Sanders vs Vought = Postmodernism vs Truth


prisonchaplain
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

His alleged condemnation was in quoting John 3:18--without Christ, we stand "condemned already." So... are you agreeing with Sanders, that Vought, because of his belief in John 3:18, cannot possibly treat Muslims equitably--that anyone endorsing John's gospel is not worthy of service in any federal position??

Not on what he believed, no. On what he DID.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, brotherofJared said:

He also made it equally clear, in public dissertation, that he didn't really believe that when he supported the stand Wheaton took to fire a fellow Christian. So, not only does he show a propensity to judge people who are not of his faith, he also appears to be willing to judge those of his faith when they disagree with him or his views. It's fine to claim to treat people equally, but when they don't treat people equally, especially when someone is stepping out to treat people equally, which he claimed God commanded that Christians do, then obviously Sanders has a point.

Vought defended Wheaton College in its decision to fire the professor, not because he judged and condemned her soul. Rather, the professor publicly disavowed a fundamental doctrine of the college--one that she willingly signed on to when she became a professor. The very common practice of Christian colleges to require that both faculty and students sign Statements of Faith may be unusual in LDS circles. However, many Christian schools are operated, not to welcome all-comers, and offer them a broadly religious-based education. Instead, their mission is to train Christian leaders. As such, they expect their students and faculty to already agree on the fundamentals. When the professor declared publicly that the god of Islam is the God of Christianity, and refused to recant, despite being given opportunities (You do realize that Muslims don't accept Jesus as God the Son, right professor???), they rightly fired her. She could not longer serve in a united Christian educational community--she no longer shared "like precious faith."  Vought's defense of his school was in that vain, not out of petty disagreement over finer secondary doctrinal issues.  As Deputy Director of OMB he will not face decisions over whether worshipers of Allah should be allowed to serve in distinctly Evangelical settings.  Condemning Vought for supporting Wheaton would be akin to me condemning the LDS discipline system for LDS members who engage in on-going public criticism of LDS church practices (those that touch on foundational church teachings).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

I've been through this with modern Christians many times. I really don't want to argue it again. It is my belief that there are NO verses in the Bible that state that Jesus is God. He is always the Lord and the Father is God. That is my belief. Now, if you want to show me a verse, one verse, that you feel unequivocally disproves my statement, then, by all means, show it. By acquiesce, I mean I'm not going to waste a bunch of time disputing that one issue. I've stated my belief.

I shouldn't have to debate this with an LDS.  The Bible does not teach that Jesus is God?  Really?   There is nothing in LDS teaching that says that Jesus' Divinity is a teaching that was lost and has now been restored.  The only thing that was lost and restored is what makes all 3 persons ONE God - i.e. a rejection of homoousios - which got restored by the First Vision.  I think this is where your studies erred - you conflated the teaching of the Trinity with the teaching of Jesus' divinity.

I already gave you one verse - doubting Thomas.  John 20:28.  Thomas declared Jesus as God.  Jesus did not correct him.  Now, unless you are going to claim that Thomas did not hold apostolic authority, then Thomas declaring Jesus as God is truth.  And moreover, it shows that Thomas, an apostle, believed and therefore taught that Jesus is God.

But the unequivocal declaration is John 1:1  -  In the beginning was bthe Word, and cthe Word was with God, and dthe Word was God. 

 

20 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

BTW, Ehrman has written quite a few articles on how the apostles and early Christians didn't think of Jesus Christ as God initially and that it developed over time. He used the New Testament and many secular studies to present that theory. For all I know, Ehrman might also disagree with me, but it is his comments on the subject that got me to think about it.

It is questions such as this that lead me to this site. The question I had was about the cherubim and who does the voice from between the cherubim represent, actually; who is it suppose to be. I recognize Jesus as God and I realize that we do also, but I believe that idea developed. It was not immediate.

Ehrman.  Bart Ehrman.  The apostate.  The atheist.  THAT Ehrman?  You take his word over the Apostolic teachings in the New Testament and the Pauline letters?  Do you know that Ehrman believes the Bible is just a bunch of old men trying to form a religion for political gain?  An LDS is supposed to take the word of Apostles over an atheist.  The Bible, therefore, holds more authority over an atheist, especially when translated correctly.  The divinity of Christ has been taught by the Apostles from the days of Jesus all the way to today.

