DiscussMormonism.com

Jason15 wrote:Megacles there is just something about you that is likeable.....Ijust can't get around that. Nope I am sorry i will not admit that Mormons are Christian....I really wish they were as I like lots of them. You follow a different Jesus entirely than the one that Christians follow. The Christian Jesus is not a created being...that is blasphemy to Christians to say that he is a created being...

But the Bible itself says Jesus is the first of God's creations. The notion that he was uncreated existed nowhere in this universe until the third century CE. Does this mean there were no Christians until the third century CE? Don't you see that Mormons believe in the Christ of the Bible, just like you. Saying we believe in a "different Jesus" basically says the differences between our two concepts of Christ lie in his extra-biblical descriptions and characteristics. If you truly go to the Bible for your truth, it is simply ludicrous to say Latter-day Saints believe in a "different Jesus."

Jason15 wrote:"In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak.

In other words, the Christ of Nicea and of the philosophers, rather than the Christ of the Bible.

Jason15 wrote:For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'" (LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p. 7).
Christians have long maintained that Mormonism teaches a Jesus that is different from what the Bible reveals. Of course, the Mormons say that they believe in the same Jesus that originally walked on the earth and is revealed in the Bible. Though they may make this claim, it is up to them to prove it. Especially in light of what Mormonism says about God and Jesus.

How do you propose I prove that the Christ I find in the Bible is the same Christ as the Christ you find in the Bible?

Jason15 wrote:In Mormonism, Jesus is a creation, the product of relations between god and his goddess wife who used to be people from another world (McConkie, Bruce, Mormon Doctrine, p. 192, 321, 516, 589). Jesus is the literal spirit brother of the devil and of you and I (McConkie, p. 192, 589). Also, in Mormon theology, God has a body of flesh and bones (Doctrine & Covenants 130:22) as does his wife and together they produce spirit offspring in heaven who inhabit human bodies on earth.

And these ideas have been espoused at one point or another by mainstream Christianity as well. They obviously never caught on, and you'll assert that the only real Christian beliefs are the ones your denomination currently espouses, but this monolithic notion of broad Christianity manifests an absolutely abject ignorance of the history of the Christian traditions.

Jason15 wrote:Megacles there is just something about you that is likeable.....Ijust can't get around that.

It's my avatar, isn't it?

Nope I am sorry i will not admit that Mormons are Christian....I really wish they were as I like lots of them. You follow a different Jesus entirely than the one that Christians follow. The Christian Jesus is not a created being...that is blasphemy to Christians to say that he is a created being...

Jason15, could you please point me to a section of the Bible that describes what is and what is not a Christian?

Also, I would like to know where the creeds are found in the Bible, could you help me out in that respect, too?

Jason15 wrote:Megacles there is just something about you that is likeable.....Ijust can't get around that. Nope I am sorry i will not admit that Mormons are Christian....I really wish they were as I like lots of them. You follow a different Jesus entirely than the one that Christians follow. The Christian Jesus is not a created being...that is blasphemy to Christians to say that he is a created being... ...(snip)...

Blasphemy, of course....the Bible is full of blasphemy when speaking of JC, eh?

And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God
Revelation 3:14

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him
Colossians 1:15-16

"He is the head of the church, and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything." (Colossians 1:18).

The word "first-born" does not necessarily refer to chronology at all. Those who insist that the phrase "first-born of all creation" means that Jesus was chronologically the first being God created need to reconsider how this word is used. For example, does the phrase "first-born from the dead" mean that Jesus was the first one to be raised from the dead? Obviously not, because Jesus Himself had raised Lazarus; the widow's son; Jairus' daughter and others before He Himself was raised.

The passage above tells us the true meaning of "first-born". It is a term used to convey pre-eminence. Being "the first-born of all creation" means that Jesus is above all creation, not that He was created first, just as His being "first-born from the dead" does not mean He was raised first chronologically.

We can find other examples which show us this same principle as well. God said concerning David, "I also shall make him my first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth." (Psalm 89:27). In what sense was David made God's "first-born"? Not in the sense that He was born before his brothers. The Scriptures are quite plain that David had older brothers. Nor was this just an indication of God's intention to make sure all the other kings of the earth were born after David. But, as the Psalm itself states, it was an announcement of God's intention to exalt David higher than all the kings of the earth.

