Posted on 09/13/2016 11:11:40 AM PDT by fishtank
Is the Jesus of Mormonism the Jesus of the Bible?
Aaron Shafovaloff
Published on Jul 16, 2016
James White dialogs with Alma Allred.
James White is a Christian apologist and founded Alpha and Omega Ministries (http://www.aomin.org/).
Alma Allred is a Mormon apologist and an LDS Institute teacher (http://byteline.blogspot.com/).
This event took place on July 15, 2016. It was organized by Christ Presbyterian Church in Salt Lake City (http://www.gospelutah.org/). A special thanks to Jason Wallace.
The only thing mormonism has in common with Christianity, is the name Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, they don't mean the same person.
If you cannot see this from Scripture, it is likely you are in a cult too.
Thanks be to God for His indescribable Gift!
Ok well search your heart and good luck.
“So my learned friend, please explain why my reasoning is flawed.”
It’s flawed because you’re (apparently) assuming the following:
1) You’re assuming Smith received no revelation because he did not agree with you. Now, don’t get me wrong. Smith was a con man and received no revelation. But I say that because of what Smith said and did whether or not he agrees with me on anything.
2) Your assumption (apparently) is that because most say “Yahweh” today that that means Smith could not have received a genuine revelation from God because he never revealed THAT pronunciation. That is an erroneous conclusion drawn from flawed reasoning. i) There’s no reason to assume a revelation from God would necessarily include a proper pronunciation of His name according to your liking. ii) There’s no evidence such revelations were accorded actual prophets - like John the Revelator, for instance. iii) If Jehovah was the common pronunciation in English - and it was - and even shows up in Bible translations decades after Smith (as it does through out the ASV OT), then there should be no surprise Smith would use the common pronunciation. iv) Mormons have their own understanding of the Sacred Name: http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Jehovah,_Jesus_Christ
“I am sure you a fully aware that the original Scriptures were not WRITTEN IN ENGLISH.”
Oh, I am very aware. I am also aware that that fact would be entirely not at play here since Smith only knew English.
“Why then is it the English version that substitute “YHWH” with “THE LORD?””
That is done simply because when Jews READ aloud the scriptures that is exactly what they do. Jews were not to say aloud the Sacred Name. If I recall correctly, even the High Priest was only permitted to say it once a year; on Yom Kippur if I am not mistaken [Yes, see it under B, 2, b, i here: http://biblehub.com/commentaries/guzik/commentaries/0316.htm ]
Christians followed suit in the NT often abbreviating the name of Jesus because it was sacred. You see Judaizers on the internet do this when they type out “G-d” rather than “God”. Here’s exactly what I’m talking about: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1443443/jewish/Why-Dont-Jews-Say-Gds-Name.htm
Some modern translations, of course, will simply say YHWH rather than “Lord”. The Jerusalem Bible does that. I literally yesterday got in the mail a reprint of Traina’s Holy Name Bible and he was the first to do it in English - in the 1950/1963.(Sadly this reprint turns out to not have gilt edges, has no page marking ribbon, and only a glued binding; oh, well).
“Have you ever wondered why?”
Nope. I’ve always known.
So in other words you don’t read the Bible. You pick and choose certain passages to ‘study’ (per your admission) a word at a time. That method certainly allows you to obtain a contextual understanding of the passage doesn’t it?
So you are telling me that there are no books in the Bible written in Aramaic and its only use was certain quotes of Jesus? Interesting.
Tell us Wendle: Isn't accusing posters here that reference Mormonism as of "cult" status as engaging in "blatant naked judgmental bigotry" in and of itself a "blatant" example of "naked judgmental bigotry"???
Where do you get off, or where do you get a "license" to call other FREEPERs "judgmental" (Isn't that in & of itself making a "judgment"?)
Where do you get off, or where do you get a "license" to call other FREEPERs "bigots?" (Isn't that in & of itself judgmental?)
So ONLY YOU among all in this thread have a right to engage in bare naked blatant "judgmentalism"???
Again, who issues such "licenses" -- decrees allowing only you this elite status?
Tell us, Wendle, where do the rest of us go to apply for such granted licenses?
Absolutely. I read the Bible enough to know of its errors and conflicts. When professional Christians use “ Context” what they realty mean is Don’t read that— look over here at this and reject that because it does’t line up with what I want to sell you. Let me give you a blatant example and you can accept one or the other. The only reference in the new testament even close to tithing is the “widows mite” Every tithing Sunday you will hear about the “widows mite” to get your money. What you wont hear is Matthew 17 when Jesus and two of his disciples go to Capernium to have Jesus speak at the Temple. They are confronted with a gate keeper collecting the Tithe ( “Temple Tax”). Jesus says to his disciples the a “King doesn’t tax his children” . We are all the children of God . He refuses to pay the tithe with their money ( which they had) and has the Disciple go get a miracle coin out of a fishes mouth. This is never taught. If Jesus didn’t want to pay the tax, I don’t. BTW Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem after he overturned the money tables in the Temple for the same reason. That really threatened the cash flow of the Sanhedrin. Yes, I read the Bible to answer questions. Jesus died for your sins and mine or Jesus meant nothing.
Go to the Bible and read John 3:16 -18 over and over. God Bless.
So, Wendle let us get this straight:
Let's start with a comparison to how Jesus defined a married unit:
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. (Matthew 19)
So, quick quiz for you Wendle: Does Jesus define a marital unit as "two"...or "one"??? [Hint, hint: "they are NO LONGER TWO, BUT ONE...]
