"Eternal Progression In a Mormon Multiverse"

[Terry Sampson]

(a) Blog (March 9, 2010) M-Theory: In A Mormon Multiverse: Eternal Progression In a Mormon Multiverse [PDF hardcopy attached]
(b) Eternal Progression in a Multiverse: An Explorative Mormon Cosmology (Dialogue, vol. 39 No. 2, Summer 2006), author Kirk D. Hagen https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V39N02_13.pdf

 

[Jane.Doe]

Normally I really don't like these type of essays, because they so often come off as "I'm going to inform God on how His Truth work". But this one actually doesn't do that. It's a speculation piece, and openly embraces that and it's limitations. And then lays out it's reasoning very logically & thoroughly, while still acknowledging the speculative nature of things.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF FIVE

Hi All,


I started to look at the blogs “M-Theory” but lost interest early on when it started presenting definitions that were arbitrary. For example, it presents a theory that ““The Mormon God is not worthy of worship because a being X is only a proper object of worship if X has always been a proper object of worship.” (underline is mine)

This is a very strange statement.

Why must the author of the text stipulate that the being must have always BEEN such a being to deserve honor. For example, If I honor the president of the United States. WHY MUST the individual so honored have always BEEN president? (why can't he have been a normal little boy at some point?) This is a silly, arbitrary definition. Similarly, If a being is NOW in a state of having all knowledge that is possible to have; has all power that a being can have, and has all freedom that a being can have and administrates over all other beings that it is possible to administrate over, then I do not see why this being cannot be honored (worshipped) for what it NOW is.

The definition creates a silly "straw man".


The same pattern of short-sighted and arbitrary definitions continue. For example, the blog says that “…. the minimal properties a being must possess to be considered God include omniscience, omnipotence, and freedom. Far from being the greatest possible being of Christianity, the Mormon deity is not a God in the classical sense.”

This definition assumes that Mormons believe their God is somehow NOT omniscient, NOT omnipotent, and does NOT have freedom. This is incorrect and not at all what the LDS believe.

It is another straw man.


If Blogs and criticisms will not actually deal with actual LDS beliefs and instead, insist on using inaccurate assumptions (or present a provincial definition rather than a historical context), then they can never demonstrate what they say they demonstrate. LDS may continue to dismiss them UNLESS they will deal with actual, LDS beliefs, INSIDE LDS contexts.

Part of the problem lies in the contextual use of the term "God'.
For example, Numbers 23:19 Says “God is not as a man, to negotiate (διατηθηναι is the word used in LXX) nor as a son of man to be threatened (απειληθηναι here). Often the verse is translated and interpreted to mean that he is “not a man” whereas the context of the sentence does not teach that God is not a man, but that he does not share certain characteristics common to mankind in their current condition. While man is weak and fearful, God has characteristics which render him powerful and fearless.

I can apply exactly the same sentence to man. If I say “[The president of the U.S. ] is not a man to negotiate nor as a son of man to be threatened’, I am NOT saying that the president is not a man, but rather that he has characteristics uncommon to mankind. Similarly, The early sacred texts that speak of theosis, i.e. becoming like God does not mean necessarily that man has all attributes of God the Father.

For example, when Adam and Eve partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge (the tree of “wisdom” in DDS scrolls), "God said, behold Adan has become as one of us, knowing good and evil…” (Gen 3:22)
The partial quote “Adam has become as one of us.” Does NOT imply that Adam is now, in all ways, like God, but is referring to specific characteristics. (Adam and Eve now know/understand the difference between good and evil.) Furthermore, this does not imply Adam has all knowledge and experience that comprises moral wisdom, merely the γνοσις of moral knowledge.

Having writers and speculators that produce blogs that “go beyond the mark” of what they are allowed to speculate creates more potential problems in interpretation of their own making than actual, real, theological discrepancies.

I have long had historical interest in early Judeo-Christian religion and find that it is very difficult for non-historians (including the writers of religious blogs) to imagine that early Christianity held different theological positions than their own.

The LDS claim that they are a version of early Christianity, a restoration of earlier doctrines. If modern Christianity has evolved and changed and adopted new and different doctrines and new theories, then no one should be surprised that the LDS are out of step with the new and modern theories and new doctrines adopted by the various later Christian movements and that they have multiple doctrinal parallels with early judeo-christians worldviews.

For example, consider the early Judeo-Christian model of God as a type of Man. The early Judeo-Christian concept of an Anthropomorphic God are good examples, both of the early concepts of what form God took when he visited man and of the LDS return to this early concept.

The predominant early belief described by the early Judeo-Christian, was a God with Anthropomorphic characteristics. For example, the early worldview was that man was created in the image / form / likeness / similitude / facsimile of God : (though many different words for “image” are used in different translations, the difference is rarely important)

“On the day that God created Man, He made him in the likeness of God.”(Gen. 5:1 – stones heb/eng)
“For in the image of God He made man.” (Gen 9:6) (stones)
Later Christians describe this same story in the context of their belief : “ . Ch 12 God formed Adam with His holy hands, in His own Image and Likeness and when the angels saw Adam's glorious appearance they were greatly moved by the beauty thereof. For they saw Fol. 5a, col. 2 the image of his face burning with glorious splendor like the orb of the sun, and the light of his eyes was like the light of the sun, and the image of his body was like unto the sparkling of crystal.” Cave of Treasures, chapt on “The Revolt of Satan”


It is important to note that Adam was glorified in his initial immortal form before his fall as this fact will be used in the later discussion as of whether GOD was also Glorified in early Christian descriptions. (i.e. a Glorified Adam was made in the image of a Glorified God).
Jesus is also described as being “the image of God” (2 Cor 4:4) and “being in the form of God“(Phil 2:6) We are told that the resurrected savior (“ Who is the image of the unseen God “ col 1:15) will “change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body..”(phil 3:21) Heb. 1:3 reminds us Jesus is “ the express image of his [Gods] person.” though Jesus looked like other men, (which themselves “are made after the similitude of God” (jas 3:9)

Rabbis Ibn Ezra; and the great rabbi Ramban confirm their belief that Adam, being created in God’s image of God indicated “that God gave Adam, who himself was created in God’s likeness, the capacity to reproduce offspring who were also in this noble likeness” (stone’s chumash/rabbinic writings, p 25). Thus such imminent rabbis not only describe the anthropomorphism of “likeness” but that man was given other characteristics that are like God’s characteristics and it is clear that these offspring have the capacity to be in the same “likeness” as their parents as well.

Though the multiple anthropomorphisms are unmistakable, such anthropomorphisms could only be nullified by attempts to allegorize them in later religious theory.

Still, the current point is that early Judeo-christians themselves believed God had anthropomorphic characteristics. Texts such as the Haggadah (which is related to the Talmud) makes clear that “likeness” in the case of adam relates to an appearance. In this Haggadic text, the angels mistake the Glorified and immortal Adam for the Glorified Lord God since their appearance was so similar. “When Adam opened his eyes the first time, and beheld the world about him, he broke into praise of God, “How great are your works, O Lord!” But his admiration for the world surrounding him did not exceed the admiration all creatures conceived for Adam. They took him to be their creator, and they all came to offer his adoration. But he spoke : “Why do you come to worship me? Nay, you and I together will acknowledge the majesty and the might of him who has created us all. ‘The Lord reigns,’ “ he continued, “‘he is appareled with majesty.’” And not alone the creatures on earth, even the angels thought Adam the lord of all, and they were about to salute him with “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts, “ when God caused sleep to fall upon him, and then the angels knew that he was but a human being. The Haggadah (Woman)

The description of the Glorified Adam, being mistake by the angels for God for God, (after whose likeness God made him) should completely dispel attempts re-cast the early Judeo-Christians descriptions of Adams creation in the “LIKENESS” of God to be metaphorical. Whether they were correct or incorrect, when they said “likeness”, they reallyreally “likeness”.

Thus, there is no need (in describing early Judeo-Christian doctrine), to allegorize all early descriptions of God’s anthropomorphic (human-like) characteristics. For examples, when Jacob says “I have seen God face to face” (gen 32:30) or when Moses claims that the “Lord spake unto Moses face to face (Ex. 33:11). The prophet Ezra (and the later Judeo-christian text) confirms their belief that “ Moses wept for forty days and spoke with God mouth to mouth,... The Questions of Ezra (Recension A) vs 39;

There is no need to allegorize Enochs instruction that “…the face of the lord is not to be talked about, it is so very marvelous and supremely awesome and supremely frightening.... “ or when “the Lord, with his own mouth, said to me, “Be brave Enoch! Don’t be frightened!” Stand up, and stand in front of my face…” or the Lords promise Rev. 22:4 “they shall see his face “ (rev 22:4) or when he chooses to be partly invisible (αορου) “thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen (Ex 33:23) “ With him will I speak mouth to mouth“ (Num 12:8)

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF FIVE

In the early descriptions where “…10 they saw the God of Israel, there was under his feet...” Ex. 24:10, it is not merely the fact that he had feet that is anthropomorphic (human-like) but descriptions of actions such as when the prophet Enoch describes The God of the Universe “march[ing] upon Mount Sinai” or creating adam “with his own two hands … in a facsimile of his own face” and when Gabriel sets the prophet Enoch down “in front of the face of the lord" (2nd enoch) or when enoch tells us “even I saw the face of the Lord."

