bcspace wrote:Yes, Jesus is indeed Mormon as the LDS Church is the Heavenly Church restored back to earth from the Universal Apostasy.
BH>>For example, can Mormons show us where Christ ever taught:
1.) the Jesus-Satan brotherhood
2.) polygamy
3.) polytheism
4.) That God the Father is a mere demigod
5.) Adam is God
6.) That men can become Gods, just as all Gods before them did
7.) That men become Gods by, in part, learning secret handshakes and passwords and participating in 17th century revisions of ancient Babylonian initiation rites?
BC>We can eliminate 3 right off the bat since the LDS Church does not teach polytheism; rather we teach the plurality of Gods just like the Bible and the early Orthodox Christians did.
Belief in a "plurality of Gods"
IS "polytheism"
by definition, son.
Secondly, you have yet to show us that the Early Christians were polytheists as you just claimed. Such an empty assertion may fool Mormons, but you cannot fool even the minimally conscious with such lame antics.
We can eliminate 4; have no idea what you are talking about here.
Well you should. The LDS "prophet" and his organization have proclaimed that God the Father was a mortal man who was "exalted" to deity at some point. That is the very definition of a "demigod" - an exalted or deified man or creature.
We can also eliminate 5 right off the bat since the LDS Church does not, nor has it ever, taught that Adam is God the Father.
It has been shown that BY actually proposed an Adam Sr/Adam Jr hypothesis (also not doctrinal).
Who do you think you are fooling? Can you at least grant me the recognition that I know how to read English? Young explicitly stated that Adam was ""our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do". Of course today, your church has tried to distance itself from its own prophet. But don't even pretend that I cannot understand his words.
As for the rest, your first problem is that the Bible itself does not claim to be the only and complete word of God, therefore, it is intellectually dishonest to expect all Christian (LDS are the only body of Christ by the way) doctrine to be contained in the Bible. Rather, the Bible teaches that continuing and modern revelation via prophets and the Church organization is the way doctrine is revealed and disseminated and the Bible also refers to other works of scripture which are no longer extant but from which the early Orthodox Christians referred.
Fallacy: argument from silence. What the Bible does NOT claim cannot stand as evidence of a positive assertion. Basic logic here, Mormon. Secondly, your church has consistently taught for at least most of its history that it alone is the one and only true church. You know it and I know it, so this novel approach that the LDS church is just another denomination of Christianity is quite hollow. Finally, whether the Bible teaches that continuing revelation is to add doctrine by means of the office of a "prophet" is a highly dubious claim. But even if true, that does NOT mean that YOUR "prophetic" claims are true. Heck, Sun Myung Moon claims to have revealed new "Christian" doctrine, too. Why are you not a Moonie?
Nevertheless, all you mentioned and which applies can be found directly or implicitly in the Bible as well in the teachings of the early Orthodox Christians (the esoteric rites being far older than the 17th century A.D.
1) Is Jesus a spirit? Yes. Is Satan a spirit? Yes. (Standard EV doctrine). Are the angels spirits? Yes (Hebrews 1:14). Are we spirits? Yes (James 2:26). Did God create all spirits? Yes. Therefore, we, the angels, Jesus, and even Satan (who was an angel who fell from heaven) are all spirit brothers and sisters just as the LDS Church teaches.
Apparently you did not comprehend the original challenge here. I asked for reasons to believe that Jesus himself taught the UNIQUE and DISTINGUISHING doctrines of Mormonism, which the LDS church claims to have "restored" after it was lost. The doctrine that Jesus is a spirit and even that Satan is a spirit are neither unique, nor do they in any way distinguish the LDS church, as YOU have just admitted. What the Bible does NOT teach and certainly what was never taught by Jesus is that all are spirit brothers and sisters. If you think he did (or the Bible did) I again challenge you to SHOW ME where.
2)Plural marriage: Here is a verse set which has David being reprimanded for his sin with Bath-Sheba. The Lord says through the prophet Nathan that He it was who gave David his wives (plural) in the first place and if he had wanted more, he should have asked first. 2 Samuel 12:7-11.
So how does this show that Jesus taught plural marriage, let alone the LDS "restored" doctrine that to join the pantheon of deities, one must engage in marriage or plural marriage.
