James White on Why Mormons Aren't Christians

[thews]

Judaim doesn't define itself by a rejection of Christ and the New Testament. Judaism defines itself by its acceptance of two sets of divine laws- the written and the oral Torot. Judaim's rejection of Christ and the New Testament is what makes it not Christian.

Isn't this a contradiction? How can Judaism not be defined on "a rejection of Christ and the New Testament" yet be defined as "not Christian" by rejecting it?

[urroner]

What is so shocking? That you would have to ask about such an issue. This isn't some obscure point, such as the halachic debate over the propriety of picking one's nose on the Sabbath ( R. Ovadiah Yosef says no), but a major and fundamental aspect of a major religion. It is akin to asking if Christians accept the Quran.

Judaim doesn't define itself by a rejection of Christ and the New Testament. Judaism defines itself by its acceptance of two sets of divine laws- the written and the oral Torot. Judaim's rejection of Christ and the New Testament is what makes it not Christian.

I use to go to a conservative site where they would basically talk about what what happening in the world, but they also had a forum for discussing religion. There was a healthy set of anti-Mormons there. I'm not talking about people just critical of the Church, rather their main focus on that site was to constantly run the Church down and denigrate anybody who might even say something nice about the Church.

I asked them one day want it meant to be a Christian and the majority of them could only tell me what a Christian wasn't. They had, for such a long time, had been focusing in so acutely on the negatives, that they couldn't bring out anything positive about their own beliefs. It seemed that their sole focus on that message board was not to provide evidence of why they were right, rather is was to show others why Mormons were wrong.

Maybe I just have everything backwards, but unless there are only two choices, if group X demonstrates that group Y is wrong, it doesn't demonstrate that group X is right.

[urroner]

Isn't this a contradiction? How can Judaism not be defined on "a rejection of Christ and the New Testament" yet be defined as "not Christian" by rejecting it?

Rejecting Christ isn't what defines Judaism.

[volgadon]

Maybe I just have everything backwards, but unless there are only two choices, if group X demonstrates that group Y is wrong, it doesn't demonstrate that group X is right.

Reminds me of a mission experience. We tracted into this stunning accordion player. He invited us back for a discussion. We hadn't realised that this was a Jehovah's Witnesses ambush. Anyway, he starts going off on what made the Russian Orthodox church false. I said we agree with you there, but what makes your faith true. He started bashing the Russian Orthodox again. We never got him to say what was true about his faith.

[volgadon]

Rejecting Christ isn't what defines Judaism.

Exactly. Rejecting Christ doesn't make you Jewish. You could be Muslim, or Buddhist, or Yazid, or Zoroastrian, or atheist.

[thews]

Rejecting Christ isn't what defines Judaism.

Then what does define Judaism?

[volgadon]

Then what does define Judaism?

See post #99.

[urroner]

Then what does define Judaism?

I'm going to make a supposition and suppose that you are married. What defines you marriage? Is it the person you are married with or is it the rest of the world whom you didn't marry?

Just because one does not accept X doesn't mean that one rejects X. Typically, reject is a action verb meaning that an action has to be taken. Many of my ancestors lived before the time of Christ and they never accepted Christ, simply because they had never heard of him. Just because they didn't accept Christ, does that mean they rejected him?

[thews]

I'm going to make a supposition and suppose that you are married. What defines you marriage? Is it the person you are married with or is it the rest of the world whom you didn't marry?

The person I'm married to. The wife of someone else has no definition of my marriage.

Just because one does not accept X doesn't mean that one rejects X. Typically, reject is a action verb meaning that an action has to be taken. Many of my ancestors lived before the time of Christ and they never accepted Christ, simply because they had never heard of him. Just because they didn't accept Christ, does that mean they rejected him?

I'll disagree. When it comes to what defines a religion, what they reject is absolutely part of what defines their faith (by definition). The question isn't based on solely on the God they worship, but the doctrine they accept. What's accepted excludes everything else, so to your point that if one does not accept X, it does mean they reject it as false. To Judaism, if they accepted the New Testament as of God they would be defined as Christian based on the doctrine they place belief in.

[urroner]

The person I'm married to. The wife of someone else has no definition of my marriage.

