James White on Why Mormons Aren't Christians

[Hughes]

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.

I don't have the time to guess which argument you're talking about. I have trouble arguing about too many things at once, so if I haven't responded to one, that is likely why. That is why I'm trying to focus on Rev. 3:9.

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.

So, if your argument is correct (which I don't know what 4Q246 is, since you didn't quote it), then these nations will come and "acknowledge" that Jesus loved the people of God? Since that is what Rev. 3:9 says.

I'm not imagining any context. Like I said above, I'm simply trying to exegete this passage for what it says.

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.

See above.

I don't see evidence anywhere in scripture (biblical) that other gods exist at all.

[WalkerW]

Do you honestly not see the difference there?

Nope. I see you attempting to make up a difference that isn't there.

[WalkerW]

I don't see evidence anywhere in scripture (biblical) that other gods exist at all.

Seriously?

[maklelan]

I don't have the time to guess which argument you're talking about. I have trouble arguing about too many things at once, so if I haven't responded to one, that is likely why. That is why I'm trying to focus on Rev. 3:9.

My argument regarding the use of proskyneo in connection with someone's feet.

So, if your argument is correct (which I don't know what 4Q246 is, since you didn't quote it),

I linked you to a translation of 4Q246 along with commentary in this post.

then these nations will come and "acknowledge" that Jesus loved the people of God? Since that is what Rev. 3:9 says.

You're confusing context with content. If you insist the context is a group bowing down before another group in order to show that Jesus loved the second group then that context is absolutely unique and does neither of us any good at all.

I'm not imagining any context. Like I said above, I'm simply trying to exegete this passage for what it says.

No, you're trying to find a meaning for the passage that avoids having it say what I've pointed out it says.

I don't see evidence anywhere in scripture (biblical) that other gods exist at all.

I've already pointed to numerous instances and you've not directly addressed any of them. I will not be hunting down those instances to link you to them so you don't have to go back and look for them. You should have read them the first time.

[Vance]

I don't see evidence anywhere in scripture (biblical) that other gods exist at all.

Have you actually read the Bible?

Josh. 22:22 The Lord God of gods, the Lord God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the Lord, (save us not this day,)

Deut. 10:17 For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

Ps. 136:2 O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever.

Dan. 2:47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.

Dan. 11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

These "gods" that recognize "God" as their "God", are they real or not?

[Hughes]

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

proskuneo occurs 59 times in the New Testament and 8 of them appear to be used the same as God is worshiped.

Matthew 2:2 - "'Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east, and have come to worship Him.'....

Matthew 2:8 - [Herod says,] 'Go and make careful search for the Child; and when you have found Him, report to me, that I too may come and worship Him.'....

Matthew 2:11 - "And they came into the house and saw the Child with Mary His mother and they fell down and worshiped Him...."

Matthew 28:9 - "And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples. And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him."

Matthew 14:3 -"Peter gets out of the boat and walks on the water. Peter starts to sink, Jesus reaches out and saves him. And when they got into the boat the wind stopped. And those who were in the boat worshipped Him saying, " You are certainly God's Son!"

Matthew 28:17 - "it says, "And when they saw Him, [the risen Jesus Christ whom they knew had been dead and was now alive] they worshipped Him."

John 9:38 - the man blind from birth is healed. He said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshiped Him.

Hebrews 1:6 -"And when He again brings the first-born into the world He says, 'And let all the angels of God worship Him.'"

[maklelan]

proskuneo occurs 59 times in the New Testament and 8 of them appear to be used the same as God is worshiped.

Matthew 2:2 - "'Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east, and have come to worship Him.'....

Matthew 2:8 - [Herod says,] 'Go and make careful search for the Child; and when you have found Him, report to me, that I too may come and worship Him.'....

Matthew 2:11 - "And they came into the house and saw the Child with Mary His mother and they fell down and worshiped Him...."

Matthew 28:9 - "And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples. And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him."

