I Am SeanG31... in case you were wondering
- Non-Scifi Whining (http://forums.spacebattles.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
- - Clansman – 0 / SeanG31 – 2… Mormon / Christian Salvation and Jesus. (in two posts) (http://forums.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?t=7457)
Clansman – 0 / SeanG31 – 2… Mormon / Christian Salvation and Jesus. (in two posts)
Mormonism has a very distinctive view on salvation. The foundation for its belief is in the LDS third Article of Faith. “We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and obediences to the Gospel.”
The late apostle James Tulmage wrote:
The first effect is to secure exemption from the penalty of the fall to all mankind [Adam’s original sin], thus providing a way of general salvation. The second effect is to open a way for individual salvation whereby mankind may secure remission of personal sins. As these sins are the result of individual acts, forgiveness for them should be conditioned on individual compliance with prescribed requirements – “obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel” (ibid., p.87).
This is where LDS theology takes a sharp turn from orthodoxy. Mormons believe there are various levels of salvation because there are varying degrees of faith and of doing good works (Doctrines and Covenants 76:99-101). Bruce R. McConkie, late apostle and one of the church’s foremost doctrinal authorities, clarifies the distinction between general and individual salvation:
Thus, to meet a Mormon on his (not her terms) own terms, one must ask the important question, “Do you have eternal life?” Mormons believe that eternal life is exaltation, the highest degree of salvation. Few, if any, Mormons will claim to possess this eternal life.
The Biblical View of Salvation
Several key Bible passages can be brought to bear to show that the individual cannot earn eternal life.
“Fort the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23). The Bible insists that eternal life is a gift; and a gift, by definition, is not something one earns, but rather receives free of charge.
Additionally Clansman, Jesus Christ promised: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath eternal life” (John 6:47). If a person believes in Jesus Christ of the Bible, he or she has (right now) eternal life. [Side Note: I make the distinction “he or she” because in Christianity anyone can have eternal life. In Mormonism, the women’s eternal destination is with that of the man.]
This wonderful promise is confirmed with: “These things have I written unto you that believeth on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believ on the name of the Son of God” (1 John 5:13).
The major distinction being that the LDS Jesus has no authority to give this precious gift of “eternal life.”
Jesus Christ as Savior… the LDS Position
I often hear Mormons call Jesus “the Savior” or even “my Savior.” But while that sounds very Christian, most Mormons define Jesus Christ differently than do Christians. When a Mormon says Jesus is his personal Savior, in most cases, the “Jesus” being mentioned is not God Almighty, but merely the son of God or “a god” (see 1 Timothy 3:16; John 1:1-4). This “Jesus” did not die on the cross for our sins, but only for Adam’s transgression. Thus, he cannot really save any of us from our sins.
When most Mormons call Jesus “Savior,” or speak of Him as such, they only mean that He saved them from physical death – that He brought our resurrection from the grave by rising Himself. Bruce R. McConkie writes:
The Biblical View
The Bible Warns!
The definitions of both Jesus and Savior are vastly different in the Christian Biblical view and that of the LDS view. This difference is critical, for the Bible is clear that Jesus did not just die for Adam’s sin but for the individual sins of individual people. For example:
When Mormons say Jesus is their Savior, they are talking about a different Jesus, and a salvation that really saves them from nothing. It is a salvation which walks carefully around the blood and the cross of Jesus Christ, even though the Bible makes it clear that “without shedding of blood is no remission [of sin]” (Hebrews 9:22).
your good sean31g, real good, us sean's are all good:D
Yeah, and it helps that all SB threads come with padded walls from the factory. :D
62 views with little comment?
I am watching Clansman response, but you look like you are theologicaly sound.
Seang btw are you a college professor? Just wondering.
No I am not a professor; like Clansman has said, I read too much. But I have a funny feeling he hasn’t read enough. BTW, thanks for asking, I will take that as a compliment.
P.S. When the wife gets that job ($), I will go to college to get Masters in apologetics and either a Ph.D in philosophy or political science.
