Seventh Day Adventists say Catholics changed...

[andrewv33]

Seventh Day Adventists say Catholics changed the Sabbath to Sunday and they go crazy on this… I found a website that says they are a cult. I have a best friend who is a Seventh Day Adventist so I really want to understand them but she goes crazy when ever we talk about it so it is hard to understand why she is sooo upset about things regarding Catholicism. I do know her husband was raised Catholic in Poland and supposedly became a 7th Day Adventist minister but he does not preach. She goes nuts about Mary acting like anybody did as much as she did. She is a good mother and expects her children to honor her but gives no respect to Mary. Her husband said if I knew all he knew I would realize the Catholic church is not correct in anything. He told me he would go to any priest if I went to any of his church in my area. For me if I had my choice for him to learn about Catholicism I would say Jeff Cavins I think his CDs and DVDs and workshops of Journey Thru the Bible and all the other studies explain it very well. Anyway I would like some feed back from people b/c it really bothers me the way they go crazy about things and when I have had their kids stay they say don’t go to the Catholic bible study classes like they are going to be poisoned…

Here is your answer my friend on why SDA rave on about the sabbath being changed…
Before we start the catholic denomination dogma says that the Catholic priest have the authority on earth to change the bible…

biblelight.net/st-cath.htm
This is a catholic article that says sunday has no biblical significance and it was only chosen to show the Catholic mark of Authority!

Where the SDA believe that the sabbath cannot be changed since only GOD can make a day holy and the pure reason for the Sabbath is to also remember that GOD created all in 6 days and rested on the 7th…
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
People who believe this DO NOT want to throw out something that is blessed by GOD! Why would anyone!.. This would show a rebellion towards Him…

Alot of people are reading their bibles and studying them because

Mat 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
Mat 7:8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Luk 6:39 And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?

 

[me_again]

Here is your answer my friend on why SDA rave on about the sabbath being changed…
Before we start the catholic denomination dogma says that the Catholic priest have the authority on earth to change the bible…

biblelight.net/st-cath.htm
This is a catholic article that says sunday has no biblical significance and it was only chosen to show the Catholic mark of Authority!

That’s a wackjob website that says that the pope is the antichrist at biblelight.net/666.htm#OFFICIAL

That website also advocates the heretical soulsleep doctrine at biblelight.net/index_11.htm (Remember*:** Jesus is the one who advocated the concept of life-after-death in the story of Lazarus and the rich man. The soulsleep doctrine is a lie from the devil because it contradicts the teachings of our Lord)*.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

That’s a wackjob website that says that the pope is the antichrist at biblelight.net/666.htm#OFFICIAL

That website also advocates the heretical soulsleep doctrine at biblelight.net/index_11.htm (Remember*:*** Jesus is the one who advocated the concept of life-after-death in the story of Lazarus and the rich man. The soulsleep doctrine is a lie from the devil because it contradicts the teachings of our Lord).

Are you saying that when we die we don’t go to heaven. That everyone that dies in Christ goes to live in the bosom of Abraham? Doesn’t sound very comfortable for either Abraham or the ones stuffed into his bosom.

 

[benidict]

Are you saying that when we die we don’t go to heaven. That everyone that dies in Christ goes to live in the bosom of Abraham? Doesn’t sound very comfortable for either Abraham or the ones stuffed into his bosom.

richard, you know that the bosom of Abraham was symbolic for paradise in Jewish thinking. Peace

 

[benidict]

Here is your answer my friend on why SDA rave on about the sabbath being changed…
Before we start the catholic denomination dogma says that the Catholic priest have the authority on earth to change the bible…

biblelight.net/st-cath.htm
This is a catholic article that says sunday has no biblical significance and it was only chosen to show the Catholic mark of Authority!

