LDS Come Unto Christ

[Rescued One]

You consider us lost sheep. We are striving to LOVE Jesus Christ by keeping His commandments.

We LOVE HIM because HE FiRST LOVED US! We aren't striving to love Him; we already love Him. Those who LOVE HIM want to do His will.

 

[Rescued One]

So you criticize the Book of Mormon. I will give you six months to write a book of scripture of equal length (273,725 words 258,198 of them original and not from the Bible or any other text). If you can't do it you have no right to your criticism of the Book of Mormon.

That's a childish response! The Book of Mormon is mostly conglomerated from various sources and no Christian would try to write such nonsense to confuse the naive into thinking it's scripture! I'm positive dzheremi has better things to do with his time than that!

 

[Rescued One]

(New Testament | 1 John 2:4)

4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Your false prophets and church members don't keep His commandments.

Proverbs 30
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Jesus Christ kept the commandments.

(G3) Christ is the Lawgiver
Christ as the Firstborn was preeminent among the members of the Father's family. He created this earth under the direction of the Father (see Moses 1:27-32) and was given authority to be God over it. Acting through the power and authority given him by his Father, the Savior controls, directs and governs the affairs of this earth. As God over this earth, Christ ordained laws, according to the will of the Father, for the benefit and progression of the whole human family. He is man's lawgiver (see D&C 38:22; 64:13). Christ taught the Nephites, saying, "I am the law" (3 Nephi 15:9), meaning that he is the embodiment and the source of all law to mankind. He is not only the source of law and commandments given to men, but he provides the law or organizing power, for the whole universe. This doctrine is taught more clearly in the Doctrine and Covenants than in any of the other standard works.
Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, copyright 1981, p. 393-394

He said:
(New Testament | John 16:33)

33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

John 16:33 Commentary:
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
I have overcome the world - He overcame the prince of this world by his death, John 12:31. He vanquished the great foe of man, and triumphed over all that would work our ruin. He brought down aid and strength from above by his death; and by procuring for us the friendship of God and the influence of the Spirit; by his own instructions and example; by revealing to us the glories of heaven, and opening our eyes to see the excellence of heavenly things, he has furnished us with the means of overcoming all our enemies, and of triumphing in all our temptations. See the notes at John 14:19; also Romans 8:34-37; 1 John 4:4; 1 John 5:4; Revelation 12:11. Luther said of this verse "that it was worthy to be carried from Rome to Jerusalem upon one's knees." the world is a vanquished enemy; Satan is a humbled foe; and all that believers have to do is to put their trust in the Captain of their salvation, putting on the whole armor of God, assured that the victory is theirs, and that the church shall yet shine forth fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners, Sol 6:10.

1 John 5:4
For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

 

[Rescued One]

This teaching explains why the LDS missionaries think they can bring Trinitarians to Christ:

“Individuals and families begin to follow Christ as they exercise faith in Him and repent of their sins. They receive a remission of sins through baptism and by receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost from one who has authority from God to perform these ordinances. They then endure to the end, or, in other words, they continue throughout their lives in exercising faith in Jesus Christ, repenting, and renewing the covenants they have made. These are not just steps that they experience once in their lives; rather, when repeated throughout life these principles become an increasingly rewarding pattern of living. In fact, it is the only way of living that will bring peace of conscience and enable Heavenly Father’s children to return to live in His presence” (Preach My Gospel[2004], 6).

 

[dzheremi]

So you criticize the Book of Mormon. I will give you six months to write a book of scripture of equal length (273,725 words 258,198 of them original and not from the Bible or any other text). If you can't do it you have no right to your criticism of the Book of Mormon.

You know, on second thought, maybe you Mormons should go to the Muslim nations, since you guys argue for your respective books in the same way:

Qur'an 2:23

And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura* like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true.

Qur'an 13:11

Or they may say, "He forged it," Say, "Bring ye then ten suras forged, like unto it, and call (to your aid) whomsoever ye can, other than Allah!- If ye speak the truth!

Qur'an 17:88

Say: "If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.

* sura(h) = chapter

etc., etc.

