1st/2nd century church

[David Waltz]

Hi Ave Maria,

You posted the following:

>>Rendering it in any case not the least exclusive to LDS tradition currently.

However the point is disputed ("theosis" means exactly thus-and-such), it is not the exclusive provenance of the LDS faith.>>

Me: Exactly, and this is something I have been trying to convey for quite some time now.

>>David, I'd be interested to know your perspective on those beliefs of early Christianity that are truly currently unique to Mormonism, and not found elsewhere, or non-existent at the time of Joseph Smith.>>

Me: To be honest, I cannot think of any that are

[ave maria]

ave maria

[Zakuska]

Johnny says:

No creature has the infinite power necessary to "create" in the proper sense of the word, that is, to produce and give being to that which had in no way possessed it (to call into existence "out of nothing") (CCC318).

Says nothing about not being able to obtain the power when God gives it to them.

John 4: 14

14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into ceverlasting life.

[ave maria]

As a Catholic Christian, I am still ‘working’ on this.

Completely as an aside, it would be interesting to observe if your perspective would be different had you not always been an outsider to that particular faith tradition.

I favor the view that orthodoxy would happily pronounce some of the actions and pronouncements of Joseph Smith as inspired, and brand others as heretical.

[johnny]

ave maria  writes,

I think what David was getting at is that within the range of multiple interpretations of belief (in both camps), there can be an area where some commonality can be found.

For me the multiple interpretations boil down to the number of Gods like the Father ... LDS would say many and Catholics would say one.

[johnny]

Zakuska  writes, 

Says nothing about not being able to obtain the power when God gives it to them.

I agree IT DOES NOT SAY ... But it does say

Isa 45

[9] Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?

[10] Woe unto him that saith unto his father, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth?

[11] Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me.

[12] I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

Rom 9

[20] Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

[21] Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

[Zakuska]

You forget what the potter is turning the clay into.When we are ressurected do we continue being mere claw?

1 cor 15

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in acorruption

[ave maria]

ave maria

[johnny]

ave maria  writes,

Discussing the anatomy of theosis is another thread.

You are correct ... the Early Church Father's did say the following:

And I think it necessary to attend to this also, that Plato never names him the creator, but the fashioner of the gods, although, in the opinion of Plato, there is considerable difference between these two. For the creator creates the creature by his own capability and power, being in need of nothing else; but the fashioner frames his production when he has received from matter the capability for his work. (Justin's Hortatory Address to the Greeks, 22, ANF, 1:558)

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text...-hortatory.html

[Zakuska]

Yes its not a beleif unique to Mormonism but is particularly vacant in Modern Protestantism. Even Luther belevied in theosis. Yet Mormons are the ones who have been bashed over the heads for it for proclaiming it boldy the last 200 years.

Again, the hush hush nature of it and the fact that the layperson know nothing of it is quite telling.

[Zakuska]

Johnny the dust had to be there for God to create man out of it. God formed man of the dust.

Now we can get into a long debate over who made the dust in the first place. But that another thread.

[johnny]

Zakuska  writes, 

Now we can get into a long debate over who made the dust in the first place. But that another thread.

The Early Church Father said "in need of nothing else" ... sounds like dust could be debateable ... but I agree it sounds like another thread.

And I think it necessary to attend to this also, that Plato never names him the creator, but the fashioner of the gods, although, in the opinion of Plato, there is considerable difference between these two. For the creator creates the creature by his own capability and power, being in need of nothing else; but the fashioner frames his production when he has received from matter the capability for his work. (Justin's Hortatory Address to the Greeks, 22, ANF, 1:558)

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text...-hortatory.html

The Early Church taught Ex Nihilo(Creation out of Nothing)

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/exnihilo.htm

"And as I prayed, the heavens were opened, and I see the woman whom I had desired saluting me from the sky, and saying, 'Hail, Hermas!' And looking up to her, I said, 'Lady, what doest thou here? 'And she answered me, 'I have been taken up here to accuse you of your sins before the Lord.' 'Lady,' said I, 'are you to be the subject of my accusation?' 'No,' said she; 'but hear the words which I am going to speak to you. God, who dwells in the heavens, and made out of nothing the things that exist, and multiplied and increased them on account of His holy Church, is angry with you for having sinned against me."

Hermas,Shepard,1:1:1(A.D. 80),in ANF,II:9

[Zakuska]

I like this from that same discourse.

