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

[Katzpur]

Perhaps you have "solid exegetical scholarship," but I don't belive that you have refuted ἀλήθεια's posts.

I believe I refuted the only point she made which was even worth addressing. She claimed that the Jesus of the Bible was born in Bethlehem and that the Jesus of the Book of Mormon was born in the land of Jerusalem. I explained that even in the Old World, people would have thought of Bethlehem as being part of "the land of Jerusalem." Therefore, there is no contradiction. There is in one of the Amarna texts, for instance, a reference to "a town in the land of Jerusalem" named Bît-Lahmi (Bît-Lahmi being the Canaanite equivalent of Bethlehem).

Throughout the Book of Mormon, the terms "land" and "city" are used almost as synonyms. This is true in the Bible, too, but to a lesser extent. In Joshua 17:8, Tappuah is called a "land"; in Joshua 17:8, it is referred to as a "city." It was customary in the Old World to refer to a "land" by the name of the principle city in that land. ἀλήθεια's argument is a tired, old, worn-out one that need to be put to bed. Some people are simply determined to have the last word, and I suspect this is going to be the case once again. I personally have no more to say on the topic of Jesus' birthplace, though; I have more than adequately supported the LDS position at this point.

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

Well, that makes two of us.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

Throughout the Book of Mormon, the terms "land" and "city" are used almost as synonyms. This is true in the Bible, too, but to a lesser extent. In Joshua 17:8, Tappuah is called a "land"; in Joshua 17:8, it is referred to as a "city."

Now Manasseh had the land of Tappuah: but Tappuah on the border of Manasseh belonged to the children of Ephraim; (Joshua 17:8)

Lehi and his family lived in Jerusalem just years before the Babylonian destroyed Jerusalem in 587 B.C.
Bruce Satterfield, Department of Religious Education, Brigham Young University - Idaho, An Overview of the Old Testament to the Beginning of the Book of Mormon

If the land of the Nephites' forefathers was "the land of Jerusalem," it must have referred to the city of Jerusalem because that appears to have been where Lehi was from.

“These struggles between Assyria, Babylonia, and Egypt took place before the Book of Mormon record opens but during the lifetime of its early leading characters. When the account commences, twenty-one-year-old Zedekiah, the well-meaning but utterly weak uncle of the ill-fated King Jehoiachin, is spoken of as being in the first year of his reign. According to the book of 2 Kings, he was appointed to the throne by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. It was a time of great wickedness. Immorality and corruption were rampant. Dishonesty, false swearing, and idolatry were common vices of the day. As if the sins of the people were not already enough to invite God’s judgments, Zedekiah chose to follow the disastrous course of Jehoiakim in seeking an alliance with Egypt and scheming a break from Babylonia. It was at this point that the prophet Jeremiah, whose gloomy prophecies had already brought him notoriety in Jehoiakim’s day, thundered forth anew the ominous pronouncement that Jerusalem and its temple were doomed for destruction and the entire nation would be led into captivity if they did not repent and heed the admonitions of the Lord. But the declaration that God would turn against his chosen people and allow his sacred temple and his holy city to be destroyed was considered an outrage. To the incensed priests and princes the prophecy was traitorous and bordered on blasphemy. Jeremiah’s arrest and imprisonment were ordered” (Daniel H. Ludlow, A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon, pp. 62–63). Had Lehi remained in Jerusalem, he likely would have received a similar fate or worse.
Book of Mormon 1996 1*Nephi

(Bold mine)

 

[Watchmen]

Since Katzpur did a more than adequate job of refuting the geography claim, are there any other differences to be brought forth?

 

[edward]

I believe I refuted the only point she made which was even worth addressing. She claimed that the Jesus of the Bible was born in Bethlehem and that the Jesus of the Book of Mormon was born in the land of Jerusalem. I explained that even in the Old World, people would have thought of Bethlehem as being part of "the land of Jerusalem." Therefore, there is no contradiction. There is in one of the Amarna texts, for instance, a reference to "a town in the land of Jerusalem" named Bît-Lahmi (Bît-Lahmi being the Canaanite equivalent of Bethlehem).

