Great apostasy in the New World Too?

[CV75]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Props for use of the word “tergiversationary” 

I had to look it up.

I'm glad you found it since I made some of it up LOL

[CV75]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

You say there is a great apostasy, I am looking for evidence of that. I have evidence of a succession of churches back to Jesus in the Catholic and Orthodox churches, you are telling me that doesn't matter, your testimony trumps historical documentation. 

Your testimony trumps the historical documentation too, as the evidence for that is quite disputable. There is also the issue of transmitting authority (defined in different ways) by deed or by imitative function and yet straying from the very faith and grace (and / or teachings) which empower that authority, "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof" -- 2 Timothy 3:5.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I'm glad you found it since I made some of it up LOL

Definition of tergiversation. 1 : evasion of straightforward action or clear-cut statement : equivocation. 2 : desertion of a cause, position, party, or faith.Sep 22, 2013 -- first use in 1570, so it is Early Modern English.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tergiversation 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, snowflake said:

You say there is a great apostasy, I am looking for evidence of that. I have evidence of a succession of churches back to Jesus in the Catholic and Orthodox churches, you are telling me that doesn't matter, your testimony trumps historical documentation. 

Hugh Nibley wrote the classic Mormon case for the Great Apostasy, "When the Lights Went Out," which can be read free at https://publications.mi.byu.edu/book/when-the-lights-went-out-three-studies-on-the-ancient-apostasy/ .  Several mainstream Christian scholars got their backs up over that, but none was able to refute Nibley.  They did not even try.

[Gray]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

All the NT churches were united under Peter, under Christ.  It is like multiple wards and stakes across the world today - one church with many congregations.  They were not different churches, per se, but different congregations of the same church.  You never answered my questions as to how you know that the authority has not been corrupted over time.

That's not actually true. Christianity didn't unite into a single cohesive group until long after the "great apostasy" was complete. Take the Gospel of John - that represents the views a single isolated sect (a very sectarian sect), apart from other Christian factions of the time.

Contrary to LDS theology, Jesus didn't set up a church. He set up a franchise. Maybe he learned from John the Baptist's failure. A single movement under a central leader is easier to kill.

Edited March 7, 2018 by Gray

[RevTestament]

9 hours ago, snowflake said:

So the original apostles were not baptizing and laying on of hands? I thought that was how priesthood was passed on, that's how my father did it for me. 

There simply isn't any manuscript evidence, that the message of the Bible has been altered in any significant way. We have tens of thousands of manuscripts that support the Biblical narrative. 

And we have lots of manuscripts which support the facts that some significant changes were made. Why do you think the Protestant churches were fairly insistent on using Greek manuscripts?

[CV75]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Definition of tergiversation. 1 : evasion of straightforward action or clear-cut statement : equivocation. 2 : desertion of a cause, position, party, or faith.Sep 22, 2013 -- first use in 1570, so it is Early Modern English.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tergiversation 

Thank you -- I made up the "-ary"_ part (I think)

[pogi]

17 hours ago, Gray said:

That's not actually true. Christianity didn't unite into a single cohesive group until long after the "great apostasy" was complete. Take the Gospel of John - that represents the views a single isolated sect (a very sectarian sect), apart from other Christian factions of the time.

Contrary to LDS theology, Jesus didn't set up a church. He set up a franchise. Maybe he learned from John the Baptist's failure. A single movement under a central leader is easier to kill.

That is one theory, anyway.  A couple of scholars have made that claim about the Gospel of John, but it is not widely accepted.  Here is a refutation of that claim. 

I suppose a "franchise" is an apt way to describe the church.  Each ward receives authority to operate and direction from headquarters to keep the doctrine and presentation fairly uniform across the board, just like a franchise would.  While there is only 1 McDonald's there are many restaurants - just like the church. 

The Scriptures and Christ speak of a singular church, a body of believer, with Christ at the head.  There is also evidence of a united order in the early church.  The apostles wrote epistles to the many branches of the church to keep the doctrines and practices pure and united under their authority.

The church certainly began to fragment rather quickly though.  But that doesn't seem to be what Christ intended. 

[strappinglad]

According to scripture , the Apostles chose a new replacement for Judas by lot. I'm not sure who resurrected Lot so that he could choose but I digress. How many apostles were needed to cast lots ? How many to form a quorum ? Let's assume than apostles can get together and pick a new apostle, Could all the bishops get together and ordain a new bishop or were the apostles needed to do that ?

