OK, I Am Confused. Do Mormons Believe In The Trinity?

[zerinus]

The flesh which profits nothing is not Christ’s, but those who hear him. The Spirit which gives life is not a symbol, and spiritual truths are not less real or literal than earthly truths. Those are facts.

We determine the meaning of words, phrases, and sentences by the surrounding context in which they occur. We don’t ignore the context altogether, and pull meanings out of thin air. The context in which that passage occurs implies that that is what it is referring to—the flesh of Jesus Christ that Jesus was previously talking about.

If you think you can prove that the Spirit is a symbol or that Christ’s flesh profited nothing you can certainly try.

I neither said that “the Spirit is a symbol,” nor that Christ’s flesh “profited nothing”. It is the bread that is a symbol (of the flesh in the sacramental offering); and it is the literal eating of the flesh that “profiteth nothing,” not the flesh on the cross. The flesh on the cross profiteth everything; but it is the literal eating of it that Jesus said profiteth nothing. The benefit comes spiritually, as Jesus said. It is received by the Spirit, not by eating physically, like Kentucky Fried Chicken.

I would be very willing to discuss it with you. However, I won’t follow links to blogs or read previous posts. I am not interested in generating traffic to your website, and if you can’t be bothered to type the words then I can’t be bothered to read them.

I have no problem with that. I will just copy and paste from my Blog. That is easy enough. Did you want to start now?

zerinus

 

[dianaiad]

Dianaiad,

If everyone in my family merits heaven, how can we all be in heaven but not be there together? You’re position has an illogic to it

How so? Given the position regarding marriage…i.e., that death ends it and there are no marriages in heaven, then it logically follows (taking baby steps here) that there is no ‘man and wife’ unit in heaven. Two separate individuals, yes, but they have no special relationship to each other than they have with any other two separate individuals. The next step is…if there is no ‘man and wife’ unit in heaven, then there is no family unit in heaven either. Just a bunch of individuals all together. That may be very nice indeed, but…it ain’t family units. I HEAR Catholics and others talk about how they are ‘going to be with’ a specific person, a wife, a husband, a son, a parent—but why should they be, if death severs all such relationships?

You might assume that your families will be together; it just seems right that they are–and I believe that you are correct to assume so. However, I know of no teaching in Catholic or Protestant doctrine, scriptures or tradition that says so. If you do, that’s what I’m asking for.

.

If Catholics are right, and there are no married persons in heaven, what do you think that life would be like? If you think, like Catholics do, that the redeemed will be in God’s presence as unmarried persons, unsealed in a Mormon temple, what does that mean? If my family and I are all redeemed and in God’s presence individually, does that not also mean that we are not in God’s presence together? Will God keep me away from my kids? Suppose I want to walk over to my wife (here on earth) and say to her in heaven “hello, isn’t it wonderful to be here with our boys together in God’s presence”? and grab her hand to hold it. Will Jesus stop me and say “oh - I’m sorry. You two aren’t married; you can’t talk to each other or hold hands in my presence.” Are all of us in heaven, unmarried and unsealed, prevented from interacting with one another in any way? It seems you think this is so.

NS

No, I don’t think this is so. Remember, I’m the Mormon. I’m the one who believes that families CAN be together. As official units. I also believe that most of those who believe that their families can be together are correct–it’s just that something other than their religious teachings is telling them that it is correct. Hope, perhaps. The Holy Ghost; the Spirit of Christ…something other than any written teaching, anyway.

After all, there are a LOT of people…how will you find your family? What do you know about what heaven will be like? You assume all sorts of good things…but what is there in your teachings that tells you that your assumptions have any basis in them?

For instance, one devout Christian I know claims that yes, he supposed he could be with his family, but he won’t care; the all consuming love that he will have for Christ and that Christ has for him will utterly subsume him and all earthly cares and interests, including interest in and love for his wife and children.