Throughout the Book of Mormon, the terms "land" and "city" are used almost as synonyms. This is true in the Bible, too, but to a lesser extent. In Joshua 17:8, Tappuah is called a "land"; in Joshua 17:8, it is referred to as a "city." It was customary in the Old World to refer to a "land" by the name of the principle city in that land. ἀλήθεια's argument is a tired, old, worn-out one that need to be put to bed. Some people are simply determined to have the last word, and I suspect this is going to be the case once again. I personally have no more to say on the topic of Jesus' birthplace, though; I have more than adequately supported the LDS position at this point.

Well, that makes two of us.

:sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep:


Ah... Well, does this mean that I shouldn't bother responding to the "land vs city" topic and just allow the LDS to chalk up one for their side of the ledger? I hope not. I wait with baited breath for permission to carry on in meaningful dialogue. If all doors are closed in the arena of idea exchanging, I shall not waste my time or yours.

 

[edward]

Since Katzpur did a more than adequate job of refuting the geography claim, are there any other differences to be brought forth?

It's your thread. Does this mean that you get to declare who the victor is? Or are you saying that Katzpur did an adequate job explaining it for you? If you feel the book is closed on this issue, shouldn't you close the thread or are you still open to other thoughts and research?

Edward

 

[sojourner]

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.

I've read the rest of the thread thus far, and it seems to have degenerated into a geographical-correctness fight. That's not really what we're after here.

Katz, I let me see if I can be succinct enough here, and still accomplish our purpose. I don't think I can present "a few passages that will help us better understand the Biblical Jesus." It just doesn't work that way. First off, each gospel writer (as well as Paul) present Jesus quite differently, so I don't think there's even Biblical consensus about who Jesus is. Secondly, it's not individual passages we're after, but a "flavor" of the gospels, themselves, with Jesus as the main character.

For Matthew, the gospel is, in my estimation, an ancient biography of Jesus. In this gospel, Jesus is portrayed as fulfilling prophecy, primarily through his DAvidic lineage. Now, the geneaology presented by Matthew is historically incorrect -- we all know that, but it's written that way to present a theological point about Jesus' lineage.

Mark isn't interested in Jesus' lineage. For Mark, Jesus stands as Lord of nature. he stills storms, walks on water, brings people back from the dead, and does miraculous healings. There is no birth narrative, nor are there post-resurrection appearances. Mark's Jesus doesn't even do any teaching (although he is said to be a "teacher.") Jesus is recognized by the demons (and by Peter), but he is recognized in the wrong way. Mark's Jesus is a little more Gallilean and a little more rural than Matthew's, who really presents Jesus as Judean and more urban.

Matthew really brings out the teacher in Jesus, and not only the teacher, but the preacher. Jesus' teachings are set up in five great sermons, each one designed by Matthew to teach his community of believers what it's place is in the world. The last sermon is the "judgment sermon."

You will note that Mark is way moe apocalyptic than Matthew. Matthew just doesn't know what to do with the end times, so he couches them in judgment. Mark's vision is of an imminent parousia. Matthew's not so sure.

Luke is completely different. Luke presents Jesus as a counterpart to Caesar Augustus, comparing their births, family lineages and identification as soter in the first two chapters. Luke places the apocalypse way, way "in the future," and sets up his gospel and Acts (which really should be treated as one document) as ancient history: The great shift of time before Jesus, the great shift of time during Jesus, and the great shift of time after Jesus.

Luke places Jesus squarely as a Judean, and makes him very, very urban.

Who is the Biblical Jesus? A rural healer? A fulfiller of prophecy, and the rightful heir to the throne of Israel? An urban teacher, set over against the Roman emperor? Lord of nature? Teacher? All of those things?

I think we can get a "photo album" of several different personages by looking at the Bible. We usually tend to blur them all into one completely different picture, that doesn't really do justice to any single one of them. (IMO, we'd be far better off looking closely at each one, celebrating it for what it is.)

How does the BOM present Jesus?

