tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37710094441137238632024-03-16T02:22:18.533-07:00Articuli Fidei<i>Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are...That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.</i> - John 17:11b, 21David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comBlogger491125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-36298475255317671662024-02-20T17:50:00.000-08:002024-02-20T18:44:04.787-08:00The Homoiousians: are they 'Arians'—correcting some misreprentations<p><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Last week, I received the book, </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">How and What You
Worship - Christology and Praxis in the Revelations of Joseph Smith, </i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">which
contains the papers delivered at the 49th Annual Brigham Young University
Sidney B. Sperry Symposium, and published in 2020 by the BYU Religious Studies
Center (full book and PDFs available online <a href="https://rsc.byu.edu/book/how-what-you-worship ">HERE</a>; videos of the presentations <a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLc5yYrpPFm2sBBacw7scLjUqmGY8mTC1J">HERE</a>.)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Two of the papers in particular stood out to me:
Frederick’s, “Incarnation, Exaltation, and Christological Tension in Doctrine
and Covenants 93:1–20”, and Lane's, “Choosing Divinity, Choosing Christ.” Both
of these papers contain a misrepresentation of those Christian folk of the
fourth century who utilized the Greek term </span><span style="color: #333333;">ὁμοιούσιος</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;"> (</span><i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">homoiousios</span></i><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">) to describe the
relationship between God the Father and His Only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ.
Frederick's wrote:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Debates such as these over the relationship between the
Father and Son have deep roots, dating back to the fourth century CE. A similar
controversy, which became quite heated and for a time divided the Roman Empire,
centered around the question of whether Jesus Christ was </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">homoousia</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> (of
the same substance) or simply </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">homoiousia</i></span><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;"> (of a similar substance) with
the Father. The latter position was termed Arianism after one of its most
prominent proponents, a fourth-century bishop named Arius.</span> (Page 15 - link to
paper <a href="https://rsc.byu.edu/sites/default/files/pub_content/pdf/2%20Incarnation.pdf">HERE</a>)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">And from Lane we read:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Much of this view of Christ and human beings as agents
that choose is different than the Christology of historical Christianity. To
connect it with traditional christological and soteriological discussion, one
could say that, like the Arians, members of the Church of Jesus Christ see the
unity of God the Father and the Son as coming from the perfection of Christ’s
will rather than from divine essence or substance. While we would use the Arian
term </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">homoiousios,</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> being </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">like</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> God rather than being “of one
substance with the Father” (</span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">homoousios</i></span><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;">), for us this does not result in
Christ being a creature (that is, not divine) because we do not believe in an
ontologically distinct divine substance or essence.</span> (Pages 58, 59 - link to
paper <a href="https://rsc.byu.edu/sites/default/files/pub_content/pdf/3%20Choosing%20Divinity.pdf">HERE</a>)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">Neither of the two above authors seem to be
aware that the term </span><span style="color: #333333;">ὁμοιούσιος</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;"> (</span><i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">homoiousios</span></i><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">) was not an “</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;">Arian term</span></span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">”. In fact, the folk of the fourth
century who held beliefs that emulated those of Arius (i.e. Homoians and
Anhomians), repudiated the term. Perhaps even more importantly, two of the most
prominent defenders of the Nicene Creed of 325 A.D. in the fourth
century—Athanasius of Alexandria and Hilary of Poitiers—embraced those
Christians who preferred the term </span><span style="color: #333333;">ὁμοιούσιος</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;"> (</span><i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">homoiousios</span></i><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">) over </span><span style="color: #333333;">ὁμοούσιος</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;"> (</span><i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">homoousios</span></i><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">) as brothers in
Christ, and as fellow defenders against Arianism. Note the following:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Those who deny the Council altogether, are sufficiently
exposed by these brief remarks ; </span><b><span style="color: #2b00fe;">those, however, who accept everything else
that was defined at Nicaea, and doubt only about the Coessential</span> </b>[</span><span style="color: #333333;">ὁμοούσιον</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">]<span style="color: #2b00fe;"><b>,
must not be treated as enemies</b> ; </span><b><span style="color: #2b00fe;">nor do we here attack them as
Ariomaniacs, nor as opponents of the Fathers, but we discuss the matter with
them as brothers with brothers</span> </b>[</span><span style="font-family: times;">ἀδελφοὶ πρὸς ἀδελφοὺς</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">]<span style="color: #2b00fe;"><b>, who mean what we
mean, and dispute only about the word</b>. For, confessing that the Son is from
the essence of the Father, and not from other subsistence</span> [</span>ὑποστάσεως<span style="font-family: Georgia;">]<span style="color: #2b00fe;">, and
that He is not a creature nor work, but His genuine and natural offspring, and
that He is eternally with the Father as being His Word and Wisdom, they are not
far from accepting even the phrase, 'Coessential</span> [</span><span style="color: #333333;">ὁμοούσιου</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">]<span style="color: #2b00fe;">.' Now
such is Basil, who wrote from Ancyra concerning the faith. For only to say
'like according to essence,' is very far from signifying 'of the essence,' by
which, rather, as they say themselves, the genuineness of the Son to the Father
is signified. Thus tin is only like to silver, a wolf to a dog, and gilt brass
to the true metal ; but tin is not from silver, nor could a wolf be accounted
the offspring of a dog'. </span><b><span style="color: #2b00fe;">But since they say that He is 'of the essence' and
'Like-in-essence</span> </b>[</span>ὁμοιοούσιον<span style="font-family: Georgia;">]<b><span style="color: #2b00fe;">,' what do they signify by these but
'Coessential</span> </b>[</span><span style="color: #333333;">ὁμοούσιον</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">]<b>?' </b>(Athanasius, <i>De Synodis</i> 41 –
NPNF-2, 4.472 - bold emphasis mine)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">And:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Holy brethren, I understand by </span>ὁμοούσιον<span style="font-family: Georgia;"> God of
God, not of an essence that is unlike, not divided but born, and that the Son
has a birth which is unique, of the substance of the unborn God, that He is
begotten yet co-eternal and wholly like the Father. I believed this before I
knew the word </span><span style="font-family: Times;">ὁμοούσιον</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, but it greatly helped my
belief. Why do you condemn my faith when I express it by </span>ὁμοούσιον<span style="font-family: Georgia;"> while
you cannot disapprove it when expressed by </span>ὁμοιούσιον<span style="font-family: Times;">
</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">? For you condemn my faith, or rather your own, when you condemn its
verbal equivalent. Do others misunderstand it? Let us join in condemning the
misunderstanding, but not deprive our faith </span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">of its security. Do you think we must subscribe to the
Samosatene Council to prevent any one from using </span><span style="font-family: Times;">ὁμοούσιον</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> in the
sense of Paul of Samosata? Then let us also subscribe to the Council of Nicaea,
so that the Arians may not impugn the word. Have we to fear that </span><span style="font-family: Times;">ὁμοιούσιον</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> does
not imply the same belief as </span>ὁμοούσιον<span style="font-family: Georgia;"> ? <b>Let us decree that there is no difference
between being of one or of a similar substance</b>. The word </span><span style="font-family: Times;">ὁμοούσιον</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> can be
understood in a wrong sense. Let us prove that it can be understood in a very
good sense. <b>We hold one and the same sacred truth</b>. I beseech you that we
should agree that this truth, which is one and the same, should be regarded as
sacred. Forgive me, brethren, as I have so often asked you to do. <b>You are
not Arians</b>: why should you be thought to be Arians by denying the </span>ὁμοούσιον</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"> ?</span>
(Hilary pf Poitiers, <i>De Synodis </i>– On the Councils, 88 – NPNF-2, 9.28 -
bold emphasis mine)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Shall end this post with the assessments from two
patristic scholars that are germane to our topic at hand:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">It is certainly true that in the later chapters of the </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">De
Synodis</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> Athanasius accepts that those who teach that the Son </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">is
homoiousios</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> to the Father are ‘orthodox’, although he continues to maintain
the superiority of </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">homoousios</i></span><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;"> to define the relationship of the Father
and the Son. This argument is highly significant in the development of
Athanasius’ polemic, as for the first time he acknowledges the possibility that
a Christian might hold a different theology to his own, and yet not be ‘Arian’.</span>
(Gwynn, </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">The Eusebians</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, p. 43)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">In 360 Athanasius realized that Basil of Ancyra and he
were basically fighting for the same cause, and held out a proposal of an
alliance even if Basil and his friends retained their scruples about the
keyword of the Nicene formula, 'identical in essence' (</span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">homoousios</i></span><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;">) :
'Those who accept the Nicene creed but have doubts about the term homoousios
must not be treated as enemies ; we discuss the matter with them as brothers
with brothers; they mean the same as we, and dispute only about the word.' The
eirenic words introduce Athanasius' longest and best discussion of the meaning
of the Nicene formula. The consequent rapprochement between Athanasius and the
party of Basil of Ancyra was to contribute much to the ultimate defeat of
Arianism. </span>(Chadwick, </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">The Early Church</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, 1967, p. 144)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Grace and peace,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">David</span></p>David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-29682955797855380702024-01-12T11:12:00.000-08:002024-02-25T22:12:37.667-08:00Athanaius: did he teach Sabellianism (i.e. modalism) ???<p><span style="font-family: georgia;">I have recently encountered the proposition that
Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373) was not a Trinitarian, but rather, that
he was a Sabellian (i.e. modalist).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">The first instance of connecting Athanasius with Sabellianism
that I came across occurred back on 11-26-2023 via my reading of a post
published by Andries van Niekerk on his blog <i>From Daniel to Revelation</i>
under the title, <a href="https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/sabellians/">'The Sabellians of the Fourth Century'</a>. Andries wrote:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;">Note that the West also
vindicated Athanasius. His theology was similar to the Sabellians</span>...</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText2"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">And:</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText2"><span style="color: #990000; font-family: georgia;"><u><span style="background: white;">Another article</span></u><span style="background: white;"> provides further evidence of the Sabellian leaning of
the theologies of Alexander and Athanasius. For example, “Studer’s account here
follows the increasingly prominent scholarly position that Athanasius’ theology
offers a strongly unitarian Trinitarian theology whose account of personal
differentiation is underdeveloped.” (LA, 238) The question is, why did the West
vindicate these two Sabellians?</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText2"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="background-color: white;">The '<span style="color: #990000;">Another article</span>' mentioned
(and linked to) by Andries was published under the title, <a href="https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/alexander-and-athanasius/">'Was Athanasius a Sabellian?'</a></span><i> </i><span style="background-color: white;">From that post we read:</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #990000; font-family: georgia;">There is no real difference between the
theology of Alexander and Athanasius and the main Sabellians of their time;
Eustathius and Marcellus. As ‘one hypostasis’ theologians, Alexander and
Athanasius were part of a minority in this church. And since both Sabellius’
theology and the term homoousios were already formally rejected as heretical by
the church during the preceding century, they followed an already discredited
theology.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #990000; font-family: georgia;">The Western Council of Serdica in 343,
where Athanasius played a dominant part, is devastating evidence. It explicitly
describes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one hypostasis and Athanasius
approved and supported this creed. People struggle with this conclusion is that
it shows that Athanasius, who is regarded as the hero of the Arian Controversy,
was a Sabellian; not a Trinitarian.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="background-color: white;">Before moving on to my second recent
encounter with the notion that Athanasius was a Sabellian, I would like to
mention I have been following Andries blog for over two years now. It began
shortly after Andries posted a few comments back in late November 2021 in an
old thread here at </span><i>AF</i><span style="background-color: white;"> [<a href="https://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/06/trinity-and-development-of-doctrine.html?showComment=1637996389603#c4097648934304622392 ">LINK</a>]. (Interestingly enough, earlier this week
during some online research I discovered that Andries had also published the
material from the two above mentioned threads at the </span><i>Christianity Stack
Exchange</i><span style="background-color: white;"> [<a href="https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/97842/was-athanasius-a-sabellian ">LINK</a>].)</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="background-color: white;">With this background information in
place, I suspect that folks reading this post will be as surprised as I was
that in a mere seven days after reading Andries’ posts on Athanasius and
Sabellianism, I began receiving emails from a knowlegable member of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who has embraced the proposition that Athanasius
was a modalist/Sabellian. (My <a href="https://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2023/12/homoousios-monoousios-and-tautoousios.html">December 10, 2023 <i>AF</i> post </a></span><span style="background-color: white;"> was inspired by
our email exchanges.)</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="background-color: white;">Prior to all this, I was involved in an
email exchange—beginning on August 30th—with an advocate of neo-modalism who
had questions concerning my </span><i>AF</i><span style="background-color: white;"> post, <b>James White's (mis)use of Melito
of Sardis as an early witness to the incarnation of God (the Son)</b> [December 5,
2011 - <a href="https://articulifidei.blogspot.com/search/label/Melito%20of%20Sardis">LINK</a>].</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="background-color: white;">There is one more connection that warrants mentioning: the LDS gent mentioned above is a friend with Errol Amey.
Errol has a keen interest in patristics, and has contributed a number of
informative comments in a few threads here at </span><i>AF</i><span style="background-color: white;">. And so, we have four
gents mentioned above, that have at least three interests in common—patristics,
theology, and challenging/respectful dialogue—who are in one way or another
linked to this current post.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="background-color: white;">It is now time to delve
into why I maintain Athanasius </span><b>was not a Sabellian/modalist</b><span style="background-color: white;">. One of
Andries’ arguments—which initially seems quite strong and compelling—is
that,"<span style="color: #990000;">Athanasius opposed the concept of 'three hypostases'</span>" and
taught the "<span style="color: #990000;">Father and Son are only one Hypostasis</span>".
(<a href="https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/alexander-and-athanasius/">LINK</a>)</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText2"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="background-color: white;">Though Athanasius wrote in
at least two extant documents that the Father and Son are 'one hypostasis'</span><b>,
he also acknowleged that they are </b><span style="background-color: white;">'</span><b>three hypostases</b><span style="background-color: white;">'. Note the
following:</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText2"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">And how do the impious men venture to speak folly, as
they ought not, being men and unable to find out how to describe even what is
on the earth? But why do I say 'what is on the earth?' Let them tell us their
own nature, if they can discover how to investigate their own nature? Rash they
are indeed, and self-willed, not trembling to form opinions of things which
angels desire to look into (i Pet. i. 12), who are so far above them, both in
nature and in rank. For what is nearer [God] than the Cherubim or the Seraphim?
And yet they, not even seeing Him, nor standing on their feet, nor even with
bare, but as it were with veiled faces, offer their praises, with untiring lips
doing nought else but glorify the divine and ineffable nature with the
Trisagion. And nowhere has any one of the divinely speaking prophets, men
specially selected for such vision, reported to us that in the first utterance
of the word Holy the voice is raised aloud, while in the second it is lower,
but in the third, quite low,—and that consequently the first utterance denotes
lordship, the second subordination, and the third marks a yet lower degree. But
away with the folly of these haters of God and senseless men. For the Triad </span>[</span><span style="font-family: times;">Τριὰς</span><span><span style="font-family: georgia;">]</span><span><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;">, praised, reverenced, and
adored, is one and indivisible and without degrees (</span><span style="font-family: times;">ἀσχηματιστός</span><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;">). It is united without confusion, just
as the Monad also is distinguished without separation. For the fact of those
venerable living creatures (Isa. vi. ; Rev. iv. 8) offering their praises three
times, saying 'Holy, Holy, Holy,' proves that the Three Subsistences</span></span><sup style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;"> </sup><span style="font-family: georgia;">[</span><span style="font-family: times;">τρεῖς
ὑποστάσεις</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">]</span><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;"> are perfect, just as in saying 'Lord,' they declare the One
Essence. They then that depreciate the Only-begotten Son of God blaspheme God,
defaming His perfection and accusing Him of imperfection, and render themselves
liable to the severest chastisement. For he that blasphemes any one of the
Subsistences </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">[</span><span style="font-family: times;">τῶν
ὑποστάσεων</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">]</span><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;"> shall have remission neither in this world nor in that which
is to come. But God is able to open the eyes of their heart to contemplate the
Sun of Righteousness, in order that coming to know Him whom they formerly set
at nought, they may with unswerving piety of mind together with us glorify Him,
because to Him belongs the kingdom, even to the Father Son and Holy Spirit, now
and for ever. Amen.</span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> [Athanasius, </span><i style="font-family: georgia;">In Illud ‘Omnia’, Mihi Tradita</i><span style="font-family: georgia;"> – On
Luke x. 22 (Matt. Xi. 27) - </span><i style="font-family: georgia;">NPNF </i><span style="font-family: georgia;">4.90]</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText2"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">And:</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText2"><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;">And prohibit even the reading or publication of the
paper, much talked of by some, as having been drawn up concerning the Faith at
the synod of Sardica. For the synod made no definition of the kind. For whereas
some demanded, on the ground that the Nicene synod was defective, the drafting
of a creed, and in their haste even attempted it, the holy synod assembled in
Sardica was indignant, and decreed that no statement of faith should be
drafted, but that they should be content with the Faith confessed by the
fathers at Nicaea, inasmuch as it lacked nothing but was full of piety, and that
it was undesirable for a second creed to be promulged, lest that drafted at
Nicaea should be deemed imperfect, and a pretext be given to those who were
often wishing to draft and define a creed. So that if a man propound the above
or any other paper, stop them, and persuade them rather to keep the peace. For
in such men we perceive no motive save only contentiousness. For as to those
whom some were blaming for speaking of three Subsistences </span><span><span style="font-family: georgia;">[</span><span style="font-family: times;">τρεῖς λέγοντας ὑποστάσεις</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">]</span></span><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;">, on the ground that the phrase
is unscriptural and therefore suspicious, we thought it right indeed to require
nothing beyond the confession of Nicaea, but on account of the contention we
made enquiry of them, whether they meant, like the Arian madmen, subsistences [</span><span style="font-family: times;">τριοουσίους</span><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;">] foreign and strange, and alien in essence </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">[</span><span style="font-family: times;">οὐσίας</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">]</span><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;"> from one another, and that each Subsistence </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">[</span><span style="font-family: times;">ὑπόστασιν</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">]</span><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;"> was divided apart by itself, as is the case with
creatures in general and in particular with those begotten of men, or like
different substances, such as gold, silver, or brass ;—or whether, like other
heretics, they meant three Beginnings and three Gods, by speaking of three
Subsistences </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">[</span><span style="font-family: times;">τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις λέγωσι</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">]</span><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;">.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;">They assured us in reply that they neither meant this nor
had ever held it. But upon our asking them 'what then do you mean by it, or why
do you use such expressions?' they replied. Because they believed in a Holy
Trinity </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">[</span><span style="font-family: times;">ἁγίαν Τριάδα</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">]</span><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;">, not a trinity </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">[</span><span style="font-family: times;">Τριάδα</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">]</span><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;"> in name
only, but existing and subsisting in truth, 'both a Father truly existing and
subsisting, and a Son truly substantial and subsisting, and a Holy Spirit
subsisting and really existing do we acknowledge,' and that neither had they
said there were three Gods or three beginnings, nor would they at all tolerate
such as said or held so, but that they acknowledged a Holy Trinity </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">[</span><span style="font-family: times;">ἁγίαν
μὲν Τριάδα</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">]</span><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;"> but One Godhead </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">[</span><span style="font-family: times;">μίαν δὲ θεότητα</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">]</span><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;">, and one
Beginning, and that the Son is coessential </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">[</span><span style="font-family: times;">ὁμοούσιον</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">]</span><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;"> with the
Father, as the fathers said; while the Holy Spirit is not a creature, nor
external, but proper to and inseparable from the Essence </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">[</span><span style="font-family: times;">τῆς
οὐσίας</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">]</span><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;"> of the Father and the Son.</span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> (</span></span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Athanasius, <i>Tomus ad Antiochenos</i> - Tome
to the People of Antioch, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Paragraph 5 - </span><i style="font-family: georgia;">NPNF </i><span style="font-family: georgia;">4.484)</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText2"><span><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;">Having accepted then these men's interpretation and
defence of their language, we made enquiry of those blamed by them for speaking
of One Subsistence, whether they use the expression in the sense of Sabellius,
to the negation of the Son and the Holy Spirit, or as though the Son were
non-substantial, or the Holy Spirit impersonal. But they in their turn assured
us that they neither meant this nor had ever held it, but 'we use the word Subsistence
thinking it the same thing to say Subsistence or Essence </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">[</span><span style="font-family: times;">ὑπόστασιν μὲν λέγομεν
ἡγούμενοι ταὐτὸν εἶναι εἰπεῖν ὑπόστασιν καὶ οὐσίαν</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">]</span><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;">;' 'But
we hold that there is One, because the Son is of the Essence of the Father </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">[</span><span style="font-family: times;">ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">]</span><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;">, and because of the
identity of nature </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">[</span><span style="font-family: times;">τὴν ταυτότητα τῆς φύσεως</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">]</span><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;">. For we believe that there is
one Godhead </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">[</span><span style="font-family: times;">μίαν
γὰρ θεότητα</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">]</span><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;">, and that it has one nature </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">[</span><span style="font-family: times;">φύσιν</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">]</span><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;">, and not that there is one nature of the
Father, from which that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit are distinct.' Well,
thereupon they who had been blamed for saying there were three Subsistences </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">[</span><span style="font-family: times;">τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">]</span><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;"> agreed
with the others, while those who had spoken of One Essence, also confessed the
doctrine of the former as interpreted by them. And by both sides Arius was
anathematised as an adversary of Christ, and Sabellius, and Paul of Samosata,
as impious men, and Valentinus and Basilides as aliens from the truth, and
Manichasus as an inventor of mischief. And all, by God's grace, and after the
above explanations, agree together that the faith confessed by the fathers at Nicaea
is better than the said phrases, and that for the future they would prefer to
be content to use its language.</span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> (</span></span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Athanasius, <i>Tomus ad Antiochenos</i> - Tome
to the People of Antioch, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Paragraph 6 - </span><i style="font-family: georgia;">NPNF </i><span style="font-family: georgia;">4.484, 485)</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText2"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Clearly, Athanasius used
the term 'hypostasis/hypostases' in two, distinct senses. In one sense, he
equated 'hypostasis' with 'ousia' and 'theotēs', and in a second sense, with
the personal distinctions of the three members of the Trinity. He also made
it quite clear that he separated himself from those folk who embraced a
Sabellian sense of the term. With these facts in place, I must conclude that
Athanasius did not embrace Sabellianism.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText2"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText2"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Grace and peace,</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText2"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">David</span></span></p>David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-4702105799391288152023-12-10T16:35:00.000-08:002024-01-12T16:38:03.925-08:00Homoousios, Monoousios and Tautoousios<p><span style="font-family: Georgia;">This last week, I have been dialoguing with a gent via
email on the topic concerning the development of the doctrine of the Trinity.
Folk familiar with this blog are aware that I prefer to speak of differing
Trinitarian concepts, rather than ‘the doctrine of the Trinity’—but I digress…</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Our dialogue has touched on the terms </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">homoousios</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">
and </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">hypostasis </i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">as used in the original Nicene Creed (325), as well as
the subsequent period of doctrinal development up to the Council of
Constantinople. Two previous threads published here at </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">AF</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, have been
referenced during the discussion—<a href="https://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/02/original-nicene-creed-and-semantic.html">The original Nicene Creed and semantic confusion</a></span><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> and <a href="https://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2019/05/monoousios-vs-homoousios.html">Monoousios vs. Homoousios</a></span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">—which should
be useful for folk interested in our topic at hand.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Our ongoing dialogue has precipitated some renewed
research on my part into the issues being raised, and this last Friday
(12-08-23) I discovered an informative essay by Prof. John S. Romanides—<a href="https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2020/12/the-christological-teaching-of-st-john.html">The Christological Teaching of St. John of Damascus</a></span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">—that is germane to
the discussion. The following from the essay caught my eye:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Differing terminology pointing to one single concrete
revelatory reality was seen clearly by St. Athanasius in regard to those who
rejected the </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">homoousios</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> but accepted that the Logos is of an </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">ousia</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">
similar in everything to that of the Father and from the <i>ousia</i> of the Father.
St. Athanasius claims that this is exactly what he himself means by </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">homoousios</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">The “<span style="color: #990000;">those</span>" being refernced by Fr. Romanides are
those bishops who preferred the term </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">homoiousios, </i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">when speaking of the
relationship between the Son of God and God the Father. Concerning these folk,
Athanasius wrote:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">...<span style="color: #990000;">those, however, who accept everything else that was
defined at Nicaea, and doubt only about the Coessential, must not be treated as
enemies ; nor do we here attack them as Ariomaniacs, nor as opponents of the
Fathers, but we discuss the matter with them as brothers with brothers, who
mean what we mean, and dispute only about the word. For, confessing that the
Son is from the essence of the Father, and not from other subsistence, and that
He is not a creature nor work, but His genuine and natural offspring, and that
He is eternally with the Father as being His Word and Wisdom, they are not far
from accepting even the phrase, 'Coessential.'</span> [On the Councils of Ariminum and
Seleucia (</span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">de Synodis</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">) - NPNF series 2, 4.472.]</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">In his essay, Fr. Romanides points out that differing
terminology in certain contexts meant the same thing—i.e. </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">homoousios </i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">and
</span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">homoiousios</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">—whilst the same term could mean something different. The term </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">homoousios
</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">was a prime example; some folk understood the term in a strict numerical
sense (one essence), whilst others in a generic sense (same essence)—see the <a href="https://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2019/05/monoousios-vs-homoousios.html">Monoousios vs. Homoousios</a></span><b style="font-family: Georgia;"> </b><span style="font-family: Georgia;">thread. Concerning this issue, Fr. Romanides mentions a
term—</span><i style="font-family: Georgia;"> tautoousios</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> —that I did not recall reading about in my previous
studies; note the following:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">...<span style="color: #990000;">the Orthodox themselves were split over the use of the
term "</span></span><span style="color: #990000;"><i style="font-family: Georgia;">homoousios</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">" because many were afraid that it denoted a
Sabellian confusion of the </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">Hypostases</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> and could be taken to mean "</span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">tautoousios</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">."
This was finally precluded by the general acceptance of the Cappadocian
distinction between </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">Hypostases</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> and </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">ousia</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, which Augustine and the
Franks who followed him never understood.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Immediately after coming across the term, I pulled Lampe’s
exhaustive tome, </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">A Patristic Greek Lexicon, </i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">off of the shelf and read:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">*</span><b style="font-family: Georgia;"><i>tautoousios</i></b><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> (*</span><b style="font-family: Georgia;"><i>tautousios</i></b><span style="font-family: Georgia;">), of
the same substance, identical in essence; Trin. ; 1. dist. from </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">homoousios</i></span><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">
and rejected by orthodox...Epiph.Aaer.65.8 (p.11, 10; M.42.25A);</span> [p.1377]</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">The following is Frank Williams' English translation of
the <span style="color: #2b00fe;">Epiph.Aaer.65.8</span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> </span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">reference listed by
Lampe:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;">8,1 And so there are
not two Gods, because there are not two Fathers. And the subsistence of the
Word is not eliminated, since there is not one [mere] combination of the Son’s
Godhead with the Father. For the Son is not of an essence different</span> [</span><span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype";">ἑτεροούσιος</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">] <span style="color: #990000;">from the Father, but of the same essence</span>
[</span><span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype";">ὁμοούσιος</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">] <span style="color: #990000;">as the
Father. He cannot be of an essence different </span><span>[</span></span><span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype";"><span>ἑτεροούσιος</span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span>]</span><span style="color: #990000;"> from his Begetter’s or of the identical
essence</span> [</span><span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype";">ταυτοούσιος</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">];
<span style="color: #990000;">he is </span><i><span style="color: #990000;">of the same essence</span> </i>[</span><span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype";">ὁμοούσιος</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">] <span style="color: #990000;">as the Father.</span> (Frank Williams, <i>The
Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, </i>1994, p. 217)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Epiphanius is making clear distinctions
between those who teach that the Son is of a ‘different essence’ </span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">[</span><span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype";">ἑτεροούσιος</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">] </span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">than
the Father (i.e. Arians) and those who believe he is of an ‘identical essence’ </span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">[</span><span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype";">ταυτοούσιος</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">]</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">
(i.e. Sabellians/modalists) with the Father, with the ‘orthodox’ who maintain
that he is of the ‘same essence’ </span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">[</span><span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype";">ὁμοούσιος</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">] </span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">as
the Father.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Athanasius makes a similar distinction
between <i>monoousios </i>and <i>homoousios, </i>referencing the Sabellians.
The following is from the <a href="https://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2019/05/monoousios-vs-homoousios.html">Monoousios vs. Homoousios</a></span><b><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> </span></b><span style="font-family: Georgia;">thread:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">>></span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">In the selections
provided above, our esteemed authors identify four prominent 4th century Church
Fathers who interpreted <i>homoousios </i>in the generic sense—<b>Eusebius of
Caesarea</b>, <b>Basil of Caesarea</b>, <b>Gregory of Nyssa</b>, and <b>Gregory
of Nazianzus</b>. I would now like to introduce a fifth Church Father from the
4th century who affirmed the generic understanding, and also explicitly
differentiated between <i>monoousios </i>and <i>homoousios</i>—<b>Athanasius</b>.
From his <i>Expositio Fidei</i> we read:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia;">For neither do we hold a Son-Father, as do the
Sabellians, calling Him of one but not of the same essence, and thus destroying
the existence of the Son. </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">(<i>Statement of Faith, </i>2.2 - <i>A
Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers - Second Series</i>, Vol.
4.84)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">The phrase, "</span><span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia;">calling Him of one but not of the same essence</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">", is a non-literal translation of the Greek, and a bit
misleading. The Greek reads as follows:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #333333; font-family: "Palatino Linotype";">λέγοντες μονοούσιον καὶ οὐχ ὁμοούσιον </span></b><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #333333; font-family: "Palatino Linotype";">(</span><i><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">legontes
monoousion kai ouch homoousion</span></i><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">)</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">My translation: saying [he is of] one essence and not [of the] same essence</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">[Full Greek text of 2.2—</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Palatino Linotype";">οὔτε γὰρ υἱοπάτορα
φρονοῦμεν ὡς οἱ Σαβέλλιοι λέγοντες μονοούσιον καὶ οὐχ ὁμοούσιον καὶ ἐν τούτῳ
ἀναιροῦντες τὸ εἶναι υἱόν</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">—Migne, <em>PG </em>25.204.]</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">Athanasius identifies the strict numeric understanding of the relationship
between the Father and the Son with the Sabellians, contrasting the term </span><i style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">monoousion </i><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">from
that of </span><i style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">homoousion </i><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">to drive home his point.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">This generic understanding found in Athanasius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Basil of
Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (and other Church
Fathers), is the dominant understanding of many Eastern Orthodox
theologians—theologians who adamantly maintain that it is the only consistent
understanding of the use of <i>homoousion </i>in the Nicene Creed and
Chalcedonian Definition.>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">Conclusion: in
many doctrinal discussions, it is important to realize that different terms can
sometimes be used to mean the same thing, whilst the same term can carry a
different meaning for opposing sides when attempting to define their respective
positions.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">Grace and peace,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">David</span></p>David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-20191284670440739932023-10-15T15:05:00.035-07:002023-11-09T18:52:03.165-08:00Eusebius of Caesarea: his Doctrine of God, Christology, and Subordinationism<p><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Last week, I started rereading Eusebius' </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">Church
History</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> (volume one in the second series of </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">The Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, edited by Schaff and Wace). It had been a number of years ago
since I began reading this book from the beginning, and this reading is different than any previous one. In addition to Arthur Cushman McGiffert’s </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">NPNF
</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">English translation, I am also using Kirsopp Lake's parallel Greek-English
edition from the Loeb Classical Library—Volume 153, </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">Eusebius Ecclesiastical
History I </i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">(1926).</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">This new endeavor has become quite
informative and revealing. I did not get very far—the third chapter of book
one—before realizing that during my past readings of Eusebius' </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">Church
History</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> I had failed to grasp the import of certain passages concerning the
relationship between God the Father and His only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ
that are contained in the second and third chapters of book one. By comparing
the English translations of these passages with the Greek, I began to discern
that my previous understanding of Eusebius’ doctrine of God and Christology was not as fully formed as I had thought.</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span>The English translation(s) passages
concerning the doctrine of God and Christology contained in chapters two and
three of <i>Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, </i>brought back to mind the
germane passages I had read in two of Eusebius’ extensive apologetic works: </span><i><span style="background: white;">Preparation for the Gospel </span></i><span style="background: white;">and </span><i><span>The Proof of the Gospel</span></i><span>. I
pulled both books off of the shelf and started comparing the relevant passages
found in all three works with the Greek.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">A number of very important themes have
made an impression on me whilst engaged in these current readings: first, the
unique titles Eusebius reserved exclusively for God the Father—e.g. “</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">the
one/only true God</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">”, “</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">the Supreme God</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">”, “</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">the Almighty God</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">”, “</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">the Most
High</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">”, “</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">the God of the Universe</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">”, “</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">the First</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">”, “</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">the
Unbegotten</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">”. Second, the emphasis on the
causality of the Son of God from God the Father as a distinct, separate person.
Third, the repeated related references to the Son of God as being, in a very
real sense, “second” to God the Father—e.g. “</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">second God</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">”, “</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">second Lord</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">”,
“second light”, “the Second”, “secondary”. Fourth, two terms used to
describe the causality of the Son from the Father—begotten and created (and
their cognates)—are synonyms for Eusebius. Fifth, <span style="color: #2b00fe;">the concept that the Father
“precedes” the Son</span>.</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;">[The following English excerpts are
from Eusebius’ <i>Church History </i>(<i>CH</i>) [<a href="https://archive.org/details/selectlibraryofn01scha">PDF</a>], trans. Arthur Cushman
McGiffert’s; <i>The Proof of the Gospel </i>(<i>Proof</i>) [<a href="https://archive.org/details/proofofgospelbei01euseuoft/mode/2up">PDF</a>]<i>, </i>trans. W. J. Ferrer; <i><span style="background: white;">Preparation for the Gospel (Prep</span></i><span style="background: white;">) [<a href="https://archive.org/details/eusebius-preparation-for-the-gospel-full-work-gifford-1903-trans/mode/2up">PDF</a>]<i>, </i></span><span style="background: white;">trans. Edwin Hamilton Gifford</span>. [Supplemental Greek texts will be from J. P. Migne’s <i>Patrologiae
Cursus Completus, Series Graeca</i>, Volumes 20, 21, and 22.] Elements from the
five above listed themes will be <u>underlined</u> for easier recognition. <b>Bold
emphasis</b> has also been added to some quotes
that particularly stood out to me.]</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><b>QUOTES FROM EUSEBIUS</b></span><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">No language is sufficient to express
the origin and the worth, the being and the nature of Christ. Wherefore also
the divine Spirit says in the prophecies, "Who shall declare his
generation ?" <u>For none knoweth the Father except the Son, neither can
any one know the Son adequately except the Father alone who hath begotten him</u>.
For who beside the Father could clearly understand <u>the Light which was
before the world, the intellectual and essential Wisdom which existed before
the ages, the living Word which was in the beginning with the Father and which
was God, the first and only begotten of God which was before every creature and
creation visible and invisible</u>, the commander-in-chief of the rational and
immortal host of heaven, the messenger of the great counsel, <u>the executor of
the Father's unspoken will, the creator, with the Father, of all things, </u></span><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><b>the
second cause of the universe after the Father</b></span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, the true and only-begotten Son of God</span></u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">... (<i>CH, </i>P. 82)</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">"</span><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><b>The Lord created me</b> </span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">[</span></u>κύριος ἔκτισέν με<u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">]</span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> in the
beginning of his ways</span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, for his works; before the
world he established me, in the beginning, before he made the earth, before he
made the depths, before the mountains were settled, </span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">before
all hills he <b>begat me</b> </span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">[</span></u>γεννᾷ με<u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">]</span></u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">. When he prepared the heavens I
was present with him, and when he established the fountains of the region under
heaven I was with him, disposing. I was the one in whom he delighted; daily I
rejoiced before him at all times when he was rejoicing at having completed the
world." That <u>the divine Word, therefore, pre-existed</u>, and appeared
to some, if not to all, has thus been briefly shown by us. (<i>CH, </i>P. 84)</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Then, when the excess of wickedness had
overwhelmed nearly all the race, like a deep fit of drunkenness, beclouding and
darkening the minds of men, </span><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><b>the first-born and first-created wisdom of God</b>, the
pre-existent Word himself </span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">[</span></u><span style="font-family: times;">ἡ
πρωτόγονος καὶ πρωτόκτιστος τοῦ θεοῦ σοφία καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ προὼν λόγος</span><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">], induced by his exceeding love for man, appeared to his
servants, now in the form of angels</span></u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, and again
to one and another of those ancients who enjoyed the favor of God, <u>in his
own person as the saving power of God, not otherwise, however, than in the
shape of man, because it was impossible to appear in any other way</u>. (<i>CH,
</i>P. 84)</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Who would have believed common and
uneducated men who told them they must despise their fathers gods, condemn the
folly of all who lived in the ages past, and put their sole belief in them and
the commands of the Crucified—because </span><u style="font-family: Georgia;">He was the only-beloved and
only-begotten Son</u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> of </span><u style="font-family: Georgia;">the One Supreme God</u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">? (</span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">Proof</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, p. 159)</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">And as the Father is One, it follows
that there must be one Son and not many sons, and that there can be <u>only one
perfect God begotten of God</u>, and not several. For in multiplicity will
arise otherness and difference and the introduction of the worse. <u>And so it
must be that </u></span><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><b>the One God is the Father</b></span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> of one perfect and only-begotten Son</span></u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, and not of more Gods or sons. (<i>Proof</i>, p. 166)</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: Georgia;">But </span><u style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><b>the Father precedes the
Son</b></span></u><u style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, and </span></u><u style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><b>has
preceded Him in existence</b></span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, inasmuch as
</span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><b>He alone is unbegotten</b></span></u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">. <u>The
One, perfect in Himself and first in order as Father, and </u></span><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><b>the
cause of the Son's existence</b></span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, receives
nothing towards the completeness of His Godhead from the Son: the Other, as </span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><b>a Son
begotten of Him that caused His being</b></span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, came </span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><b>second
to Him</b></span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">. Whose Son He is</span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">,
<b>receiving from the Father both His Being, and the character of His Being</b></span></u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">. And, moreover, the ray does not shine forth from the
light by its deliberate choice, but because of something which is an inseparable
accident of its essence<u>: but the Son is the image of the Father by intention
and deliberate choice. For </u></span><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><b>God willed to beget a Son</b></span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, and </span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><b>established a second light</b></span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, in all things made like unto Himself</span></u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">. (<i>Proof</i>, pp. 166-167)</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Then surely the All-Good, the King of
kings, </span><u style="font-family: Georgia;">the Supreme, God Almighty</u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, that the men on earth might not be
like brute beasts without rulers and guardians, set over them the holy angels
to be their leaders and governors like herdsmen and shepherds, and set over
all, and made the head of all </span><u style="font-family: Georgia;">His Only-begotten and Firstborn Word</u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">. (</span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">Proof</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">,
175)</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">In these words surely he names first </span><u style="font-family: Georgia;">the
Most High God, the Supreme God of the Universe</u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, and then as Lord His Word,
<u><b>Whom we call Lord in the second degree</b> after </u></span><u style="font-family: Georgia;">the God of the Universe</u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">.
And their import is that all the nations and the sons of men, here called sons
of Adam, were distributed among the invisible guardians of the nations, that is
the angels, by the decision of </span><u style="font-family: Georgia;">the Most High God</u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, and His secret counsel
unknown to us. Whereas to One beyond comparison with them, the Head and King of
the Universe, I mean to </span><u style="font-family: Georgia;">Christ Himself, as being the Only-begotten Son</u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">,
was handed over that part of humanity denominated Jacob and Israel, that is to
say, the whole division which has vision and piety. (</span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">Proof</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, 176)</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">It is now time to see how the teaching
of the Hebrews shews that the true Christ of God possesses a divine nature
higher than humanity. Hear, therefore, David again, where he says that he knows
an Eternal Priest of God, and calls Him
his own Lord, and confesses that He shares <u>the throne of God Most High</u>
in the 109th Psalm [LXX], in which he says as </span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">follows—</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">"The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit
thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet. 2.
The Lord shall send the rod of power for thee out of Zion, I and thou shall
rule in the midst of thine, enemies. 3. With thee is dominion in the day of thy
power, in the brightness of thy saints. <u>I begat thee from my womb before the
Morning Star</u>, 4. The Lord </span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">sware and will not repent, Thou art a
priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek."</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">And note that David in this passage,
being king of the whole Hebrew race, and in addition to his kingdom adorned
with the Holy Spirit, recognized that the Being of Whom he speaks Who was
revealed to him in the spirit, was so great and surpassingly glorious, that he
called Him his own Lord. For he said "The Lord said to my Lord." Yea:
for he knows Him as eternal High Priest, and Priest of </span><u style="font-family: Georgia;">the Most High God</u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">,
and throned beside </span><u style="font-family: Georgia;">Almighty God</u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, and His Offspring. (</span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">Proof</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, 197)</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">"Thou, O God, hast loved
righteousness and hated injustice; therefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed
thee," and established Thee as Christ above all. The Hebrew shews it even
more clearly, which Aquila most accurately translating has rendered thus
"Thy throne, God, is for ever and still, a sceptre of righteousness is the
sceptre of thy Kingdom. Thou hast loved justice and hated impiety : wherefore
God, thy Ciod, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness apart from thy
fellows." Instead therefore of " God, thy God" the actual Hebrew
is, "O God, thy God." So that the whole verse runs : "Thou hast,
O God, loved justice and hated impiety": therefore in return, O God, <u>the
highest and greater God</u>, Who is also thy God"— so that <u>the Anointer,
being the Supreme God, is far above the Anointed, </u></span><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><b>He being
God in a different sense</b></span></u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">. (<i>Proof</i>, 202)</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">But yet as Holy Scripture first says
that He is the Firstborn of every creature, speaking in His Person, "</span><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><b>The Lord
created me</b> </span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">[</span></u>κύριος ἔκτισέν με<u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">]</span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> as the beginning of his ways</span></u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">," and then says that <u>He is the Begotten of the
Father in the words: "</u></span><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Before all the hills he <b>begets
me</b></span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> [</span></u>γεννᾷ με<u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">]</span></u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">"; here we, too, may
reasonably follow and confess that <u>He is before all ages the Creative Word
of God, One with the Father, Only-begotten Son of the God of the Universe</u>,
and Minister and Fellow-worker with the Father, in the calling into being and
constitution of the Universe. (<i>Proof</i>, 233)</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Whereas <u>the Word of God has Its own
essence and existence in Itself and is not identical with the Father in being
Unbegotten</u>, but <u>was begotten of the Father as His Only-begotten Son
before all ages</u>; while the fragrance being a kind of physical effluence of
that from which it comes, and not filling the air around it by itself apart
from its primary cause, is seen to be itself also a physical thing. We will
not, then, conceive thus about the theory of our Saviour's coming-into-being.
For neither was He brought into being from the Unbegotten Being by way of any
event, or by division, </span><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><b>nor was He eternally coexistent with the Father</b></span></span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, since the <b>One is Unbegotten and the other Begotten</b>, and
one is Father and the other Son. And </span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">all would agree that <span style="color: #2b00fe;"><b>a father
must exist before and precede his son</b></span></span></u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">. (<i>Proof</i>,
234)</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">The Lord upon thy right hand! <u>The
Psalmist here calls "Lord," our Lord and Saviour, the Word of God,
" firstborn of every creature," the Wisdom before the ages, the
Beginning of the Ways of God, the Firstborn and Only-begotten Offspring of the
Father</u>, Him Who is honoured with the Name of Christ, teaching that He both
shares the seat and is <u>the Son of the Almighty God and Universal Lord</u>,
and the Eternal High Priest of the Father. First, then, understand that here <u><b>this
</b></u></span><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><b>Second Being</b></span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, the
Offspring of God</span></u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, is addressed. And since
prophecy is believed by us to be spoken by the Spirit of God, see if it is not
the case that the Holy Spirit in the prophet names as <u>His own Lord </u></span><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><b>a Second
Being</b></span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> after the Lord of the Universe</span></u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, for he says, "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on
my right hand." <u>The Hebrews named the First Person Lord, as being
universally the Lord of all, by<b> </b></u></span><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><b>the unspeakable Name expressed
in the four letters</b></span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">. <b>They </b></span></u><b><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">did not
call the Second Person Lord in a like sense</span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, but only used the word as a special title</span></u></b><span style="font-family: Georgia;">. (<i>Proof</i>, 238)</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">According to this, then, <u><b>the true
and only God must be One</b>, and </u></span><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><b>alone owning the Name in full
right</b></span></u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">. While </span><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><b>the
Second</b></span></u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, by sharing in the being of <u>the
True God</u>, is thought worthy to share His Name,<b> </b></span><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><b>not
being God in Himself</b></span></u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><u>, </u><b style="text-decoration-line: underline;">nor existing apart from the Father
Who gives Him Divinity</b><u>, </u><b style="text-decoration-line: underline;">not called God apart from the Father</b><u>,</u> but altogether
being, living and existing as God</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, through the
presence of the Father in Him, and one in being with the Father, and <u><b>constituted
God from Him and through Him</b>, and holding </u></span><b><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">His being as well as His
Divinity not from Himself</span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> but from the
Father</span></u></b><span style="font-family: Georgia;">. (<i>Proof</i>, p. 245)</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">And yet though <u>the Word of God is
Himself proclaimed divine by the word "Lord,"</u> <u>He still calls
One Higher and Greater His Father and Lord</u>, using with beautiful reverence
the word Lord twice in speaking of Him, so as to differentiate His title. For
He says here, "The Lord, the Lord has sent me," as if </span><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><b>the
Almighty God were in a special sense first and true Lord</b></span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> both of His Only- begotten Word and of all begotten things
after Him</span></u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, in relation to which <u>the Lord of
God has received dominion and power from the Father, as His true and
Only-begotten Son</u>, and <u>therefore <b>Himself </b></u></span><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><b>holds
the title of Lord in a secondary sense</b></span></u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">. (<i>Proof</i>,
p. 251)</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Therefore <u>He that said before, I am
the Lord God of Abraham thy Father, and the God of Isaac, to whom godly Jacob
raises the pillar, was indeed God and Lord</u> : for we must believe that which
He Himself says. </span><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><b>Not of course the Almighty, but the Second to Him</b></span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, Who ministers for His Father among men</span></u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, and brings His Lord. Wherefore Jacob here calls Him an
Angel: "The Angel of God said to me, speaking in my sleep, 'I am the God
who was seen by thee in this place.'" So the same Being is clearly called
the Angel of the Lord, and God and Lord in this place. (<i>Proof</i>, pp.
