Apotheosis and Clement of Alexandria

[ChinoCoug]

Solon's quote from Clement is not an example of a belief in deification of any human but Christ, and it is an echo of Philo's writings on the Logos.

Pulling stuff out of your yewt again. To spare you another trip to the ER from your assisted living facility, I won't say anything after this background information on the quote. He clearly was talking about the deification of man.

http://books.google.com/books?id=sf5...LUcciH98&hl=en

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Pulling stuff out of your yewt again. To spare you another trip to the ER from your assisted living facility, I won't say anything after this background information on the quote. He clearly was talking about the deification of man.

http://books.google.com/books?id=sf5...LUcciH98&hl=en

Your link doesn't say that.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

whoopy dooda. some teachings survive, some don't, fool.

I can't believe we're back to Hellenism and Apostasy. I thought this was well-plowed ground.

First, it doesn't hurt anyone's position to acknowledge that the Gospels and the letters the make up the NT were written in Koine Greek, for a Greek-reading audience. As such, certain intrinsic features are manifest, especially in the use of religious/philosophical images and vocabulary. Scholars, theologians, and others are going to argue until the end of time about what those words "mean" in context - whether the writers were using old language to express Jesus' innovative concepts, or whether they were just using the old language to indicate the same-old, same-old ritual, tradition, and belief.

Second, to credit FARMS with anything like a consensus or a regular voice is, in my opinion, lending far too much credence to a group of antiquarian minded apologists. There are some sharp minds, to be sure, but they are hamstrung both by their affiliation to the BYU (and thus the LDS church), as well as the nature of apologetics that establishes conclusions before undertaking investigations. If you find their writings interesting, great. They're producing for a specific audience. The affiliation with a university makes me a little uncomfortable, but that affiliation is more harmful to the university than to FARMS. The publications of the Heritage Foundation or National Review are ideologically driven in much the same way. The readers usually know exactly what they're going to get.

The beauty of LDS teachings on THE GREAT APOSTASY is that they can be construed to defend or attack any teaching, belief, or philosophical tenet. Cherry picking "correct doctrines that survived" and discarding "heretical apostate teachings of men that crept in" is pretty easy to do. Like most apologia, knowing the correct conclusion makes it easy to decide what is useful and "true" and what is not.

Third, LDS have often changed their teachings on THE GREAT APOSTASY, from Talmage's The Great Apostasy (1909) that blamed philosophical heresy and gnosticism to McConkie's belief that Catholicism represented the "Great and abominable church." Judging by how different today's LDS church is from its 1830 version (even down to its name), I think it's probably pretty problematic for LDS to establish a chronological point where the priesthood authority was lifted and the doctrines had changed enough to merit the appellation "apostasy." The idea of a great, Christian world-wide apostasy is a question for broad strokes, in my opinion, where LDS are better off looking at overall trends over big chunks of time.

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism (overseen by BYU, GA's, and with contributions from several FARMS writers) states "A complex religious and cultural milieu both nurtured and transformed early Christianity. many factors must be taken into consideration in analyzing this transformation of Christianity. For example, some have put the blame exclusively on Greek philosophy and the influence of philosophy on Gnosticism fo rthe rise of the great apostasy. But asceticism . . . played a major role in the apostasy of the early church, and extreme asceticism is characteristically Oriental. Moreover, much of Greek philosophy has been found to be consistent with the gospel." (s.v. "Apostasy," pg. 58)

In the end, faithful LDS will work backwards from their understanding of "truth" and find kernels of it lodged throughout antiquity. Secular scholars will identify and recognize the confluence of multiple religious traditions and cultures, and raise an eyebrow at the buffet-style scholarship that apologists employ. Since they're arguing from two different planes, the only means for resolution is for one camp to cross into the other.

I should note that I have no problem with members of either camp, as long as they recognize which side of this fence they're on.

Fourth, I consider Clement to have been talking about the deification of Christ, a common theme in Greco-Roman tradition for great men of mortal/immortal parentage. Most early Christians, in my opinion, would have considered this eventuality well beyond their humble (and sinful) station. There is some talk of deification in Athanasius and other fourth century writers, but I think it necessary to consider it in context of Athanasian Trinitarianism - God and Jesus are one substance (no body), unity with them is ultimate salvation. This is pretty different from "as man is, god once was . . . ".

