Do you have questions about Catholic beliefs & Practices

[Emjay66]

Hello Patrick

Many people from all faiths, from Christianity to Islam and from Buddhism to Hinduism are willing to die for their different faiths. Do we therefore validate all those faiths too? People commit themselves totally to causes - we see that today. There is nothing unique to Catholic Christianity about martyrdom. Indeed the night sky of the 16th century was alight with the blaze of burning martyrs from opposing views on faith. How sad is it that so many people had to die or, worse, kill, for their faith.

P.S. But I’m not sure how much we really know about the apostles’ deaths. Hagiographies are not always seen as wonderfully reliable things.

 

[blanchardman]

That’s a nice story. Are you saying with that story that the deep-rooted person can indeed have doubts and uncertainties, but they are more likely to live through them?

Sorry I have not responded sooner. What I meant is that one who is deeply rooted is not “moved” by the “storms” that we face in life.
As for doubts: I have no doubts concerning my faith or the truth in the Word.
I have read your conversation with Abu. I will be starting vacation at the end of this workday. I will respond to your question about the resurrection accounts when I return on the 11th.

 

[Emjay66]

Thank you for explaining your tree story Blanchardman

Have a great vacation!

 

[spiderweb]

Thank you Spiderweb. I appreciate your reply.

May I ask, how can you be really sure Jesus rose from the dead? I mean ‘sure’ as opposed to thinking it ‘likely’?

What prevents you doubting that Jesus’s resurrection is possibly mythological?

There are people who die for what they believe to be true. But the apostles and the earliest Christians were in the unique position of knowing whether or not it actually was true. How many people are willing to die for what they know to be a lie? Not just die, suffer extreme torture before they die. And the opponents of Christianity never marched one of them out into the public square and proclaimed that “he recants, see your leader admits he is lying to all you foolish Christians.” That just never happened. They never recanted and they never changed their story.

If you are looking for 100% undeniable evidence, you are not going to find it. There is some element of faith involved in believing anything historical. Even a very recent event like the holocaust of WWII has it’s share of “holocaust deniers”. And we even have video and photography to support that historical event. Do you know when you were born or where? Your birth certificate could have been forged. Anyone can come up with reasons to deny anything despite evidence.

We also know that at the time the Gospels and Letters of the New Testament were written, they contained details and information that everybody who read them could have gone and verified for themselves as much as possible, including talking to other eyewitnesses to many of the events that are recorded in the bible. It is because they could verify what took place that Christianity grew incredibly quickly despite it being an illegal religion according to Roman law for the first 200 years of Christianity.

The events of the Gospels were written about merely 10-40 years after they occurred. That’s not enough time for “legend” to grow because other witnesses would have just said “No, he really didn’t say or do that”. The historical growth of Christianity points to the other witnesses saying, “Yes I was there and saw that and that is what happened”.

 

[Abu]

Emjay66 #827
Well, if you go down the proof-by-miracle route every faith claims ‘verified miracles’, so I tend to see scripture as much stronger than miracle claims.

The continued fallacies are that:

1. There are no ‘verified miracles’ elsewhere, such as the carefully observed and doctor-verified miracles in Catholicism, apart from the miracles historically recorded in Sacred Scripture, whose veracity you doubt.
2. That you “see scripture as much stronger than miracle claims” while at the same time casting “doubt on the Gospels as history” (post #826) starkly reveals the confusion and uncertainty in thought.

Dr Alexis Carrell is historically real.

Throughout much of his adult life Dr Alexis Carrel felt that Immanuel Kant had once and for all disposed of a rationally respectable belief in God, revelation, and – last but not least – miracles.

He went from being a skeptic of the visions and miracles reported at Lourdes to being a believer after experiencing a healing he could not explain. Alexis Carrel refused to discount a supernatural explanation and steadfastly reiterated his beliefs, For such an attitude toward Lourdes, Carrel was declared unwelcome in the medical establishment in free-thinking and anti-clerical Lyons. Their leaders had to eat humble pie upon Carrel’s return for a brief visit to France in 1912 with the halo of a Nobel Prize around his head. In a new edition by Real-View-Books, of The Voyage to Lourdes (1939) this realization is explained, with an introduction by Fr Stanley Jaki, winner of the Templeton Prize for 1987 for his work on science and religion, who was an honorary member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
ewtn.com/library/MARY/VOYLOUR.HTM

 

[PJM]

Thank you Abu,

But something concerning the resurrection makes me read scripture not as reliable or at least strictly factual. I’m sure many will be familiar with this, but I wonder how you keep to the Gospels being totally reliable histories given the following…

In Matthew’s Gospel the disciples are told by Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (who meet an angel but not Jesus after finding the tomb empty) to go straight to Galilee to see the resurrected Jesus. This they do (while the guards went into the city to report on events, so this is straight away). This is 70 miles away. They then meet Jesus in Galilee on the mountain.

In Mark, we have no direct resurrection description (all bibles note that the two resurrection endings are later additions) - the Gospel ends abruptly with the empty tomb.