The number and type of anthropomorphisms add up AND they form a consistent theme in early, middle and later periods of Judeo-christianity. Whether it is 10 commandments being “…written with the finger of God” in old testament jewish literature (ex 31:18) or “..see[ing] his face “ of new testament literature (rev 22:4) or “…the original man, formed by the holy hands of God,…” (Sibylline Oracles book 8 vs 259-262) or the earliest doctrine asking “ …Who made Adam, the protoplast, the first one?” And God said, “My immaculate hands..." The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 2:1, 10-17, the fact that these many descriptions are anthropomorphic means that the texts include anthropomorphic descriptions and as these descriptions continue into the early post a.d. Judeo-christian periods, it is clear that these Christians believed their God had anthropomorphic (human-like) characteristics.

The early Judeo-Christian texts do not merely speak of Anthropomorphic (human-like) appearance of God, but other anthropomorphic manifestations as well
He “acts” like men in a material manner so that there is a special sense to his being in their early descriptions of him. That is, there is a left and right, a front and behind, he comes and goes, etc. In this way, he is often anthropomorphic (human like) in his actions. This does not say that he has to act this way, but that he often does act this way. For examples :

The “Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing” (Gen 18:22) Stephen, in Acts 7:56 sees “the Son of man standing on the right hand of God” Gabriel sets the prophet Enoch down “in front of the face of the lord" (2nd enoch)

God tells the prophet of enoch to” Stand up, and stand in front of my face…”

Not only do they describe a God who is specially oriented, but one who has certain actions that are anthropomorphic. For example, the early Judeo-christians describe God as speaking with a mouth having a voice in a language men could understand. These are all quite anthropomorphic (human-like) actions.
Sedrach says “ I want to speak to God face to face...” (The Apocalypse of Sedrach 2:3-5) “…And he finished talking with him and the LORD ascended from Abraham.” Jubilees 15:18-21

“… the Lord turned and said to Adam, ‘From now on I will not allow you to be in Paradise. “Life of Adam and Eve (apocalypse) 28:1-4;
“You will find that God and his angels were their friends while they were in their bodies, and that God kept on speaking to them many times… 8 And our father Jacob would speak to his son Joseph and say to him, “My God appeared to me in the land of Canaan at Luz and blessed me" Testament of Jacob 7:1-8

It’s not just that they described him speaking, but he did so quite like men do. Enoch tell us : “All this the Lord said to me, as a man talks to his neighbor.” (2nd Enoch 36:3)In Matt. 3:17 they describe “ a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son”. The voice seemed to speak in a language the men knew, just like when “a man talks to his neighbor”.Matt. 17:5 describes “a voice out of the cloud” which again, speaks a language they understand just like one human would do with another. It is an anthropomorphic (human-like) act.

Problems occur when non-historian or non-LDS individual attempt to speculate regarding simple sentences or criticize a theology without leaving the theology INSIDE its original context. For example :



Regarding God’s Glorification

Katzpur once said in a post regarding God as “An Exalted Man”. “You know, I just love it when people who disagree with this belief throw in the qualifier "simply" or "merely" or "just" before the words "exalted man."

Just as is imbedded in Katzpurs sarcastic observation, I also have noticed that it is difficult to meet the ancient Judeo-Christian beliefs (or any modern restorationist version such as the LDS have) “head on”. It is almost an impossible urge individuals have, to change the context of LDS doctrine to have some “straw man” content, and then attack that dyscontexted description. Non-historians, always seem to do this to the earliest Judeo-Christian doctrines from early Judeo-Christian descriptions of what they believed. I honestly have never found a modern base salvational theory that has any advantage, any logical or reasonable superiority over the early and most authentic Judeo-Christian doctrines which the early Christians describe in their own texts and in their own words. Modern interpretations and theories simply do not have any advantage to early Judeo-Christian doctrines.


The early context of a GLORIFIED Anthropomorphic God.

Though Adam also, in his Glorified and immortal body may have possessed “flesh and bones”, I think the simple description of “flesh and bones” without constructing the necessary context of wonderful and indescribable and profound glorification, will not be conceived of correctly as it was by the early judeo-christians as it relates to either resurrected beings with glorified bodies or to Adam or to God.

If one is going to discuss LDS doctrines, they should be sufficiently described to understand the early Judeo-Christian context (which the LDS claim to be a version of). If this is not done, the discussion is often simply another exercise in dyscontexting of LDS/Early Christian worldviews and has little historical/Polemic/Apologetic value.

Did the early Judao-Christians believe that God the Father had hands and a face and a mouth and walked and talked and moved about with a body? Yes. But that body was, in their texts, always a glorified body. Flesh? Yes. But it did not seem to be a flesh like that which we experience and conceive of when we say “flesh”.

The early documents distinguish different types of flesh. There is the form that is given "to perishable flesh" described in the Sibylline Oracles book 8 vs 259-262 and there is heavenly, exalted flesh. Thus Phillip says "The Lord rose from the dead. He became as he used to be, but now his body was perfect. He did indeed possess flesh, but this flesh is true flesh. Our flesh is not true, but we possess only an image of the true.” In any case it is anthropomorphic.

For examples, when the prophet Enoch describes The God of the Universe “march[ing] upon Mount Sinai” or creating adam “with his own two hands … in a facsimile of his own face” and when Gabriel sets the prophet Enoch down “in front of the face of the lord (2nd enoch) or when enoch tells us “even I saw the face of the Lord." Though the Prophet Enoch is talking about a God who IS marching upon legs, who HAS two hands to form Adam and has a FACE to model Adams face after. Still, these are all relative terms since Enoch is speaking of a Glorified being.

These are all quite anthropomorphic and obvious and not mystical or symbolic descriptions, yet they are in the context of a Glorified Body. “But the face of the lord is not to be talked about, it is so very marvelous and supremely awesome and supremely frightening.... "

When the Lord tells Enoch to “Be brave”, he says that “the Lord, with his own mouth, said to me, “Be brave Enoch! Don’t be frightened!” Stand up, and stand in front of my face…” 2nd enoch, these are not symbolic, but they come from a glorified being. Anthropomorphic in the extreme to be sure, but still, glorified.


The Perfect Man - other textual witnesses

The early Judeo-Christian ascension literature provides multiple witnesses to their early beliefs. For example, when the Prophet Enoch describes first seeing God the Father, he says : “At that place, I saw the Eternal One [who precedes time]. And his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual whose face was like that of a human being.” 1st Enoch 46:1-6; The angel with Enoch goes on to explain that the pre-mortal savior was the one who was with the Father. It is clear in such descriptions that this God was quite anthropomorphic, even in his manners of sitting on his throne and interactions with others : “In those days, I saw him – the Antecedent of Time, while he was sitting upon the throne of his glory, and the books of the living ones were open before him. And all his power in heaven above and his escorts stood before him.” 1st Enoch V1 P 35 47:3;

This concept of an anthropomorphic God was not only represented by such terms as “Father”, or in descriptions of looking like and moving like and communicating like man, but such that multiple early texts referred to God as “the perfect Man.”.

For example, the apostle John in the Secret book of John (Sophia) says : “Now I have come to reveal to you that which is, that which has been, and that which will be, so that you may know the things which are seen and the things not seen and to reveal to you about the perfect Man. Now lift up your face and come and hear and learn what I shall tell you today, so that you yourself may reveal it to spirits of the same sort, who are of the unwavering race of the Perfect Man and are able to understand.”

And, in the chapter on the birth of Adam and Eve, this early text says : “To him the holy, perfect Father, the First Man in the Form of a man.” This is said in the context of the creation of Adam.

The text says “ they said to one another, ‘Let us make a man, after the image and after the appearance of God’...They created it after the image which they had seen, by way of an imitation of him who was from the beginning the Perfect Man.”

 

[Clear]

POST THREE OF FIVE

Thus, this same type of language is woven into multiple early Judeo-Christian texts. For example, the gospel of Phillip says : “The heavenly man has many more sons than the earthly man. If the sons of Adam are many, although they die, how much more the sons of the perfect man, they who do not die but are always begotten.....Those who are begotten by him cry out from that place to the perfect man, because they are nourished on the promise concerning the heavenly place.”

and : "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 Parthian Hymns (cycles) speak of “… the day when he will reveal his form, the beneficent Father, the Lord of the Aeons of Light. He will show his radiant shape and brilliant, glorious form to all the Gods who shall dwell there". Canto VI


Another of the Hymns describes their early tradition, saying : “… I beheld the Savior as he shone before me. I beheld the sight of all the helmsmen, who had descended with him to array my soul.....To me he says, Come, spirit! Fear not..... And forever shall I show you the noble Father, the First man: and I shall lead you in, into his presence, in pure raiment. The Ship of God VI


Jewish Haggadah describes the angels, initially mistaking Adam for his Father (since their appearance was so similar) “When Adam opened his eyes the first time, and beheld the world about him, he broke into praise of God, “How great are your works, O Lord!” But his admiration for the world surrounding him did not exceed the admiration all creatures conceived for Adam. They took him to be their creator, and they all came to offer his adoration. But he spoke : “Why do you come to worship me? Nay, you and I together will acknowledge the majesty and the might of him who has created us all. ‘The Lord reigns,’ “ he continued, “‘he is appareled with majesty.’” And not alone the creatures on earth, even the angels thought Adam the lord of all, and they were about to salute him with “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts, “ when God caused sleep to fall upon him, and then the angels knew that he was but a human being. The Haggadah (Woman)

These angels had SEEN God and knew him previously, but were confused because of Adams appearance.

