Are Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses Christian?

[jane_doe]

I don’t think I’m quite satisfied yet with your answer here. You imply that nobody wanted to hear from God for 1800 yrs.?

You (generic you) believe that revelation stopped at the end of apostolic era. Your church teaches this. You reject the very idea that God gives revelation anymore.

Yes, I believe this approach shuts ears.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You (generic you) believe that revelation stopped at the end of apostolic era. Your church teaches this. You reject the very idea that God gives revelation anymore.

Yes, I believe this approach shuts ears.

Mormon propaganda.

 

[JMM1957]

Yes you did. We shall temporarily ignore that your church rejects the KJV…

Now please:

1. Provide scriptural case for why this verse shall be taken as a literal statement when you choose to take all other similar as metaphorical.
2. Provide other verses witnessing say the same thing.

Lol, they don’t recommend it because it lacks the Deuterocanonical books which makes it more a Protestant version. Also, the old style English is outdated and makes difficult reading for most.

So jane, why do** you **object to the KJV translation of John 4:24?

 

[jane_doe]

Lol, they don’t recommend it because it lacks the Deuterocanonical books which makes it more a Protestant version. Also, the old style English is outdated and makes difficult reading for most.

So jane, why do** you **object to the KJV translation of John 4:24?

I don’t reject it at all. I reject your interpretation of it.

 

[JMM1957]

I don’t reject it at all. I reject your interpretation of it.

So, whether a translation says “God is Spirit” or “God is a Spirit”, makes no difference to how you currently view God the Father in heaven? You still believe that He has a human flesh and blood body and is not a spirit?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Lol, they don’t recommend it because it lacks the Deuterocanonical books which makes it more a Protestant version. Also, the old style English is outdated and makes difficult reading for most.

So jane, why do** you **object to the KJV translation of John 4:24?

Wait WHAT? The original KJV, aka the Authorized Version 1604/1611 included the Deuterocanonical Books. Which edition do the Mormons accept?

 

[jane_doe]

So, whether a translation says “God is Spirit” or “God is a Spirit”, makes no difference to how you currently view God the Father in heaven? You still believe that He has a human flesh and blood body and is not a spirit?

Why should I take this one verse as being a literal statement of God’s substance and all others as metaphorical?

 

[JMM1957]

Why should I take this one verse as being a literal statement of God’s substance and all others as metaphorical?

Now jane , I know its been a while back, but in your post #535 you implied to me that you needed to see the exact words “God is a Spirit” in the Bible, because you thought John 4:24 quoted from my NAB (the Bible I use mostly) that said “God is Spirit” was just a metaphorical statement. I came up with a Bible, the KJV which is considered to be a very accurate translation of the original Scriptures for conveying actual meaning intended by the original authors, which translated John 4:24 the way you had asked to see. Now, you don’t want to accept that the KJV says “God is a Spirit”, which literally means, God is a Spirit. You can continue to believe metaphorically if you choose to, but then you need to explain why the KJV uses the letter “a” in front of the word Spirit, if God really isn’t a Spirit at all.

 

[JMM1957]

Wait WHAT? The original KJV, aka the Authorized Version 1604/1611 included the Deuterocanonical Books. Which edition do the Mormons accept?

I don’t know, but I’m guessing not that one.

 

[jane_doe]

Now jane , I know its been a while back, but in your post #535 you implied to me that you needed to see the exact words “God is a Spirit”

If you want to argue that “God is a spirit”, then yes having a verse that says that is one of the prerequisites. Now you must also fulfill the other prerequisites as well.

said “God is Spirit” was just a metaphorical statement.

Yes, the phrasing “God is Spirit” points directly to a metaphorical statement. “God is a spirit” could be either metaphorical or literal.

Now, you don’t want to accept that the KJV says “God is a Spirit”, which literally means, God is a Spirit.

Your evidence of this?

 

[JMM1957]

If you want to argue that “God is a spirit”, then yes having a verse that says that is one of the prerequisites. Now you must also fulfill the other prerequisites as well.

Prerequisites?

 

[jane_doe]

If you want to argue that “God is a spirit”, then yes having a verse that says that is one of the prerequisites. Now you must also fulfill the other prerequisites as well.

Prerequisites?

Yes. For starters:

1. Provide scriptural case for why this verse shall be taken as a literal statement when you choose to take all other similar as metaphorical.
2. Provide other verses witnessing the same thing.

Then you will have the necessary prerequisites to build a solid scripturally based argument, and we can evaluate/talk about it.

EDIT: I feel like I’m sounding very obstinate here, and I apologize if it sounds that way, it is not my intention. I am very much scrutinize incoming information, particularly on something as important as God. Again, I mean no offense, and apologize if it sounds that way.

 

[JMM1957]

Yes, the phrasing “God is Spirit” points directly to a metaphorical statement. “God is a spirit” could be either metaphorical or literal.

A) (First sentence) I don’t believe its metaphorical, you do.
B) (Second sentence) Seriously jane, why are you doing this?

