Why would anyone want to be a Mormon or Jehovah Witnesses?

[Nicea325]

Mormonism does not adopt the view of the “Protesters”. In fact, in many ways Mormonism has a stronger resemblance to Catholicism than it has to Protestantism. With regard to the priesthood, Apostolic authority, the sacraments, ecclesiastical structure, and certain doctrinal matters too it has stronger resemblance to Catholicism than it has to Protestantism.

You are joking right? For starters…your entire religion-faith was founded in the 19th century. No way of debunking an historical fact.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathonihah
Why don’t you tell us what you think John 6:63 means, and support it with convincing exegesis—instead of shouting from the sidelines?

I think it means that the the physical eating of his flesh profiteth nothing, which is what some of his his disciples had misunderstood him as saying.

Exegesis? I am sorry, but is that what you believe you are practicing? No offense, but I’ll show you how easy it is to debunk your view of John 6:63.

Why on earth would Jesus repeatedly tell people they MUST EAT His Flesh and drink His Blood in order to have eternal life;however, moments later tell them the flesh profits absolutely nothing? Is Jesus confused here or what? Here let me show you the common error you commit as many non-Catholics do.

Jesus is NOT refering to HIS FLESH. You see? How easy it was to correct your poor biblical exegsis.

 

[Stephen168]

We don’t reject the principle of authority; we argue over who has it. They reject the principle.
All Protestants don’t reject infant baptism. Luther certainly didn’t. But we do.
We don’t reject the Eucharist; we reject Real Presence.
There is not a lot of difference between us in that respect either.
It may not look identical, but we accept the principle. Protestants reject the principle.

Protestants do not reject the principle of authority; like Joseph Smith many think it is themselves; which means they reject the authority of their local Catholic Bishop. That’s why they are Protestants. Protestants reject infant baptism, Protestants reject the real presence. Mormonism is more like protestants; they reject ancient Christian teachings.

Irrelevant.
That is up to you. From my point of view, I can see similarities.

It is relevant. Applying a ‘principle’ is as important as the principle. You see similarities yet you can’t name one doctrine that we share and Protestants reject.

 

[TexanKnight]

That depends on what setting you are asking that question. If you asking that question is a debating situation, such as what we are engaged in here, you are in the same situation as I am! How do I know what you have derived is truth? You should know what I have derived is truth in the same way that you expect me to know if what you have derived is truth.

The problem is, Mormons say they follow the Spirit, but they have no actual reasoning behind it. I can testify as strongly as this guy that The Holy Spirit led me OUT of the LDS Church. The Holy Spirit testified to me that the LDS Church is false.

So, to whom is the Spirit lying? My faith is backed by reason. My faith does not rely on the words of false prophets. I do not rely on the need for God to be weak for my faith to be true. I can walk the areas of the Bible. I can visit the areas discussed. Mormons can’t. I do not rely on a con man to tell me what to believe.

So…do I doubt for a minute that Holy Spirit who led me out of the LDS Church was the Real Spirit? No. And my faith is backed by reason.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I am entirely in agreement with that. The only point of disagreement (which you have’t pointed out) relates to the Catholic concept of Real Presence. That is the only part that we don’t agree with. But I am not sure how essential that is to the Catholic doctrine.

True, I did avoid the topic of the Real Presence, and I’m not sure either how it applies to the Catholic doctrine on sacraments. However, I’ll take a stab at it. Since the Catholic idea of sacraments is that they are not merely symbolic, but actually do what they symbolize, then it also follows that the bread and wine are not only symbols, but actually are what Jesus said they were, His body and blood.

I have trouble with the idea that Jesus was speaking metaphorically about the bread and wine and body and blood, because they don’t make sense as a metaphor. A metaphor to be meaningful as a metaphor has to make sense, to compare with something in a meaningful way. If Jesus said, I am the Way, or I am the door to life, or, my words are the way to life, these are sayings that could be understood as metaphors.

But to say His flesh and His blood? How do they come in? What do they have to do with it? How can His flesh and blood be a metaphor, or even a symbol, for anything? None I can think of. Why would Jesus use a metaphor so repugnant to Jews such as drinking blood, and eating human flesh? I can’t think that He would, therefore when Jesus said, this is my body, and this is my blood, the “is” is not metaphoric but literal.

Paul says we are part of His body, and so we literally, physically, become part of His body by partaking of the eucharistic sacrament.

 

[SteveVH]

True, I did avoid the topic of the Real Presence, and I’m not sure either how it applies to the Catholic doctrine on sacraments. However, I’ll take a stab at it. Since the Catholic idea of sacraments is that they are not merely symbolic, but actually do what they symbolize, then it also follows that the bread and wine are not only symbols, but actually are what Jesus said they were, His body and blood.

I have trouble with the idea that Jesus was speaking metaphorically about the bread and wine and body and blood, because they don’t make sense as a metaphor. A metaphor to be meaningful as a metaphor has to make sense, to compare with something in a meaningful way. If Jesus said, I am the Way, or I am the door to life, or, my words are the way to life, these are sayings that could be understood as metaphors.