It was obvious that in early Judeo-Christian tradition, that Adam was created in the image of God. The early Judeo-Christians were not ashamed to have an anthropomorphic God (not at this time in history…)

The second century martyr Vibia Perpetua, a convert to Christianity also describes the Christian tradition of her age when she describes her dream-revelation of God :

: Ch XII “And we came near to a place whose walls were built like as it might be of light, and before the gate of that place were four angels standing, who as we entered clothed us in white robes. And we entered, and heard a sound as of one voice saying: ‘Holy, holy, holy,’ without ceasing. And we saw sitting in the same place one like unto a man white-haired, having hair as white as snow…” The Passion of Perpetua and Felicity;


Whether these early Judeo-Christians were correct in their beliefs or not, still, it is obvious that they believed in and interacted with an Anthropomorphic God. I do not see in any text where God explains WHY he chose an anthropomorphic appearance, nor do I suppose that he HAD to have that shape (i.e. he presumably could have chosen a different material shape...), but simply that he DID choose an anthropomorphic appearance in these early textual witnesses.



The Definition of a “God”.

One basic assumption the anti-LDS blog made is that “The Mormon God is not worthy of worship because a being X is only a proper object of worship if X has always been a proper object of worship.” We discussed the silliness of this sort of irrational assumption and we’ve discussed that there are specific characteristics which can be attached both to man and to a God which qualify a being to be called a “God” that have nothing to do with the length of time one has had those characteristics.

Moses as a God to Pharoah : Exodus 7:1 reads And "Jehovah/Lord" said to Moses, See, I give you [to be] god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall [be] thy prophet.
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, רְאֵה נְתַתִּיךָ אֱלֹהִים לְפַרְעֹה; וְאַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ, יִהְיֶה נְבִיאֶךָ. (t.r.)
καὶ εἶπεν κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων ἰδοὺ δέδωκά σε θεὸν Φαραω καὶ Ααρων ὁ ἀδελφός σου ἔσται σου προφήτης (LXX)

When Moses is a God to Pharoah, this meant something other than that Moses was omnipotent, Omniscient and had all freedom. When the early text said that Adam had “become as one of us”, this also did not mean he suddenly had all characteristics of God the Father. If critics will not look at the actual context of such descriptions, then they will forever be creating straw-men doctrines, which they then criticize, but will not actually be discussing the real LDS models they hope to discredit.

 

[Clear]

POST FOUR OF FIVE

Man to become gradually more and more like “God” in specific Characteristics

Many of the early texts demonstrate the ancient doctrine WAS that men were sent to earth specifically to develop characteristics (divine characteristics – love, kindness, mercy, justice, wisdom, etc..) so as to become more like the Lord God. Whether one is "aghast" at this early doctrine or "impressed" by the LDS knowledge of it is Often due to varying perceptions and beliefs and bias and historical data sets we’ve been exposed to.

The ancient doctrine that many divine beings (gods like Moses was, with a little “g”) existed that were like the Lord God despite never equaling the LORD God, who was over all other beings. Thus the writer of Exodus is able to exclaim : “Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders? Ex 15:11".

The doctrinal language that reflects this belief of God as a “LORD among the gods” is woven throughout much of the early literature. This is an important historical context underlying early Judao-Christian thought which allows ancient texts and principles to make wonderful sense. If I could quote from other Christian and Jewish texts the point becomes more obvious.

For example : Quote: “.... he will magnify the God of all the divine beings who are appointed for righteousness seven times with seven worlds of wondrous exaltation.” (4Q403 frag ` Col.1)

Quote: “Praise the most high God, you who are exalted among all the wise divine beings. Let those who are holy among the godlike sanctify the glorious King, He who sanctifies by His holiness each of His holy ones. You princes of praise among all the godlike, praise the God of majestic praise. Surely the glory of His kingdom resides in praiseworthy splendor; therein are held the praises of all the godlike…Lift his exaltation on high, you godlike among the exalted divine beings -His glorious divinity above all the highest heavens. Surely He is the utterly divine over all the exalted princes, King of kings over all the eternal councils.” (SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE, 4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment)


Quote: “…, you godlike beings of utter holiness; rejoice in his divine kingdom. For He has established utter holiness among the eternally holy, that they might become for Him priests of the inner sanctum in His royal temple, ministers of the Presence in His glorious innermost chamber. In the congregation of all the wise godlike beings, and in the councils of all the divine spirits, He has engraven his precepts to govern all spiritual works and his glorious laws for all the wise divine beings, that sage congregation honored by God, those who draw near to knowledge….eternal, and from the font of holiness to the temple of utter holiness…priests who draw near, ministers of the Presence of the utterly holy King…His glory. Precept by precept they shall grow strong, to be seven eternal councils; for He established them for Himself to be the most holy of those who minister in the Holy of Holies…They shall become mighty thereby in accordance with the council…the Holy of Holies, priests of …these are the princes of …who take their stand in the temples of the king… (4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment)


“The song for the second Sabbath, contains a similar description of Godlike beings worshiping the “King of the godlike beings”, that is, the Lord God. : priestly angels and compare the poor quality of human worship in comparison of that of the angels”) –


Quote: “wonderfully to praise Your glory among the wise divine beings, extolling Your kingdom among the utterly holy. They are honored in all the camps of the godlike beings and feared by those who direct human affairs, wondrous beyond other divine beings and humans alike….They sing wonderful psalms according to their insights throughout the highest heaven, and declare the surpassing glory of the King of the godlike beings in the stations of their habitation….


Quote: “the king of the godlike beings…when they come with the godlike beings of …together for all of their assemblies…their might for all the powerful warriors…for all the rebellious councils.” (THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE, 4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment)


It is apparent from these doctrines that, though multiple beings are "like God" (i.e. “God- like”), they are never equals to the Lord God and are always subordinate to him; all of them are at HIS command and none of them have the level of knowledge that he has.

For example : Quote: “Surely the weapons of warfare belong to the God of divine beings…the armies of heaven and the wonder of all the divine spirits shall run at His command… But the victory shall belong to the God of divine beings. To the King of the wise godlike beings belong all matters of knowledge; indeed the God of knowledge causes all that happens forever. ..None of the divine beings understand what he has designed. (THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE, 4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment )


Paul reminds us of this same principle of subordinance : "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (Corinthians 8:5-6).

Whether there are many Gods or not, the position of LORD God, the Father of all, is singular. Regarding the “wise divine beings” it is said that “They neither run from the ‘Way nor reverence any thing not a part of it; they consider themselves neither too exalted for his realm nor too humble for his commissions." (THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE, 4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment).

Despite their divinity bestowed upon them and the wisdom they have gained, they are still all subject to the Lord God.

Still, they are honored to the extent that they are Godlike in morals and knowledge and dishonored to the extent that they are like Lucifer.

“ Bless the God of the godlike beings, you who inhabit the highest heaven…knowledge of the eternal godlike beings “ (THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE, 4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment)

Remember, these were orthodox teachings to the ancients who wrote and used such texts (though the moderns have abandoned such teachings). If the Copper Scroll discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls is authentic, it placed these texts in the very mainstream of Judaic doctrines and underlie the ancient temple orthodoxy.


God-like beings included mankind :

The divine “God-like” beings were not all simply arch-angels, but according to the ancient doctrines, some of them were the spirits of men.

The discourse on the Soul of Man in the Haggadah describes the circumstances of placing the pre-existent spirit of man (or woman) into the embryo (according to their doctrinal understanding). When the spirit is told to enter the sperm or embryo the spirit is reluctant (perhaps scared to continue...) And the pre-mortal spirit then asks :

Quote: “Why do you now desire to have me enter this impure sperm, I who am holy and pure, and a part of your glory?” God consoles her : “The world which I shall cause you to enter is better than the world in which you have lived hitherto, and when I created you, it was only for this purpose.” ( The Haggadah -The Soul of Man)

Then the soul enters into the fetus inside the mother where her body is nurtured.

However, the same pre-birth spirit is shown many things which prepare her for her life.

“In the morning an angel carries her to Paradise, and shows her the righteous, who sit there in their glory, with crowns upon their heads. The angel then says to the soul, “Do you know who these are?” She replies in the negative, and the angel goes on: “These whom you behold here were formed, like you, in the womb of their mother. When they came into the world, they observed God’s Torah and his commandments. Therefore they became the partakers of this bliss which you see them enjoy.....“

Thus, some of these righteous, glorified individuals with crowns were MEN AND WOMEN who had lived and died PREVIOUSLY.

 

[Clear]

POST FIVE OF FIVE

It is important to note that the spirit is shown those who were, like her, introduced from a pre-mortal sphere into mortality and who were to learn to live gain moral knowledge, learn to live moral law and good lives and then, if successful, returned to live in bliss, having gained knowledge and characteristics they did not have when they left.

