James White on Why Mormons Aren't Christians

[maklelan]

mak,

You wrote:

The problem is not a lack of willingness on my part. The problem is a disconnect as far as your explanation making any sense to me as far as I can see. We can leave it like that and you can say that I just don't understand you and I can say that you weren't clear. But I would appreciate you not impugning my motives, because I can say definitively that your accusation is false.

You seem to more or less understand what I'm saying, but you seem reluctant to discuss the validity or applicability of my claims. You seem to want to continue trying to get me to clarify further.

I tried to find a way out of the semantic difficulties we were having understanding each other, but you dismissed my suggested way forward as a "game," so I don't see any point in continuing to try to sort the matter out with you. I would appreciate an answer to my question in my follow-up post about using the term "Mormon."

I don't think we're having semantic difficulties. You seem to understand what I'm saying, despite your continued desire to have me further elaborate.

[Rob Bowman]

mak,

I had written: So, by your reasoning, a Mormon can say "I am a Mormon" but should not say "A Mormon is X" or "Group Y is not Mormon." Right?

You replied:

More or less.

So, perhaps you disagree, "more or less," with the LDS Church, which seeks to define the term "Mormon" as exclusive to itself and its members:

"Mormons are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which was organized in 1830" (Mormon.org).

See also the same website's answers to such questions as "What do Mormons believe?" which by your reasoning they should not be trying to answer.

Then there are statements like the following:

"The term Mormons can never, ever be used to describe polygamist sects."

"Polygamists Are Not Mormons"

You reject these kinds of statements, right?

[maklelan]

mak,

I had written: So, by your reasoning, a Mormon can say "I am a Mormon" but should not say "A Mormon is X" or "Group Y is not Mormon." Right?

Here's where you try to spring what you imagine to be a cleverly laid trap. It's funny how your sincere desire to understand always seems to align perfectly with research you've gathered on a specific question that you think conflicts with Mormon orthodoxy.

You replied:

So, perhaps you disagree, "more or less," with the LDS Church, which seeks to define the term "Mormon" as exclusive to itself and its members:

"Mormons are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which was organized in 1830" (Mormon.org).

Yes, I do, although I recognize the need for them to assert propriety over the name. Speaking as the official administration of the church, they do speak on behalf of the church as a whole. On the other hand, I don't bar fundamentalists and other splinter groups from the title "Mormon" as they do.

See also the same website's answers to such questions as "What do Mormons believe?" which by your reasoning they should not be trying to answer.

They can certainly state what Latter-day Saints believe generally, being the official organization. I believe they are wrong to unilaterally appropriate the term "Mormon," though.

Then there are statements like the following:

"The term Mormons can never, ever be used to describe polygamist sects."

"Polygamists Are Not Mormons"

You reject these kinds of statements, right?

Yes I do, Rob. So much for sincerely wanting to understand, huh?

[Rob Bowman]

mak,

You wrote:

Here's where you try to spring what you imagine to be a cleverly laid trap.

If you're going to continue trying to divert attention from the issues to me as a person, I'm going to have to give up engaging you in discussion here. That would be too bad, because you're one of the smarter persons in the room.

Regarding the LDS Church's claim that only its members should be called Mormons, you said (in response to my "cleverly laid trap") that you disagreed with its claim, sort of:

Yes, I do [disagree with that exclusive definition], although I recognize the need for them to assert propriety over the name. Speaking as the official administration of the church, they do speak on behalf of the church as a whole. On the other hand, I don't bar fundamentalists and other splinter groups from the title "Mormon" as they do.... They can certainly state what Latter-day Saints believe generally, being the official organization. I believe they are wrong to unilaterally appropriate the term "Mormon," though.

Fair enough.

You wrote:

Yes I do, Rob. So much for sincerely wanting to understand, huh?

Not at all. You seem consistent on this point. Good for you.

So much for being only interested in trapping you in contradiction, eh?

[WalkerW]

I've learned to be careful with how I use the term "Mormon" when describing my beliefs. I've had enough people confuse me with the FLDS to force me to be clear with my affiliation to the LDS Church.

[maklelan]

mak,

You wrote:

If you're going to continue trying to divert attention from the issues to me as a person, I'm going to have to give up engaging you in discussion here. That would be too bad, because you're one of the smarter persons in the room.

