metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
You might consider rewording this.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Is the Mormon church a Christian denomination?"
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I do not know how to give a short description of the Christian point of view that is any better that what I have. I can add in more details but the context will remain the same. Pretend you are a Christian (instead of Jewish), and give me a better worded description of our point of view. If it is in the ball park, I will go with it. However I believe your looking at what I said from a Jewish perspective and just do not agree.You might consider rewording this.
Callisto
Hellenismos, BTW
Doesn't take having a Jewish perspective.
Simply put: Christianity developed out of Judaism.
Judaism didn't end and Christianity doesn't begin from some ending of it.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
According to core Christian principles Judaism in fact ended (specifically because God said fault was found with it), when Christ was resurrected. The covenant of the Law (OT) is over, the covenant of grace (NT) began with Christ's resurrection and will apply until judgment. You may not like that point of view, you may have reasons to disbelieve in that world view, yet that remains the Christian worldview concerning Judaism. Christ specifically forbade those who came to him as observant Jews from going back to the practice of Judaism.
Callisto
Hellenismos, BTW
It's a fact insomuch as explaining it to be per Christian principles but that doesn't make it an actual self-standing fact, it makes it a bias. If it were fact then it wouldn't need to be explained as per x-religion.
Jesus didn't directly leave anything so it's so much hearsay. So there is nothing for me to like or dislike, just to note that a lot of claims were made about someone who didn't so much as leave a post-it note.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I wasn't attempting to prove a world view was true, just what that world view was. It is my position that the Christian world view is true, but we first need to define a thing to see if it exists.It's a fact insomuch as explaining it to be per Christian principles but that doesn't make it an actual self-standing fact, it makes it a bias. If it were fact then it wouldn't need to be explained as per x-religion.
I do not claim that Jesus wrote anything. The bible said the Holy Spirit was given to the apostles to remind of all the events and teachings concerning Christ.
We are not going to get any where this way. Let me be more emphatic, I claim the probability that the NT accurately describes historical and spiritual truths is greater than it's negation. That includes the doctrine that the covenant of the law (OT) is over and the covenant of grace (NT) applies currently. If you disagree with any of that then go ahead and explain what it is and why it is you disagree.
BTW a good place to start is one of (if not the) greatest expert on testimony and evidence in human history, concerning a short paper he wrote:
http://nagasawafamily.org/article-Simon-Greenleaf-Testimony-of-the-Evangelists.pdf
Callisto
Hellenismos, BTW
Fair enough.
Actually, you did state that, "Christ specifically forbade..." which implies that, yes, he personally left evidence behind. If you concede he left no personal writings then it can't be stated that he specifically anything because all it amounts to is hearsay by others.
We'll not get anywhere because I could say in turn go ahead and substantiate the probability you perceive and it would just become yet another iteration of the same old debates already common.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Very well.
I do wish you would get this straight. I did not say Jesus left no evidence behind. I never said he did not say anything to anyone. I said that I never claimed he wrote anything down.
That is why I gave you the link, so you could get an expert's opinion about the historical reliability concerning the Gospel's claims.
I am not sure what you want, it does not seem to be a debate.
Callisto
Hellenismos, BTW
I was perfectly straight. Either Jesus personally left something behind or he did not. The claims of others (in writing, are they not?) are NOT the same as being able to make the declarative that "Jesus specifically forbade" when there is not anything left from him to corroborate it.
Please copy and paste where I offered debate. You said you didn't, "know how to give a short description of the Christian point of view that is any better that what I have." And I offered "Simply put: Christianity developed out of Judaism." That's the extent of it. Or is it you're wanting to debate whether Christianity developed out of Judaism?
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
"The relationship between God, his Son and the Holy Spirit are:
- The Father is the only true God is the sender
- The Son was sent by the Father and was conceived by Mary through the Holy Spirit
- The Holy Spirit was sent by the Father in the name of the Son"
Isn't that an impossible relation?
Please
Regards
MJFlores
Well-Known Member
Not at all:
The Father is the ONLY true GOD is the sender:
John 3:16 John 17:1-3
The Son was sent by the Father
John 3:16 John 17:1-3
The Son was conceived by Mary through the HS
Matthew 1:18
The HS is sent by the Father in the name of the Son
John 14:26
Who is to be worshiped?
- The Father who is the only true God
- The Son who was made Lord and Messiah by God
Philippians 2:10-11
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Substitutional theology does not imply changing a single word.
It is about changing meaning and context and expectation.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
All I was implying is that it is factually incorrect to say that Judaism ended with the beginning of Christianity-- it's very much alive & kicking.
