Mormon Confusion

[nebula]

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?

Well it was up to zerinus, and I think he did drop it, so that’s that.

I should add another note though, which is, I do not agree with how unilaterally and without justification the LDS church tends to change things around, for instance, OD 1 and 2. IT seems that trying to ignore things so they’ll go away is a modus operandi, but rather sloppy for the one true church of God, at least I expect.

 

[BDawg]

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.

Specifically, check out p. 59 of Daniélou’s The Theology of Jewish Christianity.

I also just picked up Richard Longenecker’s The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity (London: SCM, 1970) off my bookshelf, and found this:

While very diverse evaluations of these works have been given in the past, there seems to be a growing consensus today that the Clementine Homilies (late second century or early third) and the Clementine Recognitions (first half of the fourth century) probably continue in large measure certain beliefs and attitudes of at least one sector of early Jewish Christianity. (Longenecker, 15-16.)

Longenecker is Professor of New Testament at McMaster University. Don’t know what his denomination is.

I also pulled Oskar Skarsaune’s In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 2002) off my bookshelf, and and found this comment about the Clementine Recognitions.

Therefore, we may assume this Judeo-Christian document does from the second century does not differ radically in its view of the temple from that of the pre-70 Jerusalem community. (Skarsaune, 157.)

Skarsaune is professor of church history at the Norwegian Lutheran School of Theology.

So it seems to me that I’m on pretty safe ground calling the Pseudo-Clementine literature “Jewish Christian.”

 

[scipio337]

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.

You can think whatever you like, but attacking me won’t help your argument.

More picking of the pepper out of the fly poop. I don’t care what one man’s own translation is of the Torah or Midrash, the point is, it is not, never has, and never will be a part of Jewish teaching.

I think you should re-read your Neusner article.

…I should have found his doctrine important for two reasons
first of all, as I said it ran counter to the received wisdom of philosophers including philosophers of Judaism, that GD must be conceived as not physical, not corporeal. We had long been taught that all references to Gd as a person like us with physical traits and qualities analogous to ours were to be treated as metaphors…

He then goes on to base his argument on his interpretation of Genesis 1:26 (which also has not been a popular or historical interpretation).

Don’t get me wrong, I like Nuesner, but if you’re tying your argument to him, how do you feel about his argument that Christ know nothing of Jewish law?

Again, you find one rabbi whose views support you own, you tout him and ignore the 99.99999999999% of those who disagree.

I speak in terms of historical veracity, major concensus. You’re pulling individuals with individual theories. Mormon Apologetics.

I suppose next you will find a single Rabbi who believes in eternal progression?

 

[BDawg]

You can think whatever you like, but attacking me won’t help your argument.

How did I attack you? You pronounced in absolute terms that these ideas are NOWHERE in all that Jewish literature. I said that I don’t think you are as familiar with it as you let on, because these ideas can be found there.

In any case, pointing out that you are flatly wrong about something that you pronounced in absolute terms is hardly any more of an attack than you accusing me of “mental gymnastics” on the Mormon Temple Ceremony thread.

More picking of the pepper out of the fly poop. I don’t care what one man’s own translation is of the Torah or Midrash, the point is, it is not, never has, and never will be a part of Jewish teaching.

So you read the Torah and the Midrash in Hebrew? If not, whose translation would you care about? Somebody has to translate it, after all, and it turns out that Neusner is a very famous scholar of Rabbinic Judaism who has translated nearly the entire Rabbinic corpus. It’s a standard translation. See this Wikipedia article for more info on Neusner.

Don’t get me wrong, I like Nuesner, but if you’re tying your argument to him, how do you feel about his argument that Christ know nothing of Jewish law?

I don’t know that much about ancient Jewish Law. How can I tell. And why should I feel compelled to accept every argument from a scholar whom I think has given one good argument? In the case of his argument about anthropomorphism being present in the “oral Torah,” he gave all kinds of quotations from those texts to support his argument. It seems to me to be a pretty clearcut case.

And his argument was not that anthropomorphism is accepted in modern Judaism–that’s why he said he was surprised. His point was that it was standard fare in ancient Judaism.

Again, you find one rabbi whose views support you own, you tout him and ignore the 99.99999999999% of those who disagree.

Well, at least I bothered to look up my rabbi. You just keep waving your hands, referring to all these sources that you never bother to look up.