254-255)</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">It was said to Moses, No one shall see
My face and live. But here Jacob saw God not indefinitely but face to face, And
being preserved, not only in body but in soul, he was thought worthy of the
name of Israel, which is a name borne by souls, if the name Israel is rightly
interpreted "Seeing God." </span><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Yet <b>he did not see the Almighty
God</b></span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">. For He is invisible, and unalterable,
and the Highest of all Being</span></u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> could not
possibly change into man. <u>But </u></span><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><b>he saw Another</b></span></u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, Whose name it was not yet the time to reveal to curious
Jacob. (<i>Proof</i>, p. 255)</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">I have already shewn Who it was that
appeared to the fathers, when I shewed that the angel of God was called God and
Lord</span></u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">. It will naturally be asked <u>how He
that is beyond the universe, </u></span><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Himself <b>the only Almighty God</b></span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, appeared to the fathers</span></u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">. And
the answer will be found if we realize the accuracy of Holy Scripture. For the
Septuagint rendering, "I was seen of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, being
their God." Aquila says, "And I was seen by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
as a sufficient God," <u>clearly shewing that </u></span><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><b>the
Almighty God Himself, Who is One, was not seen in His own Person</b></span></u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> ; and that He did not give answers to the fathers, as He
did to Moses by an angel, or a fire, or a bush, but "as a sufficient
God" so that <u>the Father was seen by the fathers through the Son</u>,
according to His saying in the Gospels, "He that hath seen me, hath seen
the Father." For the knowledge of the Father was revealed in Him and by
Him. <u>But in cases when He appeared to save men, He was seen in the human
form of the Son</u>... (<i>Proof</i>, p. 258)</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">And I have already shewn that <b>this was
not the Almighty God</b>, </span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">but <b>another Being</b></span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> Whom we name, as the Word of God, the Christ Who was seen</span></u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> for the sake of the multitude of Moses and the people in a
pillar of cloud, because it was not possible for them to see Him like their
fathers in human shape. (<i>Proof</i>, p. 259)</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Notice the way in which the Lord
Himself addressing the Father in these words as "long-suffering and of
tender mercy," calls Him also "true," agreeing with the words:
"That they may know thee <u>the only true God</u>," spoken in the
Gospels by the same Being, our Saviour. Yea, with exceeding reverence </span><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><b>He calls
the Father the only true God</b></span></u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, given meet
honour to the Unbegotten Nature, of which Holy Scripture teaches us <u>He is
Himself the Image and the Offspring</u>. (<i>Proof</i>, p. 261)</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><b>The lord prays to another Lord</b></span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, clearly <b>His Father and the God of the Universe</b></span></u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, and says in the opening of His prayer, "O Lord, thou
art my strength," and that which follows. (<i>Proof</i>, p. 270)</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">But now that we have, by thirty
prophetic quotations in all, <u>learned that our Lord and Saviour the Word of
God, </u></span><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><b>a Second God</b></span></u><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> [</span></u><span style="font-family: times;">δεύτερον
θεὸν</span><u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">]after the Most High and Supreme</span></u><span style="font-family: Georgia;">... (<i>Proof</i>, p. 271)</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><b><u><span style="background: white; font-family: Georgia;">Next to the Being of the God of the
universe</span></u></b><u><span style="background: white; font-family: Georgia;">, which is without beginning and
uncreate, incapable of mixture and beyond all conception, they introduce <b>a
second Being and divine power</b>, which subsisted as the first beginning of
all originated things and was originated from the first cause, calling it Word,
and 'Wisdom, and Power of God</span></u><span style="background: white; font-family: Georgia;">.'</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="background: white;">And the first to teach us this is Job, saying:
'But whence was wisdom found? And what is the place of understanding? Man
knoweth not the way thereof, nor yet was it found among men, ... but we have
heard the fame thereof. The Lord established the way thereof, and He knoweth
the place thereof.'</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia;">And David also somewhere in the Psalms,
addressing Wisdom by another name, says: 'By the word of the LORD were the
heavens established': for in this manner he celebrated the Word of God the
Organizer of all things. Moreover, his son Solomon also speaks as follows in
the person of Wisdom herself, saying: 'I Wisdom made counsel my dwelling, and
knowledge and understanding I called unto me. By me kings reign, and rulers
decree justice.' And again:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">'<b>The LORD created me as the beginning of His ways unto His
works</b></span><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> </span><span class="greek2"><span lang="EN" style="font-family: Georgia;">[</span></span><span class="greek2"><span lang="EN" style="font-family: times;">Κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ</span></span><span class="greek2"><span lang="EN" style="font-family: Georgia;">]</span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, from everlasting He founded me, in the beginning or ever
He made the earth, and before the depths were made, . . . before the mountains
were settled, and before all hills </span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">He <b>begat me</b></span><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> [</span><span class="greek2"><span lang="EN">γεννᾷ με</span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">]; . .
. when He was preparing the heaven I was beside Him; . . . and as He was making
safe the fountains beneath the heaven, . . . I was with Him arranging. I it was
in whom He daily delighted, and I was rejoicing before Him in every season when
He was rejoicing in having completed the habitable world.' (<i>Prep, </i>pp.
320, 321.)</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia;">IN regard then to </span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia;"><u>the
First Cause</u></b><u style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia;"> of all things</u><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia;"> let this be our admitted form of
agreement. But now consider what is said concerning </span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia;"><u>the Second Cause</u></b><u style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia;">,
whom the Hebrew oracles teach to be the Word of God, and God of God</u><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia;">, even
as we Christians also have ourselves been taught to speak of the Deity.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">First then Moses expressly speaks of two divine Lords in the passage where he
says, 'Then the LORD rained from the LORD fire and brimstone upon the city of
the ungodly ': where he applied to both the like combination of Hebrew letters
in the usual way; and this combination is the mention of God expressed in the
four letters, which is with them unutterable.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">In accordance with him David also, another Prophet as well as king of the
Hebrews, says, <u>'The LORD said unto my Lord, sit Thou on My right
hand,' indicating <b>the Most High God by the first LORD</b>, and <b>the
second to Him by the second title</b></u>. For to what other is it right to
suppose that the right hand of <u>the Unbegotten God</u> is conceded, than to
Him alone of whom we are speaking?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">This is He whom the same prophet in other places more clearly distinguishes as
the Word of the Father, supposing Him whose deity we are considering to be the
Creator of the universe, in the passage where he says, 'By the Word of the LORD
were the heavens made firm.'</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">He introduces the same Person also as a Saviour of those who need His care,
saying, 'He sent His Word and healed them.'</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">And Solomon, David's son and successor, presenting the same thought by a
different name, instead of the 'Word' called Him Wisdom, making the following
statement as in her person:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">'I Wisdom made prudence my dwelling, and called to my aid knowledge and
understanding.' Then afterwards he adds, <u>'<b>The LORD formed</b></u><b>
</b>[i.e. created] <u>me as the beginning of His ways with a view to His works</u> </span><span class="greek2"><span lang="EN" style="font-family: Georgia;">[</span></span><span class="greek2"><span lang="EN" style="font-family: times;">Κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ</span></span><span class="greek2"><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype";">]</span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">: from
everlasting He established me, in the beginning before He made the earth, . . .
<u>before the mountains were settled, and before all hills <b>He begat me</b></u> [</span><span class="greek2"><span lang="EN">γεννᾷ με</span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">]…When He was preparing the
heaven, I was beside Him."(<i>Prep, </i>pp. 531, 532.)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent;"><b><span style="font-family: georgia;">END OF EUSEBIUS QUOTES</span></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">Before
ending, I would like to provide one more excerpt from Eusebius, which is
actually a quote from </span><b style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">Clement of Alexandria</b><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;"> who Eusebius quotes:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Georgia;">Now they were misled by what is said in
Wisdom: "Yea, she pervadeth and penetrateth all things by virtue of her
purity": </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Georgia;">since they did not understand that this is said of that
<b>wisdom which was the first-created of God</b></span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;">.</span> (</span><i style="background-color: transparent;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-family: Georgia;">Preparation for the Gospel, </span></i><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-family: Georgia;">trans. Gifford, 1903, pp. 722-23 – bold
emphasis mine</span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Georgia;">)</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">The following is William Wilson’s
English translation from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2, edited by Alexander
Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe:</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">They were misled by what is said in the
book of Wisdom : "He pervades and passes through all by reason of His
purity;" </span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">since they did not understand that this was said of
<b>Wisdom, which was the first of the creation of God</b></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;">.</span> (<i>The Stromata</i>, 5.14; ANF 2.465 </span><span style="background: white; font-family: Georgia;">– bold emphasis mine</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">)</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">The phrase “<span style="color: #990000;">the first-created of God</span>”
(Gifford)/ “<span style="color: #990000;">the creation of God</span>” (Wilson) is their respective translations of
the following Greek: </span>τῆς πρωτοκτίστου τῷ θεῷ.</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Interestingly enough, just a few pages earlier, Wilson translates <i>prōtoktistos
</i>(</span>πρωτοκτίστος<span style="font-family: Georgia;">) as “<span style="color: #990000;">First-born</span>”:</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;">The golden lamp conveys another enigma
as a symbol of Christ, not in respect of form alone, but in his casting light,
"at sundry times and divers manners," on those who believe on Him and
hope, and who see by means of the ministry of </span><u><span style="color: #990000;">the First-born</span> </u></span><u>[</u>τῶν
πρωτοκτίστων<u>]</u>. <span style="font-family: Georgia;">(<i>The Stromata</i>, ANF 2.452)</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">It seems that Wilson is cognizant of
the fact that the terms beget/begotten and create/creation (and their cognates)
in the pre-Nicene writers are in many instances used as synonyms.</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Shall end here for now, hoping to hear
what others have to say about Eusebius’ reflections on the doctrine of God and
Christology.</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Grace and peace,</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">David</span></p>David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-15718643959958285142023-09-06T19:12:00.049-07:002023-09-07T18:54:01.164-07:00The Tetragrammaton in the New Testament<p><span style="font-family: georgia;">Earlier today, I
discovered that Volume 6 of the </span><i style="font-family: georgia;">Anchor Bible Dictionary </i><span style="font-family: georgia;">(1992) is now
online for reading at the Internet Archive [<a href="https://archive.org/details/anchorbibledicti0006unse/mode/2up">LINK</a>].</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;">There is an entry
in this volume that I have wanted to read for a good number of years now—</span><b style="font-family: georgia;">Tetragrammation
in the New Testament</b><span style="font-family: georgia;"> by George Howard. I have encountered quotes from the
entry over the years in a number of articles, but until today, did not access
to the full entry. I have reproduced the entire entry below for those folk who
may have interest in this topic.</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;">====</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><b style="font-family: georgia;">TETRAGRAMMATON IN THE NEW TESTAMENT</b><span style="font-family: georgia;">. There
is some evidence that the Tetragrammaton, the Divine Name, Yahweh, appeared in
some or all of the OT quotations in the NT when the NT documents were first
penned. See also NAMES OF GOD IN THE OT; YAHWEH (DEITY). The evidence for this
is twofold.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>A. Jewish Scribal
Evidence</b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">The extant pre-Christian copies of the Greek OT that
include passages which in Hebrew incorporate the Divine Name also preserve the
Hebrew Divine Name in the Greek text. These copies are (1) P. Faud 266 (=Rahifs
848), 50 B.C.E., containing the Tetragrammaton in Aramaic letters; (2) a
fragmentary scroll of the Twelve Prophets in Greek from Wâd Khabra (=W.Khabra
XII </span><i style="font-family: georgia;">Kaige</i><span style="font-family: georgia;">), 50 B.C.E.–50 C.E., containing the Tetragrammaton in
Paleo-Hebrew letters; and (3) 4QLXXLevb (=Rahifs 802), 1st century B.C.E.,
containing the Tetragrammaton written in Greek letters in the form of </span><i style="font-family: georgia;">IAO</i><span style="font-family: georgia;">.
The well-known Jewish- Greek versions of the OT that emerged in the 2d century
C.E., i.e., those of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, continued the Jewish
practice of writing the Hebrew Tetragrammaton into the Greek text. The
evidence, therefore, suggests that the practice of writing the Hebrew Divine
Name into the text of the Greek OT continued throughout the NT period. From
this it may be concluded (1) that the NT writers had access to copies of the
Greek OT that contained the Hebrew Divine Name, and (2) that the NT writers who
quoted from the Greek OT had reason to preserve the Tetragrammaton in their
quotations.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>B. Christian
Scribal Evidence</b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">By the time of the earliest extant Christian copies of the
LXX (2d or early 3d century C.E.), a clear break with the Jewish practice
outlined above is to be observed. The Christian copies of the Greek OT employ
the words </span><i style="font-family: georgia;">Kyrios</i><span style="font-family: georgia;"> (“Lord”) and </span><i style="font-family: georgia;">Theos</i><span style="font-family: georgia;"> (“God”) as substitutes or
surrogates for the Hebrew Tetragrammaton. The evidence suggests that this had
become the practice of Christian scribes perhaps as early as the beginning of
the 2d century. Curiously, the surrogates for the Tetragrammaton have been
abbreviated by the writing of their first and last letters only and are marked
as abbreviations by a horizontal stroke above the word. Thus, for example, the
word for “Lord” is written <u>KS*</u></span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and for God <u>THS*</u></span><span style="font-family: georgia;">. These two so-called </span><i style="font-family: georgia;">nomina
sacra</i><span style="font-family: georgia;">, later to be joined by thirteen other sacred words, appear also in
the earliest copies of the NT, including its quotations from the Greek OT. The
practice, therefore, in very early times was consistently followed throughout
the Greek Bible.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">A conjecture is that the forms <u>KS</u></span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and <u>THS</u></span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">were first created by non-Jewish Christian
scribes who in their copying the LXX text found no traditional reason to
preserve the Tetragrammaton. In all probability it was problematic for gentile
scribes to write the Tetragrammaton since they did not know Hebrew. If this is
correct, the contracted surrogates KS</span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and THS</span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">were perhaps considered analogous to the
vowelless Hebrew Divine Name, and were certainly much easier to write.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Once the practice of writing the Tetragrammaton into
copies of the Greek OT was abandoned and replaced by the practice of writing <u>KS</u></span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and <u>THS</u></span><span style="font-family: georgia;">, a similar development
no doubt took place in regard to the quotations of the Greek OT found in the
NT. There too the Tetragrammaton was replaced by the surrogates <u>KS</u></span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and <u>THS</u></span><span style="font-family: georgia;">. In the passing of time,
the original significance of the surrogates was lost to the gentile Church.
Other contracted words which had no connection with the Tetragrammaton were
added to the list of </span><i style="font-family: georgia;">nomina sacra</i><span style="font-family: georgia;">, and eventually even <u>KS</u> and <u>THS</u> came
to be used in passages where the Tetragrammaton had never stood.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">It is possible that some confusion ensued from the
abandonment of the Tetragrammaton in the NT, although the significance of this
confusion can only be conjectured. In all probability it became difficult to
know whether <u>KS</u></span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">referred to the Lord God or the Lord Jesus Christ. That this issue
played a role in the later Trinitarian debates, however, is unknown.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><b>Bibliography</b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Barthélemy, D. 1953. Redécouverte d‘un chaînon manquant de
l‘histoire de la Septante. </span><i style="font-family: georgia;">RB</i><span style="font-family: georgia;"> 60: 18–29.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">———. 1963. <i>Les devanciers d’Aquila: Première
publication intégral du texte des fragments du Dodécaprophéton</i>. Leiden.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Dunand, F. 1966. <i>Papyrus grec bibliques</i> (<i>Papyrus
F. Inv</i>. 266) <i>Volumina de la Genèse et du Deutéronome</i>. Cairo.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Howard, G. 1971. The Oldest Greek Text of Deuteronomy. <i>HUCA</i>
42: 125–31.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">———. 1977. The Tetragram and the New Testament. <i>JBL</i>
96: 63–83.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">———. 1978. The Name of God in the New Testament. <i>BAR</i>
4: 12–14, 56.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">———. 1987. <i>The Gospel of Matthew according to a
Primitive Hebrew Text</i>. Macon, GA.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Paap, A. H. R. E. 1959. <i>Nomina Sacra in the Greek
Papyri of the First Five Centuries</i> A.D. Leiden.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Pietersma, A. 1984. <i>Kyrios</i> or Tetragram: A Renewed
Quest for the Original Septuagint. Pp. 85–101 in <i>De Septuaginta</i>, ed. A.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Pietersma and C. Cox. Toronto.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Skehan, P. W. 1957. The Qumran Manuscripts and Textual
Criticism. Pp. 148–60 in <i>Volume du Congrès</i>, <i>Strasbourg</i> <i>1956</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Leiden.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">———. 1980. The Divine Name at Qumran, in the Masada
Scroll, and in the Septuagint. <i>BIOSCS</i> 13: 14–44.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Traube, L. 1907. <i>Nomina Sacra: Vesuch einer Geschichte
der christlichen Kürzung</i>. Munich.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Waddell, W. G. 1944. The Tetragrammaton in the LXX. <i>JTS</i>
45: 158–61.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><span style="font-family: georgia;">GEORGE
HOWARD</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;">[<i>The Anchor Bible Dictionary</i>: Volume 6, Si - Z,
1992, pp. 392, 393.]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;">====</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span>George Howard’s
related, and more detailed <i>JBL </i>article, “The Tetragram and the New
Testament”, is also available online [<a href="http://www.areopage.net/howard.pdf">LINK</a>].<i>
</i><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span><br /></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span>Grace and peace,</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span>David</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span>*NOTE: In the original contribution, KS and THS (which replaced KURIOS and THEOS, had an overline instead of an underline).</span></p>David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-57064260241013455152023-08-15T13:07:00.058-07:002023-08-15T14:11:09.604-07:00Irenaeus, Bishop of Lugdunum (Lyon) – an enigmatic passage from his Proof of the Apostolic Preaching <p><span style="font-family: georgia;">Over this last
weekend, I spent a number of hours comparing the four English translations I
have of Irenaeus’ <i>Demonstration/Proof of the Apostolic Preaching. </i>One
particular passage made an impression on me, that no previous reading had done.
The following are the four English translations of that passage [the bold
emphasis concerns the portion of passage that caught my eye]:</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;">11. Now, by His
hand He created man taking the purest and finest particles from the earth,
mixing a determined portion of His power with the dust. Moreover <b>He gave His
image to the creature that even what is visible might have the divine form</b>,
because the created man was placed upon the earth as one having the divine
image and that he might be living, he breathed in his face the breath of life
that, both by this breathing and by this creation, man might be like God.</span>
(Bishop Karapet and S. G. Wilson, <i>Patrologia Orientalis, </i>vol. 12, 1907,
p. 667 - <a href="https://archive.org/details/patrologiaorien12pari/page/2/mode/2up">link to pdf</a>)</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;">11. But man He
formed with His own hands, taking from the earth that which was, purest and
finest, and mingling in measure His own power with the earth. <b>For He traced
His own form on the formation, that that which should be seen should be of
divine form</b> : for (as) the image of God was man formed and set on the
earth. And that he might become living, He breathed on his face the breath of
life ; that both for the breath and for the formation man should be like unto
God.</span> (J. Armitage Robinson, <i>St. Irenaeus -
The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching</i>, 1920, p. 80 - <a href="https://archive.org/details/stirenusdemons00irenuoft/page/n5/mode/2up">link to pdf</a>)</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;">11. But man He
fashioned with His own hands, taking of the purest and finest of earth, in
measured wise mingling with the earth His own power; for <b>He gave his frame
the outline of His own form, that the visible appearance too should be godlike</b>
— for it was as an image of God that man was fashioned and set on earth — and
that he might come to life, He <i>breathed into his face the breath of life</i>,
so that the man became like God in inspiration as well as in frame.</span> (Joseph P.
Smith, S.J., <i>St. Irenaeus - Proof of the Apostolic Preaching</i>, 1952, p.
54 - <a href="https://archive.org/details/stirenaeusproofo012024mbp">link to pdf</a>)</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;">11. But He
fashioned (πλάσσω) man with His own Hands, taking the purest,
the finest <and the most delicate> [elements] of the earth, mixing (συγκράννυμι) with the earth, in due measure, His own
power (δύναμις); and because <b>He <sketched upon>
the handiwork</b> (πλάσμα) <b>His
own form—in order that what would be seen should be godlike</b> (θεοειδής), for man was placed on the earth fashioned
<in> the image (εἰκών) of
God—and that he might be alive, "He breathed into His face a breath of
life": so that both according to the inspiration and according to the
formation, man was like (ὃμοιος) God.</span> (Fr. John Behr, <i>St. Irenaeus - On the Apostolic Preaching, </i>1997
pp. 46, 47 - <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=c69z7MKHaYMC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false">link to Google Books preview</a>)</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;">A question that
immediately came to mind is, what did Irenaeus mean by “<span style="color: #990000;">His</span> [God] <span style="color: #990000;">own form</span>”?</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;">An interesting
answer to my question has been provided by Joseph P. Smith in his note on the passage:</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;">"He
gave his frame the outline of His own form, that the visible appearance too
should be godlike": <i>stelcuacin ziwrsn paragreac jews, zi ew or
tesanic'inn Astuacajew ice, </i>more literally "for the
formation He outlined His own form, that also what would be seen should
be deiform"; there can be no doubt that Irenaeus is here teaching man's
bodily resemblance to God. </span>(pp. 148, 149)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Man’s
bodily resemblance to God? I would like to hear from folk who take the time to
read is post—is Smith correct, or are there better interpretations?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Grace
and peace,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">David</span></p>David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-13967228397631796012023-08-14T14:49:00.006-07:002023-08-14T14:54:46.577-07:00The Parliament of the World’s Religions (2023)<p><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Today is the first day of the five-day event known as </span><b style="font-family: Georgia;">The
Parliament of the World Religions </b><span style="font-family: Georgia;">[<a href="https://parliamentofreligions.org/parliament/2023-chicago/">link</a>]. The following is
from their ‘Our History’ page [<a href="https://parliamentofreligions.org/history/">link</a>]:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">The organization was founded on a mission to cultivate
harmony among the world’s religious and spiritual communities and to foster
their engagement with the world and its guiding institutions to address the
critical issues of our time. The Parliament was incorporated in 1988 to carry
out a tradition and legacy that dates back to the 1893 World’s Columbian
Exposition in Chicago, where the historic first convening of the World’s
Parliament of Religions created a global platform for engagement of religions
of the </span><em style="font-family: Georgia;"><b>east</b></em><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> and </span><strong style="font-family: Georgia;"><i>west</i></strong><span style="font-family: Georgia;">.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;">Since the historic 1893 World’s Parliament of Religions in
Chicago, modern Parliament Convenings have attracted participants from more
than 200 diverse religious, indigenous, and secular beliefs and more than 80
nations to its international gatherings in Chicago (1993), Cape Town (1999),
Barcelona (2004), Melbourne (2009), Salt Lake City (2015), Toronto (2018) and
virtually (2021). These Parliament Convenings are the world’s oldest, largest,
and most inclusive gatherings of the global interfaith movement. Nearly 60,000
people across the world have convened in an enduring commitment to justice,
peace, and sustainability through the lens of interfaith dialogue and
cooperation.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;">Global leaders such as His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, His
All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, UN Messenger of Peace Jane
Goodall, Nobel Peace Laureates Desmond Tutu and Shirin Ebadi, and President
Jimmy Carter have addressed the Parliament Convenings throughout their history</span>.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">I would now like to point out that two of the religious
traditions I have been studying and writing on for over three decades now had
representatives attending the first PWR event, and will also be participating
the one convening this week. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">The Catholic Church was represented by Cardinal Gibbons in
1893, and he opened the event [<a href="https://www.catholictextbookproject.com/post/cardinal-gibbons-opens-the-parliament-of-world-religions-september-11-1893">link</a>];
Cardinal Blase Joseph Cupich will be attending in 2023 [<a href="https://parliamentofreligions.org/speakers/cardinal-blase-cupich/">link</a>].</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sent B, H.
Roberts and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir in 1893 [<a href="https://ensignpeakfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Mormonism%E2%80%99s-Blacksmith-Orator-B.-H.-Roberts-at-the-1893-World%E2%80%99s-Parliament-of-Religions.pdf">link</a>]; in 2023, they are one of the
events sponsors</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> </span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">[<a href="https://parliamentofreligions.org/sponsors/the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints/">link</a>],
and one of the exhibitors [<a href="https://parliamentofreligions.org/parliament/2023-chicago/2023-exhibitors-and-sponsors/">link</a>].</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Interestingly enough, representatives of the Watchtower
Bible & Tract Society (i.e. Jehovah’s Witnesses) have never attended any of
the PWR events. I suspect that their stance reflects the position that members
of the church Jesus Christ and His apostles founded actually practiced.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Grace and peace,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">David</span></p>David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-21224189761950910202023-05-22T17:32:00.010-07:002023-05-23T11:32:49.451-07:00A 13th century (B.C.) Hebrew inscription on a lead tablet discovered at Mt. Ebal<p>On May 19<sup>th</sup>,
I received an email from the <i>Biblical Archaeology Society</i> that contained
a link to a <i>Bible History Daily</i> post with the title, <u>An Early
Israelite Curse Inscription from Mt. Ebal?</u> [<a href="https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/inscriptions/mt_ebal_inscription/?mqsc=E4152228&dk=ZE3250ZF0&utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=BHDA%20Daily%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=5_19_23_Sponsored_Early_Israelite_Curse">LINK TO POST</a>]</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">From the post we
read:</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">In early 2022, a
research team led by scholars from the <u>Associates for Biblical Research</u>
(ABR) announced the discovery of a lead tablet from Mt. Ebal that they claim
contains the oldest extant Hebrew inscription. Now, after more than a year, a
peer-reviewed article presenting one part of the inscription has been published
in the journal <u>Heritage Science</u></span> [<a href="https://heritagesciencejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40494-023-00920-9">LINK</a>].</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">According to the
team, the inscription, which they date to the Late Bronze Age II period (c.
1400–1200 BCE), is a legal text and curse that invokes the Israelite deity
Yahweh. The team believes the tablet is one of the most important inscriptions
ever found in Israel, predating the previously earliest known Hebrew
inscription by several hundred years, and one that could drastically alter our
reconstruction of ancient Israel’s earliest history…</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">As translated by
the team, the tablet reads:</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">You are cursed by
the god <i>yhw, </i>cursed.</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">You will die,
cursed—cursed, you will surely die.</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">Cursed you are by <i>yhw</i>—cursed.</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">The team claims
the inscription is written in an archaic script, similar in style to other early
alphabetic inscriptions known from the southern Levant, which they term
proto-Hebrew alphabetic. Furthermore, they suggest that the use of the name <i>Yhw</i>,
a shortened version of the divine name Yahweh (YHWH), is clear evidence that
the text is an early Hebrew inscription. If true, this would make the tablet
hundreds of years older than previously known early Hebrew inscriptions.</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">According to the
team, the Mt. Ebal tablet is a type of legal text, which threatens curses upon individuals who transgress a covenant. They connect it directly to the covenant
renewal ceremony on Mt. Ebal, described in Deuteronomy 27 and Joshua 8.
Moreover, the team claims the tablet is evidence that certain books of the
Hebrew Bible could have been written down hundreds of years earlier than most
biblical scholars previously thought. As stated by the ABR’s Director of
Excavations, Scott Stripling, during the initial press conference, “One can no
longer argue with a straight face that the biblical text was not written until
the Persian period or the Hellenistic period, as many higher critics have done,
when we clearly do have the ability to write the entire text [of the Bible] at
a much, much earlier date.” One of the project’s epigraphers, Gershon Galil of
the University of Haifa reiterated the point, saying, “The scribe that wrote
this ancient text, believe me, he could write every chapter in the Bible.”</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Skeptics and
liberal Biblical scholars who have embraced the theories of higher criticism
have wasted no time in attacking the paper, for the evidence and conclusions presented have raised some serious questions concerning a number of the theories promoted by higher critics of
the Bible.</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Now, the paper
itself was published in the <i>Heritage Science </i>journal on May 12, 2023
under the title, <u>“You are Cursed by the God YHW:” an early Hebrew
inscription from Mt. Ebal</u>. Six scholars contributed to this peer reviewed
paper of 26 pages. The post published by the <i>Biblical Archaeology Society </i>provides
an adequate summation of the paper, but the paper itself is a must read for all
folk who have an interest in Biblical studies.</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Once again, here
is <a href="https://heritagesciencejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40494-023-00920-9">THE LINK</a>.</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><br /></p><p class="MsoBodyText">Grace and peace,</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">David</p>David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-72964538985828661932023-02-23T17:51:00.010-08:002023-02-24T09:37:11.879-08:00The New Testament and textual criticism – “the shorter reading is preferred” (Part 2)<p>In my last post (<a href="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2023/02/the-new-testament-and-textual-criticism.html">link</a>), I delved into the “<span style="color: #990000;">venerable maxim lectio brevior lectio potior</span>” (the
shorter reading is the more probable reading); pointing out that, “many of the
assumptions/criteria used support the <i>lectio brevior potior</i> canon/rule
are problematic.” I then provided lengthy quotes from two scholars—Harry Sturz
and George Kilpatrick—who maintained that scribes more often than not shortened
the texts they were copying, rather than adding. In other words, it is the
longer reading that ‘is the more probable’, not the shorter.</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">In this post, I
will focus primarily on a New Testament textual critic who has spent decades
comparing the oldest extant NT manuscripts—James R. Royse, Ph.D. (1969)
in Philosophy, University of Chicago, Th.D. (1981) in Biblical Studies,
Graduate Theological Union. The following quotes
will be from his magnum opus, <i>Scribal Habits in Early Greek New
Testament Papyri </i>(Brill, 2007, pb. SBL, 2010 – entire book can be read
online <a href="https://archive.org/details/scribalhabitsine0000roys"><b>HERE</b></a>). This massive tome (1,051 pages), “<span style="color: #990000;">is based on a dissertation of the
same title submitted to the faculty of the Graduate Theological Union in 1981
for the degree of Th.D.</span>” (p. XIII). From the first chapter we read:</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">One of the crucial principles of Hort’s masterly survey of
the materials methodology, and results of New Testament textual
criticism is: “Knowledge of documents should precede final judgement upon
readings.” As Hort’s own comments make clear, knowledge of the sorts of errors
that a particular scribe tended to make, and of his overall
method and accuracy of copying, is an essential portion of this “knowledge of
documents.” Accordingly, one finds in Hort’s work and in the works of other
critics various assertions concerning the copying habits of scribes of
significant manuscripts.</span> (p.1)</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Concerning these “<span style="color: #990000;">various assertions</span>”, Royse then
writes:</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> … <span style="color: #990000;">as we shall see
in detail in chapters 4–9, numerous scholars have attempted to characterize the
habits of the scribes of the most important of the papyri. <b>Unfortunately,
however, the comments found in the works of Hort, von Soden, and others, appear
usually to be based upon data that are incomplete and that have not been
selected by means of a carefully formulated and implemented methodology</b>.
One consequence is that critics differ <i>ab initio </i>on the value to be
ascribed to the various manuscripts, and even where they agree it is not clear
what the evidence supporting the common position really is.</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;"><b>This lack of evidence is seen most clearly when one
moves to the next level of generalization, namely, from the habits of the
scribes of particular manuscripts to the determination of the habits of scribes
in general</b>. These general habits are presumably discovered, of course, on
the basis of a detailed knowledge of the specific habits attributed to the
scribes of some sample of the extant manuscripts. The general habits serve,
then, as the basis of our knowledge of transcriptional probability (and
improbability): what sorts of alterations scribes are likely (or unlikely) to
have made in the text. Finally, <b>this knowledge permits us to formulate the
several canons of internal evidence, which are found in various textbooks and
prolegomena, and which are an essential tool in the critic’s task of
reconstructing the history of the text of the New Testament</b>.</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;"><b>Regrettably,
though, most presentations of these canons are not—as far as one can tell from
the exposition—based on the actual knowledge of documents of which Hort speaks,
but rather appear to rest upon a priori reflections on how scribes behaved</b> (or <i>must </i>have behaved). And when
particular readings are cited—presumably as evidence—<b>the evaluation of one
reading as the original and another as arising by a scribal error is frequently
suspect from a methodological point of view, and so one is left wondering why
the direction of scribal error may not have been other than is stated</b>.</span> (pp.
3, 4 – bold emphasis mine)</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Royse’s observation that the canons presented by many
textual critics are not “<span style="color: #990000;">based on the actual knowledge</span>” of the documents
under consideration, but rather, “<span style="color: #990000;">rest
upon a priori reflections on how scribes behaved</span>” is telling. Further, when
many textual critics actually cite “<span style="color: #990000;">particular readings</span>” their “<span style="color: #990000;">evaluation
of one reading as the original and another as arising by a scribal error is
frequently suspect from a methodological point of view</span>.”</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Royse then adds:</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">It would, of course, be beyond the scope of the present
study to deal with all the secondary literature that makes assertions,
justified or not, concerning the habits of scribes. But <b>a few references may
indicate that the appropriate sort of evidence for such assertions is often
lacking</b>, and that various problems may arise as a consequence in the
evaluation of particular variants.</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">For instance, one of the most detailed and influential
statements of the canons of textual criticism has been that of Griesbach.<b> If we look at, say, his first canon,
that of <i>lectio brevior potior </i></b>(“the shorter reading is to be
preferred”), we will gain the impression that Griesbach had the wideranging
knowledge of documents necessary to delineate precisely when scribes were likely to add and when, as exceptions, they
were likely to omit.<b> </b>We
may, of course, be sure that Griesbach <i>did </i>have such knowledge, and may
well regard his distillation of this knowledge into various rules as having
sound authority. Nevertheless, <b>it is significant that no specific reading of
a manuscript is cited as a foundation for this first canon</b>. And in fact, no
specific reading of a manuscript is cited <i>anywhere </i>within Griesbach’s
Prolegomena, Sectio III, which is titled: “Conspectus potiorum observationum
criticarum et regularum, ad quas nostrum de discrepantibus lectionibus judicium
conformavimus.”</span>*<b style="color: #990000;"> </b><span style="color: #990000;">The fact
that Griesbach does not even attempt to present evidence for his statements
about how scribes copied makes it difficult (if not impossible) for later
students to know what exactly he would have considered as evidence, to check
the evidence upon which his statements rest, or to revise his statements in the
light of the new evidence provided by subsequent manuscript discoveries.</span> (pp.
4, 5 – bold emphasis mine)</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">[*<span style="color: #990000;"><i>Novum
Testamentum Graece </i>1:lxiii–lxxxii:
“Survey of the more important critical observations and rules, by which we have
formed our judgment about variant readings.”</span>]</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Royse moves from Griesbach to Metzger, writing the
following:</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;"><b>As a result of
the lack of clear evidence on scribal habits, many decisions about specific
textual problems appear arbitrary and subjective</b>. This judgment even applies to the <i>Textual
Commentary </i>published by Metzger as the explanation and justification of the
various decisions made in the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament.<b> </b>The fact that the editors have recorded their reasons for their
decisions on the most important variations permits us to follow their views
throughout the text, and to compare their arguments at one place with those at
another. Although it is clear that the editors do have a wide knowledge of
documents and have utilized this knowledge in a careful manner, <b>the
assertions made about scribal habits remain without explicit foundation</b>.</span>
(pp. 5, 6 – bold emphasis mine)</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Royse then drops
the following ‘bombshell’:</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">It is remarkable that critics and editors seem often not
even to appreciate that evidence is lacking in the matter of scribal habits.</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Royse proceeds to remedy what Griesbach, Tischendorf,
Hort, von Soden, Metzger and so many other textual critics have woefully
neglected. In pages 103-704 he provides “<span style="color: #990000;">explicit foundation</span>[s]” for his
assertions concerning the “<span style="color: #990000;">scribal habits</span>” of those folk who wrote six of the
oldest and most extensive manuscripts of the extant papyri: P45, P46, P47, P66,
P72, and P75.</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">I shall now move on to one of Royse’s major assessments: <b>the
scribal habits of the writers of P45, P46, P47, P66, P72, and P75 demonstrates
that more often than not it is the longer reading that is to be preferred,
rather than the shorter</b>. In chapter 10 (<span style="color: #990000;">Shorter Reading?</span>), he shares some
of his thoughts concerning the canon/rule <i>lectio brevior potior. </i>Note
the following:</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">One of the most
venerable canons of textual criticism is that the shorter reading is generally
to be preferred. This principle and some possible applications of it have
already been examined briefly in chapter 1, but the discovery that all six of
the papyri analyzed here omit more often than they add makes it important to
return to this principle, and to ask how earlier scholars could have formulated
a rule that so clearly—as it turns out—goes against the scribal activity
evidenced in our papyri.</span> (p. 705)</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">After citing
Griesbach’s first canon<sup>1</sup>, he then writes:</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">The principle of preferring the shorter reading has been
utilized most influentially within the field of New Testament textual criticism
by Westcott and Hor</span>t…(p. 705)</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">In pages 706-708 he provides clear examples of Westcott
and Hort’s almost slavish application of the “principle of preferring the
shorter reading.” He moves on to examples from Metzger and the Alands<sup>2</sup>,
after which he concludes:</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">The frequency with which scholars such as Hort and Metzger
appeal to the preference for the shorter reading is doubtless in part due to
the ease and objectivity of its application. Whether a particular reading fits
the style of the author, is grammatically smoother, follows Semitic idiom, or
is theologically more acceptable, is usually very much a matter of debate, and
reaching any decision on such issues would involve the weighing of a great deal
of evidence. But deciding whether one reading is shorter than another is, at
least usually,<b> </b>a perfectly
straightforward task. It is therefore convenient to reduce textual questions to
questions of length, and then to decide accordingly.</span> (p. 711)</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Though the canon/rule <i>lectio brevior potior </i>has
been, and still is, embraced by the vast majority of NT textual critics, Royse
in pages 714-717 provides excerpts from a few scholars who, prior to the
publication of his book, found significant problems with the maxim—e.g. Scrivener, Kilpatrick, A.C. Clark, Elliott,
and Colwell. He follows those selections with:</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">And, whatever may be the status of the specific theories
put forward by Clark (and others), the fact is that the six papyri studied here
all demonstrate a tendency to shorten the text. Often the omissions appear to
be accidental, just as many of the additions may have arisen by accidental
assimilation to the context, parallel passages, or similar constructions. Many
of the accidental omissions involve scribal leaps, but many have no such cause.<b> </b>Sometimes the omission may have
been deliberate.<b> But in any case
the direction is clearly from a longer text to a shorter text</b>.</span> (pp. 717,
718 – bold emphasis mine)</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">A bit later we read:</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">And, of course,
these scribes differ greatly among themselves with respect to other patterns of
error. Indeed, precisely because the six scribes differ in so many ways, are
copying different portions of the New Testament, and are utilizing texts of
different sorts, it would seem that their common habit of shortening the text
is a general habit, and not an anomalous feature of one or two particular
scribes. To be sure, one <i>could </i>contend that all six scribes are
anomalous, but, given their many differences, such a view would seem highly
implausible, and to be based on no evidence.<b> </b>Naturally, we might
eventually discover other early papyri that would force us to revise these
conclusions, but we have to work with the available evidence. And there seems
in fact to be no reason to suppose that we just happened to have found
manuscripts from the six scribes of antiquity who tended to shorten their text.
On the contrary, <b>it would seem that these six manuscripts should represent a
fair sample</b> (in so far as any sample of six could be fair) <b>of the
scribal activity involved in the copying of the New Testament in Egypt in the
years from, say, 175 to 300</b>.</span> (pp. 719, 720 – bold emphasis mine)</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Shall end here for now. Hope interested folk will take the
time to explore Royse’s book for themselves..</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><br /></p><p class="MsoBodyText">Grace and peace,</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">David</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><b>Notes:</b></p><p class="MsoBodyText">1. Full canon
provided in my previous post (<a href="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2023/02/the-new-testament-and-textual-criticism.html">link</a>).</p><p class="MsoBodyText">2. Same
examples provided in previous post</p>David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-20991623500920844052023-02-11T16:12:00.016-08:002023-06-27T13:33:02.817-07:00The New Testament and textual criticism – “the shorter reading is preferred” (Part 1)<p>What is the genuine Greek—what
the true Text of the New Testament? Which are the very words which were written by the Evangelists and Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ under the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost?</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">The two above
questions were posed by Edward Miller in his book, <i>A Guide to the Textual
Criticism of the New Testament </i>(1886, p.1 - <a href="https://archive.org/details/guidetotextualcr00mill">link to PDF</a>). The answer to
these questions is the ultimate goal of New Testament textual criticism.</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">As the number of extant Greek manuscripts increased, the
number of variants within those extant manuscripts also increased. Before the
16th<sup> </sup>century, all the GNT manuscripts were hand written, but in the
year 1514 the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament was produced
(volume V of the Complutensian Polygot, which was not published until 1520),
and in 1516 Desiderius Erasmus’ <i>Novum Instrumentum Omne</i> was printed and
published. Between 1519-1535, Erasmus created four more editions of the Greek
New Testament that were also printed and published. Erasmus’ five editions were
soon followed by four GNT editions printed by the Parisian Robert Estienne
(Latin: Stephanos)—1546, 1549, 1550 and 1551. The 1550 edition was the first
GNT to contain a critical apparatus of variant readings; readings that were
compiled from fourteen GNT manuscripts and the GNT of the Comlputensian
Polygot. The apparatus of Stephanos’ 1550 edition was principally the beginning
of textual criticism of the GNT as a distinct discipline.</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Following this somewhat humble beginning, the textual criticism of
the GNT as a distinct discipline has grown into a massive field of study that
includes the textual criticism of non-Greek New Testament translations
(especially Latin), and the quotations of the NT by the Church Fathers.
Interestingly enough, this field of study became dominated by liberal and
nominal ‘Christians’, with one of the top GNT textual critics of our day—Bart
Ehrman—becoming an agnostic, and repudiating any notion of the GNT as inspired
Scripture from God.</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">In the 17th century, various methods, rules, and theories
began to emerge within the field of GNT textual criticism in the attempt to
identify which of the tens of thousands of variant readings found within the
thousands of extant GNT manuscripts/texts are the purest representatives of the
original texts penned by the apostles and disciples of Jesus Christ—texts that
Christians have termed the New Testament.</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">One of the earliest theories to develop was the identification
of manuscripts into groups/text types based primarily—but not exclusively so—on
the geographical location where the manuscript was thought to be written.
Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687-1752) classified the extant manuscripts he
personally was cognizant of into two groups that he termed ‘Asiatic' and
‘African’. The ‘Asiatic' group contained those manuscripts thought to have been
written in Constantinople and the surrounding Greek speaking environs. The
‘African’ group being represented by the extant Latin translations and Greek
texts like the codex Alexandrinus. Johann Salmo Semler (1725-1791) further
developed the theory of groups/text types by classifying the extant manuscripts
into three recensions: the ‘Alexandrain', “Eastern/Byzantine' and 'Western'.</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">A student of Semler’s, Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745-1812),
retained the three group distinctions with greater refinements and additions to
each of the groups.</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">This identification of manuscripts into groups/types is
classified as one of the 'external evidences' of text-critical methodology.
Concerning the ‘evidences' utilized by textual critics, Dr. Epp wrote:</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">What had emerged
in little more than a decade from Mill to Bentley [textual critics of the early
18th century] was a twofold set of criteria, external and internal, that, while
partial and rudimentary, formed the foundation of text-critical methodology
ever after. These criteria were more clearly defined over time, but basically <i>external
evidence </i>assesses factors such as the age, quality, geographical
distribution, and groupings of manuscripts and other witnesses, while <i>internal
evidence </i>assesses what authors were most likely to write and what scribes
were likely to transcribe. During the eighteenth century and through the
nineteenth, virtually all notable editors stated a basic, general principle
that the text should be formed from the most ancient textual witnesses, and
(except for Lachmann) their editions also included a list of internal criteria.
Bengel (1725 and 1742) offered twenty-seven canons, Wettstein (1730 and
1751–52) listed eighteen, Griesbach (1796–1806) fifteen, Tischendorf (1869–72,
in the prolegomena by Caspar René Gregory)
five, Tregelles (1857–72) nine, and Westcott and Hort (1881–82) also
offered some nine, though not in a formal list.</span> (Eldon Jay Epp, “Traditional
'Canons' of New Testament Textual Criticism: Their Value, Validity, and
Viability-or Lack Thereof”, in <i>The Textual History of the Greek New
Testament: Changing Views in Contemporary Research, </i>2011, pp. 83, 84)</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">One of the
‘canons’—i.e. rules, principles—of the ‘internal evidences’ of textual
criticism found in the works of the majority of textual critics (one can add
Bruce Meztger, Kurt and Barbara Aland to the above list by Epp), is <i>lectio
brevior potior—</i><b>the shorter reading is preferred</b>. A detailed description of <i>lectio brevior potior </i>was provided by Johann
Jakob Griesbach. The following is Bruce Metzger’s English translation, with his
brief introduction:</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">Among the 15 canons of textual criticism that Griesbach
elaborated, the following (his first canon) may be given as a specimen:</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">The shorter reading (unless it lacks entirely the
authority of the ancient and weighty witnesses) is to be preferred to the more
verbose, for scribes were much more prone to add than to omit. They scarcely
ever deliberately omitted anything, but they added many things; certainly they
omitted some things by accident, but likewise not a few things have been added
to the text by scribes through errors of the eye, ear, memory, imagination, and
judgement. Particularly the shorter reading is to be preferred, even though
according to the authority of the witnesses it may appear to be inferior to the
other,—</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">a.<b> </b>if at the same time it is more difficult, more
obscure, ambiguous, elliptical, hebraizing, or solecistic;</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">b.<b> </b>if the same thing is expressed with different
phrases in various manuscripts;</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">c. if the order of words varies;</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">d.<b> </b>if at the beginning of pericopes;</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">e.<b> </b>if the longer reading savours of a gloss or interpretation,
or agrees with the wording of parallel passages, or seems to have come from
lectionaries. </span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">But on the other hand the longer reading is to be
preferred to the shorter (unless the latter appears in many good witnesses),—</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">a. if the occasion of the omission can be attributed to
homoeoteleuton;</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">b. if that which was omitted could have seemed to the
scribe to be obscure, harsh, superfluous, unusual, paradoxical, offensive to
pious ears, erroneous, or in opposition to parallel passages;</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">c. if that which is lacking could be lacking without
harming the sense or the structure of the sentence, as for example incidental,
brief propositions, and other matter the absence of which would be scarcely
noticed by the scribe when re-reading what he had written;</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">d. if the shorter reading is less in accord with the
character, style, or scope of the author;</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">e. if the shorter reading utterly lacks sense;</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">f. if it is probable that the shorter reading has crept in
from parallel passages or from lectionaries. </span>(Bruce Metzger, <i>The Text of the New Testament: Its
Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration</i>, 2nd<sup> </sup> ed.,
1968, p. 120.)</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Metzger himself was an advocate of <i>lectio brevior potior</i>; note the following:</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">In general, the shorter reading is to be preferred, except
where parablepsis arising from homoeoteleuton may have occurred or where the
scribe may have omitted material that he deemed to be superfluous, harsh, or
contrary to pious belief, liturgical
usage, or ascetical practice. (Compare Griesbach's fuller statement of this
criterion, p. 120 above.)</span> [<i>The Text
of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, </i>2nd ed., 1968, pp. 209, 210.]</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">And from the ‘Introduction’ of Metzger’s, <i>A Textual
Commentary on the Greek New Testament, </i>we read:</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">2. In general the shorter
reading is to be preferred, except where</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">(a) Parablepsis
arising from homoeoarcton or homoeoteleuton may have occurred (i.</span><span style="color: #990000;">e., where the eye
of the copyist may have inadvertently passed from one word to another having </span><span style="color: #990000;">a similar sequence
of letters); or where</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">(b) The scribe may
have omitted material that was deemed to be (i) superfluous, (ii) </span><span style="color: #990000;">harsh, or (iii)
contrary to pious belief, liturgical usage, or ascetical practice.</span> (1975,
corrected edition, p. xxvii)</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Metzger’s
colleagues, Kurt and Barbara Aland, also accepted <i>lectio brevior potior </i>as
one of their, “<i>TWELVE BASIC RULES FOR TEXTUAL CRITICISM</i>”:</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">11. The venerable
maxim lectio brevior lectio potior ("the shorter reading is the more
probable reading") is certainly right in many instances. But here again the
principle cannot be applied mechanically. It is not valid for witnesses whose
texts otherwise vary significantly from the characteristic patterns of the
textual tradition, with frequent omissions or expansions reflecting editorial
tendencies (e.g., D). Neither should the commonly accepted rule of thumb that
variants agreeing with parallel passages or with the Septuagint in Old
Testament quotations are secondary be applied in a purely mechanical way. A
blind consistency can be just as dangerous here as in Rule 10 (lectio
difficilior).</span> [Kurt and Barbara Aland, <i>The Text of the New Testament, </i>trans.
by Erroll F. Rhodes, second edition, 1989, p. 281]</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Though Griesbach,
Metzger and the Alands delineate criteria for exceptions to the <i>lectio
brevior potior</i> canon/rule,
in the vast majority of cases when a textual reading has shorter and longer
variants, the shorter reading is adopted the preferred one.</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Now, what you will
rarely hear from textual critics who have embraced the, “<span style="color: #990000;">venerable maxim lectio
brevior lectio potior (‘the shorter reading is the more
probable reading’)</span>”, is that many of the assumptions/criteria used support the <i>lectio
brevior potior</i> canon/rule are problematic. The rest of the post will focus
on one of those assumptions/criteria: <b>scribes were much more prone to
add than to omit</b>.</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">If my memory serves me correctly, the first time I saw a
challenge to the axiom that <b>scribes were much more prone to add than to omit
</b>was in Dr. Harry Sturz’s book, <i>The
Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism. </i>From Dr. Sturz’s book we read:</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">Kilpatrick,
in his evaluation of the text behind the TR, includes a discussion on
conflation, in which he examines variant readings eclectically, and finds that
in many instances the longer reading should be preferred as the original
reading. He concludes the discussion on homoeoteluton with the following
observations:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">This list is ...
sufficient to show both how prevalent this kind of mistake is and how
frequently the <i>Textus Receptus </i>and its allies preserve the original
reading. Westcott and Hort of course rejected their evidence and chose the
shorter text even when it clearly impaired the meaning as at Mark x. 7.</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">lt is worth
considering how this came about. One of the canons of textual critics in modern times has been <i>lectio brevior potior
. </i>... On the other hand if we substitute the maxim, 'the longer text, other
things being equal, is preferable', have we any reason for thinking that this
is more mistaken than the conventional <i>lectio brevior potior? </i>We are
used to this last but the fact that it is traditional is no argument for its
being true. Nonetheless, Westcott and Hort do not seem to have thought of
challenging it.</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">There are passages
where reasons can be given for preferring the longer text and there are others
where we can find reasons for preferring the shorter. There is a third category
where there does not seem to be any reason for deciding one way or the other.