Another claims that she will even forget herself in that love. Most, like you, say something like 'surely God would not deny me…" But that’s hope, not doctrine. I believe that hope is a good one–but my hope in that is supported by the doctrine of my faith.

So I ask the question again: you hope that you will be allowed to be with your family. I firmly believe that we CAN be together with our families. When you hope this, it is a part of what you pray heaven will be like, and is an acceptable and good thing. When I claim that this is so, and show doctrine from my own beliefs that support and justify that belief, you criticize it as unreasonable.

Just how much sense does THAT make?

 

[dianaiad]

Well, I am not sure that the Church actually teaches that. The Church teaches what is in the standard works; and as far as I know the age of the earth has not been revealed in the Bible, or in modern LDS scripture. Scientists like to dig into these things, and that is okay. The Church has no problem with that. It is their job to dig into such things; and I am sure the Church, like everybody else, takes an interest in their findings. But scientific theories do not form part of the theology of Latter-day Saints.

I am sure it is. BYU is a respected academic institution, and it should teach all scientific theories and branches of knowledge that are taught in other respected academies in the world. But I don’t think it is the position of the Church that human life (or other advanced life forms) evolved from lower life forms according to the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. That may not be what you meant, but I think it is important to clarify that.

zerinus

Put pretty well, Z…

I think that God has written about His creations in two main places; in the scriptures for men to use to deal with their spiritual lives, and more directly in the rocks and oceans of His creation.

The one ‘book’ must be read with prayer and through the confirmation of the Holy Ghost. The other is read through the procedures of scientific examination. Both are valid. Both are ongoing. We have a great deal to learn from both…and it doesn’t matter WHAT is found in one ‘book,’ it doesn’t destroy the message of the other.

Nor should one instill fear of the other. Have a little faith, folks. God knows what He is doing, AND ‘writing,’ in both.

 

[diggerdomer]

As to your claims that Catholics believe God has no gender? If that were true, you wouldn’t be praying to our FATHER, would you? The gender assignment is obvious and automatic. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost…every single one MALE. You assign Him a gender–the preferred one, of course, male.

It’s a linguistic, semantic and cultural thing, of course, but the only way you can call God ‘genderless’ and still call Him “He” is to completely dismiss the gender ‘female’ from existence… If everybody is a “he,” and women simply disappear, of course the result is ‘genderless.’ This does not say good things about one’s view of ‘female.’

Nope, I’ll believe that you consider God to be ‘genderless’ when you start referring to Him as “It,” There ARE belief systems out there that do just that, y’know.

I guess I can see why you think this, but the fact is what was previously posted is true regarding Catholic theology: God is not gendered the way humans are. Yes, the Second Person of the Trinity became Incarnate as a male, and yes due to cultural/linguistic/etc. customs the most common forms of address to the Persons are male…it’s still a theological truth the Catholic Church teaches that God is neither male nor female.

I don’t think “it” would be preferable or appropriate, as I think it would take concepts like personhood, Creator, etc. out of the thought process. We have many many ways of addressing God that are appropriate. None are sufficient by themselves.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Romans 8

24 For in hope we were saved. Now hope that sees for itself is not hope. For who hopes for what one sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait with endurance. 26 In the same way, the Spirit too comes to the aid of our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit itself intercedes with inexpressible groanings. 27 And the one who searches hearts knows what is the intention of the Spirit, because it intercedes for the holy ones according to God’s will. 28 5 We know that all things work for good for those who love God, 6 who are called according to his purpose.

 

[dianaiad]

I guess I can see why you think this, but the fact is what was previously posted is true regarding Catholic theology: God is not gendered the way humans are. Yes, the Second Person of the Trinity became Incarnate as a male, and yes due to cultural/linguistic/etc. customs the most common forms of address to the Persons are male…it’s still a theological truth the Catholic Church teaches that God is neither male nor female.

I don’t think “it” would be preferable or appropriate, as I think it would take concepts like personhood, Creator, etc. out of the thought process. We have many many ways of addressing God that are appropriate. None are sufficient by themselves.

