To Be Born Again

[MDK]

The discussion centered on the Book of Revelation. The Book of Revelation is Christ’s revelation “which God gave unto Him [Christ]” which He gave to the apostle John to be put into writing for only one purpose: “To show unto his servants things that must surely come to pass.” If you disagree with that statement, then we can talk.

Christ is God. The Book of Revelation, like all other Books of the Bible was written by Catholics for Catholics and meant to be kept within the Catholic Church’s teaching and understanding. It was not meant for you to decide what you want to believe about God’s word. How arrogant of you to offer to talk. You don’t need to talk, but actually need to listen… listen to those sent by Christ, and therefore you’d be listening to Christ. Instead, you prefer your own ignorance over Godly wisdom.

First, let me comment on this “pillar and foundation of the truth” verse which you keep repeating but may not have understood correctly. The Scripture says that, “the church of the living God [is] the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). Is that true? Of course! But have you asked yourself WHY God’s Church is the pillar and ground of the truth? If you go to another Scripture, it will tell you WHY.

“Now therefore you [meaning, the Church of God] are… built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Eph. 2:19-20).

I already understand it correctly. It is arrogant once again (and ignorant) for you to assume you know more than the Church God protects from error in faith and morals. It would do you well to be a little more humble… okay, a lot more humble.

Can you now see WHY the Church of God is the pillar and ground of the truth? Because it is built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets – in other words, it is built upon the whole Bible! The whole Bible – both Old and New Testaments – is the foundation of God’s Church! And that is the only reason why God’s Church possesses the truth – because it teaches from the Bible, the Word of God. If you take away the Bible from the Church – if the Church disregards the Bible and does its own thing – the Church would lose the truth. “Thy word [God’s Word] is truth,” thus saith the Lord. God’s Church is built upon that foundation. In fact, that foundation is Jesus Himself, because the Bible is His Word. That is why He is its Head, and not some human “pope.” Christ is not dead or incapacitated that He needs a prime minister. He is actively working, even now, with His True Church to bring into fruition God’s great plan of salvation.

This is just plainly ignorant of history and of what God has done. The Church is much more than the Bible. It’s basic history to know that God’s Church was built before Scriptures were ever written. Men in the Church authored Scriptures. The Church put the Bible together.

 

[MDK]

Now, about the term “1,000 years,” the inspired Greek is “chilioi etos” – literally, “a thousand years.” If God had meant “a long time” He would not have used such a very specific term. But God used “chilioi etos” not once, not twice, not three times, but FIVE (5) different times in His Revelation. NOT ONCE did He use “a long time” in His Revelation, so why should we even entertain such interpretation to His Word?

Once again, just more arrogance stemming from ignorace and pride. The infallible teaching Chruch with God as Head teaches that it is not literally 1,000 years, but a long time. It cannot be literally 1,000 years because we’re now already at almost 2,000 years since it started.

The question for you to ask yourself is why should any fallible man believe they know more than God? This is the most arrogant thing one can imagine.

Is that all you can say to support your claim that God’s Revelation of a 1,000-year reign of Christ is not true? There are those who believe in the words of Jesus when He declared: “Thy word is truth” (John 17:17). And that Word reveals a thousand-year reign of Christ on earth. That Word also cautions against privately interpreting the Scriptures: “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation” (2 Pet. 1:20). Since you are clearly making an interpretation of the term “1,000 years” you should at least give us an explanation as to why it should be interpreted the way you see it and why it should even be interpreted in the first place. Now, can you do that without going against the injunction in 2 Peter?

Christ’s word is indeed truth, but neither the Jews (authors of the OT) read the OT as completely literalistically, nor do the Catholics (authors of the NT) read the Bible completely literalistically. When you distort the meaning of what the Holy Spirit has inspired, you then are bearing false witness against the God. It’s not something I’m willing to do, although you seem not to worry about that kind of thing.

If the Bible was written “for our learning” (Rom. 15:4), there is this one thing we can learn from it, this one from the apostle Paul in how to teach the truth: “For he mightily convinced the Jews, publicly, showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ” (Acts 18:28). We can see that Paul did not go around telling people Jesus was the Christ and they better believe it because God showed him a vision, or because he belonged to the true Church, or any such boastful claims. Instead, Paul taught about Jesus using the Scriptures, pointing to specific writings in Scripture to prove Jesus was the Christ.

Now, you can do the same and prove to me using the Scriptures that the term “1,000 years” means “a long time.” Can you do it?

That is how not to privately interpret the Scriptures. YOU LET THE SCRIPTURES INTERPRET THE SCRIPTURES.

You could not be more wrong. God made His Church to interpret Scriptures. The Scriptures don’t teach their own truths.

