The Instigator
joze14rock
Pro (for)
Losing
51 Points
The Contender
thrica
Con (against)
Winning
56 Points

Mormonism is a Denomination within Christianity

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,576 times Debate No: 346
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (34)

 

joze14rock

Pro

My belief is that Mormonism is a form of Christian belief, thus valid enough to be called Christian. Just like a Lutheran is called a Christian
Just like a Baptist is called a Christian And so forth and so forth. Mormonism is a denomination within Christianity. Now, I shall outline my argument in this fashion- A) Establish my Argument
1) State my Criterion
2) Use Biblical evidence and more to support my Criterion
3) Background Information on Mormonism
4) Establish Mormonism as a denomination within Christianity through rhetoric
Mormonism (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) is a denomination within the Christian Faith. And here is my Criterion: The definition of "Christianity" in the modern world is so shrewd and bias that we have lost the true meaning of being a Christian. So I will establish a new definition of Christian as my standard to support my argument.
THE WRONG DEFINITION:
Being defined as a "Christian" is not embedded in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The concept of the Trinity was not established until 300 years after Jesus and Paul. Nor is the concept of Trinity found in the bible.
Nowhere in the Bible is there explicit support for the "orthodox" doctrine of the trinity. The famous "Johannine Comma", found in the KJV and other Textus Receptus supported translations, (1 John 5:7-8) would be the only scriptural support for the Holy Trinity. Unfortunately, the earliest manuscripts we have of the New Testament (The Alexandrian Text) completely exclude the "Johannine Comma":"For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and the three are one."
1 John 5:7-8
Strong textual evidence supports the conclusion that this passage was only added on by later scribes in the 5th and 6th centuries, when the Holy Trinity was deemed to be "orthodox." The idea of the trinity is "a historical development not a given from the early years of the faith" (Bart D. Ehrman "From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity")
The Basic idea of the Trinity is that there are three persons:
The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit- and these three are all equally God and of the same substance. But in despite of these three persons, they are but one God. Obviously there are logical discrepancies in this statement.
Now, I will never argue against the wisdom of God. Nonetheless argue with God on His own substance. But like Dr. Ehrman said, the Concept of the Trinity was not founded by Jesus, or by the New Testament, But by MAN alone.
"This Doctrine of the Trinity, which has become a central doctrine of Christianity, does not appear to be a doctrine pronounced by the historical Jesus, Paul, or any other Christian writer during the first few hundred years or so of Christianity... It was not there in the beginning."
(Bart D. Ehrman "From Jesus to Constantine...")
Going further into the historical facts of the Trinity, historical speculation shows that this doctrine was primarily established for political measures.
In other words, to dismiss the "heretics" of the faith (From the Arians to the Gnostics). "Heresy" means "wrong belief" Yet, what puzzles me is why MAN is allowed to choose who has the "wrong belief" or the "right belief?" (Orthodoxy). Keep in mind, the early Christians didn't have and organized New Testament until the ladder half of the 3rd Century.
These 2nd and 1st century Christians had to talk and debate amongst themselves so they could establish some concept of the faith. Now, last time I saw, every person is different Ultimately leading to different opinion thus different interpretations of Christ. But, unfortunately, the idea of "majority rules" came to establish Christian beliefs. And so the majority established what was "heresy" and what was "orthodoxy". "Mormon doctrine diverges from the orthodoxy of established Christianity, particularly in its polytheism, in affirming that God has evolved from man and that men might evolve into gods, that the Persons of the Trinity are distinct beings, and that human souls have pre existed."
(Encyclopedia Britannica 2006)
The big difference, in my opinion, between Mormonism and mainstream "Orthodox" Christianity is in the acceptance of the Trinity and the essence of a human being. They don't believe in the Trinity (Like the Jehovah's Witnesses) in the way that most Christians believe in it. Are we going to stoop down to the level of "Majority Rules" again?
There is a lack of Consensus Gentium. Was it not Paul who asked the Rhetorical Question?
"Is Christ Divided?"
And as C.S Lewis says:
"All Christians are agreed that there is, in the full and original sense, only one 'Son of God'" (C.S Lewis "Mere Christianity")
What it seems to me is that Mormons meet some aspects of the Christian faith. So they must be Christian.
Here is my definition of Christianity
CRITERION:
A Christian is a believer and follower of Jesus of Nazareth.
Simple enough, right? It's not some complex formula or necessary doctrine.
This is all that The 12 Apostles had. Too believe in Christ Jesus. But that poses a problem. As I stated before, every person is different, thus forcing different opinions:
"When you find yourself wanting to turn your children, or pupils, or even your neighbors, into people exactly like yourself, remember that God probably never meant them to be that. You and they are different organs, intended to do different things. On the other hand, when you are tempted not to bother about someone else's' troubles because they are 'no business of yours' remember that though he is different from you he is part of the same organism as you."
(C.S Lewis "Mere Christianity")
We are all ONE in the body of Christ. Not many, but one. To believe in Jesus of Nazareth is to be a Christian. And since Mormons believe in Jesus of Nazareth Mormons are Christians. Simple Logic. I find that most support the illegitimacy of Mormonism through scripture. I could counter all the biblical verses thrown at me by other biblical quotes but that would be pointless and rather irrelevant to the other argument I'm going to propose. Instead, I will argue that the popular Christian belief of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Only) is a rather disruptive creed. I believe that the Bible is divinely inspired but at the same time I am not going to deny that their are many mistakes in the Bible. I would have to write a book to explain the problems of the Bible, but instead I will suggest one: I suggest "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart D Ehrman
"... how does it help us to say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God if in fact we don't have the words that God inerrantly inspired, but only the words copied by the scribes -- sometimes correctly but sometimes (many times!) Incorrectly? What good is it to say that the autographs (i.e., the originals) were inspired? We don't have the originals! We have only error-ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways"
(Bart D. Ehrman "Misquoting Jesus")
I won't be writing a dissertation on HOW the Bible is flawed, but I'm going to say that IT IS flawed. Unfortunately for Dr. Ehrman, this flawness of the Bible forced him too loose his faith. For me, it just gave me a stronger faith in Christ. The idea of Sola Scriptura (through scripture only) is flawed and rather foolish. We don't get to God by reading the Bible. It helps, yes, but it is not the ultimate factor. We have countless of different translations (The NIV, NRSV, NKJV, KJV, NLT, etc) And they all have places where they differ theologically from one another! Scripture is important. But it is not the way to God. Not the way to Jesus. Their are hundreds of other Gospels, Epistles, Acts, Apocalypses that were not accepted into the New Testament.
Scripture is not salvation
thrica

