Theological Opinions , PART II

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

11 posts to go before you hit the famous 100, btw...

I buy the drinks?

[Nurvingiel]

You know it! See you in the Teacup Cafe, where drinks are free for Mooters.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Not so, Lief. The Catholic Church is by far the largest Christian ecclesial community, and their Bible differs from that of the SDA's, as does the Orthodox, as noted above. You seem to think that Protestants are the "vast majority of Christians".

Fine, I meant that the Seventh Day Adventists do not have a Bible any different from most Protestant denominations.

Also, I didn't mean to call the Greek Orthodox Church an offshoot. My apologies to Hector and Gwai, on that.

By the way, if I sound snappish here, it's all a result of the text and not any part of my mood .

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

If you want to prove the historicity of the Bible by saying, "There's an eclipse mentioned in the Bible, other people mention the eclipse, therefore the Bible is true." there isn't much I can do but laugh. 200 years from now I hope my enterprising descendants are selling goods based on "This happened during a big snowstorm in Upstate New York, you can see contemporary news footage of snow in Upstate New York, therefore this happened as we say."

It's true that this is not proof that this event occurred directly at the same time as Jesus' crucifixion. The fact that it is recorded as having happened in the same year and at the same hour as the Bible says (though my sources aren't specific on the day) is an indicator that they are telling the truth. There are many other indicators too, of course, like the high reliability of the disciples' accounts throughout the Bible, and the proven accuracy by corroboration and archaelogy of much of the New Testament, along with the fact that they were preaching this message to the Jews, starting with the Jews of Jerusalem, in the same generation as those who had witnessed Jesus' crucifixion. So they didn't have an audience they could lie to. The evidence is very strong, on this. But you'll never have "proof" on anything outside the realm of mathematics. Merely overwhelming evidence.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

The Mormon link includes translation differences, btw. I'm looking forward to your explaining to a roomful of Mormons, perhaps including Mitt Romney, why they aren't "Christian." I'm sure you have all the authority they'll need to change their letterhead.

Just because someone calls oneself something doesn't mean one is that thing. As I know you well know.

And I repeat that Mormons are not considered to be Christians by any of the major denominations.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

No, actually it's like saying, "If half the instructions are in yards and half the instructions are in meters, you can't tell me that using these infaillible instructions is a substitute for checking your math." Nasa tried that, you probably don't recall.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'd say discernment, prayer, thought and research, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, will provide new insight and understanding as to which way is right. That's one of the beauties of following God- he reveals truth to us. He says himself, "I am the truth."

So as I already have said, God can provide discernment as to which scriptures are from him, for those with ears to hear. So there's nothing wrong with "checking your math," if by that you mean, "seeking the Holy Spirit's guidance while researching the disputed issues regarding the texts carefully, with as open a mind as is possible for us."

But concluding that the Bible is flawed because there is a dispute between Christians over part of it is clearly ridiculous, and comparable to the analogy I already made.

Lief: Also, when you sarcastically say, "good thing the absolute Word of God is so easy to come by," you imply that if it isn't easy to come by something, that thing is not worth having. That's just lazy. Though I think you're also making a big deal over something that isn't actually a huge issue.



sisterandcousinandaunt: No. Actually, I'd say that God is very accessible, and I'm not therefore reliant on YOUR ability to select a set of instructions for Him.

How does your statement that God is easily accessable contradict my laziness claim about your sarcastic comment? This is a red herring- you aren't responding to me.

You're also trying to shove me into new positions for you to punch at, positions I am not holding. I have never said you must rely on my ability to "select instructions for God." Rather, in my post I said:

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'd say discernment, prayer, thought and research, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, will provide new insight and understanding as to which way is right. That's one of the beauties of following God- he reveals truth to us. He says himself, "I am the truth."

To shrug off my arguments, you're introducing fallacies and trying to push me into positions I'm not holding. As you continue to do in the rest of your post.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

But in science, or logic, or mathematics, you can't randomly exclude data from your sample because it doesn't fit with your theory. That's considered cheating, and it's bad form. Therefore, if you wish The Word of God to be represented by The Bible (WoG=Bible) you have to define your terms so that (Bible) includes the set of all Bibles Christians use, OR you have to give a better reason for excluding material than this "majority rules" business, which you so cleverly abandoned in 721.