Again, if this were absolutely true, there would have been found, in the last two thousand years, an appropriate ‘genderless’ form that would refer to God, reflecting that dual, or no, gender aspect of Him.

…but nobody did.

It’s a ‘by their fruits’ thing. In two millenia the languages spoken by believers has changed immensely; if you don’t think so, try handing a copy of Beowulf written in the original Old English to an American ninth grader–and that’s just ONE thousand years of change. Everything has changed; tenses, vocabulary, syntax—and the Romantic languages such as Italian and Spanish have retained their habit of assigning gender to everything, including all inanimate objects.

So…the teaching may be, in some esoteric manner, that God has no gender. However, He is still assigned one; and by being assigned one, the judgment about gender has been made. There is no Thing above God. No Thing better, no Thing more worthy–so God is assigned the male gender by a group that claims He is genderless.

Think about that one for a moment.

Now me, I believe He most definately IS male. Father literally as well as in respectful address; Father (as Christ called Him) to the Son.

May I suggest, for your meditation today, considering that by considering that God is genderless, and continuing to address Him as ‘Father’ (male) that you are more surely denigrating the role of the female than you would be if you actually taught that He IS Male, and thus addressing Him as Father is fact, not an expression of using the superior address?

Where is there a role for women in the eternities, when even a genderless deity is addressed as “Father?”

As it happens, some of the early Catholic fathers didn’t think that women actually HAD any future in the eternities. Thomas Aquinus figured that women were “defective and misbegotten” and that male children were the result of good, “active power of the male seed” and female children were the result of a 'defect in the active power." (Summa Thologica, Q92, ar. 1.)

I mean, it’s TRUE—the guy determines the sex, but as prescient as Aquinus was in this matter, his attitude towards it leaves something to be desired. It was, however, a VERY typical attitude of the church throughout its history.

Today you do not allow women to hold the priesthood. You call God “He.” You claim that He is genderless—has it occurred to you what that MEANS in terms of women? Even a GENDERLESS deity has no use for women?

Dang. That’s harsh.

True, Mormon women don’t hold the priesthood either. True again, we address God as “Father.” But we do so because we believe He IS male. It is no insult to women for me to refer to my son as ‘my son.’ He’s a guy.

By the same token it is no denigration of women to address God as “Father,” because, well…He is male; the Father. It’s not an honorific we choose to bestow upon Him because we think that “Father” is more respectful title than “Mother.”

We believe that men and women are equal in His sight, but that we have different roles; women do not hold the priesthood–because we don’t need it. Our roles in religious life are different. Men cannot do what we do. That does not make THEM lesser, just different, and I appreciate the difference.

…and you will never catch me looking down on a man because he can neither give birth to, nor nurse, an infant, nor have the feminine outlook on life that women have. They are different, that’s all. We need them. They need us; we are not complete without each other.

’

 

[dianaiad]

Romans 8

24 For in hope we were saved. Now hope that sees for itself is not hope. For who hopes for what one sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait with endurance. 26 In the same way, the Spirit too comes to the aid of our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit itself intercedes with inexpressible groanings. 27 And the one who searches hearts knows what is the intention of the Spirit, because it intercedes for the holy ones according to God’s will. 28 5 We know that all things work for good for those who love God, 6 who are called according to his purpose.

Lovely scripture.

A little odd coming from one who so completely dismisses the witness of the spirit (or ‘burning bosom’ ) to Mormons, but lovely.

I do have to wonder, though–do you see the irony in hoping for something you have not been taught, and criticizing those who hope for the same thing–while condemning those things that inspire that hope?

 

[diggerdomer]

Now me, I believe He most definately IS male.

Well, if your belief is representative of Mormon belief, then I guess that’s one of the significant differences Mormons would have with Christians.

