CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
In order to be categorized as a christians, there is only one rule.
You have to belive in God, The Holy Ghost and Jesus as seperate beings, but in a way the same person. It's .. complicated, but that's important anyways.
From what I've learned, mormon do believe in both God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, which qualifies them into the christian gang.
There are A LOT of different christian religions, but for example Jehova's Witnesses are not considered christian, because they don't believe in Jesus Christ as a saviour.
If there is a fundamental standard in being a Christian, couldn't other groups see that standard differently otherwise? Or is what your mentioning just from what your branch of Christianity states and not the general mass (the other thousands of Christian denominations.) Jehovah Witnesses believe they are Christians in their own sense of Christianity, does that make them wrong? (http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/are-jehovahs-witnesses-christians/ )
What I mentioned in my argument is just what I heard. I'm sure people have different aspects of what a christian is, so that's a good point.
Although if you think about mormonism in particular, it is not very different from lutheranism. Sure they have their extremities, but so do the amish.
Jehova's witnesses on the other hand have a very big difference from all other christian religion. Lutheranism, babtism, cathlolics, mormons and pilgrims all believe in God, the Holy Ghost and Jesus Christ, but the jehovases do not.
In my opinion that makes them really different from the rest.
Mormons self-identify as Christian. Gallop and other major polling organizations treat them as a Christian demographic. The only people who seem to think that Mormons are not Christian are those Christians so insecure in their faith that they cannot share a label with different denominations.
This, more or less. It's an understandable position to take, really, in that light, even if it's not technically correct.
Many protestants would love to label the Catholic and Orthodox churches as not being Christians either, but know that nobody could ever take that seriously; as such they tend to fall back on their local definition of 'true Christian' to exclude the Catholics.
But the Mormons? My brothers church (Southern Baptist) refers to them as a cult, without mincing any words. Again, not really factually correct, but communicates how they feel about the Mormons pretty effectively.
Right, because the difference between a religion and a cult is that in a religion the man who knows it is all BS is dead, and Joseph Smith is dead.
I was going more for how, say, the US government distinguishes between a religion and a cult for legal purposes. Typically involves violence or significant disturbances that are non-violent.
It's hard to find dictionary definitions of either that would preclude any given religion from being classified as either; I was hoping for a less ambiguous way to differentiate them, but it seems that was an error on my part.
They reject many fundamental doctrines of Christianity such as the divinity of Christ as eternal Son, the sovereignty of God, and salvation by grace through faith.
However if all branches of Christianity follow different standards, doctrine, ideals and concepts, what makes Mormons any different from the 30,000-40,000 Christian denominations who go by different beliefs? Is there even a common mold for a Christian to go by?
The last heresy--salvation by grace through faith--is the most important. Paul explicitly condemns anyone who believes otherwise. The other two are necessary conditions for salvation by grace through faith. Likewise, any doctrine that is contrary to what the Bible teaches is not Christianity. It doesn't matter what this or that denomination might want to think, it is nevertheless heresy.
Ah, but in the absence of the works of Paul, the framework set up is rather ambiguous; everything the Mormons believe can reasonably be interpreted as fitting within said framework without any more of a stretch that divides, say, Catholics from Protestants.
Not at all. Salvation by grace through faith is the fundamental doctrine throughout the Bible. Paul explicitly says it, but Jesus says it too, along with Peter and John, etc. If one denies it, then one denies Christianity.
Not in every interpretation of every translation. All that is required in Christianity is belief in Jesus as the savior. All else is widely interpreted. You're misunderstanding the scope of what the term 'Christianity' refers to.
All that is required in Christianity is belief in Jesus as the savior. Mormons do, in fact, believe in Jesus as the savior. The fact that they also believe other things beyond this does not exclude them from Christianity, anymore than the oddities of the Gnostics take on Christianity excluded them from being considered a subset of Christianity.
... Yes they do... I just had dinner with some Muslims and they said that they believe Jesus to be savior. It might not be what you think of as the normal "savior", but it nevertheless is a statement of Jesus being a savior. They reject him as God, but claim him to be the Messiah. Jesus being savior is not the category for being a Christian; it is part of it.
The problem lies in recognizing him as 'A savior.' There is only one savior- one messiah- that is predicted by the Old Testament/Torah. Christianity is predicated on recognizing Jesus as being that savior, which entails his divinity as well. If Jesus is not recognized as the son of God, and not recognized as THE promised messiah, then he is not recognized as THE savior.
There is a big difference between referring to someone as 'a savior' and referring to someone as 'the savior;' it is not mere semantics, particularly in this context.
Muslims recognize him as a prophet; they may even call him A savior in some circles (though none I'm familiar with, I suspect you're not being entirely honest regarding your dinner plans). But that is fundamentally different from recognizing his divinity and seeing him as the savior.
The Muslims you just had dinner with (if they even exist; I really do expect you're lying here), are either choosing their words poorly, intentionally using words that do not reflect where they actually stand, or are not representative of Islam. They may even be using the word 'savior' in an attempt at being PC, given that Muslims in the US have faced some persecution by Christians in recent years. This is not a belief that is held by a majority or even a significant minority of Islam, regardless of the case, and is not supported by the Qu'ran.
Jesus being savior- that is, recognizing him as THE savior and messiah prophesied in the Torah- includes his divinity, and is the only criteria for Christianity. Any other qualifiers you add are not for Christianity, but rather are applicable to a particular subset of Christianity. As I said before- you are misinformed as to the scope of the terms 'Christian' and 'Christianity.'
If you feel that your 'Muslim friends' are legitimately calling Jesus the savior (and not just a savior), then yes- they would be considered Christians in a sense. There is a group called 'Jews for Jesus' that essentially represent a direct overlap of Judaism and Christianity rather than presenting Christianity as a replacement for Judaism, so the concept isn't exactly unprecedented.
I understand how you feel- really, I do. There are a lot of bad things linked to Christianity in general, and I expect it would be very comforting to be able to distance yourselves from such by labelling them as not being 'true' christians. Unfortunately, that tactic is fundamentally flawed. You would be better served by labelling yourself as your denomination, Ie. Baptist, Methodist, or whatever, and presenting that as the 'true' path, than you would by fallaciously trying to remove the 'Christian' label from places you don't personally feel it belongs.
Jesus being savior- that is, recognizing him as THE savior and messiah prophesied in the Torah- includes his divinity, and is the only criteria for Christianity.
They believe him to be the messiah and the savior of the Torah. They do not believe him to be God.
This is not a belief that is held by a majority or even a significant minority of Islam, regardless of the case, and is not supported by the Qu'ran.
Actually, the Quran proclaims Jesus to be the Messiah from the Torah.
'Jews for Jesus'
Jews for Jesus are for Jewish heritage peoples who are Christian. They are Christian, but Jewish by lineage. They have one religion: Christianity.
You're just wrong here. Your definition of Christianity is just wrong. I've already told you this, but you don't want to accept it. Jesus being the savior is carried in many religions: some Hindus claim Jesus to be the Messiah from the Torah, but they are not Christians.
They believe him to be the messiah and the savior of the Torah. They do not believe him to be God.
No, they do not have this combination of beliefs- and even if they did, this combination of beliefs is inconsistent. The promised savior and messiah of the Torah is also called Immanuel- God with/among us- and the divinity of the messiah is one of the key components of what makes him the messiah. One cannot acknowledge Jesus as the savior and messiah prophesied in the Torah, while denying his divinity. I again assert that the Muslims in question either don't exist, or they are telling you what they feel you want to hear in order to avoid persecution. This viewpoint is not consistent with Islam, nor is it consistent with anything in the Qu'ran. I understand how the ethnicities and religious views can be confused. If I'm incorrect here, then the individuals you describe represent a huge anomaly- but are still not Christians given they deny the divinity of Jesus.
Actually, the Quran proclaims Jesus to be the Messiah from the Torah.
I've read the Qu'ran, and I have a copy on my kindle as well. I assert that no, it does not. If you assert otherwise, please indicate as to where.
Jews for Jesus are for Jewish heritage peoples who are Christian. They are Christian, but Jewish by lineage. They have one religion: Christianity.
An oversimplification. 'Jews for Jesus' practice an amalgamation of Christian and Jewish customs. They celebrate Passover, for example, and the majority of them attempt to obey Old Testament law as much as possible. They are Christians because of their belief in Jesus- but they are still Jewish, both in their ethnicity and in their obeisance to Old Testament Law.
