What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[djholmess]

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."

Where's that from?

[Vance]

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

My personal beliefs are in perfect alignment with Official LDS doctrine. Which is,

1) Mary was a virgin at the time of Christ's birth.

2) She was " overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost".

3) Jesus Christ is the literal physical Son of the Father.

And just to be clear. None of those,

1) preclude a physical relationship,

2) require a physical relationship (as modern medicine clearly demonstrates).

[Darren10]

djholmes;

It's pretty obvious that you adhire to the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three persons but one being who is God. This is philosophy; not doctrine. You do not find this declaration anywere in the Bible and its first official formulation was formed durng the fourth century AD. It's obvious that this philosophy has become doctrine and it is under the lense ofthis trinitarian formulation which Christians read scripture and do so as if the philosophy determines the doctrine. This is what the LDS Church rejects among Christianity. You may interpret the Father, the Son, andthe Holy Spirit being "one" as in a one numeric being or as three separate beings as united together nto a Godhead and essentially "One Eternal God" as the Book of Mormon declares. Under this premesis you may read:

13 ¶Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be ^abaptized of him.

14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

15 And Jesus answering said unto him, ^aSuffer it to be so now: for thus it ^bbecometh us to ^cfulfil all ^drighteousness. Then he suffered him.

16 And Jesus, when he was ^abaptized, went up ^bstraightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the ^cSpirit of God descending like a ^ddove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a ^avoice from heaven, saying, This is my ^bbeloved ^cSon, in whom I am well pleased.

(Mathew 3)

You may interpret this as one being being baptized on earth as the second person while descending from heaven as the third person and declaring his second person as His son as the first person from heaven.

--OR--

You may interpret this passage as one (monos) being from Heaven declaring to another singular (monos) being on earth as His son and yet a third being being seen in the form of a dove.

36 ¶But of that ^aday and ^bhour knoweth no man, no, not the ^cangels of heaven, but my Father only.

(Mathew 24)

You can interpret this as one numeric being as the first person knows the hour of the being's return to earth as the second person but the second person of the same being of the first person does not know what the first person knows regardng the return second person of the same being.

--OR--

You can interpret this passage as one (monos) being who knew the return of another singular (monos) being but the second being did not know.

17 Jesus saith unto her, ^aTouch me not; for I am not yet ^bascended to my ^cFather: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my ^dFather, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

(John 20)

You may interpret this as the second person of one numeric being has a God who would be the first person of the one numberic being but otgether the first and second person (and the third person) make up God as one numeric being.

--OR--

You may interpret this passage as one (monos) being who is the Father being the God (and Father) of another singular (monos) being who is Jesus.

These are thee examples among many others which I think are best ntepreted as the Father and the Son as being separate beings. Both are God for they are so profoundly united togetehr in purpose and will, even the will ofthe Father, that together with the Holy Spirit function as "One Eternal God". This is all for the glory of the Father who is greater than the Son.

What is more Christian than that?

[Darren10]

djholmes;

Why are anti-mormons so focused on sex? Here's the doctrines of Mary conceiving.

Mary

Mary. (1) Mother of Jesus. The virgin, cousin of Elisabeth (Luke 1:36); betrothed to Joseph (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:27); the Annunciation (26–38); visits Elisabeth (40–45); the Magnificat (46–55); returns (56); Joseph warned not to put her away (Matt. 1:18–25); goes to Bethlehem with Joseph (Luke 2:4–5); the Nativity (7, 16); visit of the shepherds (16–20); the Purification (2:21–38); the Magi visit (Matt. 2:11); in Egypt (13–14); returns to Nazareth (19–23; Luke 2:39); goes up to the Passover (41–52); at the wedding at Cana (John 2:2–5). Other references during our Lord’s ministry include Matt. 12:46; 13:54–55; Mark 3:21, 31; 6:3; Luke 8:19. She was entrusted to John (John 19:25–26), and was with the apostles after the ascension (Acts 1:14). There is no trustworthy history of her later years. Latter-day revelation confirms the biblical account and affirms that Mary was a pure and a chosen vessel, and the mother of the Son of God in the flesh (1 Ne. 11:13–20; Mosiah 3:8; Alma 7:10).

