LDS: Please provide proof that the priesthood authority was taken from the earth

[ParkerD]

On the other hand, pride can blind you too and will not see the depth one should be seeing.

What are those doctrines that have changed?

If you believe this, then why does the LDS claim the Catholic Church went into apostasy? Why do you claim that John should have been pope after peter? The only way the LDS claims can be true is if Jesus did not keep his promises, which is contradicting your belief.

Thanks.

What does a 4 gpa and BA English have anything to do with understanding the Bible? I thought the HS should lead one to the truth, as you claimed, without the need for a 4.0 gpa. Intimidating? Sorry if you got that sense from me, I was not trying to intimidate you, I think posters here were trying to make you do some deep critical thinking…do some self-criticism maybe. And it was for other readers who may come across this post. I think there is a 1000 post limit on threads, so this thread may be coming to a close.

Peace and blessings to you always…

Pablope,

Thanks for the wish of peace and blessings. My point was that I certainly have enough of a literary background to understand the Bible, which I don’t consider a complicated writing. Everything written within the Bible stands out with clarity when one understands the concept of literary allusions and the concept of symbolism in poetry and literature and prophecy. So as to which party does non-critical thinking, then I have not the slightest question that the shoe is on the other foot–but each person can make that kind of choice for themselves.

This is how the Lord has given His truths to the world–in a way that they can choose for themselves and not be cornered or feel cornered into believing a certain way.

Peace and blessings to you also.

 

[rinnie]

Hi Parker, I have to disagree with you on the bread of life. The bread of life is not the word of God.

Jesus was quite clear when he said that he would destroy the temple and rebuild it in 3 days. He was talking about his body, not the word. And he was quite clear when he said this is my body that will be given up for you. He said to EAT this bread, and DRINK this blood, this is the bread of eternal life, without it this is no life in you.

Remember when Jesus went to Jerusalem for the Passover, John tells us many received him, and believed in his name YET Jesus did not trust himself to them! Jn. 2:23-24.

Why not? Why did he withhold his saving grace? 3 times in that short space John used the word man. He is talking about human nature. By ourself we Cannot attain eternal life. We must have all of the Sacraments.

Jesus said you must not only believe, you must eat the bread of eternal life. To believe is not enough, You must receive him with the sacrament of the Eucharist.

Jesus was telling them that whoever eats his body will never hunger or thirst again. Manna was physical bread from heaven, that is why Jesus said that the bread of life which is his body the Spirtual bread will replace the Physical bread, The manna that was given to them was to feed the Physical body, But Jesus said the bread he will give you will last forever, the manna did not. It lasted until the physical body was hungry again.

The Eucharist gives Spiritual life that will last forever. You will never be hungry again, Just like Jesus changed water into wine he changes wine and bread into his actual body.

No Physical bread can last forever, Jesus told them Spiritual bread the Eucharist lasts forever and gives you eternal life in him.

The largest thing that separates us I believe are these words. The Sacraments are the soul and core of the CC. Without the Sacraments we would not have a Church. Our Church is not a building, it is Christ alive in the Sacraments still saying us.

If you could take some time, and truly reflect on the scriptures about the Sacraments, I believe that while it will not change your heart, no one can but the Holy Spirit, it could help us to relate to oneanother better, and give you a better understanding of our faith. And why the Church is so important to us. God Bless you my friend, and I pray I could at least show you a little understanding of our Faith. Which is really what we are all here for. To show why our faith is so important to us.

 

[rinnie]

They were warned about trusting in the “organization” as compared with trusting in the Rock Himself as the living Shepherd, and in the Holy Ghost who was to be the witness of Him within their hearts. The organization doesn’t become the primary witness under those circumstances.

It is the same today. Each person needs an individual, certain and abiding witness within their own heart that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God”. They also need to be willing to be led by Him as the Good Shepherd, so that their lives are changed by Him through their personal, ongoing repentance and through His grace in their lives.

But Parker didn’t Jesus say to Peter lead my Sheep, Feed my Sheep. You know Parker when Jesus asked Peter 3 times to feed his sheep, ( I have asked this many times, and never got the answer yet even from my Catholic brothers and sisters) he said it 3 times. He was answered 3 times. But do you know what made one of those answers different between the other 2. Go back and read it, and see it you can figure out what I am trying to get you to see. Thanks Parker.

 

[pablope]

Pablope,

Thanks for the wish of peace and blessings. My point was that I certainly have enough of a literary background to understand the Bible, which I don’t consider a complicated writing. Everything written within the Bible stands out with clarity when one understands the concept of literary allusions and the concept of symbolism in poetry and literature and prophecy. So as to which party does non-critical thinking, then I have not the slightest question that the shoe is on the other foot–but each person can make that kind of choice for themselves.

This is how the Lord has given His truths to the world–in a way that they can choose for themselves and not be cornered or feel cornered into believing a certain way.

Peace and blessings to you also.

Hi, Parker…being an engineer by profession, it is in my nature to do critical thinking and analyses.

Good your English degree gave you the tool you need to understand scripture, but keep in mind the passage of 2Tim3: 14-17, particularly v 14:

[SIGN]14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them[/SIGN]

Know who you learned from.

Romans 11:28-29

28From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;

29for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

Have a good day, Parker.

 

[ParkerD]

Hi Parker, I have to disagree with you on the bread of life. The bread of life is not the word of God.

…God Bless you my friend, and I pray I could at least show you a little understanding of our Faith. Which is really what we are all here for. To show why our faith is so important to us.

Good day to you, Rinnie.

I certainly understand that your faith is very important to you, and appreciate that it is.

As to the Bread of life and Manna and the teachings of the Savior and of Jehovah, here is a verse that the Savior alluded to in His teaching, and that shows very particularly and precisely that the Bread of life is indeed His word:

Deuteronomy 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live.

I wanted to let you know I have read your posts and will respond more later, but thought it would be well for you to at least read this verse and think about it introspectively. Peace to you and all.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
There is only so much of it that can be seen without living within its vista and experiencing the blessings of being there. It is described as “having life more abundantly”, through understanding the purposes of this life and through seeing the unfolding of God’s purposes, which are beautiful and wonderful to see. I think a person sees as much of it as they deep-down want to.

Do you understand the beauty and wonder we as Catholics experience, especially when entering into that most intimate of relationships with our God through the Eucharist; or upon being reconciled, being able to fully embrace, once again, our Father in heaven. I experience beauty and wonder each and every day as a result of my faith; the voice of the Holy Spirit guides and protects me.

The Bread of Life is His word and His gospel, which live in the person who takes all His teachings into their life and becomes changed by them. They are no longer the same person. They see the world and themselves in a whole new way. He had taught the Bread of Life doctrine through the Manna He gave to the children of Israel. Some didn’t understand the message or the lesson, but it was there.

Well, we believe that Christ is certainly present in His word and His gospel. It is why our liturgy has two parts; the liturgy of the Word and the liturgy of the Eucharist. But you have left the second part behind. So I would agree with you that “Some didn’t understand the message or the lesson, but it was there.” I would just disagree with whom it applies. If you read the “Bread of Life Discourse” you will find that it was those who rejected him when he said “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you will have no life in you” that were in error. The question to his Apostles applies to us also. "Will you also leave?"

I’m not sure the reference here. Do you mean “comfortless”?

No. I mean “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.” (John 14:18)

That’s one of the problems, that the doctrines have been changed such as the Rock and understanding what it means, and the Good Shepherd and understanding what He will do for every person who hears His voice.

The question is, who has changed the doctrines? The Catholic Church has never changed the doctrines handed down by the Apostles.

I do indeed understand that He has kept and does keep and will keep every one of His promises.

Then you must agree, considering the promises Jesus plainly made concerning his Church, and what you have said above, that no apostasy could have taken place.

 

[KathleenGee]

Rinnie,

You have shared great posts that reflect a true faith lived out.

The first fruit of Jesus Christ is the Eucharist. He has called Himself the Bread of Life a number of occasions in the Gospels. When many followers/disciples left Him as He was approaching the final Passover in His life, after the feeding of the 5,000, continuing from the teaching that man does not live on bread alone but the Word of God, He further defines the Word as His own flesh and blood.

The first fracture among followers of Christ began in John 6…many leaving Him, not persevering. Peter admitted that now at this juncture with Christ, if they were to leave Him, where would they go…and Peter affirmed that indeed Jesus was the Son of God, Who would provide mankind with eternal life.

At the Last Supper, Jesus was very explicit. And all of us on this thread know very well the explicit and defining words Christ said when He held up the bread and wine…the form remaining but the substance now an extension of Christ’s body and blood, His soul and divinity.

And we continue to remember Jesus by receiving Him in the form of bread and wine, the reality of His remaining with us as He promised…His body and blood…this centrality of faith practiced by the Christians after Pentecost from the very beginning.

The first 300 years of Christianity was the age of martyrs, not apostasy—the one of cowards. Apostates are cowards who cave in to themselves and the needs of their own flesh and way of looking at things…at the cost of truth.

How historically anyone could claim apostasy in the light of so many who endured terrible sufferings for the love of Christ, and then to call them apostate is not working with a full deck.

To call martyrs-- including the bishops and deacons who truly loved Jesus–as apostaste is more a reflection back on to the misunderstanding Mormon has of Christian truth and reality of faith.

 

[ParkerD]

… The question to his Apostles applies to us also. "Will you also leave?"

No. I mean “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.” (John 14:18)

The question is, who has changed the doctrines?

Then you must agree, considering the promises Jesus plainly made concerning his Church, and what you have said above, that no apostasy could have taken place.

SteveVH,

I certainly not only need not agree, but because I have the perfect witness of the Holy Ghost, I would be doing exactly what the Savior said I particularly should not do if I were to agree. Therefore, I “must not agree”, or I would be denying the Holy Ghost, who is the Comforter who was promised.

As to the word “comfortless”, that is exactly what I have been trying to bring to the attention of several people, but there are too many barriers and I find that it is an impossibility to penetrate all of those barriers. (The word was not “orphans”.)

Here are the verses (KJV):

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Again, the barriers are impregnable, and that is fine–have a good day.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Wow, I had not realized Protestant Bibles had changed the meaning of ὀρφανούς (orphanos), until now.

 

[Peter_John]

They were warned about trusting in the “organization” as compared with trusting in the Rock Himself as the living Shepherd, and in the Holy Ghost who was to be the witness of Him within their hearts. The organization doesn’t become the primary witness under those circumstances.

It is the same today. Each person needs an individual, certain and abiding witness within their own heart that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God”. They also need to be willing to be led by Him as the Good Shepherd, so that their lives are changed by Him through their personal, ongoing repentance and through His grace in their lives.

So are you saying that the organization through which one finds Christian communion does nto matter as long as they have that personal witness in their own heart that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God?

 

[ParkerD]

So are you saying that the organization through which one finds Christian communion does nto matter as long as they have that personal witness in their own heart that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God?

Peter John,

No–there was another sentence I had written, which actually ties directly to the other recent conversation topic of the word “comfortless” or “orphaned” meaning “fatherless”.

Here is some etymology:

orphan
c.1300, from L.L. orphanus “parentless child” (cf. O.Fr. orfeno, It. orfano), from Gk. orphanos “orphaned,” lit. “deprived,” from orphos “bereft,” from PIE *orbho- “bereft of father,” also “deprived of free status,” from base *orbh- “to change allegiance, to pass from one status to another” (cf. Hittite harb- “change allegiance,” L. orbus “bereft,” Skt. arbhah “weak, child,” Arm. orb “orphan,” O.Ir. orbe “heir,” O.C.S. rabu “slave,” rabota “servitude” (cf. robot), Goth. arbja, Ger. erbe, O.E. ierfa “heir,” O.H.G. arabeit, Ger. Arbeit “work,” O.Fris. arbed, O.E. earfoð “hardship, suffering, trouble”). The verb is attested from 1814. Related: Orphaned; orphaning.

One can ask oneself, “who is the Father whom Christ was saying a person who has received the Comforter will have?”. Evidently, from what SteveVH has said, a Catholic is inclined to answer that question with the words “the church”.

As for me, I would unequivocally answer that question with the words, “Jesus Christ”. A person who has had the “second birth” becomes very much aware that Christ has become their Father–both the Father of their salvation and the Father of their mighty change and their ongoing change toward becoming sanctified.

No doubt William Tyndale studied the etymology of the Greek word “orphanos” and looked at the preceding verses and the use of the word “Comforter” (“Helper”), and understood that what was being conveyed was that Christ had promised that He would continue to be the spiritual Father of those who followed Him as their Good Shepherd. So he chose the word “comfortless” as the better word choice for the translation into English to tie back to the other verse about the “Comforter”.

 

[rinnie]

Good day to you, Rinnie.

I certainly understand that your faith is very important to you, and appreciate that it is.

As to the Bread of life and Manna and the teachings of the Savior and of Jehovah, here is a verse that the Savior alluded to in His teaching, and that shows very particularly and precisely that the Bread of life is indeed His word:

Deuteronomy 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live.

I wanted to let you know I have read your posts and will respond more later, but thought it would be well for you to at least read this verse and think about it introspectively. Peace to you and all.

Hi Buddy, and you are correct, but look where God said he therefore let you be afflicted with hunger, and then fed you with manna, a food unknown to you an your fathers, in order to show you that not by bread alone does man live but by every word that comes forth from the Lord. (which simply means God takes care of those that love them even when natual means seem to fail them.

Then you have to go back to what Jesus said about manna. He said your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died, this bread that comes from heaven (which is HIS BODY) so that one may eat it and NOT DIE.

See what I am saying. Manna was bread for the body, Christ is bread for the soul. As they call it soul food

See the manna from the desert did not give them Eternal life in Christ the way the Eucharist does. If we eat the bread and blood of Christ we will never die, but have eternal life forever. Just like the word of God is not enough to give us eternal life. We have things we must also do.

See if you can figure out the question I asked you before, take your time. No rush Weekends are hard to me also, so so much to do. But I will try to get back, if not on Mon for sure. Have a wonderful weekend if I don;t talk to you before my friend. Enjoy your wonderful family.

 

[ADouglass]

SteveVH,

I certainly not only need not agree, but because I have the perfect witness of the Holy Ghost, I would be doing exactly what the Savior said I particularly should not do if I were to agree. Therefore, I “must not agree”, or I would be denying the Holy Ghost, who is the Comforter who was promised.

As to the word “comfortless”, that is exactly what I have been trying to bring to the attention of several people, but there are too many barriers and I find that it is an impossibility to penetrate all of those barriers. (The word was not “orphans”.)

Here are the verses (KJV):

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Again, the barriers are impregnable, and that is fine–have a good day.

You had a perfect witness of the Holy Ghost huh? I’m pretty sure I had a witness of the Holy Spirit that conveyed that God the Father is a genderless spirit, who is without beginning or end, is perfect, changeless, and that He created all that is through His eternally begotten Son Jesus Christ, and that the Holy Spirit testifies of truth. I won’t claim that this revelation was infallible, but it was pretty clear when it did happen and previous to receiving it the idea of God as a genderless spirit was completely foreign to me. Also, it happened in much the same way as what was descibed by Joseph Smith as his first vision, in the sense that I was attacked by at least on demon and then was saved by the mercy of Jesus Christ. It was much more substantial than a simple “burning in my bosom.” I have had what mormons consider to be feelings of the spirit about things that completely contradict all that the LDS faith stands for. You should take a peek at this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=539794

Also, I understand that for you at this point (you have probably been ordained into the Elder’s group if not the High Priest group) rejecting the LDS faith would probably mean damnation in outer darkness if the LDS faith is true. This puts one in quite a predicament.

 

[Peter_John]

Peter John,

No–there was another sentence I had written, which actually ties directly to the other recent conversation topic of the word “comfortless” or “orphaned” meaning “fatherless”.

Here is some etymology:

orphan
c.1300, from L.L. orphanus “parentless child” (cf. O.Fr. orfeno, It. orfano), from Gk. orphanos “orphaned,” lit. “deprived,” from orphos “bereft,” from PIE *orbho- “bereft of father,” also “deprived of free status,” from base *orbh- “to change allegiance, to pass from one status to another” (cf. Hittite harb- “change allegiance,” L. orbus “bereft,” Skt. arbhah “weak, child,” Arm. orb “orphan,” O.Ir. orbe “heir,” O.C.S. rabu “slave,” rabota “servitude” (cf. robot), Goth. arbja, Ger. erbe, O.E. ierfa “heir,” O.H.G. arabeit, Ger. Arbeit “work,” O.Fris. arbed, O.E. earfoð “hardship, suffering, trouble”). The verb is attested from 1814. Related: Orphaned; orphaning.

One can ask oneself, “who is the Father whom Christ was saying a person who has received the Comforter will have?”. Evidently, from what SteveVH has said, a Catholic is inclined to answer that question with the words “the church”.

As for me, I would unequivocally answer that question with the words, “Jesus Christ”. A person who has had the “second birth” becomes very much aware that Christ has become their Father–both the Father of their salvation and the Father of their mighty change and their ongoing change toward becoming sanctified.

No doubt William Tyndale studied the etymology of the Greek word “orphanos” and looked at the preceding verses and the use of the word “Comforter” (“Helper”), and understood that what was being conveyed was that Christ had promised that He would continue to be the spiritual Father of those who followed Him as their Good Shepherd. So he chose the word “comfortless” as the better word choice for the translation into English to tie back to the other verse about the “Comforter”.

First thought, since we both agree that it is all about following the good shepherd, we can stop disputing that point. What we disagree upon is the organization.

According to your Book of Mormon, Jesus is both the Father and the Son – what Catholics call Incarnation theology.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
I certainly not only need not agree, but because I have the perfect witness of the Holy Ghost, I would be doing exactly what the Savior said I particularly should not do if I were to agree. Therefore, I “must not agree”, or I would be denying the Holy Ghost, who is the Comforter who was promised.

Parker, I did not expect you to agree for the simple reason that if you did you could not remain Mormon. But lets be honest. On one hand you agree that Jesus kept all of his promises. If you look at the promises he made concerning His Church, and believe that He kept His promises, then the “Great Apostasy” is impossible. Your “perfect witness” of the Holy Spirit is telling you something else. It is telling you that the Church Jesus founded, failed, therefore Jesus could not have kept His promises. This is what drives a lot of us here crazy. You have certain facts in one hand and a witness in the other and they conflict with each other.

As a Catholic and a rational being I would have to conclude that my “perfect witness” may not have been so perfect. Maybe I am confusing the witness of the Holy Spirit with my own wishes and desires based upon a life time of believing a certain set of doctrines proposed by a certain organization. To just set them aside would be traumatic in any one’s book and a great hesitancy to do so would be completely understandable. This, however, is the process of spiritual discernment. Is it truly the Holy Spirit that I am hearing? Or is it another spirit, or is it just what I want so badly to believe that I have conjured up internal feelings to justify what I think I should believe?

As to the word “comfortless”, that is exactly what I have been trying to bring to the attention of several people, but there are too many barriers and I find that it is an impossibility to penetrate all of those barriers. (The word was not “orphans”.)

Here are the verses (KJV):

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Again, the barriers are impregnable, and that is fine–have a good day.

Parker, if you assume that the KJV is the only translation that is acceptable then I would agree that the barriers are impregnable, but these are your own barriers. In fact, the KJV has many errors in translation. As Rebecca pointed out above, however, the meaning of ὀρφανούς (orphanos), is “orphans”.

 

[Peter_John]

Parker, I did not expect you to agree for the simple reason that if you did you could not remain Mormon. But lets be honest. On one hand you agree that Jesus kept all of his promises. If you look at the promises he made concerning His Church, and believe that He kept His promises, then the “Great Apostasy” is impossible. Your “perfect witness” of the Holy Spirit is telling you something else. It is telling you that the Church Jesus founded, failed, therefore Jesus could not have kept His promises. This is what drives a lot of us here crazy. You have certain facts in one hand and a witness in the other and they conflict with each other.

As a Catholic and a rational being I would have to conclude that my “perfect witness” may not have been so perfect. Maybe I am confusing the witness of the Holy Spirit with my own wishes and desires based upon a life time of believing a certain set of doctrines proposed by a certain organization. To just set them aside would be traumatic in any one’s book and a great hesitancy to do so would be completely understandable. This, however, is the process of spiritual discernment. Is it truly the Holy Spirit that I am hearing? Or is it another spirit, or is it just what I want so badly to believe that I must ignore the plain truth?

Parker, if you assume that the KJV is the only translation that is acceptable then I would agree that the barriers are impregnable, but these are your own barriers. In fact, the KJV has many errors in translation. As Rebecca pointed out above, however, the meaning of ὀρφανούς (orphanos), is “orphans”.

One reason that LDS hold to the KJV is that the language in the Book of Mormon excerpts from the Old Testament, supposedly taken from more original sources anciently, and the words of Christ in his purported visit to the Americas, closely follow the wording of the King James Version.

If there is any doubt about the translation of someting that has a comparison in the Book of Mormon text, the Book of Mormon text is considered definitive. Joseph Smith’s Transliteration also retains much of the KJV original language, where it has not augmented the or deleted passages, therefore confirming accuracy of the text. Conclusion: It doesn’t matter where it originally came from, or what the original words were if Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon indicate otherwise. It just means it was some error in the translation before the earliest records we have.

