Do you have questions about Catholic beliefs & Practices

[blanchardman]

You are using that word differently than I would. A king comes into his kingdom means he inherits it. It is this sense that I believe that come into means. Jesus Ascended that is He came into His kingdom.
I cannot see the Transfiguration as Jesus coming into anything:shrug:

Correct me if I am wrong (I am working from memory) but when Jesus ascended to heaven didn’t He sit at the right hand of the Father?

 

[fbl9]

Hi a’

Thanks again for reply.

As far as scripture, I find it (all the references to Mary) fits the view I espouse. I see where the CC uses the full of grace scripture as implicit and the rest by Tradition.

So, I find Mary pondering things as implication that she is like us. When she left Jesus at the temple, again like us. Not sin, but not full of grace either. The big one is when His ‘brethren’ went to get Him and return Him home, for they thought He was ‘beside himself’. I think this took place at Capernum,early on. Mary was with them, the ‘brethren’. The disciples told Jesus "your mother is outside’’ and Jesus asked , "who is my mother?’. The point is it is implied Mary was with the brethren who wanted to bring Him home, when he had just begun His ministry, and was getting ‘mobbed’. Again, maybe not a sin, but certainly not “full of grace”.

Hope that clarifies. Again thanks for reading the ‘tough’ article.

Blessings

Hi Ben St.John’s writing seems to indicate that Jesus already turned the water into wine before this event. So Mary would hardly think that Jesus was beside Himself.
edit; This miracle was done at the request of Mary, how would she have know that Jesus could do something about the lack of wine if she didn’t believe He was capable of doing something?

 

[patmiron]

Hi Pat,

Look, this seems like a lot to read and missing the point. Tell me, will a saint be presented ‘spotless’ before the Lord ? We know Mary is/was, but is she more spotless ? We all sin, some more than others. Does that change how spotless we will be before the Lord ? All I said is that the degree, the degree of sin is mute in the regard of being presented spotless. I do not think I am at odds with CC teaching on this. Our rewards will be different, but please tell me if I am wrong in asserting that we will be all "spotless’’ and that equally, on that great day. I would really like to hear how you think the thief will not be presented as blameless as Mary though both are in heaven now. Are Mary’s garments a Pure White and the thief’s a Linen Off White ? Please tell me where are sins are remembered in heaven ? If they are not remembered, how will we tell who sinned more, or less, or not at all ? Does it matter, up there ?

Blessings

If by “saint” you actually mean “saint” & NOT Saint; then no; not until or unless their soul
has attained the necessary sate of perfection REQUIRED by Christ to be in His Divine Presence.

The fact that you and most Protestants choose to ignore God’s Nature and man’s Spiritual gifts given to them so that they can freely choose [verified by their life choices] to actually not simply know of God [very common in the multitude of non-Catholic Faiths]; but to actually KNOW God; which requires knowing what God 's expectations are; which BTW do not conform to Protestant salvation beliefs; invented by the reformers in PROTEST to God’s long defined and taught truths more than 1,000 years after the fact.

**So I’ll ask again; show us where in the bible even one TIME that God was ever OK; agreeable with, tolerant of ANY faith beliefs other than His Own:shrug: **

Protestants are quick to accuse we Catholics of a “circular discussion.” What can be more circular than avoiding asked questions?

God Bless you,

PJM

.

 

[patmiron]

I know the “transfiguration” took place before the death and resurrection. The question is what was this that the three saw.
Were Moses and Elijah seen in their “glorified bodies”?
What exactly is the fulfillment of Matt 16:28?

It’s Possible but unlikely. :Far more likely was that they saw a vision which seems to have been a frequent occurrence in both the NT and the OT.

Mt 16:28
[28] Amen I say to you, there are some of them that stand here, that shall not taste death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Douay Bible explanation

Ver. 28. Till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Some expound this, as fulfilled at his transfiguration, which follows in the next chapter. Others understand it of the glory of Christ, and of his Church, after his resurrection and ascension, when he should be owned for Redeemer of the world: and this state of the Christian Church might be called the kingdom of Christ. (Witham) —** This promise of a transitory view of his glory he makes, to prove that he should one day come in all the glory of his Father, to judge each man according to his works: not according to his mercy, or their faith, but according to their works. (St. Augustine, de verb. apos. serm. 35.) — Again, asks St. Augustine, how could our Saviour reward every one according to his works, if there were no free will? (lib. ii. chap. 4. 5. 8, de act. cum Fœlic. Manich.) (Bristow**)

Matthews Commentary claims its the beginning of the transfiguration dialog.

