Different Jesus

[JohnOF123]

YouTube - The Star of Bethlehem Part 1

Check that out if you'd like to see one mans perspective on exactly when Christ was born. People have been trying to nail down what the Star of Bethlehem was for centuries, but I think this guy might truly have it. Great video, many people have watched it around Christmas time.

Edited February 20, 2010 by JohnOF123

[Esselman75]

I feel that one of the main reasons for people saying we believe in a different Jesus is because we believe that Christ and the Father and the Holy Ghost are three different beings. The bible has many instances where the Father and the Son are both seen or heard at the same time, on the other hand it is also written that they are refered to as the same person. This would lead to "different" Jesus'. Both LDS and other Christian faiths believe that Christ is the son of God and the Savior of the world, but the beliefs of the trinity changes the veiws of Christ. So in a way we do have the same beliefs of Christ in some areas and different in others. These would would vary in every church and relgion you look into.

[JohnOF123]

I feel that one of the main reasons for people saying we believe in a different Jesus is because we believe that Christ and the Father and the Holy Ghost are three different beings. The bible has many instances where the Father and the Son are both seen or heard at the same time, on the other hand it is also written that they are refered to as the same person. This would lead to "different" Jesus'. Both LDS and other Christian faiths believe that Christ is the son of God and the Savior of the world, but the beliefs of the trinity changes the veiws of Christ. So in a way we do have the same beliefs of Christ in some areas and different in others. These would would vary in every church and relgion you look into.

Yes, I would say the similarities are that it is agreed, Thee true Jesus (whomever is correct) is the Son of God, and Jesus died on the cross.

The differences come in when we discuss who God is. The LDS viewpoint, I believe, is that it's still the Jesus of the Bible and the mainstream Christians, I believe, would say that it is not, and say that he is the "another Jesus" referenced in 2 Corinthians 11:4.

Either way, the Bible must be clearly read and decided for individually.

[Faded]

Yes, I would say the similarities are that it is agreed, Thee true Jesus (whomever is correct) is the Son of God, and Jesus died on the cross.

The differences come in when we discuss who God is. The LDS viewpoint, I believe, is that it's still the Jesus of the Bible and the mainstream Christians, I believe, would say that it is not, and say that he is the "another Jesus" referenced in 2 Corinthians 11:4.

Either way, the Bible must be clearly read and decided for individually.

I will always view it at intentionally misrepresentative of the Church of Jesus Christ to say that we believe in a "different Jesus." The more I understand the Trinity, the more I realize that at the very least, God the Son Jesus Christ is virtually identical from both Godhead and Trinity viewpoints. He is God, he has a body, he is a different person than the Father and the Holy Ghost, etc.

All the nitpicking is over how these three Gods are One God. And most of the nitpicking truthfully amounts to a debate about details that the VAST majority of Church-going members of those Trinity-accepting faiths don't even begin to comprehend.

Whether it's intended or not, bandying about the "different Jesus" maxim ultimately just seems like a scare tactic to keep honest seekers of truth from looking into the Church of Jesus Christ for themselves, praying to God, and coming to their own conclusions about "Mormonism."

I suppose the true test is this: Obviously, somebody has the right answer on the question of the nature of God. But setting that aside, members of the Church of Jesus Christ will unfailingly tell you that they pray for forgiveness of their sins and they feel the cleansing power of the blood of Christ making them pure again. Trinitarian Christians will tell you the same thing. So if it is not different enough to deny one group or the other the ability to be forgiven through Christ's sacrifice, then is it different enough to justify the use of the words, "different Jesus?" Or should we play the childish game of, "No your Jesus is a different Jesus!"?

[JohnOF123]

All the nitpicking is over how these three Gods are One God. And most of the nitpicking truthfully amounts to a debate about details that the VAST majority of Church-going members of those Trinity-accepting faiths don't even begin to comprehend.

So if it is not different enough to deny one group or the other the ability to be forgiven through Christ's sacrifice, then is it different enough to justify the use of the words, "different Jesus?" Or should we play the childish game of, "No your Jesus is a different Jesus!"?

Well I agree with you on some points, for instance I know that I cannot comprehend God in that He is too mysterious. But I have to disagree on whether it is no big deal to believe on whether we think there is 1 God, 3 Gods or many Gods. I'm pretty sure this fact is sorta core when it comes to all the elements of worship and the nature of ourselves.

