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

[TexanKnight]

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.

If it was hyperbole, we wouldnt. Taken with the language used in the last supper…and taken with the fact that people walked away in John 6 and Jesus did not say “Don;'t go! I was just using hyperbole!” it seems pretty clear.,

Stop twisting the Words of Jesus

 

[pablope]

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.

Which goes back to my question to you…how do you know the CC is wrong in its interpretation of John 6 and you are correct?

What is your basis?

You will/can only trace your unbelief in the Real presence to the protestant reformation…so your religion and beliefs are not from the original church…but from protestant beliefs.

 

[SteveVH]

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.

That was the argument of those who first left him: “How can he give us his flesh to eat…”? We are not gnawing on Christ’s arm. He comes to us sacramentally and it is his glorified body and blood, soul and divinity that we consume under the appearance of bread and wine.

 

[zaffiroborant]

It is not a numbers game. You can have a hundred verses saying one thing, and one verse at the end that modifies, or clarifies, the meaning of the rest.

Your need to justify ignoring large amounts of Christ’s words is quite understandable.

 

[TheIrishman]

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

Thank you, I think this helps clear up the whole chapter:thumbsup: great stuff!

 

[Nicea325]

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.

Precisely. Equally important, since Jesus is the sacrificial lamb and the perfect sacrifice for all of humanity, why on earth would the Jews eat a sacrificed lamb at the Seder Meal and yet God only wants them to eat a symbolic lamb-who happens to be His Son the messiah? Now where is the reason and logic behind that position?

 

[Nicea325]

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

Which is the 19th century. A modern prophet who cannot get his facts straight? U-huh…yeah…sure. You go on believing fairy tales and I’ll stick with the TRUTH.

 

[Bokonon9]

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.

Actually what you describe is a metaphor, not a hyperbole.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

Even more clear as the tree of life, that Adam and Eve were commanded to not eat, but Jesus commands us to eat.

“Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

 

[CyndiTo411]

Even more clear as the tree of life, that Adam and Eve were commanded to not eat, but Jesus commands us to eat.

“Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

Apparently Christ wasnt being truthful because John 6:63 rules out those words it was a hyperbole

 

[RebeccaJ]

Apparently Christ wasnt being truthful because John 6:63 rules out those words it was a hyperbole

:banghead:

 

[CyndiTo411]

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

your kidding right? he was a prophet alright… a false prohpet but still a prophet

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. - Gal 1:8

Who was it again JS said gave him the keys and wasnt he visited by an angel?? oh but this probably doesnt apply huh?

 

[CyndiTo411]

:banghead:

 

[CyndiTo411]

your kidding right? he was a prophet alright… a false prohpet but still a prophet

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. - Gal 1:8

Who was it again JS said gave him the keys and wasnt he visited by an angel?? oh but this probably doesnt apply huh?

oh and we are still waiting for some prophesies to be fulfilled or have they changed dont worry we are not holding our breath

 

[mackbrislawn]

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.

I see. Although why would his flesh and blood need to be symbolized? I mean what purpose is there in having bread and wine or anything else symbolize his body and blood? So what? No Jew would want to eat anything that even symbolized blood or human flesh.

However, if one takes the view that the bread and wine really are his flesh and blood, that makes real, on a physical, fleshly level Paul’s teaching that we are the body of Christ.

Maybe we are straying off the subject a little, but in regards to baptism the Catholic view is that baptism not only symbolizes the washing away of our sins, but is the instrument that actually does the washing away, through the resurrection of Christ.

 

[mathonihah]

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.

My religious faith hangs on the testimony of the Holy Ghost.

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.

He came to restore the original Christian Church, not the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was already around; it didn’t need restoring. Your mistake is in thinking that the original Christian Church is the same as the Catholic Church. There people who question that.

 

[mathonihah]

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?

We believe that the Holy Spirit will testify to the truth of the Restoration through the Prophet Joseph Smith, to those who ask in faith, with real intent, acting no hypocrisy before God. The Holy Spirit will not testify to that which is not true.

 

[mathonihah]

Which goes back to my question to you…how do you know the CC is wrong in its interpretation of John 6 and you are correct?

What is your basis?

You will/can only trace your unbelief in the Real presence to the protestant reformation…so your religion and beliefs are not from the original church…but from protestant beliefs.

My beliefs are derived partly from the Bible, and partly from modern LDS scripture and revelation. No need for Protestantism.

 

[mathonihah]

Your need to justify ignoring large amounts of Christ’s words is quite understandable.

Your need to ignore, overlook, or circumvent a significant exegetical passage is regrettable.

 

[SteveVH]

My religious faith hangs on the testimony of the Holy Ghost.

Which no one can prove or disprove, which means that it is no evidence at all. The Holy Spirit has testified to me that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church. Is my claim not just as valid as yours?

He came to restore the original Christian Church, not the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was already around; it didn’t need restoring. Your mistake is in thinking that the original Christian Church is the same as the Catholic Church. There people who question that.

And what, pray tell, was the name of this original Christian Church? It was called “Catholic” in the first century. We can show an unbroken chain of succession back to Peter, and therefore to Christ himself. So what other Church was around back then?

This is typical of those who wish to muddy history, as if it was so long ago that no one really knows. But we do know and we can demonstrate our claims with documentation. You are correct that there are people who question that. There are people who question us landing on the moon as well. So what? The history has been documented, both within and without the Catholic Church.