What is the Trinity?

[SA Huguenot]

Because there are plenty of other things to do on it then be interrogated for my whole Church.

My dear LDS.
No one is interrogating you or your religion.
We have the right to question something you claim about your religion, if we saw your claim was false.
It is all about speaking the truth.
And you actually invited us to learn from your LDS afterlife.

You can search LDS theology yourself; you are further in understanding it than me, at least in most things. I can try to help you if you want me too. If the LDS afterlife isn't the best, I would love to hear what sounds better.

All we did was to ask:" How can you believe in the LDS theories about the after life, when the foundation of the LDS, the Book of Mormon is a proven falsehood?
Dont go and make yourself out as some persecuted being.
No mate, You cant go and make claims, then slither into a hole.
Come on for once in your life, and stand up for the TRUTH if you dare.
Show us where the Book of Mormon istrue when compared to archaeology.
Then know that if you cant, Joseph Smith lied to you about Jews who came to America with sheep, cattle, steel, wheels, etc. in 605 BC
You see, the root of LDS is a rotten poisenous source, which you feed on.

 

[robocop (actually)]

My dear LDS.
No one is interrogating you or your religion.
We have the right to question something you claim about your religion, if we saw your claim was false.
It is all about speaking the truth.
And you actually invited us to learn from your LDS afterlife.


All we did was to ask:" How can you believe in the LDS theories about the after life, when the foundation of the LDS, the Book of Mormon is a proven falsehood?
Dont go and make yourself out as some persecuted being.
No mate, You cant go and make claims, then slither into a hole.
Come on for once in your life, and stand up for the TRUTH if you dare.
Show us where the Book of Mormon istrue when compared to archaeology.
Then know that if you cant, Joseph Smith lied to you about Jews who came to America with sheep, cattle, steel, wheels, etc. in 605 BC
You see, the root of LDS is a rotten poisenous source, which you feed on.

Still saying nothing.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO


Hi @robocop (actually) :

1) REGARDING MY DEEP FASCINATION WITH LDS THEOLOGY
My point to @SA Huguenot was that as I become more and more familiar with the early Judeo-Christian literature and its base salvific doctrines, I, like other historians of this era, are being forced in the direction Joseph Smith pointed to, unless I ignore or change my historical textual data sets. I already referred to Michael Heisner who was accused of being a “closet mormon” because his doctorate thesis referred to the divine council (the same historical point Cross and others have made). While he is definitely NOT LDS, his historical conclusions forced him that direction. Frank More Cross, one of the team members of the dead sea scroll discoveries came to similar conclusions regarding the base principle of the council. It’s not that these scholars are LDS, but their conclusions on the literature are driving them in that direction on this specific subject. Charles Charlesworth, similarly, in his 2000 page tome on Jewish pseudoepigraphs, has adopted many of the similar historical principles in his description of where the early Jewish texts are driving his conclusions as J. Smith pointed to. I have felt this same funneling in that direction by this early literature.

For examples, the concepts and details surrounding pre-earthly conditions, creation of earth from matter, the pre-creation war in heaven, the details surrounding the choosing of Jesus as the messiah, the purpose of mortality as a moral and social tutoring as part of a preparation to prepare spirits for a someday heavenly existence, the nature of the afterlife (that is, the world of spirits), the mechanism for salvation for those who have never heard of Jesus, etc). If I am going to accept a large sampling of early Judeo-Christian literature and their interpretations as what they believed, then the data funnels me in the direction of pre-existence of spirits and the conditions there are the same model as Smith described.

@SA Huguenot makes a point that he sees discrepancies in the text and thus is critical of the text, I, as a historian, expect discrepancies in ALL early texts. For example, SA Huguenot mentions a disagreement with the word “steel” in the Book or Mormon as a problem for him, whereas KJV bible has nine places where “steel” is, similarly mentioned (2 Sam 22:35, Job 6:12, Job 20:24, Psa 18:34, Jer 15:12, Nah 2:3, Nah 2:4, Rev 9:9, rev 18:12). I do NOT dismiss the bible simply because of these discrepancies he pointed out. While he points to “horses” as another problem, the KJV bible mentions “dragons”. Again, I do NOT dismiss the bible because there are mistakes or unusual animals referred to in the text. There are entire BOOKS on various errors in the biblical history and it’s narrative written by biblical critics (one book refers to over 4000 errors the author found in the text). I believe the bible is a wonderful testimonial of God. However, one has to simply deal with idiosyncrasies of ancient textual histories and translations. (I think it was Clement of the New Testament who referred to the Phoenix as an actual bird...) I have already worked through the historical concepts of small amounts of steel existing, and the concept of small groups of travelers from other continents coming to this continent and the other issues he mentioned both in biblical literature and in the book of Mormon/pearl of great price literature.

HOW DOES ONE "FAKE" CORRECT HISTORY
However, my interest has been on historical religious doctrines of the early Christians. This is where the LDS do not realize the strength of their historical position. While I may easily explain that errors will exist in early literature, It is very, very, very difficult to explain how J. Smith did what he did in getting so many things correct. Though Smith may have been a “genius/religious savant”, even that would not explain a huge set of correct historical “guesses” regarding early Judeo-Christian history that was unknown to anyone in his era. My fascination with Joseph Smith was not what he may have gotten wrong (anyone can do that), but the amazing about of early Judeo-Christian history and historical interpretation he generated that was historically correct.