It's a stupid argument when the Qur'an makes it, and it's a stupid argument when Mormons make it. It's a stupid argument period.

If you can't come up with a mathematically and scientifically brilliant theorem like Einstein's theory of relativity, then does that mean that we have to concede that Einstein was somehow prophet of God? Maybe E= MC^2 is the "Math of God"? This kind of thing follows the same logic, though I doubt anyone who makes such a ridiculous argument (whether Mormon or Muslim or whatever) would actually agree with it when taken out of the context of their defense of their preferred book/religion/prophet. And nor should they (or anyone), because, again, it's stupid and ridiculous on its face.

 

[He is the way]

You know, on second thought, maybe you Mormons should go to the Muslim nations, since you guys argue for your respective books in the same way:

Qur'an 2:23

And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura* like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true.

Qur'an 13:11

Or they may say, "He forged it," Say, "Bring ye then ten suras forged, like unto it, and call (to your aid) whomsoever ye can, other than Allah!- If ye speak the truth!

Qur'an 17:88

Say: "If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.

* sura(h) = chapter

etc., etc.

It's a stupid argument when the Qur'an makes it, and it's a stupid argument when Mormons make it. It's a stupid argument period.

If you can't come up with a mathematically and scientifically brilliant theorem like Einstein's theory of relativity, then does that mean that we have to concede that Einstein was somehow prophet of God? Maybe E= MC^2 is the "Math of God"? This kind of thing follows the same logic, though I doubt anyone who makes such a ridiculous argument (whether Mormon or Muslim or whatever) would actually agree with it when taken out of the context of their defense of their preferred book/religion/prophet. And nor should they (or anyone), because, again, it's stupid and ridiculous on its face.

The Quran is much smaller than the Book of Mormon and took many years to write.

Quran Statistics | Quran Analysis

 

[dzheremi]

So what? The point is that the challenge itself is a stupid challenge, not that the Qur'an and the BOM are comparable in this or that way.

 

[He is the way]

That's a childish response! The Book of Mormon is mostly conglomerated from various sources and no Christian would try to write such nonsense to confuse the naive into thinking it's scripture! I'm positive dzheremi has better things to do with his time than that!

There is nothing better that a person can do than serve God.

 

[He is the way]

Your false prophets and church members don't keep His commandments.

Proverbs 30
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.



(G3) Christ is the Lawgiver
Christ as the Firstborn was preeminent among the members of the Father's family. He created this earth under the direction of the Father (see Moses 1:27-32) and was given authority to be God over it. Acting through the power and authority given him by his Father, the Savior controls, directs and governs the affairs of this earth. As God over this earth, Christ ordained laws, according to the will of the Father, for the benefit and progression of the whole human family. He is man's lawgiver (see D&C 38:22; 64:13). Christ taught the Nephites, saying, "I am the law" (3 Nephi 15:9), meaning that he is the embodiment and the source of all law to mankind. He is not only the source of law and commandments given to men, but he provides the law or organizing power, for the whole universe. This doctrine is taught more clearly in the Doctrine and Covenants than in any of the other standard works.
Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, copyright 1981, p. 393-394





John 16:33 Commentary:
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
I have overcome the world - He overcame the prince of this world by his death, John 12:31. He vanquished the great foe of man, and triumphed over all that would work our ruin. He brought down aid and strength from above by his death; and by procuring for us the friendship of God and the influence of the Spirit; by his own instructions and example; by revealing to us the glories of heaven, and opening our eyes to see the excellence of heavenly things, he has furnished us with the means of overcoming all our enemies, and of triumphing in all our temptations. See the notes at John 14:19; also Romans 8:34-37; 1 John 4:4; 1 John 5:4; Revelation 12:11. Luther said of this verse "that it was worthy to be carried from Rome to Jerusalem upon one's knees." the world is a vanquished enemy; Satan is a humbled foe; and all that believers have to do is to put their trust in the Captain of their salvation, putting on the whole armor of God, assured that the victory is theirs, and that the church shall yet shine forth fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners, Sol 6:10.

1 John 5:4
For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

How does Proverbs 30:6 show any problem with the Book of Mormon? Note that the New Testament was written after the Old Testament.

