5 things Latter-day Saints should know about ancient Christians

[mfbukowski]

On 1/3/2023 at 12:02 PM, Eschaton said:

Only Jesus was made into a God.

Nope. Section 132, Abraham and others are now gods.

[Eschaton]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Nope. Section 132, Abraham and others are now gods.

I was referring to the beliefs of New Testament writers and 1st century Christian communities, not to later theological developments. 

[Eschaton]

8 hours ago, InCognitus said:

What verse says that?

It's more like none of the verses in the New Testament give godhood (in some often limited sense) to any other human person aside from Jesus. 

8 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Do you have any evidence that Luke "changed" that in an attempt to "stick it to the Marcionites"?  The Marcionites didn't exist when Luke wrote his gospel.  Or is that supposed to be a joke?  (I'm guessing that's supposed to be a joke).

Luke has many layers of later redaction and interpolation. 

https://www.academia.edu/37608973/Are_Luke_and_Acts_Anti_Marcionite_pre_proofs_version_

8 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Peter and Paul hadn't died and been resurrected and overcome the world at that time.  So of course no one was worshiping them at that time. 

Many NT documents post-date the deaths of Peter and Paul (including the two epistles attributed to Peter. 

8 hours ago, InCognitus said:

But Jesus did say that those who keep his word and have not denied his name will have others bow down to worship them (see Revelation 3:8-9).  

It always helps to check out a better translation than the KJV first:

8 “‘I know your works. Behold, I have set before you an open door, which no one is able to shut. I know that you have but little power, and yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. 9 Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie—behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and they will learn that I have loved you.

 

8 hours ago, InCognitus said:

"Believers promised each other"?  They receive the same identical "glory" as Jesus.  They receive the same identical kind of resurrected body as Jesus.  They receive the same identical inheritance as Jesus.  They sit on the same identical throne as Jesus.  And you think this means they would not be in the identical position as Jesus?  What's the difference?

It's quite a stretch to go from Jesus sharing his throne to these people literally being gods. 

8 hours ago, InCognitus said:

It's not just sitting on any old throne to judge the nations, like Jesus told the apostles. 

We should note that Jesus said this, he actually didn't say anything about anyone sitting on a divine throne other than the Father. 

 

8 hours ago, InCognitus said:

 

Those who overcome will sit with God and Jesus in his throne.  It's the very same identical throne that God sits on.  What does God's throne represent, if not his position as God?  You keep side stepping that it's the very same identical throne that Jesus sits on with his Father.  You keep trying to make this into something else than what it says.  

You seem to be saying that your particular interpretation is the only possible one here? 

8 hours ago, InCognitus said:

It can't possibly mean what you say here.  Here's why:   "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." (John 17:5)  "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:  I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." (John 17:22–23)

This is the same identical glory that was given to Jesus "before the world was".  So how could this possibly be a resurrection with a new heavenly body and being saved from a sinful human nature?  It certainly didn't mean that for Jesus.  What was Jesus "before the world was"?

If you're going to take this literally, you should take seriously what the author of John believed about Jesus - that he was the pre-existent demiurge - a creator demigod/angel. There could only be one demiurge. So your interpretation that this somehow means godhood for Christians seems off. 

 

8 hours ago, InCognitus said:

When I said:

You responded:

Paul spoke of "spiritual understanding" (Colossians 1:9), and "spiritual blessings" (Ephesians 1:3), are you really suggesting that Paul meant air or wind understanding and air or wind blessings?  What evidence do you have that Paul took the word literally and really meant your interpretation of a "spiritual body" as a body of wind or air or breath, instead of a body made alive by the spirit, as he says in Romans 8:11?   Do you believe Paul thought the Holy Spirit was the "holy wind or air"?  Or that "spiritual understanding" or "spiritual blessings" can't be had in a physical body?   The Greek words pneumatos and pneumatikon can have the meaning of air or wind, but the word pneumatikon also means, "of that which belongs to or is actuated by" either the human spirit or the Divine Spirit.  Even if we take your interpretation as "air or wind", it's still a physical body of flesh and bone that is influenced or actuated by the "air or wind" (if you want to have it that way).  

You say Paul "believed" this but you have no evidence of that other than your literal interpretation of the word.  And there are plenty of Greek speaking people from that era that understood Paul to be talking about a resurrected body of flesh that is made alive by the spirit.

You literally can't take everything literally.  A literal translation is not always the right translation.  And "Flesh and blood" refers to the unregenerate man (Matthew 16:17). 

Paul indicates that he means this literally when he says that flesh and blood can't inherit the kingdom of heaven - ergo it must be the new "wind body." This is different from Jesus, who did believe in a corporeal resurrection.  Jesus' view of the afterlife was not as Platonic as Paul's. 

 

8 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I really like the response of Irenaeus to this claim you make (it's kind of funny, actually), for he explains Paul's meaning quite well.  I'm only going to quote the first part here, you'll need to read the rest in the link:

There is more to this, but you can read it in the link  Irenaeus spoke Greek and he didn't understand Paul to be saying what you think he is saying.

Iraneaus wasn't a scholar and he never knew Paul, so I'm not sure what relevance his second century viewpoint might have in understanding Paul. 

8 hours ago, InCognitus said:

So you are thinking the Jews came from a polytheistic background, then the Christians came along and were purely monotheistic in the first century, then shifted to polytheism in the second century (with their belief in theosis), and then back to monotheism later?  

The first shift towards monotheism (really monolatry) came with Josiah, and his reforms. The evolution to true monotheism was gradual - I believe it predated Christianity, however. 

It should be no surprise that converts from Greek and Roman religion might have brought with them their own syncretic mix of Greek ideas. 

 

 

8 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I thought we were discussing first century Christian belief.  The book of Hebrews was part of first century Christian belief.  And angels are ministers to those who are heirs of salvation.  Paul taught that true believers would judge the angels (1 Corinthians 6:3).  

Yes, but this has nothing to do with divinization. 

8 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Now you're starting to admit it started in the first century.  I think you're beginning to see my point.  

The seeds maybe, but we find no textual support for divinization in first century writings. All theology is an evolution. 

8 hours ago, InCognitus said:

But I also think you're not allowing yourself to see the full scope of what Jesus taught, such as "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:3), or "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.  Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.  Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you."  (Matthew 5:10–12)  And to those who humble themselves as a little child, “the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 18:4). 

For Jesus, the kingdom of heaven was a literal kingdom on earth. It was "God's imperial rule." Finally a just society - essentially it was a utopian ideal. 

8 hours ago, InCognitus said:

This was my point, both Hades and Sheol are mistranslated as "hell", which makes it so that people misunderstand the meaning of "hell".  And as I have discussed before, the characteristics of Sheol are very much the same as Hades (it's a place with gates - Job 17:16, 38:17, Isaiah 38:10, and has divided compartments - Prov 7:27, with "farthest corners" - Isa 14:15, Ezek 32:23, and the dead meet there - Ezek 32, Isaiah 14, etc.).

Sheol can mean "underworld" (a place for all dead to reside as "shades") or it can mean "grave." What it means depends on the author's views on death. It doesn't have anything to do with modern Christian views of hell as some kind of eternal punishment. What's interesting is that OT writers really have little to no interest in the topic of the afterlife. 

 

 

Edited January 9 by Eschaton

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

Jesus sharing his throne

Who does a ruler share his throne with if not another ruler?

[Eschaton]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

Who does a ruler share his throne with if not another ruler?

It could mean any number of things - including that humans would be made divine in some sense (angels are divine beings, after all), or it could mean something like being adopted into the divine family of Christ. But we see no one explicitly saying that men will be made into gods in Christianity until the second century. 

Judaism did have some wiggle room for humans becoming "divine" in some sense. Any human taken up to heaven (the exception rather than the rule) would have been understood as divine in some sense, because heaven was the dwelling place of divine beings, and was generally not for humanity. So a figure like Elijah would have been made into a divine being. 

Edited January 9 by Eschaton

[theplains]

On 1/9/2023 at 2:53 AM, InCognitus said:

Except the early Christian teachings on men becoming gods do agree with the Bible.  They used the Bible to support their teachings on men becoming gods.

What do you believe is the time and place for your interpretation of what Psalm chapter 82
teaches?

