What do you think is the biggest obstacle to unity between Catholic Christians and non–Catholic Christians?

[captainmike]

as between the catholic church and protestant churches: mary, hands down.

 

[SSTeacher]

as between the catholic church and protestant churches: mary, hands down.

Do you think any agreement is possible between them on this issue?

Cordially,
Mick

 

[captainmike]

Do you think any agreement is possible between them on this issue?

Cordially,
Mick

not anything meaningful. i grew up southern baptist, became episcoaplian at 18, and became catholic at 40. mary is 100 percent nonexistent in protestant churches. e.g., the angilcan rosary does not include hail marys. i’m not exaggerating when i say that the greatest mystery in the universe to me is the centrality of mary in catholicism and her total absence in protestantism.

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

You make the point for the Church in that the Church excommunicated one who attack the Scriptures. By what authority did the Church do this if Solo Scriptura is true. The attacker has the same right to his interpretation as any one else so where did the Church get the authority to excommunicate some one for saying what he believed to be what the Scripture said? bobmck

Hi Again Bob,
I think this one was meant for me too but hope I’m not jumping in where I’m not supposed to. This was not a case of exegeting the texts. It was a case of removing them. It would be like me saying the only books of the Bible you should believe are Philemon and Bel and the dragon everything else is heresy. That is sort of what Marcion did. Since the Church had been given the Scriptures it really makes the point I was trying to state which is that the Scriptures comprising the Old Testament, as well as the 4 Gospels, the letters of Paul, the Catholic epistles were regarded as God Breathed Scripture. While it is true that the Revelation of John was debated by some in the early centuries it was also considered to be of apostolic origin and Scripture by most, especially by the earliest Church Scholars.
So in 1 Tim 5:18 we have Paul considering Luke’s writing authorative. Peter also recognized Paul’s writings to be authoritative and of the Holy Spirit 2 Peter 3:15-16. And Clement, which is dated 95 by liberal scholarship but is obviously pre 70 AD. (I say this because Clement mentions both Peter and Paul had only recently gone to the Lord as well as mentioning the temple sacrifice [pre 70AD] in the present active tense..)
Clement mentions at least 8 New Testament books. Ignatius acknowledged 7 more in 105AD. Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle in 110 AD quotes 15 books. Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 165). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 175).
The Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in A.D. 170 included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. The amount of early witnesses we have that these Scriptures were considered God breathed is overwhelming. Does anyone have evidence to the contrary?

May the Lord be with you, Erchomai Kyrios.

 

[Peter_J]

Bob McKissick;5384801:

The Scripture refered to in 2 Tim which Timothy was aware of from his youth was the Old Testament. The New Testament was in the process of being written but not finished at that time. bobmck

As I understand it, the Scripture wasn’t made Cannon until that time. There were a lot of “scriptures” that were not inspired that had to be weeded out. That is what I believe you may have missed. My prayers and good wishes to you. bobmck

I hate it when you two fight.

 

[SSTeacher]

Mick:

I think “authority” is a huge obstacle. My post, from yesterday, gives you an idea of the view of Papal infallibility, from outside Catholicism looking in.

I agree that it’s a huge obstacle.

Regarding the other issues:

a) Disagreement as to whether salvation is an event or a process?
I believe you could call it an “event,” in that there is a moment when we realized that we are sinners, in need of reconciliation to God; we acknowledge that Christ took upon Himself the sins of the world and atoned for those sins with the sacrifice of His precious body and blood; we confess our sins and ask for forgiveness through Jesus Christ, the one mediator between God and mankind; we are Baptized and receive the Holy Spirit; and with a repentant heart and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we begin to follow in the footsteps of Christ-though we fail again an again.

Salvation is also a process as the fruits of our faith grow over time, according to the work that is done in us through the Holy Spirit, acknowledging that any good thought, intention, or deed comes from God alone. Though we are saved by faith alone and cannot receive salvation through our own works, we are also refined by the Holy Spirit as we continue our journey. If Christ truly abides in us, and we in Him; then our works and deeds will testify to that-as “faith without works is dead.” Our journey or “process” can be deeply hindered by unconfessed sins in our lives, and also by the lack of true repentance when we do confess our sins and ask forgiveness.

