Soooo, What's the Difference?

[mcgyver]

But here's the point:

The Mormons believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and not God the Son...They also use the KJV (1769) as the basis of their beliefs.

What is there to differentiate them and "their" Jesus and "our" Jesus?

If all that is required is to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, then I wonder how many cults would rightly claim salvation...regardless of whom "their" Jesus really is.

Many proclaim Jesus as the "Son of God"...many proclaim the physical resurrection...to some Jesus is simply one of many sons of God (yet one who was specially anointed to the work of the cross); but yet Jesus Himself warned of "false Christs"...

Coming full circle then, by the definition that you've given, it must be assumed that **any** Christ can save, as long as one believes that Jesus is God's son.

So what is there that shows us the "real" Christ from the false Christ(s)?

 

[taromina2003]

But here's the point:

The Mormons believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and not God the Son...They also use the KJV (1769) as the basis of their beliefs.

What is there to differentiate them and "their" Jesus and "our" Jesus?

If all that is required is to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, then I wonder how many cults would rightly claim salvation...regardless of whom "their" Jesus really is.

Many proclaim Jesus as the "Son of God"...many proclaim the physical resurrection...to some Jesus is simply one of many sons of God (yet one who was specially anointed to the work of the cross); but yet Jesus Himself warned of "false Christs"...

Coming full circle then, by the definition that you've given, it must be assumed that **any** Christ can save, as long as one believes that Jesus is God's son.

So what is there that shows us the "real" Christ from the false Christ(s)?

As with most man-led religions the Mormons follow their "Prophet" who is the President of the Church vs following the word of the LORD IMO, in other words I think there is a real problem with someday the President of the church says lets all jump off a cliff and I shudder to think how many will follow him, I mean no disrespect but I think certain churches get in the way of a member having a personal relationship with Jesus and encouraging it.

 

[Pard]

I think the only thing that ought to matter is that their path is a dangerous one and we should do our best to lead them from that crooked way and onto the strait way.

I'd have to say, if forced to give an answer, that the majority wouldn't be considered saved. I couldn't make a judgement call on all of them,even if your forced me, but it seems to me that enough of their doctrine is toxic enough in nature to lead to damnation. Of course there are always a few odd ones in every pack and that's why I refuse to condemn them all, just as I can't say that everyone who claims to cry "Jesus! Jesus!" is going to be saved.

 

[Asyncritus]

But here's the point:

The Mormons believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and not God the Son...They also use the KJV (1769) as the basis of their beliefs.

What is there to differentiate them and "their" Jesus and "our" Jesus?

If all that is required is to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, then I wonder how many cults would rightly claim salvation...regardless of whom "their" Jesus really is.

Many proclaim Jesus as the "Son of God"...many proclaim the physical resurrection...to some Jesus is simply one of many sons of God (yet one who was specially anointed to the work of the cross); but yet Jesus Himself warned of "false Christs"...

Coming full circle then, by the definition that you've given, it must be assumed that **any** Christ can save, as long as one believes that Jesus is God's son.

So what is there that shows us the "real" Christ from the false Christ(s)?

I think that the acid test is the one given by John:

1Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Now that is a far more serious statement than appears on the surface.

"In the flesh" means that He was a human being. More precisely, that He could sin, but did not do so:

Heb 4.15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

2. 14 ¶ For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Note the incredibly powerful repeated emphasis: 'himself, likewise, took part, the same...'

2.18 For in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted.

As I understand it, God cannot be tempted with evil, and cannot sin.

13 ¶ Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempts he any man:

So I do not understand how you can square that particular circle in your own mind.

I can't, that's for sure.

 

[mcgyver]

Well, obviously we differ in our interpretations as to exactly what "come in the flesh" means...

As you know, I hold that Jesus is in fact God incarnate. If Jesus is not God incarnate, then once again we come to the question: What's the difference between the Jesus of the bible and the Jesus of the LDS, or The Way International, or dozens of other "churches" that are out there.

Can one confess that Jesus is the "Son of God" and place faith in Him; if that Jesus is not the Jesus of the bible, and expect to be saved? Faith in a "false Christ"?

