As a Mormon said on CARM’s Mormonism forum:
“Mary was no longer a virgin after having sex with God the Father. Jesus was born of a virgin, a virtuous young woman, who up to that point, did not have sex with any man.”
Or as an ex-Mormon wrote on the same forum:
“I was LDS. It was explained to me that the spirit overcame Mary and that a sexual union between Elohim and Mary took place (because the spirit overcame her she had no memory of the event). She was still a ‘virgin’ because intercourse did not happen with a human. This is what I was taught and there were plenty of quotes from leaders that were used to support this idea. I was a convert and I required a LOT of teaching about this concept.”
It’s a serious issue. And it still matters.
I talked the night of the above video with a descendant of James Talmage about the mrm.org/virgin-birth issue. He was upset that I was criticizing Young/Pratt/Talmage/McConkie over their denial of the virgin birth. I asked him if he personally believes the New Testament is compatible with the idea of God the Father coming down to have physical relations with Mary and he said he didn’t want to talk about it because the issue was too “sacred”.
Mormons are all over the map on this issue. Some have never heard of it and others have and go either way on it. But more importantly, from my observation when Mormons do hear about it they either practice revisionist history or chalk it up as not important enough to question their allegiance to the Mormon Church. Mormon leaders get a free pass on this one.
All that said, I was very, very surprised how many people I encountered last night who agreed with Young/Pratt/Talmage/McConkie on the issue.
I can understand how some Mormons would vehemently insist they’ve never heard of this issue and that they’re certain almost no one in the Church believes it (or is open to it). But after only a cursory informal surveying of people and a historical study of the issue, it very quickly becomes dishonest not to admit it is a traditional and unrepudiated extant issue that still needs to be dealt with. By “informal surveying” I mean,of course, more than asking the superficial question, “Do you believe in the virgin birth?” I mean probing underneath it and asking meaningful questions.
What kinds of answers you get from Mormons often have to do with geography, age, generation, influences, and most importantly, whether you probe deeply enough. A Mormon who says they believe in the virgin birth in my experience will, a few minutes after probing and prying, sometimes admit either that they are either redefining “virgin” to mean “never had sex with a MORTAL man”, or to mean, “she was a virgin BEFORE the conception of Jesus”, or that they just lean toward the traditional virgin birth position but not strongly enough to outright repudiate the idea that God had sex with Mary.
Like the God Never Sinned issue, there is a spectrum one has to learn to recognize when speaking of the not-so-virgin-birth issue, and not simplistically speak of. That goes for folks on both sides, Mormon and evangelical. Evangelicals shouldn’t stereotype or sloppily generalize Mormons as embracing the views of Young/Pratt/Talmage/McConkie, but neither should Mormons, anxious to defend the image of their Church and people, be in a state of denial over the problem.
PS It’s my birthday today. Celebrate it with me by staying on topic, OK? 🙂
Update: Bored in Vernal wrote a response here over at Mormon Matters. She writes,
“There is no doubt that the idea of physical relations between God and Mary has been clearly advocated in the Church by such authorities as Brigham Young [1], Orson Pratt [2], Heber C. Kimball [3], Joseph F. Smith, [4], Joseph Fielding Smith [5], James E. Talmage [6], Melvin J. Ballard [7], J. Reuben Clark [8], Bruce R. McConkie [9], and Ezra Taft Benson [10]. Mormons believe that Christ was literally the Son of God in the flesh, and he was conceived in a natural, physical way according to eternal law. In explaining this, the aforementioned leaders gave their views on how it was accomplished. Despite this, many members do not agree, are unaware of the idea, or prefer not to discuss it. It is certainly understandable that some feel it is a sacred subject. Some feel that it is merely speculation which does not affect the LDS doctrinal position on the nature of Christ. Others find it distasteful because it conjures up issues of celestial polygamy or spiritual incest. There are those who would like to skirt the issue by postulating that Mary may have been impregnated by some means such as artificial insemination. But I see no reason, if God has a body and parts, that he would not use his parts.”
New Tract
There is a new Brigham Young “billion dollar bill” tract available at the MRM store here. Here is the text of the tract:
On July 8, 1860, Brigham Young, Mormonism’s second president, said, “That very babe that was cradled in the manger, was begotten, not by Joseph, the husband of Mary, but by another Being… He was begotten by God our heavenly Father” (Journal of Discourses 11:268).
According to Young and other LDS leaders, the seed of Heavenly Father produced Jesus Christ in a literal, physical fashion. Despite being God’s preexistent spirit daughter, “…the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father” (Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 158). Apostle Bruce McConkie wrote, “Christ was Begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers… 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” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pp. 547,742).
To explain this concept to children, the 1972 Family Home Evening manual—an official LDS Church publication—used an illustration that included silhouettes of a man, woman, and little child. It read, “Daddy + Mommy = You.” A parallel illustration added, “Our Heavenly Father + Mary = Jesus” (p. 126). “So you see,” the article quoted sixth LDS president Joseph F. Smith, “Jesus is the only person who had our Heavenly Father as the father of his body.”
Matthew 1:18 says “Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost,” contradicting Mormonism’s rendering of the Virgin Birth doctrine. Questions? Disagree? Check out www.mrm.org/virgin-birth or www.gotforgiveness.com.
Disagree, for there is no contradiction
That being said, actual Mormon doctrine still holds up on this topic. Yes, some Mormons may have speculated and reasoned on this topic…but that speculation is not doctrine. And yes, OHF Mary does equal Jesus and this is supported in scriptures. Jesus refers to His Father…Mary is His mother…Father Mother=Child. (23 chromosomes from each parent right? He is a mortal man…God incarnate?)
Does this necessarily mean sex?…No it does not, even modern man-science can “conceive” a child without sex (test tube)…however the perverse mind always see sex.
Since it can not be known at this time the Mormon Church has no position/canonized doctrine on the actual mechanics of the conception (even the family home evening quote above does not provide that…and to finish that excerpt…“Mary, the virgin girl had never known a man, was His mother. God by her begot His Son Jesus Christ”)….the mechanics of “by her” remain to be seen.
Our view can also be seen in the scriptures
Luke 1:34-35
Isaiah 55:8-9
1 John 5:5
Let us take a critical view of Matthew (and of course Luke) as the only one to term Mary as a virgin…most other historical Hebrew texts are not so definite (see also Isaiah 7:14, which translates as just a “young woman”-Isaiah uses the term almah instead of betulah-, but Matthew takes a little poetic license with that reference…some believe as a response to the Jewish accusations regarding Panthera). Perhaps this is just another Ev embellishment on the chinese telephone? After all even Paul states that Jesus is simply born of a woman, he refrains from using the term virgin – Galatians 4:4
Now let no one confuse this with “Immaculate Conception” which means to be conceived without original sin
Thanks for the personal attack, but I think you’d have a hard time showing that Young/Pratt/Talmage/McConkie had artificial semination, etc., in mind.