In Luke the women are told by two angels to tell the disciples that Jesus has risen. Jesus then appears to two people on the road to Emmaus while the disciples are waiting in Jerusalem (not going to Galilee like in Matthew). Jesus then appears to them in Jerusalem (not Galilee) and then the ascension takes place in Bethany (close to Jerusalem). Indeed in ACts Luke tells us that Jesus tells the disciples not to leave Jerusalem while he is with them (quite different to Matthew’s account of them going to Galilee).

In John Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene by the tomb. Mary is not told to tell the disciples to go to Galilee and Jesus appears to the disciples in the upper room in Jerusalem. The disciples receive the Holy Spirit direct from Jesus on that occasion (different to Luke/Acts where they receive the Holy Spirit later). Jesus appears again a week later in Jerusalem and finally (not straight away) is seen in Galilee.

So we have four Gospels and four resurrection accounts that can’t be fully aligned. Now, that is not to say the resurrection did not or could not occur, but don’t you think such differences allow for a possibility that these narratives are coming out of slightly different lines of transmission with each developing their own details. We have at least some development of mythology here in at least one of the Gospels. This must cast some doubt on the Gospels as history. I think it at least shows they can’t all be exact descriptions of what really happened. Either one or all are wrong in their details (except Mark who doesn’t describe a resurrection).

I appreciate the strength of your faith. But how do you deal with such clear discrepancies between Gospels on something as critical as the descriptions of the resurrection?

Here’s WHAT you’re missing:

1. The Gospels vary because God ONLY promises that the MESSAGE shared is TRUE. Not the individual accounts of that MESAGE.

Have you ever participated in the “Pass-along a message game?”

It was a common game in Sales Management; used to teach the importance of LISTENING to your “customer”.

The way it works is you set up as many as needed chairs in rows.

Then you gave the person on the end of the row a written message to be passed on VERBALLY [the more people the better]

Then if the number is semi-small, do the same thing in reverse order. begining from the other end

Next you have the participants write out what they HEARD the message to be

Having participated in this exercise MANY times; I can assure you, that the message at the end of the row, was NEVER the same as it was as originally handed out. Sometimes one could not believe that it was even the SAME message.

GOD choose NOT to dictate the bible. What GOD did do was insure [guarantee] that EVERY message, EVERY teaching that HE [GOD] wanted to be included; WAS included within the Bible [NEVER INTENDING THAT EVERYTHING WAS TO ACTUALLY BE INCLUDED WITHIN ITS COVERS [Jn 20:31-33 & 21: 24-25]

Take another common example:

You and 10 others are standing on a corner waiting to Cross @ the light; and right before your eyes the bank across the street is robbed [just like on TV] and the robbers come our; jump in the get away car and speed off.

Then the police come to take statements from the ten of you. WHAT are the odds hat even 2 of you “saw and described exactly the same thing?”… Close to ZIP!

Your problem is that you expect men who experienced the same thing, in EXACTLY the same manner. That is at BEST an unrealistic expectation. The FACT that they get “the MORAL or the MESSAGE correct” [ND THEY DO!, is all that matters.

This was 2,000 years ago when there was an extremely high rate of illiteracy; when writing products [PRE-Wal-Mart] ; and taking the Tradition of the OT where “history” was told and re-told for generations;** accounts were retold as STORIES!**. And as a Story teller, embellishments, memories, precise facts were expected and understood to be a STORY recounting the MESSAGE, the TEACHING.

**My Great Irish Gradpa used to say:

“Son when you look for trouble its usually not to hard to find it”, OR SOME such message**

The Bible is NOT a history book, nor should one expect the SAME [identical] recounting of events. … FACTOR in the HUMAN element; GUIDED BY God.

ITS THE MESSAGE, NOT IN THESE ACCOUNTS THE “MESSENGER” that is important! AMEN!

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[PJM]

Thank you Abu,

But something concerning the resurrection makes me read scripture not as reliable or at least strictly factual. I’m sure many will be familiar with this, but I wonder how you keep to the Gospels being totally reliable histories given the following…

In Matthew’s Gospel the disciples are told by Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (who meet an angel but not Jesus after finding the tomb empty) to go straight to Galilee to see the resurrected Jesus. This they do (while the guards went into the city to report on events, so this is straight away). This is 70 miles away. They then meet Jesus in Galilee on the mountain.

In Mark, we have no direct resurrection description (all bibles note that the two resurrection endings are later additions) - the Gospel ends abruptly with the empty tomb.

In Luke the women are told by two angels to tell the disciples that Jesus has risen. Jesus then appears to two people on the road to Emmaus while the disciples are waiting in Jerusalem (not going to Galilee like in Matthew). Jesus then appears to them in Jerusalem (not Galilee) and then the ascension takes place in Bethany (close to Jerusalem). Indeed in ACts Luke tells us that Jesus tells the disciples not to leave Jerusalem while he is with them (quite different to Matthew’s account of them going to Galilee).

In John Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene by the tomb. Mary is not told to tell the disciples to go to Galilee and Jesus appears to the disciples in the upper room in Jerusalem. The disciples receive the Holy Spirit direct from Jesus on that occasion (different to Luke/Acts where they receive the Holy Spirit later). Jesus appears again a week later in Jerusalem and finally (not straight away) is seen in Galilee.