You’ve focused on the false issue here. I’ve already given you the truth of what God teaches. It’s up to you to accept it, or arrogantly continue to put yourself above those who God sent, and therefore you also reject God by doing so.

No one can come to God unless they are humble. You have some way to go before being humble.

 

[MDK]

There is a big difference between your Christ mine.

    Yes, I didn’t make Him in my likeness, but sought to learn the truth about Him.

The Christ you worship no longer walks the earth and needs a prime minister to head His Church.

  Then you don’t know the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

The Christ I worship is the “chief corner stone” – the Living Head – of His Church on earth. He cannot be absent from His Church because He is the very foundation of the Church He built:

“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ

” (1 Cor. 3:11).

  Yes, Christ is the cornerstone which the builders rejected.  Your ignorance is of what is meant by being away, which like most things, you interpret to suit yourself rather than to be compatible with the truth. 

  You’re acting as though we should see Him walking the Earth in His human flesh.  

  Christ is in Heaven on His Throne.  I hope you don’t deny that much. 

  Christ is very present with His Church, the Catholic Church of which He is Head.  He is not the visible head, though.  The visible head is the occupant of the office of Peter.  This is done by Christ, so I accept what He has done, and do not reject it because I may not like it.  

  Christ is very present to His Church in the Eucharist, which you do not have in the ecclesial communities born after the Scriptures were written by men who are not also God, rather than built before the Scriptures by Christ.

The Christ I worship never left His Church to be led by some human prime minister. He is the Christ who promised His Church: “I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee

” (Heb. 13:5). And He never did. He is shown in Revelation 1:13, 18 to be the Living Head – yes, He is still around – spiritually in the midst of His Church. He has been, and always will be, the Living Head and High Priest of the true Church.

  Once again, you have created Christ in the image you find comfortable, and therefore do not know Him. 

  Also, you are mixing up things to create what you want to “prove” but cannot.  We must learn that there are differences in His Presence, such as Spiritually present, present in the Eucharist, and present on His Throne in Heaven.  The ignorant will distort these.

Christ’s Church exists in three places… Heaven, Purgatory, and on Earth. Christ sits on His Throne in Heaven, therefore His Presence on Earth is different. You act as though we should both prove Him walking around in his glorified body. The way He never left was that He protected His Church, sending the Holy Spirit, and in His Eucharistic presence in the Most Holy Eucharist. Christ is present in His Church like nowhere else on earth. But, it’s not Him walking the Earth in His glorified body. Don’t you recall that He was going away, but He would remain with them? Seems like a paradox, but it’s not a paradox with God.

You would do better to learn the Christ you say you already know. I assure you, you have little idea of His revealed truth.

 

[MDK]

So, Christ started His “long time” reign when He ascended to heaven. Did this reign start during His first ascension [soon after His resurrection] or did it start during His final ascension after being with His disciples for 40 days?

  I’ve already told you it’s when He ascended to Heaven to be seated at His Throne.  You pretend to knw more than God, so why do you not know when this was?

You are interpreting being “bound” to mean not entirely bound, like semi-bound – a little bound and a little loose – although more on the “bound” side, as you claim Satan’s power is now “very much limited.” But can you justify this strange private interpretation of yours? Remember 2 Peter.

  No.  You’re interpreting in the most convenient way for you so you can argue that which you do not understand.   I’m not interpreting for myself, like you do.  I’m listening to those sent by Christ, like He asked us to do.  Therefore, I am in perfect alignment with 2 Peter 1:20.  You cannot make the same claim in all honesty.

“These misunderstandings” are taken straight from the Book you claim to be authored by Catholics. Let me repeat what I said and cite the relevant Scripture.

I said:
“Rev. 20:5 speaks of a ‘first resurrection’ that will happen immediately preceding the 1,000-year reign.”

Rev. 20:5
“But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.”

Then I said:
“It says those who will be part of that resurrection [the first resurrection] will rule with Christ.”

Rev. 20:6
”Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.”

Now, tell me, where is the misunderstanding? Which part of my statements did God not teach? And please refer to the Scripture cited so there will be no empty talk.

  God never taught that there would be 1,000 x 365 days.   You can read the English, but you don’t know what it means.   This is the result of arrogance and ignorance combined which never serve anyone seeking God.   Why don't you instead listen to those sent by Christ, who are the Pope and the Bishops in union with the Pope.  If you reject these, you also reject Christ.

Where is the proof to your story? Again, the Bible was written “for our learning.” There we learn that whenever we hear of “strange” stories being taught as truth, we consult the Bible to find out if indeed they are so. So, let me ask you now to show me the Scriptures that will support your story, because I have, like the noble Bereans, “searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11), but have not found any truth to any of your stories.

