First Baseman
Retired athlete
Interesting. Wrong. But interesting.
-
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!
Nothing Short Of Perfection
- Thread starter BilliardsBall
- Start date
Interesting. Wrong. But interesting.
Hi First Baseman :
I can't tell if you are assuming the use of the word "angel" is incorrect, or if you think Malachi was referring to two other angels, or if you think Jesus' reference to John as an angel / messenger is incorrect, etc. Can you explain what you think is incorrect?
Clear
I can't tell if you are assuming the use of the word "angel" is incorrect, or if you think Malachi was referring to two other angels, or if you think Jesus' reference to John as an angel / messenger is incorrect, etc. Can you explain what you think is incorrect?
Clear
Clear said : Intentional Mischaracterization is a type of bearing of false witness.
Billiardsball said : I agree. So why you are again defaming me?
Technically, since you are NOT "famous" for being accurate or for knowing much about religious history, no one is robbing you of fame that is due you. Having said that, the reason to point our your errors was NOT to rob you of your “fame” (or “defame” you), but to help you see that your many mistake form a pattern of errors.
For example, you claimed you had training in greek and history in an attempt to gain credibility. However, your attempt to use the word angel incorrectly again demonstrates you do not understand the basic use of greek αγγελλος or angel. When Jesus said "I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak" (john 12:49-50)
IF Jesus is speaking as an αγγελοσ/angel/messenger for the Father, then the word for messenger IS αγγελοσ (angel). IF you disagree, with this conclusion, then give us historical data or tell us how greek uses another word in this case or why the word the text uses is incorrect in this case, etc. Give us some sort of historical data and rational historical thought and you can change my mind on this historical point.
Regarding "defamation"
The bragging about training in greek and history in the face of being unable to USE greek or correct history caused much more loss of “fame” than I did.
For example, after telling us that you had training in greek,you then tried to use αρραβων as "a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance" (your definition) to your theory that a momentary belief guaranteed heaven for individuals who chose to defy God and do evil.
The fact that you were caught incorrectly using αρραβων in post #216 was not my “fault” for “defaming you”, but it is your fault for claiming to be trained in greek and not actually knowing greek.
When you were caught incorrectly quoting Isaiah 43:10 in post #83, it was not my fault for knowing the correct quote and thus “defaming you” with a correction, but it was your fault for trying to pass of an “embellished” quote as biblical. Even YOU could not even find a bible containing the quote you gave us.
When you were, similarly misusing the meaning of Romans 11:5to support your theory (in post #117), it was not Orontes fault for point out the error (and thus “defaming you”) but your fault for trying to re-define the meaning of words to support your theories.
When you attempted to use greek Μετανοεω / in it’s incorrect context and were corrected in post #121, you were not being “defamed” by being having the correct meaning explained to you from early papyri. You should have paid attention to historical context. No one made you brag that you had training in greek.
When you both misquoted and attempted to use 1John 5incorrectly in post # 124, it was not my fault for noticing the errors and pointing them out. It was not “defaming you”, but you were simply being corrected publically for misquoting and misapplying biblical text to support your theory.
When you misunderstood and misused1 Peter 3:22 in post # 186 to support your theory with yet another poster, pointing out this error was not someone “defaming you”, but instead, you should have read and understood a scripture before using it incorrectly to support your theory. Plus, it was not even me that pointed out the error, but another poster corrected your mistake and misuse of the text.
When you were caught embellishing meaning to the biblical text, to your credit, you did admit to doing this in post # 207. This was not another poster “defaming” you, but yourself who admitted the adding of meaning. However, the fact that you RETURNED to adding and changing words to the biblical text to support your theories was your own doing. . Your habits of embellishment are no one elses fault.
You complain that you are being “defamed” yet most of the time, posters are simply pointing out errors in your posts.
For example, you offered Romans 3:24-26 as support your penal substitution model of the atonement. When you were asked HOW the scripture you quoted supported your theory that murderers and rapists were guaranteed heaven simply by momentary, (but then repudiated) belief, you could not find an answer. If a poster asks how your scripture applies and you don’t have an answer, this is not “defamation”, it is simple examination of your theory.
When it was shown that you misinterpreted and misused your attempt to use greek in Galatians 3 , it was not “defamation” to show the errors, but simply a demonstration that the interpretation was not historically rational nor coherent or logical. You should never have claimed to have training in greek and then unable to even us basic rules of grammar.
When, in post # 280, you admitted that you were adding meaning to this scripture as well (in order to support your theory), this was not defamation to show the error, but simply yet another demonstration that you were trying to inappropriately add to a scripture to support your theory.
When, it was shown (in post # 324) that you were incorrectly using greek Πιστεύω(a form of faith) to support your theology, pointing out the error was not defamation, but observation of an error in and ignorance of Greek and history.
When you were caught, no one forced you to then make yet another claim that others had also mis-interpreted this word. When this new claim was also shown to be in error, this was not more defamation, but simply a demonstration of another erroneous claim. When you, yourself were unable to find “others” who had made your same mistake as you claimed, you couldn’t find a single translator who made the mistake you made. You weren’t being “defamed”, but you were damaging your own reputation by doing these things.
The point is that when your mistakes are pointed out, especially when they are multiple and grievous, you tend to want to blame others for pointing out these errors. You want to wear the mantle of a Biblicist, but you’re not. You complain that you want to use the bible to make arguments, but then are unable to keep from misusing the text. Your ideology moves you, not the text. You are not a real Biblicist.
You can certainly change my mind on almost any issue. But you will have to have authentic data, and logic, and rational thought. Poor data, misused scriptures and irrational and illogical points will not work. Discussions about insignificant or irrelevant points will not work.
For example, if you disagree with the early Judeo-Christianity in their textual witnesses, try to find early texts that actually agree with the point you want to make and then offer us data and support for your theories. Simply claiming the bible "agrees" with you doesn't work.
I will get to your other points later. Billiardsball, I DO hope your find satisfaction in your spiritual journey but there are rules. You can't get it by placing ideology above data.
Clear
σεειτωφυω
Billiardsball said : I agree. So why you are again defaming me?
Technically, since you are NOT "famous" for being accurate or for knowing much about religious history, no one is robbing you of fame that is due you. Having said that, the reason to point our your errors was NOT to rob you of your “fame” (or “defame” you), but to help you see that your many mistake form a pattern of errors.
For example, you claimed you had training in greek and history in an attempt to gain credibility. However, your attempt to use the word angel incorrectly again demonstrates you do not understand the basic use of greek αγγελλος or angel. When Jesus said "I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak" (john 12:49-50)
IF Jesus is speaking as an αγγελοσ/angel/messenger for the Father, then the word for messenger IS αγγελοσ (angel). IF you disagree, with this conclusion, then give us historical data or tell us how greek uses another word in this case or why the word the text uses is incorrect in this case, etc. Give us some sort of historical data and rational historical thought and you can change my mind on this historical point.
Regarding "defamation"
The bragging about training in greek and history in the face of being unable to USE greek or correct history caused much more loss of “fame” than I did.
For example, after telling us that you had training in greek,you then tried to use αρραβων as "a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance" (your definition) to your theory that a momentary belief guaranteed heaven for individuals who chose to defy God and do evil.
The fact that you were caught incorrectly using αρραβων in post #216 was not my “fault” for “defaming you”, but it is your fault for claiming to be trained in greek and not actually knowing greek.
When you were caught incorrectly quoting Isaiah 43:10 in post #83, it was not my fault for knowing the correct quote and thus “defaming you” with a correction, but it was your fault for trying to pass of an “embellished” quote as biblical. Even YOU could not even find a bible containing the quote you gave us.
When you were, similarly misusing the meaning of Romans 11:5to support your theory (in post #117), it was not Orontes fault for point out the error (and thus “defaming you”) but your fault for trying to re-define the meaning of words to support your theories.
When you attempted to use greek Μετανοεω / in it’s incorrect context and were corrected in post #121, you were not being “defamed” by being having the correct meaning explained to you from early papyri. You should have paid attention to historical context. No one made you brag that you had training in greek.
When you both misquoted and attempted to use 1John 5incorrectly in post # 124, it was not my fault for noticing the errors and pointing them out. It was not “defaming you”, but you were simply being corrected publically for misquoting and misapplying biblical text to support your theory.
When you misunderstood and misused1 Peter 3:22 in post # 186 to support your theory with yet another poster, pointing out this error was not someone “defaming you”, but instead, you should have read and understood a scripture before using it incorrectly to support your theory. Plus, it was not even me that pointed out the error, but another poster corrected your mistake and misuse of the text.
When you were caught embellishing meaning to the biblical text, to your credit, you did admit to doing this in post # 207. This was not another poster “defaming” you, but yourself who admitted the adding of meaning. However, the fact that you RETURNED to adding and changing words to the biblical text to support your theories was your own doing. . Your habits of embellishment are no one elses fault.
You complain that you are being “defamed” yet most of the time, posters are simply pointing out errors in your posts.
For example, you offered Romans 3:24-26 as support your penal substitution model of the atonement. When you were asked HOW the scripture you quoted supported your theory that murderers and rapists were guaranteed heaven simply by momentary, (but then repudiated) belief, you could not find an answer. If a poster asks how your scripture applies and you don’t have an answer, this is not “defamation”, it is simple examination of your theory.
When it was shown that you misinterpreted and misused your attempt to use greek in Galatians 3 , it was not “defamation” to show the errors, but simply a demonstration that the interpretation was not historically rational nor coherent or logical. You should never have claimed to have training in greek and then unable to even us basic rules of grammar.
When, in post # 280, you admitted that you were adding meaning to this scripture as well (in order to support your theory), this was not defamation to show the error, but simply yet another demonstration that you were trying to inappropriately add to a scripture to support your theory.
When, it was shown (in post # 324) that you were incorrectly using greek Πιστεύω(a form of faith) to support your theology, pointing out the error was not defamation, but observation of an error in and ignorance of Greek and history.
When you were caught, no one forced you to then make yet another claim that others had also mis-interpreted this word. When this new claim was also shown to be in error, this was not more defamation, but simply a demonstration of another erroneous claim. When you, yourself were unable to find “others” who had made your same mistake as you claimed, you couldn’t find a single translator who made the mistake you made. You weren’t being “defamed”, but you were damaging your own reputation by doing these things.
The point is that when your mistakes are pointed out, especially when they are multiple and grievous, you tend to want to blame others for pointing out these errors. You want to wear the mantle of a Biblicist, but you’re not. You complain that you want to use the bible to make arguments, but then are unable to keep from misusing the text. Your ideology moves you, not the text. You are not a real Biblicist.
You can certainly change my mind on almost any issue. But you will have to have authentic data, and logic, and rational thought. Poor data, misused scriptures and irrational and illogical points will not work. Discussions about insignificant or irrelevant points will not work.
For example, if you disagree with the early Judeo-Christianity in their textual witnesses, try to find early texts that actually agree with the point you want to make and then offer us data and support for your theories. Simply claiming the bible "agrees" with you doesn't work.
I will get to your other points later. Billiardsball, I DO hope your find satisfaction in your spiritual journey but there are rules. You can't get it by placing ideology above data.
Clear
σεειτωφυω
Last edited:
Riders
Well-Known Member
Jesus sinned many time sin the bible and violently turning over the tables is an act of violence.You must be smoking some good dope. The Bible doesn't ever say Jesus sinned. His anger at the money changers was righteous anger. Matthew even says that OT scripture said that Jesus would be zealous for His Father's house.
Please.
I do know it also says Jesus brushed off the woman as being a big nothing because she was a member of the wrong group, in the bible the one who begged him to heal her son. She said even the dogs eat crumbs throw me a crumb you think he was being a good guy when he did that?
He also got drunk several times. Your on dope, because you've bought into a fantasy a legend..........
Losin
Member
Yes he was flesh and bones, because he was fully human and fully God.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I remain unmistaken. You are shifting the goal posts because:
We both know Jesus and the Father have dozens, even hundreds, of appellations in the scripture. Key example, Jesus is an "apostle" in Hebrews 3.
Yes, Jesus is a messenger in scripture. Revelations is a classic example. But since Hebrews states Jesus is above all men and angels in Hebrews--plainly, clearly, either show where Jesus is a mere angel in Hebrews, not Malachi, which is not authoritative regarding the divinity of Jesus or the un-divine nature of angels, or kindly admit your bias.
Which makes your use of equivocating and prevaricating that Jesus and Satan are both angels, therefore, brothers, still more mystifying than before. No Christian tradition other than the modernist tradition of LDS teaches Satan is Jesus's brother, and, per the quotation I've posted above, a helper in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
You and the person you responded to have not read the Old Testament (carefully). Animal sacrifices and Jesus were examined to see if they were clean. Jesus had no mar or imperfection in His flesh before darkness reigned and He was beaten and marred per prophecy.
Jesus was morally perfect. I thought the OP made that clear--after all, being physically imperfect per the OT Law, such as having a crushed testicle, doesn't keep a person from Heaven. I thought it was incredibly obvious that moral imperfection condemns.
1) REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP OF HUBRIS AND PRIDE TO IGNORANCE
Forum Members : An important lesson Christians learn from the examples of the many mistakes of various types is to rid ourselves of the hubris and pride and illogic of claiming that "because we read the bible", that our varying doctrines and competing interpretations are therefore all “biblical” doctrines. As Boorstin points out, the greatest obstacle to discovery is the illusion of knowledge. Christians who believe they "know" their version of Christianity is the correct one, lack motivation to look for (and thus discover errors) in their beliefs. The assumption that one’s personal Christian theology is correct and all competing Christian theologies are incorrect is often, simply a manifestation of egotism and narcissism and hubris rather than knowledge.
2) REGARDING BILLIARDSBALLS' CLAIM THAT SATAN WAS AN ANGEL BUT JESUS WAS NOT AN ANGEL
Billiardsball said : We both know Jesus and the Father have dozens, even hundreds, of appellations in the scripture. Key example,Jesus is an "apostle" inHebrews 3. Yes, Jesus is a messenger in scripture. Revelations is a classic example. But since Hebrews states Jesus is above all men and angels in Hebrews--plainly, clearly, either show where Jesus is a mere angel in Hebrews, not Malachi, which is not authoritative regarding the divinity of Jesus or the un-divine nature of angels, or kindly admit your bias.
You are still confused. Jesus is NOT a “mere angel” in early Christian theology. Jesus is the Son of God, he is the Messiah and the only name under heaven to which individuals may turn for salvation (in LDS worldview as well). He is above all other apostles and all other angels and all other of mankind in this early worldview.
Regarding your new theory that the prophet Malachi is not "authoritative" regarding his views on the Messiahs (Jesus) divinity. This is an extremely unusual theory. Why do you think this specific prophet and / or prophecy is not "authoritative"?
3) REGARDING EARLY CHRISTIANITY BEING "HERETICAL" TO BILLIARDSBALLS' RELIGION
In explaining the early doctrine that God created both Jesus AND Satan :
Clear said : “The early Church Father Lactantius, describes the early concept of the relationship of Jesus to Satan. Lactantius explained that God “produced a Spirit like to Himself, who might be endowed with the perfections of God the Father... Then He made another being, in whom the disposition of the divine origin did not remain. ….For he envied his predecessor, who through his steadfastness is acceptable and dear to God the Father.“
Billiardsball said : “That is a giant heresy, saying that God the Father CREATED Jesus!”
Keep in mind that we have already demonstrated that your religion is not the same as early Christianity. Just as some of early Christianity is heresy to your religion, some of your theories would have been heresy to early Christianity. In early Christianity, God the Father was unbegotten, but Jesus was "begotten".
For example, John 1:18 in the early Christian New Testaments* reads “No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” This is the way John reads in New Testament, C. Sinaiticus1, in P75, in Clement (both pt and ex), in Thdp1, in Origenpt, (Irlat pt reads “only begotten Son God”).
The New Testament greek reads : “Θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε μονογενης θεος ο ων κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο.
In these early New Testament witnesses, Jesus is begotten by God and there was a time before being begotten of God. It is the Father in this model that is not begotten. Thus, whether the early Christian doctrine of Jesus being a begotten son of God is heresy to your modern doctrines or not, still, this was their Christian teaching. Whether such early doctrines are heresy to you and your doctrines are heresy to them, this is how they described their beliefs.
You can certainly convince us that Jesus was not begotten/created/produced/ etc by the Father but you will need to offer some data and reasoning. Give us whatever data you have and lets discuss it.
I am at work and am posting between appointments. I will return and post about Joseph Smiths point about Satan which you also misunderstood (or mischaracterized), and how it plugs into the early Judeo-Christian model.
Clear
σετωεισεω
Forum Members : An important lesson Christians learn from the examples of the many mistakes of various types is to rid ourselves of the hubris and pride and illogic of claiming that "because we read the bible", that our varying doctrines and competing interpretations are therefore all “biblical” doctrines. As Boorstin points out, the greatest obstacle to discovery is the illusion of knowledge. Christians who believe they "know" their version of Christianity is the correct one, lack motivation to look for (and thus discover errors) in their beliefs. The assumption that one’s personal Christian theology is correct and all competing Christian theologies are incorrect is often, simply a manifestation of egotism and narcissism and hubris rather than knowledge.
2) REGARDING BILLIARDSBALLS' CLAIM THAT SATAN WAS AN ANGEL BUT JESUS WAS NOT AN ANGEL
Billiardsball said : We both know Jesus and the Father have dozens, even hundreds, of appellations in the scripture. Key example,Jesus is an "apostle" inHebrews 3. Yes, Jesus is a messenger in scripture. Revelations is a classic example. But since Hebrews states Jesus is above all men and angels in Hebrews--plainly, clearly, either show where Jesus is a mere angel in Hebrews, not Malachi, which is not authoritative regarding the divinity of Jesus or the un-divine nature of angels, or kindly admit your bias.
You are still confused. Jesus is NOT a “mere angel” in early Christian theology. Jesus is the Son of God, he is the Messiah and the only name under heaven to which individuals may turn for salvation (in LDS worldview as well). He is above all other apostles and all other angels and all other of mankind in this early worldview.
Regarding your new theory that the prophet Malachi is not "authoritative" regarding his views on the Messiahs (Jesus) divinity. This is an extremely unusual theory. Why do you think this specific prophet and / or prophecy is not "authoritative"?
3) REGARDING EARLY CHRISTIANITY BEING "HERETICAL" TO BILLIARDSBALLS' RELIGION
In explaining the early doctrine that God created both Jesus AND Satan :
Clear said : “The early Church Father Lactantius, describes the early concept of the relationship of Jesus to Satan. Lactantius explained that God “produced a Spirit like to Himself, who might be endowed with the perfections of God the Father... Then He made another being, in whom the disposition of the divine origin did not remain. ….For he envied his predecessor, who through his steadfastness is acceptable and dear to God the Father.“
Billiardsball said : “That is a giant heresy, saying that God the Father CREATED Jesus!”
Keep in mind that we have already demonstrated that your religion is not the same as early Christianity. Just as some of early Christianity is heresy to your religion, some of your theories would have been heresy to early Christianity. In early Christianity, God the Father was unbegotten, but Jesus was "begotten".
For example, John 1:18 in the early Christian New Testaments* reads “No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” This is the way John reads in New Testament, C. Sinaiticus1, in P75, in Clement (both pt and ex), in Thdp1, in Origenpt, (Irlat pt reads “only begotten Son God”).
The New Testament greek reads : “Θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε μονογενης θεος ο ων κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο.
In these early New Testament witnesses, Jesus is begotten by God and there was a time before being begotten of God. It is the Father in this model that is not begotten. Thus, whether the early Christian doctrine of Jesus being a begotten son of God is heresy to your modern doctrines or not, still, this was their Christian teaching. Whether such early doctrines are heresy to you and your doctrines are heresy to them, this is how they described their beliefs.
You can certainly convince us that Jesus was not begotten/created/produced/ etc by the Father but you will need to offer some data and reasoning. Give us whatever data you have and lets discuss it.
I am at work and am posting between appointments. I will return and post about Joseph Smiths point about Satan which you also misunderstood (or mischaracterized), and how it plugs into the early Judeo-Christian model.
Clear
σετωεισεω
Last edited:
POST ONE OF FOUR
Forum members : Some PMs have expressed some interest as to how and why historians are becoming so interested in early Christian themes and how these themes relate to and parallel LDS theology (and why I personally am attracted to the LDS/historical Christianity connection). Here is a bit of information on this point.
In posts # 292, 293, 294 and 295, I gave a simple overview of early Judeo-christian textual witnesses of the plan of God to educate the spirits of mankind in moral law to prepare mankind to live in a social heaven in harmony and joy forever. In this example, I will give a simple example of how Joseph Smith’s teachings plug into and parallel these same early Judeo-Christian teachings on this subject. Later, I will give a similar example of how Smiths’ comment on Lucifer plug into the early traditions of the fall of Lucifer in a similar way.
As I’ve mentioned, I am an adult convert to Restorational Theology, that is, the concept of returning to the earliest and most authentic Christian religion regarding salvational doctrines. In doing this, I distinguish between religious “policies” and unimportant points that have little or nothing to do with salvation and base doctrines that are involved in salvation. The following is an example as an overview and is partly what attracted my attention to Restorational Theology as I was a “non-denominational” born again Christian before joining the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the “mormons”).
Joseph Smith explained the plan surrounding the atonement in the most simple, yet profound terms : Quote: "The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with Himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits. - Joseph Smith "
On the surface, the quote is so expansive that it is "too big a concept to handle". However, as I’ve broken it down and looked at it, it is completely consistent with the most ancient teachings regarding God, the Fathers, overall plan for man, (of which the atonement is the central mechanism for making the plan work.) For example :
1) "...God...finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory..." (Joseph Smith)
Joseph Smith’s restoration of this principle harkens back to the earliest testimonies and descriptions of the ancient scriptures and texts that describe the innumerable number of spirits existing in the beginning and what God intended to do with these innumerable spirits. Regarding his vision of pre-creation heaven, Enoch records :
"No one could come near unto him from among those that surrounded the tens of millions (that stood) before him". 1 En 14:23; In other parts of Enochs’ vision he testifies : "I saw a hundred thousand times a hundred thousand, ten million times ten million, an innumerable and uncountable (multitude) who stand before the glory of the Lord of the Spirits. (1 Enoch 40:1-2)" God was in the midst of spirits of all the spirits who ever lived or will live on this earth in the future according to these ancient Old Testament scriptures (Enoch IS in the eastern Old Testament)
2) "...because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself..." (Joseph Smith)
The ancient Jews taught that God had instituted a divine plan. This concept is interwoven into concepts that are stated repeatedly, such as "Before all things came to be, he [God] has ordered all their designs" (4Q255-264)
The Prophet Enoch describes the earliest stages of this plan before it was known among the heavenly host : "for not even to my angels have I explained my secrets, nor related to them their origin, nor my endless and inconceivable creation which I conceived." (2nd Enoch 24:3) In these ancient descriptions of his Plan, God the Father seems to take great care in both the planning of and in ensuring the deep involvement in the Heavenly Hosts (for whose benefit the plan existed).
Quote: ....I (the Father), in the midst of the light (glory), moved around in the invisible things, like one of them, as the sun moves around from east to west and from west to east. But the sun has rest; yet I did not find rest, because everything was not yet created. And I thought up the idea of establishing a foundation, to create a visible creation." (2nd Enoch 24:4)
Though ALL spirits existed in the beginning, they were in no way equals (just as we are not equal now). Among them were the more intelligent and gifted; those who were more full of grace and truth than others. In this context Ignatius explains that among those spirits was "Jesus...who before the ages was with the father.. (Ignatius :6:1).
The ancient records show the Father and Jesus, from early on, possessed a great similarity and unity. Jesus was given greater authority and administrated much of the Father’s plan from early on (God’s "right hand" was one of the Pre-Creation Jesus’ appellations).
Diogenes reaffirms the LDS restoration of this ancient doctrine in Diogenes teaching us : "And when he revealed it (his plan) through his beloved Child and made known the things prepared from the beginning, he gave us to share in his benefits and to see and understand things which none of ever would have expected.. So then, having already planned everything in his mind together with his child... (Diog 301:8-11)
Ancient pre-creation council histories demonstrates that most of the spirits were joyous at having this opportunity to progress. For example the question God places to Job was not merely a rhetorical instruction, but a reminder of Jobs personal pre-creation theology. Quote: "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:4-7)
Enoch says that he saw : " the fountain of righteousness,...surrounded completely by numerous fountains of wisdom. All the thirsty ones drink (of the water) and become filled with wisdom. (Then) their dwelling places become with the holy, righteous, and elect ones. ‘
Who among these spirits viewing this spectacle would not have wanted to drink from that same wisdom and take their place with others who were holy, righteous and elect? It is of such a pre-creation council of spirits that Enoch testifies : Quote: " At that hour, that the Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the spirits, the Before-Time; even before the creation of the sun and moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits. He will becomes a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall. He is the light of the gentiles...All those who dwell upon the earth shall fall and worship before him; they shall glorify; bless and sing the name of the Lord of the Spirits. For this purpose he became the Chosen One; And he has revealed the wisdom of the Lord of the Spirits to the righteous and the holy ones...in the name of the Lord of the Spirits; and because they will be saved in his name and it is his good pleasure that they may have life." (1 Enoch 48:1-7)
Long before Diogenes bore his New Testament Era testimony, Old Testament Era Enoch had bore the SAME visionary testimony: In Enoch’s vision, he see’s pre-creation Jesus with the Father and asks who this individual (Jesus) is and what role he has in the Father's Plan: Quote:"At that place, I saw the Beginning of days [i.e. the Father] And his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual, whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels. And I asked the one – from among the angels –who was going with me,..."Who is this and from where could he be, and for what reason does he go with him who precedes time?" And he answered me and said to me, "This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells...the Lord of the spirits has chosen him, and he is destined to be victorious before the Lord of the spirits in eternal uprightness...." (1 Enoch 46:1-4)
This is the testimony of Old Testament Enoch, it is the testimony of New testament Diogenes. It is the testimony of Joseph Smith. The parallels between the LDS restoration and the ancient teachings regarding the plan of salvation and the atonement continue in discrete details the ancients taught. For example:
post two of four follows
Forum members : Some PMs have expressed some interest as to how and why historians are becoming so interested in early Christian themes and how these themes relate to and parallel LDS theology (and why I personally am attracted to the LDS/historical Christianity connection). Here is a bit of information on this point.