THESE men and women became “pious ones” who return to God more like him (more God-like) than when they left. Each soul is given the same promise that they are able to become worthy to become one of the "pious ones" themselves.

Quote: “ .... “These whom you behold here were formed, like you, in the womb of their mother. When they came into the world, they observed God’s Torah and his commandments. Therefore they became the partakers of this bliss which you see them enjoy. Know, also, you will one day depart from the world below, and if you will observe God’s Torah, then will you be found worthy of sitting with these pious ones. But if not, you will be doomed to the other place.” (The Haggadah - The Soul of Man)

Thus, if they are successful, they take their place with other pious and Godlike ones.

Quote: “At their wondrous stations are spirits, clothed with embroidery, a sort of woven handiwork, engraven with splendid figures. In the midst of what looks like glorious scarlet and colors of utter holy spiritual light, the spirits take up their holy stand in the presence of the King – splendidly colored spirits surrounded by the appearance of whiteness. This latter glorious spiritual substance is like golden handiwork, shimmering in the light.” (THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE, 4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment)

It is by this process within mortality that “He brings some of the sons of the world near, to be reckoned with him in the council of the gods as a holy congregation, stationed for eternal life and in the lot with His holy ones...” (THE AGES OF THE WORLD 4Q180-181). The ancient doctrine was that man was not destined to simply surround god as cattle, singing praises, but to achieve to a celestial knowledge and character. This is what the psalm-writer also testifies :

Quote:“That bodies, covered with worms of the dead, might rise up from the dust to an eternal council; from a perverse spirit to your understanding. That he might take his position before you with the eternal hosts and spirits of truth to be renewed with all that shall be and to rejoice together with those who know.” (THANKSGIVING PSALMS - 1QH, 1Q35, 4Q 427–432)

The thoroughly Christian Abbaton history uses language specific to this context. Jesus tells the apostles :Quote:“He put breath into him in this way; He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life three times, saying, “Live! Live! Live! According to the type of My Divinity.” And the man lived straightway, and became a living soul, according to the image and likeness of God. And when Adam had risen up he cast himself down before [My] father, saying, “My Lord and my God! Thou hast made me to come into being [from a state in which] I did not exist.” (Abbaton)

Adam was not given God’s actual divinity, but his TYPE of divinity. Adam doesn’t ever expect to become THE God, but rather if he obeys the torah, then he becomes God-Like. In this manner, it was taught that man was “created from the dust for the eternal council…- and for man, you have allotted an eternal destiny with the spirits of knowledge…” (THANKSGIVING PSALMS - 1QH, 1Q35, 4Q 427–432)

This doctrinal context underlies early texts.For example, in the early christian text, Testament of Adam, Eve tells her children :Quote:“He spoke to me about this in Paradise after I picked some of the fruit in which death was hiding: ‘Adam, Adam do not fear. You wanted to be a god; I will make you a god, not right now, but after a space of many years. I am consigning you to death, and the maggot and the worm will eat your body.’3...But after a short time there will be mercy on you because you were created in my image, and I will not leave you to waste away in Sheol. For your sake I will be born of the Virgin Mary. For your sake I will taste death and enter the house of the dead....4'And after three days, while I am in the tomb, I will raise up the body I received from you. And I will set you at the right hand of my divinity, and I will make you a god just like you wanted. And I will receive favor from God, and I will restore to you and to your posterity that which is the justice of heaven.” (TESTAMENT OF ADAM 3:2-4)

This historical context changes the meaning of Jesus’ answer to his detractors when he says “ Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” (Jn 10:34) In the DDS DISCOURSE ON THE EXODUS AND CONQUEST 4q374 , the ancient Jewish writer refers to Moses as “a god over the mighty” by saying “He planted His chosen in a land desirable above all others, in …He made him as a god over the mighty; as a compass for pharaoh”. The description of Moses as a God, did not make him THE God, but, for the ancient commentarist, it was NOT an inappropriate doctrinal statement. It may have been the most descriptive and most applicable term to use.

This concept of learning to learn moral characteristics which will allow men to become more like god confers upon mortality the purpose of education and testing. This is (I think) why Ignatius tells the Ephesians : “I speak to you as my fellow students. For I need to be trained by you in faith, instruction, endurance, and patience.” Ig-eph 3:1. He knows he will become more like God through a process of Imitation. Thus he taught the saints of ephesus : “Ye are imitators of God, once you took on new life” I-eph 1:1 This was the same theme the angels proclaimed in the Rechabite ascension text : Quote: “To us the holy angels of God announce (both) the incarnation of the Word of God, who (is) from the holy virgin, the mother of God, and all those things which (he) provides and perfects and endures for the sake of the salvation of mortals.....9f Have regard to us in your hidden thoughts, be imitators of our way of life, pursue peace, cherish the love (that is) unchangeable, and love purity and holiness. (HISTORY OF THE RECHABITES 12:9a and 9f)

My point is that when one is plugged into such early histories, then the LDS doctrine is amazingly impressive and represents comfortable and obvious parallels to the ancient teaching. Without those sorts of refererences and context, the LDS doctrines do not jibe with modern christianity. However, the LDS have always claimed that their doctrines were a restoration of ancient doctrines. I think this is partly the reason that the Church gives supports organisations that are discovering, translatongt and printing the earliest Judeo-Christian texts. For example, the almost 2000 page tome Jewish Pseudo-epigraphia By Charlesworth is the effort of MANY, MANY archeologists and translators and in the forward, the editor thanks the Church University (Brigham Young University) for its financial support.

I apologize if the logic doesn’t flow well, I wrote much of this exts between appointments at work and haven’t had time to give this subject the attention it’s due. I do NOT think this particular doctrine (i.e. that man may become like God) is a salvific doctrine, but is often brought up by LDS critics for shock value rather than salvific import. I think the ancient salvific Christian doctrines and the LDS parallels are much, much, much more important to us. However, I continue to be so very impressed with the LDS claim to be a restoration of ancient salvific doctrines for the reasons I’ve mentioned.


I probably should mention that I am a convert to restorational theology and the fact that the LDS church was so in tune with early Judeo-Christian theology is partly why I was and am still so very impressed with the movement that seeks to return to the earliest and most authentic Christian doctrines.



Good Spiritual journey to all.


Clear
ειδρτωω

 

[Katzpur]

@Clear, you've really outdone yourself, man. How do you ever find the time to do such extensive research?

 

[Clear]

@Clear, you've really outdone yourself, man. How do you ever find the time to do such extensive research?

@Orontes suggested I stop listening to as much country music as I used to and he promised it would make me smarter....

Actually I am only familiar with an extremely small portion of the early judeo-Christian literature. I think we are all on the kindergartner level but just don't know it. I proof- read my posts later and noticed a lot of errors.... sorry. By the way. I moved to Prescott, Arizona so if you and Matt ever get down this way, we have an extra room..... we would make it a fun visit.....

See you sometime Katzpur

Gary
Einitzuu

 

[Clear]

I was in a hurry to get the posts #3-#7 done before leaving work. Obvious mistakes I noticed are below :

(Purple is the original error and Blue capitals are the corrected text)

1) I quote a scripture incorrectly IN POST #3

God said, behold Adan has become as one of us (Post #3)

Should be

God said, behold ADAM has become as one of us



2)_ In post #3 I left out a word :

The description of the Glorified Adam, being mistake by the angels for God for God, (after whose likeness God made him) should completely dispel attempts re-cast the early Judeo-Christians descriptions of Adams creation in the “LIKENESS” of God to be metaphorical. Whether they were correct or incorrect, when they said “likeness”, they reallyreally “likeness”. Post #3

Should be

The description of the Glorified Adam, being mistake by the angels for God for God, (after whose likeness God made him) should completely dispel attempts re-cast the early Judeo-Christians descriptions of Adams creation in the “LIKENESS” of God to be metaphorical. Whether they were correct or incorrect, when they said “likeness”, THEY REALLY, REALLY, MEANT, “LIKENESS”.





3) IN POST #4 I NOTICED AN ERROR

He “acts” like men in a material manner so that there is a special sense to his being in their early descriptions of him (Post #4, 3rd paragraph from the top)

Should be

He “acts” like men in a material manner so that there is a SPACIAL sense to his being in their early descriptions of him


Sorry for any confusion my errors may have caused …

Clear
τωτζφιω

 

[Clear]

@Clear, ....extensive research?

Hi Katzpur:

While the LDS missionaries who introduced me to the restoration of early Christianity probably were, themselves, unaware of just how deep and pervasive their principles were to early, historical Christianity, part of what was so exciting about my discovery of the Restorational Movement (i.e. Christianity that seeks a restoration to the earliest and most authentic Christian Doctrines) as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days Saints is part of, was the continuing and ongoing discoveries of historical parallel after historical parallel of the restored gospel with early, Judeo-Christian doctrines and texts. Even the first time I heard the following Joseph Smith quote, it was an illuminated description of the Gospel plan that perfectly summarized creation and it's purposes :

"The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the “weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with Himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits. - Joseph Smith "

This concept of existence as a moral tutoring applies to all things that we experience, from the very beginning. Moral knowledge was what made Adam "like God" in the beginning ("behold the man has become as one of us, to know (understand) good and evil" Gen 3:22).

