Differences between Mormon & Christian theology

[_maklelan]

I'm sorry, but I can read it for myself. I don't see any discussion of 'Platonic ontology' there, and I see a very explicit statement that the heavens and earth and all things in them which God made were not made out of things that existed. Nothing about 'matter does not belong in a plane of real existence'.

Let's not let language or history get in the way of your assumption of what the author was really trying to say.

It's ok, I'm not. But thanks for checking.

That's laughable. You only have your own personal interpretation to offer up.

[_Fortigurn]

That's laughable. You only have your own personal interpretation to offer up.

If you do even a little research, you will find that reading of the passage from 2 Maccabees 7 is very far from my own personal interpretation.

[_maklelan]

That's laughable. You only have your own personal interpretation to offer up.

If you do even a little research, you will find that reading of the passage from 2 Maccabees 7 is very far from my own personal interpretation.

I've shared an article from the Harvard Theological Review. I have a paper on this very issue being published in May. I have done research. You have refused to read the article and not shared anything at all outside of your own exegesis. By all means, point me in the direction of a scholarly work that backs up your assertion. I would love to read it.

[_Fortigurn]

I see the trinity as the focus of the Nicene Creed.

Why would you, seeing that it says absolutely nothing about the trinity?

The goal of that creed and that council was to establish once and for all the nature of Christ's relationship with the Father.

Yes, nothing at all about the trinity.

Arius promoted a subordinate Christ and the rest promoted an equal Christ.

Equal in nature, subordinate in position. The Nicene Creed discreetly says nothing about the equality of Christ with God.

The most ridiculous round of philosophic aerobics that was ever executed by mankind took place in an attempt to reconcile three gods and one god together. The result was the Nicene Creed.

No, you're thinking of the Athanasian Creed. The Nicene Creed did nothing to 'attempt to reconcile three gods and one god together'. It doesn't mention anything like it.

You can compare the differences between the 'Apostles' Creed', the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, here. Other than that, I agree with you that both the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds are trash.

[_Fortigurn]

That's laughable. You only have your own personal interpretation to offer up.

If you do even a little research, you will find that reading of the passage from 2 Maccabees 7 is very far from my own personal interpretation.

I've shared an article from the Harvard Theological Review.

You cited an article (you didn't exactly share it), but you didn't explain why you believe it's correct, and you didn't even explain the author's reasoning.

I have a paper on this very issue being published in May. I have done research.

Great, so let's see the research. I'd like to see this research. I have to bear in mind that whatever this research was, it led you to this conclusion:

Creatio ex nihilo did not exist in the Jewish or Christian worlds until the second century AD. Not a respectable scholar in the world thinks otherwise. You may believe they taught it originally, but no facts support that theory.

Every single sentence here is wrong:

* Creatio ex nihilo existed in the Jewish world at least as early as the 2nd century BC

* There are many respectable scholars in the world who believe this

* There are indeed facts supporting the theory, and the passage in 2 Maccabees 7 is one of those facts

By the way, how do you deal with the following Qumran fragment:

From the God of Knowledge comes all that is and shall be. Before ever they existed He established their whole design, and when, as ordained for them, they come into being, it is in accord with His glorious design that they accomplish their task without change.

1QS 3:15

Source. Surely you didn't miss that in your research? The article to which you directed me doesn't mention it at all, strangely.

You have refused to read the article...

How bizarre of you to say this. Where did I refuse to read the article? As it happens, I've chased it down and read it. Here is the relevant passage:

The author of 2 Maccabees, on the other hand, says in passing that “God made them out of things that did not [really] exist.”36 This famous statement, which has often been taken as evidence for an early Jewish notion of creatio ex nihilo, rather seems to convey Platonic ontology, suggesting that matter does not belong to the realm of real existence.37

It is in any case striking that the author does not show any awareness of breaking new ground. If he had indeed advocated a revolutionary idea subversive to the biblical creation account, he would surely have explained himself in more detail. He would have expounded the opening of Genesis. His omission of such indicates that he was not yet troubled by the issue of pre-existing matter.

37May, Schöpfung aus dem Nichts 6–8; Jonathan A. Goldstein, II Maccabees. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday & Co., 1983) 307–15; cf. J. C. O’Neill, “How Early is the Doctrine of ‘creatio ex nihilo’ ?” JTS 53 (2002) 449–65, who recently advocated again the interpretation of 2 Macc 7:28 as evidence of an early Jewish creatio ex nihilo theology.

