I recently read the following volume:
D. Charles Pyle, I Have Said Ye are Gods: Concepts Conducive to the Early Christian Doctrine of Deification in Patristic Literature and the Underlying Strata of the Greek New Testament (Revised and Supplemented) (CreateSpace, 2018)
I was made aware of the author’s plans for publishing this volume for a few months now and was very excited to read it. The author has a reputation for being well informed about the Greek New Testament and related topics, so I knew that this volume would be a sound contribution to LDS scholarship and apologetics (sadly, too many volumes on the purported biblical evidence for LDS theology rests on eisegesis, not sound exegesis—one reason why I decided to create this blog is to present exegetically sound evidence for Latter-day Saint theology).
The book was excellent. While I would consider myself well read in areas such as Christology, the debate about the Trinity, non-LDS theologies, and the Greek New Testament, one did gain many interesting new insights and gems here and there while reading. Furthermore, I do see myself referring to this volume for future blog posts as the author carefully discusses many of the “proof-texts” one will encounter, sadly, time and time again, from Evangelicals and other critics of the Restored Gospel. If one is engaged in LDS apologetics, this volume is a must-read; and even if one is not, one should still get a copy and read it, as one’s appreciation of the exegetically-sound footing LDS theology has will become apparent.
Here are just some of the excerpts of the volume which I appreciated to whet one’s appetite:
Missing Texts of Biblical Books
[N]ot only do we have specific books mentioned as being cited and/or quoted in our current texts—texts that no longer are extant in any form—we also can see that some portions of the texts now are missing form some of the books we do still have in our Bibles. Evidence of this can be seen in the Book of Jonah, by comparing the entire text with the mention of a prophecy from the same Jonah, cited in 2 Kings 14:25. As can be seen on further examination, that prophecy cited by the author of 2 Kings is nowhere to be found in the current text of our Book of Jonah. This prophecy now is missing from the Book of Jonah, but it also was known by the ancient author of the text of 2 Kings. Examples can be found in the New Testament also, but in these instances the writers are citing and quoting prophecies that are supposed to have been in the Old Testament, but which prophecies cannot now be found in copies of either the Greek or the Hebrew texts of the Old Testament extant today. One example of such is that found at John 7:38. Like the abovementioned prophecy of Jonah, this latter prophecy can be found in no copies of the Old Testament extant today, though still apparently being known by the author of the Gospel of John. (p. 122)
Egyptian terms for “eternity” and the theology of the Book of Mormon
[T]he Egyptian word for “eternity,” ḥḥ, was expressed bot by the word as well as by the ideographic symbol of the same meaning, both of which had the same range of meaning from “a great but indefinite number” to “millions” (as in the number of years, also seen in some writings) in their religious texts. A deity named ḥḥ was in their pantheon, with the tacit understanding among the ancient Egyptians that this god thus himself also was “the god of hundreds of thousands of years.” Another way of writing the word was nḥḥ (meaning eternity). And in connection with this word’s form there also was a deity named Nḥḥ (described as “the god of eternity”).
The Egyptians, much as the Hebrews so did, sometimes also would string together words expressing long durations of time. Yet even those usages still represented long, measurable durations of time, thus demonstrating that even the Egyptians used various words (which frequently are translated as eternity, everlasting, and for ever and ever) similarly to how the Hebrews also did with respect to time. For instance, they might want to write a phrase like nḥḥ ḏt (or its fuller form nḥḥ ḥn’ḏt) to mean something like eternity with everlastingness. Thus, Egyptian also used similar approaches to meaning in which words were attached to other words, as also seen in the use of the phrase nḥḥ ḏt, or its fuller form nḥḥ ḥn’ḏt (meaning literally millions of years without limit, or, an eternity without end). The mere existence of such constructions show us that even Egyptian ḥḥ and nḥḥ did not mean eternity as we have tended to think of the concept. Nor did ḏt by itself mean everlasting as we might assume it did. Also weight is evidence we have seen that an Egyptian word for eternity in a phrase like ḥtr ṥn nḥḥ (meaning a tax fixed for ever or a perpetual tax) also reveals to us that said word did not have inherent within it a meaning we might want to attach to it with our Western way of looking at philosophical constructs . . . The occurrences of “everlasting to everlasting” or “all eternity to all eternity” phrases in the Book of Mormon are not as useful to the critics as they’ve imagined them to be. (pp. 227-28)
Problems with Jehovah’s Witness Christology
For the Witnesses, Jesus first existed as a being named Michael the archangel. Then, as Jesus’s body was gestating in Mary’s womb, the life of Michael the archangel at some point during this process was transferred into Jesus. However, this wasn’t an incarnation. No spirit person was inserted into the body of Jesus so that he could be a man exactly like us, for Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe that humankind have living spirits dwelling inside human bodies—no one is incarnated!
