Smithsonian statement on Book of Mormon

[FCEGM]

TOM:

Respected Old Testament Scholar (and Methodist minister), Margaret Barker has been producing a great deal of evidence for her position that the ancient Jews were not as monotheistic as modern Jews claim they were.

The ancient Jews clearly failed to practice monotheism, this is certainly true (e.g. 1 Sam 19:13). But, that’s clearly what they were called to do and demanded of via the Torah: “I Am the Lord your God, you shall have NO OTHER GODS before me.”

In fact the terms she uses are more at home in the LDS Social Trinity than they are in modern Jews strict monotheism or the less strict monotheism of Augustinian Trinitarians.

“Less strict monotheism of Augustinian Trinitarians”?? Puh-leeeeze. Augustine and all fathers of his age were strict Athanasians who subscribed to the dogmas of Nicaea and Constantinople I; to say otherwise is historical distortion.

Perhaps I have not been clear. Nothing pre-existed God.

Really? What about the planet that he used to live on as a man before he became God?

God created from eternal matter.

“Eternal matter”? If it was “eternal,” then it existed eternally side-by-side with God. Ergo, you cannot then say that “nothing pre-existed God.” What you are saying is that both God and this “matter” which he used for creation are eternal. But, that being the case, you are then saying that God did not create the “matter,” and so contradicting Genesis 1:1-2, which says that God created the earth in its proto-chaotic form.

St Justin Martyr absolutely agrees with me and St. Clement of Rome probably did as well.

Really? Quotes please.

If this knowledge is incompatible with being a Trinitarian than SAINT Justin Martyr must not have been a Trinitarian.

SAINT Justin Martyr was not required to be a Trinitarian in a dogmatic sense since the DOGMA of the Trinity was not yet formally defined by the Church. Rather, like all ante-Nicene fathers, St. Justin possessed an organic (and possibly even imperfect) understanding of the Trinity. Yet, what he clearly DID NOT teach or believe was that Jesus was anything less than the One God of Israel or that God had “other sons” apart from Jesus, or that Satan was one of these.

Of course, SAINT Justin Martyr was absolutely not a Trinitarian as you are today.

Please prove it.

He used terms like “duetros theos,” that are not inline with the Trinity as developed.

Correction: As systematically dogmatized. But, the theological language of Nicene dogmatic orthodoxy was not invented yet. St. Paul’s own terminology is at odds with the terminology of Nicaea (e.g. “…though He was in the form of God, He did not deem equality with God…”). However, all this must be taken in its intended, organic sense, and not pitted against the clear definitions of Nicaea. Neither St. Paul nor St. Justin were trying to be theologically “precise” in their terminology, but were grasping for terms to describe these mysteries. Yet, explored in context, their meaning is clear and quite in accord with the Catholic faith.

 

[FCEGM]

TOM:

Originally Posted by Katholikos
But because God is perfection: Pure Truth, Pure Love, Omnipotent, Omniscient, and nothing pre-existed Him, or else He would not be God, He had to have created out of nothing – ex-nihilo.

Solid Catholic doctrine asserted with no support by you. Developed during the 2nd century with no apostolic or ECF witness evident in any text before this.

I already gave you Genesis 1:1-2. I don’t know what could be earlier than that. Where did the “waters” / “the abyss” - that is, the “formless and void” earth (i.e., “the earth was formless and void”) come from? Verse 1 tells us: God **created ** it; and He created it ex nihilo. So, your very ex materia doctrine depends on ex nihilo. There is no “eternal matter” in Scripture or in the Tradition of Judaism or Christianity.

Cardinal Newman in the Essay from your tagline seem to address this, but the development of doctrine is not as simple as most Catholics seem to suggest.

Sure it is. And Apostolic doctrine is far more consistent than the LDS seem to think.

Jesus Christ told us that the apostasy would occur, but His church would prevail in the end.

Jesus Christ founded His Church upon the ministry of Peter, and declared that the gates of hell itself would not prevail against it (Matt 16:18-19). Jesus also prayed that the faith of Peter would not fail and that it would continue to confirm the brethren (Luke 22:31-32); and to this Petrine Church, Jesus promised the reception of the Holy Spirit, the “Spirit of Truth,” Who would “REMAIN” with the Church " always," leading it “to all truth” (see: John 14:16-17 & 16:13). This is why 1 Tim 3:15 calls the Church the “pillar and foundation of Truth,” because it was the CHURCH that received the Spirit of Truth on Pentecost, and Jesus promised that this Spirit of Truth would remain with His Church always (John 14:16-17). Yet, in saying that the entire Church fell into apostasy and that it was “withdrawn from the earth” (sometime between the preaching of the Apostles and the coming of Joseph Smith), Mormons are clearly asserting that John 14:16-17 is a lie - that the Spirit of Truth did not remain with the Church as Jesus promised that it would, and that the gates of hell did prevail against the Church, despite Jesus’ promise in Matt 16:18.

God revealed to Ignatius (perhaps), Polycarp(perhaps), and the Pastor of Hermas that the apostasy would occur and be total.

Would you care to present us with some quotes where either Ignatius, or Polycarp, or Hermas ever said anything remotely close to this?