Matthew 14:3 -"Peter gets out of the boat and walks on the water. Peter starts to sink, Jesus reaches out and saves him. And when they got into the boat the wind stopped. And those who were in the boat worshipped Him saying, " You are certainly God's Son!"

Matthew 28:17 - "it says, "And when they saw Him, [the risen Jesus Christ whom they knew had been dead and was now alive] they worshipped Him."

John 9:38 - the man blind from birth is healed. He said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshiped Him.

Hebrews 1:6 -"And when He again brings the first-born into the world He says, 'And let all the angels of God worship Him.'"

No such comparison is possible from these texts. The only thing that is the same with worship of God is the word proskyneo, and that's the word that is used in reference to the Philadelphians.

[volgadon]

proskuneo occurs 59 times in the New Testament and 8 of them appear to be used the same as God is worshiped.

Matthew 2:2 - "'Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east, and have come to worship Him.'....

Matthew 2:8 - [Herod says,] 'Go and make careful search for the Child; and when you have found Him, report to me, that I too may come and worship Him.'....

Matthew 2:11 - "And they came into the house and saw the Child with Mary His mother and they fell down and worshiped Him...."

Matthew 28:9 - "And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples. And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him."

Matthew 14:3 -"Peter gets out of the boat and walks on the water. Peter starts to sink, Jesus reaches out and saves him. And when they got into the boat the wind stopped. And those who were in the boat worshipped Him saying, " You are certainly God's Son!"

Matthew 28:17 - "it says, "And when they saw Him, [the risen Jesus Christ whom they knew had been dead and was now alive] they worshipped Him."

John 9:38 - the man blind from birth is healed. He said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshiped Him.

Hebrews 1:6 -"And when He again brings the first-born into the world He says, 'And let all the angels of God worship Him.'"

You have yet to point out HOW God is worshipped. How is the worship different in anything but the recipient?

[WalkerW]

<P class=MsoPlainText>

[Hughes]

No such comparison is possible from these texts. The only thing that is the same with worship of God is the word proskyneo, and that's the word that is used in reference to the Philadelphians.

there are 22 references citing the Father as receiving proskuneo

14 references indicate improper proskuneo of the devil, demons, idols or the beast of Revelation. And the context of each is clear that it's improper.

3 cases where men or angels are proskuneoed, worshipped.

Cornelius fell down in Acts 10:25

Apostle John, fell down before the angel of Revelation in 19:10, 22:8

Both Cornelius and John were seriously reprimanded. Why?

2 cases where men receiving proskuneo, and not corrected

Rev 3:9 - forced by Jesus

Matthew 8:26 - "The slave therefore falling down, prostrated himself [ proskuneo ] before him, saying, 'Have patience with me, and I will repay you everything.'"

Now, you wouldn't argue that the slave in Jesus' Parable was worshiping his master as one worships God would you? Rather wouldn't you agree, that he's humbly pleading for his life?

[Hughes]

You have yet to point out HOW God is worshipped. How is the worship different in anything but the recipient?

In context, one is forbidden the other is encouraged.

[maklelan]

there are 22 references citing the Father as receiving proskuneo

14 references indicate improper proskuneo of the devil, demons, idols or the beast of Revelation. And the context of each is clear that it's improper.

3 cases where men or angels are proskuneoed, worshipped.

Cornelius fell down in Acts 10:25

Apostle John, fell down before the angel of Revelation in 19:10, 22:8

Both Cornelius and John were seriously reprimanded. Why?

Peter and the angel were not in a position to receive worship. No such thing is indicated with the Philadelphians. The fact that v. 21 says those who overcome will sit down in God's throne just as Christ has is pretty indicative of divinization, which would certainly put the Philadelphians in a position to receive worship.

2 cases where men receiving proskuneo, and not corrected

Rev 3:9 - forced by Jesus

Matthew 8:26 - "The slave therefore falling down, prostrated himself [ proskuneo ] before him, saying, 'Have patience with me, and I will repay you everything.'"