 

[SteveVH]

One can ask oneself, “who is the Father whom Christ was saying a person who has received the Comforter will have?”. Evidently, from what SteveVH has said, a Catholic is inclined to answer that question with the words “the church”.

Wow! Where did I say that? No, I would say the Father is God the Father, the first Person of the Trinity.

 

[SteveVH]

One reason that LDS hold to the KJV is that the language in the Book of Mormon excerpts from the Old Testament, supposedly taken from more original sources anciently, and the words of Christ in his purported visit to the Americas, closely follow the wording of the King James Version.

If there is any doubt about the translation of someting that has a comparison in the Book of Mormon text, the Book of Mormon text is considered definitive. Joseph Smith’s Transliteration also retains much of the KJV original language, where it has not augmented the or deleted passages, therefore confirming accuracy of the text. Conclusion: It doesn’t matter where it originally came from, or what the original words were if Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon indicate otherwise. It just means it was some error in the translation before the earliest records we have.

Yes, of course.

 

[Peter_John]

Peter John,

No–there was another sentence I had written, which actually ties directly to the other recent conversation topic of the word “comfortless” or “orphaned” meaning “fatherless”.

Here is some etymology:

orphan
c.1300, from L.L. orphanus “parentless child” (cf. O.Fr. orfeno, It. orfano), from Gk. orphanos “orphaned,” lit. “deprived,” from orphos “bereft,” from PIE *orbho- “bereft of father,” also “deprived of free status,” from base *orbh- “to change allegiance, to pass from one status to another” (cf. Hittite harb- “change allegiance,” L. orbus “bereft,” Skt. arbhah “weak, child,” Arm. orb “orphan,” O.Ir. orbe “heir,” O.C.S. rabu “slave,” rabota “servitude” (cf. robot), Goth. arbja, Ger. erbe, O.E. ierfa “heir,” O.H.G. arabeit, Ger. Arbeit “work,” O.Fris. arbed, O.E. earfoð “hardship, suffering, trouble”). The verb is attested from 1814. Related: Orphaned; orphaning.

One can ask oneself, “who is the Father whom Christ was saying a person who has received the Comforter will have?”. Evidently, from what SteveVH has said, a Catholic is inclined to answer that question with the words “the church”.

As for me, I would unequivocally answer that question with the words, “Jesus Christ”. A person who has had the “second birth” becomes very much aware that Christ has become their Father–both the Father of their salvation and the Father of their mighty change and their ongoing change toward becoming sanctified.

No doubt William Tyndale studied the etymology of the Greek word “orphanos” and looked at the preceding verses and the use of the word “Comforter” (“Helper”), and understood that what was being conveyed was that Christ had promised that He would continue to be the spiritual Father of those who followed Him as their Good Shepherd. So he chose the word “comfortless” as the better word choice for the translation into English to tie back to the other verse about the “Comforter”.

looking at your words more closely, a Catholic would not be inclined to answer with “The Church” but – if anything different at all, “The Eucharist” the continual literal physical presence of Christ among us. The fact is Catholics believe the Comforter, the Paraclete, is the Holy Ghost.

What I find interesting about your analysis, is that you confirm the accuracy of the word “orphans”, bu argue for a tranlation that alters this because of what the you infer the translator believed it menat (also an inference. You argue a translator’s intential alteration by ineference, rather than the meaning translated correctly.

Wouldn’t that count in an error in translation that LDS are not supposed to beleive, “YWe believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly,” and you just defended as Word of God an error in the translation. This is antithetical…

 

[ParkerD]

…Also, I understand that for you at this point (you have probably been ordained into the Elder’s group if not the High Priest group) rejecting the LDS faith would probably mean damnation in outer darkness…

A.D.,

It is not a predicament at all. It means I understand what the Savior was saying, and I understand what it would mean to “altogether turn therefrom,” and so forth. It means I understand the witness, and have indeed received such a witness with no uncertainty about it. Even had I not served in the kinds of callings that mean I have been long since a High Priest, that witness means the same thing to an Elder who has received such a witness, which is the Comforter witness just as the Savior promised, and is an abiding witness throughout life as promised by Him based on the conditions He taught about with clarity and love.