Where the Bible says that Jesus is "the first-born of all creation" it means that He is above all creation; that He is God's beloved. Reading the context bears this out as well. The context shows conclusively that the Son was not created, but rather was Himself the Creator of all things: "For by Him were all things created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities - all things were created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:16-18).

And then comes an added clincher; "For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him" (Colossians 1:19). All the fullness of Deity dwelt in Jesus. Jesus was nothing less than God in the flesh. There was nothing lacking in the Deity of Christ. Nothing at all.

LittleNipper wrote:"He is the head of the church, and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything." (Colossians 1:18).

The word "first-born" does not necessarily refer to chronology at all.

Yes, it does. The parallel passage, in Rev 3:14 uses ἡ ἀρχὴ, "the beginning."

LittleNipper wrote:Those who insist that the phrase "first-born of all creation" means that Jesus was chronologically the first being God created need to reconsider how this word is used. For example, does the phrase "first-born from the dead" mean that Jesus was the first one to be raised from the dead?

To immortality, yes. All the other people who were raised remained mortal. "Firstborn of the dead" refers to complete freedom from death, not just a one-off.

LittleNipper wrote:Obviously not, because Jesus Himself had raised Lazarus; the widow's son; Jairus' daughter and others before He Himself was raised.

The passage above tells us the true meaning of "first-born". It is a term used to convey pre-eminence. Being "the first-born of all creation" means that Jesus is above all creation, not that He was created first, just as His being "first-born from the dead" does not mean He was raised first chronologically.

No, that's exactly what it means.

LittleNipper wrote:We can find other examples which show us this same principle as well. God said concerning David, "I also shall make him my first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth." (Psalm 89:27). In what sense was David made God's "first-born"?

In many ancient Near Eastern cultures kings were considered divine. At their accession to the throne they were considered to have been adopted by some god. Ps 89:27 reflects a view of David as the first king adopted by the Israelite deity.

LittleNipper wrote:Not in the sense that He was born before his brothers. The Scriptures are quite plain that David had older brothers. Nor was this just an indication of God's intention to make sure all the other kings of the earth were born after David. But, as the Psalm itself states, it was an announcement of God's intention to exalt David higher than all the kings of the earth.

Where the Bible says that Jesus is "the first-born of all creation" it means that He is above all creation; that He is God's beloved.

It doesn't mean that at all.

LittleNipper wrote:Reading the context bears this out as well. The context shows conclusively that the Son was not created, but rather was Himself the Creator of all things: "For by Him were all things created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities - all things were created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:16-18).

Actually this context just further supports understanding the reference to his chronological priority. He created everything else, so he had to be born first. He is "before all things," after all.

LittleNipper wrote:And then comes an added clincher; "For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him" (Colossians 1:19). All the fullness of Deity dwelt in Jesus. Jesus was nothing less than God in the flesh. There was nothing lacking in the Deity of Christ. Nothing at all.

Saying he was fully divine in no way indicates that he was ontologically indistinguishable from God.

Jason15,

Since you have disengaged from the conversation, will you now admit you were wrong and that Mormons are, in fact, Christian?

I realize an Oxford-trained biblical scholar like Mak speaks above all of our heads, but I asked you a very simple, very direct question: where in the Bible can I find any of the creeds?

I look forward to your answer (no one help him, please)

Thanks Megacles -----with your comment about (no one help, please)...I will add I am not interested in hearing from the talking donkey either.... the talking head. You are a thinking man with the intelligence to voice your thoughts on that in my opinion. I like the fact that your don't come across as an ego driven know it all. ie you can know a vast amount of information but it is in the way it's disseminated that's important in my opinion.

When I made the statement that... No-----Mormons are not Christian. My intention was certainly not to insult or use it as a put down in anyway. I was trying to convey the fact that generally those Christians that have taken the minimal amount of time researching have found out the Mormon Jesus and the Christian Jesus are not even remotely similar in nature.( an entirely different being in nature )
FROM a Christians point of view : Jesus was not created. He existed from eternity along with God the Father. John 1:3 contains two direct statements that tell us that it was the pre-existent Jesus who created all things. "ALL things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." ie nothing that was created was created without HIM. Notice that John is NOT content to say ONLY that all things were made through Him, but John adds the fact that "without Him nothing was made."

