Greek New Testament: Strategic Changes on Ideological Grounds

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

With the divide between genus deus and genus homo being infinitely vast, it's likewise unthinkable for One Who is of one substance with the Father to participate profoundly and intimately in the human condition by fathering children.

Fully human seems to cover the possibility to me. Also the belief that Jesus got all his DNA from Mary so no need to speculate about passing on divinity, it being something different than humanity.  Conception appears to me to be viewed as holy, at least by Catholics given their views on birth control and abortion.

Misere or 3DOP can correct me (or other Trinitarian), but it sounds like a faulty argument to me.

Edited June 28, 2019 by Calm

[3DOP]

Sorry to be late to the fun discussion among friends who have violent disagreements...My last post did not consider any but the first post.

But I see USU, who I admire as much as any mortal on this board, thinks that one who was married could not be worthy of veneration, according to his warped view that mixes Manichaeism with Catholicism to produce hatred for flesh. Jesus was flesh. We are not Manichees. Today is the Feast of the Sacred Heart. We are heart worshippers. Flesh worshippers. If we can worship a Heart, even with a capital "H", then marriage is probably no impediment to sanctity.

Edited June 28, 2019 by 3DOP

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Just to clarify, the immaculate conception is Mary being born without original sin. The Catholic Church does not claim that she was of a virgin birth -- she has a father (Joachim) and a mother (Anne).

I have to admit the immaculate conception of Mary.......I don’t get it. How it was supposed to work, how it is doctrinally supported, or why it is philosophically required.

[USU78]

8 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Sorry to be late to the fun discussion among friends who have violent disagreements...My last post did not consider any but the first post.

But I see USU, who I admire as much as any mortal on this board, thinks that one who was married could not be worthy of veneration, according to his warped view that mixes Manichaeism with Catholicism to produce hatred for flesh. Jesus was flesh. We are not Manichees. Today is the Feast of the Sacred Heart. We are heart worshippers. Flesh worshippers. If we can worship a Heart, even with a capital "H", then marriage is probably no impediment to sanctity.

I'm here to be taught, sen-sen.

[3DOP]

26 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I don't understand the problem either, and it's been 20-odd years since I looked at this stuff.  There's obviously some miso-soup-gyny going on, with all that "defiling Himself with womankind" being unthinkable, but that isn't all.  With the divide between genus deus and genus homo being infinitely vast, it's likewise unthinkable for One Who is of one substance with the Father to participate profoundly and intimately in the human condition by fathering children.  They didn't think like we do.

Did I get it right that time, Misere?

No. You didn't even get his name right. Miserere, for mercy. Heh. Not Misery. Jesus HAD to participate most profoundly in the human condition. Whether He fathered children, or practised abstinence until He died at 33, He experienced the human condition. Of course. He was human. He is human. He hungered and He slept. That is more universal than marriage. Did he avoid sleeping and eating which is "to participate profoundly and intimately in the human condition". No, silly. Of course you are right that we are inconsistent and apostate. I am content if you do not know why or how. I always have modest aims.

Regards,

R

Edited June 28, 2019 by 3DOP

[USU78]

18 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

No. You didn't even get his name right. Miserere, for mercy. Heh. Not Misery. Jesus HAD to participate most profoundly in the human condition. Whether He fathered children, or practised abstinence until He died at 33, He experienced the human condition. Of course. He was human. He is human. He hungered and He slept. That is more universal than marriage. Did he avoid sleeping and eating which is "to participate profoundly and intimately in the human condition". No, silly. Of course you are right that we are inconsistent and apostate. I am content if you do not know why or how. I always have modest aims.

Regards,

R

Perhaps you could explain why it was, to those folks in that time, important that the Master have no siblings and that He not be married.  I confess my ignorance.  I, ultimately, don't really care about the issues, I'm just trying to answer questions folks have posed, from my limited acquaintance with the subject matter.

And I concede the variant texts could just as easily have been the result of scribal foul-ups rather than intentional deletions, etc. 

[3DOP]

47 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Perhaps you could explain why it was, to those folks in that time, important that the Master have no siblings and that He not be married.  I confess my ignorance.  I, ultimately, don't really care about the issues, I'm just trying to answer questions folks have posed, from my limited acquaintance with the subject matter.