I have already made it clear that I am including in this set all the Bibles that Christians use. I am only excluding those groups that are not Christians, and you insist on shoving them in. Trying to include non-Christians in your set is not good math, as you'd know if you knew statistics.

And there is no contradiction in my statements regarding the majority. My comments about there being a consensus in the Church regarding most of the Bible were a refutation of your claim that there was strong disagreement in the Church as to which were the divinely inspired books of the Bible. So you were the one who first introduced the idea that the Bible can't be trusted because people disagree, and I was merely correcting you by pointing out that most don't disagree. Which doesn't mean that the Bible accepted by the majority is true. It just means that there is a general consensus among most Christians that it is true, though maybe they're wrong.

Yes, there are disagreements over the Apocrypha. However, it is very important to note that all the books included in the Protestant Bible are accepted by the Greek Orthodox and the Catholic Church. So there is almost uniform agreement on those books. Only about the Apocrypha is there real disagreement.

If you want to argue, "because the Apocrypha is being debated, it can't be trusted," you can try that, though that argument is deeply flawed, as I already pointed out. The simple fact that there is disagreement over the accuracy of books doesn't mean automatically that those books are unreliable- the side that doubt these books may just be wrong. But even if you try to argue this, you still can't jump from the Apocrypha to all the other books of the Bible and say that because there is debate over the Apocrypha, all the books are in question.

In fact, the books in the Protestant Bible are not questioned by any of the major denominations, including Catholics and Greek Orthodox. There are probably a few offshoot Christian groups and smaller denominations that disagree with some of these books, but none of the major denominations. The Church is very uniform about these books.

Arguing that because Catholics and Protestants disagree over the Apocrypha, the whole Bible is unreliable, is absurd. If you want to say that because of this disagreement, the Apocrypha is unreliable, that is still flawed logic, but it at least does not sweepingly generalize over every book, including all those that are agreed on.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

To be clear, I've helpfully edited this conclusion for more accuracy. You're welcome.

In point of fact, among the Christian denominations whom I chose to consider for the purposes of this argument, there is very widespread agreement except between mainstream Protestant denominations and the Roman Catholic Church as to which books of the Bible are in fact scripture. You can point at a disagreement between Catholics and Protestants over the Apocrypha, and can point to major disagreements between Christians and non-Christians (like Mormons, who are just too weird and different from my premise for me to include) or small Christian offshoot groups, in which I am including Greek Orthodox and other people with unusual outfits that are far from mainstream in their beliefs, but that comes down to mere quibbling and your evidence consists of groups that are either not Christian or are far from mainstream Christian groups/denominations, as I understand them, and because my personal experience of Christian belief is the determining factor in any discussion of canonical orthodoxy , with the single exception of the Apocrypha debate.

I see you've taken to writing my positions for me . . . Oh well . . . maybe arguing with yourself is just funner for you than arguing with me .

*Waits to see if sisterandcousinandaunt will respond to the position he's fashioned against himself.*

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

And sorry, Hector. I struggled mightily with the formatting of my reply, because I was trying to use format change to highlight the targeting of my response, since Leif didn't see the relevence of my earlier responses.

Thanks for doing that- your method did make it clear to me what parts of my posts you were responding to. I appreciate the effort you put in for clarity.

Though I still think that one of your arguments was a red herring and the rest amounted to a bunch of personal attacks and misrepresentation of me and the available data .

Not meaning to complain . . .

And I do honestly thank you for working with the colors and fonts to make it clear what was your post and what was mine, and what you were responding to. I thought that your chosen format was rather pretty .

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Falagar

It's interesting to note, though, that along the way there have been major revisions of the testaments. Of the 5700 'versions' of the greek New Testament written/copied from earlier times (until the printing press in the 16th century, iirc), only 10 contain the entire NT, and only 4 of these are from before the 10th century (all of these are missing pages or have other defects).

So what?

