What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[ERayR]

Seriously? I wrote all that and what you got out of it was Jews and Muslims?

Why do you equivocate and ignore the whole in order to stumble over such trivial and silly things? Are you playing a game or are you truly incapable of understanding this?

Make no mistake about his capabilities. He is capable and is a very polite and coy game player.

[Dogmatic]

Dogmatic,

I'm so stunned by your post that I don't quite know how to respond. You made an indefensible claim (that Jews and Muslims have the gospel) and your attempts to deflect attention away from the problem by accusing me of ignoring the larger whole (etc.) do nothing to further illuminate the issue.

Your attempt to turn my car analogy around to criticize my position merely confirms what I have been saying all along. From the LDS perspective what traditional Christians have is not the gospel, just as a man with three tires, a windshield and a rusty carburetor does not have a car. That is exactly what I have been trying to get you and other Mormons to acknowledge. Instead you and others here are the ones playing games (as you put it) to avoid dealing with the implications of your own church's doctrine.

Mormonism claims that it alone has the true gospel, that it alone is the true and living church on the earth, that its baptisms alone are valid, that it alone among all churches or religions on earth has the priesthood, that its members alone may receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and that anyone who does not accept the Mormon religion in this lifetime cannot have eternal life unless they accept in the spirit world after they die. These are the facts concerning what the LDS Church claims. It doesn't seem too much to ask for Mormons to come right out and admit that this is their religion's position. But you can all see that frankly admitting this would seriously undermine your rhetorical strategy of trying to position yourself as the open-minded and tolerant religion and those who disagree with your religion as the narrow-minded, bigoted, anti-Mormon bogeyman.

So, the true nature of the man is shown.

At least I have been addressing the things you've been saying - regardless of how disdainful you have been to me and how fickle you are when it comes to the topic. In turn, you have dodged, avoided, ignored or disregarded every question I have asked you with the exception of ONE. I have continuously accepted your challenges and derision and spent time patiently coming up with more and more child-like explanations for what I believed were actual inquiries. Meanwhile, you have added little to nothing to the conversation other than to deride my responses.

I have worked to remain civil while you smugly reject, disqualify or outright ignore the answers I've given you. Meanwhile, you have become exponentially divisive and prideful as you allow no room or consideration for Mormonism, insist that it is false and that you and only you hold the keys to truth. You continually refuse to acknowledge or consider the answers you've been given - YOU and YOU alone have the right answer.

Your car analogy was stupid. I tried to humor you and build an example out of it. Criticize you? I laid it plainly at your feet. If you found criticism in it, that is your choice, I consider what you are taking as criticism to be truth. That is precisely how you have responded and behaved.

You have the gospel that you have. I don't see anywhere that YOU asked it first of all, and I likewise do not see anywhere that we failed to answer you. Nobody, NOBODY is saying that you do not have (a)(the)gospel. We are saying you don't have the fullness of the Gospel, Restored by Jesus Christ - and up until ~180 years ago, nobody did. What "implications" are there from this?

Mormonism claims that it alone has the true gospel, that it alone is the true and living church on the earth, that its baptisms alone are valid, that it alone among all churches or religions on earth has the priesthood, that its members alone may receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and that anyone who does not accept the Mormon religion in this lifetime cannot have eternal life unless they accept in the spirit world after they die. These are the facts concerning what the LDS Church claims. It doesn't seem too much to ask for Mormons to come right out and admit that this is their religion's position. But you can all see that frankly admitting this would seriously undermine your rhetorical strategy of trying to position yourself as the open-minded and tolerant religion and those who disagree with your religion as the narrow-minded, bigoted, anti-Mormon bogeyman.

Mormonism claims to have the Restored Gospel, that Christ came and restored it here on earth in its original order and doctrine. Christ's Baptismal Ordinance for both the living and the dead, as mentioned by/in John, along with other Ordinances are necessary for obtaining a Full Glory in the spirit world. Jesus Christ, through his apostles, restored Priesthood Authority in His restored Church. The Gift of the Holy Ghost is given through Priesthood Ordinance, which is very different than having the Spirit. All mankind will have eternal life as we are eternal beings. These are all facts of LDS Doctrine - corrected from your blatant misunderstanding which has been corrected repeatedly in this thread. This is the Mormon's 'position'. Every shred of it is freely and clearly available and "admitted to" right here: http://mormon.org this is not secret, convoluted or obfuscated information, we present it for the world to see. It doesn't seem too much to ask that you follow a link you've been given multiple times in this thread and bother to read it.

