First Things

[Servant]

Ya, I'm going to Call for References on that one. I've read more Post-Apostolic writing, and Early Church Fathers that back up what was restored through Joseph Smith than disagree with him... and that which disagrees comes later on.

So, please, without inserting your own interpretation, show where the restoration is wrong. Please.

uhm.....really could you give me a few of that?

the early Church fathers does not aliegn with what JS taught...hopefully you can show me to clear up my misunderstanding...

if JS is going by the ECF then JS would of taught the real presnece of the Eucharist...would of taught about purgatory, would of taught about the trinity...would of taught the 7 sacraments that was given by Christ...and so many more...

I have seen many times people would quote an early church father and then I would look it up...and he was misquote...or taken out of context without reading all the other stuff...

[Flyonthewall]

uhm.....really could you give me a few of that?

the early Church fathers does not aliegn with what JS taught...hopefully you can show me to clear up my misunderstanding...

if JS is going by the ECF then JS would of taught the real presnece of the Eucharist...would of taught about purgatory, would of taught about the trinity...would of taught the 7 sacraments that was given by Christ...and so many more...

I have seen many times people would quote an early church father and then I would look it up...and he was misquote...or taken out of context without reading all the other stuff...

Joseph Smith DID teach all those things you mentioned, the concept is taught, the methodology may differ.

Joseph Smith taught of the Sacrament, the bread and water, which are emblems of the body and blood of Christ.

Joseph Smith taught of Paradise/Spirit Prison(purgatory), a place of purification or temporary punishment, but also included missionary work there too.

Joseph Smith taught the Godhead, which is the concept of the Trinity, but with corrections.

Joseph Smith taught concepts which make up the 7 sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist(Sacrament), Penance(Repentance), Anointing of the Sick(Priesthood blessing of the Sick), Holy Orders(The Priesthood), and Matrimony(Temple Marriage).

Now I will be the first one to admit that I do not fully comprehend the Catholic side of things, and I'm sure the way Catholics practice these concepts are different from LDS practices, but the concepts are there and intact.

[Calm]

I agreed that there is alot of similarities between baptism for the dead and praying for the dead...

Perhaps it would be best to avoid further confusion by starting from scratch and asking you to specify what you see are the similarities between "baptism for the dead" and "praying for the dead".

[Servant]

Joseph Smith DID teach all those things you mentioned, the concept is taught, the methodology may differ.

this is the difference between JS and the Early church

Joseph Smith taught of the Sacrament, the bread and water, which are emblems of the body and blood of Christ.

he may have...but the difference is...the LDS believes it is just a symbolic thing...the Early Church Fathers taught it to be the real presence...again two different things...

Joseph Smith taught of Paradise/Spirit Prison(purgatory), a place of purification or temporary punishment, but also included missionary work there too.

even though the spirit world and purgatory does have some silimarities kind of...they are still different...

Joseph Smith taught the Godhead, which is the concept of the Trinity, but with corrections.

the Early Church Fathers taught the trinity and what it was...God is Spirit, God sent his spirit and Jesus being born fully human and fully divine..

Joseph Smith taught concepts which make up the 7 sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist(Sacrament), Penance(Repentance), Anointing of the Sick(Priesthood blessing of the Sick), Holy Orders(The Priesthood), and Matrimony(Temple Marriage).

ok well you have seven good..but you dont use the word sacraments do you? are they sacraments or are they ordinance? isnt there a slight differing?

Now I will be the first one to admit that I do not fully comprehend the Catholic side of things, and I'm sure the way Catholics practice these concepts are different from LDS practices, but the concepts are there and intact.

the concepts? ....how is it that the LDS believes the communion is just a symbolic....when the Early Church fathers believed it to be the real presence how is the concepts the same? the only thing that is the same is the name..."communion" that is it..

how is it that the LDS believes that the Father had flesh and bones and walked the earth...when the Early Church Fathers believed that God the father was a spirit how are the two the same? the only thing that is the same is "The Father"

maybe im not understanding your definition of "concept"???

[Flyonthewall]

this is the difference between JS and the Early church

he may have...but the difference is...the LDS believes it is just a symbolic thing...the Early Church Fathers taught it to be the real presence...again two different things...

even though the spirit world and purgatory does have some silimarities kind of...they are still different...

the Early Church Fathers taught the trinity and what it was...God is Spirit, God sent his spirit and Jesus being born fully human and fully divine..

ok well you have seven good..but you dont use the word sacraments do you? are they sacraments or are they ordinance? isnt there a slight differing?

the concepts? ....how is it that the LDS believes the communion is just a symbolic....when the Early Church fathers believed it to be the real presence how is the concepts the same? the only thing that is the same is the name..."communion" that is it..

how is it that the LDS believes that the Father had flesh and bones and walked the earth...when the Early Church Fathers believed that God the father was a spirit how are the two the same? the only thing that is the same is "The Father"

maybe im not understanding your definition of "concept"???

