Why Christianity is the truth

[Sir]

Originally Posted by James Banta

I am the one peddling lies now.. I have used ONLY what the Bible has said about the conception and birth of the Lord Jesus..

Really?

Where in the Bible does it say the mortal body of Jesus was NOT created by the combination of male and female cells?

It doesn't say that anywhere, so you making that ***umption is simply making up stuff, aka. lying.

Anyway, relax. I just like having fun with you. You and billyray are way too serious. I throw out a comment or two and you come back with paragraphs of complaints and supposed re****les. I really couldn't care less what you think about my faith or that you think you are right about everything.

That's why it's boring here. The only Anti-LDS posters are really you and billyray. You post long-winded rants that usually don't make sense and billy posts short little question after question thinking he is setting traps, and then avoids any question asked of him that debunks his arguments. I'm just having fun watching you guys. Like puppies who run after a ball.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Sir

Really?

Where in the Bible does it say the mortal body of Jesus was NOT created by the combination of male and female cells?

It doesn't say that anywhere, so you making that ***umption is simply making up stuff, aka. lying.

Anyway, relax. I just like having fun with you. You and billyray are way too serious. I throw out a comment or two and you come back with paragraphs of complaints and supposed re****les. I really couldn't care less what you think about my faith or that you think you are right about everything.

That's why it's boring here. The only Anti-LDS posters are really you and billyray. You post long-winded rants that usually don't make sense and billy posts short little question after question thinking he is setting traps, and then avoids any question asked of him that debunks his arguments. I'm just having fun watching you guys. Like puppies who run after a ball.

A spirit has male reproductive cells? As I said Jesus taught that a spirit has no tangible body. How would such a person have reproductive cells to contribute at all? Sir like it or not you get the truth from me.. The truth found in the Bible.. I see that you don't like it because of your complaints.. But as I have said you don't need to stay here and hear that truth..

No one I know of is banned.. If a posters is moved to add something to the forum they can.. If not I will add what I find in my heart.. Tell me that I am wrong is doing that.. That is lined up solidly to freedom of speech and religion. Are you an American? If you are why would you deny such freedoms?

Ok you don't like my post.. So don't read them.. If you don't read them then be honest and don't try to answer me in your posts.. You will have no idea what I have said and therefore no idea of how to answer.. If you want to post and not do any reading, post your own thoughts. Then as you usually do, ignore my responses.. IHS jim

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Sir

The only time I have seen the word "sex" when it comes to how Jesus Christ was conceived, is when you write it.

With all your blustering about sex, it is ironic that you are actually arguing that the LDS people are the ones obsessed with sex. Just look at your post above, and we see who is really the obsessed one.

So please don't dodge my question.

Who is the Father and why do you call the Father "Father" of Jesus if you really believe the Holy Ghost is the Father?

There are many defintions of the word SEX In my day of youth if the phrase, (making love) was used in a sentence we knew it meant SEX. Todays youth laugh when they hear an old timers say something like this. "All you kids want to do is make love". They laugh and say, "you mean, hooking up, don't you?
So as we know each generation have different ways of saying the same thing, SEX.
Now let us see how in the 19th centry Victorian way of saying SEX "The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of NATURAL ACTION. He partook of FLESH AND BLOOD--was begottenof his father, as we were of our fathers." (JoD, vol. 8, p. 115).
We see Brigham Young trying to put it in a way one might expect a man of that time and culture. Natural action? And more to the point. Begotten of his Father, as we were of our Fathers!
Leaving aside the phrase, Natural action, how were you Sir, begotten by your father?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

There are many defintions of the word SEX In my day of youth if the phrase, (making love) was used in a sentence we knew it meant SEX. Todays youth laugh when they hear an old timers say something like this. "All you kids want to do is make love". They laugh and say, "you mean, hooking up, don't you?
So as we know each generation have different ways of saying the same thing, SEX.
Now let us see how in the 19th centry Victorian way of saying SEX "The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of NATURAL ACTION. He partook of FLESH AND BLOOD--was begottenof his father, as we were of our fathers." (JoD, vol. 8, p. 115).
We see Brigham Young trying to put it in a way one might expect a man of that time and culture. Natural action? And more to the point. Begotten of his Father, as we were of our Fathers!
Leaving aside the phrase, Natural action, how were you Sir, begotten by your father?

Maybe now he will understand.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Your children may not have been the product of sexual intercourse but they were still a conceived by the uniting of one male sexual cell and one female sexual cell.

