Biblical and historical reasons why Mitt Romney is not a Christian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

As soon as you lose one argument

---

What argument did I lose?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

You mean become pregnant via sex? Then no I don't believe that.

---

Okay, Billyray, even for you, you are stretching.

I said regarding what it means to be "begotten":

Quote:

---

It means that our spirits are made up of the spiritual matter of God.

Likewise, we believe that our begotten bodies are made up of the physical matter of our parents (their DNA)

---

and:

Quote:

---

So, we do not know the details of how he is the "begotten" Son of God the Father, just that Mary was overcome by the Holy Ghost--but we do know that Jesus was not just a son of God as was Adam or any of God's children, but that Mary was Christ's mother and God the Father, his father. To me, that means that 23 chromosomes came from Mary and 23 chromosomes are God the Father's. How that happened, exactly---I don't know. What I do know is that God the Father is Christ's father.

---

You are ignoring my responses and instead, I guess I will have to rely on Paul when he taught:

2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

As usual Billyray, you are beginning to rely on "foolish and unlearned" questions rather than honest ones.

That said---you never told me if I was correct in your description of what it means to by "begotten"---is it to you rather just a figure of speech regarding Christ and does not have the same meaning as when it is used in other parts of the Bible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

That Jesus Christ is the "Only Begotten" Son is reference to the earthly fleshly child of His mother Mary and His Father God the Father.

---

Which verse are you using for "only begotten"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

Which verse are you using for "only begotten"?

---

1Jo 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

Compare to:

Hbr 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten [son],

(Keep in mind, that Abraham also had Ishmael---and if you read this in account in the OT which this refers to in Hebrew, it says his son (which means begotten), his only (which means the child of the covenant.) In others, his "only" is a separate phrase.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

To me, that means that 23 chromosomes came from Mary and 23 chromosomes are God the Father's.

---

As I said before God can create by speaking it into existence. God could have created an embryo and not utilized Mary's egg at all if that is what he wanted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

As I said before God can create by speaking it into existence. God could have created an embryo and not utilized Mary's egg at all if that is what he wanted.

---

You are right. But, then, how would she be his mother? Was Mary his "adopted" mother---his serogate mother? And then, if that be the case, where did the 46 chromosomes come from? Was Christ body just another one like Adam's, one that God created, but was not the actual father of? Why say "begotten" then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

1Jo 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

---

1 John 4:9 (from Net Bible page)

NET 4:9 By this 1 the love of God is revealed in us: that God has sent his one and only Son into the world so that we may live through him.

NIV 4:9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.

NASB4:9 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.

ESV 4:9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.

NLT 4:9 God showed how much he loved us by sending his one and only Son into the world so that we might have eternal life through him.

BBE 4:9 And the love of God was made clear to us when he sent his only Son into the world so that we might have life through him.

NRSV 4:9 God’s love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him.

KJV 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.


Not all versions translated it "only begotten" son.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

1 John 4:9 (from Net Bible page)

NET 4:9 By this 1 the love of God is revealed in us: that God has sent his one and only Son into the world so that we may live through him.

NIV 4:9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.

NASB4:9 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.

ESV 4:9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.

NLT 4:9 God showed how much he loved us by sending his one and only Son into the world so that we might have eternal life through him.

BBE 4:9 And the love of God was made clear to us when he sent his only Son into the world so that we might have life through him.

NRSV 4:9 God’s love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him.

KJV 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.


Not all versions translated it "only begotten" son.

---

Yes, I realize that, which is why I pointed you to Abraham in which "only begotten" is used for Isaac even though Ishmael was also Abraham's begotten son and explained to you that the term "only" does not mean a single child---but rather the child of the covenant. In that case--Christ could be just like Adam or anyone else created by God and is considered the child of the covenant alone and not begotten. Is that what you believe?

If you read the account of Isaac in the OT in Hebrew, it phrases "only" and "begotten" in two separate phrases...so it would be said -- "your son (which means begotten), your only (which means the child of the covenant.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Yes, I realize that, which is why I pointed you to Abraham in which "only begotten" is used for Isaac even though Ishmael was also Abraham's begotten son and explained to you that the term "only" does not mean a single child---but rather the child of the covenant.

---

And you also believe that only may not mean only because you were also begotten by your father.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

And you also believe that only may not mean only because you were also begotten by your father.

---

No, that is why I said I disagree, because in the NT, the term "only begotten" means, the child of the covenant who is begotten of the father, refering to his physical body. Which is why in the Bible, we have the term "sons of God" and the terms "begotten Son" of God---noting the difference. The term "only" then denotes that Christ is not only the alone begotten of the father but also the child of the covenant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Which is why in the Bible, we have the term "sons of God" and the terms "begotten Son" of God---noting the difference.

---

Both are begotten by the father--which of course you believe. Right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

No, that is why I said I disagree, because in the NT, the term "only begotten" means,

---

But not all versions use the term "only begotten" rather they use one and only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

Both are begotten by the father--which of course you believe. Right?