Now, you wouldn't argue that the slave in Jesus' Parable was worshiping his master as one worships God would you? Rather wouldn't you agree, that he's humbly pleading for his life?

Yeah, because that's what the context indicates. There is a secular usage for proskyneo. The usage in Rev 3:9 is absolutely not secular, though. It directly parallels the numerous religious uses of the term elsewhere.

[Hughes]

Peter and the angel were not in a position to receive worship. No such thing is indicated with the Philadelphians. The fact that v. 21 says those who overcome will sit down in God's throne just as Christ has is pretty indicative of divinization, which would certainly put the Philadelphians in a position to receive worship.

Yeah, because that's what the context indicates. There is a secular usage for proskyneo. The usage in Rev 3:9 is absolutely not secular, though. It directly parallels the numerous religious uses of the term elsewhere.

I agree, the context indicates what is happening, and how the word should be translated or used.

I asked a question, why was wrong to worship an angel or man?

You said, "Peter and the angel were not in a position to receive worship."

Yet, that isn't what the passages state. It says nothing about position or wait until later or anything of the sort.

Acts 10:25 "As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. 26 But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.”"

Here Peter says, "I am only a man myself." He indicates nothing about receiving worship in the future. Only that his being a man, means, I don't receive worship. Right? Isn't that what that passage is saying?

MAN= Doesn't Receive Worship

Pretty plain.

Further,

In Rev.22:9 "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!”"

The angel takes it further. Not only is he a fellow servant with John, but also with the prophets and *all* who keep the words of the scroll. Then he says Worship God. Which ironically is the same thing that Jesus said to Satan. Only difference is that Jesus said to Worship God alone!

Yet you argue that Rev. 3:9 is an example of Jesus forcing the Jews to worship the Philadelphians, based on verse 21, where Christ says, "To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne."

Which you argue means that those who are victorious is pretty indicative of divinization. Now here you make a leap that isn't in the passage at all, nor anywhere in the Bible for that matter. Let's back up for a second. Jesus has been worshiped as the Father is worshiped since he came to this earth. Then later, he sits at the right hand of the Father, and says to those who are victorious they will also sit with him. Yet, the striking difference is that we *have never* received worship. In fact, just the opposite. Jesus says to worship God only. The theme throughout the Biblical Text is worship God alone. Yet, you are making this leap based on what exactly?

Rather than make that leap, it seems that sitting next to Jesus as victors in Christ, is based solely on Christ alone, and not on anything intrinsic in ourselves. I'm sure it also has a deeper meaning, which I don't have time to study right now, but it's a gigantic leap to say that we are divinized somehow by our location.

[WalkerW]

Which you argue means that those who are victorious is pretty indicative of divinization. Now here you make a leap that isn't in the passage at all, nor anywhere in the Bible for that matter.

The leap isn't all that incredible really given that divinization was all over Judaism. In fact, it was the concept of divinization that led to Athanasius' position on the Trinity (the following is from my blog):

British philosopher Christopher Stead writes,

Christian writers naturally turned to the Bible for their teaching on the nature of God. But the use of it was often influenced by the philosophical thought of their own day. The Hebrews...pictured the God whom they worshipped as having a body and mind like our own, though trascending humanity in the splendour of his appearance, in his power, his wisdom, and the constancy of his care for his creatures. Such a conception, set out in the earlier books of the Old Testament, retained its authority despite some later changes of emphasis. But this biblical view...was radically modified in the teaching of Philo of Alexandria...[who] presents him as the metaphysical first principal of the universe, without bodily form or human passions, indeed without any sensible qualities: a perfectly simple, unchangeable, unfathomable being...Christian writers developed a broadly similar view, partly because they were influenced by the same philosophical authorities, partly through direct imitation of Philo himself. To this they added their doctrine of the Trinity... [1].