That's it. That's all he writes. No explanation of how he reaches this conclusion, no justification for inserting the word 'really' into the text, no evidence that his interpretation of the words in a manner different to the way they read (so different that he has to insert a word to change the relevant phrase), is valid. The parts I've placed in bold are pure speculation. The more likely reason why the author shows no awareness of breaking new ground, is that he lived in a community where others held the same view.

Is this what you call 'research'? The rest of the paper is pretty good, but this is most definitely not.

...and not shared anything at all outside of your own exegesis.

Not yet, no.

By all means, point me in the direction of a scholarly work that backs up your assertion. I would love to read it.

Gladly. But I want you to explain to me why I shouldn't understand the text on face value.

[Mayan Elephant]

I understood you perfectly, but you conflate the "Christian" God with the Catholic God, and you seem to think that the Catholic God is biblical. Everyone knows the doctrine of the Trinity is inconsistent with Mormon theology, and that's because the doctrine of the Trinity is an apostate Greek doctrine.

Indeed, in my original argument, I termed the God described as Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent, Infinite, Creator (ex nihilo), and Trinity as “Christian God.” You imply from this response that “Christian” is not an appropriate title for this God, and most likely believe the “God” of Mormonism (one of many, bodily, infinite and organizer of the universe) is more appropriately termed “Christian.” In any case, you’re ignorance is not worth the words or thread space to prove to you why you are wrong. If you insist, let us instead term the Trinitarian God as the “Catholic-Greek Orthodox-Lutheran-Pentecostal-Methodist-Baptist-Presbyterian-Evangelical-Anglecan God,” as this more accurately represents the many churches who accept this doctrine.

This is an idiotic straw man. Who cares if the Catholic God is the same as the Mormon God? I don't. Scholarship knows perfectly well that the Catholic God is a marriage of Greek and Christian theology.

If you don’t care about the topic of this thread, why are you posting here? Alas, your intentions to present your own agenda, as my magician analogy suggested, are becoming clearer and clearer. My plea to Mormon missionaries in my original argument was a primary reason for posting the argument. Whether you care or not, I care not; the fact is that Mormon missionaries quickly baptize many former-Christians (I hope a lack of clarification of the word “Christians” here doesn’t exceed your understanding) without even discussing the significant differences of theology, in regards to God’s essence. Like car salesmen, they get converts to sign on to the deal before the high price hits the wallet.

That's an excellent way to dance around and wave your arms without producing a teaspoon of evidence to support your assertions.

Again, I do not have the time, nor wish to waste thread space to produce the evidence you seek, and why should I as you are the one deviating from the topic? I will say this: you possess little real knowledge of the time and my guess is the trite arguments you spouted about Constantine and the Nicene Creed are little more than the drivel you read from Mormon authors. Read- Kelly, “Early Christian Doctrine,” Jaroslav Pelikan, “The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600)”, Grillmeier, “Christ in Christian Tradition,” for a genuine education in History. As for this:

Creatio ex nihilo did not exist in the Jewish or Christian worlds until the second century AD. Not a respectable scholar in the world thinks otherwise. You may believe they taught it originally, but no facts support that theory.

Every single sentence here is wrong:

* Creatio ex nihilo existed in the Jewish world at least as early as the 2nd century BC

* There are many respectable scholars in the world who believe this

* There are indeed facts supporting the theory, and the passage in 2 Maccabees 7 is one of those facts

Fortigurn has already done an excellent job of proving the utter stupidity of these assertions. Nothing more needs to be said.

Well according to more scriptures (Exodus 22:28 - Thou shalt not revile the gods; Psalm 82:1 - God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods; Psalm 82:6 - I have said, Ye are gods; John 10:33-34 - Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?) say there are many. Now, do we dive headfirst into the hermeneutic circle by using onoe scripture to interpret the other, or do we try to figure out what was really going on? You clearly choose to wander aimlessly in the hermeneutic circle.

