Thursday, October 31, 2024

More Evidence that Cameron Bertuzzi is Clueless: The Example of Divine Embodiment

Cameron Bertuzzi (who does not have a working knowledge of the Old Testament) has been refuted by Jacob Hansen on whether God is "limited" if he is embodied:


Debunking Cameron Bertuzzi: The Simple Way To Prove The Christian God Has A Body


and

Capturing Christianity's Cameron Bertuzzi FAILS Again. Does He Even Want To Understand Mormonism?


Bertuzzi's comments about an embodiment God being "limited" shows that he is clueless about his own Trinitarian theology. Note the following from Chalcedon:


Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin". He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God. (DS 301)

We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division or separation. The distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis. (DS 302)


On the Biblical evidence for God the Father (not simply the Son) being embodied, as well as a response to standard prooftexts cited against it (e.g., John 4:24), see my essay:

Lynn Wilder vs. Latter-day Saint (and Biblical) Theology on Divine Embodiment


One thing is clear that Cameron has not cracked open a book by a Latter-day Saint or engaged in primary research material, but what he finds in 10-second google searches.



 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Robert A. Sungenis on 1 Peter 3:21 and the Salvific Efficacy of Water Baptism

  

69 whereunto baptism, being of the like form, now saves you also ο και υμας αντιτυπον νυν σωζει βαπτισμα, wherein ο (“whereunto”) is the subject and the water of vr. 20 is its antecedent and can be translated as, “which antitype, baptism, now saves us.” The DR’s “being of the like form” is “αντιτυπον,” transliterated into English as “antitype,” which appears only here and Hb 9:24 (“the pattern of the true”). The type from the OT is always less than the antitype to which it points in the NT, hence baptism unto spiritual salvation is greater than the physical saving of Noah. Peter reinforces his spiritual meaning by saying baptism is, “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh” as if the water applied were for the purpose of taking dirt from the body; rather, it takes away the filth of the soul. The water lustrations of the Old Covenant priests only cleaned the body and were merely symbolic of a spiritual cleansing, but New Covenant baptism is the actual means of salvation wherein the Holy Spirit cleanses the soul when the water is applied to the body with the baptismal formula (cf. Jn 3:5; Ti 3:5; Mk 16:16; Ep 5:26; Ac 2:38; Gl 3:27; Mt 28:19). (Robert A. Sungenis, Commentary on the Catholic Douay-Rheims New Testament from the Original Greek and Latin, 4 vols. [State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2021], 4:227 n. 69)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Was D&C 87 (the "Civil War Prophecy") was Known Before 1835?

A critic of the prophetic character of D&C 87, writing in 1927, argued that:

 

It is claimed by Mormons that this prophecy was made December 25, 1832; but there is no substantial evidence of its existence at the time. The General Assembly of the Mormon church in 1835 had no knowledge of it, and does not mention it. (Bates Morris, Joe Smith's Prophecy on the Rebellion Examined and Found Wanting [Chicago: Bates Morris, 1927], 4, Church History Library, M231.73 M875j)

 

While D&C 87 (the so-called “Civil War Prophecy”) was known pre-1835 is well-established, which is perhaps why modern critics do not repeat this ‘argument.’ For example, the following are definitely pre-1835 copies of D&C 87:

 

Copy of the prophecy in Revelation Book 1 (ca. March 1831-July 1835)

 

Copy of the prophecy in Revelation Book 2 (copied in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams sometime between January 22 to February 27, 1833)

 

Revelation, 25 December 1832, Unidentified Scribe Copy [D&C 87] (copied "Not before 4 Jan. 1833")

 

There is also the following which is dated between mid-January 1833 and May 27, 1840

 

Revelation, 25 December 1832, Edward Partridge Copy [D&C 87]

 

 

Further Reading:

 

Resources on Joseph Smith’s Prophecies

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Wednesday, October 30, 2024

Brigham Young (December 23, 1847) on the Kingdom of God

Re.: Brigham Young, General Epistle from the Council of the Twelve Apostles, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints abroad, dispersed throughout the Earth, greeting, December 23, 1847. Featured version published as a pamphlet in St. Louis, Missouri, January 1848, Church History Library:

 

 