If I had to describe the nature of the Trinity I would say that there is one God in 3 persons and His fingerprint can even be seen in reality.

God - Father Son HolySpirit

Space - Length Width Depth

Time - Past Present Future

Matter - Solid Liquid Gas

Keeping in mind that space, time and matter make up all of realty, I would say that the design of God's universe is parallel to His own character. Though I will admit I do not understand Him, I have to believe that He is the almighty alpha and omega.

I understand we have very different views here and would find you view very interesting to hear also. Thx-

[Faded]

Well I agree with you on some points, for instance I know that I cannot comprehend God in that He is too mysterious. But I have to disagree on whether it is no big deal to believe on whether we think there is 1 God, 3 Gods or many Gods. I'm pretty sure this fact is sorta core when it comes to all the elements of worship and the nature of ourselves.

It is crucially central and important to our doctrine and teachings in the Church of Jesus Christ to begin with a correct understanding of the nature of God. So yes, we consider the point to be very important.

But the name-calling seems to be almost completely one-sided. Non-LDS saying that "Mormons worship a different Jesus." Non-LDS saying that "Mormons aren't even Christians."

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ, while passionate about their own beliefs about the nature of God, seem more willing to forgo the childish name-calling and demonizing of other faiths -- all on the premise that "I'm right and you're wrong." We refer to Baptists, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Presbyterians, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, etc as fellow Christians and fellow believers in Christ.

The "different Jesus" broken record is just one example of many where Christians are lowering themselves to name-calling over doctrinal differences. Name-calling and demonizing of other Christian belief ultimately only stirs up conflict, makes Christianity more and more divided, and promotes ignorance and prejudice instead of understanding and acceptance. Yes the nature of God is an important matter. No it does not justify anyone in belittling other faiths that do not agree with your own.

If I had to describe the nature of the Trinity I would say that there is one God in 3 persons and His fingerprint can even be seen in reality.

God - Father Son Holy Spirit

Space - Length Width Depth

Time - Past Present Future

Matter - Solid Liquid Gas

Keeping in mind that space, time and matter make up all of realty, I would say that the design of God's universe is parallel to His own character. Though I will admit I do not understand Him, I have to believe that He is the almighty alpha and omega.

I understand we have very different views here and would find you view very interesting to hear also. Thx-

Our view of God is quite simple really. As we read in Genesis:

Genesis 1:26-27

[26] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 5:1

[1] This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

So what is God like? If we are created in the very image and likeness of God, then obviously God must look like a man. Two arms, two legs, two eyes, etc.

The real basis for our differences in our understanding of the nature of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost was ultimately established by one simple thing. Revelation. As Joseph Smith described it, "I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him! "

This together with further clarification from the Prophet is the basis for our understanding of what God is like. "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us."

So if you were to see God the Father, you would see a man whose glory is "above the brightness of the Sun" and "whose brightness and glory defy all description." He is all-powerful, and all-knowing. His power touching everywhere at all times. In short, all of the greatness and power you already attribute to God remains. But God the Father has a immortal perfected and glorified physical body. So does the Son, with that same glory and brightness. And we are made in their image. For now we are fallen, mortal imperfect copies. But we were made in the likeness of God.

The reason we believe this is not because a council of theological experts gathered, debated and voted on it. This is not the result of centuries of philosophy and scholarly work. God appeared directly. God gave this information to mankind directly. That is why we believe it instead of the Trinity.

[JohnOF123]

But the name-calling seems to be almost completely one-sided. Non-LDS saying that "Mormons worship a different Jesus." Non-LDS saying that "Mormons aren't even Christians." No it does not justify anyone in belittling other faiths that do not agree with your own.

Keep in mind, I don't agree with belittling the person, however I would have to say it's not one-sided. I've heard it said that we are Christians, but Mormons are at a university level where we are at a high school level. I've also heard that the Mormon Church is the one true church which implies that my church is not the true church. I've also heard some people quote Joseph in saying that all other churches are an abomination. I can probably list about 10 more if you really want to listen. But the point is that the accusations are not one-sided, though I agree that it is not healthy, or loving, and choose not to do it. So we definitely agree there.

If we are created in the very image and likeness of God, then obviously God must look like a man. Two arms, two legs, two eyes, etc.

