Lachoneus Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 I have provided clear reasoning on why the context clearly demonstrates that the 'gods' Paul is talking about are idols.The early Christian Father Origen (185–254 AD) disagrees with your interpretation, as set forth in his commentary on the Gospel of John: There are some gods of whom God is god, as we hear in prophecy, “Thank ye the God of gods,” and “The God of gods hath spoken, and called the earth.” Now God, according to the Gospel, “is not the God of the dead but of the living.” Those gods, then, are living of whom God is god. The Apostle, too, writing to the Corinthians, says, “As there are gods many and lords many,” and so we have spoken of these gods as really existing. (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Bk 1, part 34, 9 ANF 315) 1
djholmess Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 "Beget" is the infinite form of "begotten".Which definition *must* include a sexual act? If you think any of them does then frankly, Dolly the Lamb knows more about repreduction than do you. A broader intepretation of "procreate" would be that part ofthe father is used to ccreate amn offspring. Now, if man hads discovered how to do this without sexual relations, why can't God the Father? We don't know the mechanics of *how* the Son was created. This has been pointed out to you but typical to many critics ofhte LDS church, you ignore these rebuttals and repeat the same old criticism. The mechanics of *how* the Son was created has never been important to the LDS leaders. What has always nbeen important is to preach with no uncertainty that Jesus Christ was the Son ofthe Father and none else. He was not the Son of the Holy Ghost or any other being save the Father. The trinitarian formula naturally leads to conflating the Father and the Holy Ghost and LDS leaders, perhaps mainly due tothe fact that Jesus Christ is the center of all Mormon theology, has felt it necessary to teach that Jesus is and was the Son of the Father, period.So just to be clear, when Jospeh F Smith speaking in his context of no cloning or AI or anyother such concept said "how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father." he in no way was refering to a sexual act?I'm happy to accept you don't believe this but it seems like the most natural way to understand this is to be refering to a sexual act. To take your defination above, how are children begotten? Through procreation between a father and mother. How was Jesus begotten? between procreation between the Father and Mary. I know you don't believe this but it does seem to read like that.
Darren10 Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Until the couple of quotes provided above I have never encountered any LDS who will out right say Mary was a virgin after she gave birth - they are good to see.The LDS do not believe that mary was a virgin *after* she gave birth. in fact, I highly doubt she was a virgin for very long after she wed Joseph. The question is, do the LDS believe in the virgin birth? Yes, they do.15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the acondescension of God?17 And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.18 And he said unto me: Behold, the avirgin whom thou seest is the bmother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.19 And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the aSpirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look!20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a achild in her arms.21 And the angel said unto me: Behold the aLamb of God, yea, even the bSon of the Eternal cFather! Knowest thou the meaning of the dtree which thy father saw?(1 Nephi 11)
Vance Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) All I'm asking for is an explaination from him about how it does actually teach the existance of gods.All you have to do is read what he actually says. That is all.You seem to think that just because he is talking about idols that his admission about the existence of real and heavenly gods is invalid. Not so. His admission of the existence of real and heavenly gods ACTUALLY strengthens his argument for ONLY worshiping one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ.Too bad this point is lost on you. Edited August 2, 2012 by Vance
Darren10 Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 The early Christian Father Origen (185–254 AD) disagrees with your interpretation, as set forth in his commentary on the Gospel of John: (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Bk 1, part 34, 9 ANF 315)Origen must not have been a Christian.
djholmess Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 "5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but one aGod, the bFather, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one cLord Jesus Christ, by whom are dall things, and we by him.' (Provided to you again)So how do false gods get to heaven?Paul isn't saying there are real Gods in heaven. He is saying that there are those 'called' gods in heaven and in earth. The verse before shows that he is talking about idols, these things are only 'called' gods by idol worshipers, there is nothing to suggest Paul actually means the things that are called gods are also actual real gods.
Darren10 Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) So just to be clear, when Jospeh F Smith speaking in his context of no cloning or AI or anyother such concept said "how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father." he in no way was refering to a sexual act?How does that *have to* refer to a sexual act? If man can produce children without sexual acts, why not God?I'm happy to accept you don't believe this but it seems like the most natural way to understand this is to be refering to a sexual act. To take your defination above, how are children begotten? Through procreation between a father and mother. How was Jesus begotten? between procreation between the Father and Mary. I know you don't believe this but it does seem to read like that.Not *all* children are produced with a sexual act between a man and a woman, are they?Yes, there was "procreation" between the Father and Mary but this does not *have to* mean a sexual act. Mormons believe it was by the power of the Holy Ghost. So do you. Period. Edited August 2, 2012 by Darren10
djholmess Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 The LDS do not believe that mary was a virgin *after* she gave birth. in fact, I highly doubt she was a virgin for very long after she wed Joseph. The question is, do the LDS believe in the virgin birth? Yes, they do.(1 Nephi 11)I meant that she was a virgin immediatly after birth, obviously Mary had other children by natrual means.Matthew 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.I take it you didn't mean above that Mary had sex whilst pregnant right? So she was a virgin at the time Jesus was born right?
