What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[djholmess]

So according to you God will not give his Glory to another being "in all of existance" yet... isn't that exactly what John/Jesus says he did?

John 17

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.According to this God won't give his Glory to another yet he gave it to the Son and then the son gave it to the disciples?!

Why is God contradicting himself?

Ok so if you go back over the two verses I quoted from Isaiah God is clearly saying God will not give 'His' glory to another – not that he won’t give glory, he won’t give ‘my’ glory to another. Then in John 17:5 we see that Jesus is claiming to have had the Father's glory with Him from before the world was.

Now when we come to John 17:22 we see that it is a different glory that Jesus prays may be given to 'those who will believe in me through their word' (verse 20).

It can't be the glory which Jesus had before the world was because in verse 5 Jesus asks for it, whilst in verse 22 the glory Jesus asks to be given to believers is the glory that God has already given Jesus.

So even without understanding exactly what glory Jesus is talking about in verse 22 I hope you can see why it doesn't contradict the verses in Isaiah. In Isaiah God is saying He will not give the glory that is His alone to anyone else. In verse 5 Jesus claims to have shared the Father's glory but when we come to verse 22 we are not talking about this glory that Jesus shared with the Father we are talking about a glory Jesus has already been given.

Now if you want to understand exactly what glory Jesus is referring to in verse 22 the wider context of John makes this clear – but it would take too long to go through and I believe I have answered your objection enough to at least show there is no contradiction.

If you do want to trace this glory that Jesus gives to his disciples – and prays that future disciples will be given start at John 1:14-18, look at how ‘glory’ is shown. And think back to the glory that was shown in the OT especially with the giving of the law (referenced in verse 17).

Then follow the word glory through John e.g. John 2:11

What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.

Again Jesus is revealing the glory that he has as the Messiah.

[djholmess]

Why not just ask Jesus Christ if we are his disciples, or if he will say we are following him?

He will tell us, don't you know, if we ask our Father who we can access through him.

But what if you are asking the wrong Jesus? That's the whole point of this discussion.

[djholmess]

His original statement about the non-true Christians was "5) was begotten in the flesh by the father" which of course is a crude misrepresentation of "begotten of the father".

The Bible and LDS revelation has been quiet on the mechanics of the process.

So how else am I to understand the below quote 'Elohim is literally the Father...of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh' To say Jesus was begotten in the flesh of the Father but not Jesus was begotten in the flesh by the Father seems to be purely semantic.

Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh, and which body died on the cross and was afterward taken up by the process of resurrection, and is now the immortalized tabernacle of the eternal spirit of our Lord and Savior.¹⁸

http://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-f-smith/chapter-40?lang=eng#18-35744_000_044

[teddyaware]

A Christian of New Testamant times would have believed that, of necessity, the Church must be led by living Apostles and Prophets who have been given the power to seal in heaven what they seal on earth; they would have believed the canon of scripture is not full, adding to pre-existing scripture regularly without thinking it odd, and as as a corollary to that belief, they would have believed in the doctrine of continuous revelation to the Church through the apostolic leadership; they would have believed the leadership of the Church would be in possession of the Keys of the Kingdom to order and govern the Church by revelation; they would have believed that a vacancy in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles must be filled when one of the Twelve passes on; they would have continued to worship in the temple; they would have thought occasional visitations to Church leaders by God and angels was to be expected; they would have believed in theosis -- man eventually sitting on the throne of God, inheriting all things Christ himself possesses; they would have believed in baptism by water for the living and the dead; they would have believed in the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost; they would have believed the day of miacles is not over; etc... My point? If the Christians of the New Testament were to travel through time and visit some of the typical non-LDS church of today, they would discover institutions that bear little resemblance to the Church of Jesus Christ as they knew and understood it.

[Storm Rider]

So how else am I to understand the below quote 'Elohim is literally the Father...of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh' To say Jesus was begotten in the flesh of the Father but not Jesus was begotten in the flesh by the Father seems to be purely semantic.

Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh, and which body died on the cross and was afterward taken up by the process of resurrection, and is now the immortalized tabernacle of the eternal spirit of our Lord and Savior.¹⁸

http://www.lds.org/m...8-35744_000_044

I am not sure what you are looking for. When the Bible says "Son of God" what does that mean? To LDS it means that Jesus was the Son of God; we don't quibble with the the terminology. The LDS Church has no doctrine that says HOW Jesus was the Son of God, only that he is the son of God. We teach and our scriptures testify that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. What is absolutely clear that this sonship allowed Jesus to be both man and God on earth. Through being man he endured and overcame all the passions of the flesh and through being God he overcame death and allowed all to be resurrected.

When John testifies that Jesus is the Son of God, what do you think he means as a man born 2,000 years ago?

[Flyonthewall]

But what if you are asking the wrong Jesus? That's the whole point of this discussion.

We worship the Jesus of the NT, born of the virgin Mary, the Son of God, Savior of Mankind, Redeemer of the world, who lived, died, and was resurrected.

Please, please, please...if that is NOT the Jesus you worship, then PLEASE tell us of this different Jesus you have and where you got him from.

So far, all you have done is tell us we don't beleive the same things about this person as you, so that means we can't be thinking of the same person.

You have focused so much on the differences, that you do not even see the things we share.

[Deborah]

How can you be so sure all the routes end up at the same destination?

Have you ever even used a map? Look at the different routes to get to the same place. Even go on mapquest and it will give you alternate routes. Narrow is the way is talking about the principles of following in Christ's footsteps, which include charity, forgiveness, judging wrongly etc.

Are you judging someone when you mention your belief that contradicts theirs?

??? How is presenting one's beliefs judging someone else? However when you use those beliefs to claim that you are fit to judge others as to their worthiness then you are on a dangerous path.

[djholmess]

We worship the Jesus of the NT, born of the virgin Mary, the Son of God, Savior of Mankind, Redeemer of the world, who lived, died, and was resurrected.

Please, please, please...if that is NOT the Jesus you worship, then PLEASE tell us of this different Jesus you have and where you got him from.

So far, all you have done is tell us we don't beleive the same things about this person as you, so that means we can't be thinking of the same person.

You have focused so much on the differences, that you do not even see the things we share.

You don't seem to understand what I've been saying. Yes we cay the same things about who we think Jesus to be e.g. 'born of the virgin Mary.' However we can mean totally different things by those statements. I mean that Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit so that when Mary gave birth she was still a virgin. I have heard Mormons say that Jesus was conceived through the Father literally 'having relations' with Mary so that she was only a virgin when the Father came to her not at Jesus birth.

The test is which of our views of Jesus actually matches up with what the NT intends to communicate when it identifies and describes Jesus as 'born of the virgin Mary.'

That has been the topic that I have been discussing - and it is my firm belief that the difference between what many LDS believe are so great that they cannot be called followers of the NT Jesus

.

[Vance]

Just in case this point may go a little further with you than it did with (she who shall remain nameless, for now):

Can you think of an instance where someone may use the phrase "human being" to refer to a particular kind of being while referring to everyone who is that kind of being as a _______ being?

In such a case, could you understand how all of the individuals can be considered to be the same being... the being known as human, or human being, just as the word God can refer to one particular kind of being, which is the kind of being all persons who are God are.

You seem to be implying that when 21st century American Protestant Evangelicals say that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three persons in one being that they really mean that they are three persons who are the same kind of being.

LDS believe that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three separate and distinct individuals who are the same kind of being, so why do they try to use this to exclude us from the family "Christian"?

[Vance]

So your answer about Deuteronomy 4:35&39 is to ignore the verse and jump to another book and present a verse from it as your explaination. Even worse this verse clearly teaches monotheism in its context, 'we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.'. I'm happy to discuss that verse too but lets establish some of the OT background first.

1) I already established the OT background, see post #132. Also see post #149.

2) What part of "there be that are called gods, . . . in heaven" is so difficult to understand? Paul was clearly and plainly recognizing the existence of other gods "in heaven". How, exactly can these other heavenly gods not be real?

Can anyone else explain how Deuteronomy isn't saying there is only 1 God in the heavens and Earth.

Would you ignore another explanation like you are ignoring previous ones?

[bluebell]

So when LDS missionaries go door to door, what authority do they have to teach people doctrine?

Article of Faith number 5 explains a bit about the LDS belief in the absolute need for authority from God before being able to speak for God:

We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

Every man in the church who claims such authority has (or should have) a piece of paper which shows his 'line of authority'. This shows where his authority came from, where the authority of the man who laid hands on him came from, etc, etc, all the way back to Peter, James, and John, who of course received their authority from Christ Himself.

All missionaries must receive this same authority before they can try to teach other people in God's name.

I wouldn't have much faith if I didn't believe God wanted everyone to follow Him like I am.

Of course. Everyone in the world who professes faith in God and in a specific religion believes the same way though. Whether it's a Catholic, a mormon, or the leader of a Christian cult.

