance of my blood which I have shed for you , that ye may witness unto the Father that ye do always remember me and if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you.”
I don’t even know where to begin here. The words of institution as they are recorded in Mathew, Mark Luke and 1 Corinthians, are at odds with this. Jesus never says to do this in remembrance of his body or blood. But “in remembrance of me.” What he sasy about the Body is that it is his body, what he says of the wine is that it is his blood. In his word’s “this is my Body.” … This cup poured out for you is the New Testament in my blood. “ The words leave no room for symbolical interpretation, and indeed why should they? He is instituting a Testamen, it is his last will and testament, and testaments and wills do not allow for metaphor, they do not allow for simile. They are to be taken seriously, and at face value. Any denial of his ability to give you his body and blood in reality as he says he does in this testament is to deny his divinity. And as John Warwick Montgomery says so pointedly in his “Tractatus Logico Theologicus” "when Paul states that, owing to not discerning the body of Christ in the Eucharist, some have become physically weak and sick and others have died (1 Cor. 11) one must not regard Jesus assertion, "this is my body" as metaphorical"
Now, the question must be asked, why does Christ speak so differently about his Testament on this side of the Atlantic if we are to believe that it is really Jesus here speaking in the first place? Why should he say one thing on one side, and a completely different thing on the other side. Why would he not record it in the same way on both sides, this is his Last Will and Testament! It is not something you just start changing about to say something completely different than what it said before.
Rather suspicious though that it should seem to answer a controversy contemporary to its “discovery.” Hmmm. Convenient coincidence? I don’t think so.
8 comments:
Pardon my ignorance, Pastor, but what's the deal with the Book of Mormon trying to sound kinda King James(ish)? Was it Smith's attempt to make it sound the way he thought scripture should sound? It's puzzling.
Marke,
It is an enigma that escapes me. Actually, it was an object of ridicule for Spalding who I expect really wrote it. The towns people made fun of him as "old came to pass."
Maybe they will get a ESV translation. Oh wait, no source docs to go by. Well then how about just a paraphrase, maybe "The (Other) Message"?
It is interesting he sided with the symbolical stream. I think it makes good sense though because they are in good stead together as none have means of grace in sacraments, and they are actually all just variants of a religiousness project.
Why would Jesus have a different will on this continent? Well, maybe he decided not to split his estate equally. Kinda like the red-headed step child receiving "$1and my undying affection." I would feel jilted if that's the case.
I mean, I don't have any Nephite roots as far as I know.
I mean, I don't have any Nephite roots as far as I know.
"Maybe they will get a ESV translation. Oh wait, no source docs to go by. Well then how about just a paraphrase, maybe "The (Other) Message"?'
This is exactly the problem, Jonathan. There are updated versions, though. It's just when it is in English it is in English.
It is like reading Edmund Burke,though. He wrote brilliant stuff. But he used terms that over the years have taken on different connotations then they did when he wrote. So your average High School kid can't read him without getting a bit lost, Burke talking about prejudice being a good thing and all, and not meaning prejudice they way we have it at all. But meaning tradition more or less. But to "update" it is kind of an arrogant thing to do, and really is to give it a new interpretation and you would be taken to task for it.
Of course then a Prophet I suppose could just bless and authorized update to the BOM. But then which prophet? And you would just have more controversy and craziness.
The Book of Mormon was written as fiction by a Congregationalist pastor. that is why they went with the symbolical stream. Though he wasn't very careful, as my post coming up later today, he switches sides.
What, there's more contradiction in the BOM? I can hardly wait to hear.
Post a Comment