You're just wrong here. Your definition of Christianity is just wrong. I've already told you this, but you don't want to accept it.
In this case, you are the one who is just wrong, as is your definition of Christianity. The only metric for considering someone as a Christian is their belief in Jesus as The Savior promised in the Torah/Old Testament; this belief by necessity includes acknowledging his divinity. Other metrics beyond that, like the ones you suggest, define subsets of Christianity of varying sizes, made up of varying numbers of other denominations. Your suggestions otherwise are completely unfounded except in your personal opinion- which is irrelevant to an objective debate. 'Acceptance' is not an issue for me as I do not identify as Christian myself- I can certainly understand your personal reluctance to accept the definition, however; a desire to exclude 'undesirables' from being classified into the same group as you is certainly understandable. But, as I said, you can do so without having to conflate the definition of 'Christian.'
Jesus being the savior is carried in many religions: some Hindus claim Jesus to be the Messiah from the Torah, but they are not Christians.
If they actually claim Jesus to be the Messiah from the Torah, and in so doing acknowledge his divinity, they are in fact Christians.
No, they do not have this combination of beliefs- and even if they did, this combination of beliefs is inconsistent.
Ok? I agree that it is inconsistent, but that nevertheless does not negate that they believe Jesus to be the Messiah of the Torah
I again assert that the Muslims in question either don't exist, or they are telling you what they feel you want to hear in order to avoid persecution.
You should do some research into Islam.
I've read the Qu'ran, and I have a copy on my kindle as well. I assert that no, it does not. If you assert otherwise, please indicate as to where.
He is called Al-Maseeh, which is Messiah.
An oversimplification. 'Jews for Jesus' practice an amalgamation of Christian and Jewish customs. They celebrate Passover, for example, and the majority of them attempt to obey Old Testament law as much as possible. They are Christians because of their belief in Jesus- but they are still Jewish, both in their ethnicity and in their obeisance to Old Testament Law.
So, they're Christians, and that is it.
If they actually claim Jesus to be the Messiah from the Torah, and in so doing acknowledge his divinity, they are in fact Christians.
Thats begging the question.
Other metrics beyond that, like the ones you suggest, define subsets of Christianity of varying sizes, made up of varying numbers of other denominations.
There is no such thing as a subset of Christianity. Christianity is one; the question is which denomination has it correct.
As I said, you're just wrong. Its not hard to admit that you are wrong.
You never admit you are wrong about anything, how would you have any idea how difficult it is to do?
I admit it when I am wrong. I'm not here. Really, Christianity is defined as the religion of those who have the Christ spirit, or a person who is an elect of God, but that is from a Christian presupposition. So, to describe it to one who is not a Christian, the best way to describe it is not his way. He is wrong, plain and simply. Many religions proclaim Jesus to be the Christ; many people believe Him to be the Christ but do not care. These are not Christians, yet they would have to be in his definition.
Believing in Christ seems like a good way to define Christ-ianity.
I admit it when I am wrong.
Gotta a link?
I'm not here.
It is your interpretation, I am not trying to stop you.
Really, Christianity is defined as the religion of those who have the Christ spirit, or a person who is an elect of God, but that is from a Christian presupposition.
You just eliminated every Christian.
He is wrong, plain and simply.
It is not plain, and far from simple.
Many religions proclaim Jesus to be the Christ; many people believe Him to be the Christ but do not care. These are not Christians, yet they would have to be in his definition.
You say that Q'uran says Jesus is divine, in your opinion, do Muslims treat Him as if He is divine?
Believing in Christ seems like a good way to define Christ-ianity.
There is a distinction between belief and belief in Christian theology.
You just eliminated every Christian.
I didn't though. You see, this was my point. When I actually define it definitionally, according to how it is supposed to be defined, people don't understand it.
You say that Q'uran says Jesus is divine, in your opinion, do Muslims treat Him as if He is divine?
The Quran does not say Jesus is divine. I never said that. I said that they treat Him as the Messiah.
I didn't though. You see, this was my point. When I actually define it definitionally, according to how it is supposed to be defined, people don't understand it.
You did. Jesus can't sin, but all Christians have to sin, your defintion is impossible.
The Quran does not say Jesus is divine. I never said that. I said that they treat Him as the Messiah.
Ok, my mistake. That's the problem Thousand is having. I believe that believing in the divinity of Jesus is part of the belief. Not just thinking He existed. I believe you are correct that they aren't Christians, but wrong about how Thousand is wrong.
You did. Jesus can't sin, but all Christians have to sin, your defintion is impossible.
And Christians don't sin in their inner being.
Ok, my mistake. That's the problem Thousand is having. I believe that believing in the divinity of Jesus is part of the belief. Not just thinking He existed. I believe you are correct that they aren't Christians, but wrong about how Thousand is wrong.
All he said is that Christianity is definitional to Jesus being savior. Muslims believe that. So he added that Jesus is the Torah Messiah, which they believe too. Jesus being the Son of God is what I said was a heresy, a necessary condition of other conditions, making Mormons non-Christians. I don't deny that one has to believe that Jesus is the Son of God to be a Christian, but Thousand disagreed with me at that point, which tells me that he disagrees with me about Jesus being the Son of God as being a necessary condition. He was wrong, so he kept backing up, and then eventually got to the point that he agrees with me, yet won't admit it.
All he said is that Christianity is definitional to Jesus being savior.
No, he did not. He said that if you consider Jesus to be savior, and divine you are Christian. His mistake is assuming that believing in Jesus as Messiah also means you believe He is divine.
Jesus being the Son of God is what I said was a heresy, a necessary condition of other conditions, making Mormons non-Christians.
You mentioned this once and started babbling about salvation through faith which is different.
I don't deny that one has to believe that Jesus is the Son of God to be a Christian, but Thousand disagreed with me at that point, which tells me that he disagrees with me about Jesus being the Son of God as being a necessary condition.
He never directly made that statement that he contested the son of God aspect. And, he says the same thing. He posted that believing in Jesus as the Messiah means you believe He is divine. He also said that a requisite condition of believing Jesus is your savior is Jesus being divine. ->"which entails his divinity as well."
He was wrong, so he kept backing up, and then eventually got to the point that he agrees with me, yet won't admit it.
His position hasn't changed, only your understanding of what he is trying to say.
Not at all. You see, this is what I meant: y'all wouldn't understand it.
No, he did not. He said that if you consider Jesus to be savior, and divine you are Christian. His mistake is assuming that believing in Jesus as Messiah also means you believe He is divine... He never directly made that statement that he contested the son of God aspect. And, he says the same thing. He posted that believing in Jesus as the Messiah means you believe He is divine. He also said that a requisite condition of believing Jesus is your savior is Jesus being divine. ->"which entails his divinity as well." You mentioned this once and started babbling about salvation through faith which is different.
You're not understanding. Jesus being the Son of God is a necessary condition for salvation by grace through faith, which is the saving work of Jesus. Thousand challenged this idea, saying that Jesus being savior is the definition of Christianity--implying that salvation by grace through faith, with a necessary condition of Jesus being the Son of God, is not the defining point of Christianity--which could be a different form of Messianic salvation, since Messianic salvation is definitionally through faith, according to both the Old and New Testaments, and many authors within those categories. He either did not understand my position or he was babbling on, trying to be argumentative or his position was not definitional Christianity. He's just wrong, plain and simply.
His position hasn't changed, only your understanding of what he is trying to say.
His position either was all the time my own position, which he disputed, causing a huge misunderstanding, or his position was changing as he was trying to beat me.
Not at all. You see, this is what I meant: y'all wouldn't understand it.
You not knowing what you are talking about would be the reason for that.
Jesus being the Son of God is a necessary condition for salvation by grace through faith, which is the saving work of Jesus.
Yeah, not the other way around like you are claiming.
Thousand challenged this idea, saying that Jesus being savior is the definition of Christianity--implying that salvation by grace through faith, with a necessary condition of Jesus being the Son of God, is not the defining point of Christianity--which could be a different form of Messianic salvation, since Messianic salvation is definitionally through faith, according to both the Old and New Testaments, and many authors within those categories.
Yeah, or in other words, you don't need to practive salvation through faith in order to believe in the divinity of Jesus.