Hermas is very clear that there will be a lesser organization that replaces Christ’s church.

Quote please.

 

[FCEGM]

TOM:

Surely many Jews also said that the Christian Christ failed because he was killed. The problem with this is that the Christian Christ (like His Church) rose again. To prevail is not to win every battle, but to conquer in the end. This is what happened at the Restoration.

This is a *non sequitur * at best, and a Satanic distortion at worst. Christ rose again to give life to His Church. Ergo, it is not possible for His Church to “die,” and no need for it to “rise” again. If the Church of Christ “died” at some point, and so needed to be “restored,” then the Sacrifice of Christ was powerless to prevent it, and so guarantees nothing. Think about it.

 

[TOmNossor]

Frances,

Wow! You wrote a lot. Thank you for your thoughtful interaction. I will disagree (especially with your mischaracterization of my beliefs), but you have certainly engaged what I said. Here goes…

On creation ex nihilo and Satan. If there once was a time when there was nothing by God then everything that is Satan came solely from God. He created Satan from nothing. He created those entities that interacted with Satan. He introduced Satan to the influences that lead to Satan’s rebellion. He programmed Satan’s thought processes such that Satan eventually choose rebellion. Unless you propose that God plays dice, then creation ex nihilo results in predictable behavior 100%. Where do I err? What (name removed by moderator)uts came from something other than God? How is God not completely responsible for ALL of it and completely aware that it was absolutely going to occur as it did?

Frances:

So what? That doesn’t mean that God made the choice for him. You are confusing omniscience with manipulation of will.

TOm:

Actually, what you responded to here was not this confusion (one could argue that my demand that every effect has a cause and God is the ultimate cause is manipulation, but my comment here was on omniscience). I said that the omniscience of God resulted in his knowledge that He, God, created Satan such that Satan would rebel. That God knew that the (name removed by moderator)uts God provided lead to Satan’s rebellion. Could God have given more righteous (name removed by moderator)uts to Satan such that Satan might choose to not rebel. If God is omnipotent then He could do this. But the omnipotent, omniscient God choose not to do this with the foreknowledge that God’s ex nihilo creation would result in incredible evil.

So no, I love my son even if he will rebel, but I did not provide every cause that leads to the rebellion (and even if I did, I am not omnibenevolent, omniscient, or omnipotent).

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Frances:

No, that is wrong. You are overlooking context here. While misery in this life may assist in making men into what God wishes us to be, this is only because of the choice of Adam and the curse of original sin. This was not God’s original intention. Likewise, angels do not require “misery” to be what God wishes them to be, nor can fallen angels be redeemed by “misery,” since their choice was made eternally at the time of Satan’s rebellion.

TOm:

This is all part of our above discussion. I still do not see how creation ex nihilo does not lay evil solidly at the ultimate cause, God.

In LDS theology angels have a will also. Some (Satan) rebelled and others did not. In any case, we could argue that it is humans we speak of and in truth we know much more about humans than we do about angels.

Frances:

Is God the Father eternal? Scripture (that is, real Scripture) says that He is.

TOm:

To which “real Scripture” do you refer. D&C 20:17 is perhaps one of the clearest statements of this truth.

“There is a God in heaven who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God…” (D&C 20:17)

As I said earlier in this thread, LDS recognize that Jesus Christ is co-eternal with God the Father. We seldom use the term “eternally begotten,” but in principle I have little problem with this.

BTW, according to the Catholic Church does not the Holy Spirit also have the same nature as God the Father and God the Son. From your statement I certainly do not get this impression.

Frances:

Your LDS theology, on the other hand, contradicts this Scriptural principal and presents us with a form of neo-Arianism, whereby God exists prior to being a Father, and that His Fatherhood is not of Himself (per the Trinity), but of other, lesser beings --i.e., Satan and your version of “Jesus.”

TOm:

Actually the anti-Arianism word agreed upon is not scriptural. Arianism is quite defendable from scripture. You should read some solid JW apologetics, but that is not LDS theology.

LDS believe that God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are “homoousian” as this word was understood after the close of the council of Nicea. We embrace a subordination in the Godhead, but that is not manifested in the Son being less divine than the Father, nor the Son being of a different nature than the Father.

So, I do not take the position.

Frances:

We don’t have a concept of an “invisible church.” Rather, we acknowledge that the Catholic Church (which is a very visible and incarnational thing) mysteriously extends beyond its institutional limits via solidarity of the faithful. Yet, without the Catholic Church as a focal point, no one belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ. Likewise, “Baptism by desire” is intrinsically connected to this dynamic.

TOm:

I really do not care what you call it. If the Catholic Church extends beyond the boundaries that I can see I thought it appropriate to call this and “invisible church” concept. I really do not care what we call it though.

Frances:

So, you admit that your belief is "incomplete”?

TOm:

Yes I do. Is your understanding of God and all complete?

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Frances:

Catholicism condemns the Feenyites and all those who say membership in the *institutional Catholic Church is absolutely necessary for salvation. Yet, at the same time, we also maintain that it is impossible to be saved by a false, made-up “Jesus.” Only the real Jesus can save you, and He is not the 19th Century pseudo-Arian “character” invented by the Mormonism.