  Not knowing the order of things in the Catholic Church , if all the priesthood holders above the office of parish priest were to disappear, is that group still able to ordain new Bishops and Cardinals and then a new Pope?

Similarly, in the LDS Church, at what level of authority  would there still be power to create a new Presidency ?

[Robert F. Smith]

19 hours ago, Gray said:

That's not actually true. Christianity didn't unite into a single cohesive group until long after the "great apostasy" was complete. Take the Gospel of John - that represents the views a single isolated sect (a very sectarian sect), apart from other Christian factions of the time.

Contrary to LDS theology, Jesus didn't set up a church. He set up a franchise.

You've got it backward, Gray.

The individual Christian synagogues operated the same way Jewish synagogues operated then, and continue to operate today.  Members of individual congregations were still members of the overall congregation of Israel, just as individual groups of Christians were members of the overall body of Christ.  This is very evident in the earliest docs -- the letters of Paul.  The Great Apostasy took centuries to overwhelm the authentic Church of Christ, and one can read of all that in the ordinary history of Christianity (see for example Paul Johnson).  The corruption is obvious the further one gets from the Jewish Christian Church.

19 hours ago, Gray said:

Maybe he learned from John the Baptist's failure. A single movement under a central leader is easier to kill.

John the Baptist continued to have followers down to the present.  For example the Mandaeans of Iraq (the marsh Arabs).  So even though many of his followers were rebaptized by the apostles of Jesus, he had a very successful following.

[Gray]

17 hours ago, pogi said:

That is one theory, anyway.  A couple of scholars have made that claim about the Gospel of John, but it is not widely accepted.  Here is a refutation of that claim. 

I suppose a "franchise" is an apt way to describe the church.  Each ward receives authority to operate and direction from headquarters to keep the doctrine and presentation fairly uniform across the board, just like a franchise would.  While there is only 1 McDonald's there are many restaurants - just like the church. 

The Scriptures and Christ speak of a singular church, a body of believer, with Christ at the head.  There is also evidence of a united order in the early church.  The apostles wrote epistles to the many branches of the church to keep the doctrines and practices pure and united under their authority.

The church certainly began to fragment rather quickly though.  But that doesn't seem to be what Christ intended. 

What makes you think it's just "a couple" of scholars that say that about John? I got what I said from Yale's Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature.

https://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152

See the lecture on John.

A close reading of scriptures reveals quite a lot of division right from the outset. Paul himself struggles to establish his authority among competing authorities and theologies.

[Gray]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You've got it backward, Gray.

The individual Christian synagogues operated the same way Jewish synagogues operated then, and continue to operate today.  Members of individual congregations were still members of the overall congregation of Israel, just as individual groups of Christians were members of the overall body of Christ.  This is very evident in the earliest docs -- the letters of Paul.  The Great Apostasy took centuries to overwhelm the authentic Church of Christ, and one can read of all that in the ordinary history of Christianity (see for example Paul Johnson).  The corruption is obvious the further one gets from the Jewish Christian Church.

Paul struggles to establish his authority as an apostle among many competing groups, in his letters. And of course the Johannine group was quite sectarian, although that comes later in the first century.

The gospels show that different Christian communities had very different ways of interpreting the life and death of Jesus. Christian orthodoxy doesn't even exist until centuries after Jesus' life. The "great apostasy" narrative is an important part of Mormon theology, but it doesn't really have anything to do with Christian history. You can't have an "apostasy" without a clear orthodoxy, and there is no first or even second century orthodoxy.

 

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

John the Baptist continued to have followers down to the present.  For example the Mandaeans of Iraq (the marsh Arabs).  So even though many of his followers were rebaptized by the apostles of Jesus, he had a very successful following.

I suppose it depends on how you interpret it. Crossan at least thinks that John's movement (based on preparing/purifying people for the coming eschaton through a baptism that in part was a type of Israel crossing Jordan to conquer Canaan, and which would be accomplished by God alone) failed with his death. Per Crossan, Jesus took a different tack by conceiving of the eschaton as a cooperative act between God and his people, and of course by decentralizing the movement. An example of this is perhaps in Luke 9: 49 “Master,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.” 50 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.” Of course you could also think of Jesus, as John's disciple, as continuing the movement of John, but his approach was not the same.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

Paul struggles to establish his authority as an apostle among many competing groups, in his letters. And of course the Johannine group was quite sectarian, although that comes later in the first century.