This ought not to be a major obstacle.

b) Disagreement about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception?
A point of disagreement, but not high on the list of obstacles to unity.

I respectfully disagree. This is a huge obstacle.

c) Disagreement about praying for the dead?
I have never heard of this practice in a Protestant church, but I do pray for the salvation of the departed. Perhaps it is the urging of the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps it is.

d) Disagreement about the existence of purgatory?
A point of disagreement, but not high on the list of obstacles to unity.

I agree.

e) Disagreement about how to understand baptism?
I do not see this as an obstacle to unity.

It’s a tricky one, though.

f) Disagreement about the doctrine of Transubstantiation?
This is a huge issue. First, I think we do have some common elements such as belief that we must have confessed our sins with a repentant heart to prepare for the Holy Sacrament.

I believe the Holy Communion is symbolic and Christ is present in Spirit. When I began to study the history of Christianity, I was rather shocked to find the idea of consuming the “body and blood of Christ” was viewed by some as “cannibalism.” As you know the Jewish people were never to consume the blood of any food or sacrifice.

Yes, I agree that this is a huge issue and that it presents great difficulties for post–Reformation Western Christians.

g) Disagreement about confession of one’s sins being heard by a priest?
I confess my sins to God, through Jesus Christ, our High Priest and one Mediator.

I’ll come back to this one.

h) Disagreement about the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God?
A point of disagreement, but not high on the list of obstacles to unity.

Anna

I agree.

I confess my sins to God, through Jesus Christ, our High Priest and one Mediator.

Let me ask you this hypothetical question. Do you think that if you were to confess your sins to God in the presence of a priest that you would have done something that was unbiblical and therefore sinful?

Respectfully,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5385418:

Do you think any agreement is possible between them on this issue?

Cordially,
Mick

not anything meaningful. i grew up southern baptist, became episcoaplian at 18, and became catholic at 40. mary is 100 percent nonexistent in protestant churches. e.g., the angilcan rosary does not include hail marys. i’m not exaggerating when i say that the greatest mystery in the universe to me is the centrality of mary in catholicism and her total absence in protestantism.

I think she was slowly and steadily pushed out by the Reform guys on the basis that Marian prayers and devotions amounted to Mariolatry.

Helpfully,
Mick

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

Hi Again, J
Missed this one earlier. My responses are below.

The Gospels were written between 70 and 95 AD. St. Paul was beheaded in 67 AD.

Yes, actually today is the 1,942nd anniversary of both Peter and Paul’s execution by Nero. I would agree that most liberal scholars date every one of them post 70 AD but they of course have an agenda. That agenda is to dismiss the supernatural power of God through His prophetic Word. If we go back to the liberal scholarship of the early to near mid 20th century we find liberal scholers dating them all to the 2nd century - some even to the mid 2nd century. Talk about eating crow. P52 out of John’s gospel most likely dates between 110 to 125 AD. They’ve all been discredited even the most hard core liberals acquiesce that they are all 1rst century works. That said why do they all choose 70 AD? Conservative scholars all point to the obvious. 70 AD is when the Roman army tore down the walls of Jerusalem and since Jesus prophesied about that in the gospels and prophesy is supernatural that means, at least to the liberal mind, those devious apostles put those words into the mouth of our Lord post fall of Jerusalem - in other words post 70 AD.

Mat 24:2 And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”
Mar 13:2 And Jesus answered and said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not [one] stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”
Luk 19:44 and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation."
Luk 21:6 “These things which you see–the days will come in which not [one] stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down.”

You are of course free to disagree and believe that if you wish. I say poppycock! So does EWTN
ewtn.com/library/scriptur/certhypo.txt
Catholics and Orthodox put more weight on the early church fathers than Protestants and that is good, because tradition is a good thing for all of us. We don’t want to be changing the doctrines the apostles handed down to us. If God is unchanging then by Trinitarian doctrine the Holy Spirit is also unchanging and is the same yesterday, today and forever

Jam 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.
Hbr 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
And so it is with the Holy Spirit who indwells all who are Christ’s