But to say His flesh and His blood? How do they come in? What do they have to do with it? How can His flesh and blood be a metaphor, or even a symbol, for anything? None I can think of. Why would Jesus use a metaphor so repugnant to Jews such as drinking blood, and eating human flesh? I can’t think that He would, therefore when Jesus said, this is my body, and this is my blood, the “is” is not metaphoric but literal.

Paul says we are part of His body, and so we literally, physically, become part of His body by partaking of the eucharistic sacrament.

Well said. One thing that I think a lot of people miss is the fact that even if Mormons did believe in the real presence they would not have it because they have no authority to consecrate the elements. The same applies to all protestants as well, though the Anglicans at least have some semblance of an argument. So when they say it is just a symbol, they are correct. The only place it is not just a symbol is in the Catholic and Orthodox camps.

 

[SpeSalvi]

The problem is, Mormons say they follow the Spirit, but they have no actual reasoning behind it. I can testify as strongly as this guy that The Holy Spirit led me OUT of the LDS Church. The Holy Spirit testified to me that the LDS Church is false.

So, to whom is the Spirit lying? My faith is backed by reason. My faith does not rely on the words of false prophets. I do not rely on the need for God to be weak for my faith to be true. I can walk the areas of the Bible. I can visit the areas discussed. Mormons can’t. I do not rely on a con man to tell me what to believe.

So…do I doubt for a minute that Holy Spirit who led me out of the LDS Church was the Real Spirit? No. And my faith is backed by reason.

This. SO MUCH this. God gave us the ability to reason. I think it disappoints Him that so many are shunning that gift in His name.

Praise God for faith and logic! Praise God that I don’t have to shut off the reasoning part of my mind in order to believe!

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathonihah
Why don’t you tell us what you think John 6:63 means, and support it with convincing exegesis—instead of shouting from the sidelines?

I think it means that the the physical eating of his flesh profiteth nothing, which is what some of his his disciples had misunderstood him as saying.

Exegesis? I am sorry, but is that what you believe you are practicing? No offense, but I’ll show you how easy it is to debunk your view of John 6:63.

Why on earth would Jesus repeatedly tell people they MUST EAT His Flesh and drink His Blood in order to have eternal life;however, moments later tell them the flesh profits absolutely nothing? Is Jesus confused here or what? The Jesus of Mormonism is weak and meek,but the Jesus of orthodoxy is GOD and whatever he declares…IT HAPPENS! Here let me show you the common error you commit as many non-Catholics do.

Jesus is NOT refering to HIS FLESH. You see? How easy it was to correct your poor biblical exegesis.

BTW: You have not answered me:

During the Jewish Seder did they eat actual tangible foods or mere cookie cut-outs simply as symbols representing those foods?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathonihah
Your mocking of my religion gets you nowhere. An honest reading of John 6 should make plain to everyone that it does not support the kind of interpretation you guys are trying to put on it.

Really? Show me ONE person (finite creature) the first 1,000 years of Christianity who taught the Mormon version of John 6?

Hey guess what? No ONE supported your Mormon version.

 

[CyndiTo411]

They you don’t know what hyperbole is. Hyperbole says is, not like. That would be a simile, not a hyperbole. Hyperbole says, You have a beam in your eye; or, You are swallowing a camel; or, Pluck our your eye, cut off your hand, hate your father and mother, eat my flesh and blood, etc. That is hyperbole.

I was no longer speaking of a hyperbole I’m saying he was pretty thorough when he mentioned He IS the bread of life ans whoever eats of this bread which is true food (im paraphrasing for times sake) he was literally telling us the bread is his flesh. Why is it so hard to believe what Jesus said? Why would he mak e such a big deal of it if its just a symbol?? Answer me that!!!

 

[mathonihah]

You are joking right? For starters…your entire religion-faith was founded in the 19th century. No way of debunking an historical fact.

My “entire religious faith” was “founded” on a restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ by revelation though a modern day prophet.

 

[TexanKnight]

My “entire religious faith” was “founded” on a restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ by revelation though a modern day prophet.

lol…no…it was based on a con man who used rocks to find buried treasure

 

[mathonihah]

True, I did avoid the topic of the Real Presence, and I’m not sure either how it applies to the Catholic doctrine on sacraments. However, I’ll take a stab at it. Since the Catholic idea of sacraments is that they are not merely symbolic, but actually do what they symbolize, then it also follows that the bread and wine are not only symbols, but actually are what Jesus said they were, His body and blood.

I have trouble with the idea that Jesus was speaking metaphorically about the bread and wine and body and blood, because they don’t make sense as a metaphor. A metaphor to be meaningful as a metaphor has to make sense, to compare with something in a meaningful way. If Jesus said, I am the Way, or I am the door to life, or, my words are the way to life, these are sayings that could be understood as metaphors.