In other words, perhaps God the Father really did associate with his spirit-daugther Mary in the capacity of husband and polygamous wife and have sexual intercourse with her, like other children are generally conceived on earth. The whole idea of shoving this issue under a general umbrella with the term “mechanics” disturbs me. Not because sex itself is dirty, but because of the flippancy with which this language treats the issue of the miraculous virgin birth.
There is no need to retreat to Old Testament ambiguity on this if you believe the New Testament hasn’t been significantly corrupted. If the four gospels wanted people to think God the Father literally and physically impregnated Mary, they would have at least mentioned him coming down to her once. But there isn’t even a hint of it. Anywhere. It was the Holy Spirit that directly accomplished the conception of Jesus Christ in the virgin Mary.
But if Young/Pratt/Talmage/McConkie are right about this whole issue, then on this point the Godmakers was more accurate than the New Testament. And that puts you into a precarious position, doesn’t it?
Sub:
…but we DO have a position on artificial insemination, though, don’t we? 🙂
Sorry if that’s just giving fodder to the Evangelicals. Aaron, I haven’t seen the Godmakers. But there are many scriptures which talk about Jesus being the Only Begotten Son of the Father. On this, we agree. There are only a few that talk about the Virgin Birth, and I don’t see these as being incompatible with any of the statements of the leaders quoted. So I don’t feel in a very precarious position over this one.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, Aaron!!
Aaron,
Thank you for spreading the spirit of Christmas. You have really caught the vision.
Your Christmas article goes right along with the song of the angels: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men…. and criticism of Mormon leaders.” Luke 2:14
Aaron
you would have an even more difficult time showing what is on their “mind” as well…but perhaps you have a partcular gift to know what people are thinking.
When it comes to the “virgin” birth, only Matthew and Luke speak in those terms, and many agree that this is in reponse to Jesus being an illegitimate child (after all He was conceived before Joseph married her) and to the charges about Mary and Panthera. There are as many, if not more references that do not confirm virgin, actaully more reliable is an Immaculate Conception. That being said, i recognize that my church teaches that Mary was a virgin.
only 2 of the 4 Gospels mention her as a virgin, right?. And though one may argue about God not “coming down” to impregnate Mary, there is absolutely no doubt who Jesus is referring to when He speaks of “Father”.
To that end, yes, God the Father did impregnate Mary…no one else could have, right? Perhpas you could explain how this happened without and by another but God.
Perhpas you should re-read Luke 1:35 , what is the “power of the Most High”?…though the Holy Ghost may have been the trigger, the HG was not the bullet….but then again, i am a good Mormon and understand the Holy Ghost and role of the Holy Ghost on earth.
Bored in Vernal
yes, we do know don’t we? (not sure what you are getting at, but i will bite)
artificial insemination is not encouraged but it is allowed in the LDS church (ahem! amongst a man and woman of course)
subgenius, are you a postmodern, believing that language is fatally unable to deliver any significant semblance of originally intended meaning? I’m working off a natural reading of the various statements by leaders. If you can offer a context-substantiated alternative interpretation, I’m all ears.
Do you believe the two gospels are potentially wrong when they speak of Mary as a virgin? It seems that, to advance the view that Mary may have had sexual intercourse with God, you’re trying to throw doubt on Matthew and Luke’s account.
So far it sounds like various Mormons think of the Holy Ghost as a sort of anesthesiologist while the Father did the deed or performed some surgery on her while God’s sperm was literally implanted. That seems leagues away from what the gospel writers were thinking. And it is evermore disturbing since Mary was God’s supposed literal spirit-daughter, and since it would have required God polygamously marrying his own daughter.
How does Matt 1:18 contradict Mormon doctrine/discussion around the virgin birth?
As it says in Luke 1:35: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.”
Matt 1:20: “THAT which is conceived in her is OF the Holy Ghost.”
Or as Alma puts it: “..she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the POWER of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.”
In other words, Mormons believe that in order for one to withstand the presence of God, like Adam, Enoch, Moses, Joseph Smith, and many others, they are ‘overshadowed’ by the Holy Ghost, or as Mormons call it, transfigured by the power of the Holy Ghost, so they can withstand the presence of God.
Now the clause, “she was found with child of the Holy Ghost” is completely consistent with the Mormon understanding of transfiguration.
And the scriptures in Bible do not directly contradict the virgin before conception theory, especially the famous one in Isaiah: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” As a muslim woman once said to me on my mission, “I was also a virgin who conceived.”
What you should be quoting to refute that theory is the vision of Nephi (1 Ne. 11:20): “And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.” This seems to contradict the virgin before conception theory, where Nephi saw a virgin with the child in her arms. However, the “virgin” could be just a title to Nephi, which represents Mary. That’s a stretch though.
So what do you (not sure what to call you) evangelicals or “born-agains” believe of “conceived by the Holy Ghost? What is your interpretation? You cannot believe that Jesus is the son of the Holy Ghost, that contradicts everything that is holy and true – he is the son of God.
Aaron,
This is an interesting discussion. How specific do you want the NT to get? It says that Jesus is the son of God. Now, you say it was the Holy Spirit that directly accomplished the conception of Jesus. I thought it was a three-in-one God? The only way to single out the Holy Ghost – and say the Father WAS NOT INVOLVED AT ALL – is to believe they are separate and distinct beings, right? Your understanding of the conception of Jesus directly contradicts your understanding of the Godhead. Where was the Father?
Now you say the four gospels “would have at least mentioned him coming down to her once. But there isn’t even a hint of it.” Nor is there a HINT of it that the Father did NOT come down and visit her. Your line of thinking can be flipped the other way.
It also should not be understood about our views of Mary. As many of our prophets have stated, she is a chosen vessel, the greatest of all the spirit daughters of our Heavenly Father. We don’t believe sex is dirty, immoral, or inhuman. On the contrary, we feel that sex and the creation of life is the most divine practice, when practiced within the proper bounds of marriage and covenant.
No scriptures contradict the thought that Jesus is a literal son of the Father. If he’s not the literal son of the Father, is he the figurative son of the Father? That seems to be a lot more sacrilegious than our own beliefs.
Aaron, in Mormon eyes, the relationship we have in the spirit is different than what it is when we have our mortal bodies. We are all literal brothers and sisters in the spirit, but it is acceptable when we are in our mortal bodies to marry each other and to procreate.
Also, the Holy Ghost facilitated Mary being able to withstand the presence of God, as explained in our D&C 67:11.
I think my biggest beef with evangelicals is the way they try to present our beliefs in a sensationalistic form, to try to put it into a picture that would be offensive or amusing (HG=anesthesiologist, etc) What works for me personally is if the person I am talking to can show me how much they DO understand my beliefs, then explain why they don’t make sense or are unscriptural. If Mormons feel that you don’t really understand our doctrine–the reverence we have for Christ and how literally he is the Son of the Eternal Father (though we may not have a clear picture of exactly how it was accomplished), they will discount your arguments against it.
Does that make sense to you?
well, Jim is out with his “we’re picked on” card
sub is talking on both sides of the issue
And now iamse7en brings up a good one
The answer to the question of Jesus being God’s only Son, is that WE ARE NOT GOD”S CHILDREN until we are born again, become saved.
