• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

LDS Atonement

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
IDEA :

4) THE LDS RESTORE FAIRNESS TO THE CONCEPT OF REWARD AND PUNISHMENT RENDERED IN THE ATONEMENT OF JESUS CHRIST
Another profound theological difference that I find in LDS theology regards fairness. I grew up with a Christian Theology where there was the simplistic "Heaven and Hell" (despite the historical texts descriptions of multiple heavens and levels within heaven). In this model, those who authentically believed in Jesus went to "Heaven" where they lived in eternal splendor regardless of their many faults, and others who did not authentically believe in Jesus were placed in "Hell" where they suffered eternal agony and torture of flames f o r e v e r for either not having accepted Jesus, OR for not having even heard of Jesus (e.g. "The african native"), or for not having the opportunity to accept Jesus (e.g. the infant who dies after just a few months). Though my Christian friends, acquaintances and even my pastor all knew deep in our hearts and on the surface of our conversations that the doctrine was an abomination, we had no other doctrinal fix for this, since it was clear from the scriptures, that "ALL" must accept Jesus to be "saved", or they are punished. Augustine agonizes over this very issue regarding infant damnation. He doesn’t WANT to damn infants who die. He KNOWS the concept is incorrect. But he has no doctrinal alternative. (Other than a "light damnation").
The LDS were the first (that I know of, besides historian-theists), who returned to the concept of multiple levels of reward or punishment that is in PROPORTION to the person’s relative level of deserving (AFTER considering an atonement of Jesus).
Likewise, the LDS doctrine of proxy work where the dead are taught the gospel just as all others is the simplest and most profound way out of this deep and distasteful unfairness of another version of "damning the innocent". Theist historians have long known of the early Christian doctrine of "amente" where dead souls went after they died while awaiting resurrection since such places were described in the early scriptures such as Jewish Enoch and Christian Abbaton histories, but the doctrines only appear in their fullest and mature forms in the LDS doctrines.
As one leaves the earliest Christian period, a vast number of theological and philosophical complaints arose from Agnostics, Philosophers, and Theists of other religions (and whispered among Christians themselves), regarding the inherent unfairness of Damning people without sufficient reasons. These simple doctrines regarding how the atonement applies to "unfair" situations, do away with almost 1300 years of such complaints and controversy of unfairness.
Clear
twaceifuii5
As far as multiple levels in heaven -
40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead.
(New Testament | 1 Corinthians15:40 - 42)
Celestial, terrestrial, and telestial
89 And thus we saw, in the heavenly vision, the glory of the telestial, which surpasses all understanding;
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section76:89)
The lowest of the 3 kingdoms of glory "surpasses all understanding". Truly,
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
(New Testament | 1 Corinthians2:9)
Outer darkness, yes, there is one place that is not glorious. Those who see God for who He is, and openly reject Him - and very few there will be who do this, will be left as spirits, will not be allowed to have a body. Without a body they will be unable to harm anyone, they cannot touch anything, cannot harm anyone without a body.
interactive plan of salvation guide - click on the circles /lines.
God's Plan of Salvation

The Holy Spirit is real, it is all real, you really can receive an answer to your prayers. I am praying that you will find what you need to.
Thank you again for your thoughtful responses.
idea.

Thank you for your kindness Idea;

I suppose your last post is as good an example of any regarding what I mean that the LDS doctrine restores the ancient principle of fairness. My native church taught the modern "orthodoxy" that ALL who do not "accept Jesus" go to a fire-filled hell where they are tortured FOREVER. Our members back then knew it was unjust to punish an infant to a torturous hell, or to send someone who never heard of Jesus to the same torturous hell FOREVER without either the infant or the aborigine having even had a chance to accept Jesus. Though I was taught this in the Christian church of my youth, This is NOT what the earlier Christians taught. For example anciently, Irenaeus explained :
As the elders say, "then will those who have been deemed worthy of an abode in heaven go there, while others will enjoy the delight of Paradise, and still others will possess the brightness of the city; for in every place the Savior will be seen, to the degree that those who see him are worthy. They say, moreover, that this is the distinction between the dwelling of those who bring forth an hundredfold, and those who bring forth sixtyfold, and those who bring forth thirtyfold : the first will be taken up into the heavens, and second will dwell in Paradise, and the third will inhabit the city. For this reason, therefore, our Lord has said, "In my Father’s house there are many rooms"; for all things are of God, who gives to all their appropriate dwelling...The elders, the disciples of the apostles, say that this is the order and arrangement of those who are being saved, and that they advance by such steps, and ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father, the Son finally yielding his work to the Father, as it is also said by the apostle: "For he must reign until he puts all enemies under his feet" Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:36:1-2
If Irenaeus was correct that the ancients taught a heaven with "many rooms" and those there have access to holiness "to the degree that those who see him are worthy", and if the LDS have commenced again teaching this fair and just system of reward and punishment then it represent a correct restoration of a just and fair ancient principle. It is the modern Christians (whose doctrines unjustly condemn innocent infants and those who’ve not had an adequate chance to hear the gospel before dying) who must look carefully at the value of restoring logical and good and reasonable doctrines as they once existed and as they apply to the atonement and salvation of mankind (as well as to JUST punishment). Barnabas instructed the ancient Saints,
"We must, therefore, investigate the present circumstances very carefully and seek out the things that are able to save us. (Barnabas 6.4:1) (underline is mine)
I am excited by the re-introduction of such ancient doctrines that restore a logic and fairness to the atonement.

Clear
DRTZDRVILL9
 
Last edited:

idea

Question Everything
... what the earlier Christians taught.

I think that is so cool you have researched so much about the early church - I enjoy the quotes that you post.

I was in an Anabaptist museum over near Chicago, and they said that infant baptism was introduced by a combined church/state gov as a means to keep the census (and tax collections) up to date. It seems if the gov did not know you were born, you did not have to pay taxes… your name went on the census/tax role when you were baptized, so they instituted infant baptism in order to more speedily collect taxes. (baptism may have also been changed from full immersion to sprinkling to make infant baptism easier) I don’t know if that is true or not, just one account I heard. There are still those who believe in believers baptism, little pieces of the truth have trickled down here and there...

Here is an interesting JST
13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them saying, There is no need, for Jesus hath said, Such shall be saved.
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
15 And he laid his hands on them, (blessing them – not baptizing them) and departed thence.
(New Testament | Matthew19:13 - 15)

Take a few words out of the texts, and so much is missing…Yes, it would be a horror, not only for children, but for all who have not had the chance. Temple work is so important.

Speaking of temple work, have you ever visited familysearch.org? One of the most sacred temple experiences you can have is doing work like proxy baptisms for those in your own family. There are blessings (like “in thee and thy seed shall all the families of the earth by blessed”) ancient blessings and family promises that have been carried down generation after generation to those who now live. So many skip over all of the :

23 ... the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of aAbraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
(New Testament | Luke3:23 - 38)

There is a reason family lines are recorded.
5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:
6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers...

For me, to know our family lines is to understand a little more of who we are, our strengths/weaknesses, a way to “form a bridge between past and future and bind generations together” Not only does everyone have the opportunity to be baptized (in this life or in the next) but proxy baptisms can be done by those in your own family. It is an incredible experience to be reunited with families members who have gone before you through sacred temple ordinances. You should try it J.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Katzpur; You once spoke on the eternal nature of matter and so I'd like to comment on that point.

There are at least three other principles that I’ve been thinking about that LDS theology restores; all of which are important to understanding, not just the atonement; but they explain the nature of existence; God’s methods and purposes in creation; the nature of spirits; and the nature and origin of evil. I might remind you that these are the very “terrible questions” that ALL MEN ask themselves. These questions are the fodder of debates between religionists and philosophers and scientists, that have LASTED FOR MILLENNIA. The restoration of a few simple principle places all of these speculations; debates and arguments, into an entirely different and logical framework for understanding.


THE RESTORATION OF THE DOCTRINE THAT GOD ORGANIZED ALL THINGS FROM ETERNALLY EXISTING MATTER CHANGES EVERYTHING

Consider and contrast the doctrines:
A) The more ancient Christian belief held that God organized the Material universe out of “Matter”.
B) The more modern Christian doctrine holds that God organized the Material universe out of “Nothing”
C) The LDS restore ancient Christian belief that God organized the Material universe out of “Matter”.

The implications of creation from eternal chaotic matter are profound in how they affects the context; the understanding and the debates that have raged among theists; philosophers and scientists since later Christians abandoned the belief in creation of material things from “matter”. These arguments have lasted for hundred and hundreds of years.


The restoration of this doctrine has profound implication for religious philosophers. For example, The Organization of all Material things from eternally existing “matter” (which has it’s own innate eternal characteristics) rather than organizing them from “nothing” changes the locus of responsibility for evil. The principle revolutionizes both the debates AND their underlying assumptions and questions since the question of WHY GOD “CREATED” EVIL IS ONE OF THEIR GREAT DEBATES with Christianity. The LDS restoration of this ancient principle to it’s rightful place in theology changes the context to all such considerations. 1300 years of specific debates (it doesn’t answer all debates..) Regarding God and evil can be settled in a logical and simple and obvious manner by the restoration to this ancient principle.


If the universe is created from eternal matter, then there are principles as eternal as God, and these principles possess their own innate characteristics. This is important, since, if God does not create the conditions from which arises evil, then he is not responsible for it. Obviously there are many other philosophical implications that are just as profound.



The restoration of this principle has profound implications for scientists. Creation from matter is a type of creation that they can agree with and which can rationalize (make rational) religious creation with their scientific knowledge. Such a creation makes for better sense and for better science. The Scientific Laws of Thermodynamics which are universally applied in modern science, no longer argues with a conflicting Religious Law of Creation from “Nothing”. Religious truth and Scientific truth will stop fighting and may again dance together by the restoration of this ancient principle.



The restoration of this principle has it’s most profound implications for religion. The implications seem to run deeper and are more profound than the implications for all other disciplines. The principle of Creation from eternally existing matter provides a framework for all subsequent religious considerations. If matter is eternal with it's own basic eternal characteristics, yet God uses that matter and organizes it into spirits which have some inherent characteristics, such as “intelligence” and the ability to “progress”, this forms a context for all other subsequent considerations.