 

[Christian Pilgrim]

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

I think Thor and Watchen can be discuss and debate in harmony. I hope God will change your perspective and heart in regards to our relatiionship. What does Jesus say about forgiving one another if I have offended you? The Apostle Paul is in complete harmony with Jesus on his teaching on forgiveness.

Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. - Paul

 

[Christian Pilgrim]

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.

This is the area that I would enjoy discussing, the gospel of Jesus Christ, and what He accomplished by his perfect obedience to the Father's will including obedience to death on the cross. What did Jesus actually accomplish and for whom? I will stick to the Bible, and you will have to provide the information from the Book of Mormon. The person and work of Christ on behalf of sinners, or Christ and Him crucified is the gospel of God about His Son. The Jesus in the Bible redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. It seems the Biblical Jesus paid the price of sin in full on behalf of sinners who believe. The Mormon Jesus seems to only pay a price to give all mankind an opportunity to be saved, and personal obedience to the law is necessary to be reconciled to God. Would this be accurate in the difference between the Mormon Jesus and the Biblical Jesus, since one secures and merits salvation perfectly for those God has chosen to save? This is not intended to be offensive, but rather objective. I find the Mormon Jesus to be less effective, anemic, and weaker to accomplish the mission God the Father gave HIm to rescue sinners. The Mormon Jesus does not portray in His mission to rescue sinners in the same way the Biblical Jesus did in actually propitiating the sins of God's chosen ones. The Biblical Jesus paid the full price of sin to reconcile certain sinners to God perfectly. The Mormon Jesus only paid a partial payment for sins; therefore the Mormon Jesus did not atone for the sins in full for anyone. The Biblical Jesus actually saves sinners perfectly, to the glory of God the Father and to the praise of His glorious grace by His redeemned. Since the Mormon Jesus leaves mankind to save themselves, the Mormon Jesus is only a partial savior and is not the sovereign Lord as revealed in the Scriptures.

The Righteous Shall Live by Faith

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. - The Apostle Paul

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. - Paul

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

God's Everlasting Love

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written,
“For your sake we are being killed all the day long;
we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Paul

 

[Katzpur]

I've read the rest of the thread thus far, and it seems to have degenerated into a geographical-correctness fight. That's not really what we're after here.

Well, it wasn't what I was after either, but you're right... that's what it's turning into.

Katz, I let me see if I can be succinct enough here, and still accomplish our purpose. I don't think I can present "a few passages that will help us better understand the Biblical Jesus." It just doesn't work that way. First off, each gospel writer (as well as Paul) present Jesus quite differently, so I don't think there's even Biblical consensus about who Jesus is. Secondly, it's not individual passages we're after, but a "flavor" of the gospels, themselves, with Jesus as the main character.

How does the BOM present Jesus?

Sojourner, I will get back to you on this. I've got to leave for work shortly and won't be able to post in much depth till tonight.

 

[tomspug]

3 Nephi 27:27 And know ye that aye shall be bjudges of this people, according to the judgment which I shall give unto you, which shall be just.

Feel free to find me a teaching of Jesus in the Bible that backs this up.

In the mean time, ponder this:

• John 12:47 NIV "As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it.

Also,

• Matthew 7:1 NIV Do not judge, or you too will be judged.

 

[Katzpur]

Ah... Well, does this mean that I shouldn't bother responding to the "land vs city" topic and just allow the LDS to chalk up one for their side of the ledger? I hope not. I wait with baited breath for permission to carry on in meaningful dialogue. If all doors are closed in the arena of idea exchanging, I shall not waste my time or yours.

Feel free to contribute, Edward. As long as we can move forward and not just go around in circles, I'm interested in what you have to say.

 

[tomspug]

Another thing to consider is the verbatim translation between the King James Version of Jesus's teachings and those described in 3 Nephi. Isn't it odd that they match the predominant version of the Bible at the time (and one that has apparently been corrupted over time by the church) and not the literal Greek from the earliest translations of Jesus's teachings? If the Book of Mormon is in fact the most accurate version of God's plan for humanity, then why does it compare LESS to the original translations of the Christian church?