Jim, this thing called "cloning" was discovered a few decades ago. It's pretty cool. You should study it.

[MacG]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Jim, this thing called "cloning" was discovered a few decades ago. It's pretty cool. You should study it.

How is that not a nonsequitur? The two shall be one the scripture states but your re****al is closer to asexual reproduction, the one shall be two...or more.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Jim, this thing called "cloning" was discovered a few decades ago. It's pretty cool. You should study it.

Tell me how that effected sir's children? Are you saying that they are clones? I haven't heard of a single human being that has ever entered the world in that manner.. The human race has had no trouble keeping the Lord's commandment to be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth.. This looks like you are grasping at straws to me.. If not is was just a poor argument for arguments sake.. IHS jim

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Jim, this thing called "cloning" was discovered a few decades ago. It's pretty cool. You should study it.

I wished there were a million cloned just like me!

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

I wished there were a million cloned just like me!

God save us!!! hehehehe IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by MacG

How is that not a nonsequitur?

Because it wasn't.

The two shall be one the scripture states but your re****al is closer to asexual reproduction, the one shall be two...or more.

Does that explain the conception of Jesus? Which TWO became ONE in order to cause Mary's pregnancy?

Are you now seeing the relevance of my point?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Tell me how that effected sir's children?

Nice try, but the discovery of cloning affects the uninformed opinions of anti-LDS people such as yourself who falsely claim "Sex is the only way humans can be conceived, therefore the only way LDS doctrine could be true is if God had sex with Mary."

Are you saying that they are clones?

No, I am asking you "How do you know that Jesus isn't the only cloned child of God?"

I haven't heard of a single human being that has ever entered the world in that manner..

You haven't heard of Jesus? He entered the world like most human beings do, yet He was so much more than just a human being, thanks to who He was and who His Father was.

This looks like you are grasping at straws to me..

That's okay, I understand how your limited world view can make a lot of valid points look like grasping at straws.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Nice try, but the discovery of cloning affects the uninformed opinions of anti-LDS people such as yourself who falsely claim "Sex is the only way humans can be conceived, therefore the only way LDS doctrine could be true is if God had sex with Mary."


No, I am asking you "How do you know that Jesus isn't the only cloned child of God?"


You haven't heard of Jesus? He entered the world like most human beings do, yet He was so much more than just a human being, thanks to who He was and who His Father was.


That's okay, I understand how your limited world view can make a lot of valid points look like grasping at straws.

nrajeffnoreturn? I thought you might stay away from this debate, it is a no-win for LDSinc. Jesus being cloned, now that is funny! That means there are two or more of them?

[MacG]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Because it wasn't.


Does that explain the conception of Jesus? Which TWO became ONE in order to cause Mary's pregnancy?

Are you now seeing the relevance of my point?

I see we agree that Jesus is not a clone.

Now the command went forth to be fruitful and multiply and as is true for sexual reproduction the two became one. As you know save for one, this, until as late as the 20th century perhaps, is how men and women conceived children.

Clearly something is different at the conception of Jesus, yes?

The early scriptures speak of the Holy Spirit brooding over the waters in the creation process. Given that God created the flesh of Adam first from the dust of the earth and then the flesh of Eve from Adam's flesh it is no stretch to say God also formed the flesh of Jesus within Mary in a most un-natural way, most would say a supernatural way, an overshadowing, brooding way, as He did with the life in the planet, Adam's flesh and Adam's rib.

At any rate we can see that God does not need male genitalia to accomplish the creation of human flesh as opposed to some accounts published by TCJCLDS.

The formation of the flesh of Jesus in Mary I would say follows the mode of God's creative abilities seen prior than any kind of natural way of which we know.

[James Banta]

[nrajeffreturns;148866]Nice try, but the discovery of cloning affects the uninformed opinions of anti-LDS people such as yourself who falsely claim "Sex is the only way humans can be conceived, therefore the only way LDS doctrine could be true is if God had sex with Mary."