ADAM’S DESIRE TO GAIN KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM WAS NOT EVIL IN EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN TEXTS IT WAS PART OF THE PLAN - “I (god) assigned him (adam) to be a king, to reign on the earth, and to have my wisdom. “ (2nd Enoch 30:12)

When we consider the moral knowledge or wisdom Adam was given by having eaten of the fruit of the tree, Sedrach’s reminder, changes our viewpoint as to what happened. When the Prophet Sedrach said to God : “It was by your will that Adam was deceived, my master”; he said this, knowing that God COULD HAVE STOPPED THE FALL OF MAN. The Prophet then asks God :

“If you loved man, why did you not kill the devil, the artificer of all iniquity? Who can fight against an invisible spirit? He enters the hearts of men like a smoke and teaches them all kinds of sin. He even fights against you, the immortal God, and so what can pitiful man do against him.....” (The Apocalypse of Sedrach 5:1-7)

In this ancient view, man eventually would have “fallen”. Sedrach understood that God himself created the very essential precondition for Adam and Eve partaking of the tree of wisdom by expelling a vengeful Lucifer from heaven and then placing the willy lucifer in close proximity to the guileless but inexperienced Adam and Eve. And Sedrach ultimately understood that there was a perfectly legitimate reason for God to have done so.

One might consider that there is nothing inherently wrong with the specific desire to have knowledge and wisdom. Ignorance was never a positive virtue. Knowledge and wisdom regarding good and evil and their discernment seems to be an essential characteristic of divinity. Lucifer’s specific promise to Adam and Eve that if they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, their eyes should be “opened” and they would then “be as the gods, knowing good and evil” (Gen 3:5) was not a lie since God himself confirms that, having eaten of the fruit of the tree, “the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil” (Gen 3:22).

It is partly the ongoing discoveries of ancient contexts that caused later scholars to consider such histories from the view point of the ancients who described their beliefs in multiple ancient texts. For example, Gordon and Rendsburg write : "If we examine the story in Genesis objectively, we see that, while many elements go into making up the whole picture, it is not so much an account of the “Fall of Man” but rather of the rise of man halfway to divinity."

Their logic is that Adam DID obtain one characteristic of divinity (moral knowledge) and, when he obtains immortality, he will have gained another essential characteristic of divinity.

Thus, it makes perfect sense for Adam to relate to Seth, what god said to him after Adam became mortal :

“...He (god) spoke to me about this in Paradise after I picked some of the fruit in which death was hiding: ‘Adam, Adam do not fear. You wanted to be a god; I will make you a god, not right now, but after a space of many years. I am consigning you to death, ...But after a short time there will be mercy on you because you were created in my image, and I will not leave you to waste away in Sheol. (Testament of Adam 3:1-4)

The Descension of Jesus during the three days in the tomb where God makes good on this promise by sending his son into sheol, I have already treated in the thread “Enoch’s treatment of ancient Christian Themes” (though perhaps I’ll add them here later since the threads may be separated in the future...)

In all such statements, in fact even during the period where God explained to Adam and Eve the many consequences of having eating of the tree of wisdom, no strict judgment is given regarding Adam’s character, but rather God gives Adam and Eve an objective description of the changed conditions their choice to gain wisdom entails. The elements of disobedience is present in the story, but only circumstantially. The modern tendency to stress “evil” and overlook the “good” in the text would have seemed unjustified to the ancients.

Nor does god abandon Adam and Eve after they eat from the tree of wisdom, but he continues to teach them to care for themselves; to sacrifice the firstfruits of Adam’s flocks and many other things : "And during the first week of the first jubilee Adam and his wife had been in the Garden of Eden for seven years tilling and guarding it. And we gave him work and we were teaching him to do everything which was appropriate for tilling...And he was guarding the garden from the birds and beasts and cattle and gathering its fruit and eating...” (Jubilees (the book of division) 3 15-16)

Jewish Haggadah relates that “ he (Adam) was in very truth a prophet, and his wisdom a prophetic quality....for mankind owes all crafts to him,...(The Haggadah -The Ideal Man)

The ancient Christians understood that, after the Fall, God continued to Give Adam, the very knowledge and wisdom Adam sought, not only by the spirit of God, but by visitations of Angels. In the Apocalypse of Adam, Adam relates to his son Seth:

“... I was sleeping in the thought of my heart, and I saw before me three men whose appearance I could not recognize because they were not from the powers of the God who created me. They surpassed [those powers in their] glory. The men [spoke] , saying to me, ‘Rise up, Adam, from the sleep of death, and hear about the aeon and the seed of that man to whom life has come, the one who came forth from you and from Eve your wife (that is, her progeny).... Then the vigor of our eternal knowledge perished in us, and feebleness pursued us. For this reason the days of our life became few, for I knew that I had become subject to the power of death. “Now then, my son Seth, I will reveal to you what was revealed to me by those men whom I once saw before me. (The Apocalypse of Adam 2:1-6-7, ch 3:1)

Adam then teaches Seth regarding the future and the evils that will occur among the children of men and the disastrous consequences of evil. He tells Seth about the redeemer. Again, these are the very things that Adam wanted to know and importantly, it is God who is seeing that Adam obtains this knowledge.

Adam was not only given knowledge by God but he says to the God regarding God’s son : "And behold, your word (an appelation of the Logos, or son) came to me and the Lord said to me, ‘Because your days are numbered, you have been made to cherish knowledge; ...” (Life of Adam and Eve (Vita) 27:2-3 (“your word” is a euphamism for the pre-mortal messiah)

To these ancients, the gaining of moral wisdom by partaking of the tree of wisdom was not a terrible mistake. It was part of God’s plan and original intention Thus the filling of Adam with “understanding and knowledge” was celebrated in the dead sea scroll text : “…You have done wonders of old, and awesome deeds long ago. You fashioned Adam, our father, in the image of Your glory; You breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and filled him with understanding and knowledge. You set him to rule over the garden of Eden that you had planted…and to walk about in a glorious land…" (The words of the Heavenly Lights 4Q504 - 506)

Giving Adam "Understanding and Knowledge" was one of the "WONDERS" God had done. It was a Blessing, not a curse.

Though modern Christian theorists may certainly argue that modern Christian theories are an improvement over the early doctrines, or that the ancient Christians were wrong in their beliefs and their descriptions regarding Adam’s having gained knowledge and wisdom by eating of the tree of wisdom, still, I’ve never seen any modern theory regarding Adam that is more coherent and sensible than the ancient versions, (or any modern restoration OF the ancient versions).

See you Katzpur

Clear
τωτωνεω

 

[Katzpur]

@Orontes suggested I stop listening to as much country music as I used to and he promised it would make me smarter....[/quote}I can think of a million other reasons to stop listening to country music!

Actually I am only familiar with an extremely small portion of the early judeo-Christian literature. I think we are all on the kindergartner level but just don't know it. I proof- read my posts later and noticed a lot of errors.... sorry.

Uh... no. You are NOT on kindergarten level, Clear.

By the way. I moved to Prescott, Arizona so if you and Matt ever get down this way, we have an extra room..... we would make it a fun visit.....

Wow! No kidding? If we're ever down that way, we definitely will get in touch.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Clear,

Just getting back to you regarding your previous invitation, in :"About trinity in Christianity" on May 6th, to exchange words on matters of mutual interest, if any. I'm sorely tempted to take you up on the offer for no other reason than that you've showed an interest in this particular thread, ... but I hesitate to do so:

• because, although I intentionally posted my OP here (in the LDS DIR),
  • I'm not certain that I can avoid getting a warning from RF overseers for some Rule violation;
  • I'm not interested in getting dog-piled over some opinion or speculation that I might express here; and
  • I'm not all that sure how focused I can remain, ... for your purposes; and
• because, if the LDS DIR is not the best "safe place", I don't know where to go to find one.

Having looked through your posts here, I suspect that your interests in Judeo-Christian scriptures, apocrypha, and pseudepigrapha and my interests differ substantially. And my personal prejudice against Einstein's relativity militates against some things discussed in Kirk Hagen's paper (posted in my OP).

Thanks for the offer though,
Regards,

Terry

 

[Clear]

Clear,

Just getting back to you regarding your previous invitation, in :"About trinity in Christianity" on May 6th, to exchange words on matters of mutual interest, if any. I'm sorely tempted to take you up on the offer for no other reason than that you've showed an interest in this particular thread, ... but I hesitate to do so:

• because, although I intentionally posted my OP here (in the LDS DIR),
  • I'm not certain that I can avoid getting a warning from RF overseers for some Rule violation;
  • I'm not interested in getting dog-piled over some opinion or speculation that I might express here; and
  • I'm not all that sure how focused I can remain, ... for your purposes; and
• because, if the LDS DIR is not the best "safe place", I don't know where to go to find one.

Having looked through your posts here, I suspect that your interests in Judeo-Christian scriptures, apocrypha, and pseudepigrapha and my interests differ substantially. And my personal prejudice against Einstein's relativity militates against some things discussed in Kirk Hagen's paper (posted in my OP).