If one knows this, one can predict the subsequent ancient doctrines as to WHAT God is doing with this matter; with the spirits of men; and WHY he is doing it; and HOW he going to accomplish these purposes. It provides logic and understanding of why Moral law is eternally important both outside and inside the atonement of Jesus Christ. The restoration of the truth that God organized and created the Material universe and all other material things from eternally existing “matter” is a simple principle that acts as one of the important beacons that sets men on the path to understanding what God is doing with that matter and why.


Clear
I've run out of time, I'll have to comment further, later...
dreidrserdr1
 
Last edited:

idea

Question Everything
Our members back then knew it was unjust to punish an infant to a torturous hell, or to send someone who never heard of Jesus to the same torturous hell FOREVER without either the infant or the aborigine having even had a chance to accept Jesus.

Sorry my previous post was jumbled :D let me try and use a little more words this time.

Origin of false teaching of infant baptism:
I was in an Anabaptist museum over near Chicago, and they said that infant baptism was introduced by a combined church/state gov as a means to keep the census (and tax collections) up to date. It seems if the gov did not know you were born, you did not have to pay taxes… your name went on the census/tax role when you were baptized, so they instituted infant baptism in order to more speedily collect taxes. (baptism may have also been changed from full immersion to sprinkling to make infant baptism easier) I don’t know if that is true or not, just one account I heard. There are still those who believe in believers baptism, little pieces of the truth have trickled down here and there...

Infant Baptism in the Bible?
there is still debate between those descended from the Anabaptist beliefs (Amish, Hutterites, Mennonites, Baptists, etc. etc.) and other denoms about infant baptism. This is because every single reference to it has meticulously been removed from the scriptures. Sad, we think that errors in the scripts were simple translational mistakes - I believe that some things were purposefully removed. Infant baptism is one of them. The Bible originally taught that all infants are saved without baptism, it originally taught believers baptism. Here is one example of a scripture in which a few words were removed regarding infant baptism:

the underlined words were removed:
13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them saying, There is no need, for Jesus hath said, Such shall be saved.
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
15 And he laid his hands on them, (blessing them – not baptizing them) and departed thence.
(New Testament | Matthew19:13 - 15)

Take a few words out of the texts, and so much is missing… The Bible does not teach that children who are not baptized are damned to hell - it teaches that children are pure and innocent:
3 ... Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. (New Testament | Matthew18:3)

Original Sin
With the invention of infant baptism also came the forced invention of “original sin”. You know how lies work – you make up one lie, then you have to make up another one to cover the first lie, and so one, and so on. The only way for infants to be damned to hell is that they are condemned because of Adam’s transgression - and so the original sin concept is created. Is it fair that we are punished for another person’s mistakes? This is not fair, or just, yet many people still believe in the original sin concept. Verse after verse we are clearly told that we are each accountable for our own actions, and will not be punished for the actions of another.

16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
(Old Testament | Deuteronomy24:16)

20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
(Old Testament | Ezekiel18:20)

There are many many scriptures I could post clearly stating that we will NOT be punished for Adam’s sin. We are each accountable for our own actions, our own actions condemn us, no one else’s. Our own works - Lie after lie after lie generated by people using infant baptism to collect taxes… “O what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive” Can’t you just see the wheels turning in the combined church/state leaders? Thinking how can we keep the peasants from hiding the births of their children from us? I know, let’s move the date for baptism up! It is just a little white lie, and it will make sure everyone gets baptized, what is the harm in that? The harm is that it turned a loving God into an unjust monster in the eyes of the peasants… They took accountability out of the equation, they took the need for people to understand what they were doing out, they warped everything by instituting infant baptism.

Faith vs. Works
Infant baptism also starts the practice of erasing the need for works from the picture. Afterall, if infants are saved or damned without any works on their part (babies cannot do anything to earn either heaven or hell) so they slap them with hell under Adam’s curse, or they slap them with heaven just for being sprinkled – and now that has to apply to everyone. All it takes is to be sprinkled with water and say “I believe” to be saved – no works are necessary. Let’s everyone blame all their shortcomings on Adam, on being possessed by Satan, “I can’t help myself” and pay the church leaders indulgences to wipe our slate clean instead of actually trying to live a better life. No accountability, and the church gets more money. The entire system warped starting with one little lie – infants need to be baptized.

Immersion vs. sprinkling.
Another lie in the tangled web – it’s not so nice to immerse a baby, so now the ordinance of baptism is changed from full immersion to sprinkling. Everything has been warped and polluted because of greed and money.



O what a tangled web!
 

idea

Question Everything
The Truth
God condemns infant baptism:
10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children.
11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.
12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!
13 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.
14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.
15 For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism.
16 Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for perfect love casteth out all fear.
17 And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me; wherefore, I love little children with a perfect love; and they are all alike and partakers of salvation.
18 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.
19 Little children cannot repent; wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him because of his mercy.
20 And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption.
21 Wo unto such, for they are in danger of death, hell, and an endless torment. I speak it boldly; God hath commanded me. Listen unto them and give heed, or they stand against you at the judgment–seat of Christ.
(Book of Mormon | Moroni8:10 - 21)

Temple work
Everyone, in this life or in the next, will get a chance to learn what they need, accept or reject the gospel, and receive all of the ordinances. Yes, it would be a horror, not only for children, but for all who have not had the chance in this life, if there were no temple work, no means by which those beyond the veil could partake in the sacred saving ordinances. Temple work is so important, and such a beautiful thing. It provides hope for the hopeless, a great work for those who are living, one of the great works that will be completed in the millennium.

Baptisms for the Dead
Jesus Christ taught that baptism is essential to the salvation of all who have lived on earth (see John 3:5). Many people, however, have died without being baptized. Others were baptized without proper authority. Because God is merciful, He has prepared a way for all people to receive the blessings of baptism. By performing proxy baptisms in behalf of those who have died, Church members offer these blessings to deceased ancestors. Individuals can then choose to accept or reject what has been done in their behalf.
Additional info:
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1ec52f2324d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____

It gets better:
Not only are we able to perform proxy ordinances like baptism for those who are unable to perform them for themselves, we are able to do this for our family. Not just random people out there – we are able to do work for those whom we owe our lives to.

Have you ever visited familysearch.org? One of the most sacred temple experiences you can have is doing work like proxy baptisms for those in your own family. There are blessings (like “in thee and thy seed shall all the families of the earth by blessed”) ancient blessings and family promises that have been carried down generation after generation to those who now live. So many skip over all of the :

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
(New Testament | Luke3:23 - 38)

the genealogies laid out of us in the scriptures are there for a reason. Genealogies are used in temple work.

Watch all the vids:
Part 1 Mormon Temple and Ancient Temples - LDS Temple
http://youtube.com/watch?v=azAFsfDrd2w

Part 2 Mormon Temple and Temple Worship - LDS Temple
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QwGeD3-won0

Part 3 Mormon Temple and Eternal Family - LDS Temple
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PxuBkXjyHFk

Part 4 Mormon Temple and Baptism for the Dead - LDS Temple
http://youtube.com/watch?v=70m1Hs0qs54

Part 5 Mormon Temple Building - LDS Temple
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yZ1XqnT-7Ko
 
Last edited:

idea

Question Everything
I am not katz - but this is one of my fave subs. :D
the nature and origin of evil.

yes, if God created everything, then God created evil :sarcastic
"WHY GOD “CREATED” EVIL IS ONE OF THEIR GREAT DEBATES with Christianity. "

yes, the problem is in the question - God did not create evil.

Selflessly cleaning up a mess He did not make vs. making a huge mess and then only partially cleaning it up??? Huge difference of who God is...

The implications of creation from eternal chaotic matter are profound in how they affects the context; the understanding and the debates that have raged among theists; philosophers and scientists since later Christians abandoned the belief in creation of material things from “matter”. These arguments have lasted for hundred and hundreds of years.

Yes, if God created everything, then everything is traced back to God - you get things like Calvinism - predestination vs. foreordination
see:
LDS.org - Ensign Article - I Have a Question


The restoration of this principle has profound implications for scientists.
Creation from matter is a type of creation that they can agree with and which can rationalize (make rational) religious creation with their scientific knowledge. Such a creation makes for better sense and for better science. The Scientific Laws of Thermodynamics which are universally applied in modern science, no longer argues with a conflicting Religious Law of Creation from “Nothing”. Religious truth and Scientific truth will stop fighting and may again dance together by the restoration of this ancient principle.

conservation principles - conservation of mass/energy. You don't get something from nothing. Something has always, and will always exist. The nature of what has always existed will perhaps always be a debate though... The origins debate is useless - there is no origin.

yes, once you understand where we came from, everything else falls into place...

"
You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing, and they will answer, “Doesn’t the Bible say he created the world?” And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the word baurau, which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end. ..."
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Post one of Four in a row;

I think the second of three principles I've thought about that the LDS have restored that changes the entire context of religious thought has to do with the eternal nature of spirits.

However, Idea PM’d me with some data supporting the idea that the earliest Christian Teachings were consistent with creation of material things from “matter” and not from “nothing”. I suppose my last post on creation from matter was an exposition but it was light on data. So before moving on, I though I’d offer data regarding creation from matter. I am cutting an pasting from my own posts I made in a conversation with the poster “Runlikethewind”. The context is this : We are comparing why he believed things were made from nothing with my belief as to why things were made from matter. I copied my edited post in blue below, but it applies to this thread and creation from matter :

Runlikethewind, like the others, I have to offer frubals to you for the clarity, but more than that, you have my respect and I honor you for your firm belief and for your willingness to simply take a stand on your beliefs. I honor you for honoring God.

Can I first agree with you on your belief that there is nothing greater than God; that he is Lord over all other beings and things. I cannot make my post so concise as yours, partly because I feel that my belief is " Swimming Against" the currently popular theological current and thus needs a bit more explanation to overcome bias that God’s creation with and use of matter is, as Angellous claimed, "baseless" or "ground in ignorance". I’ll have to break up the post into parts to get around the character limit.


In discussing creation from matter, I hope forum scientists forgive me for ignoring vast scientific and geological data while concentrating on "religious data". However, "religious data" is the main source of religious doctrine.