While I appreciate the kind words, it's not your person I'm highlighting, it's your methodologies. There is a very, very big difference between the two.

I've been around the block enough to know that when someone asks a leading question and then sets up their post "now you said this, right?" they're trying to spring a trap. You never would have asked me if I felt my assertions about self-identification had any bearing on the use of the epithet "Mormon" unless you had somewhere to go with it. You already had the information about who the Church says can call themselves "Mormon" and you wanted to lead me into taking a stand on the question before springing the church's position in order to force me into what you figured would be a sticky situation. Either I would equivocate, run off, admit I was wrong, or take a stand against the church. I could be wrong, though. You may not have had those quotes in mind when you asked for my opinion about who gets to be called "Mormon." You may have just discovered them while preparing your response to me. I would say that's the less parsimonious conclusion, though.

[Rob Bowman]

mak,

Good grief. I applauded you for giving a consistent answer, showing that I'm not simply trying to trap you. Yet you are still claiming I was bent on leading you into a trap. Let's put it this way: It should only look like a "trap" to someone who felt "trapped" by the question. If you are just as comfortable saying that your own church should not say who can call themselves Mormons as you are saying that evangelicals should not say who can call themselves Christians, the question was not a trap for you.

My own view is that it makes no sense to insist that a group may not define itself in such a way as to exclude others. For example, why can't capitalists say that you can't be a capitalist and at the same time maintain that the government should own all means of public transportation? What is wrong with the R&A saying that shooting golf balls out of cannons or pushing them into the hole with brooms isn't "golf"?

Likewise, to take a simple example, why can't Christians say that anyone who denies that Jesus rose from the grave is not a Christian? I certainly think this should be an obvious enough litmus test. I'm quite prepared to be consistent and say that the retired Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong and the defrocked Catholic priest John Dominic Crossan are not Christians. Nor was Mary Baker Eddy, despite the fact that "Christ" was in the name of the religion she founded (Church of Christ, Scientist). Find a Baptist who denies that Jesus rose from the grave and I'll say he is not a Christian. I'm prepared to be an "equal-opportunity offender" on this point. Is there anything inconsistent or unreasonable about this approach?

Now I grant that the doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus is a more obvious doctrinal essential of the Christian faith than other doctrines may be. But once the idea of a doctrinal standard is granted, the issue shifts from whether there should be one to what exactly it should include.

While I appreciate the kind words, it's not your person I'm highlighting, it's your methodologies. There is a very, very big difference between the two.

I've been around the block enough to know that when someone asks a leading question and then sets up their post "now you said this, right?" they're trying to spring a trap. You never would have asked me if I felt my assertions about self-identification had any bearing on the use of the epithet "Mormon" unless you had somewhere to go with it. You already had the information about who the Church says can call themselves "Mormon" and you wanted to lead me into taking a stand on the question before springing the church's position in order to force me into what you figured would be a sticky situation. Either I would equivocate, run off, admit I was wrong, or take a stand against the church. I could be wrong, though. You may not have had those quotes in mind when you asked for my opinion about who gets to be called "Mormon." You may have just discovered them while preparing your response to me. I would say that's the less parsimonious conclusion, though.

[maklelan]

mak,

Good grief. I applauded you for giving a consistent answer, showing that I'm not simply trying to trap you. Yet you are still claiming I was bent on leading you into a trap.

Did you have the quotes from the church in mind when you asked me the question?

My own view is that it makes no sense to insist that a group may not define itself in such a way as to exclude others. For example, why can't capitalists say that you can't be a capitalist and at the same time maintain that the government should own all means of public transportation?

Can you point to any people who claim to be capitalists and who maintain that the government should own all means of public transportation?

What is wrong with the R&A saying that shooting golf balls out of cannons or pushing them into the hole with brooms isn't "golf"?

You can call that golf all you want. The R&A can't tell you you're not allowed to call it golf. You can't do it in a tournament they sanction and not get disqualified, though.

Likewise, to take a simple example, why can't Christians say that anyone who denies that Jesus rose from the grave is a Christian?

I assume you mean "is not a Christian," and I would simply point you to my previous comments about defining yourself vs. defining your group.

I certainly think this should be an obvious enough litmus test.

It wasn't for early Christians. When thousands of Christians were murdered in the early years of the church that wasn't what sent you to your death. That wasn't one of the questions the Romans asked.

