"What Jesus REALLY meant was ...."

[Katzpur]

Those who follow the Mormon faith also believe that they can attain heaven through works (Doctrine and Covenants 58:42–43; 2 Nephi 9:23–24; Alma 34:30–35; Articles of Faith, p.92). While they claim faith in Christ, they also rely on following the commandments of the Mormon Church (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p 188; Mormon Doctrine, p. 670) and practicing good works (2 Nephi 25:23; Alma 11:37) in order to achieve salvation.

Christians do not believe that God is merely an exalted man who earned his position by good works (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321;

Those who follow the Mormon faith also believe that they can attain heaven through works (Doctrine and Covenants 58:42–43; 2 Nephi 9:23–24; Alma 34:30–35; Articles of Faith, p.92). While they claim faith in Christ, they also rely on following the commandments of the Mormon Church (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p 188; Mormon Doctrine, p. 670) and practicing good works (2 Nephi 25:23; Alma 11:37) in order to achieve salvation.

Barry, perhaps you are unaware that several of your sources are not part of the LDS canon. "Mormon Doctrine," "The Doctrines of Salvation," and "The Articles of Faith" merely represent the author's own interpretations of LDS doctrine. And when you talk about taking things out of context, may I congratulate you on your expertise in demonstrating how this is done.

 

[Katzpur]

The 16 point list ,I addressed. Its my understanding that the 16 points on the surface sound like they agree with Christianity but IMO this is Just on the surface. When you break down each point ,it's not talking about the same things.

Fine. So break down each of the 16 points and we'll discuss them in depth.

 

[Katzpur]

Mormonism is Anti Christian

That is absolute BS. And you, Barry, are just about as poor of an example of a Christian as I've ever seen on this forum. I was going to simply ignore everything you had to say in the future, but I think that instead, I'll just let you continue to show your true colors to everyone on this forum. So far, you've managed to leave pretty much everyone who has interacted with you completely unimpressed. Good job.

 

[Jane.Doe]

All Christians teach that Jesus created Satan ,because the bible says so . So how different is LDS saying Jesus is his brother ? quite radically different. And this is not the only radical difference.

The Bible states the Christ's Father is your Father. There is only one for everyone.

• God of the spirits of all flesh, Num. 16:22 (27:16).
  
• Have we not all one father? hath not one God created, Mal. 2:10

• glorify your Father which is in heaven, Matt. 5:16.
  
• Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father, Matt. 5:48.
  
• pray to thy Father which is in secret, Matt. 6:6
  
• Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name, Matt. 6:9 (Luke 11:2
  
• neither will your Father forgive your trespasses, Matt. 6:15 (Mark 11:26.
  
• do the will of my Father … is my brother, Matt. 12:50.
  
• flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father, Matt. 16:17.
• be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father, Matt. 20:23.
  
• call no man your father … for one is your Father, Matt. 23:9.
  
• Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful, Luke 6:36.
• ask of the Father in my name, John 15:16 (16:23)
  
• I am not yet ascended to my Father, John 20:17
  
• as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you, John 20:21.
• to us there is but one God, the Father, 1 Cor. 8:6.

@Barry Johnson , LDS Christians are Christens. Not Protestant Christians, Catholic Christians, Orthodox Christians, etc, but indeed Christians.

 

[Katzpur]

As an aside ,every Mormon I've ever met ,I've always got on really well in spite of our differences .

And have you told them you believe their church is "anti-Christian" or did you just keep that opinion to yourself?

 

[Katzpur]

Isn't it fair to say what Lds teach is not the same doctrines that Christianity teaches ? Otherwise why have Mormonism , the temples ,the baptisms for the dead ,the under garments , the 'modern day prophets , the Book of Mormon, the doctrine and covanant s , Pearl of Great price , and all the other different teachings and requirements if its all Just the same . You would agree that Christians teach radically different things to Mormonism . When I first met Mormon missionaries I was completely shocked at what Mormons believe and how different it was to Christianity . I assumed it was just another denomination.

Every single one of the thousands of different Christian denominations in the world today teach different things. (You're not very good at this debate business, are you, Barry?)

 

[Katzpur]

All Christians teach that Jesus created Satan ,because the bible says so . So how different is LDS saying Jesus is his brother ? quite radically different. And this is not the only radical difference.

Please cite the verse that says Jesus created Satan. God the Father created Satan.

 

[John1.12]

All of the sons of God are brothers. Prior to Lucifer's being cast out of Heaven for rebellion, he was one of God's children and a brother to Jesus Christ, God's Only Begotten. From the moment he was cast out, he became permanently estranged from God, was disowned by Him and lost the right to ever again be called one of God's children. Lucifier's rebellion was a reflection on him and him alone. It had absolutely no bearing on Jesus Christ's role as our Savior and Redeemer. Besides, this concept is not one invented by Mormonism. The relationship between Jesus Christ and Satan was taught anciently. In the third century, the Christian writer, Lactantius, wrote:

Before creating the world, God produced a spirit like himself, replete with the virtues of the Father. Later He made another, in whom the mark of divine origin was erased, because this one was besmirched by the poison of jealousy and turned therefore from good to evil. He was jealous of his older brother who, remaining united with the Father, insured his affection unto himself. This being who from good became bad is called devil by the Greeks."