He either did not understand my position or he was babbling on, trying to be argumentative or his position was not definitional Christianity. He's just wrong, plain and simply.
Your explanation sucks. If your explanation was not understood it probably isn't simple. So, saying plain and simple is wrong.
His position either was all the time my own position, which he disputed, causing a huge misunderstanding, or his position was changing as he was trying to beat me.
He holds part of your position and denies the other part. You assume he disagrees with both for no reason. That's how you started misunderstanding him.
Yeah, not the other way around like you are claiming.
What? I have claimed the entire time that Jesus being the Son of God is a necessary condition for salvation by grave through faith, which is the saving work of Jesus.
Yeah, or in other words, you don't need to practive salvation through faith in order to believe in the divinity of Jesus.
Jesus being the Son of God is not what thousand said for the main criterion for Christianity to be. He said it was Jesus being savior, and he disputed me, which means that he disagreed with me, especially considering that he argued against me. So, in his mind, salvation by grace through faith is not the condition that needs to be met to be a Christian, which is not at all what Christianity is. The whole point in Christian theology is the belief that we are saved by grace through faith.
He holds part of your position and denies the other part. You assume he disagrees with both for no reason. That's how you started misunderstanding him.
He disagrees with salvation by grace through faith. He affirms Son of God condition. The problem with his view, though, is that Jesus being savior is a condition met by Muslims, though they reject the necessary condition of Jesus as the Son of God. That is why he is wrong.
What? I have claimed the entire time that Jesus being the Son of God is a necessary condition for salvation by grave through faith, which is the saving work of Jesus.
But, you also claimed that believing in Jesus means you must also believe in salvation through faith which means you are saying that a necessary condition of Jesus is believing in a salvation through faith, which is the other way around.
Jesus being the Son of God is not what thousand said for the main criterion for Christianity to be.
He mentioned the divinity being included as a necessary condition. Either directly stated it, or indirectly. He didn't say it each time which is why you are confused.
He said it was Jesus being savior, and he disputed me, which means that he disagreed with me, especially considering that he argued against me.
Did he directly argue against your position that Jesus must be considered divine? Maybe he disagreed about one thing you said, and not everything.
So, in his mind, salvation by grace through faith is not the condition that needs to be met to be a Christian, which is not at all what Christianity is.
Which you also just said. You are saying the necessary condition for Christianity is believing in a divine Jesus. And, only if you believe in a divine Jesus is it possible to believe in a salvation through faith.
The whole point in Christian theology is the belief that we are saved by grace through faith.
This is what he was arguing against.
He affirms Son of God condition.
Needed for Christianity.
The problem with his view, though, is that Jesus being savior is a condition met by Muslims, though they reject the necessary condition of Jesus as the Son of God.
He said if they really did believe that Jesus was their savior they would have to believe that he was divine. He is sort of saying that believing Jesus is your savior, but not divine is a contradiction. He did say that if the Muslims believed that Jesus was their savior and was divine than they would be Christians, which is what you said.
He's just wrong, plain and simply.
I hope so, because he is saying the same thing you are.
I'm going to say this: you might want to look into what necessary and sufficient conditions are, because right now you're not even able to repeat what I said.
Salvation by grace through faith is the condition needed to be a Christian, which is a necessary condition for Christianity; this condition (i.e. salvation by grace through faith) has the necessary condition of Jesus being divine. So, if you are a Christian, then you believe that Jesus is divine; and if you are a Christian, then you believe that you have been saved by grace through faith.
He is saying that salvation by grace through faith is not the condition for Christianity, which is just wrong. It is throughout the Bible and Christian theological writings that salvation comes by grace through faith, not by works or from the person being saved. He is saying that being a Christian could be this position or some other position of Jesus being savior, which is just wrong, since this position does not entail Jesus being divine--especially considering Muslims believing Him to be a savior, but not divine. Thats the point: he cannot understand that his position is just wrong, plain and simply. This is basic logic. I'm sorry if y'all cannot understand that.
I'm going to say this: you might want to look into what necessary and sufficient conditions are, because right now you're not even able to repeat what I said.
You should have first. This is great. You are an idiot, and now I finally have proof that you know nothing about logic. You said that belief in Jesus is necessary for faith through salvation. This means that a belief in salvation through faith(S) is sufficient to show that you believe in Jesus as divine(N). So, S -> N. The statement S->N is valid whenever S is false, or if S and N are both true. So, if someone doesn't have a belief in salvation through faith(S), they can still believe in Jesus as divine(N) because if S is false N can be true or false. So, if the requirement to be Christian is believing Jesus is divine (N), the truth value of S is insignificant for determining Christianity.
Salvation by grace through faith is the condition needed to be a Christian, which is a necessary condition for Christianity;
That isn't what you said earlier. You said belief in Jesus as divine. We don't agree with you that belief in salvation through faith is a requirement for Christianity. You have changed your position.
this condition (i.e. salvation by grace through faith) has the necessary condition of Jesus being divine. So, if you are a Christian, then you believe that Jesus is divine; and if you are a Christian, then you believe that you have been saved by grace through faith.
He only claimed that a belief in Jesus as divine being the requirement. You agreed with that. Your reasoning here is correct except for the statement about needing to believe in salvation being needed for Christianity. We have not come to an agreement on that.
He is saying that salvation by grace through faith is not the condition for Christianity, which is just wrong.
It may be wrong, but you can't use logical statements to prove that.
It is throughout the Bible and Christian theological writings that salvation comes by grace through faith, not by works or from the person being saved.
If that is true, how come you are only bringing it up now?
He is saying that being a Christian could be this position or some other position of Jesus being savior, which is just wrong, since this position does not entail Jesus being divine--especially considering Muslims believing Him to be a savior, but not divine.
So, in other words, the non Christian Muslims don't believe in Jesus as divine and that was the condition that he is using.
Thats the point: he cannot understand that his position is just wrong, plain and simply. This is basic logic. I'm sorry if y'all cannot understand that.
The last paragraph, where you first introduced your idea for salvation through faith being a requirement by the way, had nothing to do with logic. Your only reason for believing salvation through faith is required is because YOU see it in the Bible, not logic. You aren't using logic at all. How plain and simple can he be wrong if it takes you this long to finally show how he is wrong?
Ok? I agree that it is inconsistent, but that nevertheless does not negate that they believe Jesus to be the Messiah of the Torah
If they believe him to be the Messiah of the Torah, then they believe in his divinity, and are Christians. If they do not believe in his divinity, then they do not believe him to be the Messiah of the Torah.
You should do some research into Islam.
I have; I'm quite well read on this, among many other religions.
He is called Al-Maseeh, which is Messiah.
You are confusing terminology here. In Arabic, there is no distinction between the word for prophet and the word for messiah; all prophets are labelled as 'messiah' traditionally. This is as I originally posited; that they recognize him as a prophet but not as the promised savior or Son of god. You're dealing with both language and cultural differences here.
The specific term used for Jesus merely demarks him as the highest of prophets (Muhammad notwithstanding); Islam does not credit Jesus with being a member of God, or the sole promised savior as depicted in the Torah- only the highest of prophets (again, aside from Muhammad).
Perhaps you should do some research into Islam.
So, they're Christians, and that is it.
Again, oversimplification, but I suppose I will let it slide- I've already made my point here.
Thats begging the question.
How do you figure?
There is no such thing as a subset of Christianity. Christianity is one; the question is which denomination has it correct.
Oh, you're quite wrong there. Denominations themselves represent subsets of Christianity- and denominations are simply the smallest subsets we can label individually. For example, 'Protestants' represent one subset of Christianity; 'Protestant' is not a denomination, but a group of many denominations sharing key traits. These groups can be further classified into smaller and smaller groups, eventually reaching individual demoninations- which again represent the smallest subsets of Christianity that are individually labelled- but even within a denomination, there are differences in interpretation and practices. Given all that- Christianity is FAR from being one- except in the sense, as I've beaten into the ground at this point, that they recognize Jesus as being the son of god and promised messiah. This is the sole thing that all christians have in common.
As I said, you're just wrong. Its not hard to admit that you are wrong.
So you've said, but your statement was factually incorrect, as I've indicated numerous times. If I were wrong here, you're right- it wouldn't be hard to admit it. I'm not exactly invested in this. It seems to me that you're the one with a difficulty admitting you're wrong- and not one that I hold against you, as I understand you're quite invested in this.