TOm:

My best understanding is that the SSPX Priest is still able to perform a valid mass. And I do not embrace a “made-up ‘Jesus’ … the 19th Century pseudo-Arian ‘character’ invented by the Mormonism.” I suggest this is a polemic that you may or may not cling to as I correct you with respect to what I actually believe. It is easier to mischaracterize the beliefs of others so as to stand confidently above them. Those who point to the polytheism of Catholics confidently do this. I hope you are misinformed and will recognize when I correct your incorrect understanding.

I said earlier:

Concerning the Trinity:
Perhaps it would be best that you allow me to define what I mean. I explained my concept of the Trinity earlier in this thread. It was no more polytheistic than your concept of the Trinity.

Francis (you) replied:

We beg to differ.

TOm:

Do you mean that you do not think it is “best that you allow me to define what I mean?”

Frances:

Simple Question: Is Jesus Christ One in Being with God the Father, or a “divine being” who is distinct from God the Father? If Jesus is Divine, but is not One in Being with the Father, then you have embraced polytheism. Ignore it all you like, but that is the objective reality.

TOm:

The answer to your question depends upon what you mean when you say “One in Being.” I know enough about the Trinity that I know that you do not embrace the three headed monster that Jehovah’s Witnesses and many LDS believe is the Trinity of much of Christianity. If that was what you meant, then you would be correct I would reject that “One in Being.” If you mean what Eusebius (probably the most knowledgeable theologian at Nicea) embraced post Nicea, then all LDS have absolutely no trouble at all embracing “One in Being (homoousian).” If you mean what has come to be called the Augustinian Trinity, then I need more information THAT I HAVE NEVER BEEN PROVIDED. What exactly is one-being-ness? It is my opinion that one-being-ness has never been defined such that my concept of one divinity is outside the definition, but we can pursue this if it is important to you. I generally think this is of very little importance and is like arguing about the makeup of a bridge hand on the moon. We know so little about the totality of God that for us to go much beyond acknowledging that there is oneness and there is threeness is pointless. What is three-person-ness? What is one-being-ness? I do not know.

Frances:

I thought you said you yourselves don’t understand it.

TOm:

I understand enough about deification to know that the restoration of the truth is powerful evidence that Joseph Smith was not shooting in the dark. Former Father Vajda seemed to agree.

How the statement that “men may become gods” is true is shrouded in mystery within both our religions. Matthias Joseph Scheeben includes it as one of his 7-9 (I cannot remember which # or exactly how many and I do not want to go check) mysteries in his book, The Mysteries of Christianity. He would suggest that the non-divine mind cannot grasp it unaided by the divine mind (I believe).

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Frances:

I’m all for addressing what you Mormons actually believe. The problem is that you don’t admit what you really believe to outsiders; and when what you really believe is exposed, you try to rationalize it away rather than defend it.

TOm:

Many a Protestant will say that Catholic worship Saints and will not admit such things. I assure you that I am the world authority upon what I believe and I am willing to defend those things that a solidly know. The belief structure I know to be superior to Catholicism is the belief structure I embrace through the CoJCoLDS. You will get very little traction with me telling me what I believe. I will gladly accept your concept of what Catholics believe and weigh it against my beliefs. I will however never reject my beliefs because you tell me what they must be and then call me from them. As a Catholic you should be aware of this tactic and not try to use it.

Frances:

This statement directly contradicts LDS doctrine, which maintains that Satan was God the Father’s FIRST son. Likewise, Lactantius contradicts Mormonism, for he says

TOm:

This is absolutely incorrect. LDS universally or almost universally acknowledge that Jesus Christ was First. Some LDS may hold that Lucifer was second, but this is far from a dogmatic position. I would like for you to name a source for your above assertion or I would like for you to recant said assertion. While there are many things said by LDS (and LDS leaders) that are not LDS doctrine, I am not aware that the above position is anything but your error.

My point was more that Lactantius was a Christian who held this view. He was in fact that. Before Nicea Arians were Christians. After Nicea at one point in time most Bishops were Semi-Arian (the Bishop of Rome of course signed a Semi-Arian statement).

Lactantius is called a Latin Father by some sources, but I am very comfortable with you rejecting his Catholicism. He lived and died as part of the Church, but Justin Martyr’s views on creation ex nihilo would make him a heretic post the 4th Lateran Council.

Frances:

Mormonism, on the other hand, says that Satan was first to be given dominion over the world, but messed things up, and so Christ (the second Son) had to be sent to set things right.

TOm:

Here you repeat what seems to me to be a blatant error with no foundation. Please substantiate. I am 100% certain that this is not binding LDS doctrine nor prevalent within the CoJCoLDS, but I am unaware of ANY PLACE were you might have come to this erroneous conclusion. Please explain from what source you arrived at this conclusion.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Frances:

That is, ex nihilo - the very thing which you Mormons deny. So, so much for Lactantius being an ancient Mormon. The only thing he held in common with you was your Arian tendencies

TOm:

And that statement would be known as attacking a straw man. I never claimed Lactantius was an ancient Mormon. Not even almost. Creation ex Nihilo was invented long before Lactantius began writing. He was solidly indoctrinated in this erroneous development.

