Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Manchu wrote:Christians did hijack Jewish content. Hence the reaction at the time.

Not quite right. Please remember first generation Christianity was almost exclusively Jewish and its practitioners Jews. Peter had to be coersed into accepting Gentiles to begin with, also most of the3 leadership were initially averse to evengelising outside their own community.

Christianity was an extension of Judaism, the 'new improved version'. It teaches things not out of place to a Jew, except with the promises attained.

The major problems were that it removed the traditional powerbase from the rabbinic class and worse than that, from am orthodox Jewish perspective, it opened an exclusive religion to all. Please remember that in Christian teaching a Gentile Christian is an adopted Jew, a fact overlooked by the church and vehemently denied by the regular Jewish community.

Orlanth wrote:Please remember that in Christian teaching a Gentile Christian is an adopted Jew, a fact overlooked by the church and vehemently denied by the regular Jewish community.

Very interesting. I have some family that I had not known and just recently been introduced at a faimly reunion. It turns out, my great aunt married a Jewish man. There sons, were brought up Jewish. One of them has become a "Messianic Jew". I found it interesting when I used the term messianic Jew to the brother still practicing orthodox Judaism, that he did not like the term "messianic Jew". He prefered to just call his brother a Christian.

GG

Orthodox Jews have been known to hold funerals for Jews in the family who convert.

Orlanth wrote:Orthodox Jews have been known to hold funerals for Jews in the family who convert.

Strangely enough most faiths teach the principle of: "try not to be such a jerk". Not holding a funeral for a family member because they chose a different flavor of deity pretty much blows the doors off that principle. The willingness to justify holding faith as a reason to do so should be a cue to how little one should socialize with this person regardless of faith.

JEB and Manchu both vary wildly from my opinion on faith, yet I doubt any of us would deny the others' meriting a funeral were it possible. Even a short ceremony to pay respects and allow families to get a sense of closure so they can grieve. (I doubt the corpse has any opinion) To deny that to a family member seems to make a statement to a person's character beyond their faith.

Orlanth wrote:

Manchu wrote:Christians did hijack Jewish content. Hence the reaction at the time.

Not quite right. Please remember first generation Christianity was almost exclusively Jewish and its practitioners Jews. Peter had to be coersed into accepting Gentiles to begin with, also most of the3 leadership were initially averse to evengelising outside their own community.

Christianity was an extension of Judaism, the 'new improved version'. It teaches things not out of place to a Jew, except with the promises attained.

The major problems were that it removed the traditional powerbase from the rabbinic class and worse than that, from am orthodox Jewish perspective, it opened an exclusive religion to all. Please remember that in Christian teaching a Gentile Christian is an adopted Jew, a fact overlooked by the church and vehemently denied by the regular Jewish community.

I think it was the "go deep before you go wide" philosophy at work with the initial preaching to Jews before spreading out to the Gentiles.

Oldgrue wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Orthodox Jews have been known to hold funerals for Jews in the family who convert.

Strangely enough most faiths teach the principle of: "try not to be such a jerk". Not holding a funeral for a family member because they chose a different flavor of deity pretty much blows the doors off that principle. The willingness to justify holding faith as a reason to do so should be a cue to how little one should socialize with this person regardless of faith.

JEB and Manchu both vary wildly from my opinion on faith, yet I doubt any of us would deny the others' meriting a funeral were it possible. Even a short ceremony to pay respects and allow families to get a sense of closure so they can grieve. (I doubt the corpse has any opinion) To deny that to a family member seems to make a statement to a person's character beyond their faith.

Oldgrue, I think what orlanth was trying to say was that some orthodox Jews hold a funeral when "they find out" that one of their family is converted. I took it to mean, they do this funeral as a symbolic act to symbolize the person as being dead to them. Not deny a funeral to an actual dead person.

