The "Mormon Jesus" being a "Spirit Brother" of Satan--what the Bible really says

In Job 1:6, we read the following:

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

In this text, Satan is presented as being among the “Sons of God” (בני האלהים) This can be seen in the verb יצב (to take [their] stand/position”) and that Satan is said to be in their “midst,” that is, he belongs among their ranks, clearly demonstrating that the theology of Job holds to a “Satan” who has real, ontological existence, in contradistinction to some Christadelphian interpretation of the "Satan" texts in Job. When one examines the phrase, “among them” (KJV), one finds that the Hebrew is a phrase consisting of the prefixed preposition (בְּ) meaning “in/among” and (תָּוֶךְ). When one examines the other instances of this phrase in the Hebrew Bible, it denotes someone being a member of a group, not independent thereof (e.g., Exo 28:33; Lev 17:8, 10, 13; Num 1:47; 5:3; 15:26, 29, etc.); indeed, commentators such as David J.A. Clines states that the phrase regularly denotes membership of the group in question (See Clines, Job 1-20 [Word Biblical Commentary, 1989], 19). The bare term תָּוֶךְ also denotes membership, not independence, of the group in question (cf. Gen 23:10; 40:20; 2 Kgs 4:13).

Furthermore, the "Satan" in Job 1:6, in Hebrew, is not just the bare term (שָׂטָן), meaning an "adversary," which, in and of itself, can denote anyone who opposes another, whether divine or not (e.g., the angel of the Lord is referred to as an adversary or שָׂטָן in Num 22:22), but is coupled with the definite article (השטן), “the satan,” which denotes the supernatural tempter (cf. Zech 3:2); one should compare this with similar Greek locutions in the LXX and NT such as such as ο σατανας (Sirach 21:27; Matt 12:26; Mark 3:26; 4:15; Luke 10:18; 11:18; 13:16; 22:31; John 13:27; Acts 5:3; 26:18; Rom 16:20; 1 cor 5:5; 7:5; 2 Cor 2:11; 11:14; 1 Thess 2:18; 2 Thess 2:9; 1 Tim 1:20; 5:15; Rev 2:9, 13, 24; 3:9; 12:9; 20:2, 7); ο διαβολος (Matt 4:1,5,8,11; 13:39; 25:41; Luke 4:2,3,6,13; 8:12; John 8:44; 13:2; Acts 10:38; Eph 4:27; 6:11; 1 Tim 3:6, 7; 2 Tim 2:26; Heb 2:14; James 4:7; 1 John 3:8, 10; Jude 1:9; Rev 2:10; 12:12; 20:10) and ο πειραζω (Matt 4:3; 1 Thess 3:5), all denoting the external, supernatural tempter in most of Christian theologies (some small groups denying a supernatural Satan notwithstanding).

Why is this significant? One popular charge is that Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus and Satan are “brothers.” Left on its own, it is shocking and seen as blasphemous. However, leaving this on its own, with no explanation, is “yellow journalism.”

In Latter-day Saint Christology Christ has existed for all eternity; many critics claim that LDS theology is reflective of Arianism or some other Christology, but that is a non sequitur. D&C 93:21 and other texts affirm that Christ has existed eternally. Notice the “high Christology” of the following two passages from uniquely LDS scriptural texts (more could be reproduced):

And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he [Christ] is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last. (Alma 11:39)

I am Alpha and Omega, Christ the Lord, yea, even I am he, the beginning and the end, the Redeemer of the world. (D&C 19:1)

In LDS theology, properly stated (and not the caricature one finds in works such as The God Makers and other presentations thereof) states we all pre-existed as the spirit sons and daughters of God. In that sense, we are all brothers/sisters of Jesus. However, Job 1:6 proves, unless one is a Christadelphian or some other similar group, “the Satan” is one of the “sons of God,” that is, a member of the heavenly court, one of whom was Yahweh. Note Deut 32:7-9 from the NRSV, reflecting the Qumran reading (see this blog post reproducing what a recent scholarly commentary has to say about this important pericope):

Remember the days of old, consider the years long past; ask your father, and he will inform you; your elders, and they will tell you. When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods; the Lord's own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share.

