Cristology, Trinitarian and OT validitiy

[Archaea]

I have acquired a number of good works discussing ancient Christian themes.

The Cristology themes are fascinating in that, we have a bunch of theologians who can't agree on the nature of God, the nature of Christ and least not the nature of the Holy Ghost.

The schools are diverse, but you have one school arguing for unity with "two" natures, usually starting with the Alexandrian school, the Gnostic, Marcion school arguing the material God is but an appearance and not real, and the dualistic school attributable to Constantinople based theologians.

What I found amusing was a Council was convened by two competing fashions in Ephesus I believe in the early fifth century, and each council excommunicated the other until the Pope or Emperor agreed with the Cyril of the Alexandrian group.

It was as if there were contests, philosophically and I suppose, there must have been some political contest as well.

As a result, I've been reading, Melito of Sardis, Homily on the Passover. Apparently some gnostics rejected all previous Hebrew scripture as linking to Christ. We also have Origen, and many others, but the ancients really struggled with things Joseph struggled with.

However, by 451 C.E., with the Council of Chalcedon, orthodox belief was reconfirmed agreeing mostly with Cyril, even though his nephew had been dismissed, of a unity of God while discussing the parameters of his two natures, divine and mortal.

I also have a good book on the Documentary Hypothesis of the Pentateuch, and the validity of historicity of the OT by a professor Kitchen of the University of Liverpool. It examines nonbiblical sources to cross reference any historical evidence set forth within the OT. It seeks to argue much of the OT is older than the fourth or third century BCE, some scholars like to posit.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I have acquired a number of good works discussing ancient Christian themes.

The Cristology themes are fascinating in that, we have a bunch of theologians who can't agree on the nature of God, the nature of Christ and least not the nature of the Holy Ghost.

The schools are diverse, but you have one school arguing for unity with "two" natures, usually starting with the Alexandrian school, the Gnostic, Marcion school arguing the material God is but an appearance and not real, and the dualistic school attributable to Constantinople based theologians.

What I found amusing was a Council was convened by two competing fashions in Ephesus I believe in the early fifth century, and each council excommunicated the other until the Pope or Emperor agreed with the Cyril of the Alexandrian group.

It was as if there were contests, philosophically and I suppose, there must have been some political contest as well.

As a result, I've been reading, Melito of Sardis, Homily on the Passover. Apparently some gnostics rejected all previous Hebrew scripture as linking to Christ. We also have Origen, and many others, but the ancients really struggled with things Joseph struggled with.

However, by 451 C.E., with the Council of Chalcedon, orthodox belief was reconfirmed agreeing mostly with Cyril, even though his nephew had been dismissed, of a unity of God while discussing the parameters of his two natures, divine and mortal.

I also have a good book on the Documentary Hypothesis of the Pentateuch, and the validity of historicity of the OT by a professor Kitchen of the University of Liverpool. It examines nonbiblical sources to cross reference any historical evidence set forth within the OT. It seeks to argue much of the OT is older than the fourth or third century BCE, some scholars like to posit.

I love this stuff and am looking for a good book on the Holy Ghost, hopefully one that starts with the Genesis 1 passage and dives into the Hebrew meaning both "Spirit" and "wind." I'm also looking for a discussion of the John 3 passage. Have you gotten around to the Rusch book yet?

In an effort to make some of these issues a little more accessible, I'll share a list of some BoM passages that suggest the complexities of thinking about notions of God, Father, and Son in Mormonism:

Jesus is the Son of God: 1 Ne. 10:17; 11:6-7, 24; 25:16, 19; 31:11-21; Jacob 4:5-11; Hel. 3:28; 3 Ne. 9:15.

Jesus is the Son of the Father: Alma 5:48; 3 Ne. 11:7; 12:19; 14:21; 18:27; 28:8-10; Moroni 4:3, 5:2

Jesus is God: The BoM Title Page; 2 Ne. 10:3-7; 11:7; Mosiah 27:31; Mormon 3:21; Ether 3:18

Jesus is the Father: Mosiah 15:4; 16:15; Alma 11:38-39; 2 Ne. 25:12; Mosiah 3:8; 15:4; Alma 11:39; Ether 4:7; Hel. 14:12; 16:18; Mosiah 5:7; Ether 3:14

Jesus is Both the Father and the Son (these passages seem very modalist): Mosiah 15:2-3; 3 Nephi 1:14; Mormon 9:12; Ether 3:14; 4:12

Jesus has a Father and God Who is a Seperate and Distinct Person: Jacob 4:5; 3 Ne. 11:7, 32; 17:16; 19:18-31; 20:46; 26:2, 15; 27:28-30; Moroni 7:27; 9:26.

Interestingly there are some interesting issues on this front when one compares the 1st edition of the BoM with subsequent editions. Joseph added "the son of" before "God" in 1 Nephi 11:18, "son of the," before "Eternal Father" in 1 Nephi 11:21, "the son of the," before "everlasting God," in 1 Nephi 11:32, and "the son of the," before "Eternal Father" in 1 Nephi 13:40, for the 1837 edition. These changes have been kept in all subsequent editions. I have no problem with Joseph doing this, but it does suggest that his mind was drawn to reflection on the Godhead.

[Archaea]

The more I ponder Joseph, the more I admire his mind. He was so dynamic, full of readiness to oppose orthodoxy.

I have seven books I'm reading concurrently, so I haven't made it to the Rusch book.