Con

My argument is that your criterion to be counted a Christian, "A Christian is a believer and follower of Jesus of Nazareth", is too broad to have any meaning. Your arguments for scriptural errancy and alternative gospels as per Mr. Ehrman's arguments only serves to weaken your own argument, for the question then becomes, what did Jesus say, and what does it mean to follow Jesus? The less credibility one lends to the Scriptures - or any scriptures, really - the less one can say with any certainty what it means to follow Jesus. If I found a gospel that claimed Jesus was really a white supremacist and a crusader against the Jews, could I call murder Christian? My point is that when you argue for alternative gospels and scriptural errancy, you open up Christianity to be anything you want it to be, which strips it of any meaning at all.

What is religion then if stripped of its meaning? Could I be a Muslim without believing in the Koran? Of course not. Religions are classified by their system of belief and subdivided into denominations based on nonessential characteristics like interpretation of the core. Discrediting a faith's scriptures takes one squarely outside of the core of that religion, outside the classification of a denomination therein and into a separate faith.

Whether or not the Biblical Scriptures are indeed accurate is a debate for another day, but to say they are not has the consequence of putting one's self outside the Christian faith.
Debate Round No. 1
joze14rock

Pro

Thanks for the reply! I do apologize, but I didn't have enough "character" to support my criterion ("A Christian is a believer and follower of Jesus of Nazareth") on my initial reply so here I go:
As I stated earlier, the proper criterion of this debate should be the definition of "Christian" Now, I said that my definition of being a Christian is just believing and following in Jesus of Nazareth. I believe this is appropriate because it is compatible to 1st Century Christian thought.
I think it is rather logical to try to base most of our beliefs on the originality of a proclamation.
Just like textual critics aim to get the oldest texts of the New and Old Testament,
We should refine our theology and inquiry on the most original ideologies.
Notice in the Canonical Gospels, when Jesus gets his followers (his disciples) he doesn't emplace a set doctrine or creed on them. He doesn't tell them they have to worship in some liturgical way. He doesn't tell them they have to believe is a specific substance of God. (Although it is implied, it is not an explicit doctrine that Jesus states, something that Modern Churches have strayed from)
He doesn't tell them they have to have an Institutionalized Church (many of the 1st century Christians went to each others houses. It wasn't until Christianity gained political momentum in Rome, when they finally started building Church Buildings)What Jesus tells his followers to do is simple:
"And Jesus, walking by the Sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. Then He said to them 'Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.' They immediately left their nets and followed Him"
Matthew 4:18-20
All Jesus said was "Follow Me..." He didn't tell them - "Follow Me and believe that God is composed of The Father, Me, and the Holy Spirit. And we three are One. We're all God but also distinct persons. You also have to make Church buildings and have Creeds like the Eucharist and you also have to sing songs at Church. Oh, and don't forget that I want a sort of emblem- You know, like a Cross. Cause, I'm going to get crucified. Ooops... I wasn't supposed to tell you.
You'll know about it later"
"...and saying, 'The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel"
Mark 1:15
"'Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also, because for this purpose I have come forth'"
Mark 1:38
What is this Gospel?
Well, I'm sure Jesus didn't mean the scriptures (for the scriptures weren't even made until later)
I'm sure Jesus didn't mean a certain Theology (for he himself was breaking Judaic Ideology, and at the same time proclaiming he wasn't starting a new Religion)
I'm sure Jesus didn't even mean that this Gospel was only about the story of his death & resurrection. This Gospel Jesus proclaimed was the Gospel of believing in Him:
"Then they said to Him, 'What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered and said to them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe in Him [Jesus] whom He sent."
John 6:28 & 29
It seems that Jesus enforced a sort of egalitarian and Transcendentalist (by using modern terms of course) variation of Judaism. Christianity, initially was a DIVERSE and PERSONAL religion:
"We know a good deal about Christianity during the second and third centuries the time, say, between the completion of the writing of the New Testament books and the conversion of the Roman emperor Constantine to the religion, which, as we have seen, changed everything. These two centuries were particularly rich in theological diversity among the early Christians. In fact, the theological diversity was so extensive that groups calling themselves Christian adhered to beliefs and practices that most Christians today would insist were not Christian at all." ("Misquoting Jesus" by Bart D. Ehrman)
To restate my Criterion:
A believer and follower of Jesus of Nazareth. How do I support this? By the oldest ideology attainable- The New Testament Accounts of Jesus.
Not modern doctrines or creeds. Not even Theology or Philosophy.
What Jesus said makes the Religion. And once we disclude the idea of the Trinity and beliefs in the essence of man from the equation of a "Christian" we notice that Mormons are not so different from other Christian denominations.
Their difference is equivalent to the difference between a Pentecostal and a Catholic.
Guess what denomination believes in this:
"Justification is by faith and obedience to the ordinances of the church, repentance, Baptism by immersion, and laying on of hands for the Spirit gifts (including prophecy, revelation, and speaking in tongues)."
(Encyclopedia Britannica 2006)- MORMONISM
Now, about the credibility of the Gospels:
I should mention that even the Bible says that scripture is left for revaluation:
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
2 Timothy 3:16 (NKJV)
I do believe scripture is very important. It is authoritative. It is an essential aspect in forming the type of Christian one shall be. But scripture isn't a necessary condition for one to be called a Christian.
We already know that, even in our immense knowledge of scripture today, that their are problems with translations. I was so shocked at how many translations there are for the Bible. You would think since God is an absolute. ("I AM WHAT I AM") So would his eternal works. But, last time I saw, their is no "ABSOLUTE" Bible. No absolute translation everyone follows. (The tampering by imperfect man on the perfection)
So scripture (The Bible) must not be the necessary condition for following the Absolute. I think the absolute thing that all Christians share is the belief and in following Jesus of Nazareth.
I just want you to understand why I disclude scripture in the definition of a "Christian." It's not that I don't find Scripture to be important or authoritative. It's just that when we conceptualize God -> God is perfection. Perfection is beyond the comprehension of the human mind. BUT, ALL humans know it exists- meaning that just the idea of perfection is universal to all people. No person can have a different view of perfection. No person can try to create a new idea of perfection.
It is what it is. Just like how Christianity is. Christianity is perfection. It is what it is. So we must dig through all the controversies, disagreements, etc of the theologies, scriptures, creeds, and so forth. So we could find the aspect of Christianity that is absolute. And once that is found- we have found the definition of being a so called "Christian"
"If there were no help from Christ, there would be no help from another human beings. He works on us in all sorts of ways: not only through what we think our 'religious life'. He works through Nature, through our own bodies, through books, sometimes through experiences which seem (at the time) anti-Christian. When a young man who has been going to church in a routine way honestly realises that he does not believe in Christianity and stops going-provided he does it for honesty's sake and not just to annoy his parents -- the spirit of Christ is probably nearer to him then than it ever was before."
(Mere Christianity by C.S Lewis)
The Bible creates the TYPE of Christian, but it doesn't create A Christian.
I don't mean to discredit scripture AT ALL. I value scripture like you would not believe. I have three Bible so I can make sure I have a good understanding. I don't say that we should minimize or ridicule the Bible,
what I say we need to do is look at it differently.
Benedict Spinoza (17th Century Philosopher) in his "Theologico-Political Treatise" argued that we need to look at the Bible how it originally was looked, ripping away theological and doctrinal prejudices that we still are tormented by today.
thrica

