Posted on 12/07/2007 8:10:37 AM PST by ZGuy
The Reuters headline said: "Mitt Romney Vows Mormon Church Will Not Run White House." Unfortunately, this time Reuters got its story right. In his long-awaited speech designed to win over conservative evangelicals, Romney actually did say something to this effect, making many people wonder why he needed to make such a vow in the first place. It's a bit like hearing Giuliani vow that the mafia will not be running his White House—it is always dangerous to say what should go without saying, because it makes people wonder why you felt the need to say it. Is the Mormon church itching to run the White House, and does Romney need to stand firm against them?
It is true that John Kennedy made a similar vow in his famous 1960 speech on religion, and Romney was clearly modeling his speech on Kennedy's. But the two situations are not the same. When John Kennedy vowed that the Vatican would not control his administration, he was trying to assuage the historical fear of the Roman Catholic Church that had been instilled into generations of Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Kennedy shrewdly didn't say that the Vatican wouldn't try to interfere—something that his Protestant target audience would never have believed in a millions years anyway; instead, Kennedy said in effect, "I won't let the Vatican interfere." And many Protestants believed him—in large part, because no one really thought Kennedy took his religion seriously enough to affect his behavior one way or the other.
The Mormon church is not Romney's problem; it is Romney's own personal religiosity. On the one hand, Romney is too religious for those who don't like religion in public life—a fact that alienates him from those who could care less about a candidate's religion, so long as the candidate doesn't much care about it himself. On the other hand, Romney offends precisely those Christian evangelicals who agree with him most on the importance of religion in our civic life, many of whom would be his natural supporters if only he was a "real" Christian like them, and not a Mormon instead.
To say that someone is not a real Christian sounds rather insulting, like saying that he is not a good person. But when conservative Christians make this point about Romney, they are talking theology, not morality. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the Mormon creed will understand at once why Romney felt little desire to debate its theological niceties with his target audience of Christian evangelicals, many of whom are inclined to see Mormonism not as a bona fide religion, but as a cult. In my state of Georgia, for example, there are Southern Baptist congregations that raise thousands of dollars to send missionaries to convert the Mormons to Christianity.
Yet if Romney was playing it safe by avoiding theology, he was treading on dangerous ground when he appealed to the American tradition of religious tolerance to make his case. Instead of trying to persuade the evangelicals that he was basically on their side, he did the worst thing he could do: he put them on the defensive. In his speech Romney came perilously close to suggesting: If you don't support me, you are violating the cherished principle of religious tolerance. But such a claim is simply untenable and, worse, highly offensive.
The Christian evangelicals who are troubled by Romney's candidacy do not pose a threat to the American principle of religious tolerance. On the contrary, they are prepared to tolerate Mormons in their society, just as they are prepared to tolerate atheists and Jews, Muslims and Hindus. No evangelical has said, "Romney should not be permitted to run for the Presidency because he is a Mormon." None has moved to have a constitutional amendment forbidding the election of a Mormon to the Presidency. That obviously would constitute religious intolerance, and Romney would have every right to wax indignant about it. But he has absolutely no grounds for raising the cry of religious intolerance simply because some evangelicals don't want to see a Mormon as President and are unwilling to support him. I have no trouble myself tolerating Satan-worshippers in America, but I would not be inclined to vote for one as President: Does that make me bigot? The question of who we prefer to lead us has nothing to do with the question of who we are willing to tolerate, and it did Romney no credit to conflate these two quite distinct questions. There is nothing wrong with evangelicals wishing to see one of their own in the White House, or with atheists wishing to see one of theirs in the same position.
Romney's best approach might have been to say nothing at all. Certainly that would have been preferable to trying to turn his candidacy into an issue of religious tolerance. Better still, he might have said frankly: "My religion is different and, yes, even a trifle odd. But it has not kept Mormons from dying for their country, or paying their taxes, or educating their kids, or making decent communities in which to live."
??? What kind of refutation did you do when not one of you could refute a single chapter in any of my books? Did you ever? When and where?
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah - just hot air and empty rhetoric. Typical anti-Mormon.
Prior to the speech and on this forum I was one of the few that took the same position this article's author did.
My gut instinct was against Mitt giving a defensive speech (no matter how stirring) when there was really no religious offensive against him save for some media who hate all religions anyhow (except for the Religion of Pieces).
Leni
And I whole heartedly agree with YOU!!! (about this)
I especially enjoyed the Adams quotes and the way they upset the dubious, delusional LIEBERALS!!! Ha Ha Ha!!!
Maybe so! But if he looses who cares.
I’m for Fred!!!
Thanks for your candor. You see, anyone can create criteria that will make virtually any “Christian” appear weird and unchristian to OUTSIDERS.
1. Notice the specific question, “Does Jesus Christ currently have a penis?” Isn’t it an odd and somewhat offensive question? Why not just ask “Does Jesus currently have a physical body and if so, how do you reconcile it with the three hypostatis in one nonmaterial, formless ousia deity”?
FYI, study John’s shibboleth in 1 Jn 4:2-3 and 2 Jn 1:7 very carefully (here’s some help if you’re interested: http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id62.htm NO 23 & 24, esp relevant footnotes). Find out why John was so free is his acknowlegement that any who agree with the shibboleth are genuine while those who can’t are anti-Christ.
It is VITAL - if you understand it, you will realize three things, and also realize the Baha’i faith can never ever be true because Baha’ullah is an “anti-Christ” since he can’t abide by John’s shibboleth.
2. Notice the negative insinuation of the question, “Why do you practice theological cannibalism when taking the Eucharist?” One of the very questions and objections levied against the early Christians. To those unfamiliar with transubstantiation or the NT’s oneness of the sanctified with the divine by interpenetration and essence; the idea is repugnant and disgusting. Imagine! These lunatics believe they are consuming the literal flesh and blood of their god!