The Kingdom of God consists in correct principles; and it mattereth not what a man’s religious faith is; whether he be a Presbyterian, or a Methodist, or a Baptist, or a Latter Day Saint or “Mormon,” a Campbellite, or a Catholic, or Episcopalian, or Mahometan, or even pagan, or any thing else, if he will bow the knee, and with his tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ, and will support good and wholesome laws for the regulation of society, we hail him as a brother, and will stand by him while he stands by us in these things; for every man’s religious faith is a matter between his own soul and his God alone; but if he shall deny the Jesus, if he shall curse God, if he shall indulge in debauchery and drunkenness, and crime; if he shall lie, and swear, and steal; if he shall take the name of the Great God in vain, and commit all manner of abominations, he shall have no place in our midst, for we have long sought to find a people that will work righteousness, that will distribute justice equally, that will acknowledge God in all their ways, that will regard those sacred laws and ordinances which are recorded in that sacred book called the Bible, which we verily believe, and which we proclaim to the ends of the earth. (“Appendix 1: General Epistle from the Council of the Twelve Apostles, December 1847,” in Settling the Valley, Proclaiming the Gospel: The General Epistles of the Mormon First Presidency, ed. Reid L. Neilson and Nathan N. White [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017], 288)

 

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

David Calabro on Joseph Smith's Emendation to Genesis 1:1 in the King Follett Discourse and Sermon in the Grove (1844)

The following comes from:

 

David Calabro, “Ancient Israelite Temple Ritual Through the Telescope of Restoration Scripture,” in The Temple: Plates, Patterns, and Patriarchs (Temple on Mount Zion Series 7; Orem, Utah: the Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2024), 350-52

 

 

Joseph Smith commented on Genesis 1:1 in two sermons in Nauvoo: the King Follett sermon given on 7 April 1844, and a sermon given in the East Grove on 16 June 1844. [5] A correct understanding of the Prophet’s interpretation of Genesis 1:1 as set forth in these sermons depends on a correct analysis of the manuscript sources of the sermons, a task which has been undertaken by Kevin L. Barney and Ronald V. Huggins (who come to somewhat different conclusions). [6] Three aspects of Joseph Smith’s interpretation emerge with a high degree of, certainty: (1) the Prophet believed that the first word in Genesis 1:1, ‎ bərēʾšît, originally lacked the preposition , “in”; (2) he translated the first part of this verse as “The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods”; and (3) from something in Genesis 1, though not necessarily the first verse, he understood that God met in council with other deities to create the earth. From these aspects alone, it is evident that the Prophet understood the original form of Genesis 1:1 to be quite different from Moses 2:1b (which retains the preposition in the phrase “in the beginning”). It is also evident that his understanding of the beginning of Genesis aligns remarkably well with the ancient Near Eastern context in which Genesis was written, as the divine Council and creation by a plurality of deities are common motifs in ancient Near Eastern texts.

 

The removal of the preposition , “in,” at the beginning of Genesis 1:1, though it is a very small emendation to the received text of Genesis, entails several other changes. Some of these other changes are implicit in Joseph Smith’s sermons. To begin with, this would make the word re’šît, “beginning,” the subject of the sentence. [7] This form, however, is feminine and thus does not agree grammatically with the verb bərə’. From the pronunciation of the word in the quotations above, and from Joseph’s translation, it appears that the “grammatical termination” -it also dropped from this word, making it ro’š, “head” (a masculine noun).

 

Taking this noun as the subject of the sentence forces the following noun elohim, “Gods” to be the direct object of the verb. This is the grammatical basis for the Prophet’s translation of the first part of the verse, “The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods”-apparently a reference to a cosmogony. [8] This in turn forces us to take what follows, ʾēṯ haššāmayim wəʾēṯ hāʾāreṣ, as something other than the direct object, Joseph does not seem to have explained how he interpreted the grammar here, although he seems to omit the second instance of ‘et. One possibility is to take the word ‘et not as a direct object marker but as the preposition meaning “with.” With this interpretation, the verse would mean something like, “The Head One brought forth the gods together with the heavens and the earth.” However, this is somewhat less satisfactory in terms of meaning, since it would conflate two separate events, the creation of the Gods and the creation of the cosmos.

 