But Plato, though he accepted, as is likely, the doctrine of Moses and the other prophets regarding one only God, which he learned while in Egypt, yet fearing, on account of what had befallen Socrates, lest he also should raise up some Anytus or Meletus against himself, who should accuse him before the Athenians, and say, "Plato is doing harm, and making himself mischievously busy, not acknowledging the gods recognised by the state; "in fear of the hemlockjuice, contrives an elaborate and ambiguous discourse concerning the gods, furnishing by his treatise gods to those who wish them, and none for those who are differently disposed, as may readily be seen from his own statements. For when he has laid down that everything that is made is mortal, he afterwards says that the gods were made. If, then, he would have God and matter to be the origin of all things, manifestly it is inevitably necessary to say that the gods were made of matter; but if of matter, out of which he said that evil also had its origin, he leaves right-thinking persons to consider what kind of beings the gods should be thought who are produced out of matter. For, for this very reason did he say that matter was eternal, that he might not seem to say that God is the creator of evil. And regarding the gods who were made by God, there is no doubt he said this: "Gods of gods, of whom I am the creator." And he manifestly held the correct opinion concerning the really existing God. For having heard in Egypt that God had said to Moses, when He was about to send him to the Hebrews, "I am that I am," he understood that God had not mentioned to him His own proper name.

Which is the Paragraph above yours:

Plato accordingly having learned this in Egypt, and being greatly taken with what was said about one God, did indeed consider it unsafe to mention the name of Moses, on account of his teaching the doctrine of one only God, for he dreaded the Areopagus; but what is very well expressed by him in his elaborate treatise, the Tim

[johnny]

Zakuska  writes,

I like this from that same discourse.

Would LDS theolgy agree with Plato or with the Early Church Father?

[Zakuska]

LDS Agrees with Justin.

Plato is who came up with ex nihilio.

Thus "the opinion of Plato".

And this earlier...

For, for this very reason did he say that matter was eternal, that he might not seem to say that God is the creator of evil.

[johnny]

Zakuska  writes,

Agrees with Justin.

Plato is who came up with ex nihilio.

Sounds like Justin is supportng " Ex Nihilo" ... sounds like Hermas is supporting " Ex Nihilo"

[Zakuska]

Let me read it again.

[Zakuska]

Actually I dont beleive completely in either one...

CHAPTER XXI.--THE NAMELESSNESS OF GOD.

For God cannot be called by any proper name, for names are given to mark out and distinguish their subject-matters, because these are many and diverse; but neither did any one exist before God who could give Him a name, nor did He Himself think it fight to name Himself, seeing that He is one and unique, as He Himself also by His own prophets testifies, when He says, "I God am the first," and after this, "And beside me there is no other God." On this account, then, as I before said, God did not, when He sent Moses to the Hebrews, mention any name, but by a participle He mystically teaches them that He is the one and only God. "For," says He; "I am the Being;" manifestly contrasting Himself, "the Being," with those who are not, that those who had hitherto been deceived might see that they were attaching themselves, not to beings, but to those who had no being. Since, therefore, God knew that the first men remembered the old delusion of their forefathers, whereby the misanthropic demon contrived to deceive them when he said to them, "If ye obey me in transgressing the commandment of God, ye shall be as gods," calling those gods which had no being, in order that men, supposing that there were other gods in existence, might believe that they themselves could become gods. On this account He said to Moses, "I am the Being," that by the participle "being" He might teach the difference between God who is and those who are not. Men, therefore, having been duped by the deceiving demon, and having dared to disobey God, were cast out of Paradise, remembering the name of gods, but no longer being taught by God that there are no other gods. For it was not just that they who did not keep the first commandment, which it was easy to keep, should any longer be taught, but should rather be driven to just punishment. Being therefore banished from Paradise, and thinking that they were expelled on account of their disobedience only, not knowing that it was also because they had believed in the existence of gods which did not exist, they gave the name of gods even to the men who were afterwards born of themselves. This first false fancy, therefore, concerning gods, had its origin with the father of lies. God, therefore, knowing that the false opinion about the plurality of gods was burdening the soul of man like some disease, and wishing to remove and eradicate it, appeared first to Moses, and said to him, "I am He who is." For it was necessary, I think, that he who was to be the ruler and leader of the Hebrew people should first of all know the living God. Wherefore, having appeared to him first, as it was possible for God to appear to a man, He said to him, "I am He who is;" then, being about to send him to the Hebrews, He further orders him to say, "He who is hath sent me to you."

