Political Crossfire Forums

[LetsGetReal]

He denies what they teach Todd something there founder says isn't church doctrine :roll:...

[Todd D.]

This reminds me of a story, I think I've shared it before. A Priest in seminary actually failed the seminary test a few times, always falling on the essay portion that asked "Explain 'The Trinity'. Finally, out of frustration, he just left the essay blank, hoping to fail again and get a different question the next time.

He got an A.

[cap'n queasy]

Todd D. wrote: This reminds me of a story, I think I've shared it before. A Priest in seminary actually failed the seminary test a few times, always falling on the essay portion that asked "Explain 'The Trinity'. Finally, out of frustration, he just left the essay blank, hoping to fail again and get a different question the next time.

He got an A.

Do you, personally, think the idea that the Father is a human being that became the Creator through spiritual advancement is a Christian doctrine? Or anywhere near it?

One thing to consider is this, if a human somehow being existed before the Creation of everything in the universe, whatever he created after achieving "godhood" couldn't possibly the universe.

So this type of god is either A. not the Creator of the universe, or B. he is not God.

What exactly is it that is being worshiped here?

[MJB]

Todd D. wrote: The topic at hand was never denied to be the supposed half-siblings of Christ, the debate was whether or not they came from Mary. If Mary had further children, they would de-facto be half-brothers and sisters of Jesus, and I don't think anyone denied that.

First of all - if there were other children in the household, whether they were Mary's and Joseph's, or Joseph's from a previous marriage, they would most likely have been referred to as Jesus' siblings either way, as Jesus was only known among society as the son of Joseph and Mary, for most of his mortal life.

In order to actually be half-siblings of Jesus, however, such children would have needed to be Mary's children, as she would be the only common biological parent.

Todd D. wrote: What you suggested, or rather how John took that, was that Mary conceived in the "normal" way, only Jesus's father was an immortal. If I took that wrong, I apologize, but judging by how this thread has progressed since then, I would say that I wasn't alone in that interpretation.

We accept the simple reality that Jesus Christ is in fact the Son of God, his Father, as well as the son of Mary, his mother. We do not, however, and never have, believed, said, or claimed, that God had sexual intercourse with Mary in order to accomplish that conception.

To the contrary! Mary was just as much a virgin after conception, as before, "she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel." (Alma 7:10). That is the miracle of it! John (and the others here who like to criticize us) know this is our position, as it has been discussed ad nauseum.

Todd D. wrote: In an attempt to bring it back to the topic at hand, I am curious: What is the LDS position on whether Mary had children after Jesus?

There is nothing in LDS theology to preclude Mary having other children with Joseph after the birth of Jesus. Physical intimacy between a lawfully wedded husband and wife is perfectly appropriate and acceptable, and children are considered, "an heritage of the Lord." (Psalms 127:3)

So yes - I would say that most LDS would naturally believe that Joseph and Mary probably did have other children, especially in light of Biblical verses, such as Matthew 1:25, Mark 6:3, etc., and that such children would, indeed, be half-siblings to Jesus.

If they were children of Joseph by a previous marriage - that, of course, would make a difference as to their genetic relationship to Jesus, though, as I indicated above, it would not necessarily make any difference in those of his day referring to them as his brothers or sisters.

[esight]

John wrote: mojo wrote: The Catholic perspective says that Jesus did not have any brothers or sisters. The term brother was commonly used in ancient times for cousin, neighbor, and friend.

Catholics have a problem.

They have Doctrine about Mary the mother of Christ that contradicts what is in the Bible. For some strange reason the Catholics feel that Mary needs to have remained a virgin during her whole life. They fail to see that this would have been wrong in itself because she was married to Joseph. Sex isn’t evil…in fact it would be evil to forbid a man from having relations with his wife.

There seems to be a need to classify Mary as a type of Co-Redemptrix within Catholicism. Where Jesus and Mary are a type of team that made it possible for man to be redeemed. This evolved into Mary being seen as a type of Goddess so to speak….so it’s understandable why the belief that she was a sinless perpetual virgin came into being.

You're absolutely right, Catholics have a problem. That's why I, a born-and-raised Catholic am now a non-denominational Christian.