Mormonism is not "Christianity"

[_maklelan]

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

I haven't deemed it unnecessary to argue for an unargued assertion. I stated the academic consensus regarding the provenance of trinitarianism. I don't really feel it is necessary to build that entire argument from the ground up. If someone wants to challenge the consensus they are free to do so. I thought this was your point earlier, which is why I provided three more specific points within that consensus. I welcome specific challenges to those points, but I think it is unnecessary for me to simply cover every possible base on which I feel the consensus may be challenged when it would be much more simple for you to just point to what you believe to be the strongest points against the consensus. In any normal live academic dialogue this is perfectly commonplace. Scholars aren't interested in reinventing the wheel every time someone appeals at a conference or in a discussion to a conclusion that is widely held. If a scholar disagrees with the consensus they provide reasons why. I figured this would be acceptable.

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

This is not an assumption. This is a conclusion that I've reached after years of research and formal training and happens to be the academic consensus. Additionally, I didn't restate anything. I provided a more detailed claim. I am just looking for an indication of where specifically you'd like the argument to focus so we can save a pantload of time. I don't see much time being saved, though.

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.

And I am committed to its truth and fully prepared to back it up. I just need you to show me where the argument needs to be focused.

Asking that you actually argue for your thesis may seem onerous.

Asking me to build a comprehensive argument regarding the provenance of the notion of the Trinity from the ground up is actually very onerous, especially when it would not be very difficult at all for you to just give a short list of verses in the New Testament you believe do communicate the concepts I said were absent from it. If you would just do that, I would have an indication of where exactly I need to focus, and I would be perfectly happy to support my conclusion.

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.

I didn't think I was writing a term paper.

Again: You're begging the question. You may construct an argument for it or withdraw it from consideration.

Begging the question is basing the premise on the conclusion. I've done no such thing. I've asserted a conclusion and am waiting for a challenge that will let me know where I need to focus my argument. I don't know where the argument needs to go until you let me know where exactly you think the concepts are found. If I simply listed all the verses in the New Testament that have at one point or another been asserted to be trinitarian and then one by one responded to the claims I would be out of work and facing divorce papers, and I imagine you would ignore the majority of the verses. Rather, I figured it would not be a horrible imposition to ask you to provide the initial collection of texts for consideration. I am happy to respond to any texts you provide. I find it rather odd, however, that you seem to think this is an insufferable violation of decorum that completely derails even the possibility of respectable argument. That is the kind of response I would get from people who really have no argument and are looking for an easy way out. That's never been my impression of you in the past, so it's off-putting.

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."

That's my conclusion, not my thesis, and since the fact that trinitarianism developed after the first century CE is quite standard fare, I don't really feel I'm responsible for making the case from the ground up right out of the gate.

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.

I didn't just ask you to disprove it. I provided more specific claims so I could a more specific challenge from you so we could cut to the chase. I'm still interested in what verses you would like to marshal to your cause, but it feels like you'd rather try to avoid engaging the actual argument and instead try to get the case thrown out on a procedural technicality. As I've pointed out, what I'm doing is perfectly common in live academic dialogue.

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.

But how the Nicene framers perceived the total witness of scripture does not bear on the question of the christology of the first century CE.

[_maklelan]

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

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

I'm well aware, but it is a pre-critical translation that is heavily traditional. The fact that it still doesn't find it necessary to render these verses with a trinitarian slant undermines the notion that only skeptical and liberal scholars render the verses that way.

[_ludwigm]

I am off topic here.
This means my comment has nothing to do with doxology or any verse from Bible.

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.