A word of caution. The body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist is a LOT MORE than a metaphor or symbol. A metaphor or symbol cannot cause an actual change in one’s spiritual state when consumed.
3. Do Jews go to heaven? No? Gasp! Then you’re ANTI-SEMITIC!!!!
See how easy it is?
We Mormons get these kind of “trick questions” all the time from our opponents. No matter how rational and scriptural our answers, they’re never good enough. We’re always damned. We’re always outside the Christian family.
So what if we believe Jesus is the Son of God, that he’s God incarnate, and the only way of salvation? Since we don’t believe the 4th century Traditional Trinity’s description of deity that comes from PAGAN GREEK PHILOSOPHY (ousia, asomatos, formlessness, three hypostatis in one ousia, etc.) we’re a cult and non-Christian!
It is any wonder we view so many Evangelicals and Baptists as dishonest and incapable of following Christ’s message of love and decency?
But I wasn't asking "trick questions."
You know, this kind of rhetoric really doesn’t work with me.
We Mormons believe EVERY SINGLE DOCTRINE FOUND IN THE BIBLE. What we REJECT are doctrines based on ideas and concepts that originated from the PAGAN Greek philosophers that were INCORPORATED into Christian theology.
1. For example, we reject the PAGAN doctrine that God is nonmaterial (asomatos), that his essence is the opposite of matter. Is this doctrine found anywhere in the Bible? Nowhere! (http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id55.htm
)
2. We reject the PAGAN doctrine that God is ontologically omnipresent, that his essence is everywhere. This doctrine came from the Greeks and cannot be found anywhere in the Bible - it only teaches a FUNCTIONAL omnipresence due to God’s power (http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id69.htm and http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id59.htm ).
3. We reject the PAGAN doctrine that God is formless. This doctrine explicitly contradicts the Bible which repeatedly describe God as possessing a three-dimensional shape (temunah and eidos).
4. As for the three hypostatis in one ousia deity - don’t get me started. No legitimate Christian scholar will even deign to pretend this didn’t originate within the scaffold of Greek philosophy.
So yes, we Mormons and other Christians have differences of doctrine - but these differences are mostly on issues that aren’t from the Bible. We have “unbiblical” doctrines and so do you. It is lunacy and dishonesty to even attempt to say our “unbiblical beliefs” are so extreme that they are sufficient to deny us the label of “Christian” whereas your “unbiblical beliefs” that has warped the biblical God completely out of recognition is so minute that you retain your “Christian” designation. Nice try but dishonest and reprehensible.
If you had taken the time to listen to Romney’s speech or studied our history, you would have discovered that we were founded to keep away from you religious bigoty....I am sure that that will be beyond you.
You don't know the difference between a hill and a holler. Funny. Bet you never heard of the shifless skonks either.
Wouldn’t want you to miss this ‘scholarly’ spittle
It is any wonder we view so many Evangelicals and Baptists as dishonest and incapable of following Christ’s message of love and decency?
Why do you exclude Catholics and Greek orthodox, and any of the major Christian denominations?
It’s funny some people, like yourself, didn’t get my point despite I explicitly mentioned the questions are framed towards making adherents look bad. Oh well, some people are so confident in their alleged biblical expertise that they only reveal how little they actually know.
1. Does Jesus Christ currently have a penis?
No. The answer is in the bible. read it.
Sorry, absolutely WRONG. Jesus Christ is CURRENTLY in possession of a material, physical, immortal body. Here’s proof (taken from one of my books):
(1) Matt 28:9 & (2) Luke 24:39 These passages show Jesus Christ possessed a body of flesh and bones after his resurrection which could be physically held. He wasn’t a nonmaterial, incorporeal spirit. His statement to gaze at and handle his hands and feet immediately “[convinced] them of his possession of a material body.”1 When he died, his spirit separated from his body but when he was resurrected, his spirit re-entered his body while it was in the tomb. He then rose from the dead and ministered to his people for forty days, after which, he ascended into heaven.
(3) Luke 24:51; (4) Acts 1:22; (5) Eph 4:8-10; (6) Phil 2:9; (7) 1 Tim 3:16; (8) Heb 4:14; (9) 1 Pet 3:22 & (10) Rev 12:5 These describe Jesus as ascending into heaven. Is this a physical ascension or did he shed his body?
(11) Acts 1:9-11 It was a physical ascension and v. 11 says that when he returns it will be a physical Second Coming and not a purely spiritual one. It will be spiritual in the sense that it will be a “spiritual” event but he will not only be a spirit but will have his perfected physical body.
Some believe Jesus’s body dematerialized when he was in heaven after his ascension and his spirit merged with the essence (ousia) of the Father and Holy Ghost, thereby having the Godhead as a completely omnipresent nonmaterial entity and they say this explains how Jesus’ spirit can enter into us (in reality, the Holy Ghost is called Jesus’ spirit - Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6 and the interpenetration passages don’t imply a dissolution of the physical body of Jesus Christ). Others, however, believe Jesus presently has a physical body despite being of one substance with the Father and Holy Ghost. The belief in the Athanasian Creed, or, three beings in one substance and the early Christian belief that God has a physical anthropomorphic body is examined in MORMONISM: Section 4.
