Was Jesus a Mormon?

[_bcspace]

Let's break this down real simple like.

Jesus was a JEW.

End of discussion.

Yes. The Gospel went to the the Jews first........ That Gospel is the same as taught by the LDS Church and any Jews or Gentiles who joined the early Christian Church joined the same Church LDS belong to today. Ditto for the Old Testament Hebrews, prophets, and their followers.

[_Yoda]

Can you at least grant me the recognition that I know how to read English?

Read, yes. Comprehend? Not very well.

I'm too tired to go piece by piece on what you misinterpreted in BC's post this evening. I will wait and see if BC addresses it, since this is his baby.

But, frankly, your haughtiness is really getting old...particularly since you hardly have the scholarship to justify it.

[_BrianH]

BH>>
What you must do, if you want to meet the challenge here is to tell us WHY we should think that what you believe is actually TRUE.

Why is that the challenge? Why would any Mormon care about your opinion of their belief?

This is the stupidest goddammed challenge I've ever heard of in my life.

H.

And who is the "us" he's talking about?

So I guess that means that you cannot provide us (any and all interested parties) with any reason to think that the LDS church is telling the truth when it claims to have "restored" the original teachings of Christ with its stupid secret handshakes and passwords and polytheism and all that other nonsense.

Okay, that's what I figured.

Thanks anyway.

-BH

.

[_BrianH]

Can you at least grant me the recognition that I know how to read English?

Read, yes. Comprehend? Not very well.

I'm too tired to go piece by piece on what you misinterpreted in BC's post this evening. I will wait and see if BC addresses it, since this is his baby.

But, frankly, your haughtiness is really getting old...particularly since you hardly have the scholarship to justify it.

Your cowardice is what is getting old.

Chicken.

-BH

.

[_BrianH]

I give BC a B on his response.... As for Brian H it is apparent he is a simple second rate hack.

I would give BC a C, but considering who he is up against... it was good enough. Anything better would have been overkill.

All empty -though predictable- cheer leading ...yet no substance whatsoever.

Typical Mormons....

<sigh>

-BH

.

[Guest]

BH>>True but, this does not answer my question. My challenge to Mormons is to simply show us some reasons to think that Jesus ever really DID teach the various doctrines I listed above, which they attribute to him every time they claim to have "restored" his gospel with the doctrines of their organization.


C>There is today no doubt that when Joseph Smith said he was restoring ancient teachings that had been lost, he was simply speaking the truth.

Okay if that is true, if he was speaking the truth, you SHOULD be able to provide some actual evidence to support such a claim.

Joseph Smith taught of a grand council of the gods in heaven. This was a part of First Temple Judaism. The Deuteronomists tried to obliterate it from the Hebrew Bible, but vestiges remain. This is the view of current non-LDS Old Testament scholars.

http://thedivinecouncil.com/

So where did Jesus supposedly teach us about this so-called "divine council"? Were you not aware that even Michael Heiser has publicly chided you Mormons for abusing his material?

Modern non-LDS Old Testament scholars also tend to agree that the Hebrew God of First Temple Judaism had a wife. This was also suppressed by the Deuteronomists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Did_God_Have_a_Wife%3F

LOL ...wikipedia? Really? Is that the best you can do to even pretend to insinuate that normative Old Testament scholarship affirms that God has a wife....? Really? I bet you impress the heck out of yourself with stuff like this.

Using your own standard, are you willing to admit Joseph Smith might have been a prophet after all?

Using ANY standard, have you given me a reason to? And why are you trying to change the subject? The challenge here is for you to simply show us that Jesus Christ really did teach the supposedly "restored" doctrines I listed for you in the OP.

If not, there is likely no point in trying to discuss the issue with you.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[/quote]

Obviously you find yourself very convincing. But... you did not even address the question let alone answer it.

-BH

.

[_bcspace]

Belief in a "plurality of Gods" IS "polytheism" by definition, son.

Nope. Polytheism includes elements of worshiping the other Gods that are not extant in LDS, and therefore Bible, plurality of Gods. A more thought out response might have been Henotheism, but that is not quite accurate either. But no matter what you label Bible doctrine, plurality of Gods is still the teaching.

Such blatant intellectual dishonesty on your part (Fortigurn's Lazy Research in this case) automatically disqualifies the rest of your post from consideration. However, I will show you once again, since you reject the Bible, how you are behind the curve when it comes to the beliefs of the first Christians; namely, how they taught that Jesus is a second God and subordinationism:

Not only did many Christian writers identify Jesus with Yahweh, until the 5th century it was quite common to call Jesus either a "second God", the chief angel, or both. Similarly, it was made clear that the Holy Spirit occupies the third place.
Danielou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, 146

For example, during the second century Justin Martyr wrote that the "first-begotten", the Logos, "is the first force after the Father": he is "a second God, second numerically but not in will," doing only the Father's pleasure.
Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, 268

Then I replied, "I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel..."
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 56, in ANF 1:223

In the same vein Hermas spoke of the angel of the prophetic Spirit and Jesus as the "glorious...angel" or "most venerable...angel"
The Pastor of Hermas, Commandment 11, in ANF 2:27-28