---

No, not right---"sons of God" are begotten by their earthly parents and refers to those born on earth and Christ being "begotten" of the Father refers to the fact that His Father is God the Father.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

But not all versions use the term "only begotten" rather they use one and only.

---

So, are you saying that you don't believe that Christ "begotten" of the Father and that God the Father is not really His Father?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

So, are you saying that you don't believe that Christ "begotten" of the Father and that God the Father is not really His Father?

---

The Father and Son have eternally been Father and Son. The Father did not procreate the Son by sex with Mary like the LDS teach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

The Father and Son have eternally been Father and Son. The Father did not procreate the Son by sex with Mary like the LDS teach.

---

So, what are you saying---that after everything I have told you regarding my beliefs, you are going to rely on your salacious smearing of my beliefs? But I guess by your comments, you think sex is bad or naughty or disgusting and so you have to project that untrue belief onto me. *sigh*

Quote:

---

Critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sometimes proclaim that the LDS believe that God had sex with Mary, resulting in the conception of Jesus. This is simply not true. While some members of the Church may have speculated concerning the conception of Jesus, the Church has never had a teaching concerning this event. This can easily be seen in a letter written by President Harold B. Lee to a brother in Logan, Utah. The letter is reproduced below. An edited version is also quoted in The Teachings of Harold B. Lee (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996), 14.

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Did_God_...with_Mary.html

---

For the letter, you can go to the website.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

So, what are you saying---that after everything I have told you regarding my beliefs, you are going to rely on your salacious smearing of my beliefs?

---

Why is stating the facts a "salacious smearing of my beliefs"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

Why is stating the facts a "salacious smearing of my beliefs"?

---

I will repeat.

Quote:

---

Critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sometimes proclaim that the LDS believe that God had sex with Mary, resulting in the conception of Jesus. This is simply not true. While some members of the Church may have speculated concerning the conception of Jesus, the Church has never had a teaching concerning this event. This can easily be seen in a letter written by President Harold B. Lee to a brother in Logan, Utah. The letter is reproduced below. An edited version is also quoted in The Teachings of Harold B. Lee (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996), 14.

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Did_God_...with_Mary.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I will repeat.

---

That is what I believed as an LDS member and that is what some of your leaders taught. But since every LDS has different beliefs then I believe you that you do not believe sex was involved.

So how is your concept of how Mary became pregnant different than mine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

That is what I believed as an LDS member and that is what some of your leaders taught. But since every LDS has different beliefs then I believe you that you do not believe sex was involved.

So how is your concept of how Mary became pregnant different than mine?

---

I will repeat:

Quote:

---

Critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sometimes proclaim that the LDS believe that God had sex with Mary, resulting in the conception of Jesus. This is simply not true. While some members of the Church may have speculated concerning the conception of Jesus, the Church has never had a teaching concerning this event. This can easily be seen in a letter written by President Harold B. Lee to a brother in Logan, Utah. The letter is reproduced below. An edited version is also quoted in The Teachings of Harold B. Lee (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996), 14.

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Did_God_...with_Mary.html

---

My version is different because you seem to think that "begotten" of the Father is just a poetic term and that Jesus Christ is not really the Son of God the Father.

You seem to be caught up in how he could be the Son of God rather than acknowledging that He is the Son of God. I say, it doesn't matter how---all we know is that Mary was overcome by the Holy Ghost--other than that, we know nothing concerning HOW, but we do know that HE IS the Son of God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I will repeat.

---

You pushed it so lets look at quotes from your leaders.

"The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers," (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115).

Can you tell me what this statement means?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

The Father and Son have eternally been Father and Son. The Father did not procreate the Son by sex with Mary like the LDS teach.

---

However you might think God impregnated Mary--Mary was the mother, and God the Father was the father of Jesus Christ.

There was a baby in her womb.

Mary's gestation period was the same as any other normal pregnancy--the baby was a normal baby delivered through the womb of woman.

What about that is not procreation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

You pushed it so lets look at quotes from your leaders.

"The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers," (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115).
Can you tell me what this statement means?

---

Regarding the Journal of Discourses:

Quote:

---

Critics often use the Journal of Discourses to show both nonmembers and LDS what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supposedly "really believes" to be official doctrine on subjects that have been considered to be either controversial or touchy by members of the Church....

Critics also ignore other statements by LDS leaders that explain how they saw the material published in venues like the Journal of Discourses. ....


One might ***ume, based on how critics quote the Journal of Discourses, that it is something to be shunned, and generally ignored. It does in fact have some errors in it. However many of these errors can be attributed to the fact that the discourses given by the brethren were not always reviewed by them for errors (many gave their sermons impromptu, especially Brigham Young). This of course makes it much more difficult to determine the intent of the speaker.

---

I guess Billyray, when you went to church you studied the Journal of Discourses rather than the scriptures. Strange.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

What about that is not procreation?