I’d like to make several points in explaining the Christian belief of creation out of matter:

I considered that the doctrine of creation from matter WAS taught anciently.
I considered early Judao-Christian writings
I considered the various translations and interpretations of scriptures applied to ex-nihilo
I considered modern Christian writings
I considered the motives and nature of Christian writings against creation from matter.
I considered creation from nothing (ex-nihilo) as a stand-alone, rational argument
I considered my own personal motives for belief that matter was used in creation.
Perhaps I can discuss these in this order?



1) THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION FROM MATTER WAS TAUGHT ANCIENTLY

Many ancients and early Christians UNDERSTOOD a creation out of pre-existing matter, and not ex-nihilo.


Justin Martyr, in his First Apology, says :
“We have been taught that He in the beginning did of his goodness, for man's sake, create all things out of unformed matter” (ex amorphou hyles). First Apology, 49.
Philo mentions :
"This cosmos of ours was formed out of all that there is of water, and air and fire, not even the smallest particle being left outside" (De Plantatione 2.6). Further, "when the substance of the universe was without shape and figure God gave it these; when it had no definite character God molded it into definiteness. . ." (De Somniis 2.6.45).
Justin Martyr, in discussing this preexistent primal matter (hyle), assures us,
"we have learned" from our revelations was in the tradition of Clement (c. A.D. 96) who had praised God who "has made manifest (ephaneropoiesas) the everlasting fabric (aenaon sustasin) of the world."
Athenagoras, (despite his stress on the transcendence of God), explains concerning the preexistent Son:
"He came forth to be the energizing power of things, which lay like a nature without attributes, and an inactive earth, the grosser particles being mixed up with the lighter."
Creation from matter is implicit throughout Greco-Roman literature of the time of Christianity's inception, and there is no indication in the Christian writings that they held a different view. On the contrary, the famous late nineteenth-century study by Edwin Hatch on the inroads of Greek philosophy into early Christianity describes the tacit but widespread assumption of the coexistence of matter with God.



2) EARLY JUDAO-CHRISTIAN WRITINGS

In the Secrets of Enoch, 25.1-3, God says,
"I commanded . . . that visible things should come from invisible . . . ."
Dodd, in “The Bible and the Greeks”, p. 111 explained that to the ancients, such creation meant organization of the elements, as the Codex Brucianus"Creation is organization" (Manuscript No 96) and it explains that first, there is matter. And what is done with the matter it that it is organized into things created. Cosmos MEANS order.

The early Jewish Apocalypes of Abraham hails God as the one who brings order out of confusion, ever preparing and renewing worlds for the righteous. The Berlin (Mandaean) Papyrus says " At the same time, the great thought came to the elements in united wisdom, spirit joining with matter." Matter can be imbued with spirit, but it will always be undergoing change and processing.

Pistis Sophia says
"I (christ) called upon Gabriel from the midst of the worlds (aeons) along with Michael, pursuant to the command of my Father...and I gave to them the task of outpouring of the light and caused them to go down into matter unorganized (chaos) and assist Pistis Sophis"
Even 2 Maccabees, which is often used to SUPPORT ex nihilo, has Syriac recensions as well as some Greek manuscripts describing an organization of [chaotic] matter, which is also the explicit position of Wisdom of Solomon 11:17 where we read of God's hand which "created the world out of unformed matter (ktisasa ton kosmon ex amorphou hyles)," Even the "non-existent" cited in 2 Maccabees 7:28 is not absolute nothing, but rather is . . . the metaphysical substance . . . in an uncrystallized state." This relative "nonbeing" referred to a chaotic, shadowy state of matter before the world was made; as we might say in biblical terms, "without form and void."

The Early writings are full of references regarding how chaotic matter is used. The ancients understood that "At a new creation there is a reshuffling of elements " This particular 'restating' of the 'conservation of mass' is from Ben Sirach. But the principle is also found in the Odes of Solomon; it's in the Ginza; it's in the Mandaean Johannesbuch; it's in Berlin Manichaean; it's in the Pistis Sophia, and it's in the oldest and most impressive Coptic writings.

The point here is that these were common teachings and the ancients were NOT unaware of matter and how it was used in creation from chaotic matter (rather than the later doctrine of creation from "nothing").


3) ALTERNATE INTERPRETATION AND TRANSLATIONS OF PASSAGES FOR SCRIPTURE


Though religionists tend to get their views from similar sacred texts, they often come away with different interpretations of what is meant, and thus, with different beliefs regarding what they read.

FOR EXAMPLE GENESIS 1:1-2

Frank Cross (of DDS) concludes that it was the ex nihilo creation tradition itself which prompted the 1600's era translation of Gen. 1:1found in the King James and similar versions. Other versions of the Bible have noticed the forcing within the translation and have NOT followed the wording of the King James. For example, according to The Interpreter's Bible, the Hebrew bere' sit would more properly be rendered "In the beginning OF" creation rather than simply "In the beginning."

Many other scholars agree in this. E.A. Speiser translates Gen 1:1 "When God set about to create heaven and earth, the world being then a formless waste. ." or, as Cross renders it "When God began to create the heaven and the earth, then God said, 'Let there be light.'" Thus the traditional translation of Gen. 1:1 as an independent statement, implying that God first created matter out of nothing, and then (verse 2.) proceeded to fashion the world from that raw material, is now widely questioned, and several recent translations have adopted the approach advocated by Speiser and Cross.

Spieser, who translated Gen 1:1 as above, then adds: "The question, however, is not the ultimate truth about cosmogony, but only the exact meaning of the Genesis passages which deal with the subject.. . . At all events, the text should be allowed to speak for itself."

Other modern versions which incorporate this usage include The New Jewish Version : "When God began to create the heaven and the earth, the earth being unformed and void. . . ."; similarly The Bible, An American Translation (1931); The Westminster Study Edition of the Holy Bible (1948); Moffat's translation (1935); and the Revised Standard Version (RSV), alternate reading, Stones Chumash (a midrashich distillation) follows the new wording, etc, etc.



Clear
post Two follows
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Post Two of Four

The translation of the word "created" is under equal scrutiny. The Hebrew verb bara' of the opening verse "In the beginning God created ..." is, here translated "created", and in ex-nihilo tradition is usually reserved in the Old Testament for God's activity in forming the world and all things in it. However, synonymous terms and phrases scattered throughout the Hebrew scriptures exclude this word as evidence that only an ex nihilo creation is being described in Gen. 1. The most common of these synonyms are yasar, (to shape or form), fn and 'asah, (to make or produce).

In a study of the Hebrew conception of the created order, Luis Stadelmann insists that both bara', and yasar carry the anthropomorphic sense of fashioning, while 'asah connotes a more general idea of production. Throughout the Old Testament the image of creation is that of the craftsman fashioning a work of art and skill, the potter shaping the vessel out of clay, or the weaver at his loom. The heavens and the earth are "the work of God's hand." Thus to translate bara' as "to organize", or "to shape" or "to mold" etc are as valid as "to create", and none of these implies ex nihilo creation.

For example: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." and later he creates again "God created man in his own image; in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Gen. i: 27.

In both passages the Greek verb for "created" is identical, and if it’s usage in the first verse is not synonymous with it’s usage in the twenty-seventh, Moses fails to make this distinction. Violence is done to language when we affirm that the same word when used in expressing a continuous act of creation, signifies in the beginning of the act a creation out of nothing, (i.e. the earth) later on in the process then mean a simple molding of elements (i.e. Adam out of dust or clay).

In all these texts the word "figure" or "mold" may rightly be substituted for "formed" or "created." But we have already seen that "create" should have synonymous meaning when used in relation to the creation of the world, that it certainly has when the formation of a body for Adam is spoken of. As thus used, it is equivalent to the English word, "figure," and it is apparent that Genesis i: I, should be translated, "In the beginning the Gods shaped, fashioned or molded the heavens and the earth."

"Create", in different usages may signify to settle, found, build, create, generally to make, render, etc. In the following passages of the Bible the word is translated "create." "Create in me a clean heart." Psalms. li: 10. "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works." Eph. ii: 10. "Neither was the man created for the woman. I Cor. xi: 9. "Commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created," etc. I Tim. iv: 3. "For thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." Rev. iv. II. None of these passages afford any foundation for the idea of a creation out of nothing.

The "creation" of a new heart is the "regeneration" of the old one. Our "creation" in Christ Jesus involves a "purification", and a "consecration" of powers to new purposes. God took a portion of the dust of the earth elements already in existence and out of this "created" man. Meats are "created" out of pre-existent substance.

The Harper's Bible Commentary reads: “As most modern translations recognize, the P creation account (1:1-2:4a) begins with a temporal clause ("When, in the beginning, God created"); such a translation puts Gen. 1:1 in agreement with the opening of the J account (2:4b) and with other ancient, Near Eastern creation myths. . . . The description of the precreation state in v.2 probably is meant to suggest a storm-tossed sea: darkness, a great wind, the water abyss . . . chaotic forces.

The KJT of Gen. 1:2, which renders the Hebrew as "void," has been used to support to the creation ex nihilo theory, whereas actually this word always occurs in the Old Testament in tandem with tohu ("formless"), describing a "formless waste," or the "chaos" common to most Near Eastern creation mythology The earth was tohu wabohu: "without form and void," as the Authorized (King James) Version renders it, "and darkness was upon the face of the deep (tehom)," i.e., the watery chaos (cf. 2 Pet. 3:5). This hardly signifies absolute nonexistence; rather it speaks of the formless primeval chaotic matter, the Urstoff out of which the Creator fashioned the world. If one DOES associate Gen. 1 with the ubiquitous creation stories of antiquity, it would more strongly support ruling out creation ex nihilo as the idea behind the biblical text.

"'Tohu wabohu' means the formless; the primeval waters over which darkness was superimposed characterizes the chaos materially as a watery primeval element, but at the same time gives a dimensional association: "tehom ('sea of chaos') is the cosmic abyss. . . . This declaration, then, belongs completely to the description of chaos and does not yet lead into the creative activity. . . ." Brown, Driver, and Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford - Clarendon Press -, p. 26. Cf. von Rad, Genesis , p. 49) However, the Septuagint's rendition of the Hebrew tohu wabohu in Gen. 1:2 as aoratos kai akataskeuastos (unseen and unfurnished) "probably meant to suggest the creation of the visible world out of preexistent invisible elements" (Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks, p. 111).