Paul confirms exactly what John wrote: "For by Him all things were created." Paul goes on to make sure that we understand what he means by all things—"that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him"Colossians 1:16
Since Jesus created ALL things, he could not have been on of the "created things" Paul then adds, so there can be no mistake, "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together" (verse 17, NIV).
The context of this passage makes it clear that there are no exceptions; Christ is the Creator of ALL things including angels and everything visible or invisible. Nowhere is this made more clear that Christ is not a creature—angelic or otherwise—than in the relation of angels to Him. Since Christ could not be both the Creator of everything and at the same time a creature Himself, it is necessary to conclude that Jesus is Himself the "uncreated" Creator of all creation
The clear teaching that Christ is Creator and not a creature, the misinterpretations of phrases like Christ is 'firstborn' (Colossians 1:15) or 'beginning of creation'(Revelation 3:14) are wrong . Christ is 'firstborn' (prototokos) in the sense of being the unique (not created) Son of God. Christ is first over creation, not first in it . I think there is actually a Greek word for first created. I am sure if that is what Paul intended to convey he would have said so.

Jesus was not created. He existed from eternity along with God the Father.

So to answer your question No Mormons can not be Christian as they follow a created Christ ....this just for starters. The Christian Christ and the Mormon Christ are completely different, he is not an exalted man for second starters.

Jason15 wrote:I was trying to convey the fact that generally those Christians that have taken the minimal amount of time researching have found out the Mormon Jesus and the Christian Jesus are not even remotely similar in nature.( an entirely different being in nature )

Jason, before you go around declaring which Jesus is real and which Jesus is fake, you need to A) prove that god exists, and B) prove that it's the god of the Bible...as opposed to, say, the god of the Qur'an.

It seems a bit premature to be discussing fake Jesus vs real Jesus when you haven't even convinced us that there's a god.



_________________
Surprise, surprise, there is no divine mandate for the Church to discuss and portray its history accurately. I've worked with the Historian's office. Their mandate is to preserve history and make it available to scholars and others, not to write about it. The clerks who work in the department are more clueless on some basic issues of history than I am, and that's not saying much.
--Robert D. Crockett

HUH!.....I don't have to prove anything. I am just declaring what Christians believe.....nothing more, nothing less. You can choose to believe what you want...makes not a difference to me. Just don't call my dog a cat....they have completely different natures and essense lol.
Here I am stating what the Christian community believes by choice about the Jesus they choose to believe in and you are asking ME to convince you there is a God. Why would I do that?
In your case, although I don't want to make assumptions, I do believe you have heard lots about what people's thoughts are about God. Now it is up to you to make a decision by faith in what you choose to believe or not to believe. I will say Mr Erotic Apologist I do wish you well and oh ya...I got way better abs than you LOL

The Erotic Apologist wrote:

Jason15 wrote:I was trying to convey the fact that generally those Christians that have taken the minimal amount of time researching have found out the Mormon Jesus and the Christian Jesus are not even remotely similar in nature.( an entirely different being in nature )

Jason, before you go around declaring which Jesus is real and which Jesus is fake, you need to A) prove that god exists, and B) prove that it's the god of the Bible...as opposed to, say, the god of the Qur'an.

It seems a bit premature to be discussing fake Jesus vs real Jesus when you haven't even convinced us that there's a god.

Do you believe in destiny or luck?

_________________
Surprise, surprise, there is no divine mandate for the Church to discuss and portray its history accurately. I've worked with the Historian's office. Their mandate is to preserve history and make it available to scholars and others, not to write about it. The clerks who work in the department are more clueless on some basic issues of history than I am, and that's not saying much.
--Robert D. Crockett

The Holy Spirit reveals to God's chosen that He exists and the Bible is His Word. Mormons hang themselves by trying to discredit the facts of the Bible while promoting the truth of their prophet.

The Erotic Apologist wrote:

Jason15 wrote:I was trying to convey the fact that generally those Christians that have taken the minimal amount of time researching have found out the Mormon Jesus and the Christian Jesus are not even remotely similar in nature.( an entirely different being in nature )

Jason, before you go around declaring which Jesus is real and which Jesus is fake, you need to A) prove that god exists, and B) prove that it's the god of the Bible...as opposed to, say, the god of the Qur'an.

It seems a bit premature to be discussing fake Jesus vs real Jesus when you haven't even convinced us that there's a god.



_________________
Surprise, surprise, there is no divine mandate for the Church to discuss and portray its history accurately. I've worked with the Historian's office. Their mandate is to preserve history and make it available to scholars and others, not to write about it. The clerks who work in the department are more clueless on some basic issues of history than I am, and that's not saying much.
--Robert D. Crockett