Jewish theologians didn't completely rid themselves of the concept of an anthropomorphic God until the 12th-13th century [2]. Even the anti-anthropomorphism of certain Christian philosophers provide evidence that early Christians believed in an anthropomorphic God [3]. Humans were the literal image of God and therefore partook (or at least had the potential to partake) in His divinity [4]. David Bentley Hart, an Eastern Orthodox philosopher (and, consequently, a Trinitarian), recognizes that the earliest Christians would have understood the cosmos to consist of a hierarchy of divine beings, with the Father being at the top as the Most High. Christ was therefore understood as a subordinate, second god:

[T]his secondary divine principle could be called God's "Son" or "Wisdom" or "Logos." The term "Logos" came to enjoy a special favor among Christians, as it had been adopted by the author of the prologue of John's Gospel to identify the pre-incarnate Christ...As a general rule, the "articular" form ho Theos-literally, "the God"-was a title reserved for God Most High or God the Father, while only the "inarticular" form theos was used to designate this secondary divinity. This distinction, in fact, is preserved in the prologue of John, whose first verse could justly be translated as: "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was a god." It was entirely natural, therefore, for many Christians...to think of Christ as the incarnation of this derivative divine being who, though he functions in all respects as God for us, is still a lesser being than the Father [5].

The Trinity, therefore, was not an original belief of Christianity. He goes on to explain the position of Arius (c. 250-336), who believed Jesus to be a created being, subordinate to the Father. It must be remembered that by this time, Christian philosophy and theology divided ontologically between God and the created order (and by created, they meant creatio ex nihilo or "creation out of nothing" - something that neither Mormonism or the Bible teaches). As Blake Ostler put it,

When we talk about one God in modern Christianity we begin with a basic fundamental assumption in all of Judeo-Christian-Islamic thought: it is that there is God and then there is everything else. I call this the assumption of metaphysical monotheism and this is the very fundamental point from which [other Christians] begin...and it is this assumption: There exists a simple, immaterial substance that is necessarily the sole instance of the kind "divine" and utterly unique in the sense that there are no other members in the class of being occupied by this simple substance; alone has ontologically necessary actuality; (that means God is the only one that can't fail to exist) and everything else that is actual in any way depends upon this simple substance for its actuality. What that means in shorthand term is, God created and everything else is created. It's that simple [6].

Therefore, to Arius, Jesus could not be divine in the same way the Father is. Hart explains why this was opposed, leading to the formulation of the Trinity:

Ultimately, though, the Arian position was untenable simply because it reduced to incoherence the Christian story of redemption as it had been understood, proclaimed, prayed, and lived for generations...For Athanasius, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and many others, it was first and foremost the question of salvation that must determine how the identity of Christ is to be conceived. And they understood salvation, it must be appreciated, not in the rather impoverished way of many modern Christians, as a kind of extrinsic legal transaction between the divine and human by which a debt is canceled and the redeemed soul issued a certificate of entry into the afterlife; rather they saw salvation as nothing less than a real and living union between God and his creatures. To be saved was to be joined to God himself in Christ, to be in fact "divinized"-which is to say, in the words of 2 Peter 1:4, to become "partakers of the divine nature." In a lapidary phrase favored, in one form or another, by a number of the church fathers, "God became man that man might become god." In Christ, the Nicene party believed, the human and divine had been joined together in a perfect and indissoluble unity, by participation in which human beings might be admitted to share in his divinity...Only God can join us to God. And so, if it is Christ who joins us to the Father, then Christ must himself be no less than God, and must be equal to the Father in divinity [7].