I would say that since God said we are to "conform to the image of His Son" that we are not supposed to go get plastic surgery to physically look like him, similarly I would have to say when God created us in His image, we were created as beings that could love, have emotions, moral character, ability to use logic... not that we have two arms, two legs, etc..

I understand this could probably go back and forth for a long time, but I just wanted to point out how we feel "created in the image" means as well.

[rameumptom]

Well I agree with you on some points, for instance I know that I cannot comprehend God in that He is too mysterious. But I have to disagree on whether it is no big deal to believe on whether we think there is 1 God, 3 Gods or many Gods. I'm pretty sure this fact is sorta core when it comes to all the elements of worship and the nature of ourselves.

If I had to describe the nature of the Trinity I would say that there is one God in 3 persons and His fingerprint can even be seen in reality.

God - Father Son HolySpirit

Space - Length Width Depth

Time - Past Present Future

Matter - Solid Liquid Gas

Keeping in mind that space, time and matter make up all of realty, I would say that the design of God's universe is parallel to His own character. Though I will admit I do not understand Him, I have to believe that He is the almighty alpha and omega.

I understand we have very different views here and would find you view very interesting to hear also. Thx-

But this is a Modalist description. Modalism is a heresy, according to the Trinitarians, and again, you are believing a "different Jesus."

[JohnOF123]

But this is a Modalist description. Modalism is a heresy, according to the Trinitarians, and again, you are believing a "different Jesus."

Modalism is much different. It is a belief that in one instance, God becomes the Father, then in another, God comes as the Holy Spirit. That is to say, there is one God but He can transform (in modes).

The trinity view is that there is God, but He is made up of 3 separate person, (not 1 person with the ability to change modes).

In the trinitary view, Time is made up of Past Present Future. But past is NOT present and present is NOT future.

In the modalism view, Past can be present or future or whatever it wishes.

Modalism is indeed a heresy.

Edited February 21, 2010 by JohnOF123

[Faded]

Modalism is indeed a heresy.

Modalism is interesting to say the least. But since we don't have a believer in that concept of God around to defend their thesis, it would really not make much logical sense discussing it to any great extent.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ tend to get confused about there the dividing line between Modalism and Trinity is. I think I have a good enough grasp of it, but you should know that coming from our point of view, there isn't a huge difference between One God who can appear in three different forms and One God who simultaneously exists in three different forms.

But this is where the discussion gets absolutely fascinating. To a Trinitarian, the belief in Modalism is heresy because it asserts that there is only one. And yet, to that same Trinitarian, the Church of Jesus Christ's concept of the Godhead his equally heretical because it asserts that there are three.

Keep in mind, I don't agree with belittling the person, however I would have to say it's not one-sided. I've heard it said that we are Christians, but Mormons are at a university level where we are at a high school level. I've also heard that the Mormon Church is the one true church which implies that my church is not the true church. I've also heard some people quote Joseph in saying that all other churches are an abomination. I can probably list about 10 more if you really want to listen. But the point is that the accusations are not one-sided, though I agree that it is not healthy, or loving, and choose not to do it. So we definitely agree there.

When it comes to the Church of Jesus Christ, it either is what it says it is or it is not. If The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints truly is the literal Restoration of the Apostolic Church that Jesus Christ and his Apostles organized on the Earth, then it goes without saying that this church would have more light, knowledge and truth than any other church. That is not arrogance, though I know that it can be mistaken for such. No, it is no more arrogant than Jesus and Peter and Paul denouncing the teachings of the Pharasees and Sadducees.

And let us be very clear. It does not say, "all other churches are an abomination" it says their creeds are.

Joseph Smith's Account of what God told him:

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

What did God say about the Churches? They have a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.

But the target of God's displeasure seems to be more pointedly focussed upon two things. Their creeds are an abomination and the doctrines of men that are being taught as the doctrines of God.

Why are the Creeds of Christendom denounced? Well, most significantly, the Nicean Creed seeks to define God without his consent, and appears to have gotten it wrong. The conclusions that come after these Creeds and Doctrines essentially make many truths of God's plan for mankind into impossibilities.

If you were God and you're very nature had been denounced as heresy, and false philosophies had taken the place of the true teachings about your very nature, couldn't you imagine that you'd be upset?

In any case, it is the foundational creeds and doctrines upon which mainstream Christianity is built that is the real problem. Error begets error and confusion abounds. Not surprisingly, there hasn't been any communication from God worthy of being called scripture since these foundational creeds and doctrines were broadly adopted by all of Christianity. It should surprise no-one that God would need to more or less start from scratch.