In posts # 292, 293, 294 and 295, I gave a simple overview of early Judeo-christian textual witnesses of the plan of God to educate the spirits of mankind in moral law to prepare mankind to live in a social heaven in harmony and joy forever. In this example, I will give a simple example of how Joseph Smith’s teachings plug into and parallel these same early Judeo-Christian teachings on this subject. Later, I will give a similar example of how Smiths’ comment on Lucifer plug into the early traditions of the fall of Lucifer in a similar way.
As I’ve mentioned, I am an adult convert to Restorational Theology, that is, the concept of returning to the earliest and most authentic Christian religion regarding salvational doctrines. In doing this, I distinguish between religious “policies” and unimportant points that have little or nothing to do with salvation and base doctrines that are involved in salvation. The following is an example as an overview and is partly what attracted my attention to Restorational Theology as I was a “non-denominational” born again Christian before joining the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the “mormons”).
Joseph Smith explained the plan surrounding the atonement in the most simple, yet profound terms : Quote: "The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with Himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits. - Joseph Smith "
On the surface, the quote is so expansive that it is "too big a concept to handle". However, as I’ve broken it down and looked at it, it is completely consistent with the most ancient teachings regarding God, the Fathers, overall plan for man, (of which the atonement is the central mechanism for making the plan work.) For example :
1) "...God...finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory..." (Joseph Smith)
Joseph Smith’s restoration of this principle harkens back to the earliest testimonies and descriptions of the ancient scriptures and texts that describe the innumerable number of spirits existing in the beginning and what God intended to do with these innumerable spirits. Regarding his vision of pre-creation heaven, Enoch records :
"No one could come near unto him from among those that surrounded the tens of millions (that stood) before him". 1 En 14:23; In other parts of Enochs’ vision he testifies : "I saw a hundred thousand times a hundred thousand, ten million times ten million, an innumerable and uncountable (multitude) who stand before the glory of the Lord of the Spirits. (1 Enoch 40:1-2)" God was in the midst of spirits of all the spirits who ever lived or will live on this earth in the future according to these ancient Old Testament scriptures (Enoch IS in the eastern Old Testament)
2) "...because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself..." (Joseph Smith)
The ancient Jews taught that God had instituted a divine plan. This concept is interwoven into concepts that are stated repeatedly, such as "Before all things came to be, he [God] has ordered all their designs" (4Q255-264)
The Prophet Enoch describes the earliest stages of this plan before it was known among the heavenly host : "for not even to my angels have I explained my secrets, nor related to them their origin, nor my endless and inconceivable creation which I conceived." (2nd Enoch 24:3) In these ancient descriptions of his Plan, God the Father seems to take great care in both the planning of and in ensuring the deep involvement in the Heavenly Hosts (for whose benefit the plan existed).
Quote: ....I (the Father), in the midst of the light (glory), moved around in the invisible things, like one of them, as the sun moves around from east to west and from west to east. But the sun has rest; yet I did not find rest, because everything was not yet created. And I thought up the idea of establishing a foundation, to create a visible creation." (2nd Enoch 24:4)
Though ALL spirits existed in the beginning, they were in no way equals (just as we are not equal now). Among them were the more intelligent and gifted; those who were more full of grace and truth than others. In this context Ignatius explains that among those spirits was "Jesus...who before the ages was with the father.. (Ignatius :6:1).
The ancient records show the Father and Jesus, from early on, possessed a great similarity and unity. Jesus was given greater authority and administrated much of the Father’s plan from early on (God’s "right hand" was one of the Pre-Creation Jesus’ appellations).
Diogenes reaffirms the LDS restoration of this ancient doctrine in Diogenes teaching us : "And when he revealed it (his plan) through his beloved Child and made known the things prepared from the beginning, he gave us to share in his benefits and to see and understand things which none of ever would have expected.. So then, having already planned everything in his mind together with his child... (Diog 301:8-11)
Ancient pre-creation council histories demonstrates that most of the spirits were joyous at having this opportunity to progress. For example the question God places to Job was not merely a rhetorical instruction, but a reminder of Jobs personal pre-creation theology. Quote: "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:4-7)
Enoch says that he saw : " the fountain of righteousness,...surrounded completely by numerous fountains of wisdom. All the thirsty ones drink (of the water) and become filled with wisdom. (Then) their dwelling places become with the holy, righteous, and elect ones. ‘
Who among these spirits viewing this spectacle would not have wanted to drink from that same wisdom and take their place with others who were holy, righteous and elect? It is of such a pre-creation council of spirits that Enoch testifies : Quote: " At that hour, that the Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the spirits, the Before-Time; even before the creation of the sun and moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits. He will becomes a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall. He is the light of the gentiles...All those who dwell upon the earth shall fall and worship before him; they shall glorify; bless and sing the name of the Lord of the Spirits. For this purpose he became the Chosen One; And he has revealed the wisdom of the Lord of the Spirits to the righteous and the holy ones...in the name of the Lord of the Spirits; and because they will be saved in his name and it is his good pleasure that they may have life." (1 Enoch 48:1-7)
Long before Diogenes bore his New Testament Era testimony, Old Testament Era Enoch had bore the SAME visionary testimony: In Enoch’s vision, he see’s pre-creation Jesus with the Father and asks who this individual (Jesus) is and what role he has in the Father's Plan: Quote:"At that place, I saw the Beginning of days [i.e. the Father] And his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual, whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels. And I asked the one – from among the angels –who was going with me,..."Who is this and from where could he be, and for what reason does he go with him who precedes time?" And he answered me and said to me, "This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells...the Lord of the spirits has chosen him, and he is destined to be victorious before the Lord of the spirits in eternal uprightness...." (1 Enoch 46:1-4)
This is the testimony of Old Testament Enoch, it is the testimony of New testament Diogenes. It is the testimony of Joseph Smith. The parallels between the LDS restoration and the ancient teachings regarding the plan of salvation and the atonement continue in discrete details the ancients taught. For example:
post two of four follows
Last edited:
POST TWO OF FOUR
3) The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge (Joseph Smith)
The ancient texts form the foundation for the relationship of these various spirits of men, of angels, and of the Pre-creation Jesus to the “Father of Spirits” (as they called “The Lord God”). For example (though it's simply a gloss over what are deep concepts)
A) : The physical creation was accomplished in order to allow men to advance in knowledge: Though multiple creation accounts exist, the earlier accounts make it clear both that God created the Planets and Stars (often translated “orbs” or “circles”) out of “lessor”, or more chaotic material, and, importantly, he commissioned the Pre-creation Jesus (Often called “the word” or his “right hand”) to Administrate over this material creation of an earth which he will populate with embodied spirits for their education and testing.
For example : The Jewish Geninza 4Q texts are clear that the plan is the Father’s plan and that he “determined all your works before you created them, together with the host of your spirits and the assembly of your holy ones… - all your designs for the end of time..” He counsels with those whose involvement he wants, but it is his plan : “Moreover the Holy One, blessed be he, does nothing in his world without first taking counsel with them; then he acts, as it is written” (3Enoch :4 283). The Jewish teaching that the physical creation was accomplished for the purpose of advancing mankind is is the same tradition as the early Christians held. New Testament Hermas taught : “...don’t you understand how great and mighty and marvelous God’s glory is, because he created the world for the sake of man, and subjected all his creation to man..” (Her 47:2-4).
The physical creation of ancient accounts was accomplished by taking “lessor” or more chaotic matter, and organizing it into a “higher” or more organized and purposeful form such as the organized earth had. Old Testament Enoch describes this process: “And I called out a second time into the very lowest things, and I said, ‘Let one of the (in)visible things come out visibly, solid.’..” (2nd Enoch 26:1). From chaotic debris, the earth and other planets were formed : Quote: “And thus I made solid the heavenly circles (orbs). ...And from the rocks I assembled the dry land; and I called the dry land Earth. “ (2nd Enoch 28:1-2).
And thus, in company with the Pre-Mortal spirit of Jesus (called "the word” or “the right hand” in some accounts), the Father accomplished creation. Quote: I said, “O Lord, you spoke at the beginning of creation, and said on the first day, ‘Let heaven and earth be made, ‘ and your word accomplished the work...Again, on the second day, you created the spirit of the firmament and commanded him to divide and separate the waters...On the third day you commanded the waters to be gather together...For your word went forth, and at once the work was done. “ (4th Enoch 3:38-42).
I think it is this closely unified and joint administration that contributes to much of the later confusion between Father and Son in later doctrines though the early texts it is taught that they are two individuals that are profoundly unified in purpose.
B) . The Administrative organization was accomplished to allow men to advance in knowledge: It is Baruch that reminds us of the innate ability of the spirit of men to advance in knowledge. He says Quote: “For the nature of men is always changeable. For as we were once, we are no longer, and as we are now, we shall not remain in the future. For if an end of all things had not been prepared, their beginning would have been senseless”. 2 Baruch 21:16-17
Changeable willful spirits were given a choice : In the ancient accounts, the spirits of men were allowed to choose to take part in this plan, just as they are allowed to choose what they will do in this life. I’ll skip the “war in heaven” and the controversy with Lucifer that was a central part of it and simply mention that there were recalcitrant spirits of which the Jews said : “God had not chosen them from ancient eternity. Before they were created (in the body), he knew what they would do. “ (Geninza A+B 4Q266) “ still, even of the less valiant spirits they said :“he taught them through those anointed by the Holy Spirit…”.
There were important principles underlying this fairness. For example, though God knows their nature, they needed to discover their own nature. God said : Quote: “And I gave him his free will; and I pointed out to him the two ways –light and darkness. And I said to him, ‘This is good for you, but that is bad’; ...so that it might become plain who among his race loves me. Whereas I have come to know his nature, he does not know his own nature.”... (2 enoch 30:15-16)
Even those who are to remain unrewarded, are to learn why they remained unrewarded. “It is true that man would not have understood my judgment if he had not received the Law and if he were not instructed with understanding. But now, because he trespassed, having understanding, he will be punished because he has understanding." (2 baruch 15:5-6).
This principle the ancient taught that “before he created them He knew their thoughts…” (geninza) is not just true of the wicked spirits, but it was also true of the good and valiant spirits as well. Jeremiah the prophet was told "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)
Thus, God’s planning extended not merely to such great roles as prophets, but in teaching his son’s the nature of the souls agreement to come to earth, Enoch taught his sons regarding the “covenant of God, while they are even in their mother’s womb....that even before any person was in his mother’s womb, individually a place I prepared for each soul, as well as a set of scales and a measurement......” As if to make sure his sons understand the import of this doctrine, Enoch repeats the same doctrine again in just a few lines: “For I am swearing to you, my children, that before any person existed, a place of judgment was prepared for him and the scale and the weight by means of which a person will be tested were prepared there ahead of time. " (2 enoch 49:1-3)
Thus the Jewish Dead Sea Scroll that speaks of this plan to “refine them” (the spirits of men) was not forced upon anyone, but all who are here, agreed beforehand, to come to this life.
Since studying the LDS restoration of Ancient and precious things and offering my observations and comparisons to the ancient teachings of the Jews and Christians, I feel like we are necessarily skipping over deep and portentous doctrines, like a rock, skipping across the surface of deep doctrinal waters, touching only lightly upon a point here and there.
4) “He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with Himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits.“ - Joseph Smith
There are important principles underlying this statement : For example
1) Mortality is a time of INSTRUCTION and LEARNING
2) Specific knowledge is requisite to save us in the world of spirits
3) How is it that God teaches knowledge that will save us
4) What is the end result of Learning to live the principles that save us
1) Mortality is a time of INSTRUCTION and LEARNING
Thus, the ancient doctrine places mankind in the position of Students, who are to learn the principles God is trying to teach them. Thus Clement II teaches that “we are being trained by the present life” (2 clement 20:2) Thus Ignatius is correct to say to the Ephesians, “I speak to you as my fellow students. For I need to be trained by you in faith, instruction, endurance, and patience. (Ig-eph 3:1 The Apostle Peter’s protégé Clement taught that “through him [Christ] the Master [the Father] has willed that we should taste immortal knowledge”.
New Testament Era Diogenes makes clear that without this “immortal knowledge”, there IS no basis for eternal life. He taught : Quote: “But the tree of knowledge does not kill, on the contrary, disobedience kills. For it is not without significance that the scriptures record that God in the beginning planted a tree of knowledge and a tree of life in the midst of Paradise, thereby revealing that (eternal) life is through knowledge...For there is neither life without knowledge, nor sound knowledge without true life; therefore each tree stands planted near the other. (Diog 12:2-3)
It is significant that early accounts call Eden’s tree of “knowledge”, the tree of “wisdom”. In Enoch’s vision of heaven he says : “... And the tree of wisdom, of which one eats and knows great wisdom, (was among them)....This very thing is the tree of wisdom from which your old father and aged mother, they who are your precursors, ate and came to know wisdom; and (consequently) their eyes were opened...” (1Enoch 32:6) And, importantly, the type of wisdom that is gained, includes the type of moral knowledge man was sent here to learn (“there is no [eternal] life without knowledge”).