How do we decide between longer and shorter texts in this third category? On
reflection we do not seem able to find any reason for thinking that the maxim <i>lectio
brevior potior </i>really holds good. We can only hope that a fuller
acquaintance with the problems concerned will enable us increasingly to discern
reasons in each instance why the longer or the shorter reading seems more
probable.</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">Cited from
Kilpatrick's essay: "The Greek New Testament Text of Today and the Textus
Receptus," Chap. VIII in <i>The New Testament in Historical and
Contemporary Perspective, Essays in Memory of G. H. Macgregor</i>, ed. by
Anderson and Barclay (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965), p. 196</span>. [Sturz, Harry A. <i>The Byzantine Text-Type
& New Testament Textual Criticism, </i>p. 89]</p><p class="MsoBodyText">After reading the
above quote provided by Sturz, I wanted to get a broader context, as well as
find out what was removed and replaced by the ellipses, so I ordered the
referenced book.</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Before getting to
the greater context of Kilpatrick's
essay (referenced above by Sturz), I will provide the full texts of those
sections that contain the ellipses.</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Sturz’s quote: <span style="color: #990000;">This list is ... sufficient to show both how
prevalent this kind of mistake is and how frequently the <i>Textus Receptus </i>and
its allies preserve the original reading.</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Full text: <span style="color: #2b00fe;">This
list is far from exhaustive but is sufficient to show both how prevalent this
kind of mistake is and how frequently the <i>Textus Receptus </i>and its allies
preserve the original reading.</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Sturz’s quote: <span style="color: #990000;">lt is worth considering how this came about.
One of the canons of textual critics in
modern times has been <i>lectio brevior potior . </i>... On the other hand if
we substitute the maxim, 'the longer text, other things being equal, is
preferable', have we any reason for thinking that this is more mistaken than
the conventional <i>lectio brevior potior?</i></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Full text: <span style="color: #2b00fe;">It is
worth considering how this came about. One of the canons of textual critics in
modern times has been <i>lectio brevior potior</i>. We may limit this to the
form, 'the shorter text, other things being equal, is preferable', in deference
to the investigations of A. C. Clark and others which have revealed how
widespread has been the prevalence of ὁυ and other causes of omission. On the other hand if we substitute the
maxim, 'the longer text, other things being equal, is preferable', have we any
reason for thinking that this is more mistaken than the conventional <i>lectio
brevior potior</i>?</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Now, the broader
context. The first paragraph of the essay presents two “<span style="color: #2b00fe;">basic contentions of
Westcott and Hort</span>” that Kilpatrick believes are seriously flawed. The following
is the full paragraph:</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">One of the basic
contentions of Westcott and Hort was that the Syrian text</span><sup>1</sup><span style="color: #2b00fe;">, the text
that appears with variations in A</span><sup>2</sup><span style="color: #2b00fe;">, the <i>Textus Receptus</i>, and
the vast majority of later witnesses, is a secondary text based on the older
Neutral and Western texts. A second
basic contention was that the Western text was in general inferior to the
Neutral text. The Neutral text alone preserved the Greek New Testament in
something like its original purity and so served as the foundation of Westcott
and Hort’s edition.</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">In the next
paragraph, Kilpatrick provides valuable information on the “second basis
contention" of Westcott and Hort:</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Hort’s views on
the Western text were soon challenged. Scholars like F. C. Burkitt and C. H.
Turner showed that, if readings were examined on their merits, the Western text
was often right and the Neutral or Egyptian text often wrong. Their contentions
have been widely accepted and an increasing number of readings in D</span><sup>3</sup>
<span style="color: #2b00fe;">and its allies are recognized as probably original.</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">The third
paragraph, sets the tone for the rest of the essay:</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">No such change has
taken place in opinion about Syrian text. Few attempts have been made to show
that any of its distinctive readings are original and Hort's account of its
origins and characteristics have not been challenged by the majority of textual
critics.</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Kilpatrick then
goes on to present substantive cases for three assessments: first, "<span style="color: #2b00fe;">the
great majority of [N. T. textual] variants came into being before A. D. 200</span>”; second, many of the Syrian/Byzantine text
distinct readings are much older than what most textual critics have accepted
as a truism (as per Westcott and Hort’s theory); and third, the <i>lectio brevior potior </i>canon/rule
has serious flaws (see above quotes).</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Kilpatrick’s first and second assessments are inextricably
linked. Note the following:</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Professor H. Vogels has suggested that, apart from errors
[unaware copying vs. deliberate], the the
great majority of [N. T. textual] variants came into being before A. D. 200.
This seems reasonable. Many readings can be shown to be in existence before
that date: few demonstrably came into being after it. On this hypothesis most
readings distinctive of the Syrian text will be older than A. D. 200 even if
the selection of these readings in that text appear later. Consequently we
cannot condemn these variants a a product of the depravity of the fourth
century.</span> (p.190)</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">He then adds:</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">One of Hort’s
complaints against the Syrian text was that it as characterized by conflate
readings. In principle the presence of conflate readings in the New Testament
need not surprise us. The evidence of the critical apparatus suggests that they
are to be found up and down the Greek text. There are, however, two questions
we must try to answer: (i) are conflate readings distinctive of the Syrian
text? And (ii) are all readings that look like conflate readings really
conflate?</span> (p. 190)</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Kilpatrick then
provides examples of 'conflation' within Westcott and Hort’s so-called
‘Neutral' text by comparing certain readings from ℵB<sup>4</sup> that are shorter
than the same readings found within the Western and/or Syrian texts.</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">He then concludes the following:</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">From these examples we can see that not all apparent
conflate readings are really conflate. Sometimes they present the original text
and, when they do so and are peculiar to the Syrian text, then the Syrian text
must have credit for preserving the correct reading. Likewise real conflations
occur in other witnesses apart from the Syrian text and it would be mistaken to
argue that conflate readings were characteristic of this text. Thus the
argument from conflation does not serve to condemn the Syrian text in the way
that Westcott and Hort had supposed.</span> (pp. 192, 193)</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">On pages 194-196, Kilpatrick examines “<span style="color: #2b00fe;">some Syrian
readings on their merits, seeing that we cannot dismiss the Syrian text as
obviously secondary on grounds of conflation or harmonization</span>” [when compared
to the so-called ‘Neutral’ text]. In this section he argues that the <i>Textus
Receptus </i>sometimes preserves Semitic expressions that are longer readings
than those found in ℵB,
suggesting that the ℵB
readings were purposeful changes made to the texts to conform to Classical
Greek, rather than Koine Greek used to retain the original Semitic expressions
found in the New Testament.</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">He follows his examples with the following bold
assessment:</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">These three instances of the superiority of A and the <i>Textus
Receptus </i>justify us in looking afresh at readings that are characteristic
of these witnesses and considering each on its merits. From the time of
Westcott and Hort to Syrian or Byzantine or as proper to the <i>Textus Receptus </i>to
condemn it outright. There have been exceptions to this practice such as those
of van Soden, Vogels, and Bover, but there have been few formal attempts at a
justification of them.</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">To contribute to any such justification it is necessary to
show in the main categories of variants the Syrian text is sometimes right.</span> (p.
195)</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Kilpatrick then provides eight such examples (pp. 195,
196), which is followed by the quote from Sturz—cited earlier in this post—that
started with, “<span style="color: #990000;">This list is ...
sufficient to show both how prevalent this kind of mistake is and how
frequently the <i>Textus Receptus </i>and its allies preserve the original
reading.</span>”</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Unfortunately, few
textual scholars have adjusted their sacred canons/rules—maintaining the status
quo as reflected in the quotes from Metzger and the Alands provided
above—retaining the <i>lectio brevior potior </i>axiom as a weapon in their
criticisms of the Syrian/Byzantine text type.</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">In my next post
(the Lord willing) I will delve into the substantive critique of the <i>lectio
brevior potior </i>canon/rule by one recent textual critic who has taken
Kilpatrick’s assessments seriously.</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Grace and peace,</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">David</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><b>Notes:</b></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">1. The ‘Syrian
text’ (also know as the Antiochian, Byzantine, Constantinopolitan,
Ecclesiastical, Majority, Traditional) is one of the four textual
families/types identified by Westcott and Hort; the other three were termed the
Alexandrian, Western, and Neutral.</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">2. A = Alexandrinus
codex (5th<sup> </sup>century)</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">3. D = Bezae
Cantabrigiensis codex (5th<sup> </sup>century)</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">4. ℵB = Sinaiticus codex and Vaticanus codex (both 4th
century; most textual critics now include ℵB in the Alexandrian text-type)</p>David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-39322681637151414662022-12-31T16:11:00.001-08:002022-12-31T16:11:46.301-08:00Textus Receptus - a comprehensive and extraordinary website<p><span style="font-family: georgia;">Earlier this week, I discovered a website concerning the
Textus Receptus that is nothing short of extraordinary:</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><a href="https://textusreceptusbibles.com/"><b>Textus Receptus Bibles</b></a><br /></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;">This site includes a history of the Textus Receptus and a
comprehensive Interlinear that displays at the same time six complete versions
of the Greek Byzantine/Majority text-type with fourteen English translations
based on the Greek Byzantine/Majority text-type, that is fully searchable.</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;">It also has the complete Masoretic text of 1524 (also
fully searchable), and an extensive library of books related to the Textus
Receptus.</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;">The site is easy to use, and the visual display of the web
pages is exceptional.</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;">I am sure that I will be spending many hours in the
upcoming days exploring this marvelous site, and I suspect it will be one of my
main resources for Bible study in the future.</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Sincerely hope that folk who read this post will take the
time to explore the site too.</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Grace and peace,</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;">David</span></p>David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-66168674220401464162022-12-24T10:18:00.002-08:002022-12-24T10:20:48.736-08:00Some insightful thoughts on the Word of God<p><span style="font-family: Georgia; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">The following quotation is from an address delivered
by Benedict XVI back on October 6, 2008 that I found to be quite insightful and
inspiring:</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;">At the beginning of our Synod the Liturgy of the Hours
presents a passage from Psalm 118 on the Word of God: a praise of his Word, an
expression of the joy of Israel in learning it and, in it, to recognize his
will and his Face. I would like to meditate on some verses of this Psalm with
you.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">It begins like this: </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">"In aeternum, Domine,
verbum tuum constitutum est in caelo... firmasti terram, et
permanet". </i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">This refers to the solidity of the Word. It is solid,
it is the true reality on which one must base one's life. Let us remember the
words of Jesus who continues the words of this Psalm: "Heaven and earth
will pass away, but my words will never pass away". Humanly speaking, the
word, my human word, is almost nothing in reality, a breath. As soon as it is
pronounced it disappears. It seems to be nothing. But already the human word
has incredible power. Words create history, words form thoughts, the thoughts
that create the word. It is the word that forms history, reality.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;">Furthermore, <b>the Word of God is the foundation of
everything, it is the true reality</b>. And to be realistic, we must rely upon this
reality. We must change our idea that matter, solid things, things we can
touch, are the more solid, the more certain reality. At the end of the Sermon
on the Mount the Lord speaks to us about the two possible foundations for
building the house of one's life: sand and rock. The one who builds on sand
builds only on visible and tangible things, on success, on career, on money.
Apparently these are the true realities. But all this one day will pass away.
We can see this now with the fall of large banks: this money disappears, it is
nothing. And thus all things, which seem to be the true realities we can count
on, are only realities of a secondary order. The one who builds his life on
these realities, on matter, on success, on appearances, builds upon sand. <b>Only
the Word of God is the foundation of all reality, it is as stable as the
heavens and more than the heavens, it is reality</b>. Therefore, we must change our
concept of realism. The realist is the one who recognizes the Word of God, in
this apparently weak reality, as the foundation of all things. Realist is the
one who builds his life on this foundation, which is permanent. Thus the first
verses of the Psalm invite us to discover what reality is and how to find the
foundation of our life, how to build life.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">The following verse says: </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">"Omnia serviunt
tibi"</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">. All things come from the Word, they are products of the Word.
"In the beginning was the Word". In the beginning the heavens spoke.
And thus reality was born of the Word, it is </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">"creatura Verbi"</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">.
All is created from the Word and all is called to serve the Word. This means
that all of creation, in the end, is conceived of to create the place of
encounter between God and his creature, a place where the history of love
between God and his creature can develop. </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">"Omnia serviunt
tibi"</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">. </span><b style="font-family: Georgia;">The history of salvation is not a small event, on a poor
planet, in the immensity of the universe. It is not a minimal thing which
happens by chance on a lost planet. It is the motive for everything, the motive
for creation. Everything is created so that this story can exist, the encounter
between God and his creature</b><span style="font-family: Georgia;">. In this sense, salvation history, the
Covenant, precedes creation. During the Hellenistic period, Judaism developed
the idea that the </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">Torah </i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">would have preceded the creation of
the material world. This material world seems to have been created solely to
make room for the </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">Torah, </i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">for this Word of God that creates the
answer and becomes the history of love. The mystery of Christ already is
mysteriously revealed here. This is what we are told in the Letter to the
Ephesians and to the Colossians: Christ is the </span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">protòtypos, </i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">the
first-born of creation, the idea for which the universe was conceived. He
welcomes all. We enter in the movement of the universe by uniting with Christ.
One can say that, while material creation is the condition for the history of
salvation, the history of the Covenant is the true cause of the cosmos. We
reach the roots of being by reaching the mystery of Christ, his living word
that is the aim of all creation.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Georgia; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="color: #990000;">"Omnia serviunt tibi"</span></span></i><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;">.<i> </i>In
serving the Lord we achieve the purpose of being, the purpose of our own
existence. Let us take a leap forward: <i>"Mandata tua
exquisivi". </i>We are always searching for the Word of God. It is
not merely present in us. Just reading it does not mean necessarily that we
have truly understood the Word of God. The danger is that we only see the human
words and do not find the true actor within, the Holy Spirit. We do not find
the Word in the words.</span> [Bold emphasis mine - entire address <a href="https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2008/october/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20081006_sinodo.html">HERE</a>]</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Grace and peace,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">David</span></p>David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04577758667034909467noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-75809855521252315392022-11-15T17:05:00.022-08:002022-11-17T11:55:25.673-08:00The apostles of the Bible: how many were martyred?<p>In the previous <i>AF
</i>thread [<a href="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2022/11/an-old-zlmb-thread-on-great-apostasy.html">link</a>],
I mentioned<span style="background: white; color: #333333;"> a thread that I started over at the <b>Mormon dialogue
& discussion board</b> to share some of my thoughts on Grant McHardy's
new book, <b><i>8 Myths of the Great Apostasy </i></b>[<a href="https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74925-notes-on-gregor-mchardy%E2%80%99s-8-myths-of-the-apostasy/">link</a>].
I first became aware of McHardy’s book via another thread at MDDB that was
started on October 25, 2022 [<a href="https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74900-new-book-about-the-apostasy-any-thoughts-or-comments/">link</a>].
I purchased the book online, received it 11-04-22, and read it the next day.</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;">After reading McHardy’s contribution, I ordered a few more
germane books, one of which I obtained today—Sean McDowell’s, <i>The Fate of
the Apostles - Examining the Martyrdom Accounts of the Closest Followers of
Jesus </i>[<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=nHDnCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false">Google Books</a></span><span style="background: white; color: #333333;">]. I ordered
this book due to one of the perceived “myths” that McHardy discusses in his
book—</span><span style="background: white;"><span style="color: #990000;">MYTH 1 – TWELVE APOSTLES WERE ALL MARTYRED</span></span><span style="background: white; color: #333333;"> (pp. 1-32). Note the following:</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #990000;">It is commonly thought among Christians of all denominations,
including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that, except for
John, all of Jesus’ original apostles were killed.</span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"> (Page 1)</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;">I seriously doubt that any Christian denomination portrays
Judas Iscariot as a martyr; he was not killed, but rather, committed suicide.
So, “</span><span style="background: white;"><span style="color: #990000;">of Jesus’ original apostles</span></span><span style="background: white; color: #333333;">”, most Christians believe that ten were </span>killed/martyred—a belief that McHardy has
classified as a “myth”. McHardy ends up discussing the fate of Jesus’ original
twelve apostles, plus the apostle Paul. Relying heavily on St. Hippolytus’
third century work, <i>On the Twelve Apostles</i><b>*</b><i> </i>[<a href="https://www.nasscal.com/e-clavis-christian-apocrypha/list-of-the-apostles-and-disciples-by-pseudo-hippolytus-of-thebes/">link</a>],
McHardy questions whether at least three of these original apostles—e.g.
Matthew, Simon the Zealot, Thaddeus—were martyred (I did not include John because I am not aware of anyone who believes he was martyred).</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Sean McDowell, in his book, counters McHardy’s
assessment/s with some extensive research into the extant historical narratives
pertaining to the martyrdoms of eleven of Jesus’ original twelve
apostles—rightly excluding Judas Iscariot—as well Matthias, Paul and James the
brother of Jesus. Note McDowell’s following summary of the apostolic martyrdoms:</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">In sum, there are
three apostles in the category of <i>the highest possible probability</i>, one
that is <i>very probably true</i>, one that is <i>more probable than not</i>,
one that is <i>more plausible than not</i>, seven that are <i>as plausible as
not</i>, and one that is <i>improbable</i>. Thus, of the 14 apostles, six are
at least <i>more plausible than not</i>, seven are <i>as plausible as not</i>,
and only one, John, is lower than <i>plausible</i>.</span> (Page 264) [The <i>improbable
</i>one being the apostle John.]</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">McDowell’s book is
a tour de force of scholarship at a high level. Interestingly enough, it is not mentioned at
all by McHardy; and, of course, is not included in the bibliography. I
sincerely wonder if <span style="color: #990000;">MTYH 1</span> would have been in his book if he had read
McDowell’s contribution.</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">In ending, I would
like to mention that McDowell’s book was heavily based on his 2014 doctoral
dissertation, “<b>A Historical Evaluation of the Evidence for the Death of the
Apostles as Martyrs for Their Faith</b>” [<a href="https://repository.sbts.edu/handle/10392/4857">LINK</a>]. In an upcoming post, I hope to
compare the dissertation with the book.</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><br /></p><p class="MsoBodyText">Grace and peace,</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">David</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><b>*</b>Note: There is some controversy concerning this
work as to whether it was actually written by Hippolytus or is pseudepigraphal. </p><p class="MsoBodyText"><br /></p>David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-24481331635396879472022-11-09T19:34:00.004-08:002022-11-15T13:41:54.870-08:00An old ZLMB thread on the Great Apostasy<p><span style="font-family: georgia;">I started a thread over at the <b>Mormon dialogue & discussion board</b> to share some of my thoughts on Grant McHardy's new book, <i><b>8 Myths of the Great Apostasy</b> </i>(<a href="https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74925-notes-on-gregor-mchardy%E2%80%99s-8-myths-of-the-apostasy/">LINK</a>).<i> </i>Comments in the thread brought up Barry Bickmore's book, <i>Restoring
the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity </i>(1999). [I wrote a review of the book that was published in <a href="https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol12/iss2/14/">FARMS Review of Books on the Book of Mormon</a> (2000).]</span></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia;">Also mentioned in the thread was Barry's participation at the ZLMB message board. I have a few ZLMB threads on my hard-drive and was able to locate the following threads wherein I included some thoughts from Barry. Talk about nostalgia...</span></p><b><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"></span></span></b><p><br /></p><p></p><div align="center"><br /><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" style="mso-cellspacing: .7pt; mso-padding-alt: 3.75pt 3.75pt 3.75pt 3.75pt; width: 95%px;">
<tbody><tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/bpacumenispages.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=davidwaltz">David
Waltz</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Registered User</span><br />
Posts: 1<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(9/19/00 5:21 pm)</span><br />
152.163.207.182<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.deleteTopicConfirm?topicID=2.topic">Del
All</a> <span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">The Great Apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">I would
like to begin my first post to this new message board by asking the
following, “Are non-Mormons who embrace Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior truly
Christians; are they members of Christ’s Church?”.<br />
<br />
Christian in the N.T. sense:<br />
<br />
1.) A member of the body of Christ. (1 Cor. 12:12, 13, 27; Eph. 1:23; Col.
1:18, 24)<br />
<br />
2.) One of Christ’s sheep. (John 10:26-27; John 21:16-17).<br />
<br />
3.) They are wheat and not tares. (Matt. 13:24-30, <b>38</b>)<br />
<br />
4.) Are children/sons of God. (<b> John 1:12</b>; Rom. 8:12-16; Gal. 3:26-29;
1 John 3:1, 2; <b>3:7-10</b>; 5:10-13).<br />
<br />
5.) They are “saved”. (John 10:9; Acts 2:37-41; 47b; Acts 16:30-31; Rom.
10:9-13; 1 Cor. 1:18 )<br />
<br />
6.) They are “in Christ”. (Rom. 8:1-2, 38-39; <b>Rom. 12:4-5</b>; Rom. 16:3,
7, 9; 1 Cor. 1:2; 1 Cor. 3:1; <b>1 Cor. 15: 18-19; 2 Cor. 5:17</b>; Gal.
1:22; 3:26-28; 5:6; Eph. 1:1; 2:1-8; Phil 1:1; <b>Phil. 3:3</b>; Col. 1:2; 1
Thess. 4:16)<br />
<br />
Before answering, keep in mind the following:<br />
<br />
<b>1 Nephi 14:10</b> And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches
only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church
of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God
belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she
is the whore of all the earth.<br />
<br />
<b>D&C 1:30</b> And also those to whom these commandments were given,
might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth
out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon
the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased,
speaking unto the church collectively and not individually–<br />
<br />
Grace and peace,<br />
<br />
David <span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/umarcschindler.showPublicProfile?language=EN">Marc
Schindler</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Registered User</span><br />
Posts: 8<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(9/19/00 6:13 pm)</span><br />
24.64.127.12<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=1">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=1">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=1">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Re: The Great Apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Good way
to start off a discussion. Deep question!<br />
<br />
Rather than leap in with a response, I'll let this develop a bit first.
Here's another potato to add to the stew, so to speak:<br />
<br />
(from The Church News, 01/01/00, quoting from Larry King's Christmas Eve
broadcast from Temple Square inter alia):<br />
<br />
Mr. King asked President Hinckley if "all religions, despite [their]
differences, can come<br />
together."<br />
<br />
President Hinckley responded: "We have our differences, of course we do,
but there's a<br />
greater spirit of tolerance, I think a greater spirit of acceptance of other
religions. . . . We're<br />
all of one great family, the family of God. And we must learn to get along,
one with another,<br />
respect one another."<br />
<br />
"[It] hasn't always worked out that way, though," Mr. King
countered.<br />
<br />
"No, it hasn't always worked out, but Christianity hasn't failed,"
President Hinckley said.<br />
"It's the greatest success story in the world. When all is said and done,
it has succeeded in<br />
doing so very, very many things. And the fact that we still have problems
that we've not<br />
overcome in human relationships does not mean that it has not
succeeded."<br />
<br />
Marc A. Schindler<br />
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/ukevinwinters.showPublicProfile?language=EN">Kevin
Winters</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Registered User</span><br />
Posts: 1<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(9/20/00 2:10 pm)</span><br />
140.198.255.254<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=2">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=2">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=2">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Re: The Great Apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">If I may
add my two cents (if it's even worth that much):<br />
<br />
I don't really believe that we, as "Mormons" have ever sought to
deny the term "Christian" to anyone wishing to have that title (and
maybe with a select few exceptions that I might not be aware of). The only
real distinction that we may make (as with the topic of this thread) is the
term "apostate" or "corrupted". For us it seems that the
term applies to anyone who professes and, to a degree, show their sinscerity
by then acting on their word. This can very easily be seen by Pres. Hinkley's
remarks given by Marc:<br />
<br />
"Christianity hasn't failed. It's the greatest success story in the
world."<br />
<br />
Perhaps it might be good to look through our conferences and see if any of
the brethren (past or present) has said anything on the issue.<br />
<br />
Budding Scholar,<br />
Kevin Winters <span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Robert</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Unregistered User</span><br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(9/21/00 3:42 am)</span><br />
206.159.112.232<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=3">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=3">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=3">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">The Great Apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Actually
I believe that there is a spiritual & physical category of the Church.
True non-LDS Christians are accepted by God as his spiritual Church to the
degree they are able to follow Jesus as Lord. This does not mean the physical
Church they are members of may not be influenced by the Church of the Devil.<br />
<br />
1 Nephi 14:10 does not deny my statement on the existence of Sheep being
gathered during the apostasy.<br />
<br />
D&C 1:30 is about the restoration of the physical institution of the
church.<br />
<br />
Sincerely,<br />
<br />
Robert <span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/bpacumenispages.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=davidwaltz">David
Waltz</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Registered User</span><br />
Posts: 2<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(9/21/00 9:34 am)</span><br />
64.12.104.157<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=4">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=4">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=4">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">The Great Apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Robert
posted:<br />
<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><b><i><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Quote:</span></i></b><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Actually I believe that there is a spiritual &
physical category of the Church. True non-LDS Christians are accepted by God
as his spiritual Church to the degree they are able to follow Jesus as Lord.
This does not mean the physical Church they are members of may not be
influenced by the Church of the Devil. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"><br />
<br />
Robert,<br />
<br />
Very interesting concept! You certainly seemed to have reconciled the
existence of sheep/wheat/Christians during the era termed "The
Apostasy". <br />
<br />
Now, can you provide references for this concept from LDS literature? <br />
<br />
Thanks!!!<br />
<br />
David<br />
<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--><span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/upacumeni9.showPublicProfile?language=EN">Pacumeni9</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">ezOP</span><br />
Posts: 17<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(9/21/00 11:01 am)</span><br />
216.161.86.208<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=5">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=5">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=5">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Re: The Great Apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Hello David and Robert,<br />
<br />
<br />
I don't mean to speak out of turn, here, since the question David asked was
directed at Robert. I certainly don't mean to steal anyone's thunder. But if
y'all wouldn't mind, I'd like to throw in my two cents.<br />
<br />
David said:<br />
<br />
<br />
> Very interesting concept! You certainly seemed to have <br />
> reconciled the existence of sheep/wheat/Christians during <br />
> the era termed "The Apostasy". <br />
<br />
> Now, can you provide references for this concept from LDS <br />
> literature? <br />
<br />
<br />
Absolutely.<br />
<br />
First, read Doctrine and Covenants 123:12. It says:<br />
<br />
<br />
"...there are <i>many yet on the earth</i> [this implies some continuity
with the first Christians, i.e., that they have been on the earth all along]
among all sects, parties, and denominations...who are only kept from the
truth <i>because</i> they know not where to find it."<br />
<br />
<br />
Were they the elect? ABSOLUTELY! Go read Ezekiel 34 -- the whole chapter --
and you will find that during the described period of apostasy, when the
shepherds were not true representatives, but PRETENDED to be, the sheep were
still hanging around. And we know that they were "true sheep,"
because later the Lord comes and claims them. [I believe that this passage
refers to the great apostasy, but for the purpose of mere demonstration of a
general principle, it is irrelevant what time period Ezekiel is referring
to].<br />
<br />
Now, with those two passages in hand, I know of a passage that definitely
supports Robert's view. Turn to Doctrine and Covenants 1:30. The restored
Church there described does not appear out of non-existence. She appears out
of <b>obscurity</b> and darkness. In other words, she was there all along,
but her foundation of apostles had been taken away. When that foundation was
restored, the <i>fulness</i> of the Church was in place, and therefore the <i>fulness</i>
of the gospel could be proclaimed with authority.<br />
<br />
Of course, all of this makes perfect sense from the LDS vantage point,
because the doctrine of teaching to the departed souls in the spirit world
and of performing vicarious ordinances for these who have died presupposes
that there were elect Christians during that era. But, just as Ezekiel said,
they could not find the Lord's appointed shepherds. Those shepherds, you see,
were the apostles, and no apostles equals no foundation for the Church. She
slips into "obscurity." Hence, in the Lord's infinite wisdom, he
has set up a plan for rescuing these as well.<br />
<br />
One other comment on the issue of the two church dichotomy in First Nephi
that was referred to earlier. That reference actually supports all of this as
well, since, if we view the passage in the context of other, related
passages, it clearly places the sheep of the apostate era into the Church of
the Lamb. For instance, see Doctrine and Covenants 18:20;<br />
<br />
"Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil."<br />
<br />
This passage demands that in an important sense, there are more than only
"two churches." Yet Nephi adamantly insists that there ARE only two
churches. Is this a contradiction?<br />
<br />
No, it is not. <br />
<br />
Just as I have stated elsewhere, terms often have more than one sense, and
Nephi was using a sense for "Church of the Lamb" that these other
churches of D&C 18:20 would have to be included in. In other words, the
Church of the Lamb represents all of the elect throughout the world,
regardless of their current affiliations. As D&C 123:12 clearly says,
they are merely lost through no fault of their own, and will, if they do not
dispair, inevitably be guided into the restored fulness of God's church.<br />
<br />
Thus, it is scripturally accurate for Latter-day Saints to refer to non-LDS
as "Christians." The REAL question that must be asked is, have
these Christians entered into covenants with Jesus Christ by the hands of his
duly authorized servants? If not, then it is high time that we as Latter-day
Saints proselytize them. The elect yearn for the blessings that the true
Church of Jesus Christ holds in store.<br />
<br />
<br />
Pacumeni<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">-- The Tanners' mantra
for 30 years has been that the Church censors its own teachings and history.
Yet, as soon as they put up a message board and Latter-day Saints show up to
show where they are wrong, the Tanners engage in suppression themselves.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Edited
by: <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/upacumeni9.showPublicProfile?language=EN">Pacumeni9</a>
at: 9/21/00 11:12:08 am</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Robert</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Unregistered User</span><br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(9/22/00 4:13 pm)</span><br />
206.159.113.132<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=6">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=6">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=6">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">The Great apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">My
favorite scriptue in support of my above view is 1 Nephi 14:12. But the
entire chapter illustrates the principle. It refers to two churches that of
the Lamb & of the Devil.<br />
<br />
In my view Matthew 16:18 requires us to believe the Church continued to make
spiritual members during the apostasy. These spiritual members are a part of
the church & it is the spiritual church that will never perish. This does
not mean I believe God accepted the physical manifestations of the church. It
just means the Lord's people apostasy, or erroneous ideas not-withstanding
were accepted by Jesus as His Church.<br />
<br />
I really don't find the term "total apostasy" us LDS use to be
quite accurate. I feel the institutional Church sufffered a "total
apostasy." But the spiritually accepted members of Jesus Church were not
in "total apostasy." The may have been members of false
institutions. But that does not mean they fall under the same category. <span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/ubeninjax.showPublicProfile?language=EN">Beninjax</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Registered User</span><br />
Posts: 1<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(9/25/00 12:16 pm)</span><br />
216.199.27.34<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=7">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=7">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=7">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Re: The Great apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">If you
consider the word "apostasy" to mean "to defect or
depart" (which is what I think the greek root suggests), then you are
talking about an active decision to reject the gospel in exchange for a
man-made substitute. The question arises as to whom the term
"apostasy" applies -- are we talking about a universal set of
individual decisions to reject Christ's gospel in its simplicity, or are we
talking about an intentional co-opting of the religious structure by a few? <br />
<br />
If the latter, then we would have the vast majority never
"apostasizing," but instead remaining adherents to a religious
structure that itself had departed from the doctrine. In that case, you would
have a "total apostasy", meaning that the original
structure/authority/doctrine was no longer to be found on the earth.<br />
<br />
Which means that the obvious difficulties with the former decision can be
acknowledged without getting rid of the term "total apostasy."
Individuals can (and IMO were) spiritually attempting to adhere to the truth,
however they could find it; however, organizationally, the structure and
teachings had changed, and the authority to receive revelations and put the
organization on track was not available.<br />
<br />
As a result, some wonderfully righteous individuals did their best with what
they had, and should not be referred to as "apostates", which
requires three things: a knowledge of the truth, an adherence to that position,
and a subsequent defection from it. Which would mean that the term
"apostate" can only refer to a very few people throughout the
history of the world, although it still can be accurately used to described a
structure that once was, then intentionally wasn't.<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Robert</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Unregistered User</span><br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(9/26/00 4:55 pm)</span><br />
206.159.113.120<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=8">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=8">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=8">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Total Apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Beninjax,<br />
<br />
I just feel the term "total apostasy" can sometimes confuse people.
It can sometimes lead them to think I don't believe there were true
Christians on the earth during the apostasy. To them being a Christian is the
same as being a member of Christ's Church. And I agree with them on this
idea. But I also believe one can be members of an apostate church &
Christ's spiritual church at the same time without knowing the difference. It
wasn't until the Restoration that one could become a member of Christ's True
physical & spiritual churches.<br />
<br />
One anti-LDS objection is to LDS claiming only the LDS Church is true. But to
me they only regard their churches as being the true church. So I have a hard
time following some of the emotional logic on this.<br />
<br />
Sincerely,<br />
<br />
Robert <span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/bpacumenispages.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=rorymckenzie">Rory
McKenzie</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Registered User</span><br />
Posts: 1<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(9/26/00 6:20 pm)</span><br />
198.145.224.30<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=9">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=9">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=9">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Re: Total Apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">I am
also puzzled, as Robert seemed to say, at why people can use the fact that
Mormons think that their Church is the true one, as an argument against their
church. I hear it all of the time too, and I am Catholic. <br />
<br />
I tend to counter with questions like, "What church do you recommend in
place of mine? Do you recommend a church which teaches that it does not have
any authority from God to lovingly command my obedience?" With new
"churches" springing up all the time in Protestantism, I think
those of us who attend churches that we believe to be the true one have to
wonder upon what basis these churches are being "started", if they
are not the "true church" with authority to proclaim the gospel in
its purity, to administer the discipline of the sacraments, and to which
every believer within its vicinity should adhere, and obey. But alas, I think
Evangelicals have begun to look upon the dozens of different choices among
churches, as being an extension of the American economy which is based on
competition. We have different choices as to what brand of peanut butter we
will buy, and we are glad for it. <br />
<br />
It hasn't always been this way among Reformed Christians. One of their first
leaders, John Calvin could not have been clearer in regard to the need for
identifying the one true visible church saying, "But as it is now
necessary to discourse of the VISIBLE church, let us learn from her single
title of Mother, how useful, nay, how necessary the knowledge of her is,
since there is no other means of entering into life unless she conceive us in
the womb and give us birth, unless she nourish us at her breasts, and, in
short, keep us under her charge and government, until, divested of mortal
flesh, we become like the angels." Protestants like Catholics and
Mormons are unwilling to say that their brand of peanut butter, say Skippy,
is the one true peanut butter. We can agree that we have a right to shop for
the brand of peanut butter that we "prefer". But we disagree that
we are allowed to extend this mentality into the area of the visible church.<br />
<br />
For the reasons expressed above, I am never offended by those who question my
Christianity on the basis of my church membership. Catholics hold that
non-Catholics may be "Christian" in some sense, but certainly not
in the fullest sense of the word. If Mormons do likewise, and consider their
own church to be the one true church on earth, I would not find it offensive,
but rather refreshing, in comparison to the shopper mentality of most modern
day Protestants. <br />
<br />
Regards,<br />
<br />
Rory <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Edited
by: <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/bpacumenispages.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=rorymckenzie">Rory
McKenzie</a> at: 9/26/00 6:25:38 pm</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/bpacumenispages.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=davidwaltz">David
Waltz</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Forum Host</span><br />
Posts: 3<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(9/27/00 12:25 am)</span><br />
64.12.104.179<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=10">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=10">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=10">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Re: Total Apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Rory,<br />
<br />
As always I truly enjoyed your post. I have but one question...it seems to me
that the arguments put forth by the Catholic Church and the LDS Church have
equal merits; but they both have one thing in common...they both believe that
true Christians exist outside of their Churches. So how can a true seeker
decide between the two cogent options? If a definitive choice cannot be made between
the Catholic Church and the LDS Church, why not remain Protestant?<br />
<br />
Grace and peace,<br />
<br />
David<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Robert</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Unregistered User</span><br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(9/27/00 4:08 am)</span><br />
206.159.112.140<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=11">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=11">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=11">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Total Apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">David,<br />
<br />
I wasn't for example agreeing with my Baptist friends claim's to be the true
institutional church. They certainly don't accept the LDS churches claim's.
We don't accept eachothers claim's. But they have never admitted to the
presence of True Mormon Christians. So it seems to me one can believe in
institutional apostasy without believing Christ rejects all Christians as
that of the Devils Church.<br />
<br />
Sincerely,<br />
<br />
Robert <span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/ujtvedtnes.showPublicProfile?language=EN">JTvedtnes</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Registered User</span><br />
Posts: 5<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(9/27/00 9:12 am)</span><br />
128.187.81.14<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=12">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=12">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=12">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Re: The Great Apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">David,<br />
<br />
Perhaps the following passages from the Doctrine and Covenants should also be
considered in a discussion of the question you pose.<br />
<br />
The first is from D&C 10:52-55, a revelation received in 1829, PRIOR TO
the establishment of the LDS Church:<br />
<br />
"And now, behold, according to their faith in their prayers will I bring
this part of my gospel to the knowledge of my people. Behold, I do not bring
it to destroy that which they have received, but to build it up. And for this
cause have I said: If this generation harden not their hearts, I will
establish my church among them. Now I do not say this to destroy my church,
but I say this to build up my church; Therefore, whosoever belongeth to my
church need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven."<br />
<br />
This verbiage seems to suggest that the Lord acknowledged the Christianity of
the churches that existed prior to the restoration in 1830. What think ye,
friends?<br />
<br />
Then we have the following:<br />
<br />
"Wherefore, I will that all men shall repent, for all are under sin,
except those which I have reserved unto myself, holy men that ye know not of.
Wherefore, I say unto you that I have sent unto you mine everlasting
covenant, even that which was from the beginning." (D&C 49:8) <br />
<br />
I suspect that the "holy men that ye know not of" comprised at
least the apostle John and the three Nephites, but perhaps others as well.
Again, what are your thoughts?<br />
<br />
I hasten to add that these are NOT intended to be "trick questions"
and that I do not pretend to know precisely what they imply. I'm interested
in the thoughts of others.<br />
<br />
<br />
[Pacumeni edited this message to remove emoticons]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Edited
by: <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/upacumeni9.showPublicProfile?language=EN">Pacumeni9</a>
at: 9/27/00 10:20:10 am</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/bpacumenispages.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=rorymckenzie">Rory
McKenzie</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Registered User</span><br />
Posts: 2<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(9/27/00 3:44 pm)</span><br />
198.145.224.54<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=13">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=13">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=13">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Re: Total Apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">David
wrote on 9/27:<br />
<br />
"...it seems to me that the arguments put forth by the Catholic Church
and the LDS Church have equal merits; but they both have one thing in
common...they both believe that true Christians exist outside of their
Churches. So how can a true seeker decide between the two cogent options? If
a definitive choice cannot be made between the Catholic Church and the LDS
Church, why not remain Protestant?"<br />
<br />
Catholics hold to the ancient formula, Nulla Salas Extra Ecclesiam, No
Salvation Outside the Church. Even those who are not visibly joined to the
Church Christ founded, must be joined to Her in some other manner if they are
to have any hope for salvation. There is a lot of speculation about how much
hope we ought to have for those who are "separated Christians".
After all, Catholics are warned not to take their own salvation for granted.
How much less should we take for granted the salvation of those who are not
Catholic. Thus, Catholics have a mandate to make as clear as possible to
people of all persuasions the choices which will likely have eternal
consequences for ourselves and our offspring. <br />
<br />
Even so, I would never urge anyone to become Catholic until they were fully
persuaded of the claims that She makes. The last thing anyone needs is Isaiah
Bennett in reverse. For those of you who do not know, Bennett is a former
Catholic priest who joined the LDS Church, and subsequently returned to Rome,
writing a couple of anti-Mormon books. He must have been insufficently
persuaded of the authority of the Mormon Church when he joined. One of his
reasons for leaving was that he disagreed with the LDS position on abortion.
If I ever become Mormon, be assured that I will have become certain that I am
in no position to question the Apostles of Jesus Christ on abortion,
polygamy, dark skin, or Adam-God(!). <br />
<br />
My point here is that Isaiah Bennett had joined the LDS Church, but he wasn't
much of a Mormon. Likewise one is not Protestant because he tarries a while
weighing the evidence, while being persuaded that both Rome and Salt Lake
seem to have claims of relatively equal merit. <br />
<br />
In summary, I would just say that one can't convert while having doubts, but
neither should one think that it is a matter of little urgency upon the basis
of a doctrine that teaches the possibility of salvation outside the true
church. One who is wavering between two non-Protestant churches, is not
Protestant, until he gives up searching on the ill-founded presumption that
he can be saved as easily in one church as in another. The person who cannot
see the scales tipping in one direction or other then, must wait; but if ever
impatience is called for, this would be the proper time for it. <br />
<br />
With prayers,<br />
<br />
Rory <span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/bpacumenispages.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=rorymckenzie">Rory
McKenzie</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Registered User</span><br />
Posts: 3<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(9/27/00 6:55 pm)</span><br />
198.145.224.35<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=14">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=14">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=14">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Re: Total Apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">In my
last post, I did not intend to be disparaging of Isaiah Bennett. It appears
that it was under advisement from others that he undertook to write about his
experiences and his opinions. Being Catholic, I naturally am pleased he has
returned, and hope that he will not be writing any more books about future
personal conversion experiences.<br />
<br />
What tips the scales for me? Why am I Catholic and not Mormon? <br />
<br />
First, if it were a stalemate, I would not become Mormon. If I understand
correctly, the LDS Church encourages inquirers to pray to God for wisdom, in
much the same way that Joseph Smith did in reference to James 1:5, and God
will reply positively with the burning bosom. Having done this, and indeed
repeated again very recently, I remain unpersuaded. If my bosom burned, and I
am not being sarcastic, I would be concerned about deception. But when
nothing happens, how can I accept this approach to finding the true Church.
Perhaps I have received this testimony but don't recognize it? The still
small voice is hard to hear? Aside from this experience of the burning bosom,
I don't think I should become Mormon. Would anyone think otherwise?<br />
<br />
In regard to more objective matters, the arguments for an apostasy are not
conclusive. I think Mormon biblical exegesis is outstanding on this issue.
But for all that, the LDS interpretations of apostasy are only compatible
with Scripture. So are other ways of looking at the issue. It becomes merely
another illustration of how Scripture alone is inadequate to resolve
doctrinal controversy.<br />
<br />
Historically, the LDS researchers have done a marvelous job of culling the
ancient documents and finding what they need to support their ideas, but not
enough to show an apostasy. I see heretics and I see heroes in the early
Church. I see patterns which are not so different from those which occurred
around the death and succession of Joseph Smith. <br />
<br />
As far as I can see, Mormon apostles don't behave so much differently than
Catholic bishops. I have seen recently in Mormon dialogues confusion about
when and what is official church teaching. That sounds real familiar to me.
But why should I trade Catholic dogma which is admittedly developed, in
exchange for Mormon dogma which seems to be developed but claims to be coming
via revelation. The one time I can see that a post-Joseph Smith prophet
really acted like a prophet, the result was Adam-God! I grant that this is
not official church teaching and never was, but it still troubles me a bit
that an Apostle would even think it let alone say it.<br />
<br />
Finally, and this is natural, and not from any mean spiritedness, I think
Mormons have so much zeal to evangelize that they have failed to appreciate
or even get their facts straight about the Catholic Church. This is easy to
do. There is a lot of misinformation out there. The latest booboo that I have
seen comes from a book by Barry Bickmore, with whom I have dialogued, and for
whom I have great respect. In Restoring the Ancient Church, p.52, he writes
concerning the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and miraculous works, "Few
Christians today, besides some Pentecostals and charismatic Evangelicals, as
well as the Mormons, claim to have all the gifts of the Spirit." And on
p.54 he cites some Protestants (who deny continuation of miracles), "The
Fathers, while they refer to extraordinary agency going on in their own day,
also with one consent represent miracles as having ceased since the Apostolic
era." This doesn't make any sense. What do they mean by extraordinary
agency. They don't want to say miracles because they know that they don't
have any in their 19th Century Protestant Church. In any event, Catholics
hold that the gifts of the Spirit remain to today and more.<br />
One of the qualifications for canonization of saints are miracles. <br />
<br />
I am not about to leave the Church which documents for me raising of the
dead, blind receiving their sight, ongoing prophecy, and mystical knowledge.
Like Elijah, Moses, and our Lord before them who had fasts from food and
water for incredible periods, many saints have survived miraculously for
years at a time receiving no nourishment except the Eucharist. The Church
carefully and even skeptically documents these miracles that leaves one
almost incredulous. And not merely medieval legends either. It continues into
our own day. In the day of photography we have the photographs of the young
lady with pupilless eyes who had her sight restored by Padre Pio, who was
only canonized last year, and who died in 1968. Doctors could not explain how
she could see. We have the miracle of the sun at Fatima and the related
prophecies of Sr. Lucia who still lives, beheld by over 80,000 witnesses
including many many skeptics from antagonistic secular newspapers who
testifed that after a driving drenching rainstorm, following the miracle
which occurred at the precise hour Lucia predicted that their clothes were
miraculously dry and clean and free of mud. I could go on and on. Catholics
believe in the gifts of the Spirit and continuing miracles of an apostolic
nature. If Mormons are raising the dead, hanging in the sky, commanding
nature, prophesying, receiving the wounds of Christ in their bodies, and
noting fragrant odors proceeding from the incorruptible bodies of dead
saints, well, all I can say is stalemate. But we were here first. If we do
all that you do, and you do all that we do, how is it that we are apostate? <br />
<br />
Rory<br />
<br />
PS: Hellenism Schmellenism. There is a philosophy that is antagonistic to the
faith, and which understands the preaching of the cross to be foolishness.
One can also attain to truth apart from supernatural revelation like the
poets St Paul talks about on Mars Hill. No need to be shy about using Greek
words and terms to define concepts that are beyond the language of the
fishermen of the Bible. We embrace truth whether it comes from Athens or
Jerusalem. Oh wait. Not all the fishermen..."In the beginning was the
Logos", said St John. I wonder if that has any philosophical overtones.