(2) Sister of Lazarus and Martha. Sat at Jesus’ feet (Luke 10:39, 42); sent for Jesus after the death of Lazarus (John 11:1–45); anointed Jesus with ointment (John 12:3–8).

(3) [The mother] of James and Joses, at the cross (Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:40); called the wife of Cleophas (John 19:25); at the burial (Matt. 27:61); “the other Mary” (Mark 15:47); at the tomb in the morning (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:10).

(4) Mother of Mark (Acts 12:12).

Mary

Can you show hwhere the LDS church even begins to teach that God the Father had "physical relations" with Mary? You cannot find any such thing declared even among individual LDS leaders who are free to speak on the topic as to what they personally think.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Darren10

[Vance]

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.

TOTALLY missing the boat! Again.

So, Paul doesn't mean what he says. Got it.

What part of the clear and plain declaration "as there be gods many" and "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven"?

From the context it is clear that REAL and HEAVENLY gods do exist, but we are not to worship them.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Vance

[bluebell]

Where's that from?

The teachings of Harold B. Lee, a prophet and president of the church in the 1970s.

[Darren10]

Where's that from?

You can read about it HERE:

Harold B. Lee was clear that the method of Jesus' conception had not been revealed, and discouraged speculation on the matter:

We are very much concerned that some of our Church teachers seem to be obsessed of the idea of teaching doctrine which cannot be substantiated and making comments beyond what the Lord has actually said.

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 words 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."

Remember that the being who was brought about by [Mary's] conception was a divine personage. We need not question His method to accomplish His purposes. Perhaps we would do well to remember the words of Isaiah 55:8-9: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

Let the Lord rest His case with this declaration and wait until He sees fit to tell us more.^[7]

Edited August 2, 2012 by Darren10

[djholmess]

djholmes;

It's pretty obvious that you adhire to the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three persons but one being who is God. This is philosophy; not doctrine. You do not find this declaration anywere in the Bible and its first official formulation was formed durng the fourth century AD. It's obvious that this philosophy has become doctrine and it is under the lense ofthis trinitarian formulation which Christians read scripture and do so as if the philosophy determines the doctrine. This is what the LDS Church rejects among Christianity. You may interpret the Father, the Son, andthe Holy Spirit being "one" as in a one numeric being or as three separate beings as united together nto a Godhead and essentially "One Eternal God" as the Book of Mormon declares. Under this premesis you may read:

(Mathew 3)

You may interpret this as one being being baptized on earth as the second person while descending from heaven as the third person and declaring his second person as His son as the first person from heaven.

--OR--

You may interpret this passage as one (monos) being from Heaven declaring to another singular (monos) being on earth as His son and yet a third being being seen in the form of a dove.

(Mathew 24)

You can interpret this as one numeric being as the first person knows the hour of the being's return to earth as the second person but the second person of the same being of the first person does not know what the first person knows regardng the return second person of the same being.

--OR--

You can interpret this passage as one (monos) being who knew the return of another singular (monos) being but the second being did not know.

(John 20)

You may interpret this as the second person of one numeric being has a God who would be the first person of the one numberic being but otgether the first and second person (and the third person) make up God as one numeric being.

--OR--

You may interpret this passage as one (monos) being who is the Father being the God (and Father) of another singular (monos) being who is Jesus.

These are thee examples among many others which I think are best ntepreted as the Father and the Son as being separate beings. Both are God for they are so profoundly united togetehr in purpose and will, even the will ofthe Father, that together with the Holy Spirit function as "One Eternal God". This is all for the glory of the Father who is greater than the Son.

What is more Christian than that?

The difference is monotheism vs polytheism, sorry but I see that as a 'deal breaker' difference. Granted is doesn't 'sound' such a great difference in those verses but as soon as you reject monotheism then you stray into great heresy. Like having men be able to become Gods in the same manor that God is a God.

