Mormon Confusion

[BartBurk]

The language is clearer than that. This is the language:

Moses 1:

6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.

You are free to interpret that as you like. In the absence of a categorical declaration by the Church, I suppose you have the leeway to interpret it as you like. I also have the leeway to interpret it as I like. I believe that my interpretation conforms more closely to the guidelines established by the Church—i.e. that the doctrines of the Church are determined in the first instance by the standard works; and the language of the verse implies something absolute not relative. But if you want to interpret it differently, you can. In every religion there are theological boundaries of certainty beyond which diversity of opinion becomes possible and permissible. This is equally true of the Catholic Church. However, in this particular instance I think that I have opinion of Gordon B Hinckley on my side, which you don’t! So I would rather stick to my interpretation than accept yours!

zerinus

I am sympathetic to Zerinius’ position. One reason I am sympathetic towards it is because I think it is the way in which Mormons can make a move towards orthodoxy in their doctrine. The deemphasis of the King Follet sermon among modern Mormons is a positive step which we should encourage. The major division between Mormons and orthodox Christianity is their rejection of ex-nihilo creation and their historic belief that God was once a man. I am not overly critical of their position that God the Father has a body since that has no impact on belief in the Trinity. God can be Trinity whether or not the Father has a body as long as the assertion that God has always been one God existing as Father, Son and Holy Ghost is maintained.

That does not mean I believe Mormonism is true anymore than I believe Lutheranism or Methodism or any other Christian apostasy from Catholicism is true.

 

[scipio337]

Then you couldn’t have read it very carefully. Towards the end it quotes from Early Church Fathers and Patristics to show belief on the subject in early Christian history.

zerinus

Oy. Quoting them is one thing. Understanding what they are saying without projecting your own beliefs into their words is an entirely different one.

Do you have a grasp of the Greek/Catholic concept of theosis? Its still well and alive today. But again, due to the difference in LDS and Orthodox teachings about the nature of G*d, the are few similarities between theosis/deification and exaltation.

You’re taking the context those quotes and applying your own context to them.

It would be like claiming that Wilbur and Orville Wright flew in the first Sikorsky helicopter in 1903.

What you are excluding is the excerpts about ultimately what theosis is: sharing in the divine energies, but not the divine essence, while retaining our nature as a created being. You’re also leaving out how St. Irenaeus told us we can attain theosis in Against Heresies: Through theoria, that is, contemplation of the Triune Gd*.

G*d is not the same species as humans.

Its about the ousia of G*d, which we never had, nor never will.

I think part of the confusion is that you don’t understand theosis in Catholicism of the EoC. Here’s some info:

[God] gave Himself to us through His Spirit. By the participation of the Spirit, we become communicants in the divine nature. . . . For this reason, those in whom the Spirit dwells are divinized.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, no 1988

More reading:

orthodoxinfo.com/searchresults.aspx?kw=theosis

geocities.com/apotheoun/theosis

From Orthodox Wiki:

The Mormons’ belief differs with the Orthodox belief in deification because the Latter-Day Saints believe that the core being of each individual, the “intelligence” which existed before becoming a spirit son or daughter, is uncreated or eternal. Orthodox deification always acknowledges a timeless Creator versus a finite creature who has been glorified by the grace of God. The Mormons are clear promoters of henotheism, and the Church Fathers have absolutely no commonality with their view.

orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis#Deification_in_Mormonism

I must apologize for my name calling in post #225, it was petty and uncalled for, but I don’t know how to edit. I’m a little frustrated, as there was a very good FARMs (so it can’t be called “anti”) article outlining these differences, but the Maxwell Institute people have taken it down: see first and fourth links:

search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu9XvJ6RIWg4Bza1XNyoA?p=Theosis+and+Exaltation%3A+In+Dialogue&y=Search&fr=yfp-t-501&ei=UTF-8

It annoys me how any argument that can be used against LDS beliefs are practices are immediately labeled “anti”, and any LDS misteps (FARMs defense of Salamander Letter, etc.) are immediately erased, and people act like it never happened.

 

[nebula]

I think that I have, and need not do so again.

zerinus

zerinus,

You argue that it’s a relic from the past that the leadership wants to let die a slow death. What I don’t understand is why not come out with clear doctrine about this? Why not come out and just say it: hey, Joseph Smith taught them, BY taught this, it was believed as doctrine, but we were wrong. I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again, this is not a small matter, and just letting it ‘die out’ is plain out dishonesty.

