Early Church Fathers

[arieh0310]

Paul G:

*

.

In symbolism one thought or idea stands in for another. For example “the truth is as bright as the sun”.(my example)

In the above passage “now the heaven which is (not as is) which is first from above”, and again “and encompasses the rest, is (not as is)…(of that) widom”. The symbolism of which you speak can be seen in the seven-branched candlestick that Moses received “ for (as a) pattern of the heavens he received …”. Here is the symbolism for real.*

Jesus said that “I am (not like) the door” and “I am (not like) the true vine”. Does that mean he is literally a door and a grape vine? You do not need to use pedestrian language to convey a symbolic meaning. The days of creation can be taken figuratively even though the word used is “yom” which is usually taken literally.

I agree with majick275 that the passage is symbolic. When I said there are “degrees” of reward I didn’t mean for degree to be another word for level.

 

[majick275]

Well we appear to have arrived at the usual LDS destination. (not an attack) The LDS will go to their perceived spiritual witness that the LDS church is true and then must find that which is “faith promoting” in anything that is good.

I won’t say that’s a bad thing. The Holy Spirit does testify of truth and seeking to build one’s faith is a worthy goal. However, it does make objective analysis and critical discussion somewhat difficult.

I would though point out a seeming contradiction in popular LDS thought. (This is regarding this spiritual witness that establishes the paradigm for all religious study for LDS.) The primary scriptural reference for this is Moroni chapter 10 but the doctrine seems to originate in Alma chapter 32. when one reads the entire idea in context there seems to be a requirement to read, study, ponder and THEN pray. I take this to mean researching to the best of your ability and then getting confirmation. (study it out in your mind, etc.)

What I see being taught initially (both in missionary discussions, primary and CES) is to hurry up and pray right away, sincerely WANTING to believe then you get the burning bosom. This would seem more like seeking after a sign. (not to mention the easy manipulation of the mind that could occur with this) This would then most assuredly affect your perception of anything you later studied.

 

[Paul_G]

arieh0310:

Paul G:

Are you saying that the Irenaeus quote would be unorthodox to a Catholic? I don’t see an issue with it.

I don’t know what the Catholic teaching is on the subject of bodily resurrection. If I don’t refer specifically to Catholic teaching I’m am speaking of experiences I have had with the more fundamentalism Christian denominations. Some do not agree with a statement such as this.

“in sins or in righteous actions: and such as they were, such shall they be clothed with upon resuming life; and such as they were in unbelief, such shall they be faithfully judged”.

It is nice to hear that at least in some area we have some common ground.

 

[Paul_G]

arieh0310:

Paul G:

Jesus said that “I am (not like) the door” and “I am (not like) the true vine”. Does that mean he is literally a door and a grape vine? You do not need to use pedestrian language to convey a symbolic meaning. The days of creation can be taken figuratively even though the word used is “yom” which is usually taken literally.

I agree with majick275 that the passage is symbolic. When I said there are “degrees” of reward I didn’t mean for degree to be another word for level.

I hear what you are saying, and would agree with you if it were not for the candlestick reference, which I feel was added to reinforce the reality of what is being taught in this passage. However, I do agree that there is symbolism used to express the character or functionality of each of the seven heavens.

There are other references that are more clear and descriptive of the existence of multiple heavens. However, since I don’t make a lot of notes I can’t put my hands on quote at the moment, but I do know the general time frame so I will have a look and report back to this post when I find it.

 

[Paul_G]

majick275:

Well we appear to have arrived at the usual LDS destination. (not an attack) The LDS will go to their perceived spiritual witness that the LDS church is true and then must find that which is “faith promoting” in anything that is good.

I appreciate the thought and effort that when into these comments. I’ve hogged the computer tonight so I have to relinquish it to my better half. I will take some time tomorrow and make a more complete comment.

 

[amgid]

arieh0310:

Nor did I, but the terminology is.

So you think that you have a monopoly copyright to the English language, do you? Congratulations!

amgid

 

[amgid]

arieh0310:

I think one reason why Mormons think they see LDS doctrines everywhere is that the LDS church has taken orthodox language and redefined most terms to suit their peculiar theology. That is why a Mormon missionary can say with a straight face that they believe in the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, or Christ’s Atonement when in fact we disagree on every one of these points and more.