A concept is the overall idea. There is a concept of us partaking of the body and blood of Christ. You believe it to be literal(if I understand you correctly), we believe it to be symbolic. Both are designed to be in rememberance of Christ. The concept is the same, the underlying belief differs.

There is a concept of a place where people go after death to await judgement.

There is a concept of 3 Divine persons that make up one God

There is a concept of each of the 7 Sacraments, we call them ordinances...tomayto, tomahto. The concepts are there, but the underlying belief/practices differ. If they didn't differ, we'd be in the same church.

[Servant]

A concept is the overall idea. There is a concept of us partaking of the body and blood of Christ. You believe it to be literal(if I understand you correctly), we believe it to be symbolic. Both are designed to be in rememberance of Christ. The concept is the same, the underlying belief differs.

uhm...not exactly right there....yes we believe in the real presence in the form of bread and wine....it isnt just desinged for "rememberence"...it is more than that...it is food for our soul...when Jesus said Im the bread and whoever eats my body has life. and the bible and the Early Church Fathers believed to take the bread as just symbolic it is actually an assult...so...still different...the only thing is the same is the naming...and it is done weekly (well daily in the Catholic church)

There is a concept of a place where people go after death to await judgement.

that concept i can see...but nowhere does the ECF teach that in the "spirit world" the gospel or any other thing is taught...what is taught...a place to wait is a purification...

but i get what you are saying in this one...

There is a concept of 3 Divine persons that make up one God

so you believe that the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are the same God? yeah this is what the ECF taught...but I didnt know the LDS believed this..

There is a concept of each of the 7 Sacraments, we call them ordinances...tomayto, tomahto. The concepts are there, but the underlying belief/practices differ. If they didn't differ, we'd be in the same church.

true...

[johnny]

skenderbeg

Ya, I'm going to Call for References on that one. I've read more Post-Apostolic writing, and Early Church Fathers that back up what was restored through Joseph Smith than disagree with him... and that which disagrees comes later on.

Below are a few â?¦ it might best to open another thread if you want to continue the discussion since most likely it will take this thread off-topic. Also, if you like I can provide many more.

Ignatius of Antioch "The prophets, who were men of God, lived according to Jesus Christ. For that reason they were persecuted, inspired as they were by his grace to convince the disobedient that there is one God, who manifested himself through his Son, Jesus Christ, who is his Word proceeding from silence, and who was in all respects pleasing to him that sent him" (Letter to the Magnesians 8:1 [A.D. 110]).

Ignatius of Antioch "There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, even Jesus Christ our Lord." (Ephesians,7(A.D.110),in ANF,I:52)

Ignatius "[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus "Far removed is the Father of all from those things which operate among men, the affections and passions. He is simple, not composed of parts, without structure, altogether like and equal to himself alone. He is all mind, all spirit, all thought, all intelligent, all reason . . . all light, all fountain of every good, and this is the manner in which the religious and the pious are accustomed to speak of God" (Against Heresies 2:13:3 [A.D. 189])

Irenaeus "For, to attribute the substance of created things to the power and will of Him who is God of all, is worthy both of credit and acceptance. It is also agreeable [to reason], and there may be well said regarding such a belief, that 'the things which are impossible with men are possible with God.' While men, indeed, cannot make anything out of nothing, but only out of matter already existing, yet God is in this point proeminently superior to men, that He Himself called into being the substance of His creation, when previously it had no existence." Against Heresies,2,10:4(A.D. 180),in ANF,I:370

Irenaeus "For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, 'Let Us make man after Our image and likeness;' He taking from Himself the substance of the creatures [formed], and the pattern of things made, and the type of all the adornments in the world." Against Heresies,4,20:1(A.D. 180),in ANF,1:487-488

Irenaeus "For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]). "Nor is he moved by anyone; rather, freely and by his Word he made all things. For he alone is God, he alone is Lord, he alone is Creator, he alone is Father, he alone contains all and commands all to exist" (ibid., 2:1:1). "Of his own accord and by his own power he made all things and arranged and perfected them; and his will is the substance of all things. He alone, then, is found to be God; he alone is omnipotent, who made all things; he alone is Father, who founded and formed all things, visible and invisible, sensible and insensate, heavenly and earthly, by the Word of his power. And he has fitted and arranged all things by his wisdom; and while he comprehends all, he can be comprehended by none. He is himself the designer, himself the builder, himself the inventor, himself the maker, himself the Lord of all" (ibid., 2:30:9).

