Did we have a pre-premortal existence?

[_gdemetz]

Words are cheap. For someone to say that they believe in someone, but then they don't follow the teachings of that someone is grossly hypocritical! That someone taught that baptism does save us (Mark 16:16)! That someone also taught that for one to enter into life, they need to keep His commandments!!!

[_jo1952]

Sorry, but you're doing it again. Not paying to what I said, but instead preaching.

Please be aware, Mormons are woefully ignorant about the meaning of the Bible. I know you think that isn't so, but it is so.

That's rather a broad judgment. As far as this Mormon goes, I understand a lot more about the Bible than I have seen in your beliefs. It is the Holy Ghost who has opened the layers upon layers, the types, the patterns, of understanding and knowledge in the Bible. As I continue to seek more Truth, the more that is revealed to me from the pages of the Bible. I do not stop and compare these understandings with Theologians, with what the LDS Church teaches, or what other churches have to say about the Bible in order to determine if what I believe is correct. It is discernment of the Holy Ghost's revealing Truth to me which I put my faith in. The Truth I have gained has been received personally by me in my very personal relationship with God. The only times I present the Truth revealed to me is when I see that even milk understanding is being misinterpreted. So I will offer a different understanding. No one needs to or is required to believe my words. If a person is not prepared to have Truth revealed to them, they will not receive it; or they will only receive that part of Truth they are able to accept and handle; just as is taught in the Bible.

What I said was, she scriptures are prophecy. I had in mind the phrase that is used often in the New Testament to name the Hebrew scriptures: the law and the prophets.

Thank you for clarifying what you meant to say.

Of course not everything is prophetic, but what is, is. And we were discussing prophecy not history. You changed the subject.

I disagree; but it is not a big deal.

The prophecies from God in the Scriptures are the WORD OF GOD. God's Word is not something that is separate from Him, no more than your word is separate from you. If you give your word, is it binding or not? Is it yours or not?

Again, thank you for clarifying what you meant to say. I believe we are in agreement.

Your quotes are in regards to the Catholic Church, not the world.

Which is why I am pointing out their error.

You are reading Canonical Law(s). You can think of Canonical Law as the counterpart to the Mormon's Church Handbook of Instructions.

Thank you for making that distinction. However, since it represents what the RCC believes about their right to coerce people into doing what they want them to do, they are disobeying Peter's instructions.

Once more, here is what he taught:

"1 Peter 5:1-3 (KJV)

5 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock."

Well this is always a conundrum for Mormons, isn't it? A claim that Christ's Church failed while all the while, pointing out where it hasn't. i.e., you just pointed out the continuity of the priesthood. Please tell me you don't believe your Mormon priesthood holders don't have oversight.

Oversight is not the issue of importance in Peter's teaching. His point is that in feeding God's flock that we do so NOT BY CONSTRAINT (not making it compulsory), but to allow the flock to be fed willingly.

In the Catholic Church, it is an oversight of service. Our Bishops are the successors to the Apostles, and are our shepherds. Their oversight is in the way that Jesus gave oversight to Peter: "FEED MY SHEEP".

Inasmuch as the RCC claims that a person must be a member of the RCC in order to achieve salvation, this very claim is one of constraint.

The Bishops are the successors to the Apostles? Where does the Bible teach this? In fact, Peter did not believe in this succession.

2 Peter 1:12-15 (KJV)

12 Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth.

13 Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance;

14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.

15 Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.

Peter is teaching that he will not be negligent to ALWAYS put us in remembrance of and be established in THE PRESENT TRUTH. Then he explains that he will do this while he is in "this tabernacle", which is his physical body at that time. He knows that his time is short because Jesus has shown him so. Then he explains that he will endeavor (which the Greek translation is to be "earnest and diligent") about keeping us in remembrance AFTER HIS DECEASE. As such, putting the people in remembrance both while he is still alive AND putting them in remembrance AFTER his physical death, he will ALWAYS (before and after death = always) keep them established in THE PRESENT TRUTH.