I don’t see “LDS doctrine everywhere”. I see LDS doctrine in the ECFs; and I see that the mainstream Christian doctrine has drifted far away from their original teachings. This only serves to confirm my belief in the apostasy of the early Christian church. Your attempt to fudge the issue won’t work. If you genuinely believe that the teachings of mainstream modern Christendom (or of the Catholic Church in particular) conforms to that of the ECFs (as far as the doctrine of deification is concerned), the burden of proof rests on you to provide the evidence. So far you have provided none that can convince anybody.

amgid

 

[arieh0310]

amgid:

If you genuinely believe that the teachings of mainstream modern Christendom (or of the Catholic Church in particular) conforms to that of the ECFs (as far as the doctrine of deification is concerned), the burden of proof rests on you to provide the evidence. So far you have provided none that can convince anybody.

I know we will go around and around about this, using the most skillful acrobatics in our semantic gymnastics event, but since you asked:

“There will be no other God, O Trypho, nor was there from eternity any other existing . . . but he who made and disposed all this universe. Nor do we think that there is one God for us, another for you, but that he alone is God who led your fathers out from Egypt with a strong hand and a high arm. Nor have we trusted in any other, for there is no other, but in him in whom you also have trusted, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho the Jew 11) A.D. 155

If you wanna go back even further:

“What think you, beloved? Did not Moses know beforehand that this would happen? Undoubtedly he knew, but he acted thus, that there might be no sedition in Israel and that the name of the true and only God might be glorified, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen” (Pope Clement I, Letter to the Corinthians 43) A.D. 80

And:

“There is then one God and Father, and not two or three; One who is; and there is no other besides him, the only true [God]. For ‘the Lord thy God,’ says [Scripture], ‘is one Lord’ [Deut. 6:4]. . . . And there is also one Son, God the Word. . . . And there is also one Paraclete” (Ignatius, Letter to the Philadelphians 2) A.D. 110

And:

“The prophets, who were men of God, lived according to Jesus Christ. For that reason they were persecuted, inspired as they were by his grace to convince the disobedient that there is one God, who manifested himself through his son, Jesus Christ, who is his Word proceeding from silence and who was in all respects pleasing to him that sent him” (Ignatius, Letter to the Magnesians 8:1) A.D. 110

 

[Paul_G]

arieh0310:

“There will be no other God, O Trypho, nor was there from eternity any other existing . . . but he who made and disposed all this universe. Nor do we think that there is one God for us, another for you, but that he alone is God who led your fathers out from Egypt with a strong hand and a high arm. Nor have we trusted in any other, for there is no other, but in him in whom you also have trusted, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho the Jew 11) A.D. 155

I believe what Justin is talking about here is not about two different Gods, one Jewish and another Christian, but that the Christian God is the same God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob. However, if you read on further on Justin explains to Trycho the characteristic of God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob.

*Then I replied, “Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things,-numerically, I mean, not [distinct] in will. For I affirm that He has never at any time done anything which He who made the world-above whom there is no other God-has not wished Him both to do and to engage Himself with.” *(Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho the Jew)

In this dialogue he also names the premotal Jesus as God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob and Moses

"Moreover, in the book of Exodus we have also perceived that the name of God Himself which, He says, was not revealed to Abraham or to Jacob, was Jesus, and was declared mysteriously through Moses. Thus it is written: `And the Lord spake to Moses, Say to this people, Behold, I send My angel before thy face, to keep thee in the way, to bring thee into the land which I have prepared for thee. Give heed to Him, and obey Him; do not disobey Him. For He will not draw back from you; for My name is in Him.’
(Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho the Jew)

 

[arieh0310]

Paul G:

I believe what Justin is talking about here is not about two different Gods, one Jewish and another Christian, but that the Christian God is the same God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob.

I see your Justin quote and raise you another:

Justin Martyr, On the Sole Government of God, Chapter 2: “There is one God, in truth there is but one”

 

[Paul_G]

arieh0310:

Justin Martyr, On the Sole Government of God, Chapter 2: “There is one God, in truth there is but one”

Sophocles is talking in his poem you cite above. Of the personage “Who made the heavens and the broad earth beneath, who Justin calls “The Creator of all things”

I think Justin makes it pretty clear in his “dialogue with Trypho” the identification of “Creator of all things” who is a separate personage who’s “will” is unified with Jesus.

• “He is the Lord who received commission from the Lord who [remains] in the heavens, i.e., the Maker of all things,”*
  (Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho the Jew)

 

[majick275]

Surely you don’t claim that this supports LDS doctrine.

LDS believe that Jehovah (Jesus) created the Earth. (with help from Michael/Adam) That would seem opposite to this quote. I realize that you wish to use this just for it’s “separate Gods” possibility but it’s quite possible that it supports neither side here.