God Bless you,

PJM

 

[adrift]

Douay Bible explanation

The NAB explanation

23 [28] Coming in his kingdom: since the kingdom of the Son of Man has been described as “the world” and Jesus’ sovereignty precedes his final coming in glory (⇒ Matthew 13:38, ⇒ 41), the coming in this verse is not the parousia as in the preceding but the manifestation of Jesus’ rule after his resurrection;

 

[benhur]

Jesus being lost in the temple is something I contemplate a lot. It has been speculated that this was the precursor to a bar mitzvah. This is my description as the bar mitzvah we know today did not exist at that time. However, the idea of the boy becoming a man did. It has been explained to me that men and women traveled separately with the children going with the mother. Going to Jerusalem Mary would have cared for Jesus going back the care would have been turned over to Joseph. Mary would have thought Joseph had Jesus since He was 12 Joseph might have thought that Mary Had Jesus as she would have going. This is why Jesus could remain in Jerusalem without them missing Him. I don’t connect this with grace at all.
.

Hi a,

Yes, good point on traveling those days, as in “packs”, for safety reasons. I would not be surprised if men grouped together also, though I think they could commingle with their family from time to time. Not sure. At this point I would like to say I liken it also to the “Home Alone” syndrome. That is, many kids-sometimes trouble, when traveling. Remember, we say Jesus had brothers and sisters, making things a bit more hectic than say an only child family. Anyways, for one reason or another, we both agree that being left behind is understandable somewhat. It is still a mistake, though we both probably would console the the poor mother beating herself up as a bad mom in the movie. Also our hearts break over Joseph’s and Mary’s anxiety.

Not sure if you hinted that Joseph dropped the ball and not Mary. As you state it was preparatory for bar-mitzvah, for Jesus was not yet the traditional age for it- 13. If so, the still ‘child’ Jesus should have gone back with the "children’’. Also if indeed the care switched over to Joseph, then as in any relay race it takes two for a proper hand off of the ‘baton’.

Thanks for your thoughts. It is unfortunate we don’t know for sure, and can only speculate, but I am glad to see someone else get get ‘close up and personal’ with the story, so by being moved even more by our beloved story ‘characters’.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Now the big one. I have a program where I can take a verse and see how it is rendered in different translations Mark 3:10 is translated by some as relative, family, or friends. The Greek is belonging to according to this program. Mary is family and she belongs to Jesus but I don’t think that this verse indicates her at all. It is only later verse 31 that she is mentioned accompanied with His brothers. It seems that scripture is talking about two different groups. Even if both groups were one and they were wanting to seize Jesus because they thought he was mad, it does not indicate what Mary believed. Women had little consequence and it doesn’t seem to me that a woman would be in the position to seize anyone. It doesn’t say why they wanted to speak to Jesus only that they were seeking Him but for what purpose it is not stated. When Jesus said that His mother and brothers are those who do His will would that not include Mary? Do you think she did not do His will? It seems to me the answer is yes. It seems to me that it was done full of grace.

Hi a’

Do not really want to get in who the brethren were at this time. Understand some say children by Mary, others something else. The point is they were with Mary on several occasions in scripture.

The ‘family’ was affected by the ministry. I understand they or at least Jesus left Nazareth and moved to Capernaum, to flee persecution from pharisees. The ‘family’ also saw the crowds getting bigger and the disciples “could not even eat bread”, and were concerned for Jesus’s ‘health’…it is not far fetched that Mary was with the brethren to ‘help’ him. Now for sure the brethren did not believe in Jesus, and indeed maybe thought him “mad”. I agree with you we can not infer that Mary thought that also. I just propose she had normal motherly instincts and did want Jesus to "slow down’, at least rest and eat . Mary had deep concerns for her sons welfare . As I said a bit like Peter defending Jesus, but we know Peter was in the flesh, and I would say maybe for Mary also. Still hard to see her acting as if she was “full of grace”, but more like a normal good Jewish mother. I think she was still “pondering”, like any normal person would, while Jesus was just beginning to gear up in His ministry. As you see I say as a ‘normal person’, which is contrary to CC teaching where Mary is anything but normal (nothing normal about being sinless). At any rate , why would they (Mary and brethren) interrupt God’s ministry, like smack in the middle of a sermon so to speak.?