But if somehow the life of Michael was transferred, what happened to the spirit Michael? If it had no more life, was it then dead? Did God kill Michael by transferring life out of the spirit Michael? If the life was transferred from the spirit what then did God do with that lifeless spirit that remained? And for them, Jesus was raised a spirit so that his body of necessity would need to be dissolved into gases, or would be preserved so that it would not see corruption. Afterwards, he would be raised as a spirit being, and again would be known as Michael the archangel! Now, here was Jesus Christ, raised a spirit, but who already had existed as a spirit in the form of Michael the archangel (in their view) but who also had his life transferred out. So were there now two Michael spirits, one lifeless and the other living? Or did God dispose of that, too? As can be seen there is a lot of potential for a great deal of confusion. (pp. 256-57)
On 1 Tim 6:16
[I]mmortality also is part and parcel of the resurrection. Now, if it be true that there were individuals who were raised from the dead directly after the resurrection of Christ (Matthew 27:52-53), then that would mean that at the time that the author had written this verse (if it were Paul who wrote it this way and this epistle is not a forgery; even if not, it doesn’t matter) there were many individuals who at that time had immortality! What then was the intended meaning of this verse? Some had advocated that the meaning has reference to, and refutes, the Emperor worship of the period, as well as the idea that an Emperor had immortality as a “Lord and God” on earth. If this is so, such a meaning would remove this potential thorn in this text.
Verse 16 also claims that no one can approach the light in which Christ dwells. Yet we are told that those who overcome will sit with Christ on his throne (Revelation 3:21). How can a person sit that close and not be in or “approach unto” that light in which he dwells? How is it also that the inhabitants of the holy city New Jerusalem will survive life in the city when God the Father, and the Lamb of God, will be their light (Revelation 21:23; 22:5)? (pp. 275-76)
Jesus is not the “Father” of Spirits
[W]e must understand that Jesus never is spoken of as the Father of spirits, nor is it stated, either by himself or by yet any other person, that he created angels (a requirement, if it is to be at all proven that he created Lucifer). Some may attempt to insist on Colossians 1:16 in an effort to “prove” that Christ created angels. But Origen and other Early Christian Fathers have set in writing that thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, aren’t angels. They are titles that are conferred upon human individuals (compare Romans 13:1; Luke 12:11; Titus 3:1).
Romans 8:38-39 and 1 Peter 3:22 both register angels as a separate class of beings from principalities and powers, and it is of interest that the angels are not listed as being among the creations of Christ. Such a strange omission to have if angels really were among the creations of Christ! All of these points are strengthened by the text of Hebrews 2:10-11. At Hebrews 2:11 we read that both he who sanctifies (Jesus), and they who are being sanctified, are all of one, or, all of one origin compare Revised Standard Version and George M. Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta). Thus, if both Jesus and men are of the same origin, then all have one source and at least in some sense are related. Indeed, this also is why we are called brethren (Hebrews 2:12-17) . . . While discussing [the terms thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers Origen] writes concerning them, that:
“Throne” is not a species of living being, nor “dominion,” not “principality,” or “power”; these are names of the businesses to which those clothed with the names have been appointed; the subjects themselves are nothing but men, but the subject has come to be a throne, or a dominion, or a principality, or a power. (Origen’s Commentary on John II.17, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 10:336. Some American Editions have this in volume 9 but the page number is the same).
Indeed, if these subjects only are men, as Origen suggested—and he would have recognized that those Greek terms actually are abstractive—then, even if we took the passage the most literal way possible, it could be set down as a correct view in the most literal of meanings, for the creation of man on earth indeed was by means of Christ Jesus. If so, it does not make any contact against the teachings of the LDS Christian faith, and critics still cannot use this as a weapon against LDS views and doctrines on the creation, or even in correlation with the critics’ ideation that this verse somehow argues against the LDS idea that Lucifer is related to all mankind, and to Christ. (pp. 341, 346)
Jesus being the “firstborn” of the Father
Most all Evangelicals will take issue with any sorts of ideas that Christ himself could have been begotten in the literal sense, or that he could have had some sort of beginning as an organized being. It is this aspect of Christ that we now need to discuss.