Exodus 22:28 in the NIV reads “Do not blaspheme God, or curse the ruler of your people.” No problems there
Psalm 82:1, 82:6 According to NIV scholars, in the context of culture, time and in the language of the Old Testament, rulers and judges working for the One God can be given the title ‘gods.’ At any rate, even if you reject the NIV interpretation, the existence of ‘gods’ wouldn’t logically force you to reject the doctrine of the Trinity. It is easy to see that ‘gods’ (if they exist in another way than the NIV scholars describe) would still be inferior to an Omnipotent God, (Omnipotent being necessarily implies One) whom Christians also believe is Trinitarian.
John 10:33-34 Jesus is quoting from Psalm 82:6, which I have already given an accepted scholarly interpretation of the meaning of ‘god,’ which means ruler appointed by God. I will quote this passage and also include John 10:35-36(a), as it will help clarify, replacing the word ‘god’ with ‘ruler appointed by God,’ since according to the NIV scholars, the two are interchangeable.
“ ‘We are not stoning you for any of these,’ replied the Jews, ‘but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.’ Jesus answered them, ‘Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are [rulers appointed by God]. If he called them [rulers appointed by god], to whom the word of God came—and scripture cannot be broken—what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?” Clearly no problem here with the NIV interpretation.

Not if you read the Bible. There is only one scripture in all the Bible that explains in exactly what why the three of them are one. It's in John 17 when Christ prays that we may all be one in Christ as he is one with the Father. Unless your theology believes that we will all morph into one consubstantial uber-God, then you are mistaken. We must figure out how the three are one in a way that agrees with this scripture. The only way to reconcile them is to understand that the three are one in purpose, perfection and glory, but not in substance. Your logic is flawed on so many levels.

The relevant passages are John 17:11,21-22 the NIV reads “I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name- the name you gave me- so that they may be one as we are one.” And “that all of them may be one Father, just as you are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me.”
All of this can be understood in the context you described, with a few modifications; 1) the passage says nothing explicitly about perfection, so we won’t include that 2) I will classify being one in purpose, sharing God’s glory, etc. as a mystical interpretation of the passage, as opposed to a substantial interpretation. A substantial interpretation would mean we would all be one substance; the interpretation you imply I would logically need to have if I accept the doctrine of the Trinity and the infallibility of scripture.
I agree the content of this prayer was meant in the "mystical," not "substantial" sense. You fail to see, however, that this has no impact on the doctrine of the Trinity or the nature of God. God is “one” in more that one way, the three persons are one in purpose, community, love, etc, etc, etc, but also, unique from all creation, they are also one in being. So this passage simply can be understood to mean that Jesus is speaking of one-ness in the former rather than latter sense. This also has no impact on any of the scriptural references I sited supporting belief in the Trinity.

This last point seems to have been the climax of all of your arguments, tragically leaving you better off to have said nothing at all.

[_maklelan]

Indeed, in my original argument, I termed the God described as Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent, Infinite, Creator (ex nihilo), and Trinity as “Christian God.” You imply from this response that “Christian” is not an appropriate title for this God, and most likely believe the “God” of Mormonism (one of many, bodily, infinite and organizer of the universe) is more appropriately termed “Christian.” In any case, you’re ignorance is not worth the words or thread space to prove to you why you are wrong. If you insist, let us instead term the Trinitarian God as the “Catholic-Greek Orthodox-Lutheran-Pentecostal-Methodist-Baptist-Presbyterian-Anglecan God,” as this more accurately represents the many churches who accept this doctrine.

Excellent.

If you don’t care about the topic of this thread, why are you posting here?

Because I want to bring a little scholarly consideration into this discussion, plus, you're creating a false impression with your post. If you don't want me here then ask me to leave. It's your thread, and I'll respect that.

Again, I do not have the time, nor wish to waste thread space to produce the evidence you seek,

Wow, I must be wrong then.

Fortigurn has already done an excellent job of proving the utter stupidity of these assertions. Nothing more needs to be said.

That's a joke.

Exodus 22:28 in the NIV reads “Do not blaspheme God, or curse the ruler of your people.” No problems there

Except for the fact that this translation changes what the original Hebrew says. It say elohim, which means "gods." I can change the meaning of any scripture if I just ignore whaty the original text says. What a joke!

Psalm 82:1, 82:6 According to NIV scholars, in the context of culture, time and in the language of the Old Testament, rulers and judges working for the One God can be given the title ‘gods.’

And they're wrong. That was never its connotation. Christ quoted this scripture in the New Testament, and of the Greek there can be no mistake. It reads "gods."