You don't need to have a complete New Testament to have strong consistency evidence. Single books, or even fragments of books, can prove an early date for the writing, and are useful for demonstrating both distribution and consistency.

Originally Posted by Falagar

Between all the different manuscripts, including the latin and other translations, there are said to have been between as many as 200 000 and 400 000 'variants' of the Bible (including copying errors, additions, omissions, various compositions of the different texts, etc). Also, some verses (like the story in John 7:53-8:11 and the last verses in Mark) are not found in the earliest versions or are believed to have been added later (often placed differently than in the Bible of today, in some manuscripts the story of the adulteress can even be found in Luke).

The huge numbers of variations that you've pointed out have been suggested are very misleading, for more than one reason. First of all, if one single word is misspelled in 2,000 manuscripts, according to Bruce Metzger, PHD, that's counted as 2,000 variants. So any tiny and completely inconsequential error in spelling in any manuscript means that that text will be presented as a variant. So huge numbers like that are incredibly misleading.

Another huge source of variations is involved in the differences between the Greek and English language. In Greek, the order of words in a sentence doesn't matter much. One word functions as the subject of the sentence regardless of where it is in the sequence, so if the word order differs in different sentences from manuscript to manuscript, this doesn't alter the meaning of the sentence. Yet the linguistically irrelevant differences in the arrangement of the words isn't taken into account when variants are determined, so you get vast numbers of "variations" which make no difference when it comes down to the meaning of the text.

Real errors, in fact, are so rare that scholars Norman Geisler and William Nix concluded, "The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book-a form that is 99.5 percent pure."

Originally Posted by Falagar

On an unrelated note, I found a movie called Jesus Camp (which was, until recently, available on the net - there are still a few trailers around on google-video). Thought-provoking, and on some levels, a bit frightening.

Hmm . . . I've never seen it. What's it about?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I can summarize our significant points of disagreement in this thread.

You believe you can make a determination of who is Christian.

I believe each individual, or sect, is entitled to make that determination for him/her/itself. I, in fact, believe that God requires us to do so.

You believe that, because your determination excludes certain groups, you can discuss the Bible as inerrant despite discarding chunks of it.

I do not. It's not 'partially errant'. It is, or it ain't.

You reject "liberal Christianity" because (in part) it does not adhere to your sense of "Biblical faithfulness."

I believe you're wrong to do so, because you are faithful so selectively. That is what you complain of in the liberals.

When I say, "You select God's instructions for us." I am referring to this behavior of defining Christian belief as nearly identical with American Fundamentalism, the Bible with the books associated with the American Protestant Church, and the Christian Church as "people who share this map," which apparently the Holy Spirit endorses 'for ears that can hear'.

I think that there are plenty of people, historically, worldwide, and currently, with 'ears that can hear' who have drawn different conclusions, FROM the Word of God, and DUE to the Word of God. I am not willing to see their piety, insight, or sacrifices impugned by this jejune and adolescent attitude certain people in the American religious community have taken it upon themselves to present as "Christianity."

It is, in my opinion, an affront to religion, as a whole, to the principles of the founding fathers of the United States of America, and perhaps to God, personally.

And you disagree.

[Lief Erikson]

I see that I was right in guessing that you had decided to just argue against yourself from now on. Maybe it's easier for you than arguing against me (as Mr. Collins says, "I flatter myself") .

You've misrepresented my position on almost every point!

Since you clearly prefer to debate yourself than to debate me, I'll leave you to the fun of fighting solo.

Toodles!

~Lief

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

In fact, the books in the Protestant Bible are not questioned by any of the major denominations, including Catholics and Greek Orthodox. There are probably a few offshoot Christian groups and smaller denominations that disagree with some of these books, but none of the major denominations. The Church is very uniform about these books.

This is true as far as I know, I can't think of any real disagreements about the inclusion of the books in the Bible between Protestants and the Catholics/Orthodox. Differences over the numbering the numbering of the Psalms is the only thing I can think of...

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The differences between Christian denominations are largely the result of differences of scripture interpretation, not differences between Bibles.

That's the whole point. The bible is not a reliable source because the very nature of how most of it is written leaves so much to interpretation. "Every word is true" has no meaning if the very meaning of those words are so open to interpretation.

Look at any law on the books and you will see that even the simplest are spelled out in excessive detail to cover any possible situation and to limit interpretation as much as possible. The bible doesn't even attempt to do this. Much of what any given denomination claims to be the "absolute truth" is based upon a line or two of text here and there, lines which often aren't all that clear in the first place.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

That's the whole point. The bible is not a reliable source because the very nature of how most of it is written leaves so much to interpretation. "Every word is true" has no meaning if the very meaning of those words are so open to interpretation.

Look at any law on the books and you will see that even the simplest are spelled out in excessive detail to cover any possible situation and to limit interpretation as much as possible. The bible doesn't even attempt to do this. Much of what any given denomination claims to be the "absolute truth" is based upon a line or two of text here and there, lines which often aren't all that clear in the first place.

That's not true, and you've just put your finger on one of the main issues that the Mormons aren't accepted as being Christians. For many of the key doctrinal issues where they differ from Christians, they take just one line from somewhere and create a huge theology about it. One case example: Baptims for the dead.

Paul mentioned in one passage of one of the epistles that some people were baptized for the dead, but what that means was left entirely unclear. Mormons, however, have taken that one passage and interpreted it as saying that physical baptism for people who are already dead can save their souls.

Not that I'm saying they're wrong- I'm just pointing out that the scripture doesn't warrant the conclusion, unless one also accepts the Book of Mormon as the Word of God.

But major Christian doctrines are not so controversial. You're right that there are some issues where there is one passage found somewhere that seems to say one thing, but someone disagrees. That tends to divide people. But on all the central doctrines of Christianity, there are multiple passages that all say the same thing.

That is why I don't go and condemn people from other denominations as non-Christian- like Catholics. Catholics believe some things that are different from what I do, but so does most everyone. Catholics, and most all the denominations, hold to the core doctrines. The Bible repeats central doctrines in multiple places.

The Trinity, for instance, can be found in many parts of the Bible, in both the Old and the New Testaments. The Incarnation of Christ is explicit and repeatedly referred to. His crucifixion and resurrection are clear and repeated in many places. The Second Coming is repeated in many places. The major doctrines are all repeated multiple times.

So people can be Christian and have a lot of differences. There aren't disputes that I know of between the major denominations, in modern times anyway, which cause one to call the other non-Christian. For we still agree on the essentials.

But there is disagreement on a lot of matters of interpretation, and almost all of that disagreement is focused on issues that aren't essential to people's salvation. Another valid point is that the Word of God has many shades and levels of meaning. One passage can mean many things simultaneously, and hence the Bible would be weakening its message by hammering down single definitions and interpretations for single words or passages.

Sometimes the Holy Spirit will lead one person to one interpretation and another person to another interpretation. They are both right, only being spoken to by God in different ways, and then mistakenly believing that their interpretation is the only correct one. So some of that goes on too.

The Lord gave me a dream about it once, when I was having a big debate with Gwaimir about the meaning of Communion. In my dream, I saw many people, each representing a denomination, dancing on a hill. There was elegant, beautiful dancing going on, and the hill was on an island containing beautiful gardens, pools and architecture.

A man representing the Lord was standing at the front of the dance, and whenever he turned a steering wheel in his hand, the entire structure of the garden changed. Gardens, architecture and pools all changed positions, like a puzzle being arranged differently, and the new formation was equally beautiful. Nothing had been lost- only a different perspective on it all was gained.

Each jolt of the island's shift caused the dancers to lose balance and have difficulty continuing dancing, until the shift was complete and stability resumed. Then the Lord would turn the steering wheel again, after a while, and another shift would emerge.

The dream showed that difficulties in the dance or the unity of the churches of God arise from doctrinal differences, but often those differences simply come from God revealing different truths to different people through his single Word. And I'm sure that all the denominations have some things wrong, but also, many times we are mistaken in being too judgmental, for that places an unnecessary limitation on God and his ability to speak through his Word.