THIS IS A PROPHECY!! ***********(GDMETZ, ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION????)************

So, why does he already see that it will be necessary to keep them established in the Present Truth?? And, how will he be able to be "earnest and diligent" to do so after he physically dies? If the Bishops are the successors to the Apostles, then why does Peter need to be earnest and diligent about ALWAYS establishing the people in the Present Truth? Are the people not going hang on to and continue to be established in the Present Truth? If they WILL stay established, then what is the need for Peter to continue, even after death, to keep them established in the Present Truth?

Catholics accept the doctrines of the Trinity because they convey truth. Your attempt at demonizing all things Catholics aside, let me step you through the conversion process:

Let us be quite clear on this. The Catholics not only "accept" the Trinity Dogma; they created it.

- a person comes to a Catholic Church and says "hi, I would like to learn what Catholicism teaches"
- they are taught, freely, no one chains them inside of a church a forces them to listen. A person can leave anytime they like. No one will guilt them into coming back. It is the Holy Spirit who converts people.
- instructions for most people takes 9-12 months. Some people take less time, if they are coming from mainstream Protestantism. Some take more, as a personal choice. I've known people who have stayed in the instructional process of conversion for three years or more.
- the process defines baptism as occurring for most at the Easter Vigil (the night before Easter Sunday). A person CHOOSES to be baptized. No one coerces anyone to become baptized.
- people who convert come to an understanding and acceptance, of all Christian teaching including the Trinity, by the Holy Spirit. No ne forces anyone to believe anything they don't want to believe. If a person doesn't believe, well then, they choose to not be baptized, right?

You are still missing the fact that the RCC believes they are the only way for a person to reach salvation.

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.xii
xii. Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Rome: 1302).

I will state once more that the RCC has become lord over God's heritage!

The Catholic Church clearly teaches that Christ died for ALL. It is clear teaching that even a person who never heard of Jesus Christ in their entire lives will be judged according to what they understand about God, and how they live what they understand. So even the most remote cannibal will be judged, and can be judged to live with God in heaven. This is only possible because of Jesus Christ!

This does not agree with their condemnation of me. According to the RCC, I am damned because I will not accept the incomprehensible mystery of the Trinity Dogma. It seems rather ironic that if I will not accept something which is incomprehensible to begin with, that the RCC still feels it is okay to condemn me. Thus, through tactics of fear and COERCION they want me to accept it anyway. While I am outside of the RCC and remain unbaptized by them, they have condemned me to eternal hell.

Under paragraph # 816 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we read, "The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: 'For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God.'" (C.C.C. # 816)

As stated, not only is salvation found in the Catholic Church, but also the "fullness of the means" of salvation.

They condemned my father when he married my mother. She, as a Lutheran, felt the RCC was apostate and refused to sign papers promising to raise any children born in their marriage in the RCC. He was excommunicated because of something she refused to do. They used coercion against my father; completely against Peter's teaching.

Who did Jesus point to who were doing the same thing (I.E., closing the gates of Heaven)? The Pharisees!!!

Good Lord, I wish you would read something that has all the responses to these very old Protestant accusation.

You seem to be missing the point that the wearing of a tiara was not something done in the ancient church. I would like to ask you a question. Who are the two princes the Bible teaches us are at work on the Earth? Satan is the prince of darkness who has also been called the god of this earth by Paul. The other is the Archangel Michael. He is here to protect the Jews from Satan. Even Michael, in the last days, will pull away from the Earth, and Satan will have complete reign until Christ returns. Here is something non-Biblical which the RCC teaches about the Pope. They claim that the Popes are Princes of the Christian Church. Where did Peter ever call himself a Prince? Where does the Bible teach this?

You are assuming first that because someone wears a crown that they are doing with the intent of usurping Jesus Christ. That is your assumption, because that is how you want to view the Catholic Church. No Catholic assumes or believes the Pope is above Christ. Christ is King.

As I just pointed out, the RCC does see the Pope as a Prince. This belief was added long after the Apostles were gone. I daresay that if the Pope thought he could get away with it, he WOULD declare himself King.

