Will the real Jesus please stand up?

[spike]

serapha~

Although I don't get much time on the computer, I am, thankfully, a quick reader. I have visited all of your links. Not many contained information relevant to the discussion on hand. Here is what I found.. (notes on each link)..

1) ..addresses the Trinity conclusion. We have looked at this since then, and I'm fully aware that my view is not the traditional as defined by the Creed. See my remarks above..

2) This takes me to the LDS.org home page...

3) This seems to contain material supporting the LDS conclusions on the nature of Jesus..

4) ..tackles the issue of Jesus being the God of the Old Testament. This is one position that I'm not fully convinced of yet. However, the article indicates that early LDS theology taught differently, and the prevailing view emerged within this century. Does that mean that J. Smith had it right to begin with?

5) ..discusses polygamy (practiced during Abraham's time as Biblical precedent), not the 2J issue.

6) A 'Watchman' profile of the LDS Church, but also defines the LDS position to a degree, but with no comparison to other theologies within that page.

7) This is a newspaper article discussing the 'newness' of the church..

8) An interesting series of further links, admittedly not kind to LDS theology. This page contains a link back to #1.

9) ..concentrates on polygamy..

10) ..chronologies LDS opposition to gay marriage in a court case in Hawaii..

11) ..a sublink of #6. Defines some of the critical differences between LDS theology and standard Christian doctrine as relates to the 2J issue. This one comes closest yet to providing material for the discussion at hand, but lacks further references to expand the discussion to specifics other than a Bible Dictionary of Terms..

12) From Gordon B. Hinckley, good advice for us all..

13) ..an LDS film archive/info source. Not applicable.

14) Salt Lake Tribune article covering a talk by one of the General Authorities.. but not applicable to the discussion..

15) Finally.. this one presents a more concise argument, from a Baptist point of view (which does not surprise me, as the Babtist Church is quite vocal about their opposition to LDS theology). It is an interesting read, but, the two passages below present a bit of a 'leap of faith' to swallow..

"Tell me, the Jesus you believe in, is it the same Jesus who told Joseph Smith that all churches were wrong, that all Christian confessions were an abomination and that all Christians ("professors") were corrupt?"
When he hesitated to respond, I reminded him of the source of those words--Joseph Smith Religious History 1:19 in The Pearl of Great Price. "Yes"-- he reluctantly admitted it is the same Jesus who said that to Joseph Smith.

The conclusion of the Baptist Minister follows..

Then I told him, "It is impossible that you and I believe in the same Jesus because the Jesus you believe in (the Jesus of Mormonism) is the enemy of Christianity. The Jesus of Mormonism has declared everything that the Bible teaches and, hence the Church believes, about Christ to be an abomination. It is very critical that we know which Jesus we believe in," I told him. "The Christ of the LDS Church and the one of the Christian faith are not the same."

Sure, if you look at it that way. But, funny thing is, I haven't met a Mormon yet that believed that 'everything that the Bible teaches is an abomination'. Hmm..!

Thanks for sharing your info,

-spike-

 

[JVAC]

Hello, JVAC.. Thank you for posting..



This is correct. I was quite surprised to find out that I was not considered to be a 'Christian', even before my introduction to the LDS church, based upon my feelings regarding the Trinity as defined by the Nicene Creed. However, there is ample basis within the Bible to see it both ways. Additionally, this presents the unique problem of the paradox of Salvation, in that any Christians that had died before the official authoring of the Creed cannot have been termed so by its definition, which didn't exist at the time. The Triune nature of the Godhead is not specifically defined as such in the Bible with regards to the Nicene definition. Where does that leave adherants of early Christianity? Can we honestly say that they were not truly Christian if the question of the Godhead had not 'officially' been 'concluded' during their time by a Creed that attempts to do so almost 400 years later? The very fact that there needed to be a Creed at all meant that there was conjecture and disagreement on the issue, hence, not all Christians thought alike - and yet, they all ascribed to the principles of Christianity.



Oops. Kinda like I just started. Sorry!



Yes, but again, this is as defined by the Creed. I understand the reasoning, but the Creed is, in my opinion, an elaboration of scripture and authored by man, therefore, it contains the same flaw of nature that folks opposed to LDS theology state - that it is an elaboration of scripture, and authored by man.