A key issue that needs to be remembered, in this discussion, is that the Holy Spirit is a teacher. Jesus said, "I am sending you a Counselor." The Spirit interacts with us, revealing the meaning of God's Word for those with ears God has opened, and especially those in whom he is living. For that is another angle of Communion, the communion between God and man that results of each living in the other. The Spirit doesn't leave us to interpret things in whatever way we wish, but rather reveals the truth of God that lives in the Word.

Some people don't have the Spirit, though, and many Christians also sadly lack a relationship with God. One can see and learn much by knowing God and hearing his voice.

I learned one angle recently of why Jesus said, "I am the truth," which relates to relativism. Without God, knowledge comes from humanity and hence might very easily be wrong, disproven in a few years, and even the disproving may be disproved in another few years. Science keeps changing. Human understanding keeps changing constantly, and no one can know what is true and what isn't, in a final way. For all we know, we might even be in the Matrix. Relativism dominates all, if God is excluded.

God is the only absolute that can be relied upon. Hence, he is "the truth," as truth cannot be understood with any certainty outside of him, and the absolutes cannot be known without him. As there is no certain truth we can rely on outside of him, he is "the truth."

And your disagreement with me in page 238 of the Philosophy Thread, where you said all is still relative because it's still humanity deciding whether or not to rely on God, and so it still comes down to relative humans, fails on two counts.

First is the logical flaw that the fact that some humans might choose to ignore God when he has plainly revealed his truth to them doesn't mean that God is unreliable or that truth is relative, but merely that humans are unreliable.

The second problem with that position is that paradise is not due to our strength in holding to God, but rather is due to his strength in holding to us. In the final analysis, nothing depends on relative humans and their relative human knowledge, but on the absolute God and his absolute knowledge and absolute power.

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Lief

The Trinity, for instance, can be found in many parts of the Bible, in both the Old and the New Testaments.

...Gonna go ahead and disagree on the Old Testament part of that. Not with the New, and clearly if you accept the New Testament you accept the Trinity. But given how long we've been reading the same text every Saturday in a yearly cycle, I do think you've got to at least accept that we Jews have some claim to be able to interpret the Tanakh (that'd be the Old Testament to you).

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

That makes addressing each of your points very difficult. It doesn't make you right, it just makes it difficult to address them.

But, choosing one.

So people can be Christian and have a lot of differences. There aren't disputes that I know of between the major denominations, in modern times anyway, which cause one to call the other non-Christian. For we still agree on the essentials

Here we are again, with this "major denominations" BS. Name the "major denominations" which, in modern times, have not had a dispute which cause one to call the others 'non-Christian.' Whichever one YOU belong to sure doesn't fall into that category. You're calling people 'non-Christian' all over.

Here is information on religious adherents in the US, based on the National Survey of Religious Identification as cited on http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html.
"The largest, most comprehensive surveys on religious identification were done in sociologists Barry A. Kosmin, Seymour P. Lachman and associates at the Graduate School of the City University of New York. Their first major study was done in 1990: the National Survey of Religious Identification (NSRI). This scientific nationwide survey of 113,000 Americans asked about religious preference, along with other questions. They followed this up, with even more sophisticated methodology and more questions, with the American Religious Identity Survey (ARIS) conducted in 2001, with a sample size of 50,000 Americans.


Top Ten Largest Religions in the United States, 1990
(self-identification, NSRI)
Religion Estimated
Adult Pop. Estimated
% of Adult Pop.
Christianity 151,225,000 86.2%
Nonreligious 13,116,000 7.5%
Judaism 3,137,000 1.8%
Agnostic 1,186,000 0.7%
Islam 527,000 * 0.5%
Unitarian Universalist 502,000 0.3%
Buddhism 401,000 * 0.4%
Hinduism 227,000 * 0.2%
Native American Religion 47,000 0.03%
Scientologist 45,000 0.03%

* Islam, Buddhist, Hindu figures in table have been adjusted upwards by Kosmin to account for possible undercou