Yes, Mormonism teaches that we are. And this is why you can’t read the Bible without getting confused
What I really want to say out here is that you (LDS) are missing the boat, and you can’t even see it. Your Jesus is puny, like your god. The whole Bible is about Jesus. The whole Bible is about God’s love for us, and the salvation He worked out for us through His ONE AND ONLY SON, who happens to have been with Him since the beginning.
Christ was born to die, to bring us back to God.
Your religion makes so little of Him. It’s depressing
Aaron,
I reread Orson Pratt’s great statement from The Seer, and he mentions an important scripture that we may have overlooked.
Luke 1:49: Mary says of this overshadowing of the Holy Ghost: “For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.” Okay. Holy is his name, and he hath done mighty things to her… Would you say that’s the Holy Ghost, and NOT the Father? You get into real problems, especially with your understanding of a three-in-one god, when you start saying which scriptures refer to the Holy Ghost or which refer to the Father, well cause they’re the same, right?
You suggest there is NO HINT. But Luke 1:49 contains a small hint.
And I really appreciate Bored in Vernal’s comments. Exactly how I feel.
WOW Aaron, you really brought the LDS out of the woodwork. They pretty much abandoned the thread dealing with all of the goofball tall tales that make the rounds in Mormonism.
These folks wonder why they aren’t considered Christians? Mormon beliefs are not only aberrant and heretical but they’re blasphemous. But one thing I’ve learned, the more outlandish and in the face of God Mormon teachings are, the more these radical TBMs groove on it.
Satan loves Mormons They do his work willingly and with great pleasure and at the same time promote themselves as these righteous, upstanding, moral people. What a cover they put on. And the way Mormonism works, Mormons allow themselves wiggle room because they don’t have any sort of systematic theology to get in the way of the imaginative “revelations”.
Here’s the list, once again, of the basic tenants of Christianity. Mormonism rejects most of them including the Virgin Birth of Christ.
1. The Bible is the Word of God. (Mormons seriously downgrade the Bible)
2. The trinity; One God, three persons. (Mormons have traded in this historical Christian view of God and substituted a sinful man who by his own efforts became a god. Something they believe they’re on the track to become also).
3. The Deity of Christ-He is God. (Nope, in Mormon speak Jesus is the spirit offspring of their man/god and his goddess wife).
4. The Virgin birth of Christ. (In order to satisfy their own lustful preoccupation with human and celestial procreation, Mormons blaspheme God and totally ignore the Bible which is easy for them to do since they have little use for God’s Word in light of their own revelation).
5. Christ died for us. The blood atonement. (Mormons qualify this in many ways one of which is that Jesus just covers that amount that they have fallen short of in perfecting themselves on the way to god status. I could write more here).
6. Saved by grace apart from works. (No indeed Mormonism has no need for God’s grace their works are sufficient).
Happy Birthday Aaron.
Grindael (I think) said on an earlier post how we can get frusterated out here, and he’s right. I just wanted to say, I am sorry. I apologize for being too abrupt and ornery. 🙁
So the more Mormons can poke their finger in the eye of God, the happier they are and it keeps their sponsor Satan in full glee. Too outlandish of a statement? I don’t think so. When Mormons attack the nature of God, His Word and the means by which He became a man in order to save us from our sins, I don’t think there can be any holding back.
Setfree, you can be as ornery as you wish. When engaged in spiritual warfare it must be understood that we’re not playing bean bag. The spirit that Mormons follow reveals these abominations to them and because their conscious is seared they have no idea what they’re into.
setfree, THANKS!
And no worries, I know enough about you to know your heart loves the people here. 🙂
This is a big issue, it is appropriate to have some high emotions.
BiV, the “anesthesiologist” remark was my way of giving a critical, negative analogy, not one that Mormons themselves would use. I would hope that overall I could show Mormons I understand their position yet have the freedom to criticize their positions with language/representative analogies they wouldn’t use. In any case, I’m curious to know why you don’t think the analogy is useful for those who believe God the Father had sex with Mary, since Mary had to be prepared to withstand the presence and sexual activity of the Father.
Also, if your husband becomes a God over his own dominions and has spirit children with you, does it not seem inappropriate that he would take some of those female spirit children and add them as his wives / your sister-wives?
iamse7en, the Trinity holds that the three are distinct persons yet in one essential relationship that is essential to their very being. Hence they are one God and one being and one essence. It doesn’t bother Trinitarians to speak of various scriptures as referring to one distinct person and not others. In fact, “God” in the New Testament normatively refers to the Father.
Take care,
Aaron
Falcon, what are you trying to accomplish with this point?
I often become annoyed with my husband when he *tells* me what I am thinking instead of asking. I feel you are doing the same when you pontificate such things as “Mormons seriously downgrade the Bible,” or “Mormons blaspheme God.” Since I don’t consider this to be true of myself, and I am a Mormon, I then tend to defend myself against anything else you might say.
I understand your anger towards Mormonism. But the way you are expressing it is not helpful to anyone who sincerely desires to know what God is like. I do, and I am open to the possibility that He might be different than my current conception. But give me a reasoned, dispassionate argument for your view, and I will consider it on its merits.
As always with joe’s cult they pick and choose what they will believe from their prophets. Where did these statements originate from? Brigham Young. Yet Bruce R. McConkie tell us Brigham Young taught false doctrine, and many will be damned for believing it. To make it clear:
“Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 51).
“When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it. The Saviour was begotten by the Father of His spirit, by the same Being who is the Father of our spirits,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, 1857, p. 218).
“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).
If God is a man and had sex with Mary, then she is not a virgin any more. Being a virgin means NOT HAVING HAD SEX. Youn said Mary & God had physical intercourse. So all the prophecies are wrong and the New Testament writers are liars. This is what joe’s cult would have you believe. Brigham Young also taught:
“Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken — He is our Father, and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 50).
So, let me get this straight. God fathered all the spirits, (including Mary). He was Adam. He came down with Eve to the Garden of Eden and became mortal. He died. Then one of his spirit children was born (Mary) and he what? Had sex with her? Insest? But how did he do that (according to Young) without a body? Hmmmm.
If NO ONE was resurrected (including Adam) until Christ the first fruits, then how did he accomplish this? Perhaps we should negate the resurrection too and have Adam be the first to be resurrected. This must be one of sub-genius many paradoxes (contradictions) he spouts that his cult has a right to have.
I’ll take the simplicity of the Bible Version. I do wish others would be as honest as Bored in Vernal, but as seen from the posters here, they love to have it both ways but the evidence shows their hypocrisy.
BiV, to be fair, I don’t think that, even with reasoned arguments, it is necessary or even wise to stay away from relevant value judgments. Take the abortion issue for example. It wouldn’t be helpful for a person merely to accuse pro-choice advocates of degrading human life, but neither would it be appropriate to avoid the value judgment either after a reasoned argument. I think with interfaith discussion we are challenging not only each other’s view of each other, but each other’s view of the self. In other words, evangelical Christianity not only challenges Mormons’ view of evangelicalism, but also Mormons’ view of themselves.