Frances:

And this too is all fine and well, but Lactantius himself never says that Satan is Christ’s literal “brother.” Rather, Lactantius depicts both Christ and Satan as creations of the Father (an Arian mode of thought). But, what Lactantius does not say is that God the Father “sired” or “begot” these two ‘lesser spirits,’ nor does he ever call Satan anything like God’s son. Ergo, no Mormonism.

TOm:

Actually, as QUOTED by Catholic author Papini, Lactantius did in fact call Satan Jesus’ BROTHER. This is why I choose Papini! But, I was not calling Lactantius a Mormon. If you did not realize this, then you do now. If you did realize this then please cease addressing positions I have not put forth.

Frances:

What Jaki is talking about here does not promote *ex materia *in the sense of Mormon doctrine. What Jaki is referring to is the Semitic principal of creation being drawn out of the principal of “watery chaos,” per Genesis 1:1-2. Here, the Scripture reads:

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was formless and void, and darkness covered the abyss, while the Spirit of God moved over the waters.”

TOm:

As I said, I am not suggesting that Jaki embraces ex materia creation. I am suggesting that Jaki supports my position that the Bible does not demand ex nihilo creation.

Your Genesis passage translates “bara” as “created,” but “formed” is more correct.

E.A. Speiser (a very respected Protestant scholar) in the Anchor Bible translates Genesis 1:1-3 as follows:
When God set about to create heaven and earth - the world being a formless waste, with darkness over the seas…- God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light.

E.A. Speiser also said:

To be sure the present interpretation precludes the view that creation accounts in Genesis say nothing about coexistent matter

TOm:

BTW, I am not suggesting that Speiser is a Mormon. I am suggesting that the Bible does not demand (and IMO points away from) creation ex nihilo. That does not mean the creation ex nihilo is incompatible with the Bible, just that creation ex materia is an excellent read of the Bible.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Frances:

“Less strict monotheism of Augustinian Trinitarians”?? Puh-leeeeze. Augustine and all fathers of his age were strict Athanasians who subscribed to the dogmas of Nicaea and Constantinople I; to say otherwise is historical distortion.

TOm:

You misunderstood me. I apologize. I am suggesting that Moslems and modern Jews can rightly demand that the Trinitarian structures of Catholics, Protestants, and LDS are “less monotheistic” than are their strict monotheistic structures. I do not distort history. And Moslems and modern Jews do in fact call Trinitarians polytheistic.

Frances:

Really? What about the planet that he used to live on as a man before he became God?

TOm:

See my quote of D&C 20:17. But, no, any planet that may or may not have had some association with God the Father did not pre-exist God the Father.

Frances:

“Eternal matter”? If it was “eternal,” then it existed eternally side-by-side with God. Ergo, you cannot then say that “nothing pre-existed God.” What you are saying is that both God and this “matter” which he used for creation are eternal. But, that being the case, you are then saying that God did not create the “matter,” and so contradicting Genesis 1:1-2, which says that God created the earth in its proto-chaotic form.

TOm:

To pre-exist is to exist before. Eternal matter did not exist before God existed for God is eternal as well. And again, scholars are readily accepting that Genesis not only does not demand ex nihilo creation, but points strongly to creation from pre-existent matter. You are really going to love what SAINT Justin Martyr has to say about this!

As you requested:

Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 59:

Chapter LIX.-Plato’s Obligation to Moses.

And that you may learn that it was from our teachers-we mean the account given through the prophets-that Plato borrowed his statement that God, having altered matter which was shapeless, made the world, hear the very words spoken through Moses, who, as above shown, was the first prophet, and of greater antiquity than the Greek writers; and through whom the Spirit of prophecy, signifying how and from what materials God at first formed the world, spake thus: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was invisible and unfurnished, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God moved over the waters. And God said, Let there be light; and it was so.” So that both Plato and they who agree with him, and we ourselves, have learned, and you also can be convinced, that by the word of God the whole world was made out of the substance spoken of before by Moses. And that which the poets call Erebus, we know was spoken of formerly by Moses.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Here is a little from Clement of Rome (as I suggested this will be less clear, and I will borrow from Ostler these are his words):

Clement, Bishop of Rome, stated that God “made manifest (efaneropoiesas) the eternal fabric of the world (eu ten aennaon tou cosmou sistasin).”*** Now Clement is important because he is at the very center of the Christian Church as it was then developing. Clement’s view assumed that God had created from an eternally existing substrate. Indeed, he created by “making manifest” what already existed in some form. The lack of argumentation or further elucidation indicates that Clement was not attempting to establish a philosophical position; he was merely stating a generally accepted position that is more tacit than explicit. However, the fact that such a view as assumed is even more significant than if Clement had argued for it. If he had presented an argument for this view, then we can assume that it was either a contested doctrine or a new view. However, because he accepts it as obvious, it appears to be a generally accepted belief in the early Christian Church.