Edit: Typos. Note to self: your/you're/your/you're/your/you're.
If they believe him to be the Messiah of the Torah, then they believe in his divinity, and are Christians. If they do not believe in his divinity, then they do not believe him to be the Messiah of the Torah.
They reject his divinity, yet proclaim him to be the Messiah.
You are confusing terminology here. In Arabic, there is no distinction between the word for prophet and the word for messiah; all prophets are labelled as 'messiah' traditionally. This is as I originally posited; that they recognize him as a prophet but not as the promised savior or Son of god. You're dealing with both language and cultural differences here.
From a Muslim site for non-Muslims - "whose name is the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary" Another site - "The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah"
Another - "Jesus in called by four noble titles. He is the Messiah, the Messenger of Allah"
These are all Muslims proclaiming and translating that word for Jesus to be the Messiah... Without Jesus as the Messiah, most Muslims completely ignore that the Torah even mentioned one being there. So, to be consistent, they, as many Muslims do, say Jesus was the Messiah.
You're wrong here.
How do you figure?
Its assuming for the point.
These groups can be further classified into smaller and smaller groups, eventually reaching individual demoninations- which again represent the smallest subsets of Christianity that are individually labelled
And there is one truth. So, whichever has that one truth is Christianity.... We might have different opinions on what the truth is, but there is nevertheless only one true denomination. The others practice heresies, some small, others large, and some many, and some lesser.
So you've said, but you're statement was factually incorrect, as I've indicated numerous times
You have yet to do so.
If I were wrong here, you're right- it wouldn't be hard to admit it.
They reject his divinity, yet proclaim him to be the Messiah.
No. They claim him to be a messiah; the term is essentially interchangeable with prophet when dealing with English-speaking Muslims. There is no differentiation between the two terms in Arabic.
From a Muslim site for non-Muslims - "whose name is the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary" Another site - "The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah"
Another - "Jesus in called by four noble titles. He is the Messiah, the Messenger of Allah"
These are all Muslims proclaiming and translating that word for Jesus to be the Messiah... Without Jesus as the Messiah, most Muslims completely ignore that the Torah even mentioned one being there. So, to be consistent, they, as many Muslims do, say Jesus was the Messiah.
You're wrong here.
These are English translations. Recall that this originates from Arabic, and there is no distinction between 'messiah' and 'prophet' in Arabic. The term 'Messiah' as English speaking Christians use it carries an extremely different connotation from the term as English speaking Muslims use it. It is not the same thing, even if it translates to the same word 50% of the time.
You're wrong here.
...
Its assuming for the point.
I'm not wrong, and I'm not assuming anything; you're the one asserting an alternative definition of 'Christian' without being able to back it up. And no, I won't accept cherry-picked Bible verses from your translation of choice as backup; this will need to be clear, not open to interpretation, and consistent across translations. I assert that you cannot back this claim, and will continue to default to the correct, accepted definition until you can do otherwise. The burden of proof is yours in this case.
And there is one truth. Do, whichever has that one truth is Christianity.... We might have different opinions on what the truth is, but there is nevertheless only one true denomination. The others practice heresies, some small, others large, and some many, and some lesser.
Or, there may be zero true denominations, and every single one may be practicing heresies. The concept of heresy itself may well prove fundamentally flawed.
You have yet to do so.
Only in your twisted view of things where your subjective opinion overrides objective fact. In the real, physical world that we live in, I have indicated such quite thoroughly and exhaustively at this point.
Yet you won't admit it..
I'm not in the business of lying to make people feel better. I nearly ended up divorced because of it.
It's become quite evident that this has simply deteriorated into my posting "You're wrong, and this is why" Only with you to respond "No, you're wrong, and I don't even need to prove why." As such, we're going in circles. I'm giving you a fair heads up: I intend to bow out of this discussion. This is my second to last reply; if you have further questions, please present them in your response to this argument. I will only be making one additional reply after this, and will allow you the last word afterwards; any questions presented to that final reply will go unanswered.
These are English translations. Recall that this originates from Arabic, and there is no distinction between 'messiah' and 'prophet' in Arabic. The term 'Messiah' as English speaking Christians use it carries an extremely different connotation from the term as English speaking Muslims use it. It is not the same thing, even if it translates to the same word 50% of the time.
It can also be translated as the "Christ." That is a Greek term for Messiah, which carries that same weight as how we use it.
I'm not wrong, and I'm not assuming anything; you're the one asserting an alternative definition of 'Christian' without being able to back it up.
I have backed it up, with what Jesus said, with what Paul said, with what John and Peter said.
Only in your twisted view of things where your subjective opinion overrides objective fact. In the real, physical world that we live in, I have indicated such quite thoroughly and exhaustively at this point.
You haven't though.
I'm not in the business of lying to make people feel better. I nearly ended up divorced because of it.
It can also be translated as the "Christ." That is a Greek term for Messiah, which carries that same weight as how we use it.
And 'Christ' as spoken by a Muslim does not mean the same thing as 'Christ' as spoken by a Christian. Muslims do not recognize Jesus as being anything more than a great prophet; they do not recognize his divinity.
I have backed it up, with what Jesus said, with what Paul said, with what John and Peter said.
You've given me vague statements from questionable sources that rely heavily on interpretation and are not consistent from translation to translation. If any portion of the bible is to be treated as a credible source, that portion must be consistent in meaning across multiple translations. These do not pass muster.
You haven't though.
Sigh. Yes, I have.
So, you don't see that you're wrong.
I can see this from multiple angles, but none label me wrong except for particularly subjective viewpoints that could mostly be classified as 'extreme.' I don't lend much consideration to those subjective viewpoints. In my own subjective viewpoint, as well as in every objective measurement I can conceive of, I am not wrong.
So, you could say the statement that [I] don't see that [I'm] wrong is correct- As I'm not wrong, there is no 'wrong' to see. The implication of the statement, however- that I am wrong and just don't see it- is incorrect, and you have zero basis to make that claim.
Just as I noted, this is just going back and forth fruitlessly at this point; I will not be replying further, and leave the last word to you. Understand, however, that I am considering myself the victor here- and not just because my side is based on an objective viewpoint as opposed to your assumption that your interpretation of your preferred translation as taught by the local branch of your preferred denomination is the one and only truth; if even a single denomination of christianity is legitimate, the odds are against it being your denomination anyway- so the likeliest scenario is that your arguments are founded on fairy tales.
And 'Christ' as spoken by a Muslim does not mean the same thing as 'Christ' as spoken by a Christian. Muslims do not recognize Jesus as being anything more than a great prophet; they do not recognize his divinity.
They recognize him as some sort of savior.
You've given me vague statements from questionable sources that rely heavily on interpretation and are not consistent from translation to translation. If any portion of the bible is to be treated as a credible source, that portion must be consistent in meaning across multiple translations. These do not pass muster.
From questionable sources? I gave you the Bible, and it is consistent with the Greek.
But people interpret the bible differently so how is a denomination or any branch suppose to assume one branch is right? Essentially, maybe a branch isn't going astray from the bible but just seeing it in a different perspective but, people will state they are wrong because it isn't how they interpret it. My understanding is that as long as you believe in the holy trinity your a supposed Christian.
They believe in a polytheistic version of Jesus, him being one of many gods, humans being some of them. In their sense, multiple people are divine, and there is no real distinction of Jesus and us, apart from Him having died for salvation and having been perfect.
If you think Jesus is divine, but there are other Gods as well, you still believe Jesus is divine, so you are wrong there.
him being one of many gods
You believe he is one of three, so ...
humans being some of them
We are all God's children after all.
In their sense, multiple people are divine, and there is no real distinction of Jesus and us, apart from Him having died for salvation and having been perfect.
And, being the one true son of God. But, your problem is not that the don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, but that they make everything divine.
If you think Jesus is divine, but there are other Gods as well, you still believe Jesus is divine, so you are wrong there.
Their idea of divinity is not the same as Christianity. Thats the point. They claim him to be God, but in claiming humans also to be gods, and saying him to be equivalent to them, they downgrade their definition of divinity into a stimulative definition.
You believe he is one of three, so ...
One in three.
We are all God's children after all.
We aren't though.
And, being the one true son of God. But, your problem is not that the don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, but that they make everything divine.
