An EV comments on the ongoing struggle between Catholics and LDS.

[SirThomasMore]

I BELIEVE that I required a quote from any church leader that stated that Mormons did not believe in the CHRISTIAN Jesus.

The last time I looked, the definition of “Traditional” does not include “Christian,” and the definition of “Christian” does not include 'traditional."

Of course we don’t believe that Jesus is one third of the Trinitarian One God as it has been described. We don’t believe He is one mask of Modalism, either.

That’s not the same thing as saying we don’t believe in the “Christian Jesus.”

Kindly provide the quote I asked for, and that the claim insists exists, that any of our leaders anywhere have said that we don’t believe in the “Christian Jesus.”

that is what the quote says, Diana. No need to twist it around

 

[dianaiad]

that is what the quote says, Diana. No need to twist it around

No, sir, It does not say what you are implying that it says. The words do not say that…and that is not what the speaker ‘really intended’ to say, either.

 

[SirThomasMore]

No, sir, It does not say what you are implying that it says. The words do not say that…and that is not what the speaker ‘really intended’ to say, either.

Keep twisti9ng it, Diana…the prophets you can’t run from, you can twist from.

And you truly impress me. I have never been able to figure out how you can respond to so many people you allegedly ignore

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Keep twisti9ng it, Diana…the prophets you can’t run from, you can twist from.

And you truly impress me. I have never been able to figure out how you can respond to so many people you allegedly ignore

lol I know, it’s funny to read how many times she announces that she’s putting someone on ignore, then responds to their posts, then announces that they’re going back on ignore.

 

[zaffiroborant]

No, sir, It does not say what you are implying that it says. The words do not say that…and that is not what the speaker ‘really intended’ to say, either.

And here you are demanding we adhere to your views on the quote cited while you so recently refused to accept our view in a similar situation. What is the word for that again…

 

[dianaiad]

And here you are demanding we adhere to your views on the quote cited while you so recently refused to accept our view in a similar situation. What is the word for that again…

I’m being remarkably consistent, actually. In both cases I am demanding a literal reading of quotes. In both cases those I am addressing insist upon reading INTO quotes things that simply do not exist.

You can call THAT anything you wish, but that word you are searching for? If it applies to one debater or another, if I’m 'one debater," it definitely applies to “another.”

 

[zaffiroborant]

I’m being remarkably consistent, actually. In both cases I am demanding a literal reading of quotes. In both cases those I am addressing insist upon reading INTO quotes things that simply do not exist.

You can call THAT anything you wish, but that word you are searching for? If it applies to one debater or another, if I’m 'one debater," it definitely applies to “another.”

Yes you are being consistent, you take all the quotes and read into them what you want and gripe when we don’t see in them what you see. As in, part does not equal dissolve, or mean permanent state, so you see you are reading into quotes things that simply do not exist.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes you are being consistent, you take all the quotes and read into them what you want and gripe when we don’t see in them what you see. As in, part does not equal dissolve, or mean permanent state, so you see you are reading into quotes things that simply do not exist.

To get this back to addressing the post, rather than accusing me of being…all sorts of insulting (albeit unstated) things, let us take a look at those quotes you say that I am misinterpreting. Then we will look at them again, and I’ll show you where you are commiting agravated eisegesis.

or…

You can fiddle around with your choices to show that they mean something they plainly do not mean, and I, in the meantime, can carefully exegete them to show that they mean precisely what they say they mean.

…

…

ready,

set…

GO~~

(grin)

 

[Javl]

Thank you for your answer, Diana. I enjoy dialogue with you since you answer all my questions honestly and to the best of your ability and do not ignore or refuse to answer any. Thank you again. Now to your reply:

Your opinion of my beliefs is noted…and you have every right to believe as you wish, and to think what you wish about what our beliefs are.

It is, however, IRRELEVANT. The claim was that Mormon leaders actually said that they didn’t believe in the same Jesus Christians do, or that we don’t believe in the “Christian Jesus.”

I have told you whatever I have been told by other LDS members. Also, I have been informed that the Father and Jesus were once as mortal as we are. If this is so then your belief is not Biblical. This is where we radically differ.

This would be tantamount to having one of them come right out and say that we weren’t Christians. I’m sorry, but it doesn’t matter what you think about this, or what the Catholics declare, or what evangelical fundamentalists print in pamphlets; WE believe we are Christians, and WE believe that we believe very much in the “Christian Jesus,” since by definition, those who believe in Jesus are Christian.

Believing in Jesus alone does not make you a Christian. Shia Muslims believe in Jesus but they are not Christians. There are B’hai’s who also accept and believe in Jesus but they also are not Christians. Christian Scientists believe in Jesus but they also are not Christians.

We are not Orthodox, or orthodox. We are not Trinitarian or Modalist. We are not 'traditional" or ‘evangelical fundamentalist’ or most of the other adjectives that people want to attach to the word “Christian” and make an integral part of that term…as if the word “Christian” automatically comes with that adjective attached.