Uninformed "anti-LDS".. Do you need to see again what mormon prophets have said about the event? No matter here is it:

And so it is with the Eternal Father and the mortal birth of the Eternal Son. The Father is a Father is a Father; he is not a spirit essence or nothingness to which the name Father is figuratively applied. And the Son is a Son is a Son; he is not some transient emanation from a divine essence, but a literal, living offspring of an actual Father. ... There is nothing figurative or hidden or beyond comprehension in our Lord's coming into mortality. He is the Son of God in the same sense and way that we are the sons of mortal fathers. (The Promised Messiah, pp. 468-469)

Does that sound like cloning to you? It sure doesn't to me or anyone else I have ever met.. When Elder McConkie teaches that "He is the Son of God in the same sense and way that we are the sons of mortal fathers" that sounds like he believes that there was a uniting of the male and female sexual cells and fertilization took place.. That isn't cloning.. This is as wild a statement as any I have seen even from Bert..

But what does the Bible teach about the Christ Child's beginnings?

Matthew 1:18
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.


Neither this p***age or the erred statements of McConkie uphold any possibility of cloning. McConkie does agree with you in one thing. That is the Bible is wrong and therefore untrustworthy. But still both the LDS denial of the scripture and the scripture it's self deny you ridiculous theory. You have been reading too many comic books and not enough scripture..

No, I am asking you "How do you know that Jesus isn't the only cloned child of God?"

Because God said so! How much clearer can it get "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost". Believe it of not but don't go around think that Biblical doctrine os mormon doctrine no matter what you hear your leaders says. Os yes they spout of that claim about the bible but end up in total denial of the first chapter and the 18th verse.. They believe is what the OT an the first 17 verses of the NT? That is how it appears even though your leaders insist that they believe the Bible

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (known informally by the nickname Mormons) believe the Bible. Indeed, so literally and completely do their beliefs and practices conform to the teachings of the Bible that it is not uncommon to hear informed persons say: 'If all men believed the Bible, all would be Mormons.' Bible doctrine is Mormon doctrine, and Mormon doctrine is Bible doctrine. They are one and the same" (What The Mormons Think of Christ, p. 2).

You go beyond that and believe Jesus is a clone? Tell me why bother with the Bible at all just make up what you want to believe and make that your scripture..

You haven't heard of Jesus? He entered the world like most human beings do, yet He was so much more than just a human being, thanks to who He was and who His Father was.

Nope never heard of a cloned version of the Father.. He is the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son of God, the the only cloned version of God.. Such a teaching would be jar dropping even in Gospel Doctrines cl***.. Why don't you try it out on them and tell me how many of them buy into this perversion of the word, Ok?

That's okay, I understand how your limited world view can make a lot of valid points look like grasping at straws.

If believing the Bible, if that is grasping at straws then that is what I am going.. What I am not doing is being ****n about by every wind of doctrine that comes along. On the other hand you will not submit to Him through His word but look for something that agrees with your personal invented gospel.. That is a poor choice.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

nrajeffnoreturn? I thought you might stay away from this debate, it is a no-win for LDSinc.

You think I only participate in the debates that I know the pro-LDS will win? If I do, it's not on purpose.

Jesus being cloned, now that is funny!

"Master, show us the Father."
"If you have seen me, you have seen the Father."
"And it came to p*** that the disciples all laughed at the funniness of Jesus' answer."

Is that how your Bible tells it?
I don't think it's funny.

That means there are two or more of them?

Think and use your reasoning abilities: If Jesus has one Father, and the Father has one unique, only-begotten Son who is like Him IN EVERY WAY according to the Bible, then how many of them do YOU think that makes? `

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by MacG

I see we agree that Jesus is not a clone.

Your seeing abilities are faulty, since nothing I said was meant to suggest that Jesus is not an exact replica of The Father.

Clearly something is different at the conception of Jesus, yes?

Yes. No human had been conceived the way Jesus had been. A woman who was a virgin at the time, gave birth to a baby. That was a first in human history.

The early scriptures speak of the Holy Spirit brooding over the waters in the creation process. Given that God created the flesh of Adam first from the dust of the earth and then the flesh of Eve from Adam's flesh it is no stretch to say God also formed the flesh of Jesus within Mary in a most un-natural way, most would say a supernatural way, an overshadowing, brooding way, as He did with the life in the planet, Adam's flesh and Adam's rib.

OK

At any rate we can see that God does not need male genitalia to accomplish the creation of human flesh

Correct, and we can see that no genitalia of any kind are needed in order to clone oneself.

as opposed to some accounts published by TCJCLDS.

I challenge your vague ***ertion.

The formation of the flesh of Jesus in Mary I would say follows the mode of God's creative abilities seen prior than any kind of natural way of which we know.