[Darren10]

TOTALLY missing the boat! Again.

So, Paul doesn't mean what he says. Got it.

What part of the clear and plain declaration "as there be gods many" and "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven"?

From the context it is clear that REAL and HEAVENLY gods do exist, but we are not to worship them.

Yes, he's missing it. How would a false idol god get to heaven?

Edited August 2, 2012 by Darren10

[Vance]

You can read about it HERE:

Gee, that is basically what I said in #202.

[bluebell]

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.

The Church responded to this question posed by Fox News in the program "21 Questions Answered About Mormon Faith," (18 December 2007):

"The Church does not claim to know how Jesus was conceived but believes the Bible and Book of Mormon references to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary."

President and Prophet of the LDS church, Ezra Taft Benson taught in regards to Jesus Christ in 1986:

"He was the Only Begotten Son of our Heavenly Father in the flesh—the only child whose mortal body was begotten by our Heavenly Father. His mortal mother, Mary, was called a virgin, both before and after she gave birth."

As a source for this, President Benson cited the Book of Mormon verses already discussed.

Edited August 2, 2012 by bluebell

[Vance]

The difference is monotheism vs polytheism, sorry but I see that as a 'deal breaker' difference.

The problem is that "trinitarinism" is NOT "monotheism" either.

Granted is doesn't 'sound' such a great difference in those verses but as soon as you reject monotheism then you stray into great heresy. Like having men be able to become Gods in the same manor that God is a God.

You just aren't grasping the picture here. It is apparent that the majority opinion of modern Hebrew Bible scholars that it does NOT teach "monotheism" as understood by 21st century American Protestant Evangelicals.

From another Hebrew Bible scholar.

While Hayman‘s article is correct to point out the presence of multiple divine beings throughout the history of Judaism, his approach to monotheism as a strict monism reflects a modern philosophical bias. . . .―monotheism is a categorization that has been fully appropriated by, and continues to be fiercely defended by, millions of Jews and Christians today who recognize many of the same divine beings acknowledged in antiquity. The most meaningful way that this modern term can provide a framework for analyzing ancient Judaism is in its function as a descriptor. If the phenomena it describes within contemporary Judeo-Christianity can be identified in ancient Judaism and Christianity, the term has heuristic value for biblical scholarship (it is not a misused term). I suggest that the Septuagint‘s conflation of the sons of God with the angels marks the threshold of modern monotheism. Its solution to the problem of the gods represents a theological innovation that departed from the theology of all previous texts, was quickly adopted by subsequent authors,47 and has perdured down to the present day.

As found here,

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6259597/Monotheism.pdf

[Vance]

Yes, he's missing it. How would a false idol god get to heaven?

It seems that I get "it doesn't mean what it says" from anti-Mormons way too often.

What is with that?

[djholmess]

djholmes;

Can you show hwhere the LDS church even begins to teach that God the Father had "physical relations" with Mary? You cannot find any such thing declared even among individual LDS leaders who are free to speak on the topic as to what they personally think.

Well for example;

President Joseph F. Smith.

You all know that your fathers are indeed your fathers and that your mothers are indeed your mothers you all know that don't you? You cannot deny it. Now, we are told in scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father. The Christian denominations believe that Christ was begotten not of God but of the spirit that overshadowed his mother. This is nonsense......Now, little boys and girls, when you are confronted by infidels in the world who know nothing of how Christ was begotten, you can say he was born just as the infidel was begotten and born, so was Christ begotten by his Father, who is also our Father-the Father of our spirits-and he was born of his mother Mary.

The difference between Jesus Christ and other men is this: Our fathers in the flesh are mortal men, who are subject unto death; but the Father of Jesus Christ in the flesh is the God of Heaven

Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, vol. 4, p. 327

or

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 the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/04/the-father-and-the-son

[Vance]

The Church responded to this question posed by Fox News in the program "21 Questions Answered About Mormon Faith," (18 December 2007):

"The Church does not claim to know how Jesus was conceived but believes the Bible and Book of Mormon references to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary."