Sean - perhaps I misunderstand, but are you preaching the "Eternal Security" doctrine, here?
Yes, but let me qualify this. If one is truly born-again, then one is saved. The Bible says He will finish the good work that He started in me. Much like God making a pact with Israel (via Abraham) and Israel breaking that covenant – almost constantly, so much so that she is even compared to a whore in the Old Testament. But has God broken his side of the bargain? No. He stands by His word because the Bible says he swears by Himself. I was saved, I believe, when I was 13. but I still had three felonies to get and a .45 to carry around in my waste. I am now 31 and have a family and it was the Holy Ghost that I invited into my life in 1983 that has reminded me constantly of this contract I made with God’s Son. He truly is finishing this good work he has started in me, even though I can be likened to a whore in times past.
I understand the differences between a Calvinism and Arminianism (which are both orthodox; one of the best books on theology is Paul Enns’ book, The Moody Handbook of Theology). I tend to float right in the middle. All good works done for eternal security blow away in the wind (Isaiah 64::6; 57:12; 43:25; Daniel 9:18; Acts 13:39; Romans 3:20; 9:16; Galatians 3:10; Colossians 2:20; Titus 3:4; etc, etc.). Having said that, only having eternal security already allows for us to do good works that glorify God… why does it glorify God? Because it is the outward evidence of the work He has already done in us. As a Christian becomes more mature his works become more mature as well, this is my life lesson.
Re: Clansman – 0 / SeanG31 – 2… Mormon / Christian Salvation and Jesus. (in two posts)
You are a very clever manipulator of words sean, but it is easy to see through if you are paying attention. You are posting your own interpretations of Mormon teachings and ignoring theirs. This proves nothing about what they do or do not believe and everything about what you believe.
You are even puting your own comments inside your quotations of others, which is not playing fair.
You are constantly harping on about this that and the other but you have not proven anything. You have based your belief that mormons are not Cristians on one point, that they do not believe that Christ was God. I have asked you to point out anywhere that Christ plainly and directly claimed to be God. You have not done this, you have only refered me to vague scriptures augmented by your own supposition and guesswork. Now you are trying to change the issue into a general debate about Mormon beliefs. I said right at the begining of this debate that I did not want to get into a theological debate with you and I still don't wish to, my point is simple:
The Morman faith is Christian.
You so far have posted nothing which refutes this other than your own vauge supposition and personal interpretation of scripture.
I'll ask you again:
Point out anywhere that Christ plainly and directly claimed to be God.
You will find, CM, that S31 will muddy the waters when debating him and constantly bring in related debates while never establising the main point.
At least, that is what I have found to be the case.
SeanG is also not taking into account that the majority of Christians (i.e. Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans, as well as most of the more liberal segments of Protestantism) do NOT believe in the doctrine of "once saved, always saved," and the largest Christian denomination on Earth (Roman Catholicism) considers that doctrine to be heretical.
<= A satirical look at what the Bible would say if it was translated to say what the Fundies seem to believe.
What do you expect from a fanatic? :D
don't waste your time.
trying to reason with him is pointless, you don't agree with his opinions, he's one of those people that need an audience, so he can quote from his pre-arranged answer book.
i't like trying to get dragonbb3 to admit star trek isn't all powerful:D
I believe you are referring to John 8:58 where Jesus says he was before Abraham. Glad you brought it up. This is one of Jesus’ clearest claims to divinity. Again, the New World Translation (the JW Bible) reads it differently. But I will explain about that verse… which is rooted in Exodus 3:14, which is where we turn first. Exodus 3:14:
Jehovah's Witnesses, however, teach that Jesus Christ is really just Michael the Archangel and that Christ never claimed to be God. So, to make Scripture agree with their doctrine, they change the reading of both verses in their Bible. The watchtower society’s translation says:
The Kingdom Interlinear (of which I have a copy in front of me) says in John 8:24:
Take note that when Clansman asked for references to my quoting Mormon doctrine, I gave them to him. He then says I am misrepresenting those Mormon doctrines when I have been very careful to explain them by their top-officials (apostles – prophets). In their own words no less, not out of context.
