Mormonism is not "Christianity"

[_maklelan]

No. Again: these are assertions, rather than arguments.

I'm not going to take the time necessary to fully flesh out arguments for each of these assertions when all that is really necessary is to point out that those ideas simply do not appear in the New Testament. If you disagree then please point to some texts in the New Testament that you believe do support these ideas. That takes much less time and cuts right to the heart of the argument.

[_maklelan]

Romans 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

This isn't a very good translation. The Greek reads ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν. A better rendering would be "to whom belong the fathers, and from whom is the Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever, amen." Connecting θεὸς to the relative pronoun is unwarranted and reads the Trinity into a text where it's really not found.

[_ezravan]

Romans 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

This isn't a very good translation. The Greek reads ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν. A better rendering would be "to whom belong the fathers, and from whom is the Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever, amen." Connecting θεὸς to the relative pronoun is unwarranted and reads the Trinity into a text where it's really not found.

What a ingenious game of repunctuation, Erasmus would be proud of you. Your speaking of the liberal RSV and scholars translation, which is about punctuation. Conservative scholars were almost unanimous in their opposition to this translation. They have cleverly placed a period after "Christ" (...Christ. God who is over all be blessed forever!) or after "over all" (...Christ, who is over all. God be blessed forever!). If you get down to the nitty gritty, the reason they sate for punctuating it like so, is because Paul never makes a claim so grandiose, it's un-paul like.

Look at the parallel 1:3-4 , and we would expect paul to make a claim to divinity in 9:5 (paraphrase)
"As to His humanity He is of the seed of David, but as to His deity, He is the unique Son of God!"

Now 9:5
As to His humanity He came out of Israel, but as to His deity, He is over all, God blessed forever!"

This isn't a very good translation

According to you.

Some others letters need repunctuation

Titus 2:13
13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

Colossians 2:9
9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

[_Paloma]

Maklelan, thanks for all those sources! It's been many years since I lived the life of a student and accessed journals in the library, but I will one day get to it, especially since I still have graduate library privileges at a theological seminary near where I live. It will be several months before I can get around to that kind of reading, with my work and family schedule. But I appreciate having the references you gave, and will explore those areas when I have more time.

Which ideologies do you believe extend back all the way to the beginning of the Christian religion and exclude Mormonism?

I don't have a lot of time now, since I just got home from work not long ago, and I'm going away for the weekend. Off the top of my head I would mention monotheism (in continuity with Judaism and something that was seen as an imperative within Christianity when it became the underpinnings of the Three in One doctrine of the Trinity).

Also, God as transcendent Creator of all.

Also, salvation through faith, not works. (I'm not convinced that this would exclude Mormonism. While Mormonism appears to me (as it does to many non-Mormon Christians) to stress works, I think there's a great deal of emphasis on faith as well. I am aware of many Mormons who trust in Jesus' work of atonement for their salvation.

Also, Christ alone as the fulfilment of the Law and the old covenant. (Thinking primarily of the Book of Hebrews here where Christ is shown to be far above all of the Jewish systems (including priesthood) and sacrifices.)

Maklaelan wrote:
"But one could very easily say that Catholic and Protestant Christianity are too widely divergent from the "historic Christianity" of the first century CE to be included. Why do you believe that Catholic and Protestant Christianity get to be the reference point?"

Sorry I don't have time to answer this in as thoughtful a way as I'd like. A quick answer that is admittedly incomplete would be that there is to my understanding a complete lack of the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young before they introduced Mormon ideologies and practice to the modern world.

Maklelan wrote:

"I do not try to exclude other groups with Mormon roots from the term, and I don't believe they should be."

That shows consistency and integrity. Good for you!

[_Paloma]

But I also understand that ínclusion is not what is sought by Mormons. Mormonism doesn't want to be seen as belonging within orthodox Christianity, but rather as the one true Christian church, I understand. I wonder if Mormons should make that abundantly clear, just as the modern LDS Church tries to make it widely understood that other groups derived from Mormon roots (and especially the FLDS) are not Mormon.

Do you think in that claim that the Mormon church teaches that other Christian sects are indeed not actually Christian?

Jason, I think there's a troubling disconnect between the doctrines of the church and what I hear members say to each other (when I've been close enough to them to blend in with the Mormon landscape) and how they appear to the rest of the world when they appear to have more of an open and inclusive stance with mainstream Christianity. My experience and observations are limited, but that's my impression.

[_mormonx]

There is a excellent debate by the great Walter Martin on this. Look up Walter Martin debate are Mormons Christian? He seems to put allot of weight on early creeds being the guide. I don't really agree, but on both sides there were some good points. The Mormon focused on the "ye are gods" psalm 82 stuff saying the early church fathers talked about men becoming gods (actualy like god). Walter didn't respond much but put article up countering the early fathers statements, by simply putting them in context. Interesting debate.

