• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God in mormonism

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Clear said : “I am not sure at what point in history the interpretation and doctrine of “easy believe-ism” of "belief without repentance" first appears and becomes a popular religious movement apart from the more original doctrines, but this “easy believeism” interpretation does not appear in the earliest textual descriptions of Christian interpretation. For example, in early Judeo-Christianity, BilliardsBall could NOT BE saved with the greatest reward from God without attempting to be obedient to God's directives. Those who were willfully disobedient and defied God were not given the same reward as those believers who willfully attempted obedience to God in the early Christian worldviews. It is only in modern interpretation and religious theory, that one can be disobedient, unrepentant and defiant to God, and yet, still be rewarded by God with the same reward as those who were willfully obedient to God. “ (post # 113)

BilliardsBall responded : “ Hi, you've made this point already on this thread. (post # 116)



I have had to point out multiple times that your modern theories which you create with modern English interpretations forced onto ancient texts written by ancient individuals are quite different than the interpretations those ancients described. Your Christianity is quite different than that of the earliest Christians.

I’ve also asked you multiple times why your interpretation is preferred over ancient Christians who lived in the earliest Christian movement (without any answer). Why is your modern Christianity with its modern interpretations to be preferred over the earliest and most authentic Christianity with their ancient interpretations?

This IS however, the first time that I have pointed out that your specific modern theory that one can, if they initially, sincerely believe in Jesus will still be rewarded and blessed if they later come to repudiate their belief and and both defy God and be disobedient to God and do indescribably despicable moral acts. This is differs from early Christianity since, in their worldview, those Christian who defied God were NOT rewarded the same as those who were repentant.

In authentic early christian interpretation, you could not, as a backsliding Christian, defy and repudiate God and abuse, rape and murder multiple children and still be rewarded the same as a Christian who attempts to act morally and avoids such evil actions.



BilliardsBall said : " Repentance, by the way, in the Greek, means to change one's mind. Of course one would have to change one's mind to trust Jesus. If I don't trust Jesus, I can only trust myself to enter Heaven. Thus, the problem." (post # 116)

The Koine Greek word "Μετανοεω" in its various forms and uses HISTORICALLY meant much more than to simply change one’s mind (like asking for chocolate ice cream and changing ones mind and asking for vanilla instead. It had much more profound religious meaning to the ancient Christian (and others) in their texts. It applied to a change of attitude; a transformation; an actual change in nature from one nature, to another nature (whether towards God or in other ways). Let me give examples from early Milligan papyral examples from Koine Greek by individuals who actually used this term .


The Base meaning of Μετανοεω referred to a deeper change of nature

We have many examples of the normal use of Μετανοεω, in many examples from early Papyri from these earliest periods and it is typically rendered, in its most basic form, to "repent". For example, when in papyri P Tebt ii. 424.5 (late iii a.d.) one man tells another “ ει μεν επιμενις σου απονοια, συνχε(=αι)ρω σοι ει δε μετανοεις, συ οιδας, (ι.ε.“...if you persist in your folly, I congratulate you : if you repent, only you know “). Though In Menandrea p. 12:72 it is true that the translation seems to mean a “change of mind”, it is more than “repent” and more than a simple change of a simple and single choice, but instead, Μετανοεω indicates a complete change of attitude, spiritual and moral, towards God. (Milligan).

For example, Aristeas (in 188) describes God as “μετατιθεις εκ της κακιας [και] εις μετανοιαν αξεις” “turning [men] from their wickedness and leading them to amendment.” It is NOT merely a decision, but a change in men that is occuring. In ZNTW, Wrede describes the translation of μετανοια in the NT as “nicht Sinnesanderung, sondern Busse” , that is, μετανοια isnot [simply] changing the type of sin, rather [real] repentance” (my translation).

Lactantius also (of Div. Inst. Vi. 24. 6) uses latin resipiscentia, as a “coming to one’s senses, resulting in a change of conduct.” A common thread in such uses is that an actual change in the base nature of the person is involved. This underlying context is part of the compounded component words making up "μετανοια".

μετα-νοια and the meanings of it's base compound words

The greek word rendered “repent” is compounded from the two words “Νοεω” / english “mind” and “Μετα” / english “change”. Each word has historical context and ancient meaning. Consider the meaning the ancients themselves attached to these two words in creating the word "μετα-νοια".

"Νοεω" / english “mind” applied to thoughts and emotions and considerations, judgments, etc and thus meant much more than simple “cognition” or a “preference” like preferring chocolate over vanilla…

For example, “...νοων και φρονων..." was commonly used in legal wills in pre-roman and roman periods. For example, the Petr. Papyrus I. 16 (1)42 ( of b.c. 237) uses the phrase “ ...ταδε διεθετο νοων και φρονων Μενιππος...” when the testator is claiming to be “....sane and in his right mind...” in his own will. The testator is not simply describing a belief or "choosing a preference", but he is characterizing the quality of his entire thought processes, his perceptions and his understandings, that they are sound.

Christian P Oxy I 104.4 (of 96 a.d.) and 491.2 (of 126 a.d). display the very same language, used in the very same manner. BGU 1.114.i.9 (of 117 a.d) also uses the term to describe general "perception" and "understanding" in the very same way. P. Par 63.11.61 (of 165 b.c.) uses the term to describe one mental “purpose” or goal. All of these demonstrate what the term meant to and how it was used by very the individuals who used the term, and in the very early time periods when it was used, and in the very language in which it was used.

Such textual witnesses of actual usage demonstrate that the “mind” that is being “changed” in "Μετανοεω" / english “repent” is NOT referring to a simple change in a simple choice, but of the way one thinks and feels and perceives. It is an actual change in the nature of thinking itself that is referred to. Even in Modern Greek, when one uses “Νοιωθω”, they are not speaking of “mind” per se, but rather they are referring to what is “perceived” and what is “felt” and what is “noticed”.

Thus, when one sees "νοηματα" in a greek New Testament text, and it’s rendered “thoughts” (in an English bible), as Heinrici (in Meyer8) points out, it is used in the sense of the “mind” itself and it’s “reason” rather than simple “thoughts” or a simple decisions that are implied.

These historical contexts should be considered when one thinks about what it meant to the ancient Christians to “repent”, using Μετανοεω as a “change of nature" rather than as a simple "changing one's mind” about a decision. The historical implication went much deeper than that.


Considering Μετα in the context of a change (from one condition to another)

Consider for example, what it meant to “change” something, almost anything, by compounding a word, almost ANY word, with the Koine Greek word “μετα”.

The genitive uses ordinary meaning was not simply “with”, but always there are two (or more) actors involved. One (or more) thing acted “in company with” another.

If I say “I went with mom to the store”, there are two actors involved. Thus, for example, when P Eleph 1.15 (of 311 b.c.) says “...τοις μετα Δημητριας,... “ it means “...those acting WITH Demetria,...”. P Tebt I.35.10 (of 111 b.c.), “...ος κ[α]ι μεθ υμων υπο την εντολην ε υπογραφει,... “ is rendered “... who shall append his signature to the edict together WITH yours... “. When P Amb ii.135.24 (of early ii.a.d.) says “ ....ερρωσθαι σε ευχ[ομαι] μετα των τεκν[ω(ν)]..., it is rendered “...I pray for your health and for that of your children... “

In this context, there is always one thing acting in concert with another thing. Just as when one spoke of μετανοια as a “change of mind” had a deeper meaning, when one spoke of μετανοια in the case of accepting the gospel WITH the mind, the context is that of full acceptance with the heart and full purpose, rather than merely with actions. The mind, as the seat of intelligence, of feeling and emotion and of perceptions and choice is, in this religious context, to act in concert with the religious conviction. In NONE of these typical uses, is μετανοια merely a simple change of mind one makes with a food choice or a beverage flavor during lunch.

Thus, in this context of doing a thing with one's mind and heart, in this usage, Μετα also refers to the manner in which a thing was carried out.

For example, in P. Petr ii.19 (ia)2 (of iii b.c.), when a prisoner wrote a petition saying “...αξιω σε μετα δεησεως και ικετειας ουνεκα του θεου και καλως εχοντος,.... “, it meant “ I beseech you WITH PRAYER AND SUPPLICATION in the name of God and of fair play “ . The use of "Μετα" of "Μετα-νοεω" in this case applied to the very manner in which an action is performed.

For the early Christian, religion and worship and interactions with fellow men were to be done with the mind and heart, with full and correct purpose, acting in no hypocrisy.

A simple Christian example might be simply “to do a thing right” (properly or in accordance with a religious norm). P Oxy I. 123.15 (of iii/iv a.d.) has an example from this papyri where the text says : “.... let him remember when he enters that he must wear the proper dress, that he may enter prepared... “ / “ εισβαινων ουν μετα της αισθητος [εσθητος] γνωτω ο ερχομενος ινα ετοιμος εισβη,...”. (the text indicates those entering were ordered to wear cloaks...).

This same application of doing a thing in a certain manner applied to mental states or emotions or feelings. For example P. Amh II.133.11 (early ii a.d.) speaks of a thing done "...with great difficulty...” (using "...μετα πολλων κοπων...), indicating a thing to be done “according to” a certain standard such as one’s degree of knowledge and understanding. Thus, if a man knows to do good and does it not…. then he could “repent” and do it “....μετα της εαυτου γνωμης...“ (“…according to your knowledge...”) as this example from P Tebt I.27.32 (of 113 b.c.) uses the term.

The instrumental useage of μετανοεω (i.e. “by means of the mind”) is noted in multiple examples from early papyri as well (P Lond (of iii a.d.) / 46.65 (of iv a.d.) / BGU III 909.8 (of 359 a.d.), etc). Such useage is closely aligned with the Semitic literal translation of “in connection with” such as in Proleg p. 106 or P. Amh II. 135.15 (of early ii. a.d.). IF "with the mind" meant, "with the heart" (as in modern language), then such uses parallel and support moral context of how one is to engage Christianity "with the heart" (i.e. with full purpose and with no hypocrisy and with conviction).

I can give other examples from papyri of these uses from BGU, OGIS, etc if anyone is interested. I am a bit tired of offering examples from early papyri.

The reason to use early Greek Koine papyri from ancients that actually USED Koine Greek is to show how the ancients themselves used these terms; what the terms actually meant to THEM.

Just as Μετανοεω also meant “with the mind” (i.e. it’s feelings, thoughts, intentions, purposes, etc) as well; the word meta took on formulaic use such as “μεταΒιας” (english "with effort") in the same ways that “with kind regards” became a formulaic end to letters nowadays.

The point in looking at Μετανοεω (change of mind) in the context of ancient usage, is to show that in the early context and actual ancient usage, even in common textual use, to "change one’s mind" involved a process of a profound change of the very nature of our thoughts and actions and what we think and what we do. Μετανοεω was not simply a simply change of a simple and single choice, but, it involved a change from one nature to another nature.

