|
1
Nerd-It
|
|
blog (coffee shop)
by Those who believe in the deification of man are often accused of being "un-Christian" or polytheists. Critics point out how arrogant it is to think one could supplant God, and allege a lack of biblical foundation for the belief. This sort of exclusion from the ranks of Christianity is prevalent in works such as Ed Decker's The Godmakers or Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults, but is it justified in Christian tradition or scripture?
Far from it.
Rather, the confusion and exclusion seem to stem from an issue of doctrine and definition confusion, specifically concerning the terms "God" and "god" - representing the God of worship and the human potential, respectively. Many Catholics or Protestants have an existing view of the former in their belief set, but this is where the concept of divinity ends. They may believe mankind has the ability to attain a higher degree of existence after death, but they do not apply the word "god" to such a status - and this is precisely what differentiates them from religions such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or the Eastern Orthodox Church. The doctrine of the deification of man, however, cannot be understood by applying internal definitions to an external concept; things need to be kept "in-house" in a doctrinal sense.
If we were to apply this advice and continue the example of the LDS Church, it is interesting to consider that Latter-day Saints claim to believe in only one God - at the same time they accept the doctrine of the deification of man. To quote Elder Boyd K. Packer, one of the current members of the LDS Quorum of the Twelve:
"The Father is the one true God. This thing is certain: no one will ever ascend above Him; no one will ever replace Him. Nor will anything ever change the relationship that we, His literal offspring, have with Him. He is Elohim, the Father. He is God. Of Him there is only one. We revere our Father and our God; we worship Him."
This view is, of course, similar to the view of many Catholics and Protestants - close enough, in fact, that I am confident many of them would view it as incompatible with what they understand to be Mormonism's attempt to "dethrone God" via human deification. On the contrary, however, there is no reason such doctrine would imply the worship of anyone but God the Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ. Human deification is not the supplanting of the existing God, but the fulfillment of what is seen as man's potential to become holy and one with Christ - a belief commonly known as theosis.
Many modern "popular" Christians would be surprised to find theosis was actually a rampant belief in the early Christian Church (i.e., directly following Christ's ministry) as demonstrated in the statements of early Christian scholars such as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Athanasius of Alexandria, Augustine of Hippo, Jerome, and others. This has led many Christian scholars to recognize the doctrine of human deification as actually being closer to the ancient Church than prevalent modern views. Ernst Benz, for example, stated the following concerning the Latter-day Saints: "One can think what one wants of this doctrine of progressive deification, but one thing is certain: with this anthropology Joseph Smith is closer to the view of man held by the ancient Church than the precursors of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin.
Although some may be quick to point out the existence of external influences on the early church (e.g., Middle Platonic and Gnostic beliefs, Greek and Roman emperors, etc.), there is more than enough evidence to demonstrate an independent theosis in the Judaeo/Christian tradition not necessarily manipulated by these.
Additionally, theosis is supported biblically, although there are always interpretation issues in such claims. Granted, within the context of creeds and tradition, Protestants and Catholics will view the claimed biblical support for theosis differently, but such is beside the point. The issue here is not to "disprove" different interpretations but to show there is sufficient biblical framework to understand how those attempting to follow Christ before or without the creeds were/are able to embrace the doctrine of theosis.
Given the history of theosis in the Judaeo/Christian tradition and scripture, there is obvious room for the doctrine of the deification of man within the bounds of Christianity - no matter how odd this may seem within the prevalent modern views.
Add a Comment (71)
Email This
Message Author
The Eastern Orthodox belief that we are meant to become like God which is called Theosis is not at all like the Mormon doctrine of progressive deification. Theosis does not mean that we become gods or Gods, but that we restore the condition of our soul to the image and likeness of God that we had at creation, before The Fall. Orthodox Christians understand that Christ, who was fully man and fully God, came in the flesh to show us that we could restore that pure, original image through humility, prayer, fasting, communion with God through the Mysteries, repentence, "metanoia" or changing our minds to turn away from sin, and by seeing every person as Christ and treating each person accordingly. Christ set the goal of our lives in Him as achieving theosis while we are in the flesh, not after our death in the flesh. Those who have achieved theosis are recognized by those who come into contact with them: they are called "not of this world" or "agios," and are honored as those who are the victors, the ones who have finished the race, as St. Paul admonished us. Accordingly, the book of life is closed at our death in the flesh, and at judgment Christ will judge us according to what we did in our life time.
The Eastern Orthodox do not believe that we actually become a God, we are not co-creators with the Father, we do not populate additional planets with our progeny.
A great article. I have read the writings of the early Christian writers referred to in this article. They clearly teach the doctrine of the eternal progression of man and that earth is a period of probation to see if man will use his God-given agency to choose to keep the commandments of God or to choose another path. Many of today's so-called "Christians" would accuse these early Christian scholars of being heretics and non-Christians. They place themselves much in the same position as the Jewish priests and scribes at the time of Christ, unwilling to accept that God, as He has so many times in the past, can reveal Himself to a prophet in their day, when necessary to correct doctrines that have become, over time, corrupted and in error. There have been a number of times throughout the history of mankind when God has been required to restore the true teachings - always through a prophet of His choosing - one raised up for that purpose.