[InCognitus]

On 1/9/2023 at 9:09 AM, Eschaton said:

It's more like none of the verses in the New Testament give godhood (in some often limited sense) to any other human person aside from Jesus. 

But I’m asking you to explain what verses in the New Testament are giving Godhood to Jesus.  I want to understand how you are understanding the verses about Jesus being given Godhood.  This is important to our discussion, since you don’t seem to think that being given an equal inheritance, and equal kind of body, an equal glory, and an equal position on the throne of God is the same as receiving godhood.  

So what verses say “only Jesus was made into a God”?  Let’s discuss them.

On 1/9/2023 at 9:09 AM, Eschaton said:

Luke has many layers of later redaction and interpolation. 

https://www.academia.edu/37608973/Are_Luke_and_Acts_Anti_Marcionite_pre_proofs_version_

Of course Luke has many layers of later redaction and interpolation.  But this has nothing to do with your assertion that “Luke, in an attempt to stick it to the Marcionites, changes that to Jesus having quite a tangible human-like body.” 

This is all pure speculation. Tyson suggests that only Luke chapters 1-2 and chapter 24 were penned after Marcion, but even this is problematic since Luke 24 is quoted in the letters of Ignatius.  Richard Pervo tries to date the death of Ignatius later than others (135-140), but his dating of Acts is problematic too (and the article you linked deals with some of those problems).  It seems like he is pushing these dates to fit better with his thesis.

On 1/9/2023 at 9:09 AM, Eschaton said:

Many NT documents post-date the deaths of Peter and Paul (including the two epistles attributed to Peter. 

What does this have to do with the fact that Peter and Paul weren’t worshipped during their lifetime?  

You said, “the followers of Jesus are glorified, but still aren't in the same status as Jesus - after all, no one was worshiping Peter or Paul. They were worshiping Jesus.”  My point is that godhood only applies to them after their death and resurrection. The date of their death wouldn’t change that. 

On 1/9/2023 at 9:09 AM, Eschaton said:

It always helps to check out a better translation than the KJV first:

8 “‘I know your works. Behold, I have set before you an open door, which no one is able to shut. I know that you have but little power, and yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. 9 Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie—behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and they will learn that I have loved you.

A “better” translation?  How do you define “better”?  One that is theologically motivated to not have humans be worshipped?  You realize that the word being translated as “worshipped” in the KJV is the exact same Greek word (proskynéō) that is translated as “worship” when it is applied to God and to Jesus, right?   It always helps to check out the word that is being translated first before assuming it’s a “better” translation.  Here are some examples of other verses where the same word is used:

“Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship [proskyneseis] the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”  (Matthew 4:10)

“And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped [prosekýnēsan] God” (Revelation 7:11)

“And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped [prosekýnēsan] him.”  (Matthew 28:9)

Of course, when the exact same word is being used for humans being worshipped, some translators freak out and can’t handle that.  It’s the same kind of thing the Jehovah’s Witnesses do when proskynéō is being used in application to Jesus (see Matthew 28:9 in the NWT, which is a theologically motivated translation).   The KJV is a perfectly fine translation of Revelation 3:9, “I will make them to come and worship [proskynesousin] before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.”

On 1/9/2023 at 9:09 AM, Eschaton said:

It's quite a stretch to go from Jesus sharing his throne to these people literally being gods. 

What does “people literally being gods” mean to you exactly?  What does that entail?

On 1/9/2023 at 9:09 AM, Eschaton said:

We should note that Jesus said this, he actually didn't say anything about anyone sitting on a divine throne other than the Father. 

Does scripture ever call the throne of God the “divine throne”?  I don’t think so.  So what’s the difference between sitting on the same throne as the Father and the “divine throne” in your view?   Is there any throne higher than God’s throne?

On 1/9/2023 at 9:09 AM, Eschaton said:

You seem to be saying that your particular interpretation is the only possible one here? 

I’m asking you, what other possible interpretation can be made when grappling with what the verse actually says?  Your responses so far have completely avoided what it says.  You have said that Jesus is a special case, but Revelation 3:21 says the overcomers sit with Jesus in the exact same throne of God as does Jesus.  You said that nothing says that believers gain equal status with Jesus, yet this verse says they have the same status in that they are sitting in the same throne of God as Jesus.  You have tried to distract from the meaning of the verse by discussing the thrones of judgement given to the apostles, but the verse in Revelation 3 is talking about the very throne of God, not some other thrones of judgement.  And these same believers have the name of “God” written upon them, and they are given a permanent place in God’s temple (Revelation 3:12). 

What does God’s throne represent?  Why else would God permit someone else to sit with him in his throne?

On 1/9/2023 at 9:09 AM, Eschaton said:

If you're going to take this literally, you should take seriously what the author of John believed about Jesus - that he was the pre-existent demiurge - a creator demigod/angel. There could only be one demiurge. So your interpretation that this somehow means godhood for Christians seems off. 

Who says there can be only one demiurge?  Where do you find that?

Remember, you were saying that you haven’t seen any “evidence that any New Testament writers believed that Christians would gain equal status with Jesus in the coming kingdom”.  For Christians to receive the same “glory” as was given to Jesus in the beginning is just one of many things stated that would give them equal status with Jesus in the coming kingdom (the same glory, same inheritance, same kind of body, and same throne of God).   

On 1/9/2023 at 9:09 AM, Eschaton said:

Paul indicates that he means this literally when he says that flesh and blood can't inherit the kingdom of heaven - ergo it must be the new "wind body." This is different from Jesus, who did believe in a corporeal resurrection.  Jesus' view of the afterlife was not as Platonic as Paul's. 

You really don’t know what Paul means any more than someone else who tries to reinterpret scripture from a modern perspective.  For one thing, you are misconstruing the meaning of “spiritual body” to mean “spirit body”.  “Spiritual” means to be influenced by the spirit.  You could call it an “air influenced body” if you want, but it’s still a physical body.  And you don’t really know what Paul means by “flesh and blood”, especially when he contrasts the works of the natural flesh with those of the Spirit:

Romans 8:4-5  "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.  For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit."

Romans 8:13  "For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live."

Galatians 5:16  "This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh."

Galatians 6:7-8  "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.  For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting."

Paul lists the “works of the flesh” in Galatians 5:19-21 (adultery, fornication, idolatry, drunkenness, etc. etc.) and says those “which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God”.  Paul says essentially the same thing in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.  Paul never says that we need to put off “flesh” to enter the kingdom of God, but we must put off the “works of the flesh” and instead “walk in the Spirit”.   Walking in the Spirit does not mean we no longer have flesh, but the flesh no longer controls our thoughts and desires.  And in the same manner, “flesh and blood” cannot inherit the kingdom of God, because that meaning of “flesh” has to do with fleshy desires of the “natural body”.  This is contrasted with those who “walk in the Spirit” who reap immortality and eternal life, with a physical body of flesh and bone that is influenced by the Spirit.

You can assert that Paul means what you say, or I can assert that Paul means what I say.  Or we can read how the earliest Christians understood Paul, and either take the side of the heretics or the so called “orthodoxy”.   Or, we can listen to what modern apostles and prophets say on the physicality of the resurrection where Jesus was resurrected with a body of flesh and bone.  Take your pick.

On 1/9/2023 at 9:09 AM, Eschaton said:

Iraneaus wasn't a scholar and he never knew Paul, so I'm not sure what relevance his second century viewpoint might have in understanding Paul. 

A second century Greek speaking viewpoint carries a lot more weight with me than your 21st century English speaking viewpoint, given that there were those living during the second century who knew people that knew Paul.  At the very least, Irenaeus studied under Polycarp who learned from the apostle, John, who had knowledge of Paul and his ministry.    

Paul didn't teach in a vacuum.  The apostles met together on occasion.  And while they may have differed on procedure and cultural application (like when Paul criticized Peter for fearing to eat with the Gentiles when Jews were present - Galatians 2:11-14), they were unified in their doctrine on the resurrection.  They were eye witnesses to it (and that includes Paul). 

On 1/9/2023 at 9:09 AM, Eschaton said:

The first shift towards monotheism (really monolatry) came with Josiah, and his reforms. The evolution to true monotheism was gradual - I believe it predated Christianity, however. 

