Quote:
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.