Where the SDA believe that the sabbath cannot be changed since only GOD can make a day holy and the pure reason for the Sabbath is to also remember that GOD created all in 6 days and rested on the 7th…
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
People who believe this DO NOT want to throw out something that is blessed by GOD! Why would anyone!.. This would show a rebellion towards Him…

Alot of people are reading their bibles and studying them because

Mat 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
Mat 7:8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Luk 6:39 And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?

i kinda figured you for a sabbatarian, when i read your post on another thread. are you a seventh day adventist? peace

 

[Richard_Kastner]

richard, you know that the bosom of Abraham was symbolic for paradise in Jewish thinking. Peace

Whoa, there big fella. You are then saying this story is SYMBOLIC. Wouldn’t that make it a PARABLE and wouldn’t that further mean that the whole story is a PARABLE and must be taken SYMBOLICALLY?

 

[benidict]

Whoa, there big fella. You are then saying this story is SYMBOLIC. Wouldn’t that make it a PARABLE and wouldn’t that further mean that the whole story is a PARABLE and must be taken SYMBOLICALLY?

negative my friend. the term abrahams bosom is the symbolism to point to a very real place, namely paradise. it is not to be taken as parable. also if you read the early Church fathers, and the book of acts, they certainly did believe in life after death. and that the soul was conscious. in every other parable Jesus told, it started out: and Jesus told this parable. not in this case. Jesus simply stated that there was a certain rich man.etc. you know hte rest. but that my friend is significant. its kind of like in isaiah, where the passages about the virgin birth are found. in the Jewish translations it does not say virgin. it says young woman. but the way it is written is significant. we translate it virgin. nothing is written in the tanakh that is of little value. and little things like this do have great significance. Peace

 

[Richard_Kastner]

negative my friend. the term abrahams bosom is the symbolism to point to a very real place, namely paradise. it is not to be taken as parable. also if you read the early Church fathers, and the book of acts, they certainly did believe in life after death. and that the soul was conscious. in every other parable Jesus told, it started out: and Jesus told this parable. not in this case. Jesus simply stated that there was a certain rich man.etc. you know hte rest. but that my friend is significant. its kind of like in isaiah, where the passages about the virgin birth are found. in the Jewish translations it does not say virgin. it says young woman. but the way it is written is significant. we translate it virgin. nothing is written in the tanakh that is of little value. and little things like this do have great significance. Peace

Well, you see Ben this just would not be consistant with the rules of literature. Something of which the Jews were quite aware. Lets take a look at the whole passage.

Luke16
19There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

20And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

21And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

Ok, from what I gather you are saying that up to this point we are to take the story literally. That there is no symbolism in the fact that only the begger is named and his name is Lazarus. The fact that the rich man is rich and is clothed in purple and linen (royal attire) doesn’t mean anything. That he ate well has no sgnificance and that Lazarus wished to eat the crumbs from his table, nothing. Only when they die and Abraham goes to the bosom of Abraham does it become symbolic. How are we supposed to know that all this other stuff is not symbolic and going to Abraham’s bosom is. You say that this is symbolic of paradise in Jewish thought. I have never read this in the bible, where would I verify this.

23And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Ok, two things here. The people in the bosom of Abraham (paradise according to you) can observe the people in hell and visa versa. In otheer words God places these souls not only in eternal agony, but they are able to observe the people in eternal bliss in heaven makeing their torment all the more vicious, but not only that the people in heaven are able to veiw their loved ones who didn’t make it writhing in torment. Doesn’t sound like heaven to me. Also a drop of water on Lasarus’ finger would be enough to slak the thirst of the rich man. Seems like a couple of gallons wouldn’t be enogh.

25But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

26And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

No symbolism here Ben?

27Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:

28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

V. 31 here is the verse that tells me this is a parable. “Moses and the prophets” is the term used by the writers of the bible to refer to scripture. Otherwise known as the law and the prophets. The sumptuous fair that the rich man was feeding on and I’m sure his brothers too was the law and the prophets or the word of God that they were privy to, but Lazarus was not. See this is the whole point of this PARABLE. This rich man is symbolic of the Jewish priesthood or royalty and were eating their sumptuous fair, The Law nd The Prophets and were not sharing the good news with the Lasaruses of the world. So what Jesus is saying is though one rise up from the dead which both Jesus and another Lazarus did. They probably wouldn’t believe them because they certainly did not believe the word of God.