Again, though, it is the Creed here that is providing the weight of that definition. I understand that (as defined by the rules of this forum) this is the qualifier for many Christians. I am hoping for more actual Biblical references to support the idea with that kind of clarity.

JVAC, I appreciate your thoughts and I thank you for sharing them!

Please have a safe and happy Holiday Season!

-spike-

I do not think the Nicene Creed, accepted by all churches of Christ (east to west), damns anyone. According to Mark 16:16 "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned" (even though the book of morman adds whoever is not baptized will be condemned these are the true words of Christ). The creed as you somewhat mentioned was formulated by the church to combat herressy and unite the church under ONE Lord. I do not ever see it said "Hear O Israel, The Lord God Eternal, the Lord is three" on the contrary it is written "Shma Yisrael, YHWH Elohenu YHWH echad" (Hear Israel, the Lord, the eternal, The Lord is one. also "Hear Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord Alone.) (Deut.6:4) The hebrew echad is a word that deals with unity and the word Elohenu (spelled a bit differently but forgive me I am away from my sources presently) is one of plurality. These ellusions are quite prominent in the old testament. They are made known and real to us in the new testament. Just because the doctrine wasn't found in writing until the 200's and formalized later, doesn't mean the belief wasn't there.

I don't understand how you can refute these things even though it says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God." (we all know John 1:1) yet still in that Gospel, "I and the Father are one" 10:30 and yet even further 10:38 "...understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father". Jesus asks and assures us (14:9-14) that he is in the father and that they exist in eachother. Later, Jesus says again that he is one with God in his prayer in 17:21-22. There are many more verses but I seek to tire you not.

I hope I have shown you that the creed, though it be a magnificent tool of our faith and a great uniter, is not man made junk. The Creed of Nicea was written by the early church, with the leaders, who prayerfully drew it up. Also it is the belief of the Church, that the Holy Spirit guided the Church leaders to create it. It is the best creed, in my opinnion, the Church posesses (although I cherish the other two dearly) yet the faith of the Church has always been and will always be in that One God that she so boldly professes. Hosana from on High is our cry.

Halleluja!

-James

(God bless us all this Christmas)

 

[gort]

Hello Spike,

What BY proclaimed in my last post was what he had heard from JS. It is in regards to the atoning work of Christ Jesus on the Cross, being insufficient for some sins. Note the plurality of said sins.





TRUE DOCTRINE OF BLOOD ATONEMENT. Just a word or two now, on the subject of blood atonement.... man may commit certain grevious sins—according to his light and knowledge—that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone—so far as in his power lies—for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail .... And men for certain crimes have had to atone as far as they could for their sins wherein they have placed themselves beyond the redeeming power of the blood of Christ. (Doctrines of Salvation, 1954, Vol. 1, pp. 133-136)

Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie still maintains that "under certain circumstances there are some serious sins for which the cleansing blood of Christ does not operate, and the law of God is that men must have their own blood shed to atone for their sins." (Mormon Doctrine, 1979, page 92)



Apostle Bruce R. McConkie made these comments concerning the blood atonement doctrine:

President Joseph Fielding Smith has written: "Man may commit certain grievous sins ... that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ .... Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf." (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp.133138. )

Apparently later McConkie later stated...



President Joseph Fielding Smith has written: "Man may commit certain grievous sins ... that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ .... Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf." (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp.133138. )

This doctrine can only be practiced in its fulness in a day when the civil and ecclesiastical laws are administered in the same hands. It was, for instance, practiced in the days of Moses, but it was not and could not be practiced in this dispensation, except that persons who understand its provisions could and did use their influence to get a form of capital punishment written into the laws of various states of the union so that the blood of murderers could be shed." (Mormon Doctrine, page 93)



These are what your prophets and presidents taught. While today these are probably not taught, nor part of your doctrine, it is still what was once taught. It is still that which was spoken by LDS prophets.

Is this the same Jesus of the Holy Bible?



this information taken from this site: http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no56.htm#Blood


I wonder if these were re-instated as true doctrine again, what would you think?

 

[Polycarp1]

I ain't gettin' in the middle of this!

However, one bit of useful information I can give is on "Elohenu" which is "Elohim" modified to say "our God" rather than just "God." Elohim is the Hebrew for "God" used in reference to Him Whose Name is YHWH, and it's a specialized plural in form -- buit not the regular plural of "el" (god), which is "eloim" without the heth in the middle. The plural form does not appear to be suggestive of a fossil doctrine of polytheism, but to spring from the same sense of authority as does the royal or editorial "We."