Just as elsewhere in the Old Testament, when the Lord God "laid the foundations of the earth," his command brought response from the elements rather than effecting existence as such (Ps. 104:5-9; cf. Isa. 48:13), so also, admits von Rad (who DOES embrace ex nihilo), in Gen. 1 "the actual concern of this entire report of creation is to give prominence, form and order to the creation out of chaos," ( i.e., unorganized, chaotic matter). Accordingly, Speiser's extensive analysis of the Hebrew in the first verses of Genesis forces him (also an ex-nihilist), to concede "To be sure my interpretation precludes the view that the creation accounts say nothing about coexistent matter."( This is a strangely worded and reluctant admission...)[/i]


Often people will offer generic passages such as Heb 11:3 to support the idea of creation from nothing. For example, in the common English version the text is as follows: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made out of things that do appear." However, just as the translation in Genesis does not clearly support ex nihilo, all scriptures rendering the word "CREATE" such as used in Hebrews 11:3 is just as easily interpreted to refer to pre-existing matter.

As scholars consider words of the Greek text, one important word would be the word which is translated "framed" in this text. To show the word "Framed" supports ex nihilo, it must be shown that the term signifies to actually CREATE ex nihilo. But this cannot be done without forcing the text since the word is so often used in the sense of to "repair", to "restore" from breach or decay, to "mend", to "put in order", to "reform", to "appoint"; "perfect"; "adjust", or to "train" rather than to "create [i"ex nihilo").

Nowhere can we find the claim advanced that this Greek term, signifies "to create out of nothing". Our dictionary gives no such definition. If "framed" was, in this instance, taken out of a normal context and placed into a specific context to support creation out of nothing, the writer could have paused and clarified that in this instance the Greek for "framed" meant something different than the normal ussage of "to adjust, adapt, knit together, restore, or put in joint,". But this he does not do, but rather he leaves the sense of the sentence to the sense that is common for his readers.

The next words requiring special attention are which are translated "the worlds." Such, however, is not their real meaning at all. The latter is compounded of two words the first signifying "always," and the other "being" The Greek terms used to express forever, forever and forever, everlasting, eternal and eternity, are all derived from this same source, and thus it is more likely that the writer, by metonomy, used "the eternities" for "the worlds." This fact is very important, since the metonomy requires that which is signified by any certain term must bear some distinct relation or resemblance to that thing it signifies. If "the eternities" mean "the worlds,", then something about the latter must be eternal

Scriptures such as Heb. 11: 3, do not teach the creation of all things, "out of nothing" but rather it implies that God, by the power of faith, applied order and harmony upon pre-existing elements of the world; and that these visible creations were not made by material agencies which are seen (such as tools of men), but rather they are created by the power of an invisible faith which is not seen, or, does not appear.

Furthermore, in Rom. 9:20-23 Paul himself employs the "potter-vessel image" of Isa. 29:16, while 2 Pet. 3:5 reminds us that the earth "was formed out of water" (RSV)–the primeval chaos, or "deep" of Gen. 1:2 Such considerations coordinate New Testament writers with those of the Old when they referred to the creation. What this means for the present discussion is that no one in authority had yet taught of a creation "out of nothing."



Clear


Post Two of Four
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Post three of four

4) MODERN CHRISTIAN WRITINGS



Foerster
, in Theological Dictionary, 3:1010. Relates that "The idea of a command presupposes the existence of ministering and obedient power to carry out the will to create." "It would be wrong," the editors of the New Jerusalem Bible say of Genesis 1:1, "to read the metaphysical concept of 'creation from nothingness' into the text."

"The Hebrew words conventionally rendered 'create,' " notes T. H. Gaster,
"though they came eventually to be used in an extended, metaphorical sense, are derived from handicrafts and plastic arts, and refer primarily to the mechanical fashioning of shapes, not to biological processes or metaphysical bringing into existence."
They originally denoted actions such as to cut out or pare leather, to mold something into shape, or to fabricate something. Thus, it is hardly surprising that the Bible can describe creation as "the work of [God's] hands." (And it scarcely needs to be pointed out that the presupposition underlying such terms and such a description is anthropomorphic in the extreme.)

"Throughout the Old Testament," writes Keith Norman, "the image is that of the craftsman fashioning a work of art and skill, the potter shaping the vessel out of clay, or the weaver at his loom."

The drama of God's creating by organizing chaos is thoroughly treated by Jon D. Levenson, (a prior Albert A. List Professor at Harvard):
"Although it is now generally recognized that creation ex nihilo . . . is not an adequate characterization of creation in the Hebrew Bible, the legacy of this dogmatic or propositional understanding lives on and continues to distort the perceptions of scholars and lay persons alike."

Richard Sorabji concludes:
"There is no clear statement in the Bible, or in Jewish-Hellenistic literature, of creation out of nothing (in a sense which includes a beginning of the material universe). On the contrary, such a view was invented by Christians in the second century a.d., in controversy with the Gnostics."

David Winston concurs. Winston notes that the notion was first expressed by the Christian Neoplatonist Tatian and by Theophilus. Moreover, the Bible contains clear statements of creation out of chaos. Job chapters 28 and 38 refer to God bringing order out of preexisting chaos. As I discussed, 1Gen. 1:1 indicates a creation out of chaos.

It would seem, in fact, that the notion of creation from nothing is not clearly taught by anybody until well past the period of primitive Christianity (approx 100 a.d.), that it was a non-issue for the earliest Christians, that it does not come to dominate theological thinking and writing even for some period beyond that, and that it must be "read into" early Jewish and Christian texts if it is to be found there at all.





5) THE NATURE OF THE EARLIEST WRITINGS AGAINST CREATION FROM MATTER

In fact, the later rash of arguments IN FAVOR of creation from nothing near the end of the second century points to the newness of the doctrine of creation from nothing.
For example, Tertullian's tracts (he is against creation from matter) especially adds to the evidence since his argument FOR creation from nothing was against established beliefs within his Church. His tract was directed against a fellow Christians and not against non-christian Platonists.

Tertullian himself concedes that creation out of nothing is not explicitly stated in the scriptures, but merely asserts that since it is not denied either, the silence on the matter implies that God does have the power to create ex nihilo, since (for him), it seemed more logical.

There was a time however when the idea of a creation ex nihilo was being discussed in Christian intellectual circles. For example, Clement of Alexandria himself seems aware of the difference between an absolute creation out of nothing and creation out of primal matter in at least one passage (where he does not view it as crucial to orthodoxy). But in his "Hymn to the Paedogogus" he clearly favors the view of creation from preexistent material:

O King. . . .Maker of all,
who heaven and heaven's adornment by the Divine Word
alone didst make;. . . according to a well-ordered plan;
out of a confused heap who didst create
This ordered sphere,
and from the shapeless mass of matter
didst the universe adorn. . . .

Eusebius
says (in trying to discourage the doctrine of creation from matter) that ”...it is unholy to say that matter is unbegotten...” or was only organized at the creation. Notice the preaching he was trying to stop - that matter was not created and was only organized at the creation. It wasn't created out of nothing; it was organized. He says that's what the early church taught, (but HE felt it was wrong to say this and was trying to stamp out the doctrine). Plato's Demiurge, (which remarkably resembles the "Word" (logos) in John 1:1-14), was the maker of the world (but even Plato's Demiurge created the world out of preexistent eternal material). (Timaeus 27d-29e, 53a-56c)


Athenagoras, in his earlier Plea for the Christians to Marcus Aurelius and Commodus still taught a creation by God from preexisting matter, on the analogy of a potter and his clay. He explicitly states God as an artificer (demiourgos) requires matter.

Justin describes God's creative role to be that of a giver of forms and shapes to matter already present seems so natural to him that the idea of creation from pre-existing matter that he seems never to have regarded it as a problem.

Origen (who DID, initially believe in creation from matter) in later teachings against it admits that it WAS taught at the Christian school in alexandria at an earlier time by earlier and distinguished christians. Origen, (First Principles 2.1.4), expressed his surprise that "So many distinguished men" have believed in uncreated matter.

Thomas rogers (In Milton's De Doctrina Christiana), notes that the Great Milton, (who knew Hebrew and things Jewish), reasons that “neither the Hebrew, nor the Greek, nor yet the Latin verb for create can possibly signify "create out of nothing" (Christian Doctrine , 975-76).

I believe that the idea of "creation from nothing" is introduce in bits and pieces in the second century and the campaign for the doctrine to achieve pre-eminence over the doctrine of creation from matter achieved more popularity from that time onward.

I think that Sorabji and Winston were correct; that the evolution toward the adoption of Ex Nihilo was used partly as a premise to avoid the taint of "cosmism" (which the Gods in surrounding religions were subject to) (i.e. the idea that God worked with matter, processed it, adapted it, and used it as a workman, and artisan).

What marks the fourth century, as Alfoldi puts it, is "the victory of abstract ways of thinking-the universal triumph of theory, which knows no half measures. The Gnostic idea of the body as a prison is entirely at home with the doctors of the church. They love it because matter is vile."

Groucho Marx (paraphrasing) joked that : "I wouldn’t join any club which would consider a person like me for membership." In strange logic, I wonder if people don’t tell themselves "I can’t possibly believe in any sort of God that can be understood." and thus pile mystery upon mystery onto their definition of God (and spirit, and matter) until they truly believe such things cannot BE understood.

I believe that the historians are correct regarding the great motive behind ex-nihilo was the neo-platonic philosophy that matter was too vulgar and too common for a "great" and "extraordinary" God to simply USE and MANIPULATE
. Ex-nihilo elevated him to a God that NOW, can create something out of nothing, as though such an embellishment somehow made him greater than he was. Just as children brag "My dad can beat up your dad", the christians wanted a reason to claim "My God is better than your God. Mine doesn’t need matter to create". (Whereas the other Gods did because their traditions had them creating out of matter.

This eschewing of association of God and matter continues in our days. for example; The Great Jesuit H.A. Brongers says that God "just thinks" and all is there at once (though he forgets the "process" of creation that took TIME"). He claims that the idea of God working matter, using something already there is horrifying because that deprives him of all his divinity (Though no one explains just HOW that logic works...). His explanation is that "It involves him with the physical world". So what? Whether ex-nihilo, or from matter, God IS involved with the physical world that he made and placed us in.


