This is a question I have been pondering, can Christianity be pointed to? As I understand Christianity cannot be debated, refuted or destroyed in its totality by most. I say this because according to the Bible Jesus has left such a wide idea of what it is to be Christian that anyone can claim to be a christian and claim almost anything to be his theology.
Does anyone see what I'm saying?
What are your views?
The path is long but I hope we meet,
After the grave and the Day, in paradise in bliss upon a reclined seat.
A traveler traveling - travelled from shirk to tawheed,
If I'm remembered for anything - let it be the Mercy I seek.
He didn't teach trinity either. The only (alleged) references of trinity in the bible are relying on interpretation of mystic verses, nowhere in the bible is it explained clearly and explicitly. Yet at the same time Keltoi listed it as a basic undeniable tenet, and anyone who disagrees is not Christian even though Christ didn't teach that. so obviously your criteria "didn't teach that" isn't sufficient.
Last edited by Abdul Fattah; 05-08-2008 at 06:05 PM.
What if they asked: 'provide evidence that I (JW) am not a follower of Christ.
For me its simple, catholic teaching says who is and who is not a christian.I am catholic and I trust it as truth. So according to Catholic Church those who will go to heaven by the faith in Messiah are- our brothers orthodoxes and our brother protestants. Not a word about J.W or mormons sir.
This country is dying because of a lack of men, not a lack of programs.
He didn't teach trinity either. The only (alleged) references of trinity in the bible are relying on interpretation of mystic verses, nowhere in the bible is it explained clearly and explicitly.
The word trinity doesnt appear in Bible, just like the word Quaran or Islam.
But the in New testament you can see existence of Jesus,God The father and Holy Spirit.
This country is dying because of a lack of men, not a lack of programs.
The word trinity doesnt appear in Bible, just like the word Quaran or Islam.
What's your point there exactly?
But the in New testament you can see existence of Jesus,God The father and Holy Spirit.
You can see the existance of jesus, but not as part of trinity, you can see the existance of God, but not as part of a trinity, and I don't know where in the bible you can "see" the holy spirit, but I doubt there's any place that shows that it's part of a trinity either. Basically your argument is, all the components are there. That's like looking at a recipe for pie, and suggesting that it is a recipe for pancakes because all the ingredients for making pancakes are there. It will take more then simply showing that the "required parts" are there to convince me that Jesus taught trinity, or to convince me there's traces of that in the bible.
There are no CHRISTIAN denominations who disagree with that doctrine. If they do, they are not Christians at all but some other religion. As has already been mentioned, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians, they are offshoot sects with a different faith system altogether.
You mean that they are not your type of Christian, do you have any evidence, from your religion to say they are not if that makes sense.
format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85
Christ didnt teach politheism.
Well, what if they said, according to the Bible the Holy Spirit will teach the followers all truths, part of that is to recognise that there is more than one God, but only One supreme God. And that the Holy Spirit taught them this.
Last edited by Umar001; 05-08-2008 at 06:19 PM.
The path is long but I hope we meet,
After the grave and the Day, in paradise in bliss upon a reclined seat.
A traveler traveling - travelled from shirk to tawheed,
If I'm remembered for anything - let it be the Mercy I seek.
You mean that they are not your type of Christian, do you have any evidence, from your religion to say they are not if that makes sense.
Well, what if they said, according to the Bible the Holy Spirit will teach the followers all truths, part of that is to recognise that there is more than one God, but only One supreme God. And that the Holy Spirit taught them this.
Mormons are not Christian because the Jesus they worship is not the Jesus of the Bible, but a different character altogether. According to Mormonism, Jesus was the firstborn son of an exalted "man" who became god of this world. The Jesus of Mormonism was made god of this world because of his good works on another planet in the universe. He "earned" godhood, and was thus appointed by a counsel of gods in the heavens to his high position as the god of planet Earth.
Does that sound like Christian doctrine to you?
That is why it is fairly easy, by actually understanding the belief system of these groups, to come to the conclusion that they are not Christians.
If someone claims the Holy Spirit is calling them to worship something other than the One God as described in the Bible then that claim does not come from the Holy Spirit.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
Mormons are not Christian because the Jesus they worship is not the Jesus of the Bible, but a different character altogether.
