Are Mormons Christian?

[The Mad Monk]

This is the original here:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Ro...sh_translation

Keep in mind that this is supposed to have been written by the apostles. How can it change?

"Supposed to" being the operative term. It was first mentioned in 390. Of course it existed before then, but we cannot be certain how far back it actually goes.

[The Mad Monk]

The only time I ever heard the Apostle's Creed was prior to First Communion - we were essentially told "here's a prayer to memorize and then forget." That was also the only time I was taught about Jesus's descent into Hell, which isn't mentioned in the Nicene Creed - I think the Catholic belief is that the pre-Christ venial sinners went to Purgatory, and so the descent into Hell wasn't needed.

In the Presbyterian Church, and then the Reformed Church of America (Dutch Reformed) that I attended, it was repeated after singing the Gloria Patri (after the offering), during every (or nearly every) service. Forgetting wasn't an option for me.

[Kidlicious]

"Supposed to" being the operative term. It was first mentioned in 390. Of course it existed before then, but we cannot be certain how far back it actually goes.

I just figured that if you believe in the Apostle's Creed that you believe that the Apostle's started it since that what the early church taught.

[The Mad Monk]

I believe that the Apostle's Creed is a good summary of the most basic tenets of Christianity. I also believe that Calvinism is a good interpretation of the finer points of Christian theology, but I am not about to claim that the apostles are the source of it.

[loinburger]

It took a few centuries for Christianity to develop a canon, and different mainstream Christian sects continue to disagree over what books are canon and which are apocryphal (although the disagreements are relatively minor insofar as all mainstream sects agree on the majority of canon). There's a good explanation for this - if you were to ask all of Jesus's closest disciples to recount Jesus's life and teachings (using the the brief respite between Jesus's ascension and the disciple's martyrdom) then they would all provide accounts that agreed on a few key points (e.g. Jesus being crucified and resurrected) and disagreed on the rest (which sermons were important and what precisely what said in them, what old testament prophecies were fulfilled by Jesus, what happened during Jesus's childhood, etc), not because they were truly in disagreement with each other but because that's how the human brain works - we are all very unreliable witnesses. It was only through centuries of councils, correspondence, excommunications, and (once Constantine got involved) political browbeating that the canon took form, along with the various prayers and creeds and so on.

[Kidlicious]

It took a few centuries for Christianity to develop a canon, and different mainstream Christian sects continue to disagree over what books are canon and which are apocryphal (although the disagreements are relatively minor insofar as all mainstream sects agree on the majority of canon). There's a good explanation for this - if you were to ask all of Jesus's closest disciples to recount Jesus's life and teachings (using the the brief respite between Jesus's ascension and the disciple's martyrdom) then they would all provide accounts that agreed on a few key points (e.g. Jesus being crucified and resurrected) and disagreed on the rest (which sermons were important and what precisely what said in them, what old testament prophecies were fulfilled by Jesus, what happened during Jesus's childhood, etc), not because they were truly in disagreement with each other but because that's how the human brain works - we are all very unreliable witnesses. It was only through centuries of councils, correspondence, excommunications, and (once Constantine got involved) political browbeating that the canon took form, along with the various prayers and creeds and so on.

None of that has anything to do with the issue of whether or not He descended into Hell or not.

[loinburger]

It also doesn't have anything to do with the issue of whether he was crucified with three nails or with four

[Kidlicious]

It also doesn't have anything to do with the issue of whether he was crucified with three nails or with four

Right. But it says that in the Bible. Most of what is now christian dogma is a reaction to so called heresies throughout history not what the apostles ever said. It may have so connection to the Bible, but it's got a different motivation behing that. Why would you trust that verse in the Apostle's Creed when it wasn't in the original? I if not, why would you trust any of it?

[Kidlicious]

It also doesn't have anything to do with the issue of whether he was crucified with three nails or with four

Right. But it says that in the Bible. Most of what is now christian dogma is a reaction to so called heresies throughout history not what the apostles ever said. It may have so connection to the Bible, but it's got a different motivation behing that. Why would you trust that verse in the Apostle's Creed when it wasn't in the original? I if not, why would you trust any of it?

[loinburger]

Why does it matter to you? If you were presented with irrefutable proof that Jesus never descended to hell, or that fewer than or greater than three days elapsed between his death and resurrection, or that he had fewer than or greater than twelve apostles, and so on and so forth, then would your reaction be "Christianity is a lie!!!", or would it be something along the lines of "well this really doesn't affect my core belief in Jesus's death and resurrection and in God's forgiveness of sins, so, whatever"?

[Kidlicious]

If it becomes irrefutable then that's a different issue. Until then, it's a matter of faith, and I don't have faith in the church. The church is the bride of Christ, and brides don't always obey, and aren't always true.

I have faith in what the apostle's said. So if you can establish that the apostles said it I will have faith in it.

[loinburger]

The canon gospels weren't even written until decades after Jesus's death/resurrection/ascension, so good luck with that.

[Kidlicious]

The canon gospels weren't even written until decades after Jesus's death/resurrection/ascension, so good luck with that.

Written and told are two different things. They were told before they were written.

[loinburger]

So how do you determine which bits of canon were accurately recorded and translated after being correctly relayed through a decades-long game of telephone, and which bits of canon were slightly skewed but are still more or less correct, and which bits of canon are wholly inaccurate?

[Kidlicious]

It's inspired by God/Holy Spirit. It's called The Oral Tradition, a period of time when the Word of God was given to the community of Christians.