I don’t believe that though. I think that even to this day we have trouble communicating the doctrine of the trinity and can only imagine ECFs trying to capture the meaning in terms that their readers/listeners should/could/would understand.

 

[Paul_G]

majick275:

Surely you don’t claim that this supports LDS doctrine.

I don’t why it wouldn’t

LDS believe that Jehovah (Jesus) created the Earth. (with help from Michael/Adam) That would seem opposite to this quote. I realize that you wish to use this just for it’s “separate Gods” possibility but it’s quite possible that it supports neither side here.

LDS do indeed believe the Jesus, when Jehovah, created the earth under the direction of the Father. The quote below show a flavour of this.

*I was along with Him, and when He set up His throne on the winds: when He made the high clouds strong, and the springs of the deep safe, when He made the foundations of the earth, I was with Him arranging. I was that in which He rejoiced; daily and at all times I delighted in His countenance, because He delighted in the finishing of the habitable *

I don’t believe that though. I think that even to this day we have trouble communicating the doctrine of the trinity and can only imagine ECFs trying to capture the meaning in terms that their readers/listeners should/could/would understand.

It appears to me as I had read that the doctrine of the Trinity, as understood by orthodox Christianity, is an assimilation of Greek philosophy bringing in the idea of one all encompassing God.

 

[amgid]

arieh0310:

If you genuinely believe that the teachings of mainstream modern Christendom (or of the Catholic Church in particular) conforms to that of the ECFs (as far as the doctrine of deification is concerned), the burden of proof rests on you to provide the evidence. So far you have provided none that can convince anybody.

I know we will go around and around about this, using the most skillful acrobatics in our semantic gymnastics event, but since you asked:
We are going round and round because you deliberately want to take us round and round in order to dodge the issue. You are deliberately being evasive in order avoid facing up to a difficult question. So I will rephrase my original question so that you can’t easily take it round and round. The question is, How do you reconcile the following quotes from the ECFs with the current beliefs and teachings of mainstream Christendom (or of the Catholic Church in particular):

… and they have received the title of “gods,” since they are destined to be enthroned with the other “gods” who are ranked next below the Saviour. (Clement of Alexandria, p. 244.)

… the Word, I say, of God, who became man just that you might learn from a man how it may be that man should become God.(Clement of Alexandria, p. 244.)

The Son in his kindness generously imparted deification to others… who are transformed through him into gods, as images of the prototype… the Word is the archetype of the many images. (Origen, p. 274.)

For the Word was not degraded by receiving a body, so that he should seek to “receive” God’s gift. Rather he deified what he put on; and, more than that, he bestowed this gift upon the race of men. (Athanasius, p. 384.)

… If the works of the Godhead had not taken place by means of the body, man would not have been made divine. (Athanasius, p. 399.)

The Word was made man in order that we might be made divine. (Athanasius, p. 404)
I am aware that the ECFs also teach that there is one God—and so do we. But that is not the question here. The question is how do you reconcile their teachings with regard to the plurality of gods (or the deification of man), as shown above, with current Christian teaching (or with that of the Catholic Church in particular)?

amgid

 

[arieh0310]

amgid:

arieh0310:

We are going round and round because you deliberately want to take us round and round in order to dodge the issue. You are deliberately being evasive in order avoid facing up to a difficult question.

It is not a difficult question and we have answered it. Clement, Origen, Athanasuis, and others were all staunchly monotheistic (Athanasius especially so). In John Paul II’s encyclical Orientale Lumen we find the following statement:

“In order for man to become God, the Word took on humanity”

Would any honest person say that JP2 is advocating that we will one day become God in the ontological sense? Of course not. What you are doing is refusing to allow the traditional interpretations of these passages, even to the exclusion of the wealth of quotes from these ECFs that clarify these statements.

If Mormonism was the original Christian faith, why is there no historical record of any LDS “cell”. The historical record is filled with evidence of heresies of all kinds (Gnosticism, Montanism, Sabellianism, Arianism). However, the LDS “heresy” in the early Church is strangely absent. Mormonism must have vanished from the face of the earth immediately and substantially leaving behind no historical trace. I guess as great as Jesus was he was no match to Joseph Smith when it comes to establishing a lasting church.

LDS apologists are playing a classic game of historical revisionism by implanting new meaning to historically orthodox beliefs. All these “proofs” are at best just wildly speculative interpolations.