But to say His flesh and His blood? How do they come in? What do they have to do with it? How can His flesh and blood be a metaphor, or even a symbol, for anything? None I can think of. Why would Jesus use a metaphor so repugnant to Jews such as drinking blood, and eating human flesh? I can’t think that He would, therefore when Jesus said, this is my body, and this is my blood, the “is” is not metaphoric but literal.

Paul says we are part of His body, and so we literally, physically, become part of His body by partaking of the eucharistic sacrament.

Thank you for that explanation. My view, however, is not that his flesh and blood symbolize anything (although on a different level they might); but that the bread and wine symbolize his flesh and blood; in the same way that the brazen serpent symbolized the crucifixion, or baptism symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ; also the washing away of our sins through the Atonement.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Exegesis? I am sorry, but is that what you believe you are practicing? No offense, but I’ll show you how easy it is to debunk your view of John 6:63.

Why on earth would Jesus repeatedly tell people they MUST EAT His Flesh and drink His Blood in order to have eternal life;however, moments later tell them the flesh profits absolutely nothing? Is Jesus confused here or what? Here let me show you the common error you commit as many non-Catholics do.

Jesus is NOT refering to HIS FLESH. You see? How easy it was to correct your poor biblical exegsis.

This especially makes sense if you look and see that He is talking to people who came to Him because they filled themselves on the loaves and were looking for more food. He then explains even though one eats bread or manna one will still die. But Christ’s flesh is real food and His blood real drink and it gives eternal life unlike the loaves or the manna which profit nothing.

 

[mathonihah]

I was no longer speaking of a hyperbole I’m saying he was pretty thorough when he mentioned He IS the bread of life ans whoever eats of this bread which is true food (im paraphrasing for times sake) he was literally telling us the bread is his flesh. Why is it so hard to believe what Jesus said? Why would he mak e such a big deal of it if its just a symbol?? Answer me that!!!

He was making an important point. Salvation is through his atoning sacrifice. The fact that it was an important point, doesn’t turn the hyperbole into something literal.

 

[RebeccaJ]

He was making an important point. Salvation is through his atoning sacrifice. The fact that it was an important point, doesn’t turn the hyperbole into something literal.

There is no evidence that the disciples of Jesus took His words metaphorically. Many disciples stopped following Him because they were offended at His command to EAT His flesh and DRINK His blood.

Don’t you think that as they left, He would have stopped them if He really didn’t mean what He said? “Hey, guys, no need to be offended I was speaking symbolically!” He didn’t say any such thing.

Further, there is no evidence that His Church has ever taught the Eucharist as symbolic. NO Christian, for 1500 years, believed Jesus was speaking symbolically until the Protestants changed it. You follow the Protestant tradition, not Christ’s Words.

 

[TheIrishman]

I don’t mean to offend or anything I just have a question that popped up while reading these pages.

How do Catholics respond to people that say they are cannibals? Since they are eating the actual body and drinking the actual blood of Christ? just wondering.

 

[SteveVH]

My “entire religious faith” was “founded” on a restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ by revelation though a modern day prophet.

Your “entire religious faith” hangs on the claims of a man, a man not known for a great deal of integrity, to put it very mildly. This man’s claims contradict the most fundamental of Christian doctrines, doctrines which can be demonstrated to have originated with the earliest Church and which have not changed. The so-called “restoration”, in fact looks nothing at all like the original.

I lived in the Netherlands for five years and got to witness part of the restoration of two Rembrandts at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. It was a painstaking process, removing the film and grime which had accumulated over several hundred years in order to reveal the original beauty of the paintings. The process must be done in such a manner as to not damage or in any way change the strokes and pigment of the original. As for Joseph Smith restoring the original Church, it is more like he painted clown faces over the masterpiece. It does not resemble the original in any way, shape or form.

People restore cars all the time. In restoring an automobile it is absolutely imperative that one has the original parts. Not just any door handle will do. Even the knobs on the radio have to be the real thing. Now if someone was to try to sell the car as a restored original and it was discovered that some of the parts were not original, he would be considered a fraud. In Joseph Smith’s case it isn’t even the same vehicle, much less original parts.

Joseph Smith certainly started a new religion, but he restored nothing.

 

[pablope]

My “entire religious faith” was “founded” on a restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ by revelation though a modern day prophet.

As are the 7th day adventists…who claim the revelations to EGW as from God…so what makes your claims more believable than those from EGW and the SDA?

Or the JWs?

And who besides the LDS has authenticated the revalation or vision of Joseph Smith?

What other signs were given to give validity to the claim of a restored true church?

 

[RebeccaJ]

I don’t mean to offend or anything I just have a question that popped up while reading these pages.

How do Catholics respond to people that say they are cannibals? Since they are eating the actual body and drinking the actual blood of Christ? just wondering.

No offense taken. I asked the same thing, or rather, said to a Catholic acquaintance that he was a cannibal.

I think this explains it well.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-catholics-believe-about-john-6