As always, been a pleasure.Blessings

PS- Don’t get me wrong. I say ‘normal’ but I do not doubt Mary was one of those people you could say couldn’t hurt a fly, or say a mean thing, and was epitome of humility and sweetness, and Godliness. I mean we both probably know a few people that we highly esteem also ,without them having to be full of grace. In fact, sometimes a few faults make them seem even more admirable in their faith. Love covereth a fault. I am sure all who knew Mary in the faith back then loved her.(and as we reverence her today).

 

[blanchardman]

Patrick : In your post about purgatory you mentioned 1Cor 3:13-14 and Rev 21:27.
I commented in my reply that these were future events. I don’t recall seeing your reply.
Did I miss it? Or did you not reply to this.

 

[benhur]

If by “saint” you actually mean “saint” & NOT Saint; then no; not until or unless their soul
has attained the necessary sate of perfection REQUIRED by Christ to be in His Divine Presence.

Hi Pat ,

By saint I meant what you mean, those in heaven or before Him for judgement. That is, deceased from this life.

**So I’ll ask again; show us where in the bible even one TIME that God was ever OK; agreeable with, tolerant of ANY faith beliefs other than His Own:shrug: **

‘OK’ and ‘tolerate’ and ‘agree to’ have different meanings. God was not OK with a king for Israel, but He tolerated it, allowed it. The Pharisees were called sons of Satan, and some other pretty bad things, yet apparently God tolerated them to sit in ‘Moses seat’. (They also had bad doctrine/leaven). Agree, that there is only one right interpretation of a matter, and the rest are private interpretations, as per Writ, or God as you say. That is he is His own interpreter, and it it His meaning that matters. Yet God in His wisdom and grace moves thru both to glorify Himself and His purposes.

Protestants are quick to accuse we Catholics of a “circular discussion.” What can be more circular than avoiding asked questions?

Not sure that I have avoided any of your questions, though I still have mine unanswered , as to how Saints are presented spotless etc Post #385. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13597172&postcount=385

Blessings.

 

[PJM]

Hi Pat ,

By saint I meant what you mean, those in heaven or before Him for judgement. That is, deceased from this life.

That seems to Catholics to be a misunderstanding of the term as used by Paul and as understood and taught by the CC.

"Saints" are those who certifiably after investigation and scrutiny & evidenced by [a more "recent’ condition] of Miracles; meaning God Himself is the final Judge.

While “saints” are all those who HAVE attained heaven but not specifically identified as such by the Church.

‘OK’ and ‘tolerate’ and ‘agree to’ have different meanings. God was not OK with a king for Israel, but He tolerated it, allowed it. The Pharisees were called sons of Satan, and some other pretty bad things, yet apparently God tolerated them to sit in ‘Moses seat’. (They also had bad doctrine/leaven). Agree, that there is only one right interpretation of a matter, and the rest are private interpretations, as per Writ, or God as you say. That is he is His own interpreter, and it it His meaning that matters. Yet God in His wisdom and grace moves thru both to glorify Himself and His purposes

This last position is IMPOSSIBLE. It denies the absolute necessity and reality of TRUTH. Always singular per defined issue. “THERE CANNOT BE YOUR TRUTH AND MY TRUTH OR THERE WOULD BE NO TRUTH” Amen:thumbsup: Pope Benedict XVI

Thank you You’re the 1st ever to even TRY to attempt to answer my question; however I was NOT specific enough in asking it: My Opps:blush:

1. God didn’t actually “tolertate” these examples: He was just being patient with them. What God does not address in life; GOD SURELY DOES ADDRESS after death. Actions always have their DUE consequences.

.I THOUGHT I HAD ASKED:

For any example of God tollerating, accepting ot being “OK” with any** DIFFERENT faith-beliefs **than what He God commanded, Ordained or taught. That my friend is the question for which I seek evidence.