Even though it might not be a conscious thought in Mormons that they degrade the Bible, it seems like a reasonable conclusion given the way it is selectively and conveniently attacked as corrupt. The most common street-response I get, for example, to Isaiah 43:10, is not some fancy Mormon argument for cosmic henotheism, etc., but that the Bible is corrupt.
If evangelicalism is true, everyone who isn’t an adopted child of God is a child of the devil. It might not be helpful or persuasive to frequently bring that up in interfaith discussion, but it’s a real implication that should be put on the table.
Take care!
Aaron
BiV,
It blesses my heart to think that you might really be open to finding God, even though what you find might not be what you believe now.
I would like to encourage you the best I can on this path, even to the extent of a personal, email conversation. If you are open to this, say, and the guys (Aaron, most likely) could give me your edress.
Short of that, however, I’d like to encourage you to begin to read the Bible with NEW EYES. And what I mean by that is, you have to shed what you already think, and just start reading. Start in Romans. Or Hebrews. Or JOhn.
Coming to know Jesus/God from the Bible is a long process, but so well worth the effort that you’ll never regret any time you spend.
Also… any questions you have about Him, I would sorely appreciate having a chance to answer, as would anyone else out here. If you keep in mind that we are answering from a Bible-point-of-view, and so regardless of whether or not you yet believe the Bible, at least you understand that the answers we give represent what the Bible has to say (as a whole, and not from cherry-picked verses), then you’ll have somewhere to sort of “start”.
God bless
Aaron, I am not talking about value judgments, I’m talking about mean-spirited vituperative attacks:
Not to mention:
Indeed, this does “challenge my view of myself.” But can you honestly say that this is a “reasonable conclusion? or something that will soften my heart or aid me in coming to a more correct understanding?”
setfree,
[email protected]
I love having gospel conversations with anyone, as long as they are respectful and try not to hurt my feelings, as I am very sensitive to personal attacks. 🙂
You should know, though, that I was a born-again Christian before I joined the Church, so I have read the Bible many times with that perspective. Conservative Mormons who have read my blog or my blog posts don’t exactly claim me as representative of their beliefs, either.
Falcon
lather, rinse and repeat
Isaiah 1:16
Psalms 51:7
i am 7
you need to revisit “Holy is His name”…this is always a pretty specific reference.
grindael
Matthew and Luke are the only one’s to call Mary a “virgin”…and this chinese telephone you listen to the Bible over, has construed that this a sexual condition. Are you familiar with Paul’s reference to her? Isaiah’s? The Jewish historical texts?
As for God having to obey the same laws of the universe as the rest of us..good luck with that line of thought….i honestly laugh when someone questions God’s ability to defy logic or transcend conceptions…truly funny when someone says “How could He do that?”.
BiV
falcon hopes to accomplish nothing….and succeeds.
Aaron
“So far it sounds like various Mormons think of the Holy Ghost as a sort of anesthesiologist while the Father did the deed”
this is the crude way to say it but you seem to have given a perverted, although correct, take on Luke 1:35.
though i take exception with the inuendo you offer with the phrase “the deed”.
The biggest hurdle here is that the EV can not get over the hurdle of “sex”, especially “sex” as a primitive act…but like i said above…perverts are everywhere.
i solidly stand by my original post (top) with regards to the LDS church’s doctrine on this topic…i suggest others read it as well.
BiV, for the sake of tackling the issues, I’d rather it get toned down in this thread too, but at the same time I share the the kind of outrage that makes me want to rip my shirt in two and yell, “BLASPHEMY!” I’m not sure if cries of blasphemy are constructive, but I can totally sympathize and even participate in the outcry.
If it distracts you from the substance that would otherwise be more spiritually helpful to the opening of eyes, please overlook it for now.
subgenius, you seem to say the anesthesiologist + sex analogy is a correct take on Luke 1:35. Do you think it’s possible to not be a pervert and yet use negative, critical language of the idea of God Almighty having sex with Mary? Do you really think this issue is merely an issue of evangelicals somehow having a low view of sex?
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The VIRGIN will be with child and will give birth to a :son, and will call him Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14)
What don’t smithians understand about this prophecy? To take away from it by having Adam come down and commit ‘incest’ with one of his ‘daughters’ is revolting. But the cult of smith has always been fixated on sex. (the only ‘perverts’ were the ones touting this line of crap which all the above smitian posters still do) The esoteric explanations don’t work, it is what it is. Maybe they need to issue seer stones to all their members at baptism. Maybe that would help? Not.
Like any other cult Young ascribes his megalomaniac attributes to God, thinking that God had to ‘come down and do the deed himself’. No letting anyone else do it. This is the same attitude smith had & all the other perverts right on up to the time of the manifesto (and shortly thereafter since the First Presidency performed plural marriages after that.) Posters like sub love to rationalize and say we put limitations on God, but his cult does. They are the ones who locked in the theory that Adam came down and had sex with Mary, twisting the scriptures to fit the filthy perverted thoughts of their ‘so-called’ prophets.
What I want to hear is some smithian posters admit Young taught false doctrine. At least McConkie had the decency to do. But all they will do is try to sidestep the issue and believe the lies of these perverts. If Adam-God is false everything else he taught is also false. He was a false prophet like smith and you can’t be a false prophet and go on to your eternal reward praised as one of God’s Greatest as McConkie mistakenly concludes. These doctrines are dangerous and heretical. They are rubbish that taints the Holiness of God.
sub – why do you keep quoting the Bible when you think it is so unreliable? Maybe you should stick to your cult scriptures, but then you would have NO legs to stand on, would you?
I share the the kind of outrage that makes me want to rip my shirt in two and yell, “BLASPHEMY!”
Oh, Aaron. I get this, I do. This is probably not going to help to say this, but I feel the same way when anyone takes an act which is so special and so sacred and divinely ordained as the procreative power and speaks of it in terms of rape or incest or something indecent or revolting. I know there are Mormons doing this, too. And that we are joking around about it on the other thread. But in the silence of my own soul I like to think about it as so beautiful and loving and holy and just the perfect way for God to conceive his own Son. I don’t think I feel like that because I’m perverted or fixated on sex, like Grindael says. I really don’t think he knows the hearts of those he condemns.
Take note that most modern Mormons do NOT believe like I do on this. But neither can we exactly repudiate Brigham or the others, because the truth is, we just DON’T KNOW exactly how it was done. We would like to simply emphasize that Jesus was literally the Son of God, and leave it at that. Mormons are OK with Brigham’s ideas because Brigham was Brigham–he was literalistic and stubborn and a product of his times. We are all influenced by the ideas of our culture. Mormons and evangelicals. Just look at the shift in atonement theory over the years, and that is one of your “basic, core issues.” I won’t say that Brigham was wrong on anything because I’m not sure I have a handle on it enough myself to explain it any better.