 

[DLONex]

negative my friend. the term abrahams bosom is the symbolism to point to a very real place, namely paradise. it is not to be taken as parable. also if you read the early Church fathers, and the book of acts, they certainly did believe in life after death. and that the soul was conscious. in every other parable Jesus told, it started out: and Jesus told this parable. not in this case. Jesus simply stated that there was a certain rich man.etc. you know hte rest. but that my friend is significant. its kind of like in isaiah, where the passages about the virgin birth are found. in the Jewish translations it does not say virgin. it says young woman. but the way it is written is significant. we translate it virgin. nothing is written in the tanakh that is of little value. and little things like this do have great significance. Peace

Just wondering, but how is the Gnostic concept of an immortal soul compatible with 1 Thess 4?

 

[benidict]

Well, you see Ben this just would not be consistant with the rules of literature. Something of which the Jews were quite aware. Lets take a look at the whole passage.

Luke16
19There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

20And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

21And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

Ok, from what I gather you are saying that up to this point we are to take the story literally. That there is no symbolism in the fact that only the begger is named and his name is Lazarus. The fact that the rich man is rich and is clothed in purple and linen (royal attire) doesn’t mean anything. That he ate well has no sgnificance and that Lazarus wished to eat the crumbs from his table, nothing. Only when they die and Abraham goes to the bosom of Abraham does it become symbolic. How are we supposed to know that all this other stuff is not symbolic and going to Abraham’s bosom is. You say that this is symbolic of paradise in Jewish thought. I have never read this in the bible, where would I verify this.

23And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Ok, two things here. The people in the bosom of Abraham (paradise according to you) can observe the people in hell and visa versa. In otheer words God places these souls not only in eternal agony, but they are able to observe the people in eternal bliss in heaven makeing their torment all the more vicious, but not only that the people in heaven are able to veiw their loved ones who didn’t make it writhing in torment. Doesn’t sound like heaven to me. Also a drop of water on Lasarus’ finger would be enough to slak the thirst of the rich man. Seems like a couple of gallons wouldn’t be enogh.

25But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

26And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

No symbolism here Ben?

27Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:

28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

V. 31 here is the verse that tells me this is a parable. “Moses and the prophets” is the term used by the writers of the bible to refer to scripture. Otherwise known as the law and the prophets. The sumptuous fair that the rich man was feeding on and I’m sure his brothers too was the law and the prophets or the word of God that they were privy to, but Lazarus was not. See this is the whole point of this PARABLE. This rich man is symbolic of the Jewish priesthood or royalty and were eating their sumptuous fair, The Law nd The Prophets and were not sharing the good news with the Lasaruses of the world. So what Jesus is saying is though one rise up from the dead which both Jesus and another Lazarus did. They probably wouldn’t believe them because they certainly did not believe the word of God.

again richard. the Jews in Jesus time, knew abrahams bosom to be a figure of speech for paradise. where abraham and the prophets were awaiting the coming of messiah. and yes some writers speculate that before the passion of our Lord, the people in paradise could see the people in tarterous. or hell, if you want. will give you more info on this. suffice to say, you have to ignore a whole lot of scripture, and teachings that were orally passed on by the apostles, to get to the doctrine of soul sleep. Peace

 

[benidict]

Just wondering, but how is the Gnostic concept of an immortal soul compatible with 1 Thess 4?

please clarify my friend. we do not hold to dualism as the gnostics do. the gnostic heresy was already condemned during the lives of the apostles. Peace

 

[DLONex]

I’m just trying to understand how the concept of a soul came into modern Christianity if not through Gnosticism. Most of the “soul” instances I’ve found in the New Testament are “psyche” in the Greek, referring to the breath of life given to humanity from God, that which makes us different from animals. Most of the “Spirit” instances are in reference to unclean spirits or the Holy Spirit, and they are “pneuma” in the Greek, which is what would normally be considered one’s “soul” in the Gnostic sense (and incidentally in the “you die and your soul flies to heaven” espoused by most mainline Protestant denominations).