It should be no surprise that converts from Greek and Roman religion might have brought with them their own syncretic mix of Greek ideas. 

Or, the teachings on the deification of men predated Christianity in Jewish teachings which carried forward into Christianity. 

On 1/9/2023 at 9:09 AM, Eschaton said:

On 1/9/2023 at 12:50 AM, InCognitus said:

I thought we were discussing first century Christian belief.  The book of Hebrews was part of first century Christian belief.  And angels are ministers to those who are heirs of salvation.  Paul taught that true believers would judge the angels (1 Corinthians 6:3).  

Yes, but this has nothing to do with divinization. 

Then why did you bring up the relationship of gods to angels?  My point was to show that angels have a different job description, and they minister to those who are heirs of salvation (those who are above them and sit with God in his throne).

On 1/9/2023 at 9:09 AM, Eschaton said:

The seeds maybe, but we find no textual support for divinization in first century writings. All theology is an evolution. 

Textual support for divinization predates Christianity. 

On 1/9/2023 at 9:09 AM, Eschaton said:

For Jesus, the kingdom of heaven was a literal kingdom on earth. It was "God's imperial rule." Finally a just society - essentially it was a utopian ideal. 

Sounds familiar:  “We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.”  (Articles of Faith 1:10)

On 1/9/2023 at 9:09 AM, Eschaton said:

Sheol can mean "underworld" (a place for all dead to reside as "shades") or it can mean "grave." What it means depends on the author's views on death. It doesn't have anything to do with modern Christian views of hell as some kind of eternal punishment. What's interesting is that OT writers really have little to no interest in the topic of the afterlife. 

The "modern" Christian view of hell has been warped by various traditions and by misreading (and mistranslation) of the New Testament.  We shouldn't let that modern view taint our reading of the New Testament or Old Testament.

[InCognitus]

On 1/12/2023 at 8:59 AM, theplains said:

What do you believe is the time and place for your interpretation of what Psalm chapter 82
teaches?

I didn't bring up Psalm 82.  You want to talk about that again?  We've discussed that previously (several times).

Jesus quoted from Psalm 82 in John 10:34.  The argument that Jesus is making in the context of John 10 is that he in his human state is claiming to be divine.  His point is that since other humans have been made divine through God by receiving the word in scripture (“If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken”), then how much more so is the Son of God, who John points out is the very Word himself?  

But I think the original meaning of the verse has to do with the divine council of gods.  

This seems to be the view as noted in this statement from the First Presidency, 1912—April—Improvement Era 15:483-485 (April, 1912):

Quote

But the sole object of worship, God the Eternal Father, stands supreme and alone, and it is in the name of the Only Begotten that we thus approach Him, as Christ taught always. "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; He judgeth among the gods." (Psalms 82:1.) Jesus quoted this and did not dispute it (John 10:34-6). All the perfected beings who are rightly called gods, being, like the Savior, possessed of "the fullness of the Godhead bodily," are ONE, just as the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are one.

[Eschaton]

On 1/13/2023 at 4:43 PM, InCognitus said:

But I’m asking you to explain what verses in the New Testament are giving Godhood to Jesus.  I want to understand how you are understanding the verses about Jesus being given Godhood.  This is important to our discussion, since you don’t seem to think that being given an equal inheritance, and equal kind of body, an equal glory, and an equal position on the throne of God is the same as receiving godhood.  

Quite a few. But, all of them give godhood to Jesus "in some sense." He's not "THE God" in the perspective of any NT writer. The earliest Christian belief is found here:

 

“God… promised beforehand… concerning His son, having been born from the seed [lit. ‘sperm’] of David according to the flesh, having been appointed son of God with power according to a spirit of holiness, by resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1.3-4)

That's the earliest Christian Christology - that Jesus was made into the Son of God when he was resurrected from the dead. As Christologies go it's quite modest, but there are many different takes on it. 

In John 1 Jesus is the "word of God" - a kind of demigod who was with God from the beginning of time and who created the earth. 

 

On 1/13/2023 at 4:43 PM, InCognitus said:

So what verses say “only Jesus was made into a God”?  Let’s discuss them.

Of course Luke has many layers of later redaction and interpolation.  But this has nothing to do with your assertion that “Luke, in an attempt to stick it to the Marcionites, changes that to Jesus having quite a tangible human-like body.” 

This is all pure speculation. Tyson suggests that only Luke chapters 1-2 and chapter 24 were penned after Marcion, but even this is problematic since Luke 24 is quoted in the letters of Ignatius.  Richard Pervo tries to date the death of Ignatius later than others (135-140), but his dating of Acts is problematic too (and the article you linked deals with some of those problems).  It seems like he is pushing these dates to fit better with his thesis.

You can disagree with the scholarship on this as you please, of course. But Luke's source on the resurrection, Mark, doesn't have this notion of a tangible, physical Jesus - in fact Jesus doesn't appear at all, he's just gone. 

 

On 1/13/2023 at 4:43 PM, InCognitus said:

What does this have to do with the fact that Peter and Paul weren’t worshipped during their lifetime?  

You said, “the followers of Jesus are glorified, but still aren't in the same status as Jesus - after all, no one was worshiping Peter or Paul. They were worshiping Jesus.”  My point is that godhood only applies to them after their death and resurrection. The date of their death wouldn’t change that. 

Who says it only applies after their resurrection? This is just speculation. The fact is no human person in the NT is called a god other than Jesus. 

 

On 1/13/2023 at 4:43 PM, InCognitus said:

A “better” translation?  How do you define “better”?  One that is theologically motivated to not have humans be worshipped?  You realize that the word being translated as “worshipped” in the KJV is the exact same Greek word (proskynéō) that is translated as “worship” when it is applied to God and to Jesus, right?   It always helps to check out the word that is being translated first before assuming it’s a “better” translation.  Here are some examples of other verses where the same word is used:

The KVJ relies on very poor sources, much later documents than we currently have available. It's poetic but it's just not very accurate. 

 

On 1/13/2023 at 4:43 PM, InCognitus said:

“Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship [proskyneseis] the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”  (Matthew 4:10)

“And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped [prosekýnēsan] God” (Revelation 7:11)

“And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped [prosekýnēsan] him.”  (Matthew 28:9)

Of course, when the exact same word is being used for humans being worshipped, some translators freak out and can’t handle that.  It’s the same kind of thing the Jehovah’s Witnesses do when proskynéō is being used in application to Jesus (see Matthew 28:9 in the NWT, which is a theologically motivated translation).   The KJV is a perfectly fine translation of Revelation 3:9, “I will make them to come and worship [proskynesousin] before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.”

That's because the connotation of the word can mean different things depending on context. Good translators take context into account. 

 

On 1/13/2023 at 4:43 PM, InCognitus said:

What does “people literally being gods” mean to you exactly?  What does that entail?

Made into divine beings who have the power and authority of God the Father. 

On 1/13/2023 at 4:43 PM, InCognitus said:

Does scripture ever call the throne of God the “divine throne”?  I don’t think so.  So what’s the difference between sitting on the same throne as the Father and the “divine throne” in your view?   Is there any throne higher than God’s throne?

I'm not sure this question makes a lot of sense.

On 1/13/2023 at 4:43 PM, InCognitus said:

I’m asking you, what other possible interpretation can be made when grappling with what the verse actually says?  Your responses so far have completely avoided what it says.  You have said that Jesus is a special case, but Revelation 3:21 says the overcomers sit with Jesus in the exact same throne of God as does Jesus.  You said that nothing says that believers gain equal status with Jesus, yet this verse says they have the same status in that they are sitting in the same throne of God as Jesus.  You have tried to distract from the meaning of the verse by discussing the thrones of judgement given to the apostles, but the verse in Revelation 3 is talking about the very throne of God, not some other thrones of judgement.  And these same believers have the name of “God” written upon them, and they are given a permanent place in God’s temple (Revelation 3:12). 

What does God’s throne represent?  Why else would God permit someone else to sit with him in his throne?

Who says there can be only one demiurge?  Where do you find that?

