The Question: Are Mormons Christian? A Biblical Approach

[_Res Ipsa]

Got it, Tobin. Thanks.

[_sr1030]

are you going to respond to my previous post?

I must have missed it, sr.

So that's it?

Sr

[_maklelan]

So, is it a kind of functional definition?

These kinds of categories in the ancient Near East were functional, not ontological.

Whatever the Bible labels as a god is a god that exists?

No. Whatever the authors of the Bible thought were gods, the authors of the Bible thought were gods.

Okay, how do we distinguish god from God? Biblically, is Yaweh/Jehovah God?

In the earliest Israelite religion, YHWH was a storm-god and was one of the sons of El, the patriarchal deity. They were conflated around the time of Saul or David.

[_Res Ipsa]

Thanks, makelan. Sorry, but sometimes I have to take baby steps to make sure I'm following. So, what is the consequence of the category "gods" being functional and not ontological?

Is your argument something like this:

The authors of the Bible believed there were many gods but only one God -- the god that is to be worshipped. Mormonism includes a belief that there are many gods, but only one God -- the god to be worshipped. Therefore, Mormons belief in many gods is not inconsistent with Christianity? Something like that?

[_Megacles]

are you going to respond to my previous post?

I must have missed it, sr.

So that's it?

Sr

Sr1030,

Is the previous post to which you refer the one in which I asked who Jesus was speaking to on the cross, and in which you answered that you were not interested in such a discussion?

If so, I am not sure what response you are looking for. We both agreed that it was an "out of bounds" question on my part, I thought.

If it is something else, please quote it or re-post it.

[_Brackite]

Scriptures that support only one God:

Isaiah 43:10-11 (NKJV)

10 “You are My witnesses,” says the Lord,
“And My servant whom I have chosen,
That you may know and believe Me,
And understand that I am He.
Before Me there was no God formed,
Nor shall there be after Me.
11 I, even I, am the Lord,
And besides Me there is no savior.


Isaiah 44:6 & 8 (NKJV)

6 “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel,
And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
‘I am the First and I am the Last;
Besides Me there is no God.

8 Do not fear, nor be afraid;
Have I not told you from that time, and declared it?
You are My witnesses.
Is there a God besides Me?
Indeed there is no other Rock;
I know not one.’”


Isaiah 45:5-6 (NKJV)

5 I am the Lord, and there is no other;
There is no God besides Me.
I will gird you, though you have not known Me,
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun to its setting
That there is none besides Me.
I am the Lord, and there is no other;



Scriptures that support more than one God?

Deuteronomy 10:17 (NKJV)

17 For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe.


Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (NKJV)

8 When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations,
When He separated the sons of Adam,
He set the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the children of Israel.
9 For the Lord’s portion is His people;
Jacob is the place of His inheritance.


1 Corinthians 8:4-6 (NKJV)

4 Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one.
5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords),
6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

[_maklelan]

Thanks, makelan. Sorry, but sometimes I have to take baby steps to make sure I'm following. So, what is the consequence of the category "gods" being functional and not ontological?

I think the best definition of a deity from the time of the Bible would be any entity that exercised divine agency. What is significant about this is that that agency could extend to any entity, be it a preternatural being, a human, or even a cultic object. In all the countries of the ancient Near East, you have cultic objects called deities and even offered worship. They are connected with some prototypical deity from the heavens. While most people tend to think of the biblical literature as flatly denouncing that practice, the truth is it is only denounced in literature dating to the exilic period and after. Jacob sets up several altars, and he even names one "El, the God of Israel." This is significant: he doesn't dedicate the altar to the God of Israel, he names the altar "El, the God of Israel." The altar is to be identified as "El, the God of Israel." This exactly matches the practice

Is your argument something like this:

The authors of the Bible believed there were many gods but only one God -- the god that is to be worshipped. Mormonism includes a belief that there are many gods, but only one God -- the god to be worshipped. Therefore, Mormons belief in many gods is not inconsistent with Christianity? Something like that?

Close enough, but that's really the other side of the coin. Primarily I'm showing that the contemporary Christian claim to "biblical" notions of deity is misinformed. They're not any more biblical than Mormonism. I don't really think all doctrines have to be biblical for someone to be considered a Christian, though. Really the most important criterion--and this is according to the Bible--is the notion that Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior of humanity. I wish mainstream Christians could acknowledge that.

[_maklelan]

Scriptures that support only one God:

Isaiah 43:10-11 (NKJV)

10 “You are My witnesses,” says the Lord,
“And My servant whom I have chosen,
That you may know and believe Me,
And understand that I am He.
Before Me there was no God formed,
Nor shall there be after Me.
11 I, even I, am the Lord,
And besides Me there is no savior.

The verb "formed" is used elsewhere to refer to the production of idols, and this rhetoric is intended to argue that idols are not divine and cannot save. The text was written in Neo-Babylonia during the exile and is railing against the Israelite adoption of Neo-Babylonian cultic practices. This is not rejecting the existence of other deities at all, it's just rejecting the efficacy of idols.

Isaiah 44:6 & 8 (NKJV)

6 “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel,
And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
‘I am the First and I am the Last;
Besides Me there is no God.

8 Do not fear, nor be afraid;
Have I not told you from that time, and declared it?
You are My witnesses.
Is there a God besides Me?
Indeed there is no other Rock;
I know not one.’”

This rhetoric, written in the same place and time, is asserting that no other gods matter, not that none exist. This reading is confirmed by Isa 47:8, 10, where the author has the personified Babylon boast the same thing. Obviously the claim is not to being the only city in existence, but to being the only city that matters to her constituency. This is the exact same rhetoric the author is attributing to YHWH.