President and Prophet of the LDS church, Ezra Taft Benson taught in regards to Jesus Christ in 1986:

"He was the Only Begotten Son of our Heavenly Father in the flesh—the only child whose mortal body was begotten by our Heavenly Father. His mortal mother, Mary, was called a virgin, both before and after she gave birth."

As a source for this, President Benson cited the Book of Mormon verses already discussed.

OH NOZ!!!!

I am SHOCKED, SHOCKED, I tell you that the Church leaders teach things consistent with the BOM!

[Darren10]

The difference is monotheism vs polytheism, sorry but I see that as a 'deal breaker' difference. Granted is doesn't 'sound' such a great difference in those verses but as soon as you reject monotheism then you stray into great heresy. Like having men be able to become Gods in the same manor that God is a God.

Noesense. Mormons and Evangelicals alike speak of God in a pluralistic sense. Jews do not, neither do Muslims. The only difference is the *interpretation* of scripture. you do not find (as Jeff linsayd puts it) meytaphysical chargin of the creeds anywhere inthe scriptures. You do not find "three separate persons"; "each person is God but not three gods but one God"; "cosubstantial"; "immaterial"; etc. this is philosophy in an attempt to justify Christians to be monotheistic yet having in their possession mountains of scripture which speak of more than one divine being.

"4 ^aHear, O Israel: The Lord our God is ^bone Lord:" (Deuteronomy 6). "Yachid" explicitly means one numerically. "Yachid" is not used in this passage. "Echad" can also mean "unity". "24 Therefore shall a ^aman leave his ^bfather and his mother, and shall ^ccleave unto his ^dwife: and they shall be ^eone flesh." (Genesis 2). Note the "echad" is used. This is the same adjective used in Det. 6:4.

"30 I and my Father are one." (John 10). 'Monos" explicitly means numeric one. John 10:30 does not use "monos". 'Hen" can also be interpreted as "unity"; just like "echad". In fact NOWHERE does the bible use "yachid" or "monos" to declare the oness of the Father and the Son. So, how do you biblically get monotheism when 'mons" is never used to describe the Godhead's oness.

[Vance]

Well for example;

President Joseph F. Smith.

You all know that your fathers are indeed your fathers and that your mothers are indeed your mothers you all know that don't you? You cannot deny it. Now, we are told in scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father. The Christian denominations believe that Christ was begotten not of God but of the spirit that overshadowed his mother. This is nonsense......Now, little boys and girls, when you are confronted by infidels in the world who know nothing of how Christ was begotten, you can say he was born just as the infidel was begotten and born, so was Christ begotten by his Father, who is also our Father-the Father of our spirits-and he was born of his mother Mary.

The difference between Jesus Christ and other men is this: Our fathers in the flesh are mortal men, who are subject unto death; but the Father of Jesus Christ in the flesh is the God of Heaven

Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, vol. 4, p. 327

or

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 the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh

http://www.lds.org/e...her-and-the-son

And considering that with modern medicine, a virgin can indeed conceive and bear a child while remaining a virgin, and that said child would be begotten of his father, just as an infidel could be begotten and born, blah blah blah, WHAT IS YOUR POINT?????

Edited August 2, 2012 by Vance

[djholmess]

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.

[bluebell]

Well for example;

President Joseph F. Smith.

You all know that your fathers are indeed your fathers and that your mothers are indeed your mothers you all know that don't you? You cannot deny it. Now, we are told in scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father. The Christian denominations believe that Christ was begotten not of God but of the spirit that overshadowed his mother. This is nonsense......Now, little boys and girls, when you are confronted by infidels in the world who know nothing of how Christ was begotten, you can say he was born just as the infidel was begotten and born, so was Christ begotten by his Father, who is also our Father-the Father of our spirits-and he was born of his mother Mary.

The difference between Jesus Christ and other men is this: Our fathers in the flesh are mortal men, who are subject unto death; but the Father of Jesus Christ in the flesh is the God of Heaven

Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, vol. 4, p. 327

or

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 the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh

http://www.lds.org/e...her-and-the-son

The problem is that some people are really good at reading 'sex' into that because that's what they WANT it to be teaching.