Another scholar writes, "A fully divine Saviour was needed to ensure the salvation of mankind, which was understood on both sides as an actual divinization, or exaltation to the level of Deity" [8]. He continues:

To assert that deification is incompatible with the Bible on the basis of the differentiation between the divine and human found therein is to impose an ontological standard on the text which was not there originally. Stauffer asserts that the Semitic concept of God has to do primarily with power, not metaphysical being. Immortality "is simply a presupposition of this lordship," so that "the emphasis is on the dynamic definition rather than the metaphysical." Although the Septuagint had greatly subdued the anthropomorphisms of the Hebrew Scriptures, "the personal nature of God" was very much "a living reality" to the earliest Christians. Matthew 5:48 calls God τελειος "not in the sense of metaphysical speculation, but in terms of moral perfection." God is "faithful," meaning that his goodness is unfailing, but nowhere is he described as "unchangeable" in an ontological sense. The glib assumption that the Bible's "sharp distinction" between God and man precludes deification is ill-conceived; in fact, this is an example of Greek philosophical metaphysics read into the text. The irony is that it was the Church Fathers themselves who worked at reconciling such philosophical principles with the biblical revelation, while at the same time they were expounding a soteriology of deification [9].

The doctrine of theosis can be found in the writings of early Christians such as St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, etc. Granted, it isn't exactly the same as Mormonism, mainly due to the differences between the concept of the Trinity and the concept of the Godhead:

The most profound difference between the doctrines of theosis and exaltation revolves around the way in which humans become divinized, or become gods. In the doctrine of theosis, divinization comes about through participation in the divine energies of the one divine nature, which divine nature is fully possessed by each of the three divine persons who comprise the Trinity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In the doctrine of exaltation, divinization comes about through growth of a capacity which is innate to the children born of Heavenly Parents—the Father and his eternal companion. This difference—the difference between participation and growth—can be rooted in two very different ontological understandings of divine nature and human nature [10].

In short,

[T]he doctrines of theosis and exaltation are functionally equivalent while being ontologically distinct. In other words, in both cases the results of human divinization are equivalent—humans come to possess divine qualities and attributes, a new manner of life, which they did not possess before and which they could not attain of their own volition. Yet the ways in which human divinization take place—in the case of theosis, through participation, and in the case of exaltation, through growth—are grounded in profoundly different ontological visions of human and divine nature [11].

Nevertheless, as Daniel Peterson said, "Now people have told me, 'Well your doctrine of deification is not exactly like that of the Early Christians.' To which I usually respond, 'Well your non-existent doctrine of deification is utterly unlike that of the Early Christians!'" [12] Vajda lists the following similarities between theosis and LDS exaltation: (1) terminology and attributes, (2) the centrality of Christ, (3) role of human works, (4) role of ritual, and (5) eternal progression. He concludes,

[T]he Mormons are truly "godmakers": as the doctrine of exaltation explains, the fullness of human salvation means "becoming a god." Yet what was meant to be a term of ridicule has turned out to be a term of approbation, for the witness of the Greek Fathers of the Church...is that they also believed that salvation meant "becoming a god." It seems that if one's soteriology cannot accommodate a doctrine of human divinization, then it has at least implicitly, if not explicitly, rejected the heritage of the early Christian church and departed from the faith of first millennium Christianity. However, if that is the case, those who would espouse such a soteriology also believe, in fact, that Christianity, from about the second century on, has apostatized and "gotten it wrong" on this core issue of human salvation. Thus, ironically, those who would excoriate Mormons for believing in the doctrine of exaltation actually agree with them that the early church experienced a "great apostasy" on fundamental doctrinal questions. And the supreme irony is that such persons should probably investigate the claims of the LDS Church, which proclaims that within itself is to be found the "restoration of all things" [13].

It is worth pointing out that Vajda wrote this while a Dominican priest. He has since joined the Church. So, next time you hear "but you believe you can become a god!!", remember that so did the earliest Christians. Ironically, it was this very belief that led to the finalization of the Trinity in the 4th century: the primary orthodoxy that defines supposed "true Christians."