Adding Koine Greek "μετα" to other words also demonstrates a similar pattern.

For example, Μεταβαλλομαι is not merely “move” (though it is rendered as “move” in English), but it involves an actual change of place, a transfer from one place or level to an entirely different place or level just as μετανοια represented a change of thinking, a transfer and "meta-morphosis" from one level of thinking and acting to another level.

A similar modification is made to μεταγω in that it becomes, not merely a movement, but a transfer from one place to another, just as μετανοια referred to a process change in the mind from one nature to another nature.

Please let me know if you want examples for these last words (or other examples) from the early papyri. I have them but it is TWO o'clock in the morning and I’m getting very tired.

I suppose I can quit giving examples since it is clear that Μετανοεω / change of mind / heart / purpose / goals / perception / nature, etc. is the religious context underlying the use of this term.


Without actual, real, and authentic “repentance” / Μετανοεω as the ancients used the term, in early Christianity, neither BilliardsBall (nor all of the rest of us) could be saved with the highest reward God gives to individuals. Certainly, those Christians who turned and became evil could not expect the same reward and those who continued to attempt to be obedient to God. It’s past 2 am, I have to stop.


Clear
εισισιτωω

I noticed mistakes and I'll have to reformat and fix errors tomorrow night, fairly late. I simply don't have time now.

P.S. It is 7-12 and I have re-formatted the text and gotten rid of mistakes (I was very tired when I first wrote). Hopefully I repaired all of the mistakes I made. Clear
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Can I ask something.

In your opinion, What is a saved being? What are the characteristics of those who are saved in heaven? If I took a saved being and a being who is damned - what differences would I notice between them, in your opinion.

The saved persons are in Heaven/on the new Earth/in the new universe. The lost are in an eternal Hell.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Romans 11:5 does not help your cause.

Free will is a moral position, not a legal one. Appeals to Mosaic Law is to commit a category mistake.

Per work: A work (if you use the Koine Greek: prasso) is simply to do something. It is an act, a base verb. Faith (pisteuo) is to trust. If you try and confine the meaning of such terms by their abstract noun and then draw conclusions from the same, you fail to understand the base meaning. Both concepts are at their core actions. They are the acts of a subject, they do not exist absent the subject.

If you admit you freely choose to get on the bus (per your analogy), why are you not free to leave it? Are you a captive?

I understand. Hard to think of many places where it has merely prasso and not the term "works [prasso] of the Law", however, that is an aside to your question.

When I get on the bus I am adopted by God, transmitted from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of the Son of His Love. If there were clear Bible verses that say I can become an un-adopted child of God or the like, I would believe I could lose my salvation.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Clear said : “I am not sure at what point in history the interpretation and doctrine of “easy believe-ism” of "belief without repentance" first appears and becomes a popular religious movement apart from the more original doctrines, but this “easy believeism” interpretation does not appear in the earliest textual descriptions of Christian interpretation. For example, in early Judeo-Christianity, BilliardsBall could NOT BE saved with the greatest reward from God without attempting to be obedient to God's directives. Those who were willfully disobedient and defied God were not given the same reward as those believers who willfully attempted obedience to God in the early Christian worldviews. It is only in modern interpretation and religious theory, that one can be disobedient, unrepentant and defiant to God, and yet, still be rewarded by God with the same reward as those who were willfully obedient to God. “ (post # 113)

BilliardsBall responded : “ Hi, you've made this point already on this thread. (post # 116)



I have had to point out multiple times that your modern theories which you create with modern English interpretations forced onto ancient texts written by ancient individuals are quite different than the interpretations those ancients described. Your Christianity is quite different than that of the earliest Christians.

I’ve also asked you multiple times why your interpretation is preferred over ancient Christians who lived in the earliest Christian movement (without any answer). Why is your modern Christianity with its modern interpretations to be preferred over the earliest and most authentic Christianity with their ancient interpretations?

This IS however, the first time that I have pointed out that your specific modern theory that one can, if they initially, sincerely believe in Jesus will still be rewarded and blessed if they later come to repudiate their belief and and both defy God and be disobedient to God and do indescribably despicable moral acts. This is differs from early Christianity since, in their worldview, those Christian who defied God were NOT rewarded the same as those who were repentant.

In authentic early christian interpretation, you could not, as a backsliding Christian, defy and repudiate God and abuse, rape and murder multiple children and still be rewarded the same as a Christian who attempts to act morally and avoids such evil actions.



BilliardsBall said : " Repentance, by the way, in the Greek, means to change one's mind. Of course one would have to change one's mind to trust Jesus. If I don't trust Jesus, I can only trust myself to enter Heaven. Thus, the problem." (post # 116)

The Koine Greek word "Μετανοεω" in its various forms and uses HISTORICALLY meant much more than to simply change one’s mind (like asking for chocolate ice cream and changing ones mind and asking for vanilla instead. It had much more profound religious meaning to the ancient Christian (and others) in their texts. It applied to a change of attitude; a transformation; an actual change in nature from one nature, to another nature (whether towards God or in other ways). Let me give examples from early Milligan papyral examples from Koine Greek by individuals who actually used this term .


The Base meaning of Μετανοεω referred to a deeper change of nature

We have many examples of the normal use of Μετανοεω, in many examples from early Papyri from these earliest periods and it is typically rendered, in its most basic form, to "repent". For example, when in papyri P Tebt ii. 424.5 (late iii a.d.) one man tells another “ ει μεν επιμενις σου απονοια, συνχε(=αι)ρω σοι ει δε μετανοεις, συ οιδας, (ι.ε.“...if you persist in your folly, I congratulate you : if you repent, only you know “). Though In Menandrea p. 12:72 it is true that the translation seems to mean a “change of mind”, it is more than “repent” and more than a simple change of a simple and single choice, but instead, Μετανοεω indicates a complete change of attitude, spiritual and moral, towards God. (Milligan).

For example, Aristeas (in 188) describes God as “μετατιθεις εκ της κακιας [και] εις μετανοιαν αξεις” “turning [men] from their wickedness and leading them to amendment.” It is NOT merely a decision, but a change in men that is occuring. In ZNTW, Wrede describes the translation of μετανοια in the NT as “nicht Sinnesanderung, sondern Busse” , that is, μετανοια isnot [simply] changing the type of sin, rather [real] repentance” (my translation).

Lactantius also (of Div. Inst. Vi. 24. 6) uses latin resipiscentia, as a “coming to one’s senses, resulting in a change of conduct.” A common thread in such uses is that an actual change in the base nature of the person is involved. This underlying context is part of the compounded component words making up "μετανοια".

μετα-νοια and the meanings of it's base compound words

The greek word rendered “repent” is compounded from the two words “Νοεω” / english “mind” and “Μετα” / english “change”. Each word has historical context and ancient meaning. Consider the meaning the ancients themselves attached to these two words in creating the word "μετα-νοια".

"Νοεω" / english “mind” applied to thoughts and emotions and considerations, judgments, etc and thus meant much more than simple “cognition” or a “preference” like preferring chocolate over vanilla…

For example, “...νοων και φρονων..." was commonly used in legal wills in pre-roman and roman periods. For example, the Petr. Papyrus I. 16 (1)42 ( of b.c. 237) uses the phrase “ ...ταδε διεθετο νοων και φρονων Μενιππος...” when the testator is claiming to be “....sane and in his right mind...” in his own will. The testator is not simply describing a belief or "choosing a preference", but he is characterizing the quality of his entire thought processes, his perceptions and his understandings, that they are sound.

Christian P Oxy I 104.4 (of 96 a.d.) and 491.2 (of 126 a.d). display the very same language, used in the very same manner. BGU 1.114.i.9 (of 117 a.d) also uses the term to describe general "perception" and "understanding" in the very same way. P. Par 63.11.61 (of 165 b.c.) uses the term to describe one mental “purpose” or goal. All of these demonstrate what the term meant to and how it was used by very the individuals who used the term, and in the very early time periods when it was used, and in the very language in which it was used.

Such textual witnesses of actual usage demonstrate that the “mind” that is being “changed” in "Μετανοεω" / english “repent” is NOT referring to a simple change in a simple choice, but of the way one thinks and feels and perceives. It is an actual change in the nature of thinking itself that is referred to. Even in Modern Greek, when one uses “Νοιωθω”, they are not speaking of “mind” per se, but rather they are referring to what is “perceived” and what is “felt” and what is “noticed”.

Thus, when one sees "νοηματα" in a greek New Testament text, and it’s rendered “thoughts” (in an English bible), as Heinrici (in Meyer8) points out, it is used in the sense of the “mind” itself and it’s “reason” rather than simple “thoughts” or a simple decisions that are implied.

These historical contexts should be considered when one thinks about what it meant to the ancient Christians to “repent”, using Μετανοεω as a “change of nature" rather than as a simple "changing one's mind” about a decision. The historical implication went much deeper than that.


Considering Μετα in the context of a change (from one condition to another)

Consider for example, what it meant to “change” something, almost anything, by compounding a word, almost ANY word, with the Koine Greek word “μετα”.

The genitive uses ordinary meaning was not simply “with”, but always there are two (or more) actors involved. One (or more) thing acted “in company with” another.

If I say “I went with mom to the store”, there are two actors involved. Thus, for example, when P Eleph 1.15 (of 311 b.c.) says “...τοις μετα Δημητριας,... “ it means “...those acting WITH Demetria,...”. P Tebt I.35.10 (of 111 b.c.), “...ος κ[α]ι μεθ υμων υπο την εντολην ε υπογραφει,... “ is rendered “... who shall append his signature to the edict together WITH yours... “. When P Amb ii.135.24 (of early ii.a.d.) says “ ....ερρωσθαι σε ευχ[ομαι] μετα των τεκν[ω(ν)]..., it is rendered “...I pray for your health and for that of your children... “

In this context, there is always one thing acting in concert with another thing. Just as when one spoke of μετανοια as a “change of mind” had a deeper meaning, when one spoke of μετανοια in the case of accepting the gospel WITH the mind, the context is that of full acceptance with the heart and full purpose, rather than merely with actions. The mind, as the seat of intelligence, of feeling and emotion and of perceptions and choice is, in this religious context, to act in concert with the religious conviction. In NONE of these typical uses, is μετανοια merely a simple change of mind one makes with a food choice or a beverage flavor during lunch.

Thus, in this context of doing a thing with one's mind and heart, in this usage, Μετα also refers to the manner in which a thing was carried out.

For example, in P. Petr ii.19 (ia)2 (of iii b.c.), when a prisoner wrote a petition saying “...αξιω σε μετα δεησεως και ικετειας ουνεκα του θεου και καλως εχοντος,.... “, it meant “ I beseech you WITH PRAYER AND SUPPLICATION in the name of God and of fair play “ . The use of "Μετα" of "Μετα-νοεω" in this case applied to the very manner in which an action is performed.