Clear

Post three of four
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Post four of Four


6) CONSIDERATION OF EX-NIHILO AS A RATIONAL ARGUMENT

Regarding ex-nihilo, there can be no appeal upon purely rational grounds.
Ex Nihilo would be debatable were there in existence a self-evident maxim that all things were created out of nothing; but no such proposition was ever defended as a self-evident truth. It owes its origin purely to religious influences rather than any scientific or geological influence.

Any an attempt to support ex nihilo by appeal to the rationality of this principle amounts simply to a question of the rational faculties of mankind in forming rational judgments. Creation from nothing on a purely rational basis denies the correctness of intuitive convictions and demolishes all criteria for judging between the right and the wrong

Once religion embraces one error (such as ex-nihilo), then one must embrace other errors. That religion must then create many other erroneous justifications as to why the Christian God defies natural law and why he defies scientific knowledge in so many ways (in this case, The doctrine defies the scientific doctrine that matter cannot be created or destroyed); and places Christianity into a position of opposition to a world of scientific knowledge, when the religious truth about matter is in harmony with the laws of matter, not in opposition to those laws.

Such doctrinal confusion ultimately cannot BE explained or even defended and the religionist who believes it is left reflexively to retreat to the religious mental bunker of statements such as "Mysterious are the ways of God" when their doctrines such as ex-nihilo are so incongruous with the real world.




7) MY OWN BELIEF THAT MATTER WAS USED IN THE CREATION OF THINGS

I realize that much of the justification we all use to believe what we believe is sometimes a "veneer" and simply to support what we cannot truly explain. I considered that this was perhaps true of me also.

If I ignore all of the "veneer" and factual data, I must admit that I believe in the creation of material things from matter partly because it simply "makes sense" to me and I believe in the creation of material things from matter because I feel that the spirit of God is pulling me in that direction and that is what I am supposed to believe.

The results of this belief of material things being created from matter have been profound. It has, I feel, opened up Christianity to the older and clearer lines of reasoning. It has allowed me to cast off a lot of unneeded doctrinal ballast that kept Christianity from agreeing with science. Science and religion have become, for me, colleagues, rather than mutually frustrated and antagonistic acquaintances. I can accumulate data faster; make more correct models of what went on before the earth that causes God to operate as he does. His purposes make more sense to me.
None of these reasons are objective, nor can I claim that my personal motives are superior to anothers motives.


Clear
I don't have time to fix spelling errors, etc now, and might not be back til tomorrow afternoon .
dreiacseuy6
 

Orontes

Master of the Horse
Post one of Two
THE "CHURCH OF THE IN BETWEEN" AND DOCTRINES OF "COMPENSATING FOR WHAT IS LACKING"

Even the principle of “restoration” is exciting since this was the very claim the original Christians taught. They taught that the organizations and doctrines of the “church” did not “begin” in Jesus Day, but was “restored” to them or “revealed” to them again in Jesus day, but the church as an organizational entity had ALWAYS existed in heaven before the creation of the earth. Thus the writer of 2nd Clement taught : It has ALWAYS been there, but He says it was “revealed [restored] in the last days”, thus the one on the earth is only a copy of the original “spiritual” organization . This is why the early christians claimed that In Hermas’ vision he is speaking to an angel regarding the vision wherein the church was represented as “an elderly woman” (he is speaking to an angel who is explaining the vision). (Remember Hermas IS in the early New Testaments).


Hello Clear,

This notion corresponds to LDS rhetoric. Mormons hold that the Gospel was something taught and ascribed to from the beginning. There is therefore a certain and distinct commonality found among authoritative (prophetic) voices that were either anticipating the Messiah and those who claimed Jesus was the Messiah made manifest. This larger notion of restoration of the entirety of the Gospel is one reason one can see Joseph Smith clearly focused on and was influenced by the Old Testament themes i.e. temples, the Melchizedek Priesthood, polygamy etc.

An interesting corollary to this can be found in the work of the Methodist Pastor and Old Testament/ early Christianity scholar Margaret Barker. Her initial question began with noting that Modern Christianity and Judaism are quite different. This applies not simply to ascribing Messiahship (or not) to Jesus, but to adopted metaphysics and liturgy. Her question then was if the one is a creature of the other and still makes viable truth claims, how could this be? Her argument turns on an investigation of the early Christian texts (both canonical and no) that were appealed to by the early Jesus Movement compared to other strands of Jewish Thought of the time. The Book of Revelation is a simple example. It's difference with say Pauline writings is clear. How could such a text have even been written and given credence by early Christians? Her larger thesis, which is drawn out over several books, is that the Jesus Movement was actually a part of a divergent (and very ancient) strand of Jewish Thought that had coexisted and competed with rival Jewish authority claimants. This divergent Judaism (which either becomes or bleeds into Christianity) is tied to a deeply rooted Temple Theology. This is where the symbolism and early Christian esoterism finds its place and authority questions ring large. Her argument is such was part and parcel of the earliest forms of Jewry and that such was cut out by competing groups with rival authority claims, but it persisted on the Jewish periphery up until the beginnings of the Common Era (the Essenes are a simple example that points toward her thesis). Of course, what would ultimately happen to the Jesus Movement after the destruction of the Temple and the death of the apostles led to yet another part of the story.
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hello Clear,

This notion corresponds to LDS rhetoric. Mormons hold that the Gospel was something taught and ascribed to from the beginning. There is therefore a certain and distinct commonality found among authoritative (prophetic) voices that were either anticipating the Messiah and those who claimed Jesus was the Messiah made manifest. This larger notion of restoration of the entirety of the Gospel is one reason one can see Joseph Smith clearly focused on and was influenced by the Old Testament themes i.e. temples, the Melchizedek Priesthood, polygamy etc.

An interesting corollary to this can be found in the work of the Methodist Pastor and Old Testament/ early Christianity scholar Margaret Barker. Her initial question began with noting that Modern Christianity and Judaism are quite different. This applies not simply to ascribing Messiahship (or not) to Jesus, but to adopted metaphysics and liturgy. Her question then was if the one is a creature of the other and still makes viable truth claims, how could this be? Her argument turns on an investigation of the early Christian texts (both canonical and no) that were appealed to by the early Jesus Movement compared to other strands of Jewish Thought of the time. The Book of Revelation is a simple example. It's difference with say Pauline writings is clear. How could such a text have even been written and given credence by early Christians? Her larger thesis, which is drawn out over several books, is that the Jesus Movement was actually a part of a divergent (and very ancient) strand of Jewish Thought that had coexisted and competed with rival Jewish authority claimants. This divergent Judaism (which either becomes or bleeds into Christianity) is tied to a deeply rooted Temple Theology. This is where the symbolism and early Christian esoterism finds its place and authority questions ring large. Her argument is such was part and parcel of the earliest forms of Jewry and that such was cut out by competing groups with rival authority claims, but it persisted on the Jewish periphery up until the beginnings of the Common Era (the Essenes are a simple example that points toward her thesis). Of course, what would ultimately happen to the Jesus Movement after the destruction of the Temple and the death of the apostles led to yet another part of the story.


Orontes; That was an interesting correlation;

I have to wonder if modern Christianities, Jewish sects and most other religions are so provincial that we generally see only a small portion of the picture before us, and thus do not see the deep parallels and connections between ancient Christianity and Ancient Judaism. We occassionally get striking evidence of those connections. In the ancient “Lives of Adam and Eve” text, Adam is told multiple times in clear terms that a Redeemer will be provided for him in “five and a half days (ca 5500 years) and the early Christians taught that before Judaism evolved, it WAS the same as Christianity, just in different idiom.

For example, if one reads only superficially, the New Testament and the Book of Mormon and the ancient Christian and Jewish Texts, one will miss the obvious and profound parallels. The parable of the “Tree of Life” found in early Book of Mormon Nephi (8-12...15) IS the same as New Testament Mattews Parable of “The Sower and the Seed” found in Matt 13, having the SAME four type of seeds/people. They are the same type of Parable found in New Testament Hermas (in early new testaments) and the Parable of the Tower where various types of stones are considered in the building of the Tower (represented by the church).

The early Christians refer to the principle of the “Two coinages, the one of God and the other of the world, each of them has it’s own stamp.. "the faithful bear the stamp of god the father” (Ignatius 5:2). This is applicable to the authentic gospel taught in it’s many forms. For example: If the New Testament “Sower and the Seed” IS the same gospel taught in the Book of Mormon “Tree of Life” vision and IS the same gospel taught in Hermas “Building of the Tower” parable, then the “VISION OF THE FOUR TREES of dead sea scroll 4Q 552-553 may also represent a form of christianity, taught in Jewish idiom of the time. The parallels run deeper still. If it is true that “Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity" as the early saints claimed, then the earliest Jewish teachings (initially the same teachings as authentic Christianity) may be hidden underneath layers of Judaism as it evolved into it's different form. If this is true, there should be some evidence of prior claims to this in early christianity. And there are.

For example: Goodenough of Yale has shown that there existed through the centuries, two distinct types of Judaism. One followed what he calls ‘the horizontal path,” the other “The vertical path.” based on how they sought a relationship with God. He designates one group the “horizontal religion” due to their reverence of tradition and history as primary principles in a relationship with God. “Vertical Religion” was so designated due to their reverence for REVELATION from God himself as an additional primary principle in a relationship with God.

Horizontal religion he labels the forerunners of rabbinic, halachic, normative, or Talmudic Judaism. Vertical religion he has a more difficult time labeling though he says they had most in common with “Mystic” Judaism - (perhaps they are closer to the modern Messianic Jews who believe in Christ...) He feels so little is known and left of “Vertical Judaism” because the “Horizontal Judaism” had, by years of struggle, stamped its rival out entirely where they could, or forced it underground. Perhaps this struggle has a rough christian equivalent, in the initial victory of Catholicism over competing christian sects in the first 300 years A.D.

My sense of what he is trying to say is that modern “Rabbinical” (horizontal) Judaism won the struggle for dominance but “vertical” Judaism was a “forerunner” (perhaps even a type) of “christianity” just as the Dead Sea Scroll Jews are reminiscent of early Christianity in so many ways (so much that the Modern Jewish Scholars felt that they were "too Christian" for their liking. For example, the “vertical” Judaism was characterized by a succession of heavens, thrones of triumph, blessed meals with the Messiah, etc and emphasized Messianic and prophetic teachings. Teachings which the doctors of the schools of the “horizontal” tradition opposed with all their might. Horizontal Judaism did not have to kill the Messianic Jews, all they had to do was marginalize them and control the media (written history) to quash their teachings.