If you want to study early Christianity then study the works of the Early Christians starting with the Bible.  Then you can even study the teachings of the early Christians who taught about the divinity of Christ, some at the peril of the sword:

Polycarp (AD 69–155), bishop of Smyrna, disciple of John the Revelator:  "Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal high priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth...and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead."

Ignatius (AD 50–117), bishop of Antioch, disciple of John the Revelator:  "For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit."

Justin (AD 100–165), Christian philosopher, defender of the Church, martyred for the faith :  "Permit me first to recount the prophecies, which I wish to do in order to prove that Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts."

Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 130–202) was bishop of Lugdunum, student of Polycarp:  "He received testimony from all that He was very man, and that He was very God, from the Father, from the Spirit, from angels, from the creation itself, from men, from apostate spirits and demons."

Clement of Alexandria (AD 150–215) Greek theologian, headed the catechetical school in Alexandria:  "This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man."

I can go on and on and on and on.  My Roman Catholic upbringing proves useful now and again.

 

20 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

Very good. I think if someone had come from the dead, I would have said something similar. Some might even conclude that Thomas was a Freemason. The problem with this teaching, that Jesus is God, is the immediate question, among monotheists, is, who then is the Father? The Trinity, as it became known through the creeds, was not ever defined in the Bible. Declaring that Jesus is God is a monotheistic catastrophe. Only through modern revelation do we come to understand that they are all three Gods, even though our worship is solely confined to the Father.

The Father is God, Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God.  This is the teaching of the Apostles since Peter.  The Trinity is the early Church's attempt (post Apostasy) to reconcile God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit as ONE God.  The Bible simply teaches that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are One.  It doesn't clearly define HOW they are One.  The question of how they are One God became a controversy because at that time, all the Apostles have died and the authority of the Church was left with the Bishops (we LDS believe the authority was removed from the earth).  Bishops only have authority within their bishopric and some Bishops taught that they are One through homoousis (now called the Trinity - this is a teaching that developed after the death of the Apostles),  other Bishops taught they are One in purpose, and even other Bishops taught the Father is the one God while the other 2 are subordinates and are only God in title because they speak as one with the Father..  The homoousis teaching was taught by the majority of Bishops and the other teachings started popping up in Eastern Churches, especially from the Greeks.  As Peter the Apostle (the president of the Church in his time) led the church of Rome, the Bishops of Rome claimed primacy and Apostolic Authority and therefore, the early Christian Church created the Magisterium from the teachings coming from the Roman Bishop and all others got rejected as heretic.  So yes, the Trinity is not taught in the Bible (of course not.  It is false teaching).  It got developed in the period of Apostasy.  But no, Jesus being God is, of course, taught by the Apostles who had Priesthood Authority and the power of Revelation, some of which are documented in the Bible.

 

 

20 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

These are just my thoughts. I had no intention of arguing who Christ is. I know who He is, but many here will take umbrage with my position, make fun, claim I'm apostate and the abuse will go on and on. Oh well.

We're not arguing who Christ is.  I'm simply challenging your claim that the Apostles did not teach that Jesus is God.  Nobody here - and that includes @Godless, our resident atheist - will take umbrage with your position that Jesus is God (Godless, of course, doesn't believe it but he won't take umbrage that you're claiming it).  Unless, of course, you are going to claim that Jesus is not God...

 

20 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

These two statements are not equal. As far as I know, Mormons believe that it is entirely up to God who is condemned and who is not. Because, as far as we know, Muslims don't accept Christ as the Son of God, they are condemned? To where? The idea that we can decide what people know, what they believe and if they are condemned or not is ludicrous. We are not in a position to condemn anyone. And, frankly, the issue with Vaugh? is his condemnation of a fellow Christian because she sought solidarity with Muslims. This is getting out of control fast. Pretty soon, the modern Christians will be condemning Mormons. Heaven help anyone who tries to extend a helping hand to them, especially with Vaughn doing the judging...

They are equal.  But you may have a literalistic usage of the word "condemned".  Condemned as used by Wheaton parlance means - in a state of sin.  People in the state of sin needs to repent and accept Christ before they can be saved, otherwise they remain condemned - again, in a state of sin.  In Wheaton parlance, they also believe that one is saved from condemnation by grace alone.  We, LDS, have a nuanced view of the word "condemned" due to our belief in the restored teachings of post-mortality.  Modern Christians also believe Mormons are condemned - in a state of sin - because, even as we accept Christ as our savior, we believe in a "different Christ", not the "Christ of the Bible" - remember, they believe in homoousis (Trinity) and everybody else are heretics.  Therefore, we still need to convert and accept the Trinitarian Christ as our savior.

Your claim that this is judging... see, you think that all judging is unrighteous judging.  This is not quite correct.  Bishops, for example, have the authority to judge in Israel.  So, we know, at least, Bishops can judge righteously.  Wheaton do not believe in the same heirarchy of Priesthood Authority that we do.  Therefore, in Wheaton teaching, any righteous Christian can judge another person for the purpose of bringing/calling/helping that person to the path of repentance in the same manner that LDS Bishops do.

20 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

No. I don't really care. Your explanation is interesting, but; attacking the white vote by supporting a minority is not really the way to win an election. True politics would be to either talk a lot and say nothing, support both sides or support neither side while leaving the door open to escape at any moment to the winning side.

That's why the Democrats are losing elections left and right.  They gave birth to the Grievance Brigade due to their stupid policies.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2017 at 0:59 PM, Armin said:
 
If one disregarded the Gospel, the doctrine, God's plan of redemption, the scriptures, revelations, and some other trivial aspects, even then your statement would still imply a considerable lack of truth.

The fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, designed to bring about man’s immortality and eternal life. It includes the Creation, Fall, and Atonement, along with all God-given laws, ordinances, and doctrines. This plan makes it possible for all people to be exalted and live forever with God (2 Ne. 2; 9). The scriptures also refer to this plan as the plan of salvation, the plan of happiness, and the plan of mercy.   (source: LDS)

 

You're entitled to your opinions. I didn't think Mormons were a bunch of Muslim haters. If you can't see the parallels in Mohammed's life to those of Joseph Smith's life, then I think you're just not looking.

Common links between the, just roughly

prophets
scripture
polygamy
revelation
lead a people
established a religion
united a people

Please remember that we had God himself, and the greatest prophet who ever lived present on earth at the same time to establish the gospel. It didn't last 70 years before it was destroyed by men. I would expect much more could be accomplished by Mohammed in his lifetime. Joseph Smith was correct in his boast that we, his people didn't abandon him, though there was a lot of apostasy conspiring with its walls. I think it a miracle that this fantastic gooney bird has finally taken flight.

The fullness of the gospel was reserved for one man to restore, but the Muslims had received a promise of success and prosperity similar to that which was given to Abraham (I realize that many question the reality that Muslims descended from Ishmael and that argument can go on for eons), it seems only fitting that at a time when they Muslims needed a prophet most, that God would send one to preserve them. Mohammed's purpose was different that Joseph Smith's, but that doesn't mean God didn't send him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2017 at 0:52 PM, prisonchaplain said:

Here's a secular humanist who gets it:  http://secularhumanist.blogspot.com/2017/06/sanders-and-van-hollen-v-russell-vought.html  (and yes, it's my anonymous comment, at the end).

This assumes that we can judge who accepts Jesus Christ and who rejects him. Commonly, among modern Christians, Mormons are thought and taught have rejected Christ. Are they right? Can they judge that Mormons have rejected Jesus and therefore stand condemned?

Mormons, on the other hand, don't reject any modern Christians belief and tell them to keep what they have and let us add to it (and there is a lot to add). The point here is that John 3:18 makes a claim that no man can judge. It also makes a claim without a timeframe in which such a judgment should be executed. for example, does one have to accept Jesus Christ before they die to be saved? At what point in their life should they accept him for it to be counted?

Can we condemn Muslims categorically just because they are Muslims? I don't think so. It's popular in modern Christian theology to live life riotously (or however we want) and at the end be saved on our death bed by accepting Jesus. In fact, it was so popular that at one time, it was deemed acceptable to torture converts into accepting the Jesus and then letting them die do their exaltation (I know this is probably a wives tale to scare little children, but I think the idea is sound as both concepts are ridiculous).

The problem with John 3:18 is that there are many who never heard the name of Jesus, so it fits nicely that some are born to salvation and some are born to damnation. I really don't care if it's the theology of some religions to accept this hogwash. It is a dark ages concept and government can't afford to be steeped in leaders who have no problem with witch hunts.