For the early Christian, religion and worship and interactions with fellow men were to be done with the mind and heart, with full and correct purpose, acting in no hypocrisy.

A simple Christian example might be simply “to do a thing right” (properly or in accordance with a religious norm). P Oxy I. 123.15 (of iii/iv a.d.) has an example from this papyri where the text says : “.... let him remember when he enters that he must wear the proper dress, that he may enter prepared... “ / “ εισβαινων ουν μετα της αισθητος [εσθητος] γνωτω ο ερχομενος ινα ετοιμος εισβη,...”. (the text indicates those entering were ordered to wear cloaks...).

This same application of doing a thing in a certain manner applied to mental states or emotions or feelings. For example P. Amh II.133.11 (early ii a.d.) speaks of a thing done "...with great difficulty...” (using "...μετα πολλων κοπων...), indicating a thing to be done “according to” a certain standard such as one’s degree of knowledge and understanding. Thus, if a man knows to do good and does it not…. then he could “repent” and do it “....μετα της εαυτου γνωμης...“ (“…according to your knowledge...”) as this example from P Tebt I.27.32 (of 113 b.c.) uses the term.

The instrumental useage of μετανοεω (i.e. “by means of the mind”) is noted in multiple examples from early papyri as well (P Lond (of iii a.d.) / 46.65 (of iv a.d.) / BGU III 909.8 (of 359 a.d.), etc). Such useage is closely aligned with the Semitic literal translation of “in connection with” such as in Proleg p. 106 or P. Amh II. 135.15 (of early ii. a.d.). IF "with the mind" meant, "with the heart" (as in modern language), then such uses parallel and support moral context of how one is to engage Christianity "with the heart" (i.e. with full purpose and with no hypocrisy and with conviction).

I can give other examples from papyri of these uses from BGU, OGIS, etc if anyone is interested. I am a bit tired of offering examples from early papyri.

The reason to use early Greek Koine papyri from ancients that actually USED Koine Greek is to show how the ancients themselves used these terms; what the terms actually meant to THEM.

Just as Μετανοεω also meant “with the mind” (i.e. it’s feelings, thoughts, intentions, purposes, etc) as well; the word meta took on formulaic use such as “μεταΒιας” (english "with effort") in the same ways that “with kind regards” became a formulaic end to letters nowadays.

The point in looking at Μετανοεω (change of mind) in the context of ancient usage, is to show that in the early context and actual ancient usage, even in common textual use, to "change one’s mind" involved a process of a profound change of the very nature of our thoughts and actions and what we think and what we do. Μετανοεω was not simply a simply change of a simple and single choice, but, it involved a change from one nature to another nature.

Adding Koine Greek "μετα" to other words also demonstrates a similar pattern.

For example, Μεταβαλλομαι is not merely “move” (though it is rendered as “move” in English), but it involves an actual change of place, a transfer from one place or level to an entirely different place or level just as μετανοια represented a change of thinking, a transfer and "meta-morphosis" from one level of thinking and acting to another level.

A similar modification is made to μεταγω in that it becomes, not merely a movement, but a transfer from one place to another, just as μετανοια referred to a process change in the mind from one nature to another nature.

Please let me know if you want examples for these last words (or other examples) from the early papyri. I have them but it is TWO o'clock in the morning and I’m getting very tired.

I suppose I can quit giving examples since it is clear that Μετανοεω / change of mind / heart / purpose / goals / perception / nature, etc. is the religious context underlying the use of this term.


Without actual, real, and authentic “repentance” / Μετανοεω as the ancients used the term, in early Christianity, neither BilliardsBall (nor all of the rest of us) could be saved with the highest reward God gives to individuals. Certainly, those Christians who turned and became evil could not expect the same reward and those who continued to attempt to be obedient to God. It’s past 2 am, I have to stop.


Clear
εισισιτωω

I noticed mistakes and I'll have to reformat and fix errors tomorrow night, fairly late. I simply don't have time now.

P.S. It is 7-12 and I have re-formatted the text and gotten rid of mistakes (I was very tired when I first wrote). Hopefully I repaired all of the mistakes I made. Clear

1. Having been saved and given a new nature, I simply am unable to "abuse, rape and murder multiple children" or etc. No murderer is a Christian (1 John 5) however, all Christians sin. I cannot rape or murder anyone because of God in me but if I lust or am angry without a just cause, I'm guilty of sin.

2. The same with repentance. If we go with your definition of change of person and not change of mind or mental assertion we are still back to deciding whether we may (pridefully) credit our actions with our salvation or whether Jesus only saves.

3. Again, I hear what you are saying regarding ancient interpretations and modern interpretations. I don't think I'm adding things to the scripture, and am limiting my interpretations to scriptural understandings. Remember, when Luther was accused of being a modernist by the "holy" Roman church he said in part, "I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen." He also told the Romanists that his conscience rested on the scriptures.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
"...The author of salvation unto all them that obey him..." I would say "that obey Him, by trusting in his atonement"... is that your position?
My position is that to "obey Him" means to do as He commanded.

"Obedience and faithfulness are required for the "fullness of salvation," which is at the other end of the spectrum." - what is the fullness of salvation? I would say "rewards besides eternal life" and that those falling short of this are still saved. Is the fullness of salvation a Bible statement or LDS canon verse or statement?
As you may or may not know, Mormons do not believe in the standard one-size-fits all heaven that most Christians do. Jesus Christ said that He would "reward every man according to his works." It's difficult for me to think that this means anything other than that greater rewards are in store for those who have been the most faithful. To us, the "fullness of salvation" is "exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom" -- living eternally with God and with our families, and over a very, very long period of time, progressing, with His help, to become like Him.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
1. Having been saved and given a new nature, I simply am unable to "abuse, rape and murder multiple children" or etc. No murderer is a Christian (1 John 5) however, all Christians sin. I cannot rape or murder anyone because of God in me but if I lust or am angry without a just cause, I'm guilty of sin.
You seem to be of the opinion that Christians can essentially get away with committing certain sins (because they're "saved" and cannot lose their salvation), and that they are simply incapable of committing other sins (which would appear to mean that once one is "saved," he loses his free will). I don't find either of those positions to be tenable. I believe that if a person truly accepts Christ, his actions will reflect his love for Him, but that as long as we are human, we are capable of committing even the most heinous of sins, given the right circumstances. Of course, the stronger and more devoted to Christ one is, the less likely he will be to be influenced and coerced by the Adversary.

2. The same with repentance. If we go with your definition of change of person and not change of mind or mental assertion we are still back to deciding whether we may (pridefully) credit our actions with our salvation or whether Jesus only saves.
I just don't get it! You seem to think that if we, as Christians (i.e. anyone who considers himself to be a Christian) are truly repentant of our wrongdoings, any future good we do is beyond our ability to control. If that is the case, we are merely puppets. What possible reason would God have for "saving" us to turn us into creatures who have no choice in how we are to live?

3. Again, I hear what you are saying regarding ancient interpretations and modern interpretations. I don't think I'm adding things to the scripture, and am limiting my interpretations to scriptural understandings. Remember, when Luther was accused of being a modernist by the "holy" Roman church he said in part, "I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen." He also told the Romanists that his conscience rested on the scriptures.
I hope you realize that we, as Mormons, would say exactly the same thing as Luther did.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Billiardsball :

Billiardsball said (post # 124) “1. Having been saved and given a new nature, I simply am unable to "abuse, rape and murder multiple children" or etc. No murderer is a Christian (1 John 5) however, all Christians sin. I cannot rape or murder anyone because of God in me but if I lust or am angry without a just cause, I'm guilty of sin.

You theorize that you are able to sin, yet “unable to abuse” anyone? This is yet another difference between your theory and early Christian interpretation.

However, if this is true then this must be a personal quirk of your own since many Christians, who honestly “got on the bus” when they were young, and sincerely believed in Jesus as their savior, have murdered and have raped and have done and still do many despicable things. God did not “limit” their “sin level”. In your theory, once they were on the bus, they are going to be rewarded, unless you have a mechanism for them to get off the bus, or unless none of these evil Christians were actually on the bus, despite honest, but temporary trust in Jesus, or if they were fooled and no Christian can really know they are on the bus...




Billiardsball
said (post # 124) “2. The same with repentance. If we go with your definition of change of person and not change of mind or mental assertion we are still back to deciding whether we may (pridefully) credit our actions with our salvation or whether Jesus only saves.

You are confused. The early Christians did NOT exclude change of mind or mental assertions, but rather the change in nature described in early Christianity was a process of continual change in one’s nature, which INCLUDES choice and life context. I was merely pointing out that your description was not the same as early Christians. Your religion is different than their religion on this point.




Billiardsball said (post # 124) “ 3. Again, I hear what you are saying regarding ancient interpretations and modern interpretations. I don't think I'm adding things to the scripture, and am limiting my interpretations to scriptural understandings. “

I don’t think anyone who forwards new theories of religion sees themselves as “adding or subtracting to scripture” since they are viewing scripture from their own viewpoint.

For example, you feel like you are “limiting” your interpretations to “scriptural understandings”, but this really means you are creating interpretations and theories based on your own personal understanding to scriptures, just like everyone else who creates theories that conflict with yours. And, as I have pointed out, your understanding and your subsequent interpretation of religious theory is quite different than the understanding and interpretation of the earliest Christians which they describe in their own textual witnesses.

You give us an unintentional example in offering Luther as an example. Luther, as well, was, like the rest of us, relying on his own understanding OF scriptures, which, was different than the earliest Christians. For example, Luther had grown up in a religion that had “graven images” (e.g. statues) and icons (e.g. pictures) and Luther felt that the second of the ten commandments in the old testament was a “judisches sachenspiegel” (a rule meant specifically for the ancient jews and not for others) and thus his translation purposefully excluded this second commandment (the one prohibiting "graven images"). To keep the number of commandments at 10, he simply split the 9th commandment into two (thus keeping the commandments at ten in number…). Thus, Luthers very popular bible which he created, changed the original 10 commandments. This is the reason why the basic ten commandments in the bible were different for protestant and catholic Europe for a time. AND, it wasn't JUST the 10 commandments he changed.

Luther did not think he was doing anything wrong. Instead, he used his personal “scriptural understanding” to modify the scriptures to create religious theory (which millions adopted). You are simply doing the same thing by applying a personal meaning to what you read and labeling that as “scriptural” just as Luther did. You add and subtract and mold and synthesize and theorize and create your theories just like the rest of us.

You still have not told us why YOUR personal interpretations and theories are better than or to be preferred over the interpretations of the earliest and ancient Christian textual witnesses in regards to these principles we've discussed.