The sentence "There are many other languages beyond English." simply means that there are many other languages, including Hungarian.
I don't copy and paste greek, I could do Hungarian copypaste - but it would make no sense because You don't know Hungarian.
- We know the literal translation
No, You know one of the translations, called literal, to English. We (=Hungarians) have a different translation we can/could call literal.

by the way there is no such thing as literal translation.
I provide a sound example for You.
There are sentences used frequently around the world.
"Do you love me?" and "I love you!" - in English.
The word by word translation to Hungarian would be:
"Csinálod te a szeretést/szerelmet nekem?" and "Én szeretlek téged!" or something similar stupid hungarian-looking sentence.
No real Hungarian would say this.
We say: "Szeretsz?" and "Szeretlek!" - because the suffixes of the verbs make unnecessary the personal pronouns and we don't use auxiliary verb to make a question.
Where is something literal?

The same place for two thousand year old greek and today's 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.

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 ...

(a+b)*c is not equal with a+(b*c) - and I CAN NOT give one scholar who dispute this...

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.

Trash.

- I'm on a iphone
I have no one. Ipad?? Ipod?? Blackberry??
- this verse of romans 9:5 is in a great dispute
I don't care any verse of Bible. My comment is not about one.
- 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.
I don't understand what You is talking about. You know (from this minute on) I am Hungarian. I speak only our Martian language.
- Then, I think you show your ignorance.
I have no argument against this. You are superior.
- I can name almost 20-30 scholars, great scholars
Please can name them all (20 or 30), for the record. I want to learn up to grave.

- you started this game in deception
I didn't. You may not believe me. You are free to think anything.
- If you were honest
I am. You may not believe me. You are free to think anything.

- good night sir
Good morning Sir. I live in a different time zone. According to Your opinion, on a different planet.

[_mormonx]

(a+b)*c is not equal with a+(b*c) - and I CAN NOT give one scholar who dispute this...

we have no conversation then. You just stated that you can not GIVE a scholar who disputes (your desire) and you are not honest sir. This is in the most contention, it is a war of language and I would say there are many scholars in the fight. I can think of 30 right now... scholars who have contended against the RSV. If you give me time I'll come up with 30 more... Your use of the greek was nothing but a ploy, to make the blind wonderers of faith think you know something more than they. I know you. I studied greek... I know you could've just as well put on the table the undisputed literal translation without punctuation. But no, you tried to pull in the unbelievers with false confidence that your troop knows where to place the punctuation based on greek characters. what a show you put on. We both know that the punctuation was scarce if even precent.... so it depends on modern scholarship to decide the punctuation. I say the doxology of god the father in the middle of a argument for Christ divinity is stupid.. it make no sense.

But why do I even talk to you... I won't, because you refuse to admit the most obvious evidence which is that this is a VERY disputed matter among VERY respected scholars on BOTH sides. I happen to fall on the conservative side. You fall on the liberal side.

Admit sir that this is disputed territory among great scholars.. can you do that?

[_ludwigm]

(a+b)*c is not equal with a+(b*c) - and I CAN NOT give one scholar who dispute this...

we have no conversation then. You just stated that you can not GIVE a scholar who disputes (your desire) and you are not honest sir. This is in the most contention, it is a war of language and I would say there are many scholars in the fight. I can think of 30 right now... scholars who have contended against the RSV. If you give me time I'll come up with 30 more... Your use of the greek was nothing but a ploy, to make the blind wonderers of faith think you know something more than they. I know you. I studied greek... I know you could've just as well put on the table the undisputed literal translation without punctuation. But no, you tried to pull in the unbelievers with false confidence that your troop knows where to place the punctuation based on greek characters. what a show you put on. We both know that the punctuation was scarce if even precent.... so it depends on modern scholarship to decide the punctuation. I say the doxology of god the father in the middle of a argument for Christ divinity is stupid.. it make no sense.

But why do I even talk to you... I won't, because you refuse to admit the most obvious evidence which is that this is a VERY disputed matter among VERY respected scholars on BOTH sides. I happen to fall on the conservative side. You fall on the liberal side.

Admit sir that this is disputed territory among great scholars.. can you do that?