 

[cothrige]

We determine the meaning of words, phrases, and sentences by the surrounding context in which they occur. We don’t ignore the context altogether, and pull meanings out of thin air. The context in which that passage occurs implies that that is what it is referring to—the flesh of Jesus Christ that Jesus was previously talking about.

Let us carefully look at the context of verse 63. Many disciples, hearing his teaching, objected that this saying is hard. Obviously they are scandalized by his words, as he recognizes in verse 62. Why are they scandalized? Because they think he is promoting canibalism, and is telling people to eat human flesh. The flesh, therefore, that they think he means is dead, carnal human flesh. But, that is a different flesh than the one he taught we should eat to have life, which is his own flesh. But, and this is very important, that flesh, meaning his own, is not the flesh he is referring to in verse 63. There he is speaking of the flesh the people have in mind, and we know this because verse 62 begins this way: But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them… These statements are not commentary on his discourse, but on their objection. That is absolutely crucial to understanding the context and the purpose of the words.

We also know this because he very clearly rules his own flesh out with the words It is the spirit which quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. It is dead carnal flesh, without the spirit, which profits nothing, but his flesh does not qualify for that. His flesh will ascend in power, and those that eat it will live forever. His flesh giveth life to the world, and it is the spirit which quickeneth, so his flesh is not such profitless flesh at all. He is therefore not speaking of his own flesh here.

I neither said that “the Spirit is a symbol,” nor that Christ’s flesh “profited nothing”. It is the bread that is a symbol (of the flesh in the sacramental offering); and it is the literal eating of the flesh that “profiteth nothing,” not the flesh on the cross. The flesh on the cross profiteth everything; but it is the literal eating of it that Jesus said profiteth nothing.

You are assuming a great deal and engaging in eisegesis by reading it into the text. He says nothing to indicate this reading above is intended at all. He doesn’t say that symbolic flesh profits nothing, or that bread in a supper profits nothing, he says the flesh profiteth nothing. Why, if he is telling us that the bread in the sacrament is not flesh, would he then call it flesh? It simply goes before the facts. He said flesh, and he means flesh, simply not his own as has been amply demonstrated.

The benefit comes spiritually, as Jesus said. It is received by the Spirit, not by eating physically, like Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Why do you set at odds a literal flesh and a spiritual benefit? Why is that an exclusive situation? We eat physically in the sacrmament and we benefit spiritually. I don’t think that has ever been argued. If merely physical benefits are desired then I would suggest a leafy green salad. But, spiritual truths and benefits are not negating of real flesh. So often people think a spiritual reality cannot be literal, and that is absurd. God is spirit, and he is literally the creator of the universe.

One last thing. I am offended deeply by your blasphemous and sacreligious reference to our reception of the Blessed Sacrament with "Kentucky Fried Chicken" and if you insist on such anti-christian behaviour my part in any discussion will end and I will immediately report you to the admins. The Blessed Sacrament is the Body and Blood of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ. If you cannot respect that belief you have no business posting in a Catholic message board.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Lovely scripture.

A little odd coming from one who so completely dismisses the witness of the spirit (or ‘burning bosom’ ) to Mormons, but lovely.

Paul also teaches to test the spirits, and to not accept false prophets and those who teach contrary to what the Apostles have taught us.

Of course, I believe Mormonism to be proven false. So why would you think it odd that I believe God has given us an Advocate?

I do have to wonder, though–do you see the irony in hoping for something you have not been taught, and criticizing those who hope for the same thing–while condemning those things that inspire that hope?

As I have said before Diana. We are consistent in our belief that God is good. It is mormons who lack faith and believe that you have to get it in writing.

 

[dianaiad]

Well, if your belief is representative of Mormon belief, then I guess that’s one of the significant differences Mormons would have with Christians.

What, Christians do not address Him as “Father?”