All Christians need to be pure about the faith once delivered to them so why do we rely on liberal scholarship to decide for us instead of trusting the men to whom the apostles delivered the oracles of God via verbally and through Holy Scripture as well as the doctrines they taught us which are revealed in the fathers? Now liberal scholarship dates Clement to 95 AD and I must admit that is majority opinion but talk about focusing on a gnat and sallowing a camel! Clement’s first epistle, as I mentioned in another post mention the recent passing of Peter and Paul. We further see this:

“Let each of you brothers, in his proper order give thanks to God, maintaining a good conscience, not overstepping the designated rule of his ministry, but acting with reverence. Not just anywhere, brothers, are the continual daily sacrifices offered, or the freewill offerings, or the offerings for sin and trespasses, but only in Jerusalem
and even there the offering is not made in every place, but in front of the sanctuary at the altar, the offering having been first inspected for blemishes.” Clement 41.1-2 Translation from Greek by Lightfoot.

Clement is of course speaking in the present tense but how can that be? The continual sacrifice as well as the temple itself was abolished with its demise and destruction in 70 AD at the hands of Titus. But here the temple stands, not threatened - not even the hint of war exists in his letter!
Eusebius tells us what the Church at Jerusalem was doing just prior to the awful war that would fulfill Jesus’ prophesy.

However the whole body of the Church at Jerusalem, having been commanded by a Divine revelation, given to men of approved piety there before the War, (again liberal scholarship would refute this as authentic because he speaks of prophesy!) removed from the city, and dwelt in a certain town beyond the Jordan, called Pella. Here, those that believed in Christ, having removed from Jerusalem as if holy men, had entirely abandoned the Royal City itself, and the whole land of Judea….” (Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.5).

(to be cont’d)

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

Who is this “we”? Obviously, the letters of St. Paul had been written, and possibly a few other Epistles, as well - and maybe this constitutes 90% of the New Testament? But the Gospels didn’t begin to be written down until 70 AD.

Well obviously I guess this “we” isn’t you and me Again the testimony of the fathers does not agree with what you say.
Irenaeus stated that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark were written while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome. This would put them between the late 50 to early 60s. Now Acts ends with Paul not yet free to preach - so either it ended abruptly or a section is gone. Still we know Acts, as testified by Luke himself, wrote his Gospel first that makes it very like a product of at least the late 50’s. Current theories have Matthew and Luke borrowing from Mark, which only has 33 unique verses. That would place Mark even earlier than Luke - mid 50’s is more than possible. John was the last to write his gospel all the others had been written prior to the fall of Jerusalem. With a post 70’s date, however, none of them, except John, would have been an eyewitness disciple of the Lord Jesus.
So for my witnesses I bring Clement to witness against the dating of liberal scholarship for he does indeed not only name Scripture but quotes its very verses. So does Papias, Ignatius, Polycarp, which brings us to one of my favorites, Irenaeus, who was martyred in approximately 180 AD. He states that all the churches communicated with each other the faith that had been passed down from the apostles and disciples of Christ. He also names the Scriptures in his work, Against Heresies and names these books circulating and revered within the Churches as God Breathed: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, James, I Peter, 2 Peter, I John, II John, Jude, and Revelation.
What was therefore stated in the late 4th century as being Scripture and canonized as Scripture in the 16th century was from its inception regarded as Scripture - “God Breathed!”

“Gospel” means “message of good news.” He is referring to the preaching of his message about Jesus; not to a book.

And why exactly can’t good news be written in scribal ink?

May the Lord bless, Erchomai Kyrios.

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

Part 2 on Baptism
Early Church Fathers

The Letter of Barnabas [70-90 AD] Epistle of Barnabas
Second Clement 6:7–9 [A.D. 150]).Recognitions (Book VI)
Ignatius of Antioch [50-117 AD] Epistle to Polycarp
Hermas [60-120 AD] The Shepherd of Hermas (Book II, Commandment 4)

Hi Dave, thanks for posting these. We have a great deal we can learn form the early church fathers. They connect us back to the roots of the Church.
May God Bless You, Erchomai Kyrios

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

Erchomai Kyrios:

Excellent Post. I always enjoy your reference to the Church Fathers as well as the Scripture.

One of the many reasons I enjoy this Catholic Forum, is the knowledge of the history of Christianity discussed here. That is one area which I have found to be lacking in the Protestant sector, where I reside. I have been reading and researching for the last few years, but there is so much to cover.