Seeing as the Hebrew belief was in nefesh, your being which is animated by God, and the instances of the word that means what we understand a “soul” to be aren’t used to reference humans, I’m just wondering where the notion came from other than Gnostic beliefs.

I’m willing to grant the notion of Purgatory aligning with Hades/Sheol. I’m even willing to grant that upon death and entering Sheol/Hades/Purgatory may not be unconscious (though it’s up in the air to me because of 1 Thess 4 and 1 Cor 15:16 - 52 or so). However, I just cannot scripturally see justification of the existence of a “soul” separate from your physical body. But perhaps I’m just getting picky over terminology. I do see evidence of something immortal that is human, but that does not stay in this world, I just see nothing in the New Testament (especially in the Greek) that says this is something entirely separate from your physical body.

 

[benidict]

I’m just trying to understand how the concept of a soul came into modern Christianity if not through Gnosticism. Most of the “soul” instances I’ve found in the New Testament are “psyche” in the Greek, referring to the breath of life given to humanity from God, that which makes us different from animals. Most of the “Spirit” instances are in reference to unclean spirits or the Holy Spirit, and they are “pneuma” in the Greek, which is what would normally be considered one’s “soul” in the Gnostic sense (and incidentally in the “you die and your soul flies to heaven” espoused by most mainline Protestant denominations).

Seeing as the Hebrew belief was in nefesh, your being which is animated by God, and the instances of the word that means what we understand a “soul” to be aren’t used to reference humans, I’m just wondering where the notion came from other than Gnostic beliefs.

I’m willing to grant the notion of Purgatory aligning with Hades/Sheol. I’m even willing to grant that upon death and entering Sheol/Hades/Purgatory may not be unconscious (though it’s up in the air to me because of 1 Thess 4 and 1 Cor 15:16 - 52 or so). However, I just cannot scripturally see justification of the existence of a “soul” separate from your physical body. But perhaps I’m just getting picky over terminology. I do see evidence of something immortal that is human, but that does not stay in this world, I just see nothing in the New Testament (especially in the Greek) that says this is something entirely separate from your physical body.

ok. thx for the clarification. now i see where you are coming from. its not just the adventist who believe in soul sleep. it actually very common amoung mainline protestants to wonder about this. however, lets look in acts first of all. when peter showed up at the house where people were praying for him, after his release by the angel, from prison, what did they tell the young lady who said he was at the door. it must be his angel. that could also be seen as his spirit. which shows that there was a concept of life after death in Jewish belief at that time, and before. if we look at the writings of josephus, he seems to bolster up the belief in life after death, in his appendix, where he took on a pagan philosopher about the afterlife. the ideas of purgatory, and the conciousness of the soul did not come from Catholocism. they were in the Jewish community long before us. if you read the talmud you will see allusions to this as well. as well as prayers for the dead. all Jewish, not Catholic. and remember. the first Christians were Jews. Peace

 

[DLONex]

ok. thx for the clarification. now i see where you are coming from. its not just the adventist who believe in soul sleep.

Oh goodness no; no SDA here

 

[DLONex]

however, lets look in acts first of all. when peter showed up at the house where people were praying for him, after his release by the angel, from prison, what did they tell the young lady who said he was at the door. it must be his angel. that could also be seen as his spirit. which shows that there was a concept of life after death in Jewish belief at that time, and before.