You don't listen to truth and valid reason. If you do at some point want to actually find truth, the proof is in listening to those Christ sent, and therefore we are listening to Christ. It’s quite obvious that you reject those sent by Christ, and therefore also reject Christ.

 

[MDK]

If the Catholic Church is, as you claim, the Kingdom of God on earth, then the word “Kingdom” in the Lord’s Prayer may be replaced with the words “Catholic Church” without changing the thought. So, when you pray the Lord’s Prayer, you can say,

“Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, thy Catholic Church come….”

Or, in modern English, and to be better understood:

“Our Father in heaven, may your name be hallowed, may your Catholic Church be established on earth….”

Now, will you pray the Lord’s Prayer that way? If not, tell me why not?

You also implied that when you pray for God’s Kingdom to come – “thy Kingdom come” – you’re not really asking for God’s Kingdom to come, you’re asking instead for the whole earth to be in communion with God’s Kingdom. Now, if that is so, then why don’t you change the words in the original prayer to get that message across? Can’t you see that asking for the Kingdom to come is not the same as asking for the whole earth to be in communion with the Kingdom? There is a world of difference there and the most glaring is that the former implies the Kingdom is not yet in existence while the latter presupposes the Kingdom already exists.

I knew you would really blow the understanding of this, and I was right.

Christ’s Kingdom exists in three places, in Heaven, in Purgatory, and on the Earth. We want the Heavenly Kingdom to come. That is the ultimate destination for those who love and obey Christ.

The Church Militant (God’s one Catholic Church on Earth) is where you can learn the truth of Christ, and receive His Sacraments to be close to the Heavenly Kingdom. No man made ecclesial community can come close to this, as they distort God’s word and have only two valid Sacraments which even a Justice of the Peace could perform. We can be in God’s earthly Kingdom in the Catholic Church, and be in communion with our Lord as close to Him as possible and also and be close to His Heavenly Kingdom our final destination. At the Catholic mass are angels from Heaven. The mass is “Heaven on Earth”. We worship with Heaven during the mass. During the Eucharist, we are receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ and are also in communion with the Saints in Heaven. If you don’t understand the Catholic mass, you won’t understand Revelation, and you won’t understand the Lord’s Prayer.

Please seek to understand what was said.

 

[MDK]

So, you’re a Jehovah’s Witness? I have been wondering about the source of your unique theology.

Jehovah’s Witnesses will say nice things about Christ, but don’t believe He is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Therefore, Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christian, but are simply a cult. The word Jehovah is also from a bad translation of YHWH. They are off the mark from start to finish, due to not believing Jesus is God.

 

[po18guy]

Jehovah’s Witnesses will say nice things about Christ, but don’t believe He is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Therefore, Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christian, but are simply a cult. The word Jehovah is also from a bad translation of YHWH. They are off the mark from start to finish, due to not believing Jesus is God.

I was calling the postman out, actually, but he appears to be so starry-eyed from private interpretation that he missed it. Next, maybe I’ll accuse him of being a Branch Davidian…

It also appears that he worships the bible, since he claims: it is perfect, it is the foundation of his beliefs, it speaks to him, it translates itself and it is complete for all salvation needs. That is a definition of a god. Sad! However, the Lord’s mercy is so great that he might just end up being saved anyway.

And, if he does not believe in an Apostolic Church with teaching authority, why is he here acting like an Apostle who has teaching authority? This always stumps me about them. Further, his underclothes are not all in a bunch regarding the thousands of Protestant denominations who disagree with him - only the Catholics. Does the demon direct attacks against false churches, or only the true one?

 

[MDK]

I was calling the postman out, actually, but he appears to be so starry-eyed from private interpretation that he missed it. Next, maybe I’ll accuse him of being a Branch Davidian…

It also appears that he worships the bible, since he claims: it is perfect, it is the foundation of his beliefs, it speaks to him, it translates itself and it is complete for all salvation needs. That is a definition of a god. Sad!

And, if he does not believe in an Apostolic Church with teaching authority, why is he here acting like an Apostle who has teaching authority? This always stumps me about them. Further, his underclothes are not all in a bunch regarding the thousands of Protestant denominations who disagree with him - only the Catholics. Does the demon direct attacks against false churches, or only the true one?

Yes, there had been no admission by the mailman (who does not deliver God’s mail, but edits God’s mail and then tries to present it as though it were still truth), and it was a stab based on the mailman’s strange and certainly unorthodox beliefs. What I wrote was not for your benefit, because I know that you know. It was to go on to display the consequences of false beliefs, in this case the watchtower’s, which would apply to anyone who thought like that. It illustrates the type of danger that comes with not believing as Christ actually taught.

