Mormons

Originally posted by Marchello
BOTTOM-LINE: Mormonism definitely does NOT teach the SAME Jesus as Christianity.

Marchello

Poor Marchello. He doesn't know how silly that sounds. Which is likely a blessing. Blessed is he in his unknowing ignorance that we (or I at least) are giggle knowingly at him (not with him. At him).

What is the "same Jesus as Christianity" - since Christianity is not some uniform mass. It is a fractured whole, numerous groups competing against one another for followers, all presenting slightly different takes on the Bible and its content. And Mormons are one of those groups, their doctrine just another interpretation.

Really, you need to stop sounding like "there are Mormons, and then there is everyone else." Because in reality it should go "there are Mormons. And there are Catholics - Roman and otherwise, Exclusive Brethren, Christian scientists, Protestants and its variations, Orthodox and its variations, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seven Day Eventists, Plymouth Brethren, Evangelists etc... etc... etc..."

And then there is the cult of Marchello. Unique because it has the "Who am I? I'm the Goddamn Marchello" factor.

Originally posted by Marchello
*["We do not believe that Mary had another husband."]

***That is not so...to wit: "The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband" [Deseret News, October 10, 1866].

Question: If the Mormon "Mary' had another husband...how could she remain a virgin and then conceive Jesus?

Marchello

Journal of Discourses, 11:268; emphasis added

This matter was a little changed in the case of the Savior of the world, the Son of the living God. The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband. On this account infidels have called the Savior a bastard. This is merely a human opinion upon one of the inscrutable doings of the Almighty.

Also, if you decide to go further and cite Orson Pratt's comments, Orson Pratt is speculating. He uses the phrase "must have" to show his reasoning, not stating fact or LDS doctrine in any manner.

*["We maintain that Mary was a Virgin when she gave birth to Jesus..."]

***Some Mormons might think that...but there is quite an interesting array of Mormon authorities who have said some very interesting things about the relationship between God and Mary in regards to Jesus' birth. Let's take a look at some of them and see what we find:

(A)Brigham Young, second prophet and president of the LDS church said:

(1)"The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood--was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers" [Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8, p. 115].

(2)"When the time came that his first-born, the Saviour, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came HIMSELF and FAVOURED that spirit with a tabernacle INSTEAD of letting ANY OTHER MAN do it. The Saviour was begotten by the Father of his spirit, by the same Being who is the Father of our spirits" [Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pp. 218,1857].

(3)Brigham Young also said, "Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost" [Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, p. 51].

(B)Joseph Fielding Smith, stated:

(1)"The birth of the Saviour was a natural occurance unattended with any degree of mysticism, and the Father God was the LITERAL parent of Jesus in the FLESH as well as in the spirit" [Religious Truths Defined, p. 44].

(2)"They tell us the Book of Mormon states that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost. I challenge that statement. The Book of Mormon teaches no such thing! Neither does the Bible" [Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, p. 19].

(C)Bruce McConkie, who was a member of the First Council of Seventy stated:

(1)"Christ was begotten by an IMMORTAL Father in the SAME way that MORTAL men are begotten by MORTAL fathers" [Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, p. 742].

(2)And Christ was born into the world as the LITERAL Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the SAME personal, real, and literal sense that any MORTAL son is born to a MORTAL father. There is nothing FIGURATIVE about his PATERNITY; he was begotten, conceived and born in the NORMAL and NATURAL course of events,...Christ is the Son of Man, meaning that his Father (the Eternal God!) is a Holy MAN" [Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, p. 742].

(D)Heber C. Kimball who was a member of the first presidency said:

"In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I was NATURALLY begotten; so was my father, and also my SAVIOUR Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the FIRST begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was NOTHING UNNATURAL about it" [Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8, p. 211].

Mormons cannot assert, with any degree of crediblity, that their "mary" remained a virgin in light of this evidence from their prophets and apostles. In your "cut and paste" religious system one never knows of a certainty what he will find next.

Marchello

*["We...have the authority to perform priestly duties and, therefore, properly represent God here on earth."]

***That's nice...but the Catholics have been saying the SAME thing for almost 2000 years BEFORE you. They are LIARS and so are YOU. In point of fact, the Bible CONTRADICTS both of you:

(1)Jesus is the ONLY high priest after the order of Melchizedek [Hebrews 3:1;5:6,10;6:20;7:11,15,17,21,24,26;8:1;9:11].
(a)"Where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest FOREVER, in the order of Melchizedek" [Hebrew 6:20].
(b)"And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest NOT on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but ON the basis of the power of an INDESTRUCTIBLE LIFE" [Hebrews 7:15-16].