 

[po18guy]

zerinus,

You argue that it’s a relic from the past that the leadership wants to let die a slow death. What I don’t understand is why not come out with clear doctrine about this? Why not come out and just say it: hey, Joseph Smith taught them, BY taught this, it was believed as doctrine, but we were wrong. I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again, this is not a small matter, and just letting it ‘die out’ is plain out dishonesty.

It most certainly raises the question of “wrong then, or wrong now?” And, how is one to know?

 

[nebula]

It most certainly raises the question of “wrong then, or wrong now?” And, how is one to know?

Yes it does. THe Mormon answer? “I have a testimony from the spirit…”

 

[BDawg]

Mormon and ECF Theosis

I agree that it is wrong to simply equate ECF statements about theosis with the Mormon belief. These are the issues, as I see them.

1. After the mid-second century, most of the ECFs believed in creatio ex nihilo. This tends to put “God” and “everything else” into two unbridgeable ontological categories.
2. After the mid-second century, most of the ECFs believed in a Greek philosophical definition of God, as a simple, eternally and absolutely immutable, immaterial, spiritual substance or essence. If God is absolutely “immutable” in every sense, then the Divine Substance can’t be added to in any way. This would make it impossible for humans to ever become part of the Divine Substance, and so they could only ever “participate” in God.

On the other hand, most Protestants don’t have any notion of deification, so when they criticize Mormons for having such a belief, I think it is legitimate to point out that theosis was one of those beliefs that nobody really questioned in early Christianity. Jewish Christians, gentile Christians, Gnostics–everybody. (See J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, Revised ed., 469-470.) Since there really was no controversy about theosis among these groups, it was clearly an original Apostolic teaching.

But if so, is it possible that the doctrine was originally interpreted in a more “Mormon-like” manner? I think there is decent evidence for this conclusion. In support of this, I will make the following points.

1. Recent scholarship on the origin of the creatio ex nihilo doctrine has concluded that it originated in the mid-second century AD, among Christians. Nobody, including the authors of the Bible, had ever heard of such a thing before that. And if these scholars are right, that narrows the “ontological gap” between humans and God considerably. In his 1990 presidential address to the British Association for Jewish Studies, Peter Hayman asserted the following:

Nearly all recent studies on the origin of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo have come to the conclusion that this doctrine is not native to Judaism, is nowhere attested in the Hebrew Bible, and probably arose in Christianity in the second century C.E. in the course of its fierce battle with Gnosticism. The one scholar who continues to maintain that the doctrine is native to Judaism, namely Jonathan Goldstein, thinks that it first appears at the end of the first century C.E., but has recently conceded the weakness of his position in the course of debate with David Winston. (Peter Hayman, “Monotheism—A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?” Journal of Jewish Studies 42 (1991): 3. See Jonathan A. Goldstein, “The Origins of the Doctrine of Creation Ex Nihilo,” Journal of Jewish Studies 35 (1984): 127—35; Jonathan A. Goldstein, “Creation Ex Nihilo: Recantations and Restatements,” Journal of Jewish Studies 38 (1987): 187—94; David Winston, “Creation Ex Nihilo Revisited: A Reply to Jonathan Goldstein,” Journal of Jewish Studies 37 (1986): 88—91.)

For a truly exhaustive treatment of this issue from a Mormon perspective, see these articles by Blake Ostler.

1. Originally, Jews and Jewish Christians thought God the Father had a body in human form. The idea that God is some kind of immutable spiritual “substance” came from pagan Greek philosophy. If so, then this shrinks the “ontological gap” even further.

This has been addressed by many Christian scholars, but the best resource I’ve found is Christopher Stead’s book, Philosophy in Christian Antiquity. Stead is emeritus Professor at the Cambridge Divinity School, and a well known Patristics scholar. Here are a couple of representative quotations.

The Hebrews . . . pictured the God whom they worshipped as having a body and mind like our own, though transcending humanity in the splendour of his appearance, in his power, his wisdom, and the constancy of his care for his creatures. (Stead, Philosophy in Christian Antiquity, 120.)

By saying that God is spiritual [Stead is speaking of verses like John 4:24, here], we do not mean that he has no body . . . but rather that he is the source of a mysterious life-giving power and energy that animates the human body, and himself possesses this energy in the fullest measure. (Stead, Philosophy in Christian Antiquity, 98.)

In the third century, Origen wrote that the Jews and some Christians believed that God had a body in human form, but he rejected this idea because the philosophers thought it was silly. He also admitted that in his time, this was not a settled matter within Christianity.