How does Christ the lawgiver conflict with Christ keeping the commandments?

Christ did overcome the world by keeping the commandments.

 

[He is the way]

So what? The point is that the challenge itself is a stupid challenge, not that the Qur'an and the BOM are comparable in this or that way.

You were comparing the Quran to the Book of Mormon were you not? Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon in just 65 days while in his 20s. I gave you six months and all of the modern technology. If you can't do something, you should not criticize those who can.

 

[dzheremi]

That's stupid.

By your logic, since you can't write posts like mine (e.g., I've never once seen any evidence that you've read any historical Christian writer from within the first 5 centuries of Christianity, let alone could freely reference them and cite them appropriately, either when requested or as standard practice), you shouldn't criticize them.

 

[He is the way]

That's stupid.

By your logic, since you can't write posts like mine (e.g., I've never once seen any evidence that you've read any historical Christian writer from within the first 5 centuries of Christianity, let alone could freely reference them and cite them appropriately, either when requested or as standard practice), you shouldn't criticize them.

The Bible itself is written by historical Christian writers. So is the Apocrypha. Should I quote from the Apocrypha? If I quoted Quadratus of Athens would it be of any authority? Would Bardaisan's words be of interest?

 

[dzheremi]

The Bible itself is written by historical Christian writers. So is the Apocrypha. Should I quote from the Apocrypha? If I quoted Quadratus of Athens would it be of any authority? Would Bardaisan's words be of interest?

Depends on what you'd make of them. Anyone can be quoted to prove or disprove anything. I've seen at least one Mormon document that at least alluded to HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic and St. Basil of Caesarea (I don't remember if it actually quoted them directly), to attempt to give put a Patristic coating on the Mormon idea of deification. It failed miserably, of course, because the Mormon idea of deification is alien to all of Christianity, but it was still an attempt, and an interesting one at that given how Mormons usually say that the 'Great Apostasy' was well underway by the time of these fourth-century bishops. This is another similarity your religion has with its spiritual antecedent, Islam: X (something that the Christians value, be it the Bible or the fathers, or whatever) is corrupt, except insofar as it can be used in a vain attempt to prove the correctness of my religion over yours. This is how Muslims come up with all kinds of prophecies about the coming of Muhammad in this or that Bible verse, while still maintaining that the Bible as a whole has been 'corrupted' and is hence not trustworthy.

It's incoherent and ridiculous, but that's what they do. I would expect nothing else from any Mormon attempting to read any of the fathers and apply them to their religion...or, from the looks of your list, to even be able to tell who the fathers are. (Bardaisan was a Gnostic who formed his own sect; he was not a Christian, and uncontroversially-accepted Christian saints, notably St. Ephrem the Syrian, dedicated many writings to combating Bardaisianism.)

So...that would be interesting, at least, considering that you can't tell the difference between an early Church father and a Gnostic who founded his own religious sect.

 

[Peter1000]

I think it'd be a pretty silly idea that shows you don't read very carefully, Peter, since the point is that you are less likely to attract Orthodox believers due to your even stronger eccelsiology than that of the RCC, which Orthodox already don't like/don't agree with, so it'd be pretty funny to find any Orthodox who convert to Mormonism. Not going to say it's impossible or anything, just pretty dang unlikely given that Mormonism exhibits and even more absolutist ecclesiastical outlook than the RCC itself does, and hence is an even bigger turn-off in this area.

Now notice how I could write that entire paragraph just now ^ without once appealing to my particular Church? If you have something to say, I'd suggest you try mirroring that, because anything that brings up how I'm Coptic, and the Coptic Orthodox Church XYZ or whatever is just going to be irrelevant and stupid. (As I already mentioned in the other post, though not in so many words.)

Don't argue in a way that is irrelevant and stupid, Peter. For the sake of the thread and the board.

@Phoebe Ann:

Were Bruce R. McConkie's sermons and writings on the topic of "Christ working out his own salvation" ever been censured/recalled/disavowed by the LDS, or is this teaching still "on the books", so to speak? I honestly don't see how a leader of this religion can say or write such things while the Mormons attempt to tell us that they worship the same God as Christians do. It is absolute madness.