The demons direct attacks against God’s one true Church. The gates of Hell have already prevailed to a lesser or greater extent on the ecclesial communities born after the Reformation, or Islam. There are ecclesial community faith systems that are are in a form of cooperation with Satan. Satan doesn’t really care whether one misses Heaven by a little or a lot. He wants to keep people from the truth of God’s one true Church which makes Chrsit known to the faithful, and has never once taught error in faith and morals. You and I obviously wouldn’t want to be like one cooperating with Satan trying in vain to push with the gates of Hell against God’s Church. We know how that will end.

Who is like God! …(from my namesake, St. Michael).

 

[po18guy]

Yes, there had been no admission by the mailman (who does not deliver God’s mail, but edits God’s mail and then tries to present it as though it were still truth), and it was a stab based on the mailman’s strange and certainly unorthodox beliefs. What I wrote was not for your benefit, because I know that you know. It was to go on to display the consequences of false beliefs, in this case the watchtower’s, which would apply to anyone who thought like that. It illustrates the type of danger that comes with not believing as Christ actually taught.

They are little more than modern day followers of Arius, who also denied Christ’s divinity. What is worse though, is that they have re-written the bible to support their doctrines. Add to this all of their failed “prophecies” (100% wrong so far) and their fate should be sealed. But, no! The demon works overtime, while gullible souls sleep, to lead them astray. And so, the Witchtower organization misleads souls to this day. Lord, have mercy!

 

[Mailman]

  I’ve already told you it’s when He ascended to Heaven to be seated at His Throne.  You pretend to knw more than God, so why do you not know when this was?

Ok then, Christ started His “long time” reign when He ascended to heaven 40 days after His resurrection.

In the book of Revelation, this “long time” reign started when the first resurrection happened: “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years” (Rev. 20:6).

Now, the events shown in John’s vision which he recorded in the book of Revelation is in chronological order, is it not? Since the “long time” reign started in Rev. 20, then the events recorded in the preceding 19 chapters of the book had already happened when John was given the vision. That leaves just 3 chapters of the book’s prophecies not yet fulfilled during John’s time.

Now, let me ask you this: Why would God give John a vision of things that had already happened more than 5 decades ago and tell him that his vision was to “show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass”? (Remember John saw the vision about 50 years after Christ’s ascension to heaven.) What was Christ’s purpose of giving John the vision?

And here’s another one: John was asked to write messages to the 7 churches. Now, why is that, when those events had already happened a long time ago?

And another one: The many events mentioned in the first 19 chapters of the book of Revelation happened BEFORE Christ even left His disciples to ascend to heaven. Now, John must have known what specific events in history fulfilled those prophecies and must have passed this knowledge on to his congregation and to the whole Church in general. But why do we find the Catholic Church today having no clue as to what those prophecies mean and how they apply to events in history?

No. You’re interpreting in the most convenient way for you so you can argue that which you do not understand. I’m not interpreting for myself, like you do. I’m listening to those sent by Christ, like He asked us to do. Therefore, I am in perfect alignment with 2 Peter 1:20. You cannot make the same claim in all honesty.

Let’s get this straight. Tell me frankly, what do you mean by “Satan’s power is now very much limited”? That is your interpretation to that text in Rev. 20:2 saying Satan is “bound” for a thousand years. Do you mean Satan is half bound and half free during those thousand years, like maybe only his legs and arms are bound up while his wings are free? I can make more guesses but if you won’t tell me yourself I will never know for sure what you mean. You’ve been listening to those sent by Christ, right? Have they told you anything about what your statement means?

Now, how bound up is Satan during the thousand years? If you BELIEVE God’s Revelation He says Satan’s prison will be locked and sealed – yes, LOCKED and SEALED – during those one thousand years: “And cast him [Satan] into the bottomless pit, and SHUT HIM UP, and SET A SEAL upon him…” That should tell you how helpless Satan would be during that time.

But will Satan still have some power left to influence us when he is already locked and sealed in his prison cell? Remember, we are not talking here about some man-made and humanly-administered prison. This is God’s prison where no one, not even the cunning devil can escape. It is so secure that God’s Revelation assures us, “that he [Satan] should deceive the nations NO MORE, till the thousand years should be fulfilled…” (Rev. 20:3).

God never taught that there would be 1,000 x 365 days. You can read the English, but you don’t know what it means. This is the result of arrogance and ignorance combined which never serve anyone seeking God. Why don’t you instead listen to those sent by Christ, who are the Pope and the Bishops in union with the Pope. If you reject these, you also reject Christ.