I've always found the notion of theosis (or, more linguistically correctly apotheosis) to be one of the more intriguing ideas of religion. One of very few ideas that has any merit whatsoever.
I'm curious about the LDS traditions, though. As I understand it, LDS is a restorationist group - they believe that at some point in the early history of Christianity, the "true" teachings were lost, and that they have uniquely restored this "true" faith. Does the LDS church indicate exactly when this is supposed to have happened?
I ask, because during those early years, there was a very significant group of people who, like Christians, claimed to have originated their beliefs in Jewish scripture, but had recently uncovered a new kind of revelation. These were the Gnostics. By the middle of the second century, Gnostic groups stretched from Gaul to Mesopotamia.
A particularly significant group of Gnostics, with respect to early Christianity, were the Marcionites. Marcion originally joined the Christian community in Rome around 138 CE, but a few years later adopted gnostic ideas. He was expelled from the church as a heretic in 144 CE. He compiled a "canon" of documents that included an early version of the Gospel of Luke and ten of the Pauline epistles which he claimed supported his doctrines. This was probably quite instrumental in triggering the church to adopt its own canon of four gospels and thirteen Pauline epistles, and then to later supplement it with other apostolic letters, an extended version of Luke, and the creation of Acts.
I bring this all up because a central notion in gnosticism, generally, and specifically the Marcionite beliefs is the idea that humans (at least some of them) have a piece of divinity within them, and the point of revelation is to teach them how to reunite that piece of divinity with its source - their god. This is quite similar to apotheosis - instead of man achieving some exalted state, and becoming "like god", man is already part god, and must seek to re-connect.
The gnostics explained how this all came about - the specific details varied a bit from group to group and over time, but the general idea was that somehow, something went "wrong" in the divine world, which resulted in the creation of our world - an evil world, ruled by an evil god (the Demiurge). But as a side-effect of this wrongness, parts of the higher-level, "true" god, were trapped within the world. The role of the savior is to reveal to humans how to reconnect with the divine.
Groups like the Marcionites took this to mean that the god identified in Jewish scripture, Yahweh, was this evil Demiurge. This isn't much of a stretch - an eight-year-old reading the old testament can easily recognize that the god it talks about isn't "nice". But then the Marcionites added that Jesus was sent by a higher god, the "true" god, to help recover the missing parts.
There are a lot of different places where these ideas crop up, and I'll probably throw in a few more later, but let's see where this one takes us.
Just to provide some background for those who may be unfamiliar with LDS beliefs, "apostasy" means turning away from the gospel. The "Great Apostasy" refers to this happening on a general scale following the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles as unauthorized changes were made by men in the church to essential principles of the gospel, Church organization and priesthood ordinances. This resulted in God withdrawing the authority of the priesthood - the restoration of which was key to establishing the LDS Church.
As for us all having a "bit" of God within us, this concept seems similar to the LDS belief that all mankind was created in the image of God and has within them the light of Christ. The concept of being ruled by an "evil god," however, is totally foreign to LDS beliefs.
The goal of being reunited with God is similar, but not to the extent that it would result in the dissolution of the individual. The idea is to be "one" with God as Christ is - a relationship of perfect love and unity of purpose, power, etc.
(It's worth noting there is more information on many of the terms and concepts used above (e.g., restoration, creation, light of Christ, etc.) online. I would link to such in-line, but the URLs are funky.)
The "Great Apostasy" refers to this happening on a general scale following the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles as unauthorized changes were made by men in the church to essential principles of the gospel, Church organization and priesthood ordinances.
So there's no specific timeline or events identified? It's just something that happened "following the deaths of the ... apostles"? Do they at least point to specific early church figures (Origen, Papias, Eusebius, Clement, etc) as specific apostates?
The LDS Church doesn't officially venture past what's been revealed - which doesn't usually get into that sort of detail. So, we are usually consigned to applying principles to current academia to make the best judgment call. For example, it's very clear "a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof." Applying this to your question about early Christian scholars, it's obvious the Church does not consider them able to preach or administer the Gospel in its fullness if they did not hold the priesthood - and I'm not aware of any document providing a chain of such authority back to Christ.
This doesn't make them apostates, however, as turning away from the gospel is not the same as not having/knowing it in the first place. Apostasy, after all, comes from within the Church, by definition.
If you want more information on the events and their causes, there are some articles from the Ensign which address the topic to a certain extent. The following are particularly useful articles I pulled from the gospel topic reference page mentioned earlier:
- ">From the Beginning - Neil A. Maxwell
- ">Apostasy, Restoration, and Lessons in Faith - Andrew C. Skinner
- ">Apostasy and Restoration - Dallin H. Oaks
- ">Restored Truth - M. Russell Ballard
- ">Whither the Early Church? - S. Kent Brown
- Early Signs of the Apostasy - Kent P. Jackson
Those links aren't working for me - the server could be misbehaving. I'll have to try again later. Meanwhile, ...
Applying this to your question about early Christian scholars, it's obvious the Church does not consider them able to preach or administer the Gospel in its fullness if they did not hold the priesthood - and I'm not aware of any document providing a chain of such authority back to Christ.
So I assume from your early comments that LDS does assume that the eleven apostles identified in the gospels did receive such authority, and possibly some others - maybe those identified in Acts.