Vance Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) The early Christian Father Origen (185–254 AD) disagrees with your interpretation, as set forth in his commentary on the Gospel of John: There are some gods of whom God is god, as we hear in prophecy, “Thank ye the God of gods,” and “The God of gods hath spoken, and called the earth.” Now God, according to the Gospel, “is not the God of the dead but of the living.” Those gods, then, are living of whom God is god. The Apostle, too, writing to the Corinthians, says, “As there are gods many and lords many,” and so we have spoken of these gods as really existing.(Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Bk 1, part 34, 9 ANF 315)Silly you.Don't you know that the only valid understanding of those verses is the 21st century American Protestant Evangelical one?Edited to add,Great quote by the way. Thanks! Edited August 2, 2012 by Vance
Darren10 Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Paul isn't saying there are real Gods in heaven. He is saying that there are those 'called' gods in heaven and in earth. The verse before shows that he is talking about idols, these things are only 'called' gods by idol worshipers, there is nothing to suggest Paul actually means the things that are called gods are also actual real gods.No, these are called "gods" "in heaven". Are "idol worshippers" "in heaven". If so, how in the world did they get there? Also, who "in heaven" calls idol gods "lord"?
Darren10 Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 I meant that she was a virgin immediatly after birth, obviously Mary had other children by natrual means.Matthew 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.I take it you didn't mean above that Mary had sex whilst pregnant right? So she was a virgin at the time Jesus was born right?Yes, that is what I meant and that is precisely what Nephi wrote.
Vance Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 So just to be clear, when Jospeh F Smith speaking in his context of no cloning or AI or anyother such concept said "how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father." he in no way was refering to a sexual act?Could you please stop talking about SEX!!!!Take your obsession else where.
Darren10 Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 I gotta shower and take Mrs. Darren out to luch @ Chick-fil-A in thanks for Mr. Cathy's support of traditional marriage.
Vance Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Origen must not have been a Christian.Oops!!! The pogrom against Mormons claims another victim.
Darren10 Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Could you please stop talking about SEX!!!!Take your obsession else where.Get a room, djholmes.
djholmess Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Get a room, djholmes. Calm down guys, I think I have been fair and not over the top... I don't even think I brought up the topic. Darren10 and Bluebell it has been useful to have you explain your beliefs.
Damien the Leper Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 I wonder the relevance of the OP question. For the sake of discussion, I'm curious what the philosophical and ethical moralism arguments would be to determine what a "Christian" is or what such a person would look like. Furthermore, is there a consistent opinion of such a definition expressed in the NT let alone in the first and second centuries?
bluebell Posted August 2, 2012 Author Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) So just to be clear, when Jospeh F Smith speaking in his context of no cloning or AI or anyother such concept said "how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father." he in no way was refering to a sexual act?Correct. Children are begotten by 23 chromosomes from the mother and 23 chromosomes from the father joining together to form a physical body. That's how Christ was begotten.I'm happy to accept you don't believe this but it seems like the most natural way to understand this is to be refering to a sexual act.It is, unless you already know that the LDS church believes in the virgin birth. JFS was speaking to people who already knew that so he didn't have to explain it. Edited August 2, 2012 by bluebell 1
bluebell Posted August 2, 2012 Author Posted August 2, 2012 I wonder the relevance of the OP question. For the sake of discussion, I'm curious what the philosophical and ethical moralism arguments would be to determine what a "Christian" is or what such a person would look like. Furthermore, is there a consistent opinion of such a definition expressed in the NT let alone in the first and second centuries?The OP question stemmed from a different thread discussion where djholmess declared that only the NT could define what a Christian was but that that thread wasn't the appropriate place to discuss it.
bluebell Posted August 2, 2012 Author Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) Calm down guys, I think I have been fair and not over the top... I don't even think I brought up the topic. Darren10 and Bluebell it has been useful to have you explain your beliefs.I'm very glad and appreciate your ability to accept that your understanding of our beliefs on this issue was wrong.Now, perhaps this is a good time to focus on one of my previous questions, which was, now that you know that mormons believe in the virgin birth, what else do we believe about Jesus that means we believe in a different one? Edited August 2, 2012 by bluebell 1
Zakuska Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) From my understanding the whole reason why there are so many denominations in Christianity is because one group began interpreting different parts of scripture a different way than another group and so they branched off from each other. So the question becomes... who are the "Real Christians"?Group A who beleive X,Y,Z or Group B who beleive X,Y, A, B, C? Edited August 2, 2012 by Zakuska
Zakuska Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) "5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but one aGod, the bFather, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one cLord Jesus Christ, by whom are dall things, and we by him.' (Provided to you again)So how do false gods get to heaven?Silly... God made them. This must be a case of "do what I say, not as I do".Maybe dJHolmes can explain why the "hosts of Heaven", Gods ontuorage, are called gods. Edited August 2, 2012 by Zakuska
CASteinman Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 my discussion of 1 Corinthians 8 above, I have provided clear reasoning on why the context clearly demonstrates that the 'gods' Paul is talking about are idols. While it is true that Paul is talking about idols, he also talks about real gods and lords as well. That you can prove the thing he did, does not mean that you disprove the other thing he did.
Zakuska Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 While it is true that Paul is talking about idols, he also talks about real gods and lords as well. That you can prove the thing he did, does not mean that you disprove the other thing he did.Yeah where are all these many lords in heaven? Are they mearly Idols too?
KevinG Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 I know those aren't 'official' or anything but from my experience some LDS believe that and yet want to use language to disguise it. Until the couple of quotes provided above I have never encountered any LDS who will out right say Mary was a virgin after she gave birth - they are good to see.Spend less time on the anti-Mormon literature and more time with Mormons if you want to know what we believe. It sure took a lot of references for you to drop your acceptance of that particularly disgusting slander.
Recommended Posts