You have information in your head but you have absolutely no comprehension or understanding of it. Nowhere is that as clear as in the wording and jumbling of concepts in your post. When will you admit to not having perfect knowledge and go learn?

But you can all see that frankly admitting this would seriously undermine your rhetorical strategy of trying to position yourself as the open-minded and tolerant religion and those who disagree with your religion as the narrow-minded, bigoted, anti-Mormon bogeyman

In every explanation you have been given we have explained that this doctrine is inclusive of all men. LDS Doctrine is quite tolerant and accepting of all other religions.

Now, which religions are narrow-minded, bigoted and anti-mormon? Which religion condemns the other for their belief? Which religion is blindly and obstinately attached to creeds and intolerant of those who are not?

I'm sorry, did you think that you were going to be able to claim that YOUR religion was open-minded and tolerant of Mormons?

And finally, your Jews and Muslims statement.

You made an indefensible claim (that Jews and Muslims have the gospel) and your attempts to deflect attention away from the problem by accusing me of ignoring the larger whole (etc.) do nothing to further illuminate the issue.

To be clear, I stated that Jews, Muslims and others have a fragment of The Gospel, just as you do, and that it was able to fit into the Restored Gospel.

You say this is indefensible? It is utterly logical and requires no defense whatsoever. I stand by my statement fully.

I made no attempt to deflect attention away from it, I merely followed your pattern of blatantly ignoring what I deem to be silly quibbles. It merited no attention whatsoever.

Now that you've come out of the proverbial closet and openly displayed at least a portion of (enough of) your true self as an absolute bigot who is attempting to beguile us into confessing some contrivance of yours that is so convoluted that you cannot present it and we certainly cannot understand it. You have made it clear that you are not getting the answer that you want to trick and trap us up with - so what will you do now?

Would you be willing to commit to softening your heart somewhat and commit to being open to learning new truths? We have much to offer if you are willing to receive it.

[Rob Bowman]

Dogmatic,

You wrote:

At least I have been addressing the things you've been saying - regardless of how disdainful you have been to me and how fickle you are when it comes to the topic. In turn, you have dodged, avoided, ignored or disregarded every question I have asked you with the exception of ONE.

This is simply false. For example: (1) You asked me to explain why God damns people for merely misunderstanding some doctrine. I answered this criticism by pointing out that I believe no such thing. (2) You asked me if I get my instruction from the Bible. I answered yes but that this doesn't make the Bible an "instruction manual." (3) You criticized me for supposedly ignoring what the LDS Church says about the priesthood in a YouTube video of me you saw. I responded that the video is merely an introduction to a written resource in which what the LDS Church says is discussed at length. (4) You asked me if you or some hypothetical guy who never heard of Christ or didn't think Christianity made sense will be saved. I explained that my theology does not allow me to make definitive judgments about individuals, but that in any case judgment will come on people because of their sins, not because they happened not to know something. (5) You asked me to address what Jesus said about scholars. I answered that Jesus condemned those scholars who abused their God-given intelligence to distort the Scriptures, and therefore Jesus was not saying that scholars serve no useful function. (6) You asked me to comment on your point that the afterlife is about service. I answered that I understand this to be the LDS teaching but that it doesn't negate what I have been saying about the LDS view of other churches. (7) You asked me (employing what I rightly described as some silly questions) what on my view the redeemed will be doing for eternity. I answered (to state the matter briefly) that the redeemed will be living with God and with one another forever in the new heavens and new earth, experiencing complete perfection as they love God and one another, enjoying these relationships in a way that transcends our current experience.

There's more, but this is enough to demonstrate decisively that your statement is false.

You wrote:

I have worked to remain civil while you smugly reject, disqualify or outright ignore the answers I've given you. Meanwhile, you have become exponentially divisive and prideful as you allow no room or consideration for Mormonism, insist that it is false and that you and only you hold the keys to truth.

This is ridiculously false. I have made no such exclusive claims for myself. On the other hand, yes, I am disdainful of misrepresentations like this one, and of silly questions like whether orthodox Christians think we will be floating on clouds playing harps for eternity.

You wrote:

Your car analogy was stupid. I tried to humor you and build an example out of it. Criticize you? I laid it plainly at your feet. If you found criticism in it, that is your choice, I consider what you are taking as criticism to be truth. That is precisely how you have responded and behaved.

I don't think the analogy was stupid at all. If you only have a few disconnected parts of a car, then you really don't have a car at all. That is, without at least all of the essential parts, one does not have a functioning vehicle -- one that can get the driver where he is supposed to go. You and Steve argued that Jews and Muslims, as well as traditional Christians, have the gospel but only fragments of it. My analogy illustrated the problem with this claim: if all we have are fragments of the gospel, and if with those fragments we cannot obtain eternal life (but must get the "fullness" of the gospel from Mormonism), then we do not have a functional gospel that can get us where we are supposed to go (even if we might be able to get a little bit of the way with it).

