Are Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses Christian?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Stephen168 said:
No, you entered this conversation to start a tangent to deflect the conversation away from Jane having to explain what co-substantation means to her.

You are famous for saying that you alone of the world’s greatest authority on knowing what Tom believes; which is true. But you are not the world’s greatest authority on knowing what Jane believes. Only Jane knows what she means by co-substantation.

And you have not even tried to explain what she might have meant by it, but again that is her responsibility not yours.
Click to expand...
I will acknowledge that what you say is fair enough. I have not attempted to describe what Jane may have thought co-substantation (consubstantiation) means.
I have suggested that there was virtually no words she could have chosen which would not have been met with “a ha! you do not know!!!”
That was my point and my purpose for posting.
In responding to me a Catholic has denied Catholic dogma and others have said many things that had Jane said them she would have been met with, “a ha! you do not know!” I am sure she would have handled that just like she ultimately handled what came anyway in a slightly modified form. I do not believe Jane’s faith is based on the foibles of Catholic doctrine, so my purpose was really not altruistic.
Instead, if there was “hay” going to be made about “consubstantial” I wanted to present some of the history. And even after doing that folks have continued to demand a Catholic definition from a LDS who claims it doesn’t make sense. Why do you think that is?
Charity, TOm
 
TOmNossor said:
I will acknowledge that what you say is fair enough. I have not attempted to describe what Jane may have thought co-substantation (consubstantiation) means.
I have suggested that there was virtually no words she could have chosen which would not have been met with “a ha! you do not know!!!”
That was my point and my purpose for posting.
In responding to me a Catholic has denied Catholic dogma and others have said many things that had Jane said them she would have been met with, “a ha! you do not know!” I am sure she would have handled that just like she ultimately handled what came anyway in a slightly modified form. I do not believe Jane’s faith is based on the foibles of Catholic doctrine, so my purpose was really not altruistic.
Instead, if there was “hay” going to be made about “consubstantial” I wanted to present some of the history. And even after doing that folks have continued to demand a Catholic definition from a LDS who claims it doesn’t make sense. Why do you think that is?
Charity, TOm
Click to expand...
I have to agree. This seems like an uncharitable “Gotcha” on a Mormon. Sad, very sad.
 
TOmNossor said:
I will acknowledge that what you say is fair enough. I have not attempted to describe what Jane may have thought co-substantation (consubstantiation) means.
Click to expand...
Yes, you have went on at length about consubstantiation, but never about co-substantation. Remember co-substantation is the subject in question
TOmNossor said:
I have suggested that there was virtually no words she could have chosen which would not have been met with “a ha! you do not know!!!”
Click to expand...
You are wrong, because as I said she was asked for her understanding therefore a wrong answer or “you do not know” was never possible. We asked her for her understanding of a word she made up. You are being paranoid.
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
I have to disagree with your “similar” take between Paul and Joseph Smith.

The reality is; Paul after his encounter with the resurrected Jesus, Paul stood a few days with a disciple of Jesus. Then later, Paul would go to Jerusalem and visit Peter, to confirm the gospel he was preaching of Jesus, was the same gospel of Jesus Christ as Peter and the other apostles.
Click to expand...
True. If Joseph Smith was like Paul he would have went to New York to talk with the Bishop to make sure his “revelations” were from God.
 
Michael68 said:
I have to agree. This seems like an uncharitable “Gotcha” on a Mormon. Sad, very sad.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree. LW7 has never tried to trap anyone. He stated his purpose to asking Jane what her understanding is, which was, we can’t really converse if we aren’t talking about the same thing. There is nothing uncharitable about asking a question in order to clarify.

Tom here likes to twist all things Catholic, apparently even the intent of a Catholic’s question.
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
TOmNossor;14149568:
Horton;14148285:
But not really the same as Paul was with Jesus Christ while Christ walked the earth. Joseph Smith was not. Gabriel is talking about the reality of someone who heard from the mouth of Christ what to teach.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I have read the Bible, and there is zero evidence that Paul was ever with the “pre-resurrected” Christ. Paul’s call to the apostleship comes via vision on the road to Damascus. As such Paul is the Apostle most like Joseph Smith.
I am also unaware of ANY ECF who suggests Paul ever met Christ during his mortal ministry.
Finally, let me state that I have found a small number of speculative thinkers who claim MAYBE Paul came in contact with Christ before the end of Christ’s 40-day post resurrection ministry, but the prevalent view is the Biblical view which is “Paul met Christ on the road to Damascus.”
This makes Paul, among all of the Apostles, most similar to Joseph Smith who also claims to have met Christ in a divine manifestation (not while Christ walked among the Jews in Palestine).
Charity, TOm
I have to disagree with your “similar” take between Paul and Joseph Smith.