Anyway, enough for one night. Bedtime for Bonzo. <span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/bpacumenispages.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=davidwaltz">David
Waltz</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Forum Host</span><br />
Posts: 6<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(9/29/00 10:40 am)</span><br />
64.12.104.186<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=15">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=15">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=15">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">More On the Apostasy...</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Scott Pierson started an apostasy thread on Mormonism
Web Ministries message board which turned out to be a pretty good collection
of posts. The board's owner, Peter Elias, banned Scott from posting to his
board and deleted Scott's posts. I feel that many of the MWM posts in the
Apostasy thread are worthy enough to be reposted to this new board. I invite
Scott (if he saved his posts) to jump in and re-post any material he feels is
pertinent.<br />
<br />
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br />
<br />
First group of posts from MWM:<br />
<br />
<br />
David Waltz wrote on 8/31/2000 <br />
<br />
Hi guys, <br />
<br />
I thought that it would be a good time to bring up an important issue which
concerns the very fabric of the apostasy...ISLAM. <br />
<br />
If a grand apostasy did occur shortly after the death of the apostles (except
John), would not Islam be a likely candidate for a restoration? <br />
<br />
Barry Bickmore in another thread argued that "Jewish Christianity"
was the most legitimate form of early Christianity. The Quran's Christology
is very close to that of "Jewish Christianity". <br />
<br />
So, to make a long story short, why not Islam instead of Mormonism? <br />
<br />
As always, <br />
David<br />
<br />
<br />
Barry Bickmore wrote on 9/1/2000 <br />
<br />
Hi David! <br />
<br />
Doesn't Islam deny the divinity of Christ? I have heard that they appeal to
some of what is known about aberrant Jewish Christian groups like the
Ebionites to establish their view of history, but I never said that I viewed
all Jewish Christian groups as more legitimate than early Gentile Christian
groups. Rather, I believe the thought-forms of the Palestinian milieu were
more conducive to retaining a more primitive form of Christian theology. The
different Jewish Christian groups had their own problems, such as insistence
on the requirement to keep the Law of Moses. They also went off track, I
believe, in carrying over some Jewish apocalyptic traditions (of which there
were dozens of conflicting examples floating around). The Ebionites were
Adoptionists, but then, so were some Gentile Christians. Some Jewish
Christians held to the deity of Christ, as did some Gentile Christians. <br />
<br />
I don't think we can historically pinpoint which one of these strains of
thought was the most "pure", but at least modern traditions can go
back and say, "See, there were traditions much like ours." At
least, SOME modern traditions can do this! ;-) It seems to me that the
cardinal issue here is whether Christ is really divine, and really the Son of
God. <br />
<br />
So what do you think? Is there enough evidence for the divinity of Christ for
you to put aside Islam? My suggestion would be to prayerfully read Alma 42,
and see if the Spirit testifies to the divinity of Christ and the necessity
of the Atonement. <br />
<br />
As an aside related to our former conversation, last night I heard some of
the following passage on Chuck Swindoll's radio program. I thought it was
relevant to our conversation about loss of priesthood authority. <br />
<br />
Hosea Ch. 4<br />
<br />
1 Hear the word of the LORD, ye children of Israel: for the LORD hath a
controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because [there is] no truth,
nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land.<br />
<br />
2 By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery,
they break out, and blood toucheth blood.<br />
<br />
3 Therefore shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth therein shall
languish, with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven; yea,
the fishes of the sea also shall be taken away.<br />
<br />
4 Yet let no man strive, nor reprove another: for thy people [are] as they
that strive with the priest.<br />
<br />
5 Therefore shalt thou fall in the day, and the prophet also shall fall with
thee in the night, and I will destroy thy mother.<br />
<br />
6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected
knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me:
seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy
children.<br />
<br />
7 As they were increased, so they sinned against me: [therefore] will I
change their glory into shame.<br />
<br />
8 They eat up the sin of my people, and they set their heart on their
iniquity.<br />
<br />
9 And there shall be, like people, like priest: and I will punish them for
their ways, and reward them their doings.10 For they shall eat, and not have
enough: they shall commit whoredom, and shall not increase: because they have
left off to take heed to the LORD.<br />
<br />
11 Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the heart.<br />
<br />
12 My people ask counsel at their stocks, and their staff declareth unto
them: for the spirit of whoredoms hath caused [them] to err, and they have
gone a whoring from under their God.<br />
<br />
13 They sacrifice upon the tops of the mountains, and burn incense upon the
hills, under oaks and poplars and elms, because the shadow thereof [is] good:
therefore your daughters shall commit whoredom, and your spouses shall commit
adultery.<br />
<br />
14 I will not punish your daughters when they commit whoredom, nor your
spouses when they commit adultery: for themselves are separated with whores,
and they sacrifice with harlots: therefore the people [that] doth not
understand shall fall.<br />
<br />
15 Though thou, Israel, play the harlot, [yet] let not Judah offend; and come
not ye unto Gilgal, neither go ye up to Bethaven, nor swear, The LORD liveth.<br />
<br />
16 For Israel slideth back as a backsliding heifer: now the LORD will feed
them as a lamb in a large place.<br />
<br />
17 Ephraim [is] joined to idols: let him alone.<br />
<br />
18 Their drink is sour: they have committed whoredom continually: her rulers
[with] shame do love, Give ye.<br />
<br />
19 The wind hath bound her up in her wings, and they shall be ashamed because
of their sacrifices. <br />
Notice that God says they will no longer be priests, and the prophets will
fall with them, because they rejected knowledge! As I pointed out earlier,
Jesus said that greater knowledge brings greater condemnation to those who
rebel. <br />
<br />
Talk to you later! <br />
Barry <br />
<br />
<br />
David Waltz wrote on 9/1/2000 <br />
<br />
Hi Barry, <br />
<br />
Good to see you posting again! <br />
<br />
You posted: “Doesn't Islam deny the divinity of Christ?” <br />
Certainly most do...but not all. In the Quran Jesus is called the Word of
Allah. Some Shiite sects believe that the Word is the Son God. This Word is
the very light of God, and is God. The Word manifested himself in the
terrestrial plane in the person of Jesus; and again in the person of Ali(some
say Muhammad). In a Shiite hadith (inspired tradtion), Ali maintained that he
and Christ were one. Jabir al-Jufi reports that Ali in a sermon proclaimed:
“I am al-Masih (the Christ), who heals the blind and the leaper, who created
the birds and dispersed the stormclouds. I am he and he is I...Isa Ibn Maryam
(Jesus the Son of Mary) is part of me, and I am part of him. He is the
supreme Word of God. He is the witness to the mysteries, and I am that to
which he testifies.” (From “Extremist Shiites” by Matti Moosa p. 41) The Sufi
al-Hallaj attributes full divinity to the Logos——the Logos is “infinite
Light”. For al-Hallaj the Logos became incarnate in Jesus, and then again in
Muhammad. <br />
<br />
You then posted the following: “It seems to me that the cardinal issue here
is whether Christ is really divine, and really the Son of God. <br />
<br />
So what do you think? Is there enough evidence for the divinity of Christ for
you to put aside Islam? My suggestion would be to prayerfully read Alma 42,
and see if the Spirit testifies to the divinity of Christ and the necessity
of the Atonement.” <br />
<br />
Barry, I certainly believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Jesus possesses
all of God the Father’s attributes save one, the Son owes his existence and
divinity to the Father. I also believe in the necessity of the Atonement.
Once again, it is true that most Muslims deny the atonement, but not all.
(The Quran neither affirms nor denies the atonement, it is silent on this
issue). <br />
<br />
Now, I have raised the question of Islam in this thread due to the fact some
of the important claims made by Joseph Smith and Mormonism, were made by
Muhammad and Islam 1,200 years earlier! <br />
<br />
1.) The apostasy. <br />
2.) The need for further revelation.<br />
3.) Prophethood.<br />
4.) Re-establishment of polygamy.<br />
5.) Visited by an angel of God.<br />
6.) Chosen by God to give mankind new scripture.<br />
7.) Christian scriptures and doctrine had been corrupted. <br />
<br />
And, to make matters even more complex, a new tradition has recently arisen
out of Islam that makes many the above claims too——I am of course talking
about the Bahai’s. <br />
So, if a Christian truth-seeker comes to the belief that a grand apostasy did
occur early on in the history of the Christian Church, and that the Catholic
Church no longer is Christ’s true Church, then it would seem to me that this
seeker would have to examine the claims made by Muhammad, Baha-u-llah, and
Joseph Smith. All three have “fruits” that must be examined. <br />
<br />
Barry, I recently asked Rory if one could determine exactly what Jesus meant
when he said “by their fruits you shall know them” (i.e. what are the
fruits?). One of the fruits discussed was the “signs of the apostles” which
Paul mentioned in 2 Cor. 12:12. (And let us not forget Paul’s stern warning
in 2 Cor. 11:13-14 about “false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising
themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises
himself as an angel light). <br />
<br />
Time to be blunt. John Paul II, Muhammad, Baha-u-llah, and Joseph Smith
cannot all be true messengers of God——the doctrines are just too diverse for
that. So...how does one determine the true
teacher/prophet/apostle/representative of God from the false ones? If we
cannot come up with a list of “fruits” whereby one can separate the true from
the false, maybe it boils down to the work of the Holy Spirit. (Although I believe
in the importance of the work of the Holy Spirit in determining truth, I am
not comfortable in rejecting objective evidence in the search for truth). And
hey, here is one for Paul Hadik, if it does boil down to the work of the Holy
Spirit on the individual, why not just pick up the scriptures and let the
Spirit do His work——who needs teachers when one has the Holy Spirit as his
teacher. <br />
<br />
I sincerely hope that I am not frustrating you with what I have said...it is
just that I see the merits in the claims advanced by Catholics, Muslims,
Bahais, and Mormons (and at times Protestants). So, how does a honest truth
seeker make a choice? Must one wait for an angel from heaven to appear and
hit one over the head with a 2x4? <br />
<br />
You see Barry, I do not want to “think” that I have the truth, I want to
“know” that I have the truth. And with all this said, please keep in mind
that I currently “know” that there is a God, and that Jesus Christ is his
divine Son, and that the Bible is His word. But, beyond this it seems that I
“know” little. <br />
<br />
Thank’’s for you patience...your brother in Christ, <br />
David <br />
<br />
<br />
David Waltz wrote on 9/1/2000 <br />
<br />
Hi Barry, <br />
<br />
It is that pest David again...During the last two weeks have been doing some
intense research into “Jewish Christianity”. I have now read Martin Hengel’’s
“Judaism and Hellenism”; Jean Danielou’’s “The Theology of Jewish
Christianity”; James Dunn’’s “Unity and Diversity In The New Testament”;
Richard Longenecker’s “The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity”; and the
Psuedo-Clementines for a second time. Because of some earlier posts on Jewish
Christianity, I wanted to share the following with you. <br />
<br />
Most scholars believe that both the Homilies and the Recognitions are
Ebionite works. Note what Danielou wrote: “Epiphanius also included among the
sacred books of the Ebionites the Periodoi Petpou, or Journeys of Peter, said
to have written by Clement; and it is interesting that his quotations from
the Ebionite Gospel have been shown to accord with the text of the
pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, which describe Peter’’s journeys
in the course of his missionary work. From this and many other indications it
is possible to establish a relationship between the Clementines and Ebionism,
a fact which opens up v very important source of information on the sect, and
on in entire agreement with the description of it given by Epiphanius. With
some variation in detail, all scholars now recognise it.” (“The Theology of
Jewish Christianity” p. 59) Longenecker: “As to the many New Testament
apocryphal books in addition to the tractates from Nag Hammadi, the second
century Gospels, Acts, Preachings, and Apocalypses associated with the names
of Peter, James, John, Thomas, the Hebrews and the Nazarenes...are prima
facie Jewish Christian, and may be taken to represent at least one segment of
Jewish Christianity as it continued into the patristic period. Probably from
the same circles, though evidencing a greater degree of heterodoxy and
featuring anti-Paul polemic, are the Psuedo-Clemetines writings.” (“The
Christology of Early Jewish Christianity” p. 15) Trevijano wrote: “The common
theory is that the Clementines go back to a basic source, and some maintain
that this in turn is based on two other works: Kerygmata Peter and Praxeis
Peter, the first of which is clearly Ebionite and anti-Pauline...The Hom.
Clem. would have remained forgotten if they had not been appropriated by the
Ebionites, who made interpolations and added 1 clem., the Ep. Pet., and the
Diamartyria, making the whole work expound secret tradition, Petrine and
anti-Pauline. This heretical falsification of the Homilies may have provoked
the composition of the Clementine Recognitions...The author seeks in every
way to free them from whatever is contrary to the dogma of the Great Church,
leaving intact the prominence of Peter and James of Ebionite origin.”
(“Encyclopedia of the Early Church” vol.1, p. 179) [See also Dunn “Unity and
Diversity in the New Testament” pp.239-245]. <br />
<br />
Well, thanks in part to you Barry, my studies into “Jewish Christianity” have
been quite rewarding. I now have a theory as to what happened to “orthodox”
Jewish Christianity (the branch that accepted Jesus as the divine Messiah,
the virgin birth, and did not require gentile converts to keep the Mosaic
Law). If you get a chance give me a call and we will talk about it <!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype
id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t"
path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/>
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"/>
</v:formulas>
<v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/>
<o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/>
</v:shapetype><v:shape id="_x0000_i1081" type="#_x0000_t75" alt=":)" style='width:11.25pt;
height:11.25pt'>
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:/Users/david/AppData/Local/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.gif"
o:href="http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/smile.gif"/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><img alt=":)" border="0" height="15" src="file:///C:/Users/david/AppData/Local/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.gif" v:shapes="_x0000_i1081" width="15" /><!--[endif]--><br />
<br />
David <br />
<br />
<br />
Barry Bickmore wrote on 9/1/2000 <br />
<br />
Hi David! <br />
<br />
Thanks for filling me in on Islam. I haven't studied it in depth - mostly
just what I learned in Roger Keller's "World Religions" class at
BYU. What is the Bahai position on the divinity of Christ? Also, what do the
Muslims who believe in Jesus' divinity think about the Apostles? Did the
Apostles take a wrong turn, or did later Christians? And do they believe
Jesus atoned for the sins of the world? What do these Muslims and the Bahai
think about "continuing revelation"? I.e. Joseph Smith envisioned
setting up a kingdom of prophets to usher in the Millennial reign of Christ.
Do any of them claim to have a "chain" of prophetic leadership? <br />
<br />
I'll definitely call you to hear what you think about the Jewish Christianity
thing. It sounds like you've read as much or more than I have about it! The
reason I started into it was simply that I kept finding that I could trace
most LDS doctrines that I found in the ANF back to Jewish Christian sources.
However, the sources on Jewish Christianity are so sparse, and the movement
was just as heterogeneous as the other branches of Christianity, so it is
hard to pin down any particular group as the most "legitimate". <br />
<br />
Got to go, I'll continue my post later. <br />
Barry<br />
<br />
<edited at the request of the author to fix cosmetic glitches resulting
from copying and pasting><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Edited
by: <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/upacumeni9.showPublicProfile?language=EN">Pacumeni9</a>
at: 9/29/00 1:17:33 pm</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/bpacumenispages.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=davidwaltz">David
Waltz</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Forum Host</span><br />
Posts: 7<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(9/29/00 2:47 pm)</span><br />
64.12.104.174<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=16">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=16">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=16">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">More On the Apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">paul hadik wrote on 9/3/2000 <br />
<br />
David: <br />
<br />
Noticed your aside to me the other day: "Paul Hadik, if it does boil
down to the work of the Holy Spirit on the individual why not just pick up
the Scriptures and let the Spirit do His work-who needs teachers when one has
the Holy Spirit as his teacher"<br />
<br />
I am not sure you understand the total ramifications of your question on the
ideas of the apostasy and restoration etc.<br />
<br />
I do take that approach which was the reason for my continual harping on an
"established True Church" on the other thread and my questions
regarding this "mystic authority" of the priesthood or apostles in
other churches.<br />
<br />
Can I as a single human being find God's truth all by my lonesome? Or must I
have a teacher or church to direct me to that truth.<br />
<br />
I suppose a better question to ask would be "why can't the Holy Spirit
lead me into all truth?" In both John chapters 15 and 16 we see that the
Holy Spirit will be testifying of Christ and leading into truth. Why can't
that apply to you and me?<br />
<br />
Is His work limited to only apostolic leaders and the authority of either the
RCC church or the LDS church? What does J. Smith or any Pope or The Bab or
Mohammed or Ellen G. White or Charles Taze Russell etc have that the rest of
us don't have?<br />
<br />
For a total apostasy to take place the following would have had to have
happened.<br />
<br />
1) The Holy Spirit must be absent from the earth. If one contends that there
was a remnant then one must also hold the belief that the work of the Spirit
was either partial or deceitful. Why would the Spirit lead an individual into
only a partial understanding of The Way, that would still necessitate
vicarious work on the parts of others more enlightened by that same Spirit?
Also in light of Christ's teaching that the Spirit would lead into all truth
then either Christ was wrong, lying or the Spirit was dishonest in His later
dealings with men. For that reason a total apostasy must mean an absence of
the Spirit.2) There can be no remnant which existed during the Apostasy.
Following the above, with no Spirit present how can any man attain any level
of truth? If the LDS is true in saying there was no true church for 1800
years then I have a hard time with their position of a remnant which existed
with some form of the truth as again this is an attack on the work of the
Spirit as either incomplete or dishonest.<br />
3) Finally, the apostasy must be so total that there was never at any time
"2 or 3 people gathered in my name" (Mt. 18:20) for such a meeting
guaranteed the presence of Christ. To say that there was a remnant, and that
Christ Himself kept His promise of being in their midst, yet they were
lacking in truth so much that they were denied any hope of the Celestial
Kingdom until vicarious works could be done much later is stretching the
bounds of credibility. It seems to me that Christ's stamp of approval ought
to be enough to guarantee the "truth" of a certain gathering of
believers. <br />
<br />
The apostasy and the belief of a "mystic authority" are linked. If
there is no "mystic authority" and if anyone placing his trust in
the work of Christ can be a part of a 'priesthood of believers' then proving
both the apostasy and the restoration under Smith becomes a much harder task.
For then one must logically admit that soon after the work of Christ was done
the world was thrown into a total spiritual darkness for almost 18 centuries.<br />
<br />
I must still have it proved to me that the church must have this
"apostolic authority" handed down from on high to be legitimate.<br />
<br />
Let me ask an absurd question…… not meaning to be the least bit disrespectful
(possibly D. Peterson can answer this for me) if a plane carrying the
prophet, the 12 and the quorum, crashed into a plane carrying the Pope and
the college of cardinals wiping everyone out, would the church (either RCC or
LDS) temporarily be thrust into apostasy?<br />
<br />
Is it the presence of the Spirit or the presence of an authorized person that
counts?<br />
<br />
What did Jesus mean when the disciples came to him complaining of others
casting out demons and Jesus said, "for he that is not against us is for
our part"? <br />
So to answer (in a very roundabout way) David your question. To me the Spirit
is enough. I keep in mind that on judgement day, when a word from the Father
will send me somewhere for eternity that neither J. Smith nor Pope John Paul
II nor the Bab will be by my side. I will be alone before God.<br />
<br />
With that in mind I am more than content to place my trust in the Spirit to
lead me into a saving knowledge of My Lord so that I may spend eternity with
the Father.<br />
<br />
I John 5:13 "that ye may KNOW ye have eternal life……"<br />
<br />
Sincerely,<br />
<br />
Paul Hadik <br />
<br />
Rory McKenzie wrote on 9/4/2000 <br />
<br />
Hi All, <br />
<br />
If all of the Catholic, Orthodox, and other communions which still have valid
orders, were to have every bishop die at the same time, I think it would be
the end of the Catholic Church. I would be looking for another church at that
point. It is a doctrine that only bishops can ordain bishops and priests, if
I am not mistaken. <br />
<br />
Cardinals on the other hand are the current electors of the pope. This is
only canon law and subject to the legislation of the bishops. If there were
none, the Catholics of Rome, could theoretically vote for a new pope as used
to happen. In any event, the bishops would merely pass new legislation
regarding how to appoint a new pope when all of the canonical electors
suddenly die, whether the dead electors be the citizens of Rome or the College
of Cardinals. <br />
I am skeptical that the Holy Spirit leads in doctrinal matters without human
teachers (In no way do I deny the necessity of individual communion with the
Holy Spirit and the Scriptures for personal and private matters. That is
altogether different); first, because of my own personal experience of which
I have already testified elsewhere. I told you about when a professor at my
Bible college asked me about how I learned the false doctrine of
predestination. He held that one could not learn false teaching just from
Bible reading; that the Spirit will not lead into error that way. I cannot
remember that anyone taught me anything. I was a new Christian. If he had
accused me of following Calvin, I might have been surprised that President
Coolidge had also been leader of an heretical cult. <br />
<br />
My subsequent studies of the Scripture have confirmed my opinion that one is
unwise who trusts that the Holy Spirit prevents individuals from doctrinal
error in Bible reading. The Ethiopian eunuch is a clear example in Acts 8 of
how we need human teachers. <br />
God's grace has worked in many hearts to have a longing to be able to discern
truth from error in matters of Christian doctrine. The Ethiopian's yearning
extends across two millenia, holding out hope to mankind that some man should
guide. Christ's promise that the Holy Spirit should guide us into all truth
extends across two millenia, holding out hope to mankind that God will guide.
We must have both. Not one or the other. The doctrine of the Holy Gospel is not
broadcast and taught apart from man, or guaranteed and sustained apart from
God. <br />
<br />
This is the fatal weakness of having Scripture alone (private
interpretation)as an authority. It denies that God has delegated men ordained
to the purpose of preserving the faith. And worse than that, it makes good
men have false confidence that they are certainly right, and naturally
stubborn since they are just as capable of being led by the Spirit as the
next guy, because they have seen the promises which God has given in regard
to the leading of the Spirit. The problem is that these promises are not
intended for individual members of the body of Christ to be able to discern
doctrine separately from the rest of Christ's Body. It is a community
function. It is absurd and ironic that the young professor who was so certain
that a 22 year old kid would never be led astray by reading the Bible alone,
could not have accepted how the Church as a whole is indeed protected by the
Holy Spirit, as Her members corporately examine or receive God's revelation.<br />
<br />
"Which church would that be?" someone might ask. Well, not most
Protestant communities or gatherings. Upon their principles they do not
usually teach that the Spirit leads their churches corporately in matters of
doctrine. If a Church does not claim to be the one true Church, it seems to
me a pretty good bet, that they are right about that.<br />
<br />
Since becoming Catholic, what I hear from people, is complaints about the
prominence of the teaching office of the Catholic Church. "That's just a
religion of men." "What's so great about the Pope?"
"How'd that guy get to be Top Dog?" Because Protestants are prone
to go to the Church that they like, very often because of a minister with
whom they are impressed, they assume that Catholics and Mormons are the same
way. They think we submit our judgment on doctrinal matters because we are
somehow persuaded that our leaders must be extraordinary people. They know
that their minister, who is a wonderful and godly man does not claim to teach
infallibly. They know that they themselves who read the Bible daily and pray
for the Spirit's guidance do not claim to know doctrine infallibly. The
Catholic Church, and presumably the Mormon Church, which also believes in a
visible, human leadership may be accused of being arrogant because we
actually claim to be the one true Church. Such an accusation is
understandable. But it seems unfair to me on the whole. To hold that the Holy
Spirit would prevent a Church founded by Christ from doctrinal error does not
presuppose any moral superiority on the part of individual members as perhaps
it might in an individualist Protestant milieu.<br />
<br />
Perhaps an example of how the pope himself views his own
"authority" might be helpful at this point. He has none beyond the
limits of the teaching of the Church as a whole through the ages. People who
moan and groan about papal infallibility seldom stop to realize that there
has probably only been one "ex cathedra" definition in which this
charism is claimed to have been exercised in each of the last two centuries.
And even then, at the behest of the rest of the bishops and laity of the
Catholic Church. Only recently, when Protestant denominations are being
besieged by demands to open up the leadership of the churches to women, the
Catholic church is questioned about women's ordination as well. Pope John
Paul did not merely put a silence to the issue by decreeing through virtue of
his papal authority that only men may be priests. Instructively, he put an
end to the issue by reminding us of the Church's lack of authority to
contradict past teaching. "Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be
removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to
the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming
the brethren (cf. 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority
whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is
to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful." (Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis, 22 May, 1994) Popes are subject to the Church as much as are
the rest of the faithful, and we are subject willingly, out of a desire to
unite ourselves with those who went before us preserving what we hope are the
true interpretations of the Holy Gospel of Christ. God's plan obviously calls
for a dependence upon the Holy Spirit as well as a dependence upon guidance
from men led of the Spirit. But this takes place in such a community fashion
as to avoid the temptations to pride to which a Protestant minister might be
subject because of his charismatic gifts and individual doctrinal insights.
Far from being arrogant, to be a Catholic pope, priest, bishop is to forego
learning doctrine alone, and to submit to those you believe the Holy Spirit
has appointed, unless you are a "Catholic" like the monk named
Luther. <br />
<br />
But not to be too harsh on the reformers, it might be helpful to be reminded
of how the early Protestants understood the visible church. Before they could
become disillusioned with the fruits of their work they also held to views of
the Church which emphasize the need for unity, and submission to a visible
authority. It is understandable, but they were a little naive, like that
professor mentioned above, thinking that everyone would agree about the
meaning of the Bible if only they could escape heretical teachers. It is only
as time has worn on, and the followers of Calvin, Zwingli, and Luther have
splintered into thousands of sects which those men did not imagine, that the
theory of an exclusively invisible church without a visible leadership has
been advanced. I think it is a safe guess that if there was one Presbyterian,
one Baptist (individual bodies believing the same and cooperating in
discipline together), and one Lutheran church, that they would be as
vociferous today about claiming to be the one true church as are Catholics
and Mormons. Here is what was being said before they split up into 25,000
disunited quarreling and competing bodies: "But as it is now our purpose
to discourse of the VISIBLE church, let us learn, from her single title of
Mother, how useful, nay how necessary the knowledge of her is, since there is
no other means of entering into life unless she conceive us in the womb and
give us birth, unless she nourish us at her breasts, and, in short, keep us
under her charge and government, until, divested of mortal flesh, we become
like the angels." (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, 4:1:4)
<br />
It is not arrogance that makes Christ's Church (whatever one it might be)
call out to man, certain that She has the true interpretations of the Gospel
of Christ. And it would not be humility for that Church to deny it. But to go
to a church that doesn't even claim to know for sure? A church that hands me
the same Scriptures that the Ethiopian had and says, "Read it yourself"?
A church that says the Bible alone is sufficient, clear, and plain enough to
resolve doctrinal controversy among men of good will? I don't believe in that
anymore.<br />
<br />
There seem to be a few men of good will here among us. We agree about most of
the words of eternal life, it is the interpretation of those same words that
divides us. I not only long to know the truth for myself. I long to embrace
my brothers in search of the truth, all men of good will. For this, we must
search for the right Church, the true Church. I doubt that Protestant
principles can ever lead to the unity for which Christ prayed in John 17. How
many more centuries of division and ecclesiatical strife do we need to
determine that men are necessary, as the reformers originally believed, and
the Scriptures teach? The path taken by most modern day Protestants denies
our only hope: a corporate, visible ecclesiatical organization composed of
men that God has authorized and ordained for the preservation of the Gospel,
a Spirit filled Church like at Pentecost. Most Protestant church bodies
nowadays admit their own lack of authority from God to speak infallibly on
matters of doctrine. I propose that any churches who in their
"humility" admit that they are not the one true church, that they
are subject to error in matters doctrinal, can be taken at their word. That
knocks out about 25,000 of them. There's only a handful left. <br />
<br />
It is a sad phenomenon from my perspective. Protestant principles make the
church into an unseemly, timid creature afraid to proclaim her beliefs with
authority, while allowing the temptation for individual members to become
puffed up at the knowledge that they are as individually capable of biblical
interpretation as the next fellow.<br />
<br />
Rory <br />
<br />
PS: I am aware that my defense against the accusation of arrogance may be
unnecessary with the participants here. But it is a common enough accusation
which can be profitably examined in light of the contrasting
"humility" of those who don't claim to be the true church. <br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--><span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/bpacumenispages.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=davidwaltz">David
Waltz</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Forum Host</span><br />
Posts: 8<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(9/29/00 3:05 pm)</span><br />
64.12.104.174<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=17">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=17">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=17">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">More on the Apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">David
Waltz wrote on 9/4/2000 <br />
<br />
Hi guys,<br />
<br />
Paul asked a question that I had asked myself a few years back, "What if
the prophet, the 12 and the quorum crashed into a plane carrying the Pope and
the college of cardinals wiping everyone out..." <br />
<br />
(Actually the question I had asked myself was, "What if a terrorist
bombed General Conference wiping out ALL the general authorites?").<br />
<br />
Scott answered Paul with, "I could be wrong here, but it is my opinion
that if the foundation were to be wholly removed, it would have to be
restored through revelation once again. Lacking the foundation of a living
apostle, there is no divine Body of Christ."<br />
<br />
Note what former President Joseph F. Smith had to say on this very issue: <br />
<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><b><i><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Quote:</span></i></b><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">There is no office growing out of this Priesthood that
is or can be greater than the Priesthood itself. It is from the Priesthood
that the office derives its authority and power. No office gives authority to
the Priesthood. No office adds to the power of the Priesthood. But all offices
in the Church derive their power, their virtue, their authority, from the
Priesthood. If our brethren would get this principle thoroughly established
in their minds, there would be less misunderstanding in relation to the
functions of government in the Church than there is. Today the question is,
which is the greater——the high priest or the seventy——the seventy or the high
priest? I tell you that neither of them is the greater, and neither of them
is the lesser. Their callings lie in different directions, but they are from
the same Priesthood. If it were necessary, the seventy, holding the
Melchizedek Priesthood, as he does, I say if it were necessary, he could
ordain a high priest; and if it were necessary for a high priest to ordain a
seventy, he could do that? Why? Because both of them hold the Melchizedek
Priesthood. Then again, if it were necessary, though I do not expect the
necessity will ever arise, and there was no man left on earth holding the
Melchizedek Priesthood, except an elder——that elder, by the inspiration of
the Spirit of God and by the direction of the Almighty, could proceed and
should proceed, to organize the Church of Jesus Christ in all its perfection,
because he holds the Melchizedek Priesthood. But the house of God is a house
of order, and while the other officers remain in the Church, we must observe
the order of the priesthood, and we must perform ordinances and ordinations
strictly in accordance with that order, as it has been established in the
Church through the instrumentality of the Prophet Joseph Smith and his
successors.——Oct. C. R., 1903, p. 87. (See also <i>Gospel Doctrine - Sermons
and Writings of President Joseph F. Smith</i> p. 148 ). <br />
<br />
If the Presidency were to be killed off, then the Council of the Twelve
Apostles would stand in their place and preside until the Presidency should
be restored; and if they and the First Presidency were all killed off, then
the seventies would come forward and they would establish the order of Zion
and renew the order of the priesthood upon the earth; and if all the
seventies were killed off, and yet there was one elder possessing the
Melchizedek Priesthood, he would have authority to organize the Church, under
the command of God and guidance of His Holy Spirit, as Joseph did in the
beginning; that it should be re-established in its perfect form. So you can
see that this organization is well-nigh undestructible. (Liahona 4:45-46,
Sept. 7, 1895 quoted in <i>Latter-day Prophets Speak</i> by Daniel Ludlow, p.
213) <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"><br />
<br />
Now these are indeed interesting quotes when one considers the issue of
apostasy. If Joseph F. Smith's principals would work for today's Church, why
not throughout the whole of the Church's history? I cannot believe that every
single elder in the early Church was killed off.<br />
<br />
There is also the question of the four apostles that did not die; that have
existed since the founding of the Church in the first century; I am of course
talking about the "three Nephites" and the apostle John. The Book
of Mormon does not call the twelve of the new world Church apostles, but
rather disciples. The Book of Mormon does however equate the twelve disciples
of the new world with the twelve of the old. (See Mormon 3:19) And in the
"History of the Church" Joseph Smith calls the new world twelve
apostles: <br />
This book also tells us that our Savior made His appearance upon this
continent after His resurrection; that He planted the Gospel here in all its
fulness, and richness, and power, and blessing; that they had Apostles,
Prophets, Pastors, Teachers, and Evangelists; the same order, the same
priesthood, the same ordinances, gifts, powers, and blessings, as were
enjoyed on the eastern continent, that the people were cut off in consequence
of their transgressions, that the last of their prophets who existed among
them was commanded to write an abridgment of their prophecies,
history,&c, and to hide it up in the earth, and that it should come forth
and be united with the Bible for the accomplishment of the purposes of God in
the last days. (H.C. 4.45<!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape id="_x0000_i1082"
type="#_x0000_t75" alt="8)" style='width:14.25pt;height:11.25pt'>
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:/Users/david/AppData/Local/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_image002.gif"
o:href="http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/glasses.gif"/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><img alt="8)" border="0" height="15" src="file:///C:/Users/david/AppData/Local/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_image002.gif" v:shapes="_x0000_i1082" width="19" /><!--[endif]--> <br />
<br />
And James Talmage in his book <i>The Great Apostasy</i> also calls the twelve
Nephite disciples "apostles" (page 12).<br />
<br />
From the above we can safely say that for at least a few years there were <b>at
least twenty four apostles</b>; and that four apostles have remained on earth
in a "translated" state. Scott and I have had some discussion in
the past on how this could be called a total apostasy. I will leave it up to
him to once again explain this. <br />
<br />
I would now like to touch once again on the Mosaic dispensation. Rory and I
in another thread demonstrated that despite terrible periods of apostasy, the
priesthood was never totally lost before the Christian dispensation. Barry
acknowledged that the Mosaic priesthood was still functioning during the
ministry of Jesus. Rory and I had come up with a few verses which
demonstrated just how low the Israelites had sunk. Since then I have come
upon a few more verses concerning apostasy in the Mosaic dispensation.
Indulge me as I post my findings with some of the previous verses Rory and I
had already posted:<br />
<br />
<b>1 Kings 19:10, 14, 18</b> And he said, I have been very jealous for the
LORD God of hosts: for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant,
thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even
I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away...And he said, I have
been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts: because the children of Israel
have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets
with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take
it away...Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which
have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.(See also
<b>Rom. 11:1-5</b>)<br />
<br />
<b>2 Kings 16:2-4</b> Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to reign, and
reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem, and did not that which was right in the
sight of the LORD his God, like David his father.But he walked in the way of
the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire,
according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out from
before the children of Israel. And he sacrificed and burned incense on the
high places and on the hills and under every green tree.(See also <b>verses
10-18</b> for Urijah's, the high priest, complicity with Ahaz's idolatry).<br />
<br />
<b>2 Chronicles 28:22-25</b> And in the time of his distress did he trespass
yet more against the LORD: this is that king Ahaz. For he sacrificed unto the
gods of Damascus, which smote him: and he said, Because the gods of the kings
of Syria help them, therefore will I sacrifice to them, that they may help
me. But they were the ruin of him, and of all Israel. And Ahaz gathered
together the vessels of the house of God, and cut in pieces the vessels of
the house of God, and shut up the doors of the house of the LORD, and he made
him altars in every corner of Jerusalem. And in every several city of Judah
he made high places to burn incense unto other gods, and provoked to anger
the LORD God of his fathers.<br />
<br />
<b>2 Kings 21:1-16 </b>(The idolatrous reign of Manasseh). <br />
<br />
<b>2 Chronicles 15:3</b> Now for a long season Israel hath been without the
true God, and without a teaching priest, and without law. <br />
<br />
<b>Isaiah 1:2-9; Jer. 2:8, 11, 13, 26</b><br />
<br />
<b>Jeremiah 6:13</b> For from the least of them even unto the greatest of
them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the
priest every one dealeth falsely.<br />
<br />
<b>Jeremiah 7:28 </b>But thou shalt say unto them, This is a nation that obeyeth
not the voice of the LORD their God, nor receiveth correction: truth is
perished, and is cut off from their mouth.<br />
<br />
<b>Ezekiel 5:1-2; 7:23-27; 8:5-18; 22:25-30</b> (v. 30 And I sought for
anyone among them who would repair the wall and stand in the breach before me
on behalf of the land, so that I would not destroy it; but I found no one.)<br />
<br />
<b>Malachi 2:8, 9, 11</b> But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused
many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the
LORD of hosts. Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before
all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial
in the law...Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed
in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD
which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.<br />
<br />
<b>1 Maccabees 10:18-20; 15:1, 2; 2 Maccabees 4:7, 8, 18-20, 23-26. Josephus
JW 1.31-35.</b><br />
<br />
OK...I will stop...but I think all get the point...there was terrible periods
of apostasy during the Mosaic dispensation, yet it was never total...even
though at times it could be said that none could be found who had not fallen
into apostasy.<br />
<br />
Now, for the sake of argument, let's say that the Catholic Church did become
apostate...does this mean that every single priesthood holder vanished from
the earth? Does not LDS theology maintain that any elder can baptize? Let us
not forget Joseph F. Smith's words, and the fact that in LDS theology four
apostles have always been on the earth from the first century forward.<br />
<br />
Maybe it is just me, but the concept of a TOTAL apostasy seems difficult to
maintain. Have I missed something?<br />
<br />
Lastly, (only for now of course), I cannot explain the coming forth of the
Book of Mormon if Joseph Smith was not a prophet. There seems to be to much
there for a farm boy to come up with on his own. But then as I have said
before, I cannot explain the Quran, the writings of Bahaullah, or for that
matter Ellen G. White and the Seventh-day Adventists. (Oh, and as Rory has
pointed out the miracles by Catholic saints throughout the centuries).<br />
<br />
So maybe Paul Hadik is right, maybe all we need is the Bible and the Holy
Spirit...maybe.<br />
<br />
In Christ, <br />
<br />
David <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Edited
by: <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/bpacumenispages.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=davidwaltz">David
Waltz</a> at: 9/30/00 2:00:26 pm</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Dan DeMura</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Unregistered User</span><br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(9/30/00 9:19 am)</span><br />
216.67.118.206<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=18">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=18">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=18">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Apostasy and Standard of truth.</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">In regards to this thread I'm surprised to see so much
discussion on the fact that the "great apostasy" could NOT have
taken place.<br />
<br />
************<br />
David Waltz said:<br />
<br />
Maybe it is just me, but the concept of a TOTAL apostasy seems difficult to
maintain. Have I missed something?<br />
<br />
Lastly, (only for now of course), I cannot explain the coming forth of the
Book of Mormon if Joseph Smith was not a prophet. There seems to be to much
there for a farm boy to come up with on his own. But then as I have said before,
I cannot explain the Quran, the writings of Bahaullah, or for that matter
Ellen G. White and the Seventh-day Adventists. (Oh, and as Rory has pointed
out the miracles by Catholic saints throughout the centuries).<br />
<br />
So maybe Paul Hadik is right, maybe all we need is the Bible and the Holy
Spirit...maybe<br />
************<br />
<br />
This is surprising because the foundation of the LDS church is dependent upon
TOTAL APOSTASY.<br />
<br />
LDS Apostle B. H. Roberts wrote, "Saddening as the thought may seem, the
Church founded by the labors of Jesus and His Apostles was destroyed from the
earth; the Gospel was perverted; its ordinances were changed; its laws were
transgressed; its covenant was, on the part of man, broken; and the world was
left to flounder in the darkness of a long period of apostasy from God… a
universal apostasy from the Christian doctrine and the Christian Church took
place" (D.H.C., Vol. I, Introduction, pp. 39 and 41).<br />
<br />
I feel it is impossible for the LDS church to ever acknowledge that there was
not a complete apostasy. To do so would destroy the foundation of the church.
The Mormon church definitely teaches that all other churches are in a state
of apostasy. More than fifty pages of the introduction to the History of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are devoted to proving that all
churches except the Mormon church are in apostasy. This is a quote from that
introduction... "Nothing less than a complete apostasy from the
Christian religion would warrant the establishment of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints." <br />
<br />
So if there has been such intelligent discussion that proves nearly
impossible to have a complete apostasy how can the Mormon church be true? <br />
<br />
But if it's not true then why not go with Islam? or Ellen G. White etc.<br />
<br />
I think Paul Hadik hit on the fact that the BIBLE is the only standard we
have to test truth. And one thing ALL These various teachings have in common
is that they contradict the Bible. Even if these books seem so great and
seemingly impossible to have been produced by normal man... is it really any
wonder that the enemy could give false "signs" and
"miracles"? Rev 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the
false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them
that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image.
These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.<br />
<br />
Signs and wonders are not proof enough. A false prophet is still a false
prophet even if he does wonderous things.<br />
<br />
What does it take for a false gospel to do it's job?<br />
As it says in Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the
wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God
really say, `You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"<br />
<br />
And in reference to our enemy... Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against
flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the
rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high
places.<br />
<br />
There is only ONE TRUTH but the ememy would blind us with so many variations
and perversions to choose from... and all he has to do is get us to pick any
other one besides the truth.. he really doesn't care , he wins as long as we
choose another gospel.<br />
<br />
Galatians 1:6-8 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you
into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there
be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though
we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which
we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.<br />
<br />
The thing is you must PICK ONE... you can't have it both ways... either there
was a great apostasy or there was not... either the Mormon church is true or
it's not. And in all things... the Bible must be the judge.<br />
<br />
Joshua 24:14-16 Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and
in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side
of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD. And if it seem evil unto
you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the
gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or
the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house,
we will serve the LORD. And the people answered and said, God forbid that we
should forsake the LORD, to serve other gods;<br />
<br />
If you wish to converse privately you can do so at ... dansmbox@hotmail.com<br />
<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--><span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/ukevinchill.showPublicProfile?language=EN">Kevinchill</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Registered User</span><br />
Posts: 9<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(9/30/00 10:41 am)</span><br />
24.95.206.218<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=19">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=19">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=19">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Re: Apostasy and Standard of truth.</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Dan, <br />
<br />
Two quick comments because I have to run right now. My wife is after me to
clean the storage shed :-). <br />
<br />
First, I have always understood the apostasy to be a loss of priesthood
authority and of of revelation by apostles and prophets. Clearly there has
been some truth held since Christ's time. In fact some may have had a lot of
it. <br />
<br />
Second you said:<br />
<br />
"And in all things... the Bible must be the judge."<br />
<br />
But the Bible does not make that provision about itself. In my understanding
this is a result of the recent development of the concept of inerrancy.
Perhaps this is a topic for another post but if you care to I would like to
see this claim substantiated from the Bible itself. Thanks and God Bless.<br />
<br />
Kevin C. Hill<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/upacumeni9.showPublicProfile?language=EN">Pacumeni9</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Title: Webdictator II</span><br />
Posts: 33<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(9/30/00 10:54 am)</span><br />
216.161.84.162<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=20">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=20">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=20">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Re: Apostasy and Standard of truth.</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Dan DeMura said on 9/30/00:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
> In regards to this thread I'm surprised to see so much <br />
> discussion on the fact that the "great apostasy" could <br />
> NOT have taken place.<br />
<br />
<br />
Perhaps the reason such a discussion is taking place is because non-LDS, such
as David Waltz, are free to express themselves here on virtually any aspect
of the validity of the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Just as Mr. Demura
is. By George, they are even free to provide various links supporting their
views!<br />
<br />
Will novelties never cease?<br />
<br />
<br />
> ************<br />
<br />
> David Waltz said:<br />
<br />
> Maybe it is just me, but the concept of a TOTAL apostasy <br />
> seems difficult to maintain. Have I missed something?<br />
<br />
> Lastly, (only for now of course), I cannot explain the <br />
> coming forth of the Book of Mormon if Joseph Smith was <br />
> not a prophet. There seems to be to much there for a farm <br />
> boy to come up with on his own. But then as I have said <br />
> before, I cannot explain the Quran, the writings of <br />
> Bahaullah, or for that matter Ellen G. White and the <br />
> Seventh-day Adventists. (Oh, and as Rory has pointed out <br />
> the miracles by Catholic saints throughout the centuries).<br />
<br />
> So maybe Paul Hadik is right, maybe all we need is the <br />
> Bible and the Holy Spirit...maybe<br />
<br />
<br />
<END QUOTE OF DAVID and back to Dan...> <br />
<br />
<br />
> This is surprising because the foundation of the LDS <br />
> church is dependent upon TOTAL APOSTASY.<br />
<br />
<br />
Well, yes, but we must remember what is meant by that. When Latter-day Saints
speak of total apostasy, they are referring to priesthood authority. The
authority to act in God's name was removed from the possession of humanity.
The institutional Church went into the wilderness.<br />
<br />
Yet much truth remained, though within shades of corrupted contexts. For
instance, the idea that Jesus died for the sins of the world and was the Son
of God remained upon the earth. But hanging from that simple truth were such
man-made concepts as the hypostatic union.<br />
<br />
<br />
> LDS Apostle B. H. Roberts wrote, "Saddening as the <br />
> thought may seem, the Church founded by the labors of <br />
> Jesus and His Apostles was destroyed from the earth; the <br />
> Gospel was perverted; its ordinances were changed; its <br />
> laws were transgressed; its covenant was, on the part of <br />
> man, broken; and the world was left to flounder in the <br />
> darkness of a long period of apostasy from God… a <br />
> universal apostasy from the Christian doctrine and the <br />
> Christian Church took place" (D.H.C., Vol. I, <br />
> Introduction, pp. 39 and 41).<br />
<br />
<br />
I absolutely agree with Elder Talmage.<br />
<br />
<br />
> I feel it is impossible for the LDS church to ever <br />
> acknowledge that there was not a complete apostasy. To do <br />
> so would destroy the foundation of the church.<br />
<br />
<br />
Nonsense.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The Mormon <br />
> church definitely teaches that all other churches are in <br />
> a state of apostasy.<br />
<br />
<br />
This is true.<br />
<br />
<br />
More than fifty pages of the <br />
> introduction to the History of the Church of Jesus Christ <br />
> of Latter-Day Saints are devoted to proving that all <br />
> churches except the Mormon church are in apostasy. This <br />
> is a quote from that introduction... "Nothing less than a <br />
> complete apostasy from the Christian religion would <br />
> warrant the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ <br />
> of Latter-day Saints." <br />
<br />
<br />
Agreed.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
> So if there has been such intelligent discussion that <br />
> proves nearly impossible to have a complete apostasy how <br />
> can the Mormon church be true? <br />
<br />
<br />
See above. Methinks you missed the important qualifications that have been
presented in this thread.<br />
<br />
<br />
> But if it's not true then why not go with Islam? or Ellen <br />
> G. White etc.<br />
<br />
> I think Paul Hadik hit on the fact that the BIBLE is the <br />
> only standard we have to test truth. <br />
<br />
<br />
I agree that the Bible is *a* standard. But since the believers who lived
during Bible times would never have limited testing the truth to the Bible
only, why should I feel so obligated?<br />
<br />
<br />
And one thing ALL <br />
> These various teachings have in common is that they <br />
> contradict the Bible. <br />
<br />
<br />
Which teachings did you have in mind? And don't you mean, at least in a very
relevant sense, that contradict the Bible *as you interpret it?*<br />
<br />
<br />
Even if these books seem so great <br />
> and seemingly impossible to have been produced by normal > man... is
it really any wonder that the enemy could give > false "signs"
and "miracles"? Rev 19:20 And the beast was <br />
> taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought <br />
> miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had <br />
> received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped <br />
> his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire <br />
> burning with brimstone.<br />
<br />
<br />
An interesting point. Yes, I agree with you, Dan. The only rational way to
explain the Latter-day Saint doctrine is to appeal to the supernatural. It
either came from God, or the devil.<br />
<br />
<br />
> Signs and wonders are not proof enough. A false prophet <br />
> is still a false prophet even if he does wonderous things.<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree. That is why we need the asurance of the Holy Spirit. See, for
instance, Moroni 10:3-5<br />
<br />
<br />
> What does it take for a false gospel to do it's job?<br />
<br />
> As it says in Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty <br />
> than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He <br />
> said to the woman, "Did God really say, `You must not eat <br />
> from any tree in the garden'?"<br />
<br />
> And in reference to our enemy... Ephesians 6:12 For we <br />
> wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against <br />
> principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the <br />
> darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in <br />
> high places.<br />
<br />
> There is only ONE TRUTH but the ememy would blind us with <br />
> so many variations and perversions to choose from... and <br />
> all he has to do is get us to pick any other one besides <br />
> the truth.. he really doesn't care , he wins as long as <br />
> we choose another gospel.<br />
<br />
<br />
So how can one know, Dan? How is one to know which is the correct way? Now,
although I have my own opinion on this, I am not trying to catch you. I
really am interested in your view on this.<br />
<br />
<br />
> Galatians 1:6-8 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from <br />
> him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another <br />
> gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that <br />
> trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But <br />
> though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other <br />
> gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto <br />
> you, let him be accursed.<br />
<br />
<br />
And I agree with Saint Paul. As he said elsewhere, the pillar and ground of
the truth is found in the CHURCH, the divine body of Christ. Prophets, just
as Paul clearly taught, are fallible men.<br />
<br />
So why do the critics constantly cite the private opinions of the leaders of
the Church, when, as Paul has said, and as we have agreed, prophets are
fallible men, but it is only the Church itself that is our ground?<br />
<br />
Enquiring minds want to know!<br />
<br />
<br />
> The thing is you must PICK ONE... you can't have it both <br />
> ways... either there was a great apostasy or there was <br />
> not...<br />
<br />
<br />
There was a total loss of authority. There was a corruption of truth. The
Church went into the wilderness, having lost its foundation of apostles and
prophets. <br />
<br />
This all required a restoration of authority, a new dispensing of pure truth,
a reestablishment of the visible Church upon a modern foundation of apostles
and prophets.<br />
<br />
<br />
> either the Mormon church is true or it's not. <br />
<br />
<br />
It is true, Dan. I encourage you to read or reread the Book of Mormon, and
the modern scriptures along with the Bible, and to pray. Put it to the test
again.<br />
<br />
And <br />
> in all things... the Bible must be the judge.<br />
<br />
<br />
Translation: "And in all things, my interpretation of the Bible must be
the judge...which is just a polite way of saying that *I* will be the
judge."<br />
<br />
<br />
Pacumeni<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">-- The Tanners' mantra
for 30 years has been that the Church censors its own teachings and history.
