ONLY begotten Son

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 7909
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: ONLY begotten Son

Post by Kishkumen »

LittleNipper wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 6:07 pm
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
Nursery
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2022 5:49 pm

Re: ONLY begotten Son

Post by 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 ...
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 10555
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: ONLY begotten Son

Post by Res Ipsa »

LittleNipper wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 6:07 pm
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?
he/him
When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its Professors are oblig’d to call for the help of the Civil Power, ’tis a Sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.

Benjamin Franklin
huckelberry
God
Posts: 3046
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: ONLY begotten Son

Post by 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
Nursery
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2022 5:49 pm

Re: ONLY begotten Son

Post by LittleNipper »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 9:19 pm


Heya, LittleNipper, how have you been?
I've been fine! Wonderful in fact!
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 10555
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: ONLY begotten Son

Post by Res Ipsa »

LittleNipper wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 10:08 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 9:19 pm


Heya, LittleNipper, how have you been?
I've been fine! Wonderful in fact!
Good to hear.
he/him
When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its Professors are oblig’d to call for the help of the Civil Power, ’tis a Sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.

Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 7909
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: ONLY begotten Son

Post by Kishkumen »

LittleNipper wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 9:11 pm
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
Nursery
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2022 5:49 pm

Re: ONLY begotten Son

Post by LittleNipper »

Kishkumen wrote:
Sun Mar 27, 2022 12:39 am
LittleNipper wrote:
Fri Mar 25, 2022 9:11 pm
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
God
Posts: 5283
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: ONLY begotten Son

Post by Philo Sofee »

LittleNipper wrote:
Sun Mar 27, 2022 2:50 am
Kishkumen wrote:
Sun Mar 27, 2022 12:39 am


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...
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 7909
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: ONLY begotten Son

Post by Kishkumen »

LittleNipper wrote:
Sun Mar 27, 2022 2:50 am
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.
Post Reply