Christianity vs Mormonism

[_GoodK]

You either believe that the Bible is the most important, true, and sacred book on Earth or you aren't really a Christian. You also either believe Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected three days later or you aren't a Christian.

Again, this is a false assertion. The second part might be true, but the first is not.

No. It is not false. Even the LDS church believes it:

"The truth is that the Church reveres the Bible as a sacred volume of scripture. Latter-day Saints cherish its teachings and engage in a lifelong study of its divine wisdom...Thus, the Bible is much more than simply a collection of antiquated writings and revelations that have only scant relevance to the modern world. On the contrary, it stands in the center of the Latter-day Saints’ spiritual lives."

http://newsroom.LDS.org/ldsnewsroom/eng ... -the-bible

(this link was already posted, thanks to who ever did)

If you didn't have the Bible, you would have no way of knowing who Jesus Christ was. Will you also call that a false assertion?

[_the road to hana]

You either believe that the Bible is the most important, true, and sacred book on Earth or you aren't really a Christian. You also either believe Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected three days later or you aren't a Christian.

Again, this is a false assertion. The second part might be true, but the first is not.

No. It is not false. Even the LDS church believes it:

"The truth is that the Church reveres the Bible as a sacred volume of scripture. Latter-day Saints cherish its teachings and engage in a lifelong study of its divine wisdom...Thus, the Bible is much more than simply a collection of antiquated writings and revelations that have only scant relevance to the modern world. On the contrary, it stands in the center of the Latter-day Saints’ spiritual lives."

http://newsroom.LDS.org/ldsnewsroom/eng ... -the-bible

(this link was already posted, thanks to who ever did)

That would be me.

If you didn't have the Bible, you would have no way of knowing who Jesus Christ was. Will you also call that a false assertion?

That wasn't your assertion. Your assertion was, "You either believe that the Bible is the most important, true and sacred book on Earth or you aren't really a Christian."

You have two difficulties in that proposition. First, you have to define what you mean by "true," which thus far on this thread, you have only assigned to "literal."

Second, the early Christians actually had a statement of faith to be professed by those seeking baptism, which included the requirements of belief that the faith included. Here's the earliest version of that (in English translation):

I believe in God the Father almighty;
and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord,
Who was born from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,
Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried,
on the third day rose again from the dead,
ascended to heaven,
sits at the right hand of the Father,
whence He will come to judge the living and the dead;
and in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Church,
the remission of sins,
the resurrection of the flesh
(the life everlasting)

Nope, nothing about the Bible in there.


Versions of that later developed into other statements of faith that have been adopted by the bulk of mainstream Christianity to reflect what constitutes adherence to the Christian faith and being a part of the Christian community, and continue to be used for that purpose today:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.

No, nothing about the Bible there.

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
of all that is, seen and unseen.


We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.

Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.

He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Nope, still nothing about the Bible there, either. Those are the generally accepted requirements for being considered a Christian, or part of the Christian community.

[_Jason Bourne]

Jesus, I think yes was literal.

Was he the literal son of God, born of a virgin? Did he preform the miracles attributed to him? Did he pay for our sins? Is he our merdiator with the father? Is he God in the flesh? Did he rise from the dead? Why do you accept these things as literal but not other Bible stories?

Did he die for our sins and rise from the grave, yes I think so. I see nothing in the time frame that wrote in protest of Christianity. When the Gospels were authored, I see no other type of writing that discredits them. Of course there was alot going on in 1st Century times.

There is no proof of the Exodus unless it is viewed in terms of another time frame where some folks seem to think it fits nicely.

What impact does this have for the idea the Israel was God's chosen nation? How does that impact the doctrines the the redeemer would come through Israel.

You ask what happens when you start to chip away at literalism. Jason Bourne, I'm shocked by that question. Do you seriously take the entire Bible literally?

I am shocked that you dodged the question. I am not sure my point of view is relevant here really. But I will answer and the answer is no for some and I am not sure for others. And the fact that I may not take literally what perhaps I did at one point has impacted my religious views. The verdict is out on where that may lead. Some of these questions I bring up because I wonder what impact the answer may have on my on faith.

The Bible is a collection of books, Jason. Are you saying that we need to look at the entire body of work in an either/or view?