Justin dosen't beleive his OT and thinks its been corrupted by the hebrews. He's falling into the same trap that modern Protestants are.

What of Gen 1:26, Gen 3:7 and Gen 3:22?

[Zakuska]

These expressions declare to those who can rightly understand them the death and destruction of the gods that have been brought into being. And I think it necessary to attend to this also, that Plato never names him the creator, but the fashioner of the gods, although, in the opinion of Plato, there is considerable difference between these two. For the creator creates the creature by his own capability and power, being in need of nothing else; but the fashioner frames his production when he has received from matter the capability for his work.

Again the Exnihilio seems to be justins summary of Platos ideas.

[juliann]

As a Latter-day Saint, I always believed "men becoming gods" was firm doctrine. It was long after I was out of the church that I was surprised to hear a president of the LDS Church state uncertainty on the point.

Baloney. That is the anti-interpretation of what one Prophet said in an off the cuff interview and yet another unnecessary cheap shot.

As indicated previously, my interest is in those beliefs that some LDS claim to be unique to Mormonism, and cite fathers of the Church in support of the same, when in fact, they do exist outside of Mormonism, either historically or currently.

So you are going to clutter up the thread worrying what every random Mormon "claims"? Do you want to find a Mormon who is not aware that eastern Christianity maintained a doctrine of deification and argue this red herring with them? Maybe you can find a Mormon who claims the earth is flat and debate that, too!

Some of what is unique to Mormonism is baptism of the dead and covenant...both of which you have completely avoided by doing your usual dodge ball routine while cluttering up the board with "questions" so you don't have to contribute anything yourself.

[juliann]

I've seen this "gates of hell" argument appealed to by others in the LDS Church, yet it fails to address how the term is applied differently when used in LDS scripture.

*snore* More red herrings.....Perhaps you could tell us why it needs to be "applied" in a uniform manner and then explain why the Bible and your own religion are not consistent in any number of things.

Then if you ever want to fly down to what is actually being talked about...you can present a compelling argument as to why this verse can not be interpreted in this manner. But that would mean you have to contribute something!!

[juliann]

I favor the view that orthodoxy would happily pronounce some of the actions and pronouncements of Joseph Smith as inspired, and brand others as heretical.

I favor the view that you happily wear a chicken suit on Sundays.

[johnny]

juliann  writes,

present a compelling argument as to why ...

Maybe you could present a compelling argument for the following:

The 1st and 2nd century writings do not support the following LDS teachings:

- men can become another God like the Heavenly Father

- ordinances, like Baptism, for the dead were practiced by the early church

- their was an apostasy as described by the LDS church

- their was a restoration as described by the LDS church

- the Father, the Son, and the HG are three Gods

The 1st and 2nd century writings do support the following Catholic teachings:

- the Father, the Son, and the HG are not three Gods

- Real Presence of the flesh in the Bread

- The bread and wine transubstantiation

- Infant Baptism

- Apostolic Succession

- Purgatory

- Veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary

- Devotion and intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary

- Original Sin

- Ex Nihilo(Creation out of Nothing)

[juliann]

Maybe you could present a compelling argument for the following:

Oh, please. This is supposed to be a contest and whoever can give the most quotes wins? What do I win? Make it worth my time.

The 1st and 2nd century writings do not support the following LDS teachings:

- men can become another God like the Heavenly Father

- ordinances, like Baptism, for the dead were practiced by the early church

- their was an apostasy as described by the LDS church

- their was a restoration as described by the LDS church

- the Father, the Son, and the HG are three Gods

Even you believe a form of deification. Get over it. Baptism for the dead was being practiced by some in the early church. This is in the NT. Why would I need it anywhere else? I have put up cites on any number of things and you ignore them and keep asking the same thing over and over.

The 1st and 2nd century writings do support the following Catholic teachings:

And your point is...? You do need to get into the right century and it is not the 1st and 2nd. You will have to explain to me why any of this matters or is even being questioned.

[Zakuska]

Acts 2

31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

Hmm... Christ went to hell and the gates of hell did not prevail. Who'd a thunk it!