Well, if you think the word 1,000 years (FYI, the original Greek also says 1,000 years, not just the English), does not mean what is says, tell me WHY that is so and show me WHERE in the Scriptures it says that, or at least give me some EXPLANATION as to why it should not be understood in its plain and obvious sense.

You don’t listen to truth and valid reason. If you do at some point want to actually find truth, the proof is in listening to those Christ sent, and therefore we are listening to Christ. It’s quite obvious that you reject those sent by Christ, and therefore also reject Christ.

But the problem is I don’t see your lot as those whom Christ sent. You don’t teach the way Christ’s Apostles and the early Christians teach. You don’t use the Scriptures when you teach. You don’t prove your teachings from the truth found in the Scriptures as Christ’s apostles did. Your ways are different. Your teachings are different. I listen to you but I can’t believe your teachings [most of it, that is] because they are contrary to God’s Word. I follow Christ. I do not follow just any church that tells me they are Christ’s true Church. The noble Bereans found out that Paul was of the True Church because they searched the Scriptures daily “whether those things were so.” I follow the example they set. Christ already warned me that there will be many false ministers roaming this earth. I would be a fool to believe your church’s teachings just by your say so without checking it out first. Why, I’ve not even heard one word of explanation from you using God’s Word – and you expect me to believe you?

 

[MDK]

Ok then, Christ started His “long time” reign when He ascended to heaven 40 days after His resurrection.

In the book of Revelation, this “long time” reign started when the first resurrection happened: “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years” (Rev. 20:6).

Now, the events shown in John’s vision which he recorded in the book of Revelation is in chronological order, is it not? Since the “long time” reign started in Rev. 20, then the events recorded in the preceding 19 chapters of the book had already happened when John was given the vision. That leaves just 3 chapters of the book’s prophecies not yet fulfilled during John’s time.

Are you admitting the truth, that there is no 1,000 literal years (as in 1000 x 365 twenty-four hour days)? Christ the High Priest’s ministerial priests are currently in His Catholic Church.

It is simply ignorant to say that an apocolyptical book is a chronological rendering of history. Are you this ignorant?

 

[MDK]

Now, let me ask you this: Why would God give John a vision of things that had already happened more than 5 decades ago and tell him that his vision was to “show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass”? (Remember John saw the vision about 50 years after Christ’s ascension to heaven.) What was Christ’s purpose of giving John the vision?

And here’s another one: John was asked to write messages to the 7 churches. Now, why is that, when those events had already happened a long time ago?

You added to your post as shown above after I answered you, so I’ll address your ignorance on these as well.

The Book of Revelation is much about revealing God’s one Church. Revelation is about worship of the angels and saints. If you don’t understand the Catholic mass, you won’t understand the Book of Revelation. If you don’t understand Revelation, you may not understand Catholic mass as well as you ought.

Surprisingly, God may have a different meaning that you would like it to have for a short while. The destruction of the temple also happened after Christ went to Heaven.

The seven Churches mentioned are all Churches of the One Catholic Church, just as today Notre Dame de Paris, St. Peters at the Vatican, and St. Vincent de Paul Church in Houston are all in the Catholic Church. You are confusing chronological order because you don’t understand either God’s mass, or the Book of Revelation. It was for worship at that time. The early Church worshiped as shown in Revelation. God’s Church still worships as shown in Revelation.

 

[MDK]

Let’s get this straight. Tell me frankly, what do you mean by “Satan’s power is now very much limited”? That is your interpretation to that text in Rev. 20:2 saying Satan is “bound” for a thousand years. Do you mean Satan is half bound and half free during those thousand years, like maybe only his legs and arms are bound up while his wings are free? I can make more guesses but if you won’t tell me yourself I will never know for sure what you mean. You’ve been listening to those sent by Christ, right? Have they told you anything about what your statement means?

Now, how bound up is Satan during the thousand years? If you BELIEVE God’s Revelation He says Satan’s prison will be locked and sealed – yes, LOCKED and SEALED – during those one thousand years: “And cast him [Satan] into the bottomless pit, and SHUT HIM UP, and SET A SEAL upon him…” That should tell you how helpless Satan would be during that time.

But will Satan still have some power left to influence us when he is already locked and sealed in his prison cell? Remember, we are not talking here about some man-made and humanly-administered prison. This is God’s prison where no one, not even the cunning devil can escape. It is so secure that God’s Revelation assures us, “that he [Satan] should deceive the nations NO MORE, till the thousand years should be fulfilled…” (Rev. 20:3).