I'd like to hear from one of you Mormons, if you still believe this, how it is that the One Who was incarnate, crucified, died, and risen again for our salvation somehow has His own salvation to work out...? That makes zero sense. If Christ is God -- and He is -- then how the heck does He need salvation? From what? Why?

And they claim that the comparison between them and the Arians is somehow inapt!

Were Bruce R. McConkie's sermons and writings on the topic of "Christ working out his own salvation" ever been censured/recalled/disavowed by the LDS, or is this teaching still "on the books", so to speak? I honestly don't see how a leader of this religion can say or write such things while the Mormons attempt to tell us that they worship the same God as Christians do. It is absolute madness.

Did Jesus have to do anything so secure his salvation? The answer is surprisingly, yes.

Yes, he was God the Son, and the God of Israel before his incarnation. He also sat on the right hand of God the Father before his incarnation. Does this mean that his salvation was secure?

The answer is surprisingly, no.

Jesus had a mission to perform, and if he had not performed this mission, he would not be God the Son as he was before.

Listen to his words:
1) At his baptism, he told John that he needed to be baptized to "fulfill all righteousness". Do you think that if Jesus had not "fulfilled all righteousness", he could have saved us, and if Jesus could not have saved us, who would have done that work? He was the only one that could save us. If he had not done that, the work of his God and his Father would have been shipwrecked and all mankind would have become like devils, having suffered the second death, and not being able to live in the presence of God for ever.

2) If Jesus had not perfected himself, through his atonement and resurrection (Luke 13:32) none of us would be saved, and we would have suffered the second death for ever.

2) The same thing is true of the crucifixion event. If Jesus had wilted under the pressure and pain and not gone through with the crucifixion, he would have failed in his mission, and all mankind would not have had the opportunity to live with God forever. The plan of God would have been ruined, for Jesus was the only person that had the power to save us. If he had not gone through with the atonement, all mankind would have devolved into devils, being outside the influence of God forever, having suffered the second death.

There is little doubt that Jesus would not have finished his mission, but that doubt was not zero, because he actually asked the Father if there was a way to remove this awful event, so there was at that point an opening for satan to triumph, however, that window was shut tight with Jesus's next statement, when he said, but not my will, but your will be done, and with this still on his lips, angels descended and strengthened him, and he finished his mission in honor and glory.

We are all thankful that Jesus "fulfilled all righteousness" and perfected his salvation through the atonement and the resurrection, and made it possible for all us to be saved to live with God and Jesus forever. Being the author of our salvation, he had to do all the things he was asking us to do in order to be saved. If he had not done these things, he would not have been able to judge us, or save us.

Since he did do all that was necessary, he can judge us, and save us. He is our beloved Savior, praise be to Jesus forever, and ever.

 

[dzheremi]

Did Jesus have to do anything so secure his salvation? The answer is surprisingly, yes.

Yes, he was God the Son, and the God of Israel before his incarnation. He also sat on the right hand of God the Father before his incarnation. Does this mean that his salvation was secure?

The answer is surprisingly, no.

Jesus had a mission to perform, and if he had not performed this mission, he would not be God the Son as he was before.

This is pure blasphemy. Full stop. May God forgive you for writing such twisted things.

Listen to his words:
1) At his baptism, he told John that he needed to be baptized to "fulfill all righteousness". Do you think that if Jesus had not "fulfilled all righteousness", he could have saved us, and if Jesus could not have saved us, who would have done that work?

You do not understand what you are approaching here. Christ's fulfilling all righteousness was with regard to fulfilling the law (as in the law of Moses) for us. He was baptized for us, not for Himself, as He had no sin and hence no need of baptismal regeneration.