Latter-day revelation states the following about the Lord Jesus Christ and, also, the premortal existence of mankind:
And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn; and all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the glory of the same, and are the church of the Firstborn. Ye were also in the beginning with the Father, . .. (D&C 91:21-23)
Evangelicals, on hearing it, will attack this scripture as invalid because of its very explicit statement that Jesus is the firstborn. They are fond of stating that Christ has been a self-existing, uncreated being from all eternity and, that he thus accordingly cannot have had a beginning as an organized intelligence. But does the Bible really teach any such thing as that? It turns out that the Bible actually does not. We find Jesus informing his disciples of the following: “As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me” (John 6:57). The key phrase in this text is “and I live by the Father.” The Greek text underlying that phrase is καγω ζω δια τον πατερα. What is very significant about this phrase is its theological import. The Greek word δια is with the accusative of person and is in the accusative case. What that word in that situation indicates, in the text of the Gospel of John, is the sense of “because.” It here essentially denotes “the efficient cause” (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd edition, 181b). In other words, the Father herein is stated by Jesus himself to be the efficient cause of the life of Jesus. And if Jesus had an efficient cause, he had to have had some sort of beginning as an intelligent entity. There is no other way around that, in this author’s opinion. Jesus himself taught it. A scholarly theological text avers the following about this:
Cause or Ground. The two principle non-local meanings of dia are “by means of”, “through”, (Lat. Per) and “on account of”, “because of” (Lat. ob and propter) The interrelation of these two senses is evident from the fact that dia with the acc[usative] may occasionally denote the efficient cause (e.g., Jn. 6:57a, the Father is the source of the Son’s life, as in Jn 5:26 . . .) (Colin Brown, ed. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 3:1183)
Do the critics even realize what this scripture means for their theologies? Essentially, scholars have admitted that the Father himself is the source or efficient cause of the life that the Son possesses! Do critics of the Church even realize the import of this admission? What it means simply is this: Jesus, in this verse of scripture, plainly states that the Father is the efficient cause, or the originating source, of the Son’s life. Thus, his life’s existence as an organized being is contingent upon the Father’s giving him life. But if Jesus really were a self-existent, non-organized (and hence non-contingent) Being, the Father could not possibly have been the efficient cause of his life, as Jesus himself said the Father is. There is only one conclusion that can be reached (if a person does not maneuver about and so attempt to explain away the plain meaning of this passage), and that is that Jesus’ very life and existence as an organized being is contingent and dependent upon the Father! Thus the Latter-day Saint view of the Son as the firstborn spirit Son of God also is quite well vindicated by this verse, and thus makes clear that his life and deity are also derived from the Father. He did not possess it of himself before the Father gave it to him . . .Revelation 3:14 [is a text that] Latter-day Saints have taken to mean that Christ was the first of the creation of God. Its important key phrase of course is: “the beginning of the creation of God.” In the Greek this is: η αρχη της κτισεως του θεου. There is some disputation as to what the true meaning of this passage is. Many scholars believe αρχη here to mean ruler, the head, or the originating cause (which also is possible and can fit the context of the passage), although terms like αρχων, κεφαλη, or αρχηγος, would seem to have been much better suited to these meanings. But in the Johannine vocabulary the word αρχη means beginning, and it is so understood in all Johannine texts in which it is used. Also, objective scholars have admitted that it is possible it infers that Christ is the first, chief, foremost, or highest of God’s creation. Walter Bauer represents that: “ . . . the meaning ‘beginning’ = first created is linguistically possible . . . (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 112a, definition 2. 3rd Edition: “linguistically probable”). Additional linguistic evidences are found at Genesis 10:10 (LXX), Job 40:19 (LXX) (and other places), which evidence lends more support to this latter view. Both these passages (as found in the Septuagint) are structured like the passage at Revelation 3:14. Both also imply the literal sense of “beginning.” It may be of interest to note that the original scribe of Codex Sinaiticus, perhaps in an effort to avoid this interpretation, wrote the text to read: και η αρχη της εκκλησιας του θεου “and the beginning of the church of God.” But if the current reading of this text indeed can be interpreted so to mean that Christ is the first of God’s creations then we also might understand that the Greek word πρωτοτοκος in Colossians 1:15 (in its most literal meaning) would lend yet additional support to this idea of Christ being the “firstborn of all creation.” It is logical to think this way.
The key phrase in Colossians 1:15 is the Greek phrase πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως, meaning firstborn of all creation. There are those who would deny the obvious implication of this verse by stating that this same word for firstborn also can be figurative in meaning or, applied to individuals who are not really firstborn in birth order. And while this is true in some cases it still does not obviate the fact it also can be intended to be literal in its meaning, or also can mean first in order. The same word in verse 18 has this latter meaning. First in order of all creation also works. From all of the above, Latter-day Saints are on far safer ground than they know. This objection of the critics, on the other hand, is of particularly weak foundation. (pp. 355-57, 360-61; cf. my article Is Latter-day Saint Christology “Arian”?)
The True Meaning of Jesus’ Promise in Matt 16:18
Jesus promised that his Church would not be prevailed against by “the gates of Hades” (Matthew 16:18, NET Bible). Many have interpreted this verse to mean that the Church on earth would not die. But this is not what Jesus meant. People have not understood. These also do not realize the function of the gates of Hades. Their function was to keep in Hades those who died, and keep them dead, thus prevailing against all who entered thereby. They were not defensive gates. Most never follow through to this real meaning of the promise. It is only through death that this promise might be fulfilled, for in death is how one faces the gates of death. The Church was to die but Jesus promised that she would not be prevailed against. She would live again! Why not unite with the living Church? (pp. 390-91)
Incidentally, the author is active on Quora, answering many questions relating to Latter-day Saint issues. One should "follow" him as he is a very well-read, well-informed member of the Church.