3) The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge (Joseph Smith)
The ancient texts form the foundation for the relationship of these various spirits of men, of angels, and of the Pre-creation Jesus to the “Father of Spirits” (as they called “The Lord God”). For example (though it's simply a gloss over what are deep concepts)
A) : The physical creation was accomplished in order to allow men to advance in knowledge: Though multiple creation accounts exist, the earlier accounts make it clear both that God created the Planets and Stars (often translated “orbs” or “circles”) out of “lessor”, or more chaotic material, and, importantly, he commissioned the Pre-creation Jesus (Often called “the word” or his “right hand”) to Administrate over this material creation of an earth which he will populate with embodied spirits for their education and testing.
For example : The Jewish Geninza 4Q texts are clear that the plan is the Father’s plan and that he “determined all your works before you created them, together with the host of your spirits and the assembly of your holy ones… - all your designs for the end of time..” He counsels with those whose involvement he wants, but it is his plan : “Moreover the Holy One, blessed be he, does nothing in his world without first taking counsel with them; then he acts, as it is written” (3Enoch :4 283). The Jewish teaching that the physical creation was accomplished for the purpose of advancing mankind is is the same tradition as the early Christians held. New Testament Hermas taught : “...don’t you understand how great and mighty and marvelous God’s glory is, because he created the world for the sake of man, and subjected all his creation to man..” (Her 47:2-4).
The physical creation of ancient accounts was accomplished by taking “lessor” or more chaotic matter, and organizing it into a “higher” or more organized and purposeful form such as the organized earth had. Old Testament Enoch describes this process: “And I called out a second time into the very lowest things, and I said, ‘Let one of the (in)visible things come out visibly, solid.’..” (2nd Enoch 26:1). From chaotic debris, the earth and other planets were formed : Quote: “And thus I made solid the heavenly circles (orbs). ...And from the rocks I assembled the dry land; and I called the dry land Earth. “ (2nd Enoch 28:1-2).
And thus, in company with the Pre-Mortal spirit of Jesus (called "the word” or “the right hand” in some accounts), the Father accomplished creation. Quote: I said, “O Lord, you spoke at the beginning of creation, and said on the first day, ‘Let heaven and earth be made, ‘ and your word accomplished the work...Again, on the second day, you created the spirit of the firmament and commanded him to divide and separate the waters...On the third day you commanded the waters to be gather together...For your word went forth, and at once the work was done. “ (4th Enoch 3:38-42).
I think it is this closely unified and joint administration that contributes to much of the later confusion between Father and Son in later doctrines though the early texts it is taught that they are two individuals that are profoundly unified in purpose.
B) . The Administrative organization was accomplished to allow men to advance in knowledge: It is Baruch that reminds us of the innate ability of the spirit of men to advance in knowledge. He says Quote: “For the nature of men is always changeable. For as we were once, we are no longer, and as we are now, we shall not remain in the future. For if an end of all things had not been prepared, their beginning would have been senseless”. 2 Baruch 21:16-17
Changeable willful spirits were given a choice : In the ancient accounts, the spirits of men were allowed to choose to take part in this plan, just as they are allowed to choose what they will do in this life. I’ll skip the “war in heaven” and the controversy with Lucifer that was a central part of it and simply mention that there were recalcitrant spirits of which the Jews said : “God had not chosen them from ancient eternity. Before they were created (in the body), he knew what they would do. “ (Geninza A+B 4Q266) “ still, even of the less valiant spirits they said :“he taught them through those anointed by the Holy Spirit…”.
There were important principles underlying this fairness. For example, though God knows their nature, they needed to discover their own nature. God said : Quote: “And I gave him his free will; and I pointed out to him the two ways –light and darkness. And I said to him, ‘This is good for you, but that is bad’; ...so that it might become plain who among his race loves me. Whereas I have come to know his nature, he does not know his own nature.”... (2 enoch 30:15-16)
Even those who are to remain unrewarded, are to learn why they remained unrewarded. “It is true that man would not have understood my judgment if he had not received the Law and if he were not instructed with understanding. But now, because he trespassed, having understanding, he will be punished because he has understanding." (2 baruch 15:5-6).
This principle the ancient taught that “before he created them He knew their thoughts…” (geninza) is not just true of the wicked spirits, but it was also true of the good and valiant spirits as well. Jeremiah the prophet was told "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)
Thus, God’s planning extended not merely to such great roles as prophets, but in teaching his son’s the nature of the souls agreement to come to earth, Enoch taught his sons regarding the “covenant of God, while they are even in their mother’s womb....that even before any person was in his mother’s womb, individually a place I prepared for each soul, as well as a set of scales and a measurement......” As if to make sure his sons understand the import of this doctrine, Enoch repeats the same doctrine again in just a few lines: “For I am swearing to you, my children, that before any person existed, a place of judgment was prepared for him and the scale and the weight by means of which a person will be tested were prepared there ahead of time. " (2 enoch 49:1-3)
Thus the Jewish Dead Sea Scroll that speaks of this plan to “refine them” (the spirits of men) was not forced upon anyone, but all who are here, agreed beforehand, to come to this life.
Since studying the LDS restoration of Ancient and precious things and offering my observations and comparisons to the ancient teachings of the Jews and Christians, I feel like we are necessarily skipping over deep and portentous doctrines, like a rock, skipping across the surface of deep doctrinal waters, touching only lightly upon a point here and there.
4) “He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with Himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits.“ - Joseph Smith
There are important principles underlying this statement : For example
1) Mortality is a time of INSTRUCTION and LEARNING
2) Specific knowledge is requisite to save us in the world of spirits
3) How is it that God teaches knowledge that will save us
4) What is the end result of Learning to live the principles that save us
1) Mortality is a time of INSTRUCTION and LEARNING
Thus, the ancient doctrine places mankind in the position of Students, who are to learn the principles God is trying to teach them. Thus Clement II teaches that “we are being trained by the present life” (2 clement 20:2) Thus Ignatius is correct to say to the Ephesians, “I speak to you as my fellow students. For I need to be trained by you in faith, instruction, endurance, and patience. (Ig-eph 3:1 The Apostle Peter’s protégé Clement taught that “through him [Christ] the Master [the Father] has willed that we should taste immortal knowledge”.
New Testament Era Diogenes makes clear that without this “immortal knowledge”, there IS no basis for eternal life. He taught : Quote: “But the tree of knowledge does not kill, on the contrary, disobedience kills. For it is not without significance that the scriptures record that God in the beginning planted a tree of knowledge and a tree of life in the midst of Paradise, thereby revealing that (eternal) life is through knowledge...For there is neither life without knowledge, nor sound knowledge without true life; therefore each tree stands planted near the other. (Diog 12:2-3)
It is significant that early accounts call Eden’s tree of “knowledge”, the tree of “wisdom”. In Enoch’s vision of heaven he says : “... And the tree of wisdom, of which one eats and knows great wisdom, (was among them)....This very thing is the tree of wisdom from which your old father and aged mother, they who are your precursors, ate and came to know wisdom; and (consequently) their eyes were opened...” (1Enoch 32:6) And, importantly, the type of wisdom that is gained, includes the type of moral knowledge man was sent here to learn (“there is no [eternal] life without knowledge”).
Last edited:
POST THREE
2) Specific knowledge is requisite to save us (i.e. prepare us for heaven) in the world of spirits
Not all TYPES of knowledge have equal value in learning principles that will bring us joy and harmony in the eternities. The ORDER in which we learn principles is important as well. For example, learning moral laws which underlie and support social harmony are more important than knowledge of how to wage successful war against an another. Learning how to hurt another person, before learning patience to control that knowledge will still not result in joy and harmony, but may result in sadness and disharmony.
When Clement taught that “through him the Master has willed that we should taste immortal knowledge”, he was speaking primarily of moral principles that support a more exalted and glorified existence (i.e. moral and social rules of living in joy and harmony in heaven).
For example: They ancient were taught to learn UNITY
“Focus on unity, for there is nothing better” (Polycarp 1:2). “...let there be one prayer, one petition, one mind, one hope, with love and blameless joy...let all of you run together as to one temple of God, as to one altar, to one Jesus Christ...” (Ignatius to the Magnesians 7:2) For example, when congregations achieved unity, Ignatius honors them : Quote:“I congratulate you who are united with him, as the church is with Jesus Christ and as Jesus Christ is with the father, that all things might be harmonious in unity. (Ign to eph 5:1)
This was NOT taught simply to the Christians, but to the Jews as well. For example, in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QS, 4Q, 5Q), the translators decided not to use the word “community” throughout the translation to describe this group, but rather they used one of the society’s most common self-designations: “YAHAD”, which means “unity”. It was after all, the moral ideal they sought to achieve and the word they used to describe themselves and their higher aspirations.
This is no different than the christian teaching “ Let there be nothing among you which is capable of dividing you, but be united ....with those who lead..” (Ign to Mag 6:2). The principle of UNITY and HARMONY were principles that ALL disciples were taught just as “ the archangels who are over the angels...harmonize all existence, heavenly and earthly...” (2nd Enoch 19:3). If spirits could NOT learn to overcome their undisciplined impulses, there could BE no harmony in heaven, or on earth). This was the pattern Jesus and the Apostles set. Just as Jesus was obedient to HIS Father, the church was to be obedient to their authorities. “Be subject to the Bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ in the flesh was to the Father, and as the apostles were to Christ and to the Father, that there might be unity, both physical and spiritual". (Ign to Mag 13:2).
The concept of obedience, and “unity” and “oneness” is woven throughout all the ancient texts. When a man “leaves his parents” he is to become “one” (unified) with his wife (Gen 2:24) to the point that Jesus says that the “man and his wife are no longer “twain” but are “one” flesh (matt 19:6). Jesus requests of his Father regarding his disciples that he had “given them the glory that you [the Lord God] gave me, that they may be one as we are one “(NIV jn 17:23). The same unity of which Jesus has with his Father, the disciples were also to achieve (and all the rest of us as far as we are able to emulate Jesus and the disciples). For example: Jesus prays in Jn 17:20, “I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.”,
If you remove the adherence to this principle of unity, the sociality in heaven cannot BE, nor REMAIN “unified” and “harmonious”. And all who live there MUST live this principle that God is attempting to teach man.
If the atonement is to bring men back to the presence of God, in a more exalted condition; able to live in a holy heaven, then the atonement must also have a mechanism to teach men to live the principles of a heavenly existence. The LDS restoration of these ancient teachings makes clear these ancient teachings regarding what God is doing with man and their relationship to the Atonement of our Savior, Jesus Christ.
"He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with Himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits."- Joseph Smith
I believe that the LDS return to ancient principles of learning religious principles is important in understanding what God is doing with man, and man’s role and responsibility to the atonement. One may, for example, compare the modern christian theory that "Grace renders repentance obsolete" to the earliest Christian Doctrines regarding repentance. The ancient and authentic principle of repentance acts as a "reality check" to all modern theories.
Repentance, as a true and authentic early Christian principle is often mis-characterized by those who do not understand it, or those wanting to discredit it. Repentance, as a process of "doing better" (and the process of change it entails) is not an "all or nothing" proposition. One of the earliest Christian documents, the Didache counsels : "If you are able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect. But if you are not able, then do what you can." (Didache 6:2) Since we all are imperfect, we all "do what we can". The LDS seem to understand and correctly apply this concept to the ultimate goal of perfection.
The early Christians taught that, however poorly we do it, we are meant to try to be more like God. For example: The very first thing Ignatius teaches the Christians in Ephesus (verse ONE) is "You are the imitators of God" (Ignatius 1:1). This is NOT a complicated principle and it never was. Diogenes teaches the Christians that Quote:"By loving him you will be an imitator of his goodness. And do not be surprised that a person can become an imitator of God; he can, if God is willing....But whoever takes upon himself his neighbor’s burden, whoever wishes to benefit another who is worse off in something in which he himself is better off, whoever provides to those in need things that he has received from God, and thus becomes a god to those who receive them, this one is an imitator of God." Diog 10:6)
We may "poorly" imitate God, yet still, we are to "imitate God" and be more like him. However, we cannot accomplish imitation without repentance, since, (as Clement taught the earliest Christian Saints), repentance was related to the ability to "...accept correction" and that "it unites us with the will of God" (1Clement 56:2).
Repentance was not a new principle inaugurated by ancient Christians. Rather the Christians taught that "repentance [was] taught in all generations" (1st Clement 7:5-7) . Similarly, the lds restore and re-affirm Repentance back into it's rightful and ancient context and usage in this process of learning to imitate God. It restores Repentance to it’s role in the process of understanding, and advancement and learning to be more like him.
