Are Mormons Really Christian?

[coolrok7]

Angels and men are different creations of God (my belief based on Biblical teaching is that men and angels are both referred to as sons of God), of the spiritual realm and physical world with two destinations that we all share in on one side or the other for eternity (as a sheep or goat along with the devil and other fallen angels in an eternal punishment as opposed to those who will inherit eternal life through faith in the Gospel (Good News) concerning Jesus Christ, the real one not of the counterfeit type):

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: . . .Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: . . .And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. (Matthew 25:31-34, 41, 46)

The meaning of parents giving birth (literally) comes from the human creation experience of being made male/female human beings, not angelic sons of God but human sons of God without preexisting (although that is the Mormon take on things).

The initial creation of Adam from the dust of the earth, the forming of woman out of man then proceeds with the actual birth of all who initially come from the womb of Eve.

[Vance]

Angels and men are different creations of God (my belief based on Biblical teaching is that men and angels are both referred to as sons of God), of the spiritual realm and physical world with two destinations that we all share in on one side or the other for eternity (as a sheep or goat along with the devil and other fallen angels in an eternal punishment as opposed to those who will inherit eternal life through faith in the Gospel (Good News) concerning Jesus Christ, the real one not of the counterfeit type):

Still not reconciled to the fact that John the Baptist is an angel ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE.

The meaning of parents giving birth (literally) comes from the human creation experience of being made male/female human beings, not angelic sons of God but human sons of God without preexisting (although that is the Mormon take on things).

Just another bald assertion.

The initial creation of Adam from the dust of the earth, the forming of woman out of man then proceeds with the actual birth of all who initially come from the womb of Eve.

This is the PHYSICAL creation, NOT the SPIRITUAL.

You haven't addressed anything. You haven't added anything. All you have done is recycled the same stuff.

Until you address the fact that the BIBLE calls John the Baptist (who is obviously a human) is an ANGEL, this discussion is going nowhere.

[coolrok7]

A point for clarification Vance as you had asked (post # 193):

. . .Did you know that John the Baptist is an angel? The Bible (in the Greek) says so. . . .

The term angel does mean a messenger in which I have no dispute with at all but John the Baptist was born a man, not an angelic spiritual being (not born like we are) like Gabriel here from the presence of God (John the Baptist was born to Zacharias and Elizabeth as recorded here in Luke in which was prophetic in fulfillment of the Old Testament):

THERE was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years. And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course, According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord. And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense. And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense. And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him. But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years. And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings. (Luke 1:5-19)

Where does it say and what does it mean (here or anywhere else) that John is a (spiritual) messenger as Gabriel is? This is not to say that John isn

[Vance]

A point for clarification Vance as you had asked (post # 193):

The term angel does mean a messenger . . .

Missing the point coolrok7. The Greek word "???????" (angel) is used to describe John the Baptist.

Yes, it means "a messenger" which shows that it does NOT mean a separate species from man. Angels are men, period. If the Angel is a spirit, it is the spirit of a man. Angels and men are the SAME ontologically.

Period, end of discussion.

And the same is true for the Hebrew word "????????" (mal'ak), it also means "messenger".

. . . in which I have no dispute with at all but John the Baptist was born a man, not an angelic spiritual being (not born like we are) like Gabriel here from the presence of God (John the Baptist was born to Zacharias and Elizabeth as recorded here in Luke in which was prophetic in fulfillment of the Old Testament):

YUP!!

The Angel, John the Baptist was human. This is EXTREMELY STRONG evidence that angels and men are the same ontologically. What MORE evidence do you need?

The Bible doesn't say they are different! It says that the Angel, John the Baptist is an Angel. It even prophesies of his coming as the coming of an Angel.

Mal 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger (????????, mal'ak, ANGEL), and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

BOTH the Old and the New Testaments call John the Baptist an ANGEL!!!

Both the Hebrew, and the Greek, call John the Baptist an Angel.

Both the Hebrew, and the Greek word for Angel means MESSENGER!!

The Bible doesn't say angels and men are different ontologically, it provides evidence that they are the SAME!!

For you to believe other wise is fine. But such a belief is NOT based on the Bible. It is a PRESUMPTION only.

Where does it say and what does it mean (here or anywhere else) that John is a (spiritual) messenger as Gabriel is?

Where does it say they are different?

This is not to say that John isn

[coolrok7]

Vance, angels are identified here as (in reference to Jesus). John the Baptist is an earthly man born to Zacharias and Elizabeth (Luke 1 which I already quoted from) who had a special calling as a

[Vance]

Vance, angels are identified here as (in reference to Jesus).