[zerinus]

I'm not sure that people here are aware of the interviews with Elder Bruce D. Porter and Professor Gerald McDermott that appear on the First Things website. They had an exchange in the Oxtober 2008 issue of the magazine on the question "Is Mormonism Christian?"

Iâ??ve listened to Elder Porterâ??s half-hour interview thus far. He represents us well, I think.

http://www.firstthings.com/blog/2008/09/29...nism-christian/

I just started a new thread called "What is a Christian?" It relates to this topic. Take a look, and tell me what you think.

zerinus

[Flyonthewall]

uhm...not exactly right there....yes we believe in the real presence in the form of bread and wine....it isnt just desinged for "rememberence"...it is more than that...it is food for our soul...when Jesus said Im the bread and whoever eats my body has life. and the bible and the Early Church Fathers believed to take the bread as just symbolic it is actually an assult...so...still different...the only thing is the same is the naming...and it is done weekly (well daily in the Catholic church)

What do you mean "real presence"? I'm not sure I quite understand that.

Jesus made a lot of statements that were to get people thinking...sometimes they went: Huh? Other times they sought to take away His life. His comment on being re-born is one that made people say: huh? and another one is eating His body.

Yes, Christ is the bread of life, but it is not His body, but His Gospel. Yes He is the well of living water, but it is not His blood, it is His gospel.

The bread and water/wine used in the sacrament/eucharist is not what nourishes the soul, it is the gospel of Jesus Christ

He gave His flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin, the atonement. For us to partake of His flesh and blood(the atonement), we must follow Him by adhering to His gospel.

This was the "Huh"? statement:

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

And this is where He explained what He meant:

Matthew 26

26

[Servant]

What do you mean "real presence"? I'm not sure I quite understand that.

Jesus made a lot of statements that were to get people thinking...sometimes they went: Huh? Other times they sought to take away His life. His comment on being re-born is one that made people say: huh? and another one is eating His body.

Yes, Christ is the bread of life, but it is not His body, but His Gospel. Yes He is the well of living water, but it is not His blood, it is His gospel.

The bread and water/wine used in the sacrament/eucharist is not what nourishes the soul, it is the gospel of Jesus Christ

He gave His flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin, the atonement. For us to partake of His flesh and blood(the atonement), we must follow Him by adhering to His gospel.

This was the "Huh"? statement:

He meant the REAL presence he wasnt talking symbolically if he was then Jesus would of clarified it like he did when he WAS speaking symbolically about other things....Jesus was concerned for us and loved us...he would not allow some of his followers who have been following him leave...he would of said "wait you are taking it literally" but he didnt he let them leave...they left because they thought Jesus meant literally and he let them leave because he meant it literally (you will find this in the book of John)...

let me break it down to what Jesus said and what He meant and I will also show you by taking it just as a symbol it is really an assault

lets start with the Eucharist promised...

you will find the Eucharist promise here: Jn 6;35-71

Eucharist=participation in Christ's body and blood 1 Cor 10;16

receiving unworthily=guilty of his body and blood 1 Cor 11;23-29

Paschal lamb had to be eaten Ex 12;8,46

Jesus called "Lamb of God" Jn 1;29

Jesus called "paschal lamb who has been sacrificed" 1 Cor. 5;7

Here is what you will see when Jesus was speaking symbolically about food Jn 4;31-34, Mt 16;5-12

in 1 Cor 2;14-3;4 EXPLAINS what "the flesh" means in Jn 6;63

to take the Eucharist as a symbol...is an assualt Ps. 14;4, Is. 9;18-20, Is 49;26, Mic 3;3, 2 Sm 23;15-17, Rv 17;6, 16

in Jn chapter 6 you will see his followers couldnt take the teaching of it they took it literally so they left....if jesus was only talking symbolically he would of said "wait you are taking it to seriously come back let me explain what i meant" (he has explained what he means when he IS talking symbolically this is no different) now ask yourself this...when it is their salvation is at stake and if Jesus was only taking it as a symbol he would of explained he...he would of stopped them because he wouldnt want them to lose their salvation...he would of cleared it up he didnt because he was talking literally...

now how is this?

the Eucharist is truely his flesh and blo0d in the form of bread and wine...

how can he spread his body to everyone every day or every week (depending on how many times a person goes to mass)? you may ask....the same way he fed thousands and thousands with plenty left over when starting with only a couple peices of bread and a couple of fish...the same way...

this is my thinking...

if anybody can prove to me that the Eucharist is just a symbol..then I can say that all doctrine of the church is false....it must be false...if the doctrine of the Eucharist is wrong...