Remember, you were saying that you haven’t seen any “evidence that any New Testament writers believed that Christians would gain equal status with Jesus in the coming kingdom”.  For Christians to receive the same “glory” as was given to Jesus in the beginning is just one of many things stated that would give them equal status with Jesus in the coming kingdom (the same glory, same inheritance, same kind of body, and same throne of God).   

You really don’t know what Paul means any more than someone else who tries to reinterpret scripture from a modern perspective.  For one thing, you are misconstruing the meaning of “spiritual body” to mean “spirit body”.  “Spiritual” means to be influenced by the spirit.  You could call it an “air influenced body” if you want, but it’s still a physical body.  And you don’t really know what Paul means by “flesh and blood”, especially when he contrasts the works of the natural flesh with those of the Spirit:

Romans 8:4-5  "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.  For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit."

Romans 8:13  "For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live."

Galatians 5:16  "This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh."

Galatians 6:7-8  "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.  For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting."

Paul lists the “works of the flesh” in Galatians 5:19-21 (adultery, fornication, idolatry, drunkenness, etc. etc.) and says those “which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God”.  Paul says essentially the same thing in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.  Paul never says that we need to put off “flesh” to enter the kingdom of God, but we must put off the “works of the flesh” and instead “walk in the Spirit”.   Walking in the Spirit does not mean we no longer have flesh, but the flesh no longer controls our thoughts and desires.  And in the same manner, “flesh and blood” cannot inherit the kingdom of God, because that meaning of “flesh” has to do with fleshy desires of the “natural body”.  This is contrasted with those who “walk in the Spirit” who reap immortality and eternal life, with a physical body of flesh and bone that is influenced by the Spirit.

You can assert that Paul means what you say, or I can assert that Paul means what I say.  Or we can read how the earliest Christians understood Paul, and either take the side of the heretics or the so called “orthodoxy”.   Or, we can listen to what modern apostles and prophets say on the physicality of the resurrection where Jesus was resurrected with a body of flesh and bone.  Take your pick.

A second century Greek speaking viewpoint carries a lot more weight with me than your 21st century English speaking viewpoint, given that there were those living during the second century who knew people that knew Paul.  At the very least, Irenaeus studied under Polycarp who learned from the apostle, John, who had knowledge of Paul and his ministry.    

Paul didn't teach in a vacuum.  The apostles met together on occasion.  And while they may have differed on procedure and cultural application (like when Paul criticized Peter for fearing to eat with the Gentiles when Jews were present - Galatians 2:11-14), they were unified in their doctrine on the resurrection.  They were eye witnesses to it (and that includes Paul). 

Or, the teachings on the deification of men predated Christianity in Jewish teachings which carried forward into Christianity. 

Then why did you bring up the relationship of gods to angels?  My point was to show that angels have a different job description, and they minister to those who are heirs of salvation (those who are above them and sit with God in his throne).

Textual support for divinization predates Christianity. 

Sounds familiar:  “We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.”  (Articles of Faith 1:10)

The "modern" Christian view of hell has been warped by various traditions and by misreading (and mistranslation) of the New Testament.  We shouldn't let that modern view taint our reading of the New Testament or Old Testament.

Maybe you should ask yourself why 2nd century Christian out and out say "men will be come Gods" but we find nothing like this in our New Testament sources - and you are left to read your own ideas about divination into the text instead of the text itself making this idea explicit? 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Eschaton said:

....and you are left to read your own ideas about divination into the text instead of the text itself making this idea explicit? 

As the 6 day creation is made explicit, sun standing still, talking donkeys are made explicit?

Theosis itself is a Doctrine that should be veiled and require study and prayer, or the temple Endowment would be a one liner.

[Eschaton]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

As the 6 day creation is made explicit, sun standing still, talking donkeys are made explicit?

Theosis itself is a Doctrine that should be veiled and require study and prayer, or the temple Endowment would be a one liner.

I've never been comfortable using the Bible either as a Ouija board or as a sock puppet. I realize at this point it's pretty traditional to treat it like that. 

[theplains]

On 1/13/2023 at 5:59 PM, InCognitus said:

But I think the original meaning of the verse has to do with the divine council of gods.  

This seems to be the view as noted in this statement from the First Presidency, 1912—April—Improvement Era 15:483-485 (April, 1912):

Thanks.  I'll open up a new thread in the future to revisit it.

[Kenngo1969]

On 12/23/2022 at 3:57 PM, mfbukowski said:

... It is impossible to avoid ambiguity in human language.  ... Science can't do it, religion can't do it.  Our languages are "confounded" and obviously the whole story of Babel is about that.   Men try for a stairway to heaven but it never will work.

 

[Tacenda]

Here's a blog post that mentions a few things but I know it won't be welcomed really and there are rebuttals, kind ones given to the blogger in the comments. Just thought it brought up a couple of good points on how the church could do even more on top of what they already do. And one more broken record thing....members need to pay their bills before they pay tithing, just like the D&C mentions! That one little thing..

https://exponentii.org/blog/why-does-the-church-want-my-parents-social-security-check/?mibextid=Zxz2cZ&fbclid=IwAR0yZDXddSFKIFRqhZaEKJFkpb34KyrSS45rWF6tKhbTdS71JXDJ6Xw8uG4

Edited January 19 by Tacenda

[manol]

6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

So... in response to @mfbukowski's comment about the inevitability of ambiguity, are you saying that, you know, sometimes words have two meanings?

;^)

Edited January 19 by manol

[mfbukowski]

On 12/23/2022 at 4:40 PM, manol said:

God, Christ and the Holy Spirit are all spirit(s).  So are we.  ("Consubstantial" is a new word to me.)

It's an important word but unfortunately undefinable, that created the Trinity.

It means "one substance (together)" but lacks telling us what that substance is

We on the other hand teach that the Godhead is one in purpose, namely bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of humankind, to be as God is.

To me "consubstantial" is so vague as to be useless.  The unifying "substance" then can become anything you want it to be.

Spirit? Sure!

Flesh? Oh, not THAT!  and so again the ambiguity of one word divides Christianity. Even this translation is ambiguous; see bolded words:

Nicene Creed portion, Latin and English:

"Et in unum Dominum Iesum Christum, Filium Dei **unigenitum,  ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula. Deum de Deo, Lumen de Lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero, genitum non factum, consubstantialem Patri; per quem omnia facta sunt.   
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father; through Whom all things were  made. "

So here "consubstantial" is translated "BEING, " not even "substance".  So which is it?

What precisely is the difference between "substance" and "being" ???

And if both are so ambiguous as to be meaningless, what IS it that unifies the Trinity?

Edited January 19 by mfbukowski

[InCognitus]

On 1/17/2023 at 9:09 AM, Eschaton said:

Quite a few. But, all of them give godhood to Jesus "in some sense." He's not "THE God" in the perspective of any NT writer. The earliest Christian belief is found here:

 

“God… promised beforehand… concerning His son, having been born from the seed [lit. ‘sperm’] of David according to the flesh, having been appointed son of God with power according to a spirit of holiness, by resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1.3-4)

That's the earliest Christian Christology - that Jesus was made into the Son of God when he was resurrected from the dead. As Christologies go it's quite modest, but there are many different takes on it. 

This is partly why I asked you the question.  Many of the New Testament teachings about the divinity of Jesus are rather subtle, so much so that there are groups that try to argue against the deity of Christ (Arianism, Jehovah's Witnesses, for example).  This passage is a good example of that subtleness.

And it’s interesting that you associate him being a “Son of God” with his Godhood.  The Gospel of John does this too:

“But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.   Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.” (John 5:17–18)

“The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.” (John 19:7)

But John also explains that this “son of God” status is available to all believers, as well:

“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” (John 1:12)

On 1/17/2023 at 9:09 AM, Eschaton said:

In John 1 Jesus is the "word of God" - a kind of demigod who was with God from the beginning of time and who created the earth. 

This passage is at least more explicit.  Jesus was "with God" in the beginning and he, the Word, "was God".

And, as I explained in a prior post, the gospel of John (in chapter 10) has Jesus quoting from Psalm 82 when Jesus is claiming to be divine in his human state.  He argues that since other humans have been made divine through God by receiving the “word” in scripture (“If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken”), then how much more so is the Son of God?  And John of course points out that Jesus is the very Word himself.   So according to Jesus, men have been called “gods” by virtue of receiving the Word of God.