Thank you for sharing your views and your knowledge,
Anna

Thank you sister but it wouldn’t be fair to attribute the credit to me it’s the EC fathers that deserve the credit for what they say and not me. You are such a good encourager Anna and that is a gift from the Lord. I am very glad that you like the early Church fathers believe it or not, not everyone does. Some of them have gotten a bad rap over the centuries but I maintain when you see contradictions from in their writings from one book to the next it usually indicative of an enemy sowing tares among the wheat. I’ve been reading them for so many years I’m probably more at home with them these days than most of the modern Christian literature I read. There is of course many good authors today but after the Bible I’ve always loved reading them. I hope you are doing well Anna. Have a good night and …
May God Bless you,
In Christ, Erchomai Kyrios

 

[Peter_J]

Peter:

You asked me this question days ago, and I never got back to you. I apologize for taking so long.

To answer your question regarding Papal Infallibility: I would not say that I believe the Pope is never infallible.

I believe that God can work through whomever He chooses, through the power of the Holy Spirit. I do believe that we are all known by our fruits, as we are told in Holy Scripture.

I will say that I have a great respect for Pope John Paul II. He is the first Pope who really caught my attention. I think the love of Christ was demonstrated in Pope John Paul’s tireless effort and prayers for human rights and in showing us how we should treat one another. He embraced the Jewish people in a way that made so many, myself included, look at the history of Christianity, and ask forgiveness for the sins that were committed by some who called themselves Christian.

I have read Christian writers, who speak with great respect for this Pope. In one of the books about Pope John Paul II, Billy Graham wrote the forward.

When I look back through the history of the last 2,000 years, and then consider all that is happening today; I would not put complete faith in any human being. I believe that we must always guard our hearts and pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I also believe that failure to confess our sins, and failure to truly repent, when asking forgiveness, can lead to a hindrance in our ability to receive the work of the Holy Spirit in us. I do believe that we can hear that “still small voice” of God, without going through an earthly hierarchy.

I think one of the things that baffles me about the RCC is the complicated hierarchy. Christ abolished the Levitical Priesthood and became our High Priest and the only Mediator between God and mankind. If you can shed some light on this, I would welcome your comments.

Humbly,
Anna

Hi Anna. Thanks for the great post. Regarding the last paragraph, I guess this is a question that a lot of Protestants have. As a matter of fact, I think just yesterday someone asked the same thing (more or less) at christianforums, in the thread about “Call no man Father”.

Perhaps it would be worth having a thread devoted to it …

God bless,

 

[Peter_J]

Peter:

You asked me this question days ago, and I never got back to you. I apologize for taking so long.

To answer your question regarding Papal Infallibility: I would not say that I believe the Pope is never infallible.

I believe that God can work through whomever He chooses, through the power of the Holy Spirit. I do believe that we are all known by our fruits, as we are told in Holy Scripture.

Thanks for your comments.

I think that in these discussions, we sometimes forget that there are differences of opinion among Protestants, and also differences of opinion among Catholics, concerning Papal Infallibility.

Among Catholics, we all agree that the Pope is infallible whenever he makes an ex cathedra statement; but we don’t all agree about when else he is infallible, for example whether he is infallible whenever he canonizes a saint. Indeed, some Catholics (at least among the laity) have gone so far as to say that the Pope is infallible every time he speaks on faith and morals.

On the other side, differences of opinion also exist among Protestants. Some Protestants would say that some, but not necessarily all, ex cathedra statements are infallible. Some other Protestants say that none of them are infallible.

I sometimes ask myself, Which am I closer to: a Protestant who say that some-but-not-all ex cathedra statements are infallible, or a Catholic who says that not only ex cathedra statements but every papal statement concerning faith and morals is infallible …

 

[Bob_McKissick]