Ah, but it does. Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants are all Trinitarians in the truest ( Biblical ) sense of the word and are "traditional. Your not being “Trinitarian” places you outside of mainline, or “traditional” Christianity. We therefore do not consider the LDS Christian.

Sorry…but no LDS leader has ever, nor would ever, say that we are not Christians. They HAVE said that they are not (insert some adjective here) Christians, but there is always that modifier, used as I just did.

This I cannot answer, or comment on, for I do not know.

Those who claim that our leaders SAID that we do not believe in a “Christian Jesus” are, at best, misinformed and at worst, bold faced, disingenuous liars.

I notice that nobody has been able to come up with a quote that says what was claimed.

Nobody will, either…unless it is pulled so far out of context as to be unrecognizable.

Again, I cannot answer or comment on this.

I might believe that one…there is, after all, that adjective. The adjective is rather important. We are not mainline Christians. The whole point of our existance is that we aren’t that, after all.

You are quite right here. We do not and cannot accept you as such, as explained above.

I hope that I’m making my point here. This isn’t about the fact that we believe different things ABOUT Jesus than mainline, or Orthodox, or Traditional Christians do. That is fact, actually. We do believe different things about Him than you do. You believe different things about Him than other Christian faiths do; it’s why there ARE so many different Christian sects, after all.

You have made yourself quite clear and I hope I have done the same. As for my or Catholic belief concerning the Trinity, it is no different than any other Christian’s or Christian denomination’s belief. In that we are all united. The number of, and variation in the denominations, is more a matter of political considerations, understanding, and rule of authority than the understanding of the Trinity.

The point is, the claim was that our leaders claimed to believe in a different Jesus than Christians do.

…and believe me, no LDS leader has ever said anything even remotely like that.

Ever. For that matter, we have never claimed that you believe in a ‘different Jesus’ than WE do.

OK. I understand your position, I hope you understand ours.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

Originally Posted by Todd520
Ohh how I wish you could show me where the bible articulates your doctrine of the Trinity, of a triune God who is three co-equal Persons of One Nature.

I neglected to tell you to read the Book of Acts in the Bible. This is also called “The Gospel of the Holy Spirit”. It is called such for it is filled with the manifistations and actions of the Holy Spirit, which only God may and can do. I repeat, if you accept and understand the Bible, you will find that it is full of revelations and references concerning the Trinity.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[LongJourney]

OneHoly recently posted this collection of scriptures from the Bible which are the foundation of Catholic teachings about the Nature of God.

Why do we argue these same arguments over and over?

socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/09/holy-trinity-biblical-proofs.html

 

[Todd520]

I neglected to tell you to read the Book of Acts in the Bible. This is also called “The Gospel of the Holy Spirit”. It is called such for it is filled with the manifistations and actions of the Holy Spirit, which only God may and can do. I repeat, if you accept and understand the Bible, you will find that it is full of revelations and references concerning the Trinity.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Javl,
nothing posted as scripture references supports the below bold text. That is where the LDS interpretation of the bible differs from the Roman Catholic

I wish you could show me where the bible articulates your doctrine of the Trinity, of a triune God who is** three co-equal Persons of One Nature**.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Javl,
nothing posted as scripture references supports the below bold text. That is where the LDS interpretation of the bible differs from the Roman Catholic

so Mormons believe that the three Persons are of different divine natures?

 

[Todd520]

so Mormons believe that the three Persons are of different divine natures?

No, I asked you for biblical evidence of the spirit chimera aspect of the catholic trinity - the
three co-equal Persons of One Nature.

Personally, i don’t think there is biblical support and the catholics relied on the discussion or revelation of the Nicean council to create this doctrine. This is perfectly AOK as a source for Catholic doctrine.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

No, I asked you for biblical evidence of the spirit chimera aspect of the catholic trinity - the
three co-equal Persons of One Nature.

1. Someone has already posted a link to Biblical verses related to the Catholic Trinity, in this post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7004985&postcount=71

1. What are you talking about when you say “spirit chimera”? That is not a phrase that we use, and the Catholic Trinity has no similarities with the mythical “chimera”. We don’t believe that God is three “parts”, so your attempted analogy fails.
2. if you are disputing “three co-equal Persons of One Nature”, then we can naturally assume that you believe that the Persons are not “co-equal”, and/or that they are of different natures.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Why do we argue these same arguments over and over?

It is the only “argument” they have. Only, it is based on the misinformation they’ve been taught by the Mormon church.

 

[dianaiad]

Thank you for your answer, Diana. I enjoy dialogue with you since you answer all my questions honestly and to the best of your ability and do not ignore or refuse to answer any. Thank you again. Now to your reply:

I have told you whatever I have been told by other LDS members. Also, I have been informed that the Father and Jesus were once as mortal as we are. If this is so then your belief is not Biblical. This is where we radically differ.

Ok…here’s my problem, Javi…I know that many Christians define 'Christian" in a way that does not include beliefs we hold. In fact, many Christians define ‘Christian’ in a way that includes only beliefs* they * hold, thus excluding all others from the fellowship.