And I concede the variant texts could just as easily have been the result of scribal foul-ups rather than intentional deletions, etc. 

We hold that Marriage is a sacrament and therefore obviously a great good and a source of actual grace. It is the vehicle that most folks that get there, ride to heaven. But for some, only to those who have the gift, the minority, the sacrifice of that great and legitimate, and for most, necessary good, is meritorious. Deliberate, consecrated celibacy is like the Cross. It is to voluntarily give up your life.

"... there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it." (Mt. 19:12)

See the rest of the text. There is nothing meritorious about being born unable to marry, or, God forbid, to be made by men (or yourself) unable to marry. It emphatically does not mean that one can mutilate themselves so as to be incapable. From what I understand, this is why the great and very devout scholar Origen, was unqualified to be considered for canonization. Celibacy is only meritorious for those who are able to marry, who for faith in God, turn away from the most chaste and healthy desires, to offer up marriage in this life as a holocaust, pleasing to God. I think this is a brief but Catholic understanding of the text. See how our good Lord is careful to not bind everyone to this difficult precept. It is explicitly not a commandment. It is rather a privilege, a calling for some few, who can "take it". 

And so, in answer to your question why it was "to those folks in that time, important that the Master have no siblings and that He not be married"? It is no different than to me today. Consecrated celibacy is for the privileged few. Would the Word made flesh, God's only begotten Son, be unable to meet this difficult precept, that He describes as a greater good for others? Whether we are married or not, the human condition involves chastity. What man desired by woman or woman desired by man would elect to be celibate for the kingdom, if even Jesus wasn't? If Jesus and Mary were only able to stay chaste through marriage, then true humility should probably preclude anybody else for presuming to make such a sacrifice. And what do we say then, to those who find no one of the opposite sex, whose "sacrifice" is involuntary? God forbid we tell them to satisfy themselves. They need an example too.

The idea does not seem to have taken much root in Jesus' Jewish faith. Mt. 19:12 is however foreshadowed in Is. 56:4, 5

"For thus saith the Lord to the eunuchs, They that shall keep my sabbaths, and shall choose the things that please me, and shall hold fast my covenant:  I will give to them in my house, and within my walls, a place, and a name better than sons and daughters: I will give them an everlasting name which shall never perish."

We believe that this would reflect a future promise to the priests, and sisters, and brothers, who could have enjoyed sacramental marriage, but were allowed to reach for an even higher calling, with Jesus, and Mary, and Joseph as their examples.       

Edited June 28, 2019 by 3DOP

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I honestly don't have a good theory there. My basic conception is that the leadership simply died off after Peter and James were killed. John infamously is a weird case. But if there wasn't someone ordained with the full authority ala Peter or James what happens when they die? 

.........................................when the bishops die off, they may choose new ones, but it's no longer done with authority.

It doesn't seem likely to me that no one had apostolic authority when James died, followed by the demise of several other apostles.  Seems to me that replacements would be appointed all along.  In fact the RC Church has a line of authority.  Perhaps loss of priesthood came via rejection by apostles of some central doctrines, without which the Church could not remain authentic.  Apostasy had always come into Israel via the ruling houses (royalty and priestly) rejecting the will of God.  Indeed, the King and HP did not accept criticism from the Classic Prophets, and so all Israel went into Exile.  First the 10 Northern Tribes, then Judah & Benjamin.  Why would the Christian Church be any different?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

You didn't even get his name right. 

It's a nickname (I am notorious around the family for shortening names too far.  Took me a couple of years to stop chopping the last half off of my daughter-in-law's name once I found out she didn't like it).

It makes a big difference with Miserere (3 e's, 2r's...maybe that will help me remember), so my apologies and will try and remember...if I don't, scold me again.  Names are important and should be done right.

Edited June 29, 2019 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

It's a nickname (I am notorious around the family for shortening names too far.  Took me a couple of years to stop chopping the last half off of my daughter-in-law's name once I found out she didn't like it).

It makes a big difference with Miserere (3 e's, 2r's...maybe that will help me remember), so my apologies and will try and remember...if I don't, scold me again.  Names are important and should be done right.

