Paul’s Eucharist would have been abhorrent

[Pazooka]

Been looking into this lately.

The consumption of blood is expressly forbidden by God but it’s integral to pagan religion. The fact that it’s merely symbolic doesn’t soften the insult.

What the Qumran community led by James the brother of Jesus teaches us about the blessing of bread and wine and its purpose as opposed to the suspect Pauline reconstruction.

Talks about the original Eucharist (sacrament of bread and wine) at minute mark 21:20

From James Tabor:

[moving2zion]

Thanks! That was a great video to start the work day off with!

[nightlight]

Too bad about the pesky Book of Mormon

Lol

[mike_rumble]

I didn't find the video to be great at all. He seems to believe that John (the baptist) taught Jesus everything he knew. That Jesus joined some kind of movement headed by John and that John was greater than Jesus. And that Paul taught "another gospel", a mystical gospel in opposition to the plain gospel of John (of which Jesus was only a follower). It's a safe guess that the speaker does not believe Jesus was the Son of God in any kind of real sense of the term (the words where God says "this is my beloved son" etc. were only heard internally by Jesus or John or someone). There have been others through the years who also tried to remove Paul from any authoritative position as an 'apostle'. I can see why, because you can then get rid of all those troublesome passages dealing with homosexuality and other questions of morality. Every so often another author comes along to tell us we have been wrong about the Scriptures and only he has discovered the correct way to read them).

[Pazooka]

I didn't find the video to be great at all. He seems to believe that John (the baptist) taught Jesus everything he knew. That Jesus joined some kind of movement headed by John and that John was greater than Jesus. And that Paul taught "another gospel", a mystical gospel in opposition to the plain gospel of John (of which Jesus was only a follower). It's a safe guess that the speaker does not believe Jesus was the Son of God in any kind of real sense of the term (the words where God says "this is my beloved son" etc. were only heard internally by Jesus or John or someone). There have been others through the years who also tried to remove Paul from any authoritative position as an 'apostle'. I can see why, because you can then get rid of all those troublesome passages dealing with homosexuality and other questions of morality. Every so often another author comes along to tell us we have been wrong about the Scriptures and only he has discovered the correct way to read them).

Yes, he (and others) find evidence for John the Baptist being both a mentor and co-laborer with Jesus - although he is intensely minimalized in the Gospels, which were put together in the 4th century from documents dating to the late 1st and 2nd centuries CE. It isn’t James Tabor teaching that John was greater than Jesus - it is his source, which he explains here:

The Q source is widely held to be the material common to Luke and Matthew, but not found in Mark. Scholars believe that is was a collection of the sayings of Jesus around the time of 50 C.E. Basing the discussion on the Lukan version of Q, a very distinctive portrait of John the Baptist emerges within the text. It is clear that John plays an important role from the beginning as the Q material begins with him instead of Jesus. In Luke 3:7-9 John is speaking to the multitudes, calling them a “brood of vipers,” and somewhat chastising them for not being more involved in the movement and with their own lives. This is the most solid Q example scholars have because it is word for word with Matthew in Greek. For such a document to start with John the Baptist instead of Jesus has strong implications and definitely displays the significance and importance John held to the author/people of the time. John is out in the wilderness of Judea baptizing all that come to him. Q even has John saying in Luke 3:16-17 that he baptizes people with water yet there is one greater than he who will come and baptize the multitudes with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Jesus is considered the leading figure of Christianity, well it was based on him, but nevertheless John is considered one of the major players in the movement and considered significant by the author of Q

As far as the author not believing Jesus is the Son of God…that is also untrue. He believes Jesus is the Messiah - - the Davidic figure, while John is the priestly figure. Anciently, Israelites referred to their most esteemed high priests as Sons of God because they associated with God and the angels (angels were also referred to as Sons of God).

Yes, you are correct. The author believes Paul taught some other mystical, Hellenized set of teachings, absolutely repugnant to the leaders of the Jerusalem assembly headed by James, the brother of Jesus, involving disrespect for the Torah and the consumption of things sacrificed to idols and probably this spiritualized consumption of blood.

[Pazooka]

Too bad about the pesky Book of Mormon

Lol

The Book of Mormon displays very little understanding of Hebraic laws and customs. Par for the course.

[nightlight]

Too bad about the pesky Book of Mormon

Lol

The Book of Mormon displays very little understanding of Hebraic laws and customs. Par for the course.