From the Catholic Bible:
“The power of Satan has been very much limited by the passion of Christ: for a thousand years; that is, for the whole time of the New Testament; but especially from the time of the destruction of Babylon or pagan Rome, till the new efforts of Gog and Magog against the church, towards the end of the world. During which time the souls of the martyrs and saints live and reign with Christ in heaven, in the first resurrection, which is that of the soul to the life of glory; as the second resurrection will be that of the body, at the day of the general judgment.”

Well, if you think the word 1,000 years (FYI, the original Greek also says 1,000 years, not just the English), does not mean what is says, tell me WHY that is so and show me WHERE in the Scriptures it says that, or at least give me some EXPLANATION as to why it should not be understood in its plain and obvious sense.

The Bible does say what it means, but not what you think it means. By that, I say that it is all true, but not always literalistically written (especially the Apocalypse) and always easy to read as we would read a novel or newspaper. This is why God built His Church as the pillar and foundation of the truth (not the Bible), and the Church authored the Bible as part of the Godly Tradition and for teaching. Inspired Catholic men wrote the Scriptures. God is with His Catholic Church and brings it to all revealed truth. God’s Church knows what the Scriptures she authored teaches, and you do not know these things.

So, I know this because I listen to those Christ sent, to the infallible teaching Church and so know revealed truth without error. As a very fallible person, you read Scripture without understanding how it was written, nor what it was intended to be, as in part of God’s teaching within His one Church. It’s pretty easy to see why I know these things, and why you remain ignorant. The question is why do you remain ignorant when shown the truth?

But the problem is I don’t see your lot as those whom Christ sent. You don’t teach the way Christ’s Apostles and the early Christians teach. You don’t use the Scriptures when you teach. You don’t prove your teachings from the truth found in the Scriptures as Christ’s apostles did. Your ways are different. Your teachings are different. I listen to you but I can’t believe your teachings [most of it, that is] because they are contrary to God’s Word. I follow Christ. I do not follow just any church that tells me they are Christ’s true Church. The noble Bereans found out that Paul was of the True Church because they searched the Scriptures daily “whether those things were so.” I follow the example they set. Christ already warned me that there will be many false ministers roaming this earth. I would be a fool to believe your church’s teachings just by your say so without checking it out first. Why, I’ve not even heard one word of explanation from you using God’s Word – and you expect me to believe you?

I am not one sent by Christ as part of the Magisterium. I am a lay Catholic, but not without a mission. What I do is listen to those Christ sent faithfully, and therefore since Christ protects these teachings from error, it is the same as listening to Christ (according to Christ’s own words). I appreciate these teachings, and digest them, thinking about them most of the day. It has everything to do with my life, and the way I live. I can repeat these teachings faithfully to my wife, my family, my friends, my fellow Catholics, my separated brethren, and others who are not even Christian. Everything I have told you is in communion with God’s word. You’ll find in the mirror the false prophet you seem to follow, the one who distorts God’s teachings. What I have said passes the tests, including making sense. What you say doesn’t even come close to making sense and has been easily exposed as such.

So, it’s not me you need to worry about. However, if I faithfully repeat the message of those God sent, telling you that God sent it, and you reject that message rather than even at least seeking to learn it, what does that say about you?

 

[Mailman]

Are you admitting the truth, that there is no 1,000 literal years (as in 1000 x 365 twenty-four hour days)? Christ the High Priest’s ministerial priests are currently in His Catholic Church.

No, I’m testing your “truth” if it can stand up to closer scrutiny.

It is simply ignorant to say that an apocolyptical book is a chronological rendering of history. Are you this ignorant?

Well, have you read the book of Revelation? You sound like you’ve not read it at all. You know, I have always suspected you don’t know much about what’s written in the Bible. Is that why you’ve not once quoted Scripture to defend your position? And I think you’re not a true Christian either. God tells me a true Christian answers anyone who asks “with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15-16).

 

[MDK]

No, I’m testing your “truth” if it can stand up to closer scrutiny.

It’s quite obvious I’ve passed the tests already, and will continue to do so because I listen to authentic authority established and protected by Christ, carrying the true message of God forward. So, the educated would now remove the quote from truth. It is God’s truth without error.

You need to keep your version of “truth” in quotes until you also are educated on this to clearly write that it is heresy and falsehood and simply what you want and not what God has revealed. You will sadly continue to be uneducated in what Christ has actually done and taught as long as you reject the Catholic teachings. Why? Because the Catholic Church is what God has established to teach His revealed truth without error, and minister His Seven Sacraments for His New Covenant family.

Well, have you read the book of Revelation? You sound like you’ve not read it at all. You know, I have always suspected you don’t know much about what’s written in the Bible. Is that why you’ve not once quoted Scripture to defend your position? And I think you’re not a true Christian either. God tells me a true Christian answers anyone who asks “with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15-16).