(12) Jas 2:26 This shows a person dies when his spirit leaves his body. Consequently, if Jesus shed his body and was only an incorporeal spirit in heaven, he will die again. Can Jesus die again? According to (13) Rom 6:9 No. He is death’s master and can never be subjected to death again (John 2:19-21; 2 Tim 1:10; 1 Cor 15:54-55; Rev 1:18; 20:13-14; 21:4; 1 Tim 6:16; Mosi 15:23; 16:8; Alma 4:14; 7:12; 11:42; 22:14; 27:28; Morm 7:5; 9:13; Rom 6:10; Heb 7:27; 9:12,26,28; 10:10; 1 Pet 3:18; Rom 8:34; 14:9; 2 Cor 5:15; Heb 2:14-18; cf. Jas 2:26). There isn’t any hint that the temple of his body was ever going to be destroyed again (John 2:19-21). As a result, we can clearly see that Jesus Christ currently has a limited anthropomorphic, immortal body and is not a nonmaterial “spirit.
(14) Matt 5:48 This has Jesus mentioning Heavenly Father is perfect. (15) Heb 2:10; (16) Heb 5:8-9 & (17) Heb 7:28 Jesus Christ is perfect (also see 3 Ne 12:48). Is there anything higher than perfection? I don’t think so. If the Father is perfect and the Son is perfect, one can’t be more perfect than the other. Any difference causes one to be imperfect and inferior to the other. They then have to be equal. Whatever one has, the other has.
(18) John 1:1; (19) Phil 2:5-6 & (20) Heb 1:3 Mention the equality of Jesus with the Father. Jesus is in the express image of the Father, meaning, they are exactly alike (these passages will be examined in detail in the next chapter).
(21) Col 1:19 & (22) Col 2:9 Mention Jesus having the fulness of divinity while in a physical body. Jesus is fully God while having a physical anthropomorphic body with full equality with the Father. If he can have a physical body and be “God”; there is no logical reason why Heavenly Father can’t.
(23) 1 Jn 4:2-3 & (24) 2 Jn 1:7 These passages emphasize the fact that Jesus Christ possessed a physical body during the first century. They were combating a heresy similar to Docetism, which denied the divine “Christ” possessed a material body.2
The milieu of First and Second John must be ascertained to thoroughly understand these two passages.
The gnostic rivals of orthodoxy during the earliest period of the church separated the human “Jesus” from the divine “Christ”:
“... virtually all [Gnostic Christians] separated Jesus the Man from Christ the Redeemer, believing it impossible for a representative of the true, high God to incarnate in the corrupt material world.”3
The Gnostics tried to grapple with the problem: “How do you kill a “God”? The answer is “You can’t.” What then died on the cross? If the Savior and Redeemer was “God,” he can’t die and he can’t experience suffering and temptation. The person known as “Jesus” was clearly a man. He suffered. He was tempted. He died! But “God” was in him! Therefore, these Gnostics reasoned, it was the human “Jesus” who suffered and died while the divine “Christ” that was in him didn’t.
Unlike Christians today who easily say “Jesus Christ” and interchange “Jesus” with “Christ,” the Gnostics viewed the divine “Christ” to be a separate entity from the human “Jesus.” For them, the human, fleshy “Jesus” was merely a container for the divine “Christ.” It was the human “Jesus” who suffered and died on the cross, not the divine “Christ” because the divine “Christ” couldn’t experience suffering and death. The divine “Christ” entered and left the human ““Jesus.”4 The man “Jesus receives the Christ.”5
The Man “Jesus” was separate from the Divine “Christ.”6
This basic premise is the heart of all early gnosticism. This generated a faction who are known as the “Docetists.” The Docetists basically advocated Jesus didn’t really suffer on the cross. He only appeared to suffer and die by creating a mass hallucination on the onlookers. They gave various explanations for this. The most prominent is the divine “Christ” didn’t really encase himself in flesh because he is holy and matter is evil. Therefore what the people saw was an illusion.
We can finally understand 1 Jn 4:2-3 & 2 Jn 1:7 now that the background has been identified.
John is fighting against apostate teachers. They were probably the spiritual forefathers of the further developed Gnostic and Docetist groups of the early centuries.
1 Jn 2:22 sets the stage for the test to determine true prophets:
1 Jn 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
The Gnostics would understand John’s statement “Jesus is the Christ” to mean “the divine Christ became the human Jesus” which conflicts with their belief. This causes us to realize the stance of orthodoxy in the person of John contradicts that of the Gnostics:
John: The divine “Christ” became the human “Jesus.”
Gnostics: The divine “Christ” entered and left the human “Jesus.”
John insists “Jesus is the Christ”!7 This statement is a direct repudiation of the Gnostic belief that “Jesus isn’t the Christ.” He wasn’t merely the Gnostic “Jesus” who was a container that the divine “Christ” possessed for a brief period.
John then condemns anyone who denies this and equates this with denying the “Father” and “Son.” He who denies such is “antichrist”! To John, the term the “Son” is a combination of both “Jesus” and “Christ.” In other words, John believed:
The Son = “Jesus” + “Christ.”
All Gnostics are condemned as “antichrist” by John’s statement because they separate the human “Jesus” from the divine “Christ.”
John initially condemns all Gnosticism in general as “antichrist” in 1 Jn 2:22 but later focuses specifically on those Gnostics who taught a Docetist-type teaching that the divine “Christ” didn’t really enter flesh in 1 Jn 4:2-3 and 2 Jn 1:7:
1 Jn 4:2-3 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2 Jn 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
John’s entire point was to make a statement of faith that he knew his opponents wouldn’t be able to pass! He chose his words very carefully. He knew no true Gnostic or Docetist could ever affirm the phrase, “Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ is come in the flesh?” It is only after examining what these opponents taught that we realize the significance of his test. John’s inclusion of the word “Christ” proves he was opposing those who were teaching Gnostic and Docetist doctrines because they wouldn’t be able to affirm his condition.