There's the rub.

 

[Free]

I think that the acid test is the one given by John:

1Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Now that is a far more serious statement than appears on the surface.

"In the flesh" means that He was a human being. More precisely, that He could sin, but did not do so:

Heb 4.15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

2. 14 ¶ For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Note the incredibly powerful repeated emphasis: 'himself, likewise, took part, the same...'

2.18 For in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted.

As I understand it, God cannot be tempted with evil, and cannot sin.

13 ¶ Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempts he any man:

So I do not understand how you can square that particular circle in your own mind.

I can't, that's for sure.

John is most likely addressing Gnosticism. This still leaves the question of who Jesus is unanswered. Belief in Jesus cannot be separated from doctrine about Jesus, that is, from who he is.

 

[mcgyver]

John is most likely addressing Gnosticism. This still leaves the question of who Jesus is unanswered. Belief in Jesus cannot be separated from doctrine about Jesus, that is, from who he is.

+1

 

[Asyncritus]

John is most likely addressing Gnosticism. This still leaves the question of who Jesus is unanswered. Belief in Jesus cannot be separated from doctrine about Jesus, that is, from who he is.

Whether he's addressing gnosticism or not, the words still stand, and you need to attempt to gainsay their pretty plain meaning somehow...

Also, Matthew and Luke's words re the temptations still stand Mt 4, Luke 4).

Jesus' own words still stand:

Lk 22.28 You are they which have continued with me in my temptations.

Jesus WAS tempted.

God cannot be tempted.

Square that circle, guys.

 

[Free]

Whether he's addressing gnosticism or not, the words still stand, and you need to attempt to gainsay their pretty plain meaning somehow...

Also, Matthew and Luke's words re the temptations still stand Mt 4, Luke 4).

Jesus' own words still stand:

Lk 22.28 You are they which have continued with me in my temptations.

Jesus WAS tempted.

God cannot be tempted.

Square that circle, guys.

This argument was dealt with more than once in another thread and shown to be false. There is no need to take it up again here.

 

[Asyncritus]

Incidentally, God answers the question of who He is, pretty plainly, I thought:

Mat 16.15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”

16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

A living God can have a son, you see. An idol can't.

17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

Revealed what? That He is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Don't see how it could have been plainer. Can you?

Would have been a great moment to say that He was God the Son, wouldn't it?

 

[Asyncritus]

This argument was dealt with more than once in another thread and shown to be false. There is no need to take it up again here.

Um, where?

 

[mcgyver]

Incidentally, God answers the question of who He is, pretty plainly, I thought:

Mat 16.15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?â€

16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.â€

A living God can have a son, you see. An idol can't.

17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

Revealed what? That He is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Don't see how it could have been plainer. Can you?

Would have been a great moment to say that He was God the Son, wouldn't it?

So then...there's no difference in the LDS Jesus? After all, they believe that he's the son of the living God....

 

[Pizzaguy]

Threads like this depress me.

HOW can we take the wonderful gift from God that Christ is, and make it so complicated that you cause people to wonder who or what they believe in?

Mind you, if you go to far with this, you may discourage someone. In that respect, you have "made one of these to stumble."

This place is SO the opposite of a blessing some days...

 

[Free]

Um, where?

You really don't remember the extremely long threads on the deity of Christ and the Trinity that we were both involved in?

Incidentally, God answers the question of who He is, pretty plainly, I thought:

Mat 16.15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?â€

16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.â€

A living God can have a son, you see. An idol can't.

17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

Revealed what? That He is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Don't see how it could have been plainer. Can you?

Would have been a great moment to say that He was God the Son, wouldn't it?

First, it must be noted that just as Jesus being the Son of God does not preclude him from being the Messiah, and vice versa, neither does him being the Son of God and the Messiah preclude him from being God in some way.

Second, he only reveals so much of who he is. It is possible that it would have been far too confusing to say that he was God the Son since this concept may have not crossed their minds. They couldn't even understand much of what Jesus said in parables, so how would they understand that he was God yet not the Father?