Thanks for the offer though,
Regards,

Terry

Hi Terry;

My interest in early Judeo-Christian religion stems mainly from the Claim that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints represents a restoration of early Christian Salvational doctrines. IF this is correct, then the early texts should have evidence of similar doctrines and similar interpretations of the Gospel to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

In regards to the concept that there are individuals who have become more like God ("God-like"), the Latter Day Saints can literally take early texts and use them in their sunday school without a ripple of doctrinal dissonance. This means that the parallels of early Judeo-Christian doctrines being described in these early texts parallel the LDS doctrines. Very, Very few other modern Christian movements are able to do this. Thus, the LDS claim that they are a version of early Judeo-Christianity becomes more obvious the more parallels there are.

Good luck Terry in coming to your own models as to What God is doing with us in this life.

Clear

 

[Terry Sampson]

My interest in early Judeo-Christian religion...

• "stems mainly from the Claim ..." -- So I gathered from your posts. IMHO, given your "IF", your "then" is both rational and reasonable.

In regards to the concept that there are individuals who have become more like God ("God-like"),...:"

• "the Latter Day Saints can literally take early texts..." -- Consequently, I speculate, LDS pre-teens undergo less "confusion" shifting back and forth between "literal" and "figurative/metaphorical" statements in SS than the rest of us, no?
• "Very, Very few other modern Christian movements are able to do this." -- No doubt, ...in fact I'm hard-pressed to think of any. Consequently, IMO, irreconcilable differences abound.

My own very narrow interest in LDS doctrine pretty much focuses on the unavoidable implications of Lorenzo Snow's couplet:

• Seems to me that one implication is that the Cosmos, space, and time have to be boundless, another is that the Cosmos is without Beginning or End, otherwise I have to ask: Which came first, the child or the father, man or God?
  
• That interests me because I believe the same thing. [Trivia: I got that from an agnostic atheist back in 2002/2003.]
• Believing that puts me at odds with Relativists: true, pseudo-, quasi-, and wannabe alike.
  
• Because of that, Kirk D. Hagen's article intrigued me. I was curious to see how he'd go about "reconciling" mainstream scientific theory and LDS doctrine. I'm still thinking about the matter.

With that I'll close,
Take care,
Terry

 

[Clear]

Hi Terry :


1) Terry said : I'm sorely tempted to take you up on the offer for no other reason than that you've showed an interest in this particular thread, ... but I hesitate to do so:”
Terry, you are under no obligation to discuss anything. If you were simply probing to see if the LDS had any answer at all, this is fine as well.


2) Terry said : “I'm not interested in getting dog-piled over some opinion or speculation that I might express here”
I hope you did not feel that the two responses you have received were “dog piling”. I felt they were respectful and not at all unkind or overwhelming. I think MY response may have included a LOT of data, but, in reality, it is a small portion of the early Christian literature and their interpretations that I presented.


3) Terry said : “…if the LDS DIR is not the best "safe place", I don't know where to go to find one…”
I agree. If the LDS directory doesn’t feel “safe” to you to discuss LDS doctrines, I am not sure you will find some place that is “safe”. The people here are generally quite respectful and kind hearted.


4) Terry said : “Having looked through your posts here, I suspect that your interests in Judeo-Christian scriptures, apocrypha, and pseudepigrapha and my interests differ substantially. “
Perhaps your interest in early Christianity is different than mine, however, the question you actually asked in your OP WAS in tune with my interest in the early texts and with the answers early Christianity gives to the actual question you brought up.

My interest in early Christian history and their texts, their doctrines and their interpretations and how they differ from the later Christian movements has to do with my interest in what earliest and most authentic form of Chrisitan worldviews, their doctrines and their interpretations were.


5) Terry said : “…my personal prejudice against Einstein's relativity militates against some things discussed in Kirk Hagen's paper….”

I won’t be much help regarding theories of physics at all I am afraid Terry. Though my employment is heavily scientific, my interest is in the less speculative, salvific doctrines of Christianity. I wish you luck in finding a person more interested in theories regarding physics than me.


6) Clear said : “the Latter Day Saints can literally take early texts and use them in their sunday school without a ripple of doctrinal dissonance. This means that the parallels of early Judeo-Christian doctrines being described in these early texts parallel the LDS doctrines. Very, Very few other modern Christian movements are able to do this.”

Terry responded “.. Consequently, I speculate, LDS pre-teens undergo less "confusion" shifting back and forth between "literal" and "figurative/metaphorical" statements in SS than the rest of us, no?”

I’m not sure what your speculation means, nor why you arrived at that specific conclusion based on what I said.

There does not seem to be more metaphorical statements in early texts than in later Judeo-Christian texts, but rather, since all speech is cognitive symbolism, the early textual symbols are different. Thus, the main problem is often a historical, contextual problem, rather than “literal” versus “figurative/metaphorical”. The underlying theology of the early Judeo-Christians is so similar in basic ways to the LDS, such that they will understand certain references and how profound the meaning is while the same references will have no meaning for Christians who do not share the same worldviews.

Since you seem to have interest in science, perhaps I can give you an example that affects religion and science.

THE EARLY DOCTRINE OF CREATION OF MATERIAL THINGS OUT OF PRE-EXISTING CHAOTIC MATTER, VERSUS THE LATER CHRISTIAN THEORY OF CREATION OF MATERIAL UNIVERSE OUT OF “NOTHING”.(ex nihilo creation).

The restoration of the earlier doctrine of creation of material things from matter allows the LDS to read ancient Christian texts in perfect understanding and agreement. Many ancient Judeo-Christian texts describe creation out of pre-existing matter, and not ex-nihilo. Early writings are not necessarily more symbolic nor more metaphorical but are often more literal. They simply use different words, different "language" to describe literal things.

Justin Martyr, in his First Apology, says : Quote: “We have been taught that He in the beginning did of his goodness, for man's sake, create all things out of unformed matter” (ex amorphou hyles). First Apology, 49.

Philo mentions : Quote: "This cosmos of ours was formed out of all that there is of water, and air and fire, not even the smallest particle being left outside" (De Plantatione 2.6). Further, "when the substance of the universe was without shape and figure God gave it these; when it had no definite character God molded it into definiteness. . ." (De Somniis 2.6.45).

Justin Martyr, in discussing this preexistent primal matter (hyle), assures us, Quote: "we have learned" from our revelations was in the tradition of Clement (c. A.D. 96) who had praised God who "has made manifest (ephaneropoiesas) the everlasting fabric (aenaon sustasin) of the world."

Athenagoras, (despite his stress on the transcendence of God), explains concerning the preexistent Son: Quote: "He came forth to be the energizing power of things, which lay like a nature without attributes, and an inactive earth, the grosser particles being mixed up with the lighter."

This concept of the smallest particles combining with larger particles is expressed in many ways. For example, In the Secrets of Enoch, 25.1-3, God says, Quote: "I commanded . . . that visible things should come from invisible . . . ."
Dodd, in “The Bible and the Greeks”, p. 111 explained that to the ancients, such creation meant organization of the elements, as the Codex Brucianus"Creation is organization" (Manuscript No 96) and it explains that first, there is matter. And what is done with the matter it that it is organized into things created. Cosmos MEANS order.

The early Jewish Apocalypes of Abraham hails God as the one who brings order out of confusion, ever preparing and renewing worlds for the righteous.
The Berlin (Mandaean) Papyrus says " At the same time, the great thought came to the elements in united wisdom, spirit joining with matter." Matter can be imbued with spirit, but it will always be undergoing change and processing.

Pistis Sophia says Quote: "I (christ) called upon Gabriel from the midst of the worlds (aeons) along with Michael, pursuant to the command of my Father...and I gave to them the task of outpouring of the light and caused them to go down into matter unorganized (chaos) and assist Pistis Sophis"

Even 2 Maccabees, which is often used to SUPPORT ex nihilo, has Syriac recensions as well as some Greek manuscripts describing an organization of [chaotic] matter, which is also the explicit position of Wisdom of Solomon 11:17 where we read of God's hand which "created the world out of unformed matter (ktisasa ton kosmon ex amorphou hyles)," Even the "non-existent" cited in 2 Maccabees 7:28 is not absolute nothing, but rather is . . . the metaphysical substance . . . in an uncrystallized state." This relative "nonbeing" referred to a chaotic, shadowy state of matter before the world was made; as we might say in biblical terms, "without form and void."

The Early writings are full of references regarding how chaotic matter is used. The ancients understood that "At a new creation there is a reshuffling of elements " This particular 'restating' of the 'conservation of mass' is from Ben Sirach. But the principle is also found in the Odes of Solomon; it's in the Ginza; it's in the Mandaean Johannesbuch; it's in Berlin Manichaean; it's in the Pistis Sophia, and it's in the oldest and most impressive Coptic writings.

The point here is that these were common teachings and the ancients were NOT unaware of matter and how it was used


LDS RESTORATIVE THEOLOGY AGREES WITH THIS EARLY THEOLOGY

The point is that when LDS readers read such early doctrines they can read with perfect understanding and agreement with early Christian texts. When the LDS see the early literature, it is friendly to their theology. The later Christian “ex-nihilists” may or may not understand such texts, and if they do, they cannot agree. Such statements are often simply deemed as written by “heretical” writers in order to explain the existence of such doctrines.