(2)The Melchizedek Priesthood is UNCHANGEABLE and NON-TRANSFERABLE."
(a)"but because Jesus lives FOREVER, He has a PERMANENT priesthood" [Hebrews 7:24].

Marchello

Marcello shut up

He just needs to learn how to read without inserting his own wording in place of the text that is already there.

Originally posted by Marchello
*["We...have the authority to perform priestly duties and, therefore, properly represent God here on earth."]

***That's nice...but the Catholics have been saying the SAME thing for almost 2000 years BEFORE you. They are LIARS and so are YOU. In point of fact, the Bible CONTRADICTS both of you:

(1)Jesus is the ONLY high priest after the order of Melchizedek [Hebrews 3:1;5:6,10;6:20;7:11,15,17,21,24,26;8:1;9:11].
(a)"Where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest FOREVER, in the order of Melchizedek" [Hebrew 6:20].
(b)"And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest NOT on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but ON the basis of the power of an INDESTRUCTIBLE LIFE" [Hebrews 7:15-16].

(2)The Melchizedek Priesthood is UNCHANGEABLE and NON-TRANSFERABLE."
(a)"but because Jesus lives FOREVER, He has a PERMANENT priesthood" [Hebrews 7:24].

Marchello

Originally posted by TRH
peter was blessed by jesus and founded the catholic church

Originally posted by Regret
This is in part true. Peter began the position of bishops in the Church. As the Apostles were martyred and thus vanished due to the inability to ordain successors quickly enough, the bishops felt they had enough authority from God to lead the Church. Peter did not found the Catholic Church. It the unsubstantiated and assumed claim that Peter named Bishop Clement as his successor. But as to the Roman Bishop becoming successor, such would not occur until sometime between 70 and 150 AD most likely closer to the 150 AD.

Originally posted by TRH
close enough he was the first pope

Peter was not addressed by Paul in Romans 16 nor in Colossians 4. If Peter was bishop of Rome, he should have been addressed.

If Peter were bishop in Rome, why was Paul trying to usurp Peter's authority by addressing the Church in Rome?

2 Timothy 4:11,16

11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.
...
16 At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.

Galations 2:7-8
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles🙂

Fact, the information at hand infers that Peter was not bishop in Rome.

There is no reason to believe any Apostle was a Bishop. Nor that bishops succeeded apostles. The apostles ordained replacements for themselves, new apostles, as an apostle died. This ended when they were martyred more quickly than they could replace themselves. Why would they name bishops their successors if they were ordaining new apostles as their brethren died?

Now, was Peter the head of the Church? Yes. Was he the first Pope? That depends on what the term means. Peter was the head of the Church, but it is disputed whether Clement was really named successor or not. If I state, via letter, the day after the Pope dies that he named me successor, does it mean the Pope actually did such a thing? Peter did not start the Catholic Church, and Clement being his successor is questionable. The Catholic Church has long been political with various men jockeying for power and authority within its structure, why would one believe that such behavior did not originate from a bishop that behaved the same way? Clement may have laid claim to the succession, but it is entirely possible he lied.

Don't the Catholics claim that Linus was the successor of Peter? Clement was supposedly ordained by Peter as well. Both Linus and Clement are mentioned in the Bible which is interesting.
I personally do not doubt that Peter died in Rome as his tomb is there, but I doubt that he was there very long, considering that it was Paul, not Peter that did the missionary work while James and Peter remained in Jerusalem.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Don't the Catholics claim that Linus was the successor of Peter? Clement was supposedly ordained by Peter as well. Both Linus and Clement are mentioned in the Bible which is interesting.
I personally do not doubt that Peter died in Rome as his tomb is there, but I doubt that he was there very long, considering that it was Paul, not Peter that did the missionary work while James and Peter remained in Jerusalem.

Well if the catholics claim he was pope he was

Originally posted by TRH
Well if the catholics claim he was pope he was

Peoples' Democratic Republic of the Congo

Originally posted by TRH
Well if the Catholics claim he was pope he was

If claims made something true, there would be an endless number of paradoxical individuals in existence.

Originally posted by TRH
Well if the catholics claim he was pope he was

Marchello claims he is right and everyone else is wrong...

😐

Originally posted by Regret
There are those that claim Hitler was a good man. Some like Castro. Satanists claim Satan is correct. The Jews claim Christ was not the Messiah. The Muslims claim Muhammad was a prophet. There are still worshippers of Zeus, they claim he is real.

If claims made something true, there would be an endless number of paradoxical individuals in existence.

What would Jesus do?

Originally posted by LinixCobra
What would Jesus do?

Originally posted by TRH
I Like Castro,but thats not the point if france says someone is there presedent who is someone else to say that is not there presedent

Not to be combative, but if France were to say that George Washington was their first president, I'd have to say that they were wrong.