It has been good talking with you about LDS, as it is a church I didn’t know too much about until recently. I would like to continue the discussion, but if you are going to pull the rug out from underneath me, after I made the effort to give you what you wanted to see (be careful what you ask for ), such as in John 4:24, and you continue to do this with other items we discuss, its unproductive, at least for me.

 

[JMM1957]

Yes. For starters:

1. Provide scriptural case for why this verse shall be taken as a literal statement when you choose to take all other similar as metaphorical.
2. Provide other verses witnessing the same thing.

Then you will have the necessary prerequisites to build a solid scripturally based argument, and we can evaluate/talk about it.

EDIT: I feel like I’m sounding very obstinate here, and I apologize if it sounds that way, it is not my intention. I am very much scrutinize incoming information, particularly on something as important as God. Again, I mean no offense, and apologize if it sounds that way.

1. What other similar statements?
2. I don’t think we can move past John 4:24, you do realize this verse is a serious problem for LDS to overcome?

 

[jane_doe]

A) (First sentence) I don’t believe its metaphorical, you do.

Yes, I respect your belief in that regard.

B) (Second sentence) Seriously jane, why are you doing this?

Why do I take time to thoroughly examine information and the based upon assumptions? Cause I’m thorough and take learning very seriously, especially something as important as God. (Did you see my edit to the previous post-- I tried to explain that).

It has been good talking with you about LDS, as it is a church I didn’t know too much about until recently.

I have also enjoyed this discussion. Thank you.

I would like to continue the discussion, but if you are going to pull the rug out from underneath me, after I made the effort to give you what you wanted to see (be careful what you ask for ), such as in John 4:24, and you continue to do this with other items we discuss, its unproductive, at least for me.

I apologize if it feels like I’m pulling the rug out from you, that was not my intention. I had thought made my previous requests for supporting verses and defense-on-taking-this-literal very clear. Obviously it was not as clear as I thought…

 

[JMM1957]

Then you will have the necessary prerequisites to build a solid scripturally based argument, and we can evaluate/talk about it.

jane, if we both used just the Bible alone to build our arguments on, that would be one thing, but its quite another thing when I only use the Bible and you use all of what you consider scripture to be as an LDS.

jane, Joseph Smith introduced beliefs that you never would have come up with, apart from him, don’t you understand what I’m saying? Joseph Smith’s teachings caused people to interpret Biblical Scripture differently than the way it was understood by Christianity for 1800 yrs.

 

[jane_doe]

jane, if we both used just the Bible alone to build our arguments on, that would be one thing, but its quite another thing when I only use the Bible and you use all of what you consider scripture to be as an LDS.

I’m not arguing to convince you of any of my beliefs, so that’s a null issue. If you say your arguments are based solely on the Bible, then you should be able to show them on the Bible. If you want to say a belief is based on Sacred Tradition or something else, then I will acknowledge that.

 

[JMM1957]

jane,

I think God stopped giving public revelation after the Apostolic age for a good reason. He already knew that just coming up with a final canon of Scripture using imperfect people, was going to be a challenge for us by itself, even with the guidance of the HS. If you study how it all happened, you see that even in the first century or two, many books, gospels, and letters were circulating, most of them turned out to be non-inspired or spurious when it was all said and done. I believe that God gave us the complete package up front, what was required to believe for salvation, Jesus, The Way, The Truth, and the Life. And then He let the Church spread the Good News to the world. The Church has not failed in its mission. The gospel did not need to be “restored”, it was always here. When Jesus said He would not leave us as orphans, He sent the HS to be with the Church. We don’t have to be getting ongoing divine revelation, as in new teachings, to know that the HS is with the Church. Jesus said “Trust in Me.”

 

[jane_doe]

jane,

I think God stopped giving public revelation after the Apostolic age for a good reason. He already knew that just coming up with a final canon of Scripture using imperfect people, was going to be a challenge for us by itself, even with the guidance of the HS. If you study how it all happened, you see that even in the first century or two, many books, gospels, and letters were circulating, most of them turned out to be non-inspired or spurious when it was all said and done. I believe that God gave us the complete package up front, what was required to believe for salvation, Jesus, The Way, The Truth, and the Life. And then He let the Church spread the Good News to the world. The Church has not failed in its mission. The gospel did not need to be “restored”, it was always here. When Jesus said He would not leave us as orphans, He sent the HS to be with the Church. We don’t have to be getting ongoing divine revelation, as in new teachings, to know that the HS is with the Church. Jesus said “Trust in Me.”

I enthusiastically agree with on the wonder and importance of our Savior. I respect your beliefs as to the ceasing of revelation, though I do not agree with them.

 

[Stephen168]

But I need you to explain to me what you mean when using that of “numeric sense” and the “generic sense” (for the other posts), because I don’t understand that. Next time try to focus on one single “topic”, this posts are too long to address…

I was hoping for an answer to this myself