Possibly, but the Greek word there is angelos. While it’s true that angelos can mean Angel, its definition is “messenger” as much as some sort of heavenly being. So with that much ambiguity in the word, it’s tough to make a definite theological statement based on it.

if we look at the writings of josephus, he seems to bolster up the belief in life after death, in his appendix, where he took on a pagan philosopher about the afterlife. the ideas of purgatory, and the conciousness of the soul did not come from Catholocism. they were in the Jewish community long before us. if you read the talmud you will see allusions to this as well. as well as prayers for the dead. all Jewish, not Catholic. and remember. the first Christians were Jews. Peace

I know the first Christians were Jews, however the beliefs regarding the afterlife were various from Jewish sect to Jewish sect at the time. Pharisaic Judaism had adopted Hellenistic ideas on the afterlife some 200 - 300 years before Christ if I recall correctly, but the Saducees (for example) did not believe in the same thing (partially why they had trouble with the notion of a resurrected Christ). Either way, I don’t necessarily think you’re wrong, I’m just not totally convinced one way or the other.

 

[me_again]

me again;6759852:

That’s a wackjob website that says that the pope is the antichrist at biblelight.net/666.htm#OFFICIAL

That website also advocates the heretical soulsleep doctrine at biblelight.net/index_11.htm (Remember*:*** Jesus is the one who advocated the concept of life-after-death in the story of Lazarus and the rich man. The soulsleep doctrine is a lie from the devil because it contradicts the teachings of our Lord).Are you saying that when we die we don’t go to heaven. That everyone that dies in Christ goes to live in the bosom of Abraham? Doesn’t sound very comfortable for either Abraham or the ones stuffed into his bosom.

Rich, I am not equipped to judge a man’s salvation, either now or in the future because people who are unsaved today could become converted tomorrow. Also, I hold a minority opinion in believing that it’s possible for Christian cult members and Christian sect members to enter the kingdom of heaven through the Lord Jesus Christ. I also believe it’s possible for a Muslim or a Jehovah Witness to enter the kingdom of heaven through the Lord Jesus. If anyone enters heaven, it’s through Jesus alone e.g. the kingdom of heaven belongs to Jesus and He knows the hearts and circumstances of all men and those who enter His kingdom will be judged righteously. All those who enter the kingdom of heaven are covered by the blood of Christ.

Also, please remember that I’m intimately familiar with Adventist theology because I studied it. I know the phrases, lingo, beliefs and norms. Adventism uses the bible to its advantage, even if it egregiously controverts the bible to suit its needs. Two points will be compared and contrasted to make this point**:*** First, Adventism points out that the bible reads that Abel’s blood “cried” out to God from the ground (after Cain murdered him), but Adventist theology teaches that it’s simply a metaphor.
.

• The converse second point is that when the bible reads that Lazarus and others are in Abraham’s bosom (in Jesus’ story of Lazarus and the rich man), its also simply a metaphor of saying that they are in Paradise – but SDA theology refuses to acknowledge this reality.
  Adventism can’t have its cake and eat it too. In Adventist theology, contextual analysis is interpreted in a mishmash of different ways, depending on what is needed to support Adventism’s heresies. These egregious heresies were developed beginning in 1844. Conversely, the theological interpretations of the church fathers were developed by the apostles and their proteges, from the time of Jesus’ death on the cross until now for the last 2000 years.

If other readers would like to read about the invention of these false heretical doctrines that began in 1844, click here.

Just to reiterate**:** I believe that it’s thoroughly possible for a man to believe in heretical rubbish and still go to heaven. Fortunately, entrance into the kingdom of heaven doesn’t require a 100% accurate understanding of all Christian theologies because if it did, then virtually no one would get saved. We now see through a glass darkly, but the day is coming when all knowledge will be revealed to us – but that day is not yet.

 

[Javl]

Richard:

You are quite insulting when you say my comments and responses are “gibberish”. Why do you judge me? I do not judge you, for judgement belongs to the Lord alone.

Please keep in mind that because I do not accept or believe in what you do I do not sin nor am I condemned. Your “know-it-all-holier-than-thou” attitude is quite evident in your responses, and yet we all respond to you with Christian charity. I ( and we all ) present to you our understanding and exegesis of scripture but you refuse it, or ignore it, and insist only your exegesis is correct. You do not give us any credit for our intelligence and knowledge.