Corect me if i'm wrong orlanth.
GG

@Orlanth: No doubt that the first Christians and even Christians today see Jews as "behind the times." My point was that Christianity developed out of Judaism BUT IS NOT Judaism. I used the word hijacking to emphasize my agreement with dogma on the point that Mormonism developed out of Christianity BUT IS NOT Christianity.

@Oldgrue: Regarding funerals, you'd think so right? But do you remember that many ultra-conservative Catholics said that Ted Kennedy should have been refused Christian burial. That gak makes me sick.

@Relapse: I don't think we can dismiss the fundamental disagreement between Peter and Paul on the subject of the Gentiles nor underestimate the importance of Peter submitting to Paul. We Catholics are left with this question: we know who Peter is (the pope) but where is Paul?

He's with Mary.


I wonder if anyone will get that joke?

Ironhide wrote:I wonder if anyone will get that joke?

?

He's Not The Messiah!

He's a very Naughty Boy!

Seems like all the naughty boys get all the following though.

Anywhoo, wasn't Jesus considered Jewish himself?

Cryonicleech wrote:Seems like all the naughty boys get all the following though.

Anywhoo, wasn't Jesus considered Jewish himself?

...

Considered? That's like asking is The Pope of the Catholic Church "considered" Catholic!

Jebus was Jewish. He was also, more than likely, deeply tanned, ultra buff, hands as rough as glasspaper with short, black hair and dark eyes.

Oldgrue, I think what orlanth was trying to say was that some orthodox Jews hold a funeral when "they find out" that one of their family is converted. I took it to mean, they do this funeral as a symbolic act to symbolize the person as being dead to them. Not deny a funeral to an actual dead person.

On second reading, I can see that yet only slightly less a violation of the "try not to be jerks to each other"






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ironhide wrote:He's with Mary.

I would have gone 5th Beatle.

Gwar! wrote:Jebus was Jewish. He was also, more than likely, deeply tanned, ultra buff, hands as rough as glasspaper with short, black hair and dark eyes.

Why doe sseem like thae start of some very disturbing, heretical and tasteless slash fiction about Our (or at least My) Lord and Saviour?

chaplaingrabthar wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Jebus was Jewish. He was also, more than likely, deeply tanned, ultra buff, hands as rough as glasspaper with short, black hair and dark eyes.

Why doe sseem like thae start of some very disturbing, heretical and tasteless slash fiction about Our (or at least My) Lord and Saviour?

No slashfic, I assure you.

Even the most orthodox of Christians agree that Joseph was a Carpenter, and Historical knowledge allows us to extrapolate that, being the Male Child of a Carpenter (regardless of his actual parentage, Joseph Raised him), he too would have been a carpenter. Historical knowledge also allows us to know that, during the time that Jesus of Nazareth was supposedly alive, carpentry involved a lot of backbreaking labour, more than likely outside in the Sun chopping down trees with herrings! (OK, a joke there, but you get what I am saying).

Thus, if Jesus WAS a real person (and I am of the opinion that he was, just not the mega magical Chuck Norris of Palestine that some make him out to be), he would have been very muscular, tanned and weathered.

Holy Cow stop the presses. The world just spun backwards a bit!

I actually agree with GWAR! on this.

I don't think what he said was heretical, maybe a bit crude, but I wasn't offended.

GG

Jesus being a carpenter is actually debated. The word used has been translated several different ways including: craftsmen (general labor), tool maker, and scholar.

I have ran into church's that have denied that Jesus was Jewish.

Of course I also know one that said that Jesus ministered while carrying a copy of the King James Bible. So there is always that.

Gwar! wrote:

chaplaingrabthar wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Jebus was Jewish. He was also, more than likely, deeply tanned, ultra buff, hands as rough as glasspaper with short, black hair and dark eyes.

Why doe sseem like thae start of some very disturbing, heretical and tasteless slash fiction about Our (or at least My) Lord and Saviour?

No slashfic, I assure you.