On 1/17/2023 at 9:09 AM, Eschaton said:

You can disagree with the scholarship on this as you please, of course.

Have you even read your own sources?  

Scholars disagree with the scholarship of other scholars all the time, and they go about it by demonstrating the weakness or strength of the various possibilities. 

The Isaac Oliver article you referenced is no exception.  He begins on page 1 with the following:

Quote

Scholars have debated endlessly about the dating of Luke and Acts. While some posit that both texts were written before 70 CE, most situate the two works sometime after the First Jewish Revolt in the last third of the first century.  Others argue for an even later dating, sometime in the second century CE. Indeed, a second-century date for Acts has enjoyed recent support by some prominent scholars who pin Luke and Acts upon a Marcionite frame. They maintain that Luke redacted both texts to combat the rise of Marcionism. (p.1)

Oliver explains how Richard Pervo has argued for a second-century dating of Acts, but that he "undergirds his argument primarily on internal grounds" (p.3).  I agree with Oliver's assessment of Pervo's arguments.

He states on page 27, “Detections of anti-Marcionism in Luke-Acts seem obvious only after one learns about the Marcionite phenomenon from external sources.”   His footnote to the above is as follows:

Quote

Cf. Lieu, Marcion and the Making of a Heretic, 430: “As has been indicated already, that Acts was composed as a companion to Luke, itself perhaps extended, in opposition to Marcion lacks any certain proof; any polemic is remarkably muted and requires considerable eisegesis to detect it, although Irenaeus and his successors swiftly found its benefits for their own polemics.”

Oliver comes across as not convinced by the arguments presented by this “in vogue” trend on the studies of Marcion.

Apparently, you can also disagree with scholarship on this as you please.

On 1/17/2023 at 9:09 AM, Eschaton said:

But Luke's source on the resurrection, Mark, doesn't have this notion of a tangible, physical Jesus - in fact Jesus doesn't appear at all, he's just gone. 

Mark definitely has the empty tomb, with the tangible, physical body of Jesus missing from the tomb.  The body has to be somewhere.

And Luke 24 is attested to at an earlier date in the letter of Ignatius, where he quotes from an earlier reading of Luke: “Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit”.  Ignatius goes on to explain:

“And immediately they touched Him, and believed, being convinced both by His flesh and spirit. For this cause also they despised death, and were found its conquerors. And after his resurrection He did eat and drink with them, as being possessed of flesh, although spiritually He was united to the Father”  (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 3) 

On 1/17/2023 at 9:09 AM, Eschaton said:

Who says it only applies after their resurrection? This is just speculation. The fact is no human person in the NT is called a god other than Jesus. 

The promise of sitting with God in his throne comes to those who “overcome”, which is a future promise following the resurrection. 

And John lays out all the breadcrumbs leading to godhood:

Being a “son of God” makes one equal to God (John 5:17-18).
    -- Believers can also become “sons of God” (John 1:12)

Jesus is the “Word of God” and is God (John 1:1-3)
    -- Other humans have also been made divine through the word of God (John 10:34-35)

The Father is in Jesus, and Jesus is in the Father (John 14:10-11)
    -- Jesus is in the believers and the believers are in Jesus (John 14:20)

The Father gave glory to Jesus before the world began (John 17:5)
    -- Believers are given the same glory that Jesus was given by the Father in the beginning (John 17:22)

Jesus and his Father are “one” (John 10:30)
    -- Believers are to be “one” in the same exact way Jesus is one with his Father (John 17:20-23)

Jesus came in his Father’s name (John 5:43)
    -- Those who overcome have the name of God written upon them (Rev 3:12)

Jesus was given to sit with the Father in his throne (Rev 3:21)
    -- Those who overcome sit with Jesus in his throne (Rev 3:21)

Isn't it obvious what this is teaching?

On 1/17/2023 at 9:09 AM, Eschaton said:

The KVJ relies on very poor sources, much later documents than we currently have available. It's poetic but it's just not very accurate. 

Why use this red herring?  The earlier textual variants of Revelation 3:9 don’t differ in relevant ways when compared to the Textus Receptus.  The earlier textual variants don’t help your case here.

In fact, the American Standard Version of the Bible, which uses the Westcott and Hort Greek text, translates the verse this way:   “I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.”

On 1/17/2023 at 9:09 AM, Eschaton said:

That's because the connotation of the word can mean different things depending on context. Good translators take context into account.

Of course a word can mean different things depending on the context, but “good translators” may also have not so good theological biases that may prevent them from providing an accurate translation.  The prospect of humans being worshipped may be one of those biases.  And as I said before, this is the same bias that prohibits Jesus from being “worshipped” in the Jehovah’s Witnesses New World Translation.

On 1/17/2023 at 9:09 AM, Eschaton said:

On 1/13/2023 at 3:43 PM, InCognitus said:

What does “people literally being gods” mean to you exactly?  What does that entail?

Made into divine beings who have the power and authority of God the Father. 

“Made into divine beings”?  That’s a rather circular definition of what “people literally being gods” means, isn’t it?   What does it mean to be a “divine being”?   (And please don't say "people literally being gods"  )

And those who “overcome” have the name of God written upon them (authority, Rev 3:12) and are given power over the nations (Rev 2:26).  So what’s the difference?

On 1/17/2023 at 9:09 AM, Eschaton said:

On 1/13/2023 at 3:43 PM, InCognitus said:

Does scripture ever call the throne of God the “divine throne”?  I don’t think so.  So what’s the difference between sitting on the same throne as the Father and the “divine throne” in your view?   Is there any throne higher than God’s throne?

I'm not sure this question makes a lot of sense.

Is there any throne higher than God’s throne?  Are you saying it doesn’t make any sense because there is no throne higher than God’s throne?

On 1/17/2023 at 9:09 AM, Eschaton said:

Maybe you should ask yourself why 2nd century Christian out and out say "men will be come Gods" but we find nothing like this in our New Testament sources - and you are left to read your own ideas about divination into the text instead of the text itself making this idea explicit? 

The New Testament sources lay out the basics.  But the New Testament sources only give us part of what the New Testament Christians were taught.  As the apostles went out to the world to teach the gospel, much of it was taught "publicly, and from house to house" (Acts 20:20, Acts 18:28, 2 John 1:12, 3 John 1:14, 2 Thes 2:15, 1 Thes 2:9).  And the epistles were written by the apostles to those who had already been taught the gospel verbally, to those who were already members of the church. 

This is why there is value in reading how the earliest Christians understood the teachings of the apostles and how they interpreted the scriptures that were handed down to them.  And the very earliest Christians taught that men become gods. 

[manol]

On 1/19/2023 at 12:08 AM, mfbukowski said:

We on the other hand teach that the Godhead is one in purpose

During my active LDS years “one in purpose” never seemed to me like a complete definition of the “oneness” the scriptures attribute to the Father and Son (and presumably the Holy Spirit), nor of the “oneness” we are told to aspire to.  That the Godhead is “one in purpose” seems self-evident; there no great truth conveyed by “oneness” if that's all it means. (No need to distinguish their relationship from the squabbling Greek gods, for example.)

How about this:

Perhaps our body is inside of our spirit rather than the other way around. Perhaps our spirit is not constrained to the physical boundaries of the body, though our attention and awareness is currently dominated by the body's boundaries. Perhaps at the level of spirit, which is a far more enduring reality than this world, connection rather than separation is the true nature of things (or the dominant characteristic of relationships). And perhaps connection taken to its highest level becomes oneness. 

Edited January 21 by manol

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, manol said:

During my active LDS years “one in purpose” never seemed to me like a complete definition of the “oneness” the scriptures attribute to the Father and Son (and presumably the Holy Spirit), nor of the “oneness” we are told to aspire to.  That the Godhead is “one in purpose” seems self-evident; there no great truth conveyed by “oneness” if that's all it means. (No need to distinguish their relationship from the squabbling Greek gods, for example.)

How about this:

Perhaps our body is inside of our spirit rather than the other way around. Perhaps our spirit is not constrained to the physical boundaries of the body, though our attention and awareness is currently dominated by the body's boundaries. Perhaps at the level of spirit, which is a far more enduring reality than this world, connection rather than separation is the true nature of things (or the dominant characteristic of relationships). And perhaps connection taken to its highest level becomes oneness. 