The language of 1 Jn 4:2-3 and 2 Jn 1:7 is clearly built upon John’s previous statement in 1 Jn 2:22. John again combines “Jesus” with “Christ” but this time adds come in “flesh.” This is a specific attack on those Gnostic teachers who not only separated the human “Jesus” from the divine “Christ” but also denied the divine “Christ” really became flesh, not just an assumption of the human nature, but actual flesh itself, the most vile and evil substance known to the Docetists. John also said it in such a way (“is come”) to combat those Gnostics who were open to the possibility that the divine “Christ” did link with flesh but that it was only a temporary arrangement.
The condition to determine the authenticity of these prophets or teachers was their reply to the question:
“Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ is come in the flesh?”
The answer is either “Yes” or “No.”
The way John wrote the condition for acceptance shows the Gnostic Docetists he’s opposing will have to abandon three cherished beliefs in order to find acceptance among the true Christians. These are:
1) They need to abandon the separation of the human “Jesus” from the divine “Christ.”
2) They need to abandon the ontological separation of the divine “Christ” from material flesh.
3) They need to abandon the temporary linkage of divinity with the material body of Jesus.
In contrast, the true prophets and teachers will teach:
1) The human “Jesus” and the divine “Christ” are one and the same entity.
2) Jesus, who is “God” became wholly man and really possessed flesh.
3) Jesus will always have his physical body.
All who refuse to confess “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” with its three implications have the spirit of antichrist according to John.
Most Christian bodies subscribe to these three points concerning Jesus Christ but some deny the third point. Nonetheless, there isn’t any doubt it was part of what John was trying to say because the consequence of this stress on Jesus Christ having a physical body in the past, carries over to the future (i.e., “the permanence of the Incarnation”)8 due to John’s usage of the perfect participle in these passages.9 This means, the reality of Jesus Christ having a physical body during the first century (esp. after his Resurrection - Luke Luke24:39 24:39) implies his Return will have him still possessing this same glorious, immortal physical body.10 “ ... the Greek present participle implies both the first and second advent of Christ.”11
“The emphasis is not simply on the past fact of the coming of Christ in flesh, but also on the continuance of his humanity and even on the future manifestation of the Lord. Christ is never said to come into flesh, but in flesh; the former would leave room for saying that deity was united with Jesus sometime after his birth.”12
Why was John so concerned on this issue? Why did he demarcate the person of Jesus Christ along such a narrow definition? Why was it so important to John for the Christians to view Jesus Christ to be both God and Man and to insist that he has an eternal possession of a fleshy body?
Jesus Christ’s possession of “flesh” “sarx” (4561/4922), a “human” body,13 is one of the central teachings of the Scriptures. This isn’t an optional belief. Those who deny this are “not of God but have the spirit of antichrist” (1 Jn 4:3) because:
Jesus Christ couldn’t save us without becoming a “Man”!
John’s concern is the fact that Jesus Christ wouldn’t be able to perform the Atonement if he didn’t become human as well as being “God.” We can’t be saved or exalted without his possession of the human nature (Col 1:21-22; Heb 10:19-20). His taking of a human nature causes him to identify with humanity (Heb 2:14-18; 4:15). A human needed to redeem humanity (Rom 8:3; 1 Cor 15:21; Acts 17:31). His humanity bridged the gap between the “God” and “Man” natures,14 effectively becoming the founding member of the new “God/Man” species, those who fully possess both “God” and “Man” natures. Jesus Christ’s humanity enables his true followers to share his “oneness” with the Father and to be exalted (see MORMONISM: Section 5).
The Church Fathers understood the humanity of Christ to mean he deified his human nature which enables us to become deified (i.e., become “God/Gods/gods”) because we are members of the human race.15 The coming of Jesus Christ in “flesh” entails he initially possessed a mortal human body and subsequently became immortal after the Resurrection.
It is very serious to deny Jesus Christ becoming human (1 Jn 4:3) because denial of his humanity denies the purpose of him being a Savior and the effectiveness and scope of his sacrifice. The stress of his Incarnation means he was initially mortal; subsequently immortal and he enables all of us to have our mortal bodies transformed into resembling his glorified immortal body.
The significance of 1 Jn 4:2-3 and 2 Jn 1:7’s statement that Christ possesses “flesh” isn’t a focus on him being “subjection to suffering and temptation.”16
What then does “in the flesh” in 1 Jn 4:2-3 & 2 Jn 1:7 mean? It indicates Jesus had a material human body. He really had the human nature, which is an identical emphasis that the other NT writers made. but means he has a material human body, both in the past and in the future.
The D&C and especially 3 Ne in the BM gives very clear statements of Jesus having a physical body after his resurrection. A great multitude of people went to the Savior, touching his hands and feet, knowing, at that point, with surety that Jesus was real. Christ had an immortal body after his resurrection. “I know that even after his resurrection he was in the flesh; and I believed that he is still so.”17
The idea of God having a physical body will somehow “limit” him is untenable since Jesus wasn’t limited by having a glorified immortal body.
These passages conclusively prove Jesus currently has a physical body. He has a material three-dimensional form.
If Jesus has a perfect immortal body of flesh, bones and spirit, which would be more perfect, just a spirit or an immortal body inseparably connected with a spirit? Of course, an immortal body joined to a spirit. Christ’s resurrection and our future resurrection show the temporary period of our being incorporeal spirits after our deaths and of the obvious superiority of having a glorified immortal body. There are lots of things a glorified immortal body joined to a spirit can do that a spirit alone can’t do, but there is nothing a spirit can do that a glorified immortal body joined to a spirit can’t do as well (D&C 138:50). Why would Jesus ever need to separate himself from his glorious immortal body?