Clansman has to show that I am taking these quotes and meanings out of context in order to show his claim to be true. Anyone could claim anything. Joseph Smith prophesied that person’s lived on the Sun and Moon for Christ’s sake! (Need references Clansman?). I could say that Clansman misrepresented the Christian church (which he did) and leave it at that (but I explained that he was referring to the Trinity as in modelistic thought)… thus ending the conversation and effectively painting the debate with such a wide brush as to win by default!?
How have I done this in this specific debate? Give me an example. Have you read this entire thread?
I will love to debate salvation with you - works vs. faith. But I recommend you first read the entire Vatican II document, as I have and I will quote quite prolifically from it. But works is not the main point in this post, salvation is and how the Mormon church defines it and how the Historic Christian faith defines it… which includes Catholics! So whenever you are ready to start a different post, feel free to.
You said I was quoting from pre-arranged answer books? I showed quite methodically that you were quoting from the book Reasoning from the Scripture, even giving page numbers where you were word for word (verbatim) quoting. You could not refute the earliest church fathers teaching the Trinity… and I in fact showed where Watchtower literature misquoted and misrepresented books, encyclopedias, authors, and articles by actually going to the source and finishing the quotes (all while giving page numbers).
You accused me of misquoting, but could not show me how by not explaining how I was taking the author out of context or by finishing my quotes? You quite the debate because you could do nothing but make accusations (which anyone can do) without actually backing them up. Which is something I did, time and time again.
You asked me to produce documentation, so I did. Now this isn’t good enough? And if it is taken out of context, you can’t just say this and leave the debate. For it to be credible, you must back this accusation with proof!
Sean, I will ask you again for the fifth time:
Show me where Christ clearly and plainly announces that he is God.
I don't think Sean can show you that, Clansman. :D
He's also been ignoring the fact that the Ten Commandment prohibit someone else to be God, beside God himself. :)
Instead he's chosen to flood the threads with his religious literature that is based on modern interpretations of Mormon beliefs.
I have noticed that when I am asked multiple questions by multiple people – not only you – you attack me for those answers. For example, in a past debate I brought up the Shroud of Turin as a footnote. you attacked [I don’t mean viciously or degradingly] me for bringing into the debate something not even warranted. But it was warranted because there were five other people who were asking questions and the Shroud was one of them. You, in the past, have accused me of doing such, but you, when I have confronted you with the issue, do not respond? You just continue to accuse me of “muddy[ing] the waters when debating him and constantly bring in related debates while never establishing the main point”. As I have said, I am usually the only one who is defending my side (usually) when there are at least three to four fortifying the other… but for you Blue, I will ignore all and respond only to the one person who I am debating with!
Can you quote the Shema? What is thee most important verse in the Torah to a Jew? Also, take note that in Genesis you have “Someone” saying, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness…”. Alternatively, can you explain how we have Time – Space – Energy filling the exact same spot? It is a Trinity. The Body – Soul – Spirit divisions of the Bible, yet they fill the same spot but are separate (subject / object division) at the same time… much like the real Trinity.
Sorry, Sean, I can't help you. I've chosen the church of science, not that of faith. "My destiny lies on a different path than yours." :) My head is filled with other stuff. :D
The commandment I was referring to is the "First Commandment. I am the eternal divine Whom you experience in yourself. I led you out of the land of Egypt where you could not follow Me in you. Henceforth, you shall not put other gods above Me. You shall not recognize as higher gods those who show you an image of anything that appears above in the heavens, nor that works out of the earth, nor between heaven and earth. You shall not worship anything that is below the divine in yourself, for I am the eternal in you that works into your body and hence affects the coming generations. I am of divine nature working forth. If you do not recognize Me in you, I shall pass away as your divine nature in your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and their bodies will become waste. If you recognize Me in you, I shall live on as you to the thousandth generation, and the bodies of your people will prosper."