NO ONE IS WORSHIPPING THE POPE. I swear, you'd see someone shaking the Pope's hand and find some scripture to come up with that says we shouldn't shake the Pope's hand and doing so is an offense to Jesus Christ.

These people don't look like they are shaking the Pope's hand. It looks to me like they are praying to him.

Catholics love our Pope, why do you think this is for the sake of the Pope? We love our Pope because he is a sign of God's love in the world. God didn't leave us without our shepherds. The Pope is just one Bishop, that of Rome. People love the Pope because of what God has done for us. Kissing him is showing our understanding of what Christ has down for us, through His Church. God showers his love on the world. The Pope is for us, a sign of God's love.

I can understand that you love the Pope. In kneeling before him, in kissing his foot, in kissing his ring, in kissing his hand, when initiates lay prostate before him, they may (as you claim...though I don't believe for a second that ALL members of the RCC make such a distinction) be thinking about God and showing this as a sign that they love God. In reality, however, this IS A FORM OF WORSHIP TO SOMEONE OTHER THAN TO GOD. AND BOTH PETER AND JOHN, THE BELOVED, MADE IT QUITE CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT TO DO THIS.

And they have the audacity to claim that we (the LDS and other believers who do not hold to the Trinity Dogma) MUST worship God with the correct image and His correct Nature in mind when we pray. Otherwise, we are not praying to the correct God. Yet we are on our knees praying to our unseen God; not some image which man has made, not to dead people, not to the Pope or a statue of the Pope, etc.

Most certainly we'll never agree on infant baptism. So, I'll only let you know that we believe baptism is how a person is made new, in Jesus Christ. Baptizing our children is one of the most joyous occasions for the parents and family. They are given the gifts of the Holy Spirit at the baptism, that can help them to grow strong in their faith. It is the responsibility of the parents and godparents to raise a child in their faith. When they are of an age where they can understand and consent, they receive more formal church training, and then are fully received into the Church with Confirmation and Eucharist.

You are correct, we certainly will never agree on infant baptism. Meanwhile, you have neglected to address those infants and children who die before being baptized. You have also ignored what Peter taught, and not addressed this either. Nor have you address the issue of free will.

If you will read your New Testament more carefully, you will see that baptism replaces circumcision. Do you think the Israelites were forcing their children into something? We don't. Think of it this way. When the Hebrews crossed the river to the promised land, did they leave their young children, including infants, behind until they could make that crossing decision for themselves?

The New Testament does NOT teach that baptism replaces circumcision. Circumcision represents a Covenant made between God and Abraham. The Israelites and their servants, regardless of whether they accept Christ, still need to be circumcized in order to participate in that Covenant. Circumcision does not involve the Atonement; baptism does.

The crossing of the river is one of those Bible events that prefigures baptism. We see no reason to keep our children from the gifts of God.

Yet those who crossed the river were circumcized. Again, baptism and circumsion do not represent the same thing.

On the other hand, the Mormon idea of children somehow losing the Kingdom of God because they turned 8 years old, and all of the sudden baptism is necessary, is problematic.

Not all children are ready to be baptized at the age of 8. It is an arbitrary age. Some are baptized later; depending upon the maturity of the child and their understanding of what is taking place. However, baptism is not performed before the age of 8. By the time baptism does take place, the young person is able to know the difference between right and wrong. Thus, they are becoming accountable for their choices. The LDS Church is not the only church which does not believe in infant baptism.

Yes, I am Catholic, I know about the encyclopedia. It is called the "old" encyclopedia for a reason. It was written before Vatican II, and so does not have current information.

It also held pre-Vatican II "Truth" (as identified prior to Vatican II) which seems to longer be considered "Truth" since Vatican II, as those Truths have been deleted. I see this as quite problematic.

You should dig deeper. But also, as I've already stated, Catholicism is not sola scriptura. Jesus established a Church, and gave to it the gift of the Holy Spirit in order that it could be guided. Scripture and Sacred Tradition are not at odds, they are the two legs of revelation.

