Jesus vs Jesus Debate

[rhinomelon]

Wow, this really took off. As I said in the beginning, I also think the whole "different Jesus" argument is a pointless one. Proverbs just asked me directly about it, as I used it as an analogy in another thread.

The problem with this approach is that in much of the US, at least, (and in a growing part of the US, at that), that members of the church who actually attend meetings outnumber those who attend meetings of all other churches combined. Granted, this reflects the increasing secularization of America, but it is also at least partly a result of the corrosive effect of preaching a gospel based on hating members of other sects rather than having something positive to offer themselves.

Hm, stats for that would be nice. Anyway, the vast majority of mainstream Christian churches do not factor in "hatred of members of other sects" into their worship or preaching at all. You are making a blanket statement which is, unfortunately, all too common among today's LDS.

Am I the only one who can't read rhinos post without associating Ned Flanders voice with the words?

Well, hideeho, neighborino! Actually, I just picked this avatar randomly, but now I think I've grown attached

Where are you getting this from? How are you making such a claim?

Short answer: the Bible. Long answer is available, if you would like it.

It didn't 'simply', nor soley, bring about universal resurrection. It allowed us all to be able to return to our Father again, which was impossible before the Atonement.

Actually, you are correct. There is more to the atonement in LDS theology than simple resurrection. I was thinking of the distinction the LDS church makes between "salvation" and "exaltation", which I do not see anywhere in the Bible.

Nothing Christ said is in ANYWAY different then as it is now. The versions you have chosen to believe of them seem to be, though.

That I would definitely disagree with. But you seem to agree with my point, that our beliefs about Jesus and his message and gospel are quite different. Which is my basic point.

Rhino, the quote about "another Jesus" is certainly relevant to your argument. But Paul would have given a double-take to the modern Protestants' misuse of his phrasing to imply totally different personages between their Jesus and the Mormon Jesus.

He simply means "wrong" preaching.  Why make this argument more convoluted?

I guess my response would depend on how you are using the term "personage". But besides that, "wrong" preaching cuts to the core of the issue. I don't see it as a convoluted argument at all. It is actually quite clear. A Jesus of whom wrong things are preached is a different Jesus than that of the New Testament gospel. I believe that LDS get many things wrong with regard to the person, ministry and role of Jesus in true Christianity. Therefore, with different things being preached, there are two different "Jesus's" (or "Jesii" to use another poster's more humorous terminology )

Anyway, that's my position. But it doesn't really matter, it's a side issue that says very little about our respective faiths! So I'm going to back off before somebody starts pointing the "anti" finger (if it hasn't been pointed already ). I do not mean to offend anyone, I am simply stating my position as clearly as possible, because I was asked to. I am not going to cram it down any throats.

Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

If all you want for your congregation are the gullible and mean-spirited, then I guess you can continue to use the Jesus vs. Jesus argument.

Which is one big reason I don't use it. You'll never hear me seriously bringing that up in a discussion, unless I'm using it as an analogy for comparison to something else, as I did in the other thread.

And also, now that I think about it, didn't Gordon B. Hinckley himself use the language "a different Jesus" in a talk, comparing the Jesus of LDS belief to that of mainstream Christianity? I seem to remember hearing something about that, but no matter.

Take care, everyone

[johndoe]

The whole different Jesus thing usually is simply a device employed to point out that our beliefs are different, generally with the ultimate goal of showing that the LDS are wrong while somebody else is right.

Obviously our beliefs are different. Who is right? Well, that depends on your point of view (maybe neither!). This is all obvious and a waste of time to discuss.

There is an issue here, though I think it is usually completely ignored.

For me, the real question is this: What exactly MUST we believe (or specifically not believe) in order to be saved?

I would love to see rhinomelon's response to this question. As far as the terminology goes, I don't see much value in the classic LDS distinction made between salvation and exaltation. It might be useful as a teaching tool within wholly LDS groups, but in an interfaith discussion, I'd just as soon not use the terms in that way. I certainly don't think that it is consistent with Biblical use. As far as the negative reaction of LDS to someone's assertion that they are saved, I think it has more to do with misunderstanding of what is meant by that than anything else. I truly feel that what we both truly believe (regarding grace) on a conceptual level isn't really as different as most think.

[FormerLDS]

Proverbs:

There is only one LORD Jesus Christ whom I am speaking of and that is the same LORD who is the Savior in Protestantism, Mormonism, and Catholicism.

What does "another Jesus" mean?

Furthermore, did these believe in Jesus, or not?