The Jews indeed, but also some of our people, supposed that God should be understood as a man, that is, adorned with human members and human appearance. But the philosophers despise these stories as fabulous and formed in the likeness of poetic fictions. (Origen, Homilies on Genesis 3:1.)

We shall inquire, however, whether the thing which Greek philosophers call asomaton, or “incorporeal,” is found in holy Scripture under another name. For it is also to be a subject of investigation how God himself is to be understood,–whether as corporeal, and formed according to some shape, or of a different nature from bodies,–a point which is not clearly indicated in our teaching. (Origen, De Principiis Preface 9, in ANF 4:241.)

1. Finally, the original Christian Christology was a “Spirit Christology,” where Jesus did not have “two natures” in the sense of having both a human body/spirit and a separate “Divine Nature,” meaning the Divine Substance of the philosophers. Rather, Jesus’ Divine spirit inhabited a human body, just like a regular human spirit inhabits a human body. J.N.D. Kelly, a famous Oxford patristics scholar, wrote that the first Christians had what he called a “Spirit Christology.”

The Christological theory (if theory is an apt name for what was usually a pre-reflective supposition) which commanded most support, and which lingered on beyond the second century, may be described as a Spirit-Christology. By this is meant the view that in the historical Jesus Christ the pre-existent Son of God, Who is divine spirit, united Himself with human nature. This could take a variety of forms, according to the underlying conception. The idea seems sometimes to have been that the pre-existent Christ-Spirit inswelt the man Jesus, sometimes that He actually became man. “Barnabas” provides an example of the former, with his statements that the Son of God “came” or “manifested himself” in flesh, or in the form of flesh, and that the body which Christ offered in sacrifice was “the receptacle of spirit”. An even more impressive illustration is Hermas’s theory that “God caused the holy, pre-existent spirit which created the whole of creation to dwell in flesh that He desired. (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, Revised Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978, 143-144.)

Some other examples of “Spirit Christology” include statements by St. Hipploytus of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, and St. John.

The Logos we know to have received a body from a virgin. (Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 10:29, in ANF 5:152)

God the Word did dwell in a human body, being within it as the Word, even as the soul also is in the body. . . . (Ignatius, Philadelphians 6, in ANF 1:83.)

the Word became flesh (John 1:14)

But if the Word was just like a spirit inside a human body, how could Jesus really be human? If “God” is an eternally unchanging, simple essence, that’s a big problem. Eusebius of Caesarea put it this way in the 4th century.

For if it is unreasonable to suppose that the unbegotten and immutable essence of the almighty God was changed into the form of man . . . .” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1:2:8, in NPNF Series 2:1:83.)

In the third century, Origen expressed the problem this way.

But if the immortal God – the Word – by assuming a mortal body and a human soul, appears to Celsus to undergo a change and transformation, let him learn that the Word, still remaining essentially the Word, suffers none of those things which are suffered by the body or the soul . . . .” (Origen, Against Celsus 4:15, in ANF 4:503)

That’s why some Christian thinkers settled on the idea that Jesus must have had a human soul in addition to the Divine Nature. I think Origen was one of the first, but the details weren’t all worked out until the Third Council of Constantinople in 680 AD, where it was settled that Jesus had “two natures” and “two wills”.

So even though I don’t think Mormons can honestly equate our doctrine of theosis with those of the ECFs, I think we can make a good case for the proposition that our doctrine is closer to the original than the ECFs’.

 

[scipio337]

Mormon and ECF Theosis

I agree that it is wrong to simply equate ECF statements about theosis with the Mormon belief. These are the issues, as I see them.

1. After the mid-second century, most of the ECFs believed in creatio ex nihilo. This tends to put “God” and “everything else” into two unbridgeable ontological categories.

The only ones I see that have slight differences from ex nihilo doctrine is Clement, and even then, it is nowhere near the “premortal” stuff, or that humans are uncreated. What’s more, ECF who didn’t have a “pure” ex nihilo argument were also big Trinitarian supporters. See the Logos of Justin Martyr and Philo.

BDawg:

1. After the mid-second century, most of the ECFs believed in a Greek philosophical definition of God, as a simple, eternally and absolutely immutable, immaterial, spiritual substance or essence. If God is absolutely “immutable” in every sense, then the Divine Substance can’t be added to in any way. This would make it impossible for humans to ever become part of the Divine Substance, and so they could only ever “participate” in God.

Again, historically, there are a mere handful of early Jewish and Christian theologians who argue directly against ex nihilo creationism, and even then, it is nowhere near the LDS “premortal existence” doctrine. Jewish belief and Mishnah (see Maimonides) particular points this out at several points.

