Was Jesus a Mormon?

[_bcspace]

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

Trust me, it's not cheerleading; at least half of it. Most LDS critics here (you do know that most people who post here are against the LDS Church don't you?) hate my modus operandi and some LDS can't stand me either. I do have a record of destroying evangelical preachers and theologians in public (It can only be done in public though where it's usually too difficult to avoid the questions and counter-arguments). Ever hear of Biola in Southern CA? One professor was unfortunate enough to bring me into his classroom for debate and I was just a wee missionary then. I reduced him to crying and bearing his testimony since he couldn't get any traction on me. And I thought evangelicals were against testimony bearing.......

Evangelicals aren't losing the battle, they lost it long long ago; well before Owen and Mosser. The LDS Church is THE Christian Church or no church is as we are the only Church whose doctrines the Bible does not conflict with. The real battle is the more subtle and insidious yellow journalistic assaults from ex and jack Mormons which are akin to Satan himself tempting one to commit sin. It's high time you left off and joined us in the real battle.

[_sock puppet]

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?

COJCOLDS places preeminent importance on the payment of tithing. It's one of a handful of TR questions. Yet not a word in the New Testament of Jesus having ever parted with 10% of his money?

Why doesn't COJCOLDS then do as Jesus did, serve wine? It seems COJCOLDS is in apostasy on this point.

You--and Jesus, then--minimize the need for such ordinances to be performed during mortality. So why bother if it will be done (or has been) at another time? Seems to make it a waste of the limited time we have here, right?

[_BrianH]

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

BC>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.

You are bluntly wrong. Sorry BC, but I do not recognize your authority to redefine common English words. I know you think you are a god and all that lame nonsense, but you do not have the authority to change the meaning of words to suit your own purposes. To wit:

Polytheism:

the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods. - Random House Dictionary

The belief in more than one god. - American Heritage Dictionary

belief in or worship of more than one god - Websters

from Fr. polythéisme (16c.), formed from Grosskreutz. polytheos "of many gods," from polys "many" (see poly-) + theos "god" - Harper's Etymology

I have good reason to follow Webster's, Random House, American Heritage, etc., BC. Can you provide me with any reason why I should let YOU redefine the terms of my native language?

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.

[/quote]

So then you actually cannot show us where Jesus HIMSELF taught the polytheism that you now BOTH deny AND affirm? Okay. That's what I thought.

All you can do is pronounce that I am being dishonest and lazy and then turn right around and actually REPEAT the deceptive practice of copying and pasting boiler-plate, context-free citations prepared for unquestioning, incurious and ignorant Mormons to use as if they themselves were actually studying the material for themselves ...and then totally ignore my refutations of your previous attempted deceptions.

I am certain that your Mormon friends will find you very convincing. Tell me, BC, what did Danielou say on the next page (p. 147) right around the third paragraph?

-BH

.

[_bcspace]

I have good reason to follow Webster's, Random House, American Heritage, etc., BC. Can you provide me with any reason why I should let YOU redefine the terms of my native language?

Yes. A more erudite and comprehensive definition such as what an anthropologist would use is: "Polytheism is the belief of multiple deities also usually assembled into a pantheon of gods and goddesses, along with their own mythologies and rituals."

As you can plainly see, the Biblical Plurality of Gods is not Polytheism.

So tell me, does Jesus have a God?

[Guest]

BH>>I have good reason to follow Webster's, Random House, American Heritage, etc., BC. Can you provide me with any reason why I should let YOU redefine the terms of my native language?

BC>Yes. A more erudite and comprehensive definition such as what an anthropologist would use is: "Polytheism is the belief of multiple deities also usually assembled into a pantheon of gods and goddesses, along with their own mythologies and rituals."

As you can plainly see, the Biblical Plurality of Gods is not Polytheism.

Actually what I can see is that the definition even YOU just gave fits Mormon polytheism to a T: belief in multiple deities? Yup. Assembled into a pantheon? Yessir. Gods AND Goddesses? RIghtee-oh. Your own mythologies and rituals? Absolutely. Thanks for proving my point even as you try to refute it. The belief in multiple gods IS the definition of polytheism. But do keep trying to get out of that one, BC.

As for your so-called "biblical plurality of Gods" ...well, in the Bible, God himself is unmistakable and redundant in telling you over and over and over again that He alone is the only God there is and that all others are the works of mens hands (and by implication, their imaginations). Why do you not believe Him? Do you not have faith in God?

Satan wants you to believe that HE is a God ...and you have even fallen for it.

So tell me, does Jesus have a God?

[/quote]

Yes, of course. Jesus was a man, in fact, the perfect man and as such did not only have "a" God, he had the ONE and only TRUE God according to God himself - the God of Israel.

See how I answer your questions? Now will you answer mine? I have asked you several times now and you have thrown lots of text up and consumed lots of bandwidth, but you have not answered this question. Here it is yet AGAIN:

Can you show me where Jesus taught the doctrines I listed above and that you attribute to him every time you claim to have "restored" his gospel and/or doctrine with these uniquely LDS doctrines and practices?