Here is what one of the great Church fathers from well before the Council of Nicaea, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (213-270), preaching on the Theophany, Christ's baptism (emphasis mine):

Come, and with the feet of thought let us make for the Jordan, and see John the Baptist as he baptizes One who needs no baptism, and yet submits to the rite in order that He may bestow freely upon us the grace of baptism. Come, let us view the image of our regeneration, as it is emblematically presented in these waters. Then comes Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. O how vast is the humility of the Lord! O how vast His condescension! The King of the heavens hastened to John, His own forerunner, without setting in motion the camps of His angels, without dispatching beforehand the incorporeal powers as His precursors; but presenting Himself in utmost simplicity, in soldier-like form, He comes tip to His own subaltern. And He approached him as one of the multitude, and humbled Himself among the captives though He was the Redeemer, and ranged Himself with those under judgment though He was the Judge, and joined Himself with the lost sheep though He was the Good Shepherd who on account of the straying sheep came down from heaven, and yet did not forsake His heavens, and Was mingled with the tares though He was that heavenly grain that springs unsown.​

Christianity has never taught that Christ was in need of baptism for anything. The scriptures tell us that He had no sin. (Hebrews 4:15)

He was the only one that could save us. If he had not done that, the work of his God and his Father would have been shipwrecked and all mankind would have become like devils, having suffered the second death, and not being able to live in the presence of God for ever.

So let me get this straight: Your religion believes and teaches that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, had to "work out his own salvation" based on something that could have hypothetically happened, but didn't?

Just think about that for five seconds, please. That is what you have written. "If he hadn't done that", etc. But you believe, as a Mormon, that He did do that, right? So on what basis, even within the context of your own faith, do you claim that he needed to "work out his own salvation"? That's not what happened, so that can't be a reason.

This would be like me claiming Mormonism is wrong because Joseph Smith could have not produced the Book of Mormon. That's true, so far as I've phrased it, but absolutely ridiculous, right? Because he did in fact produce exactly that book. So what does such a conditional statement even say? It's contradicted by the reality of what actually happened!

God, I feel like my brain is begging me to stop entertaining this stuff. It's hurting.

I relate to Lisa Simpson so much right now...

2) If Jesus had not perfected himself, through his atonement and resurrection (Luke 13:32) none of us would be saved, and we would have suffered the second death for ever.

As with the other thing you said, you believe He did this, so what is your point? Besides, His perfection is with regard to His coming crucifixion, as is the common understanding of the Church (and obvious from the chronology of the scriptures, but here's a Patristic source anyway):

But what did He bid them say? "Behold, I cast out devils, and do cures today and tomorrow, and the third I shall be perfected." You see that He declares His intention of performing what He knew would grieve the troop of Pharisees: for they drive Him from Jerusalem, lest by the display of miracles He should win many unto faith in Him. But inasmuch as their purpose herein did not escape Him as being God, He declares His intention of performing what they hated, and says, that "He shall also rebuke unclean spirits, and deliver the sick from their sufferings, and be perfected;" which means, that of His own will He would endure the passion upon the cross, for the salvation of the world. He knew, therefore, as it appears, both how and when He would endure death in the flesh.​

(HH St. Cyril of Alexandria, Sermon C [100], Commentary on Luke; emphasis added)

2) The same thing is true of the crucifixion event. If Jesus had wilted under the pressure and pain and not gone through with the crucifixion, he would have failed in his mission, and all mankind would not have had the opportunity to live with God forever. The plan of God would have been ruined, for Jesus was the only person that had the power to save us. If he had not gone through with the atonement, all mankind would have devolved into devils, being outside the influence of God forever, having suffered the second death.

Okay, okay...stop. This is all the same ridiculous argument that you don't even believe in! Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing, or do I have Mormonism completely wrong when I say that you too believe that these things happened? I don't think I do. Every Mormon I've ever interacted with, online and in real life, affirms these things. So what is the point of arguing as though they didn't happen? Just to support this errant Mormon doctrine/blasphemy?

There is little doubt that Jesus would not have finished his mission, but that doubt was not zero, because he actually asked the Father if there was a way to remove this awful event, so there was at that point an opening for satan to triumph, however, that window was shut tight with Jesus's next statement, when he said, but not my will, but your will be done, and with this still on his lips, angels descended and strengthened him, and he finished his mission in honor and glory.

Okay. Thank you confirming that your previous argument was a bunch of ridiculous nonsense that you don't actually believe in. Please never do this again. There's nothing more irritating in the field of religious discussion than someone who plays "Devil's Advocate" just for the hell of it...and I use that phrasing very deliberately here, as that is where this sick doctrine of Jesus 'working out His own salvation' comes from...in truth, that command was given to us, His struggling and fallible followers! Not to Him! Nobody gives Jesus directions but the Father Who sent Him!

We are all thankful that Jesus "fulfilled all righteousness" and perfected his salvation through the atonement and the resurrection, and made it possible for all us to be saved to live with God and Jesus forever.

Then act like and stop preaching and defending blasphemy.

Being the author of our salvation, he had to do all the things he was asking us to do in order to be saved. If he had not done these things, he would not have been able to judge us, or save us.

Jesus Christ, being by nature God, the Son of the Father, the Pantocrator (Greek for 'Ruler of All/Everything'), is not in need of anything to 'become' any of these things. He already is. He always has been. He always will be. Anything that says otherwise is of the devil.

Since he did do all that was necessary, he can judge us, and save us. He is our beloved Savior, praise be to Jesus forever, and ever.

Again, may God forgive you for the blasphemies you have uttered through your hands with this post.

If you ever argue like this again ("I don't actually believe this, but if it had happened this way..."), I will immediately place you on my blocked persons list and no longer see your posts. I have many better things to do than entertain a provocateur. Like literally anything else I could be doing is a better use of my time. Knock it off.

 

[Rescued One]

There is nothing better that a person can do than serve God.

Serving God is not inventing a false religion and multiple other gods!

 

[He is the way]

Depends on what you'd make of them. Anyone can be quoted to prove or disprove anything. I've seen at least one Mormon document that at least alluded to HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic and St. Basil of Caesarea (I don't remember if it actually quoted them directly), to attempt to give put a Patristic coating on the Mormon idea of deification. It failed miserably, of course, because the Mormon idea of deification is alien to all of Christianity, but it was still an attempt, and an interesting one at that given how Mormons usually say that the 'Great Apostasy' was well underway by the time of these fourth-century bishops. This is another similarity your religion has with its spiritual antecedent, Islam: X (something that the Christians value, be it the Bible or the fathers, or whatever) is corrupt, except insofar as it can be used in a vain attempt to prove the correctness of my religion over yours. This is how Muslims come up with all kinds of prophecies about the coming of Muhammad in this or that Bible verse, while still maintaining that the Bible as a whole has been 'corrupted' and is hence not trustworthy.

It's incoherent and ridiculous, but that's what they do. I would expect nothing else from any Mormon attempting to read any of the fathers and apply them to their religion...or, from the looks of your list, to even be able to tell who the fathers are. (Bardaisan was a Gnostic who formed his own sect; he was not a Christian, and uncontroversially-accepted Christian saints, notably St. Ephrem the Syrian, dedicated many writings to combating Bardaisianism.)

So...that would be interesting, at least, considering that you can't tell the difference between an early Church father and a Gnostic who founded his own religious sect.

Of course I knew that Bardaisan started his own religious sect. I also know that Quadratus of Athens was one of the earliest Christian Apologists. You just said that I didn't mention religious leaders from that era. There were diverse religious leaders shortly after Christ was crucified.
(New Testament | Luke 12:51 - 53)

51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

 

[He is the way]

Serving God is not inventing a false religion and multiple other gods!

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 8:5 - 6)

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
(Old Testament | Psalms 82:6)

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
(New Testament | John 10:34 - 36)

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
(New Testament | Philippians 2:5 - 6)

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
(New Testament | Philippians 3:13 - 15)

13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

 

[dzheremi]

Of course I knew that Bardaisan started his own religious sect.

So what does he have to do with Christianity, besides borrowing from some of its central characters to prop up his gnosticism? I asked for historical Christian writers. Bardaisan wasn't a Christian. There were so-called "Christian Gnostics" (which is a modern term anyway), but they weren't called that because they were recognizably Christian (i.e., they weren't a part of the Church), but because they used Christian figures and symbology in their stories about their own gods and their own cosmology (Gnostics loved big cosmological diagrams and complex divisions of the heavens into a bunch of different categories).