At least it was beyond the abilities of 1st-century human technology.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Uninformed "anti-LDS".. Do you need to see again what mormon prophets have said about the event?

I don't need to re-read anything to know that you are uninformed or misinformed about some things.

Does that sound like cloning to you?

It is consistent with what would be involved in a male being fathering a son through cloning.

It sure doesn't to me or anyone else I have ever met..

Maybe you don't meet many people.

When Elder McConkie teaches that "He is the Son of God in the same sense and way that we are the sons of mortal fathers" that sounds like he believes that there was a uniting of the male and female sexual cells and fertilization took place.. That isn't cloning..

You are free to INFER or ***UME that it rules out cloning, but all that means is that you made premature ***umptions.

This is as wild a statement as any I have seen even from Bert..

It's not nearly as wild as what we hear from anti-LDS propagandists: "Mormons believe that God had sex with Mary!!!"

You have been reading too many comic books and not enough scripture..

I did read an anti-LDS Chick Tract, and I did see Ed Decker's cartoon segment from The God Makers. And indeed, they were full of false and nonscriptural claims.


Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (known informally by the nickname Mormons) believe the Bible. Indeed, so literally and completely do their beliefs and practices conform to the teachings of the Bible that it is not uncommon to hear informed persons say: 'If all men believed the Bible, all would be Mormons.' Bible doctrine is Mormon doctrine, and Mormon doctrine is Bible doctrine. They are one and the same" (What The Mormons Think of Christ, p. 2).

You go beyond that and believe Jesus is a clone?

I never said I believed it. Go back and try to find where I did, if you really think you're telling the truth here.

Nope never heard of a cloned version of the Father..

Have you heard of the claim that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father in bodily form? Have you heard of the claim that Jesus is like His Father in every way? Have you heard of the claim that if you have seen Jesus, you have seen His Father?

He is the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son of God, the the only cloned version of God..

It is possible for people to be begotten through cloning. Try to prove me wrong if you want to. I will be happy to see what you come up with.

[James Banta]

[nrajeffreturns;148879]I don't need to re-read anything to know that you are uninformed or misinformed about some things.

You got it anyway.. It is clear that all historic LDS leaders spoke of the Father being the literal Father of Jesus, the same way mortal fathers are the fathers of their children.. That isn't cloning.. To say it is is a flat denial of your leaders teaching and the Biblical record..

It is consistent with what would be involved in a male being fathering a son through cloning.

Begotten means begotten,

Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only; Begotten means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers" (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pp. 546-47).

Maybe it's that you don't understand the literal leaning of the word begotten:

Begotten means to procreate. Some of it's synonyms are spawn, sire, breed, father.. Cloning is not to father it is to replicate..

Maybe you don't meet many people.

Well there is that.. I don't meet many s t u p i d people..

You are free to INFER or ***UME that it rules out cloning, but all that means is that you made premature ***umptions.

I rule it out because to believe that Jesus is a clone means that he is a creation of some other being.. The Bible tell us that before the God of the Bible no other God was formed and that none will be formed after Him.. You can believe that the father took His own DNA, which he doesn't have to start with, and made another divine being from that sample.. But as I just pointed out no other God was formed before or after that divine being.. This God that you believe could have cloned Jesus also said that He doesn't even know that any other God exists.. And how long has this God been God? The Bible says from everlasting and will be God to everlasting.. Those p***ages smash your cloning nonsense or that Jesus was ever spiritually created by the Father.. UNLESS GOD IS A LIAR..

It's not nearly as wild as what we hear from anti-LDS propagandists: "Mormons believe that God had sex with Mary!!!"

The Christian here didn't invent that idea.. It is one more garbage doctrine taught in mormonism by it's prophets..

The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been ***ociated 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: we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Saviour unlawfully. It would have been unlawful for any man to have interfered with Mary, who was already espoused to Joseph; for such a heinous crime would have subjected both the guilty parties to death, according to the law of Moses. But God having created all men and women, had the most perfect right to do with His own creation, according to His holy will and pleasure: He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband, and beget a Son (The Seer, p. 158)

See we only tell you the truth of what the foundational leaders of mormonism had taught.. You don't believe it is is you that in unknowingly out of step with the teachings of the LDS church..

I did read an anti-LDS Chick Tract, and I did see Ed Decker's cartoon segment from The God Makers. And indeed, they were full of false and nonscriptural claims.

Really which of his claims were wrong.. I didn't see even one that was out of step with the teaCHING OF THE PREEXISTANCE..


Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (known informally by the nickname Mormons) believe the Bible. Indeed, so literally and completely do their beliefs and practices conform to the teachings of the Bible that it is not uncommon to hear informed persons say: 'If all men believed the Bible, all would be Mormons.' Bible doctrine is Mormon doctrine, and Mormon doctrine is Bible doctrine. They are one and the same" (What The Mormons Think of Christ, p. 2).

I never said I believed it. Go back and try to find where I did, if you really think you're telling the truth here.

Then you deny the teachings of your prophets and leaders that most LDS believe God set before the church as teachers, those holding the message of God for the church.. You are NOT a mormon, you deny their teachings, you have even gone above the command to not establish your own righteousness. You have rebelled even against the lies that Smith and his followers have taught.. Take this cloning nonsense to Sunday School and see how it play out there.. You are NOT in agreement with the Bible nor the false teachings of mormonism. You have become a clone of Bert..

Have you heard of the claim that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father in bodily form? Have you heard of the claim that Jesus is like His Father in every way? Have you heard of the claim that if you have seen Jesus, you have seen His Father?

The Bible teaches that Jesus is the image of the invisible God.. So if He were a clone he would be invisible.. How can you, I, or Joseph Smith see that which is invisible? How many times do you need to see Isaiah 9:6.. Jesus is the Child that was born unto us and he is the Mighty God, he is the Everlasting Father.. Make it all fit into your beliefs or deny it all.. Looks like to me you have denied it all..

It is possible for people to be begotten through cloning. Try to prove me wrong if you want to. I will be happy to see what you come up with.

If that is possible show me one instance that it has been done.. Your church teaches that the Father was the literal father of Jesus.. You deny That.. The Bible teaches that Mary was found to be with Child of the Holy Spirit.. Cloning would mean that Jesus would be like the father in every way.. Your own teachers said that Jesus inherited the ability to conquer death from the Father. From His mother he received the ability to die.. If he was a clone he wouldn't have any human traits at all.. He could never have died.. His death proves your theory wrong.. IHS jim

[MacG]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Your seeing abilities are faulty, since nothing I said was meant to suggest that Jesus is not an exact replica of The Father.

My inner beauty Queen, Miss Interpreted, was confused by what your were saying to Jim about clones and human reproduction. But since you are not suggesting that Jesus is not an exact replica you then saying then saying that Jesus is a clone of the Father?

Correct, and we can see that no genitalia of any kind are needed in order to clone oneself.

Didn't mean to be so sexist.

I challenge your vague ***ertion.

Reminds me of a Carly Simon song "You're So Vague" If it is so vague what is it that you think you are challenging?

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by James Banta

You got it anyway.. It is clear that all historic LDS leaders spoke of the Father being the literal Father of Jesus, the same way mortal fathers are the fathers of their children.. That isn't cloning.. To say it is is a flat denial of your leaders teaching and the Biblical record..
Begotten means begotten,

Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only; Begotten means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers" (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pp. 546-47).

Maybe it's that you don't understand the literal leaning of the word begotten:

Begotten means to procreate. Some of it's synonyms are spawn, sire, breed, father.. Cloning is not to father it is to replicate..



Well there is that.. I don't meet many s t u p i d people..



I rule it out because to believe that Jesus is a clone means that he is a creation of some other being.. The Bible tell us that before the God of the Bible no other God was formed and that none will be formed after Him.. You can believe that the father took His own DNA, which he doesn't have to start with, and made another divine being from that sample.. But as I just pointed out no other God was formed before or after that divine being.. This God that you believe could have cloned Jesus also said that He doesn't even know that any other God exists.. And how long has this God been God? The Bible says from everlasting and will be God to everlasting.. Those p***ages smash your cloning nonsense or that Jesus was ever spiritually created by the Father.. UNLESS GOD IS A LIAR..



The Christian here didn't invent that idea.. It is one more garbage doctrine taught in mormonism by it's prophets..

The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been ***ociated 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: we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Saviour unlawfully. It would have been unlawful for any man to have interfered with Mary, who was already espoused to Joseph; for such a heinous crime would have subjected both the guilty parties to death, according to the law of Moses. But God having created all men and women, had the most perfect right to do with His own creation, according to His holy will and pleasure: He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband, and beget a Son (The Seer, p. 158)

See we only tell you the truth of what the foundational leaders of mormonism had taught.. You don't believe it is is you that in unknowingly out of step with the teachings of the LDS church..