Another approach, which has not been suggested before to my knowledge, would be to interpret the word ‘et not as the direct object marker nor a preposition but rather as a rare noun form. There is some limited comparative support for this interpretation. “The Egyptian word it, likely vocalized as *yāti, means “father.” [9] A connection between this word and the one in Genesis 1:1 would imply the Hebrew word is related to Amorite ittum, a rare noun of uncertain meaning, appearing in the theophoric names ‘itta-Abba (ḫi-it-ta-dab-ba) and ‘Itta-‘Ili (it-ta-i3-il2), both from Mari. [10] In light of these possibilities, the Hebrew word in question could be a rare or poetic noun meaning “father,” perhaps inserted from Proto-Afroasiatic or borrowed from Egyptian. [11] God is “the Father of heaven and of earth” (Mosiah 3:8). With this interpretation, the verse in Genesis could be translated thus: “The Head One brought forth the gods / the Father of heaven and earth.” The syntax would be similar to Psalm 134:3, where the second colon consists of an extended form of the subject of the first colon, and the second colon also happens to describe God as the Creator of heaven and earth: “May Yahweh bless you from Zion . the Maker of heaven and earth.” Like Psalm 134, the beginning of Genesis 1 would then take on a poetic character, appropriate for a choral chant at the introduction of a performance. Indeed, verse 2 is easily scanned as a poetic tricolon. One may compare Ugaritic epic texts recounting events related to the Creation, which texts are written in poetic narrative style. Another possible example of the Hebrew word ‘et as a noun is in Genesis 49:25, which could be rendered “from God your father, who will help you / and the Father Almighty (‎wəʾēt šadday), who will bless you.” [12]

 

Joseph Smtih’s interpretation of the first verse of Genesis has ramifications for the interpretation of the rest of Genesis 1. It implies that the word elohim, usually understood as a “plural of majesty” and translated as “God,” would be understood in this chapter as a regular plural, meaning “Gods.” [13] It also implies that the speech throughout this chapter is that of the Gods as they meet in council to discuss the Creation. Overall, Joseph’s interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, as revealed in his Nauvoo sermons, fits well in an ancient Near Eastern context such as one would expect from a preexilic Israelite text.

 

Notes for the Above:

 

[5] B. H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1976), 6:307, 475; Smith, Teachings of the Prophet, 348-49, 371.

 

[6] Kevin Barney, “Joseph Smith’s Emendation of Hebrew Genesis 1:1,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 30, no 4 (1998): 103-35; Ronald V. Huggins, “Joseph Smith and the First Verse of the Bible,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 46, no. 1 (2003): 29-52.

 

[7] On the face of it, the removal of the preposition could be interpreted as converting the verse into a rubric: “The beginning of God’s creating the heavens and the earth.” However, Joseph Smith’s comments make it clear that this is not how he interprets the emended text. Interestingly, Moses 2:1 also implies that this word refers to God: “I am the Beginning and the End.” Moses 2:1 is thus similar doctrinally to the interpretation put forth in the Nauvoo sermons, though it is couched in language appropriate to an early Christian rather than an ancient Near Eastern context.

 

[8] Barney, recognizing that Joseph Smith accurately understood the verb bərə’ to signify “organize, bring forth” (that is, to create out of something else) and not “summon to council,” argues that Joseph’s emendation of the word bərēʾšît consisted of an entire clause, perhaps (as one option) something like hebi’ ro’š hə’elohim ‘et hə’elohim, “The head one of the Gods brought (forth) the Gods.” What follows would be a separate clause starting with bərə’. See Barney, “Joseph Smith’s Emendation,” 125-34. However, I think it is more likely that Joseph understood bərə’ in a cosmogonic sense. His comments on the divine Council refer not to this initial clause but to the remainder of the chapter, in which “the Gods” (elohim) speak concerning the Creation, implicitly meeting in council to do so.

 

[9] R. O. Faulkner, Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1962), 32; Werner Vycichl, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue copte (Leuven: Peeters, 1983), 67-68. The Egyptian phoneme usually transliterated as I corresponds etymologically to the Semitic phonemes /y/ and /’/ (Aleph). A connection between this Egyptian word and the Hebrew word ‘et in Genesis 1:1 would imply that the Masoretic vocalization of the Hebrew word is incorrect.

 

[10] See Ignace J. Gelb, Computer-Aided Analysis of Amorite (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1980), 14, 72.

 

[11] If this word is borrowed from Egyptian, the noun may exploit the different cultural connotations of fatherhood in Egyptian. In Hebrew culture, the household is patrimonial, and marriage is patrilocal, so that a new father might not be the leader of his family. In Egyptian society, a new father might not be the leader of his family. In Egyptian society, a married couple starts their own household: the father “founds a house” (grg pr). See Faulker, Concise Dictionary, 291. Note also that pharaohs often spoke of God as “my father(s) the God(s).”

 

[12] The text is susceptible to multiple interpretations based on the reading in some manuscripts and versions. O. Eißfeldt assumes that ‘et here is a mistake for ‘el, “God.” See Otto Eißfeldt, prep., Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Liber Genesis, ed. Karl Ellinger et al. (Stuttgart: DEU: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1969), 83. The first part of the verse is usually translated as “by the God of your father,” but whether the first two nouns are in a genitive relationship or in an apposition cannot be determined from the forms alone. The relationship is likewise unclear in the Septuagint, in which both noun phrases are in the genitive case. The Common English Bible (2011), unlike modern translations, render the first part of the verse as “by God, your father,” which agrees with my suggested translation.