*** 1 Clement to the Corinthians, 60, 1. See, Oscar de Gebhardt and Adolphus Harnack, Patrium Apostolicorum Opera: Clemenits Romani (Lipsiae: J.C. Hinrichs, 1876), 8 vols., 1:100.

TOm:

You then comment about Justin Martyr’s words that are not in alignment with the developed doctrine of the Trinity. You excuse this because the Trinity was not developed yet. I say to call Jesus Christ the “second God,” is not orthodox language. I recognize that Justin Martyr was not subject to the creedal statements of Nicea. I reject your statement that, “Yet, explored in context, their meaning is clear and quite in accord with the Catholic faith.”

The fact is that explored in context, the fact that Justin rejected Creation ex Nihilo makes his statements much simpler to align with LDS Social Trinity. He did not require the complex philosophical maneuvering necessitated by the adoption of Creation ex Nihilo.

Francis:

I already gave you Genesis 1:1-2. I don’t know what could be earlier than that. Where did the “waters” / “the abyss” - that is, the “formless and void” earth (i.e., “the earth was formless and void”) come from? Verse 1 tells us: God **created **it; and He created it ex nihilo. So, your very ex materia doctrine depends on ex nihilo. There is no “eternal matter” in Scripture or in the Tradition of Judaism or Christianity.

TOm:

Genesis is probably not the oldest book in the Bible as I understand it, but as I mentioned above it does not teach creation ex nihilo.

There is some debate upon this subject, but Gerard May (a Protestant Scholar) effectively argues that Creation ex Nihilo was a 2nd century AD invention. It was never before this embraced.

Francis:

Sure it is. And Apostolic doctrine is far more consistent than the LDS seem to think.

TOm:

It has been my experience that many Catholics think that orthodox walked a clear unmolested path from the apostles to today’s doctrine.

Those who recognize this to not be the case often think that the Maxim of St. Vincent de Lerins is applicable and produces orthodoxy.

Those who recognize this to not be the case often think that councils decided truth based on the clear witness of what Tradition was and that we can discern this from what survives to today.

None of the above is true.

I do however agree that apostolic doctrine (as constituted by Catholic orthodoxy) is more consistent than LDS seem to think.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Frances:

Jesus Christ founded His Church upon the ministry of Peter, and declared that the gates of hell itself would not prevail against it (Matt 16:18-19).

TOm:

Matt 16:18-19 is my favorite. Concerning the rest, I would like to acknowledge that the Spirit has guided the Catholic Church and it was the “lesser organization” that carried on after the more complete early church departed. The salvic truth contained in the Bible and the witness of Jesus Christ, did in fact remain and was never perverted such that it could not lead one to salvation. The only thing I propose is that the Restoration was in fact a restoration. The authority to lead God’s church on the earth rests with the LDS Prophet and not the Catholic Pope. The purpose God had for the lesser organization that is the Catholic Church was in fact fulfilled (and perhaps continues to be fulfilled), but the restoration has corrected doctrinal errors and provided greater light and knowledge.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

For me, the question is, “Does Matthew 16:18-19 say that Christ’s church will not apostatize (as LDS say God says it did)?” An important thing must be noted when this question is answered. Catholics believe that an apostasy is the turning from Christ. Heresy is the accepting of errors concerning God’s truth. LDS do not believe the Catholic Church turned from Christ. We believe that the authority to publicly lead the church was removed from the earth. We do not believe that the Pope has this authority today. We believe that with the absence of this authority, dogmatic statements that are non in accordance with God’s truth have been embraced. We do not however suggest that these errors result in a loss of truth such that no Catholic today or throughout history is able to align themselves sufficiently with the will of God such that they receive the fullness of blessings available.

So, does Matthew 16:18-19 demand that an apostasy of authority will not happen? There are more complex positions than this that hinge upon what exactly the “Gates of Hades” are. If you are really dissatisfied with what I post here then we may look at some of these, but to me it is sufficient to look to the word “prevail.”

I have suggested the parallel that Christ prevailed over death, but did in fact die. “Prevail” is to win in the end. It is not to win every battle. Matthew 16:18 could have said that the church will never leave the earth, but it did not. The restoration is the fulfillment of Matthew 16:18. Christ’s Church has in fact prevailed through the restoration.

Here is a Catholic who acknowledges what Matthew 16:18 really says he uses “triumph of evil,’ again winning in the end, but specifically acknowledges that it is too much to say that his is associated with “survival of the church.”

Michael M. Winter, former lecturer in Fundamental Theology at St. John’s Seminary (Roman Catholic), in Saint Peter and the Popes, p. 17. states concerning Matthew 16:18

“although some writers have applied the idea of immortality to the survival of the church, it seems preferable to see it as a promise of triumph over evil.”

Francis:

This is a *non sequitur *at best, and a Satanic distortion at worst. Christ rose again to give life to His Church. Ergo, it is not possible for His Church to “die,” and no need for it to “rise” again. If the Church of Christ “died” at some point, and so needed to be “restored,” then the Sacrifice of Christ was powerless to prevent it, and so guarantees nothing. Think about it.