That being said, Sanders was still out of line because as a public servant, his job doesn't allow for religious tests. There are other ways to deal with zealots if they think they are carrying a banner into war, because no sooner than Vaughn becomes a public servant, he becomes chained to the same engine that is biting at the heals of Sanders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2017 at 10:11 AM, anatess2 said:

But the unequivocal declaration is John 1:1  -  In the beginning was bthe Word, and cthe Word was with God, and dthe Word was God.

Yep. But it doesn't say who the Word is. It is implied. Who wrote that and when did the early Christians come to accept it. John knew, but it was many years before the apostles knew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Responding more to the earlier posts (haven't read all the posts after...)

In regards to who one worships...I think many are too judgemental in who they feel is Christian/Saved/etc, and instead of leaving it up to the Lord who is the true and real judge, decide for themselves who is or is not to be saved.

I like C.S Lewis's ideas from the Chronicles of Narnia where Aslan saves one who didn't necessarily believe in Aslan, but did believe in a greater being and as such, what he did in fealty to that, was in likewise fealty to Aslan.

A prime example of this...

When we say Donald Trump is the President of the United States of America...is he really the president?

Do you have to know what he looks like to acknowledge he is president of the United States?  Is it mandatory?

Do you have to understand what his motivations are to recognize him as President of the United States?  If you do not, does that mean you cannot or do not recognize him as President?

Do you have to have a deep personal relationship with him to say he is president of the United States?

If we, as a nation, recognize (whether you voted for him or agree with him or not) that currently, Donald Trump is the President of the United States of America in his current office at this time, how much greater is the reach and power of the Lord for those who believe in him?

In that light, I do feel one could be Muslim and still worship the Lord.  We cannot know the intentions of their heart, but the Lord does.

Even the Muslims (those who bother to even read or adhere to it) have a cautionary verse in their Koran which warns them to be wary of attacking or persecuting the Jew or Christian, for it is possible that they worship Allah.  It is impossible for the good Muslim to know, and hence, great care should be taken in regards to those who are part of those religions.

In that light, I take the idea that we should not judge, perhaps, to strongly, but I feel much as C.S. Lewis that many we might not feel are Christians or worship the Lord will turn out to be worshipping the Lord.

Of course, I also fee that it may be that many we do not think are Christians will turn out to be Christian, and many of those we feel are saved, might not be.  It is not for us to decide...but the Lord.

Thus, in the case of the woman with the hijab...I might have had a more liberal approach than the college did, and acknowledge that while some of the Muslims may worship the same Lord, they do not acknowledge Christ nor his divine role and atonement that was necessary for us all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

Yep. But it doesn't say who the Word is. It is implied. Who wrote that and when did the early Christians come to accept it. John knew, but it was many years before the apostles knew.

Seriously, dude?  And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us?  You have to be pretty clueless about the ENTIRE MESSAGE OF THE BIBLE to not get that.  Of course, if you just cherry pick verses and not take the Bible as a cohesive whole, you can argue until the sky is blue... which is basically what atheists do... or what happened to the Early Christians when the church went into apostasy.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

Can we condemn Muslims categorically just because they are Muslims? I don't think so.

This really begs the question. In the context of the discussion Vought's blog addressed, it was appropriate for an Evangelical Christian college to fire a professor who publicly countered her previous statement that she agreed to the centrality of Christ for salvation, and that He is God the Son. In terms of Christian theology concerning the nature of God and the means of salvation, any set of beliefs that would deny Christ's deity and His necessity for salvation, would "stand condemned already." Why? Without Christ, they are judged by their deeds. We don't condemn them--they stand condemned already.

On the other hand, I agree with you that Sanders was wrong to delve into the weeds of evangelical theology, as a means of trying to undermine one of Trump's mid-level appointees. One secular newspaper's headline put it well:  Sanders Hates Bible-thumpers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2017 at 10:49 AM, prisonchaplain said:

This really begs the question. In the context of the discussion Vought's blog addressed, it was appropriate for an Evangelical Christian college to fire a professor who publicly countered her previous statement that she agreed to the centrality of Christ for salvation, and that He is God the Son. In terms of Christian theology concerning the nature of God and the means of salvation, any set of beliefs that would deny Christ's deity and His necessity for salvation, would "stand condemned already." Why? Without Christ, they are judged by their deeds. We don't condemn them--they stand condemned already.

On the other hand, I agree with you that Sanders was wrong to delve into the weeds of evangelical theology, as a means of trying to undermine one of Trump's mid-level appointees. One secular newspaper's headline put it well:  Sanders Hates Bible-thumpers

I lost my reply to this during a refresh. Probably just as well. I held it because I wasn't certain it wouldn't get me banned or suspended.