 

[Eliot]

Greetings Polycarp,
You said "Elohim" is the Hebrew for "God", G_d is from the Hebrew as well, how can one replace the other?

 

[Serapha]

Serapha, serapha...

Imagine that you encountered someone who genuinely wanted to learn more about the Bible and the Faith experience of others. Would you not consider discussing your views, as well as providing links? I do appreciate you having provided the links, and will check them out as I have the chance (I have extremely limited computer access so it may take a few days to read and digest all of the material within).

Don't take offense at the notion of cutting/pasting; you asked a question that I felt needed greater clarity of definition than I could provide from my own thoughts. I did not author the Plan. Similarly, I do not expect you to create your own scripture or paraphrase the Bible when giving the actual quote would do a better job, in your opinion, of answering a given question. There is nothing written that I have yet found, in the Biblical sense, that answers the question so directly that I have put forth; thus, it has become a subject of debate where we must draw conclusions based upon elements of scripture and the reader's personal thoughts. You felt similarly if you have consulted these sites in drawing your conclusion.

If you wish not to interject or discuss further, I understand. I value your own thoughts and opinions, though, should you decide to share them. Really, I don't bite..

And, Merry Christmas to all..!


-spike-

Spike


When you get on the computer for your "limited time"... leave your personal comments at home and bring your professional conduct to the forum.

Everyone's time is valuable here, so don't waste other people's time with your nonsensical postings and attitudes. No one on this forum cares if you "bite".... they care to know if you can conduct an adult conversation.


The subject of this posting is, "Will the real Jesus please stand up" you have takers on your "baited" question... so take care of "business". I'm out of your "discussion".


~serapha~

 

[spike]

When you get on the computer for your "limited time"... leave your personal comments at home and bring your professional conduct to the forum.

I believe that I've done so. You may point out the errors of my ways, if you wish.

Everyone's time is valuable here, so don't waste other people's time with your nonsensical postings and attitudes. No one on this forum cares if you "bite".... they care to know if you can conduct an adult conversation.

Serapha, I command no-one to read my postings. You are in the Unorthodox Theological Doctrines category. Were you expecting discussions regarding otherwise? You are involved in this of your own free will.

The subject of this posting is, "Will the real Jesus please stand up" you have takers on your "baited" question... so take care of "business". I'm out of your "discussion".

Hardly a baited question. Or, perhaps all questions are baited depending on how they are interpreted. I simply see that this board has an excellent number of knowledgeable individuals with regards to Scripture, and I have enjoyed the knowledge that they have shared thus. Perhaps you feel that I have an agenda to pursue.. that would be foolish and non-productive.

Certainly, there are many Biblical examples where Jesus contended with and educated those that had questions for him - he did not merely brush them aside with disdain because their views differed. I have been enlightened by the comments that others have offered. Again, should you take offense to the discussion, just ignore me, and I promise not to ruin your day.

-spike-

 

[MizDoulos]

Please note: Any personal conflicts should be handled via e-mail or the private message option. Please do not air them publicly or disharmony will eventually result (Rule 2) and appropriate action will be taken.

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[spike]

Good Morning, JVAC! Here are a few comments on your last post...

I do not think the Nicene Creed, accepted by all churches of Christ (east to west), damns anyone.

Accepted. I don't *feel* ******.. ..but I do realize that it (adherence to the Creed) is the determining factor for some as to whether or not they are considered Christians, even as defined by this posting board.

According to Mark 16:16 "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned" (even though the book of morman adds whoever is not baptized will be condemned these are the true words of Christ).

This is an interesting one. I wonder if Mark would've meant to include 'and be baptised' ("but whoever does not believe and thus refuses to be baptised..") in his summary. My proposition is much more clumsy, of course, but perhaps the latter would've been assumed to be part of the process of professing faith in Christ during Mark's time. But now I am guilty of conjecture!