To answer your question to sub ..I think you can be critical of the theory without being scornful or resorting to attacks on someone’s personal righteousness. I don’t know–maybe some of y’all could explain more about Jesus’ conception and just exactly how YOU picture an impregnation by the Holy Ghost and why this makes more sense to you than the Father being personally involved
Please- some evangelical offer a detailed explanation for how Mary conceived.
This is a topic that demonstrates the evangelical tendancy toward the magical and mystical. For all your criticism of the LDS’ lack of critical thinking and lack of logic, you really overlook your own. Mary conceived. Did God just snap His fingers (oh yeah- He doesn’t have fingers).
I understand that there are things we will just not understand in this life. But it seems the EVs believe that God works through means that can only be described as magic. Creation ex Nihilo for example.
LDS believe instead in a God who is master of universal law, a God who works through eternal and natural law to achieve His purposes. We may not always understand how those methods and purposes work perfectly, but we acknowledge that they are there and are consistent. Not magic.
You criticize our explanations, but offer little yourselves.
subgenius,
With all due respect, can you please show us another passage where “Holy is His name” is used, so that we can evaluate your claim that this language always refers to the Father? I assume that your reference to “chinese telephone” has something to do with the transmission of the Bible over the past 2000 years.
Just wondering but, does it bother you to make two mutually exclusive arguments in the same comment? Either “Holy is His name” has a meaning and this meaning is authoritative and binding or the passage is the jumbled up effect of careless and deliberate mistakes and errors in the transmission of the Biblical texts over 2000 years.
Sadly, your view ignores, and runs counter to, 2000 years of Church History. For example Justin Martyr writing in the middle second century AD said of God and the miracle of the Incarnation “…caused her to conceive, not by intercourse, but by power.” This has been the universal confession of the Church from the very beginning being found in the earliest of Creeds, the Old Roman Symbol.
I assume by Paul’s reference to Mary you are referring to Gal 4:4-6? Is this a passage that you find authoritative? I am finding it difficult to understand your point, except that Paul talks about the affect of the incarnation, as our becoming the adopted sons of God, and not the particular physics of the greatest miracle of the Bible.
Did you know that immaculate conception is not a theory on how Christ was born, but a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, teaching that Mary was born free from original sin. I fail to see how this becomes a more reliable method for the conception of Jesus. Can you explain?
Exactly how many of the Gospels does something have to be in before you grant it authority? Paul felt free to quote from Both Matthew, Luke, and Moses in the same passage (1 Tim 5:18; Deut 25:4; Matt 10:10; and Luke 10:7). Was Paul mistaken? Should he have waited until this passage was in all 4 Gospels?
Bored
I usually don’t engage Mormons out here because I find it nonproductive but I’m going to answer your question regarding my statement that “Satan loves Mormons”. Actually Satan probably laughs and has disdain for Mormons and their foolishness but Mormonism is useful for Satan’s purpose. Why is that? Because Mormons serve his purpose by attacking all of the basic doctrines of Christianity and they send boys on bicycles up and down the streets of the countries of the world promoting a restored gospel which is the flipped opposite of Christianity.
Wouldn’t you say that it serves Satan’s purpose to attack God and his very nature which Mormonism does? Doesn’t it serves Satan’s purpose to deny the deity of Christ? Wouldn’t Satan be served by the Bible being maligned and foolish conspiracy theories being promoted? And finally wouldn’t Satan be yucking it up over a group of “religious” people promoting a blasphemy of God the Father having sexual relations with the Virgin Mary?
The false piety and religiosity of Mormonism seeks to disguise it’s aberrant doctrines and practices. As defenders of the Gospel of Jesus Christ we understand that we don’t war against flesh and blood but against the forces of darkness that seeks to destroy men’s souls.
It’s not as though that, because Christians can’t specify how Jesus was conceived, we are bound to accept the idea that God had sex with Mary or that the Spirit put her under so that the Father could inject his sperm into her. Neither Mormon position here is a default one. The default position is that Mary was a virgin, and that deity isn’t humanity, hence God did not have sex with one of his creation.
This comes from the Christian belief that God is a unique species unto himself. As the Most High, he is fittingly described with superlatives that will never be true of us. He is in a class all by himself. He created everything visible and invisible outside of himself. You can’t fit deity in a box. As I understand Mormonism, you can literally fit the deity of God in a box.
The underlying issues here are as follows:
– The NT is clear that Mary was a virgin in the sense of not having had sexual relations.
– Man does not become a Most High, an Almighty God. Rather, Almighty God becomes a man. That’s the beauty and wonder of Christmas!
– Deity is not equivalent to humanity. The two natures are distinct.
– The Biblical data seems to describe the Holy Spirit, not God the Father, as the direct worker in the miracle of the conception of Jesus.
– Mary is God’s creature, not spirit daughter. The Bible says we are adopted by faith. Christ becomes our Elder Brother by adoption, not by nature.
– God doesn’t need to use eternally pre-existing materials to make something. He doesn’t take a scoop out of a cosmic sandbox out of necessity. If there are any cosmic sandboxes of chaotic matter, he created them.
– God doesn’t have sexual “parts”, and therefore wouldn’t use them to copulate.
Wow do Smithians NOT GET THIS. Christians don’t HAVE to offer a detailed explanation for this. YOUR PROPHETS are the ones who did. YOUR “prophet” joe accused the whole world of being “corrupt” and an “abomination” before God. That put the ball in our court when it comes to refuting his heresies. The Bible speaks for itself and says Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost. What others like Paul don’t elaborate on makes no difference.
genius loves to scorn Paul but then uses him to defend his precarious senseless doctrinal opinions. Smithians denigrated the Bible long ago. (But they love to quote from it then ‘twist’ what it says.)
Olsen, why don’t YOU offer a rational explanation why Young taught that Adam was God and that he came down and had sex with Mary? I see no smithian ever addressing the Heresies of Young now matter how many posts quotes from him. It is like they (his Heresies) do not exist. This Heresy (the NONVIRGIN birth)came from him, and was run with by every major doctrinal expert in your cult.
genius scorns those that he says puts limitations on God, as you are doing Olsen, when you denigrate ex-nihilo, the virgin birth and a host of other things only He can do.
Your statement about not understanding some things is fine, but your prophets all claim ‘the second comforter’ which gives them ‘knowledge of all things’. Sure worked for Young, didn’t it?
Olsen Jim,
Jesus is called the second Adam. Before the fall Adam was without sin. Because of the fall, all are tainted with sin. Adam was a unique creation of God. Likewise, Jesus (when He took on flesh), His physical body was created just as Adam was created. Jesus did not bear the taint of sin as he did not descend from fallen man. We know Jesus was born without sexual relations, apart from the normal scheme of things, through the power of the Holy Spirit. Thus, Jesus incarnation was not of man, but through God’s creative power. Jesus was born into a fallen world, though as God come in the flesh He was not fallen or sinful and did not know the corruption of sin that we all share. Christians should keep silent when Scripture is silent, so perhaps I am going beyond what Scripture says; however, I am happy to submit to Scripture on the virgin birth and God’s miraculous work in the incarnation. We also know that Jesus was fully God and fully man – so His incarnation did not in any way keep Him from fully experiencing the human condition. He was not tainted with a fallen nature, yet He suffered and was tempted in every way we are. I hope this explanation helps.