 

[13] This agrees with the first-person plural verbs and pronouns in verse 26: “Let us make men in our image, according to our likeness.” Elsewhere, the third-person singular verbs preceding the noun elohim are allowable according to Biblical Hebrew syntax (as in classical Arabic), even if the noun is interpreted as a regular plural. The noun ‎bəṣalmô, “in his image,” in verse 27, which has a third-person singular pronoun suffix, is not found in the original Greek text of the Septuagint and may be a later addition to the text as suggested by O. Eißfeldt, the editor of Genesis in the Biblia Hebraica Stugggartensia.

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Robert A. Sungenis on 2 Corinthians 4:4 and Satan, not God, being the God/θεος of this world

  

“the god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers”: ο θεος το αιωνος τουτου ετυφλωσεν τα νοηματα των απιστων better translated as “the god of this age,” as opposed to “this world.” The phrase ο θεος του αιωνος (DR: “the god of this world”) appears in no other passage of the NT. Some Fathers and medievals construed the passage to mean, e.g., “But we assert of this passage that it is spoken neither of the devil nor of another creator, but of the God of the universe, and that it is to be read thus, ‘God has blinded the minds of the unbelievers of this world’ (Chrysostom, Homily 8 on 2nd Corinthians). This view is based mainly on the idea that since God “hardened” the Jews in unbelief (cf. Jn 12:40; Rm 9:18; 11:7), he is still hardening them at the present time. Paul, however, is not dealing directly with Jews in Second Corinthians, but with the obstinacy of the Gentile Corinthians. Even in 2Co 3:4-14 when Paul speaks about the Jews, he refers to them merely as a backdrop to his teaching of the superiority of the New Covenant to the Old Covenant. Marcion was the first to hold the view that “god” in 2Co 4:4 referred to God, based on the distinction he made between “the creator God” (which is referred to by Chrysostom above as  “another creator”) and the “Father of Jesus Christ,” as if they were two distinct beings. Irenaeus disagreed with Marcion, but to substantiate his point he rearranged the Greek syntax of 2Co 4:4 to read, “God has blinded the unbelievers of this age” (Against Heresies, Bk 3, Ch 7), as followed by Chrysostom above. Irenaeus’ view is also followed by Tertullian, Cyril, Origen, Ambrosiaster, Theodoret, Augustine, and into the medieval period by Theophylact, Herveius, Sedulius, Primasius, Lombard, and Aquinas. Erasmus was the first to posit that “god of this age” refers to Satan (Annotations, 533). Like many after him, he refers to similar passages describing Satan (e.g., “the prince of this world” – Jn 12:31; “the ruler of the power of the air” – Ep 2:2; “the rulers of this age” – 1Co 2:8, cf. Ac 26:18; 2Co 11:14; 1Th 2:18), so that “god” (θεος) refers not to divinity but to rulers, much like Jesus’ reference to, “I said, you are gods” in Jn 10:34 (cf. Ps 82:6) refers to the rulers of that day. Furthermore, as God is presented in Scripture, he is never identified as the God of a particular age, but the God of all ages. Irenaeus is obviously cognizant of this fact and thus decides to remove του αιωνος τουτου (“this age”) as a direct object of ο θεος (“the god”) and instead makes τα νοηματα των απιστων(“the minds of unbelievers”) the direct object of ο θεος, which is an egregious manipulation of the Greek text. Conversely, only a being whose power was limited to a certain period would fit the title “god of this age.” Moreover, it has always been acknowledged that Satan is used of God and thus God is the ultimate controller of any situation (cf. 2Sm 24:1; 1Ch 21:1; Jb 2:3-7). Thus it is necessarily implied God allows the prerogatives of Satan without specifying it in the text. The mere fact that Irenaeus changed the syntax of the Greek to arrive at his preferred view suggests it was his anti-Marcion theology driving his interpretation rather than good grammatical exegesis. We also know the term “god” was also used in other non-divine contexts, such as “gods of Egypt” (Ex 12:12); “upon their gods the Lord executed judgment” (Nm 33:4); “among the gods there is none like unto thee” (Ps 86:8). (Robert A. Sungenis, Commentary on the Catholic Douay-Rheims New Testament from the Original Greek and Latin, 4 vols. [State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2021], 2:355-56 n. 52)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

William Riley on 1 Chronicles 17 Changing the Unconditional Prophecy in 2 Samuel 7 to a Conditional Prophecy

  

Perhaps Psalm 132 provides the best context in which to consider one of the most striking differences between 1 Chronicles 17 and its Vorlage, the omission of 2 Sam. 7.14b: אשׁר בהעותו והכחתיו בשׁכט אנשׁים. The absence of this clause has been variously explained: the Chronicler presents the more original reading which the Deuteronomistic Historian has expanded; the lack is to be explained by the Chronistic idealization of David and Solomon; or the Chronicler omits the phrase to accommodate his messianic hope.