TO THE LDS


IF the LDS claim, that they are a version of early Christianity is correct, then there should be doctrinal parallels between LDS theology and that of the earliest Christian witnesses. And IF the LDS and the scholars view of religion as a movement that has undergone many changes and splits into multiple differing theories and systems of belief is correct (and the forum arguments provide ample evidence of this). THEN it should be of no surprise that the LDS theology and early theology should both differ from many modern Christian Theories, yet the LDS will possess many parallel doctrines and many affinities to early Christian Theology.



WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THE LDS THEOLOGY PARALLELS EARLY CHRISTIAN TEXTUAL THEOLOGY?

It is one thing that the earliest Koine Greek usage of “repentance” should parallel the LDS understanding. However, it is quite another thing that the many, many, many earliest sacred and profane Judeo-Christian textual witnesses describe beliefs and practices that parallel the LDS theology. This is one of the strongest witnesses to the LDS claim that the restored Gospel IS a version of the earliest Christian theology.

Contrast for example, the single popular “easy believism” theory that once one simply (but honestly) places trust in Jesus, they are automatically destined for eternal reward, regardless of any evil they do, together with its abandonment of the principle of authentic repentance, with early Christian theory.

Christian Barnabas reminds us against this insistence that we can accept and believe in Jesus and then remain in our sins and do evil without any attempt to follow Jesus moral injunctions is not the early christian belief. They were told to : “...Be on your guard now, and do not be like certain people; that is, do not continue to pile up your sins while claiming that your covenant is irrevocably yours, because in fact those people lost it completely. The Epistle of Barnabas 4:6;

I honestly don’t know when the later christianities started interpreting the biblical text as a mis-contexted “grace” having made authentic repentance and attempts to moral social engagement and improvement superfluous, but we do not find such interpretations in the earliest judeo-christian texts where the earliest judeo-christians themselves, describe their own beliefs.

Despite it’s “bad press” and abandonment by multiple modern religious theories, the principle of repentance was an integral part of Gods plan for mankind from the very beginning. Judao-christian creation council texts relate that it was the principle of repentance and redemption that were key in settling doubts about God’s plan for mankinds moral education. Jewish Haggadah reminds us the importance of repentance to Gods plan.

When God resolved upon the creation of the world, he took counsel” and his advisors were: quote “ skeptical about the value of an earthly world on account of the sinfulness of men, who would be sure to disregard her precepts. But God dispelled her doubts. He told her that repentance had been created long before, and sinners would have the opportunity of mending their ways” (The Haggadah - first things created ch 1)

Repentance was seen as the process by which mankind improves in learning to live the moral laws required to become rational and prepare one to live moral laws required to live in a social heaven in harmony and peace with others. Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers reflect this principle :

“... and you bring forward into light the rational animal, the man. 10 With laws, you have taught (him); with just ordinances, you have cleansed (him)…. you have caused the Paraclete to live in us “ (Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers - 7:4; 9-11; 17; A Prayer of thanksgiving - c.f. AposCon 7.38.1-8)

Early synagogal prayers honor the Father for implanting a moral guide within man who is to repent of errors in the process of learning to obey this conscience and in learning higher moral laws. Their early prayers Honor God “who gave an implanted and written law to him, so that he might live lawfully as a rational being, 4 and when he had sinned, gave him your goodness, as a pledge to lead him to repentance; 5 look upon those who have bent the neck of their soul and body to you, because 6 He does not desire the death of the sinner, but his repentance, so that he might turn back from his way of evil, and live! “ (Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers - A Prayer of entreaty for God’s Mercy upon the Penitent (AposCon 8.9.8f) #11:1-6)

Moral law, whether the “implanted” law of conscience or written/oral laws God provides to mankind were taught in all generations as 1st Clement says : “ 5 Let us review all the generations in turn, and learn that from generation to generation the Master has given an opportunity for repentance to those who desire to turn to him.” (I Clement 7:5-7)

These moral laws in all of their manifestations are given to man for mans’ benefit, as a moral guide, … indeed, the Master of the universe himself spoke about repentance with an oath: “For as I live says the Lord, I do not desire the death of the sinner, so much as his repentance.” (1st Clement 8:1-2)

Repentance makes perfect sense in its role to prepare mankind to live higher social laws which members of a social heaven must learn to live if they are to live in an eternal peace and joy one with another. Manasseh correctly describes God as : “the God of those who repent.” (Prayer of Manasseh. The literal translation of this verse in charlesworth is : “…for you are the God of the repenters ..” It is those who repent who are to become his people and he is to be their God.

2nd Clement reminds us that God doesn’t merely want our repentance, but it is our obligation to him : “… While we still have time to be healed, let us place ourselves in the hands of God the Physician, and pay him what is due. 8 What is that? Sincere, heart-felt repentance.” (2nd Clement 9:7-8)

And they were reminded that God requires repentance because it is one principle that is required to save us.



2 REPENTANCE, IS A PRINCIPLE INHERENT TO MORAL PROGRESSION

Repentance was central to Gods plan to morally educate, civilize and domesticate the spirits of mankind so as to allow them to become more rational, useful and as a preparation to live in a social heaven in unity and joy. Phillip uses domestication as an example of What God is doing for the benefit of mankind and why he is doing it.

There are domestic animals like the bull and the *** and others of this kind. Others are wild and live apart in the deserts. Man ploughs the field by means of the domestic animals, and from this he feeds both himself and the animals, whether tame or wild. Compare the perfect man. It is through powers which are submissive that he ploughs, preparing for everything to come into being. For it is because of this that the whole place stands, whether the good or the evil, the right and the left. The Holy spirit shepherd everyone and rules all the powers, the “tame” ones and the “wild” ones, as well as those who are unique.” (The gospel of Phillip) It is the intelligent, civil and morally “domesticated” mankind which are best able to live in heaven and be of benefit to others.

Repentance plays a central role in this moral intelligence and civilizing of the morally ignorant and morally uncivilized spirits of mankind. Though spirits are initially, morally ignorant, they are to repent and learn moral laws though they will make mistakes along the way.

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent(Acts 17:30)

The ancient justification for God “winking” at, or allowing some moral error is because it was part of the moral education of individuals who would, ultimately , become both righteous, and morally educated. Diognetus explains this principle thusly :

“… he permitted us during the former time to be carried away by undisciplined impulses as we desired, led astray by pleasures and lusts, not at all because he took delight in our sins, but because he was patient; not because he approved of that former season of unrighteousness, but because he was creating the present season of righteousness (The Epistle to Diognetus 8:9-11)

This plan for man to “plant wisdom in their hearts” and learn to live by it qualifies them to be given greater power and glory in the eternal (‘undying’) worlds. Mankind who reject the opportunity to live by moral laws ultimately regret not having repented and learned to live higher moral laws. The prophet Baruch describes this early tradition :

“… as for the glory of those who proved to be righteous on account of my law, those who possessed intelligence in their life, and those who planted the root of wisdom in their hearts – their splendor will then be glorified by transformations, and the shape of their face will be changed into the light of their beauty so that they may acquire and receive the undying world which is promised to them. Therefore, especially they who will then come will be sad, because they despised my Law and stopped their ears lest they hear wisdom and receive intelligence. (The apocalypse of Baruch (Baruch 2) 51:2-6)

Jewish Zohar likens this moral education of the spirits of mankind to a “boarding school” that spirits are sent to in order to gain the needed education and then welcomed home, having been “initiated into the ways of the palace”.

“….the soul of the female and the soul of the male, are hence preeminent above all the heavenly hosts and camps. It may be wondered, if they are thus preeminent on both sides, why do they descend to this world only to be taken thence at some future time? “This may be explained by way of a simile: A king has a son whom he sends to a village to be educated until he shall have been initiated into the ways of the palace. When the king is informed that his son is now come to maturity, the king, out of his love, sends the matron his mother to bring him back into the palace, and there the king rejoices with him every day.… ’ ([Prov. 10:25].” THE ZOHAR - A SEAL UPON YOUR HEART)



3 REPENTANCE WAS NOT MERELY REGRET OR EMBARRASSMENT

The ancients understood that simply having a “worldly sorrow” for moral mistakes was different than a “godly sorrow” associated with authentic repentance.

“…Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. 10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.” (2 Cor 7:9-10)

In ancient tradition, the repentant Christian was to : “Wash and be clean; remove the wickedness from your souls out of my sight. Put an end to your wickedness; learn to do good; seek out justice; deliver the one who is wronged; give judgment on behalf of the orphan, and grant justice to the widow.” I Clement 8:4;

Clement explains that they were to be restored … to the honorable and pure conduct which characterizes our love for the brotherhood. 2 For this is an open gate of righteousness leading to life,… This is the gate of the Lord; the righteous shall enter by it.” (Ps118) 4 Although many gates are opened, this righteous gate is the Christian gate; blessed are all those who have entered by it and direct their path in holiness and righteousness, doing everything without confusion. (I Clement 48:1-4)

Though they would make moral mistakes, still “The lord, however, forgives all who repent, if in repenting they return to the unity of God…” Ignatius to the Philadelphians 8:1.

This is different than the Christian that simply feels badly that he sins, but then intentionally and willingly repeated his same sins. “But if he sins repeatedly and repents, it is of no use for such a person, for he will scarcely live.” Hermas 31:1-67;


AUTHENTIC VS COUNTERFEIT REPENTANCE

In ancient Judao-christian Tradition, it was authentic repentance which opened the door to the full effect of Gods mercy for sins, the counterfeit “repentance” did not offer mercy in this same way . “… If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. “ (1 John 1:6-7)

And, the Lord was not to be fooled by counterfeit displays of either repentance OR fake piety : “… ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.” Matthew 23:25-28

Jesus said, “I took my place in the midst of the world, and I appeared to them in flesh. I found all of them intoxicated; I found none of them thirsty. And my soul became afflicted for the sons of men, because they are blind in their hearts and do not have sight; for empty they came into the world, and empty too they seek to leave the world. But for the moment they are intoxicated. When they shake off their wine, then they will repent. “ (The Gospel of Thomas vs 28)

Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me….” (Matthew 15:7-9 Just as Hypocritical and counterfeit piety were done ineffectually and “in vain”, counterfeit repentance was just as ineffectual.)

This early tradition was spelled out in hermas’ vision of the willow : “To those,” he said, “whose hearts he saw were about to become pure, and who were about to serve him with all their heart, he gave repentance; but to those whose deceit and wickedness he saw, who were about to repent hypocritically, he did not give repentance…[forgiveness] (Hermas 72:2)

God is trying to teach individuals to “Rend your hearts and not your garments (Joel 2:13)

The bad effects of counterfeit and false repentance did not simply damage the unrepentant Christian, but his immoral behavior affected those who were looking critically at christianity for moral value and rejected it because of the actions of the unrepentant and hypocritical Christians.