[_cksalmon]

No. Again: these are assertions, rather than arguments.

I'm not going to take the time necessary to fully flesh out arguments for each of these assertions...

Apparently not, but I have to wonder why you deem it unnecessary to argue for your unargued assertions.

...when all that is really necessary is to point out that those ideas simply do not appear in the New Testament.

But, this is, again, far from being "all that is really necessary," merely a restatement of your assumption.

Let's review your positive claim: "The Nicene Creed thoroughly excludes the authors of the New Testament."

In making this claim, you've incurred a commitment to its truth. Asking that you actually argue for your thesis may seem onerous. And, I agree that it would be a time-consuming, even a near-herculean, task. But, then, it's your claim, and if you expect it to be taken seriously, you'll need to construct an argument to it, rather than merely assuming it in your conclusion. Again: You're begging the question. You may construct an argument for it or withdraw it from consideration.

If you disagree then please point to some texts in the New Testament that you believe do support these ideas. That takes much less time and cuts right to the heart of the argument.

It may take much less time for you, mak, but, no, it wouldn't cut right to the heart of the argument. For review, your thesis is this: "The Nicene Creed thoroughly excludes the authors of the New Testament."

Asking me to disprove your positive statement, when your positive statement is the very thing under review, again, begs the question. That's not cricket.

One obvious line of counterargumentation would be that the Nicene framers presumably felt compelled by the total witness of scripture to employ Nicene language in defense of clearly-perceived scriptural evidences and inferences therefrom. That may be circumstantial evidence. But, it's more than you've provided.

[_maklelan]

What a ingenious game of repunctuation, Erasmus would be proud of you. Your speaking of the liberal RSV and scholars translation, which is about punctuation.

It's only about punctuation in English, and the KJV and several other translations agree with me.

Conservative scholars were almost unanimous in their opposition to this translation.

In other words, the only scholars who agree with the trinitarian reading are those scholars who are bound to trinitarianism by their religious tradition. And what do you imagine this indicates?

They have cleverly placed a period after "Christ" (...Christ. God who is over all be blessed forever!) or after "over all" (...Christ, who is over all. God be blessed forever!). If you get down to the nitty gritty, the reason they sate for punctuating it like so, is because Paul never makes a claim so grandiose, it's un-paul like.

No, the issue is that the word order makes more sense reading the two individual identifications separately, and the phrase εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας doesn't fit very well with the notion of Christ's identification as God. It seems to imply that his identification as God is not necessarily eternal. On the other hand, if we read it as "God blessed forever," it makes perfect sense. That's a state that is not necessarily presupposed to be eternal.

Look at the parallel 1:3-4 , and we would expect paul to make a claim to divinity in 9:5 (paraphrase)
"As to His humanity He is of the seed of David, but as to His deity, He is the unique Son of God!"

Now 9:5
As to His humanity He came out of Israel, but as to His deity, He is over all, God blessed forever!"

A claim to divinity is quite different from a claim to being God.

According to you.

According to me and many others. I'm well enough prepared to argue for my reading.

Some others letters need repunctuation

Titus 2:13
13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

It's not about punctuation, and your reading is actually the "repunctuated" one. Here the KJV and several other translations render "the great God and our savior Jesus Christ," indicating two beings. Daniel Wallace and others argue that the Granville-Sharps rule applies here, indicating the one article refers to both "God" and "savior," meaning "our" also refers to both, indicating one being. This is problematized if "God" is a proper name, though. Wallace argues it's not, but there's really little reason for that conclusion in Titus (it is anarthrous everywhere else it appears in Titus).

Colossians 2:9
9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

τῆς θεότητος means "divinity" or "the divine nature." "The Deity" appears to be an attempt to concretize an abstraction where it's really not merited.

[_ludwigm]

What a ingenious game of repunctuation, Erasmus would be proud of you. Your speaking of the liberal RSV and scholars translation, which is about punctuation.

It's only about punctuation in English, and the KJV and several other translations agree with me.

I am off topic here - but this can NOT be missed:

1. The KJV is not the best English translation. Far from it.
2. There are many other languages beyond English.

3.Punctuation...

On the importance of using parentheses
We have seen in class that by changing the parentheses we can change the meaning of a sentence that is built from atomic sentences using connectives. Should one forget about using parentheses, the sentence would become ambiguous. In everyday life, the same important role is played by punctuation marks.

It happened in the 13th century that the Hungarian king (Andreas II) was on a crusade in Jerusalem, and in his absence his wife (Gertrudis) was in control. She was a foreigner and the Hungarian aristocrats hated her for favoring Germans and Italians over locals at the royal court. But the worst thing she did was helping to cover up when her brother (Othon) raped the palatin's wife (Melinda). The palatin (Bánk) was supposed to be second after the king in the chain of command, and he decided to take revenge by plotting to kill the queen. Before taking action, however, he wanted to know how the archbishop (John, 3d in the chain of command) felt about his plan. He sent him a letter and requested a written response.