UPDATE: William Hamblin provides this commentary on the Incarnation of the Word: "This is a fundamental concept: that Jesus, the preexistent divine Word, has become flesh (sarx), that is, a human being. The Greek term sarx means literally the meat, or fleshy part of a body, and hence, the body as a whole. It is sometimes used in the New Testament in opposition to spirit (pneuma), especially in Paul. This spirit-flesh duality is occasionally found in John (3:6, 6:63). Jesus' incarnation allows the complete fusion of the two. All of us, like Jesus, are born of the flesh, and all of us, through Jesus, can become born of the spirit (3:6). In a sense, the spirit becomes flesh so the flesh can become spirit." This last part reminds me of the Patristic "God became man that man might become god" as well as 3 Nephi 1:12-14 and Mosiah 15:1-4.

1. Stead, Philosophy in Christian Antiquity (Cambridge University Press, 1994): pg. 120.

2. See Shamma Friedman, "Anthropomorphism and Its Eradication" in Iconoclasm and Iconoclash: Struggle for Religious Identity, ed. W.J. van Asselt, Paul van Geest, Daniela Muller, Theo Salemink (Brill, 2007).

3. See David L. Paulsen, "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses," Harvard Theological Review 83:2 (1990); Carl W. Griffin and David L. Paulsen, "Augustine and the Corporeality of God," Harvard Theological Review 95:1 (2002); Paulsen, "The Doctrine of Divine Embodiment: Restoration, Judeo-Christian, and Philosophical Perspectives," BYU Studies 35:4 (1995-1996); Paulsen, "Divine Embodiment: The Earliest Christian Understanding of God," in Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy, ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS, 2005).

4. See David Bokovoy's enduring "'Ye Really Are Gods': A Response to Michael Heiser concerning the LDS Use of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John," FARMS Review 19:1 (2007).

5. Hart, Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies (Yale University Press, 2009): pg. 204.

6. Ostler, "The Fallacy of Fundamentalist Assumptions," Transcript of a presentation given at the 2005 FAIR Conference.

7. Hart, 2009: pgs. 205-206.

8. Keith Edward Norman, "Deification: The Context of Athanasian Soteriology," PhD dissertation, Duke University (1980).

9. Ibid. Deification (and thus a lack of metaphysical monotheism) can be found within Judaism as well. For example, after reviewing the "claims of the Hekhalot literature that a man, Enoch, ascended to heaven and was metamorphosed into Metatron, the 'little Yahweh'," Peter Hayman asks, "But how does this material square with the supposed transcendental monotheism of Judaism from the post-exilic period on? Not at all, as far as I can see!" (Hayman, "Monotheism: A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?" Journal of Jewish Studies 42:1, 1991: pg. 5).

10. Jordan Vajda, "'Partakers of the Divine Nature': A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization," Master's thesis, Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology (1998).

11. Ibid.

12. Peterson, "Autobiographical Notes on My Testimony," Transcript of a presentation given at the 2004 FAIR Conference.

13. Vajda, 1998.

[Vance]

I agree, the context indicates what is happening, and how the word should be translated or used.

So you PRESUME a difference and then with that PRESUMPTION you understand the context to be different, thus the difference in contexts supports your PRESUMPTION.

How is this NOT circular?

I asked a question, why was wrong to worship an angel or man?

Oh, I don't know, maybe,

TIMING!

They were (not yet) deified.

[WalkerW]

Volgadon actually pointed me to the following by Judah Goldin:

One particularly daring passage in the Sifra deserves more than paraphrase; it is the comment on “I will be ever present (

we-hithalakti

) in your midst” of Lev. 26:12 (and see also Deut. R. 1:12 and 5:8, 110c) :

It is to be expressed by means of parable; to what may this be likened? To a king who went out to stroll in his orchard (

pardes

[!]) with his tenant farmer, and [out of respect] that tenant kept hiding himself from the presence of the king. So the king said to that tenant, “Why do you hide from me? Behold, I, you- we’re alike!”