It’s a long Latin name that means “have mercy on us” and is a part of many Catholic prayers. I don’t care one way or another. Ya’ll can call me Jesse if you want 😊

[USU78]

6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

It’s a long Latin name that means “have mercy on us” and is a part of many Catholic prayers. I don’t care one way or another. Ya’ll can call me Jesse if you want 😊

Hey, Jess!

[MiserereNobis]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Hey, Jess!

Hey now, I said Jesse, not Jess. I may not care about how many E's people put in my screen name, but I sure care about those E's in my real name  

[USU78]

25 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Hey now, I said Jesse, not Jess. I may not care about how many E's people put in my screen name, but I sure care about those E's in my real name  

Well ... you can call me Scrawny Ronnie. My nickname on USU's first JV football team.

[Stargazer]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

It's a nickname (I am notorious around the family for shortening names too far.  Took me a couple of years to stop chopping the last half off of my daughter-in-law's name once I found out she didn't like it).

It makes a big difference with Miserere (3 e's, 2r's...maybe that will help me remember), so my apologies and will try and remember...if I don't, scold me again.  Names are important and should be done right.

Call me anything you like, just don't call me late to dinner...

[3DOP]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

It's a nickname (I am notorious around the family for shortening names too far.  Took me a couple of years to stop chopping the last half off of my daughter-in-law's name once I found out she didn't like it).

It makes a big difference with Miserere (3 e's, 2r's...maybe that will help me remember), so my apologies and will try and remember...if I don't, scold me again.  Names are important and should be done right.

Hi calm.

Heh...Sorry, I missed that you also said Misere. I was giving USU "the business". I call you "Cal" and I guess that's okay. I think I even used your old full name from ZLMB a while back. It makes me feel like old friends to use old nicknames from our youths. Heh.

Stericycle

Edited June 29, 2019 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

On 6/28/2019 at 4:07 PM, USU78 said:

Perhaps you could explain why it was, to those folks in that time, important that the Master have no siblings and that He not be married.  I confess my ignorance.  I, ultimately, don't really care about the issues, I'm just trying to answer questions folks have posed, from my limited acquaintance with the subject matter.

And I concede the variant texts could just as easily have been the result of scribal foul-ups rather than intentional deletions, etc. 

I have offered secondary reasons for why it might have been fitting that our Lord be celibate, and that Joseph and Mary decided to be celibate.

The main reason why I think it was "to those folks in that time, important that the Master have no siblings and that He not be married," was because they believed that it was true according to Apostolic Tradition.

 

[3DOP]

On 6/28/2019 at 11:45 AM, USU78 said:

Eisenman went on and on about it, as I recall.  I don't have my book any more.  A certain attorney friend of mine who happens to be pretty widely published on LDS/philosophy issues asked to borrow it almost 20 years ago.  I called him a couple of times to get it back.  He was still working with it each time.  I gave up.  I'm not entirely sure of the ownership of a whole bunch of the books on my own shelves and in boxes in my storage area.  I'm in no position to cast aspersions.

I don't remember his sources.  The argument, as I recall, went like this:  He cannot have had a spouse because (a) even the angels don't marry and aren't given in marriage, and they aren't even of the genus deus, and it's unthinkable that He, being much higher and of the genus deus with the Father and the Spirit would marry, and  (b) He was not subject to original sin, being of one substance with the Father, and would/could not defile Himself with womankind.

Then there's the issue of Mary being a lifelong virgin and, according to some, being of a virgin birth herself (immaculate conception).  If she herself were born without original sin because of her immaculate conception, and Christ was born not subject to original sin because His birth was immaculate itself, with His vessel (Mary) being immaculate, then she (Mary) could not have lowered herself to participate in the flesh by submitting herself to Joseph and giving birth to James, Joses, et al.  Holy Writ be verflucht!  Don't trust your lying eyes!  We've got a perfectly elegant syllogism going here!

If it is to defile yourself to marry, then consecrated celibacy isn't even a sacrifice to us. We would be like the Shakers and Albigenses who thought marital union was evil. To us marriage is a holy Sacrament and source of grace. We HAVE to hold that marriage is one of the very greatest good gifts of God to His children. You can't offer up that which is defiled to God; even the animals have to be the most perfect. The basis for consecrated celibacy cannot have a foundation in ideas about marital union being icky or sinful. Its foundation must be from the goodness, and not some kind of cruddiness about marital union.