 

[zerinus]

Let us carefully look at the context of verse 63. Many disciples, hearing his teaching, objected that this saying is hard. Obviously they are scandalized by his words, as he recognizes in verse 62. Why are they scandalized? Because they think he is promoting canibalism, and is telling people to eat human flesh. The flesh, therefore, that they think he means is dead, carnal human flesh. But, that is a different flesh than the one he taught we should eat to have life, which is his own flesh. But, and this is very important, that flesh, meaning his own, is not the flesh he is referring to in verse 63. There he is speaking of the flesh the people have in mind, and we know this because verse 62 begins this way: But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them… These statements are not commentary on his discourse, but on their objection. That is absolutely crucial to understanding the context and the purpose of the words.

That is absurd. It doesn’t make any sense. It is completely arbitrary, and it is a crazy way of interpreting that scripture. I don’t believe any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion from reading that passage of scripture as you do.

We also know this because he very clearly rules his own flesh out with the words It is the spirit which quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. It is dead carnal flesh, without the spirit, which profits nothing, but his flesh does not qualify for that. His flesh will ascend in power, and those that eat it will live forever. His flesh giveth life to the world, and it is the spirit which quickeneth, so his flesh is not such profitless flesh at all. He is therefore not speaking of his own flesh here.

The same thing; see above. It is just not a logical way interpreting that passage.

You are assuming a great deal and engaging in eisegesis by reading it into the text. He says nothing to indicate this reading above is intended at all. He doesn’t say that symbolic flesh profits nothing, or that bread in a supper profits nothing, he says the flesh profiteth nothing. Why, if he is telling us that the bread in the sacrament is not flesh, would he then call it flesh? It simply goes before the facts. He said flesh, and he means flesh, simply not his own as has been amply demonstrated.

Have you heard of hyperbole? Do you know what that means? It is a common form of speech among the Orientals; and it frequently encountered in the Bible. Here are some examples (quoted from my Blog):

Matthew 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee…

This does not mean to literally pluck out your own eye; it means to be ruthless at suppressing and eliminating the cause of temptation.

Matthew 6:3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth.

This does not mean that one should literally not let his left hand know what his other hand is doing. It means to give alms discreetly, so that you will not be doing it for a show or pretence, to boast or flout your “charitableness”.

Matthew 11:23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven shalt be brought down to hell …

This does not mean that Capernaum was literally “exalted to heaven”. It means that it (or rather its inhabitants) had become very proud.

Matthew 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

This does not mean that they were literally “swallowing a camel”. It means paying too much attention to unimportant detail, while ignoring the more important considerations.

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

This does not mean that one should literally hate one’s father and mother, and brothers and sisters, and wife and kids in order to become a disciple of Jesus. It means that one should be willing to put God above all other considerations.

John 12:19 The Pharisees therefore said among themselves … behold, the world is gone after him.

This did not mean that literally the whole world had gone after Jesus; but it means that a large number of Israelites had done so, enough to have the Pharisees worried.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee.

This did not mean that Jesus was literally “no more in the world;” but that He was anticipating His death, which was shortly to take place.

By your way of thinking, all these passages should be taken literally, which would be absolutely crazy. Jesus’ speech about eating His flesh is a hyperbole like one of the above. It is not meant to be taken literally.

Continued . . . /

 

[zerinus]

/. . . Continued

Why do you set at odds a literal flesh and a spiritual benefit? Why is that an exclusive situation? We eat physically in the sacrmament and we benefit spiritually. I don’t think that has ever been argued. If merely physical benefits are desired then I would suggest a leafy green salad. But, spiritual truths and benefits are not negating of real flesh. So often people think a spiritual reality cannot be literal, and that is absurd. God is spirit, and he is literally the creator of the universe.

Because there are plenty of other scriptures that tell us that the Sacrament is a memorial of the sufferings of Christ—to be taken in remembrance of the Him—and consequently not to be taken literally. Here is again some more quotes from my Blog:

Luke 22:

17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:

18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

That set the pattern that the early Christians followed in celebrating the sacrament; and that was what the Apostles had taught them to do:

1 Corinthians 11:

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do ***shew ***** the Lord’s death till he come.