But if some people feel that this is a kernel of truth that survived the apostasy (for awhile), they're welcome to it, for all I care.

[Archaea]

Here's a problem I have with the Great Apostasy concept.

If Christ taught for the limited period of two years, and if one accepts the forty day ministry of Acts, it seems extremely presumptuous that such limited time period was sufficient for a fully developed theology to have been distributed and taught.

Of course, we don't know the fullness of what was taught. However, it is my naive view, if we taking a believing perspective that Gospel essentials were taught, a beginning structure was introduced, but that time and distance made it difficult to expand the spread.

I can hypothesize that Peter never really conferred any authority upon Linus, I believe the first bishop of Rome. Or that subsequent corruption of a Papal line, such as the anti-popes, could have interrupted legitimate authority.

However, the Talmage or McConkie concept that all doctrines and principles were revealed at Christ's coming doesn't seem likely. He was trying to (a) atone for our sins, (b) teach repentance and baptism, and (c) teach charity. He would have also set up limited aspects of governance and transferred authority.

Now did people morph the original concepts when discussing them into regions not explained by the Master? Probably.

And if one were to accept that revelation were not continuing, to the extent things morph with the introductions of new traditions, they change. And new traditions are introduced to address not previously considered.

Baptism. What does one do if one doesn't have a pool in which to baptize? Well, Hebrews washed, so a washing must be good enough.

[pelagius]

I really didn't want to discuss Hellenism and the Great Apostasy. I actually don't find the great apostasy that interesting. However, I do object to SU continued harping on it and treating FARMS as some sort of boogeyman particularly when what he said about FARMS is manifestly false. SU read one article and has been harping on it for 6 months. That's fine, but his beef is with Robinson and not the group as a whole. If he changed his snarky first post to "Clement is the very essence of what [Stephen Robinson] would call an agent of the Great Apostasy" there would not have been a peep out of me. That is a true statement unless he has changed his view recently.

The rest of the thread is an absurd combination of me agreeing with SU's in general but pointing out that if anything many FARMS authors have come around to agree with many (but not all) of his points about hellenism and early Christianity so using FARMS as his whipping boy is obtuse in this context.

Why did I defend FARMS? No particularly reason other then I thought SU's hand grenade was unfair and that I had previously presented substantial evidence that it was unfair. If he is not going to update his prior based on new evidence (very fundamentalist and unlike SU in general), I am going to lob some back.

FARMS is a mixed bag for me. I am not that interested in apologetics. I am not wedded to any particular model for understanding the "great apostasy."

[creekster]

Originally Posted by pelagius

I really didn't want to discuss Hellenism and the Great Apostasy. I actually don't find the great apostasy that interesting. However, I do object to SU continued harping on it and treating FARMS as some sort of boogeyman particularly when what he said about FARMS is manifestly false. SU read one article and has been harping on it for 6 months. That's fine, but his beef is with Robinson and not the group as a whole. If he changed his snarky first post to "Clement is the very essence of what [Stephen Robinson] would call an agent of the Great Apostasy" there would not have been a peep at of me. That is a true statement unless he has changed his view recently.

The rest of the thread is an absurd combination of me agreeing with SU in general but pointing out that if anything many FARMS authors have come around to agree with many (but not all) of his points about hellenism and early Christianity so using FARMS as his whipping boy is obtuse in this context.

Don't worry about SU. We all know he is Dorkus Maximus.

[SeattleUte]

Excellent thoughts, Solon. The problem, of course, is that I am going at this 180 degrees from the perspective of some here. I like to see the two strands of metaphysics that begat Christianity--Judaism and Greek culture--as converging in Judea (thanks to Alexander and Ptolemy, etc.) and creating an offspring called Christianity, and then project on forward and see the impact of this metaphysical Christ child on our world today. The Greek sperm was there impregnating the Jewish egg at the Christian zygote's conception. Christianity's mother and father were the product of millenia of "evolution." To me this is a lot more fascinating than a magical world view, but I realize that's just me. I submit that if you pull a single strand out of the elaborate tapestry of our civilization you can't predict that a complete tangled mess rather than an elegant tapestry will result. It's a shame to be unable to see wonderful workmanship in any part of it, which is why I'm equally unimpressed with Sam Harris' and Chris Hitchins' word view. Ideas such as the Great Apostasy just distort the rich tapestry beyond recognition which is a shame.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Solon

I can't believe we're back to Hellenism and Apostasy. I thought this was well-plowed ground.

