Book of Mormon is Christian?

Now the entire book of John, and in particular chapters 14-17 are "out of context". The entire book of John is testimony to the nature of the Godhead, and it all agrees with chapter 17. Sorry, you can't blame the LDS theologians for that one. Better take it up with the apostle.

Also, I did not make a case for Jesus being lower than the Father. He, himself made that case. I simply quoted Him. And yes, He did regain that glory when He was resurrected. But that's another topic altogether, and it misses the point that I was making.

If we can't respond any better than accusations of "out of context" perhaps you were right earlier. I guess we are truly at an impasse. I am truly dissapointed.

I am still looking for ANY evidence, outside of the Bible, of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If you can't provide it, you must admit that your theology is circular.

 

[/QUOTE]

Actually I can because they completely ignored Jn 1. "1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.

9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) 16 And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known."
Specifically the first verse. They have also ignored Mt 28:19 where the greek grammer points to both unity and the existance of the three persons of God.

Context is king so you are going to have to deal with the totality of the Bible, if you study bits and pieces in isolation then you completely change their meaning.

 

Context is king so you are going to have to deal with the totality of the Bible, if you study bits and pieces in isolation then you completely change their meaning.[/QB][/QUOTE]

__________________________________________________
Don:
I study the entire Bible, especially the New Testament. But it is quite a stretch to imply that Moses had anything to do with the Book of Acts. Having said that, I strongly believe that the LDS position is the Biblical one, based in part on the above evidence. If we are not to accept my understanding of the preceding passages, what can we understand from them?

I think I shall be forced to give up on expecting any external evidence of the resurrection. My belief in the resurrection relies on the witness from the Spirit of God, as I ask in prayer, not on external evidence. I was simply curious how you would justify such a belief.

Be blessed!

Don

[ September 16, 2002, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: Don Layton ]

 

Then you obviously do not know greek, it is plain and simple. ονομα is a singular accusative and is used to modify του πατρος, και του υιου, και αγιου πνευματος. The singular nature of ονομα serves two functions first the singular form speaks of unity, and at the same time it also modifies three seperate persons so it also speaks of plurality.

Again you are ignoring Jn 1 where it says quite plainly that the Word was God and was with God. It is the whole unity and plurality thing again. To add to the whole mess you ignore all of the OT evidence for the singular essense of YHWH.

There in lies your problem, you divide up the Word of God and in doing so you have lost its meaning.

When God says there is only one God (Dt 6) he does not mean there are really three gods we just happen to agree on everything. He means what he says there is only one divine essense that is God.

[ September 16, 2002, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: Chemnitz ]

 

Before I answer that question, I just need to comment on your intitial observation. You state, "Then you obviously do not know Greek, it is plain and simple".

Your remark is an oxymoron. Greek is not plain and simple. Thus the common saying, "It is all Greek to me." With the logic you are suggesting, only the learned and the scholars could ever be saved. I strongly disagree with such an assertion. If we must return to Hebrew and Greek for clarification of the Bible, what does that say for your notion of inerrancy?

Now, to answer your question. You are right. I do not speak Greek. For that matter, I do not speak Hebrew, let alone, ancient Hebrew. But I do have very good resource material (non LDS as well as LDS). I also have enough familiarity with linguistics to put the pieces together. I speak two languages fluently, and two others enough to understand and be understood...some of the time.

Regarding Matthew 28:19, the formula in the passage is really a tripartite. Eis is singular simply for the reason that the article is repeated in each case. It seperates and modifies "the Father", "the Son", and "the Holy Ghost" as distinct entities, not as one essence.

The Greek idiom, "in the name of" is clearly not describing some theological concept. This, from Eduard Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975), p 532.

The formula "in the name" reads literally "upon the name"; it is probably to be explained as a Greek idiom, where it is used in commercial and banking circles in the sense of our "to the account of." In Greek, soldiers also take an oath "upon the name of . . .," and psuedonymous documents are written "upon the name of . . .(Paul, for example)."

So unless you can demonstrate that the Greeks used a three in one banking system, you have a problematic theory. Schweizer continues:

"Naturally, we are not yet dealing with any developed doctrine of the Trinity."

I have already dealt with John 1. Since you bring up "context" and the "context" of the totality of John clearly demonstrates HOW Jesus is God, HOW He is the Son of God, HOW He is subordinate to God the Father, HOW He is ONE with the Father, in the very manner that WE are to be ONE with the Father and the Son,it is clear that the context does not support the Hellenistic post Nicene Trinitarian concept. At the least it is very weak evidence for a singular essence doctrinal basis.

Be blessed!

Don

[ September 17, 2002, 02:35 AM: Message edited by: Don Layton ]

 

This is just so you don't feel ignored.

I really don't see how your position can even incorporate Jn 1 and still maintain 3 gods. But you still need to spread out and use the complete context of all of the Bible.