So we have four Gospels and four resurrection accounts that can’t be fully aligned. Now, that is not to say the resurrection did not or could not occur, but don’t you think such differences allow for a possibility that these narratives are coming out of slightly different lines of transmission with each developing their own details. We have at least some development of mythology here in at least one of the Gospels. This must cast some doubt on the Gospels as history. I think it at least shows they can’t all be exact descriptions of what really happened. Either one or all are wrong in their details (except Mark who doesn’t describe a resurrection).

I appreciate the strength of your faith. But how do you deal with such clear discrepancies between Gospels on something as critical as the descriptions of the resurrection?

**So WHICH is MORE [and critically important?]

the Resurextion itself OR

the accounts of it?**

 

[PJM]

Hello Patrick

Many people from all faiths, from Christianity to Islam and from Buddhism to Hinduism are willing to die for their different faiths. Do we therefore validate all those faiths too? People commit themselves totally to causes - we see that today. There is nothing unique to Catholic Christianity about martyrdom. Indeed the night sky of the 16th century was alight with the blaze of burning martyrs from opposing views on faith. How sad is it that so many people had to die or, worse, kill, for their faith.

P.S. But I’m not sure how much we really know about the apostles’ deaths. Hagiographies are not always seen as wonderfully reliable things.

GREAT QUESTION to which we DO know the answer

NO! Here’s why:

1 TRUTH

1. TRUTH [Truth - definition of truth by The Free Dictionary]](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/truth])
2. n. pl. truths (tro͞othz, tro͞oths)
3. a. Conformity to fact or actuality: Does this story have any truth?
4. b. Reality; actuality: In truth, he was not qualified for the job.
5. c. The reality of a situation: The truth is, she respects your work.

a. A statement proven to be or accepted as true: truths about nature.
b. Such statements considered as a group: researchers in pursuit of truth.
8. 3. Sincerity; integrity: the truth of his intentions.
9. 4. Fidelity to an original or standard: the truth of the copy.
10. 5. Theology & Philosophy That which is considered to be the ultimate ground of reality.

CATHOLIC DICTIONARY BY Father John A. Hardon S.J.

1. TRUTH. Conformity of mind and reality. Three kinds of conformity give rise to three kinds of truth. In logical truth, the mind is conformed or in agreement with things outside the mind, either in assenting to what is or in denying what is not. Its opposite is error. In metaphysical or ontological truth, things conform with the mind. This is primary conformity, when something corresponds to the idea of its maker, and it is secondary conformity when something is intelligible and therefore true to anyone who knows it. Inmoral truth, what is said conforms with what is on one’s mind. This is truthfulness and its opposite is falsehood.

Former Pope Benedict XVI expressed it well:thumbsup:

**

“There cannot be your truth and MY truth or there would be NO truth”**

There can be as IS only:

One True God

Holding One True set of of Faith beliefs

Through “My chosen people” Exodus 6:7 [Old Testament times"
Through “My Church” Jesus: Mt 16:18-16 {New Testament /Covenant times]

Nothing else is even possible or logical

God Bless you FRIEND!

Patrick

 

[blanchardman]

Thank you Abu,

But something concerning the resurrection makes me read scripture not as reliable or at least strictly factual. I’m sure many will be familiar with this, but I wonder how you keep to the Gospels being totally reliable histories given the following…

In Matthew’s Gospel the disciples are told by Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (who meet an angel but not Jesus after finding the tomb empty) to go straight to Galilee to see the resurrected Jesus. This they do (while the guards went into the city to report on events, so this is straight away). This is 70 miles away. They then meet Jesus in Galilee on the mountain.

Matthew offers a general summation of the resurrection story. The events in verses 16-20 could have happened anytime after the resurrection.
The main point of this story is the info about the guards.

In Mark, we have no direct resurrection description (all bibles note that the two resurrection endings are later additions) - the Gospel ends abruptly with the empty tomb.

In Luke the women are told by two angels to tell the disciples that Jesus has risen. Jesus then appears to two people on the road to Emmaus while the disciples are waiting in Jerusalem (not going to Galilee like in Matthew). Jesus then appears to them in Jerusalem (not Galilee) and then the ascension takes place in Bethany (close to Jerusalem). Indeed in ACts Luke tells us that Jesus tells the disciples not to leave Jerusalem while he is with them (quite different to Matthew’s account of them going to Galilee).

In John Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene by the tomb. Mary is not told to tell the disciples to go to Galilee and Jesus appears to the disciples in the upper room in Jerusalem. The disciples receive the Holy Spirit direct from Jesus on that occasion (different to Luke/Acts where they receive the Holy Spirit later). Jesus appears again a week later in Jerusalem and finally (not straight away) is seen in Galilee.

So we have four Gospels and four resurrection accounts that can’t be fully aligned. Now, that is not to say the resurrection did not or could not occur, but don’t you think such differences allow for a possibility that these narratives are coming out of slightly different lines of transmission with each developing their own details. We have at least some development of mythology here in at least one of the Gospels. This must cast some doubt on the Gospels as history. I think it at least shows they can’t all be exact descriptions of what really happened. Either one or all are wrong in their details (except Mark who doesn’t describe a resurrection).