Christianity. Note that in the NSRI and ARIS studies, based on self-identification, Christianity includes: Catholic, Baptist, Protestant, Methodist/Wesleyan, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Pentecostal/Charismatic, Episcopalian/Anglican, Mormon/Latter-day Saints/LDS, Churches of Christ, Jehovah's Witness, Seventh-Day Adventist, Assemblies of God, Holiness/Holy, Congregational/United Church of Christ, Church of the Nazarine, Church of God, Eastern Orthodox, Evangelical, Mennonite, Christian Science, Church of the Brethren, Born Again, Nondenominational Christians, Disciples of Christ, Reformed/Dutch Reformed, Apostolic/New Apostolic, Quaker, Full Gospel, Christian Reform, Foursquare Gospel, Fundamentalist, Salvation Army, Independent Christian Church, Covenant Church, Jewish Christians, plus 240,000 adults classified as "other" (who did not fall into the preceding groups). "


Largest Branches of Christianity in the U.S.
(self-identification, Pew Research Council)
In February and March 2002 the Pew Research Council conducted a survey of 2,002 adults. Questions about religious preference were included. People who identified their religious preference as Christian were asked about which branch of Christianity they belonged to.
The table below was published on page 49 of the Pew report at http://pewforum.org/publications/reports/poll2002.pdf:


Survey Response %, June 1996 %, March 2001 %, March 2002
Protestant 53 53 52
Catholic 23 23 24
Mormon
(Latter-day Saints) 2 2 2
Orthodox 1 1 *
Non-denominational 1 0 0
Something else (Specify) 1 * 2
Not practicing any religion 1 0 0
Don't know/Refused 2 3 2
TOTAL CHRISTIAN 84% 82% 82%

The percentages shown in this table reflect the number of members of each branch as a proportion of the total U.S. population, not just the Christian population. So the Catholic percentage of 24% for 2002 means that 24% of Americans identified themselves as Catholic in 2002.

This table matches data from Gallup, Barna, and other polling organizations, which all show that Protestants are clearly the largest branch of Christianity in the United States, followed by Catholics, who have about half as many members. Latter-day Saints (Mormons) are the 3rd largest branch, comprising about 2% of the U.S. population. Catholics, Latter-day Saints, and Orthodox Christians are all branches as well as denominational families, but the Protestant branch of Christianity comprises multiple denominational families. More detailed denominational family statistics are shown below.

This table was published in a study titled "Americans Struggle with Religion's Role at Home and Abroad", released on March 20, 2002.

The authors listed are:
Andrew Kohut, director of The Pew Research Center For The People & The Press
Melissa Rogers, executive director of The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

Methodology:
"The nationwide survey of 2,002 adults, conducted Feb. 25 - March 10 by the Pew Research Center and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life..."

People who identified their religious preference as Christian were asked about which branch of Christianity they belonged to:
"Q.19 Are you Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Orthodox--such as Greek or Russian Orthodox--or something else?" (page 49)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So. You've, personally, eliminated Mormons. Then there's folks who don't support your view of the Trinity as essential doctrine. That would include Christian Unitarians, Christian Scientists, the Society of Friends, Jehovah's Witnesses and Oneness Pentacostals.

Is the Westboro Baptist Church Christian?

Apparently Catholics aren't. http://www.ianpaisley.org/tiara.asp

If you haven't seen people call other people "not Christian" based on doctrinal differences, you can't be opening a newspaper, much less surfing the Web.

[Nurvingiel]

The reason Mormons aren't considered Christians is because they believe both the Book of Mormon and the Bible are the Word of God. I'm pretty sure it's a rule that you can't believe any book but the Bible is the Word, along with believing that Jesus is the Son of God.

This is not at all the same as differing theological interpretations of the Bible between different Christian denominations, as all groups believe that only the Bible is the Word of God, and that Jesus is the Son of God.

This doesn't mean that Mormonism is a less valid world view or anything, it simply means that Mormonism is a religion that branched off from Christianity, which I think is pretty rad actually.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The reason Mormons aren't considered Christians is because they believe both the Book of Mormon and the Bible are the Word of God. I'm pretty sure it's a rule that you can't believe any book but the Bible is the Word, along with believing that Jesus is the Son of God.