What I have seen is that the Pope claims the sole right of revelation for faith and morals. Also, anything he signs or claims to be ex-cathedra is given to him directly from God. However, when any particular Pope's ex-cathedra teachings or revelations become inconvenient for the RCC, they discredit that Pope and claim that his actions were fallible because he did not use the proper formula for meeting the criteria for being ex-cathedra. Now, if the RCC continues to agree with a Pope's ex-cathedra actions, then he is infallible; otherwise, not so much.

You are teaching Mormonism, not Christianity.

Sorry, I am rather a rebel when it comes to interpreting the Bible. I prefer to listen to what the Holy Ghost reveals to me. What I have been writing does not come from any religious institution; it comes from me as a member of the Body of Christ. I will say, however, that one of the reasons I was attracted to the LDS Church is because some of their interpretations of the Bible agreed with what had already been revealed to me.

Doesn't matter. You have Mormon written all over your posts.

You are confusing Truth with Mormonism in general. The LDS Church has quite a bit of milk Truth and some meat Truth for those who are able to hear and see it; moreso than I was able to find in other religious institutions. However, as I have said, the LDS Church has not had all Truth revealed to it. Or at least, the Prophets and Apostles have not been allowed to share all that has been revealed to them; just like the Apostles and Prophets of old. Meanwhile, the Holy Ghost will reveal to ANY individual whatever Truth Father tells the Holy Ghost to reveal to that person. We are not saved as members of a religious institution. We are saved as individuals; and it is individuals who make up the Body of Christ.

That reminds me, you did not address the fact that Jesus taught us only call His Father "Father". Hence, why does the RCC ignore this teaching from our Savior?

Seriously, can I tell you one more time that you are ignorant of Catholic teaching. You have your own idea going of what it is or what it isn't but you haven't grasped it, at all. Please, at least read something that has already gone over these very old Protestant claims. There's a few hundreds years worth of response to them. Two more modern books are "Catholics for Dummies" or "Rome Sweet Home" by Scott Hahn (or anything by Scott Hahn for that matter.)

I appreciate the references you have given me. I was hoping that you would address the specific quotes I took directly from the RCC.

I think that LDS like to simplify those who have left, in terms like this that they can understand. It is much more complex. My exit started when I was very young. I remember thinking "what?" as young as third grade. By the time I was in my teens, I didn't believe any of what I was being taught. Was going to church just to please my parents. As soon as I was old enough to move out on my own, I left Mormonism for good.

It wasn't the people. I have very good memories of the people. Of course there are instances I remember of sketchy behavior and belief, but that isn't what defines my Mormon experience.

I could never believe in the Mormon God. I spent a few years after I left trying to figure out how to maintain a belief in God. The moment I had the idea that I didn't have to believe in God at all, was a giant relief. I had never felt so happy about a decision in my young life, to that point.

Like you, I studied many religions, as an interest in "belief systems", including circling back around to Mormonism. I was curious in a way to see if it was possible for me to believe it, after so long away. It isn't. I find it hard to understand how anyone can be Mormon. I'd have to put my brain on a shelf in order to be a Mormon.

You sound like me and my experience in the Lutheran Church!!

You should listen to your own advice.

How many times will I say that I do not believe the LDS Church has all the Truth, or that I don't believe a person needs to be LDS to achieve salvation before you will hear me? Therefore, I AM listening to my own advice! I seek for Truth wherever I can find it!!

Your reasoning is flawed. You think you are showing me something I didn't know. Hello. I was raised LDS, which means I raised to understand the RCC as the great and abominable church. I clearly remember whole Sunday school lessons that went through the exact same things you have posted.

I missed those lessons. The LDS Church does not teach this any more. They focus on a person's personal relation with God and helping members learn how to discern and be guided by the Holy Ghost; all while teaching from Holy Canon. Whatever I have determined about the RCC, I have done so in my own private studies. You should know that I also think the Reformation churches are also apostate in their teachings since the RCC is the root from which they picked and chose which doctrines they would hold to. Hmmm, I wonder if this is why the Church doesn't teach that it is the RCC that is whore of the earth? I.E., that the Reformation churches, also being apostate, represent the whore of the earth. Actually, I believe that everything which is going to happen in the end times to the whole earth, also happens to each member of the Body of Christ. In other words, all of us at some point in our lives represent the whore of the earth; it is part of the process of purification and sanctification we go through.

