Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Originally posted by Blackhawk
That is a good fairy tale but simply not true. For example the book of mormon was first found (supposedly) in a language that has never been used before. I think it was given the name new egyptian heirglyphics or something like that. Now the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek and Armaic. all known languages spoken in the day of the writing. And that is just one of many examples of how the book of mormon falls way short. Another one would be that it contradicts the Bible.
Originally posted by Havoc
Blackhawk:
That particular Criteria is not all that historical. The Roman Catholic Church has long maintained that scripture and tradition together constitute doctrine.
Even the Nicene creed was far from unanimous. Only some nimble political skullduggery which conveniently ended up in the death of the leader of the opposition (which had considerable following) made it possible for the Nicene to be with us in it's present form. Had Arianus only a little more political sway with Constantine you would all be Arians right now.[/B]
What matters is the baseline. The baseline for defining Christians is one who follows Christ.[/B]
All Christian sects claim to do so, which is why all are defined as Christian by Religious Studies departments in secular Universities, who are unbiased in that they have no stake in the outcome. [/B]
Originally posted by Quath
When it comes to the language, Mormons have come up with their own defense as seen here: http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#egyptian.
Also, the Bible itself is attacked for being self contradicting. Yet the general argument against that is something like "God is mysterious" or "it makes sense if you study it enough." Any contradiction problems with the Mormon book has been dealth with like the thousand of other Biblical contradictions. [/B]
It is hard to say one version is more accurate than the other when logic and physical evidence are tools seldom used to evaluate them.
Scott (Quath) [/B]
Originally posted by Blackhawk
True but tradition never goes against scripture. I have debated doctrine with my RCC brothers many times and never when I say the Bible is against such and such doctrine do they say it is okay because Tradition supports it.
Well we are not and hundreds of years of Orthodox Christianity has labeled him as a heretic so I do not think your point has a leg to stand on.
Originally posted by Havoc
The only common definition is that a Christian is one who follows Christ. Anything beyond that is in dispute.
The concept that the your Bible is the criteria for Christianity is your criteria. You have not shown that it is the only valid criteria, or even more valid than the Mormon or JW criteria.
That's really what it comes down to. Who's criteria is correct? You cannot show that your Bible is the infallible Word of God so your criteria cannot superceed theirs. Both of you claim to have the God given Criteria, none of you can show it.
Originally posted by Havoc
The point is that your Doctrine is not only arbitrary is has changed several times over the course of history. This removes your arguement of historicity. The only arguement that remains as far as I can see is one of validity, which is the only arguement that matters. You cannot show your criteria as being more valid than theirs.
What you say is basically "Only people that believe as I believe are Christians". Being as that is exactly the same thing every other sect says. Since you cannot prove your claim the definition of Christianity has to belong to the basline, or remain undefined.
Originally posted by Hojo Hominygrits
It wasn't until recently that Mormons even wanted to be considered "Christian". Before they wanted it to be known that they were NOT Christians but Latter Day Saints. Why all of a sudden are they wanting to be included in historic Christianity?
I believe this is a slight misunderstanding. The label that LDS has historically objected to is "Protestant". The Protestants came into being "protesting" against the Catholic church. LDS claims to predate the Catholic church therefore they are not protestant.Originally posted by Hojo Hominygrits
It wasn't until recently that Mormons even wanted to be considered "Christian". Before they wanted it to be known that they were NOT Christians but Latter Day Saints. Why all of a sudden are they wanting to be included in historic Christianity?
Originally posted by Auntie
Huh?
The name of the church is: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints". Sounds to me like they consider themselves Christian.
Originally posted by Auntie
The name of the church is: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints". Sounds to me like they consider themselves Christian.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?