Author Topic: Mormonism vs Islam: Which do you dislike more?  (Read 4463 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,413
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Mormonism vs Islam: Which do you dislike more?
« Reply #180 on: October 22, 2017, 06:20:09 PM »
the blasphemy that Jesus Christ is also St. Michael, et cetera. 

Interestingly, I think Charles Spurgeon also believed that.

ETA: In that he thought that "Michael" was just a pre-Incarnate alias of Christ. He didn't believe Christ was an angel.

Just like the Seventh Day Adventists.

I do not think this is heresy or blasphemy, it does not denies the Trinity at all, unlike the JW view of Michael/Jesus.

I think it is both heresy and blasphemy, and at the very least, erroneous teaching.

Why would it be blasphemy? Is it really that important that St. Michael exist as an angel?

We know who St. Michael is.  He is a real person and a created being.  Not an alias of the Logos.

That's almost like saying that it's blasphemous to hold that Sts. Theodore the General and Theodore the Tyro are the same person erroneously split into two.

No, it's not.  They are both men and created beings.

But Spurgeon and the SDAs are not saying that Christ is a created being. Just that one particular created being (St. Michael) did not really exist and that Christ did all the things that we think are St. Michael.
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,236
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Mormonism vs Islam: Which do you dislike more?
« Reply #181 on: October 22, 2017, 06:37:39 PM »
the blasphemy that Jesus Christ is also St. Michael, et cetera. 

Interestingly, I think Charles Spurgeon also believed that.

ETA: In that he thought that "Michael" was just a pre-Incarnate alias of Christ. He didn't believe Christ was an angel.

Just like the Seventh Day Adventists.

I do not think this is heresy or blasphemy, it does not denies the Trinity at all, unlike the JW view of Michael/Jesus.

I think it is both heresy and blasphemy, and at the very least, erroneous teaching.

Why would it be blasphemy? Is it really that important that St. Michael exist as an angel?

We know who St. Michael is.  He is a real person and a created being.  Not an alias of the Logos.

That's almost like saying that it's blasphemous to hold that Sts. Theodore the General and Theodore the Tyro are the same person erroneously split into two.

No, it's not.  They are both men and created beings.

But Spurgeon and the SDAs are not saying that Christ is a created being. Just that one particular created being (St. Michael) did not really exist and that Christ did all the things that we think are St. Michael.

And the Orthodox know that St. Michael is real, most especially those who have benefitted from his intercession.  The idea is heretical, and contrary to the living witness of the Church.  It is also blasphemous in that it makes the Logos something of a schizophrenic.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2017, 06:39:32 PM by Antonious Nikolas »
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Online Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 36,136
Re: Mormonism vs Islam: Which do you dislike more?
« Reply #182 on: October 22, 2017, 07:11:55 PM »
Just that one particular created being (St. Michael) did not really exist and that Christ did all the things that we think are St. Michael.

So if you happen to know, for Spurgeon or others, why exactly the deception? In other words: what is gained by going about things in this way? When I think of deception, sometimes it happens with Christ, but in those cases it's because the people (Satan, disciplines) simply do not recognize him, not because he's put on a disguise to pretend to be someone else. In the case where people have put on disguises, as a prophet once did, or the Archangel Raphael, there was a specific reason and need for it. Also, I admit to not knowing a ton about him, but it seems like an odd thing for a Protestant to believe given their tendency (generally speaking) to treat as suspect any interpretation that isn't straight-forward and literal.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2017, 07:12:22 PM by Asteriktos »

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,236
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Mormonism vs Islam: Which do you dislike more?
« Reply #183 on: October 22, 2017, 09:29:08 PM »
I would add, Spurgeon's speculation  would be totally inoffensive if God the Word and the Archangel St. Michael were mythological figures.  For those who know they are real, however, it is another story.
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,413
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Mormonism vs Islam: Which do you dislike more?
« Reply #184 on: October 22, 2017, 09:29:18 PM »
Just that one particular created being (St. Michael) did not really exist and that Christ did all the things that we think are St. Michael.

So if you happen to know, for Spurgeon or others, why exactly the deception? In other words: what is gained by going about things in this way? When I think of deception, sometimes it happens with Christ, but in those cases it's because the people (Satan, disciplines) simply do not recognize him, not because he's put on a disguise to pretend to be someone else. In the case where people have put on disguises, as a prophet once did, or the Archangel Raphael, there was a specific reason and need for it. Also, I admit to not knowing a ton about him, but it seems like an odd thing for a Protestant to believe given their tendency (generally speaking) to treat as suspect any interpretation that isn't straight-forward and literal.

I don't know exactly, but I imagine it has something to do with the veiling of the Trinity in the OT. If you read the "Angel of the Lord" with whom Jacob wrestled as being Christ (which many Protestants do) or the "Three Men" at the Oaks of Mamre as being a theophany, then I guess to them it makes sense to extend it to all instances of "Who is Like God?"

I think one of Spurgeon's big texts for it was also 1 Thess 4:16. Jesus uses "the voice of an archangel" because, in a sense, He is one (though this does make Spurgeon sound kind of JW, so I might be wrong about it).

Admittedly, this doesn't explain the mention of Michael in Jude (let alone the question of interpreting Revelation).
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,236
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Mormonism vs Islam: Which do you dislike more?
« Reply #185 on: October 22, 2017, 09:34:02 PM »
Just that one particular created being (St. Michael) did not really exist and that Christ did all the things that we think are St. Michael.

So if you happen to know, for Spurgeon or others, why exactly the deception? In other words: what is gained by going about things in this way? When I think of deception, sometimes it happens with Christ, but in those cases it's because the people (Satan, disciplines) simply do not recognize him, not because he's put on a disguise to pretend to be someone else. In the case where people have put on disguises, as a prophet once did, or the Archangel Raphael, there was a specific reason and need for it. Also, I admit to not knowing a ton about him, but it seems like an odd thing for a Protestant to believe given their tendency (generally speaking) to treat as suspect any interpretation that isn't straight-forward and literal.

I don't know exactly, but I imagine it has something to do with the veiling of the Trinity in the OT. If you read the "Angel of the Lord" with whom Jacob wrestled as being Christ (which many Protestants do) or the "Three Men" at the Oaks of Mamre as being a theophany, then I guess to them it makes sense to extend it to all instances of "Who is Like God?"

I think one of Spurgeon's big texts for it was also 1 Thess 4:16. Jesus uses "the voice of an archangel" because, in a sense, He is one (though this does make Spurgeon sound kind of JW, so I might be wrong about it).

Admittedly, this doesn't explain the mention of Michael in Jude (let alone the question of interpreting Revelation).

So then in this view, the Church's traditional experience with and teaching about St. Michael would be mere mythology and so much "Catholic" embellishment based on a misapprehension of the fact that he is actually an aspect of God the Word.
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,413
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Mormonism vs Islam: Which do you dislike more?
« Reply #186 on: October 22, 2017, 09:35:18 PM »
Just that one particular created being (St. Michael) did not really exist and that Christ did all the things that we think are St. Michael.

So if you happen to know, for Spurgeon or others, why exactly the deception? In other words: what is gained by going about things in this way? When I think of deception, sometimes it happens with Christ, but in those cases it's because the people (Satan, disciplines) simply do not recognize him, not because he's put on a disguise to pretend to be someone else. In the case where people have put on disguises, as a prophet once did, or the Archangel Raphael, there was a specific reason and need for it. Also, I admit to not knowing a ton about him, but it seems like an odd thing for a Protestant to believe given their tendency (generally speaking) to treat as suspect any interpretation that isn't straight-forward and literal.

I don't know exactly, but I imagine it has something to do with the veiling of the Trinity in the OT. If you read the "Angel of the Lord" with whom Jacob wrestled as being Christ (which many Protestants do) or the "Three Men" at the Oaks of Mamre as being a theophany, then I guess to them it makes sense to extend it to all instances of "Who is Like God?"

I think one of Spurgeon's big texts for it was also 1 Thess 4:16. Jesus uses "the voice of an archangel" because, in a sense, He is one (though this does make Spurgeon sound kind of JW, so I might be wrong about it).

Admittedly, this doesn't explain the mention of Michael in Jude (let alone the question of interpreting Revelation).

So then in this view, the Church's traditional experience with and teaching about St. Michael would be mere mythology and so much "Catholic" embellishment based on a misapprehension of the fact that he is actually an aspect of God the Word.

Oh, most definitely. Spurgeon was very Anti-Catholic.
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,236
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Mormonism vs Islam: Which do you dislike more?
« Reply #187 on: October 22, 2017, 09:42:06 PM »
Just that one particular created being (St. Michael) did not really exist and that Christ did all the things that we think are St. Michael.

So if you happen to know, for Spurgeon or others, why exactly the deception? In other words: what is gained by going about things in this way? When I think of deception, sometimes it happens with Christ, but in those cases it's because the people (Satan, disciplines) simply do not recognize him, not because he's put on a disguise to pretend to be someone else. In the case where people have put on disguises, as a prophet once did, or the Archangel Raphael, there was a specific reason and need for it. Also, I admit to not knowing a ton about him, but it seems like an odd thing for a Protestant to believe given their tendency (generally speaking) to treat as suspect any interpretation that isn't straight-forward and literal.

I don't know exactly, but I imagine it has something to do with the veiling of the Trinity in the OT. If you read the "Angel of the Lord" with whom Jacob wrestled as being Christ (which many Protestants do) or the "Three Men" at the Oaks of Mamre as being a theophany, then I guess to them it makes sense to extend it to all instances of "Who is Like God?"

I think one of Spurgeon's big texts for it was also 1 Thess 4:16. Jesus uses "the voice of an archangel" because, in a sense, He is one (though this does make Spurgeon sound kind of JW, so I might be wrong about it).

Admittedly, this doesn't explain the mention of Michael in Jude (let alone the question of interpreting Revelation).

So then in this view, the Church's traditional experience with and teaching about St. Michael would be mere mythology and so much "Catholic" embellishment based on a misapprehension of the fact that he is actually an aspect of God the Word.

Oh, most definitely. Spurgeon was very Anti-Catholic.

Right.  So like I said, an entirely heretical and blasphemous point of view.
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline William T

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,481
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: Mormonism vs Islam: Which do you dislike more?
« Reply #188 on: October 22, 2017, 11:40:57 PM »
the blasphemy that Jesus Christ is also St. Michael, et cetera. 

Interestingly, I think Charles Spurgeon also believed that.

ETA: In that he thought that "Michael" was just a pre-Incarnate alias of Christ. He didn't believe Christ was an angel.

Just like the Seventh Day Adventists.

I do not think this is heresy or blasphemy, it does not denies the Trinity at all, unlike the JW view of Michael/Jesus.

I think it is both heresy and blasphemy, and at the very least, erroneous teaching.

Why would it be blasphemy? Is it really that important that St. Michael exist as an angel? That's almost like saying that it's blasphemous to hold that Sts. Theodore the General and Theodore the Tyro are the same person erroneously split into two.

I don't know if "blasphemy" is the right word unless maybe Michael is equated with God.  Don't Mormons kind of sort of say that in a roundabout way anyway?  And then say the same is true for us?  Or confusing Christ with an Angel, and somehow confusing us in the same breath, is a pretty big issue.  Islam doesn't go that far.  What the mormons do to angles and the Godhead seems much more severe than Islam and it came from a more direct line of deliberatley breaking from at least some kind of Christian environment.  Agian, I don't know if this is "according to hoyle" blasphemy, but my main point is it  certainly does matter at times to say who existed as who.

But even if that isn't the case there is something of a difference of when some Jews consider Satan to be nothing but a prosecuting angel, and just one of God's messengers (like Michael or the Angel of Death) with a specific role vs someone who is playing really loose with facts in crazy speculations about spiritualism, religion, and things like that.  Constructing a theology around angles, crazy speculations, and spiritual beings is a sign of a very detached and poor religion.  One may see honest mistakes made by Jews, Zoroastrians, or even your average pagan as people now your mind doesn't really belong focusing about such things.

In this case the many faults and low opinion I have of Mohammad seem much less fantastic and unhinged as the speculations of Joseph Smith.  And even if you look at the backgrounds you may be able to argue that Smith had less excuse to distort anything, he was raised in a much more stable Christian environment and deliberately adding a whole new dimension to things...Mohammad isn't as straightforward a case with that, his environment was much different than Smith's.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2017, 11:53:18 PM by William T »
Holy Toledo!

Offline juliogb

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 500
Re: Mormonism vs Islam: Which do you dislike more?
« Reply #189 on: October 23, 2017, 06:23:27 AM »
I never heard of Spurgeon having that idea of St. Michael Archangel and Our Lord Jesus being the ''same'', do you guys have a source about it?

Offline Nicodemusz138

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
  • Faith: Seeking God
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of the Kingdom of God, Eternity
Re: Mormonism vs Islam: Which do you dislike more?
« Reply #190 on: October 23, 2017, 07:00:01 AM »
the blasphemy that Jesus Christ is also St. Michael, et cetera. 

Interestingly, I think Charles Spurgeon also believed that.

ETA: In that he thought that "Michael" was just a pre-Incarnate alias of Christ. He didn't believe Christ was an angel.

Just like the Seventh Day Adventists.

I do not think this is heresy or blasphemy, it does not denies the Trinity at all, unlike the JW view of Michael/Jesus.

I think it is both heresy and blasphemy, and at the very least, erroneous teaching.

Why would it be blasphemy? Is it really that important that St. Michael exist as an angel? That's almost like saying that it's blasphemous to hold that Sts. Theodore the General and Theodore the Tyro are the same person erroneously split into two.

I don't know if "blasphemy" is the right word unless maybe Michael is equated with God.  Don't Mormons kind of sort of say that in a roundabout way anyway?  And then say the same is true for us?  Or confusing Christ with an Angel, and somehow confusing us in the same breath, is a pretty big issue.  Islam doesn't go that far.  What the mormons do to angles and the Godhead seems much more severe than Islam and it came from a more direct line of deliberatley breaking from at least some kind of Christian environment.  Agian, I don't know if this is "according to hoyle" blasphemy, but my main point is it  certainly does matter at times to say who existed as who.

But even if that isn't the case there is something of a difference of when some Jews consider Satan to be nothing but a prosecuting angel, and just one of God's messengers (like Michael or the Angel of Death) with a specific role vs someone who is playing really loose with facts in crazy speculations about spiritualism, religion, and things like that.  Constructing a theology around angles, crazy speculations, and spiritual beings is a sign of a very detached and poor religion.  One may see honest mistakes made by Jews, Zoroastrians, or even your average pagan as people now your mind doesn't really belong focusing about such things.

In this case the many faults and low opinion I have of Mohammad seem much less fantastic and unhinged as the speculations of Joseph Smith.  And even if you look at the backgrounds you may be able to argue that Smith had less excuse to distort anything, he was raised in a much more stable Christian environment and deliberately adding a whole new dimension to things...Mohammad isn't as straightforward a case with that, his environment was much different than Smith's.

Well, Mormons believe that Jesus is just one out of the unlimited Gods in the universe, you can become a God yourself if you follow the Mormon "Gospel" which is by living a good, submissive Mormon life and receiving the ordinances in the temple, mainly, the celestial marriage ordinance.

As for the Mormon view of angels, I do not know a lot about it, it is important to remember that not all LDS followers believe in this odd, Space Gods doctrines (Josephites or the Community of Christ for example), Smith taught that pop culture view that people become angels when they die and all angels were once human (ex. Michael is actually Adam, Gabriel was Noah, etc.)