Even the early Jewish texts are more understandable to the LDS who are in sync with early Judeo-Christian doctrines. The Midrash Rabbah Breishis 3:7 and 9:2 states that many other worlds were created previously to this one. The concept that Adam was placed into “a new world”, patterned after other worlds which is part of early Judeo-Christianity is simply accepted in the restored versions of such early religion. (I have not placed this specific doctrine into a "multiverse" model referred to in the O.P.)

These sorts of early doctrines simply mirror restored versions of them : And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. Moses 1:33

Not only does such early theology (or a restoration of early theology) agree with science, it solves many of the problems that are created by the later adoption of ex-nihilo creation (i.e. creation out of "nothing"). It creates a more rational, more logical view of the world and what God is doing and how he is accomplishing his purposes.

In any case Terry, I wish you a wonderful spiritual journey.

Clear
δρτωφυω

 

[Terry Sampson]

2) Terry said : “I'm not interested in getting dog-piled over some opinion or speculation that I might express here”
I hope you did not feel that the two responses you have received were “dog piling”. I felt they were respectful and not at all unkind or overwhelming. I think MY response may have been a LOT of data, but, in reality, it is a small portion of the early Christian literature and their interpretations that I presented.
Ahhh, ... sorry. My comment was not based on any prior experience here, nor with Mormons in RF or in the "real" world. All responses I've received from Mormons have in deed been respectful, not unkind nor overwhelming.

"Dog-piling" is what happens from time to time outside the calmer waters of the DRs here in RF. Actually, now that I think about it, dog-piling is substantially less frequent and briefer in the non-DR sections of RF than in two forums that I previously frequented. Not knowing how many LDS loyalists there are in RF, I suspect that my ignorance initiated a baseless fear. The fear is gone now.

3) Terry said : “…if the LDS DIR is not the best "safe place", I don't know where to go to find one…”
I agree. If the LDS directory doesn’t feel “safe” to you to discuss LDS doctrines, I am not sure you will find some place that is “safe”. The people here are generally quite respectful and kind hearted.
I don't dispute your last sentence; as I said 'the fear is gone.' Geographically, the "safest place", to me, would be my living room or patio. Similarly, I imagine, your "safest place" would be in your home. However, a mutually safe place would have to be in some place that neither of us own but is conducive to free-ranging conversation.

Here in RF, this DIR is not my turf, it's "yours"; you're LDS, I'm not. I haven't found the DIR in RF which is "safe" but neither "your" turf nor mine. Outside a DIR be dragons.

(To be continued...)

 

[Terry Sampson]

4) Terry said : “Having looked through your posts here, I suspect that your interests in Judeo-Christian scriptures, apocrypha, and pseudepigrapha and my interests differ substantially. “
Perhaps your interest in early Christianity is different than mine, however, the question you actually asked in your OP WAS in tune with my interest in the early texts and with the answers early Christianity gives to the actual question you brought up.
My interest in early Christian history and their texts, their doctrines and their interpretations and how they differ from the later Christian movements has to do with my interest in what earliest and most authentic form of Chrisitan worldviews, their doctrines and their interpretations were.
I posted my OP here as a consequence of my discovery of Hagen's article, which was of substantially more interest to me than the blog which introduced the article.
I discovered Hagen's article as a consequence of the brief exchange between Katzpur and me, in which I asked about Lorenzo Snow's couplet.
Although I found your discussion of texts confirming LDS teaching interesting, my curiosity regarding Snow's couplet shifted from the persons of the Trinity to a few other matters.

(a) My recent discovery that LDS does not subscribe to the "creatio ex nihilo" doctrine led me to imagine an affinity between my own personal worldview and what I consider to be the necessary consequence of the LDS alternative, to wit:

• 1st Premise: Either "creatio ex nihilo" (creation out of nothing) or "creatio ab aliquo" (creation from something)
• 2nd Premise: "Ex nihilo nihil fit " (Out of nothing nothing is made/comes) [first argued by Parmenides (late 6th/early 5th century BC)
• Conclusion: Ergo, creation from something.

Expounding on that, I add the notions of Boundless Space and Boundless Time, i.e. (without beginning or end), and Anaximander's ἄπειρον (Apeiron, i.e. the Boundless) which he claimed was the ἀρχή (Arche, i.e. the origin/principle of all things). Within the Apeiron, I say, the universe which mainstream scientists speak about is a minute (my-noot) portion, so much so that "minute" is almost, if not completely, meaningless.

Given my current worldview, the first sentence of Kirk Hagen's article (see OP) grabbed my attention:

• This article is an examination of the Mormon doctrine of eternal progression within the context of big-bang cosmology, a description of a finite universe that appears to contradict that doctrine.

How does Hagen propose to resolve the contradiction and reconcile a phenomenon (i.e. eternal progression doctrine) and a mainstream cosmological theory? Hagen says:

• I argue that a multiverse cosmology, a theory that posits a multiplicity of universes, resolves many of the problems posed by big-bang cosmology.

I'm not particularly excited about Hagen's starting point and am inclined to believe that the list of problems that Hagen would like to resolve could best be resolved by a radical change in his view of what this universe is and how it works. Doing that, of course, would put him at odds with mainstream science. I say no more about that here.

(b) Whether or not you agree with me, I have a question to which I invite an answer without expecting that anyone in the LDS has an answer, ... yet. Assuming, for the sake of my discussion here:

• That "our" multiverse is one of many, as Hagen proposes, in an eternal and infinite Cosmos, and
• That the Father/Son/Holy Spirit Trinity, as taught and believed within today's LDS, is God of our" multiverse, and
• That the LDS docrine of Eternal Progression is true,

it would seem to me to be unreasonable to claim that the Trinity of our multiverse is the only God in the Cosmos (i.e. the set of all multiverses in existence throughout the Cosmos). Consequently, it seems to me, that although monotheism may be "the truth" in our multiverse, polytheism is "the truth" throughout the eternal and infinite Cosmos. No?

(To be continued ...)

 

[Terry Sampson]

6) Clear said : “the Latter Day Saints can literally take early texts and use them in their sunday school without a ripple of doctrinal dissonance. This means that the parallels of early Judeo-Christian doctrines being described in these early texts parallel the LDS doctrines. Very, Very few other modern Christian movements are able to do this.”
Terry responded “.. Consequently, I speculate, LDS pre-teens undergo less "confusion" shifting back and forth between "literal" and "figurative/metaphorical" statements in SS than the rest of us, no?”

1. I’m not sure what your speculation means, nor why you arrived at that specific conclusion based on what I said.
2. There does not seem to be more metaphorical statements in early texts than in later Judeo-Christian texts, but rather, since all speech is cognitive symbolism, the early textual symbols are different. Thus, the main problem is often a historical, contextual problem, rather than “literal” versus “figurative/metaphorical”. The underlying theology of the early Judeo-Christians is so similar in basic ways to the LDS, such that they will understand certain references and how profound the meaning is while the same references will have no meaning for Christians who do not share the same worldviews.
3. Since you seem to have interest in science, perhaps I can give you an example that affects religion and science.
4. ....
5. Not only does A(or a restoration of early theology) agree with science, it solves many of the problems that are created by the later adoption of ex-nihilo creation (i.e. creation out of "nothing"). It creates a more rational, more logical view of the world and what God is doing and how he is accomplishing his purposes.

Regarding #1: Imagine two hypothetical situations -

• (a) An LDS 5-year old hears about the Father, the pre-mortal/mortal/exalted Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in Sunday School. The SS teacher talks about the Father and the Son, and--citing Scripture (if that's done in LDS SS at that age) describes them as having faces, eyes, nose, mouth, arms, hands, legs, and feet.
  • Years later, when the same kid is in his/her teens and thereafter, he/she reads the Bible and the Book of Mormon, and attends "advanced" SS classes, the kid will read and hear about the same Persons described very much as They were described to him/her by the first SS teacher, no?
  • NOTA BENE: I didn't mention the Holy Spirit because my ignorance of LDS doctrine regarding the Holy Spirit prevents me from doing so. In other words, I don't want say what LDS doctrine teaches regarding the physical features of the Holy Spirit because I don't know what that doctrine is.
• (b) A Protestant 5 year old hears about the Father, mortal and resurrected Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in Sunday School. The SS teacher clearly describes Jesus as having a face, eyes, nose, mouth, arms, hands, legs, and feet. The Holy Spirit is described as as breath, a wind, and once: as a dove ... and nary a word about a physical body. And the Father is described as having body parts.
  • Years later, when the same id is in his/her teens or thereafter, he/she hears his SS teacher/Pastor cite the same Scriptures he/she heard years before, and discovers somewhere that the Father and the Holy Spirit don't have body parts and never did.
  • In some Protestant churches, the kid may learn that Jesus had a pre-mortal existence and begins to wonder how the pre-mortal Jesus got into the Virgin Mary. The pre-mortal Jesus must have had body parts.
  • In other Protesant Churces, the pre-mortal Jesus didn't have body parts.
  • A further conundrum may arise, if the kid attends a church which says that Yahweh and Jesus are one and the same person and have body parts, but the Father is a differen Person and does not have body parts.
  • Even if, on a subliminal level, the teenager is going to wonder: Does the Father have body parts.