"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?" Matthew 7:22

The Jesus Christ which they believed did not save them. In fact, the true Jesus Christ said to them "I never knew you".

How can this be if "There is only one LORD Jesus Christ whom I am speaking of and that is the same LORD who is the Savior in Protestantism, Mormonism, and Catholicism"?

[cacheman]

I guess my response would depend on how you are using the term "personage". But besides that, "wrong" preaching cuts to the core of the issue. I don't see it as a convoluted argument at all. It is actually quite clear. A Jesus of whom wrong things are preached is a different Jesus than that of the New Testament gospel. I believe that LDS get many things wrong with regard to the person, ministry and role of Jesus in true Christianity. Therefore, with different things being preached, there are two different "Jesus's" (or "Jesii" to use another poster's more humorous terminology  )

Hi Rhino,

I can see your point, but at the same time I disagree that making this type of distinction is at all useful. Where does one draw the line as to what constitutes the real Jesus? If I understand correctly, there are many small doctrinal or interpretational points of difference even between EV groups concerning Jesus or Biblical teachings. Is there an acceptable level of disagreement in which it can be said that although we disagree on some minor points we still worship the same Jesus? Do LDS beliefs just cross some threshold of differences, and if so where does this threshold come from? In the same vein, do differing interpretations of the Bible lead to a wrong and right Bible?

I just see this argument as divisive and unhelpful.

cacheman

[SteubieU]

There is only one Jesus. But according to Protestants their are many one for them and one for everyone they disagree with.

I don't think it is "one for everyone they disagree with"... I am a Catholic and these non-Catholic Christians and I would disagree with me on many different things, but not on the nature of Who God is, Who Jesus is, and their relation to one another. Non-Catholic Christians and Catholics have the same Jesus. Mormons believe in someone completely different and mistakenly connect Him with our Jesus.

[NauvooSaint]

Brent,

I agree whole-heartedly with your comments regarding Jesus Christ. You and I worship the same Jesus Christ and I'm RLDS. We never believed as Reorganized Latter Day Saints what the LDS/Mormons introduced into their theology in the past.

Isn't it interesting how polygamy has it's fingers in much of the LDS/Mormon belief system. This is one reason why...regardless of the LDS current view regarding polygamy if it was falsely introduced using Joseph's name, than what was built on top of it isn't true either. I've considered this in relation to fundamentalists.

Anyway, it's good you mentioned what you did about the differences between Jesus Christ among Christians and the Christ the LDS leaders of the past developed. If you hadn't, I was going to. I think it does matter who we worship, give credit to and believe about that person. Some folks mistakenly worship Satan based upon a twisted understanding of him. If we don't truly know our Savior and Redeemer...we could be decieved in following the 'Anti-Christ'.

Bradley E. Barnhart, priest (RLDS Restorationist)

Springfield, OR.

[SteubieU]

I guess my response would depend on how you are using the term "personage". But besides that, "wrong" preaching cuts to the core of the issue. I don't see it as a convoluted argument at all. It is actually quite clear. A Jesus of whom wrong things are preached is a different Jesus than that of the New Testament gospel. I believe that LDS get many things wrong with regard to the person, ministry and role of Jesus in true Christianity. Therefore, with different things being preached, there are two different "Jesus's" (or "Jesii" to use another poster's more humorous terminology

[cacheman]

Anyway, it's good you mentioned what you did about the differences between Jesus Christ among Christians and the Christ the LDS leaders of the past developed. If you hadn't, I was going to. I think it does matter who we worship, give credit to and believe about that person. Some folks mistakenly worship Satan based upon a twisted understanding of him. If we don't truly know our Savior and Redeemer...we could be decieved in following the 'Anti-Christ'.

Would you say that anything which compels a person to do good is from Christ? I know that a lot of people are compelled to do good by their membership in the LDS church. I think actions speak a lot louder than beliefs, and I don't see action tied to one exclusive "Jesus" or to any particular deity. Whatever leads to good is alright by me, and I don't see this divisive argument as leading to good.

By the way, how do you define the Anti-Christ?

cacheman

[cacheman]

I'll answer your question. A Christian must believe:

A. God is a Trinity of Persons Who each possess the One Divine Nature.

B. God is Spirit and uncreated, not material and created

C. The Second Person of the Trinity took upon Himself a human nature and became truly man.

D. Jesus is fully God and fully man, not an admixture of the two.

E. Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit.

F. We are saved by God's grace alone, won for us on the cross.

G. The Resurrection of all the dead, both those in hell and those in Heaven.

H. The Inerrancy of the Bible

I. The completion of all revelation after the death of the last Apostle.

I think if you fail in one or more of these points (and LDS fail in many of them) you cannot be called a Christian.