There's definitely no documents providing any chain for the early church authorities. There's not even any convincing evidence that any of them had ever even heard of the gospels until the middle of the 2nd century.
The information we have about Christianity in the first century is very strangely contradictory and confusing when interpreted through the beliefs of modern Christians. If you take the New Testament and ignore the "traditional" order of the books, and instead group them by authorship and date, you find very curious patterns - Paul seems to know nothing about any earthly life and teachings of Jesus, for example.
The best picture I can form of the first two centuries of Christianity suggests that most of the details of its central doctrines came together in the middle of the 2nd century around the group in Rome. Prior to that, there seems to be almost no organization whatsoever, beyond local groups who had wildly varying practices and beliefs. Prior to that, there's no really compelling evidence that the various individuals and groups that identified themselves as "Christian" (or were later identified by the church as "Christian") were related to one another at all.
It seems as if the various restoration movements - most of whom claim that somewhere in the "early church" the "true" message got lost - are in the strange position of trying to reconstruct their "true" message from documents that were primarily produced by the very apostates they're attacking.
So much of what various Christian groups seem to think they know about the "early church" comes from Acts. But the Marcionite version of Luke didn't have the tail end that leads into Acts, and some scholars now think that Acts was first composed and Luke was revised specifically to undermine the Marcion heresy.
It's also interesting, given the widespread acceptance of the "two-source hypothesis", that so little attention is given by Christian thinkers to the influence of the Q document on the gospels. When you look at the parts of Matthew and Luke that are believed to have come from Q, it's almost as if there were two or three different original sources for what became Christianity - a "Son of Man" cult, an apocalyptic counter-culture movement, and a "kingdom" movement, for want of better terms. Mark glues them all together and then Acts pulls a sleight-of-hand to convert them from mythology to history.
This post is very interesting, as are the comments. I might inject that the LDS have no official position on "when" the apostasy occured that I know of, only how - which, without when, leaves much open for reflection. Indeed, men like Origen, Eusebius, &c., may have had both the authority to act in God's name and the power. (Indeed, Moroni lived 400 years after the death of NT apostles . . .) It is also common for LDS to emphasize the importance and inspiration of such men as William Tyndale or Martin Luther and other reformists. Indeed, I, for one, feel a strong kinship between my "Mormonism" and dissenters and non-conformists like William Blake and John Bunyan. I would certainly characterize Joseph Smith as a non-conformist and Christian dissenter. Anyway, despite the apostasy, LDS do not believe that God ever washed his hands of history. His hand, on the contrary, is in all things.
As for comments on Q, the Early Church, &c., I can strongly recommend Donald Harman Akenson's two volumes, _Surpassing Wonder: The Invention of the Bible and the Talmuds_ and _Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus_ . . . especially the Appendix, "Winnie-the-Pooh and the Jesus Seminar," which, as I remember, makes the way Q is used look like a historical farce. (Unfortunately, my copies of both books are at home today . . .) Let's not forget Q is an invention, perhaps a helpful and useful one, but only if we don't forget its an invention.
Indeed, Moroni lived 400 years after the death of NT apostles . . .
Ok. I'm confused. I thought Moroni was supposed to be an angel.
which, as I remember, makes the way Q is used look like a historical farce.
I wouldn't get too attached to that kind of stuff. First, it's overwhelmingly accepted by the scholars of biblical criticism that the two-source hypothesis (and thus Q) is legitimate. Now, since this directly implies that some (more conservative) interpretations of the bible's origins are quite probably wrong, it's a foregone conclusion that you'll have a ready-made source of nay-sayers.
It's true that extracting the "real" history and intent of these documents is complicated and there's much ambiguity, and that's exactly what these nay-sayers rely on in their dismissal of the parts they don't like, such as the Jesus Seminar's conclusion that Jesus was an itinerant "wisdom sage" who never rose from the dead. But what they always neglect to mention is that the exact same charges apply to their own interpretations of the whole thing.
The Jesus Seminar folks don't claim that their interpretation is based on "revelation". LDS, on the other hand, makes claims that are easily as unorthodox (Jesus appears to the Indians), claims they're "revealed" truth, and dismisses other interpretations as part of the "great apostasy". From this side of the fence, it looks like you're all engaging in "historical farce".
Because there's so much ambiguity, you'll always end up with arguments on both sides. The best thing we can really do is to let people who have the training to evaluate these things do it. And by that, I mean people who can read the original texts in their original languages, people who have spent a significant time studying the relevant historical periods.
I'm not saying Akenson's conclusions are wrong. I'm saying that he's making them in a context in which it's not difficult to spin the information a lot of different ways. Earl Doherty's conclusions in The Jesus Puzzle are quite credible, IMO, and he's very much in favor of Q.
Let's not forget Q is an invention, perhaps a helpful and useful one, but only if we don't forget its an invention.
That's kind of my point. Q is a very useful invention, that was created to help "sort the wheat from the chaff" in the gospels. So why, even in liberal churches, is it given so little attention? The only people who even know about it are the scholars and the occasional layman who's taken an interest in the matter.
It seems like there ought to be more discussion (again, at least in liberal churches) of what parts of scripture are reliable, and what parts are probably later accretions. To me, it seems like it's absence smacks of fear. Fear that by admitting that the bible isn't 100% pure, then people won't believe any of it.