Any misconception I wrote, please correct me.

Back to the Jesus Michael thing, SDAs believe that Michael is the name of the eternally Pre Existant logos, God the son, the son has incarnated, and is now named Jesus, Jesus is Jesus, period.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2017, 07:02:54 AM by Nicodemusz138 »
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. 2 Corinthians 13:14

Προς άπειρο και πέραν αυτού!

Offline t.ivanov

  • BANNED for being a duplicate account
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Mormonism vs Islam: Which do you dislike more?
« Reply #191 on: October 23, 2017, 08:32:31 AM »
the blasphemy that Jesus Christ is also St. Michael, et cetera. 

Interestingly, I think Charles Spurgeon also believed that.

ETA: In that he thought that "Michael" was just a pre-Incarnate alias of Christ. He didn't believe Christ was an angel.

Just like the Seventh Day Adventists.

I do not think this is heresy or blasphemy, it does not denies the Trinity at all, unlike the JW view of Michael/Jesus.

I think it is both heresy and blasphemy, and at the very least, erroneous teaching.

Why would it be blasphemy? Is it really that important that St. Michael exist as an angel? That's almost like saying that it's blasphemous to hold that Sts. Theodore the General and Theodore the Tyro are the same person erroneously split into two.

I don't know if "blasphemy" is the right word unless maybe Michael is equated with God.  Don't Mormons kind of sort of say that in a roundabout way anyway?  And then say the same is true for us?  Or confusing Christ with an Angel, and somehow confusing us in the same breath, is a pretty big issue.  Islam doesn't go that far.  What the mormons do to angles and the Godhead seems much more severe than Islam and it came from a more direct line of deliberatley breaking from at least some kind of Christian environment.  Agian, I don't know if this is "according to hoyle" blasphemy, but my main point is it  certainly does matter at times to say who existed as who.

But even if that isn't the case there is something of a difference of when some Jews consider Satan to be nothing but a prosecuting angel, and just one of God's messengers (like Michael or the Angel of Death) with a specific role vs someone who is playing really loose with facts in crazy speculations about spiritualism, religion, and things like that.  Constructing a theology around angles, crazy speculations, and spiritual beings is a sign of a very detached and poor religion.  One may see honest mistakes made by Jews, Zoroastrians, or even your average pagan as people now your mind doesn't really belong focusing about such things.

In this case the many faults and low opinion I have of Mohammad seem much less fantastic and unhinged as the speculations of Joseph Smith.  And even if you look at the backgrounds you may be able to argue that Smith had less excuse to distort anything, he was raised in a much more stable Christian environment and deliberately adding a whole new dimension to things...Mohammad isn't as straightforward a case with that, his environment was much different than Smith's.

Well, Mormons believe that Jesus is just one out of the unlimited Gods in the universe, you can become a God yourself if you follow the Mormon "Gospel" which is by living a good, submissive Mormon life and receiving the ordinances in the temple, mainly, the celestial marriage ordinance.

As for the Mormon view of angels, I do not know a lot about it, it is important to remember that not all LDS followers believe in this odd, Space Gods doctrines (Josephites or the Community of Christ for example), Smith taught that pop culture view that people become angels when they die and all angels were once human (ex. Michael is actually Adam, Gabriel was Noah, etc.)

Any misconception I wrote, please correct me.

Back to the Jesus Michael thing, SDAs believe that Michael is the name of the eternally Pre Existant logos, God the son, the son has incarnated, and is now named Jesus, Jesus is Jesus, period.

Good info!

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,236
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Mormonism vs Islam: Which do you dislike more?
« Reply #192 on: October 23, 2017, 08:47:56 AM »
Back to the Jesus Michael thing, SDAs believe that Michael is the name of the eternally Pre Existant logos, God the son, the son has incarnated, and is now named Jesus, Jesus is Jesus, period.