As Aaron pointed out in the video (happy birthday, Aaron!), Mormons that are honest will admit to the teaching of their god having sexual relations with Mary via the same way that human beings are brought forth into the world today (copulation). The “ace card” on this doctrine for Mormonism is that it’s not OFFICIALLY REFERENCED anywhere because it’s “too sacred” as the LDS man referenced in the video stated. I think there are other reasons why this is the case and it’s obvious: the Mormon Church would have a PR nightmare. Ex-Mormons that don’t care have no problem stating this is what was told to them as what took place between the Mormon god and Mary: sexual procreation. I’ve had ex-Mormons tell me so.
At my church we have some ex-Mormons who were temple Mormons at the time. Before their first visit to the temple the elders came over to their house for temple preparation classes. This teaching about the sexual union between the Mormon god and Mary was verbally told to them. Upon hearing this, these people were shocked and alarmed! They told me that this was the “big blow” that eventually had them leave Mormonism. He did know enough about the Bible to know that belief couldn’t be reconciled. He had been a Mormon for three years and had not heard that teaching until it was told to him verbally at his house.
This has similarities to Freemasonry. We all know the connection that Mormonism has to Masonry because of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young being masons. Much of the degree work in Masonry is taught verbally. It’s spoken from one mason to another mason via mouth to ear in a whisper via the appointed points of body contact (just like in LDS temple ordinances: Mormon being given his/her new name, etc.) Masons are taught the sacred name of God and it’s given this same way. When my brother was a mason this was part of his degree work in the Royal Arch side of Masonry after he completed the Blue Lodge. What was written in the “red book” nobody got to look at.
One of the fundamental truths of the Holy Scripture and is of paramount importance to orthodox Christianity is the virgin birth of Christ. This doctrine is indispensable to the Christian faith. At seminary, Christians study systematic theology and within that falls Christology which is the study of the nature, person, work and Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. The virgin birth falls within that.
It’s already been stated that there are two texts that speak of the virgin birth and that is in Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:35. We also have Isaiah 7:14. Scripture is quite clear that this conception is of the Holy Ghost and names this Person specifically and exclusively. There is nothing difficult in reading this and accepting this for what it says. How the Holy Ghost placed the Lord Jesus Christ, 2nd Person of the Trinity, in the womb of Mary is beyond our small brains to comprehend. For me it says one thing: POWER.
Historically, one of the early Church Fathers wrote about the virgin birth of Jesus Christ in “Ephesians” 18.2-19.1. His name was Ignatius and he was martyred around A.D. 117 which was shortly after the completion of the book of Revelation in A.D. 90. We can gather from this that the belief in the virgin birth of Christ was known and believed in the 1st century.
If there was no virgin birth, then there would have been no union between God and man. The virgin birth is a reminder to Christians that when it comes to salvation, it’s a completed work of God and not prone to human effort. Mankind could not bring the Savior into the world on his own and likewise, he can’t bring about his own salvation through personal merits. Man is born into the world by water (birth process – water breaks) and then born again spiritually by Spirit by God (John 3:5) as we are adopted into the family of God (Romans 8:15).
The virgin birth made it possible for full humanity and full deity to be brought forth together in miraculous harmony. Jesus is referred to as “the only begotten Son” in John 3:16. What does “begotten” mean? Simply, this describes a relationship between two beings of the same essential nature and being, but we create things of a different nature than ourselves. Man can CREATE a statue, but BEGETS a child.
The Father could have delivered Jesus fully as a human to us straight from heaven in adult form to die for mankind. If that would have happened, it would have been difficult for us to see how Jesus was totally human just like we are. The Father could have had Jesus born between two parents on earth and then mankind would not have been able to see and accept Jesus as totally divine. God the Father, in His infinite wisdom, accomplished both of these human perceived difficulties by having the arrangement as it was: The Holy Ghost miraculously bringing about conception in the womb of Mary thus accomplishing the line of Adam by physical birth (yet without sin) of Jesus being born from the flesh of Mary and the conception being of divine origin thus satisfying divinity ruling out the need for the seed of man to accomplish procreation.
Jesus Christ was totally human and totally God. He has two natures and will forever. Before the Incarnation He only had one: divinity – not man. The Word “Logos” became flesh (John 1:14). Jesus was fully God in nature and essence prior to the Incarnation and that is verified in Isaiah 9:6 (“Mighty God” – El Gibbor) and Isaiah 7:14 (Immanuel – God with us – Matt 1:23). Mormons are incorrect in this statement:
“There was in Palestine a couple, Joseph and Mary. She, heavy with child, traveled all that distance on mule-back, guarded and protected as one about to give birth to a HALF-Deity. He lived in a lowly home, the only man born to this earth HALF-Divine and HALF-mortal.” (The Life and Teachings of Jesus and His Apostles, p.10)
With Christian theology on this subject briefly touched upon, let’s move to Mormonism to test (1 Thes 5:21) what they say by the Scriptures. It’s been pointed out the Holy Ghost was named specifically as the Person responsible for the conception of Jesus in Mary’s womb. When Mormon prophets contradict this, then we know they are not telling the truth because it’s a DIRECT contradiction to what God has revealed already in His spoken Word.
“(The Son of God was) sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, NOR WAS HE BEGOTTEN BY THE Holy Ghost. He is the Son of the Eternal Father.” (Ezra Taft Benson, 13th LDS President, “Come Unto Christ”, Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1983)
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, NOR WAS HE BEGOTTEN BY THE Holy Ghost” (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, page 7; Church News, December 18, 2004, p. 16)
“When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. HE WAS NOT BEGOTTEN BY THE Holy Ghost…Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 1:50)
“CHRIST NOT BEGOTTEN OF HOLY GHOST…I believe firmly that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. He taught this doctrine to his disciples. He DID NOT teach them that he was the Son of the Holy Ghost, but the Son of the Father. Jesus is greater than the Holy Spirit, which is subject to him” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:18)
Does the Mormon god supposedly procreate the way mankind does today? Did this take place with Mary? We’ll examine some references coming up.
[email protected]
OJ asked
Grindael, Mobaby and Andy have responded, and I’ll add my 2c.
(BTW, I hope that followers of these threads see a pattern emerging; when Mormons ask direct questions, we try to answer them as directly as possible. I’ll let the readers judge for themselves if this is reciprocated).
The Orthodox Christian view doesn’t require a detailed explanation of the “mechanics”. God created a Universe by speaking the word. It might have been a “spiritual” process, but it had a “material” outcome. Its no problem, then, to apply the same paradigm to the creation of a material fetus in Mary’s reproductive organs (to put it bluntly).
Incidentally, the Christian idea that God’s actions directly connect Him to the “material” world is a major divergence from Gnosticism.
The problem for Mormonism is its agenda concerning the material body of God. I interpret LDS thinking to mean that the Mormon “God” acts with the material world in the same way we do; he’s playing the same game to the same rules but in a higher league. Therefore, the conception of Jesus must have occurred in the same way that we conceive our children.