TOm:

In truth I have thought about it a great deal. I do not think Matthew 16:18 promises the immortality of the Church. I do not think Christ failed. I do not think Christ lied. I do not think my church is a Satanic distortion.

I would however agree that a certain evil was involved in the Jews rejecting and killing their God. Also, if you are saying that evil is involved in suggesting that Jesus failed because He was killed, I could agree with this. But, to suggest that the earthly authority to lead the church is not present in the Pope is not evil, especially if it is in fact truth.

I acknowledge that you believe the Pope has valid authority. I disagree. I do not think Matt 16:18 points the Popes authority (and neither did Tertullian) and I do not think it guarantees the non-apostasy of authority (and neither does MM Winter).

I will post on Hermas tomorrow.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

First, I want to give some credit. I have quoted directly from Ostler as I mentioned. Other ideas have come from Barry Bickmore and Scott P (he goes by the name Pacumeni on the net).

The Hermas idea I am about to present come mostly from Bickmore.

The Paster of Hermas was written in the late first or early second century. It was perhaps the most quoted (about to be apocryphal) scripture during the 2nd-3rd Century.

In the 3rd vision of Hermas, a lady (the Church) describes the building of a Tower, which is her (the) Church. Square rocks that fit neatly together are Apostles and Bishops, round rocks are wealthy people who must loose some wealth to be square and agreeable for the building…

8[16]:9 Then I asked her concerning the seasons, whether the consummation is even now. But she cried aloud, saying, "Foolish man, seest thou not that the tower is still a-building? Whensoever therefore the tower shall be finished building, the end cometh; but it shall be built up quickly….

So some time before the early 2nd century the church was being build up quickly, but the tower would be finished soon. What would happen when it was finished?

7[15]:5 Still importunate, I asked her further, whether for all these stones that were rejected and would not fit into the building of the tower that was repentance, and they had a place in this tower. “They can repent,” she said, "but they cannot be fitted into this tower.

7[15]:6 Yet they shall be fitted into another place much more humble…

The tower is almost finished. A more humble place is available for those who do not fit into the Church now. Some stones (people) repented and made it into the original tower, but others would only be in the lesser tower.

4[12]:3 I enquired of her, saying, “Lady, I could wish to know concerning the end of the stones, and their power, of what kind it is.” She answered and said unto me, "It is not that thou of all men art especially worthy that it should be revealed to thee; for there are others before thee, and better than thou art, unto whom these visions ought to have been revealed. But that the name of God may be glorified, it hath been revealed to thee, all shall be revealed, for the sake of the doubtful-minded, who question in their hearts whether these things are so or not. Tell them that all these things are true, and that there is nothing beside the truth, but that all are steadfast, and valid, and established on a firm foundation.

Polycarp and Ignatius wanted to be martyrs. Did the Apostles know the truths above and teach them to these early saints? Does this revelation explain the desire for martyrdom that seemed to exist? Ignatius for sure and probably Polycarp have been criticized for their desire to be martyred. If the knowledge of Hermas was somehow available to them (either through Hermas which is possible if Hermas is assigned the earliest dates possible) or through the apostles or God, might this explain their over zealous desire for martyrdom.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Polycarp and Ignatius wanted to be martyrs. Did the Apostles know the truths above and teach them to these early saints? Does this revelation explain the desire for martyrdom that seemed to exist? Ignatius for sure and probably Polycarp have been criticized for their desire to be martyred. If the knowledge of Hermas was somehow available to them (either through Hermas which is possible if Hermas is assigned the earliest dates possible) or through the apostles or God, might this explain their over zealous desire for martyrdom.

The Encyclical Epistle of the Church at Smyrnam Concerning the Martyrdom of the Holy Polycarp – Chapter XIV – The Prayer of Polycarp:

I give Thee thanks that Thou hast counted me, worthy of this day and this hour, that I should have a part in the number of Thy martyrs, in the cup of thy Christ, to the resurrection of eternal life, both of soul and body, through the incorruption [imparted] by the Holy Ghost.

If the Apostles taught that the Church was soon to be built up and then a lesser organization was to exist then Polycarp might reason that his martyrdom would ensure he died a believer in the greater Church, rather than a member of the more humble organization.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans – Chapter VIII – Be Ye Favourable to Me:

I no longer wish to live after the manner of men, and my desire shall be fulfilled if you consent. Be ye willing, then, that ye also may have your desires fulfilled. I entreat you in this brief letter; do ye give credit to me. Jesus Chirst will reveal these things to you, [so that ye shall know] that I speak truly.

Most of this Epistle is devoted to Ignatius talking about how he wants to be killed in Rome. His desires seem to be no different than Polycarp’s (or rather Polycarp was similar to Ignatius since Ignatius died first). But why does Ignatius want to die?

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans – Chapter VII – Reason of Desiring to Die:

The prince of this world would fain carry me away, and corrupt my disposition towards God.

Is Ignatius who fears the devil will corrupt him really more susceptible to this than anyone in the church? Or is the tower almost built and the entire church about to be part of a lesser, more humble organization due to the devil’s influence?