But thinking that the bible hasn't undergone some purely human motivated editing is the same kind of wrong-headed gullibility that leads to believing that the Adam and Eve or Noah stories are literal truths.
For LDS there are various kinds of angels, and most of them are also historical persons. Moroni is the son of Mormon, an author-editor-compiler of The Book of Mormon, who is also himself an author-editor-compiler of the Book of Mormon. Moroni lived in the late 4th, early 5th C AD. He returned to the earth, angelically, in the 19C to tutor Joseph Smith and assist him in bringing forth the Book of Mormon.
I couldn't agree more with the point that LDS are unorthodox. That's part of my point about Theo-morphic man: it strikes me as an ever-present idea, even often widely held, but rarely considered "orthodox" or mainstream.
I should think many comic volumes could be written about historical farce as it relates to LDS AND what's "overwhelmingly accepted by scholars of biblical criticism." It might even be a close tie on who is more farcical. Mormonism as I understand it (and Omni-nerd, too) aims precisely to never let only trained people "who can read the original texts in their original languages" have a monopoly on interpretation.
Still, you're right, scholarship (perhaps even the Q invention) does help combat wrong-headed ideas, pig-headed ones too. It may be true that liberal churches should spend more time talking about source-hypotheses and that would undoubtedly clear up much misunderstanding about biblical origins. Having said that, the LDS are an interesting case for precisely the example you have raised: most LDS I know think the Bible has undergone purely human motivated editing, was compiled from many sources, AND they think Adam and Eve or Noah stories are literal truths ( - "literal" as in historical; what is historical is rarely literal . . .).
I suspect Q gets little play because it's not often clearly explained, accurately used according to its own precepts, clearly interpreted, and it does quite little for the average reader of the Bible that cannot be done by generically explaining the value of source-hypotheses . . . or maybe I'm missing something . . .
Mormonism as I understand it (and Omni-nerd, too) aims precisely to never let only trained people "who can read the original texts in their original languages" have a monopoly on interpretation.
See, that just seems like a bad idea. If you're not reading the texts in their original language, than you're not interpreting the text - you're interpreting the translator's interpretation of the text.
I'll give you a very simple example. Hebrews 8:4, in the original text, starts "ει μεν ουν ην επι γης ..." Here are a few translations:
- The NIV says, "If he were on earth..."
- The NASB says, "Now if He were on earth..."
- The Message says, "if he were limited to earth..."
- The Amplified Bible says, "If then He were still living on earth..."
- The KJV says, "For if he were on earth..."
- The NIRV says, "What if he were on earth?"
- The Worldwide English NT says, "If he were still on earth..."
Now, my specific point here is that the original phrasing gives zero indication that "he" was ever on the earth. In some readings, the whole passage draws a parallel between a "heavenly priesthood" and an "earthly priesthood" and pretty much denies that the heavenly priest acting on earth has any value. But when the translators slip in the word still, they're injecting their own beliefs into the text, where they didn't previously exist.
The idea that someone who can't read the original text the author wrote could have better insight into it than someone who can is based on flawed logic.
I suspect Q gets little play because it's not often clearly explained, accurately used according to its own precepts, clearly interpreted, and it does quite little for the average reader of the Bible that cannot be done by generically explaining the value of source-hypotheses . . . or maybe I'm missing something . . .
I think maybe you are. By separating Q from the rest of the gospel text it becomes quite clear that there are two very different voices at work in those texts. It also makes it far less painful to admit that there's conflict between the texts, too, IMO.
I think there's much benefit to be had, in service to looking for the truth, rather than just upholding traditional dogma, in recognizing these things and trying to understand what they mean. Burying one's head in the sand and pretending that the four gospels are independent traditions written by near-eyewitnesses is not looking for truth.
The same goes for believing that the Pentateuch is entirely the work of Moses - scholars generally recognize five different authors at work, called J, E, P, D, and R. This "documentary hypothesis" is still the dominant paradigm in OT scholarship, though it's being challenged - almost entirely by scholars who believe even more authors are involved.
There's a lot of very legitimate evidence that a lot of the supposed "historical" events in the bible really never took place. The period following the Exodus during which the supposedly huge group of refugees wandered the desert. So it seems like it would be sensible if at least some religious groups were to face this head on, and look to what it means.
Obviously, I think there are a lot of people who do face this for themselves - I think that's why people are fleeing churches in droves. But at least some of them could be retained if they were offered an alternative understanding - some thing to compete with "it's all bullshit".
Don't get me wrong - I'm happy that nobody's offering any serious attempt to retain these people. I just think it's kind of curious.
I never said that individuals who have the inclination to learn the original languages of scripture should not do it or that doing so does not often lead to a greater understanding of the text in question. I only meant to say that doing so does not always improve one's understanding or give one monopolistic rights of interpretation.
As for J, E, P, D, and R, or Q, &c., yeah, yeah, many sources, so what? I'm aware that scholars wish to continually parse the number of sources they consider as contributing to the origins of the Bible. I'm suggesting that such parsing is virtually useless considering the "originals" aren't at hand. Furthermore, one can easily find instances where a single verse of the Hebrew scriptures is attributed to as many as three different sources according to scholarly criteria. As Akenson says, it's like working statistical significance out to the twentieth decimal point . . . it is completely irrelevant as to the historical accuracy of the scriptures. What's worse, biblical scholars more often than not confuse earlier source with more accurate source.