(a+b)*c =/= a+(b*c)
This is mathematic. Please check this in any source. Not disputed at all.
And I repeat: I CAN NOT give one scholar who dispute this.

I was speaking about
- parentheses (in math)
- punctuation (in general, in different languages, especially in latin and english)
- translation to hungarian (which can not be literal...)

- it is a war of language ??
- scholars who have contended against the RSV ??
- I know you. I studied greek ??
- you tried to pull in the unbelievers with false confidence ??
- that your troop knows ??
- modern scholarship to decide the punctuation ??
- the doxology of god the father ??
- Christ divinity is stupid ??

Where did I use these words? One of them?

But why do I even talk to you...

Ehm... True.


by the way The list of 30 scholars (great ones, if I may ask) are Your outstanding debts, against (a+b)*c =/= a+(b*c).
Disclaimer: c=1 is a special case, as 0, 1, -1 and for example sqrt(-1) are special constants, as we all know, I hope including You.

[_ludwigm]

Are ezravan and mormonx sock puppets of each other?
(I have used wordprint analysis. The diagrams are my copyright.)

Please, moderators, move this to telestial if it is a personal attack.

[_ludwigm]

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

I'm well aware, but it is a pre-critical translation that is heavily traditional. The fact that it still doesn't find it necessary to render these verses with a trinitarian slant undermines the notion that only skeptical and liberal scholars render the verses that way.

OK.
You may be true, You should be true, You are true - from Your English-speaking and English-thinking viewpoint.

- pre-critical translation?
The Hungarian Károli Bible or Vizsoly Bible is 21 years more pre-critical (1590 vs 1611) and I know most of the significant differences of Karoli and King James. (As one of my grandfathers was of German origin, I know that language a little, so I know the Luther one, 56 years more older...)
Does textual criticism produce less precise result? Worse ones?

- traditional?
I don't like this word. It can mean anything.
Traditionally, most of North-America was British colony.
Traditionally, Hungary was part of Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy.
I don't know Your opinion about the former, but - according to economic crisis - we would be in better position as member of the monarchy, with less independence...

- skeptical and liberal?
I can't decode this. For You these words have negative connotation. I have the opposite.

[_Chap]

Keep it up. ludwigm.

One of the reason why many well-meaning and basically nice people from the US (that's only 5% of the world's population) irritate other people without meaning to is that they find it very very hard to see that their points of view are often heavily conditioned by unexamined cultural assumptions and English linguistic bias.

Someone from Hungary (or some other small nation whose language and culture stop at its historically changeable land frontiers) is much more likely to be sensitive to such things. We need more people like that on this board.

[Tator]

Paloma said:

Whether or not a Mormon is Christian appears to me to be an entirely different discussion. A Christian is one who follows Jesus Christ or put another way, one who trusts Christ for salvation. I think this is a relational idea rather than a primarily theological one. Personally, I can't imagine our Creator (who is our Heavenly Father) requiring a "right" system of beliefs and understanding (or works, baptism, signs and tokens etc.) other than trust (that God exists, that he has made a way for us to return to Him).

I believe Jesus 'words, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life" and I think many Mormons believe these words and trust God for salvation, claiming Jesus as their Saviour. While we have hugely different ways of understanding who God is and what the Atonement means, I think the most important thing is one's individual trust in God and in Jesus Christ, however true/accurate or misguided one's theological beliefs are.

I think that ultimately God looks to the human heart to find faith. Since faith is personal, there's no such thing as a Christian nation or even a Christian religion when it comes to determining who is Christian or not.

Interesting idea, that there is really no such thing as a Christian religion. That makes sense in the context of your other statement about theology not being a handicap. To me, this is the only way to make "God" tolerable. To insist that theological inaccuracies would result in damnation or separation from God makes "God" into a cruel monster.

However, for the purposes of this conversation I think most of us are assuming that it's fair to call some religions "Christian" religions.