Not sure that I have avoided any of your questions, though I still have mine unanswered , as to how Saints are presented spotless etc Post #385. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13597172&postcount=385

Blessings.

Sorry, must have missed that one

If by “saints” you mean any and all Souls in the 1st Judgment? That I can address here. If you’re meaning is something else, please let me know.

Genesis 17:1
And after he began to be ninety and nine years old, the Lord appeared to him: and said unto him: I am the Almighty God: walk before me, and be perfect.

** Deuteronomy 18:13**
Thou shalt be perfect, and without spot before the Lord thy God.

** Wisdom 4:5**
For the branches not being perfect, shall be broken, and their fruits shall be unprofitable, and sour to eat, and fit for nothing.

** Matthew 5:48**
Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.

Matthew 19:21
Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me

** Luke 6:40**
The disciple is not above his master: but every one shall be perfect, if he be as his
master

1 Corinthians 1:10
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment

2 Timothy 3:17
That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work

There is more evidence but this ought to support Catholic teaching

A Soul; ANY soul MUST in an absolute sense be either [In GOD"S View] perfect [spotless] upon death; including the Temporal Punishment ALL sin accrues; or if that Soul Should dies with -OUT unconfessed; or unforgiven MORTAL sins [1 Jn 5:16-17]; and being made PERFECT through Purgatory which exist for this VERY and precise condition so that MORE Souls CAN attain heaven [the Beatific Vision] which otherwise they would not; which is God’s desire [1st. Tim. 2:4]

Mortal men redefining “perfect” on God’s behalf is exceeding unlikely to accomplish what the reformers are demanding God accept because they choose ot believe it rather than the truth.

Does this address fully your question?

God Bless oyu,

Patrick

 

[benhur]

That seems to Catholics to be a misunderstanding of the term as used by Paul and as understood and taught by the CC.

"Saints" are those who certifiably after investigation and scrutiny & evidenced by [a more "recent’ condition] of Miracles; meaning God Himself is the final Judge.

While “saints” are all those who HAVE attained heaven but not specifically identified as such by the Church.

This last position is IMPOSSIBLE. It denies the absolute necessity and reality of TRUTH. Always singular per defined issue. “THERE CANNOT BE YOUR TRUTH AND MY TRUTH OR THERE WOULD BE NO TRUTH” Amen:thumbsup: Pope Benedict XVI

Thank you You’re the 1st ever to even TRY to attempt to answer my question; however I was NOT specific enough in asking it: My Opps:blush:

1. God didn’t actually “tolertate” these examples: He was just being patient with them. What God does not address in life; GOD SURELY DOES ADDRESS after death. Actions always have their DUE consequences.

.I THOUGHT I HAD ASKED:

For any example of God tollerating, accepting ot being “OK” with any** DIFFERENT faith-beliefs **than what He God commanded, Ordained or taught. That my friend is the question for which I seek evidence.

Sorry, must have missed that one

If by “saints” you mean any and all Souls in the 1st Judgment? That I can address here. If you’re meaning is something else, please let me know.

Genesis 17:1
And after he began to be ninety and nine years old, the Lord appeared to him: and said unto him: I am the Almighty God: walk before me, and be perfect.

** Deuteronomy 18:13**
Thou shalt be perfect, and without spot before the Lord thy God.

** Wisdom 4:5**
For the branches not being perfect, shall be broken, and their fruits shall be unprofitable, and sour to eat, and fit for nothing.

** Matthew 5:48**
Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.

Matthew 19:21
Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me

** Luke 6:40**
The disciple is not above his master: but every one shall be perfect, if he be as his
master

1 Corinthians 1:10
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment

2 Timothy 3:17
That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work

There is more evidence but this ought to support Catholic teaching

A Soul; ANY soul MUST in an absolute sense be either [In GOD"S View] perfect [spotless] upon death; including the Temporal Punishment ALL sin accrues; or if that Soul Should dies with -OUT unconfessed; or unforgiven MORTAL sins [1 Jn 5:16-17]; and being made PERFECT through Purgatory which exist for this VERY and precise condition so that MORE Souls CAN attain heaven [the Beatific Vision] which otherwise they would not; which is God’s desire [1st. Tim. 2:4]

Mortal men redefining “perfect” on God’s behalf is exceeding unlikely to accomplish what the reformers are demanding God accept because they choose ot believe it rather than the truth.

