S
SteveVH
Guest
“And the angel said to her in reply, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High, and the Lord God will overshadow you…” (Luke 1:35)
How do you say the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with it?
- Status
How do you say the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with it?
L
LongJourney
Guest
I think that they conceptualize the Holy Spirit as feminine, therefore their holy spirit couldn’t have done it.
D
dianaiad
Guest
First; I was not attacking Rebecca personally. I was making a point about a specific class of critic and the relative credibility that class (ex-members who spend time attacking their old belief systems) has to the class ‘true believers.’
Second: you are quite right about removing the idea from the context. The problem is, things taken out of context are invalid on the face of them…and taking an idea from a religious context, where ideas and beliefs are, and putting them in a political context is one of the biggest “apples and oranges” examples I’ve seen.
D
dianaiad
Guest
We don’t say that the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with it. We claim that the Holy Spirit, while involved in the conception, was still NOT Jesus’ Father. Our position, in fact, is an argument regarding the Trinity.
D
dianaiad
Guest
LJ, we do not 'conceptualize the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost) as feminine." We believe that all Three are male.
L
LongJourney
Guest
Thank you. 
C
CatholicGuyNY
Guest
For clarification:
Catholics (along with the rest of traditional Christianity, at least those that affirm orthodox Trinitarianism) believe that Jesus is the Son of God the Father, not the Son of the Holy Spirit. We believe that Jesus was born “by the power of the Holy Spirit” (as the Nicene Creed puts it), however He is not the Son of the Holy Spirit.
J
JHow
Guest
Actually, I chose my analogy carefully. It’s not like I picked someone who switched from Repulican to Democrat (Who is the real Democract, Al Gore or Joe Lieberman?). Communism has religious overtones - it replaces religion for the true communist. It is a comprehensive world-view. Chambers and Hiss were both diehards - only Chambers left the faith. You know the answer to my question - Chambers was the more truthful of the two.
Things taken out of context are not “invalid on the face of them”. Moving an argument out of context can sometimes illuminate the logical flaws in the argument. Appealing to your “true believer” status to settle an argument is a form of the “appeal to authority” fallacy. On the forum, we can’t judge your authority or Rebecca’s, only the evidence you bring for your arguments.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Well…I would hope so, because then you would agree with us on that.
However, I personally have had some people give me grief about it. It gets confusing, when people attempt to explain the Trinity. The quotes that are usually put up to ‘prove’ that we believe that God had sex with Mary are taken out of exactly this context; that we believe God the Father is the Father of Jesus, that the Holy Ghost is not, and is generally from an argument regarding some misunderstanding of the Trinity—usually by someone who is trying to explain it, erroneously.
D
dianaiad
Guest
No, it ‘replaces religion’ for the atheistic communist. MOST communists have been rather religious, actually–hence those religious overtones.
. In fact, the first communists were mentioned in the NT; remember what happened to Saphira and Annanias? In fact, communism has no better friend than a strong, state sponsored religion (like, oh, Catholicism in Italy for a short time, or the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia).Actually, there’s nothing wrong with pure communism–as long as it is strictly voluntary and anybody can opt out. Communism can work, but only as long as it is encased in small communities within a larger capitalist matrix. The second it becomes mandatory, it fails…utterly and completely.
Was he? Really?
Yeah, they are. In fact, it’s one of the more recognized logical fallacies.
The problem is, one must make a judgment about the relative credibility of the evidence…and an appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority appealed to is an authority in something ELSE. For instance, it is a fallacy to say “Dr. Whatsis says that you shouldn’t use nails in drywall; you should use screws, and he’s a doctor; he should know!” Dr. Whatsis may know about using screws in titanium knees, but that doesn’t make him an authority in drywall.
However, if you mention that Dr. Whatsis, a famous orthopedic surgeon, says that titanium makes a better material for artificial knees than stainless steel does, then it’s not a fallacy to consider that titanium is a better material for artificial knees than stainless steel is. It is certainly not a fallacy to use his statement as being better evidence than that of the guy who had his medical license revoked because he put a fake knee in the wrong leg, and claims that, well, HE was taught that stainless steel was just fine.
In the case of religion, the believers are the experts regarding what they believe. Period. The only exception to this is if they are outvoted by other believers.
Non believers and ex believers are, at best, secondary sources, that must be confirmed by primary sources–which are, surprise, surprise, true believers.
J
JHow
Guest
Diana: I am starting to believe you like to win arguments more than accept evidence:
I’m guessing Rebecca will still keep debating you. I enjoy reading your posts.
- Communism - friend of religion (Tell that to Popieluszko).
- Early Christians - the real communists, also the first hippies?
- Hiss - convicted liar, but more truthful than Chambers (Venona transcripts be damned!)
I’m guessing Rebecca will still keep debating you. I enjoy reading your posts.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
No, Diana doesn’t read my posts or respond to my posts. She doesn’t have any problem insulting me, and calling me a liar, and making the subject me, even though…she doesn’t read my posts.
Whatever. Mean and vindictive, that’s what I see.
J
Jim_Dandy
Guest
This is applicable to Modalism, a heresy, not Christianity, which is Trinitarian.
Peace, Jim Dandy
C
crazzeto
Guest
No.
J
Jim_Dandy
Guest
This is an example of Mormonism using Christian terminology to describe unChristian beliefs.