Even the most orthodox of Christians agree that Joseph was a Carpenter, and Historical knowledge allows us to extrapolate that, being the Male Child of a Carpenter (regardless of his actual parentage, Joseph Raised him), he too would have been a carpenter. Historical knowledge also allows us to know that, during the time that Jesus of Nazareth was supposedly alive, carpentry involved a lot of backbreaking labour, more than likely outside in the Sun chopping down trees with herrings! (OK, a joke there, but you get what I am saying).

Thus, if Jesus WAS a real person (and I am of the opinion that he was, just not the mega magical Chuck Norris of Palestine that some make him out to be), he would have been very muscular, tanned and weathered.

Pretty much. I'm actually more than a bit annoyed with the constant portrayals of him as a fair skinned, blue eye'd, brown haired, well groomed white male.

generalgrog wrote:

Oldgrue wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Orthodox Jews have been known to hold funerals for Jews in the family who convert.

Strangely enough most faiths teach the principle of: "try not to be such a jerk". Not holding a funeral for a family member because they chose a different flavor of deity pretty much blows the doors off that principle. The willingness to justify holding faith as a reason to do so should be a cue to how little one should socialize with this person regardless of faith.

JEB and Manchu both vary wildly from my opinion on faith, yet I doubt any of us would deny the others' meriting a funeral were it possible. Even a short ceremony to pay respects and allow families to get a sense of closure so they can grieve. (I doubt the corpse has any opinion) To deny that to a family member seems to make a statement to a person's character beyond their faith.

Oldgrue, I think what orlanth was trying to say was that some orthodox Jews hold a funeral when "they find out" that one of their family is converted. I took it to mean, they do this funeral as a symbolic act to symbolize the person as being dead to them. Not deny a funeral to an actual dead person.

Corect me if i'm wrong orlanth.
GG

This is precisely what I am saying. Remember Judaism is a network its not just a faith, its also an ethnic grouping and business network and a nationality, though not necessarily all at the same time in the same place. To convert is to dosavow yourself from this network in the eyes of many Jews.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:@Orlanth: No doubt that the first Christians and even Christians today see Jews as "behind the times." My point was that Christianity developed out of Judaism BUT IS NOT Judaism. I used the word hijacking to emphasize my agreement with dogma on the point that Mormonism developed out of Christianity BUT IS NOT Christianity.

Incorrect comparison. Christians can see Judaism as a true faith, just incomplete. The Incarnation of the Messiah leads to Chrstianity. However the job ends there. Judaism points to the coming of the Messach in its own scriptures, Christianity does not point to the coming of Joseph Smith in its won scriptures. In fact Jesus has some pretty choice words about presumed further extensions. I cannot immediately find the quote but it goes like:

"From now on those who come before you either appear in my name (Jesus) or come in the name of the evil one"

The New Testament specifically states there will be no new messiahs. Thus Islam cannot draw from the New Testament as a supporting document, the Islamic reaction to this is to assume that the New Testament is inaccurate and has been rewritten in the early Middle Ages.

Manchu wrote:
@Relapse: I don't think we can dismiss the fundamental disagreement between Peter and Paul on the subject of the Gentiles nor underestimate the importance of Peter submitting to Paul. We Catholics are left with this question: we know who Peter is (the pope) but where is Paul?

The collective Paul are those who go out and do mission. Your analogy is correct, the church must support the evangelist first of all, as the evangelist preaches to the lost. The evangelism first focus supported in scripture, it only becomes a problem if thats all you do. In Gods eyes someone who personally goes forth and saves souls is worth more in heaven than a leader such as and including the Pope.

This is precisely what I am saying. Remember Judaism is a network its not just a faith, its also an ethnic grouping and business network and a nationality, though not necessarily all at the same time in the same place. To convert is to disavow yourself from this network in the eyes of many Jews.