I'm quite prepared to be consistent and say that the retired Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong and the defrocked Catholic priest John Dominic Crossan are not Christians. Nor was Mary Baker Eddy, despite the fact that "Christ" was in the name of the religion she founded (Church of Christ, Scientist). Find a Baptist who denies that Jesus rose from the grave and I'll say he is not a Christian. I'm prepared to be an "equal-opportunity offender" on this point. Is there anything inconsistent or unreasonable about this approach?

Not inconsistent, but it's not your job or your right to tell other people how they're allowed to define themselves.

Now I grant that the doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus is a more obvious doctrinal essential of the Christian faith than other doctrines may be. But once the idea of a doctrinal standard is granted, the issue shifts from whether there should be one to what exactly it should include.

And all of Christianity has not granted a doctrinal standard, so the question is moot.

[ELF1024]

Considering some of the people who consider themselves Christians and call themselves Christians... I'm just as happy not being part of the "Christian" club.

The whole thing is like one of those degenerate housing associations that makes you following idiotic rules to live in an area. Personally, I'm just fine without having someone in the club calling me a Christian. It doesn't change the fact that I have a personal belief in Christ; and likely a better understanding of what it means to be Christian than the idiots in the club to start with.

[volgadon]

Did you have the quotes from the church in mind when you asked me the question?

I would hazard a guess that he did, as he has levelled this criticsm against us in the past.

[Rob Bowman]

mak,

You wrote:

I assume you mean "is not a Christian," and I would simply point you to my previous comments about defining yourself vs. defining your group.

Yes, I meant "is not a Christian." I have edited the post to correct this mistake.

Regarding the resurrection of Jesus Christ as a doctrinal litmus test for Christians, you wrote:

It wasn't for early Christians. When thousands of Christians were murdered in the early years of the church that wasn't what sent you to your death. That wasn't one of the questions the Romans asked.

So, now Christians cannot say who is a Christian (except they can affirm that of themselves), but the Romans can say who is a Christian?

Well, here is the testimony of one of those "thousands of Christians" who "were murdered in the early years of the church":

"For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genistae, Meristae, Galilaeans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews (do not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but are [only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare" (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 80).

Justin Martyr here insists that the resurrection of the dead is an essential belief that all who are properly called Christians must believe. A fortiori, he would certainly insist that anyone who denies Jesus' resurrection from the dead was not a Christian.

[LDSGuy]

Anyone know why I can't start a thread? Anyways, if I can't then I would like to post this site that has videos about the church. The site name is very misleading. It's www.ldsvideo.org It's basically an Anti-Mormon website that is bent on giving misleading information. Half-truths and what not.

[maklelan]

mak,

You wrote:

Yes, I meant "is not a Christian." I have edited the post to correct this mistake.

Regarding the resurrection of Jesus Christ as a doctrinal litmus test for Christians, you wrote:

So, now Christians cannot say who is a Christian (except they can affirm that of themselves), but the Romans can say who is a Christian?

The outside perception of the group is an important consideration, and persecution tends to heavily influence self-identity. The Romans based their interrogations on what they learned a Christian would and would not do and say.

Well, here is the testimony of one of those "thousands of Christians" who "were murdered in the early years of the church":

"For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genistae, Meristae, Galilaeans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews (do not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but are [only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare" (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 80).

Justin Martyr here insists that the resurrection of the dead is an essential belief that all who are properly called Christians must believe. A fortiori, he would certainly insist that anyone who denies Jesus' resurrection from the dead was not a Christian.

Justin Martyr also said Jesus was "another god" who was also called an angel. Additionally, his death comes after the rise of orthodoxy and sectarianism, and he was one Christian who does not speak for all Christianity.

[WalkerW]

On Justin Martyr's polytheistic monotheism (yes, I made that phrase up), see Paula Fredriksen, "Gods and the One God," Bible Review (Feb. 2003).

[maklelan]

In case anyone is interested, someone commented on my blog today that the following appeared in a recent post on James White's Alpha & Omega Ministries blog:

I have an LDS blog to respond to as soon as I can, though that may end up being a multi-part series here on the blog.

I would be delighted if he means my blog, but I wouldn't label it an "LDS blog." I'll keep you posted.