All JFS was saying though is that Jesus is the literal Son of God. Jesus is not the son of the Holy Spirit but the Son of God the Father. He is literally His son, meaning that Jesus received part of his DNA from God and the other part from Mary, that it took two parents, just like every other person ever born.

He's not teaching that it was a sexual act which accomplished it though. Babies are conceived all the time without their parents having to have sex. Sex isn't required for someone to be the literal son of someone else.

Do you not believe that Jesus is the literal Son of God? That His Father is literally (as opposed to figuratively) God the Father and no one else?

Edited August 2, 2012 by bluebell

[Darren10]

It seems that I get "it doesn't mean what it says" from anti-Mormons way too often.

What is with that?

I get the same retort. Daniel Peterson (I believe) said he's had it trying to dialogue with Evangelicals. No matter how specific yyour argument is to them, they don't seem to learn. Not withstanding the numerous times their points of criticism are refutted, they repeat the same criticism again and again and again.

[Vance]

The problem is that some people are really good at reading 'sex' into that because that's what they WANT it to be teaching.

DING DING DING!!!!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!

21st Century American Protest Evangelical anti-Mormons are FOCUSED on SEX!!!!!!! They can find SEX in places where it is NEVER mentioned.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Vance

[bluebell]

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.

Honestly, for most LDS, it's just such a no-brainer that we assume people know what we mean when we talk about Jesus's conception. We forget that some people (not you personally) actually lay in wait trying to find reason to desparage our beliefs or skew them in as unflattering a way as possible.

Some people's minds are so warped though that they will see evil in anything if it deals with the LDS church.

[djholmess]

I get the same retort. Daniel Peterson (I believe) said he's had it trying to dialogue with Evangelicals. No matter how specific yyour argument is to them, they don't seem to learn. Not withstanding the numerous times their points of criticism are refutted, they repeat the same criticism again and again and again.

Well I can't speak for every time this happens but if my experience here is anything to go on I can understand such experiences. Look at vance and 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. All I'm asking for is an explaination from him about how it does actually teach the existance of gods.

I have many discussions with other poeple who have different understanding of passages and many times through talking to them either I or they come to realise how we had been misunderstanding a passage. Here I am rarely given any reasoning for a intrepretation so why would I change my mind about my critizm in this particular example?

[Darren10]

Well for example;

President Joseph F. Smith.

You all know that your fathers are indeed your fathers and that your mothers are indeed your mothers you all know that don't you? You cannot deny it. Now, we are told in scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father. The Christian denominations believe that Christ was begotten not of God but of the spirit that overshadowed his mother. This is nonsense......Now, little boys and girls, when you are confronted by infidels in the world who know nothing of how Christ was begotten, you can say he was born just as the infidel was begotten and born, so was Christ begotten by his Father, who is also our Father-the Father of our spirits-and he was born of his mother Mary.

The difference between Jesus Christ and other men is this: Our fathers in the flesh are mortal men, who are subject unto death; but the Father of Jesus Christ in the flesh is the God of Heaven

Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, vol. 4, p. 327

or

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 the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh

http://www.lds.org/e...her-and-the-son

"Beget" is the infinite form of "begotten".

1. (especially of a male parent) to procreate or generate (offspring).

2. to cause; produce as an effect: a belief that power begets power.

(snip)

beget (bɪˈɡɛt) — vb , -gets , -getting , -got , -gat , -gotten , -got 1. to father 2. to cause or create

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.

[Darren10]

Well I can't speak for every time this happens but if my experience here is anything to go on I can understand such experiences. Look at vance and 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. All I'm asking for is an explaination from him about how it does actually teach the existance of gods.

I have many discussions with other poeple who have different understanding of passages and many times through talking to them either I or they come to realise how we had been misunderstanding a passage. Here I am rarely given any reasoning for a intrepretation so why would I change my mind about my critizm in this particular example?

"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?