Suppose for example, that I make up a random story about Moses that says he had a vision with God and after meeting with God, he was weak and felt faint and fell to the ground, too weak to stand. (My Baptist upbringing did have a degree of "speculation" but it never hinted at such a strange historical guess, but it is as good of an example as any.) Then, suppose, after 50 to 100 years, early literature is discovered, translated and printed and this story in the literature about Moses describes him being faint after having a vision with God and being unable to get back up after falling to the ground. How does one make up a “longshot” and strange historical “guess” on a very unusual detail in ancient history and then one finds out it is authentic ancient tradition? This is not like guessing the correct winner in a horse race. Trying to explain how a person makes hundreds of such “lucky historical guesses” over and over and over without revelation is the issue for me. I can explain a rare “bad” historical guess, but I don’t see a mechanism for how one can make multiple unexpected and detailed historical guesses without revelation. Even if one says Smith stole his ideas from another person it doesn’t help. How did that person make such historical guesses about early Christian theology and early Christian textual history?

HOW DOES ONE CREATE CORRECT THEOLOGY WITHOUT PRIOR PROCESS AND TIME
The other thing that is very different is that Smith presents historical parallels in a fairly fully developed form. For example, most historians discover bits and pieces of historical data over time that create a pattern from which they create a historical theory. Smiths presentation of early Judeo-Christian doctrines are presented in a mature form. What historian can do that with early doctrines? It is very unsettling and mysterious how he is able to do this. For example, while historians of early literature find debri of the early concept of creation from matter (as opposed to the later theory of creation from “nothing” which much of Christianity adopted). Most historians find bits and pieces of this doctrine, make a theory and then share their theory from which is created a majority opinion over time. Smith doesn’t do this. He simply tells of historical occurrences within the existing assumption of a material creation.

HOW DOES ONE MAKE CORRECT HISTORICAL TRADITIONS THAT ARE COMPLETELY COUNTER TO THE ORTHODOXY OF THEIR DAY
For example, the LDS return to the early Judeo-Christian concept of creation from pre-existing matter and of spirits existing prior to birth is a similar doctrine that is presented in a mature form instead of working it out slowly and painfully over years as most historians do. It simply is part of the texts he produced and is an important base doctrine that form a framework and context allowing a more logical, more rational and more intuitive basis for doctrines that existed in early Christian worldviews. It makes more historical coherence to return to these early doctrines as well.


2) RETURNING TO THE MODEL OF HENOTHEISM (ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF EARLY CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION)
As a return to my initial point regarding the early Judeo-Christian doctrine of Henotheism (the existence of beings that are denominated “gods” while recognizing the absolute superiority and authority and worship of a single God over all other beings, regardless of whether they are called “gods” or “judges” or “men”, anything.


THE REAL QUESTION IS NOT WHO HAS THE MOST "PROOF TEXTS", BUT HOW THE AUTHOR AND HOW EARLY CHRISTIANS WOULD HAVE INTERPRETED THOSE TEXTS
Individuals who believe the three individual characters that make up the trinity are separate individuals have their typical set of “proof texts” and those who believe the three are, in fact, only “one” character have their set of “proof texts”.


For examples, non-trinitarians will point out that examples where Jesus prays to his Father is perfectly fine if he is talking to another individual but irrational if he is talking to “himself”. Jesus many requests to the Father fits the typical a request of another individual, but is irrational if he is making an oral request of “himself”. Even the posturing of jesus “looking up” in prayer fits speaking to another individual “in heaven” but is irrational if speaking to ones self. Such communications are all made rational by simply assuming individuality in the Trinity, etc, etc while the “trinitarians” then offer their justifications and similarly offer their set of texts which are used as evidence that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one individual. In the early Christian literature, the descriptions are a bit more clear as to the early interpretations.

Henotheism allows a rational and logical model for both types of “proof texts” and it seems to be the most logical model to place the early Christian interpretations into.


3) EXAMPLE OF PROOF TEXTS AND COMPARISONS TO EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

EXAMPLES OF PROOF TEXTS
The early Judeo-Christian literature can give us insights as to how the earliest Judeo-Christians interpreted texts AND how Christian theology changed and evolved over time and geological space.

To demonstrate a hierarchal difference between The Father and the Son, One might offer biblical proof texts : For examples ; .
Quote: “But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. ( John 15:31)

“ How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. (Acts 10:38)

It is NOT Jesus who “raised up himself”, but God the Father raises him :

Quote: “And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. Cor 6:14

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead Gal 1:1

“...how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; 10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come. 1 Thess 1:9-10
Christians spoke of the power of God “ Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,.... 22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Eph 1:20-22; “ It is God the Father who gives jesus authority; who sends Jesus and whom Jesus obeys.