I speak in terms of historical veracity, major concensus. You’re pulling individuals with individual theories. Mormon Apologetics.

No, you are hand-waving (to put it politely.) So far I have quoted both Justin and Origen saying that the early Jews IN GENERAL (and in Origen’s case, other Christians) believed God had a body in human form. I have quoted Christopher Stead, a prominent Anglican scholar, saying the same thing. I have provided an article by Jacob Neusner, a prominent Jewish scholar, saying this stuff shows up in early rabbinic Judaism. What have you put up to support your case? Nothing but unsupported assertions that the kind of stuff I have quoted doesn’t exist. Well, ok, now you have backed down to saying that the stuff I quoted only represents 0.00000000001% of the literature. So apparently you are claiming that you have read 10 trillion times the amount of literature on this subject that I have quoted. Excuse me if I don’t take your claims very seriously.

I suppose next you will find a single Rabbi who believes in eternal progression?

Is this close enough? Rabbi Akiba (or Akiva) was the leading rabbi in Judaism in the late first and early second centuries. Here’s what the Wikipedia article on him says:

Akiba ben Joseph (ca.50–ca.135 AD) (Hebrew: עקיבא) or simply Rabbi Akiva was a Judean tanna of the latter part of the 1st century and the beginning of the 2nd century (3rd tannaitic generation). He was a great authority in the matter of Jewish tradition, and one of the most central and essential contributors to the Mishnah and Midrash Halakha. He is referred to in the Talmud as “Rosh la-Chachomim” (Head of all the Sages). He is considered by many to be the godfather of rabbinical Judaism[1].

Anyway, here is a quotation attributed to Akiba:

The Holy One, blessed be He, will in the future call all of the pious by their names, and give them a cup of elixir of life in their hands so that they should live and endure forever… And the Holy One, blessed be He, will in the future reveal to all the pious in the World to Come the Ineffable Name with which new heavens and a new earth can be created, so that all of them should be able to create new worlds… The Holy One, blessed be He, will give every pious three hundred and forty worlds in inheritance in the World to Come. (Midrash Alpha Beta diR. Akiba, BhM 3:32, quoted in Raphael Patai, The Messiah Texts (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1979), 251.)

 

[scipio337]

How did I attack you? You pronounced in absolute terms that these ideas are NOWHERE in all that Jewish literature. I said that I don’t think you are as familiar with it as you let on, because these ideas can be found there.

Ah, yes. I should take “I don’t think you’re as familiar with all that Jewish literature as you let on”, not my understanding of the texts, as if I’m somerehow haven’t read them. I can understand that feeling, I’m more than alittle sceptical that you’ve read every source you site (I’m thinking a Mopologetics site. Daniel Peterson, perhaps?) but I have had the courtesy not to mention it.

BDawg:

In any case, pointing out that you are flatly wrong about something that you pronounced in absolute terms is hardly any more of an attack than you accusing me of “mental gymnastics” on the Mormon Temple Ceremony thread.

I’m “flatly wrong” because I haven’t read Nuesner’s translations, can’t find a Rabbi who agrees with Nuesner’s conclusions, and agree with the majority, who historically agree that those concepts are methaphors?

BDawg:

So you read the Torah and the Midrash in Hebrew? If not, whose translation would you care about? Somebody has to translate it, after all, and it turns out that Neusner is a very famous scholar of Rabbinic Judaism who has translated nearly the entire Rabbinic corpus. It’s a standard translation. See this Wikipedia article for more info on Neusner.

Not in Hebrew, and I haven’t read Nuesner’s translation. I’ve read Lipschutz’s, and Mishneh Torah and the commentary (and no, not in Arabic). I’ve forwarded info on Nuesner to two native Hebrew speakers I know, one currently in Kol Torah yeshiva, another who is a secular translator living in the US. I’d love to get their take on it.

I am familiar with Nuesner, but have only read parts of A Rabbi Talks with Jesus. I’m not sure how his interpretations are taken in the Jewish community as a whole, or outside of the United States.

BDawg:

I don’t know that much about ancient Jewish Law. How can I tell. And why should I feel compelled to accept every argument from a scholar whom I think has given one good argument? In the case of his argument about anthropomorphism being present in the “oral Torah,” he gave all kinds of quotations from those texts to support his argument. It seems to me to be a pretty clearcut case.