That does not change the fact that many Christians in many denominations are honest seekers of God. They are.

[JohnOF123]

..but you should know that coming from our point of view, there isn't a huge difference between One God who can appear in three different forms and One God who simultaneously exists in three different forms.

Here is how Trinitarians come to their position in what they believe. First of all, we know the Bible explicitly states that there is only 1 God. It says it many many times in many ways, so we can't argue this fact with ourselves.

But then it also says that the Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God.

Therefore, we have to believe that 1) there are no other Gods, or groups of God, and 2) God is 3 persons, not one.

You probably knew all this, but I thought I'd say it just in case.

When it comes to the Church of Jesus Christ, it either is what it says it is or it is not. If The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints truly is the literal Restoration of the Apostolic Church that Jesus Christ and his Apostles organized on the Earth, then it goes without saying that this church would have more light, knowledge and truth than any other church. That is not arrogance, though I know that it can be mistaken for such.

I agree, if the LDS is true, then they have more light by default, and in that instance, their statement is not arrogance.

But if I mirror your example and say that if mainstream Christianity is true, then these "anti" people really are indeed doing deeds in love.

Key word here [if].

I'm sure we can probably both agree. I guess it depends where you are standing when you look at all this. From an LDS perspective, people can be anti-Mormon. But from a mainstream Christian perspective, people can be pro-Mormons but anti-Mormonism.

It's all kinda hazey, but if we step out of our own shoes, and imagine we are in the others shoes, then it can help us see the alternative perspective.

I do appreciate you stating your perspective on all this.

[Faded]

Here is how Trinitarians come to their position in what they believe. First of all, we know the Bible explicitly states that there is only 1 God. It says it many many times in many ways, so we can't argue this fact with ourselves.

But then it also says that the Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God.

Therefore, we have to believe that 1) there are no other Gods, or groups of God, and 2) God is 3 persons, not one.

You probably knew all this, but I thought I'd say it just in case.

Technically, the Old Testament in particular uses the word Eloheim. That word means "Gods". So it changes the reading of it when you realize that more often than not, they are saying, "there is only One True Gods." The very word used to denote deity in the original Hebrew denotes plurality. (Interestingly, it is this very plurality of the God of the Old Testament that Trinitarians point to when debating/discussing with Unitarianist Jewish scholars.)

The difference between Trinity and Godhead is that they are simply two different means of dealing with that plurality implication within "One True God(s)." Both theories satisfy the scriptural record sufficiently that their adherents can read the Bible all the way through without having their theory of the nature of God destroyed out from under them. Ultimately, this is because the two theories are -- while certainly different -- much closer than most people realize.

I agree, if the LDS is true, then they have more light by default, and in that instance, their statement is not arrogance.

But if I mirror your example and say that if mainstream Christianity is true, then these "anti" people really are indeed doing deeds in love.

Key word here [if].

I'm sure we can probably both agree. I guess it depends where you are standing when you look at all this. From an LDS perspective, people can be anti-Mormon. But from a mainstream Christian perspective, people can be pro-Mormons but anti-Mormonism.

Ultimately, all that members and missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ ask is that people hear the message we have and then take the matter to God. We are very focused on each person praying for inspiration from God via the Holy Spirit directly. We do not ask anyone to take our word for it. And we most certainly are not in the business of tricking anyone into accepting our beliefs.

If non-LDS Christians are confident in the correctness of their own position, then logically they have absolutely nothing to be afraid of. We should all simply let it be a matter that is strictly between that person and God. There should be no need for "Anti-Mormon" literature and organizations. God will set the matter right when each person seeks counsel with their Maker directly. It's simply a matter of trusting Him.

It's all kinda hazey, but if we step out of our own shoes, and imagine we are in the others shoes, then it can help us see the alternative perspective.

I do appreciate you stating your perspective on all this.

I consider it a matter of personal honor to understand and respect the religious beliefs of others. I sincerely want to understand why each denomination believes as they do from the perspective of their believers and leaders. I'm gradually getting better with the Trinity -- simple to say what it is, but almost impossible to fathom or comprehend. But I'll continue to try, even if I don't necessarily accept it as divine truth.