When I approached Catholicism, I did so with a clear mind. I started from scratch, as though I had never even heard the word "God" in my life. I had to unlearn a lot of my Mormon upbringing, and there were times I was so floored by what I learned about Catholicism, compared to what I had been taught, and other times I was so angry at Mormonism, for the lies it had taught me.

Again, you sound just like me.

God pulled me through. It was a struggle, which I can place squarely on the lies of Mormonism.

I have come to realize that all churches teach at least some Truth. I have even come to realize that other world religions also teach at least some Truth. I also know that God will lead us to where WE can best learn of Him. Also, based on the abilities we have, He will lead us wherever we can be of best use for Him and His purposes. It is not as cut and dried, or black and white, as you currently think.

Certainly, as a Catholic, there are teachings that must be accepted to be a Catholic. There are teachings that must be accepted to be a Mormon. Why is it that Catholic teachings that must be accepted are forced, but Mormon teachings that must be accepted are not forced?

This is why I question what the RCC claims. Each religious institution has certain dogmas one needs to accept. However, the RCC excludes from salvation those who do not place themselves under the guiding hands of the Roman Pontiff. I do not see the RCC doing any work for the souls of non-members or non-believers. If I am wrong, then please correct me.

Don't you have to believe Joseph Smith is a prophet to be a Mormon? Don't you have to believe in an anthropomorphic God. GOD FORBID, you believe God is Triune. You couldn't be a Mormon then, could you?

The point you are missing is that the LDS Church does not claim you must be LDS in order to be saved. Any LDS person who tells you differently does not understand their own church's beliefs. When we do ordinances in the Temple for others, we have no idea what their beliefs were or weren't before they died. We are providing a service for the dead in accordance with what God has taught us to do. The dead can choose to accept or reject the work that is being done for them. Performing their ordinances by proxy does NOT make them a member of the LDS Church.

You go on and on about the Mormon church letting you be free to accept truth. But you can be sure, I can see your chains. You are free to accept anything as truth AS LONG AS IT IS NOT CATHOLIC.

I am sorry you see me this way. God is bigger and greater than any religious institution. I encourage others to keep their minds and hearts open so that they can be prepared and ready to recognize Truth wherever they may find it.

Blessings,

jo

[_jo1952]

The idea of 10 commandments is anachronistic. No Jew in Jesus' day thought of there being only ten commandments, lists of the Deuteronomical laws extended into the hundreds. It's mostly based on this same passage, but the division into 10 specific commandments is a modern hermeneutic.

Hello S:

The Ten commandments being referred to are the ones written by the finger of God on the plates (which are currently supposed to be stored in the Ark of the Covenant). Moses wrote hundreds more as time passed.

And jo, you are utterly & completely wrong about your history. Read... well, anything, actually. You're just wrong: Orthodox maintain the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Eucharist, and at an Orthodox Council in the 17th century they even went so far as to use a Greek translation of the technical term "transubstantiation," although the Orthodox have always maintained that the process by which ordinary bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood of our Lord is radically incomprehensible.

I apologize. As Frank pointed out, my source came from a period in church history when arguments were going on about whether or not the Real Presence was in the Eucharist. Sometimes the church taught that it was, and sometimes that it was not. By the time of the Great Schism (circa 1054 as there is no concise date since more than one issue was at the center of the split), both East and West had decided to stick with the Real Presence. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

Blessings,

jo

[_jo1952]

"madeleine"
What authority canonized scripture, and if you believe they failed, why do you believe they succeeded, i.e., why use the Bible at all?

We use it mostly because it is what remains which the RCC did not destroy. By their attempts to destroy what they did not canonize, they were hoping no one would take it upon themselves to be able to read anything which might disagree with the dogmas and doctrine they were teaching. Fortunately, they were not always successful.

