Are Mormons Christians?

[radarmark]

I would simply point out that the Armenians and Oriental Churches are direct descendents of the Edessian and Antiochian early churches. Okay, their official history only goes to circa 300 (still predating your Constantinian Date).

Christianity existed before Constantine throughout the Middle East and Mediterranean. Those churches did not die out, nor are they Protestant. They are the Eastern Churches... who up until about a thousand years ago all considered themselves part of a Catholic Church.

Earlier than Constantine, the church was not a centralized body (if it ever was). Those who trace their practices to those Churches (like the RCC, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and Ethiopian Churches) can claim that their history is 2,000 years (give or take a little bit).

But you show me where Huss or Wycliffe or Luther or Zwigingli or Calvin ever claimed their "Protestantism" was traceable in such a manner.

Claiming that "there were always Christians" is fine (in the since of some single tradition like the RCC or Orthodox). Show me the data, for I know of none.

Ergo "There have always been bands of Christians everywhere who faithfully taught the gospel of Jesus Christ" is merely a statement of faith or belief.

 

[radarmark]

Let us start another thread. Call it "Foundations of Christianity". That way we get it off of Mormonism page.

 

[Falcon60]

which Gospel there were two I think ?

There is only one true Gospel of Jesus Chrsit. The apostle Paul taught it in it's entirety.

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! (Gal. 1:8)

Very strong warning.

 

[Thomas]

I would simply point out that the Armenians and Oriental Churches are direct descendents of the Edessian and Antiochian early churches...

The trouble is, there is no 'Edessian' or 'Antiochian Church' as such, there are just disparate Christian communities, whom historians like to bundle together in this church or that ... there was Antiochene theological expression, and an Alexandrian one, for example ...

"The earliest documents we have on Edessean Christianity -- namely the Gospel of Thomas, and the Odes of Solomon -- go back in part, to the end of the first century and display the characteristic features of Judeo Christianity. (Jean Danielou. Christianity as a Jewish Sect)

Interesting, as I have long understood that the Gospel of Thomas is not a 'gnostic text' as it does not follow the cosmological models of contemporary gnostic sects.

The Odes of Solomon, of which I had been unaware until Radarmark's post, are a real 'wow!' — not least because they are totally Trinitarian, so we have evidence of a Trinitarian doctrine from East Syria which is considered 'outside' the fold ... go figure!

According to the source above, "The Doctrine of Addai (a disciple of Thomas) which speaks of the work of Addai in Edessa leaves us in no doubt that Edessian Christianity was ascetically oriented."

Earlier than Constantine, the church was not a centralized body (if it ever was).

Well we can see in Acts that the Twelve were considered the 'centre' ...

Those who trace their practices to those Churches (like the RCC, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and Ethiopian Churches) can claim that their history is 2,000 years (give or take a little bit).

Quite. The differences came later ... some are important as far as the lay person is concerned (I think Augustine, or his followers, throws a dark shadow in the West, as well as an illuminating luminescence); some are so nuanced as to be almost beyond comprehension ... the separation of the Oriental Orthodox from the Church (pre-latin/Greek schism) after Chalcedon requires a Masters in Philosophy to understand the difference between 'two natures in one person' and 'one person in two natures' which much of the dispute revolves around!

God bless

Thomas

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

There is only one true Gospel of Jesus Chrsit. The apostle Paul taught it in it's entirety.

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! (Gal. 1:8)

Very strong warning.

My understanding is that there were or are two Gospels.

The Gospel of the Kingdom, and the Gospel of Salvation.

 

[Falcon60]

My understanding is that there were or are two Gospels.

The Gospel of the Kingdom, and the Gospel of Salvation.

Care to elaborate?

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

Care to elaborate?

The Gospel of the Kingdom, is signs wonder and miracles, the Gospel of Salvation is being saved by faith in Jesus Christ.

Something like this.