For the Lord says, “My name is continually blasphemed among all the nations…. Why is it blasphemed? Because you do not do what I desire. For when the pagans hear from our mouths the oracles of God, they marvel at their beauty and greatness. But when they discover that our actions are not worthy of the words we speak, they turn from wonder to blasphemy, saying that it is a myth and a delusion
.” 2nd Clement 13:2-3

This same ill-effect is true as agnostics look closely at Christian arguments and simple meaness and pettiness in forum arguments nowadays.




REPENTANCE REPRESENTS A REAL AND ON-GOING EFFORT TO CHANGE, NOT A TEMPORARY ADJUSTMENT

Another forum member once gave an example of a christian theory where one may claim eternal salvation by saying a single and simple prayer (the "sinners prayer"). Nowadays, just as anciently, there were Christians who claimed eternal salvation simply by a single and simple belief in Jesus, but do not attempt authentic repentance. Speaking of such theories of belief while continuing in idolic behaviors, Barnabas said :

“...Be on your guard now, and do not be like certain people; that is, do not continue to pile up your sins while claiming that your covenant is irrevocably yours, because in fact those people lost it completely ...”(The Epistle of Barnabas 4:6)

For there are some who maliciously and deceitfully are accustomed to carrying about the Name while doing other things unworthy of God. You must avoid them… (Ignatius to the Ephesians 7:1)

To the Christian convert, the early tradition was that they have an opportunity for authentic repentance, “But if he sins repeatedly and repents, it is of no use for such a person, for he will scarcely live.” (Hermas 31:1-67)

For what good is it to us, if an eternal age has been promised to us, but we have done deeds that bring death? 123 Or that a paradise shall be revealed, whose fruit remains unspoiled and in which are abundance and healing, but we shall not enter it, 124 because we have lived in unseemly places? 125 Or that the faces of those who practiced self-control shall shine more than the stars but our faces shall be blacker than darkness? 126 For while we lived and committed iniquity we did not consider what we should suffer after death.” 127 (The Lord) answered and said, “This is the meaning of the contest which every man who is born on earth shall wage, 128 that if he is defeated he shall suffer what you have said, but if he is victorious he shall receive what I have said.” (Fourth Book of Ezra 7:120, 123 and 125-131)

The ancients understood that they would make, and even sometimes repeat moral mistakes. The point seemed to be the constant effort toward improvement : “The righteous stumbles and proves the Lord right; he falls and watches for what God will do about him…. sin after sin does not visit the house of the righteous. The righteous constantly searches his house, to remove his unintentional sins.” V2 p655 Psalms of Solomon #3:5-7;




4) REPENTANCE, FORGIVENESS; MERCY AND JUSTICE ARE NECESSARILY RELATED – ALL ARE NECESSARY

“….For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,…“ Heb 10:26

In ancient tradition, the Lord God, was a Just Lord.

The difficulty with justice as a single principle is that it makes no moral allowance for moral ability. If one sinned, they were banished from the realm of the sinless. It was the principle of mercy in ancient tradition that tempered the effects of justice.

As it was, when God dismissed them from Paradise, He did not allow the divine quality of justice to prevail entirely. He associated mercy with it.” P 37 The Haggadah (The Punishment); (c.f. The parallels between mercy "robbing" justice and other points found in LDS theology is unmistakable.)

However, the difficulty of mercy as a single principle is that it makes no moral allowance for justice for sin. Repentance was the mitigating factor. A degree of mercy was to be offered to the repentant as they learned moral laws. Without repentance, there was insufficient mercy for complete forgiveness.

The implication for ancient tradition was that, without repentance, full effect of mercy could not be justly applied. This is the context underlying the Prophet Ezras’ discussion with God regarding unrepentant Sodom and Gomorrah :

But have mercy upon the sinners for we know that you are merciful.” And God said, “I have no way to be merciful to them.” And Ezra said, “(Be merciful) because they cannot sustain your anger. And God said, “(I am wrathful) because such (are the deserts) of such (men) as these.” (Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 1:15-18)

In this early theological model; Without repentance, applying a complete, pardoning mercy is unjust (and God MUST remain a God of Justice). Ezra concedes this point to God, saying : “Lord you bring upon us what we deserve. And God said, “Your sins exceed my kindness.” And the prophet said, …“ Pity, Lord, the sinners, pity your own molding, have mercy upon your works.” The God remembered his works and said to the Prophet, “How can I have mercy upon them?” (Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 2:20-21). It is Sodoms lack of repentance that prevents Ezra from finding any further justification for requesting and applying mercy.

This connection between repentance and mercy has existed throughout all ages of Judao-Christian tradition. “Indeed, all the saints who have sinned up to this day will be forgiven, IF they repent with all their heart …” Hermas 6:4 (bold is mine)

At some point, all of us must come to the same Understanding of the value of repentance that Gad (brother of Joseph) came to when he taught his sons :

I understood this at last, after I had repented concerning Joseph, for according to God’s truth, repentance destroys disobedience, puts darkness to flight, illumines the vision, furnishes knowledge for the soul, and guides the deliberative powers to salvation. 8 For what it has not learned from human agency, it understands through repentance.“ Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs - Gad 5:1-8

These early Judao-Christian traditions regarding the relationship between Good and Evil, Justice and Mercy and the Moral education of our spirits is summed up in Jewish 1QS, 4Q255-264a, 5Q11. Regarding Good and Evil, they taught

The character and fate of all humankind reside with these spirits. All the hosts of humanity, generation by generation, are heirs to these spiritual divisions, walking according to their ways; the outworking of every deed inheres in these divisions according to each persons’ spiritual heritage, whether great or small, for every age of eternity. God has appointed these spirits as equals until the last age, and set an everlasting enmity between their divisions.

The ancient traditions were clear as to the purpose of both Good and Evil in Gods’ plan to morally educate, civilize and domesticate the spirits of mankind. Importantly, we were to be judged and rewards and punishments were associated by virtue of the moral laws we chose to learn to live.

“…Until now the spirits of truth and perversity have contended within the human heart. All people walk in both wisdom and foolishness. As is a person’s endowment of truth and righteousness, so shall he hate perversity; conversely, in proportion to bequest in the lot of evil, one will act wickedly and abominate truth. God has appointed these spirits as equals until the time of decree and renewal. He foreknows the outworking of their deeds for all the ages of eternity. He has granted them dominion over humanity, so imparting knowledge of good and evil, deciding the fate of every living being by the measure of which spirit predominates in him, until the day of the appointed visitation.” (“CHARTER” 1QS, 4Q255-264a, 5Q11 Col 4 vs 15-26)


It was those who had learned to repent and learn to live higher and higher moral laws that were able to say : “I give thanks to You, O Lord, for You have redeemed my soul from the pit. From Sheol and Abbadon You have raised me up to an eternal height, so that I might walk about on a limitless plain, and know that there is hope for him whom you created from the dust for the eternal council. The perverse spirit You have cleansed from great transgression, that he might take his stand with the host of the holy ones, and enter together with the congregation of the sons of heaven. And for man, you have allotted an eternal destiny with the spirits of knowledge...” THANKSGIVING PSALMS - (1QH + 4Q432 Frag. 3 Col. 11:19-23)

I hope it makes sense that the early Judeo-Christian tradition believed that “without on-going, authentic repentance, no single simple prayer or temporary “trust” will guarantee the reward of eternal life in a social heaven of powerful exalted beings who have repented for sin and have learned to live higher moral laws which enable them to live together in unity and joy for eternity.”

I do not think the modern later theory of "faith" without repentance or works (i.e. a faith that is dead) has any moral advantage over the earliest Christian doctrine of faith accompanied by attempts to be like Jesus and do his works (i.e. a faith that is living).

Secondly, I hope that, as the LDS see the many, many, parallels between their Christian worldview and the ancient Christian worldviews, it becomes clear that the LDS base doctrines are a version of the earliest Christianity. For example, the LDS can use almost any of the earliest texts in their Sunday School class without significant doctrinal ripples. What other Christian movement can do this to the same extent and ease?

Modern, non-historian, "Sunday School theorists" are often disoriented to enter into such historical textual territory. Or worse, they may simply label all early christian textual witnesses as "heretical" or "demonic" as a dismissal of early Christianity and it's many, many witnesses simply because their theories are so different than those described by the early christian interpretations.


Clear
ειακφινεω
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
My position is that to "obey Him" means to do as He commanded.

As you may or may not know, Mormons do not believe in the standard one-size-fits all heaven that most Christians do. Jesus Christ said that He would "reward every man according to his works." It's difficult for me to think that this means anything other than that greater rewards are in store for those who have been the most faithful. To us, the "fullness of salvation" is "exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom" -- living eternally with God and with our families, and over a very, very long period of time, progressing, with His help, to become like Him.

I do believe in greater rewards/greater punishments. I don't believe in a one-size-fits-all eternity.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I was not asking where they go. I was asking the differences in character between those who are saved and those who are not.

One group had the character to trust Jesus, the other trusted in themselves/was prideful/wanted to run their own show.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
You seem to be of the opinion that Christians can essentially get away with committing certain sins (because they're "saved" and cannot lose their salvation), and that they are simply incapable of committing other sins (which would appear to mean that once one is "saved," he loses his free will). I don't find either of those positions to be tenable. I believe that if a person truly accepts Christ, his actions will reflect his love for Him, but that as long as we are human, we are capable of committing even the most heinous of sins, given the right circumstances. Of course, the stronger and more devoted to Christ one is, the less likely he will be to be influenced and coerced by the Adversary.

I just don't get it! You seem to think that if we, as Christians (i.e. anyone who considers himself to be a Christian) are truly repentant of our wrongdoings, any future good we do is beyond our ability to control. If that is the case, we are merely puppets. What possible reason would God have for "saving" us to turn us into creatures who have no choice in how we are to live?

I hope you realize that we, as Mormons, would say exactly the same thing as Luther did.

I understand. My emphasis isn't on me and my doings but on Jesus--this is the way of salvation as I understand it in the Bible scriptures.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Billiardsball :

Billiardsball said (post # 124) “1. Having been saved and given a new nature, I simply am unable to "abuse, rape and murder multiple children" or etc. No murderer is a Christian (1 John 5) however, all Christians sin. I cannot rape or murder anyone because of God in me but if I lust or am angry without a just cause, I'm guilty of sin.

You theorize that you are able to sin, yet “unable to abuse” anyone? This is yet another difference between your theory and early Christian interpretation.

However, if this is true then this must be a personal quirk of your own since many Christians, who honestly “got on the bus” when they were young, and sincerely believed in Jesus as their savior, have murdered and have raped and have done and still do many despicable things. God did not “limit” their “sin level”. In your theory, once they were on the bus, they are going to be rewarded, unless you have a mechanism for them to get off the bus, or unless none of these evil Christians were actually on the bus, despite honest, but temporary trust in Jesus, or if they were fooled and no Christian can really know they are on the bus...




Billiardsball
said (post # 124) “2. The same with repentance. If we go with your definition of change of person and not change of mind or mental assertion we are still back to deciding whether we may (pridefully) credit our actions with our salvation or whether Jesus only saves.

