Mormons are Christians.LittleNipper wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 6:07 pmI'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.
ONLY begotten Son
- Kishkumen
- God
- Posts: 7909
- Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
- Location: Cassius University
- Contact:
Re: ONLY begotten Son
-
- Nursery
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2022 5:49 pm
Re: ONLY begotten Son
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 ...
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
- God
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
- Location: Playing Rabbits
Re: ONLY begotten Son
Heya, LittleNipper, how have you been?LittleNipper wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 6:07 pmI'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.
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
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
-
- God
- Posts: 3046
- Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm
Re: ONLY begotten Son
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.
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.
-
- Nursery
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2022 5:49 pm
- Res Ipsa
- God
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
- Location: Playing Rabbits
Re: ONLY begotten Son
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
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
- Kishkumen
- God
- Posts: 7909
- Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
- Location: Cassius University
- Contact:
Re: ONLY begotten Son
You were doing OK until you tried to argue there was a canon before Acts was written.LittleNipper wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 9:11 pmCertainly, 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.
-
- Nursery
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2022 5:49 pm
Re: ONLY begotten Son
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.Kishkumen wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 12:39 amYou were doing OK until you tried to argue there was a canon before Acts was written.LittleNipper wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 9:11 pmCertainly, 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.
-
- God
- Posts: 5283
- Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am
Re: ONLY begotten Son
And even this is debated...LittleNipper wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 2:50 amI 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.
- Kishkumen
- God
- Posts: 7909
- Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
- Location: Cassius University
- Contact:
Re: ONLY begotten Son
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.LittleNipper wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 2:50 amI 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.