Quote: ...the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 1 Cor 11:3

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO


EXAMPLES FROM EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

Speaking of Genesis 1:26 Barnabas explains : "For the Scripture speaks about us when he says to the Son: “Let us make man according to our image and likeness, and let them rule over the beasts of the earth and the birds of the air and the fish of the sea.” And when he saw that our creation was good, the Lord said: “Increase and multiply and fill the earth.” These things he said to the Son" (The Epistle of Barnabas 6:12)

Taken as a group, the earliest Christian testimonies and interpretations regarding the Father and the Son are more rational in the context of separate individuals; they need less rhetorical support, if the Father and the Son are separate individuals. For example, Bishop Ignatius (an apostolic father – i.e. a person who either knew or lived at a time when they could have known an apostle – early texts) speaks of a christian named Crocus who had “refreshed” him and says “...may the Father of Jesus Christ likewise refresh him” (Ignatius to the Ephesians 2:1) Bishop Ignatius is referring to the Father as an individual. Polycarp uses the same context :

Quote: “Now, may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal High Priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth and in all gentleness...” (The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians 12:2)

Not only do they teach of them as individuals, but place them on different levels, it is clear that it is the Father who raised Jesus (jesus does NOT “raise himself).

Quote: “...may he give to you a share and a place among his saints,...and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead.” (The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians 12:2)

These are Bishops and orthodox teachers in period of the early apostolic fathers. Even the earlier sacred texts make it clear that The Father is described as separate from the Son. Enoch, speaking of his vision of pre-earth “heaven” makes this clear.

Quote: “1 At that place, I saw the One to whom belongs the “chief of days.” (A euphamism for the Lord of Spirits, or God 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. 2 And I asked the one–from among the angels–who was going with me, and who had revealed to me all the secrets regarding the One who was born of human beings, “Who is this, and from where could he be, and for what reason does he go with him who precedes time?”. 3 And he answered me and said to me, “This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells. (1st Enoch 46:1-6)

It is not just clear that they were individuals but it is also clear that they were not equals. The Father was always the LORD God, over all other, including the son. Consider the principle of Authority and knowledge of the Father versus the authority and knowledge of Jesus.


SUCH REFERENCES IN EARLY LITERATURE ARE MADE LESS RATIONAL BY ASSUMING JESUS IS THE SAME AS HIS FATHER. THEY ARE ALL MORE RATIONAL IF JESUS AND HIS FATHER ARE SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS.

IF one then reads the early Christian literature, it gives us more indication of how the earliest Christians would have understood such statements. One statement may not tell us much, but multiple early statements from early Christians form a coherent model. Clement, another apostolic Father said :

Quote: “Let all the nations know that you are the only God, “that Jesus Christ is your servant, and that “we are your people and the sheep of your pasture.” (1 Clement 59:4)

They spoke of the Father as “the creator of the universe...through his beloved servant Jesus Christ, through whom he called us from darkness to light, ....among all of them have chosen those who love you through Jesus Christ, your beloved Servant, through whom you instructed us, sanctified us, honored us. (1 Clement 59:2-3)

The earliest Judao-christian understood and spoke of “...the all-seeing God and Master of spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ,. 1 Clement 64:1;

This choosing of Jesus by the LORD GOD was a clear and consistent theme in most of the earlier texts AND the doctrine becomes clearer the older the text as one approaches the time of Christ. Enoch speaks of this time period when in vision of the pre-mortal heaven.

Quote: ...2 At that hour, that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits, the Before-Time .... 3 even before the creation of the sun and the moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits. 4 He will become a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall.” (1st Enoch 48:1-7)

When one understands this earliest christian model of the trinity, then Jewish Enoch and Christian Bartholomew texts correlate completely :

Quote: “Jesus said to him: “Bartholomew, the Father named me Christ, that I might come down on earth and anoint with the oil of life everyone who came to me.” The Gospel of Bartholomew CH IV

A return to the earliest doctrine of the trinity allows not only a correlation of doctrine between Jewish Enoch and christian Bartholomew and many, many, many of the earliest Judao-Christian texts, but even the later texts make greater sense. For example, the discourse given by Archbishop Timothy was able to make sense of the earliest doctrines while the early model of the trinity was used.

Referring to the Time when the pre-creation Jesus becomes “named’ or “chosen” as the savior “slain from the foundation of the world”, Jesus explains regarding the creation of Adam that God, his Father Quote: “... took the clay …. and made Adam according to Our image and likeness, … without putting breath into him. And he heaved sighs over him daily, saying, “If I put breath into this [man], he must suffer many pains.” (Because of moral transgressions which God knows men will undergo)

Jesus explains to the apostles : “And I said unto My Father, “Put breath into him; I will be an advocate for him.” And My Father said unto Me, “If I put breath into him, My beloved son, Thou wilt be obliged to go down into the world, and to suffer many pains for him before Thou shalt have redeemed him, and made him to come back to primal state.” And I said unto My Father, “Put breath into him; I will be his advocate, and I will go down into the world, and will fulfil Thy command.” Such quotes are completely clear that Jesus is NOT the Father, but a subordinate TO the Father.