The reality is; Paul after his encounter with the resurrected Jesus, Paul stood a few days with a disciple of Jesus. Then later, Paul would go to Jerusalem and visit Peter, to confirm the gospel he was preaching of Jesus, was the same gospel of Jesus Christ as Peter and the other apostles.

Your Joseph Smith got his revelation and came away with another or different gospel other than the one Paul received, and different than the one Peter and the original apostles received.

Comparing Joseph Smith with Paul is a great contradiction to 2000 years of Christianity, and Joseph Smith’s personal revelation is never confirmed by eye witnesses, to confirm Joseph Smith’s revelation.

Biblically speaking, it takes two witnesses to establish a Truth. Joseph Smith’s private revelation lack’s the support of any witness to confirm his vision and his gospel.

The Mormon Gospel is founded upon Joseph Smith revelation, not Jesus Christ revelation. That is one reason, why a Mormon is not a Christian.

Peace be with you
Click to expand...
Hello Gabriel of 12,
I was responding to an assertion that Paul was called because he walked with Jesus. He did not. Paul was called in a vision. There are those who have argued that Matthius was among a vanishing pool of folks who could replace Judas. Horton’s claim appeared to suggest that Paul was in this pool of folks and Joseph Smith was not. But, Paul was not in this group. Paul was called by Christ in a way different than Peter, James, John, … and Matthius.
Now, beyond this, there are additional similarities and differences between Paul’s and Joseph’s call.
I am quite an authority guy myself and it is valuable to me that Paul took his call to Peter, James, and John. It is true the Bible later witnesses some strife between Paul and the “Pillars of the Church,” but as an authority guy it is important that one align with valid divine authority IMO.
Jesus, Peter, James, and John NEVER sought the approval of Ciaphus for their ministry because while Ciaphus may have had some valid Jewish authority, he was not going to embrace the new authority Jesus brought to His church. Thus, Ciaphus’ blessing was not sought by the “fulfillment of Judaism.”
It is of course my position that the “Restoration of Christianity” would not seek the blessing of the remnant of Christianity without valid authority just as Jesus, Peter, James, and John did not seek a blessing from Ciaphus. Paul was in a different situation as Peter had divine authority when Paul was called to the ministry.

Beyond the above, I think it is clear we will disagree on whether the CoJCoLDS is a restoration of ancient Christianity or a heretical sect with “another gospel” leading folks away from God’s Holy Catholic Church.
Hope that clarifies some.
Oh, and LDS make much of witnesses. We have huge apologetic thoughts regarding that and IMO it is quite tough to explain what the LDS witnesses witnessed if the Catholic narratives of these events are true. I can provide you a link to a presentation on this very subject from just a couple of weeks ago if you would like.
Charity, TOm
 
JMM1957 said:
👍 Jesus confirmed who he was and authenticated his gospel by many miracles and he had thousands of witnesses to him being the Son of God. The messengers of Jesus’ gospel, Peter, Paul, and others, had the gospel they preached confirmed also by similar signs; "3This salvation was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, 4and was affirmed by God through signs, wonders, various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to His will. (Heb. 2:3-4)

I have not seen anything to confirm the authenticity of Joseph Smiths’ gospel and teachings being divinely inspired and worthy of belief. If Joseph Smith is all that the LDS claim he is, then there should be no problem finding many witnesses, correct?
Click to expand...
You raised a good point that is worthy of a discussion:)

God does not accept the testimony of men. Only God can give testimony of God for example;

God testifies of the Word of God made flesh; “Behold this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”, and confirmed by the witness of the Holy Spirit in the likeness of a dove, when the witness of two confirmed Truth who is full of Grace Jesus Christ himself the only begotten Son of God, consubstantial with the Father, God from God, Light from Light.

God reveals God from God and divine revelation is revealed by the Light from light in the light, thus Three distinct divine witness, to wit the revelation in One God, never separated, never confused or divided.

God’s Essence does not come down to us, what is Consubstantial of the Son and the Father remains a mystery to our humanity but not to our Catholic faith in One God and no other.

Peace be with you
 
RebeccaJ said:
I don’t agree. LW7 has never tried to trap anyone. He stated his purpose to asking Jane what her understanding is, which was, we can’t really converse if we aren’t talking about the same thing. There is nothing uncharitable about asking a question in order to clarify.
Click to expand...
I will say that if LW7 is not trying to say that Jesus prayed for the apostles to become “consubstantial” like His Father and He are “consubstantial” I cannot make sense of what LW7 is saying. Look at his summary here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14148953&postcount=353
Nobody on this thread may be able to define “consubstantial,” but I am pretty sure there is no definition that voids Jane’s point.
RebeccaJ said:
about asking a question in order to clarify.