3)Plurality of Gods:
Gen 1:26 "And God said, let us make man in our image..." The Creator (Jesus Christ, not the Father as per Hebrews 1:3) is speaking to another God(s).
Gen 3:22 "Behold the man is become as one of us..."
Read up on the Hebrew idiom known as the intensive plural.
Exodus 20:3-4 The first two of the Ten Commandments. The first commandment says not to have any other real and divine Gods (check your Hebrew Lexicon on "gods" in verse 3). The second commandment says not to have any idol gods (check your Hebrew Lexicon on "graven image" in verse 4). What this means is that other real and divine Gods exist but it also shows that we are to worship only one of them (not polytheism). If the Plurality of Gods doctrine were false, then there is no need for the first commandment making only nine commandments in all.
But you are not a polytheist, right? LOL ...you can't have it both ways, Mormon. You cannot claim that you are NOT a polytheist on one hand then turn around and claim that you think the Bible itself testifies to the reality of the existence of many actual, real gods. ...Actually you CAN, but you only reveal the depth of your confusion when you do.
Deuteronomy 32:8-9 NEB The Hebrews distinguished between the Gods EL (The Most High God) and Jehovah (The Lord, who is Jesus Christ) p.107
"When the Most High [EL] parceled out the nations, when he dispersed all mankind, he laid down the boundaries of every people according to the number of the sons of God; but the LORD's [Yahweh's] share was his own people, Jacob was his allotted portion. Deuteronomy 32:8-9
There are many other Old Testament verses that make that same distinction.
And all of them are clearly polemic in nature, contrasting the ONE and only true God attested by Moses, the prophets, the Messiah and his apostles throughout the Bible with the false pagan idol deities, the imaginary gods of the surrounding pagan nations.
Isaiah 9:6 Jesus is called God and Father BUT John 20:17 Jesus is NOT God THE Father.
So ...what has that to do with my challenge to you to provide me with some reasons to think that Jesus Christ ever taught the distinctive and supposedly "restored" doctrines of Mormonism???
John 1:1 Jesus is God. BUT John 20:17 Jesus has a God.
Yes. So what? That recorded biblical truth is neither unique to Mormonism, nor was it ever "lost" such that it could even POSSIBLY have been "restored".
John 7:16 Jesus said the doctrine was not his but the Father's. If the trinity hypothesis is true, then the doctrine would also be Jesus'.
Matthew 6:9 Jesus said (present tense) to pray to the Father in heaven. Not to himself (he was on the earth at the time).
Matthew 24:36 Only the Father knows when Jesus will come again.
John 17:11, 20-22 The ONLY Bible verse that describes how the Three are "one" and "in each other. One in purpose only.
1 Cor 15:27-28
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Hebrews 1:3 Jesus' Godhood is an exact copy or replica of the Father's Godhood (check your Greek Lexicon for "express image" in that verse).
Hence, while the trinity hypothesis DOES state that the Three are separate individual Persons, the Bible contradicts the trinity hypothesis saying that their "Godhood's" (Being, nature or essence of Gods) are separate and not the same.
??? What has any of these to do with the challenge posed in this thread?
Hebrews 1:8 God the Father (a God) refers to Jesus Christ as a God (another God)
... read it again. Note the total absence of any reference to "another God". Those are YOUR inferences, not the words of the author himself.
1 Corinthians 8:4-6 While there are idols AND real divine Gods, to us there is God the Father AND the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. See Exodus 20:3-4 above...
Gee ...I/m still not seeing anything unique or distinctive to the LDS here, let alone any reference to any supposedly LOST scripture or gospel truth, or even any of the several doctrines I listed above which most certainly ARE unique to the LDS church ...except when they were changed for political expediency (such as polygamy as a requirement to join the LDS pantheon) or to simply abandon what even Mormons could not stomach (the Adam God doctrine).
Rev 1:5-6 KJV (and other versions as well) Jesus has made us kings and priests unto God AND his Father.
See also Ephesians 1:17
Nope ...still not seeing anything unique to the LDS church here, nor anything that shows the Jesus taught any of the above "restored" doctines. Did you not know that its impossible to "restore" scriptures and doctrines that you yourself have just proved were never lost to begin with?