People prefer to do business with people with similar traits and cultural experience. We don't exactly see a lot of blue eyed blondes running a halal market for any of a number of reasons but to lump it all together as a function of 'Jewish' (or Islamic, what have you )is staggering. Oh, that swarthy dark haired fellow must be going into that bodega because he's Catholic rather than for the best pupusas in town. (mmm. pupusas...) Judaism is as much a business network as Catholicism, Islam, or other faiths - doing business within one's social circle.

Still its just justification of violating the 'jerk' tenet - If your Cousin/grandson/3rd nephew/neighbor decides that they want to pray to something else they haven't stopped being a person. As Manchu mentioned - Several Catholics thought along a similar line and were still just being jerks. People (as evidenced by a significant number of posts on Dakka) hardly need a reason to be jerks beyond that they can. Hiding behind a mythology to justify it just assuages guilt.

@Orlanth,

I hope you're not saying Mormons believe Joseph Smith is a Messiah.

Relapse wrote:@Orlanth,

I hope you're not saying Mormons believe Joseph Smith is a Messiah.

I was trying to avoid this subject.

Christians believe that Joseph Smith is a false prophet. Nothing in the New or Old Testament gives us reason to believe the testimony of the angel Moroni is genuine, and warns us to consider suspect any further extensions to the Judeo-Christian religious base.

Now many Jews will consider that Christianity is nothing to do with Judaism, but they have to deny their own scriptures wholecloth to do so. At the very least Judaism points to a fulfillment with a coming Messiah. You could argue that isn't Jesus, conversely Christians can claim he is just by using Old Testament references a Jew would not deny as genuine scripture.

Admittedly Christianity does speak of future promises as Judaism does in what we call the Second Coming. The difference is that the Second Coming is clearly described, if anyone is in any doubt, it hasn't happened yet. The Second Coming leaves nothing open to faith, you don't need to believe it will happen, it will or it wont without any ambiguity. This is the only room for extension beyond Christianity in its current form, the only other way to make a new 'Christian' group is by different interpretation of existing scripture rather than the addition of new scripture. If Mormonism was based entirely on a new interpretation of existing books then it would be a denomination.

Christian Science is looked at in exactly the same way, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures has a similar doctrinal category as the Book of Mormon.

What part of the bible talks against the Book of Mormon, and what makes you think God would decide to stop talking to his children 2000 years ago?
Just to let you know, I have no hard feelings here, and have gained a lot of fondness for you, Manchu, and others through learning your ideas on this thread .

Relapse wrote:What part of the bible talks against the Book of Mormon

Revelation 22:18 wrote:I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:

Relapse wrote:What part of the bible talks against the Book of Mormon

Revelation 22:18 wrote:I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.

This is the one that always gets quoted to me. What gets forgotten is the fact that the Bible is made up of a series of books, of which the book of Revelations is one. The Book of Mormon adds or takes nothing from Revelations.
The Book of Mormon is a translation of ancient records detailing God's work among the people of the Ancient Americas.

Relapse wrote:What part of the bible talks against the Book of Mormon, and what makes you think God would decide to stop talking to his children 2000 years ago?
Just to let you know, I have no hard feelings here, and have gained a lot of fondness for you, Manchu, and others through learning your ideas on this thread .

No hard feeling intended. We cannot be of different faiths and agree, only the multi faith dogma ridden will do that. Its an easy path, all very nicey nice but has no logical consistency or moral value.
You cannot believe in two or more 'one true faiths'.
I will take it as written you will consider my explanations regarding the balance of truth between Mormonism and Christianity 'wrong'. I can go with that.


What part of the bible talks against the Book of Mormon

Let me come back to you on that one. I know two good quotes by paraphrase, one I have already paraphreased in an above post but finding them in a bible is difficult as I dont know enough of the exact wording to pin down a reference. I will edit this post when I find them so read back, or I might instead/as well repost this entire post instead. Either way I wont make such a comment without backing it up. What I am looking for covers this:

Essentially Jesus is the FINAL revelation from God, all future divine messages come in His name or are false.