Describing this struggle, R. H. Charles agrees that :
“Legalistic Pharisaism ... in time drove out almost wholly the apocalyptic [i.e. prophetic,] element ...and became the parent of Talmudic Judaism” whereupon Judaism became “almost wholly bereft of the apocalyptic wing which had passed over into Christianity.”
Similarly H.J. Schoeps, distinguished similar types of Christianity and suggests that original Christianity was similarly stamped out by the latter type, which was, in a classic bit of irony (like dominant Judaism), also was intellectually oriented and strongly opposed to the old Messianic-Millennialist tradition.

The profound and deep parallels don’t seem accidental. While it was long noted that primitive Christianity was a carrying forward of certain old “vertical” Jewish traditions, Torrey tried to demonstrate that early Christianity was so unpopular with Jewish scribes and Pharisees BECAUSE Christian teaching suggested the old vertical Messianic Judaism; (a “pre-christian christianity”). I have to agree the “Rabbinical Judaism” versus “vertical Judaism” description seems to parallell the Judaism versus Christian argument. They still argue the same issue of the law of Moses as a type and a preparation for the Messiah and greater things to come VERSUS the law of Moses as an end in itself. In this context, it seems as though this was always the main issue between the two great traditions of Israel

The recognition of the “underground” nature of vertical Judaism and Jewish Christianity may provides a new context for modern Jews considering Jesus as the Messiah and to how they interpret their Bible. Episodically, we all find certain personal biases are in error, and the experience is not pleasant. Thus we cling to traditions that offer some degree of comfort even if we know they have some flaws. Otherwise the question that remains is: “What is left to us, if the things we have always been taught are not so?” This is a question both Christians and Jews alike seem to ask when having to alter their beliefs. I believe that the personal, ongoing revelations so much a part of “vertical Judaism” and “Ancient Christianity” provides a way out of this dilemma.

Some modern Jews complain that the early christians have changed the scriptures to suit themselves. While I certainly agree that changes and errors crept into scriptures, I would have to point out that the same is also true of Hebrew scriptures (and this was my point in the "Islam, Judaism and Christianity thread). Ironically it is this very claim that the early christians aimed at the Rabbinic Jews. Early Christian apologists claimed scriptures were excluded by the Jewish doctors of the schools who were so desirous of stamping out vestiges of “vertical” - Messianic religion (AND who controlled / produced both the Septuagint and the Masora). Your own H. Nibley points much of this out in his historical comments.


Post two of two follows (removed most spelling-textual errors 06-11-09 clear)
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
post two of two


For example, One of the first, and certainly one of the greatest, of Christian Apologists was Justin Martyr. In his famous dialogue with the Jew Trypho, he charges “the teachers and leaders of the Jews” with having deliberately defaced and, where possible, removed from the scripture every trace of the true Messianic gospel which the Jews themselves once taught. Justin makes it very clear that Christianity is strictly an “eschatological” religion, that stands or falls on the same claims that the real inspired Jews of old USED to make, i.e. the very things that the prophets always taught.

It was not current “Horizontal Judaism” but rather the Christians alone the dialogue insists, which are in direct line with the ancient patriarchs and prophets (i.e. The heirs of “Vertical Judaism). Justin explained that Christian principles were the very same thing which was taught by the Patriarchs in the beginning. (i.e. It was Christ whom abraham saw and talked with). He tells Tryphos that circumcision began with Abraham, and sacrifices with Moses; but behind both of these rules was an eternal law that had no such beginning, and that is the law brought by Jesus Christ, which was withheld in other ages because of the wickedness of men and hardness of their hearts, but it was known to the partiarchs in the beginning none the less.

“We are really in the same Tradition of teaching that your are”, Justin tells Trypho the orthodox jew, “but we look behind all tentative and provisional rules” (i.e. law of moses, circumcision, etc) to the one eternal plan; behind all this passing show is the real thing, ageless and changeless. In discussing why some of their basic doctrines such as resurrection and millennium are different, Justin says “Why don’t the Jews believe in them? Because, says he, they have been led astray by their “teachers” and “leaders”. It is they who make and control the official doctrines, and because they happen to sit in Moses’s seat and enjoy the support of the government and the control of the schools, it does not follow for a moment that their “official” doctrine is the true patriarchal tradition they claim it is. Indeed, they fight that tradition tooth and nail.

Justin claims:
“You know very well that your teachers whenever they detect anything in your scriptures that might refer to Christ, diligently efface it.” “Your teachers not only undertake their own interpretations in preference to the Septuagint (once their official bible), but have also removed many passages from the text entirely”.
When Trypho replies “Do you mean to charge us with completely rewriting the scriptures?”, in answer Justin cites scriptural passages—( all strong evidence for the gospel of Christ) that were deliberately removed from the scriptures “by the leaders of the people.”

Justin is claiming that the Judaism of his day (thus ours also) is NOT the ancient Judaism. He explains that Judaism evolved into a religion that claims connections (historical connections - “horizontal” connections) that don’t exist in truth, but merely in tradition. To the ancient Chistian church fathers such as Justin, the claim that “modern” Judaism is the same as anciently is more good advertising than good history.

In answering the question of how can the doctors of the law, devout men that they were, have so fallen from grace? Justin explains that as part of the pattern; it did not begin with Christianity. As Israel has rejected the Messiah, so anciently it rejected the higher law which Moses would have given. Justin reviews the great dispensations – Adam, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham-Melchezedek, Moses, David- and duly notes that after each one there was an immediate falling away.

IN the place of living waters, he says, the schoolmen in every age busy themselves digging out “puddles that can hold no water.” This figure is a powerful one of doctors diligently scraping out holes in the earth in which they hope to preserve the precious water which has ceased to flow from its source. In refusing to recognize and accept the truth, men lose their capacity for doing so, and the knowledge of the Son is deliberately withheld from them: “these things seem strange to you,...because God has hidden from you the power of recognizing the truth, and that because of your wickedness.” They rejected and killed the prophets, the purveyors of “vertical Judaism” or Judaism based on direct revelation from God, and thus, from them is taken away the revelations, the source of living water that gave the true orthodoxy, messianic Judaism it’s life.

Certainly in our own days, some interesting parallels are unavoidable in the discovery of some typically “christian” terminology and practice in some of the “Jewish” Dead Sea Scrolls. The Jewish scholar Teicher avoids the embarrassment of accepting early Judaism ingrained with Christian ideas by denying that the scrolls are Jewish at all. He points out that the teachings of the scrolls exactly correspond to those of the Primitive Christian Church, especially with regard to the Messiah.

“The judge of mankind on the Last day" is thus, according to the Habbakuk scroll, the Elect, the Christian Messiah, that is, Jesus. Is then Jesus referred to explicitly in the Scroll? He is; under the appellation of moreh-ha-sedeq, which should be correctly translated the ‘True Teacher’ – the title applied to Jesus both in Mark and among the Jewish-Christian sect of the Ebionites.

Teicher concludes that the Scrolls MUST be Christian, yet his Jewish colleagues do not agree. In the debates about whether they are Christian or Jewish, it is clear than uncomfortable doctrinal overlaps (for both faiths) add to the confusion. One of the descriptive quotes I read is :
”The Scrolls are typically Christian and yet they are Jewish, typically Jewish and yet Christian! They are typically biblical in style and composition and yet not biblical.”
Perhaps these scrolls involved in the controversy are part of the “vertical Judaism” the modern rabbinical Judaism tried so hard to stamp out. I probably don’t have to remind you that the existence of the Copper Scroll (a list of locations of Israels temple and other treasures, placed into the hands (as it were) of the Dead Sea Scroll Jews, PLACES THEM AT THE CENTER, (NOT THE EDGES) OF WHAT WAS AN ORTHODOX TEMPLE JUDAISM. This is important since it places their doctrines (of which there are DEEP LDS parallels, in the center of Judaism AND ancient Christianity, with them. The convergence of so many roads cannot be accidental and the import is earth-shaking to those who understand the implications. It places the LDS in the center of the crossroads of the ancient world.

Certainly Judaism in other lands evolved differently and yet some of the Jews of other lands felt that THEY were the “Torah True” believers having their own scriptures and Jewish temples, while considering the “horizontal” Judaism as apostates from the original revealed religions even though the “horizontal” Jews had their scriptures and their temple in Jerusalem. One would have to wonder if history is something like looking through knotholes in time, where we still, form large portions of our biases on very small bits of information.

Again, I have to stop here

Clear.
drtwsex2t (I corrected on 06-11-09 - clear)
I'll have to return later to format and fix errors
 
Last edited:

Orontes

Master of the Horse
Hi Clear,

All good stuff in your posts. It is more and more clear (excuse the pun) that anything other than the most cursory of historical references undercuts much of the base rhetoric behind what was Judaism, its ties to the Jesus Movement and what ultimately became the "orthodoxy" of both faiths. Due to the larger and larger amounts of ancient recovered texts, it is beyond argument that Jewry was splintered from early on. The Tanakh is itself the byproduct of an agenda often contradistinct to other equally old and apparently even older forms of the faith. Your many references to Jewish symbolism is one example. I know Margaret Barker used very similar symbolic references i.e. the tree of life etc. to illustrate her thesis. I can tell you, she was quite surprised when she was told about a Church claiming to be a restoration of what was that had new scripture to put forward to the Welt and that this dubbed new scripture also contained the same ancient Jewish symbology that has only become more clear (more punning), with the large number of Jewish texts recovered the last few years.