In Hermas’ vision, the angel speaking to Hermas says "...I give understanding to all who repent. Or don’t you, think" he said, "that this very act of repentance is itself understanding? To repent, " he continued, "is great understanding. For the man who has sinned understands that he has done evil in the Lord’s presence, and the act which he committed enters his heart, and he repents and no longer does evil, but does good lavishly, and he humbles his own soul..." (Hermas 30:2) Repentance is not simply a punishment of self, but rather a process of acquiring knowledge, acquiring understanding; acquiring new attitudes and new and better habits of interaction. It is a blessing to men.
It is clear to the ancient Christians that a loving and patient God knows we will make mistakes in his process of "creating righteousness". Diogenes explains to the ancient Christians : Quote:"So then, having already planned everything in his mind together with his Child, he permitted us during the former time to be carried away by undisciplined impulses as we desired, led astray by pleasures and lusts, not at all because he took delight in our sins, but because he was patient " (Diog 9:1)
It is clear that God allows men to make mistakes, not because he approved of such behaviors, but because he never loses sight of his ultimate Goal of creation. Diogenes continues : Quote:"...because he was creating the present season of righteousness, in order that we who in the former time were convicted by our own deeds as unworthy of (eternal) life... having clearly demonstrated our inability to enter the kingdom of God on our own, might be enabled to do so by God’s power. (Diog 9:1)
Thus God is creating moral improvement by this process (and at the same time demonstrating our inabilities and the necessity of reliance on him for what we are unable to do).
2) Specific knowledge is requisite to save us (i.e. prepare us for heaven) in the world of spirits
Not all TYPES of knowledge have equal value in learning principles that will bring us joy and harmony in the eternities. The ORDER in which we learn principles is important as well. For example, learning moral laws which underlie and support social harmony are more important than knowledge of how to wage successful war against an another. Learning how to hurt another person, before learning patience to control that knowledge will still not result in joy and harmony, but may result in sadness and disharmony.
When Clement taught that “through him the Master has willed that we should taste immortal knowledge”, he was speaking primarily of moral principles that support a more exalted and glorified existence (i.e. moral and social rules of living in joy and harmony in heaven).
For example: They ancient were taught to learn UNITY
“Focus on unity, for there is nothing better” (Polycarp 1:2). “...let there be one prayer, one petition, one mind, one hope, with love and blameless joy...let all of you run together as to one temple of God, as to one altar, to one Jesus Christ...” (Ignatius to the Magnesians 7:2) For example, when congregations achieved unity, Ignatius honors them : Quote:“I congratulate you who are united with him, as the church is with Jesus Christ and as Jesus Christ is with the father, that all things might be harmonious in unity. (Ign to eph 5:1)
This was NOT taught simply to the Christians, but to the Jews as well. For example, in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QS, 4Q, 5Q), the translators decided not to use the word “community” throughout the translation to describe this group, but rather they used one of the society’s most common self-designations: “YAHAD”, which means “unity”. It was after all, the moral ideal they sought to achieve and the word they used to describe themselves and their higher aspirations.
This is no different than the christian teaching “ Let there be nothing among you which is capable of dividing you, but be united ....with those who lead..” (Ign to Mag 6:2). The principle of UNITY and HARMONY were principles that ALL disciples were taught just as “ the archangels who are over the angels...harmonize all existence, heavenly and earthly...” (2nd Enoch 19:3). If spirits could NOT learn to overcome their undisciplined impulses, there could BE no harmony in heaven, or on earth). This was the pattern Jesus and the Apostles set. Just as Jesus was obedient to HIS Father, the church was to be obedient to their authorities. “Be subject to the Bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ in the flesh was to the Father, and as the apostles were to Christ and to the Father, that there might be unity, both physical and spiritual". (Ign to Mag 13:2).
The concept of obedience, and “unity” and “oneness” is woven throughout all the ancient texts. When a man “leaves his parents” he is to become “one” (unified) with his wife (Gen 2:24) to the point that Jesus says that the “man and his wife are no longer “twain” but are “one” flesh (matt 19:6). Jesus requests of his Father regarding his disciples that he had “given them the glory that you [the Lord God] gave me, that they may be one as we are one “(NIV jn 17:23). The same unity of which Jesus has with his Father, the disciples were also to achieve (and all the rest of us as far as we are able to emulate Jesus and the disciples). For example: Jesus prays in Jn 17:20, “I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.”,
If you remove the adherence to this principle of unity, the sociality in heaven cannot BE, nor REMAIN “unified” and “harmonious”. And all who live there MUST live this principle that God is attempting to teach man.
If the atonement is to bring men back to the presence of God, in a more exalted condition; able to live in a holy heaven, then the atonement must also have a mechanism to teach men to live the principles of a heavenly existence. The LDS restoration of these ancient teachings makes clear these ancient teachings regarding what God is doing with man and their relationship to the Atonement of our Savior, Jesus Christ.
"He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with Himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits."- Joseph Smith
I believe that the LDS return to ancient principles of learning religious principles is important in understanding what God is doing with man, and man’s role and responsibility to the atonement. One may, for example, compare the modern christian theory that "Grace renders repentance obsolete" to the earliest Christian Doctrines regarding repentance. The ancient and authentic principle of repentance acts as a "reality check" to all modern theories.
Repentance, as a true and authentic early Christian principle is often mis-characterized by those who do not understand it, or those wanting to discredit it. Repentance, as a process of "doing better" (and the process of change it entails) is not an "all or nothing" proposition. One of the earliest Christian documents, the Didache counsels : "If you are able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect. But if you are not able, then do what you can." (Didache 6:2) Since we all are imperfect, we all "do what we can". The LDS seem to understand and correctly apply this concept to the ultimate goal of perfection.
The early Christians taught that, however poorly we do it, we are meant to try to be more like God. For example: The very first thing Ignatius teaches the Christians in Ephesus (verse ONE) is "You are the imitators of God" (Ignatius 1:1). This is NOT a complicated principle and it never was. Diogenes teaches the Christians that Quote:"By loving him you will be an imitator of his goodness. And do not be surprised that a person can become an imitator of God; he can, if God is willing....But whoever takes upon himself his neighbor’s burden, whoever wishes to benefit another who is worse off in something in which he himself is better off, whoever provides to those in need things that he has received from God, and thus becomes a god to those who receive them, this one is an imitator of God." Diog 10:6)
We may "poorly" imitate God, yet still, we are to "imitate God" and be more like him. However, we cannot accomplish imitation without repentance, since, (as Clement taught the earliest Christian Saints), repentance was related to the ability to "...accept correction" and that "it unites us with the will of God" (1Clement 56:2).
Repentance was not a new principle inaugurated by ancient Christians. Rather the Christians taught that "repentance [was] taught in all generations" (1st Clement 7:5-7) . Similarly, the lds restore and re-affirm Repentance back into it's rightful and ancient context and usage in this process of learning to imitate God. It restores Repentance to it’s role in the process of understanding, and advancement and learning to be more like him.
In Hermas’ vision, the angel speaking to Hermas says "...I give understanding to all who repent. Or don’t you, think" he said, "that this very act of repentance is itself understanding? To repent, " he continued, "is great understanding. For the man who has sinned understands that he has done evil in the Lord’s presence, and the act which he committed enters his heart, and he repents and no longer does evil, but does good lavishly, and he humbles his own soul..." (Hermas 30:2) Repentance is not simply a punishment of self, but rather a process of acquiring knowledge, acquiring understanding; acquiring new attitudes and new and better habits of interaction. It is a blessing to men.
It is clear to the ancient Christians that a loving and patient God knows we will make mistakes in his process of "creating righteousness". Diogenes explains to the ancient Christians : Quote:"So then, having already planned everything in his mind together with his Child, he permitted us during the former time to be carried away by undisciplined impulses as we desired, led astray by pleasures and lusts, not at all because he took delight in our sins, but because he was patient " (Diog 9:1)
It is clear that God allows men to make mistakes, not because he approved of such behaviors, but because he never loses sight of his ultimate Goal of creation. Diogenes continues : Quote:"...because he was creating the present season of righteousness, in order that we who in the former time were convicted by our own deeds as unworthy of (eternal) life... having clearly demonstrated our inability to enter the kingdom of God on our own, might be enabled to do so by God’s power. (Diog 9:1)
Thus God is creating moral improvement by this process (and at the same time demonstrating our inabilities and the necessity of reliance on him for what we are unable to do).
Last edited:
POST FOUR
The Jews also taught that God does not immediately destroy evil, but instead, temporarily allows it to exist for the same reason, (i.e. because it serves his ultimate purpose). The Jews taught : Quote:" Until now the spirits of truth and perversity have contended within the human heart. All people walk in both wisdom and foolishness. As is a persons endowment of truth and righteousness, so shall he hate perversity; conversely, in proportion to bequest in the lot of evil, one will act wickedly and abominate truth. God has appointed these spirits as equals until the time of decree and renewal. He foreknows the outworking of their deeds for all the ages [of eternity]. He has granted them dominion over humanity, so imparting knowledge of good and evil deciding the fate of every living being by the measure of which spirit predominates in him until the day of the appointed visitation. (1QS, 4Q, 5Q)
Though evil exists, it serves it’s purpose in HIS plan and he controls and appoints it’s limits. It is not "chess set theology" where God plays man and then punishes him for "bad moves", but rather, man is allowed his own choice and man appoints his own desires regarding evil.
The LDS have restored the ancient understanding that temporary evil IS a part of the plan as well as the temporary difficulties that result from it. This restoration does not change evil. But it explains it and its relationship to current difficulties. This is important when individuals ask the inevitable questions : "Why me?", or "How long oh Lord?".
This life is like "Enoch’s Bridge" that all must pass over. "Just as a bridge is laid across a river and everyone crosses over it, so a bridge is laid from the beginning of the entrance to it’s end, and the ministering angels go over it... (3rd enoch 22:1)" It is the similar answer to Ezra’s ancient question : "If the world had indeed been created for us, why do we not possess our world as an inheritance? " The ancient answer God gives Ezra is simply another description of Enoch’s bridge. God explains that Quote:"There is a city built and set on a plain, and it is full of all good things; but the entrance to it is narrow and set in a precipitous place...and there is only one path... If now that city is given to a man for an inheritance, how will the heir receive his inheritance unless he passes through the danger set before him? ..."And so the entrances of this world were made narrow and sorrowful and toilsome; the are few and evil, full of dangers...But the entrances of the greater world are broad and save, and really yield the fruit of immortality. Therefore unless the living pass through the difficult and vain experiences, they can never receive those things that have been reserved for them..." (4th Ezra 7:3-25)
From the beginning, the Judao-Christian texts describe a plan to place the spirits of men into bodies, give them knowledge and allow them to experience mortality with its various choices and let them exercise their own choice and preferences and then return them to that level of holiness they themselves chose. Since the resurrection is physical, the spirits are judged in reference to their bodies (and not separately).
From the beginning, the Judao-Christian texts describe a plan to place the spirits of men into bodies; to then give them knowledge and allow them to experience mortality with it’s various choices and let them exercise their own choice and preferences and then return them to that level of holiness they themselves choose. Since the resurrection is physical, the spirits are judged with their bodies (and not separately) as it says in the early Christian Adam and Eve text "So, the Holy One, blessed be he, brings the spirit and placing it into the body, he also judges them as one."
Enoch, compares the judgement as a marketplace, where proper scales ensure justice so that "...on the day of the great judgment every weight and every measure and every set of scales will be just as they are in the market. That is to say, each will be weighed in the balance, and each will stand in the market, and each will find out his own measure and in accordance with that measurement each shall receive his own reward. (2 Enoch 44:5) Thus the ancients taught a gradient of judgement according to a scale. Without this doctrine, (which some of later christianity abandoned), the "light switch" condemnation of modern Christianity cannot be made fair. The ancient doctrine however, once re-adopted, restores fairness and justice to god’s Judgement.
The early christians taught regarding Heaven : Quote:"... 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 hundred fold, and those who bring forth sixty fold, and those who bring forth thirty fold : 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 36:1-2)
The ancients taught that during the process of judgement, men will be resurrected and glorified according to "their own measure" (i.e. in a just and fair manner) and of those who’ve repented and have sincerely accepted the Atonement are made glorious and given a position of holiness and importance : For example, the jews taught that the righteous spirits and their : Quote: "...bodies, covered with worms of the dead, might rise up from the dust to an eternal council; from a perverse spirit to your understanding. That he might take his position before you with the eternal hosts and spirits of truth to be renewed with all that shall be and to rejoice together .... (Geninza A+B 4Q)
The ancient Christian teaching that men are to be "imitators" of God, reaches it’s culmination in the advancement of mankind who have become most like God in the judgement and resurrection. The Dead Sea Scroll "SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE, (4Q, 11Q, Masada Fragment 367), describes the ancient Jewish teaching regarding those who are resurrected and glorified and who have fulfilled God’s plan for man’s destiny : Quote: "For He has established utter holiness among the eternally holy, that they might become for Him priests of the inner sanctum in His royal temple, ministers of the Presence in His glorious innermost chamber. In the congregation of all the wise godlike beings, and in the councils of all the divine spirits, .... that sage congregation honored by God, those who draw near to knowledge….priests who draw near, ministers of the Presence of the utterly holy King…His glory. Precept by precept they shall grow strong, to be seven eternal councils; for He established them for Himself to be the most holy of those who minister in the Holy of Holies…They shall become mighty thereby in accordance with the council…the Holy of Holies, priests of …these are the princes …who take their stand in the temples of the king…
The early Christians and Jews are very descriptive of the destiny of those who actually do become successful "imitators" of God to the point of becoming "Godlike". For example: The jews of 4Q, 11Q, Masada were very descriptive in this regard : Quote: "Praise the most high God, you who are exalted among all the wise divine beings. Let those who are holy among the godlike sanctify the glorious King, He who sanctifies by His holiness each of His holy ones. You princes of praise among all the godlike, praise the God of majestic praise. Surely the glory of His kingdom resides in praiseworthy splendor; therein are held the praises of all the godlike…Lift his exaltation on high, you godlike among the exalted divine beings-His glorious divinity above all the highest heavens. Surely He is the utterly divine over all the exalted princes, King of kings over all the eternal councils.