You are confused. The early Christians did NOT exclude change of mind or mental assertions, but rather the change in nature described in early Christianity was a process of continual change in one’s nature, which INCLUDES choice and life context. I was merely pointing out that your description was not the same as early Christians. Your religion is different than their religion on this point.




Billiardsball said (post # 124) “ 3. Again, I hear what you are saying regarding ancient interpretations and modern interpretations. I don't think I'm adding things to the scripture, and am limiting my interpretations to scriptural understandings. “

I don’t think anyone who forwards new theories of religion sees themselves as “adding or subtracting to scripture” since they are viewing scripture from their own viewpoint.

For example, you feel like you are “limiting” your interpretations to “scriptural understandings”, but this really means you are creating interpretations and theories based on your own personal understanding to scriptures, just like everyone else who creates theories that conflict with yours. And, as I have pointed out, your understanding and your subsequent interpretation of religious theory is quite different than the understanding and interpretation of the earliest Christians which they describe in their own textual witnesses.

You give us an unintentional example in offering Luther as an example. Luther, as well, was, like the rest of us, relying on his own understanding OF scriptures, which, was different than the earliest Christians. For example, Luther had grown up in a religion that had “graven images” (e.g. statues) and icons (e.g. pictures) and Luther felt that the second of the ten commandments in the old testament was a “judisches sachenspiegel” (a rule meant specifically for the ancient jews and not for others) and thus his translation purposefully excluded this second commandment (the one prohibiting "graven images"). To keep the number of commandments at 10, he simply split the 9th commandment into two (thus keeping the commandments at ten in number…). Thus, Luthers very popular bible which he created, changed the original 10 commandments. This is the reason why the basic ten commandments in the bible were different for protestant and catholic Europe for a time. AND, it wasn't JUST the 10 commandments he changed.

Luther did not think he was doing anything wrong. Instead, he used his personal “scriptural understanding” to modify the scriptures to create religious theory (which millions adopted). You are simply doing the same thing by applying a personal meaning to what you read and labeling that as “scriptural” just as Luther did. You add and subtract and mold and synthesize and theorize and create your theories just like the rest of us.

You still have not told us why YOUR personal interpretations and theories are better than or to be preferred over the interpretations of the earliest and ancient Christian textual witnesses in regards to these principles we've discussed.




TO THE LDS


IF the LDS claim, that they are a version of early Christianity is correct, then there should be doctrinal parallels between LDS theology and that of the earliest Christian witnesses. And IF the LDS and the scholars view of religion as a movement that has undergone many changes and splits into multiple differing theories and systems of belief is correct (and the forum arguments provide ample evidence of this). THEN it should be of no surprise that the LDS theology and early theology should both differ from many modern Christian Theories, yet the LDS will possess many parallel doctrines and many affinities to early Christian Theology.



WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THE LDS THEOLOGY PARALLELS EARLY CHRISTIAN TEXTUAL THEOLOGY?

It is one thing that the earliest Koine Greek usage of “repentance” should parallel the LDS understanding. However, it is quite another thing that the many, many, many earliest sacred and profane Judeo-Christian textual witnesses describe beliefs and practices that parallel the LDS theology. This is one of the strongest witnesses to the LDS claim that the restored Gospel IS a version of the earliest Christian theology.

Contrast for example, the single popular “easy believism” theory that once one simply (but honestly) places trust in Jesus, they are automatically destined for eternal reward, regardless of any evil they do, together with its abandonment of the principle of authentic repentance, with early Christian theory.

Christian Barnabas reminds us against this insistence that we can accept and believe in Jesus and then remain in our sins and do evil without any attempt to follow Jesus moral injunctions is not the early christian belief. They were told to : “...Be on your guard now, and do not be like certain people; that is, do not continue to pile up your sins while claiming that your covenant is irrevocably yours, because in fact those people lost it completely. The Epistle of Barnabas 4:6;

I honestly don’t know when the later christianities started interpreting the biblical text as a mis-contexted “grace” having made authentic repentance and attempts to moral social engagement and improvement superfluous, but we do not find such interpretations in the earliest judeo-christian texts where the earliest judeo-christians themselves, describe their own beliefs.

Despite it’s “bad press” and abandonment by multiple modern religious theories, the principle of repentance was an integral part of Gods plan for mankind from the very beginning. Judao-christian creation council texts relate that it was the principle of repentance and redemption that were key in settling doubts about God’s plan for mankinds moral education. Jewish Haggadah reminds us the importance of repentance to Gods plan.

When God resolved upon the creation of the world, he took counsel” and his advisors were: quote “ skeptical about the value of an earthly world on account of the sinfulness of men, who would be sure to disregard her precepts. But God dispelled her doubts. He told her that repentance had been created long before, and sinners would have the opportunity of mending their ways” (The Haggadah - first things created ch 1)

Repentance was seen as the process by which mankind improves in learning to live the moral laws required to become rational and prepare one to live moral laws required to live in a social heaven in harmony and peace with others. Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers reflect this principle :

“... and you bring forward into light the rational animal, the man. 10 With laws, you have taught (him); with just ordinances, you have cleansed (him)…. you have caused the Paraclete to live in us “ (Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers - 7:4; 9-11; 17; A Prayer of thanksgiving - c.f. AposCon 7.38.1-8)

Early synagogal prayers honor the Father for implanting a moral guide within man who is to repent of errors in the process of learning to obey this conscience and in learning higher moral laws. Their early prayers Honor God “who gave an implanted and written law to him, so that he might live lawfully as a rational being, 4 and when he had sinned, gave him your goodness, as a pledge to lead him to repentance; 5 look upon those who have bent the neck of their soul and body to you, because 6 He does not desire the death of the sinner, but his repentance, so that he might turn back from his way of evil, and live! “ (Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers - A Prayer of entreaty for God’s Mercy upon the Penitent (AposCon 8.9.8f) #11:1-6)

Moral law, whether the “implanted” law of conscience or written/oral laws God provides to mankind were taught in all generations as 1st Clement says : “ 5 Let us review all the generations in turn, and learn that from generation to generation the Master has given an opportunity for repentance to those who desire to turn to him.” (I Clement 7:5-7)

These moral laws in all of their manifestations are given to man for mans’ benefit, as a moral guide, … indeed, the Master of the universe himself spoke about repentance with an oath: “For as I live says the Lord, I do not desire the death of the sinner, so much as his repentance.” (1st Clement 8:1-2)

Repentance makes perfect sense in its role to prepare mankind to live higher social laws which members of a social heaven must learn to live if they are to live in an eternal peace and joy one with another. Manasseh correctly describes God as : “the God of those who repent.” (Prayer of Manasseh. The literal translation of this verse in charlesworth is : “…for you are the God of the repenters ..” It is those who repent who are to become his people and he is to be their God.

2nd Clement reminds us that God doesn’t merely want our repentance, but it is our obligation to him : “… While we still have time to be healed, let us place ourselves in the hands of God the Physician, and pay him what is due. 8 What is that? Sincere, heart-felt repentance.” (2nd Clement 9:7-8)

And they were reminded that God requires repentance because it is one principle that is required to save us.



2 REPENTANCE, IS A PRINCIPLE INHERENT TO MORAL PROGRESSION

Repentance was central to Gods plan to morally educate, civilize and domesticate the spirits of mankind so as to allow them to become more rational, useful and as a preparation to live in a social heaven in unity and joy. Phillip uses domestication as an example of What God is doing for the benefit of mankind and why he is doing it.

There are domestic animals like the bull and the *** and others of this kind. Others are wild and live apart in the deserts. Man ploughs the field by means of the domestic animals, and from this he feeds both himself and the animals, whether tame or wild. Compare the perfect man. It is through powers which are submissive that he ploughs, preparing for everything to come into being. For it is because of this that the whole place stands, whether the good or the evil, the right and the left. The Holy spirit shepherd everyone and rules all the powers, the “tame” ones and the “wild” ones, as well as those who are unique.” (The gospel of Phillip) It is the intelligent, civil and morally “domesticated” mankind which are best able to live in heaven and be of benefit to others.

Repentance plays a central role in this moral intelligence and civilizing of the morally ignorant and morally uncivilized spirits of mankind. Though spirits are initially, morally ignorant, they are to repent and learn moral laws though they will make mistakes along the way.

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent(Acts 17:30)

The ancient justification for God “winking” at, or allowing some moral error is because it was part of the moral education of individuals who would, ultimately , become both righteous, and morally educated. Diognetus explains this principle thusly :

“… he permitted us during the former time to be carried away by undisciplined impulses as we desired, led astray by pleasures and lusts, not at all because he took delight in our sins, but because he was patient; not because he approved of that former season of unrighteousness, but because he was creating the present season of righteousness (The Epistle to Diognetus 8:9-11)

This plan for man to “plant wisdom in their hearts” and learn to live by it qualifies them to be given greater power and glory in the eternal (‘undying’) worlds. Mankind who reject the opportunity to live by moral laws ultimately regret not having repented and learned to live higher moral laws. The prophet Baruch describes this early tradition :

“… as for the glory of those who proved to be righteous on account of my law, those who possessed intelligence in their life, and those who planted the root of wisdom in their hearts – their splendor will then be glorified by transformations, and the shape of their face will be changed into the light of their beauty so that they may acquire and receive the undying world which is promised to them. Therefore, especially they who will then come will be sad, because they despised my Law and stopped their ears lest they hear wisdom and receive intelligence. (The apocalypse of Baruch (Baruch 2) 51:2-6)

Jewish Zohar likens this moral education of the spirits of mankind to a “boarding school” that spirits are sent to in order to gain the needed education and then welcomed home, having been “initiated into the ways of the palace”.

“….the soul of the female and the soul of the male, are hence preeminent above all the heavenly hosts and camps. It may be wondered, if they are thus preeminent on both sides, why do they descend to this world only to be taken thence at some future time? “This may be explained by way of a simile: A king has a son whom he sends to a village to be educated until he shall have been initiated into the ways of the palace. When the king is informed that his son is now come to maturity, the king, out of his love, sends the matron his mother to bring him back into the palace, and there the king rejoices with him every day.… ’ ([Prov. 10:25].” THE ZOHAR - A SEAL UPON YOUR HEART)



3 REPENTANCE WAS NOT MERELY REGRET OR EMBARRASSMENT

The ancients understood that simply having a “worldly sorrow” for moral mistakes was different than a “godly sorrow” associated with authentic repentance.