BTW, there is no such thing as "the Christian point of view" on this as different denominations have different takes on this. You may have a Christian point of view on this, and that's all fine and dandy, but your position isn't the only one in the town of Christianity.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Then your deity must be a liar since He said that the Covenant and the Law were "forever" and "perpetual", etc.
MJFlores
Well-Known Member
I would have to redirect what the topic starter said:
Came across the following and am curious as to what you think of the Mormon faith in relation to Christianity..
" 'Is the Mormon church a Christian denomination?' NO. Mormonism is not Christian because it denies some of the essential doctrines of Christianity, including: 1) the deity of Christ, 2) salvation by grace, and 3) the bodily resurrection of Christ. Furthermore, Mormon doctrine contradicts the Christian teaching of monotheism and undermines the authority and reliability of the Bible."
source
Personally, I consider any person who claims to be a Christian, is a Christian.
Mormons believe their Jesus is a god who is part of the Godhead. Godhead is different from the Trinity.
Mormons believe in 3 kingdoms - salvation
Mormons believe that after ascension their Jesus visited North America
Their source of doctrines are 2 books - the Bible and the Book of Mormons
What can I say?
Came across the following and am curious as to what you think of the Mormon faith in relation to Christianity..
" 'Is the Mormon church a Christian denomination?' NO. Mormonism is not Christian because it denies some of the essential doctrines of Christianity, including: 1) the deity of Christ, 2) salvation by grace, and 3) the bodily resurrection of Christ. Furthermore, Mormon doctrine contradicts the Christian teaching of monotheism and undermines the authority and reliability of the Bible."
source
Personally, I consider any person who claims to be a Christian, is a Christian.
Mormons believe their Jesus is a god who is part of the Godhead. Godhead is different from the Trinity.
Mormons believe in 3 kingdoms - salvation
Mormons believe that after ascension their Jesus visited North America
Their source of doctrines are 2 books - the Bible and the Book of Mormons
What can I say?
- I do not believe that Jesus is God. I believe my Jesus is a very special man - Son of God, Son of Man, man Mediator, sent by God, firstborn from the dead, firstborn of all creation - that is what the apostles preached.
- There are only two consequence of man - eternal life and eternal punishment. There are no 3 kingdoms but a misunderstanding of the KJV.
- My Lord Jesus never went to North America after being taken up in heaven. The Mormon Jesus story which depicted him visiting the Indians is not recorded in the Bible.
- There is no other gospel but the Bible. The rest are just made up stories.
Short answer: Of course the LDS are Christians.
Longer answer: Yes, and it takes a considerable amount of willingness to misrepresent facts to put serious doubt to it.
Even longer answer: Because any self-consistent criteria to decide who qualifies as a Christian that leaves Mormons outside would either have to similarly exclude far too many other people who are rarely challenged on that regard or else establish that "true" Christians are few and difficult to pinpoint.
Claims about doctrinary differences are actually puzzling. For all the insistence that there are core beliefs involving the Bible, the divinity of Jesus and similar points, very few Christians give those criteria more significance than the nominal adherence to their own churches. There are nominally Christian churches that practice everything from animism to true idolatry to bargaining with God to rituals that IMO are very difficult to distinguish from magic.
It could perhaps be a good idea to question their qualifications as Christian Churches. But if you do, it becomes even more difficult to deny that Mormons do qualify without deciding that Christians are not 30% of humanity, but more like 05% or even less.
Longer answer: Yes, and it takes a considerable amount of willingness to misrepresent facts to put serious doubt to it.
Even longer answer: Because any self-consistent criteria to decide who qualifies as a Christian that leaves Mormons outside would either have to similarly exclude far too many other people who are rarely challenged on that regard or else establish that "true" Christians are few and difficult to pinpoint.
Claims about doctrinary differences are actually puzzling. For all the insistence that there are core beliefs involving the Bible, the divinity of Jesus and similar points, very few Christians give those criteria more significance than the nominal adherence to their own churches. There are nominally Christian churches that practice everything from animism to true idolatry to bargaining with God to rituals that IMO are very difficult to distinguish from magic.
It could perhaps be a good idea to question their qualifications as Christian Churches. But if you do, it becomes even more difficult to deny that Mormons do qualify without deciding that Christians are not 30% of humanity, but more like 05% or even less.
Note: this picture is apparently commented on by somebody coming from a Trinitarian perspective. That is neither your nor our perspective.
The larger difference between INC and LDS understanding of deity is the INC denial of the divinity of Christ (divinity which LDS celebrate).