Similarly in the Age to Come the Holy One, blessed be He, will stroll with the righteous in the Garden of Eden, but when the righteous see Him they will tremble before Him; and the Holy One, blessed be He, will say to them, “Why is it that you tremble before me? Behold, I, you- we’re alike!”

Here is a dizzying prospect, God describing Himself as

hareini kayotzeh bachem

, I, you- we’re alike! (This may mean: You and I have the same interests, or, the same terms of praise are applied to God and to the righteous,) No wonder the Sifra adds immediately, “Is this to say that you will no longer have fear/reverence of Me? The verse [ibid.] reads, ‘I will [still] be your God, and you shall be my

people

.” (

Studies in Midrash and Related Literature

, pg. 369-370.)

As volgadon concludes, "That God and the righteous were alike and could be praised almost alike was not a repugnant sentiment to ancient Jewish monotheists."

[maklelan]

I agree, the context indicates what is happening, and how the word should be translated or used.

I asked a question, why was wrong to worship an angel or man?

You said, "Peter and the angel were not in a position to receive worship."

Yet, that isn't what the passages state. It says nothing about position or wait until later or anything of the sort.

Acts 10:25 "As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. 26 But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.”"

Here Peter says, "I am only a man myself." He indicates nothing about receiving worship in the future. Only that his being a man, means, I don't receive worship. Right? Isn't that what that passage is saying?

MAN= Doesn't Receive Worship

Pretty plain.

Further,

In Rev.22:9 "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!”"

The angel takes it further. Not only is he a fellow servant with John, but also with the prophets and *all* who keep the words of the scroll. Then he says Worship God. Which ironically is the same thing that Jesus said to Satan. Only difference is that Jesus said to Worship God alone!

Yet you argue that Rev. 3:9 is an example of Jesus forcing the Jews to worship the Philadelphians, based on verse 21, where Christ says, "To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne."

Which you argue means that those who are victorious is pretty indicative of divinization. Now here you make a leap that isn't in the passage at all, nor anywhere in the Bible for that matter. Let's back up for a second. Jesus has been worshiped as the Father is worshiped since he came to this earth. Then later, he sits at the right hand of the Father, and says to those who are victorious they will also sit with him. Yet, the striking difference is that we *have never* received worship. In fact, just the opposite. Jesus says to worship God only. The theme throughout the Biblical Text is worship God alone. Yet, you are making this leap based on what exactly?

Rather than make that leap, it seems that sitting next to Jesus as victors in Christ, is based solely on Christ alone, and not on anything intrinsic in ourselves. I'm sure it also has a deeper meaning, which I don't have time to study right now, but it's a gigantic leap to say that we are divinized somehow by our location.

I think it's abundantly clear that no amount of rational discussion is going crack this dilettantish shell you've constructed around this argument, and it's becoming obvious to me that these discussion boards are providing little else. I think I'm done here.

[thews]

No. Mormonism still accepts the central tenent of Christian faith- the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Given the question asked and the argument presented, Judaism rejects the new Testament... no?

[volgadon]

Given the question asked and the argument presented, Judaism rejects the new Testament... no?

Are you seriously asking me this? Does Christianity accept the Quran?

[thews]

You said...

No. Mormonism still accepts the central tenent of Christian faith- the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Are you seriously asking me this? Does Christianity accept the Quran?

You're answering my question with a question. Yes, I'm seriously asking you this. I'm not asking what they share in common (I'm a Christian and a critic by the way), but what they have in common regarding the difference in definition?

[volgadon]

You said...

You're answering my question with a question. Yes, I'm seriously asking you this. I'm not asking what they share in common (I'm a Christian and a critic by the way), but what they have in common regarding the difference in definition?

Sorry, I really don't understand your question at all.

Perhaps this answers your question, but it is a shot in the dark.

Judaism rejects the New Testament and the divinity of Christ. Mormonism accepts both.

I find it shocking that you would have to ask.