I may end up becoming an athiest though....lol

seriously i have no worries...because I know he wasnt joking....if he was he would of stopped his followers (that followed him the whole time) because he would of cared about their salvation...they took him literally because he meant it literally...

[LDSMusic483]

He meant the REAL presence he wasnt talking symbolically if he was then Jesus would of clarified it like he did when he WAS speaking symbolically about other things....Jesus was concerned for us and loved us...he would not allow some of his followers who have been following him leave...he would of said "wait you are taking it literally" but he didnt he let them leave...they left because they thought Jesus meant literally and he let them leave because he meant it literally (you will find this in the book of John)...

let me break it down to what Jesus said and what He meant and I will also show you by taking it just as a symbol it is really an assault

lets start with the Eucharist promised...

you will find the Eucharist promise here: Jn 6;35-71

Eucharist=participation in Christ's body and blood 1 Cor 10;16

receiving unworthily=guilty of his body and blood 1 Cor 11;23-29

Paschal lam had to be eaten Ex 12;8,46

Jesus called "Lamb of God" Jn 1;29

Jesus called "paschal lam who has been sacrificed" 1 Cor. 5;7

Here is what you will see when Jesus was speaking symbolically about food Jn 4;31-34, Mt 16;5-12

in 1 Cor 2;14-3;4 EXPLAINS what "the flesh" means in Jn 6;63

to take the Eucharist as a symbol...is an assualt Ps. 14;4, Is. 9;18-20, Is 49;26, Mic 3;3, 2 Sm 23;15-17, Rv 17;6, 16

in Jn chapter 6 you will see his followers couldnt take the teaching of it they took it literally so they left....if jesus was only talking symbolically he would of said "wait you are taking it to seriously come back let me explain what i meant" (he has explained what he means when he IS talking symbolically this is no different) now ask yourself this...when it is their salvation is at stake and if Jesus was only taking it as a symbol he would of explained he...he would of stopped them because he wouldnt want them to lose their salvation...he would of cleared it up he didnt because he was talking literally...

now how is this?

the Eucharist is truely his flesh and blo0d in the form of bread and wine...

how can he spread his body to everyone every day or every week (depending on how many times a person goes to mass)? you may ask....the same way he fed thousands and thousands with plenty left over when starting with only a couple peices of bread and a couple of fish...the same way...

this is my thinking...

if anybody can prove to me that the Eucharist is just a symbol..then I can say that all doctrine of the church is false....it must be false...if the doctrine of the Eucharist is wrong...

I may end up becoming an athiest though....lol

seriously i have no worries...because I know he wasnt joking....if he was he would of stopped his followers (that followed him the whole time) because he would of cared about their salvation...they took him literally because he meant it literally...

So just to sum this up succinctly before I ask some questions...you think the bread is literally his flesh, and the wine, literally his blood? Straight forward the same way we would think of flesh and blood?

[Servant]

So just to sum this up succinctly before I ask some questions...you think the bread is literally his flesh, and the wine, literally his blood? Straight forward the same way we would think of flesh and blood?

can you prove otherwise? could you prove that it is just symbolic?

if you go read what I said it is in the REAL PRESENCE IN the form of bread and wine you will know...

do you know the concept of the Trinity, Im assuming you do....God is spirit...he is Divine....God sent his spirit to Mary and she bore Jesus where He (God) got his human body...

God...spirit...divine....

his flesh and blood...is more like his divinity...does that make sense?

so before you even ask any questions first answer mine that I gave....can you prove that Jesus was talking symbolic?

if he was...then why did he allow his followers that believed in him just go?

when Jesus spoke symbolic he would explain what he meant to HIS followers....what makes this one so different?

His followers left because they took him literally....he didnt stop them because he meant it literally...Jesus even thought Peter would go by saying "are you going to go to?"...Peter said "where would we go? you are the truth of the living God"

please answer my question before asking any more...

[LDSMusic483]

can you prove otherwise? could you prove that it is just symbolic?

if you go read what I said it is in the REAL PRESENCE IN the form of bread and wine you will know...

do you know the concept of the Trinity, Im assuming you do....God is spirit...he is Divine....God sent his spirit to Mary and she bore Jesus where He (God) got his human body...

God...spirit...divine....

his flesh and blood...is more like his divinity...does that make sense?

so before you even ask any questions first answer mine that I gave....can you prove that Jesus was talking symbolic?

if he was...then why did he allow his followers that believed in him just go?

when Jesus spoke symbolic he would explain what he meant to HIS followers....what makes this one so different?

His followers left because they took him literally....he didnt stop them because he meant it literally...Jesus even thought Peter would go by saying "are you going to go to?"...Peter said "where would we go? you are the truth of the living God"

please answer my question before asking any more...