I'm sorry, I can't be more clear than this. To me this says that there can be no other god than God. As Clansman said, where in the bible is it written that Jesus is God?
I was never taught anything even remotely close to what you are claiming.
Jesus claimed it, I already posted the verses, the apostles proclaimed it. Every Catholic – true Catholic and true Protestant – should believe it. Also, there are major hints in the Old Testament (including the Shema, Deuteronomy 6:4), Psalm 110:1, Isaiah 9:6, Zechariah 12:10, Genesis 2:7, Genesis 19:24, etc., etc..
The Holy Spirit is clearly called God in the NT as well. Even on the issue of who will raise Jesus body… one verse says God the Father will raise Jesus lifeless body. Another says that Jesus will, and yet another says the Spirit rose the body.
You have never heard it because you obviously A), have never been to church, or B), have never paid attention when in church. The Catholics and the protestants have always taught this. that means for about 1,971 years this has been taught… but, you’ve never heard it.
Is that a commentary on the subject, or just the naïveté of you? I mean you admitted to being blind to 1,971 years of history? Oh well.
Check the Book of Mormon thread for the verses. Or simply check out my earlier post which I will bring up for you...
I hate to break in, but Christ establishes that he is God several times - for example, once by stating that "before Abraham was, I AM (in other words, saying that he was God)" , and once by saying that he and the Father were one.
Furthermore, you all seem to be forgetting the Gospel of St. John, Chapter 1, Verse 1 : "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Later, in verse 14, it goes on to say "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth."
Reading the intervening scriptures between those two verses, and the verses to follow in Chapter 1, it is abundantly clear that the biblical view of Christ is a view of Christ divine, as one of the three beings in the One God.
I know that some cannot comprehend how God can be three and one at the same time. I can offer no better method of explaining this than did St. Patrick, through the shamrock plant, which, though it has three very distinct leaves, is nonetheless one plant.
The main problem is that these people who are not getting the clear verses are “carnally minded” (Romans 8: 5-9). John 3:4 says, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Jesus goes on to say that “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”
1 Corinthians 2:14 likewise reads, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
I’m just glad to see, Steltek, that you can see the King[dom]. Amen?
i cover john 1:1 in the other thread"the book of mormon-jesusVS the father"
the text in original greek doesn't say the word was god but rather uses the term as a discriptive AKA godlike one, divine one, etc... since in order for the term to be an identifier it requires a definite article, without said article(which is how the original text has it) the term becomes a discriptive.
thats why many bibles read something like-the word was with god, and the word was a divine being,(i believe it was the jerusalem bible but it's been so long since i researched it i don't remember for sure) or the word was divine(godlike) etc.. which fits considering no mortal human could do the things jesus or even the angels are spoken of accomplishing.
so john 1:1 doesn't say jesus was god, it says he was with god, and he was a non mortal godlike being(which helps support the apostle arguments of jesus's claim to be the messaiah sent from heaven by god), not that he was with god and god at the same time.
and i'm sure seang31 will demand to know the scholars name again, well i don't remember cause it was a bloody long time ago, i just remember that point because i always had trouble understanding verbs, particples, adjectives and such in english so i had to go over this information several times to understand it. so the whole definate article thing about koine greek finally stuck with me.
I checked the verses you mention above and I can see how you can _interpret_ them as meaning that Jesus is God. But those "major hints" don't really prove anything. Jesus claiming that he is our Lord doesn't equate to him claiming that he is God. You are assuming that Jesus claims to be God, but that doesn't make it true.
I think we've be talking past each other from the beginning. Since the bible is vague enough to allow different interpretations, this discussion isn't going anywhere. What the catholic church believed to be true over the last 1900 or so years has changed in many ways.
I do apologize for my earlier posts and certainly don't want to infringe on your beliefs or insult your intelligence. I think we can agree to disagree. My intention is not to persuade you of anything. It's just that I'm not a student of this particular school of thought.
Here I come to save the daaaaaaay! :D Well, not literally....