BDawg:

On the other hand, most Protestants don’t have any notion of deification, so when they criticize Mormons for having such a belief, I think it is legitimate to point out that theosis was one of those beliefs that nobody really questioned in early Christianity. Jewish Christians, gentile Christians, Gnostics–everybody. (See J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, Revised ed., 469-470.) Since there really was no controversy about theosis among these groups, it was clearly an original Apostolic teaching.

But if so, is it possible that the doctrine was originally interpreted in a more “Mormon-like” manner? I think there is decent evidence for this conclusion. In support of this, I will make the following points…

“possible”? Yes.

Probable? No. See Occam’s Razor.

BDawg:

1. Recent scholarship on the origin of the creatio ex nihilo doctrine has concluded that it originated in the mid-second century AD, among Christians. Nobody, including the authors of the Bible, had ever heard of such a thing before that. And if these scholars are right, that narrows the “ontological gap” between humans and God considerably. In his 1990 presidential address to the British Association for Jewish Studies, Peter Hayman asserted the following:

No, it doesn’t, ex nihilo aside, there is nothing anywhere in the history of Christianity or Judaism that suggests that man is uncreated or that G*d is. The very nature of Hashem, “the name”, represented in the Tetragrammaton, is “uncreated”. The ontological gap remains.

For a truly exhaustive treatment of this issue from a Mormon perspective, see these articles by Blake Ostler.

BDawg:

1. Originally, Jews and Jewish Christians thought God the Father had a body in human form. The idea that God is some kind of immutable spiritual “substance” came from pagan Greek philosophy. If so, then this shrinks the “ontological gap” even further.

No, they didn’t. It exists nowhere in the Torah, Mishnah or Tosefta. Again, you’re projecting your own beliefs into figurative language in the Bible.

BDawg:

This has been addressed by many Christian scholars, but the best resource I’ve found is Christopher Stead’s book, Philosophy in Christian Antiquity. Stead is emeritus Professor at the Cambridge Divinity School, and a well known Patristics scholar. Here are a couple of representative quotations.

In the third century, Origen wrote that the Jews and some Christians believed that God had a body in human form, but he rejected this idea because the philosophers thought it was silly. He also admitted that in his time, this was not a settled matter within Christianity.

But again, Origen isn’t arguing for the standpoint of “progressive G*d”, uncreated nature in humans, or a “preexistence”.

BDawg:

1. Finally, the original Christian Christology was a “Spirit Christology,” where Jesus did not have “two natures” in the sense of having both a human body/spirit and a separate “Divine Nature,” meaning the Divine Substance of the philosophers. Rather, Jesus’ Divine spirit inhabited a human body, just like a regular human spirit inhabits a human body. J.N.D. Kelly, a famous Oxford patristics scholar, wrote that the first Christians had what he called a “Spirit Christology.”

Some other examples of “Spirit Christology” include statements by St. Hipploytus of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, and St. John.

You just lost me. I’m not sure how Christ’s existence as the Logos, prior to ithe incarnation, is an argument for an eternal progression, or “mortal preexistence”.

BDawg:

But if the Word was just like a spirit inside a human body, how could Jesus really be human? If “God” is an eternally unchanging, simple essence, that’s a big problem. Eusebius of Caesarea put it this way in the 4th century.

Again, there is nothing in this statement that supports an “eternal progress” changing G*d.

BDawg:

In the third century, Origen expressed the problem this way.

That’s why some Christian thinkers settled on the idea that Jesus must have had a human soul in addition to the Divine Nature. I think Origen was one of the first, but the details weren’t all worked out until the Third Council of Constantinople in 680 AD, where it was settled that Jesus had “two natures” and “two wills”.

No, see the Second Council of Ephesus. There were several “heresies” throughout the first 5 hundred years, from Monophysitism through Nestorianism, with Eutychianism, Apollinarism, and finally Monothelitism in between, but again, I posit that none of these Christological debates even faintly resembled LDS doctrine.

BDawg:

So even though I don’t think Mormons can honestly equate our doctrine of theosis with those of the ECFs, I think we can make a good case for the proposition that our doctrine is closer to the original than the ECFs’.

Well, I agree with you on the first point!

There is nothing in anything you’ve posted that supports LDS doctrine. Where did Origen state that G*d was a progressive being? That we share the same nature? Where did Martyr claim that humans are uncreated?

Again, a diversity of beliefs in early Christianity does not support LDS doctrine. Its a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, especially since none of those beliefs even faintly resemble LDS doctrine.