Yes I know Jersey Girl, what the Bible is.

Would you place that same stipulation on the Revelation? If the Revelation is symbolic do you you think the rest of the Bible needs to be viewed symbolically? Are the Table of Tribes symbolic?

Some things are clearly symbolic and are plainly written as such. The creation, Adam, Eve, Flood, Abraham, Exodus and so on were not told in symbolic terminology and I doubt any of the ancients viewed them as such. Do you have evidence the prophets and apostles that wrote the Bible viewed Adam and Eve as allegory? How about the flood?

[_Jersey Girl]

GoodK

This is a common canard from defenders of religious dogma. You either believe that the Bible is the most important, true, and sacred book on Earth or you aren't really a Christian. You also either believe Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected three days later or you aren't a Christian.

While you continue to speak in generalities you continue to fail to respond to the statements that I made. Your "either/or" statements are irrelevant to the post I made. Nowhere in my statements did I discuss "important/true/or sacred". Of what relevance are "important/true or sacred" to the comments I offered?

Was this an attempt to respond to the post that I made? You quoted it.

[_Abinadi's Fire]

Was he the literal son of God, born of a virgin? Did he preform the miracles attributed to him? Did he pay for our sins? Is he our mediator with the father? Is he God in the flesh? Did he rise from the dead? Why do you accept these things as literal but not other Bible stories?

If there is a God and a mediator between God and man, "satisfying the demands of justice and mercy," these are certainly characterstics one might expect him to have.

It's a good point, though - if a person accepts the feeding of the five thousand or turning water into wine as literal, then why not accept the rest?

[_Jason Bourne]

Huck notes,
I think that it is entirely possible to teach a true ideas making a parallel to a fictional character. One could compare a polotician to Mcbeth if appropriate and not decrease the reality of the politician because he is compared to a fiction. I think it is clear that the book of Job is fiction from word one to the last word. Some people have made comparisons of Job and Jesus. Jesus does not become less real because of this comparison. It could even be imagined that my estimation of Job could be wrong. If Job was a real person that would not be evidence that Jesus was. That second part has to be looked at on its own merits.

You point out that there are specific doubious events that people have understood in the past as literal events and that that literal understanding is the foundation of critical Christian beliefs. I would not doubt that many people in the past took some stories far more literally than I do. I do not think it is possible to know how literally Jesus understood the flood, he may well have assumed it literal. Science and history have learned a few things in the past two thousand years. The second point is a parallel to the comparison of real and fictional people. If Adam is a character in a fiction Jesus atonement is not made unreal by Pauls comparison, as in Adam so in Jesus. There would be something real in Adam for the Christian doctrines to work. I think that is our condition of being shaped by a history of evil. I think that centeral observation is objectively true(porvided one is sensible enough to allow that people are more than that problem and have possitive possiblities as well) I see the problem of human evil, which the fall story pictures, to be real enough that I do not see the fictional dimension of the Adam story as changing the understanding or the problem. I believe Jesus to be real, the problem of sin to be real, so am not troubled by the fact that the first humans would more likely be a related population instead of an immortal couple. (this is probably one of several reasons I think the Mormon notion that Adam fell that men might be is a bit of a dead horse)
..................
Not one person has answered my question about Adam and Eve, the Fall and the resulting need for Christ. This is Christianity 101. The apostle Paul's arguments for a literal savior are rooted in a literal read of the scriptures he had then. If the flood was not literal was Adam and Eve? if not was the Exodus? How about Abraham and the covenant? What about Jesus? Was he real? The son of God literally? Did he need to save us or is this all just figurative. Did he die for your sins and rise from the dead? If you start dismantling what is literal and what is not where does it stop?
........
Huck notes,
Where does it stop? I do not see any reason to believe that if one part of the Bible is fiction then all of it is. Sounds paranoic, pardon the word. The Bible is composed of a variety of kinds of writing. Jesus told parables does that mean we should think his actual actions fiction? There is no rational connection. If something we are told about him is a fiction that would be a characteristic of some particular story not the fact that some other story like Job is fiction.