I appreciate the strength of your faith. But how do you deal with such clear discrepancies between Gospels on something as critical as the descriptions of the resurrection?

No real discrepancies.
1: Mary M. goes aloneto the tomb alone while it is still dark. She does not enter.
2: Mary M runs into the other women takes them to the tomb. The two Marys enter and are instructed to report to the apostles.
3: The women return to the house find two “early risers”. They tell their story but are not convincing but the men agree to take a look.
4: John arrives first but lets Peter enter first.They return to the house unconvinced. The two Marys linger .
5: Jesus reveals himself, the two women fall at His feet and Mary M reaches put to touch Him. He rubukes her saying He must go to the Father first. Perhaps it is at this time that Galilee Is mentioned.
6: Jesus appears to the ten who are allowed to touch Him at this time.
7: Jesus appears a week later for Thomas.The eleven are then ordained(bishops?).Jesus departs, they go to Galilee.
8:Jesus appears for the third time. He spends time with them.
9: Shortly before Pentecost He ascends for the last time.
10: Pentecost. Everyone receives the Holy Spirit.

 

[blanchardman]

The “first resurrection” (Rev. 20:5) refers to baptism where we are “born again” and given new life through Christ Jesus (Titus 3:5, Col 2:12-13, Rom 6:4-11). This is a spiritual resurrection from sin and not a bodily resurrection. The second resurrection is the bodily resurrection. The first death is bodily death, the second death is spiritual death. If we have spiritual resurrection through Jesus, the second death has no power. There is only one bodily resurrection of the dead and that occurs at the second coming of Christ on the “last day” at the end of time (John 6:39, 40, 54; John 11:24, John 12:48, John 5:29).

Hebrews 9:27 “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.”

Rev.19:11-21 The second coming (vs.11-16) and the marriage feast.(Luke 14:26-24 & Matthew 22:1-10)
In these two stories we are told of three “gatherings”.
The first(Luke vs.16-21 & Matt vs.1-7) is the OT.
The second (Luke 21-22 & Matt 8-9) is the “church age”
The third (Luke 23-24& Matt vs10) tells us that every one else is compelled (forced) to attend (Luke 16:23), both good and bad (Matt 22:10)
1 Thessalonians 4:17 this happens at the time Jesus returns with the saints. 1Corinthians 15:53&54 tells that the saints are resurrected and the"good" are changed.
Daniel12:2 & Revelation 20:5 tells us that everyone is NOT resurrected at this time. This is the first resurrection (Rev 20:5).
Matthew 22:11-13 tells us that someone at the feast was not dressed correctly.
He was bound (Rev 20:2) and cast into outer darkness (Rev 20:3).
Rev.20:4-6 We reign with Jesus for a thousand years.
Rev.20:7-9 Satan set free, gathered an army and marches on Jerusalem.
Then a number of things happen.
1: Fire comes down from heaven and consumes the army.
2: Satan joins the beast and the false prophet in the lake of fire.
3: The great white throne judgement.
4: The second resurrection.
5: Death and hell cast into the lake of fire.
6: Those not found in the book of life cast into the lake of fire.
(These six items happen simultaneously.)
This brings us back to Daniel 12:4 when that book was sealed.

 

[spiderweb]

Originally Posted by blanchardman

Rev. 19:11-21 The second coming (vs. 11-16) and the marriage feast. (Luke 14:26-24 & Matthew 22:1-10)
In these two stories we are told of three “gatherings”.
The first (Luke vs. 16-21 & Matt vs. 1-7) is the OT.
The second (Luke 21-22 & Matt 8-9) is the “church age”
The third (Luke 23-24 & Matt vs. 10) tells us that every one else is compelled (forced) to attend (Luke 16:23), both good and bad (Matt 22:10)

A few minor points here. This is not depicting separate “gatherings”. Rather it is depicting separate groups being brought together at the one gathering, the marriage feast which is between Christ and the Church. God will not “compel” or “force” anyone to participate in this feast, this would negate freewill. Another translation would be “entreat”, or simply to ask or “bid” them to come as we see in Matt 22:9. Both “good and bad” are called because while we are still on earth we are all still sinners, thus both good and bad are invited to participate and hopefully the “bad” become more “good”. The marriage feast is not a one time event, it has already taken place in time between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:25-27), but it is also an ongoing marriage feast that takes place between Christ and each individual person.

The marriage feast will be complete at the end of time.

