Christians/LDS: Jesus of the Bible vs. Jesus of the BoM

[Watchmen]

Are the Jesus of the Bible and the Jesus of the BoM the same or different? Why?

 

[Christian Pilgrim]

Are the Jesus of the Bible and the Jesus of the BoM the same or different? Why?

Thank you my friend, I need a break from that atheist and Christian thread. Those who left Christianity for atheism can be hard-core militants if you get my drift. So, I'll be back to participate on this wonderful thread later today. This will be an excellent topic if we all share with gentleness and respect. Thor would probably destroy all of the Watchmen in a movie. Spoc would be able to handle Thor.

 

[Christian Pilgrim]

Are the Jesus of the Bible and the Jesus of the BoM the same or different? Why?

Okay, I know what Jesus is like as revealed in the Scriptures. So, what is Jesus like as revealed in the Book of Mormon? BTW... the Jesus portrayed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints appears to be too European to me. Doesn't your Jesus have blue eyes?

LDS.org - About the Church

 

[Katzpur]

BTW... the Jesus portrayed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints appears to be too European to me. Doesn't your Jesus have blue eyes?

Catholics and Protestants were been depicting a "European" Jesus for centuries before the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was ever established. That has got to be just about the most inane comment I have ever heard on the subject of "the Mormon Jesus." I can't even believe that one's for real.

 

[Christian Pilgrim]

Catholics and Protestants were been depicting a "European" Jesus for centuries before the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was ever established. That has got to be just about the most inane comment I have ever heard on the subject of "the Mormon Jesus." I can't even believe that one's for real.

I'm glad you found this thread because dogs and cats can get along!

 

[Watchmen]

Okay, I know what Jesus is like as revealed in the Scriptures. So, what is Jesus like as revealed in the Book of Mormon?

My position is that the Bible Jesus and the BoM Jesus are the same. You and LittleNipper claimed they are a different Jesus. Why don't you tell us how they're different because I don't see it.

Remember: We're sticking with the Bible and Book of Mormon.

 

[Katzpur]

I'm glad you found this thread because dogs and cats can get along!

My cat and my two dogs get along just fine. You and I never will. You had your chance and you blew it.

 

[Katzpur]

Remember: We're sticking with the Bible and Book of Mormon.

I think maybe you're going to need to change your sig, Watchmen. This little reminder is probably going to have to be repeated in every post you make.

 

[Christian Pilgrim]

Okay Watchmen,

I'm leaving work in a couple minutes and will not be in my office tomorrow. Therefore, please share what your understanding of Jesus Christ and what He is like? What did His life and death accomplish for you personally? Thanks in advance for your answers.

 

[Watchmen]

Okay Watchmen,

I'm leaving work in a couple minutes and will not be in my office tomorrow. Therefore, please share what your understanding of Jesus Christ and what He is like? What did His life and death accomplish for you personally? Thanks in advance for your answers.

Nope. You and LittleNipper made the claim they are different. The burden is on you. I'm not surprised you're dancing around the issue. How many posts in now - And you still haven't shown me one, single difference.

 

[sojourner]

Nope. You and LittleNipper made the claim they are different. The burden is on you. I'm not surprised you're dancing around the issue. How many posts in now - And you still haven't shown me one, single difference.

If I could weigh in here:
I don't know the first thing about the Jesus of the BOM. I do have some solid exegetical scholarship with regard to the Jesus of the Bible. I'd love to see some solid, scholarly exegesis with regard to the BOM. My guess is that, if the BOM is an authentic document, that Jesus will be presented at least somewhat differently. The same is true of the individual gospels and the epistles, as well as the Koranic treatment. I can't imagine that the BOM would be any different.

 

[Katzpur]

If I could weigh in here:
I don't know the first thing about the Jesus of the BOM. I do have some solid exegetical scholarship with regard to the Jesus of the Bible. I'd love to see some solid, scholarly exegesis with regard to the BOM. My guess is that, if the BOM is an authentic document, that Jesus will be presented at least somewhat differently. The same is true of the individual gospels and the epistles, as well as the Koranic treatment. I can't imagine that the BOM would be any different.