The gospels show that different Christian communities had very different ways of interpreting the life and death of Jesus. Christian orthodoxy doesn't even exist until centuries after Jesus' life. The "great apostasy" narrative is an important part of Mormon theology, but it doesn't really have anything to do with Christian history. You can't have an "apostasy" without a clear orthodoxy, and there is no first or even second century orthodoxy.

We would be as hard put to define Jewish orthodoxy during the first century A.D., as to define Christian orthodoxy.  There were not centralized headquarters for either movement during the first couple of centuries A.D.  Instead, we find the development of rabbinic academies (and the codifying of the Mishnah by 200 A.D., under the direction of Rab Yehuda the Prince), while at the same time the disparate Christian movement shifts from Judaism to a Gentile base, with a scattering of influential ante-Nicene Fathers.  Nibley's critique of Christianity is based on his reading of the Patristic literature -- indicating a realization among the Fathers of the loss of authenticity and authority, along with the complete corruption of Christianity through the adoption of Greek philosophical norms inimical to the primitive church.  Just read Paul Johnson's History of Christianity online at http://cnqzu.com/library/Philosophy/neoreaction/_extra authors/Johnson, Paul/A History Of Christianity.pdf .

5 hours ago, Gray said:

I suppose it depends on how you interpret it. Crossan at least thinks that John's movement (based on preparing/purifying people for the coming eschaton through a baptism that in part was a type of Israel crossing Jordan to conquer Canaan, and which would be accomplished by God alone) failed with his death. Per Crossan, Jesus took a different tack by conceiving of the eschaton as a cooperative act between God and his people, and of course by decentralizing the movement. An example of this is perhaps in Luke 9: 49 “Master,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.” 50 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.” Of course you could also think of Jesus, as John's disciple, as continuing the movement of John, but his approach was not the same.

As Birger Pearson put it (I was there and heard him say it), Crossan and his buddies at the Jesus Seminar created "a non-Jewish Jesus," i.e.,  they have  "performed a forcible epispasm on the historical Jesus, a surgical procedure removing the marks of his circumcision. In robbing Jesus of his Jewishness, the Jesus Seminar has finally robbed him of his religion."*  Again and again, it must be emphasized, one cannot understand Jesus unless one fully understands Judaism.

*  Birger A. Pearson, The Gospel According to the Jesus Seminar, Occasional Papers of the IAC 35, Claremont Grad school (1996), 42; "The Gospel According to the Jesus Seminar," Religion, 25 (1995):317-338.

[pogi]

11 hours ago, Gray said:

What makes you think it's just "a couple" of scholars that say that about John? I got what I said from Yale's Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature.

https://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152

See the lecture on John.

A close reading of scriptures reveals quite a lot of division right from the outset. Paul himself struggles to establish his authority among competing authorities and theologies.

As far as I can tell, this interpretation of the Gospel of John was introduced by Louis J. Martyn in his book History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel.  He had a few prominent followers like Wayne A. Meeks and Raymond E. Brown.  While their writings have certainly been influential, there seems to be much disagreement and varying interpretations.  My main point is that your original statement that I commented on should not be stated as a matter of fact, but as a matter of opinion and interpretation of some.

This wikipedia entry suggests that there are lots of different opinions, and doesn't even mention Louis J. Martyn or his work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

[Gray]

On 3/8/2018 at 9:16 PM, pogi said:

As far as I can tell, this interpretation of the Gospel of John was introduced by Louis J. Martyn in his book History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel.  He had a few prominent followers like Wayne A. Meeks and Raymond E. Brown.  While their writings have certainly been influential, there seems to be much disagreement and varying interpretations.  My main point is that your original statement that I commented on should not be stated as a matter of fact, but as a matter of opinion and interpretation of some.

This wikipedia entry suggests that there are lots of different opinions, and doesn't even mention Louis J. Martyn or his work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

I don't think there is any historical theory that isn't disputed by someone. I would agree that with history, it's all interpretation. But I believe the interpretation of John as the product of a sectarian Christian community is sound. And certainly the Johannine corpus is not the only NT text to suggest that other contemporary Christian groups are false or to be condemned.

I'm not sure what an appeal to Wiki gets you. I could add it today and it would be in there. And Raymond Brown was one of the foremost scholars on the Johannine corpus.

