The Question: Are Mormons Christian? A Biblical Approach

[_Bazooka]

I am no longer interested in these threads. It's abundantly clear that there is absolutely nothing that can be done to get you all to engage at all a reading with which you disagree. You are concerned only with dogmatism and sectarianism, despite all I've tried to do to educate you. I am done here.

[_sr1030]

I am no longer interested in these threads. It's abundantly clear that there is absolutely nothing that can be done to get you all to engage at all a reading with which you disagree. You are concerned only with dogmatism and sectarianism, despite all I've tried to do to educate you. I am done here.

I did my best to follow your requests, but you kept introducing a red herring, and I wouldn't buy it. That is what happened here.

sr

[_madeleine]

Christian understanding of God begins with Jesus Christ, the God who we worship. God"s,word perfectly revealed. As has been shown, Jesus taught there is one God. The Son is revealed by the Father and the Son reveals the Father.

Jesus, the Person, is where our understanding of God is centered.

We view the Old Testament in the context Jesus, and so you will see the term "salvation history". God, ever so patiently, continuously faithful to Hus covenants, bringing us to Him. Culminating in the Word of God full revealed.

Mormonism, seems to remove Christianity from salvation history, claiming Jesus left us as orphans, to wander. So if we are going to speak of cultural and historic context, Mormonism seeks to obliterate both, and insert itself as a rewrite of both Christian culture and history. Denying, ir at the very least, showing no recognition of God's work in history.

we can speak all day of the polytheism of the Hebrews and Israel, but ignoring Jesus, the Word of God, who revealed Himself as One, is not a Christian approach. We begin with Jesus.

that is what I see.

Thanks. I had a friend who said that Christians read the Old Testament through the spectacles of the New Testament. Is that similar to "salvation history?"

I've tried to follow the discussion pretty closely. I don't understand maklelan as ignoring Jesus. I do see you and he giving different interpretation to some language in the Bible. As I do not read Hebrew or Greek, I'm not qualified to translate. But how he's approaching interpreting the language makes some sense to me. He's taking words that are used to describe or refer to God and looking at other instances where the same words are used to describe other things. Do you consider that to be an invalid method for trying to understand what the author's meant when they used particular words?

Yeah, a saying goes, "the New Testament is hidden in the Old, and the Old Testament is revealed in the New."

Not an invalid method, no, but all that has been revealed must be considered.

[_madeleine]

The Law was given to Moses. See Exodus.

Completely irrelevant.

What I'm saying is, Christians see the errors and don't follow them.

Completely irrelevant.

He shows continuity of belief. You have no evidence for the change you are trying to exert over the text or religion. It isn't there.

Completely false. As I have shown, Martyr actually shows a completely different view of God's relationship to Jesus.

Justin has a beautiful apology on the Logos, which shows a trinitarian understanding of God. Found in the dialogue with Tryphos...a Jew.

Completely irrelevant. None of this changes the fact that Martyr quite explicitly describes Jesus as another god.

I see no Christian understanding whatsoever.

Oh, I understand it quite well, I just know better than to accept it.

Dismissal of Christian writing as irrelevant. So, there is no condescension, there is observation of a person living 2000 years later, rewriting history to suit belief.

And yet you cannot even bring yourself to address any of my concerns. You can only assert that you're right and I'm wrong.

I am no longer interested in these threads. It's abundantly clear that there is absolutely nothing that can be done to get you all to engage at all a reading with which you disagree. You are concerned only with dogmatism and sectarianism, despite all I've tried to do to educate you. I am done here.

The Law regarding idolatry is not irrelevant, neither are Christian writings. Ony to someone I suppose who views them as interfering to a certain point of view.

Here is what Justin says about The Word:

I have discussed briefly in what has gone before; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same.

Justin Martyr uses the Socratic method to argue that Jesus is the Messiah, begotten of the Father, the God who appeared in various forms throughout the Old Testament times. Not distinct from the Father, or divided, but one in substance like fire from fire. Not multiple Gods but one God in three Persons.

[_maklelan]

The Law regarding idolatry is not irrelevant, neither are Christian writings. Ony to someone I suppose who views them as interfering to a certain point of view.

It's been brought to my attention that you've actually quoted Martyr in an attempt to actually engage my comments about him. In light of that, I'll offer a brief response.

First, regarding the above, they are both irrelevant to this discussion. They are not interfering at all, you're just appealing to your own dogmatic understanding of their relevance, not to anything empirical or evidentiary. Your dogmatism is irrelevant. Give me an argument, not an assertion.