No, in their defining of everyone else as divine, they affirm that Jesus' divinity is nothing special. Their definition of divinity is not the same as is used throughout the Bible, or in other Christian theological works. It is a superficial divinity, not a full-fledged divinity.
Their idea of divinity is not the same as Christianity.
So, you are wrongly identifying your problem with them.
They claim him to be God, but in claiming humans also to be gods, and saying him to be equivalent to them, they downgrade their definition of divinity into a stimulative definition.
I can see that as a problem, but I don't see how Jesus is not divine still.
One in three.
Three in one actually. Ha!
No, in their defining of everyone else as divine, they affirm that Jesus' divinity is nothing special. Their definition of divinity is not the same as is used throughout the Bible, or in other Christian theological works. It is a superficial divinity, not a full-fledged divinity.
Do you no what the word "no" means? It means that you don't believe what I said was correct. Why did you say no, then say the exact thing that makes me correct?
I can see that as a problem, but I don't see how Jesus is not divine still.
Jesus is divine in their own defining of it. But their defining of divinity is the same as people defining all humans to be "God's children." It is not the same as how "children" is normally used. The same is with divinity: they define divinity in a way that is not divinity as it is normally used. To them, sure, Jesus is divine; but in a normal definitional way, Jesus is not divine, since their definition of divinity is not how it is normally used. Its the difference between a superficial usage and a proper usage of a word.
1. That doesn't really make them any different from the ''normal'' christians. You believe he lives somewhere not in this universe. I don't see the gigantic difference there.
2. And you believe Jesus was a man with body of flesh and bones, and you also believe Jesus is God - so .. technically you believe God is a body of flesh and bones.
3. Catholics worship Holy Mary
4. Babtists believe that when you are getting babtized, you are marrying God. What's the difference between God being married to everyone who's babtized, and him being married to one particular person?
5. Plymouth Brethren, if you've ever heard of that, believe that when you are saved, you and God become one - that must mean you are God, right? Therefore are you able to become a god.
6. Sorry, but what is different from him dying in this place or another? Geography doesn't make the belief in itself different, in my opinion.
7. Christians believe we are God's children, and Jesus is God's son - therefore Jesus has a lot of brothers and sisters.
That doesn't really make them any different from the ''normal'' christians. You believe he lives somewhere not in this universe. I don't see the gigantic difference there.
I believe He is outside time and space because He is the Creator. There is a difference because God never came from a planet. He came from Heaven not from a planet.
And you believe Jesus was a man with body of flesh and bones, and you also believe Jesus is God - so .. technically you believe God is a body of flesh and bones.
Jesus came down from Heaven and was God in the flesh when He was on earth.When God is in Heaven, He has a totally different body because it's a heavenly body not an earthly body as it says in 1 Corinthians 15:40.
Catholics worship Holy Mary
Yeah and they aren't supposed to worship Mary. They are supposed to worship the Creator.
Baptists believe that when you are getting baptized, you are marrying God. What's the difference between God being married to everyone who's baptized, and him being married to one particular person?
No, when you're getting baptized. It's symbolizing the Resurrection of Christ. (Romans 6:4) When you go down into the water you're simply burying your old sinful past. Then when you come up from the water you're made new and can start a new life and not doing the things you used to do.
Plymouth Brethren, if you've ever heard of that, believe that when you are saved, you and God become one - that must mean you are God, right? Therefore are you able to become a god.
We can't become like God because we fall short of His glory. (Romans 3:23) And there is only one God so we wouldn't be able to become a God.
Sorry, but what is different from him dying in this place or another? Geography doesn't make the belief in itself different, in my opinion.
He never died in America to begin with. He was crucified and died in a place called Golgotha which is outside of Jerusalem. He died once. He didn't die again once He died again in Jerusalem. Mormons believe He died in Jerusalem and then He went back to America and did the same thing, but that's not what really happened. He died once and He said, "It is finished." So therefore, He didn't really need to die somewhere else geographically since it was paid in full the first time.
Christians believe we are God's children, and Jesus is God's son - therefore Jesus has a lot of brothers and sisters.
Satan and Jesus aren't brothers though. They are enemies and God will bring forth justice on Satan and his minions when Christ comes back. Satan was a created angel and Jesus is the Son of God who was always there from the beginning.
As I said in my original argument - geography doesn't, in my opinion, make any difference.
Jesus came down from Heaven and was God in the flesh when He was on earth.When God is in Heaven, He has a totally different body because it's a heavenly body not an earthly body as it says
But you still believe he is flesh and bones on earth. I mean .. really what is the big difference.
Yeah and they aren't supposed to worship Mary. They are supposed to worship the Creator.
But they are still called christian, right?
No, when you're getting baptized. It's symbolizing the Resurrection of Christ. (Romans 6:4)
You are right that some see it like this, but for example Gypsies, who are considered Christians, they see babtism as a marriage to God.
We can't become like God because we fall short of His glory. (Romans 3:23) And there is only one God so we wouldn't be able to become a God.
What you think is irrelevant. The Brethrens believe you become wone with God when you're saved, and that way you are God. The Bethrens are in deed considered Christians. If you disagree in becoming a God is irrelevant.
He never died in America to begin with.
First of all - that is what you think.
Second of all - moving the place where he died doesn't change the entire base of the religion.
Satan and Jesus aren't brothers though.
Do you have any biblical proof?
_
This argument you made seems pointless to me - it seems as if you are trying to explain the bible and Christianity to me - a person who has been raised a christian, went to church every sunday, not to mention a person who has read most of the bible, heard most of the stories, at least the important and popular one's.
I am familiar with Christianty, so please spare me the explanations of how what you believe, because what you believe doesn't make another less of a christian.
Your argument is basically your original arguments with longer sentences.
As I said in my original argument - geography doesn't, in my opinion, make any difference.
It does make a difference to me. Because God is the creator of all things and He created the planets. So to say that He came from a planet seems a bit contradictory.
But you still believe he is flesh and bones on earth. I mean .. really what is the big difference.
What you think is irrelevant. The Brethrens believe you become wone with God when you're saved, and that way you are God. The Bethrens are in deed considered Christians. If you disagree in becoming a God is irrelevant
It's not what I think. I'm just restating what God said in the Bible. If you have a problem with that you need to take it up with God. I'm only the messenger and delivering out what God wants me to do and providing an answer to those who want to know things. The Brethren are not Christian because what is a Christian? A Christian is someone who follows a Christ. Christ never said anything about the ability to become like a God. So what the Brethren are teaching is a different Gospel and in the Bible in Galatians 1:8, it clearing states that if anyone teaches a different Gospel, he is under God's curse.
But they are still called christian, right?
No, because what is a Christian? Someone who follows Jesus Christ. Not Mary. They are called Christians but they aren't Christian. Jesus said you will know them by their fruits who is a Christian and who isn't.
First of all - that is what you think.
It's not what I think again. 4 eyewitnesses accounts wrote down in the Bible (Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) said that Jesus died outside of Jerusalem. Not America. Jesus came for the Jews first and after He died, Jesus went to Heaven not to America like the Book of Mormon suggests and die over there doing the same routine. He wouldn't need to go to America because that is why He sent His disciples and other Christians to go spread the Gospel. He didn't need to die twice to fulfill what He promised originally which is to die only once besides in the Savior was prophesied to die once not twice according to the Book of Mormon.
Second of all - moving the place where he died doesn't change the entire base of the religion.
Yes it does. The Bible makes it very clear. Why did Jesus die in the 1st place? He died on the cross for our sins. If He died in Israel the 1st time and He said "It is finished" (He paid mankind's punishment). Why then would He go to America and die again when He already fulfilled? It would also make God to be a liar.
Do you have any biblical proof?
You should know where it's at. Since you said that you read most of the Bible, but I'll refresh your memory where it's located. Theses our God's words not mine just to let you know.
Ezekiel 28:14-19 This is God talking about Lucifer and how he became Satan.
You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;
you walked among the fiery stones.
15 You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.
16 Through your widespread trade
you were filled with violence,
and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
and I expelled you, guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.
17 Your heart became proud
on account of your beauty,
and you corrupted your wisdom
because of your splendor.
So I threw you to the earth;
I made a spectacle of you before kings.
18 By your many sins and dishonest trade
you have desecrated your sanctuaries.
So I made a fire come out from you,
and it consumed you,
and I reduced you to ashes on the ground
in the sight of all who were watching.