The early Orthodox Christians were insistent on the plurality of Gods as well. I'll spare you from that embarrassment for now unless you really want it. The trinity doctrine would have been heresy to them. Not even Tertullian or Theophilus were trinitarian but they do represent the changing doctrines leading to the Bible predicted Universal Apostasy of the early Christian Church.
6) Theosis. The Deification of man:
John 10: 34-36 (Ps. 82: 1-8) We are divine gods already
Acts 17: 28-29 We are the same type of being as God.
Romans 8: 17 We will inherit everything God has.
2 Corinthians 3: 18 We will have the same image and glory as God.
Galatians 4: 7 We are heirs of God through Christ.
Philippians 2:5-6 We are to think that we can be equal with God.
Philippians 3:21 We will have the same kind of body as God.
1 John 3: 2 We will be just like God.
Revelation 3: 21 We will have the same power and authority as God.
Oh God ...spare me from the dilettantes. <sigh>. This is hilarious. First you make a lame threat, then you follow it with a concrete demonstration of pure ignorance or perhaps just a serious reading comprehension disability. First of all,
none of the scriptures you cited above were "lost" and therefore could not even possibly have been "restored". Therefore none of them answers the mail here to begin with. Nevertheless, to indulge your assertions...
Secondly, as you try to reduce each of the above citations to your inference, In most cases, you have simply done what Mormons always do: ignore the CONTEXT and/or the genre of literature in your citations. Behold:
1.) Really? You are a god already?? And you justify this delusion by citing John 10:34-36 where Jesus told the Pharisees that they were already gods, since, as the context plainly shows, that is who he was talking to in Jn 10. If that is the case, and they were divine gods already, please explain what need you think they had they for Him! Indeed, if you really believe YOU are a god already, why are you bothering to remain here? (Do Mormons spell "delusional" with one "l" like everyone else"?)
2.) This is a genre error and a context error on your part. The
context reveals plainly that Paul was talking to pagan polytheists (like you) and was merely trying to establish a common ground with them by citing one of their own poets to make a rhetorical point. This is a far cry from claiming that he was a God or the same kind of being as "a" God.
3.) Romans 8:17 does not say that you or anyone will inherit everything God has. It says that the redeemed are joint heirs with Christ, and the CONTEXT makes his point: Paul is telling you that those who are saved are the children of God.
4.) 2 Cor 3:18 does not say that anyone will have the same glory as God. It says that the redeemed are indeed changed into the same "image" and from glory to glory, but nothing about being changed to having the same glory as God.
5.) Wrong again. At Phil 2:5-6, Paul was talking about Jesus being equal to God, not YOU. It is Jesus who thought it not robbery to be equal to God (because HE was/is). Paul says nothing about you or me or anyone else here being equal to God, but uses Christ's humility as an example of the mind we are to be of. This is NOT a claim that we should think of ourselves as equal to God. But go ahead, by all means, and continue to pretend that you CAN be equal to God. I am sure God will be real impressed.
6.) The antecedent of "his" here is Jesus and indeed Jesus has a resurrected and eternal body according to the Bible. Nothing unique to Mormonism here, nor was this truth ever lost. But in any case this does not say that the redeemed will have a body like God the Father. In fact, nowhere does the Bible say that God the Father has a body at all.
7.) First of all, this does not say that we shall be just like God. It says we shall be like Him. I am "like" my wife in many respects (I am human, for example). Heck I am even "like" my dog in some respects (we are both mammals for example). That does not mean that I am "just like" either of them. The only one who the Bible ever says will "appear" (φανερόω - "
phaneroo"), is Jesus Christ. The doctrine that the redeemed will have glorified bodies is in no way unique to Mormonism, nor was it ever "lost" to begin with such that you guys could even
pretend to have "restored" it.
8.) Administering the power and authority of God does not mean that you have that authority to the same degree as God. You are NOT a God no matter what kind of delusions your obscure little organization has you falling for. But again, this scripture was obviously NOT "lost" since you just cited it and it goes back a loooong way before your boy, Smith was ever even born.
As for Clement...
"Men are Gods and Gods are men."
Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 3:1
Wow. Its amazing to me that Mormons so frequently manage to snip a few words out of their context and then pretend that the highly selected sentences or even just clauses somehow reduce the original source to LDS doctrine.