I've always taken the "one in purpose" explanation as only one small part of the definition of what it means to be "one" in the Godhead.  But the language of the prayer offered by Jesus on behalf of the believers in him seems to convey the kind of connection you describe, i.e. "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us" and "I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me" (John 17:21 and 23) 

The last part about conveying the "love" of the Father so that the "world may know" that Jesus and the believers are "sent" by the Father is especially telling, in my opinion.

[Eschaton]

On 1/20/2023 at 11:42 PM, InCognitus said:

This is partly why I asked you the question.  Many of the New Testament teachings about the divinity of Jesus are rather subtle, so much so that there are groups that try to argue against the deity of Christ (Arianism, Jehovah's Witnesses, for example).  This passage is a good example of that subtleness.

And it’s interesting that you associate him being a “Son of God” with his Godhood.  The Gospel of John does this too:

“But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.   Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.” (John 5:17–18)

“The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.” (John 19:7)

 

It's not actually that subtle. Even in the most primitive Christology, quoted by Paul (a Christology that Paul didn't actually teach, BTW), Jesus is exalted to heaven and made the son of God. Heaven is the realm of divine beings. Earth is the realm of non-divine beings. 

The author of John of course doesn't give us any of the Jesus' actual words, but gives us a quite Hellenized version of Jesus, a Jesus who is the Demiurge spoken of by Philo, out of Greek philosophy. 

On 1/20/2023 at 11:42 PM, InCognitus said:

But John also explains that this “son of God” status is available to all believers, as well:

“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” (John 1:12)

This passage is at least more explicit.  Jesus was "with God" in the beginning and he, the Word, "was God".

And, as I explained in a prior post, the gospel of John (in chapter 10) has Jesus quoting from Psalm 82 when Jesus is claiming to be divine in his human state.  He argues that since other humans have been made divine through God by receiving the “word” in scripture (“If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken”), then how much more so is the Son of God?  And John of course points out that Jesus is the very Word himself.   So according to Jesus, men have been called “gods” by virtue of receiving the Word of God.

Here the author of John distorts his source in Psalms to try to give justification for why Jesus could be a "second God." The original version of Psalms didn't refer to men becoming Gods, but rather to the many gods who were thought to exist all throughout ancient Israelite history - in fact Israel was definitively polytheistic until the rein of Josiah, at which point it began to be gradually more henotheistic. 

 

 

On 1/20/2023 at 11:42 PM, InCognitus said:

Have you even read your own sources?  

Scholars disagree with the scholarship of other scholars all the time, and they go about it by demonstrating the weakness or strength of the various possibilities. 

The Isaac Oliver article you referenced is no exception.  He begins on page 1 with the following:

Oliver explains how Richard Pervo has argued for a second-century dating of Acts, but that he "undergirds his argument primarily on internal grounds" (p.3).  I agree with Oliver's assessment of Pervo's arguments.

Acts is also thought to be a second century document because it relies on Antiquities of the Jews as a source, which wasn't published until 94 CE. 

 

On 1/20/2023 at 11:42 PM, InCognitus said:

He states on page 27, “Detections of anti-Marcionism in Luke-Acts seem obvious only after one learns about the Marcionite phenomenon from external sources.”   His footnote to the above is as follows:

Oliver comes across as not convinced by the arguments presented by this “in vogue” trend on the studies of Marcion.

Apparently, you can also disagree with scholarship on this as you please.

Alternatively, perhaps the anti-Marcionism in Luke is a later redaction. We already know Luke was heavily edited - the earliest version, for instance, lacks the nativity story and lacks any references to Jesus' death as an atonement for sin. 

 

On 1/20/2023 at 11:42 PM, InCognitus said:

Mark definitely has the empty tomb, with the tangible, physical body of Jesus missing from the tomb.  The body has to be somewhere.

No, there is no mention of Jesus' body as a tangible, physical thing. This you you reading your own assumptions into the text. We already know that Paul thought the resurrected Jesus was in non-tangible form, a body of wind/air. 

 

 

On 1/20/2023 at 11:42 PM, InCognitus said:

And John lays out all the breadcrumbs leading to godhood:

Being a “son of God” makes one equal to God (John 5:17-18).
    -- Believers can also become “sons of God” (John 1:12)

Jesus is the “Word of God” and is God (John 1:1-3)
    -- Other humans have also been made divine through the word of God (John 10:34-35)

The Father is in Jesus, and Jesus is in the Father (John 14:10-11)
    -- Jesus is in the believers and the believers are in Jesus (John 14:20)

The Father gave glory to Jesus before the world began (John 17:5)
    -- Believers are given the same glory that Jesus was given by the Father in the beginning (John 17:22)

Jesus and his Father are “one” (John 10:30)
    -- Believers are to be “one” in the same exact way Jesus is one with his Father (John 17:20-23)

Jesus came in his Father’s name (John 5:43)
    -- Those who overcome have the name of God written upon them (Rev 3:12)

Jesus was given to sit with the Father in his throne (Rev 3:21)
    -- Those who overcome sit with Jesus in his throne (Rev 3:21)

Isn't it obvious what this is teaching?

It's obvious only if you've been primed to believe this with years of LDS Sunday school and seminary lessons. Without that priming and initial biasing, no, it's not obvious that Jesus is promising godhood to his followers. Certainly glory, salvation, immortality. Maybe even power over their enemies. 

 

On 1/20/2023 at 11:42 PM, InCognitus said:

Why use this red herring?  The earlier textual variants of Revelation 3:9 don’t differ in relevant ways when compared to the Textus Receptus.  The earlier textual variants don’t help your case here.

In fact, the American Standard Version of the Bible, which uses the Westcott and Hort Greek text, translates the verse this way:   “I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.”

Of course a word can mean different things depending on the context, but “good translators” may also have not so good theological biases that may prevent them from providing an accurate translation.  The prospect of humans being worshipped may be one of those biases.  And as I said before, this is the same bias that prohibits Jesus from being “worshipped” in the Jehovah’s Witnesses New World Translation.

If you were to fall down at the feet of a loved one you had thought was dead, or a powerful person threatening to kill you, would that mean you are actually worshiping them? 

 

On 1/20/2023 at 11:42 PM, InCognitus said:

“Made into divine beings”?  That’s a rather circular definition of what “people literally being gods” means, isn’t it?   What does it mean to be a “divine being”?   (And please don't say "people literally being gods"  )

I'm afraid that's just a limitation of the English language (or any language. A divine being could be a god or an angel. Made of different stuff than humanity. 

 

On 1/20/2023 at 11:42 PM, InCognitus said:

And those who “overcome” have the name of God written upon them (authority, Rev 3:12) and are given power over the nations (Rev 2:26).  So what’s the difference?

Sounds like a king, not a God. 

 

On 1/20/2023 at 11:42 PM, InCognitus said:

Is there any throne higher than God’s throne?  Are you saying it doesn’t make any sense because there is no throne higher than God’s throne?

The New Testament sources lay out the basics.  But the New Testament sources only give us part of what the New Testament Christians were taught.  As the apostles went out to the world to teach the gospel, much of it was taught "publicly, and from house to house" (Acts 20:20, Acts 18:28, 2 John 1:12, 3 John 1:14, 2 Thes 2:15, 1 Thes 2:9).  And the epistles were written by the apostles to those who had already been taught the gospel verbally, to those who were already members of the church. 

This is why there is value in reading how the earliest Christians understood the teachings of the apostles and how they interpreted the scriptures that were handed down to them.  And the very earliest Christians taught that men become gods. 

Reading the second century Christian fathers will tell you what Christians started teaching and believing in the second century. 

[InCognitus]

10 hours ago, Eschaton said:

It's not actually that subtle. Even in the most primitive Christology, quoted by Paul (a Christology that Paul didn't actually teach, BTW), Jesus is exalted to heaven and made the son of God. Heaven is the realm of divine beings. Earth is the realm of non-divine beings. 

The author of John of course doesn't give us any of the Jesus' actual words, but gives us a quite Hellenized version of Jesus, a Jesus who is the Demiurge spoken of by Philo, out of Greek philosophy. 