To the earliest Judao-Christians, it made sense that Jesus was the Lamb Slain from the foundation of the world. He WAS chosen from the foundation of the world. If you remove God and Jesus from this early context, then the earliest Judao-Christian texts cannot make sense. IF you use the early Christian model for the trinity, then one can use the earliest texts to understand what the earliest Christians believed and taught and how such things made sense to THEM. In their context, it made perfect sense to refer to The Father and the Son as separate individuals “... they have denied the Lord of the Spirits and his Messiah. “Blessed be the name of the Lord of the Spirits.” (1st Enoch 48:10)

In the context of the earliest christians, it made perfect sense to the ancient Judo-Christians when the Son is given orders by his Father in the pre-creation heaven. :

Quote: ... And I heard the voice of the Most High, the Father of my Lord, as he said to my Lord Christ, who will be called Jesus, “Go out and descend through all the heavens...12 and they shall not know that you (are) with me when with the voice of the heavens I summon you...16 This command I heard the Great Glory giving to my Lord.” (Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah . 10:6-16)


The decensus doctrine and it’s vast accompanying literature can make sense in this early christian context where the Father and the Son are separate individuals whereas taken out of context, it cannot make the same sense. In the early christian text, apocalypse of Abraham, Jesus, speaking to Abraham says : “I am sent to you to strengthen you and to bless you in the name of God, creator of heavenly and earthly things, who has loved you....8 I am Iaoel...11 I am ordered to loosen Hades and to destroy those who wondered at the dead...” (The Apocalypse of Abraham 10:5, 11,14-17) Again, the pattern of Jesus being “sent” by the Father is clear. He is “ordered” to loosen Hades (a reference to christs descensus during the three days between death and resurrection). An entire genre of liturature (the early Christian descensus literature) makes more rational sense if Jesus is a separate individual from his Father. If they are the same, this ancient christian literature cannot correlate as rationally.

The apostles understood the concept of delegation of authority from God the Father, to the Son and then to them. “For the Father anointed the Son, and the Son anointed the apostles, and the apostles anointed us." The gospel of Phillip;


Now Robocop (Actually). The fact that these ancient texts which (I assume) you probably have never read before, are very CLEAR in their meanings to YOU. If you know much of LDS theology, you could use the early literature seamlessly and without doctrine ripples in your sunday school. With most of the modern Christian movements, such literature is somewhat disorienting, THIS SAYS SOMETHING IMPORTANT ABOUT YOUR THEOLOGY.. Your LDS theology on this point parallels and is in harmony with these Early Judeo-Christian texts. This is because your theology on these point, is the same.


THIS is what I mean about LDS theology. It parallels the earliest forms of these doctrines and though I have tried to consider other mechanisms, I cannot come up with a theory as to how Smith could have done this without source text or revelation.


In any case, I hope your spiritual journeys are wonderful and good and full of insights.

Clear
εισιτωειω

 

[SA Huguenot]

Clear, allow me to say wou are well informed, and teaxches me a LOTTTT.
thank you.
If not for your posts, I would not have learned this point of view.
I also love your referencing to the Ancient writings, and must say well done.
I again read what you wrote to support the authenticy of the Book of Mormon, and found only this passage.
I would like you to elaborate a bit more on this, for I still regard the Mook of Mormon as an erroneious composition of someone who made his religion up, so to say.
true, you refer to steel mentioned in the KJV, but remember, it is not just steel, and we know it is an incorrect translation into English.
Now, If the plates were translated from "Reformed Egyptian", which anyhow does not exist, It would have used the word Iron.
What about Sheep, Horses, cattle, wagons, etc. which does have very specific timeless naming, which the Book of Mormon does say was brought with the jews from the mediteranian.
if you can explain the non existance of these supposed animals which the Book of mormon say was in the Americas, I might again open the Book of Mormon to read it again.

HOW DOES ONE MAKE CORRECT HISTORICAL TRADITIONS THAT ARE COMPLETELY COUNTER TO THE ORTHODOXY OF THEIR DAY
For example, the LDS return to the early Judeo-Christian concept of creation from pre-existing matter and of spirits existing prior to birth is a similar doctrine that is presented in a mature form instead of working it out slowly and painfully over years as most historians do. It simply is part of the texts he produced and is an important base doctrine that form a framework and context allowing a more logical, more rational and more intuitive basis for doctrines that existed in early Christian worldviews. It makes more historical coherence to return to these early doctrines as well.

 

[robocop (actually)]

POST TWO OF TWO


EXAMPLES FROM EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

Speaking of Genesis 1:26 Barnabas explains : "For the Scripture speaks about us when he says to the Son: “Let us make man according to our image and likeness, and let them rule over the beasts of the earth and the birds of the air and the fish of the sea.” And when he saw that our creation was good, the Lord said: “Increase and multiply and fill the earth.” These things he said to the Son" (The Epistle of Barnabas 6:12)

Taken as a group, the earliest Christian testimonies and interpretations regarding the Father and the Son are more rational in the context of separate individuals; they need less rhetorical support, if the Father and the Son are separate individuals. For example, Bishop Ignatius (an apostolic father – i.e. a person who either knew or lived at a time when they could have known an apostle – early texts) speaks of a christian named Crocus who had “refreshed” him and says “...may the Father of Jesus Christ likewise refresh him” (Ignatius to the Ephesians 2:1) Bishop Ignatius is referring to the Father as an individual. Polycarp uses the same context :

Quote: “Now, may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal High Priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth and in all gentleness...” (The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians 12:2)

Not only do they teach of them as individuals, but place them on different levels, it is clear that it is the Father who raised Jesus (jesus does NOT “raise himself).