I would argue that the term "Son of God" directly implies that he is God, and this is seen in the gospels.

 

[mcgyver]

Threads like this depress me.

HOW can we take the wonderful gift from God that Christ is, and make it so complicated that you cause people to wonder who or what they believe in?

Mind you, if you go to far with this, you may discourage someone. In that respect, you have "made one of these to stumble."

This place is SO the opposite of a blessing some days...

Don't let it depress you, after all this is an apologetics forum (although in this case more toward polemics).

We as Christians are given the following command:

I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 2 Tim 4:1-4

Again: Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. Jude 1:3

Christ as God incarnate is of such import, that John wrote an entire epistle against gnostic beliefs...beliefs that at the core denied the incarnation of Christ. He went as far as to declare that those who deny His incarnation are speaking from a spirit of antichrist.

The convening of the First Council of Nicea was for the purpose of examining the teachings of Arius of Antioch, who denied that Christ was God incarnate...and from whence we have the Nicene creed.

The Apostle Paul wrote in Romans 10:9-10 that one must confess that Jesus Christ is Lord...Kurios...a term of deity.

Titus writes: looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.

And Jesus Himself declares that He is "the Alpha and the Omega"; a title reserved to God.

Being that the deity of Christ is central to Christian orthodoxy, IMO we can't simply hold hands and sing "Kumbaya" together with those who deny His deity.

I don't mean to offend, but this is simply too important to ignore.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Don't let it depress you, after all this is an apologetics forum (although in this case more toward polemics).

We as Christians are given the following command:

I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 2 Tim 4:1-4

Again: Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. Jude 1:3

Christ as God incarnate is of such import, that John wrote an entire epistle against gnostic beliefs...beliefs that at the core denied the incarnation of Christ. He went as far as to declare that those who deny His incarnation are speaking from a spirit of antichrist.

The convening of the First Council of Nicea was for the purpose of examining the teachings of Arius of Antioch, who denied that Christ was God incarnate...and from whence we have the Nicene creed.

The Apostle Paul wrote in Romans 10:9-10 that one must confess that Jesus Christ is Lord...Kurios...a term of deity.

Titus writes: looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.

And Jesus Himself declares that He is "the Alpha and the Omega"; a title reserved to God.

Being that the deity of Christ is central to Christian orthodoxy, IMO we can't simply hold hands and sing "Kumbaya" together with those who deny His deity.

I don't mean to offend, but this is simply too important to ignore.

We make a mistake when we read our own pet doctrines and beliefs into scripture. In 2 Tim as well as Jude we need to be sure we specify what the passages mean when they say 'preach THE WORD' and 'contend earnestly for THE FAITH.' We know from the context of each the THE FAITH and THE WORD are references to the good message (gospel) of Jesus. We also know that even at that time some were proclaiming a different gospel that was in fact not a gospel at all. What we need to do in light of this is be sure we know and proclaim the good message that was proclaimed in scripture, no more (ex. inserting trinitarian concepts) or less (denying that the Christ had come in the flesh).

What is the gospel specifically? I believe Peter delivers it most thoroughly in Acts 2:16-36 which reads:

What’s happening is the thing that was said through the Prophet Joel, 17 where God said: In the last days, I’ll pour some of my Breath on all flesh, And your sons and daughters will then prophesy,Your young men will also have visions,
And your old men will dream dreams. I will pour out some of My Breath in those days, And My male and female slaves will then prophesy. And from the skies above I’ll send omens and signs, And to the earth below, blood, fire, and smoky mist. Before the great and shining day of the Lord, the sun will be changed into darkness and the moon into blood. And all calling on the Name of the Lord will be saved.’
‘Men of IsraEl, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene was a man who was shown to you by God with power, omens, and signs that God performed through him in your midst, as you already know. Yes, you gave this person (who received his advice and his ability to see the future from God) over to the hands of men who were without Law, and you nailed him up. But God resurrected him, freeing him from the cords of death, because it wasn’t possible for [death] to hold him.
‘Then David said this about him:

I‘ve put Jehovah always before me. And since He is at my right hand, I will never be shaken.
For, in my heart I am cheerful, And with my tongue I rejoice; So my body will rest in that hope.
You won’t abandon me in the grave, And You’ll not allow Your loyal one to see corruption.
For, the ways of life You have shown me, And You’ll fill me with joy from Your face.’