I believe the authority of my faith comes from an exegetical interpretation of scripture. Insight from the Holy Spirit is a factor, but not in a way that overrides scripture.

Can you show that the bible supports your notion that authority can come from studying the scriptures? Is your claim to authority biblical?

So where does your authority come from?

I already explained where the authority claims of my religion lay.

You don't have to take my word for it, obviously, but it does follow the biblical precedent on both the need for authority and how it is received and as someone who claims that something being in the bible is more important than anything else in knowing whether or not it is true, that should give you reason for further study on the matter before making up your mind.

[bluebell]

You don't seem to understand what I've been saying. Yes we cay the same things about who we think Jesus to be e.g. 'born of the virgin Mary.' However we can mean totally different things by those statements. I mean that Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit so that when Mary gave birth she was still a virgin.

LDS doctrine teaches the same thing.

I have heard Mormons say that Jesus was conceived through the Father literally 'having relations' with Mary so that she was only a virgin when the Father came to her not at Jesus birth.

If you have personally heard members say this (which is a bit hard to believe), then they were not teaching the doctrines of the LDS church. I'm sure you can understand that that happens sometimes.

I once had a conversation with a self proclaimed Evangelical 'trinitarian' who attempted to teach me modalism. When i tried to help her understand that trinitarians believed modalism to be a heresy, she refused to believe me. It turned into a big argument and i finally had to back out because, let's face it, i don't believe in trinitarianism OR modalism so i had no horse in that fight to begin with.

The test is which of our views of Jesus actually matches up with what the NT intends to communicate when it identifies and describes Jesus as 'born of the virgin Mary.'

That has been the topic that I have been discussing - and it is my firm belief that the difference between what many LDS believe are so great that they cannot be called followers of the NT Jesus

.

Now that you realize that the LDS church in fact does teach a virgin birth, what other differences are 'so great' that we cannot be followers of Jesus?

[djholmess]

1) I already established the OT background, see post #132. Also see post #149.

2) What part of "there be that are called gods, . . . in heaven" is so difficult to understand? Paul was clearly and plainly recognizing the existence of other gods "in heaven". How, exactly can these other heavenly gods not be real?

Would you ignore another explanation like you are ignoring previous ones?

I asked for an interpretation based on the words and context of Deuteronomy.

Your link in #132 is to an article written by someone who does not believe the OT are the inspired words of God (he may not believe in God) so why should you or I accept his conclusions when they are based on presuppositions we do not share with him?

How does you link in #149 change anything. Of course other peoples and religions claimed that their God was the one true God but again neither of us believe that is true - their Gods were false Gods. But when an inspired Prophet of God says something aren't we supposed to believe that?

So can you show me something from the context of Deuteronomy that would lead to limiting Moses statement to saying God is the preeminent one in heaven and earth rather than the only one?

[djholmess]

Now that you realize that the LDS church in fact does teach a virgin birth, what other differences are 'so great' that we cannot be followers of Jesus?

But why should I accept that you represent the actual LDS beliefs rather than the person I spoke to, or the quotes I've seen regarding LDS apostles and Prophets saying similar things? It is good that you do not believe Jesus was concieved by the Holy Spirit and not physically by the Father - but what makes your belief the 'official' one?

[Vance]

I asked for an interpretation based on the words and context of Deuteronomy.

Do you believe the Bible is univocal or not?

Your link in #132 is to an article written by someone who does not believe the OT are the inspired words of God (he may not believe in God) so why should you or I accept his conclusions when they are based on presuppositions we do not share with him?

You ad hominem attack against him doesn't change the veracity of his analysis.

How does you link in #149 change anything. Of course other peoples and religions claimed that their God was the one true God but again neither of us believe that is true - their Gods were false Gods.

But that doesn't make them unreal.

[ But when an inspired Prophet of God says something aren't we supposed to believe that?

Yes, we are supposed to believe what he means in the context of the times, culture and language he gave it. NOT the 21st century American Protestant Evangelical interpretation of it.

And in the context of the times, culture and language those are statements of preeminence, NOT statements of exclusion.

So can you show me something from the context of Deuteronomy that would lead to limiting Moses statement to saying God is the preeminent one in heaven and earth rather than the only one?

Been there, done that.

[Darren10]

Ok so if you go back over the two verses I quoted from Isaiah God is clearly saying God will not give 'His' glory to another – not that he won’t give glory, he won’t give ‘my’ glory to another. Then in John 17:5 we see that Jesus is claiming to have had the Father's glory with Him from before the world was.