Those who left were following Him because of the miracles. How many people did He feed again? Were they truly His followers, or satiating the desires for miracles? The issue I have with it not being symbolic, is what were the disciples eating when He instituted the sacrifice before He had been sacrificed? His body and blood which hadn't been shed? Perhaps those who left were offended because they took it literal, and they weren't prepared to see it symbolically. Such is the reason He spoke in parables, so that greater knowledge was not offered to those who were not ready for it.

[Servant]

Those who left were following Him because of the miracles.

dont add to scripture please. and are you reading what you write? "those who left were following Him becausee of the miracles"....no they left because they took the teaching of the Eucharist literally...read the book of John....he let them leave because he meant it literally...period....He wants all to be saved he wouldnt risk their salvation by just letting them go...he would of said "wait you are taking it literally this is what i meant and explained it" but he didnt...

How many people did He feed again? Were they truly His followers, or satiating the desires for miracles?

again dont add to scripture....

The issue I have with it not being symbolic, is what were the disciples eating when He instituted the sacrifice before He had been sacrificed?

well that is your issue then....that was the issue of Jesus' followers who left too....

His body and blood which hadn't been shed? Perhaps those who left were offended because they took it literal, and they weren't prepared to see it symbolically. Such is the reason He spoke in parables, so that greater knowledge was not offered to those who were not ready for it.

sigh...I guess you believe God is a limited God?

anyways you still havent proven that it is just a symbol...so let me continue with the conversation with flyonthewall maybe he can???

[selek]

the Eucharist is truely his flesh and blo0d in the form of bread and wine...

Guess all those pagan Romans had it right when they accused the early Christians of ritual cannabilism, then.

Right, Servant?

[LDSMusic483]

dont add to scripture please. and are you reading what you write? "those who left were following Him becausee of the miracles"....no they left because they took the teaching of the Eucharist literally...read the book of John....he let them leave because he meant it literally...period....He wants all to be saved he wouldnt risk their salvation by just letting them go...he would of said "wait you are taking it literally this is what i meant and explained it" but he didnt...

again dont add to scripture....

well that is your issue then....that was the issue of Jesus' followers who left too....

sigh...I guess you believe God is a limited God?

anyways you still havent proven that it is just a symbol...so let me continue with the conversation with flyonthewall maybe he can???

Christ said that if we eat His flesh and drink His blood we will be in Him and He in us. He has a resurrected physical body. He's not going to be inside me...

Not everything that Christ said was literal.

[Flyonthewall]

He meant the REAL presence he wasnt symbolically if he was then Jesus would of clarified it like he did when he WAS speaking symbolically

Are you saying that the bread and wine/water acutally turn into the flesh and blood of Christ? That is a bit out there for me.

....Jesus was concerned for us and loved us...he would not allow some of his followers who have been following him leave...he would of said "wait you are taking it literally" but he didnt he let them leave...they left because they thought literally and he let them leave because he meant it literally (you will find this in the book of John)...

I disagree. Jesus spoke many things that were symbolic which He did not explain right away. He never, to my knowledge, said what you describe, so I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion without precedent.

let me break it down to what Jesus said and what He meant and I will also show you by taking it just as a symbol it is really an assault

lets start with the Eucharist promised...

you will find the Eucharist promise here: Jn 6;35-71

Eucharist=participation in Christ's body and blood 1 Cor 10;16

receiving unworthily=guilty of his body and blood 1 Cor 11;23-29

Paschal lam had to be eaten Ex 12;8,46

Jesus called "Lamb of God" Jn 1;29

Jesus called "paschal lam who has been sacrificed" 1 Cor. 5;7

Great symbology.

Here is what you will see when Jesus was speaking symbolically about food Jn 4;31-34, Mt 16;5-12

Yet He left the symbology of living waters unexplained to the woman at the well.

in 1 Cor 2;14-3;4 EXPLAINS what "the flesh" means in Jn 6;63

to take the Eucharist as a symbol...is an assualt Ps. 14;4, Is. 9;18-20, Is 49;26, Mic 3;3, 2 Sm 23;15-17, Rv 17;6, 16

I do not get the same interpretation you are claiming.

in Jn chapter 6 you will see his followers couldnt take the teaching of it they took it literally so they left....if jesus was only talking symbolically he would of said "wait you are taking it to seriously come back let me explain what i meant" (he has explained what he means when he IS talking symbolically this is no different) now ask yourself this...when it is their salvation is at stake and if Jesus was only taking it as a symbol he would of explained he...he would of stopped them because he wouldnt want them to lose their salvation...he would of cleared it up he didnt because he was talking literally...

now how is this?

