Ok, when we die... One Judgment? Or Two?

[geezerbob]

As to who will be at the judgement, why don’t we see what Jesus had to say about it. “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, He will sit on His throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.”

I don’t see where this passage allows for any exceptions. Oh, wait. I forgot that we’re supposed to study Paul and Revelations, then try to make what Jesus said fit in or igore it, not the other way around.

 

[NotWorthy]

**Everytime you show the cross with Jesus on it, it is crucifying him again. As I said, this should be blasphemous.

As for the manger scene, it is obviously a celebration of the birth of Jesus. You should know the difference.

Now of course, you will answer my questions…**

Thank you so much for this post, OS.

You teach me so much.

*** And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life***."

 

[Old_Scholar]

Is the 2nd Law as binding on the Jews as the Torah? I don’t see where the 2nd Canon is any less binding on good Christians?

Can you show me where Catholic Bibles had the Deutero’s simply listed as “Deuterocanonical” apart from the main Canon? I’ve only seen Protestant Bibles do this. Although they changed “deuterocanon” to Apochrypha.

I could list several councils for you that called them deutero-canonical and some only listed part of them, others listed more or less.

They were called apocryphal in the second century before Christ when they were being written. They were never accepted as canonical until the RCC did so at Trent and that was simply to refute Luther because some of the non-Biblical doctrines the RCC taught came from those writings.

I have a hard time having a good discussion if you aren’t more familiar with the history of the canon and the early church. I don’t want to be the one that has to do all the research. Read Irenæus and the earlier church leaders and see how those books were treated. Also there is no evidence at all that they were included in the original Septuagint. The oldest copies we have goes back to the fifth century.

Givien time I will list some of those early councils and the canon they had.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Can you please clarify when this happened. The answer to this question is very, VERY important, my friend.

See my post 72…

 

[NotWorthy]

I could list several councils for you that called them deutero-canonical and some only listed part of them, others listed more or less.

I could care less that they were called deutero-canonical. I’ll ask you again:

Originally Posted by NotWorthy forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*Is the 2nd Law as binding on the Jews as the Torah? I don’t see where the 2nd Canon is any less binding on good Christians?

Can you show me where Catholic Bibles had the Deutero’s simply listed as “Deuterocanonical” apart from the main Canon*?

They were called apocryphal in the second century before Christ when they were being written. They were never accepted as canonical until the RCC did so at Trent and that was simply to refute Luther because some of the non-Biblical doctrines the RCC taught came from those writings.

No. There were books that were considered Apochyrphal - The Gospel of Thomas for example. The Shepherd of Hermas is another one. There were individuals that felt that they were not canonical. St. Jerome doubted their inspiration for reasons that have been proven wrong in the last 100 years. But with the Synod of Rome, the Council of Hippo, and the Council of Carthage (all later 4th century or early 5th), the deutero-canonicals were included in the canon of Scripture.

Now, you mentioned councils that didn’t consider them part of the canon. Can you provide these councils decisions?

I have a hard time having a good discussion if you aren’t more familiar with the history of the canon and the early church. I don’t want to be the one that has to do all the research. Read Irenæus and the earlier church leaders and see how those books were treated

. Also there is no evidence at all that they were included in the original Septuagint. The oldest copies we have goes back to the fifth century. Well, what you’ve just claimed is that there is no proof that they WERE NOT in the original Septuagint. Regarding Ireneaus and other fathers, I love what they teach, but in regards to the Canon of the Old and New Testament, the three synods and councils I describe are the only ones that reflect the teaching of the Church, instead of individuals.

Givien time I will list some of those early councils and the canon they had.

Thank you!

 

[NotWorthy]

See my post 72…

Your post reflects general information, something you are chastising us for on the issue of Contraception.

I’ll ask it more pointedly. Are you referring to the Edict of Milan when you say that Constantine made the Catholic Church the State Religion of Rome?

 

[Old_Scholar]

Your post reflects general information, something you are chastising us for on the issue of Contraception.

I’ll ask it more pointedly. Are you referring to the Edict of Milan when you say that Constantine made the Catholic Church the State Religion of Rome?

That’s where it started. Did you not read my post? I gave an encyclopedia statement on it. That’s better than anything I have seen you post…

As far as the Jews are concerned, they are damned if they don’t accept Jesus Christ, according to Scripture. They can keep whatever laws they want to but if they continue to reject Christ, then they are doomed.

 

[Old_Scholar]

In an attempt to get this thread back on subject, what was posted that I missed, regarding two judgments? I haven’t seen anything, just speculation…

I can at least list several Scriptures that say there is only one judgment.

(Back to the spa…this was just a short break…)

 

[NotWorthy]

That’s where it started. Did you not read my post? I gave an encyclopedia statement on it. That’s better than anything I have seen you post…

But , without stating the specific details of “making it The State Religion”, I have the feeling that the encyclopedia is referencing the Edict of Milan, which doesn’t state what you say it states. This leads one to believe that the encyclopedia might have an agenda of its own?!?

As far as the Jews are concerned, they are damned if they don’t accept Jesus Christ, according to Scripture. They can keep whatever laws they want to but if they continue to reject Christ, then they are doomed.