If it were such a clearcut case, why is he one of the few who holds that interpretation of the Mishnah? If there’s one thing all rabbis have in common, its that they love to argue , especially when it comes to the Torah or Mishnah, yet I can’t even call Nuesner’s hypothesis a “fringe” idea.

BDawg:

And his argument was not that anthropomorphism is accepted in modern Judaism–that’s why he said he was surprised. His point was that it was standard fare in ancient Judaism.

Which is a opine held almost exclusively by himself. A vast majority of rabbinic scholars, in the past present, don’t hold those views.

BDawg:

Well, at least I bothered to look up my rabbi. You just keep waving your hands, referring to all these sources that you never bother to look up.

Who do you want me to quote? It’s common Mishnah interpretation!!

I’m sorry, there aren’t a gaggle of Rabbis out there trying to disprove LDS doctrine that I can quote, as opposed to the unending amount of amateur (and professional) Mormon apologetica with an axe to grind, providing an endless amout of quotes…without context.

www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/gods.htm

BDawg:

No, you are hand-waving (to put it politely.) So far I have quoted both Justin and Origen saying that the early Jews IN GENERAL (and in Origen’s case, other Christians) believed God had a body in human form.

And as I have said, quoting someone is one thing, understanding the point, in context, without projecting your own beliefs is another one entirely.

BDawg:

I have quoted Christopher Stead, a prominent Anglican scholar, saying the same thing. I have provided an article by Jacob Neusner, a prominent Jewish scholar, saying this stuff shows up in early rabbinic Judaism. What have you put up to support your case? Nothing but unsupported assertions that the kind of stuff I have quoted doesn’t exist. Well, ok, now you have backed down to saying that the stuff I quoted only represents 0.00000000001% of the literature. So apparently you are claiming that you have read 10 trillion times the amount of literature on this subject that I have quoted. Excuse me if I don’t take your claims very seriously.

I’m sorry that you need proof of a commonly held Jewish belief. It tells me that you know very little of the Jewish faith, or that you are so blinded by your own that you are unwilling to acknowledge it.

A simple search of “G*d is Incorporeal”, or “Judaism Incorporeal” would probably solve your disbelief.

BDawg:

Is this close enough? Rabbi Akiba (or Akiva) was the leading rabbi in Judaism in the late first and early second centuries. Here’s what the Wikipedia article on him says:

Anyway, here is a quotation attributed to Akiba:

Eek. And the consensus on that commentary?

Hard to find anything outside the Mormon prism. They certainly seem to care more about it than Rabbinical scholares.

search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkkSItaVIC.0AUXRXNyoA?p=The+Holy+One%2C+blessed+be+He%2C+will+in+the+future+call+all+of+the+pious+by+their+names%2C+and+give+them+a+cup+of+elixir+of+life+in+their+hands+so+that+they+should+live+and+endure+forever…+And+the+Holy+One%2C+blessed+be+He%2C+will+in+the+future+reveal+to+all+the+pious+in+the+World+to+Come+the+Ineffable+Name+&y=Search&fr=yfp-t-501&ei=UTF-8

 

[BDawg]

Hi Scipio,

We are arguing from different directions. You seem to be arguing from a “Jewish Consensus” point of view that includes all the Medieval and Modern rabbis. I’m strictly talking about very early rabbinic and pre-rabbinic Judaism. No matter how Jewish thought developed in the later centuries, I think I’ve provided decent evidence that the anthropomorphic interpretation of God was very common among Jewish teachers until the third century, at least. Both Origen and Justin made blanket statements about this that I quoted. I know there were exceptions in this early period (e.g., Philo), but it would seem odd if Christian philosophers like Justin and Origen were making such blanket statements if there weren’t at least some truth to it. Both had quite a bit of contact with Jewish teachers.

So it won’t help your case to just find Jewish sources saying that the standard Jewish interpretation has been that God is incorporeal. Neusner said that, anyway. You need to find sources that say this has ALWAYS been the case, and give some historical evidence for that. Neusner gave evidence that it has NOT always been the case.

Also, I honestly didn’t mean to insult you. I do object to your blanket statements about what is “nowhere” found in Jewish tradition, and 99.99999999%, and the like. I just don’t think you can back up that kind of rhetoric.