[Calm]

Anyone know why I can't start a thread? Anyways, if I can't then I would like to post this site that has videos about the church. The site name is very misleading. It's www.ldsvideo.org It's basically an Anti-Mormon website that is bent on giving misleading information. Half-truths and what not.

Post count possibly (but I thought that was only over 25, may have changed when the board was updated) or the mods have confused you with someone else? You are listed as in the "limited" group. I'd write the mods and ask them.

[urroner]

On Justin Martyr's polytheistic monotheism (yes, I made that phrase up), see Paula Fredriksen, "Gods and the One God," Bible Review (Feb. 2003).

Nice article. Thanks.

[Hughes]

That is wrong and is just incredibly bad apologetics. Rev 22:8-9:

The construction is identical: the verb proskyneo with a preposition indicating a location before the other person's feet. The angel said it was inappropriate to be directed at him, and that John should "worship God" (τῷ θεῷ προσκύνησον - the same verb). The construction does not mean one thing here and an entirely different thing in Rev 3:9.

There is no error. The text states that the Philadelphians will be worshipped.

Since the text doesn't state that, or rather, the context doesn't say that. I disagree.

In other words, one way to understand what someone is saying is by being absurd and agreeing with them (even though you don't). For example, I could say, "You know you're right... They were worshipped just like Jesus was worshipped, and I can see it all through the new testament...."

Unfortunately, no. It's not all through the NT. It's not even in this passage. I agree the same words are used and even the same "construction" however, the context is different. Right? You at least agree with me that the context doesn't lend itself to saying explicitly that the Philadelphians are being worshiped as God is worshipped, right?

Now, the phrase: "as God is worshipped..." is an important aspect to this whole thing. Because of course, I agree that men can and do receive praise and "homage" from other men, and even God himself in some cases. But, I don't agree that Man ever comes to a place where he receives worship as God does. For clarification, is that your position? Do you think that Man comes to a place where he receives worship just as God does? OR do you not see any difference in honoring another man for something he's done (a reward), and worshipping God?

[WalkerW]

Since the text doesn't state that, or rather, the context doesn't say that. I disagree.

In other words, one way to understand what someone is saying is by being absurd and agreeing with them (even though you don't). For example, I could say, "You know you're right... They were worshipped just like Jesus was worshipped, and I can see it all through the new testament...."

Unfortunately, no. It's not all through the NT. It's not even in this passage. I agree the same words are used and even the same "construction" however, the context is different. Right? You at least agree with me that the context doesn't lend itself to saying explicitly that the Philadelphians are being worshiped as God is worshipped, right?

Now, the phrase: "as God is worshipped..." is an important aspect to this whole thing. Because of course, I agree that men can and do receive praise and "homage" from other men, and even God himself in some cases. But, I don't agree that Man ever comes to a place where he receives worship as God does. For clarification, is that your position? Do you think that Man comes to a place where he receives worship just as God does? OR do you not see any difference in honoring another man for something he's done (a reward), and worshipping God?

Ahhh, context: the magic word that wins all arguments without requiring one to provide any.

[volgadon]

Since the text doesn't state that, or rather, the context doesn't say that. I disagree.

In other words, one way to understand what someone is saying is by being absurd and agreeing with them (even though you don't). For example, I could say, "You know you're right... They were worshipped just like Jesus was worshipped, and I can see it all through the new testament...."

Unfortunately, no. It's not all through the NT. It's not even in this passage. I agree the same words are used and even the same "construction" however, the context is different. Right? You at least agree with me that the context doesn't lend itself to saying explicitly that the Philadelphians are being worshiped as God is worshipped, right?

Now, the phrase: "as God is worshipped..." is an important aspect to this whole thing. Because of course, I agree that men can and do receive praise and "homage" from other men, and even God himself in some cases. But, I don't agree that Man ever comes to a place where he receives worship as God does. For clarification, is that your position? Do you think that Man comes to a place where he receives worship just as God does? OR do you not see any difference in honoring another man for something he's done (a reward), and worshipping God?

The context is the same. Someone (or something) is being worshipped. Be it God, an angel, or a community of the righteous.

So, if the same words, the same constructions, and the same context, then you really have nothing left but your special pleading.

[Hughes]

The context is the same. Someone (or something) is being worshipped. Be it God, an angel, or a community of the righteous.