Yet, as soon as they put up a message board and Latter-day Saints show up to
show where they are wrong, the Tanners engage in suppression themselves.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p>
<div align="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" style="mso-cellspacing: .7pt; mso-padding-alt: 3.75pt 3.75pt 3.75pt 3.75pt; width: 95%px;">
<tbody><tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/bpacumenispages.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=davidwaltz">David
Waltz</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Forum Host</span><br />
Posts: 16<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(10/2/00 2:59 pm)</span><br />
64.12.104.48<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=21">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=21">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=21">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Re: More on the Apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Barry
Bickmore wrote on 9/5/2000 <br />
<br />
Hi guys! I have a few comments to throw in here, as well. <br />
Paul said:<br />
<br />
> So to answer (in a very roundabout way) David your question. To me the<br />
> Spirit is enough. I keep in mind that on judgement day, when a word from
the<br />
> Father will send me somewhere for eternity that neither J. Smith nor Pope<br />
> John Paul II nor the Bab will be by my side. I will be alone before God.<br />
<br />
I wouldn't be so sure about that, Paul. Consider this:<br />
<br />
"And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have
followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne
of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve
tribes of Israel." (Matt. 19:2<!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape id="_x0000_i1083"
type="#_x0000_t75" alt="8)" style='width:14.25pt;height:11.25pt'>
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:/Users/david/AppData/Local/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_image002.gif"
o:href="http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/glasses.gif"/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><img alt="8)" border="0" height="15" src="file:///C:/Users/david/AppData/Local/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_image002.gif" v:shapes="_x0000_i1083" width="19" /><!--[endif]--> <br />
<br />
And this: <br />
<br />
"And I exhort you to remember these things; for the time speedily cometh
that ye shall know that I lie not, for ye shall see me at the bar of God; and
the Lord God will say unto you: Did I not declare my words unto you, which
were written by this man, like as one crying from the dead, yea, even as one
speaking out of the dust?" (Moroni 10:27) <br />
I don't expect you to believe the prophet Moroni at this point, but Jesus'
words ought to give you pause. Jesus appoints men - mere men, fallible men -
to do his work. He gives them power to bind and loose in heaven. He places
them as judges over those they have been charged to lead. In a word, Jesus
requires us to SUBMIT to the spiritual authorities He places over us, even
though they are fallible humans. <br />
<br />
For that matter, Jesus requires that wives submit to their husbands, and that
Christians submit to political authorities, whom God has put in their place.
I am certainly not saying that God may not instruct men to go against
political authorities in some instances, or that He may not tell a woman to
refuse to submit to her husband when he is leading into evil. But in this I
see a pattern. <br />
That is, we are ultimately responsible to make sure we are heading toward
salvation. God gives us His Spirit, which is the guarantee of salvation (not
because the Bible tells me so, as I have heard many a Protestant say), and He
expects us to follow where the Spirit leads. But in order to follow the
Spirit, we must learn to submit. But then, sometimes (I'm speaking from
personal experience) it is ever so easy to tell ourselves that we are
submitting to God, when in fact there are corners of our souls where we hang
onto our pride and wickedness. It's all too easy to rationalize that we are
"following God", because, barring an angelic appearance or
something, it's usually pretty easy to hear only what we want to hear from
God. But God just isn't that easy to get rid of. As C.S. Lewis said, when we
go to God and ask Him to help us change, God is not going to stop until the
job is done. We may be satisfied when we have kicked our more obvious faults,
but God isn't. <br />
<br />
This brings me to the subject of spiritual authority. If it's easy to ignore
the voice of God when God says things we don't like, it's powerfully hard to
ignore your local minister, bishop, or Pope. A Protestant, when confronted by
such a thing, will often get mad and go "church hopping". A
Catholic might go liberal and find excuses not to believe in the
infallibility of Papal decrees on faith and morals. A Mormon might go liberal
and hold on to the fact that we have no infallibility dogma, and use that as
an excuse to "pick and choose". A Protestant, Catholic, or Mormon
might then go into some "nobody's perfect" routine to excuse his
wickedness. Or he could submit to the spiritual authorities. In doing so he
willingly exposes himself to God's "work crew" that comes in and
knocks out walls, sweeps out the cobwebby corners, adds on to the building,
and makes his shabby cottage into a palace.<br />
<br />
To me, this is a BIG problem with modern Protestantism. It's just too easy to
adopt some private interpretation that caters to our secret pride and lust.
There are degrees in this, and when we compare ourselves to the world in
general, bent on hedonism, it is easy for us to think that we really are submitting
to God. To me, it seems like Catholics and Mormons see God as the "in
your face" God He is. We see that the spiritual authorities God has
placed over us are there to force us into a clear choice between our own
wills and the will of God.<br />
<br />
So, when people like Rory and I see a fellow Christian like yourself who is
trying to submit himself to God, we naturally rejoice and say, "Come
with us, brother, and let's give God the chance to finish the job in
us." <br />
One final note. I'm not talking about "blind obedience". I believe
that God will tell us directly, if we seek earnestly, where His appointed
authority lies. Once this is done, we have a good reason to submit.<br />
<br />
Barry<br />
<br />
<br />
Barry Bickmore wrote on 9/5/2000 <br />
<br />
Hi David - <br />
<br />
I've heard the argument about the 3 Nephite apostles and John before, but I
think you should take the following information into account. Latter-day
Saints believe that these men were "translated," i.e. their bodies
were changed to a higher state, preliminary to the resurrection, and now "they
are as the angels of God." (3 Nephi 28:30) If, as Joseph Smith said,
translated beings are "held in reserve to be ministering angels,"
(TPJS 170) how could the fact that God left priesthood-holding angels on the
earth (who did not transmit their priesthood to others) have any bearing on
the question of whether the apostasy was "total"? Rather, this
illustrates the LDS belief in God's loving concern for His children even
during periods of apostasy.<br />
<br />
And as for your question about whether any stray elder could have rebuilt the
Church on the authority of the priesthood he held, that is completely true.
However, you will notice the provision that this must have been done by
revelation. That is, God would have had to have commanded him to ordain new
apostles, etc.<br />
<br />
Now think of Hermas. He says God revealed to him that all the Christians had
one last chance to repent, and then the Church would be completed. Anyone
left outside would be relegated to some inferior institution. In light of
this, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to suppose that God told anyone
with valid priesthood orders that the earthly Church was in shut-down mode,
and told them NOT to rebuild. <br />
So, the question seems to me not to be whether someone *could have* passed on
valid priesthood orders if God wanted him to, because clearly that's the
case. The question is whether God told anyone to do that. <br />
<br />
Finally, you say that you can't explain the Book of Mormon, but you also
can't explain the Quran, Science and Theology, the writings of Bahaullah.
What is it, exactly, about these books that you have trouble explaining?<br />
<br />
Is it just that they seem too complex for a normal person to have written, or
that there seems to be some striking empirical evidence for their claims? You
know as well as I do that there is some pretty striking empirical evidence
for the proposition that the Book of Mormon is REAL HISTORY. Certainly this
proposition is not proven, but there are a number of things - outside of the
mere fact of the book's existence - that would be EXTREMELY odd if the book
were a fraud. E.g. what are the odds that Joseph Smith could have come up
with a route for Lehi's troupe that would hit a real place named NHM, turn
east, and hit a "bountiful" place on the Arabian coast that has
iron ore, cliffs, etc., etc.? What are the odds that Joseph Smith would come
up with the proper names that he did, many of which have been verified as
real, extrabiblical, Near Eastern names?<br />
<br />
Anywho, I think it would be an interesting exercise for you to make a list of
"inexplicable" things having to do with each of the books you
mentioned. I don't know about anyone else here, but I think that would be an
extremely interesting thing to see, coming from someone like yourself.<br />
<br />
Barry <span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/bpacumenispages.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=davidwaltz">David
Waltz</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Forum Host</span><br />
Posts: 18<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(10/2/00 3:08 pm)</span><br />
64.12.104.48<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=22">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=22">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=22">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Re: More on the Apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">paul hadik wrote on 9/5/2000 <br />
<br />
Hey Guys:<br />
<br />
With the arrival of Barry it is good to see everyone together again...Scott
break out a bag of chips and let's have at it.<br />
<br />
Barry and Rory: I would like to say as strongly as possible that I do not
reject the importance of tradition nor the importance of spiritual teachers.
(I don't want to get thrust into an extremist corner)<br />
I would no sooner turn a new convert loose on himself then I would throw a
calculus book at my 8 year old son and hope for the best.<br />
I think you guys know that already but just want to reiterate myself.<br />
<br />
Where I do draw the line is when I hear that a church can not function in all
truth without this 'succession'.<br />
<br />
I raise the following points:<br />
<br />
1)Do apostles guarantee unity? No. Paul, the greatest mind of the NT and
Barnabas the "son of Comfort" had such a falling out that they
stopped working together! If those two couldn't get along what does that say
of the odds of a unified church with our fallen nature?<br />
<br />
2)Does being an Apostle guarantee freedom from error? No. Why was it
necessary for Paul to publicly rebuke Peter for his behaviour? And not only
rebuke him but consider his error so serious that he made the rebuke public
knowledge to other churches (causing one to assume that Peter's error was
well known)<br />
<br />
3) the apostles demanded that they be kept pure against Scripture and not the
other way around. Paul congratulated the Bereans for comparing him to what
Scripture they had. He didn't lay into them for doubting an Apostle. Why the
warning in Galatians 1 if it were impossible for Paul to teach error?<br />
<br />
4)Does Apostolic authority guarantee a unified church teaching?Again no. We
have liberal Catholic churches which emphasize a social gospel and
conservative RCC churches with emphasize salvation first; we have liberal LDS
thinkers like Metcalfe and more conservative thinkers like Peterson.Barry,
what happens if I am baptized into the LDS church by someone like Metcalfe or
someone else who (as we have all heard example of in all faiths) "has
lost the faith" and is merely going through the motions. Is it my
heart's condition that counts or is it a combination of my heart and the one
doing the baptizing? As I brought up on the other thread, what happened to
those baptized by Judas? did their baptism count? When an authority figure
gets high up but no longer believes, yet hides his true feelings what happens
to his authority? I dunno.<br />
<br />
If the LDS church could show that historically they have never experienced
apostasy (since 1830) and that there has never been a schism in the church
(like the RLDS or Church of Christ or the Rigdonites, and if the RCC could
show that in all their churches across the world the same message was being
emphasized and always had been then I would begin to agree with what y'all
keep saying.<br />
<br />
As it is, as long as we live in a fallen world the possibility of a True
Visible Church remains impossible to my thinking. That being the case, their
can never have been an apostasy of the LDS type.<br />
<br />
The visible church, so to speak, filled with humans will never be perfect. I
am speaking for my own camps as well, protestant of any type.<br />
<br />
So again, I don't reject your ideas out of hand but I do draw a line. <br />
<br />
Anyway,for what its worth, it is a thin line which separates us but a Big
Thin line it is.<br />
<br />
Paul <br />
<br />
Rory McKenzie wrote on 9/5/2000 <br />
<br />
"Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you
the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their
conversation." Hebrews 13:7 <br />
Even if there is not a single one true Church as I have postulated, it seems
necessary that every believer must associate himself with a Christian
community to which he owes obedience.<br />
<br />
We are told by St James that teachers are susceptible to greater condemnation
because of their office (James 3:1). But there isn't even a hint that people
should start forming other churches on account of such a teacher. <br />
Even if I did not believe that there was one true church, it would be my task
to "know them which labour among you, and are OVER YOU in the Lord, and
admonish you; and to esteem them very highly in love for their work's
sake."<br />
(I Thess. 5:12 ) <br />
<br />
Barry's comments relating to obedience in non-church settings really cements
the idea for me that all of us must be in obedience to some church authority.
If children must obey parents, and wives obey husbands, and we must
"submit ourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether
it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors..." (I Peter 2:13 ), it
seems unlikely that the passages from I Thessalonians and Hebrews ought to be
thought of as a suggestion that we listen closely to what the preacher says,
and obey if we agree. God is honoured and pleased when a child obeys and
honours an unworthy parent. God appears honoured and pleased when the
Christians of the Roman Empire submitted to and honour Caesar. The unworthy
priedtly leaders during Christ's time were still recommended by Christ to
lepers who had been healed. And it seems instructive that the high priest
spoke prophecy, when he opined that "one man should die for the
nation". We see that even hypocrites with bad motives can both prophecy
(give us insights without meaning to ) and be worthy of our submission, if
they are lawful authority. <br />
How can it be a matter of small magnitude that we decide which church
officers will have the rule over us? How can we leave a church because we
have been offended, or dislike the music, or even disapprove of some
controversy in theology? It seems half @#%$ed to me that Christians know who
their parents are, and of what citizen they are a nation, but then join
fellowship with one church, and then another. Christians don't nearly so
lighty revolt against the state, or "divorce" their parents! <br />
<br />
It is not of God, that a man start a church without trembling and quaking at
the ramifications of his actions. Any church minister is competing for the
role of being the one who should lawfully receive the submission and
obedience spoken of in Hebrews and Thessalonians, just as surely as parents
and government expect submission. Shouldn't he hope for the whole community
to obey him? What is a guy pastoring for, if he doesn't think that God is
calling him to shepherd the whole flock in a given area? And why is he
competing with other pastors if he thinks that another shepherd has a commission
from God to receive obedience from the sheep of the same community? The
implications of being a minister needs to be more fully examined before new
churches are started.<br />
<br />
>sigh<<br />
<br />
Rory<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/bpacumenispages.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=davidwaltz">David
Waltz</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Forum Host</span><br />
Posts: 19<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(10/2/00 3:21 pm)</span><br />
64.12.104.164<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=23">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=23">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=23">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Re: More on the Apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">David
Waltz wrote on 9/11/2000</span></b><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <br />
<br />
Hi Barry,<br />
<br />
Sorry that I have not gotten back to you sooner, but my wife has been giving
me to many chores of late! <br />
<br />
You posted:<br />
<br />
>Finally, you say that you can't explain the Book of Mormon, but you also
can't explain the Quran, Science and Theology, the writings of Bahaullah.
What is it, exactly, about these books that you have trouble
explaining?...Anywho, I think it would be an interesting exercise for you to
make a list of "inexplicable" things having to do with each of the
books you mentioned. I don't know about anyone else here, but I think that
would be an extremely interesting thing to see, coming from someone like
yourself. > (Barry, I do not know what you meant by "Science and
Theology"). <br />
<br />
To start the ball rolling, I will first deal with the Quran and the Islamic
dispensation. <br />
<br />
In the book <i>An Introduction to the Sciences of the Quraan</i> the Abu
Ammaar Yasir Qadhi lists 10 miraculous categories concerning the Quran. I
will list the ones that are the most significant. <br />
<br />
1.) The eloquence of the Quran above that of any human speech. I am told that
this aspect of the Quran comes out only in the Arabic. I have read from many
sources that the Arabic of the Quran is superior to any other Arabic
writings. Though Muhammad was not illiterate as some have held, he was
certainly not a learned man. Just as you find it impossible that Joseph Smith
could have produced the BoM without the aid of God——Muslims feel the same
about Muhammad and the Quran.<br />
<br />
2.) Unlike the Bible and the BoM, the Quran makes the claim that it contains
only the words of God (Allah); and this means (for the Muslim), that the
Quran is fully infallible.<br />
<br />
3.) Transmission of the Quran. Unlike the Bible which has thousands of
textual variants; the Quran has come down to our time via one official text.
The official text was codified shortly after the death of Muhammad by Uthman.
(On the transmission of the Quran, oral and written, see chapter 8 in Qadhi's
book). Muslims see the unique preservation of the Quran as a miracle of God.<br />
<br />
4.) The Prophecies of the Quran. <br />
<br />
a.) The purity of the Quran will be protected by God. "We have without
doubt, sent down the Message; And We will assuredly guard it from
corruption." (Surah 15:9) <br />
b.) The unique dual prophecy of a future battle of the Romans with the
Persians, and the battle of Badr.. "The Roman Empire has been
defeated——In a land close by: but they, after (this) defeat of theirs, will
soon be victorious——Within a few years (Arabic: <i>bibi' sineen</i>, means
between 3 and 9 years). With Allah is the Decision. In the Past and in the
Future: On that Day shall The Believers rejoice." (Surah 30:2-4)<br />
<br />
On this verse Qadhi writes: "Exactly seven years after the revelation of
these verses, the Romans attacked the Persians again, and this time were
victorious, and managed to regain their territory. This battle occurred on
the same day as the Battle of Badr, when the Muslims were themselves
'rejoicing' because of their victory over the Quraysh. Thus, this verse
predicted two events: the victory o the Romans, and the victory of the
Muslims." (p. 273)<br />
<br />
Surah 54: 42-45 also predicts victory in the Battle of Badr. Numerous hadith
predict victory, a victory which in and of itself seemed miraculous——a mere
305 Muslims defeated 1,000 heavily armed Quraysh.<br />
<br />
c.) Mecca and the Kabah to be taken by the Muslims. (Surah 48:27)<br />
<br />
d.) Islam to succeed, and become the established authority in Arabia. (Surah
24:55)<br />
<br />
e.) Jews to be driven from Medina. (Surah 33:60) <br />
<br />
f.) Muhammad will be praised and glorified. (Surah 17:79)<br />
<br />
5.) [This is not in Qadhi’’s book] The Bible predicts the advent of Muhammad
and Islam. <br />
<br />
<b>Isaiah 63:1-6</b> Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments
from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the
greatness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save.
Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that
treadeth in the winefat? I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the
people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and
trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments,
and I will stain all my raiment. For the day of vengeance is in mine heart,
and the year of my redeemed is come. And I looked, and there was none to
help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm
brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me. And I will tread down
the people in mine anger, and make them drunk in my fury, and I will bring
down their strength to the earth. {Note: Muhammad was a descendent of the Edomites,
and he been to Bozrah many times as a merchant, starting in his early youth.
Muhammad and Islam came with a sword (i.e. vengence)].<br />
<br />
<b>Isaiah 19:18,23-25</b> In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt
speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the LORD of hosts; one shall be
called, The city of destruction. In that day shall there be a highway out of
Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian
into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians. In that day shall
Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst
of the land: Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my
people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance. [Note:
When did Egypt begin to speak the language of Canaan? (Arabic is a Canaanite
language); When did Egypt, Assyria and the land of Israel all worship the
LORD? They both occurred during the Islamic dispensation]. <br />
<br />
<b>Isaiah 21:11-14</b> (NAS) The oracle concerning Edom. One keeps calling to
me from Seir, " Watchman, how far gone is the night? Watchman, how far
gone is the night? " The watchman said, The morning cometh, and also the
night: if ye will inquire, inquire ye: turn ye, come. The burden upon Arabia.
In the forest in Arabia shall ye lodge, O ye caravans of Dedanites. Unto him
that was thirsty they brought water; the inhabitants of the land of Tema did
meet the fugitives with their bread. For they fled away from the swords, from
the drawn sword, andfrom the bent bow, and from the grievousness of war.
[Notes: Night equals apostasy, morning to come from Seir (Jesus); another
night comes after the morning, but morning will "come back
again"(Muhammad); Dedanites where a town and a tribe in Arabia during
the time of Muhammad].<br />
<br />
<b>Deuteronomy 33:2</b> And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up
from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten
thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.<br />
<br />
The Muslim interpretation of this verse is an interesting one. The LORD first
comes from Sinai (Moses dispensation); then from Seir (Jesus' dispensation);
and then from mount Paran (Muhammad's dispensation. [Notes: Paran is in
Arabia, and Muhammad was said to have 10,000 Companions]. <br />
Lastly, I must mention the fruits of Islam itself. Historians acknowledge
that during the time of the "Dark Ages" of Europe, higher learning,
mathematics and the sciences were all flourishing in Islam. Many of the lands
that became Muslim were rank pagans before, and came to worship the one true
God. Historians also acknowledge that the Arabs of Muhammad's day were a
barbaric, pagan lot. Islam (like early Christianity), eradicated many of the
barbaric and paganistic practices of the lands that came under its influence.<br />
<br />
So Barry, what say thee, was Muhammad a true prophet of God? Is the Quran
scripture? Is Islam a religion from God? How far will God allow Satan to go
in his attempts at deception? How much truth will God allow Satan to mix with
error? What must one do to be saved? What is the bare minimum? How much truth
must one have to be saved? <br />
Now, related to the above is the question of the visible church——at what
point in time was the Catholic Church teaching to much error to no longer be
considered a "true" Church? And from a Protestant view point (this
is for Paul), at what time should one leave a visible community of Christian
believers to start another Church? This question is made even more difficult
in that NO church is free from ALL error.<br />
<br />
Guess I have said enough for now.<br />
<br />
In Christ, <br />
<br />
David <span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/bpacumenispages.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=davidwaltz">David
Waltz</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Forum Host</span><br />
Posts: 20<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(10/2/00 3:28 pm)</span><br />
64.12.104.164<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=24">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=24">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=24">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Re: More on the Apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Elijah
wrote on 9/20/2000 <br />
<br />
David,<br />
<br />
Thank you for your informative post on Islam. I knew a Mormon Bishop who
spent time in Saudi Arabia with Muslims, and he verily believes that Muhammed
was a true prophet of God. There is actually well-documented proof of men
tampering with the Koran shortly after Muhoammed's death. This opens the door
that some of its statements that contradict the Bible may have been
post-Muhammed additions/corruptions, i.e., "Allah neither begets nor is
begotten", "Allah has no Son, tell the infidel if Allah had a Son,
I would be the first to worship him", etc. . . It does seem beyond
controversy, though, that Muhammed rejected the Trinity as polytheism, and
insisted that Jesus is not the Only True God, "cease saying Allah is
three, or that Jesus is Allah, when Jesus the messenger of Allah said, I
ascend to my God and your God". <br />
<br />
That being said, I personally believe Muhammed was a true prophet of God (and
the Book of Mormon says God grants to all nations, in their own tongue, a
portion of his word, according to their faith), but that there was a Muslim
Apostasy shortly after his death which perverted and corrupted the Koran and
many of his teachings. If this is true, then it is not necessary to go
"either/or" with Islam and Mormonism, since its possible to believe
Islam also went into Apostasy as Chrsitianity did before it, so Joseph Smith
was needed to restore what both of these religions have corrupted.<br />
<br />
As far as what Mormons mean when we speak of a Universal or Great Apostasy is
that the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" were given to Christ's 1st
century Apostles by Christ, Moses, and Elijah (Ma 16:19; 18:17,18; 17:2), but
the Jews and then the Gentiles rejected those "keys" believing they
could get along just fine without them (1 Pt 4:7 w/ Acts 3:21), necessitating
a future restoration of those keys through Angelic visitation (Ma 17:11;
16:28; Jo 21:21-23; Eph 1:10; Rev 14:6,7; etc.). These Angelic visitors were
Peter, James, and John, who came down from heaven, layed their hands on
Joseph Smith Jr., and ordained him as their Apostolic successors with the
"keys of the kingdom of heaven". Without these keys the ordinances
and commandments of God cannot be bound on earth or in heaven, so such
man-made Churches have no authority to administer the Gospel laws and
ordinances for the salvation of man. <br />
<br />
Christ and his Apostles were violently rejected by both Jew and Gentile over
the course of the 1st century, so the Apostles appointed no public successors
to their authority. The Church went "into the wilderness" (Rev 12),
where man could no longer publically see her, i.e., translated beings
secretly roamed the earth, perhaps saving some, but never publically
appearing to man. Thus, when Mormons speak of a Great Apostasy, or even a
Total Apostasy, we are technically speaking of a Total Apostasy of all public
Churches on the earth, not disparate secret traditions that may have
continued outside public scrutiny. Protestants claim a "secret tradition",
as it were, but since they've never claimed the "keys of the kingdom of
heaven" through Angelic visitation, it is clear that their "secret
tradition" is not Apostolic nor having the true priesthood keys.<br />
<br />
Now lets get to the crux of the Apostasy issue. Did Christ and his Apostles
predict an imminent Great Apostasy? <br />
"The end of all things is AT HAND" (1 Pt 4:7; the "all
things" pertain to the Gospel power: 2 Pt 1:4; and the "all
things" would be restored before Christ's 2nd Coming . . .),
"Elijah truly shall first come, and restore all things" (Ma 17:11),
"the heavens must receive Jesus Christ until the time of the restitution
of all things" (Acts 3:21; Eph 1:10; Rev 14:6,7).<br />
<br />
If the end of "all things" was not the Gospel, and the restoration
of "all things" was not the Gospel, then what was it? The
"end" spoken of by Peter could not have been Christ's 2nd Coming,
since that wasn't "at hand" at all (2 Ths 2:2,3; 2 Pt 3:8,9), so
clearely Peter was speaking of the end of the public Gospel on the earth with
Apostles and Prophets with the keys of the kingdom of heaven.<br />
<br />
When was the anti-Christ and Apostasy prophesied of in 2 Ths 2:1-4 supposed
to happen? <br />
"The myster of iniquity doth ALREADY work" (2 Ths 2:7; 2 Tim
4:2-5). <br />
"Little children, IT IS THE LAST TIME: and as ye have heard that
antichrist shall come, EVEN NOW are there many antichrists; whereby we know
that IT IS THE LAST TIME" (1 Jo 2:18). <br />
"Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the
first works; OR ELSE I WILL COME UNTO THEE QUICKLY, and will remove thy
candlestick out of his place, except thou repen" (Rev 2:5).<br />
"And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the
church. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the
which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God,
which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that AFTER MY
DEPARTING shall grievous wolves enter in among you, NOT SPARING THE FLOCK.
Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw
away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space
of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears"
(Acts 20:17,28-31).<br />
"This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia BE TURNED AWAY FROM
ME" (2 Tim 1:15). <br />
This is a small sampling of verses that show the anti-Christ was coming
immediately, not just in some distant far-off epoch. The Church of Ephesus
(Acts 20:17,29; Rev 2:1,5) and the Church of the Romans (Ro 11:21-23) and the
Church of Galatians (Gal 1:6-9; 3:1,2) and the Church of the Corinthians (2
Cor 11:3,4,13-15) all obviously had no immunity from having their
"candlestick removed" (their Church removed from the earth Rev
2:5), so why would any of the other Churches have any such immunity? If
Christ could purchase the flock of Ephesus with his own blood (Acts 20:28),
only to have his blood-purchased flock totally killed off being "not
spared" from death and massive Apostasy (Acts 20:29; Rev 2:1,5; 2 Pt
2:1,19; Heb 10:26-29), what would give the rest of his flock immunity from
such martyrdom and wholesale Apostasy? <br />
<br />
Thousands of more prooftexts could be advanced, but these few prooftexts
should give anyone pause before claiming the coming of anti-Christ with all
deceivableness and lying wonders hasn't happened yet (1 Jo 2:18; 2 Ths
2:4,7-9) or that the Great Apostasy wasn't already "at hand" in the
days of Christ's Apostles (1 Pt 4:7; 1 Jo 2:18; Acts 20:29; Rev 2:5; 2 Tim
4:2-5; 2:12-15).<br />
<br />
The priesthood succession issue is very important. A "believer's
priesthood" is wholly absent from both the Old and New Testament, since
both Testaments show that priesthood ordination as well as belief were
qualifications for the priesthood. It is true that the Levitical priesthood
seemed to continue into the days of Christ, but this assumption seems
unwarranted. For instance, we must realize that Christ and his 1st century
followers were excommunicated by the leaders of the Levitical priesthood from
"Phariseeical Judaism" (Jo 9:22; Ma 10:32,33; etc.). So, if their
priesthood was legitimate, then their excommunication of Christ was
legitimate, which, of course, is absurd. So clearly the Levitical priesthood
had become corrupted to the point of illegitimacy by the time of Christ. <br />
<br />
What about Zecharias? He had the priesthood by birthright, and he lived
worthy of his priesthood, so God called him and his son John the Baptist
through revelation and Angelic visitation to prepare the way for the Messiah.
Just because Zecharias, John, and perhaps a few other Levites legitimately
held the priesthood does not prove the rest of them did too. The rest of them
may have had the priesthood birthright, but they lived unworthy of their
priesthood, so I don't believe their priesthood was legitimate. After Malachi,
the last legitimate Old Testament prophet in regular succession from Moses,
died (400 b.c.), the Levitical priesthood degraded to the point of utter
corruption, so I don't believe they, in general, held a legitimate
priesthood, since they ceased having the gifts of prophecy and Angelic
visitations until the time of Zacharias and John (who schismated a separate
branch of Judaism, which was excommunicated by the Sanhedrin). <br />
Jesus told his followers to obey the Pharisees and Saducees who sat in
"Moses' seat" (Ma 23:2,3), but I believe he was speaking of Moses'
political seat (i.e., the Sanhedrin was a political as well as religious
body) not Moses' spiritual seat. If Jesus was speaking of spiritual matters,
then how could Jesus ask his followers to accept excommunication for
believing in and confessing Jesus (Jo 9:22; Ma 10:32,33)? This strains
credulity. Jesus Christ founded a Church upon revelation through Peter and
the other Apostles (Ma 16:18,19), which had a completely seperate
ecclesiastical structure from Levitical, Phariseeical, Judaism, so it isn't
plausible to accept both priesthoods as legitimate. If so, do Jews still hold
a legitimate Levitical priesthood by birthright? <br />
<br />
I know my thesis will be controversial to both Mormon and non-Mormon alike,
but I believe I can back it up. If my thesis is correct, then Evangelicals
who claim a believer's prriesthood, and Catholics who claim a non-prophetic
priesthood, have no real Biblical precedent for their priesthood claims. The
Bible priesthood, when exercised legitimately, was always accompanied by
Prophets with the gift of prophecy, while modern priesthoods have a
"form of godliness, but deny the power thereof" (2 Tim 3:5), i.e.,
the gift of prophecy. I don't know if anyone in Islam or Bahaiism have legitimate
priesthood claims, but I doubt it. This leaves us with the claims of The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who claim regular prophetic and
Apostolic priesthood succession through Joseph Smith Jr. from Peter, James,
and John. This type of priesthood succession through ordination, prophecy,
and the Holy Spirit, is clearly Biblical, while the others clearly aren't. <span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/bpacumenispages.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=davidwaltz">David
Waltz</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Forum Host</span><br />
Posts: 22<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(10/2/00 3:38 pm)</span><br />
64.12.104.164<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=25">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=25">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=25">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Re: More on the Apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">David
Waltz wrote on 9/21/2000 <br />
<br />
Elijah, <br />
<br />
I would like to begin by saying that I really enjoyed your post. You have
certainly given me much to ponder. <br />
You said, "There is actually well-documented proof of men tampering with
the Koran shortly after Muhoammed's [sic] death."<br />
<br />
I have studied the arguments of both sides of this issue (three sides if you
count the Shi'a vs. Sunni). As you know the text that has come down to our
day is the Uthmanic recension. The purity of the Uthmanic text is
acknowledged by all. As to the pre-Uthmanic codices noted Islamic scholars
Bell and Watt had this to say, "The variant readings in the codices of
both these men (Ibn-Mas'ud and Ubayy Ibn-Kab; collectors of pre-Uthmanic
codices) chiefly affect the vowels and punctuation, but occasionally there is
a different consonantal text." And again, "Thus on the whole the information
which has reached us about the pre-Uthmanic codices suggests that there was
no great variation in the actual contents of the Quran in the period
immediately after the Prophet's death. The order of the suras was apparently
not fixed, and there were many slight variations in reading; but of other
differences there is no evidence." (<i> Introduction To The Quran</i>,
1970 revised edition pp. 46, 46) <br />
<br />
With this in mind, I cannot accept the idea that the denial of Jesus’’
sonship in the Quran was due to textual "post-Muhammad
additions/corruptions". First, there is no textual evidence for it.
Second, the passages in the Quran which deny Jesus' sonship are just too
numerous. (See surahs 2.116; 4.171; 5.17, 72, 73, 75, 116-117; 6.100-102;
9.30-31; 10.68; 17.111; 18.4-5; 19.35, 88-92; 23.91; 25.2; 39.4; 43.81; 72.3;
112.1-4).<br />
<br />
You accept that Muhammad rejected the Trinity and that Jesus was true God——on
this issue it is important to note that the passages in the Quran which
reject the above are significantly fewer than those which reject his sonship.
<br />
Now, that Muhammad was "inspired" I have no doubt. But I would
argue that the Buddha, Plato, Zoraster, and others were also
"inspired". However, that Muhammad and the others are true prophets
called by God, this I must currently reject.<br />
<br />
You said: <br />
<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><b><i><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Quote:</span></i></b><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Christ and his Apostles were violently rejected by both
Jew and Gentile over the course of the 1st century, so the Apostles appointed
no public successors to their authority. The Church went "into the
wilderness" (Rev 12), where man could no longer publically see her,
i.e., translated beings secretly roamed the earth, perhaps saving some, but
never publically appearing to man. Thus, when Mormons speak of a Great
Apostasy, or even a Total Apostasy, we are technically speaking of a Total
Apostasy of all public Churches on the earth, not disparate secret traditions
that may have continued outside public scrutiny. Protestants claim a
"secret tradition", as it were, but since they've never claimed the
"keys of the kingdom of heaven" through Angelic visitation, it is
clear that their "secret tradition" is not Apostolic nor having the
true priesthood keys. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"><br />
<br />
The above is one the best presentations of the apostasy from an LDS
perspective I have read to date. I have never been comfortable with some LDS
commentators view that the wilderness of Rev. 12 was actually in heaven. Your
view makes much more sense to me.<br />
<br />
Moving on "the end of all things is at hand" (1 Peter 4:7), once
again I find your presenation a good one. (Are you aware that Barry Bickmore
uses a similar presentation in his book Restoring The Ancient Church
1999...)? Your argument that 1 Peter 4:7 refers to the apostasy rather than
Christ's second coming, though solid, is not totally conclusive. Examine the
following verses and let me know what you think:<br />
<br />
<b>Romans 13:11-12</b> And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time
to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.
The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the
works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.<br />
<br />
<b>1 Corinthians 7:29-31</b> But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it
remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; and
those that weep, as though they wept not; and those that rejoice, as though
they rejoiced not; and those that buy, as though they possessed not; and
those that use the world, as not using it to the full: for the fashion of
this world passeth away.<br />
<br />
<b>James 5:8</b> Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of
the Lord draweth nigh. <br />
<br />
<b>1 John 2:8</b> Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is
true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now
shineth.<br />
<br />
<b>Revelation 22:10</b> And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the
prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. <br />
<br />
<b>Revelation 22:20</b> He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come
quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.<br />
<br />
Your final two paragraphs on the priesthood are excellent!!! Your view about
the state of the Jewish priesthood after Malachi makes more sense than any
other I have read/heard from an LDS perspective. You have really got me
thinking... <br />
<br />
Looking forward to your response,<br />
<br />
David <span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/bpacumenispages.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=davidwaltz">David
Waltz</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Forum Host</span><br />
Posts: 23<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(10/2/00 3:47 pm)</span><br />
64.12.104.164<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=26">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=26">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=26">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Re: More on the Apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">paul
hadik wrote on 9/22/2000 <br />
<br />
Elijah:<br />
<br />
Very interesting post on your part. Glad you admitted it might be
controversial and I hope you don't mind a few questions and comments. Some of
these questions are of the "So are you saying?" variety as I want
to make sure I completely understand your thesis.<br />
<br />
1) So are you saying that Islam in its original state was an attempt at a
Restoration on the part of God? That soon after the death of the Prophet we
experienced another Grand Apostasy? (this would seem to make God 0-2 not
counting Noah's Ark)<br />
<br />
2) If your argument is that the Apostasy came due to the rejection of Christ
and the Apostles and later the corruption of the teachings of Islam, why
reject the possibility that the LDS church is also in a state of Apostasy
now? Begun in 1830, it was rent with infighting and apostasy in just a few
years. The Prophet was definitely rejected by his fellow countrymen and
murdered. They were then kicked out to the far corners of the country,
basically declared war on by the US government with things getting so bad that
God had to sanction a mini-apostasy with the removal of the law of plural
marriage. Possibly the Church of Christ branch is the legitimate branch with
the emphasis on historical early church teachings of Mormonism and the Utah
branch is a more Reformation type branch? Why is God showing more patience
with the LDS then he did with a: the whole earth in Noah's time; b: his own
people the Jews in His Son's time and c: the followers of Islam?<br />
<br />
3) I have some problems with your usage of Scripture. In I Peter 4:7, and
Acts 3:21 couldn't Peter be talking about the destruction of Israel (close at
hand) with the restoration then being a national promise and not a doctrinal
promise? Please note the limiting phrase in Acts "the restitution of all
things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the
world began". From Abraham to Malachi the prophecies emphasized the
Kingdom of Israel so heavily that the coming of Christ was heralded by his
followers as a fulfillment of these prophecies, causing them to overlook his
main purpose as the Deliverer.<br />
<br />
4) Where do you find any Scripture to back up that Moses and Elijah gave any
keys to the disciples?<br />
<br />
5) I didn't quite understand your comment on secret traditions which may have
existed during the Apostasy if you could clear that up for me. I do ask
though as I have asked before, in light of Christ's promise that "where
ever two or three are gathered in my name there I will be also" are you
saying that the presence of Christ in these secret gatherings was not
sufficient to lead into all truth?<br />
<br />
6) In regards to the Apostasy. Hypothetical situation. I am a 1st century
Christian. Many of my family have been persecuted and killed for our belief
in Christ. We meet in deep catacombs. We have lost all. But we have the joy
of knowing Christ. One Sunday we have a great ‘‘service’’ of rejoicing and
praise. The following Tuesday, St. John, the last living Apostle is
(according to LDS teaching) translated. The following Sunday am I now
attending an Apostate church?<br />
<br />
7) If this Grand Apostasy and the coming of the Anti-Christ are to combined
in the 1st century and Paul taught this in II Thess 2. What was he thinking
when he ended the chapter by stating "...even our Father, which hath
loved us, and hath given us EVERLASTING consolation and hope through grace,
Comfort your hearts and establish you in every good word and work."
Comfort us with what? Shouldn't he be telling us that a decision has been
made somewhere to remove all Apostolic leadership, not replace it on a
successful basis for 1800 years and that maybe we should start stocking up on
tin foods?<br />
<br />
<!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape id="_x0000_i1084" type="#_x0000_t75" alt="8)"
style='width:14.25pt;height:11.25pt'>
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:/Users/david/AppData/Local/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_image002.gif"
o:href="http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/glasses.gif"/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><img alt="8)" border="0" height="15" src="file:///C:/Users/david/AppData/Local/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_image002.gif" v:shapes="_x0000_i1084" width="19" /><!--[endif]-->In light of Christ's promise that
"the way is narrow and few there be that find it" should we then
not accept that apostasy (defined as a purposeful rejection and attack on
God's plan) has existed since the Fall of Lucifer, through the Garden, the
time of Noah, about 25 minutes after the people of Israel in Ex. 19 said
"WE will do ALL that you command us" down through history? When has
there ever been a time when apostasy has not been rampant? Can the LDS church
honestly claim that there has never been a time in their history wherein
apostasy has reared its head? Did all 11 witnesses remain true to the church
the rest of their lives? Can the Latter Day movement claim that they have
remained a single unified church since the time of Joseph Smith?<br />
<br />
9) Let's talk about the priesthood for a minute. To begin with the Levitical
priesthood did not exist until after the Law. Its purpose was one of mercy.
God in His graciousness knew that His people had been rash in their promises
of Exodus 19 and gave them a way unto forgiveness. Hence the Levitical
Priesthood. The death of Christ as the supreme Lamb of God, the Final
Sacrifice coupled with the miraculous tearing of the veil sheltering the Holy
of Holies signified the end of the need for a Priesthood. If during his life
Christ felt the priesthood no longer legitimate why then did he require the
lepers in Luke 17 to show themselves to the priests in accordance with Mosaic
Law?<br />
<br />
10) If Matthew 23:2,3 is talking about "Moses' political seat" as
you suggest, how do you handle the rest of the chapter to verse 12 with his
obvious references to religious interpretations under the law?<br />
<br />
11) Finally, if you reject the "priesthood of the believers" how do
you interpret Hebrews 4:16 giving me the power to personally approach the
"throne of grace" the exact function of the Levitical Priest.<br />
<br />
Anyway, hope I didn't overload ya'. Look forward to hearing from you. <br />
<br />
Paul Hadik <span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/bpacumenispages.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=davidwaltz">David
Waltz</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Forum Host</span><br />
Posts: 24<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(10/2/00 4:18 pm)</span><br />
64.12.104.164<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=27">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=27">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=27">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Re: More on the Apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Elijah
wrote on 9/23/2000<br />
<br />
Holy cow! <br />
<br />
David and Paul's responses overwhelmed me! David, have you written any books?
How do you keep so up to speed on so many scholarly sources? Paul, I can see
you've been studying your scriptures voraciously. I hope I can be concise
since its not possible to give a detailed response to all of your questions.
Let me start with David.<br />
<br />
DAVID<br />
As to the pre-Uthmanic codices noted Islamic scholars Bell and Watt had this
to say, "Thus on the whole the information which has reached us about
the pre-Uthmanic codices suggests that there was no great variation in the
actual contents of the Quran in the period immediately after the Prophet's
death. The order of the suras was apparently not fixed, and there were many
slight variations in reading; but of other differences there is no
evidence." (<i> Introduction To The Quran</i>, 1970 revised edition pp.
46, 46).<br />
<br />
ME<br />
"Accordingly Bishop Theodoret of Cyprus can boast of having collected
and destroyed in his diocese more than two hundred copies of the diatessaron
New Testament.50 The Arabs, raised up in the same tradition, upon fixing the
final text of the Koran, so carefully destroyed all other texts that for 1200
years it was possible to maintain that the accepted text was the very one
dictated by the Prophet, though today we know that it was nothing of the
sort.52 In this wholesale destruction of texts to control the past, it is precisely
the religious who are least troubled by qualms of conscience,'for how' asks
Eusebius, 'could a man who writes against the Christians do anything but
lie?'53" (<i> Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Mormonism and Early
Christianity</i>, Vol.4, Ch.6, p.226 - p.227; <br />
50. Paul E. Kahle, <i>The Cairo Geniza</i> (London Oxford Press, British
Academy, 1947); cf. 2nd ed., enlarged (1959), pg. 211.<br />
52. Ibid., 29; cf. 192-97.<br />
53. Eusebius, HE VI, 19, 9, in PG 20:561-72.).<br />
<br />
"5. The fact that there was only one version of the book ever published
(with minor changes in each printing). This is most significant. It is now
known that the Koran, the only book claiming an equal amount of divine
inspiration and accuracy, was completely re-edited at least three times
during the lifetime of Mohammed" (<i> Collected Works of Hugh Nibley</i>,
Vol.8, Ch.3, p.71).<br />
<br />
"Where will you find another work remotely approaching the Book of
Mormon in scope and daring? It appears suddenly out of nothing--not an
accumulation of twenty-five years like the Koran, but a single staggering
performance, bursting on a shocked and scandalized world like an explosion,
the full-blown history of an ancient people" (<i> Collected Works of
Hugh Nibley</i>, Vol.7, Ch.6, p.138).<br />
<br />
Is not Paul E. Kahle an acknowledged scholar on the Koran? Muslims have
claimed for centuries that the Koran, unlike the Bible, is completely pure in
its text. In fact, Muslims officially believe Jesus was a true prophet of
God, and that the New Testament was inspired by God, but that the NT text was
later corrupted. That is how they explain away the doctrines of Jesus' divine
Sonship, vicarious atonment, and many other non-Mulsim doctrines in the
Bible. The hypocrisy is evident when we realize the Koran, like the Bible, is
not infallibly pure at all. <br />
<br />
DAVID<br />
With this in mind, I cannot accept the idea that the denial of Jesus’’
sonship in the Quran was due to textual "post-Muhammad
additions/corruptions". First, there is no textual evidence for it.
Second, the passages in the Quran which deny Jesus’’ sonship are just too
numerous. (See surahs 2.116; 4.171; 5.17, 72, 73, 75, 116-117; 6.100-102;
9.30-31; 10.68; 17.111; 18.4-5; 19.35, 88-92; 23.91; 25.2; 39.4; 43.81; 72.3;
112.1-4).<br />
You accept that Muhammad rejected the Trinity and that Jesus was true God——on
this issue it is important to note that the passages in the Quran which
reject the above are significantly fewer than those which reject his sonship.
