Blueskye2

Having a few cams myself, they don’t work the same as eyes. They may pick up refracted and/or reflected light as lens flare. So if you have a car or other object pass, that is reflecting light towards the camera lens, the lens flare (orbs of light) may appear to be traveling, and the disappearing into something solid is an illusion. Point a camera outside to see what is passing at the same time your orbs are “traveling”.

Thanks, but it is generally a forum where LDS post about what is wrong with Christianity. This is an LDS forum, where people of other faiths are welcome as long as the don’t discuss their faith. I can find that kind of interaction with my atheist friends and family. Where we discuss all of the other commonalities we have. I’m kind of dense sometimes, it’s true. It took me longer than it should have to figure this out.

I don’t really care about CAF. I tried conversing there but it’s too much, I’m right and you’re wrong, from everyone.People there suggested I go to a Traditional Catholic forum! Gosh, those folks are all about division. I’m not interested. As I said, the people who I love the most in this world are atheist. I enjoy discussions of faith with all people of faith, not just Catholic or Mormons or whatever. I’m sorry to say I find here to be the same as CAF...no one looking for the commonality that is found among people of faith. Which is fine, it’s not my discussion forum. I don’t go on about Catholic stuff in an effort to convert anyone here. Was just hoping for more of a recognition that my faith is as important to me as it is to anyone here, as the commonality we share. People of faith. It’s Advent, and I know people here would just think I was trying to convert someone, by posting anything related to Advent. Which I would do out of sharing faith, a commonality I thought might be here, but is not. I can have discussions about what separates us, anywhere, and everywhere. My frustration with the world in general is not the fault of anyone here, but came out in my last post. Not wanting that to be my last post, I leave you all in peace and wish you all a blessed Advent, as we prepare for the coming of our Lord.

Ok then I get it. This is an LDS only board (that borders on a recovery from Catholicism board). Don’t have to tell me twice. I’m out.

Well, if we’re going to go all condescending. One is a real school and the other are like children who play school! Or we can go back to accepting that the summit of faith for each have equal importance for each, respectively, and respectfully.

I’m smiling here, because as I’ve already said, I do believe the literal words. I said we’re both not sola scriptura, but no one is. EVERYONE interprets the Bible.Mine is not a self interpretation. The Bible itself teaches against self interpretation.

Pretty good! Just to clarify, we don’t view Bishops as being a defacto kind of succession because the Apostles didn’t plan, but done with purpose and planning. The idea that the Apostles wouldn’t plan is a “whoa and say what?” kind of thing for us. The East calls Peter “the first among equals”. The Western Church’s view of Peter shouldn’t be exaggerated (and some Catholics exaggerate it). All of our Bishops are equal in authority in regards to their jurisdictions. As an example, I have an obligation to follow the directions of my Bishop, first, before that of the Pope. My Bishop is in communion with all the Bishops, including the Bishop of Rome. They act as one body. The primacy of the seat of Peter is not a unitary function. He acts in communion with all the Bishops, and in this way he does in fact act as first among equals. Where the East differs is that we view disputes will be settled first locally, then regionally, then in the Curia, then by the Pope. The Great Schism occurred when the Patriarch of Alexandria did not recognize the Bishop of Rome as having the final say in a dispute. The only other difference is that the Bishop of Rome appoints other Bishops. Again this shouldn’t be exaggerated. He takes recommendations and council from other Bishops. And then there are the Eastern Churches who are in communion with Rome. They select their own Bishops (they call their Bishops, Patriarchs), and present their decision to the Pope for approval. He has never not approved one of the East’s selections.

I see the literal interpretation as indicating Jesus not indicating one way or the other. In the context of the whole NT, there is nothing that indicates John is still to this day, walking around. Where and doing what? In light of Jesus’ commandment and prophecy, any of the Twelve still living should be spending their time teaching the Good News of Jesus Christ. What an amazing thing that would be, indeed. But the idea that the Beloved Disciple of Jesus, just has been hanging out incognito for 2000 years, has no evidence or justification. You can only come to this conclusion by citing extra-Biblical sources, that I don’t accept. The examples cited of Elijah or Mary, were assumed into heaven. They aren’t wandering around the earth somewhere. i don’t want to seem overly critical. I understand why you believe what you believe, and have respect for your beliefs.

Yes, same thing.

Hi This is a sola scripture argument. Catholics, and LDS, are not sola scriptura.

Catholic doctrine is that Mary was assumed into heaven. Whether or not she died first is debatable. Apostolic succession isn’t limited to Peter. It is emphasized by the Latin Church because of Peter’s primacy. However, the Twelve appointed successors throughout the world. These ancient Sees are recognized by the Latin Church as having a valid Apostolic succession. An example is the Patriarch of Alexandria, who is the successor to Mark.

The dating of NT writings matter. During the Apostolic period of the Early Church, there was a widespread belief that Jesus would return in their lifetimes. As time went on and some of the Apostles died, the belief changed, and thus the writings change, to anticipating Jesus in some future, unknow, time. So we can have verses like you cite from the Gospel according to John, where the two beliefs intercept. It’s clear to me that verse clarifies that Jesus is saying, more or less, “I do what I want and who are you to question me?”. Peter, well, I love the stories with Peter in them, he is a man with a personality, and here we have him comfortable enough with our Lord to question Him. They knew Jesus has power over death, and John is mentioned more than once as being favored by Jesus, so Peter, thinking like a man, and not like God, asks if a special favor is going to be shown to John, who is sort of like the golden child of a family. Jesus plainly says, what’s it to you? Beyond that, the Christian life and world went on after the NT writings and historical writings have John dying at a very old age, at Patmos, Greece, while under what we might call house arrest. The only Apostle who was not martyred, and so we see a special treatment by God, in the manner of his death. Old and peaceful, rather than young and violent. The last verse you cite from Luke, is understood by Catholics as establishing the Kingdom of God on earth, which Jesus did. Some, if not many, did live to see that day, and we are living in that day now. To make th Catholic understanding more clear, in comparison to LDS teaching, what the LDS call the millennium we call “now”. A thousand years is not a literal amount of time, but used figuratively through the Bible to represent a long period of time. We are in that time now. Hope that helps.

LDS use the Book of Mormon, which cites this passage and “clarifies” for them that St. John the Evangelist, did not die.

Yes that is the passage I alluded to. The opposite is obvious to me.

I don’t know of any other religion that teaches the Apostle John is still alive. What Bible are you reading? Tongue in cheek there. I know the passage, just Mormons interpret it differently than everyone else.