My objection to the claim that LDS leaders claimed that we ‘worship a different Jesus’ from the Christian one isn’t about denying that our beliefs about Him are different in ways, great or small, from those of other Christians. Of course they are. We do, after all, claim that Christianity wandered into apostate land and the correct beliefs needed restoration. Of COURSE they would be different to greater or lesser degree. Where they are, it’s because we think everybody else is wrong.

My objection is to the notion that any Latter-day Saint leader would say that their (our) beliefs are different from Christian beliefs.

I challenged the guilty misquoters to show a quote from any LDS leader actually saying those words, that we are not Christian, or that our beliefs differ from Christianity, thus divorcing us from it. That’s it…it’s not about what about our critics think, here. It’s about what we think of ourselves. We don’t think we are Traditional Christians. We don’t think we are mainline, orthodox, Orthodox, Trinitarian or many of the other adjectives appended to the word to describe the sort of beliefs that particular Christian group thinks is required to be Christian.

But we believe we are Christian, and none of our leaders has ever said that we were not, without making the adjectives the important part, as I just have.

One of the first steps that Catholics (and other critics) can take to ease that perceived "ongoing struggle’ (to get this back on topic) is, if they can’t stomach the idea of our being Christians, at least to do us the courtesy of believing that WE believe it. I’m used to having quotes taken out of context. I finally fell off my patience wagon when people started making them up.

Believing in Jesus alone does not make you a Christian. Shia Muslims believe in Jesus but they are not Christians. There are B’hai’s who also accept and believe in Jesus but they also are not Christians. Christian Scientists believe in Jesus but they also are not Christians.

As far as I know, B’hai’s don’t claim to be Christian, either. Again, Javi, this isn’t about whether you think we are Christians. It’s about people who misquote, and who make up quotes by, our leaders in an attempt to make it a ‘given’ that WE don’t think we are.

Ah, but it does. Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants are all Trinitarians in the truest ( Biblical ) sense of the word and are "traditional. Your not being “Trinitarian” places you outside of mainline, or “traditional” Christianity. We therefore do not consider the LDS Christian.

We aren’t traditional Christians. I don’t know many (if any) who claim to be. Again, it’s not about what you think of our Christianity, or about what Catholicism thinks or claims. It’s about people making claims about what OUR leaders have said, literally putting quotes around words that make it look as if our leaders have claimed that we are not Christian.

OK. I understand your position, I hope you understand ours.

Yes, I understand that you don’t think I am a Christian. I don’t think you get, even yet, my objection.

It’s not about what others think we are. It’s about the fact that some are inventing quotes…outright lying, not to put to fine a point on it…from LDS leaders, claiming that they have actually said that they 'worship a different Jesus from the ****Christian ****one."

First, it’s poisoning the well.
It’s begging the question.
it’s lying.

(shrug)

 

[zerinus]

1. Someone has already posted a link to Biblical verses related to the Catholic Trinity, in this post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7004985&postcount=71

Okay, I had a look at those verses, and I can’t for the life of me see how they support the Trinitarian absurdity of modern Apostate Christendom.

1. What are you talking about when you say “spirit chimera”? That is not a phrase that we use, and the Catholic Trinity has no similarities with the mythical “chimera”. We don’t believe that God is three “parts”, so your attempted analogy fails.

The chimera is “a mythical, fire-breathing monster, commonly represented with a lion’s head, and goat’s body, and a serpent’s tail” (Dictionary.com). I would say that is a good depiction of the absurdity of Trinitarian theology.

1. if you are disputing “three co-equal Persons of One Nature”, then we can naturally assume that you believe that the Persons are not “co-equal”, and/or that they are of different natures.

What he probably means by “nature” is “substance”. That is what Trinitarians teach. In other words, Trinitarianism portrays the Trinity as though it were a three headed monster with one body, which is not remotely biblical.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Okay, I had a look at those verses, and I can’t for the life of me see how they support the Trinitarian absurdity of modern Apostate Christendom.

The chimera is “a mythical, fire-breathing monster, commonly represented with a lion’s head, and goat’s body, and a serpent’s tail” (Dictionary.com). I would say that is a good depiction of the absurdity of Trinitarian theology.

What he probably means by “nature” is “substance”. That is what Trinitarians teach. In other words, Trinitarianism portrays the Trinity as though it were a three headed monster with one body, which is not remotely biblical.

Yes, I’m aware of what the chimera is. And by claiming that it is a good analogy for Trinity, and that “Trinitarianism portrays the Trinity as though it were a three headed monster with one body” (which we agree is not remotely biblical), you show that you really aren’t knowledgeable on what Trinitarian theology actually teaches.

Yes, your understanding and depiction of the Trinity doctrine is certainly an absurdity.

 

[zerinus]

Yes, your understanding and depiction of the Trinity doctrine is certainly an absurdity.

I thought that was your understanding of it. Don’t you teach that the Trinity is “three persons in one God”? Don’t you teach that they are “coequal”? Don’t you teach that they are of “one substance”? Where is any of that found in the Bible? And how does it make any sense?