Perhaps we're talking across each other. My central point is that biblical scholars can be as guilty as anyone at burying their heads in the sand. As for your last three paragraphs you have really lost me. The fact remains that the Bible narratives purport to be history and we cannot escape that their power is connected to their historicity. We can say there's evidence that the stuff never happened - Yes it did, no it didn't - but on that question the text itself has already taken a side. Sure, readers have to take a side, too; as for that, I think it is good history. Yes, all history is rhetorical, contingent, ironic, but I gave up on the dream of objective history a long time ago.
I only meant to say that doing so does not always improve one's understanding or give one monopolistic rights of interpretation.
That's simply false. Anyone who has read the texts can quite legitimately claim to have a greater understanding of them than anyone who hasn't. The fact that there are many different people who have read them and who have reached mutually contradictory conclusions is irrelevant. Anyone who hasn't read them is working from a translation made by someone who has, and therefore has had his own interpretation colored by the translator.
It doesn't mean a monopolistic right to interpret the text, but the right to interpret it (and be taken seriously) does rest solely with the group who can and have read the original.
As for J, E, P, D, and R, or Q, &c., yeah, yeah, many sources, so what?
My point was that scholars uniformly accept the documentary hypothesis for the pentateuch and are mostly in consensus on the two-source hypothesis for the gospels, yet the churches continue to completely misrepresent this to the believers. They continue to represent that the pentateuch was exclusively the work of Moses and that the gospels represent four distinct near-eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus. This is no more credible than continuing to represent that the earth was created in six days, less than ten thousand years ago - in both cases, careful study of the evidence has led to the conclusion that these things are simply wrong.
As for your last three paragraphs you have really lost me.
Let's see if we can fix that.
The fact remains that the Bible narratives purport to be history and we cannot escape that their power is connected to their historicity.
I disagree. It's entirely plausible that the writers of the biblical narratives did not intend them to be viewed as history, but as mythical storytelling. The stories themselves have plenty of mythological elements.
For much of the "golden age", the Greek philosophers never considered the stories of the Greek gods to be historical. They took place in a mythical realm, of which the earthly realm was a "shadow" (to use Plato's allegory of the cave). The average man-on-the-street may have thought them to be otherwise, but that's just "pop" theology, which shouldn't be given more credit than we give it today. Just like the Greeks (and similarly, the Romans) didn't assume the stories to be history, it's plausible that the Palestinian Jews in the first century BCE didn't assume that their stories were historical.
And if "their power is connected to their historicity", then what does it say that their historicity increasingly seems non-existent? Palestine has so many actively working archaeologists that you can't swing a dead cat without knocking a couple over. Yet, in spite of all of this work, there's no evidence of a large group of Jews (as described in Exodus) wandering the desert. It's easy to tell the remains of a Jewish campsite from that of the other cultural groups down there - no pig bones in the trash.
This, combined with the textual evidence that the Torah was brought together from several documents, each of which is dated much later than tradition claims, seems entirely relevant to extracting whatever deeper understanding is to be had from the scriptures.
So, no - I don't think "the text itself has already taken a side", and if the reader is to "take a side, too", then he should be doing so in possession of as much information that might be relevant as possible. When church bodies dismiss these things as irrelevant, they're deserving of the charges we non-believers make that they're trying to suppress whatever real truths might be in there.
the churches continue to completely misrepresent this to the believers. They continue to represent that the pentateuch was exclusively the work of Moses and that the gospels represent four distinct near-eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus.
I'm not sure if you meant it as such, but the above isn't an accurate general statement of all "churches." Some of them push this sort of thing, but not all of them. (Read: Not mine.)
I'm not sure if you meant it as such, but the above isn't an accurate general statement of all "churches." Some of them push this sort of thing, but not all of them. (Read: Not mine.)
So LDS is up front about the gospels not having actually been written by eyewitnesses? And that Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers are the work of at least five different writers over many years in time?
If so, that's interesting. Now if you could just realize it's fiction, there'd be some progress. :)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepts the Bible as the word of God "as far as it is translated correctly" - which implies it has been "mistranslated" in places. This doesn't get into details, but such isn't really necessary, as the important point is to realize there are flaws which have been introduced by the hand of man during the translation process.
Oh. Then your church is not exempt from the statement I made, which had nothing to do with translation. I was talking about original texts.
I thought you were alleging some sort of cover-up to hide history's view of the Bible ... in which case you're completely off to attribute such to the LDS Church.
I thought you were alleging some sort of cover-up to hide history's view of the Bible ... in which case you're completely off to attribute such to the LDS Church.
Not a "cover-up" per se.
It's widely accepted among biblical scholars that the names "Mark", "Matthew", "Luke", and "John", were assigned to the canonical gospels by second-century scholars and that none of those names accurately reflect their authorship. There's some debate yet as to exactly who the authors were, but almost nobody (among scholars - I'm not talking about theologians here, who have an obvious bias) believe the "traditional" attributions.