You wrote:

This is the Mormon's 'position'. Every shred of it is freely and clearly available and "admitted to" right here: http://mormon.org this is not secret, convoluted or obfuscated information, we present it for the world to see. It doesn't seem too much to ask that you follow a link you've been given multiple times in this thread and bother to read it.

What is it you think I haven't bothered to read? I have spent probably hundreds of hours on the LDS Church's official websites as well as many more hours on other pro-LDS sites (e.g., FAIR, Maxwell Institute). In my writings on LDS doctrine I scrupulously draw from primary source documents published by the LDS Church, especially those available on its official website lds.org.

You wrote:

Now, which religions are narrow-minded, bigoted and anti-mormon? Which religion condemns the other for their belief? Which religion is blindly and obstinately attached to creeds and intolerant of those who are not?

I'm sorry, did you think that you were going to be able to claim that YOUR religion was open-minded and tolerant of Mormons?

Your questions show once again that you are not following what I have been saying. My position is not that Mormonism is bigoted or intolerant. My position is that Mormonism claims to be the true form of Christianity and rejects evangelical Christianity, just as evangelical Christianity claims to be the true form of Christianity and rejects Mormonism. Neither stance is bigoted or intolerant, although of course some people -- on both sides -- exhibit bigotry and intolerance. Evangelicals are not "blindly and obstinately attached to creeds." Creeds play a much lesser role in our practice of Christianity than they do, for example, in Eastern Orthodoxy. Evangelicals are passionately attached to Jesus Christ and to the Bible as the word of God in which we find knowledge revealed to us by God about Jesus Christ.

You wrote:

And finally, your Jews and Muslims statement. To be clear, I stated that Jews, Muslims and others have a fragment of The Gospel, just as you do, and that it was able to fit into the Restored Gospel. You say this is indefensible? It is utterly logical and requires no defense whatsoever. I stand by my statement fully.

What you actually said was both that Jews and Muslims have "the Gospel" and that they have a fragment of the gospel:

You (evangelists) and as steve said, catholics, jews, muslims, etc have the gospel. However, what you have is a fragment, a partial, less than full, that which was not taken.

All I have done is to try to explain to you why these two statements are inconsistent with each other. If we only have a fragment of the gospel, then we do not have the gospel, just as if we had only a fragment of the epistle to the Romans then we would not actually have the epistle to the Romans, or if we only had three tires, a windshield, and a carburetor then we would not actually have a car.

You wrote:

Now that you've come out of the proverbial closet and openly displayed at least a portion of (enough of) your true self as an absolute bigot who is attempting to beguile us into confessing some contrivance of yours that is so convoluted that you cannot present it and we certainly cannot understand it.

I see nothing bigoted about trying to get you to admit what your religion's scriptures and official publications clearly teach. It's regrettable that you find this offensive.

[Vance]

Vance,

Any thoughtful person can see that you are blowing smoke.

LOL!!!

More projection.

Any thoughtful person can see that "the gift of the Holy Ghost" can mean different things in different contexts.

Any thoughtful person can see that "the gift of the Holy Ghost" can mean a gift FROM the Holy Ghost, and any thoughtful person can see that "the gift of the Holy Ghost can mean a gift that IS the Holy Ghost (or the promise of it).

Any thoughtful person can see that the author of Acts (that would be Luke) used Greek words in Acts 10:45 that are slightly different from the Greek words he used in Acts 2:38.

Any thoughtful person can see that those slightly different words could have nuanced different meaning in Greek.

Any thoughtful person can see that a nuanced different meaning in Greek could have significantly different meaning to both the author and his target audience.

So, yea, any thoughtful person can see that it is you that is blowing smoke.

Edited August 27, 2012 by Vance

[KevinG]

Huh? You guys are still at it?

Have we managed to eliminate the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from the Christian world yet?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

There are a lot of "can's" and "could be's" in your post. Your argument amounts to saying "it's possible." Fine. Would you like to present an actual exegetical argument that Acts 2:38 and 10:45 are (not just "could be") referring to two different things?

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

You wrote:

Huh? You guys are still at it?

Have we managed to eliminate the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from the Christian world yet?

No one here is trying to do that. At least, I'm not.

[ERayR]

Huh? You guys are still at it?

Have we managed to eliminate the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from the Christian world yet?

No but it is being shuffled to the far outer reaches of a small spiral galaxy.