These are all based on interpretation of Bible passages. Obviously the Bible can be interpreted many ways, thus the creation of many different Christian sects. Who has the right to declare their interpretations are the correct ones?

cacheman

[rhinomelon]

For me, the real question is this: What exactly MUST we believe (or specifically not believe) in order to be saved?

Wow, big question. My answer will probably frustrate you a little bit, I'm afraid. While I absolutely agree with SteubieU's answer as far as doctrinal truth goes, I cannot in good conscience set a minimum standard as far as saving belief goes. I don't know what God will accept and what He won't; if I did, I'd be the judge, and I don't think anybody would want that comin'! Especially me

I will not tell an LDS person that they are not saved, and/or that they are, without a doubt, going to hell. I don't know, and I can't know.

That being said, I do believe that one must believe as much truth as possible, and get rid of error as much as possible. So while I won't tell an LDS person they are hell-bound, I will tell them about truth, and about the error I see in the beliefs and practices of the LDS church. I will not judge people's eternal destinations; biblically speaking, that is God's job, and God's alone. I will judge truth claims and stand for truth; biblically, that is the duty of every follower of Christ.

Will God reject someone because they replaced worship of God with worship of an exalted man with flesh and bones? I don't know. But I believe that such a concept of God is contrary to truth, so I will address that in terms of truth and error. I'll let God be the judge as to whether holding that particular belief would disqualify anyone.

I just see this argument as divisive and unhelpful.

As do I, which means I won't use it in conversations with LDS. I may have personal beliefs on the issue, but I won't bring those up unless I'm specifically asked to, as I was here.

But for a little perspective, compare the argument that "LDS worship a different Jesus" to "All Christendom is apostate and corrupt, and their creeds are an abomination". I would consider such an argument, so baldly stated, as similarly divisive and unhelpful. You may believe it strongly, but stating it outright would not be conducive to further discussion and conversation.

Hope this helps explain my thoughts. Good post, SteubieU. Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

These are all based on interpretation of Bible passages. Obviously the Bible can be interpreted many ways, thus the creation of many different Christian sects. Who has the right to declare their interpretations are the correct ones?

cacheman

First, cacheman, I just want to say that I really have a great deal of respect for you. I enjoy all the threads in which our avatars cross paths

As far as who has the right to declare their interpretations as correct, wouldn't the answer be everybody or nobody? We all have the God-given right to make up our own minds. That's what free will is all about. If somebody wants to make dogmatic assertions about their beliefs, that's to be expected and even encouraged, in my opinion. That person should also expect to hear from other convicted people who see things differently

[Zorak]

I have several Jesus action figures. One of them carries a staff that changes water into wine. Another one can walk on water. Yet another one has a pull-string that makes him say, "Fe-e-e-e-d my-y-y-y she-e-e-e-e-ep." I also have the Special Edition BC Jehovah; he casts plagues upon nations, turns people into big piles of salt, and destroys entire cities of homosexuals. That Jesus is the coolest, but it's a little messy cleaning up after him.

I used to really like He-Man action figures, too.

And now a serious question:

Do most non-Mormon Christians believe that Jesus was Jehovah, the god of the Old Testament? Or not? The JW's Jesus was not Jehovah. That seems like a pretty significant difference between Jesuses (by the way, what is the proper plural for Jesus????).

[cacheman]

But for a little perspective, compare the argument that "LDS worship a different Jesus" to "All Christendom is apostate and corrupt, and their creeds are an abomination". I would consider such an argument, so baldly stated, as similarly divisive and unhelpful. You may believe it strongly, but stating it outright would not be conducive to further discussion and conversation.

I agree.

cacheman

[johndoe]

My answer will probably frustrate you a little bit, I'm afraid.

Actually I didn't find your answer frustrating at all. If everyone felt this way (on both sides), then I believe that dialogue between us would be much easier.

[Gordon]

Where are you getting this from? How are you making such a claim?

Short answer: the Bible. Long answer is available, if you would like it.

Yes, give me some of the long answer, because I am aware of G-d being mentioned with physical attributes in the Bible, and cannot remember where/when it states that he does not/cannot have them.

I was thinking of the distinction the LDS church makes between "salvation" and "exaltation", which I do not see anywhere in the Bible.

From my understanding, they refer to the same thing.