Hi Bob,
You didn’t quote me but I’m guessing the message was meant for me. I really didn’t miss the canonization of Scripture, if we want to be technical it wasn’t until the Council of Trent that it actually became canon. In 382 during the Council of Rome Pope Damascus listed the same books that would be named in th Council of Trent. Saint Jerome at that time argued for the Hebre Bible and not the Septuagint but under the Popes direction included them as apocrypha. But it wasn’t until 1545, when the Council of Trent was convened to stop the tide of Protestantism that the Roman Catholic canon became official and both the Old Testament (the former) and New Testament received finality. By this time Wycliffe and Hus had already translated the Latin versions into the language of the people, which was outlawed by the Church. Jan Hus was tried during the council of Constance, during the perioid where there were multiple Popes, and he was burned at the stake for it. A little more than a decade back Pope John Paul II absolved Jan Hus of any crime against the Church. During Luther’s period Erasmus had pulled together the Textus Receptus, which he compiled from the earliest Greek manuscripts (the original language of the New Testament) that he could find. A man named William Tyndale translated the New Testament from Greek to English. He was also burned at the stake. The earliest and most reliable copies of the Bible that have been translated into the vernacular really come from the Greek sources and not the Latin, which arrived centuries later. The oldest copy of the New Testament is said to be Sinaiticus, which is believed to have been commisioned during the reign of Constantine who we know commision several copies of codices. We do have large portions of the Greek New Testament that are earlier than this but they are incomplete works, however they are all used in the present vernacular translations that we have today. At the Council of Trent the canonization of Scripture finally was adopted with the proclamation,
This, however, has nothing to do with my statement, which was that both the churches in the East as well as the West had already accepted the Hebrew Bible (some the Septuagint) and the New Testament works as “God breathed”. This is attested to by the reliable witness of our early church fathers, of whom we base our Christian heritage and earliest traditions. They also attested they had received them directly from the apostles themselves (see my former post on this forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5381004#post5381004). To say that these Scriptures were not from the Holy Spirit is to counter their witness as well as the apostles including Saint Peter himself. Furthermore to say that the Old Testament - the Hebrew Scriptures, which Jesus quoted and related to all that they spoke of Him - was not God Breathed until 1545 is just nonsense. This should not be a point of contention for us but a simple matter of telling the truth. Quite frankly I’m shocked that this is not well known on this forum. If there are points anyone has on saying this is incorrect I’d like to hear them as this should be very easy to clear up.
May God Bless, Ercomai Kyrios

Thanks for your comments!! It is my understanding that the Holy Scriptures were Inspired by God from the moment that He placed His inspiration on the authors. I’ve never heard any other statement on that subject. The inspiration of Scripture was always recognized but not formally defined until the council you write of. Again, Thanks for you comments. With God’s love for you and me, bobmck

 

[superdave69]

Protestant Brothers and sisters:
I have a question? If baptism is only a symbol of life then what difference does it make if you’re baptized as an infant, 10 years old, or older? It is not necessary for salvation? The Lord’s Supper is symbolic, so why even take it, it has no real meaning? I can not see any reason Christ would waste his time teaching symbols for Salvation. Since right out of Christ mouth came you MUST be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Sprit in order to gain entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven. In my humble opinion no other scripture can change this as it came directly from Christ himself. When I was a protestant, everything was absolute. Was there no mystery in what God can do? If God can have Jesus be born of the Virgin Mary, Change water into wine, heal the sick, and raise the dead. Then God is a Spiritual being, all powerful and can do anything. God says I am what I am. We are not capable of knowing God’s Mystery. We must believe in Jesus Christ that he died for our sins and have faith that when he spoke it was a commandment
One more thing, If Church Fathers and history has no meaning then answer me this. There was twelve Apostles’, 5 of the 12 wrote the New Testament. Does this mean the other 7 had no meaning when they preached and taught Christ word as instructed by our Lord Jesus Christ? I think not, do not throw out the baby with the bath water.

God Bless
Super Dave 69

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

Protestant Brothers and sisters:
I have a question? If baptism is only a symbol of life then what difference does it make if you’re baptized as an infant, 10 years old, or older? It is not necessary for salvation? The Lord’s Supper is symbolic, so why even take it, it has no real meaning? I can not see any reason Christ would waste his time teaching symbols for Salvation. Since right out of Christ mouth came you MUST be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Sprit in order to gain entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven. In my humble opinion no other scripture can change this as it came directly from Christ himself. When I was a protestant, everything was absolute. Was there no mystery in what God can do? If God can have Jesus be born of the Virgin Mary, Change water into wine, heal the sick, and raise the dead. Then God is a Spiritual being, all powerful and can do anything. God says I am what I am. We are not capable of knowing God’s Mystery.