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

One last thing. I am offended deeply by your blasphemous and sacreligious reference to our reception of the Blessed Sacrament with "Kentucky Fried Chicken"

and if you insist on such anti-christian behaviour my part in any discussion will end and I will immediately report you to the admins. The Blessed Sacrament is the Body and Blood of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ. If you cannot respect that belief you have no business posting in a Catholic message board.

Well, I didn’t mean to offend our Catholic friends; but from our point of view the idea of literally eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ in the Sacrament is unscriptural and illogical. There is simply no biblical support for it. The arguments that you have put forward are contrived, convoluted, and illogical and don’t make any sense. That is not intended as an offense, but that is how I look at it.

zerinus

 

[dianaiad]

Paul also teaches to test the spirits, and to not accept false prophets and those who teach contrary to what the Apostles have taught us.

Of course, I believe Mormonism to be proven false. So why would you think it odd that I believe God has given us an Advocate?

As I have said before Diana. We are consistent in our belief that God is good. It is mormons who lack faith and believe that you have to get it in writing.

Define ‘good.’ You HOPE that this means that God will keep families and acquaintances together, But as far as I am aware, there are no teachings about that one way or another, are there?

By the way, we don’t HAVE to ‘get it in writing.’ We simply…have it in writing. It’s called ‘scriptures,’ and if you didn’t ‘need to have it writing’ to the same level we do, then what are you doing paying attention to the bible and Catholic tradition? You could simply identify that hope you personally have for your eternal future and figure that God will, of course, do that. He is good, right?

In reality, as to family togetherness, as far as I can tell you don’t have anything but a hope based upon nothing at all.

But again, if you know something I don’t about Catholic teaching in this matter of family togetherness in the eternities, I truly would appreciate learning about it. I am hoping very much that there is something. Surely someone has addressed the issue officially at some time or other. I’m not trying to be sarcastic or snide; I would truly like to know. Quite frankly, I don’t know where to look!

 

[RebeccaJ]

Diana, you do not understand the central belief of Catholicism.Jesus is our central belief, the Eucharist is our central sacrament.Just as the sacrificial lamb in the OT was a precursor to the sacrifice of Jesus, we understand the communion we have with Jesus in the Eucharist to be a precursor to the next life.

Marriage is an extension of this communion. A couple is sealed to God. They are married during Mass and receive Holy Communion during the marriage rite. The Rite of Matrimony is not separate unto itself. It is closely tied to the Eucharist.

Yes, our hope is in Jesus.Yes, we clearly understand that our communion with Him is Real. God lowers Himself to us at ever Sacrificial Mass, where we become One with Him. As couples, as families, as single adults, as widowed. Every Catholic. Why do think we believe this reality ends at death?

You seek to tell me that this communion does not exist. That it is only a hope, when everything in Catholicism is central to this belief.

You can think of the Sacrament of Holy Communion as a prophecy. The prophecy being what we believe about heaven, it is fulfilled in the next life.

“I am in you. You are in me.” We take these words quite literally. When we speak of the communion of Saints, we are saying that these are people who have been made holy by God, and are experiencing the fulfillment of what the Eucharist promises.

It is the only reason why we believe the prayers of the Saints, on our behalf, are so effective. They are experiencing heaven, as we understand it. In full communion with God. In full communion with each other. In full communion with us. This is a supernatural understanding, which we certainly believe is given to us by Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Holy Spirit.

Does that help?

 

[cothrige]

That is absurd. It doesn’t make any sense. It is completely arbitrary, and it is a crazy way of interpreting that scripture. I don’t believe any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion from reading that passage of scripture as you do.