In fact, the LDS perception of the conception is taken to affirm the LDS agenda. No wonder the LDS posters here have got so excited. Have they finally found a Biblical scripture that actually supports their position?.
As Aaron pointed out, the coupling of the Father and Mary requires all sorts of lawful, moral and logical contortions, given their relationships to each other. And lets not forget the complications of the pre-mortal probation.
So, if God found a legal loophole to “knock-up” His spirit-child Mary (without her conscious consent), what does that tell us about Him? How can we worship this cosmic sexual predator?
I think its just a man-made fabrication. It tells us more about the men who fabricated it than the One who is Holy, Just and True.
Martin
“The Orthodox Christian view doesn’t require a detailed explanation”
this is an honest an answer as ever from the Ev. Though you did not answer any question you did echo the sentiment and doctrine of the Mormon church which i stated in the initial post onthis thread –
that there is no manner to determine how Mary became pregnant with Jesus, Our Hevaenly Father has not yet revealed this, all theories around this event are merely speculation.
none of which are actual doctrine.
So whether you subscribe to the Mormon copulation theory, the Ev “it just happened” theory, or the Jewish theory of Mary giving birth to the illegitimate son of Panthera, one can not deny that all are speculation and al have little impact on what Jesus actuall achieved during His life and death on earth.
Would any of this matter if He were found in a basket on the doorstep?
and care to explain why God would ever need to find a “legal loophole”? (insert lawyers in hell joke)
Andy Watson
you should remember when teaching these Ev
Matthew 13:14
Ev should remember Hebrews 3:14-16
grindael
actually, contrary to your claim, the Bible does not say the Holy Ghost “conceived” Jesus…but, hey, translate it however you like but i am hanging up the chinese telephone.
Aaron
“God doesn’t have sexual “parts”, and therefore wouldn’t use them to copulate”
this brings up an interesting side note,
how do you know this? When Moses was on the mountain do we not learn that God has a Hand, with which he covers MOses’s face?…and does He not say this “covering” is to prevent Moses from seeing His Face? So if God has a Hand and a Face, does He not have Feet? Are things below actually not as they are above? Are we not in His image?….Is my daughter’s Ken doll actually a graven image of God with regards to anatomy?
falcon
what a gift for exaggeration. Mormons do not “attack all” of basic Christian doctrine – we just correct the wrong aspects.
lather, rinse, repea
Very good job Andy, Martin et al. I must in a way echo Martin in that the scholarship and depth of thought of the Christians here reveals a process of thought and understanding and knowledge of the nature of God that puts the futile attempts of the TBMs that post here to shame.
I had to remind myself that when we read the blasphemy of Mormon church leaders on this topic and then the vain mental meanderings of the TBMs; that they aren’t talking about “God”. They are talking about “a god” who isn’t “God”. Mormons are talking about their mythical god who was a sinful man and who became a god just like the millions and billions of god/men before them. So if the Mormon gods want to come down and have sex with mortal women, so what? It all fits in pretty well with Joseph Smith’s sexual relations with multiple women including those who were married to his church members.
What never ceases to amaze me is the length that Mormons can and will go to rationalize, not only their Mormon beliefs, but also the behavior of their leadership past and present. That coupled with their willingness to do anything commanded by the prophet including kill or steal pretty much provides for us the mind-set of the Mormon zealots. So their god having sex with a mortal woman is just a natural extention of their belief system.
I’ve witnessed Mormons torture the scriptures in an attempt to justify any form of thought, behavior or practice. This is brain washing of the highest level.
So when they twist themselves into pretzels trying to explain how and why the Mormon god is having actual sexual relations with a mortal woman, we need to keep reminding ourselves, this is not “God”. It’s basically a form of Joseph Smith who completed the god program. You just know if it came from Smith and/or his followers, physical sex had to be involved.
a
I do not get to post often, as I care full-time for my adult daughter with special needs and help my husband run our business, but I made time, starting at about 5 AM this morning, to prepare for this post’s subject, which is of such great importance!
Luke 1:34 records Mary’s response to the angel Gabriel’s message as, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”
Matthew 1:18 contains the words, “before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.” (NKJV)
Matthew 1:25 states that Joseph “did not know her until she had brought forth her firstborn Son.”
Luke 2:4 states, “And she brought forth her FIRSTBORN [caps mine] Son.”
Matthew 1:20 states, “for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.”
I do not see how anything but the most torturous mental gymnastics and contorting of the Scriptures could misconstrue the clear meaning of these words from the Holy Bible.
Sub, why don’t you just throw the Bible away? Your constant assertions that it is nothing more than the result of “chinese telephone” translations leaves you no standard by which to judge any truth that may or may not be contained in it. You discredit its unity and jump on the bandwagon of any apologist that seeks to discredit anything contained in it to justify your beliefs, while denying clear contextual meaning.
In Matthew 1:23 Matthew clearly believes that Jesus conception was the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. Those who believe the bible is a unified progressive revelation also believe that the Holy Spirit moved Matthew to understand Isaiah 7:14 and apply it to Jesus.
Do you think that you are the first to argue that “almah” only means “young maiden”? This is an old argument that fails under scrutiny.
Two words are used for virgin in the OT and they are used interchangably:
almah: Strong’s 5959 (used in Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Psalm 68:25; Proverb 30:19, Song of Songs 1:3,6:8, and Isaiah 7:14)
1. virgin, young woman
a. of marriageable age
b. maid or newly married. There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin.
bethulaw: Strong’s 1330
1. virgin
Bethulaw is used 50 times in the OT. In the KJV it is translated 38 times as virgin, 7 times as maiden, and 5 times as maid. For an instance where both are used interchangably look at Genesis 24. In verse 16 Rebekah is called a bethulaw (tranlated virgin) and in verse 43 she is called almah (translated) virgin.
I believe Isaiah used “almah” in 7:14 because it accurately portrays Mary’s condition: A young maiden of marriageable age who was still a virgin. The greek word used in Matthew 1:23 is “parthenos” (Strong’s 3933) which also means virgin, a woman of marriageable age who has never experience sexual intercourse. It can also mean “a marrigeable daughter”. This accurately represents Mary.
Remember Sub, Mary was betrothed to Joseph. Legally she was married to him, but they were not allowed to have sexual relations until after the official marrige ceremony. When she was found to be pregnant Joseph was of a mind to divorce her in secret (Matthew 1:19) because according to Deuteronomy 22:23-24 she was seen as an adulteress and could have been stoned for it. In Matthew 1:20 we read that Joseph is reassured that Mary is not an adulteress, but the child in her womb is conceived of the Holy Spirit. Are we to believe that HF would break his own law and have intercourse with a woman who was betrothed?
Also if Isaiah 7:14 just means that a young maiden would conceive, whoopdy doo. Almah’s were conceiving all over the world. In context, since King Ahaz does not ask for a sign, YHWH declares through Isaiah, “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” This is truly a miraculous sign from God, something that has never happened before. The reason that Matthew translates “Immanuel” for his readers as “God with us” is because he wants his readers to understand both the fullfilment of Isaiah 7:14 and also that Jesus is God.