(Good thing nobody like that is still around today! )

I also know that Quadratus of Athens was one of the earliest Christian Apologists. You just said that I didn't mention religious leaders from that era. There were diverse religious leaders shortly after Christ was crucified.

Yeah, and I didn't ask if you knew about them, I said you don't quote any early Christian writers. So by your logic, since you don't write posts like mine, which do quote such early Christian leaders (not just say "I know about [name]"), you cannot criticize the things I post.

(New Testament | Luke 12:51 - 53)

51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Yes, but you should know then the ones who are not to be followed, which you obviously don't, because you follow a modern day Gnostic cult instead of Christianity. Christ says His message will divide the family, but there is an expectation then that you will follow Him, and not after whatever falsehood your fathers may have followed.

Here, our father the champion over heresies HH St. Cyril of Alexandria explains how to understand the passage you've quoted, in his 94th sermon on Luke:

Would you like to see the effects of this divine and rational fire? hear then again His words: "Or think you that I am come to give peace upon earth? I tell you, no, but division." And yet Christ is our peace, according to the Scriptures. "He has broken down the middle wall: He has united the two people in one now man, so making peace: and has reconciled both in one body unto the Father." He has united the things below to them that are above: how therefore did He not come to give peace upon earth? What then say we to these things?

That peace is an honourable and truly excellent thing when given by God. For the prophets also say; "Lord, grant us peace: for You have given us all things." But not every peace necessarily is free from blame: there is sometimes, so to speak, an unsafe peace, and which separates from the love of God those who, without discretion or examination, set too high a value upon it. As for instance: the determination to avoid evil men. and refuse to be at peace with them;----by which I mean the not submitting to entertain the same sentiments as they do;----is a thing profitable and useful to us. And in like manner the opposite course is injurious to those who have believed in Christ, and attained to the knowledge of His mystery: to such it is unprofitable to be willing to follow the same sentiments as those who wander away from the right path, and have fallen into the net of heathen error, or been caught in the snares of wicked heresies. With these it is honourable to contend, and to set the battle constantly in array against them, and to glory in holding opposite sentiments; so that even though it be a father that believes not, the son is free from blame who contradicts him, and resists his opinions. And in like manner also the father, if he be a believer, and true unto God, but his son disobedient and evilly disposed, and that opposes the glory of Christ, is also free from blame, if he disregard natural affection, and disowns him as his child. And the same reasoning holds with respect to mother and daughter: and daughter-in-law and mother-in-law. For it is right that those who are in error should follow those who are sound in mind: and not, on the contrary, that those should give way whose choice is to entertain correct sentiments, and who have a sound knowledge of the glory of God.

And this Christ has also declared to us in another manner; "He that loves father or mother more than Me, is not worthy of Me: and he that loves son or daughter more than Me, is not worthy of Me." When therefore you deny an earthly father for your piety's sake towards Christ, then shall you gain as Father Him "Who is in heaven. And if you give up a brother because he dishonours God, by refusing to serve Him, Christ will accept you as His brother: for with His other bounties He has given us this also, saying; "I will declare Your Name unto My brethren." Leave your mother after the flesh, and take her who is above, the heavenly Jerusalem, "which is our mother:" so will you find a glorious and mighty lineage in the family of the saints. With them you will be heir of God's gifts, which neither the mind can comprehend, nor language tell. Of which may we too be counted worthy by the grace and loving-kindness of Christ, the Saviour of us all; by Whom and with Whom, to God the Father be praise and dominion, with the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever, Amen.
​

So the passage is not a mere observation that this would happen (there are, after all, all the verses that LDS claim are evidence of the 'great apostasy' which do say that many will come later confessing other things; you, if you are a Christian, will be expected to profess Christ), but a prophetic promise that this would happen, and a warning to follow the right path in discerning who is really teaching of God.

 

[dzheremi]

Serving God is not inventing a false religion and multiple other gods!

Amen! Can we get this printed on a t-shirt or something and then send one each to every member of the Quorum of the Apostles or whatever the top Mormon leadership level is called?