Really which of his claims were wrong.. I didn't see even one that was out of step with the teaCHING OF THE PREEXISTANCE..


Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (known informally by the nickname Mormons) believe the Bible. Indeed, so literally and completely do their beliefs and practices conform to the teachings of the Bible that it is not uncommon to hear informed persons say: 'If all men believed the Bible, all would be Mormons.' Bible doctrine is Mormon doctrine, and Mormon doctrine is Bible doctrine. They are one and the same" (What The Mormons Think of Christ, p. 2).



Then you deny the teachings of your prophets and leaders that most LDS believe God set before the church as teachers, those holding the message of God for the church.. You are NOT a mormon, you deny their teachings, you have even gone above the command to not establish your own righteousness. You have rebelled even against the lies that Smith and his followers have taught.. Take this cloning nonsense to Sunday School and see how it play out there.. You are NOT in agreement with the Bible nor the false teachings of mormonism. You have become a clone of Bert..



The Bible teaches that Jesus is the image of the invisible God.. So if He were a clone he would be invisible.. How can you, I, or Joseph Smith see that which is invisible? How many times do you need to see Isaiah 9:6.. Jesus is the Child that was born unto us and he is the Mighty God, he is the Everlasting Father.. Make it all fit into your beliefs or deny it all.. Looks like to me you have denied it all..




If that is possible show me one instance that it has been done.. Your church teaches that the Father was the literal father of Jesus.. You deny That.. The Bible teaches that Mary was found to be with Child of the Holy Spirit.. Cloning would mean that Jesus would be like the father in every way.. Your own teachers said that Jesus inherited the ability to conquer death from the Father. From His mother he received the ability to die.. If he was a clone he wouldn't have any human traits at all.. He could never have died.. His death proves your theory wrong.. IHS jim

I hate it when I am always correct, don't you?
Anyways, if you are saying Jesus is a clone of His Father that means they are two of exactly the same kind, as in DNA of Heavenly persons? If this is so then we Christians are saying The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost are Three Presons of the same substance, ie, The Trinity! Thanks you for proving our Doctrine, so now go and tell yor LDSinc. Friends they are wrong and come on over.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Anyways, if you are saying Jesus is a clone of His Father that means they are two of exactly the same kind, as in DNA of Heavenly persons?

I am not saying He is. Nor am I saying He isn't. I am saying that it's not impossible AND that it is supported by Bible verses. And yes, if Jesus and His Father are like each other in every way, like the Bible verse claims, then this could agree with the Greek word monogenes.
"single of its kind, only. used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents); used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God."

If this is so then we Christians are saying The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost are Three Presons of the same substance, ie, The Trinity!

The problem is that most Trinitarians interpret that as meaning that all 3 persons are literally one being, and that is a false doctrine.

Thanks you for proving our Doctrine,

All I have done is proven your doctrine false. If you create a child via cloning, that child is still a separate being. If you were to say that you and your child are literally one being, people would laugh at the absurdity of the idea.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by MacG

My inner beauty Queen, Miss Interpreted, was confused by what your were saying to Jim about clones and human reproduction. But since you are not suggesting that Jesus is not an exact replica you then saying then saying that Jesus is a clone of the Father?

As I told RFH, I believe it's not impossible, especially when we see how certain Bible verses support it. That doesn't mean that I am stating it's correct.

Reminds me of a Carly Simon song "You're So Vague" If it is so vague what is it that you think you are challenging?

You made an ***ertion about "some accounts published by TCJCLDS" but you failed to quote or even give a reference to any of them, so readers could see if there is any validity to your ***ertion.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

I am not saying He is. Nor am I saying He isn't. I am saying that it's not impossible AND that it is supported by Bible verses. And yes, if Jesus and His Father are like each other in every way, like the Bible verse claims, then this could agree with the Greek word monogenes.
"single of its kind, only. used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents); used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God."
Okay, so let this little ol 74- IQ country boy try and understand. You are not saying Jesus was born

The problem is that most Trinitarians interpret that as meaning that all 3 persons are literally one being, and that is a false doctrine.


All I have done is proven your doctrine false. If you create a child via cloning, that child is still a separate being. If you were to say that you and your child are literally one being, people would laugh at the absurdity of the idea.