There is no precedence for this behavior, Jesus explained what He did in His own time, sometimes immediately, sometimes later, sometimes not at all. All things He said concerned the salvation of man.

the Eucharist is truely his flesh and blod in the form of bread and wine...

I agree, but symbolically

how can he spread his body to everyone every day or every week (depending on how many times a person goes to mass)? you may ask....the same way he fed thousands and thousands with plently left over when starting with only a couple peices of bread and a couple of fish...the same way...

this is my thinking...

Not an issue for me, because I believe it to be symbolically.

if anybody can prove to me that the Eucharist is just a symbol..then I can say that all doctrine of the church is false....

I'm really not out to prove anything about the Eucharist, the last supper, however, was a symbol as Paul explained...it was to be done in rememberance.

I may end up becoming an athiest at that though....lol

seriously i have no worries...because I know he wasnt joking....if he was he would of stopped his followers (that followed him the whole time) because he would of cared about their salvation...they took him literally because he meant it literally...

Did He not care about Judas' salvation?

I don't believe Jesus was joking, He was speaking metephorically...like He spoke when He declared He was living bread, or the living waters. or when He spoke in parables.

[Servant]

Guess all those pagan Romans had it right when they accused the early Christians of ritual cannabilism, then.

Right, Servant?

what part do you not understand about God being a Spirit? what part do you not understand that it is HIS Divinity? what part do you not understand in the form of bread and wine?

is it really THAT hard to understand?

instead of proving that it is just symbolic you wanted to have a jab what the antis do...

yeah...i heard so many of you say so much about non lds throwing anti tatics like for example mulitiple wives...or whatever the complaint was...

but the LDS is no better....what you just did displays the cruddest anti catholic...a real cheap shot...that is what i will call ya...

but here I will be nice enough to answer you....

your comment just like the Romans is a misunderstanding that led the unbelieving jews and disiples in John 6 to reject Jesus when he said they must eat his body and drink his blood. they thought jesus was commanding them to consume him in a bloody, cannibalistic way...however, the believing disciples were rewarded for their faith at the Last Supper...Jesus revealed that they would receive his true body and blood sacramentally (present in a hidden way).

in the sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ's body and blood are truly present, but not with their normal physical properties. Jesus' body inst spread out in space; its normal condition is hidden under the appearance of bread and wine. while the apostles truly consumed Christ's real body and blood, it wasnt cannibalism, because Christ wasnt in his natural condition. they didnt bite off pieces of Christ's arm for example, or swallow quantities of his blood; instead they recieved Christ whole and entire- body, blood, soul and divinity- under the appearance of bread and wine. receiving Christ's real, but sacramental presence in the Eucharist has nothing to do with cannibalism or drinking blood...

[Servant]

Are you saying that the bread and wine/water acutally turn into the flesh and blood of Christ? That is a bit out there for me.

I disagree. Jesus spoke many things that were symbolic which He did not explain right away. He never, to my knowledge, said what you describe, so I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion without precedent.

Great symbology.

Yet He left the symbology of living waters unexplained to the woman at the well.

in 1 Cor 2;14-3;4 EXPLAINS what "the flesh" means in Jn 6;63

I do not get the same interpretation you are claiming.

There is no precedence for this behavior, Jesus explained what He did in His own time, sometimes immediately, sometimes later, sometimes not at all. All things He said concerned the salvation of man.

I agree, but symbolically

Not an issue for me, because I believe it to be symbolically.

I'm really not out to prove anything about the Eucharist, the last supper, however, was a symbol as Paul explained...it was to be done in rememberance.

Did He not care about Judas' salvation?

I don't believe Jesus was joking, He was speaking metephorically...like He spoke when He declared He was living bread, or the living waters. or when He spoke in parables.

go look at the symbolic stuff that Jesus talked about and compare the two....nowhere when he was talking and explaining it to be symbocally...

please prove to me it wasnt because you have not...you havent.....by calling something that is NOT in symbolic language you call it symbolic...

I will break it down even farther....for 2000 years it has NOT been taken as symbolic...the Early Church didnt either...nor did the Apostles..dont worry you are not alone...the followers of christ who took him literally because Jesus was talking literally...left christ too....

when Jesus was speaking about we must eat his body and drink his blood he wasnt speaking figuratively, because that expression already had a specific figurative meaning. In the Aramaic language of our Lord, to figuratively "eat the flesh" or "drink the blood" of someone meant to persecute, assult, and destroy him. this Hebrew expression is found in Psalm 27;2, Isaiah 9;18-20, Isiah 49;26, Micah 3;3, 2 Samuel 23;15-17, and Revelation 17;6, 16. If Jesus was speaking only figurartively about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, as non catholics claim, then what he really means is "whoever persecutes, assaults, and destroys me will have eternal life." this makes nonsense of the passage

[Flyonthewall]

go look at the symbolic stuff that Jesus talked about and compare the two....nowhere when he was talking and explaining it to be symbocally...

please prove to me it wasnt because you have not...you havent.....by calling something that is NOT in symbolic language you call it symbolic...