Given the answers I have provided, this questioning of yours is quite ignorant. However, I understand where you come from. I have had others who read the Scriptures incorrectly tell me how ignorant I am, only at some point to apologize when they determine that they have been reading Scripture incorrectly. It is similar to the claims of a teenage son about how stupid his dad is…, until the son grows up and all of a sudden the dad wasn’t so dumb after all.

Of course I have read Revelation, and also have listened to its reading on Bible on MP3. I have listened to the Church’s teachings on Revelation, including the Magisterium and qualified Catholic scholars. I can’t claim to know everything it teaches, but what I’ve told you is without error. What you’ve told me is quite full of error. Not a very fair conversation, is it… I give you eternal truth, and you present falsehoods about what God has revealed.

Did you read that Jesus called Peter as a “satan” by attempting to stand in the way of Christ’s mission that He knew He had to complete for all of mankind? By your definition, Christ was not a good Christian, was He?

Given what you know about authentic Christianity, I’ll take what you say as though it were praise from a person who does know Christianity. For instance, I have given you truth of God’s teachings, by respecting you as one of God’s creation who deserves the truth. The truth includes that you’re very ignorant at this time. This needs to be said, otherwise you won’t know where you are in relation to the truth. In return, you have misrepresented what Christ has taught, criticized His one Bride, born false witness against God and His people. Who is being respectful and kind? If your house was on fire, would it be permissible and charitable to wake you from your slumber, or let you perish in the fire by not wanting to wake you? Would it be charitable to tell you that you’re in a house on fire if you were still partially asleep? Would it be charitable to pour water on you if needed, if you wouldn’t wake up… to get you out of the house on fire which could kill you? Well, the house of your own man made faith is on fire! It can kill you, but this death would be for all eternity.

 

[MDK]

Well, have you read the book of Revelation? You sound like you’ve not read it at all. You know, I have always suspected you don’t know much about what’s written in the Bible. Is that why you’ve not once quoted Scripture to defend your position? And I think you’re not a true Christian either. God tells me a true Christian answers anyone who asks “with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15-16).

What really matters to you, only the English words written on the page, or what God actually meant when He said these things? If quoting the Scripture is helpful, I will quote it. When discussing with those ignorant of what they mean, quoting the words doesn’t normally help them, because it actually freezes them in their own false meanings, which they can’t seem to get beyond to the truth.

So, what I’ve done is better than quoting Scripture. Anyone with internet access and a mouse can quote Scripture. Yet, many don’t know what it means. When I quote Scripture to someone ignorant of what it actually means (you included), they just walk away with their meaning, and I with mine. It normally does no good. I usually wait until the ignoramus tells me that such and such is not in Scriptures, then I show them where it is, and/or how their interpretation does not match the original author’s intent.

I don’t throw out all these Scripture quotes to show I have a mouse and internet Bible, like you have done. I do something much better, by providing what we’re really after… what they mean. What matters to you, only the English words written on the page, or what Christ actually meant when He said these things?

 

[po18guy]

MAILMAN!

What denomination are you? PLEASE!

 

[Mailman]

From the Catholic Bible:
“The power of Satan has been very much limited by the passion of Christ: for a thousand years; that is, for the whole time of the New Testament; but especially from the time of the destruction of Babylon or pagan Rome, till the new efforts of Gog and Magog against the church, towards the end of the world. During which time the souls of the martyrs and saints live and reign with Christ in heaven, in the first resurrection, which is that of the soul to the life of glory; as the second resurrection will be that of the body, at the day of the general judgment.”

I’m sorry, but that’s not a quote from Scripture. It’s an INTERPRETATION. I don’t think you have really read the Bible’s book of Revelation. What you have read are interpretations, commentaries, expositions, and the like.

Have you heard of the Douay-Rheims Version of the Bible? It is the most accurate English translation of the Bible according to Catholic authorities. It was translated directly from the Latin Vulgate, the official Catholic Bible.

The Latin Vulgate has the Catholic Church’s special approval [in the Council of Trent, 1546] to be the only authentic and official version for the Latin Rite. That Council declared that it “is to be held authentic in public readings, disputations, sermons, and expositions, and that no one shall dare or presume to reject it under any pretense whatsoever.”