[SteubieU]

These are all based on interpretation of Bible passages. Obviously the Bible can be interpreted many ways, thus the creation of many different Christian sects. Who has the right to declare their interpretations are the correct ones?

cacheman

The Church that Christ established 2000 years ago and that He made to be the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim: 3:15), that He promised the gates of hell would prevail against (Mt. 16:18)... and it hasn't.

[NauvooSaint]

Cachman,

First of all...I would define 'Anti-Christ' as someone wanting to appear like Christ or considered like Him. Though it is true 'Anti-Christ' is against Jesus Christ and the term 'Anti' is used in language to be 'against' or in 'Opposition'....the Book of Mormon gives some insight into the term with the Anti-Nephi-Lehis. These followers of Jesus Christ weren't against the teachings of Lehi and Nephi or those two men, but rather wanted to be like them. There is also the case of Nehor or Korihor, who had the spirit of 'Anti-Christ'. The 'Anti-Christ' wants to be mistaken for Jesus Christ to deceive humanity.

In regard to doing good.....There are good people throughout the world in other religions. This perhaps reflects their creator in giving them the ability to desire to do good and care for others. The bit of light which is in every man, etc... We can attribute this to God and Christ, however they are not disciples of Jesus Christ. Many religions and churches have a mixture of truth and error. It's good to promote those principles that are in harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ among them and working for the common good. Just as I can stand with others who may differ in theology in opposition to abortion or homosexuality.

Just because people may do what we as humanity or culture would consider 'Good' doesn't mean it's considered 'Good' or 'Righteousness' in the eyes of God and Christ. Jesus was asked in the New Testament about some people who were doing good things who didn't have the authority of Christ and the disciples. I don't remember the story off the top of my head, but Jesus said something to the effect that they were doing good things, leave them alone or at least they weren't against Him.

I'm not discounting the many good things LDS/Mormons do, especially with regard to their understanding for the most part of the teachings of the Savior. This is praiseworthy and not many can claim this for themselves, but I prefer to praise and glorify the Lord for the source of all that is good and the degree that He is able to work among the children of men.....no matter what religion of church they affiliate with.

Bradley E. Barnhart, priest (RLDS Restorationist)

Springfield, OR.

[Gordon]

I agree whole-heartedly with your comments regarding Jesus Christ. You and I worship the same Jesus Christ and I'm RLDS. We never believed as Reorganized Latter Day Saints what the LDS/Mormons introduced into their theology in the past.

Nothing new was introduced, but was restored. Jesus restored the truths that he gave from the beginning - that is 'LDS theology'.

Isn't it interesting how polygamy has it's fingers in much of the LDS/Mormon belief system.  This is one reason why...regardless of the LDS current view regarding polygamy if it was falsely introduced using Joseph's name, than what was built on top of it isn't true either.  I've considered this in relation to fundamentalists.

Polygamy - a commandment from the Lord, as was with prophets of old.

[Gordon]

A. God is a Trinity of Persons Who each possess the One Divine Nature.

Show me some scripture please.

B. God is Spirit and uncreated, not material and created.

Did a prophet of G-d say this, or a man?

C. The Second Person of the Trinity took upon Himself a human nature and became truly man.

You mean Christ was born, right?

D. Jesus is fully God and fully man, not an admixture of the two.

How can he be both and not a mixture? Explain please.

F. We are saved by God's grace alone, won for us on the cross.

Ah, yes, but what does he require of us to receive his good grace?

H. The Inerrancy of the Bible.

The inerrancy of words on paper? Don't you mean the inerrancy of the Gospel - which the 'Bible', nor the BoM is of itself, it is what they testify of.

I. The completion of all revelation after the death of the last Apostle.

And who was this 'last apostle', and when, exactly did he die?

[Magyar]

I guess my response would depend on how you are using the term "personage". But besides that, "wrong" preaching cuts to the core of the issue. I don't see it as a convoluted argument at all. It is actually quite clear. A Jesus of whom wrong things are preached is a different Jesus than that of the New Testament gospel. I believe that LDS get many things wrong with regard to the person, ministry and role of Jesus in true Christianity. Therefore, with different things being preached, there are two different "Jesus's" (or "Jesii" to use another poster's more humorous terminology

[Gordon]

These are all based on interpretation of Bible passages.  Obviously the Bible can be interpreted many ways, thus the creation of many different Christian sects.  Who has the right to declare their interpretations are the correct ones? 

cacheman

The Church that Christ established 2000 years ago and that He made to be the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim: 3:15)

What, exactly, are you saying here? Are you saying that the Church set up by Christ has the right to declare interpretations? Who/what would that be? If it is the direct line that has remained throughout time, then that would be the RCC - are you Catholic? If it is what the Apostles said, where are they now? If it is soley what Jesus taught, then why haven't all the Protestants agreed on what that is? Likely, however, it would be Jesus himself through prophets.

that He promised the gates of hell would prevail against (Mt. 16:18)... and it hasn't.