1 Thessalonians 4:17 this happens at the time Jesus returns with the saints. 1 Corinthians 15:53 & 54 tells that the saints are resurrected and “good” are changed.
Daniel 12:2 & Revelation 20:5 tells us that everyone is NOT resurrected at this time. This is the first resurrection (Rev 20:5)

Agreed that 1 Cor. speaks of the saints being resurrected and the good are changed, but it is silent about the “evil”. I am assuming that from Daniel 12:2 you are taking “many” to mean that some people are not resurrected at this time. “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake…” (Dan 12:2). But then the question becomes “who is NOT resurrected at this time?” For Daniel 12:2 continues “some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” This implies both “good” and “evil” being resurrected at this time. Does Jesus not resurrect some of the righteous? That would contradict 1 Cor. and 1 Thess. Does Jesus not resurrect some of the wicked? That would contradict 1 Cor 15:56 “Death is swallowed up in victory”. When is this victory when death is swallowed up? At the last Judgment at the end of time when death is destroyed (1 Cor. 15:26 and Rev. 20:14). Also in regards to the “many” of Daniel 12:2, I’m curious if you believe that Jesus redeemed “all” mankind or only “many” of mankind. At the last supper Jesus said his blood was shed for “many” (Matt 26:28 & Mark 14:24). But if Jesus did not redeem “all” of mankind, how can it be said in 1 Tim 2:3-4 that God desires “all men to be saved”? Another example is “many are called but few are chosen” (Matt 22:14). How can God desire all men to be saved if all men are not even invited? Perhaps the “many” of Daniel 12:2 should not be taken as excluding some as you understand it, but rather “many” as a great number without limit which would be inclusive of all.

As I stated in a previous post, Rev 20:5 (first resurrection) refers to the resurrection of Baptism. “And you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised (resurrected) with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in trespasses…God made alive together with him…” (Colossians 2:12-13). People of the OT and some still today did/do not receive the grace of being “made alive with him” during their lifetime through baptism and therefore “blessed and holy is he who shares in the first resurrection” (Rev 20:6) because not everyone participates in this “first resurrection” of baptism.

There is only one bodily resurrection of the dead which will occur at the end of time “on the last day”.

Rev 20:4-6 We reign with Jesus for a thousand years.

This is not a literal thousand year period. “Now is the judgment of this world,** now** shall the ruler of this world be cast out” (John 12:31). All baptized Christians (the church) have been reigning with Jesus as members of his body (1 Cor 12:12-13) since his earthly ministry (Luke 10:17-18).

Continued…

 

[spiderweb]

Originally Posted by blanchardman:

Rev 20:7-9 Satan set free, gathered an army and marches on Jerusalem.
Then a number of things happen.

1. Fire comes down from heaven and consumes the army.
2. Satan joins the beast and the false prophet in the lake of fire.
3. The great white throne judgment.
4. The second resurrection.
5. Death and hell cast into the lake of fire.
6. Those not found in the book of life cast into the lake of fire.
   (These six items happen simultaneously.)
   This brings us back to Daniel 12:4 when that book was sealed.

Agreed that this is referring to the last day. The “holy city” generally refers to Jerusalem, but not necessarily the physical city of Jerusalem. It also symbolically refers to the Church as depicted in the bride of the Lamb (Rev 21:9-10 and Hebrews 11:10 & 12:22). Satan gathering an army and marching on Jerusalem is symbolically representing the attack of Satan and his followers on the Church (Rev 12:17) which occurs throughout time, but will be strongest at the end during the final tribulation. In the end Jesus and his followers will be victorious at the end of time when Jesus returns at his second coming.

This occurs on the last day at the end of time, otherwise it kind of makes “the last day” a nonsensical statement. According to what you are saying, you would have a “last day” when Jesus returns at some point and resurrects some people, followed by another “last day” at the end of time, when another resurrection takes place, which makes the first “last day” not really “the last day” at all. Further, not only is it referred to as “the last day” but also simply as “that day” or “the day of the Lord”.

I think of particular note is:
“Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day; and not to me only , but unto all them also that love his appearing (2 Timothy 4:8).

“But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up” (2 Peter 3:10).

“I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead at his appearing…” (2 Timothy 4:1)

If Jesus is physically ruling for a thousand years, how will this “day of the Lord come like a thief”? Wouldn’t we know it was coming at the end of the thousand years? Yet it speaks of the Lord coming and the end of the world occurring at one and the same time. Just as 2 Peter talks of the end of the world coming as a thief in the night, so does St. Paul in 1 Thess. 5:1-3 in the context of his second coming at the end of chapter 4, stating that “…the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.” They are both talking about the same time, the second coming of Jesus (at his appearing) at the end of the world on the last day. Both of these accounts in 1 Thessalonians and 2 Peter are summed up together in Revelation 21:1-8. 1 Corinthians 15:51-54, when death is swallowed up, also corresponds to Revelation 20:11-15. All of these (including Daniel 12, Matthew 25:31-32, 41-46, John 6:40, 12:48, and 2 Timothy 4:1,8) occur at the end of time, on the last day, at Jesus second coming, when all will be resurrected, and the great white throne judgment will take place.

Jesus’ second coming is at the end of time (there is no third coming).
There is only one bodily resurrection from the dead at the end of time on the last day.
Judgment occurs on the last day at the end of time.
The marriage feast will be complete at the end of time.

 

[blanchardman]

A few minor points here. This is not depicting separate “gatherings”. Rather it is depicting separate groups being brought together at the one gathering, the marriage feast which is between Christ and the Church. God will not “compel” or “force” anyone to participate in this feast, this would negate freewill. Another translation would be “entreat”, or simply to ask or “bid” them to come as we see in Matt 22:9.

Acts 26:11 Paul “compelled” Jews to blaspheme in the synagogues.
Mark 15:31 & Matthew 27:42 Simon was compelled to carry the cross. ( I don’t think he was asked nicely)
The use of this word parallels with the"snatching away" of 1 Thessalonians 4:17. In both cases there is no request or bidding. It happens.