Is there any passage in the Bible that says or even hints that Jesus gave up his possession of the human nature? He is “Human” as well as “God” and will always have both natures. Jesus being a resurrected human means he possesses a glorified human body and the permanence of his possession of the human nature means he has always kept his physical body after his resurrection. There never was a period that he gave up his glorious immortal physical body to again became an incorporeal spirit.
[ENDNOTES]:
1.CI. p. 414.
2.JBC. 62:23; TEBC. p. 1272; NBC. p. 1159; CE. p. 1200; EHH. pp. 20, 31, 36, 50, 90-91. [from EHH p. 36] “Docetism represents a persistent attempt within Christianity to solve the logical paradox of how God could suffer and die as a man. The term has been used in different eras to describe any teaching that says that Jesus did not physically suffer and die on the cross, but only appeared to do so, producing through his divine power a collective hallucination on the part of the onlookers ... There was no one set of Docetists. The teaching appeared at various times and places as non-Jewish Christians in particular attempted to cope with the unheard-of notion that a divine being could suffer death at the hands of humans.” cf. CBC. p. 1027 “Although these elements still do not allow us to paint a completely clear picture of what 1 John is arguing for and against, it must be that the opponents are challenging Jesus’ humanity and its salvific function. A little later in the history of the church, Cerinthus would teach that the supernatural Christ descended upon the man Jesus at baptism, revealing God during Jesus’ ministry, and departing from Jesus before his death. This presented an antiseptic Christ, hardly touched by Jesus’ humanity, and not touched at all by his death. If the opponents of 1 John have not quite arrived at the position of Cerinthus, they’re well on their way. For them, Jesus’ humanity was not of salvific importance.”
3.EHH. p. 50. cf. GG. p. 18 “These writings [of the Valentianians] tell countless stories about the risen Christ-the spiritual being whom Jesus represented-a figure who fascinated them far more than the merely human Jesus, the obscure rabbi from Nazareth.”
4.Gnosticism didn’t appear certain as to when the divine “Christ” entered the human “Jesus” since there are three main possibilities: (1) The divine “Christ” entered into the human Jesus at conception (2) The divine “Christ” entered into the human “Jesus” at birth (3) The divine “Christ” entered into the human “Jesus” at his baptism. The most prominent Gnostic view, by far, was the divine “Christ” entered into the human “Jesus” at his baptism. This view means “Jesus” wasn’t “Christ” before the divine “Christ” entered his body. All agree that the divine “Christ” wasn’t the one who experienced suffering and death. That one was solely the human “Jesus.”
5.Val. Exp. (XI, 2). 39. NHL. p. 440.
6.See Gos. Tr. (I, 3). 30-34; Tri. Tra. (I, 5). 58-59, 65-67, 75, 87, 111, 113-114, 125, 127, 133-134; Apoc. John. (II, 1). 2; Gos. Phil. (II, 3). 57-58, 68; Gos. Egp. (III, 2). 63-64; 1Ap. Jam. (V, 3). 31; C. Gr. Pwr. (VI, 4). 40, 44-45; 2Tr. Seth (VII, 2). 51-52, 55-56, 58; Apoc. Pet. (VII, 3). 76, 81-83; Ep. Pet. Phil. (VIII, 2). 133, 136, 138-139; Tes. Tr. (IX, 3). 30, 39; Int. Know. (XI, 1). 12, 14; Val. Exp. 26, 32-33, 39, 41. NHL. pp. 43, 59, 62-63, 67, 73, 85-87, 92, 93, 95-96, 99, 135, 203, 245, 286, 288, 330-333, 342, 344-345, 395-397, 407, 409, 431-432, 437-438, 440-441; Irenaeus. Con Haer. Book 1: 6:1; 7:2; 9:2-3; 10:1; 11:1; 12:4; 14:4-6; 15:2-3; 21:2-3; 24:4; 25:1; 26:1; 30:12-14; Book 3: 9:3; 10:3; 11:1,3-4,7; 12:2-4,6; 16:1-9; 17:1,4; 18:1-7; 22:1-2; Book 4: Preface 3; 2:4; 23:2; 33:3,5,7; Hippolytus. Phil. 6:14, 29, 30, 31, 46; 7:14, 21, 23-24, 26; 8:3, 10; 9:9; 10:10, 12, 15, 17-19, 25, 29. These references show all the major Gnostic groups separated the divine “Christ” from the human “Jesus.”
7.John wasn’t fighting against nonexistent opponents. Why was he insisting “Jesus is the Christ”? Naturally, because some were denying “Jesus is the Christ.” Was he opposing Jewish or Gnostic opponents? His combination of “Jesus” with “Christ,” the equating the “Son” to mean Jesus + Christ, his later emphasis on “Jesus Christ” becoming “flesh” and the permanence of his union with flesh all point to the Gnostics as his opponents, not the Jews. The Gnostic claim “Jesus isn’t the Christ” is different from the Jewish claim. What then did it mean?
8.IBC. p. 1581; NTWBC. p. 1022 “If [Jesus Christ] had not taken upon himself a human body, he could never have died and been the Saviour.”
9.IBC. p. 1587; JFB. p. 1507; NTSB. 9:403.
10.IBC. pp. 1587-1588 “ ... one might think that the new teachers were simply denying the historic Incarnation. But the contrasting use here of the present participle (which, as in English, has frequently future significance: e.g. the `who is to come’ of Rev 1:8) may suggest that the heretics were taking the logical next step in denying the personal return of the Lord Jesus at the end of the age. Both beliefs stand or fall together.”
11.JFB. p. 1513.
12.NTWBC. p. 1033.