 

[nebula]

The only ones I see that have slight differences from ex nihilo doctrine is Clement, and even then, it is nowhere near the “premortal” stuff, or that humans are uncreated. What’s more, ECF who didn’t have a “pure” ex nihilo argument were also big Trinitarian supporters. See the Logos of Justin Martyr and Philo.

Again, historically, there are a mere handful of early Jewish and Christian theologians who argue directly against ex nihilo creationism, and even then, it is nowhere near the LDS “premortal existence” doctrine. Jewish belief and Mishnah (see Maimonides) particular points this out at several points.

“possible”? Yes.

Probable? No. See Occam’s Razor.

No, it doesn’t, ex nihilo aside, there is nothing anywhere in the history of Christianity or Judaism that suggests that man is uncreated or that G*d is. The very nature of Hashem, “the name”, represented in the Tetragrammaton, is “uncreated”. The ontological gap remains.

For a truly exhaustive treatment of this issue from a Mormon perspective, see these articles by Blake Ostler.

No, they didn’t. It exists nowhere in the Torah, Mishnah or Tosefta. Again, you’re projecting your own beliefs into figurative language in the Bible.

But again, Origen isn’t arguing for the standpoint of “progressive G*d”, uncreated nature in humans, or a “preexistence”.

You just lost me. I’m not sure how Christ’s existence as the Logos, prior to ithe incarnation, is an argument for an eternal progression, or “mortal preexistence”.

Again, there is nothing in this statement that supports an “eternal progress” changing G*d.

No, see the Second Council of Ephesus. There were several “heresies” throughout the first 5 hundred years, from Monophysitism through Nestorianism, with Eutychianism, Apollinarism, and finally Monothelitism in between, but again, I posit that none of these Christological debates even faintly resembled LDS doctrine.

Well, I agree with you on the first point!

There is nothing in anything you’ve posted that supports LDS doctrine. Where did Origen state that G*d was a progressive being? That we share the same nature? Where did Martyr claim that humans are uncreated?

Again, a diversity of beliefs in early Christianity does not support LDS doctrine. Its a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, especially since none of those beliefs even faintly resemble LDS doctrine.

I think you hit the nail on the head with that second to last paragraph. THe problem is that Mormonism posits that God is essentially one of us and erases any qualitative difference between us and I don’t see that addressed by bdawg (but you’re doing a good job bdawg ). That is the essential problem.

 

[BDawg]

The only ones I see that have slight differences from ex nihilo doctrine is Clement, and even then, it is nowhere near the “premortal” stuff, or that humans are uncreated. What’s more, ECF who didn’t have a “pure” ex nihilo argument were also big Trinitarian supporters. See the Logos of Justin Martyr and Philo.

Hi Scipio,

Mormons don’t believe humans are “uncreated.” We just don’t believe they are created “from nothing.”

As for Clement of Alexandria, he certainly believe in creatio ex materia. “Out of a confused heap who didst create This ordered sphere, and from the shapeless mass Of matter didst the universe adorn . . . .” (The Instructor 3:12.)

He may also have believed in the pre-mortal existence of souls (see The Instructor 1:7), but Henry Chadwick says, “if [Clement] accepts the pre-existence of souls, he does not allow uncreatedness.” (Henry Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition, New York: Oxford University Press, 1966, 48.)

As for Justin, he said, “And we have been taught that He in the beginning did of His goodness, for man’s sake, create all things out of unformed matter . . . .” (Justin Martyr, First Apology 10)

Origen believed in *creatio ex nihilo, *but he is actually quite famous for his pre-existence doctrine.

And certainly Justin was a Trinitarian (although I’m sure you don’t mean to say that Philo the Jew was a Trinitarian). It’s just that his Trinity wasn’t the same as yours. He did hold to the philosophical description of God, but than also taught that:

1. Jesus was a “second God” (deuteros theos), but one “in will” with the Father. (Dialogue with Trypho 56. And if you don’t believe my interpretation, check out Fr. Jean Daniélou’s The Theology of Jewish Christianity, p. 146. He later became a Cardinal.)
2. Jesus was ontologically on the same plane as the angels. “We reverence and worship Him and the Son who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of other good angels who are about Him and are made quite like Him, and the Prophetic Spirit.” (Justin Martyr, *First Apology *6, in William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1970), 1:51.) He must have meant something else, you say? Well Fr. Jurgens says that here Justin “apparently [made] insufficient distinction between Christ and the created Angels,” and continues, “There are theological difficulties in the above passage, no doubt. But we wonder if those who make a great deal of these difficulties do not demand of Justin a theological sophistication which a man of his time and background could not rightly be expected to have.” (see p. 56 n. 1) You see, people back in those days were not “theologically sophisticated” enough to understand the modern doctrine of the Trinity. Fine. But let’s not pretend they believed the same thing.