This is not at all the same as differing theological interpretations of the Bible between different Christian denominations, as all groups believe that only the Bible is the Word of God, and that Jesus is the Son of God.

This doesn't mean that Mormonism is a less valid world view or anything, it simply means that Mormonism is a religion that branched off from Christianity, which I think is pretty rad actually.

I think that Mormons also believe that Jesus isn't really God but is more of a "sub-deity" (not as great as the God the Father).

This is why the Catholic Church won't consider a person baptised in the Mormon tradition as a real Christian.

[hectorberlioz]

*Ahem*

Both Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses come from some kind of "Gnostic" seed or other, so technically, they're heretics. I'm willing to forgive Mitt Romney though, and I doubt he even knows that Mormonism is an ancient heresy in different clothing...

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

*Ahem*

Both Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses come from some kind of "Gnostic" seed or other, so technically, they're heretics. I'm willing to forgive Mitt Romney though, and I doubt he even knows that Mormonism is an ancient heresy in different clothing...

So what exactly do Jehovah's Witnesses believe that classifies them as heretics? I always thought they were extreme Fundamentalist Christians.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The reason Mormons aren't considered Christians is because they believe both the Book of Mormon and the Bible are the Word of God. I'm pretty sure it's a rule that you can't believe any book but the Bible is the Word, along with believing that Jesus is the Son of God.

This is not at all the same as differing theological interpretations of the Bible between different Christian denominations, as all groups believe that only the Bible is the Word of God, and that Jesus is the Son of God.

This doesn't mean that Mormonism is a less valid world view or anything, it simply means that Mormonism is a religion that branched off from Christianity, which I think is pretty rad actually.

Yes, I agree with you that this is definitely a major part of why they aren't considered Christian.

So sisterandcousinandaunt, in your opinion, the Graduate School of the City University of New York has the right to decide who is Christian and who is not? A secular research center gets to decide for the Christians who is Christian, in your opinion, and not the major denominations?

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Here we are again, with this "major denominations" BS. Name the "major denominations" which, in modern times, have not had a dispute which cause one to call the others 'non-Christian.'

How does one go about proving a negative? You're giving me an impossible task. Show me major denominations that in modern times accuse one another of being non-Christian.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Lief, you talk a lot.

I know . I'm very quiet in person, believe it or not. I'm just a verbose writer.

Whichever one YOU belong to sure doesn't fall into that category. You're calling people 'non-Christian' all over.

Irrelevant. I'm not a major Christian denomination, and neither have I accused any major denomination of being non-Christian except the Mormons. And you have yet to name one other major denomination that has claimed that they are Christian.

So. You've, personally, eliminated Mormons.

Me and the major Christian denominations .

Then there's folks who don't support your view of the Trinity as essential doctrine. That would include Christian Unitarians, Christian Scientists, the Society of Friends, Jehovah's Witnesses and Oneness Pentacostals.

I don't know very much about these groups or the positions of the major denominations as regards them. I personally believe some of their beliefs to be heresies, but I don't know what the major denominations say, and so haven't much comment to make on this.

Is the Westboro Baptist Church Christian?

Apparently Catholics aren't. http://www.ianpaisley.org/tiara.asp

If you haven't seen people call other people "not Christian" based on doctrinal differences, you can't be opening a newspaper, much less surfing the Web.

Sure there are individuals who say that. Who cares about individuals? They are an inexpressably small sample of evidence. It's large groups, major denominations that matter.

Your only evidence is a single church. The evidence of a single church is not the same as the evidence of a major denomination. It's like saying, "There is a major poverty problem in the US! The proof is that I know a poor man!" If you know one poor man, that doesn't mean there's a major poverty problem. If a Baptist church claims Catholics aren't Christian, that doesn't mean that this is the position of the Baptist denomination as a whole.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

...Gonna go ahead and disagree on the Old Testament part of that. Not with the New, and clearly if you accept the New Testament you accept the Trinity. But given how long we've been reading the same text every Saturday in a yearly cycle, I do think you've got to at least accept that we Jews have some claim to be able to interpret the Tanakh (that'd be the Old Testament to you).