 

[Katzpur]

Another thing to consider is the verbatim translation between the King James Version of Jesus's teachings and those described in 3 Nephi. Isn't it odd that they match the predominant version of the Bible at the time (and one that has apparently been corrupted over time by the church) and not the literal Greek from the earliest translations of Jesus's teachings? If the Book of Mormon is in fact the most accurate version of God's plan for humanity, then why does it compare LESS to the original translations of the Christian church?

Tom, would you mind reposting this comment in the "Why don't Christians accept the Book of Mormon?" thread. It would be so nice to just have one thread on Mormonism where people actually stuck to the OP. We're trying to determine if and how the Bible's and the Book of Mormon's portrayal of Jesus Christ differs. Your comment really has nothing to do with that issue.

 

[tomspug]

Tom, would you mind reposting this comment in the "Why don't Christians accept the Book of Mormon?" thread. It would be so nice to just have one thread on Mormonism where people actually stuck to the OP. We're trying to determine if and how the Bible's and the Book of Mormon's portrayal of Jesus Christ differs. Your comment really has nothing to do with that issue.

Of course it does, it simply addresses a side of the issue you would rather have tossed in that ridiculously long thread. We are, as the OP suggests, discussing the difference between the BoM Jesus and the Bible Jesus, and if I'm not mistaken, the things he SAID are a high indication of the difference between them. Both the literal Greek and the KJV both qualify as the Bible, yes? But they portray different translations of the teachings of Jesus, and I am simply pointing out that the BoM version of Jesus's teachings are remarkably similar to the predominant translation during Joseph Smith's lifetime rather than the predominant translation that was taught by the early Christian church (around the same time that 3 Nephi apparently describes). I would love for you to explain how this is NOT relevant to the OP.

 

[LittleNipper]

I believe the book of mormon portrays CHRIST as a superhero muscle man. The Bible portrays CHRIST as a smelly shepherd who would lay his life down for HIS sheep and whose looks would not influence anyone...

 

[ἀλήθεια]

Of course it does, it simply addresses a side of the issue you would rather have tossed in that ridiculously long thread. We are, as the OP suggests, discussing the difference between the BoM Jesus and the Bible Jesus, and if I'm not mistaken, the things he SAID are a high indication of the difference between them. Both the literal Greek and the KJV both qualify as the Bible, yes? But they portray different translations of the teachings of Jesus, and I am simply pointing out that the BoM version of Jesus's teachings are remarkably similar to the predominant translation during Joseph Smith's lifetime rather than the predominant translation that was taught by the early Christian church (around the same time that 3 Nephi apparently describes). I would love for you to explain how this is NOT relevant to the OP.

You're on a different topic, IMO.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

Most of the non-LDS who are posting to this thread don't appear to have read the BoM and I don't know how they can make a comparison. But without including the views of the atonement and of the nature of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as expressed in the Doctrine and Covenants, I think the comparison is pointless.

 

[sojourner]

Another thing to consider is the verbatim translation between the King James Version of Jesus's teachings and those described in 3 Nephi. Isn't it odd that they match the predominant version of the Bible at the time (and one that has apparently been corrupted over time by the church) and not the literal Greek from the earliest translations of Jesus's teachings? If the Book of Mormon is in fact the most accurate version of God's plan for humanity, then why does it compare LESS to the original translations of the Christian church?

It's an interesting point, but we're not discussing either the accuracy or the veracity of the BOM. We're discussing differing portrayals of Jesus, as those portrayals appear in the gospels, epistles and BOM.

 

[*Paul*]

Other than supposed recorded events about Jesus in the BOM of mormon what does it tell you about Jesus? From what I have read in the BOM it is presented as a historical narrative as are the gospels but is there any exposition of His Person such as in John's and Pauls letters i.e teaching of doctrine or would you rely on D&C and the bible for that?

 

[Watchmen]

Paul, LittleNipper and Christian Pilgram claimed the BoM Jesus is different than the Bible Jesus and asked me to start a thread to discuss it. So far, the only thing I've seen actually brought up has to do with his birthplace.

Does anyone have anything else? If not, it seems the Bible and BoM Jesus aren't so different after all.