Sojourner, I'm glad to see you here. Would you be so kind as to begin our discussion by presenting a few passages from the Bible that you believe can be used to help us gain a better understanding of the biblical Jesus. I'll take my cues from you and see what I can add from the Book of Mormon.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

There is very little difference between what the Bible says about Christ and what the Book of Mormon says; there are differences in LDS teachings and biblical teachings about Jesus and the atonement. However, the birthplace of Jesus is not the same in the BoM and Bible.

And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God. (Alma 7:10)

Also the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi, Chapter Eleven, describes Mary's physical appearance which is never mentioned in the Bible:

13 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.
• • •
15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.
• • •

18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.


The biblical Jesus who descended from Mary is described like this:

As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: (Isaiah 52:14)

2For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.(Isaiah 53)

 

[Katzpur]

[The} birthplace of Jesus is not the same in the BoM and Bible.

And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God. (Alma 7:10)

This is too easy.

Like Christians everywhere, we believe that Jesus Christ was born in the small middle-eastern village of Bethlehem. However, as another poster has already pointed out, the Book of Mormon states:

"And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God." (Alma 7:10)

At first glance, it appears that we have a pretty significant contradiction on our hands. A closer look, however, reveals that this is not the case at all. In his prophecy concerning the coming of a Savior, the ancient American prophet Alma refers to Jerusalem as "the land of our forefathers," and said that Jesus Christ would be born in this land. Considering the fact that Bethlehem is, in fact, a suburb of the city of Jerusalem (roughly 5 miles away from the city itself), his choice of words makes perfect sense. If an individual today lived in a small suburb of Los Angeles, and were asked where he was from, he might very well answer, "I'm from L.A." No one would accuse him of lying or even of stretching the truth a bit.

In recent years, archeological findings have proven especially interesting as they relate to Joseph's translation of the plates. For instance, two non-LDS scholars (I point this out only because it seems this makes a great deal of difference to some people), Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise, discuss an example of the phrase "land of Jerusalem" in the Dead Sea Scrolls in their book, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered. They write that the use of this phrase "greatly enhances the sense of historicity of the whole, since Judah or 'Yehud' (the name of the area on coins from the Persian period) by this time consisted of little more than Jerusalem and its immediate environs" In other words, not only was the city of Jerusalem referred to in this way, but the entire surrounding area. Thus, what was known as "the land of Judah" was also known as "the land of Jerusalem."

Use of that phrase was utterly illogical for Joseph Smith, who published the Book of Mormon over a century before the Dead Sea Scrolls were even discovered. As a matter of fact, I imagine that he might very well questioned the translation when it came to him. After all, even a school child in 1830 would have known better than to say that Jesus was born in Jerusalem. Obviously, Joseph would have been very much aware of the supposed "blunder" he was making in translating the text according to what he knew it actually said.

So, there we have it: A refutation of ἀλήθεια's point and my first contribution to the "solid exegetical scholarship" Sojourner was looking for. Two birds with one stone.

 

[Katzpur]

Also the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi, Chapter Eleven, describes Mary's physical appearance which is never mentioned in the Bible:

13 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.
• • •
15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.
• • •

18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.


The biblical Jesus who descended from Mary is described like this:

As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: (Isaiah 52:14)

2For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.(Isaiah 53)

Okay, the Bible describes Jesus. The Book of Mormon describes Mary. I'm not quite sure what to do with information now that I've got it.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

"And isn't it true that where the KJV differs from the Book of Mormon, the KJV is wrong? Example: Jesus being born in Jerusalem, vs the AV's Jesus being born in Bethlehem."

I have no idea what you are saying here.

Like Christians everywhere, we believe that Jesus Christ was born in the small middle-eastern village of Bethlehem.

Why would you believe that He was born in Bethlehem if your Book of Mormon says he was born in a land called Jerusalem?

However, as another poster has already pointed out, the Book of Mormon states:

"And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God." (Alma 7:10)

Jerusalem was a city not a country.