The creed as you somewhat mentioned was formulated by the church to combat heresy and unite the church under ONE Lord. I do not ever see it said "Hear O Israel, The Lord God Eternal, the Lord is three" on the contrary it is written "Shma Yisrael, YHWH Elohenu YHWH echad" (Hear Israel, the Lord, the eternal, The Lord is one. also "Hear Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord Alone.) (Deut.6:4) The hebrew echad is a word that deals with unity and the word Elohenu (spelled a bit differently but forgive me I am away from my sources presently) is one of plurality. These allusions are quite prominent in the old testament. They are made known and real to us in the new testament. Just because the doctrine wasn't found in writing until the 200's and formalized later, doesn't mean the belief wasn't there.

I don't understand how you can refute these things even though it says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God." (we all know John 1:1) yet still in that Gospel, "I and the Father are one" 10:30 and yet even further 10:38 "...understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father". Jesus asks and assures us (14:9-14) that he is in the father and that they exist in eachother. Later, Jesus says again that he is one with God in his prayer in 17:21-22.

Yes, but this peculiar choice of language is what creates the paradox for me. In Deut.6:4 the Hebrews would have only known of or acknowledged 'one God'. Later, after Christ's arrival, we see the constant referral to 'My Father'. The treating of God in Heaven as an individual spoken to by Jesus in parts of scripture; Jesus addressing God as a separate individual. The use of the phrases, "I and the Father are one", and the statement that He is "one with God " in prayer - not 'God', as is, not the Only. Not, 'I am my Father'. The careful usage that does not define him as singular, but rather 'another' - and the way that we know that to state 'we are one' does not imply 'we are all one entity, unseparate' - (think that a group of individuals can state, 'We are united as one in purpose', 'We are one in action' - meant to signify a continuity of purpose, not to diminish the identity of the participants and meld them into a singular physical entity).

To accept only the literal terminology seems very limiting of the Power of God and the nature of Christ.

What was the purpose of sending 'His Son'? Why not simply come on down and set things straight himself? Why 'give His Son'? Why arrange a complicated scenario that was born of miracle, but defined by the human process (birth)? Doesn't all of it seem an odd complication of matters that would be completely unnecessary if God simply existed as the Triune nature suggests? These are the questions that have led me to believe differently.

There are many more verses but I seek to tire you not.

Don't worry, JVAC - you'll not tire me out. I enjoy your commentary and appreciate that you share your knowledge with me. I still have much to learn. Post what you will.

I hope I have shown you that the creed, though it be a magnificent tool of our faith and a great uniter, is not man made junk. The Creed of Nicea was written by the early church, with the leaders, who prayerfully drew it up. Also it is the belief of the Church, that the Holy Spirit guided the Church leaders to create it. It is the best creed, in my opinnion, the Church posesses (although I cherish the other two dearly) yet the faith of the Church has always been and will always be in that One God that she so boldly professes. Hosana from on High is our cry.

I do not feel the Creed to be man made junk. But, I do see it as an attempt to unify Christianity by imposing a definition of something that cannot be completely understood by man (the nature of God) in terms that man can supposedly comprehend. It is as difficult as trying to explain the concept of the Infinite Continuance of Time and the Universe. It simply cannot be done at our level of comprehension and intellect. Thus, I feel that it, if used as a barometer of faith, has been utilized incorrectly in that role. But I understand the need to have attempted to do so.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Have a pleasant weekend..!

-spike-

 

[JVAC]

Good Morning, JVAC! Here are a few comments on your last post...



Accepted. I don't *feel* ******.. ..but I do realize that it (adherence to the Creed) is the determining factor for some as to whether or not they are considered Christians, even as defined by this posting board.



This is an interesting one. I wonder if Mark would've meant to include 'and be baptised' ("but whoever does not believe and thus refuses to be baptised..") in his summary. My proposition is much more clumsy, of course, but perhaps the latter would've been assumed to be part of the process of professing faith in Christ during Mark's time. But now I am guilty of conjecture!



Yes, but this peculiar choice of language is what creates the paradox for me. In Deut.6:4 the Hebrews would have only known of or acknowledged 'one God'. Later, after Christ's arrival, we see the constant referral to 'My Father'. The treating of God in Heaven as an individual spoken to by Jesus in parts of scripture; Jesus addressing God as a separate individual. The use of the phrases, "I and the Father are one", and the statement that He is "one with God " in prayer - not 'God', as is, not the Only. Not, 'I am my Father'. The careful usage that does not define him as singular, but rather 'another' - and the way that we know that to state 'we are one' does not imply 'we are all one entity, unseparate' - (think that a group of individuals can state, 'We are united as one in purpose', 'We are one in action' - meant to signify a continuity of purpose, not to diminish the identity of the participants and meld them into a singular physical entity).