That it is for traditional Catholics difficult to think that Joseph should have had children with Mary stems not from any ideas of defilement. The Blessed Body of our Lord and God had dwelt in Mary's womb. That womb becomes a most sacred and hallowed place, if you will. It seems fitting to us if Joseph and Mary, in consideration of the wonders that they beheld in the virginal conception and birth of the Son of God, and their Redeemer, should choose to refrain from using their ordinary good privileges and rights. We think they thought it best if the House of God should remain ever-virgin, as the Apostolic Tradition suggests.   

[Calm]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

It makes me feel like old friends to use old nicknames from our youths. Heh.

Me too.  Though with the rest I shortened it is just a habit of laziness for me.  

[clarkgoble]

On 6/28/2019 at 3:48 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

It doesn't seem likely to me that no one had apostolic authority when James died, followed by the demise of several other apostles.  Seems to me that replacements would be appointed all along.

That depends upon how chaotic things were around the time of Vespasian's military actions. While I think Christians (and Mormons) tended to emphasize 70 AD as the disasporah rather than the more accurate later date of the Bar Kokhba revolt culminating in 136 AD, there still would have been a lot of issues for early Christians. That's arguably when the cultural divide between Jewish Christians and "gentile" Christians arises. (I put gentiles in quotes since some Jewish people would move towards more gentile practices and a break from continuing Jewish practices - particularly since the temple was gone) There's clear incentives to avoid being seen as Jewish changing Christian practice and society. While Nero's persecutions have been very exaggerated by later Christians, clearly there were some issues there prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and continuing onwards even after Nero's death with Domitian. (The figure some see as the target of Revelation)

If things were that chaotic, you can see apostles remaining in hiding and having a difficult time organizing. If the leadership (Peter, James) are dead then that can cause chaos. As I mentioned from our perspective John would be the key figure. That has the danger our reading succession after Brigham Young into the early church. (Arguably it has different succession if James succeeds Peter despite being called well after John) 

Also Nibley's thesis is that it was the head of the Church being told to not pass on all the authority, knowledge or keys that ultimatley matters. In that case it's quite possible Peter was the first and last head of the Church.

There's not a lot of textual basis to really say. The 1st century suffers from a paucity of texts. We know little about Church structure. However I think it pretty plausible that we could have the apostasy starting around 70 AD. The analogy I'd make is what if the persecutions after Joseph's murder increased and Brigham Young and many of the apostles died before making public the inner teachings of Nauvoo? I think we'd end up with something very similar to what I'm suggesting happened in the 1st century. You then might have the inner teachings ending up in a break off group in a distorted form. What remains is the RLDS who expunge the inner teachings as heresies. That sort of thing seems pretty plausible in the 1st century. (IMO)

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

That depends upon how chaotic things were around the time of Vespasian's military actions. While I think Christians (and Mormons) tended to emphasize 70 AD as the disasporah rather than the more accurate later date of the Bar Kokhba revolt culminating in 136 AD, there still would have been a lot of issues for early Christians. That's arguably when the cultural divide between Jewish Christians and "gentile" Christians arises. (I put gentiles in quotes since some Jewish people would move towards more gentile practices and a break from continuing Jewish practices - particularly since the temple was gone) There's clear incentives to avoid being seen as Jewish changing Christian practice and society. While Nero's persecutions have been very exaggerated by later Christians, clearly there were some issues there prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and continuing onwards even after Nero's death with Domitian. (The figure some see as the target of Revelation)

If things were that chaotic, you can see apostles remaining in hiding and having a difficult time organizing. If the leadership (Peter, James) are dead then that can cause chaos. As I mentioned from our perspective John would be the key figure. That has the danger our reading succession after Brigham Young into the early church. (Arguably it has different succession if James succeeds Peter despite being called well after John) 

Also Nibley's thesis is that it was the head of the Church being told to not pass on all the authority, knowledge or keys that ultimatley matters. In that case it's quite possible Peter was the first and last head of the Church.