[urroner]

The Coptic Bible is an interesting discussion when it comes to interpreting John 1:1. Remember, in the KJV, John 1:1 reads: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." It seems pretty straight forward here, the Word was in the beginning and this Word was with God (Note the capital "G.") and this Word was God (Once again, please note the capital "G.") Later in John, it is laid out that this Word was/is Jesus. So Jesus was with God and is God. Sounds kind of Trinitarianistic to me.

But, is that what John 1:1 is really trying to tell us? Well, maybe in the English version, but definitely not in the Sahidic translation of John 1:1. (Note: I am not a scholar of ancient languages, I can barely speak English without confusing myself. All the logic I'm using here is what I have learnt in my "studies.")

I don't know how old the manuscripts are that the Coptic version of John 1:1 are, but I understand that they are some of the oldest we currently have.

John 1:1 read in the Coptic :In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word existed with God, and the Word was a God. http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/coptic/coptjohn.shtml

In most ancient languages, from what I understand, there are no capital letters, so "God" in both cases could have been translated as "god." Another way I have seen it translated is "In the beginning the Word existed. The Word existed in the presence of God, and the Word was a divine being." It seem here that the Word was not God or "the god," rather the Word was with "the god/God" and was "a god," or a subordinate being to "the god/God."

Again, from what I have heard, Greek is similar to this translation also.

From http://coptictextcrit.blogspot.com/

Unlike the other two ancient textual witnesses, the Latin and Syriac texts, the Sahidic Coptic version was composed in a language that has both the definite and indefinite grammatical articles. The Coptic usage of the articles is similar to English, varying with respect to abstract nouns. But there are no abstract nouns at John 1:1c, only common nouns, so this difference between the Coptic usage of the articles and the English use does not apply to this verse.

The Coptic form of John 1:1c does not support a definite reading for καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος , such as “the Word was God.” The Coptic translators could have written ΝЄ ΠΝΟΥΤΕ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ, “the Word was God,” if that is what their understanding of living Koine Greek dictated. But they did not write that. Rather, they translated the Greek of John 1:1c to say ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ, i.e. “the Word was a god.”

Whereas a Coptic noun in the predicate can also have descriptive (adjectival) significance, the essential meaning of Coptic John 1:1c would not change. Descriptively, Sahidic Coptic ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤΕ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ can be translated as "the Word was divine" or "the Word was a divine one." Denotatively, Sahidic Coptic ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ can be translated as "the Word was a god," and this is the general sense of Coptic predicate common nouns.

Note that whether descriptive or denotative, the Sahidic Coptic common noun with the indefinite article can be rendered into standard English with the English indefinite article: "a divine one; a god." -- Bentley Layton, A Coptic Grammar, 2nd Edition (Harrassowitz Verlag, 2004), page 227.

[thews]

Sorry, I really don't understand your question at all.

Perhaps this answers your question, but it is a shot in the dark.

Judaism rejects the New Testament and the divinity of Christ. Mormonism accepts both.

I find it shocking that you would have to ask.

What is so shocking? i don't mean to offend you, but the doctrines each religion accepts are different. Your answer defined what Mormonism accepts, but fails to address what defines a religion based on what it rejects.

[volgadon]

What is so shocking?

What is so shocking? That you would have to ask about such an issue. This isn't some obscure point, such as the halachic debate over the propriety of picking one's nose on the Sabbath ( R. Ovadiah Yosef says no), but a major and fundamental aspect of a major religion. It is akin to asking if Christians accept the Quran.

i don't mean to offend you, but the doctrines each religion accepts are different. Your answer defined what Mormonism accepts, but fails to address what defines a religion based on what it rejects.

Judaim doesn't define itself by a rejection of Christ and the New Testament. Judaism defines itself by its acceptance of two sets of divine laws- the written and the oral Torot. Judaim's rejection of Christ and the New Testament is what makes it not Christian.

[volgadon]

In context, one is forbidden the other is encouraged.

So in other words, no, the only difference is in the recipient. Basically then there is no difference.