Con

Hmm, I'm not quite clear - do you believe that the original manuscripts are authoritative and inerrant and that only the translations are flawed? That's a fair assessment, but I think the multitude of translations is good towards the end of capturing the original meaning rather than a detriment to the English's credibility; you've even said as much in that you have three different Bibles for comparison. But I think you overestimate the differences among the translations - as far as I know, there are no theological squabbles attributable to translational differences among accepted translations.

It also seems that Mr. Ehrman has underestimated the meticulous care with which the scriptures were copied throughout Jewish history: the manuscripts were checked multiple times, and if an error was found, the entire copy was destroyed. It wouldn't be as simple a matter to make copying mistakes as he imagines, and certainly not theologically significant ones.

It's interesting that you cite 2 Timothy 3:16 for support of Scriptural errancy. I don't believe the 'correction' refers to Scripture itself; rather to people holding to counterscriptural beliefs.

If we assume that the canonical gospels are accurate portrayals of the life and works of Jesus and that the English translations are close enough to be useful for the debate, then Jesus did indeed make explicit claims about the nature of the Godhead: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30), "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). It is from statements like this and the final exhortation of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 - "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" - that the Trinitarian Godhead is inferred.

Though you are right that Christendom has accumulated a lot of baggage through its two millennia, a lot of it - the Eucharist, for example - was set into motion by Jesus Himself: "For as often as you eat this bread, and drink this cup, you show the Lord's death until he comes". In addition, much of the diversity you attribute to the early Church, which since you've been quoting Ehrman I assume you're referring to Gnosticism and its minor outlying theologies, was recognized early on by Church fathers as heretical: Iranaeus and Justin Martyr, two of the earliest, wrote at length about Gnosticism and other unorthodox early Christian theologies and refuted them Biblically as heresies. It is from the refutation of heresy that theology develops, according to the principle that Martin Luther articulated so well: "Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract".