13.CBC. pp. 1024-1025 `[1 Jn 4:2-3] is a clarification of the doctrinal difficulty first expressed in 2:22: “Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ.” The faith statement “Jesus is the Christ” is nuanced now in verse 2 to insist that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. The emphasis falls on the humanity of Jesus’; WMCF. p. 1406 “the human Jesus is nothing less than the divine Christ. in the flesh underlines the reality of the Incarnation; it is not simply that Jesus took human nature, but flesh (cf. Jn 1:14; 2 Jn 7). The essential point about the antichrist is his refusal to acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ, `come in the flesh.’” [Italics in originals]
14.Irenaeus. Con. Haer. 3.18.7; 4.20.4.
15.e.g., Origen C. Cel. 3:28; 3:41; Athanasius Ep. Adel. 60.4; Orat. 1:38-39; 1:41-42; 2:70; De Decr. 3.14; Hilary of Poitiers De Trin. 9:4; 9:38; 10:7; 11:49; Gregory Nazianzen Theo Orat. 3:19; 4:3; Orat. 7:23; 38:7; Gregory of Nyssa Orat Cat. 19; 25; 37; C. Eun. 5.5; Gin. An. 2.2; Beat. 7; Augustine Serm. 57.3; En Ps. 118.10; John Damascus De Fid Ort. 2.12; 3.12; 3.17; 4.13; 4.15. For complete and additional quotations see MORMONISM: Section 5, Chapter 7.
16. A Baha’i teacher I’ve encountered claims the phrase “in the flesh” in 1 Jn 4:2-3 & 2 Jn 1:7 means “subject to suffering and temptation” and isn’t about the possession of a human body. He claims no gnostic opponents of the early church would deny Jesus becoming human. What they were denying was the reality of the suffering of Jesus. In other words, these gnostics didn’t believe he really suffered and was tempted. Since they were denying his ability to be subject to suffering and temptation, John’s condemnation of the teachings of these opponents denotes he was affirming Jesus Christ’s subjection to suffering and temptation. This means John used the phrase “in the flesh” to mean “subject to suffering and temptation” -i.e., a mortal existence. The Baha’i then claims the coming of Jesus “in the flesh” in the future (2 Jn 1:7) means he will return as a mortal human, again “subject to suffering and temptation” (-i.e., as Baha’ullah in the 19th century).
Are the Baha’i’s correct? No. There are many reasons for rejecting their interpretation:
#1) It can’t be denied that the Gnostics believed Jesus was really human. This isn’t the point because they separated the “divine Christ” from the “human Jesus” (see Section 1: Endnote # 34 above). The combination of “Jesus Christ” and interchangeability of “Jesus” with “Christ” that most Christians never think twice about gave great difficulty to the Gnostics such as Basilides, Cerdo, Cerinthus, Valentianian, Elchasai, Theodotus, and Marcion. Although some would vocally mention “Jesus Christ,” their actual teaching showed the separation of “Christ” and “Jesus.” They just couldn’t accept the idea “God” could suffer and die at the hands of humans. The “divine Christ” only appeared to suffer and die but in reality it was the “human Jesus” who suffered and died on the cross. The “true humanity” of the man “Jesus” wasn’t the problem; it was the “true humanity” of the divine “Christ” that they objected to. For many Gnostics, the “divine Christ” entered into the “human Jesus” at a particular point in his life (i.e., his baptism) and spoke through the human Jesus. This divine Christ never experienced the suffering and death the human Jesus experienced because he is God and can’t suffer or die. The “human Jesus” was merely a temporary vessel for the “divine Christ.”
To the Gnostic, John’s combination of “Jesus” and “Christ” making “Jesus Christ,” results in saying “The divine Christ became the human Jesus.” This conflicts with their position which says, “The divine Christ entered and left the human Jesus.”
This gnostic separation of the “divine Christ” from the “human Jesus” invalidates this argument of the Baha’i’s because John’s insistence in 1 Jn 2:22 that Jesus is “the Christ” sets the stage for his statement in 1 Jn 4:2-3. “Jesus is the Christ.” He isn’t merely a container that the “divine Christ” stayed in for a period. The “human Jesus” is the actual “divine Christ!” Denying this causes one to deny the Son. Those who do are “antichrist.” The test of spirits is how they respond to the statement “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.” If they affirm “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” they are of God. If they deny “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” they aren’t from God and are antichrist. 1 Jn 4:2-3 clearly identifies “Jesus” with “Christ” whereas the Gnostics separated them into two beings, one human (Jesus) the other divine (Christ). This brings us to the next item:
The Gnostics didn’t deny the humanity of the “human Jesus”; they denied the suffering and humanity of the “divine Christ”!
No true Gnostic or Docetist could pass the condition John gave for three reasons: (1) They would never agree to combine the human “Jesus” with the divine “Christ” that results in a single entity. (2) Not only would they never agree that the divine “Christ” would become truly human, they would be much more resistant to affirm the “divine Christ” became “flesh”! (3) They would never agree that the divine “Christ” would remain in a permanent union with sinful flesh.
The gnostic separation of the “human Jesus” from the “divine Christ” proves the Baha’i reasoning that 1 Jn 4:2-3 and 2 Jn 1:7’s “in the flesh” means “subject to suffering and temptation” can’t be supported. The gnostic action proves John’s litmus test (“in the flesh”) means “having a material human body.”
In reality, these two passages are terribly devastating to the Baha’i faith because its view of the “Manifestation of God” or “Christ-Spirit” that not only entered into the man “Jesus,” but has entered into numerous persons such as Noah, Zoroaster, Moses, Krishna, Buddha, Mohammad, the Bab and Baha’ullah, is identical with how the Gnostics described the divine “Christ” entering the human “Jesus.” The Baha’i similarly teach the divine “Christ-Spirit” entered into the human “Jesus” instead of becoming “Jesus,” and it is this same “Christ-Spirit” that enters into the other great religious leaders. Furthermore, this teaching of theirs of the repetitive mortality of the divine “Christ-Spirit” isn’t original but is similar with the Gnostic Elchasaites, the followers of Elchasai, who taught the same thing (see Hippolytus. Phil. 9:9; 10:25).