Those who have the guidance of the Holy Ghost are able to read what has been surfacing over time. Thus, they can determine for themselves what Truths were kept out of the Bible.

What? Lol. I had to google that one. here you go....

http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/bobs10c.html

I do not see how your link satisfactorily addresses the issue which I took directly from a Vatican website:

[http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm

A Traditional Catechetical Formula

1. I am the LORD your God:
you shall not have
strange Gods before me.

2. You shall not take
the name of the LORD your God in vain.

It appears the RCC is undermining the importance of what WAS the second of the ten commandments in order to be able to advance their own heresy.

Gives you some idea about the Kabbalah then, doesn't it.

Yet you give great importance to both scripture and tradition. Why don't you give any importance or even due consideration to Hebrew oral tradition? Isn't it because of the influence of the RCC?

No, a group of people claiming secret knowledge arose separately.

I strongly disagree with your negativity concerning this secret knowledge. More to follow...

Actually, no.

Consider:

Flavius Josephus wrote: The Pharisees "say that all the souls are incorruptible, but the souls of good men only, are removed into other bodies, but the souls of bad men are subject to punishments lasting for ages."

Saint Jerome (340-420)
"The doctrine of mortal Probations has been secretly taught from ancient times to small numbers of people, as a traditional truth which was not to be divulged" (Epistola ad Demetriadem).

St. Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa (257–332 A.D.)
“It is absolutely necessary that the soul should be healed and purified, and if this does not take place during its life on earth it must be accomplished in future lives. . . . The soul . . . is immaterial and invisible in nature, it at one time puts off one body . . . and exchanges it for a second.”

And: “Every soul comes into this world strengthened by the victories or weakened by the defeats of its previous life.”

Saint Sulpitius Severus (363-420)
"Philosophy speaks of souls being prepared by a course reincarnation....When first it comes down to earth, it [the soul] embarks on this animal spirit as on a boat, and through it is brought into contact with matter....The soul which did not quickly return to the heavenly region from which it was sent down to earth had to go through many lives of wandering" (Treatise On Dreams).

Origen
"The soul has neither beginning nor end. [They] come into this world strengthened by the victories or weakened by the defeats of their previous lives"

St. Justin Martyr (100–165 A.D.) expressly stated that the soul inhabits more than one human body.

St. Augustine (354–430 A.D.)
Speculated: “The message of Plato . . . now shines forth mainly in Plotinus, a Platonist so like his master that one would think . . . that Plato is born again in Plotinus.”

and more.......

Also consider:

John 9:1-3 (KJV) (emphasis is mine)

9 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.

2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him

Here it seems the disciples held a belief in reincarnation. See how they ask not only was this man born blind because of the sin of his parents. They also are asking if the man himself had sinned before he was born blind. For him to have been born blind, therefore, it could not have been for a sin he committed after being born. As it happens, Jesus explains that this man was born blind so that the works of God should be made manifest in him; i.e., so that Jesus could perform the miracle of giving the man sight (not returning his sight - since he was born blind).

I know this is a Mormon favorite thing, I've seen it plenty of times. When a child is sitting at his/her mother's breast, is meat hidden from them because they aren't able to eat it yet? Are they unaware that meat exists? Do we hide meat from infants?

This is not a uniquely Mormon teaching. A newborn is not aware of much of anything in the physical world. It is not until they get a little older that they can even begin to handle solid foods. We are not hiding anything from them. We are giving them what they can handle. The same is true of how God reveals Truth to us.

I believe Jesus when He said, "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you".

The Greek definitions for both "eat" and "drink" can be taken either literally or figuratively.

Luke 22:19-20 (KJV)

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.

Here Luke's version teaches us that we take the bread "in remembrance" of Jesus' body. This seems to infer a figurative meaning. The cup is the new "testament" - the Greek translation of which is: Contract or Covenant. This does not appear to mean that we are literally drinking His blood either.

You believe that many disciples stopped following Jesus because a symbol of eating was to hard to accept?

You need to read more verses. It wasn't hard for the disciples to consider eating His flesh or drinking His blood!! They did not believe the message He was teaching....more detail is coming.