Surely if this monstrous belief had reared its head in the Early Church it would've been condemned as heresy.
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Nicodemusz138

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
  • Faith: Seeking God
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of the Kingdom of God, Eternity
Re: Mormonism vs Islam: Which do you dislike more?
« Reply #193 on: October 23, 2017, 11:09:48 AM »
Back to the Jesus Michael thing, SDAs believe that Michael is the name of the eternally Pre Existant logos, God the son, the son has incarnated, and is now named Jesus, Jesus is Jesus, period.

Surely if this monstrous belief had reared its head in the Early Church it would've been condemned as heresy.

I believe perhaps the earliest known version of this belief comes from the Bogomils (10th century)?
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. 2 Corinthians 13:14

Προς άπειρο και πέραν αυτού!

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,332
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Mormonism vs Islam: Which do you dislike more?
« Reply #194 on: October 23, 2017, 11:15:53 AM »
I mean, if it's wrong, it's wrong, but I don't really see the blasphemy inherent to the idea.
Quote
“A goose to hatch the Crystal Egg after an Eagle had half-hatched it! Aye, aye, to be sure, that’s right,” said the Old Woman of Beare. “And now you must go find out what happened to it. Go now, and when you come back I will give you your name.”
- from The King of Ireland's Son, by Padraic Colum

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,236
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Mormonism vs Islam: Which do you dislike more?
« Reply #195 on: October 23, 2017, 11:43:52 AM »
Back to the Jesus Michael thing, SDAs believe that Michael is the name of the eternally Pre Existant logos, God the son, the son has incarnated, and is now named Jesus, Jesus is Jesus, period.

Surely if this monstrous belief had reared its head in the Early Church it would've been condemned as heresy.

I believe perhaps the earliest known version of this belief comes from the Bogomils (10th century)?

An evil sect, to be sure.

I mean, if it's wrong, it's wrong, but I don't really see the blasphemy inherent to the idea.

I don't know that it fits anyone's definition of blasphemy in terms of profaning God's name, but to my mind, the idea is blasphemous in that it contends that a particular and very real created being who is not God - in this case a particular and real Archangel - is God.  In this sense, it is no different from saying that Sabbatai Zevi or Secretariat - other very real created beings with their own minds and personalities, even as St. Michael is - are God.  This is certainly in line with the etymology of the term in Greek, impious speech.  As I said earlier, if God and St. Michael are just mythological characters or concepts, there is no harm in positing that one might be an avatar or an identity of the other.  If, however, they are real, saying that a particular angel is God is no different than saying a particular man is God.
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Jetavan

  • Argumentum ad australopithecum
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,818
  • Tenzin and Desmond
    • The Mystical Theology
Re: Mormonism vs Islam: Which do you dislike more?
« Reply #196 on: October 23, 2017, 01:19:29 PM »
Back to the Jesus Michael thing, SDAs believe that Michael is the name of the eternally Pre Existant logos, God the son, the son has incarnated, and is now named Jesus, Jesus is Jesus, period.

Surely if this monstrous belief had reared its head in the Early Church it would've been condemned as heresy.

I believe perhaps the earliest known version of this belief comes from the Bogomils (10th century)?
The Gospel of Thomas has Simon Peter comparing Jesus to a “messenger”. I presume the “messenger” is a translation of the Greek “angelos”.
If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.

Offline RobS

  • Formerly "nothing"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,171
  • Jurisdiction: The thrilling romance of Holy Orthodoxy
Re: Mormonism vs Islam: Which do you dislike more?
« Reply #197 on: October 23, 2017, 01:26:15 PM »
It's more of an indifference to both. But if you had a gun to my head, I'd say Islam because of its history with Orthodoxy in ME. I find it difficult reading the history of the Hagia Sophia without my blood boiling and that's the tip of the iceberg.
"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death (μελεπᾷν ἀποθνήσκειν)."

— Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment XI

Modernist thinking and being consists of nothing but uncritical acceptance.