To accept only the literal terminology seems very limiting of the Power of God and the nature of Christ.

What was the purpose of sending 'His Son'? Why not simply come on down and set things straight himself? Why 'give His Son'? Why arrange a complicated scenario that was born of miracle, but defined by the human process (birth)? Doesn't all of it seem an odd complication of matters that would be completely unnecessary if God simply existed as the Triune nature suggests? These are the questions that have led me to believe differently.




Don't worry, JVAC - you'll not tire me out. I enjoy your commentary and appreciate that you share your knowledge with me. I still have much to learn. Post what you will.



I do not feel the Creed to be man made junk. But, I do see it as an attempt to unify Christianity by imposing a definition of something that cannot be completely understood by man (the nature of God) in terms that man can supposedly comprehend. It is as difficult as trying to explain the concept of the Infinite Continuance of Time and the Universe. It simply cannot be done at our level of comprehension and intellect. Thus, I feel that it, if used as a barometer of faith, has been utilized incorrectly in that role. But I understand the need to have attempted to do so.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Have a pleasant weekend..!

-spike-

Thanks for your reply and I hope the next ten days of christmas go well for you.

Firstly I want to touch on the 'why didn't God come down and straighten it up Himself' (I don't know how to do the fancy quote box thinggy). He did! That is what is wonderful about our Triune God, is that He, Himself came down for us, to live like us, and to die for us. Our God did that for us! That is so awesome.

Now on the grounds of addressing God as 'my father'; firstly, that is in the Christ's nature. His role in the Godhead is saviour and son. He wouldn't address Father God as anything else, because the Father is the father and the Son is the son of this relationship, as the creed says "equal to the Father in divinity, subordinate to the Father in humanity." (Quicunque Vult). So as to the Christ regarding Father God, it was truly right for him to do so, don't forget the Christ was also an example. We should be like the Christ (no matter how futile that attempt may be) and above all thank and honour God.

Though the Holy Trinity is very complicated as you have said, it is the only way to truly know our God. The early church said it best in the Quicunque Vult "As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords"

I will be away from my sources for sometime so I won't be able to check with the Greek wording of those phrases, unless someone else could help there. Translation is a messy thing.

Yet you say they are one in action. I don't consider that true whereby, Father God is the Creator, God the Son is Saviour, and the Holy Ghost is the Sanctifier/Sustainer. These are not the same actions but different actions. Each performs a different action, so they cannot be one in action for it is the Father who Creates, and the Son who Saves, the Father would not and does not presume the role of the Son, or vice versa. Each distinct entity of God has a distinct purpose, but there is one God. Just as a man can be Father, Lover and Worker, he may have three different actions, three different titles but be the same being.

That first reason, however, will probably remain the biggest thing keeping our Jesus seperate from yours; Jesus being God himself coming to live with us and die for us. We Christians have such a loving God that he wouldn't send anyone else but he himself to come, and just because he does it under the name Jesus and not YHWH doesn't make there two gods.

I hope this explained it better.

-James


This has nothing to do with the topic but that last thing i said "I hope..." just reminded me of someone saying, We can't live off of good intetnions.

 

[Eliot]

James, you said:
We Christians have such a loving God that he wouldn't send anyone else but he himself to come, and just because he does it under the name Jesus and not YHWH doesn't make there two gods.

I hope this explained it better.

-James

You are getting "Greek mythology" mixed up with the Hebrew scrolls.

Our Hebrew Redeemer's name was made up of the hebrew symbols including His Fathers name, not Greek symbols.
These combination of letters/symbols represents an Authority specifically given by the Almighty himself to redeem HIS people.

All the miracles performed were done "in" His Fathers name, he spoke His Fathers name, His Father giving permission and the miracles were done just as it was with EliYAH and Moshe, all IN THE NAME of the Almighty of the Hebrews.

The word "son" is the same vocalization as "Sun", the doctrine you listed were from "Royal leaders" that considered the Sun/Son to be the "Salvator/savior" of the world, this "Sun" was their
"light to guide the way".