The scholarship also pretty widely accepts the "two-source hypothesis", which says that Matthew and Luke share so much common text with Mark because they copied it from Mark, and that the other text they have in common with each other but that's not shared with Mark, comes from a second source, called Q, and that all of them were written after the fall of Jerusalem in 70CE.
Given this, the "eyewitness" nature of the testimony in the gospels is much weakened. It's mostly third-hand, at least.
This isn't universally held by the scholars, but it does represent a general consensus.
In the OT, there's almost universal agreement among scholars that the books that made up the Jewish Torah (the ones Christians call Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) were not written by Moses as is traditionally claimed (by both Christians and Jews alike). There are at least five authors they widely agree can be identified, in what's known as the "documentary hypothesis". They're known as J (or Jahwist, who consistently uses the name "Yahweh" to refer to the god), E (or Elohist, who consistently uses the name "Elohim"), D (or Deuteronomist, who writes mostly sermons on the law), P (or Priest, who is preoccupied with the centrality of the priesthood), and R (or Redactor).
The basic theory says that at some early point, the work of J and E were brought together. Then, during the Achaemenid Empire, the Emperor (looking to promote Hebrew unity after the Babylonian exile) ordered that this JE document be combined with the D and P material to produce a single, unified history. Scholars generally think that R may have been Ezra.
So, no, not a cover-up per se, but rather a kind of pointed ignoring of such widely held views, among people who can be legitimately said to have valid opinions on these subjects - they're acknowledged experts on the relevant historical periods and they can the preserved texts.
And I wasn't really even commenting on churches in general - I get why conservative churches don't acknowledge this stuff: it's part and parcel of dismissing science in general, when it conflicts with scriptural traditions. The bible gives a specific origin for species, therefore the theory of evolution is wrong. The bible says the earth is the center of the universe, therefore the heliocentric model is wrong. The bible says the universe was created in six days, so the big bang model of cosmology is wrong.
My comments were aimed at the more liberal churches who recognize that scientific study is valid - who accept evolution, the big bang, the heliocentric system, and so on. I remember, in my youth, when I did attend mass, that some of the churches we went to had The Message as the bible in the pews, and I assume some still do. If you've ever read it, it's a sort of "ultra-hip" (well, for the '70s, anyway) modern English translation. Here's Genesis 1:1-5:
First this: God created the Heavens and Earth—all you see, all you don't see. Earth was a soup of nothingness, a bottomless emptiness, an inky blackness. God's Spirit brooded like a bird above the watery abyss.
God spoke: "Light!" And light appeared. God saw that light was good and separated light from dark. God named the light Day, he named the dark Night. It was evening, it was morning — Day One.
It's certainly one of the most "free" translations in wide distribution.
If they're willing to entertain that so much of the bible must necessarily be metaphor and allegory, then certainly there's little damage to be done by recognizing the two-source and documentary hypothesis.
I'm aware of this stuff, and wouldn't have any issue teaching about it at a youth activity or some other appropriate church activity. It's interesting and good to know.
It's not something that would or should be covered in Sunday meetings, however. Not because it's being suppressed or ignored, but because the Church has much more important things to do. The purpose of the Church, after all, is to teach the moral principles, not academics - although it counsels people "need all the education [they] can get" (Gordon Hinckley to youth) and even assists in paying for an education through things like the Perpetual Education Fund.
The purpose of the Church, after all, is to teach the moral principles, not academics
That may be the stated purpose of your church, but it's not really a common one. The modern focus on morality in religion is something of a Johnny-come-lately idea that arose out of the spirit of ecumenicalism that followed the "second great awakening" of the early 19th century.
Since LDS finds its roots in that time period, it's not too shocking that it's shaped by those ideas, but the older Christian sects claim that their purpose is to spread the "word of god" - an essentially theological function (not mere "ethics"), and one which clearly has a legitimate academic component.
On human deification . . . it seems clear to me that people through all ages of time have believed something like the LDS on this point. The "divine spark" is strong among many Catholics, Gnostic Christians, Christian Gnostics, and even pagans like Cicero (_The Dream of Scipio_, especially), as well as early Judahists and Jews. The image and offspring of God . . .
The point that there is "obvious room for it," to me, is sound, but also that the room for it was more often on the margins or among dissenters and less rarely among the managers of churches and synagogues. That is, because the idea is so powerful it is also less manageable.
Another reason I think the idea of human deification is so taboo in the Christian community is the typical theme of the dangers of "pride" in Christ's teachings. Now, don't get me wrong; I think human deification is perfectly consistent with Christianity - it's just that since pride is taught against so strongly, people seem to easily translate that into "anything which gives worth to a human is prideful, and therefore evil." This not only results in the rejection of any divine nature within humanity, but also tends toward the concepts of God's immutability and the worthlessness of acts. It's considered much to prideful for man's actions to have any effect on God, whether it be in judgment or anything else.
Of course, this way of thinking has other consequences as well - ones Christians may not welcome. Immutability, after all, implies the inability of God to interact with humans or have any sort of emotion (such as love), as well as ruling out the bestowal of blessings, mercy or salvation in any way contingent on ... well, on anything.
On a related note, I wonder if this manner of thinking is prevalent in societies without such a high standard of living. Americans seem to almost feel guilty for being so rich, and many love to beat themselves up about it. I wonder if this allows the "humans are less than the dirt of the earth" concepts in Christianity to beat out the "ye are gods" concepts.