The archbishop felt very unconfortable about the question, since in the absence of the king the palatin was the boss, but it was clear that upon his return the king may retaliate. So he sent back the following sentence:

"REGINAM OCCIDERE NOLITE TIMERE BONUM EST SI OMNES CONSENTIUNT EGO NON CONTRADICO."

Conveniently, he "forgot" about punctuation marks. Here is my attempt of an English translation:

"Kill Queen you must not fear will be good if all agree I do not oppose."

Of course there are two possible readings, one for the palatin, the other for the king:

1. "REGINAM OCCIDERE, NOLITE TIMERE, BONUM EST SI OMNES CONSENTIUNT, EGO NON CONTRADICO."

("Kill Queen, you must not fear, will be good if all agree, I do not oppose.")

2. "REGINAM OCCIDERE NOLITE, TIMERE BONUM EST, SI OMNES CONSENTIUNT EGO NON, CONTRADICO."

("Kill Queen you must not, fear will be good, if all agree I do not, oppose.")

Don't be surprised, if the sentence strikes you as familiar. While looking for the Latin sentence on the Web, I came accross a research paper by a historian who claimed that this ambigous sentence was common intellectual treasure of entire medieval Europe. The famous French historian Michel Druon quotes it in a completely different (alleged) historic context, in his book on "Cursed kings".

Epilogue

If you care to know what happened next in the Hungarian story, here you go: the palatin and his fellow plotters killed the queen and the returning king turned out to be too weak to be able to do anything about it. He was even forced to issue a Golden Bull guaranteeing the rights of the Hungarian noble class. All subsequent kings were supposed to make an oath at coronation to observe this Bull. The Bull even provided a "resistance clause" according to which a king not keeping his oath could be removed from office by armed insurrection. It became the duty of the archbishop to determine whether such a situation arose. The "resistance clause" was never used, but even the Habsburgs (foreign rulers of Hungary from the late 16th century till 1918) had to live with it for 200 years before finally getting it removed from the constitution.

In the early 19th century playwright József Katona made a drama ("Bánk bán") from the story (ending with the killing of the queen) which was interpreted as an expression of anti-Habsburg sentiments. Later a Hungarian composer, Ferenc Erkel composed an opera (Verdi-style) using Katona's scenario. The "moral" of these works of art is sometimes summarized in the following ironic sentence:

"If your wife gets raped, you should have your revenge by killing the seducer's older sister."

(http://www.math.ku.edu/~hetyei/courses/520/reginam.html)

With an average (?) skill in literature, You can produce this - or this type of - sentence(s) which have different meaning with different punctuation. Blixa can be a second (The official attendant of a contestant in a duel or boxing match. See synonyms at assistant.) for me.

[_ezravan]

I am off topic here - but this can NOT be missed:

1. The KJV is not the best English translation. Far from it.

ah, ya, dugh... we all know this. RSV by their translation is a obvious bias look at there treatment of isaiah. The rsv was a liberal translation with obvious bias.

2. There are many other languages beyond English.

don't know what you mean by this. I do know that you don't have to show your copy and paste greek.. there is no need for this in this argument. We know the literal translation, all we have to decide on it's punctuation.

3.Punctuation...

On the importance of using parentheses
We have seen in class that by changing the parentheses we can change the meaning of a sentence that is built from atomic sentences using connectives. Should one forget about using parentheses, the sentence would become ambiguous. In everyday life, the same important role is played by punctuation marks.

admit to me that this is disputed by many great scholars. This is a greatly disputed topics, you give me a hand full of scholars and I will give you a equal weight of scholars that place this invisible punctuation, that was not even in existence around (was it) 500 ad. The truth is, we were left with very rudimentary punctuation. If you deny this, I deny you. It all comes down to where you place the punctuation. I read the liberal cause and if you follow it down, they finally said that they place the doxology of God there (after the period) because it was very un-paul. I've read the books and they all have the un-paul argument. How strange that doxology of God is in the middle of proving Christ's divine power over Israeli.

Code: Select all

It happened in the 13th century that the Hungarian king (Andreas II) 

I appreciate all the work you went through for this story. And, i hope to look at it all. I only studied greek for two years, and that was long ago. I am away from my computer, I'm on a iphone. I can not look at my sources and dispute this. This is what I want you to do though. Admit that this verse of romans 9:5 is in a great dispute. That the sources you claim are on the side of liberal biblical study. UI might respect you if you admit that this is by the scholars standards, a liberal view of romans 9:5. If you go on saying this is the "right" view. Then, I think you show your ignorance. I can name almost 20-30 scholars, great scholars, who disagree with your grammatical period.

I will say, you started this game in deception, saying, that it was a wrong translation. If you were honest, you would have said it is a disputed translation.

good night sir.