Again, historically, there are a mere handful of early Jewish and Christian theologians who argue directly against ex nihilo creationism, and even then, it is nowhere near the LDS “premortal existence” doctrine. Jewish belief and Mishnah (see Maimonides) particular points this out at several points.

Not so. Read the first article by Blake Ostler for an exhaustive list. Judaism picked up on the ex nihilo doctrine during the Medieval period, so I don’t see why you would bring up Maimonides.

No, it doesn’t, ex nihilo aside, there is nothing anywhere in the history of Christianity or Judaism that suggests that man is uncreated or that G*d is. The very nature of Hashem, “the name”, represented in the Tetragrammaton, is “uncreated”. The ontological gap remains.

I don’t think the idea that God had once been a man had been revealed, yet. “And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times.” (D&C 128:18) Therefore, I can only defend the ideas that the earliest Christians believed in 1) creation from pre-existent matter, 2) pre-mortal existence of spirits, 3) a God with a body in human form, 4) Jesus having a spirit similar, at least, to other humans, and 5) theosis. To me, that seems close enough that it doesn’t bother me that every detail of Mormon belief wasn’t revealed back then (since we specifically believe this should be the case, anyway.)

No, they didn’t. It exists nowhere in the Torah, Mishnah or Tosefta. Again, you’re projecting your own beliefs into figurative language in the Bible.

You’re sure? Then why did Stead (an Anglican scholar) say they believed in an anthropomorphic God? Why did Origen say they did? Even Justin, who had a philosophical concept of God the Father (but believed Jesus’s spirit was anthropomorphic) said the Jews believed God is anthropomorphic. Look what he said to Trypho the Jew.

And again, when He says, “I shall behold the heavens, the works of Thy fingers,” unless I understand His method of using words, I shall not understand intelligently, but just as your teachers suppose, fancying that the Father of all, the unbegotten God, has hands and feet, and fingers, and a soul, like a composite being; and they for this reason teach that it was the Father Himself who appeared to Abraham and to Jacob. (Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho 114.)

But again, Origen isn’t arguing for the standpoint of “progressive G*d”, uncreated nature in humans, or a “preexistence”.

I never said he was, although he did believe in the preexistence of souls. Rather, I said that Origen noted that the Jews and some Christians (presumably Jewish Christians" believed God had a body in human form. He also said that the matter was not settled in third-century Christianity, and that he rejected the anthropomorphic view because it sounded silly to the philosophers. Read the quotations. Look them up for context, if you like. You can find De Principiis online, at least. Homilies on Genesis is in the Fathers of the Church series.

You just lost me. I’m not sure how Christ’s existence as the Logos, prior to ithe incarnation, is an argument for an eternal progression, or “mortal preexistence”.

I said that the earliest Christians believed Jesus’s soul–i.e., the Logos–inhabited a human body in place of a normal human spirit. Now, if the Logos was of a completely different nature than humans, how could Jesus be “True Man”? This is why later theologians posited that Jesus had a regular human soul **in addition to **the Logos.

Again, there is nothing in this statement that supports an “eternal progress” changing G*d.

Who said there was? But there is something in that statement that supports the idea that the earliest Christians thought that human nature was very close to Divine Nature, at least generically speaking. Close enough that the Logos could inhabit a human body, just like a human spirit does, and still be truly human.

(Cont’d in next post.)

 

[BDawg]

(Cont’d from last post.)

No, see the Second Council of Ephesus.

I believe at Ephesus II they may have settled on the “two natures” formulation, but it wasn’t until Constantinople III that they settled on “two natures and two wills.”

There is nothing in anything you’ve posted that supports LDS doctrine. Where did Origen state that G*d was a progressive being? That we share the same nature? Where did Martyr claim that humans are uncreated?

Nothing? So Mormons don’t believe that God the Father has a body in human form? We don’t believe that the Logos inhabited a human body in place of a regular human soul, but Jesus was still truly human? We don’t believe that God created out of pre-existing material? You seem to have very high standards for what counts as even the tiniest shred of evidence.