19 All the nations who knew you
are appalled at you;
you have come to a horrible end
and will be no more.’”
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Jesus created the Heavens and the earth. Therefore, if He created Lucifer that means he cannot be Jesus's brother.
This argument you made seems pointless to me - it seems as if you are trying to explain the bible and Christianity to me - a person who has been raised a christian, went to church every sunday, not to mention a person who has read most of the bible, heard most of the stories, at least the important and popular one's.
Just because you go to church doesn't mean you're saved. You should know that.
I am familiar with Christianity, so please spare me the explanations of how what you believe, because what you believe doesn't make another less of a christian.
I'm not telling you what I believe. I'm just telling you what the Bible says about "Are mormons Christians?"
You do believe Jesus was here as a human being on this earth right?
And you do believe Jesus is God, right?
No, because what is a Christian? Someone who follows Jesus Christ. Not Mary. They are called Christians but they aren't Christian. Jesus said you will know them by their fruits who is a Christian and who isn't.
You are the first person ever to call catholics something other than christians.
4 eyewitnesses accounts wrote down in the Bible (Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) said that Jesus died outside of Jerusalem. Not America.
But not believing those very vague evidence doesn't make you less a christian. First of all an eyewitness in itself is an untrustworthy source, second of all this eyewitness is 2000 years old, which makes it really really untrustworthy.
Why then would He go to America and die again when He already fulfilled? It would also make God to be a liar.
Well - it's been proven that the seven continents float around on the earth. One time all continents were together, forming a giant continent. So .. Maybe he wasn't lying, maybe people just mixed Las Vegas and Israel together.
You should know where it's at.
Uhm .. yeah it's pretty easy to remember 2000 pages of nonsense.
And in those ''refreshing'' verses not once does it say ''Lucifer is not Jesus' brother''.
Jesus created the Heavens and the earth. Therefore, if He created Lucifer that means he cannot be Jesus's brother.
Okay - Do you believe we are all God's children?
Do you believe we are created by Jesus too?
Do you believe Jesus is God's son?
If you answered yes to those three, that means we are created by Jesus and we are his siblings. So is Lucifer.
Just because you go to church doesn't mean you're saved. You should know that.
I am an atheist, so yes - I am pretty sure I am definitely not saved.
I'm just telling you what the Bible says about "Are mormons Christians?"
No, you told me in previous comments that what I said was my own opinion when really I was quoting the Bible.
You do believe Jesus was here as a human being on this earth right?
Yes.
And you do believe Jesus is God, right?
Yes.
But not believing those very vague evidence doesn't make you less a christian. First of all an eyewitness in itself is an untrustworthy source, second of all this eyewitness is 2000 years old, which makes it really really untrustworthy.
The only thing back then to record things was pen and paper. They used eyewitness accounts when they wrote a lot of things that they witnessed. So really it was a good thing to write things down and provided eyewitness accounts towards that. That is why there is 4 Gospels, written by 4 different authors through their own perspective of what they told the story about Jesus coming to earth. Eyewitness accounts are still even used today in a court of law.
Well - it's been proven that the seven continents float around on the earth. One time all continents were together, forming a giant continent. So .. Maybe he wasn't lying, maybe people just mixed Las Vegas and Israel together.
No, they didn't get mixed up. They knew where they were located because in many of the Gospels it tells about where Jesus went such as to the Jordan River which is located in Israel and to the Sea of Galilee which is also located in Israel as well. Not in America.
Uhm .. yeah it's pretty easy to remember 2000 pages of nonsense.
And in those ''refreshing'' verses not once does it say ''Lucifer is not Jesus' brother''.
I actually did but you don't understand. Let me explain it for you so that you can understand. When I quoted Ezekiel 28:14-19, it was talking about Lucifer who was created as an angel and then his downfall that got him sent to earth because he rebelled against God. And when I quoted Genesis 1:1, in the beginning God, meaning God came before Satan and that Jesus created Satan. If Jesus and Satan were brothers they both would have created the Heavens and the earth but it only says God created it not Satan.
Do you believe we are all God's children?
No, because only those who believe are God's children.
Do you believe Jesus is God's son?
Yes
I am an atheist, so yes - I am pretty sure I am definitely not saved.
That can be changed because you could get saved.
You most certainly are not!
Yes, I am telling you what the Bible says about "Are Mormons Christians?"
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!" - Galatians 1:8
Mormonism was founded by Joseph Smith who believed He saw an angel. That angel told Joseph Smith to preach a different Gospel other than the one Christianity teaches meaning that Mormons aren't Christians. And it proves that Mormons aren't Christians and are really just Mormons.
I'm done proving my point. I gave evidence that Mormons aren't Christians and you don't understand and this is going to drag on. I suggest you sincerely look at read the New Testament without being biased towards it. And ask God to help you understand what you're reading. It was fun debating with you. :)
Think about this critically. Your number one completely contests the notions of creation. God cannot be a creation from another planet when he existed before the planets. How can you create something that has existed before you? Also no finite object can create an infinite object. The universe is not infinite. God is. Thus the universe cannot have created God.
Also becoming one with God through faith doesn't make you God at all. Only three components of God exist. Becoming one with God is symbolism for the close relationship one has with God when saved from damnation.
You're saying he can't move? that makes him the worst omnipotent being ever!
God is necessarily outside of space-time.
Well, that's what you think. Like I said, the Plymouth Brethrens believe this, and they are considered christian
One cannot become God. I have explained why. I believe the bible does as well. God doesn't even want man becoming like him in the first place as seen in Genesis.
Again, that is what you think. Like I said, the Plymouth Brethrens beleive this, and they are considered christian.
You can tell me your own personal view on this, but that doesn't change the fact, that Plymouth Brethrens believe this, and they are considered Christians.
God's essence of knowledge and spirit is everywhere. God, as in the manifestation of creative energy and the plane of his existence, is outside of space-time.
Again, that is what you think. Like I said, the Plymouth Brethrens beleive this, and they are considered christian.
You aren't understanding. This notion is impossible. That is what I am telling you. this isn't what I think. It's a religious fact. One cannot become God. One cannot become a God. Only one god can exist and that god is God. God made this apparent in Genesis.
You can tell me your own personal view on this, but that doesn't change the fact, that Plymouth Brethrens believe this, and they are considered Christians.
Do they follow the words of Christ and God word for word? As in the doctrine supported by the bible? If they truly believe what is above then they aren't truly Christian.
God's essence of knowledge and spirit is everywhere. God, as in the manifestation of creative energy and the plane of his existence, is outside of space-time.
So what's the big difference believing that and the mormon theory? I mean .. I don't think it is enough to disqualify them as christians.
It's a religious fact.
That, Sir, is not a thing!
This notion is impossible.
Oh yeah! Walk on water, talking snakes, talking bushes on fire, an ocean parting in two, water into wine, but becoming a God is impossible?
Do they follow the words of Christ and God word for word?
No one does that. Catholics, babtists, pilgrims, lutherians, amish do not follow the words of christ and God word for word.
So what's the big difference believing that and the mormon theory? I mean .. I don't think it is enough to disqualify them as christians.
This disregards what God has said, thus Mormons ignore what Jesus has said. That isn't following Christ. Following Christ requires you to actually obey all of his commands and believe in his words. This isn't what Mormons do.
Oh yeah! Walk on water, talking snakes, talking bushes on fire, an ocean parting in two, water into wine, but becoming a God is impossible?
All the things you have listed are things possible through Christ as shown in the bible. Becoming a God is not possible since that inherently breaks what God believes in. In fact how do you know the serpent was actually a serpent and not symbolism for a deceiver? How do you know if Jesus really walked on water? Who knows if the burning bush really spoke? There are actual theories to why the Red Sea could have parted. I don't think God would have much trouble reconfiguring particles to create wine.
No one does that. Catholics, babtists, pilgrims, lutherians, amish do not follow the words of christ and God word for word.
Why do you think they are called the "branches of Christianity"?
Also, you really don't know if someone can actually follow his word. You honestly don't know everybody's situation. I wouldn't say nobody follow the words of Christ and God word for word.
Following Christ requires you to actually obey all of his commands and believe in his words.
That isn't christianity at all.