I'll disagree. When it comes to what defines a religion, what they reject is absolutely part of what defines their faith (by definition). The question isn't based on solely on the God they worship, but the doctrine they accept. What's accepted excludes everything else, so to your point that if one does not accept X, it does mean they reject it as false. To Judaism, if they accepted the New Testament as of God they would be defined as Christian based on the doctrine they place belief in.

So my ancestors' religion is defined by what they didn't know anything about. Interesting logic there. How could they reject something they knew nothing about?

Choosing X doesn't necessarily mean that rejecting Y, it can simply mean just choosing X.

If you insist that Judaism is defined by their rejection of Christ as the Messiah, then by using the same logic, you should be willing to admit that your marriage is defined your rejection of all those who aren't your spouse. That's a lousy way of defining anything.

[thews]

So my ancestors' religion is defined by what they didn't know anything about. Interesting logic there. How could they reject something they knew nothing about?

Choosing X doesn't necessarily mean that rejecting Y, it can simply mean just choosing X.

If you insist that Judaism is defined by their rejection of Christ as the Messiah, then by using the same logic, you should be willing to admit that your marriage is defined your rejection of all those who aren't your spouse. That's a lousy way of defining anything.

I don't understand your logic in defining a religion. If one rejects a doctrine, it does mean they do not accept it. It's wordplay to use my marriage as an analogy, as I did reject all other potential people to choose to marry my wife. The question is based on the definition of the doctrine that defines the religion, and the New Testament is not part of Judaism.

[urroner]

I don't understand your logic in defining a religion. If one rejects a doctrine, it does mean they do not accept it. It's wordplay to use my marriage as an analogy, as I did reject all other potential people to choose to marry my wife. The question is based on the definition of the doctrine that defines the religion, and the New Testament is not part of Judaism.

Do you understand that if somebody doesn't accepts X, it doesn't necessarily mean they are rejecting X even if it deals with religious beliefs?

Are my ancestors who never accepted Christ because they never knew anything about him since they live 1000s of years before Christ guilty of rejecting him?

[thews]

Do you understand that if somebody doesn't accepts X, it doesn't necessarily mean they are rejecting X even if it deals with religious beliefs?

Are you claiming Jews don't necessarily reject the New Testament? The Jewish religion is based on doctrine that doesn't include the New Testament, so I am saying that Judaism rejects the New Testament based on the definition of the religion.

Are my ancestors who never accepted Christ because they never knew anything about him since they live 1000s of years before Christ guilty of rejecting him?

This point is moot when it comes the the OP. The definition of a religion is based on the doctrine it accepts and rejects. How different sects of a given faith interpret that doctrine is debatable, but it doesn't claim to place acceptance of a doctrine of a given faith based on its definition which doesn't include it. Judaism rejects the New Testament (based on its definition) which was my point.

[Pahoran]

Are you claiming Jews don't necessarily reject the New Testament? The Jewish religion is based on doctrine that doesn't include the New Testament, so I am saying that Judaism rejects the New Testament based on the definition of the religion.

This point is moot when it comes the the OP. The definition of a religion is based on the doctrine it accepts and rejects. How different sects of a given faith interpret that doctrine is debatable, but it doesn't claim to place acceptance of a doctrine of a given faith based on its definition which doesn't include it. Judaism rejects the New Testament (based on its definition) which was my point.

Thews,

Here's a suggestion: instead of trying to maneuver others into your trap, why don't you try making your argument?

As Volgadon wisely points out: what Judaism accepts is what makes it Judaism; what it rejects is what makes it non-Christian.

LDS Christianity accepts the New Testament as scripture, and the divinity of Christ. If those things (actually only the latter) are what defines a doctrine as "Christian" then we fit; rather comfortably, in fact. What, then, are you trying to argue? Is there something that we reject that you suppose to be definitive of Christianity? Or is there something that we accept that you suppose Christianity rejects as a matter of definition?

If so, what might that be?

Volgadon: don't be shocked. When thews calls himself a "critic," he is making a rather massive understatement. If you think of the most extreme anti-Mormon positions you've ever seen, you'd be hard pressed to find one that thews would reject as being too extreme for him, although some may be too moderate for his taste.

Regards,

Pahoran