I think that concern should establish my position on this topic. The school was right, Sander's was wrong, the professor was right and Vaught is just plain scary. I feel sorry for anyone who works for him. Too bad we don't have the insight on others which Sanders has illucidated for us concerning this individual. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

... he professor was right and Vaught is just plain scary. I feel sorry for anyone who works for him.

How was the professor right? If she had a change of heart about evangelical beliefs, the honorable thing would have been for her to conclude her one-day protest by saying, "Since I know longer hold to or abide by the teachings of this institution I resign." Instead, she played the victim, and nondescript Wheaton College gets accused of be racist and misogynist (the professor is an African-American female).

How is Vought scary? He defended his alma mater's biblical beliefs, and he says he treats all people as carrying the image of God, and worthy of respect and dignity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

How was the professor right? If she had a change of heart about evangelical beliefs, the honorable thing would have been for her to conclude her one-day protest by saying, "Since I know longer hold to or abide by the teachings of this institution I resign." Instead, she played the victim, and nondescript Wheaton College gets accused of be racist and misogynist (the professor is an African-American female).

How is Vought scary? He defended his alma mater's biblical beliefs, and he says he treats all people as carrying the image of God, and worthy of respect and dignity. 

Because she was acting as a Christian... In other words, she was doing what Christ would have done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

How is Vought scary? He defended his alma mater's biblical beliefs, and he says he treats all people as carrying the image of God, and worthy of respect and dignity. 

That is a part I would prefer not to say. I belief, with a little thought people should be able to tell what my reasons are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2017 at 7:44 AM, anatess2 said:

Seriously, dude?  And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us?  You have to be pretty clueless about the ENTIRE MESSAGE OF THE BIBLE to not get that.  Of course, if you just cherry pick verses and not take the Bible as a cohesive whole, you can argue until the sky is blue... which is basically what atheists do... or what happened to the Early Christians when the church went into apostasy.

I don't mean to be offensive. Are u aware that the early Christians didn't have the New Testament? They had no instant communication either. John was not an apostle (the one who wrote or whose testimony we have in the opening lines of the Gospel of John). That it eventually evolved into a "whole" from which we can deduce that Christ is God, is without doubt. I am not questioning that. I do however agree with Ehrman that the early church did not teach that Christ was God.

Why r u so upset about this? I made a statement. It's not a groundless statement. It has merit. One would think that Mormons would not be stuck and steeped in tradition. Of course, I don't know. U may not be Mormon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

John was not an apostle

Whaaa???

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/John_the_Beloved

He was among the first to be called as such.  He was part of the inner circle of three.  He was at Jesus side during the Last Supper.  He was finally given the gift to tarry until the 2nd Coming.  

What on earth are you smoking to say John was not an apostle?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

I don't mean to be offensive. Are u aware that the early Christians didn't have the New Testament? They had no instant communication either. John was not an apostle (the one who wrote or whose testimony we have in the opening lines of the Gospel of John). That it eventually evolved into a "whole" from which we can deduce that Christ is God, is without doubt. I am not questioning that. I do however agree with Ehrman that the early church did not teach that Christ was God.

Why r u so upset about this? I made a statement. It's not a groundless statement. It has merit. One would think that Mormons would not be stuck and steeped in tradition. Of course, I don't know. U may not be Mormon.

I'm not upset about it.  I'm just flabbergasted at your position.  And yes, they are groundless and all stem from anti-Christian allegations.  This is evidenced by your claim that the Gospel of John was not John the Apostle, son of Zebedee,  History, including secular history is RICH with evidence of the early Christian teaching - even before the time of Christ - that Christ is God.  Christ being God is NOT a restored teaching by Joseph Smith.  It HAS ALWAYS been taught from the time of Adam.  To say that Christ being God was not taught by the 12 Apostles speak of the blasphemy that the Apostles do not have Priesthood Authority.   The Apostasy did not happen until AFTER the last Apostles died!  Every Mormon declares it!   I'm a Mormon but I am starting to doubt whether you are, especially after your claim that the Gospel of John was not written by John the Beloved Apostle of Christ!  That's Mormon teaching!