<br />
<br />
ME<br />
Really this is one of the major sticking points between Islam and
Christianity. Both sides agree to a Virgin birth, but Christianity further
argues that Jesus himself is the divine Son of God in the flesh, which, of
course, is considered blasphemy by Islam. <br />
If I was speaking to a Muslim I would simply point out that the Bible has
just as many, if not more, pointed references to Jesus' unique divine Sonship
as the Koran has against his divine Sonship; so if the Bible could be so
corrupted to add the concept why not the Koran to delete the concept? <br />
If Muhammed did argue that Jesus being the Only Begotten Son of God in the
flesh is blasphemy, he would be no different than the Jews in Christ's day
(John 18:31; 19:7; 10:36,29,30; Mk 14:61-64; Acts 7:55-59; 13:33,45), nor
different than anti-Mormons who consider the idea that God the Father begat
an only begotten Son with Mary sheer pagan blasphemy. Perhaps Muhammed denied
Jesus being the "eternally begotten Son of God" (there was never a
time when Jesus "was not" before he was born but he was
"eternally born" whatever that means), and this was later
misconstrued as a total denial of Jesus' divine Sonship. <br />
I know this is the weakest part of my argument. Yet how else do you explain
how an admittedly intelligent man like Muhammed can claim the Bible was
originally written by God, but yet deny Jesus' uniquely divine Sonship which
is so explicitly contained therein? And isn't it strange to hear Muslims
admit the Bible is of Allah but Allah casually allowed it to be corrupted,
but when it comes to the Koran Allah reversed himself and didn't allow it to
be corrupted? When I read the Koran myself I got the distinct impression that
more than one man (Muhammed) wrote it, so perhaps others "added" to
the text. <br />
<br />
DAVID<br />
However, that Muhammad and the others are true prophets called by God, this I
must currently reject.<br />
<br />
ME<br />
Most LDS would probably agree with you concerning Muhammed, but something, I
think the Spirit, whispers to me that Muhammed's writings were corrupted
(i.e., or why else would 7,8th century scribes burn all variant
manuscripts?), so I believe its possible Muhammed was a prophet. Perhaps a
Christian protagonist in the 7th or 8th century "took over" the
Isalmic religion in order to create a propoganda war against Christianity, so
he added a denial of Jesus' divine Sonship into the Koran to make Christians
appear as "blasphemous infidels" and thus worthy of death. Or
perhaps a "well-intentioned" Muslim in the 7th or 8th century
couldn't find anything in the Koran that spoke about Jesus' divine sonship,
so he added a denial of it because he thought that is what the ever-rational
Muhammed "would have said" if he had had a chance to comment on it.<br />
<br />
DAVID <br />
The above is one the best presentations of the apostasy from an LDS
perspective I have read to date.<br />
<br />
ME<br />
I can't believe translated beings were kept alive with the keys of the
kingdom of heaven for the "sole purpose" of giving Joseph Smith
their keys 1800 years later, so I believe they were also preserved alive to
serve as ministering Angels to save those in the Dark Ages who were worthy of
it, like Cornelius and the Ethiopian Eunuch who had mysterious visitors pop
out of nowhere to give them glad tidings (Acts 8,10).<br />
<br />
DAVID<br />
(Are you aware that Barry Bickmore uses a similar presentation in his book
Restoring The Ancient Church 1999...)? <br />
<br />
ME<br />
I first found this argument in Hugh Nibley (<i> Collected Works of Hugh
Nibley</i>, Vol.4, Ch.4, p.111,136,149), 1948, over 50 years before Barry.<br />
<br />
DAVID<br />
Your argument that 1 Peter 4:7 refers to the apostasy rather than Christ's
second coming, though solid, is not totally conclusive. <br />
[you cite some verses I comment on below]<br />
<br />
ME<br />
"The coming of the Lord is AT HAND" (Ja 5:8 NKJV) <br />
"Exhorting, and so much the more as ye see the day COMING NIGH"
(Heb 10:25 YLT). <br />
These two verses appear to specifically speak of Christ's Second Coming, and
use the same Greek word (SW1448) as 1 Pt 4:7. So you have a very good
objection to my "solid" interpretation of 1 Pt 4:7. <br />
The "present distress" (1 Cor 7:27) is the "short time"
(1 Cor 7:29) the Corinthians had to prepare for their missionary calls when
they would pray and fast without sexual intercourse (1 Cor 7:5,17,24). Such a
condition means they must forsake all their wordly possessions including
their families and homes, so Paul adds "for the fashion of this world
passeth away" (1 Cor 7:31) to show them why it is better to seek for
treasures in heaven than treasures on earth. <br />
"The night is far spent, the day is at hand" (Ro 13:12) . "The
night" seems to refer to their "past man of sin" lifestyle,
contrasted with the "new man of righteousness" lifetstyle which is
patterned after Christ. The closer they come to walking like Christ, the
closer they come to walking in the light as Christ is in the light, the
"nearer" and "nearer" (Ro 13:11) they get to salvation in
the fullest sense, becoming One with Christ, putting on Christ (Ro 13:14; 1
Jo 1:7; 2:6; Jo 3:21). So "the day" (Ro 13:12) spoken of appears to
be "the day of salvation" (2 Cor 6:2), not Christ's 2nd Coming. <br />
Rev 1:3 & 22:10 say, "seal not the prophecy of this book, for the
time is at hand". The time for what? The time for the fulfillment of the
prophecy, "I will shew thee things which must be hereafter" (Rev
4:1). Thus, what was "at hand" was the fulfilment of the first
parts of John's prophecy, not necessarily the last parts of his prophecy
which speak of the end of the whole world and Christ's Millenial reign.<br />
<br />
I'm surprised you forgot to mention these seemingly inexplicable scriptures:<br />
<br />
"But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for
verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, TILL
the Son of man be come" (Ma 10:23). <br />
"Verily I say unto you, THIS GENERATION shall not pass, till all these
things be fulfilled" (Ma 24:34; Mk 13:30; Lk 21:32).<br />
"For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that WE WHICH ARE
ALIVE AND REMAIN UNTO THE COMING OF THE LORD shall not prevent them which are
asleep" (1 Ths 4:15-17). <br />
"Yet A LITTLE WHILE, and he that shall come WILL COME, and will not
tarry" (Heb 10:37,25). <br />
Ma 10:23 is either a false prophecy or we need two comings of Christ. In the
same vein as Paul Hadik, the New Jerusalem Bible has this footnote for Ma
10:23, "the coming which is here foretold is not concerned with the
world at large but with Israel: it took place at the moment when God
'visited' his now faithless people and brought the O.T. era to an end by the
destruction of Jerusalem and of its Temple in 71 A.D., cf. Ma 24:1". I
think these translators have the right idea. <br />
"And if he may come in the second watch, AND in the third watch he may
come, and may find it so, happy are those servants" (Lk 12:38 YLT; Rev
3:3; 16:15). <br />
This scripture here opens the door for multiple "comings". His last
and great "coming" will grantedly be a literal millenial reign on
earth (Ma 24:27,30; Rev 20:4). But could he have other "comings" in
a different sense? Lk 12:38 refers to a a "second watch" and a
"third watch", which goes well with James 5:7,8: <br />
"BE PATIENT therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold,
the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath LONG
PATIENCE for it, UNTIL HE RECEIVE THE EARLY AND LATTER RAIN. Be ye also
patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord DRAWETH NIGH"
(Ja 5:7,8). <br />
Christ's coming in the "second watch" is the "early rain"
(which was "at hand" in the 1st century), his "third
watch" coming is the "latter rain" (which is what God was
extremely "patient" for: 2 Pt 3:4,8,9). The early rain is the early
day saints and the revelations they received, and the latter rain is the
latter day saints and the revelations they received, which give water and
life (water=spirit=Christ's living words, i.e., Jo 6:63; 7:37-39; Ma 4:4) to
the world. This brings us to the book of Revelation which speaks directly of
a previous "coming" of Christ: <br />
"SURELY I COME QUICKLY. Amen. Even so, COME, LORD JESUS" (Rev
22:20,7,12).<br />
<br />
Why would Jesus "come quickly" in the 1st century? What is to usher
in his Millenial reign or for Judgment on his Church?<br />
<br />
"Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the
first works; OR ELSE I WILL COME UNTO THEE QUICKLY, AND WILL REMOVE THY
CANDLESTICK OUT OF HIS PLACE, EXCEPT THOU REPENT. REPENT; OR ELSE I WILL COME
UNTO THEE QUICKLY, AND WILL FIGHT AGAINST THEM WITH THE SWORD OF MY
MOUTH" (Rev 2:5,16; 2:25; 3:10,11). <br />
<br />
Clearly, Jesus was "coming quickly" to Judge his Church (1 Pt
4:7,17), not to usher in his millenial reign, and to "remove the
Churches" that wouldn't repent. Of course, Mormons believe none of the
earthly Churches repented, so they were all removed, i.e., Ephesus (Acts
20:28-31; Rev 2:1,5; Eph 5:8), Romans (Ro 11:21-23), Galatians (Gal 1:6-9),
Corinthians (1 Cor 1:11-13; 2 Cor 11:3,4,13-15), etc. First Jesus' own
people, the Jews, rejected him (Jo 1:11; Acts 13:46), then the Gentiles
rejected him (Lk 17:24,25 w/ 2 Ths 2:2,3,7; Ro 11:21-23; Rev 2:1,5; Acts
20:28-31; 2 Pt 2:1,2,4; Acts 19:26 w/ 2 Tim 1:15; 4:2-5). Peter clearly
manifests this understanding by claiming that God's Judgment on his fallen
people was at hand (1 Pt 4:7,17; 2 Pt 2:1,2,4,19; 1 Jo 2:18,19; Rev 2:1,5),
but Christ's 2nd Coming probably wouldn't be for at least a thousand years (2
Pt 3:8,9). Paul shows a clear understanding of the fact that a Great Apostasy
would happen before Christ's 2nd Coming, "BE NOT TROULBED AS THAT THE
DAY OF CHRIST IS AT HAND, let no man deceive you by any means: for that day
shall not come EXCEPT THERE COME A FALLING AWAY [Greek "Apostasia"]
FIRST . . . the mystery of iniquity DOTH ALREADY WORK" (2 Ths 2:2,3;
Acts 1:6,7 w/ Ma 24:3-5; Lk 17:24,25; Ma 17:11,12; 2 Tim 1:15; 4:2-5).
Clearly, Paul and Peter did not believe Christ's 2nd Coming was at hand, but
they did believe Christ was "coming" to Judge his people for a
Great Apostasy. <br />
<br />
I hope this is enough to chew on for now. I'll get to Paul Hadik's questions
soon. I agree with Paul that 1 Pt 4:7 pertains to "the end" of the
Jewish nation, but I believe this spelled the Apostasy of God's people,
Gentile as well as Jew. More on this later.<br />
<br />
<br />
Elijah wrote on 9/25/2000<br />
<br />
PAUL<br />
1) So are you saying that Islam in its original state was an attempt at a
Restoration on the part of God? That soon after the death of the Prophet we
experienced another Grand apostasy? (this would seem to make God 0-2 not
counting Noah's Ark)<br />
<br />
ME<br />
God planned out his dispensations (restorations/apostasies) from before the
foundation of the world. Those who didn't hear the Gospel in Noah's day will
surely have a chance to hear the Gospel in the spirit world (1 Pt 3:19,20),
just as those who lived during a time of Apostasy will have a chance to hear
the Gospel from an Apostolic Church in the spirit world (1 Pt 4:6,7; Jo
5:28,29). So clearly God doesn't "fail" when he allows men the free
will to Apostatize, he just works on a different timetable than man,
according to his own foreorained and eternal plan. If the Angels could sin
and fall (2 Pt 1:4; Jd 6), why couldn't the members of the earthly Church
apostatize and fall (the chosen ones being martyred)? <br />
<br />
PAUL<br />
2) If your argument is that the Apostasy came due to the rejection of Christ
and the Apostles and later the corruption of the teachings of Islam, why
reject the possibility that the LDS church is also in a state of Apostasy
now? Begun in 1830, it was rent with infighting and apostasy in just a few
years. The Prophet was definitely rejected by his fellow countrymen and
murdered. They were then kicked out to the far corners of the country,
basically declared war on by the US government with things getting so bad
that God had to sanction a mini-apostasy with the removal of the law of
plural marriage. Possibly the Church of Christ branch is the legitimate
branch with the emphasis on historical early church teachings of Mormonism
and the Utah branch is a more Reformation type branch? Why is God showing
more patience with the LDS then he did with a: the whole earth in Noah's
time; b: his own people the Jews in His Son’’s time and c: the followers of
Islam? <br />
<br />
ME<br />
1) The LDS branch is the most legitimate branch of Mormonism because 9 out of
the 12 Apostles ordained by Joseph Smith followed Brigham Young who was
President of the Twelve Apostles at the time of Joseph's death, and Sidney
Rigdon, the only surviving member of the 1st Presidency, never claimed to be
Joseph's successor; Brigham's succession was according to scripture and
revelation, while all other pretenders were not.<br />
2) Plural marriage was always an optional "law" of God meant for
special circumstances, so its hardly apostasy for the LDS to obey the law of
the land, and abandon the principle through new revelation from God (Jacob
2:30, Manifesto), i.e., LDS ascribe to new revelation so we aren't bound by
the same static restrictions as Catholics or Evangelicals.<br />
3) Why is God showing more patience? He isn't, he foreordained the coming
forth of many wise spirits who were foreordained to become Apostles and
Prophets in this dispensation, thus ensuring Apostolic succession and
continuation of priesthood keys. This was all part of his plan from the
beginning. Other generations rejected the prophets, and even claimed they
could get along just fine without them, so God granted their wishes.<br />
<br />
PAUL<br />
3) I have some problems with your usage of Scripture. In I Peter 4:7, and
Acts 3:21 couldn't Peter be talking about the destruction of Israel (close at
hand) with the restoration then being a national promise and not a doctrinal
promise? Please note the limiting phrase in Acts "the restitution of all
things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the
world began". From Abraham to Malachi the prophecies emphasized the
Kingdom of Israel so heavily that the coming of Christ was heralded by his
followers as a fulfillment of these prophecies, causing them to overlook his
main purpose as the Deliverer.<br />
<br />
ME<br />
I believe the promises to ancient Israel and their descendants were both
physical and spiritual. Since "salvation is of the Jews" (Jo 4:22),
"to whom pertaineth the adoption and the giving of covenants" (Ro
9:4; 3:1,2), and "the root beareth thee not thee the root" (Ro
11:16-18), when the Roman Gentiles and others boasted themselves against
their Jewish roots becoming basically anti-Semtic (Ro 11:21-23), this spelled
disaster and a Great Apostasy. None of the Early Church Fathers were Jewish,
so they founded a purely Gentile institution cut off from its Jewish roots.
When the Jews apostatized and Jerusalem was destroyed, this spelled the end
of true prophetic Judaism, and because "salvation is of the Jews"
(Jo 4:22), this spelled the end of true prophetic Christianity also. I think
I agree with your exegesis of Acts 3:21 and 1 Pt 4:7 (at least in part), but
I would further argue that there is no salvation without prophets of literal
Israeli descent. The members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, and their Prophets, are literal descendants of Joseph the son of
Jacob, thus having the birthright to promises of restoration.<br />
<br />
PAUL<br />
4) Where do you find any Scripture to back up that Moses and Elijah gave any
keys to the disciples?<br />
<br />
ME<br />
This is strong inference, not explicit. Jesus promises Peter he
"will" (future tense) give him "the keys of the kingdom of
heaven" (Ma 16:19), and after the Mount of Transfiguration incident
Jesus speaks to the Apostles as if they already have these keys (Ma 18:18),
so what happened in the interim on the Mount of Transfiguration for Peter and
his fellow Apostles to obtain the keys? <br />
"And Jehu the son of Nimshi you shall anoint king over Israel; and
ELISHA the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah YOU SHALL ANOINT AS PROPHET IN YOUR
PLACE" (1 Ki 19:16 NASB; Lev 16:32; 6:22). <br />
"Let the LORD set a man over the congregation, which may go out before
them, and which may go in before them, and which may lead them out, and which
may bring them in; that the congregation of the LORD be not as sheep which
have no shepherd. And the LORD said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua the son of
Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, AND LAY THINE HAND UPON HIM; And set him
before Eleazar the priest, and before all the congregation; and give him a
charge in their sight" (Nu 27:16-19,23; ).<br />
"And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; FOR MOSES
HAD LAID HIS HANDS UPON HIM: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him,
and did as the LORD commanded Moses" (Dt 34:9; Moses was translated: Dt
34:9 w/ Jd 9). <br />
"LAY THINE HANDS SUDDENLY ON NO MAN" (1 Tim 5:18,22; Acts 14:33;
etc.). <br />
Thus, in both the Old and New Testaments, authority is transferred through
the Holy Ghost and officially/visibly/publically through the laying on of
hands, unless, of course, translated beings are the givers of authority and
authority is transferred in secret, but revealed openly. Jesus publically
chose Peter as his successor (Ma 16:19; Jo 21:15-17). The Jewish way, in both
Old and New Testaments, of transferring this authority is laying on of hands.
A new dispensation was being formed so it was appropriate that the head of
the old dispensation (Moses), and the restorer (Elijah), should be there to
restore the keys of their dispensation (i.e., from Moses to Joshua, from
Joshau to Elijah, from Elijah to Elisha, from Elisha to Malachi, there was,
according to Jewish tradition, an unbroken succession of prophets; Malachi
appointed no successor, so Moses was translated centuries beforehand to make
up the gap with Peter, James, and John). <br />
Why were Moses and Elijah translated to appear to Jesus, Peter, James, and
John, on the Mount? Obviously, for an authority transfer through physical
bodies, hence, Jesus promises Peter keys (Ma 16:19), he gives them keys with
the translated Moses and Elijah (Ma 17:2,3), and he speaks of them having
those keys when they come down from the Mount (Ma 18:18). Ma 17:11
specifically speaks of Elijah in the context of restoration, and Ma 17:10
shows the Apostles believed Elijah just restored something to them (but they
were surprised at the time of Elijah's coming since he was supposed to come
before the public showing of the Messiah not afterward as he then appeared to
them on the Mount). Why did the Apostles believe Elijah just restored
something? And what was it that Elijah just restored? The context of Ma 17 is
sandwiched between the all important topic of keys of authority (Ma 16:19
& 18:18), and a discussion of translated beings (Ma 16:28; 17:2,3), and a
discussion of Restoration and Apostasy (Ma 17:11,12; Lk 17:24,25). <br />
God revealed to Joseph Smith specifically what happened on the Mount of
Transfiguration, and the Bible fully supports, although doesn't specificaly
prove, his position. Or else how do you explain the discussion of keys of
authority, restoration, apostasy, physical translation of Jewish prophets,
all within the context of the Mount of Transfiguration? That is the bottom
line. <br />
<br />
PAUL<br />
5) I didn't quite understand your comment on secret traditions which may have
existed during the Apostasy if you could clear that up for me. I do ask
though as I have asked before, in light of Christ's promise that "where
ever two or three are gathered in my name there I will be also" are you
saying that the presence of Christ in these secret gatherings was not
sufficient to lead into all truth?<br />
<br />
ME<br />
Ma 18:20 is in the context of a Church possessing the keys of the kingdom of
heaven through ordination and Apostolic succession (Ma 16:19; 17:2,10;
18:18). Modern non-LDS Churches do not have these keys of binding and losing,
so Christ in Ma 18:20 wasn't speaking of these Churches. You might just as
well think Jesus was speaking of JWs, Muslims, or Hari Krishna, because many
of them preach belief in Jesus, so why doesn't Christ lead them into all
truth? Because they don't have the gift of the Holy Ghost, and they don't
have the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Same goes for Evangelicals. <br />
In the days of Christ, two leading schools existed in Phariseeical Judaism
(which later became codified in the Talmud): 1) Shammei, 2) Hillel. Shammei
was very strict in his Torah interpretation, HIllel rather loose. So the
proverb came, "what Shammei hath bound Hillel hath loosed". Yet
strangely each school acknowledged the legitimacy of the other school,
although each school taught contradictory things to the other schools. Each
Rabbi came in the name of another Rabbi, but none were prophets who came in
the name of the Lord (Jo 5:43,44; 7:16,17). Jesus founded a Church with one
doctrine, with one law of commandments, that given through his Apostles to
whom he gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven so "whatsoever thou shalt
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on
earth shall be loosed inheaven" (Ma 16:19; 18:18), unlike the schools of
Judaism who clearly couldn't lose or bind anything in heaven or even on
earth, since they would merely allow another school to contradict their
commandments and ordinances without denouncing their competitors as false. <br />
<br />
The same situation now exists in professing "Christianity",
although each denonmination contradicts each other on many often essential
points, no one has any authority to say who is right and who is wrong, which
is true and which is false.<br />
That generation rejected living Apostles, believing old scripture (OT) is
good enough without needing "men" to reveal new scripture (NT); and
this generation does the same thing to living Apostles, saying, "I have
no need of thee" (1 Cor 12:21-24,28; Eph 4:11-14; 2:19-21; etc. . .).<br />
<br />
PAUL<br />
6) In regards to the Apostasy. Hypothetical situation. I am a 1st century
Christian. Many of my family have been persecuted and killed for our belief
in Christ. We meet in deep catacombs. We have lost all. But we have the joy
of knowing Christ. One Sunday we have a great 'service' of rejoicing and
praise. The following Tuesday, St. John, the last living Apostle is
(according to LDS teaching) translated. The following Sunday am I now
attending an Apostate church?<br />
<br />
ME<br />
The successor of a King is a King, so the successor of an Apostle is what?
Another Apostle of course. Bishops and non-Apostolic Elders are not
successors to Apostles by any means, but were contemporary members of
Christ's body placed beneath the Apostles in Church hierarchy (1 Cor 12:28;
Eph 4:11; etc.). When all the Apostles were finally killed off, or left the
scene, the true members of the Church were left to themselves, either to face
martyrdom for Jesus, or to apostatize and found their own Churches, usurping
the position of Apostles for themselves, thus indeed usurping the position of
the living Christ who alone should lead his Church Body through living
revelation to living Apostles. Many Church members knew God was
"shutting things down", "removing Churches" from the
earth (Rev 2:1,5; Ac 20:29-31; 2 Tim 1:15; 4:2-5), so these individuals
"in the know" carried on a true priesthood after the death of the
Apostles, but didn't pretend to be successors to the Apostles or their
teaching authority.<br />
<br />
PAUL<br />
7) If this Grand Apostasy and the coming of the Anti-Christ are to combined
in the 1st century and Paul taught this in II Thess 2. What was he thinking
when he ended the chapter by stating "...even our Father, which hath
loved us, and hath given us EVERLASTING consolation and hope through grace,
Comfort your hearts and establish you in every good word and work."
Comfort us with what? Shouldn't he be telling us that a decision has been
made somewhere to remove all Apostolic leadership, not replace it on a
successful basis for 1800 years and that maybe we should start stocking up on
tin foods? <br />
<br />
ME<br />
I could go on into great detail about 2 Thessalonians, but I don't think it
would be fruitful. Paul says "the mystery of iniquity DOTH ALREADY
WORK" (2 Ths 2:7), and plainly says let no man deceive you as that the
day of Christ is "at hand" (2 Ths 2:2), but there must come an
"Apostasia" (falling away) FIRST. Will this deception be powerful
or wimpy? The anti-Christ, the Devil, will come "with all deceivableness
and lying wonders" (2 Ths 2:8-10). The "everlasting
consolation" is to the very electt who have been diligent to make their
calling and electure sure, who despite massive Apostasy (2 Tim 4:3,4), held
out faithful in matrydom and preaching the true Gospel to the end of their
lives (2 Tim 4:2,5,7,8). This is the "consolation" prize. The New
Testament gives Early Church members two options: 1) martyrdom, 2) apostasy.
Paul and the Apostles chose option 1, never speaking in glowing terms of the
near future of Christ's earthly Church, but always speaking in very negative
terms like "that day shall not come except there come an Apostasy
first" (2 Ths 2:3,4). <br />
<br />
PAUL<br />
8) In light of Christ's promise that "the way is narrow and few there be
that find it" should we then not accept that apostasy (defined as a
purposeful rejection and attack on God's plan) has existed since the Fall of
Lucifer, through the Garden, the time of Noah, about 25 minutes after the people
of Israel in Ex. 19 said "WE will do ALL that you command us" down
through history? When has there ever been a time when apostasy has not been
rampant? Can the LDS church honestly claim that there has never been a time
in their history wherein apostasy has reared its head? Did all 11 witnesses
remain true to the church the rest of their lives? Can the Latter Day
movement claim that they have remained a single unified church since the time
of Joseph Smith?<br />
<br />
ME<br />
See Questions 1 & 2. The Apostle Judas apostatized, some Galatians
apostatized (Gal 1:6-9), some Ephesians apostatized (Rev 2:1,5; Ac 20:29-31),
all Asia apostatized (2 Tim 1:15), the Jews rejected and killed their Messiah
(Jo 1:9); but despite all that, Paul still speaks of a great future Apostasy
"already at work" (2 Ths 2:7), saying, "that day shall not
come except there come an Apostasia first" (2 Ths 2:2,3; 2 Tim 4:3,4). I
could quote the many other scriptures, which speak pointedly of a Massive and
Great Apostasy in the near future, which I cited before, but you'll probably
just ignore them again.<br />
<br />
PAUL<br />
9) Let's talk about the priesthood for a minute. To begin with the Levitical
priesthood did not exist until after the Law. Its purpose was one of mercy.
God in His graciousness knew that His people had been rash in their promises
of Exodus 19 and gave them a way unto forgiveness. Hence the Levitical
Priesthood. The death of Christ as the supreme Lamb of God, the Final
Sacrifice coupled with the miraculous tearing of the veil sheltering the Holy
of Holies signified the end of the need for a Priesthood.<br />
<br />
ME<br />
So you don't believe in even a "believer's priesthood'? If you claim all
priesthood was destroyed, how do you explain the dozens of references in the
NT to a "priesthood"? Paul says the priesthood was
"changed" (Heb 7), not obliterated, and that the "order of
Aaron" was replaced with the "order of Melchizedek" (Heb 7),
not that no priesthood order existed anymore. Was Aaron's "order"
consisting of just one or two persons? So Melchizedek's "order"
didn't either.<br />
<br />
PAUL<br />
10) If during his life Christ felt the priesthood no longer legitimate why
then did he require the lepers in Luke 17 to show themselves to the priests
in accordance with Mosaic Law? If Matthew 23:2,3 is talking about
"Moses' political seat" as you suggest, how do you handle the rest
of the chapter to verse 12 with his obvious references to religious
interpretations under the law?<br />
<br />
ME<br />
Jewish goverment in Christ's time was a limited theocracy under Roman rule.
The Sanhedrin had authority to impose any sentence short of capital
punishment. The High Priest was an appointee of the King of Judae, who was an
appointee of Caesar. Church and State was totally blurred, so the Levites
served both a spiritual and political function, and lepers, by law of the
land and by the law of Moses, were supposed to report to the priests, and the
High Priest was also supposed to be obeyed by law of the land and by the law
of Moses. Jesus obeyed both the law of the land and the law of Moses. But
when the Sanhedring excommunicated and put to death Jesus' followers, do you
think Jesus wanted his followers to accept such sentences as "of
God"? I doubt it.<br />
<br />
PAUL<br />
11) Finally, if you reject the "priesthood of the believers" how do
you interpret Hebrews 4:16 giving me the power to personally approach the
"throne of grace" the exact function of the Levitical Priest.<br />
<br />
ME<br />
Citation that this was the "exact function of the Levitical
Priest"? Heb 5:4-6 says high priests must (present tense) must be called
of God as was Aaron, i.e., prophecy and ordination. Heb 7 says the priesthood
was "changed" from "order to Aaron" to "oder of
Melchizedek", not obliterated. <br />
<br />
Jesus, the High Priest, himself is the Mediator between the One God and man
(1 Tim 2:5; Heb 7:25; Jo 14:6). Thus Jesus fulfils the function of a High
Priest in the highest sense, serving as High Priest to all men in all
dispensations of the world, not just individual generations of men. Do you
think Jesus didn't fulfil this Mediatorial role in the OT? Do you believe men
in the OT couldn't "approach the throne of grace"? Jesus was
Mediator to David in the OT, and David also approached the "throne of
grace" in the OT; so all this shows nothing to advance the Evangelical
concept of a believer's priesthood which has no hierarchial
"order". <br />
Many these days don't like "organized religion", but the Bible,
both Old and New Testaments, is full of it: "OBEY THEM THAT HAVE THE
RULE OVER YOU, AND SUBMIT YOURSELVES: for they watch for your souls, as they
that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for
that is unprofitable for you" (Heb 13:17). Who appointed these Bishops
(Shepherds/Pastors)? They were ordained by the Apostles themselves,
"firstly Apostles, second Prophets, third Teachers, eatc." (1 Cor
12:28). <span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/ukevinlarson.showPublicProfile?language=EN">Kevin
Larson</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Registered User</span><br />
Posts: 6<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(10/26/00 9:01 am)</span><br />
128.206.233.42<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=28">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=28">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=28">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Re: More on the Apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Wow,
some excellent discussion going on, but I do have a question:<br />
<br />
When we the LDS believe in an apostasy, we look to Revelation and the 1260
years as a sign the Church would return from the wilderness. This puts the
"straw that broke the camel's back" (so to speak) of the apostasy
at appr. 570 AD. Does this come too late a time? Shouldn't have there been a
totality in the 2-3rd centuries? Just a thought, wondering if anyone else has
wondered this.<br />
<br />
Kevin <span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/bpacumenispages.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=rorymckenzie">Rory
McKenzie</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Registered User</span><br />
Posts: 24<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(10/26/00 5:44 pm)</span><br />
198.145.226.201<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=29">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=29">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=29">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Re: More on the Apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Kevin L,<br />
<br />
I had never heard that one before. Actually, 570 AD would seem to be far too
late. I think most LDS observers place the Apostasy at the latest in the
middle of the second century. I would be more comfortable if they placed it
even sooner. St Ignatius who writes around 110 AD shows that the churches had
already fallen prey to the Catholic doctrine regarding the literalness of
Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist. But if you go much earlier than
that, you start bumping into the activities of the Apostle John. So I think
the window is really narrow. It has to be after John and before Ignatius for
me. But hey, I am Catholic and don't believe in it anyway! <br />
<br />
Do you think that this view about the 1260 years is popularly held among LDS
church members? I would be curious where you learned it. Of course being
Catholic, I would love to find evidence that your Church has sometimes taught
that the Apostasy could not have been complete before 570!<br />
<br />
Not holding my breath,<br />
<br />
Rory <!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape id="_x0000_i1085" type="#_x0000_t75" alt=":)"
style='width:11.25pt;height:11.25pt'>
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:/Users/david/AppData/Local/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.gif"
o:href="http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/smile.gif"/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><img alt=":)" border="0" height="15" src="file:///C:/Users/david/AppData/Local/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.gif" v:shapes="_x0000_i1085" width="15" /><!--[endif]--><span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/bpacumenispages.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=davidwaltz">David
Waltz</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Forum Host</span><br />
Posts: 36<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(10/26/00 8:21 pm)</span><br />
64.12.104.36<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=30">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=30">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=30">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Re: More on the Apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Kevin
and Rory,<br />
<br />
I have four LDS commentaries on the Book of Revelation in my library. Here is
what they have to say about Rev. 12:6, 14.<br />
<br />
Bruce R. McConkie, <i>Doctrinal New Testament Commentary Volume III
Colossians - Revelation</i>: "He prevails; the Church is taken from the
earth - for a specified period, for the age of spiritual darkness and
universal apostasy". (p.519)<br />
<br />
Mick Smith, <i>The Book of Revelation - Plain, Pure, and Simple</i>:
"The dragon persecutes the woman and she is given <b>two wings of a
great eagle</b> to <b>fly into the wilderness</b> for a set period of
time...The set period of time in known by God, who is the only one who knows
when the day will come that the kingdom of God in heaven and the kingdom of
God on earth will be joined together once again." (pp.127-128)<br />
<br />
Richard D. Draper, <i>Opening the Sevens Seals - The Visions of John The
Revelator</i>: <br />
<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><b><i><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Quote:</span></i></b><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">(Verse 5 of the JST changes the "days" to
"years", probably to suggest that the stay in the wilderness would
be of long duration). This number, as has been shown earlier, represents a
period of tremendous trial. The trial comes becuase it is the period of
Satanic rule. Since three and one-half, half of seven, which is the symbolic
number for perfection, represents the fullness of imperfection, it describes
the period of Satan's rule. (p. 138) <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"><br />
<br />
Jay A. Perry and Donald W. Parry, <i>Understanding The Book Of Revelation</i>:<br />
<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><b><i><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Quote:</span></i></b><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><i><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">a thousand two hundred and threescore [years]</span></i><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">. The clarification of <i>years</i>
in the Joseph Smith Translation rather than the King James Version <i>days</i>
is an important one, for the number suggests the length of time the Church
will be gone from the earth during the Great Apostasy--1,260 years. If we
consider that the Apostasy ended in 1820 (when the silence of the heavens was
broken during Joseph Smith's First Vision) or in 1830 (when the Church was
formally organized, then the 1,260 year period began in A.D. 570 or 560. But
we know that the world had plunged deep into apostasy centuries before that
time. (p. 154) <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"><br />
<br />
The two Parry's go on to suggest 1451 (Gutenberg's invention of the printing
press) or 1517 (beginning of the Reformation) as two possible ending dates
for the Great Apostasy. They then say, "We could likely find other dates
from which to measure the end of John's 1,260 years, but all such efforts are
no more than speculation." (p. 155)<br />
<br />
Hope that the above stimulates some further dialogue on the "Great
Apostasy".<br />
<br />
Grace and peace,<br />
<br />
David <span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/upacumeni9.showPublicProfile?language=EN">Pacumeni9</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Title: Webdictator II</span><br />
Posts: 105<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(10/27/00 12:53 am)</span><br />
207.225.88.73<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=31">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=31">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=31">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Re: More on the Apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Let us
not forget that the true church survived in the New World into the fifth
century -- possibly WELL into the fifth century. Moroni indicates that true
believers, undoubtedly priesthood holders, were round about hiding from the
Lamanites.<br />
<br />
Let us also not forget that in LDS doctrine, Christ went to other as yet
undisclosed parts of the earth visiting lost fragments of the house of Israel
-- and we have no idea how long those Churches he undoubtedly established
were able to push ahead.<br />
<br />
Basically, because there is a scripturally explicit unknown factor here, this
really cannot be anything more than an interesting puzzle from the LDS
vantage point. It certainly is not a difficulty. <br />
<br />
So as far as the "window" that Rory mentions, insofar as we are
using that window to measure the 1260 years, it would seem to be quite
plausible that <i>somewhere</i> on the earth, a branch of the true Church
continued on into the seventh century.<br />
<br />
I wonder if there is any evidence of such?<br />
<br />
<br />
Pacumeni<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">-- The Tanners' mantra
for 30 years has been that the Church censors its own teachings and history.
Yet, as soon as they put up a message board and Latter-day Saints show up to
show where they are wrong, the Tanners engage in suppression themselves.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Edited
by: <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/upacumeni9.showPublicProfile?language=EN">Pacumeni9</a>
at: 10/27/00 12:58:40 am</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/bpacumenispages.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=davidwaltz">David
Waltz</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Forum Host</span><br />
Posts: 38<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(10/27/00 9:13 am)</span><br />
64.12.104.42<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=32">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=32">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=32">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Re: More on the Apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Pacumeni9
posted:<br />
<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><b><i><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Quote:</span></i></b><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Let us not forget that the true church survived in the
New World into the fifth century -- possibly WELL into the fifth century.
Moroni indicates that true believers, undoubtedly priesthood holders, were
round about hiding from the Lamanites.<br />
<br />
Let us also not forget that in LDS doctrine, Christ went to other as yet
undisclosed parts of the earth visiting lost fragments of the house of Israel
-- and we have no idea how long those Churches he undoubtedly established
were able to push ahead. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"><br />
<br />
Pac,<br />
<br />
If you look closely at Rev. 12:17 wouldn't the "woman" of Rev. 12
be limited to the "Old world" church from an LDS perspective, and
the "remnant of her seed" to the "New world" church (and
any other "churches" apart from the "woman")? <br />
<br />
Some non-LDS commentators see the "woman" of Revelation 12 as the
Jewish/Palestinian Christian Church; and the "remnant of her seed"
as the Gentile Christian Church. In my opinion, reflecting on recorded of the
early Church, that seems like a very good fit.<br />
<br />
Grace and peace,<br />
<br />
David<br />
<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--><span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/bpacumenispages.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=rorymckenzie">Rory
McKenzie</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Registered User</span><br />
Posts: 25<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(10/27/00 9:00 pm)</span><br />
198.145.226.87<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=33">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=33">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=33">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Re: More on the Apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">This is
becoming interesting. If I understand correctly, the LDS Church has received
a corruption free translation of the book of Revelation which changes days to
years in Rev 12:6. Perhaps this will prove problematic in the long run. Here
is why:<br />
<br />
1260 days is exactly 360 x 3, plus 180. A year was calculated at 360 days and
this certainly would have been thought to correspond to the three and
one-half years expressed as time, times, and half a time elsewhere (12:14).
When the number 1260 referred to days, we could see exactly why. It did not mean
a lot of days. It meant three and one-half years, also referred to as 42
months in Rev 11:2, as being the time that the Gentiles trod down the holy
city. There is historical data from Josephus which confirms the activities of
the Romans in the destruction of Jerusalem as having taken this much time.
The number three and a half is also referenced by Daniel in 12:7, which would
certainly be thought to have had a connection with all of these other threes
and a half.<br />
<br />
Now David quoted at least one LDS commentary which urges that this number of
1260 years might merely refer to a long time. I understand this kind of
approach when one is using the number one thousand. The cattle on a thousand
hills, mean a lot of hills, indeed all of them. Promises unto a thousand
generations mean a long time. Ruling and reigning for a thousand years might
mean a long time. We have this number 1260, which has roots from Daniel and
Revelation in places where it had made a lot of sense translated as days, to
mean a specific period. <br />
<br />
My problem here goes something like this: A student is asked how much longer
until he graduates. He replies, "One-thousand two-hundred sixty
days." I would get the impression that he is counting the days to
graduation, rather than referring to it as a long time. The Scriptures do not
abandon common linguistic and grammatical forms in its communication to man.
I do not see that the number 1260 in Scripture is used to indicate length
except in a specific way. <br />
<br />
It seems that the reason 1260 years needs to mean "a lot of years",
is because 1260 years don't match any historical events which could make it
match with the reestablishment of the Restored Gospel. David has already
pointed out why this 1260 "years" in the wilderness might need to
refer to the Old World church. <br />
<br />
This subject was introduced by an LDS observer who interpreted this passage
in its natural sense to conclude that the Apostasy ought to have been
complete by 570 AD (1260 years to Joseph Smith). This is the natural way to
approach the passage, and I think the only reason it might not be used that
way very frequently is that LDS apologists do not relish the idea of
defending the invention of the printing press as the beginning of the
Restored Gospel. It might be worse to admit that the Old World Church was
still Mormon until 570 AD. <br />
<br />
Is this translation "official"? I mean, would it be allowed to say
that this Joseph Smith translation might have errors of its own?<br />
<br />
Rory <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Edited
by: <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/bpacumenispages.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=rorymckenzie">Rory
McKenzie</a> at: 10/28/00 12:14:56 am</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Cloud</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Unregistered User</span><br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(10/29/00 6:25 pm)</span><br />
128.187.99.9<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=34">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=34">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=34">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">The Church in the Wilderness</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">I can
see some of you are discussing revelation 12 when it speaks of the woman
fleeing into the wilderness for 1260 days/years. You seem to keep getting to
around 570, but you have to remember that this is years on a LUNAR calendar.
we are on a Solar calendar. To get an Accurate date we have to convert lunar
years into solar years. From what I understand that would please it around
623AD. I know this might be harder to understand for some since you think 570
is a late date. But it was in 623 (if I have the date right) that was the
year that the Emperor of the Byzantine Empire made a decree that the head of
the Church was in Rome, that any that didn't acknowledge Rome's Authority
would be killed. I don't remember what the proclamation was called. sorry I'm
writing this mostly on memory. But logically There could have been a group of
believers that constituted the Church until the decree that all those that
Didn't recognize Rome would be killed. I know this is pretty fuzzy
information but I don't have the sources necessary to explain everything.
Sorry. But it is important to remember that we need to convert the Lunar and
Solar calendar. <span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/ukevinwinters.showPublicProfile?language=EN">Kevin
Winters</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Registered User</span><br />
Posts: 57<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(10/29/00 8:46 pm)</span><br />
216.126.204.25<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=35">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=35">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=35">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Something to think about...</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Rory,<br />
<br />
As I see it Revelation 12:6 can be a rather obscure statement either way. In
my limited study of apocalypic literature I have learned never to take
everything at face value. Thus, as with all apocalyptic literature, numbers
could very well be symbolic rather than literal. Likewise, the change of days
to years could very well have relations to religious rites or cycles (which
is extant in the ancient world, including early Christianity, to a degree
that most cannot fathom and which apocalyptic literature is often a prime
example). I presonally do not have an answer here though it is something that
I would not mind following up on, but we must remember <b>always</b> when we
are talking about apocalyptic literature it need not always be literal (or
fully literal). Just something to think about.<br />
<br />
Budding Scholar,<br />
Kevin Winters <span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Kevin Barney</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Unregistered User</span><br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(10/30/00 1:58 pm)</span><br />
204.48.31.178<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=36">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=36">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=36">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">1260 days</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Pacumeni pointed this thread out to me. I'm not much of
one for message boards, but I do browse some of them once in awhile, and I
did have a thought to contribute to this discussion. <br />
<br />
The premise of some of these questions is that the JST<br />
is somehow "corruption free"; the question has been<br />
raised whether it is "official" and free from error. <br />
In my view, the JST is by no means "corruption free,"<br />
nor is it "official" (by which I suppose we mean<br />
canonical, with of course the exception of Moses and<br />
the JS-M) or free from error.<br />
<br />
I believe it is often best to look at the issue the<br />
JST has identified and is trying to resolve, rather<br />
than focus overmuch on the tentative and provisional<br />
solution to that problem suggested by the JST. Looked<br />
at in this light, the JST is indeed an impressive<br />
accomplishment for a NY backwoodsman writing in the<br />
1830's. Joseph tries to resolve problems<br />
prophetically which in many cases scholars only much<br />
later began to realize were problems. While scholars<br />
apply different tools to try to resolve those<br />
problems, I personally am very impressed by the JST.<br />
<br />
The Anchor Bible reports that Rev. 12:6 (the verse<br />
with the 1260 days business) is suspect because of the<br />
sudden changes in tense. The woman fled into the<br />
wilderness (aorist) where she has (present) a place<br />
prepared; and then a new subject seems to be<br />
introduced, "that they might feed her" (*trephOsin*,<br />
3rd person plural present subjunctive). In view of<br />
this, the AB suggests that the logical course is to<br />
omit v. 6 altogether, going directly from v. 5 to v.<br />
14. Vv. 7-13 appear to derive from a separate source,<br />
and should either be tacked onto the end of the<br />
chapter as an appendix or, like v. 6, be deleted.<br />
<br />
Note that the JST changes the sequence of some verses<br />
in this chapter as well (as the LDS KJV footnote<br />
mentions at 12:1a). I haven't compared the two; the<br />
JST certainly doesn't delete any verses, and its<br />
proposed changes are less radical than those proposed<br />
by the AB. I cannot help but wonder, however, whether<br />
JS didn't sense something about the verse order in<br />
this chapter.<br />
<br />
Part of the problem some have with the section vv.<br />
7-13 is that appears to have originated from a<br />
non-Christian source. Note that it is Michael who<br />
overcomes the dragon; the Messiah is not mentioned. <br />
JS senses this issue as well; the JST at 12:7 reads<br />
"And the dragon prevailed not against Michael,<br />
*neither the child, nor the woman*" [emphasis added]. <br />
Joseph's solution is not to toss the verses, but to<br />
salvage them with a little Christianizing gloss. <br />
Ka-ching! Most impressive.<br />
<br />
Now, to the change from days to years. I believe that<br />
the motivation for the change is tied up with a<br />
concern common to all of Christianity, not just<br />
Mormonism: namely, the delay of the Parousia. The NT<br />
seems to anticipate that Christ's return will come<br />
quickly, but it has not. In another generation or so<br />
it will be 2000 years from his ascension into heaven.<br />
<br />
In v. 5, the woman brought forth a man child (Christ)<br />
who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron, and<br />
her child was caught up to God, and to his throne. <br />
Ok, so Christ has ascended to heaven.<br />
<br />
V. 6 can be read as saying that the reign of the<br />
anti-Christ shall be only 3-1/2 years, when Christ<br />
shall return again to defeat him (only in v. 7 it is<br />
Michael that does the honors, not the child, as<br />
mentioned above).<br />
<br />
In my view, JS changed "days" to "years" to alleviate<br />
this perceived problem. True, 1260 years doesn't<br />
fully solve the problem, because even in Joseph's day<br />
the period elapsed was longer than that. But you have<br />
to realize that Joseph's changes were often very<br />
*conservative*; by that I mean that he often made the<br />
least change possible to alleviate the problem. <br />
Changing "days" to "years" is a very small change, but<br />
it makes a big difference in the elapsed time between<br />
the ascension and the second coming of Christ. It<br />
doesn't fully resolve the problem, but it helps.<br />
<br />
Now, with that intro, consider the following text from<br />
the Jamieson, Fausset, Brown commentary, available at <br />
<br />
<<a href="http://bible.crosswalk.com%3E/">bible.crosswalk.com></a><br />
<br />
Note that this non-LDS commentary contemplates the<br />
very edit that JS made: changing days to years. So<br />
while I would agree that it is not a perfect change,<br />
JS had a sound basis for what he was trying to do, and<br />
I continue to be very impressed by his effort.<br />
<br />
[text of commentary follows]:<br />
<br />
thousand two hundred and threescore days--anticipatory<br />
of Revelation 12:14, where the persecution which<br />
caused her to flee is mentioned in its place:<br />
Revelation 13:11-18 gives the details of the<br />
persecution. It is most unlikely that the transition<br />
should be made from the birth of Christ to the last<br />
Antichrist, without notice of the long intervening<br />
Church-historical period. Probably the 1260 days, or<br />
periods, representing this long interval, are<br />
RECAPITULATED on a shorter scale analogically during<br />
the last Antichrist's short reign. They are equivalent<br />
to three and a half years, which, as half of the<br />
divine number seven, symbolize the seeming victory of<br />
the world over the Church. As they include the whole<br />
Gentile times of Jerusalem's being trodden of the<br />
Gentiles, they must be much longer than 1260 years;<br />
for, above several centuries more than 1260 years have<br />
elapsed since Jerusalem fell.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=====<br />
Kevin L. Barney<br />
Hoffman Estates, Illinois<br />
klbarney@yahoo.com<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/bpacumenispages.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=davidwaltz">David
Waltz</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Forum Host</span><br />
Posts: 66<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(11/27/00 11:24 pm)</span><br />
64.12.104.174<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=37">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=37">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=37">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Jerusalem and Apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">One of
the most conclusive signs that God's favor had left Israel was the fall of
Jerusalem. After 70 AD she was no longer a Jewish city. <br />
<br />
But, did Jerusalem lose it's importance? Is not Jerusalem God's city!?<br />
<br />
We know from Eusebius that Jerusalem retained importance as an apostolic see.
Eusebuis records an unbroken succession of bishops from the apostle James to
Hermon, the active bishop at the end of of Eusebuis' <i>Church History</i>
(See 7.32.29)<br />
<br />
Jerusalem in 638AD was conquered by Islam--could this have been a sign that
the Christian Church had lost its favor with God?<br />
<br />
Grace and peace,<br />
<br />
David <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Edited
by: <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/bpacumenispages.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=davidwaltz">David
Waltz</a> at: 8/3/02 1:02:29 pm</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/bpacumenispages.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=rorymckenzie">Rory
McKenzie</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Registered User</span><br />
Posts: 55<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(11/28/00 2:11 pm)</span><br />
198.145.228.9<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=38">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=38">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=38">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Re: Jerusalem and Apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">As
Daniel pondered the plight of the people of God during the Babylonian
captivity he was led to pray collectively for the sins of God's people, and
observed that the geo-political upheavals were, in repeated and certain
terms, the result of the sins and failures of Israel: "...confusion of
faces...through all the countries whither thou hast driven them, because of
their trespass against thee...confusion of face, to our kings, to our
princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against thee." Dan
9:7-9. There is much more on the same note through verse 16.<br />
<br />
If political turmoil signified the sins of God's people in the Old Testament,
perhaps in the New Testament also. But one problem with the idea of keeping
an eye on Jerusalem as suggested, is that from the time of Christ, it has
been Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Christian, Muslim, Jewish. There have been at
least that many changes of hand. It could be difficult to determine the true
religion on the basis of that pattern.<br />
<br />
However, you bring up a very interesting idea that I have been toying with. I
certainly hold that God's people, (whoever they might be!), may sometimes
incur God's displeasure without his casting them aside for another spouse.
While there may certainly be an element of his divine judgments upon the
Church present in the geo-political sphere, it may also be manifested in the
spiritual sphere in the form of schisms or heresies, and especially when we
see spiritual judgments spilling over into the politcal world. Obviously, any
interpretations would be determined by who you think, if any, represent
Christ's Church at a given time. <br />
<br />
I have sometimes expressed dismay at the cavalier fashion with which ignorant
commentators on the Catholic Church will make some generalized observation
about those horrible Crusades. Which one? All of them? We shouldn't have
crusaded against the Mongols in Eastern Europe? Genghis Khan was the good
guy? What about Spain? Should we have been for the Muslim invaders to have
swept over the Pyrenees into France? <br />
If someone is ever informed enough to pick the right Crusade, I will say yes,
there you have blame and fault to be levelled against the people of God. And
I think I could show how God has punished us for it in the ongoing tragedy of
the division with the East, when we need each other and are so alike, that
Pope John Paul could say of the Eastern and Western Churches, that we are
operating with one lung apiece, instead of both together. <br />
<br />
In our day a prophet like Daniel has risen up to declare repentance for the
sins of our fathers, without accepting the knuckleheaded notions of those who
would lump every Crusade into one, or every inquisitorial office into one. We
confess the sins of our fathers, and our children will someday confess our
sins. As in the days of Daniel, this is an indication of life and hope and
renewal. If you can show me the Church that is exempt from needing a Daniel
to pray for it, let me know which one it is. <br />
<br />
I didn't intend to write all of that stuff. It just came out. Anyway, I think
I'll let it go.<br />
<br />
God bless,<br />
<br />
R <span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/ujohnferrer.showPublicProfile?language=EN">John
Ferrer</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">ZLMB Community Member</span><br />
Posts: 2<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(6/18/02 10:23 am)</span><br />
204.116.15.165<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=39">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=39">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=39">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Re: Jerusalem and Apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Forgive me for being new to the forum and new to some of
the lines of discussion. But I must ask,<br />
<br />
With the belief in Christian apostasy does that include all the people who
attempted reform and scriptural roots movements prior to Joseph Smith, like
William Tyndale, John Wycliffe and Zwingly and others?<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/urorymckenzie56.showPublicProfile?language=EN">RoryMcKenzie56</a></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">ZLMB Community Member</span><br />
Posts: 144<br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(6/18/02 8:45 pm)</span><br />
65.58.154.213<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=40">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=40">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=40">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Re: Jerusalem and Apostasy</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Welcome
John,<br />
<br />
Let me try to fairly summarize the various views found on this thread, while
admitting my own bias as a Catholic. <br />
<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><b><i><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Quote:</span></i></b><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Forgive me for being new to the forum and new to some of
the lines of discussion. But I must ask,<br />
<br />
With the belief in Christian apostasy does that include all the people who
attempted reform and scriptural roots movements prior to Joseph Smith, like
William Tyndale, John Wycliffe and Zwingly and others? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"><br />
<br />
I don't believe in any Christian apostasy myself. But that is the theory upon
which the foundation of the LDS Church stands. Reform and "scriptural
roots movements" must always be a part of Christ's Church. The problem
with the so-called Reformation is that when the leaders failed to prove that
their interpretations of Scripture were those held by the Church for ages
past, and it was clear they would be ignored, they left off with reform, and
proceeded to start their own churches. <br />
<br />
I am Catholic, but let me play the Mormon for a minute. I am not saying that
Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, or others were wrong. But they couldn't all be
right. They differed with each other as much as they did with Rome. In any
event, it is apparent that if any of those three were right, that the
Catholic Church rejected their truths, and proved itself to be irreformable.