The Greek/Roman doctrines have "mixed" what is truth and what is false, so the people would "go along to get along" with THEIR ways of worshiping. THEIR ways were one of the things the bloodline of Yaaqob was forwarned NOT to mix in with, what is being done today is no different than "yesterday".

 

[JVAC]

First, I don't really understand what you are trying to say, it must be a problem with how I am reading it, it makes no sense to me.

If you are trying to say that I am trying to use Son like sun, then I would say no. Also, I have never seen Greek Mythology claim to have an omnipotent triune god, and none other.

I can't type anything else because I am very lost. Maybe if you reword a little I would understand.

 

[Eliot]

First, I don't really understand what you are trying to say, it must be a problem with how I am reading it, it makes no sense to me.

If you are trying to say that I am trying to use Son like sun, then I would say no. Also, I have never seen Greek Mythology claim to have an omnipotent triune god, and none other.

I can't type anything else because I am very lost. Maybe if you reword a little I would understand.

Greetings JVAC,
If you are given the eyes to "see", then you will understand.

To make it short, the "Bible" you read from has been "Grecianized".

The Greeks have many "gods" whether 'joined at the head" or seperate, for instance, "Janus" (where we get January) was the Greek "god" of a
"new" year. This two headed god had one face look to the back and one to the future as is celebrated on Jan 1st.

Iesous (eaysoos) Christos Salvator, a Greek "savior" as well as a
"healing goddess"(Ieso).

Son from Sun, is the Greeks "Guiding light", the rebirth of the Sun/Son, "Sol Invictus" celebrated the renewal of the lengthening of the light throughout the "day" (Day was a Persian "Light" deity), the same place as where the celebration of "Sol Invictus" came from, also known as "ChristMass".

They mixed this with the 'first brought forth male child' of the Mighty one of the hebrews (YHWH) known commonly as YAHWEH.

 

[JVAC]

Thanks for a speedy reply Eliot;

Wasn't Janus the Roman god of portals (doorways)? Well, anyway, there are a lot of pagan god's in our everyday language, like the days of the week. Christmas is definately no exception, occuring next to the Winter Solstice. Yet, it serves its purpose in the Church year. It seems only natural we begin a new year with the birth of our Lord.

What it seems that you are conveying is that we took Jesus, from the Greeks, whereas I haven't fully researched your data, I do know that we did not, ex: Josephus. The Gospels, were written not in Greece but in asia minor. Even though there was a wide spread of helenistic ideas, I do not see it in the Gospels. Your writting still remains a little enigmatic, do you tend to imply Jesus as descending from appollo? And who is the 'they' that you speak of? Do you imply that the authors of the gospels, and peter, paul, james and john all were in a little scheme to deify Jesus with a mixture of hebrew and helenistic thoughts?

-James

 

[Eliot]

Thanks for a speedy reply Eliot;

Wasn't Janus the Roman god of portals (doorways)? Well, anyway, there are a lot of pagan god's in our everyday language, like the days of the week. Christmas is definately no exception, occuring next to the Winter Solstice. Yet, it serves its purpose in the Church year. It seems only natural we begin a new year with the birth of our Lord.

What it seems that you are conveying is that we took Jesus, from the Greeks, whereas I haven't fully researched your data, I do know that we did not, ex: Josephus. The Gospels, were written not in Greece but in asia minor. Even though there was a wide spread of helenistic ideas, I do not see it in the Gospels. Your writting still remains a little enigmatic, do you tend to imply Jesus as descending from appollo? And who is the 'they' that you speak of? Do you imply that the authors of the gospels, and peter, paul, james and john all were in a little scheme to deify Jesus with a mixture of hebrew and helenistic thoughts?

-James

JVAC,
you will notice a lot of Greek names with the ending "us", this was The Greeks way of a name put in masculine form, a tradition that also stems back to honoring of "Ze'us" (Pagasus, tarsus, etc...)

You said "it seems only natural we begin our new year with the birth of the Lord"

The New Year (according to the Roman calender) begins with The Greek god" Janus", after the rebirth of the Sun (Sol Invictus) As you know, these are Greek and Roman traditions.

The same GreeK and Roman leaders are the same ones who altered the writings of the Scrolls, thinking "their" mighty one (Zeus) was as superior as the 'Mighty one of the Hebrews', in which of course was and is not true.

The Septuigant (Greek speaking Orthodox "Jews") were also responsible for following the ways of the Greeks and Romans, to have nice things, they went along with the adversarys denying the only true Almighty.