Your Justin Martyr references are also quite apt. Aside from his assertions, one has only to look at the dubbed Jewish Council of Jamnia (CE 90) where a Jewry in the wake of the destruction of Jerusalem, the temple and a progressing rival Jesus cult sought to redefine itself. Interestingly, the "Jewish" canonization process opted for a Tanakh that went against use of the Septuagint (which was the more common text and the one used by the Christians i.e. Paul). The familiar Justin Martyr references also play against other early Christian voices. Tertullian is one such example: (the very fellow who coined the term Trinity, Old Testament, New Testament etc.) who would ultimately leave Christian proto-orthodoxy, for the Montanist sect because he cited the clear (more punning) difference between the spiritual gifts, continuing revelation and authority that had existed with the Apostles and its lack in the professed Christendom of his day (and this is in the early Second Century!).
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
post one of two

Clear in Post #265 said:
Point number 4) THE LDS RESTORE FAIRNESS TO THE CONCEPT OF REWARD AND PUNISHMENT RENDERED IN THE ATONEMENT OF JESUS CHRIST
Another profound theological difference that I find in LDS theology regards fairness. I grew up with a Christian Theology where there was the simplistic "Heaven and Hell" (despite the historical texts descriptions of multiple heavens and levels within heaven). In this model, those who authentically believed in Jesus went to "Heaven" where they lived in eternal splendor regardless of their many faults, and others who did not authentically believe in Jesus were placed in "Hell" where they suffered eternal agony and torture of flames f o r e v e r for either not having accepted Jesus, OR for not having even heard of Jesus (e.g. "The african native"), or for not having the opportunity to accept Jesus (e.g. the infant who dies after just a few months). Augustine agonizes over this very issue regarding infant damnation. He doesn’t WANT to damn infants who die. He KNOWS the concept is incorrect. But he has no doctrinal alternative. (Other than a "light damnation").

The LDS were the first (that I know of, besides historian-theists), who returned to the concept of multiple levels of reward or punishment that is in PROPORTION to the person’s relative level of deserving (AFTER considering an atonement of Jesus)....

As one leaves the earliest Christian period, a vast number of theological and philosophical complaints arose from Agnostics, Philosophers, and Theists of other religions (and whispered among Christians themselves), regarding the inherent unfairness of Damning people without sufficient reasons. These simple doctrines regarding how the atonement applies to "unfair" situations, do away with almost 1300 years of such complaints and controversy of unfairness.
Clear



1) The doctrine of punishing THOSE WHO ARE UNABLE to accept Jesus in this life

In posts 265, 277 and 278 I discussed the adoption of unfair Christian doctrine that damns billions of infants, mentally innocents, and those who’ve never heard of Jesus to a fire-filled and torturous hell full F O R E V E R because they did not "come unto Jesus". Since they were "Unqualified" for "Heaven" (having not "come unto Jesus"), they were consigned to HELL ( the doctrine created only those two options).

They were NOT damned because they WOULD NOT accept Jesus, but because they COULD NOT "accept Jesus" (having never heard of him). This punishment of the innocent and the ignorant mortified philosophers, theists and Christians themselves for hundreds of years and will continue to do so unless we return to the original doctrine of a gradation of reward and punishment just as the Church of Jesus Christ (of either early OR Latter Day Saints) taught.



2) LDS DOCTRINE RESTORES THE ANCIENT AND FAIR DOCTRINE OF SALVATION FOR BILLIONS OF DEAD INDIVIDUALS

Just as most churches have no doctrinal mechanism preventing the damning of innocent infants to hell who did not accept Jesus, we also had no mechanism of teaching the gospel to those who lived anciently but had died without a chance to have received the knowledge of Jesus while they were alive. They could not be rewarded for not accepting a Jesus they had not heard of in this life.

Just as the LDS restoration of the ancient doctrine of gradation of reward and punishment restored fairness to reward and punishment of the souls of men, the restoration of the ancient doctrine that souls who are dead are taught gospel principles that will provide them salvation restores fairness to the doctrine that ALL souls will receive sufficient knowledge to lead them to salvation if they so desire. This is a very simple, but ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL doctrinal truth that I was never given as a youth. My "church of the In Between" did not have this truth..

It was an LDS friend that first pointed out a simple example to me :
"For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. 1 Peter 4:6
This New Testament verse needs no clever re-interpretation but is plain as it stands and refers to the gospel being taught to those who have died, so that they might be able to accept the gospel as it is taught to the living, and gain the same reward as those who heard the gospel while alive.

The principle is as profound as it is simple. ALL must have a fair chance for the atonement to remain a fair process. The LDS have restored this doctrine that the Dead will also receive an adequate chance to hear; to understand; and to accept all doctrines that are necessary to their salvation. In my native Aletheian, "Church of the In Between", we languished for some principle which that could have made our gospel fair, but we did not have it. The LDS restoration of this specific principle that ALL will ultimately be taught the gospel complements the doctrine of fair distribution of both reward and punishment.



3) YET ANOTHER MODERN DOCTRINAL UNFAIRNESS THAT THE LDS RESTORATION TO ANCIENT DOCTRINE FIXES

The philosophers and theists point out that there are other sources of unfairness and unjustness to modern Christian doctrines that ancient Christians did NOT suffer with (having taught a different set of doctrines).

Just as it is unfair to die without certain opportunities, it is also unfair to be born without certain opportunities if there is no circumstance that can restore fairness to unequal birth and deaths. The adoption of the later doctrine of God creating man’s spirit out of "nothing", transfers to God the responsibility for the unequal natures of various spirits he made AND, the responsibility of having unequal spirits born into entirely unequal circumstances.

Some individuals are born when and where Christianity was unknown. Some are born without mental capacity to "come unto Jesus". Others die too early to accept Jesus. There are a thousand other inequalities into which individuals are born. Some are born slaves, others as Kings. Some are born in destitute poverty and others rich. Some are born with intellectual skills and opportunities beyond measure, others are born with mediocre intellect and / or minimal opportunities of various types. In short, there is an infinite variety of individuals born under a vast multitude of conditions that seem unfair.

Philosophers and theists have long criticized the "The Church of the In between" for not possessing some explanation or doctrine which "levels the playing field", or that at least explains some of the factors that go into such vast inequality as we see both in individuals and in their circumstances.

The LDS restoration and return to the ancient Christian Doctrine of Pre-mortal existence places all of these complaints into an entirely different, logical, and fair context. Without this context, such inequalities distract from the fairness and justness of an atonement (which, if God is to be a Just God) must remain just.

If spirits of men, as the LDS claim, have existed in one form or another long before they are born and that sentient and (as the Pistis Sophia describes it) "Self Willed" spirit, has both choices and progress and itself created some of it’s own characteristics which it carries with it into this mortal life is yet another restored doctrine which changes everything. This doctrine of Pre-existence of the spirits of mankind (and the accompanying LDS doctrines and LDS descriptions of what occurred there) changes the ENTIRE nature of the atonement and the context of our ENTIRE existence dramatically. The complaints of unfairness of the philosophers and theist can be put to rest. The principle of "knowing what went on before" is critically important to our understanding of what is happening now. Let me give examples from a prior post from the Thread on "Pre-mortal existence of mans spirit: which religions teach this?".

The example follows in post two of two below :
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
post two of two


The Pirke (d rabi Eliezer) relates a story of the young Moses (before he was a Prophet and was herding sheep in Midian) that illustrates this principle.

Moses was sitting on a hill, overlooking a well and meditating about life and it’s meaning, when he noticed a traveler come and stop at the well to refresh himself. Unnoticed, a purse of money dropped out of his garments and fell on the ground before he continued on his journey.

After a short while another traveler appeared. He refreshed himself with the cool water and while standing near the well, found the money-bag on the ground. He picked it up, rejoiced about the stroke of luck and went happily on his way.

Yet another stranger came after a while who also drank of the water from the well and then proceeded to take a nap nearby. Meanwhile, the first traveler had noticed the loss of his purse and hurriedly returned to the area since he surmised that he could have only lost it while refreshing himself at the well.

When he saw the sleeping man, he awakened him and asked him whether he had found the money, to which the other replied, truthfully, that he had not. However, the first stranger evidently did not believe the other’s assurance and after some accusations and shouting, a fight between the two ensued. It was at this point that Moses came running from the place of meditation to quell the disturbance and calm the tempers because he had witnessed what had happened.

But it was too late. The man who had lost the purse had already killed the innocent man when Moses arrived at the scene. The prophet related his observations to the man, who was quite shaken at his deed, and departed in great sorrow over the loss of his possessions and the knowledge of having killed for no cause. Moses was also shaken by this experience and he wondered deeply about the justice and benevolence of a God who had permitted such an act to happen.

"Lord of the Universe, spoke Moses, "can it be thy will to punish the innocent and let prosper the guilty? The man who hath stolen the money-bag is enjoying wealth which is not his, whilst the innocent man hath been slain. The owner of the money, too, hath not only lost his property, but his loss hath been the cause of his becoming a murderer. I fail to understand the ways of Providence and workings of Divine justice O Almighty, reveal unto me Thy hidden ways that I may understand."

And so the Lord proceeded to tell Moses why what had happened was just. The man who had lost the money had inherited it from his father who, in turn, had stolen it from the father of the man who had found it. Therefore that situation had now been corrected. The man who had been killed, had in years past, killed the brother of the man who had killed him during the quarrel. Said the Lord to Moses:

"Know thou, O Moses, that I ordained it that the murderer should be put to death by the brother of the victim, whilst the son should find the money of which his father had once been robbed. My ways are inscrutable, and often the human mind wonders why the innocent suffer and the wicked prosper."

We are all like Moses at the well. Like coming into a movie late, what we see may not make sense unless we have access to prior context and data as to what went on before we came on the scene.

Without the larger context and information, so much of what is going on in this life seems unfair and tragic, and often undercuts a faith in God and in the Savior. Once we obtain more information, then God’s purposes and what he is doing with mankind, can make much more sense.

It is a restoration of and a return to the Doctrine of Pre-existence of the Spirits which are born into our bodies in this life that allows differing spirits; differing circumstances, differing characteristics, to make much more sense.

Clear

I’ll try to get back later to correct spelling/format errors and to post data as to how the ancient believed in an used this doctrine.
Drx2twvi12
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi Orontes, we posted two minutes apart and I did not notice your post initially.

Orontes said:
"...anything other than the most cursory of historical references undercuts much of the base rhetoric behind what was Judaism, its ties to the Jesus Movement and what ultimately became the "orthodoxy" of both faiths.
Your point is entirely profound to historians, but most individuals do not live and breath in any deep historical contexts. Most Christians live in the world of cursory historical references.


Aletheia’s habitual "cutting and pasting" is a good example of how many theists live. It is like looking down from a boat ride in Hawaii and then reporting on the type of fish one saw. There is a "surface" world which one sees but is ignorant of an entire world which lies underneath the surface if one will only look. This causes major problems when one finally dives into a discovery of the real thing and it is different than one has believed their entire lives. This was the situation with the Discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Initially they were hailed as the greatest religious discovery of a generation, UNTIL they did not support prior biases with their ancient texts as to what Judaism was like. The Jews found them to have too much Christianity in them, so much that the claim was made that they WERE Christian writings. The Christians were reluctant to claim them since they showed that Christianity existed before Jesus. Ironically, it was the Mormons who remained excited because these were claims they had always made and they were not discomforted in the least.