Edited March 12, 2018 by Gray

[Gray]

On 3/8/2018 at 3:35 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

We would be as hard put to define Jewish orthodoxy during the first century A.D., as to define Christian orthodoxy.  There were not centralized headquarters for either movement during the first couple of centuries A.D.  Instead, we find the development of rabbinic academies (and the codifying of the Mishnah by 200 A.D., under the direction of Rab Yehuda the Prince), while at the same time the disparate Christian movement shifts from Judaism to a Gentile base, with a scattering of influential ante-Nicene Fathers.  Nibley's critique of Christianity is based on his reading of the Patristic literature -- indicating a realization among the Fathers of the loss of authenticity and authority, along with the complete corruption of Christianity through the adoption of Greek philosophical norms inimical to the primitive church.  Just read Paul Johnson's History of Christianity online at http://cnqzu.com/library/Philosophy/neoreaction/_extra authors/Johnson, Paul/A History Of Christianity.pdf .

As Birger Pearson put it (I was there and heard him say it), Crossan and his buddies at the Jesus Seminar created "a non-Jewish Jesus," i.e.,  they have  "performed a forcible epispasm on the historical Jesus, a surgical procedure removing the marks of his circumcision. In robbing Jesus of his Jewishness, the Jesus Seminar has finally robbed him of his religion."*  Again and again, it must be emphasized, one cannot understand Jesus unless one fully understands Judaism.

*  Birger A. Pearson, The Gospel According to the Jesus Seminar, Occasional Papers of the IAC 35, Claremont Grad school (1996), 42; "The Gospel According to the Jesus Seminar," Religion, 25 (1995):317-338.

I disagree that Crossan robs Jesus of his Judaism. Crossan certainly has his critics. Historical Jesus scholarship doesn't have a lot of consensus, because all we have are texts that are far removed from the historical Jesus, which necessitates quite a lot of interpretive guesswork. But I'd be curious to hear why you think Crossan robs Jesus of his Judaism. I think Crossan is very careful to place Jesus in his specific historical context.

In any case, the Jesus Seminar was most active in the 80s and 90s, and I'm not referring to that work. It don't look like Pearson has been actively publishing for some time, either.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I don't think there is any historical theory that isn't disputed by someone. I would agree that with history, it's all interpretation. But I believe the interpretation of John as the product of a sectarian Christian community is sound. And certainly the Johannine corpus is not the only NT text to suggest that other contemporary Christian groups are false or to be condemned.

I'm not sure what an appeal to Wiki gets you. I could add it today and it would be in there. And Raymond Brown was one of the foremost scholars on the Johannine corpus.

I only mention the Wiki article to show the variety of opinions from different scholars on the subject.  While you may believe the theory to be sound, my point again is that it is not the only theory, and probably not the most widely accepted theory, partly evidenced by the lack of any mention of it in Wiki (I would expect the most widely accepted theory to be at least mentioned there). 

In the end, it looks like we are agreed that what you said below is only one interpretation and opinion among many, and cannot be established as fact:

Quote

 

That's not actually true. Christianity didn't unite into a single cohesive group until long after the "great apostasy" was complete. Take the Gospel of John - that represents the views a single isolated sect (a very sectarian sect), apart from other Christian factions of the time.

Contrary to LDS theology, Jesus didn't set up a church. He set up a franchise. Maybe he learned from John the Baptist's failure. A single movement under a central leader is easier to kill.

 

 

Edited March 12, 2018 by pogi

[Josh Khinder]

On ‎3‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 8:33 AM, pogi said:

Yep, around 400 A.D. 

The Athanasion Creed was written around 400AD sounds like the Book of Mormon to me 

 

Now this is the catholic faith:

 

1) Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; (2) Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.(3) And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; (4) Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. (5) For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Spirit. (6) But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal

(33) Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

 

Confounding means not mixing them up, The Father isn't the Son, the Son isn't the Father etc.

Substance is a synonym for Godhead the same as Essence being or God

 

Trinity

USED TO EXPRESS THE DOCTRINE OF THE UNITY OF GOD AS SUBSISTING IN THREE DISTINCT PERSONS. THIS WORD IS DERIVED FROM THE GR. trias, first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220), to express this doctrine.

The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: (1.) That God is one, and that there is but one God (Deut. 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa. 44:6; Mark 12:29, 32; John 10:30). (2.) That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. (3.) That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. (4.) That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.