 

While suggesting a messianic explanation for the omission, Botterweck notes that the lack of this phrase has reduced the unconditionality of Yahweh's favour towards the House of David, a suggestion reinforced by Japhet with reference to ancient Near Eastern parallels. This observation assumes added strength if one postulates that the hope for Davidic restoration was missing in the Chronicler's outlook. The absence of the phrase, together with the new emphasis on Solomon in the oracle, allows for the possibility that lack of faithfulness may lead to an end to the dynastic promise, at least in its political expression, just as the Chronistic expressions of the oracle allow the possibility of an everlasting dynasty if the kings remain faithful (cf. 1 Chron. 28.7). The omission of 2 Sam. 7.14b displays greater consistency with Ps. 132.12 as read in the non-monarchical post-exilic context, for it removes the safety valve (unknown to Ps. 132) which could be seen as guaranteeing the rule of individual members of the dynasty even in the face of overwhelming unfaithfulness to Yahweh. That such an unconditional guarantee does not form part of the Chronicler's picture is demonstrated by the warning to Solomon in 1 Chron. 28.9. The omission of 2 Sam. 7.14b, and of the unconditional promise that it can be made to imply, eventually allows the Chronicler to bring the story of the dynasty to the historical end known to him, and to do so in line with both his Saul paradigm and his vision of divine retribution.

 

The conditionality of Nathan's oracle, especially in relation to the Solomonic focus of its Chronistic form in 1 Chronicles 17, receives its most lucid expression in the assurance, or warning, of David to Solomon in 1 Chron. 28.9b: אם-תדרשׁנו ימצא לך ואם-תעזבנו יזניתך. Even though he is the son upon whom the promise of 1 Chronicles 17 centres, Solomon must be warned that his actions could make Yahweh forsake him forever.1 The presence of the verb דרשׁ in the first condition of this admonition, as well as the adverse possibility contained in the second condition, invoke the Saul paradigm for the very first successor in the Davidic line. In Solomon, the Chronicler's David seems to be addressing the entire Davidic dynasty to come, placing the conditionality of the dynastic promise in plain terms before the narrative of the subsequent members of the dynasty begins.

 

In this context of a conditioned covenant, the significance of the Chronicler's alterations in 1 Chron. 17.14 becomes more obvious: the oracle is brought to a final crescendo with the promise שהעמדתיהו בביתי ובמלכותי עד-העולם וכסאו יהוה נכון עד-עלום. The oracle culminates in the promise that Solomon will be a vassal to Yahweh, stationed for duty in the Temple, and that Solomon's throne (not David's) will be established in perpetuity. The Chronicler affirms that the kingship and the kingdom belong to Yahweh, not to the House of David—an affirmation which is repeated in the great doxology at the end of the Davidic narrative (1 Chron. 29.11-12).

 

The Chronicler's interest in the Davidic dynasty can therefore be seen as more concerned with the role of the dynasty in relation to the Temple than with the dynasty's unending rule over Israel, and this interest manifests itself as early as the Chronistic presentation of Nathan's oracle. The narrative stage is set not so much for an eternal dynasty as for David's dynastic successor whose primary function is to finish what David has begun in bringing the Ark to Jerusalem (Although David has brought the Ark to Jerusalem, he has left the Tent at Gibeon according to 1 Chron. 16.39. From a narrative consideration the presence of the Tent outside Jerusalem points to the incompletion of the Jerusalem cultus in David’s day and sets the story firmly on the road towards its eventual completion under Solomon) and to carry out the תבנית given to David. For the Chronicler, the centre of the covenant with David is not formed by the dynastic promise, but by the task of temple-building, and the fulfilment of the covenant is to be sought in the completed Temple rather than in an unending Davidic rule.

 

Yet even within the Davidic material, the Chronicler may have indicated the terminus ad quem for the dynastic promise in the eventuality that the dynasty prove unsatisfactory. This indication of a possible terminus is contained in the final Davidic admonition to Solomon in Chronicles:

 

And David said to Solomon his son, 'Be strong, be brave and act! Do not fear and do not be terrified, for Yahweh God, my God, is with you; he will not forsake you and he will not abandon you before all the work of the service of the House of Yahweh is finished' (1 Chron. 28.20).