Personally I don't see how my using Greek and Hebrew has anything to do with salvation. It does have everything to do with the formulation of good doctrine. It also says nothing on my notion of inerrancy. I believe that the Scriptures are the inspired and inerrant word of God. I do not believe the translations of the Scriptures are innerrant, but they should not be discounted because most major translations (KJV, ESV, NASB, etc.) are very good faithful translations.

 

Don't mean to butt in here (Chemnitz is doing a fine job by himself), but this makes absolutely no sense. Your earlier posts give indication that you are well read and can use relatively sound logic. This is not one of those posts.

1. In what language(s) was the bible originally written?
2. Who would have been reading the bible when it was written? What language(s) did they speak and read? Remember, even common folk spoke and read these languages at the time the bible was written.

To suggest that the greek and hebrew are inconsquential (which is what you implied), break innerancy or otherwise take away from the meaning of the bible is absurd and ignorant.

Do you believe that the english version of the bible is the inerrant version? Why would you not go back to the greek and hebrew for greater clarification? Meanings of words change over the years as do the implications of those words. If we are to see the truth, the greek and hebrew must be fully understood to completely grasp what was originally said and implied. To discard this method is to place oneself in a state of blisful ignorance, a state which neither I, nor many other members of this board wish to be in.

 

Hi Chemnitz:

I was beginning to feel somewhat ignored. I was thinking that you didn't care anymore!

The point you make above is exactly what I wanted to point out. Let me see if I understand what you are saying here.

1. The Bible is the word of God, and is inerrant as it originally came from the mouth of God to those who wrote it.
2. The Bible was designed from Genesis to Revelation to be the totality of God's word to man.
3. Although still God's word, the Bible has gone translation process, some of which has created imprefections in the way we read the Bible in English.
4. This does not mean that the Bible is unreliable in any way. Although there are imperfections, they do not, in any way, detract from the substance of the Bible, nor from it's message.
5. If we return to the original language of the Bible (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic), we may gain clarification and insight in certain areas, but again, it does not significantly alter our understnding of the text.

Is my interpretation of your beliefs somewhat accurate? I just would like to make sure that I understand.

Don

 

Hello Jason,

Feel free to but in anytime. No problem there. As it turns out, I am the outsider here, and all of you have just invited me into your domain.

I apologize if my post did not make sense to you. I still maintain what I wrote, but perhaps it was just the way that I wrote it. I'm not entirely sure just which part was a little fuzzy. Let me see if I can make myself a little more clear.

First, I think that I may have overstated Chemnitz' postion...we'll see...and you certainly have completely misunderstood mine.

The comment that Greek was plain and simple was an owymoron to me. It contradicts itself. This simply for the fact that the average Joe is not fluent in Greek or Hebrew.

Second, I made the point that if we MUST return to the original language of the Bible in order to understand it, it becomes somewhat unreachable for the average Joe. This is the only point that I meant by what I said. Certainly, we would all agree that the optimum position would be that we ALL read the Bible in the original language. I just don't think that it's realistic. That was my point.

Now, if I understand correctly, this may all be a non issue for Chemnitz, if indeed he believes that we can get the essence of the Bible in English. I may have misunderstood the original position. Then again, I don't have an answer back, so we'll see.

Don

 

The mimickry is, indeed, interesting.

Yes, I have read the Book of Mormon, which
includes passages on water-witching and
which derides anyone who is not lily-white.
This is, indeed, a white man's gospel, for it
assails all who are not white men who follow
the fake moroni.

How many of you ladies wish to spend your
eternity as one of some guy's harem, eternally
pregnant, and delivering his baby-gods? The
idea of mormon heaven is a man's heaven,
not a woman's.

Joseph Smith had somewhat of an imagina-
tion, but it was not that good. The idea about
the Urim and Thummim helping him to read
the golden tablets was only mediocre, and
hiding them back in the hills before anyone
other than him could see them was sopho-
moric.

The prejudices of Smith's day, however,
were interesting and certainly showed them-
selves in his book. See, when people who
were not white would accept his doctrine, they
would become white! What a prize! What a
gift! And it was not until just a few years ago
that the Mormon temple allowed black people
in or let black men be missionaries. This is
very interesting. Have any turned white yet?</font>[/QUOTE]Why any black person would want to join this organisation is beyond me. Once I saw a debate about this on TV one of the Mormon proponents was a black woman!

 

Just a quick comment about the LDS and godhood. The purpose of the LDS temple is to perform sacred endowments, sealings, and ceremonies (which have changed over time). These are required to attain certain positions in the LDS Heirarchy (Melchezidec Preisthood, etc.). It is also where baptisms for the dead are performed. Just so I don't get too far off topic, once these "ordinances" are performed, and the member lives a faithful life, the LDS believe that they will be gods in the afterlife and will dwell in the celestial kingdom with Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.