 

Easton Bible Dictionary

 

Notice how the Trinity teaches three separate persons represent the One God, just like the Book of Mormon teaches in Alma 11:44 2 Nephi 31:21 and Mormon 7:7 and pre 1835 Joseph Smith Jr D&C 20:28

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, Josh Khinder said:

The Athanasion Creed was written around 400AD sounds like the Book of Mormon to me 

 

Now this is the catholic faith:

 

1) Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; (2) Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.(3) And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; (4) Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. (5) For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Spirit. (6) But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal

(33) Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

 

Confounding means not mixing them up, The Father isn't the Son, the Son isn't the Father etc.

Substance is a synonym for Godhead the same as Essence being or God

 

Trinity

USED TO EXPRESS THE DOCTRINE OF THE UNITY OF GOD AS SUBSISTING IN THREE DISTINCT PERSONS. THIS WORD IS DERIVED FROM THE GR. trias, first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220), to express this doctrine.

The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: (1.) That God is one, and that there is but one God (Deut. 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa. 44:6; Mark 12:29, 32; John 10:30). (2.) That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. (3.) That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. (4.) That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.

 

Easton Bible Dictionary

 

Notice how the Trinity teaches three separate persons represent the One God, just like the Book of Mormon teaches in Alma 11:44 2 Nephi 31:21 and Mormon 7:7 and pre 1835 Joseph Smith Jr D&C 20:28

 

Nice attempt at a segway into your favorite topic.  Interestingly, the great Nephite apostacy corresponds with the introduction of the trinitarian creed - more evidence of a great apostasy. 

The only problem that you face in accepting the Athanasian creed is that it refutes the idea of sola scriptura (it requires beliving in an extra-biblical creed for salvation) and sola fide.

Here is the part (which you conveniently left out) that refutes the idea of sola fie:

Quote

 He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.

P.S. The Book of Mormon makes no mention of oneness of "substance" or "essence", whatever the heck that means. 

[Josh Khinder]

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

 

Nice attempt at a segway into your favorite topic.  Interestingly, the great Nephite apostacy corresponds with the introduction of the trinitarian creed - more evidence of a great apostasy. 

The only problem that you face in accepting the Athanasian creed is that it refutes the idea of sola scriptura (it requires beliving in an extra-biblical creed for salvation) and sola fide.

Here is the part (which you conveniently left out) that refutes the idea of sola fie:

P.S. The Book of Mormon makes no mention of oneness of "substance" or "essence", whatever the heck that means. 

Substance and essence are the same as God or Godhead 

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Josh Khinder said:

Substance and essence are the same as God or Godhead 

Now you are taking an extra-biblical creed and putting your own extra-biblical interpretation on it, how far from the Bible can we get?

God does not = substance.  Sorry, very different things.  

Different persons, same "substance" = extra-biblical.

P.S. If you accept that creed then you accept the need for works.  Puts you in a pickle!

 

Edited March 12, 2018 by pogi

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Gray said:

I disagree that Crossan robs Jesus of his Judaism. Crossan certainly has his critics. Historical Jesus scholarship doesn't have a lot of consensus, because all we have are texts that are far removed from the historical Jesus, which necessitates quite a lot of interpretive guesswork. But I'd be curious to hear why you think Crossan robs Jesus of his Judaism. I think Crossan is very careful to place Jesus in his specific historical context.

Walter Weaver pointed out in 1993 that the criterion of uniqueness as a measure of the "oldest 'layer' of Jesus-tradition," which excludes anything from either Judaism or the Easter faith (the later Christian community) prevents a correct understanding of Jesus, saying that "the trend in Jesus research is away from this strict criterion [heavily used by the Jesus Seminar] and toward locating Jesus precisely within his Judaic context," which is what Pearson did.  Weaver added

Quote

The appeals to the Old Testament within the Christian community, therefore, always contain a kind of pathos and a danger; . . .  (The pathos lies in the paradoxical use of a text from whose community the user has become alienated, whereas the danger resides in the hermeneutical misreading of that text from its own context.)  -- citing Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, and E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Phila.: Fortress Press, 1985).

In other words, biblical illiteracy is a huge problem even among Jesus scholars.  Indeed, after quoting Charlesworth's symposium comment that (following Käsemann) "apocalypticism was the mother of all early Christian theology," Weaver went on to say that   

Quote

 apocalypticism was the ground in which early Christianity was planted; at the same time it came from late Judaism and therefore constituted a common resource of synagogue and church.

