DiscussMormonism.com

Jesus directly says it's a work. If Paul is really so important that you are willing to say Jesus is wrong and Paul is right, then you've gotta change your religion. Oh, that's right––Jesus isn't wrong, you've just gotta twist his words until they fit Paul's, then he can be interpreted to be right.

Here you have it folks. This thread is now "NO Paul is not Christian", thanks to Daniel. You see the ridiculous lengths he must go to, to try and "win".

For the Lurkers,

pisteushte, πιστεύω, is that you might have trust. This is the work ἔργον OF GOD, θεός (not of US) that ye believe... because no one comes to the Son, except he be drawn by the Father. NOT the made up "unilateral control", (where does he get such nonsense?) which is a ridiculous assertion by one grasping at straws here. Or just "the work". We know who is rejecting the text here. He just doesn't understand why Jesus answered them in this way.

And James doesn't say that belief is a WORK, he says that by your works (how you act) is what proves you believe. (have faith). Jesus directly says that it is GOD'S WORK, not ours. All of this harmonizes. Only in the minds of those who see through the lens of Mormonism does it not. Faith (seperate) WITHOUT Works (separate) is dead, being alone. What are those works? James tells us:

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your[a] works, and I will show you my faith by my[b] works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?[c] 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[d] And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

If faith is a work, then James is being redundant here.

grindael wrote:Sad to be you.

I started responding to your post, but I noticed you never addressed my actual argument, you just barked "Nu-uh!" at a bunch of the rhetorical afterthoughts without providing anything in the way of a counter argument. Also, I'm not a "Mormon trained scholar." My BA was at BYU, but my first master's degree was from Oxford (not Mormon, in case you weren't aware), and my second was from an evangelical university in Canada. I've been exposed to Mormon, evangelical, Jewish, Anglican, and secular training, and all of it, including the evangelical training, supports my reading and not yours. Your reading is supported by dogmatism and nothing more.

grindael wrote:

Jesus directly says it's a work. If Paul is really so important that you are willing to say Jesus is wrong and Paul is right, then you've gotta change your religion. Oh, that's right––Jesus isn't wrong, you've just gotta twist his words until they fit Paul's, then he can be interpreted to be right.

Here you have it folks. This thread is now "NO Paul is not Christian", thanks to Daniel.

Now who's misrepresenting the other?

grindael wrote:You see the ridiculous lengths he must go to, to try and "win".

For the Lurkers,

pisteushte, πιστεύω,

"Pisteushte"? That's not Greek. Where did you get this?

grindael wrote:is that you might have trust. This is the work ἔργον OF GOD, θεός (not of US) that ye believe... because no one comes to the Son, except he be drawn by the Father. NOT the made up "unilateral control", (where does he get such nonsense?) which is a ridiculous assertion by one grasping at straws here. Or just "the work". We know who is rejecting the text here. He just doesn't understand why Jesus answered them in this way.

And James doesn't say that belief is a WORK, he says that by your works (how you act) is what proves you believe.

He says absolutely nothing of the sort and you can't even begin to show otherwise. He says your faith is built upon your works. You're twisting James' words, but you have to to support your eisegesis.

grindael wrote: Jesus directly says that it is GOD'S WORK, not ours. All of this harmonizes.

Yeah, once you ignore the differences and just presuppose it all harmonizes and then set out to figure out how to make it so.

grindael wrote:Only in the minds of those who see through the lens of Mormonism does it not.

You're joking, right? The entire world of critical scholarship, including many evangelicals, agree with me. Only the most conservatives and fundamentalist scholars promote your backwards reading of James.

grindael wrote:Faith (seperate) WITHOUT Works (separate) is dead, being alone. What are those works? James tells us:

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your[a] works, and I will show you my faith by my[b] works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?[c] 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[d] And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

If faith is a work, then James is being redundant here.

I never said James said faith is a work. James says our faith is constructed by our works. Jesus says belief is a work. Stop misrepresenting me.

grindael wrote:http://derengowski.wordpress.com/2014/05/17/daniel-o-mcclellan-mormon-hack-attack-part-1/

Oh, that's a great response. You're not a fundie at all. Please see here. Oh, and do you agree with Paul's insistence that all Muslims in the US should be monitored 24-hours-a-day and deported or executed for any crimes whatsoever, including spitting on the sidewalk?

It seems to me that Maklelan and Grindael are arguing past each other, and that both are essentially agreed that a complete lack of good works belies any claim to having faith. Whether faith is in itself a work is not worth arguing over, in my opinion. Who really cares? I don't!

More directly apropos to the question of whether Mormons are Christians, it has already been pointed out several times that there are numerous disagreements amongst those who insist on calling themselves Christians--including over who are entitled to call themselves Christians. For the life of me, other than bigotry and lack of charity, I simply cannot understand why anyone would deny the Christianity of anyone else who sincerely calls oneself a Christian and tries one's best to live the exemplary and charitable principles attributed to the teachings of Christ. This quibbling over which "Christians" are really Christians is no more rational or productive than the "scholarly" medieval arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

As far as I am concerned, the "Christianity" of those who insist on denying the "Christianity" of others merely for differences of opinion over the true nature of Christ is more in doubt than that of those whose "Christianity" they wish to deny.

maklelan wrote:I never said James said faith is a work. James says our faith is constructed by our works. Jesus says belief is a work. Stop misrepresenting me.