Sorry but that is incorrect. While they do have a different book (the book of mormon) they also believe in the bible. They do believe in the same Christ, however they believed that Christ visited other places after he resurrected.
You can see the existance of jesus, but not as part of trinity, you can see the existance of God, but not as part of a trinity, and I don't know where in the bible you can "see" the holy spirit, but I doubt there's any place that shows that it's part of a trinity either. Basically your argument is, all the components are there. That's like looking at a recipe for pie, and suggesting that it is a recipe for pancakes because all the ingredients for making pancakes are there. It will take more then simply showing that the "required parts" are there to convince me that Jesus taught trinity, or to convince me there's traces of that in the bible.
The Trinity doctrine came about because each part of the Trinity, meaning God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, are referred to as distinct persons. Often acting in unison and who exist as the Will of God. These are not separate "gods", but manifestations of the One God. Without God there would be no Christ, without God there would be no Holy Spirit.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
The Trinity doctrine came about because each part of the Trinity, meaning God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, are referred to as distinct persons. Often acting in unison and who exist as the Will of God. These are not separate "gods", but manifestations of the One God.
First of all, the bible only explicitly shows one of those three as God, the rest is your interpretation. Also being in unison doesn't indicate trinity either. The different prophets like Abrahim, Mozes and Noah also "acted in unison" could they be part of a different trinity?
Without God there would be no Christ, without God there would be no Holy Spirit.
without God, you wouldn't exist either. Does that make you part of the trinity to? Wait, I mean the quartet...
Sorry but that is incorrect. While they do have a different book (the book of mormon) they also believe in the bible. They do believe in the same Christ, however they believed that Christ visited other places after he resurrected.
Simply claiming you worship the Jesus of the Bible does not mean that you actually are. As described above, the Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus contained within the Bible. Nothing I stated in the prior post was "incorrect". That is their doctrine on their version of Jesus. That version is not the Jesus of the Gospels.
Here is a simple test. If Mormons wish to be thought of as Christians, would they accept me as a Mormon if I dismissed John Smith (their prophet) altogether and everything he said? Obviously not.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
First of all, the bible only explicitly shows one of those three as God, the rest is your interpretation. Also being in unison doesn't indicate trinity either. The different prophets like Abrahim, Mozes and Noah also "acted in unison" could they be part of a different trinity?
without God, you wouldn't exist either. Does that make you part of the trinity to? Wait, I mean the quartet...
Actually that isn't true. The Holy Spirit(Spirit of God) is used over and over again, always in relation to God Himself. Christ claimed divinity as the Son of God.
As for acting in unison, what I meant is that they act as the Will of God and exist as the Will of God.
As for the three prophets you mentioned, that is a strawman. We both know we are talking about God, not men.
The last statement is so ludicrous I don't feel the need to address it.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
There are no CHRISTIAN denominations who disagree with that doctrine. If they do, they are not Christians at all but some other religion. As has already been mentioned, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians, they are offshoot sects with a different faith system altogether.
You cant blame them really. Joseph Smith wasnt going to get very far if he suddenly announced he was God. People would want miracles, clear visable and audiable signs. This was the 1800's, people were a lot more savvy then than in ancient times.
Much better to take an already established religion, with miracles, prophets and done deals and simply claim that you were the last in line of Yahwehs Prophets. (no more after you)
It's a much slippier sell and a whole lot of less work involved.
Rather than starting from nothing,aka the IPU or FSM all you have to do is convince people that Mormanism is the true word and the Book of Mormon is the uncorrupted version of Gods message, that Christians have got it wrong, even if they mean well and you beleive in their prophets too.
A small leap of faith really.
Occupation: The term of control of a territory by foreign military forces: Iraq 2003-2005 Liberation:when something or someone is freed: Operation Telic 2003
Simply claiming you worship the Jesus of the Bible does not mean that you actually are.
But aren't Christians also "simply claiming" based on their interpretations of that bible?
As described above, the Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus contained within the Bible. Nothing I stated in the prior post was "incorrect". That is their doctrine on their version of Jesus. That version is not the Jesus of the Gospels.
It is incorrect that you claim that the claim it was a different person, they don't claim that at all. They do claim it's the same person as the gospel.