“…Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. 10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.” (2 Cor 7:9-10)

In ancient tradition, the repentant Christian was to : “Wash and be clean; remove the wickedness from your souls out of my sight. Put an end to your wickedness; learn to do good; seek out justice; deliver the one who is wronged; give judgment on behalf of the orphan, and grant justice to the widow.” I Clement 8:4;

Clement explains that they were to be restored … to the honorable and pure conduct which characterizes our love for the brotherhood. 2 For this is an open gate of righteousness leading to life,… This is the gate of the Lord; the righteous shall enter by it.” (Ps118) 4 Although many gates are opened, this righteous gate is the Christian gate; blessed are all those who have entered by it and direct their path in holiness and righteousness, doing everything without confusion. (I Clement 48:1-4)

Though they would make moral mistakes, still “The lord, however, forgives all who repent, if in repenting they return to the unity of God…” Ignatius to the Philadelphians 8:1.

This is different than the Christian that simply feels badly that he sins, but then intentionally and willingly repeated his same sins. “But if he sins repeatedly and repents, it is of no use for such a person, for he will scarcely live.” Hermas 31:1-67;


AUTHENTIC VS COUNTERFEIT REPENTANCE

In ancient Judao-christian Tradition, it was authentic repentance which opened the door to the full effect of Gods mercy for sins, the counterfeit “repentance” did not offer mercy in this same way . “… If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. “ (1 John 1:6-7)

And, the Lord was not to be fooled by counterfeit displays of either repentance OR fake piety : “… ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.” Matthew 23:25-28

Jesus said, “I took my place in the midst of the world, and I appeared to them in flesh. I found all of them intoxicated; I found none of them thirsty. And my soul became afflicted for the sons of men, because they are blind in their hearts and do not have sight; for empty they came into the world, and empty too they seek to leave the world. But for the moment they are intoxicated. When they shake off their wine, then they will repent. “ (The Gospel of Thomas vs 28)

Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me….” (Matthew 15:7-9 Just as Hypocritical and counterfeit piety were done ineffectually and “in vain”, counterfeit repentance was just as ineffectual.)

This early tradition was spelled out in hermas’ vision of the willow : “To those,” he said, “whose hearts he saw were about to become pure, and who were about to serve him with all their heart, he gave repentance; but to those whose deceit and wickedness he saw, who were about to repent hypocritically, he did not give repentance…[forgiveness] (Hermas 72:2)

God is trying to teach individuals to “Rend your hearts and not your garments (Joel 2:13)

The bad effects of counterfeit and false repentance did not simply damage the unrepentant Christian, but his immoral behavior affected those who were looking critically at christianity for moral value and rejected it because of the actions of the unrepentant and hypocritical Christians.


For the Lord says, “My name is continually blasphemed among all the nations…. Why is it blasphemed? Because you do not do what I desire. For when the pagans hear from our mouths the oracles of God, they marvel at their beauty and greatness. But when they discover that our actions are not worthy of the words we speak, they turn from wonder to blasphemy, saying that it is a myth and a delusion
.” 2nd Clement 13:2-3

This same ill-effect is true as agnostics look closely at Christian arguments and simple meaness and pettiness in forum arguments nowadays.




REPENTANCE REPRESENTS A REAL AND ON-GOING EFFORT TO CHANGE, NOT A TEMPORARY ADJUSTMENT

Another forum member once gave an example of a christian theory where one may claim eternal salvation by saying a single and simple prayer (the "sinners prayer"). Nowadays, just as anciently, there were Christians who claimed eternal salvation simply by a single and simple belief in Jesus, but do not attempt authentic repentance. Speaking of such theories of belief while continuing in idolic behaviors, Barnabas said :

“...Be on your guard now, and do not be like certain people; that is, do not continue to pile up your sins while claiming that your covenant is irrevocably yours, because in fact those people lost it completely ...”(The Epistle of Barnabas 4:6)

For there are some who maliciously and deceitfully are accustomed to carrying about the Name while doing other things unworthy of God. You must avoid them… (Ignatius to the Ephesians 7:1)

To the Christian convert, the early tradition was that they have an opportunity for authentic repentance, “But if he sins repeatedly and repents, it is of no use for such a person, for he will scarcely live.” (Hermas 31:1-67)

For what good is it to us, if an eternal age has been promised to us, but we have done deeds that bring death? 123 Or that a paradise shall be revealed, whose fruit remains unspoiled and in which are abundance and healing, but we shall not enter it, 124 because we have lived in unseemly places? 125 Or that the faces of those who practiced self-control shall shine more than the stars but our faces shall be blacker than darkness? 126 For while we lived and committed iniquity we did not consider what we should suffer after death.” 127 (The Lord) answered and said, “This is the meaning of the contest which every man who is born on earth shall wage, 128 that if he is defeated he shall suffer what you have said, but if he is victorious he shall receive what I have said.” (Fourth Book of Ezra 7:120, 123 and 125-131)

The ancients understood that they would make, and even sometimes repeat moral mistakes. The point seemed to be the constant effort toward improvement : “The righteous stumbles and proves the Lord right; he falls and watches for what God will do about him…. sin after sin does not visit the house of the righteous. The righteous constantly searches his house, to remove his unintentional sins.” V2 p655 Psalms of Solomon #3:5-7;




4) REPENTANCE, FORGIVENESS; MERCY AND JUSTICE ARE NECESSARILY RELATED – ALL ARE NECESSARY

“….For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,…“ Heb 10:26

In ancient tradition, the Lord God, was a Just Lord.

The difficulty with justice as a single principle is that it makes no moral allowance for moral ability. If one sinned, they were banished from the realm of the sinless. It was the principle of mercy in ancient tradition that tempered the effects of justice.

As it was, when God dismissed them from Paradise, He did not allow the divine quality of justice to prevail entirely. He associated mercy with it.” P 37 The Haggadah (The Punishment); (c.f. The parallels between mercy "robbing" justice and other points found in LDS theology is unmistakable.)

However, the difficulty of mercy as a single principle is that it makes no moral allowance for justice for sin. Repentance was the mitigating factor. A degree of mercy was to be offered to the repentant as they learned moral laws. Without repentance, there was insufficient mercy for complete forgiveness.

The implication for ancient tradition was that, without repentance, full effect of mercy could not be justly applied. This is the context underlying the Prophet Ezras’ discussion with God regarding unrepentant Sodom and Gomorrah :

But have mercy upon the sinners for we know that you are merciful.” And God said, “I have no way to be merciful to them.” And Ezra said, “(Be merciful) because they cannot sustain your anger. And God said, “(I am wrathful) because such (are the deserts) of such (men) as these.” (Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 1:15-18)

In this early theological model; Without repentance, applying a complete, pardoning mercy is unjust (and God MUST remain a God of Justice). Ezra concedes this point to God, saying : “Lord you bring upon us what we deserve. And God said, “Your sins exceed my kindness.” And the prophet said, …“ Pity, Lord, the sinners, pity your own molding, have mercy upon your works.” The God remembered his works and said to the Prophet, “How can I have mercy upon them?” (Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 2:20-21). It is Sodoms lack of repentance that prevents Ezra from finding any further justification for requesting and applying mercy.

This connection between repentance and mercy has existed throughout all ages of Judao-Christian tradition. “Indeed, all the saints who have sinned up to this day will be forgiven, IF they repent with all their heart …” Hermas 6:4 (bold is mine)

At some point, all of us must come to the same Understanding of the value of repentance that Gad (brother of Joseph) came to when he taught his sons :

I understood this at last, after I had repented concerning Joseph, for according to God’s truth, repentance destroys disobedience, puts darkness to flight, illumines the vision, furnishes knowledge for the soul, and guides the deliberative powers to salvation. 8 For what it has not learned from human agency, it understands through repentance.“ Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs - Gad 5:1-8

These early Judao-Christian traditions regarding the relationship between Good and Evil, Justice and Mercy and the Moral education of our spirits is summed up in Jewish 1QS, 4Q255-264a, 5Q11. Regarding Good and Evil, they taught

The character and fate of all humankind reside with these spirits. All the hosts of humanity, generation by generation, are heirs to these spiritual divisions, walking according to their ways; the outworking of every deed inheres in these divisions according to each persons’ spiritual heritage, whether great or small, for every age of eternity. God has appointed these spirits as equals until the last age, and set an everlasting enmity between their divisions.

The ancient traditions were clear as to the purpose of both Good and Evil in Gods’ plan to morally educate, civilize and domesticate the spirits of mankind. Importantly, we were to be judged and rewards and punishments were associated by virtue of the moral laws we chose to learn to live.

“…Until now the spirits of truth and perversity have contended within the human heart. All people walk in both wisdom and foolishness. As is a person’s endowment of truth and righteousness, so shall he hate perversity; conversely, in proportion to bequest in the lot of evil, one will act wickedly and abominate truth. God has appointed these spirits as equals until the time of decree and renewal. He foreknows the outworking of their deeds for all the ages of eternity. He has granted them dominion over humanity, so imparting knowledge of good and evil, deciding the fate of every living being by the measure of which spirit predominates in him, until the day of the appointed visitation.” (“CHARTER” 1QS, 4Q255-264a, 5Q11 Col 4 vs 15-26)


It was those who had learned to repent and learn to live higher and higher moral laws that were able to say : “I give thanks to You, O Lord, for You have redeemed my soul from the pit. From Sheol and Abbadon You have raised me up to an eternal height, so that I might walk about on a limitless plain, and know that there is hope for him whom you created from the dust for the eternal council. The perverse spirit You have cleansed from great transgression, that he might take his stand with the host of the holy ones, and enter together with the congregation of the sons of heaven. And for man, you have allotted an eternal destiny with the spirits of knowledge...” THANKSGIVING PSALMS - (1QH + 4Q432 Frag. 3 Col. 11:19-23)

I hope it makes sense that the early Judeo-Christian tradition believed that “without on-going, authentic repentance, no single simple prayer or temporary “trust” will guarantee the reward of eternal life in a social heaven of powerful exalted beings who have repented for sin and have learned to live higher moral laws which enable them to live together in unity and joy for eternity.”

I do not think the modern later theory of "faith" without repentance or works (i.e. a faith that is dead) has any moral advantage over the earliest Christian doctrine of faith accompanied by attempts to be like Jesus and do his works (i.e. a faith that is living).

Secondly, I hope that, as the LDS see the many, many, parallels between their Christian worldview and the ancient Christian worldviews, it becomes clear that the LDS base doctrines are a version of the earliest Christianity. For example, the LDS can use almost any of the earliest texts in their Sunday School class without significant doctrinal ripples. What other Christian movement can do this to the same extent and ease?

Modern, non-historian, "Sunday School theorists" are often disoriented to enter into such historical textual territory. Or worse, they may simply label all early christian textual witnesses as "heretical" or "demonic" as a dismissal of early Christianity and it's many, many witnesses simply because their theories are so different than those described by the early christian interpretations.


Clear
ειακφινεω

I think there are two issues:

The word "early" is used to connote "authority" by you and "later" as "less authentic". However, some of the early Christians you are quoting are a century or more removed from the scriptures. And you also believe that far later revelations are indeed authentic, such as the LDS canon books. So I'm unsure how you can make such a strong case that I'm off if I happen to agree with some modernists.