Don't you mean 'wouldn't' prevail? And what, exactly, was he refering to? Are you suggesting he meant a literal building? Which building was it, and where is it? Was he refering to the 'Bible', even though it hadn't been assembled yet? Was he refering to scripture, even though more was to be written after(see Revelations and John)? Or perhaps he meant the Gospel - what he actually taught? That has not changed - ever. Man's knowledge and understanding of it has, though. If a man cannot read, the words are still there.

[rhinomelon]

Do most non-Mormon Christians believe that Jesus was Jehovah, the god of the Old Testament? Or not? The JW's Jesus was not Jehovah. That seems like a pretty significant difference between Jesuses (by the way, what is the proper plural for Jesus????).

Cool action figures. Anyway, I haven't really studied the issue raised by your serious question, so I can't give a great answer. I know that johnny has thought this issue out quite a bit, however. As to your last question, I believe the consensus from another long-gone thread is "Jesii".

Yes, give me some of the long answer, because I am aware of G-d being mentioned with physical attributes in the Bible, and cannot remember where/when it states that he does not/cannot have them.

Okay, I'll try to sum up. Keep in mind that I am on my lunch break, away from my bloated book collection. God is mentioned with physical attributes in the Bible. That's Jesus, who was "God with us" in human form. The other usages are seen as anthropomorphisms, or attributing human characteristics to God in an attempt to better grasp and understand Him. To paraphrase LDS scholar Stephen Robinson, there is no conclusive evidence either way as to God the Father having a body in the Bible; LDS rely on modern revelation for conclusive proof of that unique doctrine. The Bible also refers to God having wings, and giving birth, but these are also anthropomorphisms.

More conclusive evidence for the incorporeality of God comes from two of Jesus' statements, one in John 4 (God is spirit), and one at the end of Luke (a spirit has not flesh and bone as you see I have). Further evidence can be gleaned from definitive statements in both the Old and New Testaments regarding God's omnipresence and omniscience. The Old Testament passages in particular highlight the fact that God is everywhere and sees everything, and that it is not simply "God's influence" that is everywhere, as LDS often state. The New Testament passages are equally clear. In Ephesians Paul talks about "God who is through all, above all, and in all". Not just His influence, but God himself.

There are other threads in this tapestry, but whole books have been written about this subject, so it's unlikely I'll be able to sum it all up here! And I don't expect you to agree with me, but I'm also not looking for a big debate on this thread. It would be a good challenge for me on another thread, however.

The thing we would agree on is that our beliefs and doctrines about God and Christ are different and mutually exclusive, so the statement "LDS believe in a different Jesus" is not a flat out lie. It is, however, overly blunt and insensitive, and not helpful to discussion.

More later. Take care, everyone

[KevinG]

Once "main stream Christianity" gets the whole Gospels, Apocrapha, mythology, gnostic, born again, catholic, protestent, various creeds and portrayals by Cecil B. Demille and Andrew Lloyd Webber thing consistant... then come on over and let's talk about the attributes of the Savior.

At this point I wouldn't know which description it is I'm supposed to be conflicting with.

[Beowulf]

Steuben wrote:

I'll answer your question. A Christian must believe:

A. God is a Trinity of Persons Who each possess the One Divine Nature.

B. God is Spirit and uncreated, not material and created

C. The Second Person of the Trinity took upon Himself a human nature and became truly man.

D. Jesus is fully God and fully man, not an admixture of the two.

E. Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit.

F. We are saved by God's grace alone, won for us on the cross.

G. The Resurrection of all the dead, both those in hell and those in Heaven.

H. The Inerrancy of the Bible

I. The completion of all revelation after the death of the last Apostle.

I think if you fail in one or more of these points (and LDS fail in many of them) you cannot be called a Christian.

I think that the VAST majority of people who call themselves Christians fail in one or more of the above points. Are NONE of them Christians?

Example: Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Coptics (and indeed everyone other than Calvinists) would disagree with F.

Nestorians (and Coptics, I think) disagree with C and D.

Most early Christians (2nd C) disagreed with A, B, C, and D.

Liberal Protestants of all stripes disagree with H.

I think that your list covers probably no more than a tiny fraction of the Protestant movement, let alone the entire Christian world.

Are none of the others Christian?

Beowulf