Alma's Theology

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Canonical criticism is a legitimate form of exegesis. It's not inappropriate to interpret this in light of other passages like Heb 2:17-18.

I am pretty sure that SIEQs initial posting presumed little interest in the kinds of things that canonical criticism would add (I could be wrong about this but I got the feeling that SIEQ was interested in original intent and not what the verses mean to the living community of faith in the present.) This doesn't mean it isn't interesting or useful but it doesn't suggest that one should be careful in applying it to SIEQ musings.

Canonical criticism is clearly not always appropriate and its not appropriate unconditionally. IF SIEQ responds with the position that he wasn't that interested in original intent (or that in addition to original intent he was interested in what Alma 7:12-13 means to the current Mormon community) then I concede that you are a correct and I am wrong and furthermore that canonical criticism is likely the best tool to proceed with.

Finally I actually agree that Hebrews (even given an interest in original intent) is not irrelevant particularly given the scholarly work in Mormon studies that asserts a relation (dependence) between Hebrews and Alma 13.

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

How would Christ know all things if He had never had a physical body prior to coming to earth?

Did Christ suffer the physical pains of childbirth, rape, sodomy, or decapitation? Did he suffer the emotional trauma of a child watching his father murdered, having his mother run away, or a child being stillborn?

Although the spirit knoweth all things, we assume his having mortal experiences makes it all the more authentic. Physically, he experienced much....but how could he have experienced it all?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by pelagius

I am pretty sure that SIEQs initial posting presumed little interest in the kinds of things that canonical criticism would add (I could be wrong about this but I got the feeling that SIEQ was interested in original intent and not what the verses mean to the living community of faith in the present.) This doesn't mean it isn't interesting or useful but it doesn't suggest that one should be careful in applying it to SIEQ musings.

Canonical criticism is clearly not always appropriate and its not appropriate unconditionally. IF SIEQ responds with the position that he wasn't that interested in original intent (or that in addition to original intent he was interested in what Alma 7:12-13 means to the current Mormon community) then I concede that you are a correct and I am wrong and furthermore that canonical criticism is likely the best tool to proceed with.

Finally I actually agree that Hebrews (even given an interest in original intent) is not irrelevant particularly given the scholarly work in Mormon studies that asserts a relation (dependence) between Hebrews and Alma 13.

I'm primarily interested in figuring out Alma (as you've surmised). Going another direction is OK too.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

In Alma 7:12-13 you have:

12 And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities.

13 Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh that he might take upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions according to the power of his deliverance; and now behold, this is the testimony which is in me.

So...

The Son becomes mortal so he may know how to succor his people, but the Spirit knows all things.

and then a little backpedaling beginning with "nevertheless?"

Does Spirit = Son of God? Is this the omnipresent spirit/god/matter/substance of DC88?
The unrisen Jesus did not have a fullness.