#2) If it’s true John meant “subject to suffering and temptation” when he mentioned “in the flesh” why didn’t he just say so? Why did he describe Jesus to be “in the flesh”? This has been understood for centuries to mean he was affirming the same thing the other NT writers emphasized, namely, Jesus took upon himself a material human body (Heb 2:14-18; John 3:16; Gal 4:4; Rom 1:3-6; 8:3,32; 2 Cor 8:9) because this was the only way he could save us (Col 1:21-22; Heb 10:19-20; 4:15; Rom 8:3; 1 Cor 15:21; Acts 17:31)!
#3) The phrase “in the flesh” in the AV does not solely mean “having a physical body that is subject to suffering and temptation.” It also means “sinful” (Rom 7:5; Plm 1:16); “having a sinful nature” (Rom 8:8-9; 1 Pet 4:1-2); “mortality” (1 Cor 7:28; Col 2:1; 1 Pet 3:18); “human” (2 Cor 10:3); “physical body” (Eph 2:11; Col 2:5; 1 Tim 3:16; 1 Jn 4:2-3; 2 Jn 1:7). The meaning of “in the flesh” isn’t consistent in the AV. Consequently, it isn’t possible to insist it means “subject to suffering and temptation.” Furthermore, utilizing an argument based on isolating the phrase “in the flesh” can only be done with the AV. This then makes this Baha’i argument invalid since it can’t be done using other Bible versions. The only way to make a valid determination would be to examine the Greek word that the AV translates as “flesh.”
#4) The word “flesh” in 1 Jn 4:2-3 and 2 Jn 1:7 comes from the Greek word sarx (4561/4922). For the Baha’i’s claim to be correct that “flesh”[sarx] in these two passages can only mean “flesh that’s subject to suffering and temptation;” they must be able to demonstrate that sarx is consistently used to mean such. Is this really the case? No it isn’t. Defining sarx to mean “flesh that’s subject to suffering and temptation” violates many NT passages: (1) John 6:51-56 very clearly uses sarx to simply mean “flesh.” To add “subject to suffering and temptation” to “flesh” distorts Jesus Christ’s message and destroys the point he was trying to make. (2) Matt 16:17 uses sarx to mean “man / human.” Adding “subject to suffering and temptation” destroys the point Jesus emphasized to Peter. (3) Gal 5:24 uses sarx to mean “sinful nature.” (4) Col 2:1,5 uses sarx to mean “physical body.” (5) Col 2:18,23 uses sarx to mean “worldly / carnal.” (6) Heb 9:10 uses sarx to mean “external / outward.” (7) Jude 1:7 uses sarx to mean “perversity.”
This inability to define sarx to mean “flesh that’s subject to suffering and temptation” can also be seen in Matt 19:5; 24:22; Mark 10:8; 13:20; Luke 3:6; 24:39; John 8:15; 17:2; Acts 2:17; 2:26,31; Rom 1:3; 2:28; 3:20; 4:1; 7:5,18,25; 8:3-9,12-13; 9:3,5,8; 11:14; 13:14; 1 Cor 1:26,29; 5:5; 6:16; 10:18; 15:39,50; 2 Cor 1:17; 4:11; 5:16; 7:1,5; 10:2-3; 11:18; Gal 1:16; 2:16; 3:3; 5:13,16-17,19; 6:8,12-13; Eph 2:3,11,15; 5:29,31; 6:5,12; Phil 1:22,24; Col 1:24; 2:11,13; 3:22; Plm 1:16; Heb 2:14; 9:13; 12:9; Jas 5:3; 1 Pet 1:24; 3:21; 4:1-2,6; 2 Pet 2:10,18; 1 Jn 2:16; Jude 1:8,23; Rev 17:16; 19:18,21. The only places where sarx can only be understood to mean “flesh that’s subject to suffering and temptation” are: Matt 26:41; Mark 14:38; John 1:13-14; 3:6; Rom 6:19; 1 Cor 7:28; 2 Cor 12:7; Gal 4:13-14,23,29; Phil 3:3-4; Col 1:22; Heb 5:7; 10:20 & 1 Pet 3:18.
Demanding sarx in 1 Jn 4:2-3 & 2 Jn 1:7 means “flesh that’s subject to suffering and temptation” clearly can’t be supported by an honest examination of the Bible.
#5) If John was implying Jesus would return having mortal “flesh” why didn’t he mention the word “mortal” “thnetos” (2349/2570) to emphasize what kind of flesh the returning Jesus would have? Paul did when he was emphasizing mortal flesh (2 Cor 4:11), why didn’t John in 2 Jn 1:7? The option was clearly open to him (e.g., Rom 6:12; 8:11; 1 Cor 15:53-54; 2 Cor 5:4). John’s inaction shows he wasn’t envisioning the returning Jesus Christ as mortal.
#6) Everyone dies once, and is then judged (Heb 9:27). Jesus Christ himself died once and was judged. The mere fact he is deemed sinless (2 Cor 5:21; Heb 4:15; 7:26; 9:14; 1 Pet 2:22; 1 Jn 3:5) implies a judgement that determined him to be so. If the being who is known as Jesus Christ experienced more than one mortality, this would mean he would die more than once which explicitly contradicts the Scriptures.