The relevant passages are John 17:11,21-22 the NIV reads “I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name- the name you gave me- so that they may be one as we are one.” And “that all of them may be one Father, just as you are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me.”
All of this can be understood in the context you described, with a few modifications;

I see. Scripture doesn't dictate doctrine, doctrine dictates scripture. What a joke.

2) I will classify being one in purpose, sharing God’s glory, etc. as a mystical interpretation of the passage, as opposed to a substantial interpretation. A substantial interpretation would mean we would all be one substance; the interpretation you imply I would logically need to have if I accept the doctrine of the Trinity and the infallibility of scripture.[/'quote]

Yeah because, as you can see above, it is to be the same "oneness" that Christ has with the Father.

God is “one” in more that one way, the three persons are one in purpose, community, love, etc, etc, etc, but also, unique from all creation, they are also one in being. So this passage simply can be understood to mean that Jesus is speaking of one-ness in the former rather than latter sense.

See above.

[Mayan Elephant]

this message was posted by mistake, please ignore

[_Aquinas]

Because I want to bring a little scholarly consideration into this discussion, plus, you're creating a false impression with your post. If you don't want me here then ask me to leave. It's your thread, and I'll respect that.

Do what you want to, but don't expect me not to hold you accountable for hijacking the topic.

Again, I do not have the time, nor wish to waste thread space to produce the evidence you seek,

Wow, I must be wrong then.

Taking something I said out of context? Not really surprising given your interpretation of Biblical passages. Here is the entirety of what I said:

Again, I do not have the time, nor wish to waste thread space to produce the evidence you seek, and why should I as you are the one deviating from the topic? I will say this: you possess little real knowledge of the time and my guess is the trite arguments you spouted about Constantine and the Nicene Creed are little more than the drivel you read from Mormon authors. Read- Kelly, “Early Christian Doctrine,” Jaroslav Pelikan, “The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600)”, Grillmeier, “Christ in Christian Tradition,” for a genuine education in History. As for this:

Fortigurn has already done an excellent job of proving the utter stupidity of these assertions. Nothing more needs to be said.

That's a joke.

Demonstrating your sound logic here I see. Sadly, this is probably as close to an argument on this issue as you have come.

Exodus 22:28 in the NIV reads “Do not blaspheme God, or curse the ruler of your people.” No problems there

Except for the fact that this translation changes what the original Hebrew says. It say elohim, which means "gods." I can change the meaning of any scripture if I just ignore whaty the original text says. What a joke!

Even if the Greek reads 'god,' it's an accurate interpretation as far as scholarship is concerned, see below:

And they're wrong. That was never its connotation. Christ quoted this scripture in the New Testament, and of the Greek there can be no mistake. It reads "gods."

NIV scholars don't contend that the word "gods" is used incorrectly, only that the word can be used for rulers and judges for God. Read what I wrote more carefully. Are you a Biblical scholar that we should trust your interpretations over the NIV translators? What is your PH.D. in again? Can you cite another interpretation for us and show that it is more accurate? Please spare us the stupidity of following this reasoning to its traditional end, "the Bible is mistranslated and corrupted." What an easy way to get out of arguments.

All of this can be understood in the context you described, with a few modifications;

I see. Scripture doesn't dictate doctrine, doctrine dictates scripture. What a joke.

Your continual misunderstanding of what I write is boring. I've given up on you here, but anyone else who might be reading just read the entirety of what I wrote to see what I meant, it's not even worth further comment.

2) I will classify being one in purpose, sharing God’s glory, etc. as a mystical interpretation of the passage, as opposed to a substantial interpretation. A substantial interpretation would mean we would all be one substance; the interpretation you imply I would logically need to have if I accept the doctrine of the Trinity and the infallibility of scripture.[/'quote]

Yeah because, as you can see above, it is to be the same "oneness" that Christ has with the Father

God is “one” in more that one way, the three persons are one in purpose, community, love, etc, etc, etc, but also, unique from all creation, they are also one in being. So this passage simply can be understood to mean that Jesus is speaking of one-ness in the former rather than latter sense.

See above.

Again, boring.... plain to even the ignorant that we can have more than one sense of "oneness" here, which was the point of the whole argument.Yes, we can see your ignorance (yawn). What tired responses to good arguments.

[_maklelan]

Again, boring.... plain to even the ignorant that we can have more than one sense of "oneness" here

Yes we can, but the Bible only gives one. Are you comfortable with that eisegesis?