My point being, the Deuteronomy, or 2nd Law, was just as binding as the Torah, or The Law.

The Deutero-canonicals, or 2nd Canon, were just as inspired as the other books of the Canon. The Church never placed them “close, but no cigars”, as you seem to indicate.

 

[qui_est_ce]

**Everytime you show the cross with Jesus on it, it is crucifying him again. As I said, this should be blasphemous.

As for the manger scene, it is obviously a celebration of the birth of Jesus. You should know the difference.

Now of course, you will answer my questions…**

Your topics on your questions have been discussed on threads. You will be able to get much more in depth answers for them there.

Where in the Bible does it say that displaying a cross with a Corpus is recrucifying Christ?

Where does it say we should recreate the manger scene and celebrate?

As Catholics, we are taught that the Passion, death, and Resurrection of our Lord are more the most important occasions to observe.

 

[CTA1967]

**Everytime you show the cross with Jesus on it, it is crucifying him again. As I said, this should be blasphemous.

As for the manger scene, it is obviously a celebration of the birth of Jesus. You should know the difference.

Now of course, you will answer my questions…**

What the… You just restated the query! That’s not an answer! He’s asking WHY it’s “crucifying him again”.

 

[NoelFitz]

Christine,

I see you still have a picture of St Anthony.

I hope it does not offend OS, especially as you have St Anthony, pray for us.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Your topics on your questions have been discussed on threads. You will be able to get much more in depth answers for them there.

Where in the Bible does it say that displaying a cross with a Corpus is recrucifying Christ?

Where does it say we should recreate the manger scene and celebrate?

As Catholics, we are taught that the Passion, death, and Resurrection of our Lord are more the most important occasions to observe.

I understand, I knew you had no answer for the questions.

What are you taught of graven images?

 

[Old_Scholar]

What the… You just restated the query! That’s not an answer! He’s asking WHY it’s “crucifying him again”.

You don’t think once on the cross was enough?

 

[CTA1967]

You don’t think once on the cross was enough?

You’re still restating the query! What makes having a figure of Jesus on the cross crucifying him, while having a nativity scene is just a symbolic “celebration”?

 

[Old_Scholar]

You’re still restating the query! What makes having a figure of Jesus on the cross crucifying him, while having a nativity scene is just a symbolic “celebration”?

A manger scene is ‘obviously’ a celebration. Having Jesus on a cross would seem as a celebration as well. Why would anyone want to do that?

I personally see it as a window of opportunity for idolatry. When it is made to look human, then it seems offensive. An empty cross would be fine as that denotes a risen Christ. Perhaps an abstract art form would be better than to show Christ on a cross and bow to it.

 

[NotWorthy]

I reiterate:

Thank you so much for this post, OS.

You teach me so much.

*** And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life***."

If you notice, the Serpent in the Desert only saved people if they gazed upon it. I would think, in comparing Himself to the Serpent, that Christ wants us always to remember the Great Sacrifice.

BTW, OS, did you ever watch the Passion movie or go to a Passion Play?

 

[rinnie]

A manger scene is ‘obviously’ a celebration. Having Jesus on a cross would seem as a celebration as well. Why would anyone want to do that?

I personally see it as a window of opportunity for idolatry. When it is made to look human, then it seems offensive. An empty cross would be fine as that denotes a risen Christ. Perhaps an abstract art form would be better than to show Christ on a cross and bow to it.

Old Scholar what you dont understand is when we see Jesus suffering on the cross we see that he suffered for our sins. We see that no matter how hard life is, or how we feel at times that we are being treated unfair when we look at Jesus we see that he suffered much worse than us, and he was perfect. When we see Jesus on that cross we see Love. Someone that loved us so much that he died for us. To look at a cross without Jesus on it would be that just a cross. It would be empty, something missing. And it should be offensive to see what they did to Jesus. We should never forget how he suffered. But to take him off the cross, or have a empty cross, No, we must face the truth, thats what happened. Having Jesus on the cross by no means denotes him being risen. To say that it is idolatry is unreal, do you really think that by looking at that cross we worship that cross. No that is not what we do, when we look at that cross it makes our crosses in this world alot easier to except. It reminds me of what his words were, if the world hates you remember it hated me long before. If this was his world he would not be on that cross.

 

[peary1]

Originally posted by Old Scholar
the ‘episcopally organized’ church is not the way taught by Scripture.

Did you ever read ACTS by any chance?

 

[Old_Scholar]

I reiterate:

If you notice, the Serpent in the Desert only saved people if they gazed upon it. I would think, in comparing Himself to the Serpent, that Christ wants us always to remember the Great Sacrifice.

BTW, OS, did you ever watch the Passion movie or go to a Passion Play?

Yes I have and I know where you are going. I have also seen the equivalent in Cherokee, NC, the Black Hills Passion Play, the winter Black Hills Passion Play in Lake Wales Florida and one they have annually in Wauchula Florida. I also have a copy of “the Passion of Christ” but I must admit I have not seen it as of yet. It’s a long movie and I need to ‘work it in.’

A play is different. It is telling a story. When you see this cross with Christ on it every time you go into your church, it is different, I think.

My personal opinion is that Christ has died on the cross for our sins and I don’t think we should make Him go through that again.