 

[BDawg]

And yes, I’ve read everything that I quoted.

 

[majick275]

why is it that the guy that writes something for BYU or that appears to agree with mormon claims is always “eminent scholar” or “the leading brand”…this is PR spin at its worst. I find in interesting that the primary claim AGAINST Neusner is so similar to the priimary claim against Mormon apologetics. Shaye, Evan, Liebermann, Maccoby, Poierier, Sandes, Zeitlein and Zuesse disagree with this methodology because of his tendency to employ circular reasoning, lack of evidence, inaccurate statistics and forcing conclusions without supporting analysis.

we could trade giant tomes worth of arcane quotes from the past all day but i think we all know what the real prevailing “climate” was in historical Judaism as well as early Christianity. when we look holistically at both we see a very definite and consistent monotheism with a truly eternal and ontologically unique CREATOR. this is significantly different than LDS teaching. Despite the attempts to paint it as a “restoration”, everything form doctrine on deity to the temple ceremony in mormonism is of modern origin.

 

[majick275]

i know you like a reading list so rather than mine quotes here are some good links for Jewish support for one triune God:

amfi.org/trinity.htm

jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/10_8/trinity

freegroups.net/ministry_files/The_Reading_Room/Yeshua_Messianic_Judaism/The_Trinity.shtml

messiahnj.org/af-tri-unity.htm

none of these are catholic sites.

and a bit more specific to God doesn’t have a physical body there is this:

becomingjewish.org/rlife.html

i tend to accept maimonides on this as a good summary.

regarding ECF’s I think you attribute a “slant” to their writings that isn’t there. that is why the “jewish” view is so important for context. they had the same tendency for metaphoric speaking and even use many of the same symbols. that is understandable considering that Christianity is the “scion” of Judaism.

If Justin or Origen were here today I doubt even you believe that they would agree with the KFD.

 

[AMDGtoo]

why is it that the guy that writes something for BYU or that appears to agree with mormon claims is always “eminent scholar” or “the leading brand”…this is PR spin at its worst. I find in interesting that the primary claim AGAINST Neusner is so similar to the priimary claim against Mormon apologetics. Shaye, Evan, Liebermann, Maccoby, Poierier, Sandes, Zeitlein and Zuesse disagree with this methodology because of his tendency to employ circular reasoning, lack of evidence, inaccurate statistics and forcing conclusions without supporting analysis.

we could trade giant tomes worth of arcane quotes from the past all day but i think we all know what the real prevailing “climate” was in historical Judaism as well as early Christianity. when we look holistically at both we see a very definite and consistent monotheism with a truly eternal and ontologically unique CREATOR. this is significantly different than LDS teaching. Despite the attempts to paint it as a “restoration”, everything form doctrine on deity to the temple ceremony in mormonism is of modern origin.

Umm–could we get back to what evidence there is for the claim of a Great Apostasy? And no, this doesn’t mean finding a quote from a source giving his opinion on what might have happened. Evidence in the form of the continuing living historical records of the churches that had been established then (and are still in existence now), friends of the Gospel or the Church herself, records from the Roman empire’s history, records from the Jewish historians and/or the pagan writer’s at the time–you know observations that show that Jesus was lying when He said that He would lead His Church unto all truth.

Honestly if I wanted to be proseltyzed I would just wait on my porch for the Missionaries (they seem to come by regularly although none seem as knowledgeable and kind as BDawg). So can we just answer the question: what is the evidence?

 

[scipio337]

Hi Scipio,

We are arguing from different directions. You seem to be arguing from a “Jewish Consensus” point of view that includes all the Medieval and Modern rabbis. I’m strictly talking about very early rabbinic and pre-rabbinic Judaism. No matter how Jewish thought developed in the later centuries, I think I’ve provided decent evidence that the anthropomorphic interpretation of God was very common among Jewish teachers until the third century, at least. Both Origen and Justin made blanket statements about this that I quoted. I know there were exceptions in this early period (e.g., Philo), but it would seem odd if Christian philosophers like Justin and Origen were making such blanket statements if there weren’t at least some truth to it. Both had quite a bit of contact with Jewish teachers.