There's not a lot of textual basis to really say. The 1st century suffers from a paucity of texts. We know little about Church structure. However I think it pretty plausible that we could have the apostasy starting around 70 AD. The analogy I'd make is what if the persecutions after Joseph's murder increased and Brigham Young and many of the apostles died before making public the inner teachings of Nauvoo? I think we'd end up with something very similar to what I'm suggesting happened in the 1st century. You then might have the inner teachings ending up in a break off group in a distorted form. What remains is the RLDS who expunge the inner teachings as heresies. That sort of thing seems pretty plausible in the 1st century. (IMO)

None of those scenarios seem plausible to me.  After the exit of Judas, action is taken to successfully replace him.  I see no reason for that not to continue.  Particularly since we have the Seventy then, and we know a good deal about organized early Jewish Christian churches.  Decades passed with the apostles and seventies teaching and preaching.  To assume that it had no effect is to ignore ante-Nicene literature entirely.  We know that things were well organized and effective, despite persecution.  The same could be said of rabbinic Judaism, and there's this from Eusebius:

Quote

https://www.baslibrary.org/biblical-archaeology-review/39/3/1 ,

On the eve of its destruction, the followers of Jesus, later to be known as Christians, fled from Jerusalem to Pella on the other side of the Jordan River, according to the fourth-century church historian Eusebius of Caesarea:

“When the people of the church in Jerusalem were instructed by an oracular revelation delivered to worthy men there to move away from the city and to live in a city of Peraea called Pella, the believers in Christ migrated from Jerusalem to that place.”  Ecclesiastical History 3.5.3. To the same effect: Epiphanius, the late-fourth century Bishop of Salamis in Adversus Haereses. Panarion 29:7:7–8.

Christian churches were located  all over the Roman Empire, and they prospered.  Puzzling out what went wrong is a mystery, but there are no easy answers.

[MiserereNobis]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Also Nibley's thesis is that it was the head of the Church being told to not pass on all the authority, knowledge or keys that ultimatley matters. In that case it's quite possible Peter was the first and last head of the Church.

This is intriguing. Why would God set up His Church and then intentionally ruin it?

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Christian churches were located  all over the Roman Empire, and they prospered.  Puzzling out what went wrong is a mystery, but there are no easy answers.

Thank you for acknowledging this. Obviously the idea of the great apostasy is one that Catholics and LDS will never agree on (since it is foundational to both our beliefs), but I think LDS sometimes too easily dismiss the early Christian Church, as if the apostasy is an obvious thing. I wonder how the Christian martyrs, being fed to lions for entertainment, being roasted on gridirons, being dismembered, being crucified, being raped and violated and tortured, would feel about the too often flippant dismissal of their religion as being corrupt and apostate.

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Thank you for acknowledging this. Obviously the idea of the great apostasy is one that Catholics and LDS will never agree on (since it is foundational to both our beliefs), but I think LDS sometimes too easily dismiss the early Christian Church, as if the apostasy is an obvious thing. I wonder how the Christian martyrs, being fed to lions for entertainment, being roasted on gridirons, being dismembered, being crucified, being raped and violated and tortured, would feel about the too often flippant dismissal of their religion as being corrupt and apostate.

Yes , and not all Christians were being martyred. Also, the Great Apostasy is not an LDS claim about all aspects of religion, but rather is restricted to loss of authority.  Certainly there were heresies, as Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon, made clear, but much of that is overblown.  A lot of good, sincere Christians were deeply moved by the teachings of the Apostles, and carried on those teachings throughout the Empire.  In fact, the notion of the sacred Magisterium makes good sense.

The LDS claim is that something went terribly wrong, but just what is a mystery.  Hugh Nibley pointed out the dire circumstances in his "The Passing of the Church: Forty Variations on an Unpopular Theme," https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol16/iss1/13/ .

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is intriguing. Why would God set up His Church and then intentionally ruin it?

Of course, He would not.  Some other mechanism had to be at work.

[mfbukowski]

On 6/29/2019 at 3:10 PM, 3DOP said:

We think they thought it best if the House of God should remain ever-virgin, as the Apostolic Tradition suggests.   

Celibacy was established in 1139