The Ascension of Isaiah referred to both Jesus and the Spirit as angels as well: "And I saw how my Lord worshipped, and the angel of the Holy Spirit, and how both together praised God."
Ascension of Isaiah, in TOB, 528

Finally, Clement of Alexandria referred to Jesus as the "Second Cause".
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7:3

and Peter not only called Jesus both God and angel but also identified him with Yahweh, the prince of the Sons of God mentioned in Deut. 32:7-8
Peter, in Clementine Recognitions 2:42, in ANF 8:109

Around the turn of the third century, Hippolytus called Jesus "the Angel of [God's] counsel"
Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 4:4, p.7

and Tertullian spoke of Christ as "second" to the Father. However Tertullian stopped short of saying there was a second God because he considered the Father to be the "only true God" and Jesus to be a secondary being. (Note that the creedal trinity is alien to Tertullian)
Tertullian, Against Praxeas 7, in ANF 3:602 and
Tertullian, Against Praxeas 13, in ANF 3:607-608

Well into the third century, Origen could speak of Jesus as a "second God"
Origen, Against Celsus 5:39, in ANF 4:561

but he added a qualification: "We are not afraid to speak, in one sense of two Gods, in another sense of one God." (Very LDS by the way)
Origen, Dail Heracl. 2:3, quoted in Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, 251

In what sense are they one? "And these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. (again very LDS)
Origen, Against Celsus, 8:12, in ANF 4:643-644

Similarly, the presbyter Novatian maintained that Christ was both angel and God.
Novatian, On the Trinity 19, in ANF 5:630, cf. On the Trinity in ANF 5:628

And he equated this God/angel with the Lord (Yahweh) of Hosts.
Novatian, On the Trinity 12 , in ANF 5:621

He also made clear that the Spirit is subject to the Son.
Novatian, On the Trinity 16, in ANF 5:625

He also said that the unity of the Godhead is NOT some metaphysical "oneness", but unity of will. (LDS again)
Novatian, On the Trinity 27, in ANF 5:637-638

Novatian also did not hesitate to name other angels "gods" as well: "If even the angels themselves...as many as are subjected to Christ, are called gods, rightly also Christ is God."
Novatian, On the Trinity 20, in ANF 5:631

Lactantius approvingly quoted a Hermetic text which spoke of a "second God"
Lactantius, Divine Institutes 4:6, in ANF 7:105

Eusebius of Caesarea likewise called Jesus a "secondary being" who is both angel and God.
Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel 1:5, 2 vols. translated by W. J. Ferrar

Eusebius also compared the hierarchy of beings (The Three) to the sun, moon, and stars as spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15:40-42 (another LDS concept)
Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 7:15, pp.351-352

However, in the aftermath of the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., such language became unpopular, and some theologians tried to sweep its former popularity under the rug. For example, in the late fourth century Basil of Caesarea feigned that such a thing as a "second God" was unheard of in the "orthodox" faith.
Basil of Caesarea, On the Holy Spirit 45, in NPNF Series 2, 8:28

More evidence of the totality of the Apostasy by the way.

ANF = The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Alexander and Donaldson
NPNF = The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Schaff, Philip, ed.
Adapted from Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church.

In addition to the Bible, I have also read the works of the ECF (ANF) and such are freely available online should you choose to educate yourself.

[_bcspace]

To the OP, I think the following should be considered:

1-Jesus was not BIC. He was not sired by the husband of his mother, Mary.

2-Jesus underwent the ordinance of baptism before he died, but not the Mormon first anointing and endowment. And as to his baptism, he did not do it at age 8.

3-Jesus did not get married, much less enter into the New and Everlasting Covenant of plural wives.

4-There is no record of his having paid tithing.

5-He served wine, not just water, for sacrament

If Jesus was a Mormon, he wasn't much of one. Maybe in name only.

Sure. But you are not defining Mormonism relative to it's truth claims in this case. The heavenly Church is or is not on the earth throughout history and when it is, it does not necessarily have all truths and principles with it.

1. If his physical father were Joseph, I doubt he would have been BIC since those Hebrews don't seem to have the higher priesthood. However, there is evidence that Jesus taught/performed the esoteric rites and he did spend some time in the spirit world. It's certainly not unreasonable that he was sealed before his resurrection.

2. See above.

3. See above.

4. It is intellectually dishonest to think the the Bible or other Apocrypha include all that Jesus said or did.

5. Why would this be a problem when modern LDS scripture says it doesn't matter?

[_Jason Bourne]

Hey Brian


Before you make a bigger ass out of yourself than you clearly are get to know the posters here before you attack them.

If your incivility that you cme here with is the fruits of your Christianity I for one will pass on it.

[_Blixa]

Hey Brian


Before you make a bigger ass out of yourself than you clearly are get to know the posters here before you attack them.

If your incivility that you come here with is the fruits of your Christianity I for one will pass on it.

No kidding. Catholics, Methodists, agnostics and atheists are all presumed to be "Mormon" by this know-nothing. He has no clue as to the audience he is addressing, but this is not a problem since he is talking to himself.