You may consider it what you like, but it is nothing more than reading what is written as it is written. I look at who is being answered or spoken to, what they have asked or said, and what the Lord says in return. It is becoming very clear that in the LDS method, as in the case the seven brothers and their wife in the resurrection, no consideration is ever given to what is being responded to. That is context zerinus. Right now I am responding to you, which means people need to look at what you have said to see exactly what I may say in return and why I may say it. If they think I am talking to a person who asked about confession they will come to markedly different, and wrong, conclusions about my words. Now, that would be absurd.

Have you heard of hyperbole? Do you know what that means? It is a common form of speech among the Orientals; and it frequently encountered in the Bible. Here are some examples (quoted from my Blog):

Okay, what about this one?

And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a mighty wind coming, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them parted tongues as it were of fire, and it sat upon every one of them.

Are you arguing this is hyperbole? It sounds pretty imaginative to me. If you are not saying that, then what does your list of quotes prove? That some things which seem outrageous in the Bible are not meant to be taken literally. Interesting point, but it hardly means anything. What you haven’t shown is why Christ’s teaching on the Bread of Life should be seen as “hyperbole” rather than literally true. Or his ascension. Or his miracles. Or demonic posession. Or anything else for that matter.

Because there are plenty of other scriptures that tell us that the Sacrament is a memorial of the sufferings of Christ—to be taken in remembrance of the Him—and consequently not to be taken literally. Here is again some more quotes from my Blog:

Now, that is absurd. First you say that if something is spiritual it is not literally true. This is ridiculous of course. Spiritual things are very real, and very literally true. When our Lord speaks of his angels, which are spirits, he is being very literal, and they are very real. And when he says to the man Thy sins are forgiven thee this is spiritual, and very real. That man’s sins were literally forgiven him. There is absolutely nothing about the word spiritual which denotes something is unliteral, unreal, symbolic or figurative. You just say so.

And, now you suggest that remembrance also means that it cannot be literal or real either. Outrageous. If you want to see how wrong you are, just go to a local Mass. It is a remembrance of our Lord from start to finish. All the way through. But, it is also very literally what he said it is. There is no contradiction, because none exists. Something can be a remembrance and be literally true, real, unsymbolic or so on. I really cannot imagine where you come up with this stuff.

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do ***shew ***** the Lord’s death till he come.

And here we see how important context is. You are trying, with this quote, to apply the word shew to the preceeding bread and cup, even though even the most indifferent reader would see that it is actually qualifying the Lord’s death. So, all you have argued for is the actual Catholic teaching that Christ does not die again in the Mass. We re-present his sacrifice on the cross, which was once and for all.

 

[zerinus]

You may consider it what you like, but it is nothing more than reading what is written as it is written. I look at who is being answered or spoken to, what they have asked or said, and what the Lord says in return. It is becoming very clear that in the LDS method, as in the case the seven brothers and their wife in the resurrection, no consideration is ever given to what is being responded to. That is context zerinus. Right now I am responding to you, which means people need to look at what you have said to see exactly what I may say in return and why I may say it. If they think I am talking to a person who asked about confession they will come to markedly different, and wrong, conclusions about my words. Now, that would be absurd.

Okay, what about this one?

Are you arguing this is hyperbole? It sounds pretty imaginative to me. If you are not saying that, then what does your list of quotes prove? That some things which seem outrageous in the Bible are not meant to be taken literally. Interesting point, but it hardly means anything. What you haven’t shown is why Christ’s teaching on the Bread of Life should be seen as “hyperbole” rather than literally true. Or his ascension. Or his miracles. Or demonic posession. Or anything else for that matter.

Now, that is absurd. First you say that if something is spiritual it is not literally true. This is ridiculous of course. Spiritual things are very real, and very literally true. When our Lord speaks of his angels, which are spirits, he is being very literal, and they are very real. And when he says to the man Thy sins are forgiven thee this is spiritual, and very real. That man’s sins were literally forgiven him. There is absolutely nothing about the word spiritual which denotes something is unliteral, unreal, symbolic or figurative. You just say so.