Also, if you are so adament about keeping the law, why don’t you keep the entire law and not just the decalogue? Or is it that you just pick and choose what you will? The law consists of the entire 600 plus commandments, not just 10. The 600th is just as important as the first, or don’t you believe it?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Richard_Kastner]

again richard. the Jews in Jesus time, knew abrahams bosom to be a figure of speech for paradise. where abraham and the prophets were awaiting the coming of messiah. and yes some writers speculate that before the passion of our Lord, the people in paradise could see the people in tarterous. or hell, if you want. will give you more info on this. suffice to say, you have to ignore a whole lot of scripture, and teachings that were orally passed on by the apostles, to get to the doctrine of soul sleep. Peace

Ok, Ben you know about a week or two before He gave the parable of Lazarus. Jesus raised the real Lazarus from the dead. When He did this in Jn. 11 He had an opportune moment to verify this idea that the real Lazarus had indeed been in the bosom of Abraham or paradise as you say. Does He do this? Quite the contrary, He confirms the Adventist view that Lazarus was sleeping.

Jn. 11
11These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.

12Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.

13Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.

14Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

Jesus didn’t seem to think that Lasarus was in the bosom of Abraham, but that He was sleeping and it is quite clear from His exchange with His disciples that when He was talking about sleeping here He was saying that Lazarus was DEAD.

Also when He raises Lazarus, He doesn’t say come down from the bosom of Abraham. What He does say is 43And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. Why does He call him forth from the tomb? Because that is where he was. He was DEAD.

You say “you have to ignore a whole lot of scripture, and teachings that were orally passed on by the apostles, to get to the doctrine of soul sleep.” I have no desire to hear the oral teachings that the CC says are passed down from the apostles. However I would be interested in seeing scriptures that I am ignoring on this subject.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard:

You are quite insulting when you say my comments and responses are “gibberish”. Why do you judge me? I do not judge you, for judgement belongs to the Lord alone.

I do not judge you. Only what you say.

Please keep in mind that because I do not accept or believe in what you do I do not sin nor am I condemned. Your “know-it-all-holier-than-thou” attitude is quite evident in your responses, and yet we all respond to you with Christian charity. I ( and we all ) present to you our understanding and exegesis of scripture but you refuse it, or ignore it, and insist only your exegesis is correct. You do not give us any credit for our intelligence and knowledge.

Take a look at this passage from Heb 10

Heb.10
10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

15Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

19Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

Now you say this is an explanation of some covenant with the Jews alone. Javl read the passage you certainly don’t need me to translate this. It is not talking about some secret covenant with the Jews. The fact that you say it is is gibberish. Now this wouldn’t be so bad if we were talking of some periferial doctrine, but this is central to who we are as Christians. That the new covenant is God’s law written on our minds and in our hearts. And this is made possible by the sacrifice of the body of Christ. You say “we all respond to you with Christian charity”. Let me make myself really clear here. When you deny the sacrifice of Jesus and you do it in print on an international forum, How in the world can that possibly be responding in Christian charity?

Also, if you are so adament about keeping the law, why don’t you keep the entire law and not just the decalogue? Or is it that you just pick and choose what you will? The law consists of the entire 600 plus commandments, not just 10. The 600th is just as important as the first, or don’t you believe it?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

I’ve gone over and over this on this forum. Idon’t see the need to rechew it. It’s just a diversion anyway.

 

[KathleenGee]

Richard,

We have been down the road before. Just as you keep pulling out Bible quotes, it is also very evident that everyone disagreeing with you, know and live out the same Bible quotes…but we are living it out in a different context.

And there are millions of people out there, Christians, from different denominations, who also read the same bible quotes, but get even different responses and different opinions as you and us.

Christ wants His Church universal and unifying for all people that we can be of one heart and one mind…not disputing factions.

Just as it takes an act of faith to believe in Jesus Christ as one’s savior, so does it take an act of faith to believe the Catholic Church is Christ’s church He founded.

We are not called to a life of disputes and anger, but to a life in the Holy Spirit bearing His fruits.