The expressed desires and reasons for those desires fit nicely into the framework revealed by the 3rd Vision. The Apostles set the stage for the buildup of the church. Those who directly communed with the Apostles seem to have certainly held the line, but they were taught that it would not be long after the “lights went out” or the Apostles died that the Church would become a lesser organization. An organization with no central authority and ultimately without the voices of the Apostles ringing in the ears of the Bishops. Ignatius and Polycarp knew this was the destiny of the church and they knew that the lesser organization was on the way.

As stated above the lesser organization was to preserve the Bible, the witness of Christ, and the basics of Christianity. Those in this organization where not abandoned by the Spirit or Christ, but until the Restoration the church was less than the church of Apostles, 70’s, Elders, …

Hermas is pretty clear in what he reveals (presumably from his vision for God and this was fairly well accepted in the early church to be the case) about the tower and the “lesser place.” Ignatius and Polycarp only fit into this framework, and I offer this a POSSIBLE reason for their peculiar desire to die.

Charity, TOm

 

[cestusdei]

I don’t see any sense at all where they felt a total apostacy was on the way. Their very existence disproves the Mormon theory. Btw, I just got back from Israel. I saw many remnants of ancient cultures. For example the pool of Siloam is still there and Hezekiah’s tunnel. I even brought some coins ie. widow’s mites. Absolutely nothing comparable has been found of the alleged bom civilizations. I return with an even stronger sense that the bom is simply indefencible.

 

[Tlaloc]

Joe Kelley:

I once encountered the theory that the Aztecs were descended from Phoenician sailors who were blown across the Atlantic and shipwrecked in Mexico.

I later encountered a disproof based on the silence noted by the Spanish Conquistadors in Mexico City. There were no wheeled vehicles.

It appears impossible that even the slightest encounter between Europe and the New World in the last 3+Millennia would not have transmitted the idea of the wheel.

The Aztecs had wheels, they just didn’t use them for transportation. They were used in children’s toys for instance.

Given the terrain and the lack of a large beast of burden wheels weren’t all that useful for transport. That having been said it seems pretty clear the Aztecs/Olmecs/Toltecs/Chichimecs/etc. were not descended from phonecian sailors based on cultural and physical anthropology.

 

[FCEGM]

TOM:

My best understanding is that the SSPX Priest is still able to perform a valid mass.

Yes; because they still possess the valid, Apostolic priesthood. However, this doesn’t stop them from being doctrinal heretics. The Nestorians and the Monophysites of the East retain the Apostolic priesthood and are still able to perform a valid Mass too, even though they are clearly heretics who reject the dogmatic Councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451), respectively.

I suggest this is a polemic that you may or may not cling to as I correct you with respect to what I actually believe.

Well, I ignore your “suggestion” because it is not rooted in objective reality. You believe in a made-up “Jesus,” not in the real one - not in the Jesus Who Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Monophysites, Nestorians, and Protestants believe in.

It is easier to mischaracterize the beliefs of others so as to stand confidently above them.

I am not mischaracterizing that you believe in a made-up “Jesus”, Tom - in a Jesus which no orthodox Christian believed in until Joseph Smith found his “amazing disappearing gold tablets.” That is simply a historical fact

Those who point to the polytheism of Catholics confidently do this.

Ah! But, here’s the difference: We Catholics can easily illustrate that we do not believe in polytheism. Our official teachings are very clear about that. However, your official teachings confirm my accusations. You clearly do not believe in the same Jesus Who Christians believe in. That is simply a fact.

continued.

 

[FCEGM]

ME:

Simple Question: Is Jesus Christ One in Being with God the Father, or a “divine being” who is distinct from God the Father? If Jesus is Divine, but is not One in Being with the Father, then you have embraced polytheism. Ignore it all you like, but that is the objective reality.

TOM:

The answer to your question depends upon what you mean when you say “One in Being.”

You know what we Christians mean by it. The LDS mean something else, however; and that “something else” is a profound doctrinal error.

I know enough about the Trinity that I know that you do not embrace the three headed monster that Jehovah’s Witnesses and many LDS believe is the Trinity of much of Christianity.

Which is Sabellianism at best, polytheism at worst. However, your “formulations” are no better and no truer when it comes to Apostolic revelation. Rather, your doctrines contradict what has been revealed.

If that was what you meant, then you would be correct I would reject that “One in Being.” If you mean what Eusebius (probably the most knowledgeable theologian at Nicea)

EXCUSE ME?!!! Do you mean Eusebius of Caesaria or Eusebius of Nicomedia??? Eusebius of Caesarea was a semi-Arian, and Eusebius of Nicomedia was a full-blown Arian, who was condemned and deposed at Nicaea, and thereafter banished. St. Athanasius (then merely a deacon) ran rings around him, as did the other faithful bishops. Please read the history.

embraced post Nicea, then all LDS have absolutely no trouble at all embracing “One in Being (homoousian).”