More than happy to share our perspective when it is asked for. Hope it was not offensive in any way.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Faded
typos, typos, typos

[JohnOF123]

Technically, the Old Testament in particular uses the word Eloheim. That word means "Gods". So it changes the reading of it when you realize that more often than not, they are saying, "there is only One True Gods."

Tell the Jews who wrote it that, lolz.

Hope it was not offensive in any way.

Not at all, much appreciated.

[Faded]

Tell the Jews who wrote it that, lolz.

LOL. I think we would both wholeheartely agree that the Jews that actually wrote those words understood everything correctly. Modern Jewish scholars on the other hand seem to have other ideas. Puzzling, isn't it?

[rameumptom]

In the trinitary view, Time is made up of Past Present Future. But past is NOT present and present is NOT future.

In the modalism view, Past can be present or future or whatever it wishes.

Modalism is indeed a heresy.

But your definition (Space, Time, etc) are modalistic versions. The Trinity would be past, present AND future. Modalism has past, present, OR future. Your definition falls way short of Trinitarianism. Time is presented as OR, not AND.

[rameumptom]

Johnof123,

I disagree that the Bible explicitly details only one God. Bible scholars agree that the early Jews and Christians believed in more than one God. I suggest you read some of Margaret Barker's writings, as one of the foremost Old Testament scholars out there (and Methodist preacher). I agree that the Deuteronomists during King Josiah's reform did try to create a monotheism. And they attempted to rewrite scripture.

However, that is just one group of many. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, we read that Melchizedek was called Elohim and Yahweh (11Q Melch). In early Jewish writings, Enoch becomes Metatron, and sits on God's throne, where he is worshiped as God.

And in the Bible, we see that there was a divine council of gods, led by El Elyon/Elohim. Elohim divided the nations among his divine sons in the days of Peleg, giving Israel to Yahweh/Jehovah. An example of the divine sons competing for primacy with Yahweh is found in Job 1.

I could go on, but for space sake, I recommend you read my Old Testament lessons here: Old Testament - LDS Mormon Forums

[JohnOF123]

But your definition (Space, Time, etc) are modalistic versions. The Trinity would be past, present AND future. Modalism has past, present, OR future. Your definition falls way short of Trinitarianism. Time is presented as OR, not AND.

Let me help clear up the way you see this.

In my definition, as you said, Time would indeed be past present and future, but where you don't see the separation is that the past is not the present, whereas modalism would say that the past is the present, if it wants to be.

In modalism, there can be no "is not" in this picture.

Hope that helps! If you are still a little fuzzy on this, just look up "modalism vs trinitarianism" on the internet and you will see this same sort of diagram used over and over again to explain the trinity in comparison to modalism. And you will find that modalism denies this analogy.

Bible scholars agree that the early Jews.. ..believed in more than one God.

Tell that to a Jew, lol.

And I think you meant to say, "some LDS Bible scholars agree that"...

If you got this information from a source, then that source denies reality, denies history, denies everything ever written about Jewish beliefs, and denies Jewish beliefs today. I gotta say, I don't think many LDS would agree with you here, not on this fact.

Here ya go, here is a list of over 200 Jewish Synagogues and Seminaries found in New York, the highest population of Jews outside of Israel.

Go ahead and find one that say Jews, modern or ancient, believe in more than one God (you won't). Good luck!

jewish Synagogue in New York - YELLOWPAGES.COM

Edited February 22, 2010 by JohnOF123

[rameumptom]

Tell that to a Jew, lol.

And I think you meant to say, "some LDS Bible scholars agree that"...

If you got this information from a source, then that source denies reality, denies history, denies everything ever written about Jewish beliefs, and denies Jewish beliefs today. I gotta say, I don't think many LDS would agree with you here, not on this fact.

No, you are definitely wrong on this. MOST LDS Bible scholars would agree and most non-LDS Bible scholars AGREE that the early Hebrews and Jews believed in more than one God. Lawrence Schiffman (a Jewish scholar), Margaret Barker, William G. Dever, Bart Ehrman, and dozens more all agree on this. Biblical Archaeological Review has had articles concerning the consort of Yahweh or El.

LDS scholars quote non-LDS Bible scholars in regards to these issues. Why? Because they agree with our basic tenets.

I will admit that through most of the history of Christianity and much of the history of Judaism, they have insisted in a monotheistic God. However, modern scholars who have truly looked at the evidence cannot deny these things. Reality is what is found both in the Bible, the extra-Biblical books, and in the archaeology. All three agree that Yahweh has a consort named Asherah. All three agree that El and Yahweh were separate Gods, both worshiped by the early Hebrews and Jews. El had a council of divine sons, including Yahweh, who challenged one another for primacy (see Job 1).