Though I agree wholeheartedly that the institution of Constantinian Christianity in the Roman Empire sent it (Christianity) on a long period of corruption and decline, you identify Constantinian Christianity with modern mainstream Christianity, whereas I hold that although there is still residual Constantinian influence, the Church by extracting itself from the management of a political empire is largely rid of that.
Debate Round No. 2
joze14rock

Pro

At this point of the discussion, I find myself entering troubling waters which I have to be very meticulous in entering. By following my pattern of argument, you have accepted to take a philosophical route instead of a theological (biblical interpretation) one.
I do believe that the original manuscripts are authoritative and inerrant. Inerrant means free from error, but what I think we have trouble understanding is what error ACTUALLY means. In other words, while I believe that the original manuscripts are inerrant, I also believe that they are filled with mistakes, problems, contradictions, etc. Now you may be wondering how I can say the Bible is inerrant when I also say that it is flawed? Like I said, the word "error" isn't really understood very well. Do we say that God made an "error" when baby's with deformities are born or good people die for no apparent reason? When something horrible happens in our life and we can't explain it, do we suggest that God made a mistake? Of course not (well at least I don't). Divine wisdom is beyond our comprehension, which the ancients like Plato and Aristotle understood. My point is that the Bible is flawed and it has mistakes. Their are contradictions and theological discrepancies that just can't be overlooked. But that doesn't mean it isn't divinely inerrant. It just means that the bible is riddled with human mistakes that God, for some reason, allowed.
Now for the translations: You are absolutely right in saying that the different english translations are "good towards the end of capturing the original meaning." But when it comes to theological and intense studying purposes, much discretion is required; meaning one should not be limited to one translation. Let me give you one theological problem that shows up between the NIV and NKJV, and see how just a word can cause a religious nightmare:
Ironically, the first mistake is in the first chapter of Genesis. In Genesis 1:5 it states in the NIV: "...the evening and the morning were the first day." The NKJV says the exact same thing, but give a note for clarification on the actual meaning of the Hebrew. Many Christians don't understand that the ancient Hebrew was very ambiguous. One word could mean something, but also have a secondary emphatic meaning as well. The NKJV in Genesis 1:5 states that the Hebrew actually may translate to "evening was, and morning was, a day, one." Most Jewish Bibles translate it that way. This difference is crucial in identifying because it infers that maybe their was no "first day." That creation out of nothing is not just limited to just that: stages of creation from nothing. Judaism teaches that creation out of nothing is only an aspect of the creation account. As famous Jewish scholars, like Leo Strauss, point out- the most important aspect of the Genesis 1 creation account is creation out of separation and distinction, not nothingness. If we take this notion that their was no "first" day, it becomes extremely compatible with evolution and the Big Bang, which fundamentalist today completely denounce.
Do you know understand the huge theological and biblical controversies that arise in the difference of not just english translation, but translations in general because of the difficult understanding of the Greek and Hebrew.
Actually, DR. Ehrman does does not overlook the great care the of the JEWISH scriptures. It is true that the Jewish scribes took great care of THEIR texts. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they got a great understanding of the original Hebrew. But notice how were only talking about Judaism and the Old Testament (Tanakh). The New Testament, all of which is in Greek, were copied by Christians who were not professional scribes, but only knew how to speak or write Greek:
"As we have seen, outside the Christian communities, in the Roman world at large, texts were typically copied either by professional scribes or by literate slaves who were assigned to do such work within a household. That means, among other things that the people reproducing wanted the texts. The copyists were by and large reproducing the texts for others. One of the important recent findings of scholars who study the early Christian scribes, on the other hand, is that just the opposite was the case with them. It appears that the Christians copying the texts were the ones who wanted the texts – that is, they were copying the texts either for their own personal and/or communal use or they were making them for the sake of others in their community. In short, the people copying the early Christian texts were not, for the most part, if at all, professionals who copied texts for a living; they were simply the literate people in the Christian congregation who could make copies (since they were literate) and wanted to do so."
Misquoting Jesus (pg. 50)Bart D. Ehrman
As for 2 Timothy 3:16. I find it interesting how you state: "I don't believe the 'correction' refers to Scripture itself; rather to people holding to counterscriptural beliefs." You must understand that while YOU believe that, other people will believe otherwise (such as taking the verse literally with the text). I personally take both stances theologically, that both the scripture and "people" are subject to correction. But don't you understand my point now? If people can't agree on the subject of a single verse, how can we ever agree on the definition of a Christian when using the Bible as the foundation? Not long ago Pope Benedict denounced all other Christian denominations as a deviation from the "true faith." If in Catholicism the Pope is Christ Incarnate (and thus has same authority as the Bible), do we accept what the Pope says? The meaning of a Christian has to have a universal understanding, to the extent that it fits into God's Will and decrees. In other words, the definition of a Christian should have universal agreement only insofar as it keeps to what is morally and socially just in the eyes of God. Now, I will bring us back on course of how Mormonism IS a denomination within Christianity. Scripture is IMPORTANT. It is essential. But were not debating whether Mormons follow the Bible's message "correctly." I'm sure I would probably loose that debate. What were debating about is whether a Mormon is a Christian. By discluding the Bible from such a meaning of a Christian, I do believe I have proven so. Now, I should have probably not quoted from the Bible, for now I opened it up for you to bust out your own verses like John etc. I only quoted the Bible for the extension common sense and not theological authority (like you did). I'm not going to shoot down the verses, because I personally believe in them as well. But my point for quoting was to use historical and commonsensical rhetoric. I used biblical verses appropriately in this debate (historically), while you're verses are strictly arbitrary (theological), as according to the pattern of this debate in which i'm claiming that the Bible is not the ultimate factor in the meaning of being a Christian. I don't only implicitly refer Gnosticism, but other Christian sects that were denounced as "heretical" by the early Church fathers. The Church fathers were arbitrary in their denunciations. They allowed philosophical ambiguity meddle in divine absoluteness. They believed that only one mindset can be right, while others were wrong. Keep in mind, Jesus was a heretic in relation to Judaism. Mormonism is a denomination within Christianity because they believe in Jesus Christ and they abide to the moral and social decrees of God. The Bible is authoritative and important, but it doesn't define who can be a Christian.
"I see no faults in the Church, and therefore let me be resurrected with the Saints, whether I ascend to heaven or descend to hell, or go to any other place. And if we go to hell, we will turn the devils out of doors and make a heaven of it."
-Joseph Smith Jr. (Founder of Mormonism)
thrica