Here is a simple test. If Mormons wish to be thought of as Christians, would they accept me as a Mormon if I dismissed John Smith (their prophet) altogether and everything he said? Obviously not.
That logic is flawed as much as saying: All birds can fly, mosquito's aren't birds, therefor mosquito's can't fly.
Actually that isn't true. The Holy Spirit(Spirit of God) is used over and over again, always in relation to God Himself.
In relation yes, but it isn't specified what kind of relation! All prophets are also mentioned in relation to God in the OT, so by that same logic would you assume that the other prophets are also part of the trinity by that same logic?
Christ claimed divinity as the Son of God.
Yes and apearently, so has John and his friends also claimed divinity:
1 John 3:1-3 How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when [Jesus] appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure.
There are many more examples of other people or even nations being referred to as children of God, specifically in the OT, since "children of God" is a metaphorical way to refer to pious people in Judaism. So why take on literary and the other metaphorically? How do you explain the double standard?
As for acting in unison, what I meant is that they act as the Will of God and exist as the Will of God.
There is not a leave that drops on this earth or it's by God's will, so by that logic, the whole universe is part of the trinity? Maybe we should call it the infinity then?
As for the three prophets you mentioned, that is a strawman. We both know we are talking about God, not men.
It's not a strawmen, I know you're talking about God, I'm simply making an analogy to show you that your logic is flawed. To show you that just because things are in unison isn't sufficient to conclude they are a unity!
The last statement is so ludicrous I don't feel the need to address it.
it was an argument ad absurdem yes, so I understand your reaction. However there is a point beneath it, namely that just because the existence of one is dependent on the existence of the other, doesn't mean that both are the same thing!
But Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet, but not as the son of god, alpha and omega etc etc.
But your not christians. Mormanism is the same.
Occupation: The term of control of a territory by foreign military forces: Iraq 2003-2005 Liberation:when something or someone is freed: Operation Telic 2003
Mormons are not Christian because the Jesus they worship is not the Jesus of the Bible, but a different character altogether. According to Mormonism, Jesus was the firstborn son of an exalted "man" who became god of this world. The Jesus of Mormonism was made god of this world because of his good works on another planet in the universe. He "earned" godhood, and was thus appointed by a counsel of gods in the heavens to his high position as the god of planet Earth.
They worship a different Jesus to what you worship, they interpret the text differently to your interpretation. That's it. Now, which is true? Well, if we hold that the Holy Spirit is an authority, and they claim to get their teachings from the Holy Spirit then surely they have authority too, as much as you have authority claiming the same claim. This authority gives them a different interpretation of the same text, which interpretation is more valid? I can't challenge either in saying this one is more in line with the Bible since the Bible itself teaches that the Holy Spirit will teach.
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Does that sound like Christian doctrine to you?
It doesn't sound like mainstream I agree, but that doesn't mean its wrong.
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
That is why it is fairly easy, by actually understanding the belief system of these groups, to come to the conclusion that they are not Christians.
They are followers of Christ if the Holy Spirit genuinly came to them, how do I know if the Spirit they have is true or not? You say go to the Bible and see if what they preach contradicts, well how can I say it contradicts if their Spirit teaches them how to interpret things, just like your Spirit does!
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
If someone claims the Holy Spirit is calling them to worship something other than the One God as described in the Bible then that claim does not come from the Holy Spirit.
Well they would say that of you. They would say your Spirit is probably not the right Spirit. Since, truly understanding the Bible is dependent on a Holy Spirit, i.e. for interpretation.
EDIT:
format_quote Originally Posted by barney
But Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet, but not as the son of god, alpha and omega etc etc.
But your not christians. Mormanism is the same.
If Christian means follower of Christ then we are and are not. In the sense taht we follow Jesus by not following him.
Example, if a policeman said to you, dont follow me, follow your guide.
And you did not follow him, in reality you did follow him, meaning listen to him, if you did not follow him and followed the guide.
That make sense? We Muslims do follow Jesus, by following Muhammad.
Similarly Mormons claim to follow Jesus by following the teachings of the Holy Spirit.
Last edited by Umar001; 05-08-2008 at 10:03 PM.
The path is long but I hope we meet,
After the grave and the Day, in paradise in bliss upon a reclined seat.
