Honest question for my evangelical friends

[jmordecai]

As I understand it, Jesus was born to a woman (who had gametes herself), and Jesus was "fully man". This last means He had a human body. Thus, He had 23 pairs of chromosomes, 23 from each parent. Mary supplied 23, and His Father supplied the other 23. The gamete (ovum) from Mary included one "X" chromosome, the gamete from Father (spermatozoon) provided the "Y" chromosome that made Jesus male.

I am of the persuasion that God created everything, including forming Adam from the dust of the ground. Thus I don

[Thunderfire]

Also, CFR that Jesus

[LeSellers]

I am of the persuasion that God created everything, including forming Adam from the dust of the ground. Thus I don

[LeSellers]

CFR that Jesus

[jmordecai]

You should consider that you are wrong, because, of course, you are.

Since you seem to accept that Jesus was both human and born as a Human Being, and since it is a matter of biblical record that His mother was human with ova, womb, and all the normal sexual organs, as was her Son, one is left to ponder where the other half of His genome came from, and why, of all the terms, titles, names, references, and appellations available in Hebrew, Greek, English, French, German, Japanese, and every other language He ever allowed men to speak, He chose "Father" for Himself, and "Son" for Jesus.

As strong evidence that Jesus was male, I remind you that He was crucified sans any clothing or covering whatsoever (medieval artists' renditions notwithstanding). The lack of obvious and normal male organs would have certainly been noted in secular history as well as the sacred.

Why, one wonders, was He born at all? Why go through the ordinary travails of life as an infant, toddler, child, and young man? (Adolescence being a modern invention of value only to though who wish to control such individuals, Jesus was never an adolescent. Jews became men or women at age 13.)

You claim that God is not the Father of Christ in any meaningful way, that it is purely metaphor. No metaphor has any value or use unless its meaning is available. The trinitarian meaning of the trinitarian metaphors of "Father" and "Son" are not. And there has never, to my knowledge, been anything cogent advanced.

Your Jesus fails the most basic of tests: He claims to be a Son, but His Father did not sire Him. Your God claims to be a Father, but His Son has no genetic heritage of Him.

The plain, simple Gospel truth of Jesus' being the Son of God (through a physical process unknown) Who shares with all mankind a spiritual inheritance, but Who is uniquely the physical offspring of the Father is not only much easier to understand (or possible as distinguished from the trinitarian metaphor), but it gives us human beings a connection with God that makes our very existence meaningful.

Lehi

Does God the Father have blood?

[Storm Rider]

Does God the Father have blood?

What gave you the idea that he does?

[Glenn101]

Does God the Father have blood?

The scriptures seem to indicate not.

Matt. 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

1 Cor. 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Those scriptures would indicate that God the Father does not have blood running through His veins. It is interesting to note that Jesus did not refer to his body as flesh and blood after his resurrection. Here is what He had to say when he appeared to the apostles His resurrection: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." (Luke 24:39)

Glenn

[LeSellers]

Does God the Father have blood?

For someone who, if I recall correctly, claims to have been a Saint in the past, you seem to have lost a great deal of very common knowledge.

No, neither Father nor Christ has blood. "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven", and "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father in heaven" are strong indicators. But we have many pronouncements on the matter from modern-day prophets, too.

If you're trying to make the point that there are no gametes without blood, you'll have to bring up a lot more information than I have seen in the past. Because there is no support for that position in scripture; nor in nature, for that matter.

Lehi

[Vance]

The Gospels do not report Jesus using the word "grace" in any context.

I agree! In fact, the only place that I have found that attibutes the word "grace" to Jesus is . . . . . .

Wait for it . . . . .

Paul, claiming Jesus told him, (2 Cor. 12:9)

"And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me."

Interesting that this usage doesn't express or imply the EV understanding of grace either.

However, the Gospel of John does report Jesus promising eternal life to those who put their trust (faith) in him, with no condition of works mentioned:

The problem with that statement is that it misleading at a minimum. The only way that you can get to such an interpretation is to,

1) Totally ignore large portions of Jesus teachings,

2) Read into it what you want to see.

Your list again,

• "...That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:15-16).
• "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36).
• "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (John 5:24).
• "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:40).
• "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life" (John 6:47).

The question that needs asking is, "Can you believe 'in Him'/'on Him' without believing ALL of what He said?'

The answer is obviously, NO!!!

So here we have a perfect example of a man made doctrine that is "supported" by taking verses out of context, twisting the meaning and then "voila"!!

I have posted many verses in this thread that expand the teachings of Jesus (and others) to a point to where your understanding of grace is untenable. I hope I don't have to repost them.

There you go: now you have found those verses you said you couldn't find.

As usual, Rob, you are seeing things that aren't really there.

[jmordecai]

For someone who, if I recall correctly, claims to have been a Saint in the past, you seem to have lost a great deal of very common knowledge.

You must have me confused with somebody else.

No, neither Father nor Christ has blood. "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven", and "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father in heaven" are strong indicators. But we have many pronouncements on the matter from modern-day prophets, too.

If you're trying to make the point that there are no gametes without blood, you'll have to bring up a lot more information than I have seen in the past. Because there is no support for that position in scripture; nor in nature, for that matter.

Lehi

Your entire argument rests on this logic:

a. Christ was born a man

b. Man is derived from each parent providing half the necessary chromosome pairs

c. Therefore the Father must have gametes

Again, to accept this explanation requires us to ignore the supernatural causation of Mary's impregnation, along with a host of scriptures, including that Christ himself created gametes:

"For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities

[LeSellers]

You must have me confused with somebody else.

It's possible, and has happened before.

your logic breaks down when we apply it to Adam:

a. Adam is a man

b. Man has blood

c. Therefore Adam's parents have blood

As Adam had no parents, your attempt here is based on a false statement, and is therefor not sound logic.

There is no scientific explanation for Eve, who was fashioned from Adam's rib. Your insistence that a scientific explanation must be imposed upon the birth of Christ is contrary to everything we know about the Him who walked on water, turned it into wine, and has risen from the dead.

Your bringing Eve (who was also parentless) into the argument shows you have not thought it out well. We're not even sure Adam and Eve had blood before they ate the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. There was a major change in their bodies, one that altered them from being immortal to being mortal. Blood is, as far as we know, the element of mortality.

Yes, Jesus did perform miracles, but, as we have read, there is no difference between a sufficiently advanced technology and a miracle. As Jesus was capable of doing miracles, it is possible that He applied unknown (to either them of His day or to us) science to the factors of His surroundings, et voil

[Vance]

Regardless of the merits of your interpretation though, my point was only that it was inaccurate to claim that Jesus never spoke of 'doing' something in connection with salvation.

I think we have a small miscommunication here. I think Rob, by narrowing his focus to a very very small portion of the words of Jesus was accurate, although rather misleading in what he said,

Note his words,

However, the Gospel of John does report (in a selective collection of verses) Jesus promising eternal life to those who put their trust (faith) in him, with no condition of works mentioned:

By selectively quoting a few verses, (out of context of the whole of Jesus teachings), Rob was able to show that "no condition of works (are) mentioned" in those few verses.

Rob, didn't say that "Jesus NEVER mentioned works" but rather that the few verses he was quoting are "with no condition of works mentioned", even though works of righteousness are implied when taken in the context of Jesus' teachings as a whole.

It is as if Jesus mentions one requirement (believe on), then He must mention them all (faith, repentance, baptism, charity, kindness etc.), because if He doesn't, someone will "wrest" His words and disregard the other requirements mentioned elsewhere.

Sorry to be nit picky here, (and insert myself in your conversation), but I wanted to clarify the situation.

[bluebell]

I think we have a small miscommunication here. I think Rob, by narrowing his focus to a very very small portion of the words of Jesus was accurate, although rather misleading in what he said,

Note his words,

By selectively quoting a few verses, (out of context of the whole of Jesus teachings), Rob was able to show that "no condition of works (are) mentioned" in those few verses.

Rob, didn't say that "Jesus NEVER mentioned works" but rather that the few verses he was quoting are "with no condition of works mentioned", even though works of righteousness are implied when taken in the context of Jesus' teachings as a whole.

It is as if Jesus mentions one requirement (believe on), then He must mention them all (faith, repentance, baptism, charity, kindness etc.), because if He doesn't, someone will "wrest" His words and disregard the other requirements mentioned elsewhere.

Sorry to be nit picky here, (and insert myself in your conversation), but I wanted to clarify the situation.

That does make sense Vance. Thank you for pointing that out.

I apologize Rob for misunderstanding you and holding you to a standard that you never claimed to be meeting.

[Cold Steel]

The LDS do not accept the baptism of other churches so that is why I called it the LDS baptism and I was baptized once LDS and then again later as a new commitment to Christ in another faith. I have mostly attended nondenominational churches the last 18 years. They have had no problem with Fathers baptizing their own children. ... I will just agree to disagree with LDS having the only authority.

You were born into the church, but gave it up for a non-denominational group of churches. I was born Methodist, became non-denominational and ended up as LDS. Funny how things work out sometimes.

The more I learned about Christianity, the more I became convinced that somewhere, somehow, the Lord had to have a church -- and the non-denominational factions played the greatest part in that conviction. As I may have mentioned, the only time the pastor darkened my door is when he found out I and my family were planning to become Latter-day Saints. One of the things he mentioned most was his own conviction that we LDS believed we could "work our way to heaven." The Seventy who were teaching us rightly pointed out that works would not get anyone to heaven, but, on the other hand, works were necessary to our salvation. It was a paradox, to be sure, but the scriptures were clear that baptism and other ordinances were necessary gain eternal life -- yet they would not get us there alone.

One of the questions our salty little pastor asked that day was, "Do you believe you can be saved without believing in Joseph Smith?" When he asked it, the two church elders he'd brought with him kind of smiled, like they knew I was walking into a mine field. At that point, being a teenager, I didn't quite know how to answer it, other than I didn't believe that belief in Joseph Smith was any impediment to accepting Christ. But now I know it's no different than asking the same question, but of the apostle Peter, or Paul, or any of the Lord's previous servants. But my chief gripe with him (the pastor) was that the only difference between him, the other clergy of the day, and me, was that they had theological degrees and ministerial certificates. I have no idea who started the Barcroft Bible Church, but I'm relatively sure it was someone who was self-appointed and self-ordained.

My friends said the pastor's calling came from God. But in the world today, it's a bit much to have to determine if this or that minister is appointed and ordained of God. I mean, if the problem with the Book of Mormon is that we are asked to depend on "feelings" or a "burning bosom" to determine truth, then how do we determine whether any given pastor, priest or reverend is called of God? How does anyone do that? Many such pastors receive their jobs the same way I got my job. I answered a want ad, went in for an interview, showed my r

[Cold Steel]

...the Gospel of John does report Jesus promising eternal life to those who put their trust (faith) in him, with no condition of works mentioned.

But in other places, works are mentioned. But what are works? Would a work be helping a little old lady cross a busy street? If so, you're correct. But if they are submitting to required ordinances such as baptism, you are not correct. Jesus said whosoever should believe and is baptized shall be saved. So why did he add that qualifier? Why didn't Jesus simply say, "whosoever believeth shall be saved"? That would pretty much nail down what so many like yourself believe. But he added, "and is baptized."

• "...That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:15-16).
• "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36).
• "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (John 5:24).
• "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:40).
• "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life" (John 6:47).

But do you see that you quote all of these without respect to Jesus' statement? Given that stipulation, wouldn't you think the above would also have the same qualifier? If you add the phrase "and is baptized" -- what do you get?

• "...That whosoever believeth in him [and is baptized] should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him [and is baptized] should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:15-16).
• "He that believeth on the Son [and is baptized] hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36).
• "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me [and is baptized], hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (John 5:24).
• "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him [and is baptized], may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:40).
• "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me [and is baptized]hath everlasting life" (John 6:47).

Baptism in those days not only included immersion in water, but a baptism of fire, and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. These ordinances (works) seemed to be very important, and if there was any indication that they were done incorrectly, or by the wrong people, they were done again.

Part of understanding the Gospel is understanding the ordinances and the context of scriptures.

.

[LeSellers]

Your entire argument rests on this logic:

a. Christ was born a man

b. Man is derived from each parent providing half the necessary chromosome pairs

c. Therefore the Father must have gametes

Not true. My entire logic does not rest on this. It's a small part, to be sure, but only a small part.

Again, to accept this explanation requires us to ignore the supernatural causation of Mary's impregnation, along with a host of scriptures, including that Christ himself created gametes:

CFR that there was "supernatural causation of Mary's impregnation". I have read the applicable scriptures and they say nothing of the sort, unless, by "supernatural", you mean that God was involved. Mary was impregnated, but the mechanism is not disclosed in the least. Most specifically, it does not say that Father has no gametes and the Jesus' genome was haploid or that the matching pairs were plucked out of the air (or however you imagine it to have happened).

"For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities

[jmordecai]

It's possible, and has happened before.

As Adam had no parents, your attempt here is based on a false statement, and is therefor not sound logic.

Your bringing Eve (who was also parentless) into the argument shows you have not thought it out well. We're not even sure Adam and Eve had blood before they ate the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. There was a major change in their bodies, one that altered them from being immortal to being mortal. Blood is, as far as we know, the element of mortality.

Yes, Jesus did perform miracles, but, as we have read, there is no difference between a sufficiently advanced technology and a miracle. As Jesus was capable of doing miracles, it is possible that He applied unknown (to either them of His day or to us) science to the factors of His surroundings, et voil

[LeSellers]

You admit Adam had no parents.