It might have been at least partly convincing if you had at least cited the passage you isolated here correctly. At this point it is evident that you have been fooled into simply copying and pasting the deliberate misrepresentation of Clement prepared by Mormons for use by Momrons who have not bothered themselves to at least READ the material they are citing. Had you bothered to read Clement, instead of some Mormon's abuse of Clement's writing you would have discovered that Clement was quoting Herateclus, a pagan philosopher. Moreover, while Clement is saying that man is LIKE God, he is primarily talking about Jesus Christ as man in God and God in man. He is NOT saying that men in general (ie those other than Christ) are God or Gods (or even "gods").
"We have not been made Gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length Gods..."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:38:4, in ANF 1:522
Same problem. You have obviously failed to read Irenaeus, and have instead simply snipped a single clause taken out of context by some other Mormon. Read the context. He is talking about being LIKE god, not becoming or being ontological deities. Read it for yourself some time. But take courage because you will (or should be able to) quickly discover that in this very passage, Irenaeus refutes one of the doctrines of your organization. He writes:
Such persons know neither God nor themselves, being insatiable and ungrateful, unwilling to be at the outset what they have also been created— men subject to passions; but go beyond the law of the human race, and before that they become men, they wish to be even now like God their Creator, and they who are more destitute of reason than dumb animals insist that there is no distinction between the uncreated God and man, a creature of today.
It is, according to Irenaeus, persons who do not know God and who are destitute of reason and dumber than animals to insist (as you do) that there is no distinction between the uncreated God and man, a creature.
He goes on then to say, that men were not created as gods but become "gods". The context shows that he is talking about being "gods" in certain respects, not being a God as God has always been a God (as according to the Bible and even Irenaeus, though NOT the LDS "prophets" who maintain that God BECAME one of the Gods after being a mortal man.
"...our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, became what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5: Preface, in ANF 1:526
Ugh ... Same problem once again - a snipet removed from its context twisted to match your a-priori, without regard to the intentions of the author you are citing. There is nothing in the passage you cited that indicates Irenaeus is saying that men will share Christ's ontology. We are indeed already MANY things that Christ was (human, cogent, self-aware, intelligent, etc.) and the redeemed will indeed be things that he is, like eternal being the chief point of theiosis. But none of these makes us Gods as you have been told to "think".
All men are deemed worthy of becoming gods, and even of having power to become sons of the Highest.
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 124, in ANF 1:262
Not again! Oh brother. This is getting boring. Had you bothered to actually R E A D Justin instead of just succumbing to a programmed reaction causing you to snip a prepared mis-quoting, you might not have been fooled by those who prepared this deception for you. Read it IN CONTEXT. The point Justin is making in this passage is that Christ is indeed identified as "God" (the one and only God known to the Jews including Trypho), and that Christians are "sons of God". He is pointing out a MISINTERPRETATION among some that "all men are worthy of becoming gods". This is a REFUTATION, not an endorsement, and you have been led to simply ignore his actual point, and to isolate the very error he is trying to clarify and make it sound like he was endorsing it. Look ...if all men are worthy to become gods or indeed are "already divine gods" as you claimed, then there is no need for a gospel, let alone a supposedly "restored" gospel.
"we assert that not by their communion merely with Him, but by their unity and intermixture, they received the highest powers, and after participating in His divinity, were changed into God."
Origen, Against Celsus 3:41...
etc. etc. etc. - deceptive quote after deceptive quote ...<snip>
And on and on and on it goes. One after another - all of the usual deceptively isolated passages prepared for Mormons by their leaders, to keep them from actually reading the texts they cite with their copy-paste, boilerplate "arguments".
But ...none of them, say what your organization's parsing makes it look like they say, IF one simply puts them back in context, understands the literary genre being used and bothers to actually read what the cited authors really said. Heck, using YOUR hermeneutics, I can "prove" that the Bible teaches atheism.
