the Quran

[David Waltz]

Hello again Mark,

Thanks much for taking the time to respond to my—and Fleming’s—musings. (Hope you know that know that I was engaged in hyperbole when I suggested the reassessment…)

You wrote:

>>I am virually[sic] positive that Joseph was not acquainted with Plato.>>

Certainly, not directly; but Fleming proposes that he may have been exposed to “Christian Platonism” through Mosheim’s history.

>>There are many possible "sources" available, most widely attributed to Masonic rituals, for LDS temple rituals to which Joseph MIGHT have "gravitated".>>

As you well know, there have been numerous proposed theories concerning, “possible ‘sources’ available” to Joseph; Fleming’s theory is just one of many. Personally, I am more inclined to lean towards why me's "simple version...he received revelation and support from Heavenly Father and acted on it.”

Concerning source theories, I have never been a fan of parallelomania; and this, whether with reference to the Bible, Book of Mormon, LDS origins, Christian origins, the Quran, et al.

I think we all need to be very discerning with proposed similarities—especially so concerning Greek philosophy.

 

Grace and peace,

David

[theplains]

On 11/22/2021 at 7:27 PM, poptart said:

Anyone ever read it?

Yes.  It really is much different than the Bible.  A good comparison is found in this
Amazon book - Quran Bible Comparison - by Ami Ben-Chanan. It lets you browse
the first few topics.

[3DOP]

On 11/28/2021 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

I know I'm not Mark (at least not the last time I checked ), but I have studied this topic to some degree. 

The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo was developed in reaction to the influences of Gnosticism.  The topic has been written about extensively in recent years, by both LDS and Non-LDS scholars.  Even as far back as 1991, Peter Hayman wrote:  "Nearly all recent studies on the origin of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo have come to the conclusion that this doctrine is not native to Judaism, is nowhere attested in the Hebrew Bible, and probably arose in Christianity in the second century C.E. in the course of its fierce battle with Gnosticism."  (See Peter Hayman, "Monotheism - a Misused Word in Jewish Studies?", Journal of Jewish Studies, Spring, 1991, p. 3)

As for the notion that belief in pre-existent matter predominated Greek philosophy, Justin Martyr taught that Plato borrowed his ideas on that topic from Moses, and listed the doctrine that God created all things out of "unformed matter" among the teachings that were "received by tradition":

And:

Even Tertullian had to take the more ancient usage into account when arguing for the new doctrine:

Wisdom 11:18 (or Wisdom of Solomon 11:17, depending on your Bible version) states that the "almighty hand... made the world of matter without form".  And it is generally understood that the verse you quoted from 2 Maccabees 7:28 (you wrote 7:23 but meant 7:28) is speaking in relative terms (similar to how it is expressed by Tertullian, above - "they were not what they are").  It indicates a creation "out of nothing" as understood in Biblical terms, that is, from matter that is "without form and void".

For two examples of studies that have addressed this topic from an LDS point of view, see:

Keith Norman, "Ex Nihilo: The Development of the Doctrines of God and Creation in early Christianity", BYU Studies, 17, no. 3 (Spring 1977).

Blake T. Ostler, "Out of Nothing: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought", Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Volume 17, Number 2 (2005).

Edited to say...I thought I decided to wait until today to finish my post. Instead I put up nihilo!

InCognitus, hi.

You wrote: "As for the notion that belief in pre-existent matter predominated Greek philosophy, Justin Martyr taught that Plato borrowed his ideas on that topic from Moses, and listed the doctrine that God created all things out of "unformed matter" among the teachings that were "received by tradition."

St. Justin's speculations about Plato borrowing from Moses with regards to the views of the former on material creation seems dubious. More dubious, is that the early Church borrowed from any Greeks, and especially so they could be creatio ex nihilo. So far, according to what is being said, Moses, St. Justin, and Plato all disagree with creatio ex nihilo! How does that amount to the desire to corrupt the true Christian teaching about creation by means of Greek philosophy?