I respect the relationship of the Jews to the Old Testament. I think, no offense intended, that they are wrong on some points. There are some passages which seem to me to be indicating the Trinity.

I would first refer you to certain prophecies of the Messiah found in Isaiah 9:6-7.

"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this."

In this passage from Isaiah, a child is predicted who will be born to you, and who will be both the Mighty God and Everlasting Father.

Here is another prophecy of the Messiah:

Originally Posted by Daniel 9:26

After sixty-two 'sevens', the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and the desolations have been decreed.

Yet your scriptures predict that after your Messiah has been "cut off and will have nothing," the city of Jerusalem will be destroyed. That event, I hardly need add, occurred shortly after the crucifixion of Jesus.

Another relevant Messianic prophecy is found in Isaiah 52:13 through Isaiah 53. That is one of the most glorious prophecies of the Messiah, to us Christians. It describes more directly the way that the Anointed One would be "cut off," saying he would be "pierced for our transgressions," and that "by his wounds we are healed."

His refusing to open his mouth is just as Christ did, when "led like a lamb to the slaughter."

He was assigned a grave with the wicked, even as Jesus was crucified with criminals. Yet, "after the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors."

He would see the "light of life," after dying, just as Jesus was resurrected from the dead, and even as he would "divide the spoils with the strong," Ephesians 4:8 says of Jesus, "when he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men."

If Jesus was the Messiah, as your prophecies seem to say, and if the Messiah was God, as your prophecies seem to say, the Trinity is supported in Hebrew scriptures.

There are many other scripture prophecies I could point us to, which Jesus fulfilled in his life and ministry.



But back to the Trinity now, I would like to next point out Genesis 1. The word for "God" which is used is "Elohim," which is plural. So even as we affirm God's oneness, we declare him simultaneously to be plural through the use of that word.

There was a passage in Ezekiel also, where God said that his Spirit roved to and fro across the land, searching for someone to pray for Israel, but could find no one. God is there referred to in plurality as well, but I'm having trouble finding it.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The reason Mormons aren't considered Christians is because they believe both the Book of Mormon and the Bible are the Word of God. I'm pretty sure it's a rule that you can't believe any book but the Bible is the Word, along with believing that Jesus is the Son of God.

This is not at all the same as differing theological interpretations of the Bible between different Christian denominations, as all groups believe that only the Bible is the Word of God, and that Jesus is the Son of God.

This doesn't mean that Mormonism is a less valid world view or anything, it simply means that Mormonism is a religion that branched off from Christianity, which I think is pretty rad actually.

I don't know who issues this "rulebook" at all. Who issues the Union card? Mormons think they're Christian. The Pew Research Council thinks they're Christian. The National Survey of Religious Identification thinks they're Christian. The American Religious Identity Survey thinks they're Christian.


WHAT GIVES YOU PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO PASS JUDGEMENT ON THEIR IDENTITY?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Arien the Maia

So what exactly do Jehovah's Witnesses believe that classifies them as heretics? I always thought they were extreme Fundamentalist Christians.

HECK NO! No darned way.

They believe that Christ is human, they don't believe in the trinity...they believe only a certain thousand will make it into heaven (so why bother with the tracts?!!)...lots of stuff.

btw, Prince, the singer, is a Jehovah's Witness.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I don't know who issues this "rulebook" at all. Who issues the Union card? Mormons think they're Christian. The Pew Research Council thinks they're Christian. The National Survey of Religious Identification thinks they're Christian. The American Religious Identity Survey thinks they're Christian.


WHAT GIVES YOU PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO PASS JUDGEMENT ON THEIR IDENTITY?

Their beliefs? Eh?

Maybe a Satanist thinks he's christian, and if he told any secular institution, they'd think it was kinda cool, adn list him as one. BUT HE WOULDN'T BE.

And I have NEVER heard that Mormons classify themselves as Christians. Externally they resemble christians, and they may depend on that the way I do on people's knowledge of Catholicism so I don't have to explain three hours worth of pre-Lutheran history explaining Orthodoxy.