Now when we come to John 17:22 we see that it is a different glory that Jesus prays may be given to 'those who will believe in me through their word' (verse 20).

It can't be the glory which Jesus had before the world was because in verse 5 Jesus asks for it, whilst in verse 22 the glory Jesus asks to be given to believers is the glory that God has already given Jesus.

So even without understanding exactly what glory Jesus is talking about in verse 22 I hope you can see why it doesn't contradict the verses in Isaiah. In Isaiah God is saying He will not give the glory that is His alone to anyone else. In verse 5 Jesus claims to have shared the Father's glory but when we come to verse 22 we are not talking about this glory that Jesus shared with the Father we are talking about a glory Jesus has already been given.

Now if you want to understand exactly what glory Jesus is referring to in verse 22 the wider context of John makes this clear – but it would take too long to go through and I believe I have answered your objection enough to at least show there is no contradiction.

If you do want to trace this glory that Jesus gives to his disciples – and prays that future disciples will be given start at John 1:14-18, look at how ‘glory’ is shown. And think back to the glory that was shown in the OT especially with the giving of the law (referenced in verse 17).

Then follow the word glory through John e.g. John 2:11

What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.

Again Jesus is revealing the glory that he has as the Messiah.

The Father will not impart His glory to another? You're preaching straight from the Book of Moses (moses also being an old Testament prophet):

1 And I, the ^aLord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That ^bSatan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the ^cbeginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will ^dredeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely ^eI will do it; wherefore ^fgive me thine honor.

2 But, behold, my Beloved ^aSon, which was my Beloved and ^bChosen from the beginning, said unto me—^cFather, thy ^dwill be done, and the ^eglory be thine forever.

3 Wherefore, because that ^aSatan ^brebelled against me, and sought to destroy the ^cagency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be ^dcast down;

(Moses 4)

The LDS too believe that the father will not "give His glory" to anyone else, even to the Son.

As per your challenge to define the glory Jesus had:

John 1:14-18:

14 And the Word was made ^aflesh, and ^bdwelt among us, (and we ^cbeheld his ^dglory, the glory as of the ^eonly ^fbegotten of the Father,) full of ^ggrace and truth.

15 ¶John bare ^awitness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

16 And of his ^afulness have all we received, and ^bgrace for grace.

17 For the ^alaw was given by Moses, but ^bgrace and ^ctruth came by Jesus Christ.

18 No ^aman hath ^bseen God at any time; ^cthe only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath ^ddeclared him.

Up until John 2:11:

With regards to the glory Christ had, the rest of John 1 speaks of the Spirit testifying that Jesus was the "Lamb of God" to John the Baptist and that Nathaneal declared Jesus as "Son of God" and "King of Israel". The chapter concludes that taught of greater things for His witnesses to see. including, "the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man."

Verses 9-10 of John 2 speak on Jesus' miracle in turning water to wine. Verse 11 is as follows:

This ^abeginning of ^bmiracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

He began miracles.

What glory are you trying to teach here?

As Zakuska pointed out, and frankly, you confirmed, Jesus received the glory of the Father. This truth is taugt from the Book of Abraham (Abraham also an Old Testament prophet).

22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the ^aintelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the ^bnoble and great ones;

23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast ^achosen before thou wast born.

24 And there stood ^aone among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and ^bwe will make an earth whereon these may ^cdwell;

Abraham 3:

The Lord (the Father in this case) organized "intelligences" or "spirits". then at verse 24 we read, "And there stood one among them that was like unto God". From the "beginning", Mormons believe that Jesus was "like unto God (the Father) and that through Christ all things were created for the Father. Your interpretation that Jesus had the glory of the Father from the beginning is much more similar to the LDS doctrine of Jesus "in the beginning" than it is different.

As for Jesus being satan's brother, do realize that it is not the LDS which emphasizes this on a regular basis but it is much more proclaied by thse criticizing the LDS Church. The critics do this in order to diminish the status of Jesus in LDS theology. That said, please recognize tha Jesus in LDS theology is one with the GFather, the Lamb of God, the "Lord God Omnipotent", the Holy One of Israel, the Creator, the Redeemer, the God of Abraham, isaac, Jacob, the great I AM, Jehovah, the Messiah, Son of Man, etc. (In fact, let's sing about Jesus, shall we?) The fact that we believe that Jesus and Satan were both created by the Father is neither unchristian nor unbiblical. It does run contrary to your interpretation ofthe Bible for sure. Itr is also very much contrary to traditional creedal Christian beliefs.