The other issue is that I believe I'm interpreting the Bible correctly. If I am, this would make my understanding that of the original, earliest Christians.

Thanks.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
I understand. My emphasis isn't on me and my doings but on Jesus--this is the way of salvation as I understand it in the Bible scriptures.
I understand that. It just seems that, for most Christians (including you), here's how it works:

1. For reasons we really don't understand, God put us here on earth. (Yes, it was his "pleasure" to do so, but why?)
2. Each of us was born depraved and totally deserving of an eternity of suffering in hell.
3. If we accept Jesus, the problem described in point #2 is solved, and we'll live in heaven forever instead of in hell.

That seems to pretty much sum things up, at least as I've been led to believe. How much of that did I get right, and how much did I get wrong?
 

rrosskopf

LDS High Priest
I´ve learned following from: What is Mormonism? What do Mormons believe?

"Mormons believe the following about God: He has not always been the Supreme Being of the universe (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321) but attained that status through righteous living and persistent effort (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345). They believe God the Father has a “body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (Doctrine and Covenants130:22). Brigham Young taught that Adam actually was God and the father of Jesus Christ—although this teaching has been abandoned by modern Mormon leaders.

In contrast, Christians know this about God: there is only one true God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6–8). He always has existed and always will exist (Deuteronomy 33:27; Psalm 90:2; 1 Timothy 1:17). He was not created but is the Creator (Genesis 1; Psalm 24:1; Isaiah 37:16). He is perfect, and no one else is equal to Him (Psalm 86:8; Isaiah 40:25). God the Father is not a man, nor was He ever (Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Hosea 11:9). He is Spirit (John 4:24), and Spirit is not made of flesh and bone (Luke 24:39).

Mormons believe that there are different levels or kingdoms in the afterlife: the celestial kingdom, the terrestrial kingdom, the telestial kingdom, and outer darkness (Mormon Doctrine, p. 348). Where mankind will end up depends on what they believe and do in this life (2 Nephi 25:23; Articles of Faith, p.79).

In contrast, the Bible tells us that after death we go to heaven or hell based on whether or not we had faith in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. To be absent from our bodies means, as believers, we are with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:6–8). Unbelievers are sent to hell or the place of the dead (Luke 16:22–23). When Jesus comes the second time, we will receive new bodies (1 Corinthians 15:50–54). There will be a new heaven and new earth for believers (Revelation 21:1), and unbelievers will be thrown into an everlasting lake of fire (Revelation 20:11–15). There is no second chance for redemption after death (Hebrews 9:27).

Mormon leaders have taught that Jesus’ incarnation was the result of a physical relationship between God the Father and Mary (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115; Mormon Doctrine, p. 547). Mormons believe Jesus is a god, but that any human can also become a god (Doctrine and Covenants132:20; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345–354). Mormonism teaches that salvation can be earned by a combination of faith and good works (LDS Bible Dictionary, p. 697)."

1) Is it right that mormons dont believe in a eternal God? Is God, our Father, to be resembled with ourselves when/if we get to the celestial kingdom?
2a) Have there been other Gods before the Father of ours?
2b) Is our Father like other "people" that in other dimensions/planets have come to the celestial kingdom, and therefore can create own planets?
2c) Who is then the true God (the one who started it all)?
3a) When/if we come to the celestial kingdom: then are we on a higher spiritual state than Jesus himself, because he is on the terrestrial kingdom, and therefore doesn't live with God himself and get the opportunity to evolve himself eternally, or either create own planets?
3b) How does this work?
3c) Why doesn't Jesus live with God our father, but some of us got the opportunity to do this? Isn't Jesus bigger than us?

I only ask this questions because I doesntknow how a mormon sees these things. I hope there are understandings for that!

Hope for good answers! :)

Most modern Christian sects interpret the scriptures based on their own traditions, and from that perspective Mormonism must seem pretty strange. When it comes to the scriptures, most modern Christians make many assumptions, and many of these assumptions are false.

"Listen, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone." - Deuteronomy 6:4

LORD is being used in place of Jehovah, so Moses is actually referring to Jehovah, the God of Israel, and not his father, Almighty God. Almighty God was God over all the earth, whereas Jehovah was the God of Israel.

"But you are my witnesses, O Israel!" says the LORD. "You are my servant. You have been chosen to know me, believe in me, and understand that I alone am God. There is no other God--there never has been, and there never will be." - Isaiah 43:10

Once again, this is Jehovah speaking, the God of Israel. There is no other God - for the Israelites. They had already been commanded not to worship any other God. Isaiah 44:6 is just more of the same.

"The eternal God is your refuge, and his everlasting arms are under you. He drives out the enemy before you; he cries out, 'Destroy them!'" - Deuteronomy 33:27
"God" is being used in place of Elohim. QEDEM is being interpreted as "Eternal", but according to Strongs Concordance, it actually means "ancient". The Ancient Elohim is our refuge. OWLEM is being interpreted as "everlasting", but it also means a long period of time or ancient.

There is a great deal of confusion in the Bible between references to Jehovah, and references to Elohim. That is why many assume they are the same entity. A study of Hebrew reveals that they are two different individuals. Elohim was the Father, God Almighty, and Jehovah was his son, the God of Israel.

"For I am the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior. " - Isaiah 43:3

Here we have Jehovah telling the Israelites that he was the Holy One, their savior. New Testament references confirm that the apostles believed Jesus to be the Lord Jehovah, the God of Israel.

"Why are you interfering with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are--the Holy One of God!" - Mark 1:24

Jesus is never called the Son of Jehovah, nor does he pray to Jehovah. He is the son of Elohim, and he prayed to Elohim. "Eli" is a short form of Elohim.
"At about three o'clock, Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" which means "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?" - Matthew 27:46

He also taught people to pray to the Father.

Pray like this: Our Father in heaven, may your name be kept holy. - Matthew 6:9
 

Orontes

Master of the Horse
I understand. Hard to think of many places where it has merely prasso and not the term "works [prasso] of the Law", however, that is an aside to your question.

When I get on the bus I am adopted by God, transmitted from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of the Son of His Love. If there were clear Bible verses that say I can become an un-adopted child of God or the like, I would believe I could lose my salvation.

There is no judicial specific word for 'work' in Greek. The words one can use for works or work all have more common uses. Words like: ergon, pragma, praxis, poeio etc. all have a more general use and meaning. The larger and more critical point is all such require an acting agent and this is the rub. Works, like faith or grace, are acts: deeds, things done by a subject. Now the subject may be Divine, as in theo ergon, Divine work, or Anthropo ergon the work of men. There is still an agent.

To my question and your reply: it appears, once on the bus, you cannot leave. The conclusion then is no act, however heinous or vile could change your ultimate destination: salvation and heaven. This means morality is irrelevant. Think back on the syllogism I gave you that was tied to your earlier statements:

1) God is good
2) Men must be like God to be saved (per your post #85)
3) Then, men must be good to be saved.

Based on your reply to the bus analogy and you prior assertion found in 2), you must reject 1). Therefore, Deity must be an amoral or immoral being. If you agree with 1) and still hold to 2) then there must be a moral element to a saved state. If there is a moral element to salvation (one must be good), then there must be free agency: only a free agent can be moral. This would then mean your notion that one can never get off the bus to salvation is wrong.

BilliardsBall, I think you've painted yourself into a corner. I think this has happened because of a dogmatic loyalty to a particular reading of scripture (that itself is a reading foreign to early Christianity). If you open yourself up to a larger Christian hermeneutic, you would not have to abandon reason to hold a theological position on either the atonement or salvation.
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I understand that. It just seems that, for most Christians (including you), here's how it works:

1. For reasons we really don't understand, God put us here on earth. (Yes, it was his "pleasure" to do so, but why?)
2. Each of us was born depraved and totally deserving of an eternity of suffering in hell.
3. If we accept Jesus, the problem described in point #2 is solved, and we'll live in heaven forever instead of in hell.

That seems to pretty much sum things up, at least as I've been led to believe. How much of that did I get right, and how much did I get wrong?

I disagree with #s 1 and 2, but agree that if one trusts Jesus, we live forever in Heaven/the new Earth/new Universe, not in Hell.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
So basically there are no behavioral differences. It is just about what one believes?

Have you read this whole thread? I live differently and/or aspire to because I WAS saved. Others attempt to live differently and/or aspire to do so to BE saved.

A simple but important difference. One group relies on Christ's atonement, the other is putting more emphasis on their personal efforts.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Most modern Christian sects interpret the scriptures based on their own traditions, and from that perspective Mormonism must seem pretty strange. When it comes to the scriptures, most modern Christians make many assumptions, and many of these assumptions are false.

"Listen, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone." - Deuteronomy 6:4

LORD is being used in place of Jehovah, so Moses is actually referring to Jehovah, the God of Israel, and not his father, Almighty God. Almighty God was God over all the earth, whereas Jehovah was the God of Israel.

"But you are my witnesses, O Israel!" says the LORD. "You are my servant. You have been chosen to know me, believe in me, and understand that I alone am God. There is no other God--there never has been, and there never will be." - Isaiah 43:10

Once again, this is Jehovah speaking, the God of Israel. There is no other God - for the Israelites. They had already been commanded not to worship any other God. Isaiah 44:6 is just more of the same.

"The eternal God is your refuge, and his everlasting arms are under you. He drives out the enemy before you; he cries out, 'Destroy them!'" - Deuteronomy 33:27
"God" is being used in place of Elohim. QEDEM is being interpreted as "Eternal", but according to Strongs Concordance, it actually means "ancient". The Ancient Elohim is our refuge. OWLEM is being interpreted as "everlasting", but it also means a long period of time or ancient.

There is a great deal of confusion in the Bible between references to Jehovah, and references to Elohim. That is why many assume they are the same entity. A study of Hebrew reveals that they are two different individuals. Elohim was the Father, God Almighty, and Jehovah was his son, the God of Israel.

"For I am the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior. " - Isaiah 43:3

Here we have Jehovah telling the Israelites that he was the Holy One, their savior. New Testament references confirm that the apostles believed Jesus to be the Lord Jehovah, the God of Israel.

"Why are you interfering with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are--the Holy One of God!" - Mark 1:24

Jesus is never called the Son of Jehovah, nor does he pray to Jehovah. He is the son of Elohim, and he prayed to Elohim. "Eli" is a short form of Elohim.
"At about three o'clock, Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" which means "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?" - Matthew 27:46

He also taught people to pray to the Father.

Pray like this: Our Father in heaven, may your name be kept holy. - Matthew 6:9

I would be comfortable with this line of thought if the Decalogue said, "Thou shalt have no other gods except me and Jehovah [or except me and El]." The plural oneness of Father, Son and Spirit is taught in both testaments.
 
Top