Does this address fully your question?

God Bless oyu,

Patrick

Hi Pat,

I think we are all set. We both agree we will be presented spotless, perfect before the Lord, from the thief on the cross to Mary. I understand the CC says thru ones actual perfection while on this earth, or attained thru purification in Purgatory, and all by the grace of God. And you are right, we are at odds about the CC way. In the end it might be the same, that we are to strive to walk in the Spirit, to our utmost best, and the rest is up to God and the Blood. I mean you purgatory is not something you ‘do’ but is something that is done to you, a form of ‘imputing’. You do not purify yourself but purgatory purifies you. Either way, we (anyone in heaven) shall wear pure white robes , right ?

Blessings

 

[PJM]

Hi Pat,

I think we are all set. We both agree we will be presented spotless, perfect before the Lord, from the thief on the cross to Mary. I understand the CC says thru ones actual perfection while on this earth, or attained thru purification in Purgatory, and all by the grace of God. And you are right, we are at odds about the CC way. In the end it might be the same, that we are to strive to walk in the Spirit, to our utmost best, and the rest is up to God and the Blood. I mean you purgatory is not something you ‘do’ but is something that is done to you, a form of ‘imputing’. You do not purify yourself but purgatory purifies you. Either way, we (anyone in heaven) shall wear pure white robes , right ?

Blessings

So we agree to disagree?

What about my question?

Continued Blessings,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Patrick : In your post about purgatory you mentioned 1Cor 3:13-14 and Rev 21:27.

I commented in my reply that these were future events. I don’t recall seeing your reply.
Did I miss it? Or did you not reply to this.

My OPPS!

But Purgatory IS my friend a future event; depending on the condition of that Soul when the Body dies.

1 Cor. 3:
[11] For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. [12] Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: [13] Every man’ s work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man’ s work, of what sort it is. [14] If any man’ s work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. [15] If any man’ s work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.

EXPLANATION FROM Douay Bible

[12] Upon this foundation: The foundation is Christ and his doctrine: or the true faith in him, working through charity. The building upon this foundation gold, silver, and precious stones, signifies the more perfect preaching and practice of the gospel; the wood, hay, and stubble, such preaching as that of the Corinthian teachers (who affected the pomp of words and human eloquence) and such practice as is mixed with much imperfection, and many lesser sins. Now the day of the Lord, and his fiery trial, (in the particular judgment immediately after death,) shall make manifest of what sort every man’s work has been: of which, during this life, it is hard to make a judgment. For then the fire of God’s judgment shall try every man’s work. And they, whose works, like wood, hay, and stubble, cannot abide the fire, shall suffer loss; these works being found to be of no value; yet they themselves, having built upon the right foundation, (by living and dying in the true faith and in the state of grace, though with some imperfection,) shall be saved yet so as by fire; being liable to this punishment, by reason of the wood, hay, and stubble, which was mixed with their building."

** Rev 21:27**

[27] There shall not enter into it any thing defiled, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie, but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb.

This too speaks of the 1st Judgment; immediately upon death of the body.

It expresses the condition of a “perfect Soul” [those written into the book]; thus mandating Purgatory for in-perfect BUT NOT condemned Souls.

Thanks for asking,

Patrick

 

[benhur]

So we agree to disagree?

What about my question? "1. God didn’t actually “tolertate” these examples: He was just being patient with them. What God does not address in life; GOD SURELY DOES ADDRESS after death. Actions always have their DUE consequences.

.I THOUGHT I HAD ASKED:

For any example of God tollerating, accepting ot being “OK” with any DIFFERENT faith-beliefs than what He God commanded, Ordained or taught. That my friend is the question for which I seek evidence"( from previous post.-inserted here)

Continued Blessings,

Patrick

OK. Tolerate is tolerate , irregardless of motive or attitude, such as *patience *that you suggest. We both agree to absolute truth. For example Mary was IC or she was not, or Jonah was swallowed by a big fish or he was not. However, those are small elements within a bigger faith. Do differences in the two examples above qualify for views then being of a different faith.? No as I am sure you agree.