The only way around that is to assume the New Testament was incorrectly scribed or rewritten. Moslems beleive exactly that, they need to or the Prophet Isha (what Moslems call Jesus) will be in direct contrast to the Prophet Mohammed. Conversely reading the Old Testament, does not show any contradiction between the words of the prophets and Jesus and that is using the exact same text the Jews also use, given translation.

Thus a Christian can believe in Judaism as a precursor, but not in Islam. Mormonism is similar to Islam in that it adds an additional book, I dont know if Mormonism also considers the Koran as scripture, (I dont think you do) from a Christian perspective it wont matter either way.



and what makes you think God would decide to stop talking to his children 2000 years ago?

Albatross and others seem to think that, and put it to us that God didnt speak to this children even then, for one reason or another. Non-existence being the possibility some raise.
I cannot see where you get the idea I share that opinion.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

chaplaingrabthar wrote:

Relapse wrote:What part of the bible talks against the Book of Mormon

Revelation 22:18 wrote:I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.

This is the one that always gets quoted to me. What gets forgotten is the fact that the Bible is made up of a series of books, of which the book of Revelations is one. The Book of Mormon adds or takes nothing from Revelations.
The Book of Mormon is a translation of ancient records detailing God's work among the people of the Ancient Americas.

I concur with that answer because the commentary might refer just to the Book of Revelations. After all the canon of scripture was compiled afterwards

This is not one of the verses I am looking for.

Orlanth, you totally missed both of my points.

Manchu wrote:

Ironhide wrote:I wonder if anyone will get that joke?

?

Glad you got the reference. Would have made me feel real old if someone hadn't.

Manchu wrote:Orlanth, you totally missed both of my points.

Very likely, as I was adressing someone else.

What points exactly, then I wont miss them.

Orlanth wrote:
We cannot be of different faiths and agree, only the multi faith dogma ridden will do that. Its an easy path, all very nicey nice but has no logical consistency or moral value.
You cannot believe in two or more 'one true faiths'.
I will take it as written you will consider my explanations regarding the balance of truth between Mormonism and Christianity 'wrong'. I can go with that.




Let me come back to you on that one. I know two good quotes by paraphrase, one I have already paraphreased in an above post but finding them in a bible is difficult as I dont know enough of the exact wording to pin down a reference. I will edit this post when I find them so read back, or I might instead/as well repost this entire post instead. Either way I wont make such a comment without backing it up. What I am looking for covers this:

Essentially Jesus is the FINAL revelation from God, all future divine messages come in His name or are false.

The only way around that is to assume the New Testament was incorrectly scribed or rewritten. Moslems beleive exactly that, they need to or the Prophet Isha (what Moslems call Jesus) will be in direct contrast to the Prophet Mohammed. Conversely reading the Old Testament, does not show any contradiction between the words of the prophets and Jesus and that is using the exact same text the Jews also use, given translation.

Thus a Christian can believe in Judaism as a precursor, but not in Islam. Mormonism is similar to Islam in that it adds an additional book, I dont know if Mormonism also considers the Koran as scripture, (I dont think you do) from a Christian perspective it wont matter either way.



and what makes you think God would decide to stop talking to his children 2000 years ago?

Albatross and others seem to think that, and put it to us that God didnt speak to this children even then, for one reason or another. Non-existence being the possibility some raise.
I cannot see where you get the idea I share that opinion.

I'll have to start out by saying this has been one extremely interesting thread.

I should state again that Mormons are Christian. We believe Jesus to be the literal son of God and Messiah who paid for our sins that we may be saved. I'll repost the articles of faith of the LDS church here:

1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.


2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.


3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.


4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.


5. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.


6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.


7. We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.


8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.


9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.


10. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.


11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.


12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.


13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Joseph Smith

I think you'll see that a lot of what I quoted from you is addressed in the articles. If you want, I can go over them in more detail with you, and probably might anyway.
Instead of debating who has the correct religion, I just decided to let you know what we believe, and I'm extremely interested in your beliefs.