Yes, and NOTHING there contradicts the LDS position.

John the Baptist is an earthly man born to Zacharias and Elizabeth (Luke 1 which I already quoted from) who had a special calling as a

[Vance]

coolrok7,

In Acts 1 it says this,

9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Were these two men, men, or angels, or both?

As you know Acts was written by Luke (of the Gospel according to Luke fame).

Apparently these same two men were witnesses of Jesus resurrection as well.

Luke 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?

6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,

So again, were these two men, men, or angels, or both?

[mfbukowski]

Angels and men are different creations of God (my belief based on Biblical teaching is that men and angels are both referred to as sons of God)....

See, here is the problem.

Both are "sons of God" and we have no evidence that they are different than us- we are all "sons of God" both men AND angels.

What is your evidence we are different?

I have seen none yet.

Just as a comment, I completely endorse also Vance's line of reasoning on this thread- I think he is exactly right

[Vance]

See, here is the problem.

Both are "sons of God" and we have no evidence that they are different than us- we are all "sons of God" both men AND angels.

You are EXACTLY RIGHT!!

The only way to get to "men are different ontologically than angels" is to PRESUME it, then read it backwards into the text and ignore all evidence to the contrary.

What is your evidence we are different?

That is the $64 (or with inflation $640) dollar question. We haven't seen it yet. And aren't likely, because, IT ISN'T THERE!!!!

Just as a comment, I completely endorse also Vance's line of reasoning on this thread- I think he is exactly right

Thanks. I will try to not let this go to my head.

[coolrok7]

Vance, you are of course arguing from a Mormon perspective which I don

[Vance]

Vance, you are of course arguing from a Mormon perspective which I don

[coolrok7]

Vance, if you would read carefully at least some of the things I

[Mormon2Christian]

First of all great thread everyone. Thanks for posting and sharing your thoughts Mud Cat and everyone else. It's been awhile since I've posted on madb but a lot of growth and progression has been infecting my life. I LOVE IT!

As I was reading through the posts in this thread I must admit I have grown even more in my awareness as I have been humbled to a greater understanding than before. My answer to the OP was far from immutable as I continued through this thread of well thought out answers and better questions for dialog about Christ.

Christian is probably the best and closest description of a person who is seeking first the kingdom and that which is right. Anyone with faith in Christ is justified and therefore made righteous for doing the RIGHT thing (having faith in Christ). Truly truly it is that simple IMHO. The Matthew 6:33 Christian is on the path to being Christlike.

If a person is Christlike they could also be considered Christian but not all people who are Christians are truly Christlike. Does that make sense?

I distinguish Christian and Christlike like this. A Christian is a little Christ (kinda like Christ)or (a new believer) where as someone who is Christlike is like a child and much more like Christ than a baby Christian. Perhaps someone could edit or add to distinguishing these two similar terms.

Finally however, defining terms and labeling something reduces that which is being described to something less than the true essence of what it truly is. So by labeling who we are at this moment is based on a mutable positionality, a changing reality from who we were to who we are becoming is a practice I'm learning to let go of. It's the same thing with thoughts and opinions. They come and they go. They are subjective and can't be tamed or controlled. They are evolving and changing us as we progress and become more aware of the next moment and what God has planned for us all.

[Mudcat]

Finally however, defining terms and labeling something reduces that which is being described to something less than the true essence of what it truly is. So by labeling who we are at this moment is based on a mutable positionality, a changing reality from who we were to who we are becoming is a practice I'm learning to let go of. It's the same thing with thoughts and opinions. They come and they go. They are subjective and can't be tamed or controlled. They are evolving and changing us as we progress and become more aware of the next moment and what God has planned for us all.

Hi M2C,

Thanks for your contribution to the thread. I think your closing remark in this last post speaks volumes and I appreciate you drawing things back to center a bit.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

...........................

Note to all.

After reading through the last few pages, it seems there is quite a bit of grid lock.

But I am certainly appreciative of the fact that everyone has kept things in a manner of civil discourse. At least in as much that the thread didn't locked... someone banned and so on.

I plan to keep the thread up for a week more to allow any of you all to take the time to make any closing remarks you feel necessary.

Thanks for your participation.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Vance]

Vance, if you would read carefully at least some of the things I

[coolrok7]

I thought I answered your charges in post #210 in part (maybe not to your satisfaction, but don

[Vance]

I thought I answered your charges in post #210 in part (maybe not to your satisfaction, but don

[Vance]

Bump.

[Mudcat]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: Thanks everyone. I appreciated your participation.

If you disagree to this action, please report this post, and a moderator or administrator will reconsider it.

Kind regards,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff