ONLY begotten Son

[Kishkumen]

I've been away from this forum for years --- literally. I'm not a Mormon. I am a Christian. And as such I can say that JESUS is the only human who was ever born, who was/is in fact connected eternally with God the FATHER, and who HIMSELF is God the SON. The MESSIAH's spirit is ETERNAL in nature (it had no beginning nor an ending). While ours (biblically speaking) has a starting point at conception in the womb, and then extends into eternity future.

Mormons are Christians.

[LittleNipper]

Certainly, you may refer to yourself as whatever you wish. There is, however, a historical issue involved. The early believers were called “Christians” by the powers-that-be for the first time in Antioch (Acts 11:26). It wasn’t a name Jesus’ disciples gave themselves—it was a name given to them by the society in Antioch and it fit... The fact is that this early CHURCH only had the OLD TESTAMENT and the GOSPELS ---- and finally added other books and finally the Book of REVELATION of JESUS CHRIST around 95 AD --- which completed the canon

Now, the Book of Mormon and the founding of the LDS church didn't happen until approximately 1830. And they were not called Christians by anyone else as far as I'm aware. They were called Mormons because of the name they applied to their book. I don't wish to cause an issue right away; however, Joseph Smith, himself regarded all the existing Christian churches as apostate. So, logically, if all 2000 year old churches that were referred to as CHRISTIAN, and those churches are apostate, then Mormons must be something else.

Anyway, you never provided input on my original statement ...

[Res Ipsa]

I've been away from this forum for years --- literally. I'm not a Mormon. I am a Christian. And as such I can say that JESUS is the only human who was ever born, who was/is in fact connected eternally with God the FATHER, and who HIMSELF is God the SON. The MESSIAH's spirit is ETERNAL in nature (it had no beginning nor an ending). While ours (biblically speaking) has a starting point at conception in the womb, and then extends into eternity future.

Heya, LittleNipper, how have you been?

[huckelberry]

Nipper, the church that Mormons are members of is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints. People do use that name instead of the nickname Mormon, at least sometimes.

It took early Christians a fair number of more years to work out the details of how Jesus is best understood in the manner you mention. Now I think that was valuable thinking which was done and I think LDS thinking rather tangled and unclear about how or why Jesus is divine ( or is it divinely authorized?)

People have observed that some early Christians thought in terms of divine authorization or adoption
//////
My thought is that divine dna does not make sense. If god once was a man and is now celestially glorified it would not be his dna which makes him divine . If it is not effective factor then the fathers dna would not confer divinity. It could underline divine appointment to authority I suppose.

[LittleNipper]

Heya, LittleNipper, how have you been?

I've been fine! Wonderful in fact!

[Res Ipsa]

Heya, LittleNipper, how have you been?

I've been fine! Wonderful in fact!

Good to hear.

[Kishkumen]

Certainly, you may refer to yourself as whatever you wish. There is, however, a historical issue involved. The early believers were called “Christians” by the powers-that-be for the first time in Antioch (Acts 11:26). It wasn’t a name Jesus’ disciples gave themselves—it was a name given to them by the society in Antioch and it fit... The fact is that this early CHURCH only had the OLD TESTAMENT and the GOSPELS ---- and finally added other books and finally the Book of REVELATION of JESUS CHRIST around 95 AD --- which completed the canon.

You were doing OK until you tried to argue there was a canon before Acts was written.

[LittleNipper]

Certainly, you may refer to yourself as whatever you wish. There is, however, a historical issue involved. The early believers were called “Christians” by the powers-that-be for the first time in Antioch (Acts 11:26). It wasn’t a name Jesus’ disciples gave themselves—it was a name given to them by the society in Antioch and it fit... The fact is that this early CHURCH only had the OLD TESTAMENT and the GOSPELS ---- and finally added other books and finally the Book of REVELATION of JESUS CHRIST around 95 AD --- which completed the canon.

You were doing OK until you tried to argue there was a canon before Acts was written.

I didn't! I said that the last book of the Bible --- REVELATION of JESUS CHRIST was written around 95AD. The final authoritative canon of the NEW TESTAMENT was established in Jerusalem in 350 AD; however, REVELATIONS had already been written over two centuries earlier.

[Philo Sofee]

You were doing OK until you tried to argue there was a canon before Acts was written.

I didn't! I said that the last book of the Bible --- REVELATION of JESUS CHRIST was written around 95AD. The final authoritative canon of the NEW TESTAMENT was established in Jerusalem in 350 AD; however, REVELATIONS had already been written over two centuries earlier.

And even this is debated...

[Kishkumen]

I didn't! I said that the last book of the Bible --- REVELATION of JESUS CHRIST was written around 95AD. The final authoritative canon of the NEW TESTAMENT was established in Jerusalem in 350 AD; however, REVELATIONS had already been written over two centuries earlier.

Well, I am glad you clarified what your poorly written earlier post appeared to imply. Still, your post is very misleading in that it paints a picture of a unified and well organized early Christianity that only the uninformed or Christian apologists cling to.