It may interest you to know that in some languages (Norwegian and Danish, for example), the above would be inherently self-contradictory because they do not have separate words for "faith" and "belief." In Norwegian and Danish, they both translate to the word "tro." Thus they don't recognize any essential difference in meaning between between "belief" and "faith" like we do in English. It is funny to watch the frustration of translators attempting to translate into Danish or Norwegian talks by English speaking, visiting authorities about how faith is different from and more important than mere belief!

Gunnar wrote:It seems to me that Maklelan and Grindael are arguing past each other, and that both are essentially agreed that a complete lack of good works belies any claim to having faith. Whether faith is in itself a work is not worth arguing over, in my opinion. Who really cares? I don't!

More directly apropos to the question of whether Mormons are Christians, it has already been pointed out several times that there are numerous disagreements amongst those who insist on calling themselves Christians--including over who are entitled to call themselves Christians. For the life of me, other than bigotry and lack of charity, I simply cannot understand why anyone would deny the Christianity of anyone else who sincerely calls oneself a Christian and tries one's best to live the exemplary and charitable principles attributed to the teachings of Christ. This quibbling over which "Christians" are really Christians is no more rational or productive than the "scholarly" medieval arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

As far as I am concerned, the "Christianity" of those who insist on denying the "Christianity" of others merely for differences of opinion over the true nature of Christ is more in doubt than that of those whose "Christianity" they wish to deny.

It's sectarianism, and the basic compulsion is the desire to reject membership to those who fall outside the sectarian's control or with whom the sectarian does not want to be identified.

Gunnar wrote:It may interest you to know that in some languages (Norwegian and Danish, for example), the above would be inherently self-contradictory because they do not have separate words for "faith" and "belief." In Norwegian and Danish, they both translate to the word "tro." Thus they don't recognize any essential difference in meaning between between "belief" and "faith" like we do in English. It is funny to watch the frustration of translators attempting to translate into Danish or Norwegian talks by English speaking, visiting authorities about how faith is different from and more important than mere belief!

I supervise the translation of LDS scriptures into a variety of languages, so I deal with dynamics like this all the time. It can really be frustrating, and particularly in developing languages or languages that are barely independent of other languages.

maklelan wrote:

Gunnar wrote:It seems to me that Maklelan and Grindael are arguing past each other, and that both are essentially agreed that a complete lack of good works belies any claim to having faith. Whether faith is in itself a work is not worth arguing over, in my opinion. Who really cares? I don't!

More directly apropos to the question of whether Mormons are Christians, it has already been pointed out several times that there are numerous disagreements amongst those who insist on calling themselves Christians--including over who are entitled to call themselves Christians. For the life of me, other than bigotry and lack of charity, I simply cannot understand why anyone would deny the Christianity of anyone else who sincerely calls oneself a Christian and tries one's best to live the exemplary and charitable principles attributed to the teachings of Christ. This quibbling over which "Christians" are really Christians is no more rational or productive than the "scholarly" medieval arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

As far as I am concerned, the "Christianity" of those who insist on denying the "Christianity" of others merely for differences of opinion over the true nature of Christ is more in doubt than that of those whose "Christianity" they wish to deny.

It's sectarianism, and the basic compulsion is the desire to reject membership to those who fall outside the sectarian's control or with whom the sectarian does not want to be identified.

Understood! That is one my biggest turn offs about religion in general!

maklelan wrote:

Gunnar wrote:It may interest you to know that in some languages (Norwegian and Danish, for example), the above would be inherently self-contradictory because they do not have separate words for "faith" and "belief." In Norwegian and Danish, they both translate to the word "tro." Thus they don't recognize any essential difference in meaning between between "belief" and "faith" like we do in English. It is funny to watch the frustration of translators attempting to translate into Danish or Norwegian talks by English speaking, visiting authorities about how faith is different from and more important than mere belief!

I supervise the translation of LDS scriptures into a variety of languages, so I deal with dynamics like this all the time. It can really be frustrating, and particularly in developing languages or languages that are barely independent of other languages.

Then you probably already understand this better than I do. Out of curiosity, are the Scandinavian languages among those that you know and regularly deal with? If so, then you may know that Norwegian, Danish, Swedish and Icelandic are really dialects rather than independent languages. In fact various regional dialects within Norway, Denmark and Sweden differ more from each other than standard Norwegian, Danish and Swedish differ from each other. A Dane from Århus or Copenhagen speaking the official, Danish dialect, Rigsdansk (Kingdoms Danish) can more easily understand a Norwegian speaking either the Stavanger or Christiansand (especially the latter) dialect than a fellow Dane speaking Sonderjysk (Southern Jutland dialect). Norwegians from the above mentioned Norwegian cities are sometimes mistaken for Danes when they visit Oslo. Even more curiously, both Oslo and Stavanger residents are sometimes mistaken for Swedes by their fellow Norwegians in Christiansand.