-BH

.

[_bcspace]

So tell me, does Jesus have a God?

Yes, of course. Jesus was a man, in fact, the perfect man and as such did not only have "a" God, he had the ONE and only TRUE God according to God himself - the God of Israel

John 20:17 yes, Jesus has a God.

So is Jesus also Jehovah and did anyone ever call Jesus God?

See how I answer your questions? Now will you answer mine?

I answered your question multiple times beginning with the intellectual dishonesty of using only Jesus' words when we don't have all he said or taught (and that's according to the Bible) and ignoring those whom he called to teach and prophesy in his Church. So I'm approaching it from a different direction and I am about to draw the noose again. I've already proven the Bible teaches the plurality of Gods and we're about to find out how the very nature of Jesus also proves the plurality of Gods. Once we've handled that question, we will move onto the next and I will destroy you again.

Hurry up. I have New Year's to celebrate and then tomorrow I worship on the Sabbath (Colossians 2:16)

[_BrianH]

BC>>>So tell me, does Jesus have a God?

BH>>Yes, of course. Jesus was a man, in fact, the perfect man and as such did not only have "a" God, he had the ONE and only TRUE God according to God himself - the God of Israel

BC>John 20:17 yes, Jesus has a God.

So is Jesus also Jehovah and did anyone ever call Jesus God?

Yes Jesus is Jehovah and yes he is called both "God" AND "Jehovah", the latter at least by implication.

BH>>See how I answer your questions? Now will you answer mine?

BC>I answered your question multiple times beginning with the intellectual dishonesty of using only Jesus' words when we don't have all he said or taught (and that's according to the Bible) and ignoring those whom he called to teach and prophesy in his Church. So I'm approaching it from a different direction and I am about to draw the noose again. I've already proven the Bible teaches the plurality of Gods and we're about to find out how the very nature of Jesus also proves the plurality of Gods.

No you did not answer my question at all, let alone multiple times. You did NOT show me anywhere that Jesus taught the doctrines and practices I listed and you claim to have "restored". Not even close. Moreover, ...dude, you're not even making sense! Pay attention: If you don't have all of Jesus' words, how do you even pretend to know that your organization has restored them???

And why should I believe that the "prophets" of the LDS church represent God? Appealing to your own prophets in support of their own claims is nothing but circular reasoning. You will have to do better than that level of fundamental logical confusion if you want to earn some credibility with me or anyone who knows how to think clearly.

Finally, you have not "proven" that the Bible teaches a plurality of Gods. You have simply chosen to ignore the many places throughout the Bible where God himself makes it perfectly clear that he alone is the only God there is, was or ever will be. And you have ignored your responsibility to interpret the word of God in such a way as to not make Him a liar. Why would anyone believe YOU instead of God?

[Guest]

BC>>>So tell me, does Jesus have a God?

BH>>Yes, of course. Jesus was a man, in fact, the perfect man and as such did not only have "a" God, he had the ONE and only TRUE God according to God himself - the God of Israel

BC>John 20:17 yes, Jesus has a God.

So is Jesus also Jehovah and did anyone ever call Jesus God?

Yes Jesus is Jehovah and yes he is called both "God" AND "Jehovah", the latter at least by implication.

Then it's proven. The very nature of Jesus proves that there is a plurality of Gods and that by your own admission.

John 20:17 God the Father is Jesus' God
Hebrews 1:8 God the Father refers to Jesus as a God
Hebrews 1:1-2 Jesus' Godhood is an exact replica of the Father's Godhood.

And the numerous other Bible references which I gave lend further support if one is a Bible believer that is.....

You have simply chosen to ignore the many places throughout the Bible where God himself makes it perfectly clear that he alone is the only God there is, was or ever will be.

I haven't ignored any of them. The Isaiah 40-45 set merely defines which God is created for the Hebrews to worship; Jesus. And that dovetails with the first two of the ten commandments which expressly refer to the existence of real and divine Gods.

And then of course Jesus comes revealing a higher order and points them to the worship of the Father. That's two Gods right there. John 17 explains how the Father and Son are "one" (of the same mind) and "in" (standing next to in support of) each other; check your Lexicon.

If the Bible had taught a trinity, then don't you think the early Christians would have taught it too? They didn't, and it took several hundred years for the trinity to be created by man as the Church fell into universal apostasy.

Q.E.D.

So, what's next?

[_SteelHead]

I would have to say Brian, by your own admission, he has you there.
A plurality of deities is biblical.

Round to BC.

[_bcspace]

If you don't have all of Jesus' words, how do you even pretend to know that your organization has restored them???

You fail by this same logic (John 21:25). I'll bet I could prove I know by the same way you''ll answer if asked "How do you know Jesus Christ is the Son of God?"

I can think of three or four possible answers and any one you give, you must allow me to use as an answer to your question here lest you fall again into intellectual dishonesty.