Christianity is based on that everyone is saved. When Jesus died on the cross, he took all sins away. You are basically saying we can't sin, which is stupid, since everyone is born a sinner, according to christianity. You are saying anyone who didn't honor is mother one time in his teens is disobeying Christ, and therefore is disqualified as christian. you are saying everyone who cursed at one time is disobeying Christ's word, and is therefore disqualified as a christian. You are saying everyone who worked on the a day they were supposed to keep holy, is disobeying God and his words, and is therefore disqualified as a chrstian.
Yes, it is
No it isn't. A fact is a fact - the concept of a religious fact is impossible, since religion isn't fact.
All the things you have listed are things possible through Christ as shown in the bible.
Everything is possible through christ, since he is omnipotent. If he can't move from heaven to a planet .. he can't be omnipotent.
And to the rest of that part; I am not christian, so I don't believe Jesus walked on water or any of the other things.
I wouldn't say nobody follow the words of Christ and God word for word.
Okay? Then who does it?
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel.” Deuteronomy 17: 12
“A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.” Leviticus 20: 27
“Do not allow a sorceress to live.” Exodus 22: 18
''Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community.'' Exodus 31:13
“But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.” Deuteronomy 22: 20-21
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." Leviticus 20: 13
“Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the Lord must be destroyed.” Exodus 22:20
Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants.” Isaiah 14: 21
“They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.” 2 Chronicles 15: 12-13
“If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.” Deuteronomy 22: 23-24
Those come from both the old and the new testament. I'm just saying that, because I often hear christians say they aren't supposed to follow the old testament.
No, it's not. Even then saying it's based on everyone being saved only supports my argument since one must profess their belief in Jesus and obey his commands. That is Christianity.
When Jesus died on the cross, he took all sins away. You are basically saying we can't sin, which is stupid, since everyone is born a sinner, according to christianity.
If that's what I wanted to say I would have said it, but your analysis in inaccurate. No man is born perfect, thus prompting the act of repentance. That is still obeying the laws of Christ.
You are saying anyone who didn't honor is mother one time in his teens is disobeying Christ, and therefore is disqualified as christian.
Not at all. Those that do not honor thy mother their entire lives and still call themselves Christians are in fact not Christian.
you are saying everyone who cursed at one time is disobeying Christ's word, and is therefore disqualified as a christian. You are saying everyone who worked on the a day they were supposed to keep holy, is disobeying God and his words, and is therefore disqualified as a chrstian.
Still, no. Also you seem to only quote law that was specifically given to a particular group of period for a particular time period where values, mores, and folkways were completely different. Those laws do not apply to the modern Christian.
No it isn't. A fact is a fact
Fact (Merriam Webster) - A true piece of information.
Is it true that Christian are obligated to believe in Christ? Yes. It's a fact.
Is it true that those who live the lifestyles of the world and not of that of their father (Jesus) are hypocrites and are disobeying the word of God? Yes. That's a fact.
Everything is possible through christ, since he is omnipotent. If he can't move from heaven to a planet .. he can't be omnipotent.
Everything is not truly possible. If you are correct then it is possible for something to be impossible, thus rendering omnipotence void. Moving heaven to a planet is illogical anyways. Saying God's origin is from a planet is philosophically improper.
Okay? Then who does it?
Anyone can. I'm sure many do. Saying nobody does is to big of an assumption.
Those come from both the old and the new testament. I'm just saying that, because I often hear christians say they aren't supposed to follow the old testament
As I have explain already most of what you have posted was given to a particular culture during a particular period of time. The words from the new testament and the words spoken by Jesus (Which disregards the old testament inherently) are what Christians follow.
No, it's not. Even then saying it's based on everyone being saved only supports my argument since one must profess their belief in Jesus and obey his commands. That is Christianity.
John 3;16
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
The most famous and important verse in the bible.
The verse doesn't say you have to obey your mother, you have to love your neighbour. The verse doesn't say you have to be a nice guy, the verse doesn't say you have to get straight A's. No, the verse says, WHOEVER believes will be saved.
Everything is not truly possible.
Then he isn't omnipotent.
Saying God's origin is from a planet is philosophically improper.
That might be your persoanal opinion. Just because you disagree, doesn't make them less of a christian.
As I have explain already most of what you have posted was given to a particular culture during a particular period of time.
How do you sort what is given to people in a particular period of time, and what is not? I think this proves the bible is extremely untrustworthy.
John 3;16"For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."The most famous and important verse in the bible.The verse doesn't say you have to obey your mother, you have to love your neighbour. The verse doesn't say you have to be a nice guy, the verse doesn't say you have to get straight A's. No, the verse says, WHOEVER believes will be saved.
Oh is that so? Did you read the rest of what God had said as well so that you know why you believe in God? Of course not. You base your argument on popularity instead of the entire covenant that Christ laid out.
Then he isn't omnipotent.
Never said he was. Pretty sure the proper word for God was almighty.
That might be your persoanal opinion. Just because you disagree, doesn't make them less of a christian.
This isn't a personal opinion. This is philosophy. The process of eliminating subjective quatities it order to determine what is logical and what isn't.
How do you sort what is given to people in a particular period of time, and what is not? I think this proves the bible is extremely untrustworthy.
What ever Jesus said is what you do. Things placed out in the vague that weren't meant for only a certain culture are things you follow.
Did you read the rest of what God had said as well
I read maybe half of the bible. Give or take.
You base your argument on popularity instead of the entire covenant that Christ laid out.
No, I base my argument on that verse. If you want another one, here: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" John 14:5-7
Salvation doesn't come from actions.
Never said he was. Pretty sure the proper word for God was almighty.
Jeremiah 32:27 "I am the LORD, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me?
Matthew 19:26 Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
Jeremiah 32:17 "Ah, Sovereign LORD, you have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you.
Genesis 18:13-14 Then the LORD said to Abraham, "Why did Sarah laugh and say, 'Will I really have a child, now that I am old?' (14) Is anything too hard for the LORD? I will return to you at the appointed time next year and Sarah will have a son."
Luke 1:37 For nothing is impossible with God."
What ever Jesus said is what you do.
"But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool Matt. 5:34
''But I tell you: Love your enemies'' Matt. 5:43
"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen.'' Matt. 6:5-6
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matt. 6:34
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged.'' Matt. 7:1
"If you love me, you will obey what I command." John 14:15
So what have we learned? If you ever swore in your life, if you feel hatred to a person or a group of people with certain opinions, if you ever made a judgement in your life, if you ever worried about tomorrow or prayed in public (which is what all christian groups do) you are disqualified as christian.
These are all Jesus' direct words, from his own mouth. My conclusion is, according to you, nobody is a chrsitian.
Same. Well I've probably read more. Didn't bother doing an analysis on it though.
No, I base my argument on that verse
The thing is that if you truly believe in Christ then you will live a life with him and obey his commands as expressed in the bible. You are required to live a "Christian" lifestyle.
Salvation doesn't come from actions.
Salvation comes from the heart. If you don't bother living for Christ, yet call upon him you are being hypocritical. Thus you are favoring sin.
Luke 1:37 For nothing is impossible with God."
Highly doubt this is true.
These are all Jesus' direct words, from his own mouth. My conclusion is, according to you, nobody is a chrsitian.
You have poorly understood my argument. You are now generalizing my argument in an area of which it had no purpose being. What does this have to do with mormons? Also your analysis of my argument is inaccurate. Since I clearly stated that you never know who follows Christ. One who follows Christ is a Christian. If they sin, repent, and continue to strive to better themselves from sin as the bible has told them to do then they are a Christian. A man who just believes in Christ and goes out and shows no adoration and sins continuously is not a Christin until he follows the edict of the bible. That is my argument.
However this may be my fault. I haven't bee ln very clear so you may have been confused as to what I was saying. Do pardon that.
But the thing is I don't define a christian lifestyle as one specific thing. The bible is so controversial you can't say one thing is a christian lifestyle.
But the thing is I don't define a christian lifestyle as one specific thing. The bible is so controversial you can't say one thing is a christian lifestyle.
Controversy rises from misunderstandings. A Christian is supposed to live the lifestyle described by the bible. If one choose to ignore the edict set in the bible and live a worldly lifestyle and still can themselves a Christian they are hypocrites and will suffer damnation.
According to christianity, it is.
No, I means as in how we interpret it. God may just be one powerful being. The concept of unlimited power and the ability to perform all tasks seems naturally impossible.
I believe the bible does as well. God doesn't even want man becoming like him in the first place as seen in Genesis.