The value of the earliest Judao-christian texts is that they serve both as a witness to early Judao-Christian interpretations of the Gospel message and they are often clear and detailed in their descriptions of early Judao-Christian interpretations and beliefs. The LDS interpretation of foundational principles can find both close parallels and is quite comfortable among the early Judao-christian orthodoxy.
Non-historians do not realize the profound changes that are taking place in scholarly models of early Judeo-Christian religion that are taking place due to the discovery of early Judeo-Christian documents that describe the early forms of the Christian movement in the words and terms of the early converts to this movement. More of such early documents have been discovered within the last 100+ years than in all other centuries combined. As these documents become more well known and their themes more well studied and deciminated, the restorational/LDS worldview as it relates to foundational principles of the eternal gospel plan have become more and more prominent. LDS readers will see that they are able to take almost any of these early Judeo-Christian texts and they could use them in Sunday school without causing doctrinal ripples. The fact that the LDS can do this, means something profoundly important. Also, I expect that LDS readers will see parallels to their theology in almost every single quote, while non-restorationalists will not be familiar with such themes. This also means something profound. Whether the early Judeo-Christians were correct in their theology, or if they were wrong, the LDS will see the parallel beliefs between the old and the restorational theologies.
I also apologize for given such a long example, but it is really just an overview (my prior multiple posts on JUST pre-mortal existence is narrowed to just 4 lines in this post - other principles are similarly condensed).
I wish all forum members a great spiritual journey in this life and I will post later regarding Lucifer.
Clear
σετωφυσεω
The Jews also taught that God does not immediately destroy evil, but instead, temporarily allows it to exist for the same reason, (i.e. because it serves his ultimate purpose). The Jews taught : Quote:" Until now the spirits of truth and perversity have contended within the human heart. All people walk in both wisdom and foolishness. As is a persons endowment of truth and righteousness, so shall he hate perversity; conversely, in proportion to bequest in the lot of evil, one will act wickedly and abominate truth. God has appointed these spirits as equals until the time of decree and renewal. He foreknows the outworking of their deeds for all the ages [of eternity]. He has granted them dominion over humanity, so imparting knowledge of good and evil deciding the fate of every living being by the measure of which spirit predominates in him until the day of the appointed visitation. (1QS, 4Q, 5Q)
Though evil exists, it serves it’s purpose in HIS plan and he controls and appoints it’s limits. It is not "chess set theology" where God plays man and then punishes him for "bad moves", but rather, man is allowed his own choice and man appoints his own desires regarding evil.
The LDS have restored the ancient understanding that temporary evil IS a part of the plan as well as the temporary difficulties that result from it. This restoration does not change evil. But it explains it and its relationship to current difficulties. This is important when individuals ask the inevitable questions : "Why me?", or "How long oh Lord?".
This life is like "Enoch’s Bridge" that all must pass over. "Just as a bridge is laid across a river and everyone crosses over it, so a bridge is laid from the beginning of the entrance to it’s end, and the ministering angels go over it... (3rd enoch 22:1)" It is the similar answer to Ezra’s ancient question : "If the world had indeed been created for us, why do we not possess our world as an inheritance? " The ancient answer God gives Ezra is simply another description of Enoch’s bridge. God explains that Quote:"There is a city built and set on a plain, and it is full of all good things; but the entrance to it is narrow and set in a precipitous place...and there is only one path... If now that city is given to a man for an inheritance, how will the heir receive his inheritance unless he passes through the danger set before him? ..."And so the entrances of this world were made narrow and sorrowful and toilsome; the are few and evil, full of dangers...But the entrances of the greater world are broad and save, and really yield the fruit of immortality. Therefore unless the living pass through the difficult and vain experiences, they can never receive those things that have been reserved for them..." (4th Ezra 7:3-25)
From the beginning, the Judao-Christian texts describe a plan to place the spirits of men into bodies, give them knowledge and allow them to experience mortality with its various choices and let them exercise their own choice and preferences and then return them to that level of holiness they themselves chose. Since the resurrection is physical, the spirits are judged in reference to their bodies (and not separately).
From the beginning, the Judao-Christian texts describe a plan to place the spirits of men into bodies; to then give them knowledge and allow them to experience mortality with it’s various choices and let them exercise their own choice and preferences and then return them to that level of holiness they themselves choose. Since the resurrection is physical, the spirits are judged with their bodies (and not separately) as it says in the early Christian Adam and Eve text "So, the Holy One, blessed be he, brings the spirit and placing it into the body, he also judges them as one."
Enoch, compares the judgement as a marketplace, where proper scales ensure justice so that "...on the day of the great judgment every weight and every measure and every set of scales will be just as they are in the market. That is to say, each will be weighed in the balance, and each will stand in the market, and each will find out his own measure and in accordance with that measurement each shall receive his own reward. (2 Enoch 44:5) Thus the ancients taught a gradient of judgement according to a scale. Without this doctrine, (which some of later christianity abandoned), the "light switch" condemnation of modern Christianity cannot be made fair. The ancient doctrine however, once re-adopted, restores fairness and justice to god’s Judgement.
The early christians taught regarding Heaven : Quote:"... 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 hundred fold, and those who bring forth sixty fold, and those who bring forth thirty fold : 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 36:1-2)
The ancients taught that during the process of judgement, men will be resurrected and glorified according to "their own measure" (i.e. in a just and fair manner) and of those who’ve repented and have sincerely accepted the Atonement are made glorious and given a position of holiness and importance : For example, the jews taught that the righteous spirits and their : Quote: "...bodies, covered with worms of the dead, might rise up from the dust to an eternal council; from a perverse spirit to your understanding. That he might take his position before you with the eternal hosts and spirits of truth to be renewed with all that shall be and to rejoice together .... (Geninza A+B 4Q)
The ancient Christian teaching that men are to be "imitators" of God, reaches it’s culmination in the advancement of mankind who have become most like God in the judgement and resurrection. The Dead Sea Scroll "SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE, (4Q, 11Q, Masada Fragment 367), describes the ancient Jewish teaching regarding those who are resurrected and glorified and who have fulfilled God’s plan for man’s destiny : Quote: "For He has established utter holiness among the eternally holy, that they might become for Him priests of the inner sanctum in His royal temple, ministers of the Presence in His glorious innermost chamber. In the congregation of all the wise godlike beings, and in the councils of all the divine spirits, .... that sage congregation honored by God, those who draw near to knowledge….priests who draw near, ministers of the Presence of the utterly holy King…His glory. Precept by precept they shall grow strong, to be seven eternal councils; for He established them for Himself to be the most holy of those who minister in the Holy of Holies…They shall become mighty thereby in accordance with the council…the Holy of Holies, priests of …these are the princes …who take their stand in the temples of the king…
The early Christians and Jews are very descriptive of the destiny of those who actually do become successful "imitators" of God to the point of becoming "Godlike". For example: The jews of 4Q, 11Q, Masada were very descriptive in this regard : Quote: "Praise the most high God, you who are exalted among all the wise divine beings. Let those who are holy among the godlike sanctify the glorious King, He who sanctifies by His holiness each of His holy ones. You princes of praise among all the godlike, praise the God of majestic praise. Surely the glory of His kingdom resides in praiseworthy splendor; therein are held the praises of all the godlike…Lift his exaltation on high, you godlike among the exalted divine beings-His glorious divinity above all the highest heavens. Surely He is the utterly divine over all the exalted princes, King of kings over all the eternal councils.
The value of the earliest Judao-christian texts is that they serve both as a witness to early Judao-Christian interpretations of the Gospel message and they are often clear and detailed in their descriptions of early Judao-Christian interpretations and beliefs. The LDS interpretation of foundational principles can find both close parallels and is quite comfortable among the early Judao-christian orthodoxy.
Non-historians do not realize the profound changes that are taking place in scholarly models of early Judeo-Christian religion that are taking place due to the discovery of early Judeo-Christian documents that describe the early forms of the Christian movement in the words and terms of the early converts to this movement. More of such early documents have been discovered within the last 100+ years than in all other centuries combined. As these documents become more well known and their themes more well studied and deciminated, the restorational/LDS worldview as it relates to foundational principles of the eternal gospel plan have become more and more prominent. LDS readers will see that they are able to take almost any of these early Judeo-Christian texts and they could use them in Sunday school without causing doctrinal ripples. The fact that the LDS can do this, means something profoundly important. Also, I expect that LDS readers will see parallels to their theology in almost every single quote, while non-restorationalists will not be familiar with such themes. This also means something profound. Whether the early Judeo-Christians were correct in their theology, or if they were wrong, the LDS will see the parallel beliefs between the old and the restorational theologies.
I also apologize for given such a long example, but it is really just an overview (my prior multiple posts on JUST pre-mortal existence is narrowed to just 4 lines in this post - other principles are similarly condensed).
I wish all forum members a great spiritual journey in this life and I will post later regarding Lucifer.
Clear
σετωφυσεω
Last edited:
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I'm not confused at all:
1. You mentioned the LDS doctrine that Satan and Jesus are brothers.
2. When pressed, you claimed this was a mere metaphorical relationship.
3. I explained further, that Lucifer/Satan is an angel, and Jesus is the I AM who was always God. I cited Hebrews's plain-face declaration that Jesus is above and beyond all angels.
4. You misquoted/misinterpreted Hebrews to say Jesus is a mere angel.
5. When I cited Hebrews again, you switched to Malachi to demonstrate false doctrines.
6. You were still in error, but I asked you to cite Hebrews or else retract your claims.
7. You claimed and demonstrated again how no one can actually rely on the text of the Bible without finding first, a number of contrary statements made apocryphally by heretical sources, that confirm the heretical teachings of Joseph Smith. To wit, Jesus was created by the Father rather than being co-eternal with the Father.
8. You neglected to respond to Joseph Smith's statements, cited by me from Pearl of Great Price, that before Satan fell, which means it was before Adam and Eve had even fallen, that Satan, the brother of Jesus, offered to serve as redeemer for future-fallen man! Please choose one of the following:
* This doctrine is illogical, that Satan chose to redeem man before inciting them to fall.
* This doctrine is unbiblical.
This is now the fifth (sixth?) time I've invited you to stay within the confines of the Bible. Because surely if your early Christian doctrines are true, we can find them in the Bible, can't we? Why do you feel to secure LDS doctrines, you have to refer to neither LDS canon nor Bible canon but letters of people not claiming any inspiration at all? I don't understand. Please help me understand.
Thanks.
Orontes
Master of the Horse
Master Billiards,
Sorry for the delayed reply. I didn’t see any response to my last post for a few days and then I got caught up in doing other things, sailing and the like and simply forgot about the thread. Sorry.
I read through your post to me. I will reply to all the elements I think you hold are significant. If I miss something let me know and I will reply to it. I recommend that rather than having so many disparate points in a single post, it would be better to focus on a single thing. This will avoid a series of disjointed responses that it is hard for any other than the creator of the post to follow.
To your post:
On Romans: You asked if my stance is therefore: there were no Jews in the audience Paul greets in Romans. The implication seems to be that if Jews were in the audience, therefore they must have also been a foci for Paul. This is a bad argument. It does nothing for your position. My stance is the Book of Romans is a Greco-Roman text. Its intended audience are Greco-Romans. I explained why: Paul specifically states he is writing to gentiles in the Book of Romans, and the structure and rhetorical posture of the text is entirely Hellenistic. If Jews were to read his work is of no consequence. I’ll illustrate the point further, if we were considering the work “The Iliad”, its audience were Greeks. It wouldn’t matter if Persians or peoples of Anatolia etc. read it. They were not the audience. If we look to the Japanese Novel “The Tale of Genji”, its intended audience were Japanese courtiers. It doesn’t matter who else may have read it. They are were not the audience. If one doesn’t understand who the audience of a work is, it’s problematic to draws proper conclusions.