Okay, so let this little ol 74- IQ country boy try and understand. You are not saying Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost?
Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
You are not saying He was cloned, or whatever, and even though Brigham Young, explains in a way everyone understood in his day to mean, The LDSinc, jesus was born of...
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).





(Following is a stenographic report of the address President Joseph F. Smith delivered at the Sunday morning session of the recent quarterly conference.-Ed.) 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.

Now, Nrajeffofnoreturn, I'll ask you as I did (Sir). How were you born of your Father?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Okay, so let this little ol 74- IQ country boy try and understand. You are not saying Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost?

How do you know the Holy Ghost didn't play a part in the conception? If the Bible says He did, then I believe it.
But the Bible does not say that Jesus is the son of the Holy Ghost. It says that Jesus is the Son of God the Father.

You are not saying He was cloned, or whatever, and even though Brigham Young, explains in a way everyone understood in his day to mean,

How do you know everyone understood what he meant? Anyway, you are confusing conception with birth. The 2 are not the same.


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).

(... 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.

Now, Nrajeffofnoreturn, I'll ask you as I did (Sir). How were you born of your Father?

Have you figured out yet that you are mixing terms? It is entirely possible to be conceived through cloning, and be born like most babies are born.

[James Banta]

[nrajeffreturns;148896]How do you know the Holy Ghost didn't play a part in the conception? If the Bible says He did, then I believe it.
But the Bible does not say that Jesus is the son of the Holy Ghost. It says that Jesus is the Son of God the Father.

The Bible teaches that Jesus is the Son of God.. It says that right there is Luke 1:35

Luke 1:35
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.

God, not just the person of the Father.. There is ONE GOD as Jesus confirmed (Mark 12:29).. If there is one God then that one God is the God of whom Jesus is the Son.. But in Matthew 1:18 Mary is said to be found with child of the Holy Ghost. Since the Holy Spirit is confirmed to be God in Acts 5:3-4, then Mary was with Child of the one true and living God.. THERE ARE NOT THREE GODS.. The Holy Spirit is God. So we know that the Holy Spirit did have something to do with the conception. Mary was found to be with Child of the Holy Spirit.. That is Biblical truth and agrees perfectly with Moses in Deut 6:4, With Jesus in Mark 12:29, and Isaiah in Isa 43:10, 44:8.. Just how does the doctrine that we have the Gods not contradict with those p***ages?

How do you know everyone understood what he meant? Anyway, you are confusing conception with birth. The 2 are not the same.

I don't know how you know we are confusing conception with birth. We are only saying that Mary was found to be with Child of the Holy Spirit.. That was during her pregnancy not as she gave birth.. That was a result of the Child being BEGOTTEN of the Holy Spirit.. That wasn't His birth. It was the conception.. President Young taught that Jesus was conceived by the Father the same nature way that our fathers begot us.. That is what we, the Christian of the forum, have been saying Young claimed the whole time we have been discussing the anti Biblical teaching of mormonism as to the conception of Jesus.. Mormonism teaches that Elohim has physical sex with His daughter Mary..

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).

That is what he said now LOOK at it "it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers".. Young, whether he understood what he was saying or not spoke of two different events. Pne The birth of Jesus being a natural event.. We all agree with that.. Mary gave birth to Jesus the same way all women give a natural birth.. The problem come in how Jesus was begotten.. Was it the same way all fathers beget their children or was that a supernatural event.. A miracle of God when God created the physical body in the womb of Mary to develop and grow into a viable baby..

(... 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.

As I have said there is no argument with the natural nature of the birth of Jesus.. It was perfectly natural. But you add that His conception was also a natural event.. That is just so wrong when the whole story of who God is and what He did to cause Mary to be with Child. She was WITH CHILD OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. In Him rests the power of the Highest. He is God.. So The Holy Thing that was born from Mary's womb is called the Son of God, That agrees with the account found in Luke.. Jeff you can't disregard Matthew because you don't like what is taught there.. How does the Biblical truth fit into the LDS theory of of the conception of Jesus being begotten by the VISIBLE and TANGIBLE Glorified man?

Have you figured out yet that you are mixing terms? It is entirely possible to be conceived through cloning, and be born like most babies are born.

I am not confused at all Begotten is the conception.. Birth is when Jesus came into the world as a viable Baby.. I think you are thinking of them as the same event through.. It is clear that the Holy Spirit was the Person were by Mary was made to be with Child and I believe that He was at the Birth of the Lord but still the Birth was a natural event. Can't you see the difference? IHS jim