THIS is the reality that is now coming forth, as scholars are moving away from a stinted view of the scriptures, and to looking at what the text actually says.

[JohnOF123]

No, you are definitely wrong on this. MOST LDS Bible scholars would agree and most non-LDS Bible scholars AGREE that the early Hebrews and Jews believed in more than one God.

Lolz

[rameumptom]

I guess your laughter (lolz) shows how little you read the actual modern literature.

[JohnOF123]

I guess your laughter (lolz) shows how little you read the actual modern literature.

Please point me to a Non-LDS Christian scholar (as you say) that claims "Early Jews were polytheistic."

For every one that you point me to, I can point to a hundred scholars that would lolz at them as well.

Why don't you lookup "Jewish Seminary" or "Synagogue" in the Yellow pages, and keep calling until you find one that agrees with you; you wont.

If you are referring to Jews that fell away (here's a good example) and worshiped a gold calf, God had them killed, right away.

Abraham = Father of Judaism = Monotheist

I am finding a few Atheist sites (but no Christian scholars) with this information.

Edited February 24, 2010 by JohnOF123

[rameumptom]

The scholars you are referring to are orthodox ones that focus on their religion's theology. I'm talking about REAL scholars, who publish on these things from not just a religious stand point, but from using all the evidence.

Too many religions ignore much of the real evidence out there, because it would thrash their basic beliefs. But just because they pretend they know the Great Oz, does not mean there isn't someone behind the curtain that everyone is supposed to ignore.

Truth is truth, and after centuries of ignoring much of the facts, many scholars are now beginning to look at all the data.

Bart Ehrman described in "Jesus, Interrupted" how this works. He attended Moody Bible College for his Bachelor's degree. It was a great school for him, enforcing his Southern Baptist beliefs and ideals. Then he went on to graduate work at Yale Divinity School, where they showed him an entirely new world, where much of what he had been taught growing up and at Moody's is just not true. Today he is an agnostic, though he still teaches New Testament as one of the leading American scholars on that period.

He notes that most of his colleagues have remained believers in Christianity, though they have no doubt that much of what is taught in churches is not based on what really happened anciently.

William G. Dever also speaks about his concerns about how modern Judaeo-Christian religion has denied its roots, including God's consort. Margaret Barker notes that major political shifts during the period of the Deuteronomists changed Judaism forever, including making it monotheistic.

I have given several names of some of the best known scholars in the field. And there are many more. I've yet to see you respond to my answers with anything more than a chortle. You clearly aren't serious about this discussion, as I provide evidence, and you basically say, "No it isn't", thinking you've won a contest with such a remark?

Let me know when you are serious about discussing, and I'll consider continuing. Until then, I'll leave you with the statements I've given prior.

[JohnOF123]

I can see that you are a product of your carefully chosen scholars. I can probably find another 20 heretical scholars if you would like to add them to you list.

Bart Ehrman described in "Jesus, Interrupted" how this works. He attended Moody Bible College for his Bachelor's degree.

Bart is a textual critic of early Christianity.

He is now an Agnostic.

Turn away from him if you are Christian my friend.

Tell me something, how is listening to Bart Ehrman (a Christian turned Agnostic) any different from

an LDS Member listening to Shawn McCraney (an LDS turned Mainstream Christian)? Think about it, would you really advise either?

William G. Dever also speaks about his concerns about how modern Judaeo-Christian religion has denied its roots, including God's consort.

Another unwise choice. Here is a nice little quote from William Dever.

"I am not reading the Bible as Scripture… I am in fact not even a theist. My view all along—and especially in the recent books—is first that the biblical narratives are indeed 'stories,' often fictional and almost always propagandistic, but that here and there they contain some valid historical information." -William G. Dever

Another example of someone a Christian should not listen to.

You clearly aren't serious about this discussion, as I provide evidence...

Allow me to be serious for you then. You are very unwise to choose these scholars. I think this is all that your "evidence" actually displays.

Edited February 25, 2010 by JohnOF123

[bytebear]

So you are dismissing their research and knowledge because they are "heretics" Sounds like you are attacking the messenger, and ignoring the message.

[JohnOF123]