I will break it down even farther....for 2000 years it has NOT been taken as symbolic...the Early Church didnt either...nor did the Apostles..dont worry you are not alone...the followers of christ who took him literally because Jesus was talking literally...left christ too....

when Jesus was speaking about we must eat his body and drink his blood he wasnt speaking figuratively, because that expression already had a specific figurative meaning. In the Aramaic language of our Lord, to figuratively "eat the flesh" or "drink the blood" of someone meant to persecute, assult, and destroy him. this Hebrew expression is found in Psalm 27;2, Isaiah 9;18-20, Isiah 49;26, Micah 3;3, 2 Samuel 23;15-17, and Revelation 17;6, 16. If Jesus was speaking only figurartively about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, as non catholics claim, then what he really means is "whoever persecutes, assaults, and destroys me will have eternal life." this makes nonsense of the passage

I guess then we will agree to disagree. I gave you some of the scriptures that explain why I believe partaking of the sacrament is done in rememberance, as a symbol, and you disagree. That is fine. I don't subscribe to your(Catholic) reasoning, and you don't subscribe to mine(LDS).

[selek]

what part do you not understand about God being a Spirit?

Quite a bit actually- but it's not my faith that has yet to overcome a Platonist prejudice against the flesh.

Now...tell me.....how can something be both flesh and spirit?

what part do you not understand that it is HIS Divinity?

There's actually quite a bit I don't understand about his divinity- but you're in no position to teach me as we are both in the same boat.

what part do you not understand in the form of bread and wine?

Cannibalism is when humans consume human flesh a/o blood.

If the bread and wine literally become Christ's flesh and blood instead of symbolically so- which is the central tenet you've been proclaiming- then Catholics are ipso facto guilty of consuming human flesh and blood are they not?

is it really THAT hard to understand?

Yes- it is.

More to the point, you demanded that we provide evidence that the sacraments were not Christ's literal flesh and blood.

That's called an argument from silence and is a logical fallacy. Lack of proof is not proof of lack.

Now, if you'd asked us to prove they were not Christ's flesh and blood, we'd have to point out that you're demanding we prove a negative- another logical fallacy.

instead of proving that it is just symbolic you wanted to have a jab what the antis do...

Let me ask you a question- and I ask that you answer honestly: Even if I were to provide Protestant theological statements, Mormon Scriptures, and latter-day revelation proving it, would you even accept that evidence or would you dismiss it out of hand in favor of what you have been taught and believe?

[Servant]

Quite a bit actually- but it's not my faith that has yet to overcome a Platonist prejudice against the flesh.Now...tell me.....how can something be both flesh and spirit?There's actually quite a bit I don't understand about his divinity- but you're in no position to teach me as we are both in the same boat. Cannibalism is when humans consume human flesh a/o blood. If the bread and wine literally become Christ's flesh and blood instead of symbolically so- which is the central tenet you've been proclaiming- then Catholics are ipso facto guilty of consuming human flesh and blood are they not? Yes- it is.More to the point, you demanded that we provide evidence that the sacraments were not Christ's literal flesh and blood.That's called an argument from silence and is a logical fallacy. Lack of proof is not proof of lack.Now, if you'd asked us to prove they were not Christ's flesh and blood, we'd have to point out that you're demanding we prove a negative- another logical fallacy.Let me ask you a question- and I ask that you answer honestly: Even if I were to provide Protestant theological statements, Mormon Scriptures, and latter-day revelation proving it, would you even accept that evidence or would you dismiss it out of hand in favor of what you have been taught and believe?

i edited that to fully explain but here it is again:your comment just like the Romans is a misunderstanding that led the unbelieving jews and disiples in John 6 to reject Jesus when he said they must eat his body and drink his blood. they thought jesus was commanding them to consume him in a bloody, cannibalistic way...however, the believing disciples were rewarded for their faith at the Last Supper...Jesus revealed that they would receive his true body and blood sacramentally (present in a hidden way).in the sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ's body and blood are truly present, but not with their normal physical properties. Jesus' body inst spread out in space; its normal condition is hidden under the appearance of bread and wine. while the apostles truly consumed Christ's real body and blood, it wasnt cannibalism, because Christ wasnt in his natural condition. they didnt bite off pieces of Christ's arm for example, or swallow quantities of his blood; instead they recieved Christ whole and entire- body, blood, soul and divinity- under the appearance of bread and wine. receiving Christ's real, but sacramental presence in the Eucharist has nothing to do with cannibalism or drinking blood...