The Mormon Jesus is a spirit child of Heavenly Father and one of his many goddess wives who lived in a pre-existent state in some “heaven” somewhere in the cosmos with his spirit brother Satan, alias Lucifer. Jesus volunteered to come to earth to save us, and was born on earth as a result of sexual intercourse between the Virgin Mary and Heavenly Father (i.e.,God.). Let the denials begin (we’ve already been through this) but this is unadulterated, original Mormonism.
God the Father is a God, Jesus is a God, the Holy Spirit is a God. There are three separate Mormon Gods who are “united in purpose” that Mormons claim is therefore one God. To say that Jesus is “the second member of the Godhead” means that he is a separate God, but united to the other two Gods, who are also separate. Mormons believe in many Gods, countless Gods, “but only one pertaining to us,” the Earth God. They claim this is monotheism. It’s monotheism redefined to fit Mormon doctrine.
Godhead is a term meaning the essential being or nature of God. It is the Trinity – Three Persons in One God. Mormons have given it a new definition.
Jesus in Christian belief is homoousis – begotten, not made, of the same substance as the Father, the same Being, the same Essence, the same Reality as the Father, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, who existed with the Father and the Spirit from all eternity. The Mormon Jesus is an offspring, a “spirit child” of a flesh-and-bones God who was once a man like us but went through the process of “exaltation” that all Mormons are eligible to experience – provided they tithe and obey the rules. They, too, can become a God like Heavenly Father – yet they insist they are monotheists.
The Mormon Jesus was born on earth of God’s DNA, as Diana has said. But God is pure spirit; He has no DNA.
Oy veh!
Peace, Jim Dandy
J
Jim_Dandy
Guest
Orson Pratt, original member of the Quorum of Twelve Disciples: “The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore the Father and Mother of Jesus must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife: hence, the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father.” The Seer, 158-159
“Christ was begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” Bruce McKonkie, Mormon Doctrine 546-547.
“God the Father is a perfected, glorified, holy Man, an immortal Personage. And Christ was born into the world as a literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the son of God, and that designation means what it says.” Bruce McKonkie, Mormon Doctrine, 742.
Mormon Doctrine is for sale at the local LDS bookstore in my city.
J
JeanMichel
Guest
This book you have quoted is interesting. As I understand in my study of Mormonism, it was condemned by the prophet when it was first written on the grounds of its title, lack of permission to print by the prophet, and the assumption of Elder McConkie to speak on behalf of the Church. It is not the book of doctrine for the lDS Church.
Interesting quotes though, but as all Mormons who have talked to me, their doctrine is found in their books of scripture. I don’t have one handy, but I recall reading in the Book of Mormon and the Bible that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary.
As I have said before, Mormons would seem to need the equivalent of the Magisterium so that those of us who study Mormonism would understand their actual doctrine.
R
rinnie
Guest
Who told you Mary never had to go through Labor? Hopefully not Catholic’s. The Church has taught and will always teach that while the Blessed Mother did have labor she never experienced any Labor PAINS. There is a big difference there. But it hits a good point also.Depends on what you mean by that. If you mean…that she was pregnant with a human baby like every other female, then yes. In fact, all those quotes by our leaders that others use to ‘prove’ that we believe that God had sex with Mary are actually about the idea that Mary WAS a human woman, that God the Father was Jesus’ physical father, as well as His Immortal Father…that the Holy Ghost was not.
In other words, that (for lack of a better term) the DNA contributed to the mix was that of God, for a fully human child. Consider: His conception was a miracle: what would be miraculous about getting pregnant after sex, no matter with Whom?
The Book of Mormon specifically states that Mary was a virgin at Jesus’ birth…“virgin” in the English language definition of the word; that is, hymen intact, never having had sex with anybody…or Anybody.
So your question above is a beautiful example of the problem we have…
Back when most of these statements were made, there was a lot of mystical argument about Mary’s pregnancy and the birth of her Child. I have only recently come to understand one of them…something about Mary not actually having to go through labor, but having the Child somehow appear in her arms when the time came. (Personally, and understandably…I have five kids and BOY, do I understand…I figure that’s wishful thinking)
ANYway, LDS leaders wanted to bring the topic back to reality, and to emphasize that God the Father was the Father of Jesus in all ways; the Holy Ghost was not. That He managed to get Mary pregnant without having sex with her…we understand that. Why does everybody else assume that He could not have done so?
Shoot, WE can…and it turns out, by the way, that we’ve been able to do it since the middle ages.
Why does a women have labor pains? Simple because of sin, Why did the Blessed Mother not have Pains? Simple, No Sin
S
SteveVH
Guest
Sorry for my late response. As another poster said, we do not claim that the Holy Spirit is the Father of Jesus. Jesus made it very clear who his Father is. You use this as an argument against the concept of the Trinity, when actually it speaks volumes about the nature of God and in favor of the Trinity. How did Mary become pregnant? The Holy Spirit “came upon her” and through the Holy Spirit she was “overshadowed” by the power of the Most High. Who do you believe is the Most High? Sounds like they are related in more than just “purpose”. Sounds more like one God. Is it your contention that Mary was impregnated by two seperate divine beings, or gods? How exactly does this work in your faith? You say the Holy Spirit was “invloved”. What do you mean by that? How was the Holy Spirit involved?
Thanks.
Steve
Stephen168
New member
Are you saying the Mormon Church does not have a teaching authority?
- Status