Here is what Justin says about The Word:

I have discussed briefly in what has gone before; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same.

Justin Martyr uses the Socratic method to argue that Jesus is the Messiah, begotten of the Father, the God who appeared in various forms throughout the Old Testament times. Not distinct from the Father, or divided, but one in substance like fire from fire. Not multiple Gods but one God in three Persons.

I can see how the use of "divided" and "essence" can confuse you, but I promise you Martyr is not using it in the Nicene sense. His comments here are intended to buttress his christology against the accusation of ditheism, and he accomplishes this by asserting that Christ, although he calls him "another god," originated from the Father and is unified with him in will (being the product of the Father's will). The analogy of the spoken word (used elsewhere) and the kindled fire (used here) don't in any way, shape, or form correspond to Nicene notions of the Trinity or its concept of "not dividing the substance." Martyr is explicitly dividing the substance from a trinitarian point of view. He is not arguing that they are consubstantial (which could only ever be one fire, not two separate fires, one kindled from the other), he's arguing that Jesus was begotten by the Father and came out of him without diminishing the Father's substance. The emphasis is on the lack of diminishing the Father's substance. Notice that Martyr nowhere insists on the eternity of Jesus' begotten status. There was absolutely a time when he was not, according to Justin. This wasn't a concern to christology during his day, though. The notion of Jesus' uncreated and eternal status simply did not exist until around a century later. Nobody cared.

I appreciate that you're making an effort to engage my argument. You've done much more than anyone else here. However, your reading of Martyr is incorrect and is obviously based on little more than reading the Trinity into the text (whether by you or by whatever website directed you to this passage).

[_Bazooka]

Hey mak, I was wondering.

If you get chance could you please have a look at my arguments and point out how irrelevant and wrong they are in comparison to yours and also dogmatic. Plus, if you can spare the time, please will you check my grammar?

Thanks, humbly and in appreciation of the education you provide for us mere pond life posters,
Yours, in awe
Bazooka

[_sr1030]

Hey mak, I was wondering.

If you get chance could you please have a look at my arguments and point out how irrelevant and wrong they are in comparison to yours and also dogmatic.
Bazooka

Apparently he has humbly moved on to help others elsewhere.

sr

[Guest]

The Law regarding idolatry is not irrelevant, neither are Christian writings. Ony to someone I suppose who views them as interfering to a certain point of view.

It's been brought to my attention that you've actually quoted Martyr in an attempt to actually engage my comments about him. In light of that, I'll offer a brief response.

First, regarding the above, they are both irrelevant to this discussion. They are not interfering at all, you're just appealing to your own dogmatic understanding of their relevance, not to anything empirical or evidentiary. Your dogmatism is irrelevant. Give me an argument, not an assertion.

Here is what Justin says about The Word:


I can see how the use of "divided" and "essence" can confuse you, but I promise you Martyr is not using it in the Nicene sense. His comments here are intended to buttress his christology against the accusation of ditheism, and he accomplishes this by asserting that Christ, although he calls him "another god," originated from the Father and is unified with him in will (being the product of the Father's will). The analogy of the spoken word (used elsewhere) and the kindled fire (used here) don't in any way, shape, or form correspond to Nicene notions of the Trinity or its concept of "not dividing the substance." Martyr is explicitly dividing the substance from a trinitarian point of view. He is not arguing that they are consubstantial (which could only ever be one fire, not two separate fires, one kindled from the other), he's arguing that Jesus was begotten by the Father and came out of him without diminishing the Father's substance. The emphasis is on the lack of diminishing the Father's substance. Notice that Martyr nowhere insists on the eternity of Jesus' begotten status. There was absolutely a time when he was not, according to Justin. This wasn't a concern to christology during his day, though. The notion of Jesus' uncreated and eternal status simply did not exist until around a century later. Nobody cared.

I appreciate that you're making an effort to engage my argument. You've done much more than anyone else here. However, your reading of Martyr is incorrect and is obviously based on little more than reading the Trinity into the text (whether by you or by whatever website directed you to this passage).

His is basic Trinitarian theology, beginning with Jesus, the Word of God, which is not an analogy but who the Person of Jesus is. He speaks to the Word of the Father, not being divided from the Father. Basic stuff, taught in any catcechesis, which I do teach in my parish RCIA. God's Word is not divided from the Father any more than your word is divided from yourself. When you give your word, it is not something separate from you. The difference for God is, the Word of God is a Person, not divided from the Father but His begotten Word.