If one cannot fathom god, how can the Bible (written by people such as us) possibly explain/describe god? And if the people who wrote the Bible were "directly influenced" by god, then why can't god be fathomed if we have a book written by people directly influenced by god?
If one cannot fathom god, how can the Bible (written by people such as us) possibly explain/describe god?
By interpreting the experiences the apostles had in a subjective and objective manner. That should be common sense to you.
And if the people who wrote the Bible were "directly influenced" by god, then why can't god be fathomed if we have a book written by people directly influenced by god?
You understand what a triangle is. You understand what a square is. Now fathom a four sided triangle.
How is this relevant to this debate? This has nothing to do with the notion held by the debate.
But if one cannot fathom god, how can a person interpret the experiences of the apostles when the apostles themselves cannot fathom god?
Did you not look at what I wrote you? Interpretations through the subjective and objective. Pay attention. I might as well argue with the bees outside.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here...
You lack much knowledge.
Shhhh :D
Don't respond to me, wasting my time, if you aren't going to stay on topic.
Correct me if im wrong but isnt being a Christian someone who follows Jesus Christ? That being said Mormons are Christians then, just as Catholics and any other religion that uses Jesus are there savor.
Yes, but keep in mind that means they must follow his teachings. If you do not follow his teachings, and believe in him, you are not a Christian. I'm not sure the Mormons follow everything Jesus has said. The Mormon faith inherently creates problems if one relates the two in an attempt to match their similarities.
For example. We know God didn't come from any planet if he created the planets. He cannot be created by the planets if he existed before the planets. That is inherently contradictory.
A mother goddess is never mentioned in the bible (at least to my understanding). The bible makes it clear that there is only one true God.
Another odd belief is the notion that humans can become Gods. Again, there is only one god. God only wants to have one god in existence which is himself. No man shall rise and contest him.
I don't understand the notion that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers. I don't see the relation, but I don't think it's impossible.
I was told by a "Christian" the other day that as long as I believe in Jesus, I will be "saved".
So? That Christian is not the bible. How does this contest what I have said? If you believe in Jesus you must follow his teachings in order to achieve heaven. Those who do not are sentenced to damnation.
I'll correct you, it's about following Jesus's teachings, and the Bible says that it's Jesus and nobody else. Mormonism says that you have to work to get to Heaven and Jesus. And that's wrong. It's only Jesus.
Mormons believe in a different Gospel. It was founded by Joseph Smith who believed to see an angel who he believed was from God. The Bible clearly states that if another persons or an angel from Heaven preach a gospel different from what Christianity taught they are accursed.
Below is scripture evidence.
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!" - Galatians 1:8
I completely agree. They are no where near in any agreement with what the Bible says who God is nor what the Bible says who Jesus is. They don't believe the essential teachings of Salvation.
It all depends on what you define as a "Christian." If you define Christian as simply anyone who follows (or claims to follow) Jesus Christ, then from that point of view the Mormons are Christians because they believe/follow Christ. However, the definition of Christian is not just someone who claims to be, it is whether or not they have received Christ as Savior. You can go to church, be a "good" person (although this is actually impossible according to the Bible) claim the name of Christ, live according to his rules, tell people about him, and do the best you can for your entire life, but you are not Christian and are not saved if you have not received Christ as savior. The reason that so many hate "Christians" is because there are so many who claim to be Christian but are hypocritical. I mean, I am Christian (by that I mean I have received Christ as Savior) and I can't stand hypocritical people who claim Christianity Those people have distorted the name "Christian" to where most hate when the term is even brought up, because they picture a moronic self-righteous hypocritical jerk with zero amount of reason and that believe without intellect in their mind. Whether or not you call yourself "Mormon" or "Christian" is irrelevant. What matters is if you believe that 1) everyone person ever born is sinful in the eyes of God because of Adam's sin, 2) We can do absolutely nothing to make up for our sin (including church, morality, being a good person, not sinning, etc.,) 3) Jesus Christ was a part of God's essence that was born into a person, 4) that Jesus lived a perfect, sinless life, and therefore was a just substitute for us when he died on the cross, 5) that Jesus took our punishment and was substituted for every sin that the human race had and ever would commit, 6) and because of this there is nothing we can do to receive forgiveness from God for our sin except by believe and accepting Christ sacrifice and Christ's sacrifice alone, and 7) that there is nothing we could ever do to lose our salvation, because Jesus died for every sin we would ever commit. If you believe essentially in only these things, then you are saved and by definition "Christian." However, if you believe you must do something in addition to Christ's sacrifice to be saved, you are not Christian, because Jesus did all the work for you, and from my experience from Mormons, Mormonism generally believes that you must do good works in addition to believing in Christ.
A Christian is someone who recieved Christ as personal Lord and Savior. Why is it important to recieve Jesus as Lord and Savior? Because were sinners and we need a Savior. We are helpless and need to be saved. We can't save ourselves through being a good person but through accepting Jesus's sacrifice on the cross to pay for your sins. Why trust Jesus? Because he is the Son of the one and only God. That Jesus is 100% equal with The Father and the Holy Spirit. There there is One God and three persons which are all equal in intrinct,power, etc... We can trust Jesus because he is God and is that perfect sacrifice for our sins. Jesus has always been God. Salvation is free and has been paid for by Jesus sacrifice on that cross. The only thing we need to do is believe in what Jesus did on the cross and his purpose for doing that. That is was his Grace that he did that. Then ask Jesus to save you from Hell and to be your Lord and Savior of your life. If you have done that then you have recieved Jesus as your Lord and Savior. But Mormons do not believe the Essentials of the Christian Faith. Part 1
They are far from Christian. They dont have the essential beliefs that the Bible teaches. They did not recieve Jesus therefore their not Christian. Like I have said before: If you have recieved then you are a Christian. Christians are Christ like because when they recieve Jesus they have a new nature that is similar to his. You only get that Nature when you recieve Jesus as Lord and Savior. You get Saved and Born Again when you ask Jesus to come into your life. You must be Born Again to have his( Jesus) nature thus being Christ like. Therefore you must be born again to be a Christian. Mormons do not believe that. Mormons believe that Jesus was an Angel. They believe that Elohim(God the Father) had sex with Mary and created Jesus. That is Blasphemy. They do not believe that Jesus is just as powerful as his Father in Heaven. Christianity is Monergistic Monotheism while Mormonism is Synergistic kathenotheism(Henotheism). They say they believe the Bible but if you really look at their other books you would have to say to yourself: They have some serious misinterpretations of the Bible. You must use Logic and Reasoning when it comes to Extra Biblical references. In other words; Whenever you look at other references that is "Bible related" you must use Logic and Reasoning to interpret and accept extra references as true. Part 2
Mormons believe the 3 other books that Joseph Smith created. And claim that they believe the Bible. This is were Logic and Reasoning comes in to play. I will give an example in Mormonism when you can use Logic and Reasoning; Here is the Issue: Is Joseph Smith a False Prophet? Well lets reason it out. We believe the Bible is true. What one was made first: The Bible, book of mormon, pearl of great price, or doctrine of covenants? The Answer is The Bible. Those other books were made in the 19th century. Then since you know that the Bible came first then you must look at what the Bible says. The Bible tells us that there will be false prophets. At the end of the book of Revelation(in the Bible) it says not to add anything else in the Word of God and the Bible. God would of added the Mormon books in the Bible. The Bible says not to add any words to his words. Jesus said to watch out for false prophets. The Bible is complete and anything else outside of the Bible is not to be trusted by its words alone unless it be fully backed up by the Bible. Those books pick some verses to support the beliefs of the "credibility" of his vision. But those verses are used out of context. And Logically we can look back at the Bible and see that any prophet outside of the Bible is a False Prophet. The Bible warns of false prophets. Many centuries later this "prophet" claims to be prophet because he sawl a vision. The Bible warns people to not believe any Gospel that is preached outside of his word(The Bible). So what is a Prophet that is not preaching the true Gospel? A false prophet. Therefore Joseph Smith is a false prophet. That is one example of how to use Logic and Reasoning when dealing with Philosophy and other things. There are many other reasons that prove that Joseph Smith is a False Prophet and that Mormonism is not Christian. Part 3
Their view of who Jesus is is completely different. Christians believe Jesus was God and part of the trinity. Mormons don't believe in the trinity but believe Jesus was a lesser God to the Father and the first spirit child.