#7) John’s insertion of the word “Christ” causes the Gnostics and Docetists to fail the shibboleth he made. The Baha’i claim can only have a possibility of validity if it was absent because of the significance of the word to the early Gnostics.
#8) The entire concept of a repetitive mortality of the being who is known as Jesus Christ conflicts with the NT message of the one-time mortality and one-time subjection to sin and death of Jesus Christ. He is death’s master and can never be subjected to the consequences of Adam’s transgression and death again (Rom 6:9-10; John 2:19-21; 2 Tim 1:10; 1 Cor 15:54-55; Rev 1:18; 20:13-14; 21:4; 1 Tim 6:16; Mosi 15:23; 16:8; Alma 4:14; 7:12; 11:42; 22:14; 27:28; Morm 7:5; 9:13; Heb 7:27; 9:12,26,28; 10:10; 1 Pet 3:18; Rom 8:34; 14:9; 2 Cor 5:15; Heb 2:14-18; cf. Jas 2:26). The Baha’i claim also contains logical fallacies. This would negate his triumph over sin and death and the glorification given to the sanctified because of his atonement. It doesn’t make sense for Jesus to experience repetitive mortality and subjection to death and the consequences of Adam’s transgression while those he saved only experience them once and are then glorified and transformed into duplicates of the glorious Jesus.
Jesus glorified the human nature he assumed. His physical human body was initially mortal and “subject to suffering and temptation.” His body [sarx] didn’t decay (Acts 2:31) whereas all other humans’ do! After his Resurrection, his physical human body became immortal and glorious and could no longer be “subject to s uffering and temptation.” When he returns, he will still be “in the flesh” but this flesh will be different than what it was during his mortality. It will be immortal and glorious and can’t be “subject to suffering and temptation.” It will be his post-Resurrection body, not a body similar to his pre-Resurrection body.
John was very specific with his test. He chose each word very carefully and deliberately structured the phrase in a way that he knew no true Gnostic or Docetist could ever pass. This is why he was very generous to anyone who could affirm the phrase “Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ is come in the flesh?” If they say “yes” they are immediately viewed as genuine teachers. His test would be worthless if the gnostic false teachers whom he was combating against could agree with it.
Unfortunately for the Baha’i’s, they fail John’s test because the Baha’i faith separates the divine “Christ-Spirit” from the human “Jesus.” They teach the divine “Christ-Spirit” entered and left the human “Jesus” just as it entered and left numerous other humans, which is identical with the Gnostic separation. If the Gnostics fail John’s shibboleth; so do the Baha’i’s. According to John, all who fail his test are “antichrists.”
The Baha’i’s really don’t have a choice. They need to obscure the gnostic practice of differentiating the “human Jesus” with the “divine Christ.” They need to say the Gnostics never denied Jesus was fully human without mentioning what these Gnostics actually denied was the “divine Christ” becoming truly human and being subject to suffering and death. They need to make numerous assumptions and misinterpret John’s statement to mean the future return of Christ entails he will return as a mortal human, again subject to suffering and temptation to open the door to their claim Baha’ullah was the return of Jesus Christ.
If just one of these Baha’i positions and assumptions isn’t true, they lose the only places in the Bible that can be used to support their contention Jesus will return as a mortal human which results in Baha’ullah being a demonstrable “false Christ.”
These eight responses undeniably demonstrate the Baha’i faith can’t use 1 Jn 4:2-3 & 2 Jn 1:7 as proof that the 19th century Baha’ullah was really the returning Jesus Christ.
17.Ignatius. Smyr. 1:9; LBB. p. 186. Also Smyr. 1:12.
And what are those words?
Mormons believe Jesus is the Son of God and God incarnate. We believe he’s our Savior and the only way to heaven.
How exactly can you possibly misunderstand the simple declarations of these statements?
Absolutely true. Christians existed for centuries before the NT canon was settled in 382 AD.
Different thread - different readers.
Since you've already typed the answers, and do not wish to do it again, merely post a link to what you've typed before.
Psst!
They are just upset because THEY belong to the ONLY TRUE CHURCH!
--MormonDude(I'm glad I do!)
|
Galatians 1:7-10
7. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert (restore?) the gospel of Christ. 8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. 2 Corinthians 11:14-15
14. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.
If one believes the Bible is correct, then, by that Standard, Mormonism fails the test.
If, however, you are convinced that the Bible is either in error, been corrupted or mis-interpreted, then you are free to believe whatever you wish.
Be warned though, that this same Bible indicates that no matter how fervently you believe in Something; that does not make it True.
|
Why should I kid you?
The Bible says Jesus Christ is the Creator:
John 1:3,10 All things were made by him and without him was not anything made that was made ... He was in the world and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. / Col 1:16-17 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: All things were created by him and for him: and he is before all things and by him all things consist. / Heb 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands. / 1 Cor 8:6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him. / Eph 3:9 And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ.
The Latter-day Scriptures say Jesus Christ is the Creator:
Mosiah 3:8 And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary. / 3 Nephi 9:15 Behold, I am Jesus Christ the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. I was with the Father from the beginning. I am in the Father, and the Father in me; and in me hath the Father glorified his name. / Ether 3:16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh. / D&C 38:1-3 THUS saith the Lord your God, even Jesus Christ, the Great I AM, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the same which looked upon the wide expanse of eternity, and all the seraphic hosts of heaven, before the world was made; The same which knoweth all things, for all things are present before mine eyes; I am the same which spake, and the world was made, and all things came by me. / D&C 76:23-24 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God. / Moses 1:33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.
I still remember you from a previous exchange. Well, if you don’t understand the plural Eloheim and the bene ha eloheim’s role in the creation of the world under the guidance of the pre-existent Christ; might I suggest hitting the books before showing ignorance on the issues?
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.