So, if the same words, the same constructions, and the same context, then you really have nothing left but your special pleading.

Unfortunately, the context is different. See below.

Matt. 4:8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”

10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’[e]”

Matt. 28: 9 Suddenly Jesus met them.“Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him.

Luke 24:50 When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. 51 While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. 52 Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. 53 And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.

John 4:23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.

John 9:38 Then the man said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him.

1 Cor. 14:25 as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,

“Let all God’s angels worship him.”[c]

Rev. 4:10 the twenty-four elders fall down before him who sits on the throne and worship him who lives for ever and ever. They lay their crowns before the throne and say:

Notice that the context of all these passages indicates who is worshipped. Yet in Rev. 3:9 the object isn't stated as the Philippians. There is no indication of worshiping the Philippians as if they were gods of some sort.

Rather, it's made plain by Jesus, "For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’[e]”

And, Rev.22:8 - I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. 9 But he said to me, “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your fellow prophets and with all who keep the words of this scroll. Worship God!”

And Rev. 3:9 I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you. 10 Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth. (NIV)

Rev. 3: 9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. 10Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. (KJV)

Rev. 3:9 'Behold, I will cause those of (AA)the synagogue of Satan, who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie--I will make them (AB)come and bow down at your feet, and make them know that (AC)I have loved you. 10'Because you have (AD)kept the word of (AE)My perseverance, (AF)I also will keep you from the hour of (AG)testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole (AH)world, to test (AI)those who dwell on the earth. (NASB)

Rev. 3:9 Behold, I will make those of(U) the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie—behold,(V) I will make them come and bow down before your feet and they will learn that(W) I have loved you. 10(X) Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world, to try(Y) those who dwell on the earth. (ESV)

I've quoted the context of Rev. 3:9 from four different english versions. Not one of them says that the Philadelphians are worshiped as God is worshiped. It appears that the scholars that translated this passage to english all agree that it is Jesus forcing these Jews to acknowledge that the Philadelphians were loved by Jesus. Nothing is mentioned about worshiping them. And the context of the previous verses where worship is used (post #11), one can clearly see the object of worship is stated each time, and even in Rev. 22 it's stated. Yet, here in Rev. 3 it's not stated that they are worshiping the Philadelphians now is it?

[WalkerW]

You didn't explain how the context was different at all. All you've done is said, "Well, worship here doesn't mean the same thing as here. It's obviously different!" This is, as volgadon adequately put it, special pleading. And given the Jewish context, you have no reason to make that plea:

Indeed, the rabbinic tradition sometimes went to the extreme of anthropomorphism: Not only did it make the notion of man's likeness to God as physical and detailed as possible (it included circumcision among the distinguishing marks of the Deity), but it took the likeness as proof of the potential perfection of man and taught that Adam before the fall and the righteous in the world to come realized this perfection and were rightly, therefore, to be worshipped by the angels: We read in Baba Batra 75b, "Rabba said R. Johanan, 'The righteous are destined to be called by the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, for it is said, "Everyone who is called by my name, him have I created, formed and made that he should also share my glory.""...R. Elazar said, 'The trishagion [i.e. Holy, Holy, Holy] will be said before the righteous as it is said before the Holy One, blessed be He.' In a later passage in the Tanhuma and in the condensation of Bereshit Rabbati this potential divinity and predicted worship are presented as the direct consequences of man's being in the image of God. So it is in the Latin life of Adam (13ff.), where, after Adam's creation, the angels are ordered to "worship the image of God" [1].

Would worship of another being besides the High God destroy monotheism? Yehezkel Kaufmann doesn't think so:

Even the worship of other supernatural beings...cannot be considered in necessary contradiction to monotheism...The One is not necessarily “jealous” in a cultic sense. There is room in monotheism for the worship of lower divine beings—with the understanding that they belong to the suit of the One. Thus Christianity knows the worship of saints and intercessors, as does Islam...Israelite monotheism tended toward cultic exclusivism and was crystallized in this form in the Bible. But during the pre-exilic period Israel was still moving from the basic monotheistic idea to its extreme cultic consequence [2].