What is it to be irreformable, but apostate? On what authority, and for what
reason, the Latter Day Saint asks, did they found new churches?<br />
<br />
Limiting the discussion to the direct descendants of the "big
three" I named, the Latter Day Saint asks to know in what sense, the
modern day Lutheran, Baptist, or Presbyterian may be thought to have
"reformed" the Church? It seems more to the Mormon, like a
restoration was in order. When they look at history, that is what they see.
Protestants who claim to be reforming, but seem instead to be starting over
again from scratch. Enter Joseph Smith, who agrees with the Protestants about
Rome, but cannot understand how any one of them has a mandate from heaven to
start over afresh. <br />
<br />
Back to myself again, I have no sympathy with LDS teachings and worldview,
but I cannot argue with their approach to history. It troubled me enough as a
historically minded Protestant, to make me take a closer look at the Catholic
Church. The Reformers did not imagine that the Church was an invisible
collection of all the believers only. It is that to be sure, but they like
Catholics, also believed the Church of Christ to have visible and duly
appointed officers. The only refuge for the determined Protestant, seems to
be to deny any one true visible Church. Obviously, I was not a
"determined Protestant".<br />
<br />
I hope this helps bring you up to speed. <br />
<br />
Regards,<br />
<br />
Rory <span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p>
<div align="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" style="mso-cellspacing: .7pt; mso-padding-alt: 3.75pt 3.75pt 3.75pt 3.75pt; width: 95%px;">
<tbody><tr>
<td nowrap="" style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt; width: 20%;" valign="top" width="20%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">dathorpe</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt;"><br />
<span class="usertitle1">Non-registered Visitor</span><br />
<span style="color: cadetblue;">(8/3/02 10:53 am)</span><br />
208.187.59.195<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=41">Reply</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showEditScreen?topicID=2.topic&index=41">Edit</a>
| <a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.confirmDeleteSingle?topicID=2.topic&index=41">Del</a>
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="background: white; padding: 3.75pt;" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="title1"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Apostasy: What needed to be restored</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9.5pt;">Rory & others,<br />
<br />
In my on going studies of historic Christianity, there are many aspects that
show up in later centuries that shows that Christendom had fallen away from,
some of these are:<br />
<br />
1. Christ post-crucifixion mission to the spirit world. What has Christedom
done with this important doctrine? Many branches, such as the Catholics, have
preserved many basic elements of this doctrine, in the writings of the church
Fathers, and creeds that mention Christ's descent into hell. The Catholics
have also preserved it in thousands of art works that span through the
centuries. The Easter Church preserved it to, to a certain extent, in
thousands of icons, illumination manuscripts, etc., and in translations of
the Bible. Oh sure, there are areas of Christendom that legendized the
doctrine, where hell is personified, but, even the later legends contain many
aspects of the original concepts.<br />
<br />
2. Baptism for the dead:<br />
In earlier centuries, baptism for the dead, and baptism were considered
ritualistic descents into the spirit prison to free the captive spirits held
there, and their resurrection (1 Peter 3:15-22; 4:5-6; Ephesians 4:7-10;
Isaiah 42:5-7, 1 Corithians 15). Why this rite needed to be restored is
because of how it was eventually replaced with rituals that reflect a later
retrogression away from the original form. Rituals, that even though they
basically serve the same basic need, still have fragmented into something
different from what it must have been. For example, the later prayer formulas
said when one hears the screachings of fairy-bird like creatures near lakes,
streams, or rivers. For these mythical creatures were later believed to be
the spirits of unbaptized babies that could be "baptized" by
expressing certain "prayer formulas" for them in order to release
them from haunting the wooded and watery areas. In other areas of
Christendom, elements of salvation for the dead through baptism for the dead,
had been changed into prayers & masses for the dead; and eventually
indulgent-money that many believed paid for souls release from purgatory.
These later developments, though the still retained to a certain extent, the
basic concept, that of giving the spirits of the dead a chance to be released
from the spirit prison; still, by the later centuries the liturgical rites
& masses had become fraternalized into different versions that were far
away from what the original temple rituals were like.<br />
<br />
Temple rituals:<br />
<br />
We have to give the Catholics, and Orthoxy credit for preserving, to a
certain extent, many basic elements of the original temple endowment in their
later masses and liturgical rites for the dead. We see these aspects in the
many illustrations that show what was believed was happening in the after
life realms, while the masses or liturgical rites for the dead are being
performed by the priests. For while these are being performed, angels are
depicted freeing souls out of limbo, hades, purgatory by grasping the arms,
hands & wrists of the souls that are being set free. We also see elements
of the garment & robes in how that these naked souls are then invested or
robed in garments or robes as they ascend into paradise or heaven with their
hand or wrist grasping angelic guides. We also see some elements of anointing
rituals being passed down and preserved, to a certain extent, in the
coronation ceremonies of Christian Kings, saints, and bishops. Hand &
wrist clasping ceremonies and rites of passage through different after-life
realms, are still seen Christendom's art works to the point that Christendom
could be also charged, like the LDS, with having "masonic" symbols;
and in fact, some anti-Christian writers have made these charges. We see
these temple type elements in the many art works that show ascensions into
heaven, or when Christ, saints & prophets go in & out of different
after life realms. However, even though many basic elements and later
traditions & ceremonies still retain many elements to the original, they
needed to be "refreshed," and restored in order to bring them back.
Garments traditions, for example, are an interesting aspect of the temple
endowment to trace through the centuries to see what happened to this aspect.
What we find is how that Christendom traditionalized the wearing of white
garments to giving each other new shirts and pants, etc., (or dresses, in the
case with females), during Easter.<br />
<br />
Marriage:<br />
We have to give Christendom for preserving, to a certain extent, many aspects
of temple type marriage ceremonies, for even later Christian marriage
ceremonies include veils, & different types of hand & wrist grips,
and marriage vows too.<br />
<br />
Godhood, Deification, theosis, perfection, exaltation:<br />
We can now trace through the centuries how the Nicene Creed effected the
later developments of different versions of deification, theosis, perfection.
Plus, how that many later reject the very notion of becoming "a
god" as being "satanic" and "a mission impossible."
However, we have to give Christendom credit for preserving many basic
elements of this doctrine in their writings, art works of Mary's assumption
and heavenly coronation ceremonies, and in later mandorla symbols and
ascension into heaven up the ladder towards "moral Christian perfection."<br />
<br />
The Pre-existence:<br />
The doctrine that the human family lived in a pre-mortal existence in a
family in heaven with God; this basic doctrine was eventually legendized, and
even discarded, such as during the council of Constaninople in A.D. 553, when
Origen's version of it was rejected. However, we have to give Christendom
credit for preserving many elements of the doctrine in later Bible text
illustrated letters, and art works. We have also seen how that the Church
Fathers polemically argued and discarded the doctrine as the centuries aged
Christendom. Despite this, however, numerous basic elements to the doctrine
filtered down through the centuries as by way of art works that continued to
depict the council in heaven, Satan and his angels fall; & the war in
heaven between St. Michael and his angels against Lucifer and his angels.<br />
<br />
Christ's post-resurrection world wide mission:<br />
We have to give Christendom credit for preserving, to a certain extent, many
basic elements of this doctrine, that Christ went to other nations after his
descent into the spirit world & resurrection, and appeared to many.
However, though we see many art works that depict Christ's wanderings
throughout the world, we also can see how this doctrine was eventually
legendized in the much later mythical stories about the wandering
Christ-child, that eventually became the wandering Christkindl of the German
speaking countries, that in turn eventually was Americanized into Kriss
Kringle & eventually Santa Claus' annual world treks during Christmas
Eves. Consequently, this doctrine needed to be restored too. The Book of
Mormon is a witness that records Christ's visits to the ancient Americas, and
that he went to other nations too.<br />
<br />
Priesthood power, spiritual gifts & Prophets & Apostles:<br />
<br />
Even many of the early Church fathers, though they hoped that what had
happened to the Jews, when they lost the spiritual gifts, wouldn't also
happen to them too. However, many of them even began to note how that the
spiritual gifts were passing out of the churches. Tertullian, thinking that
the Montanists had the gift of revelation, left the Catholics, to join with
them. Other church Fathers polemically argued and reasoned their way through
polemical issues as best as they could with their schooling & training in
the dialetical arts derived from the Greeks. This is what one church father
noted was going on when the Nicene Creed was being formed. He complained that
truth was not something to be polemicaly hashed over through debates and
clever arguments, but rather through the spiritual gifts & through
personal testimony. Hence, as the spiritual gifts fell out of use,
"doctrines" were polemically debated over until they were put into
creeds that contained elements that were even outside of scripture. For this was
one of the things they argued about in the case with some elements of the
creed, some church council members complained that the creed contained
elements that weren't found in the scriptures. Hence, with the prophets &
apostles no longer around to settle dogmatical issues, Christendom did the
best that they could through different councils in debate mode. The apostles
and Prophets & other leaders inspired with the spiritual gifts, had been
originally given in the first place, for the perfecting of the saints, and to
try to keep unity and sound doctrines from being corrupted by "false
teachers," that entered into the different areas of the church . Hence
when this important aspect of the church was discarded and regarded as no
longer being needed, by some, it was no wonder that Christendom began to be
"tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by
the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to
deceive" (Ephesians 4:3-25). Paul, in speaking metaphorically of the
church likened unto a body, says that the foot shouldn't say to the head, we
have no need of thee, etc., etc. In other words, inasmuch as he brought into
his metaphorical example the spiritual gifts and the different callings &
foundational church leaders; he was saying that a bishop should not say to a
prophet, we have no need of you, or visa versa. However, many in Christendom
say this very thing, saying: 'We don't need any more prophets & apostles
and the spiritual gifts of new revelation (1 Corinthians 12). Hence, these
are all the more reasons why such things as apostles and prophets needed to
be restored back into the Church, along with the priesthood powers too.<br />
<br />
Sources:<br />
<a href="http://www.restorationhistory.com/homepage.html">www.restorationhistory.com/homepage.html</a><br />
<a href="http://www.restorationhistory.com/ANSWERS-topic-list.html">www.restorationhistory.co...-list.html</a><br />
Pre-existence: <a href="http://www.restorationhistory.com/Preexist2002.htm">www.restorationhistory.co...st2002.htm</a><br />
<br />
Christ's descent & baptism for the dead: <a href="http://www.restorationhistory.com/Descent2002.htm">www.restorationhistory.co...nt2002.htm</a><br />
<br />
Temple work:<br />
Anointing: <a href="http://www.restorationhistory.com/Anoint2002.htm">www.restorationhistory.co...nt2002.htm</a><br />
Garments: <a href="http://www.restorationhistory.com/Garments2001.htm">www.restorationhistory.co...ts2001.htm</a><br />
<a href="http://www.restorationhistory.com/skins.html">www.restorationhistory.com/skins.html</a><br />
For other aspects of the Temple in historic Christianity see:<br />
<a href="http://www.restorationhistory.com/ANSWERS-topic-list.html">www.restorationhistory.co...-list.html</a><br />
<a href="http://www.restorationhistory.com/More-Temple-Evidences.html">www.restorationhistory.co...ences.html</a><br />
<a href="http://www.restorationhistory.com/TEMPLE-EVIDENCE.html">www.restorationhistory.co...DENCE.html</a><br />
<a href="http://www.restorationhistory.com/Wed2002.htm">www.restorationhistory.com/Wed2002.htm</a><br />
<br />
Christ's post-resurrection world wide mission: <a href="http://www.restorationhistory.com/Christ-The-World-Wide-Wounded-Wanderer.html">www.restorationhistory.co...derer.html</a><br />
<br />
Deification, theosis, perfection, Godhood: <a href="http://www.restorationhistory.com/Deif2002.htm">www.restorationhistory.com/Deif2002.htm</a><br />
<a href="http://www.restorationhistory.com/Godsheads.htm">www.restorationhistory.com/Godsheads.htm</a><br />
<a href="http://www.restorationhistory.com/Godhood%20Differences.htm">www.restorationhistory.co...rences.htm</a><br />
<br />
Time lines on the Apostasy:<br />
<a href="http://www.restorationhistory.com/rh/councils.html">www.restorationhistory.co...ncils.html</a><br />
<a href="http://www.restorationhistory.com/rh/spiritual/gifts.html">www.restorationhistory.co...gifts.html</a><br />
<a href="http://www.restorationhistory.com/rh/early-anti-Christian.html">www.restorationhistory.co...stian.html</a><br />
<a href="http://www.restorationhistory.com/apostasy.html">www.restorationhistory.com/apostasy.html</a><br />
<br />
Other threads & links to art works:<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm20.showMessage?topicID=557.topic">pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...=557.topic</a><br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm20.showMessage?topicID=579.topic">pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...=579.topic</a><br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm20.showMessage?topicID=546.topic">pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...=546.topic</a><br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm20.showMessage?topicID=578.topic">pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...=578.topic</a><br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm20.showMessage?topicID=580.topic">pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...=580.topic</a><br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm20.showMessage?topicID=571.topic">pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...=571.topic</a><br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm20.showMessage?topicID=559.topic">pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...=559.topic</a><br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm20.showMessage?topicID=171.topic">pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...=171.topic</a><br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm20.showMessage?topicID=523.topic">pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...=523.topic</a><br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm20.showMessage?topicID=556.topic">pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...=556.topic</a><br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm20.showMessage?topicID=537.topic">pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...=537.topic</a><br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm20.showMessage?topicID=202.topic">pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...=202.topic</a><br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm20.showMessage?topicID=520.topic">pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...=520.topic</a><br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm20.showMessageRange?topicID=362.topic&start=21&stop=36">pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...21&stop=36</a><br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm20.showMessage?topicID=532.topic">pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...=532.topic</a><br />
<br />
Other threads on Apostasy issues:<br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showMessage?topicID=322.topic">pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...=322.topic</a><br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showMessageRange?topicID=76.topic&start=21&stop=24">pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...21&stop=24</a><br />
<a href="http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm23.showMessage?topicID=193.topic">pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...=193.topic</a><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--><span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</div><p><br /></p><span style="font-family: georgia;">Grace and peace,</span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia;">David</span></p>David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-86183776806433680592022-10-11T15:56:00.010-07:002022-10-11T16:03:35.320-07:00A Dominican scholar's affirmation of the Son of God’s causality from the Father in the thought of Augustine<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">In an older thread here at <i>AF,</i> I posted a number of
quotes from the corpus of Augustine that clearly identified his belief in the
causality of the Son of God from God the Father—essence and person [<a href="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2016/07/augustine-on-causality-of-son-from.html">Link</a>].
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">In the same thread, I provided a selection from the
Catholic scholar, </span><span style="background: white; font-family: Georgia;">Yves Congar, wherein he quoted the
following from Augustine:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia;">The Father is the principle of all-divinity or,
to be more precise, of the deity, because he does not take his origin from
anything else. He has no one from whom he has his being or from whom he
proceeds, but it is by him that the Son is begotten and from him that the Holy
Spirit proceeds.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Concerning Augustine’s acknowledgment that the, “</span><span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia;">Father is the principle of all-divinity</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">”, Congar
concluded that, “</span><b style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: blue;">it expresses the idea of the first
and absolute source.</span></b><span style="font-family: Georgia;">”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">Over the weekend, I found another Catholic
scholar who recognizes the causality of the Son of God from the Father in the
writings of Augustine. Thomas Joseph White in his new book, </span><i style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">The Trinity – On
the Nature and Mystery of the One God </i><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">(<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=746fzgEACAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false">Google Preview</a>),
devoted a chapter to Augustine, wherein we read:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia;">In </span><i style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia;">De Trinitate</i><span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia;"> books 6 and 7 Augustine
developed what eventually would come to be know in the High Middle Ages as the
doctrine of appropriations. The doctrine of appropriations has to do with
biblical language that applies this or that divine attribute to one of the
divine persons seemingly exclusively, the simplicity of the divine nature
notwithstanding, or applies this or that divine action to one of the persons as
if it were proper to him, despite the unit of God’s action </span><i style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia;">ad extra</i><span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia;">…</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia;">What leads to Augustine’s discussion of
appropriations in books 6 and 7, however, among others, are difficulties posed
by the biblical verse, 1 Corinthians 1:24: “Christ the power of God and the
wisdom of God.”…</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia;">The basic question is whether we can predicate
attributes and actions to each of the persons in a distinctive way, without
claiming that the attribute or action in question is something exclusively
proper to him.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia;">Augustine’s answer to this question is grounded
in his idea of persons as relations. Yes, it is true that each of the persons
possesses all the properties and actions of God equally and identically. But it
is also true that <b>each of them possesses such properties and actions in a
particular personal mode</b>, as Father, Son, or Holy. We might take the example
of wisdom. On the one hand, wisdom must be understood as pertaining to the very
substance and nature of God. Understood in this way, both the Father and the
Son are perfectly wise, since both are God. And yet on the other hand, <b>the
Father and the Son each possesses wisdom in his own mode</b> resulting from the
relations. “So Father and Son are together one wisdom because they are one
being [Latin:<i>essentia</i>], and one by one they are wisdom from wisdom as
they as being from being.”* The Father has wisdom from all eternity in an <b>unoriginated
mode</b>, as <b>he who communicates divine being</b> [i.e. essence] <b>to the
Son and the Spirit</b>. The Son has wisdom from all eternity in an <b>originated
mode</b>, as he is the generated Word of the Father…</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;"> (White, Thomas Joseph, OP, <i>The Trinity, </i>pp. 165, 166 –
bold emphasis mine.) [*Quote from Augustine is from his <i>De Trinitate </i>7.1.3<i>,
</i>as translated by Edmund Hill in, <i>The Trinity – THE WORKS OF SAINT
AUGUSTINE: A translation for the 21<sup>st</sup> Century, I/5, </i>p. 221.]</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">White, concludes from Augustine’s notion of
“</span><span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia;">wisdom from wisdom</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">” and “</span><span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia;">being from being</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia;">”—concerning the relationship between
the Father and the Son—that:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia;">The Father has wisdom from all eternity in an </span><b style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia;">unoriginated
mode</b><span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia;">, as </span><b style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia;">he who communicates divine being</b><span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia;"> [i.e. essence] </span><b style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia;">to the
Son and the Spirit</b><span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia;">. The Son has wisdom from all eternity in an </span><b style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia;">originated
mode</b><span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia;">.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">White’s understanding here is essentially the same as
Congar’s affirmation that the Father is, “</span><b style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: blue;">the first
and absolute source.</span></b><span style="font-family: Georgia;">”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Shall end with the reposting of some quotes from Augustine
that add crystal clear support to assessments of White and Congar:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">...<span style="color: #990000;">we understand that the Son is not indeed less than, but
equal to the Father, but yet that He is from Him, God of God, Light of light.
For we call the Son God of God; <b>but the Father, God only; not of God</b>. </span>(</span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">On
the Trinity</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, II.2 - NPNF 3.38 - bold emphasis mine.)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;">For the Son is the Son of the Father, and the Father
certainly is the Father of the Son; but the Son is called God of God, the Son
is called Light of Light; the Father is called Light, but not, of Light, <b>the
Father is called God, but not, of God</b>. </span>(</span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">On the Gospel of John</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">, XXXIX.1 -
NPNF 3.38)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;">Partly then, I repeat, it is with a view to this
administration that those things have been thus written which the heretics make
the ground of their false allegations; and partly it was with a view to the
consideration that <b>the Son owes to the Father that which He is</b>, thereby also
certainly owing this in particular to the Father, to wit, that He is equal to
the same Father, or that He is His Peer</span> (<i>eidem Patri æqualis aut par est</i>),
<span style="color: #990000;"><b>whereas the Father owes whatsoever He is to no one</b>.</span> (</span><i style="font-family: Georgia;">On Faith and the Creed</i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">,
9.18 -NPNF 3.328-329 - bold emphasis mine.)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Grace and peace,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">David</span></p>David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-30562268034212428022022-09-20T13:16:00.002-07:002022-09-20T13:22:19.761-07:00Trinitarianism and causality: The begotten-not-made distinction in the eastern pro-Nicenes<p>One of the major topics that I have explored on this blog
is the doctrine known as the <a href="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/search/label/Monarchy%20of%20God%20the%20Father">Monarchy of God the Father</a> (MGF). One of the key
elements of this doctrine is the causality of the Son of God from God the
Father. This aspect of MGF is found in the OT, NT, early Church Fathers, and is
explicitly delineated in the Nicene Creed (325). Supporters of the Nicene Creed
were faced with the difficult task of affirming the causality of the Son of God
from the Father—along with His full divinity—whilst denying that He was
created.</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Over the weekend, I discovered an excellent article
written by Dr. Nathan Jacobs* [<a href="https://www.academia.edu/34403121/The_Begotten_Not_Made_Distinction_in_the_Eastern_Pro_Nicenes?email_work_card=view-paper">link</a>] that explores the pro-Nicene defense of
the causality of the Son by ‘<span style="color: #990000;">the Eastern fathers</span>'—a defense that is a very
important element of the ‘<span style="color: #990000;"><b>Eastern pro-Nicene metaphysics</b></span>’. The following is the
abstract from the article:</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">The Nicene-Constantinopolitan
profession that the Son of God is begotten, not made, presents the tension that
the Son is caused by God but not created. This claim was a point of controversy
in the semi-Arian and Eunomian/Anomean disputes of the fourth century. The latter
argued that unoriginateness is central to divinity. Hence, the Son, being
originate, cannot be of the same nature as the Father. Some philosophers of
religion today echo this same conclusion. In this essay, I show, contrary to
both ancient and modern critics of the begotten-not-made distinction, that the
Eastern fathers offer clear differences between begetting and creating, which
clarify why the distinction is cogent and necessary within their metaphysics.</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Hope to hear from folk who take the time to read Jacobs
robust contribution.</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Grace and peace,</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">David</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><br /></p><p class="MsoBodyText">*<span style="background: white;">NATHAN A. JACOBS,
Ph.D. is Scholar in Residence of Philosophy and Religion in the Religion in the
Arts in Contemporary Culture Program based in Vanderbilt University Divinity
School. He was previously Visiting Scholar and Lecturer of Philosophy at
University of Kentucky. He holds advanced degrees in Philosophy, Historical Theology,
Systematic Theology, Church History, and Fine Art.</span></p>David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-87506389872880695342022-08-27T17:17:00.013-07:002022-08-28T08:58:24.336-07:00Gregory Nazianzen (Nazianzus) and the monarchy of God<p>Towards the end of
July, I received an email from a reader of this blog that precipitated an in
depth investigation into <span style="background: white;">the doctrinal axiom/rule termed, </span><b><i>opera trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa</i></b> (the external works of the Trinity are
indivisible.)</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">This axiom/rule had
never been a focus of my theological studies, but the very mention of if
brought back to mind something Augustine wrote near the beginning of his book, <i>De
Trinitate</i> (<i>On the Trinity</i>);
note the following:</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">…<span style="color: #990000;">the Father, and
the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as they are indivisible, so work indivisibly</span>. (<i>On
the Trintiy</i>, 1.7 – NPNF 3.20; trans. Arthur West Haddan, revised and
annotated by W.G. T. Shedd)</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">…t<span style="color: #990000;">he Father, and
Son, and Holy Spirit are inseparable, so do they work inseparably.</span> (<i>The
Trinity, </i>1.7 – The Works of Saint Augustine I/5, p. 70; trans. Edmund Hill)</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">[Latin: <i><span style="background: white;">Pater et Filius
et Spiritus Sanctus sicut inseparabiles sunt, ita inseparabiliter operentur</span></i>]</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">And:</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">…<span style="color: #990000;">the Trinity works
indivisibly in everything that God works</span> (<i>On the Trintiy</i>, 1.8 – NPNF 3.21;
trans. Arthur West Haddan, revised and annotated by W.G. T. Shedd)</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">…<span style="color: #990000;">the Trinity works
inseparably in everything that God works </span><i>The Trinity, </i>1.8 – The Works of
Saint Augustine I/5, p. 70; trans. Edmund Hill)</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">[Latin<i>:
inseparabiliter operari trinitatem in omni re quam deus operatur</i>]</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">The connection
between the above Augustine quotes and <span style="background: white;">the doctrinal axiom/rule termed, </span><b><i>opera trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa</i></b> is obvious. With that said, subsequent
online research revealed something to me that I had been unaware of—this
axiom/rule was quite influential in the formulation of the Latin/Western
understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. During that research one
particular book came to my attention, Adonis Vidu’s <i>The Same God Who Works
All Things: Inseparable Operations in Trinitarian Theology </i>(<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=Xub9DwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false">Google preview</a>).</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">I finished reading
the book a few days ago. It was not an easy read for me given the fact that my
previous knowledge of <span style="background: white;">the doctrinal axiom/rule termed, </span><b><i>opera trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa</i></b> was limited. I can now say with confidence
that this is no longer the case; Vidu’s book—along with the reading of a number of the works referenced therein—has greatly enhanced my knowledge of
the axiom/rule.</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Now, with that
said, though I certainly appreciated Vidu’s in depth contribution, the book is
not without flaws, and it is one of those flaws that will constitute the
primary focus of this post—<b>Gregory Nazianzen’s teachings on the monarchy of
God</b>.</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">From Vidu’s book
we read:</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #990000;">Arguing against
the personalistic trend epitomized by Zizioulas, Chrysostom Koutloumousianos
demonstrates that neither the Cappadocians, nor John Damascene, Maximus the
Confessor, nor any other Eastern Father, sets the person of the Father himself
as primordial in relation to the divine essence. <b>There is no monarchy of the
Father</b>, but rather a monarchy that is shared by all the persons in virtue
of their sharing the one divine essence.</span> (Page 98 – bold emphasis mine.)</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">Vidu, apparently
relying on Koutloumousianos, makes an all too familiar mistake concerning
Gregory’s thoughts on the monarchy of God—i.e. that Gregory has only ONE
interpretation concerning what the monarchy of God means.</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">A number of
patristic scholars have exposed this mistake, but for now, I shall limit this
post to one—John Zizioulas. Note the following lengthy selection:</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">This brings us to the question of divine <i>monarchia. </i>What
meaning did it have for the Fathers and for the Cappadocians, in particular?
Did it relate to the Father or to all three persons? Let us try to answer this
question with particular reference to the evidence of Gregory Nazianzen, who
seems to be trusted more by the critics of the Cappadocians.</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><i>Monarchia </i>means <i>one arche. </i>The idea was
first employed to indicate that there is only <i>one rule </i>in God, amounting
to one will, one power, and so on.[56] Soon,
however, the concept had to be employed ontologically, as it applied not only
to the Economy but to God in his eternal life. In such a case, it was
inevitable for the question to arise as to its precise meaning for the being of
God. The Cappadocian Fathers witness to this development by specifying what <i>arche
</i>means with reference to God.</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Basil clearly
understands <i>arche </i>in the ontological sense of the beginning of being. As
such, <i>arche </i>is attached exclusively to the Father. He writes: the names
Father and Son 'spoken of in themselves indicate nothing but the relation <i>(schesis)
</i>between the two'. 'For Father is the one who has given the beginning of
being <i>(arche ton einai) </i>to the others... Son is the one who has had the
beginning of his being <i>(arche tou einai) </i>by birth from the other'.[57]</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Gregory Nazianzen seems to use the term <i>monarchia </i>in
the early sense of one rule, will and power. As such, he refers it to all three
persons of the Trinity. Yet he is not unaware of the ontological meaning which
he expresses with the term <i>monas. </i>This he refers not to all three
persons but to the Father. Let us consider carefully the following passage
which is crucial for our subject.</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-size: x-small;">There
are three opinions (<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype";">δόξαι</span>) about God, anarchy, polyarchy and monarchy. The
first two were played by the children of the Greeks, and let them continue to
be so. For anarchy is something without order; and the rule of many is
factions, and thus anarchical and thus disorderly. For both these things lead
to the same thing, namely disorder; and thus to dissolution, for disorder is
the first step to dissolution. But <i>monarchia </i>is that which we hold in
honour. It is, however, a <i>monarchia </i>that is not limited to one person,
for it is possible for unity if at variance with itself to come into a
condition of plurality; but one which is constituted by equality of nature, and
agreement of opinion, and identity of motion, and a convergence (or
concurrence) of its elements to one[58] ...so that though numerically distinct there is no division of <i>ousia.</i>[59]</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">So far, <i>monarchia </i>seems to refer to all Persons and
not to any one of the Trinity. Yet we should note that Gregory uses <i>monarchia
</i>in the sense of one will and concord of mind, that is, in the old moral or
functional sense of the term, to which we referred earlier: monarchy is
contrasted with anarchy and polyarchy, and the accent falls on order as opposed
to disorder, and on common will, and so on. The ontological sense of <i>monarchia
</i>comes with the text that immediately follows the one just quoted:</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-size: x-small;">For
this reason, the One (<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype";">μονάς</span>) having moved from the beginning (from all eternity)
to a Dyad, stopped (or rested) in Triad. And this is for us the Father and the
Son and the Holy Spirit. The one as the Begetter and the Emitter (<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype";">προβολεύς</span>), without passion of course
and without reference to time, and not in a corporeal manner, of whom the
others are one of them the begotten and the other the emission.</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">In this passage, the subject is transferred to the
ontological level; it is now a question not of a moral unity in which disorder
and anarchy are excluded but of how the three Persons relate to one another in
terms of ontological origination. The crucial point here is the word <i>monas: </i>to
what does it refer? Does it refer to something common to the three Persons out
of which the Trinity emerged? Or to the person of the Father?</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">If the <i>monas </i>referred to something other than the
Father, that is to <i>ousia </i>or something common to the three persons, we
would have to exegete the text in the following way: 'The one <i>ousia (monas) </i>moved
to a Dyad and finally stopped at the Triad'. This would mean that from the one <i>ousia
</i>came first the two persons together (a dyad) to which a third one was added
finally to make the Trinity. Unless we are talking about the <i>Filioque </i>such
an interpretation would look absurd. If we wish to have the Trinity
simultaneously emerging from the <i>ousia, </i>which is what I suppose those
who refer the <i>monas </i>to <i>ousia </i>would prefer, the text would forbid
that, for it would have to read as follows: 'The one <i>ousia (monas) </i>moved
(not to a dyad first but simultaneously) to a triad'.</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">The text clearly refers the One (<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype";">μονὰς</span>) to the Father, for it
explains itself immediately by saying: 'the one (moved) as the Begetter (<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype";">γεννήτωρ</span>) and Emitter (<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype";">προβολεύς</span>),
of whom the others are the one begotten and the other the emission (<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype";">τῶν δέ, τό μέν γέννημα, τό δέ προβολεύς</span>)'.
Furthermore, in continuing his thought, Gregory explains all this by saying
that the reason why he would insist on what he just said is that he wants to
exclude any understanding of the Trinity as a derivation from an a-personal
something, like an overflowing bowl (an explicit reference to Plato), lest the
emergence of the Son and the Spirit be conceived of as 'involuntary', his
intention being to 'speak of the unbegotten and the begotten and that which
proceeds from the Father'.</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">In conclusion,
when Gregory uses <i>monarchia </i>in the moral sense of unity of mind, will,
and so on, he refers it to the three persons taken together (how could it be
otherwise?). But when he refers to how the Trinity emerged ontologically, he
identifies the <i>monas </i>with the Father. </span>(Zizioulas, John D., <i> Communion & Otherness: Further Studies in
Personhood and the Church, </i>T&T Clark, 2006, pp. 131-134 – <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Communion-Otherness-Further-Studies-Personhood/dp/0567031489">Amazon link</a>.)</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Notes:</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">56. Thus in Justin, <i>Dial. </i>1; Tatian, <i>Or.
ad Gr. </i>14; etc.; see above, n. 20.</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">57. Basil, <i>C. Eun. </i>2.22. Note again the language
employed by Basil: the Father gives the Son not <i>ousia </i>but <i>einai, </i>'being';
there is a difference between these two terms: person <i>is </i>being, but does
not denote <i>ousia', ousia </i>and <i>being </i>are not identical. See the
implications of this above.</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">58. This is the rather inadequate rendition given of this
sentence in <i>A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, </i>vol.
VII, p. 301. A translation and commentary more adequate and more interesting
for our subject is given by J. Mason, <i>The Five Orations of Gregory of
Nazianzus, </i>1899, p. 75: 'This complete harmony of mind and will in the
Godhead is itself based upon the concurrence of the other Blessed Persons with
that One of their number from Whom they are derived, viz. the Father'. In this
case, the monarchy is ultimately referred to the Father. Exegetically, the
meaning depends on how we render the word 'one' (<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype";">ἓν</span>) and the 'from it' (<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype";">τῶν ἐξ αὐτοῦ</span>): do these refer to
the One from whom the others derive, i.e., the Father, or to the elements that
make up the unity of nature, motion, etc.? The sentence that immediately
follows would support the first option. My argument, however, is unaffected in
either case, as can immediately be seen.</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">59. Gregory Naz., <i>Theol.
Or. </i>3.2.</span> [This is the 3<sup>rd</sup> ‘theological oration’ and has the
title ‘On the Son’; it is also numbered as #29 among the 45 extant orations of
Gregory N.]</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">In ending this
opening post, I would like to submit that an objective reading of Gregory
Naziansen’s writings reveals he submitted TWO interpretations, not ONE,
concerning the monarchy of God—the most important being <b>the monarchy of God the
Father</b>.</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><br /></p><p class="MsoBodyText">Grace and peace,</p><p class="MsoBodyText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">David</p>David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-61295415506942066442022-06-17T10:31:00.014-07:002022-07-07T10:33:04.109-07:00Supernatural visions: Catholic, Protestant and Mormon<p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51EQYK3rnQL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="499" data-original-width="333" height="200" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51EQYK3rnQL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" width="134" /></a></div><br /><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Whilst reading
Trevan Hatch’s </span><i style="font-family: georgia;">When the Lights Came On, </i><span style="font-family: georgia;">I felt compelled to reflect on
the very nature of supernatural visions. In the first chapter of the book,
Hatch provides twenty examples of claimed supernatural visions by individuals
in America between 1741-1827. All twenty individuals related two common
elements concerning their claimed visionary experiences: first, they saw God
the Father and Jesus Christ together at the same time; and second, both of them appeared
as men.</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Now, all twenty of the individuals were of a Protestant background—no visionary experiences from
Catholics were provided. I suspect that Hatch did not reference any Catholic
examples because he could not find any Catholic visionary experiences that
shared the two common elements of the twenty individuals he referenced—they saw
both God the Father and Jesus Christ together and as men. Personally speaking,
I am not aware any visionary experiences reported by individuals within the
Catholic tradition that had God the Father and Jesus Christ appearing together
in a vision as men.</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Catholics have
claimed visions of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, Michael the Archangel, Satan
and demons; but </span><u style="font-family: georgia;">to my knowledge</u><span style="font-family: georgia;">, no Catholic has reported that they have
seen God the Father in a vision. [For an excellent treatment on Catholic
visionary experiences, see <a href="https://catholicmystics.blogspot.com/p/visions-of-jesus-mary.html">THIS LINK</a>.]</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;">With that said,
many Catholic—and Eastern Orthodox—mystics have claimed to had some sort of
supernatural interaction with God. Such reported mystical experiences seem to
be of a different order/nature than those experiences that have historically
been termed ‘visions'.</span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> </span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;">In ending, I would
like to know what folk of differing Christian traditions think about the
claimed visions of those who are not within their own tradition.</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Grace and peace,</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;">David</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;">P.S. I cannot help but think that the issue of
‘visions’ is somehow connected the doctrine of the ‘</span><b style="font-family: georgia;">beatific vision’</b><span style="font-family: georgia;">—see <a href="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2017/04/visio-deivision-of-god-or-beatific.html">THIS POST</a> for some reflections on </span><i style="font-family: georgia;">Visio Dei</i><span style="font-family: georgia;">.</span></p><p><br /></p>David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-39584064722690128742022-04-29T18:35:00.002-07:002022-04-29T18:36:25.142-07:00A History of the Catholic Church (8 volumes) by Fernand Mourett, translated by Newton Thompson<p><span style="font-family: georgia;">Over 30 years ago,
I was able to purchase the first 5 volumes of Fernand Mourett’s <i>A History of
the Catholic Church, </i>translated into English by Newton Thompson.</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Mourett’s </span><i style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="background: white; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 16.5pt;">Histoire
g</span></i><i style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="background: white; mso-bidi-font-family: "Lucida Sans Unicode"; mso-bidi-font-size: 16.5pt;">é</span></i><i style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="background: white; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 16.5pt;">n</span></i><i style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="background: white; mso-bidi-font-family: "Lucida Sans Unicode"; mso-bidi-font-size: 16.5pt;">é</span></i><i style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="background: white; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 16.5pt;">rale de l'</span></i><i style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="background: white; mso-bidi-font-family: "Lucida Sans Unicode"; mso-bidi-font-size: 16.5pt;">É</span></i><i style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="background: white; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 16.5pt;">glise</span></i><span style="font-family: georgia;"> was originally published in France between
1914-1927 in 9 volumes.</span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Thompson
subsequently translated the first 8 volumes into English, which were published
by the B. Herder Book Co. between 1931-1957. This English set is over 5,500
pages in length, beginning with the birth of Jesus Christ to the Virgin Mary,
and taking one through nearly 1900 years of the history of the Church that He
established.</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Earlier today, I
discovered that Thompson’s English translation is now available online to read
and/or download (all 8 volumes) via the following link:</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><a href="https://archive.org/details/AHistoryOfTheCatholicChurch/AHistoryOfTheCatholicChurchComplete/">https://archive.org/details/AHistoryOfTheCatholicChurch/AHistoryOfTheCatholicChurchComplete/</a><br /></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Though it has been
quite a number of years since I last read the first 5 volumes that are on my
shelves, I recall them as being quite solid, and a valuable supplement to
Philip Schaff’s 8 volume set. I am looking forward to reading volumes 6-8.</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Folk who are
interested in the history of the Christian Church should consider adding this
set to their hard-drive.</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><span style="font-family: georgia;"> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Grace and peace,</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;">David</span></p>David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-45907371241117865382022-04-09T17:02:00.002-07:002022-04-09T17:05:28.133-07:00Vincent of Lerins - quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est <p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71YYaNuSnXL._AC_UY327_QL65_.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="327" data-original-width="218" height="327" src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71YYaNuSnXL._AC_UY327_QL65_.jpg" width="218" /></a></div><br /><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">The Latin quoted in the title of this post—known as
the ‘Vincentian Canon’ and/or 'Vincent's Rule'—was translated into English by
Heurtley as: “which [faith] has been believed everywhere, always, and by all”
(</span><i style="font-family: georgia;">A Commonitory, </i><span style="font-family: georgia;">NPNF - XI.132). This canon/rule was first expressed in the </span><i style="font-family: georgia;">Commonitorium </i><span style="font-family: georgia;">written
by Vincent of Lerins, and was essentially a threefold test for identifying true
doctrines from heretical ones. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Vincent discerned that heretical doctrines/teachers tended
be geographically localized, rather than dispersed throughout all the Christian
regions; as such, ‘everywhere' (ubiquity) was one of the tests. Another test
was ‘always', which meant for Vincent that true doctrines originated in
antiquity (apostolic times), and do not emerge at a later date—e.g. the
Montanists, Arians, Donatists, Apollinarians, Nestorians. And finally,
concerning the ‘by all' test, Vincent primarily had the bishops convened at the
Ecumenical Councils in mind (though not exclusively so).</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Unfortunately, Vincent’s canon/rule has historically been
misused and misunderstood. An excellent antidote to such abuses is Thomas G.
Guarino’s above pictured book, </span><i style="font-family: georgia;">Vincent of Lérins and the Development of
Doctrine </i><span style="font-family: georgia;">(2013 – <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=QsOtD8Q0rYAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false">Google preview</a>).
One of the most important points made by Guarino is that Vincent has a ‘second
rule’, and that one must correctly identify this ‘second rule’ in order to
properly interpret Vincent’s ‘first rule’; note the following:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">A second essential element in interpreting the Vincentian
canon is that his first rule must always be taken in conjunction with the
Lérinian’s “second rule”: over time growth undoubtedly occurs in Christian
doctrine.</span> (Page 6)</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText2"><span style="font-family: georgia;">I shall turn to the pen of Vincent himself to expound on
what he meant concerning the development/growth of Christian doctrine. From his
</span><i style="font-family: georgia;">A Commonitory </i><span style="font-family: georgia;">we read:</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText2"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;">But some one will say perhaps, Shall there, then, be no
progress in Christ's Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being
is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid
it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For
progress requires that the subject be enlarged in itself, alteration, that it
be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the
wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole
Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much
and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind ; that is to say, in the
same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.</span> (NPNF</span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">- XI.147, 148)</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText2"><span style="font-family: georgia;">And:</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText2"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;">From doctrine which was sown as wheat, we should reap, in
the increase, doctrine of the same kind — wheat also; so that when in process
of time any of the original seed is developed, and now flourishes under
cultivation, no change may ensue in the character of the plant. There may
supervene shape, form, variation in outward appearance, but the nature of each
kind must remain the same. God forbid that those rose-beds of Catholic
interpretation should be converted into thorns and thistles. God forbid that in
that spiritual paradise from plants 'of cinnamon and balsam darnel and
wolfsbane should of a sudden shoot forth.</span></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText2"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;">Therefore, whatever has been sown by the fidelity of the
Fathers in this husbandry of God's Church, the same ought to be cultivated and
taken care of by the industry of their children, the same ought to flourish and
ripen, the same ought to advance and go forward to perfection. For it is right
that those ancient doctrines of heavenly philosophy should, as time goes on, be
cared for, smoothed, polished; but not that they should be changed, not that
they should be maimed, not that they should be mutilated. They may receive
proof, illustration, definiteness; but they must retain withal their
completeness, their integrity, their characteristic properties.</span> (NPNF</span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">- XI.147, 148)</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText2"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Another important part of Guarino’s book is his analysis
of Newman’s theory of development as it relates to Vincent’s. More on this at a
later date, the Lord willing…</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText2"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText2"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Grace and peace,</span></p><p class="MsoBodyText2"><span style="font-family: georgia;">David</span></p><p><br /></p>David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-75754252227927277782022-03-03T18:23:00.000-08:002022-03-03T18:23:13.885-08:00The death of Dr. Gary North <p><span style="font-family: georgia;">Earlier
today, I read that Dr. Gary North had died on February 24, 2022. The following
was posted on <i>Gary North’s Specific Answers </i>website
(<a href="https://www.garynorth.com/public/23334.cfm?fbclid=IwAR3nV-aw6InHlkiJDsKVQKwCuwUsJOZ1Q9jPb6kt0aHhtiOxICS-JTOi_6I">link</a>):</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #990000; font-family: georgia;">Gary
North, RIP</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #990000; font-family: georgia;">When Gary Kilgore
North passed away on February 24, 2022, at the age of 80, he left behind a
massive storehouse of Christian scholarship without parallel in the modern
church. For nearly fifty-five straight and solid years he applied himself as a
craftsman with single-minded devotion to researching, writing, and speaking
about God’s world from the perspective of God’s Word. While he lived his work
benefited his large readership around the world. For generations to come it
will be of great use to the Church of his Lord Jesus Christ.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">[A concise biography
of Dr. North follows the above, opening paragraph.]</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="background-color: white;">Personally speaking, I
became aware of Dr. North via an article by Rodney Clapp that was published in </span><i>Christianity
Today </i><span style="background-color: white;">back on February 20, 1987 under the title, “Democracy as Heresy” (pp.
17-23). The article was a brief history of the movement that became known as
“Christian Reconstructionism". [See Michael J. McVicar’s contribution at
A.R.D.A. for more
historical details - <a href="https://www.thearda.com/timeline/movements/movement_27.asp">link</a>; McVicar is the author of the scholarly book, </span><i>Christian
Reconstruction</i><span style="background-color: white;">, which I mentioned here at </span><i>AF</i><span style="background-color: white;"> back on May 4, 2015 – <a href="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2015/05/new-academic-book-on-r-j-rushdoony-and.html">link</a>.]</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Rodney Clapp included
Dr. North as one of “the three primary figures of the movement"
(p.18)—i.e. Christian Reconstuctionism—the other two being Greg L. Bahnsen who
passed on Dec. 11, 1995, and R. J. Rushdoony who died on Feb. 8, 2001.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="background-color: white;">When the </span><i>Christianity
Today </i><span style="background-color: white;">article was published, I was a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian
Church. I discovered that Dr. Bahnsen was an ordained minister of the OPC,
and this prompted me to begin an in depth study into Christian
Reconstuctionism. I ended up obtaining almost all of the books and journals
published by Bahnsen, North and Rushdoony—as well as those by a number of their
prominent followers—e.g. David Chilton, Gary DeMar, Kenneth Gentry, James
Jordan, Ray Sutton. [See <a href="https://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/sidefrm2.htm">THIS LINK</a> for free PDFs of dozens of their
contributions.]</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">I was a devoted student of Christian Reconstructionism for well over a decade, with Dr. North
being one of my favorite authors of the movement. Though I no longer
consider myself part of the movement, I am able to acknowledge some positive
influences and memories from that period of my studies.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">It is my sincere hope
that Dr. North is now with our Lord...</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Grace and peace,</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">David </span></span></p>David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-1155605435782824432022-02-13T17:31:00.010-08:002023-01-12T19:20:34.209-08:00The Bible’s textual history: dubious theories and forgeries – part three (Codex Sinaiticus, Simonides and Tischendorf)<p><span style="font-family: georgia;">This
third post in my series on the Bible’s textual history is somewhat of a
departure from the first two in that the manuscript in question <b>is not</b> a
possible ‘forgery’ in a strict sense, but rather <b>it may be</b> a 19th
century production that was originally intended to be a gift, rather than a
forgery meant to pass off as an actual ancient work.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">The
document in question is one that Constantine Tischendorf first laid eyes in
1844 in St. Catherine’s monastery “<span style="color: #990000;">at the foot of Mount Sinai</span>", which
became known as the Codex Sinaiticus. Concerning this ‘discovery', Tischendorf
wrote:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;">It was
at the foot of Mount Sinai, in the Convent of St. Catherine, that I discovered
the pearl of all my researches. In visiting the library of the monastery, in
the month of May, 1844, I perceived in the middle of the great hall a large and
wide basket full of old parchments; and the librarian, who was a man of
information, told me that two heaps of papers like these, mouldered by time,
had been already committed to the flames. What was my surprise to find amid
this heap of papers a considerable number of sheets of a copy of the Old
Testament in Greek, which seemed to me to be one of the most ancient that I had
ever seen. The authorities of the convent allowed me to possess myself of a
third of these parchments, or about forty-three sheets, all the more readily as
they were destined for the fire. But I could not get them to yield up
possession of the remainder. The too lively satisfaction which I had displayed
had aroused their suspicions as to the value of this manuscript. I transcribed
a page of the text of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and enjoined on the monks to take
religious care of all such remains which might fall in their way.</span> (</span><i style="font-family: georgia;">When Were
the Gospels Written?, </i><span style="font-family: georgia;"> </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Second
Edition 1867, pp. 23, 24 – <a href="https://archive.org/details/whenwereourgospe00tiscrich">link</a>)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Two
important elements of the above story related by Tischendorf have been
repeatedly denied by the monks at St. Catherine’s: first, that the manuscript now
known as the Codex Sinaiticus was in a “<span style="color: #990000;">wide basket full of old
parchments</span>"; and second, "<span style="color: #990000;">that two heaps of papers like these, mouldered
by time, had been already committed to the flames</span>.”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Tischendorf
returned to Saxony with the “<span style="color: #990000;">forty-three sheets</span>". He continued his
narrative concerning the Codex Sinaiticus with the following:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;">On my
return to Saxony there were men of learning who at once appreciated the value
of the treasure which I brought back with me. I did not divulge the name of the
place where I had found it, in the hopes of returning and recovering the rest
of the manuscript. I handed up to the Saxon Government my rich collection of
oriental manuscripts in return for the payment of all my travelling expenses, I
deposited in the library of the University of Leipzig, in the shape of a
collection, which bears my name, fifty manuscripts, some of which are very rare
and interesting. I did the same with the Sinaitic fragments, to which I gave
the name of Codex Frederick Augustus, in acknowledgment of the patronage given
to me by the King of Saxony ; and I published them in Saxony in a sumptuous
edition, in which each letter and stroke was exactly reproduced by the aid of
lithography.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;">But
these home labours upon the manuscripts which I had already safely garnered,
did not allow me to forget the distant treasure which I had discovered. I made
use of an influential friend, who then resided at the court of the Viceroy of
Egypt, to carry on negotiations for procuring the rest of the manuscripts. But
his attempts were, unfortunately, not successful. "The monks of the
convent," he wrote to me to say, "have, since your departure, learned
the value of these sheets of parchment, and will not part with them at any
price."</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;">I
resolved, therefore, to return to the East to copy this priceless manuscript.</span> (</span><i style="font-family: georgia;">Ibid.