John 6:62-66 (KJV) (emphasis mine)

62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth[i]; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.[/i]

The Greek definition of the word "flesh" in verse 63 is the same Greek definition as in verse 56. If Jesus were speaking literally, then in verse 63, He is claiming that His flesh profiteth nothing. Obviously, therefore, Jesus is not speaking of our literally eating His flesh. He is speaking figuratively!!

Also, by reiterating what He had said earlier before verse 65: "Therefore said I unto you[i], that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father."[/i], He is making very clear that this is why those who did not believe Him walked away.

No one is asking you to accept anything "automatically". Either you believe Jesus has guided His Church, as He promised, or you don't. I believe He has, and still does. I don't hold a belief that the Holy Spirit stopped guiding Christ's Church. I don't automatically accept the myth of a "great apostasy", really don't see any evidence for it.

The method God used to the guide church was by the Holy Ghost. This He has never ceased to do. It is man, specifically the Leaders of the RCC, who teach as doctrine the commandments of men; just like the Pharisees. Why do you think Jesus so specifically taught about the Pharisees? To give us a history lesson??? Or to teach the patterns that mankind follows? He used them as an example because they were the leaders of the Hebrews. Now the Gentiles who became believers and then leaders have done the very same thing.

This isn't logical. It is people, humans, who crucified Jesus Christ. Not their knowledge (or lack thereof). Many Jews converted to Christianity. Jews certainly know the Messianic prophecies. What was not accepted by some, or many Jews, of Christ's time (and today), is that He is the Messiah.

Of course it was people who crucified Jesus Christ! The point is that their knowledge of Holy Scripture did not do them any good! Even with their written and their oral traditions, and all the prophecies, they still did not recognize who Jesus was. When Christ entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday - precisely on the very day that Daniel had prophesied about, the people did not recognize that He was the promised Messiah. That is WHY Jesus wept! He knew what was going to happen to the people and to the city as a result. This is when the Jews were blinded.

Certainly they had all the knowledge available to them about the Messiah, including Jesus Christ Himself, in person. He was a Jew, and Jewish scripture is referenced many times (particularly in the Gospel of Luke and the letter to the Hebrews) in order to show very specifically the prophecies that Jesus fulfills. What meaning would this have to Jews if they hadn't been first taught, and knew, about the prophecies to begin with? Or didn't find them to be important?

Some people believe, some do not. Still the same today, for anyone, Jew or not. If you think it is knowledge that saves, then all you have to do is say "Jesus is Lord and Savior" to someone. There, they have the knowledge. Done.

At the very least, the scribes and the Pharisees should have recognized who Jesus was because they were the leaders and authorities who taught scripture to the Jews. They also wanted and were expecting a Messiah who would be able to deliver them from being ruled by non-Jews. However, due to the fact that they were teaching as doctrine the commandments of men (through their own changing of doctrine), they screwed up big time! It is my claim that the RCC and Reformation churches have done the same thing; not because of what the LDS Church teaches. Rather, I make this claim based on studying the Bible with the guidance of the Holy Ghost who is the only one who can reveal spiritual Truth to us on the earth.

God's Word is Jesus Christ. Present in many ways. Scripture, Eucharist, His Church, prayer, the baptized. The Holy Spirit is not something separate from God. God is: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They testify of each other. The Holy Spirit bestows gifts of God, giving them, but what is given is not something separate from the Word of God.

So, you do not believe the following?

1 John 5:7-8 (KJV)

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Nothing about the Father or the Word bearing witness here on earth. Then, of course, there is Jesus' teaching that it is the Holy Ghost who will lead us to all Truth.

Blessings,

jo

[_gdemetz]

Why Nipper? Because Lazuras kept the commandments and the rich man didn't! "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Jesus Christ

"If thou wilt enter into life, walk down the isle and make a profession of faith with your mouth." Papa Joe's Evangelical Translation

[_LittleNipper]

Why Nipper? Because Lazuras kept the commandments and the rich man didn't! "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Jesus Christ

"If thou wilt enter into life, walk down the isle and make a profession of faith with your mouth." Papa Joe's Evangelical Translation

Jesus never said that the rich man was guilty of not sacrificing for his sin. When was Lazuras ever "baptised"? Have you never broken a commandment? The Bible says if you break one, you broke them all.