Apart from that, people who don't make it to the Celestial Kingdom, may get to go to the Terrestrial kingdom. This place is supposed to be less than the CK, but greater than the Telestial kingdom. The main problem with this theology is this is where the LDS split the god-head. LDS theology and teachings say that Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost can visit the Terrestrial kingdom, but it is too good for Heavenly Father (Gospel Principles, Ch 46, pp 298).

Another note is that the LDS believe that they will one day become exalted as God is himself. I've heard people say it's not as bad because it's a lower-case "g" instead of an upper-case "G". Either way the LDS believe in a multiplicity of gods.

Joseph Smith himself once said: "God made Aaron to be the mouthpiece for the children of Israel, and He will make me to be god to you in His stead, and the Elders to be mouth for me; and if you don't like it, you must lump it." History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 319-320 (1844)

Notice he said that God made him (Joseph Smith) to be a god.

Moonpie

 

Yea they are pretty cool. We hang out alot now actualy. They went with me to one of our church outing at a local park a few weeks back and we went with them to a local park with there church about a week ago. We are having studies everyweek. Not sure that I believe all of if but it still good to learn.

I was a little bit confused to wonder why you guys believe that there is life before life. They showed me a scripture in Jermiah, but it was not that strong. But oh well. Its all good. I start my bible study with them in a few weeks, Cant wait. LOL

One thing I have noticed about the COJCOLDS members is that they are SUPPER NICE

There was even a few hotties, LOL, just kidding. For the most part they were mostly young married couples with about 18 kids. LOL just kidding there to. But for the most part they all had a family starting. Most had kids from 1-4. Lots of rugrats running around. haha.

But anyway, I admire you guys for what you do. Dedicateing yourself for 2 years knocking doors. I tip my hat to you.

God bless

 

Although many "Just Jesus" people would say this is true, I don't believe it is.

The first principle of the gospel is to love God with your whole heart, the second is love your neighbor as yourself.</font>[/QUOTE]Thats close but God did mention one more thing before that.

Mark 12:28 ¶ And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

 

Don Layton wrote,

"I am still looking for ANY evidence, outside of the Bible, of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If you can't provide it, you must admit that your theology is circular."

If you believe this then you don't have any idea what circular logic is? An example of circular logic would be the following:

The Bible is the word of God.
When asked how we know this, to only reply because the Bible tells us so, is circular.

All you are doing is bringing up a silly variation on the Atheist theme, "I won't beleive in the resurrection unless you show me an unbiased witness." My reply is who could be unbiased to the resurrection? That's like saying you want someone to be unbiased about their cancer screening, the request is absurd.

 

Will forgive, Dont beleive we have met. But are you agreeing with what he said or are you a firm believer in the Bible?

 

Oneness,

I am a firm believer in the Bible. Didn't you read my profile?

 

Yea I am sorry, i did after the fact that I posted the question.

Just curious to know what was your intention in the post?

 

Again guys i hope i dont repeat anything that has been said, Im kind of jumping in the middle. Im trying to read all of this and sometimes one thing will jump out at me.

We have a problem believing in This b/c the Bible says

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Guys I'm not picking on you but your Gospel does not exactly line up with the Gospel Holy Bible.

This is pretty simple. The answer is the Outpooring of the Holy Ghost.

The bible says

John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

After Jesus Died and rose again he was glorified, his Spirit was poured out upon all flesh. They spoke in tongues when they recieved the holy Ghost and We have spoke in tongues today.

We have the exact same witness as they did. We have the exact same evidence as they did.

Hope that helped

God bless

 

The doctrine of the Trinity does not rest on Mt 28 alone and for good reason, there is more to Scripture than Mt 28. Trinitarian doctrine begins with the existance of only one God "Hear, O Israel: YHWH is our God, YHWH is one." Dt 6:4 For there to be only one God there must only be one divine essense because to say that anything else is to say there is more than one god.

εις modifies το ονομα and is commonly used to denote 'swearing into the possession of'(M'neile, Alan The Gospel according to St Matthew St Martin)ονομα and inturn modifies του πατρος, και του υιου, και αγιου πνευματος. Which allows for the double entedre meaning of the passage.

,

Jn 14:20 " In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you." is not speaking eschatologically rather it is refering to the time after the ressurrection when the disciples finally have their eyes opened and they realize exactly what Jesus is telling them.

Jn 17:11 "And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one." The KJV seems to have you rather confused. It does not suggest that we are to join into the essense of God as you would like us to believe. Rather it is saying that the believers will be come one in a similar way to how God is one. And the true believers are one as we are all part of the body of Christ aka the Church.

[ September 20, 2002, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Chemnitz ]

 

I guess the mormons didn't like having people who know enough to refute them.