Deification is not an adequte term here, I believe. One thing most Christians agree (much of the time anyway)upon is that we are to become more 'Christ-Like'. In becoming more Christ-like, we gain those attributes (Think 'fruits of the spirit' ala Galatians 5:23) that the Holy Spirit puts upon us.
Do we 'become God'? not on your life, as He is the only one. BUT..we can reflect Him daily. As to his 'supernatural abilities'; did not the apostles after Pentacost heal and cast out demons exactly as Christ did? I firmly believe that one could become so grounded and rooted in ones' faith that even today that could happen.
I agree about the translation of pride--but I prefer to translate pride as 'not being a team player' on God's Team. The prideful one boasts that they accomplished X on their own..while a God's Team player gives thanks to Him for His assistance. Lack of pride is utter, total, complete trust and submission to God. And our actions DO have an effect upon God.
Immutability, after all, implies the inability of God to interact with humans or have any sort of emotion (such as love), as well as ruling out the bestowal of blessings, mercy or salvation in any way contingent on ... well, on anything.
Interesting line of thought, but if Christians would just remember that we were created in the image of God--if we can love, cry, laugh, etc. then why can't God? ( I always say one should look to the duckbill platypus for proof God has a sense of humor. ) By the same token, we know he gets angry and suffers disappointment. Yes, I am well aware that because of the fall, we have other more negative (read: sinful) emotions as well, and we're taught to guard against them (lust, envy, even pride) as Christians.
I'm not sure about the prevalence of this thinking in affluent countries, but humans are definitely NOT less than dirt. However, I'm not so sure we are 'Gods' in the truest sense either, but merely that we should aspire to be God-like.
I know the 'prosperity doctrine' (think of Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Joel Osteen, etc) thinking even pervades here in our nation. It's the idea that God seeks to prosper you financially if only you follow His will. I, for one, do not necessarily believe in that in it's totality. I believe that if one prospers financially, God certainly is aware of it--and certainly does not interfere with it, because it will advance His almighty plan. But, I don't believe he intends to prosper everyone, for He knows what our choices might be even before we choose them; and many of us probably would not do well with enormous wealth.
I suspect that a long history of combating various flavors of heresy contributes quite strongly to the reluctance among many Christian sects to address the idea of "becoming god".
It's very obvious that in ancient times, the notion of deity - even among monotheists - was rather different from the view that seems prevalent among modern Christians. Just recently, we had the story on O-nerd about the "living goddess" in Nepal who lost her title. Obviously not everybody thinks "godhood" means "the unique, omnipotent creator of everything", so there's no essential reason to think that the "godhood" that's involved in apotheosis is intended to mean that, either.
But Christianity has spent so much effort in denying the very possibility of divinity in anything but it's own preconceptions that it's developed a knee-jerk reaction to anything that hints that divinity is a unique property of its god(s).
Whether or not deification is appropriate depends on your view of the word. In my view, becoming "like Christ" is the same as becoming a god. It's a doctrinal difference, though, and my point was to show Christianity (as defined by scripture) leaves room for it.
I'm confused by your understanding of God, however, assuming you're a Catholic/Protestant. I agree God is able to experience emotions, but only because I do not accept Him as defined by the creeds. How is it you square the two?
I'm confused by your understanding of God, however, assuming you're a Catholic/Protestant. I agree God is able to experience emotions, but only because I do not accept Him as defined by the creeds.
Recovering Catholic, actually..LOL..Yes, I'm Protestant.
Obviously, I'm humanizing a supernatural being, because humans do not have an adequate vocabulary to discuss God. However, I can easily attribute emotions to God because (as I said) we are created in the image of God. Since we, as creation, have emotions, it naturally follows that God has emotions. (Besides, have you ever LOOKED at a playtypus? LOL) Simplistic? perhaps, but really the only adequate way with the limited vocabulary available to provide us with a description of a supernatural being like God. Not only that, but we see Him display His disappointment in His creation numerous times up to the birth of Christ.
I agree it is sensible to attribute such emotions to God, and I agree our words may not be fully sufficient to describe what God feels - however, my point here is there are certain qualities attributed to God which are logically incompatible. If God is timeless and immutable, it is impossible for him to display the characteristics you describe. He can't change from being happy to sad, proud to disappointed, etc.
So, my question to you is: Do you take exception to the "official" beliefs of your religion in order to persist in believing in a personal God? Or, do you see some way around this logical inconsistency?
If God is timeless and immutable, it is impossible for him to display the characteristics you describe. He can't change from being happy to sad, proud to disappointed, etc.
Dr. Tony Evans explained this in a sermon once; but he also said not to dwell on it too much because it will 'make your head spin 'round and 'round'. Essentially, his sermon said that God's Omnipotence is the direct result of His being in the Past, Present, and Future simultaneously. That being the case--when we talk about God, we're talking about Him in a single moment--an extension into 3-dimensional space, if you will. It is that extension that exhibits what we would call 'emotion'. Truthfully, I believe God transcends emotion, but we don't have the vocabulary to adequately describe this condition.
Do you take exception to the "official" beliefs of your religion in order to persist in believing in a personal God? Or, do you see some way around this logical inconsistency?