What is "hellenism"? As used by LDS, it seems to mean a malicious desire on the part of Church leaders to corrupt the true doctrine, and to substitute a philosophy that is contrary to the teaching of the Apostles. If anyone can offer a plausible reason why the Church fathers were so desperate to jettison the clear teaching of the Apostles, I would be curious to hear it. 

I find it interesting that LDS think the Scriptures clearly teach something that the early Church began to oppose. Why then were these teachings, so clearly stated according to LDS, not censored by the same apostate Church? There was no canon of Scripture at the time of the Council of Nicea. A little editing, and a little excising could have taken care of the whole "problem". I am asked to believe that they were so corrupt as to deliberately falsify Apostolic teaching, while at the same time so stupid, as to leave all evidence to the contrary. For sake of discussion, I am not proposing creatio ex nihilo is true. I am proposing that it can be reconciled with the Scriptures that the Catholic church canonized and preserved. And it can be reconciled with the traditions received from the Apostolic times.

The question that needs to be answered involves what kind of being God is. Does matter precede God or does God precede matter? A Catholic can believe everything that Moses, Plato, and St. Justin believed. God created the material universe out of matter that was “without form and void”. But which came first? Matter or God?

“Moses said to God: Lo, I shall go to the children of Israel, and say to them: The God of your fathers hath sent me to you. If they should say to me: What is his name? what shall I say to them? said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you.” (Ex. 3:13, 14, caps in the Douay-Rheims translation)

Would a "god" who is dependent on pre-existent matter for his own existence, express himself like that? There is no reason to imagine that "hellenization" in the pejorative sense, is the reason for this alleged corruption of the Apostolic teaching, when we have to deal with an enigmatic expression (to those who don't accept it) repeated twice at the Burning Bush and once by the Son in the Gospel of St. John: "Before Abraham was I AM".

I propose that it was not necessarily philosophy that led to the development of the Catholic belief in creatio ex nihilo. This is a modest claim. I suggest that it is a bold claim, that cannot be maintained, to insist that the reason the Catholic Church embraced creatio ex nihilo was certainly from a corrupt desire to adhere to false philosophy (hellenism), at the expense of the Traditions and Scriptures that had been passed down to them. 

Rory   

Edited December 5, 2021 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

On 12/2/2021 at 11:35 AM, David Waltz said:

Personally, I am more inclined to lean towards why me's "simple version...he received revelation and support from Heavenly Father and acted on it.”

I agree

Sophisticated theories about revelation go back at least to Zoroaster even though Zoroaster existed 1000 years or so BEFORE Plato. 

If there was influence, it could have come from anywhere 

We have Parmenides from whom Plato learned much.

Pythagoras?

Was The Buddha influenced by Plato? Meditation of course is the path to enlightenment.

And later, Mohammed?

Even tribal religions believe in techniques which allow them to be "possessed" by the gods.

I guess the theory is possible, but I find it very unlikely

The idea was everywhere in the ancient world.

I could very easily be persuaded that Zoroaster was a genuine prophet, whose dispensation to the Persians, not unlike Lehi's mission to the Lamanites, eventually apostatized.

It is said that the "magi" who came seeking the messiah were in fact Zoroastrians

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahura_Mazda#:~:text=According to Zoroastrian tradition%2C at,of the "Good Religion" later

Edited December 5, 2021 by mfbukowski

[3DOP]

On 12/4/2021 at 4:37 PM, 3DOP said:

Edited to say...I thought I decided to wait until today to finish my post. Instead I put up nihilo!

InCognitus, hi.

You wrote: "As for the notion that belief in pre-existent matter predominated Greek philosophy, Justin Martyr taught that Plato borrowed his ideas on that topic from Moses, and listed the doctrine that God created all things out of "unformed matter" among the teachings that were "received by tradition."