Quote: “...may he give to you a share and a place among his saints,...and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead.” (The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians 12:2)

These are Bishops and orthodox teachers in period of the early apostolic fathers. Even the earlier sacred texts make it clear that The Father is described as separate from the Son. Enoch, speaking of his vision of pre-earth “heaven” makes this clear.

Quote: “1 At that place, I saw the One to whom belongs the “chief of days.” (A euphamism for the Lord of Spirits, or God 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. 2 And I asked the one–from among the angels–who was going with me, and who had revealed to me all the secrets regarding the One who was born of human beings, “Who is this, and from where could he be, and for what reason does he go with him who precedes time?”. 3 And he answered me and said to me, “This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells. (1st Enoch 46:1-6)

It is not just clear that they were individuals but it is also clear that they were not equals. The Father was always the LORD God, over all other, including the son. Consider the principle of Authority and knowledge of the Father versus the authority and knowledge of Jesus.


SUCH REFERENCES IN EARLY LITERATURE ARE MADE LESS RATIONAL BY ASSUMING JESUS IS THE SAME AS HIS FATHER. THEY ARE ALL MORE RATIONAL IF JESUS AND HIS FATHER ARE SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS.

IF one then reads the early Christian literature, it gives us more indication of how the earliest Christians would have understood such statements. One statement may not tell us much, but multiple early statements from early Christians form a coherent model. Clement, another apostolic Father said :

Quote: “Let all the nations know that you are the only God, “that Jesus Christ is your servant, and that “we are your people and the sheep of your pasture.” (1 Clement 59:4)

They spoke of the Father as “the creator of the universe...through his beloved servant Jesus Christ, through whom he called us from darkness to light, ....among all of them have chosen those who love you through Jesus Christ, your beloved Servant, through whom you instructed us, sanctified us, honored us. (1 Clement 59:2-3)

The earliest Judao-christian understood and spoke of “...the all-seeing God and Master of spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ,. 1 Clement 64:1;

This choosing of Jesus by the LORD GOD was a clear and consistent theme in most of the earlier texts AND the doctrine becomes clearer the older the text as one approaches the time of Christ. Enoch speaks of this time period when in vision of the pre-mortal heaven.

Quote: ...2 At that hour, that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits, the Before-Time .... 3 even before the creation of the sun and the moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits. 4 He will become a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall.” (1st Enoch 48:1-7)

When one understands this earliest christian model of the trinity, then Jewish Enoch and Christian Bartholomew texts correlate completely :

Quote: “Jesus said to him: “Bartholomew, the Father named me Christ, that I might come down on earth and anoint with the oil of life everyone who came to me.” The Gospel of Bartholomew CH IV

A return to the earliest doctrine of the trinity allows not only a correlation of doctrine between Jewish Enoch and christian Bartholomew and many, many, many of the earliest Judao-Christian texts, but even the later texts make greater sense. For example, the discourse given by Archbishop Timothy was able to make sense of the earliest doctrines while the early model of the trinity was used.

Referring to the Time when the pre-creation Jesus becomes “named’ or “chosen” as the savior “slain from the foundation of the world”, Jesus explains regarding the creation of Adam that God, his Father Quote: “... took the clay …. and made Adam according to Our image and likeness, … without putting breath into him. And he heaved sighs over him daily, saying, “If I put breath into this [man], he must suffer many pains.” (Because of moral transgressions which God knows men will undergo)

Jesus explains to the apostles : “And I said unto My Father, “Put breath into him; I will be an advocate for him.” And My Father said unto Me, “If I put breath into him, My beloved son, Thou wilt be obliged to go down into the world, and to suffer many pains for him before Thou shalt have redeemed him, and made him to come back to primal state.” And I said unto My Father, “Put breath into him; I will be his advocate, and I will go down into the world, and will fulfil Thy command.” Such quotes are completely clear that Jesus is NOT the Father, but a subordinate TO the Father.

To the earliest Judao-Christians, it made sense that Jesus was the Lamb Slain from the foundation of the world. He WAS chosen from the foundation of the world. If you remove God and Jesus from this early context, then the earliest Judao-Christian texts cannot make sense. IF you use the early Christian model for the trinity, then one can use the earliest texts to understand what the earliest Christians believed and taught and how such things made sense to THEM. In their context, it made perfect sense to refer to The Father and the Son as separate individuals “... they have denied the Lord of the Spirits and his Messiah. “Blessed be the name of the Lord of the Spirits.” (1st Enoch 48:10)

In the context of the earliest christians, it made perfect sense to the ancient Judo-Christians when the Son is given orders by his Father in the pre-creation heaven. :