Isaiah 45:5-6 (NKJV)

5 I am the Lord, and there is no other;
There is no God besides Me.
I will gird you, though you have not known Me,
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun to its setting
That there is none besides Me.
I am the Lord, and there is no other;

See above.

Scriptures that support more than one God?

Deuteronomy 10:17 (NKJV)

17 For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe.


Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (NKJV)

8 When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations,
When He separated the sons of Adam,
He set the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the children of Israel.
9 For the Lord’s portion is His people;
Jacob is the place of His inheritance.

You're quoting the MT version here, which is corrupted. The original version is preserved in the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QDeut-j):

"He set the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the sons of God."

The next verse also reads differently. It's not "for the Lord's portion," but "and the Lord's portion is . . ." It is pointing out that YHWH was considered one of the sons of God at this point in Israelite history.

The sons of God were considered second tier deities who were the offspring of the ruling deity. This usage of "sons of . . ." matches usage like "sons of the prophets," of "sons of Israel." The idea is "member of the class . . ." Sons of God, in other words, are gods. They appear in many places in the Hebrew Bible. In Gen 6:2, 4 they sire offspring with human women who become the "heroes of old." The text there cannot refer to humans. They appear at Job 1:6 and 2:1, where these heavenly beings come before the throne of YHWH with Satan in tow. They appear again in Job 38:7, cheering for joy at the creation of the earth. Again, they cannot be humans. They also appear in Ps 29:1 and 89:7, but your Bible likely mistranslates the Hebrew.

1 Corinthians 8:4-6 (NKJV)

4 Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one.
5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords),
6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

There are many more texts that point to the existence of other gods, such as the original version of Deut 32:43, which, exactly like Ps 97:7, calls upon the gods to worship YHWH. What kind of rhetoric calls for non-existent beings to worship God? How is that helpful? I could go on and on, but let's deal with these for now.

[_madeleine]

I don't know why you are acting the fool. Surely you know a passage or two of scripture must be understood in context.

I wish fundamentalists would bother to learn what context really means.

Here is context for you.

No, this isn't context. This is a tiny bit of literary context. Context extends so far beyond the dozen verses that surround a text. Context is the author's worldview; it's their intended audience; it's the genre of their work; their rhetorical message; the literature with which they interact. The problems they're trying to solve. Context is so much more than you appear to know.

Isaiah 44 9 All who fashion idols are nothing, and the things they delight in do not profit. Their witnesses neither see nor know, that they may be put to shame. 10 Who fashions a god or casts an idol that is profitable for nothing? 11 Behold, all his companions shall be put to shame, and the craftsmen are only human. Let them all assemble, let them stand forth. They shall be terrified; they shall be put to shame together.

12 The ironsmith takes a cutting tool and works it over the coals. He fashions it with hammers and works it with his strong arm. He becomes hungry, and his strength fails; he drinks no water and is faint. 13 The carpenter stretches a line; he marks it out with a pencil. He shapes it with planes and marks it with a compass. He shapes it into the figure of a man, with the beauty of a man, to dwell in a house. 14 He cuts down cedars, or he chooses a cypress tree or an oak and lets it grow strong among the trees of the forest. He plants a cedar and the rain nourishes it. 15 Then it becomes fuel for a man. He takes a part of it and warms himself; he kindles a fire and bakes bread. Also he makes a god and worships it; he makes it an idol and falls down before it. 16 Half of it he burns in the fire. Over the half he eats meat; he roasts it and is satisfied. Also he warms himself and says, “Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire!” 17 And the rest of it he makes into a god, his idol, and falls down to it and worships it. He prays to it and says, “Deliver me, for you are my god!”

18 They know not, nor do they discern, for he has shut their eyes, so that they cannot see, and their hearts, so that they cannot understand. 19 No one considers, nor is there knowledge or discernment to say, “Half of it I burned in the fire; I also baked bread on its coals; I roasted meat and have eaten. And shall I make the rest of it an abomination? Shall I fall down before a block of wood?” 20 He feeds on ashes; a deluded heart has led him astray, and he cannot deliver himself or say, “Is there not a lie in my right hand?”

So tell me, where and when was the author living, and what are they railing against in this segment of text? What is the cognate literature with which they are interacting? Please be specific. When you're done, I'll share some scholarship with you on the context of these very verses.

Psalms 115 2 Why should the nations say,
“Where is their God?”
3 Our God is in the heavens;
he does all that he pleases.
4 Their idols are silver and gold,
the work of human hands.
5 They have mouths, but do not speak;
eyes, but do not see.
6 They have ears, but do not hear;
noses, but do not smell.
7 They have hands, but do not feel;
feet, but do not walk;
and they do not make a sound in their throat.
8 Those who make them become like them;
so do all who trust in them.

Same questions.

Romans 1 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Same questions.

You shouldn't assume I am an uneducated newb.

So you ask for Biblical support, which is context, I give it to you and you apparently can't fit the obvious contradiction to your view, so, the Biblical source is out of context.

okee dokee.

I'm taking you less serious than I was before.

[_maklelan]

You shouldn't assume I am an uneducated newb.

Then prove I'm wrong and tell me about the contexts. That's all it will take to shut me up.

So you ask for Biblical support, which is context, I give it to you and you apparently can't fit the obvious contradiction to your view, so, the Biblical source is out of context.

No, you didn't give me context at all. You just quoted a few verses before and a few verses after. You haven't even accurately represented the text segment.

okee dokee.

I'm taking you less serious than I was before.

So you cannot give any legitimate context?