You reference “I am speaking to those who know the law”. This fits in completely with my stance. I stated, Paul is writing to Romans: gentiles who have been swayed by Jewish Thought. These people are specifically interested in the Law of Moses. That is the point. Paul is correcting their loyalty to a code that has been supplanted by Christ
Per Matt 24:13: “But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved”. This statement indicates the subject must do something in order to be saved. It is clear. Where you want to place the verse according to a gospel chronology doesn’t matter. The cause and effect relationship demonstrates the point: the subject must be involved in their own salvation. If you wish to argue saved, doesn’t mean saved, I think you have a tough position to work from.
Per 1 Peter 2: 5-9: You argued all believers are priests. This is not what the verses say. That is the basic problem. Your view requires extrapolating from the text. If you do that, then you run into the problem of why none of the people who spoke the language of the New Testament or put together the New Testament understood it the way you do. One simple example is women were never seen as priests. Assuming gender parity of believers, that removes half of your believer base from the get go. It undercuts your stance.
Per deification and becoming perfect: I don’t follow your replies to either point. You did type:
“Let’s be frank, biblical Christianity offers assurance, your faith offers uncertainty. Uncertainty regarding the God who loves us is not a Jewish stance—or a Christian stance.”
Mormonism is Biblical Christianity, so I reject your distinction. Moreover, I hold many of your stances are unbiblical. Your holding to the evil Penal Substitution Model is one simple example. As far as uncertainty is concerned: if one admits there is free will, then there must be uncertainty. Free will is necessary for morality. Therefore, if one recognizes morality it is to admit free will, and therefore uncertainty, as the subject has options.
Per ex nihilo: You replied by asking where in the scriptures does one find the steady state cosmological model that is rejected by Modern cosmologists. This is a non sequitur. I will explain, it’s a non sequitur because it is an anachronistic reading of the Bible. It also does not address the base issue that ex nihilo is not found in the Bible and is irrational. You didn’t reply to either of those points, so I think you’ve ceded the argument.
Per the Penal Substitution Model: My critique is and has been, the view is irrational, immoral and unjust. Your reply was one must bow to the promptings of the scriptures. This is a bad argument. It suggests the scriptures trump reason. If you believe that, then your stance is irrational and it places you on the same footing as one who believes the earth is flat or the moon is made of blue cheese. For the rationalist, reason is the very model through which truth exists. This means it applies to Deity and His product. To separate Deity or the scriptures from reason is to embrace the absurd.
You also have the added issue that the vast bulk of Christendom rejects the penal substitution model. It didn’t exist until the 16th Century when Calvin created it and it only has sway among Reformed Protestantism.
I want to bring in another element that touches your scriptural appeal on this point and others. You believe in inerrancy. Because you hold to inerrancy, you are actually disqualified from making any pronouncements about the meaning of the Bible. I’ll explain:
Per inerrancy:
- The Bible is perfect
- Master Billiards is imperfect
- What is imperfect cannot understand was is perfect
- Therefore, Master Billiards cannot understand the Bible
Per Grace and Works: Works references you appeal to in the Book of Romans etc. are clear, they are referring to the Law of Moses, not some larger metaphysic on works simpliciter. Your grace v. works positioning is a false dichotomy. As to the role of grace you asked my opinion on: grace is the primary element of salvation. Man cannot and does not work his way to heaven. All men are dependent on Christ. Where you and I separate, is Mormonism believes man must be a participant in their own salvation. Man is not a passive object.
As I mentioned at the beginning of the post, there are a lot of topics in this post. I think it's better if you pick one you are keen on and we can focus.
Orontes
Master of the Horse
Master Billiards,
I'm reading through the posts, since I was last on and found this post from you. To your question: No. the entirety of Romans is not prosoepoeia. That would not make sense as the literary device is specific in function. Rather, I introduced it as a demonstration that the Book of Romans in using prosoepoeia is a Hellenistic text. Using Hellenistic literary devices would only make sense to a Greco-Roman audience. It is the same as if I referenced chiasmus in the Book of Isaiah to demonstrate the poetic device was for a Jewish audience. Make sense?
post one of two
1) REGARDING CLEARS POSITION THAT JESUS IS NOT ‘MERELY’ AN ANGEL
Billiardsball, the problem with mischaracterization is that the creation of strawmen does not influence another person regarding the actual belief. For examples
Clears position is : “Jesus is NOT a “mere angel” in early Christian theology. Jesus is the Son of God, he is the Messiah and the only name under heaven to which individuals may turn for salvation (in LDS worldview as well). He is above all other apostles and all other angels and all other of mankind in this early worldview. “ (post # 330)
If you AGREE with me that Jesus is not a mere angel, but is above all angels in position, then you have ceded the argument. Otherwise, you are mis-describing my position. If you have a different belief, try to describe it coherently and logically and give us data. You say you want to use your bible. But you are not using it.
2) REGARDING CLEARS POSITION THAT MANY TERMS ARE METAPHORS
My position regarding the early Christian belief regarding a “brotherhood” of all spirits is that Jesus and Satan are created by the same God who calls himself a “Father”.
The Term “brother”, when used in early Christian texts is most often a metaphor. For example, when Saul, the persecutοr of Christians cαme to Ananias, Ananias says “Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me” in Acts 9:17-18, Ananias is not a literal brother to Paul. He is using the term as a Metaphor. When the Copts listened to early psalms regarding Adam and his Savior Jesus, it was a metaphor. The psalm read : “When the First Man had ended his struggle the Father sent his second Son. He came and helped his brother out of the Abyss. (From an early Coptic Psalm-book., # 223 (allberry 9-11) . The inference is that one man “Jesus” helped another man “Adam” from his predicament. It is a metaphor. The early Christian convert Perpetua describes in her diary, the fellow Christians she was imprisoned with as “brothers and sisters”. This was a metaphor. The metaphor of brotherhood was so frequently used in early christianity that when Perpetua refers to her literal brother in her diary, she refers to him as “my brother according to the flesh”. When James say “If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food.. in James 2:14, he is not referring to only the literal brothers and sisters in a family. It is a metaphor. When you referred to me as a “brother” I assumed you used the term as a metaphor since you and I do not have the same Father.
What is the motive for trying to portray me as taking a literal position when you yourself use “brother” metaphorically?
3) REGARDING THE HISTORICAL MEANING OF THE TERM “ANGEL”
Billiardsball said : When I cited Hebrews again, you switched to Malachi to demonstrate false doctrines.
In post # 309 you attempted to use Hebrews to demonstrate that Jesus was not an angel. You said : “Jesus Christ is GOD. He is ABOVE all angels in Hebrews. Satan is an ANGEL.” (# 309)
Malachi 3:1 simply demonstrates that in historic Judeo-Christianity, the term "angel" is a generic term meaning “messenger”. Your non-historical usage doesn’t support the point you tried to make.. Jesus was prophesied to be "the angel of the covenant". If this is false doctrine in your religion, and Jesus is not the Angel of the Covenant, then offer us data and logical thought. You say you want to use your bible. Use it.
Billiardsball said You were still in error, but I asked you to cite Hebrewsor else retract your claims.
Malachi 3:1 correctly describes Jesus as the angel of the Covenant. There is no error in this point. If greek and Hebrew lexicons are in error, then give us data as to why you think ανγελος means something else other than angel in this case.
4) REGARDING THE EARLY BELIEF THAT JESUS WAS A “BEGOTTEN” SON AND THE FATHER WAS “UNBEGOTTEN”
Billiardsball said "You claimed and demonstrated again how no one can actually rely on the text of the Bible without finding first, a number of contrary statements made apocryphally by heretical sources, that confirm the heretical teachings of Joseph Smith. To wit, Jesus was created by the Father rather than being co-eternal with the Father.
You are becoming irrational. The scripture from John 1:18 is hardly a heretical source and you have not provided a single biblical reference to support the theory that Jesus is not a begotten Son of God. If you disagree with the early Christian belief that Jesus was begotten, what data to you have to show readers?
5) REGARDING THE COMPLAINT THAT I HAVEN’T RESPONDED
Billiardsball said : “You neglected to respond to Joseph Smith's statements, cited by me from Pearl of Great Price…”
Your complaint comes 29 minutes after I demonstrated how Joseph Smiths statement correlates to the early Judeo-Christian model in posts # 331, 332, 333, and 334. I ended these four posts with the point that : “I will post later regarding Lucifer.” I have already typed my response but I want the LDS (and others) to ABSORB the meaning and implications of posts 331-334. Give readers and me just a bit more time since arguing only takes a bit of time, but learning and absorbing takes a bit more time.
Billiardsball said This doctrine is illogical, that Satan chose to redeem man before inciting them to fall.
I very much agree, however it is your silly and illogical interpretation of this verse that is very, very illogical and out of context.
Billiardsball said " doctrine is unbiblical. – Your use of this term reminds me of a line from "The Princess Bride." Inigo Montoya says to the Giant Fessik, "You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means". You have always been welcome to describe from your bible what satans’ role and plan and motives were before the world was created and how it disagrees with your theory? However, if you even try to do this, you will realize that you cannot do it in any detail as the early Christians could."
6) REGARDING THE COMPLAINT THAT I MUST TAKE ALL RELIGIOUS HISTORY FROM THE PAGES OF A MODERN BIBLE
Billiardsball said : "This is now the fifth (sixth?) time I've invited you to stay within the confines of the Bible. "
The answer has been consistently : “No”. It is silly and counterproductive to stay within the confines of a modern English bible if one is attempting to obtain a breadth of historical knowledge of the early Jews, Christians, the time and places in which they live, their language and it’s idioms and idosyncracies and it common uses and meaning, and their doctrines and practices.
My interest is in determining what early Judeo-Christians believed; their doctrines and their practices. If I disregard the historical context and the many textual witnesses the Christians themselves offered, I would be as ignorant on the subject as you. Admittedly, you try to apply meanings to biblical text, but lets face it, your many, many mistakes demonstrate that you are unable to consistently reach coherency in your many religious theories. If I did not pay attention to the meaning of Greek and Hebrew from Lexicons and early texts, I would know only as much as you know about linguistics and the use of words in early Christianity and I would be making the same mistakes you are making. If I did not pay attention to the context of history, I might be left, trying to place a modern meaning onto the text as you have done repeatedly.
That is another lesson to be gained from demonstrating your many errors when attempting to use the biblical text. You have not been “biblical” in applying meaning to text, even when you attempt to use the text. And, as I have pointed out, you yourself have been consistently unable to stay within the text and meaning of the bible in describing what early Christians believed. You are not a “Biblicist” though I think you like to see yourself as a “Biblicist”.
Billiardsball said : Because surely if your early Christian doctrines are true, we can find them in the Bible, can't we?
The difference is that you are attempting to synthesize a belief system on the bible just like most other Christians are doing, and yet their doctrines conflict with yours. Though I think you are doing the best that you can, still your modern theories are simply a group of theories out of thousands of other competing theories.
While it is obvious in our various discussions that I am familiar with multiple bibles from different eras and in different languages, my purpose of study is different than yours. You want to prove to yourself and others that what you believe is true. What I am doing is looking at the early Judeo-Christian texts and seeing what the Early Judeo-Christians themselves believed from their own witnesses. This is an entirely different perspective.
While you attach a modern meaning onto a word without knowing what it’s historical meaning was nor what it’s proper use was, I am interested in what that word meant to the early Judeo-Christians. While you are creating a theory about what salvation means to you and how you think it is obtained, I am interested in what salvation meant to them and how they thought it was obtained.
This is a different approach. The consistent observation to be made in these discussions is that your religion and doctrinal theories are different than that of the early Judeo-Christians. I believe the early Christian doctrines and practices are superior and more detailed and more coherent and more logical than your modern theories and your modern doctrines and many readers are able to see this as a theme throughout our posts.
This was the reason I brought up the early Doctrines about the plan of God and the reasons underlying God’s plan in early Judeo-Christian worldviews. This is the reason I brought up the early doctrines regarding Lucifers fall and Satans origin. The modern Judeo-Christian movements like yours have very, very few details regarding the origin of Satan and the circumstances underlying his motives and reason surrounding his fall and being cast out of Heaven.
If you think your theories on the origin of Lucifer are superior, I have asked you to offer them as well, but you don’t seem to have any that have any detail. This has also be one of my points. Ancient, informed Christian thought is better than modern, uninformed Christian theories.
1) REGARDING CLEARS POSITION THAT JESUS IS NOT ‘MERELY’ AN ANGEL
Billiardsball, the problem with mischaracterization is that the creation of strawmen does not influence another person regarding the actual belief. For examples
Clears position is : “Jesus is NOT a “mere angel” in early Christian theology. Jesus is the Son of God, he is the Messiah and the only name under heaven to which individuals may turn for salvation (in LDS worldview as well). He is above all other apostles and all other angels and all other of mankind in this early worldview. “ (post # 330)
If you AGREE with me that Jesus is not a mere angel, but is above all angels in position, then you have ceded the argument. Otherwise, you are mis-describing my position. If you have a different belief, try to describe it coherently and logically and give us data. You say you want to use your bible. But you are not using it.
2) REGARDING CLEARS POSITION THAT MANY TERMS ARE METAPHORS
My position regarding the early Christian belief regarding a “brotherhood” of all spirits is that Jesus and Satan are created by the same God who calls himself a “Father”.