What did the Book of Mormon teach about the sacrament?
What did Jesus himself say to the Nephites?

Lol

[mike_rumble]

I didn't find the video to be great at all. He seems to believe that John (the baptist) taught Jesus everything he knew. That Jesus joined some kind of movement headed by John and that John was greater than Jesus. And that Paul taught "another gospel", a mystical gospel in opposition to the plain gospel of John (of which Jesus was only a follower). It's a safe guess that the speaker does not believe Jesus was the Son of God in any kind of real sense of the term (the words where God says "this is my beloved son" etc. were only heard internally by Jesus or John or someone). There have been others through the years who also tried to remove Paul from any authoritative position as an 'apostle'. I can see why, because you can then get rid of all those troublesome passages dealing with homosexuality and other questions of morality. Every so often another author comes along to tell us we have been wrong about the Scriptures and only he has discovered the correct way to read them).

Yes, he (and others) find evidence for John the Baptist being both a mentor and co-laborer with Jesus - although he is intensely minimalized in the Gospels, which were put together in the 4th century from documents dating to the late 1st and 2nd centuries CE. It isn’t James Tabor teaching that John was greater than Jesus - it is his source, which he explains here:

The Q source is widely held to be the material common to Luke and Matthew, but not found in Mark. Scholars believe that is was a collection of the sayings of Jesus around the time of 50 C.E. Basing the discussion on the Lukan version of Q, a very distinctive portrait of John the Baptist emerges within the text. It is clear that John plays an important role from the beginning as the Q material begins with him instead of Jesus. In Luke 3:7-9 John is speaking to the multitudes, calling them a “brood of vipers,” and somewhat chastising them for not being more involved in the movement and with their own lives. This is the most solid Q example scholars have because it is word for word with Matthew in Greek. For such a document to start with John the Baptist instead of Jesus has strong implications and definitely displays the significance and importance John held to the author/people of the time. John is out in the wilderness of Judea baptizing all that come to him. Q even has John saying in Luke 3:16-17 that he baptizes people with water yet there is one greater than he who will come and baptize the multitudes with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Jesus is considered the leading figure of Christianity, well it was based on him, but nevertheless John is considered one of the major players in the movement and considered significant by the author of Q

As far as the author not believing Jesus is the Son of God…that is also untrue. He believes Jesus is the Messiah - - the Davidic figure, while John is the priestly figure. Anciently, Israelites referred to their most esteemed high priests as Sons of God because they associated with God and the angels (angels were also referred to as Sons of God).

Yes, you are correct. The author believes Paul taught some other mystical, Hellenized set of teachings, absolutely repugnant to the leaders of the Jerusalem assembly headed by James, the brother of Jesus, involving disrespect for the Torah and the consumption of things sacrificed to idols and probably this spiritualized consumption of blood.

You make it sound like I agree with you (and the video). I don't. Believing that Jesus is the Messiah is not the same as believing Jesus is the Son of the Living God. You can believe the first without believing the second. I see no evidence that John (the baptist) was any kind of priest, except perhaps in the sense that all believers are priests. In my mind, Jesus occupies both the "office" of messiah (Christ) and priest (our only High Priest). I also see no evidence at all (from the Scriptures) that James the brother of Jesus thought Paul to be repugnant. I guess if one is going to tear the Scriptures apart and go looking for other sources (like the dead Sea scrolls etc.) to support other agendas, there will always be some other ancient source to support a favorite idea or doctrine or historical point of view. Jesus himself, as we all know, "spiritualized" the consumption of his own blood at the last supper. Not at all the same thing as actually drinking real blood.

[John Tavner]

Too bad about the pesky Book of Mormon

Lol

The Book of Mormon displays very little understanding of Hebraic laws and customs. Par for the course.

Do you still believe the BoM to translated by the power and gift of God? (that question is more of an inquiry, not an attack or judgment) If you do, I'm just wondering how you reconcile what Jesus and Moroni both did and said regarding communion/sacrament with your current beliefs.

[Pazooka]

Too bad about the pesky Book of Mormon

Lol

The Book of Mormon displays very little understanding of Hebraic laws and customs. Par for the course.

Do you still believe the BoM to translated by the power and gift of God? (that question is more of an inquiry, not an attack or judgment) If you do, I'm just wondering how you reconcile what Jesus and Moroni both did and said regarding communion/sacrament with your current beliefs.

I have never questioned the BofM until recently. It started out with me wondering why the Isaiah chapters and the Sermon on the Mount were both lifted from the KJV translation of the Bible extant at the time of Joseph Smith. My list of questions include:
- Why could no one see the actual gold plates? Even the “witnesses” only ever claimed to have been shown in vision - - including the vision of an angel presenting them for their view. JS kept them covered even to his closest associates. Why? It doesn’t make any sense

- - I had no idea there were 6 published books before the BofM that explored the idea that the Native Americans were descendants of the Israelites, including “View of the Hebrews” and the Solomon Spaulding “Manuscript Found.” Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon were both acquainted with authors of these similar books.

- The BofM has the appearances of having been written by a Pauline Gentile. Even the period of Old Testament time, preceding the visit of JC, is Gentile Christian in flavor and teaching.

- B.H. Roberts asked some of these same questions of the First Presidency back in his day and what followed was an apologetic frenzy to convince members that Roberts never lost his testimony of the BofM

The list continues and I’m fairly sure it will grow over time.

[Pazooka]

I didn't find the video to be great at all. He seems to believe that John (the baptist) taught Jesus everything he knew. That Jesus joined some kind of movement headed by John and that John was greater than Jesus. And that Paul taught "another gospel", a mystical gospel in opposition to the plain gospel of John (of which Jesus was only a follower). It's a safe guess that the speaker does not believe Jesus was the Son of God in any kind of real sense of the term (the words where God says "this is my beloved son" etc. were only heard internally by Jesus or John or someone). There have been others through the years who also tried to remove Paul from any authoritative position as an 'apostle'. I can see why, because you can then get rid of all those troublesome passages dealing with homosexuality and other questions of morality. Every so often another author comes along to tell us we have been wrong about the Scriptures and only he has discovered the correct way to read them).

Yes, he (and others) find evidence for John the Baptist being both a mentor and co-laborer with Jesus - although he is intensely minimalized in the Gospels, which were put together in the 4th century from documents dating to the late 1st and 2nd centuries CE. It isn’t James Tabor teaching that John was greater than Jesus - it is his source, which he explains here:

The Q source is widely held to be the material common to Luke and Matthew, but not found in Mark. Scholars believe that is was a collection of the sayings of Jesus around the time of 50 C.E. Basing the discussion on the Lukan version of Q, a very distinctive portrait of John the Baptist emerges within the text. It is clear that John plays an important role from the beginning as the Q material begins with him instead of Jesus. In Luke 3:7-9 John is speaking to the multitudes, calling them a “brood of vipers,” and somewhat chastising them for not being more involved in the movement and with their own lives. This is the most solid Q example scholars have because it is word for word with Matthew in Greek. For such a document to start with John the Baptist instead of Jesus has strong implications and definitely displays the significance and importance John held to the author/people of the time. John is out in the wilderness of Judea baptizing all that come to him. Q even has John saying in Luke 3:16-17 that he baptizes people with water yet there is one greater than he who will come and baptize the multitudes with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Jesus is considered the leading figure of Christianity, well it was based on him, but nevertheless John is considered one of the major players in the movement and considered significant by the author of Q

As far as the author not believing Jesus is the Son of God…that is also untrue. He believes Jesus is the Messiah - - the Davidic figure, while John is the priestly figure. Anciently, Israelites referred to their most esteemed high priests as Sons of God because they associated with God and the angels (angels were also referred to as Sons of God).

Yes, you are correct. The author believes Paul taught some other mystical, Hellenized set of teachings, absolutely repugnant to the leaders of the Jerusalem assembly headed by James, the brother of Jesus, involving disrespect for the Torah and the consumption of things sacrificed to idols and probably this spiritualized consumption of blood.

I also see no evidence at all (from the Scriptures) that James the brother of Jesus thought Paul to be repugnant.

Who put the New Testament together and why were they in a better position to canonize documents than the keepers of the documents that clearly have James the brother of Jesus teaching that Paul’s teachings were repugnant? Ignorance.

[creator]

I don't see the Lord's Supper (Sacrament) as abhorrent at all.

It's really all just a matter of perspective.

"Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (from Matthew 26)

Think of Christ as creator. And the Spirit of Christ permeating all of His creations. The earth and that which comes from it is part of the body of Christ. The fruit of the vine is His blood. It's not about eating/drinking human flesh and blood; but flesh and blood of the earth, Christ's creation.