" Author: The Gospel of John is an intimate testimony of Jesus Christ written by one of His most trusted and beloved servants and disciples. John, like Matthew, was one of the Lord’s original Twelve Apostles and so was a special witness to the acts and teachings in his Gospel. John and James were sons of Zebedee and, like Simon Peter, were fishermen who left all when Jesus called them "

Yes, the Christians didn't have a Bible.  Rather, they had APOSTLES and the early Church Fathers (Bishops, Priests, etc.).  Who spoke in tongues and taught everywhere, gentile and jew... whose acts were eventually compiled into the New Testament.  The Catholic Church (from which I was born into) do not take The Bible as the sole authority of the gospel.  Rather, they take Sacred Tradition with the Bible as doctrine.  Sacred Tradition starts from the teachings of Peter, the Rock, as the first papal authority of the Church and is full of the teaching that Christ is God.

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@anatess

Actually, that's not just LDS teachings, that's actually Christian tradition.  It is part of what is known as the Johaninne literature which also include the epistles and the book of Revelations.  John in Christian tradition was considered the youngest of the apostles and the only one that was not a martyr (the others all were martyred/murdered except for Judas who committed suicide as recorded in the bible).

The LDS differ from Christianity in that they teach that this apostle - John, who is referred to as beloved, received immortality to continue his mission on earth.  Christian tradition has it that he was the only apostle to die of natural causes and died, I think (memory could be off) at the age of 98.

Now, when you get out of those who take the Bible more literally, and those who are more hard core, and get into those who are more secular and less traditionalist, there are some differences.  the Johannine literature is still considered one group with a similar writing style and other familiar similarities between them, but it is thought that it may not necessarily have been John.  In this, there was a group who had their culture and tradition seeped in this type of writing and style, and it is from this group of Johannine followers that gave rise to the gospel of John and other ensuing pieces of the Johannine literature.

However, in general, with the exception of John living beyond his years and not tasting death, the thoughts of who actually wrote the Gospel (as well as the epistles and Revelations) is something that comes from Christian tradition rather than anything specific to the LDS faith.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

@anatess

Actually, that's not just LDS teachings, that's actually Christian tradition.  It is part of what is known as the Johaninne literature which also include the epistles and the book of Revelations.  John in Christian tradition was considered the youngest of the apostles and the only one that was not a martyr (the others all were martyred/murdered except for Judas who committed suicide as recorded in the bible).

The LDS differ from Christianity in that they teach that this apostle - John, who is referred to as beloved, received immortality to continue his mission on earth.  Christian tradition has it that he was the only apostle to die of natural causes and died, I think (memory could be off) at the age of 98.

Now, when you get out of those who take the Bible more literally, and those who are more hard core, and get into those who are more secular and less traditionalist, there are some differences.  the Johannine literature is still considered one group with a similar writing style and other familiar similarities between them, but it is thought that it may not necessarily have been John.  In this, there was a group who had their culture and tradition seeped in this type of writing and style, and it is from this group of Johannine followers that gave rise to the gospel of John and other ensuing pieces of the Johannine literature.

However, in general, with the exception of John living beyond his years and not tasting death, the thoughts of who actually wrote the Gospel (as well as the epistles and Revelations) is something that comes from Christian tradition rather than anything specific to the LDS faith.

Yes, it is Christian Tradition as I have stated.  The restoration of the gospel continue to affirm John the beloved as the author of the Gospel of John.  Therefore, Mormon teaching teaches thus.  And that's why I'm surprised that brotherofjared who declared himself Mormon took the position that the Gospel of John was not authored by John the Apostle which makes him claim that the Apostles did not teach that Christ is God.  This logical calisthenics only come from secular - usually anti-Christian - rhetoric.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2017 at 10:12 AM, anatess2 said:

This is evidenced by your claim that the Gospel of John was not John the Apostle, son of Zebedee,  History, including secular history is RICH with evidence of the early Christian teaching - even before the time of Christ - that Christ is God. 

I didn't say Christ isn't God. I just said the the early Christians didn't refer to the risen Lord as God. They speocically did not use that title. For them, Christ's Father was God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2017 at 10:12 AM, anatess2 said:

To say that Christ being God was not taught by the 12 Apostles speak of the blasphemy that the Apostles do not have Priesthood Authority.   The Apostasy did not happen until AFTER the last Apostles died!  Every Mormon declares it!

I'm not really sure what ur arguing here, but you can't possibly know what you claim here. I don't know how you expect me to accept any of this except as your personal belief. I can accept that it is, but that does not make it true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share