A traveler traveling - travelled from shirk to tawheed,
If I'm remembered for anything - let it be the Mercy I seek.
Mormon's did not interpret the Gospels differently. They created their own Bible in order to back up their version of Jesus. The Gospels do not in any way, regardless of how it is interpreted, point to Jesus being "made" a god of the Earth by a council of other gods because of his good deeds on another planet. Period.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
If Christian means follower of Christ then we are and are not. In the sense taht we follow Jesus by not following him.
Heh, yeah i get what your saying.
I'm pointing out that
Jesus is a Prophet in Mormonism.
Jesus is a Prophet in Islam
Muslims worship God.
Mormons worship God
Muslims had a messenger. Mohammed PBUH
Mormons had a messenger. Jo Smith.
Mohammed was persecuted and called mad
Jo Smith was persecuted and called Mad.
Mohammed Brought the Koran, which mentions prophets of old and relates to the book
Jo Smith brought the Gold Plates of neffy or whoever it was, which mentions prophets of old and relates to the book
Islam and Mormonism have some similarity, one aspect of which is whilst accepting Jesus, they reject the properties assigned to him by Christians.
Mormons are no more Christian than Muslims are.
Occupation: The term of control of a territory by foreign military forces: Iraq 2003-2005 Liberation:when something or someone is freed: Operation Telic 2003
Mormon's did not interpret the Gospels differently. They created their own Bible in order to back up their version of Jesus. The Gospels do not in any way, regardless of how it is interpreted, point to Jesus being "made" a god of the Earth by a council of other gods because of his good deeds on another planet. Period.
But look, if the Holy Spirit is what helps you interpret the Bible, as your teacher, then surely if these people have the Holy Spirit they will interpret it better than you. So for example, they will be able to see hidden meanings.
You may say they don't have the Holy Spirit, ok, thats your point but we cant be sure.
As you have said the Gospels may not mention that, but maybe it was because the time was not right, you see God has a plan, he revealed himself slowly, first through blood scrafice to the elders, slowly giving them glimspses, then slowly he revealed his salvation plan Jesus dying, and then he revealed how Jesus achieved that position of being able to give his life as God.
I mean, the Gospels don't speak against it either, so it could be argued that God was giving milk to the children and now the time for meat had arraived.
format_quote Originally Posted by barney
Mormons are no more Christian than Muslims are.
And Catholics are no more than Mormons and Evangelicals and Muslims and etc.
The path is long but I hope we meet,
After the grave and the Day, in paradise in bliss upon a reclined seat.
A traveler traveling - travelled from shirk to tawheed,
If I'm remembered for anything - let it be the Mercy I seek.
But look, if the Holy Spirit is what helps you interpret the Bible, as your teacher, then surely if these people have the Holy Spirit they will interpret it better than you. So for example, they will be able to see hidden meanings.
You may say they don't have the Holy Spirit, ok, thats your point but we cant be sure.
As you have said the Gospels may not mention that, but maybe it was because the time was not right, you see God has a plan, he revealed himself slowly, first through blood scrafice to the elders, slowly giving them glimspses, then slowly he revealed his salvation plan Jesus dying, and then he revealed how Jesus achieved that position of being able to give his life as God.
I mean, the Gospels don't speak against it either, so it could be argued that God was giving milk to the children and now the time for meat had arraived.
And Catholics are no more than Mormons and Evangelicals and Muslims and etc.
Sorry, but I'm afraid you aren't making any sense to me at this point. That kind of circular logic can be applied to anything.
Christians do believe that the Holy Spirit(the Spirit of God) was sent to us as a Comforter. Yes, the Holy Spirit can guide one on his or her spiritual path, but that path is one that is already described to us. We do not follow other prophets or doctrine. As Christians we do not believe another prophet of God will come or is even necessary. In fact we are warned about false prophets. Joseph Smith was a false prophet and taught a false doctrine.
I get the point you are trying to make, which is how do we know if the Holy Spirit has truly led a person to a new doctrine? The question already has the answer though. The Holy Spirit doesn't lead people astray. As Christians we know the path we are meant to walk, as desribed to us by Jesus Christ. We may differ on rituals and theological theories about salvation vs. works, but that fundamental element doesn't change.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Array
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks