Could The Mormon Church Be The "true Church" Of Christ

[alanjeddy]

alanjeddy:
Megus I am asking you to defend your position in the Bread of Life Discourse. John 6 (see above post) Don’t start with Genesis Get to the point! I think I made a strong defense why Catholics believe in Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist now it is your turn.

 

[MEgus]

Here you must consider a few things. The Gospels were written in an original language (hence the reference to Greek). They were designed to convey their meaning through this language (answered by the movement of the Spirit of course, but that’s beside the point of this discussion). So Greek is the original language of the text, which should mean a lot to you since Smith taught that so much depended on “translating correctly.”

Would you agree that the Gospel writers, particularly when recounting Jesus’ longer speeches and parables, likely did not write word for word accounts (translating into Greek), but probably paraphrased (lead by the Spirit to be preserved from error in this paraphrasing)?

If so, we can still rely soundly on the original Greek, at least

Arandur, I do agree with you. Language has to convey meaning. Greek did a much better job of that than Aramaic.

What you want us to believe is that God would build his church upon a man. I just don’t buy that. God builds his church upon God, (the big Rock) not upon the arm of flesh.(Man)

The scriptures tell us that in many places.

I think the meaning the Holy Ghost has conveyed to me as what the Lord was saying is the correct meaning. I know you disagree, and that is your right and privilege. I respect you for that. But it is also my right to council with God and learn for myself what he means, and that is what I do every day. And if you, and others, want to take that privilege away from me, who’s plan are you following?

MEgus

 

[MEgus]

Then for the 3rd time He repeated; " He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood will not die… Jesus said what He meant and He meant what He said…

So what you are saying is that none of you eat of it since everyone dies. Right?

I mean, that IS what Jesus said, Right?

 

[Ross09]

So what you are saying is that none of you eat of it since everyone dies. Right?

I mean, that IS what Jesus said, Right?

Jesus was talking about eternal life. Just like he told the woman at the well…lessons on eternal life.

 

[MEgus]

Jesus was talking about eternal life. Just like he told the woman at the well…lessons on eternal life.

So, he was talking figuratively, not actually, right?

 

[MEgus]

Megus I am asking you to defend your position in the Bread of Life Discourse. John 6 (see above post) Don’t start with Genesis Get to the point! I think I made a strong defense why Catholics believe in Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist now it is your turn.

Sure alan, you don’t want to start in Genesis because it destroys your argument.

To understand Scripture, you can’t just start in the middle and come up with something you think it says. You need to start at the beginning. Then build upon it from there.

 

[Ross09]

So, he was talking figuratively, not actually, right?

In part. If you look at the words Jesus used for “eat”, he meant eat his flesh literally, as evidenced by the reaction of the Jewish crowd who were stunned and accused him of blasphemy…Kosher law and all…But “figuratively” he was speaking about eternal life. If you look at the entire picture and not just one verse, or one part of a verse the meaning is clear.

 

[alanjeddy]

Sure alan, you don’t want to start in Genesis because it destroys your argument.

To understand Scripture, you can’t just start in the middle and come up with something you think it says. You need to start at the beginning. Then build upon it from there./QUOT

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING OTHER THAN
JOHN 6 FOR THE 4TH TIME YOU HAVE NO ANSWER. YOU MUST BE ONE OF THOSE 19 YEAR OLD MISSONARIES STILL WET BEHIND THE EARS.

 

[alanjeddy]

In part. If you look at the words Jesus used for “eat”, he meant eat his flesh literally, as evidenced by the reaction of the Jewish crowd who were stunned and accused him of blasphemy…Kosher law and all…But “figuratively” he was speaking about eternal life. If you look at the entire picture and not just one verse, or one part of a verse the meaning is clear.

You are absolutely correct Ross. MEgus is a very weak child-like debater. He can not answer my Bread of Life arguments because they are scriptually correct. Jesus listeners were scandalized. They asked themselves in John 6 “How can He give us His flesh to eat?” Again, and Megus fails to realize, that they would not have left Jesus if He were speaking symbollically.Jesus also would have called them back! But what did our Lord do? He asked His own apostles if they were going to leave Him too!

Any other mormons out there who would like to debate John 6.
Without starting in Genesis? If MEgus is the best you’ve got you guys are in trouble. I based my defense of the Real Presence within John 6. Now one of you Mormons prove me wrong using only what I used, John 6. Bet you can’t do it?

 

[Arandur]

Christ was talking about his Atonement. About washing ourselves in his blood. About the very real sacrifice in the flesh that he was going to make for us. And only by doing so, and turning everything we are over to him, can we be cleansed. Again, it’s all about the atonement.

So we are to “eat” his atonement? I don’t see where you’re going with this.

As to the Greek, no one has answered me yet on how one determined in the Aramaic the difference between a little rock (gravel) and a huge rock (mountain) if there were no differences and just the same word. How can one know the intents of the speaker if we do not know?

MEgus

Um, I would expect that in Aramaic you could distinguish between the little rock and the big rock the same way we do in English: with modifiers. “Little” rock. “Big” rock. “Little” cepha. “Big” cepha. There may well have been many other words for different manifestations of “rock,” just as in English (stone, hematite, flint, mountain, gravel, pebble, boulder, etc.). Why does it matter? If Jesus renamed Simon “Cepha” in his own tongue, then he chose to call him “Rock.” In American English, the proper translation (if we had not adopted “Peter” into our language already) would be “Rock.” Like the wrestler. Or perhaps affectionately, “Rocky.”

If Duane what’s-his-name (the real name of the wrestler, “The Rock”) were renamed “Rock,” why would we in his own language call him “Pebble?” If translating into another language, you’d use the nearest approximation in that language. For Spanish, for instance, “Rock” or “stone” might translate “roca” or “piedra.” If there were a social stigma attached to using a feminine word for a masculine name, it could be translated “soporte” or “diamante,” loose synonyms that are masculine but different in connotation (“foundation” and “diamond,” respectively).

 

[Arandur]

OK Alan, lets start with Genesis 1

26¶ And God said, Let** us** make man in** our image, after our** likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Seems pretty simple to me.

MEgus (Let the twist begin)

What are you trying to demonstrate?

What do you make of the verse 27 use of the singular “his,” “he,” “he?”

Sounds a lot like the use of the royal “we” to me, for one thing. When speaking of the king, “he” does something (not “they do”). Yet when the king himself speaks, it is “we proclaim x.” God is ultimate sovereign, so why not the royal “we?”

Aside from that, the plurality of the voice (which was Christ, the Word) is true in the Trinitarian sense; it fits just fine. The singularity of verse 27 also works, in the Trinitarian sense. How does the singularity work if God consists of separate beings (the Father, the Son, the Spirit)?

In human experience, the closest approximation I can see of multiple beings being referred to in the singular is with organizations. In that case, we usually refer to the organization as an “it.” Occasionally we might say “she,” such as when referring to a nation or the Church. That breaks down, however, when we start talking about personal relationships, such as what God had with Adam and Eve in Genesis. Organizations are not referred to in relationships with familiar pronouns. So how would you get that God is merely a unified organization of multiple beings?

 

[Arandur]

Arandur, I do agree with you. Language has to convey meaning. Greek did a much better job of that than Aramaic.

What you want us to believe is that God would build his church upon a man. I just don’t buy that. God builds his church upon God, (the big Rock) not upon the arm of flesh.(Man)

Look at Revelations. The Apostles are the foundation of the Church. Jesus, who is God, is cornerstone (the first placement, the guide).

Does God have the power to protect a human from teaching error?

Does God have the power to make His Will be done–without violating human free will?

If yes to both, then He can make the Church as the Catholic Church is described. If you take the plain meaning as well as the deeper meaning of God’s Word, then He did. If you dismiss the plain meaning to justify some man-made meaning that you desire, you are not changing truth, just ignoring it.

The scriptures tell us that in many places.

It also tells us that Jesus spoke in parables, including the one about the man counting the cost to build his tower before starting it. Was Jesus the wise man who counted the cost, or the one we all laugh at who couldn’t finish? The Great Apostasy is first and foremost a declaration that Jesus was a fool and an idiot, and laughs at him and his works.

Scripture also tells us of Jesus’ parable of the wise man who built his house on a rock, not on shifting sand. Did Jesus not know the storm was coming? The Scripture passages speaking of false prophets that Mormons are so fond of pointing to (even though they apply to their founder) show that surely Jesus did; in fact, he even told his apostles.

So did Jesus prepare for the storm by building on a rock? Or did he build on shifting sand? The Great Apostasy assumes, again, that Jesus was the fool who built on sand. Who’s the wise man in that scenario? Satan, who builds on deception? He certainly has been successful in his kingdom of the world and in leading many astray.

There are many other passages that demonstrate the blasphemy of the Great Apostasy, the fact that it insults God and laughs at Him.

I think the meaning the Holy Ghost has conveyed to me as what the Lord was saying is the correct meaning. I know you disagree, and that is your right and privilege. I respect you for that. But it is also my right to council with God and learn for myself what he means, and that is what I do every day

This is relativism. If there is no external standard by which to judge your own ideas or interpretation of what you think God is telling you, then you are only worshipping yourself and your own ideas.

What about the millions of other “Christians” with their own personal interpretations and their own beliefs that God is telling them what is true? How do you know that they are wrong when they use the same standard you are using to claim that they are right and you are wrong?

And if you, and others, want to take that privilege away from me, who’s plan are you following?

MEgus

Where is this coming from, and why do so many Mormons say such similar things? Who “wants to take that privilege away from” you? What are you talking about?

We are merely presenting you with the truth about God, His Church, and His Will. You are still free to accept it or reject it, to your own reward or peril.

 

[Arandur]

So, he was talking figuratively, not actually, right?

What about the commandment to baptize by water so that we may have eternal life? Was he speaking of baptism by water figuratively, as some Christians think, or that the actual action was required in some sense, as Mormons believe (along with Catholics and many others)?

One part physical, one part spiritual. We are physical in our experience now, as well as spiritual. We thus must do things physically as well as spiritually; God relates to us on both levels. Then we gain spiritual fruits and ultimately physical fruits (through glorified bodies).

 

[mfbukowski]

My perception is that mormons are afraid to ask what other non-Catholics believe, about anything. I have never seen a mormon do that here. Not once.

I have seen plenty of mormon proselyting.

I did a whole thread on the “gates of hell” prophecy specifically asking for protestants to participate-- couple hundred posts if I recall correctly- and got two protestant replies. Not the best place to find non-Catholics.

 

[mfbukowski]

Wow, you are very confused. There isn’t a Christian on the planet who believes we progress to godhood.

Catechism #460
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2art3.shtml

The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

Some folks sure talk that way.

“…the Word of God became man, that thou mayest learn from man how man can become God…they are called by the appellation of gods, being destined to sit on thrones with the other gods that have been first put in their places by the Savior…”

-Clement of Alexandria (Protrepticus, 1.8.4 and Stromata 7:10)
And then, the ever popular:

“Men should escape from being men, and hasten to become gods. . . .Thou shalt resemble Him having made thee even God to His glory”
-Origen (Commentary on John, 29.27,29 and Refutations, X.30)

“Do we cast blame on him [God] because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods? Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that no one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, ‘I have said, ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High.’ … For it was necessary at first that nature be exhibited, then after that what was mortal would be conquered and swallowed up in immortality."

-Irenaeus (Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter XXXVIII)

I think you do not understand the Mormon notion of exaltation. We can never equal or surpass Heavenly Father. He is so far above us, we only add to his glory through our exaltation. It is actually quite similar to theosis, but in a dynamic way where we are progressing together, with Father infinitely our superior. We add kingdoms to his glory. Any glory we could possibly obtain just adds to His.

 

[mfbukowski]

You don’t believe it. I accept that. I can go to MADB this very minute and find a mormon who does. You still have not addressed the issue.

Who does what? It isn’t at all clear and I followed it back trying to figure it out. Whatever it is, I would bet that anyone on MADB who is TBM would believe as we do.

 

[mfbukowski]

Thanks Bill, I think you have hit it right on the head there.

Does that mean you are now willing to accept that we do not believe God had Sex with Mary?

Or do you want to keep expressing your opinion?

MEgus

Did you notice how excited they were on that topic and how it melted to nothing?. The thread stopped cold for half a day. Check out the times of the posts. And no one has mentioned that topic since.

 

[Arandur]

I think you do not understand the Mormon notion of exaltation. We can never equal or surpass Heavenly Father. He is so far above us, we only add to his glory through our exaltation. It is actually quite similar to theosis, but in a dynamic way where we are progressing together, with Father infinitely our superior. We add kingdoms to his glory. Any glory we could possibly obtain just adds to His.

I’ve never heard a Mormon describe that belief before. All I have heard has been distinctly more polytheistic, involved closer equality, endless progressions of “Gods,” or more general uncertainty about the matter.

That sounds similar to how we would describe it, except perhaps for some of this notion of “progression.” We were created “like” God. We become “as” gods in that we fulfill our original creation in His image and likeness. The actual amount of similarity is not really known, since “like” can imply many things. It is sufficient to say that when we are purified and welcomed into God’s presence, and particularly at the Second Resurrection when we inherit our glorified bodies, we will seem so much greater than our original mortal selves that we, in our current frame of reference, would describe the glorified man “as a god.” This leaves plenty of room, as you say, for all the infinite superiority of God (and the reason for the capital and lowercase letters to make the distinction in English).

I’m still not sure about your notion of “progression.” If you want to call “progression” our life, death, immediate judgment, purgation, entrance into the beatific vision/heaven, and final judgment/second resurrection, I think I could agree. The term implies to me some sort of mean gnostic or buddhist-like advancement that is in many ways rather focused on self-progression or self-enlightenment.

 

[mfbukowski]

Please read this including all comments. They are so incredibly blasphemous, I’m not posting any of it here.

So because some yayhoo posts something on some blog, that means that this is doctrine? Want me to show you some “catholic” sites? What about the “traditional catholic” movement that says that dead babies go to hell?

You will stop at nothing and have no objectivity or ethics whatsoever. You and Jack Chick are cut out of the same mold exactly. There is not even a pretense of fairness or honesty. Unbelievable.

 

[mfbukowski]

Here is the passage from History of the Church. It is the statement of President John Taylor, who was in the Carthage jail with Joseph and Hyrum Smith when the mob attacked:

"Elder Cyrus H. Wheelock came in to see us, and when he was about leaving drew a small pistol, a six-shooter, from his pocket, remarking at the same time, ‘Would any of you like to have this?’ Brother Joseph immediately replied, ‘Yes, give it to me,’ whereupon he took the pistol, and put it in his pantaloons pocket… I was sitting at one of the front windows of the jail, when I saw a number of men, with painted faces, coming around the corner of the jail, and aiming towards the stairs… (Hyrum was shot in the face and was killed instantly, John Taylor continued)

I shall never forget the deep feeling of sympathy and regard manifested in the countenance of Brother Joseph as he drew nigh to Hyrum, and, leaning over him, exclaimed, ‘Oh! my poor, dear brother Hyrum!’ He, however, instantly arose, and with a firm, quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, approached the door, and pulling the six-shooter left by Brother Wheelock from his pocket, opened the door slightly, and snapped the pistol six successive times; only three of the barrels, however, were discharged. I afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, two of whom, I am informed died." (History of the Church, Vol. 7, p. 100, 102 & 103)"

Not exactly like what you posted before.

Remember the drunken singing? What happened to that?