Baruch Halpern provides an excellent hypothetical exchange with an undergrad regarding the definition of monotheism:

"How do we differ from pagans?" "We have only one God." "Do Catholics believe in saints, Jews and Muslims in angels, Protestants in devils?" "That is different," comes the response! "Do angels not live forever, enjoy supernatural powers, exist in a dimension different from that inhabited by mortals?" "Still different!" ...[T]he difference between monotheism and polytheism in the student's mind is the difference between God and god - between two ways of spelling the same word... [3].

In short,

No ancient monotheist was a modern monotheist. Divinity expressed itself along a gradient, and the High God...hardly stood alone. Lesser divinities filled in the gap, cosmic and metaphysical, between humans and God...Antiquity's universe, by comparison, was filled with gods...While not every ancient polytheist was a monotheist, all ancient monotheists were, by our measure, polytheists [4].

1. Morton Smith, "The Image of God: Notes on the Hellenization of Judaism, with Especial Reference to Goodenough's Work on Jewish Symbols," in Studies in the Cult of Yahweh, Vol. 1: Studies in Historical Method, Ancient Israel, Ancient Judaism, ed. Shaye J.D. Cohen (Brill, 1996): pgs. 120-121. Smith notes Paul's awareness of deification by means of the divine image and divine name. Paul's focus was on Christ's image and name. See Daniel Boyarin's discussion of the worship of Metatron (the deified Enoch) and other Logos-like entities in his Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004): pgs. 120-125. For more on the subject of Metatron, see Daniel Abrams, "The Boundaries of Divine Ontology: The Inclusion and Exclusion of Metatron in the Godhead," Harvard Theological Review 87:3 (1994).

2. Quoted in Baruch Halpern, "'Brisker Pipes than Poetry': The Development of Israelite Monotheism," in From Gods to God: The Dynamics of Iron Age Cosmologies (Mohr Siebeck Tubingen, 2006): pg. 19.

3. Ibid.: pg. 16.

4. Paula Fredriksen, "Gods and the One God," Bible Review (Feb. 2003): pg. 49.

[maklelan]

Since the text doesn't state that, or rather, the context doesn't say that. I disagree.

We've been over this. I explained why it very clearly does say that and you've not addressed my argument. Instead you've just posted what amounts to "Nu-uh." I will not explain myself again, and I will not respond to another one of your comments if you reassert your position without addressing my argument.

In other words, one way to understand what someone is saying is by being absurd and agreeing with them (even though you don't). For example, I could say, "You know you're right... They were worshipped just like Jesus was worshipped, and I can see it all through the new testament...."

Unfortunately, no. It's not all through the NT. It's not even in this passage. I agree the same words are used and even the same "construction" however, the context is different. Right? You at least agree with me that the context doesn't lend itself to saying explicitly that the Philadelphians are being worshiped as God is worshipped, right?

No, not right. The context is actually just right. It's the same context as described in 4Q246, where the nations will come to worship the people of God. The context you imagine is a constructed one where only God/Jesus get to be worshipped. That context is not in the New Testament or other contemporary literature.

Now, the phrase: "as God is worshipped..." is an important aspect to this whole thing.

As I've pointed out, this is only an important aspect to this whole thing if you're approaching the entire topic from the position that someone can claim to only worship one God even if they recognize the existence of other gods and even direct different kinds of worship to them. If you're willing to allow that such can be the case, then it is the case both for early Christians and for Mormons, and both can happily call themselves monotheists. If you deny that characterization to Mormonism then I must deny it here for early Christianity. It's your choice.

Because of course, I agree that men can and do receive praise and "homage" from other men, and even God himself in some cases. But, I don't agree that Man ever comes to a place where he receives worship as God does. For clarification, is that your position? Do you think that Man comes to a place where he receives worship just as God does? OR do you not see any difference in honoring another man for something he's done (a reward), and worshipping God?

See above.

[volgadon]

Hughes, perhaps you would be so kind as to point out where in those verses Jesus is worshiped "as God is worshiped."

[Hughes]

You didn't explain how the context was different at all. All you've done is said, "Well, worship here doesn't mean the same thing as here. It's obviously different!" This is, as volgadon adequately put it, special pleading. And given the Jewish context, you have no reason to make that plea:

Certainly not trying to do that. What I am doing, is trying to exegete the passage in question, and what I notice is that the two phrases are equal, the bowing and acknowledgement as they are separated by "and".

Juxtaposed to the other verses I quoted, where there is bowing and worshipping the person. Do you honestly not see the difference there?