I'm ok with your idea of extrapolating God's Will, vs God's Word, as Jesus is the Will of God, fully revealed, as well as the Word.

The councils at Nicaea only clarified, based on a need for clarification because of the Arian heresy. Theology and philosophy are but tools, to describe what God has revealed, and particular to the councils, revealed via Apostolic teaching. The faith handed on, once.

Teh beginning point is Jesus, who reveals the Father, who is Himself, revealed by the Father. I first read Justin Martyr, as an inquirer into the Catholic faith, seeking to understand how Christians view God. There isn't anything of St. Justin that conflicts with what I was learning simultaneously, from a Catholic deacon who was trained in both philosophy and theology (Masters of divinity). I also read several works at the time by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who taught for many years at a university. So my reading has not been light, or my catechesis. I happened to also take a college philosophy course at the same time, which was useful to understanding what I was reading.

In the end Trinitarian understanding of God is to me very beautiful and profound, Justin Martyr displays both. :) His dialogue with Trypho remains one of my favorite, to this day.

[_moksha]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwOfYgSETrg

Differing interpretations.

[_maklelan]

His is basic Trinitarian theology,

Completely untrue. He makes use of a couple phrases and broad concepts that were later incorporated into trinitarianism, but "basic Trinitarian theology" simply did not exist in Martyr's day. His discussion of Jesus as another god absolutely obliterates any chance of reconciling the two. Additionally, the analogy of the fire or a spoken word are incompatible with Trinitarian notions of "not dividing the substance," which really means they operate within the same ontological being. Kindling one fire from another divides the substance, as one fire is no longer ontologically one with the other. It is a separate fire, a separate being. The fact that they came from the same single entity and substance is irrelevant, as the analogy could just as accurately be applied to the siring of a child. It does not diminish my being one iota to father a child, and that child develops from my own being and substance. The fire analogy Martyr uses has nothing to do with basic Trinitarian theology, it was only used to illustrate that Jesus wasn't divided off from the substance of God, reducing the amount of God's total substance. This was a reference to the doctrine of emanation.

beginning with Jesus, the Word of God, which is not an analogy but who the Person of Jesus is. He speaks to the Word of the Father, not being divided from the Father. Basic stuff, taught in any catcechesis, which I do teach in my parish RCIA. God's Word is not divided from the Father any more than your word is divided from yourself.

My word is not divided from myself? In what universe? The instant the sound waves from a word I speak fall still it ceases to exist except in memory, which is not real existence. Just like you can't unring a bell, the instant you speak, your words are no longer your own.

When you give your word, it is not something separate from you.

"Give your word" is an entirely separate concept from "saying a word," and in both uses, the word itself is immediately and irreconcilably separated from you.

The difference for God is, the Word of God is a Person, not divided from the Father but His begotten Word.

I think you're relying too much on the vernacular your faith tradition has agreed upon. It does not function outside of that tradition except as symbols of that faith tradition.

I'm ok with your idea of extrapolating God's Will, vs God's Word, as Jesus is the Will of God, fully revealed, as well as the Word.

The councils at Nicaea only clarified, based on a need for clarification because of the Arian heresy.

Funny that they clarified a concept that did not exist anywhere on earth prior to the moment of clarification. In reality, what they did was create and ratify a doctrine in an authoritative context.

Theology and philosophy are but tools, to describe what God has revealed, and particular to the councils, revealed via Apostolic teaching. The faith handed on, once.

the beginning point is Jesus, who reveals the Father, who is Himself, revealed by the Father. I first read Justin Martyr, as an inquirer into the Catholic faith, seeking to understand how Christians view God. There isn't anything of St. Justin that conflicts with what I was learning simultaneously, from a Catholic deacon who was trained in both philosophy and theology (Masters of divinity). I also read several works at the time by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who taught for many years at a university. So my reading has not been light, or my catechesis. I happened to also take a college philosophy course at the same time, which was useful to understanding what I was reading.

In the end Trinitarian understanding of God is to me very beautiful and profound, Justin Martyr displays both. :) His dialogue with Trypho remains one of my favorite, to this day.

So perhaps you can engage the part where he tells Trypho that Jesus is another god, united with the Father in will, not in number. That flatly contradicts the notion that Jesus is united with God in substance, and thus being and number (rather than just will).