There seem to be two main points in regards to a Christian God:

1 - understanding the nature of God, ie, correct theology

2 - understanding how one can be united with God, either in this life or the next

While some posters on this thread may beg to differ, I don't see uniform agreement even among mainstream Christians as to number 2. On this thread, we've seen some disagreement between calvinists and other Christians in regards to who, exactly, is saved. Once saved, always saved? Does any person who sincerely accepts Jesus as one's Savior qualify for salvation? Or does God choose some and not others, regardless of sincerity and beliefs?

And yet 2 seems far more important than 1 to me.

First, human beings are going to be quite limited in their ability to "understand the nature of God" to begin with, due to our fundamental differences. God is not a being limited to the dimensions we are. Asserting that limited, finite, mortal human beings who are defined by the passage of time could "understand" an infinite, immmortal being without any limitations or being defined by the passage of time would be like asserting that an ant could really "understand" a human being.

So quibbling over the finer points of our limited understanding seems parochial to me. Quite the opposite of "universal".

Number 2 is more important because of our limitations in regards to number 1 and also because the entire point. according to Christian theology, is to be united with God.

And yet mainstreamers even on this one thread can't agree on that.

So it seems quite unfair to exclude Mormonism as a Christian religion based on problems with number 1, which is the lesser of the two in the first place. It seems equally unfair to exclude Mormonism as a Christian religion based on problems with number 2, due to lack of uniform agreement even among mainstreamers on that point.

At this point, I've think I've said everything I have to say on the subject. I entered this conversation knowing it was nearly impossible to change anyone's viewpoint on this issue, so my main interest was explaining why I have always viewed Mormonism as a Christian religion. Not mainstream Christian, not orthodox Christian, but Christian in that it absolutely teaches that Jesus is the Son of God, part of the godhead, and salvation is only possible through his atonement. To insinuate that the inaccurate theology of the LDS church somehow leads Mormons to believe in the "wrong" or some make-believe Jesus brings us back to point 1. Anyone who really believes that it's possible to understand some godbeing is fooling him or herself, and has delusions of grandeur, and needs to accept their position in any universe inhabited by a godbeing. Inferior and lacking.

I've used this example before, and will return to it because I'm a nerd and like it. In the Next Generation Startrek series, there was a recurring character called "Q." Q had attributes and powers that seemed godlike, but Q was really one of an alien species. However, due to our own limitations as human beings, if Q appeared and interacted with humans today, those same humans would have no way of distinguishing Q from "God." You'd have to be one of Q's species to recognize what he was. The limitations of simply being a human being who does not possess the power and attributes of the Q species are too great for a human being to recognize Q for what he is. We just don't know enough. The same could be said about grasping a godbeing.

[_Milesius]

On worship of more than one being, I am actually working on a publication that directly addresses this, but would point in the mean time to the following ancient texts which suggest worship of beings other than God:



Rev 3:9

Nonsense. They are made to do obeisance.

Dan 7:14 (Old Greek)

I Enoch 48:5; 62:6-9; 46:5; 52:4

The Son of Man receives worship, but not the worship proper to God alone.

Josephus, Jewish War 1.128

As soon, therefore, as he was come into the country, there came ambassadors from both the brothers, each of them desiring his assistance; but Aristobulus's three hundred talents had more weight with him than the justice of the cause; which sum, when Scaurus had received, he sent a herald to Hyrcanus and the Arabians, and threatened them with the resentment of the Romans and of Pompey, unless they would raise the siege. So Aretas was terrified, and retired out of Judea to Philadelphia, as did Scaurus return to Damascus again; nor was Aristobulus satisfied with escaping [out of his brother's hands,] but gathered all his forces together, and pursued his enemies, and fought them at a place called Papyron, and slew about six thousand of them, and, together with them Antipater's brother Phalion.

http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi ... BJ%201.128

Yeah, that really helps your case.

1 Mac 5.63-64

Pure flatulence. They were effusively honored and praised, but not worshiped.