Was Matthew so dull that he was amazed that a young maiden was a virgin before having sexual intercourse, but after having intercourse she became pregnant? In context it is obvious that Matthew means that she conceived in a miraculous way.
LDS posters, how can you hide behind the assertion that the statements made by your apostles and prophets are not doctrine, so you don’t actually know how the conception happened? YOUR PROPHETS TOLD YOU IN EXPLICIT DETAIL HOW IT HAPPENED! THEY ASSERTED THAT THEIR TEACHING WAS TRUE, AND B.Y. SAID THE BIBLE GOT IT WRONG.
I’m pretty sure when those men made those statements they intended them to be interpreted as truth and that the teaching was to be passed on, which it has been. “Oh, but the words that they spoke aren’t official doctrine so we don’t actually know how it happened even though we were told how it happened.” That is insanity. How do you function in the real world? Like I have said before, I work around police officers, lawyers and judges on a daily basis. They make rational decisions based upon reason and evidence in every other area of their lives, but when it comes to LDS doctrine they throw those rules out the window. No wonder so many LDS are on anti-depressants. There is no standard for reality when it comes to church matters.
gpark, since I’ve never seen you before, just wanted to say, nice to meet you
liv4jc, Andy, Martin, everyone is out here giving such good details, and still the Mormon hangup.
I can tell you, because I was Mormon once, that this is because of the Mormon view of God.
He was just a man, we’ll be gods, so we just imagine how we would do things, if we were greater, and that’s where the the truth must be.
How many people on the earth haven’t gotten to have a Bible? How many don’t today? It makes it just that much more sad that there are people right now, in possession of God’s Word to us, who hold it with contempt.
Sub, seriously. If God is your Mormon god, then yeah, we ought to be thinking along the lines of “how would WE do it?”
But, if He created everything, meaning nature, rules, time itself, and all of us and our spirits and everything… well, then it just NO BIG DEAL for Him to impregnate a virgin without having to become a man, or use man parts, or whatever else. Has He ever used human parts? Yes, to help us understand things He wants us to know. But for heaven’s sake, He is NOT RESTRICTED TO THEM!
I really don’t understand how you could ever have been a Christian, Sub. Being a Christian means that you believe who Christ is (meaning, who the Bible describes Him to be) and believe He is the promised Savior of the Old Testament (brought about how God said He would be, etc) and trust Him alone. If you never did that, then any church you went to, any good deeds you did… well, you never were a Christian. You can’t take His name upon you if you don’t even know who He is. (Well, I guess you can, but you’re not fooling Him)
btw, Aaron. How can anyone celebrate Christ’s mass unless they understand that He is God, and He did it for us (cuz only He could) and He resurrected Himself out of that mess and is living in Glory? I guess by giving presents and stuff. 😉
LIV4JC
I do not need to throw the Bible away because, unlike your freestyle version, mine has been correctly translated. But hey, at least yours has nice pictures and games.
Your references to Strong are misleading and obviously manipulated, by you, to suit your argument. Your sub note “b” is used as if it were the true definition, but Strong does not use sub text a or b, you have incorporated Harris’s commentary as if it were the actual definition.
Academically you are fraudulent. As with many misguided Ev you have exposed the depths you will sink to….is your heart so wrenched with illness towards Mormons that no holds are barred?.
And Matthew 1:20 does not confirm her virginity, just that her pregnancy is from God. Overall your assumptions and speculations about Matthew are goose-stepping along, but you lack what we Mormons seem to always be accused of lacking….real evidence.
Virgin?…God’s Son being in the wonmb of a woman is amazing….but the Ev can never resist a good embellishment for whatever reason. liv4jc, usually your posts are on higher ground.
i suggest you truly ponder Luke 19:12, and form your opinion of the Talmud writers’ record of Tiberius Julius Abdes Panthera.
Or better, why is Jesus referred to as Mary’s son, and not the traditional Joseph’s son? Mark 6:3
The Ev has no interest in the “fullness” of the Gospel, they have succumb to only a minor aspect of the Glory that God shares….it is a shortsightedness, and a lack of delving into the history, context, majesty, and bewilderment of Christianity. There is a wholesale inability to see the intended purpose of the NT as it is expressly described in John 20:30-31.
This inability to “continue” is why the bridge from Ev up to LDS will be Mormon built.
Sub,
Dude where are you coming from?
“Perhaps this is just another Ev embellishment on the chinese telephone?”
Like American Protestants invented the idea that Jesus was born of a virgin?! Your appeals to history are so skewed it is ridiculous. The doctrine of the virgin birth has a very strong and very earlier tradition. Early Christians debated Jews over the Greek readings of Matthew and Isaiah over the Hebrew reading which is ambiguous. Justin Martyr gets into this in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew.
However, in the Septuagint, the NT (not just the gospels), and in non-Christian Greek texts the word παρθενος is used and it most definitely means “virgin”. (Most) Early Christians were native Greek speakers and if they wanted to convey the idea of a woman who never had sex then they would use παρθενος which is the same word Matthew uses in verse 1:23.
This debate played out numerous times in the ancient world between Jews and (very early) Christians (like while the Bible was still being written). However, you side with the non-Christian Jews!
II Cor 11:2 For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin (παρθενον – same word used in Lk 1:27)
Round young VIRGIN!
Merry Christmas and a Happy Pwnage
Sub,
How about Luke 1:34 which gpark posted above? Mary is mystified about how she can have a child since she is a virgin. The Scriptures give NO indication that Mary is wrong on this – in other words, we must go with the plain meaning of Scripture – that indeed Mary was a virgin.
You are kicking against Scripture and the testimony of the Church since the first century. You are siding with a group of folks who came up with an alternate version of the birth of Christ over 1800 years after the event took place. I have to go with the original as recorded.
David Whitsell
Dude, you read but you don’t comprehend….where do i take any “side” on this issue,…and, wow, who would guess that Matthew and Mark would coincide.
my initial post (first one at top of this thread, if you bother to look) is the most definite assertion of my opinion on this topic.
Dude
Sub wrote to me
(I’m really going to have to moderate my language in responding to this.)
Dude,
You really don’t get it.
You’re either being obstinately dim, or you are deliberately misleading everyone who reads your posts.
Your (so called) prophets have already revealed, in glorious mechanical detail, exactly how Mary became pregnant with Jesus. In the light of their explicit and rigorous explanations, how can you possibly assert that “…there is no manner to determine how Mary became pregnant…”?
Don’t you even listen to your own prophets?
When will you start defending them, instead of shedding their plain and precious teachings when you come up against the merest whiff of opposition?
Make up your mind Sub. You’re either for these guys or you’re against them.
Also, from a personal perspective, the kindest thing I can say about your “prophets” is that they are incompetent; particularly in the area at which they should excel, namely, the revelation of God.
In future, please refrain from asserting that I subscribe to their “revelations” unless I say so.