Quote: ... And I heard the voice of the Most High, the Father of my Lord, as he said to my Lord Christ, who will be called Jesus, “Go out and descend through all the heavens...12 and they shall not know that you (are) with me when with the voice of the heavens I summon you...16 This command I heard the Great Glory giving to my Lord.” (Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah . 10:6-16)


The decensus doctrine and it’s vast accompanying literature can make sense in this early christian context where the Father and the Son are separate individuals whereas taken out of context, it cannot make the same sense. In the early christian text, apocalypse of Abraham, Jesus, speaking to Abraham says : “I am sent to you to strengthen you and to bless you in the name of God, creator of heavenly and earthly things, who has loved you....8 I am Iaoel...11 I am ordered to loosen Hades and to destroy those who wondered at the dead...” (The Apocalypse of Abraham 10:5, 11,14-17) Again, the pattern of Jesus being “sent” by the Father is clear. He is “ordered” to loosen Hades (a reference to christs descensus during the three days between death and resurrection). An entire genre of liturature (the early Christian descensus literature) makes more rational sense if Jesus is a separate individual from his Father. If they are the same, this ancient christian literature cannot correlate as rationally.

The apostles understood the concept of delegation of authority from God the Father, to the Son and then to them. “For the Father anointed the Son, and the Son anointed the apostles, and the apostles anointed us." The gospel of Phillip;


Now Robocop (Actually). The fact that these ancient texts which (I assume) you probably have never read before, are very CLEAR in their meanings to YOU. If you know much of LDS theology, you could use the early literature seamlessly and without doctrine ripples in your sunday school. With most of the modern Christian movements, such literature is somewhat disorienting, THIS SAYS SOMETHING IMPORTANT ABOUT YOUR THEOLOGY.. Your LDS theology on this point parallels and is in harmony with these Early Judeo-Christian texts. This is because your theology on these point, is the same.


THIS is what I mean about LDS theology. It parallels the earliest forms of these doctrines and though I have tried to consider other mechanisms, I cannot come up with a theory as to how Smith could have done this without source text or revelation.


In any case, I hope your spiritual journeys are wonderful and good and full of insights.

Clear
εισιτωειω

Thank you Clear,

I feel I should share my testimony. This is what I believe.

When I tried to follow God's commandments, I found myself believing in God and this Church more. It was not so much a mental find, it was more of a righteousness helped me know it.

I appreciate your experience of the Godhead. I actually came up with that I shared their belief from a theoretical scientific standpoint which I'll share with you.

Getting Universes into existences is God and one God.

In a Universe, it can be traced back to a creator. That is God and they are both God together.

A supreme being is in charge. That is God (Jesus Christ is part) and they are all God together.

The Holy Ghost is that principle in Universe by which a being can be gaining new understanding. That is God and all four of them are God together.

Every Latter-day Saint has their own testimony on God!

 

[Clear]

Hi @robocop (actually)

Thank you for your thoughts. i am not sure that I understood them as you meant them, but I think they were kindly meant.

Clear.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF FOUR

Hi SA Huguenot :


We are all so different in our backgrounds and interests. I am convinced by experiences I have had that there is a God and that Jesus is the messiah. I am interested mainly in the earliest form of Christianity and what the earliest Judeo-Christians believed in and how they described their religion and in their interpretations of their doctrines. Thus, my interest is in their early literature since that is where much of that information is to be found. Can I make just a couple comments on “Steel”, and “animals” and similar interests that you have (but which I have less interest in as I already came to terms with those issues).

1) OBSERVATION OF ANACHRONISMS AND GEOLOGICAL AND SCIENTIFIC (ETC) ERRORS IN ALL ANCIENT TEXTS (BIBLE, BOOK OF MORMON, EPIGRAPHS, LECTIONARIES, MISHNA, TALMUD, ETC.)

SA Huguenot said : “... you refer to steel mentioned in the KJV, but remember, it is not just steel, and we know it is an incorrect translation into English.”

It is difficult to say if it is incorrect in all cases because “steel” was simply iron and carbon and as such, small amounts of steel were always present in the creation of iron anciently. As the small amounts of iron that mixed with carbon were saved by the ancient smiths, they would accumulate this strange form of iron (steel) and thus it was very precious. It was only in the later eras that Iron smiths discovered how to make large amounts of steel and it became more abundant and less “precious”. I was also taught that “steel” didn’t exist in this era and only in later years did I discover it existed but only in small amounts.

However, (and I am going from memory rather than looking it up), Joseph Smiths narrative has nephi using the word “precious” (perhaps he says “costly”) in referring to the steel in the mans’ bow. How does Smith know that steel did exist when most of us were taught it did not exist, and how does he as a 22 or so year old, know to include the detail that it is “precious”? It is mystifying how he is able to do this. This is a very simple example.

While the issue of animals in the book of Mormon is similar to the issue of “dragons” in the
Bible (i.e. the living thing is simply given a descriptive name), there are multiple levels of errors (and even the errors are of historical interest – I will explain in a minute). For example, I do not think Smith was particularly educated or schooled. Did he mistranslate and get the names wrong like biblical authors did? If he is translating from a narrative that was taken from an earlier narrative, did the ancient author himself simply get the name wrong like the biblical authors sometimes did? Was a “sheep” in the narrative, actually a mountain “goat” but the translator did not use a correct term?