St. Justin's speculations about Plato borrowing from Moses with regards to the views of the former on material creation seems dubious. More dubious, is that the early Church borrowed from any Greeks, and especially so they could be creatio ex nihilo. So far, according to what is being said, Moses, St. Justin, and Plato all disagree with creatio ex nihilo! How does that amount to the desire to corrupt the true Christian teaching about creation by means of Greek philosophy?

What is "hellenism"? As used by LDS, it seems to mean a malicious desire on the part of Church leaders to corrupt the true doctrine, and to substitute a philosophy that is contrary to the teaching of the Apostles. If anyone can offer a plausible reason why the Church fathers were so desperate to jettison the clear teaching of the Apostles, I would be curious to hear it. 

I find it interesting that LDS think the Scriptures clearly teach something that the early Church began to oppose. Why then were these teachings, so clearly stated according to LDS, not censored by the same apostate Church? There was no canon of Scripture at the time of the Council of Nicea. A little editing, and a little excising could have taken care of the whole "problem". I am asked to believe that they were so corrupt as to deliberately falsify Apostolic teaching, while at the same time so stupid, as to leave all evidence to the contrary. For sake of discussion, I am not proposing creatio ex nihilo is true. I am proposing that it can be reconciled with the Scriptures that the Catholic church canonized and preserved. And it can be reconciled with the traditions received from the Apostolic times.

The question that needs to be answered involves what kind of being God is. Does matter precede God or does God precede matter? A Catholic can believe everything that Moses, Plato, and St. Justin believed. God created the material universe out of matter that was “without form and void”. But which came first? Matter or God?

“Moses said to God: Lo, I shall go to the children of Israel, and say to them: The God of your fathers hath sent me to you. If they should say to me: What is his name? what shall I say to them? said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you.” (Ex. 3:13, 14, caps in the Douay-Rheims translation)

Would a "god" who is dependent on pre-existent matter for his own existence, express himself like that? There is no reason to imagine that "hellenization" in the pejorative sense, is the reason for this alleged corruption of the Apostolic teaching, when we have to deal with an enigmatic expression (to those who don't accept it) repeated twice at the Burning Bush and once by the Son in the Gospel of St. John: "Before Abraham was I AM".

I propose that it was not necessarily philosophy that led to the development of the Catholic belief in creatio ex nihilo. This is a modest claim. I suggest that it is a bold claim, that cannot be maintained, to insist that the reason the Catholic Church embraced creatio ex nihilo was certainly from a corrupt desire to adhere to false philosophy (hellenism), at the expense of the Traditions and Scriptures that had been passed down to them. 

Rory   

Hmmmm. My apologies again. This "post" was going to be possibly hidden (better for me perhaps!), unless I made this "reply" to me. Now it will be seen, for better or worse.

[InCognitus]

On 12/5/2021 at 7:41 PM, 3DOP said:

Hmmmm. My apologies again. This "post" was going to be possibly hidden (better for me perhaps!), unless I made this "reply" to me. Now it will be seen, for better or worse.

Rory, thank you for your thoughtful post, and it deserves a thoughtful response.  I have many things in mind that I want to say, but my crazy work schedule and church calling (and preparing for a move) zapped all my time last weekend.  Hopefully I'll be able to post a few things in reply this weekend when I may have more time to organize what I want to say.

[3DOP]

On 12/8/2021 at 12:41 PM, InCognitus said:

Rory, thank you for your thoughtful post, and it deserves a thoughtful response.  I have many things in mind that I want to say, but my crazy work schedule and church calling (and preparing for a move) zapped all my time last weekend.  Hopefully I'll be able to post a few things in reply this weekend when I may have more time to organize what I want to say.

InCognitus...thank you. Do not feel pressed. Moving, working, and callings? When you get time. However long it takes. Days, weeks, or even longer. How is the Christmas shopping going?  🙂

Edited December 12, 2021 by 3DOP