We must believe in Jesus Christ that he died for our sins and have faith that when he spoke it was a commandment

One more thing, If Church Fathers and history has no meaning then answer me this. There was twelve Apostles’, 5 of the 12 wrote the New Testament. Does this mean the other 7 had no meaning when they preached and taught Christ word as instructed by our Lord Jesus Christ? I think not, do not throw out the baby with the bath water.

God Bless
Super Dave 69

Hi Dave,
What happened to everybody? This thread is so bare tonight. Let me at least respond though I’m not sure I disagree with anything you’ve said except possibly one point.
I believe the Protestant stance on Baptism varies. Some believe in infant baptism some believe in Believers baptism at an age of reason, so I’m sure you’ll get varied answers on this. However, as far as I know baptism, is indeed required in order to obey the Lord’s commandment. That said certainly baptism did not seem to have had any saving effect on the likes of Al Capone, Hitler or Stalin, the latter who actually went to school in a seminary and then proceeded to murder about 30 million of his own people. The former were also murderers living ungodly lives in opposition to the cross of Christ. I think we would both concur that their baptisms seemed rather ineffectual. When we juxtapose these men with the thief on the cross who simply asked Jesus to receive him when He came into His kingdom we see, although he was not baptized, that the Lord said directly to him, that he would be with Him in paradise that very day. While I’m really not sure what denominations believe baptism is only symbolic and optional I would strongly disagree with that particular hypothesis - quite frankly it is just bad theology to disobey the Lord and to teach others to do the same. Baptism is a must for every believer!
Good night and may God bless, Erchomai Kyrios

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

Thanks for your comments!! It is my understanding that the Holy Scriptures were Inspired by God from the moment that He placed His inspiration on the authors. I’ve never heard any other statement on that subject. The inspiration of Scripture was always recognized but not formally defined until the council you write of. Again, Thanks for you comments. With God’s love for you and me, bobmck

We are in solid agreement my brother! May the Lord bless you also and may we both joyfully walk with Him worshipping Him in spirit and truth telling the entire world that we have a mighty God that saves His people with such great love.
**Good night and may God be with you,
Erchomai Kyrios **

 

[Bob_McKissick]

I hate it when you two fight.

To me our exchange was quite cordial and pleasant. God Bless us all. bobmck

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

**Maybe this is the wrong question to ask. Jesus said, **

“And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” John 12:32

Perhaps the real question to ask ourselves is what is the biggest unifying factor between all Christians who confess the Creed of Nicea? I think the answer would have to be Jesus Himself. When He was lifted up from the earth the Gospel song filled the earth. I believe the primary duty of the Gospel is to continue to lift Him up that we are drawn together to the Lord of Glory.

John 3:14-15 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

How was Jesus lifted up but upon the cross. How are we to believe but as the example He gave us here, as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert.

Num 21:7-9
Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, “We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD and against you; pray to the LORD that He take away the serpents from us.” So Moses prayed for the people. Then the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery [serpent], and set it on a pole; and it shall be that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, shall live.” So Moses made a bronze serpent, and put it on a pole; and so it was, if a serpent had bitten anyone, when he looked at the bronze serpent, he lived.

Just maybe when our eyes are on Jesus and on the cross all those stinging serpents that separate us fade as He draws us into His gaze as we all kneel at the foot of that cross. And then we can sing “Jesus, Jesus, precious Jesus” together as one before Him. Acknowledge the Lord of Glory who will never forsake us and in whom all the saints of God cast their crowns before Him and never tire of saying and singing …

youtube.com/watch?v=km63bQinoJk&feature=related

youtube.com/watch?v=q4dRLFFADKQ&NR=1

 

[superdave69]

I think you are right on, It 's not really how you get to Jesus, it is that you stay with him til the very end, and share the good,news also. Too much dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s. Pray and Listen. God gave us 2 ears so we would listen more than we talk. Happy fourth of July and God Bless every one on this thread and through out the world. See you all at Church tommorow as the Bible says when 2 or three gather in my name, I am amoungest them.

God Bless
Super Dave