First, it doesn't hurt anyone's position to acknowledge that the Gospels and the letters the make up the NT were written in Koine Greek, for a Greek-reading audience. As such, certain intrinsic features are manifest, especially in the use of religious/philosophical images and vocabulary. Scholars, theologians, and others are going to argue until the end of time about what those words "mean" in context - whether the writers were using old language to express Jesus' innovative concepts, or whether they were just using the old language to indicate the same-old, same-old ritual, tradition, and belief.

Second, to credit FARMS with anything like a consensus or a regular voice is, in my opinion, lending far too much credence to a group of antiquarian minded apologists. There are some sharp minds, to be sure, but they are hamstrung both by their affiliation to the BYU (and thus the LDS church), as well as the nature of apologetics that establishes conclusions before undertaking investigations. If you find their writings interesting, great. They're producing for a specific audience. The affiliation with a university makes me a little uncomfortable, but that affiliation is more harmful to the university than to FARMS. The publications of the Heritage Foundation or National Review are ideologically driven in much the same way. The readers usually know exactly what they're going to get.

The beauty of LDS teachings on THE GREAT APOSTASY is that they can be construed to defend or attack any teaching, belief, or philosophical tenet. Cherry picking "correct doctrines that survived" and discarding "heretical apostate teachings of men that crept in" is pretty easy to do. Like most apologia, knowing the correct conclusion makes it easy to decide what is useful and "true" and what is not.

Third, LDS have often changed their teachings on THE GREAT APOSTASY, from Talmage's The Great Apostasy (1909) that blamed philosophical heresy and gnosticism to McConkie's belief that Catholicism represented the "Great and abominable church." Judging by how different today's LDS church is from its 1830 version (even down to its name), I think it's probably pretty problematic for LDS to establish a chronological point where the priesthood authority was lifted and the doctrines had changed enough to merit the appellation "apostasy." The idea of a great, Christian world-wide apostasy is a question for broad strokes, in my opinion, where LDS are better off looking at overall trends over big chunks of time.

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism (overseen by BYU, GA's, and with contributions from several FARMS writers) states "A complex religious and cultural milieu both nurtured and transformed early Christianity. many factors must be taken into consideration in analyzing this transformation of Christianity. For example, some have put the blame exclusively on Greek philosophy and the influence of philosophy on Gnosticism fo rthe rise of the great apostasy. But asceticism . . . played a major role in the apostasy of the early church, and extreme asceticism is characteristically Oriental. Moreover, much of Greek philosophy has been found to be consistent with the gospel." (s.v. "Apostasy," pg. 58)

In the end, faithful LDS will work backwards from their understanding of "truth" and find kernels of it lodged throughout antiquity. Secular scholars will identify and recognize the confluence of multiple religious traditions and cultures, and raise an eyebrow at the buffet-style scholarship that apologists employ. Since they're arguing from two different planes, the only means for resolution is for one camp to cross into the other.

I should note that I have no problem with members of either camp, as long as they recognize which side of this fence they're on.

Fourth, I consider Clement to have been talking about the deification of Christ, a common theme in Greco-Roman tradition for great men of mortal/immortal parentage. Most early Christians, in my opinion, would have considered this eventuality well beyond their humble (and sinful) station. There is some talk of deification in Athanasius and other fourth century writers, but I think it necessary to consider it in context of Athanasian Trinitarianism - God and Jesus are one substance (no body), unity with them is ultimate salvation. This is pretty different from "as man is, god once was . . . ".

But if some people feel that this is a kernel of truth that survived the apostasy (for awhile), they're welcome to it, for all I care.

I love your posts.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Ideas such as the Great Apostasy just distort the rich tapestry beyond recognition which is a shame.

For the most part, this concept is passe in Mormondom, but you go ahead and keep beating that drum and knocking down those strawmen.

Yes, Robison may make a comment or two, but pelagius will show you constantly that FARMS is not monolithic.

[Sleeping in EQ]

You probably have a file on apotheosis, Solon, but I have tons of quotes and might be able to save you time.