I agree with you that obviously differences exist within the faith, and agree that there can be consequences to those differences, but not necessarily . For example, I would think it difficult to quantify the effectual differences in two believers who held opposing Marion views. Could you see that one is holier, kinder, more spiritual, etc., than the other ? At the other end is are infants regenerated at baptism ? That can have graver consequences on ones spiritual disposition. That God will judge and reward righteously for receiving or rejecting the Spirit’s guiding on each issue is a given, as you kind of pointed out (after death).

To the question, I submit again that the OT is full of God tolerating, allowing different faith beliefs, within the one, true belief of the time, Judaism. Other wise you would not have had Pharisees, and Sadducees, or Essene, Hasidim etc…

It is all too evident we have the same paradigm in the Church. Differences. I agree with you that it is not God’s perfect will, that He *yearns *for all the misconceptions, falsehoods to cease. I also say it is His perfect will that perfection will be achieved when He returns, and that for now, the wheat is in with the tares. Somehow this is Wise, for reasons we can partially see. Certainly love covers a multitude of sin, even error. For some reason He graces us to enjoy the fish though there be bones in with the needed meat.

Blessings

PS-I used “wheat and tares” loosely. The term is generally meant to signify a true believer from a false believer. While it is true that this sometimes is brought out by straying from core beliefs, not always. There are also tares in the almost perfect church as there are in the less perfect, less ‘full’ churches.

 

[blanchardman]

Patrick : What is “the day of the Lord”?

 

[PJM]

OK. Tolerate is tolerate , irregardless of motive or attitude, such as *patience *that you suggest. We both agree to absolute truth. For example Mary was IC or she was not, or Jonah was swallowed by a big fish or he was not. However, those are small elements within a bigger faith. Do differences in the two examples above qualify for views then being of a different faith.? No as I am sure you agree.

I agree with you that obviously differences exist within the faith, and agree that there can be consequences to those differences, but not necessarily . For example, I would think it difficult to quantify the effectual differences in two believers who held opposing Marion views. Could you see that one is holier, kinder, more spiritual, etc., than the other ? At the other end is are infants regenerated at baptism ? That can have graver consequences on ones spiritual disposition. That God will judge and reward righteously for receiving or rejecting the Spirit’s guiding on each issue is a given, as you kind of pointed out (after death).

To the question, I submit again that the OT is full of God tolerating, allowing different faith beliefs, within the one, true belief of the time, Judaism. Other wise you would not have had Pharisees, and Sadducees, or Essene, Hasidim etc.

My friend, you should run for political office the way you avoid the precisely owrded question

In the OT Judaism was the ONE true set of Faith beliefs.

So where in the OT did Yahweh even one time approve of, allow, permit accept or even tolerate ANY other faith than the Judaism that he Demanded?

It is all too evident we have the same paradigm in the Church. Differences. I agree with you that it is not God’s perfect will, that He *yearns *for all the misconceptions, falsehoods to cease. I also say it is His perfect will that perfection will be achieved when He returns, and that for now, the wheat is in with the tares. Somehow this is Wise, for reasons we can partially see. Certainly love covers a multitude of sin, even error. For some reason He graces us to enjoy the fish though there be bones in with the needed meat.

So to clarify *

You are or you are NOT saying that GOD is “OK” with competing faith beliefs. BTW; I agree we ought not discount LOVE:thumbsup:

I Do applaud your effort though

Yes or No:shrug:

Continued Blessings,

Patick

Blessings

PS-I used “wheat and tares” loosely. The term is generally meant to signify a true believer from a false believer. While it is true that this sometimes is brought out by straying from core beliefs, not always. There are also tares in the almost perfect church as there are in the less perfect, less ‘full’ churches.*

 

[benhur]

]My friend, you should run for political office the way you avoid the precisely owrded question

In the OT Judaism was the ONE true set of Faith beliefs.

HI Pat,

“…the one, true belief of the time, Judaism” (what I said) = “OT Judaism was the ONE true set of Faith beliefs.” (what you said).

So tell me in that regard, does Judaism = The Roman Catholic Church ?