I believe we’re talking past each other. I’m also arguing from an historical concensus ie, the historical concensus is that there never been that type of belief in Judaism. I just heard from my Yeshiva friend, who of course took humberage to the concept. He’s never heard of Nuesner, but pointed to Maimonides’ third principle of faith and his commentary on Berachot, 31b and Deuteronomy 4:15 and, if I may quote him (he probably doesn’t mind)

"The passage beginning with Deuteronomy 4:15 shows that to claim anything physical is God is the definition of having been led astray.

I didn’t make this decision… G*d did"

BDawg:

So it won’t help your case to just find Jewish sources saying that the standard Jewish interpretation has been that God is incorporeal. Neusner said that, anyway. You need to find sources that say this has ALWAYS been the case, and give some historical evidence for that. Neusner gave evidence that it has NOT always been the case.

The consensus throughout history has been that it has ALWAYS been the case.

It won’t help you’re case to find a handful of sources that state that ancient Hebrews believed in corporeal G*d. Nuesner, et al, provided no support that this was the ancient Hebrew consensus.

You have to go through a lot of “apostacy” to get the the LDS viewpoint. Jews corrupted their own beliefs, as the early Christians did, and I guess we have to throw in the Masons to boot.

BDawg:

Also, I honestly didn’t mean to insult you. I do object to your blanket statements about what is “nowhere” found in Jewish tradition, and 99.99999999%, and the like. I just don’t think you can back up that kind of rhetoric.

Perhaps you don’t understand: by “tradition”, I’m not referencing the generic term, ala cuisine and folk dancing, I mean Halakha, which is determined by rabbinical CONSENSUS

 

[scipio337]

And yes, I’ve read everything that I quoted.

You’re lucky to have that much free time. I haven’t read everything, but I also don’t have the resources to instantaneously quote and site everything I’ve read.

 

[BDawg]

Hi Majick,

Good to hear from you.

i know you like a reading list so rather than mine quotes here are some good links for Jewish support for one triune God:
none of these are catholic sites.

I actually thought those were quite interesting–thanks.

and a bit more specific to God doesn’t have a physical body there is this:

becomingjewish.org/rlife.html

i tend to accept maimonides on this as a good summary.

This was interesting, too, but I couldn’t find anything that discussed early Jewish and rabbinic interpretations regarding anthropomorphism. The web page seems to treat “Jewish Theology” as a static entity, which I think is hard to maintain, historically speaking.

You and Scipio have both mentioned Moses Maimonides, for instance, but he lived about 1000 years after the fact.

regarding ECF’s I think you attribute a “slant” to their writings that isn’t there. that is why the “jewish” view is so important for context. they had the same tendency for metaphoric speaking and even use many of the same symbols. that is understandable considering that Christianity is the “scion” of Judaism.

I’m not sure I understand you. Both Justin and Origen had philosophical concepts of God (although they were both subordinationists, as well.) I quoted them saying that the Jews (and some Christians) disagreed with them about that.

If Justin or Origen were here today I doubt even you believe that they would agree with the KFD.

Correct. I don’t believe that.

 

[majick275]

yeah i understand that a lot of jewish philosophers, theologians, etc. are later than what you like but the critics of nueser that i listed all give in their works reason to believe that on these subjects at least it HAS been static. i don’t think “the popes favorite rabbi” is bad or anything, i just don’t see his “evidence” supporting his conclusion that jews were anything other than monotheistic worshippers of an eternal non-corporeal God.

i am trying to show that contextually justin and origen don’t support your interpretation.

so we at least agree that this is somewhat academic since you acknowledge the difference in the ECF position and that of Joseph Smith. I then stick with my contention that mormonism is an INNOVATION rather than a restoration.

 

[BDawg]

I believe we’re talking past each other. I’m also arguing from an historical concensus ie, the historical concensus is that there never been that type of belief in Judaism. I just heard from my Yeshiva friend, who of course took humberage to the concept. He’s never heard of Nuesner, but pointed to Maimonides’ third principle of faith and his commentary on Berachot, 31b and Deuteronomy 4:15 and, if I may quote him (he probably doesn’t mind)

"The passage beginning with Deuteronomy 4:15 shows that to claim anything physical is God is the definition of having been led astray.

I didn’t make this decision… G*d did"

Again, Maimonides was writing about 1100 AD. What does he have to do with the time period I was talking about?

The consensus throughout history has been that it has ALWAYS been the case.