‘Men! Brothers! It’s good to speak to you openly about the patriarch David, for he died, was buried, and his tomb is still with us to this day. Yet, he was a Prophet, and he knew that God had sworn an oath to him that He would put someone on his throne who was the fruit of his loins. So, [David] looked into the future and spoke about the resurrection of the Anointed One… that he wouldn’t be abandoned in the grave and that his flesh wouldn’t see corruption.
‘Then this Jesus was resurrected by God, and we are all witnesses to that… he was lifted to God’s right hand, where he received the Holy Breath (which the Father had promised). And he’s the one who has poured out all of this that you’re seeing and hearing. ‘Now, David didn’t go to heaven, but he said:

Jehovah said to my Lord;
Sit down at my right hand
Until I set your enemies as a stool for your feet.

So, let the entire House of IsraEl know for sure that God made this Jesus whom you impaled the Lord and Anointed One!

 

[Free]

We make a mistake when we read our own pet doctrines and beliefs into scripture.

Begging the question.

 

[Asyncritus]

So then...there's no difference in the LDS Jesus? After all, they believe that he's the son of the living God....

To be perfectly honest, I don't know enough about their teachings to make any sort of intelligent comment.

So I won't make an unintelligent one!

 

[Asyncritus]

You really don't remember the extremely long threads on the deity of Christ and the Trinity that we were both involved in?

I remember being involved, but I don't remember the question being answered realistically if at all.

First, it must be noted that just as Jesus being the Son of God does not preclude him from being the Messiah, and vice versa, neither does him being the Son of God and the Messiah preclude him from being God in some way.

Now that's an interesting qualification.

You will have noted my conclusions in the 'Who is called God in the Bible' thread.

ANY REPRESENTATIVE OF GOD, who is so appointed by God, can be, and is often called 'God. There are too may passages in the OT which demonstrate this beyond any possibility of doubt.

Therefore, the Son of God, the Greatest Representative of God to this planet, is called 'God' - but He is in no way to be confused with the Father: Paul states the hierarchical relationship perfectly when he said:

1 Cor 11.3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Second, he only reveals so much of who he is. It is possible that it would have been far too confusing to say that he was God the Son since this concept may have not crossed their minds. They couldn't even understand much of what Jesus said in parables, so how would they understand that he was God yet not the Father?

This truly confuses me. He had this very point out with them as you may recall:

They accused Him (wrongfully) of blasphemy, and the reason they did so was their set intention to find something fatally wounding to Him in His words.

Jn 10.33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone you not; but for blasphemy; and because that you, being a man, make yourself God.

He then sets them straight, using the very argument I have made in the 'Who is Called God'.. thread:

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, You are gods? [These are men in the psalm...]

35 If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say you of him, whom the Father has sanctified, and sent into the world, You blaspheme; because I said, I am the Son of God?

So they were wrong on two counts.

First, He did not call himself God, but said something far less than that: I am the Son of God.

Secondly, He did not seize the opportunity to declare outright: I am God the Son.

You are trying to make Him say that, when in truth, He said nothing of the kind. Again, here was a magnificent opportunity to say so, if it were true ... but He didn't, because it's not.

And don't tell me that these brilliant Jews couldn't understand such a claim. If you can, they could too.

But the simple fact is that He was not making any such claim, and never did.

I would argue that the term "Son of God" directly implies that he is God, and this is seen in the gospels.

I would state that is the exact opposite.

But do clarify this for me. You say the 'term Son of God' directly implies that He is God. You obviously mean something that I'm not grasping here.

How can 'son of God' imply that He is God? There's a step in that logic that's not clear to us bears of little brain.

If I say that I am a 'son of Adam', how does that make me Adam? Or do you only mean the lesser claim 'I am human'?

