Writing for Mormons?

Imagine my surprise!

I wrote 20 good ( I thought) pages about 10 texts which call Christ God. This was to be the first chap of six. I interacted in these pages with such difficulties as why the punctuation of the RSV in Rom 9:5 ( Christ.God) or the JW translation of Jo 1:1 ( a god) are incorrect and why in Tt. 2:13 both nouns refer to Christ according to the Granville Sharp Rule.

The harder stuff I put in endnotes, and at the front I listed 13 objectives to be accomplished while reading( I'm a retired school teacher, so I like objectives for lessons). So,I thought it would be suitable for either adult SS or individuals . All in all, I thought it was a pretty interesting and useful read! I mean who can read enough about the Person of Christ...huh? I even had a page or two of illustrations for those with attention span problems!

So, I handed it out to 8 pastors and two layfolks and asked, " Is it readable? Is it meaningful"?? Is it useful??? Please look at it and let me know.

Meanwhile comes a knocking on my door, and there stands two Mormon (Utah) elders.

"Ha!" says I. Instead of listening to them I hand them copies of my little writing. I think to myself , "They will go away and not return because my writing exibits convincingly Christ's true deity."

So, two weeks go by. NOT ONE of my conservative Christian friends says even a word about what I wrote. "I'm a bum writer" I thought. NNE likes it!

Imagine my surprise , then, when at the door reappear the same two Mormon elders. They had excitedly read what I wrote! We sit outside and talk about Christ for two hours. EG, they ask to see my Greek Testament and also my Greek Septuagint from which I elicited my argumentation on Jo 8:58. "Show us," they say, " the Greek of 'I AM' in John 8:58 and that it is just as the EGO EIME in Ex 3. "Explain to us," they ask, the effect of the Article, Substantive, kai, Substantive when the substantives are singular and in the same case (as in Tt 2:13) . Such a desire to learn!!!

But from my 10 Baptist friends nary a word and no feedback. Hmmm... .

So, after this little test I sit and reflect on the possible meanings of this event where 2 out of 2 Mormons but 0 out of 10 Baptists seemingly like my writing about Christ:

a)) I'm a lousy writer, and should stop feeling sorry for myself

b)) Some Baptists, even pastors, are lousy students.

c) both a) and b)

d) I should should write just for Mormons.

 

===

Hi.

Actually the chapter had nothing to do with "works." It was only about the deity of Christ.

However, in the introduction I compared the greater popularity of gardening with studying the Person of Christ among Christians. Perhaps that study of Christ's Person might be construed as "a work." If so, then IMO John and Paul are guilty too.

I certainly would be.

 

===


Thankyou Craig

I'm an old guy who has wasted most of his life on himself . So after getting some education I had hoped to contribute to His cause instead of mine.

Writing was a way to do that. But maybe it isn't how I should try to contribute.

PM me with your address and I'll mail you a copy. But it is only one chap of six I'd like to try to write. These are attempts to put my dissertation on Christology in popular form.

Bill

Bill

 

===


You may be right that as they already believe He is God they are not interested in the reasons others do not interpret as they do. IMO that is not being prepared.

One reason why I thought the ideas in my paper might be important is that some Christians do not know how to answer cultists and other departures from the faith. The Interlinear JW text, eg, references the grammarians Robertson, Dana, and Mantey for their rendition of Jo 1:1 " a god." IMO many Christians have no counter. I provided that counter and more.

I believe it is true that cults gain many converts from mainline Protestant churches. One reason may be that Chritians do not so at time the WHY of what they believe.

 

===

Quite so. They consider the Bible unreliable. But I caught them on their own hook in this way:

One text upon which my chap comments required an overview of the issue of textual criticism. I referred in the chap to sources of the text as ancient copies and quotes from the fathers.

Knowing that they had read this, I laid out for them the KJV and J. Smith's "Inspired Version" side by side on Jo 1:1

Smith "Inspired " work on 1:1 reads:

"In the beginning was the Gospel preached through the Son. And the Gospel was the Word, and the Word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God."

After asaking them if they believed that Smith was inspired to translate that from the Greek, and their affirmation that he was, I brought out the Greek Testament and went word for word showing how very far Smith was from the original!

I pointed out that there are NO textual issues, as in ancient copies which disagree with each other on the wording of 1:1.

Then I made a proposal to these elders:

bring me ANY convincing textual evidence for Smith's mutilation of 1:1 and I will convert.

But if you cannot, then I will not affirm Smith's inspiration. But if he is not the prophet you say he is, then ask yourselves why do you follow him?

They haven't returned with that evidence

Bill