I'm More interested in what the bible says . Could you show from the bible please what you are saying above ?.

 

[Katzpur]

You don't know the bible if you think its about logic . Jesus would have lied if he visited other places and did other random things .

John 21:25 says, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." Clearly, He did numerous things that were never recorded in the Bible.

 

[Katzpur]

I believe the bible. I don't worship it . There's a difference.

Boy, you could fool me!

 

[Katzpur]

If the bible says Jesus created Lucifer how can he be his brother?

He didn't create Lucifer. He didn't create you or me either. God the Father did. I would think you'd know at least that much about what the Bible has to say. Evidently not.

 

[John1.12]

Please cite the verse that says Jesus created Satan. God the Father created Satan.

Col 1
16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

 

[Katzpur]

I believe the Bible comes from God , That the Bible is true and God cannot lie .

Nice try. Now how about answering my question.

 

[Katzpur]

Col 1
16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Then why does Jesus refer to God the Father as "our Father"? "And why does He refer to humanity as his brothers? Are you saying God the Father isn't "the Father" at all? The Bible tells us that we are God's offspring and that He is the Father of our spirits. God the Father, not Jesus. Jesus created our world. His Father created us.

 

[Jane.Doe]

I'm More interested in what the bible says . Could you show from the bible please what you are saying above ?.

I did, post 284. You ignored it.

The Father is the Father of all. All Christians believe this.

 

[Katzpur]

I'm More interested in what the bible says . Could you show from the bible please what you are saying above ?.

No, I can't. But if you are going to insist on being so closed-minded that you flat out reject every single solitary thing that is not explicitly stated in the Bible, you're limiting your own knowledge. The Bible never even claims to contain an account of every single interaction God had with mankind. It never claims to to a complete record of everything Jesus ever said or did. As a matter of fact, it quite clearly states that is it not.

 

[Katzpur]

I believe the Bible comes from God , That the Bible is true and God cannot lie .

It's not a matter of the Bible "lying," Barry. The fact of the matter is that any time human beings are a part of the recording, preserving, transcribing and translating process of any written document, there is a potential of error. And to just pretend otherwise is really pretty naive.

Here are a few thoughts for you to chew on for a while. If you can bring yourself to actually contemplate the significance of what I'm posting here, you may be a little less inclined to see this issue as a black and white one:

In 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Libary in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.

Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter where described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.

The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.

And what about about Paul's epistles? Why, for instance, was his epistle to the Laodiceans considered less authoritative than his other epistles? Or was it? Maybe it had just been lost prior to when the first canon was compiled. It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16, for instance. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. Why would it have be considered so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon?

If we go to the Old Testament, there are even more books that are missing. These were written by "Samuel the seer," "Nathan the prophet," "Shemaiah the prophet" and others. 2 Chronicles mentions many of these by name. Why haven't we gotten rid of 2 Chronicles by now, since it references so many prophets whose work was apparently not the word of God after all? Apparently some people believe that the Bible went from being "God-breathed" to "not God-breathed" and back again quite a few times.

 

[John1.12]

It's not a matter of the Bible "lying," Barry. The fact of the matter is that any time human beings are a part of the recording, preserving, transcribing and translating process of any written document, there is a potential of error. And to just pretend otherwise is really pretty naive.

Here are a few thoughts for you to chew on for a while. If you can bring yourself to actually contemplate the significance of what I'm posting here, you may be a little less inclined to see this issue as a black and white one:

In 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Libary in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.

Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter where described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.

The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.

And what about about Paul's epistles? Why, for instance, was his epistle to the Laodiceans considered less authoritative than his other epistles? Or was it? Maybe it had just been lost prior to when the first canon was compiled. It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16, for instance. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. Why would it have be considered so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon?

If we go to the Old Testament, there are even more books that are missing. These were written by "Samuel the seer," "Nathan the prophet," "Shemaiah the prophet" and others. 2 Chronicles mentions many of these by name. Why haven't we gotten rid of 2 Chronicles by now, since it references so many prophets whose work was apparently not the word of God after all? Apparently some people believe that the Bible went from being "God-breathed" to "not God-breathed" and back again quite a few times.

// It's not a matter of the Bible "lying," Barry// That wasn't my point . I believe that the bible comes from God , it is true and God cannot lie ..Thats how I approach the bible .

 

[John1.12]

No, I can't. But if you are going to insist on being so closed-minded that you flat out reject every single solitary thing that is not explicitly stated in the Bible, you're limiting your own knowledge. The Bible never even claims to contain an account of every single interaction God had with mankind. It never claims to to a complete record of everything Jesus ever said or did. As a matter of fact, it quite clearly states that is it not.

//No, I can't. // Exactly my point.

 

[John1.12]

I did, post 284. You ignored it.

The Father is the Father of all. All Christians believe this.

Of all , what ? In what context? which bible verse are you thinking of ?