The issues of translation are more complex such that one cannot simply dismiss the correct theology due to an incorrect translation. If the massoretes creating the massoretic text; or the , discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls, or the Nag Hamadi library, or Onchyryncus and other papyri have taught us anything, it is that translation is complex.


HOW DOES SMITH ACCESS CORRECT VAST AMOUNTS OF ANCIENT HISTORICAL CONTEXTS AND TRADITIONS?
However, even the mistakes in the Book of Mormon are historically fascinating since they parallel the type of Mistakes in the Biblical narrative in ways that confirm historical similarities which I cannot dismiss. For example, scholars and historians have long pointed out the problem with large numbers in the bible (almost 350,000 at Davids’ feast in Hebron?, 400,000 footmen “sneak” in attacks on Gebeah and Ai ?). If I remember correctly (I am not taking the time to look this up in the Book of Mormon), the book of Mormon uses the same sorts of descriptions in the later wars. The use of numbers in both cases are hebraisms that cause the same type of errors in numbers in the Bible. For example, the errors associate with the ancient use of the aleph/אלפ ( – my keyboard doesn’t have a final Pe form) and it’s association with exaggerated numbers. How does a young man, just out of his teens know to “purposefully” make such an error with Hebraic numbers so that it is consistent with the ancient Hebraic errors? Thus, even though it is a mistake in numbering, it is a “Hebraic” mistake and is a mistake that is typical of “ancient” Hebrew records. It is unnerving at the historical depth of knowledge and cunning it would take to do this. Smith did not appear to be particularly “cunning” or “knowledgeable” in ancient history. I can’t explain how Smith is able to do these things without source documents or revelation.

It’s not just that he seems to know incredibly discrete and unusual history, stuff that non-historian “Sunday school Christians” are completely unaware of, but his histories often plug into the earliest narratives seamlessly AND he accomplishes this inside the incredibly important “cross roads” doctrines and in literature where Jewish, Christian and Islamic parallel each other historically.

For example, the early Judeo-Christian-islamic textual traditions describing the evolution of Lucifer from an angel in power to an enemy of God who is then cast out which is described in ancient Judeo-Christian and ancient Islamic texts. How is it that Smith is not only familiar with these histories, but how does he know to tap into these early traditions when the literature for them had not been discovered nor translated in the day in which he lived? The existence of such correctly contexted references is like discovering a 100 story building next door which did not exist a week earlier. This is the unexplainable historical mystery for me.


AN EXAMPLE OF ONE AMONG MANY REFERENCES TO EARLY CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS
I am honestly not sure how to offer a single discrete textual reference which will serve to give an accurate example of the sweeping historical views that he somehow plugs into regarding early Jewish, Christian (and Islamic) literature and tradition. I will try to offer a “summary of a sweeping example.

I had been writing on the early Judeo-Christian textual histories and traditions concerning the pre-creation time periods and about the post Death world of spirits. (There is a great deal of early literature dealing with the early christian beliefs about these subjects) when an LDS person sent me a quote about the subject I was writing on. It was a quote from Joseph Smith that summarized the plan of God relating to the atonement of Jesus 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, if I can break it down a bit, it will be easier to see how it engages and plugs into and is consistent with the early Judeo-Christian literature regarding God, the Fathers, overall plan for man, of which the atonement is the central mechanism. For example :


1) "...God...finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory..." (Joseph Smith)

This statement harkens back to the earliest textual testimonies of early text describing innumerable number of spirits existing in the beginning and what God intended to do with these innumerable spirits. Jewish 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)"

How does Smith know to create correct theological frame work in which to place this early theology? It's not just that he does it, but he creates the theology in a mature form with supporting literature that also parallels early literature. I can't explain how he is able to do this.



2) "...because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself..." (Joseph Smith)

While the word "plan" does appear in the bible, Early Judeo-Christian theology describes God originating and instituting a plan for these spirits. This concept is interwoven into early texts. "Before all things came to be, he [God] has ordered all their designs" (Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q255-264)

The early literature describes the early stages of this plan "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)

": ....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)

Smith Literature parallels early literature regarding the creation and difficulties of the plan. Much of the later literature discoveries had not been made. How does he create parallel literature? This is a very difficult historical principle to explain for me.

Spirits were in no way equal. There were the more intelligent and gifted; those who were more full of grace and truth than others. Ignatius explains that among those spirits was "Jesus...who before the ages was with the father.. (Ignatius :6:1). The literature describes the Father and Jesus possessed similarity and unity. Jesus was given greater authority and administrated much of the Father’s plan.

The Apostolic Father, Diogenes’ tells us that when God : "... 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)

Smith correctly placed the plan into the early context that all that was created was for mans' benefit (not the Fathers), and that it was an opportunity to "see and understand things". That is, it is a cosmic "tutoring" that is going to take place. Pre-creation council histories demonstrates that most of the spirits were joyous at having this opportunity to progress.