At first glance, it appears that we have a pretty significant contradiction on our hands. A closer look, however, reveals that this is not the case at all. In his prophecy concerning the coming of a Savior, the ancient American prophet Alma refers to Jerusalem as "the land of our forefathers," and said that Jesus Christ would be born in this land. Considering the fact that Bethlehem is, in fact, a suburb of the city of Jerusalem (roughly 5 miles away from the city itself), his choice of words makes perfect sense. If an individual today lived in a small suburb of Los Angeles, and were asked where he was from, he might very well answer, "I'm from L.A." No one would accuse him of lying or even of stretching the truth a bit.

Bethlehem is in “the land of Juda” (Matthew 2:6; cf. Luke 2:4). Bethlehem and Jerusalem are always referred to as separate cities in the Bible.

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, (Matthew 2:1)

 

[doppelganger]

Are the Jesus of the Bible and the Jesus of the BoM the same or different? Why?

No two persons' Jesuses are the same.

 

[Katzpur]

I have no idea what you are saying here.

I apologize. I copied this post from an old reply (this point gets raised constantly), and meant to delete that line.

Why would you believe that He was born in Bethlehem if your Book of Mormon says he was born in a land called Jerusalem?

Jerusalem was a city not a country.

Bethlehem is in “the land of Juda” (Matthew 2:6; cf. Luke 2:4). Bethlehem and Jerusalem are always referred to as separate cities in the Bible.

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, (Matthew 2:1)

So, did you not understand my post #15 or do you just disagree with the scholars whose research I referenced?

 

[ἀλήθεια]

The beginning of the damaged text reads:
...Jeremiah the Prophet before the Lord
[...w]ho were taken captive from the land of Jerusalem [Eretz Yerushalayim, column 1, line 2] (p. 58).

This is most likely a reference to the city of Jerusalem. The fragment states that the captain of the guard "took vessels of the House of God and the priests [and] the children of Israel and brought them to Babylon." We know that the House of God was in the city of Jerusalem.

It is similar to Daniel, Chapter One:

Daniel 1
1In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.
2And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god.

 

[edward]

This is too easy.

Like Christians everywhere, we believe that Jesus Christ was born in the small middle-eastern village of Bethlehem. However, as another poster has already pointed out, the Book of Mormon states:

"And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God." (Alma 7:10)

At first glance, it appears that we have a pretty significant contradiction on our hands. A closer look, however, reveals that this is not the case at all. In his prophecy concerning the coming of a Savior, the ancient American prophet Alma refers to Jerusalem as "the land of our forefathers," and said that Jesus Christ would be born in this land. Considering the fact that Bethlehem is, in fact, a suburb of the city of Jerusalem (roughly 5 miles away from the city itself), his choice of words makes perfect sense. If an individual today lived in a small suburb of Los Angeles, and were asked where he was from, he might very well answer, "I'm from L.A." No one would accuse him of lying or even of stretching the truth a bit.

In recent years, archeological findings have proven especially interesting as they relate to Joseph's translation of the plates. For instance, two non-LDS scholars (I point this out only because it seems this makes a great deal of difference to some people), Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise, discuss an example of the phrase "land of Jerusalem" in the Dead Sea Scrolls in their book, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered. They write that the use of this phrase "greatly enhances the sense of historicity of the whole, since Judah or 'Yehud' (the name of the area on coins from the Persian period) by this time consisted of little more than Jerusalem and its immediate environs" In other words, not only was the city of Jerusalem referred to in this way, but the entire surrounding area. Thus, what was known as "the land of Judah" was also known as "the land of Jerusalem."

Use of that phrase was utterly illogical for Joseph Smith, who published the Book of Mormon over a century before the Dead Sea Scrolls were even discovered. As a matter of fact, I imagine that he might very well questioned the translation when it came to him. After all, even a school child in 1830 would have known better than to say that Jesus was born in Jerusalem. Obviously, Joseph would have been very much aware of the supposed "blunder" he was making in translating the text according to what he knew it actually said.

So, there we have it: A refutation of ἀλήθεια's point and my first contribution to the "solid exegetical scholarship" Sojourner was looking for. Two birds with one stone.

Perhaps you have "solid exegetical scholarship," but I don't belive that you have refuted ἀλήθεια's posts. Also, I don't disagree with the scholarship of Eisenman and Wise, only the application of it within LDS circles.

All of that being said, I must forgo posting further tonight as I do not have the stamina to continue.

Until tomorrow,

Edward