Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Is Mormonism right that Jesus visited the Americas after his ascension? Part 2

A Mormon depiction of the Mormon Jesus visiting Americans after his ascension. Note the non-Jewish Mesoamerican pyramid in the background supposedly built by Jews per Mormonism.

In Part 1, we read Acts 3:20-21 in the JST and how this teaches that Jesus did not leave heaven after his ascension, thus he did not come to the Americas and the Book of Mormon ironically contradicts the JST on this pivotal point.

Now we will consider some supporting scriptures, the first being John 14:19. This says in the JST:
"Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me; because I live, ye shall live also."
This reads the same as the KJV. Other translations offer clearer readings, like the NASB:
"After a little while the world will no longer see Me, but you will see Me; because I live, you will live also."
 The NWT (New World Translation) reads similarly:
"A little longer and the world will behold me no more, but YOU will behold me, because I live and YOU will live."
Jesus uttered these words before his sacrificial death. What did he mean? Simply put, Jesus will be in the spirit realm where no human can peer into. Additionally, Jesus will appear to them in human form after his resurrection, but before his ascension 40 days later (Acts 1:9), and at the appointed time he will resurrect them to life with him in heaven as fellow spirit creatures.

Thus, there is no time for Jesus to return to earth after his ascension before his apostles are in heaven. Again, the JST agrees with this, maintaining this conspicuous contradiction within the Mormon canon.

Another event that seems to support this is recorded in the Synoptics (Matthew 26:29 [JST 26:26], Mark 14:25 and Luke 22:18), where Jesus said "But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall come and drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom," in Matthew, or in Luke: "For I say unto you, that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come." The point seems clear, and is harmonious with John 14:19, that there is no time for Jesus to return to earth after his ascension before his apostles are in heaven.

Apparently, when Joseph Smith prepared his new inspired translation, he did not think these scriptures through to their logical conclusion, and unintentionally contradicted himself on this defining point.

Down the drain...

Link to Part 1:


Friday, June 25, 2010

Is Mormonism right that Jesus visited the Americas after his ascension?

A popular depiction of the Mormon teaching of Jesus appearing to Americans after his ascension to heaven. Does this harmonize with Bible teaching that Joseph Smith agreed with? Or is there an unsolvable contradiction?

Acts 3:20-21 in the JST (Joseph Smith Translation) says about Jesus:
"20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you, whom ye have crucified; 21 Whom the heavens must receive until the times of restitution of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began."
This reads the same as the KJV for verse 21:
"Whom the heavens must receive until the times of restitution of all things..."
Thus, Joseph Smith unintentionally preserved the teaching that Jesus must remain in the heavens until all Bible promises are fulfilled, and consequently, unintentionally contradicted himself.

The NIV: "He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything."

Additional points to consider are in Part 2: http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/06/is-mormonism-right-that-jesus-visited_29.html



Tuesday, June 08, 2010

Recently here I have been blogging on Trinitarian symbology and mechanics:

To recap, the Trinitarian apologist may say:
'in terms of what God is, God is one and only one divine being. But in terms of who God is, God is three distinct persons: one what and three whos.'
This line of reasoning may be extended further to Jesus, the second 'who' of the 'what,' or second person of the Trinity godhead. It may be applied this way: 'in terms of who Jesus is, Jesus is one and only one person. But in terms of what Jesus is, Jesus is two natures, the human (outside of earth's atmosphere) and divine, in hypostatic union.[1] Question: does Jesus have to micromanage his human nature to keep it intact? He must since it is in a place it was not designed for, being outside of the atmosphere. Why then retain it? He never had it before his earthly sojourn. So now, upon his return to heaven, he has additional work of micromanaging his human nature? That pushes credulity beyond the breaking point. The term "hypostatic union" is just a band-aid to cover this absurdity, making it appear more believable. As such, it fits perfectly with the warning in 2 Peter 2:3 of πλαστοῖς λόγοις (plastois logois), "made-up words."
Consider too, in Revelation 3:12 the risin Jesus in heaven says "my God" four times. Is this his human nature being micromanaged by the second who (Jesus) praising the first who (the Father), or praising the godhead 'what'?

Which is more believable, that or this: Jesus has a God. Two different individuals are in view, just as in Daniel 7:13 where the son of man and the Ancient of Days are two different individuals. It's as clear as day!

[1] One Trinitarian blog illustrates this using the Scutum Fidei this way:
From: What is the Christian doctrine of the Trinity? http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/01/30/what-is-the-christian-doctrine-of-the-trinity Notice how Jesus' human nature is a "what" in the Trinitarian "who-what" theological paradigm. (Footnote added 9/6/12)

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union
  • http://www.gotquestions.org/hypostatic-union.html (The scriptural reasoning there is all flawed, but it is included here for additional explanation of the hypostatic union. Pointedly, it states: "The doctrine of the hypostatic union is an attempt to explain how Jesus could be both God and man at the same time. It is ultimately, though, a doctrine we are incapable of fully understanding. It is impossible for us to fully understand how God works." This is weak-minded, uncritical thinking. In a word, unconvincing!)