Regarding divine knowledge in this world of spirits, 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. ‘

POST TWO OF FIVE FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF FOUR

Many spirits wanted that same wisdom and to be with others who were holy, righteous and elect. The plan moved forward to the point of choosing a Savior, an integral part of the plan. Jewish Enoch describes this. " 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)

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. While it is not surprising that it is the testimony of Joseph Smith, Smith places this history into its correct context. I don't know of a historian who can make up an entire genre of history and have it parallel future discovery. I am not sure they can create a genre of historical literate at this point, using current knowledge. How does smith do this. I can't answer that question.


3) The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge (Joseph Smith)

The early texts describe the relationship of spirits of men, of angels, and of the Pre-creation Jesus to the “Father of Spirits”. 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:
Early texts make it clear both that God created the Planets and Stars (“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 this education and testing.

Hermas (4th C. New Testament) taught : “... he created the world for the sake of man, and subjected all his creation to man..” (Her 47:2-4).

Physical creation was accomplished by taking “lessor” or more chaotic matter, and organizing it into a “higher” or more organized and purposeful form. 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).

In company with Pre-Mortal Jesus (called "the word” or “the right hand” in some accounts), the Father accomplished creation.: 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).

This closely unified and joint administration contributed 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. However, the early text describe 1) pre-mortal spirits 2) mortality as a tutoring 3) Mortality existed for the benefit of man 4) Jesus as a co-administrator 5) Jesus as creator.... My point is that all of this complex contexting must be kept in mind while creating a new genre of historical literature. Smith does this but I cannot explain how he is able to do it.


B) . The Administrative organization was accomplished to allow men to advance in knowledge:

In the early texts spirits were given choice 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 already knew 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)

The 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.

Please remember that 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. (For example, We haven’t even touched upon the various Jewish-Christian and Islamic texts that deal with the controversies that caused Lucifer to evolve from an Angel of God with power, to an enemy of God and others….)

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)

POST THREE OF FIVE FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST THREE OF FOUR


2) Specific knowledge is requisite to save us 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 Scroll 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 re-adoption of these ancient teachings allows their theology to coordinate with parallel 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

While the early Christians described their theology in their literature, any re-adoption of these same theological principles allows one to be in tune with early Christian worldviews. This was my point to Robocop (actually). HE will understand MUCH of the early literature as a non-historian, because his theology already parallels it and his worldviews for understanding the context of such early Judeo-Chrisian literature already exists.

I believe that a 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 METHOD OF IMPROVEMENT
Clement taught the earliest Christian Saints that repentance was related to the ability to become more like God in this process of improvement. We were 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 re-adoption of repentance back into it's rightful and ancient context and usage in this process of learning. The placing of repentance (making mistakes and learing to avoid them in the future) removes stigma of the word and places it into the context of learning social and moral values.

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 was 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 was also 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).

THOUGH EVIL EXISTS, IT SERVES A PURPOSE INSIDE MORAL EDUCATION THAT SEEKS TO BOTH UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS AS WELL AS TO AVOID IT.

The Jews also taught that God allows evil 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 "Jewish Charter")

Though evil exists in this religious worldview, 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 re-adoption of this model where temporary evil IS a part of the plan as well as the temporary difficulties that result from it parallels these early interpretations. A re-adoption or restoration to early Judeo-Christian worldview does not change evil. But it explains it and its relationship to current difficulties.

The early concept of life as a Temporary Bridge is a similar metaphor to Haggadahs life as a school of tutoring is an important context underlies the concept that this mortal existence was created and exists not for God and his benefit, but instead, for the benefit of mankind.

"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? "

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.



POST FOUR OF FIVE FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST FOUR OF FOUR

GRADIENT OF REWARD AND PUNISHMENT CORRESPONDING TO GRADIENTS IN SPIRITS

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. My problem is that I cannot explain how Smith discovers and correctly re-adopts this early theological model, and importantly, teaches it in a mature, developed form while most of the historians are discovering early theological models a bit at a time, making immature and tentative models along the way. It is very, very difficult to know how Smith does this.

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)


THEOSIS - THE CONCEPT OF BECOMING MORE LIKE GOD IN SPECIFIC WAYS
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 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 foregoing examples simply are an example of how the early Judeo-Christian literature has many, many doctrinal themes from early Christian tradition that parallel the Quote I was given by the LDS poster and why I was so impressed by this 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 "


The value of the earliest Judao-christian religious literature that the early texts serve both as a witness to early Judao-Christian interpretations of the Gospel message and milieu of the Biblical texts and they are often clear and detailed in their descriptions of early Judao-Christian interpretations and beliefs. The LDS re-adoption of the early version of Judeo-Christian interpretation of foundational principles means that the LDS can read such early literature and immediately find that they are comfortable within the early doctrinal milieu. I have tried to consider how Smith could have done what he did. I am unaware of a mechanism for how he could accomplish a production of early doctrines without source documents or revelation. I hope it makes sense why a single quote would not have been sufficient to make my point. I apologize that the example was so very long.


Clear
εισιφυτωω

 

[robocop (actually)]

Hi @robocop (actually)

Thank you for your thoughts. i am not sure that I understood them as you meant them, but I think they were kindly meant.

Clear.

They were kindly meant. I loved to read your posts.