Sigh! If you bother to read the real history, you would know that, after the Council of Nicaea, the semi-Arians continued to influence the imperial court. Constantine the Great presumably died an Arian, having been Baptized on his death-bed by Eusebius of Nicomedia, whom, with Arius himself, he recalled from exile. Constantine’s son and Eastern successor, Constantius II, was an Arian and called the councils of Antioch (341) and Sirmium (351) to overturn Nicaea and establish Arianism as the official religion of the Empire. This Arian resurgence (which was political in nature) was not quelled until the Council of Constantinople I in 381-82. But, during this whole movement, Eusebius of Caesarea (whom I presume you’ve been referring to) was the champion of the compromise, semi-Arian formula of “homoiosios” - “of like essence with the Father,” and so clearly did not believe anything close to “homoousios” (“of the same essence” - “One in Being”), as you try to argue above. So, please get your history straight.

If you mean what has come to be called the Augustinian Trinity, then I need more information THAT I HAVE NEVER BEEN PROVIDED.

Nor have I. There is no such thing as the “Augustinian Trinity.” St. Augustine and everyone associated with him was a Nicene / Athanasian Christian.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

TOM:

What exactly is one-being-ness?

The Father and the Son (and the Spirit) share the very same Divine nature and essence - all three Persons are One and the SAME God (i.e., “Hear, O Israel, the Lord is GOD, the Lord is ONE.” - this applies to Father, Son, and Spirit co-equally and consubstantially). And, in case you’re not aware of it, “One in being” is a clause from the Nicene Creed:

“We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
The ONLY Son of God, ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, ONE IN BEING WITH THE FATHER.”

This is what all Christians believe. Do you believe it?

It is my opinion that one-being-ness has never been defined such that my concept of one divinity is outside the definition,

See above.

but we can pursue this if it is important to you.

As it should be to you, Tom.

I generally think this is of very little importance and is like arguing about the makeup of a bridge hand on the moon.

Au contraire. It is of utmost importance, since it intimately affects the very nature and purpose of the Christian Covenant, and distinguishes between what salvation and deification in Jesus Christ actually is vs. the made-up fantasies of Mormon imagination. In Christ, we come to share in the very same Sonship that Christ Himself enjoys UNIQUELY with the Father. If that sonship is what you Mormons present it to be, then it is meaningless and merely a kind of restoration to the status of an unfallen creation - the same kind of relationship that God originally had with Satan and with Adam and Eve. However, if Christ’s Sonship is what we say it is, then mankind is (as Scripture says) elevated above the status of the angels and enters into an intimacy with God that is beyond, and superior to, the state in which we were originally created, thus fulfilling the originally purpose for which we were created.

What’s more, when it comes to the salvation of Christ Himself, and the offering of Himself to the Father upon the Cross, your system blasphemes the true meaning and significance of this Divine Act, because you make it the act of a “lesser god,” as opposed to a all-loving Sacriifce on the part of God Himself - the ONE Divine nature experiencing a solidarity with sinful man in the Person of Christ and His Passion. Your “God the Father” does not experience or participate in the Sacrifice Himself - this ultimate act of Love (a total submission to His own law of righteousness), since His nature is not one and the same with the Person of the Son, Who literally offers the Sacrifce. Rather, your “God the Father” stands aloof of this act, receiving it, but not participating in it via the solidarity of nature (“One in being-ness”) with the Son. Ergo, you do not understand the Cross or its actual significance. You have no realistic appreciation why Jesus died.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

TOM:

We know so little about the totality of God that for us to go much beyond acknowledging that there is oneness and there is threeness is pointless.

We know what God revealed to us about Himself via the Apostolic Deposit; and what He revealed to us is what Catholicism teaches. Further, if it is pointless to a former Catholic turned LDS, then was it only a seeking after “good-fellowship” that attracted one to the LDS rather than a desire to worship in spirit and in truth with all the *hoi-polloi * that surrounds one in Catholicism?

What is three-person-ness? What is one-being-ness? I do not know.

You don’t know because you are cut off from Sacred Apostolic Tradition and from the systematic language developed by the fathers - first to refute Sabellianism (in the 3rd Century), and then to condemn Arianism in the 4th. In Greek usage, the term “person” refers to a “who”. The terms “nature” and/or “essence” refer to a “what.” What we teach and believe (because this is what has been revealed to the Church from the beginning) is that God is One “What” in three distinct but equal “Who’s”. And the Apostolic revelation goes like this: God the Father is a loving Father from all eternity -i.e., a loving Father is that which defines Him. Well, a “father” is understood as one who communicates his own nature and essence (“whatness”) to another person (another “who”). But, if God is eternally a Father, it follows that He had to be a Father eternally to someone else - another PERSON (another Who). Yet, if no one existed before Him in eternity (because God clearly created, and so -pre-existed, all angelic and human persons), the only one God could be an eternal Father TO was . . .yes, Himself! Therefore, the eternal Father eternally begets (within His own nature and essence) an eternal Son --that is, another Divine Person (another “Who”) with the Divine nature and essence. And, the Holy Spirit is the eternal Love between the two, accounting for a third eternal Divine Person in His own right. If you do not accept this, then you must say that God the Father simply is not a Father from all eternity, but rather that there was a time when He was NOT a Father, and also a time when the Son did not exist …which is, of course, the Arian position. So, your choice: Either Nicene orthodoxy is true, or God is not eternal, but changes - now being a Father, but once not.

continued. . .