So Jesus defines a married couple as "one,"-- yet interestingly, in stark contrast, you define God as three? Really? [What do you then do with ALL of those Bible references to a single true God, the one true God, etc?]
Here's the result of your strained "logic": So the average unified Christian married couple is more "one" than your God? (Does He know that?)
'Cause this married couple is one flesh...one in purpose...one identity (same last name)...often one in worldview & will...etc.
So the creation of God is "more" one and more unified than your god or the Mormon "creator"gods...
Well, just tiddly winks! Imagine that!
Wendle you have a MUCH BIGGER problem.
I mean what DO you then do with NT passages like John 8:58 and John 17:5?
58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds. (John 8)
Jesus was "I am" even before Abraham was born!
5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began. (John 17)
What also do you do with Colossians 1, Hebrews 1, John 1???
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him ALL things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (Colossians 1)
in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. (Hebrews 1...see also vv. 8-10)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (John 1)
What you sadly don’t understand is that that is obviously NOT literal. That is allegorical. Do you see a man and a wife as one? The idea is to unify in the marriage — support and agree with each other. That has nothing to do with the “TRInity”. The “TRI’ in TRInity means three.
When I coached , I told the young men to “play as one”. “One team , one heart”. We actually stomped out feet together in rhythm to symbolize one heart beat. That is all Jesus was saying about marriage. The literallists must live very very frustrated lives. Good luck, Wink wink.
I understand the spiritual existence of Jesus just as each of us was known to God before we were born but He was created when God used a 14 year old Virgin to bring Jesus into the world. Luke 3:31 “ You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus.”. If Jesus had been in existence he would have just teleported in.
Interesting.
And are you still holding that Aramaic is found only in some Jesus quotes?
Your Bible knowledge is, um, fascinating.
“Ok well search your heart and good luck.”
Rather, “search the Scriptures, for they tell of Me.”
Mostly Greek in the New Testament . Some Aramaic reference in the New Testament mostly quoting Jesus . Old Testament has some Aramaic but Old testament was fulfilled at the Cross and I recommend spending very little time on old testament except Leviticus. .
Exactly, and the problem is we don't deny the "three" -- yet seemingly fail to realize that the very 4 letters of "nity" comes from uNITY !!!!
When I coached , I told the young men to “play as one”. “One team , one heart”. We actually stomped out feet together in rhythm to symbolize one heart beat. That is all Jesus was saying about marriage
So, to you, the institution of marriage is no more unified than, say, your average Little League team!!!
(No wonder our nation, & marriage overall, has been in such trouble! Reductionism)
Again, no matter how you approach unity of marriage -- even if it's only "allegorical" to you -- guess what?
The average allegorical unified marriage is more "one" than the "allegorical" oneness of God you present here on this thread!!!
My spouse & I are more "one" than your god is!!!
Great to see you again!
This would explain the source of some of your errors FRamigo.
Touché my friend.
Ah, semantics. Revelation vs ‘being sent’ are different would you not say.
Jesus warned us to be forever watchful: Luke 21:8 YLT
And he said, ‘See — ye may not be led astray, for many shall come in my name, saying — I am he, and the time hath come nigh; go not on then after them;
I agree with you about Smith being a con man.
Jesus also said: ‘Verily, verily, I say to you, he who is believing in me, the works that I do — that one also shall do, and greater than these he shall do, because I go on to my Father; - John 14:12 YLT
To my shame I cannot heal the sick, walk on water or move mountains; neither could Smith or any other said prophet.
You are perfectly correct about the authors of the Greek Scriptures did not use YHWH or rather the Greek equivalent; but this is a mute point. Smith did.
Jesus never instructed his followers to not speak his Fathers Name, on the contrary, many times he prayed that they might know it. I don’t recall Jesus ever calling his Father by name; yet Smith did or attempted to. This speaks much louder than the words themselves speak.
Christianity today is largely based on tradition, something Jesus himself abhorred.
Many speak of KNOWING GOD’S NAME as knowing what it stands for; for having a personal relationship with him. I believe this to be true and could explain why no one in the NT called God the Father by name. Why then did Smith feel the need.
I am sure a by-stander reading our arguments would wonder of the divide between us. I am doubtful if there is one.
“You are perfectly correct about the authors of the Greek Scriptures did not use YHWH or rather the Greek equivalent; but this is a mute point. Smith did.”
You mean moot point, not “mute point”.
“Jesus never instructed his followers to not speak his Fathers Name, on the contrary, many times he prayed that they might know it.”
There’s no “contrary” there. Knowing something is not the same thing as saying it. And no one here claimed Jesus “never instructed his followers to not speak his Fathers Name” so is there a reason to suggest someone did?
“I don’t recall Jesus ever calling his Father by name; yet Smith did or attempted to. This speaks much louder than the words themselves speak.”
Yes, but how does that in any way work with your original comments?
“Christianity today is largely based on tradition, something Jesus himself abhorred.”
No. Christ DID NOT abhor tradition and engaged in it Himself EVERY DAY. What He abhorred were the traditions of men that nullified the Lord’s Word. Mark 7:13 There’s a HUGE difference there.
“Many speak of KNOWING GOD’S NAME as knowing what it stands for; for having a personal relationship with him. I believe this to be true and could explain why no one in the NT called God the Father by name. Why then did Smith feel the need.”
Two reasons: 1) Smith was born into a time when it was commonly done in popular religion, and 2) it suited his theology. Note he called even Jesus Jehovah: http://tinyurl.com/jtusamy
“I am sure a by-stander reading our arguments would wonder of the divide between us. I am doubtful if there is one.”
Maybe there isn’t one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.