Dropship
Member
Abraham had two wives and engaged in battle. No bother there, really.
That was Old T, but Jesus gave us a New T and said "Don't do that stuff", but it seems Joseph Smith chose to ignore him..
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Abraham had two wives and engaged in battle. No bother there, really.
I'm so sick of the 'Oh that's Tanakh stuff, that doesn't matter'. It seemed to matter a whole lot to your Jesus and he used it as the basis of his own teachings.That was Old T, but Jesus gave us a New T and said "Don't do that stuff", but it seems Joseph Smith chose to ignore him..
Took the words right out of my mouth. Besides when a mob of over 150 men attacks and shoots you, it can hardly be called a "gunfight".Abraham had two wives and engaged in battle. No bother there, really.
Well...not just Joseph Smith. I recommend reading up on:That was Old T, but Jesus gave us a New T and said "Don't do that stuff", but it seems Joseph Smith chose to ignore him..
Here’s an official Mormon source. The second sentence literally says they don’t believe in the Trinity.
Do Latter-day Saints Believe in the Trinity? | ComeUntoChrist
Not in the same way. They mean something different, even though they use the same words. If you inquire more fully, you find that they have a different concept of what "God the son" means.The Jesus in the definition of the Trinity is the Son. Mormons believe Jesus is the Son, do they not?
Not in the same way. They mean something different, even though they use the same words. If you inquire more fully, you find that they have a different concept of what "God the son" means.
IndigoChild5559 , can you help me understand something: why do you, as a Jewish person, care how other people delaminate their faith groupings?Not in the same way. They mean something different, even though they use the same words. If you inquire more fully, you find that they have a different concept of what "God the son" means.
I don't appreciate dishonesty, that's why.IndigoChild5559 , can you help me understand something: why do you, as a Jewish person, care how other people delaminate their faith groupings?
Is it dishonesty to have a different view of things?I don't appreciate dishonesty, that's why.
I have no problem with people who have differences of opinions. Indeed, I thrive on talking to people who disagree with me -- it stretches my brain. I'm very much for diversity of thought.Is it dishonesty to have a different view of things?
Your view is that "Christian" is defined by the post-Biblical councils (correct me if I'm wrong). My view is that "Christian" is simple disciple of Christ.
The MANY ways in which people use the term "Republican" is actually a great example of people having different views of a term. And yes, I acknowledge that- it's not dishonest at all.I have no problem with people who have differences of opinions. Indeed, I thrive on talking to people who disagree with me -- it stretches my brain. I'm very much for diversity of thought.
But wouldn't it bother you if someone who was a Progressive tried to say that they were Republican? We have labels for a reason -- labels tell us which vegetable is in the can. If someone puts carrots into the can, and sticks a label on it that says corn, taht's just a wrong thing to do.
You cannot be a progressive and be a republican. You cannot be carrots and say that you are corn. You cannot be a henotheist and say that you are monotheist.The MANY ways in which people use the term "Republican" is actually a great example of people having different views of a term. And yes, I acknowledge that- it's not dishonest at all.
And yes "vegetable" is a term defined differently in different circles too.
Again, I disagree because it all depends on the definitions being used and those definitions vary.You cannot be a progressive and be a republican. You cannot be carrots and say that you are corn. You cannot be a henotheist and say that you are monotheist.
Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me as to what I supposedly believe about "God the Son."Not in the same way. They mean something different, even though they use the same words. If you inquire more fully, you find that they have a different concept of what "God the son" means.
Oh well now, you are asking me for my personal religious opinoin. You realize I'm a Jew? Since you ask, there is no God the Son. There is only One God, and he doesn't have baby gods. That's MHO.Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me as to what I supposedly believe about "God the Son."
But why do you think Mormons would identify as Christians if they did not genuinely believe themselves to be Christians? What would you have us say? Maybe something like, "I am a person who believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior who was sent to earth to reconcile mankind to God? I try to honor him in all I say and do, and I worship Him along with God the Father and the Holy Ghost, who together comprise the Godhead. I pray to God the Father and do so in His Son's Holy Name. But God forbid that I might have misled you! Please don't call me a Christian!"I have no problem with people who have differences of opinions. Indeed, I thrive on talking to people who disagree with me -- it stretches my brain. I'm very much for diversity of thought.
But wouldn't it bother you if someone who was a Progressive tried to say that they were Republican? We have labels for a reason -- labels tell us which vegetable is in the can. If someone puts carrots into the can, and sticks a label on it that says corn, taht's just a wrong thing to do.
That's not what I'm asking you at all! Reread my post if necessary and stop putting words into my mouth.Oh well now, you are asking me for my personal religious opinoin. You realize I'm a Jew? Since you ask, there is no God the Son. There is only One God, and he doesn't have baby gods. That's MHO.
I'm not oversimplifying it. If anything, you are. Christianity was incredibly fractured by even the beginning of the second century, and the schisms continued to grow after that. None of the competing theologies were firmly established during Christianity's early years and the fact that Roman Catholicism and the doctrine of the Trinity ultimately prevailed and the other groups faded pretty much into oblivion is proof of nothing more than that the winners write the history. It sounds almost as if you think that the concepts first formalized in the Nicene and Athanasian creeds were almost universally accepted by Christians ever since the post-apostolic period began. And when it comes to the council at Nicaea, that gathering was not even convened by (or attended by!) the Pope. The nature of God was decided by majority vote and dissenters were exiled. And somehow, the decision made at that one council has come to define Christianity in some people's minds. How pathetic.I agree that Trinitarianism slowly became the doctrine of the church, and that 325 was a critical year, although you are oversimplifying it. For example, you had Tertullian campaigning against Modalism and in favor of a primitive version of Trinitarianism in the 2nd Century. But as a sweeping generalization, I suppose I can accept what you said.
I don't think anyone in the early church believed that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were three separate gods untied in purpose the way Mormonism does.
Really? While monogamy has always been the norm in Jewish and Christian societies, I must have missed where the Bible says, "Don't do that stuff." Could you point me to the precise chapter and verse in which we are told that?That was Old T, but Jesus gave us a New T and said "Don't do that stuff", but it seems Joseph Smith chose to ignore him..