The symbol of the Lord's Supper is a reality, and can be a holy communion that brings the Spirit of Christ to us.

Also, the value and meaning of anything depends on the importance you assign to it.

[nightlight]

47Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48I am that bread of life. 49Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

59These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.


60Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64But 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. 65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.



66From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

[John Tavner]

I don't see the Lord's Supper (Sacrament) as abhorrent at all.

It's really all just a matter of perspective.

"Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (from Matthew 26)

Think of Christ as creator. And the Spirit of Christ permeating all of His creations. The earth and that which comes from it is part of the body of Christ. The fruit of the vine is His blood. It's not about eating/drinking human flesh and blood; but flesh and blood of the earth, Christ's creation.

The symbol of the Lord's Supper is a reality, and can be a holy communion that brings the Spirit of Christ to us.

Also, the value and meaning of anything depends on the importance you assign to it.

I agree, but apparently Jews felt it was offensive somehow or at least they failed to ask more questions to understand the meaning Jesus intended, according to John 6. When He taught that part to partake of His flesh and blood, apparently a lot of his disciples left him. (John 6:66) 66"From that time on many of His disciples turned back and no longer walked with Him."

43Jesus therefore answered and said to them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. 44No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. 46Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes [j]in Me has everlasting life. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”

52The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”

53Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is [l]drink indeed. 56He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”59These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.60Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a [m]hard saying; who can understand it?”

61When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples [n]complained about this, He said to them, “Does this [o]offend you? 62What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”

66From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. 67Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?”

68But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

[nightlight]

The op is right tho, the Jews hated these things

[Pazooka]

I don't see the Lord's Supper (Sacrament) as abhorrent at all.

It's really all just a matter of perspective.

"Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (from Matthew 26)

Think of Christ as creator. And the Spirit of Christ permeating all of His creations. The earth and that which comes from it is part of the body of Christ. The fruit of the vine is His blood. It's not about eating/drinking human flesh and blood; but flesh and blood of the earth, Christ's creation.

The symbol of the Lord's Supper is a reality, and can be a holy communion that brings the Spirit of Christ to us.

Also, the value and meaning of anything depends on the importance you assign to it.

But what about from the Torah-observant perspective at the time in question? James was closer to Jesus than Paul, knew him and what he taught, then kept the sayings of Jesus after his death. Paul claims to have his peculiar teaching regarding the Eucharist from the the resurrected Lord in vision, which James is *on record* as being appalled by.

Value and meaning dependent on personal/societal values is moral relativism. How would that be consistent with God's absolute Law?

There is no Hebrew context for the eating and drinking of the body and blood of a god, but there is a Greco-Roman context: Dyonisis, Bacchus...etc

Israelites would never think of Christ as creator - but as Messiah, he is the renewer of creation.

[Pazooka]

47Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48I am that bread of life. 49Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

59These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.


60Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64But 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. 65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.



66From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

You would trust these words but whose are they? How do you know? Who is "Simon Peter"? How does he relate to James?

[Pazooka]

The op is right tho, the Jews hated these things

Oh no...the Roman butt-kissing, afraid-for-their-lives-and-property Jews loved these things

[nightlight]

47Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48I am that bread of life. 49Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

59These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.


60Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64But 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. 65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.



66From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

You would trust these words but whose are they? How do you know? Who is "Simon Peter"? How does he relate to James?

They're the words of Jesus Christ. I know because of the Holy Ghost.

Jesus is God. I believe this is the real reason you're being led down the path of disbelief in the Book of Mormon/New Testament.


3 Nephi 9:15:

Behold, I am Jesus Christ the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. I was with the Father from the beginning. I am in the Father, and the Father in me; and in me hath the Father glorified his name.



Mosiah 3:8:

And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.

[Pazooka]

47Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48I am that bread of life. 49Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

59These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.


60Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64But 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. 65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.



66From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

You would trust these words but whose are they? How do you know? Who is "Simon Peter"? How does he relate to James?

They're the words of Jesus Christ. I know because of the Holy Ghost.

Jesus is God. I believe this is the real reason you're being led down the path of disbelief in the Book of Mormon/New Testament.


3 Nephi 9:15:

Behold, I am Jesus Christ the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. I was with the Father from the beginning. I am in the Father, and the Father in me; and in me hath the Father glorified his name.