Con

It's been my experience (and I've had a good bit) that most of the "contradictions" in the Bible are not contradictions at all so much as things that are only irreconcilable on the surface. Unfortunately this is the last round and we won't be able to go into specifics regarding the issue, but if there were any conclusive contradictions (that list of however many hundred that floats around the internet every once in a while doesn't count; none of those hold any water), I would think 2000 years of critical reading as the bestselling book ever would bring them to wide light.

The differences in interpretation and translation that you point out - the Genesis one, for example - are examples of the sort of interpretation of the core that defines denominations one from another (or at least sects, if not formal denominations), not of departures from the core as Mormonism has done. If I hold that the earth was created in a literal six-day period and my neighbor holds that the earth was instead created as a separation from uniformity on the basis of that verse, we both still take the Bible as the core text to the Christian faith, despite our different interpretations.

The interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16 is a little different though since that refers to the core itself. However, it seems like a big stretch grammatically to consider 'correction' to refer to the scriptures, when the words on either side of it obviously refer to readers of Scripture rather than the scriptures themselves. It doesn't necessarily follow that the transcription of the New Testament by literate non-professionals makes errors inevitable; rather, the innumerable copies, which would have been copied from many copies of the original, make it extremely unlikely that an error - especially a theological one - would propagate through the copies we have today. Where the texts do differ, it's pretty clearly marked in most Bibles that I've seen either in brackets or footnotes (for example, Revelation 13:18, where some manuscripts read 616, or Mark 16:9-20, which doesn't appear in early manuscripts)