Orontes said:
"Due to the larger and larger amounts of ancient recovered texts, it is beyond argument that Jewry was splintered from early on. The Tanakh is itself the by product of an agenda often contradistinct to other equally old and apparently even older forms of the faith."
The "splintering" of Judaism (and Christianity as well) has important ramifications for what becomes "orthodoxy". The "winner" that becomes pre-eminent among "splinters" is the one that becomes the loudest voice at claiming "orthodoxy" as they "control the media". However, this group is not necessarily the most "religious", but often the most politically and socially powerful group. This is an IMPORTANT distinction.


In reading the various theories as to why the references to Christ was removed from so much of what has become our current western Old Testament, one historical mechanism I think is most likely, has to do with political leaders wanting to suppress any expectation of and honor for any rival leader (whether a Messiah, or redeemer, or a political opponent). This is similar to the reason Herod ordered the death of any child who might have been "the expected Messiah". Matthew chapter two reports that
"Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men." (Matt 2)
Just as Herod wanted no potential political rival, other political leaders wanted no textual references to nor expectations of any political rival in the form of a Messiah; a redeemer of Israel, nor any other "king" of Israel than themselves. The political power edits out the passages or leaves out the texts that refer to the redeemer of Israel. The premise explains both the motive and the methods.




Orontes said:
"Your many references to Jewish symbolism is one example. I know Margaret Barker used very similar symbolic references i.e. the tree of life etc. to illustrate her thesis. I can tell you, she was quite surprised when she was told about a Church claiming to be a restoration of what was that had new scripture to put forward to the Welt and that this dubbed new scripture also contained the same ancient Jewish symbology that has only become more clear (more punning), with the large number of Jewish texts recovered the last few years.
I think the surprise Baker felt at the realization that there is a church that both restored and believes in the ancient doctrines AND was able to coordinate a large number of symbologies was similar to my surprise at the same discovery. This experience is bound to repeat itself in greater frequency as ancient scriptures continue to be discovered and individuals become more educated as to their implications. This is what is so impressive to me as I read the LDS doctrines as they relate to the earliest texts. The LDS are more "plug and play" with ancient patterns and symbologies than anything I’ve ever experienced.


For example: How many churches nowadays are able to recognize their own doctrines in The first Book of Enoch? How many could use 1 Clement as a Sunday School manual? THIS IS MY POINT. The LDS CAN. The "churches of the In Between" can only see tiny bits and pieces of parallels and recognition. The modern Aletheian doctrines of "grace renders repentance obsolete" can never be friends with the ancient Christians whose Doctrines rendered such things "heresy". For such churches, such ancient data must be discarded as unusable. They can never be friends to the earliest data the way the LDS are.

Clear
drx2sevi0p
 
Last edited:

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Clear, I'm just curious... How would you, as a non-LDS Christian, explain the extraordinary similarities between Latter-day Saint doctrines and the doctrines held by the earliest Christians? Your knowledge of these similarities is so impressive. Do you believe them to be coincidental? Or has your research led you to some other conclusion?

(I've followed this thread since Aletheia left and have been trying to absorb all of the fascinating parallels you've mentioned. Thanks so much for your sharing your wealth of knowledge!)
 
Your point is entirely profound to historians, but most individuals do not live and breath in any deep historical contexts. Most Christians live in the world of cursory historical references.

Aletheia’s habitual "cutting and pasting" is a good example of how many theists live. It is like looking down from a boat ride in Hawaii and then reporting on the type of fish one saw. There is a "surface" world which one sees but is ignorant of an entire world which lies underneath the surface if one will only look.

Cutting and pasting quotes of individual writers is no different than what any author does to verify his points. This does not mean that the author has no knowledge beyond those quotes. Even Christ was known to quote writings that existed previous to his incarnation.

Matthew 4
4But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Katzpur said:
"Clear, I'm just curious... How would you, as a non-LDS Christian, explain the extraordinary similarities between Latter-day Saint doctrines and the doctrines held by the earliest Christians? Your knowledge of these similarities is so impressive. Do you believe them to be coincidental? Or has your research led you to some other conclusion?

Like most individuals, I grew up in a Christian theological assembly-line that was similar to Aletheia’s (and most other "churches of the in between") in many ways. We "self proclaimed" ourselves as "orthodox" Christianity because it honestly felt that way to us and I learned the same naive habits of scriptural interpretation to support what I believed and memorized similar lists of scriptures to use against others.

I left this assembly line and felt to search for true principles, from any source rather than to simply strengthen prior biases. When studying early religious history; I noticed the Mormon historian Nibley applied a wider variety of ancient histories to Christianity than anyone else I’d ever read and it was more elegantly done. At some point I realized the elegance wasn’t nibley’s per se, but it was Mormonism itself, that allowed for an easy application of ancient principles and texts.

Katzpur, I am in the middle of this wonderful transition that I never anticipated. As I find and add bits of truth to my Christian life I am finding that more of them and the finest of them coming from LDS theology than any other. Because of this, I am becoming more "Church of the LDS" than I was "Church of the In Between". It is a trend that will not stop for reasons that go far beyond the data. The more I learn, the more that I want this change in my heart and mind and the increase of knowledge and understanding concerning my Savior to continue.




REGARDING THE VAST PARALLELS BETWEEN THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF FORMER DAY SAINTS AND THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS
Katspur said:
"Do you believe them to be coincidental? Or has your research led you to some other conclusion?
No, the similarities and parallels are not coincidental. The sheer number and type of similarities precludes a million "coincidences". No one has good enough luck to quote large amounts of history that has not yet been discovered over and over again. I’ve never heard such a phenomenon explained away. (Actually, I’ve never seen this phenomenon in this depth before). Joseph Smith was prophetic in too many ways for me to deny.

For example: He produced such an astounding amount of evidence to the effect that Jesus IS and always was the Messiah; the redeemer of men. My "church of the in between" generated none. He restored a multitude of ancient principles (I’ve already mentioned some I’ve discovered) that restore authentic fairness and justice to the Atonement of Jesus. My "church of the in between" restored none and lacked the very one I’ve mentioned.

Hermas, which IS in earlier New Testaments, describes this phenomenon as well as anyone in describing the difference between the False Prophets and the True Prophets. (Remember, there still were Christian Prophets in the earliest days after Jesus Died when the apostolic Fathers were written). He described the False Prophets as:
"not having the power of a divine spirit in himself, answers them in accordance with their questions and their wicked desires, and fills their souls just as they themselves wish. For since he himself is empty, he gives empty answers to empty inquirers, for no matter what is asked, he answers according to the emptiness of the man asking." Her 43:2
My church of the In Between was led by "empty" individuals who brought nothing new for evidence of a living Jesus. Their version of the Holy Spirit could give them no Prophetic Guidance; no scripture, no prophetic revelation. They fit Hermas' description :
"For if you store wine or oil in a storeroom and place an empty jar in among them and then later you wish to clear out the storeroom you will find that empty jar you placed there still empty. So it is with empty prophets; whenever they encounter the spirits of the righteous, they are found to be just as they were when they arrived." (Her 43:15).
Joseph smith, on the other hand, was anything but "empty" but rather he was "full" of vast theological energies and his powers of generation were "otherworldly" and beyond the ability a mere man simply bent on becoming famous. This is important since Hermas also describes the True Prophet in the period after the apostles died :
"For no spirit given by God needs to be consulted; instead, having the power of deity, it speaks everything on it’s own initiative, because it is from above, from the power of the divine spirit." (Her 43:5).
The true Prophet is "full" of initiative and information and ideas and direction and intelligence to communicate. Regarding this specific principle, I am continually amazed by the amount of sheer DATA that Joseph Smith produced, much of which was beyond his ability to produce. For example, where does HE come up with quotes from the book of Enoch before it was available? - (the same is true of Abbaton histories, and Abrahamic Histories - he even gets the names correct in histories that won’t be discovered and available until beyond his life time) It is only those who are ignorant of such references that remain unimpressed.

Also, as I pointed out, philosophers and theists have pointed out for hundreds of years regarding the various unjust and unfair principles of modern Christian Atonement. SOMEONE among the great philosophers and theists during those hundreds of years should have been smart enough to simply return to the ancient principles and settle a MILLENNIA of arguments. It is the relative "nobody", Joseph Smith, neatly settles MULTIPLE millennia-long arguments by such restorations to fair and just ancient principles. It’s uncanny.

Another principle that I am absolutely fascinated by and cannot stop thinking about (though we’ve not discussed it) is that within just a few restored principles lies a model of a "theory of religious relativity" which allows it to make perfect sense why individuals are drawn to various types of Christianities and Non-christianities, various philosophies and various levels of truths and why the Holy Ghost would involve itself in many Churches having various levels of truth rather than ONLY being involved in the authentic Church of Jesus Christ.

Katzpur, I am convinced. I am beyond convinced that these restored principles are not coincidence, but that God had a hand in such restoration.



Katzpur said:
" (I've followed this thread since Aletheia left and have been trying to absorb all of the fascinating parallels you've mentioned. Thanks so much for your sharing your wealth of knowledge!)
I hope you realize by now that I do not have the sensible "balance" of knowledge that you seem to have nor do I possess the wonderful logic and philosophical background that I enjoy about Orontes. Nor do I have the depth of LDS knowledge and experience perhaps that either of you have, but I am learning.

Katzpur, what you are seeing is not a great "knowledge" of LDS theology behind my posts but rather it is a bit of historical knowledge applied to LDS principles. They could be presented in a better order and could be more organized, but I am posting as these things mostly as they come to me and I continue to think about them.

I last posted regarding the restoration of a pre-mortal or pre-creation existence of the spirits of men and how it relates to a fair and just existence. I’ll try to post the supporting historical data to this principle later.

I suppose at this point the point is made that there are a host of principles restored by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints that are both profound and unique as they apply to the marvelous Atonement of Jesus Christ and the redemption of mankind.

Clear
drx2nesitt5
 
Last edited:
Top