 

Commentators sometimes propose that this passage depends upon Josh. 1.5-7 in which there is not only a great correspondence of vocabulary, but also of occasion. However, there is nothing in Josh. 1.5-7 which corresponds to the temporal clause עד-לכלות כל-מלאכת עבודת בית-יהוה in 1 Chron. 28.20. This clause certainly 'serves to point to the goal of the divine presence, the construction of the temple';1 it may also indicate the goal of the election of the dynasty, and the point to which the rule of that dynasty is guaranteed.

 

True to the paradigm established in his Saul narrative, the Chronicler presents his audience with a view of the dynastic promise through a cultic lens. David's cultic concern has ensured that he did not become another failed king like his predecessor; instead, his reign is presented as an idealized Urzeit for both the dynasty and the cultus. David, the second founder of the cultus, becomes the founder of the dynasty to which fell the task of putting the Davidic תבנית for the Temple and its services into effect; the task and the promise will be especially important in the Chronistic narrative concerning Solomon which complements the Davidic story. The Chronicler's insights into king and cultus, contained initially in the Davidic Urzeit, etched their own pattern on his record of how David's legacy was to fare in the hands of his descendants, as shall be seen. (William Riley, King and Cultus in Chronicles: Worship and the Reinterpretation of History [Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 160; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993], 72-76)

 

 

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Trent Horn on "The Myth of Protestant Bible Martyrs"

While I am very critical of Roman Catholicism (e.g., its Mariology), at the same time, I like to think I have done a good job at being informed about Roman Catholic theology, history, and apologetics (for e.g., I am the only LDS apologist, that I know of, who has read the works of Bellarmine), and try my best to correct misunderstandings of Catholicism if/when someone says errant (I often do that at Church settings as, sadly, many Latter-day Saints have a very naïve understanding of Roman Catholicism).

 

Trent Horn (who I am very critical of when it comes to his really lousy work against Mormonism, though one has to give him credit as a very good Catholic apologist [I stand by my endorsement of his The Case for Catholicism [Ignatius Press, 2017]) has just posted a very good video on a common objection against Catholicism which I also think is a poor ‘argument’:

 

The Myth of Protestant Bible Martyrs




 

  

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

 

Tuesday, October 29, 2024

Brigham Young (December 23, 1847) on False Prophets and Apostles Arising after the Death of the Prophet Joseph Smith

Re.: Brigham Young, General Epistle from the Council of the Twelve Apostles, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints abroad, dispersed throughout the Earth, greeting, December 23, 1847. Featured version published as a pamphlet in St. Louis, Missouri, January 1848, Church History Library:

 

 

Since the murder of President Joseph Smith, many false prophets and false teachers have arisen, and tried to deceive many, during which time we have mostly tarried with the body of the Church, or been seeking a new location, leaving those prophets and teachers to run their race undisturbed, who have died natural deaths, or committed suicide, and we now, having it in contemplation soon to re-organize the Church according to the original pattern, with a First Presidency and Patriarch, feeling that will be the privilege of the Twelve, ere long, to spread abroad among the nations, not to hinder the gathering, but to preach the gospel, and push the people, the honest in heart, together from the four quarters of the earth. (“Appendix 1: General Epistle from the Council of the Twelve Apostles, December 1847,” in Settling the Valley, Proclaiming the Gospel: The General Epistles of the Mormon First Presidency, ed. Reid L. Neilson and Nathan N. White [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017], 286)

 

This quote is apropos in light of the documentary produced by the Interpreter Foundation that was released earlier this month, Six Days in August.

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Cardinal Luis F. Ladaria and the Salvation of the Person of Jesus

Cardinal Luis F. Ladaria (b. 1944), is a Spanish Jesuit theologian served as Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith. In his book, Jesus Christ: Salvation for All, he wrote the following about the salvation of the person of Jesus:

 