Lke Jersey Girl I can list various things in the Bible which I think are history instead of fiction. it is no fiction that Jerusalem was defeated by Babylon. It may not fit argument but for my own mind it is important to notice that all history has some overlapping qualities with fiction. It seems to me that the treatment of history in the Bible concentrates on turning even the soberest of facts into parables.Some places that process in subdued as in Kings or Samuel. Someplaces that processt is so strong that one may be unsure of the actual course of events as in the Exodus. However I do not see that as a loss. It is the substance of the parables that I value in that process.
...............

Huck

My main point is this. The whole doctrine of Christianity, the need for Jesus and a savior is based on the idea that God created and intended paradise for his creatures-us-to live in. It was perfect. But the the man and woman blew it. They sinned and rejected God. Sin came into the world, humans are born fallen, and so now God will redeem us be sending His Son.

If man evolved and was never in perfection and never fell then how can we be punished for having a sinful nature? And why would we need to be redeemed? THe main point is the base of Christianity seems to be built on a literal view of what the Old Testament teaches. Christian teachers claim the whole history of the Old Testament and God's dealings with humans and then with Israel were a type and shadow and the foundation of the whole plan from beginning, and then to end with the book of Revelation. If it is not real then what of it is. If you start unraveling it why stop. Can one really say that most of what we read in the Old Testament is not literal and then claim that the fantastic things about Jesus are real and literal?]

Above you say:

I do not think it is possible to know how literally Jesus understood the flood, he may well have assumed it literal. Science and history have learned a few things in the past two thousand years.

WOw. So Jesus, the person who created the world. who allegedly spoke to the Old Testament prophets may have assumed the flood was literal and been wrong? This is pretty big error for the person who is God in the flesh. Do you see what I am trying to get at here?

[_Jason Bourne]

I have one question for you...was the aspects of "types" (and I added "shadows") taught to you in your church or is that a result of your own personal study?

Some was taught by my church. I understood it better as I pursued my own religious studies. Certainly that concept of Abraham and Isaac being a type and shadow was taught. Other less obvious ones were not.

[_Jason Bourne]

Not one person has answered my question about Adam and Eve, the Fall and the resulting need for Christ. This is Christianity 101.

Sorry, Jason, I didn't even notice this post until I saw Jersey Girl responding to it later in the thread.

If you go back a few pages, I think you'll find I did at least attempt to respond to your question about Adam and Eve, the Fall and the resulting need for a Savior/messiah. I pointed you in the direction of some entries from the Jewish Encyclopedia to (1) demonstrate to you that one doesn't need to have a Christian perspective to believe there was a Fall, requiring a messiah (since Jews also believe this), and (2) demonstrate to you that belief in "Adam" and "Eve" is not necessarily belief in two particular individuals who had those names, but can be construed as a more generic belief in "first parents," at the beginning of recorded human history.

Maybe none of that helped you. But I did try to respond to your question, whether it was helpful or not.

**************

Edited to add: I went to the entry on "Adam" in the Catholic Encyclopedia and found this, which you might find interesting (I recommend reading the entire article for context of the comments, but this paragraph was noteworthy in light of the previous post I made to you regarding the Jewish Encyclopedia entries):

It is a well-known fact that, partly from a desire to satisfy pious curiosity by adding details to the too meagre biblical accounts, and partly with ethical intent, there grew up in later Jewish as well as in early Christian and Mohammedan tradition a luxuriant crop of legendary lore around the names of all the important personages of the Old Testament. It was therefore only natural that the story of Adam and Eve should receive special attention and be largely developed by this process of embellishment. These additions, some of which are extravagant and puerile, are chiefly imaginary, or at best based on a fanciful understanding of some slight detail of the sacred narrative. Needless to say that they do not embody any real historic information, and their chief utility is to afford an example of the pious popular credulity of the times as well as of the slight value to be attached to the so-called Jewish traditions when they are invoked as an argument in critical discussion. Many rabbinical legends concerning our first parents are found in the Talmud, and many others were contained in the apocryphal Book of Adam now lost, but of which extracts have come down to us in other works of a similar character (see MAN). The most important of these legends, which it is not the scope of the present article to reproduce, may be found in the Jewish Encyclopedia, I, art. "Adam", and as regards the Christian legends, in Smith and Wace, Dictionary of Christian Biography, s.v.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01129a.htm

Thank you. Some good thoughts to mull over. May I ask Hana, are you now Catholic?