And, now you suggest that remembrance also means that it cannot be literal or real either. Outrageous. If you want to see how wrong you are, just go to a local Mass. It is a remembrance of our Lord from start to finish. All the way through. But, it is also very literally what he said it is. There is no contradiction, because none exists. Something can be a remembrance and be literally true, real, unsymbolic or so on. I really cannot imagine where you come up with this stuff.

And here we see how important context is. You are trying, with this quote, to apply the word shew to the preceeding bread and cup, even though even the most indifferent reader would see that it is actually qualifying the Lord’s death. So, all you have argued for is the actual Catholic teaching that Christ does not die again in the Mass. We re-present his sacrifice on the cross, which was once and for all.

I have had quite a bit of experience debating religion on the Internet, not just on this board, but in several other places as well; and I can tell you from experience that occasionally you come across someone who is so irrational in his way thinking, and so deficient in logic and reason, that it is impossible to debate or discuss anything with them at all. It becomes an unbearably frustrating exercise, and something that it is not really worth wasting any time on. That is how their minds work. You appear to be one of those kinds of people. So forgive me if I don’t show a lot of enthusiasm in wanting to continue this discussion with you. If you are interested in my thinking on this subject, you are very welcome to read those three or four Blog posts that I had linked to earlier. If you are not interested in that, that is okay; but I don’t have a lot of enthusiasm to be honest to continue this discussion with you. Thank you for your willingness to discuss them anyway.

zerinus

 

[appaloosablue]

What, Christians do not address Him as “Father?”

Father in a figurative notion, one that humans could understand, as the the Creator.

Does it have to be taken literally?

 

[Scriptorian]

The New Testament was written without punctuation and there were no parenthesis in Greek. Putting verses 7&8 in parenthesis is just wishful thinking on your part. Verses 7-10 are about Christ. He is Christ; with or without parenthesis.

That is a nice Mormon story but there is no Melchizedek Priesthood in the Old Testament. There is Melchizedek and the promise of a priest like Melchizedek; that is all.

Nowhere is the New Testament is an actual “Melchizedek Priesthood” only a priesthood like Melchizedek. Christ is the High Priest like Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:15) as the author of Hebrews explains. Only in the Book of Hebrews will Melchizedek be mentioned and only to show how Christ is the High Priest in a likeness to him (Hebrews 7:3-9, 7:16) No earthly human meet these qualification

Which takes me back to Mormonism being based completely on the word Joseph Smith, which history and science have destroyed.

If there is no punctuation in Greek, then my argument is just as valid as yours. You honestly think that Christ had to “learn obedience”? Personally, I think Christ was always perfect. That is why other scriptures call him “sinless.”

 

[cothrige]

I have had quite a bit of experience debating religion on the Internet, not just on this board, but in several other places as well; and I can tell you from experience that occasionally you come across someone who is so irrational in his way thinking, and so deficient in logic and reason, that it is impossible to debate or discuss anything with them at all. It becomes an unbearably frustrating exercise, and something that it is not really worth wasting any time on. That is how their minds work. You appear to be one of those kinds of people. So forgive me if I don’t show a lot of enthusiasm in wanting to continue this discussion with you. If you are interested in my thinking on this subject, you are very welcome to read those three or four Blog posts that I had linked to earlier. If you are not interested in that, that is okay; but I don’t have a lot of enthusiasm to be honest to continue this discussion with you. Thank you for your willingness to discuss them anyway.

zerinus

zerinus,

You should do whatever you like. I have responded to your comments directly, without cut and paste, and without trying to send you to any personal blogs or websites. And you have done as you have felt comfortable. My comments, I think, stand as they are, and your responses should do the same. I am not interested in criticizing your personality or intellect, and commenting on whether I find either inferior. I can’t see the point. And, if in the future you feel you would like to contribute to something I post, then you should feel absolutely free to do so. I will gladly read it, and perhaps comment if I think such is merited. If you decide to let something end there, please don’t trouble yourself to let me know. Just don’t post. Anything more is really not necessary.