The Term “brother”, when used in early Christian texts is most often a metaphor. For example, when Saul, the persecutοr of Christians cαme to Ananias, Ananias says “Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me” in Acts 9:17-18, Ananias is not a literal brother to Paul. He is using the term as a Metaphor. When the Copts listened to early psalms regarding Adam and his Savior Jesus, it was a metaphor. The psalm read : “When the First Man had ended his struggle the Father sent his second Son. He came and helped his brother out of the Abyss. (From an early Coptic Psalm-book., # 223 (allberry 9-11) . The inference is that one man “Jesus” helped another man “Adam” from his predicament. It is a metaphor. The early Christian convert Perpetua describes in her diary, the fellow Christians she was imprisoned with as “brothers and sisters”. This was a metaphor. The metaphor of brotherhood was so frequently used in early christianity that when Perpetua refers to her literal brother in her diary, she refers to him as “my brother according to the flesh”. When James say “If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food.. in James 2:14, he is not referring to only the literal brothers and sisters in a family. It is a metaphor. When you referred to me as a “brother” I assumed you used the term as a metaphor since you and I do not have the same Father.
What is the motive for trying to portray me as taking a literal position when you yourself use “brother” metaphorically?
3) REGARDING THE HISTORICAL MEANING OF THE TERM “ANGEL”
Billiardsball said : When I cited Hebrews again, you switched to Malachi to demonstrate false doctrines.
In post # 309 you attempted to use Hebrews to demonstrate that Jesus was not an angel. You said : “Jesus Christ is GOD. He is ABOVE all angels in Hebrews. Satan is an ANGEL.” (# 309)
Malachi 3:1 simply demonstrates that in historic Judeo-Christianity, the term "angel" is a generic term meaning “messenger”. Your non-historical usage doesn’t support the point you tried to make.. Jesus was prophesied to be "the angel of the covenant". If this is false doctrine in your religion, and Jesus is not the Angel of the Covenant, then offer us data and logical thought. You say you want to use your bible. Use it.
Billiardsball said You were still in error, but I asked you to cite Hebrewsor else retract your claims.
Malachi 3:1 correctly describes Jesus as the angel of the Covenant. There is no error in this point. If greek and Hebrew lexicons are in error, then give us data as to why you think ανγελος means something else other than angel in this case.
4) REGARDING THE EARLY BELIEF THAT JESUS WAS A “BEGOTTEN” SON AND THE FATHER WAS “UNBEGOTTEN”
Billiardsball said "You claimed and demonstrated again how no one can actually rely on the text of the Bible without finding first, a number of contrary statements made apocryphally by heretical sources, that confirm the heretical teachings of Joseph Smith. To wit, Jesus was created by the Father rather than being co-eternal with the Father.
You are becoming irrational. The scripture from John 1:18 is hardly a heretical source and you have not provided a single biblical reference to support the theory that Jesus is not a begotten Son of God. If you disagree with the early Christian belief that Jesus was begotten, what data to you have to show readers?
5) REGARDING THE COMPLAINT THAT I HAVEN’T RESPONDED
Billiardsball said : “You neglected to respond to Joseph Smith's statements, cited by me from Pearl of Great Price…”
Your complaint comes 29 minutes after I demonstrated how Joseph Smiths statement correlates to the early Judeo-Christian model in posts # 331, 332, 333, and 334. I ended these four posts with the point that : “I will post later regarding Lucifer.” I have already typed my response but I want the LDS (and others) to ABSORB the meaning and implications of posts 331-334. Give readers and me just a bit more time since arguing only takes a bit of time, but learning and absorbing takes a bit more time.
Billiardsball said This doctrine is illogical, that Satan chose to redeem man before inciting them to fall.
I very much agree, however it is your silly and illogical interpretation of this verse that is very, very illogical and out of context.
Billiardsball said " doctrine is unbiblical. – Your use of this term reminds me of a line from "The Princess Bride." Inigo Montoya says to the Giant Fessik, "You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means". You have always been welcome to describe from your bible what satans’ role and plan and motives were before the world was created and how it disagrees with your theory? However, if you even try to do this, you will realize that you cannot do it in any detail as the early Christians could."
6) REGARDING THE COMPLAINT THAT I MUST TAKE ALL RELIGIOUS HISTORY FROM THE PAGES OF A MODERN BIBLE
Billiardsball said : "This is now the fifth (sixth?) time I've invited you to stay within the confines of the Bible. "
The answer has been consistently : “No”. It is silly and counterproductive to stay within the confines of a modern English bible if one is attempting to obtain a breadth of historical knowledge of the early Jews, Christians, the time and places in which they live, their language and it’s idioms and idosyncracies and it common uses and meaning, and their doctrines and practices.
My interest is in determining what early Judeo-Christians believed; their doctrines and their practices. If I disregard the historical context and the many textual witnesses the Christians themselves offered, I would be as ignorant on the subject as you. Admittedly, you try to apply meanings to biblical text, but lets face it, your many, many mistakes demonstrate that you are unable to consistently reach coherency in your many religious theories. If I did not pay attention to the meaning of Greek and Hebrew from Lexicons and early texts, I would know only as much as you know about linguistics and the use of words in early Christianity and I would be making the same mistakes you are making. If I did not pay attention to the context of history, I might be left, trying to place a modern meaning onto the text as you have done repeatedly.
That is another lesson to be gained from demonstrating your many errors when attempting to use the biblical text. You have not been “biblical” in applying meaning to text, even when you attempt to use the text. And, as I have pointed out, you yourself have been consistently unable to stay within the text and meaning of the bible in describing what early Christians believed. You are not a “Biblicist” though I think you like to see yourself as a “Biblicist”.
Billiardsball said : Because surely if your early Christian doctrines are true, we can find them in the Bible, can't we?
The difference is that you are attempting to synthesize a belief system on the bible just like most other Christians are doing, and yet their doctrines conflict with yours. Though I think you are doing the best that you can, still your modern theories are simply a group of theories out of thousands of other competing theories.
While it is obvious in our various discussions that I am familiar with multiple bibles from different eras and in different languages, my purpose of study is different than yours. You want to prove to yourself and others that what you believe is true. What I am doing is looking at the early Judeo-Christian texts and seeing what the Early Judeo-Christians themselves believed from their own witnesses. This is an entirely different perspective.
While you attach a modern meaning onto a word without knowing what it’s historical meaning was nor what it’s proper use was, I am interested in what that word meant to the early Judeo-Christians. While you are creating a theory about what salvation means to you and how you think it is obtained, I am interested in what salvation meant to them and how they thought it was obtained.
This is a different approach. The consistent observation to be made in these discussions is that your religion and doctrinal theories are different than that of the early Judeo-Christians. I believe the early Christian doctrines and practices are superior and more detailed and more coherent and more logical than your modern theories and your modern doctrines and many readers are able to see this as a theme throughout our posts.
This was the reason I brought up the early Doctrines about the plan of God and the reasons underlying God’s plan in early Judeo-Christian worldviews. This is the reason I brought up the early doctrines regarding Lucifers fall and Satans origin. The modern Judeo-Christian movements like yours have very, very few details regarding the origin of Satan and the circumstances underlying his motives and reason surrounding his fall and being cast out of Heaven.
If you think your theories on the origin of Lucifer are superior, I have asked you to offer them as well, but you don’t seem to have any that have any detail. This has also be one of my points. Ancient, informed Christian thought is better than modern, uninformed Christian theories.
Last edited:
post two
Billiardsball said : Why do you feel to secure LDS doctrines, you have to refer to neither LDS canon nor Bible canon but letters of people not claiming any inspiration at all? I don't understand. Please help me understand.
I have practiced medicine for many years and many of my patients display psychological patterns that are counter-productive. Though you say you want to “understand” another point of view, I do not think individuals whose loyalty to ideology and lack of logical and rational thought are often able to understand ideologies much beyond their own vision, nor are they able to understand logical and rational thought since they do not subject their ideology to logic or coherence. Whether you are in this category or not, you can judge. Readers can as well.
Thus, my writings have often not been for your benefit since your theories are not often built upon deep historical data, or logic or reasoning. But instead I have often written for other posters who do value Historical data and rational, logical thought as they consider what it is they are to believe about a historical religion. I also want the LDS readers to see the incredible strength of their historical position and introduce them to the literature of early Christians as a valuable witness as to what early Christianity was like and how the early Christians themselves, interpreted the bible.
As you have admitted, your own interpretations have no advantage over that of the earliest Christian witnesses. As you also have observed, and admitted, your own religion is different to that of the earliest Christians. Their religion is “heresy to your religion” and your religion is often “heresy” to them. This is the nature of the apostasy away from early religion and evidence that it happened. Thus, your own posts provide strong evidence to the LDS of their theology, you just don’t see it. In any case, whether the LDS are correct or incorrect in their own religious views, I believe that the earliest and most authentic doctrines in the earliest Christian movement are superior to modern Christian religious theories.
Billiardsball, you can have a satisfying and wonderful spiritual journey, but there are rules. I hope you find happiness in your own journey.
Clear
σεδρειδρω
Billiardsball said : Why do you feel to secure LDS doctrines, you have to refer to neither LDS canon nor Bible canon but letters of people not claiming any inspiration at all? I don't understand. Please help me understand.
I have practiced medicine for many years and many of my patients display psychological patterns that are counter-productive. Though you say you want to “understand” another point of view, I do not think individuals whose loyalty to ideology and lack of logical and rational thought are often able to understand ideologies much beyond their own vision, nor are they able to understand logical and rational thought since they do not subject their ideology to logic or coherence. Whether you are in this category or not, you can judge. Readers can as well.
Thus, my writings have often not been for your benefit since your theories are not often built upon deep historical data, or logic or reasoning. But instead I have often written for other posters who do value Historical data and rational, logical thought as they consider what it is they are to believe about a historical religion. I also want the LDS readers to see the incredible strength of their historical position and introduce them to the literature of early Christians as a valuable witness as to what early Christianity was like and how the early Christians themselves, interpreted the bible.
As you have admitted, your own interpretations have no advantage over that of the earliest Christian witnesses. As you also have observed, and admitted, your own religion is different to that of the earliest Christians. Their religion is “heresy to your religion” and your religion is often “heresy” to them. This is the nature of the apostasy away from early religion and evidence that it happened. Thus, your own posts provide strong evidence to the LDS of their theology, you just don’t see it. In any case, whether the LDS are correct or incorrect in their own religious views, I believe that the earliest and most authentic doctrines in the earliest Christian movement are superior to modern Christian religious theories.
Billiardsball, you can have a satisfying and wonderful spiritual journey, but there are rules. I hope you find happiness in your own journey.
Clear
σεδρειδρω
Last edited:
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
You don’t think the Jewish people were a foci for Paul in Romans?
I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen[a] according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God.
Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel[a] is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved,[g] as it is written:
“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”[h]
28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.
Would you like more examples? I can think of mentions touching the Jewish people in Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16.
There is no mention of Jewish people per se in 13, although the entire chapter is tying Roman taxation and paying taxation to the Law of Moses.
Not at all. The chapters 24 and 25 in Matthew discuss the Great Tribulation, in 24, Jesus comes bodily to end the Tribulation to save believers from it.
This is men, not women, too? I will tell the Christian women I know:
*They are not living stones in the church
*They will be put to shame after believing in Jesus
*They are not the people of God.
After all, that is the passage under discussion…
Is there uncertainty if someone is a predestinarian also? The Calvinists say you cannot be sure. Is there stance correct or are you correct here?
I said nothing of the sort. I stated that you and Clear are of necessity holding to the steady state model as discarded by almost 100% of modern cosmologists. The Big Bang describes a finite beginning.
No, you began with a false premise—that your argument is logical. It is not.
I have spent many, many hours discussing with atheists that penal substitution is immoral and unjust. Once again, LDS is promoting an illogical doctrine that is unbiblical ALSO.
I disagree. You and Clear cherry-picked “authorities”, mostly from the RCC, to support this untenable stance. LDS doctrines are closest to the RCC—both are unbiblical. Further, penal substitution is expressed in the scriptures. “For the love of Christ controls us, for one died for all therefore all died.”
If all had an example of love, all did not die. If all did not die, their sin nature lives, and they cannot die to be born again.
You don’t?
You have:
- The Bible is imperfect.
- Orontes is imperfect.
- Orontes can never perfectly understand the Bible, but sees fit to tell biblical adherents how and where they are wrong.
- I’ve gotten a 98 on a test before, and understood what was needed to get 100.
- I’ve gotten 100’s on tests before, and understand what a perfect test score is.
- God is smarter than us, and when we grade the Bible, it scores a 100%.
- 3 is eminently knowable except for people who like to promote unorthodox doctrines.
Of COURSE they are referring to the Law of Moses. If it helps, the perfection you need to be saved is per the Law of Moses. Don’t break it! But the grace v. works dichotomy you abhor is Pauline, from Romans:
And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.
Read the verse above. Meditate. Repeat. Grace and works have no parts tying to each other, like Christ and a prostitute or Christ and Belial.
Not only does it make sense, when I asked you this, I was setting you up for my question:
If the whole thing isn’t prosoepoeia, why are you resistant to SOME of Romans being written for Jewish readers?