I don't see any logical inconsistency, because when we look at God, we're only looking at Him in a single moment in time; not in toto.
However, I can easily attribute emotions to God because (as I said) we are created in the image of God. Since we, as creation, have emotions, it naturally follows that God has emotions.
This is poor logic. The same logic would mean that any properties humans have must also be properties of god. Sinfulness, an ephemeral nature, and so on.
I think a lot of that whole "anything that gives worth to a human is prideful and therefore evil" idea is a remnant of the Calvinism brought by the early settlers of New England that dominated American culture for such long time.
And of course, in Calvinist doctrine, a lot of the things you point out end up being true. There is no "mercy" or "bestowal of blessings" or any kind of "response" to anything believers (or non-believers, for that matter) do. Everything is eternally predestined.
What a wretched philosophy!
And it's exactly why I think the idea of apotheosis is a good one - despite there not actually being any gods or any divinity within man. One role of deity in religion is largely to represent the superlatives. The deity is invested with the best of all possible attributes and to have them to the maximal degree. Who can really argue that it's not a good idea for people to strive to achieve that in themselves?
Who can really argue that it's not a good idea for people to strive to achieve that in themselves?
Exactly. This is why it's so difficult for me to understand when you argue religion as a whole to be "evil." Would you mind explaining how you hold both opinions?
Exactly. This is why it's so difficult for me to understand when you argue religion as a whole to be "evil." Would you mind explaining how you hold both opinions?
Easily. Apotheosis is hardly central to religion, so the two ideas aren't inseparable.
It's as if I said, "Microsoft Windows is an awful operating system, but Winamp is pretty cool." I can easily hold both ideas.
Apotheosis is an interesting idea - but as soon as you start applying it to the specifics of religion, you're going to drag in all the rest of the evils that religion brings with it. Which "god" are you going to emulate? The petty evil dictator of the old testament, who slaughters children for making fun of old men? The jerk that killed a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season?
Frankly, we'd be better of dumping the religion and looking for actual superlatives to acquire. The mythical figures of religion sometimes have those good qualities, but then they always ruin it by exhibiting the worst qualities at the same time while pretending that the good qualities exist nowhere else.
Moreover, while apotheosis is an interesting idea, I think it aims so high that most people wouldn't bother trying. Instead of inventing a target that's literally out of reach, I think it'd be more productive to use real targets that are achievable. Instead of trying to be impossibly perfect - a task doomed to failure - why not try to just improve on the best we've done so far?
To use a sports analogy, "apotheosis" says a golfer should make a hole-in-one on every hole. If that was the task, nobody would play. Instead, the goal ought to be to set a new course record. Or, if you're not that good, then beat your own best score.
Striving to improve is always a laudable goal - and an entirely secular one. But you're better off striving to reach your own goals than a set of goals somebody made up for you, based entirely on falsehoods an outdated concept of reality.
Sensible comments ... now. Maybe I just misunderstood you before, but it seemed you were arguing for all of religion to be bad, not for it to be a poor general construct which included some good things.
In any case, it's clear now.
Well, I look at it this way - most religious folks seem inclined to accept the notion that all of the "good" things in their religion are somehow inherent parts of it. I don't.
Remember, as far as I'm concerned, all of religion is man-made. Every bit. I also very much believe that people are capable of every "good" deed ever done without religion, and I don't see that religion has done much to restrain people from "bad" deeds. In fact, some things that are specifically encouraged by various religions, I consider bad.
So, yes - religions do have both good and bad things in them. Because humans have both good and bad to them. But there is nothing that's strictly religious that strikes me as good. Even this apotheosis idea - I think the idea is an interesting one, insofar as it represents a striving to better oneself. I also think that the specific formulation of it - as some kind of union with a divinity - is pure fiction. One that's inclined to cause one to aim at a poor target.
I've done this before, but look at the "ten commandments" - supposedly the basis of all religious morality (at least, some say so). Of the ten, only half of them are what I'd consider reasonable moral precepts. The rest are either religious mumbo-jumbo (no other gods, blasphemy, idol worship, keeping the sabbath) or thought-crimes (coveting wives, coveting goods).
Of the five that remain (honor your parents, no murder, no adultery, no theft, no perjury), every single one has been a moral guideline for every human society ever recorded.
So, as I see it, there are five "good" commandments, that are ordinary, human, and reasonable. And look what religion brought us - the five "bad" ones.
I know you don't see it that way, nor does ldsudduth, and probably not most of the other religious believers here on O-nerd. And you won't until you take the red pill. I can live with that. And it won't change my mind. After all, I've gotta have a few of you believers around to have something to write about so the rest of the readership can hear what I have to say. :)
God, please click and listen!
Wow! Two great film clips you have there Anon. Lots of truth, lets just pray we are not following the foot steps of Rome. Great men, great quotes, thanks for sharing link, I enjoyed them both.
Thought Provoking by Travis :: NR4 :: on 27 July 2007
I thought that this was an interesting and thought provoking article that left me wanting more from you. I know that this was intended to be a short piece, however a bit more elaboration of a few points would bring beautiful closer to the article; such as a few "in house" definitions and examples of deification of man from different religious groups and how they use biblical support.
At any rate, well done for taking the time to stir the pot and create some individual thinking!