[_Franktalk]

Saying a child's belief is naïve speaks volumes to me.

And what does it say?

There are two schools of thought about who we are. One is that we are in total a product of God's creation. In which our very soul is a created thing. This belief makes for an odd existence for us in the creation. There are winners and losers chosen by God. He hands out different skill sets sets for each person and places each of us in different environments. The mold is cast and we act out our existence in some destiny driven way. Then God punishes those who received little faith. I do not believe this even a little. The other thought says that we arespirits and those spirits have always existed. Each spirit is unique and each by free will has developed along a path. That spirit in order to progress needs to be housed in flesh and become subject to trials. That spirit is judged by the choices it made while being in the flesh. And the main goal is to return to God's presence. This is done by developing faith and by following the rules once you recognize there are rules.

Children do not know sin and are learning about the creation. They are sinless. We can become sinless again by accepting salvation by our faith and repenting of our sins once we know sin. Children do not have the weight of the creation upon them. They are not sure what is real. We can achieve this very state by casting off the world and going back to a point where we don't know exactly what is real. In this way we become children again.

The whole idea of original sin is in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ. If we are born in sin yet we are told to be like children then are we to die in sin? If we fully cast off the world we return to innocence we do not return to sin.

[_Franktalk]

To expand on the thought of child like innocence I think that the garden is a type for all of us.

In the beginning Adam and Eve did not know the creation and did not know sin. In this they were children. Then a day came when they did learn of the creation and the sin it held. This is the act of the forbidden fruit for them and the age of accountability for us. The rest of their life was spent trying to get back into God's presence. We do the same. Yes, it is that simple.

[_LittleNipper]

Saying a child's belief is naïve speaks volumes to me.

And what does it say?

There are two schools of thought about who we are. One is that we are in total a product of God's creation. In which our very soul is a created thing. This belief makes for an odd existence for us in the creation. There are winners and losers chosen by God. He hands out different skill sets sets for each person and places each of us in different environments. The mold is cast and we act out our existence in some destiny driven way. Then God punishes those who received little faith. I do not believe this even a little. The other thought says that we arespirits and those spirits have always existed. Each spirit is unique and each by free will has developed along a path. That spirit in order to progress needs to be housed in flesh and become subject to trials. That spirit is judged by the choices it made while being in the flesh. And the main goal is to return to God's presence. This is done by developing faith and by following the rules once you recognize there are rules.

Children do not know sin and are learning about the creation. They are sinless. We can become sinless again by accepting salvation by our faith and repenting of our sins once we know sin. Children do not have the weight of the creation upon them. They are not sure what is real. We can achieve this very state by casting off the world and going back to a point where we don't know exactly what is real. In this way we become children again.

The whole idea of original sin is in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ. If we are born in sin yet we are told to be like children then are we to die in sin? If we fully cast off the world we return to innocence we do not return to sin.

And if those spirits always existed, why do we need God --- as such would make us eternal. I cannot accept that. God is perfect. We are not perfect. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

[_Franktalk]

And if those spirits always existed, why do we need God --- as such would make us eternal. I cannot accept that. God is perfect. We are not perfect. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

I accept that in the greater reality that all things can progress. I also accept that things can be dormant. I also accept that we can choose to enter an environment in which memories can be blocked leading to new learning environments. I think when some people hear about eternity they get wrapped up with absolutes. Like anything eternal can't learn because everything is known. I reject this thought because it is born of this world and is not something that we can extend to the greater reality.

Let us take another view. Imagine a box with a stone inside. As long as the box and stone are left alone they will exist in some limited way. But if we were to reach into the box and then cast the stone to the sun then the stone will experience many changes not available in the old environment. Now imagine that instead of a stone we use a spirit. If the natural state of the spirit is like a stone in a box then the spirit needs outside intervention to progress or experience new things.