[Vance]

Vance,

There are a lot of "can's" and "could be's" in your post. Your argument amounts to saying "it's possible." Fine. Would you like to present an actual exegetical argument that Acts 2:38 and 10:45 are (not just "could be") referring to two different things?

Other than the two different Greek phrases being translated into the English phrase "the gift of the Holy Ghost" what exactly calls for the conclusion that they are not two different things?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Regarding Acts 2:38 and 10:45, you wrote:

Other than the two different Greek phrases being translated into the English phrase "the gift of the Holy Ghost" what exactly calls for the conclusion that they are not two different things?

Vance, they are not two different Greek phrases. Here is the Greek text (which hopefully will show up correctly here) and a transliteration of it from the relevant portion of the two verses:

τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος (Acts 2:38)

tēn dōrean tou hagiou pneumatos

ἡ δωρεὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος (Acts 10:45)

hē dōrea tou hagiou pneumatos

In Acts 2:38, "the gift" is spelled tēn dōrean because it is in the accusative case, the grammatical form used when a noun is the direct object in the clause (among other usages). Hence this form is used here because in the clause "you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit," gift is the direct object of you will receive. In Acts 10:45, the same definite article and noun are in the nominative case, spelled hē dōrea, because in this instance they function grammatically as the subject of the verb and clause: "the gift [subject] of the Holy Spirit was poured out [verb] on the Gentiles also."

These are the only two places in the Bible where this particular phrase is used, and it is the exact same phrase. There are other exegetical reasons for concluding that Acts 10:45 is referring to the same thing as Acts 2:38, and I bet if you ask one of the several Mormons here who have some skill in interpreting texts they could help you out. I'm afraid you just won't hear them coming from me. But they're not hard, and they're not technical (unlike the above grammatical point), and anyone who reads the texts in context even in an English translation can find the reasons.

[selek1]

Dogmatic-

I want to take a moment to welcome you to the boards, and to congratulate you on your patience, your incisive arguments, and your confidence in speaking the truth.

They are very welcome here- and they have been noticed.

Keep up the good work.

[Vance]

Vance,

Regarding Acts 2:38 and 10:45, you wrote:

Vance, they are not two different Greek phrases. Here is the Greek text (which hopefully will show up correctly here) and a transliteration of it from the relevant portion of the two verses:

τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος (Acts 2:38)

tēn dōrean tou hagiou pneumatos

ἡ δωρεὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος (Acts 10:45)

hē dōrea tou hagiou pneumatos

In Acts 2:38, "the gift" is spelled tēn dōrean because it is in the accusative case, the grammatical form used when a noun is the direct object in the clause (among other usages). Hence this form is used here because in the clause "you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit," gift is the direct object of you will receive. In Acts 10:45, the same definite article and noun are in the nominative case, spelled hē dōrea, because in this instance they function grammatically as the subject of the verb and clause: "the gift [subject] of the Holy Spirit was poured out [verb] on the Gentiles also."

Thanks for admitting that the phrases are different. It is true that "tēn dōrean" does NOT equal "hē dōrea". GOT IT!!!!

The author (Luke), if he had wanted to, could have used the EXACT same phrase. He chose not to.

Now that you have admitted that they are different, you now attempt to say they are the same.

These are the only two places in the Bible where this particular phrase is used, and it is the exact same phrase.

You have just admitted that they are different. So, the ONLY two places these phrases are used, they ARE different. "tēn dōrean" does NOT equal "hē dōrea".

Humm.

There are other exegetical reasons for concluding that Acts 10:45 is referring to the same thing as Acts 2:38, and I bet if you ask one of the several Mormons here who have some skill in interpreting texts they could help you out.

Whatever. Why you are insisting that "tēn dōrean" is "hē dōrea"? Do you not see the difference?

I'm afraid you just won't hear them coming from me.

You just admitted that they are different and you showed it. Now you want me to believe that they are "the exact same phrase". And you wonder why people don't take you seriously.

The author, IF he had wanted, could have used the EXACT same phrase, but he chose not too.

But they're not hard, and they're not technical (unlike the above grammatical point), and anyone who reads the texts in context even in an English translation can find the reasons.

Thanks for admitting that the two phrases ARE different.

In Acts 2 it is obvious that the gift (or at least one of them) of the Holy Ghost was active PRIOR to promise Peter gave. Verse 6 says that "every man heard them speak in his own language". And verse 37 says, "Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart", now, who did the cutting if it wasn't the Holy Ghost?

So, they had already received a gift from the Holy Ghost, similar to the gift mentioned in Acts 10, AND then Peter promises them another "gift of the Holy Ghost", different from the one mentioned in Acts 10.