This is Pearson's opinion as well.

Quote

In any case, the Jesus Seminar was most active in the 80s and 90s, and I'm not referring to that work. It don't look like Pearson has been actively publishing for some time, either.

Most of those guys are getting on in years, so we are not likely to see a lot more come forth from their pens.  I followed the Jesus Seminar closely back in those days, and enjoyed a good deal of what they said.  A lot of good stuff.  I have several of their books.  Meantime a whole new generation of NT scholars has come forth which does not share the views of the Jesus Seminar and which correctly insists that Judaism must be emphasized, and I agree.  Crossan was deeply  mistaken and must now be swept aside.  Pearson was quite correct, and he was also perceptive enough to see that LDS esoterica shared a great deal in common with Gnostic esoterica (he had an LDS student at UCSB).

Quote

Pearson has a B.A. in Classical languages from Upsala College in East Orange, New Jersey; a Bachelor of Divinity in Biblical Studies and Theology from Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary in Berkeley, CA; an M.A. in Greek from the University of California, Berkeley; and a Ph.D. in New Testament and Christian Origins from Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Pearson was one of the original translators of the Nag Hammadi library, and was also involved with the 2007 translation by Marvin Meyer. In his writings, he explores the origins of Gnosticism and Christianity. Unlike many scholars, who see Gnosticism as a Christian heresy, Pearson believes that it emerged from Jewish mystics disaffected with the Jerusalem religious authorities, who were influenced by Platonism and mystery religion.    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birger_A._Pearson .

Edited March 12, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Josh Khinder]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Now you are taking an extra-biblical creed and putting your own extra-biblical interpretation on it, how far from the Bible can we get?

God does not = substance.  Sorry, very different things.  

Different persons, same "substance" = extra-biblical.

P.S. If you accept that creed then you accept the need for works.  Puts you in a pickle!

 

COUNSEL GIVEN BY PRESIDENT CHARLES W. PENROSE

 Now, some of our brethren have taken up quite a discussion as to the fulness of the everlasting gospel. We are told that the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel, that those who like to get up a dispute, say that the Book of Mormon does not contain any reference to the work of salvation for the dead and that there are many other things pertaining to the gospel that are not developed in that book, and yet we are told that the book contains "the fulness of the everlasting gospel." Well, what is the fulness of the gospel? You read carefully the revelation in regard to the three glories, Section 76, in the Doctrine and Covenants, and you find there defined what the gospel is. There God, the Eternal Father, and Jesus Christ, his Son, and the Holy Ghost, are held up as the three Persons in the Trinity—the one God, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all three being one God. When people believe in that doctrine and obey the ordinances which are spoken of in the same list of principles, you get the fulness of the gospel for this reason: If you really believe so as to have faith in our Eternal Father and in his Son, Jesus Christ, the Redeemer, and will hear him, you will learn ail about what is needed to be done for the salvation of the living and redemption of the dead.

 

. (General Conference Report, April 1922, pp. 27-28.)

 

Edited March 12, 2018 by Josh Khinder

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, Josh Khinder said:

COUNSEL GIVEN BY PRESIDENT CHARLES W. PENROSE

 Now, some of our brethren have taken up quite a discussion as to the fulness of the everlasting gospel. We are told that the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel, that those who like to get up a dispute, say that the Book of Mormon does not contain any reference to the work of salvation for the dead and that there are many other things pertaining to the gospel that are not developed in that book, and yet we are told that the book contains "the fulness of the everlasting gospel." Well, what is the fulness of the gospel? You read carefully the revelation in regard to the three glories, Section 76, in the Doctrine and Covenants, and you find there defined what the gospel is. There God, the Eternal Father, and Jesus Christ, his Son, and the Holy Ghost, are held up as the three Persons in the Trinity—the one God, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all three being one God. When people believe in that doctrine and obey the ordinances which are spoken of in the same list of principles, you get the fulness of the gospel for this reason: If you really believe so as to have faith in our Eternal Father and in his Son, Jesus Christ, the Redeemer, and will hear him, you will learn ail about what is needed to be done for the salvation of the living and redemption of the dead.

 

. (General Conference Report, April 1922, pp. 27-28.)

 

You are a broken record.  We have been through this all before.  Rebuttals have already been given.  Go review them.  Bye!

[Hestia]

Let's get back on topic.