The Prophetic Times: Gospel of Grace vs Gospel of the Kingdom

 

[Falcon60]

The Gospel of the Kingdom, is signs wonder and miracles, the Gospel of Salvation is being saved by faith in Jesus Christ.

Something like this.

The Prophetic Times: Gospel of Grace vs Gospel of the Kingdom

many Christians will tell you these two are one and the same.

 

[Dream]

Christianity is very adaptable which is why its so prolific and diverse.

(Sorry, I didn't see your post until now.) I think that I agree. I have thought so and said so, but I'm not a scholar like most of these other folks. It just seems like it is very obvious to me that this was by design, so I'm willing to agree with you. There is a scripture verse that says "Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:2)

It is verses like that by which I understand that these people were real. They knew that they didn't have it all together, yet; and they had no pristine set of facts to go by. They believed that Jesus was yet to be revealed to them, and the 'Gospel' had not got all these bizarre requirements such as you must believe X, Y, or Z to follow Jesus. Perhaps it is by dumb luck, but ungoing revelation is something the Mormons have gotten right in the midst of an obstinate and inflexible church environment. If one were to visit them 300 years from now, I bet they'd be Catholic.

Let us start another thread. Call it "Foundations of Christianity". That way we get it off of Mormonism page.

I second that motion.

 

[radarmark]

Hey, Thomas! How are you? Make "'Edessian' or 'Antiochian' Church" "Christian communities in Edessa and Antioch". Does that work? I misspoke and did not mean to imply an organized structure. Rather the Armenian, Syrian, and other Oriental Orthodox seem to hold views traceable to these early groups.

 

[Thomas]

Hey, Thomas! How are you?

OK mon brave, et tu?

Make "'Edessian' or 'Antiochian' Church" "Christian communities in Edessa and Antioch". Does that work?

That's the way I read it ... I was stressing the point for others.

As I said, I can trace an unbroken lineage back to Christ ... but I cannot say that the RCC as it is manifest today is the same thing as the community in Jerusalem, even though we might profess exactly the same thing.

Rather the Armenian, Syrian, and other Oriental Orthodox seem to hold views traceable to these early groups.

Yep, that's the way I see it, too.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[IowaGuy]

They believed that Jesus was yet to be revealed to them, and the 'Gospel' had not got all these bizarre requirements such as you must believe X, Y, or Z to follow Jesus. Perhaps it is by dumb luck, but ungoing revelation is something the Mormons have gotten right in the midst of an obstinate and inflexible church environment.

Dream, you seem to be open to the idea that God/Jesus will continue to reveal himself to mankind (I'm not sure how mainstream this idea is among Christians?).

How would one know whether ongoing revelation from God has occured or not, if you didn't witness it yourself? i.e. how would you know whether to believe the Báb, Bahá'u'lláh, etc?

 

[radarmark]

Probably, like The Religious Society of Friends and any number of Christian Mystics, Dream means Chr!st Jesus speaks to individuals directly. That is what George Fox taught and what Matthew Fox teaches.

Some Friends believe that the Parousia is eternal (goes on now).

I believe both of these radical ideas. Why? A matter of experience and experimentation in witnessing.

 

[Thomas]

Dream, you seem to be open to the idea that God/Jesus will continue to reveal himself to mankind (I'm not sure how mainstream this idea is among Christians?).

This needs clarification —
God reveals Himself to those who seek Him with a true heart (cf Matthew 5:8, Hebrews 12:14).

The distinction is those who claim their particular revelation is 'new' and supercedes/alters previous revelation — that's when the traditional Christian denominations say 'no'.

The RCC and the Orthodox Churches, for example, hold that Christ Himself is the fulness of Revelation, in His body, His words, His deeds — and that nothing can be added to that, there is nothing more to be revealed, if that makes sense?

We all (no doubt) have 'experiences' which we might claim as revelatory, but they are disclosures of being-to-being, they're not the handing on of what would necessarily be 'new scripture'.