If you can think of any historical studies that make the case for that, I’d be interested in seeing them. If you don’t have time to dig out the references, that’s fine, though.

It won’t help you’re case to find a handful of sources that state that ancient Hebrews believed in corporeal G*d. Nuesner, et al, provided no support that this was the ancient Hebrew consensus.

I quoted both Justin and Origen saying it was the Jewish consensus during their times. You may not believe them, but I would hardly call that “no support.” If you want to gather up some sources to support your contention, I would appreciate seeing them.

 

[BDawg]

i am trying to show that contextually justin and origen don’t support your interpretation.

That’s what I don’t understand. Are you saying that they weren’t anthropomorphites (which I never claimed)? Or are you saying that they didn’t really say the Jews were anthropomorphites? Or are you saying that they were wrong about the Jews?

so we at least agree that this is somewhat academic since you acknowledge the difference in the ECF position and that of Joseph Smith. I then stick with my contention that mormonism is an INNOVATION rather than a restoration.

The problem here is that Joseph Smith’s claim was that Mormonism should be BOTH a restoration of early Christianity AND an expansion.

 

[majick275]

i’m saying that origen and justin didn’t claim anthropomorphism for EITHER.

so which part of Mormonism IS a restoration? I claim none of it in the absolutist sense. I will acknowledge restored authority only even in the LDS “claims”. I see no evidence of anything else even attempted as a restoration. I also see innovation versus expansion but am willing to admit that distinction is not particularly significant.

 

[BDawg]

i’m saying that origen and justin didn’t claim anthropomorphism for EITHER.

Well, all I can say to that is that I just don’t see how to interpret their statements in that way. Here they are again.

“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.)

[Justin says the following 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.)

And for Scipio’s benefit, another Jewish scholar, Guy Stroumsa from Hebrew University, says this about anthropomorphism in the Rabbinic period. “Jewish anthropomorphism seems to have been notorious in the first centuries C.E.” (Gedaliahu G. Stroumsa, 1983, “Form(s) of God: Some Notes on Metatron and Christ,” Harvard Theological Review 76, 269-288, 271.)

Majick, I know you questioned my assessment of Jacob Neusner as “eminent,” but just because some other scholars disagree with some of what he has said does not mean that he doesn’t have a formidable reputation. Academics just don’t publish that many books and articles, or get asked to edit that many books, unless they have a big rep. Of course, I do not mean to imply that his arguments are unassailable, or that anyone should believe what he says just because he’s so important, or whatever.

 

[BDawg]

so which part of Mormonism IS a restoration? I claim none of it in the absolutist sense. I will acknowledge restored authority only even in the LDS “claims”. I see no evidence of anything else even attempted as a restoration. I also see innovation versus expansion but am willing to admit that distinction is not particularly significant.

I’m claiming that the following points about the nature of God and humans are a restoration of early Christian beliefs.

1. God has a body in human form.
2. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate beings.
3. The Son and Spirit are subordinate in rank and glory to the Father, and are separate beings.
4. The Divine Nature is generically similar to human nature.
5. Therefore, the Logos could inhabit a human body in the same manner as a human soul (i.e., Jesus didn’t have an extra human soul), but Jesus was still truly a man.
6. God creates things out of pre-existing materials.
7. Human souls existed before their respective bodies.

On top of that, I consider the idea that God the Father has a father, and was once a man, to be something only publicly revealed in the last dispensation. So it isn’t a “restoration” of anything, in my book.

Maybe you don’t buy into Mormon arguments for #'s 1-7 being the original Christian doctrines, but maybe you can understand my point of view that the Mormon view of God is mostly a restoration.

 

[AMDGtoo]

I’m claiming that the following points about the nature of God and humans are a restoration of early Christian beliefs.

1. God has a body in human form.

You know, next we’ll be told that the early Christians (and the Jews too) believed that God had feathers! We all know that the Bible compares God to an Eagle that soars above all or a mother-hen. Perhaps the problem is that while others know about comparisons and even theosis (in order to make the immutable, mystical, majestic, and uncreated God halfway understandable to us creatures) the LDS see everything through their lens of “everything is quite literal”.

Of course, the problem could also be that the LDS are working backwards to try to ascertain what the early Christians thought (and they have to do this because they say that there was a total apostasy even if there is no evidence) while we work forwards forever building on what was.