The Greeks had a Salvator named Ieso'us ( this name exisited long before the Hebrew redeemer was sent), in the Hebrew texts, they removed the the name for the Hebrew redeemer and put (what they thought was equivalent) Iesous in His place, a name to them that meant "Savior", so to them it was "good enough".

All of these things pus many others have been handed down and placed in the very Bible you read from.

The holidays that people cherish, are not the only things exisiting from the ancient times that is false, the very names you are lead to believe as "your god" are none other than the Greeks "god".

When a name is removed and replaced with another name, the meaning within the name that reveals the true identity of that individual is lost, no longer affective, it is called "identity theft".

The letter "J" is a letter that didn't exist at all until the 1600's, when it was invented.

 

[Eliot]

SOMETHINGS I FORGOT TO ADD:
You mentioned "Josephus". The J is suppose to be a Y, the suffix "us" is a Greek attachment.

Another example: "Paul'us" (notice once again the "us"), His correct name is 'Shaul'.


Our REAL New Year begins at the 'Yearah Hodesh', which means the 'freshening of seasons', this is around April (spring time) when the earth starts to "blossom" once again.

 

[Der Alte]

JVAC,
you will notice a lot of Greek names with the ending "us", this was The Greeks way of a name put in masculine form, a tradition that also stems back to honoring of "Ze'us" (Pagasus, tarsus, etc...)

Nonsense! Neither of the names you mentioned end with the letters "us," in Greek. Check any English dictionary, in Greek they end in "os" Neither those names, or any other Greek name which appears to, actually end in "us, in Greek. Thus they cannot and do NOT have any connection to the Greek deity Zeus, which I have already stateed is NOT pronounced "Zoose" in Gree Zeus is pronounced TZeheüs.

The same GreeK and Roman leaders are the same ones who altered the writings of the Scrolls, thinking "their" mighty one (Zeus) was as superior as the 'Mighty one of the Hebrews', in which of course was and is not true.

Garbage! Where is your proof? Remember the Dead Sea and Qumran scrolls? They prove beyond any doubt or question that we, today, have the same T'nakh that the Messiah used in the first century. Virtually every time the Messiah quoted the O.T., in the new, He was quoting the Septuagint.

The Septuigant (Greek speaking Orthodox "Jews") were also responsible for following the ways of the Greeks and Romans, to have nice things, they went along with the adversarys denying the only true Almighty.

Garbage! Where is your proof?

The Greeks had a Salvator named Ieso'us ( this name exisited long before the Hebrew redeemer was sent), in the Hebrew texts, they removed the the name for the Hebrew redeemer and put (what they thought was equivalent) Iesous in His place, a name to them that meant "Savior", so to them it was "good enough".

Garbage on top of more garbage! The word "Salvator" is Latin! The Greek word for savior is "Soter." There is NO Greek "soter" prior to The Messiah who had the name "Iesous"!

All of these things pus many others have been handed down and placed in the very Bible you read from.

The holidays that people cherish, are not the only things exisiting from the ancient times that is false, the very names you are lead to believe as "your god" are none other than the Greeks "god".

When a name is removed and replaced with another name, the meaning within the name that reveals the true identity of that individual is lost, no longer affective, it is called "identity theft".

A lot of unproven, unsupported nonsense!

The letter "J" is a letter that didn't exist at all until the 1600's, when it was invented.

You have the date wrong, it was earlier than that! But so what, what does that prove?

 

[gort]

jeepers.......how come no comments on what the LDS prophets said about blood atonement???????

Is this blood atonement biblical?...........NO

Then why does it come from the mouth of a prophet?

 

[Yalith]

Daneel~

I note B. Young's quote, but I also see that it does not mention Jesus, rather, it seems to be his opinion on the existence of 'unforgivable sin'. Did Brigham proclaim that Jesus did not possess the power to forgive all sin?

-spike-

Well, technically yes. By stating that there exists sin which is unforgiveable it therefore leads to follow that Jesus is unable to forgive it. Jesus did not say that I will forgive the sins on this list and not the ones on that list. He came as a sacrifice for all sins.
Jessica

 

[gort]

Hello Yalith,

Why do you suppose a prophet would say something such as this? Actually several had proclaimed this, yet it did originate with Joseph Smith.