Let me give you another few of examples of the kind of thing you claim doesn’t exist. Since my argument is that some early forms of JEWISH Christianity were closer to the LDS doctrine of God than yours, and that the influx of Greek philosophy (with philosophers like Justin and Origen) was what started corrupting this view of God, let’s turn to two of those rare, early Jewish Christian documents that have been preserved. The Pseudo-Clementine literature was translated by Rufinus in the fourth century, but scholars generally think that it is based on 2nd century material. They contain stories about Clement of Rome and Peter the Apostle.

The Clementine Recognitions teaches that “after all these things He made man, on whose account He had prepared all things, whose internal species is older, and for whose sake all things that are were made . . . .” (*Clementine Recognitions *1:28.) The “internal species” of man mentioned here means “his soul, according to the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls,” according to the footnote by the Presbyterian translators of the Ante-Nicene Fathers series.

Here are two passages from the Clementine Homilies, where Peter says that the Father has a body in human form.

And Simon said: “I should like to know, Peter, if you really believe that the shape of man has been moulded after the shape of God.” And Peter said: “I am really quite certain, Simon, that this is the case . . . . It is the shape of the just God.” (Clementine Homilies 16:19.)

For He has shape, and He has every limb primarily and solely for beauty’s sake, and not for use. For He has not eyes that He may see with them; for He sees on every side, since He is incomparably more brilliant in His body than the visual spirit which is in us, and He is more splendid than everything, so that in comparison with Him the light of the sun may be reckoned as darkness. Nor has He ears that He may hear; for He hears, perceives, moves, energizes, acts on every side. But He has the most beautiful shape on account of man, that the pure in heart, may be able to see Him, that they may rejoice because they suffered. For He moulded man in His own shape as in the grandest seal, in order that he may be the ruler and lord of all, and that all may be subject to him. (Clementine Homilies 17:7.)

In the Clementine Recognitions, Peter says that Jesus was the greatest of the Archangels.

For the Most High God, who alone holds the power of all things, has divided all the nations of the earth into seventy-two parts, and over these He hath appointed angels as princes. But to the one among the archangels who is greatest, was committed the government of those who, before all others, received the worship and knowledge of the Most High God . . . . Thus the princes of the several nations are called gods. But Christ is God of princes, who is Judge of all. (Clementine Recognitions 2:42)

And last, but not least, here is a passage from the Clementine Homilies that says human souls are “of the same substance” as Gods, but we aren’t gods. And yet, if (whoever they were areguing against says that humans are gods, then why is it a big deal for Christians to call Christ God, since he has the same kind of soul as us?

Learn this also: The bodies of men have immortal souls, which have been clothed with the breath of God; and having come forth from God, they are of the same substance, but they are not gods. But if they are gods, then in this way the souls of all men, both those who have died, and those who are alive, and those who shall come into being, are gods. But if in a spirit of controversy you maintain that these also are gods, what great matter is it, then, for Christ to be called God? for He has only what all have. (Clementine Homilies 16:16.)

The phrase “of the same substance,” before the fourth century, implied a generic unity of species, and roughly meant “made of the same kind of stuff.” (JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 234-235; Christopher Stead, Divine Substance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977); Stead, Philosophy in Christian Antiquity, 160-172.)

Once again, I am NOT arguing that the original Christian beliefs were EXACTLY like ours, or that any of the ECFs were exactly like us. I am saying that there was a gradual shift from more Jewish-style beliefs like those of Mormons, to more Greek philosophical beliefs. This shift led to various controversies about the nature of Jesus, because it was in some ways difficult to reconcile the NT teachings about Jesus with that kind of theology.

And I HAVE given support for my argument.

 

[zerinus]

zerinus,

You argue that it’s a relic from the past that the leadership wants to let die a slow death. What I don’t understand is why not come out with clear doctrine about this? Why not come out and just say it: hey, Joseph Smith taught them, BY taught this, it was believed as doctrine, but we were wrong. I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again, this is not a small matter, and just letting it ‘die out’ is plain out dishonesty.

I answered that question for you too, and need not answer it again.

zerinus

 

[scipio337]

(Cont’d from last post.)

…Once again, I am NOT arguing that the original Christian beliefs were EXACTLY like ours, or that any of the ECFs were exactly like us. I am saying that there was a gradual shift from more Jewish-style beliefs like those of Mormons, to more Greek philosophical beliefs. This shift led to various controversies about the nature of Jesus, because it was in some ways difficult to reconcile the NT teachings about Jesus with that kind of theology.

And I HAVE given support for my argument.

C’mon the Clementines? Seriously? I wounld’t bandy about much on the “Greek philosophy”, when you’re touting a text with a beauty archetype.

I’d still love to see the Midrash teaching of G*d with a human body.