Both “good and bad” are called because while we are still on earth we are all still sinners, thus both good and bad are invited to participate and hopefully the “bad” become more “good”.

The last gathering is at the second coming.

The marriage feast is not a one time event, it has already taken place in time between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:25-27), but it is also an ongoing marriage feast that takes place between Christ and each individual person.

The feast described in Revelation 19:17-21 is a one time event. It is not on going and does not happen until after Jesus returns.

The marriage feast will be complete at the end of time.

Agreed that 1 Cor. speaks of the saints being resurrected and the good are changed, but it is silent about the “evil”. I am assuming that from Daniel 12:2 you are taking “many” to mean that some people are not resurrected at this time. “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake…” (Dan 12:2). But then the question becomes “who is NOT resurrected at this time?”

This, in connection with Revelation 20:5 ,answers your question. The rest of the dead.

For Daniel 12:2 continues “some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” This implies both “good” and “evil” being resurrected at this time.

No. 1 Corinthians 3:15 speak of someone who had no works of value. He was still saved though. He faces eternity with that stigma, that shame.,

Does Jesus not resurrect some of the righteous? That would contradict 1 Cor. and 1 Thess. Does Jesus not resurrect some of the wicked? That would contradict 1 Cor 15:56 “Death is swallowed up in victory”. When is this victory when death is swallowed up? At the last Judgment at the end of time when death is destroyed (1 Cor. 15:26 and Rev. 20:14). Also in regards to the “many” of Daniel 12:2, I’m curious if you believe that Jesus redeemed “all” mankind or only “many” of mankind. At the last supper Jesus said his blood was shed for “many” (Matt 26:28 & Mark 14:24). But if Jesus did not redeem “all” of mankind, how can it be said in 1 Tim 2:3-4 that God desires “all men to be saved”? Another example is “many are called but few are chosen” (Matt 22:14). How can God desire all men to be saved if all men are not even invited? Perhaps the “many” of Daniel 12:2 should not be taken as excluding some as you understand it, but rather “many” as a great number without limit which would be inclusive of all.

As I stated in a previous post, Rev 20:5 (first resurrection) refers to the resurrection of Baptism. “And you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised (resurrected) with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in trespasses…God made alive together with him…” (Colossians 2:12-13). People of the OT and some still today did/do not receive the grace of being “made alive with him” during their lifetime through baptism and therefore “blessed and holy is he who shares in the first resurrection” (Rev 20:6) because not everyone participates in this “first resurrection” of baptism.

There is only one bodily resurrection of the dead which will occur at the end of time “on the last day”.

This is not a literal thousand year period. “Now is the judgment of this world,** now** shall the ruler of this world be cast out” (John 12:31). All baptized Christians (the church) have been reigning with Jesus as members of his body (1 Cor 12:12-13) since his earthly ministry (Luke 10:17-18).

Continued…

More to come later today.

 

[blanchardman]

Spiderman:
If you do not believe in a coming earthly kingdom with Jesus ruling from the throne of David in Jerusalem then we will not be able to come any agreement on end times.

I trust you do believe in a literal return of Jesus.
Will it be as described in Revelation 19:11-16?
Will this happen prior to Revelation20-22?

 

[spiderweb]

Originally Posted by blanchandman

Acts 26:11 Paul “compelled” Jews to blaspheme in the synagogues.
Mark 15:31 & Matthew 27:42 Simon was compelled to carry the cross. (I don’t think he was asked nicely)
The use of this word parallels with the “snatching away” of 1 Thessalonians 4:17. In both cases there is no request or bidding. It happens.

It is true that the word used for “compel” in Acts 26:11 is the same as used in Luke 14:23. A slight correction is that Paul compelled Christians to blaspheme, not Jews. It is also the same word used when Jesus “compelled/constrained” the apostles to get into the boat (Matt 14:22, Mark 6:45). I don’t think Jesus “forced” them to enter the boat against their will. The other examples you give of Simon forced to carry the cross and the “snatching away” of 1 Thess. 4:17 are all different words, so in this case they cannot be considered as parallel. However, even though the “compelled” of Luke 14:23 and the “bid” of Matthew 22:9 are different words, they are parallel verses because they are telling the same parable at this point. Compare….

“Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage” (Matt. 22:9 KJV)
“…Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in…(Luke 14:23 KJV)

In theory, I guess you could say they were first “bid” to come in, and then after that any remaining were “compelled” to come in, but that is going beyond the text. After all, it is the same parable even describing the same event within the parable. You would also have to say that Jesus “forced” the apostles into the boat basically against their will in Mark 6:45, but that doesn’t seem to be the case either.

The feast described in Revelation 19:17-21 is a one time event. It is not on going and does not happen until after Jesus returns.

I can agree that this particular event described in Revelation is a one time event. If you are trying to say that this event is THE Marriage Feast, I would have to disagree as verse 17 specifically says that it is a calling to all the birds to feast. Our Feast is something different.

This, in connection with Revelation 20:5 answers your question. The rest of the dead.