To clarify for those who do not know John 1:1:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood [overcome] it. (John 1:1-5, NIV)
As to translations, I'm using the New International Version (the most accurate in meaning and context, as well as wording) with actual Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, as well.
More to come.
ah vault jedi
another person thats brave enough to worship a god suffering from a multiple personality disorder. :D
he's one person that thinks he three separate and individual persons.:D
heres hoping you catch him on a good day/personality:p
I hope you're joking about that. :p
You are again interpreting the Trinity (or God) in a modelistic way. Before you attack (I don’t use attack as in a negative way) a belief, get it right.
Mughi3, since you couldn't remember the greek scholars quoted, I will give you the page # in the Watchtower book Reasoning from the Scripture. This book quotes some scholars that are taken out of context (most of which are quoted here). I will write more on this later.
Scripture clearly shows in John 1:1 that the“Word was God” but Jehovah's Witnesses have altered this to read the “Word was a God”. The following are comments on this translation from world renowned Greek scholars. All the Greek scholars quoted in the Watchtower book, Reasoning from the Scriptures, are quoted here. These scholars are misquoted (their quotes [or, misquotes] can be found on p.p. 416-417 of this Watchtower book) by the JW's to support their addition to scripture.
Dr. Judas R. Manley: calls the Watchtower translation of John 1:1 [i]"‘A GROSSLY MISLEADING TRANSLATION.’ It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1: 1 'the Word was a god.' But of all the scholars in the world, so far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah's Witnesses have done."
Bruce M. Metzger, Professor of New Testament Language and literature at Princeton Theological Seminary said: "Far more pernicious in this same verse is the rendering, . . . 'and the Word was a god,' with the following footnotes: " 'A god,' In contrast with 'the God' ". It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists. In view of the additional light which is available during this age of Grace, such a representation is even more reprehensible than were the heathenish, polytheistic errors into which ancient Israel was so proncto fall. As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation." THEOLOGY TODAY April, 1953
Dr. J. J. Griesback: "So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Diety of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage John 1: I is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."
Dr. Eugene A. Nida (Head of the Translation Department of the American Bible Society Translators of the GOOD NEWS BIBLE): "With regard to John 1:1 there is, of course, a complication simply because the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek".
Dr. Wiliam Bjtrclay (University of Glasgow, Scotland): "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. John 1: I is translated: '. . . the Word was -a god', a translation which is grammatically impossible. It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest." THE EXPOSITORY TIMES Nov. 1953
Dr. B. F. Westcott (Whose Greek text is used in JW KINGDOM INTERLINEAR): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in 4:24. It is necessarily without the article ... No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true Diety of the Word ... in the third clause 'the Word' is declared to be 'God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead."
Dr. Ernest C. Colwell (University of Chicago): "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb; . . . this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of thc-gospet which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. 'My Lord and my God.' " John 20:28
Dr. F. F. Bruce (University of Manchester, England): "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God'in the phrase'And the Word was God'. Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicate construction. 'a god' would be totally indefensible. "
Dr. Paul L. Kaufman (Portland OR.): "The Jehovah's Witness people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1: 1. "
Dr. Charles L. Feinberg (La Mirada CA.): "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1: I is-not held by any reputable Greek scholar."
Dr. Harry A. Sturz: (Dr. Stutz is Chairman of the Language Department and Professor of Greek at Biola College)"Therefore, the NWT rendering: ‘the Word was a God’ is not a ‘literal’ but an ungrammatical and tendential translation. A literal translation in English can be nothing other than: ‘the word was God.’” THE BIBLE COLLECTOR July-December, 1971 p. 12
An encyclopedia of quotes from Greek scholars!
DO NOT POST HERE ANY MORE… THIS TOPIC IS BEING CONSOLIDATED!
DO NOT POST HERE ANY MORE… THIS TOPIC IS BEING CONSOLIDATED!
Do Not Post In This....
I am bringing it up for Arthur to view!
Don't post in this!
just in case you didn't see it ArthurDent
|All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:56am.|| |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.6.7; Copyright ©2000 - 2007, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.