I would have said that the claim 'I am a son of Adam' would mean extremely clearly that I am not Adam. But explain for me what you do mean.

 

[Free]

I remember being involved, but I don't remember the question being answered realistically if at all.

It was answered, more than once.

First, it must be noted that just as Jesus being the Son of God does not preclude him from being the Messiah, and vice versa, neither does him being the Son of God and the Messiah preclude him from being God in some way.

Now that's an interesting qualification.

You will have noted my conclusions in the 'Who is called God in the Bible' thread.

ANY REPRESENTATIVE OF GOD, who is so appointed by God, can be, and is often called 'God. There are too may passages in the OT which demonstrate this beyond any possibility of doubt.

Therefore, the Son of God, the Greatest Representative of God to this planet, is called 'God' - but He is in no way to be confused with the Father: Paul states the hierarchical relationship perfectly when he said:

1 Cor 11.3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

I added the qualification precisely because he isn't the Father. However, he still very much God in nature, as previous discussions have shown. I really don't want to get into it and derail this thread.

Second, he only reveals so much of who he is. It is possible that it would have been far too confusing to say that he was God the Son since this concept may have not crossed their minds. They couldn't even understand much of what Jesus said in parables, so how would they understand that he was God yet not the Father?

This truly confuses me. He had this very point out with them as you may recall:

They accused Him (wrongfully) of blasphemy, and the reason they did so was their set intention to find something fatally wounding to Him in His words.

The Jews could only be said to wrongfully accuse Jesus of blasphemy because he is equal to God, the Father.

Jn 10.33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone you not; but for blasphemy; and because that you, being a man, make yourself God.

He then sets them straight, using the very argument I have made in the 'Who is Called God'.. thread:

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, You are gods? [These are men in the psalm...]

35 If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say you of him, whom the Father has sanctified, and sent into the world, You blaspheme; because I said, I am the Son of God?

So they were wrong on two counts.

First, He did not call himself God, but said something far less than that: I am the Son of God.

Secondly, He did not seize the opportunity to declare outright: I am God the Son.

You are trying to make Him say that, when in truth, He said nothing of the kind. Again, here was a magnificent opportunity to say so, if it were true ... but He didn't, because it's not.

Jesus said that he and the Father were 'one.' From most sources I have looked at, the word 'one' is neuter, and as such it refers to being one in essence.

Search every instance in the gospels of the phrase "Son of God" and let me know what you find. I have asked this many times in the past from many different people and no one has bothered to post any substantial response.

And don't tell me that these brilliant Jews couldn't understand such a claim. If you can, they could too.

But the simple fact is that He was not making any such claim, and never did.

If they were so brilliant, and I do not dispute that, how is it that you have just said they were wrong on two counts? How is it that they were wrong in understanding Jesus's claim to be the Son of God as being a claim to be God? If that is how they understood it, then that is how we should understand it as well.

I would state that is the exact opposite.

But do clarify this for me. You say the 'term Son of God' directly implies that He is God. You obviously mean something that I'm not grasping here.

How can 'son of God' imply that He is God? There's a step in that logic that's not clear to us bears of little brain.

If I say that I am a 'son of Adam', how does that make me Adam? Or do you only mean the lesser claim 'I am human'?

I would have said that the claim 'I am a son of Adam' would mean extremely clearly that I am not Adam. But explain for me what you do mean.

Your analogy shows the difficulty of applying analogies about humans to God--they fall short. But yes, I mean the claim that 'I am human.'

That Jesus is the Son of God makes him God in nature, just as claiming to the son of Adam would give one Adam's nature, that is, human nature. However, God is wholly different from man. One cannot be said to be God in nature but not be God. Only God can be God in nature.

And there is at least one more passage which shows that the Jews clearly understood Jesus's claim to be the Son of God as being equal to God (the Father), for which they tried to stone him for blasphemy (John 8:48-59).

This is why only the doctrine of the Trinity makes sense--Jesus clearly claims equality with God but he is not the Father.

Anyway, that's all I'll say about that since, again, we have previously discussed this at length, and then some.