The mysteries of the life of Christ shows us Jesus’s growth and development in his relationship with the Father. This progress in sonship, through the work of the Spirit, disposes him, on the one hand, to the realization of the mission entrusted to him. But on the other hand, Jesus must be made capable of communicating to humanity the perfection that he possesses. Progression, therefore, is presupposed, it cannot be considered meaningless for Jesus himself. And now appears the second moment in the life of Jesus that has a special significance to our purpose here: this resurrection. It appears as the moment of Jesus’ <<salvation>>, (Dial. Tryph. 73,2) <<which shows that [Christ] admits them [Hebrew ancestors] to be his fathers, who trusted in God and were saved by him [cfr. Ps 22:5-6] . . . and he foretells that he shall be saved by the same God, but does not boast in accomplishing anything through his own will or might>> (Dial. Tryph. 101,1) Justin also tells us the following: <<For if the Son of God clearly states that he can be saved, neither because he is a son, nor because he is strong or wise, but that without God he cannot be saved [cfr. Ps 22:10-12], even though he be sinless, as Isaiah declares in words to the effect that even in regard to his very language he committed no sin “although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth” [Is 53:9]>> (Dial. Tryph. 102,7)

 

For Jesus, salvation means acquiring through his humanity, through his entire earthly life and especially in the resurrection, that which in a true sense, and not merely figuratively, he will give back to humanity. Christ, in his obedience to the Father until death, has imprinted in his humanity the dispositions of sonship that correspond to him and are fitting as the son of God. As a consequence of this, in his resurrection he will also receive in his humanity, in his flesh, the divine properties of incorruptibility and immortality. In this way, he will be able to make us participants in them as well. All this will be made possible in the time and rhythm of humanity, which do not allow things to be done once for all time. Christ can be the Savior because in his humanity he has experienced and has received the salvation of God—in a word, because he has been saved. By virtue of his infinite goodness and in fulfillment of the Father’s plan, the Son of God, who has not known and cannot know sin, has placed himself in the predicament of needing to be liberated and saved from death through the glory of the resurrection.

 

Justin is not the only one of the Fathers who has spoken of the salvation of Jesus. Hilary of Poitiers, two centuries later, and in the midst of anti-Arian struggle, when the insistence on the humanity of Jesus gave origin to erroneous interpretations, insisted on the need for Jesus to be saved and on his solidarity with us in the weakness he shared with all of humanity: <<Sharing in our common weakness he prayed the Father to save him, so that he might teach us that he was born man under all the conditions of man’s infirmity>> (Tr. Ps. 53,7) Thus Jesus invokes the name of God the Father, so that he may be saved in that humanity that he has assumed for us. Jesus first realized in himself the mystery of our salvation, and with his resurrection he annulled the decree of condemnation threatening us (cfr. Col 2:14-15): <<He fulfilled the mystery of our salvation, he who coming from the dead is now eternal, first, by raising himself from the dead, and ending in himself the decree of our death, within which we were imprisoned>> (Tr. Ps. 67,23)

 

The salvation of Christ and our salvation are one and the same. In the glorification of Jesus’ humanity, salvation is realized in him and in us. The salvation that he asks for and that takes place in him is the glorification and divinization of humanity. The spiritualization of the flesh in the resurrection is considered as the transformation of the substance of eternal salvation: <<in aeternae salute substantiam>> (Tr. Ps. 143,18) Divinity is the substantia salutis, of which humanity, without ceasing to be humanity, can participate. Above all, it is the humanity of Christ, and because of it and through it, the humanity of all of us. It is the salvation that Jesus asks for himself as a man, the pleading of the flesh (carnis deprecatio), that in the resurrection and glorification of the Lord will become for the Father what from eternity has been the Word. (Hilary of Poitiers, De Trinitate III 16) IN that glory he will be eternally contemplated by the just.

 

And even if it does explicitly seem to be the vocabulary of salvation, Pope Leo the Great spoke of the exaltation of Christ in his humanity, citing the hymn of Phil 2:6-11:

 

Being uniquely the Lord Jesus Christ . . . nonetheless we understand that the exaltation, with which, as the peoples’ Doctor says, God exalted him and gave him a name above any other (cfr. Phil 2:9-10), refers to that form which should be enriched with the increase of such a great glorification . . . The form of servant . . . through which impassive divinity carried out the mystery of great mystery (cfr. 1 Tim 3:16), is human humility, exalted in the glory of divine power. (Letter Promississe me memini)

 