It is subtle in that it doesn’t come right out and say that Jesus is “God”.  But at the same time you are looking for explicit language in the first century that says men become gods.  So you’re not playing by your own rules when it comes to Jesus and his divinity.

But if being a son of God makes Jesus “equal with God” (as John says), then why wouldn’t the same apply to all who “become the sons of God”, and are exalted to heaven and sit equally with Jesus on the throne of God?

10 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Here the author of John distorts his source in Psalms to try to give justification for why Jesus could be a "second God." The original version of Psalms didn't refer to men becoming Gods, but rather to the many gods who were thought to exist all throughout ancient Israelite history - in fact Israel was definitively polytheistic until the rein of Josiah, at which point it began to be gradually more henotheistic. 

As I said in my earlier post, I agree that the earlier understanding of this verse has to do with the divine council of gods.  But Jesus used Psalm 82 by appealing to the current tradition of his day, making the verse applicable to his time, as a way to argue for his own divinity.  And regardless of where you think these ideas came from (there is evidence that the belief that humanity has the capacity to attain godhood was common to Israel and Second Temple Judaism), there is no question that the second century Christians understood these passages to be teaching that other gods exist and that humans can become gods.  And Jesus’ usage of Psalm 82 as portrayed by John shows that this belief was part of first century Christian thought as well.

10 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Acts is also thought to be a second century document because it relies on Antiquities of the Jews as a source, which wasn't published until 94 CE. 

Whether or not Acts is a second century document is irrelevant.  The point is that it wasn’t written late enough to be contemporary with Marcion.  Isaac Oliver (the source you referenced) agrees with that assessment. 

10 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Alternatively, perhaps the anti-Marcionism in Luke is a later redaction. We already know Luke was heavily edited - the earliest version, for instance, lacks the nativity story and lacks any references to Jesus' death as an atonement for sin. 

The “earliest versions” of Luke are fragmentary (P75 and P45), lacking large portions of Luke, including the first two chapters. We can’t say for sure whether they originally had the first two chapters or not.  And the debate on anti-Marcionism in Luke is still a debate.  And there are earlier allusions to so-called anti-Marcionism language from Luke elsewhere (like the letters of Ignatius), so there is proof that contradicts this theory.

10 hours ago, Eschaton said:

No, there is no mention of Jesus' body as a tangible, physical thing. This you you reading your own assumptions into the text. 

In Mark’s gospel, Jesus ate with them, then the multitude with swords and staves laid their hands on him and took him.  They crucified him, and then they laid his body in a tomb.  He had a tangible body, it was physical (they touched him).  And after his body was laid in a tomb, when they came to anoint him the body was gone.  The tomb was empty.  That physical and tangible body was gone.  The body had to be somewhere.  That is the direct connection to the resurrection.  (Otherwise there’s no point to having an empty tomb).

10 hours ago, Eschaton said:

We already know that Paul thought the resurrected Jesus was in non-tangible form, a body of wind/air. 

We already discussed this.  We already know that you, using your 21st century English speaking perspective to reinterpret Paul and misconstruing the phrase “spiritual body” to mean “spirit body” in the process, think that Paul thought that the resurrected Jesus was in a non-tangible form.  But that’s nowhere explicit in Paul’s text, and in fact the earliest Greek speaking Christians who had learned their doctrine from the apostles understood Paul differently than you. 

And I noticed that you totally ignored the letter of Ignatius, where he quoted the early reading of Luke’s account of the physical resurrection of Jesus as a corporeal being having flesh. 

10 hours ago, Eschaton said:

It's obvious only if you've been primed to believe this with years of LDS Sunday school and seminary lessons. Without that priming and initial biasing, no, it's not obvious that Jesus is promising godhood to his followers. Certainly glory, salvation, immortality. Maybe even power over their enemies. 

It’s funny you say this of me, but you don’t give the second century Christians the same consideration for their views on these same teachings.  To me, this teaching (that men become gods) was obvious to the second century Christians and their interpretation of scripture because they were primed to believe that teaching through years of lessons from their predecessors (Sunday School and Seminary lessons).  That teaching only became a problem to early Christian theology after the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo was introduced by Tatian and Theophilus of Antioch in the late second century, and then through the other changes on doctrine that occurred in the third and fourth century leading up to the first council of Nicaea. 

10 hours ago, Eschaton said:

If you were to fall down at the feet of a loved one you had thought was dead, or a powerful person threatening to kill you, would that mean you are actually worshiping them? 

But that’s not the context of what is portrayed in Revelation 3:9, is it.  The fact that some translations use the word “worship” proves that it’s not as simple as that, especially when the concept of humans being worshipped is a more difficult concept for some theological views to accept.

10 hours ago, Eschaton said:

I'm afraid that's just a limitation of the English language (or any language. A divine being could be a god or an angel. Made of different stuff than humanity. 

“Made of different stuff than humanity”?  What does that mean?  Having eternal life and a resurrected glorified body the same as Jesus has?  And angels are nothing more than messengers -- the words translated as “angel” in Hebrew and Greek are often used in application to mortal humans as well (look up the words in Hebrew and Greek).  So that doesn’t help either.

I’m trying to figure out how you distinguish that Jesus is divine but those who sit with him equally on the throne of God are not.  What is the difference?

10 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Sounds like a king, not a God. 

God is a King, is he not?  And why do those who overcome sit equally with Jesus on the throne of God if they are not made divine somehow?  

10 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Reading the second century Christian fathers will tell you what Christians started teaching and believing in the second century. 

It tells you what they believed in the second century, but it may (or may not) tell you where it “started”.  This is where you are making a logical error.  In their writings they say they got their doctrines on this from their understanding of scriptures and from the teachings handed down to them.  They teach this doctrine as if it is already known and accepted.  And there is evidence that these teachings existed in Israel and Second Temple Judaism prior to that time.  And it fits into their complete theological framework.

In order to prove that it “started” in the second century, you’d need to show that the Israelite and Second Temple Judaism teachings on this had no influence on them, and the first century Christians taught something contrary to it prior to Clement of Rome’s first teaching on this doctrine.  Other studies go about showing where a teaching “started” in a similar way.  For example, since the second century Christians clearly taught that Jesus is the “second God” and that there are other gods and that men become gods, it can be shown that the teachings on strict monotheism “started” at a later date.  As another example, the earliest Christians taught that God created all things from unformed matter.  Therefore, it can be shown that the doctrine that God created ex-nihilo (from nothing) was invented at a later date. 

So you can’t assume that the second century Christians “started” this doctrine, when there is a definite tradition of these teachings prior to that time and no evidence to the contrary.

[Eschaton]

10 hours ago, InCognitus said:

It is subtle in that it doesn’t come right out and say that Jesus is “God”.  But at the same time you are looking for explicit language in the first century that says men become gods.  So you’re not playing by your own rules when it comes to Jesus and his divinity.

In the cosmology of Jesus' own time and culture, his having ascended to heaven isn't subtle at all - it says loud and clear that Jesus is a god. Just because it's subtle to you doesn't mean it was subtle them. 

 

10 hours ago, InCognitus said:

But if being a son of God makes Jesus “equal with God” (as John says), then why wouldn’t the same apply to all who “become the sons of God”, and are exalted to heaven and sit equally with Jesus on the throne of God?

"Son of God" can mean a lot of different things. Even ancient Jewish kings were called "sons of God," but not in the same sense exactly as Jesus. 

While it the idea that believers went to heaven after they die became a very common Christian belief, it certainly isn't the original Christian belief. Originally humans were to stay on earth forever after their resurrection. 

 

10 hours ago, InCognitus said:

As I said in my earlier post, I agree that the earlier understanding of this verse has to do with the divine council of gods.  But Jesus used Psalm 82 by appealing to the current tradition of his day, making the verse applicable to his time, as a way to argue for his own divinity.  And regardless of where you think these ideas came from (there is evidence that the belief that humanity has the capacity to attain godhood was common to Israel and Second Temple Judaism), there is no question that the second century Christians understood these passages to be teaching that other gods exist and that humans can become gods.  And Jesus’ usage of Psalm 82 as portrayed by John shows that this belief was part of first century Christian thought as well.

It's not really applicable to Jesus' day, but to the specific beliefs of the Johannine community at the end of the first century. 

