Replies

Christian and Mormon are a formal names as are Greek and Aramaic and in English these are capitalized always. If you choose to speak derisively there's no need to continue this conversation. I'm interested in a mature discussion and not the silly jibes. It undermines your authority.

First, imagine that all you had of the life and words of the people of Tsingtao were written in German. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsingtao#German_colonial_period_and_Japanese_occupation

Never would you surmise that the original words were spoken in anything, but the Chinese dialect. You're wrong to presuppose that Jesus spoke these words in Hebrew. But, again you make my point: the translation is from some language, most likely Aramaic, into Kione Greek. The Aramaic Bible is a good translation.

Szonian asked how could Jesus return privately to Joseph Smith. I've answered that accurately and conclusively. We have no reason to believe that Jesus departed publicly. The “Men of Galilee” are the eleven remaining Apostles. We have no idea whether the Apostles saw the Ascension with their natural eyes or supernaturally and we also know nothing of the altitude or the height above the ground when Jesus entered the cloud.

We do know that he took his now glorified body with him to Heaven. The Bible is clear on this and emphasizes the fact.

I'll address your additional relevant comments in a moment. But, understand that if you want to believe that the Bible precludes Christ's return to earth to a “special witness” in private then you won't. Despite the fact that the Bible demonstratively states that he left in the very same way.

As regarding the Bible's clear teachings that Christ both can and did forgive sins you deny his ability to do so for Joseph Smith. Is it possible? Yes. Is it probable? Yes, if we believe Joseph Smith and the Bible.

Smith's recitations of his First Vision are consistent and accurate. They are not in conflict. You make a choice to not believe them. The same is oft argued by both atheists and Muslims as regards inconsistencies in the Bible. It isn't a valuable argument, nor is it worth the time. It's been covered by LDS apologists quite ably.

That you and others have a limited understanding of the nature of God, godliness and eternity is understandable. You have no mortal experience with such. As a mental experiment imagine your personal immortality. What is that like? Is it a ray going off into eternity starting at your death?

That's not eternal is it? It has a starting point. LDS theology is outstanding on this point. You, SZ, me, everyone are eternal intelligences. We have no beginning and no end. Perhaps I'm wrong. If so, please tell me all you know about eternity. I'd like to better understand it.

Please also, explain the Trinity to me. It is possible that I do not understand it at all. If Jesus is God then God has a body. How can Jesus = Heavenly Father = Holy Ghost if the Holy Ghost is just a spirit. Is Heavenly Father just a spirit, too?

As you discuss the Trinity in your original post you devolve into blather. I'd like to understand your position better.

The acceptance of the Trinity is wholly unnecessary to salvation. You're just making it up or perhaps a professor or pastor taught you this. It isn't Biblical.

LDS doctrine is Christian. Trinitarians have no authority to define who or what is Christian, sorry. I'm interested in thoughtful discussions. Don't let this devolve into a series of opinions. We'll get nowhere.

I type as I type, occasionally failing to hold up the the standards of grammar folks. If that sticks in your craw that much - grow thicker skin.

The Aramaic Bible is a good translation.

The aramaic bible has no support 10. No manuscript support and btw, it was translated FROM Greek. Jews of the era were more than capable of Greek- the creation of the LXX proves that point. The Pershitta doesn't even show up until the 4th century. You want to reject lds doctrine regarding which version is acceptable - knock your self out. But the Aramaic TRANSLATION, is not considered to be an accurate version.

We have no reason to believe that Jesus departed publicly.

Based upon what 10? It is plain from Acts that there was a group there to physically observe the action. Luke states that they were in the vicinity of Bethany - a physical place.

We have no idea whether the Apostles saw the Ascension with their natural eyes or supernaturally and we also know nothing of the altitude or the height above the ground when Jesus entered the cloud.

Answered - “Why do you stand looking into the sky?” The greek for 'looking' is emblepō which is an intense, close, penetrating look - nothing spiritual here.

Second, the words used indicate the physical realm - The Greek word for “received up” is hupelaben. As A. T. Robertson points out, it is found in the “second aorist active indicative of hupelabano, literally here ‘took under him.’ He seemed to be supported by the cloud.” The sentence structure indicates that once Christ was in the atmospheric heaven He was received by clouds. Real physical, not spiritual.

Yes, if we believe Joseph Smith and the Bible.

The bible I believe, smith I don't believe.

Smith's recitations of his First Vision are consistent and accurate. They are not in conflict. You make a choice to not believe them.

Well, you haven't spent any time examining them have you. In the official version the personage told him that all other sects were wrong. Yet in his own handwriting in his journal of 1832 Smith states "by searching the scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ." Contradiction #1

As this illustrated, Smith couldn't keep his story straight. Other key elements changed - such as his age (he gives 14, 15 and 16), where (woods, bedroom, unknown), who appears to him — a spirit, an angel, two angels, Jesus, many angels, the Father and the Son. This is just a short list 10.

That is neither consistent or accurate

LDS theology is outstanding on this point. You, SZ, me, everyone are eternal intelligences. We have no beginning and no end.

Platonic concept foreign to the bible. One that can only be derived from smith - not scripture.

Is it a ray going off into eternity starting at your death?

That is the biblical understanding 10.

Your definition and understanding of 'body' is flawed, limited to a three dimensional physical object locked in time and space. Jesus' body clearly wasn't limited to time and space. Jesus had the capability to enter a locked room and materialize before his disciples. A mormon defined body of flesh and bones cannot do that.

Jesus himself state that Heavenly Father was spirit, the Spirit is spirit and Jesus now has a supernatural body that can materialize as he desires.

Simply stated: “The Trinity is three persons (personae) in one substance (substantia).”

The elements of the doctrine are taught in Scripture. One God
- The Father is God.
- The Son is God.
- The Holy Spirit is God.
- The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons (i.e., they are not each other, nor are they impersonal; they relate to one another personally).
What mormons commonly construe as separate beings is wrapped up in the last statement and understood in part within Christian theology as the economy of the Trinity.

You've just laid out a BIG opinion 10, but you seem not to recognize your opinions. Beginning with the Trinity, salvation, origin of sin, etc, central to Christianity mormons have tried to splice in polytheism, gnostic understandings, and reliance upon a false prophet. Mormonism is not Christian - it may try to use Christian expressions and words - but their underlying definitions are not Christian.