 

[Paul_G]

arieh0310:

I
If Mormonism was the original Christian faith, why is there no historical record of any LDS “cell”. The historical record is filled with evidence of heresies of all kinds (Gnosticism, Montanism, Sabellianism, Arianism). However, the LDS “heresy” in the early Church is strangely absent. Mormonism must have vanished from the face of the earth immediately and substantially leaving behind no historical trace. I guess as great as Jesus was he was no match to Joseph Smith when it comes to establishing a lasting church.

LDS apologists are playing a classic game of historical revisionism by implanting new meaning to historically orthodox beliefs. All these “proofs” are at best just wildly speculative interpolations.

LDS do not say we are the original Christian faith, but a reestablishment of it’s authority.

We do not have to interpolate anything the early writers say it very plainly with no interpretation needed. It is only when philosophers and scholars got a hold of them that the true meaning of the writings were muddled.

 

[arieh0310]

Paul G:

LDS do not say we are the original Christian faith, but a reestablishment of it’s authority.

B. H. Roberts wrote, “Saddening as the thought may seem, the Church founded by the labors of Jesus and His Apostles was destroyed from the earth; the Gospel was perverted; its ordinances were changed; its laws were transgressed; its covenant was, on the part of man, broken; and the world was left to flounder in the darkness of a long period of apostasy from God… a universal apostasy from the Christian doctrine and the Christian Church took place” (D.H.C., Vol. I, Introduction, pp. 39 and 41)

 

[amgid]

arieh0310:

It is not a difficult question and we have answered it. Clement, Origen, Athanasuis, and others were all staunchly monotheistic (Athanasius especially so). In John Paul II’s encyclical Orientale Lumen we find the following statement:

“In order for man to become God, the Word took on humanity”

Would any honest person say that JP2 is advocating that we will one day become God in the ontological sense? Of course not.

So you now want me to start guessing what JP2 is thinking, do you? And you call that a rational debate? You evasive tactics are clever, but won’t get you anywhere, nor will it impress anyone on these boards.

What you are doing is refusing to allow the traditional interpretations of these passages, even to the exclusion of the wealth of quotes from these ECFs that clarify these statements.

Good, I am glad you brought that up. Let’s analyze those quotes form the ECFs one by one in detail, and you tell me what the “traditional interpretations of these passages” are, and how, and why? We will start with the first quote, the one by Clement of Alexandria:

… and they have received the title of “gods,” since they are destined to be enthroned with the other “gods” who are ranked next below the Saviour. (Clement of Alexandria, p. 244.)
What is exactly the traditional interpretation of this passage? And what is the documentary/historical evidence for it? What is the meaning of the word “god” here? Why doesn’t he use a less shocking term like “saint” for example? Why does he have to use such a provocative term like “god”? And what does he mean by “enthroned with the other gods who are ranked next below the Saviour”? How many “gods” are there, and why are they called “gods,” and hpw are they “enthroned”? What does he mean by “ranked next below the Saviour”? What does he mean by “ranked,” and how are they “ranked,” and how many “ranks” do you reckon there might be? Since they are “ranked,” is it possible that there might be some gods “ranked” above the Savior? What is the “traditional interpretation” of these issues raised in this passage? And please don’t ask me to guess what the Pope is thinking. I am not very good at guessing what is in other people’s minds.

If Mormonism was the original Christian faith, why is there no historical record of any LDS “cell”. The historical record is filled with evidence of heresies of all kinds (Gnosticism, Montanism, Sabellianism, Arianism). However, the LDS “heresy” in the early Church is strangely absent.

You just don’t get it do you. The LDS “heresy” is fond in the writings of the ECFs!—aplenty!

amgid

 

[Demosthenes]

Amgid,

Could you further identify the source of this quote?

… and they have received the title of “gods,” since they are destined to be enthroned with the other “gods” who are ranked next below the Saviour. (Clement of Alexandria, p. 244.)

Thanks D

 

[arieh0310]

Demosthenes:

Amgid,

Could you further identify the source of this quote?

… and they have received the title of “gods,” since they are destined to be enthroned with the other “gods” who are ranked next below the Saviour. (Clement of Alexandria, p. 244.)

Thanks D

Go here and scroll down to Chapter X–Steps to Perfection. What is frustrating is that this verse clearly states that we will be given the appellation “gods” and no more. Nowhere in this book does it state a change ontologically into godhood.

It is also important to note that Pope Gelasius in the catalogue attributed to him mentions Clement’s works, but adds, “they are in no case to be received amongst us”. Photius in the “Bibliotheca” censures a list of errors drawn from his writings. Clement was more of a philosopher than a doctor of the Church, however I don’t see anything that lacks Cathlicity in the quote.