Given those two hypothetical kids, can you now understand why I wrote: "... I speculate, LDS pre-teens undergo less "confusion" shifting back and forth between "literal" and "figurative/metaphorical" statements in SS than the rest of us, no?"

Regarding #2: See my response in #1 above.

Regarding #3: Many thanks.

Regarding #4: Great stuff!!! Thanks for collecting and sharing those citations. Some were new to me; others I had read but long before I became interested in the matters which interest me, and I pretty much had glossed over them. Thanks again.

Regarding #5:

• The relevance of the texts that you cited is fascinating and note-worthy.
• As for your claim that "such early theology (or a restoration of early theology) agree with science, it solves many of the problems that are created by the later adoption of ex-nihilo creation (i.e. creation out of "nothing"),
• I am an advocate of "creation out of something" interpretation of Genesis and have been since least 2000, although I suspected as much years earlier. No need to try to convince me.
• As for your claim that "such early theology (or a restoration of early theology) agree with science", I don't expect you to reject that claim on my say-so, but, for the record, I do reject that claim. Nothing personal. My beef against the science whereof you speak goes back to about 2002. I'm a baptized and confirmed anti-relativist who believes Einstein's special theory of relativity--on which his general theory of relativity and the Big Bang theory depend--is nonsense. Consequently, you and I have an irreconcilable difference onthat matter. Not to worry, though; I think there's enough stuff we do agree on.
• As for your belief that "such early theology ... creates a more rational, more logical view of the world and what God is doing and how he is accomplishing his purposes." I agree to the "more rational, more logical view of the world" part, and I certainly agree that God is doing something, but I suspect we'd discover more irreconcilable differences between us if we were to try to discuss "how he is accomplishing his purposes." So, why don't we skip opening that part for now.

There!! ... I think I covered everything, or purt' near everything, no?

Take care,
Regards,

Terry

 

[Clear]

Hi Terry :

(1) Terry Said : “I'm not particularly excited about Hagen's starting point and am inclined to believe that the list of problems that Hagen would like to resolve could best be resolved by a radical change in his view of what this universe is and how it works. Doing that, of course, would put him at odds with mainstream science. “

Overlooking my limited knowledge about speculative physics involved in "multiverses", I simply don’t have enough background in speculative physics to have an opinion on Hagens speculations. I admit that my personal speculations rarely leave the current universe since it is the only one with which I have imagined a current connection. However, it is my understanding that the “big bang” does not tell us where matter comes from (since the “big bang” assumes matter exists at the moment the "bang" occurs), but instead, attempts to explain why this original matter acts the way it does (e.g. an expanding universe caused by a “big bang”).



(2) Terry said : “it would seem to me to be unreasonable to claim that the Trinity of our multiverse is the only God in the Cosmos (i.e. the set of all multiverses in existence throughout the Cosmos). Consequently, it seems to me, that although monotheism may be "the truth" in our multiverse, polytheism is "the truth" throughout the eternal and infinite Cosmos. No?”

While I don’t see any problem with your theory of “multiverses” consisting with a multitude of individual “universes”, each having a God over it, I simply don’t know enough about speculative physics and coordinating speculative religious principles to have an informed opinion upon it.

From a historical standpoint, there are points that apply to THIS universe that may or may not apply to your speculative model. For example :


THERE ARE MORE DESCRIPTIONS THAN “POLYTHEISM” AND “MONOTHEISM” THAT DESCRIBE HISTORICAL JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY

In developing your own model as to how the universe works (religiously), you may consider that, historically there are more categories than monotheism vs polytheism.

It was Budge, the Great Egyptologist who first pointed out the principle that Egypt (who had many divine beings the translators called “Gods” – it was the best word we had at the time) was essentially monotheism for most of its history since they had a LORD GOD who was always over all other beings that were called “gods”.

Their chief God directed others and had no director himself. This distinction is important since this concept helps explain ancient Judao-Christian texts that speak so often about “Gods” and the “Godlike” and but yet they still remain essentially monotheistic in their context.

This sort of Monotheism which recognizes multiple beings called “Gods”, all of which are ruled over and directed by and less powerful than the one God who directs them is called “Henotheism”. This represents the type of theology that was present in early (pre-exile) Israel. Thus one finds the references to “such sayings as “God of Gods”, “Lord of lords”, and references to “Gods” (plural) in the texts.

For example, in the Jewish-Christian Apocalypse of Abraham, when Abraham discovers the true God, he hears the voice of God : Quote: “Abraham, Abraham!” And I said, “Here I am.” And he said, “You are searching for the God of gods, the creator, in the understanding of your heart. I am he. (Apoc of Abr 8:1-4

This principle and language is virtually woven into the language of the Dead Sea Scrolls. For examples : Quote: “You are chief of the gods and king of the Glorious, Lord of every spirit and Ruler of every creature. Apart from you nothing is done, nor is there any knowing without your will. There is no one beside you and no one approaches you in strength. No one can compare to your glory.” (1QH, 1Q35, 4Q 427–432)

Quote: “You have humbled the gods from the foundation” 1QH, 1Q35, 4Q 427–432

Quote: “He will send eternal support to the company of his redeemed by the power of the majestic angel of the authority of Michael…to exalt the authority of Michael among the Gods and the dominion of Israel among all flesh. 1QM, 4Q491-496 )

Such texts speak of men as the “righteous ones among the gods of…in the holy habitation.” (THE WAR SCROLL 1QM, 4Q491-496)

The Henotheism of early Judao-Christianity involved the tradition where many divine beings existed that were like the Lord God despite never equaling the LORD God, who was over all other beings. It is in such a context that the writer of Exodus is able to exclaim : “Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders? Ex 15:11". The doctrinal language that reflects this belief of God as a “LORD among the gods” is woven throughout much of the early literature. This is an important historical context underlying early Judao-Christian thought which allows ancient texts and principles to make wonderful sense. We discussed other “God-Like” beings in early Judeo-Christian theology in posts #3-#7 in this same thread.


NEW DISCOVERIES ABOUT EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN RELIGION REQUIRE NEW HISTORICAL MODELS AND NEW RELIGIOUS DESCRIPTIONS

Anyone reading historical discussions regarding "henotheism of Israel" will immediately see that if pre-exillic Israel was not strictly “monotheistic”, nor were they “pantheistic”, nor do they fit the implication as “polytheistic”, then the standard terms no longer fit.

Thus the discussions regarding “henotheism” as the most appropriate term. Henotheism is the awareness of multiple being called "gods", of which only one is LORD over all others and is the single God worthy of our worship. Heiser pointed out that to use any term is going to confuse non-historians and non-scholars because they do not have the context. Heiser simply suggests one describe pre-exilic beliefs (but this is an unwieldy, repetitive practice). Thus, the necessity to use the “clumsy” but “close” description of “henotheism”.

The same difficulty exists for the word “god” if it is to be applied to more than one being. Just as the term “policeman” is a title that is somewhat descriptive, it does not distinguish between a policeman who is “chief of police”, or an underling; it doesn’t distinguish between a "beat cop", or a "detective".

Because of this difficulty, I think it was Heiser who suggested one simply use the title "god" to designate a being who inhabits the heaven where God is. (I’m going by memory, it may have been a Qumranic scholar who made this suggestion…).

Even the title αγγελος (angel) comes under the same difficulty. It simply means “messenger” and is applied equally to a “messenger” from God to man, or a messenger sent from one man to another person or group. The specific nature of and purpose of the messenger (i.e. divine or simply another normal person) must be derived from the context of its usage (if it can be determined at all). And, if a "messenger" is from heaven, the title of "messenger", does not tell us any other status or past history we are to apply to this individual.

A similar difficulty occurs when one refers to the early judeo-christian “divine council”. Using these words does not tell us whether the user is referring to the religious historians’ model or to an inaccurate caricurature. The Same words carry very different contextual meanings in each model. If we are to use the terms inside a model of speculative “multiverse” physics, then the difficulties may go deeper. I don’t know how to apply historical terms to multiverse physics.


(3) Terry said : “As for your claim that "such early theology (or a restoration of early theology) agree with science", I don't expect you to reject that claim on my say-so, but, for the record, I do reject that claim.”

It is my understanding that science AGREES with religion that the material universe originated with matter. Perhaps you misunderstood my claim. I was describing the early religious doctrine that the material universe was made of matter (as opposed to the later theory that the universe was made of “nothing”). As far as I am aware, scientists generally believe that the material universe WAS made from material and NOT created from “nothing”. (conservation of mass, etc).

When you said “I am an advocate of "creation out of something" interpretation of Genesis” then I assumed we actually AGREE in a material creation is more rational and, I think, more scientific as well. Early religion believed this as well. Thus I claim that it AGREES with science on this point.


I like your assumptions of boundless space and time. The early Jewish version of "forever and ever" (m'olam v l'olam) referred to the coming FROM the forever past aeons and we go INTO the future forever aeons.

In any case Terry, I wish you luck in creating your own models of the universe (or multiverse) and our relationship to it. See you Terry

Clear
δρνεειω