God bless

Thomas

 

[Falcon60]

This needs clarification —
God reveals Himself to those who seek Him with a true heart (cf Matthew 5:8, Hebrews 12:14).

The distinction is those who claim their particular revelation is 'new' and supercedes/alters previous revelation — that's when the traditional Christian denominations say 'no'.

The RCC and the Orthodox Churches, for example, hold that Christ Himself is the fulness of Revelation, in His body, His words, His deeds — and that nothing can be added to that, there is nothing more to be revealed, if that makes sense?

We all (no doubt) have 'experiences' which we might claim as revelatory, but they are disclosures of being-to-being, they're not the handing on of what would necessarily be 'new scripture'.

God bless

Thomas

Since this thread is about Mormonism, the Mormon church believes in "new" revelations and that the canon is open. This allows them to introduce new teachings without being held accountable by the bible. Thus it makes it very difficult to use the Holy Scriptures to refute them. Classic cult practice.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

Since this thread is about Mormonism, the Mormon church believes in "new" revelations and that the canon is open.

and whats wrong with that ?

This allows them to introduce new teachings without being held accountable by the bible. Thus it makes it very difficult to use the Holy Scriptures to refute them. Classic cult practice.

To which Bible would they accountable

Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox ?

 

[Falcon60]

and whats wrong with that ?



To which Bible would they accountable

Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox ?

You seem to be caught up in which "bible", which "gospel." Yet there is only one Gospel and one Word of God. If you do the historical research, you will understand how we came upon different bible versions and why these modern versions agree with the JW's New World Translation.

There is only One Gospel of Jesus Christ as God's plan of salvation has never changed.

 

[Dream]

Dream, you seem to be open to the idea that God/Jesus will continue to reveal himself to mankind (I'm not sure how mainstream this idea is among Christians?).

I'm in chorus with Thomas and Radarmark. Christians love models which they call types and shadows! The Christians thought of themselves as modeled after Israel -- slaves going on a journey into a new wilderness to a new promised land. Many still do. All of the history of Israel (proper actual Jews) were models of things that must happen to all people everywhere in a newly created future. In other words Israel and its history was a map of greater Israel (the world) and what would happen to it. All the world had now been called out, whereas before it had just been Israel. As Joseph had 'Gone to Egypt before' his brothers, Israel had gone before the world to prepare it to survive what was ahead. The world was looking at the beginning of a new epoch, a new history modeled after Israel's history. At the same time, things would not proceed in exactly the same way as they had with Israel.

Jesus did not spell out everything that would happen. Instead he taught the holy spirit would come and teach. There was a thrilling expectation that as God had been revealed to Israel in part, that part would grow as more people were incorporated. Things would become so much better that the glory seen in Israel would be dim in comparison. The ultimate glory and revelation potential in God would become more relevant and available to humankind than it had been through Moses alone.

This view is not mainstream among evangelicals and fundamentalists, but with just about everyone else I see some form of it.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

You seem to be caught up in which "bible", which "gospel." Yet there is only one Gospel

if you say so, but i and many others would disagree.

and one Word of God.

i'm preety sure that scripture says that Jesus is the Word of God, not a book.

If you do the historical research, you will understand how we came upon different bible versions and why these modern versions agree with the JW's New World Translation.

are you a Witness then ?

There is only One Gospel of Jesus Christ as God's plan of salvation has never changed.

again from the tradition I have been part of the are actually two Gospels, Gospel of the Kingdom and Gospel of Salvation. Certainly from my reading I can see that.

 

[Falcon60]

if you say so, but i and many others would disagree.



i'm preety sure that scripture says that Jesus is the Word of God, not a book.



are you a Witness then ?



again from the tradition I have been part of the are actually two Gospels, Gospel of the Kingdom and Gospel of Salvation. Certainly from my reading I can see that.

Nope, not a JW. I am a born again Christian. The gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of salvation are one and the same because God's plan of salvation is the same for the Jew as it is for the Gentiles.