</i><span style="font-family: georgia;">pp. 24, 25).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Tischendorf
returned to St. Catherine’s in 1853, but was unable to obtain the rest of “<span style="color: #990000;">this
priceless manuscript</span>.” Six years later (1859), on his third visit to the
monastery, he was able to obtain the rest of the manuscript he had first seen
back in 1844. He convinced the monks to give him the manuscript under the
pretense that it was only going to be a loan, and that when he had finished
making a copy, it would be returned. As we now know, he did not keep his
promise. (The manuscript now resides in the renowned British Museum/Library—it
has been there since its purchase from the Soviet Union in 1933.)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Tischendorf’s
version of the 'discovery’ of an ancient manuscript in the St. Catherine
monastery at Mount Sinai is the one that most folk are familiar with. However, there is another version that came
to light three years after Tischendorf had obtained the Codex.<b> </b>On
September 3, 1862 a letter by Constantine Simonides was published in <i>The
Guardian </i>(a London newspaper), wherein he emphatically claimed that the
Codex Sinaiticus manuscript was not produced in the 4th century as
claimed by Tischendorf, but rather that it was written by Simonides himself.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">The
entire letter was republished the next month in </span><i style="font-family: georgia;">The Journal of Sacred
Literature and Biblical Record </i><span style="font-family: georgia;">(Volume II—New Series—October, 1862, pp.
248-250 – <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=n4AtAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false">link</a>), and is quoted in full below:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">THE
SINAI MS. OF THE GREEK BIBLE.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">“ As you
have, in your impression of August 13, published a letter from a correspondent,
signing himself F. J. A. H., in which reference is made to me, I must ask you
for permission to make a statement in reply. Your correspondent favours you
with some extracts from a letter written by Dr. Tregelles, in which the
following sentence occurs: ‘I believe that I need hardly say that the story of
Simonides, that he wrote the M8., is as false and absurd as possible.’</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">“The MS.
referred to is that called the Codex Sinaiticus, now being published under the
editorship of Professor Tischendorf, at the expense of the Russian government.
As what Dr. Tregelles calls my ‘story’ has never been published, and as that
gentleman can only have heard of it through an indirect medium, it may interest
both Dr. Tregelles and your readers to have the ‘story’ direct from myself. I
will tell it as briefly as possible.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">“ About
the end of the yer 1839, the venerable Benedict, my uncle, spiritual head of
the monastery of the holy martyr, Panteleemon, in Mount Athos, wished to
present to the Emperor Nicholas I., of Russia, some gift from the sacred
mountain, in grateful acknowledgment of the presents which had, from time to
time, been offered to the monastery of the martyr. Not possessing anything
which he deemed acceptable, he consulted with the herald Procopius and the
Russian monk Paul, and they decided upon a copy of the Old and New Testaments,
written according to the ancient form, in capital letters, and on parchment.
This, together with the remains of the seven apostolic fathers,—Barnabas,
Hermas, Clement bishop of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, and Dionysius the
Areopagite,—they proposed should be bound in gold, and presented to the emperor
by a common friend. Dionysius, the professional caligrapher of the monastery,
was then begged to undertake the work, but he declined, saying that the task
being exceedingly difficult, he would rather not do so. In consequence of this,
I myself determined to begin the work, especially as my revered uncle seemed
earnestly to wish it. Having then examined the principal copies of the Holy
Scriptures preserved at Mount Athos, I began to practise the principles of
caligraphy; and the learned Benedict, taking a copy of the Moscow</span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">edition of both Testaments (published and
presented to the Greeks by the illustrious brothers Zosimas), collated it with
the ancient ones, and by this means cleared it of many errors, after which he
gave it into my hands to transcribe. Having then received both the Testaments,
freed from errors (the old spelling, however, remaining unaltered), being short
of parchment, I selected from the library of the monastery, with Benedict’s
permission, a very bulky volume, antiquely bound, and almost entirely blank,
the parchment of which was remarkably clean, and beautifully finished. This had
been prepared apparently many </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">centuries
ago—probably by the writer or by the principal of the monastery, as it bore the
inscription, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">EΚΛΟΓΙΟΝ</span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">ΠΑΝΗΓΥΡΙΚΟΝ</span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> (a
Collection of Panegyrics), and also a short discourse much injured by time.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">“ I
therefore took possession of this book, and prepared it by taking out the leaf
containing the discourse, and by removing several others injured by time and
moths, after which I began my task. First, I copied out the Old and New
Testaments, then the Epistle of Barnabas, the first part of the pastoral
writings of Hermas in capital letters (or uncial characters) in the style known
in caligraphy as </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">ἀμφιδέξιος </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">(</span><i style="font-family: georgia;">amphidexios</i><span style="font-family: georgia;">). The
transcription of the remaining apostolic writings, however, I declined, because
the supply of parchment ran short, and the severe loss which I sustained in the
death or Benedict induced me to hand the work over at once to the bookbinders
of the monastery, for the purpose of replacing the original covers, made of
wood and covered with leather, which I had removed for convenience—and when he
had done so, I took it into my possession.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">“ Some
time after this, having removed to Constantinople, I shewed the work to the
patriarchs Anthimus and Constantius, and communicated to them the reason of the
transcription. Constantius took it, and, having thoroughly examined it, urged
me to present it to the library of Sinai, which I accordingly promised to do.
Constantius had previously been bishop of Sinai, and since his resignation of
that office had again become perpetual bishop of that place.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">“ Shortly
after this I was placed under the protection of the illustrious Countess Etleng
and her brother, A. 8. Stourtzas, by the co-operation of two patriarchs; but,
before departing for Odessa, 1 went over to the island of Antigonus to visit
Constantius, and to perform my promise of giving up the manuscript to the
library of Mount Sinai. The patriarch was, however, absent from home, and I,
consequently, left the packet for him with a letter. On his return, he wrote me
the following answer:—</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">“ ’My
dearly beloved son in the Holy Spirit, Simonides; Grace be with you and peace
from God. I received with unfeigned satisfaction your</span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">truly valuable transcript of the Holy Scriptures—namely, the Old
and New Testaments, together with the epistle of St. Barnabas and the first
part of the pastoral writings of Hermas, bound in one volume, which shall be
placed in the library of Mount Sinai, according to your wish. But I exhort you
earnestly (if ever by God's will you should return to the sacred Mount Athos)
to finish the work as you originally designed it, and He will reward you. Be
with me on the 3rd of next month, that I may give you letters to the
illustrious A. 8. Stourtzas, to inform him of your talents and abilities, and
to give you a few hints which may prove useful to the success of your plans. I
sincerely trust that you were born for the honour of your country. Amen.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;">“’CONSTANTIUS,
late of Constantinople, an earnest worshipper in Christ. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;">“ ’Island
of Antigonus, 13<sup>th</sup> August, 1841,’”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">“ After
I had received the above letter, I again went to visit the patriarch, who gave
me the kindest and most paternal advice, with letters to Stourtzas, after which
I returned to Constantinople, and from thence went to Odessa in November, 1841.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">“ In 1846
I again returned to Constantinople, when I at once went over to the island of
Antigonus to visit Constantius, and to place in his possession a large packet
of MSS. He received me with the greatest kindness, and we conversed on many
different subjects, amongst others upon my transcript, when he informed me that
he had sent it some time previously to Mount Sinai.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">“ In 1852
I saw it there myself, and begged the librarian to inform me how the monastery
had acquired it; but he did not appear to know anything of the matter, and I,
for my part, said nothing. However, I examined the MS. and found it much
altered, having an older appearance than it ought to have. The dedication to
the Emperor Nicholas, placed at the beginning of the book, had been removed. I
then began my philological researches, for there were several valuable MSS. in
the library, which I wished to examine. Amongst them, I found the pastoral
writings of Hermas, the Holy Gospel according to St. Matthew, and the disputed
Epistle of Aristeas to Philoctctes (all written on Egyptian papyrus of the
first century), with others not unworthy of note. All this I communicated to
Constantius, and afterwards to my spiritual father, Callistratus, at
Alexandria.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">“ You
have thus a short and clear account of the Codex Simonideios, which Professor
Tischendorf, when at Sinai, contrived, I know not how, to carry away; and,
going to St. Petersburg, published his discovery there under the name of the
Codex Sinaiticus. When, about two years ago, I saw the first facsimiles of
Tischendorf, which were put into my hand at Liverpool, by Mr. Newton, a Friend
of Dr. Tregelles, I at once recognized my own work, as I immediately told. him.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">“ The
above is a true statement of the origin and history of the famous Codex
Sinaiticus, which Professor Tischendorf has foisted on the learned world as a
MS. of the fourth century. I have now only one or two remarks to make. The name
of the professional caligraphist to the monastery of St. Panteleemon was
Dionysius; the name of the monk who was sent by the Patriarch Constantius to
convey the volume from the island of Antigonus to Sinai was Germanus. The
volume, whilst in my possession, was seen by many persons, and it was perused
with attention by the Hadji John Prodromos, son of Pappa Prodromos, who was a
minister of the Greek Church in Trebizond. John Prodromos kept a coffee house
in Galatas, Conatantinople, and probably does so still. The note from the
Patriarch Constantius, acknowledging the receipt of the MS., together with
25,000 piastres, sent to me by Constantius as a benediction, was brought to me
by the Deacon Hilarion, All the persons thus named are, I believe, still alive,
and could bear witness to the truth of my statement.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">“ Of the
internal evidence of the MS. I shall not now speak. Any person </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">learned
in palæography ought to be able to tell at once that it is a MS. of the present
age. But I may just note that my uncle Benedict corrected the MS. in many
places, and as it was intended to be re-copied, he marked many letters which he
proposed to have illuminated. The corrections in the handwriting of my uncle I
can, of course, point out; as also those of Dionysius the caligraphist. In
various places I marked in the margin the initials of the different (SS. from
which I had taken certain passages and readings. These initials appear to have
greatly bewildered Professor Tischendorf, who has invented several highly
ingenious methods of accounting for them. Lastly, I declare my ability to point
to two distinct pages in the MS., though I have not seen it for years, in which
is contained the most unquestionable proof of its being my writing.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">“ In
making this statement, I know perfectly well the consequences I shall bring
upon myself; but I have so long been accustomed to calumny, that I have grown
indifferent to it; and I now solemnly declare that my only motive for
publishing this letter is to advance the cause of truth, and protect sacred
letters from imposition.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">“ In
conclusion, you must permit me to express my sincere regret that, whilst the
many valuable remains of antiquity in my possession are frequently attributed
to my own hands, the one poor work of my youth is set down by a gentleman who
enjoys a great reputation for learning, as the earliest copy of the Sacred
Scriptures.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">“ C.
Simonides.”</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">[In
addition to the two sources mentioned, the letter was also published in </span><i style="font-family: georgia;">The
Literary Churchman </i><span style="font-family: georgia;">16th</span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> December, 1862 and in J. K. Elliott’s
book, </span><i style="font-family: georgia;">Codex Sinaiticus and the Simonides Affair </i><span style="font-family: georgia;">(1982) pp. 28-30.]</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">The
above letter precipitated a voluminous exchange of letters that pitted</span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Tischendorf and his supporters, against
Simonides and those who came to his defense—letters that were published from
September 1862 through end of 1863. Tischendorf’s claims became the accepted
version after this extended, controversial exchange. In fact, for nearly 150
years, it became somewhat of a rare occasion that Constantine Simonides'
version was delved into when the Codex Sinaiticus was discussed—Elliott’s 1982
book was a notable exception.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">However,
shortly after the British Museum/Library published a digital version of the
Codex Sinaiticus online in 2009, the long-standing neglect of Simonides' version
came to an abrupt end…more later, the Lord willing.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Grace
and peace,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">David</span></p>David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-81841891010913715252022-01-23T19:21:00.005-08:002022-12-31T16:23:39.973-08:00The Bible’s textual history: dubious theories and forgeries – part two<p><span style="font-family: georgia;">In part
one of this series (<a href="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2022/01/the-bibles-textual-history-dubious.html">link</a>) the 20th century forgery known as the “Archaic Mark”
was examined. In this second post of the series, another highly probable
forgery shall be delved into: the document that has been titled the “Secret
Gospel of Mark”.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">I do not
remember the exact year—sometime in the early 1980s—when I my eyes for the
first time saw Morton Smith's book, <i>The Secret Gospel - The Discovery and
Interpretation of the Secret Gospel According to Mark</i>", during one of
my frequent browsing sessions at Powell's Books in Portland, Oregon. That same
day, I bought the book, and shortly thereafter, read it. The dustcover of the
book mentioned that, "an edition of the Greek text of the letter of
Clement and the Secret Gospel will be published by Harvard University Press
under the title, <i>Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark.</i>"
On my next trip to Powell’s, I was able to obtain a copy of the tome. <i>The
Secret Gospel</i> is a mere 148 pages, but the second book is considerably
longer, 454 pages; both were published in 1973.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Within
the pages of the two tomes Smith informed his readers that during his 1958
visit to the Greek Orthodox monastery at Mar Saba—located about 12 miles SE of
Jerusalem—he discovered a manuscript that claimed to be an letter by Clement of
Alexandria to an individual named Theodore (<i>Theodoros</i>). Smith took
photographs of the manuscript and had them developed upon his return to
Jerusalem. He then transcribed and translated the document. The following is
his English translation:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #990000; font-family: georgia;">From the
letters of the most holy Clement, the author of the <i>Stromateis</i>. To
Theodore.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #990000; font-family: georgia;">You
did well in silencing the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocrations. For these
are the "wandering stars" referred to in the prophecy, who wander
from the narrow road of the commandments into a boundless abyss of the carnal
and bodily sins. For, priding themselves in knowledge, as they say, "of
the deep [things] of Satan", they do not know that they are casting
themselves away into "the nether world of the darkness" of falsity,
and boasting that they are free, they have become slaves of servile desires.
Such [men] are to be opposed in all ways and altogether. For, even if they
should say something true, one who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with
them. For not all true [things] are the truth, nor should that truth which
[merely] seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth,
that according to the faith.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #990000; font-family: georgia;">Now of
the [things] they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel according to
Mark, some are altogether falsifications, and others, even if they do contain
some true [elements], nevertheless are not reported truly. For the true
[things], being mixed with inventions, are falsified, so that, as the saying
[goes], even the salt loses its savor.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #990000; font-family: georgia;">[As for]
Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote [an account of] the Lord's
doings, not, however, declaring all [of them], nor yet hinting at the secret
[ones], but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of
those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over
to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he
transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for
progress toward knowledge [<i>gnosis</i>]. [Thus] he composed a more spiritual
Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did
not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the
hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added
yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the
interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost
sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters,
neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his
composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully
guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great
mysteries.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #990000; font-family: georgia;">But
since the foul demons are always devising destruction for the race of men,
Carpocrates, instructed by them and using deceitful arts, so enslaved a certain
presbyter of the church in Alexandria that he got from him a copy of the secret
Gospel, which he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal
doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing with the spotless and holy words
utterly shameless lies. From this mixture is drawn off the teaching of the
Carpocratians.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #990000; font-family: georgia;">To them,
therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward
their falsifications, should one concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but
should even deny it on oath. For, "Not all true [things] are to be said to
all men". For this [reason] the Wisdom of God, through Solomon, advises,
"Answer the fool from his folly", teaching that the light of the
truth should be hidden from those who are mentally blind. Again it says,
"From him who has not shall be taken away", and "Let the fool
walk in darkness". But we are "children of Light", having been
illuminated by "the dayspring" of the spirit of the Lord "from
on high", and "Where the Spirit of the Lord is", it says,
"there is liberty", for "All things are pure to the pure".</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #990000; font-family: georgia;">To you,
therefore, I shall not hesitate to answer the [questions] you have asked,
refuting the falsifications by the very words of the Gospel. For example, after
"And they were in the road going up to Jerusalem" and what follows,
until "After three days he shall arise", [the secret Gospel] brings
the following [material] word for word:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #990000; font-family: georgia;">"And
they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there.
And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of
David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being
angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway
a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the
stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth
was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the
youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be
with him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for
he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening
the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over [his] naked [body]. And he
remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom
of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #990000; font-family: georgia;">After
these words follows the text, "And James and John come to him", and
all that section. But "naked [man] with naked [man]," and the other
things about which you wrote, are not found.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #990000; font-family: georgia;">And
after the [words], "And he comes into Jericho," [the secret Gospel]
adds only, "And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother
and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them." But the many other
[things about] which you wrote both seem to be, and are, falsifications.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;">Now the
true explanation, and that which accords with the true philosophy . . .</span> [<i>The
Secret Gospel, </i>pp. 14-17/<i>Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of
Mark, </i>pp. 446, 447; the second volume excludes all the brackets and
italics.]</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">As
related in his books, Smith initially had reservations concerning the
authenticity of the letter/manuscript; but after extensive research—which
included assessments from a number of his scholarly peers—he came to accept it
as genuine.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">As I
recall, I remained more reserved, leaning towards the position that it was a
forgery—though not definitively so. I did no further research into the matter
after my first reading of the two tomes in the early 80s—that is until this
current investigation into the textual history of the Bible.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Thanks
to the internet (and some recent purchases), I have been able to solidify my initial</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">—</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">somewhat tentative</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">—</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">view that the letter/manuscript is a forgery; reaching the
conclusion that it was Morton Smith himself who was the forger. One book in
particular convinced me of this: Stephen C. Carlson’s, </span><i style="font-family: georgia;">The Gospel Hoax –
Morton Smith’s Invention of Secret Mark </i><span style="font-family: georgia;">(2005).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">I read
this book over the last few days, checking as many of the references Carlson
provided that I could find online. I have also obtained and read a number of
works that have been critical of Carlson’s assessment, finding those works
falling short in their attempts to discredit Carlson. I was able to discern that the critics I read seemed to reject the supernatural origin
and character of the Bible and Christianity, resorting to naturalist
explanations for the founding of Christianity. I suspect that this may have influenced their support for Smith.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Work on this post began yesterday, and part of my plans for the format of
the post was to provide a number of quotes from Carlson’s book. However, this
morning while checking some references online, I discovered that a PDF version
of the book is now available online <a href="https://u1lib.org/book/921525/f47412?dsource=recommend">LINK</a>;
so rather than providing excepts from the book, interested folk can now
read the entire book for themselves.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Shall
end this post with the same question I asked in part one of this series: are
there other possible forgeries of Biblical manuscripts that scholars have also
misjudged?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Grace
and peace,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">David</span></p>David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-63968748017378295132022-01-06T15:59:00.009-08:002022-12-31T16:25:22.091-08:00The Bible’s textual history: dubious theories and forgeries – part one<p><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Over the
last couple of weeks, I have been engaged in a deep investigation into the
textual history of the Bible. This is not the first time I have done so—over
the last 30 plus years I have devoted weeks of study into this issue about
every 5 years—but this occasion has added some details/elements that were
missing from all my previous endeavors.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">This
first post of my new series on the Bible’s textual history will focus on one of
those new elements: a proven forgery—beyond any reasonable doubt—of a purported
archaic New Testament manuscript of Mark’s gospel that had been embraced and
promoted by some of the most prominent textual scholars of the twentieth
century as authentic; and they did so for decades.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">The
manuscript of which I speak was purchased by the University of Chicago circa
1937-1941 for an undisclosed amount from one Gregory Vlastos, a nephew of John
Askitopoulos—an Athenian collector and dealer of antiquities—who had died in
1917. (See <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/154029559/Archaic-Mark">this article</a> for more details.)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">This
manuscript was catalogued into the </span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Goodspeed Manuscript Collection under
number MS 972; it was subsequently registered as Gregory-Aland 2427, and became
known as the "Archaic Mark."</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Two of
the highest level New Testament textual scholars, Kurt and Barbara Aland, had
for a number decades accepted the antiquity of
“Archaic Mark" (</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">MS 972/ Gregory-Aland 2427). In their celebrated <i>The
Text of the New Testament </i>(English ed. 1987/1989) they dated the manuscript
to the '<span style="color: #990000;">fourteenth</span>' century, and placed it into the </span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">"</span><span style="color: #990000;"><i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">category</span></i><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> I</span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">"</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">
documents grouping (p. 135/1987; p. 137/1989). Concerning the </span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">"</span><span style="color: #990000;"><i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">category</span></i><span style="font-family: Georgia;"> I</span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">"</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">
documents, they wrote:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;">Category
I</span></span></i><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;">: Manuscripts of a very special quality which should always be
considered in establishing the original text (e.g., the Alexandrian text
belongs here).</span> [p. 155/1987; p. 159/1989.]</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">In the
XXVII edition of the Nestle-Aland <i>Novum Testamentum Graece </i>(Aland,
Black, Martini, Metzger, Wikgren - 1993)<i>, </i>the manuscript is referenced
in the critical apparatus at least once on every page of the '</span><span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype";">ΚΑΤΑ
ΜΑΡΚΑΝ</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">' (pp. 88-149).<b>*</b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Clearly
a number of New Testament textual scholars placed a high degree of value on the
</span><span style="font-family: Georgia;">"Archaic Mark" manuscript. However, that all changed in the
early twenty-first century. Back on November 4, 2009 Tommy Wasserman published
the online article, <b><i>Archaic Mark (Greg.-Aland 2427): A Story of a Modern
Forgery</i></b>
(<a href="http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2009/11/archaic-mark-greg-aland-2427-story-of.html">LINK</a>). He provides an excellent summary of why the manuscript is now considered
by scholars to be a forgery.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">My
current textual studies have raised a question: are there other possible
forgeries of Biblical manuscripts that scholars have also misjudged? More on
this in upcoming posts on this series, the Lord willing.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Grace
and peace,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">David</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><br /></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: Georgia;">*</span></b><span style="font-family: Georgia;">The
XXVIII edition of the Nestle-Aland <i>Novum Testamentum Graece </i>(2012) has
completely removed any reference to the Gregory-Aland 2427 manuscript.</span></p>David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-37230593213365619492021-12-09T14:50:00.018-08:002021-12-11T16:07:23.029-08:00“Partakers of the Divine Nature”: some expositions on the doctrine of deification from an unlikely source<p><span style="font-family: georgia;">Before
delving into the primary theme of this post—i.e. the ‘unlikely source’—I would
like to provide an introduction of sorts on the doctrine of deification (also
termed <i>theosis</i>). From the entry under the heading “Deification” in <i>The
Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology </i>(1983) we read:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Deification
(Greek <i>theosis</i>) is for Orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man,
according to the Bible, is ‘made in the image and likeness of God’ (cf. Gen.
1.26), and the Fathers commonly distinguish between these two words. The image
refers to man’s reason and freedom, that which distinguishes him from the
animals and makes him kin to God, while ‘likeness’ refers to 'assimilation to
God through virtues' (St John Damascus). It is possible for man to become like
God, to become deified, to become god by grace. This doctrine is based on many
passages of both OT and NT (e.g. Ps. 82 (81).6; 2 Peter 1.4), and it is
essentially the teaching both of St Paul, though he tends to use the language
of filial adoption (cf. Rom. 8.9-17; Gal. 4.5-7), and the Fourth Gospel (cf.
17.21-23).</span> [Page 147 - for more Biblical passages germane to this issue see <a href="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/11/deification-in-bible-part-1.html">THIS POST</a>.]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">The <i>Catechism
of the Catholic Church </i>under <i>Part One</i> 'The Profession of the
Christian Faith’, chapter two, article 3.I.460 ‘Why did the Word become
flesh?’, had the following to say:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;">The Word
became flesh to make us "<i>partakers of the divine nature</i>":78
"For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of
man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving
divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God
became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of
God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that
he, made man, might make men gods."81.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;">78 2 Pt
1:4.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;">79 St.
Irenaeus, <i>Adv. haeres</i>. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;">80 St.
Athanasius, <i>De inc</i>. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;">81
St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57, 1-4. </span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;">[<i>Libreria
Editrice Vaticana</i>, Eng. 1994 ed. p. 116; Eng. 1997 2<sup>nd</sup> ed. p.
116 - for additional selections on deification from Catholic authors see <a href="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2017/03/earliertoday-in-combox-of-recent-thread.html">THIS THREAD</a>; for dozens of references from the Church Fathers see <a href="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/11/deification-in-church-fathers.html">THIS POST</a>.]</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Robert
V. Rakestraw provides an Evangelical perspective on deification; note the
following:</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">In
one of his letters Athanasius, the fourth-century defender of the faith, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">made
his famous statement that the Son of God became man “that he might </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">deify
us in himself.”1 Elsewhere he wrote similarly that Christ “was made </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">man
that we might be made God.”2 This is the doctrine of theosis, also </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">known
as deifcation, divinization or, as some prefer, participation in God.3</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">While
the concept of theosis has roots in the ante-Nicene period, it is </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">not
an antiquated historical curiosity. The idea of divinization, of redeemed </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">human
nature somehow participating in the very life of God, is found to a </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">surprising
extent throughout Christian history, although it is practically unknown to the
majority of Christians (and even many theologians) in the west.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">1 </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Athanasius,
Letter 60, to Adelphius, 4. See also 3, 8 (NPNF, 2d Series 4.575–578).</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: georgia;">2 Athanasius
<i>On the Incarnation </i>54 (NPNF, 2d Series 4.65).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">3 A. M.
Allchin entitles his book on theosis <i>Participation in God: A Forgotten
Strand in Anglican Tradition </i>(Wilton: Morehouse-Barlow, 1988).</span>["Becoming
Like God: An Evangelical Doctrine of Theosis", <i>JETS </i>40/2 (June 1997)
257-269 – <a href="https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/40/40-2/40-2-pp257-269_JETS.pdf">LINK</a>.]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Time now
to introduce the ‘unlikely source’ mentioned in the title of this thread: </span><b style="font-family: georgia;">Charles
Taze Russell</b><span style="font-family: georgia;">. Russell was the founder of the Zion's </span><em style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="background: white; font-style: normal;">Watch Tower Tract Society</span></em><span style="background: white; font-family: georgia;"> of
Pennsylvania (1881; incorporated 1884), the related magazine <i>Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of
Christ's Presence </i>(1879), and the movement that became known as the
Jehovah’s Witnesses (the name adopted in 1931). From the first three volumes of his
six volume magnum opus, <i>Millennial Dawn </i>(later renamed <i>Studies in the
Scriptures</i>), we read (all bold emphasis that follows in mine):</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">If </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the
masses </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">mankind </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">are saved </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">from </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">all </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">degrada</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">tion, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">weakness,
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">pain,
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">misery
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">death
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">which
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">result
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">from
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">sin,
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">are
restored to the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">condition </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">human </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">perfection </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">enjoyed
before the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">fall, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">they </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">are as </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">really </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">completely
saved </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">from </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">that </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">fall </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">as </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">those </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">who,
under </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the special </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">“high</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">calling” of </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Gospel </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">age, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">become </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">“</span><b style="font-family: georgia;">partakers
</b><b style="font-family: georgia;">of </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">the </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">di</b><b style="font-family: georgia;">vine
nature</b><span style="font-family: georgia;">." (</span><i style="font-family: georgia;">Millennial Dawn, </i><span style="font-family: georgia;">1.173)</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Notice </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">that </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">this </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">teaches </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">not only </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">that
angelic </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">nature </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">is </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">not </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">only </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">order </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">spirit </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">being, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">but </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">that </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">it </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">is </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">a lower
nature than </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">that </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of our </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Lord </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">before </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">he </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">became </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">a </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">man </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">; </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">he was </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">not then </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">so </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">high </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">as </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">he </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">is </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">now, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">for </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">“</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">God </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">hath
highly </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">exalted </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">him,” </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">because </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">his </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">obedience
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">in
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">becoming
man’s </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">willing </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">ransom. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">(Phil. 2 </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">: </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">8, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">9.) </span><b style="font-family: georgia;">He </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">is </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">now </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">of </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">the </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">highest </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">order </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">of </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">spirit </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">being, </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">a </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">partaker </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">of </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">the
divine (Jehovah’s) </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">nature</b><span style="font-family: georgia;">. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">(</span><i style="font-family: georgia;">Millennial Dawn, </i><span style="font-family: georgia;">1.178)</span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; tab-stops: 45.8pt 91.6pt 137.4pt 183.2pt 229.0pt 274.8pt 320.6pt 366.4pt 412.2pt 458.0pt 503.8pt 549.6pt 595.4pt 641.2pt 687.0pt 732.8pt;"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">When </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Jesus </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">was </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">in </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">flesh </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">he was a </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">perfect </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">human </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">being </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">; </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">previous </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to that </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">time </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">he was a </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">perfect </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">spiritual
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">being
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">;
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and
</span><b style="font-family: georgia;">since his resurrection </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">he </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">is </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">a </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">perfect </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">spiritual
</b><b style="font-family: georgia;">being </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">of the </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">highest </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">or divine
</b><b style="font-family: georgia;">order.</b><span style="font-family: georgia;"> </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">It </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">was not </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">until </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the time </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">his </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">consecration
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">even
unto </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">death, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">as typified in his </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">baptism—</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">at thirty
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">years
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of
age </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">(manhood, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">according </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Law, and </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">therefore
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">right </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">time </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to consecrate himself </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">as </span><i style="font-family: georgia;">a man</i><span style="font-family: georgia;">)</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">—</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">that </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">he </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">received
the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">earnest </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">his </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">inheritance </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">divine </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">nature. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">(Matt. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">3 </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">: </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">16, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">17.) </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Tlie </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">human </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">nature </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">had </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">be </span><i style="font-family: georgia;">con</i><i style="font-family: georgia;">secrated </i><i style="font-family: georgia;">to </i><i style="font-family: georgia;">death</i><span style="font-family: georgia;"> before </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">he </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">could </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">receive </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">even </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><i style="font-family: georgia;">pledge</i><span style="font-family: georgia;"> of the
divine </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">nature. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">And </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">not </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">until that </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">consecration </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">was </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">actually
carried </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">out </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">he </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">had </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">a6lually </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">sacrificed </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">human </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">nature, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">even unto
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">death, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">did </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">our </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Lord </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Jesus </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">become </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">a </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">full </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">partaker </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the
divine </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">nature. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">After </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">becoming </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">a </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">man </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">he </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">became </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">obedient </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">unto </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">death </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">; </span><i style="font-family: georgia;">wherefore</i><span style="font-family: georgia;">, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">God </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">hath </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">highly </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">exalted </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">him </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the
divine </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">nature. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">(Phil. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">2 </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">: </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">8, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">9.) If
this </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Scripture </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">is </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">true, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">it </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">follows that </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">he was
not </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">exalted </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to the divine </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">nature </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">until </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">human </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">nature </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">was </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">actually
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">sacrificed</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">—dead. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">(</span><i style="font-family: georgia;">Millennial
Dawn, </i><span style="font-family: georgia;">1.179)</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">…it </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">is </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">purely of
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">God's
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">favor
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">that
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">angels
are </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">by </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">nature a </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">little </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">higher than </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">men </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">; </span><b style="font-family: georgia;">and </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">it is </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">also of </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">God's </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">favor
that the </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">Lord </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">Jesus </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">and </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">his </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">bride </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">become </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">partak</b><b style="font-family: georgia;">ers </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">of </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">the </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">divine </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">nature</b><span style="font-family: georgia;">. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">It </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">becomes </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">all </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">his
intelligent </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">crea</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">tures, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">therefore, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">receive </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">with </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">gratitude
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">whatever
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">God
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">bestows.
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Any
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">other
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">spirit
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">justly
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">merits
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">condemnation,
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and,
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">if
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">indulged,
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">will
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">end
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">in
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">abasement
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">destruction.
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">A </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">man </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">has </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">no </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">right </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">aspire </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">be an </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">angel, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">never </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">having
been </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">invited </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">that position </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">; </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">nor </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">has </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">an </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">angel </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">any </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">right </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">aspire to
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the
divine </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">nature, that </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">never having been </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">offered </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">him. (</span><i style="font-family: georgia;">Millennial
Dawn, </i><span style="font-family: georgia;">1.189)</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">None </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">have </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">a </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">right </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">dictate
to </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">God. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">If </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">he </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">established </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">earth, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">if </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">he </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">formed </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">it </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">not </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">in vain, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">but </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">made </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">it </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">be </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">inhabited
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">by
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">re</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">stored,
perfect </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">men, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">who </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">are </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">we </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">that </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">we </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">should </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">reply
against </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">God, and </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">say </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">that </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">it </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">is </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">unjust </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">not </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">change </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">their </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">nature </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">make them
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">all
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">partakers
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of
a </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">spiritual </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">nature </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">either </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">like </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">unto </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">angels, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">or </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">like </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">unto </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">his </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">own </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">divine
nature </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">? </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">(</span><i style="font-family: georgia;">Millennial Dawn, </i><span style="font-family: georgia;">1.191)</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">That </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Christian
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Church,
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">body
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Christ,
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">is
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">an
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">ex</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">ception </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">God's</span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">general plan </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">for </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">mankind, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">is </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">evident </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">from </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">statement
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">that
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">its
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">selection
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">was
determined </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">in </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">divine plan before the foundation of the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">world
(Eph. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">1 </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">: </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">4, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">5), at </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">which </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">time </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">God </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">not </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">only </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">foresaw
the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">fall </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of the race </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">into </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">sin, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">but </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">also </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">predetermined
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">justification,
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">santifica</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">tion </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">glorification
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">this
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">class,
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">which,
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">during
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Gospel
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">age,
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">he
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">has
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">been
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">calling
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">out
of the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">world </span><b style="font-family: georgia;">to </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">be </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">con</b><b style="font-family: georgia;">formed </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">to </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">the </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">image of </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">his </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">Son, </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">to </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">be </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">partakers
</b><b style="font-family: georgia;">of </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">the </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">divine </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">nature </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">and </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">to </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">be </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">fellow-heirs
</b><b style="font-family: georgia;">with </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">Christ Jesus</b><span style="font-family: georgia;"> </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of the
Millennial </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Kingdom </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">for </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the establishment </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">universal
righteousness </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">peace.</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">—</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Rom. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">8 </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">: </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">28-31. (</span><i style="font-family: georgia;">Millennial
Dawn, </i><span style="font-family: georgia;">1.193)</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #990000;"><b style="font-family: georgia;">The </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">conditions
</b><b style="font-family: georgia;">on which </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">the </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">Church </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">may </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">be </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">exalted </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">with her </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">Lord </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">to </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">the </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">divine
nature </b><span style="font-family: georgia;">(2 </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Pet. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">1 </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">: </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">4) </span><b style="font-family: georgia;">are
precisely </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">the </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">same </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">as </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">the </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">conditions
</b><b style="font-family: georgia;">on which </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">he </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">received </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">it</b><span style="font-family: georgia;"> </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">; </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">even </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">by </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">following
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">in
his </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">footprints </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">(1 Pet. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">2 </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">: </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">21), </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">presenting
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">her</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">self </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">a </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">living </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">sacrifice,
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">as
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">he
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">did,
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">then
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">faithfully
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">carry</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">ing out </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">that </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">consecration
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">vow
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">until
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">sacrifice
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">terminates
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">in
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">death.
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">This
change </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of nature </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">from </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">human </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to divine
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">is
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">given
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">as
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">a
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">reward
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">those
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">who,
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">within
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Gospel
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">age,
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">sac</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">rifice </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">human </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">nature, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">as </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">did our </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Lord, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">with </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">all its </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">inter</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">ests, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">hopes </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">aims,
present </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">future</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">—</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">even unto </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">death. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">In </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the resurrection
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">such
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">will
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">awake,
not </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">share </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">with </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">rest </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">mankind </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">in </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the
blessed </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">restitution to </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">human </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">perfection
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">all
its </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">accompanying </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">blessings, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">but </span><b style="font-family: georgia;">to </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">share the
</b><b style="font-family: georgia;">likeness </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">and </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">glory </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">and </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">joy of </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">the </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">Lord, </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">as </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">partakers
</b><b style="font-family: georgia;">with </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">him </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">of </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">the
divine nature</b><span style="font-family: georgia;">.</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">—</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Rom </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">8:17; </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">2 </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Tim.
2:12. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">(</span><i style="font-family: georgia;">Millennial Dawn, </i><span style="font-family: georgia;">1.196)</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #990000;"><b style="font-family: georgia;">Those </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">thus </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">transformed,
or </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">in </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">processor change, </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">are </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">recko</b><b style="font-family: georgia;">ned </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">“</b><b style="font-family: georgia;">new </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">creatures,”</b><b style="font-family: georgia;"> </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">begotten
of </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">God, and </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">partakers to that </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">extent of
the divine </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">nature</b><span style="font-family: georgia;">. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Mark </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">well the difference </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">between </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">these </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">“new </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">creatures”
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">those
believers </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and “brethren” </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">who </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">are </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">only </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">justified.
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Those
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">latter
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">class
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">are
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">still
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of
the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">earth, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">earthy, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">aside </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">from </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">sinful
desires, their </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">hopes, ambitions </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">aims </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">are </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">such </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">as </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">will </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">be </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">fully
gratified in </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">promised </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">restitution </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">all </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">things. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">But </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">those </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the
former </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">class </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">are </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">not </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">this </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">world, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">even </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">as </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Christ </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">is </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">not of </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">this </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">world, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">their </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">hopes </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">cen</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">ter </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">in </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">things </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">unseen, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">where </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Christ </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">sitteth
at </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the right </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">hand </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">God. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">The </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">prospect </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">earthly
glory, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">so </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">enchanting </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to the natural </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">man,
would </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">no </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">longer </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">be </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">a </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">satisfying </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">portion </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to those </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">begotten
of </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">this </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">heavenly </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">hope, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to those </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">who </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">see </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">glories </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">heavenly </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">promises,
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">who
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">appreciate
the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">part assigned </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">them </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">in </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the divine </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">plan. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">This new,
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">divine
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">mind
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">is
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">earnest
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">our
inheritance </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">complete </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">di</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">vine nature</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">—</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">mind </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">body. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Some may </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">be </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">a </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">little </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">start</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">led </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">by </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">this </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">expression,
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">a
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">divine
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">body;
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">but
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">we
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">are
told that Jesus </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">is </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">now </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">express </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">image </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">his </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Father's
person, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">that </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">overcomers
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">will
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">“</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">be </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">like </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">him </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">see </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">him </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">as </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">he </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">is.” (1 </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">John </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">3:2.) “</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">There </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">is </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">a </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">natural </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">[human] </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">body, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">there </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">is </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">a </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">spiritual
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">body.”
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">(1
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Cor.
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">15
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">:
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">44.)
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">We </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">could not imagine </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">either </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">our
divine Father or our </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Lord </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Jesus </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">as </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">merely </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">great </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">minds </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">without </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">bodies. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Theirs </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">are
glorious </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">spiritual </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">bodies, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">though </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">it </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">doth </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">not </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">yet </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">appear </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">how </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">great </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">is </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">glory, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">it </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">shall </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">not, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">until </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">we </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">also </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">shall </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">share </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the
divine </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">nature. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">(</span><i style="font-family: georgia;">Millennial Dawn, </i><span style="font-family: georgia;">1.200)</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">At </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">his </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">second
advent he </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">does </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">not </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">come </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">be </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">subject
to the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">powers </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">that be, to </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">pay </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">tribute
to </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Csesar </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">suffer </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">humiliation, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">injustice
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">violence;
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">but
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">he
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">comes
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to
reign, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">exercising </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">all </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">power </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">in </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">heaven </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">in earth.
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">He </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">does not </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">come </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">in </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">body </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">his </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">humiliation,
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">a
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">human
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">body,
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">which
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">he
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">took
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">for
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">suffering
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">death,
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">inferior
to his </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">former </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">glorious </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">body </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">(Heb. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">2:9); </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">but </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">in his </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">glorious </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">spiritual
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">body,
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">which
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">is
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">“the
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">express
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">image
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the
Father's </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">person” (Heb. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">1 </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">13); </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">for, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">because
of </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">his </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">obedience even </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">unto </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">death, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">he </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">is </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">now </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">highly </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">exalted
to the </span><i style="font-family: georgia;">divine </i><i style="font-family: georgia;">nature</i><span style="font-family: georgia;"> </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">likeness,
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">given
a </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">name </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">above </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">every </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">name</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">—</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the
Father’s </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">name </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">only </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">excepted. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">(Phil. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">2:9; </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">1 </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Cor. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">15:27.) </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">The </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Apostle </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">shows </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">that </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">it </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">"doth
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">not
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">yet
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">appear"
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">our
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">human
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">understanding
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">what
he </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">is </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">now </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">like; </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">hence </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">we </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">know </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">not </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">what </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">we </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">shall </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">be </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">like </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">when made
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">like
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">him,
but </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">we </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">(the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Church) </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">may </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">rejoice
in </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">assurance </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">that </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">we </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">shall </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">one </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">day </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">be with
him, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and </span><i style="font-family: georgia;">like</i><span style="font-family: georgia;"> </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">him, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">see </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">him </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">as </span><i style="font-family: georgia;">he </i><i style="font-family: georgia;">is</i><span style="font-family: georgia;"> </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">(1 </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">John </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">3 </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">: </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">2)</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">—</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">not </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">as </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">he was </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">at his </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">first </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">advent </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">in </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">humiliation,
</span><b style="font-family: georgia;">when </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">he </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">had </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">laid </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">aside </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">his </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">former
glory </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">and </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">for </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">our </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">sakes </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">had
become </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">poor, </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">that </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">we </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">through </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">his </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">poverty </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">might </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">be </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">made </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">rich</b><span style="font-family: georgia;">. (</span><i style="font-family: georgia;">Millennial
Dawn, </i><span style="font-family: georgia;">2.108, 109)</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">[Our </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Lord was </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">put </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">death a </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">fleshly </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">or </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">human </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">being, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">but </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">was </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">raised </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">from </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">dead </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">a </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">spirit </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">being. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">And </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">since the
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Church
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">is
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">be
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">“</span><i style="font-family: georgia;">changed</i><span style="font-family: georgia;">” </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">in </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">order </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">that </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">she </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">may </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">be </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">like
Christ, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">it </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">is </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">evident </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">that </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">change
which </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">occurred </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">in </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Head </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">was </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">a kind </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">similar
to that </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">described </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">as in </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">reservation </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">for </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">overcomers,
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">who
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">shall
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">be
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">changed
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">from
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">human
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to
spiritual </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">nature, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">made </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">like </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">him</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">—“</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">partakers
of the-divine nature.” – footnote p. 108]</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">…we </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">recognize
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">A.
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">D.
1881 </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">as </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">marking </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">close </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">special
favor to Gentiles</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">—</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the close </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">“</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">high </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">calling, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">“ </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">or </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">invitation
to </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">blessings </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">peculiar to this </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">age</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">—</span><b style="font-family: georgia;">to </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">be</b><b style="font-family: georgia;">come </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">joint-heirs
</b><b style="font-family: georgia;">with </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">Christ </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">and </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">partakers
</b><b style="font-family: georgia;">of </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">the </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">divine </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">nature.</b><span style="font-family: georgia;"> </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">And, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">as </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">we </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">have </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">seen, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">this </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">marks </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">a great </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">movement </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">among </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Jewish
people </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">toward </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Christianity, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">known </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">as </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">"Kishenev
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Movement."
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">(</span><i style="font-family: georgia;">Millennial
Dawn, </i><span style="font-family: georgia;">2.235)</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">The </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">stopping </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the favor
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">or
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">''call"
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">here,
in </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">1881, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">is </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">fol</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">lowed, or </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">rather </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">lapped
upon, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">by </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the general </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">call </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">whole
world </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Millennial </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">blessings </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">favors </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">upon </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">condition
of </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">righteousness, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">obedience </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">(not </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">self-sacrifice).
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">This
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">however
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">is
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">a
lower </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">call, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">a </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">lesser </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">favor </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">than </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">that </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">which </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">ceased</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">—</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">a </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">call </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">enjoy </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the
blessings </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Kingdom, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">but </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">not </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">be </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">parts </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">anointed,
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Kingdom
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">class.
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">And
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">this
</span><i style="font-family: georgia;">change</i><span style="font-family: georgia;">—</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">this </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">stopping of </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">higher </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">favor </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">and </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">beginning
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">a
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">lesser
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">favor</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">—</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">will </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">be </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">little </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">noticed </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">here, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">now, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">by </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">reason </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">of </span><b style="font-family: georgia;">the </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">fact </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">that the
great prize </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">of </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">the </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">Kingdom </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">and </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">joint</b><b style="font-family: georgia;">heirship </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">with </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">Christ </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">as </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">partakers
</b><b style="font-family: georgia;">of </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">the </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">divine </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">nature,
has </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">been </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">generally </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">lost </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">sight </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">of </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">in </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">the </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">Church</b><span style="font-family: georgia;">. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">(</span><i style="font-family: georgia;">Millennial
Dawn, </i><span style="font-family: georgia;">3.218)</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">So, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">during </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Gospel </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">age, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">our </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Lord </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">has </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">continually,
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">through
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">his
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">mouth-pieces
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">in
the </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">church, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">invited </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">all </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">believers </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">to </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">enter </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">into </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">his
service. </span><b style="font-family: georgia;">The </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">full </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">reward, </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">the
divine </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">nature </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">and </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">kingdom </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">glory, </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">was </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">clearly
stated </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">at </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">first, </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">and </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">continually
</b><b style="font-family: georgia;">repeated, </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">though not always </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">clearly </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">understood
throughout </b><b style="font-family: georgia;">the age</b><span style="font-family: georgia;">. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">(</span><i style="font-family: georgia;">Millennial
Dawn, </i><span style="font-family: georgia;">3.223, 224)</span></span><b style="font-family: georgia;">*</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><b> </b>A</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">nd from </span><i style="font-family: georgia;">Zion’s
Watchtower</i><span style="font-family: georgia;">:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color: #990000; font-family: georgia;">"YE ARE GODS."</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #990000;">"I have said ye are Gods; and all of you are children
of the Most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the
princes" [literally heads]. Psa. 82:6.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Our high calling is so great, so much above the
comprehension of men, that they feel that we are guilty of blasphemy when we
speak of being "new creatures"—</span><b style="font-family: georgia;">not any longer human, but
"partakers of the divine nature."</b><span style="font-family: georgia;"> When we claim on the scriptural
warrant, that </span><b style="font-family: georgia;">we are begotten of a divine nature and that Jehovah is thus
our father, it is claiming that we are divine beings—hence all such are Gods.
Thus we have a family of Gods, Jehovah being our father, and all his sons being
brethren and joint-heirs: Jesus being the chief, or first-born</b><span style="font-family: georgia;">. (</span><i style="font-family: georgia;">Zion's
Watchtower</i><span style="font-family: georgia;"> - December 1881 pp. 2, 3 - Reprints p. 301.)</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Many
more examples could be added, but I shall end here for now.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Grace
and peace,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: georgia;">David</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b style="font-family: georgia;">*</b><span style="font-family: georgia;">All
six volumes of the </span><i style="font-family: georgia;">Millennial Dawn/Studies in the Scriptures </i><span style="font-family: georgia;">series
can be read and/or downloaded via <a href="https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Russell%2C+C.+T.+%28Charles+Taze%29%2C+1852-1916%22">THIS LINK</a>.</span></p>David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.com9