As for your Old Testament scriptures, why is it unchristian to follow the LDS beliefs? For example, if there is no God formed before or after God, and one interprets that as "among all the gods I am the one you should worship and create none before or after me"? Furthermore, if it was God the Father speaking to Isaiah in chapter 43, than the passage, "“Ye are my witness, saith the Lord, And my servant whom I have chosen: That ye may know and believe me, And understand that I am he: Before me there was no God formed, Neither shall there be after me”", would make perfect sense that no God was created before Him, nor after Him (in terms of His glory). But most likely it is Jesus speaking to Isaiah as He declares Himself to be the only "savior", which is doctrinally correct. This will also make sense to the LDS faith and worship. There is no official LDS doctrine which says the Father was "formed" (Hebrew for "created"). Accordingto tLDS theology God the Father was "just there". Nothing created Him. There is no canon LDS doctrine of the Father being created ("formed"). So were I to interpret Isaiah 43: 10 as "I am your savior, beside me there is no savior for I am the only name under heaven by which you may be saved and before me God the Father was not formed), how wouild that be unbiblical or unchristian?

Isaiah 45:5, as you noted says, "I am the Lord, [Jehovah], and there is none else, there is no God [Elohim] beside me." While the general pattern of scriputres, according to LDS theology is that "LORD" applies to Jesus and "Elohim" applies ot the Father, there is definite room for "Elohim" to apply to Jesus. This is done titularly. "Jehovah/LORD/YHWH" are used as proper names but are also titles. D&C 76:1 declares a doctrine quite similar to your Old Testament citations: " ^aHear, O ye heavens, and give ear, O earth, and rejoice ye inhabitants thereof, for the Lord is ^bGod, and beside him there is ^cno ^dSavior."

How is any of these interpretations of these doctrines unchristian or unbiblical?

Edited August 2, 2012 by Darren10

[Vance]

Sorry to break the news to some of you, but the doctrine of the trinity doesn't come from the Bible.

"The Old Testament tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a triune God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a trinity within the Godhead. Even to see in the Old Testament, suggestions or fore-shadowings or veiled signs of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers. The New Testament writers give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead [The Triune God, by Edmund Fortman, Jesuit].

[bluebell]

But why should I accept that you represent the actual LDS beliefs rather than the person I spoke to, or the quotes I've seen regarding LDS apostles and Prophets saying similar things? It is good that you do not believe Jesus was concieved by the Holy Spirit and not physically by the Father - but what makes your belief the 'official' one?

It's what we teach in church:

From sunday school manuals (the only approved curriculum that can be taught)

"From their accounts we learn that Jesus was born of a virgin named Mary. She was engaged to marry..."

"..., Nephi learned that the Messiah would be born of a virgin “after the manner of the flesh,”"

"...the New Testament; how that He was born of a virgin; that He grew in the midst of..."

From talks about prophets and apostles given at church meetings:

"...I bear witness that He was born of a virgin mother, that in His lifetime He performed..."

"...word of prophecy concerning Him who should be born of a virgin, the Son of the Almighty God...."

"...that as God’s Son he would be born of a virgin, that he would work out the infinite..."

I can provide more official examples if you need them.

[Vance]

But why should I accept that you represent the actual LDS beliefs rather than the person I spoke to, or the quotes I've seen regarding LDS apostles and Prophets saying similar things? It is good that you do not believe Jesus was concieved by the Holy Spirit and not physically by the Father - but what makes your belief the 'official' one?

Oh, gee.

Alma 7:10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

1 Ne 11:20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.

Now, the question that hasn't been asked is what does the term "virgin" actually mean in the context of the times, culture and language in which it was used?

From the 1828 Webster's,

virgin

VIR'GIN, n. nearly vur'gin. [L. virgo.]

1. A woman who has had no carnal knowledge of man.

2. A woman not a mother. [unusual.]

3. The sign Virgo. [see Virgo.]

VIR'GIN, a.

1. Pure; untouched; as virgin gold.

2. Fresh; new; unused; as virgin soil.

VIR'GIN, v.i. To play the virgin; a cant word.

Ouch, that #2 is going to hurt.

Edited to add,

I would submit that having physical relations with a GOD doesn't violate definition #1.

Just so you know.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Vance

[djholmess]

It's what we teach in church:

From sunday school manuals (the only approved curriculum that can be taught)

"From their accounts we learn that Jesus was born of a virgin named Mary. She was engaged to marry..."