In Judaism it was possible for some rare individuals to be made divine in some sense, but it was a rare exception, not the rule. 

 

10 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Whether or not Acts is a second century document is irrelevant.  The point is that it wasn’t written late enough to be contemporary with Marcion.  Isaac Oliver (the source you referenced) agrees with that assessment. 

The “earliest versions” of Luke are fragmentary (P75 and P45), lacking large portions of Luke, including the first two chapters. We can’t say for sure whether they originally had the first two chapters or not.  And the debate on anti-Marcionism in Luke is still a debate.  And there are earlier allusions to so-called anti-Marcionism language from Luke elsewhere (like the letters of Ignatius), so there is proof that contradicts this theory.

Other reasons for thinking the nativity isn't in the original Luke is that it's written in a different style, and also Luke 3 reads like the beginning of the narrative. Traditionally ancient biographies begin with a geneology - it's strange for it to be tacked on after the story of his birth. It's not so strange if it was the birth story that was tacked on later. 

I don't think the dating of the letters of Ignatius is at all set in stone, either, so I don't think you can hang your hat on just that. 

 

10 hours ago, InCognitus said:

In Mark’s gospel, Jesus ate with them, then the multitude with swords and staves laid their hands on him and took him.  They crucified him, and then they laid his body in a tomb.  He had a tangible body, it was physical (they touched him).  And after his body was laid in a tomb, when they came to anoint him the body was gone.  The tomb was empty.  That physical and tangible body was gone.  The body had to be somewhere.  That is the direct connection to the resurrection.  (Otherwise there’s no point to having an empty tomb).

Yes, in life Mark's Jesus was tangible. But we have no idea what Mark thought the resurrected Jesus was like - for all we know Mark agreed with Paul on the "wind body" resurrection concept. 

 

10 hours ago, InCognitus said:

We already discussed this.  We already know that you, using your 21st century English speaking perspective to reinterpret Paul and misconstruing the phrase “spiritual body” to mean “spirit body” in the process, think that Paul thought that the resurrected Jesus was in a non-tangible form.  But that’s nowhere explicit in Paul’s text, and in fact the earliest Greek speaking Christians who had learned their doctrine from the apostles understood Paul differently than you. 

It's not my interpretation at all. It comes from Biblical scholar James Tabor. You can hear him talk about Paul's "wind body" idea here: 

 

 

10 hours ago, InCognitus said:

And I noticed that you totally ignored the letter of Ignatius, where he quoted the early reading of Luke’s account of the physical resurrection of Jesus as a corporeal being having flesh. 

See above - the dating of Ignatius is based on very limited evidence. 

 

10 hours ago, InCognitus said:

It’s funny you say this of me, but you don’t give the second century Christians the same consideration for their views on these same teachings.  To me, this teaching (that men become gods) was obvious to the second century Christians and their interpretation of scripture because they were primed to believe that teaching through years of lessons from their predecessors (Sunday School and Seminary lessons).  That teaching only became a problem to early Christian theology after the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo was introduced by Tatian and Theophilus of Antioch in the late second century, and then through the other changes on doctrine that occurred in the third and fourth century leading up to the first council of Nicaea. 

Have you considered that second century Christians were far more inclined to view it this way because by the second century Judaism had essentially been expunged from Christianity? 

 

10 hours ago, InCognitus said:

But that’s not the context of what is portrayed in Revelation 3:9, is it.  The fact that some translations use the word “worship” proves that it’s not as simple as that, especially when the concept of humans being worshipped is a more difficult concept for some theological views to accept.

In the NRSV, the most widely used translation by scholars, the word worship is not used. 

 

10 hours ago, InCognitus said:

“Made of different stuff than humanity”?  What does that mean?  Having eternal life and a resurrected glorified body the same as Jesus has?  And angels are nothing more than messengers -- the words translated as “angel” in Hebrew and Greek are often used in application to mortal humans as well (look up the words in Hebrew and Greek).  So that doesn’t help either.

Humans are made of dirt, temporarily animated by the breath of God. Apparently that's not the case with divine beings. While some humans can be "messengers" that's obviously not what I was referring to when I said angels. 

 

10 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I’m trying to figure out how you distinguish that Jesus is divine but those who sit with him equally on the throne of God are not.  What is the difference?

Jesus has all the power and authority of YHWH, even his name. Jesus lives in heaven with the other divine beings, while humans live on earth. 

 

10 hours ago, InCognitus said:

God is a King, is he not?  And why do those who overcome sit equally with Jesus on the throne of God if they are not made divine somehow?  

They certainly have some kind of authority from God. That doesn't make them gods. 

10 hours ago, InCognitus said:

It tells you what they believed in the second century, but it may (or may not) tell you where it “started”.  This is where you are making a logical error.  In their writings they say they got their doctrines on this from their understanding of scriptures and from the teachings handed down to them.  They teach this doctrine as if it is already known and accepted.  And there is evidence that these teachings existed in Israel and Second Temple Judaism prior to that time.  And it fits into their complete theological framework.

We know this doctrine was constantly evolving - the Christologies of Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John are all different. So no, there wasn't continuity there. 

 

10 hours ago, InCognitus said:

In order to prove that it “started” in the second century, you’d need to show that the Israelite and Second Temple Judaism teachings on this had no influence on them, and the first century Christians taught something contrary to it prior to Clement of Rome’s first teaching on this doctrine.  Other studies go about showing where a teaching “started” in a similar way.  For example, since the second century Christians clearly taught that Jesus is the “second God” and that there are other gods and that men become gods, it can be shown that the teachings on strict monotheism “started” at a later date.  As another example, the earliest Christians taught that God created all things from unformed matter.  Therefore, it can be shown that the doctrine that God created ex-nihilo (from nothing) was invented at a later date. 

So you can’t assume that the second century Christians “started” this doctrine, when there is a definite tradition of these teachings prior to that time and no evidence to the contrary.

To prove that it started there, all I have to show is the that 2nd century Christians started saying that men will become Gods, and we find no similar statements in the first century or earlier. You're getting burden of proof all backwards - you can't just assert because some 2nd century Christians believed something that it was believed also hundreds of years earlier. Argument by assertion convinces no one. 

Edited January 23 by Eschaton

[OGHoosier]

I did need a reminder to refresh my instinctual caution when reviewing guild exegesis. 

On 1/22/2023 at 11:35 AM, Eschaton said:

Acts is also thought to be a second century document because it relies on Antiquities of the Jews as a source, which wasn't published until 94 CE. 

It is thought by the Acts Seminar to be reliant on Antiquities of the Jews. Considering that Luke-Acts contradicts Antiquities of the Jews repeatedly, the argument is compelled to affirm that the influence of Antiquities of the Jews is primarily in terms of which topics are addressed, ie Judas and Theudas, the Egyptian, the census of Quirinius, etc. This is a pretty weak argument since it begs a couple of questions:

a) it fails to account for how Luke's disagreements with Josephus weaken arguments for dependency.

b) it categorically privileges Josephus' accounts over Luke's

c) it asserts that similarities in Luke-Acts (shipwreck narratives, for instance) and references to historical characters with common names (Theudas, Judas, etc.) are unique and connected

There are at least two recent academic monographs which argue for -60s AD authorship for Acts. The debate is not settled.

Jonathan Bernier, Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament: The Evidence for Early Composition (2022)

Karl L. Armstrong, Dating Acts in its Jewish and Greco-Roman Contexts (2021)

[OGHoosier]

On 1/22/2023 at 11:35 AM, Eschaton said:

We already know that Paul thought the resurrected Jesus was in non-tangible form, a body of wind/air. 

Do we?

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15699/jbibllite.133.4.809#metadata_info_tab_contents (see especially pp. 823-824) 

https://drmsh.com/james-tabors-essay-early-christianitys-view-resurrection-review/ 

[Eschaton]

9 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Do we?

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15699/jbibllite.133.4.809#metadata_info_tab_contents (see especially pp. 823-824) 

https://drmsh.com/james-tabors-essay-early-christianitys-view-resurrection-review/ 

Pages 823-824 in your first link are inaccessible. Any summary?

Your Heiser article doesn't actually address the point, he talks about Paul's idea that Jesus was raised on the third day, and where that idea came from.