A thoughtful person can see that there is a difference between Acts 2 and Acts 10, not only in the Greek phrase but in the context.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Vance

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Thanks for admitting that the phrases are different. It is true that "tēn dōrean" does NOT equal "hē dōrea". GOT IT!!!!... The author (Luke), if he had wanted to, could have used the EXACT same phrase. He chose not to.

Are you really this ignorant, or are you just being obtuse? Luke could not have spelled these words in the same way in both verses because in one verse these words are the subject of the verb and in the other they are the direct object of the verb. Thus, Luke could not have spelled the words in the same way without violating the rules of Greek grammar. They are the exact same words but are spelled differently because that is how Greek indicated grammatical function. I already explained this, so it's difficult to know why you are not at least trying to address the point.

As I predicted, you simply won't take seriously anything I say, even if it is something as objective and non-controversial as this. Honestly, you're impossible. Go ask Bill Hamblin or Dan Peterson or any of the other grown-ups here if what I'm saying is correct. They won't agree with my theological conclusions, but I guarantee they will agree that the two phrases are the same, with the only "difference" being the grammatically required difference in the form of the head article and noun.

Thank you for editing out inappropriate comments.

[Vance]

Are you really this ignorant, or are you just being obtuse?

More projection.

Luke could not have spelled these words in the same way in both verses because in one verse these words are the subject of the verb and in the other they are the direct object of the verb.

SO, Luke had no control of his own words? It was IMPOSSIBLE to word it the exact same as he did before?

Thus, Luke could not have spelled the words in the same way without violating the rules of Greek grammar.

Right. He had no control over the entire sentence structure. Got it.

They are the exact same words but are spelled differently because that is how Greek indicated grammatical function.

Right. Because the sentence structure was different. The author had NO CHOICE in the matter. He had no control over the sentence structure. Got it. So, he had no choice to use different words when his intent was to use the same exact words. Got it.

I already explained this, so it's difficult to know why you are not at least trying to address the point.

Yeah, yeah, Thanks for admitting that the phrases are different. It is true that "tēn dōrean" does NOT equal "hē dōrea". GOT IT!!!!... The author (Luke), if he had wanted to, could have used the EXACT same phrase. He chose not to.

Oh, wait, according to you, he had no choice. He had no control over his own writing.

As I predicted, you simply won't take seriously anything I say, even if it is something as objective and non-controversial as this.

Yeah, because Luke had NO CHOICE in the matter. He HAD to use different sentence structure which REQUIRED using different words EVEN when his real intent was to convey the EXACT SAME MEANING.

Yeah right.

Honestly, you're impossible.

More projection.

Go ask Bill Hamblin or Dan Peterson or any of the other grown-ups here if what I'm saying is correct.

I doubt that they will agree with you that Luke HAD NO CHOICE in the words or sentence structure he used. I doubt that they will agree that the context requires the meaning to be the same.

They won't agree with my theological conclusions,

Well, DUH!!! And that would have NOTHING to do with the context, right?

but I guarantee they will agree that the two phrases are the same, with the only "difference" being the grammatically required difference in the form of the head article and noun.

Right, the sentence structure WAS DIFFERENT which REQUIRED DIFFERENT WORDS to be used to convey the EXACT SAME CONCEPT that could NOT have been conveyed by using the SAME EXACT sentence structure, FOR SOME REASON KNOWN ONLY TO BOWMAN.

GOT IT!!!!

Edited August 28, 2012 by Vance

[Gervin]

Vance should invite everyone who agrees with his grammatical criticism to weigh-in in support of him.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Gervin

[Vance]

In Acts 2:38, "the gift" is spelled tēn dōrean because it is in the accusative case, the grammatical form used when a noun is the direct object in the clause (among other usages). Hence this form is used here because in the clause "you will receive

the gift of the Holy Spirit," gift is the direct object of you will receive.

This versus,

In Acts 10:45, the same definite article and noun are in the nominative case, spelled hē dōrea, because in this instance they function grammatically as the subject of the verb and clause: "the gift [subject] of the Holy Spirit was poured out [verb] on the Gentiles also."

Because Luke had no choice, right?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

The words "the gift" have exactly the same meaning regardless of the grammatical case in which those words appear. The words tēn dōrean and hē dōrea have no inherent difference in meaning due to their different spellings; they differ only in their grammatical place in the clause.

Now, I've explained this thoroughly enough. I'm done debating the issue with you. Go see if you can find a Mormon who knows Greek and understands how language works whose opinion you will consider fairly. There are plenty of them here.