I guess then we will agree to disagree. I gave you some of the scriptures that explain why I believe partaking of the sacrament is done in rememberance, as a symbol, and you disagree. That is fine. I don't subscribe to your(Catholic) reasoning, and you don't subscribe to mine(LDS).

you were trying to prove that it is symbol by him saying do this in rememberence...that has nothing to do with being symbolic....because we do that too...we do what he has taught in ever service....but i do appreciate you trying though...

[William the Conqueror]

Daniel Peterson

I find it interesting that you say Bruce Porterâ??s represents Mormon's well when he failed to mention many of the items that Gerald McDermott brought up such as:

• Joseph Smithâ??s teaching of three Gods
  
• Jesus is one of three Gods in the Godhead
  
• Jesus was born of a heavenly mother
  
• the Book of Mormon's teaching of â??after all we can do"
  

I would agree with Bruce Porter that Mormons are Christians as defined in a dictionary.

I would not consider Mormons Christians as defined by the Bible. According to the Bible a Christian is a disciple and a disciples of Christ continues in his words.

The Catholic Church would not consider Mormons Christians either sacramentally or theologically. Theologically because Mormons believe in three Gods and sacramentally because a Mormonâ??s baptism is not consider valid according to the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church would not consider Mormons Christians either sacramentally or theologically.

Most Protestant churches would not consider Mormons to be Christians period, except for the most liberal elements.

I remember growing up in the Southern Presbyterian church in Texas (50 years ago) when a single lady whose family were very active members got engaged to a Mormon. There was fury in that church! I'm sure the pastor discouraged her along with many of the members. However she went ahead and married that man. It shows that she didn't have a lick of sense! I'm sure many LDS would also agree with me on that.

[selek]

i edited that to fully explain but here it is again:your comment just like the Romans is a misunderstanding that led the unbelieving jews and disiples in John 6 to reject Jesus when he said they must eat his body and drink his blood. they thought jesus was commanding them to consume him in a bloody, cannibalistic way...however, the believing disciples were rewarded for their faith at the Last Supper...Jesus revealed that they would receive his true body and blood sacramentally (present in a hidden way).

Okay. Now explain to me where this is outlined in Scripture and why we must interpret it to be a literal transformation rather than a symbolic representation.

Because no matter how you slice it (ooohhh, I'm going to Hell for that pun alone), if you're consuming Christ's blood and flesh, it's still- by definition- cannibalism.

in the sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ's body and blood are truly present, but not with their normal physical properties.

Again, I'd like to see an unequivocal Scriptural reference for this.

Jesus' body inst spread out in space; its normal condition is hidden under the appearance of bread and wine.

But whatever the appearance- it's still human flesh.

If you were to grind human flesh down into hamburger, it's still human flesh, despite the change in appearance.

while the apostles truly consumed Christ's real body and blood, it wasnt cannibalism, because Christ wasnt in his natural condition. they didnt bite off pieces of Christ's arm for example, or swallow quantities of his blood; instead they recieved Christ whole and entire- body, blood, soul and divinity- under the appearance of bread and wine.

How do you know? What's your scriptural reference for this, and why can't we take those references to be symbolic rather than literal?

receiving Christ's real, but sacramental presence in the Eucharist has nothing to do with cannibalism or drinking blood...

I don't think you've proven that, Servant. Now, for the record, I agree with you that it's not cannibalism(but obviously for very different reasons).

you were trying to prove that it is symbol by him saying do this in rememberence...that has nothing to do with being symbolic....because we do that too...we do what he has taught in ever service....but i do appreciate you trying though...

Believe it or not, I have a great deal of reverence for Catholic belief- were I not Mormon, I suspect I would be Catholic by now- but I want to look at this issue logically.

[selek]

Most Protestant churches would not consider Mormons to be Christians period, except for the most liberal elements.

I remember growing up in the Southern Presbyterian church in Texas (50 years ago) when a single lady whose family were very active members got engaged to a Mormon. There was fury in that church! I'm sure the pastor discouraged her along with many of the members. However she went ahead and married that man. It shows that she didn't have a lick of sense! I'm sure many LDS would also agree with me on that.

In the absence of more facts, I'm not sure that we would agree with you.

While we would certainly agree that the union would present- and be presented with- its share of problems, we have no reason to believe that it was automagically wrong, nor that her decision presents a woman "without a lick of sense".