Tom here likes to twist all things Catholic, apparently even the intent of a Catholic’s question.
Click to expand...
TOm has been posting here since 2004.
He makes mistakes and SOMETIMES (probably not often enough) recognizes it and even posts that he (I) have.
But, very few of the points I made that you dismissed so cavalierly have really been dealt with in a way that would lead me to question my conclusions. So, I will post something similar in the future. You will claim I am “misquoting,” “twisting,” utilizing "sophistry” (a word by which I understand you and Stephen168 mean “intentionally deceiving”) or something else.
I am not “intentionally deceiving.” I am presenting my understanding of history derived from Catholic and non-Catholic sources. I am presenting my understanding of words and arguments. I am not “intentionally deceiving,” and I suggest you are not RESPONDING.
Of course that is fine.
Charity, TOm
 
JMM1957 said:
Paul is saying that we should not believe in any distortion of the gospel of Christ that is different than what they already had received up to that time. That means no new divine revelation.
Click to expand...
No, it means that we should not believe in any distortion of the gospel.
JMM1957 said:
because Paul received his revelation directly from Jesus Christ, 11 “For I certify to you, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not devised by man. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.” (Gal. 1:11-12).
Click to expand...
Correct, revelation and the Gospel should be received from Jesus Christ, and not from man.
JMM1957 said:
Paul, John and others warn of false teachers who will come along with a false gospel, and the way that we know it is false is to compare it to the gospel preached by the Apostles, Paul and their successors who are members of the Christian Church established by Jesus Christ himself while he was on earth.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
JMM1957 said:
I see the church of LDS as having added to the original Gospel of Jesus Christ with their acceptance of the Joseph Smith story as being of divine origin and the resulting addition of three more books of what they call inspired scripture.
Click to expand...
And do you have any scriptural reference that there will be no more scripture?
JMM1957 said:
Without claiming that the Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, etc. all do the same thing, how do you explain that the** LDS specifically**, is not preaching a different gospel than the one Paul preached?.
Click to expand...
For starters, who preaches as Paul preached (from revelation) and who preaches from man?
 
TOmNossor said:
I will say that if LW7 is not trying to say that Jesus prayed for the apostles to become “consubstantial” like His Father and He are “consubstantial” I cannot make sense of what LW7 is saying. Look at his summary here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14148953&postcount=353
Nobody on this thread may be able to define “consubstantial,” but I am pretty sure there is no definition that voids Jane’s point.
Click to expand...
Hi TOmNossor, Which are the verses of the passage and what is your interpretation or belief about them?
Thank you in advance.
 
TOmNossor said:
Nobody on this thread may be able to define “consubstantial,” but I am pretty sure there is no definition that voids Jane’s point.
Click to expand...
The word we have asked Jane to define is co-substantation. A word she made up. You seem to be ignoring that point and Jane is ignoring the request for a definition.

Consubstantial is easy to understand, as is* begotten*, and made. They are at the heart of the Christian understanding of God. BUT the word co-substantation is nothing I have ever heard, so the person using the word would have to define it for use. Until they define it. YOU are just guessing what they mean, and YOU are just guessing at any conclusions it might bring.

You are here to continue a tangent. Not for understanding
 
Michael68 said:
Didn’t you just say that is a made up word? Why are you harping for the definition of a made up word that, more than likely, was a typo?
Click to expand...
Did she say it was a typo. If you make up a word it is yours to define. That is why we have to “harp” her for the definition.
 
Michael68 said:
Ok, if you feel its necessary. Why can’t you accept no?
Click to expand...
Oh, I can but Jane doesn’t say no. She is taking the old junior high defense of “I would tell you but you are mean.” She keeps bringing it up, when I get she has no intention of ever defining the word she made up.
I was talking to Tom about his tangent.
 
jane_doe said:
If you wish to have the Spirit witness to you directly, then all you have do is sincerely ask Him for it.
Click to expand...
Yes, but all churches that claim to be Christian say that they have the Spirit witnessing to them, either to individual members or magisterium/authority, and yet we have many different understandings of the Gospel message and teachings which separates us all into different denominations, not agreeing with each other. Sure, we have some similar views on certain things, but we lack the unity that Paul speaks of us having, which is understandable, as the Spirit is working with imperfect people. I don’t doubt the sincerity of people who ask the Holy Spirit to guide them to all truth, yet we still have division. You and I both believe that Jesus established a church on earth before he died, one that would preserve the Gospel of truth. Jesus never said their would be more divine revelation coming after he went back to the Father. You believe that divine revelation had not ended with the Apostolic age, so can you point to specific verses in the Bible which talk about that in particular?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top