"..., Nephi learned that the Messiah would be born of a virgin “after the manner of the flesh,”"

"...the New Testament; how that He was born of a virgin; that He grew in the midst of..."

From talks about prophets and apostles given at church meetings:

"...I bear witness that He was born of a virgin mother, that in His lifetime He performed..."

"...word of prophecy concerning Him who should be born of a virgin, the Son of the Almighty God...."

"...that as God’s Son he would be born of a virgin, that he would work out the infinite..."

I can provide more official examples if you need them.

Ok but I would want an explanation that 'born of a virgin' means she was a virgin at birth. Like I said before I have heard it said that Jesus was 'born of a virgin' but then when asked they meant Mary was only a virgin when the Father came to her. So this person was happy to say 'born of a virgin,' how do I know that this is what your quotes above don't really mean? I would need to see some official source specifically explaining that Mary was still a virgin at birth.

[djholmess]

Oh, gee.

Alma 7:10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

1 Ne 11:20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.

Now, the question that hasn't been asked is what does the term "virgin" actually mean in the context of the times, culture and language in which it was used?

From the 1828 Webster's,

Ouch, that #2 is going to hurt.

Edited to add,

I would submit that having physical relations with a GOD doesn't violate definition #1.

Just so you know.

So do you believe the Father had physical relations with Mary then?

[djholmess]

1) I already established the OT background, see post #132. Also see post #149.

2) What part of "there be that are called gods, . . . in heaven" is so difficult to understand? Paul was clearly and plainly recognizing the existence of other gods "in heaven". How, exactly can these other heavenly gods not be real?

Regarding 1 Corinthians 8:4-5 it is clear that Paul in no way means ‘there be gods many, and lords many’ to actually teach the existence of other Gods.

⁴ As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

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 God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

So Paul is talking about food that is offered to an idol at Corinth in some kind of pagan ritual. Some of the believers in Corinth had converted out of these pagan religions and so were having difficulties because it was obviously difficult not to eat such meant (maybe it was sold in the market place of something). Either way Paul’s teaching is clear.

1) We (believers) know that an idol is nothing

2) for there is no other God but one

3) Yes there are those called gods – ‘called’ by the worshipers of the idols, not real gods

4)But to us we know there is but one God

5) through whom are all things

6) Therefore even meat offered to an idol is ok to eat because the idol is nothing and the meat is part of the ‘all things’ which are through God

Pauls very argument is based on monotheism, its amazing that you can twist this verse and think it teaches the opposite. I would have thought it was very clear that the ‘gods many and lords many’ refers to the so ‘called’ gods – the idols that are nothing.

[bluebell]

Ok but I would want an explanation that 'born of a virgin' means she was a virgin at birth.

What else could it mean?

It is not LDS doctrine that God the Father had sex with Mary. I think you are so invested in this argument against the LDS church that you are really having trouble letting it go.

Like I said before I have heard it said that Jesus was 'born of a virgin' but then when asked they meant Mary was only a virgin when the Father came to her. So this person was happy to say 'born of a virgin,' how do I know that this is what your quotes above don't really mean? I would need to see some official source specifically explaining that Mary was still a virgin at birth.

One of the most official sources we have is the Book of Mormon which teaches:

(this is an angel speaking to Nephi, showing him things to come concerning the Messiah)

And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.

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 Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look!

And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.

Notice how mary is still considered a virgin even after given birth.

[bluebell]

I would need to see some official source specifically explaining that Mary was still a virgin at birth.

The words of one of our prophets-

"You asked about . . . the birth of the Savior. Never have I talked about sexual intercourse between Deity and the mother of the Savior. If teachers were wise in speaking of this matter about which the Lord has said but very little, they would rest their discussion on this subject with merely the word which are recorded on this subject in Luke 1:34-35:

"Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

[djholmess]

What else could it mean?

It is not LDS doctrine that God the Father had sex with Mary. I think you are so invested in this argument against the LDS church that you are really having trouble letting it go.

One of the most official sources we have is the Book of Mormon which teaches:

(this is an angel speaking to Nephi, showing him things to come concerning the Messiah)

And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.

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 Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look!

And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.

Notice how mary is still considered a virgin even after given birth.

I would be very happy to be shown that LDS actually teach that verse from Nephi (what is the reference?) but as you can even see from vance's post #194 it is my experience that some LDS are very 'slippery' (at best) when it comes to this.

I also do not believe that official LDS doctrine necessarily matches up with BoM teachings which is why if you know of a semi recent reference from your Church clearly defining this I'd love to see it.