But tell me, did the Pharisees and Sadducees and Essenes and Hasidim etc., all with differing faith beliefs, makeup Judaism ? And is that not like the Catholic Church, and the Orthodox Church, and Protestant Churches, all with differing faith beliefs, makeup the Church, the bride of Jesus Christ ?.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

You are or you are NOT saying that GOD is “OK” with competing faith beliefs. BTW; I agree we ought not discount LOVE:thumbsup:

I Do applaud your effort though

Yes or No:shrug:

Continued Blessings,

Patick

God is not OK with competing faiths, but He is obviously allowing them. You will not get me to say God is Catholic , or that God is Protestant, or that God is Orthodox. That seems a bit carnal, like I hear some folks praying for their Denver or Carolina team to win the super bowl. God wants every contestant to be his best, and that before the Lord. I pray for and say hooray for what is indeed true in the Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Churches.

Israel was a nation that carried the truth Judaism. The “called out ones”, the Ecclesia, are the ones that carry the truth in Christianity. The kingdom to come will be run by the Saints, with Christ on the throne. It is the middle dispensation, that Ecclesia , that is the least institutionalized of the three. It does not need to be set up like that which proceeded it, or that which is to come. It is in the words: nation, called out ones , and kingdom. Two certainly sound much more institutional, and on more levels than the middle dispensation of ‘called out ones’.

Blessings

 

[PJM]

OK. Tolerate is tolerate , irregardless of motive or attitude, such as patience that you suggest. We both agree to absolute truth. **For example Mary was IC or she was not, or Jonah was swallowed by a big fish or he was not. However, those are small elements within a bigger faith. Do differences in the two examples above qualify for views then being of a different faith.? No as I am sure you agree.

I agree with you that obviously differences exist within the faith, and agree that there can be consequences to those differences, but not necessarily . For example, I would think it difficult to quantify the effectual differences in two believers who held opposing Marion views. Could you see that one is holier, kinder, more spiritual, etc., than the other ? At the other end is are infants regenerated at baptism ? That can have graver consequences on ones spiritual disposition. That God will judge and reward righteously for receiving or rejecting the Spirit’s guiding on each issue is a given, as you kind of pointed out (after death).

To the question, I submit again that the OT is full of God tolerating, allowing different faith beliefs, within the one, true belief of the time, Judaism. Other wise you would not have had Pharisees, and Sadducees, or Essene, Hasidim etc…

My friend can WE claim absolute truth when the question goes unanswered?

Is there even one example in the Bible where God: Yahweh or Jesus was OK, tolerate of, condoned, or accepted ANY other; that is ANY COMPETING FAITH BELIEFS other than what He taught and commanded?

It is all too evident we have the same paradigm in the Church. Differences. I agree with you that it is not God’s perfect will, that He *yearns *for all the misconceptions, falsehoods to cease. I also say it is His perfect will that perfection will be achieved when He returns, and that for now, the wheat is in with the tares. Somehow this is Wise, for reasons we can partially see. Certainly love covers a multitude of sin, even error. For some reason He graces us to enjoy the fish though there be bones in with the needed meat

Why do you suppose that Jesus; like Yahweh choose only “One”?

One God

One set of Faith beliefs

One chosen people [Exo 6:7] & Mt. 16:18 "MY Church

Is there any significance to "JUST ONE?

God Bless you,

Patrick

.

Blessings

PS-I used “wheat and tares” loosely. The term is generally meant to signify a true believer from a false believer. While it is true that this sometimes is brought out by straying from core beliefs, not always. There are also tares in the almost perfect church as there are in the less perfect, less ‘full’ churches.

 

[PJM]

Patrick : What is “the day of the Lord”?

It refers to the 1st and 3td Commandments.

I suggest you read Exodus chapter 20

[1] I AM THE LORD THY GOD THOU SHALT HAVE NO STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME

[3] KEEP HOLY MY SABBATH DAY

It is God’s desire that all of humanity:

Recognize God as GOD

Acknowledge Him as our Creator & the one who sustains all life forms [Life & Death Decisions] Ecc. 15:18

Give to God his just due: GLORIFY God [Isaiah 43 7 &21]

That one day each week be set aside A day of Worship & rest without [unnecessary] labor In gratitude for all that God makes possible for us.

For the Jews it was Saturday; for Christian Sunday: in commemoration of Eater Sunday. The CC has added Saturday evening as a suitable alternative; Both to accommodate life’s demands and circumstances; and Jewish Sabbath tradition.

God Bless you,

Patrick