 

[nebula]

I answered that question for you too, and need not answer it again.

zerinus

No, you really didn’t. I appreciate the fact that you’re giving your doctrine serious thought and being independent minded, I respect that, but-- you still claim loyalty to a church which does teach things that are not explicit in the LDS canon. You claim loyalty to the canon above the church, but tis’ still not clear to me how you harmonize the two, specifically in this instance.

 

[BDawg]

C’mon the Clementines? Seriously? I wounld’t bandy about much on the “Greek philosophy”, when you’re touting a text with a beauty archetype.

So the Clementines are not considered “Jewish Christian” texts? Judaism of that time had significant contact with the Hellenized world, so there is no such thing as “pure Jewish thought” anywhere. But if you seriously don’t think that the Clementines are authentic early Jewish Christian texts, perhaps you ought to look up Cardinal Daniélou’s book that I referenced.

I’d still love to see the Midrash teaching of G*d with a human body.

I don’t think you’re as familiar with all that Jewish literature as you let on. For example, the eminent Jewish scholar, Jacob Neusner, published a nice article in BYU Studies called “Conversation in Nauvoo About the Corporeality of God”. In that article, he argued that Joseph Smith’s teaching that God has a body in human form was pretty standard early Jewish fare. He said, for instance, that “it is then no exaggeration to maintain as I do that to readers of the documents of the oral torah–the mishnah, the Talmud, the midrash compilations–the doctrine of the corporeality of god presents no surprise.”

You can download the article here. He has Midrash out the wazoo, for your reading pleasure.

 

[BDawg]

No, you really didn’t. I appreciate the fact that you’re giving your doctrine serious thought and being independent minded, I respect that, but-- you still claim loyalty to a church which does teach things that are not explicit in the LDS canon. You claim loyalty to the canon above the church, but tis’ still not clear to me how you harmonize the two, specifically in this instance.

Hi nebula,

Z doesn’t harmonize the two. That’s been his point all along. If you were a Catholic who didn’t believe in Limbo before that was taken out of the Catechism, would that cause you some giant crisis of faith? That’s exactly the way Zerinus thinks of his position.

 

[majick275]

Hi Scipio,

Mormons don’t believe humans are “uncreated.” We just don’t believe they are created “from nothing.”

i see this as only partially true. LDS doctrine seems pretty clear that “intelligences” have always existed and thus are uncreated. so the soul is really just an “organized” intelligence and the body is the only “created” element of humans.

 

[nebula]

Hi nebula,

Z doesn’t harmonize the two. That’s been his point all along. If you were a Catholic who didn’t believe in Limbo before that was taken out of the Catechism, would that cause you some giant crisis of faith? That’s exactly the way Zerinus thinks of his position.

Limbo isn’t as big of a topic though-- this involves the very undergirding of LDS theology. Really, it’s the main reason I ended up leaving.

 

[AMDGtoo]

All this talk about the Mormons having Jewish thoughts is just plain laughable. We Catholics are spiritual Semites and many of our customs actually come from Judaism (The Liturgy is a bit like the seder meal and it reminds us of Exodus; besides Jesus’ Sacrifice, the cross reminds us of Abraham and Issac and how Issac too carried wood…;Baptism reminds us a bit of the Jewish practice of circumcision and of how Noah, his family and the animals were saved, the priest’s stole reminds us of how the Kings of Israel were annointed with oil and the oil ran down, and so much more.) I mean our Savior came from Jewish parents and nearly all the people who wrote the New Testament were converts from Judaism. We have a living knowledge of what the first Christians believed. We don’t have to go back and guess (or make it up as we go along.)

I can only imagine telling the Jewish people (who daily recite the Shema “Hear O Israel, our God is one God”) that they actually worship many gods just like the pagans? Stones anyone?

 

[BDawg]

i see this as only partially true. LDS doctrine seems pretty clear that “intelligences” have always existed and thus are uncreated. so the soul is really just an “organized” intelligence and the body is the only “created” element of humans.

“Creation” and “organization” are the same thing for us.

 

[BDawg]

Limbo isn’t as big of a topic though-- this involves the very undergirding of LDS theology. Really, it’s the main reason I ended up leaving.

The very undergirding of LDS theology? How is it that everything else was revealed first, then? It seems like your way of approaching theology is backwards from the way LDS people do. Interesting.

In any case, it seems like you understand perfectly what Zerinus’s position is, and you even recognize that similar issues come up in Catholicism. You just don’t agree with his position because the issue at hand is “too big”. I actually agree with your assessment, but obviously Z doesn’t, so why not drop it?