---

"The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers," (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115).

The natural action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I guess Billyray, when you went to church you studied the Journal of Discourses rather than the scriptures. Strange.

---

"The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers," (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115).

So you don't believe Brigham Young?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I guess Billyray, when you went to church you studied the Journal of Discourses rather than the scriptures. Strange.

---

Actually I liked Mormon Doctrine as well.

"Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers," (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 547).

Can you tell me what this means?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

Actually I liked Mormon Doctrine as well.

"Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers," (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 547).

Can you tell me what this means?

---

Mormon Doctrine and the Journal of Discourses are your "scriptures'---okay.

This is what is interesting about the critics of the my faith---they want to make the discussion surrounding our scriptures our doctrine while ignoring our doctrine. I have told you what I believe. The Journal of Discourses and Mormon Doctrine are not scriptural. They are discussions--nothing more and nothing less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Mormon Doctrine and the Journal of Discourses are your "scriptures'---okay.

---

You do believe that Brigham Young was a prophet of God don't you?

Why is it unfair to quote one of your revered leaders. Do you think that he is wrong?

Quote:

---

dberrie----However you might think God impregnated Mary--Mary was the mother, and God the Father was the father of Jesus Christ.

There was a baby in her womb.

Mary's gestation period was the same as any other normal pregnancy--the baby was a normal baby delivered through the womb of woman.

What about that is not procreation?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

"The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers," (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115).

The natural action.

---

It was procreation whether you believe it was a natural or a unnatural action.

Jesus Christ was a begotten Son of God the Father. Period. Your straining at gnats will not change that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

You do believe that Brigham Young was a prophet of God don't you?

Why is it unfair to quote one of your revered leaders. Do you think that he is wrong?

---

Well, first off---you make the mistake of thinking that everything that comes out of a prophet's mouth is prophetic. The Journal of Discourses and Mormon Doctrine are excellent examples of apostles and prophets stating their opinions. If they had been revelations, their statements would have been canonized into our scriptures.

So, what happens in the church? Prophets receive revelation from God and then all the members, including the prophets and apostles do their best to understand the revelation. For this, we get tons of discussion.

So, what do the critics do? They mull over this discussion as ways to make points as to what we believe. But as members, we understand that this is just discussion, nothing more and nothing less.

Do I agree with the discussion of Brigham Young and Bruce R. McConkie? I don't know. We dont' have revelation and so I can't say definitively what is right and what is wrong. What I can tell you is what I know. 1) Sex is not some disgusting thing as you seem to think it is . 2) I don't know the method in which Christ was conceived as we have no revelation to that matter--in fact, even our comments from these two apostles are not clear on that matter as you seem to think--see Dberries comment above. 3) Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God the Father. These three things I know for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

Actually I liked Mormon Doctrine as well.

"Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers," (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 547).

Can you tell me what this means?

---

It means Bruce R McConkie has an opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

It means Bruce R McConkie has an opinion.

---

Yes, this is so true. But it appears people like Billyray or Walter Martin was especially keen on this---they site our discussion as doctrine and completely ignore our doctrines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Yes, this is so true. But it appears people like Billyray or Walter Martin was especially keen on this---they site our discussion as doctrine and completely ignore our doctrines.

---

It suites their cause--but it just is not the composition of a truthful discussion, not when trying to establish it as LDS doctrine. It isn't. Never has been.

Billy has not done very well in our discussions, so I understand his need to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Yes, this is so true. But it appears people like Billyray or Walter Martin was especially keen on this---they site our discussion as doctrine and completely ignore our doctrines.

---

Do you feel the need to distance yourself from some of the quotes from your leaders?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

Do you feel the need to distance yourself from some of the quotes from your leaders?

---

Nope--not at all. I feel they are en***led to their opinions, as well as I am to mine.

All we are saying is--don't confuse that with LDS scripture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Nope--not at all. I feel they are en***led to their opinions, as well as I am to mine.

---

So you would cl***ify all of the teachings of your leaders as "opinion" unless it is in your Quad?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

So you would cl***ify all of the teachings of your leaders as "opinion" unless it is in your Quad?"

---

Regardless of how I feel about the teachings of our leaders--there is a difference between canonized scripture and the comments of any leader in the church. It takes time and unity of the church to determine if it will be canonized scripture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Regardless of how I feel about the teachings of our leaders--there is a difference between canonized scripture and the comments of any leader in the church.

---

So Thomas Monson gives you lots of his opinions a couple of times a year at conference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

So Thomas Monson gives you lots of his opinions a couple of times a year at conference?

---

The voice of the Prophet is usually recognized as more than an opinion, but it is not canonized scripture. But if the church goes in another direction than a prophet's voice--then it is considered his opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

The voice of the Prophet is usually recognized as more than an opinion, but it is not canonized scripture.

---

But it is still his opinion and nothing more. Is this a fair ***essment?