Of course there are obvious limits on interpretation, for example flatly stated facts ("I and the Father are one") can't be interpreted around. This is where the argument turns back to Biblical interpretation regarding the Mormon issue, for it looks like your proof of discluding the Bible from the definition of Christianity consisted of establishing the Bible as errant (whether or not it was intentionally inspired to be so), which has not been done. It looks like you as well believe that Mormonism is irreconcilable to the Scriptures and our debate thus boils down to the role of the Scriptures in defining a Christian, which hinges on this primary issue of Biblical errancy. And without the need to deny Biblical inerrancy for fear of losing more in the vein of Bart Ehrman and skeptical arguments, the scriptures can occupy no other place than the central in defining Christianity as a faith.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by thisoneguy 8 years ago
thisoneguy
Mormonism is a poor imitation of Christianity, it's based on a pack of lies,, and I can prove it !,, it was started by a guy who became a gun fighter,, it is by far the worse religion in the world,, because it claims to be something it is not !!!!!!... anyone wish to challenge me on it ?,,, No?,, didn't think so. no wonder why they were hit by a plague, as promised in the Bible,, this church teaches that Adam is God, lol it's true, and I can also prove this,, Josephs wife Ema was well blessed when she kicked this lot into touch,, "only true church", lol challenge me ,, :0
Posted by joze14rock 9 years ago
joze14rock
I have to say that my Round 2 was probably the best well thought out.
Posted by joze14rock 9 years ago
joze14rock
I do want to ask people who vote for the winner of this debate to not allow personal prejudices and beliefs to dictate their decision on who won this debate.
Posted by mikelwallace 9 years ago
mikelwallace
The reason that I feel any argument stating that Mormons arent Christians is doomed to fail is because it is a biggoted statement in and of itself. All logic points to members of The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints, (who worship Christ as their Savior and strive to emulate him) as being a Christian Church. To try to define and restrict Christianity to exclude us is a great example of anti-mormon biggotry.
Posted by A-ThiestSocialist 9 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
If you really look at canonical texts and when the Bible was "put together" the Catholic church doesn't really even recognize it in it's entirety until the 14th century.
Posted by joze14rock 9 years ago
joze14rock
clsmooth:
I appreciate your feedback.
Though I have to ask what "very slightly" strongly means, ha ha.
No, but could you pleace elaborate the faults I had with my own arguments and why he won in your opinion?
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
joze14rock: I still consider Mormons to be Christians if they want to be called Christians. But I think your opponent's argument was very slightly stronger. Like I said, this was the most illuminating and balanced debate I've read yet on this site. Kudos to you and your opponent.
Posted by joze14rock 9 years ago
joze14rock
"Church" in the New Testament also can be translate from the Greek as
"Congregation."

I do presume that the "Church" (Congregation) was there before the "BIble"
Posted by joze14rock 9 years ago
joze14rock
clsmooth:
Very good point about Islam. I, unfortunately considering the constraint I have with the limit of words I have, was not able to address it explicitly but merely implicitly.

But to defend myself, in the first round I proved that their are two simple criterions that are necessary for one to be claimed a "Christian"

1) A follower and believer of Jesus of Nazareth (The Christ)

and

2) Abide to God's social and moral standards which are evident not only through the Bible, but through other sacred scriptures like the Koran or Tanakh.
And If I say dare say so as well, Philosophy.

But I understand your vote, though I guess my empirical evidence didn't give me an upper hand apperantly ha.
Posted by A-ThiestSocialist 9 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
Whenever I hear issues over arguing Church doctrine, I love to ask, which came first, the Church or the Bible?
34 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by apologia101 6 years ago
apologia101
joze14rockthricaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Kahvan 7 years ago
Kahvan
joze14rockthricaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by thisoneguy 8 years ago
thisoneguy
joze14rockthricaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RequireTruth 8 years ago
RequireTruth
joze14rockthricaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by matthewleebrown14 8 years ago
matthewleebrown14
joze14rockthricaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by jordyz 9 years ago
jordyz
joze14rockthricaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by cinderella1992 9 years ago
cinderella1992
joze14rockthricaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by DrewM 9 years ago
DrewM
joze14rockthricaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by erick1 9 years ago
erick1
joze14rockthricaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by dlw7505 9 years ago
dlw7505
joze14rockthricaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03