[_marg]

Jason wrote: "My main point is this. The whole doctrine of Christianity, the need for Jesus and a savior is based on the idea that God created and intended paradise for his creatures-us-to live in. It was perfect. But the the man and woman blew it. They sinned and rejected God. Sin came into the world, humans are born fallen, and so now God will redeem us be sending His Son.

If man evolved and was never in perfection and never fell then how can we be punished for having a sinful nature? And why would we need to be redeemed? THe main point is the base of Christianity seems to be built on a literal view of what the Old Testament teaches. Christian teachers claim the whole history of the Old Testament and God's dealings with humans and then with Israel were a type and shadow and the foundation of the whole plan from beginning, and then to end with the book of Revelation. If it is not real then what of it is. If you start unraveling it why stop. Can one really say that most of what we read in the Old Testament is not literal and then claim that the fantastic things about Jesus are real and literal?"


Jason you make excellent points above. It seems to me that a core essential feature of Christianity is the notion of "sin". I don't believe there is the concept of "sin" within Judaism. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't that notion evolve from the unique Christian interpretation of the Biblical story Adam and Eve, in which that story is interpreted literally not as an allegory? Wouldn't one have to accept pretty much the whole Adam and Eve storyline of eating from a Tree of Knowledge against God's advice, literally, if one accepts the essential Christian tenets?

[_huckelberry]

Huck,
My main point is this. The whole doctrine of Christianity, the need for Jesus and a savior is based on the idea that God created and intended paradise for his creatures-us-to live in. It was perfect. But the the man and woman blew it. They sinned and rejected God. Sin came into the world, humans are born fallen, and so now God will redeem us be sending His Son.

If man evolved and was never in perfection and never fell then how can we be punished for having a sinful nature? And why would we need to be redeemed? THe main point is the base of Christianity seems to be built on a literal view of what the Old Testament teaches. Christian teachers claim the whole history of the Old Testament and God's dealings with humans and then with Israel were a type and shadow and the foundation of the whole plan from beginning, and then to end with the book of Revelation. If it is not real then what of it is. If you start unraveling it why stop. Can one really say that most of what we read in the Old Testament is not literal and then claim that the fantastic things about Jesus are real and literal?]

Above you say:

I do not think it is possible to know how literally Jesus understood the flood, he may well have assumed it literal. Science and history have learned a few things in the past two thousand years.

WOw. So Jesus, the person who created the world. who allegedly spoke to the Old Testament prophets may have assumed the flood was literal and been wrong? This is pretty big error for the person who is God in the flesh. Do you see what I am trying to get at here?

"big error for the person who is God in the flesh."

Jason, for years I believed that the above comment disproved Christianisty. things like it convinced me for wll over a decade that Christianity was false and best avioided. Now it took a number of consderations coming together for me to change from such a straightforward simple things as atheism. But none of the contirbuting factors would have gotten my mind past this proof without a serious reconsideration of is involved there.

What happened for me is that I found myself reflectiong that the traditional doctrine is that Jesus as not just true God but was also in the flesh truely human. I had wondered what that meant. Did it only mean that he ate food and had a physical body like ours. I wondered so what. How does that mean he shares our actual experience? We live with real fear and real ignorance. Those may not be our favorite aspects of human life, but I think the fact we do not know all kinds of things is a fundamental shaping reality to our lives. We make decisions, we do not actually know what the outcome is going to be. We can be afraid because of that. We can be selfish because of that. We are self protective and shortshighted because of that.

I feel quite sure that unless Jesus had to live with ignorance like we do the ideas that he was tempted as we are, that he experinced what we experience, that he was human would all be cruel jokes. A Jesus in possession of divine knowledeg is not a saviour but charade serviing only to condemn us and that not fairly. I think to combine any Christian doctirne with the idea that Jesus was running about knowing everthing renders them absurd. He would not be one of us.

But in fact Christian doctrine is that Jesus was truly human and one with us. Therefore the only honest conclusion is that he knew things like everybody else at that time. Clueless about chemistry. Clueless about dinosaurs. I do not think Christianity has been inclined to emphasis Jesus ignorance, it is impolite. However it is the only doorway that I can see through which to believe in him as the Christ.