Secondly, and more importantly here, none of these citations show us that Jesus taught any of the supposedly "restored" doctrines listed above. Nor do they even show that the apostles or even the early church taught what Mormons claim they did. And IF these passages DO represent LDS doctrine, then they were OBVIOUSLY not LOST, and therefore could not even possibly have been restored. The doctrine of "theiosis" is not the same thing as the doctrine of "exaltation". None of these citations in any way even begin to weakly hint at the idea that God the Father was once a man like I am now, and then somehow joined a pantheon of deities and
7) Before you try to get a primer on the esoteric rites, consider now the fact that you are not really a Christian (because your doctrine is far different from the Bible) and that the esoteric (temple) rites are closed to such. That the early Orthodox Christians had those same rites is evident by the fact that they preserved them from unbelievers like you, just like the LDS Church does:
LOL ...I am not a Christian, because my doctrine is different from the Bible? First of all, Mormon - even if that was true, it would be irrelevant to the challenge you guys are so obviously fleeing and as such this is nothing but the usual dodge that you guys are so infamous for. Secondly, my doctrine is fully and exclusively biblical, but that fact is STILL irrelevant to the challenge you are so clumsily fleeing.
And Peter said: "We remember that our Lord and Teacher, commanding us, said, 'Keep the mysteries for me and the sons of my house.' Wherefore also He explained to His disciples privately the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. But to you who do battle with us, and examine into nothing else but our statements, whether they be true or false, it would be impious to state the hidden truths."
Clementine Homilies 19:20, in ANF 8:336Sadly, this too is totally irrelevant to the challenge you are avoiding here. Nothing in this quote in any way even remotely suggests that Jesus ever taught the doctrines you attribute to him every time you claim to have "restored" his gospel with the LDS doctrines I listed above.
"For the most sublime truths are best honoured by means of silence."
Peter, in Clementine Recognitions 1:23, in ANF 8:83
Irrelevant.
But if he remains wrapped up and polluted in those sins which are manisfestly such, it does not become me to speak to him at all of the more secret and more sacred things of divine knowledge, but rather to protest and confront him, that he cease from sin, and cleanse his actions from vice.
Peter, in Clementine Recognitions 2:4, in ANF 8:98
Doesn't even mention Jesus or his teachings, let alone any of the "restored" doctrines.
"Nothing is more difficult, my brethren, than to reason concerning the truth in the presence of a mixed multitude of people. For that which is may not be spoken to all as it is, on account of those who hear wickedly and treacherously; yet it is not proper to deceive, on account of those of those who desire to hear the truth sincerely. What, then, shall he do who has to address a mixed multitude? Shall he conceal what is true? How, then, shall he instruct those who are worthy? But if he set forth pure truth to those who do not desire to obtain salvation, he does injury to Him by whom he has been sent, and from whom he has received commandment not to throw the pearls of His words before swine and dogs, who, striving against them with arguments and sophisms, roll them in the rand of carnal understanding, and by their barkings and base answers break and weary the preachers of God's word. Wherefore I also, for the most part, by using a certain circumlocution, endeavour to avoid publishing the chief knowledge concerning the Supreme Divinity to unworthy ears."
Clementine Recognitions 3:1, in ANF 8:117
Not even close. Nothing here even begins to address the question. Obviously you think that the lame old con artist trick known as the "snow job" will somehow fool non-Mormons.
It won't.
Origen differentiated between the pagan mysteries and the Christian mysteries in that Christians required that one be purified from evil for a period of time before being introduced to them:
Origen, Against Celsus 3:60, in ANF 4:488
More snow job and again totally irrelevant to the challenge you are avoiding.
Tertullian chided certain heretics for making the higher teachings available to everyone (pearls before swine type of thing): Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics 41, in ANF 3:263...
....etc. etc. etc. blah blah blah <snip>
....And on and on it goes, quote after quote - all of them saying
nothing relevant to my question. The problem is, these are all
irrelevant! None of them address the question let alone answer it.
Do you really think you can fool me by simply listing a bunch of texts as if the shear volume of words copied and pasted from some LDS website is supposed to meet my challenge to you? How is it that you do not understand my challenge? All I am asking is for you to show me that Jesus Christ taught the supposedly "restored" doctrines of your organization.
Does it not bother you that you have to stoop to such silly tactics as the above to try to fake me out? Do you really think that I am as dense as the Mormons who obviously ARE fooled by such obvious and shallow trickery?
It doesn't.
,