1robin
Christian/Baptist
This has gotten so far away from where it started we need a do-over. Lets go back to where this train left the tracks.
1. I said the Christ said "XXXXXXXX"
2. You responded that Christ had no written anything.
3. I said I did not claim Christ wrote anything.
4. You concluded that since Christ never wrote anything that he did not leave evidence and so no one can have any idea what he said.
5. I respond with stating that while I do agree that Christ did not write anything himself that that by no stretch of the imagination does that lead to the conclusion that he left no evidence nor that we cannot establish what it is he said to a high degree of reliability. There are specific things a textual tradition must have in order to have a high degree of reliability concerning modern copies. The bible exceeds any other book of any kind in every single standard concerning these requirements compared with any work from ancient history.
Since this involves a bit of investigation to establish I will give you a link to who might be the greatest expert on testimony and evidence in human history and I will give you a brief summary:
Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was the famous Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University, and succeeded Justice Joseph Story as the Dane Professor of Law in the same university, upon Story's death in 1846.
H. W. H Knott says of this great authority in jurisprudence: "To the efforts of Story and Greenleaf is to be ascribed the rise of the Harvard Law School to its eminent position among the legal schools of the United States."
Greenleaf produced a famous work entitled A Treatise on the Law of Evidence which "is still considered the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure."
In 1846, while still Professor of Law at Harvard, Greenleaf wrote a volume entitled An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In his classic work the author examines the value of the testimony of the apostles to the resurrection of Christ. The following are this brilliant jurist's critical observations:
The great truths which the apostles declared, were, that Christ had risen from the dead, and that only through repentance from sin, and faith in Him, could men hope for salvation. This doctrine they asserted with one voice, everywhere, not only under the greatest discouragements, but in the face of the most appalling errors that can be represented to the mind of man. Their master had recently perished as a malefactor, by the sentence of a public tribunal. His religion sought to overthrow the religions of the whole world. The laws of every country were against the teachings of His disciples. The interests and passions of all the rulers and great men in the world were against them. The fashion of the world was against them. Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, reviling's, bitter persecutions, stripes, imprisonments, torments, and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propagate; and all these miseries they endured undismayed, nay, rejoicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only prosecuted their work with increased vigor and resolution. The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience, and unflinching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted; and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrific frequency. It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact. If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error. To have persisted in so gross a falsehood, after it was known to them, was not only to encounter, for life, all the evils which man could inflict, from without, but to endure also the pangs of inward and conscious guilt; with no hope of future peace, no testimony of a good conscience, no expectation of honor or esteem among men, no hope of happiness in this life, or in the world to come.
"Such conduct in the apostles would moreover have been utterly irreconcilable with the fact that they possessed the ordinary constitution of our common nature. Yet their lives do show them to have been men like all others of our race; swayed by the same motives, animated by the same hopes, affected by the same joys, subdued by the same sorrows, agitated by the same fears, and subject to the same passions, temptations, and infirmities, as ourselves. And their writings show them to have been men of vigorous understandings. If then their testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for its fabrication."
http://nagasawafamily.org/article-Simon-Greenleaf-Testimony-of-the-Evangelists.pdf
The link contains the entire paper
This thread is contained in the forum tab, named General religious DEBATES. There are forums made just for discussions, this isn't one.
1. The Hebrew priestly class were the driving force in the death of Jesus. IOW the primary conflicts in the life of Christ was between the Hebrews and Christ. The faiths were at full on opposition.
2. The Christian faith is based squarely on a guy who the Hebrews tried but couldn't kill. How can two world views be more in opposition?
3. Take Paul, your archetype Jewish zealot. Know more about Judaism than just about anyone, he was trained by Gamaliel. Paul strictly warned that those who obtain freedom under Christ should never turn back to the old covenant of Judaism.
If we can get past all the semantic technicalities then I can show in example after example how and why the Christian covenant of grace abolished, completed, and replaced the old covenant of the law.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I was talking about the application of Judaism, not the practice of it. For example we now know that for the atomic quantum physics apply, and so the previous Newtonian physics is no longer a candidate for describing atomic events. However that does no stop a bunch of old school scientists from trying to use Newtonian physics in the atom anyway. The ontology or nature of a theology is not determined by the practices of humans.
When I say Christian I primarily mean what Christ and his apostles taught, which is what I am referring to here.
However, at times I mean mainstream Christian denominations like Catholicism and Protestantism.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
If you talking about OT scriptures then give me the specific ones your referring to above. If I anticipate having to get into the original language used, the context a verse comes in, and the internet of that verse. Then I first need the verse.