1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christians - the LDS christ

Discussion in 'Christianity DIR' started by Aqualung, Feb 23, 2006.

  1. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,762
    Ratings:
    +604
    What's wrong with the LDS christ? A_E keeps insisting that LDS and christians follow a different christ. Is this true? If so, which is following the "wrong" christ?
     
  2. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    It depends on how you view history. We have a mutually exclusive definition of who Jesus Christ is. We know historically that the apostles of Jesus heard him teach, founded churches, and ordained bishops to continue their teachings. These disciples preserved the writings that eventually became the New Testament and formulated the creeds, defining who Jesus Christ and God of the NT are because there were multiple definitions, none of which meet LDS criterea.

    1800 years later, Mr. Smith and his followers completely redefined all of theological definitions in the NT, creating a different religion. We can choose the new or stay with the old, but no one can deny that the definitions are drastically different.

    IMHO, the one historically closer is more likely to be "correct," but you can believe whatever makes you warm and fuzzy (like me).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Bishka

    Bishka Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    18,945
    Ratings:
    +1,494
    AL, a lot of people believe that the LDS Church does not follow the same Christ because of our belief in 3 seperate distincts persons in the Godhead. Although, this does not make much sense to be, because this 3-in-1, 1-in-3 was later voted on a several councils by several people. Many Christians in the early Church did not believe this.

    I say, tell them what we believe, that we worship the same Christ as them, we just don't believe He is all one person. We believe He is a seperate distinct being and let them choose, their loss anyways.
     
  4. Bishka

    Bishka Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    18,945
    Ratings:
    +1,494
    Actually, from my understanding of the historical Christianity, these creeds and ideaologies were debated time and time again at several councils. There were people like Athanius and oh gosh, what is his name, starts with an "A", just can't remember it.

    Not everyone at the beginning had the same idea. Seems there was a bit of confusion, even in the early church.
     
  5. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    I can't deny that there wasn't confusion, but nothing in this confusion can represent LDS thought.
     
  6. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,762
    Ratings:
    +604
    Why don't you give some actual examples, instead of dodging the issue. Tell us why our christ is different, and then tell why your version of christ is more biblically sound.
     
  7. Bishka

    Bishka Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    18,945
    Ratings:
    +1,494
    Actually I believe there was, I'm taking a class right now called Christian History and we are discussing this very subject. There were some people that believed that there were seperate and distinct beings, unforutnatley, those same people also thought Christ wasn't divine, which is strange, but, yes, there were some people and if you want me to find them, I will (But not now, I have a job interview in an hour)
     
  8. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    Are you not familiar enough with both versions that you can't talk intelligently about it? We can use the Christian definition of Christ from the Athanasian Creed and you can use whatever LDS literature that you want. If you can't or refuse to do so, I will post articles from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism when I have time.
     
  9. Bishka

    Bishka Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    18,945
    Ratings:
    +1,494
    Funny enough, the Athansian Creed had to be voted on by several people in order to have it be official doctrine. There was much confusion in the Church over this issue. That Creed was never issued by the Apostles, so you have several hundred years and then this Creed comes up or this idea that may have gotten twisted in the process and then it is voted on.

    BTW, I hope you saw what I posted about the Encylopedia of Mormonism.
     
  10. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    Again, it is better than several thousand years for Mr. Smith.

    I did see your post and I have responded.
     
  11. Bishka

    Bishka Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    18,945
    Ratings:
    +1,494
    And what is so wrong with several thousands years if it is in direct revelation from God?
     
  12. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    There are no examples to give. You can search through the various early Christian groups in Bauer's Orthodoxy and Heresy to see if any early "Christian" groups who were "confused" are LDS.

    http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Resources/Bauer/

    EDIT: It would be a waste of time for both of us if I were to present Bible verses about Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or God when we both define these words drastically differently. I can't see how that will do any good at all. We will both see "our" Christ. I assume that everyone posting here reads the Bible with their own presupposed definitions of who Christ is, and we know historically that none of these definitions are in the Bible. One is a product of the apostles' disciples and one is the product of the 20th century.

    The trump card is that we can actually read the NT with the Trinitarian approach without disregarding anything. The LDS can simply disregard anything that contradicts their view.
     
  13. SoyLeche

    SoyLeche meh...

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    6,948
    Ratings:
    +600
    Religion:
    LDS
    This is a better definition to use than anything from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. You can find it in the December 2004 Ensign. As this was actually written BY Apostles, instead of a council trying to figure out what Apostles said 200 years before, I think this is more authoritative than any of the Creeds.
     
  14. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    Fine. I will read this and respond.

    EDIT: We will need more sources to fully understand the article. It does not define many of the terms that are listed.

    Who is Jehovah of the OT?
    What is the premortal existence, and where did Jesus teach it (in the NT)? There are no references for any of these teachings...

    The document also does not clarify whether or not LDS is monotheistic or polytheistic. Is the Father God? How is Jesus divine? Are humans divine, too (premortal existence)?

    This document is inadequate for our discussion unless terms are defined from other sources.
     
  15. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
  16. SoyLeche

    SoyLeche meh...

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    6,948
    Ratings:
    +600
    Religion:
    LDS
    If you want the LDS definitions of these words I would suggest that you go to www.lds.org - then to the link called "The Scriptures" that is on the left side. The Study Helps there will be authoritative. Especially helpful will be the Bible Dictionary (although some of the terms not specifically mentioned in the Bible - like the word premortal existence - might not be there). The Guide to the Scriptures will be very helpful in defining what terms mean to the LDS church as well. The Topical Guide and the Index will point you to instances in the scriptures where the different topics can be found.
     
  17. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    Thanks for pointing me in that direction. I have read the entries for Jesus and Christ and the same terms are presented without definition.

    Ok, I can work with this. I will post when I can.
     
  18. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,762
    Ratings:
    +604
    No, I am not familiar enough with your version of Christ. What does the Athanasian creed say about Christ, and how is that Biblically supported?

    And what is it exactly that I am not reading? ONce again, you make sneaky attacks without actually providing anything.
     
  19. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    From http://scriptures.lds.org/bdg/god we see that LDS and Christians define God differently.

    Christians don't believe that the Holy Spirit, God, and Jesus Christ are three seperate beings with flesh and blood. The dictionary makes it clear that later LDS revelation, and not the Christian Bible or theology, teaches that God is the literal father of humans (premortal existence from God having sex with someone). Thus we have a different version of God that is foreign to Christian Scripture and theology.
     
  20. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    Compare to Athanasian Creed:

    1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;


    2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

    3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

    4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

    5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

    6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

    7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

    8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

    9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

    10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

    11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

    12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

    13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

    14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

    15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

    16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

    17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

    18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

    19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

    20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

    21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

    22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

    23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

    24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

    25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

    26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

    27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

    28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

    29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

    30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

    31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

    32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

    33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

    34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

    35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

    36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

    37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

    38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

    39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

    40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

    41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

    42. and shall give account of their own works.

    43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. 44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
     
Loading...