I've always been able to recognize the obvious. It's a gift.

Where did he get his gametes to pass along?

From God, Who created his physical body.

However, Christ has parents, one mortal, the Other immortal, so your attempted parallel fails on its face.

Lehi

[William the Conqueror]

As to James 2 EVs generally fall into two camps, Lordship salvation -John McArthur and Free Grace -Zane Hodges.

Under Lordship the individual is NOT saved as he or she would produce some good works, therefore when James says dead faith he means NO faith at all. Under Free Grace the faith maybe dead but it is still faith albeit the individual is very carnal ( I Corinthians 3) and is not producing fruit. I take the second position as having been a christian for almost 43 years I have run across many believers who are 'out to lunch'. The ramifications of these two views determine one's interpretation of John 15, I John 3, and II Corinthians 5:10 as well as many other scriptures. Most Calvinists adopt the Lordship view or something quite similar.

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

I have started a new thread to respond to your questions about the orthodox understanding of Jesus as the Son of God.

[David T]

nackhadlow,

You wrote:

I'm puzzled by the way you worded this. Did you mean to use the plural form "graces"? The Bible never speaks of God's "graces" in the plural like this (I just checked).

As I understand John 1:14, and my own personal experience, Grace itself isn't a single, physical thing which is received all or nothing. Whenever I receive a blessing of the Lord, or a gift of the spirit, it is a measure of grace, or as Paul puts it referring to the Holy Spirit, an 'earnest', or foretaste of the fulness.

Just being born into this world I consider an act of grace. Coming into favorable contact with the gospel message I consider to be an act of grace. Any unmerited blessing from God is a grace. And I, for one, can easily say that there are many graces the Lord can bestow upon me that I am not prepared to fully appreciate or receive.

Forgiveness of sin is a huge act of grace. I believe I have received that. However, the ability to be cleansed of all sinful desires - complete sanctification - is also a grace, which I have not yet received.

I do believe receiving of the fullness of the grace (or graces) of God is a process that rarely - if ever - occurs in one fell swoop.

Also, Rob, were you able to think about and formulate a response to my earlier post as you said? Or are you still thinking about it?

[mbh26]

This is important, but I would argue that the differences in definitions are nearly as strong from Protestant to Protestant and from Evangelical to Evangelical.

And I would argue that each and every person redefines all these definitions themselves even inside Mormonism. I still see a very high level of ambiguity and stretch clauses to the whole thing. It's really not empirical and specific at all. Perhaps a person can know the truth for themselves, but trying to draw specific conclusions from "established religious doctrine," (whatever that is) that would predict a clear causal relationship for every individual seems impossible to me, at least with what religion currently gives us. In my view these questions become very personal and public discussion becomes very fruitless.

[jmordecai]

I've always been able to recognize the obvious. It's a gift.

From God, Who created his physical body.

However, Christ has parents, one mortal, the Other immortal, so your attempted parallel fails on its face.

Lehi

Your argument that Christ, to be fully man, requires him to have physical gametes from his father and mother, is refuted, by your own admittance that Adam did not inherit gametes from any parents. You impose God, who can form man out of dust, and woman out of a rib, is limited by what He can do with a womb.

We know Christ was conceived in Mary's womb as she was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost. What we don't know is if Mary was just a surrogate and God supplied a fully fertilized egg, or if her egg was used, or even if there was an egg at all.

There are some verses that may allude to a distance between Christ and Mary:

He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?"

Mat 12:48

Jesus saith unto her, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come."

Jn 2:4

Since the Father is spirit, we conclude He has no physical gametes. That Christ would have received gametes would have been created for that purpose.

A 40,000 ft. view of LDS doctrine, Mary and Christ would be the spiritual children of HF and HM. A consequence of your argument means that the Father, in some physical capacity, impregnated one of his daughters. Last I checked, that's incest.

[Nemesis]

A 40,000 ft. view of LDS doctrine, Mary and Christ would be the spiritual children of HF and HM. A consequence of your argument means that the Father, in some physical capacity, impregnated one of his daughters. Last I checked, that's incest.

Wow, what a distorted and disappointing view you have. You are out of the thread. Next time you want to distort things this bad think twice, because it might be the last time you post here.

Nemesis

[bluebell]

Rob,

I would really appreciate a response from you on my last post. You asked questions, which i answered, and then said that you would be happy to answer any questions that i had. I'm sure you are busy, and i understand that and don't mind waiting, as long as i know the answers and discusion are coming.

Thanks.