On other occasions, with the insistence on the intimate relationship existing between the humanity of Jesus and the Church, the Eastern and Western fathers underlined that the sanctification and glorification that Jesus received from the Father in his humanity was destined for us all. Thus said Saint Irenaeus: <<For inasmuch as the Word of God was man from the root of Jesse, and son of Abraham, in this respect did the Spirit of God rest upon him, and anoint him to preach the Gospel to the lowly (cfr. Isa 8:1; Luke 4:18) . . . Therefore did the Spirit of God descend upon him, [the Spirit] of him who had promised by the prophets that he would anoint him, so that we, receiving from the abundance of his unction, might be saved>> (Adv. Haer. III.9,3; cfr. Demonstr.59) Athanasius spoke in a similar fashion: <<it is not the Logos as Logos and Wisdom who is anointed by the Holy Spirit he gives, rather it is the flesh assumed by him which is anointed in him and by him, so that the holiness which has come upon the Lord as man may go from him to all men>> (Athanasius of Alexandria, Contra Arianos 47. Also ibid., [148]: <<He sanctifies himself [cfr. John 17:10] so that we may be sanctified in him>>. He added: <<Everything Scripture says that Jesus has received is said because of his body, which is initiation of the Church . . . First, the Lord has raised his own body and has exalted it in itself. Then he has resurrected all its members to give them, as God, what he has received as man>> (Athanasius of Alexandria, De Incarnatione Verbi et contra Arianos 12) The growth and development in Christ, his anointing, exaltation and glorification, do not affect his divine nature, but only his humanity, although this does not mean they do not affect him <<personally>> as the incarnate Son of God. But in this humanity we perceive that the whole Church, of which Christ is head, is included, which contains potentially the universality of the human race. IF Jesus did not have need of salvation, once the incarnation took place for the salvation of the world, we could not imagine that the events and vicissitudes of his human life, even his death and resurrection, wouldn’t have held significance for him. IF this were so, the very meaning of the incarnation would be seriously compromised.

 

This is why tradition has spoken, albeit making due distinctions of the salvation of Jesus—a salvation that it ours as well. The salvation Jesus experienced and received in his humanity is the one that corresponds to him as head of the body, and the one that is ultimately destined for all humanity. We can obtain this salvation through him, who, without having sinned, has been made sin for us, so that we might become the justice of God in him (cfr. 2 Cor 5:21). It does not seem exaggerated to think that the known axion <<qod non est assumptum non est sanatum>> (<<What has not been assumed has not been healed, but what is united with God is saved>>) gets its full meaning if we consider, in the first place, that Jesus himself has been <<saved>> in his humanity, which he has integrally assumed (body and soul). And because of this, the whole human race has been saved; his salvation has been passed on to all of humanity. It is clear that, in the case of Jesus, <<salvation>> excludes liberation from sin, which he did not commit nor could commit, but that he nevertheless bore for us. But even with the exclusion of this aspect—indeed, a point of critical importance—the sanctification, consecration, and salvation of Christ as a man are frequent themes in the theology of the fathers. Christ’s entering into humanity is not even justified in many instances. The humanity of Jesus is our model and measure, because he has always fulfilled the will of the Father; it is especially in his death and resurrection, as it is in the paschal mystery that the center of the divine plan is found. Thus Jesus, perfected by obedience to the Father, is the cause of salvation for all who obey him. The humanity revivified by the Lord, who has received salvation from the Father, is the principle of the revivification of humanity. There is no salvation for humanity outside of the participation in Christ’s salvation. (Luis F. Ladaria, Jesus Christ: Salvation of All [Miami, Fla.: Convivium Press, 2008], 80-84)

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Heavenlies/Heavenly Places as a Status, not a location or place


"Heavenly places in Christ Jesus" refers to a status, and not to location or place. This can be shown from the following:

 

a) A contrast runs through the Epistle between the position of an alien and that of a believer in Christ. Note the following contrasts:

 

out of Christ

in Christ

—one is within the principalities and powers of heavenly places in the world (3:10; 1:21)

—one is in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus, favoured with all spiritual blessings (1:3; 2:6)

—dead in trespasses and sins walking according to the course of this world, the spirit which works in the children of disobedience (2: 1, 2)

—made alive with Christ Jesus (2:6)

—without Christ, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world (2:12)

—fellow citizens with the saints for an habitation of God through the Spirit (2:21, 22)

 

These contrasts are ones of position or status, not of location (i.e., between heaven and earth as if to imply that believers were translated to heaven).

 

b) "Heavenlies" ("heavenly places" A.V.) is used of political systems on the earth (3:10; 6:12—"high places" is translated from the same Greek word for "heavenlies"), as well as for exalted position of believers. It can be seen, therefore, that the word relates to position or status and not to location. Although believers are raised with Christ to the right hand of the Father, they are still on the earth, in Ephesus, Corinth, etc. They are transferred from the heavenlies of the world systems for the everlasting kingdom of His dear Son. (Ron Abel, Wrested Scriptures: A Christadelphian Handbook of Suggested Explanations to Difficult Passages [Pasadena, Calif.: The Christadelphians, n.d.], 97-08)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com