Now, here is from the Douay-Rheims Bible:

Rev. 20:1
And I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
Rev 20:2
And he laid hold on the dragon, the old serpent, which is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.
Rev 20:3
And he cast him into the bottomless pit and shut him up and set a seal upon him, that he should no more seduce the nations till the thousand years be finished. And after that, he must be loosed a little time.
Rev 20:4
And I saw seats. And they sat upon them: and judgment was given unto them. And the souls of them that were beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God and who had not adored the beast nor his image nor received his character on their foreheads or in their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Rev 20:5
The rest of the dead lived not, till the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
Rev 20:6
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection. In these the second death hath no power. But they shall be priests of God and of Christ: and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Rev 20:7
And when the thousand years shall be finished, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison and shall go forth and seduce the nations which are over the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog: and shall gather them together to battle, the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

Notice the big difference between the passage you quoted and the texts from the Douay-Rheims. For one, it says that Satan’s prison will be shut up and sealed, “that he should NO MORE seduce the nations.” Satan’s power would not be very much limited as how your source interpreted the text. Satan’s power would be NO MORE – nil, gone, nothing, zero, kaput!

And if you will read further on to the end of the book, you will find that the Douay-Rheims says NOTHING of the first resurrection being that “of the soul to the life of glory” and the second resurrection to “be that of the body.” That is an interpretation not even hinted at in the entire Bible.

And you know what, in spite of that passage being only an interpretation, it still uses the phrase “a thousand years,” not “a long time,” although that is immediately followed by a remark interpreting the meaning of the phrase. But it never tells its readers WHY the phrase should be interpreted to mean the whole NT period, which just shows you that the interpreter has no understanding of Revelation and that its interpretation was chosen to fit a preconceived notion.

Now, if I accept such an interpretation, I would be foolish to do so knowing that Jesus already said that, “if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” (Matt. 15:4).

 

[MDK]

Yes, it is an interpretation… a correct interpretation. Some person ignorant of Scriptures asked "what do you mean by “Satans’ power is now very much limited?” Who was that person?

Let’s get this straight. Tell me frankly, what do you mean by “Satan’s power is now very much limited”?

To which I responded with exactly what was meant… i.e. the interpretation of Scriptures.

From the Catholic Bible:
"The power of Satan has been very much limited by the passion of Christ: for a thousand years; that is, for the whole time of the New Testament; but especially from the time of the destruction of Babylon or pagan Rome, till the new efforts of Gog and Magog against the church, towards the end of the world. During which time the souls of the martyrs and saints live and reign with Christ in heaven, in the first resurrection, which is that of the soul to the life of glory; as the second resurrection will be that of the body, at the day of the general judgment.

To which the ignorant responds:

I’m sorry, but that’s not a quote from Scripture. It’s an INTERPRETATION.

To which I say, yes it is an interpretation… the one you asked for. Yet, when received, you seem upset. Why would that be? Is it because you have been shown your ignorance and are not huble enough to come to the true meanings?

 

[MDK]

…I don’t think you have really read the Bible’s book of Revelation. What you have read are interpretations, commentaries, expositions, and the like.

No, what you mean to say is “how can anyone read the Scriptures and not come up with the same interpretations as I have?”

The answer is simple. I read Scriptures with the idea that I am not my own final authority. I learn the interpretations of those Christ sent, and so understand the Bible the way God inspired it to mean. This is why we differ.

Have you heard of the Douay-Rheims Version of the Bible? It is the most accurate English translation of the Bible according to Catholic authorities. It was translated directly from the Latin Vulgate, the official Catholic Bible.

This is even better. The Douay-Rheims is about the only Bible I read. The explanation I provided is from the Douay-Rheims. If you had actually read the Douay-Rheims online, you would have seen the notes that I provided and would not have had to ask instead. This represents the position that I take, and I don’t think I could have said it any better than was written in the explantory comments.

Here, please follow this hyperlink to the exact place in the Douay-Rheims Bible covering the subject that you asked about in Revelation, the binding of Satan and the explanation below. (This is why I had identified it as from the Catholic BIble. I thought it was obvious that it was an explanation, as from notes, as that’s what you had asked for.)

“The power of Satan has been very much limited by the passion of Christ: for a thousand years; that is, for the whole time of the New Testament; but especially from the time of the destruction of Babylon or pagan Rome, till the new efforts of Gog and Magog against the church, towards the end of the world. During which time the souls of the martyrs and saints live and reign with Christ in heaven, in the first resurrection, which is that of the soul to the life of glory; as the second resurrection will be that of the body, at the day of the general judgment.”

…The Latin Vulgate has the Catholic Church’s special approval [in the Council of Trent, 1546] to be the only authentic and official version for the Latin Rite. That Council declared that it “is to be held authentic in public readings, disputations, sermons, and expositions, and that no one shall dare or presume to reject it under any pretense whatsoever.”

Kind of arrogant of you, considering you’re providing all these false meanings of Scripture, and then claim to use the authority. Some people might call what you have done hypocritical.