While much more could be said, it should be noted that, as with so many beliefs, it is Latter-day Saint theology, not Evangelical theology, that is supported by biblical exegesis.

Asa and 1 Kings 15:14

But the high places were not taken away. Nevertheless the heart of Asa was true to the Lord all his days. (1 Kgs 15:14 [NRSV])

This verse shows, as do the verses discussed here, that one can be seen as "right" and having a "perfect heart" (to borrow the KJV's verbiage) and *not* be sinlessly perfect. In the case of Asa, although the "high places" (places often associated with idolatrous worship) were not removed during his reign as king, his "heart" was perfect or "true" to Yahweh all his days. This is another refutation of the "all-or-nothing" hermeneutical lens Evangelicals approach both biblical and Latter-day Saint soteriology.

Thomas Farrar on New Testament Satanology and Demonology

I recently came across a Website from a former Christadelphian, Thomas Farrar, and his papers on New Testament teachings on "Satan" and "demons," refuting the arguments of Jonathan Burke ("Fortigurn" on certain LDS discussion groups); Duncan Heaster and other Christadelphian authors who deny the ontological existence of Satan. His papers on this issue can be found here.

Patrick Madrid Butchers the Trinity

I came across this video, featuring Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid, discussing his book, 150 Bible Verses Every Catholic Should Know. I am posting this video as Madrid butchers the dogma of the Trinity—he speaks of God as “he” (a singular person, notwithstanding the “being” of God is composed of three persons) and that the Son is a manifestation of God’s self-love (for those familiar with historical Trinitarian theology, we know that any informed Trinitarian would shy away from such, at best, ambiguous language). Similar things are said about the Spirit.

Interestingly, Madrid, as many other Trinitarians when they argue against Unitarian conceptions of God, states that God must be composed of more than one person as a person must love another, as that is part-and-parcel of what it means to be a person; kinnda wonder how this would leave his use of Num 23:19 against LDS theology (Madrid is a long-standing critic of the LDS Church--his arguments against the LDS Church are just as superficial as his defenses of Roman Catholicism).

There are better presentations of the Trinity, but this just shows what kind of theological mess the dogma is. And to think—Latter-day Saints and others are excluded from salvation for rejecting it, according to Madrid and others.

Here is the video:

The Trinity: Try to understand it and you'll lose your mind; try to deny it and you'll lose your soul . . .Gal 1:6-9, anyone?

Errol Amey, Calvinism versus Early Christianity

The following video  is from Errol Amey, an individual who has a good grasp of the Ante Nicene writings. The topic is that of how the earliest patristic authors believed man had a free-will to accept or reject the gospel. Enjoy!

Total Depravity vs. The Bible

I have been working through 1 Kings at the moment as part of my daily reading of the Bible (I’m the type of person who goes through the Bible cover-to-cover [using the English, Greek, and Hebrew texts, because I’m that hardcore . . .8-) ]) I have noticed that so many of the texts in the opening chapters refutes the common Reformed understanding of the nature of the “heart” of an individual, and that there is a natural ability within man to accept or reject God, even if such has diminished due to Fall. I offer the following texts as evidence, sometimes followed by my commentary in italics:

That the Lord may continue in his word which he spake concerning me, saying, If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail these (said he) a man on the throne of Israel. (1 Kgs 2:4) Here, Yahweh conditions the promise he makes to Solomon based on the ability of man to do works pleasing to God. The Hebrew term for “soul” (נֶפֶשׁ) refers to the totality of a person, showing that, far from being “totally depraved,” there is a natural ability within man to do good works pleasing to God. Behold, I have done according to why words: lo, I have given thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any wise like unto thee. (3:12) And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the sea shore. (4:29) And it was in the heart of David my father to build an house for the name of the Lord God of Israel. And the Lord said unto David, my father, Wheras it was in thine heart to build an house unto my name, thou didst well that it was in thine heart. (8:17-18) When thy people Israel be smitten down before the enemy, because they have sinned against thee, and shall turn again to thee, and confess thy name, and pray, and make supplication unto thee in this house. (8:33) Yet if they shall bethink themselves in the land whither they were carried captives, and repent, and make supplication unto thee in the land of them that carried them captives, saying, We have sinned, and have done perversely, we have committed wickedness; and so return unto thee with all their heart, and with all their soul, in the land of their enemies, which led them away captive, and pray unto thee toward their land, which thou gavest unto their fathers, the city which thou hast chosen, and the house which I have built for thy name. (8:47-48; this parallels the “natural ability” of man discussed in 2:4 quoted above) That he may incline our hearts not him, to walk in all his ways, and to keep his commandments, and his statues, and his judgments, which he commanded our fathers. (8:58) On the eighty day he sent the people away: and they blessed the king, and went unto their tents joyful and glad of heart for all the goodness that the Lord had done for David his servant, and for Israel his people. (8:66) And if thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, in integrity of heart, and in uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded thee, and wilt keep my statues and my judgments. (9:4) And she [the Queen of Sheba] came to Jerusalem with a very great train, with camels that bare spices, and very much gold, and precious stones: and when she was come to Solomon, she communed with him of all that was in her heart . . .Blessed be the Lord thy God, which delighted in thee, to set thee on the throne of Israel: because the Lord loved Israel for ever, therefore made he thee king, to do judgment and justice. (10:2, 7) What is significant is that, in Reformed theology, the Queen of Sheba would be a godless idolater and totally depraved, and yet, based on the “integrity of her heart,” to borrow language used of David in 9:4, she recognised the reality of Israel’s God, Yahweh, and His placing Solomon in a position of kingship over the people. Furthermore, we learn from Jesus Christ Himself that she was a true believer (cf. Matt 12:42; Luke 11:31) in contradistinction to the faithless Jews of Christ’s time. This is paralleled in the life of Cornelius, whom I discussed here. But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Somon clave unto these in love. And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart. (11:1-3) This text shows that Solomon’s heart became corrupted, not that it was naturally corrupted or “totally depraved,” as we are often led to believe by Reformed apologists. Far from proving their anthropology, this, and the entire evidence of both Old and New Testaments proves, their anthropology to be sub-biblical.
 

Did Paul teach that believers immediately go to heaven upon death?

Two texts that are often marshalled against Latter-day Saint theology vis-à-vis the “intermediate state” are 2 Cor 5:6-9 and Phil 1:23—critics usually cite these texts as “proof” that, after Christ's resurrection and ascension, believers immediately go to heaven upon death, not to the “spirit world” as Latter-day Saint theology affirms:

Therefore, we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (for we walk by faith, not by sight :) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. Wherefore we labour, that whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. (2 Cor 5:6-9)

For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better. (Phil 1:23)

The following comes from the recent book by J. Richard Middleton, A New Heaven and a New Earth: Reclaiming Biblical Eschatology (Baker Academic, 2014), pp. 230-31 that provides a pretty sound refutation of the popular misuse of these texts:

[On 2 Cor 5:6-9] The first thing we should note is how Paul has already stated in 5:1-2 that his actual hope is for the heavenly dwelling that God has prepared (the resurrection body), and in 5:3-4 he affirms that he does not want to be “naked” or “unclothed” (disembodied). And yet Paul says that he prefers to be away from the (present) body and at home with the Lord (5:8). Could Paul have contradictory hopes? . . .[W]e need to pay attention to Paul’s key statement near the end of chapter 4 about the basis of his hope even amid tribulations and suffering (vv.8-12). The reason why Paul says he can live faithfully in the midst of suffering is this: “We know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus, and will bring us with you into his presence”(v. 14). There is no separation here of resurrection and being with Christ. Not only does Paul look forward to the resurrection but he also conceives of being in a resurrected (embodied) state in the Lord’s presence. This means that when Paul comes to speak of being “at home with the Lord” in 5:8, there is no reason to separate this from his hope of resurrection (except that we are habituated to reading the text this way). Paul is not speaking of being with Christ immediately at death; rather, he is looking to the second coming, at which time we will be raised and be with Christ in the new creation. [On Phil 1:23] While interpreters often take Paul as expressing a preference for death . . . the text does not actually say that it would be immediate. Yes, he wants to be “with Christ,” but he does not elaborate on where or exactly when this will be. Once again, the rest of Scripture would lead us to expect that Paul is thinking of the eschaton. There is no clear teaching here of any interim state in heaven.