Mosiah 3:8:

And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.

Except why would a Hebrew prophet have been foretold the name of the Davidic Messiah in Greek? Just one of those things that’s always kind of been in the back of my mind. And He wasn’t the creator of all things from the beginning, was he? No, he only renewed what his Father created - that is ancient Israelite temple ritual symbolism, clear as day.

[Niemand]

The original supper was some version of the Passover Seder. The ritual has become more formalised and organised since Judaism and Christianity broke apart, but the two most obvious similarities are the wine and the bread.

The bitter herbs and vegetables have gone, and they would have probably eaten lamb together too.

[nightlight]

The original supper was some version of the Passover Seder. The ritual has become more formalised and organised since Judaism and Christianity broke apart, but the two most obvious similarities are the wine and the bread.

The bitter herbs and vegetables have gone, and they would have probably eaten lamb together too.

All ancient Hebrew rites were to point at Christ

Jesus didn't adopt or adapt anything

He is the thing

[Pazooka]

The original supper was some version of the Passover Seder. The ritual has become more formalised and organised since Judaism and Christianity broke apart, but the two most obvious similarities are the wine and the bread.

The bitter herbs and vegetables have gone, and they would have probably eaten lamb together too.

All ancient Hebrew rites were to point at Christ

Jesus didn't adopt or adapt anything

He is the thing

That’s exactly what I’ve been saying: the ancient temple rites point to the “Anointed One” being only a renewer of creation.

But not all Hebrew rites point to Christ. That kind of thinking has us doing all sorts of inappropriate stuff, like saying the Day of Atonement goat for Azazel is pointing to Christ. Nonsense.

[Bronco73idi]

47Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48I am that bread of life. 49Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

59These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.


60Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64But 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. 65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.



66From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

You would trust these words but whose are they? How do you know? Who is "Simon Peter"? How does he relate to James?

They're the words of Jesus Christ. I know because of the Holy Ghost.

Jesus is God. I believe this is the real reason you're being led down the path of disbelief in the Book of Mormon/New Testament.


3 Nephi 9:15:

Behold, I am Jesus Christ the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. I was with the Father from the beginning. I am in the Father, and the Father in me; and in me hath the Father glorified his name.



Mosiah 3:8:

And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.

Jesus is god and the father is god and Elohim is god.

[Bronco73idi]

The Q source is widely held to be the material common to Luke and Matthew, but not found in Mark. Scholars believe that is was a collection of the sayings of Jesus around the time of 50 C.E. Basing the discussion on the Lukan version of Q, a very distinctive portrait of John the Baptist emerges within the text. It is clear that John plays an important role from the beginning as the Q material begins with him instead of Jesus. In Luke 3:7-9 John is speaking to the multitudes, calling them a “brood of vipers,” and somewhat chastising them for not being more involved in the movement and with their own lives. This is the most solid Q example scholars have because it is word for word with Matthew in Greek. For such a document to start with John the Baptist instead of Jesus has strong implications and definitely displays the significance and importance John held to the author/people of the time. John is out in the wilderness of Judea baptizing all that come to him. Q even has John saying in Luke 3:16-17 that he baptizes people with water yet there is one greater than he who will come and baptize the multitudes with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Jesus is considered the leading figure of Christianity, well it was based on him, but nevertheless John is considered one of the major players in the movement and considered significant by the author of Q

As far as the author not believing Jesus is the Son of God…that is also untrue. He believes Jesus is the Messiah - - the Davidic figure, while John is the priestly figure. Anciently, Israelites referred to their most esteemed high priests as Sons of God because they associated with God and the angels (angels were also referred to as Sons of God).

John is more important then almost all Christians put on him. Paul is not a prophet Jospeh is more important then Paul, Isaiah 28 and Jeremiah 31 has to be fulfilled by someone. John is more important then Jospeh.

Jesus let John do his work and even John didn’t fully understand the timeline.

One can know all this because of what John said in Luke 3:7-9, which is reference by your quote. To see the whole story on John’s lack of understanding of the timeline we need to then go to Luke 7:19-20 and he then said in 22, tell John of my works and then in 23 “And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.” More or less, tell John what he preached and prophesied to happen will not happen at this time.

Then in Luke 7:24-28 The Lord tells his disciples how important John is.

John was in prison and was hoping to be saved and have what he said in Luke 3:7-9 happen.