Sorry, this does not answer my question. If both the good and the bad are raised, who are “the rest of the dead” that do not fall into either category? Are some of the bad not raised? Are some of the good not raised? Is there another group that are neither good nor bad that are not raised at this time?

1 Corinthians 3:15 speak of someone who had no works of value. He was still saved though he faces eternity with that stigma, that shame.

This is an oddity for me. What does it mean to you “to be saved”? I hope you can explain this idea in more detail, because I’ve never heard this idea of a person being saving, yet still have shame and in a sense suffering for eternity. Would a child that died qualify for this shame since they died without any works of value? Can a child even be saved? Just looking for greater clarity of your view.

If you do not believe in a coming earthly kingdom with Jesus ruling from the throne of David in Jerusalem then we will not be able to come to any agreement on end times.

I trust you do believe in a literal return of Jesus.
Will it be as described in Revelation 19:11-16?
Will this happen prior to Revelation 20-22?

The whole purpose of this thread (as I understand it) is for people to ask questions and to receive an answer based on the Catholic perspective. I choose to respond with the Catholic perspective based solely on scripture. Based solely on scripture, no I do not believe in a future earthly kingdom with Jesus ruling from the throne of David in the literal city of Jerusalem as you describe it. I do not believe that the scriptures themselves support this view except when a few texts are isolated from the entirety of the inspired word of God. However when those few texts are put into the context of the whole scriptures, I think they strongly support the Catholic Church’s perspective. I’m not asking you to agree with me, but I am going to express and explain why I believe what I do to the best of my ability. When there is disagreement, I see nothing wrong with diving deeper into it as we have been doing.

Yes I do believe in a literal return of Jesus.
Yes it will be at least somewhat as described in Rev. 19:11-16. Exactly how literally it will take place as described, that I do not know.
As to your last question do you mean Chapters 20-22? If so, I’m not sure how to answer this. I believe some of those events have already taken place and some will take place at his second coming, which will be at the end of time. Prophecy is a complicated thing and I don’t claim to be an expert on it, nor on the Book of Revelation. And most of the “experts” have a wide variety of views especially the book of Revelation. While I strive to understand it to the best of my ability, and give my honest views, I could certainly be wrong. But God never promised that my interpretation would be free from error, or that I would have perfect understanding, or that my only guide for Truth is my personal interpretation of the Bible. However I do believe that my understanding is consistent with the whole of scripture and the Tradition of Faith that was handed on by the writers of the Bible through the Church.

 

[blanchardman]

The thousand year reign:
2 Peter 3:7-9 “with the Lord one day is like a thousand years” (see also Psalm 90:4)
The “day of the Lord” and the “1000 year reign"prophetically speaking are the same event.
The Epistle of Barnabas states this in the early years of Christianity (70-200 AD).
Hosea 6:2 using the same formula agrees:“After two days” (2000 years after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD)…” in the third day(thousand years) He will raise us up"
Ezekiel 37:12-14 makes it clear that after the resurrection Isreal is returned to their land not given a new land on the new earth.
In Barnabas it says the new world begins on the “eighth day”.

The binding of Satan. What does " so that he would deceive the nations no more"?

 

[patmiron]

The thousand year reign:
2 Peter 3:7-9 “with the Lord one day is like a thousand years” (see also Psalm 90:4)
The “day of the Lord” and the “1000 year reign"prophetically speaking are the same event.
The Epistle of Barnabas states this in the early years of Christianity (70-200 AD).
Hosea 6:2 using the same formula agrees:“After two days” (2000 years after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD)…” in the third day(thousand years) He will raise us up"
Ezekiel 37:12-14 makes it clear that after the resurrection Isreal is returned to their land not given a new land on the new earth.
In Barnabas it says the new world begins on the “eighth day”.

The binding of Satan. What does " so that he would deceive the nations no more"?

As a FYi

Numbers in the Bible very often are metaphorical

Such is the case of 1000

It just means a long time

Google numbers in the Bible

shape Bible study.com. Has a great explainition of it

 

[blanchardman]

As a FYi

Numbers in the Bible very often are metaphorical

Such is the case of 1000

It just means a long time

Google numbers in the Bible

shape Bible study.com. Has a great explainition of it

OK!
We agree it is a long period of time.
The question is: When does it happen?
It happens after Jesus returns as King of kings ( Rev 19:16)
We can not be in His(Jesus) kingdom because He is “at His (The Father)right hand as Prince…”(Acts 5:31). This is why He is at the Father’s right hand and not on the throne.

 

[spiderweb]

Originally Posted by blanchardman

The thousand year reign:
2 Peter 3:7-9 “with the Lord one day is like a thousand years” (see also Psalm 90:4)

This is not trying to place a timeline on God, it is merely stating that God is beyond time. Specifically when using the number thousand, the Bible often uses it in a way which is indefinite. One example of this is Psalm 105:8 “He has remembered his covenant forever, the word he commanded to a thousand generations.” Other examples include Deut 7:9, Psalm 50:10, Isaiah 60:22, and Micah 6:7.

The “day of the Lord” and the “1000 year reign” prophetically speaking are the same even the Epistle of Barnabas states this in the early years of Christianity (70-200 AD).

I couldn’t find any such statement in the Epistle of Barnabas. The closest was in Chapter 15 which states:

“And God made in six days the works of His hands, and made an end on the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it.” Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, “He finished in six days”. This implies that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years, for a day is with Him a thousand years.”

It says nothing about a 1000 year reign being “the day of the Lord”. What the Epistle of Barnabas is actually saying is that from the time of creation until the end of time will be a TOTAL of 6000 years.

While a day is as a thousand years to God, I don’t see anything anywhere in scripture that says that “the day of the Lord” actually means a literal “1000 year reign”.

Hosea 6:2 using the same formula agrees: “After two days” (2000 years after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD)…in the third day (thousand years) He will raise us up”.

In the context of what was happening in the history of the Jewish people at that time, this would be a prophecy speaking about and fulfilled in the two instances of Babylonian captivity. The “first day” refers to the Northern tribes being taken, and the “second day” refers to the Southern tribes including Jerusalem. The “Third day” they return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. To try and force this text into an end time prophecy, you have to read an awful lot into the text that just isn’t there.

Ezekiel 37:12-14 makes it clear that after the resurrection Israel is returned to their land not given a new land on the new earth.

Again in its historical context, like Hosea, it is specifically talking about their time of captivity and disbursement among the gentile nations. At this point, they are a “dead people”. They are “revived” as a people/nation and return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. They are returned to their lands. The Northern tribes are reunited with the Southern tribes (37:15-19). It continues with the judgments against the nations that enslaved them (Chapter 38-39). It also speaks of a King who will rule them and concludes Chapter 39 saying “and I will not hide my face any more from them, when I pour out my Spirit upon the house of Israel, says the Lord God.”

This prophecy is specifically already fulfilled concluding in Jesus and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit described in the first two chapters of Acts. The twelve apostles symbolically represent the 12 tribes of Israel united. While in the OT, they were given their physical land back with the promise of a future everlasting covenant (Ezekiel 37:26), in the NT, that covenant is given (Matt 26:28), and they are promised new land in the Kingdom of God which is not of this world (John 18:36, 14:2).

The binding of Satan. What does “so that he would deceive the nations no more”?

The Church’s mission:

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them…teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you…” (Matt 28:19) “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). “Anyone who hears these words of mine and does them, will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock” (Matt 7:24).

Satan has no power over anyone who hears Jesus AND does all that he commanded. When individual people, who make up “the nations”, hear and obey Jesus, Satan is bound and cannot deceive anyone. When people do not listen to the Church that Jesus founded and gave this authority to speak in his name, then the nations will be deceived into all manner of falsehood and evils and thus satan is “loosed”. He can only deceive the nations when the nations willingly allow it. God does not interfere with our freewill to “choose”.

If satan is bound and literally cannot deceive anyone for a thousand years, that would mean that God has taken away our free will to choose during that time. The only “choice” even available to us is Truth. But then satan gets loosed again, in which case free will must be restored again at this time in order for many to be deceived. Lots of theological problems with that view.

 

[PJM]

OK!
We agree it is a long period of time.
The question is: When does it happen?
It happens after Jesus returns as King of kings ( Rev 19:16)
We can not be in His(Jesus) kingdom because He is “at His (The Father)right hand as Prince…”(Acts 5:31). This is why He is at the Father’s right hand and not on the throne.

Mt 24: 21-25
[21] For there shall be then great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be. [22] And unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved: but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened. [23] Then if any man shall say to you: Lo here is Christ, or there, do not believe him. [24] For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. [25] Behold I have told it to you, beforehand.

Mt 24:36-37
[36] But of that day and hour no one knoweth, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone.{**} [37] And as in the days of Noe, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

THIS MEANS:
Jesus who ALONE possesses both a perfect human nature AND always and at the same time His PERFECT Divine Nature, speaks here in his HUMAN nature. YET Jesus is always GOD, and one Person of the Trinity knows, they ALL Know.

John 14: 1-4
[1] Let not your heart be troubled. You believe in God, believe also in me. [2] In my Father’ s house there are many mansions. If not, I would have told you: because I go to prepare a place for you. [3] And if I shall go, and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and will take you to myself; that where I am, you also may be. [4] And whither I go you know, and the way you know"

Your understanding is a bit off the mark.

Upon man’s earthly death, there will be an immediate judgment based on our life’s choices: And Jesus will immediately send our Souls to wither:
Heaven
Purgatory {yes I know you don’t believe it, but that does not change its reality]
Hell

WHAT you address is the Second and Final PUBLIC judgment, when the 1st Judgment will be affirmed :NOT altered], and our Spiritual Immortal souls are reunited with our then made perfect bodies, joined for eternity

The immediate Judgment takes palce and our chosen consequences are effcted immediately upon our death.

Good Works: **James 2: 13-23 **“For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy; yet mercy triumphs over judgment. What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. … You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, …You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.”

Heb.6: 10 “For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do.”

Rev.2: 23 “and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches shall know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.”

1 Peter 1: 17 “Now if you invoke as Father him who judges impartially according to each one’s works, conduct yourselves with reverence during the time of your sojourning, “

God Bless you.

PJM